Issue link: https://read.utilityweek.co.uk/i/665572
NETWORK / 10 / APRIL 2016 The Future Power System Architecture (FPSA) project, being undertaken by the Energy Systems Catapult and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), should deliver its fi ndings in the summer. The project has been designed to rigorously test the IET's proposition that the current approach to planning and operating the power system in Great Britain may not be suffi ciently robust to address future challenges. CONCERNS Particular concerns include the need to facilitate a low-carbon energy future, and the impacts of pervasive data and new consumer technologies, which will create greater complexity for our energy system as a result of extensive whole-system interactions, such as those arising from more active engagement of consumers and communities. The IET Power Network Joint Vision Expert Group has proposed in a number of previous reports that enhanced technical integration of the power system will be needed in future to resolve the complex whole- system challenges we will face. The project is examining the fundamental tasks or functions that are necessary to plan and operate the power system in response to the changes to the system that will result from, for example, more decentralised power generation and energy storage, as well as electrifi ed heating and transport. Specifi cally, the project seeks to understand how the needs of S Y S T E M A R C H I T E C T U R E Dr Simon Harrison, chair of energy policy panel, IET new users will affect investment planning, operational planning and real time operation of the power system. The project uses systems engineering-based techniques to assess the impacts of these new user needs, and then builds an evidence base to justify the business case for any technical changes that have to be made to the way we plan and operate the power system. Looking further ahead, there are likely to be institutional, regulatory and commercial issues that will also have to be considered in any plan for change. Also, the inter- relationship between electricity and other energy sources must be considered. However, these issues will be easier to identify and tackle once the project has given us a clear understanding and consensus about the fundamental technical functions required. PARTICIPATION The project is being carried out with strong stakeholder participation from industry, academia and specialist consultancies, among others. Engagement with such a broad set of stakeholders provides the opportunity to assure that the technical functions identifi ed will enable an effective response to the anticipated sector challenges. This will then provide a valuable basis for other work focused on addressing the operational, business, regulatory and market developments necessary to ensure that the GB power system meets future environmental goals and energy needs securely, effi ciently and as cost effectively as possible. The question of orchestration in particular has caused some notable anxiety over the past year or so – especially since the start of the IET's system architecture project. Some feel that, behind its tightly written brief to look only at the technical requirements for a future power system architecture, lie institutional questions that could cause turbulence and unwanted interference in the operation of networks – in the power sector and beyond. Predominantly, these concerns revolve around the potential creation or appointment of an "system architect" body. Quite what any such body might look like is unclear, but nonetheless, industry sentiment is that it would be unpopular and unnecessary. Even ETI chief executive David Clarke – who explicitly stated at a select committee hearing earlier this year that Ofgem would not be a suitable body to oversee an integrated energy system, thereby acknowledging that system transformation might lead to institutional reform in the energy sector – also stated that an architect approach "won't work, no chance". Nervousness about the bureaucracy and meddling that might come with a system architect, from networks that are used to running largely highly e„ ective monopoly enterprises in their license areas, is understandable. But at the same time, it's arguable that giving momentum and direction to a transformation of our energy system that optimises all its component parts and thereby o„ ers, perhaps, monumental improvements in e† ciency, will require a‡ push from an independent force that cannot be accused of protecting its own future interests. Whether this push can be created by providing an architecture alone remains to be seen. It is a question that will become more di† cult to answer if, or when, a FPSA-style project were to roll into multi- vector territory. Regardless of the architect versus architecture debate though, reform of policy, investment and commercial models will certainly become a necessity if a more integrated energy system is to become a su† ciently desirable goal for government or an inŽ uential industry collective. In short, as the evidence base for the value to be gained through energy system integration builds, so too does the tension between the opportunity it holds and the risks associated with disruptive change, which may far outstrip what networks have so far experienced when preparing their own energy ' efdoms for the future. N '