Liaison Group Meeting 03 March 2016 Increasing Capacity Behind - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Increasing Capacity Behind Connection Points Liaison Group Meeting 03 March 2016 Increasing Capacity Behind Connection Points 1. Over-installing capacity (within CER approved limits) using the same or different technology as the contracted
Presenting today on a number of issues identified by the SOs.
– Generators are not allowed to export in excess of MEC – Generators can install up to 120% of their contracted MEC – CER/14/047 supersedes
be installed, should be provided the SOs no later than 240 business days before energisation” as CER/14/047 applies to connected applicants as well as contracted applicants and repowering applicants. Note: the 240 days notice was intended to allow for submission of pre- energisation data hence we assume “energisation” in this context applies to energisation of the new capacity and not of the connection.
– Hybrid rules apply to mixed technology and can be applied in two ways:
1. Retain existing MEC but over-install up to 120% of contracted MEC; or 2. Apply to increase MEC under GPA or non-GPA process depending on qualification for same.
– In both cases, the applicant must comply with “Change in Installed Capacity” provisions in Section 2 of COPP (superseded by CER-14-047) and “Change in Generation Type” provisions in Section 9 of COPP.
– Where there is no increase in MEC being requested process is via a modification to existing offers / agreements.
central dispatch under the Grid Code and must be disaggregated by technology/fuel type.
– Where there is an increase in MEC being requested the process is via the application process and may be GPA or Non-GPA.
for an MEC increase cannot be processed until the next Group Processing project commences.
i. a change in type prior to energisation; and i. a change in generation type after a facility has been energised.
“there are not considered to be any undue adverse impacts on either system, or on
– Where there is any change in priority dispatch status the party has gained no material advantage over other similar applications based on the original application; – Where other non firm generation connected or contracted to the system is not materially adversely affected in that the level (and in particular value) of anticipated constraints and curtailment would not rise significantly; – Where there is a change from being renewable to non-renewable or vice versa the party has gained no material advantage over other similar applications based
– Where there is no appreciable anticipated increase in load factor from the old plant to the new plant, taking account of all other generation connected or contracted, which is expected to lead to significant or material additional network requirements being identified.
CER/14/047 considered issues where capacity is being over-installed using the same technology and determined that constraints and curtailment levels were not materially impacted. Where different technology types are being used are there other considerations to be taken into account?
where “there are not considered to be any undue adverse impacts on either system,
– The access rights attributable would not in any case exceed the MW capacity currently contracted to the site / unit; – That access rights would be transferable such that, given all other generation connected or contracted, no significant or material additional network requirements would be expected to be identified (reflecting size, running regime but also generation technology and its effect on network stability);
– That access rights would be transferable such that other non firm generation connected or contracted to the system would not be adversely affected in that the level (and in particular value) of anticipated constraints or curtailment would not rise significantly; and – The SO would be given 2 years notice as to when a transfer of access rights is scheduled by a customer to take place. A failure to do so would consequently result in delays in facilitating the transfer of access rights or may mean that the network has changed to such a degree that a transfer is no longer feasible, or that the access rights have been offered to another project.
– Some issues need to be considered and are outlined in the following slides.
apply and CER/14/047 may apply if no MEC increase is being sought:
– Applications may be processed as modifications if no MEC increase is being requested and as non-GPA or GPA if a MEC increase is being requested; – A range of issues arise which are considered in the following slides.
– No major issues – minor modifications required to meters / RTUs etc. – Implications for ownership of the new unit – Special Purpose Vehicles for new capacity are not allowed as this results in a sharing of connection points which is prohibited.
raises questions:
– How is MEC apportioned across multiple units? – How is Firm Access apportioned across multiple units? – How does it impact subsidies / feed in tariffs – does DCENR require the “new unit” to apply for a different subsidy e.g. REFIT II? – Implications for ownership of the new unit – Special Purpose Vehicles for new capacity are not allowed as this results in a sharing of connection points which is prohibited
COPP rules:
– How is MEC apportioned across multiple units? – What does this mean for the firmness of the new and old units? – How does it impact subsidies / feed in tariffs – the new unit may receive different subsidies? – Dispatch priority may be different for new and old units in a tie break situation. – Implications for ownership of the new unit – Special Purpose Vehicles for new capacity are not allowed as this results in a sharing of connection points which is prohibited.
– Which technology has priority where the availability of both units exceeds MEC and who determines this - the owner, SO, DCENR and SEMC all have an interest.
unit and both are fully available – if solar is allowed to generate then this increases
availability of system services from that technology.
– the more expensive the unit generating, the higher the costs to End Users.
a single connection point?
and systems and the TUoS billing system. It is also part of the EirGrid control centre energy management system.
connection point MEC however this could have an undesirable consequence:
– e.g. a 100 MW MEC site is made up of 30 MW solar unit and 90 MW wind unit. If MEC is allocated as 20 MW to solar and 80 MW to wind then when solar output is 0% and wind is 100% the output from the wind unit is still limited to 80 MW and the 10 MW available wind is effectively stranded.
exceed site level MEC as long as this does not facilitate exporting in excess of MEC at the connection point or receiving capacity payments or constraints / curtailment apportionment based on the combined MEC instead of the contracted connection point MEC.
– MEC at unit level presently caps the registered capacity of a unit and this in turn limits the outturn availability and maximum unit level dispatch. – If the sum of unit level MEC were allowed to exceed the connection point MEC then something must be done in the control and SCADA equipment (at windfarms)
and that the site export does not exceed connection point MEC:
– Is the control technology available to ensure that the different units do not combine to exceed MEC? – How would the technology “favour” one unit over another where the availability exceeds MEC, e.g. does the technology constrain down the solar before the wind?
access amount allocated to it.
firm or is the combined unit partially firm or is firmness allocated to both units? Is this a customer choice?
This implies the SO control which technology generates and not the customer – do the industry agree with this – what options exist?
unit level FAQ does not exceed connection point FAQ:
– On a 100 MW MEC site with 120 MW installed only 100 MW is firm. The additional 20 MW is not firm, but it is not “non-firm” either! What does this do to tie-break classification?
Capacity Cap and has subsequently advised DCENR of the consequential changes that will need to be made to the current REFIT terms to reflect the change from an Installed Capacity Cap of 105% to 120%”
higher REFIT tariff making it more attractive for customers to install a different technology and give it priority in dispatch?
installing under COPP/CER/14/047 can be applied to hybrid units?
– The decision must inform the control systems used to “apportion” output where the summation of unit level availability exceeds site level MEC.
connecting to the same customer transformer, separate units are required.
the same legal entity, i.e. one contracted party.
adding up to the overall MEC for the contract. Likewise for any FAQ assigned to the existing MEC.
Unit’s MEC.
entire contract and not for each of the individual units.
must be done through a modification to the connection agreement. This is not considered to be a split under COPP but where the generation types differ, e.g. wind MEC to solar MEC, then the change in generation type rules set out under section 9 of COPP would apply.
rules would apply as applicable.
steps, e.g. working group to address issues.