Scottish Affairs Committee - A Robust Grid for 21st Century ScotlandWritten evidence submitted by Community Energy Scotland

Community Energy Scotland (www.communityenergyscotland.org.uk) is a charitable organisation which supports and advises communities on sustainable energy development. We work across Scotland and are aware of the state of the transmission and distribution networks in Scotland, and are working with communities and industry on many of the issues mentioned in this call for evidence, namely:

The current condition and technological state of Scotland’s electricity transmission network, and what conditions they are built to withstand.

The advantages and disadvantages of using an alternative electricity transmission infrastructure, particularly regarding its vulnerability to weather-related damage, but including all significant consequences.

How the regulation of Transmission System Operators and Distribution Network Operators impacts upon investment in Scotland’s electricity transmission network.

Taking these points in turn:

1. The current condition and technological state of Scotland’s electricity transmission network, and what conditions they are built to withstand

Generally speaking the transmission and distribution electricity networks in Scotland were primarily designed for a one way transfer of power from large distant generation plant through to consumers. This is in common with the grid in other parts of the UK, but because of the geography and population distribution in Scotland, the network is particularly linear, with long lines reaching out from hubs in the central belt to the more remote areas of the highlands and islands. Because of the lack of multiple pathways for the transmission of power, the network is especially vulnerable to interruptions anywhere along the length of individual lines. Again, as a result of the geography, it can be very challenging to access some parts of the network, and deliver prompt repairs. As we are essentially living off the legacy of a major programme of network expansion and reinforcement that took place in Scotland between the 50’s and 70’s, repairs are likely to become more frequent and costly as the equipment naturally deteriorates, especially in areas exposed to harsh conditions (marine/altitude).

This largely linear network topology compounds the challenges faced by new generators wishing to connect to the network, essentially because there are fewer routes for new injections of power to go. For example In Argyll in particular, the distribution lines that access the transmission network are effectively full up with the output of new generators, to the extent that there is a 50kW limit on new connections in many places. The large scale installation of new generating capacity in remote areas was never envisaged by the network designers and as such the network is effectively the reverse of what is now required to connect, use and distribute the electricity that will be supplied by the new renewable generators in remote regions. The backbone of the system, the transmission network, needs to be substantially upgraded to allow power flows from north to south, while the distribution network also needs to be reinforced to accommodate two way power flows and the output of variable generators. This is discussed in more detail in section 2, however it is fair to say that the scale of the transformation required is no less than that undertaken by the pioneers of the 50’s and 60’s.

2. The advantages and disadvantages of using an alternative electricity transmission infrastructure, particularly regarding its vulnerability to weather-related damage, but including all significant consequences

We believe that the needs of the transmission system cannot be considered separately from the needs of the distribution systems, because the question relates to the vulnerability of the system as a whole. From the end user’s point of view it makes no difference whether a power cut is due to a fault in the transmission or distribution system, what matters is the lack of power. In brief, we believe that an “alternative” electricity system could primarily consist of:

reinforcement of the distribution network to allow for two way power flows, the management of voltage rise, the ability to safely isolate discrete elements of the network, and the interconnection of linear networks;

integration of a wide range of embedded generators on the distribution network, including wind, tidal, hydro, and biomass CHP;

increased integration of active network monitoring and management technologies (as per the SSE Orkney Registered Power Zone development);

integration of embedded storage ( as per the SSE developments on the NINES project in Shetland);

demand side management—management of demand loads in a local network; and

more flexible arrangements for the sale and supply of electricity.

We believe this could lead to higher system resilience (ability to withstand and recover from shocks), by allowing embedded generators to supply electricity to local loads, without relying on the availability of the transmission network.

Currently, whole networks are shut down even though embedded generators may be able to supply the needs of local consumers.

The advantages of this approach are that it can simultaneously increase system reliability while accommodating new generating capacity, by transmitting energy from multiple sources, down multiple pathways, with the capacity to time-shift some proportion of supply and demand. The role of diverse renewable generators is key, because regardless of the network topology, if there is not security of supply from generators, end users will remain vulnerable to black outs.

By matching local supply and local loads power flows should be transmitted more efficiently with reduced losses, while reducing the requirements of the transmission networks.

We also believe that active network management will reduce the costs of overall network reinforcement, by reducing the amount of additional “hard” capacity required. This should also reduce the timescales for connecting new generating capacity and therefore meeting UK/Scottish carbon reduction targets.

The disadvantages to this approach are that it requires fundamental change at all levels of the electricity system: regulatory, financial, operational and technological. It may also be more expensive in the short term than continuing with a reactive, patch and mend approach.

In the longer term this approach also requires a rebalancing of the economy in favour of local production, and the broader de-carbonisation of our food, transport and heat sectors to increase demand for low carbon electricity. However we believe this shift is consistent with wider challenges facing the UK including climate challenge, technological innovation and the changing structure of the economy. We can signpost to some of the projects we are working on that aim towards this if further evidence is required.

We are aware of developments and advances made by both the Scottish distribution network operators in the integration of such new network configurations and are working with both organisations to investigate further opportunities for the community sector. However we feel that the regulatory framework (see section 3) and the limited investment capability of network operators hinders more than helps in the development of such new network configurations.

Large scale up-front investment will be required to ensure such developments are able to advance, as well as major changes to the remit of the regulator and network operator license to move away from the current connection and re-inforcement processes, including the structure of financial incentives and penalities.

3. How the regulation of Transmission System Operators and Distribution Network Operators impacts upon investment in Scotland’s electricity transmission network

We believe the present methodology for TNUOS and DNUOS limits the scope for network operators to plan for long term network development by pre-emptive reinforcement. We recognize that progress has been made under Project Transmit in terms of reducing transmission charging for areas distant from centres of load, but still feel that there is a disadvantage to areas of high renewable resource in terms of the proposed changes.

If Scotland and the UK are to meet their respective targets for new renewable energy capacity we feel that the regulator, and ultimately the UK Government, should legislate to ensure there is no disadvantage placed on renewably resourced energy generation. This is also in accordance with the following EU directives relating to the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market:

“Member States shall ensure that the charging of transmission and distribution fees does not discriminate against electricity from renewable energy sources, including in particular electricity from renewable energy sources produced in peripheral regions, such as island regions and regions of low population density” Article 7, Item 6, DIRECTIVE 2001/77/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 September 2001.

“Electricity producers who want to exploit the potential of energy from renewable sources in the peripheral regions of the Community, in particular in island regions and regions of low population density, should, whenever feasible, benefit from reasonable connection costs in order to ensure that they are not unfairly disadvantaged in comparison with producers situated in more central, more industrialised and more densely populated areas.” Article 63, DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009.

We believe the regulator should place a much firmer emphasis on achieving carbon emission reduction targets through its regulation of the electricity networks, both in terms of controlling the mix of generating capacity, and the integration of more efficient, active network management technologies as described in section 2.

We at Community Energy Scotland are happy to provide further evidence if required and welcome further discussion or representation of the issues on behalf of the communities we support.

2 February 2012