Geoprint for Energy Club Connections and Operations (GECCO)

Project partner: TNEI, Regen, Energy Local, Hook Norton

Overview

Geoprint for Energy Club Connections and Operations (GECCO) will explore a new type of flexible connection providing a fairer, smarter way for community energy groups to connect. It will develop and test a “geoprint” approach to identify optimal points for linking local generation and demand collectively, reducing connection costs and supporting community energy operations. The project aims to unlock long-term benefits for communities by enabling local balancing, lower bills, and creating a scalable, regulatorily viable connection framework for community-led energy models.

Problem(s)

Community energy is seen as a key part of a just net zero transition by key stakeholders including GB Energy, however, it has not reached its full potential because:

1. Community energy groups struggle to connect. They use their limited time and money only to find that a connection is not economically viable due to network constraints.
2. Community energy groups struggle to find long-term financial mechanisms to support their projects. There is an opportunity for more of the economic value from generation projects to be retained locally if modification P441 to the Elexon and Balancing and Settlement Code progresses (enables local energy trading at a complex site).

Method(s)

The project will seek to develop and test a connection for a ‘Geoprint’ of demand and generation and in doing so will provide new insights into NGED modelling practices as well as how community energy is treated within NGED.

This is achieved by;

• the selection of three community energy groups,
• investigating how a Geoprint connection offer could be applied at these locations,
• considering the regulatory implications and challenges which could be associated with a Geoprint connection available exclusively to community energy groups.
• After a stage gate, the project then considers the practical implications of the Geoprint connection, for example, how it would change the standard connection journey,
•  the last investigation within the project considers placing the Geoprint in the context of scenarios including DFES.
• Lastly, the learnings from the project will be disseminated as well as considering the next steps.

Work Package 1 – Landscape and Data

Two community energy case studies will be selected in addition to project partner Hook Norton giving three case studies in total. During WP1, these community groups will be interviewed to understand their development ambitions. This will be used to inform the design of the Geoprint at each location.

Success criteria:

• Initial hypothesis of the cost benefits to a customer and to the grid for a customer connecting a Geoprint.
•  Two community energy groups identified and case study analysis completed of them and Hook Norton.
• NGED modelling assumptions and data required for project identified.

Work Package 2A – Geoprint Design and Technical Assessment

At the three case study sites, TNEI will run technical feasibility assessments to develop the connection options which could be given to these community energy groups based on the ambitions identified in WP1.

Success criteria:

• Create the methodology for the Geoprint connection.
• Determine the technical feasibility of the Geoprint Connection.
• Identify improvements for NGED modelling assumptions and opportunities to apply monitoring.
• Determine for each case study, the associated costs of developing their ambition using standard connections or the Geoprint connection.

Work Package 2B – Regulatory and Commercial

This work package will look at the regulatory implications for the Geoprint connection in the context of local energy markets and assess the potential commercial arrangements.

Success criteria:

• Interviews with wider industry to obtain full regulatory landscape across Elexon, DNO’s, suppliers, government etc.
• Understand detailed connection policies and implications for new types of connection.
•  Develop proposals for regulatory amendments and drive momentum in discussions of change.
• Define commercial models for applying Energy Clubs and accelerating adoption of local energy markets.

Stage Gate

Current progress reflected on and decision made on best next steps and whether to progress to Work Package 3.

Success criteria:

• Justification and clear rationale for decision on Stage Gate.

Work Package 4 – Next Steps, Planning and Dissemination

Geoprint tested in the context of long-term energy planning and a roadmap developed as to how NGED can take forward the technical learning points from the project into normal practice.

Success criteria:

• Understand how the Geoprint can contribute under different scenarios for specific timeframes, considering distributed flexibility, local balancing, and community energy growth. This will take into consideration other planning scenarios including RESP and DFES.
• Develop a future roadmap on the development of the Geoprint connection
• Project findings, lessons learnt in a cohesive report.
• Dissemination webinar

• Scope

  GECCO is an NGED innovation project exploring a fairer, smarter way for community energy groups to connect to the network. It will develop and test a “Geoprint” approach to identify optimal points for linking local generation and demand collectively, reducing connection costs and supporting community energy operations. The project aims to unlock long-term benefits for communities by enabling local balancing, lower bills, and creating a scalable, regulatorily viable connection framework for community-led energy models.

  This will be achieved by the following approach:

  Work Package 1 – Landscape and Data

  Two community energy case studies will be selected in addition to project partner Hook Norton giving three case studies in total. During WP1, these community groups will be interviewed to understand their development ambitions. This will be used to inform the design of the Geoprint at each location.

  Work Package 2A – Geoprint Design and Technical Assessment

  At the three case study sites, TNEI will run technical feasibility assessments to develop the connection options which could be given to these community energy groups based on the ambitions identified in WP1.

  Work Package 3 - Geoprint Connections and Customer

  Journey Mapping At this stage the focus moves to what the Geoprint connection would look like in NGED processes and barriers to BAU including the processes and training required for planners as well as the experience for customers and community energy groups.

  Work Package 4 – Next Steps, Planning and Dissemination

  Geoprint tested in the context of long-term energy planning and a roadmap developed as to how NGED can take forward the technical learning points from the project into normal practice.

  By addressing the first issue of community energy groups struggling to connect, we will achieve the following…

  Network:

  • By appreciating that the Energy Club is balancing its generation and demand, we may be able to change the parameters of what an acceptable point of connection is i.e., we can model less conservatively.
  • Integrating generation or demand connections into the Energy Local Club Geoprint can reduce need for reinforcement and make connections quicker for community energy groups.
  • The learnings from the Geoprint connection will also be taken and applied to further innovation as to how connecting smart local energy systems may support accelerated connections for other customers e.g., industrial clusters.

  Community energy benefits:

  • Finding the most efficient point of connection means the best possible cost for community energy groups – cost is one of the reasons community energy projects fail.
  • Finding the best point of connection by knowing that generation and demand are being matched within the Geoprint radius means that we build a 2km cable rather than 10km – cheaper for the community energy group.

  By addressing the second issue of community energy groups struggling with long-term financing, we will achieve the following…

  Network:

  • Having multiple Energy Local Clubs connected to the network could open new opportunities for flexibility.
  • Co-locating generation and demand is best practice in terms of creating an efficient electricity network – the further we have to transport electricity the more losses occur – we have a licence condition to reduce losses. Energy Local Clubs are based on systems of local matching.

  Community energy benefits:

  • By using generation locally, the cost of energy can be reduced for customers and this can be targeted towards those in fuel poverty.
  • Being able to use local energy is the holy grail of community energy – communities want to know that as far as possible they are using the electricity generated by their wind turbine, solar farm etc.
• Objectives
  • Develop the Geoprint connection methodology.
  • Test the Geoprint connection methodology at three case study community energy groups.
  • Assess the viability of Geoprint connections for community energy groups from a regulatory and commercial perspective.
  • Collect evidence to support regulatory changes (License Conditions 4, 19 and 13 which prevent DNOs from targeting support to community energy groups; Balancing and Settlement Code P441 which prevents settlement at the local level).
  • Increase understanding of treatment of losses within local energy markets.
  • Increase understanding of HV feeder level voltage management through monitoring and changes to modelling assumptions.
  • Improve understanding of how LV monitoring can further help community and local energy projects.
  • Evaluate application of the Geoprint connection for different types of customers.
• Success Criteria

  Work Package 1 – Landscape and Data

  • Initial hypothesis of the cost benefits to a customer and to the grid for a customer connecting a Geoprint.
  • Two community energy groups identified and case study analysis completed of them and Hook Norton.
  • NGED modelling assumptions and data required for project identified.

  Work Package 2A – Geoprint Design and Technical Assessment

  • Create the methodology for the Geoprint connection.
  • Determine the technical feasibility of the Geoprint Connection.
  • Identify improvements for NGED modelling assumptions and opportunities to apply monitoring.
  • Determine for each case study, the associated costs of developing their ambition using standard connections or the Geoprint connection.

  Work Package 2B – Regulatory and Commercial

  • Interviews with wider industry to obtain full regulatory landscape across Elexon, DNO’s, suppliers, government etc.
  • Understand detailed connection policies and implications for new types of connection.
  • Develop proposals for regulatory amendments and drive momentum in discussions of change.
  • Define commercial models for applying Energy Clubs and accelerating adoption of local energy markets.

  Stage Gate

  • Justification and clear rationale for decision on Stage Gate.

  Work Package 3 - Geoprint Connections and Customer Journey Mapping

  • Develop and document a repeatable methodology for technical and commercial assessment of future Geoprint sites
  • Map changes from a standard connection to a Geoprint connection for both NGED staff and customers.

  Work Package 4 – Next Steps, Planning and Dissemination

  • Understand how the Geoprint can contribute under different scenarios for specific timeframes, considering distributed flexibility, local balancing, and community energy growth.
  • Develop a future roadmap on the development of the Geoprint connection
  • Project findings, lessons learnt in a cohesive report.
  • Dissemination webinar
• Potential for new learning

  During the course of the project, we will answer the following questions:

  • Is the Geoprint connection technically feasible and what is required in terms of back-up protection for network assets if the expected balance of demand and generation does not occur?
  • What are the regulatory and commercial implications for a Geoprint connection?
  • What regulatory and landscape changes are required to support community energy more widely?
  • Would this connection type support community energy groups in their development and support a wider proliferation of local energy markets?
  • Are there improvements that can be mode to our HV modelling and by changing our planning assumptions can we unlock greater capacity?
  • How can we optimise our use of LV monitoring and use data and monitoring to support community energy groups and local energy markets?
  • What are the implications for increasing the number of complex sites connecting to the network?
  • What are the opportunities for connecting smart local energy systems outside of community energy groups?

  The following learning dissemination is scheduled into the project’s activities:

  Work Package 2A – internal dissemination to collect feedback from planners, DSO and Connection Policy teams

  Work Package 2B – external dissemination to collect feedback from community energy groups and partners

  Work Package 4 – project dissemination webinar to cover findings, learnings and next steps from across the project

  NGED also hosts four community events every year across each of our license areas and GECCO is likely to be presented at least one of these depending on the locations of the community energy groups that are selected as case studies.