Data – summary and process
Extended Reserve Manager
Workshop 3
26 and 28 April 2016
1
Workshop focus areas
Data review
Operations
approach
Default terms & conditions
Data
requirements
Workshop 1
2
Payment
mechanism
Default values
Example
procurement
schedule
Workshop 2
Workshop 3
Session outline
1.
2.
3.
4.
3
Recap on the process to date
Distributor data overview
Debrief on data quality – gather your views
Debrief on process – gather your views
Data request / spec issued
Distributors provided data
Trial
process
-
Gathering
-
Formatting
-
Uploading
ERM reviewed data
Distributors revised anomalies
Updated relay costs
“Full” data set
Methodology
TRIAL RESULTS
Procurement schedule
4
Selection tool
Thank you!
A big thank you –
everyone engaged with us.
5
It’s been useful to trial the process
• Aim: to produce a trial procurement schedule
• Other value from:
- Finding out “what’s out there”
- Identifying areas that need more work
- Feedback to improve the data specification
- A dry run on customer class allocations
- Checking it is possible to meet the technical requirements
6
Data quantity received
• More than requested overall from lines companies
• Direct connects had little non-IL load to offer
7
Quantity currently on AUFLS
• 35% of NI offtake submitted is currently on AUFLS
• Data was provided for most demand units for 4 years
8
Sufficient quantity
• Sufficient to make a viable selection, particularly as many
demand units were small
Demand unit size
1062
673
92
9
8
25
> 10 MW
5 to 10 MW
2 to 5 MW
1 to 2 MW
0 to 1 MW
24
3
0 MW
-Ve MW
Demand unit characteristics
• Existing relays: 49%
• Existing fast response relays: 48 %
• 1 relay on a demand unit: 98%
• On relays:
- SCADA indication and control: 44%
- SCADA remote reading capability: 34%
- Df/dt functionality: 18%
• IL: 195 MW subtracted from 913 demand units
• Embedded generation: 161MW across 880 demand units
10
Customer class allocation
• Load-weighted average
Heavy Industry
6%
Large User
5%
Public H&S
8%
Light & Primary
Industry
9%
Commercial
28%
11
Residential
44%
Multiple customer types on demand unit
12
Data quality observations
1. Clean data – spikes
2. Missing years of unit load data
3. How missing data is filled in within a year
13
Example
• Straight-line estimate used, presumably to fill in missing
data
14
Supplied by Transpower
Data quality observations
4. Customer class allocation
5. Interruptible load
6. Specific inconsistencies / issues
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
15
Daylight savings
Net negative quantities on some demand units
More MW submitted than seen at the GXP
More than 1 relay on a demand unit
Unit configuration file – inconsistencies
Data provision process observations
Challenges observed related to:
• Meeting the timeframe
• Sourcing information
• Getting into the requested format
• Time spent uploading through portal
• Revising to fix anomalies.
16
Updating the relay costs
•
•
•
•
•
•
17
Workshop 2 – review the relay costs
Beca surveyed some distributors
Aim was to get a more realistic generic set of costs
Circulated final report on 12 April
The costs are used in this selection process
The values and how applied to be consulted on
Results of survey
Key changes:
• Costs have mostly gone up
• Administration cost is per-distributor not per-relay
• New cost categories investigated:
-
18
Flexible conversion cost (capital)
Implementation cost
Relay testing maintenance cost
Fast response conversion
Next steps
• Survey to capture specific feedback
• Analysis of customer class allocation methods
• Data specification improvements
19
Question 1
Customer class allocation
a) How accurate were your allocations on a scale of 1 to 10
(1 = low, 10 = very accurate)
b) What would improve accuracy?
c) What was the main difficulty in determining customer
class allocations?
20
Question 2
Interruptible load
a) How accurate were your IL subtractions? (1 – 10)
b) What would improve accuracy?
c) What was the main difficulty in determining IL?
21
Question 3
Missing years of data
a) Feedback on raising the base requirement to a minimum
2 full years for any submitted demand unit?
b) Will reconfiguring a network in the future be a valid
reason for not meeting the 4-year requirement?
22
Question 4
Data provision process
What part of providing the data caused the most difficulty?
• What part of the process would you want us to change?
• What worked well?
23
Question 5
Data deadlines
Is this a suitable timeline for the first “real” data provision
process?
• 3 months’ notice
• 2-month deadline from issuing the request for data
…and then one month later…
• 2 weeks to address any anomalies found.
24
Question 6
Updated AUFLS provision costs
a) Are the generic average costs recommended in the Beca
report in the right ballpark?
b) Should the annual administration cost be per relay or per
distributor or split?
25