Results: Searching for 'UK Energy Market'

• High Electricity: a world in which electricity becomes the dominant energy vector requiring upgrading of related electricity infrastructure. This test case assumes a predominantly centralised approach to generation and transmission.
• High Heat: a world in which there is considerable progress in rolling out heat networks in urban centres, with the mix of energy vectors otherwise being similar to today. The test case suggests a more decentralised infrastructure with more localised forms of generation.
• High Hydrogen: a world in which a transmission and distribution network for hydrogen is developed.

1. A summary of economic modelling findings
2. Identification of key technical, commercial and regulatory barriers across Case Studies
3. Classification of the barriers identified, based on:
   • Impact – the scale of potential system benefit of multi vector operation
   • Risk – the extent to which these barriers are surmountable
4. Discusses the innovations that might mitigate these barriers, comprising the necessary technical capabilities, and the required regulatory and commercial frameworks.
5. Assesses the additional work for multi vector operation to achieve commercialisation at scale, comprising:
   • Investment
   • Timescales and necessary uptake rates
   • Skills gaps, required operational transformation and strategic considerations

• Case 1: Retention of the gas network to meet peak heating loads in a future where heat decarbonisation is achieved by high electrification
• Case 2: Gas-fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and electric heat pumps supplying heat networks
• Case 3: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles switching between electric and liquid fuel running modes at times of tight electricity supply margins
• Case 4: Renewable Energy Sources (RES) electricity generation to gas (hydrogen or methane) for injection into the gas system
• Case 5: Grid electrolysis to produce hydrogen for a hydrogen distribution system
• Case 6: Renewable Electricity Connection Constraint Mitigated by Domestic Thermal Demand
• Case 7: EfW Flexing Between Producing Electricity and Gas for Grid Injection

• For each case, agree the system configurations of multi-vector (MV) and single-vector (SV) instances
• Discuss the degrees of freedom available in each case that can be used to optimise the MV and SV configurations
• Agree the expected outputs from the modelling that will be used to calculate the multi-vector case benefit
• Discuss the inputs required for each case and for the “global scenarios” and the data sources tobe used
• Agree the exogenous parameters of interest for each MV solution model

1. Domestic scale heat pumps and peak gas boilers.
2. Gas CHP and Heat Pumps supplying district heating and individual building heating loads.
3. PHEV switching fuel demand from electricity to petrol or diesel.
4. RES to H₂/RES to CH₄
5. RES to DH and Distributed Smart Heating (“virtual” DH networks)
6. Anaerobic Digestion/Gasification to CHP or grid injection

• Description of the methodology used to map and classify multi-vector interactions
• An initial assessment of each case, describing the system, the issues addressed, the current situation and the likely ‘materiality’ for the UK energy system
• The process used to filter and prioritise the cases, and the agreed shortlist
• A recap of the subsequent work to be undertaken in Work Packages 2 and 3

• electricity,
• gas,
• hydrogen,
• district heating,
• liquid fuels

• peak avoidance,
• flexibility using multiple vectorsto supply the same load,
• overcoming a generation capacity constraint,
• avoiding curtailment of a generation asset, and
• backing up an energy source

1. Domestic scale heat pumps and peak gas boilers.
2. Gas CHP and Heat Pumps to supply district heating and individual building heating loads
   1. CHP and heat pumps operating to supply heat to district heating
   2. CHP supplying district heating, with co-generated electricity used to power individual dwelling heat pumps
3. PHEV switching fuel demand from electricity to petrol or diesel.
4. RES to H₂/RES to CH₄
5. RES to DH and “virtual” DH networks
6. Anaerobic Digestion/Gasification to CHP or grid injection

A review funded by HubNet and UKERC, and written by the University of Strathclyde's Damien Frame, Keith Bell and Stephen McArthur, argues that RD&D activity by Britains electricity distribution network operators has significantly revived; this revival is linked to Ofgem's 500m Low Carbon Network Fund investment.

This working paper considers the risks and opportunities posed to UK heat sector businesses by a potential transformation towards a low-carbon heat system in the UK. It is an output from the Heat, Incumbency and Transformations (HIT) project which is part of the UK Energy Research Centre programme.

The HIT project is investigating the idea of incumbency, considering what the term means, how it is present in the UKs heat sector and what the implications of incumbency are for the UKs potential transformation from a high carbon heat system to a low-carbon heat system.

The previous working paper developed a working definition of incumbency (Loweset al., 2017). This working paper forms the second phase of the project, exploring who the incumbents are in the UK heat system and the implications of the potential transformation for incumbents.

An online m

The energy system is highly complex and its future is uncertain due to unexpected changes and contrasting values. The complexity of the system may be defined by, for example, changing politics, technologies, finance and demographics. Under these conditions, decision-makers may struggle to confidently assess their future needs. However, decisions must be made so that organisational objectives are achieved, energy supply is secure and directives are met. For high-level decisions (e.g. strategic decisions reaching far into the future) it is unlikely that more time and better data will reduce uncertainty, and as a result, decisions must be made with existing information. Techniques like scenario analysis are useful for gathering this type of disparate information.

Deliberative techniques (e.g. scenario analysis) are used under conditions of high decision complexity and uncertainty. These techniques may interrogate multiple decision options under various future conditions, thus providing a first-step in understanding inherent risks and uncertainties. In this report we used scenario analysis to assess a set of risks under two plausible future energy scenarios. The studied scenarios included an energy system on a trajectory of development that did not deviate from its current projection (status quo) and a low carbon scenario whereby energy generation was largely provided by non-carbon (e.g. renewable) sources. Energy system experts were used to qualify the different risks and provide industrial insight.

The study analysed a suite of nineteen unique risks. These included political (international agreement, geopolitical issues, UK political issues), economic (project capital costs, investor trust in government, commodity pricing, electricity pricing), social (behavioural change, public perception, democratization of process), technical (rate of innovation vs implementation, energy supply chain, project risks, transport infrastructure), legal (end of life and stranded assets, pre/post operational governance, UK planning and licensing), and environmental (cumulative environmental factors, accidents and climactic events) issues.

The results of this study suggest that political and economic drivers pose the greatest risk, or barrier, to future energy system development. Though these two themes were perceived as being most risky, the character of the risks varied for each scenario. For example, political drivers (i.e. geopolitical) and the impact they may have on hydrocarbon prices posed the greatest risk to an energy system reliant on fossil fuels (i.e. status quo). This was in contrast toa low carbon scenario where the character of political risk (i.e. UK politics) focussed around long-term national policy-making, which in turn highlighted issues about investor confidence. Regardless the differences in character, experts perceived political consistency as being vital for improving confidence in their decision-making. Overall, experts consistently rated risks associated with a low carbon scenario higher than those for the status quo.

Our report provides a snapshot of current industrial thinking about the risks associated with different future pathways that the UK energy system may follow. In addition to identifying perceived risk priorities, this analysis also provides an indication of where gaps in knowledge and understanding about risk may exist. Strategies for addressing these gaps may include improved communication (e.g. between industry, government and academia) or targeted research. In either instance, the ultimate aim is to reduce uncertainty and improve conditions for long-term decision-making in the UK energy system.

UKERC have submitted a reponse to the BEIS call for evidence on the future for small-scale low-carbon generation. This consultation sought to identify the role that small-scale low-carbon generation can play in the UK shift to clean growth by further understanding: 

• The challenges and opportunities from small-scale low-carbon generation in contributing to government’s objectives for clean, secure, affordable and flexible power; and
• The role for government and the private sector in overcoming these challenges and realising these opportunities.

In our submission we responded to the individual points raised in the call, drawing on two streams of work undertaken as part of the UKERC research programme. The first stream concerns community energy, drawing primarily on data from the UKERC Financing Community Energy project. This project has collected and analysed data from a number of sources:

• Quantitative data gathered as part of a UK-wide survey of community energy finance and business models. This dataset covers 145 community energy projects run by 48 different community energy organisations.
• Qualitative data on community energy organisations’ suggestions for changes in public policy and industry practice, and their plans for the future, gathered as part of the same UK-wide survey.
• Further qualitative data on community energy organisations’ views on pathways to future decentralised energy business models, gathered at workshops held as part of the Manchester Mayor’s Green Summit process, and the Community Energy England annual conference 2018.
• A wide range of other data and literature, including access to the dataset collected for Community Energy England’s 2017 State of the Sector Survey, covering 220 community energy organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The second stream draws on a number of recent UKERC publications on electricity systems and networks :

• Developing low carbon networks for a low-carbon future
• Security of electricity supply in a low-carbon Britain
• The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency
• Delivering a highly distributed electricity system: Technical, regulatory and policy challenges. 

This briefing paper examines how renewables in Scotland are shaped by decisions taken by the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the EU. Drawing on interviews with stakeholders, it explores the potential impact of Brexit on Scottish renewables.

Brexit has the potential to disrupt this relatively supportive policy environment in three ways in regulatory and policy frameworks governing renewable energy; access to EU funding streams; and trade in energy and related goods and services.

Our briefing identifies varying levels of concern among key stakeholders in Scotland. Many expect policy continuity, irrespective of the future UK-EU relationship. There is more concern about access to research and project funding, and future research and development collaboration, especially for more innovative renewable technologies. The UK will become a third country forthe purposes of EU funding streams, able to participate, but not lead on renewables projects, and there is scepticism about whether lost EU funding streams will be replaced at domestic levels.

While there is no real risk of being unable to access European markets even in a No-Deal Brexit scenario, trade in both energy and related products and services could become more difficult and more expensive affecting both the import of specialist labour and kit from the EU and the export of knowledge-based services. Scotlands attractiveness for inward investment may also be affected.

This report explores ways of enhancing the resilience of the UK energy system to withstand external shocks and examines how such measures interact with those designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The concept of resilience is explored and a set of indicators is developed to define quantitatively the characteristics of a resilient energy system. In the report we systematically test the response of the UK energy system under different scenarios to hypothetical shocks. These are all assumed to involve the loss of gas infrastructure. We then assess mitigating measures which can help to reduce the impact of these shocks and test their cost effectiveness using an insurance analogy.

This briefing note summarises Great Britain’s local gas demand from the 2nd of April 2017 to the 6th of March 2018 and compares this to electrical supply. The data covers the UK cold weather event on the 1st March, providing insights into the scale of hourly energy flows through both networks.

A peak hourly local gas demand of 214 GW occurred at 6pm on the 1st of March, which compared to a peak electrical supply of 53 GW occurring at the same time.

The data highlights a critical challenge – managing the 3-hour difference in demand from 5am to 8am on the local gas network during the heating season. Whilst flexibility in the gas system is provided using a change in pressure to store extra energy in the network to meet increasing demand, the electrical system has no comparable intrinsic equivalent.

The findings add to previous work funded by UKERC on thermal energy storage , heat incumbency, and flexibility of electrical systems to provide insights into the decarbonisation of heat in Britain, helping to inform decision-making, modelling of future networks and highlighting key areas for future research and innovation.

A greater research and innovation focus to reduce the 5am-8am 3-hour difference in heat demand is necessary.

This is the second in a series of reports arising from UKERCs Energy 2050 project. The report considers the prospects for accelerated development of a range of emerging low carbon energy supply technologies and the possible impact of this acceleration on decarbonisation of the UK energy system. The technologies analysed here include a number of renewables (wind power, marine energy, solar PV and bioenergy) and other emerging low carbon technologies (advanced designs of nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen / fuel cells). The report presents a set of scenarios devised by UKERC to illustrate how accelerated development of these technologies could contribute to decarbonisation of the UK energy system from now to 2050. The results suggest that technology acceleration could have a major influence on UK decarbonisation pathways, especially in the longer term.

This working Paper has been prompted by an inquiry into low carbon networks launched in September 2015 by the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. A response on behalf of UKERC has been submitted to the Committee. This present paper expands on many of the themes included in that response and provides more detail and discussion

There is an increasing sense of urgency about the global energy system transition. For many observers an urgent energy transition is also a necessarily disruptive one, in that it is only by radically remaking energy systems that an accelerated transition to low carbon and sustainable energy can be achieved.

Closer to home, there has been substantial progress in some parts of the energy system in the decade since the passing of the UK and Scottish Climate Change Acts. Other areas have shown little sign of change, and the transition ahead may well be more disruptive and intrusive than that seen so far. At the same time, there is also an emerging counter-narrative: that repurposing our existing energy assets (physical and social) offers the best and quickest transition path, since there is insufficient time to disrupt and remake. 

Attending energy events and keeping up-to-date with emerging evidence can instil a sense of different experts talking past each other. For those involved in whole systems energy research, and working at the research-policy interface, this can be deeply frustrating. To help address this, UKERC – working with ClimateXChange (CXC), Scotland’s Centre of Expertise on Climate Change – has spent two years analysing disruption and continuity in the UK energy system.

As part of that work, we surveyed around 130 experts and stakeholders about disruption and continuity-led change in the UK energy transition. The experts were mostly UK based researchers working on ‘whole systems’ research projects, but also included policymakers, advisory bodies, think tanks, businesses (old and new) and civil society organisations. This report presents the results of this survey work.

• Enable clear decision-making and incentivise investment to create efficiently configured heat networks;
• Encourage (or even mandate) adoption amongst customers;
• Ensure technology and process advances are compatible with the qualities of heat networks (notably the ability to deliver large quantities of heat, long-asset life and fuel source flexibility) that contribute to making them a compelling proposition.
• Deliver effective management of the changeover of heat supply networks and systems; and
• Ensure that network infrastructures are designed and work together efficiently across vectors in real time

• Energy governance and regulation frameworks – time for a change ? Keith MacLean, February 2016
• Enabling efficient future energy networks – what governance and regulation will be needed in 2030 ?. Robert Hull, February 2016
• Enabling efficient networks for low carbon futures. Jorge Vasconcelos, February 2016
• Markets, Policy and Regulation in a Low Carbon Future. John Rhys, January 2016

Research for the UK Energy Research Centre’s Technology and Policy Assessment (TPA) function shows the importance of increased policy support for energy efficiency programmes, after a strategic review found savings in the region of 10% for well designed and implemented programmes. While multiple policies and programmes have been implemented in the past to encourage improvements in household efficiency, both in the UK and globally, the robustness and accuracy of programme evaluations have been called into question.

The authors carried out a systematic review of the evidence base of peer-reviewed evaluation programmes, drawn from conference papers and 20 different journals, in order to find out what works and where the gaps are, and to inform future programme design.

Policy goals to transition national energy systems to meet decarbonisation and security goals must contend with multiple overlapping uncertainties. These uncertainties are pervasive through the complex nature of the system, and exist in a strategic policy area where the impact of investment decisions have long term consequences. Uncertainty also lies in the tools and approaches used, increasing the challenges of informing robust decision making. Energy system studies in the UK have tended not to address uncertainty in a systematic manner, relying on simple scenario or sensitivity analysis. This paper utilises an innovative energy system model, ESME, which characterises multiple uncertainties via probability distributions and propagates these uncertainties to explore trade-offs in cost effective energy transition scenarios. A global sensitivity analysis is then undertaken to explore t

Concern about fairness in the retail energy market is clear from media headlines and the passing of legislation to impose a wide price cap in the retail energy market in 2018. Fairness in Retail Energy Markets? Evidence from the UK provides extensive evidence from a range of disciplines to inform this important debate. This report does notattempt to define what constitutes fair or unfair, since this ultimately rests in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, its message is clear: development of the retail energy market in the UK can only be understood by recognising the political economy around questions of distribution and fairness.

A multi-disciplinary perspective

The publication reports research conducted at the Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, as part of the UK Energy Research Centres programme. The research is multi-disciplinary, drawing together researchers from a range of disciplines: economists, legal scholars, human geographers and a policy analyst. This range of specialisms provides a rare opportunity to consider fairness and retail energy markets in the round. The research team is both unusually broad and academically independent. The reports five main chapters present findings from different disciplines and methodologies to stimulate consideration of evidence which is rarely encountered together. In assembling this evidence the researchers are grateful to our partners Broadland Housing Association, Cornwall Energy and Ofgem, as well as to the Parliamentary Archive and all our interviewees.

The report presents findings under five broad themes: (i) how long-term outcomes contextualise the retail energy markets political salience; (ii) how distributional objectives feed into institutions; (iii) the multi-faceted nature of engagement with energy; (iv) the detailed experiences of those at risk of FP; and (v) how data/statistics can be improved.

Key issues highlighted

Together the evidence raises fundamental issues for the future governance of the market. The traditional focus of economics on efficiency has never claimed that markets are effective tools for delivering equitable outcomes, and the traditional framework of pure economic regulation is challenged by the focus on fairness. Can the market ever escape political intervention when energy prices rise substantially? This question is particularly relevant when key affordability support policies the Winter Fuel Payment and the initial Fuel Poverty Strategy were introduced as energy was approaching its mostaffordable level over a 30-year time horizon.

Energys political salience has meant that the independence of the market regulator, Ofgem, has evolved in a way not originally envisioned. Government has increased the number and complexity of Ofgems statutory duties. The resulting ambiguity regarding how to prioritise the regulators different duties has led to increased government-regulator communication and the potential for government to exert pressure on the regulator through less formal channels.

We present evidence indicating that there are problems with implementing the main frame used to address energy fairness in the UK, namely fuel poverty. We suggest that the approach to analysing fuel poverty, and the associated policymaking, would benefit from a change of direction, towards a focus on the directly observable real-world phenomenawhich underpin this complex problem, rather than on the official fuel poverty statistics. Such an approach would help to recognise that energy efficiency interventions are unlikely to solve all the energy affordability challenges facing households.

The objective of this workshop, organised at the request of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and held on 22 June 2011 at Imperial College, was to gain a better understanding of the smart meter research being undertaken and what else needs to be done.

1. The civil engineering work to excavate and reinstate trenches (37%).
2. The transmission and distribution pipes and their installation (17%).
3. The supply and installation into the buildings of the heat interface units (HIUs) and associated pipework, which enable the connection of the DH network to the building’s heating system (23%).

• The particular challenge to be addressed
• The proposed solution−
• Development and commercialisation requirements
• A plan of work.

• Part A presents the system and stakeholder requirements which is the output from Work Package 1.
• Part B presents the technology review which is an output from Work Package 2.
• Part C presents the methodology used in creating a network cost model and the analysis of network costs which is an output from Work Package 2.
• Part D presents the system review and target setting which is the output from Work Package 3.

• Challenge 1 -System Design Architecture
• Challenge 2 -Civil Engineering CAPEX
• Challenge 3 -Pipes and Connections CAPEX
• Challenge 4 -Internal Connections CAPEX
• Challenge 5 -New Network Income

• The approach to solution development
• Solutions identified which address the challenges above
• The evaluation of solutions against the key criterion of DHN cost saving and the supporting qualitative and quantitative criteria
• The interaction of alternative solutions and how they can be applied to maximise the system level CAPEX saving
• The solutions selected for route mapping in Stage 3 and the selection rationale

• Challenge 1 -System Design Architecture
• Challenge 2 -Civil Engineering CAPEX
• Challenge 3 -Pipes and Connections CAPEX
• Challenge 4 -Internal Connections CAPEX
• Challenge 5 -New Network Income

• The approach to solution development
• Solutions identified which address the challenges above
• The evaluation of solutions against the key criterion of DHN cost saving and the supporting qualitative and quantitative criteria
• The interaction of alternative solutions and how they can be applied to maximise the system level CAPEX saving
• The solutions selected for route mapping in Stage 3 and the selection rationale

• A - Knowledge Management, Research and Training
• B - Low Flow Rate Design
• C - Radical Routes
• D - Trenchless Solutions
• E - Improved Front End Design and Planning
• F - Shared Civils
• G - Direct Hydraulic Interface Unit (HIU) System and Existing Domestic Hot Water Storage
• H - HIU Optimisation

• Borehole Storage: Southampton, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester
• Aquifer Storage: Birmingham, Southampton, Manchester

This briefing paper summarises the key policy implications from the last of three working papers published by the Heat Incumbency Transitions Team. This research has investigated the role and behaviour of heat market incumbents in relation to the decarbonisation of heat.

Key messages

• The required transformation of the UKs heat system will have major implications for people and organisations involved with the sector.
• We define incumbents as people or organisations currently active in the UKs heat sector. Incumbents have the economic, social or technological capacity to influence the future of the heat system.
• Incumbents in the UK heat market are diverse and the impacts of heat decarbonisation will vary between sectors. A risk and opportunity analysis of the UK heat sector has highlighted that different heat decarbonisations pathways (electrification vs. gas decarbonisation) pose different risks for different sectors.
• Gas network owners and appliance manufacturers are the most active in their engagement with heat decarbonisation. This activity includes attempts to exert political power over policy and regulation as well as innovation activities. The upstream and supply sectors engage less with heat decarbonisation.
• The lobbying and innovation activities constitute attempts to maintain a gas based system for heat in which the gas network is decarbonised, primarily using hydrogen. This approach is unproven and risky but the idea has rapidly gained traction in the policy debate.
• Heat incumbents have also actively resisted change. These efforts include talking down other technologies and framing them as unworkable and developing coalitions of similar interests.
• Because of the ability of incumbents to lobby and innovate, new entrants in the UKs heat sector who may possess the best ideas and technologies may struggle to compete with incumbents.
• Based on our research, we have developed a number of policy recommendations for UK heat policy with implications for regulators and policy makers working on heat decarbonisation, as well as those involved in policy design process

The project investigated issues surrounding the decarbonisation of heating, which is increasingly seen as a priority by energy policy makers. It considers the move towards low carbon heating from the perspective of incumbency, a topic which has received only limited focus.

Prior research has suggested that incumbent businesses can have both positive and negative influences on decarbonisation. There are examples of large companies investing in low carbon energy and driving change but there are also examples of incumbents trying to resist change therefore slowing or blocking decarbonisation.

This paper focuses on what the policy implications of incumbency in the UK heat sector are for the decarbonisation of UK heat. The paper reports on a large number of interviews with experts working across the UK heat sector. This evidence is further built on using grey sources of literature and data.

• The majority of Local Authorities have ambitions for action on sustainable energy, and 82% of those researched are active to some degree
• Local Authorities were more likely to have an Energy and Carbon Plan than investment in projects
• Local Authority investment in energy was focused on infrastructures for combined heat and power alongside the improvement of energy efficiency in buildings
• Across the UK, Scotland had a higher proportion of leaders in providing low carbon systems – the leading Local Authorities in England were in Yorkshire & Humber, Greater London and the North East
• The scale of Local Authority energy projects in relation to overall energy systems remains limited
• Local Authorities have very limited capacity for strategic energy managemen

Pilot study report

Working with theEnergy Technologies Institute, Mags Tingey, Dave Hawkey and Jan Webb completed a pilot study exploring local engagement with energy systems. The work, an extension of theHeat and the City project, examined levels of local engagement across all 434 of the UK's local authority areas, and drew together a wide array of datasets with original collation of data.

Findings show that almost one third (30%) of the UKs 434 local authorities are actively planning, and investing in, energy productivity and provision. Most of this activity is on a limited scale with only 9% of UK authorities showing evidence of significant numbers of energy project investments. We characterised this 9% as 'Energy Leaders' and found they displayedmultiple routes into engagement, including economic regeneration, housing upgrades and affordable warmth, energy productivity, avoided costs of alternatives and environmental protection.Particular regions of the show considerably higher levels of local authority engagement, notably London, Scotland, and Yorkshire and Humber, and energy leaders tend to be metropolitan and larger authorities.

Preliminary exploration of the relationship between local authority engagement and levels of low carbon technology deployment (not restricted to local authorities own deployment) shows strong association with non-industrial Combined Heat and Power (CHP). Relationships between engagement and small (under 10MW) renewable electricity generation appears marginally significant. Levelling up deployment of non-industrial CHP across all areas to the levels of the most engagedauthorities would imply significant acceleration in deployment rates. The limited pilot research modelling suggests that the impact of this is small (under 10%) in terms of the UK energy production.

This work will continue under theLocal energy infrastructure operation & governance projectwith support from the Energy Technologies Institute. This work will use qualitative data gathering to explore some of the quantitative relations our pilot work uncovered, in order to build a better picture of the factors supporting and constraining local engagement with energy. We will also engage with UK energy system modelling to help form a clearer picture of the contribution and impact local energy could realistically have in future.

This report takes a whole systems approach to the development of the UK energy system over the next 40 years.

Achieving a resilient low-carbon energy system is technically and economically feasible at an affordable cost.

There are multiple potential pathways to a low-carbon economy. A key trade-off across the energy system is the speed of reduction in energy demand versus decarbonisation of energy supply. There is also a number of more specific trade-offs and uncertainties, such as the degree to which biomass, as opposed to electricity and perhaps hydrogen, is used in transport and other sectors.

Deploying new and improved technologies on the supply side will require substantially increased commitment to RD&D, the strengthening of financial incentives and the dismantling of regulatory and market barriers. A major increase in efforts to acceleratethedevelopment of

• Energy system balancing is critical and extends beyond the electricity system
• Changes to the energy system are shifting the emphasis on how much and what type of flexibility measures are needed –future changes will only increase these shifts
• There are opportunities to utilise a variety of flexibility measures to deliver system operability, including:
  • Energy storage–Gas and hydrogen fuelling peaking plant to help balance electricity supply
  • Heat storage in homes allowing the load on electricity networks to be reduced at peak times
  • Gas as peak support for heat pumps
  • Managed charging of plug-in vehicles
  • Interconnectors
• The ETI’s Storage and Flexibility Model represents the role of storage and flexibility across multiple vectors, network levels, geographic regions and energy services through to 2050.

• The UK energy system
• Integrating networks to optimise across energy vectors
• Multi-Vector Integration project

A multi-time period combined gas and electricity network optimisation model was developed. The optimisation model takes into account the varying nature of gas flows, network support facilities such as gas storage and the power ramping characteristics of electricity generation units. The combined optimisation is performed from an economic viewpoint, minimising the costs associated with gas supplies, linepack management, gas storage operation, electricity generation and load shedding. It is demonstrated on two case studies, a simple example, and on the GB network.

This response provides recommendations on the reform of the energy supply market, based on research on “energy retail market governance” undertaken within UKERC.

• Overall, we recommend that reform of the retail energy market should not be considered in independence from the work on ‘systems flexibility’, energy transitions, ‘whole systems’, network charging reform and wholesale market policy.
• We recommend that the evaluation of energy retail market success should explicitly include an assessment of its compatibility with a low-carbon transition. Specifically, the retail market should allow for long-term investment recovery in low-carbon solutions .
• We also provide an overview of approaches to organising default energy commodity supply in some US energy retail competition states.
• We suggest that Ofgem (and Government) consider improving the potential for intermediaries and assess the likely implications of resale of commodity energy by a wider range of eligible players, subject to customer protection requirements.

The RIIO (Revenue=Incentives+Innovation+Outputs) model, introduced in 2013, is designed to ensure that payments to companies running the gas and electricity transmission and distribution networks are fair to network users and permit the recovery of reasonable costs in developing, maintaining and operating the networks.

The network licensees allowed revenue is linked to their performance and should therefore offer them incentives for securing investment, driving innovation and delivering the service that customers expect. However, some commentators have suggested that the licensees have been making unjustified profits. With network charges making up around a quarter of the average household energy bill, it is anticipated that the new price control framework will be tougher and provide lower expected returns for networklicensees.

The RIIO-2 frameworkconsultation is welcome. Ofgems final view on price control allowances will be published by the end of 2020 with the new network price controls ('RIIO-2') due to be implemented in 2021.

In our submission we respondedto the individual points raised in the call. We also note the following:

We support the proposal to reduce the price control period from 8 to 5 years. The energy system is undergoing unprecedented change, not only with continued transformation of the generation background but also major changes to the way electricity is used, such as for transport and heating. However, the rate and precise locations of these changes is uncertain. A shorter price control period will provide the opportunity for incentives and cost recovery to be adapted to the changing circumstances.

Maintenance of acceptable levels of reliability while facilitating the energy system transformation at least cost requires substantial innovation in technologies, business processes and commercial arrangements. The development of new innovations and associated benefits to consumers often takes years to be realised, sometimes beyond a price control period in which network company shareholders would expect a return. We therefore support the proposal to retain dedicated innovation funding but encourage greater clarity on the scope of activities that can make use of such funding and on best practice in the generation and dissemination of evidence on proposed innovations.

We welcome moves to increase the accountability of the network companies and would urge Ofgem to concentrate on those measures that have a genuine and positive impact on the network companies activities in the context of the whole energy system. We note that thisis not restricted to the business plans submitted under RIIO-2 but extends to a whole raft of codes and interactions. These include the evolving responsibilities of the Electricity System Operator (ESO), the relationships between the ESO, the transmission owners and the Distribution Network Operators, and the processes for ensuring that the full set of codes, standards and market arrangements are coherent and fit for purpose. This is a challenging task that requires constant attention to the big picture and sufficient resources, commitment and expertise on the part of the network owners, system operators and Ofgem.

In applying tighter controls that avoid excessive returns to the network licensees owners, the upside and downside risks should be clearly assessed and incentives for managing risk placed on those parties best placed to do so.

Pathways that are consistent with legislated net zero targets are likely to see highly significant changes to demand for electricity. When these changes will start to take place and how quickly is uncertain, which leads to challenges when setting price controls. Key elements to circumnavigate this will be flexibility and scenario planning.

The need for network reinforcement can be reduced by the appropriate use of flexibility, e.g. in the timing of EV charging. However, the means by which different sources of flexibility might be encouraged and then utilised are still immature and it is not yet clear which will actors prove to be the most significant and efficient in providing services.

Flexibility can only go so far in helping meet power supply needs; at some point, network capacity often proves the most cost-effective means, especially when considering its reliability and lifetime, and the opportunities provided by asset replacement. The triggering of investment in network assets presents an opportunity not just to meet the immediate need or that forecast for the next few years, but to provide for the maximum transfer that can be envisaged throughout the path to net zero. This is likely to be cheapest for consumers over the longer term as the incremental cost of additional electrical capacity is small relative to the total cost of aproject, it avoids the need for repeated interventions, andit saves on the long-term cost of network losses.

Ofgem has noted in the consultation document that some form of scenario planning of investment is likely to be needed. A number of scenarios should be developed that encompass key uncertainties but are consistent across Britain in respect of the whole, multi-vector system, and associated assumptions.

There should be engagement with Local Authorities and other stakeholders to develop regional plans of future energy needs, such as a Local Area Energy Plan. This engagement is important as local, regional, or devolved administration policies as well as different geographies and starting points can drive different actions.

Innovation is a long-term process and uncertainty is inherent to it there is always the potential for unforeseen things to arise. What this means for the energy system is that:

1. Withinaportfolio of innovations, some will realise the intended benefits, but some will not.
2. Where benefits are realised for energy users, they will, in general, take time to accumulate.

Where there is uncertainty about the effect or cost of new practices or technologies on an energy system and its users who ultimately pay but also benefit from innovations that are adopted it is reasonable for those users to share the risk by sharing the cost of resolution of the uncertainties. However, arguments might be made that costs should be shared not by energy system users, i.e. its customers, but by taxpayers, e.g. through funding by UKRI.
A less than perfect set of arrangements for the sharing of costs between different parties should be accepted if that is what is necessary to support R&D capacity, address risks, and drive innovation. Moreover, the amount of network customers money that is being proposed in RIIO-ED2 to support innovation is modest compared with the network companies total expenditure and the benefits that will accrue to customers and society as a whole in the energy system transition.

Good governance and good practice on the part of network licensees is essential to ensure that customers money is used effectively. In particular, we agree with Ofgem that data transparency associated with network innovation projectsneeds to be much improved.

In order that the scope of Network Innovation Allowance (NIA) funding is not set too narrowly, we think it important to have a clear understanding of what a successful energy system transition involves. We include in our response a first draft of a definition and include recommendations for the threshold that projects must meet to be funded.

Summary: The greatest challenges faced by Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) in forming investment plans relate to the gathering and use of information with suitable levels of spatial and temporal detail. Access to smart meter data should help, but innovation will be required to turn data into useful information.

A final observation is that it is important for the UKs economy as a whole that the UK has the capacity to undertake research and development, to innovate, and to generate evidence in order to drive the commercial viability of ideas

This report is the first in the UKERC Energy 2050 project series. It focuses on a range of low carbon scenarios underpinned by energy systems analysis using the newly developed and updated UK MARKAL elastic demand (MED) model. Such modelling is designed to develop insights on a range of scenarios of future energy system evolution and the resultant technology pathways, sectoral trade-offs and economic implications. Long-term energy scenario-modelling analysis is characterised by deep uncertainty over a range of drivers including resources, technology development, and behavioural change and policy mechanisms. Therefore, subsequent UKERC Energy 2050 reports focus on a broad scope of sensitivity analysis to investigate alternative scenarios of energy system evolution. In particularly, these alternative scenarios investigate different drivers of the UKs energy supply and demand, and combine the twin goals of decarbonisation and energy system resilience. Future analysis includes the use of complementary macro-econometric and detailed sectoral energy models.

This report presents the key outputs from the workshop on Place and Energy: Does scale matter? which took place on 21st August 2006 at Imperial College, London and was hosted and sponsored by the UK Energy Research Centre Meeting Place.

The aim of the workshop was to identify the research and policy issues in developing a multi-level energy policy that takes place and the relationships between scales seriously, which would be of value to both policy and practice

The UK Energy Research Centre welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the HMT Carbon Floor Price Consultation. We have focused only on the questions where we believe we may have something to offer. The observations have benefited from discussions at an “Independent Experts Workshop on Electricity Market Reform” convened jointly by UKERC and the Imperial Collage Centre for Energy Policy and Technology on 31 January 2011.

The UK Energy Research Centre welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the Ofgem consultation Project Discovery: Options for delivering secure and sustainable energy supplies. The UKERC response addresses a number of the questions posed in the consultation document. The response has been prepared by Catherine Mitchell and Phil Baker from the University of Exeter and Robert Gross from ICEPT at Imperial College. It makes a number of high level and specific points but does not seek to be exhaustive. We refer the reader also to UKERCs submission to Ofgems previous consultation over Project Discovery, in which we make a number of observations about the various scenarios considered by Ofgem. These provide some important context for the comments provided below.

Substantive points are made on a chapter by chapter basis below, with higher level issues pulled out as app

What mix of generation will provide the cheapest total system cost for the GB electricity system after the 30 minute balancing requirement is met, while still meeting carbon reduction targets? Keith Bell, Scottish Power Professor of Smart Grids, University of Strathclyde, and Graeme Hawker, Research Associate, University of Strathclyde, argue there is no simple answer given that calculating costs is next to impossible due to uncertainties around such factors as storage and demand-side management.

It argues that, since its emergence in the UK in the late 1990s, community energy has grown through finding opportunities for smaller scale, decentralised energy activities in the UKs highly centralised energy system. The combination of development of renewable energy technologies, and the launch of the governments Feed-In Tariff Scheme (FITS) in 2010, produced a boom in the sector, especially around solar electricity generation.

Recent cuts to FITS rates and other policy changes place community energy at a crossroads. Some renewables activity will continue, but groups are exploring a wide range of activities, partnerships, and business models. We are engaging with the sector around outputs from our research, which include a survey and case studies, to co-develop recommendations and pathways for the future.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this week that he will be looking carefully at the functioning of the retail energy market. In the latest UKERC working paper, Nick Eyre, University of Oxford, and Matthew Lockwood, University of Exeter, examine the issues in detail.

A 500MW interconnector between Ireland and the UK is at the proposal stage. In the latest UKERC working paper, Joseph Dutton, UKERC Researcher and Associate Research Fellow, University of Exeter, examines the institutional and regulatory tensions that could yet derail the project.

• Energy networks as a part of the energy system
• Energy system scenarios
• Network transition challenges
• Evidence base

• Energy networks as a part of the energy system
• Energy system scenarios
• Network transition challenges
• Transitioning electricity networks
• Transitioning gas networks
• Transitioning heat networks
• Transitioning hydrogen networks
• Integrating networks to optimise across energy vectors
• Balancing supply and demand
• Policy and economic factors

The ‘energy system’ can refer to both the physical assets (i.e. the physical grid that connects power plants, power-stations, distribution centres, residential homes and industrial plants together) and also non-physical lines of communication that exist between the system actors (e.g. operators, regulators, consultants, academics, policy makers and ministers). The focus of this research is the latter and the development of a conceptual model to help practitioners transparently show, which techniques they use (and why) to assess risk and uncertainty in their decision-making.

Extensive work has been carried out on the characterisation of uncertainty to improve the transparency of decision processes. For example, scholars have shown the use of hierarchical models such as decision trees to illustrate how decisions collectively string together. Others have used techniques such as evidence-support logic to allow decision makers to represent how sufficient and dependent responses(s) to a supporting decision(s) are given the evidence base to support these decisions. Attempts have also been made to use agent-based simulations to represent the influence that personal and organisational features have on these measures of sufficiency and dependency for evidence. However, gaps still exist in the knowledge with regards to how practitioners account transparently for the techniques they use to assess risk and uncertainty when answering a decision. The conceptual model presented in this working paper addresses this by: 1) showing transparently what type of knowledge practitioners believe they require to answer their decisions; and 2) justifying which technique(s) they might use given the type of knowledge they believe exists to support their decision.

This Working Paper identifies techniques for managing uncertainty in the energy sector. This work was undertaken as part of the UK Energy Strategies Under Uncertainty project.

This paper aims to provide an overview of technology risk in the power generation sector, firstly by reviewing how technology assessment methods treat such risks, and secondly by reviewing some of the major risks facing the key low carbon generation technologies. The paper then aims to draw lessons about the extent to which our (in)ability to predict technological development outcomes has implications for energy policy.

This paper addresses three domains of risk:

• Techno-economic risks relate to attributes of individual technologies that have an impact on their economic performance. These include for example capital and operating costs, environmental and other externalities, build time, availability and utilisation rates, reliability and intermittency of outputs. Uncertainty in all of these parameters affects the financial viability of projects.
• Programmatic risks are sources of risk that are not techno-economic in nature, but nevertheless play an essential role in influencing the dynamics of individual technology development. These are wide-ranging in nature, and include the existence of appropriate innovation networks, political and regulatory support, social acceptability, as well as institutional, market and supply-chain structures to support scale-up and deployment.
• System integration risks relate to the performance of groups of technologies when combined together. Ultimately the security of the electricity system as a whole will depend on the robustness with which supply and demand can be matched under conditions of stress or shock. Because different generation technologies have different strengths and weaknesses, the risk exposure of the system as a whole is different from that of its component parts.

Scope of the Call for Evidence and objectives in respect of flexibility

We welcome the attention being paid by Ofgem and BEIS to the need for flexibility in Britain’s electricity system. In our view the main reason to support electricity system flexibility is that it can help minimise the costs of meeting the UK’s statutory climate targets whilst ensuring that system security is not compromised. The electricity system’s ability to adapt to changing demand in timescales of years down to minutes and varying availability of power from different resources will be extremely important to meeting these policy goals. Furthermore, action is needed so that those consumers that are best able to adapt their patterns of use of electricity have sufficient incentives and rewards for doing so. One manifestation of the main goal in accommodating future generation and demand is an objective to maximise the utilisation (across each year of operation) of electricity system assets, i.e. generators, network components and storage facilities.

Whilst the title of the call for evidence focuses on ‘a smart, flexible energy system’, most of the raised relate to the electricity system. We have therefore focused most of our responses on electricity rather than the energy system as a whole. Our responses are selective. We have only answered those questions where we can offer relevant evidence, based on our research and expertise.

• Energy Storage
• Flexible Demand
• Pricing and tariffs
• Procurement of System Services
• Interactions between transmission and distribution
• Industry Leadership
• Roles in planning and operating the future power system
• Evidence and access to data

Scope of the Call for Evidence and objectives in respect of flexibility

We welcome the attention being paid by Ofgem and BEIS to the need for flexibility in Britain’s electricity system. In our view the main reason to support electricity system flexibility is that it can help minimise the costs of meeting the UK’s statutory climate targets whilst ensuring that system security is not compromised. The electricity system’s ability to adapt to changing demand in timescales of years down to minutes and varying availability of power from different resources will be extremely important to meeting these policy goals. Furthermore, action is needed so that those consumers that are best able to adapt their patterns of use of electricity have sufficient incentives and rewards for doing so. One manifestation of the main goal in accommodating future generation and demandis an objective to maximise the utilisation (across each year of operation) of electricity system assets, i.e. generators, network components and storage facilities.

Whilst the title of the call for evidence focuses on ‘a smart, flexible energy system’, most of the raised relate to the electricity system. We have therefore focused most of our responses on electricity rather than the energy system as a whole. Our responses are selective. We have only answered those questions where we can offer relevant evidence, based on our research and expertise.

This document only answers questions 28 -32 inclusive. Another document is available http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/UCAT/PUBLICATIONS/Response_to_Ofgem-BEIS_call_for_evidence-smart_flexible_energy_system.pdf which gives answers to other questions in the consultation.

There is global consensus that carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) will be essential to successfully tackling climate change and meeting the ambitions of the Paris Agreement.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) recently consulted on the potential business models for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). This was seeking to understand how a core set of CCUS specific risks, which have been presented as an intractable problem for previous projects may be mitigated through the development of business models.

UKERC provided a response to the recent BEIS consultation on CCUS

The UK Energy Research Centre welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the BERR Consultation on the UK Renewable Energy Strategy. We have addressed a number of the questions posed in the consultation document calling on all UKERC members for input.

This document sets out a response of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) to the Department of Energy and Climate Change's consultation 'Renewable Heat Incentive: Proposals for a Domestic Scheme'.

This document sets out the response of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Inquiry on Heat.

We would always encourage a “whole systems approach” to energy, certainly including heat with electricity, and ideally transport as well. Such an approach is more likely to encourage consistency between sectors, avoiding perverse incentives but also it is more likely to lead to the discovery of optimal solutions.

In the call for evidence, the Committee makes the comment that there is disagreement concerning the un-used heat from thermal electricity generation with some arguing that this should be used through combined heat and power (CHP) systems, while others suggest optimal energy efficiency occurs through centralised electricity generation plus heat pumps at the local level.

Heat exhausted from large thermal generators has very little use as most of the useful energy has been extracted to produce electricity. A typical temperature of the “exhausted heat” is around 30°C which is too low for district heating systems. This requires heat to be extracted at a higher temperature, circa 90°C, but this does result in lower electricity output from the thermal generators. Typically, 7 units of heat generated by a CHP unit will result in the reduction of 1 unit of electricity output. This contrasts with air source heat pumps where the ratio is 1 unit of electricity to 3 units of heat (typically).

Hence CHP is much more energy efficient but of course district heating system infrastructure is required. Opponents of CHP systems cite this as the major stumbling block but they ignore the electricity infrastructure cost, mainly distribution but also transmission and generation that would be required for heat pumps. They also ignore the customer based cost of the heat pumps, upgrades to home heating systems, etc. Once these costs are all included the economics for CHP are much improved.

A further point to make is that heat provided by CHP will have the lowest carbon emissions compared to other fossil fuel-based heat generation. For example, using typical values, a condensing gas boiler emits circa 210 g/kWht 1 and an electric heat pump circa 120g/kWht 2 . However, for a CHP it is circa 60g/kWht 3

Thus our overall opinion is that CHP (electricity and heat production) and district heating (which encompasses all forms of heat production as well as heat network and other associated infrastructure) do not receive the attention they deserve.

To meet the EU 15% renewable energy target will be a significant challenge for the UK. It is important to understand that reductions in the UKs total energy demand will produce proportional reductions in the renewable contribution required. Although self-evident, this simple fact is often overlooked. Indeed the UK has to date failed to achieve any reductions in energy use, in fact the reverse is true: energy consumption in the key sectors of electricity and energy for transport continues to rise steadily.

In addition to reducing the demand for energy, there will need to be a massive increase in the contribution of renewables to transport fuel (predominately biofuels), heat and electricity. This submission concentrates on renewable electricity because UKERC has core competency this area. In Table 1, below, UKERC presents an illustrative scenario for the contribution of renew

• There are extremely ambitious technology deployment rates (for example for CCGT, heat pumps and electric vehicles) within some scenarios that could be challenging in reality and should therefore be subjected to stress testing.
• In addition to the need for appropriate investment signals, analysis should address the incorporation of a very active demand side and if the current arrangements can handle large amounts of intermittent generation supplying an elastic demand side.
• UKERC recommends that Ofgem consider a stress test that examines the loss of Norwegian gas supplies.

This note summarises the output from the UKERC/SDC “Unlocking Energy Services” seminar held in November 2005. The presentations made at the seminar can be downloaded from the UKERC website. The briefing note prepared prior to the seminar is attached at Annex A. An update note on the G* and EU context for energy services is attached at Annex B. There is a significant market in the EU and the EU Energy End-Use and Energy Services Directive was adopted in December 2005. Its objective is to enhance the cost-effective improvement of energy end-use efficiency in member states.

• The basic characteristics of the energy value chainshave led to deep policy and regulatory interventions that largely shape energy sector business models. This will not change and policy needs to be recognised as a primary driver of future business models.
• As a consequence, policy and regulatory change is a primary facilitator of business model change.
• Management of fuel price risk drives both business models and value propositions.
• Access to financeas a driver of business models is likely to become increasingly important.
• There are significant barriers to change in the energy sector on the supply and demand sides.
• Despite these barriers, substantial new opportunities for new businesses will arise in response the challenges associated with a move to the low-carbon economy.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s interest in locally owned renewable energy. Our response draws on a range of research undertaken by the Heat and the City research group at the University of Edinburgh, including a UK-wide study of local authorities and energy; and on the Financing Community Energy research project being led by Tyndall Manchester. 

In our response we made the following general comments, before responding to individual points raised in the call:

• We suggest that greater attention should be paid to city/town/settlement scale infrastructure for a low carbon energy system, including area based upgrading of the built environment and low carbon heating infrastructure. Heat and energy efficiency for a low energy building stock are crucial to meeting Welsh and UK Government legally binding targets for carbon abatement.
•  At national scale, Wales has opportunities for sharing risk, costs and benefits of energy developments – i.e. the direct benefit to the citizens of Wales through public ownership and the aggregate costs across society of decarbonisation.
• Local Authority planning and ownership could be considered further as key components to securing greater local control and accountability, and achieving Welsh Government objectives. Our research indicates that further developing specific roles, powers, resources and responsibilities of local institutional actors in energy planning and ownership, especially Local Authorities would also add value to Welsh society and economy.

UKERC response to he Welsh Governments consultation on the potential actions required to reduce emissions to 2030 are welcome, particularly in the international context of decarbonising the economy and the challenges posed by climate change.

Steering Committee consisting of female representatives from key organisations in the NI heat sector, including the Department for the Economy, the Utility Regulator, a local renewable industry group (NIRIG), the transmission and distribution system operators (NI Electricity Networks and SONI), an energy charity (NEA Northern Ireland), the Consumer Council and a public affairs consultancy (Stratagem).