Joint European Stakeholder Group. Friday 8 April 2016: Meeting 11 Radisson Blu, Glasgow

Transcription

1 Joint European Stakeholder Group Friday 8 April 2016: Meeting 11 Radisson Blu, Glasgow

2 1. Welcome & Introductions Barbara Vest JESG Independent Chair

3 2. Review of Action Log Sara-Lee Kenney JESG Technical Secretary

4 JESG Standing Actions ID Topic Lead Party Source S1 Continue to review the membership of the JESG and engage additional industry parties where appropriate. JESG Chair JESG S3 S2 S3 S4 Prepare a commentary / comparison document between the Network Code and the existing GB arrangements at appropriate stages in the Code development for each Network Code. Share any intelligence about how other member states are approaching demonstrating compliance through information gained from other government departments, regulators or parent companies Stakeholders are requested to provide specific examples of inconsistent or problematic definitions in the Network Codes to Ofgem (natasha.z.smith@ofgem.gov.uk) and DECC (elena.mylona@decc.gsi.gov.uk). NGET/Ofgem/DECC DECC / Ofgem / Industry parties with European parent companies All Stakeholders JESG S1 ECCAF 3/2 JESG S6

5 JESG Open Actions ID Topic Lead Party 27 Possibility to schedule a JESG meeting in late spring Brussels in 2016 Energy UK Update Energy UK looking into possibility of May JESG in Brussels, SP have offered venue. 33 Practical Aspects Concerns: CACM/ENC Methodologies raised by Energy UK to be taken forward to the Commission by DECC 35 Richard Woodward to return to the April JESG (Glasgow) to present on the RfG generator banding consultation paper. 36 Transmission System Operation Guideline (TSOG) update at future JESG DECC/ Energy UK NGET NGET DECC have discussed issues and suggested to develop further the JESG Chair writes to the European Commission on this issue. Complete. Covered in today s presentation Complete. Covered in today s presentation

6 JESG Open Actions ID Topic Lead Party Update 38 Garth Graham & Steven Wilkin offered to discuss at the European meetings they attend how other Member States are approaching implementation and modifications (i.e. 1 year timescale discussed in the BAL agenda item in Feb) Sue Harrison to also raise at the next Comitology meeting. 39 Investigate possibility of uploading previous JESG Weekly Updates to the JESG Website 40 Co-ordination of Ofgem consultations on ENCs and GB Code changes Garth Graham, Steve Wilkin & DECC JESG Technical Secretary NGET Garth to provide update on behalf of both. Complete. Not currently possible however JESG Weekly Update Did you miss section covers previous week s . New: From JESG Subgroup Action 9 NGET Alex Thomason to cover at future JESG

7 3. Summary Status of European Network Codes Sara-Lee Kenney JESG Technical Secretary

8 Background European Union Third Energy Package: Legislative package: 3 regulations and 2 directives Adopted July 2009, law since March 2011 Objective: Key step forward in developing a (more) harmonised European energy market Separation of ownership of monopoly energy transmission activities Formation of European Transmission System bodies, ENTSO-E for Electricity (ENTSO-G for Gas) Formation of ACER Agency for Cooperation of Energy Regulators European Network Codes: From the Third Energy Package came the requirement for European Network Codes (ENCs) split into 3 areas of focus: Markets, System Operation and Connections The ENCs will be law and take precedence over existing arrangements in GB.

9 How it fits together for GB... Stakeholder Engagement Industry Codes JESG Code Panels JESG Subgroups Activities include: Development Implementation, GB Issues Prioritisation, Code Mapping latest text sessions Panel Working Groups Activities include: Development Implementation, GB Issues Prioritisation, Code Mapping latest text sessions Balancing Stakeholder Focus Group (BSFG) CACM/ FCA Implementation GC0048 Requirements for Generators GC0091 Demand Connection GC0090 High Voltage Direct Current Future groups TBC Future groups TBC

10 Ofgem DECC NGET Joint European Stakeholder Group European Network Code/Guidelines Contacts: DECC, Ofgem & NGET European Network Code Programme GB Markets CACM, FCA & BAL Grid Code Connection RfG, DCC & HVDC System Operation TSOG (LFCR, OP & OPS) & ER Elena Mylona (Code Negotiation) Joe Parsons (Code Implementation) Steve Davies (Code Implementation) Elena Mylona (Code Negotiation) Steve Davies (Code Implementation TSOG) David Coan (Code Implementation ER) Natasha Smith (CACM, Coordination) Lewis Heather (FCA) Grendon Thompson (BAL) Stephen Perry David Freed Rob Selbie (Lead CACM & FCA) Bec Thornton (Coordination) Chris Fox (Lead BAL) Rob Wilson (RfG lead) Franklin Rodrick (DCC Lead) Richard Woodward (HVDC Lead) John Young (Lead) Honor Hynes (Coordination) Joint European Stakeholder Group Barbara Vest (Independent Chair) and Sara-Lee Kenney (Technical Secretary)

11 European Network Codes Connection Codes Market Codes Operational Codes Requirements for Generators Demand Connection Code Capacity Allocation & Congestion Management Forward Capacity Allocation Operational Security Operational Transmission Planning System & Operation Scheduling Load-Frequency Control & Reserves High Voltage Direct Current Balancing Emergency & Restoration One set of rules, delivered as 8 Network Codes / Guidelines

12 ACER develops FWGL EC invites ENTSO-E to develop NC Joint European Stakeholder Group Commission Revisions Preparations for Comitology Publication in OJEU Transparency EU Reg 543/2013 Implemented European Electricity Codes Development Status: 1 April month s EC programm e 12 months 3 months See note 18 months 3+ y years depending on Code ENTSO-E develops Network Code ACER reviews Network Code ACER recommends Network Code to EC Revisions to Code after Opinion ACER Revises Opinion Comitology Member State Implementation Potential Future ENCs: indicated as future ENCs, no timescales advised to date Connection Procedures Staff Training & Certification Tariff Harmonisation Preparation for Cross-Border Committee Cross-Border-Committee Discussion and Voting Council & Parliament Approval Timescales for the stages of Comitology are not specified and under the Commission s control OS, OPS and LFCR have been merged in to form one single Transmission System Operation Guideline. All queries to: europeancodes.electricity@nationalgrid.com

13 Stakeholder Engagement Key: GB Meeting European Meeting Decision Potential GB Meeting Potential European Meeting Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug CACM Connection Codes: RFG, DCC, HVDC FCA NEMO MCO & TSO >1 NEMO ID/DA JESG Subgroup RfG Banding Threshold Consultation Ofgem - Multiple TSOs Consultation (date TBC) NRA CCR Decision Workgroup & Co-ord group Grid Code development forum Workgroup & Coord group JESG Subgroup Workgroup & Co-ord group JESG Subgroup Anticipated EIF Workgroup & Co-ord group CGM and GDLPM submissions to all NRAs JESG Subgroup Workgroup & Co-ord group JESG Subgroup TSOG Stakeholder Workshops GB Code Mapping ER Stakeholder Workshops Cross Border Committee Discussion BAL TERRE Public Consultation BSG BSFG ENTSO E Workshop BSG BSFG JESG Meetings JESG meeting JESG meeting Glasgow JESG meeting Brussels TBC JESG meeting JESG meeting JESG meeting Edinburgh Cross Code Stakeholder Committees Market Meeting (closed membership) Grid Connection Meeting (closed membership)

14 Stakeholder Engagement Nominated electricity Markets Code Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management Grid Connection Codes: RFG, DCC, HVDC Operators (NEMOs) submit Market Coupling Operator (MCO) plan and Transmission System Operators (TSOs) will submit arrangements for more than 1 NEMO in GB for intraday and day ahead timeframes 6/7 April Grid Code Connection Workgroups 4 th 29 th Apr Requirements for Generators (RFG) Banding Consultation National Regulatory Authority (NRA) decision on Capacity Calculation Regions (CCRs) due 14 May 11/12 May GCC Workgroups 14/15 June GCC Workgroups Mid July Deadline for all TSOs to submit proposals on Common Grid Model (CGM) and Generation and Load Data Provision Methodology (GDLPM) to NRAs 12/13 July GCC Workgroups 9/10 August GCC Workgroups Forward Capacity Allocation Transmission System Operation Guideline Stakeholder Workshops to be scheduled to discuss final version of code Anticipated Entry Into Force Emergency & Restoration Stakeholder Workshops to be scheduled Cross Border Committee Discussion Balancing BSG - 13 April (CEER Brussels) BSFG 5 April ENTSO-E Balancing Network Code and Associated ISP CBA Stakeholder Webinar: 22 April Balancing Stakeholder Group (BSG) 29 June (ENTSO-E Brussels) Balancing Stakeholder Focus Group (BSFG) GB TBC JESG Moved from 27 April to 8th April Glasgow 25 May Brussels TBC 21 June London 20 July London 24 August Edinburgh 28 September Cross Code Stakeholder Committee 11 May (Markets) 6 June (Grid Connection)

15 4. Florence Forum Update Ofgem (on behalf of DECC)

16 Florence Forum Update JESG 8 January 2016 Natasha Z Smith

17 The Florence Forum The Florence Forum is held every 6 months and brings together regulators, Member States, Commission and European associations in a forum of circa 100 people. It essentially provides an opportunity to take stock of where we are and, while the conclusions are non-binding, they can influence the future direction of travel. Agenda, presentations and conclusions are available online: 17

18 Florence Forum 3-4 March Commissioner Arias Cañete s laid out the building blocks of the Commission s new energy market design initiative: The right price signals for investment Scarcity pricing; remove price caps Promotion of short term markets in particular intraday and cross border balancing markets Renewables playing fully in the market Price zones/market splitting to the appropriate sizes Active consumers; unlocking demand side response Removal of retail price regulation Regional generation adequacy assessment Capacity Mechanisms that are open across borders Reviewing the role of ACER Commission intends to share more detailed thinking on these areas at June 2016 Florence Forum before publishing a more detailed proposal towards the end of the year. 18

19 5. Tariff Harmonisation Update Ofgem

20 European Electricity Transmission Tariff Harmonisation Status Update David Freed

21 Progress to date Existing framework on tariff structures: 3 rd package references to cost reflectivity and efficiency Regulation 838/2010 sets limits to total g-charges in each Member States (per energy unit) ACER 2014 Opinion on g-charges recommends ending energy-based infrastructure g- charges Background 2014: Commission asked ACER to scope the possibility of a Regulation (ENC) on harmonising electricity tariff structures, this was bolstered in 2015 by plans for an Energy Union 2015: ACER employed CEPA to report on whether: Different tariff structures posed a significant barrier to trade And if these trade barriers are material, what would the costs of addressing them be? CEPA report (following consultations and workshops) Costs of significant changes to g-charge structures are likely to be high The benefits of harmonisation are uncertain, especially since there are larger issues that distort trade (ex. CMs and subsidies) that are likely to have much higher impacts on investment and operational decisions

22 ACER Recommendation December No big reforms, such as a network code or removing certain charges, are advisable today 2. ACER s G-charge Opinion should be implemented 3. The principles of the 3 rd package should be implemented more coherently across the Union work needed on harmonising the interpretation of the principles and increasing transparency Commission Now asking for further assessment by consultants on implementing the ACER Recommendation, or potentially stronger measures such as introducing a compulsory locational capacity g-charge 22

23

24 6. Transmission System Operator Guideline (TSOG Richard Woodward (NGET)

25 TSOG Update Provided by NGET Code Lead: John Young

26 TSOG Introduction Transmission System Operations Guideline (TSOG) Entered into Comitology Dec 2015 Entry into Force TBC (estimate Nov 2016 see crossborder committee slide update slide later) Formed by the merger of 3 previously separate codes: OS Operational Security OPS Operational, Planning & Scheduling LFC&R Load Frequency Control & Reserves 3 main sections of TSOG still reflect origin of 3 individual texts: 26

27 LFC&R OPS OS TSOG in a slide Ensure retention of (or return to) normal system state. Set common rules for ensuring the operational security of the pan-european power system. Focus on the planning phase ahead of real time. Set requirements for assessing the adequacy and operational security of the interconnected power system and for planning outages required by Transmission System Operators (TSOs) and grid users when they have cross borders impacts on power flows Creation of GB Operational Agreement detailing required methodologies and policies for load frequency control Requirements for frequency quality criteria. Provide for the coordination and technical specification of load frequency control processes and levels of reserves to be held 27

28 TSOG example links to other codes Balancing Network Code (BAL) Introduces common classification for balancing reserves (providing foundation for Network Code Balancing) which are FCR (frequency containment reserves), FRR (frequency restoration reserves), RR (replacement reserves) Emergency & Restoration Network Code (ER) Details classification of system states including emergency and blackout, the control requirements for which are contai Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management (CACM) Regulation Specification for RSCs (Regional Security Coordinators) in ER links 1 RSC per CCR (Capacity Calculation Region) the requirements for which are detailed in CACM (see next slide) 28

29 TSOG Update from Cross-Border Committee Vote not held early March due to concerns from multiple Member States (MSs) on provisions around Regional Security Coordination Initiative (RSCIs) (Art.77) Position of multiple MSs and ENTSO-E that strictly linking given Capacity Calculation Regions (CCRs) are to ultimately merge into 1, Art.77 would ultimately require 1 Regional Security Coordinator (RSC) for Europe Negative view of this from ENTSO-E and multiple MSs compromise solution not reached Intention for vote to take place in May at the same time as ER begins discussions at Cross-Border Committee New text version should be received before then 29

30 Upcoming Stakeholder Workshops First pass at TSOG mapping to the GB Framework code mapping has been performed in conjunction with Stakeholders (Art.40 reached) Second code mapping session to be held 11 April, Warwick (beginning at Art.40) Further stakeholder sessions will be planned as and when updates from the Cross Border Committee are received. All information on stakeholder sessions, code mapping and the latest TSOG texts released to Member States are communicated through the JESG Weekly Update s. For more information or to join the JESG distribution list contact: 30

31 7. Requirements for Generators Network Code: Banding Threshold Consultation Richard Woodward (NGET)

32 GC0048 RfG Generator Banding Consultation Richard Woodward

33 RfG overview Joint Grid Code/Distribution Code (D-code) workgroup GC0048 has been meeting to progress implementation since early 2014 Code text was adopted by EU Member States on 26 th June It is expected to Enter Into Force (EIF) in Q The code determines users as New (needing to be RfG-compliant) or Existing (following existing arrangements) depending on: If they re connected before the code enters into force (existing) When they have binding contracts for main plant items procurement, two years from EIF date; either before ( existing ), or after ( new ) GC0048 are looking to conclude GB implementation in 12 months to maximise lead-time for manufacturers and developers to understand any new requirements Immediate priority is agreeing RfG banding levels 33

34 What is RfG banding and how is set? Technical requirements in RfG are arranged into x4 Types based on a user s connection voltage and MW capacity Type A and B requirements are close to a product standard Type C and D requirements need active generator management MW levels are set on a national basis by nominated TSO providing their levels + justification, and are ratified via industry consultation and regulatory approval. A cost benefit analysis is not mandated Maximum RfG banding levels permitted for GB: Type Connection Voltage Power Generating Module Capacity A < 110kV 800 W 1 MW B < 110kV 1 MW 50 MW C < 110kV 50 MW 75 MW D 110kV 75 MW + Power Station Size Current GB Definitions: SHET SPT NGET Small <10MW <30MW <50MW Medium MW Large >10MW >30MW >100MW

35 How did GC0048 consider the banding level Three options formed and consulted on within the workgroup for GB: Type Option 1 - High Max GB levels Option 2 - Medium Option 3 Low (Similar to Irish levels) A 800W 1MW 800W -1MW 800W 1MW B 1-50MW 1-30MW 1 5 MW C 50-75MW 30-50MW 5 10MW D 75MW 50MW+ 10MW+ High option is the maximum level written into the RfG text, and is consistent with Continental EU Mid option was proposed by NGET, focused primarily on reducing the wide band of Type B (1-50MW) and achieving some semblance of consistency with existing Scottish Large level (SPT) Low option is close to Irish values, and continues theme of consistency to a neighbouring synchronous area GC0048 tried to use these options to drive incremental costs/benefits between the options to form a justification 35

36 GC0048 s Recommendation Workgroup agreed to focus assessment on the high option as it presented least risk to implementation, because It better harmonises GB with Continental EU, as well as existing Grid Code Frequency Response requirements for Large generators in England & Wales, and Power Park Modules (PPMs) across GB Some existing GB requirements can continue with RfG as local, as long as they do not impact cross border trade or contradict RfG Relevant (Transmission System Operators) TSOs can propose changes to banding levels every three years after Entry into Force, allowing the evolving system/political change to be taken into account There is an interaction with the EU Transmission System Operator Guideline on banding, which would apply to existing users and present additional compliance/cost issues. High banding minimises this risk RfG bandings are not a panacea; lots of issues for SO managing existing sub-1mw generation which RfG bandings do not affect! NGET will 36 consider solutions to managing this outside RfG

37 Industry Consultation focus Help us verify and bolster the GC0048 recommendation for high banding; or Gain additional justification for GC0048 to re-consider the Medium or Low options Depending on respondent s preference, quantify the cost/benefit between the three options This needs to be the incremental cost between the preferred option and the others, rather than a consideration of the preferred option in isolation Assess preferred option against Grid Code/D-Code objectives and impact on Transmission/Distribution system users 37

38 Key dates for consultation Approved for consultation by Grid Code and Distribution Code panels in March 2016 It was issued to our distribution lists on Monday 4 th April, and will run until Friday 29 th April It will be circulated via the JESG weekly update today Responses are welcomed from any interested party - though robust justification (including cost/benefit data if applicable) must be included National Grid (Richard Woodward) are happy to present the consultation and answer any questions face-to-face, if this will assist stakeholders submitting their response It will be briefly presented at the Grid Code Development Forum (GCDF) on Thursday 14 th April 38

39 Back-up 39

40 EU Connection Code workgroups GC0048-C - Coordination Group (spanning RfG, DCC and HVDC): Project management of implementation programme for Connection Codes Progress non-technical/procedural requirements common in all three codes (see next slide) Accountable for implementation progress to industry GC0048-T RfG Technical Group GC HVDC Technical Group GC DCC Technical Group GC0087 RfG Frequency Response Grid.Code@nationalgrid.com for more info 40

41 Banding Requirements Type A A basic level necessary to ensure capability of generation over operational ranges with limited automated response and minimal system operator control. Type A ensure that there is no large-scale loss of generation over system operational ranges, minimising critical events, and include requirements necessary for widespread intervention during systemcritical events. Overview of technical requirements: Operation across a range of frequencies Limits on active power output over frequency range Rate of change of frequency withstand settings Logic interface (input port) to cease active power output within 5 secs 41

42 Banding Requirements Type B Type B provides for a wider range of automated dynamic response, with greater resilience to more specific operational events. They ensure an automated response to alleviate and maximise dynamic generation response to system events. Overview of technical requirements Type A, plus Ability to automatically reduce power on instruction Control schemes, protection and metering Fault Ride Through requirements Ability to reconnect Reactive capability (synchronous PGMs only) Reactive current injection 42

43 Banding Requirements Type C Provide for a refined, stable and highly controllable (real-time) dynamic response, aiming to provide principle ancillary services to ensure security of supply These requirements cover all operational network states with consequential detailed specification of interactions of requirements, functions, control and information to utilise these capabilities Overview of technical requirements: Type A-B, plus Active power controllability Frequency response Monitoring Automatic disconnection Optional Black start Stable operation anywhere in operating range Pole slipping protection Quick resynchronisation capability Instrumentation and monitoring requirements Ramp rate limits Simulation models 43

44 Banding Requirements Type D Requirements specific to higher voltage connected generation with an impact on entire system control and operation. They ensure stable operation of the interconnected network, allowing the use of ancillary services from generation Europe-wide. Overview of technical requirements Type A-C (latter band parameters take precedence when requirements overlap), plus Wider Voltage ranges / longer minimum operating times Synchronisation on instruction Fault Ride through 44

45 8. Balancing Network Code: Headlines Richard Woodward (NGET)

46 EU Balancing Code Update General Status Update Early Implementation Activities Draft CoBA Proposals ISP CBA 46

47 General Status Update BC Due to go into comitology June2016 BSFG Meetings (Balancing Stakeholder Focus Group GB) 5 th April BSG 13 th April ISP ENTSO-E CBA Stakeholder Workshop 15 th April Project TERRE Consultation closed 1 st April NRA Approval July 2016 Go-live Q

48 Acronyms (Used within this Presentation) XB = Cross Border RIM = Regional Integration Model RR = Replacement Reserve mfrr = manual Frequency Restoration Reserves afrr = automatic Frequency Restoration Reserves CoBA = Coordinated Balancing Area ISP = Imbalance Settlement Period CBA = Cost Benefit Analysis PO, RO, HU & BU = Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria FAT = Full Activation Time GB, FI & SE = Great Britain Finland and Sweden RES = Renewable Energy Sources DSR = Demand Side Response NC EB = Network Code Electricity Balancing NRA = National Regulatory Authority RFP = Request for proposal (part of a procurement process) TSO LIP = Transmission System Operator Local Implementation Plan 48

49 Early Implementation: Draft mfrr CoBA Proposals At the last JESG update the two scenarios on the table for mfrr were as follows: The key question was whether France and Germany would be in the same CoBA or not Scenario two was favoured by Eurelectric and the EC, as they see benefits from embedding differences from the start and see this scenario as most likely to achieve the target model concern for GB was that we would be joining in a second stage

50 Early Implementation Draft mfrr CoBA Proposals To address this concern NG proposed an organic CoBA approach, with two levels of implementation that can go at different paces, concept can be expanded to whole of EU: 1. EU-wide CoBA level development for TSO-TSO process and IT platform 2. National implementation linking a TSOs national systems and borders with the EU-wide platform, member states joining when ready.. 50

51 Early Implementation: Draft mfrr CoBA Proposal Organic CoBA approach (example) mfrr CoBA Platform CoBA level implementation Number of CoBAs: NO SE FI NL DK PO Baltic National level implementation IE GB BE DE CZ SK FR CH AT HU RO BU Red indicates a 1:1 dependency between TSOs PT ES IT SL HR 51 GR

52 Early Implementation: Draft mfrr CoBA Proposals - Roadmap Early implementation CoBAs might be possible before the Regional Implementation Model (RIM), the exact configuration will depend first on the CoBA level implementation and then on which TSOs have completed their national implementation. Based on best endeavors with no legal obligation. Countries in dark red ( RIM ): Currently no existing initiatives (i.e. not necessarily one single CoBA). These countries can form their own initiatives (one or more CoBAs) or use the exit or join principle, where they receive extra time to commit to joining a CoBA later on.

53 ISP CBA ENTSO-E Update ENTSO-E issued a questionnaire to collect data on costs and benefits for the CBA in Dec 126 responses in total (GB, Finland and Sweden provided the largest number of responses) Responses to the questionnaire focussed more on the costs than benefits Frontier Economics have been working on filling in gaps and assessing the benefits in more detail Target date of completion is still end of April 2016, with a stakeholder event planned for the 15 th April (potentially in London) to share draft conclusions to be organised The EC has also proposed a new planning case/scenario where ISP is set per Synchronous Area, with GB & IRL staying on 30mins 53

54 9. Future Meeting Dates & Agenda Items Sara-Lee Kenney JESG Technical Secretary

55 Forthcoming Events/Workshops: ENTSO-E and ACER: efault.aspx Applicable events to the ENC Programme will also be advertised through the JESG Weekly Updates

56 2016 JESG Meetings Date Description Venue Wednesday 25 May JESG Meeting (Brussels TBC) Brussels Venue & Date TBC Tuesday 21 June JESG Meeting Elexon, London Wednesday 20 July JESG Meeting Elexon, London Wednesday 24 August JESG Meeting (Edinburgh Half Day Proposed) Shepherd & Wedderburn, Edinburgh Wednesday 28 September JESG Meeting Elexon, London Wednesday 26 October JESG Meeting Elexon, London Wednesday 23 November JESG Meeting Elexon, London Tuesday 13 December JESG Meeting Elexon, London JESG Website: The full dates and details can be found on the 2016 Meeting dates on the JESG Website As always registration is required and will be opened through the JESG Weekly updates.

57 Forthcoming JESG Subgroup Meetings We will aim to hold these meetings in the afternoon following the JESG. Further details will follow for March onwards. Transmission System Operation Guideline (TSOG): GB Code Mapping Workshop Warwick Mon 11 April Register here CACM & FCA Implementation Subgroup: AM - London Wed 27 April Register here Emergency & Restoration Network Code Stakeholder Session: PM - London Wed 27 April Register here europeancodes.electricity@nationalgrid.com

58 10. Stakeholder Representation All

59 11. Any Other Business

60 Lunch: 12:00-12:30