SMART GRID FORUM KEY NOTE SEMINAR · SMART GRID FORUM KEY NOTE SEMINAR Assessing the Impact of low...
Transcript of SMART GRID FORUM KEY NOTE SEMINAR · SMART GRID FORUM KEY NOTE SEMINAR Assessing the Impact of low...
SMART GRID FORUM KEY NOTE SEMINAR
Assessing the Impact of low carbon technologies on Great Britain Distribution Networks
AGENDA
10.30-10.40 Welcome and Opening Remarks –Sandy Sheard
10.40-10.50 Introduction to the Smart Grid Forum – Steve Johnson
10.50-11.30 Smart Grid Forum – The Regulatory Drivers - Gareth Evans
11.30-11.50 Key Messages from the WS3 Phase 1 Report - John Scott
11.50-13.00 WS3 Model – Development and considerations - Dave A Roberts
13:00-13:15 Q&A
13.15 LUNCH
14.00-15.00 WS3 Model – Main findings and conclusions - Dave A Roberts
15.00-1530 Development of Model , Uses and Future WS3 Programme - Mike Kay
15.30 Q&A & Closing Remarks - Steve Johnson
Sandy Sheard Deputy Director, Future Electricity Networks, Department of Energy and Climate Change
The Smart Grid Forum Steve Johnson
Smart Grid Forum
5
• Set up by DECC and Ofgem in 2011 • Forum for initiating cross sector discussion and changes
associated with the move to smart grids as a response to the 2030/2050 energy challenges
• A successful first two years; future of the Forum will be reviewed at its January 2013 meeting.
insert file location/author/filename/version
Workstreams
6
• 1 – Assumptions and Scenarios – led by DECC – Suite of scenarios for heat pumps, electric vehicles, solar PV and wind
generation delivered December 2011. Currently being revised
• 2 – Evaluation Framework – led by Ofgem – Economic model developed and published June 2012. Economic
model also incorporated in WS3 model.
• 3 – Developing Networks for low carbon – led by DNOs – Phase 1 report published October 2012; Phase 2 – the Transform
model and report published July 2013.
• 4 – Closing Doors – Watching brief on policy developments – particularly active in smart
metering development
insert file location/author/filename/version
Workstreams - continued
7
• 5 – Ways of Working – Concerned with overall dissemination and retention of smart grid
knowledge
• 6 – Commercial and Regulatory – Just about to publish first formal report. WS6 very influential in the
development of Ofgem’s RIIO ED1 strategy and much of the WS’s thinking can be seen in Ofgem’s September ED1 strategy consultation.
insert file location/author/filename/version
Assessing the impact of low carbon technologies on Great Britain’s distribution networks
Smart Grid Forum The Regulatory Drivers
Gareth Evans Head of Profession – Engineering
Ofgem
12 November 2012
Smart Grid Forum The Regulatory Drivers
Overview
1.Smart Grids – why is Ofgem interested? 2.RIIO – ED1 3.Quantifying the value – WS2 4.Commercial and regulatory issues – WS6 5.Summary
10
Ofgem – our objectives • Our principal objective is to protect the interests of existing and
future customers in relation to gas conveyed through pipelines and electricity conveyed by distribution and transmission systems.
• Our Corporate Strategy (2010-2015) identified four themes: Contribute to the achievement of a low carbon energy sector Help to maintain the security of Britain’s energy supplies Promote consumer choice and value and protect vulnerable
customers Via Ofgem E-Serve, ensure the timely and efficient delivery of
government programmes for a sustainable energy sector
Ofgem is governed by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority – its responsibilities are set out in statute (such as the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Competition Act 1989,
the Utilities Act 200 and the Energy Act 2004, 2008 and 2010)
11
Smarter networks (aka smart grids)
our primary role • We regulate the monopoly network companies – we need to
ensure that they deliver value to their customers • Our interest in smart grids is driven by the potential benefits they
can bring to customers • We are technology neutral, but positive about innovation • Smart grids are a means to an end – not an end in themselves
Our role – to ensure that customers benefit from the opportunities that
smart grids can bring
RIIO ED1 – the next price control for electricity distribution networks
13
RIIO framework seeks to address these challenges
Constraint set up front to ensure:
Revenue
Deliver outputs efficiently over time with: Incentives
Technical and commercial innovation encouraged through:
Innovation
Outputs set out in clear ‘compact’, reflecting expectations of current and future consumers Outputs
=
+
+
Timely and efficient delivery
Network companies are
financeable
Transparency and
predictability
Balance between costs faced by current and future consumers
8 yr control Rewards/penalties for delivery Upfront efficiency rate
Core price control incentives
Option to give third parties a greater role in delivery
Innovation stimulus package
14
RIIO-ED1 Key Challenge
standard asset life
2020 targets
ED1 ED2
Driving factors • Feed-in tariffs • RHI • Other incentive mechanisms • Local planning rules • Technological developments & reductions in cost
Facilitating factors
• Investment to expand and reinforce the distribution network
• Greater use of smart grid technology & DSR to maximise network flexibility at minimum cost
uncertainty around the characteristics, rate and
location of take-up of these technologies
Issues to consider for ED1 • DNO approach to developing business plans – scenarios and investment justification • Outputs DNOs are required to deliver – longer term? • Barriers to DNOs adopting commercial arrangements to manage demand and generation output • Incentives and uncertainty mechanisms
Ensure low carbon technologies can connect in appropriate time at appropriate cost
15
RIIO ED1
Open letter consultation – 6 February
16
Flexibility & Capacity
Environment
Innovation
Reliability & Safety
Connections
Customer & Social
Financial
Cost Assessment
September Strategy
Consultation
ED1 Working Groups
17
RIIO-ED1 challenge How best to prepare for the low carbon future
• How will networks need to change to allow widespread
deployment of low carbon technologies? • How will customers adopt and use the new technologies? • How to design a strategy for RIIO-ED1 such that networks can
efficiently accommodate any of the DECC scenarios? • How to compare a variety of network solutions using whole
life/long term costs and benefits? • Whether solutions need to provide flexibility – for example using
DSR to delay an investment until the understanding of future demand is clearer?
• Whether there are benefits from upfront investment – ie in RIIO-ED1?
18
RIIO-ED1: milestones
2012 2013 2014
Launch consultation: Feb 2012
Strategy Consultation: Sept
Strategy Decision: Feb
Business plans submitted: July
Fast track Consultation: Oct
Fast track Decision: Feb
Draft Decision: July
Final Decision: Nov
policy development
Process building on learning from RIIO-T1 & GD1 Policies building on DPCR5 and outputs from Smart Grids Forum
Smart Grids Quantifying the value
20
The Smart Grids Forum Key Aims*
• Bring together key opinion formers, experts and stakeholders in the development of GB smart grids
• Provide strategic input to help shape Ofgem’s and DECC’s thinking and leadership in this area
• Help provide the network companies with a common focus in addressing future networks challenges
• The Forum will focus on the role that the electricity network will play, both technically and commercially, in the low carbon transition
*Paraphrased from full Terms of Reference
Key Task – Quantify Value
21
Year 1, Task 1 – to establish the benefits of smart grid solutions using an agreed view of the future and the
likely network solutions
WS1 Data &
Assumptions WS2 Evaluation
WS3 Network Solutions
Carbon Plan
WS3 Further
Evaluation
RIIO-ED1
DECC
Ofgem DNOs
22
To develop a set of credible assumptions and scenarios to build consensus on demand
networks are likely to meet to 2030...
• The Forum agreed that demand assumptions and scenarios
should be centred on DECC pathways to meet the Fourth Carbon Budget (2023-27).
• WS1 worked with policy teams in DECC and OLEV to agree data/analysis from the Carbon Plan work that can be used as inputs.
• This allowed us to provide rich data, including projections from now to 2030 of the uptake of technologies that can impact significantly on electricity distribution networks (electric vehicles, heat pumps, solar PV).
• These provided input to other Forum workstreams.
Source - DECC
WS1
23
• DECC provided 3 scenarios for each technology: Base – no market intervention Medium and high differ in terms of
the level of ambition and accompanying regulatory, technical and behavioural changes needed.
Technology trajectories combine to make Carbon Plan scenarios (“pathways”), all of which meet CB4.
• These trajectories have helped to define the boundaries of expectation, and gives DNOs a shared context to develop an investment strategy
• Also used in Smart Meters Programme and Electricity System Programme
Example of one of the technologies DECC provided data
on: projection of EV take-up
Source - OLEV
WS1
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
Nu
mb
er o
f e
lect
ric
veh
icle
s Low (4CBscenario 4)-fast andrapid charge
Medium(4CBscenario 1) -fast andrapid charge
High (4CBscenarios2&3) - fastand rapidcharge
SGF Work Stream 2
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/SGF/Pages/SGF.aspx
25
Smart Grids Evaluation Framework
• This is a VERY concise summary of a detailed piece of work • The evaluation framework allows different ‘smart’ network
investment strategies to be compared to a ‘conventional’ base case
• It incorporates a decision point at 2023 where the strategy can be changed so that the option value of decisions at 2012 can be taken account of
• It incorporates three background scenarios • It brings together work by DECC, Ofgem and the DNOs • This work has been taken forward and refined by SGF WS3 • The results produced DO NOT provide robust answers at this
stage but the evaluation framework is in place and, based on the current data, it provided an initial indication of the benefits of smart grids, now updated by WS3.
26
Three scenarios for supply and demand of electricity to 2050
Scenario 1: Domestic decarbonisation to meet carbon budgets
Scenario 2: Domestic decarbonisation to meet carbon budgets, with less DSR
Scenario 3: Less domestic decarbonisation (purchase of credits)
● Medium transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
● Medium transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Low levels of customer engagement with DSR
● Low transport electrification (WS1)
● Low heat electrification (WS1)
● “Slow Progression” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
Three scenarios representing alternative paths to 2050
Source: Frontier Economics
27
Net benefits by scenario, under default assumptions
All net benefits are relative to
undertaking the conventional strategy from 2012-2050
Source: Frontier Economics
Based on the initial assumptions made, smart strategies show material benefits for all scenarios
Published March 2012 – results now superseded by WS3 work
28
The small differences in the first period is not surprising, given our assumptions suggest that peak demand falls slightly until 2020
Net benefits of smart strategies compared to conventional in 2012, assuming you can change strategy in 2023
Under all scenarios, conventional strategy is marginally preferred in 2012. However, these differences are too small to be conclusive and are within the range of model uncertainty
Smart scenarios are still strongly preferred from 2023 (from when peak demand begins to rise sharply)
Source: Frontier Economics
More analysis is needed to better understand when to commence a smart investment strategy
Published March 2012 – results now superseded by WS3 work
29
Smart Grids Evaluation Framework
• These INITIAL results suggested that:
Smart grid solutions are likely to benefit customers as we develop our distribution networks toward 2050
More analysis is required to establish when it would be most cost effective to commence the widespread deployment of smart solutions
• The framework is valuable in helping us to better understand what drives the value of smart grids and which planning assumptions we should focus on to improve the outputs
• The goal is to get a common understanding between all key stakeholders before the DNOs submit their RIIO-ED1 business plans
Commercial and Regulatory Issues
Work Stream 6
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/SGF/Pages/SGF.aspx
31
WS6 Objectives
• Clarify the type of smart grid solutions which may be
implemented in RIIO-ED12 (as identified by work streams two and three of the SGF);
• Identify any potential regulatory and commercial barriers to implementing these smart solutions; and
• Propose options for removing these barriers including regulatory options, commercial arrangements and customer engagement.
32
WS6 – Challenges addressed
• Demand side response • Impacts on connection and use of system charging methodologies • Arrangements for storage • Electricity demand reduction • Evolution of DNOs to DSOs • Integrated energy systems
33
WS6 – Initial Conclusions
• Not a huge number of regulatory barriers to DNOs implementing smart grid solutions
• The main ones centre on engineering recommendations and charging methodologies, which DNOs have within their power to propose changes to.
• There may be a lack of commercial enablers to support smart grid solutions
• The trialling of such arrangements can provide an invaluable insight into what these enablers need to look like
• The work stream has gleaned some important lessons from ongoing LCN Fund trials and considers that there is more to be learnt as these projects mature and run to conclusion
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=11&refer=Networks/SGF/work-stream-6
Summary
35
Summary
• The SGF has successfully brought together Ofgem, DECC and the DNOs to address the smart grid challenges in a coherent way
• WS1 has provided foundation data consistent with the Carbon Budgets
• WS2 has catalysed a work programme to assess the benefits of smart grid solutions
• WS3 is taking this forward to provide valuable inputs to RIIO ED1 (more later today!)
• WS6 is addressing the commercial and regulatory issues arising from the outputs from WS3
36
37
Smart Grid Forum Seminar 12 November 2012
John Scott
Key Messages from the WS3 Phase 1 report “Developing Networks for Low Carbon: The Building Blocks for Britain’s Smart Grids”
38
Agenda
① Approach to the Phase 1 project
② The Headline findings
③ In Hindsight: any changes a year on?
A Summary & Perspective…..
39
Approach to Phase 1
Steered by a Smart Grid Forum WS3 stakeholder group
Funded and supported by the GB Electricity Network companies
Wider views taken from academia, industry and other interest groups
40
The Workstream 3 Phase 1 report
Workstream 3 Phase 1 – qualitative report, issued November 2011 Phase 2 – detailed cost/benefit model, issued July 2012 Phase 3 - currently in hand
www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/SGF/Documents1/Smart%20Grid%20Forum%20Workstream%203%20Report%20071011%20MASTER.pdf
41
The Smart Grid ‘Products’
42
Wor
k S
tream
3
Pro
ject
Met
hodo
logy
43
Wor
k S
tream
3
Pro
ject
Met
hodo
logy
44
Agenda
① Approach to the Phase 1 project
② The Headline findings
③ In Hindsight: any changes a year on?
A Summary & Perspective…..
45
Company Innovation Engagement
46
Wor
k S
tream
3
Sm
art G
rid E
volu
tion
47
Wor
k S
tream
3
Sm
art G
rid E
volu
tion
48
Wor
k S
tream
3
Sm
art G
rid E
volu
tion
49
The Scenarios drive the need case
• Traditional ‘economic scenarios’ are not adequate for networks. • Typical scenarios have energy forecasts (GWh), but it is peak power
demands (MW) that drive network reinforcement • Also, national forecasts tend to look for trends and so smooth out
local effects, such as clustering of electric vehicle charging activity, that will have significant impact on network capability.
• Regional analysis, rather than national, is a necessary minimum to identify the need for network reinforcement and/or for mechanisms to limit the impact of clustering on local peak demands
• In simple terms, ‘beware vanilla analysis’ of scenarios when considering power distribution networks.
50
Wor
k S
tream
3
Sce
nario
Impa
cts
51
Examples of the ‘Solution Sets’
52
Achieving Practical Delivery
• Solution Sets are introduced to provide a practical way forward
• They offer a systematic approach to network Business planning
• They are high level Functional Specifications
• They are adaptable to each company’s context
• They provide a basis for progressing the greater detail now needed • The Solution Set proposals are ambitious but credible • They are enablers for exports and new skilled new jobs, nationally.
53
Wor
k S
tream
3
Com
mer
cial
Opp
ortu
nitie
s
54
Wor
k S
tream
3
Som
e Te
chno
logy
Opp
ortu
nitie
s 12. Electricity storage devices of
several types and differing applications
13. Potential for hydrogen production and storage
14. Micro-grid control systems for intentional islanding utilising DERs
15. Phasor Management Units (PMUs)Wide Area Monitoring, Control and protection (WAMPACs)
16. Forecasting, modelling and visualisation for planning /operational timescales
17. State Estimation for network observability, including MV/LV
18. Distributed generation interfaces 19. Custom Private Networks 20. Microgrids & self-islanding 21. Hybrid technologies, inc elec,
gas, biogas, heat, Hydrogen
1. D-FACTS, STATCOMS, power electronic controllers
2. Solid State tap changers 3. Interconnection of D-STATCOMs
to create a controllable DC network overlay
4. DC networks at domestic, LV and MV including multi-terminal systems
5. Superconducting and other designs of fault current limiters
6. Soft Open Point power electronics
7. Intelligent switching logic and adaptive protection and control
8. Power electronics for synthetic inertia of generation & DC links
9. Solid State transformers 10. Inductive EV charging 11. Cyber-secure communications
and interfaces
55
Initial Thoughts – Strategic Investment Ahead of Need
• Discontinue tapering of LV networks • Make provision for rich communications links (e.g. optic fibre) • Revise LV planning assumptions for ‘average household demand’ • Enlarge the footprint of new LV substations for future additional
equipment, including storage, intelligent controls, and sensors • Reconsider the specification of package substations • Full review of network security policy standards (DG, DR and Storage) • Standardisation actions: for procurement efficiency, regulatory even
handedness, & user consistency. • However, the above must not disadvantage network companies in
regulatory benchmarking
56
Strategic and Elemental Development
• Elemental development provides the building blocks needed for investment planning.
• Strategic development is essential for combining the component parts into an effective whole.
• A Systems Approach to integrate both is needed to achieve the full benefits and to send coherent signals to markets and stakeholders.
57
Agenda
① Approach to the Phase 1 project
② The Headline findings
③ In Hindsight: any changes a year on?
A Summary & Perspective…..
58
Reflections One Year on
Each Solution requires validation and an investment case: LCNF projects are key for providing data and for managing risk
The ‘Systems Engineering’ requires further analysis (see the Tipping Points approach identified in Phase 2)
Scale ‘roll out’ is essential for delivering the benefits to consumers, but may be challenging for network companies
There are no simple projects! Stakeholders and Partners are key to success. Innovation opportunities expand continually.
59
and now for Phase 2...
John Scott, Director, Chiltern Power Ltd. www.chilternpower.com
+44 7771 975 623
Worksteam 3 Phase 1 report
Work Stream 3 – Phase 2
Assessing the Impact of Low Carbon
Technologies on Great Britain’s
Power Distribution Network
1. Development and Considerations
12th November 2012
WS3-Ph2: A consortium-led approach on behalf of the GB Smart Grid Forum (Work Stream 3)
61
Project Partners..
Working with..
Why WS3 initiated Phase 2
• GB network uncertainties
• The case for using innovative solutions to address the new challenges
• Irregular country-wide spread
• Different technologies pose different challenges to different networks
• Significant increase in number of potential solutions
62
What best to use, and When to use it… ? WS3 - Phase 1 report
Two Smart Grid Forum workstreams focus on the evaluation of smart grids
63
WS1: Assumptions and scenarios
Aims to establish the assumptions and scenarios necessary for the network companies to produce business plans that are consistent with DECC’s low carbon transition. Led by DECC.
WS1
WS2: Evaluation Framework
WS3: Developing Networks for Low Carbon
WS4: Closing Doors
WS5: Ways of Working
WS6: Commercial and Regulatory
Aims to develop an evaluation framework that can assess, at high level, alternative network development options. Led by Ofgem.
Aims to assess the network impacts of the assumptions and scenarios from WS1. Led by the DNOs.
Aims to identify credible risks to the development of smart grids as a consequence of forthcoming policy decisions which might fail to take full account of the necessary enablers for smart grid development.
Looks at how the Forum can best pursue its objectives and communicate effectively with stakeholders.
Brings together stakeholders to investigate the commercial and regulatory challenges of implementing the smart grid solutions.
WS3 builds on the framework developed in WS2
64
WS2: Evaluation Framework
WS3: Developing Networks for Low Carbon
• Real options-based evaluation framework.
• Flexible and transparent model, available from Ofgem
• More network types and network technologies.
• DNO-specific modelling
• Real-options elements not included
65
WS3 - Schematic Overview of Modelling
1. Networks (today)
66
Not all networks are equal: The headroom of the networks differ throughout GB
Factors include:
Build specification
Customer type and customer density
Local geography
67
There is no such thing as an ‘average’ network
• 6 x EHV • 7 x HV • 19 x LV
Network Geographical Area
Customer Density
Network Construction
Topology
EHV 1 Urban High Underground Radial
EHV 2 Urban High Underground Meshed
EHV 3 Suburban Medium Mixed Radial
EHV 4 Suburban Medium Mixed Meshed
EHV 5 Rural Low Overhead Radial
EHV 6 Rural Low Mixed Radial
Network Geographical Area
Customer Density
Network Construction
Topology
HV 1 Urban High Underground Radial
HV 2 Urban High Underground Meshed
HV 3 Suburban Medium Underground Radial
HV 4 Suburban Medium Underground Meshed
HV 5 Suburban Medium Mixed Radial
HV 6 Rural Low Overhead Radial
HV 7 Rural Low Mixed Radial
68
There is no such thing as an ‘average’ customer
CONSUMPTION PROFILE
ENVIRONMENT •Temperature •Solar Flux
BUILDING •Size •Heat loss •Glazing
APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT •Power Rating
• On/Standby •Efficiency •Programme/Cycle
USERS •Number •Activity Profile •Energy Efficiency Attitude
69
Domestic Heat Pump
Point load demand profiles differ according to in-home technology and geography
• Winter Peak, Winter & Summer Average • Weekday • Temperature Sensitivity • Appliance Type & Efficiency • Validation
Standard Tariff Domestic Domestic E7 Storage Heaters
Temperature Sensitivity
70
Hence, the mix of customers along a feeder has a significant impact on its overall demand profile
LV feeder demand profile
71
2. Scenarios
72
An uncertain world: Different mixes of large-scale generation will place different challenges on the conventional network design and operation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
GW o
f ins
talle
d ca
paci
ty
CCGT Coal CCGT CCSCoal CCS Nuclear Onshore windOffshore wind Other renewable
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
GW o
f ins
talle
d ca
paci
ty
CCGT Coal CCGT CCSCoal CCS Nuclear Other renewableOnshore wind Offshore wind
Installed capacity: medium decarbonisation scenario
Installed capacity: low decarbonisation scenario
73
Source: Redpoint analysis for the ENA based on National Grid ‘Slow Progress’ scenario to 2030 and extrapolated to 2050
Source: Redpoint analysis for the ENA, based on National Grid ‘Gone Green’ scenario
With disruptive technologies having scope to create significant challenge to LV networks
74
Heat Pumps
Photovoltaic
Electric Vehicles Source: SGF, WS1, DECC, Dec 2011
A
B
C
A B
C
PV uptake example
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Q12010
Q22010
Q32010
Q42010
Q12011
Q22011
Q32011
Q42011
MicroCHP pilot
Wind
Photovoltaics
Hydro
Anaerobicdigestion
2002
PV = 0MW
2012
PV = 600+ MW
75
There are clear differences between the technologies adopted in different parts of the UK
76
Regional breakdown of installed capacity by
technology (MW)
Source: FiTs Annual Review 2010-11, Ofgem E-Serve, 2012
Regional breakdown of current wind projects
Regionalisation within the model
77
• Regional variation in terms of housing stock and temperature allowances for different building loads
• “Attractiveness” of various LCTs differs across regions – PV can be selected to be more attractive in South and East
England than Scotland if desired, for example
Region 1 Scotland
Region 2
North West North East Yorkshire and the Humber West Midlands East Midlands
Region 3 Wales (incl Merseyside and Cheshire)
Region 4 South West South East East of England
Region 5 London
From GB to regional uptakes - examples
From national to regional uptakes
• Regionalisation performed for all technologies;
• Distinction between rural / suburban and urban areas
78
The ‘new’ low carbon technologies produce very different demand profiles
79
PV installations have clustered in different parts of GB
81
Percentage of network
Percentage of low-carbon technology installations
1% 9%
4% 17%
25% 48%
30% 22%
40% 5%
Number of domestic PV installations per 10,000 households by Local Authority, end of December 2011
Source: www.azure.eco.co.uk
Source: DECC
Clustering Levels
82
% of Network
3. Solutions
83
Fixing the problem: Selecting solutions with an increasing solution set
84
Conventional Solutions Conventional
Solutions
‘Business-As-Usual’ Investment
‘Smart’ Investment
Smart Solutions
Solution Enablers
“Lumpy” - high upfront costs, minimal running costs, long lives, produce step change in headroom
“Flexible” - lower upfront costs, some running costs, shorter lifetimes, smaller impact on headroom
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
00:00
01:30
03:00
04:30
06:00
07:30
09:00
10:30
12:00
13:30
15:00
16:30
18:00
19:30
21:00
22:30
Two methods to release headroom
0102030405060708090
100
00:00
01:30
03:00
04:30
06:00
07:30
09:00
10:30
12:00
13:30
15:00
16:30
18:00
19:30
21:00
22:30
Demand constant Increase capacity
Increase headroom e.g. RTTR
Reduce demand Capacity constant
Increase headroom e.g. DSR
85
Outlining the solution options, and making the link to LCN Fund projects
• Refined ‘conventional’ solution set • Expanded ‘smart’ solution set • Agreed a common language • Populated an initial digest of
solutions
Solution Category Count Representative 21 Variants 74 Enablers 108
Total: 203
86
4. The Model
87
Can consider up to four scenarios (present day to 2050)
88
Scenario 1: Domestic decarbonisation to meet carbon budgets
Scenario 2: Domestic decarbonisation to meet carbon budgets, with less DSR
Scenario 3: Less domestic decarbonisation (purchase of credits)
● Medium transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
● Medium transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Low levels of customer engagement with DSR
● Low transport electrification (WS1)
● Low heat electrification (WS1)
● “Slow Progression” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
As used for WS2
Scenario 0: High domestic decarbonisation
● High transport electrification (WS1)
● High heat electrification (WS1)
● “Gone Green” generation mix (National Grid )
● Medium levels of customer engagement with DSR
New for WS3
Three distribution network investment strategies
● Roll out of smart and conventional technologies, and associated control and communications architecture when required
Incremental smart grid investment
strategy
● Upfront investment in control and communications architecture
● Investment in smart and conventional technologies when required
Top-down smart grid investment
strategy
Key attributes
● High early investment ● Shorter asset lives
● Investments occur only when required ● Shorter asset lives
Description
The strategies determine the set of technologies available for deployment in each scenario
Under each scenario, technologies from each strategy will be deployed to fully accommodate supply and demand
Slide extracted from the SGF WS2 model 89
● Roll out of conventional technologies only, when required
Conventional investment
strategy
● Solutions tend to be more ‘lumpy’ (capital-intense and release more headroom)
● Longer asset lives
Solutions deployed on the basis of…
..headroom breaches:
90
Low Volts Lower Statutory limits
High Volts Upper Statutory limits
High Thermal limits Thermal limits of plant and circuits
High Fault Level Design fault level limits
Power quality issues The model could be expanded to include PQ against EU standards
Two Models: Two different purposes
91
Two models have been developed under this project, to reflect the different levels of granularity between GB and a DNO licence
*Transform™ is the supported framework developed by EA Technology to quantify the results described in the WS3-Ph2 report. It is available from EA Technology on a commercial basis; all funding Network Operators, DECC and Ofgem have a licence to use the software for future analysis
92
WS3 - Schematic Overview of Modelling
Further Questions
93
Dave A Roberts Future Networks Director EA Technology Ltd
e. [email protected] t. 0151 347 2318
Appendix
95
Building on the foundations laid in WS2
96
Network Element WS2 WS3
Network Topologies 3 (1x EHV, 1x HV, 3x LV) 100 most likely combinations
Clustering Groups 5 10
Daily load profiles 3 (summer mean, winter mean, winter peak) 3 (as per WS2 model)
Headroom spread 1 (average only) 3 (symmetrical : low/average/high)
LCT Technology Types 17 17 No. of solutions and variants c20 c200
CBA Wrapper WS2 WS3
Processed scenarios 3 (Low, Medium 1, Medium 2)
4* (Low, Medium 1, Medium 2,
High)
Investment strategies 3
(Incremental, Top-down, Counterfactual)
3 (Incremental, Top-down,
Counterfactual)
Real options analysis Yes No
*Model will be configured to calculate one scenario and three investment strategies at a time
Scope of model
WS 2 established a framework for the evaluation of smart grids
Networks Generation Demand
Real options CBA 2012-2050
1 Value drivers and scenarios 2
EVs
HPs
PV
Wind
Efficiency
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Investment strategies 4 Assessment of option value 5
Top-down smart grid
Incremental smart grid
Business as usual
Different lifetimes, lead
times and levels of sunk
costs
Decision 1: Before state of world is
known
Decision 2: Options
constrained by previous
decision Information
Time
Representative smart grid technologies 3
Electric Energy Storage
Dynamic Thermal Ratings
Enhanced Automatic Voltage Control
DSR Dynamic network reconfig.
Placeholders
WS2 found a significant net benefit associated with smart investments
• The net benefits in the smart strategies are almost entirely driven by distribution network investment savings
• The roll out of low-carbon technologies from the 2020s is the most important driver of net benefits
• The results are sensitive to assumptions on clustering
• Differences between strategies between up to 2023 are very small – the net benefits of smart strategies are delivered in the 2020s and beyond
98
Detailed Network Model Schematic
99
Questions
Lunch
Work Stream 3 – Phase 2
Assessing the Impact of Low Carbon
Technologies on Great Britain’s
Power Distribution Network
2. Main Findings and Conclusions
12th November 2012
Key Conclusions from WS3 Ph1 1. The potential impact of future GB energy scenarios on
power networks is material 2. The challenge ahead is technically demanding and of a
scale not seen in 50 years 3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer
cost-effective solutions 4. Innovation will need to be adopted in conjunction with
traditional network investment 5. Technology alone will not deliver the required outcomes:
Commercial and Regulatory frameworks, and consumer engagement will be key enablers
6. Enabling actions for the short term will accelerate advanced functionality in later years
7. Customers can expect attractive new services and products, including helpful energy automation to obtain the best deals and services
103
104
The developed model.. • uses scenarios taken from
WS1 and National Grid • is based on best available data
on GB’s electricity distribution network
• considers a range of (extensible) solutions
Input quality drives output validity
1. The potential impact of future GB energy scenarios on power networks is material
This is a parameter based model, considering the relationship between new loads and generation types (driven by scenarios) and available network headroom (voltage, thermal and fault level). The modelled inputs scale from 2012-2050.
105
The spread of (network related) investment from the model is significant
Spread of GB network related investment (non-discounted cumulative totex showing the two most extreme scenarios) to accommodate projections in Low Carbon Technologies connecting to the electricity distribution network
1. The potential impact of future GB energy scenarios on power networks is material
Changes to GB demand
106
Peak electricity demand for Scenario 1 showing the contribution of EV and HP load, together with the demand reduction effects of PV. The base load factors in both load growth and demand reduction
1. The potential impact of future GB energy scenarios on power networks is material
1. The potential impact of future GB energy scenarios on power networks is material
Scenarios help address uncertainty, but they are not a forecast
107
2. The challenge ahead is technically demanding and of a scale not seen in 50 years
108
Gross GB network related investment for the next four RIIO periods
Load related expenditure (LRE) – investment driven by changes in demand, i.e. that in response to new loads or generation being connected to parts of the network (connections expenditure) and investment associated with general reinforcement. Non-load related expenditure (NLRE) – other network investment that is disassociated with load. LNRE and LRE have simply been assumed to be 8/5th of the DPCR5 values for the extended RIIO periods
2. The challenge ahead is technically demanding and of a scale not seen in 50 years
Investment will require step changes
109
Gross GB network related investment for the next four RIIO periods
Load related expenditure (LRE) – investment driven by changes in demand, i.e. that in response to new loads or generation being connected to parts of the network (connections expenditure) and investment associated with general reinforcement. Non-load related expenditure (NLRE) – other network investment that is disassociated with load. LNRE and LRE have simply been assumed to be 8/5th of the DPCR5 values for the extended RIIO periods
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
We consider two smart strategies
110
Incremental (Smart) Top-Down (Smart) The smart grid case of conventional and smart solutions, where investment only occurs as and when networks reach their headroom limits. Enablers are deployed alongside the solution variants on an incremental basis.
The smart grid case of conventional and smart solutions, where an upfront investment of enabler technologies is deployed in advance of need, followed by investment as and when networks reach their headroom limits.
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
Smarter strategies appear most cost effective
111
Summary of present value of gross totex of distribution network investment (2012-2050)
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
Further detail showing the increase in investment levels between RIIO-ED1 and ED2
112
Scenario 1 (Mid) Scenario 3 (Low)
Several sensitivities have been analysed
113
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
Dominant factors #1: Impact of clustering
114
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
Conventional investment strategy only (Business-As-Usual approach)
Smart investment strategies Incremental
Top-Down
• Model assumes FiT style clustering as default
• FiT is already highly clustered • Different cluster patterns give rise
to different investment profiles
Note the change of scale between the three charts
Dominant factors #2: EV charging profiles
115
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
• TSB data suggests a ~1kWe increase in residential ADMD
• Doubling the profile has a substantial impact on the output
TSB Ultra-Low Carbon Vehicles Demonstrator Programme, Initial Findings, 2011 • 8 consortia running projects • Including 19 vehicle manufacturers • 340 vehicles (electric, pure hybrid and fuel cell vehicles). • 110,389 individual journeys (from December 2009 to June 2011) • 677,209 miles travelled (1,089,862 km) • 19,782 charging events • 143.2 MWh of electricity consumed
diversified EV charging profiles
EV charging profiles (by charging capacity, per vehicle)
EV usage and statistics taken from TSB ULCVD programme
4. Innovation will need to be adopted in conjunction with traditional network investment The smart solutions sit alongside conventional reinforcement options
116
Conventional solutions only (the ‘Business-As-Usual’ approach)
Overview of solutions selected (cumulative, undiscounted totex): For the three investment strategies (Scenario 1)
Smart Incremental
Smart Top-Down
4. Innovation will need to be adopted in conjunction with traditional network investment
Many more solutions are considered in the smart grid future
117
Note: • The modelling shown should be regarded
as indicative-only for the selection of specific solutions.
• Solutions will move in their merit order as they mature and as network conditions develop.
• In practice, technology solutions should be adopted on their individual and local merits with individual business cases for technology investment remaining as key to decision-making and selection.
Summary of investment in all solutions selected within the ED1 and ED2 periods for each investment strategy
End ED1 End ED2 End ED1 End ED2 End ED1 End ED22022 2030 2022 2030 2022 2030
Active Network Management - Dynamic Network Reconfiguration -£ -£ 103.2£ 174.1£ 103.2£ 174.1£ D-FACTS -£ -£ 110.0£ 391.6£ 110.0£ 449.0£ DSR -£ -£ 1.8£ 231.1£ 1.8£ 231.1£ Electrical Energy Storage -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ Embedded DC Networks -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ EAVC -£ -£ 0.2£ 1.4£ 0.2£ 1.4£ Fault Current Limiters -£ -£ 4.7£ 63.2£ 4.7£ 63.2£ Generator Constraint Management -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ Local smart EV charging infrastructure -£ -£ 3.4£ 155.4£ 3.4£ 155.4£ New Types Of Circuit Infrastructure -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ Permanent Meshing of Networks -£ -£ 5.6£ 2,650.8£ 5.6£ 2,650.8£ RTTR -£ -£ 16.6£ 145.6£ 16.6£ 435.1£ Switched capacitors -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ -£ Temporary Meshing -£ -£ 3.6£ 42.2£ 3.6£ 42.2£ Split Feeder 82.5£ 6,535.1£ 42.1£ 800.4£ 42.1£ 885.7£ New Split Feeder -£ 10.2£ -£ -£ -£ -£ New Transformer 450.0£ 2,465.6£ 64.7£ 1,615.5£ 64.7£ 1,615.5£ Minor Works 186.0£ 3,557.4£ 79.0£ 512.6£ 79.0£ 377.3£ Major Works 92.4£ 232.8£ -£ -£ -£ -£ Comms & Control Platforms between variant solutions -£ -£ 3.3£ 195.3£ 5.0£ 5.0£ DNO to DSR aggregator enablers -£ -£ 0.9£ 103.9£ 3.3£ 3.3£ Network Measurement Devices -£ -£ 11.8£ 390.9£ 303.4£ 303.4£ DCC to DNO communications and platforms -£ -£ -£ -£ 132.8£ 132.8£ Phase imbalance measurement -£ -£ -£ -£ 43.2£ 43.2£ Weather / ambient temp data -£ -£ 29.1£ 917.2£ 0.8£ 0.8£ Design tools -£ -£ -£ -£ 0.5£ 0.5£ Protection and remote control -£ -£ -£ -£ 31.5£ 31.5£ TOTAL (£m) 811£ 12,801£ 480£ 8,391£ 955£ 7,602£
Conventional SolutionSmart SolutionSmart Enabler
Cumulative Gross totex costs (£m)Business-As-Usual Smart Incremental Smart Top-Down
Key
4. Innovation will need to be adopted in conjunction with traditional network investment
Other benefits to society, such as reduced wirescape or disruption, are likely
118
Summary showing the differences in the amount of underground cable and overhead line selected for deployment between the three investment strategies (all based on Scenario 1)
By 2022
By 2030
By 2050
5. Technology alone will not deliver the required outcomes: Commercial and Regulatory frameworks, and consumer engagement will be key enablers Solutions need to be developed with a range of stakeholders
119
*Under the modelled ‘default’ assumptions **Not drawn out in the averaged GB model – as generation per HV / EHV feeder is low (also a LRE solution) ***EES not selected by the WS3 model based on default assumptions owing to its high initial costs, compounded by a 66% optimism bias (driving a high cost function and low position in the merit order)
Output from WS3
model*
Customer engagement
Regulatory frameworks
Commercial frameworks
Demand Side Response £230m Yes Possible Yes
Generation Side Response £0m** Yes
Electrical Energy Storage £0m*** Possible Yes
Key solutions in the WS3 model that require dialogue with non-DNO stakeholders
6. Enabling actions for the short term will accelerate advanced functionality in later years
Investment is likely to be needed in RIIO-ED1, in readiness for later years • Networks can cope with
small penetrations of LCT • Rapid increase in
investment in ED2 • A challenge to DNOs to
gear up and deliver solutions on the ground
120
Totex investment (gross cumulative) of all scenarios until the end of RIIO-ED2 period associated with facilitating the Low Carbon Technology update
6. Enabling actions for the short term will accelerate advanced functionality in later years The top-down smart strategy appears optimal, and should be investigated further
121
Top-down investment currently assumes all enablers are invested in over five years (2015-2020) with reinvestment after 20 years (assumed to be 50% of the original cost)
Enabler Name Top Down Cost (initial1)
Advanced control systems £ 2,000,000
Communications to and from devices £ 1,000,000
Design tools £ 300,000
DSR - Products to remotely control loads at consumer premises £ 500,000
DSR - Products to remotely control EV charging £ 1,000,000
EHV Circuit Monitoring £ 600,000
HV Circuit Monitoring (along feeder) £ 400,000
HV Circuit Monitoring (along feeder) w/ State Estimation £ 300,000
HV/LV Tx Monitoring £ 20,000,000
Link boxes fitted with remote control £ 10,000,000
LV Circuit Monitoring (along feeder) £ 50,000,000
LV Circuit monitoring (along feeder) w/ state estimation £ 20,000,000
LV feeder monitoring at distribution substation £ 30,000,000
LV feeder monitoring at distribution substation w/ state estimation £ 20,000,000
RMUs Fitted with Actuators £ 6,000,000
Communications to DSR aggregator £ 500,000
Dynamic Network Protection, 11kV £ 3,000,000
Weather monitoring £ 500,000
Monitoring waveform quality (EHV/HV Tx) £ 4,000,000
Monitoring waveform quality (HV/LV Tx) £ 8,000,000
Monitoring waveform quality (HV feeder) £ 4,000,000
Monitoring waveform quality (LV Feeder) £ 10,000,000
Smart Metering infrastructure - DCC to DNO 1 way £ 10,000,000
Smart Metering infrastructure -DNO to DCC 2 way A+D £ 20,000,000
Smart Metering infrastructure -DNO to DCC 2 way control £ 50,000,000
Phase imbalance - LV dist s/s £ 10,000,000
Phase imbalance - LV circuit £ 20,000,000
Phase imbalance -smart meter phase identification £ 10,000,000
Phase imbalance - LV connect customer, 3 phase £ 1,000,000
Phase imbalance -HV circuit £ 500,000
TOTAL £ 313,600,000
*Initial estimates made in the default case of the model. The above figures do not factor in optimism bias (taken as 66%)
Summary of present value of gross totex of distribution network investment (2012-2050)
(a) 2012 to end RIIO-ED1 (2022)
(b) 2012 to end RIIO-ED2 (2030)
Top-down is shown to be more economic overall, but requires greater investment in the early years
7. Customers can expect attractive new services and products, including helpful energy automation to obtain the best deals and services
Demand Side Response (in particular) has the potential to play a significant role, but is sensitive to cost assumptions
122
Winter peak load in 2030, before and after DSR, cost set at 2p/kWh
Winter peak load in 2030, before and after DSR, cost set at 20p/kWh
National DSR: impact of different price points
The more you have to pay customers for DSR, the less the national benefit (i.e. it becomes more economic to build new power stations)
Tipping points have been identified and ‘learning curve’ benefits indicate further overall cost improvement here
123
2050 - CENTRAL CASE (SCENARIO 1) BAU Incremental Top-DownScenario 1 - Central Case 18,745,682,978£ 12,558,619,924£ 11,539,923,735£ With Tipping Points Applied 18,745,682,978£ 12,443,377,906£ 11,164,349,119£
Benefit (£) -£ 115,242,018£ 375,574,616£ Benefit (%) 0% 1% 3%
Network Name Year Reached1 Active Network Management - Dynamic Network Reconfiguration - HV 20172 Distribution Flexible AC Transmission Systems (D-FACTS) - HV 20203 Permanent Meshing of Networks - LV Urban 20234 Permanent Meshing of Networks - LV Sub-Urban 20235 DSR - DNO to residential 20246 Permanent Meshing of Networks - HV 20247 Fault Current Limiters_HV reactors - mid circuit 20268 Local smart EV charging infrastructure_Intelligent control devices 20269 Temporary Meshing (soft open point) - HV 2026
10 RTTR for HV Overhead Lines 202911 RTTR for HV/LV transformers 202912 D-FACTS - HV connected STATCOM 203013 RTTR for HV Underground Cables 203614 RTTR for EHV/HV transformers 203715 EAVC - LV PoC voltage regulators 203816 D-FACTS - LV connected STATCOM 203917 Distribution Flexible AC Transmission Systems (D-FACTS) - EHV 203918 Active Network Management - Dynamic Network Reconfiguration - EHV 204219 Temporary Meshing (soft open point) - LV 204220 D-FACTS - EHV connected STATCOM 204521 RTTR for EHV Overhead Lines 204922 RTTR for EHV Underground Cables 2050
8. Other observations
Financial triggers for GB model in default case: • EHV - £50m • HV - £30m • LV - £20m
..But further work is required
Present value of gross totex of distribution network investment (2012-2050)
Year the smart solutions reach their ‘tipping point’
User definable threshold
An assumption of a further 10% reduction in cost after the tipping point threshold is reached
8. Other observations
DNO licence-specific modelling is available
124
Two models have been developed under this project, to reflect the different levels of granularity between GB and a DNO licence
The models outputs are only as good as the models inputs
125
Feeder
Parameters
Scenarios
Solutions
National scenario dataset(s) - WS1 (DECC) GB regionalisation
- WS1 (DECC) - WS3 (Ph3.2) - DNOs - Other datasets (FiT, RHI, DfT, etc)
Feeder loads - DNOs (specific analysis /
LCN Fund projects) Smart Solutions - DNOs (LCN Fund projects) - OEMs
Smart Enablers - WS3 (Ph 3.4) - OEMs - Other (Smart Metering / DCC
contract / LCN Fund projects)
Point loads - OEMs - Specific analysis (e.g. HP, EV
operating regime) - DNOs (LCN Fund projects)
Where refinements in the input datasets are likely to come from:
8. Other observations
Further Questions
126
Dave A Roberts Future Networks Director EA Technology Ltd
e. [email protected] t. 0151 347 2318
Appendix
128
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
WS2 Results WS3 Results
129
NB. ‘BAU’ (Business-As-Usual) is used as shorthand for the conventional solutions
Comparison shown on the next slide
Note the change of scale
3. Innovative products and architectures (smart grids) offer cost-effective solutions
Comparison to WS2 • The headline numbers
are different • A result of:
– more variables – different datasets – Improved
assumptions
130
Illustrative waterfall diagram drawing out the dominant changes between the WS2 and WS3 model outputs
Using the model – and its developments Mike Kay
Two Principle Uses
132
A focus for theoretical developments for smart grids Means of informing the next Distribution Price Control (RIIO ED1)
insert file location/author/filename/version
Three key developments underway
133
All relatively short term – ie complete early in the new year – driven by the RIIO ED1 timetable • Identify and assess enabling investments • Develop tipping point analysis • Identify any early investment in ED1
insert file location/author/filename/version
Two administrative developments
134
Split the model out from 5 regions into 14 DNO licence areas Create a governance framework
insert file location/author/filename/version
Enabling Investments
135
Essentially a review of the existing smart solutions Update with learning from LCNF projects Update with current thinking Incorporate any updates into the Transform model Work being led by Smarter Grid Solutions
insert file location/author/filename/version
Tipping Points
136
Again a review of how this is currently modelled - is this implemented in the most effective way? Linked to the development of Enabling Investments Update the model to reflect current understanding Work being led by GridScientific
insert file location/author/filename/version
ED1 Early Investment
137
NPV and/or qualitative analysis of longer term implications from the modelling of the post ED1 period. This task comes later and will build on both the existing Transform model and the developments in thinking for the previous two tasks, Work to be led by EATL.
insert file location/author/filename/version
Governance of the WS3 model and datasets
138
The models outputs are only as good as the models inputs
insert file location/author/filename/version
2. Feeder
Parameters
Where refinements in the input datasets are likely to come from:
Feeder loads - DNOs (specific analysis /
LCN Fund projects)
Point loads - OEMs - Specific analysis (e.g. HP, EV
operating regime) - DNOs (LCN Fund projects)
1. Scenarios
3. Solutions
GB regionalisation - WS1 (DECC) - WS3 (Ph3.2) - DNOs - Other datasets (FiT, RHI, DfT, etc)
Smart Solutions - DNOs (LCN Fund projects) - OEMs
Smart Enablers - WS3 (Ph 3.4) - OEMs - Other (Smart Metering / DCC
contract / LCN Fund projects)
2. Feeder
Parameters
National scenario dataset(s) - WS1 (DECC)
WS3 Model Ownership & Responsibilities
139
insert file location/author/filename/version
The Model
GB dataset GB DNO licence specific datasets
What Transform™ (the modelling platform used for WS3-Ph2)
All ‘vanilla’ datasets contained in the model specific for the GB
The DNO tailored datasets (e.g. network data, company specific adjustments, etc)
Who EA Technology SGF (described below)
Individual DNO licence holders
Responsible for.. Maintenance and mechanics of the modelling platform and software coding. Version control of model(s)
Agreement of the input datasets, through a formal process
Tweaking the DNO models to suit individual licence requirements
Duration In perpetuity For as long as required For as long as required
Transform™ is the registered trademark of the modelling platform developed by EA Technology that underpins the ‘WS3 model’
Governance Overview
140
A cycle of… An open period
• Whereby any party can submit a recommendation for a change
A review panel (WS3) • To agree the changes in input
parameters
A rerun of the model • To understand the implications • The population of an agreed report
template
Issue of results • Release of the report via SGF* • Release of the updated model to all
licensed users
insert file location/author/filename/version
• A three year task • Three review cycles in year 1, reducing
thereafter • Costed for the first 12 months • Governed by WS3 Review Panel
WS3 – Work Plan
141
Principle component of Plan is the development and maintenance of the Transform model. There are a number of other smart grid development issues that probably need to be taken forward. January Smart Grid Forum will review all work streams’ future plans.
insert file location/author/filename/version
Q&A & Closing Remarks Steve Johnson, Chief Executive, Electricity North West