Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
July 2003 Structure of Electricity Distribution Charges Update and Proposals Martin Crouch Director, Distribution.
Advertisements

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Review of NTS entry charge setting arrangements - IA 1 July 2010.
Mod 0508 Revised Distributed Gas Charging Arrangements  Proposed change to take into account that flows from DN Entry points to DN Supply Points should.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Electricity distribution and embedded renewable energy generators Martin Scheepers ECN Policy Studies Florence School of Regulation, Workshop,
Review Group 0166 Review of Necessary Reform of NTS Offtake Arrangements 20 th September 2007 Beverley Grubb SGN.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
CE Electric UK – Potential developments in long-term charging arrangements and IDNO charging methodologies 1 April 9, 2008 Potential developments in long-term.
Funding UKLink Process changes (User Pays). 2 Purpose of Presentation  Review of User Pays  Principles  Application to date  National Grid NTS observations.
RIIO-T1 impact on allowed revenues and network charges 6 September 2012.
A DNO Perspective by Stephen Parker for Structure of Charges Workshop 15 July 2003.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
July 2003 Structure of Electricity Distribution Charges Welcome and Introduction Charles Gallacher Deputy Director, Scotland.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
21 May 2015 GAZ DE FRANCE ESS Mod 115 An alternative view Phil Broom Gaz de France ESS.
Operating Margins. 2 Competitive Provision of Operating Margins Change to National Grid Gas’s Transporter Licence which:  Introduced Special Condition.
Capacity trade and transfer mechanism and the next AMSEC auction Nienke Hendriks Head of Gas Transmission Policy, Enforcement and Compliance 9 May 2007.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
A layman’s guide to the structure of LDZ gas charges 27 July 2009 Please note – in the interests of clarity and accessibility, simplifications have been.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
19 March 2010 energynetworks.org 1 PRESENTED BY Nigel Turvey Workshop on Distributed Generation Connected pre April March 2010.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Mod 116B Steve Rose - on behalf of RWE Trading. 2 Background Mod 116 B was raised after discussion with a number of shippers about aspects Mod 116 which.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Mod 214 – Reservation of firm NTS Exit Capacity at new NTS Exit Points in the transitional period Steve Rose.
Flow Margin Assumptions for NTS Planning and Development Transmission Planning Code Workshop 3 5 th June 2008.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Offtake Arrangements Document – An Overview Paul Roberts 12 th May 2005.
LDZ System Charges – Structure Methodology 26 April 2010.
DNPC06 LDZ NEC Charges Denis Aitchison 25 th January 2010.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Governance and Charging Methodology for User Pays Services 10 th January 2007.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Mod 166 Review Group Incremental Exit Capacity at New and Existing Exit Points.
DNPC08 Review of Standard LDZ System Charges 6 September 2010.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Enduring Exit Regime & NTS Risk Management Processes Offtake Arrangement Workstream – OAD Section I Review Group 316.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Mod 0273: Governance of Feasibility Study Requests to Support Changes to Network Exit Agreements – National Grid NTS Response.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
1 Review Group 264 Rules & Options Analysis for BSSOQ Methodology Changes Post MOD th September 2009.
Demand Side Investment Planning Transmission Planning Code Workshop 2 1 st May 2008.
DNPC08 Review of Standard LDZ System Charges Consultation Responses 25 October 2010.
Energy Market Issues for Biomethane Projects Workshop - 31 October 2011 RIIO-GD1 Environmental Incentives.
Review Group -140 Thoughts on additional information requirements.
Proposed framework for charges for generators connected to the Distribution network Please note that the contents of this presentation are proposals at.
MOD0164 Bi-Directional Connection Point Overrun Charge Calculation Stuart Waudby (Centrica Storage Ltd.)
Exit Capacity Release Methodology Statement - ExCR Transmission Workstream – 5 th Feb 2009.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight.
NTS Exit Regime Transmission Workstream – 6 th July 2005.
DNPC05 Consultation Paper Balance of Revenue Recovery between LDZ System Charges and Customer Charges Steve Armstrong 27 th July 2009.
System Operator information transparency. As Transmission System Transporter National Grid Gas undertakes responsibility for safe, effective and efficient.
New Customer Contributions for the Water Sector: Workshop 4 August 2004.
Background Current balance of LDZ System and Customer charges
Transmission Workstream 4th July 2007
LDZ System Charges – Structure Methodology 26 July 2010
Modification Proposal 115 – ‘Correct Apportionment of NDM Error’
Pricing and Margins Manager National Grid Distribution
Proposer: Steve Mulinganie, Gazprom Energy Panel Date: 20th June 2019
Presentation transcript:

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line. Proposals for DN Entry Charging Steve Armstrong26 September 2011

2 Current Transportation Arrangements Gas from NTS Entry from NTS LTS Distribution Tiers Service Pipe Emergency Service NTS Exit Capacity DN Transportation Charges NBP LDZ System Charge Supply Point Facility Costs ECN Charge (2012) CustomerCharge

3 Transportation of Distributed Gas Entry from NTS LTS Distribution Tiers Service Pipe Emergency Service Entry Facility Distributed Gas NBP LDZ System Charge Supply Point ECN Charge (2012) CustomerCharge NTS Exit Capacity Avoided or Lower costs Unaffected Impact of Distributed Gas New costs

4 Connection Charges for Distributed Gas Current Treatment Entry from NTS Entry Facility NBP Supply Point ______All payable by Connectee________ (either directly or recharged) Facility Connection Pipe Equipment Costs Reinforcement or Network compression costs

5 Connection Charges for New Supply Point Entry from NTS NBP Payable by Connectee Service PipeReinforcement Costs Supply Point Payable by Connectee – subject to Economic Test Economic Test If Reinforcement costs + additional opex < NPV Incremental transportation revenue Then No Contribution Otherwise Pay for Excess

6 Issues to be Considered Connectee Which costs are incurred by each party? DN Deep or Shallowish Boundary? DeepShallowish Current Transportation Current Connection Current Transportation Revised Connection Revised Transportation Revised Connection Current Transportation Revised Connection Current TreatmentOption 1Option 2Option 3 Provide Allowances? More cost- reflective transportation methodology? NoYesNoYes

7 Assessment of Choices  Transportation Charging Methodology  Cost-reflectivity  Reflects latest developments  Facilitates competition  Overall development of economic and efficient Distribution Network  Benefits consumers  Facilitates meeting DECC target reductions in CO2 equivalent emissions?  Provides longer-term benefits to consumers

8 Which costs are Incurred by each Party?  Connectee  Gas production facilities  Connection pipe  CV enrichment  Distribution Network  Network reinforcement or within –network compression  Additional network opex  To be determined?  Pressure/Flow control  Metering  Odorant Injection  Shut-off valve  Telemetry and control equipment Issues being considered by Biomethane Working Group

9 Deep vs Shallowish Boundary?  Deep Connection Boundary  Targets costs well  Gives strong signal re location for connection  Can allow simpler transportation charges  Possibly consistent with approach for exit But  Not consistent with treatment of NTS- sourced gas – could be considered unduly discriminatory  Creates high up-front costs which create project risk and may deter some potential developments  May need to provide an Economic Test and Allowances to reflect any transportation cost variations  Shallowish Connection Boundary  Consistent with treatment of NTS- sourced gas into DN  Avoids up-front charges so reducing project risks to the connectee  May better facilitate the longer-term development of lower CO2 energy supply  More closely aligned with DNO Electricity approach so avoids distorting choices for biomethane producers But  May require more complex transportation charge arrangements in order to properly reflect costs and give locational signal  Implementation costs may be higher

10 Provide Allowances (Connection Economic Test) or Modify Transportation Charges?  Provision of Allowances, potentially reducing Up-front connection charge, or Modification of transportion charge methodology for DN Entry  Two alternative means of taking account of locational impact on costs of DN Entry  Yes  More complex  More cost-reflective  Gives better locational signal, so better enabling economic development of Distribution Network  Could result in transportation credit for DN Entry so better facilitating Distributed Gas facilities  More consistent with RHI for Biomethane  No  Simple, with low implementation costs  With shallow connection boundary, effectively socialises any additional or reduced costs

11 What cost variations would be taken into account (Options 1 and 3) for Distributed Gas? Entry from NTS LTS Distribution Tiers Service Pipe Emergency Service Entry Facility Distributed Gas NBP LDZ System Charge Supply Point ECN Charge (2012) CustomerCharge NTS Exit Capacity Avoided or Lower costs Unaffected Impact of Distributed Gas New costs

12 What cost variations would be taken into account (Options 1 and 3) for Distributed Gas?  Deemed Reduction in NTS Exit Capacity bookings  Difficult to relate precise changes in bookings to individual Distributed Gas connections  Provide credit or allowance based on average NTS Exit capacity unit cost  Use “Reliability Factor” for Distributed Gas to take into account uncertainty of Distributed Gas for meeting peak requirements?  Any credits provided would be included in costs covered by new supply point-based LDZ ECN charge  Variation in Entry equipment costs between NTS-DN offtakes and Distributed Gas entry points  Should cost variations be taken into account or just be included in LDZ System costs as at present?  Unit capacity costs of equipment for Distributed Gas likely to be considerably higher than for NTS-DN offtakes  Due to loss of economies of scale  But DN costs could be lower if provided by connectee at Distributed Gas entry points  Specific Reinforcement or (if feasible) within network compression and additional operating costs for Distributed Gas  Could be specific costs to enable Distributed Gas to flow at all times  Should these be assessed on case-by-case basis or use some simplified approach?  Lower Usage of network pipeline tiers  Current LDZ System functions assume gas enters from NTS  Average cost of use of each pressure tier determined in DNPC08 analysis underlying current charges  Take account of actual tier of connection and hence tiers not utilised for Distributed Gas?  Alternatively, use simplified approach to determine standard credit/allowance for typical lower tier utilisation?

13 How would cost variations be taken into account under Options 1?  Option 1 (Deep boundary but with Allowance against Connection Cost)  Require Distributed Gas-specific “Economic Test”  Convert cost savings for: NTS Exit Capacity, Entry Equipment (if appropriate) and lower System Usage into Allowance based on NPV of savings for ongoing cost savings  Compare to Additional Costs for Specific Reinforcement, Additional Operating Costs, Entry Equipment (if higher costs)  Connectee would be liable for Up-front charge based on excess of Costs over Allowance  No rebate if Allowance greater than Costs  Consistent type of approach to Economic Test for new Supply Points

14 How would cost variations be taken into account under Options 3?  Option 3 (Shallow boundary with Modified Transportation Methodology)  Keep existing transportation charges for gas sourced from NTS  Retains current charges for most gas  Avoids complexity of splitting current charges into DN Entry and DN Exit based charges in every case  Introduce DN entry charge/credit for Distributed Gas  Charge/credit would reflect difference in DN costs for Distributed Gas relative to NTS-sourced gas  Existing DN (supply point-based) transportation charges would still in all cases  Convert cost differences into ongoing entry charge/credit reflecting: -NTS Exit Capacity saving; -Lower Distribution Tier System Usage; -Difference in Entry Equipment costs relative to NTS-DN offtakes -Specific additional capex or opex for Distributed Gas entry point -Capital costs annuitised into ongoing charge equivalent -Can reflect particular circumstances of each Distributed Gas entry point or take more simplified approach  Enables any overall cost savings to be reflected in an ongoing credit (unlike Option 2 approach)  Structure charge as capacity charge related to capacity requirement at time of connection?

15 Comparison of Option 1 and 3 Approaches Option 3 – Shallow Boundary, Modified Transportation Charges  Variation in costs relative to existing NTS-sourced gas reflected in ongoing entry transportation charge  Cheaper than NTS-source connections get entry credit  Lower system utilisation benefit assessed relative to connection tier, forms part of ongoing entry charge/credit  NTS Exit capacity benefit reflected in level of ongoing entry charge  Different from exit connection regime  Locational signal provided at the time of connection through ongoing level of entry transportation charge/credit  Any ongoing transportation credit will better facilitate Distributed Gas/Biomethane take up  Any higher costs reflected in ongoing entry charge – timing of costs better aligned to benefits received for Distributed Gas facilities  Consistent with RHI reflecting an allowance for entry connection costs for Biomethane Option 1 – Deep Boundary, Modified Connection Costs  Variation in costs relative to existing NTS-sourced gas reflected in possible up-front payment by connectee  Cheaper than NTS-source connections do not get rebate – any benefit smeared  Lower system utilisation benefit assessed relative to connection tier, forms part of Allowance  NTS Exit capacity benefit reflected in up-front allowance within Economic test  Consistent with exit connection regime approach  Locational signal provided at the time of connection through Economic Test and level of possible up-front payment  Any ongoing lower costs not fully reflected, so facilitates Distributed Gas/Biomethane less well than Option 3  Potential up-front cost may deter some Distributed Gas facilities – increases risk for them  Consistent with RHI reflecting an allowance for entry connection costs for Biomethane

16 Next Steps  Determine timescale and approach to assess proposal  Take account of Biomethane Working Group  Consider other issues and potential solutions  Provide more analysis and indicative charges when appropriate  Keen to implement as soon as possible  DNs receiving approaches from potential Biomethane facilities  But need to reflect wider issues and implementation (system) timescales  Approach adopted needs to be resilient to likely developments over years to come