Agenda 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of 6 May 2020 6. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Agenda

1

• 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of 6 May 2020
• 2. Note on capacity reservation in the context of a CRM

2.1. Adaptation FTR: state of play 2.2. Bank guarantee in the context of the connection contract: principles

• 3. Implementation Federal Grid Code

3.1. Substantial modernization: results public consultation 3.2. Drop-off procedure: launch public consultation

• 4. Tariff for the additional purchase or injection of reactive

energy

• 5. Grid losses
• 6. Miscellaneous

6.1. Next WG Belgian Grid: 22 September 2020

Agenda

2

• 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of 6 May 2020
• 2. Note on capacity reservation in the context of a CRM

2.1. Adaptation FTR: state of play 2.2. Bank guarantee in the context of the connection contract: principles

• 3. Implementation Federal Grid Code

3.1. Substantial modernization: results public consultation 3.2. Drop-off procedure: launch public consultation

• 4. Tariff for the additional purchase or injection of reactive

energy

• 5. Grid losses
• 6. Miscellaneous

6.1. Next WG Belgian Grid: 22 September 2020

Working Group Belgian Grid

Note on capacity reservation in the framework of a CRM

Meeting 24 juni 2020

Remaining design issues

Title of presentation

• The kind of production unit(s) referred to in the current proposal needs to be clarified

 2 possible solutions are identified and being analyzed by ELIA: 1) Refer to existing types (A – B – C – D); 2) Determine a MW threshold (e.g: above 10 MW installed capacity)

• Wording – Art. 168bis. § 1. “Het aansluitingscontract kan penaliteiten (…) bevatten” – brings confusion.

 Proposal to remove the “kan” to clarify the sentence

• Missing definitions of “allocated capacity” and “reserved capacity” (confusion coming from the

current FTR proposal, unclear on that matter)  ELIA will propose definitions in the updated FTR text proposal

Remaining design issues identified in FOD‘s received feedback

5

Title of presentation 6

• “Art 168 ter § 3. Op verzoek van de aanvrager en na goedkeuring van de Commissie (…)”

 Request for alignment of CREG’s role in the proposed process with other already established (e.g balancing) and/or proposed mechanisms (CRM Functioning rules)  Proposal to remove the CREG’s role in the application of the mechanism

Remaining design issues identified in FOD‘s received feedback

Financial guarantee in the Connection Contract

Title of presentation

Interaction Connection Contract and CRM

8

Main principles: 1. No double financial penalties should be claimed under both the Connection Contract and CRM process 2. As such no double Financial Security requirement under both contracts. 3. The bank guarantee under the CRM should have priority

Title of presentation

When to deliver a Financial security under the Connection Contract?

9

Connection contract is signed before the ‘moment of choice’ to participate in the CRM

• Grid User/CDS Operator signs a Connection Contract → No bank guarantee is provided at this stage.
• Every 1stof June, Elia will ask the Grid User/CDS Operator if the allocated capacity will participate in the CRM.

 CRM participation: no financial security under Connection Contract.  No CRM participation: financial security to be provided under Connection Contract after the 1st of June  Partial CRM participation: part of financial security under CRM, other part under Connection Contract.

Provide financial security under the Connection Contract

Title of presentation

Permissible types of Financial Security

10

Three different types of Financial Security can be provided : 1. Bank guarantee 2. Parent company guarantee

• A parent company guarantee can be accepted, subject to the condition that the same conditions as a bank

guarantee are met. 3. Cash account (only as fallback solution)

• Cash to be put on an Elia account when decided not to participate in the CRM
• Cash account to be replaced by a bank guarantee/parent company guarantee within 6 months
• The cash account will not accrue interests for the grid user

Title of presentation

Requirements for the bank guarantee/parent company guarantee

11

1. Common requirements for bank guarantee and parent company guarantee

• The bank or parent company guarantee should satisfy the following requirements:

 Unconditional / at first demand  Irrevocable

• Guarantor should have a minimum rating of BBB (S&P or Fitch) or Baa2 (Moody’s).

→ This rating requirement is aligned with other Elia contracts (BRP/Access/Connection)

• The guarantor (bank or corporate) should be permanently established in a member state of the European

Economic Area.

• The guarantee should be provided based on a standard template included in the Connection Contract

2. Additional requirement for parent company guarantee

• Legal opinion from an acceptable law firm, confirming that the parent company guarantee is legal, valid, binding

and enforceable under the relevant legislation.

Title of presentation

Which volume (MW) should be covered by the financial security?

12

Secured Amount = Financial penalty (EUR/MW) * Financial Security Volume (MW) 1. Financial penalty (in line with the amounts set within the CRM)

• For existing installations/capacity + signed connection contract = no bank guarantee
• For additional installations/capacity (reinforcement or substantial modernization) + signed connection

contract = 20.000 EUR/MW

• For new installation/capacity = 20.000 EUR/MW

2. Financial security Volume (MW)

• For new installations/capacity = installed capacity as stipulated in the Connection Contract
• For existing installations in case of a reinforcement or substantial modernization = not the total installed

capacity in the Connection Contract needs to be secured but only the additional installed capacity reserved for the reinforcement

Title of presentation

Required level (EUR/MW) of the financial security?

13

Principles :

• The amount is defined in function of the perceived risk and the level of anticipated penalties → in line with

CRM

• During the process, the financial security can to be lowered once certain milestones have been met by the

Grid User/CDSO:

Existing installations/capacity Additional installation/capacity New installation/capacity Financial guarantee NO YES YES Required level N.A. 20.000 EUR/MW 20.000 EUR/MW Milestones for partial release N.A. 1. Milestone 1: all major permits and licenses 2. Milestone 2: installation is built and in use (= existing) 1. Milestone 1: all major permits and licenses 2. Milestone 2: installation is built and in use (= existing)

Thank you.

Agenda

15

• 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of 6 May 2020
• 2. Note on capacity reservation in the context of a CRM

2.1. Adaptation FTR: state of play 2.2. Bank guarantee in the context of the connection contract: principles

• 3. Implementation Federal Grid Code

3.1. Substantial modernization: results public consultation 3.2. Drop-off procedure: launch public consultation

• 4. Tariff for the additional purchase or injection of reactive

energy

• 5. Grid losses
• 6. Miscellaneous

6.1. Next WG Belgian Grid: 22 September 2020

Working Group Belgian Grid

Substantial modernisation

Meeting 24 June 2020

Feedback on the public consultation

Conslultation feed-back modernisation

Modernisation – Consultation feedback

18

• The public consultation ran from the 13th of May to the 15th of June
• The consulted documents refer to the concept of modernisation as described in the Federal Grid Code (no application for

regional levels)

• The consulted document were:
• Modernisation substantielle : lignes directrices définissant le concept de modernisation substantielle dans le cadre du

nouveau Règlement Technique Fédéral en vigueur depuis le 22 avril 2019. Version du 12/05/2020

• Substantiële modernisering: richtlijnen voor het definiëren van ‘substantiële modernisering’ in het kader van het nieuw

Federaal Technisch Reglement van 22 april 2019. Versie 12/05/2020

• The documents are available here: https://www.elia.be/en/public-consultation/20200513_public-consultation-on-elia-proposal-
• f-guidelines-for-defining
• During the first consultation, Elia received 2 non-confidential responses from:
• Febeliec
• FEBEG

Modernisation – Consultation feedback

19

• The feedback received mainly concerns (Febeliec):

– Type B units :

• Inclusion of Type B units in the scope of modernisation while EU network code RfG only considers Type B and C units

 Answer Elia : to be discussed during UG (see next slides)

– Existing units:

• In case of no modernisation or partial modernisation, grid users have to comply with existing prescriptions on the date of

their entry into force  Answer Elia : indeed, the existing units which are not subject to modernisation have to comply with relevant version of the Grid Code

– Process :

• Support of the simplified process without to many parties (especially for demand ant Type B units)

 Answer Elia : the simplified process has to be discussed with the regulator and within UG (see next slides)

• Better understanding of the timeline, especially the starting point

 Answer Elia : any existing unit is concerned by the modernisation in case of type switch, increase of power or renewing

• f an element that has an impact on the performances of the units regarding the prescriptions of the new grid code.

Consultation feed-back modernisation

Modernisation – Consultation feedback

20

• The feedback received mainly concerns (Febeliec):

– Process :

• Timeline

Modernisation study (60 WD)

Consultation feed-back modernisation

Modernisation – Consultation feedback

21

• The feedback received mainly concerns (Febeliec):

– Definitions:

• Define functional blocks, essential technical element

 Answer Elia : any renewing of an element that has a impact on the performances of the installation regarding the prescription of the new grid code can trigger a modernisation. No need to make a distinction between functional blocks and essential technical elements  suggestion : modify text, only use renewing of elements and explain in which extend a renewing of an element triggers a modernisation (see new text proposal)

• forced stop and emergency

 Answer Elia : any situation where a spare part (according to the definition) is used doesn’t trigger a modernisation

– Role of different parties to be clarified

• Especially regarding the 10% of cost verification in case of limiting elements

 Answer Elia : the grid user has to prove of that the cost of upgrading the limiting elements is higher than 10% of the total project cost

– CDS :

• Different responsibility
• Need for coordination

 Ok for Elia

Consultation feed-back modernisation

Modernisation – Consultation feedback

22

• The feedback received mainly concerns (Febeg):

– Process:

• When does it start ?

 Answer Elia : as soon as the planed modifications of an existing installation meet at least one of the criteria for modernisation

• Fear of administrative burden

 Answer Elia : to be discussed within UG

• Modernisation are possible in case of minor change:

– What in absence of detail study – Who will start the study – Which consequences if the request would not have been submitted to Elia ? – When to inform Elia ?

 Answer Elia : there is no link between modernisation of existing units and a minor change modification or a detail study. Indeed the minor change or the detail study refers to the impact on the connection of the planned modification to the existing unit. The modernisation study evaluates to what extent the planned modification to an existing unit triggers a partial or a full compliance to the new Grid Code

• Is there a reporting of cases with replacement parts ?

 Answer Elia : Elia will publish in the future some updates of the guidelines with additional examples of modification to existing units that triggered a modernisation

• Who will verify what are the impacted performances ? Who verifies the 10 % rule ?

 Answer Elia : for the impacted performances, Elia will confirm it either via the minor change letter, or via the detail study or via the modernisation study (see full or light proposed process)  Answer Elia : the grid user has to prove that the cost of upgrading the limiting elements is higher than 10% of the total project cost Elia will verify this and bring this forward to the regulator (either via the reporting or via the modernisation study in itself).

Consultation feed-back modernisation

Modernisation – Consultation feedback

23

• The feedback received mainly concerns (Febeg):

– What if no impacts on the connection point ? Need for a modernisation study ?

 Answer Elia:

• Only the defined criteria trigger a modernisation. The way to measure the compliance to the new Grid code or a subset of its specification is a case by case

analysis.

• The presence of limiting elements can “hide” the impact on the connection point of the renewing of an element. However, the modernisation study is mandatory

in order to identify the performances impacted by the renewing of the element and also to identify the limiting elements

– Inform Elia about modernisation study only if parameters of page 10 are impacted ?

 Answer Elia: any renewing of element that has an impact on the performances of the unit regarding the new gird code can trigger a

• modernisation. So not only the prescriptions of table page 10 (applicable in case of partial modernisation).

– Definitions :

• Spare parts : replacement by identic parts or very similar should not be limited to forced outage.
• Functional block : need for a definition
• Essential technical element : need for a definition
• Emergency : need for a definition

 suggestion : modify text, only use renewing of elements and explain in which extend a renewing of an element triggers a modernisation (see new text proposal)

Consultation feed-back modernisation

Modernisation – Consultation feedback

24

• The feedback received mainly concerns (Febeg):

– Timeline :

• What if rotor replaced in Y1 and rotor in Y3 ?

 Answer Elia : the date of entry into force of the relevant grid code is the starting point. Any change after that can trigger a modernisation. The changes are cumulative. So in that case, the replacement of rotor triggers a partial modernisation and 3 years later, the replacement of the rotors triggers a full modernisation. The same reasoning applies in case of addition of power to a PPM. The reference power is the power at the date of entry into force of the new grid code

– Examples :

• Example 8 : Wind turbines + Solar panels : what if a wind developer installs a windfarm of 20MW and after 2 years of

wind energy production the owner of the company where the wind turbines are installed , adds a solar panel farm of 5MW : will the windfarm owner be held susceptible to the grid code change if any ?  Answer Elia : in that case the modernisation criteria apply independently to who is the owner of what

– Others:

• Margin to prevent sudden “shock” in case of increase power of 1 MW leading to a change of type B to Type C ?

 Answer Elia : a change of type B to C leads to a full modernisation without taking into account the limiting elements. .

Consultation feed-back modernisation

Request for a UG Recommendation

• During the last plenary meeting FEBELIEC and FEBEG requested to draft a UG

Recommendation in order to adapt the Federal Grid Code with the aim to reduce the scope

• f the substantial modernization to installations of type C and D (in line with the European

network codes).

• The WG Belgian Grid will prepare and draft a proposal for recommendation
• The UG Recommendation will be approved/validated during the plenary meeting of 8th of

September 2020

UG Plenary Meeting – 17 June 2020

Applicability of the modernisation (1/2)

• Context :
• EU RfG code stipulates that only existing C and D units are subject to modernisation
• … the relevant SO considers if it is a modernisation or not
• relevant authority decides if the modernisation principles have to apply or not on the existing unit

• At federal level, the new federal grid code (22/04/2019) :
• adds some criteria (change type, power increase and renewing of equipment)
• asks the TSO to define detailed criteria, processes and guidelines
• considers that existing units type B, C and D are subject to modernisation (art 161 & 162)
• At regional level,
• Flanders : new grid code for local transport considers that existing units type C and D are subject

to modernisation

• Wallonia and Brussels : no new technical grid code have been published yet but,

 the EU RfG and DCC codes apply to new units and existing units in case of modernisation  for RfG : only C and D types are subject to modernisation  relevant system operator shall notify the relevant authority about the occurrence of a modernisation (according to criteria)  relevant authority decides if the modernisation principles have to apply or not on the cases notified by the relevant system operators

Applicability of the modernisation (2/2)

Scope of the substantial modernization in FGC

Scope:

• Existing unites defined in article 4.1 of the European network codes (RfG, DCC and HVDC) →

Type C and D

• Existing units type B
• Storage

Question: To which extent do we want to limit the scope

Processus of a modernisation

Request to change existing installation (Injection or Demand facility) TSO analyses request

Minor change Significant change

(Usual Detailled Study)

Modernisation ?

Full or partial ?

Decision based on:

• 1. RfG : Category switch (A, B, C, D)
• 2. RfG Nominal Power (x% increase)
• 3. RfG & DCC: Renewing of functional blocks

Elia specifies in detailed study report or in minor change letter the new requirements to comply with and verifies compliance Elia makes a reporting to CREG No study Detalled study Request to change existing installation (Injection or Demand facility) TSO analyses request

Minor change Significant change

(Usual Detailled Study)

Modernisation ?

Full or partial ?

Decision based on:

• 1. RfG : Category switch (A, B, C, D)
• 2. RfG : Nominal Power (x% increase)
• 3. RfG : Renewing of functional blocks

Elia sends the modernisation study to CREG with notification to DG Energie No study Detailed study A modernisation study is realised by Grid User and Elia Final report is made available with CREG decision

Procedure stipulated in FTR Proposed simplified procedure

Next steps

• A UG recommendation in order to amend the FGC will be prepared.
• The consultation report and the final guidelines/criteria will be published on the Elia website

Next steps

Questions

Working Group Belgian Grid

Drop-off procedure

Meeting 24 juni 2020

35

State of Play:

• Op basis van feedback tijdens de WG Belgian Grid werd de Elia nota aangaande de drop-off

procedure gefinaliseerd.

• Ondertussen is de publieke consultatie van deze drop-off procedure gelanceerd.

→ Deze loopt van 10 juni tot 10 juli 2020.

• Feedback van de consultatie zal voorzien zijn tijdens de volgende WG Belgian Grid (22/09/2020).
• In // gaat het overleg worden opgestart inzake de algehele herziening van het Toegangscontract

(zie volgende slides).

• De drop-off procedure zal (na publieke consultatie) hierin worden geïntegreerd.

36

Aanpassingen aan de Elia nota sinds de laatste WG Belgian Grid (6 mei 2020)

• 1. Verduidelijking dat het om het leveringscontract gaat met de leverancier zoals opgenomen in

Bijlage 3.

• 2. Waardeoordeel van de CREG (zoals gevraagd door verschillende marktpartijen) werd niet

geïntegreerd omwille van het feit dat:

• Er geen compromis werd gevonden tussen de leden van de WG Belgian Grid.
• Geen wettelijke basis voor een dergelijke bevoegdheid voor de CREG.
• 3. Aanpassingen aan de bepalingen inzake stopzetting van de drop-off procedure in het kader van

een lopende kortgeding procedure (versus de schorsing van de procedure).

• 4. Extra informatieplicht naar de CREG wanneer Elia effectief is overgegaan tot de afsluiting van de

netgebruiker.

Vragen?

Agenda

38

• 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of 6 May 2020
• 2. Note on capacity reservation in the context of a CRM

2.1. Adaptation FTR: state of play 2.2. Bank guarantee in the context of the connection contract: principles

• 3. Implementation Federal Grid Code

3.1. Substantial modernization: results public consultation 3.2. Drop-off procedure: launch public consultation

• 4. Tariff for the additional purchase or injection of reactive

energy

• 5. Grid losses
• 6. Miscellaneous

6.1. Next WG Belgian Grid: 22 September 2020

Implementation of the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy

WG Belgian Grid - 24/06/2020

Link between Voltage and Reactive Power ancillary service and the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy

As defined in the tariff for 2020 - 2023, a correction of the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy will be made, from 2021 onwards, at the Access Point on basis of the activation of the voltage and reactive power service​:

• The required reactive power (Q_req) defined in the VSP contract will be corrected
• The tolerance margin defined in the VSP contract will also be applied for this correction

𝑅𝑠𝑓𝑟,𝑠𝑓𝑛 = − 𝐻𝑊 𝑢 − 𝑊

𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑢𝑣𝑞 ∙ 𝛽𝑓𝑟 ∙ 0,45 ∙ 𝑄 𝑢𝑓𝑑ℎ,𝑛𝑏𝑦

𝑉𝑜𝑝𝑠𝑛,𝑓𝑦𝑞 + 𝑅𝑗𝑜𝑗𝑢𝑗𝑏𝑚

Correction of the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy

Three zones have to be distinguished depending on the active power produced by the technical unit (TU):

1. Below the Minimum Active Power Threshold when the TU does not deliver the voltage and reactive power service 2. Equal to the Minimum Active Power Threshold when the TU starts delivering the voltage and reactive power service 3. Above the Minimum Active Power Threshold when the TU delivers the voltage and reactive power service

Tariff correction – TU below the Active Power Threshold

• Below the minimum active threshold, the TU does not provide the service
• No correction is applied for the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy
• In case of local production:
• The TU capabilities to regulate the MVAr can be used for the own regulation of the site to avoid penalties from the tariff for the
• fftake or injection of additional reactive energy

Tariff correction – TU reaches the Active Power Threshold

• When the minimum active threshold is reached, the TU starts providing the service
• A correction of the required reactive power is applied for the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy
• The required reactive power (𝑅𝑠𝑓𝑟,𝑠𝑓𝑛) is calibrated using the measured voltage and reactive power as described in the VSP contract
• In case of local production:
• If a certain amount of MVAr were used for the regulation of the site, this will be the starting point for the provision of the service

due to the calibration

Example of recalibration

• Considering a Technical Unit inside a local production site with minimum active power threshold of 100 MW.
• At Qh 1: the TU does not provide the service
• At Qh2: the TU starts providing the service : the reference voltage and the reactive power is recalibrated using the measured

voltage and reactive power at the service measurement point (SMP)

• At Qh3: The TU provides the service : the reference voltage and the reactive power is recalibrated using the measured voltage and

reactive power at the service measurement point (SMP) Quarter hour [-] Pmeas [MW] Qmeas at SMP [MVAr] Vmeas at SMP [kV] Qreq [MVAr] V startup [kV] Provide service [Y/N]

1 90 3 151 / N 2 100 3 152 3 152 Y 3 110 5 152,5 5 152,5 Y 4 110 154 152,5 Y

• Such a calibration is also made:
• After the reception of a manual setpoint
• Everyday at 00:00

Tariff correction – TU above the Active Power Threshold

• Above the minimum active threshold, the TU provides the service
• A correction is applied for the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy based on the required reactive power and

the tolerance margin as defined in the VSP contract

• In case of local production:
• Currently, a TU in a local production is often used to ensure cosphi = 1 at the Access Point​ what is healthy for the grid
• As the TU reactive power capability will be at ELIA disposal for the service from 2021, and corrected at the Access Point, the ACH

might be penalized in the tariff for offtake or injection of additional reactive energy​

• An additional tolerance band is considered for the compensation of the load to avoid unfair penalization
• This tolerance band is added to the correction of the required reactive power for the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional

reactive energy at the access point ​

Local production - Determination of the tolerance band

• An additional tolerance band for the load (Q_load) is defined
• Based on a statistical analysis of the load for year 2019: the reasonable maximum value is used to determine the band (in

absorption and injection)

• After concertation between the ACH and Elia
• The band is capped to the reactive power band of the technical unit
• The resulting reactive power at the Access Point is equal to Q_AP – Q_req,rem – Q_load where :
• Q_AP is the measured reactive power at the Access Point
• Q_req,rem is the required reactive power for the service
• Q_load is the additional tolerance band

Numerical example

Definition of the tolerance band

• The tolerance band is determined based on a statistical analysis of the

load

• The tolerance band is capped to the capacity of the unit.
• For this unit, Q_load = [0;12,5] MVAr
• If the load is inductive, correction up to 12,5 MVAr
• If the load is capacitive, correction up to 0 MVAr.

Example of correction

• Q_AP = 80 MVAr
• Q_Req,rem = 60 MVAr (with a tolerance band for the service equals to 5 MVAr)
• Q_tarif = 80 – 60 – 5 = 15 MVAr. These 15 MVArs are due to the load.
• With a band of [0;12,5] MVAr, the additional correction of the tariff will lead to 15 – 12,5 = 2,5 MVAr
• These 2,5 MVArs will be subject to the tariff for the offtake or injection of additional reactive energy

Agenda

49

• 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of 6 May 2020
• 2. Note on capacity reservation in the context of a CRM

2.1. Adaptation FTR: state of play 2.2. Bank guarantee in the context of the connection contract: principles

• 3. Implementation Federal Grid Code

3.1. Substantial modernization: results public consultation 3.2. Drop-off procedure: launch public consultation

• 4. Tariff for the additional purchase or injection of reactive

energy

• 5. Grid losses
• 6. Miscellaneous

6.1. Next WG Belgian Grid: 22 September 2020

Coefficients of compensation in kind 2021 – (1/2)

• The Federal Grid Code is still providing in a compensation in kind of the federal losses
• Elia has committed to publish the coefficients before the end of June Y-1
• The coefficients of the compensation in kind for 2021 will be as follows:

Coefficients of compensation in kind 2021 – (2/2)

Elia aligns coefficients downwards:

 Negligible differences in federal losses observed between peak and off-peak periods in recent years (Fed losses/Total

• fftake for peak and off-peak hours)

 Expected surplus end of 2020 to be balanced with expected deficit of 2021

despite the expected increase of federal losses in 2021 due to :

 Full year operation of ALEGrO interconnector; and  Full operation of off-shore generation.

Agenda

52

• 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of 6 May 2020
• 2. Note on capacity reservation in the context of a CRM

2.1. Adaptation FTR: state of play 2.2. Bank guarantee in the context of the connection contract: principles

• 3. Implementation Federal Grid Code

3.1. Substantial modernization: results public consultation 3.2. Drop-off procedure: launch public consultation

• 4. Tariff for the additional purchase or injection of reactive

energy

• 5. Grid losses
• 6. Miscellaneous

6.1. Next WG Belgian Grid: 22 September 2020