EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Thus, despite the challenges of managing innovation projects with their inherent uncertainty, the large Tier 2 projects have generally been well managed against their Successful Delivery Reward Criteria (SDRC). 8. SoLa Bristol, which considered a combination of energy storage in customer's premises, together with variable tariffs and integrated network control, was allocated a low score in our evaluation for ‘project relevance and timing’. The project concluded that small-scale storage does not offer DNOs an immediate or medium-term opportunity to modify the distribution system to integrate PV and batteries. This should be reviewed once the storage market, where high costs have kept the market small, has matured. However it was noted that whilst the benefits are small for DNOs (when compared to implementation costs) there may be a business case for implementation by housebuilders, energy suppliers or Building Management companies. 4.2 Individual project assessment - Tier 1 projects The Tier 1 projects are the smaller projects for which the DNOs were allowed to recover a proportion of the project cost. The Tier 1 projects are required to trial a new piece of equipment, arrangement or practice and to also meet the criteria in the LCNF governance document. 4.2.1 Numbers of projects A total of 42 Tier 1 projects have been funded over the five-year period of the LCNF. One project was stopped when it was clear there was not a positive cost-benefit case. Other projects are ongoing. 4.2.2 Individual project evaluation As part of this evaluation all of the completed Tier 1 projects have been individually assessed against a set of criteria – drawn from the initial LCNF assessment criteria with the exception of the criteria to avoid duplication which is discussed below. The results of the assessments are provided in Table 8. More detail, in the form of the supporting evaluations, together with further information on the evaluation method used and scoring criteria, is provided in Annex E of this report. There are also a number of ongoing projects that have not been evaluated – these are identified in Table 6. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 40
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Table 6 – Tier 1 projects that were not included in the evaluation DNO Project Reason for exclusion SPEN Hydro Active Network Management Close down report not currently available 39 SSEPD Impact of Electrolysers on the Network Ongoing 40 WDP Electric Boulevards Ongoing WPD ECHO Ongoing SPEN Smart Building Potential Ongoing as NIA UKPN SULV Ongoing ENW Fault Sense Ongoing WDP UKPN Voltage Control System Integration - D-SVC Phase 2 Power Transformer Real Time Thermal Rating Ongoing Ongoing as NIA ENW Combined On-Line Transformer Monitoring Ongoing 41 4.2.3 Consideration of duplication One of the initial LCNF project eligibility criteria applied by Ofgem was that the projects should not lead to unnecessary duplication. In our assessment the projects have been grouped using the same categorisation as elsewhere in this report which has enabled consideration of this criteria. There are a set of projects undertaken by individual DNOs at the start of the LCNF looking at LV monitoring equipment and LV networks. We have observed that there are some similarities between these projects in terms of the specifying the LV monitoring equipment, installation practices and data analysis. One of these projects was undertaken jointly by WPD and UKPN in the early years of the scheme to evaluate sensors to provide learning to all DNOs about this equipment. There are similarities and differences between DNO LV networks, both in the same licence area and between licence areas. Due to the lack of demand data about LV networks it could be viewed that these projects established techniques and DNO-specific procedures as a precursor to the larger Tier 2 projects – as well as providing an early insight into the effect of LV connected PV on specific networks 39 40 41 The project was a forerunner for the ARC project and was used to explore the technical and commercial issues that had the potential to jeopardise the successful delivery of the ARC project. Information on benefits provided in Questionnaire response included. Questionnaire response benefits included. Application of transformer oil regeneration can result in an improvement in overall condition which when used in combination with enhanced monitoring can extend the expected life of the transformer. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 41
Page 1 and 2: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 43: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 95 and 96:
AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
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:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
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?