IEA DSM Agreement Task XVII extension Second expert meeting in Vienna 30th September–1st October

2010,

Minutes of meetingDraft1

Present:Person

Rene Kamphuis, ECN Friedrich Kupzog, TU Vienna, Austria, only for his presentation

Axel Collett, Elektroforum Norway Georg Kienesberger, TU Vienna, Austria, only the first day

Miguel Ordiales, Red Electrica España Maximilian Kloess, TU Vienna, Austria

Dominique Fourtune, ADEME, France Andre Postma, ENEXIS, Netherlands

Matthias Stifter, Austrian institute of technology Rusbeh Rezania, TU Vienna, Austria, only the second day

Seppo Kärkkäinen, Elektraflex, Finland

Samuli Honkapuro, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, left 12:05 on Friday

Göran Koreneff, VTT, Finland

Abbreviations and notations:DER Distributed Energy Resource (generation, storage and loads)

EV Electric vehicle

DSO Distribution System Operator

EE Energy efficiency

DR Demand response

PV photovoltaic

DS Distributed storage

OA Operating agent

FEV Full Electric Vehicle, also called BEV (Battery electric vehicle)

PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

1. Thursday 30th September

IntroductionsOA Seppo Kärkkäinen opened the meeting at 13:19.

Ongoing DSM projects at TU Vienna, Institute for computer technologyFriedrich Kupzog, as he had to leave so early, started the meeting with his speedy presentation of the demand side management activities of TU Vienna. Load shifting potential in Austria can be substantial where the peak load is 7500 MW peak. The IRON project studied the use of cheap boxes (<100 €) that control heat loads on the basis of network frequency. Energy feedback projects going on at TU Vienna are among others Consumer2Grid, where consumer behaviour will be studied through a Smart meter with a study of what kind of customer behaviour feedback could be given back to them, Building2Grid, where building will be used as thermal storages, Community2Grid, where load shifting potentials are identified, for example water pumps.

Participants, news, minutes of Madrid meetingWe had a short go-through of participants at the meeting. Those not having partaken in the first expert meeting: Göran Koreneff from VTT, Finland, is a stand-in for Jussi Ikäheimo and has agreed to be the secretary of the meeting; Friedrich Kupzog is leading a group at TU Vienna; Andre Postma is mostly representing the Dutch DSO-organisations; Georg Kienesberger is working in Friedrich’s group; and Maximilian Kloess is also working at TU Vienna, recently in Vehicle2Grid projects.

The minutes from the last meeting were gone through. Seppo told that there is no new news from the Australia participation but probably will be at the IEA DSM exco meeting in a couple of weeks. No contacts with IRED since the last meeting, and our task will not be presented at the next IRED conference. There was some talk about the the Cigre Task Force publications, which will be published in the near future. Andre told about the newest developments concerning standardisation on smart meterings, and smart grids. The first workshop will be in France, Dominique Fourtune has checked and was able to confirm. The minutes where accepted as-is.

General status of Task XVIISeppo presented the Task XVII extension: earlier Task work is now continuing in phase 2 and its subtasks. Seppo presented the estimated resources for the OA and for state experts. There are five countries involved: Austria, Finland, Spain, France and the Netherlands. Axel Collett, although Norway is at least not yet a member of this Task, has been participating in two expert meetings (this being the second) and told about the Norwegian situation. The problem is that he has not yet found Norwegian DSM experts having time available to partake in the project.

The IEA DSM EXCO meeting will be held next week in Stockholm with a workshop on Smart Grids and Seppo is hoping to have some input from Swedish companies. Andre asked about with whom has been discussed in Eurelectric, as he, for example, is a member in their EV group. Seppo has in the EXCO meeting discussed with a Eurelectric representative, but the name slipped his mind at the moment, about their interest.

Seppo presented the planning and plans of the Task XVII. The first preliminary technology reports have been delivered and are awaiting comments and country inputs in Subtask 5. In Subtask 6 we are waiting pilot and case studies from experts from their own countries, OA will gather case studies from other countries. Subtask 7 is about how penetration affects stakeholders and how stakeholders

affect penetrations and Subtask 8 is about quantitative assessments. Subtask 9 is conclusions and recommendations.

Subtask 5It was agreed that all the presentations at the meeting will be delivered to Seppo who makes them available for all.

Subtask 5/ Electric vehiclesGöran presented the OA report regarding EVs. We had an interesting and vivid discussion with a multitude of inputs from well informed country experts. It was especially nice to hear from Andre, as his company is involved with an ongoing project about DSO-controlled EV charging but also because he himself is one of the EV charge test persons.

Some details from the discussion: Andre told that battery cost will decrease rapidly from nowadays level of 1000 €/kWh. A Korean battery manufacturer assesses that costs (NB! not sell price) will be around 230 $/kWh for mass produced 40 kWh batteries. We discussed end user electricity prices. Whereas Finland has a price level of 12 €c/kWh, the Netherlands has 27 €c/kWh but that includes 14 €c/kWh of energy taxes and 4 €c/kWh of VAT. Stronger incentives for EVs in the NL than the energy price are car tax (40%) exemption, no use taxes, and the expedience of getting parking licenses. The average waiting time for a parking license in Amsterdam is 7 years, but immediately for EVs and with gratis parking. The fringe benefits may be substantial also elsewhere: Axel told about a high class suburb in Oslo where it takes well over an hour to drive to work in the centre but where EVs are allowed to use bus lanes cutting the travelling time to 20 minutes. The presented IEA penetration estimates do not match what is really happening according to Andre. He has talked with manufacturers and designers, and expressed the opinion that large manufacturers will not produce PHEVs but FEVs. This was contradicted by meeting participants’ listing PHEV plans from Toyota, GM, and Volkswagen etc.

Andre pointed out that small batteries are most expensive overall. The aging feature is much more severe for larger chargings (in comparison to the capacity). As small batteries will empty more often, it will affect their lifetime. The other aspect is that the small the charge current, the better for the battery. As was pointed out, smaller PHEV batteries are much easier charged with, for example, 16 A than large FEV batteries. Andre pointed out, however, that in two car families one could be changed to FEV, so there would be no need for PHEVs. We discussed different kinds of PHEVs. Some have combustion engines only for loading batteries in emergencies and can thus be classified as BEVs with range extension.

We discussed technical requirements for charging. Andre told that IEC has recommendations for connecting charge equipment according to charging mode. Normal charging is when the power is less than ca 50 kW (3-phase 63 A) otherwise it is fast or superfast charging. Eurelectric recommends using normal charging as much as possible. Seppo told that if fast charging is allowed, then USA will need extra storages at the grid.

Matthias wondered what potential of flex load can be expected in the different penetration scenarios. This started a discussion on load control. The business model of control might be complicated. In Spain, a control signal can be sent by different stakeholders (Supplier, TSO, DSO). This is problematic for distribution networks that must depend on DR according to Andre, and need control mechanisms which have nothing to do with smart metering. This was disputed, because if DSO needs DR the most it can pay the highest price and be in control even in a business-oriented charging control environment. Miguel noted that in the short term a control may be needed, but in the long run a price signal will work. Matthias noted that it is a problem that the tariff is coupled

only to energy and not to power, but alas, in Spain (Miguel) they have commercial power limiters (with this is not meant fuses, which are for security) as also in France (Dominique).

Matthias asked about combining PV on customer premises with charging of EVs. Here Andre had some excellent points: where is the car and where is the PV? Most EVs may be at the work place during the PV production time at home, so the two will not meet. This also brought up the question of where the PV production goes (and who pays for it) in the Netherlands. PVs are not that common in the Netherlands as nobody subsidises it while it, however, needs an extra meter. Matthias was able to tell that this is totally different in Germany, where on-site used PV receives a higher FIT. Miguel told that PVs are not that common in Spanish household even with high (~600 €/MWh?) subsidies as they are so expensive. Andre stated that PVs give more concern than EVs to the grid: with a local peak power factor of 1 (they are all at peak at the same time) they might demand a triplicated network capacity if all houses in a network are allowed 2.5 kW solar panels.

Country reports

Samuli presented the Finnish case. Diesel car sales increased steeply 2008 thanks to changing purchase taxes in Finland to be more CO2 emissions based. The car fleet is quite old, e.g. 12 years old cars are to a 100% still in use. Population density is quite varying in Finland; distances in the North are quite long while population density near Helsinki is high. The penetration scenarios from Finland where made 2009 by the Ministry of Economy and Employment. The vision is to have a 15 % market share of PHEVs and 10% of EVs in 2020. Samuli showed load impacts of EVs on a distribution network level. We discussed car travel distances in different countries. Maximilian told that distances less than 100 km per day form 80% of the overall distance travelled, whereas it in Finland is only 60%. Andre told that charging and battery losses are roughly 20% and this has to be taken into account

We finished at 17:25, and had excellent evening program organised by Matthias.

2. Friday

Subtask 5/ Electric vehicles Country reports continues

Maximilian told about EV projects in Austria. The Energy economics group at TU Vienna have had: ELEK-TRA (market and fleet penetration scenarios), Vehicle-to-grid Strategies, and Vehicle-to-grid Interfaces.

The market and fleet penetration study is based on a detailed model with component wise cost analysis, political/framework conditions, fuel costs, and these are combined with transport data.etc. With an active policy the penetration of EV and PHEVs will be 70% in 2050. For the report, Maximilian can model as wished. He also could tell, that there are national targets in Austria but they will not be reached and what more, there is no commitment for reaching them. We discussed about the fuel taxes. Taxes in the Netherlands are at the moment around 7c/kWh for gasoline and 14c/kWh for electricity according to Andre. Axel pointed out, that the tax on electric vehicles will have to rise for fiscal reasons when there are a lot of electric vehicles.

Rusbeh Rezania, also from TU Vienna, presented the project V2G (which includes G2V) Strategies. They studied separately rural and urban areas. The charging and discharging strategies used where

to flatten out the load, and business models to implement them, for example ancillary services. We talked about balancing markets. Rusbeh had EVs only partakening in the tertiary reserves market. Andre suggested that we should also think of what kind of markets could exist in the future, not only what we have today. Primary reserves are technically easiest to implement in EVs (Miguel).

Andre presented different charging scenarios studied, always and everywhere, always on return, once per day when coming home for the day, same as previous but only if the charge is less than 50%. If vehicles are allowed to charge only once per day, there will be 95 % of the cars to starting charging at 21 o’clock. If there is an extra limitation requiring the charge level to be less than 50% for charging to commence, only roughly 25% will start charging at that time. Andre presented also the preferred market model. The Netherlands has Program responsible, who have to give day-ahead forecasts of different loads. The charge service provider has flexible contracts with the end user and also a contract with the DSO. The DSO is the king. If a balance keeper is interested, he makes a contract with the charge service provider but talks with the DSO, who decides how the EV will charge. The DSO manages the LV lines using cars. They are for peak management and to delay investments.

Miguel presented the Spanish approach to electric vehicles. The TSO is responsible for balancing markets, not primary as they are compulsory, but secondary and tertiary reserves. The power system: 279 g CO2/kWh. Has a very high ratio peak vs off-peak (roughly 35 GW to 22 GW in winter days). The valley could well be filled with 6.5 Mill full EV without increases to transmission or generation. Also, the increase of wind (to 29 000 MW in 2016) and solar power (10 000 MW in 2016) will result in occasional periodical generation surplus (energy curtailment 1...2 TWh), so EVs could be very useful for balancing purposes. Without smart charging, charging peak would coincidence with load peak. We discussed of long-term V2G possibilities and how realistic it would be. Some opinions were brought forth that a customer would not allow it. Also other stakeholders might be unhappy with peak shaving, as generators incomes would decrease. Main R&D projects and the comprehensive plan for the development of EVs in Spain were presented, for example, the erection of charging points and fast charging points will be quick. There is also a new actor, a Charge Manager, who can resell electricity to others (e.g. commercial centres or apartment house communities).

Inputs to the reports

Seppo told that he is waiting country and other input to the EV report from the country experts. Feedback received in the meeting will be taken into account, but please send comments if you have other comments. Seppo has made templates for case presentations, where most of the EV cases can also be reported, but some parts of EV specific cases could be more advantageous to be in the main report. Also, Seppo doesn’t expect new work, but rather a synthesis of current work.

Comments, changes and country-specific descriptions are by each partner to be inserted into the word documents using track-change. We discussed the depth of the country input. Seppo suggested that it depends on the country experts, but could be two to ten pages. The main items we are interested are, for example, listed in chapter 7 of the EV report. There was a discussion on if we should wait until we are nearer the end of the project, but Seppo stated that the reports should be prepared now, they can be fine-tuned at the end if necessary. There is lots of work to be done, we have three more reports to prepare and also pilot&case studies to gather.

Timetable for country experts: Rene and Andre: will give input on a lot of research projects in the Netherlands for the reports within six weeks.

Austria (Matthias, Maximilian, Rusbeh): Input will be divided between AIT and TU Vienna and it will be coordinated by Matthias and delivered within six weeks.

Dominique: two other research centers are also interested in participating in the task. Negotiations are ongoing with them, and they might partake in the next meeting. This might delay the French input, but the input will be ready in December.

Axel: As Seppo noted, Norway is not included in the project yet. Anyway, Axel promised Norwegian expert inputs to at least EV and heat pumps.

Miguel: a bit uncertain if they will manage to provide the final version at the end of six weeks, but will give something. The final will be ready the end of November/beginning of December.

A new EU project will start, ECO Grid, with at least Denmark, Austria, Spain, Norway, and the Netherlands. The cooperator will be Ove Grande from SINTEF, Norway. They might be interested in participating in the workshop.

Subtask 5/ Heat pumpsSeppo presented the document for heat pumps. The source is mainly IEA Heat Pump Agreement. It has been commented only by the Finnish expert. The figures are not very high class as to resolution as they are from web pages. Seppo promised to see what can be done.

Andre suggested that the reality is not always as rosy as is presented. The consumption is often much higher than expected. Seppo told that he hasn’t measurement results in the report, but it is planned to be introduced if and when some measurements are available.

We discussed the situation of the possibility to control heat pumps in different countries. Rene promised to present field test results from a Dutch heat pump control project in the next meeting. There are examples of heat pump installations in the Netherlands actually increasing energy usage compared to previous gas heating systems. There was a discussion if the increase in the energy use is due to the mistakes in the automation system. Peak burners with wires are used much more than planned as a result of under-dimensioning of the pump, which results in higher loads than planned. It was discussed that, however, in this task we should focus on the usage of heat pumps for demand side management and control.

Seppo asked for comments to the report and country reports. He will send the current version including Finnish country input to the country experts.

Subtask 5/ Smart meters

Seppo has delivered the smart meter report draft to the experts (including all the changes done showing). It is good to note, AMR is only one part of smart meters as defined by Seppo. What is demanded of smart meters in different countries?

Andre had the day before received a still confidential recommendation draft from the EU task force for smart grids and smart meters DG-TREN EG 1. Andre has asked for permission, though still waiting for an answer, to show it to this Task for evaluation and to see if there is something that should be taken in to account in our report. The report will be published later, perhaps already this year.

Andre pointed out that smart grids is not equal to smart meters, and Seppo suggested that there can’t be a smart grid without smart meters, which brought up the question of defining smart grid in this project.

Rene: on p6., what does “fuel-poor” mean? It was suggested and agreed to drop “fuel-“.Andre: Loss of energy could be formulated a bit better, perhaps loss of service.

We discussed the role and functionality of smart meters. For example, who owns meter data? What if the customer has a home automation system? We should have in the report country wise demands. For example, in Finland the meter must be able to hour measurements and two-sided communication.

Discussion on other technologies

The OA will produce the drafts also on other technologies.

The emerging ICT was unclear, so Rene told what he meant by it: to do DSM in the future might not succeed if one doesn’t have the right ICT, or a too costly ICT will be an unnecessary expense. We should assess different developments of ICT and communications on a high level, not technicalities. We can have a very smart grid without any smart meters. Andre: there is a difference between smart meters and smart metering, which we actually are talking about here. Seppo will try to look what VTT has to offer concerning ICT. Another possibility is to have an expert holding a presentation that could give an introduction to the theme in our next workshop. Rene promised to try to find such an expert.

Subtask 6: Pilots and case studies

Case study/pilot report templateSeppo has the edited the template from the first phase and presented it. Please send comments regarding the template. EV and heat pumps could be added to DSM items. The experts provide the national cases, the OA tries to collect some examples from other countries (please send info of projects you know of). The extent of a case description depends on the data available and on the expert. Both finished and ongoing cases and pilots should be included, but they should be related to the demand side of smart grid questions.

QuestionnaireWe discussed the questionnaire Seppo had sent to the experts one month ago. For example, the targets for energy efficiency for end-use sectors concern the use of electricity. The answers for the questionnaire in the first phase can be found on the IEA intranet. New passwords can be obtained for partakers from Anne Bengtson by the country experts.

Dominique suggested that the documents should be in .doc, not docx form. This was agreed on.

Miguel pondered on the use of Facebook for the Task/Agreement. Should we have some information on it? Seppo told that some companies do not allow Facebook to be used. Perhaps this task doesn’t have the need, but the Agreement could benefit. Linked-in is a more professional oriented alternative to Facebook. Matthias showed on the net the Facebook page of IEA/Anne Bengtson and different SG oriented Linked-in groups (e.g. SEESGEN-ICT).

Subtask 7 Stakeholders involved in the penetration and effects on the stakeholdersThis subtask should start now. Andre had a nice slide on stakeholders. Seppo suggested that as a first step OA tries to describe all stakeholders and their roles as well as different business model types (like a charge responsible) that might emerge. Experts could give an input of developments in their countries. Andre pointed out that role and actor are two different things. For example, the AMR-responsible might be by DSO somewhere and retailers somewhere else. Seppo suggested that we start with the stakeholders and their responsibilities. The draft should be developed also between meetings, perhaps on the website. Seppo will try to organise that.

Next stepsNext meeting

The next Workshop&expert meeting is hold in Sophia Antipolis near Cannes and Nice, France, on 21.-23.2.2011. We have a one-day workshop on Monday and a two days expert meeting the following days. It was decided that one short day is not enough for the expert meeting.

Workshop in February 2011As noted, it will be held February 21th 2011 in Sophia Antipolis, France.

The target of the workshop is to learn what the stakeholders know and to present our preliminary results. Seppo will make a list of to whom we will primary send an invitation based on existing IEA lists. The invitations may be forwarded by the primary receivers to appropriate candidates. The workshop will be open and there will be no charge to participate. It is good to be prepared for an attendance of altogether 40 persons. Dominique will check how lunch will be handled.

It was agreed that the experts act as the programme committee actively helping Seppo with the programme both on topics and speakers. The programme should be ready in the beginning of December.

We discussed the setup of the workshop. Andre thought that it would not be very beneficial to have presentations that have already been presented elsewhere and that therefore, due to the time constraint, the presentations should be limited to one. The time should be spent in discussions. Seppo suggested that presenting specific pilots and processes could be half a day and the other half used for discussions. The target is to get input from stakeholders. We discussed the possibility to have car manufacturers’ presentations, as it would be good to verify our assumptions, but on the other hand they represent only one part and, in addition, are a bit far from the main aspect, DSM.

Rene promised to have an expert presenting a smart grid experiment and, as already noted, try to have an expert for the emerging ICT issue.

InvoicesSeppo will check the situation of the invoices, for example Dominique stated that they haven’t got it yet.

We finished at 15:05.