202

ANNEX A
ELECTRICITY –CONTINUITY
OF SUPPLY

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

203

TABLE A.1 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS (MINUTES LOST PER YEAR)Country

2002

Austria

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

48,10534,316

38,76455,76556,64842,88941,64636,12728,63633,80733,61433,438

288,5

231,2

197,24

237,24

204,62

188,94

151,95

196,84

176,13

166,34

Bulgaria
Croatia

577,84

250,95

Cyprus148

Czech Republic

102,54

120,5

102,5

124,23

Denmark
France

40

51

50,7

52,2

Germany
Great Britain

86,7

102,65106,24

107,08109,93

98,01

84,31

16,45

15,29

15,17

16,09

14,75

11,25

11,55

71,5

57,7

62,6

67,2

62,9

52,6

60,1

68,1

50,2

21,53

19,25

16,89

14,63

14,9

15,31

15,91

15,32

12,28

73,43

70,02

67,95

55,43

54,71

53,06
92

81,66

81,28

76,59

68,64

65,55

78,03

74,22
167

138

121

101

101

96

Hungary

196,8

155,4

137,4

121,8

127,75

137,42

97,7

99,32

102,38

75,73

76,25

67,21

74

Ireland

183

162

156,5

154,9

123,9

115,4

94,1

81,3

82

69,6

62

86,7

101,1

Italy

108,88

96,83

76,52

65,74

53,84

52,47

53,1

49,45

47,77

43,59

45,45

42,27

41,32

192

153
71,56

GreeceLatviaLithuania

149,85

125,75

135,55

103,37

87,71

83,38

Luxembourg
Malta

523,8

566,98486,83398,82

304,37409

The Netherlands

28

30

24

27,4

35,6

33,1

PolandPortugal

303,75286,2360,04

570,6

22,1

26,5

33,7

23,4

27

23

20

354,51

316,46316,26309,1

254

254,85

191,77

172,98

97,25

78,48

88,7

74,89

635

639

547

630

427

361

Slovenia

59

54

51

64

75

60

71

86,82

90

79,2

58,2

62,4

52,08

54

Sweden79,3

118,34

84,02

82,18

74,59

Switzerland

13

16

21

15

13

112,8

104,3314,2

191

185,62

117

152,08

16,7

638
123,6

142,82620,57

72,67

17,7

133,08142,557 141,908

148,81

687,85

76,58

13,2

Romania
Spain

334,54

186,58106,1103,92

Notes:
Austria: 2002 without flood, 2006 without UCTE-blackout on 4th of November, 2007 without interruptions caused by storm “Kyrill”,
2008 storm “Paula” and “Emma”, 2013 flood, 2014 snowstorm, storms “Yvonne”, “Gonzalo”.
Denmark: Interruptions lasting 1 minute or more are monitored.
France: All SAIDI, SAIFI and MAIFI figures only include customers covered by the main DSO (ERDF), which operates about 95% of French distribution networks.
Great Britain: This is based on equal to and greater than 3 minutes.
Greece: Figures refer to MV and LV voltage levels for all years. Figures for all years include non-interconnected islands.
Hungary: Only for HV, MV and LV.
Ireland: T hese are the storm adjusted values for all of the distribution network.
Italy: Excluding force majeure and interventions of transmission defence systems.
Malta: Interruption data is available only from 11 kV level and above. No exceptional events.
Portugal: Indicator evaluated in LV; Interruptions not attributable to force majeure.
Slovenia: Due to unavailability of LV data, as well as different weighting method for calculation of SAIDI on the EHV/HV level, the MV data only is used.
Includes the interruptions attributable to “third party”.

204

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

TABLE A.2 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS (INTERRUPTIONS PER YEAR)Country

2002

Austria

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

0,777

0,652

0,795

0,986

0,919

0,803

0,775

0,763

0,561

0,679

0,656

0,624

5,63

5,12

4,65

2,58

2,48

2,27

2,06

2,36

1,94

1,83

Bulgaria
Croatia

3,43

3,06

Cyprus0,8Czech Republic

2,11

1,92

1,87

2,35

Denmark
France

1,15

1,4

1,3

1,02

Germany
Great Britain

1,7

1,63

1,64

1,65

1,82

1,69

1,6

0,41

0,36

0,39

0,4

0,4

0,3

0,31

1,3

0,98

1,16

1

0,92

0,81

0,89

0,87

0,73

0,456

0,326

0,322

0,289

0,263

0,311

0,275

0,47

0,34

0,71380,6894

0,6792

0,5986

0,5889

0,595

0,866

0,78860,80730,7241

0,71650,78020,7345
2,1

2,1

2,1

2

1,8

1,6

1,7

Hungary

2,03

2,05

1,9

1,77

1,77

1,88

1,54

1,49

1,45

1,21

1,16

1,04

1,067

Ireland

1,242

1,466

1,679

1,862

1,43

1,485

1,282

1,082

1,178

0,946

0,857

1,142

1,285

Italy

2,74

2,68

2,42

2,333

2,226

2,1

1,923

1,945

1,802

1,669

1,74

1,632

1,646

2,9

2,38

GreeceLatviaLithuania

1,36

1,36

1,54

1,38

1,28

1,15

Luxembourg

1,13

1,06

0,97

0,9

0,35

0,3

0,27

0,23

Malta

4,4145

5,211

4,688

4,63

2,88674,24342,3521

5,04355,5012

2,66344,2833

4,13

2,754

The Netherlands

0,34

0,34

0,32

0,304

0,454

0,33

0,307

0,331

0,384

0,341

0,316

0,296

0,276

4,08

3,7

3,74

4,14

3,42

3,02

2,95

2,36

2,77

3,14

1,94

1,62

1,75

1,56

6,7

6,4

6,1

5,6

5,5

4,8

4,35

2,15

2,03

1,8

1,49

1,39

1,63

2,16

1,59

1,89

1,991

2,033

1,816

1,415

3,202

1,31

1,112

PolandPortugal

5,93

4,81

2,69

2,71

2,73

2,06

Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain

2,65

2,599

2,52

2,31

2,38

2,229

Sweden

2,02

1,59

1,33

1,288

1,299

Switzerland

0,28

0,28

0,34

0,28

0,22

Notes:
Austria: 2002 without flood, 2006 without UCTE-blackout on 4th of November, 2007 storm “Kyrill”, 2008 storm “Paula” and “Emma”, 2014 snowstorm,
storms “Yvonne”, “Gonzalo”.
Denmark: Interruptions lasting 1 minute or more are monitored.
France: All SAIDI, SAIFI and MAIFI figures only include customers covered by the main DSO (ERDF), which operates about 95% of French distribution networks.
Great Britain: T his is based on equal to and greater than 3 minutes. GB originally submitted CI values per 100 customers. The values in this table are the CI
values divided by 100.
Greece: Figures refer to MV and LV voltage levels for all years. Figures for all years include non-interconnected islands.
Hungary: Only for HV, MV and LV.
Ireland: T hese are the storm adjusted values for all of the distribution network. The values originally submitted by Ireland (per 100 customers per year)
were divided by 100.
Italy: E xcluding force majeure and interventions of transmission defence systems.
Malta: Interruption data is available only from 11 kV level and above. No exceptional events. The values originally submitted were divided by 100.
Portugal: Indicator evaluated in LV Interruptions not attributable to force majeure.
Slovenia: Due to unavailability of LV data, as well as different weighting method for calculation of SAIDI on the EHV/HV level, the MV data only is used.
Includes the interruptions attributable to “third party”.
Sweden: Interruptions over 12 hour are not included. In Sweden, exceptional events are not defined, but interruptions with duration of at least 12 hours
are excluded due to economical compensation for those interruptions. All interruptions, however, do include those longer than 12 hours.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

205

TABLE A.3 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS: HV+EHV(MINUTES LOST PER YEAR)Country

2002

2003

2004

2005

Croatia

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

13,48

13,41

9,49

10,36

Czech Republic
Denmark
France0,15
1,9Hungary

0,25

2011

2012

2013

2014

8,16

5,37

2,9

10,41

22,83

5,99

5,83

2,26

10,34

0,16

0,08

1,41

2,2

1,5

6,7

7,5

2,1

6,1

5,6

1,5

1,1

2

2

1,8

4,11

1,45

1,29

2,37

0,29

0,56

0,66

0,21

0,33

0,56

0,41

0,323

Ireland

5,3

11,8

16,2

17,4

10,9

19,6

10,4

9

8

6,1

2,8

9,2

8,5

Italy

2,28

2,6

4,469

2,8

2,22

3,384

1,662

1,613

2,846

2,342

1,328

1,927

2,883

0

4,65

15,24

1,18

1,42

2,89

0,92

0,26

0,22

1,9

6,3

2,8

2,2

7,6

8,2

11,3

1,4

3,2

7,9

3

1

0,8

0,9

14,986

21,214

12,632

23,87654,167

4

2

6

1

2

Lithuania
The Netherlands
SwedenSwitzerland

Notes:
Croatia: In this case, HV is only related to the 110 kV voltage level.
Ireland: These are values for 110 kV and 38 kV distribution network.

TABLE A.4 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS: MV (MINUTES LOST PER YEAR)Country

2002

2003

2004

2005

Croatia

2006

2007

539,83

197,42

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

210,2

178,42

162,83

121,92

145,27

144,25

113,63

Czech Republic

88,54

119,92

124,58

114

105,8

97,88

97,74

Denmark

13,56

12,58

12,37

13,2

11,97

10,02

8,89

France

31

40

40,6

36,8

54,8

47,1

47,4

50,5

51

42,6

47,1

54,7

39,4

Hungary

139,24

104,96

99,72

83,77

86,45

98,49

70,31

66,46

74,13

52,94

48,98

48,34

49,54

Ireland

135,4

129,6

126,1

123,8

101,7

85,4

75

65,8

67,8

57,1

54,9

72,2

87,3

Italy

80,59

73,85

56,29

46,7

36,01

33,32

32,4

31,15

28,46

26,12

27,31

25,36

24,49

32

89,79

89,18

75,23

65,23

63,06

64,43

59,14

56,84

54,82

17,7

22,6

17,7

15,5

21,8

17,1

15,8

18

19

14,6

19

15,9

12,8

99,219110,855

69,301

123,13102,219

7

12

12

12

10

Lithuania
The Netherlands
SwedenSwitzerland
Notes:The Netherlands: 1-20 kV.

TABLE A.5 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS: LV (MINUTES LOST PER YEAR)Country

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

24,53

40,12

17,55

15,83

17,95

24,66

28,73

25,89

18,79

Czech Republic

82,8

102,58106,17

107,06109,95

98,02

84,33

Denmark

2,3

2,18

2,03

2,12

2,08

1,77

1,82

Croatia

France

7

9

8,7

8,8

9,2

8,5

9,1

11,1

10,4

8,9

10,9

11,4

8,9

Hungary

57,56

46,33

40,43

36,75

38,93

38,63

26,82

32,2

28,03

22,47

21,83

18,47

24,473

Ireland

42,4

20,6

14,2

13,8

11,3

10,4

8,6

6,5

6,3

6,4

4,4

5,3

6,2

Italy

26,01

20,38

15,76

Lithuania
The Netherlands
SwedenSwitzerland

4,3

4,9

4,3

16,24

15,61

15,76

19,04

16,69

16,15

14,86

16,26

14,51

13,59

118,03

31,01

30,84

26,97

19,55

17,44

19,32

17,18

15,6

14,84

4,3

4,6

4,8

4,9

5,3

6,3

5,8

7

6,7

6,3

91,88

186,4388,21

151,99

83,82

2

2

2

2

1

206

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

TABLE A.6 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS: HV+EHV(INTERRUPTIONS PER YEAR)Country

2002

2003

2004

2005

Croatia

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0,52

0,4

0,45

0,32

Czech Republic
Denmark

0,04

FranceHungary

0,03

2011

2012

2013

2014

0,25

0,16

0,18

0,09

0,36

0,15

0,15

0,15

0,21

0,02

0,01

0,11

0,06

0,11

0,22

0,05

0,11

0,12

0,06

0,05

0,07

0,07

0,05

0,1

0,07

0,085

0,077

0,035

0,039

0,058

0,013

0,047

0,019

0,028

0,028

Ireland

0,062

0,334

0,569

0,29

0,264

0,361

0,184

0,148

0,161

0,14

0,094

0,17

0,211

Italy

0,17

0,16

0,2

0,217

0,187

0,218

0,136

0,127

0,12

0,093

0,107

0,119

0,157

0

0,08

0,15

0,05

0,06

0,05

0,02

0,01

0,004

0,03

0,096

0,159

0,093

0,079

0,092

0,129

0,11

0,059

0,05406

0,04

Sweden

0,295

0,36

0,204

0,36

0,658

Switzerland

0,08

0,07

0,1

0,08

0,06

Lithuania
The Netherlands

0,129

0,101

0,083

Notes:
Croatia: In this case, HV is only related to the 110 kV voltage level.
Ireland: These are values for 110 kV and 38 kV distribution network. The values originally submitted by Ireland (per 100 customers per year) were divided by 100.

TABLE A.7 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS: MV (INTERRUPTIONS PER YEAR)Country

2002

2003

2004

2005

Croatia

2006

2007

2,72

2,44

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014
1,03

1,97

2,03

1,88

1,71

1,8

1,63

Czech Republic

1,45

1,82

1,95

1,93

1,88

1,78

1,78

Denmark

0,34

0,31

0,34

0,36

0,36

0,33

0,27

France

0,94

0,86

1,04

0,88

1,01

0,82

0,81

0,72

0,77

0,75

0,63

1,46

1,38

1,38

1,54

1,27

1,21

1,24

1,002

0,986

0,86

0,893

1,003

1,033

1,486

1,103

1,061

1,048

0,898

0,983

0,768

0,741

0,946

1,06

2,35

2,052

1,951

1,874

1,711

1,58

1,61

1,473

1,365

1,379

1,281

1,268

0,214

0,208

Hungary

1,57

1,53

Ireland

0,939

Italy

2,41
0,184

Lithuania

0,99

1,02

1,11

1,02

0,95

0,88

0,85

0,83

0,79

0,72

0,18

0,234

0,202

0,193

0,201

0,213

0,191

0,214

0,19948

0,197

Sweden

0,96

1,2

0,94

1,074

1,03

Switzerland

0,17

0,2

0,22

0,19

0,14

The Netherlands

Notes:
Ireland: The values originally submitted by Ireland (per 100 customers per year) were divided by 100.

TABLE A.8 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS: MV (INTERRUPTIONS PER YEAR)Country

2002

2003

2004

2005

Croatia

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

0,19

0,21

0,16

0,13

0,14

0,19

0,2

0,16

0,13

Czech Republic

1,6

1,63

1,64

1,65

1,82

1,69

1,6

Denmark

0,02

0,02

0,02

0,02

0,02

0,01

0,02

France

0,05

0,05

0,05

0,05

0,04

0,05

0,05

0,04

0,05

0,05

0,04

Hungary

0,46

0,42

0,37

0,31

0,31

0,31

0,22

0,22

0,2

0,16

0,16

0,15

0,144

Ireland

0,241

0,129

0,078

0,086

0,063

0,062

0,049

0,036

0,035

0,038

0,023

0,026

0,025

Italy

0,16

0,17

0,171

0,164

0,162

0,171

0,207

0,207

0,209

0,193

0,226

0,212

0,195

0,28

0,27

0,28

0,31

0,27

0,23

0,26

0,22

0,18

0,16

0,028

0,035

0,035

0,035

0,036

0,041

0,04

0,043

0,04252

0,038

Lithuania
The Netherlands

0,023

0,028

0,029

Sweden

1,32

1,63

1,33

1,33

1,3

Switzerland

0,02

0,02

0,02

0,02

0,01

Notes:
Ireland: The values originally submitted by Ireland (per 100 customers per year) were divided by 100.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

207

TABLE A.9 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS INCLUDING ALL EVENTS (MINUTES LOST PER YEAR)Country

2002

Austria

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

51,532

34,31643,45455,76583,98

57,601

43,634

36,127

28,68235,54539,286

51,953

36,18

39,45

34,75

26,15

250,59372,49306,03

411,57

Belgium
Croatia

669,49375,35

330,91

296,26306,97

Cyprus

243,16

Czech Republic

185,54

210,94

135,88114,08125,21

195,08120,89Denmark

16,48

15,29

15,18

17,04

14,75

15,86

11,59
117,1

Estonia

243,49185,83405,33

186,69

406

346

170,9

378,5

Finland

284

212

105

87

64

53

59

41

170

225

68

138

67

France

42

69,3

57,1

55,9

86,3

61,6

74,1

173,8

95,1

53,9

62,9

83,6

51,5

23,25

35,67

16,96

15,29

20,01

17,25

17,37

32,75

13,5

83,69

110,38

81,11

94,29

69,16

103,48

81,94

75,69

81,42

70,02

68,05

61,02

92,51

163

166

150

133

122

Hungary

196,8

155,4

137,4

121,8

127,75

141

111

125

132,59

85,12

76,89

138,5386

Ireland

230,2

171,9

162,8

163,6

148,3

129,7

108,9

100,4

110

76,4

67,7

134,3

420,2

Italy

114,74

546,08

90,53

79,86

60,55

57,89

89,64

78,67

88,84

107,96

132,73

105,4

93,8

269

236

424

1073

708

371

341

210

302,59287,73

153,93144,04Germany
Great Britain
GreeceLatviaLithuania

373,57

168,7

301,7

155,65161,3260,03Luxembourg

13,2

17,7

16,7

14,2

Malta

523,8

566,98486,83398,82

304,37409

186,58687,85620,57191286,2360,04570,6

The Netherlands

28

30

24

27,4

35,6

33,1

22,1

26,5

33,7

23,4

27

23

20

93

113

96

104

84

66

216

66

144

118

410

440,64

378,35386,18

325,76

263,19281,82

205,41

198,73

243,19136

162,67280,03

276,04131,43

94,15

258,8

94,75

696

682

657

547

668

475

468

188,87

187,14

116

133

81

76

169

NorwayPolandPortugal

467,98406,18217,79

Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia

109

908

Spain

142,557 141,908

123,6

117

112,8

103,8

86,82

133,86140,88

58,2

62,4

52,08

52,62

Sweden

101,8

78,1

912,6

100

321,9

110,8

73,3

92,3

186,46

89,01

151,94

83,85

14

16

22

15

13

Switzerland

148,1

Notes:
Cyprus: Figure refers to HV, MV and LV.
Finland: T-SAIDI.
Great Britain: This is based on equal to and greater than 3 minutes.
Greece: Figures refer to MV and LV voltage levels for all years. Figures for all years include non-interconnected islands.
Hungary: Only for HV, MV and LV.
Ireland: These are the values for all of the distribution network.
Italy: The 2003 figure includes two nation-wide events (September blackout and June rolling blackouts).
Latvia: This information is only for MV and LV networks.
Malta: Calculated at 11 kV and include interruptions at this level or upstream.
Norway: LV events are included from 2014.
Portugal: Indicator evaluated in LV interruptions not attributable to force majeure.
Slovenia: Due to unavailability of LV data, as well as different weighting method for calculation of SAIDI on the EHV/HV level, the MV data only is used.

208

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

TABLE A.10 UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONS INCLUDING ALL EVENTS (INTERRUPTIONS PER YEAR)Country

2002

Austria

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

0,798

0,652

0,806

0,986

1,057

0,892

0,788

0,763

0,562

0,698

0,682

0,822

0,74

0,81

0,72

1,04

2,7

3,12

2,7

2,71
1,86

Belgium
Croatia

4,2

4,06

3,28

3,24

2,96

Cyprus0,8Czech Republic

2,22

2

1,78

1,82

1,9

2,13

Denmark

0,42

0,36

0,39

0,4

0,4

0,37

0,31

4,558

1,835

2,072

1,974

1,793

2,487

0,648

Estonia

1,544

2,045

Finland

3,3

4

4,3

1,9

1,8

1,6

1,6

1,2

1,8

2,4

1,8

2,5

1,6

France

1,2

1,43

1,3

1,08

1,33

0,98

1,18

1,1

0,98

0,82

0,9

0,9

0,74

0,456

0,425

0,334

0,298

0,315

0,337

0,29

0,5

0,37

0,871

0,86250,8257

0,78370,74440,8802

0,7681

0,7286

0,7182

0,69170,64940,61080,7211

2,8

2,9

2,6

2,4

2,2

Hungary

2,03

2,05

1,9

1,77

1,79

1,92

1,62

1,69

1,63

1,26

1,17

1,15

1,133

Ireland

1,367

1,497

1,703

1,947

1,595

1,57

1,387

1,196

1,317

1,021

0,907

1,39

1,664

Italy

2,76

3,96

2,48

2,419

2,29

2,156

2,38

2,364

2,265

2,082

2,334

2,202

1,994

2,18

2,01

0,9

4,15

4,74

3,84

3,52

2,78

2,18

1,73

1,74

1,92

2,19

1,82

1,43

1,29

0,35

0,3

0,27

0,23

Germany
Great Britain
GreeceLatviaLithuania

1,74

1,65

Luxembourg
Malta4,4145

5,211

4,688

4,63

2,88674,24342,3521

5,04355,5012

2,66344,2833

4,13

2,754

The Netherlands

0,34

0,34

0,32

0,304

0,454

0,33

0,307

0,331

0,384

0,341

0,316

0,296

0,276

1,54

1,75

1,7

1,79

1,7

1,5

2,4

1,4

2

2,2

3,1

4,14

3,84

3,77

4,22

3,44

3,32

2,96

2,62

2,8

3,63

4,32

2,41

1,88

3,09

1,89

6,9

6,5

6,1

5,6

5,5

5,1

5,1

NorwayPolandPortugal

7,35

5,96

3,66

3,54

3,81

Romania
Slovenia

2,71

2,4

1,81

1,81

2,99

2,2

4,31

Spain

2,65

2,599

2,52

2,31

2,38

2,23

1,991

2,192

1,956

1,417

3,202

1,31

1,127

Sweden

1,838

1,64

1,1

1,49

1,28

1,7

1,38

1,32

Switzerland

2,02

1,63

1,33

1,33

1,3

0,29

0,28

0,34

0,29

0,22

Notes:
Cyprus: Figure refers to HV, MV and LV.
Denmark: Interruptions lasting 1 minute or more are monitored.
Finland: T-SAIFI.
Great Britain: T his is based on equal to and greater than 3 minutes. GB originally submitted CI values per 100 customers.
The values in this table are the CI values divided by 100.
Greece: Figures refer to MV and LV voltage levels for all years. Figures for all years include non-interconnected islands.
Hungary: Only for HV, MV and LV.
Ireland: These are the values for all of the distribution network. The values originally submitted by Ireland (per 100 customers per year) were divided by 100.
Italy: The 2003 figure includes two nation-wide events (September blackout and June rolling blackouts). SAIFI is not affected by thefts.
Latvia: This information is only for MV and LV networks.
Malta: C alculated at 11 kV and include Calculated at 11 kV and include interruptions at this level or upstream. Calculated per 100 customers.
The values originally submitted by Malta were divided by 100.
Norway: LV events are included from 2014.
Portugal: Indicator evaluated in LV interruptions not attributable to force majeure.
Slovenia: Due to unavailability of LV data, as well as different weighting method for calculation of SAIFI on the EHV/HV level, the MV data only is used.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

209

TABLE A.11 PLANNED INTERRUPTIONS (MINUTES LOST PER YEAR)Country

2002

Austria

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

13,904

15,637

19,902

20,04420,052

16,807299,5Bulgaria
Croatia

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

16,22317,26

16,383

14,865

14,35

16,355289,7224,21

499,56421,7412,72287,78

293,43308,5295,45

253,49250,15144,7150,23

165,82

140,65159,4154,73

147,59159,68

162,33

8,76

8,37

5,37

4,94

4,76

4,7

5,05

118,59202,2

195,26145,04

120,6

104,1

84,93

86,84

66

23

26

23

23

18

17

19

21

41

13

8

7,9

10,8

19,4

23,2

24

18,9

15,6

15,9

15,8

Germany

15,1

13,85

13,17

11,53

9,66

10,12

11,83

7,23

7,56

Great Britain

4,06

4,96

5,7

6,48

6,72

6,69

6,7

5,68

5,72

232

195

163

147

151

136

Czech Republic

148,29166,19Denmark
Estonia
FinlandFrance

6

5,3

6,6

GreeceHungary

137,02

199,24

178,95138,5139,86

144,66

156,99198,17

179,65

156,55

153,41

122,76132

Ireland

284,1

422,3

390,7

375,4

268,7

79

60,5

59,3

64,1

46,6

44,9

42,1

42,3

Italy

77,97

80,67

62,62

58,77

53,79

46,16

49,35

43,58

55,71

61,85

65,97

55,28

59,6

237

261

254

219

236

265

280

256

113,62

98,27

71,23

78,07

93,29

132,72

157,9

179,2

212,76

217,45

2

2,6

1

1,2

105,63

94,74

78,88

72,73

75,1

72,6

69,08

80,32

61,04

207

2,81

3,39

4,13

4,04

4,35

5,1

5,17

6,016

5,888

LatviaLithuania
Luxembourg
Malta

89,38

72,84

69,28

The Netherlands
Norway44

42

PolandPortugal

52,21

62,39

49,16

39,16

18,7

48

44

42

36

42

41

36

43

121

149,05140,31129,7153,05

147,32

139,12

119,4

7,31

2,07

2

1,57

2,05

1,68

1,46

2,59

385

323

324

333

246

270

230

188,87

187,14

Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia

138

130

104

126

117

115

119

Spain

30,656

24,791

21,6

13,8

9,6

11,4

10,8

8,34

8,82

9

18,42

19,62

10,6

Sweden

37,1

25,4

24,8

33,5

23,8

23,2

26,4

21,3

20,1

16,7

16,94

18,87

18,2

14

13

12

10

9

Switzerland

Notes:
Denmark: Interruptions lasting 1 minute or more are monitored.
Finland: T-SAIDI.
Great Britain: T hese are finalised performance values which have weightings applied to them. Under British incentive, a 50% weighting is applied to CI and
CML values for planned interruptions to recognise that these are less inconvenient than an unplanned interruption.
Greece: Figures refer to MV and LV voltage levels for all years. Figures for all years include non-interconnected islands.
Hungary: Only for HV, MV and LV.
Ireland: These are the values for all of the distribution network.
Latvia: This information is only for MV and LV networks.
Malta: Calculated at 11 kV and include interruptions at this level or upstream.
Norway: LV events are included from 2014.
Portugal: Indicator evaluated in LV Interruptions not attributable to force majeure or exceptional events.
Slovenia: Due to unavailability of LV data, as well as different weighting method for calculation of SAIDI on the EHV/HV level, the MV data only is used.

210

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

TABLE A.12 PLANNED INTERRUPTIONS (INTERRUPTIONS PER YEAR)Country

2002

Austria

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

0,14

0,163

0,206

0,195

0,235

0,165

0,161

0,156

0,15

0,133

0,127

0,141

5,25

5,29

3,61

Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic

0,57

0,57

2,96

2,58

2,25

2,02

2,12

2,14

2

1,63

1,63

0,55

0,56

0,62

0,54

0,59

0,54

0,5

0,52

0,51

0,06

0,07

0,05

0,04

0,04

0,04

0,04

0,521

0,498

1,314

0,581

0,509

0,525

0,53

0,571

0,478

Denmark
Estonia
FinlandFrance

0,04

0,04

0,05

0,3

0,4

0,4

0,3

0,3

0,3

0,3

0,3

0,4

0,2

0,06

0,06

0,11

0,21

0,24

0,21

0,13

0,11

0,13

0,13

0,126

0,104

0,101

0,089

0,102

0,116

0,076

0,08

0,02040,0227

0,0254

0,02620,02620,02630,02290,0229

1,2

1

1

0,8

0,9

0,7

0,66

0,61

0,55

0,54

0,43

0,45

Germany
Great Britain

0,0183

GreeceHungary

0,54

0,75

0,71

Ireland

0,659

0,764

Italy

0,49

0,49

0,54

0,57

0,55

0,674

0,89

0,684

0,284

0,241

0,237

0,251

0,181

0,185

0,166

0,167

0,4

0,374

0,34

0,303

0,347

0,292

0,384

0,373

0,409

0,368

0,358

0,83

0,94

0,9

0,85

0,85

0,94

0,96

0,99

0,4

0,36

0,25

0,26

0,33

0,47

0,48

0,53

0,54

0,56

0,03

0,03

0,04

0,04

1,97

0,98880,59090,540,46110,82

0,52780,7705

0,63

0,858

0,018

0,022

0,027

0,024

0,027

0,031

0,031

0,03380,0324

0,3

0,3

0,32

0,3

0,3

0,3

0,27

0,3

0,3

0,4

0,74

0,76

0,68

0,82

0,7

0,62

0,56

0,04

0,011

LatviaLithuania

0,59

Luxembourg
Malta

0,9304

0,96870,7214The Netherlands
Norway0,32PolandPortugal

0,02

0,01

0,01

0,012

0,0076

0,0067

Romania

0,29

0,3

0,23

0,19

0,09

1,6

1,5

1,3

1,3

0,9

1

0,8

Slovenia

1,09

1,05

0,85

0,98

0,88

0,89

0,86
0,07

Spain

0,26

0,2015

0,19

0,09

0,08

0,09

0,076

0,06

0,06

0,057

0,323

0,302

Sweden

0,26

0,22

0,18

0,22

0,2

0,32

0,51

0,23

0,18

0,14

0,14

0,149

0,16

0,12

0,12

0,11

0,09

0,08

Switzerland

Notes:
Denmark: Interruptions lasting 1 minute or more are monitored.
Finland: T-SAIFI.
Great Britain: T his is based on equal to and greater than 3 minutes. GB originally submitted CI values per 100 customers. The values in this table are the CI
values divided by 100. They are finalised performance values which have weightings applied to them. Under British incentive, a 50% weighting
is applied to CI and CML values for planned interruptions to recognise that these are less inconvenient than an unplanned interruption.
Greece: Figures refer to MV and LV voltage levels for all years. Figures for all years include non-interconnected islands.
Hungary: Only for HV, MV and LV.
Ireland: T hese are the values for all of the distribution network. These values are per 100 customers per year. The values originally submitted by Ireland weredivided by 100.
Latvia: This information is only for MV and LV networks.
Malta: C alculated at 11 kV and include interruptions at this level or upstream. Calculated per 100 customers. The values originally submitted by Malta weredivided by 100.
Portugal: Indicator evaluated in LV Interruptions not attributable to force majeure or exceptional events.
Slovenia: Due to unavailability of LV data, as well as different weighting method for calculation of SAIFI on the EHV/HV level, the MV data only is used.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

211

TABLE A.13 DEFINITIONS OF EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS AND THEIR INCLUSION IN INTERRUPTION STATISTICSCountry

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia
CyprusCzech Republic

Denmark

Estonia
FinlandFranceRegulatory definition of“Exceptional events”

Exceptional
events ininterruption
statistics

Statistical method to define“major event days” or“exceptional condition periods”

Exceptional regional events mean events that according toprevious experience cannot be expected to occur in a given region Statistics withand during which facilities constructed and maintained
and withoutwith due care cannot be operated without failure.
The emergencies that justify the intervention of the network
operator, may occur especially in the following unforeseen or
exceptional circumstances:(1) n atural disasters arising from earthquakes, floods, storms,
cyclones or other climatically exceptional situations;(2) a nuclear or chemical explosion and its consequences(3) a computer virus or a computer crash;(4) t emporary or permanent technical impossibility for the
network to exchange electricity because of failures within thecontrol area caused by electricity flows resulting from energy
exchanges within another control area or between two or
more other control areas and of which the identity the parties
involved in this energy exchange is not known and cannot be Excluded
reasonably known by the network operator;(5) the inability to use the grid due to a collective dispute thatgives rise to unilateral action by employees (or groups of
employees) or any other labour dispute;(6) fire, explosion, sabotage, terrorist acts, acts of vandalism,damage caused by criminal acts, criminal coercion andthreats of the same nature;(7) s tate of war declared or not, threat of war, invasion,
armed conflict, blockade, revolution or insurrection;(8) a measure from higher up;(9) sudden phenomena;(10) scarcity.
Force majeure – an extraordinary event which(1) cannot be foreseen, prevented or controlled and(2) leads to disturbances in the normal functioningof the electricity distribution network and(3) has been verified by the competent authorities
ExcludedNo- e nsuring from human activities: military activities,
terrorism, embargo, prohibitions imposed by thegovernment, strikes, riots, uprisings-o f natural character: storms (which speed above 60 km/h),
torrential rains, floods, hailstorms, thunderbolts, snow
avalanches, landslides.
Force Majeure
IncludedNo
Unforeseen circumstances
Included
No definition, but there is an individual approach. According
to public notice DSOs are allowed to ask for the approval by
the regulator and report these events as “1.1.1.2. Under severe
weather conditions”
Statistics with
NRA evaluates the request and potentially approves it. Besides and without No
these events, indicators “without exceptional events” in thisBM are lowered by other categories defined in 1.5.(ii)1., namely:
1.2. Enforced, 1.3. Exceptional, 1.4. Caused by event outside
network or by producer.
Yes. If the extreme weather event is
Force majeure due to storm surge, flood, hurricane or other
Statistics with classified by the Danish Meteorologicalincidents that DERA approves as force majeure.
and without institute it will be classified as“Exceptional event”.
Long interruptions caused by events that network operator could
Statistics withnot foresee (examples: natural disaster, lightning that exceeds
Yes. Criteria by extent of interruptions.
and without
design norms, heavy winds, glazed frost, sabotage actions).
No. There isn't any regulatory definition of “Exceptional events”. IncludedNo
Yes.
For climatic events, exceptional events definition is based on both:
1. wideness (simultaneous outage for more than
100,000 final customer); andStatistics withNo
and without
2. local occurrence of this type of climatic event(less than 1 / 20 years), according to meteorological data.
Other cases of force majeure independent of system operators
are also considered as exceptional events.

212

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

Country

Germany

Great Britain

Regulatory definition of“Exceptional events”

Force Majeure

Exceptional
events ininterruption
statistics

Statistical method to define“major event days” or “exceptional
condition periods”

Statistics withNo
and without

Ofgem does have a regulatory definition of exceptional eventsand excludes the impact of these from the network operators’ Excluded
performance.

Yes. Severe weather events are defined
as any event that results in more thaneight times the average number ofhigher voltage (1 kV and above) faults
in a licence area over a 24 hour period.
These events further fall into three
categories, namely medium, large andvery large events (1).

GreeceThere is no regulatory definition.

Yes. Exceptional weather conditions
day: the number of interruptions for
Statistics witha distribution area is at least three
and without
times the yearly average number ofinterruptions for this distribution area.

Hungary

There is no definition of exceptional events, but:
1. In Guaranteed standards: there is a definition of "extreme
weather": if the number of MV interruptions caused by aweather event reaches or exceeds a value predefined for thedifferent DSOs; and2. Overall standards: there is a definition of“other event”, which includes the following:a) system collapseb) terror attacksc) e very event, which is designated as "other event" by HEO.
(e.g. strain exceeding the design requirements).

Yes.
1. In the Guaranteed standards there
is a method to define “exceptional
condition periods”, which is similar
to UK practice. If the number of
MV interruptions in any 24 hour
Statistics withinterval are above eight (I. category)
and withoutor thirteen times (II. category) the
number of the (8 year) average,
then it is considered as an “extreme
weather condition period”
2.Overall standards: strain exceeding
the design requirements, e.g. windspeed over 100 km/h.

There is a definition of 'storm days', but no other exceptional
events are defined.

Yes. Storm days are days where thereported customer hours lost due toStatistics with faults is greater than 61,570. 61,570 was
and without the average of two standard deviations
from the mean of the daily fault data
for the 3 years 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Italy

Force Majeure

Yes. In addition to document-provenforce majeure (for transmission and for
Statistics with distribution), a statistical method is used
and without for distribution network. It is rather
complex, referring to the past numberof interruptions in 6-hour periods.

LatviaNo

Statistics withNo
and without

Lithuania

No

Included

No

Luxembourg

No

The
Netherlands

Examples of “extreme situations” are earthquakes, floods,
extraordinary weather conditions, terrorist attacks and war.

IncludedNo

NorwayExceptional events are defined in each individual case. NVE
makes separate reports on larger events,
Exceptional events are not treated separately in the annualinterruption statistics.

IncludedNo

PolandAccording to the definition of “Force majeure” given in
the Transmission Grid Code approved by the regulator as
exceptional are regarded the sudden events, unpredictable
and independent from will of the parties, which makes it
impossible to meet contractual obligations, wholly or partly,
permanently or temporarily and whose effects cannot
be anticipated, even with the due care of the parties. The
manifestations of the Force majeure are in particular: natural
disasters, including fire, flood, drought, earthquake, hurricane,hoar frost, the acts of state, including martial law, emergency
state, embargoes, blockades, etc., acts of war, the acts ofsabotage, acts of terrorism, general strikes or other social
unrest, including public demonstrations, lockouts.

Statistics withNo
and without

Ireland6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX A TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY”

Country

Regulatory definition of“Exceptional events”

Exceptional
events ininterruption
statistics

213

Statistical method to define“major event days” or “exceptional
condition periods”

Portugal

An Exceptional Event is an interruption which satisfies the next
four criteria (cumulative): (i) the cause of interruption and its
consequences are non-predictable, (ii) leads to a considerable
decrease in the continuity of supply of the system, (iii) it isIncludednon-economically efficient to avoid the interruption andits consequences, (iv) the origin of the interruption and its
consequences are attributable to the network.

The Quality of Service Code alsoestablishes the definition of Great
Impact Incident. An interruption isclassified as a Great Impact Incident
when its Not Supplied Energy is
greater than 50 MWh. This definition
exists only for monitoring purposes.
All Great Impact Incidents must bereported to regulator through adetailed report describing the origin ofincident and the actions performed by
the operator to restore the steady-stateof the network.

Romania

There is a general definition but the exceptional events/force
majeure have to be confirmed by the Chamber of Commerce,
Industry and Agriculture.

Included

No. The Chamber decides.

Slovak Republic

Emergency, natural disaster, damage on TSO and DSO
installations caused by third party.

Excluded

No

Slovenia

Force majeure is:a) a natural unforeseeable event which is beyond the control ofthe system operator (precipitations (snow, sleet)), hurricane,avalanche (snowslide, landslide), fire, flood, earthquake orsimilar natural disaster which lead to declaration of crisis
situation by the authorities), and which effects on continuityof supply cannot be predicted and prevented or avoidedb) n on-natural event (i.e. war), which lead to declaration of crisis
Yes. According to IEEE 1366:2003, but
situation by the authorities. An interruption of supply can be Statistics with based on monthly interruption data,
qualified under the force majeure only in cases where it was and without not daily.
caused by the event beyond the control of system operator
and in cases when system operator could not prevent or
avoid the event (the cause was unpredictable, irresistible andexternal to the network). The system operator must havea written evidence that network design criteria have been
exceeded for each interruption that is classified under theforce majeure due to the more severe conditions than theones considered at the network design requirements.

Spain

Yes, Special event is authorised by the Directorate General for
Energy and Mines, and has natural causes and that generally
occurs in at least 10% of the municipalities on the peninsula
or at least 50% of municipalities each island and peninsular
systems and, in accordance with technical regulations
applicable to facilities are not provided for in the design ofthem.

SwedenWe do not have a definition of exceptional event, but whenreporting data to the Benchmarking Report we classify
interruptions with an interruption period of at least 12 hours
as exceptional event because those interruptions are notconsidered in the economic regulation due to the law on
economical compensation for those interruptions if thecustomers experience an outage of at least 12 hours.

Switzerland

1. low probability of occurrence
2. unavoidable
3. long interruption duration with many affected customers
4. following categories: weather, natural disaster, arrangementby authority, disaster (accident, explosion), influence ofothers / terrorism.

Included

Yes

No

ExcludedNo(1) M edium events include 1) non lightning events where the number of faults equals or exceeds eight times the average number of daily high voltage faults
but is less than 13 times the daily average and where less than 35% of customers have been affected, 2) lightning events where eight times the average
daily high voltage faults or above have occurred but less than 35% of customers have been affected. Large events include non lightning events with anumber of faults equal to or in excess of 13 times the daily average high voltage fault rate but where less than 35% of customers have been affected.
Very large events include all events where more than 35% of customers have been affected. Events that are not related to weather are considered as
exceptional if they are outside the companies’ control and if more than 25,000 customers have been affected and/or more than 2 million customer
minutes have been lost.
(2) A n interruption is classified as exceptional event by the regulator after a request from the TSO or the DSO. The request must include a detailed descriptionof the incident and the collected evidences, in order to prove that the four cumulative criteria for the classification as exceptional event are satisfied.
The decision of the regulator is based on the analysis of the report and on the technical opinion of the department of the Ministry of Energy responsible
for the networks licensing.

214

ANNEX B
ELECTRICITY –VOLTAGE QUALITY

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

Part 1 – National Legislation and Regulations
that Differ from EN 50160

215

Malta

Cyprus	Power frequency – local areas (all voltage levels):
50Hz +/-1% (49.5 - 50.5 Hz) during 99.5% of the year
50Hz +4% / -5% (47.5 - 52 Hz) during 100% of the time	Power frequency – local areas (HV, MV, LV): As per
CYS EN 50160:
49.5-50.5 Hz Normal Operation
47.0-52.0 Hz Emergency Operation

	Supply voltage variations (HV, MV, LV):
HV: 132 kV +/- 6%
MV: 11 kV +/- 5%; 33 kV +5% / -10%
LV: 400/230 V +/- 10%

France	Supply voltage variations (HV, MV):
MV – 100% of time between Uc +/- 5%
LV – 100% of time between Un +/- 10%

Great Britain	Power frequency – local areas (all voltage levels):
50 Hz +/- 1%
	Power frequency – interconnected areas (all voltage levels):
50 Hz +/- 1%
	Supply voltage variations (EHV, HV, MV, LV):
EHV – Uc +/- 10%
HV and MV – Uc +/- 6%
LV – Un +10% / - 6%

Ireland	Supply voltage variations (HV, MV):	H V: For system with nominal voltage of 38 kV,
the permitted range is 43 kV and 34.8 kV	MV: For system with nominal voltage of 20 kV,
the permitted range is 21.8 kV and 19 kV	For system the nominal voltage of 10 kV, the permitted
range is 10.9 kV and 9.5 kV

Italy	Power frequency - local areas (HV):
49.9 - 50.1 Hz under normal or alarm operational states
49.5 - 50.5 Hz in Sicily and Sardinia islands	47.5 - 51.5 Hz under emergency or restoration
operational state	Flicker severity (MV, LV):
Frequency of occurrence: 0.22 per min - 600 per min
Pst < 0.7 and Plt < 0.5
Frequency of occurrence: 0.02 per min - 0.22 per min
Magnitude of up to 3% is permitted.
Frequency of occurrence: < 0.02 per min
Magnitude of up to 5% is permitted.
	Voltage dips (MV, LV):	A sudden reduction of the voltage to a value between
90% and 1% of the declared voltage followed by a
voltage recovery after a short period of time.
	Voltage unbalance (LV):	In 3-phase network, a condition in which the rms
values of the phase voltages or the phase angles
between consecutive phases are not equal.
Limit - 1.3%
	Harmonic voltage (MV, LV):
33 kV
THD ≤ 1.5%
11 kV
THD ≤ 2%400/230 V
THD ≤ 2.5%

Norway	Power frequency – local areas (EHV, HV, MV, LV): In
systems temporarily without physical connections toadjacent transmission grids, the TSO (Statnett) shallensure that the voltage frequency is normally kept
within 50 Hz ± 2%.
	Power frequency – interconnected areas (EHV, HV, MV,
LV): The TSO (Statnett) shall ensure that the voltage
frequency and time deviations are normally kept
within the provisions of the Nordic system operationagreement.
	Supply voltage variations (LV): The DSOs shall ensurethat supply voltage variations are within the range of± 10% of the nominal value measured as 1-minute meanvalues, in connection points in the low-voltage system.

216

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

Flicker (EHV, HV, MV, LV):	Limits for Pst (short term flicker severity) 95% of
the week:
MV and LV: 1.2 [pu]EHV and HV: 1.0 [pu]	Limits for Plt (long term flicker severity) 100 % of
the time:		 • MV and LV: 1.0 [pu]		 • EHV and HV: 0.8 [pu]	Transient overvoltages (EHV, HV, MV, LV): High frequency
or over frequency overvoltages that normally lasts forless than one half cycle (10 ms). The rise time can varyfrom less than a microsecond up to a few milliseconds.

	Voltage swells (EHV, HV, MV, LV): See limits given for
rapid voltage change	Voltage unbalance (EHV, HV, MV, LV): The TSO/DSOs
shall ensure that the degree of voltage unbalancedoes not exceed 2% in connection points, measured as
ten-minute mean values.
	Harmonic voltage (EHV, HV, MV, LV):	LV and MV: The TSO and the DSOs shall, in connection
points with nominal voltages from 230 V to 35 kV,ensure that individual harmonic voltages, measured as
ten-minute mean values, do not exceed the following
values:	Voltage dips (EHV, HV, MV, LV): See limits given for rapid
voltage change

TABLE B.1 LIMIT VALUES FOR HARMONIC VOLTAGES FOR LV AND MV
Odd harmonics

Even harmonics

Not multiple of 3

Multiple of 3

Order hUhOrder hUhOrder h

Uh

5

6.0 %

3

5.0 %

2

2.0 %

7

5.0 %

9

1.5 %

4

1.0 %

11

3.5 %

>9

0.5 %

>4

0.5 %

13

3.0 %

17

2.0 %

19, 23, 25

1.5 %

>25

1.0 %

	THD: 100% of the time ≤ 8% (10-min mean values) and≤ 5% (1 week mean value)	HV and EHV ≤ 245 kV: The TSO and the DSOs shall, in
connection points with nominal voltages from 35 kV

to 245 kV, ensure that individual harmonic voltages,
measured as ten-minute mean values, do not exceed
the following values:

TABLE B.2 LIMIT VALUES FOR HARMONIC VOLTAGES FOR HV AND EHV ≤ 245 KVV
Odd harmonics

Even harmonics

Not multiple of 3
Order hMultiple of 3
Uh

Order hUhOrder h

Uh
1.5 %

5

3.0 %

3

3.0 %

2

7, 11

2.5 %

9

1.5 %

4

1.0 %

13, 172.0 %15, 21

0.5 %

6

0.5 %

19, 23

1.5 %

>21

0.3 %

>6

0.3 %

25

1.0 %

>25

0.5 %

THD: 100% of the time ≤ 3% (10-min mean values)	EHV above 245 kV: The TSO shall, in connection points
with nominal voltages above 245 kV, ensure that

individual harmonic voltages, measured as ten-minutemean values, do not exceed the following values:6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

217

TABLE B.3 LIMIT VALUES FOR HARMONIC VOLTAGES FOR EHV >245 KV
Odd harmonics

Even harmonics

Not multiple of 3

Multiple of 3

Order hUhOrder hUhOrder h

Uh

5, 7

2.0 %

3

2.0 %

2

1.0 %

11, 13, 17, 19

1.5 %

9

1.0 %

4, 6

0.5 %

23, 251.0 %15, 21

0.5 %

>6

0.3 %

>25

0.5 %

>21

0.3 %

THD: 100% of the time ≤ 2% (10-min mean values)	Single rapid voltage change (HV, MV, LV): The TSO/DSOs
shall ensure that rapid voltage changes do not exceed thefollowing limits in connection points with respect to thenominal voltage, UN, maximum number per 24-hour period:	∆Usteady state ≥ 3%:	max [#]: 24 for 0.23 ≤ UN ≤ 35 [kV]	max [#]: 12 for 35 < UN [kV]	∆Umax: ≥ 5%:	max [#]: 24 for 0.23 ≤ UN ≤ 35 [kV]	max [#]:12 for 35 < UN [kV]
Portugal	Supply voltage variations (EHV): For EHV the Quality ofService Code establishes that the value of Uc shall bewithin the range of Un±7% Un. Under normal operating
conditions, during each period of 1 week, 95% of the 10
min mean r.m.s. values of the supply voltage shall bewithin the range of Uc±5% Uc.
	Flicker (EHV): For EHV the Quality of Service Code establishes
that under normal operating conditions, in any period of 1
week the long (Plt) and the short (Pst) term flicker severity
caused by voltage fluctuation should be lower than 1.
Voltage dips (EHV): Limits are not established	Voltage unbalance (EHV): Under normal operating conditions,
during each period of 1 week, 95% of the 10 min mean r.m.s.
values of the negative sequence of the supply voltage shallbe less or equal than 2% of the direct sequence voltage.
	Harmonic voltage (EHV): For EHV, under normal
conditions, during each period of 1 week, 95% of the
10 min mean r.m.s. values of each individual harmonic
voltage, Uh (%), shall be less or equal than:h=5: 3.0h=3: 2.0h=2: 1.5h=7: 2.0h=9: 1.0h=4: 1.0h=11: 1.5h=15: 0.3

h=6: 0.5h=13: 1.5h=21: 0.2h=8: 0.4
h=17: 1.0
h=>21: 0.2
h=10: 0.4
h=19: 1.0h=12: 0.2
h=23: 0.7
h=>12: 0.2
h=25: 0.7
h>25: 0.2+12.5/h	THD=<4%

Sweden	Supply voltage variations (HV, MV, LV): U +/- 10%; 100%of time over a week.
	Voltage dips (HV, MV, LV): The dip-table is divided in
3 areas A, B and C. Dips with a duration and severity
that puts them in area A is regarded a normal part ofthe operation of the network. Dips within area B need
to be investigated and dips in area C are not allowed.
The borders between the areas are slightly different forvoltages above and below 45 kV.
	Voltage swells (LV): The swell-table is divided in the
3 areas A, B and C. Swells with a duration and severity
that puts them in area A is regarded a normal part of theoperation of the network. Swells within area B need to
be investigated and swells in area C are not allowed.
	Voltage unbalance (HV, MV, LV): Unbalance must be
equal to, or under, 2%; 100% of the time over a week.
	Harmonic voltage (HV, MV, LV): Same as EN 50160;
100% of the time over a week.
	HV: 100% of time. Limits for harmonics not multiple of
3 of order higher than 13 are already in place.
MV and LV: 100% of time.
	Single rapid voltage change (HV, MV, LV): A maximum
number of voltage changes are allowed.

218

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

The Netherlands

Part 2 – Voltage Quality Data	Power frequency – interconnected areas (HV, MV, LV):
50 Hz +/- 1% during 99.9% of the year, 50 Hz + 2% / - 4%
all the year

This Annex provides an overview of the voltage dip
characteristics and actual voltage quality data thatcountries have provided in response to the questionnaire
for this report. The responding countries for this Annex
include France, Portugal and Slovenia.

	Supply voltage variations (EHV, HV, MV, LV):	EHV and HV: Uc +/- 10% for 99.9% of 10 minute
averaged values during a week	MV and LV: Uc +/- 10% for 95% of 10 minute averaged
values during a week; Uc +10%/-15% for all 10-minute
averaged value	Flicker (EHV, HV, MV, LV):EHV and HV		• ≤10%Uc		 •	≤3%Uc in case there is no loss of production, large
consumers or connections		•	Plt≤1 during 95% of a week, using 10 minute averages		•	
Plt≤5 during 100% of a week, using 10 minute averages
MV and LV		• ≤10%Uc		 •	≤3%Uc in case there is no loss of production, large
consumers or connections
		• Plt≤1 during 95% of a week, using 10 minute averages
	Voltage dips (EHV, HV, MV): The limit for voltage dips in
EHV and HV depends on the dip duration and the retained
voltage. Limits for voltage dips in the MV-network are
currently under development.
	Voltage unbalance (EHV, HV, MV, LV):	EHV and HV: The inverse component of the voltage
should be ≤1% of the normal component, during
99.9% of the 10 minute averaged values during a week.
	MV and LV: The inverse component of the voltage
should be in between 0 and 2% of the normalcomponent, during 95% of the 10 minute measurements
per week. The inverse component of the voltage
should be in between 0 and 3% of the normalcomponent for all measurements	Harmonic voltage (EHV, HV, MV, LV):	EHV		 •	THD ≤ 5% for all harmonics (until 40th) during 95%
of the 10 minute averaged values during a week.
		 •	THD ≤ 6% for all harmonics (until 40th) during 99.9%of the 10 minute averaged values during a week.
HV		 •	THD ≤ 6% for all harmonics (until 40th) during 95%
of the 10 minute averaged values during a week.
		 •	THD ≤ 7% for all harmonics (until 40th) during 99.9%of the 10 minute averaged values during a week.
MV		 •	THD ≤ 8% for all harmonics (until 40th) during 95%
of the 10 minute averaged values during a week.
		 •	THD ≤ 12% for all harmonics (until 40th) during 99.9%of the 10 minute averaged values during a week.

7.7.1 Voltage dips classification
Dip characteristic
The dip characteristics are calculated from the sampled
voltage waveform. The resulting characteristics and indicators
depend strongly on whether the line-to-neutral or theline-to-line voltages are used as input to the calculation.
The following voltages are to be used according to EN
50160 [31]:	On LV networks, for 4-wire 3-phase systems, the lineto-neutral voltages shall be considered;	On LV networks, for 3-wire 3-phase systems the lineto-line voltages shall be considered;	On LV networks, in the case of a single-phase connection,
the supply voltage (line-to-line or line-to-neutral,according to the network user connection) shall beconsidered; and	Typically, on MV and HV networks, the line-to-line
voltages shall be considered.
The recommendations in CIGRE TB 412 [32] are along thesame lines.
Once the appropriate voltages have been sampled, thedip characteristics can be determined. The standard EN
61000-4-30 defines 2 characteristics [33]:	The residual voltage is the lowest r.m.s. voltage in anyof the measurement channels during the event; and	The duration of the voltage dip is the time during which
the r.m.s. voltage is below a dip threshold in at least oneof the measurement channels.

7.7.2 Site incidents
From the voltage dips recorded at 1 location over a periodof typically 1 year, site indicators can be calculated. These
are typically the number of voltage dips with characteristics
within a certain range.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

219

TABLE B.4 CLASSIFICATION OF VOLTAGE DIPS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD EN 50160
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

90 > u ≥ 80

CELL A1

CELL A2

CELL A3

CELL A4

CELL A580 > u ≥ 70

CELL B1

CELL B2

CELL B3

CELL B4

CELL B570 > u ≥ 40

CELL C1

CELL C2CELL C3

CELL C4CELL C540 > u ≥ 5

CELL D1

CELL D2

CELL D3

CELL D4

CELL D5

5>u

CELL X1

CELL X2

CELL X3

CELL X4

CELL X5

For each of the cells in Table B-4 the number of events
per year is presented. To obtain this number of events, 2
levels of aggregation are needed: poly-phase aggregation(any difference in treatment for voltage dips in 1, 2 and 3phases); and time aggregation (any difference in treatment
for multiple dips based on the time elapsed between these
events).

System indicators
When the site indicators are available at a sufficient numberof locations, so called “system indicators” can be determined.
The system indicators can be the average of the site
indicators over all sites (with or without the use of weighting
factors) or a percentile value of the site indicators.
According to the recommendations given in CIGRE TB
412 [32] a number of percentile values should be used, forexample the 25%, 50%, 75%, 90% and 95% values.

FranceTABLE B.5 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE TRANSMISSIONNETWORKS IN FRANCE IN 2010
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

90 > u ≥ 80

24

1.6

0.73

0.11

0.23

0.05

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

80 > u ≥ 70

5.4

0.38

70 > u ≥ 40

3.3

0.33

0.27

0.15

40 > u ≥ 5

0.41

0.14

0.06

0

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

5>u

TABLE B.6 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE TRANSMISSIONNETWORKS IN FRANCE IN 2011
Residual
Voltage u[%]

10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

90 > u ≥ 80

26

2

0.91

0.25

80 > u ≥ 70

6.4

0.38

0.31

0.07

70 > u ≥ 40

3.6

0.37

0.32

0.16

40 > u ≥ 5

0.48

0.23

0.09

0.04

5>u

Duration t [ms]5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

220

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

TABLE B.7 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE TRANSMISSIONNETWORKS IN FRANCE IN 2012
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

90 > u ≥ 80

25

1.1

0.52

0.35

80 > u ≥ 70

5.9

0.39

0.17

0.04

70 > u ≥ 40

3.2

0.35

0.18

0.16

40 > u ≥ 5

0.55

0.13

0.07

0.04

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

5>u

TABLE B.8 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE TRANSMISSIONNETWORKS IN FRANCE IN 2013
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

90 > u ≥ 80

30

1.6

0.65

0.15

80 > u ≥ 70

7.4

0.29

0.27

0.03

70 > u ≥ 40

4.9

0.48

0.12

0.21

40 > u ≥ 5

0.75

0.23

0.07

0.06

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

5>u

TABLE B.9 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE TRANSMISSIONNETWORKS IN FRANCE IN 2014
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

90 > u ≥ 80

30

1.5

0.56

0.06

80 > u ≥ 70

6.9

0.34

0.21

0.04

70 > u ≥ 40

3.6

0.33

0.17

0.14

40 > u ≥ 5

0.45

0.15

0.07

0.05

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

5>uNorwayTABLE B.10 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS (1) PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE DISTRIBUTIONNETWORKS IN NORWAY IN 2014
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms] (2)10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

90 > u ≥ 80

8.00

5.53

1.29

0.21

1.16

80 > u ≥ 70

4.54

3.58

1.39

0.12

1.12

70 > u ≥ 40

1.80

1.47

1.14

0.08

0.66

40 > u ≥ 5

0.51

0.45

0.76

0.05

0.69

5>u

0.42

0.30

0.60

0.14

0.11

(1)	“Beta-version” after first reporting of voltage quality.
(2) The duration intervals differ from the intervals given in the voltage dip classification table in EN 50160.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

Portugal
The data presented in the tables for dips and swellsrefers to the number of voltage events by the numberof monitored points of the network. For the TSO,

221

in 2014, data from 32 delivery points were considered,measured in the HV busbars of the EHV/HV substations.
For the DSO, in 2014, data from 70 delivery points wereconsidered, measured in the MV busbars of the HV/MV
substations.

TABLE B.11 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE DISTRIBUTIONNETWORKS IN PORTUGAL IN 2014
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

90 > u ≥ 80

46.97

6.26

6.74

1.15

0.11

80 > u ≥ 70

14.64

2.25

3.07

0.24

0.03

70 > u ≥ 40

13.23

3.62

3.29

0.65

40 > u ≥ 5

4.37

2.58

0.80

0.20

5>u

0.06

0.03

0.05

0.02

TABLE B.12 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS PER NUMBER OF MONITORED POINTS IN THE TRANSMISSIONNETWORKS IN PORTUGAL IN 2014
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

90 > u ≥ 80

40.97

1.5

0.81

0.63

80 > u ≥ 70

12.06

0.59

0.34

0.16

70 > u ≥ 40

11.59

0.72

0.13

0.31

40 > u ≥ 5

1.97

0.31

0.09

0.09

5>u

0.03

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

Slovenia
The data represent only the DSO level. The data for the
TSO level are unavailable.

TABLE B.13 NUMBER OF VOLTAGE DIPS IN THE DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS IN SLOVENIA IN 2014
Residual
Voltage u[%]

Duration t [ms]10 < t ≤ 200

200 < t ≤ 500

500 < t ≤ 1,000

1,000 < t ≤ 5,000

5,000 < t ≤ 60,000

90 > u ≥ 80

21,211

1,207

712

389

120

80 > u ≥ 70

8,103

471

218

279

35

70 > u ≥ 40

9,142

821

319

149

17

40 > u ≥ 5

3,489

1,808

144

70

15

5>u

1,053

853

182

67

813

222

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

Part 3 – Main Work of the European Energy
Regulators on Voltage Quality
TABLE B.14 MAIN WORK OF THE EUROPEAN ENERGY REGULATORS ON VOLTAGE
Title of the report or description of the activity

Year

Reference

3 Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply

2005

C05-QOS-01-03

CEER cooperation with CENELEC on

2006

EN 50160:2010

Public Consultation Paper ‘Towards Voltage Quality Regulation in Europe’2006

E06-EQS-09-03

Conclusions Paper ‘Towards Voltage Quality Regulation in Europe’ (andevaluation of comments paper)

2007

E07-EQS-15-03

E. Fumagalli, L. Lo Schiavo, F. Delestre, “Service quality regulationin electricity distribution and retail”

2007

Book by Springer Verlag

4th Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply

2008

C08-EQS-24-04

Round table “CEER/Eurelectric cooperation on continuity of supply
and voltage quality requirements and incentives”

2009

RT.2b @ CIRED 2009

CEER-Eurelectric workshop on voltage quality monitoring

2009

-

CEER Guidelines of Good Practice on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity
Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances and accompanying “Study on
Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances”

2010

C10-EQS-41-03
TR F6978Final Guidelines of Good Practice on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Meteringfor Electricity and Gas

2011

E10-RMF-29-05

CEER-Eurelectric Round Table “Voltage quality monitoring, dip classification
and responsibility sharing”

2011

RT.2a @ CIRED 2011

5th Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply 2011

2012

-

CEER-ECRB, “Guidelines of Good Practice on the Implementation and Useof Voltage Quality Monitoring Systems for Regulatory Purposes”

2012

C12-EQS-51-03

rd‘Voltage characteristics of electricity supplied by public electricity networks’

CEER Benchmarking Report 5.1 on the continuity of electricity supply

2014

C13-EQS-57-03

CEER Benchmarking Report 5.2 on the continuity of electricity supply

2015

C14-EQS-62-03

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX B TO CHAPTER “ELECTRICITY – VOLTAGE QUALITY”

223

224

ANNEX CGAS – TECHNICALOPERATIONALQUALITY

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX C TO CHAPTER “GAS - TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL QUALITY”

225

TABLE C.1 LENGTH OF PIPESCountry

Austria

Belgium

CroatiaYear

Length oftransmission
network (in km)

Length ofLength of highdistribution network pressure network(in km)(in km)Length of medium
pressure network(in km)Length of low
pressure network(in km)2010

33,027

6,829

33,027

3,685

3,143

2011

33,594

6,793

33,594

3,685

3,108

2012

34,044

6,884

34,044

3,674

3,210

2013

34,476

7,100

34,476

3,990

3,109

2014

34,7587,169

34,758

4,041

3,129

2010

4,037

64,4383,565

472,000

50,422

2011

4,097

64,8683,628

469,000

51,596
52,688

2012

4,060

66,232

3,596

464,000

2013

4,056

67,1973,593

463,000

53,472

2014

4,023

71,2203,573

450,000

56,465

2010

2,289

18,044

2011

2,511

18,123

2012

2,530

18,368

3,771

13,957

3,170

2013

2,662

18,576

3,900

13,988

3,351

2014

2,694

19,313

3,946

14,874

3,187

2011

3,652

61,018

12,95136,889

11,178
10,861

2010
Czech Republic

2012

3,810

61,281

13,02237,392

2013

3,816

61,34813,00637,543

10,791

2014

3,821

61,415

12,98637,72910,699185,177

10,983
10,7392010
Estonia

Finland2011

878,000

2,085

2012

878,000

2,097

2013

885,000

2,108

2014

885,000

2,118

2010

1,188

1,878

2011

1,314

1,931

2012

1,315

1,963

2013

1,287

1,984

2014

1,287

2010
FranceGermany

Hungary

Ireland

1,986
192,144

2011

8,260

193,340

4,244

186,617

2012

8,340

194,601

4,313

188,211

10,417

2013

8,380

195,851

4,352

189,721

10,158

2014

8,390

196,940

4,362

190,991

9,977

2010

46,829448,964

117,135

225,835

152,435

2011

39,495471,213

157,300

224,880

128,528

2012

37,695

470,433

130,547

223,076

154,5052013

37,880485,413132,058

231,624

159,6112014

37,580481,103

129,793

231,603

157,287

2010

5,577

82,619

5,577

2011

5,785

82,997

5,785

2012

5,784

83,092

5,784

2013

5,782

83,222

5,782

2014

5,782

83,530

5,782

2010

2,143

10,911

2011

2,149

11,074

2012

2,149

11,076

2013

2,149

11,160

2014

2,213

11,221

226

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX C TO CHAPTER “GAS - TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL QUALITY”

Country

Length oftransmission
network (in km)
2010

Italy

Length ofLength of highdistribution network pressure network(in km)(in km)Length of medium
pressure network(in km)Length of low
pressure network(in km)35,526102,353

145,930

33,768250,041

2011

34,135

248,648

36,110100,780

145,8932012

34,415

252,266

36,196

103,915

146,571

2013

34,510253,581362,146

103,690

148,187

2014

34,628

256,41036,367

105,331

149,340

851,000

2,518

2,147

2010
2011
Latvia2012
2013

Lithuania

PolandPortugalSlovenia

Spain

Sweden

2014

1,242

5,516

2010

1,062

8,053

2011

1,062

8,090

2,341

3,939

3,679

2012

1,098

8,206

2,389

4,021

3,700

2013

1,201

8,337

2,505

4,111

3,728

2014

1,201

8,473

2,508

4,208

3,764

1,192

16,182

2010

9,753

148,2242011

10,537150,800
171,786

2012

10,7182013

10,761

161,655

2014

11,007

178,487

2010

1,267

14,840

1,267

2011

1,296

15,433

1,296

2012

1,298

15,878

1,298

2013

1,375

16,291

1,375

2014

1,375

17,374

1,375

2010

1,018

4,163

2,427

635,000

2,119

2011

1,054

4,305

2,541

644,000

2,157
2,168

2012

1,094

4,343

2,593

676,000

2013

1,121

4,449

2,676

683,000

2,211

2014

1,155

4,532

2,748

691,000

2,248

2010

11,66562,5352011

11,73164,672

2012

12,81567,282

2013

13,492

67,696

2014

13,716

68,0902010

620,000

2,716

2011

620,000

2,708
2,854

2012

620,0002013

601,000

2,857

2014

601,000

2,882

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX C TO CHAPTER “GAS - TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL QUALITY”

227

TABLE C.2 LNUMBER OF SERVED CUSTOMERSCountryYear

Numberof served
customers
in totalHighpressurecustomers

Mediumpressurecustomers

162,000

96,00090,000Low
pressurecustomers

OtherType 1

2010
2011
Austria

1,350,842

2012

1,350,310

2013

1,350,423

2014

1,348,958

2010
Belgium

2011

165,000

2012

160,000

91,0002013

160,000

86,000157,000

85,0003,092,271

1,742

7,021

198,449

2014
2010
Croatia

Czech Republic

633,4772011

643,618

2012

646,9712013

651,0992014

649,6742010

2,870,634

2011

2,869,023

1,707

7,033

200,496

2,659,787

2012

2,868,083

1,652

6,939

202,8072,656,685

2013

2,860,345

1,637

6,946

201,274

2,650,488

2014

2,849,162

1,599

6,841

197,824

2,642,898

2010
2011
Estonia

FinlandFranceGermany

Hungary

Ireland2,663,422 (a)50,221

2012

50,261

2013

50,485

2014

51,166

2010

38,1502011

38,0092012

38,111

2013

38,101

2014

38,0492010

11,000,000

2011

11,000,000

1,000

2012

11,000,000

991,000

2013

11,000,000

951,000

2014

11,000,000

972,000

2010

13,503,145

2011

13,419,509

2012

13,698,780

2013

13,979,337

2014

13,837,257

2010

3,533,688

35,0003,533,653

2011

3,540,204

35,0003,540,169

2012

3,514,896

35,0003,514,861

2013

354,696

35,0003,467,661

2014

3,644,693

35,0003,644,658

2010

643,8312011

656,595

2012

661,8902013

666,903

2014

673,160

Other
Type 2Other
Type 3

228

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX C TO CHAPTER “GAS - TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL QUALITY”

Country

Italy

Year

Numberof served
customers
in total

Mediumpressurecustomers

Low
pressurecustomers

OtherType 1

2010

10,606

7,119,659

2011

10,465

7,117,140

2012

10,5672013

2010

21,120,814

2011

21,237,748

2012

21,358,817

2013

21,565,608

2014

21,689,304

Highpressurecustomers

OtherType 2Other
Type 3

7,127,369 (d)10,606 (f)7,119,659 (g)7,125,418

10,465

7,117,140

7,167,606

7,178,173

10,567

7,167,606

9,798

7,184,303

7,194,101

9,798

7,184,303

9,978

721,705

7,227,035

9,978

7,217,057

2010
2011
Latvia

2012
2013
2014

443,4022010
2011
Lithuania

The Netherlands

2012
2013

561,5612014

565,11420142010
Poland6,624,884

2011

6,747,364

2012

6,806,773

2013

6,806,773

2014

6,868,294

2010
2011
PortugalSlovenia

Spain

Sweden2012
2013

1,320,052

22,000393,000

1,319,637

1,299,251 (b)37,293 (e)22,000399,000

1,354,701

1,333,437

39,7652014

1,355,122

2010

128,7692011

130,2932012

131,652

2013

132,939

2014

133,230

2010

7,180,332

121,000

3,930

7,175,681

2011

7,278,501

114,000

3,949

7,273,873

565,000

600 (c)2012

7,366,468

113,000

3,877

7,361,856

622,000

2013

7,448,855

118,000

4,133

7,443,893

711,000

116,000

3,967

7,543,729

842,000

2014

7,548,654

2010

40,058

2011

39,6592012

37,7042013

37,393

2014

37,023(a) Households.
(b) Domestic.
(c) Single Customers Supplied By A LNG Satellite Plants.
(d) Total (DSO’s).
(e) Non-Domestic.
(f) P > 200 mbar (DSO’s).
(g) P ≤ 200 mbar (DSO’s).

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX C TO CHAPTER “GAS - TECHNICAL OPERATIONAL QUALITY”

229

230

ANNEX DGAS – NATURALGAS QUALITY

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX D TO CHAPTER “GAS - NATURAL GAS QUALITY”

231

TABLE D.1 OXYGEN (O2) MAXIMUM VALUE
Oxygen (O2)

Max

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Belgium

0.1

Ppm

In real time

HourlyCroatia

0.001

% mol

Twice per month

Twice per month

Czech Republic

0.020

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Estonia

0.010

% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France

0.010

% mol

5 minutes

Not publishedGreat Britain

0.200

% mol

Hungary

0.200

% mol

OccasionallyOccasionally

Ireland

0.200

% mol

Monthly

Yearly

Italy

0.600

% mol

Quarterly

Latvia

0.020

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Lithuania

0.5 (1)% mol

In real time

Not published% mol

In real timeMonthly

Daily

0.02 (2)Poland0.200

Portugal

% mol

Spain

0.010

% mol

CEN

0.001 or 1 (3)% mol(1) If the pressure P < 1.6 MPa.
(2) If the pressure P ≥ 1.6 MPa.
(3)	At network entry points and interconnection points the mole fraction of oxygen shall be no more than 0.001 %, expressed as a moving 24 hour average.
However, where the gas can be demonstrated not to flow to installations sensitive to higher levels of oxygen, e.g. underground storage systems, a higher
limit of up to 1 % may be applied.

TABLE D.2 CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) MAXIMUM VALUE
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Max

Unit

Belgium

2.5

% mol

5 minutes

Not publishedCroatia

2.5

% mol

Twice per month

Twice per month
Monthly

Czech Republic

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

3.0

% mol

In real time

Estonia

No limit% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France2.5% mol

5 minutes

Not published

Hungary

No limit% mol

4 minutes

Daily

Ireland

2.5

% mol

Monthly

Yearly

Italy

3.0

% mol

HourlyMonthly

Latvia2.5% mol

In real timeMonthly% mol

In real timeMonthly

Lithuania
The Netherlands

2.5

% mol

Poland3.0% mol

In real timeMonthly

Portugal% mol

In real timeMonthly

Slovenia

2.5

% mol

Hourly

Daily

Spain

2.5

% mol

Daily

NA

CEN

2.5 or 4 (1)% mol(1)	At network entry points and interconnection points the mole fraction of carbon dioxide shall be no more than 2.5%. However, where the gas can be demonstrated
not to flow to installations sensitive to higher levels of carbon dioxide, e.g. underground storage systems, a higher limit of up to 4 % may be applied.

232

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX D TO CHAPTER “GAS - NATURAL GAS QUALITY”

TABLE D.3 METHANE (CH4) MINIMUM VALUE
Methane (CH4)

Min

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Croatia

85.0

% mol

Twice per month

Twice per month

Czech Republic

85.0

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Estonia

No limit% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France

91.1

% mol

5 minutes

Daily

Hungary

No limit% mol

4 minutes

Daily

% mol

Monthly

YearlyIreland
Italy

% mol

HourlyMonthly

Latvia

90.0

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Lithuania

90.0

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Poland

92.0

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Portugal% mol

In real timeMonthly

Slovenia% molHourly

Daily

NA

NA

Spain

No limit, except for biogas 95.0

% mol

CEN

65.0

% mol

TABLE D.4 ETHANE (C2H6) MAXIMUM VALUE
Ethane (C2H6)

Min

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Croatia

7.00

% mol

Twice per month

Twice per month

Czech Republic

7.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

No limit% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France

6.10

% mol

5 minutes

Daily

Hungary

No limit% mol

4 minutes

Daily

Ireland

12.00

% mol

Monthly

Yearly% molHourlyMonthly% mol

In real timeMonthly% mol

In real timeMonthly% mol

In real timeMonthly% molHourlyDaily

Estonia

Italy
Latvia8.00

Lithuania
Poland4.00

Slovenia

TABLE D.5 PROPANE (C3H8 ) MAXIMUM VALUE
Propane (C3H8)

Min

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Croatia

6.00

% mol

Twice per month

Twice per month

Czech Republic

3.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Estonia

No limit% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France

1.03

% mol

5 minutes

Daily

Hungary

No limit% mol

4 minutes

Daily

% mol

Monthly

YearlyIreland
Italy

% mol

HourlyMonthly

Latvia

3.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Lithuania

3.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Poland% mol

In real timeMonthly

Slovenia% molHourlyDaily

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX D TO CHAPTER “GAS - NATURAL GAS QUALITY”

233

TABLE D.6 NITROGEN (N2 ) MAXIMUM VALUE
Nitrogen (N2)

Min

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Croatia

3.00

% mol

Twice per month

Twice per month

Czech Republic

5.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Estonia

No limit% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France

1.59

% mol

5 minutes

Daily

Hungary

No llimit% mol

4 minutes

Daily

Ireland

5.00

% mol

Monthly

YearlyHourlyMonthly

Latvia

3.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Lithuania

5.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Poland

2.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Hourly

Daily

Italy

Slovenia

TABLE D.7 SUM OF BUTANES MAXIMUM VALUE
Sum of Butanes

Max

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Czech Republic

2.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Estonia

No limit% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France

0.26

% mol

5 minutes

Daily

Hungary

No limit% mol

4 minutes

Daily

Ireland% mol

Monthly

Yearly

Italy

% mol

HourlyMonthly

Latvia

1.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Lithuania

1.00

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Poland% mol

In real timeMonthly

Slovenia% molHourlyDaily

TABLE D.8 SUM OF PENTANES AND HIGHER HYDROCARBONS MAXIMUM VALUE
Sum of Pentanes
and Higher
Hydrocarbons
Czech Republic

Max

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

0.50

% mol

In real timeMonthly

Estonia

No limit% mol

5 minutes

Monthly

France

0.03

% mol

5 minutes

Daily

Hungary

No limit% mol

4 minutes

Daily

Monthly

YearlyIreland
Italy

% mol

LatviaLithuania
PolandSlovenia

2.00

% mol

HourlyMonthly

In real timeMonthly, 10 days

In real timeMonthly

In real timeMonthly

Hourly

Daily

234

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX D TO CHAPTER “GAS - NATURAL GAS QUALITY”

TABLE D.9 DELIVERY TEMPERATURE VALUES
DeliveryTemperature

Min

Max

Unit

Measurement
frequency

Publication
frequency

Belgium

2.0

38.0

°C

In real time

HourlyEstonia

0.0

50.0

°C

France

-30.0

50.0

°C

5 minutes

Not published

Hungary

0.0°C

In real time

Daily

°C

In real time

Not published°C

In real time

Not publishedNot published

LatviaLithuania
The Netherlands

10.0

30.0

°C

Poland

0.0

50.0

°C

In real time

42.0

°C

In real time

Slovenia

TABLE D.10 DUST PARTICLES MAXIMUM VALUES
Dust Particles

Max

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

5.0

3FranceHungarymg/m

Not measured

Not measured

5.0

mg/m3

OccasionallyOccasionally

Latvia

0.001

g/m3

10 daysMonthly, 10 days

Lithuania

0.001

Monthly

Not published

The Netherlands

100.0

mg/m

Poland1.0

mg/m3

In real timeMonthly

Spain

Technically pure3

TABLE D.11 HYDROGEN (H2) MAXIMUM VALUE
Hydrogen (H2)

Max

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

France

6.00

% mol

5 minutes

Not publishedGreat Britain

0.1

% mol

Ireland

0.10

% mol

Monthly

YearlyLithuania

2.00 (1)% molTwice per year

Not published

The Netherlands

0.02

% mol

No limit, except for biogas: 5.00

% mol

Spain

(1)	If P < 1.6 MPa not allowed if P ≥ 1.6 MPa.

TABLE D.12 WATER (H2O) MAXIMUM VALUE
Water (H2O)

Min

Max

Unit

France83.0

Hungary
Lithuania

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

99.0

3

mg/m

5 minutes

Daily

170.0

mg/m3

10 minutes

Daily

Monthly

Not publishedNot allowed

TABLE D.13 CARBON MONOXYDE (CO) MAXIMUM VALUE
CarbonMonoxyde (CO)

Max

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

France2.0% mol

5 minutes

Not publishedGreat Britain

0.48

% mol

The Netherlands

2.9

% mol

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX D TO CHAPTER “GAS - NATURAL GAS QUALITY”

235

TABLE D.14 INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION FACTOR MAXIMUM VALUE
Incomplete
Combustion Factor

Max

Unit

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Ireland

0.48%

Monthly

YearlySlovenia

HourlyTABLE D.15 SOOT INDEX MAXIMUM VALUE
Soot Index

Max

Unit

Great Britain

0.6%

Ireland

0.6%

Slovenia

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

Monthly

YearlyHourlyTABLE D.16 THT (C4H8S) VALUES
THT (C4H8S)

Min

Max

Unit

France

15.0

40.0

mg/m

3

Measurement frequency

Publication frequency

5 minutes

5 minutes

236

ANNEX ON THE 6TH
CEER BENCHMARKINGREPORT – QUALITY OF
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN
THE ENERGY COMMUNITY1

1.	Approved by the ECRB Board in May 2016.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

237

1. INTRODUCTION

238

1.1 ABOUT ECRB

238

1.2 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE

238

1.3 METHODOLOGY

239

1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

239

2. CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY

240

2.1 INTRODUCTION

240

2.2	CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY MONITORING		
2.2.1 Types of interruptions monitored		
2.2.2 Planned and unplanned interruptions
		
2.2.3 Voltage levels monitored		
2.2.4 Classification of the interruption’s cause		
2.2.5 Exceptional events

241
241
243
244
244
245

2.3 CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY INDICATORS		
2.3.1 Level of detail of the calculated indicator		
2.3.2 Indices for long and short interruptions

247
247
248

2.4 ANALYSIS OF DATA ON CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY		
2.4.1 Interruptions originated on different voltage levels		
2.4.2 The evaluation of the impact of exceptional events
		
2.4.3 Network characteristicss

249
250
251
253

2.5 CONTINUITY STANDARDS AND INCENTIVE SCHEMES

254

2.6 EXPECTED DEVELOPMENTS ON CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY REGULATION

255

2.7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY

255

3. VOLTAGE QUALITY
3.1 INTRODUCTION

262
262

3.2	VOLTAGE QUALITY LEGISLATION, REGULATION AND STANDARDIZATION		
3.2.1 Introducing EN 50160
		
3.2.2 Legislation and regulations that differ from EN 50160
		
3.2.3 Obligations for monitoring voltage quality		
3.2.4 Individual information on voltage quality		
3.2.5 Emission limits

263
263
263
264
264
265

3.3 VOLTAGE QUALITY MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DATA
		
3.3.1 Development of voltage quality monitoring systems		
3.3.2 Smart meters and voltage quality monitoring		
3.3.3 Data collection, aggregation and publication from VQMS
		
3.3.4 Actual data for voltage dips, other VQ parameters and mitigation measures

265
265
265
266
266

3.4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON VOLTAGE QUALITY

4. COMMERCIAL QUALITY

266

269

4.1 INTRODUCTION

269

4.2	OVERVIEW OF COMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS IN CPS

269

4.3	MAIN RESULTS OF BENCHMARKING COMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS
		
4.2.1 Group I – Connection		
4.2.2 Group II – Customer Care		
4.2.3 Group III – Technical Service		
4.2.4 Group IV – Billing and metering
4.4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON COMMERCIAL QUALITY

APPENDIX A – LIST OF TABLES

271
271
271
272
273
273

276

238

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. ABOUT ECRBThe Energy Community 2 comprises Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Kosovo* 3, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine.
Armenia, Georgia, Turkey and Norway are ObserverCountries. The key aim of the organization is to extend
the EU internal energy market to South East Europe andbeyond on the basis of a legally binding framework.
The Energy Community Regulatory Board (ECRB) operates
based on the Energy Community Treaty. As an institutionof the Energy Community ECRB advises the Energy
Community Ministerial Council and Permanent High Level
Group on details of statutory, technical and regulatory
rules and makes recommendations in the case of crossborder disputes between regulators.

In 2011 ECRB members participated in the 5th CEER Qualityof Supply Benchmarking Report to which the analysis for
the ECRB member countries – performed based on the
CEER benchmarking indicators – was added as an annex.
Following the well established ECRB-CEER cooperation
tradition on the very topic, the present benchmarking
report represents an annex to the “6th CEER Benchmarking
Report 4 on Quality of Electricity Supply”, covering theEnergy Community Contracting Parties (CPs) Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Kosovo*, 5Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine.
This report covers all three aspects of quality of electricity
supply, namely:
Continuity of Supply (CoS),
Voltage Quality (VQ) andCommercial Quality (CQ).

ECRB is the independent regional voice of energy
regulators in the Energy Community. ECRB’s mission builds
on three pillars: providing coordinated regulatory positions
to energy policy debates, harmonizing regulatory rules
across borders and sharing regulatory knowledge andexperience.

In general, the present report aims to present an
overview and analysis of current practices in the CPs.
It also provides an assessment of areas where a movetowards harmonisation could further improve quality ofsupply. The findings and recommendations of the reportwill hopefully lead to further development of national
regulation and harmonization among the CPs.

1.2. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE

Chapter 2 of the report deals with continuity of supply
related to the availability of electricity. It provides an
overview of the existing quality of service regulation
frameworks of continuity of supply applied in the CPs.
Analyses in this chapter are made on the basis of data from
CoS measurements and statistics as well as on the basis of
information on: audits on continuity data; regulation andstandards on continuity of supply; incentive mechanisms
for continuity of supply and effects of continuity of supply
incentive regimes.

Quality of electricity supply as a topic was introduced
into the ECRB Work Program already in 2008; the first
ECRB “Report on Quality of Electricity Service Standards
and Incentives in Quality Regulation” was published in2009. Also, during 2009 and 2010, the ECRB organized twoworkshops which were followed by the report “Assistanceto regulators in introducing and improving service quality
regulation in the Energy Community”, published in 2010.

2.	www.energy-community.org.
3.	Throughout this document the symbol * refers to the following statement: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in linewith UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
4.	The Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) prepares a Benchmarking Report on the Quality of Electricity Supply every few years. The first report
was issued in 2001, followed by the second, third and fourth editions in 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2011. These five benchmarking reports, published up tonow, present an overview and analysis of practices in the CEER countries related to quality of electricity supply.
5.	This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Chapter 3 is dedicated to voltage quality. In simple terms,
voltage quality deals with deviations from nominal
values of voltage frequency and voltage magnitudeand by distortions. This chapter provides an overview
of existing practice in voltage quality monitoring
and regulation in transmission and distribution ofelectricity in the CPs and covers VQ regulation andlegislation, voltage quality monitoring system (VQMS),
data collection, aggregation and publication from
VQMS, VQ indicators, actual data for voltage dips, other
VQ parameters, mitigation measures and studies on
estimation of costs due to poor voltage quality.
Chapter 4 focuses on commercial quality, which relates
to the nature and quality of customer services provided
to end-consumers of electricity. Commercial quality is
directly associated with transactions between electricity
companies (either DSOs or suppliers, or both) andcustomers. Commercial quality covers not only the supply
and sale of electricity, but also various forms of contacts
between electricity companies and customers. The
questionnaires on commercial quality were divided in thefollowing groups: connection related activities, customer
care, technical service, metering and billing. Therefore,
this chapter also follows that grouping.

239

1.3. METHODOLOGY
The analysis for the Energy Community is based on
indicators used by CEER for its benchmarking analysis.
To this extent the assessment for the CPs bases on thesame definitions and theoretical background as definedfor the EU Member States, in particular with a view toensure comparability.

1.4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ECRB expresses its gratitude for the colleagues fromthe regulatory authorities (RAs), transmission system
operators (TSOs) and distribution system operators(DSOs) from the Energy Community Contracting Parties
for participating in the present analysis. In this context
special thanks are also addressed to Mr Srdjan Žutobradić,
Mrs Milodarka Dautović and Mr Nikola Dubajić for theireffort in preparing this survey. At the same time ECRB
also expresses its appreciation for the support received
from the EU regulators on CEER level.

240

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

2 CONTINUITY
OF SUPPLY
2.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the existing quality
service regulation frameworks of continuity of supply(CoS) applied in the Energy Community CPs.
This section will place a special focus on generalexperiences, experiences with the implementation
processes and possible future improvements ofthe systems in place. Although there is some minor
evidence on better developed regulation frameworks(by means of minimal standards on continuity of supply
as well as the implementation of incentive schemesin particular CPs), most of the observed CPs are ina very early stages of the development of service
quality regulation. The main focus within this chapter
is therefore put on the characteristics of CoS monitoring
schemes in distribution and transmission. The proper
application of such schemes is the precondition for the
future framework extensions.

For some rare cases with applied minimal standards oncontinuity of supply, as well as reward/penalty schemes,
examples of existing regulatory practice in the area will
be presented.
Review and analysis of collected data on continuity ofsupply show also the differences in timing and scope of
CoS monitoring development among CPs. Consequently,
countries were not able to provide the complete data set
on different aspects of CoS monitoring and regulation
expected from the questionnaire.
Continuity of supply is examined from different aspects
and categorized into the following chapters:
Continuity monitoring
Audits on continuity data
Regulation and standards on continuity of supply
Incentive mechanisms for continuity of supply
Effects of continuity of supply incentive regimes
Information on the provided data on continuity of supply
is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1 INDICATION OF WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION ON CONTINUITY OF SUPPLYHAS BEEN PROVIDED BY DIFFERENT COUNTRIESCountry

Continuity
measurement

Albania

X (Partially)

Audits on
continuity data

Regulationand standards
on continuityof supply

Incentive
mechanisms
for continuityof supply

Effects ofData on Network
continuity ofand Continuity
supply incentive
indicators
regimesBosnia andHerzegovina

X

FYR of Macedonia

X

X

X (Partially)

Kosovo*X

X

X (Partially)

Montenegro

X

X

X (Partially)

SerbiaX

X

X

X (Partially)

UkraineX

X

X

X (Partially)

X (Partially)6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

It can be concluded from Table 1 that most of the analyzed
elements are not applicable due to an early stage ofcontinuity of supply regulation implementation in all
CPs. The lack of data limits the scope of benchmarking of
the actual levels and trends of continuity of supply among
different CPs.
According to the current status of implementation,
the following chapters mainly focus on an overview ofthe monitoring concepts, on the aspects and on thecharacteristics of regulation frameworks applied (including
standards on continuity of supply). The aim is to benchmark
the implementation process of continuity of supply
monitoring and regulation, and to look deeper into related
prerequisites, namely:
the establishment of legal framework,usage of standards and guidelines of good practice,the implementation of the continuity of supply monitoring
system,continuity standards and incentive schemes.
Such structured information should be useful for NRAs
that have plans to introduce quality regulation regime indepth in the future.
In the subsequent sections different terms for the network
user are used:customerconsumer(network) user
While the “network user” (or simply “user”), comprisingboth generator and consumer, is certainly the mostappropriate term, different terms with the same meaning
are used having in mind that there is no harmonized useof terms in place in the analyzed markets.
Also, different terminology is used when referring to
the responsible party for continuity of supply. Although
the Electricity Directive EC/72/2009 defines the terms
transmission system operator and distribution system
operator, or simply system operator, the concept of system
operation refers to dispatching of generators and it isdifferent from network ownership and operation.

2.2 CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY MONITORING
Monitoring of quality levels by using indicators andstandards represents the basis for regulating quality. In
general, the actual monitoring of continuity of supply
can be performed on two different levels, namely on
the system level and on the consumer-specific level.
The implementation of adequate monitoring systems
is essential for setting standards as well as penalties andrewards related to both monitoring levels.

6.	E.g. by adopting standards as EN 50160 and others.

241

In the CPs monitoring of continuity of supply is
performed in different ways – including different typesof interruptions, different sets of indicators as well as
different reporting detail. The following sections pinpoint
the differences as well as concepts that are harmonizedamong the CPs. The harmonization, where existing, is nota result of legal enforcement but it has been implemented
following examples of good practice in the EU 6.
An overview on monitoring techniques and results ispresented in this section.

2.2.1. Types of interruptions monitored
All CPs use some sort of monitoring of interruptions
as shown in Table 2. The focus of the CPs is mainly on
long interruptions (duration > 3 minutes). The qualitative
information on long interruptions is essential for calculationof continuity indicators that are widely used in regulation.
Three regulators declare to have access to the information
regarding the number of short-term interruptions: shortinterruptions are monitored in the Ukraine, FYR Macedonia,
and in a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this context it isimportant to explain the way how short interruptions are
currently monitored, especially due to the fact that SCADA
is not yet fully implemented in the networks of CPs. The
CPs that reported monitoring of short interruptions wereadditionally asked to provide brief information on thetype of measurement method that is used, i.e. manual
recording, usage of SCADA DMS, local substation logging,counter readings on reclosing devices or other methods.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina most of the distribution
facilities do not have equipment for remote supervisionand control installed (except facilities of one out of thefive distribution companies which have SCADA systeminstalled). All (short and long) interruptions are recorded
manually and stored locally in registers (registry books).
Contingency statistics are recorded manually by thestaff on duty.
Registered data are consolidated in the main dispatching
centers for the distribution network control. These data
are subject to checks by the regulatory commission staff
during monitoring activities.
Considering the general lack of SCADA, it can be concluded
that local substation logging and counter readings on
reclosing relays are most commonly used practice forrecording the interruptions.
Unplanned long interruptions are monitored in all
countries. However, not all countries monitor this typeof interruptions at all voltage levels.

242

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Moreover, usually there is also a distinct and separate
data collection for planned and unplanned interruptions.
An “on time” announcement of the planned action reduces
the effect of the interruption on the consumer.
Bosnia and Herzegovina and FYR Macedonia have also
accomplished to set some rules with limited scope (SCADA
installed at certain voltage level or proprietary solutions
by DSOs), the other CPs either have not set any rules yet orare planning to establish the rules and implement SCADA
in the future.

Nearly half of the CPs has established some sort ofstandardized way for recording and reporting applied bymeans of dedicated application software or by the use of
harmonized forms for data collection. This is usually a resultof national regulations imposing obligations for companies
to implement reporting without taking into consideration
technical preconditions for interruption monitoring and time
for such implementation. EU experiences showed that this is
not the best approach and such practice should be graduallyreplaced by the automated logging of interruptions by
SCADA and associate software solutions (DMS, GIS etc.).

TABLE 2 TYPES OF INTERRUPTIONS MONITOREDCountry

Transient

Short

AlbaniaLong Unplanned Planned
X

X

Rules for automatic logging
of interruptions (i.e. SCADA)

Standardized system for recording
and reporting of interruptions

No

No

X

Bosnia andHerzegovina

X, partly(E RS only)

X

X

X

Partly.
Yes, there is a uniform form for keeping
Some DSO use proprietary software records on interruptions in electricity
for processing of interruptions, supply and reporting forms prescribedsome use SCADA system at MV.
by Regulatory Commission.

FYR ofMacedonia

X

X

X

X

SCADA comprising 110 kV
substations that have possibility forremote records of interruptions.

DSO should keep records
and report to ERC

Kosovo*

X

X

X

No
(TSO has installed SCADA in 2011
and are able to record interruptions
on HV also in some MV feeders

DSO should keep records for longinterruptions(planed/unplanned)
and report to ERO

Montenegro

X

X

X

SCADA for transmission

Yes, for long interruptions only

SerbiaUkraine

X

X

X

X

No

Standardized form for recording andreporting of long interruptions is prescribedby the Information Rules issued by the NRA

X

X

X

No

Yes (approved by the NERC)

Definitions related the duration of long, short, and transientinterruptions in different countries are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3 DEFINITIONS OF LONG, SHORT AND TRANSIENT INTERRUPTIONSCountry
Albania

Transient

Short

Long

< 3 min< 15 min> 15 minBosnia and Herzegovina

Not defined

1 s < T ≤ 3min

> 3 min

FYR of Macedonia

Not defined

1.5 s < T ≤ 3 min> 3 min

Kosovo*Not defined< 3 min> 3 minMontenegro

Not defined≤ 3 min> 3 minSerbiaNot definedNot defined> 3 minUkraineNot used< 3 min≥ 3 min

Albanian definitions significantly differ from the rest of thecountries as well as from definitions that can be found in
standards (EN 50160) where the unplanned interruption(“accidental supply interruption”) is classified as:a long interruption (>3 min),a short interruption (≤ 3 min).
The deviation in Ukraine, where an interruption lasting
exactly three minutes is classified as long interruption, is minor
and therefore not significant; the same can be concluded
for Kosovo*, where the same type of interruptions (durationof exactly three minutes) are excluded from monitoring.
Furthermore, some minor differences in definitionscan
be found also for the duration of short interruptions,especially at setting the lower limits: some definitions
do not set lower bounds; some set the limit at 1.0 second
or 1.5 seconds.
Albania is also the only CP that defines the type of transientinterruptions; the transient interruptions in Albania wouldclassify as short interruptions in other countries.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

2.2.2. Planned and unplanned interruptions
An overview of the definitions used for unplanned andplanned interruptions, as well as rule on advance notice
regarding the planned interruptions is given in Table 4.
The majority of CPs has set definitions for bothplanned and unplanned interruptions referring to theavailability of advance notices to customers. Both typesof interruptions are monitored accordingly.
A planned interruption is defined in EN 50160 (“prearranged
supply interruption”) as an interruption for which customers
are informed in advance, to allow the execution ofscheduled works on the distribution system.

243

An unplanned interruption is defined in EN 50160(“accidental supply interruption”) as an interruption
caused by permanent or transient faults, mostly related
to the external events, equipment failures or interference.
Most CPs use similar definitions for planned interruptions.
However, they do not refer to EN 50160 or any other references,such as international guidelines or norms. Advanced
notification is necessary for an interruption to be classified as aplanned interruption. More detailed descriptions of definitions,comprising also some information on exemptions, were
provided by Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
All CPs have issued the rules on notice to customers
affected, whereas the requirements for advance noticevary between 24 hours up to 10 days.

TABLE 4 DEFINITIONS OF PLANNED AND UNPLANNED INTERRUPTIONSCountry

Transient

Short

Long

Albaniacustomers are noticed
in advance

All breakdowns not noticed
in advance

Rules and procedures for giving
notice defined by DSO are applied(72 hours in advance)

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Planned interruptions arethose announced ones for the
purposes of doing planned
activities of regular andextraordinary maintenance,
inspection and overhaul,connections of new customers,
testing and control of measuring
and protection devices andenlargement of the network.

Non-planned interruptions arethose non-announced ones.
If the planned interruption
lasts longer than it has beenannounced, the time above theplanned is included in the nonplanned interruptions which theoperator is responsible forDistributor is obliged to inform the end-users
on the term and expected time of durationof the planned interruption, no later than
24h (RS)/48h (FBiH) before the plannedinterruption as follows:• f or end-users at medium voltage – directly
by phone along with the written notice on
information details by fax or email and• f or end-users at low voltage – in the mass
media, in a clear and appropriate way

FYR of Macedonia

An interruption notified
in advance to all affectedcustomers with adequate notice

An interruption non notified
in advance to all affectedcustomers or notified withinadequate notice

Timely in written form in case of singe
customer affected, 24 hour in advancein case of group of customers affected
Where the TSO and DSO carries out planned
service interruptions on the distribution
system it shall use its best endeavors to ensurethat it provides a minimum of 24 hours notice
to at least 90% of the affected customers.
For the purposes of this standard, the noticegiven to affected customers shall be in theform of announcements through local TV andradio for interruptions that occurs in local areas(limited) and where the proposed interruption is
widespread, through a national TV and suitablehigh-circulation daily national newspaper

Kosovo*An interruption notified
An interruption non notified
in advance to all affectedin advance to all affectedcustomers with adequate notice. customers.

Montenegro

An interruption notified
in advance to all affectedcustomers with adequate notice

An interruption non notified
in advance to all affectedcustomers (an interruption not
notified on time to all affectedcustomers)

Yes. Minimum time-lag requested is at least
24h, notice by public media or in otheradequate way

SerbiaAn interruption notified
in advance to all affectedcustomers with adequate notice

An interruption non notified
in advance to all affectedcustomers

Yes, minimum time-lag requested is at least
24h, noticed by public media or in otheradequate way

UkraineDe-energization of a part of
the network and equipment,
made by the DSO to undertake
routine repair or maintenance ofelectrical networks. Exemptions
are also definedTemporary suspension of power
supply to consumers as a result of
de-energization of a part of the
network due to the fault of otherlicensees (UTILITIES), consumers,
force majeure event, fault ofothers, technical failures in theelectrical network of the DSO

Yes
10 days for legal entities with repeated notice
1 day and 10 days for households

244

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

2.2.3. Voltage levels monitored

by incidents on own voltage level and by incidents
on all higher voltage levels that affect the observed
interruptions 7. However, interruptions that are caused on
LV remain unrecorded in case there is no manual, semiautomated (i.e. using call centre services) or automatedprocess of monitoring implemented on LV network(i.e. SCADA). The interruptions caused on LV that do notaffect the protection system under supervision of SCADA
installed on MV (or LV) or that are not reported by affectedcustomers through the call centers, don’t attribute to the
MV statistics and consequently to the CoS indicators.

The incidents at different voltage levels are monitored
in different CPs as shown in Table 5.
Incidents on MV and HV level are monitored in all CPs.
Surprisingly, most of the CPs reported that they monitor
interruptions on LV level (except Albania). The reliable
recording of interruptions on LV level (interruption register)requires big investments in equipment for protection andremote supervision and control or call center functions, and
it is not yet widely implemented in the EU Member States.

Only Ukraine, with monitoring on LV level establishedalready in 2008, is on a good way to achieve comprehensive
monitoring on all voltage levels.

Efficient monitoring of interruptions for particularvoltage levels covers the recording interruptions caused

TABLE 5 VOLTAGE LEVELS FOR WHICH MONITORING OF CONTINUITY TAKES PLACECountry

LV

Albania

X

HV

X

X

EHV

Bosnia and Herzegovina

See note

X

X

FYR of Macedonia

See note

X

X

Kosovo*See note

X

X

Montenegro

See note

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SerbiaUkraine

X (1)

X
X

(1)	Established since 2008; use of data from Call Centre IS + manual processing.
Notes:The table represents the voltage level at which incidents are recorded. The incident is typically recorded by an opening of a circuit breaker or anotherinterrupting device. The customers at that voltage level and at any lower voltage levels have their interruptions counted in that way. Although monitoringat LV level was reported by CPs, in practice LV recording is partially implemented only in Ukraine. In many CPs, the network operators usually provide thenumber of affected customers at lower voltage levels (i.e. LV) due to the interruption at certain (higher) voltage level (i.e. MV) and this number is consideredwhen calculating continuity indicators. However, this is not sufficient to be considered as monitoring of interruptions at certain voltage level.

2.2.4. Classification of the interruption’s cause
An overview of the classification of interruption causes isgiven in Table 6. Most CPs collect the information on thecause of interruptions. Such information is very importantfor both the system operator and the regulator.
From the CPs’ answers it can be concluded that
there is no harmonization related to classificationof interruption causes. It is also obvious that almost

all CPs divide causes into separate categories. 5 CPs (allexcept Montenegro and Kosovo*) use the categories“third party” or “force majeure” (in a few cases withdifferent designations).
It is interesting that Ukraine also uses the category“planned interruption without notice” – such classification
indicates quite sophisticated integration of different
databases, and implementation of interacting e-businessprocesses supporting such classification.

7.	For example, a fault at MV will result in interruption for an LV customer: such interruptions may be recorded (registered) also for LV level.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

245

TABLE 6 CAUSE CATEGORIES USED WHEN RECORDING INTERRUPTIONSCountry

Categories used whenrecording interruptions

Recordingscope(All/Onlyof specified
cause)

Separately
recordingaccording tointerruption's
cause

Albania

1) Planned interruptions
2) Force majeure3) Third Party
4) DSO Responsibility

All

Yes

The classification, which
relates to: transformers, busbars, isolators, cable, wires, etc.

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Interruptions caused by force majeure,third party responsibility and responsibilityof distributor

All

Yes

Force majeure, third
party responsibility andresponsibility of distributor

FYR of Macedonia

HV and MV: unplanned, planned, interruptions
due to force majeure, interruptions due toweather conditions, damages caused by third
persons, due to interruptions on the transmission
grid (MEPSO)

All (HV, MV)

Yes

Planned, unplanned,
interruptions due to force
majeure, interruptions due
to force weather conditions,
damages caused by third
persons, due to interruptions
on the transmission grid

Kosovo*Planned and unplanned interruptions.

All

Yes

Interruptions that result
from system faults

Montenegro

Planned works, damages in the system,
damages with customers, meteorologicalconditions, unknown causes

All

Yes

Planned works, damages inthe system, damages withcustomers, meteorologicalconditions, unknown causes

SerbiaOwn network/other energy entity/third party/
animals/force majeure/unknown/other

All

Yes

Own network/other energy
entity/third party/animals/
force majeure/unknown/otherUkrainePlanned interruption with notice;
Planned interruption without notice;unplanned (emergency) interruption throughthe fault of other licensees or consumers;
force majeure;
Unplanned (emergency) interruption throughthe fault of others;
Unplanned (emergency) interruption due tothe technical failures in the electrical networkof the licensee

All

Yes

2.2.5. Exceptional events
Exceptional weather conditions and other exceptional
circumstances can significantly affect the continuity ofsupply. Interruptions caused by exceptional events, even if
quite rare, are usually very long and/or affect a substantial
number of customers. The concept of exceptional
events may reflect the unique characteristics of each
CP’s electricity sector and the impact of severe weather
conditions in each CP.

Classification of
causes adopted

Albania, Montenegro and Serbia do not consider theconcept of exceptional events or other similar concepts
related to situations which are subject of the specifictreatment in their national quality of supply regulations.
In Serbia the information code regarding the classificationof interruptions comprises the definition of force majeure.

This section contains information on existing concepts
on exceptional events among the CPs. According to theterminology used by the CEER, the term “exceptional
events” will be used as a collective term in this section.

The concepts of different kinds of exceptional events ofother four countries are defined as described in Table
7 and can be grouped, despite of similar designation,
as follows:	extraordinary situations with significant impact on thecontinuity of supply (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia
and Ukraine);
force majeure (FYR Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo* 8).

In Table 7, exceptional events, their definitions and theirinfluence on interruption statistics are presented.

These situations can be classified based on their causes
or on their impact on network performance.

8.	An assumption since information on concept hasn’t been provided!

246

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITYTABLE 7 DEFINITIONS OF EXCEPTIONAL EVENTSCountry

Designation

Albania

Not definedNot applicable

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Force majeure“Force majeure” – all events which cause interruptionof supply, and are out of control of a distributor: natural
disasters (earthquake, fire, flooding), extreme weather
conditions (lightning, storm wind, excessive ice etc),
interruptions at the transmission voltage level, load
shedding due to shortage of supply, under-frequency
relief of load and orders of the respective authorities.

Normally not(but available also
excluded)

FYR of Macedonia

Force majeure

Force majeure is defined as all unpredictable natural events,
disasters and circumstances determined by the law (definedin Rulebook on conditions for electricity supply).

No(data is available
upon request)

Kosovo*Force majeure

Yes. Events, circumstances or occurrences beyond thecontrol of the system operator. The force majeure will bedefined by the government for special cases.

Yes

Force majeure

Force Majeure are natural events that have the characterof natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, fires, atmosphericdischarges; winds, ice and snow that exceed projected
technical standards established for a particular building/facility or equipment of an relevant operators, etc.) that
could not be predicted, prevented, avoided or eliminatedby taking measures that are applied in order to maintainsafe and reliable operation of the power system, andwhich are determined on the basis of the report of thecompetent state authorities, as well as emergency andmilitary actions and measures that have been introduced
based on the decisions of the competent state authorities.

No

Force majeure (1)Events, circumstances or occurrences beyond the controlof the system operator, the appearance of which he could
not foresee, avoid or eliminate, and in particular natural
phenomena such as – floods, earthquakes, landslides androckfalls, as well as social phenomena – wars, terrorist
acts and strikes, as well as measures and decisions ofgovernmental bodies.

No

Force majeure

Yes. Interruption due to force majeure – interruption asa result of an irresistible emergency force which cannot
be prevented by the use of highly skilled personnel andpractices and can be caused by exceptional weather
conditions and natural disasters (hurricanes, storm, flood,snow accumulation, ice, earthquake, fire, subsidence andlandslide) and other contingencies. The event of force
majeure must be documented.

No, but interruption
due to exceptional events
are not used for calculationof target indices.

Montenegro

SerbiaUkraineConcept

Exceptional events
excluded from theinterruption statistics
No(1)	Informational definition only.

No statistical methods defining “major event days” or“exceptional condition periods” (i.e. IEEE Std 1366-2003,
Annex B) exist. Also, there is no evidence of explicit
regulations defining “exceptional events”.

harmonization might most probably not be feasible at all.
The lack of harmonization as regards exceptional eventsaffects the comparison of interruption data between theobserved CPs significantly.

The information collected from the CPs shows a lack ofharmonization which is probably caused by different
concepts of national legislation on obligations andby inherent climate differences. Therefore stringent

It is important to mention that Kosovo* excludes exceptional
events from their statistics. In Bosnia and Herzegovina
and FYR Macedonia such separate statistics (with/without
exceptional events) are only provided upon request.

8.	An assumption since information on concept hasn’t been provided!

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

247

2.3. CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY INDICATORS

2.3.1. Level of detail of the calculated indicator

An overview on the definitions of different indices used
for quantifying the number of interruptions is given in
CEER’s 5th Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity
Supply (2011). The same definitions are used for the
purpose of this report.

Continuity of supply indicators can be calculated for acountry or region as a whole, for each system operator, fora certain city, for each feeder, or even for each individual
customer. Calculation of indicators for a different
observation scope is an essential tool in the process ofbenchmarking for regulators and systems operators.
Regulators use such data for benchmarking DSOs, forsetting the appropriate continuity standards according toregional or network characteristics, etc. DSO can use suchdata to make investment or maintenance decisions. The
practice on calculation of system indicators varies strongly
between different CPs, as shown in Table 8.

Continuity of supply indicators measure grid performanceat delivery points. The meaning of these indicators depends
on the set of interruptions considered in calculation andrelated interruption durations.
If all interruptions are considered in the indicators
calculation, they will provide information on the continuityof supply as seen by the customers – such a calculationis also important for evaluating the impact of the
exceptional/force majeure events in terms of continuityof supply. For such analysis, all interruptions caused by
exceptional events must be identified.
Usually, the indicators for long interruptions are split
into two categories, namely unplanned and plannedinterruptions. Short interruptions are mostly caused by
unexpected events, therefore a separation in planned andunplanned cases is not used.
There are no significant CP-specific differences between
typically used continuity indicators. It is obvious that arange of indicators is in use, depending on their purpose
and, of course, availability and comprehensiveness of
the interruption statistics.
Regarding the measurement of long interruptions(> 3 minutes), the most common indicators for measuringcontinuity of supply are System Average Interruption
Duration Index (SAIDI) and System Average Interruption
Frequency Index (SAIFI) for distribution networks andEnergy Not Supplied (ENS) and Average Interruption
Time (AIT) for transmission networks. Momentary
Average Interruption Frequency Index (MAIFI) values
are used for short interruptions.

All CPs publish indicators calculated for the entire
jurisdiction. In only few of the investigated markets,the indicators are calculated per system operator and/or per region/city. Further distinctions can be madebased on the voltage level on which the incident takes
place or on the cause of the incident. A distinction
based on voltage level is made by all CPs. Informationon the cause of the incident is also provided by all CPs.
However, the classifications used for the voltage levels
and causes significantly differ between the investigatedmarkets: the reason is different level of data availability
and non-harmonized types of causes among CPs. Four CPs
provided separate indicators for rural and urban areas; one
CP distinguishes between underground and overhead(“aerial”) networks. Also here, different CPs use different
classifications. Bosnia and Herzegovina reported thatindicators are calculated also according to the groundingof MV networks.
For three countries that provided disaggregated dataaccording to the network type, the classification concepts
are as follows:Bosnia and Herzegovina: in Republika Srpska theclassification of distribution areas is done without
formal definition by DSO as follows: city areas, outskirts,
village areas (the indices are calculated aggregatedonly in Federation BiH);
Ukraine: the Supreme Council Presidium Decree№ 1654 X “Settlement of administrative-territorial
structure” defines separation of urban settlementsfrom rural settlements.

248

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITYTABLE 8 LEVEL OF DETAIL IN INTERRUPTION RECORDINGCountry

National System Region City/
Sub- Feeder Customer Voltage
Operators
District stationlevel

AlbaniaX

Bosnia andHerzegovina

XX

FYR ofMacedonia

X

X

X(Partly)
X

X

Causes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Kosovo*X

X

X(planned/
unplanned
only)Montenegro

X

X

X

SerbiaX

X

X

Ukraine

X

X

X

X

X

2.3.2. Indices for long and short interruptions
An overview of the different indices used for quantifying
long interruptions as well as weighting method used
when calculating indices is provided in Table 9.
SAIDI and SAIFI are the most commonly-used indicesfor distribution networks. Serbia calculates also theindex Customer Average Interruption Duration Index(CAIDI) which is a derivate of SAIDI in SAIFI. The method

Urban/ Cable/
Rural Overhead

Other

X
X
(grounding of
MV network)Xof weighting impacts the results by introducing different
bias. All CPs that calculate these indices use the same
weighting method based on the number of customers:
each customer is therefore treated equally, independentof its size and load profile. This is an important finding thathas positive impact on benchmarking.
ENS and AIT are the most commonly-used indices forcontinuity of supply in transmission networks.

TABLE 9 LONG INTERRUPTION – INDICES FOR QUANTIFYINGCountry

Index

Weighting (N/A for ENS)

Albania

Raw data on interruption properties
and location of interruption only

The number of customers (identified manually)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

SAIDI & SAIFIENS (Transmission)

The number of customers (manually, using theconnectivity models or estimated)

FYR of Macedonia

Distribution -SAIDI, SAIFI, CAIDI(Requested by Grid Code, but no data yet)

Not applicable (no rules, SCADA is used on HV level)

Kosovo*Distribution-SAIDI, SAIFI,ENS (Transmission)

The number of customers (manually by DSO)

Montenegro

SAIDI and SAIFI for DSO, ENS and AIT for TSO

Not applicable

SerbiaDistribution – SAIDI, SAIFI, CAIDI; AITS, ENS(Transmission)

Distribution indicators (SAIDI, SAIFI) – number ofcustomers; transmission indicators (AIT) – average
power supplied (weighting is done manuallyaccording to the NRA rules)

UkraineSAIDI, SAIFI,ENS (only for distribution; for Transmission –data not yet available)

The number of customers

The number of short interruptions per year (MAIFI) is used
as indicator in Bosnia and Herzegovina (but only for the
distribution network of the power utility “Elektroprivreda

Republike Srpske”) and in Ukraine, based on SCADA,
where available. None of the CPs gathers data on transientinterruptions.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

2.4. ANALYSIS OF DATA ON CONTINUITY
OF SUPPLYThis section provides an overview of the CPs’ networks andcompares the values of the most important indicators overa number of years. Even though the calculation methods
slightly differ between the CPs, the results are shown inthe same diagrams. When interpreting the results, thedifferences in calculation and scope of monitoring (voltage
levels) should be considered.
For the purpose of this benchmarking, it is crucial to exclude
the influence of CP specific factors from indices, caused by
non-harmonized proprietary rules applied for interruption
monitoring. The typical example is the influence of exceptional
events. As it was not possible to neutralize the consequencesof these differences between CPs by excluding the impact of
the exceptional events from the reported CoS index values(exceptional events are mostly not excluded from the interruption

249

statistics), it is also very difficult to assess how exceptional
events influence the interruption statistics of each CP.
Accordingly, any conclusion concerning the level of continuityof supply that exclusively relates to the responsibility ofthe performance of system operators is not feasible.
Due to the lack of availability of the required data and the
problems of comparability, the benchmarking analysis isfocused on the indices that have been provided by atleast four CPs:
representing the value aggregated on the national level;
comprising interruptions at all voltage levels monitored;including the interruptions caused by exceptional events.
Furthermore, some additional analysis on the impact ofplanned interruptions is shown in the total statistics.
The reported set of indices per CP and the indices that areused in comparison (bold “X”) are shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10 THE INDICES PROVIDED
Continuity indicatorInterruptions considered

Scope

BA

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Whole country

UNPLANNED, SAIFI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Whole country

UNPLANNED, SAIDIAll interruptions (All networks)

Whole country

X

UNPLANNED, SAIFI

All interruptions (All networks)

Whole country

PLANNED, SAIDIAll interruptions (All networks)

PLANNED, SAIFI

UA

Kosovo*

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Whole country

X

X

X

X

All interruptions (All networks)

Whole country

X

X

X

X

UNPLANNED, MAIFI

All interruptions (All networks)

Whole countryX

AIT (Transmission)

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on T network)

Whole country,transmission system

ENS (Transmission)

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on T network)

Whole country,transmission system

UNPLANNED, MAIFI

w/o exc. events (All networks),

Whole country

Unplanned AIT(Transmission)

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on T network)

Whole country,transmission system

X

Planned AIT(Transmission)

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on T network)

Whole country,transmission system

X

Unplanned ENS(Transmission)

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on T network)

Whole country,transmission system

X

X

Planned ENS(Transmission)

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on T network)

Whole country,transmission system

X

X

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on EHV networks)

Whole country, EHVX

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on HV networks)

Whole country, HV

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on MV networks)

Whole country, MV

X

X

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on LV networks)

Whole country, LV

X

X

X

UNPLANNED, SAIFI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on HV networks)

Whole country, HVXXUNPLANNED, SAIFI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on MV networks)

Whole country, MV

X

X

UNPLANNED, SAIFI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on LV networks)

Whole country, LVXXUNPLANNED, MAIFI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on HV networks)

Whole country, HVX

UNPLANNED, MAIFI

w/o exc. events(Only interruptions on MV networks)

Whole country, MV

X

X

RS

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

Legend: All networks: EHV, HV, MV and LV; w/o exc. Events: Interruptions not attributable to exceptional events

X

X

250

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Only two CPs, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina andUkraine provided indices classified by territorial density.

The reported set of indices per CP is shown in thetable below.

TABLE 11 THE INDICES BY TERRITORIAL DENSITY
Continuity indicatorInterruptions considered

Scope

BA

UA

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only urban areas

X

X

UNPLANNED, SAIFI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only urban areas

X

X

UNPLANNED, MAIFI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only urban areas

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only suburban areasX

UNPLANNED, SAIFI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only suburban areasX

UNPLANNED, SAIDI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only rural areas

X

X

UNPLANNED, SAIFI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only rural areas

X

X

UNPLANNED, MAIFI

w/o exc. events (All networks)

Only rural areas

2.4.1. Interruptions originated on different
voltage levels

X

X

MV was benchmarked among the CPs.

Considering all facts and issues discussed above,
strengthened by the fact that incidents on MV contributeto the continuity indices the most (at least 70%), theavailable aggregated data of all those comparable
indices that comprises the interruptions that occurred on

Due to the identified problems concerning the calculationof indices SAIDI and SAIFI on transmission level, thefollowing analysis covers only the incidents that occurred
on HV, MV and LV voltage levels. The contribution ofExtra High Voltage (EHV) is therefore not considered in
the analysis.

TABLE 12 UNPLANNED SAIDI (ALL EVENTS; HV, MV, LV) – THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCIDENTS
ACCORDING TO THEIR VOLTAGE LEVEL [%]Country

2011

2012

2013

2014

Avg

Albania – LV

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Albania – MV

n/a

96.33

84.60

77.57

86.17

Albania – HV

n/a

15.88

33.10

34.25

27.74

92.5

89

93

91

Bosnia and Herzegovina (E RS only) - LV
Bosnia and Herzegovina (E RS only) - MV
Bosnia and Herzegovina (E RS only) - HVFYR of Macedonia - LV
FYR of Macedonia - MV
Kosovo* - LV
Kosovo* - MV
Montenegro - LV
Montenegro - MV
Serbia - LV
Serbia - MV
Ukraine - LV

86.3

75.6

86.2

91.9

85.0

Ukraine - MV

428.1

429.3

435.7

435.9

432.3

Ukraine - HV (1)

4.4

6.9

5.2

6.5

5.8

(1) Not attributable to exceptional events.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

251

TABLE 13 UNPLANNED SAIFI (ALL EVENTS; HV, MV, LV) – THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCIDENTS
ACCORDING TO THEIR VOLTAGE LEVEL [%]Country

2011

2012

2013

2014

Avg

Albania – LV

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Albania – MV

n/a

29.22

42.60

39.71

37.18

Albania – HV

n/a

7.19

10.50

12.15

9.94

96

96

93

95

Bosnia and Herzegovina (E RS only) - LV
Bosnia and Herzegovina (E RS only) - MV
Bosnia and Herzegovina (E RS only) - HVFYR of Macedonia - LV
FYR of Macedonia - MV
Kosovo*- LV
Kosovo*- MV
Montenegro - LV
Montenegro - MV
Serbia - LV
Serbia - MV
Ukraine - LV

0.52

0.52

0.64

0.66

0.58

Ukraine - MV

3.41

3.68

3.83

3.94

3.72

Ukraine - HV (1)

0.12

0.14

0.11

0.12

0.12

(1) Not attributable to exceptional events.

In average, about 85% of SAIDI and SAIFI are reasoned byincidents on MV. It is important to point out that incidents
at EHV were not considered in this analysis – from theexperience in the EU Member States, this portion is verysmall, especially if observed in the networks with relativesmall ratio of undergrounding on MV and LV.

2.4.2. The evaluation of the impact of
exceptional events
A difference between the same type of indicescomprising the exceptional events and those excluding
exceptional events was identified in several CPs. Thismay be an indication of the presence of the exceptional
events in the continuity indices – according to the CPs’
rules on classification of interruption causes.
The following analysis provides a comparison of theindices including interruptions that were recorded in all

networks with exceptional events included and thosereported with exceptional events excluded (SAIDI andSAIFI due to incidents at MV only). The disaggregateddata on continuity indices without exceptional events
that include the interruptions recorded at HV, MV
and sometimes also LV (Ukraine) voltage levels wasaggregated and compared with the aggregated indicescomprising the exceptional events: according to thedefinition, latter should comprise also the interruptions
recorded at EHV.
The contribution of interruptions recorded on MV(supposedly without exceptional events) in the aggregatedindices (covering interruptions in all networks andsupposedly comprising exceptional events) is shown in
the tables below (Table 14, Table 15): by analyzing theextent of the contribution on MV we can assume thecontribution of interruptions recorded at EHV (also LV and/or HV, depending on each CP) and those caused by the
exceptional events in the indices.

252

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITYTABLE 14 UNPLANNED SAIFI (ALL EVENTS; HV, MV, LV) – THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCIDENTS
ACCORDING TO THEIR VOLTAGE LEVEL [%]Country

2011

2012

2013

2014

7.47

10.78

6.69

Albania - MV
Albania - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Bosnia and Herzegovina - MV
Bosnia and Herzegovina - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
FYR of Macedonia - MV
FYR of Macedonia - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Kosovo* - MV
Kosovo* - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Montenegro - MV
Montenegro - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Serbia - MV

52.58

Serbia - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Ukraine - MV (1)

428.1

429.3

435.7

435.9

Ukraine - Other (LV, HV, EHV, exceptional events) (2)

221.4

305.6

267.2

1972.2(1) Not attributable to exceptional events.
(2) Including exceptional events.

TABLE 15 UNPLANNED SAIFI (ALL EVENTS) – CONTRIBUTION OF MV TO THE AGGREGATED VALUE [%]Country

2011

2012

2013

2014

3.21

3.97

6.86

Albania - MV
Albania - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Bosnia and Herzegovina - MV
Bosnia and Herzegovina - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
FYR of Macedonia - MV
FYR of Macedonia - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Kosovo* - MV
Kosovo*- Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Montenegro - MV
Montenegro - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Serbia - MV

73.1

Serbia - Other (HV, EHV, exceptional events)
Ukraine - MV (1)

3.41

3.68

3.83

3.94

Ukraine - Other (LV, HV, EHV, exceptional events) (2)

1.45

1.64

1.73

9.62

(1) Not attributable to exceptional events.
(2) Including exceptional events.

Due to the identified problems related to the robustnessof the provided data, the impact of different sets ofvoltage levels considered in the calculation of indices 9 isdifficult to evaluate. If the presence of exceptional eventsis neglected, the difference between the aggregated valueof indices and the values containing the interruptions on
MV only represents the contribution of other voltage levels
to the aggregated value of indices, including the EHV (thecontribution of interruptions that could be attributed tothe transmission exceeds the EU average). Possible reasonsfor this are:	the “leakage” in recording of interruptions on MV(mostly manual processing): the portion of interruptions
recorded on MV is lower than expected;	differences between CPs as regards rules and practicefor the recording of interruptions and, even more,
the calculation of indices SAIDI and SAIFI on EHV level(transmission) due to different weighting methods used
for calculation and the usage of estimation methods;	differences between CPs as regards rules and interpretationof exceptional events.

9.	i.e. inclusion/exclusion of interruptions recorded at EHV/LV level in different sets of indexes.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

253

2.4.3. Network characteristics
An overview on available system data of particular CPs
is given in Table 16. The networks vary a lot across CPs
in their size and structure.

TABLE 16 INFORMATION ON NETWORK, EQUIPMENT, ENERGY SUPPLIED, NUMBER OF CUSTOMERSSYSTEM DATA

measure Albania Bosnia and
FYR ofunit
Herzegovina Macedonia

Item # 1 - Length of networks

2014

2014

Kosovo*

2014

2014

Montenegro Serbia
2014

Ukraine

2014

2014

3498

22332

Total length of circuits - EHV networkkm

Total length of circuits - HV network

km

212

1043

1.300,40

5910

41200

Length of cable circuits - MV network

km

2.777

1166

1.420

13118

47108

Total length of circuits - MV network

km

8.662

6543

5.890

48557

349268Length of cable circuits - LV network

km

3.697

423

1.686,42

15456

38313

Total length of circuits - LV networkkm

15.45211243

13.216110018415606

5.2

3.267

28

133.9

4.6

2.426

25

85.8

188

Item # 2 - Energy
Transmitted/distributed energy(all customers)

TWh

Distributed energy(only MV and LV customers)

TWh

4.973

Item # 3 - Customers
Number of MV connection pointsof final customers
Number of LV connection pointsof final customers

92201
number699.948491586384.1863579080

20776431

Number of MV feeders starting fromnumber
HV/MV or EHV/MV transf. stations

1.480

352

22825

Number of MV feeders equippedwith remote control (SCADA)

number642

149

13975 (1)

Number of Distribution System
Operators

number

2

1

1

5

44

Customers served by the largest
Distribution System Operators

number700.897491823384.732

9351581836659

Customers served by the threenumberlargest Distribution System Operators

700.897

There is only
one DSO

384.732-27151054563995

Item # 4 - Equipment

Item # 5 - General info(1)	2013 data.
Remark:Total length as sum of length of underground cable circuits, bare overhead lines and insulated overhead lines (overhead cables). Distributed energy
excluding self-consumption.

254

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

2.5.	CONTINUITY STANDARDS AND
INCENTIVE SCHEMESThe following section provides an overview of the existing
frameworks of continuity of supply regulation in the CPs.
It will also illustrate which indicators and standards areused in this regard.
In the subsequent sections different terminology is used forthe required performance defined by the NRAs by meansof setting the targets on continuity at the system level:continuity standards set on system level;overall (continuity) standards;
(average) required performance;
(average) performance targets.

The regulation frameworks are assessed on two different
levels:1.	Continuity standards at system level with the quality
reward/penalty regimes;
2.	Continuity standards at single-customer level with thecustomer compensation schemes
The development of the regulation frameworks in theCPs is on an initial stage in the prevailing number ofcases. The main emphasis is put on continuity monitoring,
however, from the responses on questionnaires provided
by many CPs, it can be concluded that activities for assuring
the maintenance and improvement of continuity levels,
as well as activities to protect the worst served customers
are ongoing or will be started soon.

While some of the terms are not often used, somehave a sound base in the CEER documents10. However,
harmonization has not been achieved yet.

TABLE 17 AN OVERVIEW ON EXISTING CONTINUITY STANDARDS AND INCENTIVE SCHEMESStandards and regulation

Overallstandards

Individual
standards

Distribution

Kosovo*MD, ME (1),RS (2)

Transmission

Kosovo*RS

Definition of worst served customer
Responsibility
Publication of indices
Intention/plans for implementation

Overall reward/
penalty scheme

Individualcompensations--

AI, BA, ME, UA (NRA);
MK, RS, Kosovo* (Shared)
AL (monthly), BA, Kosovo* (annually)
MK (2016-2018), ME (2012), RS (2013-2015), UA (ongoing)(1)	Individual standards: for individual large industrial customers (e.g. KAP-Aluminium Plant) connection to 110 kV in which technical processes require special
conditions regarding continuity and quality of supply.
(2)	Defined by the Decree on Conditions for Electricity Delivery and the Grid Code.

No explicit regulatory or other definitions of the worse
served customer are applied. Not all CPs publish data on
indicators but, if, they are published mostly on annual
basis. Only Albania reported monthly publication.

Serbia also applies individual standards applied and set
minimal requirements on duration of interruptions but
no compensation scheme. Also in Kosovo*, the overall
standards on continuity of supply were applied for 2011.

Montenegro protects special large industrial customers
only by individual standards on continuity of supply.

The economic effects and outcomes of the regulatory
actions cannot be addressed, due to lack of data availability.

10.	i.e. papers on smart grids, such as: Status Review on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering (Electricity and Gas) as of May 2009 (http://www.ceer.eu/
portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/CEER_PAPERS/Customers/Tab/E09-RMF-17-03_SmartMetering-SR_19-Oct-09.pdf), Final Guidelinesof Good Practice on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering for Electricity and Gas (http://www.ceer.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/
CEER_PAPERS/Customers/Tab2/E10-RMF-29-05_GGP_SM_8-Feb-2011.pdf) etc.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

2.6.	EXPECTED DEVELOPMENTS ON
CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY REGULATIONThe regulation of continuity of supply will be for sure
subject to further changes and developments in the
future. Many CPs that have not implemented related
rules yet will do so, while others will focus on improving
their regulation. Making use of the experience andgood regulatory practice within the EU will be of great
help to CPs.
CPs are working towards a more comprehensive approachin regulation of continuity of supply, some of them
analyzing the possibility to introduce the reward-penalty
mechanism (a link between the continuity and tariffs).
All observed CPs have initially put emphasis to improvement
and assurance of the preconditions for the regulation ofcontinuity of supply. Monitoring of continuity of supply
on all levels with the highest level of detail, backed
up with harmonized and standardized rules shall bewrapped up with the continuous publication of data.
The transparency of the achieved level of continuity ofsupply is the very first step in a long journey towards
better regulation.

2.7.	FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSON CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY
Monitoring is applied in all CPs that participated in thesurvey. As a first objective pursued by the regulators andas the core component of the service quality regulation
framework, monitoring has widely reached thephase that can start to back-up regulatory decisions
successfully. Different approaches to the regulation –driven by CPs’ legal frameworks and, in particular, different
monitoring methodologies used, combined with different
geographical, meteorological characteristics, different
networks structures and age – make benchmarking ofactual levels of continuity of supply difficult.

255

The comparative analysis of the monitoring schemes andthe continuity of supply regulation across CPs shows that
regulators have generally approached continuity issues
with emphasis on long interruptions first, treating
the planned and unplanned interruptions separately.
Distinction is made between different voltage levels
and the classification of the interruptions by its cause
is as well applied. In several CPs both number andduration of interruptions are available and almost
harmonized combinations of indicators (SAIDI, SAIFI)
are used. Short interruptions are barely recorded.
Few examples of regulatory practices with advanced
regulation instruments applied, by means of continuity
standards and incentive schemes, are identified in theregion as well.
Monitoring schemes are developing and are currently
in different development stages:
monitoring is focused mostly on long interruptions;
monitoring on transmission level is not applied in all CPs;monitoring is performed in different level of detail;different sets of indicators are used, although basic
indicators (i.e. SAIDI, SAIFI, ENS) are widely used;not all incidents are considered in the statistics (i.e. LV).
A lack of harmonization in the basic monitoring rules
is also identified, but it is not predominant. The lack ofemphasis on monitoring of continuity at the transmission
level in some CPs may be result of an underestimation of
its importance due to the robust network design enablinghigh reliability (“n-1” operational criteria), apparent low
number of customers connected to the transmission
network, the problem of weighting (atypical customers,
specifics in calculation of certain continuity indexes) andthe estimation (i.e. “ENS” based indices).
All CPs are encouraged to strengthen their efforts onfurther developing and optimizing their monitoringprocess and make further steps towards comprehensive
and robust monitoring schemes. The transparency of dataand its quality is essential. Findings and recommendations
are provided as follows:256

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 1
Rules, business processes and tools for automatic
logging of interruptions are not applied in all countries
Many CPs reported only limited use of SCADA andprevailing manual recording of interruptions. Lack ofrules for automatic recording of interruptions has a direct
impact on completeness, robustness and the quality ofdata on interruptions collected. Decisions taken (by theregulator or the system operator) on the basis of suchdata may be misleading. Also auditing such data is time
consuming and not efficient.

RECOMMENDATION 2
MONITORING OF ALL BASIC INTERRUPTIONSTYPES SHOULD BE INTRODUCED, BASED ON
HARMONIZED DEFINITIONS
It is recommended that all CPs harmonize theirdefinitions for basic interruption types (firstly
long, secondly short and, if justifiable, transient).
Available norms and examples of good practice
could be used as a basis for harmonization process.

EFFICIENT RULES FOR AUTOMATIC LOGGINGOF INTERRUPTIONS HAVE TO BE INTRODUCEDHarmonization should aimed at meeting thefollowing criteria:
long interruptions> 3 minshort interruptions> 1 s and ≤ 3 mintransient interruptions ≤ 1 s

Implementations of SCADA and its Distribution
Management System (DMS) functions in a wider
scope that to a larger extent enable automatic logging(at least for EHV, HV and MV voltage levels) is crucial
for efficient monitoring of continuity of supply.

This way, the definitions of interruptions would bealigned with the definitions of interruptions
provided by EN 50160 as well as with European
practices (5th CEER Benchmarking Report on
Quality of Electricity Supply, 2011).

It is recommended that all CPs define rules forautomatic logging of interruptions. These rules
on recording should be harmonized. Deviationsor CP specific rules should be adequately upheld.

Short interruptions do also have a negative impact
on business and industrial customers, aside ofhousehold customers, and should therefore also
get appropriate attention by the regulators.
It is recommended that some type of monitoring
scheme for short interruptions is in place.

Finding 2
Harmonization of interruption definitions is notachieved and the monitoring schemes are lacking
comprehensiveness and efficiency

The fact that SCADA will be implemented in manyCPs from scratch provides a good opportunity for
the CPs to plan appropriate SCADA functions andthe appropriate level of network coverage by SCADA,
to ensure automatic recording of short interruptions.
SCADA is usually implemented starting at the highest
voltage levels and moving to the high-load-density
parts of the lower-voltage levels. Short interruptions
occur mainly in the low-load-density parts of thelower-voltage levels. This important technical issue
needs to be considered when planning the introductionof SCADA. The costs needed for such comprehensive
monitoring scheme will be lower in comparison to thesituations where existing SCADA lacking functionality
is upgraded. It is important for CPs to consider all
related aspects; among those are rules for aggregationof interruptions that occur in a short time span.

RECOMMENDATION 1

Some minor differences in definitions of interruptions
exist. Available norms (EN 50160) and guidelines ofgood practice (5th CEER Benchmarking Report on
Quality of Electricity Supply, 2011 are used. Not all typesof interruptions are monitored. Transient interruptions
are not monitored by any of the CPs and monitoring
schemes are lacking efficiency: the main problem is in
the way how the interruptions are recorded – in theabsence of SCADA or Advance Metering Infrastructure(AMI) (i.e. for recording the interruptions on LV),
manual logging of interruptions and data processing
does not assure required efficiency and reliabilityof data.

NRAs should also decide on the extension ofmonitoring schemes with the transient interruptions.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 3
Continuity statistics do not include incidents
at all voltage levels
None of the CPs has established efficient monitoring
schemes for recording interruptions on all voltage levels.
While interruptions are recorded separately according to
the particular voltage level in most CPs, the monitoring
is not always performed on all voltage levels. Usually,
data is collected on the HV and MV level only. LV has notbeen sufficiently covered yet – in the early stage, a similar
status was observed in the EU. Consequently, wheneverinterruptions on the LV level are not monitored, theconsumers connected to these levels (which are all domestic
customers and the majority of non-domestic customers)
will be affected more than suggested by the provided data.
The lack of monitoring or inefficient monitoring at LV
level could result in a significant underestimation of thenumber and duration of interruptions experienced by low
voltage customers (unplanned and planned), especiallyin urban areas, but also on CP level. Indeed, even if each
incident in LV will affect much fewer customers thaneach incident on MV and higher voltage levels, incidents
on LV cannot be neglected: the resulting interruptions
often last longer 11 than interruptions due to incidents at
higher voltage levels and are also important in number 12.
The SAIDI contribution from LV therefore might be evenunderestimated.

RECOMMENDATION 3
INTERRUPTIONS SHOULD BE ALSOMONITORED AT LV LEVELAll CPs are encouraged to include monitoring ofinterruptions at all voltage levels including LV in
the continuity of supply statistics. The cost-benefit
analysis should be performed to evaluate different
possibilities:
automated recording based on AMI;	development of methods for estimation ofduration and number of affected customers(i.e. using functions of call centers);	other (i.e. protection equipment in LV feeders
under supervision of SCADA).
Wherever manual logging is applied, system
operators should be more vigilant regarding
manual entries of outages in LV networks. Thiscan be supported by appropriate organizational
and technical measures.

257

Finding 4
Categories of interruption causes vary between CPs
Information on causes is essential for DSOs to improve
continuity of supply. This is also true for the NRA to identify
and approve appropriate investments in time. Suchinformation should be collected by system operators as
detailed as possible. There is no need for harmonizationof the certain types of causes, but it may be useful toachieve harmonization of main categories.
Especially, the treatment of so called “third party”
causes is sometimes mixed with the cause category of“exceptional events”.

RECOMMENDATION 4
THE BASIC CAUSE CATEGORIZATIONSHOULD BE HARMONIZEDThe harmonization of basic cause categories between
the CPs is recommended. Also, a clean split between
third party and exceptional events categories ishighly recommended.
We recommend the use of the following three maincause categories:
the responsibility of system operator;
third party; andexceptional events
Each interruption cause (not necessarily harmonized)
shall be linked to the appropriate category.
The usage of causes like “other”, “not available”,“unexplained” as main categories should be avoided
as much as possible. Such causes may be used only as
sub-types, being therefore linked to the particularcause category.
Among the interruption causes in the category“third party”, the responsibility of another system
operator (DSO or TSO) for an interruption shallbe distinguished from the others by its own
dedicated type of cause: the interruptions causedby another system operator need to be easily
identifiable in the processes of determining the
responsible party for the damages caused byinterruptions.
The distinction between the main cause categories(to avoid mixing the “third party” and “exceptional
events”) shall be achieved by clear definitions.

11. 	LV networks are usually radial networks without redundancy.
12. 	According to the experience in some EU countries, the contribution of interruptions from LV to the continuity indicators (SAIFI and SAIDI) varies
from 7% up to 30% on national level – this analysis is based on the evaluation of impacts of incidents on LV network that are mostly estimated basedon notification through the phone calls (AMI is not installed).

258

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 5
Level of detail in calculating continuity indicators
differs among CPs
Due to the fact that continuity is benchmarked using
indices that include exceptional events and that explicit
information on such events was not provided, any
conclusion on trends would be misleading. More historical,
year-to-year data would be needed for “in-depth” analyses.
The calculation on the level of individual system operators,
region and area is not a common practice in CPs. Only two
CPs calculate the indices in such detail. Also, only few CPs
reported that they calculate indices per network type(according to the population density) – among them only3
CPs provided data on such indices. In each of these three
CP the continuity of supply is much better in urban areas
than in rural areas.
The lack of disaggregated CoS data hinders NRAs andsystem operators in their decisions (regulatory, R&D) on
measures to be taken.

RECOMMENDATION 5LOGGING OF INTERRUPTIONS SHALLCOMPRISE ALL NECESSARY DETAILS TO
ENABLE DISAGGREGATED CALCULATION
OF CONTINUITY INDICES
Network operators should use the extended
set of interruption properties13 when recording
and post-processing interruption data. Suchcomprehensive approach enables the calculationof disaggregated indices. For that purpose, system
operators should meet the technical preconditions
for obtaining such data and implement theappropriate business processes for backing up
the necessary post-processing of data.
System operators should be required to provide
aggregated and disaggregated continuity data(on voltage levels, network types, etc.) to the NRA.
For NRAs, it is important to calculate the indices
per system operator with a view to benchmark theirperformance and identify possible larger differencesin the level of continuity of supply. The calculationof indices according to the network type (rural/suburban/urban networks) provides the essential
information for decisions on measures for
improvement of continuity of supply.
It is therefore recommended that indicators arecalculated for each system operator separately, as
well as according to the population density (urban/
suburban/rural). The latter requires rules forclassification that may not be harmonized, due todifferences in the network structure and geography,
as well as demographic characteristics of CPs. Nonaggregated calculation of indices will ensure better
flexibility for NRA when designing regulatory
incentive schemes14.
NRAs are encouraged to continue monitoring of CoS
based on an extended set of indicators. Historic data,
aggregated and disaggregated data (on voltage levels,
network types, etc.) is essential for identifying trends
and performing correlation analyses. Monitoring
scheme should evolve in such a way to assure CoS
data for wider time-spans, as well as in greater detail:disaggregated data should be calculated in order to
identify problems and direct priorities.

13. Control area, i.e. population density (urban/suburban/rural), voltage level, network type (cable/overhead), cause, sub-cause etc.
14.	For example the differences in the level of continuity of supply according to the population density should be considered when applying theminimal continuity standards.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 6
Lack of explicit information on the use of conceptsof “exceptional events” hinder the impact analysisof “exceptional events” on the level of continuity
Some interruptions are considered to be due to
exceptional events and they are either not considered in
the continuity statistics or are treated separately. From theavailable information, it is hard to evaluate the real use of
the concept of “exceptional events”, even if its application
is widely reported by CPs. Different CPs use different
criteria for defining an interruption as exceptional event.
Where exceptional events are displayed in the statistics,
knowledge on the contribution of exceptional event
is of utmost importance when analyzing continuity ofsupply data. Although concepts of “exceptional events”
are reported to be applied, the impact of exceptional
events is not clearly clear – the estimated contribution of
exceptional events is more or less constant. This indicatesthat the concepts of “exceptional events” are not properly
defined or used – the classification of incidents as an
exceptional events may comprise also the interruptions
due to the weather circumstances that occur once a year
or more often (as lightning etc.).

259

RECOMMENDATION 6
PROPER USE AND TRANSPARENCY OF
CONCEPTS OF “EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS”
SHOULD BE ASSURED
The possibilities for harmonization of definitions
on exceptional events should be explored. It is
recommended that CPs harmonize the definition bymeans of the common characteristics of the naturaland non-natural exceptional event. An exceptional
event that is beyond the control of the system
operator is characterized as:
1. unforeseeable;
2. unpredictable;
3. unpreventable;
4. unavoidable.
All four event characteristics must be confirmed
for the event to classify as “exceptional”.
Furthermore, the weather circumstances that occur
once a year or more often should not be considered
as exceptional events. Lightning should not betreated as an exceptional event anywhere in the
Energy Community since it is a foreseeable andpredictable event in all CPs. The CP specifics
aggravate the harmonization in further detail 15.
Harmonization of such detail is not feasible.
Until adequate harmonization has been achieved,
it is recommended for each CP to transparently
use the definitions and designations of their own
regulation. The use of expressions, like “exceptional
events”, with an apparent intuitive meaning, but
without a clear definition of the manner in which
it is used can result in misinterpretation.
Network operators should appropriately andreasonably minimize effects of events that areoutside of their control, in line with appropriate
regulatory schemes.

15. 	For example, if snowstorms are not an exceptional event in the northern countries, it could be seen as an exceptional event in southern parts ofthe Energy Community.

260

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 7
The set of indicators in use does not provide acomplete picture of continuity of supply

Finding 8
Publication of continuity data is not performed
in all CPs and differs

Most of the CPs calculate SAIDI and SAIFI for distribution
networks and ENS (also AIT) for transmission networks.
The main interruption properties (duration and frequency)
are therefore covered on distribution level only.

The publication of continuity data is not performed by all
countries. Also, the frequency of reporting varies acrosscountries. Publication of continuity data usually does notconsider exceptional events.

Some CPs do not calculate indices for transmission,some reported the use of (rough) estimation whencalculating indices. Besides, indicators that express thelevel of continuity in terms of interruption frequency intransmission networks are not calculated.

RECOMMENDATION 7
THE NUMBER OF CONTINUITY INDICES USEDSHOULD BE EXTENDED
The use of multiple indicators to quantify CoS
provides more information and, therefore, more
possibilities to observe trends. Frequency andduration should be observed from different aspects,
using different indicators.
CPs are encouraged to gradually extend the set ofcontinuity indicators used. For a balanced view on
the achieved level of CoS, indices should always
cover both duration and frequency of interruptions.
The recommended set could be SAIDI, SAIFI, MAIFI
for distribution and ENS, AIT, SAIFI and MAIFI fortransmission. The following transmission user types
can be used for the calculation of SAIFI and MAIFI(transmission):
1. using three types of transmission users: HVtransformation stations (counted each as 1 user,
independently from number and size oftransformers installed), HV/EHV final customer(large industry) and producers connected totransmission grid) or
2. u sing of the whole number of the affected network
users (at the transmission and all lower voltage
levels (distribution)).
Whenever the first option is chosen, the results shouldbe accompanied by information on the weighting
method. Also, the aggregation of the indicators
calculated using different user types (i.e. in thetransmission and distribution levels) should be
avoided. The minimal set of indices used formeasuring the level of continuity of supply in
distribution and transmission should be harmonized.

RECOMMENDATION 8
PUBLICATION OF CONTINUITY DATA ON A
REGULAR BASIS WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES
Publication of data is one of the primary regulatory
instruments and should be applied as soon as data
is available. Published comparison of company
performance is very effective: it simulates acompetitive environment and encourages
companies to make improvements. Comparisonson supranational level are useful for NRAs in theprocess of developing and improving their quality
regulation schemes and CP related performance.
It is recommended that system operators publish
CoS data regularly and at least once a year. System
operators should provide explanatory notes on thedata published. NRAs should likewise regularly
publish CoS data aggregated on CP level, including
remarks regarding system operators’ performance.
It is recommended for any publication ofcontinuity of supply data to include information
on included and excluded interruptions, together
with information about those situations that aretreated specifically. This especially applies to
exceptional events.
In case of exclusions disaggregated CoS data
should be provided for regulatory purposes.
The cooperation and the exchange of experience
between the CPs via the ECRB provide helpful
support. The examples of good practice and lessons
learned on EU level should also be considered.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 9
Minimal continuity standards and incentive schemes
are rare and have different formulations
The regulation framework in CPs is mostly in an initial stage.
Therefore, incentive schemes on system level (reward/
penalty schemes based on overall continuity standards(references) influencing the tariff) or individual level(guaranteed standards with the compensation payments
to customers) are rare. According to the maturity of thecontinuity regulation, such status is not uncommon and
expected. The few schemes that are applied are not similar
and are rather simple.

RECOMMENDATION 9GRADUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF INCENTIVEMECHANISMS IS ENCOURAGED
The examples of reward/penalty regimes alreadyapplied for several years in many countries of the
EU show their positive impact in improving orpreserving the level of continuity of supply. It istherefore recommended that each CP develop its
own reward/penalty regime taking into accountits specific conditions 16. The development ofregulation should be gradual and the prerequisites
for incentive schemes at any level should include
robust monitoring scheme and audits.
It is recommended that a step-by-step approach isused in setting minimal standards on continuityof supply. Robust historical data is a prerequisite forsuch decisions. Gradual implementation of minimal
standards (in the form of overall and guaranteed
standards) will encourage the development ofdifferent incentive mechanisms (reward/penalty
schemes and/or compensation payments) tomaintain and further improve the level ofcontinuity supply.

16. 	Network development, investment levels, regional differences and automation projects.

261

262

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

3 VOLTAGEQUALITY
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the existing practice involtage quality monitoring and regulation on transmission
and distribution level in CPs. Review and analysis of collectedvoltage quality data shows that activities towards theintroduction of voltage quality monitoring and regulation
have started in all CPs. However the activities are only in an
initial stage and consequently CPs were not able to provide
a complete set of data on all voltage quality aspects.
The following aspects were analyzed:

1.		 Voltage quality regulation and legislation;
2a. Voltage quality monitoring system (VQMS);
2b.	Data collection, aggregation and publication from VQMS;
3.		 Voltage quality indicators;
4.		Actual data for voltage dips, other VQ parameters andmitigation measures; and5.		Studies on estimation of costs due to poor voltage quality.
Information provided by the CPs on these categories isprovided in Table 18.

TABLE 18 INDICATION OF PROVIDED VOLTAGE QUALITY INFORMATION BY DIFFERENT CPS
EnC Contracting
Party

Voltage quality
regulation andlegislation

Voltage quality
monitoring
systemData collection,
aggregation andpublication

VQ
indicators

Actual VQ data
and mitigation
measures

Yes

Albania

Yes

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

FYR of Macedonia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Kosovo*Yes

Yes

Montenegro

Yes

Yes

SerbiaYes

Yes

UkraineYes

Yes

The table shows that most of the data is not available
yet. The analysis of this chapter therefore focuses on an

Studies on
estimation of costs
due to poor VQ

overview of the development status of voltage quality
monitoring and regulation in the individual CPs.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

3.2.	VOLTAGE QUALITY LEGISLATION,REGULATION AND STANDARDIZATION

263

3.2.1. Introducing EN 50160
The majority of CPs implemented EN 50160, mainly as avoluntary standard or, also, in legislation and regulation.
It is usually defined in the general conditions of supply or
network codes, either by a reference to EN 50160 or bydirectly using the limits required by EN 50160 in legislation or
regulation. Consequently, EN 50160 can be considered thebasic instrument for voltage quality assessment in the CPs.

Data regarding voltage quality implementation via
legislation, regulation and standardization are provided
by all the CPs. This implies that CPs have recognized theneed for introducing voltage quality requirements into
their legal and regulatory framework. Most of the CPs
have adopted standard EN 50160 and other VQ and EMC
related standards and have created VQ provisions in linewith those standards. However, direct obligations andprocedures regarding voltage quality monitoring andregulation are still not clearly defined in the legislationand therefore need to be more directly addressed in the
future by adjustments and improvements of legislation
and regulation in the CPs.

EN 50160 is mainly applied on low and medium
voltage levels up to 35 kV. In the majority of CPs
where it is implemented, EN 50160 is predominantly
used as a standard for supply voltage variations. The
implementation status of EN 50160 in each of thereporting CPs is presented in Table 19

TABLE 19 EN 50160 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
EnC Contracting Party

Implementation status

Different standards from EN 510160
and the way they are enforced

Voluntary standard

Yes,
national law

partially,
General conditions of supply and Grid Code;
BA: fully from 2016
Republika Srpska: fully from 2015

Yes,
national law, grid/distribution code

Yes partially МКС EN 50160:2009,
Grid Code;Yes,
national law, grid/distribution codes

Kosovo*Yes

Yes,
distribution code

Montenegro

No

Yes,
grid/distribution codes

SerbiaVoluntary standard.

Yes,national law, grid/distribution code

Ukraineimplemented as a voluntary standard

Yes,
standards committee

Albania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

FYR of Macedonia

3.2.2.Legislation and regulations that differ
from EN 50160

the Interstate Council of standardization, metrology andcertification.

All CPs have introduced voltage quality requirements
going beyond EN 50160 in their legislation and regulation.
Voltage quality standards that are different from thoseindicated in EN 50160 are implemented for some voltage
characteristics, mainly via laws and network codes, aspresented in Table 19. In Ukraine, voltage quality limits fordifferent voltage characteristics are defined by an interstate
standard on voltage quality, GOST 13109-97, approved by

The limits that are defined in legislation and network
codes on supply voltage variations mainly correspond
to EN 50160 for MV and LV level. In some CPs more strict
requirements for supply voltage variations are in place.
Voltage limits on other voltage levels are mainly ±5%
for 400 kV, ±10% or ±5% for 220 kV and ±10% for 110 kV.
Currently applied voltage quality standards in observed
CPs are shown in Table 20.

264

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITYTABLE 20 VQ STANDARDS ENFORCED/USED AT NATIONAL LEVELEnC Contracting Party

Albania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

FYR of Macedonia

Kosovo*Montenegro

Supply voltage variation standards
400 kV: +5%, -10%;
220, 150, 110 kV: ±10%;35 kV: 31-39 kV;
20 kV: 24 kV (highest voltage);
10 kV: 10,75 kV (highest voltage);
380 V, 220 V: +10%, -15%

No

Partially EN 50160, IEC 60038
400kV: ±5%; 220kV: ±10%
HV, MV: ±10%
LV: ±10%(RS), +5%, -10% (BA)Yes,
IEC 61000-3-6, IEC 61000-3-7 IEC 61000-3-12,
national standards

EHV: ±5%; HV, MV: ±10%
LV: +5%, -10%No, МКС EN 50160:2009

400 kV: ±5%, (exceptional event ±10%);220 kV: ±5%, (exceptional event ±10%);110 kV: ±10%, (exceptional event 88 to 130kV);
MV, LV: (35kV, 20kV, 10kV, 6.3kV, 400 V, 230V): +10%; -15%

Yes,
distribution code

400 kV: +5%; 220 kV: ±10%; 110 kV: ±10%;35 and 10 kV: ±5% LV: ±10%;No

Serbia400kV: ±5%; 220kV: 200-240kV
HV, MV, LV: ±10%

UkraineAll voltage levels: ±5% (95% of the time)±10% (marginal voltage variation)
or EN 50160:2010 (with some amends: LV voltage 220 kV)(must be determined in contract)

3.2.3. Obligations for monitoring voltage quality
Monitoring voltage quality requires monitoring of voltage
quality parameters with voltage quality monitoring instruments
in such a way that provides a system-wide evaluation. In someCPs, a direct obligation for the TSO/DSOs to measure voltage
quality parameters on a continuous basis or at predefinedintervals has been introduced by legislation and regulation.
However, in the majority of the CPs detailed procedures
and obligations for the establishment of a voltage quality
monitoring system have not been defined in the legal
and regulatory framework yet. Only in FYR Macedonia
legislation defines detailed procedure and obligations
for the implementation of a voltage quality monitoring
system: in line with the provisions for implementation of a
voltage quality monitoring system, the legal framework in
FYR of Macedonia also prescribes provisions for collection,
aggregation and publication of voltage quality data fromthe voltage quality monitoring system.
In the other CPs, no specific requirements regarding voltage
quality measuring have been implemented in legislation
and regulation, except for Bosnia and Herzegovina where
the General Conditions 17 require that measurements ofvoltage quality have to be in accordance with IEC 61000-4
or with the respective standard in Bosnia and Herzegovina(BAS). In some CPs certain requirements for voltage quality
monitoring instruments still exist from the time before the
NRA was operational.
17.	Of FERC.

VQ standards for other voltage
characteristics

Yes,
GOST 13109-97 and EN 50160:2010

In the majority of the CPs, TSO/DSOs are legally obliged to
install a voltage quality recorder only upon request of an
end-user who experiences problems due to insufficient
voltage quality at its own connection point. For the restof the reporting CPs, the common practice is that voltage
quality monitoring is performed even if the TSO/DSOs
are not legally obliged to do so. In most of the cases, thecosts are covered by the TSO/DSO, while in some CPs
the costs are charged to the customer in case that thevoltage quality proofs to comply with the requirements.
A possibility for an end-user to install its own voltage
quality recorder and use measurement in a dispute with
the TSO/DSOs is not recognized in the majority of theCPs, except in Ukraine where such a procedure is defined.
Monetary penalties in cases where quality limits are not
met are foreseen only in Ukraine.

3.2.4. Individual information on voltage quality
The obligation of providing individual information on
voltage quality is still not legally defined in the majorityof the CPs. Only in Bosnia and Herzegovina TSO/DSOs arelegally obliged to inform the end-user about the past or
expected future voltage quality levels. However, it seems
that even without legal obligation, TSO/DSOs informcustomers about voltage-quality levels upon their request.
An overview of the legal obligations covered in Sections
3.2.3, 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 is provided in Table 21.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

265

TABLE 21 VQ MEASUREMENT OBLIGATIONSEnC Contracting Party

Albania

VQ measurementby the system operator

VQ measurement
at end-user‘s request

TSO

DSO

TSO/DSO’s recorderuser’s recorder

TSO/DSO’s obligation
to inform user onvoltage quality

Yes, hourly

Yes, hourly

Yes

No

No

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

FYR of Macedonia

Yes

Yes

Yes,
operator pays
if request justified

No

No

Kosovo*

No

No

Yes

No

Upon user’s request

No

No

Montenegro

Yes

Yes

Yes,
no pre-defined
payment by user

Serbia

No

No

No

No

No

Ukraine

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

In most of the CPs, the responsibility for improving the overall
voltage quality and/or rectifying voltage disturbancesis shared between the State Inspectorate, the TSO/DSOs,
customers and the NRA. However the responsibilities are
not clearly legally defined. The role of the NRA is mainly
limited to approving codes, while the direct authority forvoltage quality regulation is not defined.

3.2.5. Emission limits
In order to regulate the impact that customer installations
have on the voltage quality of the transmission anddistribution network, the majority of the CPs has
imposed legislation defining emission limits forindividual customer. Maximal levels of disturbances
concerning voltage quality for the end-user installations
that are connected to the network are usually definedby the grid and distribution codes 18. However, different
approaches are identified in defining emission limits. In
the majority of the CPs, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro and Kosovo*, emission limits are defined interms of voltages according to international standards,
such as IEC standards and EN 50160. A different approachis used in Serbia, where maximum levels of electricity
current emissions are set for the installations connectedto the network.
Penalties for customers in case of violation of the maximum
levels of disturbances – other than disconnection – are notenvisaged in any of the observed CPs.

3.3.	VOLTAGE QUALITY MONITORINGSYSTEMS AND DATA
A voltage quality monitoring system has been implemented
only in Bosnia and Herzegovina and consequently actual
voltage quality data has been provided by Bosnia andHerzegovina only. Other CPs still have not installed any
voltage quality monitoring system.

3.3.1. Development of voltage quality
monitoring systems
Bosnia and Herzegovina has voluntarily implemented
a voltage quality monitoring system for the purposeof statistics and research. Voltage quality monitoring is
mainly done on the HV/MV delivery points between the
TSO and the DSO with portable instruments, namely with
1 instrument per location and type of network points
monitored, on a rolling basis. Pre-defined tariffs exist forthe cost of monitoring.

3.3.2. Smart meters and voltage quality monitoring
In most of the CPs, smart meters have not been introduced
for the time being. In some CPs a small number of smart
meters has been already installed but those meters do notallow voltage quality monitoring and there are no suchfunctionality requirements for smart meters imposed.

18.	Namely in the chapters dealing with connection to the transmission and distribution network.

266

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

3.3.3. Data collection, aggregation andpublication from VQMS
Taking into account that most of the surveyed CPs
still do not have a voltage quality monitoring system
implemented, they also do not have any practiceand procedures established for data collection,
aggregation and publication.
Consequently, only Bosnia and Herzegovina provided
information on current practice in collection,
aggregation and publication of voltage quality
data from the voltage quality monitoring system:
collected data is stored in the central computer andavailable upon request of the NRA and network
users. These data have been published only in thestudies, since responsibility for publication has notbeen defined yet.

3.3.4. A ctual data for voltage dips, other VQ
parameters and mitigation measures
Almost no CP was able to provide any actual data on
voltage dips and other VQ parameters. Additionally,
there are no reported data on mitigation measuresfrom any of the CPs concerned.
Only Bosnia and Herzegovina has provided somemonitoring data of VQ parameters. Bosnia andHerzegovina has reported a value of 132 voltage
dips per HV substation delivery points per year
estimated based on 33 voltage dips registered in
the measurement campaign at a limited numberof locations (6) during parts of 2008 (91 day). Datafor the following years were not available. In the
period 27March to 2 May 2010 high voltages wererecorded in 400 kV and 220 kV network in Bosnia andHerzegovina, where practically in all nodes at 400
kV and in some nodes at 220 kV, voltages exceeded
the upper limits up to 32% of the total measuring
time. In order to resolve VQ problems in the network,a study has been made and non-allowed voltages
were identified.

3.4.	FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSON VOLTAGE QUALITY
Finding 1
EN 50160 is implemented in most CPs
EN 50160 is implemented in the majority of the CPs,
mainly as voluntary standard, but also by legislation andregulation. It is usually defined in the general conditionsof supply or network codes, either as a reference tothe EN 50160 or by taking over the limits given in thelegislation and regulation. EN 50160 is mainly applied on
low and medium voltage levels up to 35 kV. Additionally,
it is predominantly used as a standard for supply voltage
variations. In most of the CPs EN 50160 has not beentranslated into local language.
Voltage quality standards that differ from EN 50160, suchas IEC 61000-x-x have been introduced for some voltage
characteristics, mainly via legislation and network codes.
Different standards are introduced for different reasons:historical, different network characteristics, introducing
new stricter limits, etc.

RECOMMENDATION 1
INTRODUCTION OF EN 50160 AND IEC
61000-X-X IN CP STANDARDIZATION,LEGISLATION AND REGULATION
CPs that have not adopted EN 50160 are encouraged
to do so. Those CPs that have adopted, but have nottranslated EN 50160 should make the effort totranslate EN 50160 in order to have precise
definitions in national language and to allow further
development of terminology. This also applies toother widespread standards like IEC 61000-x-x.
Implementing provisions in legislation (i.e. grid
codes or voltage quality rules) that are consistentor stricter than EN 50160 and IEC 61000-x-x is
recommended. Those CPs that have done this alreadyshould further improve the precision of definitions,limitations and exceptions. Since most CPs havebeen focused on supply voltage variations, efforts
should be extended to encompass all voltage
characteristics mentioned in EN 50160. Deviations
from EN 50160, IEC 61000-x-x and other should be
avoided as much as possible keeping in mind
national specifics.
The previous recommendations are preconditions
for NRAs to make efficient decisions on voltage
quality regulation.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

267

Finding 2
Legislation and regulation do not address
voltage quality monitoring

Finding 3
Voltage quality monitoring systems
have not been implemented

Detailed procedures and obligations for the establishmentof a voltage quality monitoring system have not been
defined in legal and regulatory frameworks of the
majority of the CPs. FYR Macedonia is the only CP where
legislation defines detailed procedure and obligations for
implementation of a voltage quality monitoring system.

Voltage quality monitoring systems for continuous voltage
quality monitoring have not been installed in any of theCPs and therefore they were not able to provide relevant
data on actual voltage quality levels. Only in Bosnia andHerzegovina, a voltage quality monitoring system for the
purpose of research has been voluntarily installed, andconsequently some data has been provided.

RECOMMENDATION 2
INTRODUCTION OF VOLTAGE QUALITY
MONITORING OBLIGATIONS
Direct obligations, as well as detailed procedures forestablishment of a voltage quality monitoring system,
should be defined in the legislation and regulationin all CPs. Provisions regarding requirements forvoltage quality instruments, collection, aggregationand publication of voltage quality data from thevoltage quality monitoring system should beestablished as well.

RECOMMENDATION 3
VOLTAGE QUALITY MONITORING SYSTEMSSHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED
CPs should encourage T/DSOs to develop voltage
quality monitoring systems for continuous voltage
quality monitoring in their networks. Monitoringshould take place at locations at which a good
estimation of the voltage quality as experienced bycustomers can be made. It is further acknowledgedthat data from continuous voltage quality
monitoring can provide useful information for
T/DSOs, resulting in significant cost savings andinformation to support investment decisions.
Having in mind that implementation of voltage
quality monitoring systems has not started yet inCPs, it is recommended for the CPs – prior to theimplementation – to undertake joint activities
towards harmonization of voltage quality
parameters and measurement methods.
The principle aims of compulsory or regulatorcontrolled monitoring should be to verify
compliance with voltage-quality requirements(both overall and for individual customers); to
provide information to customers on their actualor expected voltage quality; and to obtain
information for the setting of appropriate future
requirements. This should be considered when
deciding about the need for compulsory or
regulator-controlled monitoring.

268

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 4
Individual voltage quality verification is available
in the majority of the CPs
In majority of the CPs T/DSOs are legally obliged toprovide individual voltage quality verification uponrequest of end-users who experience voltage quality
problems. In several CPs, even without a legal obligation,in practice T/DSOs perform individual voltage quality
verification. In most of the cases, costs are paid by the
T/DSO, while in some CPs costs are paid by the customer
in the case that voltage quality proofs to comply withthe requirements. An obligation of providing individual
information on voltage quality is still not legally definedin the majority of the CPs.

Finding 5
Emission levels of network users
In most CPs legislation defining emission limits byindividual network users has been imposed. Emission
limits are usually defined by grid and distribution codes 19.
Different approaches are identified in defining emission
limits. In most CPs emission limits are defined in terms ofvoltages according to international standards, such as IEC
standards and EN 50160, except in Serbia where maximum
levels of electricity current emissions are set.
Penalties for customers in the case of violation of emission
limits – other than disconnection – are not envisaged inany of the CPs.

RECOMMENDATION 4RECOMMENDATION 5

INTRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF INDIVIDUAL VOLTAGE QUALITYVERIFICATION PROVISIONSPROVISIONS REGARDING EMISSION LEVELSSHOULD BE DEVELOPEDThe legal obligation for T/DSOs to provide individual
voltage quality verification upon user’s request
should be adopted in all CPs. This obligation shouldbe accompanied by a detailed description of theprocedure by the T/DSOs ensuring that all relevant
information about the procedure is available tocustomers, including definition and allocationof costs related to the verification.
Statistics on complaints and verification results
should be used by system operators for identifying
areas that need improvements or at least for
identifying areas that should be investigated further.
NRAs should use such statistics for regulatory
decisions regarding voltage quality.
It is further recommended that statistics oncomplaints and verification results are correlatedwith results from continuous voltage quality
monitoring (if in place).

Emission limits from individual customers arenecessary to maintain the voltage disturbance levels
within the voltage-quality requirements without
excessive costs for other customers. The limits onemission should be reasonable for both T/DSOs
and the customers causing the emission.
Introduction of emission limits for individual
network users by legislation or regulation should go
hand in hand with the legal establishment of voltage
quality standards that TSO and DSOs have tocomply with.
In case of violations of emission limits by a network
user, mitigation measures should be coordinated by
the TSO and DSOs.
A network user should pay penalties or be obliged
to carry out corrective measure if user’s installationis the source for a voltage complaint.

In the verification process, the system operator
should make reasonable efforts to identify thecause of the disturbance.

19.	Namely in the chapters dealing with connection to the transmission and distribution network.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

269

4 COMMERCIALQUALITY
4.1. INTRODUCTION
The answers received indicate that regulation of Commercial
Quality (CQ) is still in an early stage in all assessed CPs.
The questionnaire used for the present survey stressed thecomplexity of CQ with multiple suppliers and regulated
entities like DSO and Universal Service Providers (USP).
A brief examination of a supposedly simple businessprocess, like solving a Voltage Quality complaint, reveals
that CQ standards are strongly correlated with the market
design and legal framework. For most CPs this implies
the need to further develop legislation and practice toaccommodate even basic service quality regulation.
For example, concerning the process of solving a Voltage
Complaint, precise definitions of triggers and time intervals
are crucial, as well as defining the entity on which a certain
trigger/event/process applies to, since it is really different
if the customer calls his supplier in comparison to thescenario where the customer calls to DSO directly.

4.2.	OVERVIEW OF COMMERCIAL QUALITY
STANDARDS IN CPS
As suggested by the previous CEER Benchmarking Reports,
CQ requirements have been categorized in two main andtwo supplementary types:
 uaranteed Standards (GSs) refer to quality levels whichGmust be met in each individual case. If the company fails
to provide the level of service required by the GS, it mustcompensate the customer affected, subject to certain
exemptions. The definition of guaranteed standards
includes the following features:	performance covered by the standards (e.g. estimationof the costs for the connection);	maximum time before execution of the performance –commonly determined in terms of response (fulfilment)time (e.g. 5 working days);	economic compensation to be paid to the customer incase of failure to comply with the requirements.
 verall Standards (OSs) refer to a given set of cases
O(e.g. all customer requests in a given region for a given
transaction) and must be met with respect to the whole

population in that set. Overall standards are defined as follows:	
p erformance covered (e.g. connection of a newcustomer to the network)	minimum level of performance (commonly in % ofcases), which has to be met in a given period (e.g. in
a 90% of new customers have to be connected to the
distribution network within 20 working days).
	
Other Available Requirements (OAR). In addition to GSs
and OSs regulators (and/or other competent parties) can
issue requirements in order to achieve a certain quality
level of service. These quality levels can be defined by
the regulator, e.g. a minimum level which must be met
all customers at all times. If the requirements set by
the regulators are not met, the regulator can impose
sanctions (e.g. financial penalties) in most cases.
	Only Monitoring (OMs). Before issuing GSs and OSs,
regulators (and/or other competent parties) can monitor
the performance of DSOs, suppliers, universal suppliers
and/or metering operators, in order to understand the actual
quality level and to publish – when deemed appropriate– the actual data on services provided to the customers.
Commercial quality has been reviewed by using thefollowing four groups of indicators:
Connection (Group I);
Customer Care (Group II);
Technical Service (Group III);
Metering and Billing (Group IV).
The assessment shows an overwhelming use of explicit
provisions regarding quality where standard is applied toall (100%) cases (Table 22). Although such provisions arein essence GSs, in line with the benchmarking guidelines,
such standards are labeled as OARs because there isno compensation for individual customers and often
there is no penalty defined for the company. For most ofthese standards, penalties are based either on vague andimprecise general penal provisions or simply do not exist(even if required by primary legislation). Additionally, it
should be mentioned that the OARs present in the CPs areusually not influenced by the NRA, but are rather definedby primary or secondary legislation.
Table 22 shows that commercial quality in CPs is enforced
largely by OAR (91 within the total of 116).

270

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITYTABLE 22 COMMERCIAL QUALITY
Country

Guaranteed
standards(GS)

Overallstandards(OS)

Other available
requirements (OAR)

Only Measuring (O/M)

Albania0

Bosnia and Herzegovina

0

FYR of Macedonia
Kosovo*

Total

3

0

0

3

0

13

3

16

0

0

13

0

13

0

8

11

0

19

Montenegro

0

0

10

0

10

Serbia

0

0

15

6

21

Ukraine

0

0

13

0

13

Total

2

14

91

9

116

TABLE 23 NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EACH INDICATOR
Standards

GS

OS

OAR

O/M

Total

I.1 Time for response to customer claim for network connection

28

I.2 Time for cost estimation for simple works

1

3

4

I.3 Time for connecting new customers to the network

4

7

11

I. CONNECTION

I.4 Time for disconnection upon customer's request
TOTAL FOR CONNECTION INDICATORS

0

7

10

7

1

8

25

1

33

II. CUSTOMER CARE
II.5 Punctuality of appointments with customers

1

II.6 Response time to customer complaints and enquiries(including 6a and 6b)

7

2

9

II.6a Time for answering the voltage complaint

1

6

2

9

II.6b Time for answering the interruption complaint

3

2

5

II.7 Response time to questions in relation with costs
and payments (excluding connection)

5

1

5

II.8 Call Centres average holding time0

II.9 Call Centres service level0II.10 Waiting time in case of personal visit at client centres

0

TOTAL FOR CUSTOMER CARE INDICATORS

0

1

22

1

1

4

III.12 T ime until the start of restoration of supply following failureof fuse of DSO

41

III.13 Time for giving information in advance of a planned interruption

2

5

6

29

III. TECHNICAL SERVICE
III.11 T ime between the date of the answer to the VQ complaint
and the elimination of the problem

III.14 T ime until the restoration of supply in case of unplannedinterruption

1

TOTAL FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE INDICATORS

2

7

6
1

6
7

3

1

5

13

2

24

IV. METERING AND BILLING
IV.15 Time for meter inspection in case of meter failure

66

IV.16 Time from the notice to pay until disconnection

9

9IV.17 Time for restoration of power supply following disconnection
due to non-payment

77

IV.18 Y early number of meter readings by the designated company

88

TOTAL FOR METERING AND BILLING INDICATORS

0

0

30

0

30

TOTAL

2

15

90

9

116

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Table 23 shows that there is no particular group with aprevalent number of standards. This means that CQ is equallydeveloped (or rather equally undeveloped) in all indicatorgroups, with the exception of group II – Customer Care which
has twice as many indicators in comparison to other groups.
If the total number of standards per indicator is considered(Table 23), it is visible that indicator “I.3 Time for connecting
new customers to the network” has the highest numberof standards. Closely behind are indicators dealing withconnections claims and disconnections (I.3, I.4 and IV.16).
Also, handling complaints is important with a high totalof standards (II.6, II.6a).

271

4.3.	MAIN RESULTS OF BENCHMARKINGCOMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS
4.3.1. Group I – Connection
Most electricity legal frameworks encompass commercial
standards regarding connections. CPs have similar standards
and approaches to monitoring connection issues. This ofcourse accounts for predominant use of OAR standards as
explained earlier.

It should be noted that the current benchmarking is more
focused on commercial performances of the DSOs and lesson performances in the competitive sector of supply.

Connection-related activities have a complex structure.
Nevertheless, the four quality indicators (as presented inTable 24) defined in the questionnaire used for the present
survey represent the whole process for connection.
The questionnaire put emphasis on the division between
LV and MV customers (requesting information on
voltage levels that a standard applies to). However, CPs
instead rather differentiate connection procedures basedon the type of customer. In addition to the obvious
household type, categorizations in different CPs distinguishbetween legal entities, commercial customers on different
voltage levels, etc. Connection procedures revolve aroundthose types and “simple works” do not rely on common
criteria.

The analysis also proofed that no adequate statistical
data exists for most CQ indicators.

Due to the current levels of market opening, standards
for connection related activities in CPs apply to the DSO.

For the present benchmarking the distinction between
standards applied to DSOs, Suppliers and Universal
Suppliers is presently not informative since national
electricity markets are developing. Therefore, an overview
of standards and data availability with respect to relevant
company is skipped. However, some remarks will be given
in chapters analyzing particular groups of indicators.

TABLE 24 COMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CONNECTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Quality IndicatorCountries(grouped by type of standard)Standards(median value
and range)

Compensation(median value,
GS only)

Company
involved

Time for response to customer claim
for network connection

OS: ALOAR: BA, MK, ME, RS, UA, Kosovo*

25 days(15 - 30 days)-

DSO

Time for cost estimation
for simple works

OS: ALOAR: BA, MK, Kosovo*
None: ME,RS, UA

21 days(8 - 30 days)-

DSO

Time for connecting new customers
to the network

OS: AL, Kosovo*
OAR: BA, MK, ME, RS, UA
None:

20 days(4- 45 days)-

DSO

OAR: MK, ME, RS, UA, Kosovo*
O/M: BA
None: AL

12 days(3- 30 days)-

DSO

Time for disconnection uponcustomer’s request

4.3.2. Group II – Customer Care
Customer Care relates to the group of indicators with theleast number of standards. For certain indicators none of
the CPs has adopted standards. Of course it can be argued
that this is a direct reflection of the low level of competition.
Another reason that can be valid is that liberalization ofenergy sectors is lagging behind comparing to EU countries.
Direct interaction with customers is not monitored –starting with the lack of call centers (used by DSOs andincumbent suppliers), appointments and visits are notplanned/recorded, etc.

Another aspect is that DSOs and incumbent companies havenot been focusing on customers and many customer careindicators encountered in this benchmarking were purely
statistical information on certain commercial activities.
For example, customer complaints are recorded andaverage times can be calculated (or more often estimated).
However, as a rule, DSOs and incumbent companies do
not have customer relationship management or any
similar system, so there is no possibility to track a specificcustomer with a specific issue. That is the reason why
CPs cannot obtain data regarding indicators related tocustomer care as defined in the questionnaire used forthe present survey.

272

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITYTABLE 25 COMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CUSTOMER CARE ACTIVITIES
Quality IndicatorCountries(grouped by type of standard)Standards(median value
and range)

Compensation(median value,
GS only)

Company
involved

Punctuality of appointmentswith customers

OAR: BA
None: AL, MK, ME, RS, UA, Kosovo*

-

-

DSO

Response time to customer complaints
and enquiries (total, including 6a and 6b)

OAR: BA, MK, ME, UA, Kosovo*
O/M: RS
None: AL

26 days(15 - 30 days)-

DSO

Time for answering the voltage complaint(as part of q6)

OAR: BA, MK, ME, UA, Kosovo*
O/M: RS
None: AL,

16 days(2- 30 days)-

DSO

Time for answering the interruption
complaint (as part of q6)

O/M: RSOAR: MK, ME, Kosovo*
None: AL, BA, UA

20 days(15- 30 days)-

DSO

Response time to questions in relation withcosts and payments (excluding connection)

OAR: BA, ME, UA, Kosovo*
None: AL, MK, RS

8 days(1h- 8 days)-

DSO

Call Centres average holding time

-

-

-

-

Waiting time in case of personal visit
at client centres

-

-

-

-

Table 25 clearly shows that all CPs lack standards related
to Call Centers and do not record visits/appointments.
This information has been intentionally left in the tableto emphasize the need to develop technical systems
designed for customer care.

4.3.3. Group III – Technical Service
This particular group of quality indicators is the mostdiverse group within Commercial Quality. The reason
is that different CPs use different approaches for CQ
regulation and are at different development stages.

This is not evident from the benchmarking data presented
in this report, but was observed in the answers andremarks given by the CPs.
Standards related to technical services in principle
correspond to standards during the contract period andare tied to technical services of the DSO. All CPs identified
the DSO as company in charge. Nevertheless, it wasobserved that standards for technical services (and thelegal framework governing the supplier business) must be
developed to accommodate scenarios where customers
contact the DSO directly or their supplier for technicalservices.

TABLE 26 COMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES
Quality IndicatorCountries(grouped by type of standard)Standards(median value
and range)

Compensation(median value,
GS only)

Company
involved

Time between the date of the answer to the VQ
complaint and the elimination of the problem

OS: Kosovo*
OAR: BA, RS, UA
None: AL, MK, ME

25 days(1 - 60 days)-

DSO

Time until the start of restoration of supply
following failure of fuse of DSO

OS: Kosovo*
OAR: MK
O/M: BA
None: AL, ME, RS, UA

12 hours(1 - 24 hours)-

DSO

Time for giving information in advanceof a planned interruption

OS: Kosovo*, MD
OAR: BA, MK, RS, UA
None: AL, ME

3 days(1 - 10 days)-

DSO

Time until the restoration of supply in caseof unplanned interruption

O/M: BAOAR: MK, RS, UA
None: AL, ME, Kosovo*

18 hours(2- 24 hours)-

DSO

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

4.3.4. Group IV – Billing and metering
Billing and metering is the only group of quality
indicators where CPs reported standards that apply tocompanies other than the DSO. This is not surprising,since the development of markets starts with payments
and measurements (in this case electricity metering).
Although the indicators in this group (as shown in thefirst column of Table 27) are instantly recognizable, theactual standards and ranges used by different CPs show

273

that billing and metering should be developed in termsof definitions needed for precisely defining standards.
For example, the indicator “Time from the notice to pay
until disconnection” may be viewed as “time from sending
the notice…” or “Time from the notice is received…”
Similar to the group “Technical Services”, standards within“Billing and Metering” depend whether or not customers
must rely on a supplier for billing and metering or candirectly communicate or carry out business with the DSO
or the metering company.

TABLE 27 COMMERCIAL QUALITY STANDARDS FOR BILLING AND METERING
Quality IndicatorCountries(grouped by type of standard)Standards(median value
and range)

Compensation(median value,
GS only)

Company
involved

OAR: BA, MK, RS, UA, Kosovo*
None: AL, MK

14 days(2 - 30 days)-

DSO, MOTime from the notice to pay
until disconnection

OAR: BA, MK, ME, RS, UA, Kosovo*
None: AL

13 days(3 - 30 days)-

DSO

Time for restoration of power supply
following disconnection due to non-payment

OAR: BA, MK, ME, RS, UA, Kosovo*
None: AL,

2 days(1 - 7 days)-

DSO, SPTime until the restoration of supply in caseof unplanned interruption

OAR: BA, MK, ME, RS, UA, Kosovo*
None: AL

8 Meter Readings
per Year(2-12)-

DSO, SP,
USP, MOTime for meter inspection in caseof meter failure

4.4.	FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSON COMMERCIAL QUALITY
In general, commercial quality is in an early development
stage in all surveyed CPs. Therefore, all generalrecommendations for developing quality of service

standards can apply. However, there four issues specificfor the CPs that should be recognized. It should be alsomentioned that Commercial Quality in the CPs should
be considered in a broader perspective. Customer rights
are definitely lagging behind in comparison to customer
rights in the EU.

274

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 1
There is an overwhelming use of standards
that apply to all customers

Finding 2
CQ standards are not specifically applied tosuppliers or operators

There is an overwhelming use of explicit provisions that
apply to all (100%) customers (cases). These provisions
are in essence GS but they do not entail compensation
for individual customers or a penalty for the company.

Commercial Quality Standards may be applied todifferent market participants and operators. As thebenchmarking questionnaire suggests, standards canapply to DSOs, suppliers, universal service provides andothers. Currently, the distinction between standards
applied to DSOs, suppliers, universal service provides
is not informative for the CPs since electricity markets
are at early development stage.

RECOMMENDATION 1
EXISTING STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO ALL
CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC
At first sight, it would not be difficult to develop
such OARs into GS. It would be a simple matterof defining compensation for individual customers.
However, that approach would be risky since quality
standards should be introduced gradually – initiallystarting with measuring performance. Applying a
GS without a proper quantitative analysis can affectcompanies financially much more than expected or
initiate an tremendous number of complaints thatmust be handled (by the utility or the NRA).
Therefore, starting from the existing standards,
new ones should be created based on the following
approach:	Exemptions should be possible, allowing same
flexibility until a proper percentage of cases can be
defined within a GS;	Definitions should be developed in order to allow
monitoring and acquisition of data (proper
regulatory decisions or standards can be adopted
only based on statistical data);
	For those standards or regulatory provisions thatlack compensation for customers or penalties forcompanies, the most appropriate penance should
be found. In other words, an investigation should
be made regarding compensation vs. penalty or GS
vs. OS (or even a combination) to accommodate
practice and regulatory schemes.
Of course, OAR standards are not predetermined
to be supplemented by a GS. With a gradualapproach for creating standards, an OAR can betransformed into one or more different standardsof different type. The process can also maintainthe original OAR standard if necessary.
The 5th CEER Benchmarking Report on Qualityof Electricity Supply showed that countries in theCentral East of Europe (CEE) use predominantly
guaranteed standards. Due to similarities between
CEE countries and the CPs, it may be worthwhile
to investigate their experiences in CQ.

RECOMMENDATION 2
CQ STANDARDS SHOULD BE CREATED HAVINGIN MIND DIFFERENT ENTITIES (DSOs, SPs,
USPs, ETC.) AND DIFFERENT MARKET MODELSThe existence of different entities (DSOs, SPs, USPs,etc.) requires that standards should be defined withvery specific definitions and with specific businessprocesses in mind. For example, CQ standards
related to interruptions can be different dependingof the (retail) market model. In one market,
customers could be compelled to call their supplierfor power restoration with no direct contact with
the DSO. In another market, customers could havethe choice to call either their supplier or the DSO.
Consequently, “Time until the restoration of supply
in case of unplanned interruption” is not universally
applicable and may distort benchmarking results.
This also implies that NRAs should have deep
insight in the procedures of suppliers.
It may be argued that CQ standards should be tied
to regulated activities (DSO/USP/ regulated SP).
However, using CQ standards for all market players
may be beneficial in a couple of ways:	required publication of CQ performance can be used
as a tool for making the market more active by forcing
the suppliers to differentiate by CQ performance;	w ith new market entrants, some customer groups
could be troubled (i.e. residential customers
switching to new suppliers) by dominant
incumbent electricity companies, so CQ standards
are necessary to resolve certain problems;	poor performance of a supplier may indicate to the
NRA a more serious issue afflicting the supplier.
It should be emphasized that the Directive 2009/72/EC
calls for regulation of CQ, particularly with Article 3
dealing with “Public service obligations and customer
protection”.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITY

Finding 3
CQ standards are usually loosely definedDuring the benchmarking, it was observed that many CQ
indicators were rather obvious (according to the wording),
but only superficially defined. Minor differences in legal
provisions or practice between CPs showed that standards
need to be defined on precise terms and supported with
explanations and exceptions.
The indicator “Time from the notice to pay until
disconnection” can be used here to clarify. The standard
should precisely define the initial trigger and define theclosing event. Otherwise, there could be questions like –does this standard imply time counted from the post ofnotice or from the reception of the notice?

RECOMMENDATION 3
CQ STANDARDS SHOULD BE BASEDON SPECIFIC AND PRECISE DEFINITIONSThis issue does not need a specific solution since
the recommendation is rather obvious. However,
NRAs and DSOs should cooperate by sharing
experiences or participating in benchmarks.
By doing so, the development of definitions
and standards will be more efficient and rapid.
Of course, practice of EU MS should also be
considered.
Since most CPs did not provide historic data, it
would be beneficial to commence with measuringperformance in any way possible. The framework
for measuring performance will gradually evolve,
producing basis for introducing adequate
definitions and standards.

275

Finding 4
DSOs and incumbent companies do not placeemphasis on interaction with customers
DSOs and incumbent companies have not been focusedon customers but predominantly on their own activities.
Most of their statistical data which can be correlatedwith commercial standards is related to the “system”.
Historically, they had no need to track a specificcustomer with a specific issue. Consequently, data
regarding commercial quality, especially to customer
care, is not available.

RECOMMENDATION 4
DSOs AND SUPPLIERS SHOULD
IMPLEMENT CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPMANAGEMENT (CRM)
DSOs and suppliers should implement IT solutions
for Customer Relationship Management (CRM).
Apart from inherently adopting customer care,the use of such tools is essential for CQ standards.
The most important paradigm for companies is toimplement the ability to track a specific customer
with a specific issue. Apart from having better andmore efficient relations with specific customers,
statistics on an issue (time, cases, etc.) are statistics
relevant for CQ standards related to Customer Care.

276

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ANNEX ON THE 6 TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT – QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN THE ENERGY COMMUNITYAPPENDIX A – TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1	Indication of what kind of information on continuity of supply has been provided
by different countries

246

Table 2

Types of interruptions monitored

248

Table 3

Definitions of long, short and transient interruptions

248

Table 4

Definitions of planned and unplanned interruptions

249

Table 5

Voltage levels where monitoring of continuity takes place

250

Table 6

Cause categories that are used when recording interruptions

251

Table 7

Definitions of exceptional events

252

Table 8

Level of detail in interruption recording

254

Table 9Long interruption – indices for quantifying

254

Table 10The indices provided

255

Table 11

The indices by territorial density

256

Table 12	Unplanned SAIDI (all events; HV, MV, LV) – the distribution of incidents according
to their voltage level [%]256

Table 13	Unplanned SAIFI (all events; HV, MV, LV) – the distribution of incidents according
to their voltage level [%]257

Table 14

Unplanned SAIDI (all events) – Contribution of MV to the aggregated value [%]258

Table 15

Unplanned SAIFI (all events) – Contribution of MV to the aggregated value [%]258

Table 16

Information on network, equipment, energy supplied, number of customers

259

Table 17

An overview on existing continuity standards and incentive schemes260

Table 18

Indication of provided voltage quality information by different CPs

268

Table 19

EN 50160 implementation status

269

Table 20

VQ standards enforced/used at national level

270

Table 21

VQ measurement obligations

271

Table 22

Commercial quality

276

Table 23

Number of Commercial Quality Standards for each indicator

276

Table 24

Commercial Quality Standards for Connection-Related Activities

277

Table 25

Commercial Quality Standards for Customer Care Activities

278

Table 26

Commercial Quality Standards for Technical Services

278

Table 27

Commercial Quality Standards for Billing and Metering279

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016

277

278

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTermDefinition

ACER

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

ACM

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (Dutch National Regulatory Authority)

AIT

Average Interruption Time

AMI

Advanced Metering Infrastructure

ASIDI

Average System Interruption Duration Index

ASIFI

Average System Interruption Frequency Index

BR(CEER) Benchmarking Report (on Quality of Electricity Supply)

CAIDI

Customer Average Interruption Duration Index

CAIFI

Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index

CEER

Council of European Energy Regulators

CEMI

Customer Experiencing Multiple Interruptions

CENELEC

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

CI

Customer Interruptions

CIGRE

International Council on Large Electric Systems

CIRED

International Conference on Electricity Distribution

CML

Customer Minutes Lost

CoRDiSThe Standing Committee for Disputes and Sanctions (France)

CoS

Continuity of Supply

CQ

Commercial Quality

CRE

Commission de Régulation de l'Energie (French National Regulatory Authority)

CTAIDI

Customer Total Average Interruption Duration Index

DNO

Distribution Network Operator

DSO

Distribution System Operator

DVGW

German Technical and Scientific Association for Gas and Water

ECRB

Energy Community Regulatory Board

EHV

Extra High Voltage

EI

Swedish Energy Markets Inspectorate (Swedish National Regulatory Authority)

EMC

Electromagnetic Compatibility

END

Energy Not Distributed

ENS

Energy Not Supplied

ERDF

Electricity Distribution Network France

ERSE

Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos / Energy Services Regulatory Authority(Portuguese National Regulatory Authority)

EU

European Union

GGP

Guidelines of Good PracticeGI

Guaranteed Indicators

GIS

Geographic Information System

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTermDefinition

GRDF

Gaz Réseau Distribution France

HEO

Hungarian Energy Office (Hungarian National Regulatory Authority)

HP

High Pressure

HVHigh Voltage

IEC

International Electrotechnical Commission

IEEE(formerly) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas

LP

Low Pressure

LV

Low Voltage

MAIFI

Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index

MAIFIE

Momentary Average Interruption Event Frequency Index

MO

Meter Operator

MP

Medium PressureMV

Medium Voltage

NA

Not Applicable

NIEPI

Equivalent number of interruptions related to the installed capacity

NRA

National Regulatory Authority

NVE

Norges Vassdrags – og Energidirektorat (Norway)

Ofgem

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (British National Regulatory Authority)

OI

Overall Indicators

OR

Other Requirements

r.m.s.

Root Mean Square

SAIDI

System Average Interruption Duration Index

SAIFI

System Average Interruption Frequency Index

SCADASupervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SEWRC

State Energy and Water Regulatory Commission (Bulgaria)

SP

Supplier

THD

Total Harmonic Distortion

TIEPI

Equivalent interruption time related to the installed capacity

TNC

Transmission Network Code

T-SAIFI

Transformer System Average Interruption Frequency Index

TSO

Transmission System Operator

UCTE

Union for the Coordination of the Transmission of Electricity

Un

Nominal Voltage

USP

Universal Supplier

VQ

Voltage Quality

VQM

Voltage Quality Monitoring

WI

Wobbe Index

279

280

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
LIST OF COUNTRY ABBREVIATIONSLIST OF COUNTRY ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation

Full country nameAL

AlbaniaAT

AustriaBE

BelgiumBA

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BG

Bulgaria

HR

Croatia

CY

CyprusCZ

Czech Republic

DK

Denmark

EE

EstoniaFI

Finland

FR

FranceDE

Germany

GB

Great Britain (GB is used for Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wales)

EL

GreeceHU

HungaryIS

Iceland

IE

Ireland

IT

Italy

KS

KosovoLV

LatviaLT

Lithuania

LU

Luxembourg

MK

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYR of Macedonia)

MT

Malta

MD

Moldova

ME

Montenegro

NL

The Netherlands

NO

NorwayPL

PolandPT

PortugalRO

Romania

RS

SerbiaSK

Slovak Republic

SI

Slovenia

ES

Spain

SE

SwedenCH

Switzerland

UA

Ukraine6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
LIST OF REFERENCES

281

LIST OF REFERENCES[1]	CEER, “Quality of Electricity Supply: Initial Benchmarking on Actual Levels, Standards and Regulatory Strategies,”
2001.
[2]

CEER, “Second Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply,” 2003.

[3]

CEER, “Third Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply 2005,” 2005.

[4]

CEER, “4th Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply 2008,” 2008.

[5]

CEER, “5th CEER Benchmarking Report on the quality og Electricity Supply 2011,” 2012.

[6]	SINTEF Energy Research, ““Study on estimation of costs due to electricity interruptions and voltage disturbances”,”
TR F6978, December 2010..
[7]	“Guidelines of Good Practice on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances,”
7 December 2010, Ref: C10-EQS-41-03, http://www.energy-regulators.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/
EER_PUBLICATIONS/CEER_PAPERS/Electricity/2010/C10-EQS-41-03_GGP%20interuptions%20and%20voltage_
7-Dec-2010.pdf.
[8]

CENELEC, “Interruption indexes,” Technical Report TR 50555, 2010..

[9]	N. Pereira, S. Faias and J. Esteves, “Impact of Techno-economic Context on the Continuity of Supply of the European
Distribution Networks,” Lisbon Engineering Superior Institute (ISEL), Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos(ERSE), INESC ID, 2016.
[10]	Galvin electricity initiative, “Electricity Reliability: problems, progress and policy solutions,” http://www.galvinpower.
org/sites/default/files/Electricity_Reliability_031611.pdf, 2011.
[11]	A. A. Chowdhury and D. O. Koval, “Power Distribution System Reliability: Practical Methods and Applications,”
IEEE Press, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009.
[12]	E. Fugmagalli, L. Lo Schiava and F. Delestra, “Service quality regulation in electricity distribution and retail,”
Springer, 2007.
[13]	CEER, “Guideline of Good Practice on Estimation of Costs due to Electricity Interruptions and Voltage Disturbances,”2010.
[14]	CEER, ECRB, “Guidelines of Godd Practice on the Implementation and Use of Voltage Quality Monitoring Systems
for Regulatory Purposes,” 2012.
[15] EN 61000-4-30, “Power Quality Monitoring EURELECTRIC Views,” 2009.
[16]	Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximationof the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC(“EMC Directive”).
[17] EURELECTRIC , “Power Quality Monitoring EURELECTRIC Views,” 2009.
[18]	CEER, “Status Review of Retulatory Aspects of Smart Meetering, including an assesment of roll out as of
1 January 2013,” 12. september 2013.
[19] S. K. S. Taxt, “Storskale spenningsmåling md AMS,” Sintef Energi, 2014.

282

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
LIST OF REFERENCES[20] IEC, IEC/PAS 62559, “IntelliGrid Methodology for Developing Requirements for Energy Systems.,” 2008.
[21]	REN – Rede Eléctrica Nacional, S.A., “Qualidade de Energia Elétrica [Online]. Available: http://www.ren.pt/pt-PT/o_que_fazemos/eletricidade/qualidade_de_energia_electrica/,” 2014.
[22]	P. S. a. G. W. J. Meyer, “Efficient method for power quality surveying in distribution networks,” in CIRED conference,
Turin , 6-9 June 2005.
[23] K. Consulting, “Premium Power Quality contracts and labelling,” Arnhem, Apr. 2007.
[24]	S. EDP Distribuição – Energia, “Qualidade de Energia Elétrica [Online]. Available: http://edp-distribuicao.waynext.
com/,” 2014.
[25]	
C. –. C. E. d. V. D’Este, “Qualidade da Onda de Tensão 2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.ceve.pt/index.
php?cat=108&item=2125,” 2014.
[26]	S. Faias and J. Esteves, “Guidelines for Publication of Voltage Quality Monitoring Results in Portugal: A Regulatory
Perspective,” International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ’16).
[27]	
“ Network code on interoperability and data exchange rules,” http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015R0703.
[28]	
“General Information Wobbe Index and Calorimeters, Hobre,” http://www.hobre.com/files/products/Wobbe_
Index_general_information.pdf.
[29]	“Calculation of Hydrocarbon Dew Point, Effectech,” http://www.effectech.co.uk/downloads/applicationnotes.php.
[30]	“Standard CEN EN 16726: Gas infrastructure – Quality of gas – Group H,” https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/
f?p=204:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT,FSP_ORG_ID:38695, 6215&cs=1E95E0B2AB2FE827AC0028AFF21E62B81.
[31]	CENELEC EN 50160, “Voltage Characteristics of electricity supplied by public electricity networks,” 2010.
[32] CIGRE Technical Brochure TB 412, “Voltage dip immunity of equipment and installations”, April 2010.
[33]	EN 61000: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-30: Testing and measurement techniques – Power quality
measurement methods.
[34]	“Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parlament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rulesof the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC ("Third Package")”.
[35]	L. P. a. A. Tavares, “Power quality of supply characterization in the Portuguese electricity transmission grid,”in CIRED conference, Stockholm , 10-13 June 2013.
[36] CENELEC, “EN 50160, Voltage characteristics of electricity supplied by public electricity networks,” 2010.

6TH CEER BENCHMARKING REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS SUPPLY – 2016
ABOUT CEER

283

ABOUT CEER
The Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) is the voice of Europe's national regulators ofelectricity and gas at EU and international level. CEER’s members and observers (from 33 European
countries) are the statutory bodies responsible for energy regulation at national level.
One of CEER’s key objectives is to facilitate the creation of a single, competitive, efficient andsustainable EU internal energy market that works in the public interest. CEER actively promotes aninvestment-friendly and harmonised regulatory environment, and consistent application of existing
EU legislation. Moreover, CEER champions consumer issues in our belief that a competitive and secure
EU single energy market is not a goal in itself, but should deliver benefits for energy consumers.
CEER, based in Brussels, deals with a broad range of energy issues including retail markets andconsumers; distribution networks; smart grids; flexibility; sustainability; and international cooperation.
European energy regulators are committed to a holistic approach to energy regulation in Europe.
Through CEER, NRAs cooperate and develop common position papers, advice and forward-thinking
recommendations to improve the electricity and gas markets for the benefit of consumers and businesses.
The work of CEER is structured according to a number of working groups and task forces, composed ofstaff members of the national energy regulatory authorities, and supported by the CEER Secretariat.
This report was prepared by the Electricity Quality of Supply Task Force of CEER’S Distribution Systems
Working Group.
CEER wishes to thank in particular the following regulatory experts for their work in preparing thisreport: A. Ånestad, A. Candela, H. Fadum, S. Faias, S. Hilpert, P. Kusy, J. Liska, H. Pousinho, O. Radovic,
E. Tene, J. Vincent, J. Vogado and M. Westermann.
More information at www.ceer.eu.

Design by:www.generis.be
Photos credits:
iStockphoto (p.6-7, p.8-9); shutterstock (cover, p.16, p.18, p.80, p.110, p.138, p.164, p.176)

Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER)
Cours Saint-Michel 30a, box F
1040 Brussels
Belgium
Tel : + 32 2 788 73 30
Fax : + 32 2 788 73 50
www.ceer.eu
brussels@ceer.eu
twitter.com/CEERenergy