Sie sind auf Seite 1von 77

ANNEX 1.

9
Smart grid development plan
March 2014
Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Guidance for the reader


The purpose of this annex

This annex sets out our plans for developing a smarter powergrid to help us meet the challenge of
moving to a low-carbon economy. It includes the underlying engineering analysis of the implications
of installing new smart systems onto our network, and discusses in more detail the scenarios that we
considered while developing these plans.
The material in this annex is collected from a set of internal working documents that have been used
to aid the development of our smart grid plans. The primary source of this information is therefore
technical analysis undertaken by our engineering and system planning teams. We have collated all of
this material together as we think that it may help interested stakeholders see how our thinking
developed and how our plans are backed up by sound technical analysis.

Our target audience for this annex

This annex is aimed at those stakeholders who have a professional interest in the technical aspects
of our business. Since the annex includes the underlying analysis that we conducted to develop our
plans, it necessarily uses technical language that will be unfamiliar to the general reader. This annex
is likely to be of interest only to stakeholders who have some technical expertise and who have an
interest in the engineering challenges we face as a result of our smart grid plans. Appendix 4 of this
annex provides extensive technical detail and reasoning behind the engineering solutions we have
chosen to adopt and as such it will be of interest to those wishing to explore the detailed
technological aspects of our plan.

Mapping this annex to the core narrative

This annex provides supporting information and additional analysis that underlies section 1.4 of our
business plan. However, you do not need to have read any of our main business plan to be able to
understand the information in this annex. Since this annex also contains information on our ongoing
innovation projects and our strategy for how we plan to continue to innovate, it also supports
section 5 of our business plan.

Document history

This document is similar to the version that we published in June 2013 as part of our business plan. It
has been updated to reflect stakeholder feedback on our business plan and our latest view of the
costs of meeting the outputs that we have proposed in our plan. In terms of material items we have
updated and enlarged the justification for our proposed expenditure on looped services.
We have also updated it to ensure that cross-references to other parts of the plan remain accurate.

* We have included at annex GL.1 a glossary that explains the key technical terms and abbreviations
used in our business plan.

* For more detail on how this plan differs from our June 2013 plan, please refer to annex G.12.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 2 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

1 Purpose
This document is intended to describe the evolutionary steps we will take as an electricity
distribution network owner and operator in transforming our network into one that will continue to
meet the needs of our customers in a low carbon future.
In this document we describe:
 The landscape of European and UK Government policy that impacts the network now and
into the future.
 Our vision for the long term development of the electricity distribution network.
 The scenario analysis that has determined our expectations of the customer take-up of low
carbon technologies.
 Our planned approach to meeting the future challenges for the network with emphasis on:
the role of innovation activity; significant learning identified to date from our own and other
innovation projects; our key themes for technology innovation in 2015-23; how we will
respond to Low Carbon Technology (LCT) take up through 2015-23 and our engineering
strategy for a smarter network.
 The organisational implications of a smarter network and the customer services which will
be delivered.
We will continue to review and update this development plan as we learn from our own and other
people’s innovation projects.

2 Key drivers for a smarter approach


The UK electricity distribution network has for several decades been developed in a stable manner.
There has been a relatively predictable flow of power, from transmission connected generation to
customers connected to the distribution network. Average load growth over the period has been
moderate, with investment targeted at providing additional capacity once a circuit component is
overloaded, or the voltage at the end of a circuit being outside the statutory limits. The techniques
to forecast and analyse these events are well established. The behaviour of customers over this
period has also been understood with statistical models1 developed to allow networks to be
designed with a degree of confidence.
The UK Government has set some ambitious goals for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that
we as a country emit into the atmosphere. The achievement of these goals will require a dramatic
change in how electricity is produced and used, which will have a profound effect on the way that
electricity distribution networks are operated in the future. We are committed to facilitating this
change whilst trying to keep costs down for customers.
In summary there are three broad UK government policy objectives 2 that will impact the electricity
system:

1
ACE49 “Statistical method for calculating demands and voltage regulations on LV radial distribution systems”
2
ENSG “A smart grid routemap” 2010

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 3 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Carbon reduction targets: The achievement of 2020 and 2050 carbon reduction targets3 is
likely to require the almost complete decarbonisation of the electricity sector.
 Energy security: There is a need to ensure secure and sustainable energy supplies as the
power system decarbonises and electricity demand changes.
 Affordability: This will have to be achieved while ensuring that networks continue to deliver
long term value to existing and future customers.
The impact of these policy objectives upon the electricity system will be:
 Integration of inflexible intermittent generation: As the GB national generation
infrastructure is renewed, more electricity will be generated from renewable sources that
are intermittent e.g. wind.
 Electrification of transport and heating: The decarbonisation of transport will lead to an
increase in electric vehicles and the developments in heating technologies will see an
increase in the use of heat-pumps in homes and businesses, both of which will result in load
growth on the electricity distribution networks.
 Integration and optimisation of Distributed Energy Resources: There will be an increasing
number of distributed generators connected to the distribution network as opposed to the
transmission network. In some cases this generation will be dispatchable by the transmission
system operator whilst the remainder will be of a size that the customer will decide when
they operate. Customers’ will be encouraged to participate in demand side response using
their own demand, local storage and/or generation.
Although a lot of these changes to the electricity system will be at the demand and generation ends,
the network glue that holds these together will have to be strong yet flexible. Our network will have
to be operated to respond to power flows that are more complex and less predictable.
Some of the load growth envisaged above will be partially off-set by the introduction of more
efficient home appliances, and also by the roll out of smart meters which will stimulate better end-
user efficiency by letting customers see how they use their electricity and identify opportunities to
reduce their demand and therefore save money.
This will involve making effective and efficient decisions in how the network is designed as to
minimise the impact on customers’ bills and maintaining high levels of network reliability. This
requires us to find the best deal for customers in the long-term by seeking out and deploying novel
solutions when economic, avoiding too much investment ahead of need but being ready for the
accelerated uptake of these technologies when it happens in terms of investment and resource
planning.
As part of the European Third Energy Package which aims to develop a more harmonised European
energy market, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) were requested by the
European Commission to develop a vision on the changes needed in the energy sector to create a
secure, competitive and low carbon European energy sector and a pan-European Internal Energy
Market. This resulted in ACER issuing a series of Framework Guideline documents to the European
Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) which acted as the terms of
reference for a new series of Network Codes which would ultimately form European legislation. The
new Network Codes being drafted cover the following areas: connection codes for generation and
demand; system operation codes for planning, scheduling and security; and market codes. In general

3
Climate Change Act 2008 stipulates that the UK must reduce its CO2 emissions to 34% lower than the 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% lower
by 2050

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 4 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

it is connection codes and to some extent the system operation codes that have implications for
distribution networks. This is not so much of a driver for a smarter network but it does impact the
form and operation of the network. There will be more stringent performance requirements for
generators which require ongoing verification by the Distribution Network Operator (DNO). The
limits for reactive power transfer at the transmission and distribution boundary will impact how we
design the network. However the main impact will be the increased flow of data between network
operators. We cannot ignore that our distribution network forms part of the larger GB electricity
system. Actions on our local network can have implications for the wider GB network and vice-a-
versa. The system changes noted earlier will give rise to a more complex relationship between the
transmission system operator and distribution network operator and indeed between distribution
network operators. This will manifest itself in more real time data exchange about network
performance in the operational timeframe; and more detailed demand and generation forecasting
data in both the operational and planning timeframes.
In summary the main implications4 for distribution networks are:
 More complex distribution power flows;
 Greater need for network capacity;
 Greater need for flexible generation/demand;
 Greater need for embedded storage capacity;
 More visibility needed on network and asset conditions;
 Avoidance of unnecessary replacement capex;
 Continue to improve reliability on a cost-effective basis;
 Need for network carbon reduction; and
 Need to manage risks of LCT take-up.

3 Our network vision


The distribution network presently delivers the service that generation/demand customers require,
however, as described in the section on Key drivers for a smarter approach, this will change. The
challenge for us is then to work out what customer’s value, define the services we wish to offer and
to determine how we need to change. This challenge is complicated further by needing to
understand when and where the network needs to be modified.
Before we start to solve this challenge we assert that the fundamentals of our distribution network
are unlikely to change so we will:
 Use assets such as transformers, switchgear, overhead lines and underground cables to
distribute electricity;
 Need to protect those assets from damage;
 Need to control the network and its response to external events;
 Use information to control the network;
 Use communications to move information and instructions around; and

4
Frontier Economics “How to deliver smarter grids in GB: a report prepared for the Smart Grid Forum” 2011

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 5 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Ensure that people and processes are in place to make this all happen.
We also assert that customers want us to hold down costs while improving reliability, safety and the
ease of connection. Our stakeholder engagement process backs this up.
There has been much debate over the topic of what a smart grid is and there is no single definition
that has been accepted worldwide or even in the UK. However for our purposes we are going to use
the ENSG definition:

A smart grid is part of an electricity power system which can intelligently integrate the actions of
all users connected to it - generators, consumers and those that do both - in order to efficiently
deliver sustainable, economic and secure electricity supplies.

The development of a smart grid is a means to an end and not an end in itself. A distribution
network, whether it is smart or not, only exists to service the requirements of its customers. So we
need to start by understanding how our customer requirements may change in future. For simplicity
we can categorise these customers as:
 Domestic customers whose needs will vary according to their social demographic grouping,
the rhythms of their daily life, the equipment/assets they use and the homes they live in.
They account for over 90% of connected premises and nearly 50% of diversified system
maximum demand.
 Industrial and commercial customers whose needs are specifically tied to their business
endeavours. They account for less than 10% of connected premises and remaining 50% of
diversified system maximum demand.
Market forces and the effect of incentives, will drive the spread and speed of deployment of low
carbon technologies across the country. Combined with the varying needs of our customers, this is
likely to result in an irregular deployment of technologies. It is envisaged that local clustering will
appear particularly in the early years of uptake, as a result of both locational suitability and
consumer appetite.
Our distribution network is also not homogenous in nature. A part of the network feeding a dense
central business district is fundamentally different from one feeding a more dispersed collection of
rural farmsteads, this being due to a combination of factors including load type, load density and the
physical construction of the infrastructure. The capacity (or headroom) available to accommodate
new low carbon technologies therefore differs across different parts of the network.
In response to innovation stimuli, new solutions to address network constraints are being developed
by Northern Powergrid and other network companies and are at varying levels of technology
readiness. These solutions which use customers’ generation/demand or new forms of technology in
conjunction with conventional solutions provide a significant choice of solutions available to
Northern Powergrid. The volume of these solutions will increase substantially as our own and other
innovation projects deliver their learning. Knowing which solutions to use, when to use them, and on
which type of network will be essential for us to assess investment needs and ensure that electricity
networks continue to operate in an efficient manner, are capable of responding to continuing
change and also deliver value to consumers.
With these variables and uncertainties it is next to impossible to predict how changes in customer
behaviour will ultimately affect the network decades into the future with sufficient accuracy to
justify major site-specific reinforcement now. However, we can be certain that creating a more
flexible, smarter network will support whatever changes occur. It would also seem sensible that we
adopt a pragmatic approach to the incremental development of the network, whereby smarter
networks are developed by adding layers of smartness over existing assets. Indeed analysis

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 6 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

conducted by the Smart Grid Forum using the Transform model5 demonstrates that it is financially
beneficial to undertake an incremental investment strategy with selective top down enablers, as
compared to a conventional approach or the upfront roll-out of smart grid infrastructure on a
wholesale basis.
As a principle we will not adopt smart solutions simply for their own sake but only when they offer
distinct advantages over conventional less smart solutions. We will establish a toolkit of options
which our engineers can use to address opportunities as they arise which enable the provision of
cheaper and faster solutions to support customers in adopting low carbon technologies. These
solutions will be site specific and deployed in reaction to identified constraints.
Better management of the distribution network requires better visibility of how it’s performing. It is
not cost effective to rollout advanced monitoring across the network however there may be benefits
in providing selective up front monitoring that is facilitated by existing infrastructure.
When replacing assets as part of business as usual activity we will take into consideration future
smart requirements where the additional unit cost is efficiently incurred. We will also explore
synergies with other services, such as actuators for supply restoration as well as load transfer, or
communications for asset condition monitoring as well as for active network management.
We recognise that smart meters have a role to play in smarter grids generally and smarter networks
in particular. There are significant benefits to be gained from the use of smart meters across the
range of processes such as customer service (last-gasp functionality) and customer engagement as
well as the network planning and development processes considered here. Specifically within the
context of this paper we will use them to improve our visibility of potential network constraints by
using them to:
 Identify distribution substations that would benefit from the retrofit installation of advanced
monitoring; and
 Deploying more effective design solutions.
This level of visibility supports the impact assessment of new connections and facilitates timely
network general reinforcement. As smart meter systems develop they have the potential to play a
greater role provided it is cost effective for the customer for them to do so.
We will over time transform from a distribution network operator to a distribution system operator
role where this is characterised by more active management of:
 The network in response to changing power flows, in contrast to the more passive approach
adopted for much of the existing network; and
 Customers in the local balancing of generation, load and network capacity.
There will be a step change in our engagement with our customers, so as a smarter network
operator we must:
 Better understand passive behaviour; and
 Encourage active customer participation, whether by direct engagement, working through
intermediaries (aggregators or energy suppliers) or both.
The low carbon transition and its demand for a smarter grid is undoubtedly the area that demands
the most significant innovation, both technologically and commercially. We are currently managing
the UK’s largest smart grid project, the ‘Customer-Led Network Revolution’ (CLNR), in collaboration

5
Smart Grid Forum Workstream 3 Phase 3.6 report

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 7 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

with British Gas, EA Technology and Durham University. This is to establish how better to address
the issues that will be created by the growth in the number of low carbon technologies connected to
electricity distribution networks.
We will build on this strong base to deliver innovation projects that are concerned with other key
technological and commercial capabilities that we expect to deploy over the medium to long term.
Other distribution network operators are undertaking complementary research projects. The
outcome of all these trials will reveal new, innovative techniques to address the growth of LCTs by
providing appropriate network information and the design / commercial options that designers can
employ to squeeze more capacity from the existing networks, thus reducing and/or delaying the
need for more costly physical reinforcement of the network.
This overall approach to smarter grid development is one that creates flexibility and optionality. We
will keep this smarter network development plan under review and update it as we learn from our
own innovation projects and those done by others.

4 Understanding the impact


The main challenge we face in formulating our smart grid development plan is that the growth and
location of LCTs is highly uncertain; many of the smart technologies that could be deployed are still
in their relative infancy. The guiding objective that we have therefore adopted in our plan is to
ensure that LCTs can be speedily connected, while keeping costs for customers as low as possible,
and maintaining high levels of network reliability.
In short, we need to balance the following trade-offs:
 Facilitate the reasonable expectations of LCT growth in our region, both in RIIO-ED1 and
RIIO-ED2;
 Build sufficient optionality and flexibility into our plans so that we are able to respond to
new information that becomes available during RIIO-ED1 at reasonably low cost;
 Maintain the safety and reliability of the network; and
 Keep downward pressure on costs.
Balancing these trade-offs is in principle no different to the optimised approach we adopt for our
investment planning. However, implementing this approach is more challenging in this context,
because of the greater uncertainties relating to the take-up of LCTs.
The scale and location of the take-up of low-carbon technologies is extremely uncertain, which has
made the development of our plan much harder than forecasting reinforcement requirements in
response to traditional load growth.
We have developed our proposition through scenario analysis by using the Transform model, which
was developed by all of the network companies as part of Ofgem and the Department of Energy and
Climate Change’s (DECC) Smart Grid Forum. This work established assumptions and scenarios that
are consistent with DECC’s projections for a transition to a low carbon economy. There are two
dimensions to this analysis: assumptions around LCT growth rates; and the investment approach
that we will take to meet the additional demands on our network.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 8 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

The LCT up-take scenarios that we modelled are summarised in table 1 below.
Assumed LCT growth rates
Heat pumps Electric Vehicles Photovoltaic
DECC Scenarios
Scenario 1 – high abatement in low carbon
HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM
heat
Scenario 2 – high abatement in transport MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
Scenario 3 – high electrification of heat and
HIGH HIGH HIGH
transport
Scenario 4 – credit purchase LOW LOW LOW
Incremental Sensitivities
Scenario 5a – high PV LOW LOW HIGH
Scenario 5b – high PV, highly clustered LOW LOW HIGH *
Scenario 6 – medium PV LOW LOW MEDIUM

*Highly clustered PV

Table 1: LCT up-take scenarios


Scenarios 1 - 4 are the core growth scenarios set out by DECC. Prior to Ofgem’s Strategy Decision we
considered that the low-growth scenario (Scenario 4) represented the most likely scenario for our
region during 2015-23. This was based on stakeholder feedback about the appetite for LCTs in our
region, historical uptake patterns in our region and our understanding of the maturity of the
technologies. But we also considered the cost barriers to connection: the costs of reinforcement, the
capital cost of equipment, the need for land for heat pumps, and the availability and range of
electric vehicles. For these reasons we felt that a slow start to mass acceptance of LCTs was likely.
We think it is important to note that the labels attached to the DECC scenarios can create the wrong
impression for someone not familiar with the content of the work. For example, the phrase ‘low’
when applied to PV installations means that the eventual outcome, at an overall level in society, is
relatively low, compared with other materially higher scenarios. But, relative to pre-2011 levels of
uptake, the ‘low’ scenario still represents a significant growth.
We have already seen this significant growth in uptake rates. For example, on our networks we have
seen the number of PV installations grow by an average of 85MW per annum6 for the last two years,
but prior to that it was less than 5MW per annum. All of the DECC scenarios represent some level of
continued growth that, by pre-2010 standards, is rapid, ranging from 82MW to 230MW per annum.
However, the low scenario would entail uptake at a slightly lower rate than we have seen for each of
the last two years.
We think that continued falling costs and Ofgem’s decision to spread the cost of reinforcing the low-
voltage network across all customers rather than have them charged directly to the customer whose
connection triggered the need for extra network capacity7 will stimulate the growth of PV in social
housing, and the feedback we have from stakeholders reinforces that view. We have more social
housing than the national average at 20% as opposed to 16% (excluding London)8 and therefore
assume that this will drive an above average acceleration in our region. This means that we ought to

6
Based on FIT data
7
Ofgem, 2013, Strategy decision for the RIIO-ED1 price-control review, Overview, page 14
8
Source: Office for National Statistics Table 109: Dwelling stock: by tenure and region 2011

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 9 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

expect to see an increase in the number of PV panels installed on each scheme and a high degree of
clustering, because landlords will no longer need to worry about sizing their design to fit within the
existing available capacity of that particular piece of our network. Our judgement, based on the
range of responses received, is that, although there remains considerable uncertainty, it is
appropriate to plan on the basis of a higher volume of PV installations connecting to our low-voltage
network than assumed in DECC’s ‘low’ forecast. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, from a historical base
of less than 5MW per annum prior to 2010, we have connected an average of 85MW per annum
over the last two years. Considering only the LV connected PV, we have connected around 70MW
per annum, which is 150% of the DECC low assumption for LV or 80% of the medium.
So, whilst the evidence from stakeholders is that we are unlikely to reach the volumes of PV in
DECC’s ‘high’ forecast, for LV the assumption of ‘medium’ is an entirely appropriate one, not only
consistent with stakeholder feedback but backed up by firm evidence of an actual trajectory.
In contrast to the situation for PV, demand for electric vehicles and heat pumps has not yet seen
significant increases in uptake rates, and in fact take up has remained very low. This is largely
because factors that significantly influence customer demand for those technologies have not yet
been addressed.
We do believe, however, that demand for both heat pumps and electric vehicles will expand
progressively as government policies designed to encourage their uptake begin to take effect, and
costs to end users reduce. For example, the government has announced that the renewable heat
incentive will apply to heat pumps from spring 2014, while the zero carbon homes policy from 2016
could also encourage installation of heat pumps. Similarly, for electric vehicles the government has
already announced a fund of up to £400m to encourage uptake between now and 2015, and
additional policies to encourage their uptake may well be implemented in future. Progressive growth
in uptake rates due to government policy and falling costs therefore support adoption of the low
scenarios over the 2015-23 period. Higher levels of uptake are ones we judge unlikely to materialise
before later stages of that period, or beyond.
At present we note that there is more interest from our customers in heat pumps than electric
vehicles, and our belief is that it is likely that heat pumps will expand before electric vehicles, not
least because heat pumps are relatively straightforward installations, whereas electric vehicles
require confidence in an available fast-charging infrastructure before they can have mass appeal.
However, we would note that the market for both these technologies, as with PV, is highly sensitive
to the incentives offered by government (although the cost of solar cells has been falling) and a
flexible approach rather than predicting future consumer purchasing behaviour is a more
appropriate response.
Taken in the round, we therefore considered it prudent to assess three further scenarios in addition
to the four core options. These options were based on scenario 4, but with the PV uptake altered as
follows:
 Scenario 5a – High PV
 Scenario 5b – High PV, highly clustered
 Scenario 6 – Medium PV
Table 1 below shows the LCT growth predictions across our licence area across the four DECC growth
scenarios9 for heat pumps, photovoltaic cells and electric vehicles, and the three incremental

9
Appendix 1 - LCT growth scenarios on a licence basis shows these growth scenarios split across the Northeast and Yorkshire.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 10 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

sensitivities modelled by Northern Powergrid for photo-voltaic cells connected to the low voltage
network.10

FORECAST LCT VOLUMES (Northern Powergrid)


Photo- Photo-
Domestic Commercial Electric Photo-
Scenario Period voltaic voltaic
Heat Pumps Heat Pumps Vehicles voltaic (HV)
(LV) (EHV)
DECC SCENARIOS
Scenario 1- high High HP ED1 685,680 121,279 7,856 237,685 677,898 171,340
abatement in low Medium EV
ED2 171,057 766,331 14,949 737,842 96,226 47,976
carbon heat Medium PV
Scenario 2 – high Medium HP ED1 685,680 128,812 7,223 363,948 677,898 171,340
abatement in High EV
ED2 171,057 586,199 13,340 1,071,864 96,226 47,976
transport Medium PV
Scenario 3 – high High HP ED1 987,149 121,279 7,856 363,948 677,898 171,340
electrification of heat High EV
ED2 231,106 766,331 14,949 1,071,864 96,226 47,976
and transport High PV
Scenario 4 – credit Low HP ED1 380,659 62,371 6,100 78,062 144,505 134,059
purchase Low EV
ED2 100,243 48,933 8,000 337,425 22,425 43,167
Low PV
INCREMENTAL SENSITIVITIES
Scenario 5a – high PV Low HP ED1 987,149 62,371 6,100 78,062 144,505 134,059
Low EV
ED2 231,106 48,933 8,000 337,425 22,425 43,167
High PV
Scenario 5b – high PV, Low HP ED1 987,149 62,371 6,100 78,062 144,505 134,059
highly clustered Low EV
ED2
High PV (Highly 231,106 48,933 8,000 337,425 22,425 43,167
clustered)
Scenario 6 – medium Low HP ED1 685,680 62,371 6,100 78,062 144,505 134,059
PV Low EV
ED2 171,057 48,933 8,000 337,425 22,425 43,167
Medium PV
The PV units are the number of 1kW panels installed

Table 2: LCT growth projections


The second dimension of our scenario modelling is the investment approach that we choose to take.
The Transform model allows us to assess the various LCT scenarios described above against three
possible investment planning approaches for our network:
Business as usual - This investment approach is provided as a baseline to give an assessment of what
the costs would be were we to employ traditional reinforcement measures to address the increase
in LCTs.
Incremental - Involves the incremental introduction of smarter solutions as and when LCTs are
connected. Some enabling investment is required for monitoring and communications when
triggered by a site specific smart solution.
Top-down - Includes incremental investment but adds further enabling investment based upon a
more holistic view of requirements beyond RIIO-ED1 to:
 Establish extensive monitoring across the network,
 To upgrade supporting communication systems,
 To install sophisticated network control and IT systems; and

10
Scenario 6 assumes low growth for photo-voltaic cells connected at HV and EHV as the Ofgem decision to socialise costs associated with
residential LCTs will not impact the growth of these categories.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 11 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 To specify new assets to include features that we know will be required in the smarter
future.
The combination of seven growth scenarios and three investment approaches results in 21 potential
investment plan profiles from the Transform model.

Figure 1: Range of investment uncertainty over RIIO ED1 and ED2 for Northern Powergrid
Figure 1 shows the range of cost uncertainty regarding the growth of LCTs and their subsequent
impact on the Northern Powergrid distribution networks. It also shows a wide variation of potential
investment profiles for the range of growth scenarios we considered. Our proposal discussed in the
next section is indicated by the red line.
In summary, we believe that scenario six represents a sensible and prudent forecast of LCT growth in
our region for the 2015-23 period. This view is based on our experience to date with the growth of
LCTs and on discussions that we have held with our stakeholders. In particular, we think that
Ofgem’s decision to socialise the cost of reinforcement for residential customers is likely to stimulate
the growth of PV in social housing, meaning an increase in the number of PV panels installed on each
scheme and a high degree of clustering. Our judgement, based on the range of responses received,
is that although there remains considerable uncertainty (both upside as well as downside), we would
be prudent to plan on the basis of a higher volume of PV installations connecting to our low-voltage
network than assumed in DECC’s “low” scenario. We are however, unlikely to reach the volumes of
PV in the “high” scenario used in scenarios 5a and 5b. Scenario 6 therefore best reflects our
expectations given our stakeholder engagement, whilst the uncertainty mechanism would mitigate
the risk for us should there be an unexpected upswing in installations.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 12 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

We hold the view that scenario 6 will not continue in the medium or longer term for either our
region or GB. We think it is more likely to be acceptable for the UK to fund incentives for LCTs than
to spend money on carbon credits. Given that we believe growth in heat pumps will precede growth
in electric vehicles, we believe the most likely long term scenario is scenario 1 (high abatement in
low carbon heat), but with significant political drive for additional expansion of electric vehicle use
might lead closer to Scenario 3 (high electrification of heat and transport).
The enabling investment proposed for 2015-23 provides us with the ability to cope with whatever
scenario comes to fruition in the 2023-31 period. Essentially, to accommodate efficiently the higher
LCT growth scenarios from 2023 we will need to use more smart solutions. The enabling investment
in communications, control and monitoring infrastructure provides us with the solid foundations on
which to build the required number of future incremental solutions.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 13 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Our summary of the likelihood of the scenarios is shown below:

Likelihood During Likelihood in


Scenarios
2015-23 Longer-Term
Scenario 1 – high abatement in low carbon
Low Medium
heat
Scenario 2 – high abatement in transport Very Low Low
Scenario 3 – high electrification of heat and Medium
Very Low
transport (Very Long-Term)
Scenario 4 – credit purchase Medium-Low Very Low
Scenario 5a – high PV Medium, Very Low
Scenario 5b – high PV, highly clustered Low Very Low
Scenario 6 – medium PV Medium-High Very Low

Table 3: Likelihood of the scenarios

5 Our plans in more detail


This section aims to present our plans for the development of a smarter network.
It starts by describing some of the existing business as usual solutions used for new connections and
network reinforcement, before going on to show the current innovation projects being run which
will affect our future plans.
Our development plan contains three core elements:
 Our approach to demand side response;
 Our investment strategy for responding to LCT take-up; and
 Our future research and development activity for smarter networks and smart grids.

5.1 Existing business as usual solutions


Our current approaches to connections and reinforcement already utilise techniques that seek to
maximise the utilisation of existing capacity in order to accommodate customer connections and
general load growth with the minimum of network reinforcement. Specific examples are as follows:
 Helping customers achieve a connection that meets their needs - We engage with
customers about the option of demand side response during discussions about their
connection enquiry if their connection, as requested, has the potential to encroach upon a
specific network constraint. To achieve this, rather than take the customer’s connection
requirements at face value, we engage with the customer to see whether there is anything
we can do to help them improve their power factor and/or diversify their requirements to
reduce their peak demand and achieve a lower cost connection. In some cases, where
customers have plans for standby generation on their proposed site, we have suggested that
they use their standby generators to supply some of their load during the occasional period
of network peak demand. This, in effect, applies a form of demand side management where
the negotiation takes place at the point of enquiry and where the benefit to the customer is

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 14 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

a faster and lower cost connection that meets their requirements and reduces or eliminates
the reinforcement costs that would have been required for the original enquiry.
 Give customers options to reduce their cost of connection - We assist with the co-ordinated
connection of photovoltaic cells on social housing schemes and the provision of public
electric vehicle charging points. This is where, if the applicant has discretion, we can give
them the option to reduce their connection costs by providing advice on where best to
locate these technologies. In the case of photovoltaic cells we can provide advice on the
maximum output rating that can be fitted to each property on a large scheme in order to
avoid voltage and thermal issues and also to balance the output across the phases of the
cables. The approach is similar for the connection of public electric vehicle charging points
where we were able to assist the ‘Charge your Car’ project in finding locations for 50kW
rapid chargers towards higher rated/lower loaded locations.
 Let customers know where we have spare capacity (and where we don’t) - We produce
“heat maps” to assist demand and generator connectees who are not yet tied to a particular
location to avoid areas of the network that are already up to capacity or have insufficient
fault level headroom remaining and to locate areas of the network where we have spare
capacity for such connections. The ability to provide this service across the whole network
will improve as the sophistication of network monitoring equipment improves and is
installed to more accurately monitor known congested areas.

HV Connections – fault level heat map example

Each of the areas on the headroom map indicates the areas that our major substations
provide connections to local high voltage networks and it is this existing network or major
substations to which your large scale generation may be connected.
Green area – these indicate where we have major substations which have utilised up to
80% of their network fault level rating
Amber area - these indicate where we have major substations which have utilised up to
95% of their network fault level rating
Red area - these indicate where we have major substations which have utilised more than
95% of their network fault level rating.
Your generation will use up some of the remaining fault level capacity. The maps can
therefore be used to determine the ease or difficulty of connecting to the existing
network. There will be circumstances that may mean that costs and timescales might be
either lower or higher than this information would indicate.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 15 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Offer customers the benefits of flexibility - We offer flexible connections to give customers
the option of a lower cost connection where the customer can have their load requirements
met for most of the time. However should there be a network constraint requirement, for
instance during a fault, they might have to reduce or in some cases disconnect, their load
consumption or generation output for a short period. These have been applied to generators
using single protection relays to provide voltage constrained connections and we are now
using sophisticated Generator Export Management Schemes (GEMS) that cover multiple
connections. Both types of solution can be provided more quickly and at a lower cost than
the alternative network reinforcement.

Case Study 1: Generator Export Management Schemes (GEMS)


We have designed, approved and are installing a GEMS to control the power flow
between the three windfarm generation sites and Hartmoor Grid Supply Point
substation, which uses pre-determined criteria in order to manage the generation
levels of the connected wind farms as power demand on the local network rises and
falls. The system monitors power flow at specific points on the system and make
decisions based on pre-set rules to determine if the connected wind farms are allowed
to generate at full capacity or are constrained. Operating in a real time the system
makes decisions quickly and reliably to ensure that the wind farms are able to
maximise generation output, whilst ensuring that the operational limits on our
network are not compromised. The windfarm generation is controlled in real-time by
the GEMS and at Hartmoor the control logic will review the power flows and will either
restrain or release generation at the relevant wind farm sites. The scheme will be able
to adapt to expansions and changes in the network and also additional generators that
would fall under the control of the system.

Case Study 2: Generator Export Management Schemes (GEMS)


A solution to avoid the thermal overload of the super-grid transformers at a 275/132kV
substation was needed to accommodate an increase of generation onto the lower
voltage network when a large industrial customer with load and generation closed its
load consuming operations. However they wished to continue to operate its on-site
power station on a commercial basis and export its full potential of 400MW, compared
with its current export agreement of 220MW. To allow full export capacity
unconstrained would require the installation of an additional 275/132kV transformer
and 10 km of 132kV overhead line which would take at least three years to implement
and cost £30m. We have developed a solution using a generation export management
scheme (GEMS) that will cost less than 5% of the full solution, be much quicker to
implement and allows the customer to increase their generation subject to constraints
due to the circuit being shared by other generators. The GEMS scheme being put in
place provides the generation customer with real-time information on the export
headroom which is determined by the other capacity. In the event that the export
approaches the set limits, a signal is sent to instruct the generator to manage the
export. If the export rises above the set limit, a further signal is sent to trip the
generators off in sequence (as needed) to maintain the export within the rating of the
275/132kV transformers. For a loss of one of the 132kV circuits other generation
customers (wind farms connected at 66kV) are disconnected in accordance with their
export agreements, whilst the generator is allowed to export up to its existing firm
capacity of 220MVA.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 16 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Use technology to co-ordinate customer consumption - At low voltage we have introduced


staggered Economy 7 switching schemes for night storage heaters in areas where there is a
high density in order to avoid and overnight peak load. A highly-advanced approach was
deployed in the Northeast, where we offered customers a two-hour mid-afternoon boost
(SuperTariff), which both improved their comfort and, by pre-charging the radiators,
reduced the overnight peak. Similar schemes are being trialled for electric vehicle charging,
for example, the domestic ‘Podpoint charger’ comes with off-peak charging set as the
default.
 Maximise the benefits from better load information - For the management of general load
growth at the higher voltages, we undertake detailed analysis of substation load profiles
using half-hourly data. This enables us to pinpoint the timing and duration of potential load
peaks and determine whether these can be accommodated within the cyclic rating of the
pinch-point assets or addressed by switching the network to permanently or temporarily
transfer the load to other adjacent substations. This investment in data and analysis allows
us to understand the profile of the aggregate customer demand to avoid reinforcement but
without the direct engagement of customers.
 Build relationships with major customers - We have, in times of wide network disruption
due to flooding, been able to directly engage with existing customers to ask them to
temporarily reduce their load without any prior formal agreements for demand side
response.
 Apply voltage optimisation - We have also modified voltage control schemes at some
substations to give generator connections additional voltage headroom and we examine a
range of power factors for all new generator connections as opposed to applying a standard
operating point.

5.2 Existing research and development activity


The creation of a smarter distribution network and grid has been one of our strategic priorities for
innovation over the last five years. This priority has driven us to establish the GB’s largest smart grid
project while also delivering a number of smaller projects examining different aspects of a smarter
network.
Within that priority there have been a few themes which we have explored through our research
and development projects:
 Customer flexibility;
 Minimising impact of new generation connections;
 Network flexibility;
 Systems integration; and
 Decision support tools for network planners and designers.
Customer response is a key feature in the range of smart solutions that can be deployed. So we have
wanted to explore the different ways that end users of the network can be encouraged to play a part
in providing demand side response to reduce overall energy system costs. The availability of smart
meters has opened up the opportunity for wider engagement with domestic customers. This
potential is increased further when customers begin using low carbon technology such as heat
pumps, solar photovoltaic cells and electric vehicles, for larger business customers, we have wanted
to build on the existing arrangements used for ancillary services to test whether successful

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 17 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

commercial arrangements can be deployed that would provide a meaningful contribution to


balancing the needs of the system in real time.
Developing network technology solutions that increase the amount of available headroom, in terms
of thermal, voltage and fault level, enables us to connect more generation and service the increasing
demand requirements of existing customers. We have trialled specific technology solutions where
we have perceived there to be gaps in the potential toolkit that were not being filled by existing
projects within the industry. For example, we were the first to progress the development and
integration of EHV & HV fault current limiters while on the other hand we have not progressed
discrete low-voltage monitoring projects as we believe we will be able to utilise the learning from
other DNO projects.
Tied into ensuring that networks can be flexible is the ability of discrete solutions to work together in
harmony and we believe that this will become an increasing challenge as the level of smartness
increases. We have wanted to look at this system integration and the optimisation by first
considering the implications of using any new technology alongside our existing network assets and
then testing our hypothesis that the greatest benefit of new technologies often comes from their
use in combination with other technologies. It is often seen that the interaction gives additional
benefits above and beyond the sum of the individual benefits. Similarly the biggest implementation
problems frequently come from these interactions.
Finally, having developed a set of new solutions we need to ensure that our design engineers have
sufficient policy guidance and support to enable them to select the optimal solution. We have
sought to develop decision support systems that guide our engineers through the process of
evaluating whether a conventional or smart solution should be designed to solve a particular
constraint. From a planning perspective we are developing a better understanding of where and
when constraints will arise due to LCTs and understand which solutions are the most cost effective
to be used in the designers toolkit of solutions. The evaluation of network risk, which underpins the
network security standards and design policies, has provided a basis upon which to evaluate
conventional design solutions. We have then looked to deploy this methodology in support of the
development of smart solutions such as demand side response, Real Time Thermal Ratings (RTTR)
and storage to evaluate likely benefits on network reliability.
The following table summarises some of the notable innovation projects we have undertaken or that
are in progress, and therefore the impact of those upon our business. We have not listed the
collaborative programmes of work delivered via the SUPERGEN framework, ENA or the EATL
Strategic Technology Programme. The scope of these programmes is wider than smart grids but they
provided some useful analysis on the potential for particular smart solutions and the impact of
generation and LCTs on the network. Due to the scale and complexity of our CLNR project, that is
discussed separately in annex 5.2.
Project title Scope Status Impact on business
Design, develop and trial
three 12kV Functionality of product proved. Will
Superconducting Fault be considered part of the toolkit
11kV SFCL In progress
Current Limiting (SFCL) once there is a cost effective and
devices on three commercially available product.
different UK networks.
Design, develop and trial
None as yet since we are in
33kV SFCL a 33kV SFCL device at In progress
construction phase.
the DNO/TNO interface.
ACTIV To investigate active Complete Now having wider deployment as

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 18 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Project title Scope Status Impact on business


voltage control to part of our CLNR project in order to
increase the efficiency of test where best to control voltage
the network and across multiple devices in series on
facilitate the connection the high- and low-voltage network.
of distributed
generation. More
specifically it undertake
field trials of the
Fundamentals
SuperTAPP n+ Automatic
Voltage Control (AVC)
relay and develop
associated modelling
criteria for network
planners.
Methodology for risk assessments
issued.
Generation connection policy altered
following use of methodology.
Development of a
Extra High Voltage (EHV) tool
methodology to quantify
developed and used for scheme
Network risk network risk and
In progress design.
modelling develop a network risk
modelling assessment First pass risk analysis of EHV
tool completed to identify opportunities
for low cost n-2 risk reduction.
Methodology used to assess benefits
of RTTR and storage devices on the
high-voltage network.
Development of a
methodology to control
demand on the network
that can provide
benefits to a range of
issues such as peak
lopping, short term
voluntary peak
Demand side This PhD project has inputted its
shedding, and
management and In progress initial findings into the CLNR work on
quantifying the
risk demand side response.
effectiveness of longer
term tariff structures
based on network
capacity.
The project builds on a
previous network risk
project but also brings a
cross-functional

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 19 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Project title Scope Status Impact on business


approach, combining
both behavioural and
engineering aspects to
solving technical issue.
Develop a load growth
scenario modelling tool Tool will provide an indication of
to assist scenario likely levels of future growth at
planning by giving an distribution substations which will
improved understanding be used as input into the CLNR
of the likely rate and NPADDs tool to help design
Load scenario
spatial distribution of In progress engineers select the most
model
load growth over the appropriate solution.
medium to long-term.
This tool will inform Tool will provide us with a more
investment planning for realistic assessment of growth at
the latter stages of RIIO- primary substations.
ED1 and beyond.
Alternative approach to
load forecasting by
Network Demand examining load growth
In progress PhD just started so no impact as yet.
Analysis analysis using
probabilistic or fuzzy
logic.
Development of a
techno-economic model
that using
representative networks
is able to assess the
impact of LCT take-up. It The model now known as Transform
Smart Grid considers the most is being used as a decision support
Forum WS3 appropriate, Complete tool for understanding the impact of
model conventional and smart LCTs on the high- and low-voltage
solutions to be deployed network
and the most cost
effective overall
investment strategy to
be followed for the
network.

Table 4: Summary of the notable innovation projects

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 20 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

5.2.1 Customer-Led Network Revolution


Our project is trialling new network monitoring techniques to measure power flow, voltage and
harmonics; trialling alternative smarter solutions that employ active network management and
customer engagement to increase network capacity and/or modify load patterns. We are also
developing new planning and design decision support tools for engineers. In addition, we are
learning from developments on the other Low Carbon Network Fund (LCNF) projects.
To understand existing and future customer generation/demand profiles and their flexibility we have
set up a number of test cells. Each test cell is defined by what we are seeking to learn. We are
researching:
 The basic demand profile of regular domestic customers and those with HP/EV/PV using
smart meter data. This is with the aim of updating the statistical analysis of ACE49 to
improve the planning of low-voltage networks.
 The profile of various types of generation with the aim of updating Engineering Technical
Report (ETR) 130 (Application guide for assessing the capacity of networks containing
distributed generation) to better understand the network security contribution from
generation.
 The development of various tariff arrangements for customers with and without LCTs. The
types of tariff being applied are time of use, restricted hours and direct control. The aim is to
test whether these commercial propositions are attractive to customers and whether they
are flexible in their response.
 Using aggregators we are testing demand side response for industrial and commercial
customers. The aim is to test whether these commercial propositions are attractive to
customers and to what level of confidence we can place on their response.
To improve network flexibility, to allow the connection of more low carbon technologies, we are
researching how best to integrate smart solutions such as:
 The use of real-time thermal rating (RTTR) monitoring equipment to allow overhead line,
cable and transformer ratings to be pushed higher under certain ambient conditions.
 Enhanced automatic voltage control to better control the voltage at discrete points on the
network in response to the impact of clusters of LCT load and generation.
 The use of electricity storage batteries to provide voltage control and peak load shifting.
Many of the solutions being trialled by the CLNR project and other projects can operate on their own
to manage the network in response to load or generation, by using a local response to maintain pre-
programmed set points. However, networks of the future are likely to have numerous solutions
deployed at different locations; i.e. Enhanced Automatic Voltage Control (EAVC) and energy storage
could be located at the primary substation, distribution substation and on the low-voltage feeders;
while Demand Side Response (DSR) customers could be engaged on the high-voltage and the low-
voltage networks. This means that a local response to a local issue might not be the optimum
solution and it might be more appropriate to despatch a solution further upstream on the network
or a combination of solutions. This requires an integrated approach and we are developing and
trialling an Active Network Management (ANM) control system that we have called the ‘Grand
Unified Scheme’ (GUS). This control system is given control objectives, for instance to manage
voltage or power flow. It then monitors relevant network parameters in real-time, runs network
analysis to estimate states where measurements are not possible, determines the location of
network issues and dispatches the optimum response based upon the types and location of the

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 21 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

smart technologies available. For example that EAVC, Electrical Energy Storage (EES) and DSR/DG
can address voltage problems while EES, DSR/DG and RTTR systems can address power flow
(thermal) issues. These systems can be embedded at different levels in the network. The advantage
of the GUS is that it can take a holistic view of the network and apply the optimum mix and location
of solutions.
Through trials, simulation, extrapolation and with further analysis we will be seeking to understand
the costs of releasing headroom through customer flexibility and network flexibility. We need to
understand how useful the various solutions will be. Not all solutions will be viable, let alone
economical, in all situations. For example, solutions that offer only marginal improvements in
headroom are valuable where growth rates are low. The results from this phase of the project will
be used to establish rules that can be used by engineers within the business. To support them we
are developing a Network Planning and Design Decision Support tool (NPADDS) to enable designers
to model the impact of proposed LCTs and select the most optimum solution for their connection.
Our view of the solutions and their likely deployment in our business plan is as follows:
Real-Time Thermal Ratings (RTTR)
Our early experience on CLNR is that there is a real potential for RTTR and our initial monitoring of
installations completed so far shows that there is the possibility to release significant headroom
capacity from an overhead line during certain weather conditions.
To maximise the capacity released by the variable ambient conditions, this technology does need to
be backed by a response channel such as energy storage, demand-side response (DSR) or generator
response to allow the load on the circuit to be closely managed in line with the variable rating
revealed.
However, even without such a channel, it might be possible for RTTR to allow us to increase the
static ratings of some assets due to their design and location.
RTTR can be used to provide increased capacity to our overhead lines for the connection of wind
generation due to the synergy that higher wind speed, which means more generation, also means
higher line ratings. This will require commercial arrangements to be made with the connectee to
curtail generation to prevent the dynamic ratings from being exceeded and these should be
relatively straight forward to arrange with individual connectees.
We have included overhead line and transformer RTTR in our investment plan and recognise that
some demand side response resource is required to maximise the benefit from this technology.
Electrical Energy Storage (i.e. batteries)
We are investing significantly in research on how electrical energy storage devices (e.g. batteries and
their associated power electronic interface) may be used in the future to facilitate the growth in low
carbon technologies and we expect them to be able to:
 Maintain the voltage within statutory limits on networks with high levels of generation
during low load periods (i.e. when photovoltaic cells are generating at their peak during at
midday but most home owners are at work) when the batteries would charge up to release
energy at a later time.
 Maintain voltage within statutory limits and also prevent thermal overloading during periods
of high load when the battery will be able discharge into the network to provide a
proportion of the load locally. The battery will provide peak shifting to remove a peak in the
load profile whilst discharging and filling a trough in the load profile whilst charging.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 22 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Provide an instant response to signals from, say, real-time thermal ratings devices, to reduce
the load on supplying overhead lines, cables or transformers by supporting the load locally
instead.
The battery trials are set to run during 2013 and into early 2014. This is using six batteries; a 2.5MVA
(5MWh) battery connected to the HV busbars of a primary substation, two 100kVA (200kWh)
batteries connected to the LV network at distribution substations, and three 50kVA (100kWh)
batteries connected at the end of LV feeders during which time we will have gained experience in
their procurement, installation, commissioning, operation and decommissioning. During the
operation phase the batteries will first be run independently and then integrated with real-time
thermal ratings equipment, enhanced automatic voltage control and demand side management via a
control system that will analyse the network parameters and dispatch the optimum response.
We fully expect these trials to be successful from a technical point of view and that they will pave
the way for wide scale adoption of energy storage in the future. We do not expect to deploy storage
during 2015-23 due to the current high cost of this technology. We consider that this learning is in
step with other past or current trials being undertaken. This may change over time as the cost of this
technology (lithium-ion batteries) reduces or other forms of energy storage (e.g. compressed air or
flywheels) are developed.
Enhanced Automatic Voltage Control (EAVC)
The application of EAVC will address voltage rise issues caused by local generation such as
photovoltaic cells and voltage drop issues caused by localised high loads such as electric vehicles and
heat pumps, which will allow the connection of more of these technologies provided that other
solutions are in place to address the potential thermal issues. EAVC covers a number of solutions,
including both installing additional active devices and driving those devices from a better visibility of
the wider network. The connection of small scale generation such as photovoltaic cells or high loads
such as heat pumps or electric vehicles, particularly if these are located in localised clusters, will
have a localised effect on the voltage. This can, in part, be corrected by the voltage control at the
primary substation without adversely affecting the voltage on other circuits fed from the
substations, as long as we have the visibility provided by some wider area monitoring and control.
This can be supplemented by adjusting the voltage at a point closer to the generation or load and
our project is therefore adding two HV regulators and one LV regulator. These trials are commencing
in 2013 and will run for a year, first involving autonomous trials of the additional discrete devices
and then moving to integrated trials controlled by a central system. We are assuming that the trials
will prove the ability to control the voltage at discrete points of the network to address localised
issues cause by LCT clusters. These solutions will prove to be economical for deployment in our
investment plan.

5.3 Our approach to demand side response


Many of the technologies we are developing complement and in some cases require, effective DSR.
We currently seek DSR opportunities as part of business as usual, as this is an important element of
limiting our capital appetite and minimising total costs.
Our plan makes a commitment to continue what we already do in this area, but also to expand our
portfolio of techniques based on learning from our own CLNR project, and the innovative research
being undertaken by other DNOs.
Our commercial approach to managing connection requests and applications for load increases will
consolidate existing innovative solutions into more mainstream use during 2015-23 and add new
techniques, as follows:

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 23 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 We will assist our customers in reviewing their maximum demand and power factor
requirements to identify the most appropriate and cost effective solution.
 We will consistently offer our customers technically innovative solutions where it is a
cheaper, faster alternative to reinforcement for Industrial and Commercial (I&C) connection
requests. Currently available examples include flexible connection arrangements, such as a
load or generation management scheme, and voltage constrained connections. Real time
thermal ratings for intermittent generation connections will be available early in RIIO-ED1.
 Where connectees are not able to eliminate the reinforcement requirements associated
with their connection we will design the lowest cost network solution. If the customers
planning horizon is sufficient, we will commit to holding an auction calling for DSR from
other customers connected to the same network.
 Building on availability of smart metering data and distribution substation monitoring, we
will develop lower voltage heat maps that will further assist those with choice over location
of their load/generation to save costs by identifying the less constrained areas of our
network. Implementation of the system will commence mid period.
To help manage the long term utilisation of the network, avoiding reinforcement and preventing
cost increases for customers in future price control periods we will:
 From 2015, address major substations utilisation by management of the load profile as well
as traditional load transfer and reinforcement solutions. We shall operate two methods:

- Firstly we will leverage third party energy efficiency consultants to advise customers
connected to the target network on the benefits to them of energy cost reductions and
how they can achieve those benefits including time-of-use tariffs and DSR. This will be
targeted at medium to high utilisation areas as a containment measure. We intend to
develop non-tariff based DSR through our 2013 proposed LCNF Tier two project building
on the community energy projects undertaken by WPD & SP.

- Secondly we will conduct a reverse capacity auction (for both dynamic and static
capacity reductions) via our website. We expect this to be more effective in areas where
the first method has already been deployed where there is greater awareness of the
opportunities. This process will use our experience with I&C DSR trialled as part of our
CLNR project and the trials undertaken by SSE, UKPN and ENW.
 We will develop tariffs that encourage peak demand management, collaborating with other
parties as necessary. We intend to introduce these from 2015 for half-hourly customers and
from 2020 for domestic/SME customers in line with the completion of the smart metering
roll-out. Suppliers support will be necessary for this to be successful.
 We will work with other DNOs and the wider industry on smart charging arrangements for
electric vehicles, that consist of tariff and technical solutions, to minimise cost implications
We will also implement further lessons from our trials as more information becomes available. We
are trialling demand side techniques with embedded generators, Industrial and Commercial (I&C)
customers, SMEs and domestic customers. We believe that there is significant potential to utilise I&C
DSR with existing customers and offer DSR arrangements more widely as a mechanism to reduce the
costs associated with network reinforcement. We will refine our understanding of domestic and SME
customer behaviour and to work with suppliers to introduce appropriate tariffs where these have
been proven to provide network benefits.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 24 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

5.4 Investment strategy

5.4.1 Overview
Our investment plan will accommodate the predicted growth in LCT connections during 2015-23. We
will use smarter technologies when they become available and as long as they are cost effective. We
will also lay the foundations for the potential acceleration of this growth during 2023-31 and
beyond.
In total our plan will cost £145 million over the eight years of the 2015-23 period. This spend will be
split across the following three discrete investment streams as shown in table 5 below:

2015-23 Total Total


Northern Powergrid 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2015- 2023-
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 31

Capex - Network reinforcement 0.2 2.4 1.9 0.5 5.7 3.6 4.2 5.9 24.4 25.7
Incremental
Capex – Loop-service unbundling 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 4.3 3.8 2.4 2.7 26.1 6.7
Solutions
(Medium PV) Opex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.4 8.6
Totex - Network reinforcement 3.4 5.6 5.2 3.8 10.2 7.7 6.9 9.1 51.9 41.0

Communication platform 7.2 7.8 4.5 5.5 5.9 5.5 4.4 4.4 45.2 0.0
Active network mgt platform 0.5 0.5 2.3 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.9 0.0
Smart Enablers Baseline monitoring 2.6 5.0 4.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.3 3.2 29.9 0.0
(Totex) No regrets - specification updates 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 3.4 3.6
DSL rental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Sub-Total 11.0 13.9 11.8 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.3 8.2 83.4 3.8

Recruitment
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 4.0 4.0
and training

Capex 14.4 19.5 17.0 13.8 19.8 17.36 16.2 17.3 133.9 36.1
ANNUAL TOTAL
Opex 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 5.4 12.8

Table 5: Smarter grid costs at Northern Powergrid level


The capital investment we are planning over the 2015-23 period will enable us to carry out four key
pieces of work which we discuss in more detail below.
Network Reinforcement £26m
The network reinforcement component of our plan is based on the incremental investment forecast
by the Transform model, using scenario 6. We will invest £26m to deal with site-specific investment
to alleviate network constraints associated with LCTs. We won’t know exactly what we need until
the particular network constraint arises, so we have used the Transform model to predict the
investment envelope for these costs. Our point estimate within this envelope is based on the lowest
cost output from the model. We plan to achieve the desired outcomes using a mixture of traditional
reinforcement and smarter solutions.
The types of solution that could be deployed are:

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 25 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Generators providing network support by operating in PV mode. Our present design policy
requires generators to operate at a fixed power factor, PQ mode. There is the potential to
require generators to operate at a fixed voltage with a variable power factor to assist with
management of network voltage. This change in reactive power consumption/export will
have cost implications for the generator. In some cases this approach will be co-ordinated as
part of an active network management scheme for a local area, something we are
developing as part of our CLNR project currently.
 Permanent network meshing. The majority of our circuits are operated in a radial manner
through the use of normally open points on ring circuits between substations. Closing these
points and operating the circuits in a meshed manner has the potential to increase thermal
capacity. It does however require changes to protection equipment and can present
problems with fault levels and voltage.
 Temporary network meshing. This is similar to the solution above but it requires the use of
network automation to restore the network post fault and does not require extensive
protection changes.
 Use of RTTR for overhead lines and transformers. Use of temperature measurement and
forecasting data to increase the asset rating (and thermal capacity) on a real time basis. This
solution will be offered as part of new connections and we envisage it having a role to play
in conjunction with I&C DSR or with automated network load transfer.
 Use of power factor correction equipment, such as switched capacitors at low voltage. These
can be used to perform reactive power compensation. The principle of these devices is
sound but they require trialling in the context of a dynamic low voltage distribution network.
 Many of the smart solutions described above will require network monitoring and
communications between devices for them to be operated successfully. As smarter solutions
are deployed it will be necessary to co-ordinate their operation on a local basis via an
advanced control system. This is to prevent solutions operationally competing with each
other during a network event.
 Use of conventional solutions such as splitting of network feeders, laying of new circuits and
upgrading of distribution transformers will continue to be deployed.
A breakdown of the type and volume of solutions produced by the model are presented in Appendix
2 for each licence area.
The Transform model allows us to perform some “tipping point” analysis to understand when a
given smart solution will reach a critical maturity point in terms of its deployment. Once the solution
is mature, it could become:
 A “business as usual” investment, requiring us to incur costs in standardising the technology
on both a company and potentially a national basis; and/or
 Cheaper due to economies of scale or continuous development.
On the basis of our modelling, we do not see these types of cost effects arising during 2015-23.
However the analysis provides an insight for us into where we should direct our efforts in the
development of innovative solutions, technical standard development and staff training though the
2015-23 period. A first pass analysis of this functionality from the model has been used as an input
into our technology application assessment.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 26 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Loop service unbundling £26m


We are forecasting an increase in loop service unbundling as a driver of additional area of costs that
are not accounted for in the Transform model. We believe that an increase of solar PV in social
housing in particular could require us to replace a substantial number of ‘looped services’11 with
‘individual services’12, to cater for the voltage rise due to PV export. The voltage rise due to individual
domestic scale PV installations is relatively small, but, with multiple installations and the low voltage
headroom available at low load periods on efficiently designed LV networks13, it aggregates to a level
that is significant and requires intervention to prevent customers being exposed to excessive voltage
levels. This is a reinforcement cost that is spread across all customers as the specific customers’
existing connection agreements are sufficient to allow the connection of the assumed LCTs.
The areas that are currently, and we believe for the foreseeable future, most impacted by multiple
PV driven voltage rise are social landlord owned estates. These are not believed to be high
penetration areas for electric vehicles in the RIIO-ED1 period, although there may be some heat
pump load. However peak output from PV generation is summer around noon, which coincides with
the lowest traditional domestic load on the system, a low load period for domestic heat pumps and
is unlikely to be a high load period for any domestic charging of electric vehicles that are present.
There is therefore likely to be little, if any, netting-off of LCT demand and LCT generation.
This problem is occurring on our network now, however due to charging rules it presently manifests
itself not as DNO reinforcement costs, but as a reduced opportunity for G83 generation connection.
Ofgem’s policy decision, which effectively moves multiple installation projects into reinforcement
and out of connection charges, removes a material barrier to multiple installations.
As with the network reinforcement costs, this cost level is dependent on the LCT scenario assumed,
in particular the degree of clustering that we expect. Scenario 6 assumes the ‘medium’ PV uptake
level, whereas Scenario 5b assumes a ‘high’ uptake with more clustering of PV.
We expect that using a traditional reinforcement approach, this PV clustering issue would cost £54m
in 2015-23. However, adopting smart solutions, and working with social landlords to fine-tune their
schemes, we expect this to reduce to £26m in 2015-23. This cost saving is factored into our analysis.
Appendix 3 deals with this issue in more detail and an example of a recent application is included at
the end of it.
Enabling technology £83m
Investment in enabling technology is required to lay the foundations that will allow us to
accommodate the predicted growth in LCTs during the ED2 and beyond. We expect to spend £83m
during ED1 for this activity to make efficient, low-regrets investment that will lay the foundations for
a smarter grid in good time to make sure we are ready to cope with the higher take up of LCTs in
relation to heat and transport. Some of this investment also opportunistically picks up replacement
of communications and control assets that are time-expired.

11
Services that are supplied from the service position of an adjacent property.
12
Services that are supplied directly from the mains cable.
13 Traditionally a LV network would be designed so that at no load it would be around the statutory voltage limit (currently 253V). Given
that load applied to the system will reduce the voltage at the customer’s premises, and that the reduction increases with load and cable
length and decreases with increased cable size, this high starting voltage allows the most economic network for a given load and
geography. In Northern Powergrid the no load voltage was generally slightly higher than statutory limits, but as all networks had a
standing minimum load voltages supplied were within limits. Unfortunately with LV generation, this highly economic design runs into
voltage difficulties due to the erosion of the standing minimum load – it may in fact cause distribution substations to export at times of
low load. With significant quantities of photovoltaic LV generation, there is a particular problem as its maximum output is generally at a
time of low load and it is generally installed a relatively long way down the LV cable.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 27 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

In our baseline planning scenario we are making the cautious assumption that customers will not
access any benefit during 2015-23 as a result of this expenditure. In reality this is unlikely to be the
case14 – but we have set ourselves the objective of justifying the expenditure on this more
challenging basis. Nevertheless it is fundamental to the smart solutions needed during 2023-31. If
the investment is not in place ahead of any acceleration in take-up of low-carbon heat or transport,
the benefits will not be accessible as they are dependent on the central infrastructure being in place,
so there is not the option to defer the enabling investment and realise the same benefits.
It is difficult to predict how much customers will produce and consume electricity as we move
towards the low carbon future. However, we know that more flexible, smarter networks will be
required to support whatever changes occur. While the fundamental activities associated with
transformers, switchgear, lines and cables are unlikely to change, we will use smart solutions to
change how these assets are managed.
Specifically, our plan aims to lay the foundations to actively manage our assets by adding further15
‘command and control’, communications, and intelligence to the network. This will allow us to:
 Gain greater visibility of network and asset operating conditions (intelligence);
 Make decisions based on that intelligence (command and control); and
 Establish communications links to receive the intelligence and issue the commands.

5.4.2 Plan technical assumptions


We propose to add a layer of smartness across existing assets and to exploit the requirement for
asset renewal in our control and communications infrastructure. The following plan assumptions and
initiatives have been identified16:
 The core primary Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) functional requirements
remain, and their security, resilience and robustness is paramount.
 The need to replace time-expired Remote Terminal Units (RTUs), radios and other
communications equipment creates the opportunity to migrate to industry standard modern
equivalent IP.
 Upgrading automatic voltage control schemes allows direct and accurate measurement of
voltage, tap position, and real and reactive flows, giving greater visibility of power flows
across the spine mains network, allowing us more accurately to gauge the need for
investment. It also prepares the network for dynamic voltage management.
 Extending this instrumentation to strategic secondary sites, and bringing them onto primary
SCADA, extends this visibility and control out onto the HV network, allowing investment to
be further focussed. Again, it prepares the network for active voltage management and also
extends the reach of Operating Code (OC) 6 (covering demand control) voltage reduction
schemes.

14
For example, as the roll-out of enhanced communication infrastructure progresses, alongside the wider roll-out of smart meters, there is
the very plausible prospect that pockets of the network where high penetration of smart meters and low-carbon technology meet, the
upgraded central control infrastructure will be available to enable more sophisticated demand side response.
15
This is developing the existing SCADA and remote control infrastructure
16
The detailed technical analysis behind these assumptions is presented in Appendix 4 – Smarter network engineering strategy.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 28 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 A data warehouse will be established to pre-process and store smart meter data to inform
network design and operation.
 For critical networks, we will deploy a state estimator, initially at HV and above, to increase
visibility as part of an active network management system. This can be used directly to
release voltage headroom (issuing set-point target voltages to the new relays), as an enabler
for site-specific smarter solutions across that subsystem, and indirectly to focus investment
in both conventional and smarter solutions.
 As network stress increases, we will improve the quality of data provided to the state
estimator by enhancing analogues at primary and secondary substations, by:

- Recovering accurate and precise real and reactive flows over primary SCADA from
outgoing feeders at primary and strategic secondary sites;

- Recovering analogues from Pole Mounted Auto Reclosing Circuit Breakers (PMARCBs);

- Fitting monitoring to transformers and outgoing low-voltage feeders at other ground-


mounted secondary substations; and

- Deploying metered link boxes.


 RTTR devices will be deployed at mains network choke points.
 More regulators, high- and low-voltage On Load Tap Changers (OLTCs) and static
compensators/energy storage will be deployed selectively, initially running autonomously.
 Existing remote control functionality will be extended to more sites. Network Management
System (NMS) functionality will be upgraded to facilitate automatic supply restoration and
automatic load transfer.
 Tertiary SCADA will be extended to more sites including asset condition monitoring, alarms
from non-critical batteries and circuit breakers, and non-critical on-line power flow
monitoring.
 Establishing more network monitoring and control, and relying on it more heavily to
maintain service to customers. This requires the backhaul communications network to be
selectively reinforced with a mix of microwave and Virtual Private Network (VPN) over public
network Digital Subscriber Line (DSL).
 The current primary SCADA communications network will be refreshed.
 Looking forward for both backhaul and last mile primary SCADA:

- Having moved to Internet Protocol (IP), increasing use will be made of links provided
primarily for protection.

- Extensions will be a mix of fibre pulled through ducts laid with mains overlays,
microwave, and VPN over public network DSL.
 We will deploy an unlicensed mesh radio solution across the denser part of the network, to
support critical power flow monitoring (including RTTR), active control of regulators etc., and
secondary SCADA remote control.
 We will refresh the mid-band Very High Frequency (VHF) to infill at the edges of the mesh to
support remote control.
 Where not co-located with primary or secondary SCADA, we will continue to use General
Packet Radio Service (GPRS)/Short Message Service (SMS) to support tertiary SCADA.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 29 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

All this creates a base infrastructure from which we can grow organically adopting a hierarchal
scalable philosophy for this essential technological back-bone. There is no tipping point nor big bang,
as this is largely a refresh of the control and communications infrastructure we already have.
As the number of smarter solutions deployed increases, we will need to add last mile
communications channels and reinforce the backhaul. We do not expect large numbers of smarter
solutions through ED1, so we do not expect to need backhaul reinforcement in that period.

5.4.3 Breakdown of enabling technology investment


The investment we are planning over the 2015-23 period can be broken down as follows.
 Base communication platform £45m – we will upgrade and reinforce our communications
assets, that are nearing the end of their design life, to create a base communication platform
to link systems together. We will create a robust and reliable communication infrastructure
to gather intelligence from the network and issue commands, to avoid the overload and
potential failure of a network asset.

Description Assumption £m
Replace time-expired RTUs (remaining perms & Giants) with modern equivalent 70 N 380 Y
24.94
PSS/IP functionality
Upgrade Microsol and Talus RTUs (to permit primary SCADA communications 240 N 110Y
1.76
replacement)
Replace time-expired assets terminating existing fixed lines used for primary 120 N 380 Y
SCADA (everything except multiplexers, i.e. branching amplifiers, concentrators, 2.00
etc.) With modern equivalent PSS/IP functionality
Replace time-expired RF assets for primary SCADA with modern equivalent PSS/IP 23 N 10 Y
0.50
functionality - scanning UHF base stations
Replace time-expired RF assets for primary SCADA with modern equivalent PSS/IP 190 N 110 Y
1.51
functionality - scanning UHF out stations
Replace time-expired RF assets for secondary SCADA - base stations/access points 100 N 100 Y 3.01
5500
Replace time-expired RF assets for secondary SCADA - out stations/end points 5.52

Reinforce backhaul for secondary SCADA base stations/access points 70 N 40 Y 0.28


Incremental cost for mesh over secondary SCADA (end point additional unit cost) 4000 2.01
Incremental cost for mesh over secondary SCADA (establish additional repeaters) 1000 1.51
Incremental cost of duplicating base stations for VHF infill 25 N 25 Y 0.75
Incremental cost of semi-mesh solution to VHF infill 1500 0.30
Provide back-up routes to major sites 440 1.11

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 30 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Base platform for active network management £5m - We will further develop the platform,
established by CLNR, to enable the deployment of distribution system state estimation and
active network management and create the capability to receive, store and analyse data
flows from smart meters and network monitoring devices.

Description Assumption £m
Establish a platform for distribution system state estimation (DSSE) and £250k pa for ongoing
active network management (ANM) development of Power 2.00
CC
Build on CLNR and other LCNF projects to understand how best to use
1.00
smart meter data
Establish a platform to aggregate, store, and report on metering data
1.00
(smart, D19 and D275)
Develop alternative communications platforms (e.g. Narrowband plc.) 1.00

 Baseline monitoring £30m – We will replace voltage control relays at our major substations
and regulator sites to communicate real and reactive power flows, voltage and tap position.
This will aid network management in the short term and enable us to make these
substations more ready to accommodate generation.

Description Assumption £m
Upgrade all automatic voltage control relays at major sites to
communicate P, Q, V and tap position over serial data link to a compliant 1500 22.21
RTU
Upgrade regulators with automatic voltage control relays to
communicate P, Q, V and tap position over serial data link, plus compliant 28 N 21 Y 4.88
RTU, plus wireless communications
Selective retrofit of existing LV boards with metering, for BAU load
1300 2.59
monitoring
Recover analogues from selected pole mounted auto-reclose circuit
1000 N 1000Y 0.22
breakers

 Specification upgrades £3m – New low-voltage boards will be specified to include monitoring
equipment as standard and we will lay ducts for fibre optic cables in all our EHV cable
replacement schemes. This is an efficient way to support a roll out of these modern
technologies, avoiding the need for retrofitting or re-excavating of trenches, which would be
more costly and could, in some cases, involve the potential disruption of supplies to
customers.
Description Assumption £m
Fit all new LV boards with metering Based on replacement vols 0.28
Install ducts for fibre with all end-to-end 33-132kv cable overlays Based on replacement vols 2.72

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 31 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

5.5 Future research and development activity


Our technology application assessment plan sets out the key technologies we need to develop,
through the 2015-23 period.
Based on what our stakeholders identified as key requirements, we have translated these into
innovation needs and created a set of innovative technology programmes that, when delivered,
meet those needs. In this way it can be seen that our stakeholder’s requirements drive our individual
technology acquisition projects and act as a sense check for any proposed activity.
The technology application assessment plan is forward looking and represents our current view of
what is needed. We regularly review the needs and re-evaluate the goals of the plan and the
programmes of projects to ensure that they remain relevant.
Most of our technology programmes meet more than one innovation need. Our current set of
programmes mainly address the interruption impact on the customer, delivery of faster, cheaper
connections and future proof the network for low carbon technologies innovation needs. This is in
accordance with the stakeholder rankings.
The technology programmes we are delivering are listed below along with their relevance to the
development of a smarter network:
 Minimise the environmental impact of our assets – Examining ways to minimise phase
imbalance and improve power factor will increase headroom as well minimising network
losses.
 Improve network reliability and availability – Network automation can be used as a platform
to facilitate temporary network meshing and release additional thermal headroom.
 Utilise customer flexibility – Continuing to explore how we can use domestic and I&C
customer demand response. We will also explore the market mechanisms to help us use the
technical mechanisms that deliver demand response.
 Improve network management and flexibility – We are looking to enhance our ability to
monitor the network in real time to better understand asset capacity and condition. Armed
with this improved visibility we will explore further ways of releasing the capacity already
inherent in our network by adopting more dynamic ways of operating. We will ensure that
our ability to maintain network security is enhanced through the use of new technologies.
 Develop improved network planning design and tools – We will continue to develop tools
that assist in evaluating the impact of LCTs. Making use of smart metering data for both
planning and design will need to be understood and trialled. While towards the end of the
2015-23 period we will need to examine the use of enhanced operational planning tools for
use on a more actively managed network.
 Supporting technologies programme – Considers how we can exploit new or alternative
underlying technologies that may have a potential benefit for the distribution system.

6 Organisational implications
This plan builds in technical and commercial changes which whilst they are prudent and protective of
customers’ money nonetheless represent bold steps forward in de-carbonising the energy sector.
Execution of this plan will mean implementing the most radical changes for a generation in the
planning, design and operation of the distribution system. It is inconceivable that changes of such

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 32 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

magnitude can be delivered with the same mix of resources and skill-sets that have sufficed up to
this point. Accordingly we have assessed the implications of this transition to a smarter network
upon the various functional areas of the business to scope the scale of change that may be required.
Further analysis at a more detailed level will be necessary to firm up requirements, but already
certain change-areas can be planned for. The kinds of changes that will accompany this plan in five
functional areas are discussed in sub-sections 6.1 through 6.5 below;
 Network planning and design
 Commercial
 Equipment standards and systems integration
 Network management
 Delivery resource

In addition it is clear that all this change will need direction and leadership to make it happen. We
plan to establish a smart network policy and development team which will provide that direction
and leadership across our organisation. There has been no need to develop this function during
DPCR5 as our existing policy function has dealt with the low level of activity and change but we
recognise that this is not a sustainable solution.
We see this new unit as a highly professional engineering team which will operate as part of our core
strategic engineering capability. The unit will feed off our workforce renewal programme which as
well as providing the more traditional and in that sense routine skills into our business, will also
provide small numbers of graduate engineers who can develop the policies and programmes which
need to be implemented across the five areas described here. In addition to being a key enabler for
the smarter powergrid this will also facilitate renewal of the high-end technical resources that will be
needed to lead the industry through 2023-31 and beyond.
The unit will tackle the most urgent issues first, i.e. those innovations that are required from the
outset of the 2015-23 period. Priorities will include real time thermal ratings and reverse capacity
auctions which we intend to deploy as standard solutions. Development of our active network
management (ANM) capability (as set out in Appendix 4 of this document) will follow those
immediate priorities quickly in the 2015-23 period as we conclude our CLNR learning and make
decisions about the ANM platform we want to deploy. Options include taking the CLNR proprietary
distribution system state estimation (DSSE) engine into a full network ‘production’ version alongside
our existing SCADA (GE NMS) or deployment of DSSE and an optimal power flow engine on the GE
“PowerOn Fusion” NMS platform.
In this way we see this unit starting as a relatively small team with the potential to grow as we move
through the 2015-23 period and more complex solution sets required in ED2 start to grow in priority.
These would include the full range of potential solutions required by the WS3 model such as
temporary meshing (i.e. soft open points), generator side response, and despatching storage
resources.
In total the resources discussed here (the central smart grid unit and the additional capacity in the
five functional units discussed) add up to around 15 Full Time Equivalents all of which is catered for
within the envelope of our plan. The numbers are not great and not material in the context of our
plan, but the capability is crucial and will be highly leveraged both in the 2015-23 period but through
the longer term of 2023-31 and beyond.
Further detail of how we aim to manage the implementation of new ideas and techniques are
contained in section 5.5 of the innovation strategy (section 5 of the core narrative of this plan).

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 33 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

6.1 Network planning and design


Network planning and design will become more complex, as customer behaviour becomes more
complex, margins are reduced, and a plethora of solutions to every scenario become available. While
NPADDS will partly offset the burden, the design engineers who supervise the estimators and
technicians will still have a greater challenge to understand the opportunities and assess every
scheme. We will also need to maintain and update those tools.
In considering the next generation of network design tools to replace the existing power system
analysis packages we need to give thought to the requirement for a greater degree of flexibility in
being able to automate routine analysis activity. This will require the development and maintenance
of scripts for running automated analysis. The opportunity for the automatic updating of these tools
from the new Oracle enterprise Asset Management/Spatial systems will also be explored.
The administrative management for the existing power systems tools is efficiently undertaken as an
infill activity for existing design staff. However this position needs to be reviewed in light of the new
tools and their increased level of complexity. It may be appropriate to dedicate specialist resources
towards this activity in future.

6.2 Commercial
We expect a step change in our engagement with our customers, as a smarter network operator
must better understand passive customer behaviour and encourage active customer participation.
As a benchmark, we currently employ two staff developing relationships with aggregators, and have
one FTE in a research and policy development role examining customer behaviour and encouraging
active participation. Looking forward, this workload will likely persist, covering contract negotiation,
on-going contract management, and likely capacity auctions for providing DSR on significant new
connections and general reinforcement.
We might reasonably consider a more focused team, engaging customers directly to stimulate a DSR
market, and to advise on other options such as frequency response generation (STOR), triad peak
avoidance and time of use, as well as installing power factor correction.

6.3 Equipment standards and systems integration


Standards and policy never stands still. There are always new solutions and new approaches, even to
the same issues. Smarter networks and smarter network operators increase the challenge. Creating
the new power flow management function introduces an entirely new set of policies and
procedures. While introducing new equipment, particularly a significant expansion in the range of
monitoring, communication and remote control, massively increases the range of specifications,
standards, procedures and policies required for safe and effective deployment.
Increasingly there is a convergence between power system design, protection and control policy and
for a smarter network to be developed efficiently we need to ensure that all three elements that
reside in three separate business functions within our business managed this interaction. There is a
growing case for reviewing whether all three elements should be brought together in coherent

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 34 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

manner. The creation of a smart network policy and development team will offer us the platform for
doing this.
There is also the significant, and not to be underestimated, challenge of interacting with the
international and national activity on smart grid standards which will impact the equipment we
purchase for all aspects of our business and we will take a leading role in that regard.

6.4 Network management


Our plans for 2015-23 do not require a significant degree of active network management for our
view on LCT growth. However, as we approach 2023-31, decisions will need to be made on how to
manage the information flows and control systems as they grow in scale. We will also need to
consider how and when we will be able to undertake real-time power system analysis, respond to
smart meter alarms, manage demand side response contracts and infrastructure, and manage the
active network management equipment.
In response to these new activities we will need to consider expanding the existing control support
function with capability for active power flow management. Assuming that we continue our current
approach, which combines some local automatic schemes with a new wide area state
estimation/optimal power flow engine (i.e. GUS), this will involve maintenance and supervision of
automatic schemes rather than direct manual intervention. The skill set lies somewhere between
network design engineers and the existing network control engineers.

6.5 Delivery resource


There will also obviously be higher direct costs for the staff who design, install, operate and maintain
the individual network solutions, which in our plan is included within the capital costs of deploying
those assets on a site-specific basis.
The increase in activity predicted for the 2023-31 period will require an increase in recruitment for
that period and there may be a requirement for a new skills mix, with a bias towards telecoms,
protection, design and network control. As new more sophisticate equipment is deployed on the
network we will need to review our fault response and maintenance delivery.
The planning cycle for the 2023-31 period will be the appropriate time to make these assessments
based upon the projection for LCT growth seen at that time. In any case, we expect that our existing
training and development programmes will deal with these requirements. The workforce renewal
programmes through 2015-23 will provide sufficient scope for us to introduce new staff to the
organisation where these new skills are required. We shall continue to employ our current
resourcing strategy relating to whether we recruit and train direct labour, or engage contractors to
ensure efficient delivery.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 35 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Appendix 1 - LCT growth scenarios on a licence basis

FORECAST LCT VOLUMES (Northeast)


Photo- Photo-
Domestic Commercial Electric Photo-
Scenario Period voltaic voltaic
Heat Pumps Heat Pumps Vehicles voltaic (HV)
(LV) (EHV)
DECC SCENARIOS
Scenario 1- high High HP ED1 275,831 44,759 3,024 95,616 338,949 85,670
abatement in low Medium EV
ED2 68,810 279,143 5,716 296,814 48,113 23,988
carbon heat Medium PV
Scenario 2 – high Medium HP ED1 275,831 47,525 2,779 146,410 338,949 85,670
abatement in High EV
ED2 68,810 213,568 5,100 431,182 48,113 23,988
transport Medium PV
Scenario 3 – high High HP ED1 397,105 44,759 3,024 146,410 338,949 85,670
electrification of heat High EV
ED2 92,965 279,143 5,716 431,182 48,113 23,988
and transport High PV
Scenario 4 – credit Low HP ED1 153,129 23,112 2,344 31,403 72,252 67,030
purchase Low EV
ED2 40,325 17,827 3,049 135,737 11,213 21,583
Low PV
INCREMENTAL SENSITIVITIES
Scenario 5a – high PV Low HP ED1 397,105 23,112 2,344 31,403 72,252 67,030
Low EV
ED2 92,965 17,827 3,049 135,737 11,213 21,583
High PV
Scenario 5b – high PV, Low HP ED1 397,105 23,112 2,344 31,403 72,252 67,030
highly clustered Low EV
ED2 92,965 17,827 3,049 135,737 11,213 21,583
High PV (Highly
clustered)
Scenario 6 – medium Low HP ED1 275,831 23,112 2,344 31,403 72,252 67,030
PV Low EV
ED2 68,810 17,827 3,049 135,737 11,213 21,583
Medium PV

FORECAST LCT VOLUMES (Yorkshire)


Photo- Photo-
Domestic Commercial Electric Photo-
Scenario Period voltaic voltaic
Heat Pumps Heat Pumps Vehicles voltaic (HV)
(LV) (EHV)
DECC SCENARIOS
Scenario 1- high High HP ED1 409,848 76,521 4,833 142,069 338,949 85,670
abatement in low Medium EV
ED2 102,247 487,188 9,233 441,028 48,113 23,988
carbon heat Medium PV
Scenario 2 – high Medium HP ED1 409,848 81,287 4,445 217,539 338,949 85,670
abatement in High EV
ED2 102,247 372,631 8,241 640,682 48,113 23,988
transport Medium PV
Scenario 3 – high High HP ED1 590,044 76,521 4,833 217,539 338,949 85,670
electrification of heat High EV
ED2 138,141 487,188 9,233 640,682 48,113 23,988
and transport High PV
Scenario 4 – credit Low HP ED1 227,530 39,259 3,756 46,659 72,252 67,030
purchase Low EV
ED2 59,918 31,107 4,951 201,688 11,213 21,583
Low PV
INCREMENTAL SENSITIVITIES
Scenario 5a – high PV Low HP ED1 590,044 39,259 3,756 46,659 72,252 67,030
Low EV
ED2 138,141 31,107 4,951 201,688 11,213 21,583
High PV
Scenario 5b – high PV, Low HP ED1 590,044 39,259 3,756 46,659 72,252 67,030
highly clustered Low EV
ED2 138,141 31,107 4,951 201,688 11,213 21,583
High PV (Highly
clustered)
Scenario 6 – medium Low HP ED1 409,848 39,259 3,756 46,659 72,252 67,030
PV Low EV
ED2 102,247 31,107 4,951 201,688 11,213 21,583
Medium PV

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 36 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Appendix 2 - Transform model output on a licence basis


Northeast Solutions / Enablers

ED1 ED2 Solution


Year or
Solutions enabler?

Dynamic Network Reconfiguration - EHV - 1 solution


- 1 solution
Distribution Flexible AC Transmission Systems (D-FACTS) - EHV

Embedded DC Networks EHV - 1 solution


Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - - 1 solution
EHV
1 1 solution
Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - HV

25 81 solution
Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - LV

Permanent Meshing of Networks - EHV 1 8 solution


Permanent Meshing of Networks - HV 1 1 solution
Permanent Meshing of Networks - LV Urban - 76 solution
Permanent Meshing of Networks - LV Sub-Urban - 103 solution
RTTR for HV Overhead Lines - 1 solution
RTTR for HV/LV transformers - 4 solution
Switched capacitors - LV 256 76 solution
Temporary Meshing (soft open point) - HV - 1 solution
LV Underground network Split feeder 123 45 solution
LV New Split feeder - 4 solution
LV Ground mounted 11/LV Tx 57 0 solution
LV Pole mounted 11/LV Tx 4 - solution
Large 33/11 Tx - 1 solution
EHV underground Minor works 0 1 solution
Advanced control systems - EHV - 1 enabler
Advanced control systems - HV - 1 enabler

Communications to and from devices - LAST MILE ONLY 282 83 enabler

EHV Circuit Monitoring 1 8 enabler


HV Circuit Monitoring (along feeder) 1 2 enabler
HV/LV Tx Monitoring 25 81 enabler
LV Circuit Monitoring (along feeder) 281 157 enabler
LV feeder monitoring at distribution substation 281 81 enabler
RMUs Fitted with Actuators 1 2 enabler
Dynamic Network Protection, 11kV 1 2 enabler
Weather monitoring - 1 enabler

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 37 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Northeast Solutions / Enablers

ED1 ED2 Solution


Year or
Solutions enabler?

Dynamic Network Reconfiguration - EHV 1 3 solution


- 2 solution
Distribution Flexible AC Transmission Systems (D-FACTS) - EHV

DSR – DNO to residential - 48 solution


Embedded DC Networks EHV - 2 solution
Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - 1 10 solution
EHV
- 1 solution
Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - HV

- 7 solution
Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - LV

Local smart EV charging infrastructure - 3 solution


Permanent Meshing of Networks - EHV 1 5 solution
Permanent Meshing of Networks - HV - 1 solution
Permanent Meshing of Networks - LV Urban 141 - solution
Permanent Meshing of Networks - LV Sub-Urban - 42 solution
RTTR for HV Overhead Lines 10 41 solution
RTTR for HV Underground Cables - 1 solution
RTTR for HV/LV transformers - 44 solution
Switched capacitors - HV 6 17 Solution
Switched capacitors - LV 361 141 solution
Temporary Meshing (soft open point) - HV 2 3 solution
LV Underground network Split feeder 316 1 solution
LV New Split feeder - 3 solution
LV Ground mounted 11/LV Tx 58 - solution
LV Pole mounted 11/LV Tx 12 - solution
Large 33/11 Tx - 3 solution
EHV underground Minor works 0 3 solution
Advanced control systems - EHV 1 3 enabler
Advanced control systems - HV 2 3 enabler

Communications to and from devices - LAST MILE ONLY 375 219 enabler

DSR – Products to remotely control loads at consumer premises - 45 Enabler


EHV Circuit Monitoring 1 13 enabler
HV Circuit Monitoring (along feeder) 12 58 enabler
HV/LV Tx Monitoring - 44 enabler
LV Circuit Monitoring (along feeder) 503 18 enabler
LV feeder monitoring at distribution substation 361 145 enabler
RMUs Fitted with Actuators 2 4 enabler
Dynamic Network Protection, 11kV 2 4 enabler
Weather monitoring 10 41 enabler

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 38 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Appendix 3 – Loop service unbundling analysis

1 General introduction
It is normal practice on distribution networks to account for load diversity. Diversity, normally
expressed as a ratio, is the difference between the sum of individual customers’ peak loads and the
actual peak load experienced by the network. This difference is due to the individual peaks occurring
at different times such that the resultant network peak is actually comprised of a summation of
individual loads mainly well below their individual peaks.
The use of load diversity allows networks to be considerably smaller and therefore more affordable
than they would otherwise be. However where the diversity changes and the historical load diversity
assumptions made by DNOs lead to alterations being required to the network the DNO bears the
reinforcement costs. In practice a good deal of reinforcement is driven in this way.
These issues are relevant across the entire network from the highest voltages to the local services
that supply customers. Of particular interest at this time are looped services.
Looped services are service arrangements where one or more properties, for example property B
below, are supplied not direct from the mains cable but from the service supplying an adjacent
property. Both properties would enjoy an 80 amp demand capacity and a 16 amp generation
capacity; however the shared service back to the main might only be rated at 140 amps.
Traditionally diversity between supplies makes this perfectly acceptable in technical terms.
As mentioned, diversity is due to load peaks occurring at different times; for slightly different reasons LCTs will
exhibit the phenomenon of peaking at different times to a lesser degree than traditional load, giving rise to
lower diversity.
 In the case of PV this is because the output is governed by the available light, which will be very
similar for all properties in a given location, driven by season and time of day. Although the direction
in which houses, and their associated roof-mounted G83 schemes, face will vary this to some extent,
in many areas such as social housing developments the angle of the houses is very similar, governed
in the main by street direction as they tend to be built around a single house design.
 Heat pumps and electric vehicle charging are considered to have lower diversity than traditional loads
because of the length of time they run for. Simply due to peak load lasting longer, the chances of
peaks being coincident rises. Smart solutions for car charging in particular may assist in reducing this
issue, but not eliminating, this falling diversity.
Thus large roll outs of PV generation and the installation of heat pumps or electric vehicle charging
significantly reduce diversity and mean that in many cases this arrangement is no longer acceptable.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 39 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

2 Our assumptions for the business plan


At present we are particularly concerned about voltage rise due to PV installation as PV installation
is significantly more advanced than heat pump of electric vehicle charging installation. The voltage
rise due to G83 PV installations is small, but, with multiple installations and the low voltage
headroom available at low load periods on efficiently LV networks, it is significant.
The areas which are currently, and we believe for the foreseeable future, most impacted by multiple
PV installations are social landlord owned estates, and these are not believed to be high penetration
areas for electric vehicles in the RIIO-ED1 period, although there may be some heat pump load.
However peak output from PV generation is summer around noon, which coincides with the lowest
traditional domestic load on the system, a low load period for domestic heat pumps and is unlikely
to be a high load period for any domestic charging of electric vehicles that are present. There is
therefore likely to be little, if any, netting-off of LCT demand and LCT generation.
The example of a recent scheme at the end of this appendix shows the issue. It is a current issue,
however due to charging rules it presently manifests itself not as DNO reinforcement costs, but as a
reduced opportunity for G83 generation connection.
We have discussed the issue with social landlords in light of Ofgem’s recent decision to socialise
certain reinforcement costs associated with domestic load growth and indications are that we will
see PV installation around the DECC medium forecast. There are around 268,000 and 419,000 social
housing dwellings in the Northeast and Yorkshire respectively17 and the medium forecast might see
around 16.5% or 45,000 in of these the Northeast and 70,000 in Yorkshire being proposed for a G83
generation installation over and above the low forecast leading to relatively high density clusters.
For comparison we have seen around applications 20,000 in Yorkshire over the last few years at a
time when developers knew they were likely to incur reinforcement costs; unsurprisingly most have
not proceeded due to those costs.

17
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/10593/table-109.xls

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 40 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Assuming that one in three of these lead to a need to remove a looped service, which is consistent
with our experiences in the Leeds local authority area where a widescale application for PV
installations (circa 10,000) was made, and allowing for unsuitable mains cable locations (one side of
a row of back to back terraces for example), we would expect costs to be in the order of £20m and
£30m in the Northeast and Yorkshire respectively.
These issues can be dealt with to some extent by voltage control. At present we have only the option
of reducing the voltage to create headroom. For preference this is done via the settings of the
tapchange control scheme on the local primary transformers. This is for two reasons, firstly it is
possible to achieve a more granular level of control (which allows reductions which do not adversely
affect the lowest voltages experienced at times of high load, typically winter evenings, or response
to Grid Code OC6 Demand Control requirements) and secondly, although not yet available, it allows
the option of summer and winter settings in future.

In future we expect to be able to apply summer (lower) voltage settings and winter (higher) voltage
settings, to install voltage control at distribution substation and we may be able to develop
practicable power factor control of voltage.18 These advanced voltage control options are expected
to become available through the 2015-23 period.

We are making the assumption that if more advanced voltage control will addresses very little of the
issue in 2015, but almost all of it in 2023, then overall around 50% of the problem will be addressed
in this way (although it will not address any issues caused by heat pumps and electric vehicles).
Therefore costs of £9.9m (Northeast) and £15.5m (Yorkshire) have been included.

The table below lays out these calculations.

Northeast Yorkshire
New service £650 £650
Disconnection £330 £330
Assume one in 3 3
Assume an uplift for unsuitable mains 10% 10%
Project Management 25% 25%
Unit rate £449 £449
Social housing stock 268,000 419,000
Take up rate (Med) 16.5% 16.5%
Units 44,220 69,135
Expenditure
£ 19,862,150 £ 31,053,138
(no voltage control solutions)
Expenditure
£ 9,931,075 £ 15,526,569
(after 50% reduction for advanced voltage control)

Table 1: Assumptions leading to loop-service unbundling costs

18
We are currently testing HV to LV transformers will on-load tapchangers as part of our Customer Led Network
Revolution project.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 41 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

3 Example: Application showing impact of G83 Stage 2 generation -


Scheme ENQ5246395
Summary

We received an application on 6 December 2013 from a developer in Leeds who specialise in


assisting councils and housing associations in developing their housing stock with regard to energy
for 38 G83 photovoltaic installations across two neighbouring cul de sacs in Leeds; 21 at 3.7kW and
17 at 2.9kW.

This was a fairly typical application, a type which has in total proposed around 20,000 installations in
the Yorkshire licence area over the last few years.

Initially the developer requested reinforcement costs for all generation, but on receiving them asked
for the maximum generation that could be connected without cost.

The voltage studies showed that with voltage reduction on our network 8 installations at 3.7kW and
18 at 2.9kW could be installed, a total of 81.8kW. This is around 65% of the original request. We
believe is acceptable to the developer although we are yet to receive an acceptance or rejection.

The estimates Appendix 2 of this document develop our view of the latent demand. Our estimates
give a figure of 113,355 installations one in three of which may need a service de-looped, falling to
one in six if advanced voltage control is used. This example showed one in two needing service de-
looping even after voltage reduction, but it is likely that because looped services will be clustered to
some extent, so will de-looping requirements.

The application and issues

We received an application on 6 December 2013 from a developer in Leeds who specialise in


assisting councils and housing associations in developing their housing stock with regard to energy.

The request was for 38 G83 photovoltaic installations across two neighbouring cul de sacs in Leeds,
Foster Square and Lonsdale Close, the mains records for which are shown in Figure 5. Of these, 21
were for 3.7kW (the maximum 16A per phase G83 connection) and 17 were for 2.9kW a total of
127kW. The initial application asked us to quote for any reinforcement costs to allow all units to be
connected.

The properties were relatively close to the 11/0.415kV substation and much of the LV mains cable
was average (0.3 square inch aluminium or 185mm2 waveform or equivalent), but the mains cable
up each cul de sac itself was only 120mm2 waveform.

As might be expected the major issue arising was the voltage rise. The proposal was modelled
assuming a minimum demand of 300W on each property, which is a reasonable daytime summer
minimum. This is not worst case as the daytime summer minimum on any individual property is
considerably lower, perhaps 150-200W, but it is unlikely that all these minimums occur at the same
time.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 42 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Interventions to Address Voltage Rise Issues

The proposal was modelled assuming a minimum demand of 300W on each property, which is a
reasonable daytime summer minimum. This is not worst case as the daytime summer minimum on
any individual property is considerably lower, perhaps 150-200W, but it is unlikely that all these
minimums occur at the same time.

For clarity in this document we have defined a base option which includes:

 A 1% voltage reduction to create headroom


 No reinforcement
 Connecting as much of the generation requested in the application as possible without
pushing voltages outside limits
 Then increasing the generation at two properties which share a looped service, 18 and 20
Foster Square, to the amount requested in the application

Similar situations exist at each of the looped services and in the full connection quotation process all
the properties were fully modelled.

The study results shown concentrate only on the two looped properties in question 18 and 20 Foster
Square. In the output charts, Figures 1 to 4, the voltages in blue are over statutory limits.

 Base Option: Voltage reduction


An option to address voltage rise is to reduce voltage at the LV busbar. For preference this is done
via the settings of the tapchange control scheme on the local primary transformers. This is for two
reasons, firstly it is possible to achieve a more granular level of control (which allows reductions
which do not adversely affect the lowest voltages experienced at times of high load, typically winter
evenings, or response to Grid Code OC6 Demand Control requirements) and secondly, although not
yet available, it allows the option of summer and winter settings in future.

For this study we assumed a 1% voltage reduction to 250V at the LV busbar, which is normally
achievable without undue detriment to either the Grid Code OC6 Demand Control requirements or
the minimum voltage at times of high load.

As Figure 1 shows this voltage reduction was not sufficient in itself to maintain the voltages at the
cut-out of 18 and 20 Foster Square within statutory limits.

 Option 2: Mains reinforcement


The next option considered, in addition to the LV busbar voltage reduction, was to reinforce the
existing network. Reinforcing with larger cables, reduces the impedance and thereby reduces the
voltage rise.

The LV mains cables from the substation into both cul de sacs were studied after having been to be
replaced with 300mm2 waveform. Again as Figure 2 shows, this was not sufficient in itself to
maintain the voltages at the cut-out of 18 and 20 Foster Square within statutory limits.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 43 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

We also modelled, though this is not shown, whether as part of the mains replacement moving the
looped service to 18 and 20 Foster Square to another phase would have been sufficient. While
correct phase choice could help a little with voltage reduction, it did not get these properties back
inside statutory limits.

 Option 3: Service de-looping, with or without mains reinforcement


As an alternative de-looping services was studied. Figures 3 and 4 show the results with 18 and 20
Foster Square de-looped and with both de-looping and mains reinforcement respectively. In this
example with the other properties restricted to the level of generation acceptable without
reinforcement itself de-looping alone is sufficient.

However the simplified study presented assumes the other properties are restricted to the level of
generation acceptable without reinforcement. As this level of generation rises mains reinforcement
becomes necessary, although some level of diversity would be allowed for roofs facing in different
directions and therefore catching morning, evening or midday sun and reduce the impact to some
extent. This however does not affect the need for service de-looping.

 Conclusions of study
The study shows that as domestic PV generation first arises in significant volumes in an area it may
be advisable to consider service de-looping prior to mains reinforcement, as it is cheaper, less
disruptive, and more effective for a small cluster than mains reinforcement and will be required
anyway if the cluster size grows.
 Actual quotation and correspondence with developer
In this example the reinforcement of mains and de-looping of services, combined with the voltage
reduction, produced an acceptable result for the full original request, and in fact allowed slightly
more than requested with 3.7kW being possible at 29 of the 38 properties, and 2.9kW at the
remainder giving 133.4kW. In total 19 services out of 38 were de-looped to allow this.
The cost for this was £48,440, all of which falls to the customer at present as there is no
apportionment for voltage rise rectification.
It was rejected by the developer as too expensive.
The developer asked us to advise what could be installed with no reinforcement costs for them.
Again we assumed a 1% LV busbar voltage reduction. The voltage studies showed that 8 installations
at 3.7kW and 18 at 2.9kW could be installed, a total of 81.8kW. This is around 65% of the original
request. We believe is acceptable to the developer although we are yet to receive an acceptance or
rejection.
A copy of the actual final solution is shown in red on the mains records on figure 5. This was taken
direct from the working file for scheme ENQ5246395, and the blue annotations show workings to try
and develop a minimalist reinforcement option. Clearly in this example, there is a latent demand for
significantly more generation and it would be released if the reinforcement costs were socialised.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 44 of 77


Annex 4.1: Business-plan sensitivities

0 LV bus bars 1 11x0.3 KW 2 34x-0.54 KW 3 x0.3 KW 9 2x-3.4 KW 10


-8.70% 55 Amps 0.01 Ω -8.70% 55 Amps 0.04 Ω -9.29% 54 Amps 0.11 Ω -10.33% 29 Amps 0.16 Ω -11% 29 Amps 0.18 Ω -11.11%

16x0.3 KW 4 26x0.3 KW 5
17 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.35% 12 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.34%

7x-0.86 KW 6 10x-1.29 KW 7 6x0.3 KW 8


38 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.40% 28 Amps 0.11 Ω -9.47% 2 Amps 0.12 Ω -9.46%

x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.66% 10 Amps 0.16 Ω -9.68%

Monday Feb 10 2014


LV Volts Drop Calculator Instructions

Project No. Enter No. Substation: Enter Substation Comments


Project Title Voltage reduction only Main: Enter Main
Notes: Design ADMD 0.3 kW
Busbar Voltage 433/ 250
Nominal Voltage 398/ 230 Limits:- +10% -6%
Show Low Show ELZ
Source Impedance 0.003 +j0.011 R&X
Volts

Section Houses (Loads) Distribution End Node Voltages Worst


Initial End of
Start Finish ADMD Terminal Section Section Section Section
Notes Node Node (KW) Number PF Red Yellow Blue Houses Length Cable Type Current Rating Red Yellow Blue V.Rise End of Section ELZ
0 1 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 114 LV bus bars 56 2000 250.0 250.0 250.0 -8.70% 0.01 Ω
1 2 0.3 11 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 103 110 0.2 CU 56 345 250.5 251.4 250.2 -9.28% 0.04 Ω
2 3 -0.54 34 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 2 135 AL - 120 WAVE 54 255 250.6 253.8 250.1 -10.33% 0.11 Ω
2 4 0.3 16 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 51 130 0.2 CU 17 345 251.2 251.5 250.1 -9.35% 0.08 Ω
4 5 0.3 26 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 55 0.2 CU 13 345 251.1 251.5 250.1 -9.33% 0.10 Ω
4 6 -0.86 7 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 18 35 AL - 120 WAVE 38 255 251.6 251.6 250.2 -9.40% 0.10 Ω
6 7 -1.29 10 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 8 25 AL - 120 WAVE 28 255 251.8 251.6 250.2 -9.46% 0.11 Ω
7 8 0.3 6 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 20 AL - 120 WAVE 3 255 251.8 251.6 250.2 -9.46% 0.12 Ω
3 9 0.3 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 30 35 CONC 30 140 250.2 255.3 249.7 -11.00% 0.16 Ω
3.7kW @18 & 20Foster Sq 9 10 -3.4 2 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 10 35 CONC 30 140 250.1 255.5 249.7 -11.11% 0.18 Ω
7 11 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 25 35 CONC 10 140 252.2 251.5 250.1 -9.65% 0.15 Ω
1x2.9 @ 23 Lonsdale Close 11 12 -1.15 2 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 5 35 CONC 10 140 252.2 251.5 250.1 -9.67% 0.16 Ω
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
Total Connected 114 10.5874 13.989 6.59761 Total Phase Load: 31.2 kVA Max V.Rise -11.11%

Figure 1: 18 & 20 Foster Sq. - Voltage Reduction Only


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

0 LV bus bars 1 11x0.3 KW 2 34x-0.54 KW 3 x0.3 KW 9 2x-3.4 KW 10


-8.70% 55 Amps 0.01 Ω -8.70% 55 Amps 0.04 Ω -9.21% 54 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.74% 29 Amps 0.13 Ω -10.41% 29 Amps 0.15 Ω -10.52%

16x0.3 KW 4 26x0.3 KW 5
17 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.26% 12 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.25%

7x-0.86 KW 6 10x-1.29 KW 7 6x0.3 KW 8


38 Amps 0.09 Ω -9.29% 28 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.30% 2 Amps 0.11 Ω -9.30%

x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.14 Ω -9.37% 10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.38%

Project No. Enter No. Substation: Enter Substation Comments


Project Title VR & Mains Reinforced Only Main: Enter Main
Notes: Design ADMD 0.3 kW
Busbar Voltage 433/ 250
Nominal Voltage 398/ 230 Limits:- +10% -6%
Show Low Show ELZ
Source Impedance 0.003 +j0.011 R&X
Volts

Section Houses (Loads) Distribution End Node Voltages Worst


Initial End of
Start Finish ADMD Terminal Section Section Section Section
Notes Node Node (KW) Number PF Red Yellow Blue Houses Length Cable Type Current Rating Red Yellow Blue V.Rise End of Section ELZ
0 1 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 114 LV bus bars 56 2000 250.0 250.0 250.0 -8.70% 0.01 Ω
1 2 0.3 11 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 103 110 AL/CU 300 WAVE 56 465 250.3 251.2 250.0 -9.20% 0.04 Ω
2 3 -0.54 34 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 2 135 AL/CU 300 WAVE 54 465 249.9 252.4 250.1 -9.74% 0.08 Ω
2 4 0.3 16 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 51 130 AL/CU 300 WAVE 17 465 250.8 251.3 249.9 -9.26% 0.08 Ω
4 5 0.3 26 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 55 AL/CU 300 WAVE 13 465 250.8 251.3 249.9 -9.24% 0.10 Ω
4 6 -0.86 7 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 18 35 AL/CU 300 WAVE 38 465 251.0 251.4 249.9 -9.29% 0.09 Ω
6 7 -1.29 10 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 8 25 AL/CU 300 WAVE 28 465 251.1 251.4 249.8 -9.29% 0.10 Ω
7 8 0.3 6 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 20 AL/CU 300 WAVE 3 465 251.1 251.4 249.8 -9.29% 0.11 Ω
3 9 0.3 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 30 35 CONC 30 140 249.5 253.9 249.8 -10.41% 0.13 Ω
3.7kW @ 18 & 20 Foster Sq 9 10 -3.4 2 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 10 35 CONC 30 140 249.4 254.2 249.7 -10.52% 0.15 Ω
7 11 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 25 35 CONC 10 140 251.5 251.3 249.7 -9.36% 0.14 Ω
1x2.9 @ 23 Lonsdale Close 11 12 -1.15 2 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 5 35 CONC 10 140 251.6 251.3 249.7 -9.38% 0.15 Ω
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
Total Connected 114 10.5874 13.989 6.59761 Total Phase Load: 31.2 kVA Max V.Rise -10.52%

Figure 2: 18 & 20 Foster Sq. - Voltage Reduction and Mains Reinforcement

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 46 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

0 LV bus bars 1 11x0.3 KW 2 34x-0.54 KW 3 x0.3 KW 9 1x-3.4 KW 10


-8.70% 42 Amps 0.01 Ω -8.70% 42 Amps 0.04 Ω -9.02% 39 Amps 0.11 Ω -9.49% 14 Amps 0.16 Ω -9.74% 14 Amps 0.18 Ω -9.78%

1x-3.4 KW 13
14 Amps 0.18 Ω -9.80%

16x0.3 KW 4 26x0.3 KW 5
17 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.29% 12 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.26%

7x-0.86 KW 6 10x-1.29 KW 7 6x0.3 KW 8


38 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.47% 28 Amps 0.11 Ω -9.55% 2 Amps 0.12 Ω -9.55%

x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.74% 10 Amps 0.16 Ω -9.76%

Project No. Enter No. Substation: Enter Substation Comments


Project Title VR & 18 & 20 Foster Sq De-looped - No Mains reinforcement Main: Enter Main
Notes: Design ADMD 0.3 kW
Busbar Voltage 433/ 250
Nominal Voltage 398/ 230 Limits:- +10% -6%
Show Low Show ELZ
Source Impedance 0.003 +j0.011 R&X
Volts

Section Houses (Loads) Distribution End Node Voltages Worst


Initial End of
Start Finish ADMD Terminal Section Section Section Section
Notes Node Node (KW) Number PF Red Yellow Blue Houses Length Cable Type Current Rating Red Yellow Blue V.Rise End of Section ELZ
0 1 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 114 LV bus bars 42 2000 250.0 250.0 250.0 -8.70% 0.01 Ω
1 2 0.3 11 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 103 110 0.2 CU 42 345 250.7 250.7 250.7 -9.01% 0.04 Ω
2 3 -0.54 34 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 2 135 AL - 120 WAVE 40 255 250.8 251.8 251.8 -9.48% 0.11 Ω
2 4 0.3 16 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 51 130 0.2 CU 17 345 251.4 250.8 250.6 -9.28% 0.08 Ω
4 5 0.3 26 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 55 0.2 CU 13 345 251.3 250.8 250.6 -9.26% 0.10 Ω
4 6 -0.86 7 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 18 35 AL - 120 WAVE 38 255 251.8 250.9 250.7 -9.47% 0.10 Ω
6 7 -1.29 10 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 8 25 AL - 120 WAVE 28 255 252.0 250.9 250.7 -9.55% 0.11 Ω
7 8 0.3 6 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 20 AL - 120 WAVE 3 255 251.9 250.9 250.7 -9.54% 0.12 Ω
3 9 0.3 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 30 35 CONC 15 140 250.5 252.4 252.4 -9.74% 0.16 Ω
3.7kW @18 Foster Sq 9 10 -3.4 1 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 10 35 CONC 15 140 250.4 252.5 252.4 -9.78% 0.18 Ω
7 11 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 25 35 CONC 10 140 252.4 250.8 250.6 -9.73% 0.15 Ω
1x2.9 @ 23 Lonsdale Close 11 12 -1.15 2 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 5 35 CONC 10 140 252.4 250.8 250.6 -9.75% 0.16 Ω
3.7kW @ 20 Foster Sq 9 13 -3.4 1 1 100.0% 0 10 35 CONC 15 140 250.4 252.3 252.5 -9.79% 0.18 Ω
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
Total Connected 114 10.5874 10.293 10.2933 Total Phase Load: 31.2 kVA Max V.Rise -9.79%

Figure 3: 18 & 20 Foster Sq. - Voltage Reduction and Service De-looping at 18 & 20 Foster Sq.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 47 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

0 LV bus bars 1 11x0.3 KW 2 34x-0.54 KW 3 x0.3 KW 9 1x-3.4 KW 10


-8.70% 42 Amps 0.01 Ω -8.70% 42 Amps 0.04 Ω -8.93% 39 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.17% 14 Amps 0.13 Ω -9.43% 14 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.41%

1x-3.4 KW 13
14 Amps 0.13 Ω -9.43%

16x0.3 KW 4 26x0.3 KW 5
17 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.16% 12 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.14%

7x-0.86 KW 6 10x-1.29 KW 7 6x0.3 KW 8


38 Amps 0.09 Ω -9.25% 28 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.29% 2 Amps 0.11 Ω -9.29%

x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.14 Ω -9.48% 10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.50%

Project No. Enter No. Substation: Enter Substation Comments


Project Title VR & 18 & 20 Foster Sq De-looped, Mains reinforced Main: Enter Main
Notes: Design ADMD 0.3 kW
Busbar Voltage 433/ 250
Nominal Voltage 398/ 230 Limits:- +10% -6%
Show Low Show ELZ
Source Impedance 0.003 +j0.011 R&X
Volts

Section Houses (Loads) Distribution End Node Voltages Worst


Initial End of
Start Finish ADMD Terminal Section Section Section Section
Notes Node Node (KW) Number PF Red Yellow Blue Houses Length Cable Type Current Rating Red Yellow Blue V.Rise End of Section ELZ
0 1 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 114 LV bus bars 42 2000 250.0 250.0 250.0 -8.70% 0.01 Ω
1 2 0.3 11 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 103 110 AL/CU 300 WAVE 42 465 250.5 250.5 250.4 -8.92% 0.04 Ω
2 3 -0.54 34 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 2 135 AL/CU 300 WAVE 40 465 250.5 250.8 251.1 -9.16% 0.08 Ω
2 4 0.3 16 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 51 130 AL/CU 300 WAVE 17 465 251.1 250.6 250.3 -9.16% 0.08 Ω
4 5 0.3 26 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 55 AL/CU 300 WAVE 13 465 251.0 250.6 250.3 -9.14% 0.10 Ω
4 6 -0.86 7 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 18 35 AL/CU 300 WAVE 38 465 251.3 250.7 250.3 -9.24% 0.09 Ω
6 7 -1.29 10 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 8 25 AL/CU 300 WAVE 28 465 251.4 250.7 250.3 -9.28% 0.10 Ω
7 8 0.3 6 1 38.0% 31.0% 31.0% 0 20 AL/CU 300 WAVE 3 465 251.4 250.7 250.3 -9.28% 0.11 Ω
3 9 0.3 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 30 35 CONC 15 140 250.1 251.4 251.7 -9.42% 0.13 Ω
3.7kW @ 18 Foster Sq 9 10 -3.4 1 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 10 35 CONC 15 140 250.0 251.5 251.6 -9.41% 0.15 Ω
7 11 1 100.0% 0.0% 2 25 35 CONC 10 140 251.8 250.6 250.2 -9.47% 0.14 Ω
1x2.9 @ 23 Lonsdale Close 11 12 -1.15 2 1 100.0% 0.0% 0 5 35 CONC 10 140 251.8 250.6 250.1 -9.49% 0.15 Ω
3.7kW @ 20 Foster Sq 9 13 -3.4 1 1 100.0% 0 35 CONC 15 140 250.1 251.4 251.7 -9.42% 0.13 Ω
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
100.0% 0
Total Connected 114 10.5874 10.293 10.2933 Total Phase Load: 31.2 kVA Max V.Rise -9.49%

Figure 4: 18 & 20 Foster Sq. - Voltage Reduction, Mains Reinforcement and Service De-looping at 18 & 20 Foster Sq.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 48 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Figure 5: Mains record from working file showing in red the acceptable generation without reinforcement

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 49 of 77


Annex 4.1: Business-plan sensitivities

Appendix 4 – Smarter network engineering strategy

1 Introduction
This appendix sets out the detailed engineering strategy we will deploy to continue to smarten the
network which will underpin the enabling investment proposed in our plan. In that sense it defines a
technological blueprint in support of the plan outlined in the main body of this annex.
Smarter networks can be considered to be adding layers of smartness over existing assets. The
fundamentals of transformers, switchgear, lines and cables are unlikely to change. This is akin to
fitting traffic lights to a roundabout to smooth the traffic flow.
These layers of smartness can be viewed in terms of C3I (command and control, communications and
intelligence), where we aim to:
 Gain greater visibility of network and asset conditions (intelligence);
 Make decisions based on that intelligence (command and control); and
 Establish communications links to join everything up.
This appendix focusses upon C3I for the purposes of managing normal fundamental frequency power
flows (i.e. excluding fault current and harmonics etc.) across the network, and therefore discusses
the provision of:
 Additional command and control facilities for active power flow management;
 Monitoring to inform power flow management (PFM), both passive (i.e. smarter design) and
real-time active network management (ANM) (e.g. CLNR); and
 The communications between these devices.
This appendix excludes smartness for reliability, so it does not cover in any detail:
 Enhancements to safety and switching control processes and systems, e.g. full automation
through ENMAC V5 (PowerOn Fusion);
 Monitoring and communications for outage management e.g. Remote Indicating Fault
Passage Indicators (RIFPIs) and
 Deliberate islanding.
This appendix also excludes:
 Pure protection, both relays and comms channels;
 The details of new design tools19; and
 Detailed consideration of condition monitoring, e.g. I2t or Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA.) It is
assumed here that such monitoring will use the same tertiary SCADA platform that will be
discussed in the body of this paper.
This appendix leans heavily on experience to date of CLNR, and also other LCNF projects.

19
It is assumed here that in future we will have a new design tool capable of undertaking load flows, fault level studies, reliability studies
and stability studies from 400V to 275kV
Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

1.1 Definitions
This section will refer to:
 PFM – power flow management
 ANM – active network management: a subset of PFM that occurs on-line in real time
 BAU – business as usual
 C3I - command and control, communications and intelligence
 Mains networks – the lines and plant that carry the power that flows to and from customers
 Communications networks – the assets that carry information
 Distribution networks – the combination of mains networks, communications networks, and
other assets (protection, control, etc.) that form an holistic system to deliver a service to our
customers
 Subsystem – a part of the distribution network, generally fed from a single source, that is
placed under the control of an ANM device
 Primary, secondary and tertiary SCADA
 DNO – distribution network operator
 DSO – distribution system operator
 DSR – demand side response
 DCC – the Data Communications Company established to manage smart meter data
 CSP – the communications service provider(s) subcontracted to DCC
 RTU – remote terminal unit
 CLNR – Customer led network revolution project
 LCNF – Low carbon network fund
 NPADDs – Network planning and design decision support tool developed as part of CLNR
 PMARCB – Pole mounted auto-reclosing circuit breaker
 LDC – Line drop compensation: a form of voltage control
 OLTC – On-line tap changer
 Dispersed energy resource – here, storage, generation and DSR remote from substations
 Last mile – what it says on the tin, i.e. the final communications link to the most remote
device. This will take many forms, including scanning UHF to/from primary substations, mid-
band VHF to PMARCBs, or GPRS from tertiary monitoring
 Backhaul – the spine communications network that supports the base stations/access points
for last mile solutions

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 51 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

1.2 Command and Control


This section addresses the cost-effective management of voltage and thermal constraints. The tools
we can use for this challenge include:
 transformer tapping range, for both on-load and off-load tap-changers;
 increasing the use of regulators from 20kV down to 400V;
 on-load tap-changers at secondary substations;
 static compensators and energy storage;
 DSR; and
 Use of actuators for load transfer (as well as restoration).
The first stage of a smarter network is site-specific deployment of these smarter solutions as the
need arises. More holistic solutions, delivered by deploying further layers of intelligence and
command to those solutions, can reap further benefits. CLNR and other trials will inform the
assessment of the benefits of increasing smartness.
This appendix will not assess the costs and benefits of individual solutions, nor how many of each
solution might be required. That analysis accompanies the Transform model. Instead, this appendix
describes how individual solutions fit into a wider view of a smarter network, to help define the
control and communications solutions which are within the scope of this appendix.

1.2.1 Command
To maximise the benefits of the site-specific solutions described in the preceding section, we need a
holistic ANM solution. This allows multiple solutions to address one issue, and one solution to
address multiple issues. This is the core of CLNR, which will inform this debate. Other projects
undertaken by network companies will of course also be relevant so we will continue to actively
engage with them and monitor their development.
In the CLNR architecture, there is a hierarchy of command provision:
 Individual devices (e.g. voltage control relays);
 Autonomous substation controller, i.e. a smart RTU that can take decisions relating to an
individual substation. For example, it can calculate thermal headroom on a transformer and
despatch on-site energy storage to reduce the load;
 Wide-area controller. This will look at a subsystem, i.e. a small handful of primaries, and
create visibility of the 20kV and 400V networks beneath them. This will permit:

- Optimal settings of voltage control devices based on the voltage delivered to customers
across the subsystem;

- Despatch of storage or demand-side response based on voltage and thermal headroom


across the subsystem; and then
 (Theoretically) a whole-network controller.
This hierarchal philosophy can be applied to both incremental and top-down approaches to smart
grids (using WS3 language) as the technology is scalable in either direction.
This holistic ANM solution allows multiple solutions to address one issue, and one solution to
address multiple issues, which releases the true potential of the control devices installed.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 52 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

The case for selective application of ANM is driven by concerns over capacity on that part of the
network. First, we have to create the platform and understand its use. Then, as the need arises, we
can roll a full C3I suite out site by site.
The CLNR architecture is founded on a SCADA platform with DSSE. The first stage of developing the
ANM platform is therefore to roll out DSSE, with upgraded monitoring, which will increase visibility
and better identify network constraints and capability. When required, we can then deploy the
optimal power flow routine of the CLNR solution, to derive new set-points for the control devices on
the actively-managed subsystem.
We need to continue to develop this platform, for example
 Smarter ways to manage network reconfiguration, particularly at LV;
 Real and reactive power dispatch from customer generation; and
 More extensive feeder mid-point monitoring.
There will, therefore, be on-going development costs throughout ED1 as well as deployment as we
actively manage additional subsystems.
Other ANM solutions exist, such as the SGS offerings. There is also the potential to deploy DSSE and
an optimal power flow engine on the GE PowerOn Fusion NMS platform. Moving to either of these
would require additional investment although, as the deployment is currently by subsystem,
however different approaches can be applied in different places.

1.2.2 Control
1.2.2.1 Voltage Control
Increasing the use of regulators from 20kV down to 400V, and on-load tap-changers at secondary
substations
These solutions are similar in effect and implementation, and so will be taken together. To illustrate
the point, the 33/LV transformers on the Kielder-Spadeadam line each have an LV regulator
immediately after the transformer, performing the same function as an OLTC on those transformers.
Transformers and regulators perform two functions, specifically to tune out:
 Variations in the incoming supply; and
 Some of the load swing due to flows across the outgoing network itself, for example by
applying simple line-drop compensation settings
The former often has the greater effect, which is why our existing network functions efficiently
without line-drop compensation.
Examining these two functions defines where these solutions could be deployed, specifically where
there are no thermal constraints, and either:
 The voltage swing on the LV networks fed from substations along the HV feeder is so great
that mid-point control is required. This can apply either to voltage rise or voltage drop (in
general, the issue is the swing from highest to lowest voltage, as the average level can be
tuned out by tap-changer settings). If several substations are affected, a voltage regulator
can be more efficient than OLTCs at each substation; or
 The voltage swing along the feeder affects only a few substations, in which case OLTC at
those substations may become more economic than a regulator; or

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 53 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 The voltage swing on the LV network is so great that some form of line-drop compensation
can release capacity. The voltage control functionality of the CLNR solution can be
considered as advanced line-drop compensation, realised by states estimation of the
downstream network. Its key advantage over conventional solutions is in managing voltage
on parallel feeders with different daily load profiles, where LDC effectively models the
network as a single homogenous feeder20.
Analysing smart data can help quantify the need for additional voltage control, as can state
estimation.
The CLNR wide-area control scheme can optimise the operation of any transformer with OLTC: that
project will illuminate the benefits of the wider view, for example by analysing the number of target
voltage set-point changes issued, which illustrates the influence of the wide-area controller
compared to autonomous operation.

Static compensators

Static compensators allow the controlled dispatch of reactive power.


The existing network generally runs at a good power factor, so the benefits of reactive compensation
are limited. However, if we move to a more meshed network with more generation, power factors
are likely to decline. We may even find that, as increased amounts of underground cable are
connected to rural networks, there is an issue with excess VArs rather than a shortage thereof.
In either case, there is likely to be merit in selective deployment of static compensators to improve
power factor as an alternative to conventional reinforcement, and in competition with trading
reactive power with customers.

1.2.2.2 Power flow control


Energy storage

Energy storage can be thought of as a static compensator plus a battery, allowing the dispatch of
real as well as reactive power. As part of the upgrade path, we can expect to see installations where
the reactive power capability is significantly greater than the effective real power capability.
The real power capability will be limited by the batteries. Existing customer behaviour generally
shows a three-hour peak of demand on winter early evenings. This peak has a load factor of around
two-thirds, so trimming a 1MW peak requires 2MWh over 3 hours. The CLNR units are all sized to
deliver real power equivalent to full inverter capability which we will fully exploit during the trials.
While real power despatch can be slaved to local thermal constraint monitoring, relieving remote
constraints requires a wide-area control scheme like CLNR. As we have seen with the capacitor
banks out on the Denwick network, reactive power despatch affects the upstream network, so its
efficient management requires a wide area control scheme.

Demand side response

As previously noted, there is real scope for DSR to contribute to the effective operation of the local
network. At present, this is dominated by turning generators off under first circuit outage and similar

20
Feeders can be excluded from the LDC modelling, but there remains only a single power flow that is measured.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 54 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

overload conditions. As we evolve from DNO to DSO, this will likely expand to balancing generation
and load to manage local network constraints.
We need something to drive DSR. Simple schemes can be slaved to a single thermal constraint, e.g. a
pair of primary transformers. As industrial/commercial DSR is generally connected at HV, it can be
used to relieve voltage and thermal constraints at both HV and 33-132kV. To achieve this requires a
wide-area control scheme like CLNR.

Load transfers

We will evaluate the use of load transfers as a response to potential thermal overload. For example,
we might move from relying on one 66/20kV transformer of a pair at a primary to relying on three
transformers out of four at two primaries fed from independent sources, then configuring the
network to avoid overload immediately after an outage affecting one transformer.
We might have two pairs of 24MVA transformers, each pair originally supplying a 24MVA demand
group (48MVA total). Load growth means that these two pairs now supply an aggregate demand of
72MVA. If normal conditions share this load evenly, a transformer outage at peak demand throws
36MVA onto a 24MVA transformer. Relying on the thermal inertia of that transformer to give us
time to act, we can use remote control to move 12MVA across to the intact pair. Each transformer
would then be within rating, and customers need not be interrupted.
We would need to develop new processes to command such actions, which can be considered part
of the on-going development of the command system. To give that system something to command,
we need to create the capability to transfer load around the network.
There is already a restricted programme of retro-fitting actuators to ground-mounted HV switches,
to enable network reconfiguration to restore supplies after fault. Our technical standard requires all
new switches to be ready for simple retro-fit. If all new switches comply with the standard, then we
can readily create the capability to transfer load as the need arises.
It is easy to imagine a future network in which all ground-mounted HV switches are fitted with
remote control. There is a case to be made to advance this incremental investment, as the
difference in the present value of cost of investing early may be offset by the additional Quality of
Service (QoS) benefit.

1.3 Intelligence

1.3.1 Smart Meters


This section discusses strategic options for how we might use such data, but not tactical decisions on
the tools and other IS investment we’d need to deliver that strategy.

1.3.1.1 Access to smart meter data


The various ways in which customers are metered includes:
 No meter, typically street furniture. These account for around 2% of peak demand;
 Fully-compliant smart meters, with all reasonable network requirements available via the
Data Communications Company (DCC);

- Other smart meters, e.g.:


 Non-domestic customers without DCC connectivity;

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 55 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Early install non-compliant meters


 Advanced meters for medium-sized business, between smart and half-hourly. The
boundaries are not precisely defined21, but are approximately maximum demands above
50kW (below which lies smart metering) and below 80kW (above which lies elective half-
hourly metering).
These devices are capable of remote recovery of half-hourly data, although very few have been
configured to do so (and those that have can be considered as elective half-hourly). Otherwise, they
have none of the functionality of smart meters.
Ofgem have recently issued a statement on requirements for these customers, but Half-hourly
settlement has not yet been definitely mandated. So there is no guarantee that we will receive
anything but annual consumption data for these customers.
 Conventional half-hourly meters, both elective and mandatory. Any customer who imports
more than 100kW, or exports (and wishes to be paid for) more than 30kW, must have half-
hourly metering for the relevant power flow. There is also a body of customers with elective
half-hourly metering, generally operations with multiple sites: for example, telephone
exchanges are generally half-hourly metered, even though their maximum demand is only a
few kilowatts, and they would otherwise qualify for non-domestic smart metering.
It can be seen that we have deployed the most sophisticated metering for the group of customers
with the lowest individual consumption (if we exclude unmetered supplies).
If we assume that all domestic customers, including those who benefited from smart meters in the
foundation stage, are migrated to fully-compliant smart meters, this covers around 90% 22 of
premises and nearly 50%23 of diversified maximum demand.
At the other end of the scale, customers with conventional half-hourly metering account for less
than 1%24 of premises yet around 30%25 of diversified maximum demand.
This leaves a gap for small and medium business, accounting for around 9% of premises and 20% of
diversified maximum demand. We cannot yet rely on getting even half-hourly information for these
customers. At best, we might get the additional functions of non-domestic smart meters if suppliers
are compelled to use DCC or grant equivalent access at similar costs: this would reduce the gap to
less than 2%26 of premises and 5-10%27 of diversified maximum demand.
To close the gap completely, and gain full coverage with half-hourly metering, we not only need
suppliers to be compelled to use DCC (or grant equivalent access at similar costs) to non-domestic

21
The absolute upper bound is the 100kW mandatory half-hour limit, but there are many customers with demands less than 100kW
whose consumption is settled half-hourly. The lower bound is where meters no longer have a maximum demand register, but there is no
defined point at which such a register is required. Generally, CT (as opposed to whole current) meters do have maximum demand
registers, so anything about or above the limit of whole current metering (generally 100A/phase) will require advanced metering.
22
From the connectivity model, 91% of live MPANs in NPG-N are profile classes 1 & 2.
23
The CDCM models for both NPgN and NPgY for 2011/12 and 2012/13 reckon that customers on PC 1 & 2 contribute around 48% of
diversified system maximum demand.
24
From the connectivity model, 0.4% of live MPANs in NPgN are profile class 0
25
The various CDCM models for NPG-N and NPgY for 2011/12 and 2012/13 reckon that customers on PC 0 contribute 30-33% of diversified
system maximum demand.
26
From the connectivity model, 1.7% of live MPANs in NPgN are profile classes 5-8, i.e. advanced metering.
27
There is a marked difference between Yorkshire and the Northeast here, likely due to legacy commercial policies. From the CDCM
models for 2011/12 and 2012/13, customers on profile classes 5-8 contribute 8-9% of diversified system maximum demand in the
Northeast, yet only 5% in Yorkshire.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 56 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

smart meters. We also need suppliers to be compelled to use the facilities of the advanced meters
they have installed and move them to full half-hourly settlement.

1.3.1.2 Use of smart meter data


Meanwhile, there are still significant benefits to be gained from using smart meter data for smarter
networks, specifically:
 50%28 of LV feeders are dominated by domestic customers, so we should be able to use
smart meter data better to understand power flows on that part of the network, for
example to inform detailed off-line load flow modelling. This rises to 80%29 if we have full
access to non-domestic smart meters;
 Taking spot checks of voltage, to calibrate the network models used for on- and off-line
analysis, requires only a scattering of measurement points;
 Helping us to understand how best to measure actual electrical losses on the network, which
has until now not been a cost-effective proposition. As part of that work we will explore the
impact of low carbon technologies on losses on low voltage networks, allowing us to
improve our ability to reduce network losses more effectively over the long term; and
 There is a range of customer service benefits from alarms from smart meters, which will not
be explored in detail in this paper.
First pass analysis
For smarter network planning, of which load indices are a by-product, we have a few options for
taking an initial view of load profiles on each LV feeder and on each secondary substation. The first
step is to take layers of data (e.g. broad customer type, or total annual consumption), and apply
simple coefficients to estimate the load profile for the customers on the feeder/substation. Such
coefficients would be informed by CLNR, WPD’s network templates project, and other similar
investigations.
These load profiles can simply be aggregated, creating a load index, or used in DEBUT-like power
flow modelling. These tools can, in turn, be used either to: shortlist areas for detailed investigation,
which may include fitting monitoring; define spare capacity; define the likely envelope of
investment, subject to more detailed investigation; or specific connection design.
Second pass analysis
The question which then arises is determining the benefit of:
 Recovering smart meter data, at least for the 50-80% of LV feeders dominated by customers
whose data we can access; or
 Network monitoring for some selection of secondary substations, perhaps including discrete
monitoring of LV feeder ways.
Assuming that we have already installed more accurate monitoring at primary substations and
strategic secondary substations, the benefit of either option comes from a better view of:
 Distribution of power flows along the HV feeder, which affects:

- Voltage drop/rise; and

28
From the connectivity model, 53% of LV feeders in NPG-N have 90% or more of customers on PC1-2
29
From the connectivity model, 82% of LV feeders in NPG-N have 90% or more of customers on PC1-4

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 57 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

- Thermal overload on tapered networks (which is rarely an issue in practice at HV);


 The load on individual secondary transformers;
 Distribution of power flows between and along the LV feeder, which affects:

- Voltage drop/rise; and

- Thermal overload on tapered networks;


So long as we don’t have access to non-domestic half-hourly data, network monitoring at secondary
substations will always be more accurate than using customer metering data, although it comes at a
cost.
LV feeder volt drop assessment does require an understanding of power flows at individual
customers, so it is likely that we can efficiently use both customer data and substation network
monitoring, each suited to different purposes that contribute to the overall service to customers.
It is therefore assumed here that we will both need a data warehouse to pre-process and store
smart metering data; and network monitoring at substations. Similar projects suggest the former
would cost around £1m.
To specify the data warehouse, we’ll need to understand how to use smart meter data, addressing
the issues noted in this section, as well as concerns over data privacy and the constraint in the meter
spec’ which mean that each device holds only three months’ four-quadrant data. This will build on
CLNR and other LCNF projects, with estimate of £1m.
Profiles
There is limited benefit in using smart metering data for statistical analysis to improve standard load
profiles. As we move to a lower-carbon economy, the concept of allocating standard load profiles
becomes less helpful, as customer behaviour becomes more heterogeneous. Therefore, we’ll need
to use actual profiles where margins appear to be reduced.
A limited amount of on-going research and development would be required here, to monitor and
refine the profiles we use, to develop tools accurately to allocate such profiles as customer
behaviour becomes more complex, and to understand the rate at which reality diverges from simple
models.
Synergies with the Communications Service Provider
These will be explored in later sections dealing with potential communications solutions.

1.3.2 Modelling and state estimation


Better management of the distribution network requires better visibility of how it’s performing. The
objectives laid out for this annex are to manage voltage and thermal constraints, which is therefore
where this section will focus.
The process for visualising network conditions is slightly counter-intuitive, as we measure current to
manage voltage out on the network30. Specifically, we measure or estimate power flow and then
model the voltage swing. This gives us full visibility of the network, which measuring voltage at a
single point cannot. On a complex network, there is no unique solution for how the power flow is
distributed along the feeder while giving the same measured voltage.

30
We need to measure source voltage, to define the start point, but the profile from there on out is better determined by measuring
power flow.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 58 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

This is the same approach used for all existing network modelling tools in all distributors, as well as
the state estimation referred to in the SGF WS3 work and deployed in CLNR.
As we’re running power flow models, we also gain visibility of thermal loading in the same analysis
that gives us visibility of voltages. One process allows us to manage both the voltage and thermal
issues that are the objective of this paper. We also gain visibility of the whole network although
measuring at only a few points.
This approach increases our tolerance to measurement error. ESQCR limits voltage swing to around
16%, which equates in practice to a design limit of 10% swing at HV. A 5% error on current/power is
tolerable, as it leads to a voltage error of 0.5%, whereas a 5% error on voltage renders the
measurement worthless, as it consumes half the available swing.

1.3.2.1 Measurement
This section will address measurement at:
 Primary substations;
 High-voltage feeder mid-points;
 Secondary substations;
 Low-voltage feeders
 thermal monitoring; and
 Additional requirements for active network management.
1% accuracy is reasonably achievable and will be used as the benchmark here. It is consistent with
the confidence with which we can model the network and forecast near future demands. As noted
above, using state estimation requires voltage and power flow at source, then power flow along the
route.
Primary substations
The fundamental quantities required are:
 For primary transformers, to evaluate available voltage headroom and to provide a start
point for voltage drop calculations on the HV network:

- Tap position

- Output voltage
 Real and reactive power (P & Q) for

- The transformer cable loop at primary substations, to:


 Model the 66kV network, including assessing the network’s capability to absorb
generation;
 Validate measured feeder flows;

- Outgoing feeder ways (to inform load flow calculations on the 11/20kV network).
This can be satisfied by bringing all voltage control relays to the most modern standard, as it allows
V, P, Q and tap position to be brought out over serial link. These functions are an absolute
requirement to be able accurately to assess the capability of the substation to accept generation.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 59 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

It also seems reasonable to extend such a programme to the HV regulator sites, and to bring them
onto SCADA. This improves visibility for both conventional operations and ANM. It also allows us to
roll out voltage reduction facilities further across the network.
Selective retrofit of P&Q transducers on outgoing feeders is a pre-requisite for effective Distribution
System State Estimation (DSSE), so is assumed here to be a site-specific fit.
For new build, modern relays can provide high accuracy data over a serial link (e.g. DNP3 over
RS485) without the need for intermediate devices. This is our current practice, so it’s a no-cost
option. The only additional requirement proposed here is to provide a voltage reference to each
panel to derive P&Q (rather than current alone) for outgoing feeders, the marginal costs of which
are negligible.
HV feeder mid-point
Network models can be further refined if additional measurements are taken out on the network. As
previously noted, we use source power flow to project current and voltage along the circuit for both
off- and on-line models. We can use measurements along that feeder to true up that modelling.
Options include:
 Expanding our set of strategic distribution sites, by fitting RTUs and feeder monitoring to key
switch stations; and
 Bringing back existing analogues from the NuLEC PMARCBs.
We cannot yet quantify the benefits, as we have not yet implemented such an approach to be able
to measure the improvement in modelling accuracy. We shall therefore as first step
 Assess the benefit of better monitoring at key switch stations under CLNR31; and
 Bring forward proposals to trial better monitoring on PMARCBs.
This will be done ahead of full scale rollout during ED1.
Secondary substation - transformer
As for HV feeder mid-point, we can refine models if additional measurements are taken at secondary
substations.
Measuring transformer current:
 aids management of the HV network (whether on- or off-line) by providing a better view of
the distribution of demand along a HV feeder;
 provides an overview of what may be happening on the local LV network;
 allows better assessment of transformer thermal loading, by describing the load curve rather
than peak load.
A viable alternative for the approx. 50% of substations dominated by domestic and non-domestic
customers with smart metering is to access smart metering data. However, once on-line real-time
data is required, a separate network monitoring solution will be required.
We cannot yet quantify the benefits, as we have not yet implemented such an approach to be able
to measure the improvement in modelling accuracy. We shall therefore bring forward proposals to
trial better monitoring on secondary transformers under LCNF or the ED-1 NIA32.

31
Hedgeley Moor Capacitor Sw and High Northgate are so equipped

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 60 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Secondary substation – feeder ways


We can also monitor individual outgoing feeder ways, to better inform management of the LV
network. While customer adoption of LCTs is patchy, individual feeder demands could differ
significantly from that for the substation as a whole.
A viable alternative for the approx. 70-75% of LV feeders dominated by domestic and non-domestic
customers with smart metering is to access smart metering data. However, once on-line real-time
data is required, a separate network monitoring solution will be required.
The case is currently hard to quantify, as we don’t have enough monitoring to identify errors in the
base models. Both CLNR and WPD’s network templates project will illuminate the issues.
Thermal monitoring
The capability of individual assets is generally limited by thermal considerations. This includes
damage to papers at the transformer host spot, or clearance infringement on overhead lines.
There are well-established models for calculating transformer hot spot that require only ambient
temperature and load current. The real-time application of such models is being trialled under CLNR.
A view of the thermal headroom of other choke-point assets could be derived from current flow and
ambient conditions and models similar to those described above, or provided by direct monitoring:
 direct measurement of OHL sag and conductor temperature being trialled under CLNR and
preceding projects;
 weather stations, plus thermal modelling at the primary. There will be some loss of accuracy
compared to direct measurement, not least in assuming that the weather at the primary is
the same as that out on site. This is offset by the potential cost saving of having a single
smart controller, and by the increase in robustness from not relying on communications links
(likely GPRS). Some of this is being trialled under CLNR.
Real-time monitoring adds value only once there is a control action we can take in response, which
will generally be storage, load transfer or DSR.
Additional requirements for active network management
Our current approach to ANM is that of CLNR. Here, we use a proprietary state estimation (DSSE)
engine, which is essentially load-flow modelling trued up by additional real-time monitoring. This
runs on a stand-alone Siemens SCADA platform to gain visibility of network conditions. The ANM
engine then takes decisions based upon that view of the network.
As the DSSE/ANM process is founded upon modelling the network, its requirements are identical to
those for passive power flow management, although:
 Obviously, real-time on-line rather than off-line data recovery is required;
 Generally, moving to five rather than thirty minute time resolution is appropriate for real
time management (although this is primarily a function of how we store the data, rather
than how we collect and communicate it);
 Understanding single-line diagram equivalents (e.g. R-B voltage and W current) rather than
all three phases is generally all that is required, as we generally control all three phases
together.

32
We are monitoring a small handful of secondary substations under CLNR, but these are intended to give visibility of the LVNs. We would
need to fit such monitoring to all the substations along an HV feeder to inform the HV load flow

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 61 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

CLNR will inform the judgement on:


 How much embedded monitoring is appropriate, proportional to cost;
 The required accuracy of embedded monitoring; and
 The likely improvement in modelling (and hence power flow management) accuracy.
Other ANM solutions exist, such as the SGS offerings. There is also the potential to deploy DSSE and
an optimal power flow engine on the GE PowerOn Fusion NMS platform. These will require the same
kind of information as the CLNR solution.

1.4 Communications
It is essential to distinguish between the function and the form of the operational communications
network.
The current network is fit for purpose, because it does what we ask of it, although on-going asset
replacement will be required to maintain that serviceability. However, as LCNF projects, including
CLNR, provide pointers to the shape of the future network, we will identify new communications
requirements.

1.4.1 Function
1.4.1.1 Current functions
 Core primary SCADA:

- Applied to primary, and some strategic distribution, substations (about 800 sites in
NPg). A notable exception is the regulator sites;

- Remote indication/control of circuit breakers;

- Basic voltage control (tap freeze and 3/6% target voltage reduction); and

- Key alarms and analogues.


 Secondary SCADA (5500 sites in NPg), i.e. rural and urban remote control, giving
indication/control of circuit breakers, teleswitches33 and actuators
 Tertiary monitoring

- Discrete pole-mounted remote-indicating fault passage indicators (2500 in NPg)34.

- G59 protection operation and battery fail35.

33
Around half the NuLEC PMARCBs installed have the protection disabled, and are operated solely as teleswitches
34
The ground-mounted FPIs perform a different role, as they are co-located with switching devices.
Secondary SCADA, i.e. remote control and automation, requires intelligence on the location of a fault and control of switching points to
isolate and re-energise. Broadly speaking, this requires fault indication at the switching points, as we need to know whether we need to
open the switch to isolate the fault. On ground-mounted plant, this requires the FPI to be co-located with actuator-equipped switches; on
pole-mounted plant, the reclosers will identify the fault because the first unit upstream will trip.
PM RIFPIs therefore do not assist in immediate restoration by remote/automatic switching. Instead, they assist the dispatch of line teams
by identifying the suspect section which needs to be patrolled.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 62 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

- Cable oil pressure


 Protection channels out of scope of this paper
 Operational voice communications out of scope of this paper

1.4.1.2 Current bandwidth


Current bandwidth/bit-rate requirements are very low:
 Primary SCADA requires about 100 bit/s per substation36; and
 The entire secondary SCADA communications for each licensee uses a single 12.5 kHz
channel, with basic conflict management.

1.4.2 Defining a functional specification for SMART


To define a functional specification for the communications network for a smarter distribution
system, we need to understand the uncertainties and make some planning assumptions. The
analysis here follows the earlier discussion of command and control options, so that the way we
might run the mains network defines what we might need from the communications network
(although an holistic analysis means that the communications network will sometimes constrain how
we run the mains network).

1.4.2.1 Use cases for scoping the specification


Three use cases (plus the obvious mix and match option) are presented here, which describe the
depth of smartness we may need. They are not the same as the SGF WS3/Transform scenarios,
which define the volumes of smart solutions we may require, but rather describe strategies for the
kind of smart solutions we may deploy.
The volume predictions in this discussion are not projections for how much we need to invest at
individual sites. Instead, they serve to size the platforms we may need to serve the populations
predicted.
Use case 1
The first use case creates few communications requirements above existing functionality. The key
change from existing practice is to deploy DSSE and OPF, but using power flows measured only at
major sites:
 Primary substation analogues upgraded better to inform NMS, ANM and network planning
e.g. 16-bit precision analogues, real and reactive power (initially on transformer loops,
expanding to outgoing feeders in stressed subsystems), tap position;
 Set of strategic secondary substations on primary SCADA expanded to cover regulators and
selected switch stations, at least in actively managed areas;
 Limited expansion of urban/rural remote control, i.e. no more than doubling current number
of sites;

35
This is one example of the need, as we introduce more SCADA, to be clear about what level of SCADA we need. Leaving aside protection
channels for DG connections, our communications provision for the fairly basic tertiary SCADA ranges from expensive private wire to
cheap and cheerful GPRS
36
The current set-up fits a dozen primaries (plus, in NPG-N, some virtual RTUs for the remote control) onto each 1200 bit/s line. As it scans
each site in turn, the available bandwidth and the number of sites define the effective scan rate. This slightly flexible approach is deemed
here to be equivalent to a bit rate of 100 bit/s per site.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 63 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 CLNR-like DSSE and OPF deployed in stressed subsystems;


 RTTR models run from data gathered at primary substations, rather than at the site of the
constraint, with de-rating applied appropriate to our confidence in this approach;
 HV/LV OLTC left to run autonomously:

- To tune variations in the incoming supply, which can account for a major part of the
voltage swing seen on the 400V network; and

- To tune out some of the load swing due to flows across the 400V network itself, by
applying simple line-drop compensation settings
 No significant dispersed energy resource, whether network storage or customer
load/generation, deployed
 Power flow data from monitoring PMARCBs and HV/LV substations37, and voltage data from
smart meters, used to true up network models off-line
 Non-critical tertiary SCADA more clearly defined, consisting of heartbeat and alarms only for
RIFPIs, OPCGs and G59/battery installations
 Therefore:

- primaries and an expanded set of strategic secondary sites (a few thousand in total)
need to be on ‘first tier’ resilient communications. Net bit-rate requirements will be
around twice current levels, because of enhanced analogues and IP overhead, say 200
bit/s per site for 2,000 sites (increased from current 800 for extension to strategic
secondaries);

- remote control bandwidth/net bit-rate requirements remain vanishingly low because of


reporting/control by exception, say 1.2 kbit/s across 2,000 sites per licensee;

- no communications required for power flow monitoring at PMARCBs or HV/LV


substations; and

- tertiary SCADA bit-rates vanishingly low, because of reporting by exception, and


resilience requirements by definition low. On the existing network, this is 2500 RIFPIs
and 100 OPCGs, where most of the traffic is a single heartbeat SMS message each week
Use case 2
The second use case increases the volume of remote control and, more demandingly, increases the
data available to DSSE. It also assumes growth in condition monitoring. Most of this data is not
critical to the daily operation of the distribution system, so this is more about tertiary SCADA than
primary or secondary. The changes to the first case are:
 urban/rural remote control extended to all ground-mounted sites and twice the current
number of PM switches, i.e. around five times the current number of sites38;
 Power flow data from monitoring PMARCBs, HV/LV substations and LV link boxes used to
true up DSSE network models on-line. Using the facility of the CLNR solution to substitute for

37
It is assumed for the illustrative purposes of this use case that LV link boxes are not deployed
38
Although not strictly within scope, it is assumed here that we will configure the non-auto PMARCBs to give a fault passage indication,
largely replacing the existing RIFPIs with something more robust

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 64 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

missing data, accept the potential inaccuracy of using yesterday’s data if monitoring and/or
communications fail.
We will have to understand the interdependency of mains network and communications network
failures here. Mains networks are most stressed after an outage, which might also take out the
communications network, particularly if using general public networks
 All batteries and significant CBs (G59 interface, feeder mid-point, spur PMARCB, etc.) fitted
with fail/trip alarm.
 On-line DGA and I2t monitoring rolled out to primaries
 Therefore, changes to the communications functional specification are:

- remote control bandwidth/net bit-rate requirements rise but remain low, say 2.4
kbit/s39 across 10,000 sites per licensee

- We can use less resilient networks for the tertiary SCADA function of on-line
PMARCB/secondary substation/LV feeder power flow monitoring, using the facilities of
the Siemens distribution system state estimator to default to historical metered values.
Say 10% of the bit-rate requirement of a larger site, as fewer measured quantities and
lower scan rate, for 20 bit/s per sites
If we rolled out DSSE across the entire network, we’d be looking at around 5,000 PMARCBs, 25,000
secondary substations and 125,000 LV feeders. An arbitrary planning assumption is that we’ll
monitor about 20% of PMARCBs, 10% of secondary substations and their outgoing LV feeders, but
only 1% of LV feeders at the mid-point. This last is based on the heroic assumption that LV feeders
are relatively homogenous to themselves along their length. This gives 5,000 sites;
 Other tertiary SCADA bit-rates vanishingly low, because of reporting by exception, and
resilience requirements by definition low. Negligible impact from DGA or I2t, as likely
piggybacked on existing routes for primary or secondary SCADA to the same site. Otherwise,
this is 1,000 RIFPIs, 100 OPCGs, 2,000 PMARCBs and 1,000 ground-mounted substations on
the existing network, where most of the traffic is a single heartbeat SMS message each
week.
Use case 3
The third use case moves to a “full ANM” position, where the now-critical network monitoring and
control required to actively manage power flows close to the dynamic limit of the network is
promoted to primary SCADA because of its criticality. Changes to the second use case are:
 RTTR models run on site, i.e. at the location of the constraint rather than remotely at the
controlling primary;
 Power flow data from monitoring PMARCBs, HV/LV substations and LV link boxes used to
true up DSSE network models on-line, but network so close to limits that reliable real-time
data essential;
 HV/LV OLTC, any batteries at secondary substations, and any dispersed resource remote
from the secondary substation, critical part of wide-area holistic control scheme;
 Therefore, changes to the communications functional specification are:

39
This doesn’t scale directly according to the number of sites, but we won’t need to talk to them all at once

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 65 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

- RTTR sites, power flow monitoring, and active secondary sites need to be on ‘second
tier’ resilient communications, promoted from tertiary to primary SCADA. These active
network management sites can be less robust to power outages, as they’re required
only when energised, i.e. when there is a power flow to be managed (in contrast to core
primary SCADA, which needs to work even when the lights are out). Say 20 bit/s40 (as in
the second use case) for the 5,000 monitoring sites identified in the second use case,
plus an arbitrary planning assumption of 1,000 RTTR sites and 1,000 active secondary
sites.
Other tertiary SCADA requirements remain individually as they were, although for planning purposes
we might assume some as yet undefined requirement for daily reporting (say 200 bytes/message)
from another 5,000 sites.
In practice, we will most likely mix and match, combining elements of the above.

1.4.2.2 Functional Specification for SMART


The discussion above leads to a functional specification (looking ahead to potential volumes in the
medium term, rather than by the end of the ED1 period) where:
 Core first tier primary SCADA remains largely as existing practice, although upgrading
analogues drives more data per site, and the number of sites could double. This gives, for
around 1,500 sites:

- about 0.2 kbit/s per site;

- 99.99% availability, with 72-hour withstand for mains network failure at any and all
points along the communications route for 1,000 of these sites

- 5s latency between issuing a command and receiving a response;


 Secondary SCADA remains largely as existing practice, although the number of sites could
rise as high as 25,000;

- Bit-rate requirements are low (say peak is 0.5 kbit/s41);

- 99.99% availability, with 4-hour withstand for mains network failure at any and all
points along the communications route;

- 15s latency between issuing a command and receiving a response;


 There will be more condition monitoring, although the requirements for bit-rate, latency and
resilience are low. Where co-located with primary or secondary SCADA, the increase in
traffic will be negligible. Otherwise, say:

- 5,000 sites dominated by weekly heartbeat (say 200 byte), plus infrequent alarms (say
peak is 0.5 kbit/s as above), with “last gasp” capability;

- 5,000 further as yet unspecified sites each with single daily 200 byte message, no
withstand;

- 99% availability, 5 minute latency

40
Some of these sites, particularly RTTR, may have lower net bit rates, but gross bit rate is dominated here by message overheads
41
10 x 200 byte messages in 30s from trip alarm, or FPI functionality, in PMARCBs under HV fault

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 66 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 There will be more power flow monitoring, and more active control devices out on the HV
and LV networks, although it is as yet uncertain:

- How many feeders it is economic to monitor;

- How critical real-time data becomes; and

- Where the balance lies between autonomous and wide-area control.


The planning assumption here is 0.02 kbit/s per site across 7,000 sites, with 99.99% availability, 15s
latency, and a communications channel that stays alive while each device is connected (but the
mains network is not necessarily intact).
 There will be an overlap between sites with secondary SCADA and sites with power flow
monitoring and active control. An arbitrary planning assumption is all the monitored
PMARCBs and 40% of the monitored secondary substations, or 2,000 sites in total.
The communications and control provision for these sites (and perhaps for a combined solution for
the wider population of up to 30,000 sites) poses a challenge, as we need to accommodate both
report/command by exception for remote control, and polled monitoring/control for active network
management. Unless we have a solution where report by exception and polling co-exist, we need
the most onerous features of each requirement, i.e.:
 0.1 kbit/s per site for more frequent polling;
 99.99% availability, with 4-hour withstand for mains network failure at any and all points
along the communications route;
 15s latency between issuing a command and receiving a response.
Unsurprisingly, it is this last area, of a smarter secondary network, where the requirements are least
clear. We must not pursue smartness for its own sake. Rather, we must deploy smarter solutions
only when they are more efficient than conventional ones: we must take an holistic view, which
includes recognising the cost and reliability of the monitoring, control and communications required.
It should be noted that increasing the depth of smartness makes the network more brittle.
Particularly where RTTR is deployed, more sophisticated back-up protection than we conventionally
deploy will be required to safeguard the network. We may have to get more used to the concept of
deliberate demand disconnection in extremes, just as we have for winding temperature indicator
(WTI) trip and low frequency demand disconnection (LFDD).
CLNR will help assess the relative benefits to customers of these scenarios, specifically by illustrating
the loss of accuracy from:
 Using weather/loading data taken remote from the choke point;
 Using yesterday’s data to inform real-time load allocation;
 Running HV/LV OLTC, and any batteries at secondary substations, autonomously rather than
as part of a wide-area holistic control scheme.
Absent those conclusions, this appendix will propose platforms that provide cost-effective solutions
which create an upgrade path to significantly smarter networks.
From Serial to IP
The current primary SCADA network, specifically the RTUs and the communications termination
assets, is obsolete. Its radial architecture provides no redundancy; the 1200 bit/s capacity is marginal
for current needs and a smarter future; and many of the assets themselves are increasingly
unreliable, requiring replacement before 2020.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 67 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Similarly, both the NPg-N Radius and NPg-Y Keynet secondary SCADA systems will require
investment during the ED1 period. Radius is obsolete and Keynet was just a stop-gap solution
pending a full overhaul of operational communications provision.
This need for asset replacement creates an opportunity to create an industry-standard, flexible and
resilient communications network, in a no regrets investment.
The holistic solution for the future form of operational data communication is to move from the
current serial protocols to a Packet-Switched System (PSS) architecture, likely the de facto standard
Internet Protocol (IP).
PSS systems are defined as layers, which allow us to separate (and therefore mix and match) the
physical communications media. Specifically, IP is defined over four layers:
 the link layer, i.e. the physical medium, e.g. fibre, microwave, or UHF radio;
 the internet layer, where packet switching, i.e. routing to IP addresses, takes place;
 the transport layer, where messages are managed, like setting up a call between two
parties; and
 the application layer, i.e. the protocols we use such as Ferranti MkIIA or DNP3.
The advantages of using IP include:
 Platform/vendor independence;
 Resilience, through:

- Facility for multiple routes on a packet switched system;

- Ease of applying dual media, e.g. private licensed radio and public DSL, to avoid
common-mode failure;

- Ability to apply commercial off the shelf network management systems to identify
communications issues as they develop, and more rapidly to isolate faulted assets,
improving the performance of the communications network and therefore the
protection on the mains network
 Synergies where one form of communications supports multiple functions, i.e. all three
levels of operational data and voice, rather than the several isolated systems we use today.
In particular, we can share links at present dedicated to NMS or protection with other
SCADA functions, without compromising their core functions. This also allows us to take
analogues and alarms that are currently presented through NMS to a more appropriate
platform.
The whole idea of an IP network is so that physically separate networks are not needed, BT’s whole
21st century project (and other telcos’ globally) is built on this principle, so the inherent reliance and
survivability of these networks can benefit all our operational applications, not just those chosen as
critical. This is not to say we start sharing the corporate network, more that our SCADA, operational
data capture, operational voice (and even protection) could share this common infrastructure.
Specifically here SCADA functionality is our essential service that must take priority over all others. IP
QOS (quality of service) deals with this in giving priority to those services we want to expedite
through our system so in the same way as a voice packet gets expedited through our internal
network ahead of non-time sensitive data such as e-mails, web browsing etc.
A SCADA control packet would be expedited through the operational network, this means that even
if the entire network bandwidth was taken up by a stream of analogue data gathering any control

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 68 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

packet arriving would be expedited ahead of all others. In reality what happens is that in a matter of
microseconds, the lower priority traffic is held back to allow the high priority traffic to be sent.
The best analogy for this is the fast track queue at a theme park for a ride, anybody rich enough to
have paid the fee for fast track passes gets to go straight to the front of the queue and onto the ride,
whilst the others in the queue do get on eventually, they are just held back (or buffered in IP terms).
The only scenario which can make QOS fail is if there is physically not enough bandwidth to support
the high priority traffic (i.e. if Alton towers sold too many fast track passes people would still have to
queue if there are not enough seats (bandwidth) on the ride). The network design should cater for
this.
It is worth noting, in passing, that ENMAC/PowerOn Fusion uses an IP structure, so a PSS approach
to primary SCADA communications is a natural fit with our key safety/switching management
system.
Ideally, we would run IP through to the last mile. However, if we replace the existing Radius/Keynet
solutions broadly like for like, we cannot run IP all the way, but can still run IP to the base stations
and accept serial (and sometimes proprietary) protocols for the last mile. If we at some later point
migrate to a full IP solution, then those base stations become access points to an IP mesh radio
solution, so we have a smooth upgrade path.
We can support serial over IP, so we create the option to upgrade (e.g.) Ferranti MkIIA serial links
without making it compulsory.
Having defined an IP architecture, even if perhaps excluding the last mile, the choice of platforms
becomes more flexible. There will be no single solution, and we will likely mix and match.
In planning for IP, we need to recognise the extra bit-rate required for the packet switching
overhead: each message has nearly 100 bytes of protocol wrapper before the payload.

MPLS
Multi-protocol label switching can be applied as an enhancement to TCP/IP networks. Additional
“customer edge” routers are established to interface to “provider edge” routers which are part of
the underlying IP network. These edge routers tag each packet with a label which defines the path
the packet will take, restricting the flexibility of IP routing but making latency more consistent.
This technique is, perhaps, best applied when using managed services rather than our own
networks.
Options
We need to understand requirements for bit rate, latency and robustness. It is assumed here that
we can find secure solutions, as (for example) we use Openreach lines for primary SCADA to a
handful of sites.
As discussed in earlier sections, required bit rates are up to 200 bit/s for major sites, and around 20
bit/s for secondary sites.
Leaving aside black start, there are two levels of robustness required: channels that operate after a
mains outage and those that do not. Anything associated with supply restoration needs to continue
to operate after a mains outage; anything required for active management needs to work only when
the power’s flowing, but will need to so when there has been a mains outage somewhere nearby
and the mains network is more heavily stressed.
Options for channels:
 Fibre

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 69 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Technically, this is the best solution, being highly reliable and providing more than enough
bandwidth for foreseeable needs. However, it is very expensive if installed as a discrete
exercise.
If ducts are installed when laying mains cable, the costs of fibre fall, but are still higher than
those of a wireless link. For example, a 10km run at £15/m comes out at £150k, compared to
£60k plus £1k annual licence fee for a brand new point-to-point wireless.
In favour of fibre is its greater flexibility over a point-to-point link. If we believe that smarter
networks will require reliable high-bandwidth communications links to more sites, then
laying fibre along key mains provides the spine from which to branch off to further sites. For
example, it is proposed to create the facility on the proposed Spennymoor-
Brancepeth/Meadowfield fibre to branch off to a proposed firm 20kV busbar.
Against fibre is its greater susceptibility to damage than wireless links.
 Copper auxiliaries
Applying DSL technology to copper auxiliary cables can, as for home broadband, release
megabit/s of capacity. Like fibre, this provides more than enough bandwidth for foreseeable
needs.
As these cables degrade then, like their associated mains cables, they will reach a point
where it becomes uneconomic to repair. Each case must be taken on its merits, often driven
by the requirements of any protection channels on the same cable.
It is now cheaper to lay fibre than copper, so this is the obvious choice for a like-for-like
replacement. Wireless and leased service options must also be considered. Each of these is
discussed separately here.
 Point-to-point wireless (microwave)
The 1.4GHz solution has better propagation than higher frequencies, being less critical of
line of sight and of weather conditions. Its capacity may be marginal for the core data
network, but it is ample for operational needs.
A new 10 Mbit/s link comes in at around £60k42, plus £500/yr licence fee.
Any site on the core network will enjoy even more bandwidth, but may suffer some
restrictions during bad weather because of the different frequencies used.
 Satellite
This is a potential big bang replacement, but we have the opportunity here, as we need to
replace many of our communications assets through ED-1. We could replace all primary
SCADA channels with a single solution, as UKPN have done. Costs may not be much more
than VPN, as domestic broadband offerings charge about twice the cost of a wired service.
 IP mesh radio (UHF)

- A number of solutions exist. For example:


 UKPN’s Flexible Plug and Play LCNF project is deploying the same Silver Springs
Networks devices that Cable & Wireless have proposed in their bid for the smart
meter Communications Service Provider contract;

42
From the schedule of rates: £20-30k for a mast; plus £2-3k for a DC/battery system at each end; plus £22k per link. Assuming 1.5 masts
per link, i.e. some re-use of existing assets, this gives £55.0-66.5k

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 70 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 WPD’s FALCON LCNF project is deploying WiMAX;

- Likely higher frequency than existing mid-band VHF, so worse propagation. However,
end points act as repeaters, so multi-hop facilitates wide-area coverage. The base
station doesn’t need to reach the furthest point, just the nearest. S&C claim 8km (five
miles) rural, and C&W claim around 8-20 km, depending on terrain. The existing mid-
band VHF solution already uses a handful of repeaters, so this mesh solution will need
more, particularly in sparsely-populated areas.
The debate over the number of repeaters may be slightly circular, if we accept less than
full coverage on the basis of having another infill solution (e.g. mid-band VHF for
secondary SCADA). In sparsely populated areas where we require only secondary
SCADA, and several repeaters would be required for a mesh solution, we might instead
deploy mid-band VHF, reducing the need for repeaters.

- The key issue here is spectrum access. COTS solutions use licence-exempt spectrum
around 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. The latter two are already available in GB, and
Ofcom propose to release spectrum for the first.
There are no obvious candidates for licensed spectrum. The bands that Ofcom propose
to release from digital TV switch-over will likely be auctioned off for telcos, and we will
likely be unable to compete. There may still be scope for secondary trades, or to
purchase a managed service.
 Using unlicensed spectrum risks inadvertent but legitimate interference from
other users on the same band. 2.4GHz is already congested, and 870-876 MHZ
has been earmarked for smart metering as well as non-specific use.
To limit interference to other users, output power and duty cycle are restricted.
CEPT proposals for the 873-876 MHz band are 100mW erp and a 1.25% duty
cycle. It’s worth noting that the COTS solutions have 4W erp, so will show better
performance than we might see in practice.
To limit interference from other users, spread spectrum techniques, and also
making a virtue of low duty cycles, makes it easier to find a gap into which to
transmit. This may also make it easier for by-exception and polled services to
co-exist on the same platform, as it creates gaps in the polling sequence for the
by-exception traffic.
Will need to have a strong enough backhaul to avoid breaching the duty cycle
limit at each access point, and may need to reinforce to offload congested
areas. CEPT proposals are 200kHz spacing, so a 1.25% duty cycle is perhaps
2kbit/s gross. Although low, this could cover up to 100 secondary sites if we
manage the scan rate
 Using licensed spectrum allows more power, hence longer range; it also
removes regulatory restrictions on duty cycles

- Theoretically, this could be used to provide a secondary route for primary SCADA to
major sites, but VPN over DSL is as effective and has similar cost

- There are options to share the infrastructure cost, e.g. the C&W CSP bid, or other
regional utilities. This would affect the cost structure and commercial arrangements,
but not the functional specification.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 71 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

- Assume radio unit cost 50% higher than radius/keynet; number of repeaters will vary
depending upon licensed/unlicensed solution, and upon coverage required. RTU
upgrades will not be required, as the end points will likely speak DNP3, as do the end-
point RTUs, but there will be some set-up costs
 Point to multipoint wireless (VHF and UHF)

- 139/148 MHz: radius & keynet mid-band VHF. Limited to 12.5kHz bandwidth on single
frequency per service area, with basic contention management, so it can handle only
basic alarm/indication functions. This limited bandwidth may not readily support IP, but
we can instead run IP to virtual RTUs as used on the NPg-N Radius system and rely on
serial protocols (possibly proprietary) for the last mile.

- The NPg-Y Keynet solution is sized for 10,000 sites, which could be stretched under the
more demanding of the use cases described earlier, unless mid-band VHF is used in
conjunction with another solution, e.g. as an infill around the edges of a mesh solution.

- The current Radius offering is “semi-mesh”, i.e. daisy-chained, offering some of the
resilience of a full mesh solution.

- The established Paknet service, used for daily remote reading of HH meters, offers a
managed service in a similar spectrum

- 458 MHz: scanning UHF. Could have modern equivalent, giving 9.6 kbit/s on 12.5kHz
bandwidth. Even allowing for the extra IP overhead, this permits at least doubling net
bit rate for more and better data from each site plus more strategic sites. Strong
backhaul to each site would permit 20-2543 primaries per base station.

- Airwave and Arqiva offer a managed service in a similar spectrum, which they have
included in their CSP bids
 Narrowband PLC

- This is a proven technology beyond the UK. Telent have suggested a unit cost around
£2k/site.

- As it relies upon mains cable connectivity, PLC may not be suitable for primary or
secondary SCADA when seeking to restore supplies. However, it lends itself to ANM
applications because we need to manage power flows only when the power’s flowing,
i.e. when the network is alive and there is a route for the PLC signal.
 Public network DSL Virtual Private Network (VPN)

- This is a fixed line IP service leased from a telecoms provider, directly analogous to
domestic broadband, although the bit rates we require for operational purposes are
much lower

- Here, we need to differentiate between security and robustness. We have clearly


satisfied ourselves that a VPN can be secure, as we use it for connection to Enmac. The
issue is that the service is not robust, as:
 BT Openreach response to faults is days rather than hours

43
From vendors’ claims. 24 sites @ 200 bit/s (see previous estimate) = 4800 bit/s, so those claims seem reasonable. this requires
equivalent clear bandwidth back to the control room, rather than sharing a 1200 bit/s line as existing practice

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 72 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 The roadside cabinets at the transition from fibre to copper have battery
capacities of around 4 hours, so we will often lose communications under mains
network outages, which is when we need it most.

- Establishing connections has (in CLNR) cost around £25k per site, with annual rental of
£25044
 Cellular

- GPRS/SMS both use 2G/3G public mobile networks, but to different protocols. GPRS is
full TCP/IP, while SMS is a telecoms protocol to carry “text” messages, with a lower
message overhead. The distinction will fade as we move over to 4G, which is a fully
packet-based system.

- As for leased IP, we need to differentiate between security and robustness. UKPN rely
heavily on this option for their remote control, and often find that signal is lost
immediately after a mains outage.
There may be scope to work with telcos to lease more robust solutions, funding
resilience at base stations and in backhaul, and using IP QoS to prioritise messages.

- The low set-up costs lend themselves to tertiary SCADA in remote locations
No regrets strategy
Examining both the functions required of the future communications network and the likely options,
we can identify a no regrets strategy.
Upgrading the current backhaul and primary SCADA network to IP creates a platform for a smarter
communications network to support a smarter mains network. Specifically:
 Every time we provide a new protection link, likely fibre or microwave45, we can fit SCADA
into a small fraction of the capacity of the new link;
 Every link for NMS can also be used for ANM.
Where ANM is deployed, we’d split the RTU, to create separate IP addresses for NMS and ANM.
The existing backhaul network (copper, fibre and microwave) can be retained, although we need to
replace most of the termination assets at each end of the link. Modern equivalent equipment
supports the transition to IP and, for the copper links at least, significantly increases the achievable
bit rate.
Extensions to the backhaul network are generally cheapest with microwave, although there is a
place for VPN over public network DSL where masts are hard to come by. Where the opportunity
arises to provide ducts cheaply, fibre becomes viable.
Primary SCADA can often be provided where the backhaul network passes through the relevant
sites. Renewing the current scanning UHF with an IP-compatible solution provides a cheap, yet
robust and resilient platform to infill primary SCADA to a few thousand key sites beyond the
backhaul network. This solution fits the larger sites with higher bit-rate requirements, which:
 Cannot be accommodated on the radius/keynet systems;

44
From published BT broadband rates around £20/month
45
And perhaps leased IP service for VF intertrip

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 73 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

 Would significantly offload a mesh radio solution, increasing its reliability, particularly if
using unlicensed spectrum.
Again, there is a place for VPN over public network DSL for last-mile primary SCADA where masts are
hard to come by, and fibre becomes viable where the opportunity arises to provide ducts cheaply.
As there is a value in creating options, and a value in the greater reliability of fibre over wireless, it is
proposed here that all end-to-end mains cable replacements at 33kV and above include the
provision of a twin duct line and sufficient draw pits to allow a fibre to be drawn in.
Where tertiary SCADA devices are co-located with primary or secondary devices, the extra traffic is
negligible. IP allows us to take this additional traffic over the same route provided for the higher
function.
The obvious infill solution for tertiary SCADA is GPRS/SMS. If we take this back to an NPG iHost box,
it both allows access for general users for off-line analysis, and also supports a real-time feed into
PowerOn Fusion if required.
Finally, we can protect customers against cost shocks by investing in developing some alternative
communications solutions, perhaps narrowband PLC, to extend the range of tools available to us.
Low regrets resilience
We can make wireless solutions more resilient by improving the power supplies to the base
station/access point sites. This is covered as part of our improvements to meet the black start
requirements at these sites.
Whether secondary SCADA is supported over mesh IP radio or a modern equivalent replacement, it
can be made more resilient by:
 Reinforcing the NPg-N backhaul so that all base stations/access points are connected to
point-to-point links rather than scanning UHF, which will increasingly fall short of the
performance of the other backhaul solutions proposed earlier; and
 Both installing extra base stations/access points and reinforcing the backhaul in NPg-Y to
deliver a similar architecture to that in the Northeast, i.e. significantly more base stations,
reducing the impact of a single failure.
As discussed, such backhaul reinforcement can be either microwave or VPN over public network
DSL. The former is more expensive but more robust, as it does not rely on the limited resilience of
the public network. The choice is influenced by the last mile solution. If we lose the backhaul to a
point-to-multipoint base station, we lose communication to the end points it serves, so we need the
greater resilience of microwave. If we lose the backhaul to a full- or semi-mesh radio access point,
the mesh provides routes to other access points, and service is maintained, making VPN over public
network DSL viable.
Although the existing primary SCADA is highly reliable, moving to IP creates scope to provide back-
up routes. For such purposes, VPN over public network DSL, or even cellular service, is viable.
Last Mile Solutions for Secondary Sites
As previously discussed, the smarter network will need both:
 Something like the existing secondary SCADA functionality for remote control; and
 Additional functionality for active network management, specifically:

- power flow monitoring which, depending on the costs and benefits of making it
critical to mains network operation, may be either tertiary or primary SCADA; and

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 74 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

- control of otherwise autonomous remote devices, which would be primary SCADA.


Available choices are:
 Mesh radio, licensed or exempt;
 Modern equivalent UHF and VHF radios on existing licensed spectrum;
 VPN over public DSL or cellular networks.
If we don’t push the mains network to its absolute limits, then the distribution system can be made
resilient to the public communications network’s lack of robustness, so VPN (likely primarily over
public cellular) is viable. In such a scenario, we would:
 Mitigate against loss of on-site monitoring data, by substituting with data from another time
or place; and
 Accept autonomous operation of HV/LV OLTC and other active devices, either as a fall-back
or even normal running conditions.
In either case, the loss of precision in either intelligence or control means we have to leave an
appropriate margin in mains network design.
If we design the distribution system around a relatively small number of critical sites, i.e. hundreds
rather than thousands, we can likely expand the scanning UHF to suit.
If we aspire to a distribution system with thousands of sites critical to active network management, a
mesh radio solution in unlicensed spectrum seems a viable proposition, and becomes the baseline
planning assumption here.
Under any of these three scenarios, there remains a place for the mid-band VHF. Even with mesh
radio, it will be difficult to deploy such a solution in more remote areas with a sparse population of
relevant devices (remote control PMARCBs, RTTR, etc.), as we would need a disproportionate
number of repeaters to connect relevant devices.
Therefore, the baseline planning assumption here is that:
 the mesh will be established where the existing remote control infrastructure is reasonably
dense; and
 we will use modern equivalent semi-mesh mid-band VHF as an infill to maintain the
secondary SCADA remote control facility beyond the mesh.
Establishing this mesh has a number of benefits:
 Requirements for robustness of the backhaul are reduced, as the mesh provides its own
back-up routes;
 There is an infrastructure ready to accommodate new devices, where adding a new device
strengthens the mesh; and
 communications provided for remote control sites within the mesh are ready to accept
power flow monitoring data, facilitating upgrade.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 75 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Communications summary
The key elements in our future communications network are:
 our “core microwave” network, which we use for a lot of non-operational voice and data
traffic (SCADA traffic is negligible in comparison);
 our “backhaul spine” using a mixture of microwave, fibre, copper and satellite is Transform’s
“regional/local fabric”; and
 our “last mile”, i.e. the last bit from the spine to the end point (RTU) is VHF.
The real world is (as ever) messier than this. Particularly up North, we’ll have VHF base stations at
primary substations, so the “last mile” is a few feet of cabling; similarly, the core network runs to
GSPs etc.
This is not a great change from where we are. The upgrades proposed are:
 Introduce a full mesh solution;
 Make the VHF semi-mesh; and
 Restrict scanning UHF to last mile rather than backhaul spine.

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 76 of 77


Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014

Appendix 5 – Smarter grid costs by licence


2015-23 Total Total
Northeast 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2015- 2023-
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 31

Capex - Network reinforcement 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.3 3.0 1.0 1.4 1.7 8.9 23.6
Incremental
Capex – Loop-service unbundling 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.3 8.3 2.6
Solutions
(Medium PV) Opex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.3
Totex - Network reinforcement 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.6 4.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 17.6 28.5

Communication platform 2.2 2.8 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.6 15.5 0.0
Active network mgt platform 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.0
Smart Enablers Baseline monitoring 0.8 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 10.3 0.0
(Totex) No regrets - specification updates 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.5
DSL rental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Sub-Total 3.4 4.9 4.3 3.8 3.2 3.3 3.1 2.9 28.9 1.6

Recruitment
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.6
and training

ANNUAL Capex 4.8 6.8 5.9 5.4 7.7 5.3 5.3 4.9 46.1 27.7
TOTAL Opex 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.8 4.0

2015-23 Total Total


Yorkshire 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2015- 2023-
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 31

Capex - Network reinforcement 0.1 1.6 1.3 0.2 2.7 2.6 2.8 4.2 15.5 2.1
Incremental
Capex – Loop-service unbundling 1.9 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.8 2.8 1.6 2.4 17.8 4.1
Solutions
(Medium PV) Opex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.0 6.3
Totex - Network reinforcement 2.0 3.7 3.6 2.2 5.6 5.6 4.6 7.0 34.3 12.5

Communication platform 5.0 5.0 2.8 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.0 2.8 29.7 0.0
Active network mgt platform 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.0
Smart Enablers Baseline monitoring 1.8 3.2 2.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.9 2.1 19.6 0.0
(Totex) No regrets - specification updates 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.3 2.1
DSL rental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Sub-Total 7.6 9.0 7.5 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.2 5.3 54.5 2.2

Recruitment
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.6 2.4
and training

ANNUAL Capex 9.6 12.7 11.1 8.3 11.9 11.7 10.6 11.9 87.8 8.3
TOTAL Opex 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 3.6 8.8

Northern Powergrid: Our business plan for 2015-23 Page 77 of 77

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen