Energy

Networks

Association

Open Networks Project – Advisory Group12th April 2018

Welcome & IntroductionsNigel Turvey – ENA Open Networks Project Chair

2

The Advisory Group is essential to our project to:

• Ensure stakeholders are aware and taking the Project into account;

• Request input from stakeholders to improve the quality of our products;

• Increase awareness about project risks & issues, ask for views on risks & issues and collaboratively resolve where appropriate.

It will provide input to:

• Steering Group on project scope, progress, risks & issues;

• Workstreams with deliverable comments/feedback.

We will seek to send information in advance of meetings to ensure that views can be sought by trade associations in advance. Our objective is to encourage open feedback from you all across all of our work.

Thank you for the continued input.

Advisory Group ToR Reminder

3

The intention of the bulk of this meeting is to split the Advisory Group into 3 break-out groups to discuss the materials.

Each break-out group will discuss the material from workstreams for just under an hour, then the facilitators will move on to

discuss their material with another break-out group. We will have 3 of these sessions, so each break-out group will discuss all of

the material in turn.

Consultation Response Summary - Nigel Turvey (WPD SG Member)

Breakout Group 1 - Sotiris Georgiopoulos (UKPN WS Lead), Kyle Murchie (SSEN WS Member) & Nigel Turvey (WPD SG

Member)

• Upcoming consultation on best practice for connecting flexible resources (WS1 Product 10)

• Whole system investment planning case studies & methodology (WS1 Product 1)

Breakout Group 2 - John West (ENA Technical Lead) & Steve Atkins (SSEN WS Member)

• Definition of commonly used terms in the industry (WS2 Product 3)

• DSO functions (WS3)

Breakout Group 3 - Steven Gough (SSEN WS Member) & Manuel Castro (EATL Representative)

• Case study for SGAM models (WS3)

Today’s Agenda & Approach

4

Response to Consultation on the 2018 Programme of

WorkNigel Turvey – ENA Open Networks Project Chair

5

• We asked stakeholders six key questions focused on whether the right areas of work had been included for 2018 and also how, as stakeholders, they would like to be engaged.

• We had an encouraging response – our thanks goes to all of the respondents who provided feedback, whether directly or via the webinar.

• Feedback is important to us - we are actively using it to adapt the Open Networks Project; and our plans are set out in the following slides.

• Although the consultation has now closed, we still welcome your feedback and would like to encourage all stakeholders to continue to engage with us via the following channels:

E-mail Events Consultations YouTube

• Watch the

Introduction to

Open Networks

Project animation

• Past events /

webinar

recordings

• Details on our

current and past

consultations

• E-mail us your

questions, or to

join the mailing

list for the

quarterly

newsletter

• Details on our

forthcoming

meetings, events,

speaking

engagements &

other project

milestones

In January 2018, ENA’s Open Networks Project opened a

consultation to present the 2018 Work Programme

Twitter

• Follow us on

Twitter

@energynetworks

for real-time

updates

6

In 2018, the Project moved into Phase 2, focused on impact assessment and early implementation

• Phase 2 is part of a longer term view of Open Networks Project development:

Workstream 1

Transmission-Distribution Processes

Workstream 2

Customer Experience

Workstream 3

Distribution Network Operator (DNO) to Distribution System

Operator (DSO) Transition

Workstream 4

Network Charging, supporting Ofgem’s Charging Futures

Forum and Targeted Charging Review

Workstream 5

Communications, including stakeholder management

• The overall Project continues to be

managed through 5 workstreams – you

can find out more about these

workstreams, and their outputs during

2018, in the Project Initiation Document:

7

Overview of consultation responses

• Consultation period: 30th Jan – 23rd Feb (4 weeks)

• Public webinar held on 15th Feb

• 18 written responses received from:

Centrica Gazprom

Drax HIE

EDF Innogy

ElectraLink JRC

Elexon Noveus

Energy UK Open Utility

EON Scottish Power

ESP Scottish Renewables

FPSA Smartest Energy

8

Summary of key comments are on slides 8 – 12

Summary of actions are on slide 13

Full details of all responses are published on the

ENA website here.

Our plan of action is detailed on slides 15 - 27

8

We also ran a public webinar during which the Project leads gave a walkthrough of the 2018 Work Programme

• Webinar took place online on the 15th February – timed to

occur halfway through the consultation period

• 52 participants joined the webinar, which lasted for 85

minutes

• We have published a video of the webinar, a copy of the

presentation that was used, and the Q&A that followed

• Overall, the webinar was very successfully received; with

more participants than respondents overall18

4

7

10

1

12

2

11 5

Webinar participants (# by industry)

Suppliers/Flexible Energy Providers Industry Associations

DNO/Independent DNOs Consultants

Aggregators Radio Spectrum Allocator

Academics Power Engineering Services

Community Group Gas Distibuter

Other

Respondents have requested more webinars; we are

committed to providing them throughout the rest of the

year

9

Summary of responses

The following slides give an overview of the written responses we received:

Slides 8 – 12: organised by key themes • Note: these are examples of comments, not a full overview, designed to

provide insight into how stakeholders had presented these views. In a few cases the comments have been abbreviated to fit.

Slide 13: summary of our planned actions in response to the consultation feedback

10

Consultation Key Comments - Project Scope

Summary of key comments:

• Open Networks should be the main hub for industry discussion on DSO.

• Are there adequate resources to deliver the ambitious agenda?

• Will the economic analysis look to demonstrate if the DSO market models will deliver competitive markets?

Centrica – “We note that many DNOs have individually been

consulting on separate DSO strategies. Whilst we have found the latter

useful and welcome DNOs reaching out to stakeholders, we believe

the ONP should be the main hub for industry discussion to achieve a

coordinated approach.”

EDF – “On the role of the DSO, it is also our strong belief that

developments need coordination across all DSOs, not fragmentation.

We support the ONP in developing proposals for this, rather than

individual DNO consultations.”

EDF – “The workplan sets out an ambitious

programme of deliverables. To achieve this

will require adequate resourcing. We would

welcome more visibility of resources

deployed. We also recognise a potential

conflict between speed of delivery and

sufficient rigour. Extensive consultation and

stakeholder involvement will assist to deliver

well developed proposals.”

EUK – “Energy UK notes that the workplan

details an ambitiously large amount of work,

as this does raise concerns over resourcing.

It would be useful for stakeholders to see a

clearer definition of the resources available

across the ONP, as this may have an impact

on the success of workstreams and

projects.”

FPSA – “FPSA recognises that the

overall delivery timescales, and

individual workstream timescales,

proposed by the ON project for

phase 2 are stretching, and we

welcome the commitment by the

network companies to providing

additional resource.

FPSA would urge the ON project

not to think in terms of the

regulatory timetable when

determining delivery milestones

and priorities, but instead to remain

flexible and adaptable, adopting an

agile approach to project

management and product delivery.”

EUK – “Workstream 3 and the associated DSO models are

missing an economic analysis of whether the proposals will

support robust competitive markets for flexibility. It would

be useful to have clarity on whether the ENA ONP will look

at this within or outside of the CBA. It has been suggested

to Energy UK members that this question could be left to

Ofgem to consider, a concerning omission given the cost

efficiency provided by robust competitive markets.”

Centrica – “The one thing missing from WS3, is any

economic analysis of whether the proposals will support

robust competitive markets for flexibility. We believe that

this should form part of the planned CBA.”

11

Consultation Key Comments - Standard Services & National Grid Alignment

Summary of key comments:

• Standardised services, products and a single set of arrangements is important for market simplicity.

• Have a separate product to standardise DSO processesto ensure focus.

• Consistency and alignment with other work e.g. National Grid’s System Needs And Product Strategy (SNAPS).

EUK – “There is a need for standardised products and processes across

DSOs and for these to align with the SO to enable low costs for customers

and the network. Whilst this is reflected in certain products, Energy UK

suggests that an additional product should be included in the ONP to ensure

that this happens to greatest affect.”

Drax – “There is a need for standardised flexibility / system support services

across all DSOs and the SO. Whilst there is a mention of this in various

sections of the workplan, an explicit ‘Product’ relating to this should be

included in the workplan to ensure that this standardisation is prioritised

appropriately.”

Smartest Energy – “There is a need for standardised products and

processes across DSOs to enable low costs for customers and the network.

Whilst this is reflected in certain products, we would suggest that an

additional product, if indeed it has to be such, should be included to ensure

that this happens to the greatest effect.”

EON – “We would like to see a product focussing on how DSOs will look to

standardise processes for several of the areas that are in scope for the

programme.”

Elexon – “We would also like to use this opportunity to reiterate the

importance of a single set of arrangements for DSOs, particularly where there

are significant interactions with the rest of the industry. We believe this will

improve competition, ensure the future market arrangements are simple, fair

and easy to understand across the whole market, and also reduce the costs

of implementation and administration, so benefitting industry and

consumers.”

EUK – “Flexibility products should be aligned across GB, and definitions of DSO

products should be aligned with those being redefined by National Grid in its

Product Strategy workstream.”

EDF – “We consider it essential that there is consistency with other projects, for

example National Grid’s System Need and Procurement Strategy (SN&PS) and the

Ofgem Targeted Charging Review (TCR). A standardised transparent marketplace

for service providers and customers open to all technologies should facilitate a

competitive market to reflect value and drive down costs.”

Gazprom – “We would like to see further clarification on the interaction among

different ancillary services.”

12

Consultation Key Comments - DSO Functionality & Roles

Summary of key comments:

• Don’t assume DSO functionality should build on DNO organisations.

• Concerns that DSO functionality is being defined ahead of DSO role

• The Electricity System Operator (ESO) should be given priority to address conflicts.

EUK – “The assumption across all Workstreams that ‘functionality is developed through existing

DNO organisations’ is one which may distort the outcomes of the project and an unbiased review

of potential future DSO models. It is possible that existing DNO organisations will be best placed

to form the basis of a DSO body, but to assume so without consideration of alternatives may limit

the capabilities of the project.”

Innogy – “Starting from the position that functionality is delivered through existing DNO

organisations runs counter to stakeholder feedback (ourselves included) on last year’s

consultation into potential commercial principles and the 6 market models - which showed a

clear preference for either model 3 NETSO coordinates or model 5 joint procurement / dispatch.”

Scottish Renewables – “We note that the workstream assumptions for the phase 2 work

specifically state that DSO functionality will be performed by existing DNO organisations. We

disagree with this as a starting assumption and would encourage the project to develop its

assessment of the DSO function without this assumption, particularly as the eventual role of the

DSO and its licensing arrangements will be defined by government and Ofgem.”

Smartest Energy – “Clear rules and principles need to be

established. The national energy position is most important

and therefore needs to be satisfied ahead of local MVARs,

for example. However, it is clear that a local constraint

should be resolved at least cost locally as there will be

greater competition at the national level. Conflicts can be

avoided by allowing SO priority over DSO activity in a co-

ordinated approach to system operation.”

EUK – “Control at Transmission Network level is important to

ensure whole system security, which needs to be satisfied

ahead of local interests. Conflicts should be avoided by

allowing SO priority over DSO activity in a coordinated

approach to system operation. This should be reflected

across workstreams, particularly in Workstreams 1 and 3.”

Smartest Energy – “Workstream 3 focuses on functionality that DSOs require going forwards,

but we are not aware that industry has established what the end-point is for the new “DSO”

role. The proposed approach seems to encourage developing functions piecemeal across the

country with no guarantee of alignment across future DSOs. ……... Ultimately, Ofgem are

going to have to recognise that the network operators are not going to design the correct

arrangements by themselves because the required regulatory structure represents too

fundamental a change.”

Scottish Renewables - “The role and functions of a DSO have not been consulted on. It is

particularly important that industry has an opportunity to provide feedback and comment on

what the role of the DSO actually is and how it interfaces, in particular with the role of the DNO.”

13

Consultation Key Comments - Other suggestions on Phase 2 Products

Summary of key comments:

• Look for minimum standards across more products.

• More consideration of increased electrification of transport.

• Include a specific Scottish product covering 132kV transmission.

EUK – “Minimum standards for the quality of information on constraints and in heat maps, in

terms of granularity for example, needs to be improved across GB. Common minimum

standards for these should be part of Workstream 1 Product 6, and Workstream 2 Product 4, in

the same way that Workstream 2 Product 7 is looking to establish good practice on when and

what information is provided by network operators. Setting minimum standards must be based

on examining what would be most useful to robust competitive markets, and not in settling for

the poorest common denominator.”

Centrica – “The heat maps currently provided by individual DNOs vary in quality e.g. in the

level of detail shown and the frequency of updates. We would like to see a minimum quality

standard guaranteed for heat maps, noting that this should not be the lowest common

denominator.”

Electralink – “The problem with EV is that there is no log or tracker for

DNOs to know when an EV is connected to their network; therefore,

ElectraLink would suggest a product to introduce an EV registration service

that tracks and records the uptake of EV, or the inclusion of EV in the

Resource Register is required to understand the future and existing

demand on the networks. Once the DSO has a better understanding of the

demand on their network, they can begin to enact projects to minimise the

impact of EV on the grid.”

Noveus – “It is not clear how the increase in electrification of transport will

impact and how this will be controlled. It is going to be significant and

although the Network Operators may see the change as just another load,

it is going to be politically topical and thus it would be useful to have the

application of EVs built into the communications and application.”

Scottish Renewables - “We believe there needs to be a specific

product looking at the issues specifically in the Scottish context

given the different interface arrangements between transmission

and distribution compared to England and Wales, i.e. 132kV is

transmission in Scotland.”

Scottish Power - “Given the different interface arrangements

between transmission and distribution in Scotland compared to

E&W, e.g. 132kV transmission in Scotland, we believe that there

needs to be a specific ‘Scottish product’.”

14

Consultation Key Comments - Open Network communications (workstream 5)

Summary of key comments: Information Channels

• Regular newsletter.• More webinars and focussed industry events.• Trade association events & flexibility groups.• Workshops, high level & detailed product level.

Consultations

• Longer (6 week) consultation periods.• Co-ordinate with BEIS, ESO & Ofgem.• Give stakeholders the opportunity to respond

on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA).

Drax – “Whilst consultation responses such as these are

ultimately the most effective way to provide input into the project

we would also like to see an array of webinars, forums, and

workshops that are open to all stakeholders not just those on the

project advisory group. These events should be a mixture of

higher level overviews of the projects and more technical

sessions which focus on just one of the products in the

workstream. This ensures that organisations with fewer

resources are able to participate and are aware of any impending

changes, but equally are able to participate in technical

discussions where their expertise can lead to it.”

EUK – “Industry events and webinars would be productive for

engagement. These should increasingly focus on specific topics,

rather than the broad dissemination of information seen to date,

and should be open to all as often as possible”

EON – “We would like to engage in a number of ways,

including:

• Continuing to provide input through consultations;

• Expanding membership of closed groups to include a better

reflection of impacted stakeholders in each area;

• Industry events and webinars; and

• Increased workshops, meetings and dissemination events

that are scheduled early on so as to give stakeholders the

best chance of attendance.”

Drax – “In particular we believe that the following

the Independent Review of DSO Models

including CBA, stakeholders should have the

opportunity to respond to these independent

findings, whether in agreement or disagreement.

This area is particularly important to allow a

consultation as independent reviews can often

raise issues that were not previously considered

or suggest viable alternatives to solutions to

obstacles already encountered.”

EON – “We agree with the proposed “products”

for consultation and believe that one further

“product” should be consulted on: Economic

analysis of the DSO models – A consultation

could allow a range of stakeholders to add their

knowledge base to the development of DSO

models, and create a better breadth of

information on barriers to robust, competitive

markets for flexibility.”

15

Summary of our planned actions in response to the consultation feedback*

Given the size of the programme, there will be increased monitoring and reporting of several products that are of higher priority to stakeholders.

The scope of the consultation on DSO market models will include input on DSO definition and functions as requested. In addition to stakeholder input to the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), we will add a consultation on the CBA outcomes to give stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment.

Consultation periods will be increased to 6 weeks.

We have a number of products that will improve the consistency of services and products that will continue to be a focus for the success of the project.

Increased stakeholder engagement will be carried out through dissemination events, webinars and specific product workshops.

We are looking to expand membership for WS2 product teams to include stakeholders and will be publishing an expression of interest in Q2.

Some timescales will be updated to reflect changes that are being included.

The Phase 2 Project Initiation Document will be reissued to reflect the changes detailed above.

*Specific responses to key comments raised for each of the six consultation questions are addressed in the next section.

16

Detailed response comments

The section gives a wider overview of responses

submitted to each question

Slides 15 – 27: question-by-question responses, and

our planned actions for each

17

Question 1. Which specific areas of 2018 work or “Products” are most important to you and why?

You said: What the Open Networks Project will do:

Workstream 1 - the priority products highlighted by multiple stakeholders were Products 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 & 13.

We have also identified Products 10 & 11 that are linked to the Ofgem/BEIS Smart Systems & Flexibility Plan. We are moving to weekly monitoring of these products to ensure that progress is clear and that we can address any significant risks to delivery early.

Workstream 2 – all products were highlighted by different respondents with Product 6 highlighted by many, but no theme of prioritisation between them.

Work will continue on all workstream 2 products as planned.

Workstream 3 – there was a focus on the Cost Benefit Analysis (Product 4) with a request for stakeholder consideration of results and requests for participation in trials (Product 7)

The Cost Benefit Analysis will be a focus and priority with input requested from stakeholders and consultation.Trials are likely to be driven from Network Innovation Competition funded trials at this stage.

A number of respondents highlighted products of higher priority

18

Question 2. Are there other areas of work or “Products” you would like to see included in the ON Phase 2 workplan and if yes, why and how should they be prioritised compared with other work?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

Should there be an additional product to help implement standard products, services across DSOs.

The work being carried out in Workstream 1 Products 2 and 6 and in Workstream 2 Product 6 which aims to provide a more consistent approach to the specification of services across DSO’s. Progress on these Products will be monitored closely and reported to stakeholders.

For DSO services the project should consider various aspects including:• a national interface (e.g. Project TERRE &

Balancing Mechanism)• a single system/platform for services• how will parties be dispatched?• interactions between ancillary services?

The work being carried out under Workstream 1 Product 2 on DER Services Procurement and in Workstream 3 will be considering these aspects. For example, dispatch processes and operational conflicts between flexibility services is being considered in Workstream 1 Product 2. The range of DSO market models being considered under Workstream 3 encompass a TSO led and a Hub model where a single platform would be used for independently procuring the services.

Several respondents requested standardised products, services and processes across DSOs

19

Question 2. Are there other areas of work or “Products” you would like to see included in the ON Phase 2 workplan and if yes, why and how should they be prioritised compared with other work?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

Include a further product addressing the impacts of different transmission-distribution arrangements in Scotland compared to England and Wales.

We have chosen to consider the position across all of Great Britain into all of our products rather than define separate Scottish & England and Wales products and all of the Scottish distribution and transmission companies are involved.

Include a further product addressing the impacts of transport electrification.

The Low Carbon Technologies Working Group at ENA is specifically looking at the impact of Electric Vehicles on the network. The Open Networks will liaise closely with this group to ensure input is provided to this group.

Include a further products addressingnon-firm arrangements and alternatives to Active Network Management.

The work carried out under Workstream 1 Product 2 on Distribute Energy Resources (DER) services procurement is intended to provide more economic solutions to transmission and distribution capacity limitations.

Include a further product addressing co-ordinated outage planning.

Early scoping for the Phase 2 work included additional products to improve Transmission-Distribution processes in the operational planning phase including outage planning. When Products were reviewed and prioritised against early stakeholder input from the Advisory Group and available resources, we decided to delay work on outage planning to a later phase of the project.

Will work be revised to take on Charging Future Forum (CFF) outputs?

Yes, the Initial Options Report that was published by the CFF Taskforces has been taken into consideration in the initial risks and benefits framework for analysis of the DSO market models (being developed in the Smart Grid Architecture Model SGAM tools). Continued liaison will take place to ensure that the SGAM market models are aligned with outputs from the CFF.

20

Question 2. Are there other areas of work or “Products” you would like to see included in the ON Phase 2 workplan and if yes, why and how should they be prioritised compared with other work?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

In WS2, consider additional areas:• Minimum product standards (e.g. heat maps)• Increasing Active Network Management (ANM) use and

impacts on network availability risk.• DSO impacts on customer experience?• Profiling of available capacity to renewables.• Impacts of changes on existing users?

The need for improved and standardised heat maps was identified in 2017 and is being addressed through WS2 P1 where good practice would be published for information provision in the pre-application stage, including heat maps.WS1 P7 looks at providing a methodology to look at how connection arrangement could be impacted by changes to ANM arrangements and how ANM performance information can be shared with stakeholders in a standardised way.Customer experience is key consideration in the development of all potential functionality for DSO and will be a critical criteria in analysing the market models developed under WS3.

In WS3, consider additional areas:• Report on full set of SGAM models.• Consult on role and functions of DSOs.• Assess in CBA whether DSO market models will support

robust competitive markets.• How are Local Energy Systems facilitated?• Funding also needs to be explained.• How are trial outcomes assessed?

Through Workstream 3 it is proposed to provide as much information as practicable to provide both a high level understanding of the DSO models as well as detail on operation, interfaces, date transfers etc. The consultation on DSO models will include questions on DSO role and functions and we will look to factor an assessment of whether DSO models will support robust competitive markets into the scope of the proposed CBA to be delivered through Workstream 3 Product 4.Local energy systems have been included as a specific actor in the Workstream 3 SGAM modelling to capture the various communication links with other actors including the DSO.Trial experience is provided into our development work.

21

Question 3. Should any areas of work or “products” be removed or deferred and if yes, why?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

Several respondents noted that the agenda was ambitious, will require significant resources to deliver and that prioritisation might be required.One respondent suggested that an agile approach to the project should be used.

We have deliberately set out an ambitious scope of work to push ourselves on delivery. The Steering Group has been adaptable in its approach to date and flexed the delivery of products to date to adapt to changing priorities and circumstances. We will continue to do that.We have taken note of the comments raised and re-planned some activitiesResources have been committed by network operators to support the work. There is close management of milestones by the project management team and the Steering Group.

Some respondents noted that there are too many products to be managed efficiently.

The breadth of the project has resulted in 5 workstreams and 29 specific products. A project management framework is in place to review progress and alignment across these products.

Some respondents suggested that all products should be retained but some Workstream 1 work should be moved to Workstream 2

We have had discussions on how to split development and we feel that the current split of work between Workstream 1 and Workstream 2 is appropriate. In particular, the connections related products (Products 9, 10 & 11) in Workstream 1 require T-D process development to unlock capacity for customers.

Most respondents did not suggest removing or deferring products, though several noted that

the agenda was ambitious and that prioritisation may be required.

22

Question 3. Should any areas of work or “products” be removed or deferred and if yes, why?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

One respondent was concerned that some work had been part of the DER Connections Steering Group and that further delays shouldn’t be introduced.

Increasingly, the project is seeking to work with the DER Connections Steering Group and other industry groups to develop proposals. This interaction is intended to increase stakeholder involvement via established industry groups.

For Workstream 1, one respondent was not clear that there is value in a regional NOA process and that there would be greater value in a product to enable DER participation in balancing services.

For Workstream 1 Product 1 on Investment Processes the intention is to facilitate greater distribution network and DER utilisation in resolving transmission issues.Work to enable greater DER participation in commercial services is taking place through other Workstream 1 products and through interaction with the TERRE project.

For Workstream 3, there was concern that DSO functionality is being defined ahead of being clear on the defined role.

To help address this concern, we will look to include questions on DSO role and definitions in the proposed Workstream 3 consultation on DSO market models.

For Workstream 3, there was a view that “no regrets” actions shouldn’t be progressed ahead of a formal industry process.

Any “no regrets” actions will support all DSO market models and would only be taken forward if there is wider industry benefit (through earlier benefits for example). Proposals would be reviewed with the Advisory Group and with Ofgem.

One respondent requested clarity on WS4 status. At present, Workstream 4 is fully engaged in supporting the Ofgem led work through the Charging Futures Forum. Later in 2018, further work will be defined based on outcomes from the Charging Futures Forum.

23

Question 4. Do you agree with the proposed “Products” for wider consultation and what other work should be consulted on and why?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

The project was also asked to consider how to reach a more diverse group of stakeholders.

We are continuing to look for ways of engaging more widely including engagement with non-traditional industry participants. Our stakeholder base is increasing and further Open Networks participation in industry events should help. However, we would welcome further ideas on how best to engage with a more diverse group of stakeholders. Please provide any links or distribution lists to our email address to help.

The project was also asked to consider how best to engage industry expertise.

In addition to the Advisory Group and the increased use of webinars, individual product teams will consider having workshops where wider industry stakeholders and experts can input into detailed product development.

Generally, respondents agreed with the proposed products for wider consultation.

The project was also asked to consider some further aspects of work to consult and on how to

better engage with stakeholders. These points are noted below.

24

Question 4. Do you agree with the proposed “Products” for wider consultation and what other work should be consulted on and why?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

Some respondents wanted the WS3 work to include an economic analysis of DSO market models and their ability to provide robust markets for flexibility.

We will look to factor this requirement into the scope of the proposed CBA to be delivered through Workstream 3 Product 4.When the results of the CBA are available, wider stakeholders will get the opportunity to review and feed back on these.We will add a consultation on the CBA outcomes.

Some respondents wanted the DSO role and definitions to be consulted on as well as the DSO market models.

We will look to include questions on DSO role and definitions in the proposed Workstream 3 consultation on DSO market models.

One respondent sought a consultation on DSO data requirements as this could be a constraint on business models.

Data requirements and interfacing between actors will become more clear through the modelling being carried out in Workstream 3. The need for further consultation on data can be considered then.

One respondent requested that the project consider definitions for Market Facilitation / Market Enabling

A clear understanding of the terms being used by the project is important and definitions of terms that are unclear is being addressed through Workstream 2 Product 3.Service / Market Facilitation is one of the DSO functions that is being considered in the DSO modelling and further clarification of this term in the context of the project will be provided.

…cont.

25

Question 5. Have you any feedback on proposed timescales for delivery and consultation through Phase 2?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

ENA should co-ordinate timescales for consultation with BEIS, ESO and Ofgem.

There are 5 further planned consultations through 2018. We will look to avoid these overlapping any related industry consultations where possible.

Consultation periods should be longer. We will extend our consultation periods to 6 weeks to reflect feedback.

Provide information on consultations beyond December 2018.

If further consultations are planned, we will share with the Advisory Group and flag these in our newsletter. The project will undertake a scoping exercise in Q4 of 2018 for work to be delivered in 2019 and will publish information on future products and consultations as they become available.

By and large respondents agreed with the number of wider consultations though several points

were made on consultation co-ordination and timescales.

There were mixed views on the delivery timescales with similar concerns raised as for

Question 3 on our ambitious programme of work, so we won’t repeat the response here.

26

Question 5. Have you any feedback on proposed timescales for delivery and consultation through Phase 2?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

There are too many products finishing in December 2018.

The nature of the Phase 2 programme and resource planning has led to the volume of work increasing through the year such that more products complete later in 2018.

Look for early delivery of products perhaps with greater regulatory involvement.

Where feasible, products will be started early. There is BEIS & Ofgem involvement through the Steering Group and through Workstreams such that regulatory issues can be flagged.

Prioritise getting the right answer ahead of arbitrary timescales.

Completing the full scope of work is key. Good stakeholder input will help this and to this end, additional engagement and longer consultation periods are being built into the programme.

Timescales shouldn’t be bound by regulatory reviews.

Regulatory review timescales haven’t been a major factor to date.

Align work and feed into other industry requirements e.g. HHS work.

Workstream1 Product 3 is looking for interactions with other industry framework developments such as European Codes. We will look to broaden the remit of this group to identify potential interactions with other industry requirements.

27

Question 6. How would you like to provide input to the ON Project and be kept informed of developments?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

Have workshops for detailed products and include stakeholders.

We are looking to expand membership for WS2 product teams to include stakeholders and will be publishing an expression of interest in Q2. Other product teams will consider having workshops where wider industry stakeholders and experts can input into detailed product development.

Have workshops for detailed products.Consider expanding membership of product groups.

Workshops will be used to enable more direct wider stakeholder input for some products and industry groups such as the DER Connections Steering Group will be used more in 2018.

Produce well written reports and concise summaries.

Product teams will look to share information through summaries, detailed reports and through increased use of webinars.

Several suggestions were made on providing input to the project work and on how to improve

project communication. These are noted below.

28

Question 6. How would you like to provide input to the ON Project and be kept informed of developments?

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

Continue to use the Advisory Group and publish feedback on Advisory Group questions.

This will continue. New members are joining the Advisory Group to cover specific areas.

Have more frequent industry events & webinars.More events for non-London based stakeholders.

We are planning 2 wider industry events in July in Scotland and London to support the market model consultation and we are considering others. Webinars will be used during consultations and to share information on products.

Produce newsletters & e-mail updates. A newsletter is now being produced on a quarterly basis.

Input to industry flexibility groups. Opportunities will be sought to do this and we would welcome opportunities to present.

Improve the use of ENA webpages including FAQs and update these more quickly.

The ENA web pages will be refreshed through 2018. FAQ’s will be maintained and expanded to capture latest positions.

Produce more consumer focussed information. Workstream 5 is considering how best to do this.

Provide a visual timeline of outputs & events. Based on your feedback we are now maintaining a calendar with key dates for 2018. This will be updated on a regular basis to reflect any new events or changes to dates for existing events.http://www.energynetworks.org/electricity/futures/open-networks-project/open-networks-project-stakeholder-engagement/events.html

29

Other Points from Consultation Response

As well as responding to the specific questions, some broader points were made. These are summarised below.

You said What the Open Networks Project will do

It was noted that the Open Networks project should be the main hub for DSO development.

Yes and whilst a number of network operators have published their own visions for the future of DSO, the Open Networks Project is referenced as the key initiative to deliver a collaborative outcome.

Some respondents are concerned that the ON project assumes that DSO functionality will be built on existing DNOs.

At present, the DSO development work is primarily focussed on understanding the required functionality going forward and the roles and responsibilities will continue to be developed.

Some respondents would like increased alignment between the development of DER service opportunities in the ON project and the ESO’s work on product development.

This area is recognised by the project. The ESO is a key sponsor and participant in the Open Networks project and is ensuring alignment with its work on services development.

30

Glossary

Distribution Network Operator (DNO) – this refers to the current licensed DNOs.

Distribution System Operator (DSO) – this refers to operators of active distribution systems and was defined during the Open Networks Phase 1 work as part of Workstream 3 Product 1.

Electricity System Operator (ESO) – National Grid’s role as GB electricity system operator.

BEIS – Government Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

Project TERRE (Trans European Replacement Reserves Exchange) – this is the ongoing project to implement a European market for Replacement Reserves. There are ongoing Balancing and Settlement Code and Grid Code change processes to implement TERRE in Great Britain (P344 & GC0097).

SGAM – this is the Smart Grid Architecture Model, a reference model to analyse and visualise smart grid use cases in respect to interoperability, domains and zones. This model is being used by Workstream 3 to fully represent different DSO market models.

CBA / Cost Benefit Assessment - this refers to the assessment of costs and benefits that will be used to compare different DSO market models. As referred to here, a Cost Benefit Assessment might include other dimensions of value in addition to financial. This will contribute to the evidence to be provided to Ofgem for policy decisions.

ANM / Active Network Management – this refers to control systems installed by DNOs to manage networks securely by controlling access to network capacity for new connections in areas where capacity is limited.

DER / Distributed Energy Resources – this refers to active resources connected to distribution networks including generation, storage facilities and flexible demand.

DER Connections Steering Group – this refers to the ENA co-ordinated industry working group set up to discuss and address the connection issues of distributed energy resources by sharing best practice, developing agreed solutions and communicating progress. The group include networks and wider industry representatives.

31

Breakout Session 1Part I: Upcoming consultation on best practice for

connecting flexible resources (WS1 P10)

32

Purpose

• Update on work to date.

• Discuss Advisory Group members’ experiences; do they align with the initial findings?

• Walk through consultation questions.

• Gain feedback on the proposed questions and whether there is anything missing.

33

Background

Licences and their associated new connections processes were originally written with traditional demand and generation in mind. Through the last regulatory period (DPCR5) and into RIIO-ED1, the penetration of a variety of non-traditional DERs has increased.

While changes have been made to processes and a number of connections related documents, the way in which such DER technologies are treated and their capabilities considered is not believed by the regulator to be clear and transparent. The Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan published in July 2017 presents the following Issue and Action 1.6.

The licensees have committed to addressing the fair treatment of all flexibility point collaboratively through Workstream 1 of the ENA Open Networks Project.

Issue: Network connection rules were not designed with storage in mind, which can lead to a numberof issues including a lack of understanding of how storage connections should be treated (by bothnetwork operators and connecting customers) and the cost and time of connecting.

Action: We expect network operators and industry to continue to improve network connections for storage – in particular, acting now to clarify the connection process (including for domestic and co-located storage), increasing transparency about where to connect, and implementing better queue management. Ofgem will use the Incentive on Connections Engagement 27, an incentive developed under the RIIO28 framework, to assess if distribution network operators are addressing these issues

34

Product Outcomes

Product 10 seeks to achieve the following through publication of a short report:

• Definition of the problem / opportunity;

• Clarification of the present treatment of flexibility;

• Outline the next steps to be considered.

Workstream 1 Product 10 is succeeded by Product 11 which will look at the developments required from the present position to facilitate the promotion of storage and or other applicable Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) where it can assist others to connect more quickly and cheaply.

Product 11 proposes the following outcomes which were included in the 2018 ON Project Initiation Document (PID) consultation:

• Gap Analysis - Identify gaps in DER management processes (application to energisation) and develop workplan to close gaps;

• Communication of Findings - Develop a Good Practice Guide and roadmap to provide an overview of the findings and actions identified for treatment of DER connections in the DSO environment;

• Action Plan - Carry out further action plan for Flexible Resources.

35

The Opportunity

36

The Opportunity

37

Key Findings

Do licensees treat storage any differently from other technologies?

No. Storage (non-domestic scale) would generally be treated in the same manner as any other export and or import connection of similar capacity size by all DNOs.

How do you treat a formal connection application for flexibility (DG, Storage, DSR Load, etc.) in a constrained area?

Any formal connection application will be progressed in the same manner by each individual DNO. The connection will be designed to accommodate the full import and/or export requirements of the application and any works required to accommodate this under passive operation will be identified. Where this is significantly more expensive than usual, or where the customer has specified a preference for an “Alternative” or “Flexible” connection, an alternative connection will be offered, either in lieu of, or in addition to the standard connection offer.

How do you treat a formal connection application for flexibility (DG, Storage, DSR Load, etc.) in a un-constrained area?

Simply, if a customer (storage or otherwise) does not cause a constraint then they will be offered a solution commensurate with the requirements on their application form.

38

Timeline

39

Consultation Questions

We propose to ask the following questions in the consultation to help the team refine the focus of P11 and validate the current direction of travel. Are these the right questions? What else would the Advisory Group like to see?

1. Do you agree that there are opportunities in the existing connections process for storage and other DER to be promoted?

2. Under what circumstances do you think customers/flexibility/storage service providers should be promoted up the queue?

3. Do you think that the work proposed under WS1 Product 11 and WS2 Products 1 and 5 go far enough in addressing gaps in the existing queue management process? If there are gaps, what are they?”

4. With promotion of flexibility in mind, does the definition of the problem outlined in the associated report align with your thinking? What additional elements would you suggest be incorporated to add value to future work?

5. The conclusion (from the key findings from product 10) suggests that the issue is less with the existing queue management processes and more to do with market certainty, tender requirements, service availability and T&D network constraints. Do the findings of DNO practices align with your experiences to date?

6. The next stages include a detailed gap analysis, roadmap, good practice guide and action plan. What information could we include as part of these outputs to provide customers with the tools to help progress through the connections queue?

40

Breakout Session 1Part II: Whole system investment planning case

studies & methodology (WS1 P1)

41

• Update on work to date

• Aims of Product 1

• Provide an overview to the Advisory group on the case studies proposed for Phase 1

• Discuss further expansion to include markets

Purpose

42

In the past…

• Investment planning has traditionally occurred wholly within the Transmission or Distribution networks

• Planning processes were developed around the model of large transmission connected generation with power flowing from the transmission network to distribution

…and now…

• This model has now changed, with large volumes of distribution connected generation and a subsequent change to network flows

• This results in different network challenges to manage in planning timescales and uncertainty of what the best solution is

...what is needed?

• This drives the need to develop new approaches to investment planning to unlock the potential value of flexible, whole systemways of working to realise benefits for consumers

• Last year the workstream published a report on short term solutions for Whole System Investment Planning

• This year Product 1 is building on the actions detailed in this report and developing solutions for the medium and long term

Background

43

• The aim of the work package is to develop the methodologies and processes to enable a whole system approach to investment planning utilising a range of investment and operability options across T&D. Builds on Open Networks WS1 (2017) Product 3

• Phase 1 of this product includes the development and ‘delivery’ of a number of short-term case studies to address regional issues on the transmission system.

o Develop detailed processes and interfaces for Regional NOA.

o Develop models & methodology to assess T&D network capability and to carry out CBAs for Regional NOA.

o Develop regional example(s) based on DNO network options to use in regional NOA process.

• Phase 2 will look to further develop the medium/longer term whole system investment planning models. These are currently under development with a consultation planned in 2018.

o Further evolve longer-term whole system framework for investment planning including DER options for whole system investment. Consult on these.

o Agree information requirements (costs, network info & resource visibility) for whole system investment planning & propose ongoing models.

Aims of Product 1

44

• To apply the learnings from the Regional Development Programmes

• To develop NOA processes to address additional system needs e.g. reactive power

requirements during high volts scenarios

• To explore non-transmission solutions for the benefit of end consumers

• To identify any regulatory blockers and potential requirements for changes in RIIO-T2/

ED2 regulatory incentives

• To improve planning processes across Transmission and Distribution through sharing

lessons with the Open Networks Project

Aims of High Volts Case Studies

45

• It is becoming more challenging for the system operator to contain high volts within SQSS limits on the transmission network. The occurrences where the system is being operated at its limits are increasing and voltage excursions outside the SQSS limits are becoming more frequent.

• The possible root causes are:

o Synchronous generators are being displaced by renewable energy sources and embedded generation which provide less reactive support.

o Active and reactive demands are reducing year on year with the trend expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

o Available options to mitigate high volts are gradually being depleted.

• The problem is expected to worsen and the risk of the system becoming non-compliant is very likely unless mitigation measures are implemented.

High Voltage Challenge

46

High Level Process

47

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep

Modelling of Tx network

Publish conclusions

of High Volts Case

Study

Identify system needs

Prioritisation of sites

Key

SO

TO

DNO

All

SO & DNO

SO & TO

Engage DNOs

Write up report

Initial engagement

teleconferences

Share model outputs and Mvar

exchange at GSPs with DNOs

Development of Tx solutions

Cost of Tx solutions

Sharing of DNO

forecastsComparison of

model data

Agree model data and model

parameters for assessment

Development and

Assessment of Dx

solutions

Costing of DNO

solutions

Cost Benefit

Analysis

Consideration of

operational solutions

Draft Timeline – Detailed Project Planning is Ongoing

48

Breakout Session 2Part I: Definitions of commonly used terms in the

industry (WS2 P3)

49

Product 3 - Context

• This work aims to provide greater clarity around terms and definitions that are commonly used by network operators and stakeholders.

• For example:

o Terms such as “firm” and “unfirm” are widely used to describe customer connection arrangements but meanings may be unclear.

o Other terms such as “Maximum Export Capacity” and “Transmission Entry Capacity” look similar but are used to describe different aspects of what network capacity is available to customers.

o Occasionally, terms might be defined differently across network code documentation. For example, the definition for “distribution system” is worded differently in codes such as the BSC and the DCUSA.

• The terms and definitions we identify will be documented to provide greater clarity for customers.

50

Product 3 – Approach

• The Product 3 team is using a two-pronged approach – bottom-up & top-down – to identify problematic areas.

• Work is underway on a bottom-up review of terms in main industry sources including the Grid Code, Distribution Code, Balancing & Settlement Code etc.

o Is covering 1000+ defined terms across codes to identify commonly used terms that are problematic.

o Is identifying connection and service related terms used differently in different codes or at T & D.

• We are also carrying out a top-down identification of terms that may be unclear.

o For example, terms such as “firm”, “unfirm”, “constraints” and “curtailment” are widely used when describing network arrangements.

51

Product 3 – Approach

• We propose to produce a document containing the more commonly used terms that are problematic for stakeholders.

• The definitions in this document aren’t intended to replace terms and definitions used in industry reference documents such as code frameworks. Rather, the document would provide a working definition for terms that may be problematic.

• As well as working definitions, the document would provide context and examples to illustrate how terms are being used.

• This document could be shared within network companies and with stakeholders to encourage consistent use of terms. This would include network company individuals interfacing directly with stakeholders on areas of work impacted by the Open Networks work.

52

Product 3 – For Today

We want to support the top-down identification of industry terminology that is underway. In smaller groups, please can we discuss the following questions for a few minutes:

• Is this proposed Product 3 output comprising a document with definitions, context and examples a good approach? Are there better ways to provide clarity?

• What other terms used by network operators do you think are unclear and would benefit from being defined?

The following slides provide some examples of potentially problematic Terms and Definitions.

53

Problematic Terms & Definitions –Examples relating to connections & constraints

Area Term Definition

Connections & Constraints

Firm (More Secure) Connections

Often a dual circuit connection to maintain availability in the event of a fault on one circuit. If the local distribution network is constrained, the customer may also opt to contribute to network reinforcement to address this.

Unfirm (Less Secure) Connections

Often a single circuit connection to reduce initial costs and accept the outage effects of faults and maintenance.

Standard Connection A connection arrangement where the agreed capacity is not subject to restrictions.

Flexible Connection A connection arrangement where the agreed capacity is subject to some form of restrictions.

Timed Connection A connection arrangement where connection capacity is subject to restrictions within specific time periods.

Intertrip A system or process to disconnect a generator or demand from the network when a specific event occurs.

Intertrip Soft An arrangement where generation (or demand) would be disconnected or reduced under certain system conditions. Typically, this would be enacted by the generation or demand facility following an instruction.

54

Problematic Terms & Definitions –Examples relating to connections & constraints

Area Term Definition

Connections & Constraints

Intertrip Hard An arrangement where generation (or demand) would be disconnected under certain system conditions. Typically, this would be enacted through an automated system arrangement.

System Constraint A limitation on the use of a system due to lack of transmission capacity or other System conditions.

System Constraint Group

A part of the National Electricity Transmission System which, because of System Constraints, is subject to limits of Active Power which can flow into or out of it.

Constraints Restrictions on the ability of a network to transport energy, for example due to thermal or voltage limitations

Curtailment A reduction in output, for example of an embedded generator, to manage a network thermal constraint.

Constraint Managed Zones

Areas where peaks in demand or distributed generation are managed without needing to reinforce the network.

Export Limited For co-located demand and generation, the export from the site is restricted to an agreed level.

Import Limited For co-located demand and generation, the import to the site is restricted to an agreed level.

55

Problematic Terms & Definitions – Further examples relating to network connections and capacity

Area Term Definition

Supply Points Grid Supply Point A connection point at which the Transmission System is connected to a Distribution System.

GSP Group The Distribution System(s) which are connected to the Transmission System at Grid Supply Point(s) which fall within one Group of GSPs.

Bulk Supply Point A point of supply from a Transmission System to a Distribution System.

Network Capacity

Maximum Export Capacity

The maximum amount of electricity which is permitted to flow into the Distribution System through a Connection Point (or Connection Points).

Transmission Entry Capacity

The figure set out in the relevant Bilateral Connection Agreement or Bilateral Embedded Generation Agreement.

Registered Capacity The normal full load power deliverable by a Power Station.

System Outage A planned or unplanned interruption to the flow of electricity through a Transmission or Distribution system implemented to enable inspections, alterations, maintenance, repairs or additions to that system.

56

Problematic Terms & Definitions – Examples relating to services supporting system operation

Area Term Definition

Services to Support System Operation

Flexibility Modifying generation and/or consumption patterns in reaction to an external signal (such as a change in price) to provide a service within the energy system.

Balancing Services 1

Includes ancillary services, offers and bids made in the balancing mechanism, and other services available to the GBSO to assistin co-ordinating and directing the flow of electricity over the national electricity transmission system.

Ancillary Service 1 Services such as any authorised electricity operator may be required to have available as ancillary services pursuant to the Grid Code; and services as any authorised electricity operator or person making interconnector transfers may have agreed to have available as being ancillary services.

The Grid Code identifies System and Commercial Ancillary Services.

System Ancillary Service 2

Ancillary Services which are required for system reasons and which must be provided by Users in accordance with the Grid CodeConnection Conditions or if the User has agreed to provide them under a Bilateral Agreement

Commercial Ancillary Service 2

Other Ancillary Services, utilised by NGET if a User (or other person) has agreed to provide them under an Ancillary ServicesAgreement or a Bilateral Agreement with payment being dealt with under an Ancillary Services Agreement.

Product A specific service with a set of defined requirements. Often the term “Product” is used interchangeably with “Service”

Note 1 – This definition abbreviates the Transmission Licence definition.

Note 2 - This definition abbreviates the Grid Code definition.

57

Problematic Terms & Definitions – Examples of a term defined in different places

Term Source Definition

Distribution System

DCUSA The meaning given to that term in the Distribution Licences, and means:(a) in respect of each DNO Party or IDNO Party, that Party’s Distribution System; and(b) in Section 2A (unless the context otherwise requires), the Company’s Distribution System.

BSC Means:(i) all or part of a distribution system in Great Britain operated by a Licensed Distribution System Operator; and(ii) all or part of any other distribution system in Great Britain for which the condition is satisfied that all entry/exit points are subject to registration in SMRS pursuant to the provisions of the MRA; provided that: …..

MRA The meaning given to that term in the Electricity Distribution Licence.

Distribution Network

DCUSA Means collectively, the Distribution Systems of the DNO Parties and the IDNO Parties.

Transmission System

BSC The meaning given to the term ‘ National Electricity Transmission System’ in the Transmission Licence except that prior to the BETTA Effective Date every reference to Great Britain and Offshore in such term shall be deemed to be a reference to England and Wales.

58

Breakout Session 2Part II: Proposed Updates to DSO Functions (WS3)

59

Updates to DSO Functions

Cover:

• Recap of DSO Functions

• Proposed Updates following SGAM Work1. Network Operation to include activities relating to Fault Levels and

Power Quality.

2. System Defence & Restoration to clarify wording.

3. Service Optimisation and related activities to replace Service Provision.

60

Recap of DSO Functions

DSO Functions

System Co-ordination

Network Operation

Investment Planning

Connections &

Connection Rights

System Defence &

Restoration

Services / Market

Facilitation

Service Provision

Charging

DSO Functions:

• Produced by WS3, Sept 2017

• 8 functions

• 41 activities related to these

functions

61

Why Update These Functions?

Three of the functions and their related activities are being updated to reflect wider stakeholder feedback and the detailed assessment and review of the DSO models that has been carried out as part of the SGAM modelling.

• For the Network Operation and the System Defence & Restoration functions, the proposed changes more accurately reflect the DSO activities.

• For the Service Optimisation function we are also taking on board feedback that DSO’s should not be acting as commercial service providers. Aspects of this function relating to commercial service provision have been removed.

We welcome your feedback on the proposed changes. If the proposed changes are generally agreed, we propose to reissue the DSO Functional Requirements document. These changes will then be reflected in the SGAM modelling accordingly.

62

Network Operation Function

No.DSO Functions

Description Activities Description

2 Network Operation

Operate the electricity distribution network to maintain a safe and secure system. Ensure that network powerflowsremain within limits and that the network operates within acceptable voltage limits. Ensure that the network remains secure against credible evets such as circuit trips and generation loss. Identify and manage current and future risks.

Coordinate and collaborate with Great Britain System Operator (GBSO) to manage potential conflicts to support whole system optimisation. Respond to customer needs.

Operate network within thermal ratings.

Use network asset rating and powerflow information and operate local distribution network assets within ratings.

Operate network within voltage limits. Model network powerflows and operate distribution network assets within secure voltage limits.

Operate network to maintain dynamic stability.

Operate distribution networks such that the network and its connected resources (eg generators) remain stable for secured faults.

Operate network within fault level limits

Model network infeeds and contingencies to ensure that equipment and connected resources remain within short circuit ratings and within protection limits.

Operate network to meet other power quality criteria.

Review and monitor potential for other power quality problems including harmonics and unbalance and operate network to avoid these.

Operate network taking account of ongoing asset condition.

Monitor the condition of assets and adjust operation on the basis of latest condition.

Operate network to minimise losses. Model network powerflows to ensure that losses on distribution network are minimised.

Enable network outages to provide access to assets and resources.

Forward planning and ongoing operation to ensure that network security is maintained during network outages and outages of key DER.

Optimised use of assets and dispatch of services

Utilise available resources in the most efficient way to operate within network limits.

It is proposed to update this function by adding 2 activities related to fault level management and

power quality. The additions are highlighted above.

63

System Defence & Restoration Function

It is proposed to update this function by:

i) Making clear Network Contingency Planning here covers High Impact Low Probability events, and

ii) Including Voltage Reduction in the description of Resilience activities.

The updated sections are highlighted.

No.DSO Functions

Description Activities Description

5 System Defence & Restoration

Enhance whole system security through the provision of local and regional flexible services. Provide system resilience to very low probability but high consequence events using risk based approaches.

Provide the means to re-establish the wider synchronous area in the event of widespread disruption.

Loss of Mains & other Protection Arrangements

Ensuring the design and implementation of DER connection arrangements that have adequate resilience to network disturbances. This includes the specification of connection interface protection arrangements (including Loss of Mains) and compliance testing.

Network Contingency Planning for High Impact Low Probability (HILP) Events

Forward planning to ensure network has the capability to remain resilient against high consequence events such as extreme weather.

Resilience (Voltage Reduction, LFDD, HFGD)

Providing whole system network resilience and defence through the design and implementation of mechanisms including Voltage Reduction, Low Frequency Demand Disconnection (LFDD) and High Frequency Generation Disconnection (HFGD).

Resilience (Islanding) Providing local and whole system network resilience and defence through the design and implementation of islanding mechanisms to enable local areas of network to remain in service in the event of a wider system incident.

Black Start Enabling whole system network re-establishment following a major system incident through the staged energisation of local networks. This could include the block loading of larger generators as part of wider Black Start plans.

64

Service Optimisation Function

It is proposed to revise the previous Service Provision function to Service Optimisation. The revised

description emphasises the need to provide access for flexibility services and to select the right mix

of services. 4 activities and related descriptions have also been updated. The changes are

highlighted above.

No. DSO Functions Description Activities Description

7 Service Optimisation

Ensure system needs can be efficiently met across all timescales by identifying network requirements, understanding the limitations of network assets and providing network access for additional flexibility services from smart solutions and DER services. Ensure whole system optimisation and resilience through the optimal selection of flexibility services.

Smartgrid network flexibility Enable flexibility services through novel utilisation of existing networkcomponents.

Service access management How services will be selected and managed by network operators depending on capacity constraints. Includes prioritisation methodologies (e.g. LIFO, technical best, economic best).

Service selection Transparency of decisions and actions when choosing the optimal selection of flexibility services. May include a framework/rules/criteria.

T-D co-ordination How issues and solutions on both T & D are co-ordinated to enable efficient whole system outcomes.

Conditions/process of market failure Identifying when last resort provisions should be enacted.

Regulation & competition frameworks Identifying the rules for managing and remunerating last resort service provision. Putting in place methodologies to ensure that these continue to be efficient against other solutions.

65

Function Description

1 System Co-ordination Operate local and regional areas and co-ordinate energy and power transfers with other networks and systems to enable whole system planning, operation and optimisation across different timescales. System Co-ordination could include local actions to support thermal, voltage and frequency management across networks including actions to minimise losses, manage constraints and provide capability.

2 Network Operation Operate the electricity distribution network to maintain a safe and secure system. Ensure that network powerflows remain within limits and that the network operates within acceptable voltage limits. Ensure that the network remains secure against credible evets such as circuit trips and generation loss. Identify and manage current and future risks.

Coordinate and collaborate with Great Britain System Operator (GBSO) to manage potential conflicts to support whole system optimisation. Respond to customer needs.

3 Investment Planning Identify capacity requirements on the distribution network and secure the most efficient means of capacity provision to customers.

Co-ordinate with the GBSO and Transmission Owners to identify whole system options. These would include commercial DER options as well as distribution network investment.

4 Connections & Connection Rights

Provide fair and cost effective distribution network access that includes a range of connection options that meet customer requirements and system needs efficiently.

DSO Functions – September 2017

66

Function Description

5 System Defence & Restoration

Enhance whole system security through the provision of local and regional flexible services. Provide system resilience to very low probability but high consequence events using risk based approaches. Provide the means to re-establish the wider synchronous area in the event of widespread disruption.

6 Services / Market Facilitation

Interface with the GBSO and other network operators to enable the development of distribution capacity products, the creation and operation of local network service markets and to enable DER access/participation in wider services for whole system optimisation.

Facilitate local and national markets to access and settle services through auctions and other market arrangements for whole system efficiency. Ensure these arrangements are fair and transparent.

Provide information and control system infrastructure to facilitate local and national markets and service provision.

7 Service Provision Access services on behalf of others, or provide services to others, where doing so is necessary to maximise whole system efficiency, and protects competition. Use own services to manage other risks on the network and contribute to resilience.

8 Charging Sets Distribution Use of System prices for local network. Determines Point of Connection.Determines connections charges and informs of Transmission reinforcement charges (if applicable)Consideration to Exit Charging (dependent on size, variations and apportionment)

DSO Functions – September 2017

67

WS2 Customer Categories and SGAM Actors

68

NETSO National Electricity Transmission System Operator IDNO Independent Distribution Network Operator

TO Transmission Owner NEWSAC North East West South Area Consortium

TG-SSTransmission connected Generation providing System

Services Regulator Energy Regulator (Ofgem)

TD-SS Transmission connected Demand providing System ServicesCentral

GovtCentral Government (BIES)

DSO Distribution System OperatorLocal

GovtLocal Government

Supplier Energy Supplier SA Settlement Agent

Aggregator Energy Aggregator EM Equipment Manufacturer

DER-SSSystem Service Providers who operate Distributed Energy

ResourcesDCC Data Communications Company

DERActive Participants who operate Distributed Energy

Resources

LES Local Energy Systems

AC Active Customer

PC Passive Customer

Gas Gas energy resources

Heat Heat energy resources

Descriptions in bold text

correlate to WS2

Customer Definitions

Energy

Networks

Association

Customer Category Characteristics SGAM Description Customer Type Examples Contract Examples

ASystem Service

Providers

Their core function (or a key element of their overall business portfolio) is to manage load, generation or storage to sell ancillary services to TSOs and DSOs.

DER-SS

• TSO contracted service provider, e.g.• Balancing Mechanism Units (BMUs)• Enhanced Frequency Response services• Ancillary Services

• DSO service contracted flexibility service provider

• Bilateral agreements between the customer and the DSO / TSO

• Could be DSO / DSO agreements for DNO-DNO interconnection

BActive

Participant

Have invested in generation, storage, demand side management and / or low carbon products. They will actively participate in the energy market to make money from generation, reduce operating costs and/or for low carbon social responsibility reasons. They do not have contracts for services to TSOs or DSOs. Could have automated controls to maximise savings / returns.

DER

• Distribution connected generation, e.g. solar farm exporting

• Behind the meter generation/storage, e.g. for peak lopping, triad avoidance

• Demand side response e.g. for peak lopping, triad avoidance

• Residential customers actively engaged e.g. timing of EV charging, use of heat pumps/solar/storage

• Power Purchase Agreements• Suppliers via Time of Use

tariffs or products• Contracts with Aggregators

– residential and industrial and commercial

C

Passive Participant

Active Customer

Energy conscious low carbon investor generally off-setting demand for benefits (passive/fit and forget). Have invested in ‘off the shelf’ low carbon productssuch as solar panels, heat pumps, EV or smart appliances to reduce energy bills. May be exporting and importing and would be interested in reducing costs via Time of Use tariffs.

Active Customer

• Businesses or residential with installed products, e.g. solar panels, heat pumps, EV or smart appliances

• Residential customers with customised Time of Use tariffs

• Suppliers via Time of Use tariffs or products

DPassive

Consumer Customer

Normally demand customers.Little or no knowledge or interest in Time of Use tariffs. Normally on standard single rate tariff but could include customers on standard 2 rate tariffs and storage heaters.

Passive Customer • Business or Residential customers • Basic Supplier tariff contract

Breakout Session 3Case Study for SGAM models

70

Case Studies

EATL will deliver a presentation on the day that demonstrates the application of the Smart Grid Architecture Model (SGAM) to an Open Networks case study that relates to the transition from DNO to DSO. These case studies will include:

• DSO World A: DSO Coordinates

• DSO Function: Network Operation

• DSO Activity: Operate network within thermal ratings

• DSO Process: Activation of distributed energy resources for D-network thermal constraint

management

71

WS3 Advisory Group Meeting

12th

April 2018

Contents

73

1 The DSO transition: why SGAM?

2 Progress update

3 Presentation of SGAM models for Consultation

DSO TRANSITION: WHY SGAM?

74

Reminder: the Smart Grid Architecture Model

• Interoperability layers

– Business layer: provides a business view on the

information exchange related to Smart Grids.

Regulatory and economic structures can be

mapped on this layer.

– Function layer: describes functions and services

including their relationships from an architectural

viewpoint

– Information layer: describes information objects

being exchanged and the underlying canonical

data models.

– Communication layer: describes protocols and

mechanisms for the exchange of information

between components.

– Component layer: physical distribution of all

participating components including power system

and ICT equipment.

• Domains

– Electric energy conversion chain

• Zones

– Hierarchy of power system management

75

«High Level Use Case»

System Coordination

«High Level Use Case»

Network Operation

«High Level Use Case»

Connections and Connections

Rights

«High Level Use Case»

Investment Planning

«High Level Use Case»

System Defence and

Restoration

«High Level Use Case»

Service / Market Facilitation

«High Level Use Case»

Service Provision

«High Level Use Case»

Charging

«Business Use Case»

Transition from DNO to DSO

Optimised use of assets

and dispatch of services

«Primary Use Case»

Enable network outages

to provide access to assets

and resources

«Primary Use Case»

Operate network to

minimise losses

«Primary Use Case»

Operate network taking

account of ongoing asset

condition

«Primary Use Case»

Operate network to

maintain dynamic stability

«Primary Use Case»

Operate network within

voltage limits

«Primary Use Case»

Operate network within

thermal ratings

«Primary Use Case»

«invokes»

«invokes»

«invokes»

«invokes»

«invokes»

«invokes»

«invokes»

«invokes»

«invokes»

D-network thermal

headroom visibility

(to DSOn)

«Process»

Access to D-network

flexibility resources

«Process»

D-network thermal

constraint management

«Process»

D-network thermal

headroom visibility

(to NETSO)

«Process»

T-network thermal

headroom visibility

(to DSO)

«Process»

«invokes»

5 DSO Worlds 8 DSO Functions 44 DSO Activities ≈155 DSO Processes World SGAM model

Workstream 3 Workshops & SGAM modelling

The software tool we use

• “Enterprise Architect” from Sparx Systems

• Originally Desktop Edition Standard License

• Moving to Corporate Edition

• http://sparxsystems.com/

• “SGAM-Toolbox” from the ‘Centre for Secure

Energy Informatics’ at the Salzburg University

of Applied Sciences

• https://sgam-toolbox.org/download

77

Enterprise Architect SGAM Toolbox

Change management in SGAM models

78

AuditingBaselining Status change

PROGRESS UPDATE

79

Progress to date

• Three worlds workshopped

– A: DSO co-ordinates

– B: Joint procurement & despatch

– C: Price-driven flexibility

• Modelling activity

– Processing into common modelling language

– Modelling of worlds A-C in Enterprise Architect

– Process documentation

• Two more worlds still to do

– D: NETSO co-ordinates

– E: Flexibility co-ordinators

80

Still to do

• Before consultation

– Modelling of all five worlds in Enterprise Architect

– Presentation of SGAM models

– Analysis & reporting on overarching risks & benefits, fewest regrets and localised issues

• After consultation

– SGAM process documentation

– Model handover to WS3

– Update models as required

81

Still to do

• Before consultation

– Modelling of all five worlds in Enterprise Architect

– Presentation of SGAM models

– Analysis & reporting on overarching risks & benefits, fewest regrets and localised issues

• After consultation

– SGAM process documentation

– Model handover to WS3

– Update models as required

82

DISCUSSION ON PRESENTATION OF SGAM

MODELS FOR CONSULTATION

83

Consultation format

• Models are complex –

here is a single process

84

«Process»

D-Network Thermal Constraint

Management

Start

Set up contract for provision of

flexibility services

Monitor in real-time the thermal

loading of network assets

Notification of thermal and

power flow constraint

Identify most efficient solution

to resolve network constraint

Service activation/dispatch

Confirmation of compliance with

service activation/dispatch

Metering and data acquisition

Settlement

Review and rate flexibility

service provider

End

Information Objects

«Information Object»

Service Contract

«Information Object»

Network Operational Data

«Information Object»

Alert Notification

«Information Object»

Network Constraint Mitigation Actions

«Information Object»

Activation Command

«Information Object»

Activation Compliance

«Information Object»

Operational Data

«Information Object»

Settlement

«Information Object»

Service Rating and Feedback

Offer; Terms and Conditions; Acceptance

Active Pow er; Reactive Pow er; Voltage;

Current; Other

Alert Signal

DSR (demand- and generation-led); Netw ork

sw itching; RTTR; Other

Control signal

Control signal

Active Pow er; Reactive Pow er; Voltage;

Current; Other

Metered Volumes; Charges; Payments; Billing

Reports

Service provider league table

Consultation

Objective: to provide transparency and enable review by a wide range of

stakeholders

• Using Enterprise Architect,

– each world is modelled separately

– it is possible to generate interactive HTML documentation for each world

Question: how can we use these features to enable effective consultation?

85

Consultation format

• Proposal:

– WS3 consultation website hosts HTML models (one for each world)

– Each model provides the option of navigation

• By actor (to make it easier for stakeholders)

• By function (to make it easier for network operators)

86

Actor-centric view

87

Activity view

88

«High Level Use Case»

Network Operat ion

«Business Use Case»

Transit ion from DNO to

DSOOperate network within

thermal rat ings

«Primary Use Case»

«invokes» «invokes»

D-network thermal

headroom visibility

(to DSOn)

«Process»

Access to D-network

flexibility resources

«Process»

D-network thermal

constraint management

«Process»

D-network thermal

headroom visibility

(to NETSO)

«Process»

T-network thermal

headroom visibility

(to DSO)

«Process»

«invokes»

DSO World DSO Function DSO Activity DSO Processes

Process view

89

«Process»

D-Network Thermal Constraint

Management

Start

Set up contract for provision of

flexibility services

Monitor in real-time the thermal

loading of network assets

Notification of thermal and

power flow constraint

Identify most efficient solution

to resolve network constraint

Service activation/dispatch

Confirmation of compliance with

service activation/dispatch

Metering and data acquisition

Settlement

Review and rate flexibility

service provider

End

Information Objects

«Information Object»

Service Contract

«Information Object»

Network Operational Data

«Information Object»

Alert Notification

«Information Object»

Network Constraint Mitigation Actions

«Information Object»

Activation Command

«Information Object»

Activation Compliance

«Information Object»

Operational Data

«Information Object»

Settlement

«Information Object»

Service Rating and Feedback

Offer; Terms and Conditions; Acceptance

Active Pow er; Reactive Pow er; Voltage;

Current; Other

Alert Signal

DSR (demand- and generation-led); Netw ork

sw itching; RTTR; Other

Control signal

Control signal

Active Pow er; Reactive Pow er; Voltage;

Current; Other

Metered Volumes; Charges; Payments; Billing

Reports

Service provider league table

Discussion

• Are you happy with the proposed approach?

• What changes would you make?

90

Thank you

Call +44 (0) 151 347 2313 or Email sales@eatechnology.com

For further information

Wrap-UpNigel Turvey – ENA Open Networks Chair

113

Wrap Up

• There are some challenges ahead if we want to meet our carbon targets while providing a safe and secure energy grid at an affordable price

• However, by enabling flexible networks we can address these; open up new markets for customers for low carbon and innovative technologies; and deliver efficient network costs for consumers

• We are working together and dedicated to making this work with input from stakeholders in an open and transparent way

We welcome feedback from all our stakeholders. If you have any comments that you would like to

share, please feel free to submit them to opennetworks@energynetworks.org.

114

AOB/Close

115