p375 ‘metering behind the - elexon...9 p375 workgroup 4 actions from workgroup 3 (2 of 2) no...
TRANSCRIPT
-
P375 ‘Metering behind the
Boundary Point’
July 2019
Workgroup 4
Public
-
Health & Safety
P375/6 Workgroup 32
-
Agenda
3
■ Welcome & objectives
■ Review of meeting 3 and actions
■ P375 Proposal recap
■ P375 Customer journey
■ Use case illustration
■ Assurance for P375
■ Statistical analysis of asset load independence
■ Outstanding Issues / Review Terms of Reference
■ AOB & Close
-
Objectives
4
■ Review end to end process
■ Agree solution addresses Terms of Reference
■ Agree outstanding issues
-
P375 Meeting 3 Summary and Actions
-
Meeting 3 Summary (1 of 2)
P375 Workgroup 46
■ An example site was presented by the Proposer
■ The critical principle for an Asset Meter is that the equipment or sets of equipment
can be independently controlled and dispatched
■ The Workgroup agreed that a ‘metering by difference’ approach (which is distinct
from ‘difference metering’ and ‘net metering’) should be incorporated into the P375
solution
■ The Workgroup agreed that more than one Asset Meter can be installed per site.
Other site flows could be determined using a residual methodology which utilises
Asset Metering installed
■ The Workgroup stepped through the draft Code of Practice 11 for Asset Metering,
and agreed a number of updates and amendments to testing and commissioning,
definitions and Single Line Diagrams
■ The Workgroup stepped through a draft high-level end to end process diagram and
considered some of the questions ELEXON posed
-
Meeting 3 Summary (2 of 2)
P375 Workgroup 47
■ The Workgroup agreed that SVAA will apply the Boundary Meter DNO LLFs according
the voltages used by referencing the Asset and Boundary Meter
■ The Workgroup agreed that further consideration was needed on:
–The assurance regime required for the registration of Asset Meters and the on-
going monitoring. What data should be sent to which participants and what, if any,
data should be made public, for example on BMRS
–The extent to which the new Metering Standards for Asset Meters should cater for
the type of measuring devices discussed in P379
–The role of customer consent for moving an asset between VLPs
–Whether P375 can consider adding Asset Meters to a Supplier’s Additional BMUs
-
P375 Workgroup 48
Actions from Workgroup 3 (1 of 2)
No Action Action on Update
1. ELEXON to update Business Requirements based on Workgroup
discussions for distribution to the Workgroup before the next
meeting
ELEXON Next draft has been prepared
2. ELEXON to update CoP 11 Requirements based on Workgroup
discussions for distribution to the Workgroup before the next
meeting
ELEXONIn progress based on going discussions. Final draft aiming for WG5
3. Proposer and ELEXON to develop use case for presentation at the
next meetingProposer/ELEXON Scenarios presented in WG4
4.
NETSO to consider if P375 will allow provision and proof of delivery
for ancillary servicesNETSO
‘If the BSP wishes to use a P375 meter (or P375 difference metering) to aid in proving delivery of the service then we would be receptive to that’ Grahame Neale email
5.
ELEXON to document a viable assurance framework for P375 ELEXONPresented by SME in WG4
../G Neale email use of P375 to prove delivery of ancillary services.msg
-
P375 Workgroup 49
Actions from Workgroup 3 (2 of 2)
No Action Action on Update
6. ELEXON to clarify appointment of MOPs, DCs, and delivered
balancing volumes BMRS reporting and AMSID de-registration
process to the Business Requirements, as well as change of VLP
process
ELEXONCustomer journey and scenarios covered in WG4
7. ELEXON to engage with the Association of Decentralised Energy
and P379 Design Authority on the use of non-Code of Practice
Compliant Asset Metering (to inform consultation, scope and
timescale of P375)
ELEXONAwaiting response, but held calls and actions from Stark and Verv
8.
ELEXON to engage with Data Collectors on the interoperability and
open protocols to interrogate Asset Meters and an approved list of
Asset Meters in BSCP601
ELEXON
Conference call with Stark 19 July -Stark to talk with developers re meter standards and data protocols when using tenant sub-metering
-
P375 Issue and Scope
Proposer and ELEXON
-
Problem statement
11
■ The BSC currently only allows metering installed at the defined Boundary Point to be
used for Settlement purposes
■ The solution developed by the P344 Workgroup relies on all Balancing Services
provided by VLPs (consumers participating directly or through an independent
aggregator) being settled on metering at the site Boundary Point
■ This means that other independent actions on site could lead to the metering at the
site Boundary Point not reflecting the Balancing Services volumes the VLP actually
delivered
-
Solution
12
■ A successful solution would allow Asset Metering to replace the Boundary Point
meter within the Secondary Balancing Mechanism Unit when nominated by the VLP
■ The solution will allow Settlement of the Balancing Service to use metering installed
at the asset with volumes adjusted by line loss factors up to the GSP (equivalent of
Boundary Point volumes)
■ The metering installed will meet Code of Practice standards in terms of requirements
and accuracy. Performance Assurance will work to ensure Settlement Risk mitigated
when using Asset Metering
-
Scope of the solution
13
All solution options would also need to consider the following:
■ a) obtain registration information (VLP SMBUs and AMSIDs)
■ b) obtain appointment information (MOPs and DCs)
■ b) obtain/provide meter data (DCs balancing volumes at the Asset Meter)
■ c) calculate and aggregate the right volumes (who did what where)
■ d) adjust settlement, cashflow and payments
■ e) be subject to assurance processes
P375
VLP Parties
Registration
Metering
Data Collection
Settlement
Performance assurance
-
P375 Customer Journey and Scenarios
Paulina Stelmach and Damian Clough
-
Insert: Document title15
Registration
1. Become registered as a VLP
2. Create a SBMU (per GSP Zone)
3. Allocate Boundary Point MSID Pairs to SBMU
Bidding & Despatch
4. Submit a PN for the SBMU (take into account losses up to GSP)
5. NGESO Dispatch SBMU using FPN
6. VLP sends SVAA allocation matrix showing how delivered volumes should be allocated
to each MSID Pair within SBMU
Supplier Volume Allocation
7. SVAA calculates total metered volume for Secondary BM Unit (adjusting for LLF +
GSPGCF)
8. SVAA calculates Delivered Volumes per Secondary BM Unit and Supplier BM Unit
(adjusting for LLF and GSPGCF)
Current P344 Solution (High Level)
-
Insert: Document title16
Settlement
9. SAA calculate accepted volumes using NGESO BOAs and RRAs
10. Accepted Volumes + FPN equals expected volumes
11. Comparison between actual metered volumes and expected volumes equals delivered
volumes
12. Dependant on the above figure VLP may be charged Imbalance and Non delivery
charge
13. Delivered volumes declared by VLP (step 8) are compared to total delivered volume
(step 11) and adjusted if necessary
14. Suppliers volumes are then adjusted using these delivered volumes to ensure Supplier
do not profit/loss from the Balancing Service
Change of VLP
15. VLP can register an existing MSID pair which is within another VLP’s SBMU
16. The MSID pair automatically swaps but the incumbent VLP is informed of the swap
and can challenge the swap
Current P344 Solution (High Level)
-
Insert: Document title17
Registration
1. Become registered as a VLP
2. Create a SBMU (per GSP Zone)
3. Register Asset Metering NEW
4. Allocate Boundary Point MSID Pairs to SBMU (including new AMMSIDs and difference metering)
AMEND
Bidding & Despatch
5. Submit a PN for the SBMU (take into account losses up to GSP)
6. NGESO Dispatch SBMU using FPN
7. VLP sends SVAA allocation matrix showing how delivered volumes should be allocated to each MSID Pair within
SBMU
Supplier Volume Allocation
8. SVAA calculates total metered volume for Secondary BM Unit (adjusting for LLF + GSPGCF). Now
needs to accept and calculate volumes from HHDC AMMSIDS plus Difference Metering, plus LLFs for
Asset Meters AMEND
9. SVAA calculates Delivered Volumes (including on site losses) per Secondary BM Unit and Supplier BM Unit
(adjusting for LLF and GSPGCF). Needs to deal with multiple VLPs AMEND
Current P344 Solution (High Level) & P375
-
Insert: Document title18
Settlement
10. SAA calculate accepted volumes using NGESO BOAs and RRAs
11. Accepted Volumes + FPN equals expected volumes
12. Comparison between actual metered volumes and expected volumes equals delivered
volumes
13. Dependant on the above figure VLP may be charged Imbalance and Non delivery
charge
14. Delivered volumes declared by VLP (step 8) are compared to total delivered volume
(step 11) and adjusted if necessary
15. Suppliers volumes are then adjusted using these delivered volumes to ensure Supplier
do not profit/loss from the Balancing Service
Change of VLP
16. VLP can register an existing MSID pair which is within another VLP’s SBMU
17. The MSID pair automatically swaps but the incumbent VLP is informed of the swap
and can challenge the swap
Current P344 Solution (High Level) & P375
-
Insert: Document title19
■ P375 builds on existing P344 baseline solution to allow Asset Metering to be used for
Settlement
■ Volumes from the Asset Meter will need to be provided to SVAA and fed into
settlement
–However many existing processes remain the same.
– Inputs into the settlement process are changing not the actual calculations
themselves
Key new processes / changes
■ How to register Asset Meter
■ Metering compliance
■ Difference Metering for Asset Meters
■ How volumes from Asset Meters is sent to SVAA, and then adjusted for losses
■ Assurance over Independence of Asset
Summary
-
Insert: Document title20
■ What registration data is required
■ Does the Asset Meter require a MOP?
–Does an AMMSID need to be registered before a MOP is appointed?
– If VLP changes and appoints new DC, new DC may have difficulty locating
information about the meter necessary to collect and send metered flows
–MOP could hold this data or be provided at registration/or later (if so what info)
–Advantage of MOP is maintenance of meter to required standards and schedules
maintaining accuracy, and could provide continuity even when VLPs change
(assurance)
–Who pays for the MOP?
–Can new VLP appoint new MOP
■ What happens if there is a new asset/customer on site and the new VLP
wishes to use existing AMMSID/MSID within another VLP’s SBMU. Existing
process will automatically swap pair, but in this case no change of customer
–New question at registration?
Outstanding/Scenarios
-
Insert: Document title21
■ If Assurance process or another Party (i.e. BRP for Boundary Meter) has
concerns over independence of an asset or gaming what happens next and
who is responsible?
– Inform VLP of sites where there are concerns with any supporting data (i.e. demand
data), giving them chance to respond with supporting data which is then reviewed by
ISG/SVG?
– Inform NGESO?
– Is it the BSC responsibility? or the purchaser of the Balancing Service?
– If BSC is allowing data from Asset Meters into the settlement process arguably its
then becomes a BSC matter
– If still concerns, Asset Meter could be black flagged for a period preventing it being
used in Settlement until VLP addresses how independence will be ensured
–Appeals process created?
–Ultimately the VLP can still use the Boundary Meter (P344 solution)
■ Do we require confirmation from the end customer? (not done for P344)
Outstanding/Scenarios
-
Insert: Document title22
■ Will the DC automatically send us data or should SVAA instruct the DC to
send the data?
–We only want to build a new system change if there is the need to do so
–Send a D354 continuous information needed for baselining
■ DC will naturally send us the data as and when they read the meter?
–How regular will this be. DA’s follow SVAA calendar
■ Will VLPs want to use the DTN?
– Its not part of the existing VLP qualification process
– If there is a requirement for VLPs to use the DTN we will need to raise some DTC
change proposals
■ There is a current requirement on the VLP to allocate delivered volumes. Do
they need to tell us
Outstanding/Scenarios
-
D e m a n d R e s p o n s e . D e l i v e r e d .
11kV
private wire
ring main
Battery
connected
at 11kV
Local small
loads
Large I&C
customers
Active
assets
Capacity
Market meters
Boundary
meters
400V ring main
-
Insert: Document title24
■ VLP submits a PN (lets just assume there is one site in the SBMU for simplicity) of -20
as that what it expects demand to be onsite (and in total for SBMU) and submits an
offer of 4 units of DSR
■ SVAA calculates accepted volumes of 4 units.
■ FPN of -20 plus 4 units = Expected Metered Volumes at the Boundary Meter of -16
■ If the two CHP Units actually deliver 4 units and demand is as expected and forecasted
in the PN, then the VLP will not be charged imbalance/non delivery charges as Actual
Metered Volumes will equal -16
■ However if demand is higher than expected then this will lead to imbalance/non
delivery charges as expected volumes will not equal actual volumes at the Boundary
■ What happens when more than one Boundary Point?
Current P344 Calc
-
D e m a n d R e s p o n s e . D e l i v e r e d .
11kV
private wire
ring main
Battery
connected
at 11kV
Local small
loads
Large I&C
customers
Active
assets
Capacity
Market meters
Boundary
meters
400V ring main
-12
-8
P375
-
Insert: Document title26
■ VLP registers the two Capacity Market meters as Asset Meters
■ VLP puts these two AMMSIDs in its SBMU, and removes the Boundary MSID
■ VLP submits a PN of 0 (conveniently ignoring losses by using 0) and offers 4 units of
DSR. The VLP now does not need to worry about what the rest of the site is doing
when submitting the PN
■ SVAA calculates accepted volumes of 4 units.
■ FPN of 0 plus 4 units = Expected Metered Volumes +4
■ Appointed DC for the Asset Meters sends in metered volumes which SVAA adjusts
■ If the two CHP Units actually deliver 4 units then the VLP will not be charged
imbalance/non delivery charges as Actual Metered Volumes will equal +4.
■ Fluctuating site demand does not prevent the VLP being paid for delivery
■ However, if the large I&C customer increases its demand by -4 we will see no change
at the Boundary Meter. When there is no concurrent change in flows at the Boundary
this may create further investigation
P375
-
D e m a n d R e s p o n s e . D e l i v e r e d .
11kV
private wire
ring main
Battery
connected
at 11kV
Local small
loads
Large I&C
customers
Active
assets
Capacity
Market meters
Boundary
meters
400V ring main
-12
-8
P375
-
Insert: Document title28
■ If another VLP wishes to provide a Balancing Service on site it has two options;
–Use the Boundary Meter (if not currently used by a VLP)
–Use the new difference metering process
– Install another Asset Meter
■ If an Asset Meter is installed (for the Battery) its FPN will equal -13, or 0 if it can just
meter the Battery and not the demand.
■ If difference metering is used, the FPN will equal -20 i.e. Boundary Meter less Asset
–Difference metering still includes the noise
–However if there is large fluctuating demand an asset meter could be installed for
this to ‘chop’ this out, and then difference meter the rest of the site
P375
-
D e m a n d R e s p o n s e . D e l i v e r e d .
Waste water pumping: large site
Storm pumps:
duty/standby
FTFT pumps: duty/assist/standby
Run
occasionally;
not flexible
Run
continuously;
can be flexible
X X X X X
X
XX
Boundary meter
Configuration depends on security requirements
• VLP offers to reduce demand on site by
shutting off FTFT pump(s)
• If storm pump switches on, then this may
lead to imbalance/non delivery charges
• Options. VLP could install/register three
Asset Meters relating to FTFT or,
• VLP could register the Asset Meter which
calculates demand from the Storm pumps,
and then register a ‘Asset Meter’ whose
flows are calculated using the storm flow
meter and the Boundary Meter
-
D e m a n d R e s p o n s e . D e l i v e r e d .
Waste water pumping: large site
Storm pumps:
duty/standby
FTFT pumps: duty/assist/standby
Run
occasionally;
not flexible
Run
continuously;
can be flexible
X X X X X
X
XX
Boundary meter
Configuration depends on security requirements
• However when FTFT pumps are turned off
this should not automatically turn on the
Standby pumps
• By using the Boundary Meter this prevents
these actions being paid.
• Using Asset Metering opens up the risk of
this happening so this risk needs to be
managed
-
P375 Assurance
George Player
-
Performance Assurance Techniques
3232
Re - QualificaitonEducation
Material Error Monitoring
Tech Assurance of Metering Systems
Tech Assurance of Performance
Assurance Parties
BSC Audit
Performance Monitoring and
Reporting
Peer ComparisonBreach and Default
Removal of 'Qualification
Supplier Charges
Error and Failure Resolution
Trading Disputes
Change Mechanisms
Bulk Change of Agent
Qualificaiton
Incentive
Remedial
Preventive
Detective
Performance Assurance Framework
Delivered by PARMS
-
P375 – Assurance
33
■ Qualification
–Preventative Technique
–All VLPs to undergo Qualification
process
■ BSC Audit
–Detective Technique
–Examines many settlement
processes
–Audit Threshold no longer in place
■ TAPAP
–Detective Technique
–Examines specific processes
–Targeted at a subset of Parties
■ Peer Comparison
– Incentive Technique
–Ranks parties on their performance
–Subject to consultation approval
■ Error Failure Resolution
–Remedial Technique
–Resolve non-compliance
–Applied following BSC Audit
Risk Evaluation Register
file://PITFS01/ChangeManagement/Public/Modifications/In Progress/P375 - Settlement of Secondary BM Units using metering at the asset/Workgroup Materials/WG4/Risk-Evaluation-Register-2019_20-v1.0-1.xlsx
-
Statistical Analysis of Asset Load Independence
John Lucas
-
Assets in a BM Unit must be independent of other assets
■ The assets placed in a Secondary BM Unit must be independent of any other
demand or generation on site (otherwise the volume provided won’t be ‘real’)
Example 1
– The VLP is controlling 1MW of cold storage
(which can provide flexibility for short period)
– There is also a packaging plant on-site
(whose behaviour is unaffected by the cold
storage)
– In a particular year, National Grid happens to
issue Offers to the VLP at the start of the
business day (when the packaging plant is
starting up)
– There is therefore a statistical tendency for
the packaging plant act in the opposite
direction to the BMU – but only because both
are driven by time of day
Example 2
– The VLP is controlling a widget machine
– There is also a backup widget machine on-
site
– When the VLP receives a BOA, they instruct
the site to pause the widget machine
– The production manager does as instructed,
but also starts up the back-up widget
machine to ensure their production quota is
still met
– There is therefore a statistical tendency for
the backup machine to act in the opposite
direction to the BMU
-
Statistical monitoring of asset independence
P375/6 Workgroup 236
■ We therefore propose an ongoing monitoring process that analyses data from SVAA
to look for sites where the assets not in the BMU have an unexplained tendency to
respond to the instructions issued to the site:
Ongoing monitoring process
(e.g. running once a month
to analyse the last year’s
data)
Metered volume MVnon-VLP for
assets not in BM Unit
(calculated from Asset Meters
and Boundary Point Meters)
Delivered Volume MPDVj as
notified to SVAA by VLP
Relevant Performance Assurance Techniques
(e.g. Technical Assurance)
Report identifying
sites with
unexplained
correlation between
VLP’s delivered
volumes and other
assets
-
How would the monitoring process work?
P375/6 Workgroup 237
■ To be any use, a monitoring process must:
–Be reasonably good at sniffing out foul play (such as Example 2)
–Not generate vast numbers of ‘false positivies’
■ One possibility is to measure the correlation between:
–The VLP’s delivered volume MPDVj
–The ‘unexplained’ element of MVnon-VLP (after using a linear regression model to
control for confounding variables such as Time of Day, Day of Week and National
Demand)
■ We don’t have any real data for sites providing balancing services, but we’ve done
some simple tests using data for BM Units
-
Running the model with BM Unit data
P375/6 Workgroup 238
■ We’ve run the model with metered data and BOA volumes for real BM Units. We
hoped to find that it:
1. Does detect BM Units reacting to their own BOAs
2. Doesn’t detect BM Units reacting to other units’ BOAs
MeteredVolume
Response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs
Response to T_WHILW-1 BOAs
T_WBURB-2 0.113 0.026
2__CBGAS000 -0.033 0.053
T_CARR-1 -0.046 0.061
T_CRUA-1 -0.046 0.117
T_DRAXX-2 -0.054 0.063
T_WHILW-1 0.089 0.127
■ Tentative conclusion: generators behaviour is driven by complex factors, and
spotting the influence of BOAs is not that easy
-
Running the model with modified BM Unit data
P375/6 Workgroup 239
■ We also constructed some synthetic metered volumes by:
–Starting with the metered volumes for 2__CBGAS000
– In 50% of Settlement Periods, adding in the BOA volumes for T_WBURB-2 or
T_WHILW-1
■ These metered volumes should definitely raise a red flag, which they did:
Metered Volume Response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs
Response to T_WHILW-1 BOAs
2__CBGAS0001 with artificial response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs
0.636 -0.156
2__CBGAS0001 with artificial response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs
-0.162 0.601
-
Conclusions
P375/6 Workgroup 240
■ Modelling to date has been limited (and not using real data)
■ We believe it tentatively supports the idea that this technique would be useful in
focusing Performance Assurance on potentially problematic sites
■ We suggest not hardcoding a particular statistical model in the legal text – ELEXON
and/or the Panel should be allowed to improve this over time (c.f. CALF
Methodology)
■ If any Workgroup members have real (anonymised) data we could do further testing
-
P375 Workgroup Terms of Reference
-
P375 workgroup Terms of Reference (1 of 2)
42
P375 Terms of Reference How it has been met
1.1.5 The Workgroup will consider the following areas and include
these in its Assessment Report:
a) What standard of metering will be required? Note any differences
between the standards of metering used for other Balancing
Services such as STOR (the use of Secondary BM Unit’s may be
extended further than the use of Replacement Reserve under
TERRE).
Produced a new Asset Metering Code of
Practice 11
b) Consider appropriate ways to demonstrate independence of the
asset if required? How can we appropriately provide assurance of
the impacts of the balancing service on the Total System?
Assurance discussed in Workgroup 2,
looking for agreement in Workgroup 4
c) How will pseudo MPANs be registered and linked to the asset and
how will these MPANs be subsequently be linked to the Settlement
Meter?
New registration process detailed in
Business Requirements
d) Is the solution, or can it be future proofed against potential
future Industry developments, for example domestic assets
providing Balancing Services or operating in the Balancing
Mechanism.
Still in discussion Workgroup 4
-
P375 workgroup Terms of Reference (2 of 2)
43
P375 Terms of Reference How it has been met
1.1.5 The Workgroup will consider the following areas and include
these in its Assessment Report:
e) What changes are needed to BSC documents, systems and
processes to support P375 and what are the related costs and lead
times?
VLP AMSID Registration, MOP and DC
Appointment, Settlement, Assurance are
detailed in the Business Requirements
f) Are there any interactions (complements and conflictions)
between P375 and P376?
Combining P375 and P376 Workgroups
g) Will any new data flows or amendments to data flows be
required?
Identified in the Business Requirements
h) Are there any Alternative Modifications?
i) Should P375 be progressed as a Self-Governance Modification? Agreement that it affects competition
j) Does P375 better facilitate the Applicable BSC Objectives than the
current baseline?
-
P375 Updated Timetable
P375/6 Workgroup 344
Event Date
Finalised P375 solution by Workgroup 5 (BR page turn)
W/C 5 August 2019
Legal Text consideration by Workgroup 6 W/C 2 September 2019
Assessment consultation 9 September – 27 September 2019
Consultation responses consideration by Workgroup 7
W/C 7 October 2019
Assessment Report presented to Panel 14 November 2019
Report Phase Consultation 18 November 2019 – 02 December 2019
Draft Modification Report presented to Panel
12 December 2019
Final Modification Report submitted to Authority
13 December 2019
-
AOB