Overview of Voltage Quality Monitoring in Europe Karstein Brekke, [email protected]

Frankfurt (Germany), 6-9 June 2011

Overview of Voltage Quality Monitoring

in Europe

Karstein Brekke, [email protected] member and former co-chair CEER EQS TF

Senior Engineer, Grid Section, Energy and Regulation

Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE)


CEER Members (NRAs) - EEA area

Karstein Brekke – Norway – RT 2a


EER documents including VQ

Third CEER Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply

Towards Voltage Quality Regulation An ERGEG Public Consultation paper Evaluation of comments received An ERGEG Conclusions Paper

Service Quality Regulation in Electricity Distribution and Retail Joint effort by CEER and FSR

4th CEER Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply

Energy Regulators’ pledge to ensuring good quality of electricity supply

GGP on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances

www.energy-regulators.eu



GGP on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances

C-2: Results from cost-estimation studies on customer costs due to voltage disturbances are important input1 on the consequences of various voltage disturbances when deciding where to focus regulation.

C-4: National Regulatory Authorities should perform nationwide cost-estimation studies regarding electricity interruptions and voltage disturbances.

C-7: Results and experience from cost-estimation studies shall be disseminated among interested stakeholders.

1. A cost-estimation study is not a prerequisite for introducing regulatory requirements on voltage quality. In particular requirements for continuous phenomena can be introduced without a cost-estimation study performed in advance, see also ERGEG Public Consultation and Conclusions papers on “Towards Voltage Quality Regulation in Europe”; Ref.: E06-EQS-09-03 and E07-EQS-15-03.


Voltage disturbances - survey on costs

Norway, 2002 (inhabitants, ca 5 M): Estimated annual costs due to dips for end-users to be

between 170 and 330 MNOK Sweden, 2003 (inhabitants, ca 9.5 M)

Estimated annual costs for industrial customers due to dips and interruptions at about 157 M€

Italy, 2006 (inhabitants, ca 60.6 M) Estimated annual costs due to dips and interruptions

(< 1 sec) for the whole production system to be between 465 and 780 M€

PAN European LPQI Power Quality Survey Costs of PQ wastage EU-25 exceeds 150 bln € annually



Voltage disturbances Continuous phenomena

Voltage events

Different disturbances require different kind of monitoring Aims regarding VQ monitoring



Where to monitor?

RP

22

kV

23

0 V

RP

SB

SB

SBSB SB

Kabelskap Kabelskap

RP

SB

RP

SB

13

2 k

V

42

0 k

V

SB



VQ Monitoring

Some conclusions from CEER: Voltage quality needs to be regulated The obligation for system operators to provide individual verification

of voltage quality to customers upon their request should be adopted by all countries, even in the absence of a former complaint by the requesting customer and in the absence of power quality contracts as well.

Countries should consider monitoring voltage quality continuously and publish results regularly. It is further recommended that CEER member countries disseminate experience among themselves and that an effort is made in order to consolidate the European view on voltage quality monitoring.



VQ Monitoring

Complaints/requests At least 18 European countries:

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE

I.e. still not applicable in (or not reported for) all EEA countries

Mainly continuous phenomena



VQ Monitoring

Continuous/ campaigns At least 11 European countries:

BE, CZ, DK, FR, GR, HU, IT, LU, NL, NO, PT Completely lack of harmonisation concerning:

Devices Voltage levels and disturbances to be monitoried Number and location of instruments Classification of results (e.g. dips/swells) Reporting and publication of results Regulatory recommendations on the use of instruments and voltage

transformers CEER: Harmonisation should include accuracy for the whole

measurement chain



Who see the needs for VQ Monitoring?

Complaints/requests At least regulators and customers, also DSOs/TSO?

Continuous/ campaigns Joint responsibility for VQM across stakeholders TSOs/DSOs (BE, CZ, DK, FR, LT, LU, NL, and more) Regulators/Authorities (GR, HU, IT, NO, PT, etc) Often a combination (see example next slide)



Norway – examples of different campaigns Late 80’s, beginning 90’s – VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN

Conducted by SINTEF, LV and MV, rms variations, voltage dips/swells and transient/impulses

1993-2003 – VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN Initiated by SINTEF/ national R&D programme, 44-73 instruments

installed, 700 measurement locations, almost all voltage disturbances, LV, MV, HV and EHV

2007 – ongoing – VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN Intitaied by SINTEF through 3 R&D projects, 25-28 measurement

locations, all voltage disturbances, LV, MV, HV and EHV, 2006 – ongoing – MANDATORY CAMPAIGN

TSO/DSOs obliged to continuously monitor voltage dips/swells and RVC in different characteristic networks above 1 kV


Purposes for Continuous VQ Monitoring


Some results



Hungary


Italy

Residual voltage u Duration t (ms)

(%) 20 < t ≤ 100

100 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 3,000

3,000 < t ≤ 60,000

Total

90 > u ≥ 85 19.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.6

85 > u ≥ 70 24.2 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 28.0

70 > u ≥ 30 13.6 2.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 16.7

30 > u ≥ 10 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9

10 > u 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4

Total 59.1 8.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 68.6

ITALY: voltage dips related to 380 kV – 220 kV network monitoring system (average number of voltage dips per point, per year, according to the UNIPEDE classification)


(%) 20 < t ≤ 100

100 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 3,000

3,000 < t ≤ 60,000

Total

90 > u ≥ 85 25.5 6.9 0.9 0.4 0.1 33.8

85 > u ≥ 70 24.4 6.3 0.6 0.2 0.0 31.5

70 > u ≥ 30 12.6 4.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 17.8

30 > u ≥ 10 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3

10 > u 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.7

Total 59.1 19.4 2.0 0.9 0.3 88.1

ITALY: voltage dips related to 150 kV – 132 kV network monitoring system (average number of voltage dips per point, per year, according to the UNIPEDE classification)


(%) 20 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

Total

90 > u ≥ 80 37.7 5.5 1.1 0.9 0.1 45.3

80 > u ≥ 70 19.9 4.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 24.7

70 > u ≥ 40 38.8 6.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 46.3

40 > u ≥ 5 12.5 2.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 15.5

5 > u 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Total 109.2 18.8 2.5 1.4 0.2 132.1

ITALY: voltage dips related to MV bus-bars in HV/MV substations (average number of voltage dips per point, per year, according to duration/residual voltage classes compliant with prEN 50160:2008)


Data reported


Concluding slide VQ needs to be regulated Real VQ data – important for understanding VQ and

for regulation Individual verification of voltage quality to customers ”Third Package” – regulatory power to monitor and setting

requirements for VQ Countries should consider monitoring voltage quality

continuously and publish results regularly Dissemination of experiences and results is envisaged Workshop on voltage quality monitoring

Harmonisation useful? – To what extent?


THANK YOU!


Date post:	16-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maura
View:	33 times
Download:	2 times

Overview of Voltage Quality Monitoring in Europe Karstein Brekke, [email protected]

Documents