Learnings

Outcomes

The following outputs of the project can be found on our website at : https://www.westernpower.co.uk/innovation/projects/intraflex
· Initial Market Design
· Final Market Design
· Technical Overview
· Phase 1 Learning Slides
· Phase 2 Trial Summary
· Phase 2 Tests Webinar
· Final Dissemination Event Slides
· Cornwall Insight Report on the Impact of DSO services on the market

Lessons Learnt

The project has generated considerable learning and we provide some highlights here but the full list is within the full Project
Closedown Report2:
· There was widespread acknowledgement of the potential problem this project was looking to resolve, i.e. imbalance costs being
imposed on suppliers by the actions of DNOs, however there was limited evidence provided of the potential scale.
· There is real participant interest in the availability of short-term DSO markets and there is a very clear desire to understand the
potential value of the service.
· The development of the market design highlighted that for demand turn down services, the problem is one of revenue
maximisation rather than avoiding penalties in most scenarios.
· An alternative solution to reduce the imbalance created by DNO flexibility calls could be to treat them as system actions and
resolve them through the Applicable Balancing Service Volume Data (ABSVD) process. A review has highlighted that there are
potential benefits for either solution, but that doing things through ABSVD is a relatively simple option.
· The ABSVD findings and report have been fed into the relevant workstream of the industry body for electricity distribution
networks, the Electricity Networks Association’s (ENA’s) the Open Networks project to facilitate the transition to DSO and it looks
like the changes to ABSVD will be progressing alongside the definition of relevant balancing services for the Capacity Market.
· Converting a platform designed for market wide transactions to a platform based on locality of transactions requires detailed
design of user documentation.
· BRP’s do not currently see DNO imbalance as having a material impact on business costs and do not currently support other entities
automatically rebalancing their positions.
· BRPs do see benefit in an information system that helps them act on imbalance created but Flexibility Service Providers have so far
not expressed that they see the benefit to signing up for the information service.
· DSO volume requirements (bids) were being accepted at a lower volume than expected when taking into account known system
sizes. This may be being influenced by there being no penalty for over delivery.
· FSPs are interested in discussing baseline clarification post-delivery. This needs to be thought through especially the need for the
"Burden of proof" that would be needed to enable this.
· Metering requirements as specified in the existing Flexible Power standards appears to maintain a low technical barrier to entry.
· FSPs typically appointed one person internally to manage the trial, so when they were on holiday, absent or too busy there was a
direct impact on the trial response levels.
· Stakeholders were very positive in relation to moving closer to real-time. This was particularly true for aggregators of flexibility
provided by electric vehicle charging points who highlighted the need for a market where they can commit to selling flexibility
closer to real time, such as at a day ahead stage.
· Moving to a 7-day market increased the opportunity for FSP involvement and simplified the bidding process as volumes were
posted 7 days ahead of requirement.
· The Phase 2 trial design was developed to forward signal bid increments and timings but with an element of jeopardy to discourage
market gaming. This was supported as the right thing to do by all stakeholders engaged with.