strategic investment model for future distribution network planning · 2019. 5. 30. · mpr4 to...

Strategic Investment Model for Future

Distribution Network Planning

Session 2 Goran Strbac | Imperial College London

Panos Papadopoulos | UK Power Networks

In partnership with:

2011. UK Power Networks. All rights reserved

The challenge…

• Validate that extra capacity was created in the FPP trial area using the

right interventions at the right places of the network

• Design, develop and leave a tool behind that can help UKPN and other

DNOs identify other areas of the network to optimise using the

appropriate interventions

Strategic Investment Model

Successful completion of the FPP Strategic Investment Model including

validation and testing of the model utilising data captured within the FPP trials

2


March Grid

RPF

36MVA

Legend

March Primary 11kV Network

G G

Whittlesey

Chatteris Primary 11kV Network

GBurnt

House

PV

Greenvale

Produce

WTG

Great Acre

Fen PV Longhill Road No.2

WTG

Boardinghouse

WTG

MPR1

33kV

MPR3

Peterborough

Central Grid

RPF

30MVA

Bu

ry 1

1kV

Ne

two

rk

G

G’s Fresh

PV

GRamsey 2

WTG

Funtham’s

Lane

Farcet

G

Allpress/HolyHouse

CHP

Bank Farm

PV

P90

G

Langwood

PV

G

G

G

Chaterris Road

WTG

G

Mepal Fen

WTG

G

MPR2

MPR4

To

Downham

T-Point

To

Northworld

Primary

Wissington

G5Honeysome Road

Chaterris PV

RPF limit assumes total connected

+ accepted generation. Constraint

at 132kV side of the network

DG growth and network constraints

2014 / 2015

33kV

132kV

11kV

Legend

Normally Open Point

FPP GeneratorG

132/33 kV Transformer


Overload

Partly Overload

(4.8) (10.3)

(7.2)

(5.1) (1.1)

(7.0)

(x) Installed DG capacity Pudjianto, D., Djapic, P.,

Kairudeen, S. and Strbac, G.

(2014)

Strategic Investment Model for

future Distribution Network

Planning, report for the Flexible

Plug and Play Project:

Imperial College London, pp. 40

3

*Excludes all firm generators connected, only

few selected FPP generators are shown.



2016 / 2017

March Grid

RPF

36MVA

Legend


G G

Whittlesey


GBurnt

House

PV

Greenvale

Produce

WTG

Great Acre


WTG

Boardinghouse

WTG

MPR1

33kV

MPR3

Peterborough

Central Grid

RPF

30MVA

Bu

ry 1

1kV

Ne

two

rk

G

G’s Fresh

PV

GRamsey 2

WTG

Funtham’s

Lane

Farcet

G

Allpress/HolyHouse

CHP

Bank Farm

PV

P90

G

Langwood

PV

G

G

G

Chaterris Road

WTG

G

Mepal Fen

WTG

G

MPR2

MPR4

To

Downham

T-Point

To

Northworld

Primary

Wissington

G5Honeysome Road

Chaterris PV




33kV

132kV

11kV

Legend

Normally Open Point

FPP GeneratorG



Overload

Partly Overload

(x) Installed DG capacity

(20.0) (30.6)

(21.5)

(15.8) (3.1)

(29.4)

4





2018 / 2019

March Grid

RPF

36MVA

Legend


G G

Whittlesey


GBurnt

House

PV

Greenvale

Produce

WTG

Great Acre


WTG

Boardinghouse

WTG

MPR1

33kV

MPR3

Peterborough

Central Grid

RPF

30MVA

Bu

ry 1

1kV

Ne

two

rk

G

G’s Fresh

PV

GRamsey 2

WTG

Funtham’s

Lane

Farcet

G

Allpress/HolyHouse

CHP

Bank Farm

PV

P90

G

Langwood

PV

G

G

G

Chaterris Road

WTG

G

Mepal Fen

WTG

G

MPR2

MPR4

To

Downham

T-Point

To

Northworld

Primary

Wissington

G5Honeysome Road

Chaterris PV




33kV

132kV

11kV

Legend

Normally Open Point

FPP GeneratorG



Overload

Partly Overload


(30.1) (36.5)

(25.6)

(20.6) (3.7)

(44.3)

5





2020 / 2021

March Grid

RPF

36MVA

Legend


G G

Whittlesey


GBurnt

House

PV

Greenvale

Produce

WTG

Great Acre


WTG

Boardinghouse

WTG

MPR1

33kV

MPR3

Peterborough

Central Grid

RPF

30MVA

Bu

ry 1

1kV

Ne

two

rk

G

G’s Fresh

PV

GRamsey 2

WTG

Funtham’s

Lane

Farcet

G

Allpress/HolyHouse

CHP

Bank Farm

PV

P90

G

Langwood

PV

G

G

G

Chaterris Road

WTG

G

Mepal Fen

WTG

G

MPR2

MPR4

To

Downham

T-Point

To

Northworld

Primary

Wissington

G5Honeysome Road

Chaterris PV




33kV

132kV

11kV

Legend

Normally Open Point

FPP GeneratorG



Overload

Partly Overload


(38.6) (38.8)

(27.2)

(24) (3.9)

(56.8)

6





2022 / 2023

March Grid

RPF

36MVA

Legend


G G

Whittlesey


GBurnt

House

PV

Greenvale

Produce

WTG

Great Acre


WTG

Boardinghouse

WTG

MPR1

33kV

MPR3

Peterborough

Central Grid

RPF

30MVA

Bu

ry 1

1kV

Ne

two

rk

G

G’s Fresh

PV

GRamsey 2

WTG

Funtham’s

Lane

Farcet

G

Allpress/HolyHouse

CHP

Bank Farm

PV

P90

G

Langwood

PV

G

G

G

Chaterris Road

WTG

G

Mepal Fen

WTG

G

MPR2

MPR4

To

Downham

T-Point

To

Northworld

Primary

Wissington

G5Honeysome Road

Chaterris PV




33kV

132kV

11kV

Legend

Normally Open Point

FPP GeneratorG



Overload

Partly Overload


(42.4) (39.3)

(27.6)

(25.6) (4.0)

(62.6)

7




The challenge required a multitude

of problems to be solved

• High DG penetration triggers network reinforcements

– Thermal overloads

– Voltage rise

– New protection

• A shift to more active network requires strong coordination between operation

and network planning:

– Interactions are complex and need to be supported by appropriate

modelling tools

• Multi year optimisation of investment and operation

– Incremental planning, currently based on load growth may not be very

efficient in systems with rapid changes (e.g. with high DG). Strategic

planning with generation growth uncertainties should be considered

8


Problem formulation to be solved by

the Strategic Investment Model

Minimise total operating and investment cost across multi-year time horizon by:

• Investment cost:

– Traditional network reinforcement

– Quadrature-boosters;

– Dynamic line rating capability;

– Reactive compensation;

– Advanced protection to improve reverse power capability in a substation.

• Operating cost:

– Cost of DG curtailment

– Network Losses

• Commercial arrangement:

− Firm connection

− LIFO, pro-rata

9

The SIM uses a multi-year security constrained AC Optimal Power Flow

algorithm to solve AC power flow problems and to model ANM.


Strategic Investment Model inputs

and outputs

10

• Generation & load growth scenarios

• Generation, network, load data

• Models of:

– Smart grid technologies devices

– Smart commercial arrangements

– Other smart solutions (other LNCF projects)

• Costs

• Timescales of traditional and smart solutions

• CO2 emissions of DG

• Electricity prices and carbon intensity of national generation mix

• Set of alternative solutions

Inputs

• Identify triggers for

network reinforcement

• Impacts on network and

DG operation

• Prioritisation of different

technical and commercial

solutions

• Curtailment estimation

Outputs Strategic

Investment

Model with an

Excel-based

interface


An example of a traditional network

reinforcement solution costing £5.1m

11

CAPEX: £5.1m

• Network based solution

• Passive operation

• Firm network access

• Low utilisation


The solution proposed by FPP’s SIM

reduces costs to £1.75m

12

SIM deploys minimum investment at the right location taking into account both

traditional and smart solutions. CAPEX: £1.75m


Learning outcome 1:

The value of FPP’s smart solutions

Cost (period 2014/18)

13

The FPP solutions are cost-effective


Comparison of emissions and cost

performance indicates a trade-off

14

Emissions of the FPP approach is slightly higher than the traditional solution due to

increased losses and curtailment of DG output but this is achieved at significantly

lower costs.


Learning outcome 2:

Strategic versus incremental planning

(1 of 2) Wind 1

Wind 2

PV 1 PETC-FARC_1 [13 MVA]

Wind 1 CHP 1 FARC_1-GLAS_1 [15 MVA]

Wind 2 PV 1 CHAT_2-BOAR_1 [31 MVA]

BOAR_1-MARCH [15 MVA] PV 3 BOAR_1-MARCH [31 MVA]

PV 1 MARCH132-MARCH [90 MVA] Wind 1 BANK_FM-MARCH [31 MVA]

Wind 1 GLAS_1-REDTT_1 Wind 2 MARCH132-MARCH [180 MVA]

Wind 2 Wind 2 B14-CHAT_2 RAMSEY [2 Mvar] PETC-FARC_1

WISS-NOWNT [31MVA] BOAR_1-MARCH BANK_FM-MARCH B14-CHAT_2 [19 MVA] FARC_1-GLAS_1

PETC-FARC_1 BOAR_1-BOAR BOAR_1-MARCH BHWS-B14 [30 MVA] B14-CHAT_2

FARC_1-GLAS_1 MARCH132-MARCH MARCH132-MARCH CHAT_2-BOAR_1 BOAR_1-MARCH

14/15 16/17 18/19 20/21 22/23

PV 1

Wind 1

PETC-FARC_1 [13 MVA]

B14-CHAT_2 [19 MVA] PV 1

BOAR_1-MARCH [31 MVA] Wind 1

MARCH132-MARCH [180 MVA] Wind 2

WISS-NOWNT [31MVA] GLAS_1-REDTT_1 FARC_1-GLAS_1 [15 MVA]

PETC-FARC_1 PV 1 BANK_FM-MARCH CHAT_2-BOAR_1 [31 MVA]

FARC_1-GLAS_1 Wind 1 PETC-FARC_1 BANK_FM-MARCH [31 MVA] PV 1

BOAR_1-MARCH Wind 2 BOAR_1-MARCH BHWS-B14 [30 MVA] Wind 2

MARCH132-MARCH BOAR_1-BOAR MARCH132-MARCH FARC_1-GLAS_1 REDTT_1-RAMSEY

14/15 16/17 18/19 20/21 22/23

Incre

men

tal

Strategic approach:

- Benefits from economies of scale

- Avoid reinforcing a network section twice in the short-term brings

forward network investment rather postponing with smart solutions

ANM

QB

DLR

New protection

New transformer

New OHL

15

2011. UK Power Networks. All rights reserved 16

Learning outcome 2:

Strategic versus incremental planning

(2 of 2)

Strategic investment approach ensures the least cost development of the system in

the long term while the incremental investment approach minimises the short-term

cost by using aggressive “smart” solutions but may lead to higher long-term cost as

the short-term decisions may be sub-optimal.


Learning outcome 3:

Least-Worst Regret development strategy

Connection to

Farcet or

Glassmoor ?

Traditional short-term strategy is to

connect the new DG to Glassmoor.

SIM chooses to connect to Farcet

(Least-Worst Regret solution) as the

future cost of reinforcing Peterborough

Central (PETC) – Glassmoor (GLAS) is

high.

Scenario Growth Capacity (MW) Wind Commercial

Solar PV Wind Commercial

Solar PV

Zero 0% 0% 104 47

Low 34% 82% 139 85

Medium 47% 173% 152 127

High 65% 251% 170 163

17


Least-Worst Regret

18

Due to high DG growth,

Peterborough Central to Farcet will

need to be reinforced and therefore

the connection of new DG will have

smaller effect.


Recommendation 1:

From incremental to to long-term

strategic planning

• More cost effective than the current traditional incremental investment

approach

• Optimal portfolio of smart and traditional network solutions

• Long-term strategic planning involves anticipatory investment

• Understand risks associated with uncertainty in future development

19


Recommendation 2:

Further development in commercial

frameworks

• Facilitate investment that provide flexibility to deal with uncertainty

– Balance the cost to existing and future network users and enable least cost

evolution to lower carbon future

• Develop mechanism/process to facilitate pro-active roll-out of FPP concepts

and solutions

20


For more information visit ukpowernetworks.co.uk/innovation

Successful deployment of new commercial arrangements and interoperable

smart grid components to deliver faster and cheaper DG connections

Engaged with 50+ DG developers

Interviewed 20

Trialled two DG access principles:

LIFO and Pro–rata capacity quota

Made 40 connection offers:

• 15 accepted, 54.4MW enabled,

£44m savings

Commissioned RF mesh wireless

network for wide area comms

Developed analysis tool for

investment options in DG

dominated networks

Integrated and commissioned smart

devices across 12 sites

Deployed IEC 61850 for

interoperability between solution

components

Installed and commissioned first

quad-booster at 33kV

Key achievements of Flexible Plug and Play

21

strategic investment model for future distribution network planning · 2019. 5. 30. · mpr4 to...

Documents