Energy Networks Association Open Networks Project Advisory ... · If you would like to receive information about the Open Networks Project or have any feedback you would like to submit,

Energy

Networks

Association

Open Networks Project Advisory Group26th September 2018

Welcome & IntroductionsNigel Turvey – ENA Open Networks Project Chair

3

Amenities

Both male and female toilets can be found in the corridor.

Emergency Exit

Fire escape door is located in the corridor. Signage can be found above entrance.

No alarm tests scheduled for today.

Should there be an emergency, the alarm will sound and instructions will be give via the PA system.

Wifi

Login: ENA Wireless

Password: R0ut3rEn3rgy!

Tea & Coffee

Tea, coffee and biscuits can be found next to reception or the members area.

Attendance

Please remember to sign the attendance sheets on the tables.

Correspondence

If you would like to receive information about the Open Networks Project or have any feedback you

would like to submit, please get in touch with us at [email protected].

General Housekeeping

mailto:[email protected]

4

Slido

Slido

Slido is an interactive platform we are using for our Q&A segments and

general feedback. You are able to ask questions via Slido at any point

throughout the presentation and we will address as many of them as possible

at the end of each session. If you wish to ask a question verbally, please wait

until the allotted Q&A segment.

• Link– Website: www.slido.com

– App/Google Play store – search and download: ‘Sli.do’

• Event code – #ONAG (non-case sensitive)

• Login – Full name

• Password – ENA (case sensitive)

http://www.slido.com/

5

The Advisory Group is essential to our project to:

Ensure stakeholders are aware and taking the Project into account;

Request input from stakeholders to improve the quality of our products;

Increase awareness about project risks & issues, ask for views on risks & issues and

collaboratively resolve where appropriate.

It will provide input to:

Steering Group on project scope, progress, risks & issues;

Workstreams with deliverable comments/feedback.

We will seek to send information in advance of meetings to ensure that views can be sought

by trade associations in advance. Our objective is to encourage open feedback from you all

across all of our work.

Thank you for the continued input.

Advisory Group ToR Reminder

6

The intention of the bulk of this meeting is to split the Advisory Group into 3 break-out groups to discuss the materials.

Each break-out group will discuss the material from workstreams for just under an hour, then the facilitators will move

on to discuss their material with another break-out group. We will have 3 of these sessions, so each break-out group

will discuss all of the material in turn.

Introduction to Advisory Group meeting (Nigel Turvey, WPD, Paul McGimpsey, SPEN, Bless Kuri, SSEN,

Charles Wood, Energy UK)

Welcome & introductions, housekeeping, objectives, running order of the day etc.

Charging Framework for ANM

Whole System FES Update

A Stakeholder View on Assessing the Worlds

Workstream 1: T-D Process & Workstream 2: Customer Experience (Ian Povey, ENWL, Steve Halsey, UKPN)

Workstream 1 Product 2: DER Services Procurement – End to End Process

Workstream 2 Product 6: Guidance on Post Connection Changes

Workstream 3: DSO Transition – Least Regrets Analysis (Steve Atkins, SSEN)

Product 3: Market Agnostic DSO Elements

Workstream 3: DSO Transition – Impact Assessment (Baringa Consultant) Product 4: Impact Assessment

Today’s Agenda & Approach

7

Publications & Progress to Date

On the Horizon

November: Information

& Processes inc. Queue

Management (WS2 P5)

December: Whole

System Investment &

DER Solutions (WS1

P1)

If you would like more information about upcoming consultations, please visit our

website and/or subscribe to mailing list at [email protected].


8

Future Worlds Consultation

Responses received:

38

The product team is reviewing the

responses and we will share our findings

through a webinar with Advisory Group

members.

Webinar:

1 November 2018

Invitations with the webinar details will be

circulated amongst the Advisory Group

members shortly.

Workstream 4 | Network ChargingProduct 1: Charging Framework for ANM

Paul McGimpsey (SPEN)

10

Charging for Active Network

Management

• Ofgem want DNOs to jointly review the principles for connection charging for

Active Network Management (ANM) schemes.

• The existing Common Connection Charging Methodology (CCCM) was

developed against a backdrop of traditional engineering assets.

• The CCCM includes rules for the apportionment of asset reinforcement costs

(where shared assets are swapped-out for larger ones)

• In contrast ANM avoids the need for reinforcement by sharing access and

utilising existing assets closer to their maximum operating parameters.

• ANM uses advanced smart grid technology with its own costs.

• This is now being managed as a new product in Open Networks as WS4

product 1.

11

WS4 Product 1 – ANM Charging

Product 1 - Recovery of network costs incurred in the provision of flexible and active

network management connections

1. Establish current position:

• What flexible connection products are being offered by network companies

• How network companies are recovering network costs associated with flexible

connections, including those associated with ANM schemes.

2. Develop proposals to amend CCCM, ensuring:

• Transparency of charges

• Consistency of approach

• Cost reflectivity and transparency of allocation

• Due consideration to application of ‘Minimum Scheme’ principles.

3. Consideration of alignment of charging principles between T&D.

4. Materiality assessment of longer term impact on cost recovery through DUoS.

12

Development of Archetypes

Archetypes

Standard, non-flexible

connection

D customers can use up to their MIC/MEC at any time.

T customers have financially firm access through the BM.

‘Access’ defined and managed

by the customer

The connection is operated by the customer within a stated MEC/MIC limit (which

may vary to a pre-defined schedule)


by the DNO

A DNO operated system maintains the connection within a stated MEC/MIC limit

(which may vary to a pre-defined schedule)

Flexible ‘Access’ - single

customer

Actual usage limit is not fixed (up to MEC/MIC limit) and varies in response to the

condition of the network to which that customer is connected

Flexible ‘Access’ - across a

discrete area

Customers’ actual usage limit in a given network location at any given time is not

fixed and varies in response to the condition of the network and behaviour of other

users in respect of a single constraint, under the control of a local ANM system.

Flexible ‘Access’ - across wide

area

Customers’ actual usage limit in multiple network locations at any given time is not

fixed and varies in response to the condition of the network and behaviour of other

users in respect of multiple and complex constraints, controlled by a central ANM

system.

Access available from ESO Design variation connection terms offered by the ESO to facilitate quicker or lower

cost connections for new users.

13

Currently Available Flexible

Products

Archetypes Flexible Options

Standard, non-flexible

connection

Standard Distribution connection Standard Transmission connection

(onshore)


by the customer

Timed export/import

connection

Import/export limited ANM: 3rd party

demand/DG

management


by the DNO

Intertrip

Flexible ‘Access’ - single

customer

ANM: Single generator/demand Delayed Restoration

Flexible ‘Access’ - across a

discrete area

Discrete Area ANM ANM: Third party shared capacity

Flexible ‘Access’ - across wide

area

South West Operation

Tripping Scheme (SWOT)

ESO Deep Connect and

Manage

SPEN Dumfries &

Galloway ANM

Access available from ESO Design variation Interim restrictions on availability

14

Flexible ‘Access’ across a

Discrete Area

GSP

132kV/33kV

Substation

Transmission

circuits

132kV

circuits

33kV

Circuits to primary

substations (demand)

33kV/11kV

Substation

33kV

Gen

11kV

Gen

11kV

Gen

11kV

Gen

DNO

SMU

DNO

SMU

Local System Monitoring Units

Customer end System Monitoring Units

Customer end System Monitoring Unit

Export constraint A

Export

constraint B

15

Cost Recovery

• Extension assets

• Reinforcement

• Local control unit

• Local communications

• Wider communications

• ANM scheme management

unit

• ANM CMU (central

management unit)

• Local SMUs (System

monitoring units)

• Customer end SMUs

• Ongoing ANM system

management opex.

• Assets provided and funded by

customer

• Asset costs:

• Recovered from

customer(s)

• Apportioned

• Recovered from DUoS

customers

• Opex costs:

• Recovered from DUoS

customers

• Capitalised and recovered

from customer(s)

The Costs: The Recovery Options:

16

Next Step:

Develop Common Charging Principles

Cost Reflectivity

“… compliance with the methodology results in charges which reflect, as far as is reasonably

practicable (taking account of implementation costs), the costs incurred by the licensee in its

Distribution Business”.

• What are the costs?

– Capital costs of access/connection

– Running costs for flexible connections - should these be treated separately and differently to

normal operating costs

• How should costs be allocated?

– Must recognise potential benefits of ANM connections and promotion of more efficient use of

the network.

– Should there be different treatment of capital costs associated with different archetype

models?

– Should there be different treatment of O&M costs relating to ANM System Costs and those of

Sole Use Assets/Extension Assets?

Workstream 1 | T – D ProcessProduct 5: Whole System FES Update

Bless Kuri (SSEN)

18

Why Whole System FES?• The development of the Whole System FES framework is intended to facilitate the production

of whole system future energy scenarios, the building blocks of which are consistent and aligned across network operators in order to support whole system industry processes

• They are intended to specifically support the strategic whole system planning and do not restrict the network companies from creating their own regional scenarios to support their network development planning activities

• The Whole System FES will:

– Provide a consistent view of possible energy futures across network ownership boundaries

– Facilitate whole system thinking within the industry

– Allow whole system requirements to be identified

– Facilitate whole system outcomes in the provision and implementation of solutions to address system requirements

– Facilitate 3rd party participation in system development and operation

– Provide a platform for coordinated stakeholder engagement

19

Whole System FES – Outline

Product 5: Development of a Whole System Future Energy Scenario Framework

P5.1 Review current

forecasting approachesJan – Jun 2018

• Forecasting questionnaire to all DNOs• Analysis of questionnaire responses and identification of

similarities and differences in approaches

P5.2 Develop common

forecasting approachApr – Sep 2018

• High level consideration of SO FES methodology• Key forecasting parameters• Whole System FES framework options

‒ Forecasting approach‒ Coordination across DNOs

P5.3 Establish process for

T&D FES coordination Sep – Nov 2018

• Review current FES and DNO forecasting processes and timelines

• Develop process options for coordinated T and D FES development

• Recommendation and buy-in from DNOs, TOs & SO

20

Forecasting Questionnaire

Summary

• Forecasting activities beyond Week 24 requirements, active and reactive power

• Energy resources considered in the forecasts

• Top/down vs bottom/up approach and approach to diversity or aggregation

• What the forecast data is used for and time horizons covered by system development plans and publications

• Consideration and drivers for use of multiple scenarios

• Source of forecasting information and methods used to obtain the information

• Forecast parameters and forecasting horizon

• Key challenges in producing forecasts

21

Current Forecasting Approaches

• Some DNOs are undertaking enhanced forecasting activities to address specific requirements in their areas.

• There are different forecasting approaches in use across the DNO community

– Ranging from single to multiple scenario approaches

– Forecasting from 5 years ahead to 25 years

– Collaboration on forecasting activities generally limited to areas where there are common network issues

– For DNOs attempting to align their forecasts with National Grid’s FES there is the challenge of misaligned scenario development timelines

• Forecasts used to inform load related reinforcement plans and investment decisions and RIIO 2

– Scenario timescales longer than 5 years being considered by all.

– Development of DSO transition decision support (extent and feasibility of flexibility services and operational technology requirements)

• Key challenge faced by all is the high level of uncertainty in the volume, rate of penetration and operational regimes/behaviour of DER

22

Whole System FES workshop, May 2018

Whole System FES Workshop held on 21 May, attended by

Representatives from all DNOs, TOs and the SO

Two consultancies: Element Energy

Regen

To review Future Energy Scenario development good practice and carry

out Gap Analysis

Forecasting methodologies

Key forecasting parameters

Process for coordination across DNOs

Requirements for coordination with the national FES process

23

Workshop Takeaways

• The SO’s FES methodology is good starting point

• Greater collaboration needed between the SO and network companies

• Need for systematic DNO/SO engagement rather than ad-hoc basis

• The Whole System FES framework should not be restrictive. Network companies should retain the flexibility to model other local scenarios to better represent specific possible future scenarios that are better modelled in detail at local level

• The development of Whole System FES should be prioritised on a needs basis

• High granularity of DER data at distribution level means that Whole System FES development is not an insignificant task – requires to be appropriately resourced

24

FES 2018 Methodology Review

High level axes capture the key Whole System

parameters embodied in the scenarios

Good for stakeholder engagement

May be rigid when carrying out localised

assessments of system needs, uncertainty, etc.

The Whole System FES Team agreed the concept of

scenario building blocks, based on a set of common

assumptions and levers

Collaboration between Network companies

and SO required in the development of the

building blocks

A mapping based on driver levels is applied to the

set of building blocks to:

Develop the Whole System FES or

Any other scenarios required by any of the

parties

This approach allows parties to frame different axes

for their own local scenarios.

25

Whole System FES Framework Options

Option Description Comments

1 Common GB FES

All DNOs and TOs work with SO to produce scenarios and associated assumptions and levers.

These are also the Distribution FES aligned across Transmission and Distribution Based on common building blocks and rules across all DNOs, TOs and SO

Impractical to implement and it also restricts regional variation.Would need input from Gas

2 Hybrid FES

GB FES plus additional Distribution FES DNOs, TOs and SO collaborate on the GB FES at GSPs Network companies’ own best view scenarios expressed in the common

framework/ building blocks of the GB FES to allow stakeholders to understand and compare scenarios

3 Separate FES –DNO Led

DNO scenarios produced on independently based on bottom up assessment of local DER

Assumptions & Results provided to NGET to incorporate into GB FES as appropriate No common building

Lacks TSO/DSO collaboration when we need to assure ourselves and our stakeholders that we are jointly planning for the big changes we expect to our networks in the future

4 Separate FES – SO Led

SO produce scenarios to GSP level based on Top Down assessment of GB network. Assumptions & Results provided to DNOs to incorporate into Distribution FES as

appropriate No common building blocks

26

Preferred Whole System FES

frameworkHybrid option 2 is the preferred option

• Network companies able to use a range of detailed models appropriate to the distribution network

• Comparability of network companies’ own scenarios, relativity analysis, and easily communicable

• SO/DNO interface at GSP – working together to improve the GB FES breakdown at GSP level

• Spatial analysis information on domestic demand (heat pumps, EVs, etc…)

• Feasibility assessments on GB scenario expectations e.g. industrial and commercial demand side

response

• Further development of this option in progress

• Detail of the FES building blocks

• Common language

• Regional differences

• Interaction with related industry codes and processes

• Stakeholder engagement

• Data exchange, data formats and standard reports

• Transitional arrangements and Whole System FES framework review

27

Feedback

• The Whole System FES framework should recognise the different drivers across different network licence areas. Whole System FES should therefore be prioritised on a needs basis

Do you agree with this approach? What alternative approaches could be considered?

• Whole System FES focus on the national picture while maintaining a consistent view across regional areas. The use of common building blocks allows the DNOs and the SO to collaborate effectively at the T/D interface. Network owners develop their own FES, based on the common building blocks, to give a fuller regional picture within their licenced areas.

Do you agree with this approach to the development of Whole System FES? What other approaches do you think should be considered?

• The preferred Whole System FES framework option is option 2 – Hybrid FES

Do you agree with the preferred option for the Whole System FES framework? What other options do you think should be considered?

28

Next Steps

• Planned stakeholder engagement

– Webinar (mid October)

– Partner with National Grid at their FES stakeholder engagements in October

• Establish process for T&D FES coordination (sub-product 5.3) – October

• Recommendation and buy-in from DNOs, TOs & SO – October to November

• Whole System FES framework report – end of November.

A Stakeholder View on Assessing the Worlds

Kyle Martin (Energy UK)

Breakout Session 1

Workstream 1 | T-D ProcessProduct 2: DER Services Procurement – End to End

Process

Ian Povey (ENWL)

32

DSO Services: E2E ProcurementOverview

• This pack contains proposals for an end-to-end process covering definition and procurement of DSO services to manage distribution network capacity

• It is split into two parts – one covering the development of new services; the other covering the process of testing the market and deciding whether to procure

• Comments are welcome on all aspects of the process. Specific questions are listed up-front

33

DSO Services: E2E ProcurementKey Questions for Advisory Group

• Do the process steps make sense?

• What are your thoughts on an economic or technical threshold to determine what network capabilities should be put up for being met by DSO services, rather than assets?

• How can we make the process as easy to engage with as possible?

• What else should we consider?

• [What do you think a coordinated process looks like?]

34

Process Overview:New Service Development

35

Process Steps:New Service DevelopmentProcess Step 1 Identify Network Limitations

Description Identify areas of current network capability that need to be reinforced to support future change

Inputs Existing network capabilities; drivers for change from DSOF, DFES, innovation/strategy projects, etc

Forums for Engagement [TBC]

Decisions Types of issues that could be solved through new DSO service(s)

Outputs List of required D reinforcements

Timescales [TBC]

Notes This is how we would go about identifying/developing new service types

Open Networks linkages WS1 P5 (Whole System FES);WS1 P6 (Regional Service Requirements) WS2 P4 (Info on Flex Services)

External linkages

36

Process Steps:New Service Development

Process Step 2 Service Development

Description Identify required characteristics of service from DER

Inputs List of required D reinforcements; Extent of DSO/ESO coordination (if required – which services to coordinate) – feedback from step 3Significant service changes (if required) – feedback from Step 5


Decisions Service

Outputs DSO Service Requirements; DSO product definition(s)

Timescales [TBC]

Notes Likely to be ‘networks view’ at this point – subsequent process steps seek wider views (including of potential providers)

Open Networks linkages

External linkages

37

Process Step 3 DNO and SO Coordination

Description Identify synergies, or requirement for coordination, between needs of DSO and ESO regarding services from DER

Inputs DSO Service Requirements; DSO product definition(s)

Forums for Engagement [T/D meeting/workshop]

Decisions Whether DSO/ESO coordination is required

Outputs Extent of DSO/ESO coordination (if required – which services to coordinate)

Timescales [TBC]

Notes Key stage to assess mutual impact of activities, and make any necessary adjustments/plan to manage potential impacts


External linkages National Grid/UKPN “Coordinated Services Development” work

Process Steps:New Service Development

38

Process Steps:

New Service Development

Process Step 4 Engage with Potential Providers

Description Test proposed DSO service details with potential providers

Inputs DSO Service Requirements; DSO product definition(s); extent of DSO/ESO coordination (if required – which services to coordinate)

Forums for Engagement DG Forum; ADE flexibility working group; EnergyUK Ancillary Services group; Power Responsive (E.g. Steering Group)

Decisions Whether, and if so, what refinements need to be made to proposed DSO services to facilitate DER provision and promote engagement

Outputs Proposals to revise DSO Service Requirements; proposals to revise DSO Product Definition(s)

Timescales [TBC]

Notes Provider input should ensure the proposed service can best meet the needs of the DSO whilst also being accessible and attractive to DER


External linkages

39

Process Steps:New Service DevelopmentProcess Step 5 Review and Finalise DSO Service

Description Incorporate provider feedback into DSO service design

Inputs DSO Service Requirements; DSO product definition(s); proposals to revise DSO service specification and characteristics; proposals to revise DSO product definition(s)


Decisions What refinements to make to proposed DSO services to facilitate DER provision and promote engagement

Outputs DSO Service Requirements; DSO product definition(s)Significant service changes (if required) – feedback to Step 2

Timescales [TBC]

Notes DSO service and likely procurement approach will be refined following stakeholder feedback


External linkages

40

Process Overview: Procurement

41

Process Steps: Procurement

Process Step 6 Signpost Requirements

Description Translate D network reinforcement requirements into both longer-term and shorter-term Network capacity requirements for publication

Inputs List of required D reinforcements [near- and longer-term?]

Forums for Engagement [TBC – stakeholder engagement required throughout this process]

Decisions

Outputs Published articulation of D network capacity requirements

Timescales [TBC]

Notes This stage delivers a clear and robust articulation of both longer-term and shorter-term network capacity reinforcement requirements, in a format that can be digested by the wider market. The aim is to allow potential providers to determine the scope for service provision, either by existing assets or those yet to be built

Open Networks linkages WS1 P5 (Whole System FES);WS1 P6 (Regional Service Requirements) WS2 P4 (Info on Flex Services)

External linkages

42

Process Steps: ProcurementProcess Step 7 Identify Procurement Requirement

Description Translate Network capacity/DSO service requirements into DSO service requirements for procurement - in a way that best enables potential providers to understand how they might meet them

Inputs Published articulation of D network capacity requirementsDSO service specification and characteristics; DSO product definition(s)


Decisions [Scope for service solution vs asset solution?]

Outputs Clear articulation of DSO service requirements from DER

Timescales [TBC]

Notes This stage aims to deliver a clear and robust articulation of DSO service procurement requirements, to so that potential DER providers can make an assessment of how they might meet those needs, ready for any procurement exercise that might be launched


External linkages

43


Process Step 8 Assess Market

Description Given the articulated requirement, review the relevant D network areas to form a view of the scope for service provision to meet that requirement

Inputs Clear articulation of DSO service requirements from DER


Decisions Whether/when to go to market

Outputs Decision on whether/when to go to market

Timescales [TBC]

Notes Need to agree whether certain threshold (economic, technical) needs to be met before it is decided to go to market for DSO services from DER. Needs proxy for market value, and how stacking of services might influence that value.


External linkages

44


Process Step 9 Industry Engagement

Description Engage with the industry to present the requirement that the procurement exercise is seeking to meet; answer questions from prospective service providers


Forums for Engagement Specific stakeholder event/webinar. Publicise via DG Forum; ADE flexibility working group; EnergyUK Ancillary Services group; Power Responsive mailing list

Decisions -

Outputs Potential service providers understand the nature of the requirement and the procurement process

Timescales [TBC]

Notes This step needs to be sufficiently accessible; also targeted to promote participation from potential providers in the right areas of network

Open Networks linkages [TBC]

External linkages [TBC]

45


Process Step 10 Expressions of Interest

Description [Informally] invite service offers from potential service providers


Forums for Engagement Publish on internet, communicate via relevant mailing lists

Decisions Whether there is sufficient interest/availability to procure flexibility, or whether to build assets, to meet the network need

Outputs Expressions of interest to provide service, in the form of relevant parameters [including price], from potential service providers

Timescales [TBC]

Notes Is this EoI, or is it an Invitation to Tender? Or, something else?



46


Process Step 11 Procure

Description Formally invite service offers from potential service providers


Forums for Engagement Publish on internet, communicate via relevant mailing lists

Decisions Whether to procure flexibility, or whether to build assets, to meet the network need

Outputs Decision(s)to accept formal offer(s) for provision of DSO service; or decision on how to proceed with build/reinforce options

Timescales [TBC]

Notes [TBC]



47


48


Process Step 13 Reinforce

Description Following attempt to procure service, consider options to inform a decision to build/reinforce

Inputs Expressions of interest to provide service, in the form of relevant parameters [including price], from potential service providers;

Forums for Engagement -

Decisions Whether to refine procurement approach and attempt further procurement of DSO services, or whether

Outputs Agreed approach to meeting identified network need

Timescales [TBC]

Notes [TBC]



Workstream 2 | Customer ExperienceProduct 6: Guidance on Post Connection Charges

Steve Halsey (UKPN)

50

WS2 – Products

1.Good practice ahead of connection applications

2.Management of capacity

3.Explanation of “terms & definitions”

4. Information on flexibility services

5.Good practice following connection applications

6.Guidance on post connection changes

7.Provision of constraint information

8.2017 product updates

Q4 2017

Provide guidance to customers on the impacts of changes to DER operational regimes. Agree when and how changes should be notified to DNOs.

51

Post Connection Changes

• Different to material change or allowable change which generally refers to request to

make changes at application/enquiry stage – certainly before connection/energisation,

but similar methodology applies

• Legislation sets out requirements

• Drift away from implementing – re-education?

• Limited ability/need to change?

• DNOs set up to process NEW connections – augmented connections less so

52

Post Connection Changes

• Legislation sets out requirements for making changes/modifications post connection

• Mentioned in DCuSA* (Distribution Connection and Use of System Agreement)

– Modification means any actual or proposed replacement, renovation, modification, alteration or

construction:

(a) by or on behalf of the Company to the Company’s Electrical Plant or Electric Lines (or the

manner of their operation); or

(b) by or on behalf of the User (or, in the case of the OTSO Party, the Offshore Transmission

Owner) to the User’s (or that owner’s) Electrical Plant or Electric Lines (or the manner of their

operation), which in either case has, or may have, a material effect on the User (or the User’s

System) or on the Company (or the Company’s Distribution System) respectively.

– Modification Application means an application for a Modification in the form set out in the relevant

Bilateral Connection Agreement.

– Modification Offer means an offer made pursuant to Clause 52 and in the form set out in the

relevant Bilateral Connection Agreement setting out the terms for a Modification

* multi-party agreement between licensed electricity distributors, suppliers and generators in GB concerned

with the use of the electricity distribution system

53

Legislation

54

DCUSAA modification is defined in DCuSA as

– any actual or proposed replacement, renovation, modification, alteration or construction:

(a) by or on behalf of the Company to the Company’s Electrical Plant or Electric Lines (or

the manner of their operation); or

(b) by or on behalf of the User (or, in the case of the OTSO Party, the Offshore Transmission Owner) to the User’s (or that owner’s) Electrical Plant or Electric Lines (or

the manner of their operation), which in either case has, or may have, a material effect on the user (or the User’s System) or on the Company (or the Company’s Distribution

System) respectively.

“Modification” means, in respect of a Party, any actual or proposed replacement, renovation, modification, alteration or construction by or on behalf of that Party to either that Party’s Plant or

Apparatus or the manner of its operation, which (in either case) has or will have a Material Effect on the other Party;

Schedule 2B of DCuSA – National Terms of Connection

Clause 14 of DCuSA further says

14.1 No Modification may be made by or on behalf of either Party otherwise than in

accordance with the provisions of this Clause 14.

14.2 Where the Customer wishes to make a Modification it shall complete and submit to the

Company an Application for a Modification.

14.3 The Company shall make a Modification Offer to the Customer as soon as reasonably practicable and in accordance with the requirements of its Electricity Distribution

Licence. The Parties shall discuss in good faith the implications of the proposed Modification(s).

55

Schedule 13 Bilateral

Connection Agreement

56

Examples of Modifications

a) Change to MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution

a) Decrease of MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution

b) Increase to MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution

b) Change of Total Installed Generation Capacity

c) Change of generator (of same size and technology type)

d) Change to technology type/mix of technologies

e) Change to import/export profiles

f) Change to (flexibility) services provision

g) Change from flexible connection to an unconstrained connection

57

A) Change to MEC/MIC/Fault Level

Contribution

a) Change to MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution

a) Decrease of MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution

Can typically be amended on the connection agreement with minimal impact

a) Increase to MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution

The additional MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution must be requested via a new application. The new application will be treated as per

any new connection application and will be subject to any applicable capacity queues.

The total site must comply with the D-code in force at the date of connection offer, the connection offer may include connection

works required to facilitate the extra capacity and/or any extra requirements set out in the D-code (e.g. increased reactive power

requirements which would affect voltage)

58

B) Change to TIC

a) Change in TIC that does not impact power export or import

e.g.

b) Change in TIC that impacts on power export or import

e.g.

ELS

Existin

g GNew

G

No Power

flow

DNO

ELS

Existin

g GNew

G

Power flow

limited to

existing

MEC

DNO

MEC remains the same, however

power export is increased. This

requires new application and

capacity queuing process.

MEC remains the same,

power export profile remains

the same.

Connection Agreement

Amendment may be possible

subject to fault level.

59

C) Change of generator (of same size and technology

type) DC, Possible CA Amdnt

Where the generator is to be changed but is deemed to be covered under the

current terms of the connection agreement.

Relative terms of the connection agreement that would typically apply are:

• Technology Type

• Total Installed Generation Capacity

• Maximum Export Capacity

• Fault Level Contribution

• Maximum Import Capacity

If the new generator complies with all of the above items as listed in the connection

agreement then only D-code update applies. If any of these items require variation,

please refer to change A) Change to MEC/MIC/Fault Level Contribution.

60

D) Change to technology type/mix

of technologies DC, New CA

Technology diversity is used in order to efficiently allocate network capacity and connect

more generators to the network.

A change to technology type typically means a change of the export profile. Therefore any

change of the technology that would affect the export profile, fault level or other significant

factor, will require a full connection application and capacity queuing process.

This is also deemed a material change as per D-code and will require D-code update.

Connection asset likely to be fine for a technology type change, however the issue here is

wider system capacity for generation

61

F) Change to (flexibility)

services provision DC, New CA or CA Amdnt

Where an existing generator wishes to significantly change the mode of operation of the

generator to something that has not been requested at the time of connection design, the

generator must apply to a DNO for that change.

Example of significant change to mode of operation:

Ramping power export/import at a fast rate-

A fast ramp rate of power export/import may push the network voltage outside of statutory

limits. Generators should specify maximum ramp rates that they wish to have their

connection designed for through application process.

62

Recommendations

• Customers should familiarise themselves with industry

practices

• Customers should follow industry practices

• Customers should expect their Connection Agreement to detail

connected equipment only – not what was requested

• DNO websites need to provide more (easily accessible)

information to customers considering making changes to an

existing installation

• DNO application forms/processes to be amended to make this

easier/clearer

• DNOs should point customers towards industry practices

• Connection Agreements need to be fully reflective of the

equipment installed and hours of operation of customers

equipment on the connected site

Breakout Session 2

Workstream 3 | DSO Transition – Least Regrets Analysis

Product 3: Market Agnostic DSO ElementsSteve Atkins (SSEN)

65

Least Regrets Analysis

• Assessment of the five

future worlds has identified

areas of common

functionality between the

worlds

• These areas could present

opportunities to implement

aspects of smart grid now

• We are interested in your

thoughts on this work to

inform our next steps

66

Defining Least Regrets - Process

• SGAM Modelling

• List of all activities common to 5 worlds

• Workshops to assess those areas already covered by

ON/other industry work – see Appendix

• Highlight areas that are not being addressed and prioritise

with advisory group input

• Allocate to Work Streams to assess as potential products for

2019

67

Least Regrets by Function

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

System

Coordination

Network Operation Investment

Planning

Connections and

Connection Rights

System Defence

and Restoration

Services and

Market Facilitation

Service

Optimisation

Charging

Pro

po

rtio

no

b o

f least-reg

rets a

cro

ss 5

w

orld

s

Areas of no regrets tend to be aligned with achieving whole-system objectives

through long-term planning establishing regulatory frameworks

68


68

Function Potential Product Areas

System Coordination

• Define guaranteed standards of performance between DSO

and ESO for utilising flexibility on the distribution network

• Define the IDNO/IDSO role in the Smart Grid

• Create consistent Outage Plans across the networks

• Design a consistent and effective feedback loop for those

providing services – e.g. ratings/penalties?

Investment Planning

• Design Contracts and Terms & Conditions for procuring

ancillary services (DER)

• Create a visible measure of flexibility on the networks

• Present customer information of opportunities in a

consistent way – heatmaps etc.

• Should there be a design standard for generation in the

same way as there is for demand? (P2) (similar to SQSS)

69


69


Network Operation

• Unified approach to LV system monitoring and visibility of

data

• Unified approach to Voltage Level monitoring

• Consistent methodology/approach for the management of

constraints

• Consistent approach on the use of Dynamic Stability

Mechanisms (to manage power quality) utilising ancillary

services

• Publishing timely and consistent outage data

• What level of data should be visible at an operational level?

System Defence and

Restoration

• Protocols for short-term contingency planning between

DSO & ESO utilising ancillary services

• Designing last-resort mechanisms (shift from market-led to

control-led). What constitutes market failure?

• Designing Whole System Network Resilience and Defence

Mechanisms with ancillary services

• ‘Islanding’ Mechanisms/’Islanded’ Networks

70


70


Connections and Connection

Rights

• Design a common Connection Agreement & Flexibility

Agreement

• Assess impact of distribution network ancillary services on

agreements DSO has with ESO at boundary

• Do contracts for Transmission-connected services need to

be reviewed?

• Defining firmness of connection for commercial customers

as part of the connection agreement

• Should we trial secondary markets for capacity etc.?

• Should we trial a combined platform?

Charging

• Should a review of BSUOS (e.g. to include more forward

looking signals) be included in the current charging review?

• How do you achieve increased visibility and consistency,

including network impact, as part of the charging review?

• Ensuring POC Analysis and Cost Calculations are

consistent.

71


71


Services and Market

Facilitation

• Develop consistent best practice for end to end process of

procurement, activation, dispatch and settlement of D-

network connected flexibility

• Universal contract for flexibility providers

• Develop good practice and consistency for post-event

evaluation – review service provision

Service Optimisation

• Scope out mechanics for activation of last resort provision

under market failure – notification, dispatch and reporting.

• Development and activation of emergency assistance

services under market failure.

72

Next Steps

• Feedback from Advisory Group

• Prioritise key areas for possible products

• Assign to Work Streams for evaluation as 2019

Products/explore other vehicles (e.g. Charging work)

• Outline decisions in the 2019 PID Consultation

73

Questions

• What areas would you prioritise, out of the

least regret areas we have identified as

possible products, to take forward?

• Are there any other areas that you think are

missing?

Breakout Session 3

Workstream 3 | DSO Transition –Impact Assessment

Product 4: Impact Assessment

Mark Askew - Baringa

Copyright © Baringa Partners LLP 2018. All rights reserved. This document is subject to contract and contains confidential and proprietary information.76

Areas we would like to cover

1. Introduction to the impact assessment

2. Our initial methodology

3. Work programme and future engagement

To explain our methodology, take feedback and outline the future work plan


1. Introduction to the Impact Assessment To asses the Future Worlds and understand their strengths and weaknesses

We have been asked to undertake an independent impact assessment of the Future Worlds defined by the ENA

This will combine quantitative assessment of costs and benefits with a qualitative assessment across wide ranging criteria, informed by stakeholder feedback

We are not looking to pick a particular World but understand different strengths and weaknesses across a wide-ranging assessment

The outputs of the work need to help with the following:

– Understanding the different features of the Future Worlds which it would be helpful to combine

– Identifying current gaps in our understanding of the Future Worlds which may require further trialling or investigation

– Helping to inform which Future Worlds or features of the Future Worlds should be taken forward for further assessment and implementation

– To provide an evidence base to inform the policy debate and support BEIS and Ofgem in its decisions

Need to complete the analysis and draft report by end of December

We are starting the analysis now but will incorporate responses to the Future World consultation into the approach


2. Our methodologySummary of proposed approach

Scenario 1:

Two Degrees

Scenario 2:

Community Renewables

Modelling of total size of the prize for better system operation (benefit) for each Scenario

Assess comparative costs across the Future Worlds

Map proportion of benefits to the Future Worlds

Qualitative assessment of• Customer experience• Environmental sustainability • Whole system optimisation• Market viability• Technical performance• Regulatory funding • Implementation risks• Industry structure and

organisation

Quantitative assessment Qualitative assessment Combined Impact Assessment

This will deliver a multi-criteria, relative assessment of the Future Worlds, under different scenarios out to the end of RIIO-2(2030), 2040 and 2050

It will provide insights into where costs and benefits fall across the different models

We will capture the results and insights gained in an accessible report, geared to a varied audience

Benefits

Costs


2. Our methodologyBenefits assessment

Our methodology1. We will agree scenarios for considering benefits (we propose the FES Two

Degrees and Community Renewables scenarios)

2. Quantify the relative “size of the prize” in each benefit category out to 2050• Avoided transmission investment • Avoided distribution investment • Reduced ancillary service costs.

In constructing these benefits we will allocate an importance (critical, important, lower) to each of our key factors in delivering each benefit –Table 1

We would then undertake an assessment of each Future world against the factors, broken down by each area of benefit – Table 2

3. We would use the combination of the outputs in Table 1 and 2 to understand the proportion of the theoretical benefit which accrues to each Future World

Table 2: Example of assessing each Future World against the criteria

Table 1: Example of allocating importance to each factor in building the theoretical benefit

Principles driving our approach

Differences in the efficiency of system operation will largely stem from four criteria • Degree of primary control of DER• Certainty of response from DER• Degree of information sharing and co-ordination and;• Extent to which it can facilitate markets


Benefits assessment illustrative example

2. Our methodology

The illustrative example below highlights how we would asses Avoided Transmission Network Investment in World D

a. For each scenario, identify the size of potential benefits due to Avoided Transmission Network Investment e.g. £100m

b. Assess the importance of each of our criteria in delivering that benefit to understand the proportion of benefit which should be allocated to each criterion

c. Assess each World to see how it scores across the factors

d. Multiplying (weighting) the importance of the criteria by the proportion of the benefit accrued in the World determines the benefit attained. In this example, £60m of the £100m potential benefit of the Avoided Transmission Network Investment in World D is realised.

This acted as a starting point which we have sense checked and discussed with the Product Team

Benefit Primary controlCertainty of response

Level of information sharing and coordination

Facilitation of markets

Avoided Transmission network investment(£100m)

Important factor Critical factor Critical factor Lower importance

Proportion of benefit per factor 20% 40% 40% 0%

Maximum benefit available per factor £20m £40m £40m £0m

Benefit Primary controlCertainty of response

Level of information sharing and coordination

Facilitation of markets

World D

Proportion of benefit per factor 100% 100% 0% 50%

Overall benefit to allocate £20m £40m £0m £0m


2. Our methodologyRelative cost assessment

Our methodology1. Develop cost assessment framework

Define the ‘as-is’ functions at a high level across different actors (DNOs and the ESO) based on the WS3 Product 2 definitions

Assessment of the functional competency maturity required in each world (technical, business capability and transition complexity)

Assessment of the information exchanges in each world (range, volume and timescales of data exchanges will be assessed)

Use the output to develop a template to capture the new costs associated with functions each World

2. Develop operating models to understand where functions sit and their scale

Develop high level operating models of the worlds to show the key cost drivers (based on the SGAMs):

Where functions sit across different actors and entities

The relative scale of these functions and level of change under different scenarios

Capture outputs within our cost assessment framework

3. Engage with stakeholders

Test our initial view of costs with stakeholders through

Engagement with DNOs, suppliers

RFIs to relevant parties (where needed)

4. Analyse cost assessment for inclusion in CBA

Use the refined assessment of costs to feed into a CBA which includes the quantified benefits – see diagram opposite


2. Our initial methodologyQualitative assessment

Area to be assessed Mapping to criteria in Future Worlds consultation Importance Assessment

1. Strategic case

Enhanced customer experience

• Confidence and trust• Choice for customer interaction• Level playing field

Ranking criteria by importance to overall case

Scoring assessment based of more granular rag

Environmental sustainability

• Greater energy efficiency• Decarbonisation of electricity generation• Facilitates decarbonisation of heat• More electricity consumed close to the point of generation

We will rank the criteria under each Case by their importance to illustrate which are most crucial

We will use a relative 5 scale scoring system depicted through a RAG type assessment

We will also document the reasons for the scoring as this will form a rich evidence base – we will look to summarise this succinctly in the final presentation of the analysis

We will look to engage closely with the Product team through this stage of work to ensure that there is agreement and buy-in to the assessment

The qualitative assessment will be a crucial part of the overall Impact Assessment

We will assess each area listed in the Future Worlds consultation

The example below highlights how this would work for the Strategic case – we would follow the same approach for all 5 cases (as outlined in the Future Worlds consultation)

= 1

= 2

= 3

= 4

= 5


3. Work programme and future engagement Analysis in October, early insights on results in November and final report in December

October activities

Review consultation responses

Qualitative assessment across a number of criteria to illustrate the impact of different features of each World

Develop the starting point for the benefits assessment

Assess the key differences identified in the Worlds which will drive cost differences and any early quantification

November activities

Emerging results (with any feedback from interim report)

Devising the structure and key messages for report

December activities

Present close to final results to Advisory Group

Present key insights emerging from the assessment to Advisory Group

Drafting report for sign off by the end of December

Wrap UpNigel Turvey – ENA Open Networks Project Chair

85

• There are some challenges ahead if we want to meet our carbon targets while providing a safe and secure energy grid at an affordable price.

• However, by enabling flexible networks we can address these; open up new markets for customers for low carbon and innovative technologies; and deliver efficient network costs for consumers.

• We are working together and dedicated to making this work with input from stakeholders in an open and transparent way.

• Please remember to complete the feedback forms found on the tables.

We welcome feedback from all our stakeholders. If you have any comments that you would like to share, please feel free to submit them to [email protected].

Wrap Up


Documents

Energy Networks Association Open Networks Project Advisory ... · If you would like to receive information about the Open Networks Project or have any feedback you would like to submit,