Comparison Group September 201 1
Introduction Our mission is to exchange information on our current and future operating practices for the purpose of benchmarking. An annual survey is undertaken to ascertain equivalent staffing requirements, best practices and/or performance measures in areas such as transmission system operations including generation scheduling and dispatching, electricity market operation, operations planning, settlements, information technology, training et cetera. All Electricity Transmission System Operators () are invited to join the group. 2
Actual Membership (2013/2014) Amprion, Germany China Southern Power Grid, China CLP Hong Kong, China Energinet.dk, Denmark ESKOM, South Africa Fingrid, Finland Since 199 the international comparison group is a group of electrical transmission system operators spanning Asia, Europe, South-Africa, South and North America. Currently the group consists of 14 s from 13 countries world wide. Hydro Quebec, Canada Landsnet, Island PJM, US Power Grid India, India REE, Spain REN, Portugal Statnett, Norway Transpower NZ, New Zealand 3
Objectives of the Comparison Group Improve the understanding of transmission system operations worldwide and to exchange experience. Exchange information on the current and future operating practices of the member s for the purpose of benchmarking. Focus on System Operation activities that are usually concentrated in or close to the Control Center. Focus on the period from approximately one year ahead, including all activities up to after the day of operation. five processes. 4 Results of the annual survey are a basis for performance comparison and for improvement of operating practices.
Benchmark Approach Key processes of a standard key processes are defined in order to make the s comparable, representing the work in and around the control centre. Detailed benchmarking approach
Performance Measures Database Annual data collection started in 2000 Definitions and database are continuously improved Operations Planning Planned transmission outage requests Planned generation outages Scheduling Accuracy of peak load forecast Foreseen transmission concerns Scheduled transmission outages Scheduled generation outages Real Time Operation Frequency control performance Average overall system deviation Personnel on shift RTO transmission outages Support After the Fact Data from other categories is applied here SCADA database points, analog points, control points Reference Data Overall Performance 6 FTE and Costs for each process Circuit ends and circuit breakers Line length Generators Interconnectors Peak load Transmitted energy Response time of Area Control / Frequency Error Unsupplied energy incidents Voltage excursions Average time to return to normal situation after a fault
Benchmark Models One Cost and one FTE Benchmark model is available for each of the five defined operational processes Example of the Operations Planning FTE model: Circuit Ends, Generators, Interconnectors, Planned Transmission and Generation Outages, Foreseen Transmission Concerns Environmental Factors Input Operations Planning Output constant Example for the representation of the Benchmark results for one Costs model: 7
Activity List and Company Profiles provide background information in order to investigate and explain differences Activity level Task Description Not done Receive Forecast Determine Transmission Outage management 2 s 18 s network assessment Network capability 1 2 s 6 s 11 s Contingency 2 s 1 1 16 s planning Switching s 1 s programmes Interconnector 3 s 3 s 14 s transfers Emergency 1 1 18 s preparedness Energy assessment Demand forecast 3 s 1 s 11 s Generation schedule s 1 s 9 s Hydro management 7 s 2 s 2 s 9 s Ancillary Services (AS) management Manage s 1 s transmission losses AS requirement 6 s 3 s 11 s AS procurement 4 s 16 s 8
REN National Grid ESKOM REE Landsnet Fingrid Statnett TenneT GER Amprion Transpower Hydro Quebec PJM CLP Hong Kong TenneT NL swissgrid CSG POWERGRID Trend lines Perforamnce Key Graph RESOURCES Key Graph and Trendlines Results are summarized in management presentations Key Graph combines results of benchmark models with quality measures Trend lines enable a comparison of the development in resources and quality within the group 0 4 40 3 30 2 20 1 0 0 4 40 3 30 2 20 1 0 0 4 40 3 30 2 20 1 0 0 4 40 3 30 2 20 1 0 0 4 40 3 30 2 20 1 0 Actual 200 Benchmark results (dots) with standard Actual deviation 200 Benchmark results (dots) with standard Actual deviation 200 Benchmark results (dots) with standard Actual deviation 200 Benchmark results (dots) with standard Actual deviation 200 Benchmark results (dots) with standard deviation Average performance Low Resources / High Performance Sum of five benchmark results Average resources High Resources / Low Performance PERFORMANCE Quality of System Operation (frequency, energy not supplied, voltage excursions, response time to ACE or frequency) high performance average performance 2007 2008 2009 20 2011 low performance 9
Organization Steering Committee 6 representatives from member s Manages -Comparison Group and monitors general progress Working Groups Responsible for a specific task such as Benchmark Model Improvement Improved Data Presentation and Interpretation Support by DNV GL Energy (formerly named KEMA) since 199 Annual Workshops Discussion and validation of data and benchmark results Presentation of outcome from the working groups Member presentation on own position or special topics
Benefits & Contact Benefits of Membership Yearly benchmark of all Members Internal data base for multiple years with access for all members Continues improvement of benchmark models Learning from others (Best Practice) Informal contacts Networking Counter benchmark to regulatory benchmark Contact Lutz Itschert Mail: Lutz.Itschert@dnvgl.com Phone: +49 228 446901 DNV GL Energy for: Kema Consulting GmbH Kurt-Schumacher-Straße 8 6113 Bonn Germany 11