The UK model of incentive regulation of power grids was at one time the most advanced, and elements of it were adopted throughout the EU. This model worked well, particularly in the context of limited investment and innovation, a single and strong regulatory authority, and limited coordination between foreign grid operators. This enlightening book shows that since 2010 the whole context has changed and regulation has had to catch-up and evolve. The EU is entering a wave of investment, and an era of new services and innovation which has created growing tensions between national regulatory authorities in terms of coordinating technical standards and distribution systems. This is being played out against an increasingly disruptive backdrop of digitzation, new market platforms and novel business models.

An efficient cross-border investment and well-designed markets and regulatory instruments are crucial prerequisites to the creation of a fully functional European internal electricity market. One of the prominent regulatory measures taken to speed up the creation of the internal market was to abolish tariff pancaking by replacing cross-border tariffs with an Inter-Transmission System Operators Compensation (ITC) mechanism through which transmission system operators (TSOs) can compensate each other. In this study, the implication of introducing such mechanism on the cross-border investment outcome is explored. The results indicate that the current ITC mechanism is loosely linked to the cross-border investment decisions of TSOs. In addition, the study concludes that factors such as the ITC fund size and the number of participating TSOs can influence the investment outcome.

Traditional analysis of distribution network tariff design assumes a lack of alternatives to grid connection for the fulfilment of consumers' electricity needs. This is radically changing with breakthroughs in two technologies: (1) Photovoltaics (PV) enable domestic and commercial consumers to self-produce energy; (2) Batteries allow consumers and self-producers to gain control over their grid energy and capacity parameters. Contributing to the state of the art, the grid cost recovery problem for the Distribution System Operator (DSO) is modelled as a non-cooperative game between consumers. In this game, the availability and costs of the two named technologies strategically interact with tariff structures. Four states of the world for user's access to technologies are distinguished and three tariff structures are evaluated. The assessed distribution network tariff structures are: energy volumetric charges with net-metering, energy volumetric charges for both injection and withdrawal, and capacity-based charges. Results show that in a state of the world with new technology choices for grid users both efficiency and equity issues can arise when distribution network charges are ill-designed.

Nowadays, the European electricity systems are evolving towards a generation mix that is more decentralised, less predictable and less flexible to operate. In this context, additional flexibility is expected to be provided by the demand side. Thus, how to engage consumers to participate in demand response is becoming a pressing issue. In this paper, we provide an analytical framework to assess consumers' potential and willingness to participate in active demand response from a contract perspective. On that basis, we present policy recommendations to empower and protect consumers in their shift to active demand response participants.

The role of DSOs is evolving due to the increasing penetration of intermittent and distributed energy resources in the distribution system. On the one hand, TSOs are accessing flexibility resources connected to the distribution grid. On the other hand, DSOs are actively managing distribution grid congestion, moving away from the conventional fit and forget approach. As a result, the need for DSO-TSO cooperation has become increasingly important. In this study, we first discuss market and grid operation issues related to different system states and the corresponding congestion management approaches. Second, we discuss possible solutions that are inspired by inter-TSO cooperation solutions as well as solutions that are being adopted by DSOs. Our findings show that the issues are rather similar both at transmission and distribution level; however, the need for cooperation and the solutions will depend on where structural congestion will occur and which borders will be managed.

Traditional analysis of distribution grid user’s reaction to tariffs assumes a low price sensitivity and a lack of alternative technologies to grid connection. This is radically changing with two technology breakthroughs: (1) Photovoltaics (PV) enable domestic and commercial consumers to self-produce energy; (2) Batteries allow self-producers to set both their grid energy and capacity parameters. Contributing to the state of the art, the grid cost recovery problem is modelled as a non-cooperative game between consumers. In this game, the availability and costs of new technologies (such as PV and batteries) strategically interact with tariff structures. Four states of the world for user’s access to new technologies are distinguished and three tariff structures are evaluated. The assessed distribution network tariff structures are: energy volumetric charges with net-metering, energy volumetric charges for both injection and withdrawal, and capacity-based charges. Results show that the new distribution world -open by new technology choices for grid users- is highly interactive and threatens grid regulation not understanding it.

The application of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for offshore electricity infrastructure projects with a pan-European impact is discussed. An analytical framework for the evaluation of CBA methodologies is presented. The framework is then applied to assess the CBAs of three offshore infrastructure projects (EWIC, COBRAcable and ISLES). Overall, the CBAs assessed already comply with several dimensions of the analytical framework. However, based on this assessment it is found that scope for improvement in quality exists in three areas namely, in considering project interactions, in dealing with uncertainty and in making the results between CBAs comparable by ensuring full monetisation. Furthermore, the research also confirms the view that a common harmonised CBA methodology is essential for selection of PCIs.