eskom - grid connectivity

1

Grid Connectivity

Presented by: Riaan Smit

Group Technology: Planning Centre of Excellence

& Seetsele Seetswane

Grid Access Unit

Date: 2014-04-09

2014/04/15 2

2Content

• Department of Energy RE IPP Program

• RE IPP map & Wind projects progress

• GAU Cost Estimate Letter fee

• Grid connection criteria

• Grid connection data

• Risk management

• Grid connection – way forward

Klipheuwel Wind Energy

Demonstration Facility

Middelgrunden, Denmark Favonius, Sweden

2

Department of Energy RE IPP Programme

Description RE IPP 1 RE IPP 2 RE IPP 3Cost Estimate Letters ~270 >190 ~500

DoE Applications 54 79 93<97Wind (Nr – MW) Preferred Bidders 8 - 634 7 - 563 7 - 787Photovoltaic (PV) (Nr – MW) 18 - 632 9 – 417 6 - 450

Concentrating Solar Power (Nr - MW) 2 - 150 1 - 50 2 - 200

Small Hydro (Nr – MW) 2 - 14

Landfill (Nr - MW) 1(5) - 18

Biomass (Nr - MW) 1 - 16.5

Biogas (MW)

Small RE 1-5 MW (MW)

Preferred Bidders (Nr) 28 19 17Wind allocation (Wind MW/MW Allocated) 44.8% 53.9% 53.5%MW allocated 1416 1044 1471.5

2014-02-17 3

Note: 1x Landfill application, but for 5x sites, no bids for Biogas & Small RE

DoE RE IPP Determinations till 2020

Description RE IPP Det 1Difference

to dateRE IPP Det 2

Wind (MW) 1850 (49.7%) 134 1 470 (45.9%)

Photovoltaic (PV) (MW) 1450 49 1 075

Concentrating Solar Power(MW)

200 200 400

Small Hydro (MW) 75 -61 60

Landfill (MW) 25 -7

Biomass (MW) 12.5 4 47.5

Biogas (MW) 12.5 -12.5 47.5

Small RE 1-5 MW (MW) 100 -100 100

Total MW 3 725 207 3 200

2014-02-17 4

Note: More MW allocated to date versus RE IPP Determination 1

3

RE IPP cost of energy in c/kWh

Description RE IPP 1 RE IPP 2 RE IPP 3

Wind 114 89 74

Photovoltaic (PV) 276 165 88

Concentrating Solar Power 269 251 146

CSP 5 hours peak 270%

Small Hydro 103

Landfill 83.7

Biomass 124

2014-02-17 5

Note: Cost trend is down, did it stabilise?2014-04-10: Rand = 100 cents, Rand/$ 10.38, Rand/Eur 14.4, Rand/GBP 17.41

RE IPP 1 & 2 & 3 Preferred bidders

RE IPP 1RE IPP 2RE IPP 3

EC: 131072.6WC: 9

451.4

NC: 322029.7

KZN: 116.5

NW: 1 6.76

L: 3118

FS: 4203

G:518

- 1984 MW

4

High level RE IPP grid connection process

2014/04/15 7

GAU Current Deliverables

1 Execution (Grid Connection) and Compliance tests for COD, EOP, Operations (BW1)

2 Project Execution BW2

3 Budget Quotations and Related Agreements (CUOSAs) for BW3

4 CELs for Small Projects (1-5 MVA) Procurement Program

5 CELs for BW4

6 Non-DoE IPP projects

Grid Connections (Wind)

2014-02-17 8

Name Tech MW

Noblesfontein (Coria

Investment Ltd) Wind 75

Klipheuwel/Dassiesklip Wind

Energy Facility (Biotherm Pty

Ltd) Wind 26.19

Hopefield Wind

Farm/Umoya Wind 65.4

Dorper Wind Farm

(Rainmaker Energy Pty Ltd) Wind 100

Red Cap Kouga Wind Farm -

Oyster Bay (Red Capa Kouga

Pty Ltd) Wind 80

Jeffreys Bay (MainstReam

Renewable PtyLtd) Wind 138

Cookhouse Wind Farm Wind 140

MetroWind Van Stadens

Wind Farm (Nelson Mandela

Bay Metropolitan) Wind 27

TOTAL MWs 651.6

*496 MW (76%) of contracted wind capacity currently grid connected

5

Grid Connections expected (Wind BW2)

2014-04-09 9

BW1 + BW2 Contracted Wind Capacity: 1.2 GW

Grid Access Cost Estimate Letter

• It is accepted that if Eskom issues a Cost Estimate Letter (CEL) that such project could be connected to the grid, if selected and prioritised in the DoE process. Although the CEL states:

• This letter is not an offer for a contract. It is purely illustrative and in anticipation of a request for a budget quotation. No information contained in this letter shall be deemed to form part of any contract between Eskom and any party.

• RE-IPP CEL cost structure based on the ECSA rates:

10

0 – 350 KW

•Micro: No cost estimate required

351 KW – 1 MW

•Small: R13 000

1 MW – 50 MW

•Large: R52 000

> 50 MW

•Key: R78 000

6

09 April 2014 11

Grid Access Challenges

• Delays in execution of projects (delays in Grid Compliance, Compliance with National (NRS) and Eskom technical standards) = loss of revenue for customers, deemed energy payments for the network owner.

• Timelines to build grid capacity (servitudes, rights-of-way, EIAs etc.). Transmission/backbone network upgrades and strengthening at major MTSs (Upington, Poseidon, Hydra, Kronos e.g.) likely to delay grid connection dates for BW3 projects, await budget quotes and dates.

• Stringent timelines from DoE for BQ, CEL delivery (alignment of objectives; network integrity vs. MWs delivered).

• Refining of the Grid Access Framework (connection process) particularly the commissioning and operations phase.

• Major delays in development of the small and microgen framework (< 1 MVA) and its tariff structure (fit, net etc.) exacerbated by illegal connections at the microgen level.

• General lack of understanding the key responsibilities outlined in the assortment of agreements (SBA, SOA, PPA, CUOSA) across the value chain.

Grid connection criteria 1

• Generation in MTS area not to exceed n-1 transformer capacity + other criteria. To be revaluated for <1 000 MW ~ no n-1.

• Refer Transmission GCCA 2016 study taking system stability into account.

• Low load at night and very low during daytime e.g. over Christmas. Day load considerations for solar projects.

• Planning shall use only the normal operating limits of transformers and high voltage lines, not contingency or emergency limits. The latter is the domain of System and Network Operations

• Ensure a Distribution primary or main evacuation route. e.g. n-1 capability for traction lines shall be maintained as per design & not rely on a mesh network to evacuate the peak generation.

2014-02-17 12

7


• Projects shall be tested on interconnected networks between Operating Units and MTS’s and Dx & Tx to jointly decide on validity of MW capacity granted in cost estimate letter.

• Accept that Distribution lines cannot necessarily be operated at normal rating, due to voltage control, Rapid Voltage Change (RVC) analysis and low fault levels.

• No “Diversity” between projects, regardless of technology. (No records)

• Loss optimisation must be considered in all projects, although projects cannot be rejected based on network losses alone.

• Protection requirements to ensure upstream networks are covered, including MTS’s. The costs should be included in the CEL.

• All telecommunication and SCADA interface requirements should be determined and included in the CEL.

2014-02-17 13


• Alternative solutions shall be offered to developers, where practical possible. The developer may consider this in the EIA process.

• Developers to cooperate with Network Planners and Land Development to check the developer EIA’s for practical network integration solutions .

14

8

Grid connection data

• Geographic Information System (GIS) data for 66-400 kV networks –routes and locations and highest voltage.

• List of Transmission MTS capacities in progress. Also refer previous GCCA 2016 document on Eskom website. New study for GCCA 2020 initiated.

• No sharing of large power system data for simulations – propriety and confidential data.

• Need to share with developers:• Source bus to site equivalenced network data• Fault levels and associated impedances• RVC study results• System stability studies to be done for >= 100 MW at Budget Quote stage

15

Risk?

• Large volume of applications expected to drop with CEL fee

• More time per project for improved engineering analysis & reduce risk

• Projects evaluated on a 1:1 basis, competition identified at DoE Bid submission stage and re-evaluated.

• Needs to follow Eskom’s governance process• GAU application and technical discussions

• Technical Evaluation Forum – all projects

• Capital Investment Committee(s)

• Cost Estimate Lettert issued by GAU, with support of Pricing, Contracts, Technical support, etc.

• Any shared network (upstream) to fit into capital budget. Influenced by MYPD3 capital allowed constraints.

16

9

Developer’s project time risk control

• High uncertainty which projects will be approved, developer’s risk

• Developer to include line routes and substation sites in EIA, as per DEA process required. Optimisation only possible in future.

• Eskom will only do development work to support Budget Quote and final design, but could take longer than Developer proposed timeline. Note: Eskom did not influence developer’s own project proposal.

• Developer may choose self-built option (with Eskom approved consultants and contractors and service providers), own control over time, cost & resources

• Eskom monitor quality and take over line and switching stations for O&M

17

Lessons from RE IPP 1-3

• GAU: Proper application with technology, size & coordinates

• GAU: CEL fee payment initiates process

• Follow up meetings with Transmission and Distribution technical staff to agree on acceptable technical proposal under 1:1 criteria. Agree on alternatives as required.

• Share EIA development with Eskom to comment on grid infrastructure concerns.

• Multiple project application optimisation not currently possible under RFP rules – cannot optimise investment if e.g. 3 out of 5 projects must be selected to warrant investment.

18

10

Grid connectivity – way forward

• Open consultation process in industry

• Use of updated IRP targets in Eskom plans versus Developer’s wish list (e.g. x MW per annum versus list of y MW untested(?) potential)

• WASA wind atlas information

• DEA renewable energy development zones

• Government development priorities ?

• SAWEA input into Transmission Strategic Plan

• Distribution Network Development Plans and Budgets

• Integration of strengthening, refurbishment and IPP’s

• Cooperation is vital

19

Thank youAny Questions?

eskom - grid connectivity

Engineering