System information provision

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A DNO Perspective by Stephen Parker for Structure of Charges Workshop 15 July 2003.
Advertisements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ ) under grant agreement.
TNSP Outputs for Use in Economic Benchmarking AER Economic Benchmarking Workshop #2 14 March 2013 Denis Lawrence and John Kain.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Linepack ‘Park and Loan’ Quantity - Influencing Factors Review Group 291 – July 2010.
Exit Reform Review Transmission Workstream 07 January 2010.
Lynn Coles, PE National Wind Technology Center National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado USA 10 FAQ’s (Frequently Asked Questions) About Wind.
NGEIR Technical Conference Presentation May 16, 2006.
SO Incentives from April 2010 John Perkins. 2 Gas System Operator (SO) Incentives National Grid operates the high pressure Gas Transmission System in.
Communicating a Smarter Future Keynote at Network th annual distribution network strategy conference 16 February 2012 Sandy Sheard Deputy Director.
Review Group 291 – Balancing Arrangements Default Cashout Workshop 3 – 21 st June 2010.
Klondike Wind Power Project, Oregon Donald Furman Senior Vice President - Business Policy and Development December 3, 2009 Energy Bar Association Mid-Year.
Flow Margin Assumptions for NTS Planning and Development Transmission Planning Code Workshop 3 5 th June 2008.
UNC Proposal 329 – Review of Industry Charging & Contractual Arrangements - DM SHQs and DM SOQs Joel Martin – 21/09/10.
OPNs & LDZ Demand Forecasts Chris Shanley & Nick Reeves.
Natural Gas and Power Generation Natural Gas and Power: A Look at Prices Carbon Legislation and Power Generation The future of Power Generation and the.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
DN Operation Iain Ward DNCC Manager. Responsibilities  Licence Holder  Obligation For 1 In 20 Capacity  DNCC Operates Networks Under Direction of The.
15 February 2006 TPCR second consultation: gas offtake Offtake Arrangements Workstream 15 February 2006.
Gas Distribution Transportation Charging What are the Risks to Pricing predictability? Stephen Marland Pricing Manager
Enduring Exit Regime & NTS Risk Management Processes Offtake Arrangement Workstream – OAD Section I Review Group 316.
Transmission workstream 6 April Overview of TPCR Third Consultation UNC transmission workstream – 6 April Mark Feather.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Supply Assumptions for Investment Planning Transmission Planning Code Workshop 1 3rd April 2008.
Demand Side Investment Planning Transmission Planning Code Workshop 2 1 st May 2008.
Review Group -140 Thoughts on additional information requirements.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
System Operator information transparency. As Transmission System Transporter National Grid Gas undertakes responsibility for safe, effective and efficient.
Stuart Forrest, Network Planning Manager, Scotia Gas Networks 19 th October 2010 MOD Review of Industry Charging & Contractual Arrangements in Relation.
Transitional offtake arrangements – Ofgem Initial Proposals on transitional incentives 6 October 2005.
Natural Gas –generation intersection
Supply Chain Management
Storage users in entry/exit regimes suffer from double charges for transmission
Transitional Exit Capacity Proposals -Update
PJM Load Product (Consumption Product)
SGN Modification Proposal Amendments to UNC TPD OCS Process Long Term Allocation of Capacity for the Transitional Period.
Exit Capacity Release Methodology Statement
Review of System Alerts
Transmission Planning Code – Draft Document
NSPS Rulemakings for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Transmission Workgroup 7th July 2011
MIPI Energy – Daily Reports
Transmission Planning Code
Mod 0621 Amendments to Gas Transmission Charging Regime
Results of Smart Charging Research
SO Incentives from April 2010
EU-IPA12/CS02 Development of the Renewable Energy Sector
Unlocking Demand Contribution to Distribution Network Management
Linepack ‘Park and Loan’ Quantity – Scenario Analysis
Review of System Alerts
Reykjavik, February 26th 2013 Effects of Connecting thermal and hydro based power systems The Norwegian experience.
Wind & Transmission: The Clean Energy Superhighway
UIG Task Force Progress Report
Mod 621A Supporting analysis
Publication of Zonal Flex Data
Development of Entry Capacity Substitution
DN OAD Processes: RG 0316 : Offtake Workstream
Modification Proposal 0101 – “Amendment to demand forecasting timings in relation to the Gas Balancing Alert”
Mod 0621 Amendments to Gas Transmission Charging Regime
Long Term Non Firm Capacity Update
Review Group /09/2007.
UNC Transmission Workstream 15th June 2005
Ofgem presentation to Gas Transmission Workstream
GT Response to Action AMR014 Project Nexus AMR Workgroup 20th July | Energy Networks Association.
Information Provision for Transitional Exit Capacity
Open Letter - Summary of Responses
Stefan Leedham Transmission Workstream 2nd November 2006
195AV “Future work” – system flexibility
Jim Mcintosh Director, Executive Operations Advisor California ISO
Looking to the power system future An ENTSO-E perspective
Presentation transcript:

System information provision

Information What additional information transparency would help us to: Understand what system flexibility is Understand how it is being used now Predict future requirements Help define any possible services / incentives / products etc The aim is to ensure that the system and services required by customers are available when required.

Potential drivers for future changes in system usage LCPD leading to reduction in coal generation Expected increases in wind powered generation Change in storage services Evolving DNO offtake flexibility requirements Evolving Entry flow characteristics

Gas & electricity interaction Increased volatility driven by weather and operational characteristic of new generation plant: High wind load factors could result in little CCGT use large amounts of wind generation Low wind load factors could result in a sudden and large swings in gas demand Combination of extra cold weather and additional CCGT demand Could result in significant change in gas demand within-day Could see CCGTs operating with lower load factors but greater / shorter notice frequency Demand volatility (particularly within day) requires flexibility in: Supplies, Demands, and Networks

Potential developments for October 2009 Areas to consider: Service Definition – What is Flexibility (if not definition used under 195AV) ? Demand volatility within day Change in linepack across the day? Delta change in demand/linepack during the day (high point vs low point) Flows vs forecast Any other views?

Potential Information for October 2009 Possible areas: General level of flow change – eg 1/24th vs actual hourly flows (National, zonal, by exit /entry point type) Predictability – Outturn versus earlier notification/forecast Impact on Linepack Already obligated by 0195v to publish hourly linepack data on zonal level from 2010. Bring this forward to 2009? Open to users views on what would help them understand the situation better

Graphs Following graphs show typical changes on the system on a typical day and may help identify the type of information users would find helpful.

Example of current Demand flow rates

Example of current flows by Offtake types

Predictability – Total CCGT OPNs vs actual

Linepack variation within day (195AV data at National Level)

Summary The Graphs show potential for deriving indicators of change in flow variation / predictability based on existing data Over time these indicators would give signals on whether flows were becoming more volatile and/or less predictable. Would potentially provide better clarity on the types of products/services that customers want going forward What information would the industry find valuable in making their own assessment of future flexibility requirements ? Do users see value in holding a specific workshop(s) to identify user requirements in this area ?