This project has received funding from the European

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme under grant agreement n° 691777

FutureFlow cross-border pilot test results

Andreja I. Kanduč, MSc

EIMV,15.10.2019

Participating countries

Project in general

Survey of existing state

TheoreticalTarget Model

Simulations Pilot testsAnalyses, conclusions

cross-border balancing aFRR energy exchange

and coordinated cross-border redispatching

Test scenarious

Data applied: Based on TSOs data (realised responses of aFRR control, bids, ATC, models) from period 6–31 March 2017.

• Table 2 – Simulation Cases and its comparisons

•

Comparison of FF Integration Cases

• Benefits from introducing the regional cooperation under

the selected target model are rather high, with potential

cost reduction of more than 60%

• It incorporates joint benefits of both imbalance netting

and cross-border CMOL activation

Balancing: economic analyses

BSP nBSP 2

Regional Balancing Platform with Common Activation Function for cross-border exchange of aFRR

TSO 1 TSO 2 TSO 3 TSO n

BSP 1

BSP nBSP 2

BSP 1

BSP nBSP 2

BSP 1

BSP nBSP 2

BSP 1

Co

ntr

ol &

M

easu

rem

ent

Bid

din

g

aFR

R R

T d

ata

Bid

din

g

CZC

aFR

R R

T d

ata

Bid

din

g

CZC

aFR

R R

T d

ata

Bid

din

g

CZC

aFR

R R

T d

ata

Bid

din

g

CZC

Co

ntr

ol &

M

easu

rem

ent

Bid

din

g

Co

ntr

ol &

M

easu

rem

ent

Bid

din

g

Co

ntr

ol &

M

easu

rem

ent

Bid

din

g

DR DG BG DR DG BG DR DG BG DR DG BG

FutureFlow architecture

Pilot test

Use cases specifications for pilot testing:

• UC1: Testing of communications and IT systems and main building blocks.

• UC2: DR/DG participation in aFRR.

• UC3: Cross border DR/DG participation in aFRR.

• UC4: DR/DG connection with two BSPs.

Pilot test1. IT KPIs

1. Delay: latency experienced by data packet on point-to-point communication path

2. Packet loss: absolute number of lost data pockets in a unit of time

3. Transferred amount of data: the absolute amount of data in a given period

2. Technical KPIs

1. ACE quality

2. Full activation time (FAT)

3. Size of overshoot

4. LF controller settings

5. Size of imbalance netting effect

6. ATC and FB transmission capacity limits

7. Quality of DR&DG response

8. Volatility of activations of BSPs, and

9. Suspicious situations

Results for KPI communication

• Ping duration – how long the endpoint has pinged another endpoint

• Ping frequency – the number of packets/s sent from one endpoint to another.

• Round trip time (given from ping command):

• Minimum;

• Average;

• Maximum;

Parameter Result

Ping duration 7200 s

Ping frequency 1 packet / s

RTT min 15.2 ms

RTT average 26.9 ms

RTT max 1171.6 ms

Table 9.1: Delay of packets results . Testing towards FutureFlow Cloud platform (MQTT communication channel).

Compliant performance of VPP

.

DR/DG type Negative capacity share Positive capacity share

Industrial prrocess 93.03 % 100 %

CHP 6.97 % 0 %

Capacity reserves 6.97 % 0 %

Compliant performance of VPP : Including solar plants

DR/DG type Negative capacity

share

Positive capacity

share

Hydro 0 % 100 %

Solar 100 % 0 %

Capacity reserves 0 % 0 %

Balancing & Economic KPI

• comparison of performance through balancing KPIs

Table 9.13: Pilot tests: comparison of performance through balancing KPIs

Flexible capacity potential participating in pilot tests

ELES

(MW)

APG

(MW)

MAVIR

(MW)

Transelectrica

(MW)

Total

(MW)

Target 15 15 5 5 40

Contracted 42,0 24,7 3,5 3,1 73,3

GA obligation: „pool of 30 to 45 MW of C&I DR&DG units“

A vision of possible DR/DG contributions to aFRR by the TSOs.

Barriers

• Most of DR/DG can not participate on their own. Aggregators have a significant role.

• Technical barriers

• Regulatory barriers

• Fair treatment

• Price transparency

Technical demands:

• Faster market (GCT)

• Larger market (cross border)

• Smaller products

• Efficient pricing

Thank you