SQSS Industry Workshop 2012.pdf

7/14/2019 SQSS Industry Workshop 2012.pdf

1/76

Place your chosenimage here. The four

corners must justcover the arrow tips.

For covers, the threepictures should be thesame size and in a

straight line.

SQSS Industry Workshop 21 June 2012


2/76

2

Welcome

Health and Safety

Introductions

Agenda for rest of the day


3/76

3

Agenda

10:10 - 10:20 SQSS governance

10:20 - 11:15 Recent SQSS developments and

update on ongoing modifications

11:15 11:35 ENTSO-E interaction with SQSS

11:35 12:15 Future SMARTer Transmission

Networks and Impact on SQSS

12:15 12:30 Interconnector Workgroup Progress

12:30 13:00 Industry Input / open discussion


4/76




straight line.

SQSS Governance

Thomas Derry (National Grid)


5/76

5

Presentation outline

Brief Background

Current SQSS Review Panel

Modification Process

SQSS Website


6/76

6

Brief Background

Review Panel developed governance proposals in 2011

Industry Consultation (15 July 05 September 2011)

Five supportive responses received

Refined and developed proposals further based on comments

Produced final conclusions document (05 March 2012)

Terminology alignment with industry codes

New Panel members

Revised SQSS Objectives with new European Objective

Clarification of Panel Functions

New governance arrangements went live 31 March 2012


7/76

7

Current SQSS Review Panel

Chair David Wright

Secretary James Cooper

Members

Distribution Alan Creighton

Generation Simon Lord

NGET Andrew Hiorns, Xiaoyao Zhou

OFTOs Sean Kelly, Geoff Singleton

SHETL Brian Punton, Bless Kuri

SPT Cornel Brozio, Dave Carson

Authority Sheona Mackenzie


8/76

8


Availableonline in the

IndustryGovernanceFrameworkdocument


9/76

9


Modification Proposal

SQSS Panel Review

SQSS Panel determineprogression Workgroup

Industry Consultation

Produce and submitModification Report

Authority review and

make determination

ModificationReg

ister

Documentation available online

Proposal

Agenda, Minutes

& Papers

Agenda &

Minutes

Consultation &Response

Proforma

Report

Authority

DecisionModification

Register


10/76

10

SQSS Website

Expect future changes

What can I find here?

SQSS

Review Panel information (contact details, meeting dates)

Modification Register

Associated documents

Address:http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqsscode/


11/76

11

Questions?

Contact:

Thomas Derry

[email protected]

01926 65 4208


12/76




straight line.

Recent SQSS developments: GSR008

Regional Variations and Wider Issues

Vandad Hamidi (National Grid)


13/76

13

GSR008 - Regional Variations and

Wider Issues

Recommendations:

The requirement to consider an N-1-1 condition at peak demand in design studies inEngland and Wales should be relaxed

The use of dynamic ratings in operational timescales should be explicitly referred to

Flexibility should be allowed in setting the reactive output of generators in backgroundconditions across GB, as is currently permitted in Scotland

Changes to the degree to which embedded generation is considered when assessing

demand security should be made to align the NETS SQSS more closely with P2/6 Presentational changes should be made to demand security table to better align with

P2/6

Clarifications on the applicability of demand and generation criteria to composite groupsshould be made

Generation trips should be considered when assessing compliance with the standard

Flexibility should be introduced into voltage limits to allow more efficient system designand operation where there is no impact on customers


14/76

14

GSR008 - Regional Variations and

Wider Issues

Progress:

Report submitted to Ofgem Autumn 2011

Ofgem consultation recently completed

4 consultation responses currently being considered


15/76




straight line.

SQSS Workgroup Updates GSR010

Generator Connections Workgroup

Cornel Brozio (SPT)


16/76

16

Generation ConnectionsCustomer Choice

Problem with current arrangements

Many smaller connecting customers exercise customer choice to choose a non-SQSS compliant connection.

lowers their connection charge

potentially facilitate an earlier connection to the grid

TO required to design and document a bespoke connection arrangement for eachcustomer

Complex for the customer to enable them to understand the options available.

No explicit Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) justification as to what may be consideredappropriate.

Proposed solution Reference connection methodologies for 9 classes of generation


17/76

17

Generation ConnectionsConnection Methodologies

Connection method 1

For 0 50 MW generation

Connection method 4

For 100 MW 300 MW wind generation

It is recommended these changes become the 9 standard onshore

connections for different generation sizes

CUSC Panel to separately consider any charging changes


18/76

18

Generation ConnectionsOnshore Required Connection Methodologies

3599

1799

1319

699

299

99

49

Max

3600***

1800**

1320*

700

300

100

50

0

Min

999H

888G

777F

766E

665D

554C

224B

111A

>70%

e.g. CCGT

40-70%

e.g. biomass


19/76

19

Generation ConnectionsConsultation

Industry Consultation launched 18th June

Response deadline 17th August

Consultation documents available on National Grid website:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqsscode/Modifications/GSR010/index.htm


20/76

20

Generation ConnectionsConsultation Questions

1. Minimum System Connections for Generation Connections do you agree that theproposed modification meets the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS?

2. Minimum System Connections for Generation Connections do you have any

comments on possible commercial implications that you would wish the CUSCPanel to take into consideration? Which CUSC option would be preferable - redefinewhen compensation should be paid (but with potentially higher TNUoS) or maintainthe existing arrangements?

3. System Resilience for generation at single circuit risk do you agree that theproposals are appropriate and satisfy the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS?

4. Revision of Selected Definitions - do you agree that the proposed modificationprovide clarity and better meets the principles and/or objectives of the SQSS?

5. Standard Connection Schemes - do you agree that the proposed modificationprovide useful guidance and transparency and satisfy the principles and/orobjectives of the SQSS?

6. Location of Grid Entry Points are you satisfied that the proposals further theprinciples and/or objectives of the SQSS?


21/76




straight line.

SQSS Workgroup Updates GSR011

Offshore Workgroup

Vandad Hamidi (National Grid)


22/76

22

GSR011 Offshore workgroupConclusions:

Economics of Round 3 connections similar to those of Rounds 1 and 2

No justification to change standard

Connection capacity of 100% TEC is appropriate

The recommendations of GSR009 - wind scaled to 70% in infrastructure analysis can beapplied to networks with high volumes of offshore wind generation

In designing the transmission system the following should be considered as secured events:

an N-1 outage of an offshore circuit

an N-1-1 outage involving an offshore circuit on prior outage followed by either anoffshore circuit or an onshore circuit fault outage

an N-1-1 condition with an onshore circuit containing a cable section on prior outage,followed by an offshore circuit fault outage.

This is consistent with the GSR008 proposals for considering N-1-1 events in planning.

Short duration losses of a DC link carrying more than the Infrequent Infeed Loss can betolerated where parallel routes can increase their flows


23/76

23

GSR011 Offshore working group

Progress:

Draft working group report submitted to May 12 Review Panel

Final report to be submitted to July 12 Review Panel

Industry consultation August / September


24/76

24

Infeed losses

Response held to cover limit freq fall to 0.8Hz for1.8GW generation loss (from 2014)

For loss above 1.8 GW, can contain fall using sameresponse if restore some generation quickly enough

Amount of restoration required increases with greatertime delay


25/76

25

Loss of 2GW for limited time

Loss of 2 GW wind (27 GW system - high wind FFR)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

200 300 400 500 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Wind Reconnected (MW)

MaximumA

llowedT

ime(s)


26/76


corners must just

cover the arrow tips.For covers, the threepictures should be thesame size and in a

straight line.

SQSS Workgroup Updates - GSR013

Offshore Infeed Loss Risk

Xiaoyao Zhou (National Grid)


27/76

27

Offshore infeed loss risk

Normal and infrequent infeed loss

HVDC Converter fault HVDC converter failure rate Power infeed loss after HVDC fault Mitigation factor

offshore cable failure Cable failure rate Multiple cable failure due to anchor draggingMitigation factor


28/76

28

SQSS infeed loss risk

limits post 2014

The Security and Quality of Supply Standard considerstwo infeed loss risk limits

Normal: 1320 MW, to avoid a deviation of systemfrequency by more than 0.5Hz.

Infrequent: 1800 MW, to avoid a deviation of systemfrequency outside the range 49.5Hz to 50.5Hz for morethan 60 seconds.


29/76

29

Normal Limit Count of Events

Electricity Act requires: maintain the frequency within 49.5 to 50.5Hz,save in exceptional circumstances

CEGB reckoned (legal opinion) that the man in the street would regard upto 2 events pa as exceptional circumstances

N.Grid in 1994, re-judged that 4 events pa could be exceptional

circumstances


30/76

30

Beyond the Infrequent Limit

For instantaneous losses >1800MW, we have the Defence Measure ofLow Frequency (LF) relays; which shed demand in 5% blocks

Operated once in anger on 26/May/2008 (restoration ~ 40 minutes)

What is instantaneous? N.Grid have no formal policy on this: as fast as practicable;

without incurring costs prior to the first fault Certainly we do not restore Response within 5 minutes of a first1000+MW Loss On average, given Fast Reserve used, we restore Response upto 20

minutes of a first Loss


31/76

31

HVDC Forced Outage Rates (FOR)

Frequency of converter fault

Typical limit based on CIGRE report = 1.4 per year

Normal infeed loss risk limit applies

Frequency of cable faults

Assume 1 forced outage/10 years

Infrequent infeed loss risk limit applies


32/76

32

Symmetrical monopole

converter outage incurs 100% energy unavailability

1800MW lose instantaneously; does not meet SQSS

requirements (Normal infeed loss risk limit applies)


33/76

33

Bipole with neutral return via third

conductor

Pole outage incurs 50% energy unavailability

900MW lose instantaneously, within the normal infeed loss risk

Third conductor represents significant additional cost to the project


34/76

34

Bipole with neutral return via sea

electrodes

Pole outage incurs 50% energy unavailability

900MW lose instantaneously, within the normal infeed lose risk

Short duration ground return current until reconfiguration

Metallic return transfer breaker (MRTB) commutates current back to cablefollowing reconfiguration

Environmental issues under investigation, not been used in UK system


35/76

35

Bipole with no neutral return

Pole outage incurs 100% energy unavailability until dc side reconfigured

1800MW lose instantaneously and 900MW recovered followingreconfiguration

For 1800MW HVDC, if the DC reconfiguration can be done within 1.35ssecond and recover half of the capacity (900MW); the system frequencycan be kept above 49.5HZ; if not can not meet the SQSS requirement


36/76

36

Bipole with no return with quick

reconfiguration

49.40

49.50

49.60

49.70

49.80

49.90

50.00

1.00 1.99 3.00 4.01 5.02 6.03 7.04 8.05 9.06 10.0711.08 12.08 13.08 14.0815.08

Time [s]

Note: Fault is at 1s

Frequ

ency[Hz]

900MW back at 2.35s

900MW back at 2.4s

900MW back at 2.45s


37/76

37

SQSS recommendation for HVDC

converter fault The Converter fault remains at a frequency which should be covered

down to the Normal Infeed risk

Two configurations can meet the SQSS requirements

No change to current SQSS


38/76

38

Cable Separation Risk N.Grid prefers that identifiable events do not lose Infeed > 1800MW

Near-adjacent losses of infeed within 10-15 minutes pose a risk of alow frequency incident

IF: we want to cover the Ship Dropping Anchor risk (speed 10-20 knots),we have to separate cables by 10-20 knots x 0.17-0.25hr = 3.1 to 9.3 km

This must be completely impracticable for most large offshore windfarms

If the risk is only 1 in 100year per cable-route, x 0.35 (probability thatoffshore wind output > 50% of rating) = 1 in 300year, the risk is certainly notworth covering

IF: we want to cover the Ship Dragging Anchor risk (speed 0.5knots),

we have to separate cables by 0.5 knots x 0.17-0.25hr = 150-250m This appear a more reasonable proposal If the risk is 1 in 20year per cable-route, 0.35 (probability that offshore windoutput > 50% of rating) = 1 in 60year, this approaches credible


39/76

39

SQSS review recommendation on

cable separationPossible proposal to separate the cable by 250m but it is notrecommended by working group for the following reasons:

There are a number of ~ 1-in-100year onshore Infeed loss risks of2000-5000MW. A few extra offshore risks would not give anoverwhelming case for mitigation. OFTOs are already under incentives to minimise downtimes of valuable

wind connection assets. It is not clear that an SQSS requirement addsmuch, to what OFTOs will strive towards anyway. Good practice on laying offshore cables already typically leaves aseparation of 100-200m, in order to gain unfettered access to a cable incase of fault. Hence a requirement of 250m separation adds little. Circumstances along individual cable routes will vary. Difficult seabedconditions may naturally drive a section of route towards close cableseparation. A blanket requirement for 250m separation does not respectsuch individual considerations.


40/76


corners must just


straight line.

ENTSO-E Network Code Development and SQSS

Vandad Hamidi

SMARTer System Performance Manager

National Grid

SQSS Public Workshop June 2012


41/76

41

Grid Code Requirement Variationsbetween different TSOs

European Network Code

Development


42/76

42


Development

European Network ofTransmission System Operatorsfor Electricity (ENTSO-E)

41 TSO Members:

serving 525 million citizens,

880 GW generation,

270,000 km transmission lines,(over 220 kV)

3,300 TWh/Year Demand,

400 TWh/ Year Exchange.


43/76

43


Development

Main tasks:

Establishment of network codes

Ensure coordination of network operation by commonnetwork operation tools

Develop a ten-year network development plan

Planning Standard (Project Evaluation Rules)

Publish annual work programme, annual report andannual summer and winter generation adequacy outlooks


44/76

44


Development

A generic grid code format; the structure, designations,figures, method of specification, definitions and units arefixed and agreed upon.

Technical requirements which will maximise efficiency for allparties and in particular benefit for:

Manufacturers, who will be required only to develop commonhardware and software platforms;

Developers, who will benefit from reduced development costs(connection cost, cost of particular type of turbine, etc.);

Consumers, who will benefit from lower costs;

System operators, especially those who have yet to developtheir own grid code requirements for new technologies.


45/76

45

ENTSO-Es Ultimate Goal

Facilitating Integration of Renewables

Maintaining Security of Supply Facilitating the Market


46/76

46


Development

Grid Connection Framework Guidelines result

in the following Network Codes:

Requirements for Generators (RfG)

Demand Connection Code (DCC)

HVDC Connection Code (HCC)

Connection Procedures Code (CPC)

Priority (expected at

the end of 2012)

To Follow on shortly thereafter

Starting in 2013


47/76

47

NC RfG Harmonization Principles

In addition, Power Generating Modules (PGM) are divided into 4 Typesranging from Type A (down to 0.8 kW) up to Type D with units above 30 MWor connected at or above 110kV.

Offshore (ACConnection)*Non-synchronousSynchronousApply to all

Specific RequirementsGeneral Requirements

Four Categories of NC RfG General and Specific Requirements

Baltic StatesIrelandGreat BritainNordic StatesContinental Europe

Five Regional Requirements

Rather than complete harmonization of all requirements for all generatingunits which is neither pragmatic nor cost effective, the document provides

a consistent set of requirements for all generation under 4 categoriesand

allows for regional differences across 5 areas.

* All offshore DC Connections will be Discussed in HVDC Connection Code


48/76

48

RfG- Offshore CP

Interaction with SQSS

AC Grid

WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG

WTGWTGWTGWTGWTG

Sub-Sea CableOnshore Cable

Intertidal Cable

Unity PFNo Change0.95 PF Lead/Lag

No Change

RfG Off h CP


49/76

49

RfG- Offshore CP


WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG

WTGWTGWTGWTGWTG

WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG

WTGWTGWTGWTGWTG

AC Grid

0.98 PF Lead/Lag0.95 PF Lead/Lag

This Arrangement is currently not allowed under the existing Grid Code

D d C ti C d


50/76

50

Demand Connection Code


Frequency Response

Frequency Reserve Reactive Power MVAR exchange between T & D & power factor limits

Voltage withstand capabilities

Frequency withstand capabilities


51/76

51

ENTSO-E Network Codes,

and SQSSConclusions

ENTSO-E Network Codes do not have any direct influence on HOWEuropean TSOs design their own Network The impact will be mainly

through changes on the Grid Connection Codes and may require updatingthe national design standards (i.e. SQSS in GB)

RfG Code will have very little material impact on SQSS (Chapter 2 Studiesmainly intended for Generation Connection)

Future Codes:

DCC Code is still under development (the impact on SQSS is likely tobe on Chapter 3 Studies and how Demand is treated i.e.Distinguishing between Responsive and Non-Responsive, Voltagewithstand Capability etc.) Also the reactive power exchange betweenT&D network may require slight modification of Chapter 4 studyProcedure.

HVDC Connection Code is yet to be drafted; it is expected that it willmainly cover System Performance issues.


52/76

52

Discussion & Questions?


53/76


corners must just


straight line.

Future SMARTer Transmission Networksand Impact on SQSS

Vandad HamidiSMARTer System Performance

National Grid Warwick UK


54/76

54

Outline

Challenges for GB Power System

The issue of Transmission Constraint

Integrated Offshore Networks

Western / Eastern HVDC Project

Series Compensation

Dynamic Thermal Rating

Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU)

Automation of QBs


55/76

55

Chart example

So far 19% reduction achieved equivalent ofremoving 22m passenger vehicles from the UK

What are the targets:

1990 593 Mt CO22020 438 Mt CO22030 332 Mt CO2

Offshore wind capacityOffshoreWi df


56/76

56

To meet 2020targets*

Alreadycontracted

16GW 27GW

Windfarm

Development* against Gone Green scenario

NSN

BritN

ed

Nemo

IFA

Hornsea

Norfo

lk

Dogger Bank

Round 1Round 2Round 2+Round 3

Moyle

EWIC

Stepwise evolution to aNORWAY


57/76

57

European supergrid

NSN

BritN

ed

Nemo

IFABELGIUM,

FRANCE

THE NETHERLANDS,

GERMANY

DENMARK


58/76

58

Transmission ConstraintHistoric power flows

generally north southFuture power flows vary in

time and direction


59/76

Activity 1. Integrated Offshore


60/76

60

Activity 1. Integrated Offshore

Networks


61/76

61

Activity 1. Integrated Offshore Networks


62/76

62


Onshore Substation 1

Onshore Substation 1

Onshore GridWindfarm

GG

Full Reactive Power SupportRegardless of Direction

of Active Power

Rapid power reversal possible (simply change thedirection of current) No Filter Switching Time etc.


63/76

63

System Performance


1.000.50-0.50-1.00

1.00

0.50

-0.50

-1.00

Controllability of mode: -0.283 +0.039*jMagnitude: 0.286 1/s, Angle: 172.240 degPeriod: 162.944 s, Frequency: 0.006 HzDamping: 0.283 1/s, Ratio of Amplitudes: 105904023741220360000.000Min. contribution: 0.100

Cluster 3:Grid / Non-Frequency response H6; psie: 0.20 / 12.1 deg

Cluster 4:Grid / SCCL-1; speed: 1.00 / 0.0 deg

Cluster 1:Grid / Non-Frequency response H4; speed: 0.14 / -167.1 deg

Cluster 2:Grid / Non-Frequency response H6; speed: 0.53 / -162.2 deg

DIgSILENT

0.2381-0.0609-0.3599-0.6589-0.9580-1.2570 Neg. Damping [1/s]

1.5178

1.0342

0.5507

0.0671

-0.4165

-0.9000

Damped Frequency [Hz]

Stable Eigenvalues

Unstable Eigenvalues

DIgSILENT

0.2381-0.0609-0.3599-0.6589-0.9580-1.2570 Neg. Damping [1/s]

1.5178

1.0342

0.5507

0.0671

-0.4165

-0.9000

Damped Frequency[Hz]

Stable EigenvaluesUnstable Eigenvalues

DIgSILENT

1.000.50-0.50-1.00

1.00

0.50

-0.50

-1.00

Controllability of mode: -0.112 +0.126*jMagnitude: 0.168 1/s, Angle: 131.611 degPeriod: 49.904 s, Frequency: 0.020 HzDamping: 0.112 1/s, Ratio of Amplitudes: 265.250Min. contribution: 0.100

Cluster 1:Grid / Induction Machine Load; speed: 0.47 / 0.9 degGrid / Pump storage; speed: 0.46 / 0.8 degGrid / Non-Frequency response H4; speed: 0.34 / 0.1 degGrid / Non-Frequency response H6; speed: 1.00 / 0.0 deg

DIgSILENT

Activity 2. Western HVDC Project(E t d 2015/16)


64/76

64

(Expected 2015/16)

2.2 GW Link Between Hunterston (Scotland) and Connahs

Quay (North Wales)

420km - 600 kV Subsea Cable in the Irish Sea (the first of its

kind in the world at this voltage level)

Key Characteristics:

Based on Line Commutated Current (LCC) Technology

Power Oscillation Damping (POD) Capability

Challenges

Requires Minimum Fault Level (Network Strength) to Operate

No Provision for Power Reversal (LCC Limitation)

Harmonics and Sub Synchronous Resonance Issues

Activity 3. Proposed Eastern HVDCP j


65/76

65

Project(Expected 2018)

Around 2 GW HVDC

Subsea link between Peterhead inScotland and Hawthorne Pit in England

VSC / LCC ?

Potential for Multi-Terminal VSC-HVDCLinks (we need DC breakers!)

If VSC:Dynamic Reactive Support to the Grid

Power Reversal Capability

No Harmonics / Resonance Issues


66/76

66

Activity 4. Series Compensation (Expected 2014)

Increasing the Power Transfer from 3.3GW (Stability Limit) to around 4.3 GW

(Thermal Limit)

To be installed at both Eastern andWestern AC Power Corridors)

Compensation Level around 35%

Fixed vs TCSC

Challenges:Sub Synchronous Resonance

Distance Protection

Activity 4. Series Compensation


67/76

67

y p

(TCSC)

R

L

C

MOV

Main Spark Gap

CB

Damping circuit

Auxiliary Spark Gap

Benefits of Thyristor ControlledSeries Compensation

Allows Variable Compensation Level(Dynamically)

Mitigation Measure for SSR

TCSC at Low Frequencies is

Inductive Could Reduce the Compensation

Level in case of Resonance

Better Power Oscillation Damping (POD)


68/76

68

Activity 5. Dynamic Thermal Rating

Dynamic & real time ratings couldtemporarily enhance boundary capacity- particularly for intermittent generation

Tools already employed

Circuit Thermal Monitor (CTM)

provides condition based ratings -approx 20 ccts

Met office rating enhancement(MORE) approx 30 ccts

Humber Smart Zone:

Activity 6. Phasor Measurement Unit(PMU) (2012)


69/76

69

(PMU) (2012)

Synchronized measurements and sampling of voltage and currentwaveforms. Synchronization is achieved using timing signals from the

GPS. Synchronized phasor measurements elevate the standards of power

system monitoring, control, and protection to a new level.


70/76

70

Activity 7. Automated QB Tapping Currently QBs are Tapped Individually to mitigate

Local overloading (N-D condition)

Optimized Automated Tapping of Multiple QBs to Allowfurther loading an Area


71/76

71

Activity 7. Automated QB Tapping

There are 10 QBs with a total of 12630 MVAoperating at levels of 275kV and 400kV on the grid

for power flow control.

Each QB is controlled independently in operationsand they play an important role in setting up a

cardinal point in network operations.

Current Operational procedure limits 6 times tapchanges of single/pair of QBs for 10 mins overload

condition and 15 times tap changes of single/pair ofQBs for 20 min overload condition


72/76

72

Interaction with SQSS SQSS ensures a reliable, and efficient network design procedure.

New Technologies mainly enhance the capability of the Utilization of

Existing Assets (i.e. Dynamic Thermal Rating), or Provide moreFlexibility in Design/Operation (i.e. VSC HVDC by Providing DynamicReactive Power Response).

Therefore, the existing SQSS as it stands today is currently fit for

purpose. SQSS Working Group is constantly reviewing the SQSS, making

required modifications (i.e. Working Group on Loss of infeed over1800MW).

Stakeholders are welcome to request modifications which will beconsidered in the working group.


73/76

73

Discussion & Questions?


74/76




straight line.

Interconnector Workgroup GSR012

Andy Hiorns (National Grid)


75/76

75

SQSSR: Interconnector WG (1) Presence, location and size of Interconnectors is out-of-scope

Europe likes to treat Interconnectors as Transmission

But GB still treats as Merchant; hence SQSS must take locationand size of Interconnector as a given

Connection for Interconnectors remains at maximum flow in eitherdirection

Largest issue wrt planning of Infrastructure for Interconnectors is theexpected direction of flow

GSR009 Security has set this to zero

SQSS cannot specify this, for GSR009 Economy

We will handle this via the Planned Status of each Interconnector

We now treat all non-Irish Interconnectors as Planned Status= Float


76/76

76

SQSSR: Interconnector WG (2) Only remaining issue for Interconnector WG is the weight to be given,

in Planning studies, to the extremes of all Interconnectors importinginto GB and all Interconnectors exporting from GB

This needs forecast data of:

Duration and Distribution of individual interconnector flows

Correlation of same across multiple interconnectors

History 2001-2011 is unlikely to be a good indicator of 2015 or2025

There is no History for new Interconnectors, eg BelgiumNorway

Europe- wide merit orders have been prepared; but are ofdoubtful quality and are onerous to implement

Can any in the Industry help us on this?

SQSS Industry Workshop 2012.pdf

Documents

Transcript of SQSS Industry Workshop 2012.pdf