Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
9
Smart grid development plan
March 2014
Annex 1.9: Smart grid development plan March 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
1
ACE49 “Statistical method for calculating demands and voltage regulations on LV radial distribution systems”
2
ENSG “A smart grid routemap” 2010
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
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.
4
Frontier Economics “How to deliver smarter grids in GB: a report prepared for the Smart Grid Forum” 2011
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
sensitivities modelled by Northern Powergrid for photo-voltaic cells connected to the low voltage
network.10
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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);
- 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.
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.
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
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
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
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).
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.
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.
25 81 solution
Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - LV
- 7 solution
Generator Providing Network Support e.g. Operating in PV Mode - LV
Communications to and from devices - LAST MILE ONLY 375 219 enabler
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.
17
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/10593/table-109.xls
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.
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)
18
We are currently testing HV to LV transformers will on-load tapchangers as part of our Customer Led Network
Revolution project.
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
16x0.3 KW 4 26x0.3 KW 5
17 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.35% 12 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.34%
x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.66% 10 Amps 0.16 Ω -9.68%
16x0.3 KW 4 26x0.3 KW 5
17 Amps 0.08 Ω -9.26% 12 Amps 0.10 Ω -9.25%
x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.14 Ω -9.37% 10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.38%
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%
x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.74% 10 Amps 0.16 Ω -9.76%
Figure 3: 18 & 20 Foster Sq. - Voltage Reduction and Service De-looping at 18 & 20 Foster Sq.
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%
x KW 11 2x-1.15 KW 12
10 Amps 0.14 Ω -9.48% 10 Amps 0.15 Ω -9.50%
Figure 4: 18 & 20 Foster Sq. - Voltage Reduction, Mains Reinforcement and Service De-looping at 18 & 20 Foster Sq.
Figure 5: Mains record from working file showing in red the acceptable generation without reinforcement
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
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;
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
- 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.
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
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
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;
- Basic voltage control (tap freeze and 3/6% target voltage reduction); and
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.
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.
- 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);
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
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
- 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.
- 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
- 99.99% availability, with 4-hour withstand for mains network failure at any and all
points along the communications route;
- 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;
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
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:
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:
- 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
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
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)
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
- 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.
- 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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