Nordic FB Stakeholder Group meeting. April 15 Stockholm Arlanda airport

Transcription

1 Nordic FB Stakeholder Group meeting April 15 Stockholm Arlanda airport

2 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

3 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

4 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

5 The Nordic Flow Based Project Status April 15 - Arlanda Trond.Jensen@statnett.no

6 Why does FB make a difference? All flows induced by commercial exchanges, including transit flows, are controlled by the market mechanism. Transit flows are not controlled by the market mechanism in (C)NTC Transit flow export No need to "hold back" capacity in FB due to uncontrolled and uncertain commercial transit flows More of the grid capacity might be offered to the market The TSO does not have to prioritize where to assign capacity in advance of the market solution due to uncertainty All technically feasible trade options are offered to the market import The market might be offered more commercial trade opportunities in FB than in (C)NTC provided an equal level of operational security

7 The scope has changed 1. The FB project has been given responsibility for the CNTC prototype development, CNTC market simulation and comparison to FB. A new WG4 has been established to develop and manage this 2. A Nordic RSCI/RSC (Regional Security Coordination Initiative) is being established. The boundaries between the FB project and the RSCI in terms of IT-development is currently not clear, including responsibility for the development of the industrialized FB tool

8 Current main focus in the FB project 1. Make the FB parameter calculation, validation and market simulation process work continuously, and with sufficient accuracy: 1. Create the hourly common grid models Upload hourly IGMs Merge IGMs to create CGMs 2. Determine available grid capacity Define hourly grid capacities (CNE-limits) 3. Calculate and validate the flow based parameters Calculate hourly PTDF matrixes Verify the resulting hourly security domain and extract PX data 4. Perform the simulations and compare results Upload PX data and calculate hourly market equilibriums Compare FB/NTC/CNTC market results 2. Develop a CNTC prototype tool based on the FB GSKs, Grid Model and CNEs 3. Define the FB specific requirements for an industrialized FB tool

9 Tooling issues The hourly grid models are not of industry quality until the upcoming European CGM is ready. Mitigation actions have been put in place Topology changes are necessary for creating a base case, but causes convergence problems in the prototype CGM Forecasting is not developed FRM methodology is developed but not implemented Remedial actions/system protection schemes are implemented

10 FB Project Roadmap Uncertainty towards timings Timeline - CACM Sep Dec Oct Aug 2015 Nov 2015 May 2016 March 2017 Sept 2017 March 2017 Project Phases PFS Welfare estimates Road map FB FS-I FB Methodology Prel. Protot. tool Economic indicators FS-II Final protot. tool Market assessment SH communication Prepare for implementation Internal and external market simulations Improving the prototype FB tool Prepare for an industrialized FB tool Stakeholder acceptance Implementation Parallel runs Develop an industrialized FB tool NRA Approvals and TSO agreements Trained operational personnel Final stakeholder acceptance Oct 2015: Continuous FB market simulation CNTC June 2016: Continuous CNTC market simulation March 2018: Parallel runs Compare FB/NTC Compare FB/NTC/CNTC

11 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

12 Nordic FB Stakeholder group - April , (Stockholm Arlanda airport) FBG FB capacity calculation and allocation examples

13 Content Basic FB pricing principles Simplified example calculation of price differences Scope of market simulations Case 1: 1 st of January :00-06:00 Case 2: 21 st of January :00-17:00

14 Basic FB pricing principles (1/3) Same price coupling algorithm in both FB and NTC MAX Welfare = Consumer surplus Producer surplus Congestion revenue Example of an exchange from a low price area to a high price area Subject to constraints

15 Basic FB pricing principles (2/3) FB constraints Power Transfer Distribution Factor (PTDF) - indicates how much MWs are used by the net positions resulting from the trades Remaining Available Margin (RAM) - number of MWs that can be used by the trades C A B PTDF matrix Area A (SE2) Area B (SE1) Area C (NO3) RAM Line X 0,11 0,098 0,15 15 An exchange of 1 MW from C to A uses (0,15 0,11)= 0,04 MW 15/0,04= 355 MW can be exchanged An exchange of 1 MW from B to A uses (0,098-0,11)= - 0,012 MW relieves the congestion on line X with 0,012 MW Each 1 MW between B to A enables 0,3 MW (0,012/0,04) exchange from C to A

16 Basic FB pricing principles (3/3) Equilibrium condition Marginal Price A Marginal Price B = (PTDF B PTDF A ) x Shadow price For a solution to be optimal, this condition must be fulfilled Uniform prices in FB No congestion (or/and) shadow price equals zero Same impact on CNE (usage of margin) same PTDF-value

17 Simplified example calculation of price differences C B PTDF matrix Area A (SE2) Area B (SE1) Area C (NO3) RAM Line X 0,11 0,098 0,15 15 A Exchange from B to A: the difference between the PTDFs is -0,012 the shadow price on line X is 100 /MW the price difference between area A and B can then be calculated: Marginal Price A Marginal Price B = (PTDF B PTDF A ) x Shadow price = -0,012*100= -1,2 /MWh Exchange from C to A: the difference between the PTDFs is 0,04 the shadow price on line X is 100 /MW the price difference between area A and C can then be calculated: Marginal Price A Marginal Price C = (PTDF C PTDF A ) x Shadow price = 0,04*100= 4 /MWh

18 Scope of market simulations The Euphemia algorithm is used for market simulations Geographical scope is limited to: Nordic countries Baltic countries Central West Europe (Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, France) Great Britain Poland Russia (Import/export capacity to Nordic and Baltic countries) Belarus (Import/export capacity to Baltic countries) Flow Based parameters available only for Nordic countries, the HVDC interconnectors, and the CWE region The market simulation results are only preliminary

19 Case 1: 1 st of January :00-06:00 Summary General observations FB manages the west-coast cut more efficiently by taking into account the impact on the specific CNE in the allocation Import flow from continental Europe to Nordic synchronous system SwePol link capacity set to 0 Import on Baltic Cable reduced by TSOs High wind power output (3 GWh in Denmark) NTC results: SE and FI constitute one price area, NO3 and NO4 constitute one price area, NO1, NO5 and NO2 one price area, DK constitutes one price area FB results: Higher welfare in the FB solution Different prices in all Nordic areas More import from Germany, transit through Denmark

20 1st of January 2015 h 5 1 januari 2015

21 Case 2: 21 st of January :00-17:00 Summary General observations This case shows how prices are affected in the whole Nordic region by a CNE with a high shadow price The FB approach manages to lower the prices compared to the NTC approach in most bidding zones due to a different way of managing the congestion High consumption in Nordic countries (68 GW) Low wind output 618 MW SE, 347 MW DK Capacity on SwePol link from PL to SE4 set to 0 NTC results EE, DK2, FI, NO1, NO3, NO4, SE1-4 constitute one price area NO2, NO5 and DK1 constitute one price area FB results Higher welfare in FB solution Different prices in all Nordic bidding zones More import to Nordic region High shadow prices on some CNEs

22 :00:00 c

23 Example price difference between areas and impact of shadow prices Explanation of price difference SE4-DK2 in FB PTDF matrix PTDF DK2 PTDF SE4 Shadow price CNE X The price difference is explained by one CNE in Sweden with a high shadow price The price difference between DK2 and SE4 is 5,65 /MWh Small difference in usage of margin / difference in PTDFs between DK2 and SE4 Price difference SE4 DK2 = Shadow Price x difference in PTDF = 5,65 = 770 x ( ( ))

24 Thank you for your attention!

25 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

26 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

27 Comments to the process Nordic FB Stakeholder group meeting Stockolm/Arlanda 15 April 2016

28 Mandate: Capacity Calculation project Follow closely TSOs work on Capacity Calculation, ref. CACM Process towards proposal Common Methodology selection process starts 2016/17? Flow Based or Coordinated NTC? Prepare recommendations, decisions, etc. for NordREG Board ensure stakeholder involvement include CWE experience

29 Progress made on CM process Basic elements of Nordic CNTC CNTC roadmap Short period for public parallell simulations CNTC/FB

30 Ensure SH involvement? When publication of simulations: How to provide explanations of CNTC&FB models..? Broader SH Forum? Available on web site?

31 Thank you for your attention! Senior Advisor Toril Naustvoll Gange/NVE

32 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

33 April 15'th, 2016, Stockholm Nordic FB SG meeting CNTC Approach

34 Content 1. Background 2. Framework 3. Pros and cons

35 Background (1/2) According to CACM guideline, there are two permissible approaches for cross zonal capacity calculation Flow based (FB) Coordinated net transmission capacity (CNTC) FB approach should be used as a primary approach in regions where cross zonal capacity between bidding zones is highly interdependent CNTC approach should only be applied in regions where cross zonal capacity is less interdependent and it can be shown that FB approach would not bring added value

36 Background (2/2) Flow Based project has been assigned to develop a prototype version of the CNTC methodology compare FB and CNTC approaches

37 Framework for CNTC approach The aim is to develop current NTC approach to fulfill the requirements of CACM guideline for the purpose of comparing efficiency between FB and CNTC approaches Same common grid model (CGM) as in FB Same critical network elements (CNEs) as in FB Same level of operational security Same max capacities, security margins, remedial actions etc Cross zonal capacities calculated separately for each hour Target: Highly automated CNTC calculation process

38 Pros and cons of CNTC approach Pros: Requirements of CACM are addressed Current operational experience is maintained Simple the use of NTC values and the values itself are wellestablished Cons: Some manual workload for operational planning

39 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

40 The Nordic Flow Based Project Approach to NRA approval of CCM and stakeholder acceptance FB Stakeholder Group meeting April 15 - Arlanda

41 Re-cap FB Project Increased focus Roadmap on the delivery for the CCM Uncertainty towards timings Timeline - CACM Sep Dec Oct Aug 2015 Nov 2015 May 2016 March 2017 Sept 2017 March 2017 Project Phases PFS Welfare estimates Road map FB FS-I FB Methodology Prel. Protot. tool Economic indicators FS-II Final protot. tool Market assessment SH communication Prepare for implementation Internal and external market simulations Improving the prototype FB tool Prepare for an industrialized FB tool Stakeholder acceptance Implementation Parallel runs Develop an industrialized FB tool NRA Approvals and TSO agreements Trained operational personnel Final stakeholder acceptance Oct 2015: Continuous FB market simulation CNTC June 2016: Continuous CNTC market simulation March 2018: Parallel runs Compare FB/NTC Compare FB/NTC/CNTC

42 The Nordic TSOs go beyond the legal obligation According to the CACM flow based shall be the default capacity calculation methodology, cf. article 20,1 No legal obligation to demonstrate that FB would be more efficient compared to the coordinated C-NTC approach and assuming the same level of operational security in the concerned region. However, the TSOs concerned shall still submit a proposal for capacity calculation methodology including a detailed explanation for key parameters, cf. article of CACM The Nordic TSOs go beyond the scope of CACM and provide for the stakeholders and NRAs a throughout demonstration of FB application, including an estimate for the socioeconomic benefit of FB

43 Document for NRA approval and stakeholder acceptance Start working on a document for NRA approval and stakeholder acceptance Purpose: To present the comparison of FB and C-NTC What are we going to compare? The socioeconomic surplus of FB, NTC and C-NTC A stakeholder consultation documentation will be provided in due time

44 Main chapters: Draft (high-level) outline of the explanatory document 1. Introduction and executive summary 2. Legal obligation 3. Proposal of the proposed methodology 4. Description of the expected impact on the relevant objectives of the Guideline/Network code (comparison and impact assessment) 5. Timescale for the implementation 6. ANNEX (outcome of stakeholder consultation)

45 Preliminary content of the report Objective: To demonstrate for NRAs and stakeholders the socioeconomic benefit and the functioning of different capacity calculation methodologies (FB and C-NTC) Content: The methodology of FB compared to C-NTC Socioeconomic surplus: impact on PS, CS and CR Impact on XB exchange, capacity and spot prices Quantitative impact indicators: XB exchange, capacity and spot prices including special features of flow based; Possible non-intuitive flows Impact on transit flow; from non-allocated to allocated flows Explicit treatment of Critical Network Element Qualitative impact indicators: impact on other markets, bidding zone delimitation other?

46 Stakeholder contribution to report We would like your feedback on content!

47 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

48 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

49 Feedback received so far (1/4) - Fortum Raimo Peltola The example idea that is on wishlist is good and why comment also. Unfortunately no more ideas from me. # Need / idea / wish Explanation why this is useful for you 1 Publication of those FB constraints that are limiting the trading opportunities for the market This is comparable to the NTCs published today, and is needed as an input for the price-forecasting tools that we use

50 Feedback received so far (2/4) - NPS # Need / idea / wish Explanation why this is useful for you 1 Hourly PTDF matrix Fundamental market parameter 2 Hourly RAM Fundamental market parameter 3 Hourly prices Important 4 Hourly max transfer capacity between bidding areas 5 Hourly flow between bidding areas after market coupling Getting an overview of transfer capacities between bidding areas is difficult when only looking at PTDFs. (Q: How is this capacity calculated?) In order to give actors an overview of how power flows between areas. Enables easier comparison with ATC volumes (Q: How is this calculated?) 6 Overview of GSK strategies used GSK strategies have a significant impact on the calculated PTDFs. Should be reported for transparency reasons. 7 UMM Urgent Market Message reporting? 8 How will flowbased be handled in Intraday market?

51 Feedback received so far (3/4) Energy Norway # Need / idea / wish Explanation why this is useful for you 1 Publication of those FB constraints that are limiting the trading opportunities for the market 2 RAM and the components to calculate the RAM ie Fmax, FRM, FAV og Fref with special emphasis on FRM og FAV This is comparable to the NTCs published today, and is needed as an input for the price-forecasting tools that we use Compared to todays NTC we need to understand which RAMs are chosen for the relevant grid elements and how they are derived. If: RAM=Fmax FRM FAV Fref Fmax (max allowed flow) and Fref (flow at zero net positions) are technical terms, which need to be known, but we need to understand how the FRM (the reliability margin) and the FAV (the ability to manually adjust the RAM) are chosen. 3 CNE In order to understand how the flow based grid model reacts to different situations, we need to know about the critical branches, in which or between which zones they are located, when and why they are activated. We also need to understand the connection between UMMs (REMIT relevant information) and the CNEs: otherwise information in the UMMs about grid maintenance will be difficult to use to predict the impact of grid maintenance on the market.

52 Feedback received so far (4/4) Energy Norway # Need / idea / wish Explanation why this is useful for you 4 GSK We need to have a basic understanding of how the GSK for all price areas are derived and which assumption they follow. Since the GSK will affect how the PDTF will react to the different situations, producers should at least have a basic idea how they were set up. Since producers understand best their own production logic, TSOs would also profit from the producers input to set up realistic GSKs. 5 PDTF We need the PDTF to model the system and the prices. We do not just need a PDTF for the next day but hydropoducers need also to have a certain idea about price developments in the next week/month/quarter and season in order to plan their reservoir use correctly. 6 Max Net Position / Price zone Important to give all stakeholders information about TSOs calculations on import/export capacities per price zone. This is necessary for the optimization of the hydropower reservoirs. Both short term and long term forecasts are important for water value calculations for hydro power producers 7 Capacities forecasts between price zones 8 NTC and Max NTC This will give all stakeholders the opportunity to evaluate the FB results.

53 Set out next steps

54 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

55 FB & CNTC Process Nordic Flow-based Project

56 Day Ahead (Conceptual) D-2 D-1 TSO TSO TSO IGM CNEs GSKs RSCI TSO RSCI PX TSO TSO Merge CGM Initial adjustments Calculate preliminary market domain Verify market domain Adjustments Final market domain NOTE! No conceptual difference between FB and CNTC!

57 High Level Process CNEs CNEs CNEs IGM CGM Capacity Calculations Domain Verification PX CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs GSKs

58 Capacity Calculation Process (1/3) CNEs CNEs CNEs IGMs TSOs Merge CGM RSCI (CCC) Complete national Grid Model Forecasted states per hour CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs Merges IGMs to a CGM Verifies integrity Determines forecasted border flows Calculated capacities for specific network elements Includes N-1, operator adjustments & dynamic calculations CNEs CNEs CNEs GSKs Translation of net position changes into generation / load infeed

59 Capacity Calculation Process (2/3) CGM CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs CNEs GSKs FB PTDF Calculations Calculates PTDF Matrix Removes redundant constraints CNTC Calculations Creates NTC capacities from CNEs Either/or RSCI (CCC)

60 Capacity Calculation Process (3/3) TSOs RSCI (CCC) PX Market Domain Validate Domain Make adjustments if needed for Operational Security Final Market Domain Finalize domain after adjustments Iterative process Market Clearing Market Results

61 FB PTDF Calculations Flow-based PTDF Calculations +100 MW A 33 MW B 67 MW C -100 MW Line Maximum flow Influence from area A Influence from area B FB constraints Influence from area C A>B 1000 MW 33 % - 33 % 0 B>C 1000 MW 33 % 67 % 0 FB domain Net balance A Constrained by B>C Constrained by A>C A>C 1000 MW 67 % 33 % 0 B>A 1000 MW - 33 % 33 % Net balance B Constrained by B>A C>B 1000 MW - 33 % - 67 % 0 C>A 1000 MW - 67 % - 33 %

62 CNTC Calculations CNTC Calculations Prototype Approach Define CNE capacities (RAMs) and calculate the security domain (The same as in Flow Based) Start with Max NTC Border Define rules to adjust the Max NTC Border to fit the security domain For both FB and CNTC, create rule to adjust FAV CNE to improve CNTCs if no relevant overload-situations occur Define rules for accepting some "unsecure" NTCs in "unrealistic" market positions in cases where "not accepting those NTCs" is severely blocking relevant trades Secure unsecure NTC values Improve NTC values when possible Allow for "unsecure" NTC in "unrealistic" market situations if this improve NTC values

63 Agenda 1. Welcome and tour de table ( ) 2. Objective and agenda ( ) 3. Status update of the Nordic FB project ( ) 4. Presentation of some FB capacity calculation and allocation examples ( ) 5. Coffee break ( ) 6. Presentation by the NRAs ( ) 7. Presentation on the CNTC approach ( ) 8. Presentation on the impact assessment and CCM proposal ( ) 9. Lunch ( ) 10. Feedback from Stakeholders on the market information tool and set out actions ( ) 11. Step-by-step walk through the FB and CNTC process ( ) 12. Open discussion ( )

64 Stakeholder Information Platform Nordic Flow-based Project

65 Content (1/2) FB Project publishes content readable for all White Papers Newsletters Calculation Results Presentations Agendas/Minutes Invitations Schedules Stakeholder Group collaborates on documents, not readable for regular users SHG Topics Agendas/Minutes Presentations

66 Content (2/2) Discussion forum FB Project moderates Rules for approving/rejecting topics TBD FB Project commits to answering questions within a predetermined time

67 Proposed platform SharePoint Project Site Hosted by Energinet.DK Many technical possibilities Different permissions/groups Document sharing Discussions Calendar Announcements Surveys Custom Pages Etc.

68 End-of-Life Decommissioning of platform at end of project New, permanent Stakeholder Tool Functionality TBD The Market Information Wish list is important design input Relevant information from transfers to new tool