Current status of WP3: smart meters

Transcription

1 Current status of WP3: smart meters, Statistics Estonia Partners: Statistics Austria, Statistics Denmark, Statistics Sweden ESSnet Big Data meeting June 2016 Tallinn

2 Outline Overview of the smart meters deployment in Europe Data access in partner countries Description of the data Input data quality First visualisations Objectives of the synthetic data Next steps

3 Communication First face-to-face meeting in Tallinn Overview of the smart meters and case studies Overview of countries situation Planning of the content, deadlines and responsibilities of Report 1 WEBEX meetings in every three weeks All content will be added directly to Wiki space, editing also in Wiki. One WEBEX meeting with JRC (smart grids and energy modelling)

4 Smart Metering deployment in the European Union The Commission issued the document "Benchmarking smart metering deployment in the EU-27 with a focus on electricity", jointly drafted by DG ENER and JRC, as COM(2014)356. This report gauges progress in the deployment of intelligent metering in the EU Member States on the basis of economic assessments of long-term costs and benefits (CBAs) of electricity and gas smart metering

5 Deployment plans of smart meters

6 Smart meters situation in Austria Deployment strategy: Mandatory. Each customer can opt out regarding getting the smart meter. Metering points in the country: 5.7 mln. Implementation speed: Penetration rate by 2020: 95% Data refresh rate: 15 minutes No central data hub in the country, over 100 grid providers and about 130 energy providers.

7 Smart meters situation in Denmark Deployment strategy: Mandatory roll-out Number of metering points in the Country: 3.28 mln. Implementation speed: Penetration rate by 2020: 100% Data refresh rate: 15 minutes One datahub owner: Energinet

8 Smart meters situation in Estonia Deployment strategy: Mandatory roll-out Number of metering points in the Country: Implementation speed: Penetration rate by 2020: 100% Data refresh rate: 1 hour One datahub system owned by Elering that manages the exchange of electricity metering data between market participants.

9 Smart meters situation in Sweden Deployment strategy: Voluntary Number of metering points in the Country: 5.3 mln. Implementation speed: Penetration rate by 2020: 100% Data refresh rate: 1 hour No central datahub yet, but Svenska kraftnät as responsible for the development of a centre information model of the electricity market has started the process of planning hub.

10 Data access (1) Access to data Estonia Access to hourly data (2015 data soon) metering points Amount 1.5 TB, recordings per a year ca 6,2 billion Access process: from 2013 until March 2015 Denmark Access to min interval smart meters data Agreement in process to get data more frequently

11 Data access (2) No access to data Sweden Austria SCB has contacted Svenskenergi for accessing the smart meter test data. Svenskenergi is electricity branch association with around 380 companies. No attempt to access smart meters data so far. Mainly technical barriers.

12 Plans of accessing smart meters data NSI Plans to explore Smart Data hub Legal obstacles Meters data available Sweden Yes Yes No Norway Yes No Under construction Hungary Yes No No France Yes Yes No Lithuania No No No Cyprus No No No Bosnia and Herzegovina No No No Poland Yes Yes No Belgium No No No Germany Yes Yes No Portugal No No No Luxembourg No NA No the former Yugoslav No Republic of Macedonia NA No Denmark Data received No Yes Estonia Data received No Yes Austria No Yes No

13 Smart meters data: structure Estonian data structure: 4 main tables Metering data main table with hourly consumptions Metering points location Agreements contract info Customers contract holder information 6/21/2016

14 Indicator Input data quality Assessment Coverage of smart meters 54% of businesses, 48% of households (Estonia, 2014) Undercoverage Percent of units that are adjusted Data hub does not have information about the amount of electricity produced (and consumed) by private producers. The metering data is not changed in Statistics Estonia and no adjustments are made in readings. Percent imputed Periodicity Delay Common units No imputation is applied and data is handled in read only mode. In Estonia, data is provided yearly at the moment - higher frequency is possible in the future. In Estonia, the network operators have 3 months time for correcting the data, corrected data can be provided after that period. In Estonia there is no other source for hourly data, aggregated consumption information available for businesses through survey.

15 First visualisations (1) Average monthly electricity consumption of private persons, January 2014 Average monthly electricity consumption of private persons, July 2014 kw/h kw/h 0 99 (638) (841) (1165) (1380) (574) 1000 < (109) 6/21/ (835) (2264) (1203) (354) (45) 1000 < (6)

16 Objectives of synthetic data 1. Testing (playground) of the structure and volume of a smart meter dataset. 2. Generating demo output with realistic results. 3. Test, scale and develop (new) statistics and algorithms where linkage to enterprise or household characteristics is necessary. The minimal requirement is to reproduce the original structure, whereas the best solution for a synthetic dataset is to reproduce close-to-reality results for different aggregation levels.

17 Next steps Most of the content for Report 1 is available in Wiki. It will be edited and ready for review board by the end of June. Report 1 will be delivered to Eurostat by the end of July. Changes in IT infrastructure to support data analysis Linking electricity data with business register (in Estonia also with population register). Computation of statistics and comparision with reference data Next face-to-face meeting in Vienna,14-15 Nov. 6/21/2016

18 Challenges Linking will be challenging due to the Unit problem: metering point vs legal and private person (1 metering point can refer to several legal or private persons) Representativity problem: contract holders are not always the consumers (e.g. renters not represented) Unify the data structure to have common schema to facilitate better collaboration. 6/21/2016

19 Discussion points Output quality framework are we aiming for common approach/list of indicators in all pilot studies? Questions? 6/21/2016

20