icaros Task Force Meeting report

Transcription

1 1 icaros Task Force Meeting report MEETING Date 7/06/2017 Organiser REPORT Author Sofie Van den waeyenberg Function System Services Product Manager (Market Development Department) Date report 15/06/2017 Status Draft Final version 1. AGENDA Project & Task Force Introduction CIPU & Federal Grid Code Relevant EU Network Codes o Requirements for Grid Connection of Generators o Guideline on System Operations o Guideline on Electricity Balancing Summary of Conclusions 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 Group_Balancing/Task- Force-CIPU- Redesign/Agenda

2 2 PARTICIPANTS Claes Peter Dalez Florent Debrigode Patricia Demeyer Valentijn Dierckxsens Carlos Gabriels Senne Gheury Jacques Hebb Bob (President) Leroux Amandine Leroy Xavier Robbelein Jo Schell Peter Taverniers Hans Van Bruwaene Mattijs Van den waeyenberg Sofie (Secretary) Van Melkebeek Wouter Verrydt Eric Febeliec Eni Gas & Power Creg Electrabel Next-Kraftwerke FOD Economie Creg EDF Luminus FOD Restore Power Pulse EDF Luminus Engie Basf 2. REPORT Project & Task Force Introduction Bob Hebb welcomes everyone to the first icaros task force on the redesign of the CIPU contract and explains the context and purpose of the task force. The first Task Force meeting is having as objective to set the scope and context of the discussions we need to have: what are the existing CIPU procedures and what are t he future requirements of the System Operations Guideline? In the next Task Force meeting we will have first discussions on the design (focus on market roles and contractual framework). We will also discuss the concrete planning of the Taskforce after the summer break. is very interested in discussing with market parties, regulators, and other system operators the future possibilities for the coordination of assets and obligations following from the European Guidelines. The task forces serves to identify potential requests and concerns of all relevant stakeholders in time to allow sufficient time to discuss the possibilities for asset coordination and congestion management as input for a final product design and grid code proposal early on in The task force members are invited to use this platform to present their own views and think together with on the best organization of the task force. For any questions on the task force, members may contact Sofie Van den waeyenberg (sofie.vandenwaeyenberg@elia.be).

3 3 CIPU & Federal Grid Code As not all task force members are familiar with the CIPU contract, Sofie Van den waeyenberg first presents the highlights of CIPU and explains how the contract is used by. For the new design all procedures will be reviewed but expects less discussion on the procedures before the day-ahead timeframe. EDF Luminus emphasizes the importanc e of operational communication, data coherence across procedures, and data quality within procedures. support the claim for data coherence and quality, and assures that the need for efficient operational communication (also interactions with other data exchange platforms) is noted as an important parameter when taking a decision on the design proposal. One stakeholder remarks the everreturning discussion on the definition of Pmax which should be treated when detailing the design aspects. Febeliec refers to similar discussions in the Working Group Belgian Grid and asks that previous agreements there will not be opened for renegotiation in this Task Force. Engie also refers to parallel topics discussed in the task force on the implementation of EU network codes. is aware of the parallel and coordinates internally as much as possible to avoid the double treatment of topics in different task forces. Only all topics directly related to operational planning, rescheduling, and redispatching shall be discussed within the TF icaros. Restore asks whether there is an observed correlation between congestion and balancing. has not yet studied this correlation. Conceptually it could be questioned whether congestion activations should still be compensat ed by activating balancing bids. is willing to evaluate the current method and discuss the options during a future task force meeting. explains also that currently in Europe compensation bids are treated differently. Historical data on the use of the different procedures is shown. - EDF Luminus remarks that congestion activations occur mostly in intraday and not in day ahead. At the moment of the task force is awaiting feedback on the amount of day ahead activations but confirms that in general activations are requested in the intraday timeframe. (After meeting information added by : in 2015 there were no day ahead activations; in 2016 there were day ahead activations on 4 occasions.) - underlines that limited use of a procedure does not indicate that the procedure should not continue to exist (e.g. must-run/may-not-run requests). Even if only used on occasion, having a procedure in place to take certain actions is valuable. explains that in the current CPU procedures there s a strong interdependency with ancillary services. This explains also why currently for mfrr & FCR there are 2 different contracts (GFA CIPU & GFA Non CIPU). We need to have first a clear view on the new operational procedures before an assessment can be made how we will implement the contractual merge of those contracts. Relevant EU Network Codes Sofie Van den waeyenberg presents a list of articles from the European network codes (NC) on requirements for generators, system operations, and balancing that deemed as most determining in the construction of a new contractual framework for the coordination of assets. The presentation points at the key consequences regarding the options available for implementation of the network codes, without representing a position

4 4 of on whether or not all requirements proposed by the network codes will be adopted. An important distinction is to be made between mandatory NC requirements where the question to tackle is on how to implement the obligation versus requirements proposed by the NC where both the need for implementation as the manner are subject of discussion. In the Belgian context the regulatory framework is additionally complex. Requirements on DSO-connected assets need to be discussed with the DSO as there is potentially a direct operational impact for them. o Requirements for Grid Connection of Generators For information to the icaros task force, as the classification on PGM (power generating modules) A/B/C/D is referenced to in the guideline on System Operations (see further). The task force on EU network code implementation has brought forward a proposal on thresholds for PGM A/B/C/D, which is currently open for consultation. PGM C & D largely correspond to the current production subject to a CIPU contract, but requirements for coordination will expand to PGM B (< 25MW). Questions on the classification of a specific PGM can be addressed to the grid user s key account manager at. explains that obligations imposed on PGM-level may nonetheless be implemented on a more detailed power-unit level (e.g. for outage planning and scheduling unit -level data exchange remains needed). The exact implementation of requirements (PGM, power unit, power plant level) can again be discussed once the exact requirements and new design become clearer. EDF Luminus states that a level playing field should be maintained: 1 MW has the same impact on the grid regardless of the source (aggregated or individual). Febeliec disagrees as 1MW from demand cannot be regarded equal to 1 MW from production considering the different impact on the grid user. BASF asks about the consequences for industrial process-related productions referring to article 6.4 of the Requirements for Grid Connection of Generators, which exempts certain embedded PGM (industrial process-related combined heat-power production) from requirements on modulation of active power output. will of course integrate such exemptions in the design; nonetheless the acknowledgment that the exemption is applicable for a concerned PGM should be formalized (e.g., in the connection contract). The EU network codes are not applicable for storage other than pumped-storage. CREG rightfully asks why storage is not in the scope and remarks that in the design for asset coordination storage should nonetheless be included to create a level playing field. Engie suggests using the experience of R1 asset to verify whether the requirements on PGM could be used on storage units or not. o Guideline on System Operations (GL SO) The guideline on system operations imposes (TSO-connected PGM) or proposes (other significant grid users: DSO-connected PGM, TSO-connected) requirements for data exchange on outage plans, schedules, and certain technical information. There are no derogations possible for the imposed requirements of the GL SO (in contrast to the RfG code). EDF Luminus requests that double data flows for coordination and for the transparency platform is avoided. has noted this as an important parameter to be considered in the implementation phase.

5 5 Febeliec expresses doubt on the need of such data exchange for on PGM as small as 0.25MW (part of the PGM type B). understands the expressed concern but points out that for TSO-connected PGM B this is a legal requirement imposed by the GL SO: the task force cannot put into question the need for a design compliant to this rule but should discuss the implementation of a pragmatic solution. Febeliec requests more information from on how these data will be used. EDF Luminus asks about impact on non-coordinable units with stable schedules: the required data exchange increases the work load for little added value, and therefore less need to monitor the impact of these units on the grid. CREG points out that the distinction between units subject to monitoring or not should be clearly argumented to avoid discrimination and that the identification of coordinability is not always as clear. CREG also warns that changes in coordinability level (and therefore monitoring need) should be detected to avoid that an asset is wrongfully relieved from monitoring obligations. underlines that no exemptions can be made asset -basis (case-by-case). Objective rules are needed to distinct between groups of assets/asset types. Restore asks about the exact definition of Demand Side Response (DSR) to better comprehend the GL SO requirement on data exchange of available flexibility. (After meeting information added by : the ENTSO-e Glossary defines Demand Side Response as Demand offered for the purposes of, but not restricted to, providing Active or Reactive Power management, Voltage and Frequenc y regulation and System Reserve, see Engie asks about the link with Generation and Load Data Provision Methodology (GLDPM) in the CACM (EU network code on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management). (After meeting information added by : the GLDPM is discussed in the Working Group on System Operation and European Market Design on 14/06/2017). o No comments or questions. Guideline on Electricity Balancing General feedback on the meeting and approach Restore suggests that first explains its needs to the task force members can better comprehend the proposals of on the requirement to maintain and the margin for discussion. What are the minimum requirements? What is the scope of s responsibilities (e.g., concerning adequacy)? How are these aspect affected by the changing energy context? How to distinct the impact from production versus demand (cfr. today some production regarded as negative load and therefore not measured)? Febeliec asks a more concrete suggestion of a planning for the task force meetings to be held after the summer holidays. concludes the meeting with the explanation that the TF icaros will discuss the implementation of European Rules and that these rules are not always written in function of the concrete setting of the Belgian Network. Therefore we will need to look for pragmatic solutions when possible.

6 6 The final proposed design should be a balanced proposal between the legal obligations the operational needs of the feasibility for market parties to implement the rules technology neutral design in order to assure a level playing field The participants of the meeting are considering the presented slides as a good starting point for further discussions. 3. DATE FOR NEXT MEETING Tuesday 20 June 2017 at 9:30 12:00 headquarters