[CCP] case of activation lower than assignment

[DuneSe]

Question: Can we support a case were X amount was originally assigned, but X’<X was actually “activated”? By: Isidoros Kokos, Intracom

[DuneSe]

incase the EMS provides less than expected: Part of the settlement process Done in FEVER? Not part of flexOffer: partial fulfillment of the offer, should be included in the long-term contract Constitute an evolution of FlexOffer In case the DSO needs less than the assignment: violation of the constraints on the buyer side

Need for detail from Isidoros

[DuneSe]

Details from Isidoros : I suspect that the reason we raised this, is because we wanted the DSO to have an initial reservation of an amount of flexibility (e.g. day-ahead), but as we move closer to the “event” (e.g. hour-ahead) the DSO will have a better estimation of the actual amount of flexibility needed, hence could adapt the original value.

Will be treated as an EP

[DuneSe]

Included in #6

[cerne739]

I am not sure how this issue is covered in #6 Original question: If prosumer's realization is lower then assignment, then its financial settlement is part of the prosumer-aggregator contract. The protocol can only calculate the cost/income from realized energy and price in the flex offer. Nothing of these is covered in the FO protocol. Detailed explaination from Isidoros: This is covered in FO protocol. At day ahead flexibility the assignment time can be set close startAfterTime or even after it. In case the relative assignment time parameter is used, its value may be negative, what means that the VPS has time after startAfter (and before endBefore) to provide rescedulings accordng to the latest and better flexibility need estimation. It is reponsibility of the VPS that it reschedules only that part of FO, which is in the future. Alternative to this is to using rather short flex offers (upto 1h) for DSO than long 24h FO