Trials and analysis workstream Scope Team Dependency Tool built into the new Trials and Analysis lead Electricity North West Electricity North West NMS replacement project Electricity North West IT network management team Initiation of alternative system (NMS) response Schneider Calibration against IPSA PB models and on site fault (TNEI) level monitoring (Outram) Post fault analysis and monitoring during trial period May 2016 to April 2018 35
Fault Level Assessment Tool REAL TIME ASSESSMENT TOOL RATING POTENTIAL FAULT CURRENT Real time fault current assessment Safe network operation 36
Respond network model REAL TIME ASSESSMENT TOOL RATING POTENTIAL FAULT CURRENT 132 kV 33 kV 11 / 6.6 kV Network Management System Real Time FL Calculation Comparison Action 37
Fault Level Assessment Tool Fault level calculation Trigger topology Change/time Install a diagram from NMS Compares calculated FL with CB rating capacity. Symmetrical RMS break IEC606909 Enable or disable fault DISABLE level mitigation technique signal issued ENABLE to respective site 38
Fault level profiles – execution parameters 39
Respond dashboard Respond dashboard FLAT Active Substation Respond Signal Status Last Run Messages Status Profile 05/05/2016 17:49 Bamber Bridge (400201) On BB1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Broadheath (100134) On BH1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique Athletic St (400052) On AST1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Wigan (200421) On WIG1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Longridge (400416) On LON1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Hareholme (400092) On HAR1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 05/05/2016 17:49 Nelson (400044) On NEL1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Mount St (100622) On MST1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Offerton (302872) On OFF1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Atherton Town Centre (205318) On ATC1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique Denton West (100111) On DWT1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Blackbull (400403) On BBL1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Irlam (100615) On IRL1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Littleborough (304884) On LIT1 Enabled FL mitigation Technique 05/05/2016 17:49 Respond FL report for Change FLAT Locate each specific each site status for site from Unique profile dashboard following individual sites dashboard within NMS activation or globally 40
Fault level report 41
System overview T12 T11 IF CB OPEN FLAT FL initiated I/P CTs IF CB OPEN = COMMS ICCP DISABLE FLM AP CRMS ADMS on AP RELAY RELAY if Is>> Adaptive Protection FLAT IN by T/C IN OUT by T/C OUT Stage 1: Trip B/S Stage 2: Trip T11 42
Outram Fault Level Monitor Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Results Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV monitoring points Fault level validation Peak asymmetrical make and symmetrical RMS break short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits Outram fault level monitor results TNEI WSP Power system analysis Parsons tool IPSA Brinckerhoff Schneider Fault Level Assessment Tool 43
Outram Fault Level Monitor Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Planning Tool IPSA Simulated Short Circuit Levels Objective is to establish if the IEC calculation is conservative relative to the IPSA results and inform the tolerance needed in the trigger for supplementary fault level action. Objective is to establish if the IEC calculation is conservative relative to the IPSA results and inform the tolerance needed in the trigger for supplementary fault level action. Objective is to establish if the IEC calculation is conservative relative to the IPSA results and inform the tolerance needed in the trigger for supplementary fault level action. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Results Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV substations and along circuits. Peak asymmetrical and rms symmetrical short circuit levels at 33kV and 11kV monitoring points Fault level validation objectives Outram FLM v IPSA FLAT v IPSA Establish how representative the IPSA Objective is to establish if the IEC results based on G74 assumptions are calculation is conservative relative to for each monitoring location, the IPSA results and inform the understanding the range of monitored tolerance needed in the trigger for results supplementary fault level action. Period of monitoring Fault calculation method network configuration during period Model parameters loading range during that period consider a range of short circuit IPSA modelling to be reflective of locations at substations and along system conditions circuits. 44
Fault level monitor Outram Power Master 7000 fault level monitor 45
Fault level monitor – connection Upstream Event – Peak Fault level contribution from Down Stream T11 T12 PM7000 FLM CTs VT Down Stream Event – Peak and RMS fault contributions from Upstream 46
Fault level monitor Fault level estimation for three phase and single phase systems on radial or interconnected networks The fault level predictive results are based on disturbances occurring on the network during normal operation Can measure events with voltage disturbances as low as 0.15% Peak upstream fault level at ½ cycle (10 ms) RMS upstream fault level at, typically 90 ms (selectable) Peak downstream (motor) contribution at ½ cycle (10 ms) Portable, passive and easy to install 47
Initial fault level results for validation Outram FLM IPSA+ Difference % 10ms 10ms 90ms 90ms Substation peak Combine peak RMS 10ms RMS 10ms 90ms d 10ms down- upstream upstream peak (kA) upstream peak (%) RMS (%) stream peak (kA) (kA) (kA) (kA) (kA) Wigan BSP 16.83 1.6 7.51 18.43 29.9 8.28 9.30 62.24 Broadheath N/A N/A N/A N/A 38.9 11.2 - - Irlam 29.4 4.27 11.63 33.67 34.64 11.94 2.60 2.88 Primary Denton 34.84 3.47 14.08 38.31 39.51 13.65 -3.15 3.13 West 48
Irlam – 90ms RMS for downstream event 49
Irlam –10ms peak for downstream event 50
Irlam –10ms peak for upstream event 51
Progress to date Fault Level Fault level Fault level Fault level Post fault Assessment monitoring report from monitoring and monitoring and Tool in completed at Outram modelling analysis operation and four sites and Research report procedure trials in installed at a progress further four location 52
Kate Quigley Customer Delivery Manager Customer Engagement 53
Customer engagement hypothesis “The Method enables a market for the provision of an FCL service” Customer survey Engaged customer Customer survey (Pre-trial) panel (monitoring) Establish appeal of the commercial proposition Formulate Qualify customer engagement experience materials Completed Completed 2016 54
Engaged customer panel methodology Cross-section of I&C demand and generation customers Usually organisation already owned or operated generators or motors with a capacity between 500kW and 15MW Two meetings: 16 September 2015 and 7 October 2015 Eight customers recruited to attend ECP meetings in Manchester 55
Purpose of engaged customer panel Review and test FCL service communication materials and survey instrument Which materials are most effective in 1 engaging customers about Respond? Three key Which key components of the FCL service 2 questions need to be communicated? How can learning from the ECP be utilised to 3 design a customer survey? 56
Purpose of engaged customer panel Review and test FCL service communication materials and survey instrument Which materials are most effective in 1 engaging customers about Respond? Three key Which key components of the FCL service 2 questions need to be communicated? How can learning from the ECP be utilised to 3 design a customer survey? 57
Which materials are most effective in engaging customers about Respond? A good introduction to the project, especially those Water analogy without a technical or engineering background A succinct summary of the problem, solution, Concept board method and benefits, especially for those at board level Useful to disseminate more technical detail. Visuals FCL service video enhanced to indicate fluctuations in fault level and why and when the FCL service may be utilised Created to satisfy the ECP’s request for more FAQ detailed written information regarding the FCL service 58
Purpose of engaged customer panel Review and test FCL service communication materials and survey instrument Which materials are most effective in 1 engaging customers about Respond? Three key Which key components of the FCL service 2 questions need to be communicated? How can learning from the ECP be utilised to 3 design a customer survey? 59
Which key components of the FCL service need to be communicated to customers? Need to communicate the objective of the survey so Objective that it is not perceived as a pure sales and marketing exercise Need to differentiate the FCL service from other Differentiate commercial load shedding, STOR or DSR arrangements Need to satisfy an appetite for more detailed Technical technical information such as how many times a information year motors or generators would be constrained Reward Set expectations regarding financial rewards 60
Purpose of engaged customer panel Review and test FCL service communication materials and survey instrument Which materials are most effective in 1 engaging customers about Respond? Three key Which key components of the FCL service 2 questions need to be communicated? How can learning from the ECP be utilised to 3 design a customer survey? 61
How can learning from the ECP be utilised to design a customer survey? IT restrictions (eg video, devices) Accessibility Pause and re-enter Progress bar Navigation Technical vs commercial questions Superfluous questions Content Language used eg MW/ kW 62
Customer survey conjoint exercise Which of these contracts do you prefer? Scenario 10 Contract 1 Contract 2 Maximum number of events (constraints to equipment) in one year 8 5 Length of contract (years) 2 years 2 years Duration of interruptions 10 minutes 10 minutes An annual payment regardless of the number of events (constraints to equipment) £2820 per year £2041 per year Payment per event None None Very likely Fairly likely …and if the contract you chose was available now, Neither likely nor unlikely how likely would you be to actually take it up? Fairly unlikely Very unlikely 63
ECP lessons learned An ECP is a suitable forum for testing and refining complex communication materials Materials must be tailored to meet the diverse requirements of different customers Allow sufficient discussion time in ECP to capture feedback on survey instrument Special consideration should be given to the type and role of I&C participants on Consider testing the requirement for, and the content of, customer videos earlier on in the process Obtain participants’ explicit consent for the use of audio/visual soundbites in dissemination activities 64
Dawn Mulvey Research Director Impact Research 65
Customer engagement hypothesis “The Method enables a market for the provision of a FLC service” Customer survey Engaged customer Customer survey (Pre-trial) panel (monitoring) Establish appeal of the commercial proposition Formulate Qualify customer engagement experience materials Completed Completed 2016 66
Good news! Initial analysis proves the A target market has been hypothesis that the identified of customers Respond method enables from non-manufacturing a market for an FCL industries and those who service are able to constrain their motor or generator without significant impact for up to 10 minutes 67
Customer survey Electricity North Data screened to A suitable 103 West provided ensure individual was interviews customer data organisation met identified and completed (1,639 in total) key criteria to emailed the provide an FCL survey service (303 in total) 103 I&C demand and DG customers across GB participated in the customer survey during October 2015 to February 2016 68
Customer survey purpose The customer survey assessed appetite to engage in an FCL service contract, and at what price Background Industry classification Largest single AC rotating machine Implications of the equipment being constrained Introduction to FCL service Video, analogy, FAQ document and concept board Perceptions, appeal, likelihood to consider take-up of the FCL service, drivers and barriers Stated preference exercise Customers selected a preferred option from a pair of possible FCL service contract scenarios (x12) Optimum price point, payment method and contract length derived 69
Customer survey participants 50% manufacturing 50% other industries 76% ENW 20% rest of GB 52% high capacity (>1MW) 46% low capacity (<1MW) 49% motor 24% generator 27% generator and motor 70
Customer survey participants Essential to have electricity 43% available 24/7 10 minute constraint 25% significant impact 10 minute constraint 24% no significant impact 71
Appeal of the FCL service Target market 27% 37% ↑ 52% ↑ 56% ↑ Appealing (Rating 5-7) 28% Ambivalent (Rating 4) 33% 19% 28% Unappealing (Rating 1-3) 45% 29% ↓ 29% 16% ↓ Total Respond (103) Non- manufacturing Equipment can be Total C2C (180) (51) constrained for up to 10 minutes (25) Overall appeal of the FCL service is relatively low at a total level… however significantly higher among the ‘target market’ 72
Recommending the FCL service Target market 12% 12% 16% Don’t Know 31% 34% 43% ↑ Likely to Consider (Rating 5-7) 64% ↑ 27% 17% 14% Ambivalent (Rating 4) 8% 42% 38% 27% ↓ 16% ↓ Unlikely to Consider (Rating 1-3) Total Respond (103) Non- manufacturing Equipment can be Total C2C (180) (51) constrained for up to 10 minutes (25) 34% indicated that they would recommend their organisation consider an FCL service agreement (prior to financial reward information) 73
Benefits of signing up to an FCL service Financial rewards /income generation 32% 52% 32% 44% Minimise disruption Avoid future increases in your bills 9% 31% 10% 30% Ability to connect to the network at lower cost 4% Contribution toward smart solutions 23% Highest ranked benefit 5% 20% Environmentally friendly Top 3 ranked benefits Contribute towards the future of my region 4% 15% 9% Greater return on investment 3% Financial rewards are the most influential driver of indicative take up, with minimised disruption to the electricity network also very important 74
Risks of providing an FCL service Disruption to business processes and losses/waste 26% 19% Immediate impact on machinery 10% 27% 19% Need further information 13% Lost productivity 2% 17% 2% ↑ Disruption to business caused by installation 6% Highest ranked barrier Securing senior/board approval 6% 13% 4% Impact on reliability/quality of supply 12% Top 3 ranked barrier 4% Long term impact to machinery 11% 6% Ability to agree contract terms 8% Concern over losses/waste arising from the constraint of a generator or motor is the biggest barrier to providing an FCL service 75
Pricing structures and contract options The Respond FCL service ‘contracts’ were constructed from the following components: PPE Type of contract (pay per Pre-paid event) Maximum number of events (constraints to equipment) in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 one year Length of contract (years) 1 year 2 years 3 years Level of financial reward 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% To evaluate the appeal of different contract options, a base case scenario was applied, against which all variants could be benchmarked: Base case scenario • One year contract • Maximum of one of event per year • Rate paid by contract – 100% • Pre-paid (fixed per contract retainer, paid in advance)/Pay as you go - payment per event PPE payment methods 76
Calculating FCL service financial rewards Technical factor Figures Number of Electricity North West customers 2.4m Electricity North West winter max demand 4.2GW Max demand per customer 1.75kW One customer interruption £12.34 One customer hour lost £17.81 77
Take-up of FCL service – base scenario PPE Pre-paid 10% Total market 11% 10 minute equipment constraint 24% Target has no significant impact 30% market 10 minute equipment constraint 9% has significant impact 11% Equipment essential (no 5% constraint permitted) 2% 17% Target Non-manufacturing 19% market 3% Manufacturing 3% Take-up of the FCL service is significantly higher among the target market and pre-paid contract options 78
Take-up of FCL service by length of contract 11% 10% 9% 7% 7% 4% PPE Pre-Paid 1 year 2 years 3 years The optimal duration for an FCL service contract is likely to be one year 79
Sensitivity to value of payment Potential take up 16% Significant gains 12% 12% in take-up can be 11% achieved by 9% 9% 12% offering increased 10% 9% PPE financial 7% PPE Pre-Paid rewards (+10%) 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% PPE £3,026 £3,194 £3,362 £3,531 £3,699 (per event per annum) Pre Paid £1,513 £1,597 £1,681 £1,765 £1,849 (per event per annum) Central value 80
Sensitivity to value of payment Target Non-manufacturing potential take up (51) market 28% 20% 18% 17% 15% Significant gains 20% 19% 20% 18% 12% in take-up can be achieved by PPE 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% offering Pre-Paid increased PPE financial rewards Manufacturing potential take up (52) to the non- manufacturing segment (+10%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 0% 0% PPE 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% Pre-Paid 81
Sensitivity to value of payment by sector Target Potential take up if 10 minute constraint IS acceptable (26) market 36% 32% 30% 26% 26% 33% 28% 24% 21% 16% Take-up reaches 36% PPE amongst the 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% Pre-Paid target market if offered Potential take up if 10 minute constraint is NOT acceptable (26) PPE at 110% for one year 12% 12% 9% 8% 6% 11% 11% 11% 8% 8% PPE 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% Pre-Paid 82
Interest in finding out more about the trial 57% would like to know more about participating in the FCL service trial 83% of the overall sample would like to be informed of the results of the survey 83
Further information requirements Site specific and equipment specific information is Tailored information needed for potential users to come to a conclusion. How are they calculated? Do they depend on Financial rewards frequency and length of faults? Questioning the risk and whether the benefits outweigh Benefits of proposition the risk to the company and the equipment. What does Respond do for the company? Will there be notice of the supply being cut off and Constraint of equipment going back on? How long would this be? What times of day/ year would this occur if needs be? Installation, maintenance Who would look after the equipment installed to make Respond possible? What costs could this have? and equipment Some equipment needs turning on steadily or with engineers Damage to equipment present, rather than via a ‘on/off’ method which may cause damage. What would be the process for switching back on? 84
So who represents the target market for Respond? 85
Target market Essential to have electricity 43% available 24/7 10 minute constraint 24% no significant impact 10 minute constraint 25% significant impact This equates to 25 companies 86
Target market – industry type 5 manufacturing 20 other industries 7 3 3 2 Mining, Utilities, Agriculture, forestry Human health Education Waste Management & fishing 2 1 1 1 Real estate Transport Professional Construction Includes 8 aggregators 87
Target market – location Single site 2 – 9 sites 10 + sites Total ENW 1 8 7 16 region Outside 4 4 0 8 ENW region 5 13 7 Total 88
Target market – equipment 9 in special industry 13 no existing contracts relationship/contracts Largest single equipment/customer ranges from 0.5 Kw – 6 MW 6 motor 8 generator 11 generator and motor 89
Customer engagement hypothesis “The Method enables a market for the provision of a FLC service” Customer survey Engaged customer Customer survey (Pre-trial) panel (monitoring) Establish appeal of the commercial proposition Formulate Qualify customer engagement experience materials Completed Completed 2016 90
Purpose of engaged customer panel 2 Test customer engagement and contractual materials for purchasing FCL service To test a customer presentation which would 1 be given to potential FCL trial participants Three key To test a comprehensive Q&A document 2 objectives about the FCL trial To review existing engagement materials 3 tested previously by the ECP 91
Information shared with customers Max fault level Distance to primary Annual availability Fault history contribution (MVA) substation payment A site-specific five- Details of the Proximity of site to Indicative payment year history of maximum fault the primary based on faults that could level contribution at substation to hypothetical figures have activated the their primary calculate FCL service substation impedance 92
Final ECP lessons learned Customer presentation and leaflet worked well together Materials were suitable to meet the diverse requirements of different customers Customer presentation will work well in an F2F environment which allowed interaction Site specific fault history info useful Concept still unappealing based on illustrative reward figures Customers wanted more information about risk 93
Going forward ... FCL service Refine communication agreement materials based on developed and feedback from trialed with up to reconvened ECP five participants Publish final Comprehensive contract templates customer survey & commercial report published arrangements May 2017 May 2018 94
Paul Turner Delivery Manager Next Steps 95
Respond project summary Adaptive protection £ 5.5 (5 HV, 2 EHV sites) million Fault £ Fault Current Limiting Level (FCL) service Build Assessment Sep 2015 to Tool April 2016 I S limiters (2 HV full install, 3 HV and 2 EHV Trial sensing equipment) May 2016 to April 2018 Delivers same capacity but up to 18 x faster Up to 80% cheaper Decommission & closedown Could save GB £2.3 billion by 2050 October 2018 96
Progress to date Installation Customer Go live of the Project Customers Orders placed sites Respond engagement publicised registered for for major confirmed, plan and data website and through engaged items trial privacy social media partner customer equipment statement forums organisations panel and installed and submitted to and in the survey activated Ofgem and media Survey approved completed 97
Next steps May 2016 Trial period May 2016 through to May 2018 Start of Post fault Health Purchase trials analysis monitoring FCL service S Operate up to Publicise trial Standard Assess the five FCL through media monitoring and health impact services for & analysis on our assets customers’ dissemination procedures of the trials motors and events for every fault generators Knowledge sharing and dissemination 98
Post event feedback 1) How would you rate the event for each of the following? Needs Poor improvement Satisfactory Good Excellent Intellectual content 1 1 10 3 Industry insight 2 10 3 Innovative ideas 3 8 5 Networking 5 8 3 Overall experience 3 11 2 2) How would you rate the delivery and content of the event for each of the following? Needs Poor improvement Satisfactory Good Excellent Presentation delivery 1 2 9 3 Clarity of the messages 1 2 8 5 Opportunity for questions 1 .3 6 6 Relevant responses to questions 1 3 8 4 Length of the sessions 1 3 9 3 99
Post event feedback 3) Were all the topics you were interested in covered during the event? If not, please state which topics you would have liked to hear about? Yes 7 No 1 – Asset Impact 4) How would you rate the following aspects of the event? Needs Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Improvement Administration 1 10 5 Venue facilities 1 10 5 Refreshments 2 9 5 100
Recommend
More recommend
