Transcript Document

Capacity to Customers
Dissemination Event
27 January 2015
1
Steve Cox
Head of Engineering
2
Housekeeping
Mobile phones
Breaks
FIRE
?
Fire alarms
Main Q&A
at end of day
3
Connecting the North West
£12 billion of network assets
4.9 million
2.4 million
25 terawatt
hours
4
Our innovation strategy
Offer new
services and
choice for the
future
‘Fit and forget’
Generate
value for
customers
now
Maximise
use of existing
assets
Delivering
value to
customers
Proven
technology
deployable
today
Innovative
solutions
to real
problems
5
Our smart grid development
Leading work on developing smart solutions
Deliver value
from existing
assets
Customer choice
Four flagship products (second tier)
£36 million
Capacity to
Customers
C2C, CLASS and Smart Street demonstrate demand response
6
Agenda
C2C
Introduction
Technical and
academic overview
Customer research
(technical impact)
Lunch
Customer research
(commercial)
Commercial review
and case studies
Summary and
next steps
7
What is Capacity to Customers?
Capacity to Customers unlocks latent capacity on the electricity network
Capacity
to Customers
Technical
innovation
Utilised
capacity
Current
demand
New commercial
contracts
Latent
capacity
Combines proven technology
and new commercial contracts
Facilitates connection of new
demand and generation
without reinforcement
Remote control equipment on
HV circuit and close the NOP
Enhanced network
management software
Effectively doubles the
available capacity of the circuit
Innovative demand side
response contracts
Allow us to control a
customer’s consumption on a
circuit at the time of fault
8
C2C structure and partners
Technology
build
Trials and
research
Customer
engagement
Learning and dissemination
9
Traditional network design
F
A
B
E
C
D
Normal open point
10
C2C network design
F
A
B
E
C
D
Automated restoration software
Remote automation
Mid-point closed
11
Quality of supply innovation
Fault statistics for HV circuits
HV
2500
3,600
80%
20%
Cumulative faults
2000
1500
1000
500
Faults
HV
circuits
1000
2000
3000
Number of circuits
12
The C2C concept
New customers
Existing customers
Reduced charge
for connecting to
the network
A variable revenue
stream dependent
upon level of flexibility
13
Key hypotheses
Demand
reduction
Creates a post
fault demand
response
capability
Active
network
management
Network
automation
creates self
healing
capability and
facilitates
capacity
release
Efficiency
Defers/
optimises
reinforcement
and reduces
carbon
intensity
Domestic
customers
Commercial
customers
Closed ring
configuration is
acceptable to
customers
Existing or new
customers
can directly
benefit
financially by
providing the
demand
response
14
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
15
Paul Turner
Programme Manager
16
Agenda
C2C
Introduction
Technical and
academic overview
Customer research
(technical impact)
Customer research
(commercial)
Commercial review
and case studies
Summary and
next steps
17
How C2C fault management works
NOP
NOP
NOP
18
How C2C fault management works
C2C events per year:
Maximum duration per event:
C2C event start time:
2
Protected day:
1 day, on Friday, August 10, 2014
8 hours
Protected time:
09:00 to 17:00
15 minutes
Current events per year:
0
19
How C2C fault management works
00:00:00
20
How C2C fault management works
00:00:30
21
How C2C fault management works
00:00:45
22
How C2C fault management works
RESTORATION
38 %
00:01:00
23
How C2C fault management works
RESTORATION
75 %
00:03:00
24
How C2C fault management works
RESTORATION
75 %
00:45:00
25
How C2C fault management works
RESTORATION
88 %
00:47:00
26
How C2C fault management works
RESTORATION
88 %
00:48:00
27
How C2C fault management works
RESTORATION
100 %
00:50:00
28
How C2C fault management works
C2C events per year:
Maximum duration per event:
C2C event start time:
2
Protected day:
1 day, on Friday, August 10, 2014
8 hours
Protected time:
09:00 to 17:00
15 minutes
Current events per year:
1
29
Restoration time
NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
RESTORATION TIME
RESTORATION
00:01:00
38 %
00:03:00
75 %
00:47:00
88 %
00:50:00
100 %
30
Architecture
SCADA
CIM/SOAP
NETWORK
MODEL
31
P2/6 change consultation
Recognise
……
Gather
views
…
Short term
Granted
Mixed
views
……
customer
load
modification
to P2/6,
management
and
on
ability
of ER
P2/6
explicitly
including
a
from
P2/6
allderogation
DNOs
regarding
demand
response
‘Security
of
Supply’
effects
of2side
DSR
on
the
the
need
C
C
for
trial
this
circuits
derogation
32
C2C academic research
How …
When …
What …
£
… does
the network
perform ... ?
… is it cost
effective ...?
… is the carbon
impact ... ?
33
Steven Blair
University of Strathclyde
34
Network performance results overview
Main objectives – C2C hypotheses
Overview of results and analysis
Demand
capacity
DG capacity
Losses
Power quality
Fault levels
35
Applicable C2C hypotheses
Customers
Reduces power
losses
Quality
Release
significant
capacity to
customers from
existing
infrastructure
Reduce like-forlike power losses
initially but this
benefit will
gradually erode
as newly released
capacity is utilised
Improve power
quality resulting
from stronger
electrical
networks
36
Assessing the base case
37
Assessing impact of network configuration
Radial
C2C
Interconnected
C2C
38
Assessing the impact of demand growth
39
C2C demand capacity – uniform growth
40
C2C demand capacity – uniform growth
Average increase
in demand capacity:
+ 59% radial
+ 66% interconnected
41
C2C demand capacity – “point” load growth
42
C2C DG capacity
43
C2C DG capacity
Average increase
in DG capacity:
+ 175% radial
+ 225% interconnected
44
Losses – as demand increases
Interconnected C2C
“activated”
NOP closed
45
Losses – effect of network configuration
46
Losses – summary of results
(for maximum connected demand)
47
Power quality monitoring
77 “PQube” devices
installed for C2C trial
Three-phase voltage and
current measurements
THD and flicker
Objectives
•
•
•
Validate data
Compare radial vs. interconnected operation
Can C2C operation affect power quality?
48
Quantifying impact of C2C on power quality
Validate time
synchronisation
Find observation windows
for fair comparison
Ensure data windows are
complete
49
C2C: change in power quality?
Radial C2C
Interconnected C2C
THD
Flicker
(Pst)
Minor impact on THD and flicker
50
Change in THD: theoretical results
Monte Carlo
simulations
Randomised:
• Feeder impedances
• Harmonic injection
• Demand
51
Fault levels for C2C operation
Three causes of potential increase in fault level:
Fault-contributing demand growth
(motors)
DG growth
Interconnection – reduced
fault path impedance
Must investigate increase at:
• Primary substations
• NOPs
52
Fault level increase
+12%
Interconnected
operation
~1% at primary
~12% at NOP
C2C adds,
at most
+12% at primary
+22% at NOP
As of 2014,
most circuits at
+22%
HV design
fault level
60% of design rating at
primary
10-50% of design rating
at NOP
250 MVA
53
Conclusions
Reduction due
to
Interconnected
Interconnected
C2C operation
C2C has very Fault levels are
C2C operation
generally
little observable
unlikely to
releases more
impact on
constrain C2C
Maximum
Up to 225%
capacity than
power quality
adoption
~0.3% increase
increase in DG
Radial C2C
in losses (as %
capacity
of demand)
Up to 66%
increase in
demand
capacity
Results depend significantly on circuit topology and load/DG locations
There are no “typical” circuits
54
Visualisation of C2C monitoring data
http://c2c.eee.strath.ac.uk/
55
Eduardo Martinez-Cesena
University of Manchester
56
Objectives and outline
Objectives
Present the
developed
distribution
network
expansion
assessment
framework and
underlying
results
Highlight the
conditions that
allow C2C to be
applied
Outline
Background: Traditional distribution
planning and the C2C method
Investment assessment:
Ofgem’s CBA framework
Methodology:
Proposed CBA framework
Results:
The 36 TRIAL networks
57
Current distribution planning paradigm
(a) Normal operation
NOP
(open)
(b) Contingency
NOP
(open)
(c) Emergency
NOP
(closed)
Traditional practices lead to costly investments in spare capacity to
comply with security criteria l This spare capacity is seldom used
58
The C2C method – overview
Traditional
C 2C
Loads:
Inflexible
Interruptible
Loads:
Inflexible
NOP
(normally open)
Constraints:
Preventive security
Thermal
Voltage
Expectations:
–
Automated NOP
(normally closed)
DSR
DSR
Constraints:
Corrective security
Thermal
Voltage
Expectations:
Increased capacity
Lower CI and CML
Reduced power losses
The C2C method facilitates the evolution from passive and preventive to
active and corrective distribution networks
59
CBA – Overview and drawbacks
Ofgem released a Cost
Benefit Analysis (CBA)
framework for the
assessment
investments at the
distribution level
££
!
Facilitates consistent
assessment and
comparison of different
investment options,
such as reinforcements
and the C2C method
CBA is deterministic
Assessment is
dependent on scenario
characteristics of the
solution objectives
No systematic
approach to formulate a
baseline or other
investment strategies is
provided
60
CBA methodology – generalities
The proposed approach is based on Ofgem’s CBA, detailed DSR models,
demand growth scenarios and bespoke simulation and optimisation engines
61
Methodology – Imperfect forecasts
25
Scenario 1
Imperfect forecasts
Demand growth (%)
20
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
15
Scenario 4
10
5
Scenario 5
0
1
6
11
16
21
Time period (years)
62
Simulated investment strategies
Baseline
Traditional line and
substation
reinforcements needed
whenever firm capacity
is approached
C 2C
Closure of NOP and
investments in network
automation and DSR
needed to defer or
avoid investments
recommended by the
baseline and traditional
reinforcements only
when DSR has been
exhausted
63
Optimised investment strategies
NPCI NPCI+S
OSI (Optimal
OSS (Optimal
investment Scheme
investment Scheme
based on the NPCI):
based on the NPCI+S):
Optimal combinations of Optimal combination of
traditional line and
traditional line and
substation
substation
reinforcements and C2C reinforcements and C2C
interventions to
interventions to
minimise investment
minimise investment
costs
and social costs
64
Simulation and optimisation engines
Scen.
2
Baseline
C2C
Upgrade
Year
Line1-2
Substation
Line2-3
4
5
15
NPCI:669 k£
NPCI+S:1265 k£
4
Line1-2
Substation
9
10
NPCI:452 k£
NPCI+S:1039 k£
5
Line1-2
5
NPCI:227 k£
NPCI+S:780 k£
OSI
Upgrade
Year
Upgrade
C2C
Substation
Line1-2
5
17
17
C2C
Line1-2
Substation
NPCI:623 k£
NPCI+S:1053 k£
C2C
10
NPCI:241 k£
NPCI+S:712 k£
C2C
6
NPCI:55 k£
NPCI+S:468 k£
OSS
Year
Upgrade
5
17
17
C2C
Line1-2
Substation
NPCI:606 k£
NPCI+S:1232 k£
C2C
10
NPCI:226 k£
NPCI+S:853 k£
C2C
6
NPCI:39 k£
NPCI+S:632 k£
Year
1
17
17
NPCI:626 k£
NPCI+S:1021 k£
C2C
1
NPCI:247 k£
NPCI+S:645 k£
C2C
1
NPCI:59 k£
NPCI+S:428 k£
65
C2C study results
All demand
The substation
Line
DSR
profiles were
is assumed to reinforcement availability was
scaled up to
have a
costs were
assumed to be
trigger line
headroom of assumed to be 1, 2 or 5 blocks
reinforcements 3%, 8%, 18%
100%, 50%
(0.5 MW each
after an
and 40%
and 25% of
block)
additional 3%
their calculated
demand growth
value
66
Assessment of the 36 trial networks
NPCI as a function of line reinforcement costs
350
300
NPCI
250
200
150
NPCI as a function of line reinforcement costs
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
Line reinforcement costs (%)
Baseline
C2C
OSI
100
120
OSS
67
Assessment of the 36 trial networks
NPCI as a function of substation headroom
500
NPCI
400
300
NPCI as a function of line reinforcement costs
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
Substation headroom (%)
Baseline
C2C
OSI
40
50
OSS
68
Assessment of the 36 trial networks
NPCI as a function of DSR availability
350
300
NPCI
250
200
150
NPCI as a function of line reinforcement costs
100
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Maximum amount of DSR blocks available
Baseline
C2C
OSI
6
OSS
69
Concluding remarks
£
C2C based investment
The optimised
Under the baseline
strategies tend to
investment strategies
assumptions, the C2C
outperform the baseline (ie, OSI and OSS) tend
based and optimised
when reinforcement
to outperform other
strategies generally
costs are significant
strategies in most
outperform the baseline
and, particularly, when a
cases by combining
by 14% NPCI (6%
substation
C2C an traditional
NPCI+S) and 33% NPCI
reinforcement is nigh
interventions
(30% NPCI+S),
respectively
70
Assessment of the 36 trial networks
NPCI+S as a function of line reinforcement costs
NPCI+S
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NPCI as a function of line reinforcement costs
0
20
40
60
80
Line reinforcement costs (%)
Baseline
C2C
OSI
100
120
OSS
71
Assessment of the 36 trial networks
NPCI+S as a function of substation headroom
1200
NPCI+S
1000
800
600
NPCI as a function of line reinforcement costs
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
Substation headroom (%)
Baseline
C2C
OSI
40
50
OSS
72
Assessment of the 36 trial networks
NPCI+S as a function of DSR availability
1000
NPCI+S
800
600
NPCI as a function of line reinforcement costs
400
200
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Maximum amount of DSR blocks available
Baseline
C2C
OSI
6
OSS
73
John Broderick
The Tyndall Centre
74
What are the carbon impacts of C2C?
Increased network
capacity key to
decarbonising UK
energy systems
Emissions
Business as usual baseline
Emissions
reduction
What does C2C offer
over traditional
reinforcement?
Approach based on UN
Clean Development
Mechanism
Emissions after implementation
or project
tp = Project Start
Time (t)
75
Headlines
£
C2C substantially
reduces the
immediate
carbon impact of
additional
network capacity,
potentially up to
250 tCO2e per
circuit
Optimum
reinforcement
with a
combination of
C2C and
traditional asset
upgrades would
be least cost and
deliver a lower
carbon system
than C2C alone
Savings of up to
55% of carbon
impact over a 45
year time frame
observed in
some circuits,
although median
benefit is ~10%
Facilitated
reductions can
be substantial
but are usually
smaller than
benefit of losses
reduction
76
Net carbon impact
Emissions impacts (reductions and increases) over 45 year period are modest,
typically ±10%, and vary substantially between circuits
Absolute Net Carbon Impact, Demand Growth Scenario 3
7000
Net Carbon Impact tCO2e
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Base Sc3
IC2C Sc3
77
Net carbon impact
Impacts are lower if reinforcement is assumed to be driven
by the growth of renewable DG
The C2C method is more beneficial in these circumstances
3000
Absolute net carbon impact, RDG scenario 3
Net Carbon Impact tCO2e
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Base Sc3
IC2C Sc3
OSS Sc3
78
What are the carbon impacts of C2C?
Scope and classification of impacts
Adopt GHG Protocol core principles
for calculating emissions reductions
“Asset carbon”
Relevance
discrete measure of emissions embodied in
materials and construction
Completeness
“Operational carbon”
continuous measure of indirect emissions
from changes in losses, related to the UK grid
carbon intensity
Consistency
Transparency
“Facilitated reductions”
indirect effects on low carbon generators or
consumers due to quicker release of capacity
Accuracy
79
What are the carbon impacts of C2C?
Calculation approach and data sources
Assets
Operations
Facilitated reductions
Trial customer quotations
indicate type of assets
used in each example
Network power flow
modelling for quantities of
losses
Databases for emissions
factors: Bath University
ICE v2.0, EcoInvent v2.2,
Institute of Civil
Engineers (ICE)
CESMM3 Carbon & Price
Guidebook (2011)
OfGEM, DECC and
National Grid Future
Energy Scenarios for grid
emissions factor
Assumptions on low
carbon technology
performance from
literature
Cost Benefit Analysis
modelling for network
reinforcement under
multiple scenarios
80
Asset carbon findings
Cable is not the only
source of asset carbon
in network
reinforcement
GHG emissions per km HV cable installed
Emissions from civil
works are overlooked but
substantial, especially
when under
carriageways
Impacts are at least
seven times greater
than Turconi et al’s
estimate of ~7
tCO2e/km
81
Asset carbon findings
Emissions embodied in assets for traditional reinforcement at potential C2C sites
60.0
50.0
40.0
tCO2e
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
MMU Student
Customer 1
Union
Europlast
Customer 2
Warburton's Bakery G-Mex Metrolink
Customer 3
Customer 4
Cable
ELBR
Lane House Farm
Customer 5
Duct
Trial quotations illustrated the scale and proportion of assets likely to be deployed at
single sites l Data was fed into scenario modelling
82
Asset carbon approach
GHG emissions
LoadFirm
growth
percapacity
kmscenarios
HV cable installed
Asset
Carbon
Impact
83
Asset carbon findings
Box plot of asset carbon reduction
Across the 36 circuits
and five demand growth
scenarios, asset carbon
savings are up to
260tCO2e
300
250
100
50
OSS Sc5
OSS Sc4
OSS Sc3
OSS Sc2
OSS Sc1
IC2C Sc5
IC2C Sc4
IC2C Sc3
0
IC2C Sc2
For 8% of cases the
same physical
investments as traditional
reinforcement are
required to deliver the
necessary capacity but at
a later date
150
IC2C Sc1
tCO2e
200
84
Operations carbon approach
capacity
Carbon content
LoadFirm
growth
of grid
electricity
scenarios scenarios
Operations
Carbon
Impact
85
tCO2e
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
Whalley Range
Woodley
Whalley Range
Woodley
IC2C Carbon Reduction - Renewable Distributed Generation
IC2C carbon reduction – renewable
distributed
generation scenario 3
Scenario
3
St Annes
-1400
St Annes
Spa Road
South East Macc
Sale
Royton
Roman Rd
Reddish Vale
Musgrave
Moss Nook
Monton
Middleton…
Levenshulme 2
Levenshulme
Hyndburn Rd
Hyde
Holme Rd
Higher Mill
Heywood
Griffin
Greenhill
Green Lane
Great Harwood
Farnworth
Exchange St
Droylsden East
Dickinson St
Denton East
Crown Lane
Clover Hill
Chatsworth St
Chassen Rd
Chamber Hall
Castleton
ASSETS
Spa Road
South East Macc
Sale
Royton
Roman Rd
Reddish Vale
Musgrave
Moss Nook
Monton
Middleton…
Levenshulme 2
Levenshulme
Hyndburn Rd
Hyde
Holme Rd
Higher Mill
Heywood
Griffin
Greenhill
Green Lane
Great Harwood
Farnworth
Exchange St
Droylsden East
Dickinson St
Denton East
Crown Lane
Clover Hill
Chatsworth St
Chassen Rd
-900
Chamber Hall
Ashton on…
-400
Castleton
100
Ashton on…
tCO2e
Operations carbon findings
ICCarbon
reduction -–Demand
demand Growth
growth scenario
33
IC2C
Reduction
Scenario
2C carbon
1100
600
OPERATIONS
86
tCO2e
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
Woodley
Whalley Range
St Annes
Spa Road
Woodley
Whalley Range
St Annes
Spa Road
South East Macc
Sale
Royton
Roman Rd
Reddish Vale
Musgrave
Moss Nook
Monton
Middleton Junction
Levenshulme 2
Levenshulme
Hyndburn Rd
Hyde
Holme Rd
Higher Mill
Heywood
Griffin
Greenhill
Green Lane
Great Harwood
Farnworth
Exchange St
Droylsden East
Dickinson St
Denton East
Crown Lane
Clover Hill
Chatsworth St
Chassen Rd
Chamber Hall
Castleton
Ashton on Mersey
ASSETS
South East Macc
Sale
Royton
Roman Rd
Reddish Vale
Musgrave
Moss Nook
Monton
Middleton…
Levenshulme 2
Levenshulme
Hyndburn Rd
Hyde
Holme Rd
Higher Mill
Heywood
Griffin
Greenhill
Green Lane
Great Harwood
Farnworth
Exchange St
Droylsden East
Dickinson St
Denton East
Crown Lane
Clover Hill
Chatsworth St
Chassen Rd
Chamber Hall
Castleton
3600
3100
2600
2100
1600
1100
600
100
-400
-900
-1400
Ashton on Mersey
tCO2e
Operations carbon findings
OSS Carbon Reduction - Demand Growth Scenario 3
OSS carbon reduction – demand growth scenario 3
OPERATIONS
OSS Carbon Reduction - Renewable Distributed Generation
OSS carbon reduction – renewable
distributed
generation scenario 3
Scenario
3
87
Facilitated reductions
Facilitated
carbonReduction
reduction for
Facilitated
Carbon
for EV
EV demand
Demandgrowth
Growth
30.0
25.0
tCO2e
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
IC2C Sc1
IC2C Sc2
IC2C Sc3
IC2C Sc4
IC2C Sc5
Facilitated Carbon Reduction for Renewable Distributed
Facilitated carbon reduction for renewable distributed generation
Generation
200.0
180.0
160.0
tCO2e
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
IC2C Sc1
IC2C Sc2
IC2C Sc3
IC2C Sc4
IC2C Sc5
88
Sensitivity to scenario assumptions
Demand Growth Scenarios OSS Approach
3500
3000
Carbon Reduction /tCO2e
2500
2000
Sc1
Sc2
Sc3
Sc4
Sc5
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
Largest benefit generally under Scenario 4 l Least under Scenario 1
89
Sensitivity to scenario assumptions
Renewable Distributed Generation Scenarios OSS Approach
700
Sc1
600
Sc2
Sc3
Sc4
Sc5
Carbon Reduction /tCO2e
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
Renewable DG less consistent but largest benefit also generally under Scenario 4
and least under Scenario 5
90
Sensitivity to scenario assumptions
IC1400
2C Gone Green net carbon reduction (RDG scenario 1)
Whalley Range
Spa Road
Sale
Roman Rd
Musgrave
Monton
Levenshulme 2
Hyndburn Rd
Holme Rd
Heywood
Greenhill
Great Harwood
Exchange St
Dickinson St
Crown Lane
-600
Chatsworth St
-100
Chamber Hall
400
Ashton on Mersey
tCO2e
900
Carbon content of grid electricity
scenarios
IC2C CCGT net carbon reduction (RDG scenario 1)
1400
Whalley Range
Spa Road
Sale
Roman Rd
Musgrave
Monton
Levenshulme 2
Hyndburn Rd
Holme Rd
Heywood
Greenhill
Great Harwood
Exchange St
Dickinson St
Crown Lane
-600
Chatsworth St
-100
Chamber Hall
400
Ashton on Mersey
tCO2e
900
Grid emissions factors assumptions
make a larger difference than
variation between growth scenarios
Reductions in losses are more
significant if they are assumed to
come from a high carbon source
91
tCO2e
-100
-300
-500
-700
Woodley
Whalley Range
St Annes
Spa Road
South East Macc
Sale
Royton
Roman Rd
Reddish Vale
Musgrave
Moss Nook
Monton
Middleton Junction
Levenshulme 2
Levenshulme
Hyndburn Rd
Hyde
Holme Rd
Higher Mill
Heywood
Griffin
Greenhill
Green Lane
Great Harwood
Farnworth
Exchange St
Droylsden East
Dickinson St
Denton East
Crown Lane
Clover Hill
Chatsworth St
Castleton
Woodley
Whalley Range
St Annes
Spa Road
South East…
Sale
Royton
Roman Rd
Reddish Vale
Musgrave
Moss Nook
Monton
Middleton…
Levenshulme 2
Levenshulme
Hyndburn Rd
Hyde
Holme Rd
Higher Mill
Heywood
Griffin
Greenhill
Green Lane
Great Harwood
Farnworth
Exchange St
Droylsden East
Dickinson St
Denton East
Crown Lane
Clover Hill
Chatsworth St
Chassen Rd
Chamber Hall
-800
Chassen Rd
-600
Chamber Hall
-400
Ashton on…
-200
Castleton
0
Ashton on Mersey
tCO2e
Sensitivity to scenario assumptions
20 years OSS net carbon reduction (demand growth scenario 1)
600
400
200
-1000
45 years OSS net carbon reduction (demand growth scenario 1)
700
500
300
100
92
Conclusions
A new methodology has been demonstrated finding
C2C substantially More detail and
Circuits are
reduces the
understanding
currently not
immediate carbon
than simple
optimised for
impact of
“capacity release”
losses
additional
measures is
minimisation.
network capacity,
possible and
Combination of
potentially up to
worthwhile
C2C and
250 tCO2e per
traditional asset
circuit
upgrades would
be least cost and
deliver a lower
carbon system
With optimum
combination,
savings of up to
55% of carbon
impact over 45
years have been
observed
although median
benefit is ~10%.
Assumed grid
emissions factors
pay a large role in
determining the
quantitative but
not qualitative
outcomes
93
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
94
Kate Quigley
Future Networks
Customer Manager
95
Agenda
C2C
Introduction
Technical and
academic overview
Customer research
(technical impact)
Customer research
(commercial)
Commercial review
and case studies
Summary and
next steps
96
Customer hypotheses and objectives
Domestic
customers
Commercial
customers
Closed ring
configuration is
acceptable to
customers
Existing or new
customers
can directly
benefit financially
by providing the
demand
response
To engage with domestic
customers about C2C
To understand the impact
of C2C on customers’
supplies
To communicate C2C to
industrial and commercial
(I&C) customers
To explore the appeal of
C2C and the uptake of C2C
contracts
97
Customer hypotheses and objectives
Domestic
customers
Commercial
customers
Closed ring
configuration is
acceptable to
customers
Existing or new
customers
can directly
benefit financially
by providing the
demand
response
To engage with domestic
customers about C2C
To understand the impact
of C2C on customers’
supplies
To communicate C2C to
industrial and commercial
(I&C) customers
To explore the appeal of
C2C and the uptake of C2C
contracts
98
Engaged customer panel
Carlisle - domestic
Manchester - domestic
Manchester – I&C
Cross section
of customers
Three phases of
research
3 x 90 minute focus
groups
Objective: to identify the optimum method of communicating C2C
in a simple manner to domestic customers on trial circuits
99
ECP recommendations
Should we communicate with
customers on trial circuits?
Yes
Why should we do so?
Important public information with good news
about our customers’ electricity supply
What format should the
communication take?
A simply worded leaflet
What should it say?
Our role as DNO, benefits of C2C, power cut
advice, priority service register, contact details
When should it be delivered?
Delivered proactively before trial started in April
2013
To whom should it be
delivered?
All customers on trial circuits
100
Lesson learned – domestic customers
Relationship between DNO and supplier still confusing
Customers are supplier focussed
C2C is too complex for many customers to understand
Customers think it’s their right to know about changes to
their supply, particularly if message is positive
Information should be simple and informative
Customers want to know more about their DNO
Customers want to know what to do in a power cut
101
Understanding impact on customers
Objective: To understand the impact of C2C
on customers’ supplies
Measure customers’ Compare perceptions
perceptions of
with customers not on
power quality
trial circuits
Dissemination
102
David Pearmain
Advanced Methods
Director
Impact Research
103
Summary of surveys completed
656 quantitative
interviews
5 groups of customers
I&C customers who have signed up
to the trial
• Target of 10 interviews per wave
• Completed 17 interviews in YTD
I&C customers who have not signed
up to the trial but are on trial circuits
• Target of 10 interviews per wave
• Completed 30 interviews in YTD
Domestic customers who are on trial
circuits
• Target of 100 interviews per wave
• Completed 312 interviews in YTD
Domestic customers who are not on
trial circuits
• Target of 100 interviews per wave
• Completed 301 interviews in YTD
New connections who have signed
up to the trial
• Target of 10 interviews per wave
• Completed 2 interviews in YTD
104
Power cut frequency
Do you feel the frequency of power cuts has increased, decreased or
stayed the same since April/start of C2C? YTD
I&C customers signed up to the trial
I&C customers signed up to the trial (17)
Net%
12%
I&C
thetrial
trialcircuits
but on
I&Ccustomers
customersnot
notsigned
signedup
up,toon
trial circuits (27)
4%
Domestic customers on trial circuits
Domestic customers on trial circuits (295)
8%
82%
81%
Decreased
15%
89%
Domestic customers not on trial circuits 7%
Domestic customers not on trial circuits (286)
New connections signed up to the trial
New connections signed up to the trial (2)
6%
2%
87%
50%
Stayed the same
+6%
-11%
+6%
0%
6%
50%
-50%
Increased
The majority of customers claim there has been no change in the frequency of
power cuts since the trial started
If a change has been detected on C2C circuits, overall it is a positive one
105
Power cuts on trial circuits
Have you experienced a power cut at your
property since April 2013? YTD
I&Ccustomers
customerssigned
signed
to
I&C
upup
to the
trial
the trial
Have you recently noticed any dips or spikes in
your power from time to time? YTD
1 -customers
I&C customers
whoup
have
I&C
signed
to
signed up to the trialthe
(n=17)
trial
24%
I&C
customers
not signed
up to
I&C
customers
not signed
the trial but
on
trial
circuits
up, on trial circuits
21%
2 - I&C customers who have not
I&C up
customers
signed
to the trialnot
butsigned
are on
up, on (n=30)
trial circuits
trial circuits
Domestic
customers
on trial
Domestic
customers
circuits
on trial circuits
19%
3 - Domestic
customers
who
Domestic
customers
are on trial on
circuits
trial (n=312)
circuits
DomesticDomestic
customerscustomers
not on trial
circuits
not on trial circuits
New connections
signed up to
New connections
the up
trialto the trial
signed
19%
23%
19%
4 - Domestic
customers
who
Domestic
customers
are not onnot
trialon
circuits
(n=301)
trial circuits
27%
100%
5 - New connections
who have
New connections
signed
up
to
the
trial
signed up to the(2)trial
26%
0%
The proportion of domestic customers who claim to have experienced a power
cut since C2C began is significantly lower for those on trial circuits
106
Power cut comparison
How does the total number of power cuts you have experienced in the last
year compare to previous years? YTD
1 - I&C customers
who have signed
I&C customers
signed up
up to
to the
the trial
trial
(n=7)
14%
2 - I&C customers who have not signed up to the
I&C customers not signed up, on trial circuits
trial but are on trial circuits (n=7)
14%
3 - Domestic customers who are on trial circuits
Domestic
customers on trial circuits
(n=86)
4 - Domestic customers who are not on trial
Domestic customers
not on trial circuits
circuits (n=90)
Less than in previous years
43%
23%
Similar to previous years
-29%
43%
29%
11%
Net %
57%
-43%
79%
45%
10%
32%
+2%
-9%
More than in previous years
Domestic customers on non-trial circuits are more likely to have noticed
changes in the number of faults they have experienced over the last year
107
Power cut duration
Do you feel the duration of power cuts has increased, decreased or
stayed the same since April/start of C2C? YTD
1 - I&C customers who have signed up to the
I&C customers signed up to the trial
trial (9)
2 - I&C customers who have not signed up to
I&C customers not signed up, on trial circuits
the trial but are on trial circuits (12)
11%
17%
3 - Domestic customers who are on trial circuits
Domestic (177)
customers on trial circuits 4%
4 - Domestic customers who are not on trial
Domestic customers
not on trial circuits
circuits (154)
9%
5 - New connections who have signed up to the
New connections
trial (1)signed up to the trial
Decreased
Net %
89%
67%
95%
0%
17%
1%
89%
2%
0%
+3%
+7%
-100%
100%
Stayed the same
+11%
Increased
Domestic customers on non-trial circuits are more likely to feel
fault durations have decreased since the start of C2C
108
Length of power cut
To what extent did you find the length of the power cut acceptable?
Acceptable (8-10)
40%
47%
49%
65%
Ambivalent (4-7)
43%
37%
34%
Unacceptable (1-3)
26%
17%
Total C2C
Monitoring (48)
15%
17%
10%
Total C2C Post Fault Total CLASS (213) SDIs C2C Post Fault
(564)
(133)
Our reactive post fault survey has indicated that where SDIs are detected on
C2C circuits they enhance power quality perception
109
Dips and spikes
Q20 – Do you feel the number of dips and spikes has increased, decreased
or stayed the same since April/start of C2C ? YTD
1 - I&C customers who have signed up to the trial
6%
I&C customers
(17) signed up to the trial
94%
2 - I&C customers who have not signed up to the
I&C customers
not
up, on(26)
trial circuits 4%
trial but are
onsigned
trial circuits
Decreased
8%
95%
4 - Domestic customers who are not on trial
Domestic customers
not on trial circuits 5%
circuits (281)
0%
0%
88%
3 - Domestic customers who are on trial circuits
Domestic (298)
customers on trial circuits 3%
5 - New connections who have signed up to the
New connections
trial (2)signed up to the trial
Net%
2%
88%
50%
7%
50%
Stayed the same
+6%
-4%
+1%
-2%
-50%
Increased
Customers on C2C circuits are also less likely to have noticed
any variations in dips & spikes
110
Comparing perception of faults to reality
Trial Circuits
Reality – Had a
fault
Perception
– Had a
fault
Perception
– Didn’t
have a fault
3%
12%
Reality – Didn’t
have a fault
15%
70%
Control Circuits
Reality – Had a
fault
4%
20%
Reality – Didn’t
have a fault
20%
Perception
– Had a
fault
56%
Perception
– Didn’t
have a fault
Significantly more customers on control circuits
misattribute observations of faults
111
Comparing perception of faults to reality
Reality
Perception
20%
13%
3 minutes or less
41%
38%
Between 4 minutes and 1 hour
20%
13%
From 3 hours up to 8 hours
More than 8 hours
On trial circuits (49)
Between 4 minutes and
1 hour
19%
33%
From 1 hour up to 3 hours
21%
15%
3 minutes or less
0%
Not on trial circuits (56)
54%
57%
From 1 hour up to 3
hours
From 3 hours up to 8
hours
More than 8 hours
17%
26%
8%
2%
0%
On trial circuits (54)
Not on trial circuits (80)
There were a greater number of SDI faults under C2C conditions
112
Post fault surveys
14% Cumbria
Domestic
59% Lancashire
27% Manchester & Peak
81%
Commercial
19%
703 surveys conducted between April
2013 and July 2014
113
Acceptability of faults
Levels of
acceptance
65%
41%
Shorter
Up to 3 minutes
Longer
4 or more minutes
Our reactive post fault survey has indicated that where SDIs are
detected on C2C circuits they enhance power quality perception
114
Acceptability of fault duration
Acceptability of all durations
Domestic
51%
Acceptability of power cut durations by customer
type (Top 3 box %)
80%
70%
60%
68%
65%
48%
50%
40%
Commercial
29%
42%
44%
35%
30%
33%
20%
25%
25%
4 min to 1 hour
Longer than 1 hour
10%
0%
SDIs
Total
Domestic
Commercial
Commercial customers are less tolerant of faults
SDIs significantly improve levels of acceptance for all customers
115
Priority service customers post fault surveys
SDIs
PSR
Non-PSR
54%
9%
25%
11%
66%
26%
64%
4 mins to 1 hour
PSR
Non-PSR
12%
35%
52%
24%
43%
33%
38%
Longer than 1 hour
PSR
Non-PSR
13%
52%
23%
Bottom 30%
65+ year olds are generally more
understanding and accepting of
power cut durations
36%
47%
Middle 40%
30%
Top 30%
There is no evidence to suggest that rolling out C2C
would have any adverse effect on PSR customers
Customers with medical
equipment are least likely to find
length of power cuts acceptable
116
Post fault survey conclusions
2 in 5 customers remember
when the fault occurred
unprompted
Changes in fault frequency
are more discernible to
customers
Commercial customers are
more sensitive to faults
Duration drives power
quality perception
Those who experience
SDIs notice improvement in
their fault quality
PSR/older customers are
more accepting of faults
SDIs are more acceptable,
but less so for longer
duration faults
C2C can affect the wider
business - less strain on
contact centre
117
Customer engagement
Overall, customers are not
observing material changes in
their power supply quality
Lessons
Learnt
Power quality perception is
consistent across our trial and
control groups
The last fault duration is more
likely to be an SDI on trial circuits
(enhancing perception)
Faults under C2C conditions are
not having an adverse effect on
power quality perception
118
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
119
LUNCH
120
Agenda
C2C
Introduction
Technical and
academic overview
Customer research
(impact)
Customer research
(commercial)
Commercial review
and case studies
Summary and
next steps
121
Customer hypotheses and objectives
Domestic
customers
Commercial
customers
Closed ring
configuration is
acceptable to
customers
Existing or new
customers
can directly
benefit financially
by providing the
demand
response
To engage with domestic
customers about C2C
To understand the impact
of C2C on customers’
supplies
To communicate C2C to
industrial and commercial
(I&C) customers
To explore the appeal of
C2C and the uptake of C2C
contracts
122
Communications with I&C customers
Objective: To explore the appeal and potential uptake
of C2C to I&C customers
Targeted mailshot
to I&C customers
on C2C circuits
Seminar for new
connections
customers
Project video
123
Project video
124
I&C customer survey
181 quantitative
interviews
Phone recruitment +
online questionnaire
Fieldwork 12 July –
10 August 2012
£
Respondents to have
responsibility for
electricity supply
Is there an
appetite in the
I&C market for
C2C?
What is the level
of interest by
sector?
What contract
elements will
make C2C
attractive?
125
Is there an appetite for C2C
52% 31% 26%
of customers
found the C2C
concept
appealing
would
recommend
opting into a C2C
contract precontract
of customers
would recommend
opting into a C2C
contract postcontract
126
What is the level of interest by sector?
All customers
% (180)
Manufacturing
& processing
% (82)
Other sectors
% (98)
Appeal
52
49
54
Recommend
(pre-contract)
31
25
35
Recommend
(post-contract)
26
21
31
Key interest
metric
Level of appeal is slightly lower for manufacturing & processing
Gap is more significant for recommendation (10%)
127
What makes C2C contracts attractive?
Contract
Key days
Reward
Value of
reward
£
Length of
contract has the
biggest single
influence on take
up
Safeguarded
days significantly
increase take up
rates
The variation in
reward is
important, but
not as critical as
the other
components
Much higher
levels of reward
are required to
significantly drive
up participation
128
Barriers to C2C contracts
Uncertainty
regarding disruption
or multiple
disruptions
Flexible
protected days and
option for protected
circuits
Appeal
of value added
offerings
Maximum
outages per annum
and duration to be
defined
Effects
on the
customer’s business
Understand
price level
129
Summary of I&C customer engagement
C2C is appealing to
I&C customers
Contracts signed
Appeal
Barriers
Greatest barrier is
customer
uncertainty about
reliability of supply
Tailored contracts important
Length of contract had biggest
influence
Learning
Safeguarded days increase take up
Higher levels of reward drive up
participation
Key learning used to
Appeal
lower C
for
manufacturing &
structure
2C commercial
processing
contracts
130
Post acceptance surveys
Decision to accept
£
Financial rewards
56%
Frequency of
interruptions
19%
Protected days/times
19%
Benefits of signing up
Financial rewards
69%
£
Environmentally friendly
25%
Minimise disruption
19%
Surveys confirm importance of rewards and minimising disruption
131
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
132
Simon Brooke
Smart Metering
Programme Manager
133
Agenda
C2C
Introduction
Technical and
academic overview
Customer research
(technical impact)
Customer research
(commercial)
Commercial review
and case studies
Summary and
next steps
134
Objectives
Commercial
customers
Network
operation
Purchase a
demand
response from
existing and new
customers
thereby creating
a new market
Promote the use
of commercial
solutions to
address network
constraints
To develop contract
templates for purchasing
C2C demand response
To discover a purchase
price for C2C demand
response
To evaluate the channels
to purchase C2C demand
response
To purchase C2C demand
response within trials
135
Development of customer proposition
1
Understanding our customers
2
Commercial arrangement development
3
Trial purchase of C2C demand response
4
Trial results and lessons learnt
136
Engagement with our customers
1
Understanding our customers
!
Lessons
Learnt
Uncertainty regarding
disruption or multiple disruptions
Maximum outages per annum
and duration to be defined
Flexible protected days and
option for protected circuits
137
Contract arrangements
2
Commercial arrangement development
Demand and generation
New
customers
Existing
customers
NTC
DCUSA
Managed
connection
agreement
Construction
& installation
agreement
Contract
Contract
138
Contract arrangements
Simplified contract
templates
Lessons
Learnt
Optional elements based on
customer feedback
Separate agreement for
controllable switch
139
Purchase demand response
3
Trial purchase of C2C demand response
(existing customers)
Customer survey
contact list evaluated
Engagement materials
developed
Small manufacturers
targeted first
Customers on trial C2C
networks invited to
seminars
Npower & Flexitricity
contacted potential trial
participants
An individual working
with key account
manager
140
Price model demonstration
Customer
interface
developed for
presentation
purposes
Presentations
crucial to
customer’s
understanding of
the C2C product
141
Purchase demand response
One point of contact throughout
contact and negotiations
Lessons
Learnt
Key is understanding
customer’s business and
potential impact
£
Market price discovery
through negotiations – options
less important
Discuss implementation
approach
142
Purchase demand response
3
Trial purchase of C2C demand response
(new customers)
C2C trial area and
application process
published
Potential customers
invited to seminars
All applications
evaluated for C2C
solution
Qualifying customers
received standard and
C2C offers
Meeting offers made to talk through both solutions
143
Purchase demand response
Both offers delivered together
within Guaranteed Standard
timescales
Lessons
Learnt
Customers valued meetings for
explaining C2C solution
Again key to securing contract is
helping customer understand
potential impact
Higher acceptance for customer
engaged early (in seminars)
144
Trial results and lessons learnt
4
Trial results and lessons learnt
Ten C2C demand response
contracts with existing customers
Achieved
Direct contact with our customers
is the most effective
£
C2C demand response purchase
price defined
Ten C2C demand response
contracts with connection
customers
145
Demand response results (existing)
Size, sector and price of DR from existing customers
130kVA
630kVA
30
600kVA
£k / MVA / yr
25
20
15
341kVA
130kVA
800kVA
10
487kVA
5
800kVA
Utilities
Leisure
5200kVA
Manufacturing
1800kVA
Retail
146
Demand response results (existing)
Post fault response is attractive
to customers and Electricity
North West
Lessons
Learnt
Wide range of trial participants,
appears most favourable to
small manufacturers
Very attractive to multiple site
operators
147
Demand response results (new)
New connection customers' managed capacity, kVA by sector
14,000
9900kVA
10500kVA
12,000
10,000
7050kVA
5000kVA
8000kVA
kVA
8,000
6,000
500kVA
2700kVA
4,000
2,000
500kVA
Utilities
600kVA
IT
6000kVA
Manufacturing
Transportation
148
Demand response results (new)
Good range of enduring post
fault DR capacities
Lessons
Learnt
New DR predominantly from
small manufacturers again
Post fault DR can operate in
with other DR programmes
149
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
150
Agenda
C2C
Introduction
Technical and
academic overview
Customer research
(technical impact)
Customer research
(commercial)
Commercial review
and case studies
Summary and
next steps
151
Project benefits summary
Full set of results and learning from Capacity to Customers will be included in
closedown report available on our website in March 2015
Rapidly
deployable
solution
Reinforcement
deferral
Develops new
DR market
Cost
deferral
Carbon
reduction
£
Will better
Releases
Creates post
exploit existing
network
fault demand
assets, thus capacity for use
response
cost-effective
by customers’ market which is
and quickly
LCTs
less intrusive to
implemented
customers
Can defer
reinforcement
costs and the
time taken to
complete the
associated
works
Minimises
carbonintensive
infrastructure
152
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
153
Want to know more?
e
[email protected]
www.enwl.co.uk/thefuture
0800 195 4141
@ElecNW_News
linkedin.com/company/electricity-north-west
facebook.com/ElectricityNorthWest
youtube.com/ElectricityNorthWest
Thank you for your time and attention
154