Klima-, Energi- og Forsyningsudvalget 2019-20
KEF Alm.del Bilag 99
Offentligt
2114242_0001.png
November 25, 2019
Assessment of Technical
Alternatives to Strengthen
400kV Transmission Grid
Dr Anna Ferguson, Director of Power Systems, WSP UK
Dr Gary Preston, Principal Engineer, Power Systems, WSP UK
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0002.png
Agenda
− Introduction to WSP & Our Team
− What We Did
− Report Review Process & “Technically
Feasible” Definition
2
− Time and Economic Considerations
− Technical Options
− Specific Points
− Conclusions
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0003.png
WSP - At A Glance
44,000 global employees
8,200 UK and Ireland employees
6,500 Nordics and Central Europe
550 offices
40 countries
8,100
CANADA
5,615
NORDICS
3
8,200
7,300
US
UK AND
IRELAND
CONTINENTAL
EUROPE
735
3,160
ASIA
CENTRAL &
SOUTH AMERICA
3,100
550
SOUTH
AFRICA
MIDDLE EAST &
INDIA
2,200
AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
5,040
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0004.png
WSP – Power Networks
4
Transmission
Substation Engineering
Overhead Lines
Substation Civil Engineering
Underground EHV Cables
Distribution
SMART Network Development
Substation, Underground Cable &
Overhead Line Engineering
Project Management
Interconnectors
Power Electronic Converters
Converter Station Engineering
Regulatory process
Submarine HVDC Cables
Power Systems
Power System technical analysis
Expansion planning & optimisation
Generation connection analysis
Smart Energy & Smart Cities
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0005.png
Our Team of Experts
Dr Anna Ferguson
Power Systems
Director
Project Manager
Paul Glendinning
Networks Director
Project Director
5
Dr Gary Preston
Principal Engineer
System Studies
Dr Norman McLeod
Interconnectors
Director
HVDC
Vince Barry
Principal Engineer
Onshore Cables
Martin Safranek
Principal Engineer
Overhead Lines
Mark Fraser
Chief Engineer
Network Planning
John Adams
Director
Environmental Input
•
•
•
•
Highly experienced team: 10-20+ years
Highly qualified
No junior input (all work conducted by these experts)
Covering all technologies/ options
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0006.png
What We Did
− Appointed by the DEA in October 2018
− Initial Report Review
6
− Report read and reviewed in completeness
− Specific sections reviewed in greater detail by relevant
technical experts
− Each technical expert wrote report sections covering their
areas
− Report was put together, reviewed and approved internally
− Inconclusive regarding length of underground cable and
definition of “technical feasibility”
− One day workshop with Energinet to ask questions, review
studies and methodologies (Anna Ferguson + Gary Preston)
− Revisions to report conclusions based on discussions
− Final report reviewed and approved internally, and submitted
to DEA
− Energinet Workshop
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0007.png
What We Did Not Do
− We did not carry out a feasibility study for the new
reinforcement
− We did not repeat any of the studies carried out by
Energinet
7
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0008.png
Report Review Process
1. Initial review of Energinet report
i.
ii.
iii.
8
Independent review of each section of the Energinet
report by relevant technical experts
Internal WSP workshop to collate reviews
WSP Draft Report produced detailing our review and
initial conclusions and submitted to DEA
Energinet gave more detailed information of their
approach and how they reached their conclusions
WSP refined our conclusions based upon the additional
information received
WSP Final Report produced including our final
conclusions and submitted to DEA
2. Workshop
i.
3. WSP Final Report
i.
ii.
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0009.png
‘Technically Feasible’ - Definition
− WSP was specifically requested to comment on the
technical feasibility of the reinforcement solutions.
− The definition of ‘technically feasible’ was agreed with
the DEA and Energinet as follows:
“Technically
feasible covers the establishment, and particularly the
operation, of an installation where there is a strong
probability that technical issues will not arise”.
− This definition was agreed at the workshop, which
followed submission of the draft report.
− WSP’s view is that it is also important to consider the
timeframe of the reinforcement.
9
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0010.png
Time and Economic Considerations
We must also consider the time it would take to install
the different reinforcement options:
− Reinforcement is required by 2023
− There must be practical considerations of what can
be successfully installed in such a short timespan
(very short time for major infrastructure projects)
− Time limit makes most alternative reinforcement
options unfeasible from a practical perspective
We also considered the economics of the options
− Economic considerations are important in most
countries when selecting reinforcement options
10
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0011.png
HVDC Options
With unlimited time and budget HVDC reinforcement
may be possible, however, practical considerations
make HVDC unfeasible in this case:
− Adds great complexity to the transmission system
development and operation
− Increases technical risk, not as reliable as an AC
interconnector
− Multi-terminal configuration would be required, adds to
complexity and cost
− Requires highly complex control functions
− Not possible to construct by 2023
− Extremely expensive.
11
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0012.png
OHL/UGC Ratio – WSP’s Initial Conclusions
− WSP agreed that the OHL/ UGC options were the
feasible options for this reinforcement
− WSP was initially unsure about Energinet’s
conclusion that 15% UGC is the greatest technically
feasible proportion due to a lack of evidence in their
report
− WSP’s view was that more evidence was needed to
show that the 15% share was the technical limit. For
example, there was no evidence of studies having
been carried out for UGC shares of, for example,
20%.
12
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0013.png
OHL/UGC Ratio – WSP’s Final Conclusions
At the workshop held in Denmark:
− Energinet showed WSP that extensive detailed
studies had been undertaken
− Energinet investigated complex phenomena:
13
− Reactive power control and compensation
requirements (constrained by zero-miss
considerations)
− Temporary overvoltages
− Transient switching overvoltages
− Harmonics (already an issue on the Danish
transmission system, which would be exacerbated by
the addition of large lengths of UGC)
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0014.png
OHL/UGC Ratio – WSP’s Final Conclusions
− WSP were satisfied that Energinet had carried out
sufficient extensive studies to show that UGC lengths
>15% could cause significant risks to the Danish
network
− Energinet provided WSP with specific information
regarding the Danish network, and the reasons why
specific technical issues could arise
− WSP was therefore convinced that the definition of
“technically feasible” was met
14
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0015.png
Specific Points – p39 Paragraph
15
− This refers to WSP’s initial view that anything is
possible
with sufficient time and investment, but may
not be
practical
− It is a small paragraph within the “cost review” section
and did not form part of the conclusions of the draft
report
− The statement was written before the definition of
“technically feasible” was agreed and should have
been amended for the final report (a reporting
oversight)
− Also written before additional technical information
was obtained from Energinet
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0016.png
Specific Points – p9 Paragraph
In Draft Report
In Final Report
16
− In the draft report, prior to the workshop, it was
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to
conclude that UGC lengths of >15% were not
possible
− After assessing the additional information, it was
agreed that sufficient analysis had been carried out to
show that lengths >15% would lead to significant
network risks
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0017.png
Specific Points – p17 Paragraph
A general comment is that it appears that Energinet have approached the technical analysis as a
means to support a predetermined conclusion, as opposed to drawing impartial conclusions from
the results of the technical analysis.
In Draft Report
17
− This is how the Energinet report appeared to WSP in
its original form
− WSP raised this point as part of our rigorous review
of the report
− After assessing the additional information, we were
satisfied that Energinet’s technical analysis of each
reinforcement option was impartial and robust.
Energinet demonstrated a very high level of technical
detail in their analysis.
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0018.png
Process and Independence (1)
− The DEA acted as a facilitator between WSP and
Energinet
− The DEA organised and attended the workshop in
Denmark with WSP, Energinet and DEA, but acted as
observers only
− DEA ensured that WSP had sufficient information to
come to a final conclusion
− DEA allowed Energinet to comment on the final report
to ensure that technical aspects were clarified
− Minor comments made on technical HVDC section
18
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0019.png
Process and Independence (2)
− Producing an initial report and then a final report is
standard consultancy practice
− Only change to conclusions between draft and final
was agreement with proportion of underground cable
− WSP has had no relationship with Energinet
(commercial or otherwise) before or after the review
process
− WSP is acting with complete independence and
impartiality
19
 KEF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 99: Præsentationer fra teknisk høring den 21/11-19 om kabellægning af højspændingsforbindelse i Vestjylland
2114242_0020.png
Conclusions
− Outline process taken
− Explained difference between draft and final report
− Addressed specific questions
− Carried out work professionally and with integrity
− Only minor changes made to conclusions between
draft and final report
− Ultimately support Energinet’s recommendation
20