ELECTRICITY QUALITY OF SERVICE REGULATION IN ITALY

Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas 1

ELECTRICITY QUALITY OF SERVICE REGULATION IN ITALY

Ferruccio VillaQuality and Consumer affair Department

Head of Electricity Quality of SupplyHead of Electricity and Gas Smart

[email protected]

Study visit of FTSMilan, 4 March 2010


AGENDA

• Overview on the electricity quality of service regulation

• Short overview on the electricity and gas smart metering regulation

QUALITY STANDARDS

(guaranteed/overall)and DIRECTIVESArt. 2(12) para. h)

AUTOMATIC COMPENSATIONS

IN CASE OF STANDARD NON-FULFILLMENT

Art. 2(12) para. g)

QUALITY-TARIFF LINK

Art. 2(19) para. a) Art. 2(12) para. e)

PROPOSALS FOR LICENSING

Art. 2(12) para. b) and o)

Regulatory Authority

(vs. licensing admin.)

(vs. customers)

SANCTIONS IN CASE OF MISRESPECT OF

REGULATORY ORDERS

Art. 2(20) para. c)

(vs. utilities)

LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Regulatory Authority’s legal powers


• The law foresees two types of quality standards– Guaranteed standards (GS): have the

function of ensuring that all consumers receive a minimum quality level and therefore are oriented to the protection of (worst-served) customers through compensations;

– Overall standards (OS): have the function to monitor the company performance at system level and therefore are oriented to promoting improvement through incentive/penalties schemes

• It’s up to the Authority to choose which type of standard apply to different quality issues


Guaranteed and overall standards



Guaranteed and overall standards• Guaranteed Standards

– referred to each single transaction between customer and utility– detailed knowledge of the company performance, down to

individual customer level (detailed measurements are needed)– Guaranteed standard = minimum quality

• CQ: maximum time to connect the customer with simple work• CS: maximum number of interruptions per year that affect the single customer

• Overall Standards – referred to the average performance of the utility in a given area– monitoring function through periodic publication of results (might

affect the reputation of the company, if not its financial results) – Overall standard = average quality (or quality at a given

percentile) • CQ: at least 90% of customer’s claims answered within the maximum time for

substantial reply• CS: maximum number of interruptions per year per customer (average in a

given area)


SERVICE QUALITY REGULATION MEANS MULTIDIMENSIONAL OUTPUT

REGULATION

•VOLTAGE INVESTIGATIONS

•VOLTAGE VARIATIONS•VOLTAGE DIPS / SWELLS•RAPID VOLTAGE CHANGES

•FLICKER•HARMONICS•UNBALANCE

VOLTAGE QUALITY

COMMERCIAL QUALITY

•CALL CENTERS•BILLING•APPOINTMENTS•RICONNECTIONS AFTER NON-PAYMENT DISCONNECTIONS

•READING•COMPLAINTS •NEW SUPPLY ESTIMATES•CONNECTIONS TO NETWORK

•PROVIDING SUPPLY•METER INVESTIGATIONS

CONTINUITYOF SUPPLY

•UNPLANNED SUPPLY INTERRUPTIONS (LONG AND SHORT)

•PLANNED (NOTIFIED) SUPPLY INTERRUPTIONS

ELECTRICITYSERVICE

SUPPLY

GEN

ERA

TION

, TR

AN

SMISSIO

N

AN

D

DISTR

IBU

TION


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT

• SET AND MAINTAIN OVERALL QUALITY STANDARDS

• LINK QUALITY AND REVENUES (TARIFFS)

FAVOUR AND TEST MARKET MECHANISMS

• PREFER CUSTOMER CHOICE WHENEVER POSSIBLE AND SAFE

PROTECT WORST-SERVED

CUSTOMERS• SET AND

MAINTAIN GUARANTEED QUALITY STANDARDS

• DETERMINE INDIVIDUAL COMPENSATIONS FOR STANDARD MISMATCHING

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

• SET RELIABLE MEASUREMENT RULES FOR QUALITY FACTORS

• PUBLISH ACTUAL QUALITY LEVELS

OBJECTIVES OF SERVICE QUALITY REGULATION

REGULATION OF QUALITY

PREREQUISITE

INCENTIVE QUALITY REGULATION (P.B.R.)

COMPETITION


A CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR SERVICE QUALITY REGULATION

Telephoneresponse incentives

Volt.Qual.Monitoring systems

Volt.Qual.minimum standards

VOLTAGE QUALITY

CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY

COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts

Regulatorymeasurement guidance

Publicationactual quality levels

Multiple/Very long

interruption standards

Guaranteedquality

standards

Incentiveand penalty mechanism


MONITORING CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY

DISTRIBUTION




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long


Guaranteedquality

standards



Regulatory measurement guidance:

Continuity of supply - basic concepts• Territorial classification of affected

customers• LV customers involved in interruptions• The telecontrol system• The interruption register• Force majeure• How continuity is measured• Who measures continuity• Audits on continuity data


• A territorial classification is needed in order to set separate and acceptable standards

• Italian classification• Urban (“high density”) areas: territory of

municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants

• Sub-urban (“medium density”) areas: territory of municipalities with more than 5,000 and less than 50,000 inhabitants

• Rural (“low density”) areas: territory of municipalities with less than 5,000 inhabitants

TERRITORIAL CLASSIFICATION OF AFFECTED CUSTOMERS


LV CUSTOMERS INVOLVED IN INTERRUPT.• Interruptions due to faults at HV or MV level: Estimate of number of LV users involved =

MV/LV transf. involved * ratio of LV users per MV/LV transf.

(calculated separately for each district level)• Interruptions due to faults at LV level: Estimate of number of LV users involved =

LV lines involved * ratio LV users per LV line (calculated separately for each district level)

Until 2007: estimation

As from 2008: actual number• Through information systems (e.g.: SCADA, GIS, etc.)

• Through smart metering systems (financial incentive; in this case the registration of the actual number of LV customers has been postponed to 2010)


THE TELECONTROL SYSTEM• The Italian continuity of supply regulation sets a minimum

requirement about telecontrol system (HV and LV level)– Every event of opening and closure of breaker (at HV or MV level,

>1 kV) must be automatically detected and recorded– There must be an automatic printing of all events on the grid– The telecontrol system must be able to control at least the HV and

MV circuits at the terminals of each HV/MV, MV/MV transformer stations and MV switching stations or interconnection station with other DISCOs

• For faults on LV networks only manual registration is required but all the telephone calls must be reported in written in a separate register

– in order to verify that crews have been engaged after all telephone calls for repairing the fault


HV/MV station

HV/MV station

MV/LV substations

Example: telecontrol system in a network


Breakers that must be remotely controlledHV/MV

stationHV/MV station

MV/LV substations

Example: telecontrol system in a network


THE INTERRUPTION REGISTER• For each interruption, the distribution company must

record the following data in the “interruption register”– Type of interruption (long/short/transient)– Starting time (see also telecontrol system)– Number of customer affected– Duration (for each group of customers with same duration)– Voltage level (T, HV, MV, LV)– Code of the affected circuits– Cause (force majeure, external damages, other)– Specific documentation if cause = F.M. or EXT.DAM.– Specific documentation if interruption notified

• At the end of the year, an electronic copy of the register in sent via e-mail to the regulatory authority


FORCE MAJEURESimplification process1. 1st Regulatory Period (2000-2003)

• Only documental evidence2. 2nd Regulatory Period (2004-2007)

• Choice between documental evidence and statistical alghoritm (Major Event Days)

3. 3rd Regulatory Period (2008-2011)• Only statistical alghoritm (Exceptional

Condition Periods) + possibility of documental evidence for few specific cases


HOW CONTINUITY IS MEASURED• Interruptions are described through

– Time between events or number of interruptions (for each type) in a period of time (in general, 1 year) and in a given distribution territory (homogenous!) of N customers

• SAIFI: average number of long interruptions per customer per year (MAIFI for short interr.)

• SAIDI: average duration of interruption per customer per year

– Per each interruption of the same type, main characteristics to be recorded are

• Customers affected (involved) Ni SAIFI, SAIDI• Duration (time of start & finish) Di SAIDI

tot

K

ii

N

NSAIFI

1

tot

i

K

ii

N

DNSAIDI

1


WHO MEASURES CONTINUITY• Distribution company

– Remote control system (SCADA): allows automatic registration of each interruptions starting time and each breaker operation

• Italy: compulsory on each HV circuit and each MV circuit– Interruption register: contain all data requested for each interruption

(manually updated)• Italy: compulsory for each long and short interruption; users can

have access to the register• Regulatory Authority

– Is provided each year with yearly continuity indicators and an electronic copy of the register and makes audits

• Italy: per each territorial district (~300): SAIDI, SAIFI, MAIFI, separately for: planned and unplanned interruption, causes of interruption, voltage quality level, territorial density

• Customers: individual information for major ones• Italy: customer can ask for individual measurement


EXAMPLE OF CONTINUITY YEARLY DATA PROVIDED TO THE AUTHORITY

(enforced from 1999)UTILITY: ENEL Distribuzione Spa

INTERRUPTIONS: UNPLANNED, LONG YEAR: 2004TERRITORY: ALL AGGREGATE UP TO MONTH: 12

CAUSE TRASM. HV MV LV TOTALDURATION (CML, SAIDI)

Acts of God 0,0 0,0 14,9 1,1 16,0Users' or third parties' respons. 2,3 0,1 11,2 1,5 15,0Utility's responsibility 0,0 3,0 45,6 14,4 63,1Total all causes 2,3 3,1 71,7 17,0 94,1

CAUSE TRASM. HV MV LV TOTALNUMBER (CIs, SAIFI)

Acts of God 0,00 0,00 0,08 0,00 0,09Users' or third parties' respons. 0,14 0,01 0,28 0,01 0,44Utility's responsibility 0,00 0,10 1,87 0,14 2,11Total all causes 0,14 0,11 2,23 0,15 2,64

VOLTAGE LEVELS


AUDITS ON CONTINUITY DATA Steps for audit evaluation

1. PlanningA. Choice of the telecontrol centre/districts to be auditedB. Preparation of “check-list”, according to specific situations

2. Formal decision– Regulatory order issued by the Authority and published in the

internet website without names of the selected companies3. One week in advance: announcement

– The Operator is informed about the documentation it has to make ready and the date/place of the audit

4. During the audit:A. Filling the check-list regarding operator business administration,

procedures of interruptions management, telecontrol system …) B. Random sampling interruptions to be checkedC. Final minutes of the audit operation

5. After the audit:- Report of the audit cointaining calculation of 3 indexes (accuracy,

correctness, registration system), communicated to the company– final deliberation for approving or rejecting (after formal

contraddittorio) on the basis of indexes results


NO

AL

PV

MI

VA CO BG

LC

TN

PD

PR

PG

FR

CE

IS

CB

AV

SA

PZ

ME

BN

MT

CS

LO

AQ

TE - B

UD

BS

CR

GR

TO

CNCN

AS

VB

VC

MN

PC

VT

MS

BI

PE

LE

TR

RO

LU

VI

VR

CH

BR

SO

DEVAL AO

IM

SP

GO

PN

TS

BZ

BL

RE

MO BO

FE

RA

FO

RN

SI

PT PO

FI

AR

PS

AN

MC

AP

LT

FG

BA

KR

CZ

VV

RC

SR- B

CT

CL

EN

TP

AG

Zecca Ortona

AMAIESan Remo

AMET Trani

ASM Bressanone

AGS Riva del Garda

AE-EWBolzano

AcegasTrieste

AIM Vicenza

AEM Cremona

ASM Rovereto

Sippic Capri

AMI Imola

Milano AEM

Torino AEM

Atena VercelliAGSM Verona

ASM Voghera

AMPS Seregno

APB Brunico

ASM Terni

CA

OR

SS

NU - M

AMPS Parma

ASM Brescia

META Modena

AUDITS BY AEEG ON CONTINUITY DATA

Legenda

NA - ANA - M

NA - B

RI

TV - ATV - B TV - M

VE - M

VE - AVE - B

RG - MRG - A

RG - B

SR- A

SR- M

PA - BPA - M

PA - A

Cefalù non EnelCefalù Enel

SV GE - BGE - M

TA - A TA - M

TA - B

GE - A

RM - A

RM - M

RM -BRoma Acea

2000

PI

LI

TE - M

1998-99

200120022003200420052006

NU - BNU - B

AUDITS ON CONTINUITY DATA


INCENTIVE REGULATIONDISTRIBUTION




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long


Guaranteedquality

standards


SAIDI: as from 2000SAIFI+MAIFI: as from 2008


CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL SERVICE QUALITY REGULATION

1. Adjust regulatory scheme objectives to account for specific factors

2. Keep the scheme as simplest as possible in order to give companies right signals for investments

3. Quality regulation is never a permanent solution: periodic evaluation and revision

4. Quality regulation greatly benefits from a gradual approach to the implementation process

5. An open dialogue across all interested parties is a fundamental part of an efficient regulation


1. ADJUST REGULATORY SCHEME OBJECTIVES TO ACCOUNT FOR SPECIFIC FACTORS

• Gap between level of continuity in Italy and other major EU countries (FR, UK, DE) OBJECTIVE A: improve the Italian average level of

continuity towards European benchmarks• Gaps between Northern and Southern regions

OBJECTIVE B: reduce variation of regional and district levels around the country average level

• Liberalisation and privatisation processes OBJECTIVE C: Increase network investments for

maintaining good levels (if achieved) or for improvement

OBJECTIVE D: Ensure customer satisfaction for electrical service


2. SCHEME AS SIMPLEST AS POSSIBLE /iREGULATION (once every 4 years)

SETTING STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND SETTING REWARD/PENALTIES PARAMETERS

• Ex-ante for 4 years• Reference to long-term objectives• Improvement baseline• Reward/penalty parameters (based on WTP customer

survey)IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTROL (every year)

COMPARING ACTUAL LEVELS WITH STANDARDS AND APPLY FORMULA FOR ACTUAL REWARDS AND PENALTIES

• Each year t, companies are rewarded or penalised according to their performance

• Tariff is consequently adjusted


2. SCHEME AS SIMPLEST AS POSSIBLE /iiREGULATION (once every 4 years)

SETTING STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT• Ex-ante for 4 years• Reference to long-term objectives• For each district a given improvement is required year

by year (each company must improve % each year in each district)

t0 1 2 3 4 … … … 12

Stdt [CML-SAIDInet]

LivPart

LivObk

121

1

j

k

j LivPartLivOb

j: Territ. District (1..300)k: Territ. Density (High/Medium/Low)t: year (regulatory period: 4 years)

)1(1,, jtjtj StdStd


2. SCHEME AS SIMPLEST AS POSSIBLE /iii

tqXRPIcapprice _

Actt [CML]

Qt [€]

Stdt

-Min

+Max

IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTROL (every year) COMPARING ACTUAL LEVELS WITH STANDARDS AND APPLY FORMULA FOR ACTUAL REWARDS AND PENALTIES

• Each year t, companies are rewarded or penalised according to their performance Actj,t (unitary reward/penalty parameters are set ex-ante at the beginning of the regulatory period)

• Tariff is adjusted yearly: ±qt = Qt /allow.revenues [%]• Reward and penalties are capped

tj

Districtsj

tj

Districtsj

tjt VENSActStdQQ tj ,,, )( ,

Unitary incentive/penalty ex-ante [€/kWh-not-served]based on WTP/WTA survey

8760,,,,

,domtjdomndomtjndom

tjEncEncVENS


UNITARY INCENTIVE/PENALTY PARAMETERS used in the second regulatory period (2004-07)

DOMESTIC CUSTOMERS

Parameter Cdom

BUSINESS CUSTOMERSParameter Cndom

(BEST DISTRICTS) Below national ref. 7.2 €/kWh-ENS 14.4 €/kWh-ENS (MEDIAN) From 1x to 3x nat.ref.

10.8 €/kWh-ENS 21.6 €/kWh-ENS

(WORST DISTRICTS) Above 3x national ref.

14.4 €/kWh-ENS 28.8 €/kWh-ENS national reference (SAIDI-net): urban 25 min/cust/year, rural 60 min/cust/year

For further details: Bertazzi, Fumagalli, Lo Schiavo, CIRED (2005) paper n. 300

2. SCHEME AS SIMPLEST AS POSSIBLE /iv


Reference standards

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CU

STO

ME

R M

INIU

TES

LO

ST

(net

of in

terr

uptio

ns n

ot a

ttrib

utab

le to

dis

trib

utio

n co

mpa

nies)

TARGETS ACTUAL LEVELS

1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

1° REGULATORY PERIOD


REFERENCE STANDARDS

Referencestandards

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CU

STO

ME

R M

INIU

TES

LO

ST

(net

of in

terr

uptio

ns n

ot a

ttrib

utab

le to

dis

trib

utio

n co

mpa

nies)

TARGETS ACTUAL LEVELS

1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07



REFERENCE STANDARDS

Example: URBAN AREAS

Referencestandards

2. SCHEME AS SIMPLEST AS POSSIBLE /vINCENTIVE REGULATION ADJUSTMENT FROM 1ST TO 2ND REGULATORY PERIOD


SAIDI - 1998-2008 (excluded load shedding and big incidents on the Transmission network)

3. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF EFFECTS /i Objective A Improve overall continuity level for

Italy

13197

78 70 59 61 50 48 50

56

52

3735

32 1911 10

40

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Min

uti p

ersi

per

clie

nte

all'a

nno

(esc

lusi

inte

rven

ti si

stem

i di d

ifesa

e in

cide

nti r

ileva

nti R

TN)

Interruzioni di responsabilità del distributore Interruzioni non di responsabilità del distributore

AVERAGE EXTRA-PRICE FOR CUSTOMERS 2000-2003: ABOUT 3

€/CUSTOMER/YEAR2004-2007: ABOUT 4 €/CUSTOMER/YEAR

Interruptions due to DSOs responsibilities Interruptions out of DSOs responsibilities


3. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF EFFECTS /ii Objective A Improve overall continuity level for

ItalySAIDI - 1998-2008 (only interruptions due to DSOs responsibilities)

105

71

3628

37 324445

546672

8289

4844

64 67

5168

139

9281

165166

787490

78

108

257

224

207

144

504850

6159

163147

13197

7870

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Min

uti p

ersi

per

clie

nte

BT a

ll'an

noso

lo in

terr

uzio

ni d

i res

pons

abili

tà d

ell'im

pres

a di

strib

utric

e

NORD CENTRO SUD ITALIA


3. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF EFFECTS /iii Objective A Improve overall continuity level for

ItalySAIFI - 1998-2008 (excluded load shedding and big incidents on the Transmission network)

1,501,23

1,69

1,45

1,82

2,46 2,522,38

2,151,95 1,90

2,13

1,862,15

2,47 2,48

4,434,76

2,79

3,07

3,74

2,59

3,483,643,473,73

3,41

4,07

4,985,164,97

5,51

3,86

2,372,162,292,422,48

2,772,76

3,293,593,813,91

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ero

med

io d

i int

erru

zion

i per

clie

nte

all'a

nno

(esc

lusi

inte

rven

ti si

stem

i di d

ifesa

)



3. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF EFFECTS /ivObjective B Close the gaps between North and

SouthSAIDI - 1998-2008 (excluded load shedding and big incidents on the Transmission network)

31

7766

156

117 123

90

5242

88106129 135

9686 74

5359

83

194 204

102116

180

8986

988798

242262270

285

162

586180

105115

149

187192186

91

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Min

uti p

ersi

per

clie

nte

all'a

nno

(esc

lusi

inte

rven

ti si

stem

i di d

ifesa

e in

cide

nti r

ileva

nti R

TN

)



3. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF EFFECTS /v

Objective C Improve network investmentsMillions Euro

2000

420

2001

533

2002

562

»CAGR »16%

263 292

159 19675

8280

82

Media ‘98/’99

386

386

286

High density (urban)

»CAGR »16%

+16%per year

Medium density (sub-urban)

Low density (rural)

Millions Euro

2000

420

2001

533

2002

562

»CAGR »16%

»CAGR »16%

263 292

159 19675

8280

82

Media ‘98/’99

386

386

286

High density (urban)

»CAGR »16%

+16%per year

Medium density (sub-urban)

Low density (rural)

Year 2004

2005

2006

2007

Net incentives [M€] (incentive-penalties)

67 125 165 189

Impact upon tariffs

2nd regulatory period 4.0 €/cust/yearqavg 04-07 +3.5%

Investments for quality (dedicated)

source: Enel response to AEEG consultation paper

(2003)

Effects of regulatory incentive scheme for continuity of supply


CORRELATION BETWEEN ACTUAL QUALITY LEVELS AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

(each point is a single Italian Region)

R2 = 0,8727

R2 = 0,8758

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12INTERRUPTIONS PER CUSTOMERS (NUMBERS)

UN

SATI

SFIE

D C

UST

OM

ERS

(%)

1998

2002

3. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF EFFECTS /vi

Objective D Ensure customer satisfaction


1st period 2nd period 3rd periodSAIDI – CMLs (avg. Duration)

Incentives / penalties



Multiple interr. (max numb., MV)

Monitoringnumb. interr.

(per single MT cust.)

Guaranteed standard

(only long interr.)

Stricter guarant’d standard

(only long interr.)

SAIFI – CIs (avg. Number)

Monitoring num. long int.

Monitoring num. both long

& short

Incent./penalties

(SAIFI+MAIFI)

Very long interr.(max durat,LV-MV)

Consultation and statistic

researchGuarant’d stds (incl.except.events)

Quality of Transm. Service

Monitoring transmission

Incent./penalties

transm. (ENS)Voltage quality

Monitoring VQ on HV-MV networks

Research ShortCirc.Power

Revision of CLC EN 50160

Multiple interr. (max numb., LV)

Connectivity model for LV

Monitoring num. both long & short (per single

LV cust.)

4. GRADUAL APPROACH: EVOLUTION


1.1st

CONSULTAT.PAPER

Jun-03

2.PUBLIC

HEARINGS

Jul-03

3.2nd

CONSULTAT.PAPER

Nov-03

4.3rd

CONSULTAT.PAPER

Jan-04

5.PUBLIC

HEARINGS

Jan-04

D. 4/04 QUALITY

CODE2004-07

Jan-04

• Quantitative assessment of effects of 1st regulatory period

• Objectives for 2nd regulatory period

• Alternatives• Views invited

on issues

• Draft legal text (“ordinance”)

• Further alternatives taking into account comments

• Range of values for main parameters

• Stressed objective of convergence

• Further alternatives taking into account comments

• Range of values for main parameters

• Includes both continuity and service quality

• Technical report with first impact analysis

5. OPEN DIALOGUE: MULTIPLE CONSULTATION

From 2007: RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment)


EUROPE, DURATION OF INTERRUPTIONS(EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE EXCLUDED)

0

100

200

300

400

500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Min

utes

lost

per

cus

tom

er

Austria HV, MVDenmark HV, MVEstonia HV, MV, LVFrance LVGermany HV, MV, LVIceland HV, MV, LVItaly HV, MV, LVLithuania HV, MV, LVPortugal HV, MV, LVSpain HV, MV, LVUK HV, MV, LV

Source: CEER, 4th Benchmarking Report, 2008.

Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas 40Fonte: CEER, 4th Benchmarking Report, 2008.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Inte

rrup

tions

per

cus

tom

er

Austria HV, MV

Denmark HV, MV

Estonia HV, MV, LV

France LV

Germany HV, MV, LV

Iceland HV, MV, LV

Italy HV, MV, LV

Lithuania HV, MV, LV

Portugal HV, MV, LV

Spain HV, MV, LV

UK HV, MV, LV

EUROPE, NUMBER OF LONG INTERRUPTIONS(EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE EXCLUDED)


GUARANTEED STANDARDSDISTRIBUTION




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long

interruption standard

Guaranteedquality

standards



MULTIPLE INTERRUPTIONS /I• For MV customers• Maximum number of long interruptions in a solar year are

concerned• Guaranteed stds:

• MV customers have right to automatic compensations if their plants/protection relays guarantee selectivity with protection relays of the DNO (through written declaration to the DNO, according to DNO’s specifications – exemption for new customer plants)

• MV customers who do not send the declaration to the DNO pay an extra tariff component

• Interruptions due to FM and third party damages are excluded• Upstream interconnected DNOs (or TSO) must contribute to

automatic compensations to customers proportionally to the number of long interruptions of their responsibilities that involve downstream interconnected DNOs

Urban Sub-urban

Rural

Until 2009

3 long int./year

4 5

From 2010

2 3 4


MULTIPLE INTERRUPTIONS /IIWorst served customers

% clienti MT peggio serviti su totale clienti

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

Piem

onte

Lom

bard

iaTr

entin

o Al

to A

dige

Vene

to

Friu

li Ve

nezia

Giu

liaLi

guria

Emili

a Ro

mag

naTo

scan

aUm

bria

Marc

heLa

zioAb

ruzz

oMo

lise

Cam

pani

aPu

glia

Basi

licat

aCa

labr

iaSi

cilia

Sard

egna

Nord

Cent

ro

Sud

ITAL

IA

200620072008

• Distribution by Italian region (2006-2008)


MULTIPLE LONG INTERRUPTIONS Standards in force in Europe

Territorial classificati

on

Country

Metro-politan

Urban (cities)

Semi-urban (towns)

Rural (village

s)

Rural dispers

e

FRANCE 2 (MV)

n.a (LV)

3 (MV)

n.a (LV)

3 (MV)

n.a (LV)

6 (MV)

n.a (LV)

GREAT BRITAIN

3 (MV) (each longer than 3 hours)

3 (LV) (each longer than 3 hours)

ITALY 3 (MV, 2 from 2010)

n.a (LV)

4 (MV, 3 from 2010)

n.a (LV)

5 (MV, 4 from 2010)

n.a (LV)

PORTUGAL

8 (MV)

12 (LV)

18 (MV)

23 (LV)

30 (MV)

36 (LV)

SPAIN 8 (MV)

12 (LV)

12 (MV)

15 (LV)

15 (MV)

18 (LV)

20 (MV)

24 (LV)

Source: CEER, 3rd Benchmarking Report on Electricity Quality of Supply, 2005. Updates for Spain and Italy


VERY LONG INTERRUPTIONS /IStandards

– Guaranteed standards are applicable to both normal and exceptional events

– Statistical method for identifying “Exceptional Condition periods” (can be integrated with documental evidence for few specific cases)

– Suspension of clock for safety issues– Company must pay guaranteed standards– In case of major or exceptional events, companies are compensated through a

dedicated fund– All customers put a little money in the fund – Companies are incentivised in order to improve their performance in “normal

conditions”• Companies must put money in the Fund according to their actual quality net of major and exceptional

events• Companies receive a sum that is proportional to the expected quality (decreasing over time)

Type of interruption

Territorial classification

Standard for LV customers

Standard for MV customers

Unplanned • Urban• Sub-urban • Rural

8h12h16h

4h6h8h

Planned All 8h 8h


VERY LONG INTERRUPTIONS /IIAutomatic reimbursements

Household customers

LV and MV consumers with power <= 100kW (excluded households)

Non household LV consumers with power > 100kW

Non household MV consumers with power > 100kW

Standard not fulfilled

30€ 150€ 2€/kW 1,5€/kW

For each further period

15€every 4 hours

75€every 4 hours

1€/kWevery 4 hours

0,75€/kWevery 2 hours

Cap 300€ 1,000€ 3,000€ 6,000€


VERY LONG INTERRUPTIONS /III• 2003: Blackout for transmission/dispatching problems (lost

interconnections with abroad during night)– 33M customers affected (only Sardinia at safe), up to 24 hours (Sicily)

• 2004: Large interruptions in some regions due to exceptional severe weather. – More than 2 M customers involved in 4 large events (7 regions); – Around 400.00 customers interrupted for more than 12 hours – Around 50.000 cust. for more than 2 days (up to 5 days, 2.000 cust.)

• 2005: First round of consultation• 2006: Second round of consultation• 2007: Third round of consultation and final decision (July)• 2008: Implementation time• 2009 1st July new standards for all MV-LV customers in case

of very long interruptions with automatic compensations


Territorial classificatio

n

Country

Urban (cities) Semi-urban (towns) Rural (villages)

FRANCE 6 h (MV and LV, exceptional events are excluded)

GREAT BRITAIN

18 h (MV and LV, normal conditions, transmission is excluded) from 24 h to 100 h (exceptional events, depending on the

severity)

ITALY4 h (MV from 2009) 8 h (LV from 2009)

all events

6 h (MV from 2009) 12 h (LV from 2009)

all events

8 h (MV from 2009) 16 h (LV from

2009) all events

SWEDEN 12 h (MV and LV, (events out of the control of the DSO and big blackouts are excluded)

IRLAND24 h (MV and e LV,

(exceptional events and events on the transmission network are excluded)

VERY LONG INTERRUPTIONS Standards in force in Europe

Source: CEER, 3rd Benchmarking Report on Electricity Quality of Supply, 2005. Updates for Spain and Italy


COMMERCIAL QUALITYDISTRIBUTION




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long


Guaranteedquality

standards



GUARANTEED STANDARDS (2004-2007)

Final LV customer

s

Final MV customer

s

Distrib.

Maximum time for estimating charges for execution of work on LV network

20 work.days n.a.

Maximum time for execution of simple work

15 work.days

30 work.days

Maximum time for activation of supply

5

work.days 5

work.days

Maximum time for closing supply at customer’s request

5 work.days

7 work.days

Maximum time for restarting supply following suspension for lack of payment

1 day incl. Saturday

Maximum time band for customised appointments 3 hours

Maximum time for restoration of supply following a failure of the metering device

3 hours (day-time)4 hours (night-time)

2008-2011

Meter verification upon request of the customerVoltage verification upon request of the customer

15 work.days

30 work.days


SERVICE QUALITY REGULATIONcomparison between before and

after Authority’s regulation

20001997 II° sem.

6.099 4.167 8.418 7.902 25.650 61.881 67.344 57.424 64.696 73.867

21 54 22 4.771 12.437 52.229 79.072 48.305 63.822 73.714

0,001 0,002 0,001 0,22 0,82 3,11 4,21 3,41 4,43 4,07

Total amount Actually paid For compensationsEuro Millions

Number of requestswith not fulfilledguaranteed standards

Actually paid Compensationpayments

Self-regulation Regulation issued by the Authority

1998 1999 2001 2002 20052003 2004 2006


SERVICE QUALITY REGULATIONEffects of guaranteed standards

(2006)

w.d.: working days

Number ofautomatic compensat.

ESTIMATE CHARGES (for work on the LV network) 20 working days 328.637 2,8% 13,08 8.434

COMPLETE SIMPLE WORKS (net of authorization) 15 working days 419.042 2,4% 8,77 9.688

START THE SUPPLY 5 working days 1.702.260 1,0% 1,97 16.653

TERMINTE THE SUPPLY (on customer’s request)5 working days 826.458 0,5% 1,58 3.144

RESTART AFTER NON-PAYMENT DISCONNECTION1 days

863.530 3,6% 0,51 32.361

CORRECT BILLING PROBLEMS (already paid sums)90 days

11.453 7,1% 46,65 515

SOLVING METERING FAULTS (with service interruptions)3 hours (daytime)

4 hours (night) 130.461 1,7% 1,71 2.501

KEEPING APPOINTMENTS (punctuality band hours) 3 hours 52.674 0,7% 259

SERVICES SUBJECT TO GUARANTEED STANDARDS

Standard

Number of requestsper year

% Stds notfulfilled

Average Time (net)

w.d.

2006 RESULTS


AUTOMATIC COMPENSATIONSAmounts and exemptions

•Exemptions– Force majeure and third party action (to be adequately

proven)– In cases where the customer is not up to date with

payments owed to the operator.– Concerning “maximum time for restoration of supply

following a failure of the metering device “ the operator shall not be required to pay the compensation if the interruption of supply is caused:

• by release of lock cable terminals;• by intervention of the load limiter due to overconsumption;• by damages caused to the metering device when installed in rooms where only the customer can have admittance.

• Amounts Domestic LV

customers

Non domestic

LV customers

MV customers

Automatic compensation (AC) paid in the next bill

30 euro 60 euro 120 euro


AUTOMATIC COMPENSATIONEscalation in case of delayed

execution

3*AC

days0=Rqst S=Std

EurosAC= automaticcompensation

Automatic compensation

to be paid within 90 days (from A)

Date (or hour) A when the service is actually done by the operator is beyond standard S

A=Act

AC

2*S

2*AC

3*SA=Act A=Act


OVERALL STANDARDSDISTRIBUTION (2008-2011)

Service LV customers MV customersMinimum percentage of requests for the estimation of charges for the execution of works on the MV network made available within 40 working days

Non applicable 90%

Minimum percentage of requests of execution of complex works carried out within 60 working days

85% 90%

Minimum percentage of answers to complaints or requests of written information, made available within 20 working days

90% 95%


INFORMATION TO CUSTOMER




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long


Guaranteedquality

standards



CUSTOMER INFORMATION• Guaranteed Standards and automatic compensations

need to be adequately communicated to the customers– At the request the customer is informed of his right to receive

compensations (for commercial quality)– If the standard is not fulfilled, the customer receive compensation

through the bill with a given message– Customers can claim for further damages if they are able to prove it

(ordinary jurisdiction, long times and difficulty to prove)• Further communication tools:

– Publication of data on the internet website of the Authority– “Interruption bill” for each MV customer, once per year (end-June)– Campaign for convincing MV customers to invest in improving their

installations and obtain the benefits of multiple interruption regulation

– Investigations in case of large events and publication of results (for instance for 2003 blackout)


Type of standard

guaranteedService

Execution of simple works (*)

TerritoryItaly


Indicator Selected

CML

Territory SelectedItaly

Type of interruptions selectedLong unplanned

Responsibilities selectedAll (overall CML, net of blackout

and load shedding)


INCENTIVE REGULATION TRANSMISSION




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long


Guaranteedquality

standards



BACKGROUND MONITORING OF TRANSMISSION CONTINUITY (1)

• Three years before the transmission continuity regulation, Regulatory Order 250/04 about the preparation of Grid Code was issued by AEEG:– Obligation TSO to register long (> 3 minutes),

short and transient (< 1 second) interruptions– Classification of interruptions: origin + cause +

list of curtailed users + grid status at time=0 + data per each interrupted user (start time, finish time, load shedding)

– Definition of continuity indicators and calculation methods: ENS, AIT, SAIFI (long interruptions), MAIFI (short) and energy not retired

– …



– … (cont’d)– Monitoring of voltage quality parameters:

supply voltage variations, rapid voltage changes, voltage dips, overvoltages, flicker, harmonic distortion, voltage unbalance, frequency deviations

– Commitment of the TSO on expected quality levels for transmission service (proposed by TSO itself for regulatory approval), referred to continuity indicators

– Publication of a TSO yearly report describing actual performance vs. expected levels, and actions and plans for improvement of continuity indicators

– Reporting by TSO to Authority on transmission major incidents (ENS > 150 MWh, > 30 minutes)



• The provisional approach of 250/04 provided for:– Transparency on quality issues– Reputational incentive to the TSO– Robust continuity measurement rules and dataTransmission Average Interruption Time in Italy and its territorial areas 2006-2008

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

Torino Milano Venezia Firenze Roma Napoli Palermo Cagliari All Italy

AIT

(sys

tem

min

utes

/yea

r)

Expected 2006 Expected 2007 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Actual 2008

Data by Terna and AEEG


Transmission investments in Italy (1963-2008)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Inve

stm

ents

[M€,

mon

ey 2

008]

Enel Enel T.E.R.NA. Terna

ITALIAN INCENTIVE REGULATION OF TRANSMISSION CONTINUITY:

OBJECTIVES• Reduction of ordinary outages• Prevention and mitigation of major incidents• Implicit objective: provide signals for investments

justified by quality and security reasons to avoid the risk of solely market-based investments exclusively targeted to reduction of congestion

Transmission investments 1963-2008 Source: own

elaboration of public data


ITALIAN INCENTIVE REGULATION OF TRANSMISSION CONTINUITY:

INDICATORS• Three indicators (energy not supplied, number of

interruptions per user and number of users without interruptions)

• R-ENS, Regulated Energy Not Supplied• NIU, Number of Interruptions per grid User• UZI, number of grid Users with Zero Interruptions

• Regulation in force as from 2008.• Set improvement standards and reward/penalties

parameters for 2008-2011.• Economic effects only for 2010 and 2011


Smoothing and limitation function adopted to define R-ENS starting from ENS

250 2250 400000

125

250

375

500

625

750

875

1000

100 1000 10000 100000

Energy Not Supplied [MWh]

Reg

ulat

ed E

nerg

y N

ot S

uppl

ied

[MW

h]

Log scale

• R-ENS is expressed in MWh and based upon ENS

• A limitation function is adopted in order to deal both with transmission major incidents (with large ENS) and small-size ordinary outages

REGULATION OF TRANSMISSION CONTINUITY: CHOICE OF INDICATORS (1)

Source: own elaboration


• NIU includes short and long interruptions for all users directly connection to the national transmission grid

• NIU = SAIFI + MAIFI• NIU is calculated for each of the 8 territorial

areas, in which grid operation is organized• Unsymmetrical scheme (more penalties

than rewards) tailored to the objective of promoting uniformity of quality of transmission service across Italy



• UZI is number of grid Users with 0 interruptions per year, referred to the total number of users

• UZI has a reward-only structure, increasing the rewards for R-ENS and for NIU (in case of over-performance with respect to targets)

• UZI nature genuinely expresses the nature of transmission service: no grid users have to suffer interruptions due to transmission failures



• Automatic intervention of under-frequency load shedding schemes as a consequence of disturbances originated in the neighbouring interconnected countries;

• Preventive load shedding (communicated at least one day in advance adopting defined procedures) as a consequence of expected lack of generation adequacy;

• Forced line outages due to public orders (e.g. in case of fire when switching off the HV circuits is demanded by police or fire corps);

• Extreme disaster situations (e.g. earthquakes);• Intentional damages (e.g. terrorist attacks);• Extremely large black-outs (above 40000 MWh/event)• Outages originated by users and outside NTG (NIU, UZI)

REGULATION OF TRANSMISSION CONTINUITY: EXCLUSION CAUSES


VOLTAGE QUALITY MONITORINGDISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long


Guaranteedquality

standards



MONITORING UNITS INSTALLED ON MV BUS-BARS OF HV/MV SUBSTATIONS

400 monitoring units(they monitor about 10% of the MV bus-bars of the MV distribution network).

The sample is representative of the network characteristics in terms of:

• number of HV/MV substations in each region

• length of the MV lines• type of MV lines: cable, overhead,

mixed• neutral compensation or isolated

neutral• number of MV customers• density of LV customers


73 owned by as many MV customers who decided to voluntarily (with the promotion of the Authority) participate to the monitoring campaign

124 owned by Distribution Network Operators

This sample of units is not statistically representative of the monitored MV network

MONITORING UNITS INSTALLED ON MV DELIVERY POINTS


AVERAGE NUMBER OF DIPS ACCORDING TO THE NEW

prEN50160 /IItaly, Year 2007, all types of MV networks, MV bus-bars of HV/MV substations

Yellow cells: equipment immunity class 2Yellow+ Green: equipment immunity class 3Red line: compatibility curve

http://queen.ricercadisistema.it

http://queen.ricercadisistema.it/



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Emilia R.

Lomba

rdia

Tosc

ana

Trenti

no A.A.

Veneto

Piemon

te

Marche

Sardeg

na

Friuli

V.G.

Liguri

aMoli

seLa

zioPug

lia

ITALY

(avg

)

Abruzz

oSici

lia

Campan

ia

Calabri

a

Year

ly n

umbe

r of d

ips

per p

oint

AVERAGE NUMBER OF DIPS ACCORDING TO THE NEW

prEN50160 /IIItaly, Year 2007, all Regions, all types of MV networks, MV bus-bars of HV/MV substations




VOLTAGE QUALITY MONITORING ON TRANSMISSION AND HV DISTRIBUTION

NETWORKS (1/3)Voltage level Transmission HV

Distribution Total

380 kV 7 0 7

220 kV 10 6 16

150 kV 23 23 46

132 kV 67 27 94

60 kV 0 2 2

Total 107 58 165

Number of installed measurement devices Source: Terna and Ceer 4th Benchmarking Report, 2008


Number of dips per measurement point on 380kV and 220kV networks, year 2007.

Source: Terna and Ceer 4th Benchmarking Report, 2008

Residual voltage u Duration t (ms)

(%)20 < t ≤ 100

100 < t ≤

500

500 < t ≤

1000

1000 < t ≤ 3000

3000 < t ≤

60000Total

90 > u ≥ 85 19.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.6

85 > u ≥ 70 24.2 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 28.0

70 > u ≥ 30 13.6 2.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 16.7

30 > u ≥ 10 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9

10 > u 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4

Total 59.1 8.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 68.6


NETWORKS (2/3)


Number of dips per measurement point on 150kV and 132kV networks, year 2007.

Source: Terna and Ceer 4th Benchmarking Report, 2008

Residual voltage u Duration t (ms)

(%)20 < t ≤ 100

100 < t ≤

500

500 < t ≤

1000

1000 < t ≤ 3000

3000 < t ≤

60000Total

90 > u ≥ 85 25.5 6.9 0.9 0.4 0.1 33.8

85 > u ≥ 70 24.4 6.3 0.6 0.2 0.0 31.5

70 > u ≥ 30 12.6 4.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 17.8

30 > u ≥ 10 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3

10 > u 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.7

Total 59.1 19.4 2.0 0.9 0.3 88.1


NETWORKS (3/3)


COMMERCIAL QUALITYSUPPLY




VOLTAGE QUALITY


COMMERCIAL QUALITY


PROMOTE QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT


CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE

Powerquality

contracts



Multiple/Very long


Guaranteedquality

standards



COMMERCIAL QUALITY REGULATION IN ITALY NEW GUARANTEED STANDARDS FOR SUPPLY ELECTRICITY & GAS (FROM 2009)

• MAXIMUM WAITING TIMES (All standards are in solar days)- Appropriate response to a complaint 40- Invoice amendment 90– Invoice amendment for multiple invoice 20

• When guaranteed standards are not met by fault of the utility, users are entitled to receive automatic compensation payments through their bills

• Level of compensation payments are related to the type of user involved:– domestic, business, industry: 20€– escalation like for commercial quality for distribution

• Users can always appeal to the court if damage is over the compensation payment


COMMERCIAL QUALITY REGULATION IN ITALY NEW OVERALL STANDARDS FOR

SUPPLY ELECTRICITY & GAS (FROM 2009)

- Answers to written requests of invoice amendment:- 40 solar days in 95% of cases

- Answers to written requests of information:- 30 solar days in 95% of cases


COMPLAINTS HANDLINGOne of the functions assigned by the institutional Law 481/99 is to assess complaints, appeals and reports from users or consumers, individually or as a body, as to respect for standards of quality and tariffs by the service operators

The Authority has a specific Department in charge for information and customer protection, having mainly the following tasks:• to set rules for protecting customers (about contracts conditions, billing transparency, pre-contractual information and so on)• to ensure transparency and information, having care for the relationships with Consumers’ Organizations• handling consumers’ complaints


COMPLAINTS HANDLING EVOLUTIONHow many complaints?

Main reasons for complaining (ex.: apr. 07-may 08)• Billing 33%• Contracts 19%• Pre-contractual information/misselling 15%• Disconnection for non-payment 9%• Quality of service (outages, connections, volt. quality) 9%• Consumption (estimate consumption, meter reading) 2,6%

1999 2002 2005 2008Complaints received

213 449 1049 8000

People in information and Consumers Affaire Dep.

4 5 6 7


THE NEW CONSUMERS’ HELPDESK• The increasing number of complaints and the need for an

effective and satisfactory answer suggested to start, in 2007, the project for an externalization of complaints handling, giving the responsibility for the first stage to another public subject

• The consumers’ helpdesk has the task to develop all the activities that can be considered in preparation of a proceedings:– Receives complaints and appeals from the consumers and creates a file

for each complaint– Asks for information and clarifications to the suppliers– Suggests to the customers and to the suppliers the measure to adopt in

order to solve the problems raised– When the problem cannot be solved, or the consumer isn’t satisfied about

the answer transfers the file to the Authority for the final evaluation– Reports to the Authority about the complaints received and the activity

carried out


ONLY ONE INTERFACE FOR THE CONSUMER: THE SUPPLIER

•There is a timeliness obligation in force for Suppliers: 2 working days for sending the request of the final consumer to the Distributor and 2 working days for sending the answer of the Distributor to the final consumer

•Currently there aren’t any automatic compensations if the Supplier does not meet the above timeliness.


REGULATION OF CALL CENTERS

– Minimum requirements: opening time of Call Centers with human operator; information through the bill and internet web site

– Standard: measured on monthly base• Access to the service AS 80%• Average waiting time TMA 240 sec.• Service level LS 90%

– Customer satisfaction: six month base survey on satisfaction of final customer who called the call center (through the call back methodology)

– Benchmarking score: published on six month base – three sub scores:

• PA depending on the accessibility to the service• PQ depending on the quality of the service• PSC depending on the result of the call back survey

IQT = [(PA + PQ) / (PA

+ PQ)max x 100 ] x 0,7 + PSC

x 0,3


Pos VENDITORE

PUNTEGGIO ACCESSO AL

SERVIZIO (PA)

PUNTEGGIO QUALITÀ DEL

SERVIZIO (PQ)

PUNTEGGIO INDAGINE

SODDISFAZIONE CLIENTI

(PSC)

PUNTEGGIO GLOBALE

(IQT)

1 EDISON ENERGIA S.P.A. 114 87 84,4 95,3 2 LINEA PIU S.P.A. 50 103 92,4 81 3 HERA COMM S.R.L. SOCIO UNICO HERA S.P.A. 44 107 90,1 79,6 4 A2A ENERGIA S.P.A. 31 100 98,8 75,3 5 TRENTA S.P.A. 35 71 98 66,3 6 SGR SERVIZI S.P.A. 44 58 100 65,5 7 GAS NATURAL VENDITA ITALIA S.P.A 45 59 95,4 64,8

8 TOSCANA ENERGIA CLIENTI S.p.a. (EX TOSCANA GAS CLIENTI) 48 59 89,7 64,2

9 E.ON Energia S.p.A. 44 50 89,6 59,6 10 AMG GAS S.R.L. 42 45 94,1 58,5 11 ENIA ENERGIA S.P.A 34 53 90,2 57,4 12 ITALCOGIM ENERGIE S.P.A. 39 50 85,1 56,5 13 ENEL SERVIZIO ELETTRICO S.P.A. 38 42 89 54,6 14 EROGASMET VENDITA - VIVIGAS S.P.A. 31 30 97,1 50,4 15 PROMETEO S.P.A. 42 13 100 49,2 16 ENEL ENERGIA S.P.A. 25 54 72 49,1 17 ESTENERGY S.P.A. 31 20 91,9 45,3 18 ASM ENERGIA E AMBIENTE S.R.L. 47 0 (*) 94,2 44,6 19 ASCOTRADE S.P.A. 42 0 (*) 95,4 43,2 20 ACEAELECTRABEL ELETTRICITA SPA 46 0 (*) 85,3 41,6 21 ACEGAS-APS SERVICE S.R.L. 41 0 (*) 89,4 41,1 22 ENI S.P.A. 53 0 (*) 75,3 41 23 IRIDE MERCATO S.P.A. 33 4 89,9 39,9

24 E.S.TR.A. ENERGIA,SERVIZI,TERRITORIO, AMBIENTE S.R.L. 34 0 (*) 91,4 39,3

25 AGSM ENERGIA Spa 30 0 (*) 91,3 37,8

Electricity and gas suppliers

more than

100.000 final

customers.

CALL CENTER PERFORMANCE RANKINGPUBLICATION (*) for the period Jul-Dec 2008

(*) On the web site of the Autorità + press release


AGENDA

• Overview on the electricity quality of service regulation

• Short overview on the electricity and gas smart metering regulation


METERING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

RegimeOperator responsible for metering servicesAccounting separationUnbundling reformSeparation of the metering tariffFunctional unbundling in force

Regulated

DNO

2001

20072004 (from the distribution tariff)

2010

Electricity Gas

DNO (until 2008 Retailers could carry out meter reading)

2009 (from the distribution tariff and from the retail tariff component)

2012


SMART METERING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

• Both electricity and gas sectors are covered by smart metering (and metering) regulations

• In both cases minimum functional requirements and deadlines (with penalties) for installation/commissioning have been introduced

• Electricity: Regulatory Orders 292/06 and 235/07 (in English: http://www.autorita.energia.it/docs/06/292-06allengnew.pdf)

• Gas: Regulatory Order ARG/gas 155/08: (in English http://www.autorita.energia.it/docs/08/155-08alleng.pdf)


SMART METERING - REGULATORY APPROACH

Two different approaches• Electricity: judged unavoidable the

implementation of smart metering at Country level (that’s for all DNOs) after the ENEL choice

• Gas: impact assessment (cost-benefit analysis, technical survey, …)

Drivers • Need to pursue objectives• Directive 2006/32/EC (transposed to the Italian

legislation in May 2008 - decree n. 115/08)


WHY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS• In order to guarantee:

the pursuance of the objectivesthe same options to all customers

(household/non household; free/in the protection scheme)

interoperability and standardization• They should fulfil the following criteria:

system orientedsuch as to avoid raising of barriers or limits to

technical/technological innovationsuch as to prevent the rejection of new

solutions/architecturesbe independent from telecommunications

systems


ELECTRICITY SMART METERING


WHAT DONE• February/May 2006: made a formal request of

information to Enel, Acea Rome and to major European manufacturers of smart meters (in practice smart metering systems were studied from the functional points of view)

• July 2006: published the consultation document n. 23/06

• December 2006: published the regulatory order 292/06, introduced:

– replacement obligations– minimum functional requirements

• September 2007: introduced performance indicators for smart metering systems, for the time being only for monitoring purposes (regulatory order 235/07)


OBJECTIVES• To help ensure competitiveness in the supply of

electricity to residential and non-residential customers

• To establish the functional and technological conditions to make it possible to extend hourly metering to low-voltage withdrawal points also

• To improve the quality of the electricity metering, supply and distribution services for LV consumers and ensure the same functional and performance levels both for customers in the free market and those in the universal service

• (Not included in the R.O.): to look further some specific requirements, in particular consumption awareness (remote display) and demand response issues (home and building automation)


SMART METERS FOR LV CUSTOMERSMandatory timetable (1/2)

Installation CommissioningPenalty

(*)

25% 31-Dec-08 30-Jun-09

65% 31-Dec-09 30-Jun-10

90% 31-Dec-10 30-Jun-11

95% 31-Dec-11 30-Jun-12

100% 31-Dec-08 30-Jun-09

Household customers and non

household customers

with P<=55kw

Customers with P>55kw

(*) not recognized CAPEX for electromechanical meters not replaced

Each year of the period 2009-2012 DNOs are obliged to communicate to the Autorità the level of installation and commissioning of smart meters


• Starting from 1 January 2008, for each low-voltage withdrawal point through which the injection of active electricity into the network is activated, DNOs shall install one single smart meter, single-phase for single-phase applications and three-phase for three phase applications.

SMART METERS FOR LV CUSTOMERS

Mandatory timetable (2/2)

First step towards smart grids


Enel distribuzioneAcea RomaAem MilanoAem TorinoSet distribuzioneAsmea BresciaHera BolognaAgsm Verona

DNO% of LV customers equipped with commissioned smart

metersNo. of

LV customers

SMART METERS FOR LV CUSTOMERSCurrent status of the commissioning

plan

Snapshot at 30 June 2009 for major DNOs

30,063,1721,552,054

856,278554,992227,255220,893163,728159,328

95.4%57.8%28.2%31.0%27.6%92.4%32.6%31.3%


MAIN MINIMUM FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS-AMM (1/2)

Specified for:• Single phase mono-directional meters• Single phase bi-directional meters• Three-phase phase mono-directional meters• Three-phase bi-directional meters


MAIN MINIMUM FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS-AMM (2/2)

• TOU price scheme (weekly profile): up to four bands, up to five intervals per day (1 totalizer + 4 band registers)

• Interval metering (min. 1 hour, depth = 36 days)• Remote transactions [consumption reading (registers and

intervals), supply activation/deactivation, change of the subscribed power, change of the TOU tariff, power reduction]

• Security of data (inside meters, during the transmission to the control centre, status word with prompt transmission to the control centre in case of meter failure)

• Freezing of withdrawal data (billing, contractual changes, switching)

• Breaker on board of meters + demand control algorithm (alternative: registration of the peak power per TOU band)

• Meter display (current totalizer and activated TOU band registers, last freezing)

• Slow voltage variations (according to EN50160)• Upgrade of the program software


PERFOMANCE REQUIREMENTS • After the introduction of minimum functional

requirements, some performance indicators of AMM systems have been introduced (R.O. 235/07): Annual percentage of successful remote transactions

(activation/deactivation, change of the subscribed power, change of the price scheme, power reduction) within 24 hours and within 48 hours

Annul number of meters that at least once registered a failure reported to the control centre (through the status word)

Reading frequency

Threshold S

No. of meters with no. of successful readings below

threshold S

No. of meters with no. of successful readings

below 0Monthly 6

Bimonthly 3Three-monthly or

four-monthly 2Six monthly 1

Annual 0


THE METERING TARIFF• 2004: separated the metering tariff from the

distribution tariff• 2004-2007: the “extra-charge” for each

household customer due to smart meters has been less than 2 Euros per year

• 2008-2013:– the X factor will be 5% for metering

activities (vs 1.9 % of distribution activities)– the metering tariff is/will be adjusted every

year• An equalization mechanism is envisaged in

order to recognize higher costs to smaller DNOs


INTERVAL METERS FOR HV AND MV CUSTOMERS

• HV customers and major MV customers have been equipped with interval meters (15min – 1 hour) since the second half of 80s

• In 2004 were introduced obligations for the installation of interval meters (1 hour) for all MV customers:

- P>500kW by June 2004- P=201-500kW by December 2004- P=101-200kW by December 2005- P<=100kW by December 2006

• Currently all HV and MV customers (free or under the protection scheme) are actually equipped with interval meters and treated on hourly base


GAS SMART METERING


GAS: WHAT DONE• July 2006: announced smart metering implementation in

the gas sector• May/October 2007: made a cost-benefit analysis, a

technical benchmark, a survey on the use of AMR/AMM systems in Europe

• July 2007: published the first consultation document (first thoughts)

• November 2007: established a WG (still alive) on “What minimum functional requirements for smart meters” (participants: the Autorità, DNOs, retailers, meters manufacturers, the Italian Gas Committee)

• February/April 2008: sent a request of information on installed meters to major DNOs

• June 2008: published the second consultation document (final thoughts)

• October 2008: Published the Regulatory Order ARG/gas 155/08


GAS: OBJECTIVES• To make it easier to eliminate any inefficiencies and

discriminatory features by improving the process of recording and accounting for the natural gas withdrawn by consumers and introducing technological innovations to metering units

• To create the functional and technological conditions for the introduction of mechanisms to develop a market system for natural gas and support the definition of the regulated market for natural gas and the new balancing service

• To improve the quality of natural gas metering, sales and distribution services, while ensuring the same functional and service levels irrespective of the operator responsible for the metering service and at the same time fostering greater awareness of consumption levels


GAS: TIMETABLE FOR THE COMMISSIONING OF SMART METERS

Commissioning deadline Percentage

Penalty[€/meter non

commissioned]

> G40 31 December 2010 100%54

≥ G16 and ≤ G40 31 December 2011 100% 21

> G6 and < G16

31 December 2011 30%12

31 December 2012 100%

≤ G6

31 December 2012 5%

4

31 December 2013 20%





GAS: TOWARDS THE ROLL-OUT (1/2)

Carried out in 2007:• a survey on the use of gas AMR/AMM systems

in Europe, found:– projects running (in some cases combining

electricity and gas)– different technologies of involved meters in the

system (traditional+data logger module/new generation meters)


Carried out in 2007:• a benchmark on gas smart meters, found:

– availability of new functionalities– availability of new measurement technologies

(mature, but with low level of industrialization) with correction of temperature and temperature+pressure

– some models already MID certified for both pressure and temperature correction or only for temperature correction

– availability of solutions with electrovalve on board– problems coming from the battery life: depends on

environmental conditions, on the frequency and the amount of data to be transmitted by the meter, on the use of the display, etc

GAS: TOWARDS THE ROLL-OUT (2/2)


GAS: SOME EX-ANTE DECISIONS• Quantitative cost-benefit analysis to be done DNO

side, that’s the actor that will make investments and meter reading activities

• Quantitative cost-benefit analysis to be differentiated according to the size of DNOs. Large (>500,000 consumers), Medium (50,000-500,000 consumers) and Small (<50,000 consumers)

• To be assessed both AMR and AMM (*) for household consumers (annual consumption < 5,000 m3) and only AMR for the others (annual consumption >5,000 m3)

• Pointed out a difficulty in carrying out a quantitative cost-benefit analysis consumer side in particular for households

(*) AMM = AMR + electrovalve on smart meter devices that cannot be opened remotely.


GAS: SOME EX-ANTE HYPOTHESES• No extra-charges for customers were assumed to

obtain the NPV shown in the following• Costs did not include the residual depreciation of

traditional meters due to be replaced by smart meters

• The periodical replacement of the power supply batteries was considered: once in the life-cycle of smart meters in the consumption band up to 5,000 m3/year and every two years for smart meters in the consumption band over 5,000 m3/year

• The installation, on average, of one data concentrator every twelve smart meters was assumed (more than 95% of smart meters will be managed through data concentrators)

• The costs needed to interface smart metering systems with billing systems were considered


GAS: FINDINGS OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (1/4)

Annual consumption bands

Size of DNO(no. of customers)

Large(> 500,000)

Medium(50,000-500,000)

Small(< 50,000)

Case 1: < 5,000 m3, AMM 1 – 1.18 1.27 – 1.46 3.14 – 3.35

Case 2: < 5,000 m3, AMR 1 1.26 3.33

Case 3: 5,000–200,000 m3, AMR 1 1.16 1.89

Case 4: > 200,000 m3, AMR 1 1.12 1.43

Case 5: < 5,000 m3, AMM (Case 1) ≥ 5,000 m3, AMR (Cases 3 and 4) 1 – 1.17 1.26 – 1.44 3.05 – 3.25

Cost of a single commissioned measurement point normalised to the cost of a large DNO



Annual consumption bands

Size of DNO(no. of customers)

Large(> 500,000)

Medium(50,000-500,000)

Small(< 50,000)

Case 1: < 5,000 m3, AMM 1 1.19 1.43

Case 2: < 5,000 m3, AMR 1 1.32 1.69

Case 3: 5,000–200,000 m3, AMR 1 1.09 1.19

Case 4: > 200,000 m3, AMR 1 1.06 1.13

Case 5: < 5,000 m3, AMM (Case 1) ≥ 5,000 m3, AMR (Cases 3 and 4) 1 1.17 1.37

Annual benefit for a single measurement point normalised to the cost of a large DNO



Annual consumption bands Size of DNO(no. of customers)

Large(> 500,000)

Medium(50,000-500,000)

Small(< 50,000)

Case 1: < 5,000 m3, AMM[1] -8 -11 -130

Case 2: < 5,000 m3, AMR -26 -23 -99

Case 3: 5,000–200,000 m3, AMR 613 685 633

Case 4: > 200,000 m3, AMR 1,151 1,227 1,182

Case 5: < 5,000 m3, AMM (Case 1) ≥ 5,000 m3, AMR (Cases 3 and 4)

7 6 -112

NPV at year 15 for different annual consumption bands [€/meter] AMM = AMR + electrovalve on smart meter devices that cannot be opened remotely.


• Quantified benefits (in Euros) were found for suppliers as well

• Those benefits were not used to assess the NPV shown in the previous slide

• From a qualitative point of view several benefits were assessed also for the “gas-system” as a whole



GAS: FOCUS POINTS• Compensation of Temperature and Pressure (the latter

not adopted for household customers)• Electrovalve on board of meters for household

customers (AMM for G4/G6)• Parametrizeable interval metering (minimum interval:

1h for >= G10, 1 day for G4/G6)• TOU withdrawal schemes• Standardization and interoperability• Battery life (and limitations implied by it)• Communication between data concentrators and meters• Installation of data concentrators (power supply,

location)• Potential displacement of meters


GAS: MIN. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED

Minimum functional requirement ≥ G10(AMR)

< G10(AMM)

Metering units’ clock/calendar capable of managing seconds; synchronised with the same reading frequency; maximum monthly drift shall not exceed: Temperature adjustment. Measure of the gas withdrawn at standard temperature conditions (15°C).Pressure adjustment. Measure of the gas withdrawn at standard pressure conditions (1,01325 bar).Withdrawal totaliser register. One single incremental totaliser register.Time-of-use withdrawal totaliser registers. Three separate totaliser registers, three types of day, up to five intervals a day. Schedule updatable twice a year.Interval metering. 70-day capacity, minimum interval:Saves and backups of withdrawal totaliser register. Min. six-monthly, max monthly; whenever a new TOU schedule comes into operation. Withdrawal registers must be kept after the battery has been replaced or has run out.Withdrawal data security. Mechanisms to protect and monitor withdrawal registers.Diagnostics. Self-diagnosis checks, including one on the maximum monthly drift. Result recorded in a status word for transmission to the remote management centre.Display. At the customer’s request: date and time, current and last save withdrawal registers, the register active at the time of display, any alarm showing that the metering unit has recorded an anomaly.Electrovalve. Available on meters, cannot be opened remotely. During any power-supply failures it retains its state.Up-dating of the metering unit software programme.Information on real-time withdrawal. At customer’s request only (see the paragraph “Compliance with European Directive 2006/32/EC”).

3 min.

Yes

Yes

YesYes

1 hourYes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

YesPulse

emitter output

5 min.

Yes

No

YesYes

1 dayYes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

YesAdditional physical or

logical communication gate (regulatory framework still to be defined)

ELECTRICITY QUALITY OF SERVICE REGULATION IN ITALY

Documents

Transcript of ELECTRICITY QUALITY OF SERVICE REGULATION IN ITALY