RTS Advanced Network Tools

Confidential

RTS Advanced Network Tools ED2 Engineering Justification Paper

ED2-NLR(O)-SPEN-003-RTS-EJP

Issue Date Comments

Issue 0.1 Feb 2021 First Issue

Issue 0.2 Apr 2021 For SRG

Issue 1 Jun 2021 Initial submission to Ofgem

Issue 2 Nov 2021 Following ESG approval, deferred costs associated with Power Flow Analysis and Adaptive Protection.

Scheme Name RTS Advanced Network Tools

PCFM Cost Type NLR(O)

Activity RTS

Primary Investment Driver Operational IT & Telecoms Risk Reduction

Reference ED2-NLR(O)-SPEN-003-RTS-EJP

Output Type Real Time Systems

Cost SPD: £0.31m SPM: £0.24m

Delivery Year 2023-2028

Reporting Table CV11

Outputs included in ED1 Yes/No

Business Plan Section Maintaining a Safe & Resilient Network

Primary Annex Annex 4A.16: Operational IT and Telecoms Strategy

Spend Apportionment ED1 ED2 ED3

£m £0.56m £m

ED2-NLR(O)-SPEN-003-RTS-EJP - Scheme / RTS Advanced Network Tools

1

Confidential

Technical Governance Process Project Scope Development

IP1(S)

To be completed by the Service Provider or Asset Management. The completed form, together with an accompanying report, should be endorsed by the appropriate sponsor and submitted for approval. IP1 – To request project inclusion in the investment plan and to undertake project design work or request a modification to an existing project IP1(S) – Confirms project need case and provides an initial view of the Project Scope IP2 – Technical/Engineering approval for major system projects by the System Review Group (SRG) IP2(C) – a Codicil or Supplement to a related IP2 paper. Commonly used where approval is required at more than one SRG, typically connection projects which require connection works at differing voltage levels and when those differing voltage levels are governed by two separate System Review Groups. IP2(R) – Restricted Technical/Engineering approval for projects such as asset refurbishment or replacement projects which are essentially on a like-for-like basis and not requiring a full IP2 IP3 – Financial Authorisation document (for schemes > £100k prime) IP4 – Application for variation of project due to change in cost or scope PART A – PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: RTS Advanced Network Tools

Project Reference: ED2-NLR(O)-SPEN-003-RTS-EJP

Decision Required: To give concept approval for the project scope to implement Advanced Network Tools within the RTS Control System.

Summary of Business Need:

The increasing complexity of the Distribution Network due to Distributed Energy Resources (DER) will make the control and management of the network increasingly challenging for the Control Engineer without support from advanced network tools. The alternative is either to undertake a massive program of network reinforcement which would be prohibitively expensive, or to do nothing. Doing nothing would lead to an increase in CI/CML and potentially asset damage as the network becomes more complicated and harder for the control room to manage manually. Summary of Project Scope, Change in Scope or Change in Timing:

During the ED2 timeframe it is planned to build on the existing system to introduce the next generation of Automatic

Restoration Tools provided by the control system vendor (referred to as FLISR ; Fault Location Isolation and Service

Restoration).

Expenditure Forecast (in 2020/21 prices)

Licence

Area Reporting Table - Description

Total

(£m)

Incidence (£m)

2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28

SPD CV11 – Op IT and Telecoms 0.31 0 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.03

SPM CV11 – Op IT and Telecoms 0.24 0 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.02

SPEN TOTAL 0.56 0 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.05

PART B – PROJECT SUBMISSION

Proposed by Howard Perkins Signature Howard Perkins Date: 30th November 21

Endorsed by Andrew Firth Signature Andrew Firth Date: 30th November 21

Endorsed by Martyn Cunningham Signature Martyn Cunningham Date: 30th November 21

PART C – PROJECT APPROVAL

Approved by John Gray Signature Date: 30th November 21


2

Confidential

Contents Technical Governance Process................................................................................................................ 1

Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Background Information ................................................................................................................. 3

3 Optioneering ................................................................................................................................... 5

4 Detailed Analysis & Costs ................................................................................................................ 6

5 Deliverability & Risk ........................................................................................................................ 7

6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 11

7 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 11


3

Confidential

1 Introduction

On top of the core network control functionality provided by the Control System (PowerOn), GE supply other applications that provide more advanced functionality such as FLISR (Fault Location Isolation and Service Restoration) and Power Flow Analysis.

Due to increasing network complexity, new advanced control functionality is required to reduce the risk of consumer-impacting network outages and damage.

This paper covers the investment that is planned over ED2 to exploit these advanced tools.

• Licenses for the latest Power Flow Analysis tools will be included in the Single Control System. Work is then required to implement the necessary models within the distribution network to utilise these tools. This work is planned to start at the beginning of ED2. Power Flow Analysis capability is a key enabler for network optimisation in the future and further work is anticipated throughout ED2 to support this. In the original Issue 1 submission of this paper this work was based on external support costs. Following internal discussions with the ESG it has been concluded that this work should be carried out internally and the costs have therefore moved to a different area (indirect headcount). The work remains a key foundation for subsequent investment.

• SPEN are currently in the initial phases of deploying APRS (Adaptive Power Restoration System) and PORT (Primary Outage Restoration Tool) which are both components of FLISR. These will continue to be rolled out during the start of ED2 as part of business as usual. This will be followed by an enhancement project with GE to take the next generation of FLISR functionality during years 2 and 3.

As the accuracy and reliability of the analytics improves, the system is capable of more sophisticated automation. The direction of travel is towards self-healing and self-optimising networks and although this will not be achieved in ED2, the Advanced Network Tools covered in this paper are some of the building blocks that need to be put in place during this period.

NOTE: Adaptive Protection Analytics is functionality targeted for release by GE in the next few years. In the Issue 1 submission of this paper, consideration was given to including a project at the end of ED2 to add/investigate this functionality. After further review it has been concluded that the benefits are too uncertain at this stage to include in ED2.

2 Background Information

The different Advanced Network Tools discussed in this paper are in the context of all the other functionality that constitutes the control system.

FLISR is the most sophisticated example of automatic restoration. There are secondary automation schemes physically located in the network that will act locally in predefined circumstances. There are Logical Sequence Switching (LSS) schemes that will act centrally, again in response to predefined circumstances. The limitations of these pre-configured approaches are that they are designed for the network in its normal state. APRS and PORT are more flexible in that they can cope with the network when it is not in its normal state. One of the limiting factors for any automatic restoration scheme is the availability of remote switching and there is therefore a dependency on the Network Controllable Points (NCP) project. Another essential enabler for FLISR in general is the accuracy of the network model that it uses. There is a separate project planned for ED2 that will automate the link between PowerOn and the Integrated Network Model (INM) and this will improve the performance of FLISR (see ED2-NLR(O)-SPEN-006-RTS-EJP RTS INM Integration).

Power Flow Analysis is a complex challenge that depends on several factors. For example, balanced networks (typically 33kv and above) are easier to analyse than unbalanced networks (e.g. 11kv). In SPM the existence of grid groups makes the model more complex again compared to radial networks


4

Confidential

which are more common in SPD. Power Analysis depends on a minimum sample of actual measurements (voltage, current, power etc) together with a network model covering both connectivity and detailed attributes such as impedance etc. The analysis solves the current state of the network to fill in the missing measurements. The analysis is very dependent on the accuracy of the network model. As mentioned above, there is a separate project to automate the link between PowerOn and the Integrated Network Model (INM) and this is a key enabler for Power Flow Analysis. Where there is sufficient oversampling of measurements, Power Flow Analysis can be used to reveal errors in the network model and so there is an inherent interdependency between the INM and Power Flow Analysis.

Power Flow Analysis can be carried out on offline systems for planning purposes based on the network normal state. Power Flow Analysis within the control system is based on the current network state and can be used in pseudo real-time to support manual control actions and as the basis for automated actions.

The integration of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) makes protection harder to achieve as the fault currents can vary according to the state of the network. There are various ways of addressing this, but with the availability of an accurate network model and power flow analysis, protection levels can be controlled automatically to allow the existing network to achieve more. Adaptive Protection Analytics is a new GE application to address this issue. It is in their roadmap for development in 2023. Although the conclusion was to defer this beyond ED2, consideration was given to a project for introduction/investigation of Adaptive Protection Analytics towards the end of ED2 once the other components were in place.

Finally, any implementation of these advanced network tools is in the context of the transition from DNO to DSO. This brings with it a degree of uncertainty around the speed and extent of the changes within the ED2 period.

2.1 ED1 Track Record

This is a new intervention and there is no relevant ED1 track record.

2.2 Needs Case

The basic functionality of the control system is to allow Control Engineers to manually operate (or instruct the operation of) circuit breakers and other devices in the network. The advanced features of the control system go beyond this in two ways. Firstly, by carrying out complex analyses to help the Control Engineer decide on the action to take. Secondly, by enabling the system to act automatically.

As the accuracy and reliability of the analytics improves, the system is capable of more sophisticated automation. The direction of travel is towards self-healing and self-optimising networks and although this will not be achieved in ED2, there are various building blocks that need to be put in place during this period.

Power Flow Analysis is one of the key building blocks. Not only does it provide usable information without the cost of full instrumentation, but more importantly it allows different what-if scenarios to be analysed. This could not be done with instrumentation alone.

In the short term for example, Contingency Analysis (which is a component of Power Flow Analysis that identifies a list of critical components whose failure would cause the worst power overloads), can be useful for the Control Engineer to understand the current situation as well as for planning in advance of scheduled work.

The real benefit however is in the future when the control system uses Power Flow Analysis for the next generation of FLISR and to support DSO forecasting. Look ahead power analysis can identify


5

Confidential

potential future violations and then suggest (or automatically implement) an improved network configuration.

There is no doubt that the increasing complexity of the Distribution Network due to DER will make the control and management of the network almost impossible for the Control Engineer without support from advanced network tools (or massive network reinforcement).

3 Optioneering

The following options were considered and are summarised in Table 3-1 below.

NOTE: In Issue 1 of this submission, Power Flow Analysis was presented as project requiring investment and therefore included in the optioneering. Following internal discussions with the ESG it has been concluded that this work should be carried out internally and the costs have therefore moved to a different area (indirect headcount). Although it no longer appears in the following table, it does remain a key building block to achieving the investment benefits.

Table 3-1 Optioneering

# Options Decision Comment

Baseline Do nothing (minimum intervention).

Considered Although this is the minimum intervention it would lead to increasing CI/CML due to the increasing difficulty in controlling the network manually.

1 Implement next generation FLISR only.

Adopted Provides immediate benefits and a key building block on the path to self-healing and self-optimising networks.

2 Implement next generation FLISR and Adaptive Protection Analytics.

Considered The benefits of Adaptive Protection Analytics are too uncertain at this stage to include in ED2.

3 Reinforce Network.

Rejected The cost of reinforcing the network to remove any complexity concerns due to DER is prohibitive. In addition, this would not provide the benefit from FLISR.


6

Confidential

4 Detailed Analysis & Costs

Of the options identified in the previous section, three were selected for further consideration and analysis, summarised in Table 4-1 below.

4.1 Selected Option Summary

The scope of this paper is an enhancement project with GE to take the next generation of FLISR functionality to build on the existing APRS and PORT functionality. This functionality is on GE’s roadmap for development during 2021. However, this project is targeted for Years 2 and 3 once the Single Control System project has completed and there is initial availability from Power Flow Analysis on the distribution system. This also allows for any slippage in GE’s development timeline.

4.2 Alternative Options Summary

There were two other options considered.

4.2.1 Do Nothing (minimum intervention)

There is the option to not invest in automatic restoration any further. However, the direction of travel is towards self-healing and self-optimising networks. Failure to make any investment in such tools during ED2 would set the network back by 5 years.

In addition, the penalty would be an increased risk of consumer-impacting network outages and damage as there is no doubt that the increasing complexity of the Distribution Network due to DER will make the control and management of the network almost impossible for the Control Engineer without support from advanced network tools.

This option was therefore rejected for the above reasons.

4.2.2 Implement FLISR and Adaptive Protection Analytics

Adaptive Protection Analytics functionality is targeted for release by GE in the next few years. At this stage it is therefore unknown exactly what functionality will be included and therefore the extent of any benefits that may be achieved. In issue 1 of this submission, an investigative project was planned in Year 5 with any widespread adoption of the technology in ED3.

After further review it has been concluded that the benefits are too uncertain at this stage to include in ED2.

4.3 Options Technical Summary table

Table 4-1 Options Technical Summary

# Option Technical Summary


-.


Project to implement the next generation FLISR functionality from GE.

2 Implement next generation FLISR and Adaptive Protection Analytics.

As above plus a project to add/investigate the Adaptive Protection Analytics module from GE.


7

Confidential

4.4 Options Cost summary tables

The costs of the different options that have been considered are summarised in Table 4-2 below. The proposed systems are shared between SPD and SPM and for comparison between options the total SPEN cost is shown.

NOTE: The pension contribution is excluded from Table 4-2 and the totals will therefore not align with the totals shown on the title pages.

At the time of preparation of this submission, SPEN was in a competitive tender process for the procurement of the new Single Control System. It was not possible to discuss future projects with the vendors at that time and there has been limited opportunity since contract award to GE. The costs are therefore based on SPEN’s experience of similar projects with GE in the past.

The Next Generation FLISR costs are the Licence and Project costs from GE for years 2 and 3 together with the increase in Maintenance and Support costs thereafter.

The Adaptive Protection Analytics costs are GE project costs (potentially some licence cost) for the project in Year-5.

Table 4-2 Options Cost Summary

# Option Cost Breakdown £m NARMs

Risk Change

£/Risk


Total -


Next Generation FLISR 0.55 Total 0.55

2 Implement next generation FLISR and investigate/add Adaptive Protection Analytics.

Next Generation FLISR 0.55

Adaptive Protection Analytics 0.25 Total 0.80

5 Deliverability & Risk

5.1 Preferred Options & Output Summary

The preferred option is to invest in the next generation of FLISR from GE during years 2 and 3.

5.2 Cost Benefit Analysis Results

The CBA results shown in


8

Confidential

Table 5-1 below are from the CBA Analysis reference ED2-NLR(O)-SPEN-003-RTS-EJP RTS Advanced Network Tools CBA.

NOTE: These are shared costs between SPD and SPM so for option comparison purposes the CBA is based on a SPEN total cost. The pension contribution is also not included in the comparison of options within the CBA.


9

Confidential

Table 5-1 Cost Benefit Analysis Summary

Options considered Decision Comment

£m NPVs based on payback periods 10

years 20

years 30

years 45

years Whole

Life NPV

Baseline: Do nothing (minimum intervention)

Rejected There will be an increase in CI and CML as the Control Engineers are faced with increasingly complex situations

Implement next generation FLISR.

Adopted This is the most beneficial option.

0.34 1.19 1.73 2.24 2.58

Implement next generation FLISR and investigate/add Adaptive Protection Analytics.

Rejected Although there is the potential for ED3 benefits these can not be quantified and at this stage the additional investment cannot be justified.

0.23 1.03 1.54 2.03 2.36

This CBA is based on the avoidance of increased CI/CML. The do nothing / minimum

intervention scenario anticipates that customers who previously would have been restored

almost immediately now become longer interruptions and therefore lead to increased CI (and

therefore additional CML).

Assumptions were made about the scope of these interruptions as well as the effectiveness

of the intervention in reducing them. In the absence of being able to validate these assumptions

a sensitivity analysis was carried out for the selected option. The assumptions and how far

they could be changed before the whole life NPV went negative are captured in the table

below.

Table 5-2 Sensitivity Analysis Summary

Description Base Assumption Sensitivity factor

Average number of customers affected

150. Can be reduced by 65%

Number of times per year this happened

Starting at 10 times per year (less than once a month) increasing to 100 times per year (less than twice a week) after 10 years.

Can be reduced by 65%

Average outage duration 15 minutes Can be reduced to 0 (in other words the CI benefit dominates).


10

Confidential

Percentage reduction in total CI/CML because of next generation FLISR envisaged in Option 1

50% Can be reduced by 65%, in other words, the next generation FLISR only needs to reduce the predicted CI/CML increase by 20% to be viable.

In conclusion, the cost benefit analysis result for Option 1 is relatively robust to changes in

the scenario assumptions.

5.3 Cost & Volumes Profile

The cost profile for the preferred option (including pension contribution) is summarised in Table 5-3 below.

Table 5-3 Expenditure Profile

Area CV11

Category

Memo

Item Description

Total

(£m)

Incidence (£m)

2023/4 2024/5 2025/6 2026/7 2027/8

SPD

Control

centre

hardware &

software

RTS

Advanced

Network

Tools

Next Generation

FLISR 0.31 0 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.03

Pension Contribution 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SPD Sub-Total 0.31 0 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.03

SPM

Control

centre

hardware &

software

RTS

Advanced

Network

Tools

Next Generation

FLISR 0.24 0 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.02

Pension Contribution 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SPM Sub-Total 0.24 0 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.02

SPEN

SPEN TOTAL 0.56 0 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.05

5.4 Risks

Part of the scope of this paper relies on future roadmap developments by GE. There is therefore a risk that their development programme will not deliver in time. In mitigation, the supplier was selected on their ability to deliver such programmes of work and the items of functionality are scheduled for availability well before SPEN’s planned adoption.

There is also a dependency on the internal RTS staff to manage the proposed workload. The team consists of highly experienced individuals with skills that are not widely available. Whilst this always represents a risk, the scheduling of the programme of works has been levelled as far as possible to avoid overload and ensure deliverability.

For the benefits from this investment to be realised, there is a dependency on the Power Flow Analysis that will now be carried out internally (increase in indirect headcount). There is therefore a risk that appropriately skilled individuals cannot be recruited.

There are no specific contingency measures in the event of delays in this project. The network would continue to operate albeit with greater risk as outlined in the Needs Case in section 2.2.

5.5 Outputs Included in RIIO ED1 Plans

None.


11

Confidential

5.6 Future Pathways – Net Zero

5.6.1 Primary Economic Driver

To reduce the risk of network damage and/or longer network outages due to the complexity of the network making manual control by Control Engineers increasingly challenging.

5.6.2 Payback Periods

Consumers will benefit from reduced network risk immediately as the different components of the project are completed.

5.6.3 Pathways and End Points

The proposed option is consistent with the SPENs DSO Strategy and Distribution Future Energy Scenarios.

5.6.4 Asset Stranding Risks & Future Asset Utilisation

The complexity of the network is set to increase as SPENs DSO Strategy unfolds and the need for advanced network tools will increase. There is the possibility that some of the functionality included in this paper may be superseded by even more sophisticated tools in the future, but overall, the stranding risk is very low.

5.6.5 Losses / Sensitivity to Carbon Prices

Not appropriate to this investment.

5.6.6 Whole Systems Benefits

Not appropriate to this investment.

5.7 Environmental Considerations

5.7.1 Operational and embodied carbon emissions

The RTS Advanced Network Tools project is unlikely to result in embodied carbon from the delivery of interventions required. There is unlikely to be any impact on SPEN’s Business Carbon Footprint (BCF).

5.7.2 Supply chain sustainability

For us to take full account of the sustainability impacts associated with the RTS Advanced Network Tools project, we need access to reliable data from our suppliers. The need for carbon and other sustainability credentials to be provided now forms part of our wider sustainable procurement policy.

5.7.3 Resource use and waste

The RTS Advanced Network Tools project may result in the consumption of resources and the generation of waste materials.

Where waste is produced it will be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy which ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. The waste hierarchy gives top priority to preventing waste in the first instance, then preparing for re-use, recycling, recovery, and last of all disposal (e.g. landfill).


12

Confidential

5.7.4 Biodiversity/ natural capital

Due to the nature of the proposed interventions, it is unlikely that there will be any impact in relation to biodiversity and natural capital.

5.7.5 Preventing pollution

Due to the nature of the proposed interventions, it is unlikely that there will be any impact in relation to pollution. SPEN will always follow all relevant waste regulations and will make sure that special (hazardous) waste produced or handled by our business is treated in such a way as to minimise any effects on the environment.

5.7.6 Visual amenity

Due to the nature of the proposed interventions, it is unlikely that there will be any impacts in relation to visual amenity.

5.7.7 Climate change resilience

Due to the nature of the proposed interventions, it is unlikely that there will be any impacts in relation to future changes in climate.

6 Conclusion

The increasing complexity of the Distribution Network due to Distributed Energy Resources (DER) will make the control and management of the network increasingly challenging for the Control Engineer without support from advanced network tools.

One such tool is FLISR and during ED2 the next generation of this functionality will be implemented in the control system.

As the accuracy and reliability of the analytics improves, the system is capable of more sophisticated automation. The direction of travel is towards self-healing and self-optimising networks and although this will not be achieved in ED2, the intervention covered in this paper is one of the building blocks that needs to be put in place during this period.

7 Appendices None

RTS Advanced Network Tools

Documents

Transcript of RTS Advanced Network Tools