Transmission Charging Methodologies Forum & CUSC Issues Steering Group. 11 th July 2018

Transcription

1 Transmission Charging Methodologies Forum & CUSC Issues Steering Group 11 th July

2 Welcome Jon Wisdom, National Grid ESO 2

3 Housekeeping Fire alarms Facilities Red Lanyards 3

4 Actions TCMF Month Requestor Agenda Item Action Owner Notes Target Date Status We are planning to get get all archived modifications available on the website, however this will take some time due to the volume of material. Proposal forms, Workgroup reports, FMRs and decision Oct-18 letters will be uploaded. In the meantime any specific requests can be sent to the Dec-17 PB AOB RT Apr-18 PM Updating the Statement of Works Process Make enquiries re missing website content specifically in relation to previous mods (TCMF members asked to advise when they come across any additional missing content) Query was raised around a guidance document on small embedded generation, that is currently available on NG's website. NG was asked to look into the content. RT We will update the guidance doucment following modification process to reflect any changes to the CUSC. End of CMP298 Mod Process On-going On-going 4

5 Today s TCMF CUSC Modifications Update Assessing one mod against both sets of CUSC objectives Charging Futures Update Possible CUSC modification to clarify calculation of circuit specific expansion factors for local circuits AOB

6 Today s CISG Enhanced Reactive Power Service Modification AOB 6

7 CUSC Modifications Update Joseph Henry, Code Admin

8 New modifications CMP301 - clarification on the treatment of project costs associated with HVDC and subsea circuits CMP301 was presented by National Grid to CUSC Panel on 29 June 2018 Panel decided Modification would go straight to Code Administrator Consultation Code Administrator Consultation released 2 July

9 Upcoming Working Groups CMP280/ July 2018, CMP286/87 - July 2018, date TBC CMP288/ July 2018 CMP291/ July

10 Upcoming Modifications to Authority CMP July 2018 CMP July 2018 CMP July 2018 CMP July

11 Workgroup Developments CMP280/81 workgroup consultation for CMP280 released in June. Workgroup postponed in early July, but one scheduled for 31 July. CMP286/87 Request for Information released to industry on 1 June 2018 now closed. Several late responses received, workgroup postponed but will be rearranged in coming week. CMP288/289 second workgroup held 22 June Good progress made, with next scheduled for 15 July CMP291/95 workgroup to be held 12 July

12 Dashboard - CUSC New Modifications In-flight Modifications Modifications put out for consultation Modifications on hold Workgroups Held (June) Authority Decisions Workgroups Scheduled (July)

13 Assessing one mod against both sets of CUSC objectives Harriet Harmon, National Grid ESO

14 Applicable Objectives A CMP must be judged against standard or charging objectives; The CUSC derives these objectives from the ESO Licence; The ESO Licence (C5 and C10) does not expressly prohibit one CMP being judged on both S8 of CUSC does; We therefore need >1 CMP to enact one change 14

15 Inefficiencies in arrangements Where a change to S14 introduces new, or changes existing terms, a separate mod is needed for S11 (see CMPs 264/5, 269/70 and current work on 296/7); Not just S11 affected potential for any CUSC Section or Schedule/Exhibit; Duplication of effort for all; Duplication of formal CUSC responsibilities for Proposer, NGESO, Code Governance, Panel and GEMA 15

16 Potential solution? Longer-term, ideal solution is one set of AOs, per BSC; Licence changes to facilitate; DNO SLCs consistent with ESO; Feeling effect of inefficiencies now Amend CUSC S8 to enable one mod to be judged against both/either; Ensure that only relevant/in scope changes are grouped; Maintain relevant WG Report, Consultation, FMR sections on AOs 16

17 Minor change major change A proposal to modify the Charging Methodologies must be made by means of a CUSC Modification Proposal, which may not contain any proposal to modify any other section of the CUSC. a CUSC Modification Proposal in respect of the Charging Methodologies may make specific reference to any link with another CUSC Modification Proposal A proposal to modify the CMs must be made by means of a CMP which may, only in resolution of the same Defect and solely to the extent necessary, contain any proposal to modify any other section of the CUSC 17

18 Next steps Your feedback? Questions? Potential to raise CUSC mod but need Ofgem and GSG engagement in immediate term 18

19 Charging Futures Update Bali Virk, National Grid ESO

20 Charging Futures update Ofgem working towards releasing the Access Reformconsultation w/c 16 July 2018 Engagement activities: w/c 16 July 2018: Consultation released alongside podcast and summary note 20 July 2018: Charging Futures hosted webinar on the consultation document July - August 2018: Mini podcast series with different user types talking through the questions and answers they are seeking through the consultation 20

21 Key dates for your diary w/c 16 July Access Reform consultation released 20 July Access Reformwebinar (sign up coming soon) w/c 3 September Charging Futures Forum (invites coming soon) 21

22 Idea for possible CUSC modification to clarify calculation of circuit specific expansion factors for local circuits Paul Mott, EDF

23 The Issue When a new local circuit is built to enable the export of new generation, occasionally the TO may choose to spend more on extra functionality that is unrelated to the needs of said generation. As an example, on an island, the transmission owner would naturally build any HVDC infrastructure as one-way, only allowing flow from the island, where the generation is located, to the mainland. This is the requirement of the generator(s) concerned. It is possible, at additional cost, to include additional hardware so as to facilitate bidirectional flow to enhance security of supply for demand. An extra set of power transistors and rectifiers? (one at each end). If a cost would be excluded from an HVDC local circuit under CMP301 (AC equivalent cost), and if CMP301 is passed, it clearly couldn t also be excluded via this mod, if proposed and passed. As it would be excluded under CMP301.

24 How What The proposal would be that the calculation of each local circuit expansion factor should only include costs relevant to and needed by the connected generators. The incremental cost of extra functionality that the TO chooses to add, of wider benefit, should be identified by the TO to the grid charging team, and not be paid by the connected generators, by excluding it from the relevant expansion factor. Why If the calculation of the expansion factor and hence LCT (local circuit tariff), includes the cost of extra functionality included for wider societal/system benefits unrelated to the relevant generators needs, the charge will not be cost-reflective as to what is being provided to connect up relevant generators, as opposed to what is additionally being provided for other transmission users.

25 Proposal How Baseline CUSC says at that AC cable and HVDC circuit expansion factors are to be calculated on a case-by-case basis using actual project costs (Specific Circuit Expansion Factors). It is suggested that a following paragraph be added, to make clear that where there are extra costs unrelated to the relevant generators needs, they should be excluded from the relevant expansion factor. The Transmission Owner will provide the cost information on a case by case basis (to Grid), removing any additional costs not solely for the developer. STC procedures 13 and 14 already allow for the TO to provide relevant information to the TNUOS charging team, using broad and inclusive wording, so they will not need amendment. No significant systems changes are needed; a different approach to calculating expansion factors by the charge calculation team, is the only affect.

26 Proposal CUSC Charging Objectives a) That compliance with the use of system charging methodology facilitates effective competition in the generation and supply of electricity and (so far as is consistent therewith) facilitates competition in the sale, distribution and purchase of electricity : positive allows relevant generators to compete fairly in the market without being handicapped by paying extra costs unrelated to the export of their power. (b) That compliance with the use of system charging methodology results in charges which reflect, as far as is reasonably practicable, the costs : positive ensures relevant generators face a cost-reflective local circuit charge, without paying for extra costs unrelated to the export of their power. Probably neutral to other CUSC charging objectives; perhaps (c), properly takes account of the developments in transmission licensees transmission businesses, might be relevant to some examples of new local circuits (e.g. HVDC ones).

27 Conclusion Reactions to this idea for a mod?

28 CUSC Issues Steering Group (CISG) 28

29 Enhanced Reactive Power Service Modification Patrick Cassels, National Grid ESO

30 Background The ESO has recently been working with industry to deliver reforms to balancing services markets, communicated in SNAPS (System Needs and Product Strategy) and our Product Roadmaps. The Reactive Power Roadmap was released at the end of May. In it, we communicated our desire to design reactive power services that: deliver transparency and clear information to the market, facilitate greater competition in the provision of services, meet the changing needs of balancing services providers and operational requirements of the system operator. 30

31 Reactive Power Roadmap One of the first commitments in the roadmap was to raise a CUSC modification to remove the Enhanced Reactive Power Service (ERPS), which has not been contracted for in nearly 9 years, and is now obsolete. The removal of this unused service from the codes will enable new services to be developed that better meet the needs of the system operator and provide new opportunities for the market. 31

32 What is ERPS and why should it be removed? (1/2) ERPS (Enhanced Reactive Power Service) is a service for reactive power that the ESO is required to tender for every 6 months, as per a requirement in the CUSC. It was designed for providers who can exceed the obligatory reactive power range (or who have no obligations) to submit opt-in prices for the ESO to access to this capability. We have not contracted for this service since October 2009, when the last tender was accepted. We have not received any offers for this service since January This modification proposal is to remove the CUSC obligation for the ESO to tender for ERPS, and to remove all associated references from the CUSC so that more flexible and functional commercial ancillary services can be developed. This is presently the only commercial ancillary service where a requirement to tender is set out in the CUSC. All other service tender requirements are set out in the respective Standard Contract Terms (SCTs) which have their own governance arrangements. 32

33 What is ERPS and why should it be removed? (2/2) No tenders for this service have been accepted for nearly 9 years. The service requires a minimum 12 month commitment period from providers, which offers insufficient flexible for both service providers and the system operator. The CUSC requires that we tender for this service every 6 months, which places an administrative burden on the team for a service with zero service participation. This resource could be better spent on designing and delivering new market-based solutions for reactive power that work better for providers and for the system operator. This modification will enable reforms to commercial reactive power services that will create more useful and economic solutions, and new opportunities for providers. Because there is no participation, there is no potential for negative market impact as a result of this change. 33

34 Which parts of the CUSC need to be changed? Section 4 which sets out need to compliance with schedule 3, Part 1. Section 11 where Enhanced Reactive Power Service is defined. Schedule 2, Exhibit 4 sets out suspension of mandatory services if called. Schedule 3: Part 1, which sets out the tender definitions. Part 1, 3.0 which sets out the payment mechanism. Part 1, 5.0 which sets out the regulatory and statutory requirements. Appendix 2, which sets out the payment mechanism calculations. Appendix 5, which sets out information for tender submissions. 34 Appendix 6, which sets out qualification and evaluation criteria.

35 To get in touch If you have any feedback, questions or comments on this, please contact: 35

36 AOB Jon Wisdom, National Grid ESO 36

37 Next meetings August 8 Wednesday September 12 Wednesday Will be an 10:30am start unless otherwise notified. August s TCMF will be held in London. 37

38 We value your feedback and comments If you have any questions or would like to give us feedback or share ideas, please us at: Also, from time to time, we may ask you to participate in surveys to help us to improve our forum please look out for these requests 38

39 Close 39