Development of a NERL CO 2 term for CP3

Transcription

1 Development of a NERL CO 2 term for CP3

2 Presentation Outline chronology of development of a NERL flight metric, including SES II timetable criteria and analysis of candidate metrics roadmap approach and development of alternative metrics NERL s proposal for CP3 flight efficiency metric

3 Chronology of Development of a NERL CO 2 Metric (Including SES II timetable)

4 Chronology of Development of a NERL CO 2 Metric (Including SES II timetable) This section will cover: CCWG Background SES II Developments & latest Current Status NERL metric work Scenario for introduction of a metric

5 CCWG Background At CCWG3, NERL presented to customers its ATM CO 2 targets and plan for reduction along with relevant metrics The target and metrics were discussed further at CCWG Sub Group in August 2009 NERL listened to the feedback and responded at CCWG5 by proposing a Roadmap approach to pursuing a financially incentivised metric Since then, NERL has devoted significant resource on investigating the feasibility of introducing a metric from the outset of CP3

6 SES II Performance Scheme 1 st reference period Draft Regulation (March 30 th ) of SES II Performance Scheme is now stable and not expected to change materially For the first reference period ( ) it includes two new EU level KPIs: firstly, a KPI based on the PRU Route Extension metric (i.e. Actual distance flown vs. GCD) secondly, a KPI measuring the effectiveness of the usage of civil/military airspace structures (use of CDRs) We expect that the Commission will set EU targets on this basis to be agreed by October 2010 At national level - no requirement for financial incentivisation on either of these KPIs

7 SES II Performance Scheme 2 nd reference period Network Manager will develop a European Network route design improvement plan National route design improvement plans will be required - consistent with the EU level plan A KPI (and targets?) will be extended to cover Airport ANS-related performance not yet defined

8 Summary - SESII 1 st Reference Period Route extension KPI FUA/CDR usage KPI No incentivisation 2 nd Reference Period Network Manager and route design improvement plan National route design improvement plans Airport ANS KPI Possibility: Scope to enhance the route extension metric for the 2 nd reference period? Improving the route extension metric could allow the setting of binding national targets We believe the SESII Regulation leaves space for this possibility

9 Current Status NERL Metric NERL has investigated the feasibility of deploying a financially incentivised metric We believe we have found a feasible way forward That s what we re here to discuss today However, a significant amount of further work is needed to evaluate metric and derive the specific definition testing across a larger data set, and deriving historical performance in order to inform par value discussions Given its immaturity, if used, we would reiterate that the metric should be lightly incentivised

10 End of chronology section Questions?

11 Criteria (principles) and analysis of candidate metrics

12 Principles of a good metric It drives the right NERL behaviours consistent with customer objectives for increased fuel efficiency It is fair and equitable across NATS customer base It accurately reflects fuel/co 2 performance outcomes from NERL initiatives and not be unduly affected by factors beyond NERL influence It does not lead to unintended consequences by incentivising actions that increase fuel use It is transparent, measurable and auditable Note on scope UK domestic airspace only as per delay metric

13 Candidate Metrics Metrics agreed through customer consultation: Total CO 2 across services provided by NERL CO 2 per flight ATM Inefficiency Index (4D inefficiency score) Project Delivery Benefit Route Extension Door was left open for emerging future metrics; in particular for NERL to develop other metrics which account for both horizontal and vertical components of flight

14 Candidate Performance Metrics - Descriptions Description Total NATS Operational CO 2 Total estimated CO 2 emissions from aircraft operating within the UKFIR whilst receiving a NATS radar control service CO 2 per Flight Average NATS operational CO 2 per flight ATM inefficiency Index Project Benefit Delivery Eurocontrol PRU Route Extension Ratio of minimum estimated CO 2 emissions required for each flight to occur compared to the actual estimated CO 2 emissions averaged over a period time Total estimated change in CO 2 emissions expected from the delivery of future NATS projects (under static demand) Total estimated additional track miles flown beyond a nominal 30NM radius terminal area relative to the great-circle distance between the terminal areas

15 Candidate metrics introduced at CCWG Drives NERL behaviours to reduce fuel use Fair & equitable Reflects Fuel/ CO 2 outcomes & not affected by factors beyond NERL s control Free from unintended consequences Transparent, measurable & auditable Total NATS Operational CO 2?? No?? CO 2 per Flight?? No?? ATM inefficiency Index Yes???? Project Benefit Delivery Yes???? Eurocontrol PRU Route Extension No Yes No No Yes

16 Candidate metrics work post CCWG Drives NERL behaviours to reduce fuel use Fair & equitable Reflects Fuel/ CO 2 outcomes & not affected by factors beyond NERL s control Free from unintended consequences Transparent, measurable & auditable Total NATS Operational CO 2 yes NO NO NO no CO 2 per Flight yes NO NO NO no ATM inefficiency Index YES no no NO no Project Benefit Delivery yes NO NO NO yes Eurocontrol PRU Route Extension NO yes NO NO YES

17 Roadmap Approach

18 Fuel Efficiency / Environment Roadmap

19 Principles of Auditability In order for any metric to be deployed it needs to be auditable by CAA/ERG In principle this means (for discussion) Relating to the metric The metric itself must be clearly defined There must be sufficient reliable evidence for CAA to objectively confirm that the metric itself is sound Relating to validation data Sufficient data must be available for CAA to assess performance of the metric CAA must be content with the methodology for assessment and validation of the metric using data

20 End of Roadmap section Questions?

21 NERL s proposal for a CP3 CO 2 metric: 3D inefficiency score

22 The Objective... Increasing Accuracy Of Fuel Efficiency En-route Track Extension 3D inefficiency Score 4D inefficiency score Decreasing Effect Of Interdependencies Accurate, controllable, deployable (auditable)

23 The 3D inefficiency score is track extension combined with; a newly developed vertical component that estimates vertical inefficiency

24 En-route Track Extension - PRU Airport B Actual Route Great Circle Distance 30Nm Airport A

25 Track Extension NERL (Horizontal - H) Airport B Actual Route Great Circle Distance Airport A

26 The Vertical Element (1) (V climb) L L cl T cl T Climb inefficiency V cl Tcl L L = cl T L cl Where: V cl =vertical inefficiency, T=Total Flight Time (UKFIR), T cl =duration of step, L=Reference Level, L cl =level of step

27 The Vertical Element (2) (V descent) L T T d L d Descent inefficiency V d Td L L = d T L cl Where: V d =vertical inefficiency, T=Total Flight Time (UKFIR), T d =duration of step, L=Reference Level, L d =level of step

28 3D inefficiency score Regression analysis is being used to combine relative measures of lateral and vertical inefficiency into one equation which could be used to describe individual flight inefficiency: I = V + V + H + (combination V and H) Inefficiency Vertical (climb) Horizontal Interaction of vertical and horizontal Vertical (descent)

29 New candidate metrics post CCWG Drives NERL behaviours to reduce fuel use Fair & equitable Reflects Fuel/ CO 2 outcomes & not affected by factors beyond NERL s control Free from unintended consequences Transparent, measurable & auditable Total NATS Operational CO 2 yes NO NO NO no CO 2 per Flight yes NO NO NO no ATM inefficiency Index YES no no NO no Project Benefit Delivery yes NO NO NO yes Eurocontrol PRU Route Extension NO yes NO NO YES Average 3D Inefficiency Score YES YES? yes yes

30 Questions

31 Average Performance vs. Average Change in Performance Average inefficiency performance for the network seems to have value in: Driving NERL behaviours and desired CO 2 outcomes, freedom from unintended consequences, auditable But an average network inefficiency outcome is not completely within NERL s control The outcome is related to changes in route usage for example..

32 Year 1: 50 flights, 30% Inefficiency Year 2: 75 flights, 29% Inefficiency Year 1: 50 flights, 10% Inefficiency Year 2: 25 flights, 9% Inefficiency Year 1: Average Inefficiency 20% Year 2: Average Inefficiency 24%

33 Measuring performance Example: Route1 Route 2 Avg Inefficiency per Avg Inefficiency per Number of Flights Number of Flights Flight Flight Period Period Change Average Change in Inefficiency Average Inefficiency per Flight -1 performance on both routes has improved (to the tune of 1% per route) but, average network inefficiency for period 2 is up by 4%

34 Average Performance vs. Average Change in Performance Average inefficiency performance for the network seems to have value in: Driving NERL behaviours and desired CO 2 outcomes, freedom from unintended consequences, auditable But an average network inefficiency outcome is not completely within NERL s control The outcome is related to changes in route usage for example.. So, NERL is investigating possibilities around efficiency improvement targets across the network

35 Mitigating against factors beyond NERL influence Drives NERL behaviours to reduce fuel use Fair & equitable Reflects Fuel/ CO 2 outcomes & not affected by factors beyond NERL s control Free from unintended consequences Transparent, measurable & auditable Average 3D Inefficiency Score Yes Yes No Yes Yes Average change in 3D Inefficiency Score Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

36 Mitigating against factors beyond NERL influence Drives NERL behaviours to reduce fuel use Fair & equitable Reflects Fuel/ CO 2 outcomes & not affected by factors beyond NERL s control Free from unintended consequences Transparent, measurable & auditable Total NATS Operational CO 2 yes NO NO NO no CO 2 per Flight yes NO NO NO no ATM inefficiency Index YES no no NO no Project Benefit Delivery yes NO NO NO yes Eurocontrol PRU Route Extension NO yes NO NO YES Average 3D Inefficiency Score YES YES NO yes yes Average change in 3D Inefficiency Score YES YES yes yes yes

37 Candidate Performance Metrics - Descriptions Description Total NATS Operational CO 2 Total estimated CO 2 emissions from aircraft operating within the UKFIR whilst receiving a NATS radar control service CO 2 per Flight Average NATS operational CO 2 per flight ATM inefficiency Index Project Benefit Delivery Eurocontrol PRU Route Extension Average 3D Inefficiency Score Average change in 3D Inefficiency Score Ratio of minimum estimated CO 2 emissions required for each flight to occur compared to the actual estimated CO 2 emissions averaged over a period time Total estimated change in CO 2 emissions expected from the delivery of future NATS projects (under static demand) Total estimated additional track miles flown beyond a nominal 30NM radius terminal area relative to the great-circle distance between the terminal areas Profile inefficiency determined through a mathematical combination of track extension and the deviation from an unimpeded vertical profile averaged over a period of time The change in performance between two periods of time for each route (measured using the Hybrid Inefficiency Index) averaged across the network

38 Principles of Auditability - recap In order for any metric to be deployed it needs to be auditable by CAA/ERG In principle this means (for discussion) Relating to the metric The metric itself must be clearly defined There must be sufficient reliable evidence for CAA to objectively confirm that the metric itself is sound Validation data Sufficient data must be available for CAA to assess performance of the metric CAA must be content with the methodology for assessment and validation of the metric using data

39 Auditability of the 3D Inefficiency Score NERL believes that the regression based approach proposed offers opportunities for auditing the metric and validating the operation of the metric Relating to the metric The metric itself can be clearly defined through a regression equation CAA to should be able to objectively confirm that the metric itself is sound through an analysis of the statistical robustness of the regression equation and coefficients Relating to validation data CAA could potentially assess the performance of the metric by applying NATS radar data to validate the performance of the regression equation

40 Key Findings So Far NERL believes that it may be possible to use 3D Inefficiency Score metric to measure performance from outset of CP3 It is recommended that the metric is based upon the average change in performance We are still developing this Further work is needed to define regression coefficients and to evaluate metric across larger data set Further work is required to establish behaviour of metric and inform potential par value discussion Given immaturity, if used, the metric should be lightly incentivised and feature a dead zone around the Par value NERL s ability to influence ATM CO 2 will require changes to airspace and routes so we will need support from CAA to be able to implement these changes This is a journey significant additional work is needed during 2010 to define the metric, par and deployment

41 Next Steps.? If you, the airline customers and the CAA have a favourable response to the proposals we are going to make today We would propose to present more detail in August: specific terms and coefficients historical performance illustrative par values Ahead of the public hearing in September Allowing informed customer input ahead of a CAA decision in October decision paper