Get documents about "2010 Presentation Project Proposal
W
Description
2010 Presentation Project Proposal document sample
Document Sample
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
TSO The Group of International Comparison
of Transmission System Operation Practices
TSO Comparison Group
Proposal for the 2009-2010 project
Prepared by KEMA Consulting
February 2009
Table of Contents:
1 Scope 2
2 Approach 2
3 Structure of the project 12
4 Resources and budget 13
5 Time Planning 15
Appendix A: Member list 2007-2008 TSO Comparison Project 16
TSO Comparison Group 1 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
1 SCOPE
The main focus of the 2009-2010 project is:
1. Consolidation of Benchmark Models:
• To update and further improve the Performance Measures database;
• To update and consolidate the models of the five key processes;
• To review and update Activity Matrices;
• To review and update Company Profiles;
• To update and further improve the Management Presentation;
• To use the results of the Benchmark models for ‘outlier identification’.
2. Comparison and Investigation of ‘Security Standards for operations’ and enhancing the
Benchmark model to reflect the differences between TSOs.
3. Comparison and Investigation of ‘Balancing Intermittent generation’ and load forecast and
enhancing the Benchmark model to reflect differences between TSOs.
4. Comparison and Investigation of ‘Congestion Management’ and enhancing the Benchmark
model to reflect differences between TSOs.
5. Dissemination of information to internal and external parties;
2 APPROACH
The work can be divided into five tasks. The five tasks will be described in the following sections
and may be sub-divided into sub-tasks, where necessary. For each task the specific deliverables
are indicated.
Task 1: Consolidation of the benchmark model for the five processes
Subtask 1.A Collecting 2008 and 2009 Performance Measures data
The TSO Comparison Group collects annually Performance Measures, which form an essential
input to our Benchmark Models and Management Presentation. The data for 2008 and 2009 will be
collected at the beginning of 2009 and 20010 respectively, according to the following process
steps:
• KEMA will update the Questionnaire and the Definition document with the agreed changes
from the previous workshop;
• Both Questionnaire and Definition document will be issued to the member TSOs in
February 2009 (for 2008 data) and January 2010 (for 2009 data);
• Member TSOs send their filled-out questionnaires to KEMA or upload their data on the TSO
Comparison Group website (www.tso-comparison.com) into the database of the respective
year;
• KEMA will check the consistency of the questionnaire using validity check, trend analysis
and ratio analysis, and provide feedback of the results to the Member TSOs. In addition,
TSO Comparison Group 2 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
data which is uploaded on the website will be checked by a software tool. The TSO will get
a validation report immediately after a successful upload;
• Member TSOs will respond to KEMA's questions;
• KEMA prepares a complete database Performance Measures data for the relevant year;
• The current database for the relevant and previous years is available on the website
(restricted members area) and can be downloaded.
• A data validation working group consisting of different TSO members, assisted by KEMA,
discusses the results during the first workshop after data collection and questions the
individual Performance Measure data of member TSOs. Moreover, the data validation
working group can propose improvements to the database/definitions.
Subtask 1.B Updating Activity Matrices/Company Profiles
During the previous projects ‘activity matrices’ have been developed to enable better
understanding of the differences in circumstances regarding for example the frequency of certain
tasks (daily, weekly, monthly etc.) as well as general differences in the range of tasks within the
five key processes for TSOs. These Activity Matrices consist of a series of activities for which the
‘activity level’ of each member TSO is ticked. Activity matrices are considered to be a useful tool
when evaluating the Benchmark results. During the 2008-2009 project, the Activity Matrices were
reviewed, updated and enhanced. In particular, market related activities and transparency
obligations which have to be fulfilled by TSOs because of the existence of markets, are now part of
the Activity Matrices.
The task for the 2009-2010 project is to add the results of the market questionnaires which were
completed by the members of the TSO Comparison Group during the 2008-2009 project to the
Activity Matrices. These Activity Matrices have to be updated by the members on a regular basis
as well and will be available on the website. KEMA will collect the updates from the members and
merge them. It is important to keep the Activity Matrices up to date as several TSOs will face
(significant) changes in the near future regarding their organisational structure. In order to ease this
process, members can download and update the Activity Matrices on the website.
The result will be issued to the member TSOs by KEMA and results will be combined by KEMA
and issued in overview tables on the website.
In addition to the Activity Matrices, the Company Profiles are also used to understand differences
among the members of the group. These profiles as well as the Activity Matrices have to be
updated on a regular basis i.e. KEMA will collect the updates and give them to the members of the
group.
TSO Comparison Group 3 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Subtask 1.C Update Benchmark models with 2008 and 2009
The previous projects resulted in benchmark models for the five key system operation processes:
• Operations Planning
• Scheduling
• Real Time Operation
• After the Fact
• Support
The existing models were finalised during the 2007-2008 project. These models provide reliable
and robust results. KEMA will update the Benchmark models with the 2008 and 2009 data. The
results will be discussed in the Benchmark Model Working group which could result in further
improvements to the models. In addition, the quality in terms of the statistical output of the different
models will be checked and discussed as well. This includes the FTE benchmark as well as the
cost benchmark for the different processes.
Subtask 1.D Defining an Output measure for the Benchmark Models
The Benchmark models use measures for Input Factors (FTEs, Costs) and Environmental Factors
(e.g. Network Size, Outages). Until now, the Output Factor is considered uniform for all companies.
In this subtask 1D, the possibilities for a reasonable Output Factor will be studied. The objective of
the task is to reasonable sensible Output Factors that can be used in the different Benchmark
models.
Subtask 1.E Enhancing the Support Benchmark Model
During the 2007-2008 project, the Support Benchmark model has been finalised. During the 2009-
2010 project the Support Benchmark Model will be consolidated and further enhanced.
Subtask 1.F Analysing Outperformers
The results of the Benchmark models and the updated activity matrix will be used for identifying
outperformers in each of the processes. Outperformers are identified by the Benchmark Models
Working group. During the workshops, the outperforming member TSOs present the processes on
which they are outperforming.
TSO Comparison Group 4 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Task 1G: Improvement of Management Presentation
During the 2007-2008 project the Management Presentation and Key Graphs have been finalised.
It was decided that ‘Resources’ were presented on the vertical axis of the key graph and
‘Performance’ on the horizontal axis. The ‘Resources’ axis was defined clearly by using the results
from the Benchmark Models. During the 2009-2010project, the management presentation will be
consolidated and further improved.
The work will be done by the Management Presentation working group. The task may include
small data requests or requests for information, depending on the approach.
Subtask 1.H Extend data base access on web site
Currently the Performance Measures database is being converted from Excel to a database
platform to enhance flexibility in analysis and web access possibilities. For ease of use and
transparency, the Excel based input and output will remain. From 2009 onwards, the members of
the group will have the possibility to upload their Performance Measures data on to the website.
Furthermore, this tool will transfer the uploaded data into the database which consists of the data
of all TSOs. Moreover, it will be possible for the member TSOs to download complete and up to
date databases (in Excel format) at any given moment from the website.
The analysis tools used in the 2007 and 2008 project will be updated and enhanced. With these
tools it will be possible to make one-dimensional comparisons and construct simple Benchmark
results.
Deliverables of Task 1.
- Updated performance measures questionnaire for both 2008 and 2009
- Updated definition document for performance measures questionnaire
- Upload tool for performance measures questionnaire on website
- Validation questions for individual TSOs
- Database with 2008 Performance Measures
- Database with 2009 Performance Measures
- Updated Activity Matrices
- Updated Company Profiles
- Enhanced Benchmark models
- Benchmark report for the five main processes based on 2008 and 2009 Performance
Measures
- Management Presentation of the 2008 and 2009 data
- Presentations of Outperforming TSOs on different processes for 2008 and 2009
- On-line Analysis tools for Performance Measures data on website
All reports are first issued in drafts before being finalised.
TSO Comparison Group 5 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Task 2: Security Standards in Real Time Operation
Most TSOs use roughly similar Security Standards1 in operations. These standards are usually
based on a deterministic approach (n-1 etc.). However, in discussions within the TSO Comparison
Group it becomes clear that there are differences in the deterministic approaches of the TSOs
which might affect the Benchmark results.
Furthermore, a number of TSOs currently internally discuss the validity of their security standards
for operation. Due to the current changes in the market environment and increased percentage of
intermittent generation (wind, solar, hydro etc.) these Operation Security Standards are being
reevaluated.
The TSO Comparison Group feels that globally the current approach for Security Standards is
starting to change and that TSOs can gain ideas and knowledge from sharing experiences. How
this affects the Benchmark results will be studied in this Task 2. The objective is to ultimately
include the effects of different Security Standards in the Benchmark models.
Since this topic is rather new for the TSO Comparison Group, the first objective of this task is to
gain an overview of the Security Standards that are applied by all TSOs in the TSO Comparison
Group. This overview takes at least the following items into consideration:
• Use of deterministic criteria in current Security Standards
• Use of probabilistic (or other) criteria in current Security Standards
• Differences in Voltage levels
• Applied Voltage and Overload limits
• Monitoring compliance to Security Standards
• Staff (numbers of FTEs) and Costs involved in Security Standards
• Consequences for TSOs if Standards are not fulfilled
• Experience with the Security Standards
• New approaches or thoughts about Security Standards
A new Security Standards Working Group will take the following action until the Interim Workshop:
• Develop a Questionnaire
• Analyse and Discuss the Questionnaire results
• Develop recommendations for the second half of the project
• Present results of analysis and recommendation at the Interim Workshop.
The work program for the second half of the project will be developed based on the
recommendations of the Security Standards Working Group. The objective though is to come to
inclusion of the influence of Security Standards in the Benchmark model and a comparison paper
on Security Standards for operations.
1
Note that this task does not include safety switching.
TSO Comparison Group 6 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Deliverables of Task 2
- ‘Security Standard for Operation’ Questionnaire
- Analysis of Questionnaire results in presentation for Interim workshop
- Recommendations for second part of the workshop
- Presentation on analysis of the Questionnaire results and recommendations for the second
part of the project
- Inclusion of Security Standards in the Benchmark Models
- Comparison paper on Security Standards for operations
All reports are first issued in drafts before being finalised.
Task 3: Balancing Load and Generation in systems with large shares of Intermittent
generation and demand response
More and more countries face an increasing share of Intermittent generation (wind, solar, (small)
hydro, biomass etc.) in their power systems. On the other hand, demand side response is likely to
increase with more demand response due to more digital meters connected to the system. This
leads to challenges for TSOs when balancing load and generation. Within the TSO Comparison
Group there are some TSOs with quite some experience in this area and other TSOs that are
currently in the process of developing their solution. Some TSOs are already using Automatic
Generation Control (AGC) while others consider introducing an AGC.
The objective of Task 3 is finding the impact of Balancing Intermittent generation and demand
response on the System Operation in general and the impact of the different approaches on the
use of staff (FTEs) and the costs in particular. The ultimate objective is to include the influence of
Balancing Intermittent generation and demand response in the Benchmark Models.
The first step of Task 3 is to obtain an overview of the approaches of different TSOs when
balancing their systems with higher levels of Intermittent generation. This includes (but is not
limited to):
• Description of the problem, from what share of Intermittent generation, demand response
needs special measures;
• Staff (FTEs) and costs related to balancing Intermittent generation
• Reserve and balancing philosophy
• Control logic applied by the control centers
• Other measures to keep frequency and/or Area Control Error stable.
• Automatic Generation Control
• Targets for frequency and/or Area Control Error
• Monitoring frequency and/or Area Control Error
• Legal and regulatory environment
TSO Comparison Group 7 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
A new Balancing Intermittent generation Working Group will take the following action until the
Interim Workshop:
• Develop a Questionnaire
• Analyse and Discuss the Questionnaire results
• Develop recommendations for the second half of the project
• Present result of analysis and recommendation at the Interim Workshop.
The works program for the second half of the project will be developed based on the
recommendations of the Balancing Intermittent generation Working Group. The objective though is
to include balancing Intermittent generation in the Benchmark models. Another product of Task 3
will be a comparison paper on balancing Intermittent generation including recommendations for
TSO.
Another development expected by the TSO Comparison Group is that, due to changing markets
and new applications in near future, load forecast may be more challenging as well. This subject
will be studied by the working group simultaneously.
Deliverables of Task 3
- ‘Balancing Intermittent generation’ Questionnaire
- Analysis of Questionnaire results in presentation for Interim workshop
- Recommendations for second part of the workshop
- Presentation on analysis of the Questionnaire results and recommendations for the second
part of the project
- Inclusion of Intermittent generation in the Benchmark models
- Paper with comparison of balancing Intermittent generation for operations
All reports are first issued in drafts before being finalized.
Task 4: Congestion Management
Congestion and constraints in the transmission networks are handled very differently by different
TSOs. Furthermore, some TSOs treat internal congestion in their network differently from
congestion with neighboring countries. This may have an impact on the number of staff of the
TSOs and the TSO’s cost and therefore on the benchmark results. The final objective of this Task
4 is therefore to study this influence and propose changes to the benchmark models that
incorporate the differences between TSOs.
TSO Comparison Group 8 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Since this topic is rather new for the TSO Comparison Group, the first objective of this task is to
understand how Congestion, Constraints and Congestion Management need to be defined
meaningfully. Moreover, an overview of the Congestion Management methodologies that are
applied by all TSOs in the TSO Comparison Group will be obtained. This overview takes at least
the following items into consideration:
• Congestion Management methodologies used by the TSO
• Effectiveness of the Congestion Management solution
• Influence of Transmission Capacity Services Markets
A new Congestion Management Working Group will take the following action until the Interim
Workshop:
• Develop a Questionnaire
• Analyse and Discuss the Questionnaire results
• Develop recommendations for the second half of the project
• Present result of analysis and recommendation at the Interim Workshop.
The works program for the second half of the project will be developed based on the
recommendations of the Congestion Management Working Group. The objective though is to
come to a comparison paper on congestion management.
Deliverables of Task 4
- ‘Congestion Management’ Questionnaire
- Analysis of Questionnaire results in presentation for Interim workshop
- Recommendations for second part of the workshop
- Presentation on analysis of the Questionnaire results and recommendations for the second
part of the project
- Inclusion of Congestion Management in the Benchmark modelsComparison Paper on
Congestion Management
All reports are first issued in drafts before being finalised.
TSO Comparison Group 9 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Task 5: Dissemination of the results of the comparison project
The main objective of this task is to present the activities and the results of the TSO comparison
project outside of the group. As in the last project, the group should also submit a publication. A
major objective of the Dissemination task is to attract new members to the TSO Comparison group.
Besides this, regular updates of the public part of the website are required. The updates shall
contain selected results.
The website of the TSO Comparison group will be updated. This update includes the following
(new) features in the restricted member area:
• Invitations/agendas of Working Group meetings as well as the minutes of these meetings will
be published on the website. All members (i.e. those who are not participating in the respective
working group) can get an overview of the status and the progress of all working groups.
• Upload tool for Performance Measure data (incl. validation tool)
• Download tool for databases (actual and previous years)
Deliverables of Task 5.
- Regular updating of website
- Paper presenting activities and results of the TSO Comparison project.
All papers are first issued in drafts before being finalised.
TSO Comparison Group 10 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Workshops
The progress of the TSO-project is mainly dependent on the number of workshops, because these
occasions speed up the process significantly.
In autumn 2009 the interim workshop will take place. In this two-day workshop the preliminary
results of the different sub-tasks of the Benchmark project will be discussed. In autumn 2010 a
three day closing workshop will take place where the final results on the different tasks will be
presented.
Deliverables of Workshop organisation.
- Technical Preparation of the workshop
- Preparation package for interim workshop, issued by email before the workshop and
available to all participants in a binder at the workshop
- Coordination and organisation (including rent of congress room etc.) of a two day interim
workshop hosted by one of the members
- Workshop report for interim workshop
- Preparation package for closing workshop, issued by email before the workshop and
available to all participants in a binder at the workshop
- Coordination and organisation (including rent of congress room etc.) of a three day closing
workshop hosted by one of the members
- Workshop report for closing workshop
Project Management and support for the Steering Committee
This task is the coordination of the whole project. It includes answering questions, linking members
with related questions, contributions to the marketing of the TSO group and any other forthcoming
tasks. It also includes the secretariat of the group and the Steering Committee meetings.
Deliverables of Project Management and support for the Steering Committee:
- Supporting the activities of the group
- Secretariat of the Steering Committee
- Agenda and minutes of the Steering Committee
TSO Comparison Group 11 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
3 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT
The diagram on this page shows the organisation of the project. A Steering Committee consisting
of a chairman, a deputy chairman and 4 to 6 member TSOs that represent the group and
supervises the progress of the project. The Steering Committee meets once every one to two
months in a conference call in order to discuss the progress and day-to-day issues of the project.
KEMA provides assistance to the Steering Committee in organising meetings and drafting
preparation materials. Several working groups will hold discussions through telephone conferences
in order to make progress and prepare discussions during the workshop.
The working groups all have their specific tasks which are referred to in the diagram below. All
working groups include a steering committee member who reports to the Steering Committee.
Working groups typically meet once every one to two months in a conference call.
Steering Committee
Chairman/Deputy Chairman
4-6 members
KEMA (secretariat)
project coordination, workshop organisation, performance measures
(Task 1A), updating activity lists/company profile (Task 1B), website
(Task 1F), marketing, dissemination (Task 5)
Benchmark Models Working Group
Steering Committee member + 4-6 members (assistance KEMA)
Update Benchmark models (Task 1C), Defining an Output
measure (Task 1D), Enhancing the Support Model (Task 1E),
Analysing Outperformers (Task 1F), Improvement of
Management Presentation (Task 1G)
Security Standard Working Group
Steering Committee member + 4-6 members (assistance KEMA)
Security Standards in Real Time Operation (Task 2)
Balancing Working Group
Steering Committee member + 4-6 members (assistance KEMA)
Balancing Intermittent generation and demand response (Task 3)
Congestion Management Working Group
Steering Committee member + 4-6 members (assistance KEMA)
Congestion Management (Task 4)
TSO Comparison Group 12 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
During the project, KEMA will support the working groups and the steering committee with
preparations, calculations, questionnaires, presentations, reports, minutes of meetings etc..
Furthermore, the KEMA team will provide general support to the TSO Comparison Group, in
organising two workshops, collecting the Performance Measures (Task 1A), drafting the
dissemination paper (Task 5) etc.
During the first month of the project, KEMA will distribute a questionnaire in which members can
provide their preference for being a member of one or more working groups.
4 RESOURCES AND BUDGET
The work will mainly be undertaken by Bart Franken and Oliver Scheufeld. They will be supported
by other consultants from the international network of KEMA if needed. Administrative support will
be provided by Caroline Payne. IT support will be provided by Nebojsa Filipovic. The project will be
executed by KEMA Consulting GmbH, Germany, residing at Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 8, 53113 Bonn,
independent from the contracting KEMA entity.
For conducting the work, we estimate the following budget:
Person days budget
Task 1: Consolidation of the benchmark model for the five processes
Subtask 1.A Collecting 2008 and 2009 Performance Measures data 22 € 23,480
Subtask 1.B Updating Activity Matrices/Company Profiles 5 € 6,300
Subtask 1.C Update Benchmark models with 2008 and 2009 data 6 € 7,560
Subtask 1.D Defining an Output measure for the Benchmark Models 5 € 6,300
Subtask 1.E Enhancing the Support Benchmark Model 5 € 6,820
Subtask 1.F Analysing Outperformers 2 € 2,520
Subtask 1.G Improvement of Management Presentation 10 € 14,420
Subtask 1.H Extend data base access on web site 15 € 12,300
Subtotal Task 1 70 € 79,700
Task 2: Security Standards in Real Time Operation 15 € 21,500
Task 3: Balancing Intermittent generation and demand response 15 € 21,500
Task 4: Congestion Management 15 € 21,500
Task 5: Dissemination of the results of the comparison project 7 € 9,860
Workshops
Person Days 25 € 29,800
Organization Costs € 25,000
Subtotal workshop 25 € 54,800
Project Management and support for the Steering Committee 40 € 37,100
Total excl. VAT € 245,960
The total estimated costs of the 2009-2010 benchmark project would be € 245,960 excluding VAT
and will be managed on a “Times & Material” basis. Based on 21 members, the amount for each
TSO member will be € 11,700.
The consultant shall charge this fee to the Project participant in two steps:
• 50% of the fee is to be invoiced in April 2009;
• 50% of the fee is to be invoiced in April 2010.
TSO Comparison Group 13 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
The next figure gives an overview of the budget in relation to the work to be executed. About 75%
of the budget is related to tasks 1 to 5 and the person days during the workshop. 10% of the
budget is covering out of pocket costs related to the organization of the workshops. The remaining
15% covers staff effort for the Workshops and the organizational and secretarial support for Project
Management, Steering Committee. This distribution is similar to the distribution of costs of the
2007-2008
project.
Project Management
and support for the Task 1: Consolidation of
Steering Committee, the benchmark model
15% for the five processes,
32%
Workshops, 22%
Task 2: Security
Standards in Real Time
Operation, 9%
Task 5: Dissemination of
the results of the
comparison project, 4% Task 3: Balancing
Intermittent generation
Task 4: Congestion and demand response,
Management, 9% 9%
TSO Comparison Group 14 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
5 TIME PLANNING
2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4
Task 1: Consolidation of the benchmark model
1.A Collection of 2008 and 2009 PM data 2008 data 2009 data
1.B Updating Activity Matrices/Company Profiles
1.C Update Benchmark models with 2008 and 2009 data 2008 2009
1.D Defining an Output measure for the Benchmark Models
1.E Enhancing the Support Benchmark Model
1.F Analysing Outperformers 2008 2009
1.G Improvement of Management Presentation
1.H Extend data base access on web site
Task 2: Security Standards in Real Time Operation
Task 3: Balancing Intermittent generation and demand response
Task 4: Congestion Management
Task 5: Dissemination of the results of the comparison project
Workshops INTERIM CLOSING
The diagram on this page shows an overview of the planning of the project. Where task 1 is
focusing on consolidating and improving the existing databases and Benchmark models, the other
tasks focus on special focused projects. Task 1 therefore shows a repetitive scheme which starts
every year with the collection of Performance Measures data (subtask 1A) and Activity
Matrices/Company profiles (subtask 1B), updating the Benchmark models (subtask 1C) and
Analysing Outperformers (subtask 1F). Results will be validated, discussed and presented on the
Interim and Closing workshops. The other tasks will be done by the relevant working groups during
the entire duration of the project. During the Interim workshop these working groups will present
their progress and discuss with other members of the TSO Comparison group on how to go
forward with their work. During the closing workshop, the work on these tasks will be finalized.
Task 5, the dissemination of the project results, is an ongoing task. This task includes updates of
the website and preparation of a publication.
The two Workshops are indicatively scheduled in Q4 of 2009 and Q4 of 2010.
TSO Comparison Group 15 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
APPENDIX A: MEMBER LIST 2007-2008 TSO COMPARISON PROJECT
The following members took part in the 2007-2008 TSO Comparison Project. Until now, the
Steering Committee has not received signals of TSOs that are not willing to continue their
participation in the TSO Comparison Group:
1. CFE (Mexico)
2. CLP Power (Hong Kong)
3. E.ON Netz (Germany)
4. Electricity Supply Board (Ireland)
5. Elia-NCC (Belgium)
6. ESKOM (South Africa)
7. Landsnet (Iceland)
8. Fingrid Oyj (Finland)
9. National Grid Electricity Transmission (UK)
10. Operador nacional do Sistema Elétrico ONS (Brasil)
11. PJM Interconnection (USA)
12. PSE (Poland)
13. Red Electrica de España SA
14. REN (Portugal)
15. RWE Transportnetz (Germany)
16. Saudi Electricity Company
17. Statnett SF (Norway)
18. Svenska Kraftnät (Sweden)
19. Swissgrid (Switzerland)
20. TenneT BV (Netherlands)
21. TransEnergie a Division of Hydro Quebec (Canada)
22. Transpower (New Zealand)
TSO Comparison Group 16 Proposal for 2009-2010 project, February 2009
Related docs
