Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS

FP7

IGREENGRID Report Summary

Project ID: 308864
Funded under: FP7-ENERGY
Country: Spain

Final Report Summary - IGREENGRID (IntegratinG Renewables in the EuropEaN Electricity Grid)

Executive Summary:
The IGREENGrid Project, led by Iberdrola (Spain), has the objective of identifying the most promising solutions for increasing the hosting capacity for Distributed Renewable Energy Sources (DRES) in power distribution grids without compromising the reliability or jeopardizing the quality of supply. It analyses six Demonstration Projects (Spain, Austria, Greece, France, Italy and Germany) about integration of Distributed Renewable Energy Sources (DRES) in low and medium voltage grids.

The main Project results consist on a set of guidelines to facilitate DRES integration. Other relevant results are those presented below:

• Identification of barriers for DRES Integration.
• KPIs to assess present and future projects about DRES integration.
• A selection of the most promising solutions for facing the identified challenges and barriers.
• Criteria to establish hosting capacity and to manage curtailment procedures.
• DRES Guidelines for technical requirements, equipment manufacturers & technology providers.
• Assessment of the scalability and replicability of most promising solutions at EU level (from technical, regulatory and economic point of view).
• Methodologies to carry out technical and economic assessments.
• Relevant results in terms of potential hosting capacity increase.
• Strategy to better integrate DRES.
• Recommendations to stakeholders.

Project Context and Objectives:
Distributed System Operators (DSOs) aligned with the EC (see DIRECTIVES 2006/32/EC1 and 2009/28/EC2) have the strongest interest in promoting the massive connection of renewable producers, evolving to a new business model based on services linked to the effective usage of grids, stimulating innovation and encouraging small companies and individuals to consider non-conventional supply. Notwithstanding, this is not an easy task.

The EU needs to give a step forward to provide a credible long-term vision of the future of small and medium renewable energy sources integration in distributed grids. This commitment is essential to reach the current targets and trigger further investments, innovation initiatives and jobs creation. The challenge for renewable energy policy is to find the right balance between installing large scale renewable energy capacity today and its effective integration in medium and low voltage grids. Finding this right balance means taking into account the following factors:
• Renewable energy helps to improve the EU's security of energy supply by increasing the share of domestically and locally produced energy, diversifying the energy mix, decreasing energy imports and increasing the proportion of energy generated in politically stable regions.
• Renewable energies emit less greenhouse gases than fossil fuel units (or are neutral with reference to these emissions).
• In some cases, the use of distributed renewable energy is more competitive in economic terms in comparison to other energy solutions. Distributed renewable sources improve energy efficiency: these solutions reduce energy losses in the power system (at both levels: distribution and transmission).
• Economies of scale will be able to further reduce the costs of renewables.
The new challenges for DSO are the massive integration of distributed renewable generation maintaining reliability and quality of service.
The fast growing installed capacity of distributed renewable energy devices are jeopardizing the quality, reliability and safety of EU electricity supply, mainly due to the volatility of their production, the difficulties to observe, forecast and monitor their behaviour, a number of side effects related to electromagnetism like transients, stability, quality of electricity waveform, troubles with frequency and voltage, and reverse power flows caused by their massive deployment. Effective integration requires producing new accurate solutions to solve these issues.

New technical issues for DSO to face the characteristics of the distributed generation are:
• Volatility of generation production (PV, wind, biomass and hydro).
• Complexity of monitoring & forecasting & managing a huge number of small and medium generation units.
• other problems such us non-desired energy islands, transients, oscillations, etc.

IGREENGrid (IntegratinG Renewables in the EuropEaN Electricity Grid) project aims at identifying the best promising solutions and proposes guidelines to increase the hosting capacity for Distributed Renewable Energy Sources (DRES) in distribution power grids that these systems can accept without compromising the reliability or jeopardizing the quality of power.
IGREENGrid is significantly aligned with the technology objectives of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SETPlan), which aims at the integration of variable distributed resources in electricity distribution networks. A key player in the industrial Initiatives under the SET Plan is the European Electricity Grid Initiative (EEGI), a programme that has the following objectives: enabling grids to transmit and distribute up to 35% of electricity from dispersed and concentrated renewable sources by 2020, and a completely decarbonized electricity production by 2050. Most of the European Union power distribution companies are collaborating with and into the EEGI by developing National & Private funded Local Demonstration Projects to test potential solutions aimed at reaching the desired objectives.
IGREENGrid is the first analytical approach based on functional Demo Projects defined in the Roadmap and Implementation plan developed by EEGI. Strong coordination with EEGI, GRID+ project and other relevant initiatives has been established during the Project to receive appropriate feedback and to maximize the project impact.
With the experience of some of the most relevant EEGI members, Distribution System Operators (DSOs) grouped in EDSO4SG, and according to the indications from the European Commission, IGREENGrid faces this challenge. IGREENGrid consortium was designed under the leadership of a careful selection of EU world-class DSOs heavily involved in the EEGI and currently managing on-going national demo projects, involving significant and relevant Integration of Distributed Renewable Sources.
The core of IGREENGrid is to share knowledge and promote the best practices identifying the most promising solutions for the effective integration of DRES in several Demo Projects in LV and MV grids participating in the project, and validating them via simulation in other environments to assess the scalability and replicability at EU level.
The main final result of iGREENGrid is set of guidelines, consisting of a portfolio of solutions, methodologies for an appropriate integration of small and medium size variable renewable resources in distribution grids (both in medium and low-voltage networks) presented in this report. The objective is not to discover an innovative new solution or new scientific or technical ideas, but to analyse the solutions proposed in the most relevant research projects of the last years extracting the know-how and main lessons learned.

The IGREENGrid Project started officially on 1st January 2013 and had a total duration of three years, which has been extended 3 months. The objectives of the Project were achieved using the Work Packages (WP) methodology and ensuring and facilitating synergies and comparisons between the six Demonstrators. In order to achieve the Project goal (increasing the hosting capacity for DRES in EU without compromising the reliability or jeopardizing the quality of supply) the following specific objectives have been addressed:

1. Establishing a family of relevant projects focused on the effective integration of variable distributed generation in power distribution grids to share knowledge, identifying most promising solutions to scale and replicate them at European level.

2. Designing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be used by IGREENGrid and other future research projects for evaluation of DRES integration solutions.

3. Evaluating and classifying the developed solutions of relevant individual experiences for the effective integration of DRES in the Europe, in accordance with their technical and economic performance and characteristics of the different distribution voltage levels at EU (qualitative and quantitative evaluation using the above mentioned KPIs).

4. Identifying most promising solutions and lessons learned of DRES penetration in distribution grids that could be replicated at European scale to be tested in different scenarios and hypothesis.

5. IGREENGrid simulation & evaluation framework are designed and developed: based on the assessment framework established according to European Electricity Grid Initiative (EEGI) guidelines, this environment has been developed to simulate most promising solutions under different conditions of grid topology, DRES technologies, demand profiles, and test according to technical, economic and regulatory criteria. Scalability and reliability of the solutions has been evaluated in this environment.

6. Sharing the knowledge about the different solutions based on real experience and simulation studies among the DSOs members of the consortium and the EEGI to let the DSOs adapt specific and successful technical solutions to other EU regions facing similar problems.

7. Producing guidelines for the future massive integration of DRES in distribution grids (including the topics explained at the beginning of this summary).

The Project strives at fostering complementarities between Demonstrators from six European Countries, promoting transversal research and sharing results and knowledge between the different partners as well as with the wider Smart Grids community.

Figure 2 (IGREENGrid Demonstrators)
A brief description of each Demonstrator is presented below:

• PRICE (Spain): Smart Grid Project in Henares Region (Spain). Joint Demonstration Project co-leaded by IBERDROLA and GAS NATURAL FENOSA, consisting in the deployment of a global intelligent electrical network solution for their power distribution systems in a shared geographic area, in order to get the experience and knowledge in deploying and managing intelligent transmission and distribution power systems.

• ISERNIA (Italy): Demonstrator led by ENEL. The Project addresses the challenge of increasing the MV network hosting capacity of Distributed Generation (DG) while maintaining power quality. The Project involves a large part of the MV network supplied by the “Carpinone” Primary Substation and the connected distributed generation.

• DMS support tools (Greece): Led by HEDNO. The objectives of the Demo Project include testing, demonstration and evaluation of advanced management tools and monitoring applications concerning the Renewable Energy Sources (RES) installations at Medium Voltage Distribution networks using the smart metering infrastructure with Advance Metering Reading (AMR) connected to the Telemetry Centre of HEDNO.

• Austrian Pioneer Initiatives (Austria): Smart Grids Model Region Salzburg & Pioneer Region Upper Austria (Austria). Led by Salzburg AG & Energie AG. This Project focuses on the results from four local pilot projects which investigate the integration of renewable energy resources into existing distribution grids using a smart planning, monitoring and control approach. The Methods use in these approach are Voltage Control and Load Generation Management

• Zukunftsnetze (Germany): Led by RWE. This Project aims at developing innovative grid concepts for the energy industry of the future and their demonstration in a suitable pilot region. These concepts are characterized by the fact that they can easily be adapted to ongoing technological developments as well as quickly changing customer requirements. The concepts form the basis for future client's benefits.

• Venteea (France). Led by ERDF. The objective of this Project is to create the best conditions to ensure an economically and technically efficient integration of renewable energy, particularly wind power plants, in medium voltage distribution networks of the future. The scope of testing will be directed towards issues related to production facilities of significant power connected to the MV distribution network (20kV) in a rural area where the rate of wind energy development is particularly high.

Project Results:
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF IGREENGRID RESULTS

IGREENGrid project focuses on identifying the most promising solutions for increasing the hosting capacity for Distributed Renewable Energy Sources (DRES) in power distribution grids without compromising the reliability or jeopardizing the quality of supply. To reach this goal, the solutions proposed in six large European demonstration research projects have been analysed.
As part of IGREENGrid project, several European grids have been analysed. In particular, the grids of two Austrian DSOs have been studied *1 (for additional details see “Grid analysis” in the final report “IGREENGrid: Integrating Renewables in the European Electricity Grid”, and deliverable D5.1) more extensively concluding that the vast majority of the feeders face first voltage problems (overvoltage, undervoltage) instead of loading problems (overcurrent). In fact, most of the European demonstration projects about DRES integration propose voltage control or voltage monitoring solutions.
Figure 1 shows that in the first grid 90% of feeders are voltage-constrained (blue bars) while only 10% are loading-constrained (red bars). The second grid presents a 77% of feeders voltage-constrained.

For a given network, the first step would be to verify the feeders that will have voltage limit violations or current limit problems when new generation is connected to know where to apply voltage control solutions.
Figure 2 shows that in this substation some of the feeders will face directly overcurrent problems (feeders 2, 5, 6, 8), so voltage control solutions will not be useful there.

Considering only voltage-constrained feeders (in the example, feeders 1, 3, 4, 7), not all voltage-control solutions are effective. Figure 3 explains that a classical approach (grid reinforcement) and fix curtailment are always applicable, but other solutions are not.

• Solutions using reactive power from the inverters of distributed generators to locally control the voltage in the line, such as Volt Var Control (VVC), are deployable in about 60% of the feeders.
• Solutions using transformers with On-Load Tap Changer (OLTC) locally controlled supported with a few local field measurements, such as Wide Area Control (WAC), are deployable in about 48% of the feeders.
• The combinations of the previous solutions (WAC&VVC) are deployable in about 20% of the feeders.

Concerning the increase of Hosting Capacity (HC) that voltage control solutions may produce, the evaluations show a high variability of results depending on the solutions tested (There are solutions producing a 29% HC increase (Fix Curtailment) whilst others such as OPF produces up to 169% HC increase for these feeders.). This is also due to the different characteristics of the feeders.

Looking at figure 2, feeder 1 presents an increase of HC of 1.5 MW in a line that had originally a capacity of 3 MW, while feeder 3 presented originally only 1 MW and the increase of HC obtained is just 0.5 additional MW using the same solution (in this case VVC).

This figure also presents useful information regarding the future evolution of the grid operation. Additional generation connected to feeder 1 will lead the feeder again to voltage limit violations, but not to congestion problems. On the other hand, feeder 4, which originally was voltage-constrained, will become current-constrained when the new generation connected arrives to 5.5 MW. This means that for feeder 4, maybe curtailment or “non-firm connection contracts” could be good strategies to limit the total current in this line. While, for feeder 1, maybe other “voltage control application” can be more effective than the selected one. *2 (for more information about that see “Grid analysis” in the final report, and deliverable D5.1)

The effectiveness to increase the hosting capacity of the different solutions presented by the European demonstrators has been analysed in a set of 27 MV networks (149 feeders) and 16 networks (55 feeders) from 8 DSOs of 6 EU countries and these are the main conclusions obtained.

• In this set of MV lines, it is concluded that 58% of the feeders are voltage constrained feeders and therefore are applicable to voltage control solutions. Among them, 71% have a great potential for the implementation of voltage control solutions. In the case of LV networks 75% of feeders are voltage constrained and only a 37% of them show a high potential for these kind of solutions.
• Solutions based on OPF-control (using an State Estimator to know the state of the grid and then send control signals to OLTCs to optimize its operation levels) present the highest increase in terms of hosting capacity with an average value of 235% increase for the MV and LV analysed networks. However, this solution presents problems for its scalability and replicability due to the high costs incurred in the necessary assets when they are not already installed. *3 (for additional details about the solutions and the evaluation, see “Promising solutions” in the final report, and deliverable D4.2)
• Solutions based on OLTC local control complemented by DRES contribution to voltage control deliver lower increases of hosting capacity than OPF solution. For MV networks the average increase is 74%, and for LV networks the increase is 16%. Regarding to the scalability and replicability potential of this solution, it is relevant to highlight that most of transformers in primary substations are equipped with an OLTC so the scalability and replicability is greater for simpler solutions that have only an OLTC control than for more sophisticated solutions that use DG control, SE or OPF, although its effectiveness in terms of Hosting Capacity decreases.
• Based on the study of the analysed LV networks, the use of OLTC, extending the voltage band up to 8% of the nominal value, could produce a maximum of 179% Hosting Capacity increase. It is only applicable to 43% of the feeders. On the other hand, the use of Reactive power control could produce +25% increase of hosting capacity, but it is only applicable to 27% of the feeders.
• When combining OLTC with field measurements of a few critical nodes of the line or with an State Estimator it produces an average HC increase of 105% for MV lines and of 240% for LV lines. This solution appears as Wide Area Control (WAC) in the figures.

Other alternatives to increase the Hosting Capacity of the grids have been tested in the main national demonstrators of IGREENGrid (Storage, STATCOM, auto-transformers, special contracts, etc).*4.(for additional details about the demonstration projects see “Demonstrators” in the final report, and deliverable D3.1) *5 (for information about the experience of experts involved in the demos see “Field experience” in the final report, and deliverable D3.1) In order to compare the proposed solutions different aspects (cost, complexity of infrastructures, social aspects, etc) apart from performance were analysed. *6 (for additional details about the solutions and the evaluation, see “Promising solutions” in the final report, and deliverable D4.2)
The economic analysis of these alternatives shows that frequently the smart grid solutions proposed to connect additional renewable generation are less expensive than the traditional reinforcement of the grid. On the other hand, DSOs are not stimulated to take advantage of this kind of solutions. The costs of reinforcement of the grid are paid-back, but in general “innovative solutions” are not covered by the existing regulatory framework. In certain countries and in particular for Smart Grid solutions, it happens that CAPEX is covered, but OPEX is not, when many Smart Grid solutions reduce CAPEX, but increase OPEX.
Figure 5 is an example of a certain network for which a voltage control solution increases the Hosting Capacity in a 46% (4MW). The necessary reinforcement for this extra capacity would be more expensive than any of the Smart Grid solutions, which is not always the case. In general centralized solutions are more expensive and more effective than distributed ones. Distributed solutions (in this context means local solutions that work independently from the rest of systems) frequently offer a good way of increasing hosting capacity temporarily to connect new DRES, delaying the reinforcement for a moment in which the global necessities in the area are better known. *7(further details at “Economic analysis” in the final report, and deliverable D5.1).

Another important aspect is the complexity of the solutions and the infrastructure needed to implement it. Most of the solutions to improve the hosting capacity of the grids imply the installation of new sensors into the grid, which means incurring in additional costs that should be optimized. Field experiments show that placing sensors in well selected sites (critical nodes), an optimal performance in terms of Hosting Capacity increase is obtained.
• Approximately 80% of the MV feeders present only one critical node. This means that for the majority of the networks a voltage control solution could be implemented installing new sensors only in one critical node.
• For LV feeders, the figure is lower. 40% of LV feeders present only one critical node. This means that the majority of the networks would have more than one critical node, increasing the number of necessary sensors.
• Nevertheless, the number of required sensors strongly depends on the location of the generators along the feeders.
The use of smart grid solutions deliver substantial benefits, although generally produce an increase of grid losses (around 1%). Nevertheless this is highly dependent on the application: a few of them produce reduction of losses, and there are others that can produce an increase of 10%. *8 (for additional details about this topic and other objective performance indicators of solutions see “Key Performance Indicators” in the final report, and deliverables D2.3 & D3.1)
To conclude, there are several topics regarding DRES integration that stimulate debate, like curtailment, or the problems that intermittent generation produces in the electric system. Simple solutions are sometimes possible.
Curtailment is a procedure that can produce relevant benefits for the penetration of DRES when used efficiently. Curtailment procedures, such as Fix Curtailment for PV installations (a maximum of 70% of the nominal power is allowed to be injected) leads to an energy curtailed between 2,9% and 6,7% (depending on the country), producing a 43% increase in terms of Hosting Capacity. However, this solution is not so interesting for wind farms because it leads up to 13% of energy curtailed. *9 (for additional details about Curtailment see “EU projects: Singular-Sustainable-IGREENGrid collaboration” in the final report, and deliverable D1.6). In Germany, PV connected to LV is limited to 70% of nominal power. In average, this maximum power is rarely reached, so the consequence is that the total energy generated by PV increases and the problems for the grid decrease. In France, a new “non-firm connection contract” will allow to curtail production during a few days by year, with the counterbalance of a lower connection cost for generators, due to avoided reinforcements.
The connection of PV to the LV grid produces imbalances but it can be easily corrected. A single phase generator causes about 6 times higher voltage rise than a symmetrical 3-phases generator of the same power. Phase balancing could solve this issue through the optimal phase switching in order to distribute the unsymmetrical infeed over the three phases. The studies show that switching only one PV producer from one phase to another, the probability of overvoltage is reduced by a half (from 80% to 40%). Switching 3 generators, the probability of overvoltage is reduced to a 3%, and the amplitude of voltage risings is lower than 30% of the original values. Implementing phase identification function in smart meters can support this kind of optimizations.
There are other aspects that are relevant to make a decision about the deployment of a certain solution. Some of them are technical issues, based on the experience in the field *5, others are strategic *10 (for information of the opinion of DSOs see “DSO perspective” in the final report) and others are related to the environment*6, or the final consumer point of view*6 for example. . IGREENGrid have produced a set of recommendations*11 (for information about this, see “Stakeholders recomendations” in the final report, and deliverable D6.1) for the main stakeholders in DRES integration and an “strategic orientation” *12 (for information about this, see “Strategy to better integrate DRES” in the final report, and deliverable D6.1) to increase as soon as possible the presence of DRES in the grids as well as the capacity of the grids to integrate them smoothly.
For a more complete understanding of the panorama*13 (for additional details about what is happening in Europe about DRES, see ”EU perspective” in the final report) and the state of the art, IGREENGrid has extracted and analysed the most relevant experiences and results from other projects on the topic of “DRES integration”. *14 (for additional details about what has been proposed by other EU projects on DRES integration see ”EU projects” in the final report, and deliverables D3.2 & D3.3)

Main achievements of the project:
• Identification of barriers for DRES Integration.
• KPIs to assess present and future projects about DRES integration.
• Most promising solutions to facilitate DRES integration.
• Scalability and replicability Analysis
• Relevant results in terms of potential hosting capacity increase.
• Strategy to better integrate DRES
• Recommendations to stakeholders

SUMMARY OF RESULTS BY WORK PACKAGE

WP2

The second Work Package (WP2) of IGREENGrid Project (led by RSE) is focused on the definition of an assessment methodology for the evaluation of technologies oriented to the integration of Distributed Renewable Energy Resources (DRES). In particular, six physical demonstrators have been considered and studied in order to base the developed assessment methodology on real information and data.

The main results related to this WP have been obtained by means of iterative processes which have involved all the IGREENGrid partners. The carried out activity has produced several results which are currently benefits the next steps of the Project and, in particular, in the following subsections the most significant outcomes have been described for each WP Task.

Task 2.1 – Detection of barriers for connection of DRES in distribution grid

In this Task an analysis of the barriers for DRES integration in distribution networks has been carried out. This is mainly based on the actual problems encountered by the six IGREENGrid Demonstration Projects and extrapolated to a massive integration of DRES. In addition to the IGREENGrid Demonstrators, the analysis and identification of the barriers have considered other two main sources:

• Other completed or ongoing European projects, in particular significant sources have been represented by:

o ADDRESS;
o MORE MICROGRIDS;
o ECOGRID EU.

• The Smart Grid uses cases collection that has been developed by the Smart Grid Coordination Group belonging to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI.

The employed approach has been based on the collection of the use cases related to DRES integration for each considered source. From their analysis, a series of integration barriers has been identified and, without any particular sorting criteria, it can be summarized as follows:

• Distribution networks need to be further developed, not only in terms of carrying capacity but also via advanced Information and Communication Infrastructure (ICT) and communication and control platforms.
• The new roles of DSOs in managing the active operation of the network will be similar to those carried out by TSOs to manage the transmission network so DSOs would need rights and the corresponding (technical) capabilities to manage generation resources. These new efforts for grid operation will cause additional costs to be recovered by the regulatory schemes.
• The current state of cooperation and responsibility share between transmission and distribution operators should be clarified and improved.
• The regulation seems to be behind the real needs of the Smart Grids.
• The lack of standardization in devices, solutions and the large base of already installed systems may become a barrier for the future.

These barriers have been deeply investigated by TECNALIA, taking into account their impacts on the integration of DRES for each of the represented countries. In fact, taking advantage of the fact that Demonstration Projects are installed in six different European countries, different repercussions have been identified and exhaustively analysed within the report (Deliverable D2.1).

Task 2.2 - Assessment methodology based on Indicative Key Performance Indicators

The EEGI KPI structure has been adopted within IGREENGrid Project as a first reference. After a deep investigation on IGREENGrid demonstration activities, technologies and on their own performance indicators, a series of common indicators has been developed. In particular, the performance assessment methodology has been based on two indicators categories:

• First-category indicators: these indicators capture the most important technical aspects related to the integration of DRES into distribution networks, with a clear and direct correspondence with three EEGI second-level (specific) KPIs:

o DRES Hosting Capacity: it measures how much energy can be injected in a selected network, perfectly fulfilling network constraints.
o Quality of supply: it measures the ability of the system to maintain a series of given specifications (voltage, frequency, continuity of supply), particularly oriented to the safeguard and performance of loads, generators and grid equipment.
o Energy efficiency: it measures the ability of the network to deliver electrical power, from generation units to the loads, ensuring limited energy losses.

• Second-category indicators: from the analysis of the IGREENGrid Demonstration Projects, in addition to the three main goals described above, a set of further common challenges has been identified:

o Optimization of the Research and Innovation (R&I) solution usage time;
o Reverse power flow reduction;
o Forecasting accuracy increase;
o Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

These secondary aspects represent relevant features of many of the IGREENGrid demonstrators and in some cases they are fundamental requirements for the achievement of the first-category objectives. In fact, these indicators provide an added value to the IGREENGrid assessment methodology, helping the comparison of the involved Demonstration Projects and the description of the different scenarios; secondly they can be considered valuable inputs for other relevant initiatives, where the same performance evaluation structure can be adopted.

During the design of the assessment methodology, several issues related to definition of a harmonized and universally applicable KPIs have been faced. In particular, the identification of common and sharable calculation procedures for IGREENGrid KPIs has required more effort than expected. In particular, the following difficulties have been considered:

• DRES Hosting Capacity:
o high amount of data needed for accurate evaluations;
o time dependency and stochastic profile of DRES;
o non uniform hosting capacity barriers among different countries.
• Quality of supply:
o selection of strategic measurement points;
o definition of performance of voltage profile.
• Energy efficiency:
o synchronization of measurements from the field;
o presence of non technical losses (frauds).

From the analysis of these problems and the proposal of possible solutions, in addition to deliverable D2.2, a dedicated report (Deliverable D2.3) provides a feedback to the EEGI team on the KPIs applicability issues. Of course, the same investigation has been carried out for other EEGI KPIs (i.e. reduced energy curtailment of RES/DER and increased flexibility from energy players) which have not been included in the common assessment methodology but they have been considered in few IGREENGrid Demonstration Projects.

Task 2.3 - Common methodology and plan for the data gathering process and evaluation of demonstration projects

The main result of Task 2.3 is represented by the definition of the data structure which has been designed in order to serve the data requirements within IGREENGrid and to create a way to store the collected data in a specific format. In particular, the development has considered the following aspects:

• Definition of a strategy to share knowledge from the IGREENGrid Demonstration Projects (taking into account Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) aspects during and at the end of the Project);
• Description of template formats for collection activity from the IGREENGrid Work Packages;
• Definition of a communication interface between Demonstration Projects and WPs, which ensures harmonized meanings, simple exchange procedures, avoidance of duplication and exhaustive coverage of the information needed;
• Development of a general repository which collects and stores all the data needed for the elaboration of the demonstration activity results.

In order to take into account all these aspects, the development of the data gathering procedure has been divided in three phases which have allow an efficient organization of the collected information, having considered the objectives and specification of the IGREENGrid functionalities as well as the progress in the deployment of the Demonstration Projects:

• Preliminary phase: the preliminary phase of data gathering procedure has been performed in order to identify the required data types (specific kind of information/data which is assigned to a unique name to avoid duplication) to be gathered and the availability of the data related to test cases (functionalities of Demonstration Projects).
In particular, this phase has also considered the definition of a data category specifically dedicated to the collection of KPIs input data and results (both Demonstration Projects and IGREENGrid common KPIs).
• Main phase: the main phase of data gathering procedure takes as input the data requirements of IGREENGrid and provides as output the structure of an organized data repository. Particular attention has been paid to the identification of the data repository actors and their responsibilities with regards to the gathering process:
o data consumers (WP/Task leaders) should follow the preliminary phase to verify the prerequisites to initialize the data gathering procedure;
o data providers (Demonstration Projects) mainly provide data in accordance with the predefined data types in any available format accompanied with a description of the data structure (in order to allow the transformation in a common format).
In this phase aspects such as the access rights (for the protection of sensible/protected data) have been taken into account.
• Data repository (data gathering tool): the Task leader ICCS/NTUA has designed the IGREENGrid data repository based on a database model which enables the categorization and classification of data, according to predefined relationship defined by data providers. To achieve the requirements of the data gathering procedure an information system has been developed and it has been based on a multi tiered architecture which intrinsically allows flexibility, scalability and enhance the system ability to adapt the future requirements updates (when they have not been considered in the preliminary phase):
o Data description tiers bridge the difference between provider’s data representation and the repository internal representation. Thanks to these tiers, users are not obliged to follow a particular template and the collection process result to be faster and more efficient.
o Data storage tier is used to store the data in a uniform format enabling the information to be manipulated, transformed and delivered to the data consumers in any configuration that fits the needs. It also includes a transformation service in order to link the input data format with the internal data types and categories (thanks to the data description tiers).
o Data repository user interface is a web based application which serves as the main tool for the information exchange between the system and the users. It includes both the interfaces for data providers and data users, who can be directly link with the storage tier.

WP3

The Project plan shows three tasks running in parallel from month 6 to month 24. Their corresponding deliverables, namely D3.1, D3.2 and D3.3, were scheduled by month 18. The reason for this design was that the data gathering process should continue in order to provide with the required data to both WP4 and WP5. In fact, the data gathering process related to the demonstration projects finally continued active until the end of the project.

Task 3.1 - Evaluation of Local Pilot Projects

Task 3.1 took as starting point the first set of demo-use-cases definition and a brief summary of the Demo Projects produced by WP2. With this information, a set of draft individual reports were elaborated by TECNALIA before the first calls to the demo experts.

The information was completed in a second round with the knowledge obtained from the demo experts of each country through a round of specific bilateral calls (mainly dedicated to know the data measurements availability and deployment status and planning of demos). For this purpose, a list of specific questions were drafted to orient the interviews and to obtain the maximum possible knowledge from them and their experiences with the minimum disturbance.

In the third round, specific visits to the country demos were done to better understand the functionalities implemented by each DSO and complete the missing information. During these visits, the demo experts and the specialists in planning, operation, maintenance and regulation were interviewed.

As a result of the work done, T3.1 completed the collection of data for all demonstration projects producing as output six individual reports. The information collected for each local demo project included:

1) Detailed information about the project:

- General information: name, location, time frame and participants in the demonstrator project.
- Main objectives: a description of the main goals of the project.
- Expected impact: the expected impact of the solutions provided by the demo project on several indicators.
- Network description: technical characterisation of the actual distribution networks in the location of the demonstrator.
- Solutions: detailed description of the smart solutions developed in the demonstrator and the requirements for their implementation. Solution is a device, method or a way to solve one or more problems. It is generic and its definition should define the control algorithms and the way it behaves properly.
- Use cases: description of the use cases that constitute the main objective of the demonstration project. Use Case is a particular solution or several solutions applied to solve one or more problems. The use case is the practical application of the solutions, and it is a way to validate the solutions. It is at least the union of one problem or barrier and one solution.
- Boundary conditions: DRES penetration and market and regulatory context influencing the demo.
- Economic data associated to the implemented solutions.
- Technical data for the processing of KPIs defined in WP2

2) Qualitative evaluation of the project: The approach followed for this purpose was based on the evaluation of technical results in a set of individual KPIs defined for each one of the use cases of the demonstrators.

3) Qualitative evaluation of the project including best practices, lessons learnt and preliminary conclusions.

Task 3.2 - Evaluation of EEGI labelled demonstration projects

The EEGI has already done a mapping exercise aiming at gaining an overview of the many smart grids demonstration projects that are being carried out al national level across Europe. This task was focused on evaluating the EEGI labelled projects more relevant for the IGREENGrid project objectives. After a review of 21 EEGI labelled projects, the seven projects listed below were considered for further analysis within Task 3.2:

- GRID4EU.
- EcoGridEU.
- SuSTAINABLE.
- Increase.
- SiNGULAR.
- Smart House/Smart Grid.
- Swiss2Grid.

The deliverable D3.2 included for each of these projects, a brief description of project objectives, expected results and impact, as well as additional information on demonstration sites, use cases or KPIs results, if available. This information was used for the evaluation of each project contribution to overcome the barriers in DRES integration, identified in IGREENGrid Task 2.1 [D2.1]. The D3.2 also reported the definition of individual KPIs by each of the examined projects and their relevance to the KPIs defined in IGREENGrid deliverable D2.3. Finally, functionalities and methods developed within the examined EEGI labelled projects that are similar, complementary or alternative to the IGREENGrid demo cases were identified.

Task 3.3 – Evaluation of other relevant demonstration initiatives and complementary activities projects

Task 3.3 analysed other relevant European and local demonstration initiatives connected to IGREENGrid objectives. From the initial list of 24 identified projects, finally 6 were considered for deeper analysis and reported in the deliverable D3.3. In particular, the selection of these projects was based on the representativeness of their demonstration activities and the expected contribution to IGREENGrid. These initiatives are:

- Acea Distribuzione project
- ADDRESS
- Fenix
- INGRID
- METAPV
- MORE MICROGRIDS

The Deliverable D3.3 analysed for each of them the following aspects:
- Main target of the projects;
- Roles, objectives and details of the demonstration activities.

In addition, the technical, economic and regulatory aspects were also extracted and a final evaluation of the possible contributions was reported for each investigated project. At the end of the deliverable, the conclusions were structured in order to provide a comprehensive feedback to IGREENGrid on the basis of the performed analysis, reporting the most relevant DRES integration practices and learnt lessons.

WP4

The main results from WP4 obtained through the completion of Tasks T4.1, T4.2 and T4.3 are described here. All of these results are presented within the deliverables D4.1 and D4.2. In addition to these tasks, a methodology was also defined for calculating the IGREENGrid KPI’s using network simulation studies. The calculation of the KPIs was also completed in WP4. The solutions developed and tested within the demonstration projects were simulated using network models representative of the networks used for the demonstration projects considered by IGREENGrid. The solutions were tested for a range of different load and generation scenarios and the KPI’s were calculated for each network. The final KPI values were calculated for the deployment of each solution on each network using the average results from a range of scenarios considered. The KPI results are included in the deliverable D4.2.

The selection of the most promising solutions from the demonstration projects was completed using a two-stage approach. A Preliminary Evaluation, based on a qualitative analysis was used to select the most relevant categories of solutions for DG integration on a European scale. A Detailed Evaluation was then completed to produce a reduced list of solutions that would then be studied further in Work Package 5.

In the Preliminary Evaluation, a reduced set of solutions were selected, by category, based on what was considered to show the most potential for addressing DG integration. The solutions were selected based on the experience of the DSO partners. Within the IGREENGrid project the DSOs were able to share accumulated experience from both, demonstration projects and network development, network operations and future expectations, particularly related to the integration of DG.

With the high level approach used in the Preliminary evaluation it was possible to evaluate a large number of solutions with lower effort. However, it was not possible to distinguish between similar solutions addressing similar problems. To provide a selection of solutions from each category, a more detailed evaluation was completed and recommendations made for simulation studies for further evaluation in order to determine the most promising solutions.

In continuation of the work that was started in previous Work Packages, the definition of solution categories and generic solutions, to be used for the Detailed Evaluation, was completed in Work Package 4. These definitions are presented in the deliverable D4.2. A methodology was developed to assign a rating for each solution using a qualitative analysis. These ratings were based on that were considered to cover all relevant aspects for assessing the potential for a large scale deployment of the solutions. The criteria covers the following aspects: technical performance; social aspects; scalability and replicability; reliability; risk on investment; technical complexity; technical requirements; regulatory requirements; economic requirements.

Starting with the selected categories of solutions from the Preliminary Evaluation, a reduced list of solutions was then produced from the results of a qualitative analysis completed as part of the Detailed Evaluation. These results were validated using the combined experience of each DSO. The KPI results were then used to validate the expectations of the technical performance that would be obtained from each solution. An important result from the calculation of the KPIs was that the expected performance benefits from the deployment of each solution can vary quite substantially depending on numerous technical parameters such as network topology, network impedance profile, load-generation profiles, DG connection point, etc.

As a result of the Detailed Evaluation, a total of eighteen generic solutions were identified as potentially providing the highest benefits in terms of addressing DG integration. This evaluation was based on the availability of existing infrastructure, existing regulatory conditions and levels of standardisation in place and current technology maturity levels. The solutions selected are within the categories of:
- LV Voltage Monitoring;
- MV Voltage Monitoring;
- LV Voltage Control;
- MV Voltage Control;
- MV Congestion Management.

These solutions were considered to be most relevant to rural distribution networks, similar to those of the IGREENGrid demonstration projects.

An approach was defined for the estimation of the S&R (Scalability and Replicability) potential of each solution based on the evaluation of a set of parameters related to S&R according to the impact/importance of each of them on the solution: the higher the score, the higher the theoretical potential for S&R. The methodology was applied to estimate the potential for scalability and replicability of the identified “most promising” solutions in a predefined set of S&R scenarios. The methodology and results from the S&R analysis are presented in the deliverable D4.2.

Conclusions and recommendations were developed, using the experience gained by the DSOs and the demonstration projects, to provide practical feedback on how the effectiveness and benefits from the deployment of new types of solutions can be optimised to increase cost effectiveness and addressing DG integration. The number of solutions identified is related to the individual character and diverse nature of electrical power systems in general. The benefits that result from investment cannot be simply scaled up and what might benefit one particular part of a network, will not necessarily have benefits elsewhere in the same network. It is recommended that the solutions identified would be considered as options for addressing DG integration. The options that are then determined to be feasible, which would also include business as usual (traditional reinforcement of the network), would then have to be evaluated, on a case by case basis, from an economic perspective and with consideration to the long term evolution of the power distribution system.

Recommendations were provided for further studies that would be completed within WP5 to validate the results from WP4 using computer based network modelling and simulation studies and an economic evaluation. The recommendations include, on which networks the solutions should be tested and how the deployment potential of these solutions could be evaluated. The recommendation from WP4 is that the deployment potential should be evaluated based on the economic aspects using a cost benefit analysis. The technical performance, as represented by KPIs, is a requirement for the solution to be considered as an option in the first place. The technical performance, along with other aspects would be considered as part of the feasibly for deploying a solution. The evaluation completed within WP4 addresses what were considered to be all the relevant aspects for a solution to be considered as a feasible option for deployment on a European scale. The decision to invest would ultimately have to be determined by considering the short, medium and long term evolution of the power distribution system and by completing a cost-benefit analysis on a case-by-case basis.

WP5

The WP started in Month 13 (January 2014) and first focused on the development of a methodology to investigate the scalability and replicability (from technical and economic perspective) potential of smart grids solutions. In order to steer the work done in this work package and to discuss the proposed approach and obtained results, 48 meetings (WebCos and physical meetings), including 12 physical meetings with all the WP5 partners have been held. After the kick-off meeting, a detailed work-plan with subtasks and responsibilities for each participating partner has been drafted. In order to focus the efforts, a few major contributions have been assigned to each partner.

Task 5.1 - Design of a simulation environment for the technical evaluation

As the first task in this work package, a methodology has been elaborated to investigate the technical and economic potential of smart grids solutions. This work has been mainly based on an extensive literature review (the most relevant literature is included in the references of Deliverable D5.1) as well as on discussions based on the individual experience of the involved partners.
This process proved to be longer than initially planned but the consortium agreed about the importance of this preliminary work in order to ensure a full agreement on the methodology and assumptions which play a very important role in this type of studies.
The first description of the methodology has been described in several working documents, which served as basis for the discussions:
- Memo on the identification of reference networks for replicability and scalability studies: The definition and use of “reference networks” has been discussed and documented in the corresponding memo document.
Memo on probabilistic load flow simulations: Since the followed methodology relies on the use of probabilistic load flow simulations, some investigations and discussions have been dedicated to this topic. At the end, a suitable implementation of probabilistic load flow simulations has been selected (monte-carlo simulations using Latin Hypercube sampling).
- Memo on smart grids studies: In order to ensure that suitable methods, assumptions and data are used, a memo document has been written. The purpose of this work was to ensure that a common approach and sound assumptions are used for all the DSOs
Most of this work (memos) have been summarised into Deliverable D5.2, which describes the simulation and evaluation framework.
After having closed the elaboration of the methodology, a simulation environment has been developed and the necessary data have been collected:
- Network data for the eight DSOs (27 MV networks or 149 MV feeders and 16 LV networks or 55 feeders plus more than 11.000 LV networks or 37.000 LV feeders), available in 8 different formats
- Load data (measured or synthetic profiles or from SCADA feeder measurements)
- Generation data (e.g. PV generation time series for the six countries)
- DSO Planning rules (available voltage band, loading)
The implementation has been done using as basis platform the simulation software DIgSILENT PowerFactory (selected by considering flexibility, performance, compatibility with programs used by partners). In addition to the standard software, a large number of scripts have been written to prepare the networks, implement DRES scenarios, implement and configure the controllers, and automate the simulations. A series of additional tools has been used (e.g. Python, Matlab) to support the data preparation, the result analysis or the simulation automation.
Due to the large number of networks and scenarios to simulate, a concept for parallelising the simulations has been developed and implemented. A high performance computing cluster has been used to run the simulations (24 nodes with 12 cores per node and 128 GB per node).
This task, together with task 5.2, has been closed by the delivery of Deliverable D5.2 (delivered on 20.05.2015 with a small delay of one and half month).

Task 5.2 - Design of an approach and an environment for an economic evaluation

The objective of this task was to design an approach and a methodology to assess economically the smart grids solutions under study in IGREENGrid project.
The first step in this task has been to analyse and to study diverse literature on the topic in order to know more the existing schemes and methodologies for assessing the costs and the benefits of the smart grids solutions selected as the most-promising ones in previous WP4.
As a result, the methodology of evaluation of costs and benefits in the IGREENGrid project, named CA&BA, has been based on the “Guidelines for conducting a cost-benefit analysis of Smart Grid Projects”, also called “Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)”, proposed by the EC Joint Research Centre (JRC), but many assumptions have been made in order to adapt this procedure to the reality of the IGREENGrid project.
These main differences between CBA from EC JRC and the CA&BA methodology of IGREENGrid, exposed into Deliverable D5.2, have been decided as conclusions of the following works:
- The CBA procedure by EC JRC has been applied and the following items have been identified:
o The cost elements involved in each one of most-promising solutions.
o The quantitative and qualitative benefits provided by most-promising solutions.
- Formulas for calculations of total costs and total benefits have been raised.
- Alternative solutions to logical limitations have been sought in the literature on the subject and in several internal workshops of the project.
The CA&BA methodology of IGREENGrid project has been the result of these works that have been summarised into Deliverable D5.2, in which the steps of the methodology to evaluate costs and benefits of the most-promising solutions have been described.
This task and the previous task 5.2 have been closed by the delivery of Deliverable D5.2 on 20.05.2015.

Task 5.3 - Technical evaluation of scalability and replicability opportunities

Using the methodology and tools developed in Task 5.1, a large number of simulations has been performed to investigate the scalability and replicability potential of the most promising solutions (from WP4). A common set of solutions has been modelled and implemented into all the distribution networks provided by the DSOs in order to quantify the benefits in terms of hosting capacity increase (IGREENGrid KPI). Additional effects have been investigated (e.g. impact on network losses, on curtailment, on reactive power flows) and the corresponding KPIs have been computed.
The evaluation of the deployment potential of the considered smart grids solutions has been mostly based on the identification of networks or feeders which can actually benefit from the solutions and on a quantification of the benefit in terms of hosting capacity increase. For each single network and feeder, the hosting capacity achievable for each considered solution has been determined and some statistics have been drawn. In order to quantify the economic benefits in terms of reinforcement postponement, the reinforcement necessary to host the same amount of generation as the most performant (in terms of hosting capacity) smart grids solutions has been determined.
Besides this main part of the work which has been done for all the 8 DSOs, a comprehensive analysis has been done for the two Austrian DSOs which were able to provide the full set of network data for their whole supply area. This purpose of this work was to perform a statistical analysis of the LV networks in terms of deployment potential for selected smart grids solutions (which networks exhibit a potential and how much in terms of hosting capacity). Besides this statistical analysis, a methodology for classifying LV feeders has been developed and used on the whole data set, leading to very promising results.
In addition to the smart grids solutions selected from the demonstration projects, a concept for phase balancing has been investigated and the results have been presented.
The results of this task are summarised in D5.1 (chapters 6, 7, 8) and the detailed results have been provided to the DSOs.

Task 5.4 - Economic analysis and evaluation

Using the CA&BA methodology developed in Task 5.2, the analysis of the costs and the benefits of the most-promising solutions have been carried out, i.e. total costs incurred by DSO when deploying the most-promising solutions in their distribution networks have been calculated and the benefits provided by them have been identified.
The networks analysed in the economic evaluation have been characterized in technical simulations and thus this CA&BA methodology has been performed and limited to those cases that are technically necessary.
The benefits analysis has been limited to the identification, ergo; the main benefits provided by the most-promising solutions have been identified and agreed among all the members within the Consortium.
For the costs analysis, the required values of the cost elements have been provided by 6 of the 8 DSOs in the project (ERDF, GNF, HEDNO, Iberdrola, EAG and SAG) so that the economic analysis has been limited to the reference networks operated by these DSOs that may require one of the most-promising solutions.
The comparison of the costs incurred in different smart grids solutions included within the same functionality has been performed with the aim of comparing the solutions with a common objective or functionality (intended to solve the same problem) in terms of the costs that have been incurred by DSOs. Two methods have been applied:
- Annual Costs Comparison, consisting of compiling the annual costs of the solutions over the study period in order to make annual comparisons and identify individual years with higher or lower costs.
- Calculation of Present Value of Total Costs (PVTC), which consists of estimating the sum of total costs of the smart grids solution (both CapEx and OpEx) ‘brought back’ to the first by applying a discount rate for the entire study period.
In addition, a sensitivity analysis of the costs has also been carried out in order to assess the impact of changes in variables (discount rate and the number of DG units to be retrofitted) on the solutions deployment performance.
The results of this task are outlined in chapters 9, 10 and 11 of D5.1 and the detailed results have been provided to the DSOs and validated by them through e-mails and teleconferences.

Task 5.5 - Overall evaluation according to the technical and economic analysis

This task has been partly running in parallel with the previous ones, using the expert visits to document all the discussions which are relevant for interpreting the results of the technical and economic evaluation of the scalability and replicability potential of smart grids solutions.
A large importance has been devoted to this task due to the complexity of the question addressed by WP5 (trying to produce generic conclusions). The outcome of all the discussions (from technical, economic, regulatory, organisational point of view) has been summaries in chapter 12 of D5.1.
After a short review of the most important conclusions out of the technical and economic evaluation, the results have been discussed by coming back to the methodology and the assumptions. Besides this, a long list of factors (technical, economic, structural, organisational and regulatory) impacting the deployment potential of smart grids solutions has been identified. Finally, this task reflected the experience of the consortium in using the KPIs to compare smart grids solutions and the role of standardisation as enabler of the large scale deployment of smart grids solutions.
This task has proved to be very important in order to align the interpretation of the results by the consortium as a whole and to reach a common agreement in the conclusions.

WP6

The main results of the WP are contained in the three deliverables and the final report “IGREENGrid: Integrating Renewables in the European Electricity Grid” which delivers the real guidelines in a document for public use as well as a summary of the main results of the project.

Task 6.1 - Guidelines for the future massive integration of DRES in distribution grids

The result of this task consists on a strategy to better integrate DRES classified by the following groups: Prosumer side, network operation, network planning, asset management and regulatory matters. A set of recommendations for the main stakeholders, guidelines to assess hosting capacity and to manage curtailment and guidelines to perform technical and economic assessment were also produced.

These guidelines for the future massive penetration of DRES at European level have developed a pathway for the appropriate DRES integration in distribution grids (both in Medium and Low Voltage networks). These guidelines are focused on:

• “DRES hosting capacity” ("the maximum penetration of DRES, for which the whole power system can still operate satisfactorily")
• Solutions to better integrate DRES.
• Methods to increase the hosting capacity levels.
• Curtailment criteria and procedures.
• Regulatory, technical and economical recommendations to EU Commission, EEGI, EU national regulatory bodies, standardization bodies, manufacturers, renewable energy promoters, DSOs, etc.

Task 6.2 - Report on the DSOs' business evolution

Several aspects regarding DSO activity have been developed within this task. The existing gap between current DSO business with reference to DRES integration and a future vision developed in IGREENGrid. The Gap analysis between current DSO practices and the expected future ones have allowed the identification of the business roles that the DSOs could play in the future. This business modelling activity is focused on the services that the DSO would be able to provide in the future, based on connection procedures and control strategies that guarantee the reliability of the network.

Based on the system use-case produced by “evolvDSO” project, the project analyse the gaps. Technical, economical and regulatory requirements of these use-cases are analysed to identify the gaps to make them possible. The effect of regulation in the future DSOs services has been also analysed and highlighted to provide inputs to the corresponding authorities. This analysis also describes the interaction between the relevant stakeholders (DSO, aggregator, DRES owner, etc.) and the resulting value exchanges between them.
In addition, a country action plan is established to accelerate the changes towards the scenario foreseen.

Task 6.3 - Commercial and exploitation plan

The products and knowledge produced during IGREENGrid project have been included in a table, indicating how each partner plan to exploit the knowledge acquired and the expected benefits.
Based on the CBA results, a qualitative economic evaluation of the most promising solutions was performed. The reliability and interoperability of the most promising solutions is also analysed. On the other hand, the potential market for these solutions is analysed at EU level.

Due to the special characteristics of the Project, the exploitation plan has been mainly focused on Replicability, Scalability and Interoperability of the solutions.

Potential Impact:
Exploitable foreground and Expected Impact

D1.4 Final Report
The exploitable knowledge is IGREENGrid work and conclusions. The target audience could be composed by Distribution system operators (DSOs), Scientific community, Technology providers, National authorities/ regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: Use it as a baseline for further project and current processes related with DRES integration.

D1.5 D1.6, D1.7 coordination with SINGULAR & SusTAINABLE Projects
The exploitable knowledge consists in the analysis of methodologies used, demos implemented, solutions tested and results obtained. These knowledge can be exploited through the comparison of methodologies and use cases. The target group are the partner involved in the three projects (IGREENGrid, Sustainable and Singular).
• Expected impact: Improve new project starting from a higher baseline.

D2.1: Barriers for connection of DRES in distribution grids
The exploitable knowledge is a set of identified barriers about the difficulties of DRES integration. To face these barriers, a set of solutions that could minimize are delivered. The target audience could be composed by DSOs, National authorities/ regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: Ease the integration of DRES generation.

D2.2: Assessment methodology based on indicative Key Performance Indicators
The exploitable knowledge is the homogeneous KPIs evaluation methodology, which allow a reference frame to compare different solutions that address the same problems. The target audience could be composed by Scientific community, DSOs, European Commission.
• Expected impact: Technical evaluation framework to assess about effective DRES integration in medium and low voltage grids.

D2.3: Suggestions and comments regarding the use of EEGI KPIs in real Demo Projects (first step)
The exploitable knowledge is the identification of main issues to considerer in EEGI KPIs. These knowledge can be used as a baseline for further project. The target audience could be composed by EEGI and other projects coming.
• Expected impact: Improve quality of next EEGI KPIs identification.

D3.1: Individual reports on the evaluation of local Pilot projects
The exploitable knowledge is the collection of quantitative and qualitative information from Pilot projects. This information allow to know and even compare different solutions. The target audience could be composed by Partner involve in the project, DSOs, Research centres.
• Expected impact: Share information among different initiatives in Europe and identify countries peculiarities.

D3.2: Evaluation of EEGI labelled demonstration projects
The exploitable knowledge is the collection of information from demonstrations projects, allowing the technical know-how obtained of different solutions and technologies. The target audience could be composed by DSOs, Research centres, EEGI.
• Expected impact: Share information among different project.

D3.3: Evaluation of other relevant demonstrations initiatives
The exploitable knowledge is the collection of quantitative and qualitative information from demonstrations initiatives, allowing to acquire the knowledge of other initiatives. The target audience could be composed by partners involve in the project, DSOs, Research centres, EEGI.
• Expected impact: Share information among different project.

D4.1: Report listing selected KPIs and precise recommendations to EEGI Team for improvement of list of EEGI
The exploitable knowledge is the experience obtained from the designing of the KPI methodology. This know-how obtained can be used as a baseline for further projects. The target audience could be composed by European Commission.
• Expected impact: Precise knowledge to evaluate solutions.
D4.2: List of reference targets (country-specific & EU-wide) for grid integration of DER based on selected solutions
The exploitable knowledge is the selection of effective solutions considering reference targets for KPIs. Methodology and criteria of evaluation, Parameters affecting efficacy, List of detected opportunities, Scenarios of Simulations, Best Practices Identification, Use the analysis as a baseline for further project. The target audience could be composed by DSOs, Scientific community, Technology providers, National authorities/regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: Identify effective solutions for DRES integration in distribution grids that could be scalable and replicable.
D5.1: Technical and economic evaluation of replicability and scalability of solutions to increase the DER
The exploitable knowledge consists in a Methodology for tool designing, Solutions classification, Simulated and Validated Catalogue of solutions, Replicability and Scalability Evaluation, Reference Values Simulation, Best Practices Simulation. The target audience could be composed by Technology providers, National authorities/regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: To improve technical solution deployed in other countries or scenarios.
D 5.2: IGREENGrid simulation & evaluation framework (methodology and tools) to assess about the penetration
The exploitable knowledge consists in Methodology and Evaluation Tools, Simulated Cases, Economical and Technical evaluation. These outcomes can be used for coming projects or technical solutions deploy. The target audience could be composed by DSOs, Scientific community, Technology providers.
• Expected impact: To improve technical solution of DRES in distribution grids deployed in other countries or scenarios.

D6.1: Guidelines for future Massive Integration of DRES in distribution grids
The exploitable knowledge consists in a set of a strategy to better integrate DRES and a set of Recommendations about rules and criteria to manage properly distribution systems focused on increasing DRES integration in low and medium voltage grids. The target audience could be composed by Software development companies, DSOs, Scientific community, Technology providers, National authorities/regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: To be a baseline for future projects and initiatives.

D6.2 Report on DSOs` business evolution
The exploitable knowledge is the identification of the current state in DRES integration and IGREENGrid vision concerning economical, technical and regulatory aspect. It can be exploited as a baseline for R&D project and to identify aspects where national regulations need advance. The target audience could be composed by DSOs, European Commission, National authorities/ regulators.
• Expected impact: Identify the aspect where regulator need pay attention and the needs of DRES integration for further regulations.

D6.3 Exploitation Plan
The exploitable knowledge is the identification of knowledge gained during the project. It can be used as a baseline for further projects. The target group are the Partners of the project.
• Expected impact: Identify partners’ knowhow and portfolio.

D7.6, D7.7, D7.8 & D7.9 IGREENGrid workshop
The exploitable knowledge is the experience gained from other initiatives in DRES integration (Smart Grid and DRES integration knowledge). The target audience could be composed by DSOs, Scientific community, Technology providers, National authorities/ regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: Improve knowledge about Smart Grids technologies, companies involved, etc...

Stakeholders Committee meetings minutes
The exploitable knowledge is the experience taken from other initiatives in DRES integration (Smart Grid and DRES integration knowledge). The main target group could be composed by DSOs, Scientific community, Technology providers, National authorities/ regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: Improve knowledge about Smart Grids technologies, companies involved, etc.

Data Repository (Tool)
The exploitable knowledge consist in a Data Model needed to develop new tools, Guidelines to manage available data, Integration of KPIs tools calculation, Grid Topologies, Guidelines for tool designing, Data required and data acquisition requirements. The main target group could be composed by Software development companies, DSOs, Scientific community, Technology providers, National authorities/regulators, European Commission.
• Expected impact: Gain experience in this kind of tool and improved the methodology in coming projects.

Technical Evaluation
The exploitable knowledge is a Methodology, to be used in Future projects, in order to analyse and improve DSO networks. The main target group could be composed by DSOs, Scientific community.
• Expected impact: Gain experience in this kind of tool and improved the methodology in coming projects.
CBA approach
The exploitable knowledge is a Methodology for CB to be used in Future R&D projects (Develop and improve generic tool). The target audience could be composed by R&D projects, DSOs.
• Expected impact: Gain experience in CBA methodology and analysis.

Specific Knowledge of DRES integration
Knowledge of State of the art, Smart Grid technologies and commercial solutions so as to improve Smart Grid capacities and knowledge of the partners. The target audience could be composed by partners and Stakeholders of the project.
• Expected impact: Develop Smart Grid Consultancy.

MAIN DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

The dissemination activities of IGREENGrid project include physical events in national and international workshops, as well as presence on the World Wide Web and the interaction with the social networks to spread the project results.

The first version of the website pages was designed in May-June 2013, and its first content version was approved by the project consortium at the end of July 2013. The website is live and operational since August 2013 and update regularly.

IGREENGrid dissemination key figures
Since the beginning of the project, IGREENGrid project has:
• Attended 28 events and conferences.
• Created 30 articles on the IGREENGrid website.
• Summarize confidential deliverables of the project and publish them on the webpage and the social media pages of the project
• Created news at each partner intranet
• Organized 6 Stakeholders Committee meetings.
• Organized 5 international public workshops.
• Organized 3 private workshops in collaboration with SiNGULAR and SuSTAINABLE projects.
• Contributed in 1 GRID + webinar.
• Published 4 newsletters.

In addition the deliverable identified the list of next conferences or events, where a dissemination action are confirmed with papers already submitted and the list of additional opportunities of project participations under study.

Coordination with other projects

Strong coordination with EEGI, GRID+ Project, SiNGULAR, SuSTAINABLE, Grid4EU, evolvDSO, Increase, Discern, PlanGrid EV, PVGrid, Green emotion and other relevant Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and H2020 initiatives have been established during the Project to receive appropriate feedback and to maximize the Project impact.

To support the consortium in overcoming these tasks and sharing the results within and outside the consortium, the Project has developed management and dissemination procedures and tools including a common methodology for risk assessment, and a Stakeholders Committee to discuss with several Smart Grids relevant actors on some of IGREENGrid challenges.

IGREENGrid Project members have also participated to Smart Grids conferences to present the Project. In total, IGREENGrid has been presented in twenty-eight events and we plan some other participations after the end of the project.

Given the nature of “family of projects” of IGREENGrid from the beginning of the Project it has been considered key the collaboration with other projects on the area of DRES integration.

o IGREENGrid has maintained a tight collaboration with other Projects like GRID+ and GRID+Storage. IBERDROLA is a third party of both projects, and IGREENGrid has collaborated providing information about the state of the art, giving feed-back about the KPIs, etc.
o Collaboration with GRID4EU has been frequent: to exchange experiences in the use of KPIs and use-cases, for replicability and scalability studies, and CBA analysis as well as to disseminate knowledge about DRES integration.
o We have also contacted other Projects involved in “renewable integration” like PVGrid, which was included as “stakeholder” to collaborate with us, and evolvDSO, Increase, Discern, PlanGrid EV, Green emotion and other relevant Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and H2020 initiatives.

Feedbacks from stakeholders committee
It is important to establish the responsibilities and scopes of TSO and DSO regarding the integration of DRES. Active coordination between TSO and DSO would increase the hosting of DRES.

Most relevant issues for DRES are:
• To define the best solution for the voltage control.
• To manage with the big amount of data that the DRES usually provide.
• To define/standardize the network codes parameters to connect DRES.
• To determine which ancillary services can DRES provide and which ones not.
• Definition of generic KPI to be used in different Projects and situations, providing an essential mean to compare different solutions.
The stakeholders are very interested in:
• KPI definitions and management.
• How the DRES can provide ancillary services.
• Kind of model defined to implement the simulations of the solutions proposed in demos and how will be characterized the environmental conditions.
• DRES cost-benefits analysis.
• Replicability and scalability methodology and analysis.
• Feedbacks of GRID+ and EEGI recommendations use. Limits of the EEGI KPIs.
• DRES market integration models.
• The way to involve customer to improve the penetration of DRES and how improved the social acceptance of smart metering solutions.
• PV inverter active power limitation as a function of the local measured voltage. The possible side effects for the PV installation must be considered in particular when the PV brought out of the optimal point as the received solar energy should be evacuated somehow and the additional heat could increase PV panel temperature and affect its life expectancy.
• New kinds of contracts which will be proposed of generator owners where curtailment could be interpreted as off periods.
• The methodologies applied to forecast the curtailment as for example the analysis of past data and studies about the expected impact.
Concerning the barriers they said that the situation is the same around the world and the barriers are common in the rest of the countries and also they highlighted that:
• Coordination between TSO-DSO (DSO role definition) needs to be improved, remuneration of services should be well defined, and the lack of incentives (not contracts with the generators) is a common barrier.
• Interaction with news actors should be improved.
• Lack of coordination and remuneration.
• To incentive the R&D programs of Smart Grids can help to reduce the barriers.
Concerning the KPI:
• Need to clarify the interaction with GRID+ KPI.
• Need to add a KPI around the reverse power flow or something equivalent to the frequency signal at the TSO level.
• Need to add an economic analysis.
• Centralised solutions have a more important impact on HC than decentralized ones.
• The combination of centralized and decentralized solutions could also contribute to increase the hosting capacity of the network.
• In general, DSOs prefer to use centralized solutions for MV networks and decentralized for LV networks.
• They wonder about the feasibility to find the right KPI to measure the performance of the solutions. There are a lot KPIs possibilities to measure the performance but KPI need to be adapted to the situations of each demonstrator/project.
• KPI calculation needs a lot of effort to recuperate the data needed to calculate them.
Concerning the most promising solutions the most relevant stakeholder’s feedbacks are summarized below:
• For the MV network, voltage control is important but not may be the key issue at every distribution network. Several examples of projects show that local controls reacting to the measured voltage could be enough. Concerning the alternatives, in UK there are projects managing the voltage in one point for smaller generators. The coordination between TSO-DSO (DSO role definition) should be improved, remuneration of services defined, and the lack of incentives (not contracts with the generators) addressed.
• For the LV network, use the active demand to follow local generation with an automatic control could be a good solution to manage the voltage. The issue for this active demand is not technical but the commercial arrangements. It is also important to take into account the “social” acceptance of this kind of solution.
• Concerning the MV congestions management solutions, the curtailment is an option in some projects in the U.K. The level of curtailment determines the benefits. It could be used or not depending of the regulatory framework. Again the commercial arrangements are difficult but it is an important factor.
• The use of storage is expensive but can work. There are examples of successful coupling of storage systems with wind farms. For example it could be an efficient solution combined with a wind farm if it is of 10% of the capacity of the wind farm
• Improve the monitoring of the distribution networks is a key requirement enabling higher penetration levels of DRES because of enhanced information of the real situation of the network.
• DRES forecasting tools are not a solution but a part of the solution. The accuracy is still an issue.
• There are other side effects that we need to take into account. For that the DSE has a high potential because we can take advantage for other functions. There is not a single solution for the same problem in some cases we need to combine local solutions with others solutions.
• Simple solutions in some cases are the most relevant solutions for the DSOs. Solutions used for HV could be easier to put in place than other because there are less innovative and well known.
• Send voltage set points to the renewable generators taking into account coordination with the DSO is a good solution. It doesn’t work on real time now but near to real-time. The control of active and reactive power for the generators is already implemented for generators bigger than 10MW.
• It’s necessary to consider the feedbacks of other projects initiatives concerning the use f the KPIs as for example (Endesa experiences, future PV, USA initiatives).
Concerning the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA):
• It could be difficult to agree on the assumptions which are very important and in fact even more important than the methodology.
• CBA results depend of the baseline (starting point), of the actual situation on the network, of the level of DRES already install, level of automation of the network. Specific studies must to be done for each kind of solutions. They consider a good idea to separate the CA from the BA.
• Methodology used by the IGREENGrid project is most interesting than the final results. The situation could change very quickly reducing the cost and the solution could be interesting from an economical point of view.
• Costs are important but we need to consider also the benefits either if they are difficult to monetize. The regulatory framework could be very dependent of both.
Concerning the Scalability and Replicability Analysis
• It is important to identify the assumptions to be used to conduct the Scalability and Replicability Analysis (SRA) and the CBA.
• An important consideration for “Scalability and Replicability” is the compatibility and the interoperability.
• Concerning the “Social aspects” sometimes is needed to remind also the positive effects like increased renewable penetration to help into selling the project to the public, community benefit, etc. Privacy concerns are another cause for doubts and rejection.
Concerning the “Performance Analysis”:
• DSOs can use this kind of tools to calculate the HC. The main barrier is a regulatory one. Today the DSOs are paid to reinforce the network and not to optimise the solutions.
• Regulatory Authorities needs to incentivise this kind of solutions. This kind of tools can help the DSO to identify where the problem is and which solution is the most adapted.
• Data can help the DSO to improve the network planning/operation. To use this tools we need more data near to the real time
Concerning the Regulatory and Technical recommendations for DRES integration, the feedback of the stakeholders are provided bellow:
• Encourage Electric Vehicle (EV) to provide services to release network constraints could have a negative effect because the battery has a number of cycles limited. The use of the battery has to be saved for its initial purpose: mobility use. Using the battery for network services will negatively affect the economic benefit of the device. The economics are negative. It would work only if the battery has a calendar aging: in this case, it is better to use it as much as possible.
• It’s important to test and simulate different DER control schemes in different network conditions (low or high loads, possible reconfigurations).
• There is a need to study and develop new feasibility study tools (including DER) for DSOs, investors and customers (as prosumers).
• Concerning the study and research on new batteries materials/technologies to increase efficiency and cost reduction, they consider that it’s important but perhaps not realistic. It would be good having cheap battery, but this statement does not really add value. Battery will remain expensive for a while.
• It’s also needed to develop optimization techniques (Optimal Power Flow) integrating the newest network services (e.g. curtailment, storage, etc.).
• Concerning the recommendation to the generators to accept the perspective that DSO can control DG production, they agrees on this but insist on the fact that the limits should be well set up. A modulation of power should be encouraged rather than complete curtailment. To facilitate the dialogue, it would be good to know a relation between the amount of “clever” curtailment and the increase of Hosting capacity.
• Concerning the non-firm connection contracts, they consider that this kind of connection contract allows the generator to connect and/or to have access to the distribution network while minimising its connection costs and time, and potential economic losses. The generator accepts to limit its active power a given number of hours per year to prevent constraints on the distribution network as alternative to network reinforcement and as a way to optimise network use and investments.
• They consider that the quality and performance of communication is a big technical barrier today. This may be addressed more.
• Concerning the settlement of a common EU connection rules to connect DRES to the grid, independently of country or utility, they think that it is almost impossible in practice, due to the different nature of networks in Europe.
• Generators would support the possibility for the DSO to send reactive management reference targets to DRES in order to stabilize the Grid.
• It’s important to allow DSO the use of distributed flexibilities (Active Demand (AD), generation, storage) to solve the network constraints.
• It exists a need to agree a standard for DRES communication with DSOs (to homogenize interfaces) as much as to standardize the ITCs (Information and communication technologies).

WORKSHOPS

IGREENGrid Workshop 1

First public common workshop had been focused to present the:

• Three Projects.
• DSO role towards the achievement of Europe’s Energy Targets
o How the three Projects contribute to this achievement?
o Which RES are more promising? (Micro-generation, Electrical Vehicles, Storage, ...)
o 2010 versus 2020- DSO differences and similarities
o Present and Future roles of DSOs

The more relevant conclusions of the workshop are listed below: New ENTSOE Networks Codes, could impact the security of the distribution networks. In order to limit the risks and to improve the costs for the end users connected to the distribution network, it is necessary to guarantee:
• Data and communication should be handled by the DSO.
• The distribution users should only receive signals and requests from the DSO.
• The DSO should prescribe how to test the compliance of distribution network users.
• The actively management of the grid.
• New DSO roles are necessary in order to guaranty the security, as for example, the Distribution System Optimizer, Neutral Market Facilitator or the Distribution Constraints Market Operator. A new regulatory framework is required to put in place these new roles and to define adapted incentives to invest in Smart Grids solutions

One of the most important issues is therefore to establish a good interaction with the national and European regulators.

IGREENGrid Workshop 2

The second public workshop was held on the 4th of December 2014. Twelve projects participated to this workshop including IGREENGrid. The complete list of projects that participated is: PVGrid, INTrEPID, MetaPV, I3RES, INERTIA, SiNGULAR, DISCERN, SuSTAINABLE, INCREASE, EnR Pool, ACR and evolvDSO. It had been focused on:

• The presentation of the twelve projects.
• Two Panel Sessions around: Experiences in the implementation of solutions for renewable integration and how evaluate these solutions. KPI experiences related with the measurement of solutions effectiveness in renewable integration

The most relevant conclusions of the workshop are listed below:
• Concerning the DSO: Regulatory Framework does not incentivize SG development. DSOs should be incentivized to use SG solution. An adaptation of national regulatory frameworks to promote “Smart Grid” investments will be needed. Coordination among DSO (“operator/supervisor” or the communication system), inverter manufacturer and researchers (test plan) is difficult. DSO needs to implement an active distribution system management approach due to increased complexity. DSO has a central role to play as market facilitator to better support the energy markets. DSO must exploit the end users potential flexibility (not yet implemented) to optimize the management of the distribution network.
• Concerning the demonstrators: A demo can foster a better understanding from all parties (DSO, equipment manufacturer. R&D) and demonstrate the functionality. A lot of efforts are needed to reach the projects KPI computation. Many efforts are required to deploy the equipment into the field. Communication “issues” in real life are more difficult than expected. Demonstration phase is usually too short (despite project extension) to enable a quantitative validation for the (too many) different controls (statistical significance). A demo usually does not study the potential for scalability and replicability (beyond the particular conditions of the demo), neither provide guidance on how to replicate the solution and provide “general results”.
• Concerning the PV integration: Curtailment of small amounts (less than 5% of annual generations) of active power on the year can improve the HC. They solve congestion and voltage constraints. Insufficient DSO access to advanced PV inverter capabilities is a barrier for DRES integration.
• Concerning the storage: Prosumer storage could be a solution for the PV fluctuations. An economic compensation when storage reduces the PV peak could incentivize their installation. DSO’s roles, rights and limitations concerning the storage must be clearly defined as well as the impact on the market.
• Concerning the Demand response: Insufficient framework for Demand Response (Increase or decrease) based on a voluntary basis. The communications system should be defined. Smarts meters can help to develop it. The electric system would take great benefits if industrial consumers knew better how to use their flexibilities to address RES production issues. Aggregation enhances electric system performance and cost-effectiveness by coupling industrial flexibilities and RES production. Aggregation entities should be geo-located as RES production is decentralized.

IGREENGrid Workshop 3

Third public workshop was organized together with SiNGULAR and SuSTAINABLE and was held in Paris on the 19th of February 2015. Nine projects participated to this workshop including IGREENGrid. The complete list of projects that participated is: SiNGULAR, SUSTAINABLE, GRID4EU, evolvDSO, INCREASE, EnR Pool, Solar Mobility and Plan Grid EV. It had been focused on the presentation of the nine projects.
Not relevant conclusions had been obtained during this workshop.

IGREENGrid Workshop 4

This workshop is organised in two parts. The first one, organized by IGREENGrid, in Bilbao on the 22nd of October 2015 and the second one, organized together with SiNGULAR and SuSTAINABLE, in Lisbon on the 27th of November 2015.

Bilbao workshop
Seven projects participated to the Bilbao workshop including IGREENGrid. The complete list of projects that participated is: IGREENGrid, SiNGULAR, SuSTAINABLE, GRID4EU, COTEVOS, INCREASE, EnR Pool. In addition three Manufacturers presented its vision of potential markets. They were: ZIV, ARTECHE and INGETEAM. It had been focused on:

• Sharing experiences of the projects on: Cost Benefits Analysis, Scalability and Replicability Analysis.
• Vision of the manufacturers on the potential markets.

The more relevant conclusions of the workshop are listed below:

• Barriers identified by the IGREENGrid project for DRES integration are the following: Regulation does not allow the DSOs to control DER. Coordination between TSOs and DSOs is insufficient for the effective DRES integration. Lack of a proper regulation for DRES connection. Lack of an adequate remuneration for DSO services. DRES do not have any incentive to take part in the network operation. Interactions with the new actors resulting from DRES integration are not clearly defined. Lack of a standard Smart Grid solution components. Distribution network processes are not adapted to the realities of the integration of DRES. Lack of experience of the DSO in the operation of new devices and systems. Power system reliability may be affected by the massive DRES penetration. ICT solutions for remote areas may be unaffordable.
• IGREENGrid conclusions on the SRA are the following: There is not a single “most promising” solution from the SRA point of view. All implementations represent valid alternatives. The selection depends on several factors: network status, regulatory conditions, DSO’s approach, etc. Final choice has to be made for each particular case taking into account: the mentioned factors such as regulatory evolution and the CBA results.
• For GRID4EU, examples of SRA observations on AD to be shared are: Overall, Smart Meters functionalities can greatly determine whether Use Cases are replicable in other countries (e.g. collection of power quality data by smart meters). A lack of standardized list of functionalities of AMI. Might require hardware and software adaptations. Hampers the replicability potential of GRID4EU Use Cases on AD. Data access could be a barrier for SRA also when data are provided to customers. The use of AMI for network supervision is facilitated if the DSO is in charge of metering data management and if AMI is widespread. Absence of regulatory mechanisms enabling DSOs the access to AD flexibilities in transparent and competitive conditions is a key barrier for those use cases where load control could contribute to increase the HC or to ensure network stability reducing local congestions at distribution level.
• Main conclusions of the SuSTAINABLE CBA are the following:
o RES Forecasting in market operation:
▪ Measuring devices present an important cost.
▪ Major benefit is obtained from reduction of ancillary services.
▪ Ideal scenario: Area with large RES penetration.
o Smart Monitoring and Control in Continuity of Supply:
▪ First automation investments drastically improve continuity of supply indicators.
▪ From 40%-50% automation, continuity of supply indicators are less affected.
▪ Ideal scenario: Urban area with low automation. Regulatory incentives are needed.
o Voltage Control in Quality of Supply:
▪ Energy losses reduction and voltage quality improvement have been proved as good source of benefits for this functionality.
▪ Control decisions are based on information from measuring devices and forecasts, which complicates the assessment of the real impact of voltage control.
▪ Ideal scenario: Rural network with long feeders and high RES penetration.
• Manufacturers conclusions are the following: Smartization of the Distribution grid needs a real improvement of the grid observability. LV grid supervision is a cost effective solution in order to improve the service availability and the quality of supply (QoS), increase grid capacity, reduce technical & commercial losses and know MV grid status based on LV grid measurements. Technology is already ready beyond AMI: LV grid supervision over existing AMI deployments.

Lisbon workshop
Nine projects participated to the Lisbon joint workshop. The complete list of projects that participated is: SiNGULAR, SUSTAINABLE, FLEXICENCY, UPGRID, AnyPLACE, SENSIBLE, NobelGrid and TILOS. It had been focused on the presentation of the nine projects.

The more relevant conclusions of the workshop are listed below:
• SiNGULAR develops advanced mathematical optimization models and tested and validated them in real-world cases, handling forecasting, operations and planning of power systems in an integrated, novel and improved.
• Most important conclusions of the SuSTAINABLE demonstrations are the following:
o Their concepts allow increasing the grid flexibility and the RES integration.
o Forecasting tools help the DSOs to do active grid management.
o The voltage control scheme implemented reduces the PV curtailment.
o Smart Meter HAN interface allows the DER controllability.
o Centralised LV Voltage control installed at the Secondary Substation is a key element for LV grid management.
o Voltage control is an increasing challenge for the DSOs due to DG.
o Integrated system for Operation is key for functionalities adoption.

List of Websites:
http://www.igreengrid-fp7.eu/

Related information

Reported by

IBERDROLA DISTRIBUCION ELECTRICA, S.A.
Spain
Follow us on: RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube Managed by the EU Publications Office Top