icaros Task Force Meeting report

Transcription

1 1 icaros Task Force Meeting report MEETING Date 11/09/2017 Organiser REPORT Author Sofie Van den waeyenberg Function System Services Product Manager (Market Development Department) Date report 10/10/2017 Status Draft Final version 1. AGENDA This full-day workshop takes place at The Hotel (Waterloo Boulevard 38, 1000 Brussels). Here is the agenda of the day: Introduction to the ICAROS project Validation of meeting report of 20/06/2017 Recap previous task force meeting Summary of the new design proposal Contractual framework o Roles & Responsibilities o Obligations on asset type Procedures o Outage Planning o Scheduling o Redispatching o Congestion Risk Indicator Summary Next steps All agenda items were supported by presentations prepared by. These slides serve as background for these minutes and can be found on the ELIA website under Redesign/Agenda

2 2 PARTICIPANTS Aertgeerts Arnout Dalez Florent Demeyer Valentijn Desmet Tom (afternoon only) Detollenaere Alice Devillet Marie (afternoon only) Dierckxsens Carlos Harlem Steven Hebb Bob (President) Laumont Noémie Leroux Amandine Leroy Xavier Loos Rob Maenhoudt Marijn Maes Guillaume Malbrancke Marc Marchand Stéphane Ottoy Pauline Schell Peter Soens Joris (afternoon only) Van Bossuyt Michaël Van Bruwaene Mattijs Van De Keer Lieven Van den waeyenberg Sofie (Secretary) Van Melkebeek Wouter Vandenbroucke Hans Verrydt Eric Actility Eni Gas & Power Engie Ode Be Resa Next-Kraftwerke Febeg Edora EDF Luminus Teamwise CREG Inter-Regies CWAPE Vreg Restore Eandis Febeliec EDF Luminus T-Power Engie Basf 2. REPORT welcomes the participants and explains the purpose of the workshop. After a brief summary of the ICAROS project and the previous meetings of the task force, first presents a new proposal for a contractual framework replacing CIPU (specifically in response to the concerns expressed during the previous meeting on the proposal that the party who is BRP should also be Scheduling Agent). The following sessions focus on a new design for the different procedures in the coordination of assets and congestion management: outage planning, scheduling (including must-run & may-not-run requests), redispatching, and the Congestion Risk Indicator (replacing the Red Zones Mechanism). emphasizes that the proposed design would be applicable on TSO-connected assets and assets connected to TSO-connected CDS (1 st phase). The application on assets connected to DSO grid (2 nd phase) must first be aligned between and the DSO before discussion in the task force.

3 3 The new design will serve as input not only for a new contract to replace CIPU, but also in the new federal grid code and (a set of) regulated terms and conditions. The concrete distribution of the design aspects across these different documents is yet to be determined. explains also that the proposed design consist of different elements which are linked to each other. Therefore it is possible that if stakeholders request to change one design element, another design element needs to be changed also. This is in particular relevant for the proposals regarding freedom of ID schedule updates and the proposal to perform cost-based redispatching. This report provides an overview of the questions discussed during the meeting. Introduction to the ICAROS project Edora asks whether TSO-connected includes the local transmission grids in Flanders and Wallonia or not. confirms that the scope of TSO includes the entire grid therefore also the local transmission grids (Plaatselijk Vervoersnet; Réseau de Transmission Local). Febeliec remarks not to share this point of view. Edora asks about the exact definition of the local transmission grids. In Flanders the local grid includes the 30kV, 36kV and 70kV grids. In Wallonia the definition of the local transmission grid is less strict and depends on the connected asset. [Clarification added on 11-oct-2017:] VREG clarifies that some grids on 30-36kV are operated by a DSO and not by (as defined in the Energy Decree article 4.1.2). More information on the Plaatselijk Vervoersnet can be found at Restore states that in other countries the threshold between DSO and TSO is different than in Belgium and the spirit of the EU guidelines should be understood in that context. points out that the discussion on the inclusion of the local transmission grids in the scope of TSO is out of scope of the ICAROS task force. Recap previous task force meeting Febeliec repeats not to agree with the PGM B/C/D thresholds as proposed by. points out that the discussion on the PGM thresholds are out of scope of the ICAROS task force. Contractual framework: Roles & Responsibilities Febeliec points out that the grid user is not defined as a market party in Flemish regulation. VREG responds that a solution is underway and that hence the absence of grid users in Flanders should not be a problem anymore. In addition Febeliec refers to a lack of clarity in the definitions of asset and demand facility as well as incoherence with the grid user as it is defined today in Belgium. Febeliec requests to clarify these terms in the design. Following questions of Febeliec, EDF Luminus, and Next Kraftwerke explains more on the possible use of delivery points. requires schedules to be delivered at least at the level of the power unit:

4 4 - the aggregate power plant level is not acceptable as some power plants are connected to multiple busbars and consequently would not be able to analyze different N-1 situations. Similar for demand facilities, the schedule should be delivered at least per connection point. - Nonetheless, if behind the minimum level required by there are multiple delivery points which can be monitored via submetering, schedules can be provided for each delivery point (e.g., in case the flexibility is offered by different scheduling agents for different delivery point) as long as no delivery point is represented more than once. will clarify this in the design note. Contractual framework: Obligations on asset type proposes to assume that the requirements for PGM (B/C/D categorization) will also be applicable for storage (apply same B/C/D categorization). Once the design for PGM is clear the test can be done to verify which principles remain for storage and which require a modification. Febeliec asks whether this applies only to the injection mode of a storage unit. replies that obligations will be on both injection and offtake mode of the storage unit; this difference with PGM is one aspect to test for concrete implementation. Febeliec asks to specify the definition of storage as according to them currently a very broad definition (from Clean Energy Package) is circulating which might affect industrial processes. Although out of scope of the ICAROS project, provides the task force additional information on the probable impact on BRP nominations (net injection/net offtake on access point level) versus ICAROS schedules (generation/consumption on asset level). Febeliec asks to better define the asset in case of demand facilities (referring to inconsistencies in the EU Demand Connection Codes versus the Guideline on System Operation). Restore asks about the impact on the distribution of responsibilities and specifies the following comments: o o The scheduling agent is not to become responsible for imbalances. What if the ICAROS schedule and the BRP nomination are not equal although the situation is such that they should be: how will deal with this? Who will be held responsible? Febeliec adds that there may be a timing issue preventing a proper comparison of schedules and nominations. Febeliec also states that a scheduling agent can only be held responsible to the extent that its actions caused an error: for example, a CDS that aggregates the schedules of different demand facilities can only be held accountable for errors in aggregation, not for the quality in the individual source data per demand facility. Febeliec also questions the quality of schedules for demand facilities influenced by the impact of PGM A and warns for a risk in double counting or no counting. BASF and Febeliec ask how to take process-driven generators into account. refers to the concept of coordinability level : it is to be determined by looking at different cases to what extent this can take the specific characteristics of process-driven generators into account. Procedures specifies at the request of Febeliec which procedures are applicable for demand facilities:

5 5 Outage planning only for cross-border relevant demand facilities Must-run/may-not-run requests: not for demand facilities Scheduling: schedule obligation for demand facilities in DA only, therefore no Return-to-Schedule requests possible on demand facilities Bidding for redispatching: voluntary bidding for demand facilities Procedures: Outage Planning Febeliec repeats that there is no definition on cross-border relevant demand facilities yet. refers to the methodology to be determined by an ENTSO-e working group of which the intermediary results will be presented during a stakeholder workshop on September 28 th. Febeliec states that the outage coordination as described in the Guideline on System Operation and referenced to in ICAROS is largely written with production units in mind and is not fully applicable for cross-border relevant demand facilities. agrees that for cross-border relevant demand facilities the interpretation of statuses and remuneration for replanning must be reviewed. Febeliec will send a proposal on statuses that could be applied for cross-border relevant demand facilities. Procedures: Scheduling clarifies after a question of the VREG that the BRP perimeter will not be corrected in case of a return-to-schedule request (as Erequested = 0 MWh) but will be corrected in case of other activation requests resulting in an Erequested > 0 MWh. emphasizes that the proposal to allow scheduling agents to grasp the opportunities on the ID market and modify schedules regardless of the congestion risk in the zone (a significant change from the current CIPU design) is linked to the proposal for redispatching at cost-based remuneration. In case cost-based redispatching is considered as inacceptable by the stakeholders, will review its proposal on the principle of free ID schedule updates as well. Procedures: Redispatching VREG asks about the relation between the redispatching design and Gflex (generation connected with flexible access). states that the Gflex will be integrated in the ICAROS design to avoid misunderstanding on which framework applies in case of redispatching: decremental activation on Gflex units will be settled following the regional regulation while (if available) incremental activation on the same Gflex unit will be settled following the ICAROS design. explains to FEBEG that connection with flexible access (Gflex contracts) will remain possible on the grid: it is a condition for connection to the grid (and consequently formalized in the connection and access contracts). Conditions for connection to the grid are out of scope of ICAROS, which focuses on operational aspects. explains after a question of Restore that the decision to redispatch usually takes place before balancing gate closure time, therefore leaving sufficient time for the adaptation of balancing bids in case (a delivery point in) the balancing bid was used for redispatching. explains that first free bids are considered for the activation of congestion bids although reserve bids can also be used in situations where no other flexibility is available in the zone.

6 6 Restore expresses support for voluntary bidding on demand flexibility: if there is a market opportunity, the market will offer flexibility. EDF Luminus asks whether the list of bid properties will also be applicable for balancing bids. explains that bid properties for balancing will be different and refers to the MARI project which will determine the long term bid properties for balancing. Restore asks about the impact of Transfer of Energy (ToE). points out that ToE is by law not applicable on congestion; this will be further clarified during the consultation of the ToE rules. Restore stresses that clarification on the responsibilities of the scheduling agent as well as clarification on the application of ToE rules for congestion are absolutely necessary in order to be able to comprehend the impact of the proposed ICAROS design and take a position on the proposed design. A separate meeting on these subjects is desirable. Febeliec asks about the gaming risks associated with the freedom to modify ID schedules in congestion sensitive areas. explains that the proposal for cost-based redispatching should reduce the incentive for gaming. Febeliec points out that the freedom to modify ID schedules regardless of congestion risks in the zone will increase the costs of redispatching for and consequently for the society, even if redispatching is cost-based. A further assessment needs to be made by them in order to decide whether s proposal is acceptable. Restore asks why the full impact of the congestion bids on the imbalance is compensated: this may cause a shift in the direction of the imbalance. Why not take the system error into consideration? explains that currently European TSO s have a different approach towards the neutralization of the impact of bids activated for congestion purposes on the balance. Harmonization is to be expected on the long run. s proposal to activate compensation bids a while before the balancing timeframe enables to use XB ID markets. Procedures: Congestion Risk Indicator Restore and EDF Luminus ask whether reserves located in zones with congestion risk (energy bids set at unavailable for balancing activation in the congested direction) will not be penalized for unavailability. re-assures that it is not the intent to penalize reserve providers for unavailability set by for reasons of congestion risk. This will be dealt with in the design for the reserves. EDF Luminus asks how will decide which balancing bids to set at unavailable in zones with a MW cap for flexibility (zones with medium CRI). points out that all bids with be set at unavailable, independent of the MW cap. Febeliec asks how the CRI will be applied on demand facilities and storage. responds that the CRI is applicable to all balancing bids, regardless of the source of the flexibility.

7 7 3. DATE FOR NEXT MEETING asks the task force to send feedback on the design proposal and additional questions before Friday September 29 so there is time to answer questions and set the agenda of topics to be discussed during the next meeting. The foreseen meeting on September 28 will be cancelled. The next meeting will take place on 10 October at headquarters. The consultation of the design note should start in December to assure that can take the consultation feedback into consideration in preparation of the workshop in February on the adaptation of the Federal Grid Code.