PROMOTioN Kick off meeting Arnhem · TEN-T legacy from . 2007-2013 period . Marco Polo legacy from...

PROMOTioN

Kick off meeting

Arnhem

21-22 January 2016

PROMOTioN BON VOYAGE!!!

PROMOTioN

Biggest EC funded project in energy

35 partners from 12 countries

Major offshore energy and grid players

Finished in 2020

3 big scale pilot demonstrations

Blueprint for future offshore grid

Agenda day 1

Agenda day 1

Agenda day 2

Agenda day 2

PROMOTioN

Kick off meeting

Arnhem

21-22 January 2016

PROMOTION Kick off meeting Arnhem, 21-22 January 2016

Mariana Stantcheva Project Officer

INEA

Unit H1 Energy Research

1. PROMOTION and the Energy Union2. Role of Executive Agencies in implementing the

Horizon 2020 Energy Societal Challenge3. Horizon 2020 + Energy WPs4. Main outcomes of the Grant Preparation5. Contractual and administrative issues

(legal, financial)6. Visibility and Communication7. Do's and don'ts

Outline

3

Main Policy Elements

2030 Climate-Energy Package

Energy Union

Summer Package

Set-Plan & Integrated Roadmap

4

From 2020 to 2030

2020 2030 Green House Gas Reduction -20% -40% Share of Renewables 20% 27% Energy Efficiency Improvements 20% 27 %

Objectives for 2020 are binding, each Member states has a National Renewable Energy Action Plans with objectives

Objectives for 2030: GHG objective is binding, share of renewable: at least 27%, binding at EU level but no binding individual objective for MS

5

Energy Union

Integrated Interconnected Resilient Secure

1. Energy security, solidarity and trust

2. A fully integrated internal energy market

4. Transition to a low-carbon society

5. Research, Innovation, Competiveness

3. Energy Efficiency first

6

Four core priorities: – Number 1 in RES

– Consumer – smart grids, smart home appliances, smart cities, and home automation systems;

– Efficient energy systems

– More sustainable transport systems – innovation for increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy union – R&I pillar

Two additional research priorities: – A forward-looking approach to CCS and CCU for the power and industrial sectors

– Nuclear energy – the use of the highest standards of safety, security, waste management and non-proliferation; technological leadership to be maintained

7

Summer Package

- A European emissions Trading System fit for the future

- Energy efficiency label revision for more clarity

- Empowering energy consumers

- New energy market design

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5358_en.htm

Transforming Europe's energy system The Energy summer package

8

Towards an Integrated Set-Plan: 10 Key Actions

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/integrated-set-plan-fit-new-challenges

1) Technology leadership by developing highly performant renewables technologies and their integration in the system

2) Cost efficient key technologies – in the Northern and Baltic Seas for offshore wind energy systems, including deployment and maintenance technologies and techniques, and develop the associated grid system

Number one in RES












9

3) Smart homes, smart cities

4) Resilience, security and smartness of the energy system

Consumer at the centre of the future energy system

Towards an Integrated SET Plan

10

Towards an Integrated Set-Plan

5) New materials and technologies for energy efficiency solutions for buildings

6) Continue efforts to make EU industry less energy intensive and more competitive

Efficient energy systems

7) Become competitive in the global battery sector

8) Renewable fuels needed for sustainable transport solutions

Sustainable transport

11

Towards an Integrated Set-Plan

9) A forward-looking approach to carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and use (CCU)

10) Increase safety in the use of nuclear energy

EA: Partnership with the Commission

European Commission (EC) Defines the policy •Defines strategy, objectives and priority areas/work programmes •Selects projects for co-financing

•Makes programme decisions

•Evaluates the programme and the Agency's performance

Executive Agency (EA) Turns policy into action •Organises Calls for proposals

•Monitors the technical and financial implementation of projects

•Manages project life-cycle

•Ensures sound financial management

12

INEA's programmes

- CEF Transport - CEF Energy - CEF Telecoms

- H2020 Energy - H2020 Transport

TEN-T legacy from 2007-2013 period Marco Polo legacy from

2007-2013 period (before managed by EACI – now EASME)

13

Three priorities in Horizon 2020

•Excellent science

•Industrial leadership

•Societal challenges

Priority 3: Societal challenges Proposed funding 2014-2020 (€ million)

*Additional funding for nuclear safety and security from the Euratom Treaty activities (2014-2018)

16

17

Horizon 2020: Energy Societal Challenge

Policy actions DG RTD

DG ENER DG CONNECT

LCE & SCC INEA

Energy efficiency & SMEs EASME

FCH JU 2

What's new in Horizon 2020

A single programme bringing together three separate programmes/initiatives*

Coupling research to innovation – from research to retail, all forms of innovation

Focus on societal challenges facing EU society, e.g. health, clean energy and transport

Simplified access, for all companies, universities, institutes in all EU countries and beyond

The 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7), innovation aspects of Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), EU contribution to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

18

FP7 vs. H2020

19

FP7 vs. H2020

20

INEA's Portfolio

Low-Carbon Energy •2014: 62 projects, € 366m •2015: 48 projects, € 344m

Smart Cities •2014: 3 projects, € 72m •2015: 4 projects, € 103m

21

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

Budget 2014 - 2020 Total - € 11 billion

H2020 Energy Efficiency Projects •2014: 56 projects, € 104m •2015: 50-60 projects, ~ € 100m

22

Energy: INEA main areas for 2016

€86 million: Technology development €80 million: Demonstration

€74 million

€24 million

€27 million

More than €450 million of calls published in 2015 with deadlines in 2016: 16 Feb., 5 Apr. and 8 Sep.

23

LCE 1 – 5 Overview (WP 2016-2017)

24

The project and the Grant Agreement

25

Coordinator Project Officer Partners

Accountable to the EC Central contact point for the Commission Represents beneficiaries Administers the EU financial contribution Reviews the reports to verify consistency Monitors the compliance to the GA

Central contact point for the consortium Advisory role Ensures proper implementation Checks fulfilment of contractual obligations Processes payments

Accountable for their performance Report to the coordinator

Roles in project implementation

Contractual and administrative issues (legal, financial)

A.Grant Agreement Structure B.Third parties and sub-contractors C.Consortium agreement D.Amendments E.Reporting, payments, costs F.Communication G.Do's and Don'ts

27

Grant preparation of PROMOTION:

21 December 2015: Grant Agreement signed

1 January 2016: Official start of project Claim costs as of this date

Three reporting periods:

1: 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 2: 1 January 2017 – 30 June 2018 3: 1 July 2018 – 31 December 2019

Electronic communication Electronic signature

• Grant Ageement

• Amendments

• Financial statements and technical reports

Communication between the Commission and the beneficiaries • Through the Participant Portal

• Electronic-only submission of reports as a general rule

29

Successful Grant Management

High quality deliverables submitted through the Participant Portal

Periodic Reporting (12, 18, 18) Particular attention given to dissemination and exploitation Meetings: Kick-off meeting; Periodic Reviews; Final

meeting; Problem solving specific meetings

Management focusing on: Objectives versus Achievements Management and Collaboration Status Financial Aspects Exploitation and Dissemination of Results

30

Chapter 1: General subject of the agreement

• Title of action, start date, duration and budget

Chapter 2: Action

• Grant amount, reimbursement rates, eligible costs

Chapter 3: Grant

Chapter 4: Rights and obligations of the parties

•Obligations of beneficiaries and coordinator, consortium agreement

Chapter 5: Division of beneficiaries' roles and responsibilities

Chapter 6: Rejection of costs, reduction of the grant, recovery of undue amounts, penalties, liability for damages, suspensions, termination, force majeure

• Communication, amendments, accession, applicable law, disputes

Chapter 7: Final provisions

Terms and Conditions: A. Grant Agreement structure

A. Model Grant agreement CORE TEXT

Annex 1: Description of the action

Annex 2: Estimated budget of the action

Annex 3: Accession Forms

Annex 4: Financial statements

Annex 5: Certificate on the financial statements

Annex 6: Certificate on the methodology

THIRD PARTIES

B. Third parties and sub-contractors

Ben

efic

iary

Affiliated entities

Third parties with a legal link

Subcontractors

• Similar to FP7 Special Clause 10

• Must be identified in the GA

• Separate tasks / budget

• Same cost eligibility criteria like beneficiaries (Art. 6.3 GA)

• NEW: COM or Agency may request them to accept joint and several liability for their EU contribution

• Article 14 GA

Linked third parties

Ben

efic

iary

Affiliated entities

Third parties with a legal link

Subcontractors

• Ensure best value for money and avoid any conflict of interests

• Estimated costs and tasks must be identified in the budget and Annex 1

• NEW: if not identified in Annex 1, Commission may still approve them (beneficiary bears the risk of rejection)

• Article 13 GA

Linked third parties

!


34

Ben

efic

iary

Contracts necessary for the implementation

Contributions in kind

•For the purchase of goods, works or services

•Ensure best value for money and avoid any conflict of interests

•Article 10 GA

•Free of charge or against payment are eligible costs if they meet the eligibility conditions

•Must be set out in Annex 1 • NEW: if not identified in Annex 1, Commission may still approve them (beneficiary bears the risk of rejection)

•Articles 11 & 12 GA

!


35

C. Consortium agreement Compulsory Commission or Agency NOT PART Must exist once the Grant agreement enters into

force Key issues Distribution of funds Internal organisation of work, internal reporting IPR (to be decided before signature of contract) Risk management/collective responsibility Decision-making process Other

36

Art. 50 and Art. 55 of the Grant Agreement Submitted electronically by the Coordinator

Must provide a clear motivation, supported by documents

No change of the GA needed in some cases

Talk to the Project Officer first!

D. Amendments to the Grant agreement

37

D. Examples of amendments

Budget transfers

E. Reporting schedule: 48 months

Project Months

0

Periodic Report

Financial Statements (forms C)

Final Report

12 December 2016

30 June 2018

48 December 2019

40

Project Months 0 12

Continuous reporting

Contractual and administrative issues

All deliverables must be uploaded on the Participant Portal at their expected dates (according to Annex I)

WP2

WP1

30

…..

WP n

41

48

Deliverables


Each deliverable has to be formally approved by the PO:

Preparation and

submission (consortium)

Assessment (INEA)

Accepted

Rejected

Reopened

42

43

E. Reporting and payments Articles 17-21 • Periodic reports to be submitted by coordinator within 60 days after

end of reporting period Overview of progress of the work, including a publishable summary report; Use of the resources Financial Statement (Form C) from each beneficiary all C forms have to be encoded by the beneficiaries via the Participants’

Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal

• Final report to be submitted by coordinator 60 days after end of project Publishable summary report, conclusions and socioeconomic impact, Covering wider societal implications and a plan on exploitation

• The reports have to be submitted through the participant portal • For the final period: both a final report and a periodic progress report.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal

• Costs actually incurred, identifiable and verifiable, recorded in the accounts, etc. see Article 6 GA

• NEW: non-deductible VAT is now eligible

Actual costs

• A fixed amount per unit determined by the Commission Example: for SME owners not receiving a salary

• For average personnel cost (based on the usual accounting practices with possible certificate on the methodology)

Unit costs

• A percentage to be calculated on the eligible costs Example: 25% flat rate for indirect costs

Flat rate

E. Forms of Costs

44

Actual costs: Cost Categories

Personnel costs Art.6 • Hourly rate • In-house consultant

Subcontracting

• Best value for money • Demonstrable

Other direct costs

• Travel, goods and equipment (depreciation) VAT excluded (unless non-deductible)

Indirect costs

• 25% flat rate 45

E. Reimbursement of eligible costs Art. 5, 6, 21 Subject to approval of technical reports

Stated costs must be reasonable compared to work

Actual (or follow the rules e.g. unit costs)

Incurred during duration of project

In accordance with beneficiary’s usual accounting and management principles

No profit. All receipts must be reported!

Recorded in the accounts of beneficiary

Used for the sole purpose of achieving the objectives of the project

Ineligible costs will be rejected > reduction in payment

EU contribution % depending on legal status

E. Reimbursement of eligible costs

Staff working on the project must keep time records (hours they spend on the project; regularly (daily, weekly); countersigned by a supervisor

You must declare costs based on the actual amounts spent (MGA Article 5, Article 6(1)):

• Personnel Costs based on actual staff costs; • Other direct costs based on actual costs for the project (MGA Article 6,2 D); • Depreciation costs for assets; • Real costs of consumables

You cannot, under any circumstances, sub-contract to a project partner (MGA Article 13)

Don't charge costs incurred before the entry into force of the Grant Agreement


47

Travel costs and related subsistence allowances are part of the 'other direct cost' category

must be declared as actual costs and they must comply with the following conditions for eligibility:

fulfil the general conditions for actual costs to be eligible (i.e. incurred during the action duration, necessary, linked to the action, etc.; see Article 6.1(a))

must be necessary for the action (e.g. to present a paper explaining the results of a conference). Travel costs related to an event at which the beneficiary carried out work that was not specifically related to the action are NOT eligible.

costs related to extensions (for other professional or private reasons) are NOT eligible. must be adequately recorded.

must be in line with the beneficiary’s usual practices on travel If the beneficiary reimburses travel and/or related subsistence allowances as a lump sum

and/or per diem payment, it is the lump sum or per diem amount that is considered an eligible cost, not the actual prices paid by the person receiving the lump sum or per diem.

(For the purposes of the grant, these costs remain actual costs, NOT unit or lump sum costs under Article 5.2. They must be recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts and will be checked if there is an audit.)

48

If report is officially approved: The Commission has 90 days from receiving the PR to

evaluate and execute the corresponding payment

If there is NO official approval: Articles 49 and 50 • Project suspension - clock stop • Rejection - could end up in project termination • Payment suspension (full or partial)

E. Reporting and payments

49

Time-to-Pay From

One Pre-financing 30 days

→ Retention 5 % of maximum grant amount for the Guarantee Fund

Interim Payments 90 days From reception of periodic report

→ Based on financial statements, with limit = 90 % of the maximum grant amount (10% retention) NEW: No audit certificates needed for interim payments!

Payment of the Balance 90 days From reception of final report

Payments modalities

NEW: Audit certificates for final payment per beneficiary or third party only needed if total requested EU contribution ≥ 325 000 € for reimbursement of actual & unit costs calculated in accordance with usual cost accounting practices (ie. not indirect costs!)


50

Calculation of payments

Art. 47: Payment can be delayed, if

• Request is non-compliant with the GA • Reports not submitted, incomplete or insufficient • Doubt about eligibility of costs

Art. 47: Payment can be suspended, if:

• Suspicion of errors, irregularities, fraud or breach of obligations • Also in other EU projects • Any moment (notification required)

51

Exchange rate

Financial statements in €

Payments made in €

Exchange on the daily rate published in EU Journal

Exchange losses are ineligible (Art.6)

Questions? Talk to your Project Manager!

52

Suspension Termination Art. 47-49 At the initiative of the coordinator (force majeure) At the initiative of the Commission - poor performance or closed monitoring

Art. 50 At the initiative of the consortium At the Commission's initiative:

• Non accession of a beneficiary

• Non or poor performance

• Deliberate negligence or irregularity

• Contravention of ethical principles

• Force majeure

• Etc.

Controls & Sanctions See Articles 42-50

Controls • Financial audits and controls • Technical audits and reviews • Audits carried out by Commission or outside reviewers or auditors

Sanctions • Liquidated damages (if overstatement of expenditures) • Financial penalties (if false declarations) • Between 2% and 10% of the EC contribution

54

Guarantee Fund

Participant’s Guarantee Fund established amounting to 5% of total EC contribution

Belongs to all beneficiaries of Grant agreements under H2020

Financial interests generated by the Guarantee Fund will serve to cover against financial risks

The amount contributed to the Fund will be reimbursed at the end of the final payment after the end of the project

55

F. Dissemination and Communication Article 29 and 38 Obligation to disseminate and communicate in H2020, and

to multiple audiences (unless it goes against the legitimate interests of beneficiaries, or in case of commercial exploitation and IP protection)

Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge, online

access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results.

Give advance notice to the other beneficiaries of at least 45 days — unless agreed otherwise

Inform EC before engaging in any communication activity

expected to have a major media impact

56

EU support should be highlighted European emblem to be displayed Disclaimer on any communication ("Publicity reflects

the author’s view and the EU is not liable of any use…") Right for the EC to publish information on the project

(see II.12.2) All necessary authorisations for such publications have

been obtained by the consortium Guide for project participants:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/146012/communicating-research_en.pdf

Article 29

57



Acknoledgment of EU funding (Art 29.4 of the H2020 MGA)

58

Display the EU emblem: (http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/flag/index_en.htm) not the Commission logo:

59

For communications activities: “This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No [number].” For patents: "The project leading to this application has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No [number]." For standardisation activities: “Results incorporated in this standard received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No …”. For infrastructure, equipment and major results: "This [infrastructure][equipment][result] is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No [number]."

Acknoledgment of EU funding (Art 29.4 of the H2020 MGA)

Open access in Horizon 2020 Regulation establishing Horizon 2020

"To increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge, open access to scientific publications should be ensured. Furthermore, open access to research data resulting from publicly funded research under Horizon 2020 should be promoted, taking into account constraints pertaining to privacy, national security and intellectual property rights" Open access to scientific publications resulting from publicly funded research under Horizon 2020 shall be ensured [...]. Open access to research data resulting from publicly funded research under Horizon 2020 shall be promoted. [...].

60

Open access in Horizon 2020 Regulation establishing Horizon 2020

"To increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge, open access to scientific publications should be ensured. Furthermore, open access to research data resulting from publicly funded research under Horizon 2020 should be promoted, taking into account constraints pertaining to privacy, national security and intellectual property rights" Open access to scientific publications resulting from publicly funded research under Horizon 2020 shall be ensured [...]. Open access to research data resulting from publicly funded research under Horizon 2020 shall be promoted. [...].

61

From FP7 to H2020: OA to publications from pilot to underlying principle

FP7 Green open access pilot in 7 areas of FP7 with 'best effort' stipulation Allowed embargoes: 6/12 months Gold open access costs eligible for reimbursement as part of the project budget while the project runs

Horizon 2020 Obligation to provide OA, either through the Green or Gold way in all areas (deposition mandatory either way) Allowed embargoes: 6/12 months Gold open access costs eligible for reimbursement as part of the project budget while the project runs & post-grant support being piloted Authors encouraged to retain copyright and grant licences instead

62

What do we understand by OA? OA = online access at no charge to the user

to peer-reviewed scientific publications to research data

Two main OA publishing business models Self-archiving: 'traditional' publication plus deposit of manuscripts

in a repository ('Green OA') Both versions contain the same peer-reviewed content, but may be differently

formatted

OA publishing: immediate OA provided by publisher ('Gold OA')

usually, but not always, 'Author-pay' model (APC) some journals offer both subscriptions and open access publishing to selected on-

line articles (hybrid journals)

63

What OA is NOT

Not an obligation to publish Not at odds with patenting (see graph) OA publications go through the same peer review process

64

OA to publications: implications for GA preparation and project follow-up

Obligatory clause 29.2

Please, be aware

Monitoring as part of the project reporting

FAQ documents, factsheet and guidance published

65

What we expect from you

Know your Grant Agreement!

High-quality deliverables on time

Regular feedback to PO

Communication (stakeholders, website)

66

Resources – try it out

• Sherpa-Romeo: publisher policies • http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ • very few journals do not offer either green or gold

• Directory of Open Access Journals: • http://doaj.org/ • 10,039 Journals covered

• Directory of Open Access Books: • http://www.doabooks.org/

• Directory of Open Access Repositories: • http://www.opendoar.org/ and http://roar.eprints.org/

• As well as thematic initiatives, (PubMedCentral, arXiv.org), open access

publishers (e.g.PLoS) and of course…google scholar (not everything there is OA but quite a bit)

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

http://doaj.org/

http://www.doabooks.org/

http://www.opendoar.org/

http://roar.eprints.org/

Do's and Don'ts

Ensure interaction between partners Focus on outcomes/impacts Involve stakeholders Publish deliverables Mention sources when (re)using material:

risk plagiarism / not eligible cost Keep your website up to date!

68

Do's and Don'ts

Ensure reference to EU funding No logo > No payment!

Focus on quality! Badly documented activities: •Unsubstantiated hours/PMs claimed Long project/ (too) long deliverables •Insufficient reporting •Keep track of activities! •People, and priorities may change. Think ahead!

Not be late: Inform your PO ASAP to avoid late or reduced payments

69

Do's

Hourly Rates: • Use actual costs – the budget is only an estimate • Always keep your timesheets: unreconciled time sheets

could be a problem for payment • Clearly state hourly rates vs actual rates based on real

Supply copies of invoices Correctly reference the reporting period in

the financial statements

70

Do's Subcontracting

• Include project reference in the invoice • Explicitly mention selection criteria in the ToRs: best

value for money • Include info on how a sub-contractor was selected

Audit • Project can be audited any time (internally and

externally). Keep track of every single action and transaction!

• This may result in a recovery order

71

Last advice… Read the contract – annotated GA and the manual:

• http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf

• http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/grant-management_en.htm

Respect DDL Focus on outcome and results Constantly monitor progress Involve stakeholders Ask your Project Officer for advice!

72

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf




http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/grant-management_en.htm







Smart Grids related EU legislation & policy documents Electricity and Gas Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC

Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EC

Energy Infrastructure Regulation (EU) 347/2013

Electro-mobility Alternative Fuels Directive AFID, 2013/0012(COD)

Recommendation 2012/148/EU on smart metering roll-out

Recommendation 2014/724/EU Data Protection Impact Assessment Template

COM(2011)202 on Smart Grids

COM(2012)663 on the Internal Energy Market

COM (2013)7243 on IEM and public intervention

SWD(2013)442 on Demand Side Flexibility

COM(2014) 356 Benchmarking Report on Smart Metering & accompanying SWDs

IPR Helpdesk

https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/

74

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Contact:

[email protected]

http://inea.ec.europa.eu/

Disclaimer: The opinions in this presentation are those of the author and do not commit in any way the European Commission

mailto:[email protected]

http://inea.ec.europa.eu/

PROMOTioN

Kick off meeting

Arnhem

21-22 January 2016

Pim Jacobs

January-21-2016

Pim Jacobs

January-21-2016

Work Package 1 Requirements for meshed offshore grids

Work Package 1 January-21-2016 Work Package 1 January-21-2016

WP 1 – Introduction WP Leader

Name: Pim Jacobs Job title: Advisor Company: TenneT TSO Stationed in: Arnhem Email: [email protected] Department: System Operations Background: Asset management and

Long term grid planning, Electrical Engineer

The system operations department is responsible for ensuring security of supply in the electricity system for now and in the future. Future developments like the offshore grid will have an impact that needs to be assessed.


WP1 – Requirements… Full name: “Requirements for meshed offshore grids” Goal of this work package:

• Align between the various work packages the requirements

• Ensure consistency and interoperability in the path towards the end of

the project

• Identify relevant work which is already carried out

• Set deployment scenario’s that are used in the frame of this study

• Define parameters for the cost-benefit analysis


WP1 - Requirements • Requirements, Reference scenarios and

Fundamental topologies • TenneT, Tractebel, Iberdrola, RWTH, Strathclyde, DTU, DONG

Energy

Task 1.1

• Studies, available and emerging technologies • Tractebel, RWTH, Strathclyde, RTE, Iberdrola, DTU Task 1.2

• Assessment of inputs from existing offshore connections and grids

• Iberdrola, Tractebel, SOW; Carbon Trust, RWTH, TenneT, DONG Energy

Task 1.3

• Initial roadmap for the evacuation of offshore renewable generation

• EIRGRID, Tractebel, TU Delft, TenneT, Energinet, DONG Energy Task 1.4

• Re-evaluate requirements based on work of other packages

• TenneT, Tractebel, EIRGRID, Energinet, RTE Task 1.5


WP1 – Requirements… Internal organisation of WP1

Task 1.4 - Initial roadmap

Time

Task 1.5 Re-evaluation requirements

Task 1.1 – Requirements

M0

M3

M9

M12

M24

Task 1.2 – Available studies / material

Task 1.3 - Experiences


WP1 – Requirements… Challenges for WP1 … … getting 21 partners engaged and working … getting the first milestone out in Month 3

(qualitative set of requirements) … going through the PROMOTioN approval process for the first

milestone approved … formulating the requirements in such a way that it is not too

restrictive but also not too open


WP1 – Requirements… In order to be successful, WP1 will : • not invent new things but build on existing work • not enforce requirements but deliver transparent requirements • not set new standards but will pave a part of the path for WP 11 In order to be successful, WP1 needs to: • Collect requirements timely from other WPs

• Contribution of WP leaders is needed • Address conflicting requirements and propose solutions

• Early in the project for the benefit of the whole project

Liability and copyright of TenneT

Disclaimer

This PowerPoint presentation is offered to you by TenneT TSO B.V. ('TenneT'). The content of the presentation – including all texts, images and audio fragments – is protected by copyright laws. No part of the content of the PowerPoint presentation may be copied, unless TenneT has expressly offered possibilities to do so, and no changes whatsoever may be made to the content. TenneT endeavours to ensure the provision of correct and up-to-date information, but makes no representations regarding correctness, accuracy or completeness. TenneT declines any and all liability for any (alleged) damage arising from this PowerPoint presentation and for any consequences of activities undertaken on the strength of data or information contained therein.


TenneT is Europe’s first cross-border grid operator for electricity. With about 21,000 kilometres of (extra) high-voltage lines and 36 million end-users in the Netherlands and Germany, we rank among the top five grid operators in Europe. Our focus is to develop a North-west European energy market and to integrate renewable energy.

www.tennet.eu

Taking power further


www.tennet.eu


Institut für Hochspannungstechnik 21.01.2016

Work Package 2: Grid Topology and Converters RWTH Aachen


Introduction

24

Scope: Compare different topologies with different control and operational concepts to ensure the interoperability of components in meshed HVDC offshore grids

Work Package Leader:

Participants:


Objectives

25

Overview WP2

Identification of requirements for offshore

protection concept Multiterminal grids Meshed grids

Feasibility assessment Interoperability of different converter types (DRU/

MMC-HB/ MMC-FB) Interoperability of multivendor systems (control and

protection strategies) Meshed offshore grids

Analysis of Grid Code Compliance

Participation in standardization for HVDC (offshore) grids


Outline of WP 2

26

2.1 Definition of model parameters, control objectives and operational assumptions for the meshed HVDC offshore topologies Different converter types: Half- / Full-bridge, MMC or cascaded two-level converters, DRU Different operational strategies Different Wind Park types

2.2 Adaption of simulation models for the meshed HVDC offshore topologies Different simulation software tools: Matlab, PowerFactory, Netomac, PSCAD, ViaVento, Eurostag

2.3 Simulative investigation and functionality demonstration of the meshed HVDC offshore topology system interoperability by simulation Stationary/ Transient/ EMT Different scopes of software tools

2.4 Define recommendations for minimum requirements on onshore and offshore power systems


Timeline

27

Divided into four tasks: 1. Definition of model parameters, control objectives and

operational assumptions for the meshed HVDC offshore topologies D 2.1: Grid topology and model specification

2. Adaption of simulation models for the meshed HVDC offshore topologies D 2.2: Scenario and test case specification

3. Simulative investigation and functionality demonstration of the meshed HVDC offshore topology system interoperability D 2.3: Simulation results and benchmark

4. Define recommendations for minimum requirements on onshore and offshore power systems D 2.4: Requirements for grid code extension

Ta

sk 2

.1

T 2.

2 Ta

sk 2

.3

Task

2.4

March 2016 (M03)

January 2017 (M13)

July 2017 (M19)

September 2018 (M33) January 2019 (M37)

July 2019 (M43)

10 M

6 M

14 M

Overview WP2


Integration in Project

28

Overview WP2

WP1: Requirements for meshed offshore grids

WP2: Grid Topology and

Converters

WP3: Wind turbine-

Converters Interaction

WP4: DC Grid protection

system development

WP5: Test environment

for HVDC circuit

breakers

WP6: HVDC Circuit

Breaker Performance Characterisati

on

WP7: Regulation

and financing WP8: Wind Farm Demonstrator

WP9: Demonstration of DC grid protection

has

WP10: Circuit Breaker performance demonstration

WP11: Harmonization towards standardization

WP12: Deployment plan for future European offshore grid development

Running in parallel Interaction & information exchange


Next Steps

29

Kickoff-Meeting WP2: March / April 2016 (possibly with other WPs)

Task 2.1: Definition of model parameters, control objectives and operational assumptions for the meshed HVDC offshore topologies

1. Discuss requirement specifications provided by WP 1 (M2.1): Fundamental input on grid relating data: nominal and short circuit powers of grids and WPPs, length and types of connections, existing grid code requirements, topologies to be considered etc.

2. Define model specifications, operational assumptions and control objectives e.g.: Converter models: VSC, DRU; Grid code compliance; Multi-Terminal control scheme etc. Consideration of different simulation tools: Matlab, Netomac, PSCAD, Power factory Support by Iberdrola on design and exploitation of offshore wind farms

Support by Prysmian on cable parameters and modelling approaches

WP3 – Wind Turbine – Converter Interaction

Nicolaos A. Cutululis Wind Power Integration and Control PROMOTioN Kick off meeting 21-22 January Arnhem

DTU Wind Energy, Technical University of Denmark

Add Presentation Title in Footer via ”Insert”; ”Header & Footer”

Objectives of WP3 Wind Turbine – Converter Interaction

The main objective of this work package is to identify and specify appropriate analyses to demonstrate the interoperability of the wind turbine (WT) and wind power plant (WPP) controls with two different types of HVDC systems: diode rectifiers (DR) and VSC converters respectively to connect the wind power plants to the DC network. The tests will be formulated such, that they serve as a basis for type technical compliance testing of both WT and WPP. The goals are:

– to analyse the functional requirements to WPPs connected to DR- and VSC-HVDC

– to identify and specify general control algorithms

– to define and demonstrate compliance evaluation procedures by simulations and tests

31 2016-01-21 Promotion WP3



Work plan of WP3 Wind Turbine – Converter Interaction

Structure

• Task 3.1 Functional requirements to WPP (M03-12). Leader: DTU • Task 3.2 General control algorithms (M09-24). Leader: DTU. • Task 3.3 Compliance evaluation procedure (M21-27). Leader: FGHeV • Task 3.4 Compliance evaluations based on detailed numerical simulations (M25-

48). Leader: UPV

Promotion WP3 32 2016-01-21

Work Package number 3 Start date or starting event: M03– M42

Work Package title Wind Turbine – Converter Interaction Participant number 18 1 2 17 - 19 20 21 22 25 27 29 30 - 34 Participant short name

DT

U

DN

V G

L (U

K)

AB

B

Siem

ens

Siem

ens W

P

RW

TH

UPV

FGH

eV

DO

NG

Ene

rgy

Stat

kraf

t

Iber

drol

a

Stra

thcl

yde

Adw

en

AD

WEN

Gm

bH

MV

OW

Ener

gine

t.dk

Person months per participant 54 6 4 12 15 9 42 15 8 2 6 30 16 16 32 2



Deliverables of WP3 Wind Turbine – Converter Interaction

• Deliverables – D3.1. Report with the detailed functional requirements to WPPs

connected to DR/VSC, including detailed specifications for WTG and aggregated wind park models (DTU M12)

– D3.2. Report with the detailed specifications of the control strategies and the simulations test cases (UPV M15)

– D3.3. Models for control of WT/WPP connected to DR-HVDC (DTU M24)

– D3.4. Operation of WPPs connected to DR-HVDC (USTRAT M24) – D3.5. Performance of ancillary services provision from WPPs

connected to DR-HVDC (DTU, M24) – D3.6. Report with the compliance test procedures for DR and VSC

connected WPPs (FGHeV M27) – D3.7 Report with the compliance evaluation results using simulations

(UPV M42) – D3.8 List of requirement recommendations to adapt and extent

existing grid codes (RWTH M42)

Promotion WP3 33 2016-01-21

Kickoff Promotion WP4 presentation

Date: 22/1/2015

Arnhem

Dirk Van Hertem KU Leuven

Objectives This WP aims to develop multivendor DC grid protection system. The

goal is: to develop a set of functional requirements for various DC grids: from

small scale to large overlay grids and for a variety of system configurations and converter topologies to analyse a wide range of DC grid protection philosophies on a

common set of metrics to identify the best performing methods for the systems under study to develop detailed protection methodologies for the selected

methods to develop configurable multi-purpose HVDC protection IEDs to

enable testing of the methodologies to investigate the key influencing parameters of protection systems on

the cost-benefit evaluation

Deliverables D4.1: Definition of representative test cases for DC grid protection

and functional requirements for DC grid protection methodologies (M12)

D4.2: Report on the broad comparison of protection philosophies for the identified grid topologies (M18)

D4.3: Report on performance, interoperability and failure modes of selected protection methods (M36)

D4.4: Preparation of protection methodologies for testing in the MTTE environment (M30)

D4.5: Requirements for DC switchgear [joint deliverable with WP5] (M42)

D4.6: Functional HVDC protection IED including documentation (M36)

D4.7: Preparation of cost-benefit analysis from a protection point of view (M42)

Milestones MS21: Identified list of top candidate protection philosophies for the

proposed grid topologies (M18) MS22: Protection IED with algorithms sent for testing to WP9 (M30) MS23: Determination of protection system performance in terms of

interoperability and failure modes [input for WP11] (M36)

WP4: worktable 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

LEAD Statoil KUL KUL KTH SGI

Dirk Van Hertem

Kamran Sharifabadi

TBD TBD Staffan Norrga

Bruno Luscan/ Serge Poulain

Period 3-12 8-20 18-42 22-40 3-42

Functional requirements and test systems

Screening protection methods

In depth analysis of selected methods

Multi-purpose programmable relay

CBA analysis

Total (DOW) Total (proposal) 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

DNV GL 6 2 2

DNV GL Norway 10 10 10

ABB 12 12 2 3 7

KU Leuven 109 109 6 42 45 4 12

KTH 56 56 20 36

Eirgrid 4 4 4

SGI 97 97 4 28 45 20

UJF 4 0

MEU 8 7.5 2 1.5 2 2

SvK 2 2 2

RTE 4 4 4

STATOIL 4 4 4

TENNET 2 2 2

Siemens 10 10 2 3 5

RWTH 24 24 2 12 10

Tractebel 3 3 3

Iberdrola 2 0

SHE transmission 6 6 2 2 2

total 363 352.5 38 102.5 136 42 34

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016

WP5: Test environment for HVDC circuit breakers

40

Cees Plet / Nadew Belda / Rene Smeets

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016

Test environment for HVDC circuit breakers

41

short-circuits in meshed AC-DC system

modelling of proto-type DC breakers

interaction of DC breakers with system

stress assessment to breaker

test requirements

definition of test circuit

testing

standardization recommendations

X X

CIGRE B4 test-system

who to provide “benchmark” system?

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016

HVDC current interruption principle

42

1 nominal & interruption

2 commutation & interruption

3 counter voltage creation

4 energy absorption

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016

Types and Proposed Designs

Active Current Injection Hybrid Power Electronic

43

WP 6 – HVDC Circuit Breaker Performance Characterisation

Dragan Jovcic

University of Aberdeen

44


Partners: UAbdn, TU DELFT, MELCO, ABB, ALSTOM, DNV-GL

Objectives:

45

Objectives Lead partners

6.1 To develop and verify system-level real-time model for hybrid and mechanical DC CB

UAbdn, DELFT

ABB, ALSTOM, MELCO, SGI DNV-GL

6.2 To develop and verify detailed component level model for hybrid and mechanical DC CB

UAbdn, DELFT

ABB, ALSTOM, MELCO, SGI DNV-GL

6.3 To develop and verify kW-size hardware prototypes for hybrid and mechanical DC CBs

UAbdn

6.4 To demonstrate DC CB failure modes on kw-size hardware prototypes

UAbdn

6.5 To develop roadmap for hybrid DC CB scaling to EHV DC voltage UAbdn 6.6 To develop roadmap for mechanical DC CB scaling to EHV DC

voltage DELFT MELCO


Partners: UAbdn, TU DELFT, MELCO, ABB, ALSTOM, SGI

Deliverables:

Budget: Euro 1.9million

46

• D6.1: Real-time models for hybrid DC CBs (UniAbdn, M09) • D6.2: Real-time models for mechanical DC CBs (TU Delft, M09) • D6.3: Detailed component-level model for hybrid DCCBs (UniAbdn, M20) • D6.4: Detailed component-level model for mechanical DCCBs (TU Delft, M42) • D6.5: Hardware prototypes of DC CBs (200V, 400A) at Uni. laboratory (UniAbdn, M22) • D6.6: Demonstration and report on DC CB failure modes study (UniAbdn, M36) • D6.7: Techno-economic roadmap for hybrid DC CB scaling to EHV DC voltage (UniAbdn, M30) • D6.8: Techno-economic roadmap for mechanical DC CB scaling to EHV voltage (TU Delft, M30)


WP6 Workplan

47


WP6 Milestones: M6.1: Hybrid and mechanical DC CB System level model completed. Model verified and project moves to detailed modelling. Models delivered to WP4 and WP5 (M09)

M6.2: Hardware DC CB prototypes completed. Models tested and project moves to failure mode testing and demonstration (M22)

M6.3: Techno-economic studies and roadmap for hybrid and mechanical DC CB completed (M30)

M6.4: Validated models delivered to WP9 (M30)

48

Daimy Abdoelkariem

January-21-2016

PROMOTioN

PROMOTioN January-21-2016

WP7 - Scope of work • Assuming more benefits than costs; no technical barriers • Building on topologies identified in WP1 (e.g. radial, tri-pot, meshed) • Greenfield approach for regulating the North Sea Grid Objective to develop the appropriate framework for integrated offshore electricity transmission infrastructures - in legal, economic and financial properties - and with aim to: i) foster efficient investments by creating a level playing field

ii) coordinate offshore grid development and wind farm connections iii) ensure financeability (or bankability)


WP7 - Deliverables & milestones

Deliverables D7.1 a) intermediate document legal framework (RUG, M18)

b) final report (RUG, M40)

D7.2 a) intermediate document on economic framework (EUI, M18) b) final report (EUI, M40)

D7.3 a) intermediate document financial/governance framework (DWG/KUL, M18) b) final report (DWG/KUL, M40)

D7.4 stakeholder report (SOW, M22)

D7.5 a) intermediate document on policy recommendation (TenneT, M24). b) final policy recommendation package (TenneT, M42)

Milestones M1 relevant input WP1 (M03)

M2 kick-off stakeholder workshop

M3 submittal to WP12 for Deployment plan (M42)

Next steps Plan for first year activities (WP7 working session, 22 Jan, 11:15-12:30)

Detailed task plans by task leader (M03/M04)


WP7 – Core team

Partners Contacts

RUG (Task lead 7.1) Martha Roggenkamp

EUI (Task lead 7.2) Nico Keyaerts; Leonardo Meeus

DWG (Task lead 7.3) Gerhard Gerdes; Alexandra Armeni

SOW (Task lead 7.4) Dennis Kruse

TenneT (Task lead 7.5) Daimy Abdoelkariem KU Leuven Leonardo Meeus

Iberdrola Luis Martin Blazquez; Inigo Azpiri Irazabal

Carbon Trust Tobias Verfuss

T&D Europe Massimiliano Margarone

DNV GL Muhammad Jafar

Confidential © Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved. Answers for energy

Workpackage 8 Wind Farm Demonstrator Prototype

PROMOTioN Kickoff: 21.-22.1.16 Arnhem

Jan 2016

Confidential © Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved. Page 54 Kickoff meeting, Arnhem 21.-22.1.16

New DC grid access offshore topology

Onshore HVDC converter station

Onshore HVDC converter station

OSS Distributed small DC platforms

Large central DC platform

Confidential © Siemens AG 2015 All rights reserved.

January 16 Page 55 EM TS

Simplified single line diagram

66kV

213kV DC

66kV AC

+-320kV DC

66kV AC

Jan 2016


Demonstrator set-up: Parallel to existing grid connection

= ~

Back-to-Back on land

Power Grid

Original offshore equipment installed in an "offshore fashion"

Existing wind farm onshore

Jan 2016


Main objectives of WP8

Develop technical solutions for Diode Rectifier connected Windfarms

Investigate and analize possible realization options

Identify stakeholders and necessary preconditions

Compare different and feasible options – Pros and Cons

Prepare for GO/NO GO milestone and if applicable in case of GO decision:

Detailed Design work and realization

Operation of Demonstrator plant

Jan 2016


Possible test site: Klim onshore windfarm

Site: Klim Fjordholmevei

Province: Northern Jutland

Power: 22(21) x 3 MW D3 Turbines

Owner: Vattenfall

Equipm.: Siemens WTG‘s

Voltage: 20kV

Proj.status: under construction

In service: Sep 2016

Grid voltage: 150kV

Grid owner: Energinet DK

Jan 2016


Demonstrator Plant: Layout option

Work Package 9 -

Demonstration of DC grid

protection.

Paul A Neilson

Yash Audichya

Main Control RTDS System

Corporate Network

Training Office

C&P Interface Workstation

Control & Protection Panels

Relay Interface

Workstation Protection Relays

Description of Work Package Tasks • Task 9.1 Integrate protection relays and DC CB models

from WP4 (M30-M32). • Task 9.2 Develop DC grid benchmark RTDS models for

RTDS simulation environment (M32-M38). • Task 9.3 Develop DC grid protection testing procedures

and guidelines environment (M30-M42). • Task 9.4 Demonstrate DC grid protection using

hardware in the loop real-time testing (M38-M42). • Task 9.5 Demonstrate protection interoperability (M42-

M44). • Task 9.6 Demonstrate primary and back-up protection

and system level consequences of protection failure (M45-M48).

Deliverables • D9.1: Real-time models for benchmark DC grid

systems (M38) • D9.2: DC grid protection testing guidelines (M42) • D9.3: Protection system demonstration (SHE

Transmission, M42) • D9.4: Demonstration of protection system

interoperability and primary and back-up protection (M48)

• D9.5: Demonstration of protection system for DC Grids (M48)

Milestones • M9.1: Digital models, Relays, and C&P

cubicles integration with RTDS Racks (M32) • M9.2: Models for benchmark DC Grid

systems completed (M38) • M9.3: Protection system demonstration

(M42) • M9.4: Demonstration of protection system

interoperability and primary and back-up protection (M48)

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Ungraded

17 January 2016

WP10: circuit breaker performance demonstration

66

Rene Smeets / Nadew Belda

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016

Demonstration of HV DC circuit breaker testing

67

short-circuits in meshed AC-DC system

modelling of proto-type DC breakers

interaction of DC breakers with system

stress assessment to breaker

test requirements

definition of test circuit

testing

standardization recommendations

WP6 (modelling of subcomponents)

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016

Current interruption: candidate circuits

68

Fault suppression time

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

17 January 2016

Full-power HVDC demonstration with AC sources

69

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10

Under expansion

TO

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6

WP11 – Harmonization towards standardization

Prof. Poul Sørensen Wind Power Integration and Control



Objectives of WP11 Harmonization towards standardization

• The overall objective of WP11 is to support and establish harmonization of the industry’s best practices, standards and requirements for HVDC grid systems and DC connected offshore wind power plants

– Based on findings in other WPs – Work in existing bodies (IEC / CENELEC / CIGRÉ / ++) – Support variety of manufacturer concepts

• The more specific objectives of WP11 are: – to provide a consistent and harmonised set of functional

specifications to HVDC systems, wind power plants and other AC systems connected to the HVDC systems;

– to recommend test procedures for converters, protection systems / components, wind turbines and plants;

– to provide functional specifications for models of HVDC systems including wind power plants;

– to recommend best practice for compliance validation of wind power plants connected to HVDC systems.

71 2016-01-21 Promotion WP11



Work plan of WP11 Harmonization towards standardization

• Task 11.1 Coordination and harmonization across working groups (M25-48). Leader: DTU

• Task 11.2 Contributions to CENELEC TC8X WG06 on system aspects of HVDC grids (M25-48). Leader: RWTH.

• Task 11.3 Contribution to relevant working groups in CIGRE (M25-48). Leader: Statoil

• Task 11.4 Contribution to Standards for Wind Power Plants (IEC TC88) (M25-48). Leader: DTU

• Task 11.5 Recommendations to grid codes (M31-48). Leader: FGHeV • Task 11.6 Recommendations for best-practices in compliance evaluation (M37-48).

Leader: FGHeV

Promotion WP11 72 2016-01-21

Work Package number 11 Start date M25– M48 Work Package title Harmonization towards standardisation Participant number 18 1 2 3 8 10 12 14 17 19 21 22 25 27 Participant short name

DT

U

DN

V G

L

ABB

KU

Leu

ven

MEU

Als

tom

RTE

Stat

oil

Siem

ens

RWTH

FGH

eV

DO

NG

Ene

rgy

Stat

kraf

t

Iber

drol

a

Person months per participant 28 6 4 8 2 8 2 4.5 3 13 14 3 1.5 5



Deliverables of WP11 Harmonization towards standardization

• Deliverables – D11.1. Report with harmonised functional specifications of HVDC

systems and WPPs respectively (RWTH PU M46) – D11.2. White paper on test procedures for WPPs connected to HVDC

systems (DTU PU M36) – D11.3. Report with recommendations to grid codes (FGHeV PU M42) – D11.4. Report with recommendations to best practice for compliance

evaluation (FGHeV PU M42) – D11.5. Report with recommendations on harmonised requirements

for tests and models of WPPs connected to HVDC systems (DTU PU M45)

– D11.6. White paper on harmonisation of models for WPPs connected to HVDC systems (DTU PU M46)

• Milestones – M11.1. Harmonised functional specifications of HVDC systems and

WPPs (M46) – M11.2. Recommendations received from WP2 to 6 (M36)

Promotion WP11 73 2016-01-21



Promotion WP11 74 2016-01-21



Promotion WP11 75 2016-01-21



Promotion WP11 76 2016-01-21



Promotion WP11 77 2016-01-21



Promotion WP11 78 2016-01-21

German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation (SOW) – Work package leader of WP 13 Dissemination

PROMOTioN Kick-Off Meeting, January 21-22, 2016

o Founded in 2005 as an independent, non-profit organisation to promote the utilization and research of offshore wind

o Acquisition of ownership rights (permit) of alpha ventus – moderated/accompanied process

o Platform for offshore wind/maritime industry, incl. trade associations, policy-makers and research

o Involved in various EU and national projects, e.g. Baltic InteGrid, windspeed, Seanergy 2020 - consultation, support and moderation

German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation (SOW)

80 | 21 January 2016 | PROMOTioN - Kick-Off Meeting

M01-04

• Development of a specific project identity (templates for PowerPoint, reports, papers, flyer, rollups …) • M06-48 – external communication via marketing material and media work

M04-48

• Development of website and newsletter (the website will be used to communicate the scope and objectives, results and deliverables of the project to all interested parties and the general public.) • M05 – beta version of website • M07 – website launched

M04-48

• Development of an intranet (as a part of Website, for project partners and stakeholder groups to exchange knowledge and data)

All deliverables supported by communication agency (subcontractor)

WP 13 Dissemination Main communication tools – first deliverables

| 21 January 2016 81 | PROMOTioN - Kick-Off Meeting

M06-48

• Publications (papers, articles, reports, conf. presentations …)

M06, 12, 18, …

• Development of a targeted mailing list (to support the communication activities of the project, a targeted mailing list will be created, to address the key stakeholders and target groups.)

M06-48

• Interaction with stakeholders and other initiatives via workshops, seminars and side events • M06 – first convention of Reference-Group, combined with GA meeting

M12-48

• Regional/external and internal events on special topics • M24-30 – Intermediate Conference (according to proposal)

Main communication tools – first deliverables

| 21 January 2016 82 | PROMOTioN - Kick-Off Meeting

• To communicate the results and progess of the project we need to be informed about all important developments in the different work packages

• We need regular updated information about the core activities in the project

• For successful extern communication we need continuous content from the project partners please name your contact persons for communication

• To design a roadmap for internal and external communication and develop specific tools

Participants

83 | 21 January 2016 | PROMOTioN - Kick-Off Meeting

• TenneT (WP1, 7, 12)

• RWTH (WP2) • DTU (WP3, 11)

• KU Leuven (WP4)

• DNV GL (WP5, 10, 14)

• UniAbdn (WP6)

• Siemens (WP8)

• SHE Transmission (WP9)

Main challenges

Thank you for your attention!

Andreas Wagner (CEO) [email protected]

Philipp Kalweit (project manager) [email protected]

Sebastian Sahm (press officer) [email protected]

German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation

Oldenburger Straße 65 D-26316 Varel Berlin office Schiffbauerdamm 19 D-10117 Berlin

[email protected] www.offshore-stiftung.de

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Ungraded

17 January 2016

WP14: Project management

85

Paul Raats

DNV GL ©

Project Management Group for the first 6 months

86

Pim Jacobs1

Gregor Nikolic2

Alexander

Sebastian Winter R&D Coor

Andreas Wagner13

Daimy Abdoelkariem7

Dirk van Hertem4

René Smeets5

Nicolaos Cutululis3

Dragan Jovcic6

Paul

Cees Marga

WP14

DNV GL ©

Project Management Structure

87

WP14

DNV GL ©

Decision-making

88

Proj Mgt

aspectDecision-making GA PMG

R&D

CoorWPL Partner

Advisory

Board

sub-project deliverables decide monitor preparechanges in task assignment decide advice preparesub-project completion, termination, extension decide proposepremature project completion/termination decide propose advicebudget changes decide proposebudget use advice decideacceptance of new partners decide propose adviceexclusion of partners decide propose advice(re)structuring of work packages decide advice proposealteration of the consortium agreement decide propose adviceannual implementation plan prior to submission decide preparepress releases decide prepare

Quality

Orga-insation

Infor-mation

Money

Time

WP14

DNV GL © SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL ©

PROMOTioN

Kick off meeting

Arnhem

21-22 January 2016

Pim Jacobs

January-21-2016

Pim Jacobs & Niek de Groot

January-21-2016

Work Package 1 Requirements for meshed offshore grids


WP1 – Requirements… Ambition for today • Get the persons and contacts for the tasks 1.1 till 1.4

• Get an initial set of requirements to for the project

• Make a start with getting a common understanding of requirements


WP1 – Requirements… For Parties in WP1: Contact me and let me know the persons to the tasks Free time session : • Meet WP1 partners, have a coffee

• Fill the table

Partner Man Months TenneT 28 Tractebel 24 RWTH 12 T&D Europe 11 RTE 8 Iberdrola 8 Alstom 6 SOW 6 TU Delft 5 DTU 5 Strathclyde 5 DNV GL 4 EIRGRID 4 Carbon Trust 4 Statoil 3 DONG Energy 3 SGI 2 FGHev 1,5 DWG 1 Statkraft 1 SHE Transmission 1


WP1 – Requirements… Internal organisation of WP1

Task 1.4 - Initial roadmap

Time

Task 1.5 Re-evaluation requirements

Task 1.1 – Requirements

M0

M3

M9

M12

M24

Task 1.2 – Available studies / material

Task 1.3 - Experiences


WP 1.1 – Introduction Task Leader

Name: Niek de Groot Job title: Advisor DC Interconnectors Company: TenneT TSO Stationed in: Arnhem Email: [email protected] Department: DC Interconnectors Offshore Background: Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management (TU Delft) • DCO Department: Development, construction and asset

management of DC offshore interconnectors >> NorNed, development of BritNed, NordLink, COBRAcable

• Personal role: Development/ implementation of market design


WP 1.1 – Requirements Task 1.1 Define • Requirements, Reference scenarios and Fundamental topologies

First focus: Qualitative requirements to fulfil Milestone 1.1


WP 1.1 – Requirements Process towards Milestone 1.1

• Input Kick-off • Review by

email Iteration

1

• Physical meeting WP 1.1

• Drafting within WP 1.1

Iteration 2


• Review by email

Iteration 3


• Review by email • Formal review

process

Iteration 4

Goal Who

- Initial list of requirements

General assembly

- Extending list - Refinement - Discussion

WP1.1

- Agreement WP1

- ‘Draft set of requirements’

WP 1.1 + WP leaders

- Refinement - Formal

review Milestone M1.1

WP 1.1 + WP leaders + General assembly


WP1.1 - Requirements K

ick-

off

First input from WPs

First list of requirements

Working agreement WP1

Review by email

Itera

tion

2

Task 1.1 contributors build on input kick-off

Task 1.1 internal WP iteration

Itera

tion

3

Task 1.1 contributors finalize ‘Draft agreed qualitative set of requirements’

WPs 2-7 are asked to review

Itera

tion

4

Task 1.1 to process comments general assembly

‘Draft agreed qualitative set of requirements’ is subjected to formal review round

Today Week 5

Week 6/7

Week 8

Week 10

Week 15

20-4-2016

21

Contribution WP leaders Physical meeting WP 1.1 Formal review Milestone 1.1 by General assembly


WP 1.1 – Requirement Examples?

Promotion shall: The system shall:

Imposed by: Imposed by: Imposed by: Imposed by:

The system must:


WP1.1 – Input from WPs


WP1.1 – Input from WPs WP WP leader Requirements Impacts WP:

2 • Example 1: • Example 2: • Example 3:






Liability and copyright of TenneT

Disclaimer




www.tennet.eu



www.tennet.eu


Work Package 1 January-21-2016 Work Package 1 January-21-2016 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL ©

PROMOTioN

Kick off meeting

Arnhem

21-22 January 2016

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded


Ungraded

21 January 2016 Marga van Deelen-Bremer

FINANCIAL REPORTING

1

PROMOTioN – Kick-off meeting

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

REPORTING PERIODS

Reporting to the European Commission

Periodic and Final reporting

– Technical report

– Financial report – Beneficiary + third parties

Reporting periods (after M12, M30, M48)

– January 2017

– July 2018

– January 2020

Currency use in reporting in EUR, exchange rates by the Official Journal of the European Union

Project reporting to coordinator (DNV GL)

Technical reporting per WP – each 3 months

Financial reporting per beneficiary - each 6 months

Format provided

2

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

PAYMENTS

Pre-financing payment (M2/3) – A month after DNV GL received the money

– Remains the property of the EU

– ~ 38% of the total grant amount

Interim payment (>M12, >M30)– after the periodic reports

– Up to 90% of the total amount

Payment of the balance (> M48) – add the end of the project

3

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

FORMS OF COST MENTIONED IN THE GA (ARTICLE 6)

Direct personal costs

– Actually incurred costs (‘actual costs’) or

– An amount per unit calculated by the beneficiary in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices (‘unit costs’)

Direct costs for subcontracting - Actually incurred costs (‘actual costs’)

Other direct costs - Actually incurred costs (‘actual costs’)

Indirect costs – (‘flat-rate costs’)

4

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

ELIGIBLE COSTS (1)

Actual costs, they must be

– Actually incurred by beneficiary

– Incurred in the project period: 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2019, with exception of costs relating to submission of the last periodic report and final report

– Indicated in the estimated project budget

– Identifiable and verifiable, recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts *

– They must apply with the applicable national law and taxes, labour and social security

– Reasonable, justified and must comply with the principle of sound financial management, in particular regarding economy and efficiency

* in according with beneficiary's usual cost accounting practices

5

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

ELIGIBLE COSTS (2)

Unit costs

– Calculated as

Unit cost x number of actual units

– Specified in the budget proposal

– Calculated according the usual cost accounting practices of the beneficiary

– Must be used or produced in the project period

– Must be necessary for the project

– The number of units must be identifiable and verifiable, in particular supported by records and documentation

Indirect costs (flat-rate cost)

– 25% of all eligible cost

6

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

DIRECT PERSONAL COST (1)

Eligible for

– Personal with an employment contract and working on the project

– Natural persons working under a direct contract and the results of the work belongs to the beneficiary and the cost are about similar as personal cost

Cost allowed

– Salaries

– Social security contributions

– Taxes (not VAT)

– Other cost as they arise from national law or the employment contract

– Additional remuneration for non-profit legal entities

– Cost of owners of SME’s, if they don’ receive a salary

7

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016


– Additional remuneration for non-profit legal entities if

– Amount is up to € 8,000.– on full time basis during full year, otherwise proportionally

– Part of beneficiary’s usual remuneration practices and paid in a consistent manner

– The criteria used to calculate the supplementary payments are objective and generally applied by the beneficiary

– Cost of owners of SME’s

– SME: < 250 staff and turnover ≤ € 50 m or balance sheet total ≤ € 43 m

– Working for the project and receive no salary

– Hour rate mentioned in the budget x hours worked for the project

8

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016


For Personnel cost the beneficiary must keep a time record

Time record must be

– In writing

– Approved by the persons working on the project and their supervisor, at least monthly

Exception for persons working exclusively on the project

– No need to keep time records, if

– Beneficiary signs a declaration confirming that the person have worked exclusively for the project

9

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

Annual productive hours

For the calculation of the hourly rate

– Costs

– Annual productive hours

Productive hours, three options

– Fixed number of hours: 1720 hours on full time basis

– Individual annual productive hours:

annual workable hours + overtime worked – absences (sick + leave)

– Standard annual productive hours: ‘standard number of annual hours’ generally used by the beneficiary and according usual cost accounting practice.

At least 90% of standard annual workable hours

10

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

SUBCONTRACTING

Subcontracting costs are eligible as the subcontracting meets the following:

Limited part of the project

Contracting is best value for money or lowest price (at least two quotation)

European Procurement rules if applicable for your organisation

No conflict of interest

Subcontracting must be mentioned in the proposal in the technical and financial part or mentioned in the periodic report in advance

Classified work may be subcontracted only after explicit approval from the Agency

GA Article 22, 23, 35, 36, 38 and 46 must apply to the subcontractor also

– Checks, Reviews, audits and Investigations / Evaluation of the Impact of the Action / Conflict of Interests / Confidentiality / Promoting the Action – Visibility of EU Funding / Liability for Damages

11

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

OTHER DIRECT COST

Other eligible direct cost are:

Travel costs and related subsistence allowances

Depreciation costs of equipment, infrastructure or other assets

Costs of renting or leasing equipment, infrastructure or other assets

The costs of equipment, infrastructure or other assets contributed in-kind against payment

Cost of other goods and services if

– Purchased specifically for the project

– Contributed in kind against payment

Capitalized and operating costs of ‘large research infrastructure’

– Value of the large research infrastructure is ≥75% of total fixed assets

– Methodology of declaring has been positively assessed by the Commission GENERAL- In line with beneficiary’s usual (accounting) practice

12

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

DEPRECIATION COSTS

For equipment, infrastructure or other assets in the project

be written off in accordance with the beneficiary’s usual accounting practices and with international accounting standards.

recorded in the appropriate beneficiary’s accounts;

purchased in accordance with Article 10 (Purchase of goods, works or services) of the grant agreement

It is applicable for equipment (etc.) bought during the project or before the project start, if yet not been fully depreciated

Only during the project period

One exception, Siemens will declare full construction costs of the demonstrator (=prototype)

13

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION

Purchase price EUR 120,000

Depreciation time 5 years

depreciation EUR 24,000/per year = EUR 2,000/month

Equipment is used for 3 months in year 1

Equipment is used for 6 months in year 2, but in the same time it is also used for other project; 60% for PROMOTioN, 40% for projcet x

DEPRICIATION

– First year: 3 * EUR 2,000 = EUR 6,000

– Second year 6 * EUR 2,000 = EUR 12,000, but only used 60%

0,6 * EUR 6,000 = EUR 7,200

14

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

INELIGIBLE COSTS

Examples of ineligible costs

costs related to return on capital;

debt and debt service charges;

provisions for future losses or debts;

interest owed;

doubtful debts;

currency exchange losses;

bank costs charged by the beneficiary’s bank for transfers from the Agency;

excessive or reckless expenditure;

deductible VAT;

costs incurred during suspension of the implementation of the action

15

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

AUDIT CERTIFICATE

As soon if requested contribution is > € 325,000

16

DNV GL © 2014

Ungraded

21 January 2016

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

www.dnvgl.com

17

Confidentiality, IP and communication rules inside the

consortium

Arnhem, January 22nd 2016

22.01.2016 1

8.3.1.1 During the Project and for a period of 1 year after the end of the Project, the dissemination of own Results by one or several Parties including but not restricted to publications and presentations, shall be governed by the procedure of Article 29.1 of the Grant Agreement subject to the following provisions. Prior written notice of any planned publication shall be given to the other Parties at least 45 calendar days before the publication. Any objection to the planned publication shall be made in accordance with the Grant Agreement in writing to the Coordinator and to the Party or Parties proposing the dissemination within 30 calendar days after receipt of the notice. If no objection is made within the time limit stated above, the publication is permitted.

22.01.2016 2

8.3 Dissemination 8.3.1 Dissemination of own Results

8.3.1 Dissemination of own Results

8.3.1.2 An objection to the intended publication is justified if • (a) the protection of the objecting Party's Results or Background

would be adversely affected • (b) the objecting Party's legitimate academic or commercial

interests in relation to the Results or Background would be significantly harmed.

• (c) the intended publication includes Confidential Information of the objecting Party.

The objection has to include a precise request for necessary modifications.

22.01.2016 3

8.3.1 Dissemination of own Results

8.3.1.3 If an objection has been raised the involved Parties shall discuss how to overcome the justified grounds for the objection on a timely basis (for example by amendment to the planned publication and/or by protecting information before publication) and the objecting Party shall not unreasonably continue the opposition if appropriate measures are taken following the discussion. The objecting Party can request a publication delay of not more than 90 calendar days from the time it raises such an objection. After 90 calendar days the publication is permitted, provided that Confidential Information of the objecting Party has been removed from the Publication as indicated by the objecting Party.

22.01.2016 4

8.3.2 Dissemination of another Party’s unpublished Results, Background or Confidential Information

A Party shall not include in any dissemination activity another Party's Results, Background or Confidential Information without obtaining the owning Party's prior written approval, unless they are already publicly published.

22.01.2016 5

8.3.3 Cooperation obligations

The Parties undertake to cooperate to allow the timely submission, examination, publication and defence of any dissertation or thesis for a degree which includes their Results or Background subject to the confidentiality and publication provisions agreed in this Consortium Agreement and the Grant Agreement.

22.01.2016 6

8.4 Use of names, logos or trademarks

Nothing in this Consortium Agreement shall be construed as conferring rights to use in advertising, publicity or otherwise the name of the Parties or any of their logos or trademarks without their prior written approval.

22.01.2016 7

Intellectual Property: Results

8.0 Ownership of Results - Results are owned by the Party that generates them. 8.1 Joint ownership Signed CA Amendment 2016.01.12 to be received from: - ABB – Alstom – UniAbdn - DTU – RWTH – UPV - T&D Europe - Strathclyde – Adwen - Prysmian 8.2 Transfer of Results 22.01.2016 8

Section 10: Non-disclosure of information

10.1 All information in whatever form or mode of communication, which is disclosed by a Party (the “Disclosing Party”) to any other Party (the “Recipient”) in connection with the Project during its implementation and which has been explicitly marked as “confidential” at the time of disclosure, or when disclosed orally has been identified as confidential at the time of disclosure and has been confirmed and designated in writing within 15 calendar days from oral disclosure at the latest as confidential information by the Disclosing Party, is “Confidential Information”. 22.01.2016 9


10.2 The Recipients hereby undertake in addition and without prejudice to any commitment of non-disclosure under the Grant Agreement, for a period of 4 years after the end of the Project: • not to use Confidential Information otherwise than for the

purpose for which it was disclosed; • not to disclose Confidential Information to any third party

without the prior written consent by the Disclosing Party, wherein the Recipient must ensure that an arrangement is in place prior to such disclosure that subjects the Affiliated Entities to provisions at least as strict as provided in this Section 10;

22.01.2016 10


• to ensure that internal distribution, or external distribution pursuant to Section 4.3, of Confidential Information by a Recipient shall take place on a strict need-to-know basis; and

• to return to the Disclosing Party on demand all Confidential Information which has been supplied to or acquired by the Recipients including all copies thereof and to delete all information stored in a machine readable form. The Recipients may keep a copy to the extent it is required to keep, archive or store such Confidential Information because of compliance with applicable laws and regulations or for the proof of on-going obligations.

22.01.2016 11

SOME DO’s AND DON’Ts ON COLLABORATION AND INTERACTION

• Be aware that we live in different ‘worlds’ • Always communicate: also on the bad news

– silence communicates too • Be open • There is a duty to ask and a wish to bring • Use email in an appropriate way • Tough on the facts, soft on the people • Make mistakes • Have fun

22.01.2016 12

Dissemination activities and public platforms

PROMOTioN Kick-Off Meeting, January 21-22, 2016

• By Februar 2016: SOW will subcontract services for communication agency

• Development draft logos by end of Q1 • By April: Development of project identity / templates Speedup important templates

• visual language: we want to use a selection of photos from project partners photo archives

Please name us your communication officers

Corporate Design – 13.1

| 22 January 2016 3 | PROMOTioN - Dissemination

• Decision on the domain name for the website by Februar 2016 Not available: promotion.eu / promotion.net / promotion.org (offshore-grid.eu owned by 50Hertz but not used at the moment)

Available: meshed-offshore-grid.eu / offshore-grid.org

• End Q1: Identify requirements of the website and their communication tools

• Requirements for the intranet? • Document/media exchange • Communication tools?

• Produce a basic content and Implement a media library • May (M5): Launch beta version of the website • End of June (M7): Release website

Website – 13.3


• Design a template for online tool and realize an involvement (sign in tool) on the website

• Q2: Establishment of distribution list (key stakeholder) • First edition in Q3/M7

For content generation, we need the input from all project

partners, especially WP leaders Process for content generation and stakeholder

identification defined in Q2

Newsletter – 13.2, 13.4


Papers, articles, reports, conference papers

• Partners publish articles, conference papers, … based on the progress of tasks/WPs and project deliverables

• SOW coordinates and facilitates publication on website and in trade press, scientific/technical journals and online media

• Linked with press conferences, media talks etc.

Clarification needs: release process, timetables and information exchange

Publications and media works – 13.5, 13.6, 13.8


To be clarified

• 3-5 meetings of the industry Reference Group (M6, …) • Regional/external Events (2/year)

• Workshops, seminars, side-events on special topics

• Supporting stakeholder events in other WPs (e.g. 7, others t.b.d.) • Date and venue of intermediate + final conference (M24?, M47)

With input from all project partners/WP leaders, especially project coordinator

Workshops / conferences – 13.7


Social media / multi-media tools – 13.2, 13.3


• Options: - interview films - animated videos - infographics - YouTube channel - Twitter? - Facebook? - … • First we have to analyse the value of social media tools • Second we plan a workshop for

• Q1: development of specific social/multi media tools • Q2: adapted for our target group

• 13-14 April 2016: Wind und Maritim, Rostock (Germany)

• 07-09 June 2016: Windforce 2016, Bremen (Germany) abstract submitted

• 21-22 June 2016: Global Offshore Wind 2016, Manchester (UK)

• 27-30 September 2016: WindEnergy Hamburg & EWEA Annual Event, Hamburg (Germany)

• 06-08 June 2017: EWEA Offshore Wind Energy, London (UK)

Conference and exhibitions


© TenneT

Thank you for your attention! Andreas Wagner (CEO) [email protected] tel. +49 30 275 95 241, mobile +49 152 089 908 23 Philipp Kalweit (project manager) [email protected] tel. +49 30 275 95 197, mobile +49 157 581 627 65 Sebastian Sahm (press officer) [email protected] tel. +49 30 275 95 198

German OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY Foundation

Berlin office Schiffbauerdamm 19 D-10117 Berlin

[email protected] www.offshore-stiftung.de

Institute for High Voltage Technology 31.12.2099

PROMOTION Deliverables and Review Process


Deliverables and Review Process

2

Grant Agreement Articles

“Financial support depends on the results submitted to the commission […]”

“Focus on outcomes […]”

Mariana Stantcheva (PROMOTION project officer)



3

Grant Agreement Articles

Article 22.1 – Checks, reviews and audits by the Agency and the Commission The Agency or the Commission WILL — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — check the proper implementation of the action and compliance with the obligations under the Agreement, including assessing deliverables and reports.

Article 22.1 – Checks, reviews and audits by the Agency and the Commission The Agency or the Commission MAY — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out reviews on the proper implementation of the action (including assessment of deliverables and reports)

Article 22.5 – Consequences of findings in checks, reviews, […] Findings in checks, reviews, audits or investigations carried out in the context of this grant may lead to the rejection of ineligible costs (see Article 42), reduction of the grant (see Article 43), recovery of undue amounts (see Article 44) […]



4

Project deliverables

101 deliverables − More than 2 per month on average

− “Peak loads“ of 9-10 a month

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

M 0

3M

09

M 1

1M

12

M 1

5M

18

M 2

0M

21

M 2

2M

24

M 2

7M

28

M 3

0M

36

M 3

7M

38

M 3

9M

40

M 4

2M

44

M 4

5M

46

M 4

8

Oth

er tbd



5




Very diverse in nature − Small (<25 pages) and large (>75 pages) − Lists vs. continuous text reports

− Data vs. models

Different dissemination levels − Public (PU) - Distribution to everyone (67)

− Confidential (CO) - Distribution to EC and consortium (29)

− Classified (CI) - Additional restrictions (5)

67

29

5

Dissemination Level

PublicConfidentialClassified

75

6

6 5

4 5

Deliverable Type

Report

Other

DEM

DEC

R & DEM

R & Other



6




Very diverse in nature − Small (<25 pages) and large (>75 pages) − Lists vs. continuous text reports

− Data vs. models

Different dissemination levels − Public (PU) - Distribution to everyone (67)

− Confidential (CO) - Distribution to EC and consortium (29)

− Classified (CI) - Additional restrictions (5)

67

29

5

Dissemination Level

PublicConfidentialClassified

75

6

6 5

4 5

Deliverable Type

Report

Other

DEM

DEC

R & DEM

R & OtherQuality control and due review processes are essential for a successful technical and administrative project implementation



7

Review Requirements

Ensure alignment with objectives − Specific deliverable objectives

− Work package objectives − Project objectives

Ensure technical quality − Plausibility of results

− Consistency of methodology

− Comprehensiveness

Ensure general quality − Clearness

− Readability − “Golden thread”



8

Roles in the Review Process

Deliverable Responsible − General quality control of all contributions − Alignment with specific deliverable objectives

WP leader & task leaders − Alignment With the work package activities and objectives

R&D coordinator (TRP) − Technical quality − General quality (consistency, comprehensiveness, …) − Alignment with project objectives

Project coordinator − Alignment with project objectives

Consortium − Readability − “Golden Thread”



9

Roles in the Review Process

Deliverable Responsible − General quality control of all contributions − Alignment with specific deliverable objectives

WP leader & task leaders − Alignment With the work package activities and objectives

R&D coordinator (TRP) − Technical quality − General quality (consistency, comprehensiveness, …) − Alignment with project objectives

Project coordinator − Alignment with project objectives

Consortium − Readability − “Golden Thread”

Everyone should ensure a high quality of their contributions to any deliverable



10

Specific Focuses in the Review Process

Main Responsible

Assoc. WP Leader

Assoc. Task Leaders

TRP/ R&D Coordinator

Project Coordinator Consortium

Specific objectives

x

x

Project objectives x x

WP objectives x x

WP activities x x

Technical quality x

General quality x

Readability x

“Golden Thread” x



11

Technical Review Panel

Permanent project panel

Chaired by the R&D coordinator

Permanent members − 3-4 Institutions

− Only independent, non-commercial institutions (e.g. Universities)

− Monitoring the technical project progress

− Review of project deliverables − Addressing overarching and crosscutting issues

− Mediation of technical disputes

Supportive members − Providing additional expertise on a case by case basis − Joining to tackle specific technical questions and issues

Constitution in M02

Technical Review Panel


PROMOTION

12

Deliverable Review Schedule

8-6 weeks prior - Draft outline distributed (outline/ basic information/ list of content + first example)

4 weeks prior - 1st draft distributed (>75% completeness and finalization)

3 weeks prior - deadline: comments on 1st draft

2 weeks prior - Final draft distributed (100% completeness, >95% finalization)

1 week prior - deadline: comments on final draft

2 days* prior - Final version (to Project and R&D coordinator)

0 days prior - Submission by Project Coordinator

*working days



13

Best Practice Rules

Make it as long as necessary, but as short as possible

Have an early discussion about the deliverable’s nature and structure (often highlights open ends in the existing work or results)

Early definition of report outlines

Divide responsibilities as early as possible

Nag about deadlines (!)

Make defined prerelease version (darft 1, draft 2,… final draft) and avoid text passages “flying around”

Communicate issues with content or deadlines early

Institute for High Voltage Technology 31.12.2099 14

Thank you for your attention

Sebastian Winter RWTH Aachen University/ IFHT Head of Business Development

+49 241 80 [email protected]

28-01-2016

Day 1 PROMOTioN Kick-Off meeting - January 21, 2016 Location: Hotel de Bilderberg, Utrechtseweg 261, Oosterbeek, Netherlands

11:00 – Welcome by Jacob Fonteijne and Alexander Yanushkevich

11:30 Introduction of the partners

Alex Yanushkevich (DNV GL): Announces StattKraft has withdrawn from the consortium as a result of a change in company strategy. The person months associated with StattKraft will be distributed across the consortium, partners are invited to take up shares.

12:15 - 12:45 - European context of the project, results & impact expectation - Mariana Stantcheva

Q: Marga van Deelen (DNV GL) - What time does the EU take for review of deliverables

A: The final acceptance of a deliverable will be the acceptance of the periodic report. If difficulties are detected, the deliverable will be reopened.

13:00- 13:45 – LUNCH BREAK

13:45 - WP description by WP leaders

WP1 Pim Jacobs (TenneT)

C: Kamran Sharifabadi (Statoil) – A challenging part will be to define what is a meshed offshore grid; what is the minimum requirement and how does it expand? What scenario’s will be considered to develop a test grid?

Q: Wei He (Statoil) – Statoil has been assigned 3 person months but is not mentioned as participant in any of the tasks.

A: The allocation of participants and staffing of tasks will be discussed by the work package leaders (WPLs) in detail later

TenneT requests all partners that want to participate in WP1 to contact Pim with their preference of the task to participate in

Q: Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen) – It is not clear who is involved in WP1 because everybody is asked to supply requirements, is communication between WPs also included in person months? Aberdeen was asked to supply input to WP1 even though they have no person months allocated?

A: Coordinator – Information requests and sharing is part of the communication between the work packages. This is not foreseen to take effort in the order of person months and is therefore not specifically mentioned.

A: Mariana Stantcheva (EU Project officer) – The coordinator needs to collect any changes to staffing of tasks and WPs by partners and describe this in grant agreement (GA) amendment. WPLs are responsible for communicating these changes to the coordinator in a timely fashion.

28-01-2016

WP2 Cora Petino (RWTH Aachen University)

Q: Kamran Sharifabadi (Statoil) – BEST PATHS developed generic models for converters, study interoperability: how do you see interaction with BEST PATHS and avoid overlap?

A: Aachen will use already existing models to generate results i.e. avoid overlap by using already existing results. Communication with BEST PATHS and other research initiatives is envisaged.

A: Nicolaos Cutululis (DTU) - Some things like the diode rectifier unit (DRU) have not been done before and need to be modelled, so no overlap is expected there.

Q Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen): Will project management group (PMG) secure interaction and information exchange with BEST PATHS and other research initiatives.

A: Paul Raats (DNV GL) – Yes

WP3 Nicolaos Cutululis (DTU)

No questions

WP4 Dirk van Hertem (KUL)

Q: Wei He (Statoil) - Statoil prefers the extension a deliverable deadline

A: Dirk van Hertem (KU Leuven) – The originally agreed dates and deadlines will be maintained, can be refined at a later stage

A: Coordinator – All WP leaders need to check the planning of tasks, deliverables and milestones in the GA for consistency and inform the PMG chair of any changes.

WP5 René Smeets (DNV GL)

No questions

WP6 Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen)

Q: Niklas Svensson (Svenska Kraftnät) - Will a small scale direct current circuit breaker (DCCB) be representative of a full scale DCCB?

A: Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen) - The small scale DCCB will be used to gain more insight and understanding of phenomena such as response times and thermal effects in order to validate parts of the software model.

28-01-2016

WP7 Daimy Abdoelkariem (TenneT)

C: Paul Raats (DNV GL) - Be aware that GA distributed at the kick-off meeting (KO) is the final version and may contain discrepancies compared to previous versions. Be aware with late deliverables that mobilization of resources occurs on time and that the partner does not go lazy in the meantime.

A: Daimy Abdoelkariem (TenneT) - Will take this into account in list of future activities

Q: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - Can the coordinator communicate any changes to the GA to all consortium partners?

A: Alexander Yanushkevich (DNV GL) - All changes were proposed by WPLs and should have been communicated by them.

A: DNV GL: Any future changes to the GA will be communicated in timely manner to all partners through ProjectPlace.

WP8 Robert Hoeness (Siemens)

Q: Kamran Sharifabadi (Statoil) - How is interoperability of DRU with wind turbine generators (WTGs) from different manufacturers ensured?

A: Robert Hoeness (Siemens) - First step will be to demonstrate DRU in Klim windfarm which utilizes Siemens WTGs. Based on the results, guidelines for control will be distributed to other manufacturers and need to be tested and verified.

Q: Mariana Stantcheva (EU) - In no task are all manufacturers working together, how will interoperability be guaranteed? Interoperability is considered a key point by the EU, which should be kept in mind.

A: Nicolaos Cutululis (DTU) - In WP3, all three WTG manufacturers will be working together to define control algorithms and ensure interoperability.

A: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - it is also SOWs task to ensure communication and dissemination between partners and across work packages to achieve technology neutrality. One of the tasks is to get OEMs and developers on board to accept the generated solutions.

C: Kamran Sharifabadi (Statoil) - Transparent requirements need to be written first, then manufacturers need to adapt to it, interoperability is part of that.

C: Dirk van Hertem (KU Leuven) - Manufactures sell components that make a grid, developers will build the grid. In WP4 all are sitting at the table and manufacturers will take away results and test their components in the multi-terminal test environment (MTTE) together with system operators to agree on interoperability.

C: Samer Oukaili (Mitsubishi Electric Europe) - All technologies of manufacturers are slightly different but will be tested according to common test guidelines which are developed in collaboration with all other manufacturers and end users based on functional requirements. Manufacturers are also all present in harmonization package WP11.

28-01-2016

WP9 Yash Audichya (Scottish and Southern Energy)

No questions

WP10 Rene Smeets (DNV GL)

Q: Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen) - At some point reclosure functionality must be tested which requires DC current for more than 100 ms. Testing using 16 2/3 Hz AC is not sufficient to achieve this.

A: René Smeets (DNV GL): Noted and acknowledged.

WP11 Paul Sørensen (DTU)

Q: Kamran Sharifabadi (Statoil) - A lot of work on multi-terminal HVDC systems has been done already in China. Are we going to focus on European way of thinking or will we also look at and learn from what others outside of Europe have already done.

A: Paul Sørensen (DTU): In the description of work it is narrowed down to Europe and it is unrealistic to have Chinese manufacturers in this consortium. However, during execution of WPs any knowledge about developments elsewhere and in the professional network (Cigré, IET, …) of partners should be taken into account and exploited as far as reasonably practicable

WP12 Bianca van Ommen (TenneT)

Q: Dirk van Hertem (KU Leuven) - How will you ensure open-mindedness to different solutions than the ones presented in the development plan?

A: Bianca van Ommen (TenneT) - It is always important to stay aware of all developments happening around the PROMOTioN scope of work.

Q: Bruno Luscan (SGI) - Milestones (deployment plan) need to be agreed on between all participants, does that mean the whole consortium or just the concerned work package?

A: Mariana Stantcheva (EU) - The whole consortium.

Q: Wei He (Statoil) – The future offshore power landscape is also likely to include offshore power consumers (power to gas, oil platforms, Blue Growth project,…). Will the development plan take this into account?

A: Pim Jacobs (TenneT) - This will be addressed in WP1 and needs to be discussed.

Q: Samer Oukaili (Mitsubishi Electric Europe) - Is it possible to develop an optimal scenario within task 12.1?

A: Bianca van Ommen (TenneT) – The goal is to filter best solutions from results of work packages by means of sensitivity analysis.

28-01-2016

Q: Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen) - Currently many LCC based interconnectors exist. Will their integration also be included in plan?

A: Bianca van Ommen (TenneT) - Yes, it is the goal to include former results and existing solutions as addressed in WP1.

Q: Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen) - It is very important to define from which viewpoint (consumer, generator, TSO,…) the development plan and economics will be considered.

A: Mariana Stantcheva (EU) - The deployment plan needs to be approved by all partners; signatures of all partners on development plan.

WP13 Andreas Wagner (Offshore Wind Energy Stiftung)

All partners are requested to provide suggestions for relevant conferences and seminars and other dissemination events.

All partners are requested to submit contact details of communication officers of their organisations.

Q: Niek de Groot (TenneT) - WP1 leader needs templates in 3 months to be able to deliver deliverable on branded template.

A: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - It will take up to a half year to complete all branded materials. A solution for the first deliverable will be sought.

A: Alexander Yanushkevich (DNV GL) - It should be possible to prioritize certain steps.

WP14 Paul Raats (DNV GL)

Q: Andreas Wagner (SOW) – The table detailing the decision making process should be amended to include a column for the project coordinator who will also make decisions which are not handled by the PMG.

A: Coordinator: Will be added.

Q: Kamran Sharifabadi (Statoil) - How will technical disputes resolved?

A: Sebastian Winter (RWTH Aachen University) – If technical disputes cannot be solved within WPs, R&D panels will be instated, which will treat disputes on a case by case basis.

Q: Nicolaos Cutululis (DTU) - Are there any thoughts on size and make up of panels?

A: Sebastian Winter (RWTH Aachen University) – This will be presented this later.

Q: Dirk van Hertem (KU Leuven) - Why are WPLs of inactive WPs not included in PMG? Including them would give them more overview on what is happening in the project.

28-01-2016

A: Paul Raats (DNV GL) – A first meeting/telcon including all WPLs to achieve common alignment will be organized. Including inactive WPLs in subsequent meetings will be disruptive although PMG may invite WPLs of dependent WPs to avoid exclusion.

Q: Dragan Jovcic (University of Aberdeen) - What is different between PMG meeting, consortium meeting and general assembly meeting?

A: Paul Raats (DNV GL) - Depends on whether something and what needs to be decided. GA is formal to make decisions, consortium meeting is to align partners, PMG is once per 2-3 months telcon, and WPLs have own progress meetings.

C: Dirk van Hertem (KU Leuven) – It is convenient to organize 2-3 days once a year to include all different kinds of meetings so that every partner can attend.

Q: Energinet - is it possible to distribute a list of all WPLs and TLs (telephone numbers)?

A: Alexander Yanushkevich (DNV GL) – Yes, this will be available on project place.

16:00 – WP1 – Requirements working session - Pim Jacobs & Niek de Groot - TenneT

Refer to MoM of WP1 leader Pim Jacobs

18:00 – Reserve and first day closing - Paul Raats

28-01-2016

Day 2 PROMOTioN Kick-Off meeting - January 22, 2016

Location: Tennet headquarter, Utrechtseweg 310, Arnhem, Netherlands

9:00 - Welcoming by Alan Croes

9:10 - Costs and reporting– Marga van Deelen

Q: Is overhead flat rate of 25% applied to all the costs?

A: Yes, flat rate is applied to all the costs with an exception of subcontracting. In case of subcontracting overhead of 25% does not apply.

C: Mariana Stantcheva (EC) - There are no indirect costs applied on subcontracting. (no 25% overhead)

Q: In case we use ERP (digital) system for writing hours, is it enough to have it in digital format?

A: Yes, DNV GL uses digital system as well.

Q: What if supervisor doesn’t work for the project, can he/she also book the hours on the Promotion project? Or does it need to be a dedicated person?

A: Your direct supervisor’s confirmation is sufficient for confirming that a person worked on the project. There is no need for dedicated person.

Q: Does it need to be only one certificate for the project?

A: No, every reporting period if your expenses are above 325K since last reporting period. EX: First reporting 600k – yes you need. Second period 200k – no, but third period is another 150k and you are above 325k then you need another certificate after the third reporting period.

Q: Can the certificate be issued by our own accountant?

A: Yes, but you can also be audited by EC, also for the period of 5 years after the end of the project.

Q: Will EC make an audit after the end of the project?

A: It is not an obligation, but it can happen up to 5 years after the end of the project. Please save all the necessary documents for that period of time.

Additional remark to the presentation – If VAT is NOT deductible it are eligible cost

9:30: Confidentiality, IP and communication rules inside the consortium – Paul Raats

Q: Need a procedure in place for dissemination in order to make it transparent and fast

28-01-2016

A: Andreas Wagner (SOW) – We will prepare a practice for dissemination, translating from CA to the guidelines how to deal with the dissemination

Page 3: art. 8.3.1.2 - Dissemination of own Results

Q: Paul Raats: Objection to an intended publication, can it be an issue?

A: Martha Roggenkamp (RUG) - Legal research is always public and we never had problems with that.

Q: Kamran Sharifabadi (Statoil) - We will discuss the fault clearing methods and review the papers on that. Because of the Promotion can I talk about fault clearing methods outside of the project?

A: This clause deals only with the publishing, for ex. Conference or journal, and does not limit discussions on the topic of the project unless it clearly stated that it is confidential.

C: Marjan Popov (TU Delft) - We are obliged to publish results in impact journals. Normally we decide internally what information is sensitive for other partners.

C: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - First discuss intended publication in the WP, if there is no problem then communicate to WP13 and coordinator. Sometimes there is limited time for 45 days notice, then the procedure needs to be smooth through tasks and WPs.

Q: Staffan Norga (KTH) - Can we freely patent our results?

A: Its about IP, not dissemination. Will get to that later.

Page 5: art. 8.3.2 Dissemination of another Party’s unpublished Results, Background or Confidential Information

C: Yash Audichya (SHE Tr): This article covers that if in your results you used data from another party and they should give you a right to publish that data.

Q: Can written approval be done by e-mail?

A: Yes, e-mail is sufficient.

Page 7: art. 8.4 Use of names, logos or trademarks

Q: Do you organize templates with logos of the partners?

A: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - Partners’ logos will be on the website, along with the project identity with logo and presentation templates. If you need to use other logos we will organize a procedure for request of the rights. Docs will include European logo, horizon 2020 and your own logo.

Page 8: Intellectual Property: Results

28-01-2016

Q: Dirk van Hertem (KUL) - Is it a serious problem that amendment to the CA is not signed by everyone? Can we run the project if it is not signed.

A: Paul Raats: Amendment to the CA will be signed soon within next two weeks.

Q: Dirk van Hertem (KUL) – Is there any of the partners that didn’t sign the CA Amendment so far that is against signing it?

A: No (no hands in the air in the audience)

Page 10: Section 10: Non-disclosure of information

Q: Samer Oukaili (MEU): What is the definition of “need to know basis”?

A: Dirk van Hertem (KUL) - If it is needed for action. No party can block any other party to work.

Q: Yash Audichya (SHE Tr) - If to do something in WP9 for which I need information from WP4 about a circuit breaker then Wp4 can’t say it is confidential?

A: Dirk van Hertem (KUL) - If in order to perform my work I need info about the circuit breaker than you should give me the info. Info can be confidential from other parties.

C: Sebastian Winter (RWTH) - Use common sense for identifying what is need to know basis.

C: SvK- Public companies are obliged to be transparent and possible disclose information to authorities if it is requested

10:00 - Dissemination activities and public platforms – Philipp Kalweit (SOW)

Q: Tobias Verfuss (Carbon Trust) – Can we get a set of slides about the PROMOTioN project: 3-5 slides just

to inform colleagues about it.

A: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - This will be arranged soon. Press release will be published as soon as formalities are being completed.

C: Mariana Stantcheva (EC) – No external communication before both CA and GA are signed by all partners

C: Karim Karoui (Tractebel) – We should keep PROMOTioN in the name of the webpage, possibly with addition of “project” or “horizon2020” or “H2020”.

Q: Alexander Yanushkevich (DNV GL) - What do we need to do in the next two weeks?

A: We would need contact to partners’ communication assistance to get logos, photos,…

28-01-2016

C: Marga van Deelen (DNVGL) - We can use ProjectPlace for that purpose, I strive to have it will available in a week.

10:45 – Deliverables reviews and deadlines - Sebastian Winter – R&D coordinator (RWTH)

Q: Dirk van Hertem (KUL) - The one making a deliverable should not be a reviewer. For demonstrators you should consider to have other than universities as reviews?

A: Sebastian Winter: We can consider on the case by case who would be in the TRP, not only universities but manufacturers or any other party

C: Mariana Stantcheva (EC): WP leader should be a review to ensure consistency of the deliverable

Q: Dirk van Hertem (KUL) - Two reviewing periods is too optimistic. Be tougher and have month prior the deadline the final review not just 75% readiness?

Q: Yash Audichya (SHE Tr) - What is the benefit of double iteration if there are no plots (75%)? It only takes time to review unfinished.

A: Sebastian Winter – We expect that most of work is done in the last moment and we would prepare to have the first round of review month prior the deadline

C: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - Schedule is appropriate, we would appreciate if deliverables are on time for dissemination

Q: Pim Jacobs (Tennet) - We have a deliverable in M3 and would there be an exception for that?

A: Sebastian Winter – Yes, we will be in touch with you.

Q: Samuel Nguefeu (RTE) - Does all the consortium check the quality of the readability (according to the table)?

A: Sebastian Winter - I think that all the consortium should have a chance to read the deliverable and give feedback.

C: Mariana Strantcheva (EC) - Deliverables should be as short as necessary (limit to 60 pages), the rest put into the annexes.

ProjectPlace

Marga van Deelen – Within next week you will get an invitation for the ProjectPlace database with some information how to use it.

11:15 – 12:30 – WP 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 working session – involved partners (Cornelis Plet)

28-01-2016

12:30 – 13:30 – Lunch

13:30 – Next General Assembly meeting and Advisory Board planning, closing

Q: Andreas Wagner (SOW) - Can you send a signal when the CA and GA are signed?

A: Paul Raats - We will collect all the signatures preparing a final document and send around as soon as possible

Next meeting: 14,15,16 June, location will be decided later

C: Andreas Wagner (SOW) – on the 7-9 June will take place a conference WINDFORCE 2016 in Bremen where we would like to present the project, could be an alternative for the meeting.

C: Mariana Strantcheva (EC) – Please register yourself at EMA for reviewing the proposals, please volunteer to help in evaluation of the projects. Procedure for registration is attached in separate e-mail (see Annex A with a guideline how to register).

14:00-16:00 – DNVGL, Kema laboratories tour

Date post:	08-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

PROMOTioN Kick off meeting Arnhem · TEN-T legacy from . 2007-2013 period . Marco Polo legacy from...

Documents