ENERGISE 3 rd Workshop on Communications Infrastructure Strategies for Smart Grid Applications. Anglet,

Transcription

1 ENERGISE 3 rd Workshop on Communications Infrastructure Strategies for Smart Grid Applications Anglet,

2 3 rd ENERGISE Workshop - Agenda 08h 30 Welcome Coffee 10h 15 Wrap up and joint discussion 09h 00 Welcome and introduction to the 3rd ENERGISE workshop 10h 30 Coffee break 09h 05 ENERGISE: How can cooperation between energy and communications sector be achieved? 11h 00 Best practice solution / lessons learnt example: PowerMatchingCity Groningen Daniel Schöllhorn, TÜV Rheinland Consulting GmbH Matthias Wissner, WIK Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste GmbH 11h 30 Eelko Steenhuis, EU Project Advisor, Cities Northern Netherlands Joint Workshop: Co-operation in critical operation status? 09h 15 - Overview of the results of ENERGISE - Strategic and practical dimensions of cooperation between the sectors Strategic aspects of cooperation between telecoms and the energy sector perspectives from a DSO I 12h 15 12h 30 Daniel Iglhaut, TÜV Rheinland Consulting GmbH Wrap up and further steps of ENERGISE End of the workshop Philip Westbroek, Telecommunications advisor, Enexis Asset Management (Netherlands) - Smart metering: current status and future plans - Enexis data communications strategy - Why we selected LTE - Preventing a mobile operator lock-in 09h 45 Strategic aspects of cooperation between telecoms and the energy sector perspectives from a DSO II Emmanuel Villalta, Chair of EUTC Spectrum Committee, Enedis (France) - Update from the Radio Spectrum of the European Utility Telecom Council EUTC) - Enedis (former ERDF) strategic approach for co-operation towards telecoms

3 TÜV Rheinland. At Home on All Continents. Figures 2014 Sales in Mio abroad in % 49 EBIT in % 6,4 Employees 19,300 - abroad in % 60 Locations: more than 500 in 69 countries

4 Expert for infrastructure industries Independent research and consultancy organisation WIK and WIK-Consult Focus on policy and regulation of network industries Telecommunications, Energy, Postal Services Department Smart Energy since 2004 Approx. 35 Economists and Consultants Based in Bad Honnef (near Bonn)

5 Overview - project ENERGISE / Introduction Framework: CSA Coordination and Support Action for the Horizon 2020 Call on Low Carbon Energy LCE Distribution grid and retail markets General Questions: How will the future ICT infrastructure for smart grid applications look like? Timeline: Start: 01/2015 end: 03/2017 Duration: 27 months Partners: TÜV Rheinland Consulting WIK

6 ENERGISE Context 1. Starting Point 2. Arising Problem 3. Core Question New applications are increasing the demand for communication and data exchange in grids. Differences between sectors make synergies hard to exploit. How can cooperation between energy and communications sector be achieved?

7 ENERGISE Goal 4. Solution Concept Identification of the relevant stakeholders Provide information and support the decision making processes Analysis of the current state of play and assessment of case studies and best-practices Support the exchange of hands-onexperience

8 European Coverage - ENERGISE Use-Case Survey Case Studies DSO and Telco Company DSO or Telco Company No DSO or Telco Company Case Study already conducted No Case Study so far

9 type of interaction non-co-operative co-operative Core Question of ENERGISE Co-operation modes and infrastructure usage between energy and telco sector Fiber deployment on electric poles Use Case: integrate new users Joint Venture to deploy ICT Parameters influencing decisions: internal external technical organisational financial regulatory energy telecommunication Use Case: Network security Existing market based solutions dedicated shared usage of infrastructure

10 ENERGISE What has been done so far 2014/15: Survey plan: Providing results of survey preparation work including survey methodology, structured questionnaire, roadmap (who, when, in which order). Comprehensive list of stakeholders: The list of stakeholders contains all relevant information in a structured way, incl. information such as name of organisation, contacts, role etc. Survey summary report: Summarising, categorising and aggregating the findings from the survey First Workshop in Brussels (1 October, 2015)

11 ENERGISE What has been done so far 2016: Interviews with stakeholders Second Workshop in Berlin (3 4 March, 2016) Category Indicator Sectors Values Impact 1 Impact 2 Country Both Energy General data Sector Both Telco Description of Description Both business purpose <250 Local focus Agility Regional Agility focus Employment Both Capability to indicators enforce viewpoints on the Economies of >1000 Company size scale political agenda Vertical <100,000 Number of integration metering Energy Economies of points >100,000 Unbundling scale Telco Hardware vendors Interdepende nce w. other indicators Degree of vertical integration Degree of Telco Network operators vertical integration Telco Telco Content and advertising services Retail and distribution Analysis summary report including use cases: Providing an aggregated and categorised summary based on analysed use cases and other input data collected during survey. Value creation stages adopted Degree of vertical integration Portfolio-size Share of metering Energy Energy Energy Both Generation (bulk/decentral) Transport and distribution Sales and customer High Low Share in absolute Legal obligation for unbundling from 100,000 metering points on; though separated Easier integration of new services Available Make or buy decisions Possibility for product bundling Number of metering points Level of vertical integration points Energy numbers/percentag communicatio equipped with e n solutions smart meters Type of existing ICT infrastructure Results of theoretical rationale Organisational structure Existing own infrastructure Type of ownership Parent (if applic.) Organisationa l culture Both Both Both Both (leased) landline connections or mobile coverage in the target area / use case Predominantly private Predominantly public Risk Innovation Average age Available communicatio n solutions Likelihood of similar cooperations Different rationales of investments, incentives and operation modes Company size Company size Silo-thinking Market activity Scope of operation Activities in the respective other sector Engagement in smart grid activities Both Both Both National European Yes No Yes No Transferability of business / co-operation models Company size

12 ENERGISE What is to come 2016/17: Developing a decision supporting toolkit as a fundamental outcome of the project ENERGISE. Third Workshop in Anglet - Introducing ENERGISE - Learning more about strategic aspects of cooperation - Input from participants on the issue of co-operation in critical operation status - Community building and networking

13 3 rd ENERGISE Workshop - Agenda 08h 30 Welcome Coffee 10h 15 Wrap up and joint discussion 09h 00 Welcome and introduction to the 3rd ENERGISE workshop 10h 30 Coffee break 09h 05 ENERGISE: How can cooperation between energy and communications sector be achieved? 11h 00 Best practice solution / lessons learnt example: PowerMatchingCity Groningen Daniel Schöllhorn, TÜV Rheinland Consulting GmbH Matthias Wissner, WIK Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste GmbH 11h 30 Eelko Steenhuis, EU Project Advisor, Cities Northern Netherlands Joint Workshop: Co-operation in critical operation status? 09h 15 - Overview of the results of ENERGISE - Strategic and practical dimensions of cooperation between the sectors Strategic aspects of cooperation between telecoms and the energy sector perspectives from a DSO I 12h 15 12h 30 Daniel Iglhaut, TÜV Rheinland Consulting GmbH Wrap up and further steps of ENERGISE End of the workshop Philip Westbroek, Telecommunications advisor, Enexis Asset Management (Netherlands) - Smart metering: current status and future plans - Enexis data communications strategy - Why we selected LTE - Preventing a mobile operator lock-in 09h 45 Strategic aspects of cooperation between telecoms and the energy sector perspectives from a DSO II Emmanuel Villalta, Chair of EUTC Spectrum Committee, Enedis (France) - Update from the Radio Spectrum of the European Utility Telecom Council EUTC) - Enedis (former ERDF) strategic approach for co-operation towards telecoms

14 Joint Workshop: Co-operation in critical operation status?

15 Joint Workshop: Co-operation in critical operation status? (45 Min) Interdependencies between electricity and communication networks Mobile network is utilized in multiple ways in distribution networks Distribution automation Remote controlled disconnectors AMR Repair group communication On the other hand, mobile network base stations require electricity to operate Backup is available, but is rarely enough Two basic questions Does co-operation in general, or jointly used infrastructures lead to an increased robustness or an increased vulnerability in the power and communications sector? How to secure (joint) operation in co-operative systems in critical states? Source: Wikipedia, dailymail.co.uk

16 Increasing number of loss events worldwide Loss events worldwide Source: Munich RE,

17 Does co-operation in general or jointly used infrastructures lead to an increased robustness or an increased vulnerability in the power and communications sector? Statements from the ENERGISE survey Reasons for dedicated infrastructures Use Case: Ensuring network security, system control and quality of supply Criticality is the outstanding reason to deploy /use dedicated infrastructures for both industries. jointly used infrastructures are not perceived to lead to an increased robustness Source: ENERGISE

18 Case Study Finland Starting point Huge amount of outages due to weather impact etc. Lines are mostly in wood trenches -> huge amount of outages New Electricity Market Act (2013) Motivated by the need to ensure electricity supply, which is critical for a modern society as well as by investment deficit Crown snow-load has bent a tree onto overhead lines. the distribution network must be planned, built and maintained so that the failure of the network as a result of a storm or snow does not cause a power outage of more than 6 hours to customers in urban areas and more than 36 hours to those in other areas. The act also stipulates the supply security requirements set for the transmission grid and high-voltage distribution networks. A general obligation of preparedness will also be set for grid owners in case of disturbances and emergencies. The standard compensation payable to customers for power outages will be increased. Implementation example from a Finish DSO Legal obligation to weather prove the grid. Result is a huge activity to replace overhead lines with cables (approx. 200 km of trenches per month and an increased invest) As of today: 15 contracts with ICT providers to operate the grid and AMR > Goal: have one provider with a turnkey solution! Percentage of the power lines located in forests. Sources: ENERGISE; Kim Forssén, Aalto Univesity 2016 after Tapio; Kaleva.fi,

19 Co-operation in critical operation status? Questions to be discussed I Does co-operation in general or jointly used infrastructures lead to an increased robustness? How to secure (joint) operation in co-operative systems in critical states? Does close co-operation lead to an increased resilience in case of emergency? Or do pure market based solutions turn out to be more efficient? Is there a need of state owned infrastructure for critical applications (as infrastructure of last resort )? What is critical infrastructure? How much security / resilience is needed? Which critical operation states are expected to increase in future? Can commercial SLAS can be achieved? Are they expected to be sufficient? How can operative details in for system restart in crisis be forseen / trained? Which measuers do you wish to be implemented by regulatory authorities to promote co-operation in critical operation status?

20 Co-operation in critical operation status? Questions to be discussed II Safety What safety standard is needed? Who shall define this standard (Government / Industry)? How can it be achieved? / Who is responsible? Security Data security as a critical issue? How can it be achieved? / Who is responsible? General Issues Do we need more (or less) regulation on this issue? What are your (country-specific) experiences?

21 Contact Daniel Schöllhorn Tel.: Matthias Wissner Tel m.wissner@wik.org

22 Back Up Back Up

23 Reasons for dedicated and shared infrastructure Top 5 Reasons for dedicated infrastructure DSOs Criticality of infrastructure Data security Existing (own) communications infrastructure Clear liability and responsibility Concentration on core business Communications providers Criticality of infrastructure Data security Clear liability and responsibility Existing (own) communications infrastructure Faster implementation of new services/solutions n=79 n=

24 Reasons for dedicated and shared infrastructure Top 5 Reasons for shared infrastructure DSOs Better utilization of existing infrastructure Synergy effects during operation Financial pressure for cost savings Faster implementation of new services/solutions Synergy effects during infrastructure deployment Communications providers Better utilization of existing infrastructure Synergy effects during operation Synergy effects during infrastructure deployment Financial pressure for cost savings New revenue options n=79 n=

25 Reasons and Hurdles for co-operation for DSOs and telecoms Top 5 - Reasons for co-operation DSOs Faster implementation of new services/solutions Synergy effects during infrastructure deployment Financial pressure for cost savings Synergy effects during operation Increased customer access Communications providers Faster Implementation of new services / solutions Strategic strengthening of the market position (be prepared for new markets and competitors) Synergy effects during infrastructure deployment Financial pressure for cost savings Synergy effects during operation n=79 n=

26 Reasons and Hurdles for co-operation for DSOs and telecoms Top 5 - Hurdles for co-operation DSOs Unclear regulatory responsibilities Difficult liability and responsibility (data security / data protection) Dependency on cooperation partner Different standards for energy and telecommunication demands Unclear market design Communications providers Unclear regulatory responsibilities Unclear market design Different standards for energy and telecommunication demands Difficult liability and responsibility (data security / data protection) Higher complexity in ownership structure n=79 n=

27 Overall Reasons and Hurdles for co-operation Hurdles for cooperation Unclear regulatory responsibilities Unclear market design Different standards for energy and telecommunication demands Difficult liability and responsibility (data security / data protection) Dependency on cooperation partner Higher complexity in ownership structure Higher complexity in approval procedures for new infrastructure Different lengths of technology lifecycles Higher technical complexity Existing competitive environment Technology availability Other Reasons for cooperation Faster Implementation of new services / solutions Synergy effects during infrastructure deployment Financial pressure for cost savings Synergy effects during operation Strategic strengthening of the market position (be prepared for new markets and competitors) Better access to existing know-how Possible synergies in approval procedures for new infrastructure Increased customer access Generate new revenues Political demand for more cooperation Other n=