REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL

NETWORK DESIGN STANDARDS,

PRACTICES AND PLANT AND
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
KEMA Limited
URN 09/748
















DWG DWG DWG DWG PG2 PG2 PG2 PG2

REVIEW OF INTERNATIO REVIEW OF INTERNATIO REVIEW OF INTERNATIO REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL NAL NAL NAL
NETWORK DESIGN STAND NETWORK DESIGN STAND NETWORK DESIGN STAND NETWORK DESIGN STANDARDS, ARDS, ARDS, ARDS,
PRACTICES AND PLANT PRACTICES AND PLANT PRACTICES AND PLANT PRACTICES AND PLANT AND AND AND AND
EQUIPMENT SPECIFICAT EQUIPMENT SPECIFICAT EQUIPMENT SPECIFICAT EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATI II IONS ONS ONS ONS

CONTRACT NUMBER:
DG/CG/00089/00/REP
URN NUMBER: 09/748





Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor: :: :

KEMA Limited







The work described in this report was carried out under
contract as part of the DECC Emerging Energy Technologies
Programme, which is managed by AEA. The views and
judgements expressed in this report are those of the
contractor and do not necessarily reflect those of the DECC
or AEA.






First published 2009
Crown Copyright 2009


(i)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study is to identify good international practices and learning
opportunities in the construction of efficient and low carbon distribution networks.
The Electricity Network Strategy Group (ENSG) provides advice to the British
Government and electricity regulator on issues associated with the development of
electricity distribution and transmission networks. It is chaired jointly by the
Government and the regulator, and has senior representation from network
operators, generators and other industry participants. Their aim is to identify and co-
ordinate the technical, commercial and regulatory issues in electricity distribution
networks in transition to a low carbon future.
As part of their on-going work the ENSG has commissioned KEMA to undertake a
review of International Network Design Standards, Practices and Plant and
Equipment Specifications.
KEMA has interviewed Distribution Network Operators (DNO) in the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, UK and the United States to collect the necessary information on
network planning and design standards. These DNOs were selected because of their
comparability with the UK network in relation to network structure, size, density and
regulation.
To facilitate and structure the discussions with the DNOs, KEMA developed a
questionnaire, covering topics such as Network Planning Standards, network
architecture, network characteristics, network Distributed Generation (DG)
penetration and rate of deployment, network innovation, design specifications and
operational considerations.
The questionnaire outlined the type and extent of information required from each
DNO in order to obtain a consistent set of data. The questionnaire was issued to
each DNO in advance of the face to face meeting. This enabled participants to
consider questions beforehand for the information gathering meeting.
The findings from the discussions form the basis of the Review of International
Network Design Standards, Practices and Plant and Equipment Specifications. The
review is further supplemented by an extensive documentation research and review
of international publications and European and American collaborative research and
development projects.

The main findings can be categorised under three main headings of Network Design,
Loss Management and Integrating DG & Renewable Energy System (RES) and the
key study findings under each heading are;

Network Planning, Design and Specification:

Of the countries studied, only GB has a national baseline planning standard
(Engineering Recommendation P2/6) encompassing the distribution network
and stating the minimum requirements for network security and load
restoration following an unplanned interruption.

(ii)
This British planning standard is the only one to to formally acknowledge the
potential security contribution of DG and RES for consideration during
network planning activity. The other DNO study participants do not currently
formally consider the potential contribution from DG or RES at the network
planning phase.
All companies participating in the study recognised and utilised the global
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards but to varying
degrees. The European companies all cited IEC standards as the principal
standards used with the US company stating a lesser reliance. In the US the
predominant equipment specifications utilise the IEEE and ANSI standards.
There is a general consensus that it is preferential in the long run to select
equipment based on the total cost of ownership (TCO) or life-cycle cost (LCC)
than simply initial capital cost. All study participants use the LCC approach to
select network components such as transformers, cable and auto-reclosers.
All the European companies consider they have rationalised equipment
ratings and stores inventory as far as practicable to provide a minimised set of
components to meet current design requirements. They acknowledge this
approach may introduce a degree of over capacity in network installations but
it also allows a degree of flexibility for any future development.
Loss Mitigation:
Approximately 70% of the losses in electricity networks occur in the
distribution network with conductor accounting for 42% of these losses and
transformers circa 30%.
Two studies from British universities examined the carbon benefits from the
use of conductor with a greater cross sectional area than the supplied load
demanded. Both studies concluded that there are significant carbon benefits
from the reduction in losses over the life time of the oversized conductor; the
payback period was found to be 20 years which is well within conductor life
spans. The more recent Bath study also accounted for the embedded carbon
cost of producing larger cables and concluded that this is not a material factor
compared to the loss savings achieved when assessing life time benefits.
In the United States the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directed
the Department of Energy (DOE) to specify minimum efficiency standards
initially for LV and subsequently MV distribution transformers.
A new standard, EN 50464, for oil-immersed distribution transformers up to
36kV was introduced to improve the efficiency of installed transformers at the
specific request of the European Commission. New high efficiency classes of
transformer have been introduced in respect of both load and no load losses.
Integrating DG & RES:
DG penetrations relative to the total installed capacity of HV/MV transformers
is highest in the German and Dutch DNOs. This situation is also reflected in

(iii)
the national deployment levels of DG & RES in relation to total generation
capacity.
The high penetration of DG & RES has been readily achievable in Germany
and the Netherlands to date due to the ability of the robust network designs to
accommodate generation capacity through traditional network design
approaches.
The awareness of active network management technologies, particularly in
the fields of voltage control and power flow management, is strongest in the
GB industry. Although DG & RES deployment is comparatively low in GB
these issues arise sooner than in other jurisdictions due to the nature of
legacy network designs.
In addition to the more immediate network operational needs, research,
development, trial and deployment of ANM technologies is further encouraged
within the GB DNOs by Regulatory incentive through the Innovation Funding
Incentive (IFI) introduced in 2005 and the Registered Power Zone (RPZ)
scheme for innovative DG & RES connection. This has led to the direct
participation of DNOs in the identification, development and ownership of
appropriate new technology projects and is a distinct advantage over the
European counterparts that rely to a greater extent on collaborative
approaches with academia or participation in European programmes.
There is scope to reduce the high levels of time and effort expended on the
assessment of proposed DG and RES network connection viability. A web
based assessment tool has been developed and trialled by 3 UK DNOs and
long term development statements are available to reduce DNO and
developer engineering effort.
Recommendations
The study has determined that the UK DNOs are at the forefront of developing
innovative technical solutions for the connection of low carbon RES and other
distributed generation into distribution networks. This direct participation should be
encouraged through the continuation of schemes such as the IFI and RPZ incentive
schemes.
Commercial tools are now available that enable a DNO to significantly reduce the
effort required from scarce engineering resources in the assessment of the viability
of proposed generator connections. One tool offers a stand alone web based
solution whilst another utilises the GIS environment to integrate other legacy
applications. DNOs should explore the business case for employing such tools in
their own operational environment.
Providing appropriate locational signals to generation developers for the extent and
location of generation capacity acceptable to particular network locations would
reduce the effort expended by DNOs on assessing site applications that prove to be
unviable. Such tools are at an early stage in development but are considered worthy
of moving to trial development by DNOs following successful modelling.

(iv)
Consideration should be given to mandating the installation of high efficiency
transformers initially at the lower distribution voltages.



v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary................................................................................................... i
Table of contents...................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aim & Objectives................................................................................... 1
2. Approach to Project........................................................................................... 2
3. International DNO Review & Comparison........................................................ 3
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3
3.2 Network Characteristics ........................................................................ 3
3.2.1 Overview................................................................................ 3
3.2.2 HV Network ............................................................................ 5
3.2.3 MV Network............................................................................ 6
3.2.4 LV Network............................................................................. 6
3.2.5 Installed Transformers............................................................ 7
3.3 Planning Standards & Practices............................................................ 7
3.3.1 Standards............................................................................... 7
3.3.2 Security .................................................................................. 8
3.3.3 Availability .............................................................................. 9
3.3.4 DG / RES Considerations..................................................... 10
3.4 Design & Equipment Specification ...................................................... 10
3.4.1 Design Optimisation & Loss Management ........................... 10
3.4.2 Equipment Standards and Specification............................... 11
3.4.3 Equipment Selection & Rationalisation................................. 14
3.4.4 Issues................................................................................... 14
3.4.5 Resource requirement .......................................................... 15
3.5 Performance Measurement................................................................. 15
3.5.1 Overview.............................................................................. 15
3.5.2 Trends .................................................................................. 19
3.6 Network Automation............................................................................ 20
3.6.1 Overview.............................................................................. 20
3.6.2 Auto-reclosing Circuit Breakers............................................ 20
3.6.3 Remote Control .................................................................... 20
3.6.4 Automation ........................................................................... 21
3.7 DG & RES Deployment ....................................................................... 22
3.7.1 Generation Technologies ..................................................... 22
3.7.2 DNO Network Penetration.................................................... 23
3.7.3 Country Penetration ............................................................. 23
3.7.4 Trend.................................................................................... 24
3.7.5 Connection Guidelines ......................................................... 25
Great Britain..................................................................................... 25
3.8 Innovation ........................................................................................... 27
3.8.1 Overview.............................................................................. 27
4. Potential Low Carbon Network Technologies............................................... 31
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 31
4.2 Network Loss Reduction ..................................................................... 31

vi
4.2.1 Technical Losses.................................................................. 32
4.2.2 Loss Mitigation ..................................................................... 33
4.2.3 Conductor selection.............................................................. 35
4.2.4 High efficiency transformers................................................. 35
4.2.5 Regulatory incentives ........................................................... 38
4.3 Integrating DG and RES ..................................................................... 38
4.3.1 Introduction........................................................................... 38
4.3.2 Active Network Management................................................ 39
4.3.3 Voltage support and network security .................................. 39
4.3.4 Power Flow Management..................................................... 40
4.3.5 Locational Signals ................................................................ 40
4.3.6 Fault Level Management ...................................................... 41
4.3.7 Grid losses ........................................................................... 42
4.4 Energy storage.................................................................................... 43
4.5 Towards Smartgrids............................................................................ 44
5. Key Findings .................................................................................................... 47
6. Recommendations........................................................................................... 51


1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Electricity Network Strategy Group (ENSG) provides advice to the British
Government and electricity regulator on issues associated with the development of
electricity distribution and transmission networks.
The ENSG is chaired jointly by the Government and the regulator, and has senior
representation from network operators, generators and other industry participants.
Their aim is to identify and co-ordinate the technical, commercial and regulatory
issues in electricity distribution networks in transition to a low carbon future.
As part of their on-going work the ENSG has commissioned KEMA to undertake a
review of International Network Design Standards, Practices and Plant and
Equipment Specifications. The aim of this study is to identify good international
practices and learning opportunities in the construction of efficient and low carbon
distribution networks.
1.2 Aim & Objectives
The objectives set out for this project are:
To study and document distribution network design and operation standards,
principles and practices as applied in developed and developing countries
characterised by increasing penetrations of DG with strong commitments to reducing
carbon emissions. Comparisons should then be drawn with any equivalent UK
design standards and operating practices.
To include an overview of the high level design principles and any relevant network
cost, efficiency and performance metrics as adopted in the countries of major
interest.
To review current International / European plant and equipment specifications and to
compare with typical UK DNO specification.
To identify low-cost / high capacity DG connection techniques and low Carbon / low
loss network design principles in order that similar initiatives may be recommended
for implementation in the UK.
To identify potential changes to DNO design standards, practices and
plant/equipment specifications that could facilitate a transition to lower carbon/lower
cost distribution networks in the UK, thus contributing to the delivery of a low carbon
economy in the short, medium and long term.

2
2. APPROACH TO PROJECT
To perform the review as set out in section 1.2, the project has been executed with a
two stage approach:
a) Discussions with international Distribution Network Operators
b) Documentation Research & Review

KEMA contacted five Distribution Network Operators (DNO) in Europe and the
United States to collect the necessary information on network planning and design
standards. These DNOs were selected because of their comparability with the UK
network in relation to network structure, size, density and regulation. The final
selection was approved by DWG-PG2 steering group.
To facilitate and structure the discussions with the DNOs, KEMA developed a
questionnaire, covering the topics such as Network Planning Standards, network
architecture, network characteristics, network DG penetration and rate of
deployment, network innovation, design specifications and operational
considerations.
The questionnaire outlined the type and extent of information required from each
DNO in order to obtain a consistent set of data. The questionnaire was issued to
each DNO in advance of the face to face meeting. This enabled participants to
consider questions beforehand for the information gathering meeting.
The questionnaire included several questions seeking statistical network information
that could be completed prior to the meeting. However, for the majority of the
questions, the questionnaire served as a guideline to structure the discussion
meeting between KEMA and each DNO.

Prior to issuing the questionnaire to the international DNOs, a pilot interview was
conducted with an UK DNO to test and finalise the questions.

After the discussions, the findings were captured in narrative and tabular form by
KEMA and submitted for review to the interviewed parties.

These findings form the basis of the Review of International Network Design
Standards, Practices and Plant and Equipment Specifications. The review is further
supplemented by an extensive documentation research and review of international
publications and European and American pilot projects.

3

3. INTERNATIONAL DNO REVIEW & COMPARISON
3.1 Introduction
Discussions were held with several European (Britain, Germany, Spain,
Netherlands) and one US distribution network operator (DNO) based on a standard
set of topics and queries that were issued to each participant in the form of a
questionnaire prior to the meeting. High level characteristics of each DNO area are
shown in Table 1.

Representative DNO Characteristics
Characteristics
GB Spain Germany NL USA
Customers (million) 2.2 11.5 1.6 4.5 1.7
Peak Demand (GW) 4.3 19.4 2.8 4.5 9.8
Annual Demand (TWh) 20 107 17.6 35 67
Population Density (/km
2
) 244 88 233 393 -
Table 1 International DNO characteristics
The following sections outline and compare the results by questionnaire topic area
from these discussions.

3.2 Network Characteristics
3.2.1 Overview
In common with distribution networks globally those investigated in detail for this
study exhibited a typical hierarchical model for transformation points and voltage
levels from the transmission infeed to the customer connection. This demonstrates a
universally applied approach to energy supply; from centralised generation, to bulk
transportation and a tapered uni-directional distribution system to the point of use.
Within this hierarchy, however, there are notable international differences in the
degree of rationalisation of voltage levels and the network kilometres required to
serve the end customer. There are several historical reasons for this situation such
as the planning philosophies that have been in place and the topology of the
geographical area served.
Network voltage categorisation also differs between the UK and Europe as indicated
in Figure 1.


4

220kV
380kV
400kV
HV
275kV
400kV
Tran
smis
sion
400V LV 400V LV
20kV
10kv
MV
6.6kV
11kV
HV
50kV
38kV
MV
66kV
33kV
EHV
110kV HV 132kV 132
Europe UK
Transmission
Distribution
T1
T2 T3
220kV
380kV
400kV
HV
275kV
400kV
Tran
smis
sion
400V LV 400V LV
20kV
10kv
MV
6.6kV
11kV
HV
50kV
38kV
MV
66kV
33kV
EHV
110kV HV 132kV 132
Europe UK
Transmission
Distribution
T1
T2 T3

Figure 1 Voltage categorisation in UK and Europe
The distribution network hierarchy in England and Wales generally commences at
the 132kV transmission boundary which is sometimes stepped down to 66kV but
usually 33kV (EHV) levels prior to transformation at Primary substations to the main
distribution HV voltages of 11kV and 6.6kV. Final voltage transformation from HV to
LV is performed at Secondary substations.
To aid network comparison the UK 6.6kV, 11kV and 33kV (and US 2.4kV to 46kV)
network voltages have been aligned with the European MV voltage category and the
66kV and 132kV (US 115kV to 161kV) networks aligned with the European HV
voltage category.
Transformers in the UK have been classified as follows:
HV / MV (T1 and T3 in Fig 1) 132kv/33kV, 132kV/11kV, 66kV/11kV
MV / MV (T2 in Fig 1) 33kV/11kV
MV / LV 11kV/0.4kV
Comparisons of network and transformer parameters for representative DNOs from
each of the countries studied are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
In general, it appears that GB has a comparatively efficient network in terms of the
number of customers serviced per network kilometre and other countries are less
reliant on intermediate voltage levels with HV/MV (typically 110kV/10kV)
transformation more prevalent.



5
Representative DNO Comparison
NETWORK
GB Spain Germany NL USA
Voltages (kV)
HV
132, 66 132, 110, 66 110 none 161, 138, 115
MV
33, 11, 6.6 36,25,11 30, 20, 15, 10 30, 20, 10, 3 46, 34.5, 24.9,
22, 20.8, 13.2,
12.47, 12,
11.76, 11.7,
9.1, 7.2, 5.25,
4.16, 2.4
SC Rating
HV
5,700 MVA
(132kV)
5,800 MVA
(110kV)
4,000 MVA
(110kV)
n/a 40kA (115kV)
MV
250 MVA
(11kV)
176 MVA
(11kV)
260 MVA
(20kV)
250 MVA
(10kV)
270 MVA
(12.47kV)
Configuration
HV
132kV radial,
66kV closed
ring
Mesh Mesh n/a Closed ring
MV
Open ring,
radial
Closed ring,
some cross
connection
30kV closed,
20/10kV open
ring + cross
connection
Open ring,
radial. 10kV
clean
interconnectors.
Radial, open
ring.
LV
radial radial radial radial radial
% Network overhead
HV
86 96 99 n/a 99
MV
46 70 38 0 71
LV
6 7 42 0 Not available
Network Km / 1000 customers
HV
1 2 4 n/a 10
MV
10 10 16 18 64
LV
12 15 30 24 Not available
Table 2 Comparison of DNO network parameters

Representative DNO Comparison
TRANSFORMERS
GB Spain Germany NL USA
Installed transformer capacity (MVA)
HV/MV 12,156 79,020 10,003
n/a
16,330
MV/LV 6,743 48,869 5,715
n/a unavailable
Customers / transformer
HV/MV
8,200 5,825 5,000 8,300 1,592
MV/LV
70 90 95 50 3
Installed MVA / 1000 customers
HV/MV
6 7 6 4 9.6
MV/MV
6 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a
MV/LV
3 4 4 6 14
Table 3 Comparison of DNO transformer parameters

3.2.2 HV Network
In the Netherlands the DNOs no longer operate network assets at or greater than
110kV. This network is now operated by the national Transmission System Operator,
TenneT.
The HV network across Europe and the United States is generally designed and
operated with redundancy providing a security level of n-1.

6
A high percentage of the HV network, circa 90%, is overhead in all countries studied.
3.2.3 MV Network
The higher level medium voltage networks operating at 30kV and above in all DNOs
studied tend to be configured as a closed ring or mesh, providing n-1 levels of
security.
Distribution feeders in the 10kV and 20kV range are commonly operated as open
rings in more densely populated areas and radially in more rural areas in all
countries. In Germany these rings are often reinforced with cross-connections
between rings and in the Netherlands greater flexibility and security is achieved
through the use of clean interconnectors between MV distribution stations. Both
these configurations provide operational advantages and provide greater
redundancy to the GB DNO network.
As illustrated in Table 2, compared to the GB DNO the installed MV network
kilometres per 1000 customers is 60% higher in the German DNO, with a similar
country population density, and 80% higher in the Dutch DNO with a higher
population density. This demonstrates the higher levels of redundancy built into the
Dutch and German DNO MV networks as a consequence of historic planning
philosophies.
There is a greater variation in the proportion of overhead MV networks in each DNO
ranging from 0% in the Netherlands to 64% in the United States. All DNOs reported
that the preference today is to design and install MV networks underground.
Rationalisation of MV voltage levels has been greater in Europe than the US with
10kV (NL), 11kV (GB, Spain) and 20kV (Germany) being the most common
distribution feeder voltages. Although a large variation exists in the US the prevailing
voltage level is 12.47kV (90%) and the opportunity to convert legacy networks to this
standard is taken whenever possible.
3.2.4 LV Network
Low voltage network configurations employed today are universally radial in nature
although legacy networks in GB and Germany do have a degree of interconnection
and redundancy. Interconnected LV networks are considered expensive to maintain
in the German DNO which has approximately 20,000 link boxes, and in all the DNOs
studied new LV networks are radial as the economic case for additional expenditure
in providing interconnection is poor.
European LV network installations are predominantly underground except in
Germany where 42% is overhead. Figures for the US DNO were not available,
however, overhead distribution remains commonplace.
The LV network kilometres per 1000 customers in the Netherlands and Germany is
high at 24km and 30km respectively and is double that installed in GB and Spain.

7
3.2.5 Installed Transformers
In GB there is a greater reliance on the intermediate MV(EHV)/MV(HV) (33kV/11kV)
transformation level than in other countries where HV/MV transformation is more
common. This is clearly illustrated when the installed MV/MV capacity per 1000
customers in GB, 30 times that of Spain & Germany, is compared in Table 3.
Similarities are apparent between the number of customers connected per
transformer in GB / Netherlands and Spain / Germany.
3.3 Planning Standards & Practices
3.3.1 Standards
Of the countries studied, only GB has a national baseline planning standard
(Engineering Recommendation P2/6) encompassing the distribution network and
stating the minimum requirements for network security and load restoration following
an unplanned interruption. This standard is based on load recovery criteria of a
demand group by capacity and time, rather than network characteristics and
purpose.
In the Netherlands there are national planning requirements for the 110kV, and
higher, network but operational and development responsibility for this network has
recently transferred from the DNOs to TenneT, the Transmission System Operator.
All the review participants have formalised and documented Company planning
standards in place that have recently been reviewed. The review cycle is either
driven by periodical review, expiry date and by regional changes in network
requirements. These standards may vary by region within companies where DNO
operations cover a large area where different legacy technical requirements have
evolved, but there is a desire to harmonise future network development.
Historically, in GB company planning policies often exceeded national planning
standard requirements and the extent of current planning enhancements is
influenced by regulatory capital expenditure allowances and performance incentives.
The Spanish DNO has adopted a unique approach to the advancement of network
planning standards through the development of optimised Best Grid models. Two
models have been developed, one for the HV network and one for the MV, and are
based on known load and generation locations from which an economically and
reliability optimised, best model, network is planned. Actual network practicalities
and requirements are then referenced against the best model to achieve as close a
match as possible.
In recent times the introduction of regulatory incentives in GB and minimum legal
requirements in Spain for customer service criteria has had a major influence on
network planning activity. The GB DNOs are financially rewarded for performance
beyond declared regulatory annual performance targets and have responded by
implementing network automation and remote control investments within the current
planning standards. If they fail to meet performance targets there is a symmetrical
financial penalty.

8
In Spain national customer service targets have been established which all DNOs
must achieve or face a financial penalty. There is no financial reward for achieving a
level of performance beyond the minimum requirement, resulting in network
investment geared to this end.
All companies regard their design philosophy as fluid and require constant reviewing
and updating to reflect changes in technology, regulation, embedded generation and
demand.
3.3.2 Security
The security of supply to customers is dependent on the level of equipment
redundancy in the network. For instance, a group of customers supplied by a single
circuit will experience a loss of supply for a fault on that circuit; but if a second circuit
were to be operated in parallel with the first no supplies would be lost due to a single
fault on either circuit. These network configurations are commonly referred to,
respectively, as n-0 and n-1 security criteria.
Information sourced from interviews suggests that the High Voltage category of
distribution network is normally planned to a security level of n-1 in German, Dutch
and the Spanish DNO. In GB, although not strictly required by the security planning
standard Engineering Recommendation P2/6, the majority of HV networks also meet
n-1 criteria in reality.
The security criteria of the Dutch 110kV and 150kV network complies with n-1
criteria with the caveat that up to a maximum of 100 MW of load may be interrupted
for a period not exceeding 10 minutes. In the event of a network fault occurring
during a maintenance outage a load interruption not exceeding 100 MW or 6 hours is
permissible.
In Germany the 30kV, in GB the 33kV and in the US the 34.5kV MV networks are
also generally planned to observe n-1 security criteria.
Medium Voltage networks operating at 20kV and below in all countries tend to be
operated as open rings, are more radial in nature and are planned with no immediate
redundancy, ie n-0. However, alternative supplies to restore the majority of
customers are quickly available from the other side of the open ring. In Spain but
particularly in Germany networks are sometimes further reinforced through additional
cross-connection lines between rings.
The Dutch 10kV distribution network operates at two levels; 1) a strong backbone
with parallel circuits connecting 10kV busbar stations and 2) an open ring or radial
distribution feeder network radiating from the busbar stations. The 10kV backbone is
planned to n-1 criteria (as a minimum) and the feeder network to n-0. Very few
customers are connected to the backbone circuits and it is now policy to connect all
customers to the distribution feeder network.
At the Low Voltage level, historical networks, particularly in GB and Germany, a
degree of redundancy that enables feeder reconfiguration and supply restoration in
the event of a fault may be available. Today, however, all DNOs install radial LV

9
networks with little or no interconnection but capable of support from mobile
generator connections when required.
Output measures for annual network reliability are recorded as CI (Customer
Interruptions per 100 connected customers) in Germany, GB and the Netherlands
and NIEPI (interruptions per installed transformer MVA) in Spain. The US uses
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) as a measure of reliability.
The regulator in the UK, legislature in Spain and Public Utility Commissions (PUC) in
the US have set annual targets for CI, NIEPI and SAIFI performance respectively.
3.3.3 Availability
All companies measure network non-availability parameters as a measure of
network and customer service performance. These measures vary between
countries and can be based on customers (Customer Minutes Lost, CML), lost
energy (Energy Not Supplied, ENS), installed transformer capacity (time interrupted
per equivalent power installed, TIEPI) or simply the number of interruptions. CML is
also expressed as the System Average Interruption Duration Index or SAIDI.
Performance measurement is discussed in more detail in Section 3.5.
CML (SAIDI) per connected customer is the availability measure used in Germany,
GB, the Netherlands and US whereas in Spain the minutes lost per installed
transformer MVA (TIEPI) is recorded.
In Germany the focus on minimising the duration of outages is left to the integrity and
motivation of the operational staff. There are no company criteria or specified
standards for customer or load restoration.
The US Company also relies on the skills and motivation of the operational staff but
has a standard requiring supply restoration to all affected customers within 12 hours.
Although there is no formal restoration criteria in the Netherlands the planning
philosophy of the studied DNO has changed so that MV networks are now being
simplified to enable the restoration of all but the faulted section of network within
three switching operations. This represents a marked improvement over previous
network configurations that could require up to six actions to restore supplies to the
healthy network. The DNO is currently assessing criteria to measure its own
restoration performance.
In Spain there is an annual target set by statute for the maximum TIEPI minutes that
can be incurred by a DNO. The TIEPI target recognises the topological differences
across the country and is delineated into four zones; urban, semi-urban,
concentrated rural and dispersed rural. Zone targets vary from two hours for urban to
12 hours for dispersed rural. This TIEPI target implicitly defines the average
restoration criteria each Spanish DNO must achieve.
A more clearly defined approach to supply restoration criteria is taken in GB where a
set of Guaranteed Standards stipulates the maximum time period for supply
restoration during both normal and severe weather conditions. Failure to meet these

10
standards will result in potentially uncapped fixed penalty payments being made by
the DNO to the affected customers.
The definition of outage duration that constitutes a recordable event is uniform
across the countries and DNOs reviewed and is based on the EN 50160 definition of
a long interruption lasting three minutes or longer. However, the Spanish DNO
reported that discussions and debate had commenced to reduce the recordable
event duration to 1 minute.
3.3.4 DG / RES Considerations
All distribution companies in the study acknowledge their obligation to connect
Distributed Generation or Renewable Energy Systems to the appropriate network
point.
However, the only planning standard to formally acknowledge the potential
contribution of DG and RES for consideration during network planning activity is the
ER P2/6 standard utilised by all DNOs in Britain.
The other DNO study participants do not currently formally consider the potential
contribution (such as voltage support, loss management or deferment of network
reinforcement expenditure) from DG or RES at the network planning phase.
Although the Dutch DNOs have long had a collaborative approach to cogeneration
resulting in an agreed Technical Terms of Connection, the DG connected has not
been considered as supporting DNO network development. The network has been
planned and designed to accommodate the high levels of DG. Consideration of
network support benefits from larger DG units during network planning and design
activities is now under review by the Dutch distribution network operator.
In Germany, nationally and with the DNO studied, the level of wind generation
capacity connected at HV (>60kV) and EHV is sufficiently high that it could not be
covered by reserve generation in the event of a sudden collapse of wind generation
output. To mitigate this situation all renewables generating plants connecting to the
HV or EHV network from September 2004 must provide ancillary services and are no
longer automatically disconnected in the event of a network fault. A guideline
document REA generating plants connected to the high- and extra-high voltage
network for these connection requirements is published by the Association of
German Network Operators, VDN.
3.4 Design & Equipment Specification
3.4.1 Design Optimisation & Loss Management
The Dutch DNO has adopted a risk based, integrated design approach that
considers all aspects from technical specification, component reliability, loss
minimisation, life cycle costs and environmental considerations.
Losses in the network can be minimised by reducing inefficient power flows in the
network through optimising the position of open points in the common open ring
distribution feeder. Only the German DNO selected the location of open points on
this basis, the others cited operational convenience and speed of fault restoration as

11
the prime criteria for open point location. Estimated losses for each studied DNO are
provided in Table 4.
Representative DNO Network Losses
Estimated Losses
GB Spain Germany NL USA
Network Losses
% of input energy 5.5% 8% 5% 4% 12%
Table 4 Percentage network losses
The German and Dutch DNOs experience the lowest losses and also contain the
highest network densities and distributed generation deployment. It was not possible
in the scope of this study to determine if network redundancy or the contribution from
DG had the greatest influence on loss management.
Fault level management and loss management were quoted as secondary criteria for
open point selection by the GB and Spanish DNOs respectively.
A common approach to loss minimisation is the use of larger cross-section conductor
or cable than technically required. Of the European DNOs the German and Spanish
companies are also specifying and installing low loss transformers as an aid to loss
reduction, where economically justifiable.
The German DNO also has a policy of optimising the utilisation of HV/MV
transformers at 40%
In the US the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) has directed the
Department of Energy (DOE) to specify minimum efficiency standards for distribution
transformers. The DOE has accepted the efficiency level of LV transformers
specified in the National Electrical Manufacturers Association standard, NEMA TP-1-
2002 and this has been in force for all LV transformers greater than 15kVA capacity
manufactured since January 1, 2007.
From January 1, 2010 there will be a DOE mandatory requirement
1
to install higher
efficiency MV transformers in the range 10kVA to 2500kVA. It should be noted that
the economics of high efficiency transformers are impacted by a range of variables
including; efficiency improvement, transformer loading, forecast energy cost, time
horizon and cost of capital. In addition the benefits of high efficiency transformers are
linked to transformer utilisation and therefore decline with increasing network
redundancy.
3.4.2 Equipment Standards and Specification
To ensure interoperability and compatibility the power industry, like many industries,
have developed many technical standards over the years. These standards are
defined, discussed and formalised in a standards organisation. This can take place
at a national, European or global level.

1
DOE 10 CFR Part 431; Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Distribution
Transformer Energy Conservation Standards; Final Rule.

12
This section presents the best known standard bodies in use by the power industry.
At the end of the section a summary list is provided of the most common standards
in use by the network operators.
ISO standards
ISO (International Organisation for Standardization) is a global network that identifies
what International Standards are required by business, government and society.
Standards are developed in partnership with the sector concerned. The derived
codes, rules and guidelines are the result of consensus from input by numerous
national working groups. ISO is responsible for worldwide implementation of
standards.
ISO 9001:2000 Quality management systems
ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management systems
IEC standards
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is a worldwide organisation for
standardization comprising all national electrotechnical committees (IEC National
Committees). The object of IEC is to promote international co-operation on all
questions concerning standardisation in the electrical and electronic fields. To this
end and in addition to other activities, IEC publishes International Standards,
Technical Specifications, Technical Reports, Publicly Available Specifications (PAS)
and Guides. Their preparation is entrusted to technical committees; any IEC National
Committee interested in the subject dealt with may participate in this preparatory
work (website IEC). International, governmental and nongovernmental organisations
liaising with the IEC also participate in this preparation. IEC collaborates closely with
the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). Equipment specifications
applicable to network operators include;
IEC 62271-100 Circuit Breaker,
IEC 62271-102 Disconnector & Earth Switch,
IEC 60076 Power Transformers and
IEC 60502 MV Power Cables.
European standards
The most important European Governmental organisation involved in standards is
CEN, the European Committee for Standardization (Comit Europen de
Normalisation). This Committee is an organisation providing an infrastructure to
interested parties for the development, maintenance and distribution of coherent sets
of standards and specifications. CEN works closely with the European Committee for
Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI), and the International Organisation for Standardization
(ISO). CENELEC (European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation) deals
with the creation of standards in the electro-technical field.

13
National implementation of standards is performed by national standard bodies. In
the case of European Standards (designated 'EN'), the Members must transpose the
final text ratified by vote into national standards, translating them if desired, but
without deviation or alteration, and retain the prefix EN in the national designation:
e.g. BS EN 1234, NF EN 1234, DIN EN 1234. Thus the number and reference of the
standard are exactly the same throughout Europe. In most countries the technical
content is completed with requirements of explicit national validity and is often based
on long-term practice. Widely used standards include;
EN50160 Voltage characteristics of distribution networks.
EN 60265-2:1994 Specification for high-voltage switches.
EN 50464-2-3:2007 Three-phase oil-immersed distribution transformers 50
Hz, from 50 kVA to 2500 kVA with highest voltage for equipment not
exceeding 36 kV.
The standardization bodies of the twenty-nine national members represent the
twenty-five member states of the European Union, three countries of the European
Free Trade Association (EFTA) and Turkey, which is likely to join the EU or EFTA in
the future.
Engineering Recommendation (UK)
Engineering recommendations are standards developed by the Energy Network
Association (ENA), the Trade association of the network operators in Great Britain.
The ENA is responsible for maintaining the industry-originated Technical
Specifications and Engineering Recommendations schedule. Over 400 publications
are available in the ENA document catalogue. Examples of recommendations
include;
Engineering Recommendation G59/1: Recommendation for the connection
of private generating plant to the Public Electricity Suppliers distribution
systems.
Engineering Recommendation G75/1: Recommendations for the
connection of embedded generating plant to public distribution systems
above 20kV or with outputs over 5MW.
Engineering Recommendation P2/6: Security of Supply.
Engineering Recommendation P14: Preferred switchgear ratings.
Engineering Recommendation P26/1: The estimation of the maximum
prospective short circuit current for three phase 415V supplies.
Engineering Recommendation P28: Planning limits for voltage fluctuations
caused by industrial, commercial and domestic equipment in the Great
Britain.
Engineering Recommendation P29: Planning limits for voltage unbalance in
the Great Britain for 132kV and below.

14
Engineering Recommendation G83/1: Recommendations For The
Connection Of Small-Scale Embedded Generators (Up To 16 A Per Phase)
In Parallel With Public Low-Voltage Distribution Networks.
Trends
All companies participating in the study recognised and utilised the global
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards but to varying degrees.
The European companies all cited IEC standards as the principal standards used
with the US company stating a lesser reliance.
The European companies also subscribe to Comit Europen de Normalisation (EN)
standards adapted appropriately for national requirements.
In the US the predominant equipment specifications utilise the IEEE and ANSI
standards.
Where changes to the specifications due to regional technical variations are required
these were always cited as operational, safety related or mechanical modifications
by all participants. The electrical specification is not modified.
The GB DNO was the only one to indicate that it was now specifying equipment with
a higher short circuit rating as an approach to future-proof the network against an
anticipated increase in fault levels above the current 250MVA design level.
All DNOs have changed their MV circuit breaker specification away from SF
6
interruption medium to vacuum interrupters. However, due to technical limitations of
vacuum interrupters, circuit breakers operating in excess of 36kV are specified with
SF
6
.
3.4.3 Equipment Selection & Rationalisation
There is a general consensus that it is preferential in the long run to select
equipment based on the total cost of ownership (TCO) or life-cycle cost (LCC) than
simply initial capital cost. All study participants use the LCC approach to select
network components such as transformers, cable and auto-reclosers.
All the European companies consider they have rationalised equipment ratings and
stores inventory as far as practicable to provide a minimised set of components to
meet current design requirements. They acknowledge this approach may introduce a
degree of over capacity in network installations but it also allows a degree of
flexibility for any future development.
Due to the many voltages in the inherited legacy networks the extent of
rationalisation in the US has not been so great. However, the company studied is
well aware of the advantages of standardisation and rationalisation and is working
toward this at every opportunity.
3.4.4 Issues
One common theme regarding design issues emerged with all DNOs; the integration
of current and legacy network designs. These were not regarded as technical issues

15
but mainly centred on sourcing equipment which is non-standard with the resulting
impact of lead times and cost.
Optimisation and recovery of DG/RES connection costs is an issue in Germany and
the US, with connection ownership also raised as a concern in the US.
The accuracy of demand forecasting and weather correction techniques hinder the
design process of the GB DNO whilst the German DNO is receiving requests from
the transmission network operator to limit fault current levels.
Interestingly, the US network company reported cultural resistance to the
modernisation of network design and the Dutch DNO met similar conflict when
proposing design changes.
3.4.5 Resource requirement
As the volumes of DG and RES connections, and therefore the design workload,
increases there has been a mixed impact on design resources amongst the
companies studied. Two countries, GB and the Netherlands, reported a general
shortage in staff with the necessary design knowledge and skills regardless of any
impact from increasing DG and RES workload. The US DNO has recently
established a new connections group with one person dedicated almost full time to
addressing generator requests for distribution connection.
Only the German, despite having the highest penetration of DG, and Spanish DNOs
reported no issues with the availability of design expertise.
3.5 Performance Measurement
3.5.1 Overview
The parameters utilised by each DNO in the study for network performance
measurement are determined at a national rather than DNO specific level. This
approach allows accumulation of individual DNO performances to provide national
performance statistics and enables a degree of national and international
benchmarking.
Distribution network performance measurement parameters and methodologies vary
considerably between countries from some recording only the number of
interruptions, to those measuring reliability and availability indices for each of the
high, medium and low voltage networks.
The most common reliability indicator utilised is the System Average Interruption
Frequency Index (SAIFI), also expressed in some countries as Customer
Interruptions (CI) per 100 customers. The corresponding network availability index is
the System Average Duration Index (SAIDI), expressed in some countries as
Customer Minutes Lost (CML) per connected customer.
Alternative indices to the customer centric ones above are also employed and may
be based on the installed transformer capacity or annual energy consumption.
Indices based on installed transformer capacity are favoured by Spain and Portugal

16
and express network availability as TIEPI (minutes per installed MVA) and reliability
as NIEPI (interruptions per installed MVA).
A table of the performance indicators employed by 20 EU countries
2
by voltage level
is shown in Table 5.
Continuity Indicators Country
Interruptions
SAIDI, SAIFI and MAIFI per voltage level
(H, M) (HV, MV, LV)
GB, HU, IT, NO (from 2006)
SAIDI and SAIFI per voltage level (H, M, L) CZ, GR, PT, FR, LT, NO (from 2006)
SAIDI and SAIFI per voltage level (H, M) SI (some data only), BE, Wallonia
SAIDI and SAIFI all voltages SE, EE, IE, (SAIFI from 2006)
Average duration (D) and frequency (F) per
contracted power or other
AT (average D and F weighted on MV power affected,
MV/MV, MV/LV),
ES (average D and F weighted on MV power affected:
TIEPI, NIEPI)
FI (average D and F weighted on yearly energy
consumption)
FI (interruptions are weighted by the yearly energy
consumption of the distribution area that one
distribution transformer feeds).
PT (TIEPI, ENS, excluding LV)
NO (ENS, excluding LV:1kV)
Other/ No indicators LV (number of interruptions), PL (no indicators)
Table 5 CEER continuity indicators for distribution
A distinction, based on the EN50160 definition, is also made between long
interruptions (lasting three minutes or longer, recorded as SAIFI) and short or
momentary interruptions (less than three minutes but greater than one second,
recorded as MAIFI). Most EU countries and the US adhere to the three minute
definition for long interruptions when reporting network performance. No country was
found to be recording transient interruptions of less than one second duration.
From Table 5 it can be seen that nine EU countries, including GB, differentiate the
recording of long interruptions by network voltage. However, only four countries,
Great Britain, Hungary, Italy and Norway also record short interruptions.
Regulatory incentive schemes to encourage investment that improves network
performance are established in Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway,
Portugal and Sweden.

2
CEER Third Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply 2005.

17
Performance incentive mechanisms are largely based on SAIDI and SAIFI reporting
with the exceptions of Norway and Portugal where they are based on Energy Not
Supplied (ENS) and TIEPI respectively. Hungary, Italy and Portugal exclude planned
interruptions from the incentive mechanism and all countries have a mechanism for
excluding force majeure or exceptional events.
Great Britain
Targets for network performance (CI and CML) were initially set by the regulator for
each DNO in December 1999 as part of the Distribution Price Control. Delivery of
these performance targets was reinforced with the introduction of the Information
and Incentive Programme (IIP) in April 2002. IIP was superseded by the Interruption
Incentive Scheme (IIS) at the commencement of the current Price Control period in
April 2005.
A feature of IIS is that the CI and CML targets for each DNO become more
challenging in successive years of the price control period and the corresponding
incentive rates also increase. The IIS provides symmetrical rewards and penalties to
a proportion of DNO revenue (3%) with the maximum revenue adjustment
attributable to CI and CML set at 1.2% and 1.8% respectively. Ofgem publishes
the performance and penalty / reward statistics for each DNO in an annual Electricity
Distribution Quality of Service Report.
To aid more direct performance comparison between DNOs with disparate network
topologies Ofgem has agreed the disaggregation of the MV network into 22 circuit
categories based on the proportion of circuit overhead, circuit length and number of
customers connected. Data from the disaggregated CI and CML performance does
not contribute to the incentive scheme reporting but is used to provide publicly
available benchmark performance figures for each DNO.
In addition to the performance incentive scheme there is a statutory set of
Guaranteed Standards that define maximum restoration times following supply
interruption (for both normal and severe weather conditions), notification of planned
interruptions, response times to connection estimates and voltage complaints and
the penalty payments due to customers for failure to meet any Standards. These
Guaranteed Standards requirements are customer specific and not averaged system
indices.
Netherlands
All DNOs report annual performance statistics to the Regulator who then develops
an informal performance benchmark. Customer service from networks is inherently
high due to the MV and LV networks being entirely underground and the high level of
network security between MV stations. There is no incentive scheme in place to
improve on this performance.
If a DNO performance level varies from the regulatory benchmark there is a
mechanism in the price review to penalise the DNO but is considered to have
minimal impact.

18
There does, however, appear to be a desire amongst Dutch DNOs to improve their
network performance and customer service levels.
Spain
Performance is measured by TIEPI which is essentially installed MVA minutes lost
and NIEPI which equates to installed MVA interruptions.
There is a statutory requirement for distribution companies not to exceed nationally
agreed TIEPI and NIEPI (number of interruptions) limits. The limits applicable to the
four categories of area defined are;
TIEPI and NIEPI Limits TIEPI
(mins)
NIEPI
(number)
Defined areas
Urban 120 4
Semi-urban 240 6
Concentrated rural 480 10
Dispersed rural 720 15
Table 6 TIEPI and NIEPI limits
Whilst there are penalties for exceeding the TIEPI and NIEPI limits there is no
incentive scheme to reward performance that betters these limits.
There are no additional standards governing the response times for restoration of
load or customers following an unplanned interruption.
Germany
The DNO interviewed measures CML, CI, energy not supplied and fault rate per
kilometre for the HV, MV and LV networks. These figures are submitted annually to
the German regulator (BDEW) who collates all DNO performance statistics.
Performance figures shown to KEMA indicate that the DNO compares well in relation
to its European peers. In fact, the MV network fault rate per kilometre is
approximately half that achieved in Great Britain.
German performance metrics were not available in the CEER 2005 benchmarking
study but a VDN facts and figures document
3
published in 2007 confirms the high
performance level attained by German networks.

3
Facts & Figures, Electricity Networks in Germany, April 2007; VDN.

19

Figure 2 VDN chart of network CML performance
There are no separate standards or targets for the restoration of load or customers
following an unplanned interruption. The speed of supply restoration is determined
by the effectiveness of the operations team. A number of larger customers do have
contractual obligations for restoration of supplies following an interruption.
No incentive scheme for network performance improvement currently exists but the
DNO studied is anticipating this will materialise as regulation matures.
United States
Performance targets for SAIDI and SAIFI are set by each State PUC and penalties
paid if they are not met. Like Spain, there is no reward for improving on target levels.
Both Guaranteed and Performance Standards are in place at the US DNO with only
the Guaranteed Standards triggering a compensation payment to customers.
Targets for supply restoration (80% of customers within three hours) are included
within the Performance Standards but do not result in compensation payments if
they are not achieved.
3.5.2 Trends
There is a general continuing trend and desire, at DNO and national levels, to
increase network performance year on year but at some point an optimum
performance level against the expenditure required to realise it must be reached.
This is a conundrum for both the DNOs and regulatory authorities. The IIS
programme in GB for instance has delivered significant service improvements since
its introduction but DNOs are now in a position where each marginal improvement
made requires more complex solutions and therefore increased costs. And, in the
Netherlands or Germany, do customers require further improvements in service and
are they willing to pay for it?
Regulators extol a value for money approach and sustain pressure on capital
expenditure, and with high performance levels already attained in several
jurisdictions it is probably now time to consider performance value optimisation
criteria. With varying legacy network configurations and operating area topology

20
these criteria are likely to be different for each country. However, once determined,
these criteria could be incorporated into a network performance ethos at all aspects
of network planning, design and equipment specification.
3.6 Network Automation
3.6.1 Overview
This section reviews the utilisation and deployment of auto-reclosing circuit breakers,
remotely controlled equipment and automation schemes.
3.6.2 Auto-reclosing Circuit Breakers
Commonly referred to as autoreclosers, these circuit breakers are utilised solely on
overhead circuits that are prone to non-permanent, or transient, faults. These
devices will automatically close after a pre-determined time after initially opening on
detection of a line fault, and it is normal practice globally to attempt two reclose
cycles prior to detection of a permanent fault that results in the autorecloser locked
out in the open position.
All study participants make extensive use of auto-reclosing applied to the line source
circuit breaker in the substation, in both the MV and HV networks. It is widespread
practice on MV circuits across all studied DNOs, with most declaring 100% of
overhead circuits protected in this manner. The GB DNO has approximately 50% of
overhead circuits protected with auto-reclosers. Delayed auto-reclosing is employed
at HV voltage levels.
Where overhead circuits are long or have large spurs, additional pole mounted
autoreclosers may be installed that prevent the entire circuit from outage in the event
of a fault occurring beyond the additional recloser. Since the introduction, by Ofgem,
of the Information and Incentive Programme in 2002 a large number of these
downline reclosers have been installed and it is now normal practice in Great Britain
where economically justifiable.
At this time, other countries have not adopted the use of downline autoreclosers to
the same extent as GB. However, the US operator is continuing a programme of
installation as part of a performance improvement policy and is likely to achieve
similar deployment levels.
3.6.3 Remote Control
Remote control is defined as the ability to operate equipment at remote locations,
such as substations and circuit switching points, from a centralised facility. The
decision making and execution of any control signal is performed manually, usually
through the SCADA system. It is possible for a wide range of network equipment to
have remote control facilities incorporated.
Remote control of equipment at HV/MV substations is standard practice and MV/MV
substations also, generally, have remote control capability through SCADA systems.

21
In the British DNO approximately 50% of overhead and 10% of underground circuits
have additional downstream remote control devices such as circuit breakers or
switches to assist with effective customer restoration after an unplanned outage.
The Spanish DNO makes extensive use of remotely controlled apparatus throughout
the underground MV network and at least one remotely controlled switch in most
overhead circuits. The design and planning of these facilities is targeted at effective
and rapid customer restoration by centralised manual control after an unplanned
interruption.
Whilst the German DNO has remote control capability to 95% of its MV substations
the deployment of downline remotely controlled apparatus does not feature in the
German network.
In the Netherlands the MV feeder circuit breakers have status monitoring only via the
SCADA system and are not controllable. Incoming HV circuit breakers in the HV/MV
substation have full remote control facilities.
The provision of SCADA at HV/MV substations in the US Company reviewed is more
mixed with full SCADA functionality to 29% of sites, monitoring only to 11% and no
SCADA capability to 60% of sites. It should be noted, however, that many of the
HV/MV sites are in remote locations with low customer numbers.
Remote control of overhead and underground switches at the US network operator
has been applied very judiciously.
3.6.4 Automation
The definition of automation is often loosely translated by DNOs and subsequently
applied in an inconsistent manner across the industry. For clarification in this review
automation is defined as a scheme of equipment that is capable of network
reconfiguration, without human intervention, to restore supply following an unplanned
interruption. It is a prerequisite that this scheme of equipment has communication
channels to share network and equipment status parameters that can then be used
by the scheme control module to execute a pre-determined set of operations. By this
definition the use of a single auto-reclosing circuit breaker does not constitute
network automation. However, it may be possible to utilise auto-reclosing circuit
breakers as an element of an automation scheme as described earlier.
In general, the trialling and adoption of MV network automation varies considerably
between DNOs from no experience to extensive adoption of underground and
overhead automation technologies.
The GB DNO interviewed for this study has trialled automation schemes for load
recovery following an unplanned outage at the MV (11kV) level but considered the
technology insufficiently reliable to retain them in service. There are currently no
further trials or implementations of network automation planned.
Other GB DNOs, however, have had more encouraging experiences with network
automation and there are a significant number of schemes installed to manage
supply interruptions on high customer density underground and overhead circuits.

22
These automation schemes tend to be managed through stand alone systems.
Automation functionality in a number of schemes is provided within the RTU/SCADA
combination.
In the US DNO three automation schemes for underground, overhead and mixed
circuits have been trialled with limited success. Communications technology utilised
in the schemes did not prove sufficiently reliable but a more serious issue hindering
perseverance with the trials was the lack of acceptance from operational field staff.
There are no further plans to proceed with MV automation at the US distribution
operator.
No network automation schemes have been installed or trialled at any voltage level
at the DNOs in the Netherlands or Germany and there are no immediate plans to do
so.
3.7 DG & RES Deployment
3.7.1 Generation Technologies
The installed capacity of DG and RES by technology type varied considerably across
the network operators interviewed. Figures for the major generation technologies
reported per DNO are shown in Table 7.
In all countries the dominant generation type at High Voltage levels is wind and
waste-to-energy/biomass. Medium voltage levels have the greatest mix of generation
with wind, hydro, biomass, landfill gas and photovoltaic. Renewable generation in the
Low Voltage network is predominantly from photovoltaic sources.
Solar energy production in the form of photovoltaic cells is most prominent in
Germany and Spain, with some larger PV schemes connected at MV.

Representative DNO DG&RES Installed Capacity
DG/RES mix
GB Spain Germany NL USA
DG&RES technology (MVA)
CCGT 40
CHP 493 1300 1014
Wind 32 2,950 2,367 80 237
Hydro 0 2,117 74 0.7 19.3
Biomass 13 155 114 27 10
Landfill gas 98 - 17 - 32
Photovoltaic 0.07 18 53 0.6 0.7
Other 528 525
TOTAL 1,164 5,240 2,624 1,933 1,353
Table 7 Installed capacity of DG&RES technologies


23
3.7.2 DNO Network Penetration
To obtain a sense of how the level of generation capacity may impact on the
distribution network it has been compared to the installed HV/MV transformer
capacity for each network operator as a proxy for DG penetration, see Table 8.
Representative DNO DG&RES Network Penetration
DG/RES Installed
GB Spain Germany NL USA
Installed DG&RES capacity
% of HV/MV
transformer capacity
9% 7% 26% 13% 8%
Table 8 Network penetration of DG&RES as % of HV/MV transformer capacity
When compared to the installed HV/MV transformer capacities the GB, Spanish and
US companies studied have similar relative penetrations of DG and RES.
High levels of DG & RES capacity in the German and Dutch DNOs has not posed
any particular technical challenge to date due to the ability of the highly robust legacy
MV network designs to accommodate it.
The German DNO, however, has an extremely high relative penetration of DG and
RES into its network. In fact, the scale of wind generator deployment in particular is
causing issues with power flow resulting, at times, in the backfeed of energy from the
distribution network to the transmission system. This is viewed as an issue by the
transmission operator as it impacts on generation balancing conditions. A novel
energy management system has been developed by the DNO in-house and is now
monitoring power flows and controlling connected DG and RES as necessary to
prevent a backfeed scenario occurring. This solution is considered to be a temporary
measure until appropriate primary network reinforcements have been implemented.
3.7.3 Country Penetration
The national penetration of DG and RES in each of the DNO countries is shown in
Table 9 as a percentage of gross generation production.
National Comparison DG&RES Production
DG/RES Installed
GB Spain Germany NL
Installed DG&RES production (% gross generation)
DG 6.3% 7.2% 12.5% 30%
RES 4.6% 15% 11.8% 8.9%
Total 10.9% 21% 26% 39%
Table 9 DG&RES production by country as % gross generation production
4



4
Eurostat and Energy.eu 2006 statistics.

24
Distributed generation, or cogeneration, has been encouraged in the Netherlands
since the early 1980s with distribution companies allowed to install their own
generation with the advent of the 1989 Electricity Act. Each DNO generator plant
size was limited to less than 25 MW but this opportunity provided the incentive to
formulate appropriate technical connection requirements for all cogeneration parties,
including the DNOs.
This situation in the Netherlands lead to the evolution and strengthening of the
distribution networks over the past 25 years that has enabled them to absorb large
volumes of DG and RES through primary network design practices. This is clearly
illustrated by the volume of DG production shown in Table 6.
RES penetration at the national level, see Table 10, reflects that of the network
penetration of the representative DNOs studied, Table 8; Germany and Spain
dominate both tables.
National RES installed capacity
DG/RES Installed
GB Spain Germany NL USA
Installed RES capacity (GW) (Excludes large scale hydro)
RES capacity 2006 3.55 12.43 27.39 2.15 123.46
% gross generating
capacity
4.3% 15.3% 19.6% 9.6% 11.5%
Table 10 Installed RES capacity by country
5


3.7.4 Trend
In March 2007 EU Member States signed up to a binding target to have 20% of the
EUs overall energy consumption sourced from renewables by 2020. This target is
driving the trend to increase renewable generation capacities in all member
countries.
Wind generation is viewed as the major contributor to annual growth in distributed
generation capacity by all studied DNOs, except the Netherlands DNO where good
quality CHP is expected to be the greatest contributor.
Wind generator growth in each DNOs country is illustrated in Table 9 over the years
2006 and 2007. Whilst Germany has the highest installed capacity (globally) its
growth has diminished, with the USA experiencing the highest growth rate of 45%.

5
Eurelectric 2006 statistics.

25

National - Wind installed generation capacity
Wind Generator
Growth
GB Spain Germany NL USA
Installed wind generation capacity (MW)
Wind capacity 2006 1,962 11,623 20,622 1,558 11,664
Wind capacity 2007 2,389 15,145 22,247 1,746 16,913
% increase 22% 17% 8% 13% 45%
Table 11 Wind energy growth by country 2006-2007
6


3.7.5 Connection Guidelines
None of the DNOs studied considered the technical design of DG & RES connection
to be a barrier to increasing connected capacity. The technical requirements are
published as guidelines on an industry wide basis in all countries and utilised by the
studied DNOs.
Great Britain
In GB the DNOs have produced guidance documents (Engineering
Recommendations) available from the Electricity Networks Association;
G59/1 for generating plant of 5MW or less.
G75/1 for generating plant >5MW or connecting above 20 kV.
G83/1 for small-scale generating plant connecting at LV.
The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) produces a Technical
Guide to the Connection of Generation to the Distribution System to guide
developers through the entire connection process.
Germany
There are separate guidance documents for the connection of generation plant to the
MV and LV networks. They are respectively;
"Eigenerzeugungsanlagen am Mittelspannungsnetz" - Richtlinie fr
Anschluss und Parallelbetrieb von Eigenerzeugungsanlagen am
Mittelspannungsnetz; 2nd edition of 1998. (Connecting Embedded
Generation at Medium Voltage - Guidelines for connection and parallel
operation of embedded generation at medium voltage.)
"Erzeugungsanlagen am Niederspannungsnetz"- Richtlinie fr Anschluss
und Parallelbetrieb von Eigenerzeugungsanlagen am Nieder-
spannungsnetz; 4th edition of 2001. (Connecting Embedded Generation at

6
European Wind Energy Association.

26
Low Voltage - Guidelines for connection and parallel operation of
embedded generation at low voltage.)
An additional guideline, VDN Richtlinie; EEG Erzeugungsanlagen am Hoch und
Hochstspannungsnetz, was introduced by the VDN in September 2004 for
renewables based generating plants connecting to the HV (>60kV) and EHV
networks from that date. This new guideline recognised the contribution from these
generators to network support, particularly;
the provision of reactive power and voltage support in the event of a fault,
limitation of reactive power absorption after a fault,
reduction of harmonics at HV and EHV and
setting of protection schemes.
Netherlands
The strong cooperation between DG owners and network operators during the 1980s
resulted in the production of guidance document by EnergieNed titled Technical
Terms for Connection. This document was in force and adhered to by all DNOs and
distributed generators from 1994 to 2000. Since 2000 the connection guidelines
have been embodied in the NetCode.
The Dutch Net Code recognises three bands of generation to the public network:
below 2 MW, between 2 and 60 MW and over 60 MW. Generators below 5kVA are
categorised as domestic/micro generation.
In regards to Distributed Generation, the Dutch Netcode requires generators over 2
MW but below 60 MW to submit, on a yearly basis, to the network operator their best
possible estimate of the following matters for the coming period of seven years:
place, capacity, technical data, operational limits and regulating behaviour
of the individual generation units;
place, dates, technical data, operational limits and regulating behaviour of
generation units to be started up;
place of generation units to be decommissioned and the date of
decommissioning;
maintenance planning for each generation unit (stating period and duration
in weeks).
Generators below 2 MW are generally exempt from this reporting.
Spain
The Spanish DNO has internally developed set of norms, comprising a design
document library for connections. The majority of these norms can be accessed
online for reference. The main document, "Normas Tcnicas particulares de Endesa"

27
or "Particular Technical Rules of Endesa", set outs rules which apply to electrical
installations up to 30 kV. Voltages above 30 kV are regulated nationally.
The Particular Technical Rules of Endesa covers amongst others the technical
connection requirements for LV and MV installation, LV and MV distribution grid,
transformer centres, sectionalizing and power delivery and special requirements for
PV installations connected to LV distribution grid. The technical parameters include
isolation levels, grid models (rural area, semi urban, urban area, industrial areas),
underground and overhead grids and short circuit currents.
United States
In the US the IEEE 1547 Standard on Interconnection Issues provides the minimum
technical requirements for the connection of Distributed Resources, not exceeding
10 MVA aggregate capacity, to the distribution network.
IEE 1547 is not considered to be a guideline but provides the minimum functional
technical requirements needed to help ensure a technically sound interconnection.
3.8 Innovation
3.8.1 Overview
With the global pressures to adopt renewable energy production and energy efficient
technologies that reduce the impact on the environment, several crucial challenges
face the DNO to enable the penetration of renewable generation to the level targeted
by the European Union to meet the 2020 target. The main challenges include voltage
management, fault level mitigation and power flow management.
It is increasingly challenging to meet the different needs of politicians, regulators,
network operators and renewables generators, and an appropriate approach to
developing innovative solutions that satisfy all parties is essential.
Four of Europes electricity utilities, ENDESA, EDF, EDP Innovao and RWE
Energy AG have recently signed an Innovation Utilities Alliance (IUA) agreement.
Under this agreement the signatories will collaborate in the field of innovation,
developing the electricity networks of the future and energy efficiency initiatives.
Great Britain
Spending patterns of the DNOs on research and development activities declined
markedly and rapidly after privatisation, as shown by the trend in Figure 4.

28

Figure 3 DNO Research & Development spending since privatisation
In broad terms, the introduction of the Initiative Funding Incentive (IFI) by Ofgem in
April 2005 allowed the DNOs to recover expenditure on research and development
activities up to a value of 0.5% of their revenue. This incentive provided the
necessary impetus to re-ignite both short-term and long-term R & D activities.
Each DNO is able to build its own portfolio of initiatives and research projects but
each one must pass specific criteria to qualify for inclusion in IFI, and therefore
eligibility for cost recovery. These portfolios consist of a mixture of projects including;
developments with vendors tackling immediate issues, collaborative projects with
other DNOs, participation in strategic technology projects, partnerships with
academic institutions and membership of large European grid development projects
A broad range of network technologies associated with network efficiency
improvement and DG/RES connections is encompassed within the IFI programme,
for example; active voltage management of DG, fault current limiting devices, smart
transformers, automation, dynamic rating, redox battery and other energy storage
devices and incipient fault detection.
There is a broad range of innovative network technologies at the development, trial
or implementation stage at each DNO.
Another scheme launched by the Regulator is the RPZ, Registered Power Zone. A
registered power zone is an area of the national grid network, geographical or
electrical, specifically designated for the research, development and demonstration
of new technologies concerning the power network. Specifically to develop solutions
to the problems associated with connecting generating capacity at the distribution
network level. There are currently 4 registered power zones in the UK, operated by
different Distribution Network Operators.


29
Netherlands
A dedicated team has been established in the Dutch DNO to stimulate and manage
innovation and R & D activities. There are collaborations in place with academic
institutions and membership of the large European projects has been established.
The DNO considers that greater collaboration is required between all Dutch DNOs to
establish an effective programme that is capable of delivering solutions for trial to be
shared across all participants. Main areas of immediate interest are; converters for
LV generation connection (solar, PV), active network management and smart grids.
There are no trials of new technology currently in progress at the DNO studied.
Spain
In Spain, ENDESA created an innovation circles initiative (CIDE) in 2006 as a
vehicle for conveying to all interested parties the challenges and goals in technology
development for the electricity business. The CIDE model encompasses initiatives
spanning ENDESAs main business areas and involves all agents, such as
employees, suppliers, government bodies and R&D centres, with the mission of
searching for and identifying innovative solutions collaboratively.
The DNO interviewed did have a company R & D division which is active in several
research projects with universities and in developing technology trials. Areas of
major interest with initiatives in progress include dynamic wind generator modelling,
the impact of photovoltaics in LV networks, energy efficiency and operational safety.
Germany
The DNO interviewed had no R & D programme or funding available within the
company but did have access to the corporate group level programme. However, it
was intimated that the DNO is somewhat remote from this programme and no
projects of particular interest to distribution network operations had been identified.
Areas of innovation of most interest to the DNO are dynamic rating management, LV
fault location techniques, smart transformers (a solid state advanced power-
electronic system) for managing photovoltaic generation at the LV boundary and
control systems to prevent the backfeed of energy from distribution connected
generation to the transmission network.
Although the DNO had developed an innovative solution to the transmission
backfeed problem it considered this as a temporary measure until the network could
be reinforced through traditional design methods.
United States
A technology development group has been established in the DNO studied but this is
currently more focused on incremental improvement to existing equipment. There is
a severe resource shortfall preventing more active participation in R & D activities.

30
The company is a member of two high profile research centres; the National Electric
Energy Testing, Research and Application Center (NEETRAC) and the Distribution
Systems Testing, Application and Research (DSTAR) programme.
Current focus is on technology and solutions that will drive down costs whilst
increasing reliability and improving customer service.
Trials of technologies to enhance operational practices are underway; low cost
SCADA based on cell phone technology, a phase verification tool and incipient fault
detection utilising a drive-by scanner.


31
4. POTENTIAL LOW CARBON NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 Introduction
Distribution network operators could play an important role in the transition to a low
carbon environment by adopting a Low Carbon Grid Design philosophy that
facilitates a reduction in the carbon footprint of the energy chain. As Figure 4
illustrates, this can be achieved by reducing grid losses, which reduces the carbon
footprint of the network itself, or by facilitating connection of DG and RES, which
helps reduce the carbon emissions from generation.

Low Carbon Grid Design
CO
2
Equivalents Energy Related
Grid Losses DG & RES Friendly SF
6
Emissions
Reliability
Safety
Power Quality
Grid Capacity
System Balance
Cables
Transformers
Grid Design
Switchgear
Grid Design
Cables
Transformers
Grid Design
Switchgear
Low Carbon Grid Design
CO
2
Equivalents Energy Related
Grid Losses DG & RES Friendly SF
6
Emissions
Reliability
Safety
Power Quality
Grid Capacity
System Balance
Cables
Transformers
Grid Design
Switchgear
Grid Design
Cables
Transformers
Grid Design
Switchgear

Figure 4 Identifying low carbon grid design possibilities
These steps mainly represent incremental design changes to the current passive
network architecture. The next step change is likely to be in the area of active
distribution network management which may, in turn, lead to the future realisation of
smart grids. These grids would combine managed power flows, storage, local
balancing of demand and supply with complex monitoring and communication
requirements.
This chapter will discuss solutions identified to reduce network losses, those
designed to facilitate DG and RES connection and a view of the possible transition to
smart grids is provided.
4.2 Network Loss Reduction
Network losses consist of two components:
(i) Technical losses; and
(ii) Administrative (non-technical) losses.
Technical losses result from energy dissipated in the system due to the electrical
characteristics of the physical components such as conductors, cable and
transformers. They are true losses in the sense that they refer to units that are
transformed to heat and noise during distribution and are therefore physically lost.

32
Non-technical, administrative, losses emerge due to theft, errors in customer
profiling, measurement inaccuracies and administration errors. These losses are
actually consumed but for the reasons listed are not recorded accurately as energy
sales. Only technical losses are discussed further.
4.2.1 Technical Losses
Technical grid losses have two components: variable losses and fixed losses.
Variable or load dependent losses have a quadratic relationship to the
magnitude of the electric current and are dependent on the physical
properties (electrical resistance) of the conductors and transformer
windings.
Fixed, non-load, losses do not depend on the amount of power which is
transported. These losses occur in all energised equipment and originate
mainly in the iron core of transformers and dielectric losses in the dielectric
or insulation of cables.
Table 12 provides an overview of transmission and distribution losses experienced
globally. It must be noted that these losses are averaged and that losses during
system peak will be much higher as they are quadratic dependent on the magnitude
of the current.

33

Year Transmission
and distribution
losses 1980 1990 1999 2000
Country
Finland 6.2 4.8 3.6 3.7
Netherlands 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.2
Belgium 6.5 6.0 5.5 4.8
Germany 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.1
Italy 10.4 7.5 7.1 7.0
Denmark 9.3 8.8 5.9 7.1
United States 10.5 10.5 7.1 7.1
Switzerland 9.1 7.0 7.5 7.4
France 6.9 9.0 8.0 7.8
Austria 7.9 6.9 7.9 7.8
Sweden 9.8 7.6 8.4 9.1
Australia 11.6 8.4 9.2 9.1
United Kingdom 9.2 8.9 9.2 9.4
Portugal 13.3 9.8 10.0 9.4
Norway 9.5 7.1 8.2 9.8
Ireland 12.8 10.9 9.6 9.9
Canada 10.6 8.2 9.2 9.9
Spain 11.1 11.1 11.2 10.6
New Zealand 14.4 13.3 13.1 11.5
Average 9.5 9.1 7.5 7.5
European Union 7.9 7.3 7.3 7.3
Table 12 Selected global transmission & distribution losses
7


4.2.2 Loss Mitigation
Active power flows depend on the load and cannot be easily influenced by network
operators. Reactive power, however, which also contributes to network losses is
generally managed by the transmission network operator by installing reactors or
capacitors locally to manage reactive power demand.

7
Electricity distribution losses a consultation document; OFGEM, January 2003.

34
The distribution network operator can influence the extent of network losses at three
phases in the life cycle of (a part of) the network.
(i) Planning and Design phase
During the planning and design phase of a new part of the network it is
possible to influence the grid losses by increasing the voltage level (and thus
reducing the current) or by investing in low loss (heavier) conductors and
transformers that utilise modern materials.
(ii) Operating phase
The possibilities to influence the grid losses in this phase are limited. The
network operator can split the network in different sections to balance power
flows through the system. It can also ensure that customers with poor power
factor install power factor correction capacitors.
(iii) Refurbishment or reinvestment
A high proportion of network components is over 30 years old and has a high
contribution to grid losses. Technology and materials have progressed
significantly and more energy efficient equipment such as low-loss
transformers and cables can be utilised to replace ageing networks. As only
smaller parts of the network are refurbished, this phase will have less of an
impact than phase (i), unless a dedicated replacement programme is
instigated.
Table 13 indicates that approximately 70% of network losses occur in the distribution
system. Distribution conductor accounts for some 42% of these losses and
transformers around 30%. Given these percentages, it is clear that the main focus
for network loss reduction is on distribution conductors and transformers.
Transformer and conductor
losses
Transformers Lines Other
% of Total T D T D
Case
USA example 1 4.0 16.2 32.3 45.5 2.0
Australia example 2.0 40.0 20.0 38.0
UK example 1 8.0 24.0 21.0 45.0 2.0
Market assessment 10.0 35.0 15.0 35.0 5
Average 6.0 30.6 19.0 41.6 2.8
Table 13 Transformer and conductor losses in transmission & distribution networks
8
.


8
The Potential for Global Energy Savings from High Efficiency Transformers, Leonardo Energy, 2005.

35
4.2.3 Conductor selection
Network losses are directly proportional to the resistance of the conductors and
increased sizing is a straight forward method to reduce losses. Most network
operators studied have rationalised the choice of conductors for asset management
and inventory reasons, and this implicitly reduces losses as most conductors will be
over-dimensioned for the anticipated power flow during network design.
There is currently a shift in the planning of networks away from the traditional
approach of minimising the cost of investment to one that considers minimising life
cycle costs. The major difference in these approaches is that the former did not
adequately consider losses. Network design selection based on life cycle cost of
ownership was studied at UMIST back in 2001
9
and results showed that, in the
majority of cases, low and medium voltage circuits with a 5 to 10 fold greater
capacity than needed is more economical over 20 years because of the reduced
losses compared to the minimum size of cable that can still carry the load.
At higher voltage levels, the same UMIST study found that optimal loading of the
circuits is between half and one third of the maximum capacity, when losses are
taken into account.
When considering the early replacement of cable and overhead conductor with
oversized alternatives a study by the University of Bath
10
included the embodied
energy and carbon from manufacture to assess any potential environmental benefit.
The study concluded that it was important to perform a full life cycle analysis and that
the dominant factor in the methodology used was the lifetime electrical loss due to
the conductors resistance. It went on to conclude that a comparison of cables at
equal loading need only compare the cable resistance to determine the lowest
impact option over the lifetime of the cable; i.e. the largest cable has the least
environmental impact.
A more futuristic approach would be the use of super conductive materials, but these
are still in research phase and will not be available on the short to medium term.
4.2.4 High efficiency transformers
The energy efficiency of transformers can be increased through the use of more
expensive materials and design optimisation. Low loss (high efficiency) transformers
are now a mature technology although it should be noted that the cost is higher.
Economic and environmental benefits have already been demonstrated in several
studies but it must be noted that highest loss savings are realised when the
transformers are relatively highly loaded, circa 65%.
Nevertheless, according to studies performed by the European Copper Institute
(reference footnote 8), improving the efficiency of existing European transformer
stock by 40% would result in about 22 TWh per annum energy savings, equivalent to
approximately 9 million tonnes of CO
2
.

9
Network security of the future UK electricity system, UMIST, December 2001.
10
Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Assessment of 11 kV Electricity Overhead Lines and Underground
Power Cables, University of Bath, July 2008.

36
The European Union and international community have recognised this large
potential energy saving and are developing standards for increased distribution
transformer efficiency. The current standards are CENELEC HD 428 for liquid-
immersed transformers and CENELEC HD 528 for dry type transformers. These
standards do not specify power efficiency levels, but define sets of maximum
allowable No Load and Load losses for different rating classes. Figure 5 illustrates
the wide range in European performance standards (HD428BA to HD428CAmdt with
amorphous core) against other national standards. The standards do not give
mandatory requirements but leave it up to each Member State to adopt one of the
sets into their regulation.

Figure 5 Comparison of international standard transformer efficiencies at 50% load
Currently the European Union is proposing a new efficiency standard in line with the
current level of technology and their energy saving strategy. The new Cenelec EN
50464 standard will supersede HD428 for liquid-immersed transformers.

37

Labelling BET Efficiency standard Test standard Global
transformer
programs Mandatory Voluntary
Country
Australia X
Canada X X
China X
EU X
India X X
Japan X X X
Mexico X
Taiwan X X
USA X X X X
Table 14 Overview of global transformer programs (BAT = Best Available Technology)

Table 14 indicates where efficiency standards are now mandatory (USA, Australia,
China and Mexico) and where the best available technology is utilised globally. A
mandatory minimum efficiency standard for distribution transformers is not expected
to be introduced in Europe in the near future.
The new European transformer standards are likely to be more aligned with the
recently published, October 2007, US Department of Energy (DoE) Distribution
Transformer Energy Conservation Standards. This US standard raises the minimum
efficiency levels of liquid-immersed and dry-type transformers in the range 10kVA to
2,500kVA and will apply from January 1 2010. Efficiency standards have been set at
50% of nameplate rated load and in conclusion of its studies the DoE acknowledges
that 25% of the transformer market is likely to incur a net life-cycle cost, i.e. the
payback is likely to remain negative for distribution applications. It also concludes
that transformers that meet the new standard are already commercially available and
that 75% of the market will be neutral to or experience life-cycle benefits. It should be
noted that the economics of high efficiency transformers are impacted by a range of
variables including; efficiency improvement, transformer loading, forecast energy
cost, time horizon and cost of capital.
Of the network operators studied in the international comparison the Dutch, German
and Spanish participants considered the installation of high efficiency transformers.
The US participant has been installing high efficiency LV transformers since 2007
and is mandated to install only high efficiency transformers from January 2010. The
Dutch DNO has evaluated and rejected the widespread utilisation of high efficiency
transformers on economic grounds.

38
A life cycle cost approach is taken by the German and Spanish DNOs to determine
site suitability for the installation of high efficiency transformers. However, it should
be noted that life cycle costing techniques are reliant on energy price forecasts in the
medium-long term.
4.2.5 Regulatory incentives
Active encouragement of loss reduction by government or regulatory bodies through
law or regulation is likely to be required as pressure to adopt low carbon networks
continues.
In the Netherlands, the distribution network operators pay the cost of energy incurred
beyond a regulated maximum value. The maximum cost recovery is obtained
through the use of system charges, but any additional loss costs have to be borne by
the DNO with a direct impact on their revenue. This type of cost allocation ensures
that operators are implicitly incentivised to reduce their network losses.
In GB, the energy suppliers pay for network losses which in turn are passed through
to the customer. The DNOs have no direct financial burden for losses. As a result,
the operators have not previously been directly motivated to reduce network losses
and Ofgem introduced incentives for network loss reduction in Distribution Price
Control 4.
The GB is one of only three European countries, the others are Portugal and
Estonia, with regulatory incentives in place to encourage the reduction of distribution
system losses. In Great Britain the incentive scheme rewards DNOs with 48 for
every MWh of loss reduction (2004/2005 prices). It should be noted that since 2005
many GB DNOs have been successful in reducing commercial losses by focusing on
un-accounted energy flows rather than technical losses.

4.3 Integrating DG and RES
4.3.1 Introduction
In line with the commitment of European Governments to respond to the climate
change challenge, deployment of distributed generation and renewable energy
systems is being promoted as a mechanism to reduce emissions and improve the
carbon footprint of the energy supply chain.
It has previously been established that significant levels of DG have been facilitated
without the requirement of innovative control measures into the Dutch and German
systems due to the robustness and redundancy of the primary network. The
networks have remained largely passive. However, with large volumes of RES,
largely wind, now connected on the 110kV network in Germany the need for active
network management technologies, particularly power flow management, is now
being addressed.
In Britain distribution networks, especially in rural areas, can be constrained with
respect to the connection of DG before the utilisation of active network technologies

39
is necessary to maintain network operating parameters within the scope of national
planning standards.
4.3.2 Active Network Management
A great deal has been documented on the type and status of active network
management (ANM) technologies and it is not the intention to reiterate it in this
report. A comprehensive register and comment on international ANM activities and
technologies produced by the University of Strathclyde
11
provided the following key
findings;
The most advanced technical areas are communications & control, voltage
control and power flow management; this is expected as these are often
the initial barriers faced in the connection and operation of DG.
69% of the active management activities are currently at the R&D phase
and is taken as an encouraging sign that emphasis is now focusing towards
the eventual demonstration of technologies or solutions at the trial stage or
further.
The majority of deployed solutions are bespoke/custom systems and there
is a need to develop solutions that have a wider applicability.
These findings are in alignment with the practical experience gleaned from the DNOs
studied for this review that found;
no evidence of large scale deployment of ANM technologies in any DNO
and
the active participation by DNOs in the development of a broad spectrum of
active management projects is most advanced in British DNOs; this is
expected as the GB DNOs probably have a more urgent need for such
technologies and are encouraged through incentivisation to seek innovative
solutions through the IFI Programme.
4.3.3 Voltage support and network security
In GB the introduction of Engineering Recommendation (ER) P2/6 now requires
DNOs to consider the contribution that DG can make in the context of network
security at all distribution voltage levels. A deterministic approach to the assessment
of the security contribution from DG can now be used to enhance network security,
possibly deferring the need for premature network reinforcements.
The same design philosophy applies to congested parts of the network, where DG
can be used for load support, especially during operational timescales.
In Germany and the Netherlands voltage and security support are only considered
for DG / RES connected at 110kV or higher.

11
Active Networks Deployment Register, University of Strathclyde, January 2008.

40
The Electricity Networks Association is custodian of the ANM Register that contains
examples of many projects internationally that are at the research and development
or trial phases of enabling voltage control of a network with embedded DG.
4.3.4 Power Flow Management
Several highly diverse power flow management projects are listed in the ANM
register ranging from PLC controllers in Greece to low voltage applications in
Germany and the RPZ applications in the UK;
In Greece a project utilising interruptible contracts for wind farms to control
the power flow through congested corridors by issuing power reduction
commands, whenever security limits are violated has been installed. The
control is implemented using Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). Both
preventative and corrective control actions can be taken to ensure power
flows are within N-1 security limits. Interruptible contracts and power-flow
control scheme have increased wind-power penetration in the Thrace area
of North-East Greece, an area with limited transmission capability.
In Germany, PoMS is a novel ICT application developed by Fraunhofer ISE
as part of the DISPOWER project (Work Project 10),which implements
active management of distributed generation, controllable consumption,
storage and power quality devices in low voltage grids, and covers
economic optimisation as well as interventions in case of voltage
irregularities.
At the Skegness/Boston RPZ Dynamic ratings are calculated using real-
time load and local temperature information. This allows the thermal
capacity of the network to be utilised more effectively for accommodating
increased connections of wind energy. An additional 90MW of generation
may connect, which will be subject to automatic curtailment based on the
breaching of the dynamic thermal capacity.
As wind power continues to increase and dominate the RES mix it will become
increasingly important to accurately forecast the output from wind farms on an
individual, regional and national basis in order to optimise the economic despatching
of conventional generation.
4.3.5 Locational Signals
Appropriate locational signals are seldom provided to potential DG developers from
the DNO planners. Conversely, a DG operator will wish to install and run the
maximum capacity generation possible which may be in conflict with the optimum
generation required at a network location or the ability of the local network to
accommodate the associated power flows.
To address this dilemma a method combining optimal power flow and genetic
algorithms developed by the Universities of Edinburgh and Salerno was presented
12

at CIRED 2007. The solution proposed aims to provide a means of finding the best

12
Strategic Placement Of Distributed Generation Capacity, Paper 0624, CIRED 2007.

41
combination of sites within a distribution network for connecting a predefined number
of DGs. In doing so it overcomes known limitations inherent in currently available
techniques to optimise DG capacity. Its use would be to enable DNOs to search a
network for the best sites to strategically connect a small number of DGs among a
large number of potential combinations.
The methodology has been successful run on a simulated 11kV distribution network
model with 67 possible generator connection points but has not yet been proven in
practice.
Other initiatives to improve the labour intensive and expensive process of assessing
the potential and viability of a proposed generator site have also been introduced;
one by a major manufacturer, GE Energy, and another by the renewables developer
Econnect Ventures.
The GE Energy innovation was presented at CIRED 2007
13
and utilises its GIS
product as the user interface to an integrated engineering tool that provides
planning, technical design and cost assessment functionality. It is a tool designed to
utilise the data already present in multiple DNO IT systems to improve the
productivity of skilled engineers and new engineering staff through the extended use
of GIS technologies and process automation. This is a tool aimed at the DNO side of
the connection assessment process and user and wider business benefits of the
approach have been demonstrated in a trial at a major European utility.
Econnect Ventures is an established participant in the renewables industry in the UK
and is familiar with the high level of effort and cost required by both the DNO and DG
developer in assessing the viability of generator connections at specific network
points. To streamline this process it set out to produce an automated connection
assessment service for all affected parties. A GIS environment is also used as the
user interface but the technical information on network parameters, and existing and
planned generator sites, has been built up from publicly available information in the
DNO Long Term Development Statements. A successful web based pilot
implementation involving three DNOs in the UK has been completed and the
resulting product is now available on a commercial basis called GridConnection.
At the time of writing the next steps to provide geographical coverage of the
electrical data across the UK is progressing. E ON UK has recently purchased the
web based tool and is quoted as saying Quickly determining the initial feasibility of
projects saves us spending time on those that may never get off the ground. The
launch of GridConnection is a key move in our industry, and brings together
extremely valuable network data under one roof."
4.3.6 Fault Level Management
Management of increasing network fault levels is of concern to network operators
globally and much research is focused in this area from LV level to EHV level in
order to avoid any need for switchgear replacement. A summary of the status of this
research into fault limiting devices is shown in Table 15.

13
An Integrated Planning, Design And Analysis Environment For New Distributed Generator
Connections, Paper 0792, D. Hawkins, CIRED 2007.

42
Fault current
limiting
technology
Manufacturer/
Developer
Application
voltage level
Status Time to market
Technology
I
s
Limiter ABB and G&W
Electric
450kV 38kV Commercially
available
Available
ABB 11kV Field Test Unknown Solid state
breaker
EPRI 69kV 2 years to test
manufacture
Unknown
ABB 8kV Successful test
2001
On hold
Nexans (CURL 10) 10kV (10MVA) Filed test in
progress
Unknown
Nexans 110kV (1.8kA) Demonstrator
planned for 2009
Unknown
SuperPower (and
others, USA)
138 kV R&D, Prototype
expected 2009
Unknown
Japan 6.6kV Testing complete Unknown
Korea (DAPAS
program)
22.9kV R&D, Prototype Test
Innopower (China) 35kV (100MVA) Field testing 2007 Unknown
Superconducting
Fault Current
Limiters
Power Electronics
SCFCL (unknown
developer)
MV Demonstrator due
early 2007
Unknown
Magnetic Fault
Current Limiter
Areva 400V (250A)
prototype
Test Unknown
Interphase
power conrollers
ABB HV networks Commercially available
Active network
contollers
Econnect
University of
Northnumbria
VA Tech T&D UK
(now Siemens)
LV Distribution
Networks (11kV)
R&D Unknown
(R&D project set
to complete Feb
2007)
Table 15 Summary of the status of fault current limiting technology.
14


4.3.7 Grid losses
The assumption that distributed generation will always reduce grid losses is not
valid. Studies show that the amount of grid losses can increase when the local

14
Application of Fault Current Limiters, DECC Report 07/1652, 2007.

43
demand can no longer absorb the local generation and the network will have to be
used to transport the generated energy surplus.
A recent study in the DG GRID programme
15
concluded that DG will contribute in
the reduction of system losses when DG reduces power flows across distribution
networks. This is likely to happen when the DG penetration level is relatively low.
However, the studies have demonstrated increase in losses with high penetration of
DG and high density of DG allocation.
Location specific analysis of a part of the grid, taking into account the distributed
generation as function of time, will have to indicate whether distributed generation
will increase or decrease the losses in that network section.
4.4 Energy storage
Energy storage devices used in distribution networks allow network operators to
perform actions such as peak shaving and voltage support, postponing the need for
grid reinforcements, or in combination with intermittent renewable energy sources,
increase the reliability and usability of the renewable source. Both uses can bring
forth carbon savings when used in the network.
Available technologies for distribution networks:

(i) Batteries
Battery storage is a well established technology and is based upon direct-
current battery banks.
One possibility for large scale battery banks is the use of flow-batteries.
Sodium-sulphur batteries could also be inexpensive to implement on a large
scale and have been used for grid storage in Japan and in the United States.
Vanadium redox batteries and other types of flow batteries are also beginning
to be used for energy storage including the averaging of generation from wind
turbines. Battery storage has relatively high efficiency, as high as 90% or
better.
Vanadium redox flow batteries are currently installed at Huxley Hill wind farm
(Australia, 800 kWh, 400kW), Tomari Wind Hills at Hokkaid (Japan, 6MWh,
4MW), as well as in other non-wind farm applications. A further 12 MWh flow
battery is to be installed at the Sorne Hill wind farm (Ireland).
(ii) Hydrogen
Hydrogen is a chemical storage of energy, which can either be used directly in
combustion engines or indirectly to charge fuel cells. Making hydrogen
requires either reforming natural gas with steam, or, for a possibly renewable
and more ecologic source, the electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The former process has carbon dioxide as a by-product. With electrolysis, the
greenhouse gas burden depends on the source of the power.

15
Costs and Benefits of DG Connections to Grid System, December 2006.

44
Hydrogen technology is currently being trailed for grid storage and is already
commercially available for Uninterruptible Power Supply.
(iii) Flywheel
With this technology electric energy is converted in kinetic energy within a
rotating flywheel. The flywheels can be designed to provide lower levels of
energy but over a longer period of time, or to deliver bursts of energy for very
short periods of time. Flywheels are mainly used a interruptible power
supplies instead of battery banks to allow a load to switch over to a standby
diesel generator.
Currently, commercial devices are available with capacities in the range from
3 kWh to 133 kWh. Flywheels have been deployed in the Azores on the
islands of Graciosa and Flores, where a 18MW flywheel is used to improve
power quality and allow increased renewable energy usage. Higher
capacities, such as 20MW are currently being demonstrated.
(iv) Superconducting magnetic energy storage
Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) systems store energy in
the magnetic field created by the flow of direct current in a superconducting
coil which has been cryogenically cooled to a temperature below its
superconducting critical temperature. Once the coil is charged, the energy will
not be lost and can be released into the network when needed. However, the
inverters have loss of 2-3% and the need to powerful cooling equipment
makes the technology only suitable for short discharging times,
Currently several smaller to medium size SMES units available for
commercial use. The most common commercially available size is around 1
MW, which are mainly used for power quality control in installations requiring
ultra-clean power, such as microchip fabrication facilities. SMES installations
with capacities upto 20 MWh, 400kW are being tested.
The technology has been implemented to provide grid stability in distribution
systems. In northern Wisconsin, a string of distributed SMES units was
deployed to enhance stability of a part of a network which is subject to large,
sudden load changes due to the operation of a paper mill, with the potential
for uncontrolled fluctuations and voltage collapse.
4.5 Towards Smartgrids
The passive network approach for connecting DG is based on traditional distribution
network design philosophies. While transmission networks are actively monitored
and controlled in real time, it has been common practice for DNOs to minimise
requirements for real time network intervention at the planning stage through
appropriate equipment specification. These passively managed networks are
typically designed for a single direction power flow and the primary assets are
specified to accommodate a set of pre-defined operation conditions, ensuring that
the network parameters such as power flow and security of supply will stay within the
designated limits until the end of the design horizon.

45
With increasing levels of DG, this passive approach could lead to increasing primary
asset investment costs. In countries with a high penetration of DG, a more active
network design is being adopted. For instance in Denmark DG is actively used to
control system operation and it is no longer treated as merely negative load.
Basic active network management functionality is already being incorporated within
Distribution Management System (DMS) controllers monitoring and controlling
various items of plant. In the early stages, the control actions do not have to be
sophisticated, but can be slow actions such as changing tap-changers or dispatching
supportive DG.
In later stages, active networks could evolve towards a larger smart grid. The
distribution network operator would play a key role in optimising the local balance
between supply and demand. This would be accomplished by integrating aspects
such as:
Local power generation
Local storage
Demand side management
End user energy efficiency
Smart metering

Figure 6 Integrated Smart Distribution grids
The aggregation of controllable load and/or generation enables the DNO to provide
virtual power plant (VPP) capabilities e.g. ancillary services to distribution and
transmission companies. Such services might include fast reserve for
supply/demand balancing, local demand control for contingency situations,
management of peak demands that exceed network capacity, and contingency
recovery for wide area disruptions.

46
Enhanced communication could improve operational visibility of distribution
networks in real time and planning timescales; understanding network loading
trends, time of day utilisation, and phase balance and enabling capacity to be
optimised for cost and security.
In the longer term, there may be advantages in designing networks for intentional
island operation, for example in areas of high distributed generation, to enhance
supply security, or optimise network investment to manage planned outages.
Also in the longer term, smart grids could be an integral element in transport
strategies using electric vehicles: a vehicle parked at home is potentially a
substantial new demand (perhaps controllable via a smart meter), and also a
substantial source of electricity export. Wide-scale domestic storage, managed
through smart meters, would enable more effective management of variable and
intermittent generation sources and intentional islanding becomes much more
achievable.

47
5. KEY FINDINGS
This review of international network design standards and practices has studied 4
European distribution network operators (DNO) and one US DNO to identify good
practices and learning opportunities for the UK in the construction of low carbon
distribution networks. The findings can be categorised under three main headings of
Network Design, Loss Management and Integrating DG & RES and the key study
findings under each heading are;
Network Planning, Design and Specification:
In general, it appears that GB has a comparatively efficient network in
terms of the number of customers serviced per network kilometer and other
countries are less reliant on intermediate voltage levels with HV/MV
(typically 110kV/10kV) transformation more prevalent.
The HV network (60kV and above) across Europe and the United States is
generally designed and operated with redundancy providing a security level
of n-1.
A high percentage of the HV network, circa 90%, is overhead in all
countries studied.
The higher level MV networks operating at 30kV and above in all DNOs
studied tend to be configured as a closed ring or mesh, providing n-1 levels
of security.
Distribution feeders in the 10kV and 20kV range are commonly operated as
open rings in more densely populated areas and radially in more rural
areas in all countries. All DNOs reported that the preference today is to
design and install MV networks underground.
Rationalisation of MV voltage levels has been greater in Europe than the
US with 10kV (NL), 11kV (GB, Spain) and 20kV (Germany) being the most
common distribution feeder voltages. Although a large variation exists in
the US the prevailing voltage level is 12.47kV (90%) and the opportunity to
convert legacy networks to this standard is taken whenever possible.
Low voltage network configurations employed today are universally radial
in nature although legacy networks in GB and Germany do have a degree
of interconnection and redundancy.
Of the countries studied, only GB has a national baseline planning
standard (Engineering Recommendation P2/6) encompassing the
distribution network and stating the minimum requirements for network
security and load restoration following an unplanned interruption.
All the review participants have formalised and documented Company
planning standards in place that have recently been reviewed.

48
The Spanish DNO has adopted a unique approach to the advancement of
network planning standards through the development of optimised Best
Grid models. Two models have been developed, one for the HV network
and one for the MV, and are based on known load and generation locations
from which an economically and reliability optimised, best model, network
is planned. Actual network practicalities and requirements are then
referenced against the best model to achieve as close a match as
possible.
The only planning standard to formally acknowledge the potential security
contribution of DG and RES for consideration during network planning
activity is the Engineering Recommendation P2/6 (ER P2/6) standard
utilised by all DNOs in Britain. The other DNO study participants do not
currently formally consider the potential contribution (such as voltage
support, loss management or deferment of network reinforcement
expenditure) from DG or RES at the network planning phase.
All companies participating in the study recognised and utilised the global
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards but to varying
degrees. The European companies all cited IEC standards as the principal
standards used with the US company stating a lesser reliance.
In the US the predominant equipment specifications utilise the IEEE and
ANSI standards.
The GB DNO was the only one to indicate that it was now specifying
equipment with a higher short circuit rating as an approach to future-proof
the network against an anticipated increase in fault levels above the current
250MVA design level.
All DNOs have changed their MV circuit breaker specification away from
SF
6
interruption medium to vacuum interrupters. However, due to technical
limitations of vacuum interrupters, circuit breakers operating in excess of
36kV are specified with SF
6
.
There is a general consensus that it is preferential in the long run to select
equipment based on the total cost of ownership (TCO) or life-cycle cost
(LCC) than simply initial capital cost. To a greater or lesser extent all study
participants use the LCC approach to select network components such as
transformers and cable.
For equipment specification all the European companies have sought to
rationalise equipment ratings and stores inventory as far as practicable to
provide a minimised set of components to meet current design
requirements. They acknowledge this approach may sometimes introduce
limited capacity in network installations but it also allows a degree of
flexibility for any future development. Procurement efficiencies are cited as
the major benefits of such approaches.
As the volumes of DG and RES connections, and therefore the design
workload, increases there has been a mixed impact on design resources

49
amongst the companies studied. Two countries, GB and the Netherlands,
reported a general shortage of staff with the necessary design knowledge
and skills regardless of any impact from increasing DG and RES workload.
The US DNO has recently established a new connections group with one
person dedicated almost full time to addressing generator requests for
distribution connection.
Only the German, despite having the highest penetration of DG, and
Spanish DNOs reported no issues with the availability of design expertise.
Loss Mitigation:
Approximately 70% of the losses in electricity networks occur in the
distribution network with conductor accounting for 42% of these losses and
transformers circa 30%.
Two studies from British universities, UMIST in 2001 and Bath in 2008,
examined the carbon benefits from the use of conductor with a greater
cross sectional area than the supplied load demanded. Both studies
concluded that there are significant carbon benefits from the reduction in
losses over the life time of the oversized conductor; the payback period
was found to be 20 years which is well within conductor life spans. The
more recent Bath study also accounted for the embedded carbon cost of
producing larger cables and concluded that this is not a material factor
compared to the loss savings achieved when assessing life time benefits.
The German and Spanish DNOs have considered the utilisation of higher
efficiency distribution transformers but have not adopted their installation as
a standard or widespread practice. Each case is assessed on its own
merits with a life cycle cost benefit analysis determining the outcome.
In the United States the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to specify minimum efficiency
standards for distribution transformers. Since January 2007 all LV
transformers installed greater than 16kVA capacity must comply with the
higher standards specified in the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association standard, NEMA TP-1-2002. A mandate from the DOE that all
MV transformers installed in the range 10kVA to 2,500kVA installed on the
distribution network must comply with the higher efficiency standards (US
Department of Energy, Distribution Transformer Energy Conservation
Standards, October 2007) comes into force in January 2010. This mandate
has been implemented with the full acknowledgement that approximately
25% of the market will incur a net life-cycle cost with the remaining 75%
experiencing a neutral position or some benefit.
A new standard, EN 50464, for oil-immersed distribution transformers up to
36kV with power ratings between 50kVA and 2,500kVA was introduced in
Europe in August 2007. This standard supersedes CENELEC HD 428 and
was introduced to improve the efficiency of installed transformers at the
specific request of the European Commission. New high efficiency classes

50
of transformer have been introduced in respect of both load and no load
losses.
Integrating DG & RES:
When compared to the total installed capacity of HV/MV transformers the
highest levels of DG and RES penetration were seen in the German and
Dutch DNOs. This situation is also reflected in the national deployment
levels of DG & RES in relation to total generation capacity.
The high penetration of DG & RES has been readily achievable in
Germany and the Netherlands to date due to the ability of the highly robust
network designs to accommodate generation capacity through traditional
network design approaches.
The scale of RES generation, particularly wind, production in the German
DNO is sufficient, at times, to cause a backfeed into the transmission
network. This is viewed as an issue by the TSO for generation contractual
and balancing reasons and the DNO has installed a novel power flow
management system to curtail or disconnect wind generator production.
However, this innovation is viewed as a temporary measure by the DNO
until the appropriate primary network reinforcements can be made.
No evidence of the deployment of other active network management (ANM)
technologies was found in the DNOs studied.
Technical issues were not viewed as a constraint to the connection of DG
or RES by any of the DNO study participants.
The awareness of, and requirement for, active network management
technologies, particularly in the fields of voltage control and power flow
management, is strongest in the GB industry. Although DG & RES
deployment is comparatively low in GB these issues arise sooner than in
other jurisdictions due to the nature of legacy network designs.
In addition to the more immediate network operational needs, research,
development, trial and deployment of ANM technologies is further
encouraged within the GB DNOs by Regulatory incentive through the
Innovation Funding Incentive (IFI) introduced in 2005 and the Registered
Power Zone (RPZ) scheme for innovative DG & RES connection. This has
led to the direct participation of DNOs in the identification, development and
ownership of appropriate new technology projects and is a distinct
advantage over the European counterparts that rely to a greater extent on
collaborative approaches with academia or participation in European
programmes.
The participation and knowledge, nationally and internationally, of ANM
initiatives within GB DNOs was found to be as advanced as any network
operator.

51
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The study has determined that the UK DNOs are at the forefront of developing
innovative technical solutions for the connection of low carbon RES and other
distributed generation into distribution networks less robust than those in situ in
Germany and the Netherlands. This direct participation should be encouraged
through the continuation of the IFI and RPZ incentive schemes.
Commercial tools are now available that enable a DNO to significantly reduce the
effort required from scarce engineering resources in the assessment of the viability
of proposed generator connections. One tool offers a stand alone web based
solution (GridConnections) whilst another utilises the GIS environment to integrate
other legacy applications (GE Energy). DNOs should explore the business case for
employing such tool in their own operational environment.
Providing appropriate locational signals to generation developers for the extent and
location of generation capacity acceptable to particular network locations would
reduce the effort expended by DNOs on assessing site applications that prove to be
unviable. Such tools are at an early stage in development but are considered worthy
of moving to trial development by DNOs following successful modelling.
Consideration should be given to mandating the installation of high efficiency
transformers initially at the lower distribution voltages.