EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF FALCON (Flexible Approaches for Low Carbon Optimised Networks) Project Title FALCON (Flexible Approaches for Low Carbon Optimised Networks) Tier 2 DNO WPD Status Complete LCNF project funding £12,399k Project objectives FALCON sought to demonstrate how smart techniques could be used to remove constraints on the 11kV network thereby removing barriers that may hinder the uptake of low carbon technologies and therefore the transition to a low carbon future. It addressed this by firstly using various techniques (engineering and commercial) on the network and then using the results of these trials to inform a new modelling tool that was specifically built to help planners(both operational and strategic). The project had 9 key objectives. Assessment Criteria Accelerates the development of a low carbon energy sector Has the potential to deliver net financial benefits to future and/or existing customers Score (1-5) 4 - Overview of assessment, sources of evidence and comments Assessment: The project clearly facilitates the connection of low carbon generation or demand. The carbon benefits not specifically quantified. Evidence: The objective of the project was to demonstrate how smart techniques could be used to remove constraints on the 11kV network thereby removing barriers that may hinder the uptake of low carbon technologies. It therefore facilities the connection of low carbon generation or demand. The full submission pro-forma highlighted that the project will save over 680k tonnes of CO 2 by 2050. This figure is repeated in the closedown report. However, actual, achieved carbon benefits are not specifically quantified at the end of the project – either in the closedown report or the final report. References: • Project FALCON closedown report; December 2015. • FALCON Full Submission Pro-forma. Assessment: Evidence that the project is highly likely to deliver financial benefits to the majority of customers, but that these benefits are comparatively short term (e.g. associated with asset replacement deferment). Evidence: Customers will benefit from lower than predicted DUoS charges as a result of the use of alternatives to conventional reinforcement. In addition, those customers served by meshed networks or networks to which PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 210
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Generates knowledge that can be shared amongst all DNOs 5 automated load transfer has been applied are likely to experience reduced customer interruptions (CI and customer minutes lost, CML). SIM results show that where smart techniques are used in conjunction with traditional reinforcement the investment costs are reduced compared to analysis where only traditional reinforcement is used. This saving varies significantly between primaries but is in the order of 20% An overall reduction in CML and CI is seen where meshed networks are applied. It is considered that the majority of customers can benefit from lower than predicted DUoS charges, while an additional group will also receive benefit from reduced customer interruptions. The closedown report states that the results from FALCON suggest that there are only short term benefits from the use of the trials over conventional reinforcement. References: • Project FALCON closedown report; December 2015. Assessment: Specific replication reports exist. These cover the main technical / commercial / stakeholder aspects as applicable. A learning dissemination event or webinar was held. Evidence: At least 11 separate final reports exist on different technical elements of the project. These were all published in May2015. They introduce the method trialled, outline design, construction and commissioning, give an overview of trial operations, as well as results, discussion, comparisons, conclusions and recommendations (as appropriate). Customer engagement is also discussed in those reports where relevant. There was also a knowledge capture and dissemination report, published in September 2015. WPD has undertaken a final presentation on FALCON in which DNOs were invited to provide feedback. In addition the Overall Final Report (not the detailed underlying ones) has been peer reviewed by project partners and feedback taken on board where appropriate. The Close down Report has been peer reviewed by SP Energy Networks. WPD has a FALCON based exhibition at the 2015 LCNI Conference in Liverpool and used this to share knowledge with other DNOs and Stakeholders. This has led directly to requests for bilateral events including with National Grid. References: • Project FALCON closedown report; December 2015. • Final reports for various methods trialled; May 2015 – Energy Storage; Load Estimation; Automatic Load Transfer; SIM Workstream; Commercial Trials; Dynamic Asset Rating Overhead Lines; Dynamic Asset Rating Distribution Transformers; Dynamic Asset Rating Cables; Dynamic Asset Rating Primary Transformers; WiMAX Based Telecommunications System; Meshed Networks. • Knowledge Capture and Dissemination report; September 2015. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 211
Page 1 and 2:
AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 213: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
show all

EVALUATION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?