Shrinkage Forum Monday 27 June 2011, 31 Homer Road.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Intermediate Accounting
Advertisements

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.
Hypothesis Testing. To define a statistical Test we 1.Choose a statistic (called the test statistic) 2.Divide the range of possible values for the test.
Self-employed Evidence base Purpose This slide-pack aims to provide a broad evidence-base on self- employment in the UK. Drawn predominantly from.
Component Accounting Briefing
October 8, 2013 Eric Fox and Mike Russo. AGENDA »Recent Sales and Customer Trends »Preliminary State Sales and Demand Forecast »Building a No DSM Forecast.
Replacement WCF parameter Review Group 176, December 2007.
Feedwater System Reliability Users Group 2015 Meeting San Antonio James Alston – South Texas Project Rob Frazee – South Texas Project Frank Todd – True.
Energy and Environmental Economics 1 Avoided Cost and E3 Calculator Workshops Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. October 3, 2005.
Copyright © 2005 Advantica Inc. (USA Only) and Advantica Ltd. (Outside USA). All rights reserved by the respective owner. Own Use Gas Review of Pre-heater.
Accuracy of CV determination systems for calculation of FWACV Dave Lander.
Christopher Dougherty EC220 - Introduction to econometrics (chapter 3) Slideshow: prediction Original citation: Dougherty, C. (2012) EC220 - Introduction.
Overview – Non-coincident Peak Demand
1 PREDICTION In the previous sequence, we saw how to predict the price of a good or asset given the composition of its characteristics. In this sequence,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE EUROPEAN NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY Development of a Eurogas-Marcogaz Methodology for Estimation of Methane Emissions Angelo Riva.
Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation 2006 Load Forecast Prepared by: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. Forecasting and Market Analysis Department.
Challenges for district heating methodologies Worldbank Workshop on CDM Methodologies 5 December 2005 Lambert Schneider.
Copyright © 2005 Advantica Inc. (USA Only) and Advantica Ltd. (Outside USA). All rights reserved by the respective owner. Own Use Gas Review of 2000 Model.
Accuracy of CV determination systems for calculation of FWACV Dave Lander Update 12 th October 2011.
G3 Update to DCMF 22nd November Significant progress made Consultation on common methodology - May Stakeholder workshop - June Summary of responses.
2005 Census Survey of Maricopa Household Survey Sample Design Overview Sample Size Assumptions.
Shrinkage Forecasts - Factors David Simpson September 2014.
Page 1 Reducing Emissions, Increasing Efficiency, Maximizing Profits Part 2: Is Recovery Profitable? p Savings associated with pressure reduction p Costs.
Asset Management Planning for Pipe Renewal Peter Kraft Treated Water Planning.
A layman’s guide to the structure of LDZ gas charges 27 July 2009 Please note – in the interests of clarity and accessibility, simplifications have been.
Grayson Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation 2006 Load Forecast Prepared by: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. Forecasting and Market Analysis Department.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. 10 Inferences Involving Two Populations.
S S Lewis 2/15/051 Confidence Intervals and Maximum Errors By Sidney S. Lewis For Baltimore Section, ASQ February 15, 2005.
Flow Margin Assumptions for NTS Planning and Development Transmission Planning Code Workshop 3 5 th June 2008.
LDZ Shrinkage - a National Grid Overview Chris Warner Mod 0194/RG 0208 June 2008.
Aging Infrastructure Management and Challenges Sue Fleck Vice President Pipeline Safety Trust “Getting to Zero’ Conference 2011.
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.
Confidence Intervals. Examples: Confidence Intervals 1. Among various ethnic groups, the standard deviation of heights is known to be approximately.
LDZ System Charges – Structure Methodology 26 April 2010.
Shrinkage Forum 04 June 2013 Roy Malin. 2 Best Practice - Areas of Inconsistency AreaBackgroundAction Definition of All-PE systems Used to identify networks.
FINAL1 Inventory, Emissions, and Population July 2, 2003 AIR, Inc.
Shrinkage Forum 22 January 2014 Roy Malin /15 Shrinkage Proposals  Initial proposals issued December 2013  Proposed Shrinkage Quantities calculated.
Transmission Planning Code – Design Margin Update Transmission Workstream, 4 th February 2010.
LDZ Shrinkage Forum Jonathan Dennett Elexon 22 nd June 2006.
Shrinkage Forum Tuesday 8 March 2011, 31 Homer Road.
DNPC08 Review of Standard LDZ System Charges 6 September 2010.
FISIM: Current Research at Statistics Canada October 4th and 5th, 2010 Eurostat Task Force on FISIM Jim Tebrake – Statistics Canada.
Blue Grass Energy Cooperative Corporation 2006 Load Forecast Prepared by: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. Forecasting and Market Analysis Department.
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.
Billing Operations Forum 24 July 2007 RbD Overview Billing Operations Forum 24 July 2007 RbD Overview Fiona Cottam.
Chapter 13: Inferences about Comparing Two Populations Lecture 8b Date: 15 th November 2015 Instructor: Naveen Abedin.
An importer of Herbs and Spices claims that average weight of packets of Saffron is 20 grams. However packets are actually filled to an average weight,
Leakage Model Development Proposals – Shrinkage Forum Discussion Wednesday 14 December 2011.
Scallop Dive (Port Phillip Bay) Fishery Cover photo - PMSS COMMERCIAL SCALLOP DIVE FISHERY - PORT PHILLIP BAY Results of the Fishery-Independent Dive Survey.
Allocation of Unidentified Gas Statement – Interim Report findings 17 th September 2012.
Uncertainty Calculation for the Network Leakage Reduction Monitoring Model Dave Lander and Andrew Laughton 3 rd December 2002.
Alternative Rate Structure Paul Smith Vice President, Rates Duke Energy Ohio June 20, 2006.
Mod 0428 Charge Impact October Affected Supply Point Population.
2015 California Statewide Critical Peak Pricing Evaluation DRMEC Spring 2016 Load Impact Evaluation Workshop San Francisco, California May, 2016 Prepared.
DNPC05 Consultation Paper Balance of Revenue Recovery between LDZ System Charges and Customer Charges Steve Armstrong 27 th July 2009.
11 Measuring Disclosure Risk and Data Utility for Flexible Table Generators Natalie Shlomo, Laszlo Antal, Mark Elliot University of Manchester
Consequence Analysis 1.2.
BUSI 104 Operations Management
DNPC03 DNPC03, published in July 2007, changed the LDZ System Charges Capacity/Commodity split from 50:50 to 95:5 The 95:5 split was implemented on 1 October.
Lecture 15 Sections 7.3 – 7.5 Objectives:
Calculation of evaporative emissions with COPERT Giorgos Mellios
LDZ System Charges – Structure Methodology 26 July 2010
Comparing Populations
2010 Market Share Guide.
Demand Estimation - Non Loggable Meters: Issue
An importer of Herbs and Spices claims that average weight of packets of Saffron is 20 grams. However packets are actually filled to an average weight,
The Future Workforce Modelling Tool
Pricing and Margins Manager National Grid Distribution
Progress Seminar 이준녕.
Presentation transcript:

Shrinkage Forum Monday 27 June 2011, 31 Homer Road

Leakage Model

3  Methodology developed in the early 1990s  Currently a spreadsheet model  Five main elements  LP Leakage  MP Leakage  AGI Leakage  AGI Venting  Interference Damage

4 Leakage Model Elements & Main Input Parameters

5 Low Pressure Leakage Model  Approximately 80% of all leakage  Leakage rates for 11 diameter/material bands, based on a national survey carried out in 2002/03  > 2000 low pressure networks nationally  Average System Pressure - determined via recorded source pressure data and network analysis  MEG Saturation (where used) – determined from recorded data and network analysis  Pipe asset lengths (replacement of metallic mains has greatest impact)  No. of services

6 Low Pressure Mains (1)  For Ductile Iron, Steel and PE Pipes  (Rate x Length x ASP)/Reference Pressure (30mbarg)  For Pit Cast Iron and Spun Cast Iron pipes  Split into Lead Yarn jointed treated by MEG, Lead Yarn jointed not treated by MEG and non-Lead Yarn Jointed  Assumption 88.5% Pit Cast and 18.5% Spun Cast are Lead Yarn jointed  [(Rate x Length x LY% x Treated% x ASP)/Reference Pressure] x [MEG Factor/Reference MEG Factor]  [(Rate x Length x LY% x (1-Treated%) x ASP)/Reference Pressure] / [Reference MEG Factor]  (Rate x Length x (1-LY%) x ASP)/Reference Pressure

7 Low Pressure Mains (2) m 3 MATERIAL<=3"4"-5"6"-7"8"-11">=12" PE63.51 Steel Ductile Pit Cast Spun Cast  2002/03 NLT  849 Tests  11 Categories from a combination of up to 5 Diameter Bands across the 5 Material Types  1990s test results used to determine sample size

8 Low Pressure Mains (3)  Average System Pressure  Determined via Network Analysis  LP Sources set at average annual pressure  Determined by profiling data, data loggers, clock settings etc  Demand set at 25% 1 in 20 Peak Six Minute Demand (typical average demand level experienced over the year)  ASP = length weighted average of the average pressure in each pipe in the network

9 Low Pressure Mains (4)  MEG  Monoethylene glycol, used to treat lead yarn jointed mains, which applies Cast Iron pipes only (Pit and Spun)  Saturation is measured throughout the year  % of cast iron treated determined using the same network analysis model as used for determining ASP  Cast Iron leakage rates are deemed applicable to a MEG saturation level of 25%, which reflects a 20% reduction in leakage.  If less or no MEG is used, leakage rates are uplifted  if more MEG is used, leakage rates are reduced

10 Low Pressure Mains (5)

11 Low Pressure Mains (6)  Example Calculation:  <=3” Pit Cast; Original Length = 5.163; Proportion of CI treated = 75%; MEG Saturation = 40%; ASP = 30mbarg  Lead Yarn Length (5.163 x 88.5%) =  Lead Yarn Treated Length (4.569 x 75%) =  Lead Yarn Untreated Length (4.569 – 3.427) =  Non Lead Yarn Length (5.163 x (1-88.5%)) = 0.594

12 Low Pressure Mains (7)  Example Calculation continued:  Lead Yarn Treated Length Leakage =  3.427km  x m 3 [Leakage Rate for D1 Pit Cast]  x 30mbarg [ASP]  / 30mbarg [Ref Pressure]  x 69.78% [MEG Factor Associated with achieved 40% MEG Saturation]  / 79.86% [MEG Factor Associated with the reference 25% MEG Saturation]  =7,208scm

13 Low Pressure Mains (8)  Example Calculation continued:  Lead Yarn Untreated Length Leakage =  1.142km  x m 3 [Leakage Rate for D1 Pit Cast]  x 30mbarg [ASP]  / 30mbarg [Ref Pressure]  / 79.86% [MEG Factor Associated with the reference 25% MEG Saturation]  =3,443scm

14 Low Pressure Mains (9)  Example Calculation continued:  Non-Lead Yarn Length Leakage =  0.594km  x m 3 [Leakage Rate for D1 Pit Cast]  x 30mbarg [ASP]  / 30mbarg [Reference Pressure]  =1,429scm

15 Low Pressure Services (1)  Methodology updated in 2009  Old methodology assumed fixed relative proportion of metallic and plastic services  Many metallic services have been replaced since original assumptions  New methodology uses the old model output for 2006/07 to fix a baseline for the number of metallic services and actual service replacement numbers are used to estimate the current population

16 Low Pressure Services (2)  (No. Services x Rate x ASP)/Reference Pressure  2002/03 leakage tests determined that only connections to metallic mains had any significant leakage TYPERate m 3 30mbarg Metal $ - Metal Metal $ - PE0 PE $ - Metal2.194 PE $ - PE0

17 Low Pressure Services (3)  Determination of the number of services example  Total No. Services = 60,000; Baseline No. Metallic Services = 24,000; cumulative annual replacement = 12,000, PE Proportion of Network = 0.48; Network as % of LDZ = 60%  Metal services  Baseline No. – (%LDZ x No. Replaced in LDZ)  24,000 – (60% x 12,000)  24,000 – 7200 = 16,800  PE Services  Total No services – Excluded Services – Metallic Services  60,000 – 3,002 – 16,800 = 40,198

18 Low Pressure Services (4)  PE to PE  No. PE Services x PE proportion of network  40,198 x 0.48 = 19,186  PE to Metal  No. PE Services – No. PE to PE  40,198 – 19,186 = 21,012  Metal to PE  No. Metallic Services x (fixed assumption)  16,800 x = 3,143  Metal to Metal  No. Metallic Services – No. Metal to PE  16,800 – 3,143 = 13,657

19 Low Pressure General (1)  Excluded Pipe Lengths  Reflects small isolated sections of a larger network that tend to be all PE and operate at higher pressure  Pipes are assumed to operate at the same pressure as the length weighted average pressure of the other all-PE networks in the LDZ  PE Pipe Leakage is calculated as:  [Network PE Leakage] + [Excluded PE Leakage]  [(Total PE Length – Excluded Length) x PE Rate x Network ASP / Reference Pressure] + [Excluded Length x PE Rate x All-PE ASP / Reference Pressure]  Similarly, excluded service leakage is calculated at the All-PE ASP; however, these are deemed PE to PE services and, therefore, have a zero leakage rate

20 Low Pressure General (2)  NONET Networks  These refer to pipe lengths that are not associated with a specific network and are included for completeness  Metallic pipes in the NONET category are deemed to operate at the length weighted average system pressure of the other mixed material networks in the LDZ  PE pipes in the NONET category are deemed to operate at the length weighted average system pressure of the All-PE networks in the LDZ. If there are no All-PE networks in the, the pressure defaults to that for the mixed material networks

21 Medium Pressure Leakage Model  Approximately 8% of all leakage  Leakage Rate x Length  LP Leakage Rates used  MP Pit Cast deemed to leak at the same rate as Spun Cast. LP Pit Cast higher because of predominance of lead yarn jointing, which was not generally used for MP  Number of reported escapes per km of iron main generally lower, but of a similar order, for MP than LP. Therefore, it is assumed that there is a similar level of leakage per km.

22 AGI Leakage Model  Approximately 7% of all leakage  5 leakage rates for AGI asset types, based on a national survey carried out in 2002/03:  Holders  NTS Offtakes  LTS Offtakes  District Governors  Service Governors  Leakage = Number of Assets x Rate

23 AGI Venting Model  Approximately 5% of all leakage  Fixed values based on a national value from the 2002/03 AGI leakage test report apportioned by relative number of ‘venting’ AGI asset at time of Network Sales  Original source for data 1994 Watt Committee Report

24 Interference Damage Model (1)  Approximately <0.5% of all leakage  Based on:  >500kg release incidents  Actual release value where recorded/estimated  Else, No. Incidents x 500kg  Number other recorded incidents  Split by LP/MP (95/5)  Split by Puncture/Fracture (50/50)  Assumed leakage rates and response/fix times

25 Interference Damage Model (2)  All Rates and response times are fixed within the model  Severed Services  No Service Incidents/2 x Rate (17m 3 /hr) x Response/fix time (2hr)  Punctured Services  No Service Incidents/2 x Rate (5.66m 3 /hr) x Response/fix time (2hr)  Service leakage rates determined for by an experimental rig operating at 25mbarg  Low Pressure Incidents  No Mains Incidents x 95% x Rate (42.45m 3 /hr) x response/fix time (235 minutes)  Medium Pressure Incidents  No Mains Incidents x 5% x Rate (283m 3 /hr) x response/fix time (235 minutes)  Mains leakage rates calculated for a 1” hole at 25mbarg operating pressure for LP and 2barg for MP