WP1: D1.1 PROJECT PLAN

Transcription

1 WP1: D1.1 PROJECT PLAN

2 ID & Title : D1.1 PROJECT PLAN Number of pages : 49 Short Description (Max. 50 words): Confirm detailed planning including time, detailed responsibilities effort and intermediate products. Version Date Modifications nature Author V0.3 20/06/2013 TOQA Review David Rubio Accessibility: PU, Public PP, Restricted to other program participants (including the Commission Services) RE, Restricted to other a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO, Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) If restricted, please specify here the group: Owner / Main responsible: IBERDROLA / Jesus Varela Reviewer (s): GNF / Eva Alvarez V /05/29 2/49

3 Authors Version Date Modifications nature Author name (s) Company V0.XX 13/02/2013 Document initialisation Jesus Varela Raul Bachiller David Rubio Fernando Salazar Marta Casas Eva Álvarez IBERDROLA / GNF V /02/2013 Internal Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /02/2013 Internal Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /02/2013 Internal Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /02/2013 Internal Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /02/2013 Internal Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /02/2013 Internal Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /02/2013 Internal Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /02/2013 Version for Partners Review David Rubio IBERDROLA V /03/2013 Integration of Partners comments David Rubio IBERDROLA V /04/2013 2º Integration of Partners comments David Rubio IBERDROLA V /05/29 3/49

4 Abstract This document is intended to explain and elaborate on the coordination and organization procedures adopted for the IGREENGrid project, and answers one of the deliverables associated to the WP1, the D1.1 Project Plan. In the DoW included in the Consortium Agreement signed before the start of the project, the basic needs to develop the project objectives have been provided. This document includes a General Planning and the methods to follow the development of IGREENGrid project, as well as scheduling of the main meetings to be held in the project. Done consistently with the current state of IGREENGrid project, this project plan will have to be updated considering any unforeseen situation and the evolution of the project. V /05/29 4/49

5 Table of contents AUTHORS... 3 ABSTRACT... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS... 5 LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT Notations, abbreviations, acronyms and definitions GENERAL PLANNING Changes in DoW (Amendments) EFFORTS SCHEDULED Project Reviews Update of Activity Reports Tables TECHNICAL OFFICE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE Quality assurance guidelines Reviewing process PROJECT MEETING PLANNING CONCLUSION ANNEX I (PLANNING DIAGRAM) ANNEX II (EFFORT TABLES) ANNEX III (PROGRESS REVIEW TABLES) ANNEX IV (FORM C) ANNEX V (DELIVERABLES REVIEWERS) ANNEX VI (DELIVERABLES TABLE) ANNEX VII (MILESTONES TABLE) ANNEX VIII (GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE) REFERENCES Project Documents External documents V /05/29 5/49

6 List of figures & tables Figure 1 (Planning Diagram. See Annex I for a detailed diagram)... 9 Figure 2 (Partner effort table example) Figure 3 (Deliverable reviewing process) Figure 4 (Planning Diagram) Figure 5 (Page 1 FORM C) Figure 6 (Page 2 FORM C) Figure 7 (Page 3 FORM C) Figure 8 (Governance Structure) Table 1 (Acronyms)... 8 Table 2 (Project Effort Table) Table 3 (Project Meetings Planning) Table 4 (IBERDROLA Effort Table) Table 5 (ERDF Effort Table) Table 6 (ENEL Effort Table) Table 7 (GNF Effort Table) Table 8 (RWE Effort Table) Table 9 (EAG Effort Table) Table 10 (SAG Effort Table) Table 11 (HEDNO Effort Table) Table 12 (AIT Effort Table) Table 13 (TECNALIA Effort Table) Table 14 (RSE Effort Table) Table 15 (ICCS-NTUA Effort Table) Table 16 (Task Progress Table) Table 17 (Deliverables Progress Table) Table 18 (Milestones Progress Table) Table 19 (List of deliverable reviewers) Table 20 (Deliverables Table) Table 21 (Milestones Table) Table 22 (Governance Responsibilities) V /05/29 6/49

7 1 Introduction and scope of the document IGREENGrid is a European project, funded under FP7, which focuses on finding the mostpromising solutions for increasing the hosting capacity of Distributed Renewable Energy Sources (DRES) in power distribution grids without compromising the reliability or jeopardizing the quality of supply. In order to achieve this objective, the experience of six world class DRES integration Demo Projects in low & medium voltage grids (led by some of EEGI members; Distribution System operators DSOs-) and other EU initiatives in this field are compared, to take the most of these pilot experiences and draw a set of recommendations for an appropriate integration of small & medium size variable DRES in distribution grids. The IGREENGrid Project plan has been carried out to synchronise the activities, monitor the progress and to help make decisions. On the other hand, establishing the scope, tasks, schedules, and staffing needs helps project team members to understand their responsibilities and expectations. As such, the effort spent in planning can save countless hours of confusion and rework in the subsequent phases. For the preparation of this plan the IGREENGrid Partners, analysed and studied in detail all technical, quality, and economic issues present in the previous EC agreement. This document is structured in five main sections: - Introduction and scope of the document treated in chapter 1. - General Planning treated in chapter 2. - Efforts scheduled, treated in chapter 3. - Technical Office for Quality Assurance, treated in chapter 4. - Project Meeting Planning, treated in chapter 5. Done consistently with the current state of IGREENGrid project, this project plan will have to be updated considering any unforeseen situation and the evolution of the project. 1.1 Notations, abbreviations, acronyms and definitions DoW WP EC P-M Description of Work Work Package European Commission Person-Month V /05/29 7/49

8 TOQA Technical Office for Quality Assurance Table 1 (Acronyms) V /05/29 8/49

9 2 General Planning All the IGREENGrid partners have agreed the General Planning showed in Annex I. Regarding the tasks, this diagram indicates the Start Date and the End Date of each WP tasks and the corresponding leader. Figure 1 (Planning Diagram. See Annex I for a detailed diagram) Also this diagram includes (See Annex I for a detailed diagram): - Deliverable expected dates of approval (marked with green icons ). See Annex VI. - Milestone expected dates of achievement (marked with black icons ). See Annex VII. - Internal Cost, Effort and Progress reviews expected date (marked with blue icons ). - Official Reports and EC review expected dates (marked with red icons ). In addition, the diagram includes the scheduled dates of the main project meetings. These meeting dates have been scheduled aiming to reduce the number of trips and to profit each physical meeting in order to treat as many issues as possible, whilst maintaining the agreed requirements. There are two types of meetings - Physical meetings (marked with long red icons ). - Teleconference meetings (marked with short green icons ). V /05/29 9/49

10 2.1 Changes in DoW (Amendments) All changes of the Grant Agreement, including any changes of the Description of Work (DoW) or budget distribution, need a formal approval within IGREENGrid Project Consortium. The process differs based on the impact of the changes. The process to treat the amendments is described in the document Amendments Guide for FP7 Grant Agreements, of the EC (ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/amendments-ga_en.pdf). V /05/29 10/49

11 3 Efforts Scheduled WP leaders and partners involved in each WP have agreed on the personal resources needed for the planned activities. These needs have been foreseen at the beginning of the project, and for this reason it is possible that this estimated allocation could change. In the column Planned Total of Table 2 the total effort distributed by task is summarised. This table will be updated quarterly with the data sent by the partners, and that will allow reviewing the effort dedicated to each task (column accum total ) and the remaining effort (column still to spend ). Table 2 (Project Effort Table) The proposed scheme is organized by considering time periods of three months, in order to provide a clear view of the effort time-distribution. V /05/29 11/49

12 Each partner is called to report its efforts quarterly and, in order to collect these data a dedicated table have been proposed (see the Annex II of this document). In the figure below, an exemplificative table is reported. It is designed in order to allow the filling of specific cells, which depend on the scheduled effort of each partner (in figure below, the Iberdrola case is reported). Figure 2 (Partner effort table example) Finally, it should be noted that the partners will only write data in the white cells of their corresponding effort table (when is scheduled that this partner make contributions to the task development). V /05/29 12/49

13 3.1 Project Reviews As it has been mentioned earlier, two types of reviews have been foreseen - Internal: Cost, Effort and Progress reviews. In these reviews the WP leaders will update the Tasks Progress Table (see Table 15 Annex III), and all partners also will update their Effort Tables (see Annex II). Also, the Milestone/Deliverable leader will update the status of the Milestone/Deliverable in the Progress Table (see Tables 16 and 17 in Annex III). The Efforts and Progress tables will be updated quarterly. In the Cost Report reviews the data required in EC FORM C (see Annex IV) will be completed every six (6) months, by all partners, including their Third-Parties due to control budget reasons. If a deviation is detected, producing a significant impact in the project, it will be treated in the nearest scheduled Steering Committee, and in urgent cases, the project coordinator can organize an extraordinary Steering Committee. - Official Reports and EC Reviews. Five (5) Official Reviews/Reports are foreseen (see Annex I): o First project report (Month 15). o Second project report (Month 30). o Final Project Report (Month 36). o EC Project Review 1 (Month 19). o EC Project Review 2 (Month 36). In these Reviews/Reports, the WP1 leader will collect the information of the internal reviews and will send it to the EC. If a review meeting is organized, the WP leaders can also attend. 3.2 Update of Activity Reports Tables A maximum of four (4) tables per partner will be updated in order to monitor the project activities. These tables are devoted to the reduction of the time used by each partner for the review processes without jeopardizing the project resources/planning supervision. The data to be updated in each table are: - Effort Tables (see Annex II): Each partner will fill in the appropriate column (Q1, Q2 ) the P-M spent on each task in that period (the black boxes indicate time periods in which the partner has not any scheduled activity). V /05/29 13/49

14 - Task evolution (see Annex III): Each WP leader will update the progress percentage of the corresponding activities for each task in that period (the black boxes indicate that in this period this task has not any scheduled activity). - Deliverables Progress (see Annex III): Each Deliverable leader will update the completeness percentage of the corresponding Deliverable (see section 4.2) in that period (the black boxes indicate that in this period this Deliverable should be finished). - Milestones (see Annex III): Each Milestone leader will update the progress percentage of the Milestone in that period (the black boxes indicate that in this period this Milestone should be finished). V /05/29 14/49

15 4 Technical Office for Quality Assurance In a relevant project such as IGREENGrid, where different partners (DSOs, research organisms, universities) are involved, it is necessary to have an entity which organizes, homogenizes, coordinates and validates the documentation that will be the output of the project. A Technical Office for Quality Assurance (TOQA) is set up, in order to carry out these activities (a complete description of the IGREENGrid Governance Structure is provided in Annex VIII). The aims of the TOQA are to track delivered information, to check that the documents comply with the official format, and to validate their content. 4.1 Quality assurance guidelines In this section, a set of guidelines are defined, in order to specify the approval conditions of a deliverable. These guidelines have to be followed by deliverable authors, WP leaders, and the TOQA. The deliverable authors must ensure that: - Every document respects IGREENGrid templates, which have been provided to all partners. That involves: To provide the tracking information of the document, by filling the revision history table accurately. To follow the established Table of Contents. To include a list of figures and tables. To have a list of references at the end. To respect the format of the document (Chapters: Arial Black, 20; Subchapters: Arial Black, 18; Sections: Arial Black, 16; Subsections: Arial Black, 14; Subsections 2: Arial Black, 12; Text: Arial, 10) - Every document follows British spelling and grammar (not US). - Every document has an initial abstract, with a maximum of 150 words. - Every document includes a last section of conclusions, with a maximum of 150 words. - Every document contains 5 to 100 pages. If there is a case in which this condition cannot be complied, the author must consult the TOQA. - Every document provides objective evidence of performed activities or achieved results. - The names of all deliverable files must have the same structure. Each name has to include the finalisation date, the name of the deliverable, and the document version, e.g.: YYYYMMDD_Dx.x_Name_v0.0.doc or pdf The WP leaders must ensure that: V /05/29 15/49

16 - The documentation is delivered according to the defined date. - If the delivery date cannot be complied, the leader must justify this delay and update a second deadline that must be complied. - The documents will be delivered with the established anticipation for - their review. The documents will be sent in MS Word format (at least 2007 version or earlier) format, and during this period, the TOQA compromises to send it back with its review. Before the deadline, the WP leader must send the final version (v1.0) of the deliverable in pdf format, including the comments of TOQA. The version can only be updated to v1.0 when it is uploaded to the repository in pdf format and it has already been reviewed by TOQA. - The documents will be uploaded to the common repository, with the proper anticipation established by the TOQA. The main purposes of the Technical Office for Quality Assurance are: - Monitoring of the project general state regarding the compliance of delivery dates for the documents with WP s leaders, assuring that each work package is progressing according to plan. - Ensuring the format compliance of the documentation. - Validating the documentation, from a technical point of view. The criteria to carry out this evaluation are: Consistency Understandability (i.e. clarity) Adequate coverage of requirements Adequacy of test cases and procedures - Sending the deliverables back to WP leaders, once they are reviewed, one week before the deadline, so that the author has enough time to correct them and send the final version. - Reporting WP leaders and project coordinators about detected risks and including the risk owner, and deliverable plan update if needed. 4.2 Reviewing process In this section, the phases between the reception of a deliverable and the moment when it is approved by TOQA, are explained. The different steps to be followed are shown below: - Deliverable leader writes the first version of the deliverable. Document (in.doc format) is sent to WP leader for its revision. Responsible: Deliverable Leader. - WP Leader verifies the deliverable, and sends comments to TOQA with the appropriate anticipation. Responsible: WP Leader. - TOQA sends the deliverable to the corresponding reviewer. Reviewer sends the updated version with its comments one week before deadline. TOQA returns deliverable to WP Leader with the appropriate anticipation. Responsible: TOQA. V /05/29 16/49

17 - WP Leader sends the deliverable to corresponding author for its correction. Responsible: WP Leader - Deliverable Leader verifies the entire document, analyzes the reviewer comments, and updates them in the document (TOQA supports Deliverable Leader with any hesitation they could have). Deliverable Leader sends the new version (in.doc format) to WP Leader. Responsible: Deliverable Leader. - WP Leader verifies the adjustments, and sends it back to TOQA before the deadline In case of mismatches, the document is sent back again to the team. Responsible: WP Leader. - TOQA verifies the document again, assuring that it meets all the established criteria. TOQA asks WP Leader to upload definitive version 1.0 (in.pdf format) to the common repository. Responsible: TOQA. - Finally, the project management submits the deliverable to the EC. If any deliverable had to be modified during the project life, the reviewing process should be performed completely. The different states through the deliverables passes have been standardized using the following percentages: - 50%: Version %: Version %: Version %: Corrections. - 90%: Version %: Adjustments %: Version 1.0. V /05/29 17/49

18 Deliverable Leader Deliverable Leader writes first version of the deliverable. Document (in.doc format) is sent to WP leader for its revision. WP Leader WP Leader reviews the deliverable, and sends a new version to TOQA with the appropriate anticipation TOQA TOQA sends the deliverable to the corresponding reviewer Reviewer sends the updated version with its comments one week before deadline TOQA returns deliverable to WP Leader with the appropriate anticipation WP Leader WP Leader sends the deliverable to corresponding author for its correction Deliverable Leader Deliverable Leader revises the entire document, analyzes the reviewer comments, and updates them in the document (*) Deliverable Leader sends the new version to WP Leader WP Leader WP Leader agrees on the adjustments, and sends it back to TOQA before the deadline TOQA Second review from TOQA, assuring that it meets all the established criteria TOQA asks WP Leader to upload definitive version 1.0 (in.pdf format) to the common repository Submission to EC 50%, V0.0 60%, V0.1 70%, V0.2 80%, V0.2 90%, V0.3 95%, V %, V1.0 Nº weeks of anticipation (See Annex V) 1 week to due date Due date Figure 3 (Deliverable reviewing process) (*) TOQA supports Deliverable Leader with any hesitation they could have. V /05/29 18/49

19 5 Project Meeting Planning In the Planning Diagram shown in Annex I, the meetings have been scheduled taking into account the approach of reducing the number of trips, and take advantage of the physical meeting to treat as many issues as possible, though maintaining the agreed requirements. The places for the project physical meeting have been scheduled in order to distribute the efforts between the partners. The active WP has been also taken into account to assign the organization of the meeting. Meeting Date Organizer Place Kickoff Meeting + Steering Committee 1 28/01/2013 IB Madrid WP2 meeting April 2013 RSE Milan Stakeholder Meeting 1 + WP3 meeting September 2013 ERDF Paris Steering Committee 5 + Stakeholder Meeting 2 (WEB) + WP3 & WP4 meetings WP Leader Coordination Meeting 8 + Steering Committee 6 + Project Workshop 1 + WP3 & WP4 & WP5 meetings January 2014 SAG Austria April 2014 HEDNO / ICCS- NTUA Athens Event in collaboration with other EU initiatives April 2014 SUSTAINABLE Athens Preparation of General Project Review 1 + WP3 & WP4 & WP5 meetings Steering Committee 7 + Stakeholder Meeting 3 (WEB) + WP3 & WP4 & WP5 meetings WP Leader Coordination Meeting 11 + Steering Committee 8 + Project Workshop 2 + WP3 & WP4 & WP5 meetings WP Leader Coordination Meeting 13+ Steering Committee 9 + Stakeholder Meeting 4 + Project Workshop 3 + WP5 & WP6 meetings WP Leader Coordination Meeting 14 + Steering Committee 10 + WP5 & WP6 meetings Steering Committee 11 + Stakeholder Meeting 5 (WEB)+ WP5 & WP6 meetings WP Leader Coordination Meeting 17 + Steering Committee 12 + Project Workshop 4 + WP6 meeting May 2014 IB Madrid July 2014 ENEL Italy October 2014 RWE Germany February 2015 ERDF Paris May 2015 AIT Austria July 2015 EAG Austria October 2015 TECNALIA Spain Event in collaboration with other EU initiatives 2 November 2015 SINGULAR Lisbon Preparation of General Project Review 2 + WP6 meeting November 2015 IB Madrid WP Leader Coordination Meeting 18 + Stakeholder December 2015 GNF Madrid Meeting 6 + WP6 meeting Table 3 (Project Meetings Planning) Note that some WP meetings have been included, taking into account that these WPs will be active in the scheduled meeting date. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the WP leaders to agree that these WP meetings with the meeting organizer, or organizes the meetings alone. This is only a suggestion to the WP leaders, in order to reduce the number of trips. However, the partners are free to organize additional meetings if necessary. V /05/29 19/49

20 6 Conclusion A general vision of the scheduled tasks that will be developed in the IGREENGrid project has been provided in this Project Plan. It allows the partners to synchronise these activities and easily analyse the impact of unforeseen situations which have not been scheduled at the beginning of the project. This project plan will be updated with the mentioned tables in order to monitor periodically the evolution of the project. V /05/29 20/49

21 7 Annex I (Planning Diagram) Figure 4 (Planning Diagram) V /05/29 21/49

22 8 Annex II (Effort Tables) Table 4 (IBERDROLA Effort Table) V /05/29 22/49

23 Table 5 (ERDF Effort Table) V /05/29 23/49

24 Table 6 (ENEL Effort Table) V /05/29 24/49

25 Table 7 (GNF Effort Table) V /05/29 25/49

26 Table 8 (RWE Effort Table) V /05/29 26/49

27 Table 9 (EAG Effort Table) V /05/29 27/49

28 Table 10 (SAG Effort Table) V /05/29 28/49

29 Table 11 (HEDNO Effort Table) V /05/29 29/49

30 Table 12 (AIT Effort Table) V /05/29 30/49

31 Table 13 (TECNALIA Effort Table) V /05/29 31/49

32 Table 14 (RSE Effort Table) V /05/29 32/49

33 Table 15 (ICCS-NTUA Effort Table) V /05/29 33/49

34 9 Table 16 (Task Progress Table) V /05/29 34/49

35 ANNEX III (Progress Review Tables) V /05/29 35/49

36 Table 17 (Deliverables Progress Table) V /05/29 36/49

37 Table 18 (Milestones Progress Table) V /05/29 37/49

38 10 ANNEX IV (FORM C) Figure 5 (Page 1 FORM C) V /05/29 38/49

39 Figure 6 (Page 2 FORM C) V /05/29 39/49

40 Figure 7 (Page 3 FORM C) V /05/29 40/49

41 11 ANNEX V (DELIVERABLES REVIEWERS) The following chart represents the list of deliverables, the corresponding deadlines, and the entity of the Technical Office for Quality Assurance in charge of the review: WP WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 WP Leader IB RSE TEC ENEL AIT IB ERDF Task Task Leader DX.X Deadline Weeks of anticipation TOQA deadline (*) TOQA return date (**) T1.1 IB D1.1 31/01/ /01/ /01/2013 Project Plan GNF T1.1 IB D1.2 31/01/ /01/ /01/2013 IPR manual GNF T1.1 IB D1.3 31/07/ /06/ /07/2014 First Project Report ICCS-NTUA T1.1 IB D1.4 31/12/ /11/ /12/2015 Final Project Report RSE T1.1 IB D1.5 30/06/ /05/ /06/2014 Report I: coordination with SINGULAR & SUSTAINABLE Project TEC T1.1 IB D1.6 31/12/ /11/ /12/2015 Report II: coordination with SINGULAR & SUSTAINABLE Project AIT T1.1 IB D1.7 01/04/ /03/ /02/2013 IGREENGrid, SINGULAR & SUSTAINABLE Coordination Plan RSE T2.1 TEC D2.1 01/07/ /05/ /06/2013 Barriers for connection of DRES in distribution grids IB T2.2 RSE D2.2 02/09/ /07/ /08/2013 Assessment methodology based on Indicative Key Performance Indicators ENEL T2.2 RSE D2.3 02/09/ /08/ /08/2013 Suggestions and comments regarding the use of EEGI KPIs in real Demo projects (first step) GNF T2.3 RSE, ICCS-NTUA D2.4 02/09/ /07/ /08/2013 Data gathering process design TEC T3.1 TEC D3.1 30/06/ /05/ /06/2014 Individual reports on the evaluation of local Pilot projects GNF T3.2 ICCS-NTUA D3.2 30/06/ /05/ /06/2014 Evaluation of EEGI labelled demonstration projects RSE T3.3 RSE D3.3 30/06/ /06/ /06/2014 Evaluation of other relevant demonstration initiatives AIT T4.1 RSE D4.1 30/06/ /05/ /06/2014 Report listing selected KPIs and precise recommendations to EEGI Team for improvements of list of EEGI AIT T4.3 ENEL D4.2 01/01/ /11/ /12/2014 List of reference targets (country-specific & EU-wide) for grid integration of DER based on selected RSE T5.3 AIT D5.1 30/06/ /05/ /06/2015 Technical and economic evaluation of replicability and scalability of solutions to increase the DER RSE T5.3 AIT D5.2 31/03/ /02/ /03/2015 IGREENGrid simulation & evaluation framework (methodology and tools) to assess about the penetration ICCS-NTUA T6.1 IB D6.1 30/11/ /10/ /11/2015 Guidelines for the future massive integration of DRES in distribution grids GNF T6.2 TEC D6.2 30/11/ /10/ /11/2015 Report on the DSOs' business evolution IB T6.3 IB D6.3 30/09/ /08/ /09/2015 Commercial and exploitation plan ENEL T7.2 ERDF D7.1 01/03/ /02/ /02/2013 Dissemination Plan GNF T7.2 ERDF D7.2 01/07/ /06/ /06/2014 First Report on dissemination activities ENEL T7.2 ERDF D7.3 01/07/ /06/ /06/2014 IGREENGrid Newsletter 1 ICCS-NTUA T7.2 ERDF D7.4 01/01/ /12/ /12/2014 IGREENGrid Newsletter 2 IB T7.2 ERDF D7.5 31/12/ /12/ /12/2015 IGREENGrid Newsletter 3 AIT T7.2 ERDF D7.6 01/05/ /04/ /04/2014 IGREENGrid Workshop 1 (Athens) ICCS-NTUA T7.2 ERDF D7.7 03/11/ /10/ /10/2014 IGREENGrid Workshop 2 (Madrid) GNF T7.2 ERDF D7.8 01/05/ /04/ /04/2015 IGREENGrid Workshop 3 (Paris) IB T7.2 ERDF D7.9 30/11/ /11/ /11/2015 IGREENGrid Workshop 4 (Brussels) ENEL T7.2 ERDF D /12/ /11/ /12/2015 Final report on dissemination activities and description of exchanged experiences TEC T7.2 ERDF D /12/ /11/ /12/2015 Articles in prestigious publications to present IGREENGrid results ICCS-NTUA T7.2 ERDF D /04/ /03/ /03/2013 IGREENGrid website TEC Table 19 (List of deliverable reviewers) Name Reviewer TOQA (*) Deadline for WP Leaders to send the deliverable to TOQA for its review. (**) Deadline for TOQA to send the deliverable to WP Leaders for final modifications. V /05/29 41/49

42 12 Annex VI (Deliverables Table) No. Title WP Lead Dissemination level Delivery D1.1 Project Plan 1 IB Public M1 D1.2 IPR manual 1 IB Public M1 D1.3 First Project Report 1 IB Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M19 D1.4 Final Project Report 1 IB Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M36 D1.5 Report I: coordination with SINGULAR & SUSTAINABLE Project 1 IB Public M18 D1.6 Report II: coordination with SINGULAR & SUSTAINABLE Project 1 IB Public M36 D1.7 IGREENGrid, SINGULAR & SUSTAINABLE Coordination Plan 1 IB Public M3 D2.1 Barriers for connection of DRES in distribution grids 2 TEC Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M6 D2.2 Assessment methodology based on Indicative Key Performance Indicators 2 RSE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M8 D2.3 Suggestions and comments regarding the use of EEGI KPIs in real Demo projects (first step) 2 RSE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M8 D2.4 Data gathering process design 2 ICCS-NTUA Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M8 D3.1 Individual reports on the evaluation of local Pilot projects 3 TEC Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M18 D3.2 Evaluation of EEGI labelled demonstration projects 3 ICCS-NTUA Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) M18 D3.3 Evaluation of other relevant demonstration initiatives 3 RSE Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) M18 D4.1 Report listing selected KPIs and precise recommendations to EEGI Team for improvements of list of EEGI 4 RSE Public M18 D4.2 List of reference targets (country-specific & EU-wide) for grid integration of DER based on selected 4 ENEL Public M24 D5.1 Technical and economic evaluation of replicability and scalability of solutions to increase the DER 5 AIT Public M30 D5.2 IGREENGrid simulation & evaluation framework (methodology and tools) to assess about the penetration 5 AIT Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) M27 D6.1 Guidelines for the future massive integration of DRES in distribution grids 6 IB Public M35 D6.2 Report on the DSOs' business evolution 6 TEC Public M35 D6.3 Commercial and exploitation plan 6 IB Public M33 D7.1 Dissemination Plan 7 ERDF Public M2 D7.2 First Report on dissemination activities 7 ERDF Public M18 D7.3 IGREENGrid Newsletter 1 7 ERDF Public M18 D7.4 IGREENGrid Newsletter 2 7 ERDF Public M24 D7.5 IGREENGrid Newsletter 3 7 ERDF Public M36 D7.6 IGREENGrid Workshop 1 (Athens) 7 ERDF Public M16 D7.7 IGREENGrid Workshop 2 (Madrid) 7 ERDF Public M22 D7.8 IGREENGrid Workshop 3 (Paris) 7 ERDF Public M28 D7.9 IGREENGrid Workshop 4 (Brussels) 7 ERDF Public M34 D7.10 Final report on dissemination activities and description of exchanged experiences 7 ERDF Public M36 D7.11 Articles in prestigious publications to present IGREENGrid results 7 ERDF Public M36 D7.12 IGREENGrid website 7 ERDF Public 33 Table 20 (Deliverables Table) V /05/29 42/49

43 13 Annex VII (Milestones Table) No. Name WP Lead Delivery Comments MS1 Project Start-up 1 IB M1 Kick-off Meeting MS2 First project report 1 IB M15 First Project report MS3 Second project report 1 IB M30 Second Project report MS4 Final project report 1 IB M36 Final Project Report MS5 Steering Committee Meetings 1 IB M36 Creation and tracking of a meeting calendar EU Commission could attend the meetings/conference calls Quarterly MS6 List of barriers for connection of DRES in distribution grids 2 TEC M6 Methodology/Template/KPIs for data gathering Verification of D2.3 and D2.4 by EU Commission MS7 Synchronization of local demonstration projects 1,2,3 TEC M6 Methodology/Template/KPIs for data gathering Verification of D2.3 and D2.4 by EU Commission MS8 Methodology based on EEGI KPIs 2 RSE M6 Methodology/Template/KPIs for data gathering Verification of D2.3 and D2.4 by EU Commission MS9 List of demo project not included in IGREENGrid Project 3 TEC M6 Evaluation of other relevant demonstrations initiatives MS10 IGREENGrid Demo projects data and results 3 TEC M18 Individual reports on the evaluation of local Pilot projects and Evaluation of EEGI labelled demonstration projects MS11 First list of identified solutions and scenarios to further analyse based on relevant KPIs and common identified challenges 4 RSE M13 Verification of D4.1 track version by EU commission MS12 UPDATED list of identified solutions and scenarios to further analyse based on relevant KPIs and common identified challenges 4 RSE M16 Verification of D4.1 track version by EU commission MS13 First filtered list of identified solutions and scenarios to further analyse based on technical evaluation 4 RSE M16 Verification of D4.1 track version by EU commission MS14 UPDATED filtered list of identified solutions and scenarios to further analyse based on technical evaluation 4 ENEL M19 Verification of D4.1 and D4.2 by EU commission MS15 IGREENGrid technical evaluation environment 5 AIT M24 Deliverable D5.2 EU Commission could validate the environment MS16 IGREENGrid economic evaluation environment 5 TEC M24 Deliverable D5.2 EU Commission could validate the environment MS17 Economic and technical and evaluation of the scalability and replicability of the IGREENGrid DER integration solutions 5 AIT M32 T5.3, T5.4, T5.5 Verification of D5.1 and D5.2 by EU Commission MS18 Recommendations for the technical, regulatory and economic challenges of integrating a very large share of distributed renewable generation 6 TEC M36 Verification of D6.2 by EU Commission, Stakeholders Committee and other energy players. MS19 Exploitation plan 6 IB M36 Verification of D6.1 by EU Commission MS20 IGREENGrid Stakeholders Committee Constitution 7 ERDF M1 Signed letter of Stakeholders D7.3 Table 21 (Milestones Table) V /05/29 43/49

44 14 Annex VIII (Governance Structure) The Project organization described in this chapter has been developed based on the characteristics of the activities that will be performed and the IGREENGrid Project management needs. The objectives of the proposed organization are to: - Guarantee the commitment of the Consortium members to the Project. - Quickly solve potential incidents that could arise during the Project. - Establishing a working team to ensure, with maximum guarantee of success, the excellence of the tasks and the achievement of the established objectives in a limited period of time. - Comparing work performed with professionals from other organizations. In order to maintain a high degree of flexibility in project management and ensure sufficient control, the following project management organization has been decided. The Project structure rests on 6 work packages, plus a Project Coordination work package. European Union Commission (DG Energy) Consortium Senior Managers Steering Committee Project Coordinator Project Coordinator Project Management Office Stakeholders Committee Technical Office For Quality Assurance WP Leaders Work Team Coordinator with other FP7 projects Coordinator with other demo projects Renewable energy experts Smart grid experts Grid modelling Regulatory experts Figure 8 (Governance Structure) The project management structure to be established within the project in which the partners will V /05/29 44/49

45 strongly be involved in the management of the project according to their expertise areas. V /05/29 45/49

46 Name Project Coordinator Task Iberdrola will assume the overall Project coordination role. Iberdrola will be the focal point for all activities in the Project, and as the primary interface between the Project and the European Commission. The Project coordinator will: - Lead the Project at the operative level. - Keep regular contacts with the consortium partners to ensure the achievement of the objectives established in the Project scope and fulfil the instalments. - To be the interface with the Project officers nominated by European Commission for all matters associated with the Project. - Ensure any resources and facilities required for the Project are made available. - Serve as a contact for any Project administrative matters. - Coordinate with all other work package leaders. - Coordinate with other relevant EU initiatives focused on DRES integration in grids. - Maintain accurate records of costs, resources and time scales for the Project. - Coordinate the preparation of Project annual review reports ensuring their delivery to the Commission. - Ensure that the Project maintains its objectives. - Solve contingencies. - Elaborate Project controlling reports for the Steering Committee. - Ensure that the Project maintains its relevance within the FP7. Every two months, Project Coordinator will hold a Coordination Meeting (attendant meeting or video conference) with Work Package Leaders (WP Leaders) to: IGREENGrid Steering Committee - Report about the activities carried out during the last period. - Coordinate activities for the next period. - Identify potential risks. - Solve problems. IGREENGrid Steering Committee will be composed of high level professionals (at least, one person of every IGREENGrid partner) who will provide guidance on DRES integration in distribution systems such as controlling Project development (monitoring the achievement of objectives, budgetary control, and decisions about Project outputs). IGREENGrid Steering Committee is composed of the Project Coordinator (Iberdrola) and consortium members senior managers, experts of the specific Project activities. The tasks to be carried out by the Steering Committee are: - Economic controlling of the Project at high level. - Delays controlling in developing Project activities. - Guarantee the participation of key professionals in the Project. - Analyse the conclusions and recommendations presented by the Project Coordinator. - Establish the Project s strategic guidelines. - Analyse achieved objectives. - Validate final outputs. - Solve questions with reference to consortium agreement. Important decisions in the Committee will be taken according to consensus criteria; Consortium Agreement will define the scope of important decisions. For the rest of decisions qualified majority will be necessary (2/3 of Consortium Members). IGREENGrid Stakeholders Committee IGREENGrid Steering Committee meeting will be quarterly (every year two video conference and two attendant meetings will be held). In order to draw on the analysis carried out during the Project and obtain feedback from them. Twenty world-class professionals (from energy sectors, equipment manufacturers, engineering companies, owners/operator of energy facilities, policy makers, R&D institutions, ) will be contacted by Consortium members in order to collaborate with the Project in the following activities: - Analysing and evaluating current situation, identifying the problems and obstacles presently restricting the large-scale integration of DRES in low and medium voltage grids. V /05/29 46/49

47 - Proposing solutions that could be tested during the Project. - Providing feedback (according technical, regulatory and economic criteria) about inputs that could be taken into consideration and intermediate outputs. - Carrying out recommendations regarding Project outputs. Work Package leaders Technical Office for Quality Assurance Project Management Office Work team Meetings will be held every six months (additionally, the members of this Committee will be able to take part in internal work teams meetings). Project is structured in work-packages; every work package will be led by a consortium member. WP leaders will be responsible for the following tasks: - Coordinating the work-package activities. - Guaranteeing the adequate and in time production of WP outputs. - First validation of Project deliverables. - Coordinating with the other work-packages. - Reporting to the Project Coordination about the work-package activities. Technical Office for Quality Assurance will be led by GNF, and it will carry out the following tasks: - Providing technical support to Project Coordinator and WP Leaders. - Standards definition. - Verifying that Project activities are developing according to the defined technical scope (quality of the Project processes). - Quality assurance of the Project outputs. - Previous validation of Project deliverables. - Providing feedback to technical Project teams. - Collaborating with WP leaders in coordination with EEGI, GRID+, other EU Projects, and other relevant entities and/or initiatives such as International Council on Large Electric Systems (CIGRE) and Congrès International des Réseaux Electriques de Distribution (CIRED).. The Project characteristics (coordination an EU team with national Demo Projects) require a world-class Project Management Office to carry out the following tasks: - Control the progress of the Project. - Verify time frames. - Resolve incidents that might have an impact on the Project. - Identify potential risk factors. - Procurement management. - Ensure the excellence of the Project results. - Promote Project efficiency. - Validate Project internal report. - Manage day-to-day Project tasks. - IT management. - Knowledge management. The Project Management Office will be led by Iberdrola. Professional experts in DRES and distribution grids from different points of view (technical, economic and regulatory) will compose the work team. The work team will develop the following tasks: - Definition of assessment methodology based on KPIs to evaluate Demo Projects performance (DRES integration in medium and low voltage grids). - Gathering information from six different Demo Projects and other initiatives according the previous methodology. - Comparative assessment among the different demos outputs in order to identify most promising solutions. - Build a simulation framework based on the evaluation methodology, to assess according to economic and technical criteria promising solutions in different EU distribution conditions. Using the above mentioned approach, evaluate the results and make a scientific base for recommendations to the European Commission to support the future development of regulations and policies relating to the integration DRES in the distribution network. - Produce the guidelines for the future massive integration of DRES in distribution grids. - Collaborate in disseminating the Project results. Table 22 (Governance Responsibilities) V /05/29 47/49

48 Decision making and communication structure The work package leaders take decisions on the operational execution of their work package. The overall project manager will take decisions in occasions where (minor) changes on budget and planning are required. Decisions dealing with a more substantial shift of tasks, responsibilities and budget as well as decisions that touch strategy of one or more project partners will be taken in the Steering Committee. The project manager can decide to call a Steering Committee meeting if necessary. In case of important decisions, the Steering Committee will decide with unanimous of vote, as is agreed between the partners in the signed consortium agreement. For the rest of decisions, a qualified majority criteria will be applied (2/3 of the partners). If conflicts related to the project occur, the Steering Committee will look for solutions in a cordial manner. In case of escalation, the consortium will rely on arbitration to take a final decision on the conflict. The project management office will establish a common virtual workspace (accessible through the Internet for project members only) as a common communication platform. Most distant communication will take place through while common documents can be retrieved on the common workspace. The project manager will have frequent contact with work package leaders, at least every 2 weeks. Conflict solutions In order to solve conflicts, the following procedure will be implemented: 1. Work package leader will intermediate to solve the conflict. 2. If the conflict is not solved at this first level, Technical Quality Office and Project Manager will propose a solution. 3. If this solution is not accepted, the Steering Committee will decide about this issue: o o According to the Consortium Agreement, it is an important decision: the Committee solution will be decided according to consensus criteria. According to the Consortium Agreement, it is not an important decision: the solution will require qualified majority (2/3 of Consortium Members). V /05/29 48/49

49 15 References 15.1 Project Documents List of reference document produced in the project or part of the grant agreement [DoW] Description of Work [GA] Grant Agreement [CA] Consortium Agreement 15.2 External documents [1] Amendments Guide for FP7 Grant Agreements. Version 01/02/2010. European Commission. V /05/29 49/49