Overview of Electricity Distribution in Europe · 2017. 8. 22. · Fundamentals of electricity...

Overview of ElectricityDistribution in EuropeSummary from Capgemini’s 2008 European benchmarking survey

Point of View by Philippe Chanel

Energy, Utilities & Chemicals the way we see it

Contents

Introduction 3

European Electricity Distribution Market Overview 5

Fundamentals of electricity distribution across Europe 5DNO discrepancies across Europe 5Number and Size of DNOs 6

Key findings from Capgemini’s European electricity

distribution performance benchmark 7

Key findings based on the econometric model surrounding the DNOs’performance results 7

Key findings based on managerial survey responses regardingperformance improvement initiatives 9

Appendix: Methodology 11

Definition of DNO Performance 11DNO Performance Benchmarking 11DNO Segmentation 11


Overview of Electricity Distribution in Europe 3

Introduction

This point of view presents the resultsof a multi-client study on the costefficiency of European electricitydistribution carried out by Capgeminibetween November 2007 andFebruary 2008, based on 2006 costdata. The participants in this surveyare 46 Distribution NetworkOperators (DNOs) or regional units in

13 countries of EU-15. They accountfor 1,084 TWh/year of powerconsumption (35% of total electricityconsumption across EU-25 and 44%of electricity distributed across EU-15)delivered to 110 million customers(44% of total EU-25 electricityconnected customers) and theirnetworks cover an area of 1,438,000square km (36% of total EU-25 area).

Figure 1: Map of Participating Countries

This document, prepared byCapgemini’s Utilities Strategy Lab incooperation with ADéquations, aFrench-based econometric modelingconsultancy, comprises two parts:

• Part 1: provides an overview of theElectricity Distribution business inEurope

• Part 2: presents performanceresults of the DNOs whoparticipated in the Capgeminidistribution study at an aggregatedlevel, from two different angles:

� From a quantitative (econometric)perspective, in order tobenchmark the participatingDNOs against their cost efficiency;

� From a qualitative (managerial)perspective, in order to analyzemanagerial contribution to costperformance.

An appendix presents a summary ofthe methodology used in developingthe benchmarking survey.

Country represented Name of DNO

Austria BEWAG Netz GmbHKELAG Netz GmbHWIENENERGIE Stromnetz GmbHENERGIE AG Oberösterreich Netz GmbH LINZ STROM Netz GmbH

Belgium SIBELGA IMEA IMEWO INTERGEM IVEKA IVERLEKSIBELGAS GASELWEST

Denmark DONG Energy : 2 DNOs

Finland FORTUM Finland

France EDF – Réseau de Distribution : 8 distributionareas SORÉGIES Réseau de Distribution

Germany Netzgesellschaft Ostwuerttemberg GmbHAnonymous DNOLEW Verteilnetz GmbH

Ireland ESB Distribution

Italy ENEL Distribuzione

The Netherlands ENECO Netbeheer

Portugal EDP Distribuçao

Spain ENDESA Distribución Eléctrica : 5 distributionareas

Sweden FORTUM Sweden FORTUM Stockholm

United Kingdom Central Networks East Central Networks WestScottish Power Distribution Scottish-Power ManwebEDF Energy – EPN EDF Energy – SPN EDF Energy – LPN

Table 1: The List of Participating DNOs

4



•In relation to network ownership,distribution operators holdconcession contracts with themunicipalities in France (onmedium and low voltage levels) orin Portugal (for low voltage)

•The DNO may hold a leasingcontract with an asset manager(usually the parent group) which isthe case for some German andAustrian DNOs

•The DNO may have adopted adifferent business model such asusing an outsourcing solution for apart of its business. As an example,many Belgian DNOs source most oftheir activities from a commonexternal distribution activitiesprovider. Some other companiesoutsource a significant part of theiractivity to subsidiaries within theparent group (e.g. France andDenmark). Such a business model isusually adopted due to theassociated opportunities to leverageeconomies of scale.

Regional Taxation and MunicipalObligation Policies create differentoperating conditions The tax systems and municipalityobligations, which are very differentfrom one country to another, inducesubstantial differences in the level ofcosts. In some countries, these costsare negligible (e.g. in Sweden, Austriaand Finland) whereas in others theyare significant (e.g. in Germany,France and Belgium).

Differences in regulatoryenvironments can lead todifferences in the accrued costSome regulatory authorities expectdistribution companies to incur thefinancial costs of electrical losses. Themajority of our sample (two thirds ofthe DNOs) have to buy energy tocompensate for physical losses in thenetwork or imbalances in the

many variations still exist in theactivity and cost perimeters definedfor DNOs by regulatory schemesacross different countries.

The different treatment of DNOs inrelation to ownership of distributionnetwork, regional taxation, municipalobligation policies and regulatoryenvironment, as well as contestabilitywithin a given service, contributes toa more complex and heterogeneouspicture of DNOs across Europe. Thedifferences that stem from suchcountry-specific conditions at aEuropean level are discussed below.

DNO discrepancies acrossEuropeThe ownership of a distributionnetwork is not a common feature inEuropeThe difference between owning andoperating a network is significant as itintroduces a further layer ofinteraction between the differentplayers within the distributionbusiness. As a consequence, differentincentive schemes and rewardstructures need to be introduced toensure that the internal and regulatoryobjectives can be delivered by anagent on behalf of the owner orlicensee. Some examples of thedifferences in the European countriesare provided below:

Fundamentals of electricitydistribution across EuropeOver recent times, the electricityindustry value chain in Europe hasundergone notable changes. Inaddition to markets opening forcompetition across and within borders,the biggest change imposed is theunbundling of retail and distributionactivities. In Europe, under theEuropean Commission Directives, thenetworks must now be operated byseparate entities, clearly separatedfrom the suppliers of electricity. Forthis survey, a DNO is defined as:

• An enterprise that operates, or atleast manages, network operationsand a majority of the customerrelated activities, and is subject toregulatory control,

• In some countries, DNOs can alsobe engaged in competitivebusinesses as long as the use of thesystem is guaranteed in atransparent, objective and non-discriminatory manner,

• DNOs are required to provide alevel playing field to all systemusers.

An existing common structure is aconsequence of the “uniform” natureof the activity and obligations placedon DNOs across Europe by theEuropean Commission. However,

European Electricity Distribution MarketOverview

Table 2: Electricity Distribution Core Business Segments

• Strategic Planning• Financial

management• Investments• Maintenance policy• Procurement of

services• Performance

management• Revenue management

• Network planning• Engineering & construction• Connection and installation• Network control and

management• Maintenance and work

management• Metering

• Billing• Customer

Inquiry• Customer dialog• Information• Claims• Call center

Asset management Network operation Customer relations

6

“Balancing Groups.” 11 companies donot bear the cost of electric losses.These are in the UK, Ireland, Spainand Portugal, where compensation isdone directly at a supplier level. Thecosts for transmission network accessare sometimes directly invoiced to thesuppliers (e.g. in Spain and Portugal).

Contestability of a serviceRegulatory differences have led tosome significant differences betweencountries with some elements of a“traditional” DNO being opened tocompetition. Some of these includemetering, provision of newconnections, and even ownership ofthe embedded network. Examplesinclude:

• Meter reading in the UK is deemedto be a cost borne by suppliers

• In the UK, Denmark, Germany andItaly, a small number of newcustomer connection activities areopen to competition.

Operated Voltage in the distributionnetworksThere is a large diversity of operatedvoltage levels (i.e. boundary betweentransmission and distribution) forelectricity distribution companies inEurope, with some DNOs partlyoperating high voltage networks(where high voltage is more than 50kV; medium voltage between 50 and1 kV), while others operate only inlow and medium voltage levels.

Broadly speaking there are countrieswhere:

•The DNOs operate a large range ofnetwork voltage levels below atransmission system which onlyinclude very high voltage systems.This is the case in the UK(distribution companies operatenetworks from 132 kV to LV), inthe Netherlands where the mainutilities operate the regionalnetworks, as well as in Portugal,Ireland and Italy.

•The DNOs only operate mediumand low voltage networks because:

� HV regional networks areoperated by transmission regionalcompanies. This is the case, forinstance, in Sweden, Norway or,sometimes, Germany;

� HV regional networks areoperated by a “large” transmissionsystem operator. This is the casein France and Belgium (in Francethe boundary between TSO andDNO stands above thetransmission—i.e. distributionsubstations, while in Belgium theboundary is below).

Number and Size of DNOsThe number of DNOs from onecountry to another can vary a lot,which implies large differences intheir size. There is also a wide varietyof operating environments. Somesmall DNOs only operate in veryurban areas whereas others operateonly in a rural environment.

Country Number of DNOs and Concentration

Austria About 130 DNOs. The largest delivers approximately15% of consumption.

Belgium 30 operators of different size. The largest contributesabout 10% of distributed electricity.

Denmark 107 distribution network companies. The largestgroup delivers energy to a third of customers

Finland 89 operators. The largest represents about 15% ofdelivered energy.

France Approximately 150 DNOs but the largest equates to95% of consumption.

Germany About 800 operators but 4 major groups. The largestrepresents approximately 25% of consumption.

Ireland A single DNO delivers 100 % of consumption.

Italy The largest operator accounts for 85% ofconsumption. 182 DNOs account for the remaining15%.

The Netherlands 7 major DNOs are directly connected to thetransmission network.

Portugal The largest delivers almost 100% of totalconsumption.

Spain About 300 operators registered in 2006 with 5majors DNOs. The largest delivers approximately40% of total consumption.

Sweden 180 DNOs which are mostly owned by majorsgroups.

United Kingdom 14 DNOs of similar size. Three of the largest supply31% of consumption.

Table 3: Indicative Number of DNOs per Country and DNO Concentration



An econometric model was used inorder to adjust the impact of a DNO’sstructural characteristics and non-controllable variables, and to enable acomparison between different DNOs.Through the model, it is explainedhow each cost factor influences costdifferences and how the DNOs’ “truecost” can be estimated. As aconsequence, the short termperformance of DNOs is compared,and each is ranked according to itscost efficiency.

In order to identify currentperformance improvement initiatives,responses of DNOs regardingmanagerial issues such as outsourcing,performance management andcustomer activities were analyzed.

Key findings based on theeconometric model surroundingthe DNOs’ performance resultsFull cost comparison and allocation If we only compare gross DNO costsper delivered MWh, the full unit costvaries from 9€/MWh to almost57€/MWh, i.e. in a proportion from1-6 among operators that werecompared. But this would be a verysimplistic comparison approachbecause beneath these differences,environmental factors lead to verydifferent infrastructure needs, fromone area to another.

The structure of this full cost can besignificantly different from one DNOto another because of differences inthe scope of the costs falling into theaccount and the very different levelsof pass-through costs (transmissionaccess charges, taxes and similar fees).

For the average DNO, 59% of annualcosts are linked to the value of assetsincluding depreciation, financial costand network operations. 41% ofannual costs are linked to the volumeof net delivered energy or the numberof customers (i.e. transmission accessfee, costs for network losses andcustomer services). The costsconsidered as controllable by theDNO (network operations, customerservices and management) representabout 43% of the gross average DNOcost (blue part in figure 2). Our costefficiency comparison focuses on thecontrollable part of costs. It takes intoaccount differences in cost structuresby evaluating appropriate cost driversand applying adjustments toincorporate the effects of operatingenvironment on costs.

Among the various environmentalcost factors taken into account (seeappendix), density of consumptionappeared to be a highly influentialcost factor. As a result, distributioncosts can be increased by more than100% due to differences in

consumption density ranging from thenetwork operator with the highestdensity to the one with the lowest.

Costs Efficiency Comparison After incorporating all adjustments tomake the costs comparable, as perfigure 3, the actual performance of theDNOs vary in the proportion of lessthan 1 to 2, where the most efficientDNO has an index of 100 and theleast efficient an index of 183.

The comparison is done as if all theDNOs in the sample operated the sameaverage network, (which would removedifferences in the imposed andinevitable cost factors), and on the basisof the controllable operating costs.

These relative efficiency levels were splitinto two components: networkoperating costs strongly linked to thevalue of network assets, and customerservices and management costs stronglylinked to the number of customersconnected to the network. Each DNO’sefficiency was assessed on the basis ofeach of these cost categories.

Key findings from Capgemini’s Europeanelectricity distribution performancebenchmark

Figure 2: Average Cost Structure of the DNOs in the Sample

Transmissionnetwork

access fee20%

Networkoperations

34%Customer services

(excl. Reading)9%

Internal performance

Charges

linked to

consumption

(or number of

customers)

41%

Charges

inked to

gross

asset value

59%

Local taxes andspecific fees

7%

Depreciation& financial

costs25%

Network losses5%

Imposed costs

Controllable cost

partly controllable cost

8

Very Urban DNOs Large DNOs Small DNOs

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

Cost of each DNO on reference network, in EURO/MWh, basis 100 = best practice

Figure 3: Internal performance of each DNO on a Reference Network (100 = bestpractice)

Very Urban DNOs Large DNOs Small DNOs Very Urban DNOs Large DNOs Small DNOs

Above average

Above average

Average

Average

Belowaverage

Belowaverage

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Network operating costs efficiency(€/MWh)

Customer services operating costs efficiency

(€/MWh)

-4 -2 0 2 4 6

Figure 4: Relative performance of each DNO on network operation and customeroperation

There are large differences in thenetwork and customer operating costsbetween DNOs. The least efficientDNO could improve its full cost by40% if its operating costs were at thesame level as the most efficient DNO.

Sample of other findings from therelative performance resultsMeter reading costsThe costs incurred from meter readingdiffer largely: the non-weightedaverage cost of meter reading percustomer is 5€; however, this variedbetween less than 1€ and more than11€ in the sample. Discrepancies inmeter reading costs can be due to thefrequency of meter reading and theway the reading process is managed.

The DNOs in the sample that hadimplemented smart meters had thelowest meter reading costs. There ispotential to reduce reading costs forDNOs who still have not included smartmetering as part of their operations.

Network LossesThe DNOs do not share the samelevel of cost for electrical lossescompensation (when these costsappear in their accounts). This iseither due to differences in the rate oflosses (influenced, for example, bydifferences in the scope of operatedvoltage levels and the size of network)or differences in the unit cost ofelectric losses (influenced, forexample, by the regulatory incentivesfor loss minimization).

1

10

100

1.000

Average annual length of long interruptions per LV customers (min - logarithmic scale)

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

Average annual number of long interruptions per LV customer (nb - logarithmic scale)

Very Urban DNOs Large DNOs Small DNOsVery Urban DNOs Large DNOs Small DNOs

Figure 5: Annual average number and length of supply interruptions for Low Voltage customers



The average cost per companycalculated for the DNOs which bearthese costs is 53 €/MWh lost, and theaverage rate of losses is 5.9%.

Quality of SupplyThere is a significant degree ofvariance between the DNOs in theirquality of supply, measured by theduration and frequency of supplyinterruptions.

The overall non-weighted averageduration of long interruptions (morethan 3 minutes) is 86 minutes forLow Voltage (LV) customers and 63minutes for Medium Voltage (MV)customers in a year.

The overall non-weighted averagefrequency of long interruptions for LVcustomers is 1.24 interruptions and0.97 interruptions for MV customersin a year.

Key findings based onmanagerial survey responsesregarding performanceimprovement initiativesInvestment managementDNOs’ investment managementdecisions typically revolve aroundinvesting in load-related assets, assetreplacement, quality of supply, meterreplacement and IT.

We observed large differences betweendistributors in terms of invested eurosper million euros of assets in presentvalue. This can naturally be a result ofpast investment decisions; however,some other reasons such as the qualityof supply targets, generation capacityconnected to the distributionnetwork, and regulation, can alsoinfluence the level of a DNO’sinvestment.

Not all DNOs invest optimally onreplacement (i.e. according to theirstated urgency for replacement),which can put at risk the safety oftheir ageing assets. Meter replacementis the most common cause forregulatory investment. It demandsDNOs to consider the best ways tocreate value from large investments innew meters.

Around 40% of the DNOs engage ininternational sourcing; however, morethan half of them still have not tappedthe benefits of purchasing globally.

Figure 6: Share (%) of Network / Customer Activities Outsourced

58%

49%

36%

36%

63%

65%

% of Network Activities Outsourced % of Customer Activities Outsourced

Top PerformingDNOs Top Performing

DNOs

AverageAverage

Low-performingDNOs

Low-performingDNOs

49%

37%

14%12%

69%

42% 42%38%

23%

12%8%

4% 4%

Type of network activity outsourced Type of network activity outsourced(% of outsourced activities belonging to the group)

PreventiveMaintenance

Assembly &Construction

Operations Repair

New

Co

nnec

tio

ns

Cal

l Cen

tre

Tro

uble

cal

lM

anag

emen

t/

Sup

ply

Cut

s

Bill

ing

Met

erin

gR

elat

edA

ctiv

itie

s

Div

ersi

ons

Aco

unts

Rec

eiva

ble

Man

agem

ent

Co

ntra

ctM

anag

emen

t

Mai

nten

ance

Figure 7: Type of functions outsourced (Network /Customer operations)

10

50€ 7€28€Average

55 days 2 days16 daysAverage

18h 0.50h4.30hAverage

7 times 0.01 times2Average

Cost per customer(excluding meterreading, PPP* adjusted)

• Even when excluding the most extreme results, the variation of cost per customer between the DNOs is very large• Variation may be concerned with differences in activity perimeter or disparities in the level of efficiency in customer management activities

Highest value Lowest value

• These variations could be partly due to the interpretation of the question (in a 2005 benchmarking study by CEER the variation was as large as from 1 day to 4 months)

• Several DNOs appear to be hugely more efficient in connecting new customers than others

• Average of 4.3h is aligned with the findings of CEER which suggest that the time commitment is around 3-6h• However, as this is one of the most critical "Moments of Truth" between the customer and distributor, it is worth investing in making improvements for those DNOs which response time is higher than the average

• One meter reading per year appears to be average according to other benchmarking studies• Nevertheless, leading DNOs have started to use smart metering which alows continuous meter readings and avoids manual work• Smart metering may therefore allow more acurate billing, reductions in the metering costs and better demand side management

Average accesstime to connect anew voltagecustumer

Time commitmentfor responding tosupply failure

Average time theDNO completes ameter reading of alow voltagecustomer in a year

* A PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods. It is often used to compare the standards of living between countries.

Figure 8: Comparison of Customer Service Activities within DNOs

There are areas for improvement inthe implementation of performancemanagement initiatives of some DNOsbecause of variances in the costefficiency results.

Demand Side ManagementAlready, 42% of DNOs are involved inDemand Side Management (DSM)activities.

DSM system technology may requirenew investment and new ways tocommunicate with customers (e.g. callcenters, communication and effectivemarketing to attract customers to takepart in the programs). The leadingDNOs have implemented carefullyplanned strategies to introducesophisticated DSM services.

More involvement in DSM offers anopportunity for DNOs to improvetheir long-term economicperformance. This is through betterconsumption efficiency that leads toless network-related investment.

DSM is an important part of energyefficiency and as such can significantlyassist in the overall European agendato combat climate change by loweringenergy consumption.

OutsourcingHighest performing DNOs tend tooutsource more of their network activitiesand less of their customer activities thantheir lower-performing peers. (seefigures 6 and 7 page 9)

Customer related activitiesThe level of quality of service variesdistinctly between the DNOs. Becausethere are many indirect benefits ofimproving customer satisfactionlevels, all DNOs should become moremotivated to make investments toimprove customer satisfaction.

A small group of DNOs haveembraced sophisticatedcommunication tools for customerssuch as online self meter reading.

Perfomance managementMost DNOs are involved inperformance managementinitiatives—73% have got AnnualEfficiency Targets and 50% haveimplemented a ContinuousImprovement Program.

Source: Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER), Third Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply (2005)



Definition of DNO PerformanceFor the purpose of this study, we havedefined DNO performance torepresent the distributor’s costefficiency in terms of those elementsof cost that the business has somedegree of control over. This consists ofthe customer and networkmanagement costs. The short-termfactors of these controllable costsconstitute the relevant scope ofcomparison. They include meterreading, customer and networkmanagement operations as well aselectrical losses.

Controllable factors can be correctlycompared and measured only afterseveral adjustments to normalize costsare applied. First, all structural (long-term) factors are adjusted. Thisincludes environmental conditionsand network characteristics such asconsumption density, network densityin this report network density isreferred to as network adjustment,and local operating environment(mountains, urban areas, etc.).Secondly, cost factors which dependon outside parties are adjusted. Thiscomprises lengths of undergroundcables against overhead lines, taxesand similar fees, and transmissionnetwork access charges. Lastly,network perimeter differences (i.e.different boundaries betweendistribution and transmissionnetworks) and the scale of activity istaken into account.

The costs for electrical lossescompensation or the depreciation andfinancial costs could be part of themeasured efficiency. However, theywill be compared separately.

Appendix: Methodology

DNO PerformanceBenchmarkingWhich DNOs perform relatively betterthan others? How can a DNO’sinternal performance be measured? Isit possible to compare performancewhen DNOs vary largely by size,regions they operate in, andconsumers they serve?

In order to make a relevantcomparison of the DNOs’ costs, weneeded, firstly, to adjust each DNO’scosts to correct differences that stemfrom structural characteristics andnon-controllable short-term factors.This included a correction to the mainexternal cost drivers (operatingenvironment, consumption densityand rate of underground/overheadlines) leading to an assessment of therelative level of network assets.

Secondly, we looked at the DNOs’short-term performance. We classifiedthe collected distribution cost itemsinto six main categories (networkoperating expense; customer activityexpense; depreciation and financialcost; cost from network loss; taxesand similar fees; transmission accessfees) and compared the differentcontrollable cost categories (networkoperation; customer services; networklosses compensation). Some of thesecosts depend on the amount ofnetwork assets while other costs aredirectly attributable to numbers ofcustomers or the distributed energy.Operating costs were also correctedfrom differences between countriesthat stem from Purchasing PowerParity rates.

Finally, we mapped all the costadjustments on a graph to illustrate inmore detail how each cost factorexplains the cost differences betweenthe DNOs. Thereby, we were able torank each DNO according to itsefficiency and estimate if there is anopportunity for improvement in itsperformance.

DNO SegmentationIn order to analyze the differentcharacteristics of the DNOs, wedivided them into three peer groups.These groups include:

• Small or medium-sized rural, semi-urban DNOs: Deliver less than 10TWh / year, with a consumptiondensity less than 10 GWh / km2

(with an average of 0.5 GWh / km2)and deliver energy to less than 1million customers. In our sample,there were 20 operators or regionalunits in this category

• Very urban DNOs: Their size is lessthan 1,000 km2 with aconsumption density greater than10 GWh / km2 (with an average of35 GWh / km2). In our sample,there were 5 operators in thiscategory.

• Regional and nationwide DNOs:Deliver more than 10 TWh a yearand cover an area of more than1,000 km2, delivering energy tomore than 1 million customers.Their average consumption densityis 0.8 GWh / km2. In our sample,there were 21 operators in thiscategory.

www.capgemini.com/energy

Copyright © 2008 Capgemini. All rights reserved.

Capgemini, one of theworld’s foremost providers of

consulting, technology and outsourcingservices, enables its clients to transformand perform through technologies.

Capgemini provides its clients withinsights and capabilities that boost theirfreedom to achieve superior resultsthrough a unique way of working—theCollaborative Business Experience®—and through a global delivery modelcalled Rightshore®, which aims to offerthe right resources in the right location atcompetitive cost. Present in 36 countries,Capgemini reported 2007 globalrevenues of EUR 8.7 billion and employsover 86,000 people worldwide.

With 1.15 billion euros revenue in 2007and 10,000+ dedicated consultantsengaged in Energy, Utilities andChemicals projects across Europe, NorthAmerica and Asia Pacific, Capgemini'sEnergy, Utilities & Chemicals GlobalSector serves the business consulting andinformation technology needs of many ofthe world’s largest players of thisindustry.

More information about our services, offices and research is available atwww.capgemini.com/energy.

About Capgemini and the Collaborative Business Experience

EU

C20

0802

01

For more information please contact:

Philippe CHANELCapgeminiEnergy, Utilities & Chemicals practiceTour Cœur Défense - 110 Esplanade duGénéral de Gaulle92931 Paris La Défense Cedex+33 (0)1 49 00 22 [email protected]

Jean-Jacques LIMOGESAdéquations32, rue de Ponthieu75008 Paris+33 (0)1 44 29 01 [email protected]

The Utilities Strategy Lab is a global network of sector-specific consultants and researchspecialists dedicated to generating insights into the Utilities industry. Lab activities include:

• Research points of views on emerging industry trends and topics,

• Continuous review of the Utilities Market (e.g. the European Energy MarketsObservatory is published once a year since 2001, providing hundreds of data points andinsight-rich analysis),

• Client specific strategic research and analysis.

Since 1997, Adéquations carries out many economic studies, in the field of electricitytransmission and distribution, based on its two main expertises:

• Econometric and statistic analyses which lead to the development of costs explanationmodels and efficiency assessment, known and recognized at the European level;

• International benchmarking (of costs, tariffs, performances, modes of regulationsystems...).

This point of view has benefited greatly from suggestions and comments from thefollowing Capgemini Energy Utilities & Chemicals team members: Philippe Coquet,Global Sector Utilities Strategy Lab Research Lead, Philippe David, Global SectorUtilities Consulting Lead, Oskar Almen, Utilities Consulting Services Sweden andKristina Makipere Consulting Services UK.

Overview of Electricity Distribution in Europe · 2017. 8. 22. · Fundamentals of electricity...

Documents

Transcript of Overview of Electricity Distribution in Europe · 2017. 8. 22. · Fundamentals of electricity...