Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution

18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution

Ratings: (0)|Views: 509|Likes:
Published by vijaypshinde

More info:

Published by: vijaypshinde on Jan 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
CCIIRREEDD
18
th
International Conference on Electricity Distribution Turin, 6-9 June 2005CIRED2005Session No 2
POWER QUALITY FACTORS IN EFFICIENCY BENCHMARKING
Lassila J
1)
., Honkapuro S., Viljainen S., Tahvanainen K., Partanen J. Lappeenranta University of TechnologyKivikko K., Antila S., Mäkinen A., Järventausta P. Tampere University of Technology.
 
Finland,
1)
 Jukka.Lassila@lut.fi 
 Abstract
- In this paper methods to take power quality factors(e.g. number and duration of planned and unplanned interruptions, number of auto-reclosing operations) account into efficiency benchmarking as outage costs is presented.The effects of outage costs in efficiency benchmarking areevaluated by means of sensitivity analyses. Effects of power quality factors in different kind of regulation models in actualnetwork planning task are estimated.
INTRODUCTION
The importance of power quality (PQ) – including bothvoltage quality and interruptions – is growing in regulationprocess and distribution business. In many countries, e.g. inNorway [1] and in Finland [2], PQ is already part of efficiency benchmarking. Although PQ has been monitoredrather detailed (e.g. number and duration of planned andunplanned interruptions, number of auto-reclosing operations,voltage levels etc.) many years, PQ is taken into account quitesimplified way in efficiency benchmarking. Usually onlyduration of interruptions is notified in efficiencybenchmarking. The main reason is that quality of data of PQstatistics is not good enough to use them in benchmarking.Other reason is that use of more than one PQ factor inbenchmarking requires sophisticated efficiency benchmarkingmethods.In Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) it is possible to usefactors, which are not commensurate with each other’s. Thismeans that the factors with various units (time, number,currency etc.) can be used in benchmarking at the same time.DEA weights benchmarking factors so that efficiency score isas high as possible for every company. E.g. if company is bestas a sense of one factor (e.g. PQ), DEA weights this propertyof company more than the factors which are not beneficial forthe company in efficiency benchmarking. In practice this maycause problem in sense of insignificant factors. If PQ isincluded in DEA as four separated factors (e.g. number andduration of planned and unplanned interruptions), DEA mayweight one or more of these factors so that the factor does notactually affect to the efficiency score at all. In this situationcompany may improve or worse these properties withoutaffecting its efficiency score.One way to avoid this problem of insignificant factors is tocombine PQ factors to one outage cost and add this cost tooperational costs. The basic idea of outage cost is todetermine unit costs for different kinds of outages fordifferent kinds of customer types. In Finland interruption timeof customers is one and only PQ factor in efficiencybenchmarking at the moment. Discussions that how the otherpower quality components such as number of interruptions,auto-reclosing operations and voltage levels can be includedto efficiency benchmarking are active. Some of this data isalready collected from network companies annually.Regulator can calculate outage costs for each company byusing this data. This is possible when unit prices of eachpower quality factors are defined. In Finland e.g. price of unplanned (unexpected) interruption for residential customeris 0,068 €/kW and 0,61 €/kWh [3]. Unit prices are defined forfive customer types and four interruption types. PQ factorcan be formed as a sum of separated PQ cost components. Inefficiency benchmarking it is possible to add outage costs tocompany’s operational costs as presented in Fig. 1.
Outage costs
( )
costsOutagecostslOperationa CustomersNetwork EnergyhMax
13210
++++ =
vcuuu
 
Residential customerAgriculture customerIndustry customerPublic customerService customer
-plannedinterruptions: 1,5 h-unplanned interruptions: 2,5 h-high speed auto-reclosing: 45-delayed auto-reclosing: 13
Interruption statisticsEfficiency benchmarking (DEA)
+
Unit costs
Residential customerAgriculture customerIndustry customerPublic customerService customer
-plannedinterruptions: 0,034€/kW and 0,30€/kWh-unplanned interruptions: 0,068 €/kW and 0,61 €/kWh-high speed auto-reclosing: 0,068 €/kW-delayed auto-reclosing: 0,088 €/kW
Fig. 1. Outage cost method and DEA-model.
BACKGROUND OF POWER QUALITYREGULATION IN FINLAND
The Finnish Energy Market Authority presented efficiencybenchmarking in 1999. Efficiency scores were calculated byusing Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) with five factors[4]. Power quality was one of those factors. It was measuredas a total interruption time of customers. The reason why onlyinterruption time was included in to efficiency benchmarkingwas insufficient PQ statistics. There was no reliable statisticsof other kind of interruption types like number of shortinterruptions (e.g. auto-reclosing operations). The basic formof efficiency benchmarking with DEA is presented in (1).
costslOperationactimeonInterruptiCustomersNetwork Energy  hMax
12321 0
+++ =
vvuuu
 
(1)
 
In (1) PQ is measured as a total interruption time of customers. Theory and features of DEA is presented e.g. in[5]. The problems considering insignificancy of certainfactors when DEA was used as a regulation tool waspresented in [2]. Actual outage cost for company(€/customer,h) could be calculated because of link betweenefficiency benchmarking and allowed rate of return [6] indistribution business as presented in (2).
costlOperationatimeonInterruptiDEAPrice
Outage
=
(2)Where
 
CCIIRREEDD
18
th
International Conference on Electricity Distribution Turin, 6-9 June 2005CIRED2005Session No 2
Outage
Price
= marginal cost of interruption
DEA
= change in efficiency score
on timeInterrupti
= change in interruption time
 As separated factor, interruption time was insignificant factorfor many companies and actual cost of outages varied from 0to 500 €/customer,h from company to another. Problem issolved in [7] where efficiency benchmarking with outagecosts was presented. Basic idea was handle power quality asoutage costs and adds outage costs to operational costs aspresented in (3).
costs)onInterrupticostslOperationa( cCustomersNetwork Energy  hMax
13210
++++ =
vuuu
 
(3)In Fig. 2 the numbers of companies that have insignificantfactors are presented before and after development work. Itcan be seen that power quality is insignificant factor for over20 companies if power quality is measured as separated factor(present DEA-model) compared to situation, where powerquality is measured as outage costs and it is added tooperation cost (developed DEA-model).
01020304050Operational costsPower quality *Distributed energyNetwork lengthCustomers
   D   i  s   t  r   i   b  u   t   i  o  n  c  o  m  p  a  n   i  e  s
Present DEA-modelDeveloped DEA-model
 
Fig. 2. The number of companies that have insignificant factors. [7]
 During first three-year long regulation period (2005-2007)power quality has no specifically defined role in Finnishdistribution regulation. During this time, regulator collects PQreference data from distribution companies. This data will beused as a reference during second regulation period.Regulator has decided to collect following eight powerquality factors now on [3], [8].
1.
 
Customer’s average annual
interruption time
that iscaused by
unexpected
interruptions.2.
 
Customer’s average annual
number of interruptions
 that are caused by
unexpected
interruptions.3.
 
Customer’s average annual
interruption time
that iscaused by
planned
interruptions.4.
 
Customer’s average annual
number of interruptions
 that are caused by
planned
interruptions.
5.
 
Customer’s average annual
number of 
interruptions thatare caused by
delayed auto-reclosings
.
 
6.
 
Customer’s average annual
number of 
interruptions thatare caused by
high speed auto-reclosings
.7.
 
Annual
number of unexpected interruptions
in
low
 
voltage
network.
8.
 
Annual
number of unexpected
 
interruptions
in
medium
 
voltage
network.
 PQ factors 1-6 are weighted with annual energy of thesecondary (distribution) substation. PQ factors 7 and 8 havebeen collected earlier and they are on the list for PQ trendmonitoring reasons.
OUTAGE COST MODELLING
The target of regulator is to define one outage cost for everycompany. This outage cost is combination of costs caused byfactors 1-6 presented previously. Outage cost modellingrequires that unit costs for power quality factors are available.Power quality unit costs in Finland are presented in Table I.
T
ABLE
I.
 
U
NIT COSTS FOR POWER QUALITY FACTORS FOR CUSTOMERGROUPS IN
F
INLAND
.
 
(AR
 
=
 
A
UTO
-
RECLOSING
)
 
[3]
 
Unplannedinterruption
[€/kW][€/kWh]
Plannedinterruption
[€/kW] [€/kWh]
Highspeed AR
[€/kW]
DelayedAR
[€/kW]Residential 0,068 0,61 0,034 0,30 0,034 0,088Agriculture 0,54 4,9 0,18 1,6 0,25 0,70Industry 2,6 8,7 0,80 3,8 1,1 2,9Public 0,65 3,4 0,23 1,5 0,23 0,73Service 1,9 11 0,80 7,2 0,95 2,1
Unit costs are based mainly on a Nordic research work doneby 90’s. More detailed definition of these unit costs ispresented in [9] and [3]. There is going a new research work to update these unit costs. This is done co-operation withFinnish Energy Market Authority, technical universities anddistribution companies.To reach for as accurate interruption data as possible ineconomically, companies are obligated to collect interruptionson secondary (distribution) substation-specific. In Fig. 4example of distribution substation-specific outage costmodelling is presented.
Fig. 4. Medium voltage line and example distribution substation (DS 4).
 Distribution substation-specific outage cost modellingrequires information of customer types and energyconsumptions. In table II this kind of statistics for distributionsubstation 4 (DS 4) is presented.
T
ABLE
II.
 
S
TATISTICS OF DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION
4
 
(DS
 
4).CustomergroupNumber of customersEnergy consumption[MWh/a]Average power[kW/customer]Residential 3 42 1,6Agriculture 2 50 2,9Public 1 10 1,1
In table III interruption statistics for DS 4 is presented.
110/20 kV
DS 1
170 MWh12 customers
DS 2
437 MWh23 customers
DS 3
215 MWh15 customers
DS 4
102 MWh6 customers
DS 5
65 MWh7 customers
DS 6
332 MWh45 customers
DS = distribution substation (20/0,4 kV)
 
CCIIRREEDD
18
th
International Conference on Electricity Distribution Turin, 6-9 June 2005CIRED2005Session No 2
T
ABLE
III.
 
I
NTERRUPTION STATISTICS OF
DS
 
4.Interruption type Number of interruptionsper yearTotal interruption timeper yearUnplanned 6 3,5 hPlanned 1 1,0 hHigh speed AR 12 -Delayed AR 4 -
It can be seen that number of unplanned interruptions is 6 andthey have last 3,5 h together. Outage cost e.g. for duration of unplanned interruptions can be calculated as presented in (4).
Unplannedcustomercustomertime-Unplantime-Unplan
C
Pnc
=
(4)Where
c
Unplan-time
 
= unit cost for duration of unplanned interruption [€/kWh]
 
n
customer
= number of customers in customer group
 
customer
P
= average power of customer in group [kW/customer]
 
Unplanned
= duration of unplanned interruptions in DS 4 [h]
 From table I, II and III outage costs for residential customerscaused by unplanned interruptions (C
unplan-time-res
) are (5)
a €ahkWh €res-time-Unplan
103,5kWh6,1361,0C
==
(5)In table IV outage cost for all customer types and interruptiontypes is calculated for distribution substation 4.
T
ABLE
IV.
 
T
OTAL INTERRUPTION COSTS FOR
DS
 
4.
 
(
N
=
NUMBER
,
T
=
 DURATION
,
 
HS
 
AR
 
=
 
H
IGH SPEED AUTO
-
RECLOSING
,)
 
UnplannedinterruptionN [€] TPlannedinterruptionN [€] THSAR[€]DelayedAR[€]Totalcosts[€]Residential 2,0
10
0,2 1,4 2,0 1,7
17
Agriculture 18 98 1,0 9,1 17 16
159
Public 4,3 13 0,3 1,7 3,0 3,2
26Total costs 24 120 1,4 12 22 21 100 %
The bottom row shows total costs of each interruption typeand rightmost column shows interruption costs of eachcustomer type. Total interruption costs for this particulardistribution substation are 200 €/a.In Fig. 6 percentage values of outage cost components inevery Finnish distribution companies are presented. At themoment reliable and extensive enough distribution substation-specific interruption statistics are not available. Outage costsare based on average values of companies and nationwideoutage costs with common shares of customer groups. This ispresented more detailed in [10].
 
0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %100 %
High speedauto-reclosingDelayedauto-reclosingInterruption number(planned)Interruption number(unplanned)Interruption time(planned)Interruption time(unplanned)
 
Fig. 6. Percentage values of outage cost components in Finland.
POWER QUALITY IN REGULATION ANDEFFICIENCY BENCHMARKING
Next properties of different kind of regulation and efficiencybenchmarking methods in sense of power quality andinvestments are described.
 Allowed rate of return and DEA efficiency benchmarkingwith interruption time
This is model, which has been used in Finland few years.Allowed rate of return is based on present value of thedistribution network. The model encourages investingbecause every investment increases value of the network andby that way increases rate of return of company. Financingcosts of investment can be gathered from customers. Inefficiency benchmarking (1) power quality affects toefficiency score varying in companies as presented in Fig. 3.
 Allowed rate of return and DEA efficiency benchmarking withoutage costs
 This is developed model [7] where power quality is measuredas outage costs and they are added to operational costs inDEA-model (3). The model still encourages investing tonetwork because every investment increases value of thenetwork. Even investments are not part of efficiencybenchmarking, efficiency score can be affected by investingto targets, which improve power quality (outage costs) and bythat way improve efficiency score. If investment is beneficialas sense of better power quality, efficiency score grow up andthis brings additional benefit for company. In Fig. 7percentage values of outage costs for all companies arepresented.
0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %100 %OPEX + Outage cost
 
Interruption number(planned)0,5 %Interruption number(unplanned)10,8 %Interruption time(unplanned)46,0 %Interruption time(planned)4,3 %Delayedauto-reclosing14,2 %High speedauto-reclosing24,2 %
 
Fig. 7. Average percentage values of a) total cost (outage cost and OPEX)and b) outage costs in Finland.
 It can be seen from Fig. 7 a. that outage costs are on theaverage 17 % of total costs (outage costs and OPEX). Half of outage costs are caused by interruption time as it can be seenfrom Fig. 7 b.
 Allowed rate of return and DEA efficiency benchmarking withoutage costs and investments
 This is developed model [11] where investments are takenaccount in efficiency benchmarking and they have asimportance role as outage costs and operational costs inbenchmarking. This model directs investments to thosetargets where minimum of total costs (operational costs,
OPEX
OUTAGECOST
a)b)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->