Procurement of demand-side flexibility at the distribution network level, as a cost-efficient alternative to traditional network reinforcement, requires customer engagement in the long-term. Potential limitations and benefits of alternative flexibility instruments (flexibility contracts, local flexibility markets, and dynamic network tariffs) for procuring such flexibility service are presented first. Secondly, a methodology is proposed to assess customer engagement and its effect on network reinforcement requirements and total system costs. An explicit flexibility instrument (a demand response program compensating customer for reductions in network withdrawals) is considered under two scenarios, one with a standard distribution network tariff (fixed and volumetric charges), and one with a dynamic distribution network tariff (fixed and critical peak charges). Rational customers’ responses are simulated, under both scenarios, using parameters and actual 2019 data for the Skagerak pilot project in Norway. Results confirm that flexibility instruments interact with one another, shaping customer engagement. Specifically for the observed case, the efficacy of the demand response program was found to be significantly enhanced by the simultaneous implementation of a dynamic distribution network tariff, leading to deferred network reinforcements, and higher system-wide economic efficiency.

在配电网络层面采购需求侧灵活性，作为传统网络加固的一种经济高效的替代方案，需要客户的长期参与。首先介绍了用于采购此类灵活性服务的替代灵活性工具（灵活性合同、本地灵活性市场和动态网络资费）的潜在限制和好处。其次，提出了一种方法来评估客户参与及其对网络加固要求和总系统成本的影响。在两种情况下考虑明确的灵活性工具（补偿客户减少网络取款的需求响应计划），一种具有标准的配电网络关税（固定和体积费用），一种具有动态配电网电价（固定和临界峰值费用）。使用参数和 2019 年挪威 Skagerak 试点项目的实际数据，在两种场景下模拟理性客户的反应。结果证实，灵活性工具相互影响，塑造客户参与度。特别是在观察到的情况下，发现通过同时实施动态配电网络关税显着提高了需求响应计划的效率，从而导致延迟网络加固和更高的全系统经济效率。塑造客户参与度。特别是在观察到的情况下，发现通过同时实施动态配电网络关税显着提高了需求响应计划的效率，从而导致延迟网络加固和更高的全系统经济效率。塑造客户参与度。特别是在观察到的情况下，发现通过同时实施动态配电网络关税显着提高了需求响应计划的效率，从而导致延迟网络加固和更高的全系统经济效率。