WORKING GROUP REPORT. Data Exchange Working Group. Prepared by the Data Exchange Working Group for submission to the Grid Code Review Panel

Transcription

1 pp08/18 May 2008 WORKING GROUP REPORT Prepared by the for submission to the Grid Code Review Panel Reference Data Ex WG Report Issue 1.0 Date of Issue 1 st May 2008 Prepared by Data Exchange WG

2 I a DOCUMENT CONTROL National Grid Document Control Version Date Author Change Reference /05/2008 Data Exchange Working Group Submitted to May 2008 GCRP b Distribution Name Organisation Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 2

3 II CONTENTS TABLE 1.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EXCHANGE WORKING GROUP WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS INITIAL VIEW OF NATIONAL GRID IMPACT ON GRID CODE IMPACT ON INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS IMPACT ON GB TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPACT ON GRID CODE USERS ASSESSMENT AGAINST GRID CODE OBJECTIVES...14 ANNEX 2 (Part 1(i)) PROPOSED GRID CODE CHANGES...16 ANNEX 2 (Part 2(i)) PROPOSED GRID CODE CHANGES (Interaction with Grid Code Consultation G/07 (Black Start))...21 ANNEX 2 (Part 3(i)) PROPOSED GRID CODE CHANGES (Interaction with Grid Code Consultation B/07 (Improved Planning Code Data Exchange for Compliance Assessment))...22 ANNEX 2 (Part 2) PROPOSED GRID CODE (Data Registration Code) CHANGES...23 Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 3

4 1.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Schedule 3 (Information and Data Exchange Specification) of the System Operator Transmission Owner Code (STC) specifies the User data that is permitted to be exchanged between National Grid (as GB System Operator) and Scottish Power Transmission (SPT) and Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission (SHETL) as the Transmission Owners (TOs). At the time of BETTA GoLive a specific reference to this version of the STC (and associated Schedule 3 provisions) was placed in the Grid Code 1. As such any amendments proposed to Schedule 3 of the STC, with respect to the exchange of User data, would require a consequential amendment to the Grid Code. 1.2 It has been accepted by the Grid Code Review Panel (GCRP) that the current provisions do not provide the most effective and efficient solution in terms of alleviating User concerns regarding the exchange of their data and making the best use of the code governance frameworks. 1.3 The Working Group discussed the merits of a number of potential solutions which were categorised into two groups: code governance processes and formal code changes. Each potential solution was discussed by the Working Group in turn, the debate focusing on the pros and cons of each solution. The preferred solution was the development and inclusion of new provisions within the Grid Code which would specify the User data being passed to the Transmission Owners (TOs). 1.4 By having the data items highlighted in the Grid Code, it would be transparent to the industry which User data items are being transferred to the TOs. Any subsequent changes to the User data being transferred would necessitate a formal change to the Grid Code with Users having an opportunity to debate fully and to inform the debate of the proposed changes in accordance with existing Grid Code governance. 1.5 The recommends a number of Grid Code changes which may be summarised as follows: i. Existing provisions regarding data exchange should be replaced by specifying and listing, in the appropriate sections of the Grid Code, the relevant data items being transferred; ii. Relevant DRC Schedules to illustrate what data items are being transferred to TOs and will specify whether the data is exchanged on a GB Transmission System or Relevant Unit basis; iii. The TOs remit in the Grid Code is modified such that it is reflective of the data exchange provisions specified in the Grid Code; 1 Information Exchange under the STC Ofgem conclusions (March 2005) Paragraph 3.33 Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 4

5 1.6 The s preferred approach will not place any new obligations on Users in terms of data submitted, nor will it result in more data being passed to the TOs. The proposed changes will make it clear on the face of the Code what data items submitted to National Grid via the Data Registration Code provisions will be transferred to the TOs. The proposals will not have any implications for the TOs in terms of the data required to undertake their investment planning activities and fulfilling their licence obligations. 1.7 The discussions have focused on the User data collected via the Week 24/28 processes. However the Working Group has identified other data streams of User information currently permitted under Schedule 3 of the STC. It is the recommendation of the Working Group that changes to the Grid Code as outlined in this report should continue and for the GCRP to discussion how best to approach these alternative data streams. 1.8 It is the view of the that the proposed changes outlined in this report are not dependant on a consequential amendment of Schedule 3 of the STC. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 5

6 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 At Vesting in 1990 the British Grid Systems Agreement (BGSA) originally contained provisions for the exchange of data between National Grid and the Scottish TOs. This contained a significant amount of User information necessary for robust investment planning and to ensure stability of the interconnected systems. 2.2 It was recognised that for BETTA a new Code (STC) was necessary and during consultation on the new Code, Users expressed their concerns over the unregulated flow of User data exchanged previously under the BGSA. Users wanted governance arrangements for the transfer of User data to prevent the transfer of their data to associated interests of the Scottish TOs (e.g. generators) which could then be used for commercial purposes. 2.3 Ofgem accepted the validity of those concerns and decided that at the time of BETTA GoLive a specific reference to the relevant version of the STC (and associated Schedule 3 provisions) should be inserted into the Grid Code. This would enable Users to monitor future changes to the exchange of User data under Schedule 3 of the STC by way of any necessary consequential changes to the Grid Code (a User facing Code unlike the STC which only comprised the GB System Operator and the GB TOs). These arrangements were further reinforced by the change coordination provisions inserted into GC 4.6 of the Grid Code and B of the STC. 2.4 Since BETTA GoLive the STC, and in particular Schedule 3, has been amended to better facilitate processes which form part of the TOs licence obligations but the corresponding changes to Grid Code provisions have been out of synchronism with the STC changes and as such have resulted in inconsistencies between the Grid Code and STC. 2.5 It has therefore been accepted by the GCRP that based on current experience the existing provisions do not provide the most effective and efficient solution in terms of alleviating User concerns regarding the exchange of their data and making the best use of the code governance frameworks. 3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EXCHANGE WORKING GROUP 3.1 The was established to identify an enduring solution to the interaction between the STC and Grid Code regarding the exchange of User data. 3.2 The Terms of Reference (Annex 1) were formally agreed at the first Data Exchange Working Group meeting. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 6

7 4.0 WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS 4.1 The Working Group noted that the Grid Code User data transferred to the TOs comprises the information collected under the Week 24 submissions. The data exchange is necessary to ensure that National Grid and the TOs are planning investment on their systems on the basis of a consistent set of data and thereby meeting their licence and 1989 Electricity Act obligations to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical system of electricity transmission. 4.2 The Working Group agreed that both the Users and the TOs want to retain a contractual link to the data exchange provisions and the governance under which they can be changed. The TOs want to ensure that they are receiving the information that they require to plan and operate their respective networks. Users want to ensure that the data made available to transmission companies is necessary for planning or operational reasons and does not give rise to any commercial concerns, given that these companies also have associated generation and supply interests. 4.3 Furthermore, Users have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the STC in determining the User information which can be exchanged between National Grid and the TOs. Users have indicated their preference that control over this exchange should be reflected in User facing Codes such as the Grid Code. 4.4 It was noted that Users data obtained via processes or data based on National Grid modelling that employed the User data was not within the scope of the Working Group s terms of reference as specified in Appendix 1. It was acknowledged that this may necessitate a separate review of the interaction between STC and the regarding the exchange of User data. 4.5 The Working Group discussed various solutions which would potentially enable the necessary data exchange between National Grid and the TOs whilst alleviating Users concerns. The Working Group agreed that the solution should ideally not involve parallel obligations in more than one Code. The Working Group noted that it would be useful to have an enduring solution implemented before the Offshore Transmission Owners (OFTOs) were established and operating under the Offshore Transmission regime. 4.6 The potential solutions were categorised into two groups: code governance processes and formal code changes. Each potential solution was discussed by the Working Group in turn, the debate focusing on the pros and cons of each solution. 4.7 Code Governance Process Option 1 STC Schedule 3 and Grid Code change via coordinated governance This would involve a concurrent change to the STC and the Grid Code, triggering a Grid Code consultation at the same time as the STC consultation commenced The aim of the proposal would be to ensure that both Amendment Proposals under the two Codes should reach Ofgem in similar timescales so that they could be implemented together if the Authority approved them. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 7

8 4.7.3 The timing of the consideration of the Amendments under the two Codes would be an issue under this proposal since the STC was prescriptive in terms of the timescale by which a report should be provided to the Authority for decision whereas the Grid Code provisions were much more flexible in this area The main advantages of this proposal were that the amendment process provided a reasonable element of User scrutiny and involved minimal changes to the current Codes. The disadvantages were that the proposed processes were highly dependent on National Grid coordinating the necessary work for both Codes without express requirements in either Code to do so and where a joint Working Group was required there were also no express governance arrangements to cover the workings of such a Group. Option 2 Joint STC/Grid Code Working Group to consider changes to Schedule 3 of the STC This option would involve convening a joint Working Group to consider any changes to Schedule 3 of the STC. The Working Group could not identify any immediate governance reasons why such an option should be ruled out although it was noted that the option could require an amendment to the STC. This option would give User visibility to changes to Schedule 3 of the STC The preferred code governance process solution would be the closer alignment of the STC and Grid code amendments process (as outlined by Option 1). The Working Group acknowledged that it may be possible and beneficial to align the STC and Grid Code amendments processes closer together via the existing governance framework but queried whether this solution delivered the assurances that Users were seeking in the context of adequate monitoring of the exchange of their data between National Grid and the TOs The proposal also had limitations in that the details of the User Data to be exchanged would not be described in the Grid Code but remain in the STC. The Working Group noted that the proposal was flexible but would rely on significant cooperation between all Parties without the arrangements being reinforced in a User facing Code. 4.8 Formal Grid Code Codification Option 1 STC Arrangements backed off in the Grid Code This option would involve consequential changes to the relevant Grid Code clauses for any changes to the data exchange provisions in the STC. Pros of this option were relative simplicity and some provision for User participation in the STC governance arrangements. Cons were User participation was not via a User facing Code and administratively cumbersome. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 8

9 Option 2 Data Provisions and Process Mechanism Governed by the STC This option would involve restricting the data exchange provisions and process mechanism to the STC Pros of this option were alleviation of any possible inconsistencies between the STC and the Grid Code, no crossgovernance issues and administratively simple Cons were that the STC was not a Userfacing document and Users would have very limited input as to what data was exchanged between National Grid and the TOs. A majority of the Group considered that this option was probably not viable. Option 3a Schedule 3 Provisions transferred from the STC to the Grid Code This option would involve inserting the current STC Schedule 3 provisions regarding the data exchange permitted into the Grid Code. Pros were active User participation in the proposed changes via the appropriate User forum (GCRP). Cons included the need to amend the Grid Code such that TOs are party to the relevant provisions, the impact of the timeline of any proposed changes on operational activities and the appropriateness of the GCRP forum to the discussion of investment planning by TOs. A majority of the Working Group considered that option 3a was probably viable. Option 3b Schedule 3 Provisions replicated in the Grid Code This option would involve simply reproducing the STC Schedule 3 provisions in the Grid Code. Pros of this option were that Users would have full visibility of the proposed changes and could comment via Userfacing governance arrangements. Cons included the complication of crossgovernance arrangements, the greater potential for inconsistencies in the Codes and the evaluation of proposals under different objectives/criteria. Option 4 New Obligations for Permitting the Transfer of User Data This option would involve the insertion of new high level obligations into the Grid Code clarifying the requirements on National Grid in the context of exchange of User data. Pros included the avoidance of crossgovernance issues between the Codes. Cons included the fact that Users would still have limited visibility of what data was exchanged between National Grid and the TOs via the STC governance arrangements. A majority of the Group did not consider that option 4 was viable. Option 5 Cross Reference STC Schedule 3 in the Data Registration Code This option would involve the cross referencing of Schedule 3 to the STC in the Grid Code Data Registration Code. This would give User visibility to any changes to the Grid Code following changes to Schedule 3 of the STC but would probably have similar disadvantages to option 3b. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 9

10 4.8.9 The preferred codification solution is the development and inclusion of new provisions within the Grid Code which would specify the User data being exchanged to the TOs (as outlined in option 3a) By having the data items highlighted in the Grid Code, it would be transparent to the industry which User data items were being transferred to the TOs. Any subsequent changes to the User data being transferred would necessitate a formal change to the Grid Code with Users having an opportunity to fully debate and to inform the debate of the proposed changes in accordance with existing Grid Code governance. 4.9 Working Group Preferred Approach The Working Group agreed that the optimum solution, both in terms of User transparency and ensuring the TOs obtained the necessary User data for their license obligations, was for the Grid Code to specific the User data being exchanged to the TOs as outlined in option 3a (formal Grid Code modification) The Working Group agreed to develop this option further such that it met the terms of reference of the group. The Working Group agreed that the other solutions would not mitigate Users concerns regarding the transfer of their data to parties other than National Grid and therefore would not be further developed. This decision was based on the following considerations: would potentially be cumbersome/less effective in terms of cross code governance arrangements may result in unnecessary duplication in code obligations may result in the TOs not being a party/privileged to the forum at which the data exchange items are discussed may result in the TOs not obtaining the relevant data required to fulfil their license obligations would not provide the level of transparency regarding the data exchanges requested by Users The Working Group agreed that it was important for the preferred solution to be fully worked up as it was acknowledged that key aspects of the proposal were contained in the detail of any proposed changes. The Working Group acknowledged that it was important that the proposed Grid Code solution did not undermine the current data exchange provisions currently permitted under the STC The Working Group agreed that it would be useful from a User perspective for the Data Registration Codes to specify which data items would be transferred to the TOs. The Working Group noted that, depending on the data being transferred, the information would be on a Relevant Unit (reflective of the Boundary of Influence) or GB Transmission System basis. The DRC would differentiate between the different data exchange provisions The Working Group noted that the preferred approach may require a review of the STC provisions, Schedule 3 in particular, such that it was reflective of the Grid Code provisions regarding data exchange. It was acknowledged that the proposed Grid Code changes would not eliminate the need for having a Schedule 3 in the STC as provisions have a remit wider than just the exchange of User data. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 10

11 5.0 WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 The Working Group preferred solution is for the Grid Code to specify the User data being exchanged to the TOs as outlined in option 3a (formal Grid Code modification). 5.2 The Working Group acknowledged that the exchange of User data was inclusive of information obtained from Network Operators, other Generators groups (specifically Medium and Small Generators) and Non Embedded Customers and noted the absence of participation from these User groups within the Working Group membership. 5.3 The Working Group noted that it was important to ensure that the other relevant User groups were informed of the preferred solution and invited to input any relevant comments. Following invitation to comment the Network Operators and other Generators groups have indicated that they were in favour of the preferred solution and had no substantive comments on the proposal. Benefits and Potential Consequences of Proposed Changes 5.4 The Working Group believes that the changes contained in this report will: improve the transparency of User data derived from Grid Code obligations which is transferred to the TOs ; improve the provisions relating to Users data exchanged situated in a User facing Code alleviate Users concerns pertaining to the exchange of User data to companies with generation and supplier interests; enable the Relevant Transmission Licensees to participate actively in GCRP and industry discussion to any Grid Code proposed amendments regarding the data exchange provisions. 5.5 The Working Group believes that the changes contained in this report will result in the following disbenefits: in an extended governance process timeline for changing the remit/scope of the Grid Code data exchange requirements (based on current Grid Code Amendment Proposal timelines); in the data exchange obligations residing across two codes, requiring increased cross code governance vigilance; in the data requirements for the TOs being discussed/influenced by parties not bound to the same obligations/activities which may unduly influence the outcome of the proposal. 5.6 The Working Group believed that the benefits outlined in paragraph 5.4 outweighed the disbenefits outlined in paragraph In summary the recommended changes are: Existing provisions regarding data exchange replaced by specifying and listing the relevant data items transferred in the appropriate sections of the Grid Code. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 11

12 5.7.2 Relevant DRC Schedules to illustrate what data items are being transferred to TOs, specifying whether the data is exchanged on a GB Transmission System or Relevant Unit basis The TOs remit in the Grid Code is modified such that it is reflective of the data exchange provisions specified in the Grid Code 5.8 The preferred approach will not place any new obligations on Users in terms of data submitted or data passed to the TOs. The proposed changes will make it clear on the face of the Code what data items submitted to National Grid via the Data Registration Code provisions will be transferred to the TOs. The Working Group s recommendation will not have any implications for the TOs in terms of the data required to undertake their investment planning activities and fulfilling their licence obligations. 6.0 Alternative User Data Streams 6.1 The focus of the Working Group discussions has been on the User data collected via the Week 24/28 processes. The Working Group has identified other data streams of User information currently permitted under Schedule 3 of the STC. 6.2 These data streams permit the exchange of data required for: TO Construction Agreements (inclusive of compliance process and data) Responding to Applications 6.3 The STC provisions also permit the exchange of information regarding the physical characteristics of plant and apparatus. 6.4 The Working Group noted that the data for these additional streams are not collated via the Week 24/28 process and therefore are not included in the work completed to date. It was acknowledged that some elements of the User data stream relating to applications would be outside the remit of any Grid Code Working Group and subsequent amendment proposal. 6.5 The Working Group acknowledges the importance of having full transparency of all User data derived from Grid Code obligations which is transferred to the TOs but would like to prevent any delay to the progression of the significant piece of work already completed. 6.6 Therefore the recommendation of the Working Group is to progress with the changes to the Grid Code as outlined in this report and for the GCRP to discuss how best to approach these alternative streams. Options which the Grid Code Review Panel would consider are the reactivation of this Working Group to deal with the issue in due course or remitting the issues to an existing Working Group e.g. Compliance. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 12

13 7.0 INITIAL VIEW OF NATIONAL GRID 7.1 National Grid agrees with the Working Group recommendations. Pending discussion at the GCRP of this Working Group Report, National Grid would intend to consult with Authorised Electricity Operators on making changes to the Grid Code in line with the Working Group recommendations contained in this report. 8.0 IMPACT ON GRID CODE 8.1 The proposed changes require amendments to the following Grid Code sections: i. Data Registration Code ii. General Conditions iii. Glossary and Definitions iv. OC2 (Operational Planning and Data Provisions) Code v. Planning Code 8.2 The associated legal text for the Working Group recommendations is outlined in Annex 2 (Part 1). Interactivity with other Grid Code Amendments 8.3 The Working Group noted that the proposals outlined in this report will potentially interact with the following existing Grid Code proposals: Grid Code Consultation B/07 (Improved Planning Code Data Exchange for Compliance Assessments Connection) Grid Code Consultation G/07 (Black Start) 8.4 Associated legal text which represents the interactivity will be provided in Annex 2 (Part 2 and 3) of this report. 9.0 IMPACT ON INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS Impact on Core Industry Documents 9.1 The Working Group acknowledges the close interaction between the Grid Code and the STC regarding this issue. However it is the view of Data Exchange Working Group that the proposed changes outlined in this report are not dependent on a consequential amendment of Schedule 3 of the STC. 9.2 The STC Committee may wish to consider an amendment of Schedule 3 of the STC which would reflect the proposed Grid Code changes at an appropriate time in the future. 9.3 The non User data required by the TOs will still need to be identified and described in the STC. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 13

14 9.4 It was noted that Users data obtained via the process or data based on National Grid modelling that employed the User data was not within the scope of the Working Group s terms of reference as specified in Appendix 1. It was acknowledged that this may necessitate a separate review of the interaction between STC and the regarding the exchange of User data. 9.5 None. Impact on other Industry Documents 10.0 IMPACT ON GB TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 10.1 The Working Groups preferred solution will have no material impact on the GB Transmission System provided the new provisions in the Grid Code reflect the existing STC arrangements regarding the transfer of User data IMPACT ON GRID CODE USERS 11.1 The Working Groups preferred solution will provide a high level of transparency within the Grid Code of the User data items that need to be exchanged with the TOs The approach will also enable Users to participate actively with any Grid Code proposed amendments regarding the data exchange provisions There will be no impact on Users regarding the preparation of DRC data. The proposals will highlight explicitly within the Grid Code, DRC data which will be transferred to the TOs ASSESSMENT AGAINST GRID CODE OBJECTIVES 12.1 The proposed changes outlined in the Working Group would better facilitate Grid Code Objectives: ii) to facilitate competition in the generation and supply of electricity by reassuring Users that their data will not be used by other parties to gain an unfair advantage in the market place. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 14

15 ANNEX 1 WORKING GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE It was agreed at the Extraordinary Grid Code Review Panel (GCRP) meeting on 31 st July that a GCRP Working Group would be established and tasked with identifying an enduring solution to the interaction between the STC and Grid Code. The terms of reference for the working group are: 1. Review the investment planning data requirements and current code provisions/obligations 2. Consider the interaction between the STC and Grid Code provisions, in particular: a. the cross governance issues b. whether the existing change coordination provisions are sufficient 3. Identify and consider the nature/content of the data exchange provisions and where the obligation(s) would be best situated 4. Identify and consider an enduring solution which will fulfill the necessary obligations and minimise any cross governance issues 5. Recommend changes required to the Grid Code 6. Identify consequential changes which may be required to other industry codes Working Group Members Members GCRP Working group will be as follows: Chair Secretary Duncan Burt National Grid Richard Dunn National Grid National Grid Representatives Lilian Macleod John ZammitHaber/Richard Proctor Industry Representatives Sigrid Bolik Econnect Consulting Ltd Claire Maxim E.ON Alan Michie Scottish Power Transmission Ltd Jim Molley Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd John Morris British Energy Authority Observer Bridget Morgan Ofgem Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 15

16 ANNEX 2 (Part 1(i)) PROPOSED GRID CODE CHANGES Proposed Changes to Glossary and Definitions Insert new definition for Relevant Units Relevant Units as defined in the STC, Schedule 3. Proposed Changes to OC2 (Operational Planning and Data Provision) Insert new OC2 provision OC2.3.2 NGET may provide to the Relevant Transmission Licensees any data which has been submitted to NGET by any Users in respect of Relevant Units pursuant to the following paragraphs of the OC2. OC (a) OC (e) OC (j) OC (a) OC (i) OC (a) OC (b) OC OC (a) Proposed Changes to General Conditions Amended provisions GC.4.2 and GC12.2 as follows: GC.4.2 The Panel shall: (b) review all suggestions for amendments to the Grid Code which the Authority or any User or any Relevant Transmission Licensee (in respect of PC.3.4, PC.3.5, PC.6.2, PC Appendix A and C, CC.6.1, CC.6.2, CC.6.3, OC2.3.2, OC8 and GC.11, OC7.6, OC9.4 and OC9.5) may wish to submit to NGET for consideration by the Panel from time to time; GC.12.2 NGET has obligations under the STC to inform Relevant Transmission Licensees of certain data. NGET may pass on User data to a Relevant Transmission Licensee where NGET is required to do so under a provision of the STC. current as at 29 October Those categories of User information that NGET is permitted to disclose to a Relevant Transmission Licensee, where required to do so by a provision of the STC, are set out in Schedule Three of the STC ( Information and data exchange specification ). Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 16

17 Proposed Changes to Planning Code Amended PC1.1 as follows: PC.1.1 The Planning Code ("PC") specifies the technical and design criteria and procedures to be applied by NGET in the planning and development of the GB Transmission System and to be taken into account by Users in the planning and development of their own Systems. It details information to be supplied by Users to NGET, and certain information to be supplied by NGET to Users. In Scotland, NGET has obligations under the STC to inform Relevant Transmission Licensees of data required for the planning of the GB Transmission System. NGET may pass on User data to a Relevant Transmission Licensee where NGET is required to do so under a provision of the STC current as at 29 October Those categories of User information that NGET is permitted to disclose to a Relevant Transmission Licensee, where required to do so by a provision of the STC, are set out in Schedule Three of the STC ( Information and data exchange specification ). Insert new Planning Code provisions PC.3.4 NGET may provide to the Relevant Transmission Licensees any data which has been submitted to NGET by any Users pursuant to the following paragraphs of the PC. For the avoidance of doubt, NGET will not provide to the Relevant Transmission Licensees, the types of data specified in Appendix D. The Relevant Transmission Licensees use of such data is detailed in the STC. PC.A.2.3 PC.A.2.5 PC.A.3.1 PC.A PC.A PC.A.3.3 PC.A.3.4 PC.A.4 PC.A.5.1 PC.A.5.2 PC.A PC.A PC.A PC.A PC.A PC.A PC.A PC.A PC.A.7 PC.3.5 In addition to the provisions of PC.3.4 NGET may provide to the Relevant Transmission Licensees any data which has been submitted to NGET by any Users in respect of Relevant Units pursuant to the following paragraphs of the PC. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 17

18 PC.A.2.2 PC.A.2.4 PC.A.5.5 PC.A.6.2 PC.A.6.3 PC.A.6.4 PC.A.6.5 PC.A.6.6 Insertion of a new Planning Code Appendix PLANNING CODE APPENDIX D Pursuant to PC.3.4, NGET will not disclose to a Relevant Transmission Licensee data items specified in the below extract: PC REFERENCE DESCRIPTION UNITS CAT. PC.A (f) (i) Performance Chart at Generating Unit stator terminals SPD PC.A (b) Output Usable (on a monthly basis) MW SPD PC.A (d) Option 1 (iii) GOVERNOR AND ASSOCIATED PRIME MOVER PARAMETERS Option 1 BOILER & STEAM TURBINE Boiler time constant (Stored Active Energy) HP turbine response ratio: (Proportion of Primary Response arising from HP turbine) HP turbine response ratio: (Proportion of High Frequency Response arising from HP turbine) S % % Part of PC.A (d) Option 2 (i) Option 2 All Generating Units Governor Deadband Maximum Setting Normal Setting Minimum Setting ±Hz ±Hz ±Hz Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 18

19 Part of PC.A (d) Option 2 (ii) Steam Units Reheater Time Constant Boiler Time Constant HP Power Fraction IP Power Fraction sec sec % % Part of PC.A (d) Option 2 (iii) Gas Turbine Units Waste Heat Recovery Boiler Time Constant Part of PC.A (e) UNIT CONTROL OPTIONS* Maximum droop Minimum droop % % Maximum frequency deadband Normal frequency deadband Minimum frequency deadband ±Hz ±Hz ±Hz Maximum Output deadband Normal Output deadband Minimum Output deadband ±MW ±MW ±MW Frequency settings between which Unit Load Controller droop applies: Maximum Normal Minimum Hz Hz Hz Sustained response normally selected Yes/No PC.A (f) (ii) Performance Chart of a Power Park Modules at the connection point SPD PC.A (b) Output Usable (on a monthly basis) MW SPD PC.A and (j) (e) DC CONVERTER STATION ACTIVE POWER TRANSFER CAPABILITY (PC.A.3.2.2) Import MW available in excess of Registered Import Capacity. Time duration for which MW in excess of Registered Import Capacity is available MW Min SPD SPD Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 19

20 Export MW available in excess of Registered Capacity. Time duration for which MW in excess of Registered Capacity is available MW Min SPD SPD Part of PC.A LOADING PARAMETERS MW Export Nominal loading rate Maximum (emergency) loading rate MW/s MW/s MW Import Nominal loading rate Maximum (emergency) loading rate MW/s MW/s Proposed Changes to Data Registration Code Amended Data Registration Code as outlined in Annex 2 (Part 1(ii)) separate document Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 20

21 ANNEX 2 (Part 2(i)) PROPOSED GRID CODE CHANGES (Interaction with Grid Code Consultation G/07 (Black Start)) In the event of Grid Code Consultation G/07 (Black Start) being approved by the Authority, the following changes to the proposed legal text (as outlined in Annex 2a and in the Grid Code G/07 Report to the Authority) will be required: Proposed Changes to Planning Code In addition to the changes to the Planning Code outlined in Annex 2 (Part 1(i)), add new reference, PC.A.5.7, to PC.3.5 provisions, inserted in numerical order. Proposed Changes to Data Registration Code In addition to the changes to the Data Registration Code outlined in Annex 2 (Part 1 (ii)), amend Data Registration Code as described in Annex 2 (Part 2(ii)) separate document Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 21

22 ANNEX 2 (Part 3(i)) PROPOSED GRID CODE CHANGES (Interaction with Grid Code Consultation B/07 (Improved Planning Code Data Exchange for Compliance Assessment)) In the event of Grid Code Consultation B/07 (Improved Planning Code Data Exchange for Compliance) being approved by the Authority, the following changes to the proposed legal text (as outlined in Annex 2a and in the Grid Code B/07 Report to the Authority) will be required: Proposed Changes to Planning Code In addition to the changes to the Planning Code outlined in Annex 2 (Part 1(i)): Remove reference PC.A.2.2 from PC.3.5 provisions and add to PC.3.4, inserted in numerical order Remove reference PC.A.2.3 from PC.3.4 provisions and add to PC.3.5, insert in numerical order. Proposed Changes to Data Registration Code In addition to the changes to the Data Registration Code outlined in Annex 2 (Part 1 (ii)), amend Data Registration Code as described in Annex 2 (Part 3(ii)) see separate document Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 22

23 ANNEX 2 (Part 1(ii)) PROPOSED GRID CODE CHANGES to DRC Working Group Report Proposed Changes to Data Registration Code REGISTRATION CODE SCHEDULE 1 Page 12 of 15 ABBREVIATIONS: SPD = Standard Planning Data = Detailed Planning Data % on MVA = % on Rated MVA RC = Registered Capacity % on 100 = % on 100 MVA OC1, BC1, etc = Grid Code for which data is required Note: All parameters, where applicable, are to be measured at nominal System Frequency + these SPD items should only be given in the data supplied with the application for a Contract. * Asterisk items are not required for Small Power Stations and Medium Power Stations Information is to be given on a Unit basis, unless otherwise stated. Where references to CCGT Modules are made, the columns "G1" etc should be amended to read "M1" etc, as appropriate. These data items may be submitted to the Relevant Transmission Licensees from NGET in respect of the GB Transmission System. The data may be submitted to the Relevant Transmission Licensees in a summarised form e.g. network model; the data transferred will have been originally derived from data submitted by Users to NGET. these data items may be submitted to the Relevant Transmission Licensees from NGET in respect to Relevant Units only The data may be submitted to the Relevant Transmission Licensees in a summarised form e.g. network model; the data transferred will have been originally derived from data submitted by Users to NGET. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 23

24 REGISTRATION CODE SCHEDULE 1 Page 21 of 15 GENERATING UNIT (OR CCGT MODULE) TECHNICAL POWER STATION NAME: DATE: DESCRIPTION UNITS Cont EXCH App. Form CAT. GENERATING UNIT OR STATION FYr FYr FYr FYr FYr FYr FYr 6 GENERATING STATION DEMANDS: Demand associated with the Power Station supplied through the GB Transmission System or the Generator's User System (PC.A.5.2) The maximum Demand that could occur. MW Mvar Demand at specified time of annual peak half hour MW of GB Transmission System Demand at Annual Mvar ACS Conditions. Demand at specified time of annual minimum halfhour of GB Transmission System Demand. MW Mvar (Additional Demand supplied through the unit transformers to be provided below) INDIVIDUAL GENERATING UNIT (OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, CCGT MODULE) G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN Point of connection to the GB Transmission System (or the Total System if embedded) of the Generating Unit (other than a CCGT Unit) or the CCGT Module, as the case may be in terms of geographical and electrical location and system voltage (PC.A.3.4.1) Text SPD If the busbars at the Connection Point are normally run in separate sections identify the section to which the Generating Unit (other than a CCGT Unit) or CCGT Module, as the case may be is connected (PC.A.3.1.5) Type of Unit (steam, Gas Turbine Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Unit, tidal, wind, etc.) (PC.A (h)) A list of the CCGT Units within a CCGT Module, identifying each CCGT Unit, and the CCGT Module of which it forms part, unambiguously. In the case of a Range CCGT Module, details of the possible configurations should also be submitted. (PC.A (g)) Section Number SPD SPD Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 24

25 SCHEDULE 1 Page 3 of 15 DESCRIPTION UNITS Cont EXCH App. Form CAT. GENERATING UNIT (OR CCGT MODULE, AS THE CASE MAY BE) G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN Rated MVA (PC.A.3.3.1) MVA SPD+ Rated MW (PC.A.3.3.1) MW SPD+ Rated terminal voltage (PC.A (a) & PC.A (b)) kv *Performance Chart at Generating Unit SPD (see OC2 for specification) stator terminals (PC.A.3.2.2(f)(i)) *Output Usable (on a monthly basis) (PC.A.3.2.2(b)) MW SPD (except in relation to CCGT Modules when required on a unit basis under the Grid Code, this TurboGenerator inertia constant (for synchronous machines) (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Short circuit ratio (synchronous machines) (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Normal auxiliary load supplied by the Generating Unit at rated MW output (PC.A.5.2.1) Rated field current at rated MW and Mvar output and at rated terminal voltage (PC.A (a)) MW secs /MVA MW Mvar SPD+ SPD+ A data item may be supplied under Schedule 3) Field current open circuit saturation curve (as derived from appropriate manufacturers' test certificates): (PC.A (a)) 120% rated terminal volts 110% rated terminal volts 100% rated terminal volts 90% rated terminal volts 80% rated terminal volts 70% rated terminal volts 60% rated terminal volts 50% rated terminal volts IMPEDANCES: (Unsaturated) Direct axis synchronous reactance (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Direct axis transient reactance (PC.A.3.3.1(a)& PC.A.5.3.2(a) Direct axis subtransient reactance (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Quad axis synch reactance (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Quad axis subtransient reactance (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Stator leakage reactance (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Armature winding direct current resistance. (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) In Scotland, negative sequence resistance (PC.A (a) (iv) A A A A A A A A % on MVA % on MVA % on MVA % on MVA % on MVA % on MVA % on MVA % on MVA SPD+ Note: the above data item relating to armature winding directcurrent resistance need only be provided by Generators in relation to Generating Units commissioned after 1st March 1996 and in cases where, for whatever reason, the Generator is aware of the value of the data item. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 25

26 SCHEDULE 1 Page 4 of 15 DESCRIPTION TIME CONSTANTS (Shortcircuit and Unsaturated) UNITS EXCH Cont App. Form DAT A CAT. Direct axis transient time constant S (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Direct axis subtransient time constant S (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Quadrature axis subtransient time constant S (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) Stator time constant (PC.A.5.3.2(a)) S GENERATING UNIT OR STATION G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN GENERATING UNIT STEPUP TRANSFORMER Rated MVA (PC.A & PC.A.5.3.2) MVA SPD+ Voltage Ratio (PC.A.5.3.2) Positive sequence reactance: (PC.A.5.3.2) Max tap % on MVA SPD+ Min tap % on MVA SPD+ Nominal tap % on MVA SPD+ Positive sequence resistance: (PC.A.5.3.2) Max tap % on MVA Min tap % on MVA Nominal tap % on MVA Zero phase sequence reactance (PC.A.5.3.2) % on MVA Tap change range (PC.A.5.3.2) +% / % Tap change step size (PC.A.5.3.2) % Tap changer type: onload or offcircuit (PC.A.5.3.2) On/Off EXCITATION: Note: Option 1 The data items requested under Option 1 below may continue to be provided by Generators in relation to Generating Units on the System at 9 January 1995 (in this paragraph, the "relevant date") or they may provide the new data items set out under Option 2. Generators must supply the data as set out under Option 2 (and not those under Option 1) for Generating Unit excitation control systems commissioned after the relevant date, those Generating Unit excitation control systems recommissioned for any reason such as refurbishment after the relevant date and Generating Unit excitation control systems where, as a result of testing or other process, the Generator is aware of the data items listed under Option 2 in relation to that Generating Unit. DC gain of Excitation Loop (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Max field voltage (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) V Min field voltage (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) V Rated field voltage (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) V Max rate of change of field volts: (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Rising V/Sec Falling V/Sec Details of Excitation Loop (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Described in block diagram form showing transfer functions of individual elements Dynamic characteristics of over excitation limiter (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Dynamic characteristics of underexcitation limiter (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Diagram (please attach) Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 26

27 DESCRIPTION UNITS EXCH Cont App. Form CAT. SCHEDULE 1 Page 5 of 15 GENERATING UNIT OR STATION G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN Option 2 Exciter category, e.g. Rotating Exciter, or Static Text SPD Exciter etc (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Excitation System Nominal (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Response V E Sec 1 Rated Field Voltage (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) U fn V Noload Field Voltage (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) U fo V Excitation System OnLoad (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Positive Ceiling Voltage U pl+ V Excitation System NoLoad (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Positive Ceiling Voltage U po+ V Excitation System NoLoad (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) Negative Ceiling Voltage U po V Power System Stabiliser (PSS) (PC.A fitted Yes/No SPD Details of Excitation System (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) (including PSS if fitted) described in block diagram form showing transfer functions of individual elements. Diagram Details of Overexcitation Limiter (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) described in block diagram form showing transfer functions of individual elements. Diagram Details of Underexcitation Limiter (PC.A.5.3.2(c)) described in block diagram form showing transfer functions of individual elements. Diagram Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 27

28 DESCRIPTION UNITS EXCH Cont GOVERNOR AND ASSOCIATED PRIME MOVER PARAMETERS App. Form CAT. Working Group Report SCHEDULE 1 Page 6 of 15 GENERATING UNIT OR STATION G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN Note: Option 1 The data items requested under Option 1 below may continue to be provided by Generators in relation to Generating Units on the System at 9 January 1995 (in this paragraph, the "relevant date") or they may provide the new data items set out under Option 2. Generators must supply the data as set out under Option 2 (and not those under Option 1) for Generating Unit governor control systems commissioned after the relevant date, those Generating Unit governor control systems recommissioned for any reason such as refurbishment after the relevant date and Generating Unit governor control systems where, as a result of testing or other process, the Generator is aware of the data items listed under Option 2 in relation to that Generating Unit. GOVERNOR PARAMETERS (REHEAT UNITS) (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 1(i)) HP Governor average gain MW/Hz Speeder motor setting range Hz HP governor valve time constant S HP governor valve opening limits HP governor valve rate limits Reheat time constant (stored Active Energy S in reheater) IP governor average gain MW/Hz IP governor setting range Hz IP governor time constant S IP governor valve opening limits IP governor valve rate limits Details of acceleration sensitive (please attach) elements HP & IP in governor loop Governor block diagram showing (please attach) transfer functions of individual elements GOVERNOR (Nonreheat steam and Gas Turbines) (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 1(ii)) Governor average gain MW/Hz Speeder motor setting range Time constant of steam or fuel governor valve S Governor valve opening limits Governor valve rate limits Time constant of turbine S Governor block diagram (please attach) Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 28

29 DESCRIPTION (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 1(iii)) BOILER & STEAM TURBINE * UNITS EXCH Cont App. Form CAT. Boiler time constant (Stored Active Energy) S HP turbine response ratio: (Proportion of Primary Response arising from HP turbine) % HP turbine response ratio: (Proportion of High Frequency Response arising from HP turbine) Option 2 All Generating Units Governor Block Diagram showing transfer function of individual elements including acceleration sensitive elements Governor Time Constant (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(i)) #Governor Deadband (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(i)) Maximum Setting Normal Setting Minimum Setting Speeder Motor Setting Range (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(i)) % End of Option 1 Sec ±Hz ±Hz ±Hz % Average Gain (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(i)) MW/Hz Steam Units (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(ii)) HP Valve Time Constant sec HP Valve Opening Limits % HP Valve Opening Rate Limits %/sec HP Valve Closing Rate Limits %/sec HP Turbine Time Constant sec (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(ii)) IP Valve Time Constant sec IP Valve Opening Limits % IP Valve Opening Rate Limits %/sec IP Valve Closing Rate Limits %/sec IP Turbine Time Constant sec (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(ii)) LP Valve Time Constant sec LP Valve Opening Limits % LP Valve Opening Rate Limits %/sec LP Valve Closing Rate Limits %/sec LP Turbine Time Constant sec (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(ii)) Working Group Report SCHEDULE 1 Page 7 of 15 GENERATING UNIT OR STATION G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN Reheater Time Constant sec Boiler Time Constant sec HP Power Fraction % IP Power Fraction % # Where the generating unit governor does not have a selectable deadband facility, then the actual value of the deadband need only be provided. Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 29

30 SCHEDULE 1 Page 8 of 15 DESCRIPTION UNITS Cont EXCH App. Form CAT. GENERATING UNIT OR STATION G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN Gas Turbine Units (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(iii)) Inlet Guide Vane Time Constant sec Inlet Guide Vane Opening Limits % Inlet Guide Vane Opening Rate Limits %/sec Inlet Guide Vane Closing Rate Limits %/sec (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(iii)) Fuel Valve Time Constant sec Fuel Valve Opening Limits % Fuel Valve Opening Rate Limits %/sec Fuel Valve Closing Rate Limits %/sec (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(iii)) Waste Heat Recovery Boiler Time Constant Hydro Generating Units (PC.A.5.3.2(d) Option 2(iv)) Guide Vane Actuator Time Constant sec Guide Vane Opening Limits % Guide Vane Opening Rate Limits %/sec Guide Vane Closing Rate Limits %/sec Water Time Constant sec End of Option 2 UNIT CONTROL OPTIONS* (PC.A.5.3.2(e) Maximum droop % Normal droop % Minimum droop % Maximum frequency deadband ±Hz Normal frequency deadband ±Hz Minimum frequency deadband ±Hz Maximum Output deadband ±MW Normal Output deadband ±MW Minimum Output deadband ±MW Frequency settings between which Unit Load Controller droop applies: Maximum Hz Normal Hz Minimum Hz Sustained response normally selected Yes/No Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 30

31 Schedule 1 Page 9 of 15 DESCRIPTION UNITS EXCH Cont App. Form CAT. POWER PARK UNIT (OR POWER PARK MODULE, AS THE CASE MAY BE) G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 STN Power Park Module Rated MVA (PC.A.3.3.1(a)) Power Park Module Rated MW (PC.A.3.3.1(a)) *Performance Chart of a Power Park Module at the connection point (PC.A.3.2.2(f)(ii)) *Output Usable (on a monthly basis) (PC.A.3.2.2(b)) Number & Type of Power Park Units within each Power Park Module (PC.A.3.2.2(k)) MVA SPD+ MW SPD+ SPD (see OC2 for specification) MW SPD (except in relation to CCGT Modules when required on a unit basis under the Grid Code, this data item may be supplied under Schedule 3) Power Park Unit Model A validated mathematical model in accordance with PC (a) Transfer function block diagram and algebraic equations, simulation and measured test results Power Park Unit Data (where applicable) Rated MVA (PC.A.3.3.1(e)) MVA SPD+ Rated MW (PC.A.3.3.1(e)) MW SPD+ Rated terminal voltage (PC.A.3.3.1(e)) V SPD+ Site minimum air density (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) kg/m 3 SPD+ Site maximum air density kg/m 3 SPD+ Site average air density kg/m 3 SPD+ Year for which air density data is submitted SPD+ Number of pole pairs Blade swept area m 2 Gear Box Ratio Stator Resistance (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) % on MVA SPD+ Stator Reactance (PC.A.3.3.1(e)) % on MVA SPD+ Magnetising Reactance (PC.A.3.3.1(e)) % on MVA SPD+ Rotor Resistance (at starting). (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) % on MVA Rotor Resistance (at rated running) % on MVA SPD+ (PC.A.3.3.1(e)) Rotor Reactance (at starting). (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) % on MVA Rotor Reactance (at rated running) % on MVA SPD (PC.A.3.3.1(e)) Equivalent inertia constant of the first mass (e.g. wind turbine rotor and blades) at minimum speed (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) Equivalent inertia constant of the first mass (e.g. wind turbine rotor and blades) at synchronous speed (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) Equivalent inertia constant of the first mass (e.g. wind turbine rotor and blades) at rated speed (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) Equivalent inertia constant of the second mass (e.g. generator rotor) at minimum speed (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) Equivalent inertia constant of the second mass (e.g. generator rotor) at synchronous speed (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) Equivalent inertia constant of the second mass (e.g. generator rotor) at rated speed (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) Equivalent shaft stiffness between the two masses (PC.A.5.4.2(b)) MW secs /MVA MW secs /MVA MW secs /MVA MW secs /MVA MW secs /MVA MW secs /MVA Nm / electrical radian SPD+ SPD+ SPD+ SPD+ SPD+ SPD+ SPD+ Date: 1 st May 2008 Page 31