The European BenchmarkingReport on Quality of Supply

PES GM, 30 July 2014

Math BOLLEN

Luleå University of Technology

Skellefteå, Sweden

1

Werner FRIEDL

E-Control / CEER (energy regulator)

Vienna, Austria / Brussels, Belgium

• The European (regulated and deregulated)electricity market

• CEER - the Council of European Energy Regulators

• The Benchmarking report on quality ofelectricity supply

• Benchmarking on Continuity of Supply

• Cooperation IEEE and CEER

2

The European Electricity Market

3

Regulated monopoly

Deregulated openmarket

Deregulated openmarket

European Energy Regulators

Council of European Energy Regulators

CEER is a “not-for-profit association” constituted by 32independent national regulatory authorities (NRAs)aiming to facilitate the creation of a single, competitive,efficient and sustainable EU internal energy market thatworks in the public interest

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

ACER is established by the Regulation (EC) No. 713/2009to be fully operational in March 2011 as an EuropeanCommunity body with legal personality, with the aim tocomplement and coordinate at EU-level the work of theNRAs and has its seat in Ljubljana

4

European Network Codes

• Network codes are a set of rules drafted by ENTSO-E,with guidance from ACER , to facilitate theharmonisation, integration and efficiency of theEuropean electricity market.

– Requirements for generators

– Demand connection code

– Operational planning and scheduling

– Electricity balancing

– etc

5

CEER - organisation

6

Electricity Quality of SupplyTask Force EQS TF

http://www.ceer.eu

Benchmarking Report

• Comparison of CoS forEuropean countries

• Comparison of CoS, VQ andCQ regulation

• Recommendations to thestakeholders

7

Evolution of Benchmarking2001 2003 2005

2008

8

2011

Structure of the 5th BR

„non technical“ Quality

„technical“ Quality

Commercial Quality

Voltage Quality

Continuity of Supply

Classification

9

Structure of the 5th BR

Continuity of Supply(CoS)

Voltage Quality (VQ) Commercial Quality (CQ)

What is? What is CoS? What is VQ? What is CQ?

Past work Work on CoS Work on VQ Work on CQ

What to monitor? Interruption types VQ disturbancesGroups of CQ mostly used

standards

How to monitor? CoS monitoring VQ monitoring systemsHarmonised definitions for

each indicator/stand.

How regulated?CoS indicators (and reg.

incentives)EU norms and national

regulat.Guaranteed st. vs. other

standards

ActualNational CoS data

Disaggregated dataVoltage Dips Initial comparison

Findings &Recommendations

8 6 5

10

Voltage Quality - EN 50160

• Electricity as a product

• Set of “voltagecharacteristics” as minimumrequirements throughoutEurope

• 10-minute averages

• 95% of time, for allcustomers

11

National regulation

• EN 50160 is often used as a basis

– Measurement method

– Objective values for harmonics

• Sharpening the requirements in different ways

– 1 minute instead of 10 minutes

– 99 or 100 % instead of 95 %

– Different objectives for supply voltage variations

– Regulation on voltage dips

12

Recommendations on VQ from BR5

13

• #1A: Further improve EN 50160 as a harmonised instrument forvoltage quality regulation

• #2: Ensure individual voltage quality verification

• #3: Set reasonable emission limits for network users

• #4A: the scope of continuous voltage quality monitoringprograms should be broadened

• #4B: exploit the possibilities offered by smart meters withoutexcessive price increase for customers

• #5: define harmonized characteristics and indices for voltage dips

• #6: Ensure availability and regular publication of voltage qualitydata

Recommendations on CQ from BR5

14

• #1: Periodically review the national regulations of commercialquality

• #2: Enforce general standards of service in order to protectcustomers better

• #3: Properly prioritise the national regulations of commercialquality

• #4: Maximise the benefits of high tech developments forcustomers

• #5: Develop the regulation of customer relations

Continuity of Supply

Continuity of supply concerns interruptions inelectricity supply.

In other words: CoS focuses on the events during whichthe voltage at the supply terminals of a network userdrops to zero or nearly (practically) zero.

Continuity of supply can be described byvarious quality dimensions.

15

Benchmarking on Continuity of Supply I/II

16

Source: http://www.ceer.eu

Benchmarking on Continuity of Supply II/II

17

Source: http://www.ceer.eu

Continuity of Supply - CoS (I/IV)TABLE 2.8 Indices for short and transient interruptions in the different countries which monitor them

Country Short Transient

CZECH REPUBLIC CENELEC TR 50555 (Chosen points) CENELEC TR 50555 (Chosen points)

FINLAND In MV, amount of short interruptions (high speedautomatic reclosing and delayed automaticreclosing) which are proportional to the annualamount of energy.

FRANCE Transmission: MAIFIDistribution: “Percentage of customers withinsufficient quality of supply” (the definition of a

“customer with insufficient quality of supply”depends on the location)

None

HUNGARY Distribution level: the indicators used in IEEE Std.1366-2003: MAIFI (for MV networks)Transmission level: no indicator

Distribution level:the indicators used in IEEE Std. 1366-2003:MAIFI (for MV networks)Transmission level: no indicator

ITALY For transmission: ENS, ENW (energy notwithdrawn), AIT, MAIFI

For distribution: MAIFIE

For transmission: number of transientinterruptions.

For distribution: number of transientinterruptions.

LITHUANIA TSO - ENS, AITDSO - SAIDI, SAIFI

DSO - MAIFI

NORWAY Same as for long interruptions Included in short interruptions

POLAND Distribution level according to the IEEE Std. 1366-2003: MAIFITransmission level: there is no indicator

NA

PORTUGAL Transmission level:MAIFI (it is not mandatory)

SLOVENIA Distribution and transmission: MAIFI

SWEDEN MAIFIE with an period of 3 minutes for events NA

• CoS is monitored in 35 European countries

Expand the monitoring of CoS

• CoS-Indicators, procedures for data collection vary acrosscountries

Harmonise CoS indicators and data collection procedures

12/26 countries monitor short interruptions

17/26 countries consider incidents at all voltage levels in CoS

i

iEENSCNCAIFI

iiN

T

ii

N

N

SAIFIT

iii

L

rL

ASIDI

ii

iii

N

rN

CAIDI

T

ii

L

L

ASIFI

T

iii

N

rN

SAIDI

T

ii

N

NMAIFI

iiEENS

T

ii

N

N

SAIFIT

iii

N

rN

SAIDI

T

ii

N

NMAIFI

< 3 minutes LV, MV, HV, EHV

18

Continuity of Supply - CoS (II/IV)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Min

ute

slo

st

per

cu

sto

mer

France HV, MV, LV urban

France HV, MV, LV suburban

France HV, MV, LV rural

Italy HV, MV, LV urban

Italy HV, MV, LV suburban

Italy HV, MV, LV rural

Romania HV, MV, LV urban

Romania HV, MV, LV rural

Portugal HV, MV, LV urban

Portugal HV, MV, LV suburban

Portugal HV, MV, LV rural

Slovenia HV, MV urban

Slovenia HV, MV suburban

Slovenia HV, MV rural

0

100

200

300

400

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Min

ute

slo

st

pe

ry

ea

r

Austria HV, MV

Bulgaria HV, MV

Czech Republic EHV, HV, MV, LV

Denmark HV, MV, LV

France EHV, HV, MV, LV

Germany EHV, HV, MV, LV

GB EHV, HV, MV, LV

Greece MV, LV

Hungary HV, MV, LV

Ireland HV, MV, LV

Italy EHV, HV, MV, LV

Lithuania HV, MV, LV

The Netherlands EHV, HV, MV, LV

Poland EHV, HV, MV, LV

Portugal EHV, HV, MV, LV

Romania HV, MV, LV

Slovak Republic EHV, HV, MV, LV

Slovenia EHV, HV, MV

Spain EHV, HV, MV, LV

Sweden EHV, HV, MV, LV

• CoS improvements trend to become stable(planned/not planned; with/without exceptional events

analyses in: graphical and table form)

Investigate CoS trends for a periodic review of regulation(analyse trends of the economic results of regulation)

• CoS is affected by network characteristics(urban/suburban/rural areas - analyses in: graphical and table form)

Assess disaggregated continuity data in order to identifypriorities – e.g.:

voltage level groups of customer by cause

19

Continuity of Supply - CoS (III/IV)y = 0,0016x + 0,177

R2

= 0,428

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 100 200 300 400 500

Density, inhabitants per km²

Rate

of

un

derg

rou

nd

cab

les

MV

Netherlands

GermanySpain

Luxembourg

Great Britain

Italy

AustriaSweden

FranceNorway

IcelandSlovenia

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Lithuania

GreeceIrelandHungary

Czech RepublicPoland

Portugal

• CoS levels are affected by network characteristics (e.g. cable)significant correlation between underground cables and high CoS; several indicators arecorrelated (e.g. population density) – difficult to assess specific impact

Promote cost-benefit analysis to improve the efficiencyof expenditure on networks

• Incentive schemes are used to regulate CoS in distributionand transmission networks

Implement an incentive scheme for maintaining orimproving general continuity levels

15/26 countries consider CoS in their regulation regime

6 countries plan to introduce such a regime (DE, GR, LU, AT, RO, CZ)

20

Continuity of Supply - CoS (IV/IV)

23/05/2014

• Incentive schemes for individual continuity levels are used inmany countries and have different formulations18 countries have compensation schemes for single-user (2 have plans); schemes are notuniform: e.g. based on type of grid-user, sometimes the reimbursements are automatic

Implement compensation payments for network usersaffected by very long interruptions

• More countries participate in benchmarking CoSreduce the cost of obtaining information about regulation

Continue in exchange of information on continuity ofsupply and its regulation

Recommendation of 1st Report achieved completely

21

Conclusion and Outlook I/II

• Results are presented on the basis of facts

• Clear recommendations for future developments are given

• Further harmonisation in (i) data collection;

(ii) indices calculation; (iii) quality analysis

• Further improvements of VQ standardisation

(EN 50160)

• Implementation of Guideline of Good Practise on VQ-Monitoring

• Attention on Smart Meters

22

Commercial Quality

Voltage Quality

Continuity of Supply

Conclusion and Outlook II/II

23

Investigate CoS trends for a periodic review ofregulationInvestigate CoS trends for a periodic review ofregulationI

Promote cost-benefit analysis to improve the efficiencyof expenditure on networksPromote cost-benefit analysis to improve the efficiencyof expenditure on networks

II

Implement compensation payments for network usersaffected by very long interruptionsImplement compensation payments for network usersaffected by very long interruptions

III

Perform cost-estimation studies of voltagedisturbancesPerform cost-estimation studies of voltagedisturbances

IV

The scope of continuous VQ monitoring programmesshould be broadened AND make results availableThe scope of continuous VQ monitoring programmesshould be broadened AND make results available

V

Plans/ideas for the 6th BR on CoS

• Differentiation/definition on planned & unplanned interruptions

• Focus on causes of interruptions (e.g. cause of “fiber cabeling”)

• Rules for time aggregation of interruptions

• Analysis on relationship of network performance and network structure

– Clustered sizes of DSOs in relationship to the network performance

– Improved questions on demand and distributed generation (classification ofcustomers)

• CAPEX/OPEX relationship to quality performance

• Recommendations for density (urban/sub-urban/rural)

• Use of quality indicators in regulation (comparison of regulation regimes,use within regulation regime and/or efficiency benchmarking)

• Definition of “good” quality for CoS (in form of individual standards)

24

Cooperation IEEE and CEER

25

suitable time and location to meet together?

Exchange of experience ?

Joint publication/paper ?

Exchange of benchmarking results ?

How a cooperation could look like?

26

Dr. Werner FRIEDL

501+43 1 24724

werner.friedl@e-control.at

www.e-control.at / www.ceer.eu

Prof. Math BOLLEN

+46 70 295 8424

math.bollen@ltu.se

http://www.ltu.se/

ANNEX – additional information

27

28

• “Towards Voltage Quality Regulation In Europe”ERGEG Public Consultation Paper - Dec. 2006

• “Towards Voltage Quality Regulation in Europe”ERGEG Conclusions Paper - July 2007

• “Towards Voltage Quality Regulation in Europe”Evaluation of the Comments Received - July 2007

• “Service Quality Regulation in Electricity Distribution andRetail” (CEER and FSR) - 2006/2007

• VQ Monitoring Workshop in Brussels Nov. 2009• 1st Round Table CEER/EURELECTRIC

• CIRED 2009 + 2011 + June 2013

• “GGP on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptionsand Voltage Disturbances” - Dec. 2010

• 2nd Round Table CEER/EURELECTRIC• “GGP on Voltage Quality Monitoring” – Dec. 2012

CEER Reports/Activities (II/II)

CEER Reports/Activities (I/II)

29

• 1st CEER Benchmarking Report - 2001

• 2nd CEER Benchmarking Report - 2003

• 3rd CEER Benchmarking Report - 2005

• 4th CEER Benchmarking Report - 2008

• 5th CEER Benchmarking Report – 2011• CEER Benchmarking Report 5.1 – 2014 (CoS)

• CEER Benchmarking Report 5.2 – 2015 (CoS)

Cooperation IEEE and CEER

30

suitable time and location to meet together?

Exchange of experience ?

Joint publication/paper ?

Exchange of benchmarking results ?

How a cooperation could look like?