Bridging the Capacity Gap

Abstract

Corrected abstract

Laakhavens Hollands Spoor is planned as a major high-density redevelopment in The Hague, but the electricity system serving it has almost no room to absorb that growth. Approximately 9,000–11,000 new dwellings are planned alongside employment, commercial and public functions, while station Jan Wapstraat has 38 MW of available transport capacity and reinforcement is not planned until the end of 2036. Development decisions are made largely project by project, yet their electricity demand accumulates at the same station. This thesis examines whether flexibility can bridge part of that capacity gap before reinforcement and how its organisation must evolve as grid pressure increases.

An exploratory sequential mixed-methods case study combines documentary analysis, four stakeholder interviews and quantitative energy-system modelling. The qualitative analysis identifies technically relevant flexibility options and institutional conditions affecting their implementation. These findings inform a Linny-R optimisation model representing eight cumulative development phases and testing flexible WKO/ATES operation, battery storage, smart EV charging and controllable HyER generation at project and area-wide scales.

The results show that the available station margin disappears early. Without congestion-oriented flexibility, corrected functional loading rises from 37.1 MW in Phase 1 to 45.2 MW in Phase 8. The 38 MW limit is already marginally exceeded in Phase 2, while Phase 3 reaches 39.1 MW and confirms the emerging constraint. By Phase 8, the station limit is exceeded during 438 annual hours, with a maximum exceedance of 7.15 MW and approximately 614 MWh above the threshold. The central concern is therefore not only the final deficit: the remaining station margin is consumed while much of the redevelopment is still to follow.

Flexibility can substantially extend the amount of development that can be accommodated, but its effectiveness changes as demand accumulates. Flexible WKO/ATES operation accommodates the modelled programme through Phase 4, while favourable flexibility inherited from earlier projects can extend this through Phase 5. From Phase 6 onward, however, none of the evaluated configurations in which additional flexibility is concentrated in the newly added project fully eliminates congestion. Earlier projects therefore influence not only demand but also the flexibility and headroom available to later developments. Phase 6 marks an important shift: the technical problem has become too cumulative to be addressed solely within the boundary of the next individual project.

The strongest technical result emerges when flexibility is coordinated across the full development portfolio. Under the evaluated assumptions, the integrated Phase 8 scenario eliminates residual congestion during the 336-hour critical period by coordinating WKO/ATES, batteries, smart charging and HyER across all eight projects. However, the station remains exactly at its 38 MW limit for 90 hours. This should therefore be interpreted as an upper technical potential with little robustness margin, not as a guaranteed solution or evidence that reinforcement is unnecessary. Reduced modelled loading also does not automatically create formal transport rights for individual projects.

The institutional analysis shows why this technical potential cannot simply be assumed to materialise. Investment, ownership and operational control remain predominantly project-specific. Area-wide congestion management would require shared information, dispatch authority, performance verification, compensation arrangements and responsibilities that remain workable after projects are completed or transferred. The technically strongest configuration is therefore not currently the most institutionally feasible one.

The strategic implication is to prepare coordination before it becomes technically unavoidable. Phase 2 is an early signpost that unused station headroom can no longer be relied upon; Phase 6 is a stronger trigger showing that additional flexibility concentrated in the newest project is no longer sufficient. The recommended pathway is therefore adaptive: preserve future flexibility options in early projects, develop coordinated project-level arrangements as interdependence increases, and retain deeper area-wide integration as a conditional option rather than an immediate end-state.

The broader lesson extends beyond LHHS. Grid congestion in phased urban redevelopment is not only a shortage of network capacity or flexible technology; it is also a mismatch between the scale and timing of decisions. Projects can be optimised individually while their combined consequences emerge later at a shared network constraint. Flexibility can help bridge the period before reinforcement, but only if early technical and institutional choices preserve the ability to coordinate when that interdependence becomes material.