Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Capacity to Customers (C 2 C)- Review of Standards – Accommodating Responsive Demand in ER P2/6 24 th January 2013.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Capacity to Customers (C 2 C)- Review of Standards – Accommodating Responsive Demand in ER P2/6 24 th January 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Capacity to Customers (C 2 C)- Review of Standards – Accommodating Responsive Demand in ER P2/6 24 th January 2013

3 C 2 C Standards Review – Introduction 1 Does ER P2/6 accommodate Demand Side Response? Introduction Gather your views By VOTING!!! Maybe No Yes

4 C 2 C Standards Review – Introduction 2 Will Manchester City win the premier league? Consequences Shift of power to the blue side of Manchester Possible end of Fergie’s reign Dependencies Man United having poor run of results Chelsea not spending big in January transfer window

5 C 2 C Standards Review – Introduction 3 Will Manchester City win the premier league? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

6 C 2 C Standards Review – Introduction 4 Will Manchester City win the premier league?

7 C 2 C Standards Review – Introduction 5 C 2 C Review of Standards Task “The objective is to undertake a comprehensive review of national standards and Electricity North West documents which potentially prohibit C 2 C operation and would need to be changed for the full benefits to be realised.” Statutory Documents Licence Obligations Internal Electricity North West Policy

8 C 2 C Standards Review – Initial Findings 6 INITIAL FINDINGS Main problems are associated with Security of Supply Managed Load not explicitly allowed for at present ER P2/6 allows for single customers DCUSA facilitates Load Managed Areas, but this is probably inappropriate for widespread managed load

9 7 ER P2/6 does NOT apply to…… Distribution Code Guidance Note 1 states:- “It does not apply to the supply connection of a Customer.” BUT this is not considered appropriate for widespread responsive demand. Single Customers

10 C 2 C Standards Review – Initial Findings 8 INITIAL FINDINGS Main problems are associated with Security of Supply Managed Load not explicitly allowed for at present ER P2/6 allows for single managed loads DCUSA facilitates Load Managed Areas, but this is probably inappropriate for widespread managed load

11 So…. Revision of ER P2/6 is required if allowance for widespread responsive demand is to be legal! C 2 C Standards Review – Initial Findings 9 Responsive Demand Allowance Revised ER P2/6 Scales of Justice

12 C 2 C Standards Review – Initial Findings 10 P2/6 Derogation Electricity North West approached Ofgem at bid stage indicating intention to apply for a derogation from ER P2/6 for circuits included in trial. Subsequent Ofgem Consultation to gather industry views. 6 respondents: 100% supported Ofgem view to grant derogation 50% considered might be no need for derogation 

13 C 2 C Standards Review – Questions 11 Questions Do you have any load managed areas? Do you include responsive demand in your existing ER P2/6 assessments?

14 C 2 C Standards Review – Questions 12 Do you think that responsive demand could be employed without breaching ER P2/6? Consequences No need for derogations for responsive demand No need for interim change to ER P2/6 Dependencies It is considered that existing ER P2/6 is flexible enough

15 C 2 C Standards Review – Questions 13 Do you think that responsive demand could be employed without breaching ER P2/6? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

16 C 2 C Standards Review – Questions 14 Do you think that responsive demand could be employed without breaching ER P2/6?

17 C 2 C Standards Review– Changes to ER P2/6 15 Changing ER P2/6 to accommodate Responsive Demand? System Intact Assessment Adjustment of generation contribution Making Allowance for Responsive Demand

18 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 16 How much C 2 C demand can be connected?

19 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 17 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? 11kV C 2 C LOAD LOAD  Check flows within circuit/transformer rating  Consider potential transformer and cable ageing due to greater normal loading  Consider social acceptability of short duration interruptions

20 C 2 C Standards Review– HV Circuit Example 18 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? HV Circuit Example EXISTING 11kV  4MVA 4MVA   7MVA  1MVA Assume 7MVA circuit rating 4MVA MVA 750 1MVA 250 4MVA 1000 

21 C 2 C Standards Review– HV Circuit Example 19 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? HV Circuit Example With C 2 C 11kV  7MVA 7MVA   13MVA  1MVA C 2 C 3MVA Assume 7MVA circuit rating C 2 C 3MVA  7MVA 4MVA MVA 750 1MVA 250 Supply interruption to Non-C 2 C customers 4MVA 1000  3MVA 750  1MVA 250 

22 C 2 C Standards Review– HV Circuit Example 20 Is such HV circuit operation acceptable? Consequences Increased frequency of short duration interruptions From 1000 to 2000 customers experience short duration interruption Potential increased network equipment ageing Dependencies Depends on operation at typically less than 5 sites

23 C 2 C Standards Review– HV Circuit Example 21 Is such HV circuit operation acceptable? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

24 C 2 C Standards Review– HV Circuit Example 22 Is such HV circuit operation acceptable?

25 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 23 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? Primary Sub Example 11kV 20MVA 20,000 C 2 C LOAD

26 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 24 Primary Sub Example EXISTING 11kV 10MVA  20MVA  Assume tx rating of 20MVA 20MVA 20,000

27 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 25 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? Primary Sub Example CAUTIONARY APPROACH With C 2 C 11kV 15MVA  30MVA  Assume tx rating of 20MVA 30MVA (150%) 3min rating 20MVA 20,000 10MVA C 2 C LOAD 20MVA   Less than 3minutes later!

28 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 26 Is this cautionary Primary Sub operation acceptable? Consequences No Increase in frequency of short duration interruptions No Increase in the number of customers experiencing short duration interruptions Potentially increased network equipment ageing Dependencies Depends on operation at typically less than 10 sites (depending on the number of C 2 C customers)

29 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 27 Is this cautionary Primary Sub operation acceptable? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

30 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 28 Is this cautionary Primary Sub operation acceptable?

31 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 29 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? Primary Sub Example PROGRESSIVE APPROACH With C 2 C 11kV 20MVA  40MVA  Assume tx rating of 20MVA 30MVA (150%) 3min rating 20MVA 20,000 20MVA C 2 C LOAD 20MVA  Need to Autotrip 20MVA 20,000  Short duration interruption to 20,000 customers

32 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 30 Is this progressive Primary Sub operation acceptable? Consequences Increase in frequency of short duration interruptions Increase in the number of customers experiencing short duration interruptions Potentially increased network equipment ageing Dependencies Depends on operation at typically less than 10 sites (depending on the number of C 2 C customers)

33 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 31 Is this progressive Primary Sub operation acceptable? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

34 C 2 C Standards Review– Primary Sub Example 32 Is this progressive Primary Sub operation acceptable?

35 C 2 C Standards Review– BSP Sub Example 33 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? BSP Sub Example 33kV 90MVA 90,000 C 2 C LOAD

36 C 2 C Standards Review– BSP Sub Example 34 BSP Sub Example EXISTING 33kV 45MVA  90MVA  Assume tx rating of 90MVA 90MVA 90,000

37 C 2 C Standards Review– BSP Sub Example 35 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? BSP Sub Example With C 2 C 33kV 67.5MVA  135MVA  Assume tx rating of 90MVA 135MVA (150%) 3min rating 90MVA 90,000 45MVA C 2 C LOAD 90MVA   Less than 3minutes later!

38 C 2 C Standards Review– BSP Sub Example 36 Is this BSP Sub operation acceptable? Consequences No Increase in frequency of short duration interruptions No Increase in the number of customers experiencing short duration interruptions Potentially increased network equipment ageing Dependencies Depends on operation at typically less than 50 sites (depending on the number of C 2 C customers)

39 C 2 C Standards Review– BSP Sub Example 37 Is this BSP Sub operation acceptable? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

40 C 2 C Standards Review– BSP Sub Example 38 Is this BSP Sub operation acceptable?

41 C 2 C Standards Review– GSP Sub Example 39 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? GSP Sub Example 132kV 240MVA 250,000 C 2 C LOAD

42 C 2 C Standards Review– GSP Sub Example 40 GSP Sub Example EXISTING 132kV 120MVA  240MVA  Assume tx rating of 240MVA 240MVA 250,000

43 C 2 C Standards Review– GSP Sub Example 41 How much C 2 C demand can be connected? GSP Sub Example With C 2 C 132kV 180MVA  360MVA  Assume tx rating of 240MVA 360MVA (150%) 3min rating 240MVA 250, MVA C 2 C LOAD 240MVA   Less than 3minutes later!

44 C 2 C Standards Review– GSP Sub Example 42 Is this GSP Sub operation acceptable? Consequences No Increase in frequency of short duration interruptions No Increase in the number of customers experiencing short duration interruptions Increased network equipment ageing Dependencies Depends on operation at typically less than 100 sites (depending on the number of C 2 C customers)

45 C 2 C Standards Review– GSP Sub Example 43 Is this GSP Sub operation acceptable? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

46 C 2 C Standards Review– GSP Sub Example 44 Is this GSP Sub operation acceptable?

47 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 45 Summary HV Circuit Primary BSP GSP Increasing number of customers Increasing capacity Allowable C 2 C Demand 100% 50% Quantifying Intact System Assessment  Equipment ratings  Social acceptability of short duration interruptions  NOT EASILY QUANTIFIED Increasing number of automation points

48 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 46 Should system intact limitations be defined in the Security Supply Standard? ER P2/6 modified to include System Intact ER P2/6 DNO Internal Policy OR +

49 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 47 Should system intact limitations be defined in the Security Supply Standard? Consequences Achieve consistency Requirement to change ER P2/6 Dependencies Industry View

50 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 48 Should system intact limitations be defined in the Security Supply Standard? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

51 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 49 Should system intact limitations be defined in the Security Supply Standard?

52 C 2 C Standards Review– Interruptible Generation 50 Changing ER P2/6 to accommodate Responsive Demand? System Intact Assessment Adjustment of generation contribution Making Allowance for Responsive Demand

53 C 2 C Standards Review– Interruptible Generation 51 Generation Contribution With C 2 C Existing ER P2/6 Generation Contribution o Availability o Operating Regime o Intermittency ER P2/6 modified to include System Intact + Additional Factor of consideration o Unavailability due to Contract during system outages o No/reduced allowance for C 2 C generators for N-1 & N-2 system assessments

54 C 2 C Standards Review– Changes to ER P2/6 52 Changing ER P2/6 to accommodate Responsive Demand? System Intact Assessment Adjustment of generation contribution Making Allowance for Responsive Demand

55 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 53 Presently, ER P2/6 says….. Demand to be met ≤ Network Capability Group Demand (measured+latent) minus allowed loss ≤ Including :- Network Capacity + Transfer Capacity + DG contribution Depends on magnitude of Group Demand G

56 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 54 But where should the Responsive Demand Allowance fit? Demand to be met ≤ Group Demand (measured+latent) minus allowed loss ≤ Depends on magnitude of Group Demand Network Capability Including :- Network Capacity + Transfer Capacity + DG contribution G Responsive Demand

57 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 55 Demand to be met Group Demand (measured+latent) minus allowed loss Depends on magnitude of Group Demand Responsive Demand Advantages Group Demand is the amount to be restored and there is no need to restore Responsive Demand, Group Demand is often basis of load forecast and including Responsive Demand could complicate the forecast task, Means that Group category will not change due to C 2 C connections. Disadvantages Responsive Demand is un-differentiable when measuring Group Demand and so should stay in there! Subtract Responsive Demand Allowance from Group Demand ……..

58 Network Capability C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 56 Responsive Demand Advantages Network Capability is already adjusted so why not adjust it a bit more, Disadvantages It doesn’t feel like a network capability, more like a demand! Add Responsive Demand Allowance to Network Capability…….. Including :- Network Capacity + Transfer Capacity + DG contribution

59 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 57 Incorporate Responsive Demand Allowance in a different way … Define a new category Add a new column to table 2

60 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 58 Does Responsive Demand fit best with ……? Neither/alternative VOTE NOW! Demand to be met Network Capability

61 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 59 Does Responsive Demand fit best with ……?

62 C 2 C Standards Review– System Intact Assessment 60 How much allowance can be made for C 2 C responsive demand?

63 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 61 How to evaluate Responsive Demand Allowance? 33kV 132kV 11kV C 2 C Load 11kV C 2 C Load Measure ?  Estimate ?

64 C 2 C Review– Responsive Demand Allowance 62 How to evaluate Responsive Demand Allowance? 33kV 132kV 11kV C 2 C Load 11kV C 2 C Load  at 11kV considering….. Availability Failure of Operation Contractual restrictions  considering…..  Different factors for lower voltages?  Estimate ?

65 C 2 C Standards Review– SUMMARY 63 ER P2/6 System Intact Assessment Evaluation of Responsive Demand Allowance Incorporation of Responsive Demand Allowance Modified ER P2/6 – Something quite different ER P2/7

66 C 2 C Standards Review– SUMMARY 64 Is minimum change to ER P2/6 sufficient to accommodate responsive demand? “Could we get away with…..?” “Group Demand The DNO’s estimate of the maximum demand of the group being assessed for ER P2/6 compliance with appropriate allowance for diversity and customers with interruptible contracts.”

67 C 2 C Standards Review– SUMMARY 65 Is minimum change to ER P2/6 sufficient to accommodate responsive demand? Maybe VOTE NOW! No Yes

68 C 2 C Standards Review– SUMMARY 66 Is minimum change to ER P2/6 sufficient to accommodate responsive demand?

69 Capacity to Customers (C 2 C)- Review of Standards – Accommodating Responsive Demand in ER P2/6 24 th January 2013 Thanks for your attention


Download ppt "Capacity to Customers (C 2 C)- Review of Standards – Accommodating Responsive Demand in ER P2/6 24 th January 2013."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google