p375 ‘metering behind the - elexon...9 p375 workgroup 4 actions from workgroup 3 (2 of 2) no...

P375 ‘Metering behind the

Boundary Point’

July 2019

Workgroup 4

Public

Health & Safety

P375/6 Workgroup 32

Agenda

3

■ Welcome & objectives

■ Review of meeting 3 and actions

■ P375 Proposal recap

■ P375 Customer journey

■ Use case illustration

■ Assurance for P375

■ Statistical analysis of asset load independence

■ Outstanding Issues / Review Terms of Reference

■ AOB & Close

Objectives

4

■ Review end to end process

■ Agree solution addresses Terms of Reference

■ Agree outstanding issues

P375 Meeting 3 Summary and Actions

Meeting 3 Summary (1 of 2)

P375 Workgroup 46

■ An example site was presented by the Proposer

■ The critical principle for an Asset Meter is that the equipment or sets of equipment

can be independently controlled and dispatched

■ The Workgroup agreed that a ‘metering by difference’ approach (which is distinct

from ‘difference metering’ and ‘net metering’) should be incorporated into the P375

solution

■ The Workgroup agreed that more than one Asset Meter can be installed per site.

Other site flows could be determined using a residual methodology which utilises

Asset Metering installed

■ The Workgroup stepped through the draft Code of Practice 11 for Asset Metering,

and agreed a number of updates and amendments to testing and commissioning,

definitions and Single Line Diagrams

■ The Workgroup stepped through a draft high-level end to end process diagram and

considered some of the questions ELEXON posed

Meeting 3 Summary (2 of 2)

P375 Workgroup 47

■ The Workgroup agreed that SVAA will apply the Boundary Meter DNO LLFs according

the voltages used by referencing the Asset and Boundary Meter

■ The Workgroup agreed that further consideration was needed on:

–The assurance regime required for the registration of Asset Meters and the on-

going monitoring. What data should be sent to which participants and what, if any,

data should be made public, for example on BMRS

–The extent to which the new Metering Standards for Asset Meters should cater for

the type of measuring devices discussed in P379

–The role of customer consent for moving an asset between VLPs

–Whether P375 can consider adding Asset Meters to a Supplier’s Additional BMUs

P375 Workgroup 48

Actions from Workgroup 3 (1 of 2)

No Action Action on Update

1. ELEXON to update Business Requirements based on Workgroup

discussions for distribution to the Workgroup before the next

meeting

ELEXON Next draft has been prepared

2. ELEXON to update CoP 11 Requirements based on Workgroup

discussions for distribution to the Workgroup before the next

meeting

ELEXONIn progress based on going discussions. Final draft aiming for WG5

3. Proposer and ELEXON to develop use case for presentation at the

next meetingProposer/ELEXON Scenarios presented in WG4

4.

NETSO to consider if P375 will allow provision and proof of delivery

for ancillary servicesNETSO

‘If the BSP wishes to use a P375 meter (or P375 difference metering) to aid in proving delivery of the service then we would be receptive to that’ Grahame Neale email

5.

ELEXON to document a viable assurance framework for P375 ELEXONPresented by SME in WG4

../G Neale email use of P375 to prove delivery of ancillary services.msg

P375 Workgroup 49

Actions from Workgroup 3 (2 of 2)

No Action Action on Update

6. ELEXON to clarify appointment of MOPs, DCs, and delivered

balancing volumes BMRS reporting and AMSID de-registration

process to the Business Requirements, as well as change of VLP

process

ELEXONCustomer journey and scenarios covered in WG4

7. ELEXON to engage with the Association of Decentralised Energy

and P379 Design Authority on the use of non-Code of Practice

Compliant Asset Metering (to inform consultation, scope and

timescale of P375)

ELEXONAwaiting response, but held calls and actions from Stark and Verv

8.

ELEXON to engage with Data Collectors on the interoperability and

open protocols to interrogate Asset Meters and an approved list of

Asset Meters in BSCP601

ELEXON

Conference call with Stark 19 July -Stark to talk with developers re meter standards and data protocols when using tenant sub-metering

P375 Issue and Scope

Proposer and ELEXON

Problem statement

11

■ The BSC currently only allows metering installed at the defined Boundary Point to be

used for Settlement purposes

■ The solution developed by the P344 Workgroup relies on all Balancing Services

provided by VLPs (consumers participating directly or through an independent

aggregator) being settled on metering at the site Boundary Point

■ This means that other independent actions on site could lead to the metering at the

site Boundary Point not reflecting the Balancing Services volumes the VLP actually

delivered

Solution

12

■ A successful solution would allow Asset Metering to replace the Boundary Point

meter within the Secondary Balancing Mechanism Unit when nominated by the VLP

■ The solution will allow Settlement of the Balancing Service to use metering installed

at the asset with volumes adjusted by line loss factors up to the GSP (equivalent of

Boundary Point volumes)

■ The metering installed will meet Code of Practice standards in terms of requirements

and accuracy. Performance Assurance will work to ensure Settlement Risk mitigated

when using Asset Metering

Scope of the solution

13

All solution options would also need to consider the following:

■ a) obtain registration information (VLP SMBUs and AMSIDs)

■ b) obtain appointment information (MOPs and DCs)

■ b) obtain/provide meter data (DCs balancing volumes at the Asset Meter)

■ c) calculate and aggregate the right volumes (who did what where)

■ d) adjust settlement, cashflow and payments

■ e) be subject to assurance processes

P375

VLP Parties

Registration

Metering

Data Collection

Settlement

Performance assurance

P375 Customer Journey and Scenarios

Paulina Stelmach and Damian Clough

Insert: Document title15

Registration

1. Become registered as a VLP

2. Create a SBMU (per GSP Zone)

3. Allocate Boundary Point MSID Pairs to SBMU

Bidding & Despatch

4. Submit a PN for the SBMU (take into account losses up to GSP)

5. NGESO Dispatch SBMU using FPN

6. VLP sends SVAA allocation matrix showing how delivered volumes should be allocated

to each MSID Pair within SBMU

Supplier Volume Allocation

7. SVAA calculates total metered volume for Secondary BM Unit (adjusting for LLF +

GSPGCF)

8. SVAA calculates Delivered Volumes per Secondary BM Unit and Supplier BM Unit

(adjusting for LLF and GSPGCF)

Current P344 Solution (High Level)


Settlement

9. SAA calculate accepted volumes using NGESO BOAs and RRAs

10. Accepted Volumes + FPN equals expected volumes

11. Comparison between actual metered volumes and expected volumes equals delivered

volumes

12. Dependant on the above figure VLP may be charged Imbalance and Non delivery

charge

13. Delivered volumes declared by VLP (step 8) are compared to total delivered volume

(step 11) and adjusted if necessary

14. Suppliers volumes are then adjusted using these delivered volumes to ensure Supplier

do not profit/loss from the Balancing Service

Change of VLP

15. VLP can register an existing MSID pair which is within another VLP’s SBMU

16. The MSID pair automatically swaps but the incumbent VLP is informed of the swap

and can challenge the swap

Current P344 Solution (High Level)


Registration

1. Become registered as a VLP

2. Create a SBMU (per GSP Zone)

3. Register Asset Metering NEW

4. Allocate Boundary Point MSID Pairs to SBMU (including new AMMSIDs and difference metering)

AMEND

Bidding & Despatch

5. Submit a PN for the SBMU (take into account losses up to GSP)

6. NGESO Dispatch SBMU using FPN

7. VLP sends SVAA allocation matrix showing how delivered volumes should be allocated to each MSID Pair within

SBMU

Supplier Volume Allocation

8. SVAA calculates total metered volume for Secondary BM Unit (adjusting for LLF + GSPGCF). Now

needs to accept and calculate volumes from HHDC AMMSIDS plus Difference Metering, plus LLFs for

Asset Meters AMEND

9. SVAA calculates Delivered Volumes (including on site losses) per Secondary BM Unit and Supplier BM Unit

(adjusting for LLF and GSPGCF). Needs to deal with multiple VLPs AMEND

Current P344 Solution (High Level) & P375


Settlement

10. SAA calculate accepted volumes using NGESO BOAs and RRAs

11. Accepted Volumes + FPN equals expected volumes

12. Comparison between actual metered volumes and expected volumes equals delivered

volumes

13. Dependant on the above figure VLP may be charged Imbalance and Non delivery

charge

14. Delivered volumes declared by VLP (step 8) are compared to total delivered volume

(step 11) and adjusted if necessary

15. Suppliers volumes are then adjusted using these delivered volumes to ensure Supplier

do not profit/loss from the Balancing Service

Change of VLP

16. VLP can register an existing MSID pair which is within another VLP’s SBMU

17. The MSID pair automatically swaps but the incumbent VLP is informed of the swap

and can challenge the swap

Current P344 Solution (High Level) & P375


■ P375 builds on existing P344 baseline solution to allow Asset Metering to be used for

Settlement

■ Volumes from the Asset Meter will need to be provided to SVAA and fed into

settlement

–However many existing processes remain the same.

– Inputs into the settlement process are changing not the actual calculations

themselves

Key new processes / changes

■ How to register Asset Meter

■ Metering compliance

■ Difference Metering for Asset Meters

■ How volumes from Asset Meters is sent to SVAA, and then adjusted for losses

■ Assurance over Independence of Asset

Summary


■ What registration data is required

■ Does the Asset Meter require a MOP?

–Does an AMMSID need to be registered before a MOP is appointed?

– If VLP changes and appoints new DC, new DC may have difficulty locating

information about the meter necessary to collect and send metered flows

–MOP could hold this data or be provided at registration/or later (if so what info)

–Advantage of MOP is maintenance of meter to required standards and schedules

maintaining accuracy, and could provide continuity even when VLPs change

(assurance)

–Who pays for the MOP?

–Can new VLP appoint new MOP

■ What happens if there is a new asset/customer on site and the new VLP

wishes to use existing AMMSID/MSID within another VLP’s SBMU. Existing

process will automatically swap pair, but in this case no change of customer

–New question at registration?

Outstanding/Scenarios


■ If Assurance process or another Party (i.e. BRP for Boundary Meter) has

concerns over independence of an asset or gaming what happens next and

who is responsible?

– Inform VLP of sites where there are concerns with any supporting data (i.e. demand

data), giving them chance to respond with supporting data which is then reviewed by

ISG/SVG?

– Inform NGESO?

– Is it the BSC responsibility? or the purchaser of the Balancing Service?

– If BSC is allowing data from Asset Meters into the settlement process arguably its

then becomes a BSC matter

– If still concerns, Asset Meter could be black flagged for a period preventing it being

used in Settlement until VLP addresses how independence will be ensured

–Appeals process created?

–Ultimately the VLP can still use the Boundary Meter (P344 solution)

■ Do we require confirmation from the end customer? (not done for P344)



■ Will the DC automatically send us data or should SVAA instruct the DC to

send the data?

–We only want to build a new system change if there is the need to do so

–Send a D354 continuous information needed for baselining

■ DC will naturally send us the data as and when they read the meter?

–How regular will this be. DA’s follow SVAA calendar

■ Will VLPs want to use the DTN?

– Its not part of the existing VLP qualification process

– If there is a requirement for VLPs to use the DTN we will need to raise some DTC

change proposals

■ There is a current requirement on the VLP to allocate delivered volumes. Do

they need to tell us


D e m a n d R e s p o n s e . D e l i v e r e d .

11kV

private wire

ring main

Battery

connected

at 11kV

Local small

loads

Large I&C

customers

Active

assets

Capacity

Market meters

Boundary

meters

400V ring main


■ VLP submits a PN (lets just assume there is one site in the SBMU for simplicity) of -20

as that what it expects demand to be onsite (and in total for SBMU) and submits an

offer of 4 units of DSR

■ SVAA calculates accepted volumes of 4 units.

■ FPN of -20 plus 4 units = Expected Metered Volumes at the Boundary Meter of -16

■ If the two CHP Units actually deliver 4 units and demand is as expected and forecasted

in the PN, then the VLP will not be charged imbalance/non delivery charges as Actual

Metered Volumes will equal -16

■ However if demand is higher than expected then this will lead to imbalance/non

delivery charges as expected volumes will not equal actual volumes at the Boundary

■ What happens when more than one Boundary Point?

Current P344 Calc


11kV

private wire

ring main

Battery

connected

at 11kV

Local small

loads

Large I&C

customers

Active

assets

Capacity

Market meters

Boundary

meters

400V ring main

-12

-8

P375


■ VLP registers the two Capacity Market meters as Asset Meters

■ VLP puts these two AMMSIDs in its SBMU, and removes the Boundary MSID

■ VLP submits a PN of 0 (conveniently ignoring losses by using 0) and offers 4 units of

DSR. The VLP now does not need to worry about what the rest of the site is doing

when submitting the PN

■ SVAA calculates accepted volumes of 4 units.

■ FPN of 0 plus 4 units = Expected Metered Volumes +4

■ Appointed DC for the Asset Meters sends in metered volumes which SVAA adjusts

■ If the two CHP Units actually deliver 4 units then the VLP will not be charged

imbalance/non delivery charges as Actual Metered Volumes will equal +4.

■ Fluctuating site demand does not prevent the VLP being paid for delivery

■ However, if the large I&C customer increases its demand by -4 we will see no change

at the Boundary Meter. When there is no concurrent change in flows at the Boundary

this may create further investigation

P375


11kV

private wire

ring main

Battery

connected

at 11kV

Local small

loads

Large I&C

customers

Active

assets

Capacity

Market meters

Boundary

meters

400V ring main

-12

-8

P375


■ If another VLP wishes to provide a Balancing Service on site it has two options;

–Use the Boundary Meter (if not currently used by a VLP)

–Use the new difference metering process

– Install another Asset Meter

■ If an Asset Meter is installed (for the Battery) its FPN will equal -13, or 0 if it can just

meter the Battery and not the demand.

■ If difference metering is used, the FPN will equal -20 i.e. Boundary Meter less Asset

–Difference metering still includes the noise

–However if there is large fluctuating demand an asset meter could be installed for

this to ‘chop’ this out, and then difference meter the rest of the site

P375


Waste water pumping: large site

Storm pumps:

duty/standby

FTFT pumps: duty/assist/standby

Run

occasionally;

not flexible

Run

continuously;

can be flexible

X X X X X

X

XX

Boundary meter

Configuration depends on security requirements

• VLP offers to reduce demand on site by

shutting off FTFT pump(s)

• If storm pump switches on, then this may

lead to imbalance/non delivery charges

• Options. VLP could install/register three

Asset Meters relating to FTFT or,

• VLP could register the Asset Meter which

calculates demand from the Storm pumps,

and then register a ‘Asset Meter’ whose

flows are calculated using the storm flow

meter and the Boundary Meter


Waste water pumping: large site

Storm pumps:

duty/standby

FTFT pumps: duty/assist/standby

Run

occasionally;

not flexible

Run

continuously;

can be flexible

X X X X X

X

XX

Boundary meter

Configuration depends on security requirements

• However when FTFT pumps are turned off

this should not automatically turn on the

Standby pumps

• By using the Boundary Meter this prevents

these actions being paid.

• Using Asset Metering opens up the risk of

this happening so this risk needs to be

managed

P375 Assurance

George Player

Performance Assurance Techniques

3232

Re - QualificaitonEducation

Material Error Monitoring

Tech Assurance of Metering Systems

Tech Assurance of Performance

Assurance Parties

BSC Audit

Performance Monitoring and

Reporting

Peer ComparisonBreach and Default

Removal of 'Qualification

Supplier Charges

Error and Failure Resolution

Trading Disputes

Change Mechanisms

Bulk Change of Agent

Qualificaiton

Incentive

Remedial

Preventive

Detective

Performance Assurance Framework

Delivered by PARMS

P375 – Assurance

33

■ Qualification

–Preventative Technique

–All VLPs to undergo Qualification

process

■ BSC Audit

–Detective Technique

–Examines many settlement

processes

–Audit Threshold no longer in place

■ TAPAP

–Detective Technique

–Examines specific processes

–Targeted at a subset of Parties

■ Peer Comparison

– Incentive Technique

–Ranks parties on their performance

–Subject to consultation approval

■ Error Failure Resolution

–Remedial Technique

–Resolve non-compliance

–Applied following BSC Audit

Risk Evaluation Register

file://PITFS01/ChangeManagement/Public/Modifications/In Progress/P375 - Settlement of Secondary BM Units using metering at the asset/Workgroup Materials/WG4/Risk-Evaluation-Register-2019_20-v1.0-1.xlsx

Statistical Analysis of Asset Load Independence

John Lucas

Assets in a BM Unit must be independent of other assets

■ The assets placed in a Secondary BM Unit must be independent of any other

demand or generation on site (otherwise the volume provided won’t be ‘real’)

Example 1

– The VLP is controlling 1MW of cold storage

(which can provide flexibility for short period)

– There is also a packaging plant on-site

(whose behaviour is unaffected by the cold

storage)

– In a particular year, National Grid happens to

issue Offers to the VLP at the start of the

business day (when the packaging plant is

starting up)

– There is therefore a statistical tendency for

the packaging plant act in the opposite

direction to the BMU – but only because both

are driven by time of day

Example 2

– The VLP is controlling a widget machine

– There is also a backup widget machine on-

site

– When the VLP receives a BOA, they instruct

the site to pause the widget machine

– The production manager does as instructed,

but also starts up the back-up widget

machine to ensure their production quota is

still met

– There is therefore a statistical tendency for

the backup machine to act in the opposite

direction to the BMU

Statistical monitoring of asset independence

P375/6 Workgroup 236

■ We therefore propose an ongoing monitoring process that analyses data from SVAA

to look for sites where the assets not in the BMU have an unexplained tendency to

respond to the instructions issued to the site:

Ongoing monitoring process

(e.g. running once a month

to analyse the last year’s

data)

Metered volume MVnon-VLP for

assets not in BM Unit

(calculated from Asset Meters

and Boundary Point Meters)

Delivered Volume MPDVj as

notified to SVAA by VLP

Relevant Performance Assurance Techniques

(e.g. Technical Assurance)

Report identifying

sites with

unexplained

correlation between

VLP’s delivered

volumes and other

assets

How would the monitoring process work?


■ To be any use, a monitoring process must:

–Be reasonably good at sniffing out foul play (such as Example 2)

–Not generate vast numbers of ‘false positivies’

■ One possibility is to measure the correlation between:

–The VLP’s delivered volume MPDVj

–The ‘unexplained’ element of MVnon-VLP (after using a linear regression model to

control for confounding variables such as Time of Day, Day of Week and National

Demand)

■ We don’t have any real data for sites providing balancing services, but we’ve done

some simple tests using data for BM Units

Running the model with BM Unit data


■ We’ve run the model with metered data and BOA volumes for real BM Units. We

hoped to find that it:

1. Does detect BM Units reacting to their own BOAs

2. Doesn’t detect BM Units reacting to other units’ BOAs

MeteredVolume

Response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs

Response to T_WHILW-1 BOAs

T_WBURB-2 0.113 0.026

2__CBGAS000 -0.033 0.053

T_CARR-1 -0.046 0.061

T_CRUA-1 -0.046 0.117

T_DRAXX-2 -0.054 0.063

T_WHILW-1 0.089 0.127

■ Tentative conclusion: generators behaviour is driven by complex factors, and

spotting the influence of BOAs is not that easy

Running the model with modified BM Unit data


■ We also constructed some synthetic metered volumes by:

–Starting with the metered volumes for 2__CBGAS000

– In 50% of Settlement Periods, adding in the BOA volumes for T_WBURB-2 or

T_WHILW-1

■ These metered volumes should definitely raise a red flag, which they did:

Metered Volume Response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs

Response to T_WHILW-1 BOAs

2__CBGAS0001 with artificial response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs

0.636 -0.156

2__CBGAS0001 with artificial response to T_WBURB-2 BOAs

-0.162 0.601

Conclusions


■ Modelling to date has been limited (and not using real data)

■ We believe it tentatively supports the idea that this technique would be useful in

focusing Performance Assurance on potentially problematic sites

■ We suggest not hardcoding a particular statistical model in the legal text – ELEXON

and/or the Panel should be allowed to improve this over time (c.f. CALF

Methodology)

■ If any Workgroup members have real (anonymised) data we could do further testing

P375 Workgroup Terms of Reference

P375 workgroup Terms of Reference (1 of 2)

42

P375 Terms of Reference How it has been met

1.1.5 The Workgroup will consider the following areas and include

these in its Assessment Report:

a) What standard of metering will be required? Note any differences

between the standards of metering used for other Balancing

Services such as STOR (the use of Secondary BM Unit’s may be

extended further than the use of Replacement Reserve under

TERRE).

Produced a new Asset Metering Code of

Practice 11

b) Consider appropriate ways to demonstrate independence of the

asset if required? How can we appropriately provide assurance of

the impacts of the balancing service on the Total System?

Assurance discussed in Workgroup 2,

looking for agreement in Workgroup 4

c) How will pseudo MPANs be registered and linked to the asset and

how will these MPANs be subsequently be linked to the Settlement

Meter?

New registration process detailed in

Business Requirements

d) Is the solution, or can it be future proofed against potential

future Industry developments, for example domestic assets

providing Balancing Services or operating in the Balancing

Mechanism.

Still in discussion Workgroup 4

P375 workgroup Terms of Reference (2 of 2)

43

P375 Terms of Reference How it has been met

1.1.5 The Workgroup will consider the following areas and include

these in its Assessment Report:

e) What changes are needed to BSC documents, systems and

processes to support P375 and what are the related costs and lead

times?

VLP AMSID Registration, MOP and DC

Appointment, Settlement, Assurance are

detailed in the Business Requirements

f) Are there any interactions (complements and conflictions)

between P375 and P376?

Combining P375 and P376 Workgroups

g) Will any new data flows or amendments to data flows be

required?

Identified in the Business Requirements

h) Are there any Alternative Modifications?

i) Should P375 be progressed as a Self-Governance Modification? Agreement that it affects competition

j) Does P375 better facilitate the Applicable BSC Objectives than the

current baseline?

P375 Updated Timetable


Event Date

Finalised P375 solution by Workgroup 5 (BR page turn)

W/C 5 August 2019

Legal Text consideration by Workgroup 6 W/C 2 September 2019

Assessment consultation 9 September – 27 September 2019

Consultation responses consideration by Workgroup 7

W/C 7 October 2019

Assessment Report presented to Panel 14 November 2019

Report Phase Consultation 18 November 2019 – 02 December 2019

Draft Modification Report presented to Panel

12 December 2019

Final Modification Report submitted to Authority

13 December 2019

p375 ‘metering behind the - elexon...9 p375 workgroup 4 actions from workgroup 3 (2 of 2) no...

Documents