Third Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1.6 Background Information on Continuity Indicators····Where possible countries should seek to measure continuity indicators, especially unplannedSAIDI and unplanned SAIFI.Weighting by user is the most common method for calculating continuity indicators. Thereforecountries planning to introduce continuity indicators are recommended to adopt this method.Comparative analysis is facilitated where countries use the same method for calculating continuityindicators at all voltages.Exceptional events can significantly affect annual performance figures and countries shouldattempt to provide one set of figures including all interruptions and one set excluding suchatypical events.As far as the distribution network is concerned, continuity indicators on duration and frequency ofunplanned interruptions are available from the majority of the surveyed countries. The level of confidencein these indicators reflect the confidence on the data measured, as explained in Subsection 1.Indicators are more commonly weighted on the number of customers served (SAIDI, SAIFI for longinterruptions and MAIFI for short interruptions), but they can be weighted also on the contractedpower (in Portugal both methods are adopted). Table 1.2 summarises the situation, noting thedifferences in voltage levels that are monitored.TABLE 1.2CONTINUITY INDICATORS FOR DISTRIBUTION:unplanned interruptionsSAIDI, SAIFI and MAIFI per voltage level(H, M, L)SAIDI and SAIFI per voltage level (H, M, L)SAIDI and SAIFI per voltage level (H, M)SAIDI and SAIFI all voltagesAverage duration (D) and frequency (F) percontracted power or otherOther/No indicatorsGB, HU, IT, NO (from 2006)CZ, GR, PT, FR, LT, NO (from 2006)SI (some data only), BE_WalloniaSE, EE, IE (SAIFI from 2006)AT (average D and F weighted on MV power affected,MV/MV, MV/LV),ES (average D and F weighted on MV power affected:TIEPI, NIEPI)FI (Average D and F weighted on yearly energyconsumption)FI (Interruptions are weighted by the yearly energyconsumption of the distribution area that onedistribution transformer feeds).PT (TIEPI, ENS, excluding LV)NO (ENS, excluding LV: _ 1kV)LV (number of interruptions), PL (no indicators)9<strong>Third</strong> <strong>Benchmarking</strong> <strong>Report</strong> on Quality of Electricity Supply – 2005 · Chapter 1
1.6.1 Weighting methods used for continuity indicatorsThere are a number of ways of calculating continuity indicators, Table 1.3 shows which countriesuse which method.TABLE 1.3WEIGHTING METHODS USED FOR CONTINUITY INDICATORSUSERBelgium-Wallonia, Czech Republic (from January 2007) Estonia, France (LV andT networks), Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Sweden,TRANSFORMERPOWERNone used/no answerFinland 10 , NorwayAustria (MV-networks, MV/MV, MV/LV), Czech Republic (until January 2007),France (MV networks), SpainBelgium, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovenia, PolandAs can be seen from the table, user is the most common method for weighting continuity indicators.Each method has its merits and drawbacks some of which are illustrated in Table 1.4:TABLE 1.4MERITS AND DRAWBACKS OF ALTERNATIVE WEIGHTINGMETHODSMethod Merits DrawbacksUserTransformerPowerPlaces greater emphasis on domesticcustomers, who are less likely to beable to protect themselvesSimpler to useMore robust, as there is not the needto make assumptions about demandfrom different groups of customersSimplifies the reporting scheme and iscompatible with the financial incentiveregulation in place.Takes into account the costs of largerusers. Network operators in a positionto take such risks on board whenmaking their investment decisions.Does not take into account the costs oflarger users, therefore more of the riskmay fall on larger customers ratherthan on network operators. Networkoperators do not take such risks onboard when making their investmentdecisions.Does not describe the power qualityvery well and does not take account ofthe fact that transformer districts can bedifferent (by energy consumption and bythe number of customers connected).Domestic customers carry a smallerweight and may therefore be exposedto more risk. Assumptions regarding thedemand of different customer groupsare required.In some cases the regulator collects information about not only average values but also thedistribution of customers per number of interruptions (see additional information 1.2.).10In Finland the indicator is based on transformer district and is not weighted in any way.10Council of European Energy Regulators – Ref: C05-QOS-01-03
Page 1: Council ofEuropeanEnergyRegulatorsT
Page 4: Council ofEuropeanEnergyRegulatorsE
Page 10: CHAPTER 1 - Continuity of SupplyCON
Page 13 and 14: ··utes are defined as “short in
Page 15 and 16: interruptions is very small. AIT is
Page 17: Interruptions shorter than three mi
Page 21 and 22: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.3 - NOTICE
Page 23 and 24: and in Italy the integration of the
Page 25 and 26: 1.6.3 Rules for recording short int
Page 27 and 28: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.8 - AUDITS
Page 29: SAIDI1.7.1 Unplanned SAIDI not attr
Page 34 and 35: FIG 1.7 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS Sho
Page 36: ···There is some evidence to sup
Page 40 and 41: THE USE OF STANDARDS AND INCENTIVES
Page 42 and 43: 2.2.1 Continuity measurement system
Page 44 and 45: Almost all countries having adopted
Page 46 and 47: 2.2.3 Findings I: Quality measureme
Page 48 and 49: The incentive is symmetric and rela
Page 50 and 51: In Sweden, a quality of supply inde
Page 52 and 53: Regulators’ concern with the vola
Page 54 and 55: In Great Britain the regulator (Ofg
Page 56 and 57: ··A regime to avoid overquality i
Page 58 and 59: ··gets”; introduction of an upp
Page 60 and 61: FIG 2.4/b CONVERGENCE EFFECT OF THE
Page 62 and 63: 2.4 Continuity standards at single-
Page 64 and 65: Observation suggests that there is
Page 66 and 67: 2.4.2 Multiple interruption standar
Page 68 and 69:
2.4.3 Single-customer standards rel
Page 70 and 71:
E SIStandard for long interruptions
Page 72:
introduce single-customer standards
Page 76 and 77:
STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL QUALITY REG
Page 78 and 79:
Commercial quality regulation attem
Page 80 and 81:
The evaluation of the actual level
Page 82 and 83:
TABLE 3.5MOST FREQUENTLY USED COMME
Page 84 and 85:
the standards relating to a particu
Page 86 and 87:
Quest.2.1.19Supp.1Recomm.✰✰✰
Page 88 and 89:
3.3.3 Problems associated with volt
Page 90 and 91:
the compensation paid by the electr
Page 92 and 93:
Quest.2.1.23Supp.0Recomm.✰✰✰D
Page 94 and 95:
answered (for instance Portugal and
Page 96 and 97:
countries who supplied data have a
Page 98 and 99:
metering problems, customer’s que
Page 100 and 101:
step. CEER recommends that member s
Page 102:
CHAPTER 4 - Voltage Quality Monitor
Page 105 and 106:
For the rest of the voltage quality
Page 107 and 108:
·In Czech Republic a monitoring sy
Page 109 and 110:
tion point of single customers: in
Page 111 and 112:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 4.2 - POWER
Page 113 and 114:
ator must advise clients connected
Page 115 and 116:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 4.3 - CUSTOM
Page 117 and 118:
mandatory such values are applicabl
Page 120 and 121:
ANNEXES - ANNEX TO CHAPTER 1.Sectio
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix - BELGIUM - Wallonia1. Acc
Page 124 and 125:
(CONTINUE) SECTION 2 - PLANNED INTE
Page 126 and 127:
TABLE 3.4 - UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS
Page 128 and 129:
TABLE 3.10 - ENERGY NOT SUPPLIED AS
Page 130 and 131:
TABLE 4.2 - VOLTAGE LEVEL ANALYSIS
Page 132 and 133:
The classification of continuity da
Page 134 and 135:
The same pattern emerges with the i
Page 136:
ANNEX TO CHAPTER 2.Annex 2.1 - Comp
Page 139 and 140:
Quest.2.1.18Supp.0Recomm.✰✰DSO5
Page 141 and 142:
Quest.1.1.9Supp.0Recomm.✰✰✰DS
Page 143 and 144:
3.3.10.4 HungarySupply level in the
Page 145 and 146:
TABLE 3.2INDICATORS1.1.1. Average w
Page 147 and 148:
TABLE 3.3.AINDICATORS2.1.1. Respond
Page 149 and 150:
TABLE 3.3.BINDICATORS2.1.1.Respondi
Page 151 and 152:
TABLE 3.4INDICATORSAustriaBg Flande
Page 153 and 154:
TABLE 3.6 ESTIMATING CHARGES (WORKI
Page 155 and 156:
TABLE 3.10 CONNECTING (SUPPLY AND M
Page 157 and 158:
TABLE 3.14 AVERAGE TIME TO PROVIDE
Page 159 and 160:
TABLE 3.18 METER PROBLEMS (WORKING
Page 161 and 162:
TABLE 3.22 RESPONSE TO CUSTOMER LET
Page 163 and 164:
TABLE 3.27 AVERAGE WAITING TIME IN
Page 165 and 166:
TABLE 3.32 NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS PER
Page 167 and 168:
TABLE 3.38PREPAYMENT METER FAULT (W
Page 169 and 170:
TABLE 3.43NUMBER OF REVISED BILLS P
Page 172 and 173:
ANNEX TO CHAPTER 4.ANNEX 4.1 Voltag
Page 174 and 175:
TABLE 2: NORWAY: Flicker severity l
Page 176 and 177:
TABLE 5: PORTUGAL: for EHV and HV,
show all

Third Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?