1 The European Benchmarking Report on Quality of Supply Math BOLLEN Werner FRIEDL Luleå University of Technology E-Control / CEER (energy regulator) Skellefteå, Sweden Vienna, Austria / Brussels, Belgium PES GM, 30 July 14
2 The European (regulated and deregulated) electricity market CEER - the Council of European Energy Regulators The Benchmarking report on quality of electricity supply Benchmarking on Continuity of Supply Cooperation IEEE and CEER
3 The European Electricity Market Deregulated open market Regulated monopoly Deregulated open market
4 European Energy Regulators Council of European Energy Regulators CEER is a not-for-profit association constituted by 32 independent national regulatory authorities (NRAs) aiming to facilitate the creation of a single, competitive, efficient and sustainable EU internal energy market that works in the public interest Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators ACER is established by the Regulation (EC) No. 713/09 to be fully operational in March 11 as an European Community body with legal personality, with the aim to complement and coordinate at EU-level the work of the NRAs and has its seat in Ljubljana
5 European Network Codes Network codes are a set of rules drafted by ENTSO-E, with guidance from ACER, to facilitate the harmonisation, integration and efficiency of the European electricity market. Requirements for generators Demand connection code Operational planning and scheduling Electricity balancing etc
6 CEER - organisation Electricity Quality of Supply Task Force EQS TF http://www.ceer.eu
7 Benchmarking Report Comparison of CoS for European countries Comparison of CoS, VQ and CQ regulation Recommendations to the stakeholders
8 Evolution of Benchmarking 01 03 05 08 11
9 Structure of the 5 th BR Commercial Quality non technical Quality Classification technical Quality Voltage Quality Continuity of Supply
10 Structure of the 5 th BR Continuity of Supply (CoS) Voltage Quality (VQ) Commercial Quality (CQ) What is? What is CoS? What is VQ? What is CQ? Past work Work on CoS Work on VQ Work on CQ What to monitor? Interruption types VQ disturbances How to monitor? CoS monitoring VQ monitoring systems Groups of CQ mostly used standards Harmonised definitions for each indicator/stand. How regulated? Actual Findings & Recommendations CoS indicators (and reg. incentives) National CoS data Disaggregated data EU norms and national regulat. Voltage Dips Guaranteed st. vs. other standards Initial comparison 8 6 5
11 Voltage Quality - EN 50160 Electricity as a product Set of voltage characteristics as minimum requirements throughout Europe 10-minute averages 95% of time, for all customers
12 National regulation EN 50160 is often used as a basis Measurement method Objective values for harmonics Sharpening the requirements in different ways 1 minute instead of 10 minutes 99 or 100 % instead of 95 % Different objectives for supply voltage variations Regulation on voltage dips
13 Recommendations on VQ from BR5 #1A: Further improve EN 50160 as a harmonised instrument for voltage quality regulation #2: Ensure individual voltage quality verification #3: Set reasonable emission limits for network users #4A: the scope of continuous voltage quality monitoring programs should be broadened #4B: exploit the possibilities offered by smart meters without excessive price increase for customers #5: define harmonized characteristics and indices for voltage dips #6: Ensure availability and regular publication of voltage quality data
14 Recommendations on CQ from BR5 #1: Periodically review the national regulations of commercial quality #2: Enforce general standards of service in order to protect customers better #3: Properly prioritise the national regulations of commercial quality #4: Maximise the benefits of high tech developments for customers #5: Develop the regulation of customer relations
15 Continuity of Supply Continuity of supply concerns interruptions in electricity supply. In other words: CoS focuses on the events during which the voltage at the supply terminals of a network user drops to zero or nearly (practically) zero. Continuity of supply can be described by various quality dimensions.
16 Benchmarking on Continuity of Supply I/II Source: http://www.ceer.eu
17 Benchmarking on Continuity of Supply II/II Source: http://www.ceer.eu
18 Continuity of Supply - CoS (I/IV) TABLE 2.8 Indices for short and transient interruptions in the different countries which monitor them CoS is monitored in 35 European countries 12/26 countries monitor short interruptions Country Short Transient CZECH REPUBLIC FINLAND CENELEC TR 50555 (Chosen points) In MV, amount of short interruptions (high speed automatic reclosing and delayed automatic rec losing) which are proportional to the annual amount of energy. Transmission: MAIFI Distribution: Percentage of customers with insufficient quality of supply (the definition of a customer with insufficient quality of supply depends on the location) Distribution level: the indicators used in IEEE Std. 1366-03: MAIFI (for MV networks) Transmission level: no indicator CENELEC TR 50555 (Chosen points) FRANCE 17/26 countries consider incidents at all voltage levels in CoS HUNGARY Expand the monitoring of CoS ITALY For transmission: ENS, ENW (energy not withdrawn), AIT, MAIFI For distribution: MAIFIE LITHUANIA TSO - ENS, AIT DSO - SAIDI, SAIFI Same as for long interruptions Distribution level according to the IEEE Std. 136603: MAIFI Transmission level: there is no indicator Transmission level: MAIFI (it is not mandatory) Distribution and transmission: MAIFI MAIFIE with an period of 3 minutes for events < 3 minutes NORWAY POLAND PORTUGAL None Distribution level: the indicators used in IEEE Std. 1366-03: MAIFI (for MV networks) Trans mission lev el: no indicator For transmission: number of transient interruptions. For distribution: number of trans ient interruptions. DSO - MAIFI LV, MV, HV, EHV Included in short interruptions NA CoS-Indicators, procedures for data collection vary across countries SLOVENIA SWEDEN SAIDI Ni ri i NT ASIFI Li CAIDI i LT Ni ri i Ni i MAIFI NASIDI ii ii NTT L r i i LT i Ni SAIFI i NT Ni CAIFI i CN NA ENS Ei i Harmonise CoS indicators and data collection procedures
19 Continuity of Supply - CoS (II/IV) Austria HV, MV Bulgaria HV, MV Czech Republic EHV, HV, MV, LV CoS improvements trend to become stable 400 Denmark HV, MV, LV France EHV, HV, MV, LV Germany EHV, HV, MV, LV GB EHV, HV, MV, LV Minutes lost per year (planned/not planned; with/without exceptional events analyses in: graphical and table form) 300 Greece MV, LV Hungary HV, MV, LV Ireland HV, MV, LV Italy EHV, HV, MV, LV 0 Lithuania HV, MV, LV The Netherlands EHV, HV, MV, LV Investigate CoS trends for a periodic review of regulation Poland EHV, HV, MV, LV Portugal EHV, HV, MV, LV Romania HV, MV, LV Slovak Republic EHV, HV, MV, LV 100 (analyse trends of the economic results of regulation) Slovenia EHV, HV, MV Spain EHV, HV, MV, LV Sweden EHV, HV, MV, LV 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 19 99 0 CoS is affected by network characteristics 600 France HV, MV, LV urban (urban/suburban/rural areas - analyses in: graphical and table form) France HV, MV, LV suburban 500 France HV, MV, LV rural Minutes lost per customer Italy HV, MV, LV urban Italy HV, MV, LV suburban 400 Assess disaggregated continuity data in order to identify priorities e.g.: Italy HV, MV, LV rural Romania HV, MV, LV urban 300 Romania HV, MV, LV rural Portugal HV, MV, LV urban 0 Portugal HV, MV, LV suburban Portugal HV, MV, LV rural Slovenia HV, MV urban 100 groups of customer by cause Slovenia HV, MV suburban 10 09 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 08 Slovenia HV, MV rural 0 19 99 voltage level
Continuity of Supply - CoS (III/IV) y = 0,0016x + 0,177 2 R = 0,428 100% CoS levels are affected by network characteristics (e.g. cable) Netherlands Rate of underground cables MV 90% 80% significant correlation between underground cables and high CoS; several indicators are correlated (e.g. population density) difficult to assess specific impact Spain Germany 70% Luxembourg 60% Austria 50% Sweden Great Britain 40% France Italy Norway Promote cost-benefit analysis to improve the efficiency of expenditure on networks 30% Iceland Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Czech Republic Portugal Estonia Hungary 10%Finland Ireland Greece % Lithuania 0% 0 100 0 300 400 Density, inhabitants per km² Incentive schemes are used to regulate CoS in distribution and transmission networks 15/26 countries consider CoS in their regulation regime 6 countries plan to introduce such a regime (DE, GR, LU, AT, RO, CZ) Implement an incentive scheme for maintaining or improving general continuity levels 500
21 Continuity of Supply - CoS (IV/IV) Incentive schemes for individual continuity levels are used in many countries and have different formulations 18 countries have compensation schemes for single-user (2 have plans); schemes are not uniform: e.g. based on type of grid-user, sometimes the reimbursements are automatic Implement compensation payments for network users affected by very long interruptions More countries participate in benchmarking CoS reduce the cost of obtaining information about regulation Recommendation of 1st Report achieved completely Continue in exchange of information on continuity of supply and its regulation 23/05/14
22 Conclusion and Outlook I/II Results are presented on the basis of facts Clear recommendations for future developments are given Commercial Quality Further harmonisation in (i) data collection; (ii) indices calculation; (iii) quality analysis Voltage Quality Continuity of Supply Further improvements of VQ standardisation (EN 50160) Implementation of Guideline of Good Practise on VQ-Monitoring Attention on Smart Meters
23 Conclusion and Outlook II/II I Investigate CoS trends for a periodic review of regulation II Promote cost-benefit analysis to improve the efficiency of expenditure on networks III Implement compensation payments for network users affected by very long interruptions IV Perform cost-estimation studies of voltage disturbances V The scope of continuous VQ monitoring programmes should be broadened AND make results available
24 Plans/ideas for the 6th BR on CoS Differentiation/definition on planned & unplanned interruptions Focus on causes of interruptions (e.g. cause of fiber cabeling ) Rules for time aggregation of interruptions Analysis on relationship of network performance and network structure Clustered sizes of DSOs in relationship to the network performance Improved questions on demand and distributed generation (classification of customers) CAPEX/OPEX relationship to quality performance Recommendations for density (urban/sub-urban/rural) Use of quality indicators in regulation (comparison of regulation regimes, use within regulation regime and/or efficiency benchmarking) Definition of good quality for CoS (in form of individual standards)
25 Cooperation IEEE and CEER How a cooperation could look like? Joint publication/paper? Exchange of benchmarking results? Exchange of experience? suitable time and location to meet together?
26 Dr. Werner FRIEDL +43 1 24724 501 werner.friedl@e-control.at www.e-control.at / www.ceer.eu Prof. Math BOLLEN +46 70 295 8424 math.bollen@ltu.se http://www.ltu.se/
27 ANNEX additional information
28 CEER Reports/Activities (II/II) Towards Voltage Quality Regulation In Europe ERGEG Public Consultation Paper - Dec. 06 Towards Voltage Quality Regulation in Europe ERGEG Conclusions Paper - July 07 Towards Voltage Quality Regulation in Europe Evaluation of the Comments Received - July 07 Service Quality Regulation in Electricity Distribution and Retail (CEER and FSR) - 06/07 VQ Monitoring Workshop in Brussels Nov. 09 1st Round Table CEER/EURELECTRIC CIRED 09 + 11 + June 13 GGP on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances - Dec. 10 2nd Round Table CEER/EURELECTRIC GGP on Voltage Quality Monitoring Dec. 12
29 CEER Reports/Activities (I/II) 1st CEER Benchmarking Report - 01 2nd CEER Benchmarking Report - 03 3rd CEER Benchmarking Report - 05 4th CEER Benchmarking Report - 08 5th CEER Benchmarking Report 11 CEER Benchmarking Report 5.1 14 (CoS) CEER Benchmarking Report 5.2 15 (CoS)
30 Cooperation IEEE and CEER How a cooperation could look like? Joint publication/paper? Exchange of benchmarking results? Exchange of experience? suitable time and location to meet together?