The Nordic Capacity Calculation Methodology (CCM) project · The Nordic Capacity Calculation Methodology (CCM) project CCM Stakeholder Forum – Stockholm 8 February - 2017

The Nordic Capacity Calculation Methodology (CCM) project

CCM Stakeholder Forum – Stockholm

8 February - 2017

http://www.fingrid.fi/en/

Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)

2. Welcome, objective and agenda (9.30 - 9.45), Trond Jensen (Statnett)

3. NordREG presentation (9.45 - 10.15), Johan Roupe (EI)

4. Nordic CCM project and timeline (10.15 - 10.30), Trond Jensen (Statnett)

5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)

6. Nordic FB and CNTC methodologies (10.50 - 11.30), Nils Flaten Ræder (Statnett) and Heini Ruohosenmaa (Fingrid)

7. Market results (11.30 - 12.00), Mårten Bergman (Svk)

8. First round of questions and answers (12.00 - 12.30)

9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)

10. Market information platform and market information tool (13.30 - 14.00), Mårten Bergman (Svk)

11. CCM proposal process (14.00 - 14.30), Ulrik Møller (Edk)

12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)

13. Second round of questions and answers (15.00 - 16.30)


Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Main deliveries of the Nordic CCM project

A CCM for the Day Ahead (DA) and Intraday (ID) ID market in accordance to Guideline on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management (CACM) The methodology is to be used by the industrialized Capacity Calculation (CC) tool to be developed

by the Regional Security Centre (RSC) Either a Flow Based or a Coordinated Net Transfer Capacity (CNTC) methodology Prototype Capacity Calculation tool(s) to test the methodology on real market data Market simulations and parallel runs

Management of the National Regulatory Agencies (NRA) CCM proposal process Consultation document (Supporting document) Stakeholder consultation NRA proposal for CCM (Legal document)

Support the RSC with "Domain expertise" in the tooling phase Capacity Calculation (CC) experts Specify domain requirements for the RSCs CC tool


Organizational structure

Work Group 1 CCM Methodology

FB & CNTC

Convener: Nils Ræder

Work Group 3 Welfare Economics

Convener: Mårten

Bergman

Steering committee One member from each TSO

Convener: Søren Dupond Kristensen

Work Group 4 CCM Proposal

Convener: Ulrik Møller

Convener team Project Manager: Trond Jensen

Regional Group Nordic (RGN)

Operational Reference Group

Convener: Jan Hystad

Work Group 2 CCM Methodology

CNTC Convener: Heini Ruohosenmaa

IT-Support

Convener: Martin Julander

Market Steering Group (MSG)


Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



A brief history of the Nordic CCM project

Prefeasibility study

Feasibility study

Pre-implementation phase

Project development Model studies Market assessments Work shops Methodology and technical requirements for a Nordic FB

Prototype development FB capacity calculation and market simulation experiments Stakeholder communication

Capacity calculation and market simulations Welfare analyses Infrastructure development (IT platforms) Stakeholder processes CCM proposal process CNTC development DA → DA and ID

Nordic Flow Based Project Nordic CCM Project SN Flow Based Project

Asses the FB concept Asses literature & practice Develop ideas

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010/2011

Internal TSO phase External communication → Stakeholder Forums → Stakeholder Group →News letters →Info platform

FB experiments FB Capacity Calculation and market simulations

CNTC Calculation and simulations

Today

18 Sept. CCM

proposal


High Level Status

WP Convener Status

Project Management

team

Trond Jensen

Stakeholder and NRA communication (Stakeholder Group, Forums and information platform, News Letters)

IT infrastructure (Secure FTP, CCM server) Link to other projects (Common Grid Model Project, Regional Security Centre project)

Work Group 1

Nils Ræder

FB and CNTC methodologies are developed FB and CNTC prototype tools are developed (CNTC not fully adjusted yet) Intraday CNTC Methodology is being developed FB capacity calculation and market simulation is ongoing CNTC capacity calculation and market simulation is ongoing

Work Group 2

Heini Ruohosenmaa

Alternative CNTC methodology and prototype tools is in development

Work Group 3

Mårten Bergman DA market welfare analyses FB vs NTC is ongoing DA market welfare analyses FB vs CNTC is ongoing

Work Group 4

Ulrik Møller

CCM proposal Currently working on a supporting document Planning for the internal TSO consultation Preparing for the market consultation Legal proposal document to be done later in the process


High-Level CCM Project Roadmap

Today

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Q3: Nordic DA CCM operationalized

Q4: Go-live ID CCM

Cap calc & Market sim. Jan 16 – Dec 17

Develop operational procedures

Q1/18 – Q3/19

Develop operational tools and go-live Intraday Q3/18 – Q3/20

Public parallel runs Q1/18 – Q4/19

CCM proposal Oct 16 – Sept 17

Sept 18: Submission of CCM proposal to NRAs

Q1-Q2: Go-live DA CCM

CC

M P

roje

ct

Rel

ate

d A

ctiv

itie

s

2017 – 2019 RSC develops industrialized DA tool

CGM D-2

Q1 18 – Q4 18 CGM ID Q1 19 – Q4 20 RSC develops industrialized ID tool

Each TSO develops CNE process Q1/17 – Q4/17

March 18: NRA Decision

2016 – Dec 17


Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Why capacity restrictions?

The electrical grid has a limited capacity for transporting power

Try transferring too much power, and the system is at risk of collapse

Capacity restrictions are necessary to ensure stable electricity supply with high quality

Capacity restrictions are only one of the tools employed by the TSOs to ensure operational security


Capacity calculation?

A detailed model of the electricity system, with forecasted system state and information on transmission constraints

Simplified transmission constraints that can be used by the electricity market

Only essential information is preserved, the amount and complexity of information is greatly reduced

Capacity calculation

process


Scope of the Capacity Calculation Methodology

FB

CNTC

• Common grid model (CGM) of the electricity system with forecasted system state

• Grid constraints • Available remedial actions

• Simplification of grid model

• Calculation of available capacity

• Reliability margins • Generator shift keys

Scope of CCM

Input from the TSOs

The CCM covers capacities for both the day-ahead and intraday market

The market capacities can be formulated as either flow-based parameters (FB) or coordinated net transmission capacities (CNTC)

Both FB and CNTC must respect the same underlying grid constraints, much of the calculation can be common to both approaches

The calculation process will consider updated forecasts until the last possible moment

To power exchanges for price calculations

OR


The Common Grid Model

Defined in CACM: ‘common grid model’ means a Union-wide

data set agreed between various TSOs describing the main characteristic of the power system (generation, loads and grid topology) and rules for changing these characteristics during the capacity calculation process

The CGM is built up of the TSOs' Individual Grid Models: 'individual grid model’ means a data set

describing power system characteristics (generation, load and grid topology) and related rules to change these characteristics during capacity calculation, prepared by the responsible TSOs, to be merged with other individual grid model components in order to create the common grid model


Simplifications made in the capacity calculation

Nodes aggregated into bidding zones Almost all load and generation have a unique impact

on the flows in the transmission system The difference in impact is not considered by the

market coupling All market parties in the same area are considered to

have equal impacts Each node have weigh according to the generation

shift keys (GSK)

A

C

B

The bidding zone contain numerous nodes

Linearization of interdependencies in the modelled electricity system There are complex relationships between the net

position of the bidding zones, and the loading of a transmission constraint

A more simplified approximation is found This linearization is required by the price

calculation algorithms

Export position of a bidding zone

Loading of a transmission constraint


Flow-based or

Coordinated net transmission capacity

The TSOs will provide either FB or CNTC to each of the day-ahead and intraday markets

Both FB and CNTC are sets of linear transmission constraints provided by the TSOs to the day-ahead and intraday markets Both FB and CNTC are based on the same input data

The requirements that all relevant transmission constraints shall be respected is the same

Both require the model of the electricity system to be simplified

Mathematically speaking the difference between the approaches is small

FB considers all bidding zones to be interconnected, and provides the market with information on transit flows CNTC treats all bidding zone borders as independent conduits for commercial exchange


Transit flows Contract paths vs physical paths

0.7 % 0.7 %

24 %

24 %

0 %

0.7 %

20 %

8 %

56 %

24 %

12 %

0.1 %

0.1 % 12 %

Power exchange between two bidding zones will follow all available paths in the grid

Much of the power will pass through other bidding zones – these are transit flows

The presence of transit flows means that a trade between two bidding zones will impact all transmission constraints in the region

The maximum commercial exchange that can be allowed between two bidding zones is therefore dependent on all other commercial exchanges in the region


Example market capacities

Flow-based

Transmission constraint

Available margin Impact from A Impact from B Impact from C

A -> B 1000 MW 33 % - 33 % 0

B -> C 1000 MW 33 % 67 % 0

A -> C 1000 MW 67 % 33 % 0

A

C

B

67 %

33 %

Coordinated net transmission capacities

Border Max exchange

A -> B 750 MW

B -> C 750 MW

A -> C 750 MW

Generation

Load

Simple system with three bidding zones

These are the power transfer distribution factors (PTDF)


The PTDF describe the interdependency between border flows

DK

1-D

E

DK

1-S

E3

DK

1-N

O2

DK

1-D

K2

DK

2-D

E

DK

2-S

E4

FIN

-EE

FIN

-SE

3

FIN

-NO

4

FIN

-SE

1

NO

1-N

O2

NO

1-N

O3

NO

1-N

O5

NO

1-S

E3

NO

2-N

L

NO

2-N

O5

NO

3-N

O4

NO

3-N

O5

NO

3-S

E2

NO

4-S

E1

NO

4-S

E2

SE

1-S

E2

SE

2-S

E3

SE

3-S

E4

SE

4-D

E

SE

4-L

T

SE

4-P

L

DK1-DE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-SE3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-NO2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-DK2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK2-DE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK2-SE4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-NO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-SE1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0.2 0 0 0.7 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.8 0 0 0.6 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.6 0 0.8 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2-NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-NO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.4 0 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

NO4-SE1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

NO4-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

SE1-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 0 0 0 0 0

SE2-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.6 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 1 0 0 0 0

SE3-SE4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

SE4-DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

SE4-LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SE4-PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Commercial exchange between areas …

… im

pac

t o

n s

ched

ule

d f

low

The table show how a commercial exchange between two areas – production in one and consumption in the other – create flows on the bidding zone borders

The checkered area shows that the Norwegian and Swedish grids are highly interconnected

Any trades that would change the net positions in these areas create transit flows on multiple borders

There is not a one-to-one relationship between commercial exchange and power flow


The interdependencies between the bidding zone borders are not considered in CNTC

DK

1-D

E

DK

1-S

E3

DK

1-N

O2

DK

1-D

K2

DK

2-D

E

DK

2-S

E4

FIN

-EE

FIN

-SE

3

FIN

-NO

4

FIN

-SE

1

NO

1-N

O2

NO

1-N

O3

NO

1-N

O5

NO

1-S

E3

NO

2-N

L

NO

2-N

O5

NO

3-N

O4

NO

3-N

O5

NO

3-S

E2

NO

4-S

E1

NO

4-S

E2

SE

1-S

E2

SE

2-S

E3

SE

3-S

E4

SE

4-D

E

SE

4-L

T

SE

4-P

L

DK1-DE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-SE3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-NO2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-DK2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK2-DE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK2-SE4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-NO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-SE1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0.2 0 0 0.7 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.8 0 0 0.6 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.6 0 0.8 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2-NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-NO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.4 0 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

NO4-SE1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

NO4-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

SE1-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 0 0 0 0 0

SE2-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.6 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 1 0 0 0 0

SE3-SE4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

SE4-DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

SE4-LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SE4-PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


… im

pac

t o

n s

ched

ule

d f

low

DK

1-D

E

DK

1-S

E3

DK

1-N

O2

DK

1-D

K2

DK

2-D

E

DK

2-S

E4

FIN

-EE

FIN

-SE

3

FIN

-NO

4

FIN

-SE

1

NO

1-N

O2

NO

1-N

O3

NO

1-N

O5

NO

1-S

E3

NO

2-N

L

NO

2-N

O5

NO

3-N

O4

NO

3-N

O5

NO

3-S

E2

NO

4-S

E1

NO

4-S

E2

SE

1-S

E2

SE

2-S

E3

SE

3-S

E4

SE

4-D

E

SE

4-L

T

SE

4-P

L

DK1-DE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-SE3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-NO2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK1-DK2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK2-DE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DK2-SE4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-NO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FIN-SE1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO1-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2-NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO2-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-NO4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-NO5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO3-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO4-SE1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO4-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

SE1-SE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

SE2-SE3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

SE3-SE4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

SE4-DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

SE4-LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

SE4-PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


… im

pac

t o

n s

che

du

led

flo

w Flow-based CNTC


More or less capacity with FB compared to CNTC?

The aim of the capacity calculation is to provide capacities that create the best possible dispatch All loads covered

Minimizing production costs

Avoiding risks to operational security

FB is a more flexible approach compared to CNTC The "solution space" for FB can form almost any shape

The "solution space" for CNTC is limited by the requirement that all bidding zone borders are considered independently

Export position

of area A

- 400

- 300

- 200

- 100

0

100

200

300

400

- 400 - 300 - 200 100 200 300 400 - 100 0

Export position

of area B

Black line: real limit of system security

Forecasted system state








Export position

of area A

FB

- 400

- 300

- 200

- 100

0

100

200

300

400

- 400 - 300 - 200 100 200 300 400 - 100 0

Export position

of area B










Export position

of area A

FB

CNTC

- 400

- 300

- 200

- 100

0

100

200

300

400

- 400 - 300 - 200 100 200 300 400 - 100 0

Export position

of area B




Are internal grid constraints limiting cross-border trade?

Few grid constraints are at the geographic border

The location of grid constraints determined by the total system state: grid topology, loads and generation We don't want to change the bidding zone configuration hour-by-hour

Constraints inside bidding areas mainly affected by cross-border trade

FB doesn't "move" the congestions at all, the PTDFs provide accurate information on how each area impact the constraints

CNTC makes a choice on which cross-border trades can be allocated the capacity of the constraint, constraint still mainly affected by cross border trade

Grid constraints not highly affected by cross border trade not included in capacity calculation

Constraints instead handled by costly remedial actions

(Non-costly remedial actions already included in the capacity calculation)


Can we have FB day-ahead and CNTC intraday?

The planned continuous intraday market cannot use FB initially

There will be a new capacity calculation for the intraday market Based on an updated common grid model

Not only the "remainder" from the day-ahead market as today

The concern is that there will be limited capacity available for intraday FB is a more flexible approach

The FB net positions from day-ahead may put the system in a "corner" where it's there's limited options to create secure CNTCs

This is due to more capacity being made available for the day-ahead market

Reasons/options that mitigate this risk: Reduced uncertainty at the intraday stage

TSOs can expand the CNTC space where it's unlikely to be used will free up initial capacity without significant impact on operational security

CNTC can be continuously recalculated

Export position

of area A

FB

CNTC

- 400

- 300

- 200

- 100

0

100

200

300

400

- 400 - 300 - 200 100 200 300 400 - 100 0

Export position

of area B

Result of the day-ahead market


Reduced uncertainty in the intraday time-frame

Export position

of area A

FB

CNTC

- 400

- 300

- 200

- 100

0

100

200

300

400

- 400 - 300 - 200 100 200 300 400 - 100 0

Export position

of area B

Reduced uncertainty means there may be more capacity available initially

TSOs can expand the CNTC space where it's likely to be used, free up initial capacity

CNTC can be continuously recalculated, making new capacity available in the desired direction


Discard grid constraints unlikely to be binding in the market outcome

Export position

of area A

FB

CNTC

- 400

- 300

- 200

- 100

0

100

200

300

400

- 400 - 300 - 200 100 200 300 400 - 100 0

Export position

of area B





Continuous recalculation of CNTC

Export position

of area A

FB

CNTC

- 400

- 300

- 200

- 100

0

100

200

300

400

- 400 - 300 - 200 100 200 300 400 - 100 0

Export position

of area B





Impact on price forecasts and bids

No impact on bid format

Bids still specified by volume and price per area in all markets

More hour-to-hour variation in available capacity

Both FB and CNTC will better reflect the constantly varying state of the power system compared to current NTC

FB will provide information on available capacity in a new format

PTDF and RAM contain much more information than NTC/CNTC

May impact the tools and methods used for predicting future prices

FB will provide more, but smaller price differences

Prices not caused by congested borders, instead caused by congested grid constraints

All areas receive a price relative to the area's specific impact on the grid constraints

Flow-based

Available margin Area A Area B Area C

A -> B 1000 33 % - 33 % 0

B -> C 1000 33 % 67 % 0

A -> C 1000 67 % 33 % 0

Coordinated net transmission capacity

Max exchange

A -> B 750 MW

B -> C 750 MW

A -> C 750 MW


Prototype capacity calculation and market simulations

The Nordic CCM project have developed a set of prototype tools for coordinated capacity calculation We are currently calculating flow-based parameters, and doing market

simulations

CNTC market simulations just starting, but the CNTC method needs refinements on the rules for efficiently sharing capacity on the borders

Data quality remains an issue Mostly related to the prototype common grid model which is created

specifically for this use

Quality will improve as soon as the real common grid model is in place

Market simulations are conducted using the same algorithm and bid lists used for the day-ahead market


Calculation of maximum exchanges on bidding zone borders

Aim to automate TTC calculations

Calculations based on basic AC load flow and dynamic simulations

Method and tool to calculate maximum exchanges has been developed and tested using SE1-FI border as an example

Tool calculates maximum technical capacities for import and export directions individually bidding zone border by border taking into account following items GSKs Contingencies Operational security limits

The same calculation approach can be used to calculate Fmax values in the FB approach, and cross-zonal capacities in the CNTC


Capacity calculation tool

Input data

CGM GSKs Contingencies

and other rules

Operational security limits (thermal limits, voltage limits, frequency and damping limits)

Load flow analysis Dynamic stability

analysis Maximum cross-zonal

capacity


Other steps in CNTC calculation process

adjusting maximum power exchange using remedial actions

applying rules for avoiding undue discrimination between internal and cross-zonal exchanges

applying rules for efficiently sharing power flow capabilities of different CNEs among different bidding zone borders

taking into account reliability margin and previously allocated cross-zonal capacity

cross-zonal capacities to be given to the market


Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Disclaimers

Prototype tools/process

Prototype tools have been used for the simulations

Flow Reliability Margins (FRM) are not included

Some known difficulties with the Danish CNE definitions in the first half of 2016

Although operators are consulted in the review stage, they are not personally involved in the FB capacity calculation process yet

Some of the hours (~6 %) in the FB results lacks FB parameters these hours are replaced with NTC values

Prototype Common grid model

The grid models used are not yet the target models. Indeed those are in the process of being implemented. The quality of the grid models is the best we can have at this moment in time; they do not allow for dynamic analysis and detailed voltage/reactive power analysis though.

Merging software for creating the CGM from the IGMs evolves over time. Improvements made for the later weeks have not been applied for the earlier ones

Market simulations

The market simulations are done in the European Power Exchanges’ Simulation Facility by using historical order books

Limited to the Central Northern European market

Critical Network Element (CNE) selection (review and possible removal of non-significantly impacted CNEs) has not been implemented at this stage yet


Objective function of the Price coupling Euphemia

Same price coupling algorithm in both FB and NTC

MAX Welfare =

Subject to constraints

Consumer surplus Producer surplus Congestion revenue

Example of an exchange from a low price area to a high price area


Welfare economic results for Weeks 2-5, 7-8, 14-17, 41-46

-7,000

-5,000

-3,000

-1,000

1,000

3,000

5,000

7,000

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Nordic

Tota

l [kE

UR

]

SEW

per

Sta

keh

old

er [

MEU

R]

Nordic socio-economic welfare , FB compared to NTC

Congestion rent Producer surplus Consumer surplus Total

-1,200-1,000-800-600-400-20002004006008001,0001,200

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

2 3 4 5 7 8 14 15 16 17 41 42 43 44 45 46

Tota

l [kE

UR

]

SEW

per

Sta

keh

old

er [

MEU

R] Nordic socio-economic welfare per week, FB compared to NTC

Congestion rent Producer surplus Consumer surplus Total

On an annualized basis the welfare in FB is 12 M€ larger than in NTC


Average prices in all Nordic bidding zones

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nordic DK1 DK2 FIN NO1 NO2 NO3 NO4 NO5 SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4

Average prices in the bidding zones

NTC

FB

-0,4

0,1

-0,5 -0,4 -0,4

0,8

-1,2

-0,3

0,5

-0,9 -0,9 -0,7

-0,5

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

Nordic DK1 DK2 FIN NO1 NO2 NO3 NO4 NO5 SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4

Difference FB-NTC


Nordic net position per week 2-5, 7-8, 14-17, 41-46 and average

Average Nordic net position (GWh)

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

2 3 4 5 7 8 14 15 16 17 41 42 43 44 45 46

Net Position, [GWh/week]

NTC FB

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

NTC FB


Economic gain VS grid overloads

The figure shows how the hourly FB results compare to the NTC market outcome

The horizontal axis show the impact on expected grid overloads

The vertical axis show the socio-economic impact

The TSO choice of which CNEs to include in the market coupling will determine the balance between better grid security, and improved economic outcome

Results in this quadrant have both better economic results and lower grid overloads in FB than in NTC

Results in this quadrant have both worse economic results and larger grid overloads in FB than in NTC


FB vs CNTC vs NTC: single hour from week 42

FB CNTC NTC


FB vs CNTC vs NTC: single hour from week 42

Welfare compared to NTC (k€) CNTC 17 FB 20


Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Interfaces – External Stakeholders

Stakeholder Group Group with nominated members from industry and NRAs Detailed discussions and exchanges

Stakeholder Forum Open for all stakeholders

Broader information forums

Stakeholder Newsletter 1 issued in 2016

4 issues/year from 2017

Stakeholder Information Platform Web platform for information exchange Open for all stakeholders

Interactive discussion forum


Information Platform

Stakeholder Information Platform Web platform for information exchange

Open for all stakeholders

Interactive discussion forum

To gain access: Send mail to: [email protected]

Subject: User registration NCCM SH info platform

Content:

Name, E-mail & Telephone


The Nordic Capacity Calculation Methodology (CCM) project

Stakeholder Information Tool CCM Stakeholder Forum – Stockholm

8 February 2017


Stakeholder Tool

Tool for examining the effect on flows/possible net positions from PTDFs

CNEs are fully anonymized – randomized numbering

This is a first draft – comments/suggestions are welcome


Stakeholder tool


GUI - Test feasible net positions

cells that can be editted

the white cells indicate the Nordic synchronous area; the grey cells the DK1 synchronous area

the orange texts indicate that the cell value is computed from another. Indeed, this is applied for DC cables: the power injected on one side is emitted at the other

A check on the power balance in each synchronous area is performed;


GUI - Test feasible net positions If the net positions, that you entered, fit within the FB domain, the message that 'Transmission system not congested' appears. Otherwise, the message 'Transmission system congested' appears in red.

The net position, that you entered, appears in the Nordic map in bold. Above this value, the maximum net position (feasible within the FB domain) is shown. Below this value the min net position (feasible within the FB domain) is shown.

The border flows (according to the FB model), resulting from the net positions that you entered, are shown in the map.


FB parameters

the net positions that you filled in on the 'GUI'

the flows induced on the CNEs (PTDF matrix * net positions)

is the CNE congested? Or in other words: is the resulting flow larger than the RAM ( remaining available margin, the flow that is allowed to be used by the market transactions)?

the PTDF factors of the CNEs


Min/Max Net Positions & Border Flows

The tool includes information on Min/Max Net Position per bidding zone Not simultaneously feasible

The border flows (according to the FB model), resulting from the net positions that you entered, are computed. Those values are presented in the 'GUI'


Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Timeline for the NRA proposal

2017

Today

Sep Nov 2017 Mar May Jul Sep

Stakeholder Forum

Feb 8

Workshop (Stakeholder Forum)

Apr 19

Stakeholder Forum

Sep 7

Submission of final CCM proposal to NRAs

Sep 18

Sep 1 - Feb 21 Develop supporting document

Feb 22 - Mar 28 Internal TSO consultation and approval of proposed CCM

Apr 3 - May 15 Public consultation

Apr 3 - Jun 30Develop the legal CCM proposal (legally-binding

document)

Jul 3 - Aug 18 Internal TSO consultation

Aug 21 - Sep 18Finalization of the CCM

proposal

Jul 1 - Aug 15 Holiday period


Comparison FB/CNTC/NTC

Art 9.9. Proposed timeline for implementation

Art 9.9 Description of the expected impact on the objective

Art 21.1.C Methodology for validation of Cross Zonal capacity

Art 21.2 Frequency for updating ID capacity

Content of the supporting document and the CCM proposal

Art 21 Legal document: The proposal for a CCM shall (at least) include

Art 21.1.A Methodologies for the calculation of input to the CC

Methodologies for: i. Determine Reliability Margins ii. Determine Operational Security Limits ii. Determine Contingencies ii. Determine Allocation Constraints iii. Determine GSK iv. Determine Remedial Actions to be used

Art 21.1.B Description of the applied CCM

A Mathematical description of the i. Applied CCM with different inputs v. FB: The calculation of PTDFs and RAMs Rules for: ii. Avoiding undue discrimination iii. Previously allocated Cross Zonal capacity iv. Applying Remedial Actions to adjust flow on CNEs vi. CNTC: Calculating Cross Zonal capacity and efficiently sharing CNE cap on Bidding Zone Borders vii. Efficiently sharing CNE cap on different CCRs when relevant

Supporting document: Proposed methodology and impact assessment

21.1.A Methodologies for the calculation of input to the CC

21.1.B Description of the applied CCM

Art 21.1.C Methodology for validation of

Cross Zonal capacity

Art 21.2 Frequency for updating ID capacity

Art 21.3 Fall-back procedure

Art 9.9 Proposed timeline for implementation

Art 9.9 Description of the expected impact

on the objective

Description of the alternative CCM

Art 21.3 Fall-back procedure

Impacts on other markets

Bidding zone delimitation

Non-intuitive flows

Congestion Income Distribution (if FB)

Transparency

Long-term investment decisions


Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



Agenda

1. Coffee (9.00 – 9.30)




5. Coffee (10.30 - 10.50)




9. Lunch (12.30 - 13.30)



12. Coffee break (14.30 - 15.00)



FB vs NTC: single hour from week 41

The Nordic welfare is 3k€ better in FB than in NTC

The total market welfare is 7k€ better in FB than in NTC

For the week as a whole Nordic gain is 600k€, and the market wide gain is 1M€


Documents

The Nordic Capacity Calculation Methodology (CCM) project · The Nordic Capacity Calculation Methodology (CCM) project CCM Stakeholder Forum – Stockholm 8 February - 2017