Undisclosed TIMES user Wrote:We have modelled power system of two countries in TIMES. We have two stand-alone models, and then we have one integrated TIMES model for analysing trade. In the integrated model, we have an inter-connection technology that transmits power between two countries. When we run the trade case, the second country makes much higher expenses in its power system (to produce export quantity), than it earns from its export revenues, causing a net loss. It would be difficult to communicate the result to the policy/decision makers. No country would be interested to export if there is an economic loss. The exporting country needs to make some gains from its export revenue, if export needs to happen in reality. It would be good to show trade benefits for both countries; while one benefits from cheap electricity, the other gains from export earnings. However, it is not that case here. TIMES is used for multi-regional modelling in several occasions. Is there any option available in the model to deal with a trade case to get a win-win situation for both countries?

• As I understand, the model decisions in TIMES are made to minimise the system cost for all the model regions. This implies that the model decisions in a model with two regions are not necessarily the optimal model decisions for one of the regions separately. If both regions should optimise their decisions in accordance to what is optimal for their region, you need to use a complementary model using game theory.
• Personally, I think this issue can cause a dilemma with the regional coverage of TIMES models. Using one region provides a set of policy recommendations that are optimal for this region, but does not necessarily capture the interaction with surrounding regions properly. On the other hand, using several model regions, endogenously capturing the interaction with neighbouring regions, do not provide optimal solutions for one specific model region.