TADG 5: CE Electric UK straw men November 2006 1 Overview Range - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

TADG 5: CE Electric UK straw men November 2006

2

Overview

• Range of S

cenarios – as t he int ent is t o illuminat e t he debat e, a range of scenarios is present ed t o illust rat e:

– t he degree of change required for various opt ions; and – t he benefit s t hat may st ill be gained by less ext reme approaches

• Cross-S

ection of Customer Groups – t here seems t o be an emerging consensus t hat we should t reat all cust omer groups equit ably (alt hough not necessarily equally). The impact of each scenario on a cross-sect ion

• f cust omer groups is t herefore present ed here
• Impacts and Opportunities –for each cust omer group, key opport unit ies

and impact s are brought out t o illust rat e t he merit s of each scenario

• Matrix Presentation – t his present at ion t akes t he form of a mat rix of

scenarios against impact s and opport unit ies for each cust omer group. The aim is t o allow ready comparison bot h as bet ween scenarios and across cust omer groups

• S

tarting Point for Discussion – t his is not a present at ion of a firm proposal for change. There may be int ernal errors and t here will be equally valid alt ernat ives These straw men are intended solely to illuminate the debate There is no intent to argue for (or against) any specific proposition

3

Current Position

• Access Rights – explicit gross for direct ly-cont ract ed generat ors, i.e.

t hose wit h a CUS C supplement al, even where t here is co-locat ed demand; implicit net for suppliers

• TNUoS

/ BS UoS exposure – explicit gross for generat ion BMUs; implicit net for ‘ demand’ BMUs (which would include S VA generat ion)

• Ancillary S

ervices & Constraint Management –via BMU

• User Commitment – direct via const ruct ion agreement for direct ly-

cont ract ed generat ors; via dist ribut or under CAP 097 for ‘ significant ’ embedded generat ion As previously noted, any discussion of changes to current arrangements should begin with a review of the affect of those arrangements

4

Thin Supplier, Net

Changes from Current Position:

• Access Rights – current implicit supplier right s made explicit
• TNUoS

/ BS UoS exposure – by current net ‘ demand’ BMUs. As not ed earlier, t hese would include S VA generat ion. The only change suggest ed here is t o creat e an explicit TNUoS liabilit y, by net diversified met ered export

• Ancillary S

ervices & Constraint Management –via BMU, as before, plus reserve powers by int roducing a new Grid Code requirement on dist ribut ors. It is suggest ed here t hat t his be modelled on exist ing demand cont rol provisions: it seems reasonable t o assume t hat t his would ext end t o compensat ing suppliers for imbalance exposure

• User Commitment – as before: direct via const ruct ion agreement for

direct ly-cont ract ed generat ors; via dist ribut or under CAP 097 for ‘ significant ’ embedded generat ion This assumes charging by GS P Group. It is theoretically possible to charge by GS P, perhaps better reflecting transmission issues (and more likely to result in a flow of funds), but this would be much more complex This option presents a small change to current practice, aiming mainly to clarify:

• access rights
• TNUoS liability
• constraint

management Obligations are divided between suppliers and distributors

5

Thin Supplier, Gross

Changes from Thin S upplier, Net:

• Access Rights – explicit supplier right s remain
• TNUoS

/ BS UoS exposure – current net ‘ demand’ S VA BMUs broken out int o discret e gross demand and generat ion BMUs. It is suggest ed here t hat bot h would be charged according t o met ered volumes. This addresses t he issues of diversified flows raised in previous meet ings. It also provides flexibilit y t o reflect fluid market s

• Ancillary S

ervices & Constraint Management –via BMU, as before, but perhaps st ronger t hrough est ablishing a discret e S VA generat ion BMU. Grid Code reserve powers remain. It is hoped t hat t his will bring forward market -based solut ions before compulsion is required

• User Commitment – as before: direct via const ruct ion agreement for

direct ly-cont ract ed generat ors; via dist ribut or under CAP 097 for ‘ significant ’ embedded generat ion. It is suggest ed here t hat neit her S VA demand nor S VA generat ion BMUs provide st able plat forms for user commit ment This could be applied:

• by GS

P, rather than GS PG; or

• to distributors

This option modifies the ‘Thin Supplier, Net’ straw man to provide for an element of gross charging

6

Thin Distributor, Net

Changes from Thin S upplier, Net:

• Access Rights – supplier right s ext inguished, replaced by right s relat ing

t o physical flows (export only) at individual GS Ps

• TNUoS

/ BS UoS exposure – TNUoS charges levied on dist ribut ors (and t hence on suppliers) by reference t o net export TEC (possibly by met ered volumes). Current net ‘ demand’ S VA BMUs remain for BS UoS

• Ancillary S

ervices & Constraint Management –via BMU and Grid Code reserve powers as before

• User Commitment – as before: direct via const ruct ion agreement for

direct ly-cont ract ed generat ors; via dist ribut or under CAP 097 for ‘ significant ’ embedded generat ion This option modifies the ‘Thin Supplier, Net’ straw man to levy TNUoS on distributors, who would then pass charges on to suppliers

7

Thick Distributor, Net

Changes from Thin Distributor, Net:

• Access Rights – dist ribut or right s relat ing t o physical flows (export only)

at individual GS Ps remain

• TNUoS

/ BS UoS exposure – as before: TNUoS charges levied on dist ribut ors (and t hence on suppliers) by reference t o net export TEC; and current net ‘ demand’ S VA BMUs basis for BS UoS

• Ancillary S

ervices & Constraint Management –via BMU as before, but Grid Code reserve powers replaced by ancillary services cont ract

• User Commitment –

direct via const ruct ion agreement for direct ly- cont ract ed generat ors as before; CAP 097 rout e replaced by commit ment for net export TEC S ymmetry suggests a net import TEC, relieving suppliers of any TNUoS

• bligation (and perhaps removing them from CUS

C) This option modifies the ‘Thin Distributor, Net’ straw man to increase

• bligations on

distributors This anticipates more active dispatch by distribution system control

8

DSO

Changes from Thick Distributor, Net:

• Access Rights – dist ribut or right s relat ing t o physical flows at individual

GS Ps are expanded t o import as well as export

• TNUoS

/ BS UoS exposure – supplier part icipat ion in t he nat ional Balancing mechanism is replaced by dist ribut or part icipat ion. It is suggest ed t hat each GS P would be a BMU (or, where t here is net export , t wo)

• Ancillary S

ervices & Constraint Management –via t hese dist ribut or BMUs, which would be est ablished by GS P, allowing GBS O nodal cont rol. Grid Code reserve powers may st ill be required

• User Commitment –

via commit ment for net export and import TEC If distributors are to reflect these costs and obligations fully, they will require some form of balancing mechanism below each GS

• P. This will

largely reflect TNUoS and BS UoS

• nto suppliers. For accuracy, each

interconnector between GS Ps at distribution level will require FMS

• metering. Registration systems may require more frequent updating

A variant on this would be to leave BEGAs with the GBS O, although this would dilute the impact of the option This is one option for the full DSO generally considered too complex for ready

• implementation. It

is presented here to demonstrate the degree to which its

• utcomes can be

reflected in other

• ptions that

require less upheaval This is an interconnector model

9

Summary

• Access Rights – it is relat ively st raight forward t o est ablish right s for eit her

suppliers or dist ribut ors. This will likely follow t he charging debat e, alt hough t he incidence of cost s may not be ident ical t o ‘ use’ of t he syst em

• TNUoS

/ BS UoS exposure – supplier charging, whet her net or gross, is readily achievable by GS

• PG. Dist ribut ion opt ions are possible but more complex:

– t he relat ionship bet ween GBS O and suppliers is dilut ed; and – cost s will in any case fall upon suppliers.

S ave full DS O, suppliers remain exposed t o BS UoS t hrough t heir BMUs. The ‘ t hin supplier, gross’ st raw man would separat e S VA generat ion and S VA demand BMUs

• Ancillary S

ervices & Constraint Management –while supplier BMUs remain, whet her net or gross, t here is a market -based solut ion available. Grid Code reserve powers may be creat ed t o compel dist ribut ors t o act and, if suppliers are not t aking t he lead in generat ion power flow cont rol, may be enhanced by ancillary cont ract s bet ween generat or & dist ribut or and dist ribut or & GBS

• O. None of t he opt ions preclude act ive dist ribut ion net work management
• User Commitment – exist ing obligat ions, part icularly under CAP 097, provide

for st rong signals. Thick dist ribut or and DS O opt ions may enhance t he posit ion: t his requires a review of ways t o ensure efficient MITS invest ment

The options presented here form a continuum. Many of the

• utcomes of a full

DSO approach can be achieved with lesser changes