Abstract
Optimisation tools for long-term grid planning considering flexibility resources require aggregated flexibility models that are not too computationally demanding or complex. Still, they should capture the operational benefits of flexibility sufficiently accurately for planning purposes. This article investigates the sufficiency of an aggregated flexibility model for planning tools by comparing it against a detailed flexibility model. Two different constraint formulations, namely based on recovery period and temporal proximity, were tested to account for post activation dynamics of flexibility resources. The results show that the recovery period based formulation results in excessive demand reduction. The proximity constraint formulation on the other hand results in realistic activation of flexibility resources, which represents an improvement over the base formulation without constraints for post activation dynamics. The results show how a too simple model of the operational behaviour of demand flexibility may overestimate its benefits as an alternative or supplement to grid investments.