SGSC Shaping

Smart Grid, Smart City:
Shaping Australias
Energy Future
National Cost Benefit Assessment
July 2014
Part 1 Overview of Australias energy sector

Part 2 The business case for smart grids in Australia
Part 3 Conclusions and Recommendations
7
149
237
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
289
349
437
483
Overview of Australias Energy Sector

Methodology
Table of Results
Customer Bill Impacts
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In March 2013, a consortium of Australian-based

consultancy firms was commissioned to utilise the
Smart Grid, Smart City trial results and learnings to
develop an integrated cost benefit assessment for
smart grid technologies in a national context.
AEFI would like to thank Ausgrid and Australian

Government staff for their detailed input in providing
background information, Smart Grid, Smart City trial
data and feedback on different elements of the cost
benefit assessment and final report.
TheAEFI consulting consortium included:

Arup
Energeia
Frontier Economics
Institute for Sustainable Futures
(University of Technology Sydney)
This report was prepared by Arup in connection with

the Smart Grid, Smart City Program in 2014. Ittakes
into account our client's particular instructions,
requirements and priorities at the time. This report
is based on specific assumptions which have
been outlined in a number of supporting technical
documents published in conjunction with this report.
No responsibility is taken by Arup to any third party
including in relation to their use of the findings in this
report and third parties are advised to undertake their
own assessments as required to satisfy themselves
as to the adequacy or otherwise of the contents on
this report.
WRITING AND PROJECT

MANAGEMENT TEAM
Arup
Project Director Richard Sharp,
Project Manager Ranelle Cliff
Michelle Norris (lead writer), Ranelle Cliff,
Richard Sharp, Samuel Koci, Hugh Gardner
Energeia
Melanie Koerner, Ezra Beeman, Geoff Erder
Frontier Economics
Andrew Harpham, James Allen
Edward Langham, Jenni Downes
1 Wayfinding
This document presents the findings of the national cost benefit assessment for smart grid technologies
and products based on the outcomes of the Smart Grid, Smart City program. The document is presented in
three distinct parts which, when combined, provide the reader with the required context and information to
understand the results and the corresponding conclusions and recommendations. In this sense, the document
is intended to be accessible to readers with a reasonably technical background but no experience with either
the electricity sector or smart grid technologies. Readers who are already familiar with the electricity sector
and the history of the Smart Grid, Smart City program, may wish to skip straight to the findings in later parts.
Overview of the national cost

benefitassessment.
Provides the background to the

Smart Grid, Smart City program and
a description of the technologies
and products trialled as part of the
Smart Grid, Smart City program.
Presents the cost benefit

modelling results. This part
alsodocuments the stakeholder
engagement process. The
modelling approach and
assumptions is detailed at
Appendix 2.
0 1 2
PART TWO:
The Business
Case for
Smart Grids
in Australia
PART ONE:
Smart Grid,
Smart City
Trials
Executive
Report
Start here if
Start here if
Start here if
Have limited time and require

an overview of the assessment.
You may need to refer to other
parts where you require further
information, particularly if you are
new to the energy sector or the
Smart Grid, Smart City program.
You have a good understanding of

the Australian energy sector, but
have had limited exposure to the
Smart Grid, SmartCityprogram.
You have detailed knowledge of

the Australian energy sector and
have been following the Smart
Grid, Smart City program. You
would like to understand the
detailed quantitative results of the
national cost benefit assessment.
Available from the ICH
Go to page 07
Go to page 149
Provides a strategic discussion of

the conclusions and associated
recommendations based on the
results of the national cost benefit
assessment. This part provides an
indicative assessment of how smart
grid technologies could be deployed
in Australia in the context of the
existing energy policy and regulatory
reform agenda and an appreciation
of the forward work program which
will be required to achieve the
benefitsidentified.
These are a series of technical

documents which are separate
to this national cost benefit
assessment report. These
technical compendia provide
detailed results and lessons
learned in deploying individual
smart grid technologies and
products over the course of the
Smart Grid, Smart City trials.
These documents can be
found on the Ausgrid Smart
Grid, Smart City Information
Clearing House (CH) http://ich.
3 4
PART THREE:
Conclusions and
recommendations
smartgridsmartcity.com.au/
Technical
Compendia
Start here if
Start here if
You have detailed knowledge of the

Australian energy sector and the Smart
Grid, Smart City program. You are
not so concerned with the technical
detail of the assessment but require
an understanding of the strategic
implications of the findings of the
assessment on the deployment of
smart grid technologies and products
inAustralia.
You require detailed technical

information about deploying smart
grid technologies and products
within a distribution network and/or
to individual customers.
Go to page 237
Available from the ICH
You are also likely to have a

detailed appreciation of electrical
engineering and the safety
standards and operations of an
Australian electricity network.
Part 1
Smart Grid,
Smart City Trials
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Part One Smart Grid, Smart City Trials ARUP 7
Part 1 Contents
1
1
Wayfinding
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program
4
12
1.1
Introduction
12
1.2
Funding for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
12
1.3
Location of smart grid trial activities
13
1.4
Scope of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program 17
1.5
Smart Grid, Smart City Information Clearing House
19
1.6
20
1.7 The Smart Grid, Smart City: National Cost Benefit Assessment Report
23
An introduction to transitioning Australias electricity

distribution networks
24
2.1
Defining a smart grid
24
2.2
Is a smart grid right for Australia?
25
2.3
Overview of Part One of this report
26
The global evolution towardssmart grids
27
3.1
29
Reporting the findings of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
Global smart grid supporting policies and programs
3.2
Smart Grid, SmartCity work streams and trial technologies
32
Common platform study and NBN interoperability
33
4.1
What is a commonplatform?
33
4.2
The role of a common platform inasmart grid
33
4.3 The Common Platform and NBN Interoperability Project and the Smart Grid, Smart City
trial objectives and timelines
35
4.4
Smart Grid, Smart City common platform and NBN interoperability trials
36
4.5
38
5
6
Grid applications workstream an overview

Active Volt-Var Control(AVVC)
41
43
6.1
What are Active Volt-Var Control (AVVC) technologies?
43
6.2
AVVCs role in a smart grid
43
6.3
AVVC Smart Grid, Smart City Project objectives and timelines
44
6.4
Where are AVVC technologies currently deployed?
45
High level lessonslearned
6.5
Smart Grid, SmartCity AVVC trials
45
49
6.6
High level trialresults
8 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Part One Smart Grid, Smart City Trials ARUP
Fault Detection, Isolation and Restoration (FDIR)
52
7.1
What are fault detection, isolation and restoration (FDIR) technologies?
52
7.2
FDIR role in a smart grid
53
7.3
FDIR and the Smart Grid, Smart City trial objectives and timelines
54
7.4
Where are FDIR technologies currently deployed?
55
7.5
Smart Grid, SmartCity FDIR trials
56
7.6
58
Substation and feeder monitoring (SFM) technologies
61
8.1
What are substation and feeder monitoring (SFM) technologies?
61
8.2
SFM role in asmart grid
61
8.3
SFM and Smart Grid, Smart City trial objectives and timelines
62
8.4
Where are SFM technologies currently deployed?
64
High level trialresults
8.5
Smart Grid, SmartCity SFM trials
64
8.6
68
Wide Area Measurement (WAM)
73
9.1
What are Wide Area Measurement (WAM) technologies?
73
9.2
WAMs role in a smart grid
73
9.3 WAM Smart Grid, Smart City trial objectives and timelines
75
9.4
76
High level trial results
Where are WAM technologies currently deployed?
9.5
Smart Grid, SmartCity WAM trials
78
79
9.6
High level trialfindings
10 Electric Vehicles (EVs)
81
10.1 What are electric vehicle (EV) technologies?
81
10.2 The role of electric vehicles in a smart grid
82
10.3 The electric vehicle Smart Grid, Smart City Trial objectives and timelines
83
10.4 Where are electric vehicles currently deployed?
84
10.5
Smart Grid, SmartCity Electric Vehicle trials
88
10.6 High level trial findings
91
10.7 Further considerations for Electric Vehicle deployment for Australia
93
11 Smart Meter Infrastructure (SMI)
95
11.1
95
11.2 Smart meter infrastructures role ina smart grid
95
11.3 Smart meter infrastructure and the Smart Grid, Smart City trial objectives and timelines
96
11.4 Where is smart meter infrastructure currently deployed?
98
11.5
Smart Grid, Smart City smart meter infrastructure trials
102
103
What are smart meters and smart meter infrastructure (SMI) technologies?
11.6 High level trialfindings
12 Customer Applications
109
12.1 What are customer application technologies?
109
12.2 The role for customer applications in a smart grid
110
12.3 Customer applications objectives and timelines in the Smart Grid, Smart City Project
110
12.4 Where are customer application technologies currently deployed?
112
12.5
Smart Grid, Smart City customer application trials
113
127
12.6 High level trialresults
13 Distributed Generation and Distributed Storage (DGDS)
134
13.1 What are distribution generation and distributed storage technologies?
134
13.2 The role for distribution generation and distributed storage in a smart grid
136
13.3 Distribution generation and distributed storage objectives and timelines

in the Smart Grid, Smart City Project
137
13.4 Where are distribution generation and distributed storage technologies

are currently deployed?
139
13.5
Smart Grid, Smart City distribution generation and distributed storage trials
139
143
13.6 High level trial results
1 The Smart Grid,

Smart City Program
1.1 Introduction
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program was part of
the (then) Australian Governments Energy Efficiency
Initiative. Australian Government funding allocated to
the project was intended to develop an understanding
of the potential opportunities and issues in deploying a
21st century electricity grid that uses information and
communications to improve the efficiency of electricity
production, delivery and use. It was intended to deliver
Australias first demonstration and / or commercialscale rollout of smart grid technologies.
1.2 Funding for the

Smart Grid, Smart City
Program
The Ausgrid consortium was selected as the preferred
tenderer following an open tender process in which the
Australian Government received four applications.
In 2010, the Australian Government committed
approximately (AUD) $100 million in funding to the
Ausgrid consortium: Ausgrid (one of the three New
South Wales electricity distribution entities); IBM
Australia; GE Energy Australia; Grid Net; CSIRO;
Transgrid; EnergyAustralia; Landis+Gyr; Sydney
Water; Hunter Water; the University of Newcastle; the
University of Sydney; Lake Macquarie City Council and
the City of Newcastle. Ausgrid and its trial partners
provided additional funding resulting in total funding
for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program of more than
(AUD) $490 million in cash and in-kind support.
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program represents one
of the largest and most ambitious commercial-scale
trial deployments of smart grid infrastructure in
the world.
The Australian Government objectives of the Smart

Grid, Smart City Program were to:
Deploy a demonstration and/or commercial
scale rollout, as specified in the Guidelines1, that
informs a business case for key applications and
technologies of a smart grid
Build public and corporate awareness of the
economic and environmental benefits of smart
grids and obtain buy-in from industry
and customers
Gather robust information and data to inform
broader industry adoption of smart grid
applications across Australia
Investigate synergies with other infrastructure
(suchas gas and water) and the National
Broadband Network
1.3 Location of smart

grid trial activities
The trial was largely focussed on the greater
Newcastle and Sydney CBD areas with some
additional areas selected to test specific smart grid
applications focussed on long rural
network topologies.
The different trial work streams implemented
technologies and activities on one, multiple, or all
of the selected zones depending on their specific
requirements. The selection of appropriate geographic
locations for the trial was considered critical to
producing reliable data that could be accurately
extrapolated to assess the viability of a large scale
smart grid roll-out in Australia.
The greater Newcastle area was selected as one
of the focal points for the trial due to its mix of
regional and suburban characteristics that result in
representative geography, climate, socioeconomic and
demographic factors. The customer demographic and
socioeconomic indicators in Newcastle closely reflect
the demographic attributes of a typical Australian
city. Newcastles close relationship to the Australian
average for customer demographics is widely
accepted and has resulted in the city being used as
a test market for products and services prior to their
rollout across Australia in the past.
1 The Guidelines refer to the Smart Grid, Smart City Program

Funding Guidelines issues by the Australian Government
and agreed to by Ausgrid
The greater Newcastle and Sydney CBD areas, in

combination with the four additional zones, provided
a sound representation of the geographic, climate,
customer demographic and electricity network
characteristics of a number of regions throughout
Australia. It was felt that the trial would produce
nationally transferable results. Importantly, the
trial locations:
Included a mix of both urban and regional areas
Given the different network types captured by these

varying geographic, socioeconomic, demographic and
electricity network conditions, it was felt that these
areas were broadly representative of a large portion of
the Australian population.
Each of the Smart Grid, Smart City trial districts and
their specific characteristics are discussed in Table1-1
and shown on the map presented in Figure1-1.
Had demographic characteristics closely reflecting

the national average in terms of household income,
household occupancy, English proficiency, housing
types, tenure types, energy sources and appliance
stock. In addition, the trial locations contained
sufficient variability in these characteristics to test
their impact on measured outcomes
Had similar climates to a large portion of the
Australian population including both Climate Zones
5 and 62, in which 60-65 per cent of Australias
population is located
Demonstrated energy consumption patterns
reflective of the Australian population, including
both summer and winter peaks in energy demand
Had sufficient variability in topographic and
terrain characteristics to allow accurate testing of
alternative technologies
Demonstrated a range of different overhead and
underground network configurations, both radial
and meshed networks, and had rural, urban and
CBD characteristics typical of Australian networks
Contained several areas with high network
utilisation making them good locations to
demonstrate energy efficiency and demand
management initiatives.
2 The climate zones used for the purposes of the Smart Grid,
Smart City Project were based on those produced by the
Australian Building Codes Board, http://www.abcb.gov.au/
en/major-initiatives/energy-efficiency/climate-zone-maps last
published in December 2012.
Table 1-1 Zones of the Smart Grid, Smart City trials

Location
Characteristic useful for the Smart Grid, Smart City trials
Greater Newcastle area
The greater Newcastle area was selected as the focal point for the trial, due to
its good mix of regional and suburban characteristics, representative geography,
climate, socioeconomic and demographic factors of the broader Australian
population. The customer demographics and socioeconomic indicators of the
area closely reflect the demographics of a typical Australian city.
Sydney CBD
Part of the City of Sydney Local Government Area (LGA), this area provided
additional high density residential buildings and large scale co-generation.
Ku-Ring-Gai area
Situated on the north shore of Sydney, this area provided additional testing of
high income demographics. The area also provided a high number of customers
with swimming pools (approximately 36 per cent in some areas of the Local
Government Area) for testing new products.
Newington area
Part of the Auburn LGA, this area provided a typical Western Sydney climate
zone and suburban environment for broad testing. The suburb added a high
multicultural population and contains the highest penetration of customer
photovoltaic energy generation, assisting in the trial of renewable generation and
storage applications.
Scone area
Part of the Upper Hunter LGA, this area provided additional rural characteristics
and a more extreme climate zone. The area provided a rural network to perform
end of feeder trials and much lower levels of internet use representative of more
rural geographies.
Nelson Bay area
An area north of Newcastle in NSW, included two zone transformers with

eight feeders exhibiting signs of moderate voltage constraint, supporting
around 10,000 customers spread across 210 distribution transformers. This
area is typical of older (brownfield) distribution zones with existing constraints
which made it amenable to testing the potential benefits of grid application
technologies.
Figure 1-1 Map of Smart Grid, Smart City Trial Locations
1.4 Scope of the

Program
The aim of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program was to
gather robust information about the costs and benefits
of smart grids to help inform future decisions about
smart grid technologies by government, electricity
providers, technology suppliers and consumers
across Australia.
A broad group of participants and stakeholders

were engaged in the trial including residential and
business customers, network (Ausgrid) and retail
(EnergyAustralia) businesses, technology providers,
research institutions and utilities.
The schematic in Figure 1-2 provides a high level
overview of the main components of the trial and
network location in which the trial activities
were targeted.
The trial involved the development, deployment, trial

and analysis of smart grid infrastructure, products and
solutions. For the purpose of the trials, the smart grid
technologies and applications were categorised into
work streams described in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2 Work streams for the Smart Grid, Smart City trial
Name of work stream
Description of work stream
Grid Applications
Investigated the ability of grid-side monitoring and control technologies

to reduce network operating costs and support the future planning and
implementation of lower cost networks.
Customer Applications
Focused on residential electricity consumption, reliability, customer behaviour

and responses to feedback technologies and pricing models. It also included
an electric vehicle trial and investigations into the interoperability of electricity
metering with gas and water metering.
Distributed Generation
and Distributed Storage
Investigated the feasibility and potential benefits of distributed generation and

distributed storage within electricity grids.
Supporting Information
and Communication
Technology platforms
(Common Platforms)
Investigated the feasibility of various high-speed, reliable and secure data

communications network and associated IT systems which integrate with the
electrical distribution network. It also examined interoperability with the National
Broadband Network.
Figure 1-2 Overview of Smart Grid, Smart City trial technologies and participants
Consumer participation was identified as a key aspect

of the trial and therefore consumer involvement
included:
Participation in product offers in which various
combinations of customer applications, smart inhome devices and pricing incentives were offered
through network-focussed and retail-focussed trials
Participation in control groups for the trial, where
participant energy consumption and pattern of
consumption were collected to provide reference
data and baseline information for other consumers
participating in network and retail trials
More than 60 different community engagement
activities that included monthly public information
seminars and attendance at community events.
Trial participants were selected through a
pre-determined sampling framework. The framework
was designed to deliver statistically robust trial results
for the national business case and to capture the
impacts of various physical and socio-demographic
factors on energy consumption. Further details on
the sampling design framework are provided in the
Customer Applications Technical Compendium.
1.5 Smart Grid,

Smart City Information
Clearing House
The Smart Grid, Smart City Information Clearing House
(ICH) is a web portal designed to make reports and
data from each of the Smart Grid, Smart City projects
readily available to registered parties including electricity
industry members, governments, individual researchers,
suppliers and members of the public.
The Smart Grid, Smart City ICH provides registered
users with a user-driven online data selection,
visualisation and download facilities. The intent is that
registered users will be able to download and use the
Smart Grid, Smart City data and research to further
their own knowledge and research and in so doing
contribute to the global knowledge base of smart grids
and associated technologies. In addition users will be
able to access a public version of the model used by
AEFI in the cost benefit assessment.
The Smart Grid, Smart City reports are categorised
for easy access, searching and downloading including
this final report, trial technical compendiums and
supporting documentation.
This site provides registered users with access to
the Smart Grid, Smart City reports and data. Once
registered, users can browse the reports to gain a
detailed understanding of the trials and their findings
as well as access the public model (including key
functions and assumptions). Registered users can
analyse the Smart Grid, Smart City trial data by
downloading relevant sets of data from the ICH for
their own independent analysis or use the ICHs
business intelligent system to analyse the data online.
Registration to the Smart Grid, Smart City ICH is free
and available to all members of the community and
can be accessed at: https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.
com.au/
The Smart Grid, Smart City ICH will be maintained until
30 September 2015.
1.6 Reporting the

findings of the Smart
Grid, Smart City
Program
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program, trial design
and reporting was governed to a large extent by
the objectives and priorities set by the Australian
Government. The objectives and priorities were a
condition of the funding agreement.
Significant effort was invested in the original design of
the Smart Grid, Smart City Program to endeavour to
meet the key objectives and priorities of the Australian
Government and its stakeholders. It was the intention
that the Smart Grid, Smart City trial elements produce
meaningful data that could be extrapolated in a
national context and utilised by industry and other
interested stakeholders.
With this in mind, the Australian Government specified
a range of activities, outcomes and data priorities
for each of the program / trial work streams. The
activities and data priorities were designed to prove (or
challenge) a number of trial hypotheses (assumptions).
The hypotheses were focussed on determining
whether different smart grid technologies could
achieve an economic or other benefit for Australian
electricity consumers.
In March 2013, a consortium of Australian-based

consultancy firms was commissioned to utilise the
Smart Grid, Smart City trial results and learnings
to develop an integrated business case for smart
grid technologies in a national context. The AEFI
consulting consortium included:
Arup
Energeia
Frontier Economics
(University of Technology Sydney)
While undertaking an integrated financial and
economic assessment and developing conclusions
and recommendations, AEFI considered the broad
requirements of the program, including:
The key questions and assumptions that the
Australian Government were seeking to validate,
or challenge
Existing energy market reforms under investigation
or in progress
Australian Government energy policies, programs
and its strategic intent for the energy sector and
energy consumers
Stakeholder priorities and expectations including
those identified during the stakeholder engagement
processes completed as part of AEFIs assessment
of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program (discussed
in Part Two of this report)
Progress reports have been published by the

Smart Grid, Smart City project team over the past
three years. The progress reports have allowed the
Australian Government to oversee and assess trial
progress against the contractual obligations for the
duration of the project. The Australian Government has
made available the final series of reports describing
the results of all of the Smart Grid, Smart City trial
analysis and these can be found on the Smart Grid,
Smart City Information Clearing House at https://ich.
In addition, a clear expectation of the Smart Grid,

Smart City Program was that there would be
significant effort focussed on presenting the results of
the trial for different audiences. To this end, there are
several levels of reporting being delivered as part of
completion of the program:
The National Cost Benefit Assessment Report
(this document) which provides stakeholders
with an independent assessment of the potential
integrated national cost benefit assessment.
Data (predominantly) produced by the Smart
Grid, Smart City trials was used to determine
the potential national net benefits of deploying
economically efficient smart grid devices,
customer feedback technologies and dynamic
(cost reflective) electricity tariffs. The integrated
methodology used to develop the analysis and
costings within this report ensures that there is no
double counting of benefits provided by two or
more technologies and any under or overestimation
of the value proposition achieved from technology
interdependencies is minimised.
The Technical Compendia prepared by Ausgrid
and partners that provide a detailed overview of
the results for each of the work streams. These
documents are technically complex and aimed
at an audience that is familiar with energy sector
terminology and technology. The intended
audience includes network operators, energy
retailers, technology providers, universities,
regulators, governments and energy sector
personnel. In addition these documents are
intended to have global reach and contribute to
the global knowledge base of smart grids and the
associated technologies.
The Modelling Inputs Compendium is also

part of this suite of technical documents. This
compendium provides detailed information as
to where data and information generated from
the Smart Grid, Smart City trials have been used
either as direct inputs or to validate and inform the
modelling inputs to the national cost
benefit assessment.
The Modelling Inputs Compendium also provides
a series of stand alone cost benefit assessments
for individual smart grid technologies which could
be applied in the instance that only one device or
technology (or a series of discrete technologies
or devices which do not have any interaction) is
deployed in the Australian context. These stand
alone cost benefit assessments represent a less
sophisticated approach than the integrated cost
benefit assessment, but remain a valid estimate
ofcosts and benefits under some circumstances.
Supporting documentation prepared by Ausgrid
and partners that provides the detailed information
and data upon which the Technical Compendiums
are based.
An Information Clearing House (ICH) that provides
the communication mechanism for the data,
analytic tools and results from the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program and will be maintained until
30September 2015. This site can be found at
https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/
The breadth of the subject areas investigated as part
of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program is shown in
Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-3 Structured reporting and access to information for the Smart Grid, Smart City trial
National Cost Benefit Assessment Report
Part Two
Part One
Smart Grid, Smart City trials
Part Three
The business case for

smart grids in Australia
Conclusions and
recommendations
Supporting Documents
Modeling Inputs
Compendium
Wide Area
Measurement
Smart Meter
Infrastructure
Active Volt
VAr Control
Common Platform
Study
Fault
Detection
Isolation and
Restoration
Electric
Vehicles
Substation
and Feeder
Monitoring
Customer
Applications
Grid Applications
Distributed
Generation and
Storage Applications
Technical Compendia
1.7 The Smart Grid,

Smart City: National
Cost Benefit Assessment
Report
This is the final report to the Australian Government
for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program and differs
from previous progress reports. Importantly, it is an
independent assessment that provides the analysis
and discussion necessary to form:
The business case (potential net economic
benefit) associated with a future implementation of
individual smart grid technologies, compared to a
business as usual approach using the results to the
integrated assessment3
The business case (potential net economic benefit)
associated with a future implementation of an
optimised group of smart grid technologies (an
integrated assessment), compared to a business
as usual approach
The business case (potential net economic benefit)
for smart grid technologies for electricity networks
and electricity generators (on a state-by-state4 basis)
This report is broken into a number of sections

including:
Part One An overview of the Smart Grid, Smart
City Program and the high level findings of the
individual technology and customer trials
Part Two A cost benefit assessment for the
deployment of a national smart grid
across Australia
Part Three A discussion on the potential
benefits, barriers and opportunities to implement
a smart grid in Australia including the independent
conclusions and recommendations from
this assessment
Appendix One Provides an overview of
Australias energy sector including the policy,
regulatory and investment drivers
Appendix Two Describes the cost benefit
assessment methodology that AEFI used to
complete the cost benefit assessment
Appendix Three Tables of results for each of
the three macroeconomic scenarios and for each
Australian state
Appendix Four Customer electricity bill impacts
How the costs and benefits accrue to electricity

customers and the potential impact on retail
electricity prices for a smart grid scenario
compared with a business as usual approach.
3 Reporting the analysis in this way prevents double

counting of benefits which can occur if assessments
for different technologies are competed individually
4 State assessment has been limited to Western
Australia, South Australia, Queensland, New South
Wales, Tasmania and Victoria.
2 An introduction to
transitioning Australias
electricity distribution networks
2.1 Defining a smart grid
This need for more advanced decision-making
abilities for network operators is reasonably consistent
throughout the world. As a consequence a range of
innovative information and communication systems
have been developed and are now driving an electricity
grid modernisation often termed a smart grid.
Smart grid technologies offer the potential to:
Standards Australia define a smart grid as an

electricity system incorporating electricity and
communications networks, that can intelligently
integrate the actions of parties connected to it.
More efficiently utilise labour and materials
It also notes that The implicit assumption in smart

grids is that energy may be generated and used
anywhere on the grid, the behaviour of both generators
and users is much more variable and less predictable,
and that both will continuously react to the other5.
Better predict electricity supply and demand at

specific locations in the grid
Continuously monitor the condition of the grid and
major assets
To dynamically reconfigure the network
Smart grid technologies also provide the opportunity
for network operators to interact with customers
to actively manage demand on different parts of
its network. Standards Australia in its Smart Grid
Vocabulary also notes that the boundary between
a conventional grid and a smart grid is not easily
identified:
There is no absolute level of capability or set of
attributes which marks the transition of a specific
electricity network from conventional to smart.
Grids may become more smart over time as they
acquire more of the transactional, operational and
technical features defined in this Standard.
In general, a smart grid is distinguished from a
conventional grid by the deployment of enhanced
information and communications systems,
in order to manage equipment in a way that
achieves outcomes remotely, automatically, more
rapidly and more precisely6.
5 Standards Australia AS5711 Australian Standard: Smart Grid

Vocabulary, 2013 ISBN 978 1 74342 585 5
6 Standards Australia AS5711 Australian Standard: Smart Grid

Vocabulary, 2013 ISBN 978 1 74342 585
2.2 Is a smart grid

right for Australia?
Smart grid technology has the potential to provide
networks and customers alike with information and
automation processes to optimise investment and
improve the environmental performance and economic
efficiency of the system. In this sense, the smart grid
marks a transition of the existing grid from a physical
electricity distribution system to a transaction enabler,
underpinned by distribution of information and data to
all stakeholders.
It is these questions and others defined in the Smart

Grid, Smart City Program objectives that Ausgrid, its
trial partners and the Australian Government sought to
answer during the trials. This independent cost benefit
assessment contributes to answering a number of
these questions.
Current smart grid literature predominantly supports

an integrated approach to deploying smart grid
technologies as being optimal to deliver a range of
benefits including:
Assisting in the reduction of transmission and
distribution losses
Optimising the use of existing infrastructure by helping
to regulate power flows and meet peak demand
Accommodating significant volumes of
decentralised and renewable energy into the grid
and improving energy efficiency7
Consistent with other smart grid technology
trials and deployments across the world, the key
questions include:
Which technologies work best under Australian
network conditions?
Which technologies offer the best return on
investment in Australia?
What is the best way to integrate these
technologies in an existing electricity network?
What is the best way to deploy the
technologies?
7 World Energy Council, Smart grids: best practice

fundamentals for a modern energy system, 2012.
2.3 Overview of Part

One of this report
This part of the report examines the evolution of smart
grid technology funding over the past 20 years, the
drivers for global smart grid programs and a high level
description of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
technologies, trial objectives and results.
Given the complexity of many aspects of the
technology trials this part of the report only provides
ahigh level overview of the key trial elements
and findings.
In particular the Modelling Inputs Compendium

demonstrates where data and information generated
from the Smart Grid, Smart City trials have been used
either as direct inputs or to validate and inform the
modelling inputs to the national cost
benefit assessment.
The Modelling Inputs Compendium should be read
in conjunction with the business case methodology
presented in Appendix Two and the national cost
benefit assessment results presented in Part Two
ofthis report.
2.3.1 Additional information

sources
More comprehensive and technical discussion on
each of the trials described in this part of the report
can be found in a series of Technical Compendia
and in supporting documentation developed by
Ausgrid which is available from the Smart Grid,
Smart City Information Clearing House at https://ich.
There is one Technical Compendium for each of
the Smart Grid, Smart City Projects as well as a
Modelling Inputs Compendium 8 which describes the
quantitative inputs used to determine the net national
benefits from an integrated approach to deploying
smart grid devices, consumer feedback technologies
and dynamic tariffs. In addition, the Modelling Inputs
Compendium provides a series of stand alone
assessments of individual smart grid technologies and
devices (as previously described in Section 1.6).
8 The Modelling Information Compendium was developed by

Energeia with input from Ausgrid
3 The global evolution

towardssmart grids
Over the past five years there have been significant
funds and program funding sources made available for
smart grid technology demonstration and deployment
across the world. These programs vary considerably
in scope and objectives with some focussed on
specific technologies, whilst others provided broader
perspectives. Based on publicly available information,
some of the key global programs have been listed
in Table 1-3.
Table 1-3 Summary of global existing smart grid trials including key technologies and Government funding (USD)
Technology Focus
Country/
Australia
National Energy
China
Strong and
EU
FP7
France
Region
Program
Smart Grid
Efficiency
Start
End
SMI
DG
DS
EV
SFM
FDIR
AVVC
Programme
2013
$100
million
2011
2020
$100
billion
2007
2013
$520
million
2010
2014
2010
2015
$1.2
billion
2011
2013
$50
million
2009
2015
$200
million
2010
2015
$480
million
2009
2015
$3.4
billion
2009
2015
$325
million
(CAN)
Smart Grid
Korea
Koreas Smart
UK
Ontario
Demonstration
South
Japan
Smart
Community
Fund
Grid Project
Low Carbon
Networks Fund
US
Smart Grid
Investment
Grants
US
Smart Grid
Demonstration
(USD)
2010
Initiative
Smart Grid
Funding
$600
million
Program
This information shows that the majority of current

funding sources are scheduled to conclude over the
next two years, with the exception being China where
the Strong and Smart Grid Program is providing
investment funding of (USD) $100 billion through to
2020. In contrast to other smart grid programs and
trials, the Chinese program provides funding for a
broader range of (conventional) grid infrastructure
and projects than those associated with common
smart grid technology definitions. The range of smart
grid technologies being deployed as part of global
funding programs (with the exception of the Smart
Grid Programme in France) are very similar to those
investigated by the Smart Grid, Smart City Program9.
The key difference in many cases is that the programs
are more narrowly focussed compared to the breadth
of smart grid technologies and customer applications
tested as part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program.
Figure 1-4 shows the current committed investment

for smart grid trials internationally, excluding Chinas
Strong and Smart Grid Program, grouped by three
global regions. It shows that there is a clear drop
in global funding when current programs in the US
conclude in 2015. The European Union FP7 program
will transition to FP8 and extend to 2020. Some
continuing investment in parts of Asia (Japan, Korea
and Taiwan) will also remain in place until 2020. There
remains the potential for new funding programs to be
announced following the assessment of trial results
from the current program areas.
1.80
8.00
1.60
7.00
1.40
6.00
Annual (USD billion)
1.20
5.00
1.00
4.00
0.80
3.00
0.60
2.00
0.40
1.00
0.20
0.00
2013
2014
2015
NA
2016
EU
2017
JTK
2018
Cumulative
9 Funding for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program is

described in section 1.2
2019
2020
Cumulative (USD billion)
Figure 1-4 Commitment investment smart grid technology by region (USD $billion)
Public access to comprehensive data from these

trials is inconsistent and when it is available, direct
comparison of trial results is generally difficult. In some
cases, it is especially challenging to compare the
outcomes of smart grid technology trials around the
world with Australian results. Where possible, Ausgrid
have discussed comparisons of some international
trial technology results in each of the Technical
Compendia. The Technical Compendia can be found
on the Smart Grid, Smart City Information Clearing
House at https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/
Globally, the drive for investment in smart grid
technologies has been evolving since the late 1980s.
Early investment in smart grid technologies was
sponsored by industry, with improving operational
efficiencies (reducing costs) the focus of the
majority of trials. Later trials from around 2008 have
predominantly been sponsored by governments and
have focussed on peak demand reduction, energy
efficiency, reduction in greenhouse gas intensity, and
improving grid reliability.
In some regions of the world there has also been a
focus on the potential to create jobs across the supply
chain from smart grid manufacturing through to
technology supply and highly skilled jobs within utilities
(networks)10,11,12,13,14.
3.1 Global smart grid

supporting policies and
programs
In total, international governments are investing
over (USD) $3.2 billion in smart grid development
programs from 2013 through to 2015 (this excludes
the Chinese government investment). This
investment demonstrates the relative importance that
governments are placing on the future implementation
of smart grid technologies.
There has been a number of smart grid roadmaps
published globally. The Australian Government as part
of its commitment within the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program funded the development of Australias first
Smart Grid Standards Roadmap which was released
in June 2012.
Additionally the Future Grid Forum which released
its report Change and Choice in December 2013
was funded by industry and the CSIRO. This report
proposed a number of possible scenarios for future
grid structures, regulation and business models.
It also identified a number of policy and energy
market challenges that may present barriers to the
deployment of technologies within the Australian
electricity sector.
A review of publicly available literature suggests that a
number of countries have explicit smart grid policies
that include:
Formal targets
Smart grid technology programs including research
and development grants
10 KEMA, The U.S. smart grid revolution, KEMAs perspectives

for job creation, prepared for the GridWise Alliance,
December 2008.
11 Climate Solutions, Powering up the smart grid, A Northwest
initiative for job creation, energy security and clean,
affordable energy, July 2005
12 Lowe M, Fan, H, Gereffi, G (on behalf of Environmental
Defence Fund), U.S. Smart Grid: finding new ways to curt
carbon and create jobs, April 2011.
13 Global Smart Grid Federation, Global Smart Grid Federation
Report 2012
14 Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Koreas smart grid
policy and deployment, presentation from the Conference
on Integration 2012, http://www.conference-onintegration-2012.com/fileadmin/user_upload_COI-2012/
RE_PDF/Jung_Yonghun.pdf
Regulations including customer protection (security

and privacy) and communication and integration
standards and frameworks (many of these are still
under development)
Technology deployment standards (such as
minimal functional specification)
Distributed generation feed-in-tariffs
A comprehensive summary of these policies and
programs is provided in Table 1-4.
Table 1-4 Summary of global smart grid policies, targets and regulatory frameworks
Jurisdiction
EU
Smart
Grid
Roadmap
Targets
Programs
Voluntary
DG
EV
DS
Mandatory R&D
Grants
SMI
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Regulations
Standards
DG FiTs
Opt-out
Privacy
Overall
SMI
Security
Data
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Rest of the
World
Australia
Canada
British
Columbia
Ontario
China
Japan
New Zealand
South Korea
US
Texas
California
DG= distributed generation, EV= electric vehicle, DS = distributed storage, SMI = smart meter infrastructure (smart meters), DG FiTs = distributed generation
feed-in-tariffs
Based on the information presented in Table 1-4, it is

clear that the most common tool to facilitate local trials
and investments in smart grid technologies globally
has been government sponsored research and
development grants.
In addition, it is clear that different parts of the world
have focussed on differing aspects of smart grids,
based on local needs and opportunities. These
aspects range from simply forming a position on the
outcomes that smart grids can provide, through to
targets and mandating deployment of technologies
(such as smart meters). California has the most
comprehensive of smart grid deployment mandates in
the world enacted by Senate Bill (SB) 17 (2009):
it is the policy of the state to modernize the states
electrical transmission and distribution system to
maintain safe, reliable, efficient and secure electrical
services, with infrastructure that can meet future
growth in demand and achieve various goals aimed
at cleaner energy future, energy efficiency and more
engaged customers.
California has mandated that utilities submit a
smart grid proposal to the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) for approval. In addition,
California has one of the most ambitious energy
storage targets in the world - 1.3 GW of energy storage
on the grid by 2020.
To date, Australian research funding has been directed

towards examination of the cost effectiveness of smart
grid technologies (Smart Grid, Smart City Program).
Other funding programs have been designed to
incentivise distributed generation (both federal and
state-based schemes).
An alternative approach to driving smart grid and
other grid-focussed innovation was developed by
the United Kingdom (UK), which in 2005, introduced
a research and development incentive model that
led to a six-fold annual increase in expenditure in the
distribution sector. The Innovation Funding Incentive
(IFI) mechanism was designed to encourage gas
and electricity transmission and distribution network
operators to apply innovation in the way they pursued
the technical development of their networks, i.e.
the aspects of network design, operation and
maintenance. The principal objective of IFI was to
deliver benefits to consumers by enhancing efficiency
in network operating costs and capital expenditure.
The two main drivers for providing incentives were
the increasing need for investment in end of life
asset renewal and an increase in small embedded
(distributed) generation.
In addition to the IFI, the UK Government has
established a 500 million Low Carbon Networks
Fund for innovative distribution network trials over the
period 2010-2015. By July 2013, it had awarded 120
million to a range of projects including those aiming
to develop a greater understanding of smart grid
technology, electric vehicles, heat pumps, micro and
local generation, Demand Side Management (DSM)
and the deployment of smart meters.
3.2 Smart Grid,

SmartCity work
streams and trial
technologies
There were a wide range of grid and customer-facing
technologies trialled as part of the Smart Grid, Smart
City Program and each of these have been described
in the following sections. There were four work streams
within the program:
Common platform and NBN interoperability
Grid application technologies
Distributed generation and distributed storage
Customer application technologies
Each of the four work streams, along with the
individual smart grid technologies and trial results are
described in the following sections of this report.
4 Common platform study

and NBN interoperability
4.1 What is a
commonplatform?
For a distribution network service provider
(DNSP), implementing a smart grid is a project of
unprecedented scope and complexity. Every part
of the providers business is impacted including all
parts of the electrical network (the poles and wires,
substations), the customers premises, IT and other
back-office systems, network design, planning and
operations, and business operations.
The smart grid requires the integration of the electrical
distribution network with a high-speed, reliable and
secure data communications network and associated
IT systems. An enormous amount of data, much
of it real-time data streams, must be managed,
stored, backed up, correlated and presented to each
business stakeholder in a way appropriate for them
to do their job effectively. All of this must happen in
an environment where the security of the network is
guaranteed, and individuals privacy is respected.
Given the electrical network is constantly evolving
to meet the changing needs of its customers, the
smart grid will never be static - new smart grid
applications will continue to emerge that will need to
be incorporated into the system.
A common communications, data acquisition and data
presentation infrastructure that can accommodate
all smart grid applications dramatically reduces the
incremental cost of each additional application,
simplifies the process of implementation and,
most importantly, allows for advanced automation
applications that have visibility of data gathered
from right across the network. A common platform
is also an enabler for an integrated smart grid
approach because it allows the integration of different
technologies to be assessed and verified by advanced
systems and analytics.
4.2 The role of a

common platform
inasmart grid
Traditionally the deployment of new technology to
support the electrical distribution network has been
treated as a stand-alone project with dedicated
sensors deployed in the field, communication
network built or communications service purchased,
and dedicated data aggregation, processing and
presentation systems established. Resources are
shared only if they are suitable, have the necessary
spare capacity, and their owners are willing to do so.
Issues such as security and privacy were handled on a
case-by-case basis within corporate guidelines.
A common communications, data acquisition and data
presentation infrastructure that can accommodate
all smart grid applications will dramatically reduce
the incremental cost of each additional application,
simplify the process of implementation and,
most importantly, allow for advanced automation
applications that have visibility of data gathered from
right across the network.
Figure 1-5 illustrates a conceptual approach that
divides the smart grid into three layers, each one
enabled by the systems in the layer below. Across
the bottom row are the common platforms that are
shared by all smart grid applications. Being the most
expensive elements of a smart grid, these platforms
should be shared by the entire organisation, and be
viewed as a key corporate asset.
The common platforms enable the middle layer, which
is a series of applications that provide visibility of the
state of the network and behaviour of customers in
real time. It also provides a capability to change the
state and behaviour of the network or load through
actuation devices distributed across the network and
in customers premises.
The final layer, an additional value-add of the smart
grid, is the advanced automation layer. This is a series
of applications that make use of the network visibility to
intelligently manage various aspects of the network.
Figure 1-5 Proposed smart grid common platform layers
Advanced
Automation
Wide Area
Control
AVVC
FDIR
Dynamic
Ratings
Demand
Response
Pricing &
Feedback
Network
State Viability
& Actuation
Capability
Transmission
Monitoring
Substation
Monitoring
Distribution
Monitoring
Distribution
Control
Wind Area
Measurement
Smart Meter
Infrastructure
Common
Platform
IT
Infrastructure
Communications
Infrastructure
Security
Architecture
Operational
Model
Design
Standards
4.3 The Common

Platform and NBN
Interoperability
Project and the Smart
Grid, Smart City trial
objectives and timelines
Unlike the rest of the Smart Grid, Smart City trials
which evaluated specific smart grid technologies,
the purpose of this work stream was to provide an
evaluation of how successfully these trials were able
to leverage the common platform developed as part
of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program. In addition this
work stream sought to identify any learnings that could
inform the design and implementation of a smart grid
common platform for other network businesses.
This was done by describing the elements of the
common platform developed for the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program, identifying the common platform
components used in each of the trials, and then
critically evaluating the suitability and performance
of those components to support the smart grid
application.
The project aimed to evaluate the requirements for a

smart grid common ICT platform in the following areas:
The effectiveness of current standards and the
degree to which they permit interoperability of the
wide variety of systems and devices making up the
smart grid
The data security and information privacy
implications of the common platform
The processing, management, correlation and
storage of large amounts of data available from the
smart grid
The data centres, disaster recovery, backup, and
monitoring systems necessary to support the
common platform
In addition, this study assessed the potential for the
National Broadband Network (NBN), which was being
rolled out in Australia at the time of the trial, to provide
communication services to field-based smart grid
infrastructure. The work stream included:
The evaluation of options for using the NBN for
smart grid applications and developed reference
architecture
Completion of detailed traffic modelling of the
reference architecture to evaluate its viability
and scalability
Development of an economic model to
demonstrate the economic feasibility of
usingtheNBN for smart grid field area network
(FAN)15 applications, and compare this to
several alternatives
15 A field area network (FAN) is a network enabling

communications for the distribution network
4.4 Smart Grid,

Smart City common
platform and NBN
interoperability trials
The Common Platform Study and NBN Interoperability
Technical Compendium provide an extensive
discussion on each of the areas that the study
investigated and the issues and opportunities identified
through the Smart Grid, Smart City Common Platform
study. This can be found on the Smart Grid, Smart
City Information Clearing House website which can be
accessed from https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/
4.4.1 Trial design and deployment

Common platform
The smart grid common platform developed for
the Smart Grid, Smart City Program consisted of
a communications network providing connectivity
between the various elements of the smart grid,
together with supporting IT infrastructure (as described
previously in Figure 1-5). A smart grid common
platform must meet the following requirements:
It must support a broad range of technology
options including legacy services and current smart
grid technologies, and (as far as possible) new
technologies that will emerge in coming years
All platform elements should be standards-based
and employ well-defined interfaces that support an
appropriate level of security
Hardware and software should be based on
proven, enterprise-grade architectures and
technologies
The architecture should be highly scalable, secure
and suitable for deployment lifetimes in the order
of 5 to 15 years, depending on their location within
the network
The common platform, like the electrical distribution

network, must be highly secure and reliable reliability requires the probability of intrinsic faults or
their negative impacts be minimised, whilst security
describes the ability of the system to resist unwanted
accidental or deliberate actions from external sources.
To be effective, security and reliability must be
designed into the common platform from the outset.
Further, the large amount of data contained in the
smart grid carries with it the potential to infringe on the
privacy of individuals and companies. The US National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report
7628 provides guidelines for smart grid security
and privacy16.
The smart grid common platform developed for
the Smart Grid, Smart City Program consisted of
a communications network providing connectivity
between the different elements of the smart grid,
together with supporting IT infrastructure.
The Smart Grid, Smart City common platform
communications network consisted of networks for
each of the smart grid domains:
The wide area network (WAN) provided the
communications backbone that connected the sub
networks with each other and with the control and
data centres
The field area network (FAN) provided
communications for the distribution network
beyond the zone substation. The measurement and
control points on feeders, distribution transformers
and low-voltage lines and customer meters were
widely dispersed and numerous
The substation local area network (LAN) provided
connectivity between protection, control and
monitoring devices within the substation, and
between the substation and the control centre
The home area network (HAN) provided
connectivity within the customers premises for
connection of smart grid devices located there
including distributed storage and generation, load
control devices and smart EV chargers
16 NIST, Guidelines for smart grid cyber security,
http://www.nist.gov
The common IT infrastructure Smart Grid, Smart City

common platform consisted of:
The enterprise services bus (ESB) managing the
interaction and communication between software
applications. Its role is analogous to a hardware
bus over which computer hardware elements
communicate
A suite of common applications used by a range of
individual smart grid applications, for example the
data historian and the network model
Server infrastructure including the common
management of servers, server security, data
centres, backup, redundancy and disaster recovery
Storage infrastructure for the storage and archiving
of large amounts of real-time data, produced and
used by smart grid applications
National Broadband Network

The Smart Grid, Smart City program evaluated the
potential of the NBN to play a role in the smart grid field
area network. Initial assessment of connecting smart
meters to the NBN on-premises network-terminating
device indicated that this was not a practical solution due
to both cost and technical issues.
Consequently an alternative approach was developed.
The alternative approach used the NBN for backhaul
and a wireless mesh for the last-mile communication.
This had several advantages:
A much lower cost because a single network
terminating device and associated wholesale data
service serves a large number of meters
The wireless mesh is more flexible and is
self-healing
The proposed architecture was suitable for either
fibre-to-the-home or fibre-to-the-node topologies
4.5 High level

lessonslearned
The following sections describe the high level results
from the Common Platform trials.
4.5.1 Common platform

lessonslearned
Standardisation and interoperability
The smart grid trials undertaken by Ausgrid and its
partners for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
consistently demonstrated that technologies
supporting well-defined and mature standardsbased interfaces were significantly easier to integrate.
Standardisation in the smart grid context is still a work
in progress, with a large number of organisations
around the world developing smart grid standards.
The results of this trial suggest that smart grid
standards should:
Be open that is be developed through a
collaborative process open to all interested parties
and not dominated by a single organisation or
interest group
Be international developed to support smart grid
deployments around the world, not to support
regional or national interests
Leverage existing standards many mature,
international and open IT and communications
standards suitable for smart grid applications
already exist
Along with standards, a conformance-testing
regime is necessary to support interoperability
between vendors. The Smart Grid, Smart City trials
identified many instances where individual vendors
implementation of standards was sufficiently different
to prevent interoperability. Independent conformance
testing would have identified these issues at the time
the systems were designed, saving both the vendor
and the smart grid operator significant time
and money.
IT and SCADA convergence

At Ausgrid, the primary means of retrieving data from
the field has been its SCADA (supervisory control and
data acquisition) system. This has been developed
and optimised to provide data to the control room via
the distribution network management system (DNMS)
which is used by network operators to monitor and
control the electricity network.
During the Smart Grid, Smart City field trials a
significant quantity of data intended for other
audiences, or requiring considerable processing
before being actionable by the operations centre,
was collected.
Some of the information sources did not lend
themselves to communication via SCADA protocols
and required systems that supported other protocols
(some of which were proprietary to vendors) to be
designed and built. In others, the raw information had
to be correlated with other information and translated
into actionable data prior to presentation to system
operators. In each of these cases, the initial destination
of the data was a back end system other than the
DNMS, a situation not envisaged when the Ausgrid
SCADA system was designed.
One solution would be to extend the SCADA system
to provide an auxiliary SCADA function. This would
reduce the burden placed on the DNMS by less
critical monitoring systems and allow asset owners
and maintenance staff to directly control condition
monitoring equipment in a system independently from
the DNMS.
The convergence of enterprise IT and power systems
operations is a feature of the smart grid, and will
require adaptation of current practices on behalf of the
network business and an understanding of the unique
features of the electricity distribution industry on behalf
of IT systems and services vendors.
Alignment of data sources

The smart grid brings both the opportunity and
the challenge of integrating a diverse range of data
from sources across the distribution network. One
challenge identified during the Smart Grid, Smart City
trials was that of aligning and correlating information
stored in a range of different Ausgrid systems. For
example, each asset has both a functional identifier
describing a role in the network and an asset identifier
describing the asset itself. If an asset is replaced,
the asset identifier will change but the functional
identifier will remain the same. Conversely, if an asset
is redeployed within the network, the asset identifier
moves with it, but the functional identifier associated
with it will change.
No system provided a single source of truth for the
correspondence between these and other identifiers
used in the Ausgrid systems. This caused considerable
challenges during the trials as several sources had
to be consulted to correctly map the correlations.
Any widespread smart grid deployment will therefore
require careful consideration of the data model as
one of the first priorities. Where multiple identifiers
are necessary, a single source of truth for their
correspondence should be identified. It is also likely
that a degree of data cleansing and rationalisation will
be necessary.
Legacy equipment and systems

Utilities do not have the luxury of building a smart grid
from the ground up there are decades of legacy
equipment and systems with years of useful life to be
considered. The challenges faced in rolling out the
Smart Grid, Smart City grid application trials were
focussed on issues such as these and are discussed
under the respective technology areas in this section
of the report.
For example, as part of Smart Grid, Smart City
Program a new substation LAN architecture was
developed. While this architecture was deployed
in full in two greenfield substation builds, individual
components were also deployed on an as-needed
basis to meet the needs of the various trials in sites
where there was existing plant. This pragmatic
approach ensured that services were provided

in a consistent fashion without provisioning more
infrastructure than required. Planning for, and
understanding the challenges of, dealing with aging
brownfield sites is critical to understanding the costs,
benefits, challenges and opportunities of smart grid
technology deployment.
Security
Although the smart grid introduces many potential
benefits in terms of reduced demand, asset
utilisation and power quality, the extensive use of
ICT infrastructure does make the electricity network
more exposed to cyber-attack. The large number of
intelligent devices and associated communication
networks distributed over a wide area represents a
significant opportunity for cyber-attack and a challenge
to protect.
At the worst extreme, cyber-attacks could potentially
render the grid inoperative, steal confidential
information or damage vital infrastructure.
Data protection requirements for each smart grid
domain and application need to be clearly defined so
that manufacturers, operators and other stakeholders
participating in the smart grid technology development
and implementation can establish the necessary
security controls and the appropriate technologies to
protect smart grid data.
Data flow encryption, tunnelling, authentication and
non-repudiation, digital certificates, firmware validation
and patch management are areas that should
be addressed.
Privacy
The Smart Grid, Smart City trials identified a
scenario in which multiple organisations including
DNSPs, energy retailers and third parties were able
to co-operate to deliver services to customers and
therefore share access to customer information
securely. This may be possible with a number of
feedback or demand management technologies for
example, where identifying information, tariff details or
consumption patterns may be exchanged.
Where personal consumer information crosses

corporate boundaries, the Privacy Act requires
customer consent to specific information sharing
arrangements. The adoption of a more efficient
mechanism that balances the consumers right
to privacy with more innovative electricity retail
serviceofferings is made possible within a smart
gridenvironment.
The analysis also showed that the business case for

NBN could be significantly improved if NBNCo had
a specific machine-to-machine wholesale offering.
At the time of this analysis, the lowest bandwidth
offering is substantially above that required for smart
grid applications. Bandwidth requirements would
have to increase by an order of magnitude for the
NBN to become the most cost effective solution.
4.5.2 National Broadband

Network lessons learned
Analysis also determined that if the data throughput

requirements of a smart grid were to increase
substantially, the cost of the 3G/4G solution could also
escalate as these costs are based on data transferred
rather than bandwidth.
The University of Newcastle was commissioned to

develop a network model to validate the proposed
architecture. The study concluded that the basic NBN
best effort service offering comprising a 12 Mbps
peak downlink and 1 Mbps peak uplink is easily able
to accommodate regular 10500 meters read on a
4-hourly cycle.
Modelling of the 20-year costs of the NBN architecture
and several competing solutions showed that:
3G/4G wireless is currently the lowest cost
backhaul solution The 3G/4G option was
consistently the lowest cost option for all regions
and applications (if satellite customers are
excluded). However, the quality of service provided
by 3G/4G may not be comparable with that of
theNBN
NBN is the most cost effective solution for very
remote customers Where all customers have
a smart meter, there will be a number of remote
premises that are expensive to serve due to
the need for satellite communications. The
NBN solution is based on a single price for all
connections regardless of location, making it a
costeffective option for these customers
Grid applications add significantly to cost The
majority of grid applications require a direct
connection and therefore add significantly to costs
for all solutions. This impact was more significant
where there is a large monthly cost differential
between communication solutions
The consultants DM KEMA were engaged to assess the

economics of using the NBN for smart grid applications.
The project developed a model to quantify the costs
of the reference architecture and tested its economic
feasibility by comparing the cost and performance of
providing communication services using NBN against an
alternative communication technology that can provide a
similar service.
This comparison was applied separately for the urban,
major rural, minor rural and remote regions and for
the different traffic levels associated with smart grid
equipment that may require communications. This
included equipment from the customer applications,
grid applications and distributed generation and
distributed storage projects.
In conclusion, the use of the NBN is currently not a cost
effective solution for the transfer of data from smart
meter infrastructure, but could be significantly improved
if NBNCo developed a wholesale offering. In addition,
the current bandwidth requirements for smart meter
infrastructure are not sufficient to require a broadband
solution, with 3G/4G solutions adequate.
5 Grid applications
workstream an overview
The Grid Application work stream included a
combination of projects which trialled grid-facing smart
technologies within Ausgrids distribution network. The
intent of the Grid Application trials was to deploy and
integrate smart grid technologies (generally) with the
existing infrastructure at various points on the electrical
network.
The Grid Application technology trials aimed to assess:
Whether smart grid monitoring and control
technologies could reduce the cost of running an
electrical network
How smart technologies could improve the

reliability of the distribution network
How smart technologies could improve the quality
of service
Which technologies had the potential to deliver
the best results for different network densities and
characteristics
Table 1-5 provides an overview of the different smart
grid technologies trialled in the grid applications work
stream.
Whether integrating smart grid technologies and

techniques had the potential to enable the design
of a lower cost electrical network
Table 1-5 Grid Application Project smart grid technologies trialled
Smart grid technology project
Abbreviation
Description of smart grid technology
Active Volt-VAr Control
AVVC
Automated voltage regulating and reactive power

controls to measure and maintain acceptable voltages
and high power factor at all points in the distribution
network under varying load conditions.
Fault Detection, Isolation and

Restoration
FDIR
Automation technologies used to quickly and precisely

detect fault conditions, isolate faulty equipment and
restore power to customers by operating remotely
controlled switches.
Substation and Feeder

Monitoring
SFM
A collection of technologies which monitor the network

state (voltage, current, frequency) and condition of
assets within the electrical distribution network utilising a
common ICT platform.
Wide Area Measurement
WAM
Measurement devices capable of providing high speed,

time-synchronised samples of network data, including
voltage, current and frequency, called synchrophasors.
Once deployed at strategic points on the transmission
and distribution networks, incoming data from these
devices can be used to accurately and dynamically
measure the state of the power system from a widerarea perspective.
Figure 1-6 shows the physical locations where the technologies were deployed.
Figure 1-6 Physical locations of operating technologies installed under the Grid Applications Project
SCONE
MUSWELLBROOK
SINGLETON
NELSON BAY
CESSNOCK
NEWCASTLE
WYONG
GOSFORD
HORNSBY
SYDNEY
OATLEY
Legend
Active Volt-Var Control
Wider Area Measurement
Substation Feeder Monitoring
LGA Boundary
Fault Detection Isolation + Restoration
Distributed Generation + Distributed Storage
Main Roads
Towns
6 Active Volt-Var
Control(AVVC)
6.1 What are Active
Volt-Var Control
(AVVC) technologies?
Active Volt-VAr Control (AVVC) is a term for a collection
of technologies which use automated voltage
regulating and reactive power controls to measure and
maintain acceptable voltages and high power factor
atall points in the distribution network under varying
load conditions.
Network voltage, which moves up and down in
response to load and source fluctuations, needs to
becontrolled to ensure it remains within an acceptable
range specified by the Australian standards17. To
minimise electrical losses in the network, and ensure
that the network assets are used optimally, the power
factor should be maintained as close to unity
as possible.
Traditionally, distribution utilities have achieved a
degree of control over the network voltage and
reactive power via Volt-VAr control devices such
as switched capacitor banks and tap-changing
transformers. These rely on localised measurement of
voltage and current to determine the control actions
of the device. They have a simple control objective (for
example, keep local voltage within a pre-determined
range), and operate independently of other similar
devices deployed at other points in the network.
The smart grid provides an opportunity to continually
monitor the voltage and current in the grid at various
locations, and to use this information to control the
distributed voltage and reactive power control devices
using sophisticated control algorithms.
As these control algorithms, known as Integrated VoltVAr Control (IVVC), can access multiple measurement
and control points across the network, they have the
ability to implement very sophisticated
control functions (for example, to minimise electrical

losses, to manage demand and to reduce energy
consumption). In some cases IVVC can adapt to
changing feeder configurations, load and source
conditions and varying operational needs. This means
that IVVC control systems have the potential to better
manage and control the dynamic effects of increased
distributed generation as part of an optimised
AVVC strategy.
Deployment of AVVC is becoming increasingly
important as greater levels of distributed generation
(solar PV) are deployed within the distribution network.
Each of the specific AVVC technologies trialled has
been described further in the following sections.
6.2 AVVCs role in a

smart grid
The Smart Grid, Smart City trials sought to understand
the benefits that smart grid technologies could achieve
in improving electricity supply security, making the grid
more efficient, and in integrating renewable energy
sources in an Australian context. AVVC technologies
role in the smart grid includes the potential for:
Deferring capital expenditure through improving the
utilisation of existing assets by minimising reactive
power in the network and through peak shaving at
times of maximum load
Reducing system losses by minimising real and
reactive power flow in the network through voltage
control and the control of reactive sources
Improving power quality through improved voltage
profiles
Reducing energy consumption through
Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR)
The AVVC project aimed to investigate, validate and,
where possible, quantify these benefits.
17 AS60038-2012 Standard voltages, 2nd Edition, Standards

Australia, 2012
6.3 AVVC Smart Grid,

Smart City Project
The Active Volt-VAr Control Project aimed to
characterise the benefit that could be obtained
by implementing an IVVC scheme in a distribution
network. The project sought to:
Evaluate the benefits of centralised and distributed
Volt-VAr control schemes compared to current
methods, including their impact on voltage
regulation, power factor, peak load, and
energy consumption
Examine the potential benefits of implementing
a CVR control algorithm for reducing energy
consumption in a distribution network
Develop modelling tools, resources and techniques
to assist in the process of planning and evaluation
of AVVC systems in the context of the smart grid,
including:
The development of high-fidelity time series
load models
The development of geo-spatial visualisation tools
The project consisted of advanced modelling

(PS+EDGE tool, discussed in the following sections
ofthe report) and field trial elements. The field
trial results were used to validate the PS+EDGE
models and gain insights into the commercial-scale
deployment of these technologies.
Before commencing the field trials and associated
data collection and analysis, the AVVC Project required
an extensive planning, design and installation phase
which occupied most of the first two years. The trial
site, at Nelson Bay in New South Wales was used for
both AVVC and FDIR (Fault Detection Isolation and
Restoration) trials, allowing one distribution monitoring
program and smart meter infrastructure to support
both trials. The Nelson Bay zone was selected
because it had:
A reasonable diversity of load types
Moderately voltage-constrained feeders
Satisfactory telecommunications coverage
High penetration of rooftop photovoltaic (PV)
generation
The AVVC Project spanned three years, from October
2010 to September 2013 (Figure1-7).
The modelling of Static VAr Compensation

(STATCOM) technology to assess the potential
benefits of its use within the distribution network
Figure 1-7 AVVC project timeline
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Initiation & Scope Definition

Trial Design
Field Installation
IT Installation & Test
Field Trial
Simulation
Final Report
2
Milestones
irst Capacitor Bank Online

1 F
30/04/2012
VR Automation Trial Started

3 C
23/04/2013
oltage Regulator Online

2 V
15/08/2011
owerOn Fusion Commssioned

4 P
1/01/2013
3 1
5 IVVC Into Automatic Mode

29/05/2013
6.4 Where are AVVC

technologies currently
deployed?
6.5 Smart Grid,

SmartCity AVVC trials
AVVC technologies have been extensively tested in

international studies, with a range of benefits identified.
Generally the international trials found that AVVC
technologies did produce a measurable benefit, and
that the technology was sufficiently mature to be
deployed on a commercial scale without undue risk18.
Field trials for AVVC were undertaken in the Nelson

Bay area, north of Newcastle in NSW. At the
time of site selection, this area consisted of three
zone transformers with nine feeders supporting
around 17,000 customers across 330 distribution
transformers. The feeders were a mix of short rural
types with voltage constraints and urban types with
capacity constraints.
AVVC algorithms have a number of objective functions

including voltage control, reactive and real power
minimisation along with secondary objectives such as
the minimisation of tap changes. Feeders with voltage
constraint issues are a prime candidate for AVVC-style
technologies due to the relatively low capital cost.
This suggests that there is high potential for economic
benefit through selective deployment of these
technologies. It should be noted however, that the vast
majority of the studies in the literature were carried out
in North America and very little work specific to the
Australian context has been published.
6.5.1 AVVC trial design elements
During the trial, the zone underwent a major planned

change, with the introduction of a new zone substation
and subsequent reconfiguration of feeders. The final
network configuration, which was used in PS+EDGE
model consisted of two zone transformers with
eight feeders supporting around 10,000 customers
spread across 210 distribution transformers. The
final configuration of feeders still exhibited signs of
moderate voltage constraint.
18 The Smart Grid, Smart City AVVC Technical

Compendium provides a description of some of
the observations of AVVC technologies based on
published data from other trials. This document can
be located on the Information Clearing House at
https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/.
6.5.2 Technologies
Volt-VAr control is required to maintain an acceptable
voltage profile and power factor in the distribution
network despite the heterogeneous nature of network
feeders. Although a group of feeders may originate at
a common source, and have been designed to exhibit
similar characteristics, the evolving nature of the load
often leads to a situation where the characteristics of
one feeder constrain the optimisation of the system
as a whole.
AVVC technology relies on the measurement of
voltage and current at many points in the network
and the coordinated activation of multiple control
points to achieve a specific objective function. This
measurement and control cycle is repeated at
predetermined intervals, to maintain the objective
function under changing network state, load and
generation conditions.
An AVVC control algorithm can be configured to
optimise one or more objective functions, including:
Maintaining an acceptable voltage profile.
Maintaining the voltage within the mandated range
is a minimum requirement of any Volt-VAr control
system. In addition, flattening the voltage profile
of voltage-constrained feeders provides scope
to operate other feeders in the zone at closer to
nominal levels, reducing the power throughput and
maximising plant utilisation and asset life.
In addition to capacitors, power electronic devices

such as STATCOMs can be used to compensate for
the inductive reactance in the distribution network,
bringing the power factor closer to unity this is
known as conservation voltage reduction. It works by
reducing the overall system voltage below the nominal
level to marginally reduce the overall load on the
distribution system.
The technologies required to implement active Volt-VAr
control fall into four broad categories:
Actuation or control devices that change the
voltage or power factor within the network. These
typically include capacitor banks and voltage
regulating devices such as transformer tap
changers and power electronic devices such as
STATCOMs
Monitoring devices measure the voltage, current or
power factor at various points within the network.
Monitoring points may be standalone transducers
or be functions associated with network elements
such as zone circuit breakers, low-voltage RTUs,
telemetered switches or smart electricity meters
Volt-VAr controllers that accept inputs from the
monitoring devices and provide commands to the
actuation device according to a control algorithm
with a defined objective
Maintaining near-unity power factor. Power

factor is the ratio of real power delivered by the
network (available to do useful work at the load)
and the apparent power. The apparent power is
normally higher than the real power due to the
reactive nature of the load. The reactive power in
the network, although not available to do useful
work, contributes to losses and must be taken into
account in the dimensioning of the network. Since
the typical distribution load tends to be inductive,
it is possible to compensate for the inductive
reactance by introducing the appropriate capacitive
reactance to the distribution network, thus bringing
the power factor closer to unity.
6.5.3 Enabling ICT Infrastructure 6.5.5 National Feeder

TaxonomyStudy
In the Ausgrid network, Volt-VAr control elements
outside the zone substation operate under local control
and are therefore rarely provided with connectivity.
The implementation of an AVVC scheme requires
a communications platform to link the monitoring
devices, actuators and control systems. This trial
used 3G wireless technologies to communicate with
the feeder-based devices, and Wimax technology
to communicate with the smart meters. The existing
SCADA system was used for devices in the zone
substations. This platform was shared with many other
projects within the Smart Grid, Smart City Program.
For full details of this common platform please see
the Smart Grid, Smart City Common Platform Study
Technical Compendium.
6.5.4 Production System +

Extended Data Grid Environment
To complement and validate the field trials, a range
of advanced analytical modelling activities were also
undertaken including development of a bespoke
modelling tool, known as the Production System +
Extended Data Grid Environment (PS+EDGE) this
was a sophisticated real time modelling tool, which
was extensively tested and validated against actual trial
data. The trial area of Nelson Bay was reconstructed
in PS+EDGE to replicate trial conditions and to allow
for trial data to be fed into the model for further testing
and analysis. This model contained over 100,000
separate objects interacting across the network.
The high resolution PS+EDGE platform was developed
to investigate the effect of various AVVC control
algorithms on the network. High-resolution modelling
was required as the effects measured were in the
order of one or two per cent in some instances. The
PS+EDGE platform model was capable of resolving
network quantities to well under 1 per cent at intervals
of 10 minutes. A load model of similar sophistication
was also developed. The model ultimately allowed the
load and power factor to be described for a given hour,
day (weekday or weekend), season, and
ambient temperature.
A significant challenge for each of the Smart Grid,

Smart City technology trials was the need to
extrapolate the results from specific local trials (in the
Ausgrid network) to a national context. As part of the
AVVC trials, the National Feeder Taxonomy Study was
completed to address this challenge.
This project conducted by Ausgrid and CSIRO, and
worked cooperatively with Distribution Network Service
Providers (DNSPs) from across Australia, created a
database of feeders that captured the diversity of
Australias distribution networks. From this database
a small set of representative feeders that succinctly
described a typical Australian distribution network was
developed and used to model smart grid technologies
on a national basis as part of the national cost benefit
assessment (Part Two of this report).
6.5.6 Static VAr Compensator

(STATCOM) technology
The AVVC project also evaluated the effectiveness
of static VAr compensator (STATCOM) technology.
Astudy by the University of Newcastle evaluated the
benefits of STATCOMs for improving power quality
in the MV network in the Singleton area. Aseparate
STATCOM field trial by Energex, together with
simulations (validated against the Energex trial) using
the PS+EDGE model, examined the ability of low
voltage STATCOMs to regulate voltage under high
levels of distributed generation19. Preliminary results
from the Energex field trial indicate the ability of the
STATCOM to reduce the level of voltage fluctuations,
when operating in voltage mode. The Energex trial
also illustrated the impact of the operation of a
60kVA STATCOM operating in voltage mode, when
located at different positions along the feeder. The
results indicated that irrespective of the location of
the STATCOM along the feeder, that it had the ability
to reduce voltage fluctuations. Final results from the
Energex trial had not been reported at the time this
report was produced.
19 GA1275 STATCOM Study Trial Report, Energex, SGSC
supporting document, 2013
6.5.7 AVVC trial deployment

The planning and design stages of the AVVC project
involved the deployment of six pole-mounted capacitor
banks and one voltage regulator; 20 telemetered
switches; 96 distribution monitoring devices; and over
500 smart meters in a production network supporting
over 17,000 residential and business customers. In
addition, significant substation augmentation work
was carried out together with the installation and
commissioning of the supporting control systems,
information technology and communications
infrastructure. This included remediation to enable
remote operation of transformer tap changers and
capacitor banks within the Nelson Bay Zone.
In keeping with the desire to fully utilize existing
network assets where possible, some equipment was
redeployed for these trials, requiring decommissioning
and removal prior to reinstallation. In some cases, the
dismantling process caused damage to the equipment
resulting in unforeseen delays. Two capacitor banks
ultimately could not be commissioned in time for the
trial due to damaged components and long vendor
lead times for replacement parts.
As previously discussed, the AVVC project was initially

planning to run a STATCOM field trial, however, this
was not possible due to the long supply lead-times
for this equipment. The Queensland DNSP, Energex,
had ordered similar equipment for a trial they were
conducting, and made their trial data and report
available to the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
(noting that not all results from the Energex trial had
been finalised at the time this report was produced).
To complement the field trials, the project built
a measurement-validated time series model of
the Ausgrid Smart Grid, Smart City production
trial network segment. To ensure the model was
production equivalent, it was validated against real
loads, energy consumption and end-of-line voltage
using production data. This PS+EDGE model was
then used to complete further analytical modelling
of scenarios that could not be practically tested in
the field trial. This allowed the investigation of much
higher densities, combinations or locations of AVVC
devices. This model was also used for other elements
of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program including each
of the grid application technologies, Electric Vehicles
and Distributed Generation and Distribution Storage
(DGDS) programs.
6.6 High level

trialresults
6.6.2 Conservation voltage

reduction
6.6.1 Voltage regulation and

energy saving
In general, it was clear from the trials that AVVC
is effective in managing the voltage profile and
power factor in a distribution network. The results
demonstrate that significant improvement in voltage
regulation is possible, together with a four to five per
cent improvement in peak demand, and a similar
improvement in power throughput over the base case.
However, the introduction of AVVC will also result in
more frequent switching of actuators and may lead
to an increase in maintenance costs and potentially
reductions in the service life of these devices.
In the trial, centralised controls performed marginally
better than decentralised control, although the
differences were sufficiently small to suggest that
either approach is viable. The deciding factor
between the two approaches is likely to be the ease
of integration within a distribution networks existing
secondary systems.
The field trials evaluated the CVR factor using day-onday-off testing. The results showed a CVR factor of
0.65, consistent with trials described in the literature.
In the Australian context however, the benefits of CVR
need to be considered in the light of the transition of
the nominal domestic electricity supply voltage from
240 V to 230 V. In 2000 the nominal mains voltage
in Australia was reduced from 240 V to 230 V. The
upper tolerance on the nominal 230 V level was set
to include the previous 240 V range. Because of this,
many electricity providers have been slow to adjust
their voltage regulation equipment to accommodate
the 230V nominal voltage. As and when providers
adjust their voltage regulating plant to the new nominal
level, many of the benefits of CVR will be automatically
captured, without the need for a full-scale deployment
of AVVC technology.
Given the high level of monitoring on the low-voltage
network, for example through the deployment of smart
meters, the transition to 230 V could be managed with
a high degree of precision, maximising the CVR benefit
without significant additional capital investment.
Distribution network service providers with a highly

sophisticated substation automation infrastructure
would likely benefit from the distributed approach,
while those managing the network via a centralised
distribution management system would be more likely
to benefit from adding AVVC as an application at
thislevel.
6.6.3 Impact on planning and design

Electricity distribution networks are designed to
operate within two key constraints; within voltage
limits (voltage constraints); and within capacity limits
(capacity constraints). Existing approaches to network
design do not to require Volt-VAr management to
operate within these constraints. For new networks
the potential of the technology is to offer a wider
range of design options such as longer feeders. For
existing network the benefits of the technology, be it
automated or not, are limited to those feeders where
the power factor at the time of system peak is low.
Only in these zones is there is significant capacity that
can be unlocked by increasing the power factor.
Short rural and long rural feeders, as defined in the
feeder taxonomy study, are those most likely to benefit
from AVVC. Unfortunately, these are also located in
areas where the necessary communications links are
less reliable and more expensive. The analysis found
that an estimated 1,500 suburban fringe and short
rural feeders would benefit from this technology only
about 15 per cent of the total number of feeders in
Australia. Further information in the Modelling Inputs
Compendium20 and in the results of the AVVC net
benefit analysis described in Part Two of this report.
The project confirms that AVVC can regulate the
voltage profile along feeders very effectively. This
capability could potentially be exploited by inverting the
current design paradigm. Feeders today are designed
to not be voltage constrained - this means that the
designs are frequently over-engineered to the extent
that the voltage profile under projected peak load will
remain within acceptable limits over the 20 or 30year life of the feeder. It would be possible to design
feeders much less conservatively such that they would
rely on the presence of AVVC to keep voltages within
acceptable limits. Individual feeders could be longer, or
conductor sizes could be reduced, reducing
capital expenditure.
Today the network is explicitly planned for peak load,

as this is when the network is under the greatest
stress. Most of the design processes in use today
assess the network only under those conditions.
However, deployment of a range of smart grid
technologies such as AVVC, operate most effectively
away from times of peak load. Therefore the
opportunity for greatest benefit is well away from the
time of peak load.
To extract the maximum value from smart grid
technologies such as AVVC, a continuous view and
optimisation design process for the network is required
rather than boundary condition analysis using a single
peak snapshot of the network.
The AVVC trial demonstrated that a design process
optimised only for peak conditions could result in suboptimal designs for other times. For example, modelling
showed that a capacitor on a feeder would improve
voltage regulation outside peak times, but because
that particular feeder showed no problem under peak
load, no capacitor was deemed necessary under the
traditional (current) design processes.
As electricity distribution networks evolve to include
smart grid technologies, simply designing the network
for peak loads will not be sufficient to ensure reliable
and efficient electricity supply. Instead, time series
power flow modelling will be essential. Part Three
of this report discusses the opportunities for the
deployment of AVVC technologies as part of the broad
recommendations.
20 The Modelling Inputs Compendium is available on the Smart

Grid, Smart City Information Clearing House at https://ich.
smartgridsmartcity.com.au/.
6.6.4 Applicability of Solutions

toAustralia
Australian distribution networks generally have far
fewer actuation points than their North American
equivalents, for which much of the technology
available today was developed. Networks in Australia
also typically have voltage regulation plant only on
particularly long or voltage constrained feeders.
Feeder capacitor banks are rare therefore any
AVVC deployment in Australia is likely to require the
deployment of a significant number of new activation
devices, and consequent additional cost, compared to
the North American experience.
The fundamental physical driver for the difference
between the North American experience and the
Australian experience is the different voltage levels.
North American network operate at 110V whereas
Australia uses 230V. This fundamental difference
drives the low voltage network design in terms of
feeder lengths and customers supplied from each
distribution centre. In particular the North American
experience is to have far shorter and more contained
LV networks - lower voltage means higher currents,
consequently shorter feeder lengths and fewer
customers per device meaning a greater number
of controllable devices exist on the North American
network compared to the Australian experience.
The best opportunity for AVVC in the Australian
context is therefore longer rural feeders, which tend to
have a large number of actuation devices. AVVC would
be an ideal technology to coordinate the operation
of these devices, although as mentioned above,
communications links may be a limiting factor.
7 Fault Detection, Isolation

and Restoration (FDIR)
7.1 What are fault
detection, isolation and
restoration (FDIR)
technologies?
Fault Detection, Isolation and Restoration (FDIR) refers
to the ability of an electricity network to discover a fault,
determine the location of that fault, isolate the faulty
equipment and deploy resources in a manner that
will restore power to as much of the affected area as
effectively and efficiently as possible.
Currently grid operators like Ausgrid would
generallybe aware that a fault has occurred on its
highvoltage(HV) network through a feeder circuit
breaker tripping, sending an alarm to the control room.
Customer calls reporting damage in combination with
feeder patrols working their way down a feeder is then
used to narrow down the location of the fault. If no
fault is located through this approach, a process of
elimination is used to identify the faulty section by field
staff sectionalising and manual switching on the lines.
Earth fault indicators are also used where available,

particularly for underground network sections. Earth
fault indicators are generally set by an earth fault and
then manually reset by a site visit. These allow field
staff to locate the feeder section where a fault has
occurred. Once the faulty section has been identified,
a detailed visual inspection or pulse fault location is
carried out to verify the exact fault location. Manual
switching is then performed to restore power to
customers on the healthy part of the feeder.
Figure 1-8 shows an indicative timeline for fault
location and restoration within a typical distribution grid
(source: Ausgrid). These times can vary significantly
depending on: the type of fault; the assets affected;
whether the fault is in a rural or urban area; and
whether the feeder is underground or overhead.
Figure 1-8 Indicative fault location and restoration time
Power Restored to
Healty Part of Feeder
Fault
Occurs
Field Staff
On Site
Fault
Located
Investigation and
Feeder Patrol
20-40 min
20-40 min
Manual
Switching
10-20 min
50-100 min
Repairs
Power Restored to
All Customers
7.2 FDIR role in a

smart grid
The smart grid enables network providers to
continually monitor equipment at various locations
on the grid to detect fault conditions and to use this
information to isolate the faulty equipment and restore
power by operating remotely controlled switches.
The main objective of FDIR is to reconnect as many
customers as possible, as quickly as possible after the
occurrence of a fault. Faults can occur on the network
in many different ways and forms. The most common
causes on Ausgrids 11 kV distribution network
include: nature (i.e. lightning, weather, vegetation and
animals) and equipment failure.
Back office IT systems use event distribution automation
algorithms which process information from field devices
and either automatically operate the switches or provide
advice to the control room operator on a recommended
action. With multiple monitoring points throughout the
network and switches located to enable sectionalising
of the grid and rerouting of power, these algorithms are
able to execute complex control functions to optimise
the number of customers able to be restored in
an outage.
FDIR solutions can either be centralised or distributed.

The centralised approach uses a control room-based
algorithm and requires communications between the
control room and field devices, while the distributed
approach involves automatically operated field devices
and requires peer-to-peer communication between the
field devices.
The main benefits of implementing FDIR as part of a
smart grid could be expected to include:
Reducing the number of customers affected by a
fault due to feeder sectionalising and switching in
other feeder paths
Reducing the reported frequency and duration of
faults
Operational improvements through more efficient
use of field crews
The above benefits would improve network reliability,
commonly measured in System Average Interruption
Duration Index (SAIDI), System Average Interruption
Frequency Index (SAIFI), Momentary Average
Interruption Duration Index (MAIDI), Momentary Average
Interruption Frequency Index (MAIFI) and Customer
Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI). The
definitions of these key indicators can be found in the
Smart Grid, Smart City FDIR Technical Compendium.
The reliability of the distribution network is of significant
importance to both DNSPs and their customers. The
potential for economic benefit from the deployment
of FDIR technologies is discussed extensively in Parts
Two and Three of this report.
Figure 1- 9 FDIRs role in a smart grid
Fault
Detection,
Isolation and
Restoration
(FDIR)
Bulk Supply Point
Subtransmission
Substation
Zone Substation
Distribution
Substation
Domestic, commercial &

industrial customers
7.3 FDIR and the

trial objectives and
timelines
The Smart Grid, Smart City FDIR Project aimed to
ascertain the benefits that could be realised by
implementing FDIR technologies on the distribution
network. The project sought to:
Evaluate the reliability improvement (SAIDI and
SAIFI) from deploying remotely controlled switches
The project consisted of modelling, simulation using

the PS+EDGE model and field trial elements. The field
trial results were used to validate the modelling and
gain insights into the commercial-scale deployment of
these technologies. The data collected from the trials
was analysed to determine how these technologies
operate as part of an integrated smart grid and to
quantify and explore the potential benefits obtainable
from deploying FDIR.
The FDIR project spanned three years, from October
2010 to September 2013 (Figure 1-10).
Evaluate the reliability improvement (SAIDI and

SAIFI) from applying real-time FDIR algorithms
Explore if deploying FDIR technologies could
improve operational efficiencies
Explore the potential for smart meters to improve
fault detection and restoration
Undertake a cost benefit assessment and net
benefit analysis of FDIR to determine broader
societal benefit of improvements in SAIDI and SAIFI
Figure 1-10 FDIR project timeline
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Initiation & Scope Definition

Trial Design
Installation & Commissioning
IT Build, Test & Implement
Trial and Data Collection
Simulation Activities
Final Report
1
Milestones
1 Two IntelliRuptors commissioned

ne IntelliRuptor and
2 O
three ELBS commissioned
our IntelliRuptor and
3 F
four ELBS commissioned
2 3 4 5
6 7
ne IntelliRuptor and one

4 O
ELBS commissioned
7 Two ELBS commissioned
hree ELBS commissioned

5 T
29/05/2013
ne IntelliRuptor commissioned
9 O
(10072)
6 DMS FDIR Algorithm

commissioned
8 One ELBS commissioned
7.4 Where are FDIR

deployed?
7.4.1 Australia
A key FDIR initiative in Australia is SP AusNets
Distribution Feeder Automation (DFA) program,
launched in 2009. It involves a sophisticated
automation scheme with the stated objective of
restoring supply to as many customers as possible
within one minute.
As of August 2013, there were over 480 DFA schemes
in service covering over 80 per cent of the SP AusNet
electricity distribution network and about 90 per cent
of their customers. The DFA schemes are able to use
an installed base of more than 1 200 intelligent field
devices for the applications.
Since its introduction, there have been over 650
scheme operations and the automated restorations
achieved by the DFA schemes have resulted
in a cumulative unplanned SAIDI reduction of
over 32 minutes and significant unplanned SAIFI
reductions. In addition to the automated restoration
benefits, it is estimated that over 100 minutes of
accumulated unplanned SAIDI savings have been
made by accelerated manual response based on the
information provided by the DFA operations.
7.4.2 International
A number of international trials have been undertaken
to establish if there are measurable improvements in
responding to grid outages by deploying FDIR. The trials
to date have predominantly taken place in the US under
the DOE Smart Grid Investment Grant Program.
The reported benefits of FDIR in the US studies

include:
Improvements in SAIDI measurements in the range
of 10 50 per cent
Improvements in SAIFI measurements in the range
of 10 40 per cent
Operational savings through the elimination of
manual switching and improving the productivity of
field crews
On average (and using normalised results from four
trials in the United States), reductions in the order of
20per cent in SAIDI and SAIFI were demonstrated21.
In addition to trials, there are already a number
of large-scale implementations where FDIR
technologies are being deployed within a distribution
network. The largest and most comprehensive of
these rollouts are in the US and include:
EPB Smart Grid Project, where automated
switches have been deployed on all 12kV and
46kV feeders. In total, 1,300 automated switches
were installed in 2012 at a cost of US$50 million.
The anticipated benefits include a reduction in
outage times and a reduced number of call-outs
during storms (in the order of 250 per storm event).
Reductions in SAIDI are anticipated to be greater
than 40 per cent, which has been valued at
US$35 million per year to customers.
AEP Ohios gridSMART deployment, where
70feeders were commissioned and integrated
with distribution management system (DMS).
300 switches have been installed and the full
project required an investment of US$150 million.
It is anticipated that in the order of 2.5 million
customer-outage minutes will be saved, with more
than 45per cent of all outages expected to net
customer benefits. Crew savings of around two
hours per event are also anticipated.
21 U.S. Department of Energy, Reliability

Improvements form the Application of Distribution
Automation Technologies Initial Results, Smart
Grid Investment Program, December 2012
7.5 Smart Grid,

SmartCity FDIR trials
The FDIR project required an extensive planning,
design and installation phase occupying most of the
first two years, before field trials, data collection and
analysis could be completed. The trial site, at Nelson
Bay in New South Wales was used for the AVVC and
FDIR trials, allowing a single distribution monitoring
and smart meter infrastructure to support both trials.
The planning and design stages involved the
deployment of 23 telemetered switches, 96 distribution
monitoring devices and over 500 smart meters in a
production network supporting over 17,000 residential
and business customers. In addition, significant
substation remediation work was carried out together
with the installation and commissioning of the
supporting control systems, information technology
and communications infrastructure.
To complement the field trials, the project built a
measurement-validated time series model of the
Ausgrid Smart Grid, Smart City production trial area
of Nelson Bay. To ensure the modelling tool was
production equivalent, it was validated against real
loads, energy consumption and end-of-line voltage
from production data. Further details can be found
in the supporting documents for further details. This
model was then used to perform further analytical
modelling of scenarios that could not be practically
tested in the field trial. This allowed for the investigation
of much higher densities, as well as different
combinations and locations of FDIR devices.
7.5.1 FDIR Trial Design

Elements Technologies
The technologies required to implement FDIR fall into
four broad categories, described below:
Switches Switches are used to sectionalise
the grid and reroute power when a fault occurs.
Switchesrange from:
Circuit breakers which are automatically operated
electrical switches normally located at the head of the
feeder in the zone substation. They are designed to
protect network assets in the case of short circuits.
When a fault is detected, it opens to interrupt the
circuit and resets once the fault has cleared.
Reclosers are protective switches located part way
along the feeder. They are designed to open before
the circuit breaker in the zone substation to clear
downstream faults. After opening in the event of a
fault, they repeatedly attempt reclosing to test if the
fault remains. If the fault is transient, it recloses to
re-establish connection, but if the fault persists they
remain open until reset. Decentralised, manually reset
reclosers have been used by networks for decades,
but communications enabled reclosers (pulse
reclosers) have only become available more recently.
Distribution Monitoring Devices Distribution
monitoring and protection devices used for fault
detection. Distribution monitoring devices are
commonly deployed across distribution networks
on zone and distribution substations, transformers
and feeders. They normally measure current, voltage
and power factor, information which can be used by
the network to improve asset management and fault
detection.
FDIR controller An FDIR controller is a software

algorithm used to optimise the network. It utilises
information from switches and monitoring devices
to either automatically operate switches or provide
advice to the control room operator on a preferred
action to optimise the number of customers
restored. It accepts a range of fixed and real-time
measurement data, processes it, and provides
control instructions to the switches. FDIR controllers
differ in the range of input data they consider, and
the complexity and flexibility of the algorithms they
implement.
FDIR trial deployment The field trial was designed
to test advanced distribution automation applications
based on a modern DMS platform. It involved the
deployment and operation of distribution monitoring
devices, remote switches and smart meters. To
enhance the probability of the FDIR algorithm and
field devices having to operate, Nelson Bay was
chosen due to its relatively poor reliability and other
network characteristics.
Ausgrid proposed installing 10 switches mid-feeder
for sectionalising and 15 for back feeding, which
according to the report provided by the reliability
planning group would reduce SADI and SAIFI by
59per cent and 15percent respectively. Almost the
entire Nelson Bay area has poor soil resistivity, owing
to the fact it is a rocky, sandy peninsula, which made
earthing design more challenging. Ultimately, two of the
earthing designs were deemed too difficult to physically
construct by the installation crew, leading to only
23switches being installed. The location of distribution
monitoring devices was also constrained by the
physical requirements of installation (not all distribution
transformers can be retrofitted with monitoring
equipment) and by gaps in communications coverage.
A key challenge for the FDIR project was deploying a

new DMS within a compressed time frame, specifically
how to test it and secure business acceptance. The
sheer number of inputs that needs to be exhaustively
tested becomes a barrier to deploying a flexible,
algorithm-controlled smart grid. To address this, the
project team developed a real-time load flow engine
with a SCADA interface connected to the DMS to allow
for comprehensive testing of the system.
The DMS was subsequently deployed in parallel with
Ausgrids existing DMS system (DNMS) and the FDIR
algorithm was set to advisory mode. This meant that
the trial DMS had access to all required network
information, but would not attempt any automated
switching operations but rather provide advice to the
control room operators on a preferred course of action
in the event of a fault.
The ability for operators to see the results from the
new DMS system side-by-side with their trusted
DNMS system proved to be an unexpected benefit of
this approach. The knowledge that they could fall back
on the production DNMS if necessary also helped
with the acceptance of the new and different. The
deployment of a parallel DMS system in this manner
worked extremely well for the project. Ausgrid found it
to be a low risk option as rollback is simpler and less
disruptive than completely replacing the existing DMS.
7.6 High level

trialresults
period to demonstrate operational efficiencies by not

dispatching field crews to manually operate switches in
the field.
There were a total of nine fault events registered in the

Nelson Bay area during the field trial between August
2012 and August 2013, and only one of these involved
switching activities where the deployed FDIR solution
could have had an impact. As part of the installations,
vegetation management was undertaken to clear
bushes and trees encroaching on feeders, which
might be part of the reason why the number of faults
was limited over the period.
The DMS required several reconfigurations during the

trial period, which highlights the inherent complexity
involved when integrating new capabilities into an
existing system, as well as shortcomings of the testing
process. The scripted SCADA sequences used for
testing were not sourced from actual event logs,
and therefore were subject to incorrect assumptions
regarding how the SCADA points would behave in the
event of a fault.
The one fault event involved back feeding to restore

power to parts of a damaged feeder via an adjacent
zone substation. This zone substation was not part of
the field trial scope and the FDIR solution was therefore
unable to assist in the restoration process, with the
remote switching activities performed by the control
room operator. As a result, there was no measurable
reliability improvements realised from deploying the
automated FDIR solution in the field trial.
The FDIR PS+EDGE simulations were designed to

test the DMS system deployed as well as to determine
the incremental reliability improvement from adding
switches and automation capabilities. To ensure that
the PS+EDGE model was production equivalent, it
was validated against real loads, energy consumption
and end-of-line voltage from production data. The
PS+EDGE simulation environment allowed the project
to explore scenarios, for example the impact of adding
and removing remotely controlled switches, which
would not have been possible in the field trial due to
logistical constraints and cost considerations. The
results of this PS+EDGE simulation are shown
in Figure 1-11.
However, remote switching by the control room

operator was successfully demonstrated by the field
trial. These capabilities were used for planned outages
on a number of occasions during the trial
Figure 1-11 Simulated SAIDI and SAIFI reductions
Sectionalising Switches
Manual Remote Switching
0%
-5%
-10%
% Change
-15%
-20%
-25%
-30%
-35%
-40%
-45%
-50%
SAIDI
SAIFI
Automated FDIR
The PS+EDGE simulations demonstrated that utilising

an FDIR algorithm to automatically operate distributed
switches reduced SAIDI and SAIFI by over 60 per cent
with the trial area saturated with switches. This is, with
switches deployed to ensure that there would always
be a switching option available for the FDIR algorithm
to restore power to the healthy part of the feeder. This
meant simulating the deployment of two switches per
feeder, one for sectionalising and one for back-feeding.
With switches deployed as per the field trial, the SAIDI
and SAIFI reductions simulated were 40 per cent.
The greatest incremental SAIDI reduction was
demonstrated from deploying remotely controlled
switches for feeder sectionalising. Switching could
either be performed almost instantaneously through
automation, or with a slight delay if executed by
a control room operator. Simply enabling remote
controlled switching reduced the duration of faults for
customers on the healthy part of a feeder from hours
to minutes. Adding automation capabilities reduced
the duration with the difference between the two
response times, from minutes to seconds.
The results from the smart meter desktop study shows
that smart meters could potentially be used to more
accurately determine fault locations, and consequently
to more efficiently direct field staff to the location of
a fault to reduce outage times. However, the project
experienced quality issues with the smart meter data
throughout the trial. For smart meters to be effectively
utilised for fault detection, timely and accurate data
would need to be assured.
7.6.1 Key learnings

The smart grid is a significantly more complex entity
than the traditional electrical distribution network. It
includes an array of interconnected intelligent sensors
and actuators and multiple layers of software. A
structured and rigorous approach to testing and
configuration management is mandatory for the
safe and reliable introduction of new technologies,
algorithms and software upgrades.
Changes must be validated and tested in offline
environments that sufficiently represent the behaviour
of the production network to identify issues before
deployment. Different test environments may be
needed for distinct purposes including development
of algorithms and processes, functional testing to
validate new features and integration/regression testing
to ensure proper interworking with the production
systems. These environments must be sufficiently
flexible to allow production network changes to
be regularly back-ported to ensure that the testing
environments continue to be truly representative of the
production system.
The deployment of FDIR requires that a
comprehensive network model be prepared and
loaded into a DMS. During the trials considerable
time was spent preparing this model. An attempt
was made to predict the final state of the network at
time of commissioning, which proved problematic.
An improved approach would be to agree and build a
process with the participating vendor(s) that recognise
upfront the dynamic nature of the network and agree
on simple project BAU processes (not part of an
exception or scope change process) that incorporate
network changes as they are made.
7.6.2 Applicability of solutions

toAustralia
The project has shown that deploying FDIR has the
potential to significantly improve reliability, which could
deliver benefits to customers, energy retailers and
network operators.
In Australia, network reliability targets are set under
the Service Target Performance Incentive Scheme
(STPIS), which rewards or penalises network providers
based on their performance relative to those targets.
This creates a clear business case for at least partial
deployment FDIR (up to the value stipulated under the
STIPS reward).
Investment by network businesses will also be
determined by differing reliability standards in each
state and the relative proportions of networks which
have low reliability indicators. FDIR is only as valuable
as the reliability improvement it delivers, which means
that a targeted deployment on a networks worst
performing feeders would be expected to deliver the
greatest benefits, with diminishing returns as reliability
improves. As a result, care should be taken when
applying the outcomes from this trial to the wider
network reliability indicators, given the relative reliability
improvements for FDIR will be area-specific.
8 Substation and feeder

monitoring (SFM) technologies
8.1 What are
substation and feeder
monitoring (SFM)
technologies?
SFM technology potentially offers various benefits

including providing information to help manage
outages and optimise maintenance. The systems help
avoid outages and lower maintenance and
inspection costs.
The purpose of substation and feeder monitoring

(SFM) technologies is to monitor the network
state and condition of assets within the electrical
distribution network. The Smart Grid, Smart City SFM
Project investigations study was divided into three
components focussed on transmission, substation and
distribution network components.
Currently due to the high cost of monitoring equipment
and the need for dedicated communications links,
on-line monitoring has traditionally been limited to a
small number of high-value network assets in the zone
substations. Monitoring of transmission lines, feeders,
distribution transformers and other assets outside
the substation has typically been carried out through
scheduled inspections and tests.
The Smart Grid, Smart City Project allowed Ausgrid to

investigate whether SFM smart grid technologies and
approaches could provide an opportunity for network
businesses to cost effectively monitoring a larger
number of lower-value assets.
8.2 SFM role in

asmart grid
The electrical distribution network is a complex system
that includes a variety of electrical plant distributed
over a wide area. These assets may be located in
substations or switching yards or in less accessible
locations underground or mounted high on poles.
Monitoring the condition of these assets has always
been an important activity for network operators, both
to maximise the assets economic life and to identify
and rectify potential sources of failure before they
impact supply.
Figure 1-12 SFMs role in a smart grid
Substation Feeder Monitoring (SFM)
Bulk Supply Point
Subtransmission
Substation
Zone Substation
Distribution
Substation

Due to the cost of monitoring equipment and the need

for dedicated communications links, on-line monitoring
has traditionally been limited to a small number of
high-value assets in the zone substations. Even then,
monitoring of much of the plant has been limited to the
relaying of alarms back to the control room. Monitoring
of transmission lines, feeders, distribution transformers
and other assets outside the substation has typically
been carried out through scheduled inspections and
tests. Replacement or refurbishment of high-value
assets is usually based on conservative estimates of
useful lifetime derived from historical values. Low-value
assets are usually run to failure.
The development of low-cost sensor and
microprocessor technology has reduced the cost
of monitoring equipment so that it is now becoming
realistic to consider monitoring the large number
of lower-value assets further down the distribution
hierarchy. With the addition of a network-wide common
communications platform, the need for dedicated
communications infrastructure for each technology
is eliminated and the incremental cost of monitoring
assets across the network reduces further.
The smart grid therefore provides an opportunity to
deploy a range of current and emerging technologies
to remotely monitor the state of the network and
condition of assets. The near-real time collection of
data from all levels of the distribution network has
been shown to significantly improve network reliability,
power quality, asset utilisation and network
operating costs.
8.3 SFM and Smart

The SFM Project involved the trial of a number of
different technologies that could form a part of a
future smart grid SFM program. While the individual
technologies each offer certain specific benefits,
theprimary purpose of the project was to investigate,
validate, and where possible, quantify the broader
benefits that could accrue from real-time monitoring
including:
The deferral or avoidance of capital expenditure for
a network business by maximising asset utilisation
through real-time thermal rating. Real time rating
allows the asset to be used at its maximum
capacity at any point in time, rather than capacity
being limited by worst-case assumptions
The reduction in capital expenditure made possible
by the deployment of a shared low-cost scalable,
common communication platforms using
open standards
The minimisation of capital expenditure by using
real operational data to inform the planning and
design processes, reducing the number and level
of conservative assumptions incorporated into the
process
Reduction in operating costs and improvement in
system reliability (SAIDI) by identifying and rectifying
potential sources of faults before they develop into
service-affecting problems
Reduction in operating costs and improvements in
system reliability through improved awareness of
the network state
Reduction in operating costs through fewer routine
inspections and prioritisation of preventative
maintenance based on the condition of assets
The SFM Project was focussed on commercial-scale

field trials of these technologies, supported by desktop
studies and PS+EDGE simulations where relevant.
The project consisted of seventeen individual trials,
one of which (the Resonant Earthing Feasibility Study)
was limited to a desktop feasibility study. The trials
ran at more than 40 sites across the Ausgrid footprint
involving the transmission network, substations, feeders
and the distribution network. Where possible, the trials
were combined with planned capital work projects to
minimise costs and disruption.
The SFM project was a three-year project, spanning
the period from October 2010 to September 2013 as
shown in Figure 1-13.
Figure 1-13 Timelines for the SFM project
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Planning and Trial Design

Installation and Commissioning
Analysis and reporting
6
Milestones
1 Protection relay statistics Trial

Start
5 Distributed Temperature
Sensing Trial Start
2 Partial discharge analysis Trial

Start
Earth potential rise event

monitor Trial Start
11 8
3 Environmental monitoring at
distribution substations Trial Start
6 Soil thermal resistivity Trial Start
4 Initial Smart Meters deployed

in Nelson Bay
8 Transmission line monitor

TrialStart
3 2
1 5 7
10
11
9 Insulator leakage current monitor

Trial Start
10 Oil filled cable monitoring
TrialStart
11 Dissolved gas analysis Trial Start
7 Dynamic cable rating Trial Start
8.4 Where are SFM

deployed?
A review of literature found that international findings
were broadly consistent with the findings from
Smart Grid, Smart City SFM Project including
that substation and feeder monitoring technology is
generally considered to be a mature and cost effective
solution for voltage and current measurement and
that monitoring of thermal, gas and partial discharge
was considered to deliver net benefits only at the
subtransmission level.
It should be noted that the SFM category is very
broad (as can be seen by the number of technologies
trialled in the Smart Grid, Smart City SFM project),
which makes it challenging to accurately compare trial
outcomes within the literature. Further, the terminology
used to describe SFM technologies also varies due
to the lack of a standard global vocabulary and the
relatively fast evolution of technology in this area which
has led to multifunction devices that are difficult to
classify. The ability for new smart grid technologies to
multifunction can also lead to benefits being reported
under different categories, such as reliability benefits
which may be reported under the FDIR category
of benefits.
The SFM Technical Compendium (which can be
found on the Smart Grid, Smart City Information
Clearing House https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.
au/) provides additional information on a number of
international trials.
8.5 Smart Grid,

SmartCity SFM trials
8.5.1 SFM trial design elements
and technologies
As previously described, the SFM project consisted
of 17 different trials deployed in a variety of locations
across the Ausgrid distribution network. Trials
were conducted in all the network areas including
transmission, substation and distribution and are
described in the following sections.
8.5.2 Transmission and Feeder

Monitoring Trials
In the distribution network, electricity is transported
from the bulk supply points to subtransmission and
zone substations via overhead transmission lines or
underground cables at voltages up to 33 kV. The
electricity is then distributed from the zone substations
to the distribution transformers located near the
customers via a network of feeders, usually operating
at 11 kV. Transmission lines or feeders may also be in
the form of aerial conductors or underground cables.
The role of the transmission and feeder network is the
cost-effective, safe and reliable transport of energy
from one point to another. Achieving these goals
requires attention to be paid to both the conductors,
through which the electricity flows, and the insulation
that keeps the high voltages on the conductors
isolated from each other and the surrounding
environment. This sub-project examined several
technologies that have the potential to increase the
utilisation, improve the reliability or prolong the working
life of transmission lines and cables.
Dynamic rating of underground cables
Overhead transmission line monitoring
The key limitation for the current rating of underground

cables is temperature. The maximum allowable cable
conductor temperature is limited by the properties
of the insulating material. The temperature rise of an
underground cable is influenced by the load on the
cable, the size and configuration of its conductors,
and the ability of the surrounding soil or backfill
material to conduct heat away from the cable. Cable
ratings are typically calculated using conservative
assumptions of the soils thermal resistivity since
this can vary considerably depending on the nature,
compaction and water content of the backfill material.
Consequently, there is potential for a cables true rating
to be significantly higher or lower than the design
value, and for this to vary over the cables length and
under different environmental conditions.
Overhead transmission lines consist of conductors

suspended from towers or poles via insulators. The
rating of transmission lines is limited by a maximum
conductor temperature that should not be exceeded.
The conductor has a maximum operating temperature
beyond which it may suffer permanent degradation
via plastic deformation. In many cases however, safety
clearances will be violated due to thermal expansion
(sag) of the conductors before this temperature has
been reached.
In the case that the design rating is conservative, the

cable may not be fully utilised, and in the worst case,
it may be prematurely replaced by a higher capacity
cable. Conversely, if the cables actual capacity is
lower than planned (for example, due to a localised
soil characteristic), a hotspot may develop leading to
premature failure22.
These investigations into the dynamic rating of
underground cables consisted of three parts including:
The first trial investigated distributed temperature
sensing technology capable of measuring
the temperature profile along the length of an
underground cable
The second trial evaluated an emerging technology
to allow the continuous monitoring of soil thermal
resistivity in the vicinity of buried cables
The final trial in this group examined technology
which utilised the cable temperature and soil
resistivity to calculate cable ratings in real time, and
to compare the results with ratings derived from the
static models currently in use by Ausgrid
22 As an example, a recent feeder failure in Ausgrids network,

was traced to the incorrect replacement of backfill during
the installation of a nearby oil pipeline more than 20 years
previously.
Maintaining the correct clearance between conductors

themselves, the ground, surrounding structures or
vegetation is particularly important in the Australian
context because of the high risk of bushfires. A range
of factors influence the temperature of a transmission
line including the load, the mechanical and thermal
properties of the conductors, and external variables
such as solar radiation ambient temperature, wind
speed and direction.
Distribution network service providers (DNSPs) design
transmission lines using thermal and mechanical
models that predict sag under various conditions, to
ensure that appropriate clearances will be maintained
throughout the lines operating life. A lines current
rating is therefore based on conservative assumptions
of temperature, wind velocity and the like. The true
value of these parameters can vary significantly from
the assumed values, and may not be identical at all
points along the line. In some cases therefore, the
design rating of the line may be underestimated, and
the asset may be underutilised.
As part of the Smart Grid, Smart City program, Ausgrid
completed a trial of technology to assist in the prediction
of temperature using real-time measurement of load and
local environmental conditions.
The objective of this trial was to evaluate the
effectiveness of continuous monitoring of transmission
line and environmental parameters to calculate
conductor temperature and tension to be used in
real-time rating of transmission lines. For this study,
technology to measure the environment, conductor
temperature and tension was deployed.
Insulation breakdown monitoring

Insulation breakdowns are one of the most common
causes of failure in the transmission network. This
component of the project assessed different aspects
of insulation failure monitoring through three separate
trials including:
The evaluation of on-line partial discharge
monitoring in transmission cables
The performance of high-voltage insulators in the
presence of high levels of environmental pollution
Technology for monitoring the pressure of oil in oil
insulated transmission cables
8.5.3 Substation
MonitoringTrials
Electrical substations are important nodes in the
electricity supply network. Substations contain
transformers that convert the incoming high voltage
into a lower voltage for distribution further out into the
network. They also contain equipment that performs
switching, protection and control functions.
As well as the primary electrical system, substations
can contain one or more secondary systems. A
secondary system is defined as any system that
supports the safe, secure and efficient operation of the
primary system. Typical secondary system functions
include protection, monitoring and control. Tertiary
systems, which do not directly support the primary
electrical system, such as enterprise connectivity and
voice communications are also deployed
in substations.
The role of the protection systems is to detect fault
conditions, isolate faults to prevent damage to the
rest of the network, and to de-energise equipment
or conductors that may be in an unsafe condition.
The protection system will also attempt to maintain
electricity supply to as many customers as possible
during the fault. The reliable operation of the protection
systems is therefore critical for the safe operation of
the network.
Monitoring systems provide both real time and

historical information about the status and
performance of the network and the condition of
the network to assist the safe, reliable and efficient
supply of electricity. Control systems permit network
operators to remotely control the state of the network
in an efficient and timely manner such that the network
is kept in an optimal configuration for the
prevailing conditions.
Monitoring and control are increasing in importance
with the evolution of smart grids as improved
visibility of network state along with increased
actuation capabilities supports advanced distribution
automation technologies. This sub-project
investigates the evolution of substation-based
secondary systems in the smart grid environment,
and examines a small number of representative
technologies that this evolution enables. The
substation monitoring trials address:
Smart substation infrastructure

This project included the design of a local area
network (LAN) to support secondary and tertiary
systems within the smart grid substation. An
architecture based on the IEC 61850 protocol was
proposed. The trial assessed the first deployments of
this architecture and identified the lessons learned.
Representative smart substation

technologies
These trials examined three different monitoring
technologies that were representative of the types
of applications enabled by the smart substation
infrastructure. These included:
The on-line analysis of dissolved gas in substation
transformer oil
The use of video surveillance for substation security
The monitoring of earth potential rise at the
substation during fault events
8.5.4 Distribution
MonitoringTrials
Distribution networks carry electricity from
zone substations to customers. They consist of
underground and overhead feeders and lines that
carry the electricity, as well as distribution substations,
transformers and switching and monitoring equipment.
The distribution substation steps down the voltage
before the electricity reaches the customer. In
Australia, the majority of customers receive electricity
at around 230 volts.
The role of the distribution network is the costeffective, safe and reliable transportation of energy
to the end-customer. Achieving this goal requires
accurate information about the network state and the
health and utilisation of assets on the network.
Smart meter monitoring This trial examined the

potential to use smart meters as a tool to monitor the
low voltage network. The relative benefits of monitoring
via smart meters and via DM&C were compared.
Protection relay statistics This trial assessed
the benefits of using information available from
existing protection relays to predict failures. Statistical
techniques were used to evaluate historical data with a
view to identifying pre-fault signatures.
Resonant earthing feasibility study Resonant
earthing solutions can potentially improve safety and
reduce the threat of arcing that can cause bushfires,
under single-line-to-ground faults. This desktop study
evaluated the feasibility and cost-benefit of providing
such a system on an Ausgrid zone at high risk.
These trials examined several technologies that

have the potential to increase the utilisation, improve
reliability and asset maintenance, or prolong the
working life of distribution assets and included:
Distribution substation monitoring The
trials examined the potential benefits of extending
monitoring activities to distribution substations. This
monitoring offers the potential to improve asset
utilisation, reduce operational costs and provide early
warning of potential failures. The trial evaluated the
benefits of monitoring the distribution transformer itself,
as well as the environmental conditions at distribution
transformer sites. In addition a distribution monitoring
and control (DM&C) platform was deployed and its
performance evaluated.
8.6 High level trial

results
Given the large number of trials completed as part
of the SFM Project, a high level account of each of
the previously described trial elements has been
provided in the following section. In-depth results
and discussion on the technical findings have been
included in the SFM Technical Compendium which can
be found on the Smart Grid, Smart City Information
Clearing House https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/.
8.6.1 Transmission and feeder

monitoring trial results
Dynamic rating of underground cables
trialresults
These trials demonstrated a number of aspects
including that:
Distributed temperature sensing is a very useful
component of a smart grid strategy. The sensing
technology is robust, and is able to provide real
insight into the thermal characteristics of buried
transmission feeders that are difficult or impossible
to obtain any other way. The technology is
inexpensive compared to the capital costs of the
infrastructure it monitors, with a single monitoring
node at the sub-transmission station potentially
capable of monitoring all the feeders radiating from
that point. The incremental cost of installing DTS
ready feeders is minimal.
The Soil Thermal Resistivity trial showed that the
implementation of a dynamic monitoring station
in a real world environment is possible, and that
continuous data collection potentially can aid the
dynamic rating of underground cables, as well as
suggestions to direct further research.
Real time thermal rating of underground
transmission cables showed significant potential
to increase asset utilisation without compromising
reliability. This study showed that up to 38 per cent
additional capacity was available on a five-hour
basis for one of the feeders studied, and that 114
per cent was available on another. The technology
used, while generally performing as expected,
was difficult to integrate with the DTS equipment,
and showed some anomalous behaviour at the
extremes of its measurement range.
Overhead transmission line monitoring

trialresults
The trial demonstrated that accurate results for
conductor temperature could be calculated from the
conductor load and local weather conditions. The
results also highlighted the conservatism built into the
traditional static rating methods, which assume that
the wind speed is only 0.5 or 0.6 ms-1 at the time of
peak load.
In contrast the trial data has shown that the wind
speed can be substantially higher and thus the cable
may be underutilised. The use of localised real-time
weather data to calculate transmission line conductor
temperatures could therefore provide valuable input
for the real-time rating of transmission lines. Such
data could be used to avoid load shedding in peak
periods where the weather conditions permit higher
ratings than the static models permit. Further, long
term thermal data could be used to better estimate the
service life of transmission lines potentially delaying or
avoiding capital expenditure.
Insulation breakdown monitoring trial

results
The partial discharge monitoring trial was not able to
demonstrate the economic and operational benefit
of on-line partial discharge monitoring as no partial
discharges were detected, although a number of
valuable insights into this technology were obtained.
End-to-end monitoring of a sub-transmission cable
longer than 2 km would be possible only where
multiple monitoring points can be installed (presumably
at joint bays) together with the connecting optical fibre
communications infrastructure. Given the results, there
is unlikely to be an economic justification for this online
technology in the Ausgrid environment, as portable offline partial discharge analysis equipment meets cable
management needs.
Detailed analysis of the performance of insulators

in polluted environments suggested that there was
minimal risk of flashover of either the porcelain or
composite insulators. Monthly testing at Kooragang
and Anna Bay demonstrated the superior performance
of composite over ceramic insulators due to their
hydrophobic properties and significantly larger surface
creepage distances.
Results from the leakage current measurement system
demonstrated that the maximum leakage current
measured on both the porcelain post and composite
longrod insulators are well below industry recognised
warning threshold limits. Given the low levels of risk of
flashover in very polluted sites, limited benefit would be
gained by more widespread deployment of insulation
leakage current monitoring equipment.
The results of the trial of oil pressure monitoring
equipment showed that monitoring trends in oil
pressure in oil filled cables did provide useful insight
into the behaviour of the cables beyond that available
from simple low-pressure alarms. Anomalies in the
oil pressure could indicate slow leaks and equipment
failures allowing preventative maintenance to be
scheduled, and emergency call-outs to be avoided.
However, the system as trialled is not a suitable
replacement for the existing alarm system because
it takes almost two minutes to complete polling of
all the transducers. The current system can trigger
an alarm within one second of oil pressure deviating
from acceptable levels if a catastrophic leak occurs.
Any online monitoring system must be capable of fast
response to major deviations in pressure and provide
trend information in quasi real time.
8.6.2 Substation Monitoring

TrialResults
The substation monitoring trial results were extensive
and complex and are discussed fully in the SFM
Technical Compendium and within the supporting
documentation. These can be found on the Smart
Grid, Smart City Information Clearing House
The objectives of the substation monitoring trials
were to develop a suggested design approach for
a common communications platform for secondary
systems within the substation, and to evaluate three
representative technologies that such a platform could
enable. The high level results of the trials are presented
in the following section.
Smart substation infrastructure trial results

Within Ausgrid the functions of the protection
system and the monitoring and control system have
traditionally been engineered as discrete systems and
kept quite separate. However due to convergence of
technology the industry has seen this division become
progressively blurred. It no longer makes technical or
economic sense to consider the protection system
separate to the monitoring and control system. This
has also been enabled by the introduction of the IEC
61850 substation communications standard23.
This study showed that a LAN designed to support

the IEC 61850 protocol can effectively deliver
significant additional data from the substation than
current systems allow. With these additional data
comes a broadening of the stakeholders who have an
interest in the data, and so the substation LAN must
transition from being a tool for specific operations and
engineering activities to a corporate asset with many
competing requirements. This study demonstrated that
the barriers which need to be overcome in maximising
the benefit of this technology are organisational and
cultural as much as they are engineering.
Representative smart substation technology

trial results
Continuous monitoring of dissolved gas in subtransmission transformers was shown to help identify
potential points of failure, but the value that this brings
depended to a large extent on the operators asset
management strategy. Ausgrids current strategy for
managing transformers is one of run to end of life, and
the network is dimensioned to tolerate the in-service
failure of a transformer (as per legislative requirements)
and a comprehensive spares strategy ensures timely
re-establishment of network security.
The current processes for monitoring transformers for
dissolved gasses are therefore adequate for Ausgrids
purposes, and investment in the widespread rollout of
dissolved gas monitoring equipment is unlikely to yield
an economic return. If a different asset management
strategy were employed, on-line monitoring of
transformer oil dissolved gas may be an appropriate
technology, especially as the technology matures and
costs come down.
Video monitoring of substations was shown to be
capable of increasing security however the trial found
that video inspection did not replace any significant
asset management processes that would be conducted
as part of Ausgrids existing maintenance program.
23 IEC 61850 Power utility automation, International

Electrotechnical Commission, 2013
During the field trial period, the earth potential rise

event monitor proved to be robust and reliable system
to measure earth fault currents in earthing conductors
and soil voltages. The system was also successful
in monitoring the impedance of the earth grid, an
electrode, and both overhead earth wires, under both
transient and sustained earth fault events.
The number of earth faults at Nelson Bay zone
substation that resulted in potential touch voltages
hazards was found to be significantly fewer than
estimated. Monitoring found that of the 47 interruptions
recorded during the trial period, 28 had an earth fault
component, of which only four events (7.6 per cent)
resulted in a voltage exceeding 50 V. A fully integrated,
controllable and configurable production quality device
was deployed for the trial, expanding on previous
Ausgrid trials undertaken with a less sophisticated
prototype. The findings align with results from the
prototype trials.
8.6.3 Distribution monitoring trials

Distribution substation monitoring
trialresults
While continuous monitoring of distribution transformer
voltage, load and oil temperature could help identify
potential failures before they occur, the benefits
depend to a large extent on the operators asset
management strategy and the cost of the devices.
The network is dimensioned to tolerate the in-service
failure of a transformer (as per legislative requirements)
and a comprehensive spares strategy ensures timely
re-establishment of network security. Under these
circumstances, the economic value of this technology
is limited. However, the data gathered throughout the
trial may be used to improve the understanding of
asset lifecycles that could be useful for replacement
prioritisation.
The environmental monitoring trials found that

various environmental measurements are technically
feasible however are of varying benefit. Ambient
temperature was not found to be strongly correlated
with transformer oil temperature, but helped to
analyse the premature failure of field-based RTUs, and
identified issues with other temperature monitoring in
the field. Humidity monitoring was less valuable than
temperature as it is currently not an input for asset
management models at Ausgrid. A flood sensor was
installed at a distribution substation that was prone
to flooding, and four flood events were detected over
the trial period. Airflow sensors were not found to be
justifiable on Ausgrids network due to the very limited
number of suitable distribution substations.
Smart meter monitoring trial results

The trials showed that smart meters could be used
for low voltage distribution monitoring purposes.
Since Ausgrid already has an extensive DM&C
program underway, deploying smart meters solely
for distribution monitoring purposes is not justifiable.
However, smart meters do provide other potential
benefits such as support for remote meter reads, timeof-use tariffs and other feedback technologies. These
benefits are discussed at length in the Customer
Applications Technical Compendium and in Parts Two
and Three of this report.
In summary, the smart meter monitoring trial results
showed that smart meters could potentially be used to
determine the location of faults which could be used
to more efficiently direct field staff and reduce fault
restoration times.
Protection relay statistics trial results

The trials showed that protection relay statistics were
useful as a forensic tool to analyse pre-fault conditions
on assets to determine the cause of the fault. However,
the results from the trial shows that the pre-fault
conditions were not picked up early enough for the
operator to take any action to avert the fault.
More evaluation of this approach over a longer time
period and across a wider range of devices is required
to determine the likelihood of solid faults actually being
averted through the use of the technology.
The ability to log protection relay statistics is a free
and common feature of modern relays, meaning that it
would be preferable to turn on this feature to determine
if there is a class of pre-faults that can be prevented.
Importantly, this is achievable at a low cost once the
smart grid common platform enables the central
retrieval of the full range of data, including
waveform files.
Resonant earthing feasibility study results

Trial results showed that resonant earthing was a
prohibitively expensive technology to deploy at existing
sites. In a new substation build, a resonant earthing
solution would be more cost-effective given that the
ancillary works that dominate the installation costs are
carried out as part of the new build.
8.6.4 Summary of the substation

monitoring trials
The overall findings for the substation monitoring trials
showed that given the reduction in costs of sensors
and electronics, combined with a deployment of a
common communications platform, the potential to
cost effectively monitor the small number of highvalue assets at a zone substation is improving. The
substation and feeder monitoring projects have shown
that while most of the technologies examined bring
value, the business case for any one of them at this
stage will be difficult to justify on a stand-alone basis.
The true benefit of the smart grid can be realised only
when a whole-of-business view is embraced.

toAustralia
A consistent result from the SFM trials is that these
smart grid technologies allow for optimisation of a
number of variables and grid performance over a
longer period of time, whereas existing processes are
focussed on boundary condition analysis focussed on
network peak events. In order to extract the full value
from the smart grid technologies, a continuous view
and optimisation design process for the network is
required, rather than boundary condition analysis using
a single peak snapshot of the network.
Smart grid technology vendors should also be
aware that their technology will be used as part
of a multi-vendor smart grid implementation.
Scalability, interoperability and fully conforming and
validated standards-based interfaces are mandatory
requirements.
Given these factors impacting the integration of
SFM technologies, Utilities must not only ensure
that equipment supports appropriate protocols but
should also seek assurances from vendors of the
conformance of protocol implementations. Utilities
must also be capable of and prepared to assist
vendors with testing equipment protocol conformance.
This may include providing a vendor with an
appropriate level of access to test environments.
Many of the SFM technologies trialled as part of the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program required alternative
approaches to analysis, data and communication
between organisational structures in order to be
successfully deployed.
Another important finding that network businesses
will need to recognise is the need for effective change
management within an organisation. This will require a
range of activities and commitments at all levels within
the business. A number of these issues are discussed
in Part Three of this report.
9 Wide Area Measurement

(WAM)
9.1 What are Wide
Area Measurement
(WAM) technologies?
This data is then used to provide a global view of the

health of the transmission network including stability,
power flow direction and congestion.
The deployment of Wide Area Measurement (WAM)

technologies resulted from a series of record-breaking
blackouts that occurred in both North America
and Europe in 2003. The US-Canadian blackout
investigation report that followed determined that many
major blackouts were caused by inadequate situational
awareness for grid operators, and recommended
the use of WAM technology to provide real-time,
wide-area grid visibility as a means to help eliminate
future blackouts24. These events and subsequent
investigations had an impact globally, as the electric
power industry recognised more urgently the potential
consequences of the current limitations in wider-area
network awareness.
The concept of WAM involves the installation of
monitoring devices, called phasor measurement
units (PMUs), at a number of key points across the
transmission network. These devices are required to
provide a high speed sample of data (voltage, current
and frequency) at strategic points on the transmission
network. Referred to as synchrophasor, it is measured
with a highly accurate synchronised time signal.
The ability to dynamically monitor and analyse the grid

is becoming increasingly important as greater levels
of power electronics and variable energy sources are
deployed within the distribution network. WAMs role in
a smart grid is described in Figure1-14.
9.2 WAMs role in a

smart grid
At the highest tier of power supply, transmission
networks usually stand as the first line of defence
against impending wide-scale outages, making
effective protection and safe operation of primary
transmission assets the main responsibility of network
operators. This is a key area of improvement in the
smart grid environment, as protection equipment can
begin to take into account a wider view of the network
state, and increased visibility of network conditions
can improve safety outcomes.
Protection equipment on a transmission network is
traditionally configured to provide localised protection
of the asset it is installed on. Hence, this protection
scheme is set to view a localised portion of the
transmission network with no particular awareness of
the state of the transmission network as a whole.
Figure 1-14 WAMs role in a smart grid
Bulk Supply Point
Subtransmission
Substation
Zone Substation
Distribution
Substation

24 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (2014)

Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the
United States and Canada, April 2014
This localised view of the network gives rise to the

possibility of a wide area outage through cascading
protection operations across the network, which may
be initiated by a fault or switching error at a particular
site that is not dealt with quickly or effectively.
However, it is now widely accepted that SCADA

and EMS can be significantly enhanced with the
complementary use of WAM technologies because
this new, high frequency data clearly gives operators a
more real-time view of network events.
WAM systems enable highly precise visibility of

electricity system conditions over multiple levels of
the electric grid. Continuous system measurement
is not a foreign concept for utilities conventional
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and
Energy Management Systems (EMS) have traditionally
provided this capability for protection and control
scheme purposes.
Figure 1-15 provides a high level description of the

progressive improvements that have occurred, and
are possible because of smart measurement systems
such as WAM.
As Australias current grid evolves, many more devices
(in particular, distributed devices) will be connected to
electricity networks and the capability to monitor key
network indicators with greater accuracy is becoming
critical for grid operators.
Figure 1-15 Evolution of grid modelling with synchrophasor data
Past
Current
Opportunity
Future
Peak
Modelling
Months
Static Loads
in Real-Time
Minutes
Dynamic
Modelling of
Interacting
Components
Seconds
Transient
Analysis
Cycles
9.3 WAM Smart

The overarching goal of the Smart Grid, Smart City
WAM Project was to explore and analyse the use of
WAM technology in the Australian context. The project
sought to inform the business case for deploying
synchrophasor measurement technologies across a
portion of the transmission and distribution networks.
Potential project benefits were investigated by:
Consolidating and disseminating synchrophasor
data to appropriate stakeholders
Using synchrophasor data to analyse network
events and monitor key network health parameters
Using synchrophasor data for the comparison and
validation of models and key measurements
Conducting a literature review and developing
PS+EDGE simulations to understand WAC
applications in the changing grid environment
The WAM Project consisted of a field trial element
involving several PMUs along transmission and
subtransmission high voltage corridors, along with
additional studies and PS+EDGE simulations to
investigate WAC feasibility for Australian distributors.
The WAM Project spanned three years, from October

2010 to September 2013 (see Figure 1-16).
The first two years of the project consisted of
design and installation phases. The WAM system
was operational by the third year, and analysis and
reporting was carried out during the final phase.
PS+EDGE simulation work was also carried out during
the final phases of the WAM project.
WAM technologies were chosen as part of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program because it was expected
that the findings would contribute to its broader
objectives by:
Improving reliability from increased post-event
data and information to facilitate more effective
responses and minimise the impact of future events
Eliminating poorly informed investment decisions
by incorporating highly accurate data into current
modelling and analysis practices
Deferring capital expenditure through improving the
utilisation of existing network assets
Full details on the WAM project deployments and
results can be found in the Ausgrid WAM Technical
Compendium and on the Smart Grid, Smart City
Information Clearing House which can be found at
Figure 1-16 Timelines for the WAM project
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Planning & Trial Design

Procurement &
Compliance Testing
Analysis & report
1
Milestones
1 Beresfield STS 14/06/2012
4 Peakhurst STS 14/03/2013
2 Singleton STS 14/08/2012
5 Mason Park STSS 28/03/2013
3 Ourimbah STS 20/06/2013
6 Newcastle BSP 29/04/2013
3 4 56 7
7 Muswellbrook BSP 29/04/2013

Beaconsfield West BSP 29/04/2013
Sydney South BSP 29/04/2013
Sydney North BSP 29/04/2013
9.4 Where are WAM

deployed?
Although synchrophasor technology has been utilised
over the past few decades, major benefits have not
been realised, typically because measurement points
have been deployed in isolation.
Whilst unproven, there is a widely held hypothesis
that high-speed analysis of these data across a
broad transmission grid can be used to provide
early detection of transmission network failure.
This hypothesis is supported by current literature,
which proposes control strategies that have been
successfully implemented on simulated networks.
9.4.1 Australian deployments

Primary WAM deployments in Australia have been
installed on behalf of the Australian Energy Market
Operator (AEMO), who is responsible for enforcing the
National Electricity Market (NEM) Frequency Operating
Standards. AEMO currently models and monitors three
known mainland inter-area oscillatory modes25:
These range of different oscillation frequencies

represent the swinging of many machines against
others26.
At the present, AEMO also receives data from five
PMUs:
New South Wales from TransGrid Sydney West
Substation
Victoria from Rowville Substation
South Australia from Para Substation
Queensland from South Pine Substation
Queensland from Greenbank Substation
PMUs have been mainly beneficial to AEMO in
identifying oscillatory stability issues. Synchrophasor
data is also known to be used in disturbance
monitoring, stability and risk assessment, control
design and separation (islanding) management. AEMO
does not, however, use PMUs in wide area control
(WAC) applications at present27.
QNI mode: Has a frequency in the 1.6 to 2.2 rad/s

(0.25 to 0.35 Hz) range. Queensland machines
oscillate against the machines in the other three
mainland states at this mode frequency
I25 mode: Has a frequency in the 2.4 to 3.1 rad/s
(0.38 to 0.49 Hz) range. South Australia and
Queensland machines oscillate against the New
South Wales machines at this mode frequency
I35 mode: Has a frequency in the 3.2 to 3.8 rad/s
(0.51 to 0.6 Hz) range. South Australia and New
South Wales machines oscillate against Victoria
machines at this mode frequency
25 Electro-mechanical oscillations between

interconnected synchronous generators
26 Prasertwong et al, Understanding low-frequency

oscillations in power systems, International Journal of
Electricity Engineering Education, July 2010
27 Ausgrid, GA1239 WAM Benefits Study, SGSC
Supporting Document, 2013
9.4.2 International deployments

International WAM activity has been led by PMU
deployments in China, North America, and Europe,
with an estimated installed base of 3,000-4,000 PMUs.
Public data shows that North American networks
have installed the majority of PMUs; however, some
sources suggest that China is actually leading in PMU
deployment. Utilities within these regions are exploring
a range of core WAM applications, as well as more
advanced wide area monitoring, protection and control
(WAMPAC) systems28.
In North America, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 has been a key
catalyst for WAM system development across North
American transmission systems. Twelve funding
recipients, including both transmission and distribution
networks, are spending $400 million to deploy
synchrophasor technologies and are exploring a
variety of applications, including wide area monitoring
and visualisation; voltage stability monitoring; islanding
and restoration; post-event analysis; and
model validation29.
Major WAM technology deployment in Europe has

been largely enabled by public-private partnerships
between utilities and nation-states as well as funding
from the European Commissions Framework
Programmes. EU nations are exploring WAM
technologies to provide more operational synergy
across the multitude of transmission system operators
(TSOs), where there is a recognised need to enhance
network visibility and improve monitoring across
interstate transmission corridors and interconnections.
WAM systems have been deployed noticeably over the
past decade as European TSOs aim to achieve
these objectives.
China is leading PMU deployment in Asia, whose
networks notably procure all equipment from domestic
manufacturers and use their own specifications and
standards. Chinese PMUs cover all 500kV substations
and generators over 100MW, and networks are
exploring WAM applications such as:
Real-time dynamic status monitoring and alarm
processing
Low frequency oscillation identification and control
Model validation and parameter identification
Wide area protection against cascading trips
State estimation using PMU measurements30
There is also a considerable amount of technical
research underway which is testing the feasibility
and architecture of WAM systems within distribution
networks. Details on some of these studies are
provided in the Ausgrid WAM Technical Compendium.
28 Kruimer B., Wide Area Measurement integration into

grid operations, MD Quanta Technology Europe, 6
December 2011
29 U.S. Department of Energy, Synchrophasor
technology and their deployment in the Recovery Act
Smart Grid Programs, August 2013
30 Bi T., The dynamic behaviour of PMU and the latest

development in China, North China Electric Power
University, 8-9 May 2013
9.5 Smart Grid,

SmartCity WAM trials
Within the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, Phasor
Measurement Unit (PMU) devices were deployed
over approximately one year at select sites in the
Hunter and Sydney regions of NSW. Devices were
installed at both transmission and subtransmission
substations, therefore involving Ausgrid as well as
TransGrid, the NSW transmission network operator.
Trial sites were selected based on three main criteria:
proximity to TransGrids network; direct connection
to subtransmission substations; and geographic
dispersion enabling the measurement of phasors
across a wide area forming the basis of the
WAM system.
A literature review was carried out as part of the Wide

Area Control (WAC) study component of the WAM trial.
Given WAC is a relatively new concept, findings from the
research were used to assist engineers and decisionmakers in understanding the challenges and benefits of
WAC schemes in the Australian context.
The WAC study also included PS+EDGE simulation
work, which used a dynamic model developed
as part of a STATCOM study undertaken at the
University of Newcastle. The goals of the PS+EDGE
simulations included: the accurate modelling of events
that are transient in nature within the networks; and
to demonstrate and understand the dynamic grid
impacts of future scenarios involving the addition of
dynamic generation sources at the distribution level.
To manage and consolidate the complex multiple

synchrophasor streams, a communications and
backend system was necessarily deployed. An
open platform was chosen due to its scalability
as a software solution and for ongoing software
development. A prototypical web dashboard was
alsodeveloped which was used to visualise and
analyse real-time WAM datasets and ultimately to
demonstrate the capability for real-time monitoring
inthe operational environment.
9.6 High level

trialfindings
9.6.1 Operational use of WAM data
Synchrophasor data captured several events over
the course of the WAM trial. Three of these events
were analysed in detail including a generator trip,
a flashover31 and the opening of a switch on a
subtransmission feeder. Processed WAM data
provided several benefits to engineers for post-event
analysis including:
For the generator trip event, the availability of
WAM data made the investigative analysis faster
than would have been otherwise possible, and
also demonstrated how a transmission incident
can be wide-reaching even though the overall
impact is low. From this event, it was found that
a WAM system could provide near-term benefits
in the form of supplementary data used to more
quickly identify the causes of similar events, either
due to rate of change of frequency or excursions
of system frequency, information of which is not
available from current SCADA systems.
WAM data analysed from the flashover event further
showed the limitations in using current SCADA
systems to effectively analyse short-lived but
damaging fault events. The data from WAM was
able to prove that the event started four seconds
before it was indicated by the SCADA system.
More useful was the ability to use the WAM data
to accurately view resulting fault currents at subsecond intervals to confirm the sequence of events.
Analysis of WAM data during the switching
event allowed for both the frequency of resulting
oscillations to be estimated and the dampening of
modes of the oscillation, a critical component of
stability analysis.
31 A flashover in terms of an electrical network occurs
where an electrical current travels through the air (or
other insulation) rather than the intended conductors.
Generally this would occur because the insulation
around the conductors is made conductive through
(for example) salty water, smoke, pollution, a tree
branch etc. These other materials offer an alternative
path for the electrical current other than its designed /
intended path. A flashover can potentially cause a fire
and / or also damage the equipment and / or pose a
safety risk.
Analysis of the trial concluded that minimal process

change would be required for the addition of WAM
in current operations. However, a commercialscale rollout would need to consider how phasor
measurement data would be retrieved, stored,
analysed and presented to operators in conjunction
with existing data retrieved via SCADA.
Understanding of communications (especially latency),
GPS clock signals for timing, and limitations of existing
transducers are required for implementation and
analysis at the operational level. Further information on
WAM technical functionality that is typically available in
current relay technology is provided in the Substation
Feeder Monitoring Technical Compendium32. However,
while that functionality exists, enablement of that
functionality also requires suitable relay configurations,
telecommunications infrastructure and back-end IT.
9.6.2 Planning benefits through

model and measurement validation
In addition to fault analysis, WAM data were used
to examine the accuracy of existing measurement
processes of a number of network systems including:
WAM data were used opportunistically
to investigate power and line impedance
measurements from incumbent systems by
taking snapshots of SCADA measurement data
from two feeders and comparing them to raw
WAM data over a period of one month. This
comparison showed that errors in SCADA power
measurements were as large as 164 per cent. This
may have been due to limited verification of power
measurement accuracy during the commissioning
process, however, considering SCADA
measurements are used in existing modelling and
design practices, there is an inherent risk if the
appropriate level of data on which to make network
investment decisions is not available. A consistently
high erroneous load measurement could result
in a feeder capacity upgrade or the installation of
capacitor banks earlier than is actually required.
32 Ausgrid, Smart Grid, Smart City Substation Feeder

Monitoring Technical Compendium
Conversely, a consistently low load measurement

could result in assets being overloaded without
operator knowledge, eventually leading to
premature asset failure.
These investigations found large discrepancies with
variances from 0-28 per cent. These discrepancies
can lead to errors in fault current calculations and
potential damages to primary network assets from
protection relay misconfigurations.
WAM data also provided an opportunity to validate
grid models, which are primary sources for capital
expenditure rationalisation. Engineers in protection
and planning groups in both the Sydney and
Hunter regions compared network WAM data to
modelling outputs. The Sydney subtransmission
planning group found that measured WAM
values and model estimates were within one per
cent. For the Hunter group, WAM data identified
misalignments between equipment in the model
and physical equipment in the field. This was able
to explain large power flows that were experienced
when an open point between two sites was closed
by operators.
It was determined that WAM data could present a
key opportunity for utilities to upgrade their current
measurement practices, verify modelling and design
approaches and ultimately make more efficient
investment decisions33.

toAustralia
Australian networks are largely radial, as opposed
to the highly interconnected systems and multiple
network market participants that are seen in North
American and European networks, in which much
of the synchrophasor technology is applied. This
feature reduces the likelihood of wide-scale outages
on Australian networks. Therefore, the benefits of
eliminating such outages via the use of WAM
systems on its own may not justify the cost for
Australian networks.
However, the trend of an increasing number of market

participants and small distributed generators in
Australia (and in most parts of the world) may influence
decisions to deploy WAM in the future. The ability
of network operators to monitor and control these
distributors and other dynamic devices is low with
current SCADA systems. Not only is accurate and
high-speed data necessary to fully understand the
power quality impacts of distributed generators and
dynamic devices on the grid, but it could serve as
an enabler for the optimal placement, operation and
utilisation of dynamic generation sources and
storage devices.
In the near term, because the trial demonstrated that
WAM data could validate network models, Australian
utilities may see benefits if improved data is used to
inform investment decisions.
A major challenge for Ausgrid as well as other
networks in the near term will be to access sufficient
synchrophasor data at strategic sites throughout a
network. Strategic partnerships among transmission
and distribution networks, as well as coordinating
efforts from AEMO to improve grid stability, could
assist and set the stage for successful future
WAM deployments.
As is evident from the Smart Grid, Smart City WAM
trials, although the benefits from WAM deployment
could be significant, the inherent complexity of these
benefits and the lack of benchmarking data currently
available in the industry make it challenging to quantify.
This is a key learning from the Smart Grid, Smart City
Project and highlights the need for further studies
within the industry to generate these data and inform
the future business case.
33 Ausgrid, GA1179 WAM Data and Model Verification

Trial Report, SGSC Supporting Document, 2013
10 Electric Vehicles (EVs)

10.1 What are
electric vehicle (EV)
technologies?
There are a number of different types of conventional
internal combustion and electric vehicles which are
available both within Australia and globally including
the following categories:
Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICE) Represents the majority of private vehicles,
powered by a standard internal combustion engine
using petrol, diesel or gas.
Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) - Combines both an
ICE with an electric engine. The electrical energy
is stored in a battery with the battery charged by
the internal combustion engine, however, battery
capacity is generally limited. Vehicle propulsion
is a mix of the ICE and electric engine, but is
predominantly powered by the ICE. This vehicle
does not use energy from the electricity grid, that it,
it does not plug in.
Plug in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) - Combines
both an ICE with an electric engine. Electrical
energy is stored in batteries with the batteries
charged by plugging into the grid. Vehicle
propulsion is a mix of the ICE and electric engine,
but is predominantly powered by the electric
engine. The ICE component is used to extend
driving range beyond battery capacity for longer
distances and to recharge the battery itself.
Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) - Powered only by
energy stored in batteries with batteries charged by
plugging into the grid.
Electric vehicle technology includes the vehicles,

charging infrastructure and the electricity grid itself.
The exchanges between these components,
both physical and financial, define the electric
vehicle ecosystem.
The market demand for fuel efficient vehicles has
increased sharply over the last decade due to the
increasing cost of fuel and, at least to some extent,
environmental concerns. Electric vehicles offer
considerable benefits over even the most efficient
conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
For electric vehicle owners, benefits include reduced
fuel costs and potential convenience where home
or workplace based charging is available. Broader
societal benefits include reduced local environmental
impacts and energy security by reducing dependence
on oil based fuels. In some countries, electric vehicles
offer carbon reduction benefits, depending on the
carbon emission intensity of the local electricity supply.
In recognition of these benefits, many governments
across the world now offer incentives for consumers to
purchase electric vehicles.
Even so, electric vehicles are currently cost prohibitive
for the majority of road users, and for the most part are
being purchased by a small group of early adopters.
The attractiveness of electric vehicle technology to
consumers is further limited by the capacity and
reliability of battery technology and the availability
of charging infrastructure. These factors, whether
perceived or real, continue to influence the technology
uptake rates.
Notwithstanding these factors, many mainstream
vehicle manufacturers are now introducing a range
of electric vehicles into their product range. This is
leading to improved volumes with consequential
impacts on manufacturing meaning that the end-price
of EVs is reducing and may become more financial
viable for a greater number of consumers in the
near future.
10.2 The role of electric

vehicles in a smart grid
Wide scale adoption of electric vehicles has the
potential to transfer a large proportion of Australias
demand for transport energy from liquid fuel to the
stationary energy sector. This new load represents a
potentially disruptive impact for the electricity industry
and for electricity network operators in particular if a
significant number of vehicles are being charged during
the existing network peak periods.
Conversely, electric vehicle load also represents a
potential opportunity for network operators. Network
utilisation34 could be improved where electric vehicle
charging is managed through the use of pricing signals
or directly controlled to occur during non-peak times.
There is also the potential for electric vehicles to
operate as a battery and export electricity back into
the grid, known as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology.
This could further enhance the opportunities for
electric vehicles to contribute to load management
within the electricity system.
The challenge for the electricity industry is to

adequately plan for increased numbers of electric
vehicles to ensure that the potential impacts do not
impose unacceptable costs in terms of network
upgrades due to charging during peak periods and
that any potential opportunities are captured. This
issue was captured in the final advice to the Australian
Energy Market Commission in 2011 by AECOM in its
report on electric vehicles35 where it noted that:
to recharge an EV, it must be connected to,
and draw electricity from, a distribution network
(or embedded network). This connection may
cause both direct connection costs (such as
the cost of an extension to the consumers
premises) and shared augmentation costs
(thatis, costs to augment the shared segments
of adistribution network).
The smart grid has a significant role to play in
managing electric vehicle load though the provision of
data and information to allow controlled charging and
to encourage efficient customer charging behaviour.
Figure 1-17 An electric vehicle from the Smart Grid, Smart City trial charging
34 Network utilisation is the proportion of time, usually

expressed as a percentage, that an electricity asset is
being used. It is more economically efficient to build
an asset that will used for a high proportion of the
time, rather than invest in assets that will only be used
for a relatively small number of hours each day or
year.
35 AECOM final advice to AEMC, Electric vehicles

NEM arrangements to incentivise efficient charging
behaviour, 2011, page 17.
10.3 The electric

vehicle Smart Grid,
Smart City Trial
trials, uptake and behaviour modelling and grid impact

modelling, which are described further in the
following sections.
The timeline and high level schedule for the Smart
Grid, Smart City Electric Vehicle Project is described
in Figure 1-18.
The overall objective of the Smart Grid, Smart City

Electric Vehicle Project was to understand the potential
impact of wide-scale uptake of electric vehicles in
Australia on the electricity distribution network.
Twenty Mitsubishi iMiEV electric vehicles were

delivered to Ausgrid in December 2010, with the
vehicles being showcased and a data collection
system for the trial being developed in 2011. The
vehicles were assigned to departments throughout
Ausgrid and were driven for business duties until the
data collection system was field tested.
To date, the majority of studies in Australia have

focussed on travel behaviour, driver perceptions,
uptake rates and the impact of electric vehicles on
the electricity network at a whole-of-system level
(a number of these are described in the following
sections). Many of these studies identified that
the greatest potential impact is likely to be at the
distribution level, but to date investigations into the
magnitude of this impact tend to be generalised. In
addition, existing studies did not link spatial analysis
of electric vehicle uptake with localised feeder
impacts. This study represented the first investigation
in Australia which has investigated the sensitivity of
distribution network to spatial variation in electric
vehicle uptake.
The first Better Place charge point was installed in

June 2011. Prior to the charging points being available,
vehicles were charged with 15A wall outlets. In
February 2012 the vehicles were reallocated, some to
new owners in Ausgrid for the fleet trial, the remainder
to households as part of the home trial.
The first fast charger was commissioned in February
2012 in Homebush and in June 2012 the first public
charging point was commissioned at Newcastle
Airport. The road trials ran until May 2013, collecting
detailed vehicle usage data for the entire period.
The project was informed by four distinct trial

components: charging infrastructure deployment, road
The analysis, uptake and behaviour modelling, grid

impact modelling and reporting were performed
throughout 2013.
Figure 1-18 Electric vehicle trial timeline
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Data Collection System

Fleet Trial
Home Trial Round 1
Home Trial Round 2
Uptake and Behaviour Study
Simulations
Analysis & Reporting
1 2
Milestones
1 First Quick Charger Commissioned
3 Last Charging Point Commissioned
2 First Public Charge Point Commissioned
4 Last Quick Charger Commissioned
10.4 Where are electric

vehicles currently
deployed?
Since around 2009, there have been a number
of Australian and international studies which have
investigated a range of aspects relating to electric
vehicle operations, safety and user behaviour and
acceptance. These have been described briefly in the
following sections.
10.4.1 Australian Electric Vehicle

deployments and studies
Victorian Government Electric Vehicle Trial
The Victoria Government Electric Vehicle Trial,
scheduled to be completed in mid-2014, involved
trialling a range of electric vehicle types by 120
individual household participants and 70 corporate
fleet participants for three months or more. The
vehicles trialled were both Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) products and post-sale electric
vehicle conversions.
The first round of the trial in 2010 to 2011 was open
to all Victorians. Applicants to the trial were found to
be environmentally conscious, with positive attitudes
towards electric vehicles and supported government
action to investigate and promote electric vehicles.
In addition, charging load management was also

successfully achieved using partial load reduction
strategies tailored to the vehicle characteristics. This
tailoring meant that the charging of vehicles can be
slowed instead of being stopped during periods of
higher demand.
All the vehicles in the Electric Vehicle Trial were
supplied using GreenPower from AGLs Bogong hydroelectric plant.
The Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial Mid-Term Report
discusses experiences and lessons learnt with
charging infrastructure rollout. These findings relate to
technology maturity, timelines to deployment, hurdles
and costs. Additionally, a driver survey was performed
as part of the Victorian EV trial.
Western Australian Electric Vehicle Trial

The Western Australian Electric Vehicle Trial (WA
EV Trial) was the first EV fleet trial in Australia and
commenced in November 2010. Eleven Ford Focus
sedans were converted to fully electric operation
because at the time there were no OEM EVs in the
Australian market. The vehicles were used in eleven
government and private sector fleets in the Perth
metropolitan area for a period of two years. The trial
also included a network of 12 public charging stations.
The more recent round was only offered to customers

within specific locations within the electricity network
in order to better understand the impact on the
distribution grid. The Victorian trial also incorporated
smart meter infrastructure to control electric vehicle
charging, trialling both demand response and direct
load control schemes.
AEMC - Energy market arrangements for

electric and natural gas vehicles
AECOM Impact of electric vehicles and

natural gas vehicles on the energy markets
Significant policy work has been completed by the

Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) to
develop a national electric vehicle charging policy.
Its December 2012 report into energy market
arrangements for electric vehicles (as well as natural
gas vehicles) identified areas for reform to promote
efficient EV charging behaviour and to enhance
consumer choice. These reform areas are principally
in relation to the role of pricing signals and metering
arrangements for electric vehicles.
AEMCs 2012 report was underpinned by technical

analysis undertaken by AECOM into the likely uptake
rates and associated grid impacts at the National
Electricity Market (NEM) level. The key conclusion from
AECOMs analysis was that if charging is unmanaged
(i.e. there are no signals to encourage electric vehicle
consumers to charge away from times of peak
demand), then this could result in significant additional
peak demand, imposing further costs to the electricity
system. Given these findings, it is important that
there are appropriate energy market arrangements in
place to manage the impact of electric vehicles on the
electricity system.
Key recommendations made by the AEMC included:

Electric vehicle charging should eventually all be
on a cost reflective tariff. Pricing signals should be
used to manage charging to encourage customers
to charge at times that lead to efficient
market outcomes
All electric vehicle chargers energy usage should
be measured with interval meters to enable time
varying tariffs
Arrangements should be made such that electric
vehicle owners can delegate to another party the
right to control how their electric vehicle charges
Metering arrangements should be made such
that all electric vehicle charging energy is metered
separately to general premise energy
Customers should have the ability to have a
different electricity retailer for electric vehicle energy
than for general premise energy
Electric vehicle charging should have the ability to
be sub-metered to reduce electrical and metering
installation costs for electric vehicle chargers
The study presented plausible uptake rate scenarios

and justifiable assumptions. The study identified that
there would be significant spatial differences in uptake
rates, however it did not present a method or perform
a spatially sensitive study.
The study considers the increase in peak demand on
the NEM under different charging schemes such as
uncontrolled, time-of-use and smart charging. The
study found that the NEM will be able to support the
additional load of electric vehicles at the projected
uptake rates with minimal required upgrades if drivers
are sufficiently motivated to charge at off-peak times
through the charging scheme. Without incentives there
would be a significant increase in peak demand in the
NEM, and billions of dollars of generation upgrades
would be required to support electric vehicles under
this scenario.
Additionally the study investigated the financial
implications specifically the capital expenditure
required to support electric vehicles under given
scenarios as well as the benefits gained through
increased network asset utilisation. The study found
significant reductions in the retail price for electricity
could result from increased network utilisation as a
result of electric vehicles charging off-peak.
This study investigated the future electric vehicles

network impact challenges at a macro level (the
entire NEM), rather than at a more granular level that
concerns distribution networks. Notwithstanding,
the study did show that electric vehicles will have the
largest impact at the distribution level but that further
work is required to determine the extent of this impact.
The Smart Grid, Smart City Electric Vehicle Project
aimed to measure this impact.
CSIRO Electric Driveway Project

The CSIROs Electric Driveway Project investigated
methods to integrate electric vehicles into household
power systems as a distributed system for storing
off-peak power from the national grid or from on-site
renewable sources.
Field trials included the development and testing of
two special-purpose electric vehicles integrated with
a home energy management system, used to partially
power homes.
Four separate research reports were produced which
evaluated the impact of widespread electric vehicle
use in an Australian context, detailing the barriers
and benefits of adopting the technology, and
exploring potential future synergies between the
different components of Australias electricity and
transport sectors.
The Phase 1 report describes the initial findings the
project. A discussion on electric vehicle adoption in
Australia is presented along with detailed modelling
to be executed later in the project. Like the AECOM
study, this study undertakes an analysis of the impact
of EVs with respect to the available generation
capacity. However, the CSIRO analysis is relatively high
level and is only applicable to Victoria.
The CSIRO also investigated three charging scenarios
- valley filling smart charging; vehicle-to-grid; and
uncontrolled charging. The initial findings concur
with other studies, suggesting that valley filling
smart charging is required to leverage available
generating capacity. The study also found that there
is no business case for implementing vehicle-to-grid

charging from the customer perspective. The study
also presented the findings from a case study on two
distribution feeders on SPAusNets network in Victoria
for three charging scenarios.
AGL Energy - Electric Vehicles in the NEM:

Energy market and policy implications
This research paper by AGL examined the likely impact
of electric vehicle charging on the NEM. An analysis
of the market, costs, drivers and possible uptake
scenarios is presented. High, medium and low
uptake scenarios are presented based on modelling
and drawing from other studies, but are not
spatially sensitive.
Two scenarios are considered for impact on the NEM
generation capacity, convenience charging and off-peak
charging using a model of vehicle availability for charging
developed from household travel data. The study found
that even under the high uptake scenario, the impact
on the NEM would be minimal and is unlikely to trigger
investment in additional generation and transmission
network capacity. The study considers a shock uptake
scenario with 50 per cent penetration and concluded that
even if all these vehicles charged on the peak demand
day in 2009/2010, there would still be enough available
generation capacity in the NEM if drivers charged offpeak. The paper did not consider vehicle-to-grid enabled
charging as the technology was perceived to be too far
off at this point in time to warrant consideration.
The paper also recognised that the electricity grid was
most likely to experience capacity issues as a result of
electric vehicle charging at the distribution level, rather
than the generation sector.
Electricity Supply Association of Australia Sparking an electric vehicle debate

In November 2013 the Electricity Supply Association
released a discussion paper exploring the potential
of plug-in electric vehicles to contribute to the
transformation of transport vehicles in Australia. The
paper outlined the range of benefits of electric vehicles
including greenhouse gas emission reduction, local

environmental benefits, energy security, improved
vehicle performance and safety and most significantly
improved utilisation of electricity networks.
Rather than advocate any particular policy, the report
sought to encourage a discussion about the benefits,
and how to encourage EV uptake in order to realise
these benefits.
10.4.2 International Electric

Vehicle deployments and studies
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) - Impact assessment of plugin hybrid vehicles on pacific northwest
distribution systems
The US EV Project
The US EV Project37 was the worlds largest
deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure
and is being used to support thousands of electric
vehicles over 21 major cities. This trial investigated the
use of time-of-use tariffs to shift charging demand
to off-peak.
Green eMotion
The European Green eMotion trial38 includes ten
demonstration regions where deployment of more
than 2,500 charging stations is underway. The trial
investigated usage patterns to suggest the likely
impact of electric vehicles on system peak.
Cenex - The Smart Move Trial
This study aimed to determine the extent to which

the existing US light duty vehicle fleet (cars, utes, SUVs
and vans) could be supported by the US distribution
networks if all these vehicles were plug in electric
hybrids. The unutilised capacity available in the US
power grids was examined and compared with the
required energy to power the US light duty vehicle
fleet. The study builds upon a previous PNNL study
into available generation capacity but focuses on the
distribution feeder and distribution substation level.
Cenex, a UK based consortium, undertook a road

trial39 where participants were given an electric vehicle
to drive for a period of time during which qualitative
and quantitative data was collected. There were
several other notable trials that followed including the
Cabled trial, run by Aston University in the UK, and the
BMW Mini-E trial, run by BMW in the UK and Germany.
The aim of these trials was to assess the real world
feasibility of using electric vehicles as everyday
passenger cars.
The study adopted a power flow model for two typical

distribution feeders in different climatic regions with an
electric vehicle load to investigate the extent to which a
typical feeder could support electric vehicles.
All three trials presented information on driver

behaviour and vehicle performance with metrics such
as: average trip duration, time of day vehicle used,
vehicle efficiency, trip distances, power required and
charging times. In addition, a qualitative analysis was
performed into drivers response to electric vehicles
including perception of performance, suitability of the
available range, drivers attitudes to electric vehicles
and charging preferences.
36
36 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Impacts

Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles on Electrical
Utilities and Regional US Power Grids. Part 1
Technical Analysis, 2007 http://energyenvironment.
pnnl.gov/ei/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf
- 2007
37 US Department of Energy, ECOtality, The EV Project,

Ongoing http://www.theevproject.com/
38 Green eMotion, Ongoing,
http://www.greenemotion-project.eu/
39 Cenex, Smart Moves, 2011,
http://www.cenex.co.uk/case-studies/smartmoves/
10.5 Smart Grid,

SmartCity Electric
Vehicle trials
Electric vehicle technology is not, in itself, a smart grid
technology. Wide scale uptake of electric vehicles,
where charging goes unmitigated, has the potential
to result in significant impacts to the electricity grid in
terms of increased system wide and localised peak
demand and capacity constraints. Such impacts are in
direct conflict with the broad objectives of a smart grid.
Figure 1-19 Summary of electric vehicle trial outputs
Charging
Infrastructure
Deployment
Road Trails
Uptake and
Behaviour
Model
Individual
charging profiles
(by location)
Charging
Characteristics
Trial
Outputs
Charging
infrastructure
cost and
feasibility
Travel behaviour
Travel behaviour
(by location
Australia wide)
Operating costs
and GHG
emissions
Uptake rates
(by location
Australia wide)
Used to inform / validate
Grid
Simulations
Used as direct input
Aggregated
charging profiles
(by network level
over time)
Grid impact
(by network level)
The aim of the Smart Grid, Smart City Electric Vehicle

Project was designed to understand the likely scale,
location and timing of these impacts and to inform the
appropriate industry response. The project involved
two key activity streams including:
Field trials
Road trials of 20 Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric
vehicles including 13 vehicles assigned to 24
residential customers and seven fleet vehicles
Deployment of six fast and 46 standard
charging points at locations within the
Ausgrid network
Trial participant and broader public
perception surveys
Modelling
Uptake and behaviour modelling of electric
vehicle uptake rates and travel behaviour across
Australia over the next three decades
Grid impact modelling of the potential impacts
of electric vehicles to electricity distribution
networks using the PS+EDGE advanced
modelling platform
Grid impact modelling and evaluating
techniques to mitigate the impact of electric
vehicles on electricity distribution networks
The overall design of the trial and its outputs is
described in Figure 1-19 and discussed further in the
following sections.
Field trial components

Charging infrastructure deployment The
charging network consisted of 46 standard charge
points and six fast charge points distributed over the
Sydney, Central Coast and Newcastle regions. The
charging network was deployed in conjunction with
the charge point provider, Better Place. There were
many difficulties overcome in this process due to
the inherent immaturity of electric vehicle technology
and the local industry in Australia. In general,
significant barriers to the installation of public charging
infrastructure were found - for standard charge points,
the majority of the barriers were non-technical and
related to the selling of the business case to site
owners, whilst for fast charge points, it was difficult to
find locations in the existing low voltage infrastructure
where equipment could be accommodated electrically.
Home charge points were also installed for the home
trial participants.
Road trials The road trials occurred between
August 2011 and May 2013 and involved the
deployment of 20 Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric vehicles
to private users in the Home Trial and business
users in the Fleet Trial over a period of 24 months.
Thirteen of the vehicles were assigned to Ausgrid
staff for personal use in the Home Trial and seven
were assigned to Ausgrid, Lake Macquarie Council,
Newcastle City Council, Sydney Water and Newcastle
Airport for use in the Fleet Trial.
A survey of Home Trial participants was undertaken
both before and after the trials as well as a broader
public perception survey to understand the likely
factors influencing electric vehicle uptake into the
future. The road trials provided data and information
on charging patterns as well as the advantages and
limitations of various charging regimes.
Uptake and behaviour modelling The project was

informed by an electric vehicle uptake and behaviour
model prepared by AECOM40. The model provided
spatial analysis of predicted electric vehicle uptake
rates and travel behaviour under various scenarios
across different areas of Australia. The model
assessed the spatial and temporal characteristics of
electric vehicle ownership and travel patterns which
ultimately influenced charging behaviour.
The AECOM model provided highly granular data
on EV usage over a 25 year timeframe, from 2015
to 2040. Outputs were provided for each SA25 area
across Australia and included the following:
Number of vehicles per household by vehicle type
Travel behaviour in terms of arrival and departure
times and average trip distance
Electric vehicle uptake rates
Electric vehicle efficiency and battery capacity
overtime
Outputs were provided for weekday/weekend,
summer/winter, by vehicle type and by garage location,
under three macro-economic scenarios (high, central
and low). The data collected in the road trial was used
to verify and refine a number of assumptions in the
AECOM model, thereby increasing its robustness and
accuracy. In particular, the road trial data was used
to validate the assumption that electric vehicle driver
behaviour does not differ significantly from travel
behaviour in internal combustion engine vehicles within
the range constraint of the electric vehicle.
Grid impact modelling To complement and

validate the field trials, a range of advanced analytical
modelling activities were undertaken as part of Smart
Grid, Smart City Electric Vehicle Project. The modelling
tool developed and utilised for assessment of potential
impact of EVs is known as the Production System
+ Extended Data Grid Environment (PS+EDGE).
PS+EDGE was used to complement, extend and
validate the field trials through a range of advanced
analytical modelling activities which used actual results
from the field trials and performed further analytical
modelling of scenarios that could not be implemented in
the field trials.
The trial area was reconstructed in PS+EDGE to
replicate actual trial conditions and to allow for real
trial data to be fed into the model for further testing
and analysis. This model contains over 100,000
separate objects interacting across the network. The
high resolution PS+EDGE platform was developed
to assess the impact of electric vehicles on the
grid, using time-series load flow analysis on parts
of Ausgrids distribution network and parts of the
distribution network of other DNSPs collected through
the Smart Grid, Smart City feeder taxonomy. The
grid impact modelling allowed a detailed assessment
of network performance to be performed under
various scenarios for various locations. This enabled
an understanding of when and where a network was
over-stressed or where supply was likely to go out
of specification.
Outputs from the electric vehicle uptake and behaviour
modelling were used to develop estimates of individual
charging behaviour under various charging schemes,
including an unconstrained scheme, which either
incentivise or control electric vehicle charging. The
charging behaviour varied by individual customer
depending on their travel behaviour.
40 AECOM, EV0795 - Electric Vehicle Uptake and

Behaviour Modelling
A number of grid impact modelling scenarios were run,

varying parameters each time, to test different rates
of electric vehicle uptake, different charging schemes
and the impact on different distribution feeders within
the electrical network. To keep the number of grid
impact modelling scenarios to be run at a practical
number, three typical combinations of feeder were
selected. These three combinations were considered
either typical or likely to cover the significant impacts
of electric vehicles across the majority of feeders
in Australia.
Grid impact models were run for a number of different
scenarios to test the effectiveness of various charging
schemes on reducing the potential impact of peak
demand and mitigating potential overloading of the
distribution network. Full details of the modelling
results can be found in the Electric Vehicle Technical
Compendium on the Smart Grid, Smart City
Information Clearing House website which can be
accessed from https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/
10.6 High level trial

findings
Modelling showed that by around 2025, electric
vehicles were projected to make up approximately five
per cent of the Australian vehicle fleet. At these levels,
the electricity grid would begin to require significant
and costly capacity upgrades to support the additional
demand of electric vehicle charging if charging was left
unmanaged. Urban residential feeders were likely to
see the greatest impact.
However, if managed carefully (incentivising vehicle
charging to off-peak), electric vehicles could
be accommodated by the existing primary grid
infrastructure without need for major upgrades even
at levels of up to 40 per cent of the Australian vehicle
fleet.
10.6.1 Requirements for public

charging infrastructure
The lack of available public charging infrastructure
was perceived to be a barrier to electric vehicle
update notwithstanding the fact that part of the broad
appeal of electric vehicles is the convenience of home
charging. The road trial combined with the AECOM
electric vehicle uptake and travel behaviour modelling
suggested that the majority of charging was likely to
occur at home. It also indicated that public charging
was likely to be limited to charging for infrequent long
distance trips, for unexpected or emergency charging
requirements or for electric vehicle owners without
the ability to install charging infrastructure in their own
homes (noting that people unable to install a home
charger are unlikely to purchase an electric vehicle).
10.6.2 Charging rates at home

At the time of writing, the charge time for electric
vehicles at home charge points (typically over two
hours) represented a barrier to electric vehicle uptake
for customers accustomed to short refuelling times for
conventional ICE vehicles. In the road trials, customers
reported slow charge times to be a significant barrier
to electric vehicle uptake. Consumer demand for
shorter charge times was therefore likely to drive
technological development into the future.
10.6.3 Impact of lower EV numbers

on the distribution network
The grid impact modelling highlighted that the impact
of electric vehicle charging was likely to be more
extreme at lower levels in the network, i.e. distribution
substations. This was due to electric vehicle chargers
representing a potentially large point load and an
increased probability of coincident charging at points
in the network with fewer customers (and therefore
less diversity). As a result of this reduced diversity, the
grid impact modelling showed that the proportional
increase in peak demand at the distribution substation
level tended to be greater than at the feeder level.
Distribution substations, particularly those that are
heavily constrained, and the corresponding low
voltage networks were therefore more likely to require
capacity upgrades before the feeder itself as a result of
electric vehicle charging.
10.6.4 Range of intervention

responses
The primary aim of any intervention was to ensure
that electric vehicle charging load did not add to the
existing peak and did not create a new peak, thereby
reducing or eliminating network augmentation costs.
A number of different strategies were investigated to
mitigate the impact of electric vehicle charging and
which utilise the discretionary nature of the vehicle
charging load. There was a need to deliver a set
amount of energy to each vehicle between the time it
arrived home and needed to depart on its next journey.
However, there was flexibility in terms of when and
at what rate the energy was delivered. The nature of
this discretionary load gave rise to a range of potential
intervention responses.
Potential intervention responses included time-of-use
charging, controlled off-peak charging, constant power
charging and smart charging. Both the smart charging
and constant power charging proved to be the most
effective in reducing the impact on peak demand at
both the feeder head and distribution substations.
The constant power scheme was simple and
effective and could be encouraged by the use of a
capacity-based tariff.
While both schemes were observed to be effective
in reducing peak demand, the smart charging
scheme had a far greater benefit than the constant
power scheme in terms of improved load factor. The
controlled off peak scheme, using existing technology
for off peak hot water heaters, also held potential with
careful implementation.
10.7 Further
considerations for
Electric Vehicle
deployment for
Australia
10.7.1 Need for pricing signals
Should the uptake of electric vehicles occur in the
future as modelled by the Smart Grid, Smart City
Electric Vehicle Project, the electricity supply industry
will need to take action to manage the increased
load these vehicles will place on the grid. Failing to
adequately manage electric vehicle charging has the
potential to result in a number of negative impacts.
Proactive action in the form of pricing signals and
metering arrangements when electric vehicle numbers
begin to increase would reduce the likelihood of
requiring significant policy changes or costly grid
impacts in the future. Where appropriate charging
schemes are in place, electric vehicles also offer
potential benefits to in the form of improved network
utilisation and therefore the economic efficiency of
network operations. This need for action has also been
identified by AEMC in their December 2012 report
into energy market arrangements for electric vehicles,
principally in relation to the role of pricing signals and
metering arrangements.
10.7.2 Vehicle-to-grid technology

Part of the DGDS trial of the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program was to understand the potential benefits
associated with the use of plug-in electric vehicles as a
means of distributed storage, or vehicle-to-grid.
Similar to customer batteries, the main customer
value that may drive this concept is highly dependent
upon the retail tariff arrangement or other customer
incentives for battery discharge provided by retailers or
network operators. The strongest current price signal
is the price differential in ToU prices between off-peak
charging and consuming energy at peak times. For
example, where a partially or fully charged electric
vehicle is at home during peak times (2:00 pm to 8:00
pm on working weekdays), there is the potential to use
energy stored in the electric vehicle to offset electricity
purchases at the high peak rate of 52.547 c/kWh41.
Under the EV Project an advanced modelling
framework (PS+EDGE) was used to investigate the
impact on distribution networks of three uptake
models for electric vehicles. These uptake and travel
behaviour models were developed by AECOM, based
on modelling of Australian Bureau of Statistics (Census
2011) data. This allowed for the modelling of individual
electric vehicle trips associated with each vehicle,
which was then associated with each residential
property and thus the impact on the network from the
additional temporal load from charging was able to
be determined.
While the grid impact modelling showed that vehicleto-grid technology could be used to reduce peak
demand, there are technical and financial barriers to
its wide-scale deployment in the near term future.
The grid impact modelling for the Elermorevale feeder
demonstrated that charging and discharging of the
vehicles was able to enhance grid utilisation from
3pm 6pm. However vehicle-to-grid technology was
less effective at reducing the morning peak due to the
majority of vehicles disconnecting and leaving for work
at that time.
41 FY2012-13 NSW residential regulated retail prices for

Ausgrid network
10.7.3 Electric Vehicle

environmental credentials
While the local environmental benefits afforded by
electric vehicles, including improvements in local air
quality in urban areas and noise reduction are well
established, it is not clear whether electric vehicles in
the current Australian context have a greenhouse gas
reduction benefit.
Further, the grid impact modelling showed that
electric vehicle charging profiles were not generally
complementary to solar photovoltaic generation
profiles. Both the results of the road trials and the
AECOM EV Uptake and Travel Behaviour Model
suggested that the majority of private vehicle charging
was anticipated to occur at home during the evening
and overnight, whilst solar generation is available
during the day. This suggests that the concept of
large scale supply of solar energy for electric vehicle
charging either directly from a rooftop solar PV system
or via the grid was unlikely.
11 Smart Meter
Infrastructure (SMI)
11.1 What are smart
meters and smart meter
infrastructure (SMI)
technologies?
The purpose of trialling smart meter infrastructure in

the Smart Grid, Smart City Program context was to
evaluate the effectiveness of the most advanced smart
meter technology available at the time of deployment
to support sophisticated smart grid applications both
in customer residences and on the grid.
Smart meter infrastructure (SMI) is a complex and

integrated assembly of technologies that need to
work together seamlessly as part of an effective
smart grid. The elements include the smart meter,
communications network, meter management system,
meter firmware and associated back office systems.
Smart meters themselves are an integral and enabling
component of the broader smart meter infrastructure
and smart grids.
Importantly, the smart meters chosen for the Smart

Grid, Smart City trial had to work with the previously
chosen communications and meter management
system technologies, and meet the operational
requirements of the other Smart Grid, Smart City
trials. The meters also had to meet Ausgrids existing
requirements for customer metering and AEMOs
market rules, given they would provide billing
information to Ausgrids customers.
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program defined a smart

meter42 as an electronic device that measures and
records the consumption of electricity over time,
usually in time periods of one hour or less, and
that has bi-directional communications capability
permitting communication with the network service
provider and potentially to other devices.
11.2 Smart meter

infrastructures role
ina smart grid
Additional smart meter functionality also includes the

ability to undertake network power quality monitoring,
power outage notification, enables direct load control
of hot water systems and provides an interface for
other utility meters such as smart gas or
water meters.
Within the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, smart

meter infrastructure played an enabling role in the
customer applications, Active Volt-VAr control (AVVC),
electric vehicles (EV), distributed generation and
distributed storage (DGDS), fault detection isolation
and restoration (FDIR) and substation and feeder
monitoring (SFM) trials.
Like smart meters, interval (or time-of-use) meters have

the ability to monitor power consumption in specific
time periods, but lack the two-way communications
features that form part of a smart meter. Interval
meters enable the option of time-of-use tariffs for
customers, but do not provide the platform to deliver
the broad range of applications that smart meters
can enable.
42 Within the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, a smart
meter was defined as an interval meter (i.e. an
electronic meter that records electricity consumption
in intervals of an hour or less) with bidirectional
communications capabilities. As defined in the
National Electricity Rules (Version 62, 2014), the
smart meters trialled were a Type 4 meter system.
Interval meters without communications capabilities
are classified as Type 5 meters, while spinning disc
meters, which represent the majority of meters
currently in Australia, are classified as Type 6.
Real-time electricity usage data supplied by smart

meters enables the introduction of more sophisticated
network and retail tariffs, informs customers about
their pattern of consumption and provides valuable
data sources for grid side applications which can
inform network operators of outages and network
conditions. More specifically, during the Smart Grid,
Smart City trials smart meter infrastructure enabled:
Remote collection of customer electricity usage
data, the storage and analysis of these data, and
the delivery of these data to feedback devices in
the customers residence
Remote control of household appliances such as
the cycling of air-conditioning units for the purpose
of managing demand during peak events
Off-peak scheduling for hot water systems
(replacing the currently used ripple control
system)43
Data logging capability, capturing time-series
measurement data that contributed to the
understanding of the behaviour of the distribution
network at a very detailed level for the Distributed
Storage and Distributed Generation trials. This
included the provision of voltage and power quality
data to assess the effect of distributed generation
and distributed storage devices on the network
Real time data collection to assess the impact of
charging electric vehicles on the grid as well as
providing the consumption and billing information
for each vehicles charge station
Real time data collection that allowed grid
applications like AVVC, SFM, and FDIR to evaluate,
monitor and control technologies to help improve
the asset utilisation, power quality, reliability and
efficiency of the electricity network
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program also investigated

the possibility of multi-service smart meters which
could undertake remote readings for not only electricity,
but also water and gas. Details of the findings of
these investigations can be found in the Smart
Meter Infrastructure Technical Compendium on the
website which can be accessed from https://ich.
11.3 Smart meter

infrastructure and the
trial objectives and
timelines
The purpose of trialling smart meter infrastructure
in the Smart Grid, Smart City trials was to evaluate
the effectiveness of the most advanced smart meter
technology to support sophisticated smart grid
applications both in the residential locations and within
the grid. The aims of the Smart Grid, Smart City Smart
Meter Infrastructure Project were to:
Supply the enabling smart meter infrastructure
required by a range of Smart Grid, Smart City
trials and evaluate the effectiveness of the selected
enabling technology in a commercial-scale trial
Use the experiences of the Smart Grid, Smart
City smart meter infrastructure deployment to
add to the body of knowledge in Australia and
internationally, including the relative benefits of
retail and network driven rollouts (this is discussed
further in the following section)
Inform the integrated cost benefit analysis
(presented in Part Two of this report) to the
Australian Government
The timeline for the Smart Meter Infrastructure Project
is shown in Table 1-6.
43 Note that hot water load control scheduling using SMI was
not applied to Ausgrid customers during the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program due to software issues that occurred
which meant that updating of the meter schedule caused
the loss of billing data or the meter to stop responding.
These issues are discussed in the Smart Grid, Smart City
Customer Applications Technical Compendium
Table 1-6 Smart Grid, Smart City Smart Meter Infrastructure Project timelines
Task
Start (dates inclusive)
End
Technology Selection Selection of communications

medium, meter hardware and
software and smart meters
Prior to Smart Grid,

Smart City Project
Commencement.
Mid 2011
Technology Testing
Testing Release Cycles
April 2011
June 2013
Technology
Procurement
Delivery of meter and

communications modules
Sept 2011
July 2012
Communications
Medium Rollout
Rollout of WiMAX Cellular 4G

network solution
Prior to Smart Grid,

Smart City Program
Commencement
Early 2013
Back Office IT
System Integration
Integration of the end-to-end

IT solution
2010
2013
Meter Rollout
Network Trial rollout
Oct 2011
Aug 2012
Customer Applications Retail

Trial rollout
Nov 2012
July 2013
Grid Trial rollouts
Sept 2011
TBC
DGDS and EV Trail rollouts
April 2011
TBC
De-provisioning of
communications
March 2014
March 2014
De-provisioning
of SMI
Description
11.3.1 The importance of smart

meter infrastructure systems
integration
There was a significant degree of technical complexity
in selecting the smart meter technology to ensure that
the chosen system would integrate and communicate
with other common IT platforms; either operational
within Ausgrid at the time of the project or for those
selected for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program.
Some of these issues were related to the lack of
standardisation of different smart meter infrastructure
systems, and in some cases, the preference by
vendors to rely on proprietary interfaces to achieve
interoperability between different equipment
and platforms.
These issues presented a challenge for Ausgrids

existing systems and processes and took a
considerable amount of time to overcome. Some of
the challenges Ausgrid needed to overcome included:
Selection of an appropriate metering configuration
Interfacing the smart meters with the meter
management system (MMS) which provided the
interface between the smart meters in the field and
Ausgrids back office systems
The need for the smart meter infrastructure to work
with the Field Area Network, Home Area Network
and Meter Management System technology
configurations
Interfacing the smart meters with Ausgrids back

office systems - Ausgrids business systems did
not support all of the required functionality for
the smart meter infrastructure. Ausgrids existing
systems at the time were batch-oriented systems
better suited to traditional quarterly meter reading
than the real-time reading capabilities of smart
meters. As a consequence, additional back office
systems were developed to manage this capability
including:
Customer Information System (CIS) which
functioned as the master repository for Smart
Grid, Smart City customer information
Customer Relationship Management system,
located in the CIS, was developed to support
helpdesk operations and the execution of
marketing campaigns to trial participants
Customer acquisition application which required
an iPad application to be developed in-house to
support and manage the customer acquisition
campaign and provide the sales agents with
real time updates of the status of sales targets
Meter data repository which was a separate
application built in-house to store mater data
Asset configuration system which held details
of, and the relationships between, Smart Grid,
Smart City assets including meters, generators
and on-premise devices
Work management system (WMS) which
supported the provisioning workflow for
customers. The WMS system received work
requests from the CIS, tracked the progress
of the provisioning of each technology and
reported progress on workflow back to the CIS
The challenges and solutions that Ausgrid developed
are discussed in full in the Smart Meter Infrastructure
Technical Compendium on the Smart Grid, Smart
City Information Clearing House website (https://ich.
smartgridsmartcity.com.au/).
11.4 Where is smart

meter infrastructure
currently deployed?
11.4.1 Smart metering
infrastructure in Australia
Policy positions around the deployment of
smart meters in Australia
Discussion around the relative merits and costs of a
mandated national rollout of electricity smart meters
in Australia has been ongoing over the last decade.
In 2012 the Australian Energy Market Commission
(AEMC) recommended in its Power of Choice review
of demand side participation in the National Electricity
Market (NEM), expanding competition in metering
and related service provision to residential and
small business customers. The Council of Australian
Governments Energy Council44 (COAG Energy Council)
agreed to support expansion of competition in
metering and related service provision to all customers,
consistent with a business-led, optional approach
to adoption of more advanced metering in states
where a widespread roll-out is not underway. COAG
Energy Council also agreed to remove the provisions
in the National Electricity Law relating to mandated
smart meter deployments, given the perceived risk to
investment of leaving this option in place45.
The primary driver for many of these considerations
has been the agreed need to implement demand
management mechanisms to shift electricity demand
away from the peak period. Demand management
is intended to reduce the need to build additional
network infrastructure which is only used for a few
hours each year during periods of extreme demand
and which contributes to higher network (and retail)
electricity tariffs for consumers.
44 Formerly known as the Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE)

and most recently the Standing Council on Energy and
Resources (SCER) and includes all Australian Government,
state and territory government energy Ministers
45 National Smart Metering Program Business Requirements
Work Stream, 16 May 2011, Smart Metering Infrastructure
Minimum Functionality Specification
The Victorian Government mandated the deployment

of smart meters46 across almost three million
customers in the state, to be completed by 30 June
2014. As at the end of 2013 the deployment was
around 90 per cent complete.
At the time this report was written, no other state or
territory governments had mandated the deployment
of smart meters in Australia.
Standards and regulations around smart

At the commencement of the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program, there were no agreed standards or regulations
regarding smart meter infrastructure functionality in
Australia. Although minimum functionality requirements
were released in May 2011, they were published
for information purposes only and were not official
standards or regulations. At the time this report was
written, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
had been tasked with establishing and maintaining a
smart meter functionality specification in the context of
market-led meter deployments (termed customer-led in
this report).
Smart meter infrastructure trials in

Australia
In 2013, the then Department of Resources, Energy
and Tourism commissioned DNV KEMA to provide a
comprehensive national picture on the status of smart
meters and interval meters throughout Australia47.
At the time of the DNV KEMA report publication, there
were over 1.5 million smart meters installed in Australia
(representing fewer than 15 per cent of all meters). Of
these, 96 per cent were deployed in Victoria, where
the network smart meter rollout is nearing completion.
The remaining 52,000 smart meters were installed in
the other states as part of trials similar the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program.
In addition, there are more than 1.5 million interval

meters (not two-way communications enabled)
installed in Australia, generally where new or
replacement meters were required, or for large
electricity consumers. Interval meters allow the
network operators to charge network time-of-use
tariffs and retailers to charge retail timeof-use tariffs
to customers.
The DNV KEMA report indicates that a number of
network operators, retailers and a small number of
independent service providers throughout Australia
were conducting, or had conducted, smart meter
based trials, driven by a range of objectives including:
Investigations of dynamic peak pricing
Different communication methods
Load and metering research including solar PV,
remote meter reading, direct load control
Customer service improvements including
outage detection, home area networks, remote
disconnection and reconnection
Grid improvements including neutral
integrity testing
Comparing all of these trials, the Smart Grid, Smart
City SMI trial had the widest range of objectives and
deployed, by far, the greatest number of meters. This
excludes the Victorian Government mandated rollout
of smart meters which is not considered a trial.
The DNV KEMA report suggested that drivers for
smart meter deployments included:
Government mandated rollout
Technical trials of meter functionality,
communications and pricing by network operators
Support of distributed generation (mostly solar) trials
Facilitation of demand management technology
Customer or retailer request
Introduction of time-of-use tariffs
46 Noting that as per the previous discussion, the smart meters

being deployed in Victoria lack the functionality of two way
communications and could be described as interval meters
rather than a smart meter
47 DNV KEMA, National Smart Meter Infrastructure Report,
Department of Resources Energy and Tourism, 2013
The report noted a number of key commercial risk

factors or barriers for smart meter infrastructure
deployments in Australia including:
Uncertainty around market rules and regulations
Complexity around customer communications and
product offerings
Inconclusive or negative business cases for smart
meters
Split incentives for smart meter deployment
including challenges between allocating the
benefits between network operators and retailers
The potential for stranded assets and cost recovery
challenges
Technology risk including lack of national smart
meter infrastructure standards
A number of these challenges were experienced and
wherever possible, overcome, within the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program. The resulting conclusions and
recommendations relating to these challenges are
detailed in the Smart Grid, Smart City Smart Meter
Infrastructure Technical Compendium (https://ich.
11.4.2 International deployments of

smart metering infrastructure
As previously shown in Table 1-3, most regions in the
world have programs which have seen the deployment
of varying numbers of smart meters, often as part of
broader smart grid deployment strategies. To date
investment in smart grid technologies has centred on
smart meter investment (given it is a critical enabling
smart grid technology). This investment has typically
been mandated by governments and includes large
scale deployments in California, Texas, Italy, Sweden
and Victoria. Smaller rollouts also occurred in New
Zealand and the Netherlands. Currently European
countries are the global leaders in deployment of smart
meter infrastructure, whilst countries like Australia,
Germany and the US (as a whole) are significantly
further behind.
Early deployments (first generation) smart meter
infrastructure occurred in Italy, Sweden and
Pennsylvania. Second generation metering technology
deployments occurred in California, Texas, Ontario and
Spain, whilst current rollouts (third generation (or the
newest technology)) are occurring in France, British
Columbia and the United Kingdom. As whole, it can
be seen that significant funding has been invested in
these deployments. A significant proportion of these
large-scale smart meter infrastructure deployments
were mandated either by industry or government. In
other cases they have been voluntary. Over the past
five years many smart meter infrastructure trials have
been sponsored by governments with drivers including
peak demand reductions, carbon reductions and job
creation (particularly in the US).
A review of globally significant deployments of smart

meter infrastructure conducted as part of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program found that grid operators
were the most common entity responsible for the
deployment of smart meter installations. Only in two
instances (New Zealand and the United Kingdom)
have electricity retailers been made responsible for
meter deployment.
Network operator vs retailer smart meter

deployment
The DNV KEMA Australia report48 reviewed the
experience in two markets that are rolling out smart
meters using different regulatory mechanisms. In New
Zealand the major electricity retailers have demonstrated
a business case that justifies the deployment of smart
meters and therefore have implemented programs to
introduce smart meters for their customers. It is expected
that around 75 per cent of New Zealand customers will
have smart meters by 2015.
In contrast, smart meter infrastructure is being
deployed in Texas (in the United States) by its
transmission and distribution utilities. The four largest
utilities have commenced deployment plans with three
of these due for completion by 2013 and the smallest
of the four due for completion in 2016. The business
case for smart meter infrastructure predicted savings
and benefits for customers, distributors, retailers and
the transmission system operator. Retailers in Texas
are currently using the installed smart meters to market
new tariff products, with pre-payment a commonly
selected option.
48 DNV KEMA, Smart Meter Infrastructure Report, Department

of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2013
United States Green Button initiative

One creative and innovative program which has
focused on addressing a number of the issues
identified by the DNV KEMA report is the US
Governments Green Button Initiative49.
Green Button is an industry-led effort that responds
to a request from the American Government to
provide electricity customers with easy access to
their electricity usage data in a consumer-friendly
and computer-friendly format via a Green Button
onelectric utilities websites.
Green Button is based on a common technical
standard developed in collaboration with a publicprivate partnership supported by the Commerce
Departments National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) and the Smart Grid
Interoperability Panel (SGIP). Voluntary adoption
ofa consensus standard by utilities across the US
has allowed (and continues to encourage) software
developers and other entrepreneurs to leverage a
sufficiently large market to support the creation of
innovative applications that can help consumers make
the most of their energy usage information.
49 www.greenbuttondata.org
Initially launched in January 2012, utilities committed

to provide Green Button capability to nearly 12million
households in 2012. Two of the major utilities
Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric
implemented live functionality on their websites.
Following this adoption, 35 major utilities and electricity
suppliers signed on to the initiative, committing to
provide many more millions of households secure
access to their energy data. In total, these additional
utilities commitments will mean that the current
42million households with this functionality now will
increase to around 57 million by the end of 2014.
The focus of this initiative is to provide households
and businesses with consumer-friendly information in
order to assist them save money on their electricity
bills, determine the optimal size of roof top solar panels
and identify opportunities for energy efficiency. Energy
usage information includes the electricity or energy50
consumed every 15 minutes, every day or every month,
depending data availability.
Consumers are also able to use the Green Button
Connect My Data icon on the website which allows
them to authorize a third-party service provider to
receive direct access to their Green Button data.
These authorizations are valid for an agreed time and
can be revoked at any time by the consumer.
11.5 Smart Grid,

Smart City smart meter
infrastructure trials
Smart meter infrastructure played a key enabling role
within many of the Smart Grid, Smart City trials and
18,229 meters were installed as part of the Smart
Meter Infrastructure Project.
These smart meters were allocated amongst the trials
as follows:
17,134 smart meters for the Customer Applications
trial
560 smart meters for the Grid Applications trial
460 smart meters for the Distributed Generation
and Distributed Storage trial
75 smart meters for the Electric Vehicle trial
The smart meter infrastructure was supported by a
meter management system and back-office systems
as previously described.
Given the standardisation of the functionality, a

number of companies are developing Web and
smartphone applications and services for businesses
and consumers.
50 Gas and water information may also be available in the

future for some consumers, dependent on the utilities joining
the program
11.6 High level

trialfindings
Ausgrid made 10 key high level observations and
conclusions based on deploying and trialling smart
meter infrastructure in the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program, summaries of each are described in the
table below. For a more detailed discussion of the trial
findings and observations, refer to the Smart Meter
Infrastructure Technical Compendium which can be
found at https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/.
Table 1-7 Smart Grid, Smart City Smart Meter Observations and conclusions
Observation
Discussion
Conclusion
Testing of
smart meter
infrastructure
Smart meter infrastructure testing occurred over a

period of 18 months, significantly longer than the
typical 6 month period to test meters in other trials.
The extended duration of meter testing was due to
a change in vendor mid-project and re-setting of
the testing program due to meter metrology update
and the communications module. The integration
of the meter management and back office
systems commenced in 2010 and continued to be
developed, refined and tested through to 2013 as
each part of the solution was deployed.
In planning the rollout of smart

meter infrastructure, sufficient
time should be factored into
the market research, planning,
testing and refinement of
smart meters, communications
modules and supporting IT
infrastructure.
The time required

to test smart meter
infrastructure
was longer than
expected.
Training and
equipping of staff
Appropriate planning, training and equipping of staff

is important in reducing issues associated with a
rollout and improving rollout efficiency. Training for
Appropriate
field staff should include those who will be installing
training and
new metering technology as well as office-based
equipping of staff is
staff who are responsible for customer support,
critical
data processing and management.
Training is required to deal with new
communications and advanced customer
application technologies.
Training and equipping of staff

in operational processes related
to the installation, testing and
maintenance of SMI is required
to ensure that issues associated
with a smart meter rollout can
be appropriately resolved and
the rollout can be carried out
efficiently.
Observation
Discussion
Conclusion
Technology
selection and
maturity
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program evaluated a

wide range of SMI-enabled applications, which
required smart meters and the associated MMS
to have a comprehensive list of features not
previously demanded in the market. As different
vendors were at different stages in the technology
maturity spectrum, some vendors offered part of
the required functionality, however few were able to
offer all of the required features off the shelf.
The technology selection

process for the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program found
that smart meter technologies
were at different stages of
maturity and that some desired
functionalities were not available
at the time. Care should be
taken in specifying smart meter
requirements that arent yet
developed in the market and
should ensure that a platform
exists for value
added innovation.
Smart meter
infrastructure
technology was
found to be
relatively immature
It is recommended that businesses intending

to provide smart metering should apply an
evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach,
involving the establishment of a platform focused on
delivery of business as usual metering obligations,
with additional functionality added over time.
Deployment of
smart meter
infrastructure
A large proportion
of sites were found
to be unsuitable
for the deployment
of smart meter
infrastructure
In the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, almost 30

per cent of sites were found to be unsuitable for the
deployment of the smart meter infrastructure used in
the program, despite a program of pre-qualifications
and site visits. Multi-dwelling units were a particular
problem with an estimated 70-90 per cent
unsuitable for the smart meters contemplated by
this trial. The high level of unsuitable sites in the trial
was due to a range of factors, including installation
issues and communications coverage. Customer
dissent and was driven in part by the nature of
the deployment.
A market-led (or customer-led)

deployment of smart meters
will be limited by the number of
unsuitable sites where it is not
possible or it is uneconomic to
install smart meter infrastructure
due to physical, locational or
technological constraints.
Reducing the number of

unsuitable sites will therefore
require additional investment by
the business, with the amount of
Based on the findings of the smart meter
this investment expected to vary
infrastructure trials, reducing the fraction of unsuitable by site.
dwellings to a minimum would require greater
investment in detailed radio planning to minimise
black spots when FAN technology is used, the use
of both wireless and wired PAN technologies and
the establishment of processes and protocols for the
remediation or replacement of meter boards or other
significant installation works.
Observation
Discussion
Conclusion
Technology risk
management
Implementing smart meter infrastructure using a

multi-vendor approach has risks associated with the
integration between different vendors systems
and technologies.
Risk management around the

selection of the smart meter
infrastructure technology
platform, including vendors,
integration and the development
of new functionalities, is
essential for enabling robust
business as usual metering and
billing operations
The ability of a
business to meet its
business as usual
metering and billing
requirements is
significantly reliant
on the selection
and integration
of its metering,
communications, IT
software and back
office systems.
Standardisation
of customer side
infrastructure
The size of the
smart meter board
was problematic
In circumstances where multiple vendors are

involved, it is important to set clear integration
responsibilities for all parties involved in the
end-to-end solution. Significant extension of
the functionality of the meter management
system was required to meet all of Ausgrids
requirements, including support of the WiMAX FAN
communications technology.
The establishment of relationships with a number
of suppliers of metering and communications
equipment can minimise delays in the case where
particular equipment is found to be faulty or needs
to be re-tested. At times, the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program was delayed whilst attempting to pin point
the exact cause and thus responsibility of a fault.
The size of the smart meter board created
installation challenges in many cases during the
trial. The larger footprint of the smart meters in
comparison with non-smart meters (and even other
smart meters) meant that, in many cases it was
unable to be installed due to insufficient space. No
current standards exist at the time of writing and the
NSMP minimum functionality specification contains
an empty placeholder with regard to meter size.
Policy makers should consider

the standardisation of meter
dimensions, mounting points,
terminals and space for antenna
to ensure that smart meter
equipment is able to be installed
and cost-effectively replaced
with metering equipment from
another vendor
A large number of sites, particularly on multidwelling units, were found to be unsuitable to

install communication antenna due to the lack of
suitable location. Policy makers should consider
the standardisation of meter dimensions, mounting
points, terminals and space for antenna to ensure
that smart meter equipment is able to be installed
and cost-effectively replaced with metering
equipment from another vendor.
Observation
Discussion
Conclusion
Standardisation
and competition
The lack of competition appears, in some part, to be

driven by the prevalence of proprietary technologies
and interfaces. This is particularly problematic in
the applications-level interface between meters and
the meter management system and the physical
and electrical interface between meters and the
communication module. Competition is likely to
be enhanced as the level of standardisation, and
therefore interoperability between vendors, improves.
It is recommended that policy makers, in consultation
with industry, develop a metering functionality
specification that initially involves the provision of
a limited subset of smart metering functionality,
including the requirement that SMI technology is able
to support the introduction of additional features
over time.
Competition in the market for

smart meter infrastructure
technology is likely to be
enhanced through the
standardisation of interfaces
between the meter,
communications module and
meter management systems,
enabling interoperability
between technologies from
different vendors.
Minimum
functionality
standards
The lack of standardisation of smart meter

infrastructure in Australia provided the following
issues in the Smart Grid, Smart City Program:
The lack of
standardisation
created a range of
issues in the trial
The lack of an end-to-end standard between the

meter, communication module and MMS created
interoperability issues at the application layer. Policy
makers should set a common market protocol in
Australia, which is consistent with the AEMCs Draft
Framework for Open Access and Communications
Standards, however it is inconsistent with the
AEMCs Final Report on this framework (March 2014)
which allows alternative pathways of communication,
meaning that more than one market protocol can be
in use at any one time.
Policy makers should consider

implementing an application
protocol standard for the end-toend process between the meter,
communications device and the
MMS and a hardware standard
for the physical connection
between the meter and the
communications device
The level of
competition in the
market for smart
meters is relatively
low
The lack of an interoperability standard for the

physical connection between the meter and
communications device. The development of such a
standard would enable meters and communications
devices from different vendors to be interoperable
and allow communications devices to be repaired
replaced over time with new communications
technologies, avoiding the need to replace the
existing installed meter.
Observation
Discussion
Conclusion
Separating the
smarts from the
meter
This was observed in the Smart Grid, Smart City

trial when fault issues were experienced with
communications modules, which then needed to be
removed and addressed by the manufacturer. As
the communications modules were separate from
the meter, they could be removed and fixed while
the meter remained in-situ and continued recording
customers energy consumption data.
The Smart Grid, Smart City

project found that separating the
smarts from the meter provided
potential benefits in the form of
greater operational flexibility, cost
savings and ability to upgrade the
communications capability as the
technology develops over time.
Installing separate
meter and
communications
devices provides
flexibility in the
operation of
smart meter
infrastructure
Installing separate meter and communications

devices can provide cost savings. If there is an issue
with the communications device it can be removed,
avoiding the cost of replacing the installed meter
and the cost of performing data substitution and
estimation analysis while the meter is being repaired.
In addition, as communications technology generally
improves over time, installing smart meters with
in-built communications modules risks locking
customers into a communications technology that
becomes outdated
Market driven
rollout of
smart meter
infrastructure
The Smart Grid, Smart City trial found that the costs
of installing meters and communications equipment
varied significantly for a variety of reasons, including
access issues, insufficient meter board space and
poor signal strength. The issue of how to equitably
distribute the cost of upgrading private shared
equipment is one of the key challenges for any
market driven rollout.
If the issues associated with a market-led (also
called customer-led in this report) rollout of SMI
arent able to be overcome then the benefits from
the products and applications that SMI enables will
not be realised.
The Smart Grid, Smart City

SMI trial found that the cost of
installation for smart metering
infrastructure varied significantly
between sites and concluded
that a market-driven rollout
of SMI would likely target
customers whose dwellings
enabled low cost installation.

toAustralia
Based on the findings of the Smart Grid, Smart City
SMI trials, businesses considering undertaking a full
deployment of smart meter infrastructure need to
consider the nature and estimated costs of:
Technologies (meters, communications modules
and MMS) that are available in the market
Back office systems that may be required to
be developed to support a rollout of smart
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program found that
the costs of installing meters and communications
equipment varied significantly from dwelling to dwelling
for a variety of reasons, including access issues,
insufficient space and signal strength. In an extreme
but not unlikely example, installing one smart meter
for a customer in a multiple dwelling unit may require
the complete replacement of the meter board for the
entire complex. This cost will not be justifiable on any
basis other than as an investment in a large-scale
smart meter infrastructure rollout. The issue of how to
equitably distribute the cost of upgrading private shared
equipment is one of the key challenges for any market
driven rollout. In some cases, the installation of smart
meter infrastructure will be limited or prohibitively costly
for some dwellings.
12 Customer Applications
12.1 What are
customer application
technologies?
The Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Applications
Program trialled different methods of interacting with
customers purchasing electricity as part of the broader
Smart Grid, Smart City Program. Historically, traditional
spinning disc electricity meters have been installed in
the majority of residential homes in Australia, which
are read manually on a quarterly basis. This meant
that network operators and retailers only had access
to quarterly information meaning that both network
operators and retailers were limited in their ability to offer
tariff incentives or use other tools that could encourage
behaviour change to improve the efficient use of the
grid to meet electricity demand and moderate growth
in peak demand. With the introduction of smart meter
infrastructure, more accurate, real time, information
is becoming available to all participants in the market
place, providing an opportunity for more innovative
tariffs, technologies and customer information products.
Three groups of products were trialled as part of
the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Applications
Program:
1. A Network Trial measured the effectiveness of
smart meter based products without changing the
customers retailer or electricity retail tariffs.
The network trial tested feedback technologies,
financial incentives (rebates) and provided a lifestyle
audit. Eight products were offered to customers either
individually or as a bundle. The products consisting of
an online portal, an in home display, appliance control
and sub-metering devices, an interruptible load (air
conditioning) control rebate, a dynamic peak rebate
and a lifestyle audit. Further information on these
products is discussed in the following sections.
A Retail Trial measured the effectiveness of

alternative electricity tariffs either as standalone
products or bundled with feedback technologies.
The retail trial tested smart meter based tariffs,
feedback technologies and a rebate. In total, twelve
products were offered to customers with each product
including a tariff (dynamic peak pricing, seasonal timeof-use or top-up plan) or a rebate (interruptible load
(air conditioning)) and optionally one or more feedback
technologies (an online portal, an in home display or
appliance control and sub-metering devices). Further
information on these products is discussed in the
following sections.
2. A Smart Water Meter Trial which trialled the
effectiveness of integrating smart water meters with
smart electricity meters.
These products were supported by smart meter
infrastructure, described in detail in the previous
section of this report, along with other common
platform technologies discussed in Section 4.
As part of this study, the Customer Applications
Program also investigated the differences in responses
and behaviour change outcomes across different
demographic groups. Particular emphasis was
placed on assessing the effect of interventions on
vulnerable energy users, including the elderly, low
income households, households with small children
and customers on life support systems. These issues
are discussed further in the Customer Applications
Technical Compendium and Parts Two and Three of
this report.
12.2 The role for

customer applications
in a smart grid
Customers play a major role in smart grids. However,
little is known about how they perceive or how they
might respond to the opportunities that smart grid
technologies offer.
The Customer Applications trials tested residential
customer behaviour in response to the provision of
information, differential pricing and technologies that
provided them with the ability to make informed decisions
about their electricity costs based on near real time
information. It was hypothesised that this would enable
customers to make informed choices and potentially
better control their consumption of electricity over the
long-term and/or during peak events.
The Customer Applications trial analysis and results
have also informed the broader Integrated Net Benefit
Analysis (Part Two of this report) in order to determine
the efficiency value for network businesses and
for electricity customers, both in terms of potential
reductions in peak demand and broader costs and
benefits. The Customer Applications trial analysis and
results will also inform regulations and standards around
security and privacy.
12.3 Customer
applications objectives
and timelines in the
Project
Electricity customers in most Australian markets are
currently provided with limited information, incentives
and tools to manage their own domestic electricity
use. In most cases, a quarterly electricity bill is the
main source of customer communication. The bill
shows them the total amount of energy used during
the previous three month block and provides limited
information on their electricity usage patterns and
therefore limited opportunity to systematically modify
their behaviour in order to save electricity and money.
The majority of residential customers in Australia have
no visible price signal on which to respond to the true
cost of energy supplied at times of peak demand.
Unlike other parts of Smart Grid, Smart City Program
which focused on specific in-grid or supplementary
generation and storage methods of managing peaks, the
Customer Applications Program was focused on how
behaviour changes by residential customers enabled by
smart technologies, applications and products, could
contribute to peak demand management and overall
reductions in electricity consumption. The Customer
Applications Program evaluated the following aspects
relating to smart meters:
Customer acceptance of a smart meter installation
The attractiveness of the selected smart meter
based products to customers
The effectiveness of the selected smart meter
based products in assisting customers to better
understand and manage their electricity usage or
shift electricity load from peak periods, which may
in turn help them to reduce electricity costs
The impact of the selected smart meter based

products on total electricity usage and/or peak
demand and the subsequent effects of these
changes on a distribution network service
providers operation and management of their
electricity network
For the secondary program purpose of investigating

the benefits of integrating water and gas metering with
electricity smart metering, a combined utilities online
portal was developed to examine the attractiveness of
such a proposition to customers. Gas was originally
included in the trial scope, but was removed during the
Program when it was found that there were no smart
gas meters commercially available on the market. Both
the network and retail trials tested the integration of the
water meter.
The Customer Applications Program was conducted

8th October 2010 and the 28th February 2014.
The extension to February 2014 was made in order
to capture data from an additional summer from
participants in the retail trial.
The Customer Applications Program elements are

described in Figure 1-20.
Figure 1-20 Timelines and processes for the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Applications Program
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Enabling technologies
Sampling and trial design
Network Trial meter deployment
Network Trial customer acquisition
Network Trial
Network Trial Extension
Retail Trial customer acquisition
Retail Trial meter deployment
Retail Trial
Retail Trial Extension
Sydney Water Trial customer acquisition
Sydney Water Trial meter deployment
Sydney Water Trial
1
Milestones
3 4
5 6 7
tart of SGSC project

1 S
08 June 2010
irst DPP peak event called

4 F
26 February 2013
7 Initial customer survey

commenced 29 August 2013
irst smart meter installed

2 F
07 October 2011
irst water meter installed

5 F
01 July 2013
nd of Customer App extension 28

8 E
February 2014
irst DPR peak event called

3 F
17 January 2013
ast smart meter installed

6 L
29 July 2013
12.4 Where are

customer application
deployed?
12.4.1 International trials
As part of the global interest in smart grids, there
is an increasing appreciation of the importance of
residential customers managing their overall electricity
consumption as well as peak demand. It is generally
agreed that customers react to different signals in
ways that reflect their own price sensitivity, concern
for environmental and social issues, and that if the
electricity market can appeal to these concerns,
customers will decide to proactively manage their
electricity consumption.
Unlike the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, most
international projects have typically focused on specific
elements of the smart grid (such as smart meter
infrastructure or different grid applications), or have
been limited in their scale. This has meant that the
majority of these projects did not integrate different
smart grid applications to understand the interactions
between each of the component parts, nor did they
implement the technologies at acommercial scale.
Due to the number of international trials involving
customer applications, only a small number are
summarised briefly below. Additional details can
be found in the Customer Applications Technical
Compendia (which can be found on the Smart Grid,
Smart City Information Clearing House https://ich.
The role of smart metering infrastructure

global studies
Smart meter infrastructure is one of the most common
smart grid technologies deployed globally. Smart
meters (and the associated back office and common
platform technologies) facilitates the introduction of
alternative tariffs and incentives for consumers to
change their electricity consumption behaviour.
There is a significant and increasing amount of
literature which examines customer experiences with
smart metering. The literature includes:
Kaufmanns Customer value of smart metering:
Explorative evidence from a choice-based conjoint
study in Switzerland51 modelled the importance of
the perceived customer value of smart metering
The US Department of Energys Voices of
Experience: Insights on Smart Grid Customer
Engagement52 compiles information about
successful smart grid technology and deployment
engagement approaches. The guide is the result of
a stakeholder engagement led by the Department
of Energy to capture lessons learned and insights
on smart grid customer engagement that will help
steer a stronger utility-customer relationship.
Studies in Hong Kong investigated attitudes by
customers to price-responsive tariffs Customer
perceptions of smart grid development: Results
of a Hong Kong survey and policy implications53
which discussed how customers could contribute
to energy saving, energy efficiency and peak load
shifts, facilitated by real-time electricity information
and smart meters that are linked with dynamic
pricing system.
51 S. Kaufmann, K. Knzel, and M. Loock, Customer

value of smart metering: Explorative evidence from a
choice-based conjoint study in Switzerland, Energy
Policy, vol. 53, pp. 229-239, 2/2013
52 U.S. Department of Energy, VOICES of Experience:
Insights on Smart Grid Customer Engagement
2013
53 D. N. Mah, J. M. van der Vleuten, P. Hills, and J. Tao,
Consumer perceptions of smart grid development:
Results of a Hong Kong survey and policy
implications, Energy Policy, vol. 49, pp. 204-216,
10/2012
Smart meter devices and the effect of feedback

on residential electricity consumption: Evidence
from a natural experiment in Northern Ireland
estimated the effect of real-time usage information
on residential electricity consumption in Northern
Ireland54. Starting in April 2002, the utility replaced
prepayment meters with advanced meters that
allowed the customer to track usage in real-time.
The findings suggested that the provision of timely
information was associated with a decline in
electricity consumption
Dynamic pricing studies

Dynamic pricing refers to a mechanism where the
price of electricity changes over a period of time for
example, during a day or different seasons. It is often
considered an essential part of demand reduction
programs, particularly when considering the rate of
introduction of new customer facing technologies.
Several companies within the US are currently
trialling or rolling out customer application focussed
technologies and pricing, including:
Critical peak pricing, time-of-use and other
pricingsignals
Customer demand response during critical
network events both through customer-initiated
response and automated demand reductions (e.g.
direct control of air conditioning compressors and
programmable communicating thermostats)
Lessons learned from smart grid enabled pricing

programs55 presents case studies of several dynamic
pricing programs, including different proposed rates,
enabling technologies and incentives. Program
successes were evaluated based on:
Peak load reduction
Customer bill impact
Customer satisfaction
12.5 Smart Grid,

Smart City customer
application trials
The majority of the technologies used in the Smart Grid,
Smart City Customer Applications Program were not
only new to Ausgrid, but were also generally considered
immature in national and international markets.
Implementing these technologies to provide an
end-to-end complete solution in a commercial-scale
trial of customer focussed products within the trials
timeframes presented significant challenges these
are discussed at length in the Customer Applications
Technical Compendia (which can be found on the
https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/).
A range of feedback technologies to provide

information to customers on their real-time electricity
usage for the purposes of peak load shifting
54 D. N. Mah, J. M. van der Vleuten, P. Hills, and J. Tao,

Consumer perceptions of smart grid development:
Results of a Hong Kong survey and policy
implications, Energy Policy, vol. 49, pp. 204-216,
10/2012
55 J. Wang, M. A. Biviji, and W. M. Wang, Lessons

learned from smart grid enabled pricing programs, in
Power and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI), 2011
pp. 1-7.
12.5.1 Smart meter based

technology applications
Program utilised and trialled a series of smart meter
based technologies to meet the Programs objectives.
The technologies used in these trials were categorised,
as described in the following sections.
Enabling technologies
A set of technologies were deployed to enable
selected customers to trial the customer applications
products. These enabling technologies were specific
to the Smart Grid, Smart City Program and had to be
defined, selected, built, tested and deployed before
customers could commence trialling the products.
These enabling technologies included:
The Smart Grid, Smart City smart meter (17,134
smart meters were deployed as part of the
Customer Applications trial)
The various communications technologies required
to transport data to and from the smart meter, the
feedback technologies and the back office systems
The firmware that controlled how the smart meter
interacted with the meters communication module
The meter management system (MMS)
Back office operational systems at Ausgrid,
EnergyAustralia and Sydney Water
The customer acquisition application
Feedback technologies
One of the objectives of the Smart Grid, Smart City
Customer Applications Program was to measure the
behavioural changes of electricity customers based on
their use of a variety of different feedback technologies.
Five individual feedback technologies were selected to
form part of the products that were trialled as part of the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program including:
1. Customer web portal including a mobile
device application the customer portal was
an online electricity management website giving
customers access to information about their
household electricity usage and costs to assist
them in finding ways of reducing electricity bills.
This information included the customers own
meter data (usage and cost) in near real time in
time as well as increments of a week, a month or a
year. It also allowed households to compare their
electricity usage with other households.
2. In home display the Smart Grid, Smart City

in home display (IHD) displayed a dwellings
electricity usage and real time pricing information.
Text messages could be sent by the network
operator/retailer to the IHD to inform the customer
of price changes or peak events. The current price
of electricity or a relevant tariff could always be
displayed on the IHD. Theprovision of electricity
usage and cost data to households through the
IHD had the potential to drive behaviour change
particularly during peak demand periods. The IHD
presented three datasets using a simple interface
including metering, price and messaging data. The
Smart Grid, Smart City IHD is shown in Figure 1-21.
Figure 1-21 Smart Grid, Smart City IHD
3. Appliance control and sub metering

Appliance control and sub metering provided
the ability for customers to monitor the electricity
usage of up to ten specific devices in their home
in near real-time using panel meters and smart
plugs to measure electricity usage. In addition to
viewing individual appliance usage, the smart plugs
could also be used to switch appliances on and
off through a portal control. These elements are
described in Figure 1-22.
Figure 1-22 Components of the appliance control and sub metering trial
4. Cognitive metering cognitive metering is

alow resolution load disaggregation algorithm.
The load disaggregation algorithm analysed the
instantaneous electricity demand profile of a
home, to determine the appliances that were being
operated in real time and the amount of electricity
they were consuming.
Cognitive metering was used to identify appliances
within the home that had the largest electricity loads,
the times they were in use, and the impact they were
having on a customers quarterly electricity bill.
5. Home energy management system the home
energy management system (HEMS) used a suite
of feedback technologies that was similar, from a
customers perspective, to the appliance control
and sub metering offering, described previously.
Both included smart plugs to sub-meter and
control individual appliances and a HEMS customer
portal for remote control of appliances.
Unlike the appliance control and sub metering product,
HEMS was a standalone product offering that did
not require support by smart metering infrastructure.
A ZigBee IP residential gateway device was installed
in each dwelling that connected to a customers own
modem (provided by their ISP) to access the cloud
based customer portal.
One of the primary objectives of this deployment

was to trial a HEMS that did not require smart meter
infrastructure. The application of HEMS in the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program provided an understanding
of the alternative technologies and resources available
for network management.
The HEMS customer portal was hosted by the
vendor (Jetlun) in Amazons cloud and accessible to
the customer and Ausgrid via a website or mobile
devices56. One of the most powerful features of
this product was the ability to provide users with a
customer choice rule book, whereby the customer
could create a set of rules to manage and control
particular appliances based upon a budget or price
based events. Additionally, the portal was able to notify
the customer of peak price events if the customer had
previously entered any applicable tariff structure to
the dwelling.
The HEMS customer portal was capable of displaying
electricity usage information for all sub metered
appliances in the home in near real time as well as on
a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. An example of the
HEMS customer portal is provided in Figure 1-23.
Figure 1-23 Jetlun HEMS customer portal and mobile device
56 both iOS and Android devices were supported

Network operator controlled demand

response device
Demand response devices enable a network operator
to override a customers normal electricity usage
patterns at times when electricity availability could
be jeopardised. Two examples of network operator
controlled demand response technologies were
trialled as part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer
Applications Program: the ability to shift the heating
of hot water systems to off-peak periods (using smart
meter functionality instead of the traditional ripple
control systems used by some network businesses
in Australia), and the ability to interrupting an air
conditioners use of electricity during peak event
periods. Each of these elements isdescribed below.
Demand Response Enabling Device (DRED)
enables the remote control of residential appliances
with high electricity loads by electricity distribution
network operators and retailers via a smart meter.
Ultimately, DRED technology provides the ability to
control residential load on the network during peak
demand periods by remotely switching off certain
components of household devices for small amounts
of time.
For the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, the DRED
module for an air conditioner was selected for this
analysis Using DRED in pool pumps was investigated,
but not pursued due to the lack of compliant pool
pump controllers available at the time.
Applied to a customers air conditioner, the DRED

module allowed Ausgrid to remotely reduce the air
conditioner electricity consumption by reducing the
percentage of time that its compressor runs. This
action was intended to be performed during critical
peak periods that impact either the network operator
or the retailer. The duration that the compressor
would be turned off would be regulated to ensure
the customer was unlikely to be significantly
inconvenienced and the air conditioners fan would
continue to operate during this time.
Customers who agreed to participate in this process
were offered compensation for their willingness to
allow their air conditioner to be controlled. They were
also notified during events and could choose not to
participate on each occasion.
Hot water load control (HWLC) was the
mechanism used by Ausgrid to manage the time of
the day during which power was supplied to domestic
hot water systems. The electricity required to heat
water for residential use constitutes a significant
component of the total electricity grid load. Many
network operators in Australia use an existing ripple
control system in order to control the periods in which
hot water systems are heating the water (generally hot
water heating is not available during peak network
periods). The trial of HWLC technologies sought to
demonstrate that the existing hot water load control
functions could be replicated with smart meters
including the options of:
Using the inherent timing capability built into a
smart meter to switch the hot water load on and off
at pre-determined times
Emulating the more fine grained control achieved
with the ripple control system by having the ability
to vary the on/off times in response to network
loads or other considerations
Education products
Because the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer
Applications Program was focussed on enabling
customers to make informed decisions about their
energy usage, in addition to technologies, the
Program also provided educational material. The
Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Applications
Program Home Energy Assessment included a free
assessment of a customer home electricity usage with
recommendations for reducing electricity costs along
with gas and water consumption. Recommendations
that were selected as part of this process were
intended to be implemented without adversely
affecting a customers lifestyle.
By providing the education assessment, the Customer
Applications Program sought to evaluate whether
customers would change their behaviour as a result of
directed education about what was driving electricity
usage and costs in their dwelling.
Network rebate product

The Home Energy Rebate was included in the Smart
Grid, Smart City Customer Applications Program
Network Trial to support customer behaviour change
and help determine whether customers would
reduce their total electricity usage in response to a
price incentive. The Home Energy Rebate provided
customers with a payment for reducing electricity
usage during peak events. Peak events occurred on
very hot or very cold weekdays between 2 pm and 8
pm for either two or four hours.
Participating customers receive a rebate ranging from
$0 to over $100, depending on how much electricity
was reduced compared to their baseline use at that
time of day, with the average rebate estimated to be
$20 per event. This rebate was designed to be available
for between 10 and 15 special rebate peak events
during winter and summer months. The peak events
were anticipated to occur when electricity intensive
appliances, such as air conditioners and heaters, were
most likely to be used. This would typically be between
2pm and 8pm on working weekdays for either a two or
four hour period.
Customers were notified of peak events with an SMS

notification and the rebate was paid to the customer if
that customers actual electricity usage was less than
their baseline usage during the peak event period.
Retail tariff and rebate pricing structures

Program included a series of retail pricing structures,
(tariff, rebate or reward), that were developed to
address key project outcomes of increasing electricity
efficiency and reducing peak demand. Two base
pricing tariffs, one financial reward and one financial
rebate were developed and trialled as part of the
Customer Applications Retail Trial. These pricing
structures were then offered as standalone products
or bundled with feedback technologies to result in a
total of 12 products trialled with customers.
The pricing structures that were selected to form part
of the products that were trialled for Smart Grid, Smart
City Program were:
1. Dynamic peak pricing tariff marketed as
PriceSmart
2. Seasonal time-of-use tariff marketed as SeasonSmart
3. Top up plan reward marketed as BudgetSmart
4. Interruptible load for air conditioning rebate
marketed as FlowSmart
It is important to note that pricing for these new
products was developed on the principle that the
customers annual bill should be cost neutral if they did
not change behaviour. The pricing structure products
are described below.
PriceSmart was a dynamic peak pricing (DPP) tariff
designed to reduce peak demand and to test whether
customers would reduce their electricity usage upon
receipt of a price signal, which was intended to be
more cost reflective of the costs incurred at times of
peak demand.
The price signal was a substantial increase in rates
(six to seven times higher than the standard time-ofuse peak rate) during the dynamic peak events. The
dynamic peak price rate was $3.00/kWh ($3.30/kWh
including GST). Outside of the peak events, customers
were incentivised by being charged at either a

shoulder rate (7 am to 10 pm all days) or off-peak rate
(all other times).
During the dynamic peak events, it was anticipated
that customers would limit electricity usage and
therefore avoid higher costs of electricity during
these times.
Responsibility for calling events was equally split
between the retailer and network operator, with
each entitled to call seven events. The retailer had
final approval of all events and was responsible for
notifying customers of an impending event. Events
were designed to last between one and four hours
andwereonly to be called between 2 pm and 8 pm
onworking weekdays.
A bespoke time-of-use tariff was designed for
the Smart Grid, Smart City Program. Figure 1-24
describes the existing pricing structure compared
tothe PriceSmart pricing.
designed to reduce peak demand during summer and

winter by charging peak rates that were higher than
those in the standard ToU tariff, and to test whether
customers would reduce their electricity demand
during summer and winter peaks by shifting their
usage to alternative time periods.
During the lower demand spring and autumn months,
customers would enjoy a shoulder rate during the
standard tariff peak period. The tariff was designed
to better reflect higher wholesale electricity costs
during summer and winter. During summer and winter
periods, it was anticipated that customers would
limit electricity usage by shifting load to off-peak or
shoulder times or be more efficient.
Customers were billed on a three-part ToU pricing
structure (peak, shoulder and off-peak) during summer
and winter and a two-part ToU pricing structure
(shoulder and off-peak) during spring and autumn,
asoutlined in Figure 1-25.
SeasonSmart was a seasonal time-of-use (ToU) tariff
Figure 1-24 Dynamic Peak Pricing tariff used for Smart Grid, Smart City PriceSmart trial participants
Existing Pricing
New PriceSmart Pricing
With current price structures, customers on an All Time plan

pay the same rate all day, every day. For customers on a
Time of Use plan, the rate varies according to the time of day.
PriceSmart reduces the peak rate and offers consistent

savings from 2pm to 8pm. Thereare further opportunities to
save by reducing your usage during the peak price events.
Price Inc-GST
All time
26.84c/kWh
13.09c/kWh
24.53c/kWh
24.53c/kWh
330.00c/kWh
Saving
12am
7am
2pm
8pm
10pm 12am
8pm
10pm 12am
All day, every day
12am
13.09c/kWh
Price Inc-GST
Price Inc-GST
Time of Use
52.55c/kWh
21.34c/kWh
7am
2pm
Time (weekdays)
12am
7am
2pm
Time (weekdays)
8pm
10pm 12am
Figure 1-25 Seasonal ToU tariff used for Smart Grid, Smart City PriceSmart trial participants
Existing Pricing
New PriceSmart Pricing
With current price structures, customers on an All Time plan pay the
same rate all day, every day. For customers on a Time of Use plan,
the rate varies according to the time of day.
Season Smart - Spring / Autumn

26.84c/kWh
12am
Price Inc-GST
Price Inc-GST
All time
SeasonSmart reduces the peak rate in spring and austumn for

consistent savings. The higher the peak rate in summer and winter
means you can save money with smarter energy use.
7am
2pm
8pm 10pm 12am
7am
2pm
8pm 10pm 12am
Season Smart - Summer / Winter

52.55c/kWh
Price Inc-GST
Price Inc-GST
Saving
Time (Spring / Autumn weekdays)
Time of Use
12am
21.34c/kWh
21.34c/kWh
12am
All day, every day
13.09c/kWh
13.09c/kWh
21.34c/kWh
7am
2pm
8pm 10pm 12am
Time (weekdays)
BudgetSmart was a top up reward product that

provided customers with a greater understanding of
their electricity usage and costs through maintaining
an electricity account in credit. BudgetSmart was also
designed to test whether customers would reduce
their electricity demand in general, due to an increased
awareness of electricity usage behaviour.
By keeping their account in credit, customers received
a financial incentive (a 12.5 per cent discount off their
total bill). Customers were able to do so by making
regular top-up payments in response to account
balance prompts from their retailer. It was anticipated
12am
13.09c/kWh
74.47c/kWh
52.55c/kWh
21.34c/kWh
7am
2pm
8pm 10pm 12am
Time (Summer / Winter weekdays)
that by providing customers with prompts to top-up

as their account approached a debit balance, they
would have a better understanding of the impact
their electricity usage had in dollar terms and could
take steps to reduce or shift electricity usage to drive
downcost.
Two standard regulated tariffs were used for this
product: inclining block tariff (known as domestic
all time) and ToU (known as PowerSmartHome),
asdescribed in Table 1-8. Customer tariffs were
notchanged when they signed up to this product.
Table 1-8 Seasonal ToU tariff used for Smart Grid, Smart City PriceSmart trial participants
First 10.9589 kWh per day
Next 10.9589 kWh per day
Balance
Inclining block tariff

Ex GST
24.90
26.38
28.48
Incl. GST
27.39
29.018
31.328
47.77
19.86
11.97
52.547
21.846
13.167
Time-of-use
Ex GST
Incl. GST
FlowSmart was an interruptible load rebate for

customers with air conditioning, where payment
was provided to customers in return for reducing air
conditioning usage during up to six pre-notified peak
events. FlowSmart was designed to test whether
customers would reduce their electricity usage during
periods of peak demand by reducing the electricity
required by high electricity usage appliances such as
air conditioners.
Utility interoperability
Using a demand response enabling device (DRED),

a customer air conditioning compressor (the cooling
component) was switched off for 15 minutes per hour
during the peak event to reduce the demand on the
grid. The air-conditioning fan continued to operate
during this period to provide some cooling benefit.
To investigate the benefits of integrating water metering

with electricity smart metering, a combined customer
portal was developed. More detailed information
about smart water meter solution can be found in the
supporting documents to the Customer Applications
Technical Compendium57.
This product did not proceed past testing stages and

therefore limited data was available for analysis.
To enable the measurement of the benefits of a

combined utility portal within a smart grid, an endto-end solution was required to be established. This
solution consisted of the smart meter infrastructure,
the feedback technologies provisioned at the
customer dwellings, the network tariffs provisioned
on the smart meter, the retail tariffs implemented in
the retailers billing and settlement systems and the
various IT systems used by Ausgrid (as the DNSP),
EnergyAustralia (as the electricity retailer) and Sydney
Water (as the water retailer).
An important part of the Smart Grid, Smart City

Customer Applications trials was to investigate
whether electricity, water and gas meter data could be
presented to customers through a combined utilities
portal which would influence their behaviour. Gas was
originally included in the trials scope, but was removed
when it was found that there were no smart gas meters
commercially available on the market.
57 At the time this report was prepared, Sydney Water

had not finalised its report on the smart water meter
trials
12.5.2 Customer application trial

design elements
The Customer Applications Program was implemented
in a commercial-scale environment in which the costs
and benefits of different smart meter based products
could be evaluated to meet the overall Program
objectives within the Programs scope and limitations.
Specifically, the design enabled the Program to:
Test whether customer applications within a smart
grid would have a measurable impact on reducing
total electricity usage, including peak demand, and
electricity cost in an Australian context; and
Investigate the costs and functional efficiencies
of, and understand customers attitudes and
responses to, integrating smart water and gas
metering with smart electricity metering
Meet the objectives of the Customer Application
Program, including determining the following trial
design factors:
1. Product selection the customer applications
(tariffs, feedback technologies, rebates, rewards
and educational products) required to be trialled to
meet the Programs objectives
2. Enabling technologies for the products selected,
the enabling technologies required to perform the
trials in the Ausgrid environment
3. Customer selection for the products selected,
the customer selection and eligibility requirements
to be able to supply the statistical data required for
the trials analysis
The products selected for the trials were evaluated

against the following metrics:
The attractiveness of the selected smart meter
based products (the tariffs, feedback technologies,
rebates and lifestyle audit) to customers (where
attractiveness refers to the benefits the customers
perceived they would receive from using the
product and includes measurements of uptake
rates, active and passive opt out rates and the
retention activities required to ensure customers
continued to use the product)
The effectiveness of the selected smart meter
based products in assisting customers to better
understand and manage their electricity usage and
shift electricity load from peak periods, which may
in turn have helped them to reduce electricity costs
The impact of the selected smart meter based
products on total electricity usage and/or peak
demand and the subsequent effects of these
changes on a distribution network service
providers operation and management of their
electricity network
12.5.3 Deployment processes and

customer selection of customer
application trial products
As previously described, the key trials completed
as part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer
Applications Program were:
A Network Trial which sought to measure the
attractiveness, impact and effectiveness of smart
meter based products without changing the
customers retailer or electricity retail tariffs
A
Retail Trial which sought to measure the
attractiveness, impact and effectiveness of
alternative tariffs either as standalone products or
bundled with feedback technologies
Both the Network and Retail Trial

supported the Smart Water Meter Trial
Given the complexity of conducting a commercial
scale customer-focussed trial, there were a number of
key processes that were designed prior to, during, and
after the rollout of the trial products. These processes
included the development, testing and provisioning of
the customer products and the selection, engagement,
management and ongoing support of the customers
trialling the products. These processes have been
discussed at a high level in the following sections,
with the detail of these processes provided in the

Customer Applications Technical Compendium (which
can be found on the Smart Grid, Smart City Information
Clearing House https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/).
Customer applications products

A summary of the products selected for each of the
trials is provided in Table 1-9. Each of these products
has been described previously in this section of
the report.
Table 1-9 Summary of the Customer Application Program trial products
Trial
Customer Applications Program products
Network Trial feedback

technology, rebates and
educational products
SGSC Home Energy Online Portal

SGSC Home Energy Monitor
SGSC Home Energy Assessment
SGSC Home Energy Rebate
SGSC Home Energy Network Control System with Home Energy Online Portal
SGSC Home Energy Rebate with Home Energy Monitor
SGSC Home Energy Online Portal with Home Energy Monitor
SGSC Home Energy Air (not deployed)
Retail Trial tariffs, and

feedback technology
products
BudgetSmart Plan
BudgetSmart Plan with PowerSmart Monitor
BudgetSmart Plan with PowerSmart Online Portal
BudgetSmart Plan with PowerSmart Online Portal and Home Control System
PriceSmart tariff
PriceSmart tariff with PowerSmart Monitor
PriceSmart tariff with PowerSmart Online Portal
PriceSmart tariff with PowerSmart Online Portal and Home Control System
SeasonSmart tariff
SeasonSmart tariff with PowerSmart Monitor
SeasonSmart tariff with PowerSmart Online Portal
SeasonSmart tariff with PowerSmart Online Portal and Home Control System
FlowSmart tariff
Smart Water Meter Trial
Water meter with Home Energy Online
Community awareness and engagement
Customer acquisition and selection process
Engagement with the general community was

required to communicate the benefits of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program and in particular the
benefits of the trial products to residential customers.
Community engagement involved raising awareness
and building knowledge of the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program. Raising awareness was required because
the Customer Applications Program trials were opt
in trials, i.e. customers had to volunteer to become
involved. Engagement activities were undertaken upon
commencement of the trials to encourage participation,
as well as throughout the trial implementation,
management and decommissioning phases, including
smart meter rollout and other acquisition phases of the
Customer Applications Trials.
Different approaches were used for the deployment

of smart meters for the Network and Retail Trials:
Community engagement within the Smart Grid, Smart

City Program faced inherent challenges:
Electricity is a product that typically exhibits low
levels of community engagement.
The trials were available to only a small percentage
of customers in the Ausgrid network therefore
the majority of the community were not able to
participate in the trials, regardless of their level of
engagement and awareness.
The benefits of the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program were tailored to individuals, retailers and
network service providers, rather than the broader
community.
Network Trial: Smart meters were installed at

selected customer dwellings prior to inviting
customers to participate in the Trial. This process
emulated a mandatory rollout (also termed a
fulldeployment in this report), however customers
had the opportunity to decline the installation of
the smart meter (referred to as dissenting to
theinstallation)
Retail Trial: The installation process required a
customer to initially agree to participate in the
trial, prior to the smart meter being installed. This
process emulated a market driven rollout (also
termed a customer-led deployment in this report)
One of the key principles of the deployment of smart
meters for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program was to
adopt, as closely as possible, Ausgrids business as
usual meter installation processes. This allowed any
Program-specific smart meter implementation issues
to be highlighted, as distinct from any BAU meter
installation issues. These Program specific issues
could then be investigated to assist in the development
of any future large scale rollout.
By virtue of this being a customer focussed trial, it was
necessary to acquire customers to trial the selected
products. These customers needed to be acquired in
such a way as to be able to supply the statistical data
required for the trials analysis.
For the Network Trial, the customer acquisition process
commenced after the smart meters were installed
and had passed all checks. For the Retail Trial, the
customer acquisition process was performed prior
to the installation of the smart meters. For the Smart
Water Meter Trial, the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
partnered with Sydney Water to deploy water meters to
customers who were already part of the electricity trials.
Sampling and Trial Design Project This project ensured

alignment between customer selection for the trials and
meeting the objectives of the Smart Grid, Smart City
Customer Applications Program. The Sampling and Trial
Design project was relevant to both the Network and the
Retail Trials customer selection process and was aimed
at ensuring a representative sample of customers would
be testing each product to enable the relevant analysis.
The purpose of the Sampling and Trial Design
Project was to:
Define the most statistically appropriate sampling
variables for the Customer Applications Program
Determine the cut-off points to convert the
recommended sampling variables into categorical
variables appropriate for input to the Customer
Applications Program sample frame
Define the sampling approach for each of the
selected products in the Network and Retail trials
Develop a methodology to select customers from
the Customer Applications Program sample frame
Customer selection - The Sampling and Trial Design
Project produced a methodology for the selection of
customers to partake in the trials. Based on a series of
constraints, assumptions and estimates, an initial set of
potential customers were selected from the
Ausgrid database.
For the customer selection process, sampling
variables were first identified, based on domestic
electricity usage, electricity efficiency and electricity
conservation behaviour.
There was a requirement for a control group of 600 to
be selected. This control group needed a smart meter
to be installed, however the control group customers
received very limited information about the trial (to
avoid introducing bias).
Product provisioning and activation

The provisioning of trial products was carefully
managed to ensure optimal customer experience
and therefore results for each trial. The provisioning
process was similar for Retail and Network Trials,
however product content, information and user
guides were branded separately to appropriately
reflect the variation in products between the two trials.
Product documentation and guides were distributed
to customers via email, mail, or inserted into product
packaging prior to delivery.
All provisioning was directly managed by the Smart
Grid, Smart City provisioning team, who were
also responsible for clarifying the various aspects
of the provisioning process for all participants
including customers, sales representatives, internal
stakeholders, vendors and partners (e.g. Sydney
Water and EnergyAustralia). This process also included
smart meter infrastructure registration, installation and
provisioning by Ausgrid.
Trial management
The trial management process describes all aspects of
managing both the Network and Retail Trials, following
on from the provisioning and activation of the products.
Trial management activities undertaken throughout the
Network and Retail trials included the following:
Customer retention activities
Ongoing general customer support
Managing those customers wishing to opt out of
the trial
Ongoing product management
12.6 High level

trialresults
Program trialled 22 products comprising pricing
structures, network controlled devices, feedback
technologies, emerging technologies and educational
products with over 7,000 residential customers.
A significant amount of data was collected and
analysed by Ausgrid, EnergyAustralia and third parties
which included Woolcott Research, the Institute of
Sustainable Futures, NERA Economic Consulting and
Frontier Economics. Analysis was performed to help
inform the final observations and conclusions over the
Customer Application Program, as outlined in
this section.
Sampling and trial design

The Sampling and Trial Design Project was intended to
ensure that customer selection for the trials included
a representative sample of customers and enabling
statistically relevant analysis of the results for
each product.
The population of prospective customers for the
trials (both the treatment and control groups) was
restricted to Ausgrid customers within the trial area,
filtered by the various Program constraints which
resulted in a reduced total population available for the
trials. Whilst this did not impact the ability to analyse
results, it was likely to have produced some biases
in the estimates. Although mitigation measures were
taken to correct this bias, these measures were only
partially successful.
The resulting sample (both treatment and control)

could not truly be classed as random from a
statistical analysis point of view because although
customers were selected randomly, the trial managers
placed an emphasis on attempting to ensure sufficient
representation for each product from each of the
statistical cells.
Self-selectivity bias was another limitation that could
not be mitigated against. Self-selectivity bias refers
to pre-disposition of participants to some aspect of a
trial. It is impossible to directly correct for this bias in
an opt in rollout, therefore the possibility of this bias
should be taken into account when analysing the
results of future like trials.
There is further discussion on the sampling and
trial design elements of the project in the Customer
Applications Technical Compendium.
Smart meter infrastructure

Smart meter infrastructure was an enabling platform
for many of the Smart Grid, Smart City trials, with the
largest deployment of meters required to support the
Customer Applications Program trials58. The overall
observations and conclusions of the smart meter
rollout as part of the overall Smart Grid, Smart City
Program is provided in the Smart Grid, Smart City
Smart Meter Infrastructure Technical Compendium.
The results below pertain specifically to the interactions
of smart meters with the Customer Applications
Program. It was found that in order to increase the
willingness of Customers to consent to an in home
installation of smart meters, Retailers and Network
operators need to increase the attractiveness of smart
meters. Critically, in order to fully realise the benefits of
smart meter infrastructure, the smart meter products
must be attractive to customers.
58 17,134 meters were installed at 15,966 NMIs (i.e.

customer dwellings) for the Customer Applications
Program trials by the end of the meter rollout in
August 2013.
Furthermore, the Customer Applications Program

found that the lack of customer acceptance of smart
meters themselves was a barrier to achieving the full
potential benefits of a smart grid. This issue is further
discussed in Part Three of this report.
This finding is supported by two separate sources.
In their 2013 national survey, Woolcott Research59
found that 21 per cent of customers were not willing
to have a smart meter installed and in the Smart Grid,
Smart City trial area, where extensive community
engagement activities had been undertaken in order
to educate the community on the benefits of the
Customer Applications products, this figure was
found to be even higher at 31 per cent. It is possible
that these figures underestimate the percentage of
customer opposition to smart meter installation, as
the term smart meter was not clearly defined to the
respondents and it is possible that some customers
understood the term to refer to an interval meter60.
If negative customer perception of smart meters
remains at this level and a market driven roll out is
adopted, it will not be possible to achieve the full
benefits of a smart grid. Therefore, if a market driven,
rather than mandatory smart meter rollout is assumed,
governments, network operators, retailers, industry
groups and other relevant stakeholders need to
work together in order to address negative customer
perceptions, misconceptions and concerns regarding
smart meters.
59 Woolcott, Research, Smart Grid, Smart City

Community Tracking Study, August 2013
60 This is evidenced through the 13 per cent of
customers who claimed that they already had a smart
meter installed
Pricing structures
Program trialled a series of pricing structures (tariff,
rebate or reward) that were developed to address
the key Program objectives of testing the ability of
customers to make informed decisions on their overall
electricity usage and usage during peak
demand periods.
Frontier Economics were retained by the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program to perform econometric modelling
to estimate customer uptake of the products trialled
in the Customer Applications Program and customer
responses to the trialled products with respect to
electricity consumption patterns61.
The full results of all of the pricing structures is described
in the Customer Applications Technical Compendium,
and notable results are described below.
Dynamic Peak Pricing (DPP)

EnergyAustralia set an upper temperature limit for
DPP events, due to the perceived risk to vulnerable
customers whose health may be adversely affected by
their attempts to respond to pricing signals (e.g. elderly
customers turning off their air conditioners during peak
periods on very hot days). One attempt to call a DPP
event on an extremely hot day (which was forecast
to be over 40C, ultimately reaching 37.8C at Sydney
airport) was abandoned due to a trial rule in which
there was agreement that an event would be cancelled
if the forecast temperature was 40C or higher.
61 Frontier Economics, Smart Grid, Smart City Customer

Applications Trials: Data methodology report, 2014
Some customers did provide negative feedback on the

proposed peak event62 after they were notified of the
event. This feedback included:
Hardly a fair test. Forecast today is 39C, my
husband is 75 and we are caring for our three
year old grandson. Not safe to switch off cooling
appliances! Is it possible to reconsider please?
Will be terminating my contract. Doing this on the
hottest day of the year and with one days notice is
price gouging.
Part Two of this report discusses trial participant
behaviour responses and interest in peak event
products and some of the challenges for network
operators and retailers associated with non-firm
demand response.
Top up reward (BudgetSmart)

Customers who trialled BudgetSmart in combination
with an online portal or a portal and HAN had access
to two estimation features through the online portal.
In addition to the estimation features, all BudgetSmart
customers could receive low or debit balance
notifications via SMS. Eighty per cent of BudgetSmart
customers who received an SMS prompt to top up
their account did so, a result which indicates that
the SMS prompt was effective in changing customer
behaviour. Eighty per cent of BudgetSmart customers
who received an SMS prompt to top up their account
did so, a result which indicated that the SMS prompt
was effective as a communications mechanism.
Analysis of customer survey data indicates that
whilst BudgetSmart did not perform as well as the
other pricing products across a range of indicators
including frequency of engagement, perception of bill
savings and impact on energy awareness, it exhibited
unexpectedly high product satisfaction and customers
were very likely to recommend BudgetSmart.
This result may indicate that a unique feature of
BudgetSmart the more deliberate and constant
engagement with actual accrued bill costs was

popular with customers.
A large number of BudgetSmart customers who
received SMS notifications and emails about their
credit status received either incorrect information
(i.e.messages suggesting they were in debit when
they were in fact in credit), were not receiving
information at all (and therefore had to guess how
much money they owed) or were receiving messages
when they claimed they knew nothing about the trial.
These issues were traced to a combination of poor
customer data (mainly sourced from Ausgrid records
as the network operator) or software errors.
Some customers also requested a more transparent
approach (i.e. the ability to view their real time
account online).
Dynamic peak rebate (Home Energy Rebate)

Fifteen dynamic peak rebate events were called during
the trial. Of these, three events were called in summer
of 2012/2013, four events were called in autumn or
spring of 2013; four events were called in winter 2013
and four events were called in summer of2013/2014.
The analysis performed on the dynamic peak rebate
events customers usage data indicated that:
On average across all events, customers who
trialled the Home Energy Rebate with no feedback
technology exhibited a greater reduction in total
usage than customers who trialled the Home
Energy Rebate along with an IHD. Customers who
trialled the Home Energy Rebate as a standalone
product reduced their total usage (in kWh) by
approximately 19 per cent, compared to a 14 per
cent reduction, on average, for customers who
trialled the Home Energy Rebate along with an
IHD. This indicated that an IHD was not effective
in helping customers trialling the Home Energy
Rebate reduce their usage
62 Attempts were made to contact these and other

customers who raised similar complaints and to
explain the purpose and effect of the product, i.e.
that customers are charged lower rates throughout
the year to compensate for the calling of DPP events
and that customers did not have to switch off their air
conditioning in order to respond to pricing signals
On average across all events, customers who

trialled the Home Energy rebate as a standalone
product and those who trialled the Rebate along
with an IHD, received a similar average rebate
($14and $13.85 respectively). That the rebate
received was similar despite differing usage
impacts, may have been attributable to Ausgrids
methodology for calculating baseline usage63.
Technologies
As part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
analysis, a customer survey was commissioned. The
full results of this survey are presented in the Institute
for Sustainable Futures (ISF) customer research report
which is available on the Information Clearing House
https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au.
The IHD was considered by customers to have been
the easiest to set up (with 77 per cent of survey
participants finding it easy or very easy to set up)
and the IHD became easier to use over time. The HAN
was considered the least simple to set up and use,
however the difference in customer survey responses
was not statistically significant which suggests that
while the HAN was more complex to set up and
operate, this did not strongly impact on customers
ability to use the technology.
Empirical evidence showed that elderly and nonEnglish speaking customers had the most difficulty
in completing the set up process and effectively
operating the IHD.
With the exception of the ability to track greenhouse

gas emissions, all of the feedback technology features
were perceived to be useful by over 80 per cent of
customers. The most useful feature, as rated by
customers, was the ability to see near real time usage
in dollars (66 per cent), followed by near real time usage
in (kWh) (60 per cent). The ability to see near real time
usage was more important to customers than the ability
to see change in usage over time for all technologies
other than the HAN, which suggests that the HAN
encouraged longer term efforts to use appliances more
efficiently most effectively.
The ability to track greenhouse gas emissions was
by far the least valuable feature to customers, with
47 per cent describing it as not at all useful. The
presentation of greenhouse gas emissions, for
example to determine if the concepts were readily
understood by the average household user was
not examined.
Customers who trialled the IHD were the least likely
to rate the ability to see change in electricity usage
(in kWh and dollars) over time as useful, which
suggests that the IHD did not provide this information
as effectively as the other feedback technologies.
Customers also rated the ability to see near real time
usage as more useful than ability to see change in
usage over time. This may suggest that customers
are more interested in seeing the difference between
appliances than in using their appliances more
efficiently in the longer term.
63 Frontier Economics note that the correlation between

kWh savings and rebates was not strong. This was
due to the fact that Ausgrids baseline usage for
calculating rebates used a different methodology to
Frontiers methodology. NERA Consulting noted that
Ausgrids methodology led, at least for one event, to
the selection of an inappropriate baseline usage level.
Ausgrids methodology took no account of temperature
differences between event days and baseline days.
This could have been the reason for the occasional
selection of inappropriate baseline usage
Customers who trialled the IHD showed a significantly

higher level of regular user engagement than both
customers who trialled the online portal and the online
portal in combination with the HAN, with almost
half (49 per cent) using their IHD at least weekly and
almost a third (33 per cent) using it daily. This was
presumably attributable to the lower entry barriers to
engagement with the IHD as the IHD was in open sight
of customers and did not require a dedicated login.
Thirty-six per cent of customers were found to have
never used their feedback technology, or only used
it only once or twice. Customers who did activate
and use their feedback technology did so mostly on
a weekly basis (40 per cent), with some using their
technology on a daily basis (22 per cent). However, half
(51per cent) of participants reported that their use of
the technology decreased over time.
Overall, the findings indicate that for the majority of
customers, the reason for reduced engagement was in
fact positive, as the feedback technologies contributed to
their awareness over their electricity usage.
When considering the impact of feedback
technologies on customer awareness of their electricity
usage, the IHD had the greatest impact which was
perhaps due to its ease of interaction. The portal
in combination with the HAN had much greater an
impact than the customer portal alone, presumably
due to the additional functionality of the HAN which
led to a greater level of customer understanding
and awareness. The online customer portal had the
lowest impact on improving customer awareness.
79 per cent of customers with an IHD reduced their
overall electricity usage, compared to 73 per cent for
the customer portal plus HAN and 71 per cent of the
online customer portal alone.
Demographic analysis
The following conclusions were able to be drawn from
an analysis of customer survey data in regards to the
responses of differing demographic groups to the
Customer Application Program trials:
Low energy users had a lower probability of
reporting that participation in the trials had
increased their ability to reduce bills. This could be
attributable to this demographic group having less
discretion over their usage
Financially vulnerable households were less likely
than other households to perceive that they could
shift a large portion of their usage to outside peak
times. This demographic group was also more
likely to recommend the products they trialled
Pensioners were generally more likely than other
customers to perceive that they could shift a
large portion of their usage to outside peak times;
however they were only slightly more able than
other demographic groups to actually be able to
shift usage to outside peak times
A substantially higher proportion of households
with children reported feeling unable to pay their
electricity bill, compared to households with no
children. However households with older children
were more likely to report perceived savings. This
indicates that households with young children may
have been more vulnerable to pricing regimes
For all demographic groups, the pricing structure
trialled was the primary driver of overall reduction
in usage and peak demand reduction. Feedback
technologies on their own had little effect
The portal in combination with the HAN was the most

effective of customer trialled feedback technologies
when considering how improved awareness went on
to empower customers to reduce their bills. The online
portal alone was the least beneficial in this respect
from a customer perspective.
Product satisfaction
Overall, customers were positive about the products
they trialled. Most products were viewed very positively
by customers, in particular the DPR products.
Customers who participated in the Network Trial
with an IHD only reported the lowest average level of
satisfaction. Customers were found to have formed
their opinion on their product after a short period of
time and this opinion did not change much over the
course of the trial.
In terms of overall product satisfaction (not related to
any particular product), the following conclusions were
able to be made:
Customers with English as their first language were
more likely to be satisfied with their products
Product satisfaction was higher for customers who
stated they understood and were able to obtain the
benefits of their products. Whether this is a cause
or effect however is unclear, although customers
who understood the benefits of their product
were more likely to demonstrate active engagement
and behaviour change, which resulted in
financial savings
Overall, 69 per cent of customers were interested in

continuing use of their product if it were to be available
in the future. The products which recorded the highest
levels of customers interested in continuing use were
the Home Energy Rebate products, SeasonSmart and
BudgetSmart (both along with the online customer
portal). Products consisting only of the IHD had the
lowest levels of customers willing to continue use of their
product. These findings suggest that the presence of
tariffs increases customers desire to continue product
use. However it should be noted that participants
who opted out of the trials are not represented in
these results.
Bundled products (i.e. a combination of pricing
structure and feedback technology) were also the
most likely to be recommended by customers.
Thiswas particularly the case for the Home Energy
Rebate products.
Customers who trialled the Home Energy Rebate

reported the highest levels of satisfaction, followed
by PriceSmart, BudgetSmart and SeasonSmart
Customers who engaged with their product were
more likely to report product satisfaction
Feedback technology only products resulted in the
lowest levels of customer satisfaction
Change in usage
An analysis of change in usage data indicated that
customers who trialled the following products achieved
the greatest reductions in overall electricity usage:
BudgetSmart (average overall reduction of 3.5 per
cent across all offered BudgetSmart products)
PriceSmart (average overall reduction of 2 per cent
across all offered PriceSmart products)
SeasonSmart (average overall reduction of 1.8 per
cent across all offered SeasonSmart products)
These results indicate that a top up reward pricing
structure was the most effective in reducing overall
customer electricity usage.
An analysis of change in usage data indicated that
customers who trialled the PriceSmart products
achieved the greatest peak demand reductions, with
an average peak reduction of 38.9 per cent across all
offered PriceSmart products. Whilst customers who
trialled pricing structures also achieved reductions in
peak demand, as these customers were not notified of
peak events, there could have been no relevant peak
demand analysis over their usage and reductions in
usage were able to be calculated on an overall basis
only. Analysis of trial results showed that the DPP
product was the most effective in reducing customer
peak demand. Despite this finding, there remains the
practical challenges of network operators and retailers
in managing issues associated with non-firm demand
response. This has been discussed in greater detail in
Part Two of this report.
Providing customers with a feedback technology had

varying impacts on their overall usage. Whilst the IHD
and customer portal (when trialled as a standalone
product) were effective in assisting customers to
reduce their overall usage, when a customer portal
was trialled in combination with appliance control and
sub metering, this combination actually increased
overall customer electricity usage.
Customers who trialled feedback technologies by
themselves (i.e. with no associated pricing structure
and therefore no change to their retailer tariff),
exhibited negligible change in overall usage. These
results indicate that the pricing structure trialled, rather
than the feedback technology, had a greater impact on
electricity usage.
Providing customers with a feedback technology
also had varying impacts on their peak demand
reduction. Customers who trialled one of the peak
event based products (either PriceSmart or the
Home Energy Rebate) in combination with an IHD
reduced their peak demand by a smaller amount than
customers who trialled the same products without a
feedback technology. However, customers who trialled
PriceSmart with a feedback technology other than
the IHD reduced their peak demand by 5 per cent
more than customers who trialled PriceSmart as a
standalone pricing structure.
These results indicate that the pricing structure trialled,
rather than the feedback technology, had a greater
impact on peak demand reduction.
13 Distributed Generation and

Distributed Storage (DGDS)
13.1 What are
distribution generation
and distributed storage
technologies?
Distributed generation refers to generation devices
installed at the distribution network level, typically
solar PV panels, small-scale wind turbines and gas
fuel cells. Distributed storage refers to battery
technology which can be used to store electricity to
provide back-up supply to a customer premise for
reliability purposes or store surplus generation during
times of low demand which can then be exported
back to the grid, or used locally, during periods of

high demand. These devices may be installed at
a customer premises connected to the electricity
network, either directly, or through the customers
existing network connection.
The installation of distributed generation within
an electricity network represents a shift from the
traditional view of planning, design and operation
of electricity distribution networks which have been
predicated on the basic premise that energy only
flows from centralised generation sources, through the
transmission network, to the distribution network, and
onto the customer (described in Figure 1-26).
Figure 1-26 Traditional view of electricity flows
Bulk Supply Point
Subtransmission
Substation
Zone Substation
Distribution
Substation
Traditional views of energy flow

The increasing adoption of new distributed generation

technologies by customers, particularly rooftop
solar PV generation, represents a paradigm shift
for network operators. The past decade has seen
a marked escalation in rooftop solar PV panels with
installed capacity rising from 23 MW in 2008 to around
1,450MW by the start of 201264.
As the number PV systems continues to grow and
potentially other technologies like distributed storage
are deployed, the role of networks is changing from
being solely focussed on delivery of electricity to
customers, to a wider set of services.
Importantly, electricity no longer flows in a single
direction and distribution network operators must
now plan, design and operate networks taking into
consideration generation at customer premises and
reverse energy flows (described in Figure 1-27).
Figure 1-27 Emerging view of electricity flows
Bulk Supply Point
Subtransmission
Substation
Zone Substation
Distribution
Substation

64
AEMO Rooftop PV Information Paper, National
Electricity Forecasting 2012
Increasing levels of distributed generation and

distributed storage provide an opportunity to
improve the operation of the distribution network, by
increasing reliability, reducing costs and facilitating
increased levels of renewable generation. However,
from a network perspective, planning, designing and
operating networks in this environment will be more
challenging because there will be limited information
on consumer demand within the lower voltage network
and the large variance in network demand across
the day.
13.2 The role for

in a smart grid
One of the key drivers of capital expenditure for the
electricity supply industry is peak demand where,
unlike many other industries, failure to supply peak
demand can result in disruption of supply to many or
all customers, not just the last customer to increase
their load.
This technical feature of electricity supply systems
and the very large economic cost of disruption or loss
of supply means that generation, transmission and
distribution systems have been designed to meet the
peak demand with a high degree of reliability. As a
consequence some network assets may only be fully
operational for a short period of time, i.e. utilisation
levels for those assets is low.
Distributed energy resources (distributed generation
and distributed storage) have the potential to defer
asset investment for assets that are only installed to
meet peak demand including:
Avoided or deferred capital expenditure on

large scale generation capacity by generating
electricity and/or heat near the point of use or by
using storage devices charged during off-peak
times, there is a potential to reduce expenditure on
large scale peak generators
Avoided or deferred transmission and distribution
capital expenditure distributed energy resources
have the potential to reduce some network capital
expenditure by reducing the peak load growth. In
this case network augmentation has the potential
to be deferred, delayed or downsized providing
savings for customers and higher asset utilisation
rates for network operators
Avoided costs of electricity production Higher
short run marginal costs associated with peaking
plant relative to base load plant, can lead to higher
prices in electricity markets during peak demand
conditions. If distributed generation and distributed
storage assets are operational at these times, they
could potentially lower wholesale electricity spot
prices during periods of peak demand (refer to
discussion in Appendix One on the operation of
Australias electricity markets)
The successful integration of additional distributed
generation resources into distribution networks will rely
on improvements in the level of detailed information on
the underlying demand for electricity combined with
an improved understanding of the low voltage network
impacts (for example, the impact on voltage and the
safe operation of the network).
It is reasonable to expect that the continued
deployment of distributed generation, and potentially,
distributed storage will occur in a generally random
manner. Accordingly an important aspect of the Smart
Grid, Smart City DGDS Project was to emulate this
approach to customer distributed energy resource
deployment. This included the deliberate sub-optimal
location of a number of these technologies in the
DGDS Project in order to examine to the potential
negative impacts on the distribution network.
13.3 Distribution
generation and
distributed storage
in the Smart Grid,
Smart City Project
The Smart Grid, Smart City DGDS Project was
initiated to provide critical data and information to help
understanding the implications of a commercial scale
rollout of distributed storage integrated with distributed
generation and other smart grid technologies.
The DGDS Project sought to:
Understand the maturity and suitability of
DGDS devices
Assess the impacts on the grid from increased
penetration of DGDS devices
Understand the value DGDS devices can potentially
deliver for network operators and customers
The program consisted of field trials, advanced

modelling and PS+EDGE simulation trial elements. The
field trial results were used to validate the models and
gain insights into the commercial-scale deployment of
these technologies. The advanced modelling and field
PS+EDGE simulations provided additional analytical
tools for different penetrations of DSDG devices which
are not commercially and physically possible in a
field trial.
The key technology components utilised in the DGDS
Project included solar PV, small wind turbines and fuel
cells, customer battery storage, grid battery storage
and diesel generation (to simulate high penetration
of PV generation). A range of measurement and data
monitoring technologies were also installed for data
acquisition and control purposes and to provide data
acquisition and centralised control of some devices
including smart meters, modems, data loggers, remote
terminal units and back office systems.
The trials were based in three locations (Figure 1-28)
in Newington (a suburban environment located in
Sydney), Newcastle (an urban environment) and Upper
Gundy (a rural environment located near Scone
in NSW).
The DGDS Project commenced in October 2010
running through a number of phases as shown
in Figure 1-29.
Throughout the entire DGDS Project, community
consultation and communication with participants
was undertaken.
Figure 1-28 Distributed generation and distributed storage trial locations
Figure 1-26 Traditional view of electricity flows
These three areas were selected because they cover

the range of networks within Ausgrids network area,
which were intended to be used as proxies for the
majority of different types of networks in Australia.
13.4 Where are

technologies are
currently deployed?
There is a wide range of literature and research
available pertaining to distributed generation and
storage technologies in different parts of the world.
This literature examines a range of technologies,
each at different levels of maturity, cost and scale.
Further, these studies also were undertaken in a range
of different electricity markets. Additional detail is
provided in the DGDS Technical Compendium.
13.5 Smart Grid,

Smart City distribution
generation and
distributed storage trials
As previously discussed, the DGDS Project was
conducted in three trial areas, Newington (Sydney),
Newcastle, and Upper Gundy (Upper Hunter Valley).
As part of this project 60 consumer batteries, 25 fuel
cells and 10 small wind turbines were installed. In
addition, a large number of existing PV installations in
the suburb of Newington was also utilised. A diesel
generator was also installed in Upper Gundy to
emulate high penetration of solar PV to understand the
impacts on a rural network.
Very few studies however, have examined the impact

of a commercial-scale deployment as was attempted
by the Smart Grid, Smart City DGDS Project.
Figure 1-29 Timelines for the DGDS Project
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Initiation & Trial Design

Trial Site & Participant Selection
Field Trial and Data Collection
Analysis and Reporting
1 2
Milestones
1 Community Consultation
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
2 Newington Network Reconfigured
7 Automatic battery Dispatch

Algorithm Activated
etwork Monitorng
3 N
devicesinstalled
8 Vendor selected to supply and

install 10 wind turbines
4 Community Update
9 Community Update
5 All Fuel Cells Commissioned
10 All Batteries Commissioned
6 Community Update
11 Gundy 8 Turbines Commissioned
11
12
13 14
15
12 Community Update
etwork Simulation Model
13 N
developed
iesel Generator (Solar Farm
14 D
Simulation) Commissioned
ewcastle 2 Turbines
15 N
Commissioned
Given that some of the technologies were new

technologies to Ausgrid, two aspects of the trial
presented challenges:
Initially, installation of the selected customer
batteries and fuel cells was slow due to there
being no previous relevant installation experience.
However installation times improved as experience
was gained and the process was refined
The small wind turbine installations were delayed
due to difficulties in obtaining Development
Application (DA) approval for suburban areas within
Newcastle. As a consequence the original program
was adjusted and eight small wind turbines were
installed in Upper Gundy (rural area) by August 2012
The suitability, maturity, impacts and value of a variety
of different technologies were trialled and modelled
using PS+EDGE across these three areas, which
represent a range of different types of networks
common across Australia. The trials investigated
the impact of DGDS on power quality parameters
including:
Voltage levels
Power factor (PF)
Voltage unbalance
Total harmonic distortion (THD)
Flicker (PST and PLT)
On selected days, controllable DGDS devices were
operated in a way to mimic rooftop solar PV systems
to simulate an increase in penetration of solar PV
systems in the network. In the Newcastle Area and the
Newington Area, power quality meters were placed at
the Distribution Centre (DC), a relatively robust part of
the network, and at the end of the LV feeder, a weaker
part of the network.
13.5.1 Distribution generation and

distributed storage trial design
elements
The three key trial locations for the DGDS Project are
described below.
Trial location Newington (high

penetration rooftop solar PV)
The Newington suburb housed the Athletes Village
for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. The housing
stock was built to high energy efficiency standards,
and one of the features of the suburb was the
installation of solar panels on almost every home.
Newington includes an estimated 1,104 rooftop solar
PV installations. These are mainly 500W and 1kW
systems on residential rooftops. A larger system is at
the Newington Public School, and another adjacent to
an industrial building, Newington Armoury (owned by
Sydney Olympic Park Authority).
Newington represented a saturated suburban
network and was selected to understand the low
voltage grid impacts of a growing number of PV
systems in Australia. The distribution network in
Newington is underground. In total, Newington has
approximately 1,800 customers, with most houses
having an existing 1kW or 0.5kW PV system. This
area therefore presented an opportunity to examine
the impact on the network of high penetration rooftop
solar PV systems. Examination of meter data at the
beginning of the trial showed that around 75 per cent
of the PV systems were functional.
The network was originally arranged with most of the
photovoltaic systems on ten distribution substations
supplied by five 11kV feeders from two zone
substations (Homebush Bay and Flemington). The first
stage of the trial was to rearrange the 11kV network to
increase the penetration of rooftop solar PV systems
on a single 11kV feeder. The final network state for the
trial consisted of 9 out of 10 distribution substations
being connected to the same 11kV feeder, supplied by
Homebush Bay zone substation.
Trial location Newcastle

(Smart Future Urban Network)
Newcastle was chosen to trial a Smart Future urban
network, where the effects of a mixture of DGDS could
be examined on a typical urban network. The intention
of the Newcastle trial was to test the impacts and
benefits, on a predominately residential feeder, of the
types of DGDS technologies customers may install
in the future. The Newcastle trial area was a typical
suburban 11kV radial network, with some existing PV
systems. In addition 40 distributed storage devices (5
kW ZBM flow batteries) and 25 distributed generation
devices (1.5kW solid oxide gas fuel cell) were installed
and actively managed to demonstrate a potential
Smart Future network with a variety of distributed
generation and storage devices. The trial area included
a mixture of overhead and underground network.
The choice of Newcastle for the trial was based on its

ability to facilitate these proposed technologies. Such
considerations included:
The site had a reasonable number of existing
rooftop solar PV systems65. Of approximately 1,800
customers supplied by the feeder, 138 had PV
systems installed at the beginning of the trial, with
approximately 153 systems present during the key
part of the trial period from 1 July 2012 to
30 June 2013
Siting requirements included an existing gas supply to
fuel the solid oxide fuel cells, and/or space to be able
to house either a fuel cell, or a zinc bromine battery
The intention to trial the installation of small wind
turbines in a residential area meant there was also
a requirement for small parks, and green spaces
along the feeder length
65 Likely to have been installed due to incentives from

both the federal and state government programs
Within the Newcastle trial area different devices

were clustered in locations supplied by the same
distribution transformer. This installation strategy
allowed for an increased penetration of distributed
generation and storage technologies on the low
voltage network thereby increasing the observed
effects of the technologies.
Grid battery trials
Trial location - Upper Gundy

(Thin Grid Rural Network)
It was hypothesised that in the future distribution

network operators would own, install and operate grid
batteries to reduce peak demand on critical network
elements, or improve power quality by offsetting the
transient impacts of non-dispatchable generation (such
as solar PV).
A rural location at Upper Gundy near Scone was

chosen to trial the impacts of DG and DS on a lightly
loaded, low capacity, high impedance, sparsely
populated overhead 11kV feeder with a small number
of customers (31) spread approximately 12km. Twenty
2.4kW small wind turbines were installed to test the
impact and value of DG and DS on a rural network.
Typically networks like the one at Upper Gundy have
lower reliability levels, and more power quality issues
than suburban networks. Thin grids are likely be more
susceptible to negative impacts from high penetration
distributed devices, and could demonstrate
significantly higher value in solving existing power
quality and reliability issues. Ausgrid also used this
opportunity to demonstrate the potential for creating a
microgrid, using smart grid technology and customer
located DG and DS devices so that this section of
the network could successfully and safely operate
independently or islanded from the grid.
The section of the network on which the trial occurred
was a spur, or tee, running north from Gundy into
the Upper Gundy area. An important aspect of
the selected network was that the spur had only
one source of supply, which means that any fault
disconnects all customers downstream of the fault,
until the fault is repaired.
A grid battery is a battery which is sized to provide a

significant amount of energy, approximately five per
cent of the load on an urban 11kV feeder, equivalent
to 100s of KVA. They are also physically much larger
than the batteries located at customers premises,
often being installed inside large shipping containers.
Ausgrid had intended to deploy grid batteries in

all three trial areas as part of the DGDS Project,
however, this project element produced significant and
unforeseen challenges.
During the trial design stage, Mitsubishi Japan
approached the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
to offer a 1MVA lithium ion battery. Mitsubishi had
developed a large grid battery and wanted to test it in
a real-world environment which Ausgrid intended to
deploy in Nelson Bay. However, the offer of the battery
was retracted after the earth quake and tsunami
occurred in Japan.
A grid battery was an essential aspect of the microgrid
design intended for the Upper Gundy trial because
it was to provide grid stabilisation so that distributed
generation and storage could remain connected.
When it was determined that the planned trial was
not possible without a grid battery, the trial design for
Upper Gundy was reviewed. Instead Ausgrid decided
to use a 200kW diesel generator as a cost effective
device to mimic the behaviour of a 30kW PV system
and grid battery combination.
The Newington trial was intended to show the impact

on an urban network of high penetration rooftop
solar PV systems. The role of the grid battery was to
simulate a generation profile similar to that of extremely
high rooftop solar PV penetration on a feeder. This
remained an essential component to the Suburban
Saturation trial design and May 2012. In June 2012
Zenergy was awarded the contract to supply a
grid battery.
One of the biggest challenges was finding a suitable
location for the grid battery. The size of the battery
(installed in a large shipping container), limited the
number of places it could be installed in a residential
area. Although lengthy negotiations were undertaken
with the strata management in a particular location,
Ausgrid were unable to secure approval. This resulted
in the Newington grid battery trial not proceeding66.
Instead a PS+EDGE simulation study was conducted
to analyse the impact of a Battery Energy Storage
System (BESS) connected at the end of a suburban
feeder in Newington. The Newington 11kV feeder
comprised nine distribution substations and was fitted
with online distribution monitoring. The BESS had a
capacity of 60kW for two hours, was able to charge /
discharge at various rates and was connected to the
network via a four quadrant inverter. The objectives of
the PS+EDGE simulations were to:
Determine the ability of the BESS to deliver
improvements in the voltage profile of the 11kV
feeder on the network
Ascertain what impact using the BESS as a reactive
load or source can have on the voltage deviation of
the network
Determine the impact of increased PV penetration
and the possibility of reverse power flow
66 In October 2013, the DGDS Project transferred

responsibility for the grid battery project to Ausgrids
Demand Management team to implement the Zenergy
80kVA lithium ion battery in the Ausgrids network.
A suitable site was found in Homebush, close to
Newington, to install the grid battery.
13.6 High level

trial results
Given the extensiveness of the trials, the high level
trial conclusions are presented here under a number
of categories including:
Technology (suitability, maturity etc.)
Network impacts
Customer impacts
Further detail on the results and conclusions from the
DGDS Project Technical Compendium can be found
on the Smart Grid, Smart City Information Clearing
House website https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/
13.6.1 Distributed generation and

distributed storage technology
results
Solar PV
Solar photovoltaic generation (solar PV) is considered a
mature technology. In the case of the DGDS trials, the
program utilised existing PV installations in Newington,
Sydney. Approximately 25 per cent of the existing PV
systems were not operational, mainly due to inverter
failures. Customers were encouraged to repair these
systems however only 11 per cent of those customers
contacted did so.
The trials demonstrated that the generation profile from
PV systems does not necessarily align with the local
network profile which therefore diminishes the benefits
that solar PV can offer in terms of reducing peak
demand on individual distribution network assets.
The trials also showed that the orientation of solar PV
panels towards the west may offer better alignment
of photovoltaic output with the late afternoon summer
peak demand periods. However, westerly facing
rooftop solar PV systems generate lower total energy
over the whole day (and year) therefore reducing
the financial value that customers may obtain from
a westerly facing PV system under current tariff
arrangements.
Redflow battery
The RedFlow battery is a developmental technology
using a flow process based on zinc bromine. This
product was just emerging from the research and
development phase when the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program started. The relative immaturity of the product
meant that many of the challenges in trialling this
technology stemmed from the lack of demonstrated
practical applications and lack of experience
implementing this type of technology in the field.
The DGDS project trialled the RedFlow R510 zinc
bromine flow battery. The customer battery storage
was sized to store up to 10kWh of electricity, or about
half the daily requirements of a typical household.
The trial found that battery characteristics including
the discharge/charge profile, full cycle efficiency, and
ambient temperature performance all impacted the
battery output.
One key aspect of these batteries is they are net
consumers of energy. The customer based batteries
used in the trials consumed 300W in float mode,
and this loss of energy had an impact on overall
performance.
Another challenge was that the storage capacity
of the batteries was quite limited which meant that
correctly predicting when the network peak was
going to occur was important so that the batteries
were able to be used for peak demand management.
The trial found that if the customer based batteries
were dispatched too early, particularly on hot days
when high temperatures reduced the effective battery
capacity, the battery output dropped off before the
peak demand event occurred, or had ended. Similarly
if the batteries were dispatched too late the peak may
have already occurred.
The predictability of network peaks is generally better
for larger sections of the distribution network (i.e.
where network operators are predicting the behaviour
on average of a larger number of customers over a
greater geographical area), compared to load profiles
at individual feeder or customer level. This suggests
the scheduling of grid-embedded batteries for charge
and discharge connected higher up in the network
may be less problematic than for customer (home)

based batteries.
The value of this trial was in testing how this new
technology could be applied in practice and
identifying issues across technical, customer and grid
performance areas. It is anticipated that many of the
issues discovered through this process could be used
as lessons across the battery industry generally. - The
RedFlow customer batteries performed relatively well,
with battery export meeting device expectations, for
the first five months of the trial. After this period, the
performance started to decline prompting a range of
modifications. As a result of the discoveries in this trial,
RedFlow are currently redesigning aspects of
the battery.
Fuel cells
Although slightly more mature than the Redflow
batteries, the Solid Oxide (BlueGen) fuel cells were
a relatively new technology at the commencement
of the trial. The BlueGen solid oxide fuel cells
that were trialled in this project were at the precommercialisation stage of development.
One of the key constraints for installations of the
BlueGen fuel cell was the requirement for the cell to be
connected to all utilities: i.e. electricity, gas and water.
To incentivise customers to trial the product they were
provided with hot water during the trial at no charge.
The units provided continuous electrical output of
1.5kW and waste heat for hot water. A gas hot water
booster was also installed to ensure hot water supply
quantity and temperature satisfied the customers
requirements. Trial participants were very enthusiastic
about their involvement in the DGDS project and
willingness to trial the technology was high. Their
feedback at the end of trial was generally very
positive and many indicated disappointment when
the units were decommissioned (it is important to
note customers were not liable for any of the capital
or operating costs of the units during the trial, and did
receive the financial benefits associated with free hot
water produced by the fuel cells).
Fuel cells typically take a long time to start-up and

to shut down, and as a consequence they are most
efficient and economic when running at steady
output, typically near, or at the rated capacity. At
lower and higher output levels the efficiency of the
fuel cell is lower, and cycling the cells through wide
ranges of output can have implications for the life of
components. Given these factors, fuel cells are more
likely to be used to reduce network demand at all
times, rather than just during the peak.
Given the pre-commercial nature of the BlueGen fuel
cells, there were a number of major failures of the
systems which required repair during the trials. In
addition it was noted that there was the potential for
damage to components if not shut down correctly, for
example, during a network outage. The devices also
require constant water and power supply, along with
continuous monitoring via an ADSL internet connection
which means this device is unsuitable to areas which
have unreliable utility supplies.
Small wind turbines

Small wind turbines are considered a relatively
mature technology. Maintenance requirements for
wind turbines are also typically very low, i.e. a visual
inspection annually to see that the blades are clean
and operating correctly.
Existing regulations governing the installation of wind
turbines presented key lessons for the Project. Existing
legislation was prescriptive, (e.g. these devices could not
be installed within 100m of a residence) and planning
approval processes were time consuming. Planning
approval processes differed between different councils
and the Project found that the development approval
was easier in a rural environment as its requirements
were limited to a less rigid site selection process and a
feasibility assessment.
Grid batteries
As previously discussed, implementation issues
prevented the installation and trialling of a grid
battery during the Smart Grid, Smart City trial
period. However, advanced modelling and PS+EDGE
simulations were performed in order to investigate the
potential network value of grid batteries in reducing
peak demand, reducing network capital expenditure
and improving asset utilisation.
Advanced modelling using PS+EDGE model was
performed for the Newcastle trial area with a large
grid battery with a rated capacity of 1MVA and battery
storage capacity of 2MWh. In addition, a PS+EDGE
simulation of a smaller grid battery (60kVA/ 120kWh)
was performed for the Newington trial area by the
University of Newcastle.
The objectives of the grid battery PS+EDGE simulation
were to determine:
If the introduction of a BESS had the ability to
reduce the peak demand on the local network
(11kV feeder load)
What impact using the BESS as a reactive load
or source can have on the voltage deviation of
the network
The impact of increased rooftop solar PV
penetration and the possibility of reverse power flow
The models and calculations were based on field
measurement data from the Homebush Bay zone 11kV
feeder for the Newington trial area, collected at 10
minute intervals, for the period from December 2011 to
December 2012. A load forecast tool was developed in
MATLAB for predicting the next days half-hourly load
demand of the Newington feeder, based on historical
temperature and load data. This tool was then used to
determine when to discharge the battery to maximise
the potential reduction in feeder peak demand.
It was found that the majority of the small wind turbines

provided their peak power output in the early afternoon
between 1 pm and 3 pm. The customer experience
was generally positive, with several customers indicating
that they were confused by concerns expressed by
some people over wind turbine noise as they had not
experienced these issues.
The findings from the PS+EDGE simulations

indicated that:
Real power discharged from a BESS can reduce
voltage deviation (<1V) in a distribution network.
This improvement was small because of the
relatively low impedance of the Newington feeder
and the limited capacity of the inverter
The reactive power charge from a BESS can
reduce the voltage deviation in a distribution on
a limited basis (0.85V). This voltage deviation
improvement is small because of the relatively
small impedance of the feeder and the size of the
inverter. The PS+EDGE simulation results indicate
that the addition of active inverters can increase
the effect of a BESS on the voltage profile in
comparison to real power discharge. PS+EDGE
simulations demonstrated that the effects of a
larger BESS device on higher impedance networks
will have a larger effect on the voltage profile.
Enhanced solar rooftop PV penetration (simulated
by operating a 60kW/120kWh battery) did not
cause reverse power flow and over-voltage
problems on the selected peak day (however
reverse power flow can occur on days when the
load is low)
Reverse power flow (simulated by operating an 180
kW/360 kWh battery) caused LV voltages to vary in
the range of 1 1.5V which correspond to 2.72 per
cent 4.08 per cent of the allow LV voltage range
Batteries, with their limited storage capacity, are
inherently sensitive to the energy required to reduce
the demand, therefore unexpectedly long peaks
can reduce the potential effectiveness of batteries in
reducing peak loads. This storage capacity limitation
has also highlighted the necessity for combining
accurate load forecasting with battery control
methodologies in order to optimise the potential value
of grid batteries to network operators.
13.6.2 Network technical impacts

No issues were found to arise with power quality from
the DGDS trials. It was determined that this result was
reflective of the strength of the Ausgrid network in
which these trials were conducted. Although a voltage
rise was anticipated as penetration of distributed
generation increases in the network (particularly
increased solar PV generation), the trials demonstrated
that there is no single threshold level of penetration at
which voltage problems arise (within the context of the
Trial configuration).
However it was concluded, that a range of different
factors specific to the local network characteristics
such as network strength and network setting influence
voltage levels. High penetration of solar PV systems may
cause no problems on one part of the network, whereas
the same level of penetration may cause voltage issues
on another part of the network (i.e. weak parts of the
network are more likely to start experiencing issues at
relatively modest penetration rates).
The increased role of automated monitoring and
management of distributed generation and storage
technologies will be critical in identifying opportunities
for optimisation of network operations. For example,
non-conforming voltage delivery to customers
was identified through enhanced monitoring which
otherwise may not have been discovered. More details
on monitoring within a distribution network can be
found in the Smart Grid, Smart City Substation Feeder
Monitoring Technical Compendium.
There were a number of issues associated with
islanding of a live network which were found in the
Gundy trial. A technical study was commissioned to
examining the potential engineering responses for
the detection, localisation and clearing of electrical
faults on islanded high voltage rural microgrids.
Additional discussion can be found in the DGDS
13.6.3 Value of DGDS

Although it is likely that customers who install
technology such as photovoltaic generation or
small wind turbines are driven primarily by the value
proposition of the device, other factors may also drive
their decision. In total, these customer drivers
may not result in optimal electricity market or
network considerations.
Siting considerations can have a significant impact
on energy production due to topography, vegetation
and existing structures. Rooftop solar PV systems
may not always be installed on the north-facing roof,
and investment may not necessarily be confined to
locations that receive the most sunlight. Wind studies
may not always be conducted prior to installation of
small wind turbines due to costs and/or physical
siting constraints.
As a consequence the locations and installations of
these technologies can be sub-optimal, implying that
the energy production and actual impacts of these
distributed energy sources on the network will also be
sub-optimal.
Where rooftop solar PV systems are widely installed
across a network, they may contribute to a general
reduction in the network load, however whether this
impacts the network peak is highly dependent on the
specific load profile characteristics in the area (e.g. the
timing of the peak varies depending on whether
the load is mostly industrial, business, residential
or a mixture).
The non-dispatchable nature of wind turbines and

photovoltaic installations makes it difficult for network
operators to gain benefits in the operation of the
electricity network from these forms of distributed
energy. Wind turbine generation profiles vary in
accordance with local wind conditions and bear no
relationship to typical household energy usage and
rooftop solar PV installations normally generate the
majority of their electricity between 10 am and 4 pm
(assuming limited cloud cover). Residential peak load
typically occurs between 4 pm and 9 pm. This means
that whilst photovoltaic systems reduce the average
load on the network, their impact on peak load is far
less significant. The non-dispatchability of photovoltaic
and wind generation was demonstrated in trials and
PS+EDGE simulations in the Gundy area.
PS+EDGE trial modelling found that orientation of
rooftop solar PV panels can be varied (to face west)
to improve alignment with local residential summer
peaks and hence potentially be of benefit to network
operators, however this results in lower total solar PV
generation for customers. Based on existing tariffs and
incentives there are no customer benefits to reorienting
new or existing rooftop solar PV systems.
A common characteristic of renewable technologies

such as wind turbines and rooftop solar PV
installations is that any individual system is incapable
of being dispatched to the electricity market as the
availability of the underlying resource (wind or sunlight)
cannot be guaranteed at any given time.
Part 2
The Business Case for
Smart Grids in Australia
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Part Two The Business Case for Smart Grids in Australia ARUP 149
Part 2 Contents
1
2
Overview of Part Two

Stakeholder engagement
2.1
Rapid stakeholder engagement
153
2.2
Stakeholder forum
154
2.3
Stakeholder priorities
155
3 Smart Grid, Smart City retail and network trial participants

interaction and responses
152
153
161
3.1
Background to the retail and network customer trials
161
3.2
The Customer Research Survey and Report scope of works
161
3.3
Trial participant experience survey results
162
3.4 Analysis of trial participant interaction with customer feedback technologies

and dynamic tariffs
163
3.5
Trial participant demographic analysis
171
3.6
Conclusions from customer research survey
177
Results of national integrated cost benefit assessment
4.1 Introduction
178
4.2
Deployment of smart grid technologies
179
4.3
Individual technology cost benefit assessments
181
4.4
Discussion of the medium economic results
183
4.5
Impact of an integrated smart grid solution on electricity sector performance indicators
210
4.6
Future generation investment in Australia
222
4.7
Electricity prices and bills
229
Comparing the integrated benefits findings from the

Smart Grid, Smart City Program with the original business case
150 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Part Two The Business Case for Smart Grids in Australia ARUP
178
234
1 Overview of Part Two

Part Two of this report presents the findings of
the different assessment elements which the AEFI
consulting consortium were engaged to complete.
These include the following:
Stakeholder engagement the results of the rapid
stakeholder engagement process conducted in
mid-2013 is presented. This section of the report
describes the stakeholder engagement
process, the stakeholders engaged and their
information priorities sought from this analysis and
reporting process
Customer research a summary of the results from
the Customer Research Report which describes
the finding of the survey which was provided to
the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Application
(network and retail) trial participants. This section
discusses the key findings of demographic,
product, consumer engagement and behavioural
changes assessed based on the findings from the
survey and subsequent analysis
Results of the Smart Grid, Smart City cost benefit
assessment which describes the costs and
benefits of the integrated smart grid case which
included in-grid technologies, dynamic tariffs and
customer feedback products and compares the
findings to a business as usual approach
Comparison of the results of the current integrated
cost benefit assessment to the original individual
(stand-alone) cost benefit assessments for
individual technologies which was published in
2009 by the Australian Government
2 Stakeholder engagement
Throughout the analysis and reporting stages of the
Smart Grid, Smart City cost benefit assessment,
a range of stakeholder engagement activities were
undertaken. The broad objectives of stakeholder
engagement were to ensure:
Stakeholders understood the scope and objectives
of the cost benefit assessment and reporting
phase of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
Stakeholder priorities for the cost benefit
assessment and reporting phase of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program were understood and
addressed to the extent practicable
Stakeholders had an opportunity to validate or
provide alternative data and information to inform
the cost benefit assessment modelling process
Identification of other ongoing studies and programs
within the electricity sector which could inform or be
informed by the analysis and reporting phase of the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program
The specific stakeholder engagement activities
undertaken are discussed below.
2.1 Rapid stakeholder

engagement
At the commencement of the analysis and reporting
phase, a rapid stakeholder engagement process was
undertaken to identify stakeholder priorities in the form
of web-based and phone-based group and individual
interviews. This initial rapid stage was required
to quickly identify stakeholders expectations for
reporting and modelling outcomes. This was required
during the early stages of the analysis and
reporting phase to enable the technical models as
far as practicable, to be configured to respond to
these priorities.
The rapid engagement phase targeted stakeholders
who had already had some involvement with the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program. This allowed a deeper level
of engagement across fewer stakeholders than would
have otherwise been achieved with stakeholders with
limited or no understanding of the program.
In total, 21 interviews were held with 41 individual
stakeholders including1:
Alternative
Technology Association
Anglicare
Australian Conservation
Foundation
Australian Council on
Social Services
Choice
Climate Action
Newcastle
CSIRO
Energy and Water

Ombudsman
Energy Users Association

of Australia
NBN Co.
Newcastle City Council
Office of Environment
and Heritage, NSW
Government
Places Victoria
Total Environment Centre
University of Newcastle
Sydney Water
AER
AEMO
Charge Point
Energy Networks
Association
EnerNOC
Energy Retailers
Association of Australia
Energy Supply
Energex
Ergon Energy
Moreland Energy
Foundation
SA Power Networks
Smart Grid Australia
SP Ausnet
From this process, a list of 38 separate stakeholder priorities was identified.
1
number of organisations did not wished to be

A
named in this report and have not been included in
this list
2.2 Stakeholder forum

A stakeholder forum was held on 12 June 2013 with
a broader range of stakeholders many of whom had
not been previously involved in the program. The aim
of the forum was to:
Present a summary of the results of the first phase
of engagement by stakeholder group, and offer
opportunity for discussion, update or comment
Offer the opportunity for diverse stakeholder
groups to hear the competing interests in
smart grid outcomes, to place their own views
in perspective
To offer broader participation than the initial rapid
stakeholder interview phase
In total 29 organisations were represented, including
the following2.
Australian Council on
Social Services
Public Interest Advocacy

Centre
Energy Networks
Association
Energy Supply
SA Power Networks
Ethnic Communities
Council
Sydney Water
University of New South

Wales
AGL
Arup
Aurora Energy
Cisco
Endeavour Energy
Ericsson
GE Energy
Grid Net
Citipower/ Powercor
Frontier Economics
Landis + Gyr
During this forum, stakeholders reaffirmed the

relevance of the initial stakeholder priorities, reiterating
the importance of the granularity of the analysis to
cover different stakeholder perspectives, as well as
the diversity of network typologies or configurations.
Through this process, an additional five new
stakeholder priorities were identified.
2 A number of organisations did not wished to be

named in this report and have not been included in
this list
2.3 Stakeholder
priorities
In total, a list of 38 stakeholder priorities was identified
over the first two stages of stakeholder engagement.
Some of the priorities were not able to be addressed
as they were not directly related to the business
case assessment or the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program, but related to broader energy market and
consumer issues.
As anticipated, some priorities relate more to different
elements of the Smart Grid, Smart City trials, customer
responses or the cost benefit assessment and will be
found in the Customer Research Report.
Whilst the majority of stakeholder priorities have been

investigated and reported in at least one of the trials
(Technical Compendium), other Smart Grid, Smart
City reports, or the cost benefit modelling, there
were a small number of priorities which have not
been comprehensively investigated. These priorities
were not in the original scope (or only partially within
the scope) of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program
or cost benefit assessment. In some cases it has
been noted that these issues are the subject of a
recommendation in this report (refer to Part Three) for
further investigations beyond this project.
A description of the stakeholder priorities and an

indication of where these priorities have been reported
in each of the Smart Grid, Smart City reports, as well
as supporting documents and supporting data sets are
provided in Table 2-1. It should be noted that the degree
to which these issues are discussed varies across
each of the supporting documents (including the
Technical Compendia, Customer Research Report
and the National Cost Benefit Assessment Report) and
data sets.
Table 2-1 Stakeholder priorities
Stakeholder Priority
SP1
SP2
What are the impacts on electricity bills of

customers, especially those in low-income or
vulnerable households, low energy users, and small
business?
What are the impacts on electricity prices, across the
range of price categories?
SP3
Final CBA Report
Integrated
Benefits
Model
Significant modelling on the bill impacts

of different customer groups which has
been included in this report
(and Appendix Four)
Customer
Research
Report
Technical
Compendium
Supporting
documents
or data sets
Information
Clearing
House
What is the impact on customer power quality

as a result of being able to measure down to the
customer level, and address anomalies efficiently and
proactively?
SP4
What would the uptake of smart grid technologies

be in a market situation where customers pay for the
product? How is this affected by demographics?
SP5
What impact did the trials have on consumer

behaviour by demographic group? Were the impacts
enduring or short-term? What techniques will sustain
behaviour change and retain consumer interest over
the longer term? How does this compare to other local

and international experience?
SP6
How would real life consumer responses to smart grid

technologies differ from trial experience?
SP7
Does the real value in smart grids enabling demand

side participation lie in the residential or business
sector?
SP8
SP9
How much more demand side potential will

be unlocked by allowing real time data access
capability for existing large customers with smart
meters? (currently smart meters used for billing and
tariff structures only)
Final CBA Report
Integrated
Benefits
Model
Customer
Research
Report
Technical
Compendium
Supporting
documents
or data sets
Information
Clearing
House
Residential and business customers only

modelled within this report. Industrial
(large) customers not in scope.
What commercial frameworks are required to deliver

the demand side potential offered by smart grid
technology?
SP10
How did different demographic groups respond

to offers, and specifically to different marketing
techniques?
SP11
To what extent can smart grid technologies support

higher levels of renewable energy penetration in the
grid?
SP12
What is the dropout rate of customers over the long

term for different demand-side interventions?
SP13
What demographic characteristics made customers

more or less likely to take up products or offerings?
SP14
What is the relative effectiveness (in energy & cost

terms) of different customer technologies or products?
SP15
What impact did EVs have on increasing demand, and

how flexible is consumer behaviour in relation to timing
of EV charging? How crucial is the customer interface
in unlocking these savings? What are the implications

for network infrastructure?
SP16
What greenhouse gas reduction is likely to be

delivered by smart grids?
SP17
Final CBA Report
Integrated
Benefits
Model
Customer
Research
Report
Technical
Compendium
To what extent will smart grids reduce local
Supporting
documents
or data sets
Information
Clearing
House
environmental impacts?
(Minimal discussion on some technologies which

could impact on specific elements where there
is an improvement over existing processes or
technologies. In general, not the focus of this
program of investigations)
SP18
What is the impact of smart grids on network

efficiency?
SP19
To what extent will reliability and security of supply be

improved by smart grids?
SP20
What is the customers willingness to accept

variance in supply reliability?
Not part of the scope of investigations. Is the subject of a

recommendation on additional investigations beyond this
project
SP21
What will be the impact of more accurate knowledge

of reliability (at customer level)? (such as on reliability
compliance and rewards scheme)
SP22
How will smart grids affect the development of new
products and markets?
SP23
How will peak demand on the grid be impacted?
SP24
How will different stakeholders be affected in terms

of revenues or profits? What split incentive issues
will be problematic in a disaggregated (cf. verticallyintegrated) supply chain?
SP25
Broad discussion only on some areas

where there are currently split incentives.
No discussion of disaggregated vs
vertically integrated supply chains
Do smart grids improve customers energy literacy,

particularly as it relates to confidence as a demand
side participant?
SP26
Final CBA Report
Integrated
Benefits
Model
Customer
Research
Report
Technical
Compendium
Supporting
documents
or data sets
Information
Clearing
House
What level of interest do customers have in energy

data and information? What do customers want and
need to know?
SP27
How will both the quantity and accuracy of meter data
increase? How will this influence market operation?
Some
(e.g. transaction settlements, data validation
discussion on
processes, practical bandwidth and data storage
specific issues
issues).
associated with
SMI used for

this trial. Did not
cover market
transactions,
settlements etc
SP28
What are the implications of smart grid technologies

for state and local government planning approval
processes?
Some
Some discussion on the
discussion on
challenges for micro-
the challenges
wind turbines only
for micro-wind
turbines only
SP29
What emotional responses do smart grids

technologies elicit, and how does this contribute to
public perception?
Only discussed the customer technologies and tariffs that were in the
Customer Applications trials (and the responses of trial participants)
who responded to the customer survey. Have not addressed broad
public perceptions of smart grids.
SP30
Final CBA Report
Integrated
Benefits
Model
Customer
Research
Report
What are the key privacy issues emerging?
Technical
Compendium
Supporting
documents
or data sets
Information
Clearing
House
(very little discussion because it
did not rank as a major issue for

trial participants who responded
to the customer survey)
SP31
SP32
What can the Smart Grid, Smart City program

tell us about the how smart grid technologies
should be deployed? Should it be led by networks
or retailers? Can it be done more efficiently and
effectively through a market environment, or more
through government directives?
What smart grid technologies increase the flexibility/
adaptability (resilience) of the system?
SP33
(not all aspects of this

priority have been
addressed)
Are total distribution losses reduced through smart

grids, particularly in the context of high penetration
solar PV?
SP34
Did greater accuracy of customer bills increase
satisfaction in trial participants?
SP35
SP36
What are the key Standards issues emerging from

the Smart Grid, Smart City trial? What parties
should these bind?
Can smart grid technologies integrate the utilisation

of demand side resources into networks operational
control rooms?
SP37
What is the potential for the NBN to be used for smart

metering?
SP38
How can energy and water metering data be linked

and analysed?
3 Smart Grid, Smart City retail

and network trial participants
interaction and responses
3.1 Background to
the retail and network
customer trials
3.2 The Customer

Research Survey and
Report scope of works
As previously described in Part One of this report and

the Customer Applications Technical Compendium,
there were two key trials completed as part of the
Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Applications
Program:
The primary purpose of the Customer Research

Survey was to:
A Network Trial which measured the effectiveness

of smart meter based products without changing
the customers retailer or electricity retail tariffs.
Analyse the customer experience that Smart Grid,

Smart City trial participants had with the customer
feedback technologies and tariff products they
were trialling
The network trial tested feedback technologies,

financial incentives (rebates) and a lifestyle audit.
Eight products were offered to customers either
individually or as a bundle. The products consisted
of an online portal, an in home display, appliance
control and sub-metering devices, an interruptible
load (air conditioning) control rebate, a dynamic peak
rebate and a lifestyle audit.
A Retail Trial which measured the effectiveness
of alternative electricity tariffs either as standalone
products or bundled with feedback technologies.
The retail trial tested smart meter based tariffs,
feedback technologies and a rebate. In total, twelve
products were offered to customers with each
product including a tariff (dynamic peak pricing,
seasonal time-of-use or top-up plan) or a rebate
(interruptible load (air conditioning)) and optionally
one or more feedback technologies (an online portal,
an in home display or appliance control and submetering devices).
As part of investigating the outcomes of the Customer
Applications network and retail trials, a Customer
Research Survey and report were commissioned. This
section of the final report discusses the key findings
of the Customer Research Report which is part of the
suite of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program reports
and can be located on the information clearing house
at https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au
Obtain household profiling data to enable a more

accurate depiction of household demographics and
energy profiles
The objectives of the research were to use the data

collected from the household profiling and customer
experience to:
Analyse the efficacy of different smart grid products
in delivering real world benefits to customers
Understand customer perceptions of trialled smart
grid products
Undertake a granular analysis of the customer
experience that included consideration of how
relevant socio-demographic factors influence
customer experience of smart grid products
Analyse the perceived effects of smart grid
products on customers ability to control and
manage their consumption
Examine how the product experiences of vulnerable
groups differ from the broader population
Compare survey respondents own perceptions of
their trial experiences and bill savings with data on
total energy savings, peak demand savings and
bill savings
Household profiling questions were asked of both trial
participants and a control group. For both groups, a
Smart Grid, Smart City smart meter was installed at
the dwelling and the occupants were notified prior to
the installation that they were to receive a new meter
as part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program.
The customer experience questions were only asked

of trial participants. Between the two deployment
periods in 2013 and 2014, a total sample of 3 215 trial
participant responses were received, as well as 241
control group responses obtained in 2013. Allproducts
were well represented, with between 22per cent and
53 per cent of the participants trialling a given product
participating in the survey.
Two customer research surveys were conducted
approximately six months apart. Both surveys were
offered to over 8 000 participants in the Smart Grid,
Smart City Customer Applications Program. From
the 8,000 participants, more than 1,700 participants
responded to the initial customer research survey,
while almost 2,500 participants responded to
the second survey which included almost 1,000
respondents from the initial survey.
Data collected from both surveys was pooled
together to create a sample of 3,215 responses. For
participants who answered both surveys, only their
latest responses were included3.
For additional information on which of the different
trial participant groups were included in the analysis
presented in the Customer Research Survey
Report findings, refer to the full report available
on the Information Clearing House https://ich.
smartgridsmartcity.com.au.
3.2.1 Household profiling

Several subtle but statistically significant differences
between the trial participant group and control group
were found. These confirmed several known sampling
and logistical factors associated with the trial rollout.
The trial participant group was slightly more likely to
live in detached houses, and own their residences
outright without a mortgage. Trial participant
households were more likely to be older, and speak
English as a first language in the home. While the trial
participant group showed a higher rate of ownership
of large energy using appliances (air conditioning,
dryer, pool pumps), there were no apparent
differences in household income, prevalence of
energy bill vulnerability, or average electricity use
between groups.
These differences and the potential impact on their
responses are discussed at length in the Customer
Research Report.
3.3 Trial participant

experience survey
results
The following sections provide an overview of some of
the key findings from the customer survey focussed
on the customer experience in trialling the different
combinations of smart grid technologies and tariff
products within the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer
Applications Program. All aspects from the customer
research survey have been provided in the full
Customer Survey Report which is available from the
Information Clearing House.
3 To streamline the longer survey for repeat

respondents, some of the profiling and energy
perspective questions were not asked of these
respondents in the 2014 survey. Instead their answers
were drawn from their responses to the 2013 survey
3.4 Analysis of trial

participant interaction
with customer feedback
technologies and
dynamic tariffs
3.4.1 Interaction with customer

feedback technologies and dynamic
tariffs
Feedback technologies level of engagement
The Customer Applications Program trialled three
types of feedback devices:
A home energy monitor (also known as an in-home
display), showing basic live energy consumption
and cost data
Trial participants trialled one of 18 products which

were classified into the following groups:
Type 1 a pricing or incentive mechanism (e.g. a
tariff or a rebate), referred to as dynamic tariffs in
this report
An online portal, which showed more detailed

information but required computer access
An online portal paired with a Home Area Network
(HAN). The HAN included smart plugs that enabled
tracking and remote control of individual appliances
Type 2 one or more home energy data feedback

technologies
Type 3 a combination of pricing / incentive and
one or more feedback technologies
There were diverse results from the respondents when

asked how often they used their feedback technologies,
with the data suggesting a clear advantage of the home
energy monitors for capturing user engagement. This
was likely due to the lower entry barriers as the in-home
display was in view within the home and did not require
a dedicated login.
Survey participant interactions with each of the different

customer feedback technologies and pricing / incentive
mechanisms is discussed in the following sections.
On average user engagement with energy data

reduced slightly over time, due to both positive (user
learning) and negative (apathy) factors (Figure 2-1).
Figure 2-1 Trial participant frequency of usage of feedback technology
Monitor
31%
13%
5%
19%
11%
21%
(n=1264)
Portal
8%
11%
7%
31%
21%
22%
(n=673)
Portal+HAN
7%
12%
13%
27%
23%
19%
(n=239)
0%
Daily
20%
2-3 times per week
40%
Weekly
60%
Every now and then
80%
Once / twice
100%
Never
A key finding was that 83 per cent of trial participants

reported that the use of their smart grid technology
and/or tariff product had resulted in them taking
some action to reduce or change the way they
consumed electricity.
Trial participant responses to feedback

technologies level of information provided
Three-quarters of respondents reported that the
quantity of information provided by the feedback
technologies was about right, while almost onequarter would have preferred more information, as
Almost no respondents felt that they were given too
much information. Furthermore, the more information
provided to customers (through the Portal and the
Portal+HAN), the greater the likelihood that they
wanted more.
Figure 2-2
Trial participant response to peak event

products
Some trial products involved discrete peak events
where customers were encouraged through
significantly higher prices or rebates for reduced
demand to reduce consumption for a period of up
to four hours (previously described in Part One of this
report). These customers were sent SMS notifications
24 hours and 2 hours in advance of the event to
request their participation.
A very high proportion of respondents (87 per cent)
reported participating in a peak event and two-thirds
reported that this flowed on to their continuing to
change their behaviour outside of the peak
event period.
Trial participant satisfaction with amount of feedback information
OVERALL
(n=1651)
76%
Monitor
(n=999)
79%
Portal
(n=529)
72%
Portal+HAN
(n=106)
70%
0%
2%
20%
2%
27%
3%
60%
Too much
7%
27%
2%
40%
About right
5%
80%
Not enough
100%
Continued interest in peak event participation was

high, with 80 per cent of respondents stating that
they maintained or increased their level of interest in
participating in peak events over time. The incentivebased Dynamic Peak Rebate performed slightly better
than the tariff-based Dynamic Peak Pricing on all three
measures.
When asked, 40 per cent of respondents said they
would participate in the peak event by reducing their
heating/air-conditioning use regardless of how extreme
the temperature was in order to save money. The
remaining 60 per cent indicated they would use their
heating/air- conditioning less on moderate temperature
days but would pay more to heat/cool their house
on extreme temperature days. This suggests that
customer participation during extreme weather
conditions may not be as substantial as days when
peak events are run on moderately hot or cold days.
Figure 2-3 shows the differences in survey responses
to this question categorised separately by network and
retail trial participants.
A slightly higher proportion of Dynamic Peak Pricing

respondents indicated they would reduce their heating/
cooling on extreme temperature days compared to
Peak Rebate respondents, tentatively suggesting
that the penalty of higher prices may be slightly
more effective that the incentive of higher rebates
on extreme hot or cold days. Refer to the Customer
Applications Technical Compendium for analysis of
observed savings during trial peak events.4
This response from participants demonstrates the
challenges associated with non-firm demand response
that is, the choice for consumers to reduce electricity
consumption during extreme weather events when
the network is likely to be at, or near full operational
capacity means that there is no guaranteed reduction
in electricity demand during these peak periods. The
usefulness of guaranteed demand response for network
operators is that they can limit the capital expenditure
on network capacity which may only be used for a few
hours each year
Figure 2-3 Proportion of trial households who indicated that they would respond to a peak event no matter how extreme the
temperature
50%
40%
30%
43%
40%
41%
37%
35%
30%
20%
10%
0
Summer
(n=744)
Winter
(n=100)
Overall
Network
Retail
4 Data can also be found at the Smart Grid, Smart

City Information Clearing House: https://ich.
smartgridsmartcity.com.au
during the periods of extreme electricity demand (within

residential areas, this tends to coincide with extremely
hot or cold temperatures). In turn this reduced capital
expenditure means that consumers will pay lower
electricity (network) tariffs. With non-firm demand
response, network operators will still need to invest in
the additional network capacity in order to ensure it
meets with their performance standards.
Guaranteed demand reduction is already able to be
achieved in many electricity networks through the
use of either interruptible tariffs or demand response
enabling devices (DREDs) which are either retrofitted
or built into consumer appliances such as air
conditioners. In AS/NZ4755 compliant air conditioning
units DREDs enable network
operators to control the compressor (the component

responsible for temperature regulation) for short
periods of time. During this period the fans still
operates which means that air is still being circulated in
a room. Extensive trials with significant success have
been conducted in Queensland and South
Australia using DRED controlled for residential air
conditioners. In exchange for network control of these
devices, consumers are generally compensated in
some manner.
Many network operator also have existing interruptible
tariffs which means that in exchange for lower electricity
tariffs, consumers agreed to have electricity access to
hardwired devices (generally electric hot water systems
and pool pumps in some states) restricted during period
of high network demand.
Figure 2-4 Trial participant overall impact of product use on electricity awareness, control and literacy
Level of
awareness
39%
Sense of
control
37%
30%
Ability to
reduce bills
25%
Ability to
budget use
24%
Ability to
evaluate
15%
Confidence
to participate
14%
0%
Increase a lot
5%
42%
25%
44%
28%
32%
41%
29%
53%
28%
25%
Increased a little
54%
50%
No impact
75%
Decreased a little
100%
Decreased a lot
Trial participant results - product impact
Trial participant behaviour change
The following sections provide an overview of the

impact that the smart grid technology products and
tariffs had for trial participants.
Of all survey respondents, 83 per cent reported that

the use of their product had resulted in their taking
some action, with two-thirds reporting reducing
their electricity consumption, 58 per cent reporting
changing the time of day that they used electricity, and
one quarter of trial participants making one or more
appliance efficiency upgrades.
Trial participant electricity awareness and

control
Participants rated how the use of their product had
impacted on the awareness, energy literacy and
control over electricity consumption bills, as shown
in Figure 2-4.
Overall the trial was found to have had a very positive
effect on awareness of electricity use, with almost
70 per cent of respondents saying that their ability to
reduce electricity bills had improved.
Figure 2-5 Trial participants reporting magnitude of

changes to daily routine
For two-thirds of respondents the behaviour changes

reported had some effect on their daily routine, but
only 5 per cent reported them as having significantly
affected their daily routines (Figure 2-5).
Participants were asked about the changes they
were still making at the time of the survey, which was
between 6 and 18 months after starting to use their
product (Figure 2-6).
Figure 2-6 Proportion of participants reporting behaviour
changes after 6-18 months
6%
5%
8%
29%
16%
66%
Some change to routine
20%
All
Substantial change to routine

No change to routine
50%
More than half
About half
Less than half
None
The results suggest that the changes in behaviour

that trial respondents implemented were relatively
persistent, with half of respondents reporting that they
were still implementing all of their changed behaviours
and over 85 per cent still implementing half or
more of the changes, even though engagement
with energy data reduced over time for half of
respondent households.
Consistent, statistically significant differences were

found according to product type, pricing/incentive type
and feedback technology type, as shown in
Figure 2-7. Products combining pricing/incentives with
a feedback technology, those on peak event products,
and those using monitors all reported higher rates of
behaviour change.
Figure 2-7 Type of reported behaviour change by product type (top graph), pricing/incentive type (middle graph) and
technology type (bottom graph)
Tariff + Tech
(n=956)
74%
Tariff only
(n=459)
67%
Tech only
(n=342)
67%
Peak Rebate
(n=390)
14%
26%
77%
71%
Budget Smart
(n=282)
71%
Season Smart
(n=132
65%
Monitor
(n=768)
9%
14%
11%
17%
76%
Portal+HAN
(n=84)
15%
12%
66%
25%
Reduced use*
50%
Shifted only
14%
15%
19%
18%
10%
70%
Portal
(n=411)
12%
19%
7%
Price Smart
(n=611)
0%
14%
75%
Did nothing
14%
14%
22%
100%
Product satisfaction
The key findings were that:
Overall the majority of respondents were positive

about the product they had trialled, with a quarter
very satisfied and a further 45 per cent satisfied, as
The two peak rebate products (labelled N4 and N6)

were the best performing products
All trial products in the top half (best responses)
involved a pricing/incentive
On average product satisfaction tended to stay
relatively stable or improve over time
Figure 2-8 Overall trial participant satisfaction with product

0%
25%
OVERALL
(n=2313)
50%
25%
75%
45%
3.8
Rebate + Monitor: N6
(n=201)
31%
48%
Peak Rebate: N4
(n=309)
31%
50%
PriceSmart+ Portal: R8
(n=116)
29%
BudgetSmart + Portal: R3
(n=88)
25%
4.0
4.0
44%
3.9
48%
3.9
SeasonSmart + Portal:
R12(n=37)
27%
43%
3.9
BudgetSmart + Portal
+ HAN: R4 (n=43)
28%
44%
3.9
PriceSmart + Monitor: R7
(n=431)
27%
44%
3.8
PriceSmart + Portal
+ HAN: R9 (n=50)
28%
40%
3.8
PriceSmart: R6
(n=186)
24%
41%
3.8
BudgetSmart +
Monitor: R2 (n=189)
25%
46%
3.8
56%
3.8
BudgetSmart: R1
(n=34)
18%
SeasonSmart + Monitor: R11

(n=72)
29%
Portal: N1
(n=288)
SeasonSmart: R10
(n=54)
15%
Portal+ Energy Monitor: N7

(n=45)
20%
Portal+ Han: N5
(n=13)
42%
14%
Monitor: N2
(n=106)
14%
Satisfied
3.6
42%
3.6
3.5
46%
43%
3.5
39%
Very satisfied
3.7
46%
8%
Lifestyle Assessment: N3
(n=51)
3.7
40%
19%
Neutral
100%
3.4
3
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
3.4
Average score out of 5
3.4.3 Comparing trial participant

responses to different feedback
technologies and tariff products
The following section summarises the key findings of
the analysis which evaluated trial participant responses
to different feedback technologies and tariff products.
Response of trial participants to different

trial products
To inform discussion on the potential for new
dynamic tariffs and/or feedback technologies,
analysis was undertaken to compare the responses
of trial participants within the produce groupings
whichincluded:
Pricing or incentive tariff products only
Feedback technologies only
Combinations of pricing/incentive structures with
feedback technologies
Based on the analysis of trial respondents to the

survey, the following conclusions were made:
Frequency of engagement - Pricing/incentive and
feedback technology combinations were superior
for encouraging trial participants to engage with
their electricity use on a more regular basis
Perception of financial savings - Having a dedicated
tariff structure or rebate to incentivise behaviour
change resulted in trial participants reporting
greater savings
Impact on awareness and ability to reduce bills - All
products increased trial participants awareness of
electricity use and control over electricity bills, but
combination products show the strongest result
Product satisfaction - Using a feedback technology
alone resulted in lower trial participant satisfaction
than if the product included a tariff or incentive
Overall it was concluded that whilst informing trial
participants had benefits, and offering a tariff or
financial incentive to promote time shifting of electricity
helps to save customers money, doing both optimises
customer outcomes across a range of indicators.
Comparing tariff and incentive structures

To inform discussion on the most effective approach
to structuring consumer tariffs and incentives to
achieve positive customer outcomes, results from
trial participants who responded to the survey was
evaluated with the following products compared:
Peak Rebate (network dynamic peak event
incentive payments)
PriceSmart (dynamic peak pricing)
SeasonSmart (seasonal time of use pricing)
BudgetSmart (pre-payment plan)
Based on the analysis of trial respondents to the

survey, the following conclusions were made:
Frequency of engagement - Trial respondents
to the survey with peak event products, both
incentive-based (Peak Rebate) and tariff-based
(PriceSmart) engaged more frequently with their
feedback devices than trial participants with the
other tariff types
Perception of financial savings - Trial respondents
to the survey with peak event products reported
the largest savings, with the Peak Rebate being
the strongest performer. This may be because
Peak Rebate savings were provided separately
on a credit card for trial participant use rather
than waiting for it to be applied to their quarterly
electricity bill
Product satisfaction and likelihood to recommend The results suggest trial respondents preferred peak
event products to time-of-use pricing products, but
that providing a rebate may resonate better with
customers than applying a penalty (higher) tariff
While BudgetSmart was not clearly favoured on
most indicators, its satisfaction and likelihood to
recommend ratings were unexpectedly high. This may
indicate that the unique feature of this product the
more deliberate and constant engagement with
actual accrued electricity bill costs was popular with
some customers.
Comparing feedback technologies
3.5 Trial participant

demographic analysis
The following section summarises the key findings of
the demographic analysis of trial participant responses
in the network and retail trials including:
Financially vulnerable households
Elderly and pensioners
Households with children
Top (high) electricity users
Financially vulnerable households

The following trial respondents were categorised as
experiencing financial vulnerability5 for the purposes of
this analysis:
Households with combined income in the lowest
income bracket ($41,600 p.a.)
Households that rent with government assistance
Households that occupy public housing
Financially vulnerable households were more likely than
other trial participants to think that they could shift a
larger proportion of their electricity use outside of peak
times, with almost 60 per cent suggesting they could
shift all but one or two appliances, compared to 53
per cent for other trial respondent households (Figure
2-9). These results suggest that greater financial
vulnerability increases a consumers willingness to shift
electricity load.
The high visibility of home energy monitors (inhome displays) resulted in strong trial respondent
engagement, which had positive flow-on effects in
terms of awareness and the ability to reduce bills.
The online portal was generally much less successful
in both of these aspects, as the barriers to entry
(having to turn on a computer and log-in) were higher.
However, when the portal was combined with the
HAN, the additional functionality seemed to generate
strong customer benefits. Further, despite not
achieving a high frequency of engagement, the HAN
was shown to be most successful in delivering an
increased ability to reduce trial participant
electricity bills.
onsideration was given to including those who

C
indicated that they had felt unable to pay their energy
bill within the last 12 months in this category, however
there was a large proportion of people reporting
themselves unable to pay who were not in the
three groups included in this composite variable.
Therefore, as this was a subjective measure it was
decided that unable to pay could indicate lifestyle
choices or other circumstances rather than ongoing
financial vulnerability. Importantly, further analysis
(comparisons) between financial vulnerable and
unable to pay groups showed similar results
Figure 2-9 Trial respondents ability to shift major appliance use, by financial vulnerability
18%
Financially Vulnerable
(n=501)
Others
(n=1925
41%
13%
0%
Able to shift all
33%
40%
20%
35%
40%
Unable to shift 1-2
60%
Unable to shift 3-5
At the same time, the vulnerable households in the

survey also rated the behaviour changes they made
as easier (less disruptive) than other households in the
survey. This is an important finding in the context of
developing products that enable financially vulnerable
households to be better off in an incentive-based
pricing environment.
7%
12%
80%
100%
Unable to shift 6-8
Financially vulnerable trial households were commonly

more satisfied than other trial households with their
product and were more likely to recommend their
product to a friend. This suggests that trial households
with a greater desire for control over their bills (through
necessity) were more likely to obtain and appreciate
the benefits offered by the trialled products.
In terms of empowerment of trial participants ability

to reduce their electricity bills, financially vulnerable
households were statistically more likely to report
their ability to reduce their bills had increased a lot
(Figure 2-10).
Figure 2-10 Impact of trial on ability of trial participants to reduce electricity use, by financial vulnerability
31%
Financially Vulnerable
(n=474)
Others
(n=1941
23%
0%
Increased a lot
38%
20%
Increased a little
27%
45%
40%
No impact
29%
60%
80%
Decrease a little
3%
2%
100%
Decreased a lot
Elderly and pensioner households

Elderly households demonstrated somewhat less
perceived energy bill vulnerability than others (i.e.
they were less likely than others to have felt unable to
pay an energy bill within the last year). The difference
was less observable for pensioner households (i.e.
pensioner households were closer to general average)
but still statistically significant. Thus it appears that
among trial participants, low-income households not
exclusively made up of older household members have
a higher incidence of bill vulnerability (Figure 2-11).
6
Elderly and pensioner trial households were no

different to other trial households in how often they
engaged with feedback technology, but they increased
or maintained their level of use of the technology over
time more than other households.
However, elderly households were less likely to report

shifting their time of electricity use during the trial
compared to other households (50 per cent compared
to 59 per cent) or participate in peak events.
Pensioner households were not statistically different
from other trial households in their reported time
shifting behaviour during the trial, but showed slightly
lower peak event participation. This suggests that the
older the household, the less likely it was to engage
strongly with the product, obtain the benefits and
derive satisfaction, but having a lower income offsets
some of this age effect, bringing responses back
towards the average.
Figure 2-11 Inability to pay energy bills in the past year, by age vulnerability
Elderly Households
(n=414)
7%
Pensioner Households
(n=192)
93%
11%
Non-elderly Households
(n=2822)
89%
45%
18%
0%
20%
Have felt unable to pay bill
40%
60%
80%
100%
Have NOT felt unable to pay bill
lderly households were considered to be those who

E
had no members under the age of 70, or only one
person aged in the bracket 5569, and the remainder
aged 70 or over. Elderly households, if they fell into
the lowest income bracket, were termed pensioner
households for the purposes of this analysis. Thus
pensioners are a subset of elderly households.
Households with children
Those trial participant households with children tended

to engage well with the technologies, driven by a
desire for increased control of bills (and potentially
because this group comprises a younger, more
technology savvy age group).
A substantially higher proportion of trial households

with children reported feeling unable to pay their
electricity bill at some time within the past year
compared to households with no children. The
results for households with children were as high as
the results for the financially vulnerable group. This
suggests that despite higher incomes, a larger family
size and higher electricity use of this group produces a
similar level of bill pressure.
Despite this engagement analysis did show

exceptionally clear positive behaviour change
outcomes. For trial households with children there was
no difference in reported reductions in electricity usage
during the trial compared to all survey respondents.
However, households with children more often reported
shifting their time of electricity use in the trial, as shown
in Figure 2-13. Despite this willingness to shift their
electricity use, this did not translate to higher than
average participation in peak events.
The presence of children, and particularly young

children as shown in Figure 2-12, was associated with
a higher engagement of trial participants with feedback
technologies.
Figure 2-12 Frequency of usage of feedback technology, by presence of children
Households
with young
children
(n=247)
Other
households
(n=1991)
8%
7%
11%
12%
0%
Daily
7%
31%
13%
27%
20%
23%
40%
2-3 times per week
21%
22%
60%
Weekly
19%
80%
Every now and then
100%
Once / twice
Never
Figure 2-13 Self-reported change in time of day of electricity use, by presence of children in the trial household
Households
with young
children
(n=508)
Households
with no
children
(n=1212)
0%
Daily
35%
14%
26%
15%
8%
20%
2-3 times per week
10%
32%
40%
Weekly
27%
20%
20%
60%
Every now and then
19%
28%
80%
Once / twice
100%
Never
Top (high) energy users

Relative to other respondents, the top 10 and 20 per
cent of trial electricity users have a stronger than
average desire for control over their electricity bill, but a
lower incidence of not being able to pay their electricity
bills in the past 12 months. This suggests that this
group represents a less vulnerable group from a policy
perspective, but may present the opportunities for
large demand reductions.
No statistically significant difference was found in selfreported reductions in energy usage during the trial for
the top 20 per cent of electricity users, however these
users more often reported shifting their time of energy
use in the trial. This translated to higher perceived
financial savings, with the highest energy users twice
as often estimating saving over $45 per bill compared
to other households.
Product trends, when analysed for the top 20 per cent
of users revealed that, as with all respondents, pricing/
incentive structures (particularly peak event pricing/
rebates) were the primary driver of peak and energy
savings for large energy users. Feedback information
on its own was shown to be of less use.
3.5.1 Actual versus perceived

electricity savings
Additional analysis was undertaken in order to
determine whether survey respondents perceived level
of electricity savings achieved during the trial were
approximately equal to their actual savings from their
electricity meter.
This statistically complex analysis was completed
using individual household-level savings estimates,
which carried a high degree of uncertainty due to the
lack of consistently available smart meter data for 12
months of pre-trial electricity use for all households.
A separate report by Frontier Economics, detailing
the methodology and results, is available from the
Information Clearing House.
While dataset limitations limit the statistical

conclusiveness of the results, the following findings
were made:
When comparing actual with perceived savings
values (in $ per bill) for tariff-based products, it
was found that trial respondents were able to
approximate the level of savings they were receiving
on their bill, although they tended to underestimate
the actual savings by a reasonable margin
Trial participants who reported reducing the
duration or intensity of their use of big appliances
showed average savings two-and-a-half times
greater than those who did not. This suggests that
focussing actions on a few large electricity-intensive
appliances drives greater savings than changes
made to the use of a range of smaller appliances
Actual savings for PriceSmart customers were
substantially higher than for Peak Rebate
customers. This is the opposite of what was
expected when looking at the customer
perceptions of their savings, where the Peak
Rebate product scored highest. This suggests
that while the Peak Rebate was less effective in
achieving real results, the nature of the design
of this product made savings more tangible to
customers relative to quarterly billed tariff products
Participants who said they would pay more to
heat their house on extremely cold days showed
slightly lower average savings on peak event days
when the average temperature was 16 degrees
or less. No relationship was observed for summer
events, likely due to the lack of extreme hot days
during the trial period. This suggests that customer
expectations of their likely behaviour during
extreme winter days were reflected in their actions
Those participants who reported engaging with
their feedback technology daily or two to three
times per week had both higher overall savings and
higher peak savings than those who only engaged
with it weekly or less often (Figure 2-14 and Figure
2-15). This has important implications for designing
products, which aim to reduce barriers to user
interaction in order to maximise user engagement
Figure 2-15 Engagement with feedback vs. peak savings
Figure 2-14 Engagement with feedback technology vs.

technology overall savings
0.04
0.4
0.54%
Peak savings
Overall savings
0.6
0.3%
0.2
0.03
0.02
Weekly or less often
During the customer research survey trial households

were asked to rate the level of importance placed on
factors relating electricity supply. The cost of bills and
maintaining a reliable supply rated equal-highest as
the most important issues as shown in Figure 2-16.
0.016
0.01
0
Daily or 2-3 times
per week
0.032
Daily or 2-3 times

per week
Weekly or less often
Over 80 per cent of survey respondents felt that

receiving real time information on their electricity use
was important to them, while smart meter safety
concerns and the privacy of energy consumption data
rated lowest (albeit still important to almost 60 per cent
of respondents).
Figure 2-16 Importance placed on different priorities relating to electricity supply
Cost of bills
81%
15%
3%
Maintaining reliable
supply
81%
15%
4%
Receiving real time

info
42%
Clean/ renewable
energy source
31%
Protecting privacy
32%
0%
10%
21%
23%
25%
27%
20%
Somewhat important
30%
Neutral
23%
40%
60%
5%
13%
38%
40%
Smart meter safety
Very important
39%
80%
Somewhat unimportant
6% 4%
6%
11%
90%
6%
6%
100%
Very unimportant
3.6 Conclusions from

customer research
survey
The customer research survey successfully obtained
customer perspectives from almost half of all
households participating in the Smart Grid, Smart
City Customer Applications trial. Overall, a high level
of satisfaction with the trialled products was found,
with customers generally obtaining higher levels
of engagement and benefit from products when
a pricing/incentive structure was combined with
a feedback technology, particularly home energy
monitors (in-home displays).
The most popular trial products tended to be
those involving discrete peak events, but the
BudgetSmart products which focussed on regular
proactive customer engagement with billing were
also successful.
Analysis showed large variations in the experiences
of different trial participants with the same product,
which suggests that there will not be one product that
suits all customers in a real world (commercial) product
offering. Diversity in product offerings is likely to be
required to allow customers to choose the products
they think best suit their needs.
Analysis also found that financially vulnerable

households and households with children had
greater than average engagement with the trialled
products and were able to obtain financial benefits
and satisfaction from their use. These results suggest
that trialled smart grid products, particularly dynamic
pricing, generally presented interested financially
vulnerable households with an opportunity to achieve
bill savings, as opposed to a financial threat.
The comparison of actual electricity savings with
customer perceptions of their savings confirmed
that self-reported customer behaviour changes do
correlate with actual delivered savings, and showed
that trial participants were reasonably able to estimate
the savings their products were delivering. However,
those receiving rebates tended to overestimate the
value of their bill savings, while those on dynamic tariff
structures tended to underestimate the bill savings
their products delivered. More frequent billing cycles
and savings estimation features may help dynamic
tariff customers more accurately understand their
savings, while caution should be exercised when
asking customers directly how much they saved, as
this may be influenced by the product type or design.
4 Results of national integrated

cost benefit assessment
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report presents the integrated cost
benefit assessment results for the medium scenario.
The integrated cost benefit assessment includes the
costs and benefits of the integrated smart grid case,
as well as individual technologies and products. The
cost benefit assessment is presented in terms of a
number of performance measures commonly used by
the electricity sector:
Year in which each of the smart grid technologies,
products and dynamic tariffs could be
economically deployed for different network
topologies across either BAU or smart grid cases
Net difference in electricity grid-sourced
consumption (and total consumption) growth and
peak demand growth
Differences in the profile of customer demand
for grid-sourced electricity and network asset
utilisation
Differences in the required network capital
investment and operational expenditure in Australia
Changes in network reliability
Differences in electricity generator costs and
benefits and greenhouse gas emissions intensity
Impact of the smart grid case on electricity bills
4.1.1 Consideration of
macroeconomic trends
Clearly, the costs and benefits of smart grid
technology, and the implications of the deployment
of smart grid technology, will depend on future
conditions and outcomes in the power sector and the
economy as a whole. The business case assessment
(national cost benefit assessment) was considered
under three macroeconomic scenarios reflecting three
different potential future states of the world. The
three macroeconomic scenarios (termed scenarios)
were used to test the sensitivity of the modelling
outcomes to the feasible range of future states of the
world, which are specified as distinct sets of internally
consistent demographic, economic, technological and
energy pricing conditions.
A full description of these economic scenarios and
the process under which they were developed has
been described in Appendix Two (which details the
cost benefit assessment methodology), however,
a summary of the economic scenarios has been
provided here:
Medium scenario macroeconomic and
demographic trends over the 30 year forecast
period are closest to expected outcomes or
conventional wisdom, which also represent a
central case
Low scenario macroeconomic trends over
the 30 year forecast period reflect less favourable
conditions for the Australian economy, with lower
economic growth. Demographic trends over the 30
year forecast period reflect slower population growth
High scenario macroeconomic trends over the
30 year forecast period reflect more favourable
conditions for the Australian economy, with higher
economic growth. Demographic trends over the 30
year forecast period reflect faster population growth
Unless otherwise stated, the results presented in this

report represent the national outcomes for the medium
macroeconomic scenario (the medium scenario).
In addition, where notable differences (or similarities)
between different states and / or macroeconomic
scenarios were found, these have been discussed
within the relevant results sections. Detailed tables
showing net cost benefit assessment results for all
states under each macroeconomic scenario has been
provided in Appendix Three7 of this report.
Following the presentation of the net national cost
benefit assessment in this part of the report, Part
Three discusses the key conclusions and provides
a series of recommendations relating to the future
deployment of smart grid technologies in Australia.
4.2 Deployment of
smart grid technologies
Table 2-3 shows the results of the preliminary cost
benefit analysis that determined in which year (if
any) each of the Smart Grid, Smart City smart grid
technologies, products and tariffs were determined to
show a positive net present value (NPV). This process
was completed for each macroeconomic scenario
(low, medium and high) and for four different network
topologies. The results presented in this table should
be interpreted in the following way:
Red cells indicate that the smart grid option returns
a negative NPV for any scenario (high, medium or
low) and therefore has no economic business case
compared to BAU
Orange cells indicate that the smart grid option
returns a positive NPV for some scenarios (high,
medium or low) and therefore may have a business
case compared to BAU
Green cells indicate that the smart grid option has
a positive NPV under all scenarios (high, medium
and low) and therefore is likely to have a business
case compared to BAU
Where deployment was shown to be economic under
any scenario, the year in which full deployment is most
economically achieved shown within the cell.
or stakeholders who have an interest in

F
understanding the specific result areas for individual
states and the NEM, these data are also able to be
extracted from the model published as part of this
project. This model is available at
Table 2-2 Technology deployment results for BAU and smart grid cases across different Australian network types
Technology
Business as usual (BAU)

Scope
Smart grid scope
Fault Detection, Isolation and

Restoration (FDIR)
No FDIR technology
Retrofit of automated HV field switches with

monitoring
2019
2019
Active Volt-Var Control (AVVC)
No AVVC technology
Retrofit of automated capacitors or voltage

regulators
2019
2019
2019

Monitoring (SFM)
No automated SFM
technology
Retrofit HV feeder and distribution transformer

monitoring
2019
2024
Smart Meter
Infrastructure
Stand-alone
Spinning disc metering to all

customers (except Victoria)
Retrofit of smart meters to all existing customers

(also known as a full deployment approach)
2024
2024
2024
2019
Dynamic tariffs
plus feedback
technologies
Spinning disc metering
2014
2014
2014
No feedback technology
Voluntary adoption of dynamic tariffs by some

customers
Provision of a smart meter
Provision of an in home display
Inclining block tariffs for remaining customers
EV adoption with
unconstrained charging
EV adoption with dynamic tariffs and controlled

charging
2019
2019
2019
2019
Voluntary DG adoption by
some customers
Voluntary DG adoption by some customers
2014
2014
2014
2014
2024
2024
2024
2024
Electric vehicle
charging
Distributed
generation
Inclining block tariffs for all

customers
Size and configuration

optimised for inclining block
tariff
Distributed
storage
Voluntary DG adoption
by some customers
Size and configuration
optimised for inclining block
tariff
Network Type
CBD
Size and configuration optimised for dynamic

tariffs
Urban
Short
Rural
Long
Rural
2014

Voluntary DG adoption by some customers
Size and configuration optimised for dynamic
tariffs

NO
I n some circumstances Smart Grid option returns a positive NPV for some macroeconomic scenarios (high, medium and low) in $2014 for the assessment period through to 2034. The year nominated refers to the
medium scenario.
YES Smart Grid option returns a positive NPV for all macroeconomic scenarios (high, medium and low) in $2014 for the assessment period through to 2034. The year nominated refers to the medium scenario.

Smart Grid option returns a negative NPV for all macroeconomic scenarios (high, medium and low) in $2014 for the assessment period through to 2034. The year nominated refers to the medium scenario.
4.3 Individual
technology cost benefit
assessments
Analysis of the net integrated costs and benefits from

the deployment of integrated cost effective smart grid
technologies in Australia under a low macroeconomic
growth in the future showed a net national benefit of just
over $9.5 billion over the next 20 years (Figure 2-17).
This section examines the business case for each of

the individual technologies including grid applications,
customer applications, distributed generation and
distributed storage solutions and electric vehicle
smart charging.
This reflects generally a lower strength in the Australian

dollar, technology capital costs not reducing as quickly
as under higher growth scenarios and lower demand for
electricity in Australia.
Figure 2-17, Figure 2-18 and Figure 2-19 provides a

summary of the national net present costs and benefits
for individual smart grid technologies and products for
each network type (under the low, medium and high
economic scenarios).
FDIR benefits are consistently high across all three of

the economic scenarios given there is a consistent
value of customer reliability used (see discussion under
FDIR technology benefits).
2,707
20,000
15,945
263
213
268
(125) (1,578)
(893)
795
(115) (2,542)
(5,438)
(144)
15,000
9,525
10,000
5,000
SMI Enabled
DG & DS
EV Charging
SMI
Dynamic
Tariffs
AVVC
FOIR
SFM
DG & DS
EV Charging
SMI
Dynamic
Tariffs
AVVC
FOIR
168
0
SFM
Net Present Value ($M 2014 Real)
Figure 2-17 National gross costs and benefits and total net benefit by technology and network type (low scenario)
SMI Enabled
Costs
Total
Australia Net Present Value

CBD
Urban
SR
LR
In aggregate, the national net benefit from the

deployment of integrated cost effective smart grid
technologies, products and dynamic tariffs under the
medium economic scenario was in the order of $27
billion over the next 20 years (Figure 2-18). Under the
medium economic scenario, FDIR, dynamic tariffs
and AVVC show the greatest potential for net
economic benefits.
products and dynamic tariffs under the high economic

scenario was more than $28.4 billion over the next 20
years. Consistent with the medium economic scenario,
FDIR, dynamic tariffs and AVVC show the greatest
potential for net economic benefits. Under the high
economic scenario, significantly higher volumes of
distributed generation are deployed, which results in
a significant national investment cost by consumers in
these technologies. This is further discussed later in this
section of the report.
The national net benefit from the deployment of

integrated cost effective smart grid technologies,
Figure 2-18 National gross costs and benefits and total net benefit by technology and network type (medium scenario)
15,235
25,000
3,635
20,000
796
354
27,183
(4,981)
15,745 855
(164) (1,334)
15,000
(99) (2,514)
(333)
(265)
10,000
5,000
DG & DS
SMI
DYNAMIC
TARIFFS
AVVC
FOIR
SFM
DG & DS
SMI Enabled
EV CHARGING
SMI Enabled
EV CHARGING
SMI
DYNAMIC
TARIFFS
AVVC
252
FOIR
SFM
Net Present Value (SM 2014 Real)
30,000
Costs
Total

CBD
Urban
SR
LR
Figure 2-19 National gross costs and benefits and total net benefit by technology and network type (high scenario)
19,880
25,000
3,264
20,000
931
470
28,435
(8,354)
15,797 638
(108) (1,106)
(84) (2,529)
15,000
10,000
(344)
(265)
5,000
Costs
CBD
Urban
SR
LR
DG & DS
SMI
DYNAMIC
TARIFFS
AVVC
FOIR
SFM
DG & DS
SMI Enabled
EV CHARGING
SMI Enabled
EV CHARGING
SMI
DYNAMIC
TARIFFS
AVVC
247
FOIR
SFM
Net Present Value ($M 2014 Real)
30,000
Total
4.4 Discussion of
the medium economic
results
The greatest potential economic benefit from the
deployment of these technologies comes from FDIR
technologies which account for approximately
53 per cent of the total net benefits under the
medium scenario, mostly as a result of improved
customer reliability.
The waterfall diagram shows a potential $15.2 billion
in avoided costs from the deployment of distributed
generation and storage. This represents the avoided
investment in distributed generation under the smart
grid case as a result of the introduction of dynamic
tariffs which provide price signals to consumers to
encourage more economically efficient investment.
Inturn this economic signal results in lower investment
in distributed generation under the smart grid case
compared to BAU.
The introduction of dynamic tariffs drives the net

benefit result for distributed generation and storage
investment as well as the direct net benefits from
customer responses to the tariffs themselves. Dynamic
tariffs therefore account for 42 per cent of the total
net benefits, with approximately 90 per cent of these
benefits resulting from more efficient customer
distributed generation and storage investment
decisions.
These benefits are discussed in greater detail under
each of the technology sections in this part of the
report. In addition the smart grid technology costs
and benefits by technology for the low and high
macroeconomic scenarios are presented in Appendix
Three of this report.
Table 2-3 shows the relative contribution of each of the
individual technologies to the smart grid cost
benefit assessment for the period 2014 to 2034 by
benefit category.
The reduced investment in distributed generation

under the smart grid case means that there is a need
for increased volumes of centralised generation in
order to meet consumer electricity consumption and
peak demand requirements. This results in increased
centralised generation costs (such as additional fuel
and other operational costs) which are shown as a
negative benefit of $5 billion in Figure 2-18. This is
further discussed in the distributed generation and
distributed storage results section.
Table 2-3 Smart grid technology costs and benefits, by technology and benefit type (medium scenario)
Grid consumption
Network operation
and maintenance
Reliability
Billing, metering and

customer service
Total
FDIR
1,334
(4)
(15,741)
(15,745)
(14,411)
AVVC
99
(846)
(9)
(855)
(756)
SFM
164
(22)
(230)
(252)
(88)
333
(796)
(796)
(463)
Dynamic
tariffs
2,514
(1,798)
(121)
(1,717)
(3,635)
(1,121)
Electric
vehicle
charging
265
(360)
(360)
(89)
DG/DS
(15,235)
2,772
2,005
204
4,981
(10,254)
Total integrated
(10,527)
(232)
1,882
(26)
(15,971)
(2,309)
(16,656)
(27,183)
Smart Meter Infrastructure
Smart
grid
costs
(capex
and
opex)
($M
2014)
Peak Demand
Net
Benefits
($M
2014)
Tech
Stand- alone
Gross Benefits ($M 2014)
Figures in ( ) represent a positive net present value i.e. a benefit whilst figures outside of the ( ) represent a cost
or a negative net present value
These results show that 95 per cent of the gross

benefits are as a result of improved reliability with
billing metering and customer services benefits the
next major category of benefits. There are relatively
few network operation benefits. The results also show
a cost in terms of grid consumption. This comes as
a result of the additional investment in centralised
generation that is required under the smart grid case
because of consumers investing more efficiently in
distributed generation compared with BAU.
These results clearly show that the majority of benefits

from the deployment of smart grid technologies,
products and dynamic tariffs accrue within urban
networks. This is particularly the case with strong
benefits for the introduction of dynamic tariffs which
results in reduced (and more economically efficient)
investment in distributed generation in urban networks.
FDIR benefits are evenly split between urban and short
rural networks, with relatively few benefits in long rural
networks due to the small number of customers on
this network type. There net benefit on CBD networks
is relatively small due to the existing investment in
these networks particularly in terms of reliability.
Table 2-4 shows the relative contribution by network

types over the period 2014 to 2034.
A detailed summary of these results for each different

smart grid technology is presented in the following
sections. The detailed tables of results for the low and
high economic scenarios are provided in Appendix
Three of this report.
Table 2-4 Smart grid technology costs and benefits, by technology and network type (medium scenario)
Short Rural
Long Rural
Total
Net
Benefits
($M
2014)
Urban

Smart grid
costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Tech
FDIR
1,334
(7,899)
(7,847)
(15,745)
AVVC
99
(609)
(205)
(41)
(855)
(756)
SFM
164
(9)
(243)
(252)
(88)
Standalone
333
(4)
(418)
(299)
(75)
(796)
(463)
Dynamic
tariffs
2,514
(33)
(2,307)
(1,130)
(165)
(3,635)
(1,121)
Electric
vehicle
charging
265
(13)
(205)
(120)
(15)
(354)
(89)
DG/DS
(15,235)
725
1,983
1,649
624
4,981
(10,254)
Total integrated
(10,527)
666
(9,455)
(7,952)
85
(16,656)
CBD
(14,411)
(27,183)
Figures in ( ) represent a positive net present value i.e. a benefit whilst figures outside of the ( ) represent a cost or
a negative net present value.
4.4.1 Fault Detection, Isolation

national deployment of FDIR technologies for the

medium scenario.
FDIR technologies have the potential to improve a

distribution businesss fault detection and response
capabilities including the discovery of a fault,
approximating its location, isolating the equipment
responsible, restoring power to non-faulted sections,
and deploying resources to restore power to the
affected areas.
FDIR demonstrated a net positive cost benefit

assessment result several times higher than any other
smart grid technology assessed, with a net positive
benefit of approximately $14.41 billion for the period
through to 2034. However, in order to achieve these
benefits, a significant initial investment in the order of
$1.33 billion is required to realise this benefit.
For the purposes of ascertaining the full costs and

benefits under the smart grid case, it was assumed
that there were no financial barriers that would impact
or constrain the deployment of FDIR by distribution
network operators.
More than 99 per cent of the FDIR benefits accrue to

improved customer reliability, with the remainder, with
approximately $4 million attributable to reduced fault
finding costs which represent an operational saving for
distribution network operators.
Figure 2-20 shows the benefits, costs and total

net benefit of a financially unconstrained
Figure 2-20 National gross costs and benefits and total net benefit of FDIR deployment, medium scenario
20,500
Present Value ($Million)
15,741
24
1,310
15,500
14,411
10,500
5,500
500
-4,500
Search costs
VCR
Benefits
FDIR Opex
FDIR Capex
Costs
FDIR Net Benefit
The strong NPV result for FDIR was driven by the

monetised value that customers place on a reliable
(continuous) supply of electricity8, as established
by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
Importantly if a lower value were to be placed on the
value of customer reliability, this would impact the
size of the national net benefits for FDIR technologies.
Given AEMOs work to establish the value of customer
reliability that this analysis has used for its assessment
is several years old9, consideration should be given
to updating this work and reassessing the FDIR
results based on the updated findings. This is further
discussed in Part Three of this report.
However, even if the VCR values were to be decreased
significantly, investment in FDIR technologies will still
show a significant national net benefit.
The benefits of FDIR also varied by network type as
shown in Table 2-5.
Based on the findings of this assessment, the majority
of the benefits from FDIR technologies could be
anticipated to accrue in urban networks where a
national NPV of almost $7.9 billion for the period to
2034 was identified. Nationally, short rural networks
also showed a potential positive net benefit of
approximately $7.85 billion.
Based on the analysis, FDIR did not show a positive

benefit in CBD networks or long rural network
segments. The business case for FDIR investment
in CBD networks is undermined by the existing high
reliability in these networks, meaning that additional
investment will not deliver significantly improved
reliability outcomes for customers. Long rural
networks also do not present an opportunity to deliver
improvements in reliability from investment in FDIR
because of the assumption that long rural networks
are radial rather than meshed, and there is also an
existing use of recloser technology in many feeders10.
This characteristic of long rural networks significantly
limits any improvements from FDIR deployments.
The FDIR high and low scenario results were very
similar to the medium scenario with the exception
being in the quantum of capital investment for FDIR,
which is driven by the differential in the foreign
exchange rates under each of these scenarios.
Accordingly, the high and low economic scenario
outcomes showed $14.69 billion and $14.36 billion in
net benefits respectively (refer to Appendix Three).
Table 2-5 FDIR costs and benefits (by network type) under the medium economic scenario
1,334
(7,899)
(7,847)
8 Represented by the Value of Customer Reliability

(VCR) in Figure 2-20. Refer to the Glossary in this
report for a definition of VCR.
9 The values adopted in this study come from the
AEMOs National Value of Customer Reliability Report
(2012) which are in turn derived from Victorian surveys
conducted in 2007.
Net Benefit
Total
Long
Rural
Short
Rural
Urban
($M 2014)
Gross Benefits ($M 2014 )
CBD
Capex
and opex
(15,745)
(14,411)
10 Note that modelling improvements from the

deployment of a microgrid was not part of the scope
of this report
Generally the best business case for deploying FDIR

will be in geographical regions where existing levels
of distribution network reliability are poorest (i.e.
those feeders with high System Average Interruption
Duration Index (SAIDI) levels. This was demonstrated
in the analysis by the state-based results for FDIR
which showed Victoria accounting for 37 per cent of
the total NPV result for all of Australia - approximately
$5.3 billion. For Victorian networks, almost 62 per
cent of its benefit could be derived from deployment
of FDIR technology in its short rural networks, with the
remainder of benefits achievable from improvements to
its urban network.
Other states also showed the potential for benefits
from the deployment of FDIR technology including:
New South Wales at approximately $3.8 billion,
Queensland at $3.53 billion; Western Australia at
almost $612 million; Tasmania at $589 million; and
South Australia $561 million. State based results are
provided in Appendix Three of this report.
In practice, any investment in technologies which
improve distribution network reliability is likely to be
constrained by the current Service Target Performance
Incentive Scheme (STPIS) program managed by the
Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The STPIS program
operates by assigning rewards or penalties to a
distribution network operator, as a percentage of its
revenue, where performance is better or worse than
the target performance level, over a five year regulatory
period. In effect any investment that network operators
make must be paid back within this five year period
(as part of the its 5-year regulatory cycle). Given the
significance of the investment in FDIR technologies,
it is unlikely that the current focus on payback within
the five year period will be sufficient to realise the full
extent of the benefits for this technology.
Summary of key findings

FDIR technologies
1. Deployment of FDIR technologies under the
medium economic smart grid scenario were
shown to deliver an NPV value of $14.41 billion
through to 2034. To achieve the benefits
suggested by the cost benefit assessment,
approximately $1.33 billion of capital
investment would be required to deploy FDIR
technology in Australia.
2. The level of potential national benefit
demonstrated by FDIR technologies
is predicated on the value proposition
established by AEMO in the monetised value it
found Australians place on network reliability.
Given this, AEMOs VCR figures should be
updated and validated prior to investment.
3. FDIR deployment suggested a strongly
positive NPV for all states under all economic
scenarios. Given FDIR predominantly delivers
improvements in reliability, deployment
of FDIR technology has the potential to
deliver the greatest benefits in those states
or geographical locations with the poorest
network reliability (high SAIDI) statistics.
4. The greatest economic potential for reliability
benefits from FDIR deployment exists in
meshed urban and short rural networks.
5. There are very limited opportunities for FDIR
benefits to be achieved in CBD areas given the
existing high levels of reliability in Australia.
6. There are very limited opportunities for FDIR in
long rural networks due to the lack of meshing
and the existing use of recloser technology in
long rural networks.
4.4.2 Active VoltVAr control

(AVVC)
Active Volt-VAr Control (AVVC) technologies apply
automated voltage regulating and reactive power
controls to measure and maintain acceptable voltages
and high power factor at all points in the distribution
network under varying load conditions. As the amount
of grid-connected distributed generation (particularly
solar PV) continues to increase, there is likely to be a
greater need for network operators to deploy
AVVC technologies in order to manage
network power quality and control voltages on the
distribution network.
For the purposes of ascertaining the full costs and
benefits under the smart grid case, it was assumed
that there were no financial barriers that would impact
or constrain the deployment of AVVC by distribution
network operators.
Figure 2-21 shows the benefits, costs and total

net benefit of a financially unconstrained national
deployment of AVVC technologies for the medium
macroeconomic scenario.
In aggregate, the medium scenario modelling showed
that nationally for an investment of $99 million in
AVVC technologies, $855 million in benefits could be
achieved. The net result was an NPV of $756 million
across Australia for the period to 2034. These benefits
derive from avoided line losses (reduced generator
operational expenditure e.g. fuel, CO2e) and improved
power factor which reduces the need to build
additional network to meet peak demand.
In addition, given that AVVC-style control is a key
enabler to derive benefits of distributed generation
(e.g. higher solar PV penetration) the benefits of AVVC
are likely to increase with growing deployment of
distributed generation.
As with other smart grid technologies, the benefits
of AVVC also vary based on the type of network as
shown in Table 2-6.
Figure 2-21 National gross costs and benefits and total net benefit of AVVC deployment, medium scenario
1,000
900
846
98
800
756
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
9
Avoided Line
Losses
Peak Benefits
Benefits
Capex
Opex
Costs
AVVC Net
Benefitsd
Table 2-6 AVVC costs and benefits (by network type) under the medium scenario
99
(609)
The modelling results suggested that automated

capacitor banks and voltage regulators (both types of
AVVC technologies) could be economically deployed
on high voltage networks within urban, short rural
and long rural networks from 2019. Deployment of
AVVC devices within CBD networks was not found
to be economically viable under any of the economic
scenarios due to high levels of existing reliability.
For urban networks, gross benefits in the order of
$609 million could be achieved, along with a further
$205 million for short rural networks.
Across the high, medium and low economic
scenarios, modelling suggested that there was very
little difference in the location and magnitude of the
net benefits, implying that under any scenario, there
were likely to be net benefits from AVVC deployment,
particularly for urban and short rural networks.
From a state-based assessment, New South Wales
showed the greatest potential to derive benefits from
AVVC deployment, with an NPV of $273 million from
deployment in urban and short rural networks (the
benefits were shared approximately equally between
these networks).
Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania also showed good
potential economic benefits from the deployment of
AVVC with NPVs of $238 million, $116 million and$58
million respectively. As with the New South Wales
assessment, these benefits were predominantly spread
across urban and short rural networks. Results for
Victoria and Tasmania also showed an economic case
for deploying in long rural networks.
Western Australia and South Australia also showed
positive NPVs of $46 million and $24 million
respectively.
(205)
Total
Long
Rural
Short
Rural
Urban
($M 2014)
Net Benefits
($M 2014)
CBD
Capex and
opex
(41)
(855)
(756)
In Australia there appears to be a net economic benefit

for a more rapid deployment of AVVC for a network
business alone. Notwithstanding, there are additional
generation sector benefits which could be captured
relating to reductions in line losses to improve marginal
business cases for AVVC which may exist in some
parts of networks.

AVVC technologies
7. AVVC technologies showed a positive
financial result across all economic scenarios
for all states for urban and short rural
feeders. In addition, long rural feeders in
Victoria and South Australia also showed a
positive business case. Under the medium
macroeconomic scenario the NPV for AVVC
deployment across all network types was $756
million for Australia through to 2034.
8. In Australia there appears to be a net financial
benefit for a more rapid deployment of AVVC,
considering network benefits alone
9. The greatest financial benefits from AVVC are
likely to be achieved in a distribution networks
worst capacity or voltage constrained areas.
10. While AVVC delivers reduced line losses,
these are minimal relative to the demand
benefits for networks in terms of alleviating
capacity constraints and associated delayed
augmentation.
11. AVVC-style control could be a key enabler
to derive benefits and manage some of the
network costs from distributed generation (e.g.
from higher solar penetration). The benefits of
AVVC technologies are likely to increase with
increasing levels of distributed generation.
4.4.3 Substation and Feeder

Monitoring (SFM)
some network operators are currently deploying this

technology within Australia.
There are two functions of SFM technologies - to

monitor the network state (performance monitoring);
and to monitor the condition of assets within the
electrical distribution network.
Dissolved gas analysis and partial discharge

monitoring was shown to be uneconomic for all
network types and all economic scenarios in the
modelling. In general all asset monitoring technologies
were excluded early in the modelling process due
to the high cost of the retrofit devices relative to the
realisable benefits in avoided outages, inspections and
lower cost maintenance.
Due to the high cost of monitoring equipment and

the need for dedicated communications links, online asset condition monitoring has traditionally been
limited to a small number of high-value network assets
in the zone substations. Performance monitoring of
transmission lines, feeders, distribution transformers
and other assets outside the substation has
typically been carried out through scheduled
inspections and tests.
including providing information to help manage outages
and optimise maintenance by helping to avoid outages
and lower maintenance and inspection costs.
For both network performance and asset condition
monitoring, individual components can either be
integrated within new asset purchases or deployed as
an aftermarket retrofit for existing equipment.
The two different aspects of SFM technologies are
discussed further below.
Asset condition monitoring

The preliminary cost benefit assessment found that
after-market asset condition monitoring devices were
uneconomic due to the high capital cost of the retrofit
devices relative to the realisable benefits of avoided
outages, and lower cost maintenance and inspections.
If retrofitting after-market asset monitoring devices
is seen as desirable by the sector, there is further
development required to bring down the costs of these
technologies. Conversely integrated asset monitoring
capability within new infrastructure is significantly lower
in cost and is growing in availability.
The business case for real time thermal monitoring of
assets to unlock additional capacity was also shown
to be uneconomic by the preliminary cost benefit
assessment results. Despite this finding, it is noted that
Given these results, compared to other smart grid

technology benefit areas, it is unlikely that SFM asset
condition monitoring technologies will be retrofitted
within Australia due to their high costs and relatively
low benefits11.
Further discussion on the Smart Grid, Smart City SFM
trial findings specific to asset monitoring is presented
in Part One of this report.
Network performance monitoring

Network performance monitoring technologies
include earth fault indicators, line fault indicators,
and substation metering. The benefits of network
monitoring technologies include avoiding the costs
of load survey and power quality surveys as well
as providing automated fault detection which both
reduces outage time and fault finding labour costs.
Network monitoring was found to be uneconomic in
urban and rural network segments because of the
overlap of reliability benefits that are achieved through
FDIR technology deployment. Further, due to the ability
of smart meter infrastructure to achieve some of the
power quality and load quality survey benefits that
SFM can generate, SFM technologies were shown
to be economically deployed in CBD and long rural
networks in only some states.
Figure 2-22 shows the results of the assessment including
the gross benefits and costs and total net benefit of
a national deployment of SFM for network monitoring
technologies under the medium economic scenario.
11
oting that under some niche applications of

N
high value or high risk assets deployment may be
warranted despite the high costs
Figure 2-22 National gross costs and benefits and total net benefit from SFM (network monitoring) technologies (medium
scenario)
350
300
21
250
24
230
139
200
150
88
100
50
1
0
Search
costs
VCR
Load Surveys
PQ Surveys
Benefits
Load Surveys
Opex
SFM Net
Benefit
Costs
The results showed a national net benefit of $88million

for an investment of $163 million attributable to SFM
network monitoring technologies. This includes $230
million from improved reliability benefits to customers,
based on the value of customer reliability (discussed
previously in the FDIR technology results). In addition
there are also operational savings from avoided load
and power quality surveys, which contribute to a

further $21 million in benefits in present value terms.
The benefits of SFM also vary by network type as
shown in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7 SFM (network monitoring) costs and benefits (by network type) under the medium scenario
Net Beneftis
($M 2014)
Urban
Short
Rural
Long
Rural
Total
CBD
Capex and
opex
164
(9)
(243)
(252)
(88)
Under an integrated modelling approach SFM network

monitoring technologies were shown only to be
economically deployed in niche network segments
such as CBDs in 2019 and long rural in 2024, in
locations where FDIR is not deployed. The lack of SFM
network monitoring technology deployment is not due
to a lack of a business case, but rather the better
value proposition offered by FDIR in most parts of
the network.

SFM technologies
1. It was clear from the preliminary cost benefit
assessment that aftermarket asset condition
monitoring devices were uneconomic in most
cases, due to the high cost of the retrofit
devices relative to the realisable benefits of
avoided outages, and lower cost maintenance
and inspections. However, integrated asset
monitoring is significantly lower cost and
becoming more widely available.
2. There is further development required to bring
down the cost of aftermarket asset monitoring
technology for retrofitting before it becomes
economic.
3. Dissolved gas analysis, partial discharge and
thermal monitoring technologies were found
to be uneconomic for all network types in the
preliminary cost benefit assessment.
4. Distribution network monitoring was found to
be economic in a number of niche network
segments including CBDs networks as well as
long rural networks. In total under the medium
macroeconomic scenario a national net benefit
of $88 million was shown to be attributable to
SFM network monitoring technologies.
4.4.4 Smart meter infrastructure

(SMI) stand-alone
Smart meters provide the enabling infrastructure
required for smart grids. In a stand-alone capacity,
smart meter infrastructure provides:
The capability to remotely collect 30-minute
(interval) data on the electricity usage of customers
Power quality data to monitor networks e.g. voltage
and current
Smart meter infrastructure also enables:
The introduction of dynamic tariffs, allowing cost
reflective price signals to be sent to electricity
consumers
Remote delivery of off-peak scheduling for hot
water systems (replacing the existing ripple
control systems)
cycling of air-conditioning (DRED) for the purpose
of managing electricity demand during peak events
under the smart grid case.
Communications and metering for electric vehicle
smart charging
The stand-alone SMI business case considers only
those direct benefits described above, or those
requiring no intervention by the consumer.
The cost benefit assessment did not consider any
potential barriers to deploying smart meter infrastructure
in locations where physical constraints make the
installation of the technology challenging (e.g. unit
blocks). This aspect is further discussed in Part Three of
this report and is discussed in the Ausgrid Smart Meter
Infrastructure Technical Compendium (this can be found
at https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au)
Under the BAU case for stand-alone SMI, no smart

meter deployments were assumed to occur, with
spinning disc metering continuing to be used (with the
exception of Victoria where a mandated deployment if
smart meters is currently well advanced).
Figure 2-23 shows a proportional breakdown of the

key benefits from the deployment of smart metering
infrastructure, including avoided costs for manual
customer connections and disconnections, meter
reading, load surveys (capacity monitoring) and power
quality monitoring.
The cost benefit assessment result for stand-alone

SMI gives rise to a net present value (NPV) of $463
million with an investment (gross cost) of $333 million
and with gross benefits of $796 million.
The benefits by individual network type are shown in

Table 2-8.
Figure 2-23 Smart meter benefits - Avoided operational costs
0.05
3.78
16.22
11.16
Avoided Re/Disco ($M)
Avoided Meter Reading ($M)
Avoided load surveys ($M)
Avoided PQ Surveys ($M)
Table 2-8 SMI costs and benefits (by network type) under the medium macroeconomic scenario
Short
Rural
Long
Rural
Total
333
Urban
($M 2014)
CBD
Capex and
opex
(4)
(418)
(299)
(75)
(796)
Net Benefits
($M 2014)
(463)
Under the smart grid case, the business case for standalone smart meter infrastructure is positive from 2019 in
all long rural network segments except South Australia
which becomes NPV positive from 2024. All network
segments show a positive economic business case for
stand-alone SMI roll-outs by 2034.
The net positive business case in later years for all
network segments is due to a reduction in capital costs
of the smart meter device which is expected to reduce
significantly by 2019 to an installed cost of $178 per
meter.
The increased economic deployment of smart meter
infrastructure over time depends on the adoption of
both dynamic tariffs and distributed generation and
distributed storage by electricity customers which
include smart meter infrastructure when deployed.
Within this report, this has been termed a customer led
roll out.
The change in smart meter penetration in Australia
over time has been shown in Figure 2-24. This shows
the gradual increase in the number of smart meters

in Australia under the smart grid medium scenario.
It shows that in 2014 approximately two thirds of all
customer meters have the traditional spinning disc
electricity meters with the majority of smart meters
being located in Victoria due to their mandated
deployment.
The pink shaded area of the chart shows the impact
of the smart grid medium case assumptions including
customers taking up distributed generation and
distributed storage devices and voluntarily adopting
dynamic tariffs. As previously described, this has
been termed a customer led rollout of smart meter
infrastructure.
The orange shaded area of the chart shows
the growing number of smart meters which are
economically deployed under the medium economic
smart grid case. This has been termed a full
deployment of smart meters for the purposes of this
report. This is similar to the mandated rollout of smart
meters currently underway in Victoria.
Figure 2-24 Smart meter penetration under the smart grid case (medium macroeconomic scenario)
18
16
14
Meters (Millions)
12
10
8
6
4
2
2014
2019
Spinning Disc
2024
Full Deployment
VIC Rollout
2029
2034
Customer Led
The overall penetration of smart meter infrastructure in

the early years of the modelling is low because there
is not an economic business case for the majority of
network topologies for a full deployment scenario (with
the exception of some long rural networks in some
states). The majority of smart meters in 2014 are due
to the Victorian mandated deployment of SMI. Over
time total numbers of SMI increase as customer led
deployments from the uptake of distributed generation
and distributed storage, dynamic tariffs, electric
vehicles and DRED control products.
As the number of smart meters grows over time due
to increases in customer led deployment, the cost of
manually reading customer meters also increases (due
to the declining numbers of spinning disc meters the
same historical travel distance is still required to read a
declining population of spinning disc meters). In turn the
increased meter reading costs and reduction in the cost
per meter over time further enhances the business case
for smart meter infrastructure deployment. Modelling
showed that by 2029 smart meter infrastructure can
been economically deployed to all electricity customers
in Australia.
Modelling suggested that customer led deployment
results in a total national smart meter penetration of
around 45 per cent by 2024 at which stage economic
rollouts become more broadly beneficial.
Modelling results under the high economic scenario
also show a very similar trend with approximately 42
per cent of all customers having a smart meter by
2024 with full deployment by 2029.
Summary of key findings smart

metering
1. Full deployment smart meter infrastructure
deployment does not currently provide an
economic return on investment.
2. Smart meter infrastructure currently provides
an economic return on investment from 2014
when deployed in conjunction with dynamic
tariffs and customer products such as
distributed generation, distributed storage,
electric vehicles and DRED control products.
3. The deployment of smart meters via a full
deployment rollout was found to become
economically positive from as early as 2019 on
long rural networks, with the business case for
a broader network smart meter rollout positive
from 2029.
4. Modelling suggested that under a medium
economic scenario, smart meter penetration in
Australia will reach around 45 per cent by 2024
driven by customer led deployments. After
this period, a full deployment of smart meters
becomes economically viable.
5. The medium macroeconomic cost benefit
assessment result for full deployment SMI
gives rise to a net present value of $463 million
nationally for the period to 2034.
4.4.5 Dynamic tariffs and

customer feedback technologies
(plus SMI)
Under the smart grid case, electricity consumers who

choose to adopt distributed generation and distributed
storage products were also assumed to adopt
dynamic tariffs.
A number of different customer-facing products and

tariffs were trialled as part of the Smart Grid, Smart
City Program. These have been previously described
in Part One of this report.
These assumptions resulted in approximately 12per

centof customers remaining on the default tariff
(assumed to be an inclining block tariff), by the end of
the assessment period for the smart grid case.
Dynamic tariffs combined with customer feedback

technologies (including SMI), incentivises customers to
behave in a way that either assists retailers to manage
electricity market price risk and/or assists network
operators to reduce future capital investment in response
to unconstrained growth in peak demand. These
behaviours and market outcomes have the potential to
lower future price increases for customers in Australia.
Under the BAU case, all customers were assumed

to remain on an inclining block tariff regardless of
their technology adoption status. This assumption
also impacts suppositions made in this assessment
around the economically optimal sizing of distributed
generation and distributed storage technologies
(discussed in Section 4.4.7).
Figure 2-25 shows the assessment of the gross
benefits and costs and total net benefit of a national
deployment of dynamic tariffs and customer
feedback technologies under the medium
The modelling assumed a steady growth in the

number of customers adopting a range of dynamic
tariffs and prepayment plans based on the adoption
rates observed in the Smart Grid, Smart City
Customer Application network and retail trials for the
selected products and feedback technologies.
Figure 2-25 S
MI and dynamic tariff and customer feedback technologies gross costs and benefits and total net benefit under
the medium scenario
4,500
Present Value ($millions 2014 Real)
4,000
121
2,514
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,777
121
21
1,500
1,121
1,000
500
0
Network CAPEX
GEN OPEX
GEN OPEX
Benefits
SMI benefits
SG CAPEX
Total
Cost
Modelling indicated that under the medium

macroeconomic scenario, the gross benefits for
deployment of dynamic tariffs and customer feedback
technologies (with smart meter infrastructure) was more
than $3.64 billion for the period through to 2034. In
order to achieve these benefits, a significant investment
of around $2.5 billion is required, mostly in the form of
smart meter infrastructure. This results in a net position
(NPV) of more than $1.12 billion from the deployment
of dynamic tariffs and products in Australia through to
2034.
Importantly, the findings showed that approximately
49 per cent of the benefits from the introduction of
dynamic pricing and customer feedback technologies
can be attributed to improved peak demand
management which results in reduced network and
generation capital investment. Of the remaining benefits,
47 per cent are attributable to metering and billing
savings under the smart grid case.
Amongst all of the states modelled, Victoria showed

the strongest economic case, with potential benefits
in the order of $496 million able to be achieved for
the period through to 2034. This strong result is due
to the existing presence of smart meter infrastructure
across the state (i.e. there is no requirement to allocate
incremental smart metering capital or operational
expenditure in the model).
For New South Wales there were more modest net
benefits of around $243 million, driven by higher total
deployment costs of around $1.2 billion.
Summary of key findings dynamic

tariffs and customer feedback
technologies (with smart meters)
1. There is a strong business case for deploying
dynamic tariff and customer feedback
technologies (with smart meters) in Australia.
Modelling also showed that the deployment of

dynamic pricing and customer products also produces
savings in generation sector operational costs of
approximately $121 million in the smart grid case
because of greater energy efficiency.
Implementing dynamic tariffs and customer feedback
technologies such as in home displays, combined with
smart meters, showed the strongest return in urban
networks with more than half of the gross benefits
($2.3 billion) accruing to this network type under the
medium macroeconomic scenario. Positive, albeit
reduced benefits, were also shown for short rural
($1.1billion) and long rural networks
($165 million).
The dynamic tariffs and customer feedback
technologies were shown to have a positive NPV under
the high and low macroeconomic scenarios.
2. In total for all states there is the potential

for more than $1.1 billion net return for the
period through to 2034 under the medium
macroeconomic scenario. Approximately 49
per cent of the benefits would accrue as a
result of peak demand reductions and a further
47 per cent are attributed to metering and
billing savings.
3. Modelling suggests that the greatest benefits will
accrue in urban and short rural networks where
95 per cent of the potential savings occur.
4. Given Victoria has already deployed smart meters,
the deployment of dynamic pricing and customer
feedback technologies could result in significant
benefits related to the management of peak
demand growth at minimal incremental costs.
Table 2-9 Dynamic tariffs and customer feedback technology costs and benefits by network type, (medium scenario)
Capex and
opex
CBD
Urban
Short Rural
Long Rural
Total
Net Benefits
($M 2014)
($M 2014)
2,514
(33)
(2,307)
(1,130)
(165)
(3,635)
(1,121)
4.4.6 Electric vehicle charging

(with SMI and direct load control)
customer location-specific areas of the network where

there is less diversity in demand profiles.
Whilst electric vehicle numbers are currently very

low in Australia, they are expected to grow steadily
over the next 20 years. In the late 2020s12 vehicle
numbers are then expected to grow more rapidly
once they reach price parity with conventional internal
combustion engine vehicles. Given these projections,
numbers of electric vehicles in Australia are expected
to grow more rapidly beyond the assessment period of
this modelling (2034).
Modelling for the smart grid case assumed that

electric vehicles must use smart charging (direct
load control) including two-way communication
between the network and the charging point. This
communication enables the charging point to
dynamically respond to load on the network, reducing
charging during peak periods and increasing charging
during times of otherwise low demand. Compared
to BAU, this has the effect of reducing peak demand
growth whilst increasing network asset utilisation (or
load factor).
As the number of electric vehicles in Australia

increases, so too will the charging load on local
distribution networks (both total consumption
and demand). If not managed carefully, electric
vehicle charging load has the potential to increase
peak demand, requiring additional network capital
investment, which will contribute to higher consumer
electricity bills. The impact will be greatest on
Figure 2-26 shows the resulting benefits, costs

and total net benefit of a national deployment of
electric vehicle smart charging for the medium
Figure 2-26 Electric vehicle charging gross costs and benefits and total net benefit (medium scenario)
700
600
($Million)
500
400
359
265
300
200
100
89
Costs Generation
OPEX
Total
1
Benefits Gen
CAPEX
12
Benefits Network
CAPEX
Costs SG
CAPEX
As modelled by AECOM Electric Vehicle Uptake and

Behaviour Study conducted as part of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program
As a net outcome, deploying smart charging

infrastructure with all electric vehicles would
demonstrate a net benefit of $89 million over the 20
year period. The majority of benefits are as a result
of reduced peak demand compared to BAU which
decreases network and generation capital expenditure
by $359 million and $1 million respectively over the
assessment period.
macroeconomic scenarios from 2024. However, higher

charger prices and reduced electric vehicle uptake
under the low macroeconomic scenario resulted in a
negative business case for the entire period.
In addition to those results modelled through to 2034,
the decade following 2034 is likely to see electric
vehicle uptake accelerate further and create
significant impacts on peak demand if charging is not
adequately managed.
The results for different network types are shown in

Table 2-10.
Modelling undertaken by Ausgrid as part of Smart

Grid, Smart City EV Project investigated the impact of
electric vehicles to 2040 through a series of modelling
using the PS + EDGE modelling platform (refer to the
discussion on methodology in Appendix Two) reported
in the Electric Vehicle Study Technical Compendium.
The results for an increase on peak demand on a
typical urban feeder in a mortgage belt location, where
impacts are expected to be greatest, are shown in
Figure 2-27.
The results of the modelling shows that the greatest

impact of deploying electric vehicle smart charging
infrastructure is in urban networks and short rural
networks where electric vehicle uptake is likely to
behighest.
The business case for smart charging of electric
vehicles was positive under the medium and high
Table 2-10 EV costs and benefits (by network type) under the medium scenario
Capex and
opex
Net
Benefits
($M 2014)
CBD
Urban
Short Rural
Long Rural
Total
($M 2014)
265
(14)
(208)
(120)
(12)
(354)
(89)
Figure 2-27 Increase in peak demand as a result of electric vehicle charging in urban location with high electric vehicle uptake
100.0%
Percentage Peak Demand
on baseline due to EV Charging
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Year
Central
High
Low
2040
These results indicate that under a medium

macroeconomic scenario, peak demand on this
particular feeder due to electric vehicle deployment is
approximately 20 per cent higher by 2034. However,
this quickly increases to
75 per cent higher by 2040. The figure also highlights
the sensitivity of the analysis to macro-economic
factors, which for the high scenario results in a much
greater impact in earlier years due to higher uptake
rates of electric vehicles. Deployment of smart
charging infrastructure (as modelled under the smart
grid case) would all but eliminate these impacts.
This suggests that the business case over a longer
assessment period may give rise to even higher benefits
than that shown for the period through to 2034.

electric vehicles (with SMI and
direct load control)
1. The net benefit of smart charging for electric
vehicles is estimated to be $153 million through
to 2034 under the medium macroeconomic
scenario.
2. Under the smart grid case smart charging
scenario, electric vehicles do not contribute
considerably to peak demand on the network
as loads are shifted outside the peak period.
This also results in an improvement of network
load factor.
3. The benefits of smart charging during
the assessment period to 2034, although
significant, would likely be even greater in the
subsequent decade where greater electric
vehicle uptake or sooner if electric vehicle
uptake occurs at a more rapid pace than
predicted in this assessment.
4.4.7 Distributed generation and

distributed storage (with SMI and
dynamic tariffs)
In Australia there has been considerable discussion
in public forums relating to the benefits and issues
associated with distributed generation, particularly
rooftop solar PV. Recently these discussions have
extended to include the consequences of growing
rooftop PV electricity production on the existing
network and generator business models and the
impact of cross subsidies for electricity customers with
solar PV in a climate of increasing electricity prices (in
some states).
Potentially, deployment of distributed storage devices
may manage some of the solar PV network impacts
by providing the opportunity for customers to actively
participate in managing peak demand growth on
electricity networks, with direct financial benefits.
Under current retail tariff pricing which incentivises
customers to reduce their consumption and / or
grid sourced electricity, large distributed generation
systems which are sized to export large volumes of
electricity to the grid have the potential to increase
the costs to the network sector as a result of power
quality issues.. Further, where network tariffs are not
economically efficient (cost reflective) there is a risk
that greater volumes of distributed generation may be
deployed over more economically efficient centralised
generation options.
However, distributed generation has the potential to
deliver economic benefits in terms of peak demand
reduction particularly when combined with storage
and deployed at the appropriate times of network
peak demand or during wholesale electricity market
pricing peaks.
This national cost benefit assessment sought to
identify how mandating dynamic prices for new
distributed generation installations could optimise
deployment of distributed generation to both maximise
the benefits and minimise the costs. The aim was to
identify the most economically efficient outcome.
Under the medium and high macroeconomic smart

grid scenarios, it was assumed that when customers
adopted distributed generation and/or distributed
storage they would be required to adopt a capacity
network tariff and a critical peak price retail tariff which
reflected incremental network and retail costs.
Under the low macroeconomic smart grid scenario
it was assumed that a customer who adopted
distributed generation and/or distributed storage would
be required to move to a network and retail time of use
tariff structure.
It should be noted that these assumptions did not

include any consideration of environmental externalities
other than a carbon price which is only included in
the later periods of the high macroeconomic scenario
(refer to Section 4.1).
Figure 2-28 shows a positive business case for the
deployment of dynamic tariffs in conjunction with
distributed generation and storage with a net present
value of almost $10.3 billion to the economy. This
benefit is derived under the smart grid case because
the dynamic tariff sends a more cost reflective financial
signal to consumers which limits the system size and
number of distributed generation systems.
Figure 2-28 National gross costs and benefits and total net benefit from deployment of dynamic tariffs with distributed
generation and distributed storage (medium macroeconomic scenario)
35,000
30,000
NPV ($M 2013 Real)
25,000
20,000
15,000
15,235
2,574
229
433
198
2,005
10,254
10,000
5,000
0
DG & DS
CAPEX
SMI OPEX
Network CAPEX
Gen CAPEX
SMI OPEX
Benefits
GEN OPEX
Total
Costs
Table 2-11 DG and DS costs and benefits (by network type) under the medium scenario
($M 2014)
Urban
Short
Rural
Long
Rural
Total
CBD
Capex and
opex
(15,235)
725
1,983
1,649
624
4,981
Net Benefits
($M 2014)
(10,254)
As a result under the smart grid case there is lower

total capital expenditure in distributed generation
nationally. However, this capital benefit is partially
offset by an increased requirement for centralised
generation, resulting in higher centralised generation
fuel (coal and gas) costs under the smart grid case of
around $2 billion over the period to 2034.
The results by network type are presented in Table 2-11.
Modelling shows that the greatest benefits from
economically efficient deployment of distributed
generation and distributed storage occurs in urban
and short rural networks where penetration of
distributed generation and storage is highest.
To further understand these results, a comparison of

the deployment of distributed storage and generation by
technology type, by customer class (residential) for both
the BAU and smart grid case is shown below.
Deployment of distributed generation and

storage residential customers
It was assumed that under BAU, residential customers
adopting distributed generation products remained on
an inclining block tariff, which incentivises consumption
reduction rather than peak demand reduction. Therefore
customers are incentivised to invest in larger distributed
generation system sizes under BAU compared to the
smart grid case.
Figure 2-29 shows the average size of distributed
generation systems (rooftop solar PV, energy storage
and CHP) deployed under BAU case for the period
2014 to 2034.
Figure 2-29 Modelled distributed generation and storage adoption for average residential customers under the BAU case
(medium scenario)13
14
12
Capacity (kW)
10
2014
2019
Solar adoption configuration
2024
2029
2034
Battery adoption configuration
13 Note that for 2014, this represents the average current

installed
The removal of premium feed-in-tariffs (most recently

in South Australia and previously in Queensland,
Victoria and New South Wales) is the driver of the
decline in the average size of rooftop solar PV systems
between 2014 and 2019. After 2019, the cost of
rooftop solar PV systems are projected to continue to
decline (with electricity tariffs continuing to increase).
This results in the average size of installed residential
systems increasing. By 2034, average rooftop solar PV
system sizes under BAU are anticipated to be around
5.6 kW in size.
Under the medium macroeconomic scenario there is
no storage adoption or fuel cell adoption (CHP).
The average system size for the high scenario under
the BAU case is presented in Figure 2-30.
Under the high macroeconomic scenario for the
BAU case, the inclining block tariff structure does
not incentivise residential customers to adopt energy
storage until the final forecast period in 2034. There
remains no fuel cell (CHP) adoption by residential
customers under this scenario.
The average system size for the medium
macroeconomic scenario under the smart grid case
is presented in Figure 2-31. In this case the size of
the system is driven by the financial returns under
acapacity network tariff with a critical peak price
retail tariff.
Dynamic tariff adoption under the medium (and high)
economic scenarios incentivises residential customers
to manage their maximum (peak) demand for gridsourced electricity and reduce grid-sourced electricity
consumption during higher priced peak periods.
These dynamic pricing incentives when combined

with the anticipated significant reduction in the cost
of energy storage devices over the next several years,
result in customers under a smart grid medium case
beginning to adopt combined rooftop solar PV and
energy storage systems from around 2024. Due to the
anticipated increasing cost of residential gas prices in
Australia, virtually no CHP systems were anticipated to
be adopted by residential customers.
Compared with the BAU case, the size of rooftop
solar PV systems under the medium macroeconomic
scenario smart grid case was also smaller around
4 kW compared to more than 5kW for BAU by 2034.
This effect is due to the removal of cross subsidies
within the inclining block tariff structure, i.e. customers
are no longer incentivised to reduce total electricity
consumption, but rather are encouraged to manage
peak demand.

storage commercial customers
Under the BAU case, analysis suggested that
commercial electricity customers will deploy significant
amounts of rooftop solar PV, mirroring the residential
market. However, modelling shows the size of the
rooftop solar PV systems deployed by commercial
customers was significantly larger around two to
three times the size of residential systems for the
equivalent period.
Additionally, the larger loads of commercial customers
support the adoption of CHP from 2019.
macroeconomic scenario under the BAU case is
presented in Figure 2-32.
Under the BAU case, there is investment in relatively
large rooftop solar PV and CHP systems. The
systems will likely export to the grid during times of
low demand, incentivised by a volume based inclining
block tariff.
Figure 2-30 Modelled distributed generation and storage adoption for residential customers under the BAU
(high macroeconomic scenario)
14
Capacity (kW)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2014
2019
2024
Solar adoption configuration (kW)
2029
2034
Battery adoption configuration (kW)
Figure 2-31 Modelled distributed generation and distributed storage adoption for residential customers under the smart grid
case (medium scenario)
14
Capacity (kW)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2014
2019
2024
2029
2034
Figure 2-32 Modelled distributed generation and storage adoption for commercial customers under the BAU case
(medium scenario)
14
Capacity (kW)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2014
2019
2024
2029
2034

macroeconomic scenario under the BAU case is
Under a smart grid case, analysis suggested that
the reduction in the consumption component of the
tariffs led to a much smaller optimal CHP system size.
Additionally, from around 2019 commercial customers
would begin to adopt energy storage devices in
addition to deploying rooftop solar PV and CHP.
Interestingly, the size of battery storage is significantly
smaller for commercial customers compared to
residential customers. This is likely to be a result of
the longer flatter commercial peaks which often
make storage not a viable option for reducing peak
pricing impacts.
In contrast to residential customers, the size of the
solar PV systems deployed was not significantly
different under either a BAU or smart grid case. This
suggests that solar PV for commercial customers is
likely to be a financially viable solution in the future
regardless of scenario, given the anticipated further
reduction in solar PV panel costs.

storage capacity installed NEM
The total modelled installed distributed generation and
storage capacity for the BAU case is shown in
Figure 2-34.
Under the BAU case, the modelling showed a
significant increase in solar PV capacity over time.
There was also an increase in CHP capacity due to
commercial customers. No storage deployment was
observed due to the lack of financial incentives offered
under inclining block tariffs for peak reduction.
By 2034 more than 28 GW of installed rooftop solar
PV capacity has been modelled to be deployed in the
NEM. Under the BAU case this additional rooftop solar
PV deployment is likely to lead to further increases
to the existing cross subsidies within network
customer classes (e.g. residential customers). As a
consequence, network prices will need to increase
further to recover network consumption-based
revenue bypassed because of the installation of
additional rooftop solar PV within the grid.
Importantly, the inclining block pricing structure also
results in the price impact for non-PV consumers
continuing to increase because of the existing cross
subsidies becoming exacerbated with even higher
volumes of solar PV installations. The net pricing
impact on customers bills (for rooftop solar PV
adopters and non-adopters) under BAU and smart
grid cases has been quantified and is discussed in
Section4.7.
Under BAU, rooftop solar PV customers remaining
on inclining block tariffs have no incentive to deploy
energy storage technologies despite providing cost
effective peak demand response.
The deployment of rooftop solar PV generation, CHP
(fuel cell) and storage devices under the smart grid
case within the NEM is shown in Figure 2-35.
Figure 2-33 Modelled distributed generation and distributed storage adoption for commercial customers under the smart grid
case (medium scenario)
14
Capacity (kW)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2014
2019
2024
2029
CHP adoption configuration (kW)
2034
Figure 2-34 Cumulative installed capacity of distributed generation and distributed storage products (NEM) under BAU
(medium scenario)
70
Capacity (GW)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2014
2019
2024
Cumulative Solar (GW)
2029
2034
Cumulative Battery (GW)
Figure 2-35 Cumulative installed capacity of distributed generation and distributed storage products (NEM) under the smart
grid case (medium scenario)
70
Capacity (GW)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2014
2019
Cumulative Solar (GW)
2024
2029
2034
Cumulative Battery (GW)
Under the smart grid case, dynamic pricing (i.e. a

network capacity charge in combination with a retail
critical peak price) drives the deployment of smaller
rooftop solar PV systems (around 3 GW less) and CHP
around (1.8 GW less) in the NEM by 2034 compared
to BAU. This however, is balanced by the deployment
of around 3.5 GW of storage capacity. Under both
BAU and smart grid cases, there is growing adoption
of rooftop solar PV generation by both residential and
commercial electricity consumers. This difference
is shown in Figure 2-36 which shows the national
cumulative adoption (by per cent) of rooftop solar PV
from 2014-2034.
Under the BAU case more customers adopt rooftop
solar PV than under the smart grid case. By 2034, 40
per cent of customers have adopted rooftop solar PV
systems in the BAU case and 26 per cent under the
smart grid case.
Challenges with deployment of significant

rooftop solar PV within the electricity
network solar spillage and voltage regulation
There has been growing investigations and discussion
by network operators about the impact on the operation
of some network assets and management of voltage
and power quality where there are high densities of
rooftop solar PV installations in some areas. This is
known as solar clustering.
In areas where solar clustering occurs there may be
instances where PV systems self-disconnect from
the grid to avoid pushing voltage above standard
operating thresholds. This is known as solar spillage
and has the potential to impact both the environmental
and financial performance of rooftop solar PV systems.
Modelling as part of the Smart Grid, Smart City
distributed generation trials was completed using the
PS + EDGE modelling platform (refer to the discussion
on methodology in Appendix Two) to understand at
what average solar penetration level solar spillage may
occur within the distribution network.
Results of the modelling indicated that solar spillage

is site specific, emerging first in areas where solar
clustering occurs. Modelling indicated that systemwide solar spillage is unlikely to occur until installed
rooftop solar PV inverter capacities reach around
40 per cent of the annual maximum load on the
distribution transformer in a given location..
Under the smart grid case, modelling suggested that
solar PV penetration on average, would not reach
levels at which systematic solar spillage occurred
during the 20 year modelling period. However by
2029 under the BAU case where there is both larger
systems sizes and greater numbers of installed solar
PV systems, systematic solar spillage began to emerge
in Queensland.
Figure 2-37 illustrates that after 2029, under BAU, solar
spillage nationally rises sharply to around 11 GWh per
annum by 2034.
It is noted however, that the average levels of rooftop
solar penetration may not reflect how solar PV
system deployments are likely to occur. In some
locations, large rooftop solar PV systems or large
numbers of installations with significant solar output
to the grid relative to local demand may cause some
technical issues for network operators. In addition,
the concentration of rooftop solar PV levels at which
solar spillage occurs will vary by network topology;
the alignment, or lack of alignment of peak demand
for electricity with peak solar output; and other local
network characteristics.
It is likely that almost all of the issues caused by
solar clustering for the foreseeable future could be
overcome through:
Customer expenditure in four quadrant, or smart
inverters (and potentially changes in standards to
make these inverters mandatory)
New network investment in additional transformers
New network investment in reconductoring
Importantly existing pricing signals (tariffs) do not reflect
the need for this investment, nor differentiate between
those customers with and without solar PV systems.
Figure 2-36 Cumulative national adoption of distributed storage under BAU and smart grid cases (2013 to 2033)
45%
National Solar Adoption (%)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2029
2031
2033
SG Cumulative Adoption (%)
BAU Cumulative Adoption (%)
Figure 2-37 Annual solar spillage under BAU case (national)
Solar Spillage per 5 Year Period (Gwh)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
BaU
Within the Smart Grid, Smart City AVVC and

Distributed Generation and Distributed Storage trials
there was some investigation14 of whether STATCOMs
had the potential to be deployed for voltage regulation
(the term STATCOM and smart inverters is often
used interchangeably for some of the products in the
low voltage range).
Smart inverters have the potential for voltage regulation
if these inverters are able to be set up on distributed
generation and storage systems (particularly rooftop
solar PV) to only allow export onto the network when
voltage is low. Additionally if there is distributed storage
capacity on site, smart inverters can also be used to
import electricity from the grid when voltage is high
(further assisting with voltage regulation).
Existing financial incentives (feed-in-tariffs) combined
with economically inefficient network tariffs mean
that electricity customers are currently financially
incentivised to maximise their reduction in electricity
consumption (by energy efficiency, but also through
maximising generation output from rooftop solar PV).
This means that for rooftop solar PV owners, their
system inverters are setup for exporting electricity.
In the future there will need to be a consideration
of alternative strategies which incentivise more
economically efficient consumer behaviour. This may
include encouraging rooftop solar PV system owners
to install smart inverters and offer voltage regulation
services. This is further discussed in Part Three of
this report.
4.5 Impact of an
integrated smart grid
solution on electricity
sector performance
indicators
This section discusses the integrated results of the
cost benefit assessment in the context of the key
performance metrics used within the electricity sector.
Many of these measures were discussed in Part One
of this report. This section provides an indication of
how different smart grid technologies and changes
to electricity tariff structures (dynamic pricing) could
produce different outcomes for customers, networks
and generators.
This section focusses on differences in outcomes
between BAU and smart grid cases. Where possible,
the potential magnitude of the costs and benefits
(or dis-benefits) for different future investment and/
or pricing choices is discussed. Where relevant, the
known existing barriers are also discussed.
It should be noted that the modelling presented here
includes residential and business customers onlyand
excludes any load from large commercial and industrial
customers.
4.5.1 Grid-sourced electricity

consumption (centralised
generation)
The following section presents the results of the
modelling which assessed potential changes in gridsourced electricity consumption under both BAU and
smart grid cases for the medium scenario.
14 Ausgrid also references work on STATCOMs

completed by Energex and Ergon Energy in
Queensland. Refer to the supporting documentation
on the Information Clearing House
Figure 2-38 shows that there is an increase in the

volume of grid sourced electricity under the smart grid
case compared with BAU. This increase is the result
of a reduction of approximately 3 GW of additional
deployment of rooftop solar PV and 1.8 GW of CHP
by 2034 compared to the BAU case incentivised by
inclining block tariffs.

Deployment of distributed
generation and storage
1. Under both BAU and smart grid scenarios there
is a significant deployment of rooftop solar PV
through to 2034, however, the continued overincentivising of rooftop solar PV under an inclining
block tariff structure (under the BAU case)
leads to an additional 3 GW of rooftop solar PV
deployed in the NEM compared to the smart grid
case.
2. The size of installed rooftop solar PV systems for
residential customers is slightly smaller under the
smart grid case compared with BAU. This is
due to the impact of economically efficient
dynamic pricing and the additional investment
in energy storage devices which does not occur
under BAU.
3. Modelling showed a positive business case for
the deployment of dynamic tariffs in conjunction
with distributed generation and storage with a
net present value of almost $10.3 billion to the
economy. This benefit is derived under the smart
grid case because the dynamic tariff sends a
more cost reflective financial signal to consumers
which limits the system size and number of
distributed generation systems.
4. Under both BAU and smart grid cases,

commercial customers deploy rooftop solar PV
systems of a similar size.
5. Commercial customers invest in CHP under both
the BAU and smart grid cases but significantly
larger systems are adopted under the BAU
case as a result of the consumption based
tariff assumed.
6. Under the BAU case, larger PV sizes and
increased numbers of rooftop solar PV
installations results in greater exports of
electricity to the grid (and internal consumption
by consumers). Based on the anticipated
deployment, beyond 2028, solar spillage
nationally becomes an issue for PV owners and
network operators. However, where significant
rooftop solar clustering occurs in the network,
solar spillage may become an issue before 2028.
7. Under the smart grid medium case average
rooftop solar penetration is not sufficient to result
in solar spillage. However, it is noted that in areas
of the network where solar clustering occurs,
solar spillage may still be an issue.
8. There may be some opportunity to further
investigate opportunities for smart inverters to
provide voltage regulation services for network
operators if rooftop solar PV owners were
financially incentivised to do so.
To understand the composition of consumer total

consumption (both internally generated and gridsourced) for the period 2014-2034, two series of pie
charts have been presented, one series for BAU and
one for smart grid (shown in parallel in Figure 2-39). In
particular (even within each case series) it is important
to note the changes over time for each of the
chart elements.
For the BAU case, these charts show that

decentralised internal generation (and consumption)
from rooftop solar PV and CHP grows from around
1 per cent in 2014 to 16percent by 2034. Similarly,
export of local generation grows by a similar amount.
This means that by 2034 under the BAU case, 30
per cent of all electricity is provided by distributed
generation (rooftop solar PV and CHP). As a
consequence, centralised generation (grid sourced)
electricity for residential and business customers
decreases from 98percent of total consumption in
2014 to 70 per cent by 2034.
Electricity consumption under a smart grid case shows
that whilst the proportion of electricity provided by
distributed generation is still significant, however it is
lower than under the BAU case. As with BAU, in 2014,
2 per cent of total electricity demand is provided by
distributed (rooftop solar PV) sources, but under the
smart grid case, by 2034 this grows to 20 per cent in
total (10 per cent less than BAU).
Figure 2-38 Annual grid-sourced electricity consumption (NEM), (medium scenario, excluding large commercial and industrial loads)
120
Consumption (TWh)
100
80
60
40
20
2010
2015
2020
BAU
2025
2030
SG
2035
Figure 2-39 Trend in breakdown of total consumption (NEM) BAU vs smart grid cases (medium scenario)
Consumption Breakdown
2014 - BaU
1%
1%
2014 - SG
1%
98%
98%
2019 - BaU
3%
5%
2019 - SG
2%
2024 - BaU
9%
2024 - SG
4%
10%
12%
2029 - SG
7%
14%
16%
70%
8%
85%
78%
2034 - BaU
6%
90%
85%
2029 - BaU
3%
95%
93%
6%
1%
2034 - SG
9%
11%
80%
There are a number of other changes to distributed

generation and storage results between the two cases.
Under the BAU case there is significantly more CHP and
solar distributed generation, whilst under the smart grid
case, dynamic tariffs reduce the size of the rooftop solar
PV and CHP installations in favour of storage devices.
In addition, the smaller system size of solar PV systems
deployed under the smart grid case means that there is
less solar generation exported (i.e. a greater proportion
of the rooftop solar PV generated is used internally)
however the base load characteristics of CHP increase
the proportion of internally used distributed generation.
4.5.2 Peak demand

The modelling showed difference in peak demand
growth between the BAU and smart grid case as a
result of the differences in distributed generation and
storage uptake, as well as the influence of dynamic
tariffs and to a lesser extents AVVC. These differences
are shown in Figure 2-40.
Under both the BAU and smart grid cases, peak
demand continues to grow due to increases in
population and based on patterns of consumption of
electricity in the NEM.
Figure 2-40 NEM changes in peak demand growth BAU vs smart grid case (medium scenario, excluding large commercial
and industrial loads)
45
40
Peak Demand (GW)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2014
2019
Peak demand BaU (GW)
2024
2029
Peak demand - SG (GW)
2034
Interestingly the wholesale load assumed provides a

number of peak events that coincide with rooftop solar
PV generation. This combined with the higher rate of
CHP adoption under the BAU case has led to a slightly
lower peak demand across the NEM through the
forecast period to 2034 under the BAU case.
By 2034, the difference in peak demand in the NEM

between BAU and smart grid cases is approximately
0.8 GW. Note that this is for residential and business
customers only and excludes large industrial load
Figure 2-41 shows the modelled difference between
the NEM peak day load profile in 2014 and 2034 (for
both BAU and smart grid cases).
Figure 2-41 NEM peak day load profile for grid sourced electricity for years 2014 and 2034 (medium scenario, excluding large
commercial and industrial loads)
35
30
20
15
10
5
2014
BaU 2034
12.00.00 am
10.30.00 pm
9.00.00 pm
7.30.00 pm
6.00.00 pm
4.30.00 pm
3.00.00 pm
1.30.00 pm
12.00.00 pm
10.30.00 am
9.00.00 am
7.30.00 am
6.00.00 am
4.30.00 am
3.00.00 am
1.30.00 am
0
12.00.00 am
Demand (GW)
25
SG 2034
This figure shows that with continued population

growth, peak demand increases for both BAU and
the smart grid case between 2014 and 2034. The
contribution of rooftop solar PV during the middle
of the day (which lowers demand for grid-sourced
electricity) is also clear under both cases, but is more
dramatic under BAU.
The 2034 system peak demand under the smart grid
case is slightly higher than under BAU. Under the BAU
case, lower peak demand is driven by CHP and to
a lesser extent rooftop solar PV. The introduction of

dynamic pricing (critical peak pricing), the dispatch
of battery storage technologies and the shifting
of electric charging helps reduce the difference to
0.8GW. This similar peak demand outcome is achieved
with substantially less investment from customers in
distributed resources such as rooftop solar PV, CHP
and battery storage.
Figure 2-42 shows the contribution of different smart
grid technologies to the improved management of
peak demand for the period through to 2034 for the
smart grid case. It should be noted that this compares
the impact of the technologies on the wholesale peak
which would have otherwise been observed had the
technologies not been deployed.
This shows that from 2019 the most demand side

response (by volume) comes from distributed
generation (both rooftop solar PV and CHP). A small
amount of peak demand benefit is also achieved from
the operation of storage during critical peak price
events and electric vehicle smart charging in later
years.
It is important to note that the model dispatches storage
only after the dispatch of CHP and rooftop solar PV
generation. In many cases, especially during summer,
the peak events occur in daylight hours when rooftop
solar PV is able to offset demand and leave very little
requirement for dispatch of storage.
Figure 2-42 Contribution of different smart grid technologies and pricing to customer peak demand response
2.00
0.00
Peak Demand Impact (GW)
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
-12.00
-14.00
2014
DG & DS
2019
DPP - Storage
2024
DPP + Portal
2029
DLC
2034
STOU + PPM
EV
This gives rise to an incentive to increase the size of

distributed generation systems to ensure that demand
can be met during the critical peak. However this
also results in significant export during other times.
The impact of a critical peak on increasing distributed
generation size and hence export is an important finding
with policy implications.
Further analysis was undertaken in order to consider

the contribution of the different technologies on a
hypothetical NEM peak day which was modelled to
occur on 17 January 2034 (Figure 2-43).
Figure 2-43 Smart grid dynamic pricing and product contribution to a modelled (hypothetical) NEM peak day in 2034, medium
scenario
35
30
Load (GW)
25
20
15
10
EV
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
18:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
20:00
20:30
21:00
21:30
22:00
22:30
23:00
23:00
Wholesale
DLC
STOU + PPM
DPP - Storage
DPP + Portal
DG + DS
BAU 2034
Figure 2-44 Smart grid dynamic pricing and product contribution to a modelled NEM peak day in 2033, high scenario
45
40
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
18:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
20:00
20:30
21:00
21:30
22:00
22:30
23:00
23:30
Load (GW)
35
EV
Wholesale
DLC
STOU + PPM
DPP - Storage
DPP + Portal
DG + DS
BAU 2034
During this hypothetical NEM peak day under the

smart grid case, consumers were notified of a critical
peak pricing period. This was called at staggered
times, extending the effect of managing the network
peak. This shows that the original peak (as indicated
by the top line in the chart) was deferred from around
4.30 pm to 7.30 pm, and was also lower in magnitude
than if the market event had not been called (shown by
the green section in the chart).
The same hypothetical NEM peak day was modelled for

the high scenario, where greater volumes of distributed
generation and distributed storage are deployed.
By triggering a market event (and the associated

critical pricing signals), modelling indicated that
consumers were likely to respond using a range of
smart grid technologies and shift their electricity
consumption away from the critical peak priced
period. Networks also triggered load reduction
for those customers with direct load control (DLC)
appliances such as air conditioners, hot water systems
and swimming pools and for those customers with
controllable electric vehicle load.
The load factor is related to the load profile for a

network, and is an indicator of the economic utilisation
of network infrastructure. The average NEM network
load factor for both the BAU and smart grid case is
The BAU case (shown as a black line) has a greater

impact on peak demand (and demand generally) due
to the greater penetration of distributed generation,
especially CHP.
Over the period through to 2034 it can be seen that

the average load factor under the smart grid case is
higher than for BAU. This is a reflection of the more
cost effective management of peak demand growth
under the smart grid case and the greater volume
of grid sourced electricity (due to a lower volume of
distributed generation).
In this scenario during the middle of the day, a large

proportion of generation is supplied by distributed
generation impacting on the cost of centralised
generation.
4.5.3 Network load factor
As illustrated in the graph, the average NEM network

load factor is around 42per cent implying that, on
average, the electricity distribution assets in the NEM
are only used to 42 per cent of their capacity.
Figure 2-45 NEM average network load factor 2014 to 2034 (medium scenario)
0.50
0.45
0.40
Load Factor
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.5
0
2014
2019
2024
BaU
2029
Smart Grid
2034
Under the BAU case, the lower load factor, combined

with inclining block tariffs, means that network
businesses charging by volume (kWh) are required to
increase network tariffs to maintain revenues.
$15 billion in present value terms. This gives rise to

increased investment in generation capacity equivalent
to $203 million (shown as negative benefit in
Figure 2-46).
4.5.4 Capacity investment
Notwithstanding, the modelling suggests that there

is a net reduction in peak investment by networks
equivalent to $408 million in present value terms. This
is in spite of the overall system level increase in peak
demand. The network capacity savings made in the
earlier periods are worth more than the investment
required in later years when the peak demand
between smart grid and BAU case begin to diverge.
The early savings occur as a result of benefits at lower
levels of the network driven by the lower diversity
impacts rather than system level peak.
When the network and generation costs and benefits
are combined, there is an overall $291 million net
capacity benefit.
Figure 2-46 shows the resultant capacity investment

(capital expenditure) savings for networks, centralised
and distributed generation for the period through to
2034 in present value terms ($2014) for the smart grid
case compared to BAU. These represent national
savings and include both the NEM and the SWIS.
These results show three types of savings - network
capacity savings, centralised generation capacity
savings and avoided costs from reduced investment
by consumers in rooftop solar PV, CHP and battery
storage under smart grid case. The capacity
investment for network operators includes not only
investment due to peak demand growth, but also other
investment to reinforce the network (e.g. substation
expansion).
Under the smart grid case, there is an avoided
investment in distributed generation of just over
Importantly, these savings do not take into

consideration the cost of deploying smart grid
technologies it is purely an assessment of the
reduced capital expenditure for networks and
generation (centralised and distributed) as a result
of the deployment of smart grid technologies and
dynamic pricing.
Figure 2-46 Capacity investment benefit smart grid case 2014 to 2034 (PV $2014)
Peak Demand Benefit ($M NPV)
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
-$1,000
2014
2019
DG & DS
2024
Generation
2029
2034
Network Capacity
4.5.5 Changes in customer

reliability
required for network engineers to locate and attend to

the outage and because the network topology is radial
in nature.
Figure 2-47 shows the potential for improved

customer reliability benefits due entirely from the
deployment of FDIR and SFM technologies. Victoria
and South Australia showed the greatest potential for
improvements in SAIDI benefits (reduced minutes per
customer of outages per year) given the current lower
levels of reliability in these states.
Outages for customers on short and long rural
networks are generally longer due to the travel times
The first investment occurs in 2019 with a five year

delay for benefits to be realised. No further investment
occurs after 2019 so that the same annual reliability
benefits are achieved every year after 2024.
From a practical implementation perspective, the
analysis considered where the greatest benefits could
be achieved in terms of the type of network. This is
SAIDI Benefits (Min / Customer / Year)
Figure 2-47 National improvements in reliability from smart grid technology deployment by state
250
200
150
100
50
0
2014
2019
NSW
QLD
2024
SA
VIC
2029
TAS
2034
WA
Minutes per Customer Saved (Min/Year)
Figure 2-48 Potential national customer reliability benefits for different network types
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2014
2019
Short
2024
Long
Rural
2029
Long Rural
2034
This shows that the greatest improvement from the

deployment of FDIR exists within short rural networks.
In this instance, the combination of the meshed
topology of short rural and higher existing levels of
outages allows for network reconfiguration by FDIR
technology to provide the greatest benefits.
Network operational benefits
CBD network segments showed an improvement under

modelling from the deployment of SFM which was
assessed to be deployed in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania.
This shows that operational benefits begin to accrue

in all states from 2019 (assuming the deployment
of smart grid technologies as described previously
in section 3.2. It shows that across all periods, the
strongest savings are likely to be demonstrated in New
South Wales and Queensland with around $125 million
in national operational savings in the first five year
period. This grows more strongly over time to around
$280 million for the five year period in 2033.
Whilst there are also potential improvements for

customers on long rural feeders, the radial topologies
of these networks limits the magnitude of these
benefits to only being addressed by SFM reducing the
amount of fault search time required.
The existing high network redundancy required in CBD
areas means that there is limited scope to improve the
already very high customer reliability.
In addition to analysis which showed avoided capital

investment under the smart grid case, there are also
operational expenditure benefits for network businesses
under the smart grid case as shown in Figure 2-49.
For South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and

Tasmania there are also operational savings from smart
grid deployment, albeit at a lower rate than the larger
states with more extensive network infrastructure.
Figure 2-49 Network operational benefits (real $ 2014) for each of the states
Changing in Network, OPEX ($M Real)
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
2019
NSW
2024
QLD
SA
2029
VIC
2034
TAS
WA
4.6 Future generation

investment in Australia
Figure 2-50 shows the difference in total centralised

installed generation capacity in the smart grid case
relative to the BAU case. In this figure, a positive value
represents greater investment under a smart grid case
compared to BAU.
4.6.1 Changes in customer

reliability
Discussion of the findings of BAU and smart grid
cases has clearly indicated that under either scenario,
there is a growing investment in distributed generation
in Australia, in particular rooftop solar PV. This has
implications for centralised generation under both
cases and all economic scenarios.
Discussion of the findings of the uptake of distributed

generation and distributed storage under BAU and
smart grid cases has clearly shown that under either
scenario there is a growing investment in distributed
generation in Australia, in particular rooftop solar
PV. This has implications for centralised generation
and grid utilisation under both cases and all
macroeconomic scenarios.
Figure 2-50 Change in investment smart grid case relative to BAU, medium scenario (NEM)
50000
30000
20000
10000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Total generation output (GWh, SO)
60000
BAU_Medium_Demand
BAU_Medium_Demand
NEM
Region, Case, Financial year (ending 30th June)
Black Coal
Brown Coal
Liquid fuel
Natural Gas
Renewable
Under the high macroeconomic scenario, where

demand growth is much stronger, there is additional
investment required under both BAU and smart grid
cases. As with the medium macroeconomic scenario,
only renewables and natural gas plant are built with no
new black or brown coal suggested.
When considering the difference in investment in
centralised generation between BAU and the smart
grid cases in the medium (Figure 2-51) and high (Figure
2-52) economic scenarios all of the additional
new generation capacity under the smart grid case

is built in Queensland, South Australia and Western
Australia. For Queensland and Western Australia, this
is due to the higher forward demand forecasts.
However, the increased investment in generation in
South Australia in the medium scenario is in open
cycle gas turbines, built to meet peak demand. There
is also less peak reduction in the smart grid case due
to lower volumes of distributed generation uptake.
Figure 2-51 Difference in new generation investment between smart grid and BAU by state under the medium macroeconomic
scenario
500
400
300
200
100
0
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
Difference in total generation

capacity (MW, SO)
600
NSW
Black coal
Figure 2-52
QLD
Brown coal
SA
Natural gas
TAS
VIC
WA
Renewable
Liquid fuel
Difference in new generation investment between smart grid and BAU by state under the high economic scenario
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033

capacity (MW, SO)
700
NSW
Black coal
QLD
Brown coal
SA
Natural gas
TAS
Liquid fuel
VIC
WA
Renewable
This gas investment is a mix of CCGT to meet baseload

energy growth and OCGT to meet peak demand.
In other states including Victoria, Tasmania and New
South Wales there is sufficient existing generation plant
capacity for the modelling period, particularly given the
amount of distributed generation (rooftop solar PV and
CHP) which is suggested by the modelling.
Under the low macroeconomic scenario, no new
thermal plant is needed in Australia at any stage
during the modelling period because of low electricity
demand. There is however continued investment in
wind driven by the existing LRET policy. Under the
low macroeconomic scenario there is no difference in
investment in generation between the BAU and smart
grid cases.
These differences in investment across

macroeconomic scenarios will also lead to differences
in dispatch between the BAU and smart grid cases.
These changes in dispatch, combined with differences
in investment, drive differences in economic
cost between the cases, which is discussed in the
following section.
4.6.2 Future changes to dispatch

of centralised generators
Changes in the dispatch of generation plant reflect
the differences in investment as well as outcomes
for the existing generation fleet. Figure 2-53 shows
the dispatch of generator types under the high
macroeconomic scenario. Consistent with previous
results, this figures shows higher total centralised
generator output under the smart grid scenario, which
is driven by greater demand for grid-sourced electricity
which is met predominantly by dispatch of black coalfired generators.
Figure 2-53 Change in generator dispatch sent out electricity for smart grid relative to BAU cases, medium scenario
Difference in NPV ($m, Real FY2013/14)
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
BAU_Medium_Demand
BAU_Medium_Demand
NEM
Region, Case, Financial year (ending 30th June)
Black Coal
Brown Coal
Liquid fuel
Natural Gas
Renewable
Final DER adjustment
On a regional basis, Figure 2-54 clearly shows

that under the smart grid high demand (high
macroeconomic) scenario, there is significantly higher
output of black coal-fired generators in the smart
grid case particularly in NSW, and to a lesser extent
in Queensland which also shows additional gas-fired
generator dispatch. Within Victoria, existing brown
coal generators have increased output from 2023,
with this ramping up significantly through to 2035
as EV requires more energy overnight. In Western
Australia, there is a small amount of additional coalfired generator dispatch, with the majority of additional
volume supplied by gas plant.
For South Australia, there is additional dispatch of

brown coal-fired plant in addition to renewables (wind)
across the modelling period from around 2020. There
is also a very small amount of additional renewables
(wind and hydro) dispatched in Tasmania across the
modelling period from around 2017.
Under the high macroeconomic scenario, this
additional fossil-fuelled generator dispatch will also
attract an additional cost of dispatch due to a carbon
price mechanism being included post 2020.
Figure 2-54 Difference in dispatch of different generation types by region under the high macroeconomic scenario between
the smart grid and BAU cases. Note: Positive values indicate higher dispatch in the smart grid case relative to the BAU case
14000
12000
10000
6000
4000
2000
0
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033

capacity (MW, SO)
8000
-2000
Black coal
NSW
Brown coal
QLD
SA
Natural gas
TAS
Liquid fuel
VIC
Renewable
WA
Final DER Adjustment
Under the medium economic demand scenario, there is

less difference in centralised generator output between
BAU and smart grid cases (Figure 2-55), although New
South Wales remains similar. The additional generator
output in each region under the medium scenario
is similar in pattern (and generator type) to the high
economic scenario (Figure 2-54). This is true for all
states except South Australia. In the high case, high
levels of rooftop solar PV output under BAU displace
coal-fired generation. However in the medium case,
lower levels of rooftop solar PV output displace gas
generation, not brown coal.
4.6.3 Total differences in

generation costs (NPV)
Figure 2-56 describes the differences in total
generation investment and operating costs (NPV)
under each macroeconomic scenario for each different
centralised generation fuel types. As suggested by the
previous discussion, under the low macroeconomic
scenario the smart grid case leads to an NPV saving
driven lower demand for grid energy in the smart grid
case relative to the BAU. Under the medium and high
macroeconomic scenarios, there is an overall cost
arising under the smart grid case relative to the BAU
case driven by the increased demand for grid energy.
Therefore there is a requirement for investment in
incremental gas generation and operating costs for
black coal, gas and renewables (to a much lesser
extent).
Figure 2-55 Difference in dispatch of different generation types under the medium macroeconomic scenario by region
between the smart grid and BAU cases
16000

capacity (MW, SO)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
0
-2000
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2000
Black coal
NSW
Brown coal
QLD
SA
Natural gas
TAS
Liquid fuel
VIC
Renewable
WA
Final DER Adjustment
In total, over the 20 year modelling period centralised

generators, particular gas and coal-fired plant
will require to spend around $2.04 billion more in
operating costs and around $200 million in additional
new investment under the smart grid medium
macroeconomic scenario, compared to BAU. Under
the high macroeconomic scenario, additional new
investment $363 million and up to $3.94 billion of
additional operating costs are suggested under the
smart grid case compared to BAU.
Note that these economic costs do not include the
avoided investment costs of distributed generation.
Note: Positive values indicate higher costs in the SGSC
case relative to the BAU case
Figure 2-56 Cost difference in NPV between the smart grid and BAU cases under each macroeconomic scenario
Difference in NPV ($m, Real FY2013/14)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Investment
-1000
Opening Cost
Sc1 - Low Demand
Investment
Opening Cost
Sc2 - Medium Demand
Investment
Opening Cost
Sc3 - High Demand
-2000
Scenario, Cost Type
Black Coal
Brown Coal
Liquid fuel
Natural Gas
Renewable
Final DER adjustment
4.6.4 Changes to greenhouse gas

emission levels
The differences between generator output (and the
different mix of centralised and distributed generation)
between smart grid and BAU cases resulted in a
difference in emissions intensity between each of the
cases and macroeconomic scenarios.
The annual differences in emissions between the
smart grid and BAU cases is shown in Table 2-12.
The differences in emissions reflect the previously
described differences in the volumes of distributed
generation (rooftop solar PV) installed by customers,
the volume of dispatch of centralised generators15 and
underlying consumer demand for electricity under
each of the macroeconomic scenarios.
In reading both the graphs, and the table, it should be
noted that a positive difference in the smart grid case
indicates an increase in emissions relative to BAU, and
as such a negative difference indicates a reduction
from BAU, and not necessary a reduction from
Australias current levels
Analysis of generator output showed that by the end of

the modelling period the smart grid case had slightly
higher annual emissions intensity under the high
macroeconomic scenarios compared to the BAU
case. Intensities are slightly lower in the medium and
low cases.
This result is driven by different system demand levels,
the impact of distributed generation and distributed
storage installed capacities on this demand, and
different dispatch patterns across scenarios and
between the BAU and smart grid cases.
These results also highlight that in terms of the total
NEM system, the smart grid interventions have only
a small impact on the emissions intensity of the total
electricity consumed in Australia by 2033 (including
total generation from distributed and centralised
generators).
Table 2-12 Differences in emissions between low, medium and high macroeconomic scenarios between the smart grid and
BAU cases
Macroeconomic Scenario Difference in emissions Average annualised

(Mt) over 20 years
difference (Mt)
% difference in
emissions between
smart grid and BAU
((SG-BAU)/BAU)
Low
-43.0
-2.15
-1%
Medium
139.0
6.95
3.4%
High
274.2
13.71
7.2%
15
Comparing the respective low, medium and high

macroeconomic scenarios which show the difference
in dispatch between the smart grid and BAU with the
difference in emission will show a similar profile
4.7 Electricity prices

and bills
Ultimately, the objective of any deployment of
smart grid technologies is to give rise to economic
efficiencies which result in savings in electricity bills
for households and businesses. The changes in peak
demand and consumption and levels of investment
as presented in Section 3.5.2 and 3.6 produce a
feedback loop in the integrated benefits model which
allows changes in customer bills to be analysed.
4.7.1 Total differences in

generation costs (NPV)
The modelled national average change in retail
electricity prices over time is shown in Figure 2-57 for
both the smart grid and BAU cases. This figure shows
the relative cost contributions of both network and
wholesale energy cost components to the overall price
of electricity.
The results show that there is a net increase in

electricity prices over time for both the smart grid
and BAU cases to 2029 and then a slight decrease in
2034. The decrease in the last period is caused by the
reduced requirement for centralised generation under
high penetration of distributed generation.
Under the smart grid case, the rate of increase is
reduced such that electricity prices are 1.3 per cent
lower under the smart grid case than the BAU case in
2034 in real terms.
The retail component is largely determined by the
wholesale energy cost, that is, the cost of centralised
generator dispatch. There is a higher wholesale cost
of energy in the smart grid case due to the additional
centralised generation capacity required to make up
for the reduced decentralised generation. By 2034 the
wholesale price component of the retail bill is 8 per
cent higher under the smart grid case compared
to BAU.
Figure 2-57 Average retail prices (c/kWh, Real $2014)
$0.50
Cost of Energy ($Real / kWh)
$0.45
$0.40
$0.35
$0.30
$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
2014
2019
2024
2029
BAU
Network Bill $/kWh
2034
2014
2019
2024
2029
2034
Smart Grid
Retail Bill $/kWh
In contrast, network bills in the smart grid case are

significantly lower than the BAU case. This is mostly
as a result of the improved load factor. Under the BAU
case, decreased network utilisation drives the cost per
unit of electricity higher (for the network component).
In the later periods of this assessment, the lack of
incentives under BAU for storage and the effect of
unmitigated electric vehicle charging contribute to
a poorer load factor outcome. By 2034 the network
price component is 13 per cent higher under the smart
grid case compared to BAU.
Although wholesale electricity prices continue to
rise over time in both BAU and smart grid cases, the
difference in increase between BAU and smart grid
cases is relatively small. Further these electricity prices
do not reflect any investment in distributed generation
by customers.
4.7.2 Customer bill impacts

Residential customers
This section outlines the difference in annual cost of
electricity for customers between the smart grid and
BAU case. The main difference is the impact of dynamic
tariffs on the decision to invest in distributed energy
resources (rooftop solar PV, CHP and storage).
Dynamic tariffs are more reflective of incremental
whole-of-system costs and therefore encourage
investment decisions which reduce these whole-ofsystem costs rather than just individual customer
costs. Where tariffs are not cost reflective, they have
the potential to incentivise investments which benefit
individual customers, but increase the whole-ofsystem costs with associated cost increases for other
customers. This gives rise to cross subsidy effect.
Cost reflective tariffs ensure that customers with

distributed generation and storage devices, as well
as high energy consuming devices such as airconditioners, pay for the network capacity they access
and not just the electricity they consume. This reduces
the volume risk for electricity networks and allows
for improved future cost allocation which ultimately
reduces the cross subsidy effect.
In section 4.5, it was shown that electricity prices
on a per kWh basis are higher in the BAU case than
compared to the smart grid case as a result of this
cross subsidy effect as well as the broader impacts
of smart grid technologies on network costs and
loadfactor.
This gives rise to an impact on customer bills for both
residential and business classes. These impacts are
presented in aggregate below for 2034 only. The full
results for all 20 customer segments for each state, for
each period are presented in Appendix Four.
It should be noted that the results represent an
average customer based on the customer types
modelled (refer to the methodology outlined in
Appendix Two). Actual savings will depend on the
energy use profile of households and how that
compares to the modelled energy profile.
Annual residential customer bills were assessed under
the smart grid case and BAU case for:
Passive customers those residential customers
who choose not to adopt a dynamic price tariff
or do not adopt distributed generation or storage
during the modelling period. These customers
remain on inclining block tariffs
Distributed generation and storage customers
those residential customers who adopt distributed
generation and/or storage along with dynamic tariffs.
The difference in average annual bills in 2034 for

residential customers between the smart grid case
and the BAU case is shown Figure 2-58.
The left most column (pink) shows the average annual
bill for a residential customer who has invested in
distributed generation and storage under the smart
grid case. This customer has an annual energy bill of
$1,712 in 2034. In order to receive this bill the customer
has an annual investment and operational cost of
$244 for distributed generation and storage. Their total
annual energy cost of $1,956 means that they have a
cost saving of $47 compared to the passive customer
whose bill is $2,003 in real terms (purple column).
The passive customer under the smart grid case pays

roughly $156 less per year compared to the passive
customer under the BAU case whose annual bill is
$2,159 (green column). The lack of cost reflective
pricing under the BAU case means that the passive
customer is effectively subsidising customers who
invest in distributed generation. The total annual cost
of a customer who has adopted distributed generation
under the BAU case is $1 739 (blue column) (made
up of an annual energy bill of $1,407 and annual
investment cost of $332). As can be seen, the effective
cross subsidisation under the BAU case is $420 per
annum per residential customer, almost ten times that
Figure 2-58 Impact on average annual residential customer bills in 2034 (medium scenario)
3,000
2,500
Annual Bill Impact ($)
$156
$244
2,000
$47
$2,159
$420
$2,003
$1,712
$332
$1,407
1,500
1,000
500
0
SG Bill
Customer
with DG/DS
Cost of
DG/DS
Cross
Subsidy
SG
SG
Passive
Average Bill - SG
SG
Benefits
BAU
Passive
Customer
Cross
Subsidy
BAU
Cost of
DG/DS
BAU with
DG/DS
Average Bill - BAU
In addition, it is also important to note that there are a

significantly greater number of passive BAU customers
impacted by the cross subsidy compared with
the number of passive customers under the smart
grid case.
Under the smart grid case, residential customers
choosing to adopt dynamic tariffs but no distributed
generation or storage (not shown on chart) are on
average $60 better off per year than the passive
customer. These customers on average receive a total
saving of $216 under the smart grid case compared
to BAU. This saving comes about as a result of
behaviour change promoted by dynamic tariffs or
direct load control.
Business customers
The impact on business16 customer bills has also been
modelled for:
Passive customers - those business customers
who do not adopt distributed generation or storage
and remain on inclining block tariffs
Distributed generation and storage customers those business customers who adopt distributed
generation and/or storage along with a critical peak
pricing and time-of-use tariff
The difference between the BAU and smart grid
case in average annual bills in 2034 for the average
business customer type is shown in Figure 2-59
Figure 2-59 Impact on average annual business customer bills in 2034 (medium scenario)
18,000
16,000
$2,108
14,000
$3,083
$15,292
$9,251
$13,184
12,000
$1,711
10,000
$8,390
8,000
$2,620
6,000
$3,421
4,000
2,000
0
SG Bill
Customer
with DG/DS
Cost of
DG/DS
Cross
Subsidy
SG
SG
Passive
SG
Benefits
Average Bill - SG
BAU
Passive
Customer
Cross
Subsidy
BAU
Cost of
DG/DS
BAU with
DG/DS
Average Bill - BAU
16
or the purposes of this assessment, it was assumed

F
that all business customers are charged based on
inclining block tariffs and do not pay a capacity
charge. In some states, this may not be currently the
case for some business customers, depending on
their usage pattern and location.
The left column (pink) shows the average annual bill

for a commercial customer for who has invested in
distributed resources. This customer has an annual
energy bill of $8 390 in 2034. The customer also has
an annual investment and operational cost of $1 711
for distributed generation and storage. Their total
annual energy cost of $10 101 means that they have
a cost saving of $3 083 a year from their investment
in distributed generation and storage compared to the
passive customer bill under the smart grid case of $13
184 per annum (purple column).
The passive customer under the smart grid case pays
roughly $2 018 less per year compared to the passive
customer under the BAU case whose annual bill is
$15,292 in real terms (green column). The lack of cost
reflective pricing under the BAU case means that the
passive customer is effectively subsidising customers
who invest in distributed generation. The total annual
cost of a customer who has adopted distributed
generation under the BAU case is $6,041 (made up of
an annual energy bill of $3,421 and annual investment
cost of $2 620). The effective cross subsidisation
under the BAU case is $9,251per annum per
commercial customer, more than three times under the
smart grid case (orange column).

electricity pricing outcomes
1. Overall, the average cost of electricity is 1.3 per
cent lower under the smart grid case, compared
to the BAU case by 2034.
2. By 2034, the retail component of the cost of
electricity is 8 per cent higher under the
smart grid case, but the network cost is 13 per
cent lower.
3. Customers who do not adopt distributed
generation or storage are better off under a
smart grid case, particularly those that take up
dynamic tariffs and respond to peak pricing
incentives to shift electricity consumption away
from peak periods.
4. Customers who choose to take up distributed
generation and storage receive a higher bill
reduction under the BAU case compared to the
smart grid case.
5. For residential and business consumers under
both BAU and smart grid cases, distributed
generation and storage customers are
subsidised by passive customers. For residential
customers this cross subsidy is more than nine
times higher under the BAU case compared to
the smart grid case. For commercial customers,
the cross subsidy is three times higher under the
BAU case compared to the smart grid case.
6. Passive residential customers, who do not
change behaviour or make any investment
decision, receive an annual savings in the order
of $156 per annum by 2034 under the smart grid
case compared to the BAU case.
7. Passive business customers, who do not change
behaviour or make any investment decision,
receive an annual savings in the order of $2,000
per annum by 2034 under the smart grid case.
8. Residential customers who adopt dynamic
pricing (but do not adopt distributed generation
and / or storage) save in the order of $216 per
annum by 2034 compared to the passive
BAU customer.
5 Comparing the integrated benefits

findings from the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program with the original business case
In 2009 the Australian Government (the then
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts) commissioned a report17 which postulated a
number of potential benefits for Australia which could
be achieved by the deployment of a smart grid.
For the first time, this report articulated some of the
challenges associated with transporting electricity
across Australias vast distances including line losses,
and fault detection, isolation and restoration. Further,
it highlighted Australias dependence on coal-fired
generation with a consequential high emissionsintensity per capita.
The report postulated that a smart grid could help
the nation address these challenges, offering societal
benefits for Australia in four broad categories including:
Direct financial impact, including operating and
capital cost savings and potential to lower bills for
customers
Reliability, including fewer outages and injuries and
improved power quality
Environmental, assisting customers to adapt to a
carbon-constrained future through, for example,
energy efficiency and supporting increased use of
renewable energy
Customer empowerment, including greater
transparency and choice, and distributed
generation
The 2009 report also sought to estimate the potential
gross benefits of a smart grid in Australia (excluding
costs). The approach adopted in the 2009 assessment
identified the individual benefits available from eight
separate technology types and summed these to
estimate a gross benefit for smart grid technologies
in Australia.
From the period 2010 to early 2014 results from

the Smart Grid, Smart City trials noted a number
of synergies and interdependencies between
technologies and products such that:
Two or more technologies could deliver the same
benefits (for example reliability benefits were
demonstrated by both SFM, FDIR technologies)
The benefits of an individual technology could
directly relate to the extent of deployment
of another technology (for example, greater
penetration of distributed generation resulted
in increased power quality impacts making the
business case for AVVC stronger)
The significance of the synergies and
interdependencies between technologies was a key
learning that emerged from the trials that suggested
that the individual technology approach to a smart grid
cost benefit assessment as completed in the 2009
assessment may have shortcomings.
Challenges with the gross benefit individual technology
assessment and quantification of benefits include:
Double counting benefits provided by two or more
technologies
Under or overestimation of benefits of the value
proposition of smart grid technologies through
inadequately reflecting the interdependencies
between technologies and products
Underestimating the peak demand benefits
achievable
In recognition of the importance of this finding, Ausgrid
and the Australian Government commissioned an
integrated national cost benefit assessment, with the
results, conclusions and recommendations being
presented and discussed in this report.
Table 2-13 provides a comparison of the potential
gross benefits hypothesised in the 2009 report
with those results produced based on the Smart Grid,
Smart City trials and this independent cost benefit
assessment.
17
ustralian Government, Smart Grid, Smart City

A
Anew direction for a new energy era, 2009.
Table 2-13 Comparison of the 2009 Australian Government gross value assessment of smart grids with the 2013 Smart Grid, Smart City cost net benefit assessment
Performance indicator
2009 Australian Government

Report value assessment
(gross annual stand-alone

benefit)
Stand-alone smart meter infrastructure
Dynamic tariffs and customer feedback
technologies with smart meter infrastructure
Electric vehicle smart charging with smart

Cost benefit assessment of the

2014 Smart Grid, Smart City trials
Comment
under medium economic scenario18
(gross integrated annual benefit)
$500 million
$31.8 million
$1.3 billion
$145.4 million
2009 analysis was for customer

applications (dynamic tariffs only)
$14.4 million
The 2014 assessment only

calculated the benefit of smart
charging
2014 results calculated using
2012 AEMO value of customer
reliability.
$500 million
FDIR
$900 million
$60 million
AVVC
$0.7 billion
$34.2 million
SFM
$200 million
$10.8 million
The cost to retrofit these

technologies is cost prohibitive
$500 million
$410 million
The net benefit of distributed

generation and storage has been
used because it is greater
WAM
$0.4 billion annually
Not quantified
Total
$5 billion
$877 million
Distributed generation and storage
18
Under the high economic scenario, these annual gross benefits are in the order of $1 billion.
The projected annual gross benefit of $5 billion

estimated in 2009 varies significantly from the
assessed benefit of deploying an integrated smart grid
technology and tariff solution of around $877 million
per annum shown by the national net cost benefit
assessments. However, comparing these numbers in
absolute terms is challenging for a number of reasons
including:
The 2009 assessment was based on gross
benefits of individual smart grid technologies and
did not consider where double counting of benefits
between smart grid technologies and dynamic
tariffs or interdependencies between technologies
The underpinning assumptions for the analysis
completed in 2009 were not published meaning
that assumptions between the 2009 and 2014
assessments could differ significantly
The 2009 methodology accounted for not only direct
financial benefits, but also included assumptions
around savings from greenhouse gas emissions and
improved customer reliability which were monetised.
Greenhouse gas emissions were not monetised in the
2014 assessment (a comparison of the annualised
CO2-e benefits are discussed below):
The 2009 assessment did not consider when
technologies might be deployed or when the
benefits could accrue
The 2009 assessment did not consider the
speed at which technologies could practically
be deployed, nor the inter-relationships or
dependences of benefit accrual with other
technologies, systems or platforms
It is unclear what assumptions the 2009
assessment made around future electricity demand
growth noting that in 2009 peak demand was at
a record high following a decade of year-on-year
growth and current projections are significantly
lower
Rooftop solar PV deployment projections in 2009
were significantly lower than the actual deployment
which has been seen in the subsequent years
network operators to meet their reliability targets

The 2009 gross benefit assessment did not
consider the total system impact that is, it did not
model the feedback loops (flow on impacts) due
to more economically efficient pricing signals, the
impact of consumer choice or potential benefits
and costs that arose due to changes in centralised
and distribution generation outputs
While there are a number of points of difference
between the two studies, there are some important
similarities in findings. In particular, the deployment of
FDIR technologies, distributed generation and storage,
electric vehicles and the introduction of dynamic tariffs
produced the highest results in both assessments.
In addition to the analysis on the financial benefits
of different smart grid technologies and devices,
the 2009 report also concluded that there could be
minimum gross environmental savings of 3.5 Mt of
CO2-e per annum (using its stand-alone technology
assessment). The national integrated cost benefit
assessment showed a range of emissions outcomes
when comparing the BAU and smart grid cases, as
previously described in Table 2-12. Under the low
economic scenario the average annualised difference
in emissions under the smart grid case was 2.15 Mt
lower each year. However, under the medium and high
economic cases, the smart grid annual emissions
intensity was higher at 6.95 Mt and
13.71 Mt respectively.
As previously discussed, these differences are due to
a range of modelling input assumptions (detailed in the
Modelling Inputs Compendium) and outcomes of the
integrated benefits model including the interactions
between different smart grid technologies and devices.
The 2009 report methodology and its modelling
assumptions and inputs was not released publicly
which means that aside from the high level annualised
result it is not possible to discuss the reasons for the
different outcomes.
Reliability standards in 2013 are higher than those

in 2009 in many states meaning that additional
network investment has already occurred to enable
Part 3
Conclusions and
Recommendations
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Part Three Conclusions and Recommendations ARUP 237
Part 3 Contents
1
Australias energy sector reform agenda
1.1
Overview of Part Three
240
1.2
COAG Energy Council reform agenda
240
1.3
Energy market reform priorities
241
1.4
Delivering energy market reform in Australia
241
1.5
Smart Grid, Smart City Program and Australias energy sector reform process
245
1.6
Stakeholder priorities
246
1.7
Introduction to the conclusions and recommendations
246
The business case for individual smart grid technologies
2.1
Fault Detection, Isolation and Restoration (FDIR) technologies
248
2.2
Active Volt VAr Control (AVVC)
252
2.3
Substation feeder monitoring (SFM)
254
2.4
Observations of wide area measurement systems (WAMS) trial
256
2.5
Smart meter infrastructure (stand-alone)
257
2.6
Dynamic tariffs and customer feedback technologies (plus SMI)
260
2.7
Electric vehicle (smart) charging (with SMI and direct load control)
266
2.8
Distributed generation and distributed storage (with SMI and dynamic tariffs)
269
2.9
Electricity prices (customer bills)
275
Transitioning industry and consumers to a smart grid future
3.1
Beginning the transition in Australia to a smart grid
279
3.2
Electricity distribution networks
279
3.3
Electricity consumers
282
3.4
Transitioning to greater volumes of distributed generation
283
aximising the benefits and opportunities in transitioning

M
to a smart grid in Australia
4.1
Balancing financial, reliability and environmental benefits
285
4.2
The case for cost reflective prices
285
4.3
The case for in-grid smart grid technologies
286
4.4
Varying economic conditions and national net benefits
287
4.5
What are the key costs and risks of inaction?
287
238 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Part Three Conclusions and Recommendations ARUP
240
248
279
285
1 Australias energy sector

reform agenda
1.1 Overview of
Part Three
The Smart Grid, Smart City trials were underway
during an historically unprecedented period of change
in the electricity sector and continued slow growth
in electricity demand and consumption, it is timely
to consider whether smart grid technologies and
products have a role in Australia in managing future
demand growth and price increases.
This part of the report provides discussion around:
The key observations, conclusions and
recommendations relating to the smart grid
technologies trialled during the Smart Grid, Smart
City Program
The key observations, conclusions and
recommendations relating to the findings of the
Customer Research Survey
Transitioning industry and consumers to a smart
grid future
Maximising the benefits and opportunities in
transitioning to a smart grid in Australia
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program attempted to
test, on a commercial basis, arguably one of the
widest ranging technology assessments of smart grid
products in the world to date. The scope of this
report and the tasks which were undertaken were
focussed on quantifying the costs and benefits for
the deployment of smart grid technologies in a
nationalcontext.
The assessment undertaken to develop this report and
its recommendations has used trial results and, in some
cases, additional data to form an independent opinion
as to the potential business case in Australia for different
technology, tariffs and consumer feedback product
elements of the smart grid.
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program and this analysis

has produced a significant amount of data, the key
aspects of which are provided within this report. As
previously discussed in Part One of this report, full
trial results as well as supporting documentation
and reports from the trials and from this report can
be found on the Smart Grid, Smart City Information
Clearing House at https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au.
1.2 COAG Energy

Council reform agenda
Energy sector reform across Australia has been
underway since 1993, where first the Hilmer, and
later the Parer Review put forward a range of
recommendations relating to the development of
a competitive wholesale market. This led to the
establishment of various energy market institutions,
the original development of the national electricity
and retail laws, and the establishment of the National
Electricity Market (NEM).
Given the complexity of Australias energy market
and the significant number of long-lived and capitalintensive assets in generation and network businesses,
the reform process is challenging and complex.
States are at different stages of energy market
reform, and there are differences between NEM and
non-NEM states.
There is also a focus by governments on ensuring
that consumers are not disadvantaged by the market
reform process and that particularly vulnerable
customers are protected to the extent possible
by nationally consistent processes and without
introducing economically inefficient cross-subsidies.
1.3 Energy market

reform priorities
On 7 December 2012, the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) endorsed a comprehensive
package of national energy market reforms developed
collaboratively by the then Standing Council on Energy
and Resources (SCER) (now, the COAG Energy Council)
to respond to the challenges of sharply rising electricity
prices1. The package of reforms aimed to restore the
focus of the electricity market on serving the long-term
interests of consumers and was built around four key
themes being:
Strengthening network regulation
Fairer network rules
A stronger AER
Improvements to the appeals mechanism
Empowering customers
Strengthening opportunities for consumer
engagement
Enhanced access to better consumer data
Opt-in deployment of smart meters
Opt-in TOU pricing
Greater demand side participation opportunities
Enhanced consumer protection
Enhancing competition and innovation
Greater retail competition and innovation
Fair and reasonable return for all
microgeneration
Ensuring balanced network investment
A national framework for reliability standards
Investigating demand responsiveness of the
regulatory framework
These reforms sought to deliver on the objective of

ensuring consumers pay no more than necessary for
a reliable, secure and safe supply of electricity in the
long term.
Some of these energy market reforms have the
potential to be influenced by the findings of the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program and the analysis
contained within this report, which makes a thorough
consideration of the cost benefit assessment results
even more critical.
To understand how the findings of the cost benefit
assessment of the Smart Grid, Smart City technologies
and pricing products could influence future market
operations, some of the most relevant of the recent and
current market reviews underway within Australia have
been detailed in the following section.
1.4 Delivering energy

market reform in
Australia
In the context of the COAG Energy Council focus on
energy market reform there are a significant number
of market and policy reviews recently completed,
underway or due to commence in the near future.
Anumber of these which were current at publication of
this report are described in Table 3-12.
Many of the findings, conclusions and
recommendations provide empirical data which
support the existing energy market reform
processes in Australia. In particular, many of
the recommendations are relevant to existing
investigations currently underway stemming from
the AEMCs Power of Choice Review published
inNovember 2012.
Ensuring efficient transmission investment
www.scer.govspace.gov.au
2 Note that at the time this report was developed,

the COAG Energy Council had not yet confirmed its
priorities and work programs. These market reform
activities reflect those established under the former
SCER
The Power of Choice Report identified the opportunities

(information, education, and technology, and flexible
pricing options) for consumers to make more informed
choices about the way they use electricity. The review
also addressed the market conditions and incentives
required for network operators, retailers and other
parties to maximise the potential of efficient
demand side participation (DSP) and respond to
consumers choices.
The overall objective of the review was to ensure that
the communitys demand for electricity services is met
by the lowest cost combination of demand and supply
side options
The Power of Choice Report set out a substantial
reform package, elements of which are described
in Table 3-1 and referenced throughout this part
of the Smart Grid, Smart City national cost benefit
assessment. The COAG Energy Council (formerly
SCER) and individual jurisdictions are currently
progressing the implementation of a number of its
recommendations.
Where relevant, recommendations in this report
are contextualised by the current reform program
underway within the COAG Energy Council, AEMC,
AER and AEMO.
Table 3-1 Summary of existing energy market reform activities aligned with the former SCER (now COAG Energy Council)
strategic objectives and Smart Grid, Smart City Program
Review of Renewable
Energy Target (Australian
Government review)
Announcement of
deregulation of retail
pricing in some states (e.g.
Queensland and NSW)
Expanding competition
in metering and related
services (AEMC)
Distribution Network
Pricing Arrangements
(AEMC)
Development of common
NEM distribution reliability
measures (AEMC)
Ensuring
balanced network
investment
Impacts on the future dispatch and

investment in centralised generation
As part of progress towards full

deregulation of gas and electricity
pricing in some states of Australia
Enablement of smart grids through

the deployment of smart meter
infrastructure
Proposed rule change which is

considering proposed changes to the
way by which distribution network
prices are set and structured
Improving customer knowledge of
electricity consumption in order to
enable behaviour change
2014 Retail competition

review (AEMC)
Strategic priorities
for energy market
development (AEMC)
Advice on best practice

retail regulation policy
(AEMC)
Value of customer reliability and FDIR

potential improvements
Ensuring adequate competition in
Australias energy market
Review of Distribution
Reliability Outcomes and
Standards National Work
Stream (AEMC)

technology or aspect
Customer access to
information about their
energy consumption rule
change (AEMC)
Differences between
actual and forecast
demand in network
regulation (AEMC)
Enhancing
competition and
innovation
Empowering
customers
SCER market priority
Strengthen
network
regulation
Market reform activity
Technologies which improve reliability

e.g. FDIR
Touches on most aspects of the

Impact of dynamic tariffs on electricity

bills and customer behaviour, including
smart metering
Dynamic tariffs to managing

peak demand growth, distributed
generation and storage, smart
metering
Power of choice review

(AEMC)
Framework for
open access and
communication standards
(AEMC)
vehicles
Better regulation reform
program (AER)
Rule change connecting

embedded generators
(AEMC)
Review of gas and electric
Ensuring
balanced network
investment
Enhancing
competition and
innovation
Empowering
customers
SCER market priority
Strengthen
network
regulation
Market reform activity
Managing the future impact of EVs on

peak demand growth
Customer engagement, enhanced

market participation
Potential mechanism to share smart

grid technology costs between
distribution and transmission sectors
where there are mutual benefits
energy sellers review (AER)
Customer participation in the market,

new products, dynamic tariffs and
smart meter infrastructure
Value of customer reliability which

influences investment in smart grid
reliability technologies
Distributed generation and storage,

customer participation in the market
Understanding ways to deliver a
reliable network with less capital
investment
Service target performance
commence in 2014) (AER)

Distribution network annual
planning reports (AEMO)
Value of customer reliability

directions paper (AEMO)
Energy conversion model

for solar forecasting
Smart meters, customer participation

through response to dynamic tariffs,
distributed generation and storage
Regulation of alternative
incentive scheme review (to
This review closely aligns with the

overall objectives of the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program
Distributed generation and storage,

dynamic tariffs, consumer market
participation
Cost allocation guidelines

(AER)

technology or aspect
Understanding solar PV contribution to

the grid
(AEMO)
1.5 Smart Grid,

Smart City Program
and Australias energy
sector reform process
Much of Australias energy market reform process is
aimed at meeting the National Electricity Objective
(set out in the National Electricity Law) which is
to promote efficient investment in, and efficient
operation and use of, electricity services for the
long term interests of consumers of electricity with
respectto:
a. Price, quality, safety, reliability and security of
supply of electricity, and
b. The reliability, safety and security of the national
electricity system
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program was intended to
provide an understanding of the costs, benefits and
challenges of a range of smart grid technologies and
products such as in-grid technologies and customerfacing products such as dynamic tariffs, in-home
displays and web portals.
However, in the past three or four years, this trend of

rapid demand growth and significant investment has
been reversed and replaced by a period of significantly
lower total demand for grid-sourced electricity and
lower total system peak demand. Importantly, while
average electricity demand has dropped, the spread
between the average and peak demand remains.
This impacts the load factor of electricity networks
and the cost per unit of supply of electricity (seen
by consumers as a network tariff). This change in
average and peak demand in recent years means
that there are now parts of the electricity distribution
networks where there is excess capacity. Similarly in
the generation sector, the reduction in consumption
and total demand, as well as the significant increase
in installation of solar PV systems driven (initially) by
generous capital subsidies and feed-in-tariffs and the
deployment of large scale wind generation in order to
meet the RET means that a number of large baseload
coal and gas-fired generating units have been
temporarily or permanently withdrawn from service
across the NEM.
These issues have been extensively discussed in
Appendix One of this report.
At the time that the Smart Grid, Smart City Program

commenced, Australia was in a period where there
was year-on-year growth, and in some cases rapid
growth, in both consumption and peak demand.
Network operators around Australia were being
challenged to deliver ambitious capital investment
programs in order to both replace aged infrastructure
and to continue to meet reliability standards in light of
this rapid growth in consumer demand. The economy
was also in a high growth period, driven by the mining
boom and strong demand for Australian raw and
processed products both domestically and overseas.
1.6 Stakeholder
priorities
Analysis of stakeholder engagement at the start of this
project, which is discussed in Part Two of this report,
showed a wide range of priorities, most of which
have been addressed (at least in part) by the series
of reports published from the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program. The majority of these priority areas can be
summarised under the following key themes:
Consumer impacts protection, engagement,
behaviour change, acceptance, energy literacy,
demographic responses and bill impacts
Price impacts network and retail
Market impacts demand side responsiveness,
electric vehicle impacts, development of market
products, impact of market products, standards
issues
1.7 Introduction to
the conclusions and
recommendations
The following section of the report includes:
A summary of the key findings of the Smart Grid,
Smart City integrated cost benefit assessment
which are used to draw a number of conclusions
A series of technology or product-specific
recommendations based on the key findings,
observations and conclusions
A number of overarching recommendations which
are sector specific rather than technology or
product specific
A high level diagram showing the nature of the
conclusions and recommendations of this report are
shown in Figure 3-1 and discussed further in Section 4.
Network impacts capital and operational

expenditure impacts, security of supply, network
utilisation, network losses, operational changes
Greenhouse gas impacts effect of a smart grid
on carbon emissions
The breadth of these priority areas illustrates the
complexity of the electricity sector in Australia and the
challenge in attempting to maximise the benefits in
each of these priority areas whilst minimising the costs
or dis-benefits.
Figure 3-1 High level themes of the strategic conclusions and recommendations within this report
Cost reflective
Pricing for
consumers
Need for
interoperability
standards
Existing COAG
Energy
Council
market reform
program
Innovation in
technology and
product
deployment
The cost benefit assessment of the Smart Grid, Smart

City Program found that in aggregate, a net benefit of
more than $27 billion, under the medium economic
scenario, could be achieved by the optimised and
integrated deployment of smart grid technologies,
tariffs and customer feedback technologies. Detailed
descriptions of each technology and their relative
benefits are described in Part Two of this report and
have been summarised in the following section of this
part of this report.
Jurisdictional
government and
industry
leadership
Consumer
education and
industry training
The costs and benefits of smart grid technologies

vary by state, by network topology and by customer
type. For the network types and states modelled,
these differences are quantified as part of the cost
benefit assessment and are discussed in Part Two
and Appendix Three of this report. This means that
individual stakeholders will need to consider the
full findings of the modelling to determine whether,
based on local circumstances, there is a positive
business case for deployment of individual smart grid
technologies and customer feedback technologies.
2 The business case for individual

smart grid technologies
Over the last three years the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program has trialled many individual in-grid smart grid
technologies, customer feedback technology products
and retail and network tariffs. The following sections of
this report describe the observations, conclusions and
specific recommendations for each of the individual
technologies based on the results of the trials and the
cost benefit assessment modelling process. It also
provides a number of overarching recommendations
which apply across the sector rather than being
technology or product specific.
2.1 Fault Detection,

Isolation and
Restoration (FDIR)
technologies
Currently many grid operators in Australia generally
become aware of a fault on their overhead HV network
through a feeder circuit breaker tripping, which sends
an alarm to the control room. This, in conjunction with
customer calls and feeder patrols, allows field staff to
restore overhead connections via manual switching.
FDIR technologies use advanced Distribution
Management System (DMS) software and remotely
controllable switches with in-built fault monitoring
sensors to optimise the process of restoring power to
customers after the occurrence of a fault i.e. FDIR
technologies enable the remote discovery of a fault,
the location of that fault and remote power restoration.
FDIR technologies can reduce the duration of

outages to customers on unaffected network
sections, automatically switch the network and
implement sophisticated switching schemes. These
characteristics can generate the following benefits:
Avoided network capital expenditure
Avoided network fault management operational
expenditure
Avoided customer cost of outages
The FDIR Smart Grid, Smart City field trials
successfully demonstrated the technical feasibility
of implementation of this technology in an Australian
distribution network environment even though there
were no fault events triggering the centralised FDIR
algorithm.
To extend the Smart Grid, Smart City Field Trial, the
PS+EDGE modelling platform was able to model faults
occurring within the field trial area to test the ability of
the DMS to respond. Moreover, these capabilities were
used for planned outages on a number of occasions
during the trial period to demonstrate operational
efficiencies by not dispatching field crews to manually
operate switches in the field.
These modelled faults demonstrated that FDIR
technologies were able to effectively detect, isolate
and restore faults so as to avoid outages within
60seconds.
2.1.1 Key findings of FDIR

national cost benefit assessment
Deployment of FDIR technologies under the medium
macroeconomic scenario was modelled to deliver
a net benefit of $14.41 billion in present value terms
through to 2034. To achieve the benefits suggested
by the cost benefit assessment, approximately
$1.33billion of capital investment will be required to
deploy FDIR technologies in Australia.
Given the significant dependence of the NPV of FDIR
deployment on AEMOs value of customer reliability,
the latter should be reviewed and validated prior
to investment.
Other key findings relating to FDIR include:
Modelling results suggested that deployment of
FDIR devices will deliver strongly positive NPV
for all states under all macroeconomic scenarios.
Given FDIR predominantly delivers improvements
in reliability, deployment of FDIR technology has
the potential to deliver the greatest benefits in those
states or geographical locations with the poorest
network reliability (high SAIDI) statistics
The greatest economic potential for reliability
benefits from FDIR deployment exists in meshed
urban and short rural networks
There are very limited opportunities for FDIR
benefits to be achieved in CBD areas given the
existing high levels of reliability in CBD feeders
in Australia
There are very limited opportunities for FDIR in long
rural networks due to the lack of meshing (network
redundancy) and the existing use of recloser
technology in long rural networks
2.1.2 Observations, conclusions

and recommendations for FDIR
technologies
An unconstrained deployment of FDIR technologies
has the potential to deliver the largest economic
benefit of any individual technology or product trialled
during the Smart Grid, Smart City Program. The net
benefit of FDIR technology deployment was estimated
to be around $14.41 billion, in present value terms,
in Australia through to 2034, with more than 99 per
cent of benefits relating to improvements in customer
reliability. The remainder, approximately $4 million,
is attributable to reduced fault finding costs which
represent a minor operational saving nationally for
distribution network operators.
Modelling showed all of these benefits will accrue
within urban and short rural networks.
Recommendation
Distribution network businesses should consider
where FDIR technologies could provide the
best opportunities for improvements to SAIDI in
urban and short rural networks, or deliver current
SAIDI requirements at a lower cost, and target
the deployment of these technologies to achieve
optimal reliability outcomes.
The FDIR benefit of $14.41 billion found from the
national cost benefit assessment was derived from
the monetised value of customer reliability (or VCR).
The values adopted in this study, as shown in Table
3-2, are sourced from the VCRs for each NEM region,
developed by Oakley Greenwood (2011) and derived
from the Victorian surveys conducted in 2007. In its
National Value of Customer Reliability Report (2012)
AEMO proposed to adopt the Oakley Greenwood
values until jurisdictional surveys are conducted.
Table 3-2 AEMO National Value of Customer Reliability $/MWh (residential customers) sourced from the AEMOs National
Value of Customer Reliability Report (2012)
Segment
Value of Customer Reliability ($/MWh)

VIC
QLD
NSW
SA
TAS
WA
Residential
20,395
15,318
17,190
16,469
18,532
16,469
Commercial
90,763
62,887
68,396
18,649
76,716
18,649
The value any individual customer places on reliability

depends on their vulnerability to outages. This will
differ by customer type. Some business customers will
experience significant productivity losses as a result
of even very short outages, while for other customers,
several minutes without electricity is unlikely to have
any impact on productivity or quality of life.
Improving reliability, that is, increasing the total time
that electricity supply to all or any customers within a
network is available, has an economic value known as
the value of customer reliability. This is based on a
customers estimated economic loss due to a loss of
electricity supply and their willingness to pay to avoid
an outage.
At the time this report was published there were no
agreed industry-wide values for customer reliability.
AEMO is also currently conducting a national VCR
review, which is due to be completed in September
2014. As part of the review, AEMO will develop
regional-specific VCRs which can effectively be
applied for use in revenue regulation, planning and
operational purposes in the NEM.
Despite this uncertainty, even if the VCR values were
reduced significantly, it is highly likely that investment
in FDIR technologies will still show a significant national
net benefit for short rural and urban networks
in Australia.
Recommendations
There will be significant capital investment required
to deploy FDIR technologies nationally. Given the
strong potential for national net economic benefits
suggested by this assessment, AEMOs 2012 value
of customer reliability and its methodology used to
calculate these values should be updated. When an
updated series of figures for the value of customer
reliability are available, the business case for
deploying FDIR technologies nationally in urban and
short rural networks should be re-evaluated.
The Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Application
network and retail trials did not assess consumers
willingness to accept lower levels of reliability (i.e.
accept a greater number and / or longer outages) in
exchange for lower prices. This may be an area of
additional research that the AEMC or AEMO could
undertake in determining the value of customer
reliability.
The AER also has an existing incentive framework for
networks to invest in technologies to improve reliability
under its distribution Service Target Performance
Incentive Scheme (STPIS scheme). The STPIS is
designed to encourage distribution businesses to
maintain or improve service performance for both
supply reliability and service performance.
The STPIS sets targets for the average duration (SAIDI)

and frequency (SAIFI) of outages for each electricity
distribution business (as well as other service
performance targets). The scheme provides financial
bonuses and penalties of up to a cap of 5 per cent
of revenue to network businesses that meet or fail to
meet performance targets, as well as a guaranteed
service level (GSL) component under which customers
are paid directly if performance falls below specified
threshold levels.
With the current incentive cap and the fixed fiveyear incentive window, STPIS could constrain the
deployment of FDIR. The upper limit of the incentive
is generally 5 per cent of annual network revenue for
each year of the five year regulatory period3. Although
this is lower than the step change in customer
reliability delivered by FDIR, it may still be sufficient to
encourage at-risk investment.
While the STPIS value is capped at a level significantly
lower than the customer value of reliability provided by
FDIR estimated in this study, it has been sufficient to
incentivise investment in deployment FDIR for some
networks. For example, SP AusNet has relied on the
STPIS to implement a distributed automation system.
However, network operators may consider proposing
higher revenue caps to fund more wide scale
deployment of smart grid technology including FDIR.
Recommendation
In light of the potential gap between network
benefits which could be achieved by FDIR
technologies and the cap on incentives under the
current distribution Service Target Performance
Incentive Scheme (STPIS), the AER should
investigate whether the current scheme is
an economically efficient means of delivery
the potential net economic benefits of these
technologies highlighted by this assessment.
3 Within the current STPIS framework network

operators can request to up to 10 per cent revenue
at risk (with rollout in year one) but most network
businesses choose not to accept the greater level of
revenue risk
Investment by network businesses will also be

determined by differing reliability standards in each
state and the relative proportions of networks which
have low reliability indicators. FDIR is only as valuable
as the reliability improvement it delivers, which means
that a targeted deployment on a networks worst
performing feeders would be expected to deliver the
greatest benefits, with diminishing returns as reliability
improves. As a result, care should be taken when
applying the outcomes from this trial to the wider
network reliability indicators, as the relative reliability
improvements for FDIR will be area-specific.
In addition to the AERs STPIS, individual states apply
their own reliability standards4. These standards
differ by jurisdiction and are generally either (or a
combination of):
Deterministic, requiring a certain level of
redundancy in specific parts of the network (usually
expressed as N-x requirements), or
Probabilistic, requiring that investments take place
only if the benefits from doing so (based on VCR)
exceed the costs
Historically most jurisdictions have had some form
of deterministic reliability standard. In many of these
states there has been discussion as to the contribution
of deterministic reliability standards to higher
distribution network capital investment and increased
network electricity tariffs for consumers. Most
states have, or are in the process of moving towards
probabilistic reliability standards.
FDIR technologies have the potential to assist network
businesses to achieve minimum standards at lower
costs. However, it is plausible that deterministic
standards may be a barrier to FDIR technologies
where the comparable reliability benefits afforded by
FDIR are not considered in the assessment.
4 Noting that the COAG Energy Council has asked

the AEMC to investigate opportunities to standardise
reliability standards across NEM states
The high benefit to cost ratio of FDIR technologies

implies that FDIR may represent a more economic
alternative to traditional approaches used to increase
customer reliability. This suggests that deploying FDIR
technologies may provide an opportunity to raise
reliability standards in some parts of the electricity
network without having a significant impact on
customer electricity prices.
2.2 Active Volt VAr

Control (AVVC)
AVVC technologies apply automated voltage regulating
and reactive power controls to measure and maintain
acceptable voltages and high power factor at all
points in the HV distribution network under varying
load conditions.
AVVC technologies were trialled as part of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program in the Nelson Bay area
which is north of Newcastle in New South Wales.
AVVC field trials included automated management of
power factor, conservation voltage reduction and peak
demand reduction and demonstrated the technical
feasibility of each technology application in an
Australian distribution network environment.
The role for AVVC technologies in the smart grid
includes the potential for:
Deferring capital expenditure (network and new
generator capacity) by improving the utilisation
of existing assets through minimising reactive
power in the network and peak shaving at times of
maximum load
Reducing system losses by minimising real and
reactive power flow in the network through voltage
control and the control of reactive sources
Improving power quality through improved
voltage profiles
Given this functionality, AVVC technology is best

placed in strategic locations where there are power
factor, capacity or voltage constraints in a HV network.
2.2.1 Key findings of AVVC

Analysis of AVVC technology showed the potential
for net benefits of $756 million in present value terms,
under the medium scenario for Australia through to
2034, with the majority of these benefits attributable
to urban and short rural networks. Approximately five
per cent of benefits also were shown in long rural
networks, although only in some states.
The strong economic benefits were seen in urban and
short rural networks in New South Wales and Victoria,
followed by Queensland, with lower levels of benefits
seen for other states in Australia.
Other key findings from the cost benefit assessment of
AVVC which included the Smart Grid, Smart City trial
results are summarised below:
The modelling results suggested that automated
capacitor banks and voltage regulators (both types
of AVVC technologies) could be economically
deployed on high voltage networks within urban,
short rural and long rural networks from 2019.
Deployment of AVVC devices within CBD networks
was found to not be economically viable under any
of the macroeconomic scenarios
The greatest financial benefits from AVVC are likely
to be achieved in a distribution networks worst
capacity or voltage constrained areas
AVVC-style control could be a key enabler to
derive benefits and manage some of the network
costs from distributed generation (e.g. from
higher solar penetration). The benefits of AVVC
technologies arelikely to increase with higher levels
of distributed generation
Reducing energy consumption through

conservation voltage reduction technology

and recommendations for AVVC
technologies
In Australia there appears to be a net benefit business
case for the more rapid deployment of AVVC
technologies. This business case could be marginally
improved if distribution network operators were able
to adequately quantify other market benefits which
accrue other parts of the market. As an example,
benefits from the reduction in line losses due to a
future deployment of AVVC devices will be split (or
shared) between network operators and retailers. In
the case of AVVC devices, the benefits which accrue
to line losses are relatively minor ($9 million in gross
benefits) compared to the improved power factor
benefits ($846 million in gross benefits).
AVVC may have a greater role in managing power
quality in network areas where there are significant
volumes of grid-connected rooftop solar PV
installations. As the amount of distributed generation
increases in Australia over the coming decades,
AVVC technologies are likely to have a growing role in
distribution networks.
The Smart Grid, Smart City AVVC field trials also
demonstrated that the technology is effective in
managing the voltage profile in the distribution
network. High penetration of rooftop solar PV was
shown to result in voltage rise near the inverter
connection point. If voltage rises above the preset upper voltage limit (253 V) the inverter will trip,
resulting in solar spillage. AVVC can be used to
better control the voltage profile and hence avoid solar
spillage, meaning that strategic deployment of these
technologies has the potential to avoid power quality
rectification costs.
Recommendation
Network operators should investigate the potential
benefits which could be achieved from the
deployment of AVVC technologies in areas of their
networks where there are power factor, capacity or
voltage constraints. This may include a comparison
of the existing costs to remedy power factor,
capacity or voltage constraints and the alternative
costs of deploying AVVC in these locations.
Importantly, to deploy AVVC technology to achieve

the benefits previously described, a relatively low
capital and operational investment cost of $99 million
nationally for the period through to 2034 is required.
Across the high, medium and low economic scenarios,
modelling suggested that there was very little
difference in the location and magnitude of the net
benefits, implying that under any scenario, there were
likely to be net benefits from AVVC deployment. AVVC
was shown to have a strong business case for urban
and short rural networks and in some locations long
rural networks.
As with many smart grid technologies, the need
for enabling ICT infrastructure (a common platform)
to enable communication with devices such as
AVVC technologies is also a consideration. Network
businesses will need to consider whether their existing
SCADA or other systems are compatible with be the
AVVC devices.
Additional analysis using Ausgrids PS + EDGE
modelling platform showed that once the installed
rooftop solar PV inverter capacity reaches around 40
per cent of the annual maximum load on a distribution
transformer in a given location, systematic solar
spillage was likely to occur. This is highly dependent
on the age and capacity of the network feeder in this
location. In some instances, older network feeders
may have issues at a lower capacity. Under these
circumstances where there is a very high solar
generation in some parts of a distribution companys
network, consideration may need to be given as to
whether price signals should be sent to customers
which take into account the costs and benefits of

rooftop solar PV in different parts of the network.
This is further discussed under the distributed
generation and distributed storage conclusions and
recommendations.
2.3 Substation feeder

monitoring (SFM)
SFM technologies use a collection of monitoring devices
to measure current, voltage, power factor and a range
of environmental and technical conditions including
partial discharges, dissolved gases and thermal
conditions in order to monitor the network state and
condition of assets within the distribution network and
to predict faults before they occur.
SFM technologies were trialled in a variety of locations

across the Ausgrid distribution network on a range of
transmission, substation and distribution assets. The
field trials demonstrated the technical feasibility of each
technology application in an Australian distribution
network environment.
In particular, the field trial demonstrated the following
benefits for SFM technologies:
Real time thermal rating of underground
transmission cables shows significant potential to
increase asset utilisation without compromising
reliability. This study showed that up to 38 per cent
additional capacity was available on a five-hour
basis for one of the feeders studied. This illustrates
the potential of SFM to increase network asset
utilisation and defer investments in new capacity
Due to the high cost of monitoring equipment and

the need for dedicated communications links, online asset condition monitoring has traditionally been
limited to a small number of high-value network assets
in the zone substations. Performance monitoring of
transmission lines, feeders, distribution transformers
and other assets outside the substation has typically
been carried out through scheduled inspections
and tests.
Operational efficiencies were able to be realised

in the distribution monitoring and control (DM&C)
project by eliminating manual load and power
quality surveys
For both network performance and asset condition

monitoring, individual components can either be
integrated within new asset purchases or deployed as
an aftermarket retrofit for existing equipment.
2.3.1 Key findings of SFM

As an example, voltage stress in transmission cables

can lead to a localised breakdown of a small portion of
cable insulation. This can result in a partial discharge,
causing progressive deterioration of the insulation, and
can ultimately lead to a complete failure in solid dielectric
transmission cables. Using SFM enabled on-line
monitoring of partial discharge in transmission cables
assists in detecting impending failure.
It was clear from the preliminary cost benefit

assessment that aftermarket asset condition
monitoring devices were uneconomic in most cases
due to the high cost of the retrofit devices relative
to the realisable benefits of avoided outages, and
lower cost maintenance and inspections. However,
integrated asset monitoring is significantly lower cost
and becoming more widely available in Australia.

including providing information to help manage outages
and optimise maintenance by helping to avoid outages
and lower maintenance and inspection costs.
The business case for real time thermal monitoring of

assets to unlock additional capacity was also shown
to be uneconomic by the preliminary cost benefit
assessment results. Despite this finding,
SFM technologies can improve utilisation of existing

network assets, reduce network fault search time,
avoid unscheduled maintenance, avoid certain manual
inspection tasks and extend asset life by identifying
and rectifying potential problems before they occur.
SFM asset condition monitoring
it is noted that some network operators are currently

deploying real time thermal monitoring technology
within Australia on a targeted basis.
Similarly dissolved gas analysis, partial discharge and
thermal monitoring technologies were found to be
uneconomic for all distribution network types in the
Given these results, compared to other smart grid
technology benefit areas, it is unlikely that SFM asset
condition monitoring technologies will be economically
retrofitted within Australia due to their high costs and
relatively low benefits.
SFM network performance monitoring

Network performance monitoring technologies
include earth fault indicators, line fault indicators,
and substation metering. The benefits of network
monitoring technologies include avoiding the costs
of load survey and power quality surveys as well as
providing automated fault detection which reduces
both outage time and fault finding labour costs.
Although there was a positive NPV for the deployment
of network monitoring technologies, the high costs
relative to the magnitude of the benefits means that
these technologies are likely to be deployed only in
niche circumstances such as CBD networks as well as
long rural networks in Victoria.

and recommendations for SFM
technologies
Asset monitoring
At this stage, there appears to be no business
case for after-market distribution asset monitoring
devices, due to the high capital costs relative to the
realisable benefits of avoided outages and lower
cost maintenance and inspections. Dissolved gas
analysis, partial discharge and thermal monitoring
appeared uneconomic for all network types and all
macroeconomic smart grid cases within the modelling.
In general all retrofitted asset monitoring technologies
were found to be uneconomic. There is a need for
further development to find a mechanism to reduce
the cost of aftermarket network monitoring technology.
It is a different case for integrated asset monitoring
capabilities in new equipment, which are becoming
more widely available.
The Smart Grid, Smart City trials provided some
indication that real time thermal monitoring of assets
may unlock additional capacity. While it is noted that
some networks in Australia may be deploying this
technology, the evidence produced by the trials was
insufficient to rely on for the purpose of the cost benefit
assessment. As such further research is required.
In addition, the business case for SFM technologies

is limited by the ability of smart meter infrastructure
to achieve some of the power quality and load quality
survey benefits that SFM can generate at a lower cost.
Network monitoring was found to be uneconomic
in urban and rural network segments because of
the overlap with reliability benefits that are achieved
through FDIR technology deployment.
In total under the medium scenario a national net
benefit of $88 million was shown to be attributable to
SFM network monitoring technologies. The majority of
this benefit stems from improved reliability benefits
to customers.
Network monitoring
Network monitoring capabilities are available from both
FDIR and SFM technologies. The modelling showed
an improved business case for FDIR compared to SFM
in most network types due to its additional reliability
benefits. The exception to this is in CBD networks
where because of existing high levels of reliability SFM
becomes a cheaper option.
Recommendation
As with FDIR technologies, there is a significant
capital investment required to deploy SFM
network monitoring technologies nationally relative
to the benefits. Before this investment occurs,
AEMOs 2012 value of customer reliability and the
methodology used to calculate these values should
be updated. When an updated series of figures
for the value of customer reliability are available,
network operators should investigate whether SFM
network monitoring devices could be cost effective
in CBD and long rural networks.
Notwithstanding, network businesses in Australia have

already been deploying lower cost SFM technologies
including earth fault indicators, line fault indicators
and substation metering in preference to FDIR. This
may have been influenced by underinvestment in FDIR
technologies because of existing regulatory investment
limitations of STPIS (refer to the previous FDIR
recommendations).
Recommendation
Further investigations should be undertaken by
network operators to determine whether FDIR
technologies could deliver higher net benefit
network monitoring in place of lower cost SFM
technologies
2.4 Observations of
wide area measurement
systems (WAMS) trial
Wide Area Management Systems (WAMS) are
currently used by transmission and distribution
network companies around the world as part of the
monitoring, measurement and control of the complex
behaviour exhibited by large power networks.
In its present form, WAM may be used as a standalone system that complements the grids conventional
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
system. As a complementary system, WAM can enhance
the operators real-time situational awareness that is
necessary for safe and reliable grid operation.
WAM technologies (also referred to as synchrophasors)
are protection relays capable of providing high speed,
time-synchronised measurements of the electrical
network, including voltage, current and frequency.
Once deployed at strategic points on the transmission
and distribution networks, these devices generate data
that can be used to provide an accurate view of the
health of the larger grid.
It should be noted that WAM technologies were not
included in the national cost benefit assessment. The
inherent complexity of estimating its benefits and the
current lack of benchmarking data made available in
the industry make it virtually impossible to quantify the
benefits. This gap is a key learning from the project
and highlights the importance of further studies within
the industry to generate key benchmarks to inform the
business case for such technologies.
The inherent complexity of benefits and the current

lack of benchmarking data currently available in the
industry made it impossible to quantify the benefit for
the cost benefit analysis. This gap in cost data is a key
learning from the Smart Grid, Smart City WAM Project
and highlights the importance of further studies within
the industry to generate key benchmarks to inform
future business cases.
The WAM field trials demonstrated the following
(unquantified) benefits which could potentially assist in
managing the risks of wide area outages and reducing
network capital expenditure:
Assessing baseline power system performance
which assists in network planning and assessing
efficiencies in the grid
Using synchrophasor data to increase visibility of
the subtransmission network performance and to
identify appropriate locations for PMU installation
Using synchrophasor data to obtain accurate and
current information with respect to the state of the
network at all levels to assist in forecasting
Improving the reliability of power measurement data
The value of these benefits was not able to be
quantified as each of these elements are highly
dependent on the effectiveness of existing network
analytics, engineering practices and operational
conditions, which represent highly sensitive network
business data for which there exists no publicly
accessible benchmarking data. Further, a review
of international trials also failed to identify
any benchmarking data detailing the value of
WAM benefits.
AEFI is aware that a number of network operators
in Australia are already using WAM data to inform
investment decisions. Given this factor there appears
to be no regulatory barrier to WAM being deployed
inAustralia.
2.5 Smart meter

infrastructure
(stand-alone)
Two different value propositions for the deployment of
smart meter infrastructure were modelled as part of
the national cost benefit assessment. The first, termed
stand-alone, is a full deployment approach to rolling
out smart meters in Australia and is discussed in this
section. The stand-alone or full deployment approach
assumes that smart meters can be economically
deployed based on the financial savings of including
remote meter reading, remote connections and
disconnections and other benefits such as savings
on manual load and power quality surveys. A full
deployment is similar to the mandated deployment of
smart meter infrastructure currently underway
in Victoria.
A customer-led rollout of smart meter infrastructure
was also modelled. A customer-led smart meter
rollout was assumed to occur either when customers
voluntarily uptake a dynamic tariff or when customers
take up either distributed generation or distributed
storage technologies. The result of the cost benefit
assessment of a customer-led deployment of smart
meter infrastructure is discussed in Section 2.6.
The trajectory of each of the different smart meter
infrastructure deployment approaches is described in
Figure 2-24 in Part Two of this report.
Smart meters provide the enabling infrastructure
required for smart grids. In a stand-alone capacity,
smart meter infrastructure provides:
The capability to remotely collect 30-minute
(interval) data on the electricity usage of customers
Power quality data to monitor networks e.g. voltage
and current
Smart meter infrastructure also enables:

The introduction of dynamic tariffs, allowing
cost reflective price signals to be sent to
electricity consumers
Remote delivery of off-peak scheduling for
hot water systems (replacing the existing ripple
control systems)
cycling of air-conditioning (DRED) for the purpose
of managing electricity demand during peak events
Communications and metering for electric vehicle
smart charging
The smart meter infrastructure deployed in the Smart
Grid, Smart City field trial was a modular design
whereby the communications module was able to
be replaced without removing the customers meter
or interrupting power supply. While this type of
technology has distinct benefits in terms of flexibility to
adapt to available communications systems, the Smart
Grid, Smart City trials found that the modular design
had limitations. In particular, there were significant
issues in the operation of the WiMAX component of
the smart grid solution.
The communications and modular design components
of the Smart Grid, Smart City meter as deployed in
the trials were therefore excluded from the national
cost benefit assessment. Instead the smart meter
technology selected for analysis was in line with
the proposed standards in the Smart Metering
Infrastructure Minimum Functionality Specification,
using 3G communications.
2.5.1 Key findings from the standalone smart meter infrastructure

Importantly the cost benefit assessment for the standalone or full deployment approach assumed that smart
meter infrastructure could be deployed in all locations.
It did not consider any potential issues associated with
deploying smart meter infrastructure in locations where
physical space constraints make the installation of the
technology challenging (e.g. unit blocks5 where there
may be multiple meters for tenants in a small area).
As shown in Figure 2-24 in Part Two of this report,
initially the number of smart meters deployed under
the stand-alone or full deployment approach is
expected to be very small because in many situations
the relatively high capital cost of the smart meter
infrastructure means that the avoided costs from its
deployment are insufficient to outweigh the costs.
In the first instance, smart meters are deployed
economically predominantly in long rural networks
because the costs of manual meter reading,
connections and disconnections are higher than in
more densely populated areas. However, over time
with the reduction in smart meter capital costs, the
number of meters increases, particularly in urban
and short rural networks which serve the majority of
Australian customers.
Under the smart grid case, the business case for standalone smart meter infrastructure is positive from 2019 in
all long rural network segments except South Australia
which becomes NPV positive from 2024. All network
segments show a positive economic business case
for stand-alone smart meter infrastructure rollouts by
2034. This excludes Victoria where there is currently a
mandatory rollout of smart meters.
5 In installing the smart meters for the Smart Grid,

Smart City trials there were a number of challenges
found in installing the meters in some locations. These
issues have been discussed in the Smart Meter
Infrastructure (SMI) Technical Compendium
The cost benefit assessment for stand-alone or full

deployment of smart meter infrastructure suggested
a net benefit of $463 million in present value terms in
Australia to 2034 under the medium scenario, with an
investment (gross cost) of $333 million and with gross
benefits of $796 million.
The AEMC is currently considering a rule change with

respect to the expansion of competition in metering
and related services. As part of that process, AEMC
has indicated that a minimum functional specification
for smart meters should be developed and adopted by
individual jurisdictions.
The increased deployment of smart meter

infrastructure over time in Australia depends on the
deployment of smart meter infrastructure in both a
stand-alone or full deployment approach, as well as
a customer-led approach. Analysis for the national
cost benefit assessment showed that by 2024, on a
customer-led basis, around 45 per cent of electricity
customers in Australia will have a smart meter.
Modelling also suggests that by 2029, it will become
economic to deploy smart meter infrastructure under
a stand-alone or full deployment approach to all
remaining electricity customers in Australia.
Advice is currently being prepared by AEMO to the

COAG Energy Council on minimum smart meter
functionality reflecting the Power of Choice principles,
and the development of a shared market protocol
(common communication standards using B2B as the
baseline).

and recommendations for standalone smart meter infrastructure
The cost benefit assessment found that currently, for
most network types in Australia, the costs of deploying
smart meter infrastructure outweighed the financial
benefits. The exception in some states and under
some economic scenarios was long rural and CBD
feeders (these are detailed in Appendix Three of this
report). This is because the avoided billing, metering
and customer service costs for urban and short rural
networks are not sufficient to offset the capital and
deployment costs of smart meters. However, over
time, as metering capital costs reduce, this value
proposition changes, particularly from around 2024.
In order to realise the smart meter benefits identified

in the national cost benefit assessment modelling,
it will be important that any minimum smart meter
functionality and shared market protocol enables cost
effective access to data for network operators, retailers
or third-party providers of smart metering services.
Recommendation
The COAG Energy Council should ensure that the
minimum guidelines for smart meter functionality
currently being developed by AEMO is sufficiently
contemporised to enable network operators,
retailers and third-party providers of smart metering
services to cost effectively access relevant data in
order to derive the full benefits of smart meters.
In order to maximise the benefits from smart meter

deployment, it will be important to ensure that there
are mandatory minimum standards established, where
cost effective, to maximise use of associated smart
metering services by all participants and to reduce
unnecessary meter churn.
2.6 Dynamic tariffs

and customer feedback
technologies (plus SMI)
2.6.1 Key findings from the

dynamic tariffs and customer
feedback technology (plus SMI)
The cost benefit assessment to deploy dynamic tariffs

and customer feedback technologies (plus SMI) relies
on the same assumptions on SMI costs and benefits
as described by the stand-alone or full deployment
business case. In addition, it assumes that the uptake
of smart meters in conjunction with dynamic tariffs
and customer feedback technologies will also drive
the realisation of additional national economic benefits.
This type of rollout is referred to as a customer led
deployment and was described previously in
Figure 2-24.
National cost benefit assessment

The cost benefit assessment modelling assumed a
steady growth in the number of customers adopting a
range of dynamic tariffs and prepayment plans based
on the adoption rates observed in the Smart Grid, Smart
City Customer Application network and retail trials for the
selected products and feedback technologies. Detailed
information on these assumptions and inputs is available
from the Modelling Inputs Technical Compendium which
is available on the Smart Grid, Smart City Information
Clearing House at https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au.
Unlike the stand-alone deployment of smart meter

infrastructure there is an economic business case now
(in 2014) across all network topologies for deployment
of smart meter infrastructure in conjunction with:
Under the modelled smart grid case, electricity

consumers who choose to adopt distributed
generation and distributed storage products were
assumed to be required to adopt dynamic tariffs.
A customer voluntary take up of a dynamic tariff

with customer feedback technologies, or
These assumptions resulted in only 12 per cent of

customers remaining on inclining block tariffs (this
means customers who have not voluntarily taken up
dynamic tariffs nor installed distributed generation,
distributed storage, DRED appliance controls or
electric vehicles), by the end of the assessment period
in 2034 for the smart grid case.
The installation of distributed generation, distributed

storage, electric vehicle smart charging and DRED
control products (modelling for the national cost
benefit assessment assumed it was compulsory for
customers to take up dynamic tariffs when these
devices were installed)
Dynamic tariffs combined with customer feedback
technologies (and SMI), incentivises customers to
behave in a way that either assists retailers to manage
electricity market price risk and/or assists network
operators to reduce future capital investment caused
by unmanaged growth in peak demand. These
behaviours and market outcomes also have the
potential to lower future electricity price increases for
customers in Australia.
Modelling indicated that under the medium economic

scenario, the gross benefits for deployment of dynamic
tariffs and customer feedback technologies (with
smart meter infrastructure) was more than $3.64 billion
for the period through to 2034. In order to achieve
these benefits, a significant upfront investment of
around $2.5 billion is required, mostly in the form of
smart meter infrastructure. This results in a net benefit
of more than $1.12 billion in present value terms from
the deployment of dynamic tariffs and products in
Australia through to 2034.
The findings of the cost benefit assessment showed

that approximately 49 per cent of the gross benefits
from the introduction of dynamic pricing and customer
feedback technologies can be attributed to improved
peak demand management which results in reduced
network and generation capital investment. A further
47 per cent of benefits are attributable to metering and
billing savings.
Given these results, there is a strong economic
business case for the immediate deployment of
dynamic tariffs in conjunction with customer feedback
technologies and smart meters infrastructure
in Australia.
Given that Victoria has already deployed smart meters,
the deployment of dynamic pricing and customer
feedback technologies could result in significant
benefits related to the management of peak demand
growth at minimal incremental costs. Modelling
showed potential net benefits in the order of $499
million through to 2034 for deployment of dynamic
tariffs and customer feedback technologies
for Victoria.
If the policy intention of the COAG Energy Council is
to achieve a widespread adoption of dynamic tariffs,
then it should consider how it could mandate the
phasing out of Type 6 (spinning disc) metering in each
jurisdiction (excluding Victoria given their existing smart
meter mandate). It would also require that any meter
replacement or new meters should be Type 4 or
Type 5.
Customer applications retail and network trial

There were significant volumes of smart meter data
generated by the network and retail trials of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Customer Applications Project. These
trials involved around 8 000 residential customers
who voluntarily participated in these trials and tested
products including the following:
Network trial participants tested feedback
technologies, financial incentives (rebates) and
a lifestyle audit. Eight products were offered to
customers either individually or as a bundle. The
products consisted of an online portal, an in
home display, appliance control and sub-metering
devices, an interruptible load (air conditioning)
control rebate6, a dynamic peak rebate and a
lifestyle (home energy) audit
Retail trial participants tested smart meter based
tariffs and feedback technologies. In total, twelve
products were offered to customers with each
product including a tariff (dynamic peak pricing,
seasonal time-of-use or top-up plan) or a rebate
(interruptible load (air conditioning)) and optionally
one or more feedback technologies (an online
portal, an in home display or appliance control and
sub-metering devices)
lthough the interruptible load (air conditioning)

A
control rebate was offered, only one customer
signed up to this trial. There were a number of
reasons for this which are discussed in the Customer
Applications Technical Compendium
As part of investigating the outcomes of the

Customer Applications network and retail trials,
a Customer Research Survey and report was
commissioned which elicited 3,215 responses from
trial participants. Part Two of this report and the
Customer Survey Report extensively discuss the
findings of this survey which examined customer
experience questions and sought to understand:
The efficacy of different smart grid products in
delivering real world benefits to customers
Customer perceptions of trialled smart
gridproducts
How socio-demographic factors influence
customer experience of smart grid products
The perceived effects of smart grid products on
customers ability to control and manage their
consumption
How the product experiences of financially
vulnerable groups differ from those of the
broaderpopulation
Differences between survey respondents own
perceptions of their trial experiences and metering
data on actual savings in total energy use, peak
demand and bills
Results of the Customer Research Survey found
that overall, there was a high level of satisfaction
with the trialled products, with customers generally
obtaining higher levels of engagement and benefit
from products when a pricing/incentive structure was
combined with a feedback technology, particularly
home energy monitors (in-home displays).
Survey participants were most satisfied with the

products that involving discrete peak events, but the
BudgetSmart products (top up products) also showed
a high level of satisfaction.
Analysis also showed large variations in the
experiences of different trial participants with the
same product, which suggests that there will not be
one product that suits all customers in a commercial
product offering. Diversity in product offerings is
likely to be required to allow customers to choose the
products they think best suit their needs.
Analysis also found that financially vulnerable
households and households with children made
greater use of the trialled products and were able to
obtain financial benefits and satisfaction from their use.
These results suggest that trialled smart grid products,
particularly dynamic pricing, generally presented
interested financially vulnerable households with an
opportunity to achieve bill savings, as opposed to being
seen as a financial threat.
The comparison of actual electricity savings with
customer perceptions of their savings confirmed
that self-reported customer behaviour changes do
correlate with actual delivered savings, and showed
that trial participants were reasonably able to estimate
the savings their products were delivering. However,
those receiving rebates tended to overestimate the
value of their bill savings, while those on dynamic tariff
structures tended to underestimate the bill savings
their products delivered. More frequent billing cycles
and savings estimation features may help dynamic
tariff customers more accurately understand their
savings, while caution should be exercised when
asking customers directly how much they saved, as
this may be influenced by the product type or design.

and recommendations for dynamic
tariffs and customer feedback
technology (plus SMI)
The cost benefit assessment suggested that
dynamic tariffs (which consist of a combination of
a network capacity tariff, retail critical peak pricing,
or direct load control tariffs) deployed with smart
meter infrastructure, could deliver significant national
benefits. Based on this modelling it is clear that:
There is a clear positive economic business
case for the immediate introduction of dynamic
tariffs in Australia. Necessarily this will require the
deployment of smart meter infrastructure at the
same time as customers take up dynamic tariffs
If dynamic tariffs are voluntary, not all customers
will adopt the offer. For some customers dynamic
tariffs will result in higher electricity bills compared
to BAU. These findings are discussed further in the
customer bill impact discussions in Parts Two and
Appendix Four of this report
Without dynamic tariffs (cost reflective pricing)
customers will be presented with a strong financial
incentive to install larger distributed generation
systems. The consequence of this will be higher
network tariffs for all customers, which will further
increase forward electricity prices. In addition the
cross subsidies which flow to customers who install
distributed generation and distributed storage
systems from those who do not has been modelled
to grow significantly through to 2034 under BAU in
the absence of dynamic tariffs
If inclining block tariffs (or flat tariffs) are maintained
in Australia modelling showed that it will be
unlikely that distributed storage will be deployed
by consumers due to a lack of financial incentives
through to 2034 (the modelling period). Conversely,
the introduction of dynamic tariffs was likely to
see distributed storage installed from 2024 under
the medium macroeconomic scenario. This is
further discussed in the distributed generation
and distributed storage conclusions and
recommendations
Notwithstanding the strong economic business case

for the introduction of more cost reflective electricity
pricing (dynamic tariffs), it has been acknowledged
that some jurisdictions may find this challenging.
However, without change to the current tariffs
which provide distorted pricing signals to reduce
consumption (instead of providing a price signal to
manage peak demand), modelling shows that there is
likely to be significant detrimental billing consequences
for many customer groups, including vulnerable
customers. This is because without structural changes
to current tariffs there will be a growing cross subsidy
in both business and residential customer classes to
those with distributed generation, from those without
(termed passive consumers in this report). Although
not calculated as part of this cost benefit assessment,
there are also cross subsidies between passive
customers and those who install electricity-intensive
appliances like air conditioners which contribute to
peak demand. These issues are further discussed in
Section 2.9.
Introducing dynamic tariffs (for example, critical
peak pricing) in Australia will require consultation
with consumer representatives, electricity market
participants (generators, network operators and
retailers) and broader stakeholders to ensure that tariff
reform has regard for all stakeholder perspectives.
The Customer Research Survey found that overall
there was a high level of satisfaction with the Smart
Grid, Smart City Customer Application network and
retail trialled products, with customers generally
reporting higher levels of engagement and benefit
from products where a dynamic pricing/incentive
structure was combined with a feedback technology.
In particular, customers interacted more with the home
energy monitors (in-home displays) relative to online
home energy data.
Based on the survey responses, the most popular trial

products were those involving discrete peak events
with either a rebate or price incentive. BudgetSmart
products which focussed on customers remaining
in credit on their electricity bills were also popular
with participants.
The Customer Research Survey also showed that
financially vulnerable customers, including pensioners,
derived more benefit and satisfaction from trialled
products than to other types of households7. This
suggests it will be important to develop and market
products which will assist those who may have trouble
in paying their electricity bills to better manage
their costs.
In order to achieve widespread deployment of dynamic
tariffs, there is a significant body of policy and rulemaking process work to be completed. Some of this
work is already underway including:
The AEMC is currently considering a rule change
proposal from SCER (now the COAG Energy
Council) related to the way that distribution network
prices are set and structured8. Among other
things, SCER proposed that the pricing principles
for distribution prices should be amended to
include a requirement for distribution prices to be
based on the long run marginal cost (LRMC) of
providing network services (rather than the current
requirement to take into account LRMC). SCER
noted that the proposed changes should seek
to reflect that network costs are largely driven by
meeting peak demand requirements, so that where
prices reflect the costs of meeting peak demand
over time consumers will be able to respond
efficiently in ways that help to minimise costs
overtime.
The COAG Energy Councils Demand Side

Participation (DSP) Program includes a work
stream to deliver market settings that allow for
jurisdictions to provide consumers with the option
to move to time-varying pricing.
These processes have the potential to ensure that
dynamic tariffs are widely available to customers and
it is clear that some jurisdictions are more progressed
than others in regard to allowing flexible pricing.
However, given the substantial benefits suggested
by the Smart Grid, Smart City national cost benefit
assessment for dynamic tariffs deployed with smart
meter infrastructure, AEFI considers that it is important
to monitor the extent to which dynamic tariffs are
available and are adopted, and to consider a stronger
policy response in the event that dynamic tariffs are
not widely adopted. This could include a requirement
that a standard dynamic tariff is available to small
customers in each state.
Given the existing energy market reforms underway
and the findings of the Smart Grid, Smart City
national cost benefit assessment for dynamic tariffs
deployed with smart meter infrastructure, the following
recommendations have been made.
7 This is discussed further in the Customer Research

Survey which can be found on the Smart Grid, Smart
City Information Clearing House
8
http://www.aemc.gov.au/Rule-Changes/DistributionNetwork-Pricing-Arrangements#
Recommendations
Given the strong business case for deployment
of dynamic tariffs and customer feedback
technologies (with smart meters), state governments
should allow for flexible pricing to be available to
small customers in each state.
The AER should undertake continued assessment
of the take up of voluntary dynamic tariffs in
Australia and report these rates as part of its
reporting on the performance of energy retailers
and distributors.
The COAG Energy Council should assess the
benefits of a stronger policy mechanism to deploy
dynamic tariffs with smart meters if the voluntary
take up of dynamic tariffs proves insufficient to
realise the potential benefits.
The outcomes of the national cost benefit
assessment demonstrated that care needs to be
taken in the design of dynamic tariffs.
Under the low scenario, the benefits of distributed
generation and storage appear to be over signalled
by the seasonal time of use tariff applied in the smart
grid case, such that the incremental network and
generation benefits realised by additional distributed
generation and storage capacity did not offset the
incremental customer investment. Despite this finding,
the seasonal time of use tariff structure has the
potential to be more cost reflective than the current
default inclining block tariff (IBT) structure.
The magnitude of the price signal will require careful

consideration in development of future tariffs with
either a peak or capacity based component to ensure
that the value of customer demand response during
peak times is cost reflective.
The AEMC is currently undertaking a consultation
process as part of its Distribution Network Pricing
Arrangements Rule Change which has suggested
that each charging parameter within the network tariff
should be based on LRMC of providing the services.
AEFI notes that the results of the Smart Grid, Smart
City national cost benefit assessment are supportive
of SCERs Rule Change proposal that tariffs should be
cost reflective.
Increasing demand side participation from the
introduction of dynamic tariffs makes future load
forecasting more complex and will require network
businesses to modify their existing load forecasting
models. A consequence of this is that network
businesses may benefit from moving to probabilistic
network planning in order to capture the effects
of critical peak pricing and increased distributed
generation in their planning processes.
As well as developing appropriate pricing elements

within dynamic tariffs, network operators and retailers
should have regard to the findings of the Smart Grid,
Smart City Customer Applications retail and network
trials which suggested:
The need to offer more regular billing cycles and
/ or provide tangible information for customers
on their savings from engagement such as bill
estimation
That potential benefits and costs should be clearly
and simply communicated to customers
That dynamic tariff products should be paired
with feedback technologies to deliver greater
customer savings
Electricity network operators and retailers should note
from the Customer Research Survey that some groups
(like the elderly) may require additional assistance in
setting up and engaging with the dynamic tariffs and
customer feedback products.
Recommendation
The COAG Energy Council should ensure that
the existing customer protection measures in the
National Energy Retail Rules are sufficient to ensure
all consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers,
are afforded appropriate protections when new
dynamic pricing mechanisms are introduced. For
jurisdictions that have not adopted the National
Energy Retail Law, state governments should
determine whether existing consumer protection
mechanisms are sufficient prior to the introduction
of dynamic pricing mechanisms.
2.7 Electric vehicle

(smart) charging (with
SMI and direct load
control)
Whilst electric vehicle numbers are currently very
low in Australia, they are expected to grow steadily
over the next 20 years. Vehicle numbers are then
expected to grow more rapidly once price parity with
conventional internal combustion engine vehicles is
reached in the late 2020s. Given these projections,
numbers of electric vehicles in Australia are expected
to grow more rapidly beyond the assessment period of
this modelling (2034).
As the number of electric vehicles in Australia
increases, so too will the charging load on local
distribution networks (both total consumption and
peak demand). If not managed carefully, electric
vehicle charging load has the potential to increase
peak demand, requiring additional network capital
investment, which will contribute to higher consumer
electricity bills. The impact will be greatest on
areas of the network where there is less diversity in
demand profiles.
It is important to note that the electric vehicle business
case presented in this report assesses the benefits
of smart charging of electric vehicles rather than
the benefits of the vehicles themselves. That is, the
number of electric vehicles in Australia is assumed to
be the same under both BAU and smart grid cases,
but the charging behaviour is different. Under BAU,
electric vehicle charging is uncontrolled, whilst the
smart grid case assumed smart charging which uses
two-way communication between the network and
the charging point and includes direct load control of
vehicle demand. Compared to BAU, this has the effect
of reducing peak demand growth whilst increasing
network asset utilisation (or load factor).
The Smart Grid Smart City electric vehicle field trial

tested the performance of first generation production
vehicles across a range of driving conditions and
using six fast charging charge points. It also trialled 40
domestic charge points which were not configured for
smart charging. Instead, the Smart Grid Smart City
trials focussed on the relative merits of time-of-use
charging tariffs for electric vehicles.
To broaden the outcomes of the EV Project, advanced
modelling using the PS+EDGE platform was
undertaken by Ausgrid. The modelling investigated
various charging schemes including time of use tariffs
and smart charging through direct load control
and two way communications with the network
operations centre.
The modelling showed that time of use tariffs were
likely to introduce new peaks in the low voltage
network, at the time of the off peak rate, by 2020.
Smart charging however, resulted in increased
utilisation and no increase in network peak demand
caused by electric vehicle smart charging over the
assessment period which ended in 2039.
The Victorian Government EV Trial tested domestic
smart charging technology in its field trials, which
means the technology has been demonstrated to be
technically feasible and deployable in Australia making
is suitable for inclusion in the cost benefit assessment.
Uncontrolled electric vehicle charging leads to an
increase in the evening peak demand as many people
plug-in the vehicles at around the same time when
they arrive home. Smart charging can minimise
the increase in peak demand from electric vehicle
charging, which can reduce and /or defer generator
capital and operational expenditure and network
capital expenditure.
The national business case assessment did not

include vehicle-to-grid technology (the export of stored
electric vehicle battery energy to grid). Vehicle-to-grid
technology was not trialled as part of the Smart Grid,
Smart City EV Trial. Network modelling of vehicleto-grid technology was undertaken by Ausgrid and
showed vehicle to grid could be used to reduce
peak demand at the low voltage level of the network.
However, there are practical issues that may hamper
its deployment in Australia (these issues are discussed
in the Electric Vehicle Technical Compendium).
Vehicle-to-grid technology was therefore excluded
from the national business case assessment.
2.7.1 Key findings of electric

vehicle smart charging national
Based on the Smart Grid, Smart City EV Trial
modelling, the net benefit of smart charging for electric
vehicles is estimated to be $153 million in present value
terms in Australia through to 2034 under the medium
economic scenario. Under the smart grid (smart
charging) scenario, electric vehicles make a minimal
contribution to peak demand on the network because
EV demand is able to be controlled and shifted outside
the peak period. Electric vehicle smart charging
also leads to an improved distribution network load
factor (a key metric of network performance) and this
contributes to the $153 million net benefit from smart
charging under the smart grid case.
The results of the modelling show that the greatest
impact of deploying electric vehicle smart charging
infrastructure is in urban networks and short rural
networks where electric vehicle uptake is likely to
be highest.
The benefits of smart charging during the assessment
period, are significant and would likely be even greater
in the subsequent decade where greater growth in
electric vehicle numbers is expected in Australia.

and recommendation for electric
vehicle smart charging national
Despite the relatively modest uptake rates projected
for electric vehicles through to 2034, modelling
showed that there is a positive benefit in controlling
the time of day electric vehicles are charged. This is
particularly important because modelling indicates
that for the decade beyond 2034, growth in electric
vehicle numbers is likely to be significant in Australia.
Analysis also suggested that the business case for
smart charging over a longer assessment period may
show even higher benefits than for the period through
to 2034.
Without the appropriate financial incentives in place,
modelling found that consumers would likely make
inefficient choices about the time of day electric
vehicles are charged. The majority of consumers are
likely to charge upon arriving home from the daily
commute adding to existing peaks in many parts of the
network. This would likely lead to a need for additional
investment within the assessment period, particularly
at lower levels of the network.
Recommendation
Standards Australia should incorporate demand
response capabilities within the Australian Standard
AS4755.3.4 for electric vehicle charging to ensure
electric vehicle charging points installed today will
be compatible with managed charging schemes in
the future.
Future improvements to electric vehicle battery
technology may enable vehicle owners to use stored
electricity in their vehicle battery as a source of local
distributed storage to reduce network peak demand.
There is considerable technical and financial analysis
to be undertaken in order to determine the viability of
vehicle-to-grid technology. This was not explored as
part of the modelling exercise.
Time of use pricing offers one solution to the electric

vehicle charging problem. However, time of use pricing
may not be sufficient in its own right and may create
new localised peaks at high electric vehicle uptake
rates. The electric vehicle charging solution therefore
must not only shift the time of charging but increase
the diversity of the charging load.
Based on the results of modelling undertaken for the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program, there appear to be
several viable options to achieve improved diversity of
electric vehicle charging including direct load control
or smart charging. The modelling showed that there is
a strong business case for the use of smart charging
(either directly or via critical price tariff).
2.8 Distributed
generation and
distributed storage
(with SMI and dynamic
tariffs)
Distributed Distributed generation
The following distributed generation technologies were
trialled as part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program:
Rooftop solar PV leveraging existing installations in
the suburb of Newington
2.4 kW small wind turbine
1.5 kW solid oxide fuel cell
Associated monitoring and control technologies
and systems
Rooftop solar PV is a mature technology in Australia
and the trial utilised existing functional solar PV cells
at customer dwellings in Newington to test high levels
of PV saturation. A diesel generator was also installed
on a rural feeder in order to simulate the impact of high
penetration of rooftop solar PV on a rural network rather
than install large numbers of new systems.
Site feasibility of the 2.4 kW small wind turbine unit
chosen for the field trial was challenged by council
regulations requiring that turbines not be installed within
100m of a residence. This made it very challenging to
get Development Approval in residential areas, which
meant that for the majority of the trial small wind turbines
were installed in rural areas. Given the lack of explicit
knowledge of local wind energy resources in the trial
areas and the time required to complete a detailed wind
site survey, trial wind turbines were potentially located in
sub-optimal locations.
Distributed (small) wind turbines were not included in

the national business case assessment due, in part,
to these feasibility constraints, and to a greater extent,
the current lack of a business case for distributed
small scale wind generation.
Technical feasibility of the 1.5kW fuel cells was
demonstrated in an Australian context, subject to the
availability of the necessary electricity, gas, and water
connections at the premise. Several technical issues
impacted the technical and financial performance in
the early stages of the trial, but were overcome such
that the technology was considered feasible for the
purposes of the national cost benefit assessment.
Distributed generation has an impact on customer load
profiles for those who adopt these technologies. On
a system level distributed generation has the potential
at certain penetration rates to reduce peak demand
and mains energy consumption, which can generate
benefits including avoided new generator capacity
capital expenditure, avoided generator operational
expenditure and avoided new network capacity capital
expenditure. However, at more granular levels in the
network, for example at a feeder level, high levels of
distributed generation have the capacity to create
challenges in voltage regulation and system stability.
These impacts depend upon a number of factors
including the number, size and type of distributed
generation devices and the network topology for
example long rural networks may not be as robust in
managing a similar proportions of solar compared with
urban networks. This was discussed further in Part
Two of this report.
Distributed storage
The Smart Grid, Smart City distributed storage trial
used a 5kW/10kWh zinc-bromide flow battery
technology with a remotely controllable battery
management system including a grid-tie inverter.
At the time of the field trial, the zinc-bromide flow
battery was new on the market and the only approved
grid-connected storage device available (excluding
older lead acid technologies). The zinc-bromide flow
battery has a full depth of charge advantage over lead
acid batteries which means a smaller unit (kW) could
be deployed.
Implementing this technology proved technically
challenging during the field trial due to its current low
level of technical maturity, large form factor and weight
which constrained its deployment for a number of
domestic premises. Flow batteries are also relatively
expensive in most storage applications due to their
immaturity compared to technologies such as lithiumion and lead-acid, which together dominate storage
deployments worldwide.
Grid battery storage was not successfully implemented
in the field trials due to a number of challenges which
are discussed in the Distributed Generation and
Distributed Storage Technical Compendium.
Because the zinc bromide flow grid battery was
delayed in its deployment in the Smart Grid, Smart City
trials and this technology is relatively new in Australia,
there was a lack of Australian-specific field operational
and financial data. As a result, the cost benefit
modelling used lead acid battery technology costs and
assumptions around performance outcomes.
2.8.1 Key findings of distributed

generation and distributed storage
(with SMI and dynamic tariffs)
National cost benefit assessment
Under the medium and high economic smart grid
scenarios, it was assumed that when customers
adopted distributed generation and/or distributed
storage they were required to adopt a capacity network
tariff with a critical peak price retail tariff which reflected
incremental network and retail market costs.
Results of the cost benefit assessment showed a
positive business case for the deployment of dynamic
tariffs and smart meter infrastructure in conjunction with
distributed generation and storage technologies with a
net present value of almost $10.3 billion to the national
economy over the next 25 years. This benefit is derived
under the smart grid case because the dynamic tariff
sends an efficient (cost reflective) financial signal to
consumers which results in smaller and fewer (but more
economically efficient) distributed generation systems
being installed.
As a result under the smart grid case there is lower
total capital expenditure in distributed generation
nationally. However, this capital benefit is partially
offset by an increased requirement for centralised
generation, resulting in higher centralised generation
fuel (coal and gas) costs under the smart grid case of
around $2 billion over the period to 2034.
Modelling shows that the greatest benefits from
economically efficient deployment of distributed
generation and distributed storage occurs in urban and
short rural networks where the numbers of distributed
generation and storage devices is highest.
Under BAU, residential customers adopting distributed

generation products remained on an inclining block
tariff, which incentivises consumption reduction rather
than peak demand reduction. As a consequence
consumers invest in larger distributed generation
system sizes under BAU compared to the smart grid
case. By 2034, average rooftop solar PV sizes under
BAU are anticipated to be around 5.6 kW in size.
Under the BAU medium macroeconomic scenario
there is no adoption of distributed storage.
Compared with the BAU case, the size of solar PV
systems under the medium smart grid case for
residential customers was smaller around 4 kW
by2034.
For commercial customers under the BAU case,
price signals encourage investment in relatively large
rooftop solar PV and CHP systems. The systems will
likely export to the grid during times of low demand,
incentivised by a volume based inclining block tariff. In
contrast to residential customers, the size of the solar
PV systems deployed was not significantly different
under either a BAU or smart grid case. This suggests
that solar PV for commercial customers is likely to be
a financially viable solution in the future regardless of
scenario, given the anticipated further reduction in
solar PV panel costs.
In summary, under the smart grid case, dynamic
pricing (network capacity charge in combination with
a retail critical peak price) drives the deployment of
smaller solar PV systems (around 3 GW less) and CHP
(around 1.8 GW less) in the NEM by 2034 compared
to BAU. This however, is balanced by the deployment
of around 3.5 GW of storage capacity. Under both
BAU and smart grid cases, there is growing adoption
of solar PV generation by both residential and
commercial electricity consumers.
The field trial and modelling showed that the

effectiveness of rooftop solar PV systems in reducing
summer peak demand is limited, mainly due to
misalignment of the timing of rooftop solar PV system
output and peak network demand. Advanced
modelling of high PV penetration scenarios found that
PV reduced feeder peak load on average by 3 per
cent. It was also found that the hottest days were not
necessarily the sunniest, with later afternoon clouds
reducing the amount of available solar radiation on
some days.
In the case of the field trial for small wind turbines,
generation profiles were highly variable and intermittent
and did not necessarily optimally match customer
energy usage or network peak load profiles. The
generation profiles had minimal impact on reducing
summer peak demand in the Gundy trial area on the
focus days studied. The trials also indicated that the
customer and network value of this technology is
on average likely to be low and generally less than a
comparably sized photovoltaic system.
While the fuel cell technology trialled had some
capability to reduce network peak load, the more
efficient operating mode was continuous operation
(constant output at the rated capacity of 1.5kW)
reducing network load at all times. The results from
the trial indicated that the potential customer value
of this technology was highest for customers with a
higher than average electricity consumption and the
ability to better utilise the heat which is generated as a
by-product.
Customer Applications trials of distributed

storage
Analysis of the results from trial participants with
distributed storage installed in their homes for the
Customer Applications trial showed that there was
relatively little discharge of storage during peak events.
Generally, customers relied on distributed generation
and behaviour change to reduce demand during peak
events. Distributed storage was observed however, to
offset demand to a higher extent during peaks events
called by networks, which tended to occur outside of
daylight (and therefore solar generation) hours.
These findings show that there is further potential
for distributed energy resources and in particular,
distributed storage to export into the grid during peak
events. Export during these times could provide a
cost effective alternative to centralised generation
from peaking plants. The potential for export to the
grid during peak events is one of the most promising
aspects of distributed storage. However, currently,
there is no mechanism to efficiently incentivise
exports during peak events from distributed energy
resources. Any export during these events is currently
valued at the feed-in-tariff rate which is based on the
weighted average cost of wholesale electricity during
solar PV export hours, rather than the higher value of
generation at peak times.
There are several potential mechanisms available to
more efficiently value this export including a dynamic
feed-in-tariff which increases during peak events
shadowing the NEM price, or a one off incentive
payment or rebate during events which extends to
export as well as demand management.
2.8.2 Observations, conclusions and

recommendations for distributed
generation and distributed storage
(with SMI and dynamic tariffs)
Distributed generation
Analysis has clearly shown that both the volume and
system size of future rooftop solar PV deployment in
Australia is sensitive to a number of financial factors
including solar PV system costs, the level of feed-in
tariffs and the retail pricing structures for electricity
sourced from the grid (electricity tariffs).
Under both smart grid and BAU cases, modelling
indicates there will be continuing growth in both the
number of residential solar PV systems deployed in
Australia as well as the size of the systems installed.
In addition, modelling has shown a strong growth in
rooftop solar PV systems on commercial buildings,
which are similar in both size and number under both
smart grid and BAU cases. For commercial customers,
CHP (fuel cells) will also become economic and see
some deployment in areas with gas connection.
The inclining block tariff represents another form of
cross subsidy present in the electricity market. This tariff
requires electricity consumers to pay for the use of the
network based on total energy consumption rather than
the maximum capacity of the network required to meet
their peak demand. This type of tariff benefits solar
PV owners and any other customer who significantly
decreases electricity consumption without necessarily
decreasing peak demand.
Results from the cost benefit assessment showed

that maintaining the existing flat or inclining block
retail tariffs in Australia, will continue to incentivise the
installation of larger solar PV systems in the future, as
customers seek to further reduce their consumption
of grid-sourced electricity. Unfortunately, this does
not necessary reduce peak demand. By contract,
under the smart grid case the number of consumers
investing in rooftop solar PV continues to grow, but
the size of the systems are smaller because the cross
subsidy through the existing tariff structures is reduced
(refer to the discussion in the customer bill impacts in
section 2.9).
Similarly, modelling showed that commercial
customers with dynamic tariffs were likely to install
a similar amount of solar (of a similar system size) as
under an inclining block tariff, but in addition install
distributed storage and CHP (fuel cells).
These changes saw impacts in annual electricity bills
for the period through to 2034 for residential and
business customers both with and without distributed
generation and storage (discussed in the customer bill
impact section).
Recommendation
In light of the projected growth in rooftop solar
PV for both residential and business customers in
Australia, the COAG Energy Council should direct
the AEMC to consult with stakeholders to identify
the least cost approach to managing high levels of
rooftop solar PV penetration in Australia.
The Smart Grid, Smart City trial investigations also

showed that smart inverters (also termed STATCOMs
when referring to low voltage regulation) had the potential to provide voltage regulation services for network operators. However, rooftop solar PV owners
are not currently financially incentivised to install smart
inverters.
Smart inverters have the potential for undertaking
voltage regulation if these inverters were set up
on distributed generation and storage systems
(particularly rooftop solar PV) to only export onto
the grid when the voltage was low. Additionally if
there was distributed storage capacity on site, smart
inverters could be used to import electricity from the
grid when voltage was high (also assisting with voltage
regulation).
The challenge with existing financial incentives (feedin-tariffs) is that rooftop solar PV inverters are setup
for exporting electricity and there may need to be
alternative incentives introduced (e.g. for regulation of
power quality) to encourage system owners to install
smart inverters and offer voltage regulation services.
Recommendation
If smart inverters can be shown to be cost
effective in delivering voltage control and power
quality benefits, consideration should be given
to increasing the minimum standards for existing
inverters in Australia. In this way some of the costs
of network remediation caused by increasing
numbers of rooftop solar PV could be better
managed. This work should involve network
operators, standards bodies and industry peak
bodies.
Investigations around smart inverters are likely to

require both embedded network trials and financial
assessments in order to determine the business case
for this technology.
Distributed storage
Distributed storage has the potential to contribute to
the management of growth in system peak demand
and has implications for future electricity bill increases.
Modelling showed that despite anticipated price
reductions in distributed storage devices, without
changes to retail electricity pricing structures (i.e. under
BAU) there will be no deployment of storage through
to 2034 in Australia. Modelling clearly shows that the
existing tariff structures effectively discourage the
uptake of battery storage technologies.
However, the modelling suggested that the
introduction of dynamic tariffs (critical peak pricing) in
conjunction with network capacity tariffs (i.e. the smart
grid case) would give rise to a different configuration of
combined distributed generation and storage devices
at customer premises.
The Smart Grid, Smart City trials indicated that there is
potential for distributed storage to export into the grid
during peak events and that export during these times
could provide a cost effective alternative to centralised
generation from peaking plants.
Currently, exports during peak events from distributed
generation or storage devices are not efficiently valued.
At present, any export during these events is valued at
the feed-in-tariff rate, based on the weighted average
cost of wholesale electricity during solar PV export
hours, rather than the higher value of generation at
peak times.
Notwithstanding, there are no existing regulatory

barriers to retailers offering a dynamic feed-in-tariff
which increases during peak events to better reflect
retailer costs. This does not occur at present and was
not considered in the modelling exercise. However, it is
foreseeable that once distributed storage technology
becomes more broadly available, retailers would
implement such a tariff which would further incentivise
distributed storage uptake beyond what has been
modelled.
Even with such a dynamic feed in tariff, there remain
barriers for network businesses to provide price
signals to customers as to value of export from
distributed storage during network peak events. Such
a price signal could potentially take the form of a one
off incentive payment or network rebate during events.
This would essentially function as a demand response
mechanism (similar to the dynamic peak rebate
product trialled), but would reward customers for not
just offsetting their own demand but for achieving
negative net demand in peak times.
Recommendation
The COAG Energy Council should, in conjunction
with the AEMC, develop a market mechanism
which more efficiently values export from distributed
energy resources (distributed generation and
distributed storage) during market and network
peak events. In this way customers may be
financially incentivised to export electricity from
distributed generation and distributed storage
devices in response to market signals. For nonNEM states, state and territory governments should
consider the most appropriate organisation to
undertake a similar review.
This recommendation is broadly similar to a
recommendation stemming from the Power of Choice
review and which is currently being considered by the
COAG Energy Council officials group.
2.9 Electricity prices

(customer bills)
Given the increase in residential and business
electricity bills over the past five years in most states
in Australia, there is significant scrutiny on the future
investment of network operators, generator behaviour
and retail margins. To implement any of the smart grid
technologies and dynamic pricing there is a need for
capital and operational investment within the sector.
This investment will flow through to customer bills.
However, there is also a cost of investment choices for
BAU which flows through to customer bills.
2.9.1 Key findings of analysis of

future residential and business
customer electricity bills
Retail electricity price differences
Analysis for the cost benefit assessment showed a
net increase in real ($2014) electricity prices over time
for both the smart grid and BAU cases for the period
through to 2034. Under the smart grid case, the rate of
increase is reduced such that electricity retail price is
on average 1.3 per cent lower under the smart grid
case than the BAU case in 2034.
Although this difference may not appear significant,

there are major differences in a number of individual
factors including the tariff components for network
and wholesale (representing centralised generation),
annual costs of cross subsidies, the cost of investment
in distributed generation and distributed storage, and
differences between passive and proactive adopters
of these technologies for residential and business
sectors. These issues are explored further in the
customer bill impact results.
There is a higher wholesale cost of energy in the smart
grid case due to the additional centralised generation
capacity required to make up for the reduced
decentralised generation. By 2034 the wholesale
component of the retail price component is 8 per cent
higher under the smart grid case compared to BAU.
Network prices in the smart grid case are significantly
lower than the BAU case. This is mostly as a result
of the improved load factor, with the decreased
network utilisation driving the network cost per unit
of electricity higher under BAU. In the later periods of
this assessment, the lack of incentives under BAU for
storage and the effect of unmitigated electric vehicle
charging contribute to a poorer load factor outcome.
By 2034 the network price component is 13 per cent
higher under BAU compared to the smart grid case.
This analysis of retail price impacts indirectly considers

the investment by customers in distributed generation
and distributed storage devices because of the
modelled impacts on the wholesale electricity market
and network investment. The investment and cross
subsidy impact of a customers decision to invest
in distributed generation and distributed storage is
directly assessed in the bill impact analysis in the
following section.
Residential customer bill impacts

Appendix Four of this report presents the full results
for all 20 customer segments for each state, for each
period and each macroeconomic scenario. The results
discussed in this section are for an average customer
(as defined in the methodology in Appendix Two) in
2034 under the medium scenario.
Annual residential customer bills were assessed
under the smart grid case and BAU case for passive
customers (residential customers who choose not
to adopt a dynamic price tariff or do not adopt
distributed generation or storage and remain on
inclining block tariffs), and distributed generation and
storage customers (residential customers who adopt
distributed generation and/or storage along with
dynamic tariffs).
The differences between passive residential customers
and distributed generation and storage customers
under both BAU and the smart grid cases are shown
in Figure 3-2.
This analysis clearly shows the breakdown in cost

elements in a future residential bill under BAU and
smart grid. There are a number of key differences
between these cases:
The passive customer under smart grid case is $156
per annum better off than the BAU passive customer
Under the BAU case there is a significantly higher
number of passive customers than under the smart
grid case
The cost of the distributed generation and
distributed storage cross subsidy is almost nine
times higher under the BAU case at $420 per year
than for the smart grid case at $47 per year
The annualised customer investment component
in distributed generation and distributed storage is
higher under BAU, reflecting the over incentivisation
for larger systems caused by the inclining block tariff
3,000
Figure
3-2 Impact on average annual residential customer bills in 2034 (medium scenario)
2,500
$156
$244
2,000
$47
$2,159
$420
$2,003
$1,712
$332
$1,407
1,500
1,000
500
0
SG Bill
Customer
with DG/DS
Cost of
DG/DS
Cross
Subsidy
SG
SG
Passive
Average Bill - SG
SG
Benefits
BAU
Passive
Customer
Cross
Subsidy
BAU
Average Bill - BAU
Cost of
DG/DS
BAU with
DG/DS
Business customer bill impacts

Annual business customer bills were assessed
under the smart grid case and BAU case for passive
customers (business customers who do not adopt
distributed generation or storage and remain on
inclining block tariffs), and distributed generation and
storage customers (business customers who adopt
distributed generation and/or storage along with a
critical peak pricing and time-of-use tariff).
The cost of the distributed generation and

distributed storage cross subsidy under the BAU
case at $9,251 per year for passive customers, or
more than three times higher than for smart grid
passive customers
The annualised customer investment cost in
distributed generation and distributed storage is
higher under BAU, reflecting the over incentivisation
for larger systems caused by the inclining block tariff
The difference between the BAU and smart grid

case in average annual bills in 2034 for the average
business customer type is shown in Figure 3-3.
This analysis clearly shows the breakdown in cost
elements in a future business customer bill under BAU
and smart grid. There are a number of key differences
between these cases:
The passive business customer under smart grid
case is $2,018 per annum better off than the BAU
passive business customer
Figure 3-3 Impact on average annual business customer bills in 2034 (medium scenario)
18,000
16,000
$2,108
14,000
$3,083
$15,292
$9,251
$13,184
12,000
$1,711
10,000
$8,390
8,000
$2,620
6,000
$3,421
4,000
2,000
0
SG Bill
Customer
with DG/DS
Cost of
DG/DS
Cross
Subsidy
SG
SG
Passive
Average Bill - SG
SG
Benefits
BAU
Passive
Customer
Cross
Subsidy
BAU
Cost of
DG/DS
BAU with
DG/DS
Average Bill - BAU

and recommendations from the
analysis of future residential and
business customer electricity bills
Overall, the average cost of electricity is 1.3 per cent
lower under the smart grid case, compared to the
BAU case by 2034. The retail component of the cost
of electricity is 8 per cent higher under the smart grid
case, but the network cost is 13 per cent lower.
Under a smart grid case, passive customers (who do
not adopt distributed generation or storage nor change
their behaviour) are better off compared to passive
customers under the BAU case. Importantly although
customers who take up distributed generation and
storage are subsidised by passive customers in
both cases, for residential customers this cross
subsidisation is more than nine times higher under
BAU compared to the smart grid case. For commercial
customers, those who are passive in the BAU scenario
incur a cross subsidy which is more than three times
higher than under the smart grid case.
Overall, passive residential customers, who do not
change behaviour or make any investment decision,
receive an annual saving in the order of $156 per
annum by 2034 under the smart grid case compared
to the BAU case.
Passive business customers, who do not change
behaviour or make any investment decision, receive an
annual saving in the order of $2,000 per annum by 2034
under the smart grid case compared to BAU.
Recommendations
In order to avoid a significant future cross subsidy
for passive customers modelled under a business
as usual approach, jurisdictions should consider
mandating the uptake of dynamic tariffs for
customer initiated meter upgrades, which would
be applied when customers adopt distributed
generation and distributed storage.
To protect financially vulnerable customers, the
COAG Energy Council should agree an appropriate
policy response which provides a safety net for
those who are unable to make behavioural or tariff
changes.
It is foreseeable that if changes which over incentivise

the adoption of distributed generation are not addressed, Government will be required to intervene for
financially vulnerable customers.
This cross subsidy is significant for business
customers where the uptake of distributed rooftop
solar PV is projected to be a major area of growth over
the modelling period.
The COAG Energy Council as part of the demand side
participation reform program are considering how
to transition consumers to more cost reflective and
flexible pricing.
3 Transitioning industry and

consumers to a smart grid future
3.1 Beginning the
transition in Australia
to a smart grid
The Smart Grid, Smart City Program and its trials
were wide-reaching, and the recommendations in
previous sections of this report call for considerable
work to embed some of the conclusions into existing
regulatory frameworks, NEM Rule Changes and further
electricity market development (both NEM and nonNEM states).
In addition to the recommendations pertaining
to smart grid in-grid and customer feedback
technologies and dynamic tariffs, there is a need to
develop frameworks which will provide both industry
and electricity consumers with appropriate information
and education about these new technologies and
tariffs. It will then require time to change existing work
practices and consumption behaviours which may
have been entrenched for a number of decades.
This will require collaboration between Federal and
state governments, peak industry bodies, network
operators, retailers, policy makers, market operators
and vendors in order to progressively move towards
embedding smart grid thinking in policy deliberations
and decision-making.
The following sections discuss some aspects of the
electricity sector (including consumers) where further
development will be required to transition to a smart
grid in Australia.
3.2 Electricity
3.2.1 Existing network resilience
and technology maturity
Australian network operators are generally starting from
a strong position with a relatively robust, resilient and
reliable grid, particularly in urban and CBD topologies.
This is due in some states to significant recent
investment in replacing aged infrastructure and in some
cases jurisdictional requirements for network operators
to meet strong customer reliability targets.
This generally strong position brings both challenges
and opportunities for distribution network operators
in deciding when and where to deploy smart grid
technologies.
While some smart grid technologies are relatively
mature, others continue to see rapid development
in technology functionality and pricing. This means
that network operators need to remain well informed
through the monitoring and evaluation of these
technologies within the Australian context to ensure
that the most cost-effective combinations are chosen.
To support the transition to deploying smart grid
technologies, the development of supporting common
(IT) platforms and interoperability standards will also be
critical in Australia. Without these standards, which will
allow for both existing and newer technologies to be
integrated via common platforms, the economics for
widespread deployment are likely to be unattractive in
the foreseeable future. This report has made a number
of recommendations relating to common platforms
and standards.
In addition, some situations where smart grid
technologies are integrated into new assets, but are
not enabled in distribution networks in Australia,
must be understood and remedied. This may require
work between the peak industry bodies and network
operators to share educational information and to
improve understanding about smart grid technologies,
and how they can be deployed in the most efficient
manner.
3.2.2 Balancing the risks and

opportunities from new smart grid
capital investment
None of the benefits that were suggested by the
Smart Grid, Smart City integrated net cost benefit
modelling are cost or risk free. Network businesses
are capital and asset-intensive and subject to rigorous
AER planning and investment rules as regulated
monopolies.
Further, moving forward, consumers will play an
increasingly engaged and active role in the energy
sector, through continued investment and deployment
of distributed storage and distributed generation
devices, electric vehicles, and through active demand
side participation with network operators, retailers and
third party operators. This participation will be enabled
by smart grid technologies and devices.
As previously discussed, many smart grid technologies
and platforms are relatively new or are evolving in
terms of both functionality and price. This could
be perceived by network operators as making the
economic case for trialling and deploying smart grid
technologies in Australian networks more challenging.
In addition, within the current environment of very
slow growth in demand, and generally decreasing
per capita consumption, network owners may be
less inclined to seek regulatory approval to spend
additional capital on evolving technologies (despite
the potential longer-term benefits) given the perceived
short-term impact on consumer pricing.
Regulatory resets for network businesses also only

occur once every five years and network businesses
will generally wait for their regulatory reset to put
forward a business case for additional capital
investment (for example, for smart grid devices). Within
the current regulatory phase the AER is considering
all NEM distribution network operators regulatory
proposals during 2014 and 2015. The timing of the
release of this report means that either:
There may be very limited (or no) additional
deployment of network centric smart grid devices
for NEM distribution network companies until their
2019 2020 regulatory reset period, or
Network owners could choose to invest in smart
grid technologies at their own financial risk. This
would mean that networks would invest their
own capital and forego the regulated return on
this investment for the remainder of the current
regulatory period. Network owners would also bear
the full financial risk should the AER determine
that this capital investment was not a prudent and
timely investment in the regulatory reset in 201920. This may mean that some or all of the smart
grid investment may not be included within the
approved regulatory asset base
Should there be no mechanism for investment in
economically efficient smart grid technologies during
the next regulatory period and the Australian economy
recovers, with growth in peak demand, then some of
the national economic benefits shown by the Smart
Grid, Smart City cost benefit assessment may not be
realised in the foreseeable future.
For non-NEM jurisdictions (Western Australia and
the Northern Territory), the organisations responsible
for network regulation may be faced with similar
challenges.
Because of these factors, there may be a need

to balance the risk and reward for Australian
distribution network operators seeking to innovate
within a regulated environment. The AER (or similar
organisations in non-NEM states) have a role in
providing targeted R&D funding to enable network
operators to assess where in-grid smart grid
technologies could deliver the greatest economic
benefit for Australian consumers. Although network
operators, not regulators, are responsible for
innovation, there is still an opportunity to consider
the most effective mechanism to encourage the
trialling of potentially economically efficient smart grid
technologies within a highly regulated environment
Recommendation
As part of the review of the Demand Management
and Embedded Generation Connection Incentive
Scheme (DMEGCIS), the AEMC and AER should
facilitate the location-specific trialling of smart grid
technologies by network businesses.
In developing the criteria for a reformed DMEGCIS, the

AEMC and the AER should consider the findings from
the Smart Grid, Smart City trials and this national cost
benefit assessment, to target those grid technologies
which demonstrate the greatest potential for benefits.
Further, given the current regulatory cycle for NEM
distribution network companies, the AER should
consider an in-cycle review, expansion and release of
an updated DMEGCIS. This could mean that network
operators have the opportunity to trial smart grid
technologies during the next regulatory cycle.
Recommendation
The Northern Territory and Western Australian
governments should consider the most appropriate
mechanism to enable their distribution network
operators to trial smart grid technologies within an
appropriately incentivised mechanism within their
regulatory investment framework.
There will be a need for ongoing assessment to

determine whether the current energy market
structure, regulatory frameworks and business models
provide the appropriate incentives for consumers
and energy market participants to support the
economically efficient deployment of smart grid
technologies and products.
3.2.3 People - industry

understanding, education and
change
3.3 Electricity
consumers
Given the potential for strong consumer benefits from

the deployment of some technologies and the potential
for new network solutions, there is a need for industry
leadership to facilitate improved sharing of information
about smart grid technologies across the entire
industry workforce and community.
Electricity tariff structures, especially for the majority

of residential consumers who are billed for the
volume of electricity consumed, have essentially
been unchanged for many years. However, following
publication of the Power of Choice report by the AEMC
and the adoption of its recommendations by the then
Standing Council on Energy and Resources, there
have been a number of reviews relating to improving
consumer participation in the electricity market and
rule changes which will provide a mechanism for the
introduction of more cost reflective electricity
network tariffs.
There will be a need for individual network businesses,

the industry as a whole, to develop and implement
new standard operating procedures. Training
programs will also be required so that network
engineers have adequate knowledge of how to
effectively deploy and integrate new smart grid
technologies.
This change management process should include
developing and sharing a register of smart grid
technology network trials and results to maximise
information dissemination and allow a mechanism for
industry discussion.
This information should also be shared with the AER
and the broader sector where possible.
Recommendations
Industry peak bodies and Smart Grid Australia
should consider the most effective ways to improve
information sharing and knowledge transfer
pertaining to smart grid technologies and their
application in the Australian context.
To ensure that smart grid technologies are
cost effectively deployed and utilised, network
businesses should develop new standard operating
procedures for the optimal deployment and safe
operation of smart grid devices and systems in
thenetwork.
However, in order to fully realise the potential benefits

suggested by the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer
Application network and retail trials there are a number
of fundamental threshold challenges around consumer
understanding and education which need to be
overcome.
3.3.1 Consumer understanding,

education and change
Consumer awareness and understanding of potential
changes to electricity tariff structures and the
consequences of these changes is perhaps one of
greatest challenges which the COAG Energy Council
and industry participants must address.
Although dynamic tariff structures are commonplace
in many of the developed nations, there has been
considerable reluctance by a range of stakeholders
to introduce such changes in Australia. However,
the pace at which consumers have adopted rooftop
solar PV and more energy efficient appliances should
be an indication that general consumer awareness
of electricity consumption is improving and that
consumers are sensitive to electricity price increases
as well as declining technology costs.
The outcomes of the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer

Research Survey which sought to ascertain consumer
engagement, behaviour changes, electricity bill
savings and consumer feedback on the trial products
provides valuable learnings for future deployment of
dynamic tariffs in Australia.
Developing and implementing a strategy which
introduces dynamic tariffs for residential electricity
consumers will not be without its challenges. Some
states such as New South Wales have previously
deployed dynamic tariffs without the necessary
customer pre-engagement which is required to
develop an understanding of the necessary responses.
This resulted in significant consumer backlash for the
sector and the state government. Victorian electricity
retailers have recently introduced voluntary dynamic
tariffs and the uptake rates and consumer reversion
rates for these new tariff types are still unclear.
Given that the majority of electricity customers in
Australia may not currently have an understanding
of dynamic tariffs, there is a requirement for a
comprehensive education strategy to improve the
understanding for all customers and maximise their
opportunity to make bill savings.
The Power of Choice review report also recognised the
importance of an education strategy for consumers.
The COAG Energy Council is currently considering
the most appropriate strategy to improve consumer
understanding of the benefits of market participation,
dynamic tariffs and demand side participation.
3.4 Transitioning
to greater volumes of
distributed generation
The traditional electricity system which saw the
dispatch of electricity from large centralised generators
transported (in one direction) over sometimes large
distances to consumers is rapidly changing. The
continuing uptake of rooftop solar PV and the potential
for economic storage solutions (given cost effective
pricing) means that distribution networks are becoming
a far more dynamic and responsive system.
Smart grid technologies offer the potential to better
predict electricity supply and demand at specific
locations in the grid, continuously monitor the
condition of the grid and major assets, to dynamically
reconfigure the network and more efficiently utilise
labour and materials. These technologies also provide
the opportunity to interact with customers in order
to actively manage demand on different parts of the
network.
A key feature of modern electricity networks in
Australia is a growing volume of distributed generation,
in particular, rooftop solar PV, the benefits and
challenges of which has been extensively discussed
throughout this report.
3.4.1 Will a smart grid facilitate

greater volumes of distributed
generation?
There has been significant conjecture as to whether
smart grid technologies will be able to better manage
larger volumes of distributed generation in the
future. The findings of the national net cost benefit
assessment based on the trial findings of the Smart
Grid, Smart City Program have suggested that a
smart grid can manage larger volumes of distributed
generation at a lower cost per connection (or per kW).
The current electricity network in Australia, in general

terms, is able to manage up to about 40 per cent of
residential premises with rooftop solar PV within an
urban network. For short rural and long rural networks,
depending on the individual feeder characteristics, this
limit may be lower.
Modelling undertaken by Ausgrid for the Distributed
Generation and Distributed Storage Trials suggested
that distributed generation will begin to be
systematically constrained-off the network once
penetration reaches 40 per cent. Under the current
approach it was assumed that network operators
manage network augmentation due to rooftop solar
PV by reconductoring and distribution transformer
replacements, or by upgrading existing power quality
management secondary systems (e.g. tap changers,
placement of field devices etc.).
Assumptions used in the smart grid case of the net
cost benefit assessment included several possible
approaches to managing rooftop solar PV including:
The introduction of cost reflective tariffs (including
a network capacity tariff) which means that
consumers deploy economically efficient solar PV
system sizes
Deployment of AVVC technologies which can
be used to dynamically integrate distributed and
centralised electricity in the distribution network
The use of distributed storage (potentially in
conjunction with AVVC technologies), improving
power factor and reducing line losses by keeping
the generation in the local low voltage network
Results suggested that under a smart grid case,
depending on where costs were allocated, a smart
grid could potentially enable 100 per cent of capacity.
This modelling requires additional field investigations
to determine grid and cost impacts as well as the least
cost approach to managing high levels of rooftop solar
PV penetration in Australia as previously discussed and
recommended in Section 2.8.2
3.4.2 Australias grid emissions

intensity
Whilst the net cost benefit assessment modelling
suggested there are positive economic benefits from
the deployment of smart grid technologies, analysis
showed that with an economically efficient deployment
of smart grid technologies there was an increase in the
emissions intensity of grid sourced electricity under a
smart grid compared to BAU.
This means that whilst a smart grid solution is
potentially more economically efficient than BAU, there
is a trade off with a slightly higher emissions intensity
result of around 3.4 per cent under the medium
economic scenario.
This arises because the introduction of economically
efficient pricing (dynamic tariffs) results in consumers
making different investment choices. In the smart grid
case a lower number of consumers deploy rooftop solar
PV with average system sizes also being smaller. This
means that overall, consumers are required to source
more of their electricity from the grid (rather than from
their own solar PV), meaning that centralised generators
are dispatched more often. As a consequence there is
a greater amount of fuel burned, and therefore higher
carbon emissions under the smart grid case compared
to BAU.
The actual outcome will be influenced by the average
emissions intensity of grid-sourced electricity in
different parts of Australia and by future rooftop
solar PV capital costs (i.e. if rooftop solar PV system
costs reduce at a greater rate than assumed for the
purposes of this modelling, it is likely that there will be
a greater uptake by consumers) and average
system sizes.
4 Maximising the benefits and

opportunities in transitioning
to a smart grid in Australia
4.1 Balancing
4.2 The case for cost
financial, reliability and reflective prices
environmental benefits It is clear from the modelled smart grid case that
Consistent with the approach described in the original
Australian Government Smart Grid, Smart City paper9,
there are three key performance benefits that smart
technologies could deliver:
Direct financial benefits which could include lower
operational costs across the sectors and either
avoidance or deferral of capital investment. These
benefits could deliver lower electricity bills
Reliability benefits reducing the number of
minutes each year in which consumers are without
electricity
Environmental benefits potential for reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions10
These three areas align with those in the energy
trilemma discussed in Appendix One of this report.
Importantly, and as discussed in this part of the
report, it is often challenging to deliver positive
benefits against all three aspects of the energy
trilemma - for any given technology or solution,
there are generally trade-offs.
The Smart Grid, Smart City national cost benefit
assessment suggests that there is a clear positive
business case for deploying a number of smart grid
technologies and pricing products in some parts of
the grid in different states of Australia. The economics
for these technologies and pricing products vary by
technology, by network type, and to some degree, by
the rate of economic growth present in Australia at
the time.
9
10
ustralian Government, Smart Grid, Smart City

A
Anew direction for a new energy era, 2009
Noting that this assessment did not find a reduction
in greenhouse intensity by introducing a smart grid
under medium or high economic scenarios
the introduction of smart meters in conjunction with

dynamic tariffs provides a stronger ability for electricity
customers to participate in the energy market, as well
as an improved opportunity to manage the future
growth of electricity peak demand in Australia.
As well as moderating peak demand growth, the
introduction of smart meter infrastructure with
dynamic tariffs has the ability to reduce (in real terms)
future electricity bills for many consumers, including
those passive consumers who choose not to make
behavioural changes, adopt dynamic tariffs or deploy
distributed generation and storage devices. This is true
for both residential and business consumers11.
Based on the modelling, it is also clear that this
economic benefit is likely to increase with higher
economic growth in Australia. This means that if
the Australian economy returns to a higher period
of growth, the efficient deployment of smart grid
technologies has the potential to deliver greater
economic benefits.
Modelling suggested that introducing mandatory
dynamic tariffs for some electricity consumers could
also deliver more equitable bill outcomes by reducing
cross-subsidies between consumers who choose
to invest in distributed generation (or indeed any
technology or behaviour which reduces consumption
without necessarily reducing peak demand) and those
who do not.
11 Based on the average consumer demand profiles

modelled. This is discussed in Appendix Two of this
report ( methodology)
Modelling with the introduction of dynamic tariffs

suggests that distributed storage devices would be
deployed from 2024 when the technology becomes
economic. This suggests that if consumers are
appropriately incentivised, they could draw electricity
from their local storage devices during peak demand
or pricing periods.
Under the BAU case, the over-incentivising of
distributed generation investment due to inclining block
tariffs and the lack of financial incentives for distributed
storage means that these devices are unlikely to be
economically deployed unless dynamic tariffs
are introduced.
4.3 The case for

in-grid smart grid
technologies
There are several in-grid smart grid technologies that
based on Smart Grid, Smart City trials and cost benefit
analysis, showed a positive net benefit. FDIR showed
the strongest net benefit of all technologies, given the
strong correlation between technology deployment
and improved consumer reliability standards. These
strong net financial benefit results flow from AEMOs
estimated value of customer reliability. As previously
noted, given the importance of the value of customer
reliability in determining this economic benefit, these
values should be updated before reassessing the
business case for FDIR (and SFM) technologies.
There were also benefits demonstrated by AVVC

technologies and to a lesser extent SFM technologies,
albeit at lower levels compared to those achieved by
FDIR, smart metering and dynamic tariffs.
The combination of technologies deployed and network
topology has also been shown to be important in
determining the magnitude of the net benefits achieved.
This means that the COAG Energy Council, network
owners and the AER (or AER-equivalent organisation
in non-NEM states) need to carefully review where the
greatest financial returns are possible, and deploy the
appropriate technologies in these locations. Many of the
smart grid technologies showed the greatest financial
return in urban and short rural feeders, but there are
also some potential strong benefits for CBD and
long rural networks with specific technologies in
some locations.
As with all aspects of Australias energy networks,
not all states (or even parts of states) have the same
network topologies, customers or climates. Modelling
of results based on average customer types,
demand profiles or responses only provides indicative
results and it will be important to consider where
the greatest benefits could be achieved for specific
local circumstances.
There is some degree of overlap between smart
grid technologies, and in some instances, multiple
technologies could achieve a similar outcome. For this
reason network operators will also need to consider,
based on local circumstances and network challenges,
the best technology solution to meet their needs.
4.4 Varying economic

conditions and national
net benefits
4.5 What are the

key costs and risks of
inaction?
International research and other information found

as part of this Smart Grid, Smart City Program is
that individual smart grid technologies are already
being deployed by different network operators across
Australia. Further, there are both Rule Changes and
policy developments underway which will potentially
change the way that consumers participate in
Australias electricity markets.
If a smart grid, which includes in-grid technologies

as well as more cost reflective (dynamic) retail and
network tariffs, is not deployed there are a range of
challenges that Australia will face. These challenges
have been discussed as part of the BAU case within
the net cost benefit analysis.
Given these factors it will be important for

governments and industry to monitor key indicators
within the electricity sector (such as new investment,
growth in peak demand and network utilisation),
the cost of smart grid technologies and consumer
sentiment to determine the optimal time to deploy
different smart grid options.
Higher capital and operational expenditure for

distribution network operators in Australia
In general the cost benefit assessment showed

that the national benefits from the deployment of
smart grid technologies increased with improving
macroeconomic conditions.
Recommendation
Given the potential for a significant national net
benefit from the deployment of a smart grid in
Australia, the COAG Energy Council should ensure
that the energy sector policy frameworks, including
regulatory settings (in both NEM and non-NEM
states), support investment in net beneficial
combinations of smart grid technologies and
tariffstructures.
There are a number of key characteristics of a future

electricity sector under the BAU case including:
Overinvestment by consumers in distributed

generation (particularly rooftop solar PV and fuel
cells (CHP) as a result of the non-cost reflective
prices under the inclining block tariff)
No investment in distributed storage devices even
when they become economic (due to the lack of
a network capacity price signal under the inclining
block tariff)
Higher electricity bills for residential and business
customers because of lower network asset
utilisation
Higher electricity bills for residential and business
customers who do not deploy distributed
generation (passive consumers) due to increasing
cross subsidies required for those who deploy
these technologies. By the end of the modelling
period the cross subsidies for distributed
generation paid by passive consumers is significant
In a low demand and consumption environment, the
need for additional investment may not be considered
necessary, but when Australia returns to stronger
economic growth, or when population growth means
that existing spare capacity in the centralised
generation or electricity networks is being utilised, that
additional investment to meet peak demand will be
required. Our analysis suggests that wise and early
investment in smart grids presents significantly better
value than business-as-usual for Australia.
Appendix 1
Overview of Australias
Energy Sector
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix One Overview of Australias Energy Sector ARUP 289
Appendix 1 Contents
1
An overview of Australias electricity markets
1.1
Electricity generation and supply in Australia
293
1.2
Australias National Electricity Market (the NEM)
294
1.3
Western Australias SWIS and NWIS
296
1.4
Stand-alone electricity networks
296
Electricity market stakeholders
2.1
Electricity generators and retailers
300
2.2
Electricity networks
300
2.3
Government, policy makers and market operators
301
Electricity market policyobjectives
3.1
Understanding the energy trilemma 305
3.2
Energy policies in Australia
314
3.3
Energy policies of state and territory governments
318
Delivering electricity toconsumers
4.1
Demand for electricity
321
4.2
Electricity distribution networks investment drivers
326
4.3
Electricity generation investment drivers
332
Opportunities to improve electricity sector economics
337
5.1
Improving electricity network economics
340
5.2
Opportunities to improve electricity generation economics
345
5.3
Opportunities to improve retail costs
346
5.4
Opportunities to improve customer pricing outcomes
348
290 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix One Overview of Australias Energy Sector ARUP
293
299
305
321
Overview of
Appendix One
Appendix One establishes the framework for review
of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program by providing
an overview of Australias electricity market, its
participants, sectoral drivers, future opportunities
and challenges which must be overcome. It
also describes the long-term transformation now
underway in the electricity sector which includes
ongoing tension between the need to replace
aged infrastructure, the integration of new cleaner
generation and smart energy management
technologies, and a greater consumer influence on
market outcomes.
It also provides a description of recent trends in
Australias electricity market, the impact of new
products and consumer demand and consumption
patterns which have impacted retail price rises.
Appendix One is divided into the following sections:
Section 1 provides an overview of Australias
electricity market, including a description of each
element of the market, the National Electricity Market
(NEM), the networks in Western Australia and the
Northern Territory and other stand-alone electricity
networks that exist in Australia.
Section 3 describes the electricity market policy

objectives including the energy trilemma of energy
security, environment and affordability. This section
also provides an overview of energy policy objectives
of the Australian Government as well as state and
territory governments.
Section 4 introduces the concept of electricity
supply and demand and how Australias existing
demand for electricity is met by centralised
generation. This section also defines electricity
consumption and demand and provides an overview
of recent and potential future electricity trends
including investment drivers for generation, network
and retail businesses in Australia.
Section 5 introduces the discussion on improving
electricity sector economics including demand side
management, energy efficiency, electric vehicles
and battery storage. This section also introduces the
concept of a smart grid and provides a link to Part
One of the main report.
Section 2 describes Australias energy market

stakeholders and their respective roles in developing
and maintaining an efficient electricity market
1 An overview of Australias
electricity markets
1.1 Electricity
generation and supply
in Australia
Australias energy (gas and electricity) sectors
underpin both economic growth and quality of
life for all Australians. The electricity market in
Australia is a series of connected infrastructure and
systemsincluding:
A retail market which provides services to

households and business customers Australia
has two major electricity markets the National
Electricity Market (or NEM) in eastern Australia and
the physically separate South West Interconnected
System (SWIS) in Western Australia (shown in Figure
A1-1). There are also a number of off-grid (standalone) electricity networks of varying sizes throughout
Australia. Each of these supply systems is described
further below.
A wholesale electricity market in which large

electricity generators trade and dispatch electricity
The transmission network which is the high voltage
network that provides electricity directly to major
industrial customers and to distribution companies
The distribution network which provide lower
voltage connections to homes and businesses
Figure A1-1 Australias major transmission lines and large generators (Source: Australian Government, Energy White Paper
2012, page 150)
1.2 Australias
National Electricity
Market (the NEM)
Encompassing eastern and southern Australia is
an interconnected electricity grid which covers
the states of Queensland, New South Wales, the
Australian Capital Territory (the ACT), Victoria, South
Australia and Tasmania. There are around 200
large electricity generating units, five state-based
transmission networks which provide interconnection
across states and 13 major distribution companies
that supply electricity to end-use customers1.
This interconnected grid is known as the National
Electricity Market, or NEM and supplies electricity
toaround 10 million business and residential
customers using approximately 45 000 kilometres
of high voltage transmission lines and 700,000
kilometres of lower voltage distribution networks2.
At the time this report was written there were around
48 000 megawatts (MW) of installed generation
capacity3 with a total of 317 generators in the NEM
registered with the Australian Energy Market Operator
(AEMO) (which included 200 large generating units).
Across the NEM, the total amount of electricity
generated in 2012-13 was in the order of 199 terawatt
hours (TWh), which was a 2.5 per cent reduction
from the previous year. This is equivalent to 199
billion kilowatt hours (kWh).
ustralian Energy Regulator (AER), State of the

A
energy market 2013, 2013.
2 Australian Energy Regulator (AER), State of the energy
market 2013, 2013.
3 The number of generating units operational at any
given time varies based on actual instantaneous
market demand and long term trends. In addition,
a number of coal-fired generating units have been
shut down or taken off-line periodically whilst
demand for electricity within the NEM is subdued.
These figures exclude the significant number of

small generating units including solar rooftop PV,
larger solar farms, some smaller wind generators and
many site-based small diesel or gas-fired generators
(including cogeneration and trigeneration plants).
The large generating units are rarely (if ever) all
operational at once, but rather are brought on and
off line dependent on the overall demand within the
grid at any given point.
Figure A1-2 shows both the geographical location
and fuel source of the largest 200 generating
units in the NEM and the extent of the backbone
transmission grid2.
The NEM operates as a wholesale spot market in
which generators and retailers trade electricity through
a gross pool managed by the Australian Energy
Market Operator (AEMO). AEMO is responsible
for aggregating and dispatching electricity supply
(generation) to meet consumer demand for electricity
in the lowest cost manner available.
In addition to the physical wholesale market, retailers
may also contract with generators through financial
markets to better manage any price risk associated
with volatility on the spot market. Financial market
contracts allow generators and retailers to agree a
strike price, rather than the volatile spot price which
can vary significantly across the day and across
seasons. In general, wholesale spot market prices
increase as demand for electricity increases, and
decrease again, particularly overnight when demand
is at its lowest. Similarly in summer when demand for
electricity is often at its highest due to both industry
and residential demand (particularly driven by air
conditioning load on hot days), wholesale NEM
electricity prices can be very high.
Electricity retailers must manage their exposure
to high wholesale spot market prices to be able
to offer consumers a relatively flat price. With the
exception of some very large industrial customers
who purchase electricity directly from the wholesale
market, the majority of electricity consumers in
Australia are not exposed to the price fluctuations of
the NEM.
Figure A1-2 Australias NEM (backbone transmission) and location of the largest 200 generating units (the large power stations
shown in Figure 1-2 typically consist of a number of individual generating units) (Source: AER, State of the energy market 2013,
page 23)
1.3 Western Australias 1.4 Stand-alone

SWIS and NWIS
electricity networks
Given the physical distance of around 1,500
kilometres (and low density of population) which
separates the fringes of Australias east and west
electricity systems, the electricity network in Western
Australia is not connected to the NEM.
In Western Australia electricity infrastructure is
organised in several distinct systems including the
South West Interconnected System (SWIS); the North
West Interconnected System (NWIS); and a number
of regional, non-interconnected power systems.
The SWIS is the largest network and extends from
Albany in the South, to Kalgoorlie in the East and
up to Kalbarri in the North and supplies in the order
of one million customers4 with more than 76 000
km of overhead and 21,000 km of underground
transmission and distribution lines5.
In 2010-11 the SWIS and the NWIS supplied
approximately 18 298 GWh of electricity to more than
one million customers6.
The Northern Territory has a small electricity industry

which comprises three regulated systems Alice
Springs, Darwin-Katherine and Tennant Creek
supplying electricity to around 75 000 customers7.
Similarly for some of Queenslands more remote
areas, isolated grids or small stand-alone power
stations suitable for individual properties or small
mining operations are used. In Queensland there are
31 isolated electricity grids in rural and remote areas
managed by Ergon Energy Corporation Limited8 (Figure
A1-3). This includes the large energy load in the Mt Isa
region where there is a significant mining load.
These power stations predominantly use automotive
diesel with the exception of three power stations
where renewable-diesel hybrid plants operate. An
example is located at Windorah which is powered
by a solar farm with a separate diesel generator (not
pictured) which provides electricity when the solar
farm is not producing power, but also operates to
stabilise the electricity grid (Figure A1-4).
The Mt Isa isolated network is significantly larger than
most other isolated systems and is supplied by large
centralised gas-fired generation.
4
5
6
Australian Government, Energy white paper 2012.

BREE, Energy in Australia, 2013
7
Ibid, 2012.
8 Ergon Energy, 2013 http://www.ergon.com.
au/community--and--our-network/networkmanagement/isolated-and-remote-power-stations
Figure A1-3 Location of the 31 stand-alone power stations managed by Ergon Energy (Source: Ergon Energy website)
Figure A1-4 Windorah solar farm
There are also a number of stand-alone power

systems in Western Australia, particularly in mining
communities. As in Queensland, these run on a
number of different power sources dependent on
the characteristics of local demand and the cost of
fuelsources.
These stand-alone power systems are not part of
the NEM or SWIS. Electricity supply conditions and
pricing in these areas are generally determined by
state governments who in many cases are the asset
owners of these systems. In other cases, these
systems may be owned by mining companies.
2 Electricity market
stakeholders
Australias current electricity market arrangement
is the product of cooperation and bipartisan
agreements between the Australian, state and
territory governments since the mid-1990s.
At its core is the objective of acting in the long-term
interests of consumers9.
In the case of the national market (the NEM) this

cooperation has transformed a set of state-based
arrangements into an interconnected market covering
eastern and southern states and the majority of
the Australian population. Regardless of whether
consumers are supplied power from the NEM, other
state-based or stand-alone systems, within Australia
there are a common set of stakeholders. For NEM
customers and market participants, these are shown
in Figure A1-5.
Figure A1-5 Australias NEM structure and stakeholder relationships
Physical electricity flows
Transmission network
Distribution network
Plant dispatch instructions
Load dispatch instructions
AEMO
determines the amount of
power required
Generators
Supply offers
Consumers
Purchase bids
Electricity settlement
payments
Electricity settlement
payments
Financial contract payment

Source: AEMO 2010, An introduction to Australias electricity market

2.1 Electricity
generators and
retailers10
There are more than 200 large generating units in the
NEM and 317 registered generating units in total with
an installed capacity of around 48 000 MW. This is in
addition to generators in non-NEM regions including
the SWIS, NWIS, Northern Territory, Mt Isa and
other small stand-alone generators in Queensland
and Western Australia. Within the NEM, an effective
wholesale electricity market underpins the reliable
supply of electricity generation to almost 10 million
residential and business customers.
The main customers of electricity generators are
retailers, who in turn sell electricity to consumers,
although some very large electricity consumers
source their supplies directly from generators or the
spot market (by-passing retailers).
The NEM (and most electricity systems) operate
on the premise that there needs to be sufficient
generation and network capacity available to supply
consumers demand for electricity, particularly
on the small number of days each year when
demand for electricity is at its maximum (generally
a small number of days where there are extreme
temperatures, either high or low).
Although governments structurally separated the
energy supply industry in the 1990s (into generation,
network operators and retail) there has since been
significant vertical integration between retailers and
generators to form gentailers. Vertical integration
provides a means for retailers and generators to
internally manage their price volatility risk, reducing
their need to participate in hedge (contract) markets.
10 Statistics extracted from the AERs, State of the

energy market 2013.
Although financially attractive for vertically integrated

businesses, this results in reduced contract market
liquidity, particularly as the larger retailers in Australia
are all gentailers. Across the NEM, three retailers
AGL Energy, Origin Energy and EnergyAustralia
jointly supply 77 per cent of customers. These three
entities also control in the order of 45 per cent of new
generation capacity commissioned or committed
since 200911. Some state governments like
Queensland12 and Tasmania own joint distributionretail businesses.
2.2 Electricity
networks
For centralised generation, electricity transmission
and distribution networks are essential to transport
electricity from the generators to customers. The
NEM is one of the largest interconnected grids in the
world13. Given the capital intensity of building and
maintaining an electricity network, network services
can be most efficiently provided by a single provider,
leading to a natural monopoly for network businesses
in Australia.
Because of the lack of competition between
networks, a regulator the Australian Energy
Regulator (AER) - sets the prices for using electricity
networks in the NEM. In non-NEM states, the
Economic Regulation Authority regulates networks in
Western Australia, whilst in the Northern Territory the
Utilities Commission is the regulator.
The role of network regulators in relation to other
electricity market stakeholders is shown in Figure A1-6.
11 Australian Energy Regulator, State of the energy

market 2013, 2013
12 The Queensland Government as the owner of Ergon
Energy Queensland does not permit it to compete
for customers in the electricity retail market in
Australia
13
AEMO website
New investment in electricity network infrastructure

is required to maintain or improve network
performance over time. Investment includes network
augmentations (expansions) to meet rising demand,
new connections for consumers, replacement of
ageing assets and requirements to meet licensing,
reliability and safety standards (e.g. to meet new
bushfire standards).
For the NEM, combined network revenues over the
current five year cycle are forecast at over $7 billion
for transmission and $36 billion for distribution14.
More recent decisions have seen a significant
reduction in forecast electricity demands resulting in
lower approved investments by the regulator.
2.3 Government,
policy makers and
market operators
The Australian National Electricity Market has a
well-established governance framework which is
used to drive electricity sector reforms and policy
development within Australia. This governance
framework includes the Australian Government, the
ACT and most state governments, the Australian
Energy Market Commission (AEMC), the Australian
Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and the AER as
key stakeholders. These relationships are shown in
Figure A1-6.
The broad factors influencing these trends are

discussed in Section 4.2 of this appendix.
Figure A1-6 Governance framework for the implementation of energy policy in the NEM states of Australia
(Source: adapted from AEMC)
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Energy

Council
Reform Agenda
National Electricity / Gas Law
Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC)
National Electricity / Gas Rules
Australian Energy Market

Operator (AEMO)
Electricity and Gas system and

market operator
Economic regulation and rule

compliance
Participants
National Competition Law
14
Australian Energy Regulator

(AER)
Wholesale energy suppliers

Market customers (retailers)
Participant end use customers
Network operators
Traders
Australian Energy Regulator, State of the energy

market 2013, 2013
Although all state and territory Ministers are

represented on the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) Energy Council, the other
frameworks (legislation and regulations), regulators
and policy makers only apply to NEM states. For the
Northern Territory and Western Australia, their energy
markets are managed by state and territory-based
regulators and frameworks. These are described
further below.
2.3.2 Western Australia
2.3.1 Northern Territory
Promote the economically efficient, safe and

reliable production and supply of electricity and
electricity related services in the SWIS
The Utilities Commission of the Northern Territory

is responsible for the regulation of the Territorys
electricity supply industry15. This includes the
generation, distribution and retail aspects of the
electricity market. The electricity supply industry
is governed by various legislative frameworks
administered by the Utilities Commission, including
the Utilities Commission Act, Electricity Reform Act,
and Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act.
In Western Australia, the Economic Regulation

Authority (ERA) is responsible for regulating third
party access to electricity infrastructure and
administers licenses for the electricity sector. One
of the ERAs primary functions is to observe the
behaviour of the Wholesale Electricity Market (WEM)
in the SWIS to ensure that it is meeting the market
objectives, which are to16:
Encourage competition among generators and

retailers in the SWIS, including facilitating efficient
entry of new competitors
Avoid discrimination in the market against particular
energy options and technologies
Minimise the long-term cost of electricity supplied
to consumers from the SWIS
These legislative frameworks confer the following

roles and responsibilities to the Utilities Commission:
Encourage the taking of measures to manage the

amount of electricity used and when it is used
Administrative functions with respect to licensing,

dispute resolution and generation compliance
monitoring of the Northern Territorys electricity
supply industry
The ERA performs these functions in conjunction with

the Independent Market Operator (IMO).
Setting, approval and / or enforcement of codes

and rules aimed at ensuring appropriate behaviour
and conduct by licensed or regulated entities in the
Northern Territorys electricity supply industry
This function is governed by three legislative

instruments - the Electricity Industry Act 2004,
Electricity Industry (Wholesale Electricity Market)
Regulations 2004 and the Wholesale Electricity
MarketRules.
Setting the standards of service and reliability in the

electricity supply industry
Regulation of prices charged by government
and other businesses for providing some
monopolyservices
Overseeing of compliance of technical regulation
with respect to system and market operation in the
electricity supply industry
Annual reviews on prospective trends in
the capacity and reliability of the Territorys
powersystem
15
Utilities Commission www.utilicom.nt.gov.au
16
Economic Regulation Authority www.erawa.com.au
2.3.3 Summary of electricity policy

makers and market operators in
Australia
The main focus of current energy market reforms
and investigations in the NEM is aimed at driving
efficiency to improve outcomes for consumers. In
many cases, the Western Australian and Northern
Territory Governments have similar agendas. Table
A1-1 describes the role of each of the different
regulatory and policy stakeholders in both NEM and
non-NEM states.
Table A1-1 Roles of policy makers and market operators NEM and non-NEM states
Group
Role
COAG Energy
Council
The COAG Energy Council comprises Commonwealth, state, territory and New
Zealand Ministers responsible for energy and resources. Provides the leadership
and sets the investigative (reform) agenda throughout Australia. The COAG Energy
Council has been formerly known as the Standing Council on Energy and Resources
(SCER), the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources (MCMPR) and
the Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE).
Australian
Energy Market
Commission
(AEMC)
The AEMC is the rule maker and developer for Australian energy markets with an
objective to ensure efficient, reliable and secure energy market frameworks which
serve the long-term interests of consumers. It has responsibility for the review of, and
changes to, the National Electricity Rules (NER), the National Gas Rules (NGR) and
the National Energy Retail Rules (NERR).
Australian Energy
Market Operator
(AEMO)
AEMO is Australias interconnected market operator and planner and works to deliver
an integrated, secure and cost effective national energy (gas and electricity) supply.
The aim of AEMO is to provide effective infrastructure for the efficient operation of the
wholesale electricity market, to develop the market and improve its efficiency and to
coordinate planning of the interconnected power system.
Australian Energy
Regulator (AER)
The AER operates under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and has a number
of roles including setting prices charged for using energy networks (electricity poles
and wires and gas pipelines) to transport energy to consumers; monitoring wholesale
electricity and gas markets to ensure suppliers comply with the legislation and rules;
regulating retail energy markets in the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania (electricity) and
New South Wales from 1 July 2013.
Economic
Regulation
Authority (ERA)
Western Australia
The ERA regulates third party access to electricity, gas and rail infrastructure in
Western Australia. It is also responsible for administering licenses for electricity as
and water service providers. The ERA is also responsible for surveillance of WAs
wholesale electricity market and undertakes economic inquiries on a range of
economic issues.
Group
Role
West Australian
Government
Department of
Finance
The Department of Finance - Public Utilities Office provides a range of services on

energy matters to the Minister for Energy, the Western Australian Government, the
energy sector and the Western Australian community. The Public Utilities Office has
a number of responsibilities including the provision of policy advice to Government,
support for the performance of the statutory functions of the Coordinator of Energy
and more broadly the enhancement of the energy industry.
The Utilities
Commission of the
Northern Territory
The Utilities Commission of the Northern Territory is the independent industry

regulator, established to oversee those industries declared to be regulated
industries, including the economic regulation of electricity supply. The Commission
is responsible for the promotion and safeguard of competition and fair and efficient
market conduct or, in the absence of a competitive market, the simulation of
competitive market conduct and the prevention of the misuse of monopoly power.
3 Electricity market
policyobjectives
The development of energy policies both in Australia
and globally is driven by both broad objectives
and also more focussed ambitions which generally
relate to specific sectoral outcomes. At the core
of these broad energy objectives both in Australia
and globally are three key issues energy security,
environment and affordability. This is often referred
to as the energy trilemma and these issues create
debate amongst governments, environmentalists,
economists and consumers in determining the best
way of meeting energy needs now and in the future.
In the following sections, each element of the broad
energy trilemma is discussed, as well as the more
specific energy (electricity) policies of different levels
of government in Australia.
3.1 Understanding the

energy trilemma
3.1.1 Energy security
The term energy security17 can be defined in a
number of ways. The Australian Government defines
energy security as Australias ability to meet the
energy needs of the Australian community and industry
both in the short and in the long term. In this context,
it describes energy security as the adequate, reliable
and competitive supply of energy where:
Australia is fortunate in that it has many options

for generation sources, both fossil-fuelled and
renewable, in order to meet its demand for energy
now and for the foreseeable future. Australia is a
net-exporter of energy fuels and export of energy
resources is important to our future economic
success. However, there is a fundamental
transformation underway which will determine how
Australia generates its electricity in the future. This
transformation involves a trend away from large
centralised electricity generation towards greater
levels of distributed (and generally intermittent)
generation solutions.
This transition from centralised to more distributed
generation is happening within a macroeconomic
climate of relatively flat electricity demand18
and slow economic growth. These factors have led
to excess generation capacity and historically low
wholesale electricity (generation) prices in the NEM.
In this environment of excess generation capacity,
the Australian Governments Renewable Energy
Target (RET) is delivering additional new renewable
generation capacity which, from a purely economic
perspective, is currently not required within the NEM
to meet demand. Some analysts have suggested the
NEM now has in the order of 4,000 MW of excess
generation assets19 (or about 10 per cent of total NEM
generation capacity).
Adequacy is the provision of sufficient energy to

support economic and social activity
Reliability is the provision of energy with minimal
disruption to supply
Competitiveness is the provision of energy at an
affordable price which does not adversely impact
on the competitiveness of the economy and which
supports continued investment in the energy sector
17
http://industry.gov.au/Energy/EnergySecurity/Pages/
default.aspx
18 AEMOs National Electricity Forecasting Report

(2013) suggests that total demand for electricity
in 2013-14 will increase slightly (in the order of 0.5
per cent growth) compared with 2012/13. These
demand projections also consider the impact of
solar PV generation and energy efficiency on total
demand for electricity. This report also indicates
residential and commercial consumption per capita
is likely to continue reducing on an annual basis but
population growth and industrial demand will push
total demand higher.
19 Tony Wood (Grattan Institute) in an editorial for the
Australian Financial Review, 25 September 2013,
page 43.
3.1.2 Environment, climate change

and greenhouse gas intensity
Climate change science recognises that climate
change is occurring.20 What is less clear however is
the timeframe for climate changes and the magnitude
of those changes21 which may include more frequent
occurrences of weather extremes. Climate science
has also linked climate change to increases in the
level of carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere due
to human activity.
Electricity generation in Australia is the largest
single source of carbon emissions in the national
greenhouse gas inventory, accounting for 35 per cent
of emissions in the year to December 201222.
Emissions from Australias electricity generation
sector are primarily produced by the combustion of
fuels, mainly natural gas and coal, in the production
of electricity. Generation of electricity from renewable
sources (such as hydroelectricity, wind and solar
generation plant) are low emission.\Australias
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) 23 shows
that emissions from electricity generation for the year
to December 2012 were 190.8 Mt CO2-e (millions of
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents).
This figure represents a reduction of 4.7 per cent
from the previous year. The reduction has been
partially attributed to a decrease in total electricity
demand in the NEM, which for the year to December
2012 was 2.4 per cent lower than in the year to
December 2011, and reflects the lowest total
electricity demand level seen in the NEM since 2006.

Annual emissions for electricity generation have
beendecreasing since its peak of 209.9 Mt CO2-e
in2008-09.
Changes to the fuel mix used to generate electricity
have also contributed to the recent decline in
emissions. Over the year to December 2012,
generation in the NEM from black coal decreased by
5.3 per cent and brown coal generation decreased
by 7 per cent with both fuels registering their lowest
generation levels in more than a decade. Conversely
natural gas generation increased 6.3 per cent to its
record annual level in the NEM.
Wind generation capacity has also increased
significantly over the past several years, driven by
the Large Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET)
(discussed in Section 3.2). A challenge for many
prospective wind farm developments is that many of
the best resources are located too far from the existing
transmission grid to be economically connected.
Generation which relies on natural resources
such as the solar radiation from the sun or
variable wind strength is known as intermittent
generation. This means that to maintain
uninterrupted electricity supplies to consumers,
other sources of generation are required to
supplement this variable supply. In many
instances this supply is currently provided by gas
or coal-fired generation.
20 Tony Wood (Grattan Institute) in an editorial for the

Australian Financial Review, 25 September 2013,
page 43
21 IPCC, Special report for managing the risks of
extreme events and disasters to advance climate
change adaptation, 2012.
22 Australian Government, Australian national
greenhouse accounts quarterly update of Australias
national greenhouse gas inventory, December quarter
2012 (Table 1-2), May 2013.
2012, May 2013.
Figure A1-7 Change in emission by sector since 1990, Australia, year to June, 1990-201227
Change since 1990 (Mt CO2-e)
80
60
40
20
Electricity
Stationary energy excluding electricity
Transport
Fugitive emissions
Industrial processes
Agriculture
2011 12
2009 10
2007 08
2005 06
2003 04
2001 02
1999 00
1997 98
1995 96
1993 94
1991 92
1989 90
-20
Waste
In South Australia generation output from wind

generators often does not align with periods of
maximum demand, particularly in summer24 which
means that reserve generation capacity (generally
gas-fired plant) is required in order to guarantee
electricity supply25. Having additional generation in
reserve (unused) for much of the year increases the
cost of electricity generation (in total) for this region.
Over the last three years there has also been
significant growth in the installed capacity of solar
generation and all forecasts indicate that this will
continue and could account for almost 30 per
cent of total generation in Australia by 2050. In
2012 solar accounted for only 1.4 per cent of total
electricitygenerated26.
24
AEMO, South Australian wind study report, 2012.
25
AEMO, South Australian wind study report, 2012.
26 Climate Commission, The critical decade- Australias
future solar energy 2013
Despite the recent reductions, emissions from

Australias electricity sector showed the strongest
growth of any sector since 1990, increasing by 61.2
Mt CO2-e since 1990. In percentage terms, emissions
from electricity grew by 47.3 per cent in this time.
The growth of emissions for all sectors in Australia
is shown in Figure A1-7. These results cover all
electricity emissions in Australia including the NEM,
SWIS and other regional networks.27

2012 (Table 1-2), May 2013.
3.1.3 Emissions and the energy

trilemma
There are a number of challenges in transitioning
Australias electricity sector to generation sources
which are lower in emissions-intensity and the speed
at which this should or can occur is the subject of
significant debate. This matter is not a subject for this
report, however, there is a general acknowledgement
that there is a global trend towards greater levels of
distributed and renewable electricity generation.
There are a number of technical and structural
adjustment challenges associated with moving
from highly centralised to greater amounts of
decentralised generation. In addition, there remain
challenges to meeting the demand for electricity
across the 24 hour cycle for different customer types
given natural resource (wind and solar resources)
variation. Although arguably the adjustments required
to meet these challenges are all technically viable,
there remain serious financial implications for all
electricity consumers and those involved in the
energy supply industry in making these adjustments.
These financial challenges include the:
Financial implications of shutting down existing
electricity (fossil-fuelled) generation before the end
of its economic life
Need to restructure current economic (regulatory)
frameworks for electricity networks, changing
the cost recovery structure from (predominantly)
consumption based charges to a different model.
Network costs will remain allocated to customer
classes unless customers physically disconnect
from the electricity grid
Financial implications (capital costs) of deploying
new distributed generation sources
These changes will take time to achieve, and

arguably the speed at which this occurs will heavily
influence the cost to all consumers and the electricity
supply sector. Some of the electricity cost challenges
are discussed in the following section.
3.1.4 Affordability
Nationally, residential electricity prices rose by 64 per
cent in real terms (87 per cent in nominal terms) over
the past 5 years28. Industry and large business has
seen smaller rises (due to higher volume electricity
purchases) but nonetheless, electricity costs make
up a considerable component of operational costs
for many electricity-intensive businesses.
The main driver of higher retail prices in this period
has been rising charges for using electricity
networks. There have been a number of factors
driving higher network costs during this period
including: forecast growth in maximum (peak)
electricity demand in the period 2005-2010; the need
to replace a significant amount of aged electricity
infrastructure (built around 50 years ago); the
introduction of higher reliability standards by some
state governments; and higher financing costs (cost
of capital) due to global financial market uncertainty.
Some industry analysts have referred to this historic
period as the perfect storm.
In addition to rising electricity network prices, there
have been increases in generation costs due to
the introduction of a number of state-based and
Australian Government environmental policies such
as the Carbon Tax and the Renewable Energy Target
(RET). As previously discussed, a number of these
policies are currently under review.
Capital costs to deploy significant energy storage

capacity to store sufficient electricity to supply
demand when wind or solar resources are not
available (or alternatively the cost to maintain
stand-by electricity generation (such as gas-fired
generators) to supply electricity when natural
resources are not available)
28 Australian Energy Regulator, State of the energy
market 2013, 2013 using the electricity components
of the ABS consumer price index.
Figure A1-8 Comparison of OECD national residential electricity prices (Source: BREE, Energy in Australia, May 2013)
Hungary
Slovac Republic
Germany
Poland
Portugal
Turkey
Italy
Denmark
Czech Republic
Chile
Ireland
Slovenia
Austria
Belgium
Netherlands
Japan
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Greece
Australia
Estonia
Sweden
Finland
France
Mexico
Israel
Switzerland
Korea
United States
National currency per US cents/kWh
Over the recent past, considerable debate has also

occurred between governments, industry groups,
network businesses and regulators as to the extent
to which high reliability standards set by state
governments have also contributed to increased
network investment. Consistent with the review of
environmental policies a number of state governments
have recently indicated that reliability standards will be
reviewed or removed in the near future.
It is clear from the significant debate in the media
that electricity prices and the more recent price
rises remain one of the most sensitive issues for all
governments in Australia. Globally, many developed
countries are struggling to address fuel poverty
across large sections of their communities, whilst for
developing countries, simply providing access to
electricity to improve economic and living standards
remains a challenge.
The Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Research

Report indicated that for those trial participants who
responded to the Customer Research Survey that
14 per cent of all survey respondents felt unable to
pay their energy bills at some stage over the past
year. For survey respondents defined as financially
vulnerable31, this result was higher at 26 per cent.
Customers who are struggling to pay their electricity
bills are also the least likely to be able to afford large
capital outlays to purchase more energy efficient
appliances (such as hot water systems) or modify
building structures in their homes in order to reduce
their electricity bills. In some cases, these customers
also do not own their homes, further limiting their
ability to significantly reduce electricity consumption
changes. Nonetheless, most consumers would have
the capacity to modify their behaviour in order to
reduce some consumption so as to manage costs.
Fuel poverty in Australia is generally measured by

the number of customers who are either struggling
to pay for their electricity bills and/or have applied
for hardship programs with their energy retailers. A
recent publication by energy retailer AGL indicated
that approximately 16 per cent of its customers
displayed varying signs of hardship29, but these
numbers rise to one in four households when looking
at the family formation cohort30.
Within Australia, analysis shows that the average

Australian consumer spends around 2.6 per cent of
their household income on electricity. Despite recent
increases in electricity prices over the past several
years, this figure has remained effectively consistent
for around two decades32.
29 Simshauser P and Nelson T, The energy market

death spiral rethinking customer hardship, AGL
applied economic and policy research, working
paper number 31, June 2012.
30 The family formation cohort is defined in this paper
as being characterised by the head of the house
being aged between 30-49, living in a large house,
with a substantial mortgage or rental costs and two
uncontrollable consumers (otherwise known as
children), page 2.
31 Trial respondents were classified as experiencing

financial vulnerability if the household combined
income was in the lowest income bracket (less than
or equal to $41,600 p.a.; households that rent with
government assistance; or households that occupy
public housing
32 Simshauser P and Nelson T, The energy market
death spiral rethinking customer hardship, AGL
applied economic and policy research, working
paper number 31, June 2012.
Figure A1-9 Indicative composition of residential electricity tariffs in NEM states (Source: Australian Energy Regulator and
AEMC 2013)
Wholesale electricity costs
Network costs
Carbon costs
Green costs (excl carbon)
Retail costs
Wholesale
electricity
costs
Network costs
Carbon costs
Green costs
(excl carbon)
Retail costs
Total
23.6%
51.6%
7.0%
6.2%
11.6%
100%
Solar PV feed-in-tariffs and

impact on electricity prices
The way in which solar PV feed-in-tariffs are
recovered from consumers varies between states.
Two different approaches to solar PV feed-in-tariffs
are discussed below:
Queensland Solar Bonus Scheme

The Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) in
its recent review of Queenslands Solar Bonus
Scheme stated that the growth in PV installations
is increasing electricity costs for all Queensland
consumers. Energex and Ergon Energy expect
to incur accumulated feed-in tariff payments of
around $2.9 billion ($2013-14) by the end of the
scheme in 2028 and these costs will flow directly
through to network charges and electricity bills.
The Authority estimates that the costs of the
Scheme will add around $67 to the average
Queenslanders annual electricity bill in 2013-14,
peaking at around $276 by 2015-16.
The QCA also indicated that the impact of the
existing Solar Bonus Scheme could be somewhat
ameliorated by requiring electricity retailers to
contribute to the ongoing costs of funding those
tariffs, set at the estimated direct benefit to the
retailer resulting from PV exports. It valued this
contribution at around $386 million for the period
through to 2028.
The QCA also recommended that network tariff
reform could be considered as a means of more
equitably sharing the benefits and costs of the
scheme specifically network businesses could
establish new, cost-reflective network tariffs for PV
customers which ensure that these customers are
charged their full fixed network costs, which are
largely avoided under the present network tariff
arrangements. Alternatively, PV customers could be
placed on an existing network/retail tariff which would
provide them with opportunities to better manage
their usage by accessing time-of-use retail prices.
On 23 May 2014, the QCA released a report which

recommended that regional electricity customers
be paid a feed-in tariff of 9.07c/kWh while the
Carbon Tax was in place, or 6.53c without the
Carbon Tax, recognising the higher estimates for
wholesale electricity costs and energy losses over
the distribution network.
New South Wales Solar Feed-in-Tariff

In 2012 the Independent Pricing and Review
Tribunal (IPART) determined the subsidy for the
feed-in-tariff for 2012-13 in the range of 7.7 to 12.9
c/kWh for electricity exported to the grid from PV
customers in New South Wales. This is equivalent
to the cost for retailers to purchase centralised
electricity. Further, this benchmark range was to
serve as a guide to retailers, who are not obliged
to offer feed-in-tariffs in this range, or at all to new
solar customers.
This effectively means that the retailers no longer
recover the cost of feed-in-tariffs from consumers.
There is therefore no direct cost impost on nonPV customers. However, PV feed-in-tariffs still
indirectly impact the economics of the electricity
grid. This is because the feed-in tariffs encourage
investment in solar which has potential implications
for networks in terms of:
Costs of managing voltage regulation due to grid
exports in areas of high solar density
Reducing load factor
These impacts have the potential to result
in a higher cost per unit of electricity for all
electricityconsumers.
Historically, Australia has had stable and competitive

electricity prices by developed world standards.
However, as previously discussed, over the past five
years the cost of electricity has increased by around
64 per cent nationally. As noted in a recent Bureau of
Resource and Energy Economics (BREE) report33,
a comparison based on purchasing power parity
measure for OECD nations (in US$) (Figure A1-8)
showed that household electricity prices in Australia
are in the low to mid-range34.
Retail electricity prices the price paid by
consumers, includes several costs which are added
together to produce a final retail tariff. This is known
as a building block approach (and is commonly
used to develop retail tariff standing offers in
states that still regulate retail electricity prices). The
following components form the building block for
retail electricity tariffs:
Wholesale electricity costs - the cost of buying
electricity from generators and the cost of
managing the risk of volatile spot electricity prices
The cost of transporting electricity via transmission
and distribution networks to customers properties
(these are known as network tariffs and are
separately approved by the AER)
The cost of complying with green energy
schemes which include the RET for wind and
solar generation; state-mandated feed-in-tariffs for
rooftop solar PV, and some state-based energy
efficiency schemes
The cost of running a retail business including
billing and responding to customer enquiries, as
well as allowance for profit
33
BREE, Energy in Australia, May 2013.
34 International comparisons of residential electricity
prices are challenging given the different cost of
living across different countries in the world. In
considering these comparisons, aspects such as
population density and geographical spread and
the physical size of the relative electricity networks
should be noted.
Based on standing offer prices in Queensland, New

South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and the
ACT, Figure A1-9 shows the indicative composition
of residential electricity tariffs for 2013. It is important
to note that there can be considerable variation
between states for some of the categories of
contributory costs, such as green costs, and in some
cases, state-based policies that apply in addition to
the national RET.
Different states in Australia set and monitor electricity
prices in different ways, including:
Retail price regulation - such as that undertaken by
the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Authority
(IPART) in New South Wales. IPART determines
an appropriate cost for each of the building block
elements (other than the network component,
which is set by the AER) and sets a maximum
price (often called the standing offer price) which
electricity retailers can charge. Some retailers will
then offer discounted prices off the standing offer
in order to attract customers
State Governments set electricity prices this
occurs in Tasmania and Western Australia
No pricing oversight (or deregulation) retailers
are free to set what they believe is a competitive
price for electricity. This is currently the case in
Victoria and South Australia. In a deregulated
market, electricity network tariffs (as determined
by the AER) are passed through to customers and,
as previously discussed, are a significant part of
the total (retail) electricity price which customers
pay. In a deregulated market, governments rely on
sufficient competition between electricity retailers
in order to keep prices fair for consumers. In
addition, whilst deregulation means that prices are
determined by the market, the National Electricity
Retail Law (NERL) in South Australia and Victoria
has a range of equivalent provisions under its statebased legislation to protect consumers from unfair
pricing or billing practices.
In larger states like New South Wales and

Queensland, the actual cost to supply electricity
to different geographical areas can vary
considerably due to (among other reasons)
the length of network infrastructure required
to transport electricity and lower population
densities in regional areas. In addition, network
costs in these states constitute a comparatively
larger proportion of the total electricity retail
tariff. In regional Queensland, the cost to supply
electricity is subsidised by the state government
with current subsidies in the order of $620 million
for 2013-1435 and projected to be more than
$3 billion over the next five years. This means
Queensland regional customers do not pay cost
reflective electricity prices. This is also the case in
Western Australia where the retail electricity price
set by the Western Australian Government is lower
than the cost to supply.
Consumers have also directly responded to
increases in electricity prices by reducing their
electricity consumption. For many customers this has
been achieved by behavioural changes (being more
conscious of unnecessary electricity consumption),
purchasing more energy efficient appliances (such
as solar hot water or heat pumps) and in some
instances, installing rooftop solar PV (or combinations
of each of these).
3.2 Energy policies in

Australia
Whilst Section 3.1 described the broad challenges
presented by the energy trilemma, the following
section discusses some of the specific elements
of energy policy in Australia at federal, state
and territory levels. These specific policies clearly
demonstrate the conflicting challenges of balancing
aspects of energy security, environmental and
costoutcomes.
3.2.1 Australian Government

energy policy
There have been significant changes in Australian
Government energy policy and what is perceived
as desirable electricity market outcomes in recent
years. These have predominantly been driven by
environmental and consumer-focussed policies.
In 2012 the previous Australian Governments
clear overarching policy objective was to transform
Australias electricity sector integrating new cleaner
generation with smarter energy management
technologies and greater consumer participation in
determining market outcomes36.
This broad policy objective in the context of specific
energy market challenges and opportunities was
discussed in the previous Australian Governments
Energy White Paper, released in 2012.
Following the election of the Abbott-led Coalition
in 2013, a number of the energy policy positions of
the former Labour government are in the process of
being revoked or are under review. In addition a new
Energy White Paper has been commissioned and it is
anticipated that this will be published in mid-2014.
35 Queensland Government, The 30-year electricity

strategy discussion paper, September 2013.
36
Australian Government, Energy white paper, 2012.
In general, there has been a shift in the focus of

the Australian Government, from the environmental
objectives of the previous Labor government, to the
current Coalition governments objectives to improve
productivity and reduce regulatory burden.
Key to the last several years of the previous
Australian Government energy policy has been the
objective of integrating cleaner (lower emission)
generation technologies via the RET. There
are two aspects to the RET the Large-scale
Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and the Smallscale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES). The
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (the Act) and
the accompanying Renewable Energy (Electricity)
Regulations 2001 (the Regulations) define the
requirements of each scheme.
The purpose of the RET has been to encourage
additional generation of electricity from renewable
sources, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
in the electricity sector and ensure that renewable
energy resources are ecologically sustainable.
Each scheme operates by creating a guaranteed
market for renewable energy power stations, using a
mechanism of tradable certificates created by largescale renewable energy generators and owners of
small-scale solar, wind, and hydro systems.
Within these schemes the Act and Regulations
include provisions to provide partial exemption
from LRET and SRES liability for electricity
used in prescribed emissions-intensive tradeexposedactivities.
LRET
The LRET creates a financial incentive for the
establishment and growth of renewable energy
power stations, such as wind and solar farms,
or hydro-electric power stations. It does this by
legislating demand for Large-scale Generation
Certificates (LGCs). Demand for these certificates
is created by placing a legal obligation on entities
that buy wholesale electricity (mainly electricity
retailers), to source and surrender certificates to the
Governments independent market operator - the
Clean Energy Regulator. LGCs are sold through the
open LGC market and the price varies according to
supply and demand.
At the time this report was prepared in May-June
201437, 16 950 gigawatt hours (GWh) of LGCs were
legally required to be surrendered this calendar
year, ramping up to 41 850 GWh of certificates to be
surrendered in 202038.
SRES
The SRES creates a financial incentive for owners
to install eligible small-scale installations such
as solar water heaters, heat pumps, solar panel
systems, small-scale wind systems or small-scale
hydro systems. It does this by legislating demand for
Small-scale Technology Certificates (STCs). STCs
are created for these installations according to the
amount of electricity they produce or displace. Liable
entities (usually electricity retailers) have a legal
requirement to buy STCs and surrender them on a
quarterly basis. STC ownership is generally vested in
the owner of the small-scale system being installed,
but can be assigned to a third party agency, such as
a retailer or installer commonly in return for a reduced
system purchase price.
37
38
A review of the RET was announced by the

Australian Government on 17 February 2014. The
reviews report will be provided to the Australian
Government by the middle of the year as an input to
the Energy White Paper process. As the RET review
is not due for completion until after the analysis
has been completed for this report, it has been
assumed that the RET remains unchanged.
Clean Energy Regulator, www.ret.
cleanenergyregulatory.gov.au
RET Scheme Review
Greater consumer participation
On 17 February 2014, the Australian Government

announced a review of the RET Scheme by an expert
panel which will report by mid-2014. In particular, the
review was tasked with considering the contribution
of the RET in reducing emissions, its impact on
electricity prices and energy markets, as well as
its costs and benefits for the renewable sector, the
manufacturing sector and Australian households39.
Greater consumer participation remains an objective

of COAG Energy Council. This objective has in part
influenced the introduction of a number of measures
to encourage consumer engagement in the AERs
regulatory decision-making processes. These
measures have included:
The review is to provide advice on40:

Whether the objective of the RET scheme, to
deliver 41 000 GWh of small scale solar generation
by 2020, is still appropriate
The extent of the RETs impact on electricity prices,
and the range of options available to reduce any
impact while managing sovereign risk
The operation of the small-scale and large-scale
components of the RET and their interaction
Implications of projected electricity demand for the
41 000 GWh target; and
Implementation arrangements for any proposed
reforms to the RET, including how to manage
transition issues, risks and any adjustment costs
that may arise from policy changes to the RET.
At the time the analysis for this report was completed,
the review of the RET was still underway. Given this,
the cost benefit assessment described within this
report has assumed that the RET Scheme remains in
its existing form.
39
40
http://minister.innovation.gov.au/ministers/
macfarlane/media-releases/review-renewableenergy-target
R
ET Review Terms of Reference http://minister.
innovation.gov.au/ministers/macfarlane/mediareleases/review-renewable-energy-target
The formalisation of a requirement for consumer

engagement in the rules governing the economic
regulation of energy network businesses
The establishment of a Consumer Challenge Panel
by the AER as part of its Better RegulationProgram
Agreement by COAG Energy Council on 1 May
2014 to establish Energy Consumers Australia
(ECA) by no later than 1 January 201541. Officials
are currently developing the administrative
arrangements of ECA. The role of ECA will be to
promote the long term interests of consumers of
energy with respect to the price, quality, safety,
reliability and security of supply of energy services
by providing and enabling strong, coordinated,
collegiate evidence based consumer advocacy
on national energy market matters of strategic
importance or material consequence for energy
consumers, in particular for residential and small
business customers42.
In general consumers will need to be encouraged to
shift electricity use away from times of peak demand
(or peak market pricing for retailers). More active
participation in managing electricity consumption
and patterns of demand can be promoted by
providing near real-time information on electricity
consumption to consumers and by establishing
time-sensitive electricity prices. These two elements
will require new smarter energy management
technologies to be deployed.
41 COAG Energy Council Meeting Communique, 1 May

2014
42
https://scer.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/12/EMRWGBulletin-23-ECA-Final.pdf
These issues were comprehensively examined in

the AEMCs Power of Choice review which set out
a substantial reform package for the NEM. These
changes are centred on increased opportunities for
households, business and industry to make informed
choices about the way they use electricity and
manage expenditure.
The overall objective of the Power of Choice
review was to propose a mechanism by which the
communitys demand for energy services is met
by the lowest cost combination of demand and
supply side options. This objective is best met when
consumers are using electricity at the times when the
value of electricity to them is greater than the cost of
supplying that electricity.
The recommendations in this report include a
package of reforms designed to increase the
responsiveness of the demand side to the evolving
market, technological developments and changing
consumer interests over the next 15 20 years.
These reforms are intended to facilitate efficient
demand-side participation in two ways:
Using smarter energy management

technologies
There are a number of new smarter energy
management technologies that have been made
commercially available over the past decade (or
longer), and continue to evolve. A number of these
technologies have been trialled in the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program and are discussed in detail in
Part One of the main report.
The technologies which were trialled during the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program included those
which were consumer-focussed; those which were
grid-focussed; and those where enabling information
and communication technologies (ICT) are required
to maximise the effectiveness of consumer and gridfocussed applications.
1. Providing consumers with information, price

incentives and technology enabling consumers
to see and be rewarded for taking up demand
sideoptions
2. Enabling network operators, retailers and others to
support consumer choice through better incentives
to manage discretionary demand by decreasing
transaction costs and removing information barriers
(supply side changes)
These reforms will require the implementation of a
number of new energy management technologies,
discussed in the following section.
3.3 Energy policies

of state and territory
governments
There is a trend toward developing national
approaches to electricity market operations (in
NEM states), including improving electricity market
competition (generation and retail) and consumer
protection mechanisms. Development of these policy
and market frameworks often takes considerable time
to discuss, agree and to implement across each of
the states.
More competitive and flexible electricity retail
markets have the potential to accelerate and deepen
competition and innovation and are more likely to
lead to a wider range of services and products for
customers. These innovations could include timedifferentiated tariff packages and advanced energy
management services (including smart metering),
giving customers more options to manage their
costs43. This is consistent with overarching policy
goals for the energy sector.
Noting this trend towards national approaches,

there remains some variance between state and
territory governments willingness to adopt national
frameworks for all aspects of the electricity system.
These differences can be attributed to factors
including state ownership of electricity networks,
generation and retailer businesses, as well as real
differences in impact these changes can bring for
different states and types of customers.
Given the geographic and demographic diversity
across the states and territories, there also
remain a number of historical consumer pricing
approaches and subsidies which will need to be
transitioned to more cost reflective pricing before
the full extent of national market reforms can be
delivered. Importantly, policies that may be viable for
consumers in densely populated areas may not be
viable for those in very rural areas with low population
densities (and vice versa) and these matters must be
considered.
For non-NEM states, there remain similar challenges
of unwinding historic pricing methodologies and
subsidies which impact on energy policies within
these states.
Although states and territories have a range of
energy policies, there is some consistency in two
areas of policy with feed-in-tariffs to incentivise the
deployment of solar PV for residential customers and
energy efficiency target schemes. 44
43
44 Feed-in-tariffs will continue to be regulated in

regional Queensland where there is insufficient
competition to deliver the choice of feed-in-tariff
market offers that are available in south east
Queensland (QCA: Solar feed-in-tariff for regional
Queensland for 2014-15, 23 May 2014)
3.3.1 Solar PV feed-in-tariffs
3.3.2 Energy efficiency schemes
Solar PV feed-in-tariffs began to be introduced

around 2008 in most states which worked in
conjunction with capital rebates for a number of solar
technologies offered by the Australian Government.
Given the price of solar PV at the time, feed-in-tariffs
were set quite high and the payback period for most
small solar PV units when combined with capital
rebates and feed-in-tariffs was in the order of eight to
ten years.
There are four states that have energy efficiency

schemes in place:
Following the significant decrease in the cost of

solar PV around 2010-2012, most states reviewed
their feed-in-tariffs, given the payback for solar PV
systems at this time reduced to around three years.
Most states commenced reviews of the feed-intariffs and subsequently most have been reduced
significantly. Table A1-2 provides a high level
summary of current solar feed-in-tariffs for each state
and territory for new customers only.
New South Wales Energy Savings Scheme (ESS)

Victoria Energy Efficiency Target (VEET)45
South Australia Energy Efficiency Improvement
Scheme (EEIS)
ACT Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme
These schemes are designed to provide financial
incentives to household and business consumers to
encourage energy reduction by installing, improving
or replacing energy savings equipment.
45 A recent review of the VEET scheme announced

in May 2014 that the current scheme will operate
under a reduced target of 2.0 million tonnes of
GHG emissions savings for 2015. More details are
available at http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.
au/energy/about/legislation-and-regulation/energysaver-incentive-scheme-management/esi-review
Table A1-2 High level details of current solar feed-in-tariffs for new solar customers in each state and territory
State
Max size
Rate paid
Program duration
Further Info
Victoria
5 kW
8c/kWh (net)
Reviewed annually
nil
South
Australia
First 45 kWh per 16c/kWh (net)

day
Ends on 30 Sept
2016
nil
ACT
30kW
7.5c/kWh (net)
No set end date
nil
New South
Wales
Depends on
retailer
Voluntary buy-back through

some electricity retailers,
with rates varying across
retailers
No set end date
nil
Queensland
Dependant on
the scheme
under which
the PV owner
signed up
From 1 July 2014, some

existing and all new solar
PV owners in south east
Queensland will be able to
compare voluntary solar
feed-in-tariffs from different
retailers
No set end date

for south east
Queensland
For new solar PV

customers there will
be no
Feed-in-tariff
for regional
Queensland set for
1 July 2014 to 30
June 2015
Feed-in-tariffs
will continue to
be regulated for
customers in regional
Queensland44
For new solar

PV customers
dependent on
retailer offering
Ergon Energy Queensland

will be required to pay
regional Queensland solar
PV owners 9.07c/kWh whilst
the Carbon Tax is in place,
or 6.53c/kWh if the Carbon
Tax is repealed
Tasmania
10kW single
phase, 30kW
three phase
8c/kWh (net)
No set end date
Northern
Territory
4.5kW
27.87c/kWh (gross)
No set end date
Western
Australia
5kW in SWIS
residential,
commercial no
limit in SWIS
Synergy residential
customers 8.4094c/kWh
No set end date
For NWIS size limit

varies by location
Varied rates for Horizon

customers
4 Delivering electricity
toconsumers
The electricity market seeks to match the supply of
electricity with demand.
Each of the elements of demand and supply of
electricity in Australia is described in the following
section, with the drivers influencing this supply and
demand further discussed in Section 5 of this appendix.
4.1 Demand for

electricity
Electricity usage is defined by two key terms:
consumption and demand, and together, these
two factors influence both the type of electricity
generation investment and the magnitude of
investment in electricity networks across Australia.
Electricity consumption (sometimes called total
demand) refers to the total amount of electricity used
in a defined time period. This time period could be
an hour, a day, a billing period or a year. Electricity
consumption is generally measured in kilowatt hours
(kWh) and megawatt hours (MWh) for most purposes.
Across the NEM, the total amount of electricity
generated in 2011-12 was in the order of 199 terawatt
hours (TWh) of electricity. This is equivalent to 199
billion kilowatt hours (KWh).
Electricity demand is also called peak or

maximum demand and refers to the single
moment in time when the maximum amount of
electricity is being used
4.1.1 Electricity consumption and

maximum demand in Australia
Following a period of significant growth in peak
(maximum) demand, and moderate growth in
consumption from around 2005 to 2008, electricity
consumption has been in decline. The former period
of strong year-on-year demand increases was driven
by both strong economic growth and installation of
electricity-intensive appliances such as home air
conditioners, large screen televisions and electric
pumps for swimming pools.
The decrease in electricity consumption since 2009
has been a world-wide occurrence in developed
nations, attributed to the global financial crisis. This
was the first time since World War II that global
annual electricity consumption declined.
The NEM in 2012-13 generated 2.5 per cent less
electricity than the year before and around one per
cent below forecast46. Over the past five years, demand
declined by an annual average of 1.1 per cent47.
Electricity consumption refers to the total amount

of electricity used in a defined time period
Electricity demand, which is also called peak or

maximum demand refers to the single moment in
time when the maximum amount of electricity being
consumed is measured. This is measured in kilowatts
(kW) or megawatts (MW). The maximum electricity
demand in any specific location (and for the system
as a whole) determines the amount of electricity
network infrastructure and generation capacity that
must be built to reliably meet consumer demand.
46 Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), National
electricity forecasting report, 2013.
47 AER, State of the energy market 2013, 2013
In 2013, AEMO forecast 0.5 per cent growth in

electricity consumption from 2013-14 to 2014-15 with
10-year average annual growth projected to be in
the order of 1.3 per cent across the NEM (under its
medium economic scenario), noting that forecasts
varied considerably across states48. However, AEMO
released an update on its 2013 projections in March
2014, indicating that during the period October 2013
to January 2014, actual electricity consumption was
lower than its forecast by an average of 1.5 per cent,
predominantly due to variances in commercial and
residential consumption in November 201349.
It is also important to note that whilst AEMOs
demand forecasts relate to demand for electricity
from the transmission network, the pattern of
electricity flows across the distribution networks
will vary due to the changing patterns of electricity
production and consumption. There will be
areas within distribution networks with significant
growth in peak demand, whilst other areas may
have a reduction. This will be determined by the
demographics of consumers in any given area, the
uptake of solar PV, adoption of energy efficiency
measures and changes in load profiles.
The uptake of distributed generation will also lead
to changing flow patterns, with distribution networks
being expected to be more responsive than the
historical one-way flow of electricity. Combined,
this may result in the need for investment in new
distribution assets or upgrading of existing assets.
These issues are further discussed in the
followingsections.
4.1.2 The influence of demand and

consumption on electricity supply
Large amounts of electricity cannot be stored
economically at this point in time electricity demand
and supply must be in balance at all times. This
requires generation to be dispatched to meet consumer
demand at every point in time. This is regardless of
48 Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), National
electricity forecasting report, 2013
49 Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO),
February Update: Supply-Demand Snapshot for the
NEM, March 2014.
widely varying weather conditions and variations in

actual electricity demands of individual customers.
Similarly network operators in Australia must forecast
the future demand for electricity for customers who
are physically connected to specific locations in the
electricity network. This location-specific demand
is then aggregated through to upstream assets in
thenetwork.
Electricity network planners and generators do not
know when a consumer is going to add (or remove)
additional load within their home, which may occur
when a consumer purchases an additional air
conditioner or television, builds a swimming pool or
spa, or installs a solar PV system. Instead network
planners and generators rely on forecasts of future
growth in aggregate demand (which tend to be
informed by historical growth trends) to anticipate
when additional capacity will be needed.
To illustrate the variability in electricity demand
the following series of figures provide examples of
Ausgrids electricity distribution network (in New
South Wales) both in total and for two different
customer groups.
Figure A1-10 shows the difference between an
average and peak total system demand days for
the Ausgrid system (total network load profile).
This difference shows the magnitude of additional
network infrastructure that is required in order to meet
higher demand for electricity on peak days. Similarly
this implies that there is also additional electricity
generation required on peak days compared to
average demand days.
The pattern of electricity use during the day also
indicates that there will be a need for generators
to be brought on and off line to match consumer
demand during the 24 hour cycle.
The pattern of use for different electricity customers also
vary significantly from the overall shape of total network
system load profile. Specific locations in the electricity
network which have different types of customers may
show considerable variability in load profiles.
Figure A1-10 Typical Ausgrid whole-of-system load profile for a typical day and a peak day (Source: Ausgrid)
6000
4000
3000
2000
1000
00:00:00
23:00:00
22:00:00
21:00:00
20:00:00
19:00:00
18:00:00
17:00:00
16:00:00
15:00:00
14:00:00
13:00:00
12:00:00
11:00:00
10:00:00
09:00:00
08:00:00
07:00:00
06:00:00
05:00:00
04:00:00
03:00:00
02:00:00
01:00:00
0
00:00:00
Electric Demand (MW)
5000
Time (24 hours)

Peak Day Load (MVA)
Typical Day Load (MVA)
Figure A1-11 Typical load profile for a CBD substation, both for a typical day and a peak day (Source: Ausgrid)
CBD Substation Peak Day vs Typical Day Load (MVA)
160
140
120
MVA
100
80
60
40
20
Time (24 hours)

Peak Day Load (MVA)
Figure A1-11 and Figure A1-12 show examples of the

demand for electricity for a central business district
(CBD) and residential substations.
00:00:00
23:00:00
22:00:00
21:00:00
20:00:00
19:00:00
18:00:00
17:00:00
16:00:00
15:00:00
14:00:00
13:00:00
12:00:00
11:00:00
10:00:00
09:00:00
08:00:00
07:00:00
06:00:00
05:00:00
04:00:00
03:00:00
02:00:00
01:00:00
00:00:00
Figure A1-12 Typical load profile for a residential electricity feeder or typical and peak days
Residential Substation Typical Day Load (MVA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
00:00:00
23:00:00
22:00:00
21:00:00
20:00:00
19:00:00
18:00:00
17:00:00
16:00:00
15:00:00
14:00:00
13:00:00
12:00:00
11:00:00
10:00:00
09:00:00
08:00:00
07:00:00
06:00:00
05:00:00
04:00:00
03:00:00
02:00:00
01:00:00
00:00:00
Time (24 hours)

Peak Day Load (MVA)
Typically a CBD load profile could be expected to

resemble Figure A1-11, where demand for electricity
increases sharply around 7am when air conditioners
for commercial buildings switch on, and continue
to run into the early evening. Demand for electricity
begins to decline after 7 pm, generally reflecting
commercial buildings reduced usage overnight.
This means that the CBD electricity network would be
required to be sized to meet maximum demand for
the period 7am through to 7 pm.
For major industrial customers, network connections

are often sized based on the specific load profile of
that customer. In some instances, the network asset
is solely used by one specific (or a small number
of) customer. In these instances, the network capital
investment and operational costs are paid for by
those customers. Load profiles for large industrial
customers are specific to different types of industry
and not able to be represented by one load profile.
For a residential feeder, a typical historical usage
pattern may look like that shown in Figure A1-12 (in a
residential area with low numbers of solar PV), where
typically demand is at its lowest point around 4am
and then shows an early morning peak as people
wake. Demand then falls again, starting to steadily
rise again from late morning through to early evening.
Although there are seasonal differences across
the year, typically most residential feeders see a
network peak between 4 pm and 8 pm each night.
This is particularly the case in summer, with a strong
difference seen between a typical day and a peak
day for a residential area in Ausgrids network.
4.2 Electricity
investment drivers
For centralised generation, electricity transmission
and distribution networks are essential to transport
electricity from the generators to customers. In
Australia, our electricity network is one of the largest
interconnected grids in the world50
. However, maintaining this network to ensure
continued high reliability standards comes at a high
economic cost.
Network investment for the period 2005-2010
was driven in part by the replacement of aged
infrastructure built around 50 years ago and the
implementation of high reliability standards in many
states (discussed in the following section). At the
same time, many residential households increased
their consumption significantly due to the installation
of electricity-intensive appliances.
However, as previously noted, the historic trend of
year-on-year increases in electricity consumption
and peak demand seen in this period has all but
disappeared over the past five years.
4.2.1 Distribution network

investment - regulatory
frameworks
Electricity networks are long-lived, capital intensive
assets. In Australia, electricity transmission and
distribution networks are monopoly businesses
(i.e. there is only one supplier in each region), and
as a consequence are regulated by the AER (or
state / territory based regulators) which determines
appropriate levels of capital investment and
operational expenditure for electricity transmission
and distribution networks.
50
AEMO website.
The framework which lays the foundation for the

regulatory system in the NEM is called the National
Electricity Law (NEL) which has the primary objective
of promoting efficient investment in, and operation
of, electricity services for the long term interest of
consumers. It also sets out revenue and pricing
principles. Based on this framework, the following
isa high level outline of the regulatory process:
Every five years, each network business submits
aplan for network investment for the next five
years outlining projected demand, and the required
capital and operational expenditure required
to meet the forecast demand and maintain the
network based on reliability targets set by state
governments. This plan reflects the requirements
ofboth the downstream network requirements
due to growth in specific locations as well as the
additive upstream network requirements.
The AER assesses the demand forecasts, forecast
expenditure and revenue required by the network
business to cover its efficient costs and an
appropriate return. It uses a building block model
that adds together a networks operating and
maintenance expenditure, capital expenditure,
depreciation costs and taxation liabilities and a
return on capital.
The AER (for distribution companies) may set
either a revenue or price ceiling (cap) that can be
charged during a period. Different approaches are
used in different states at this point in time.
Regulatory processes take around one year to
complete. There are five transmission companies
and 13 distribution companies in the NEM that are
regulated by the AER, and regulatory submissions
are staggered for different businesses across the five
year cycle.
The recent public debate around network investment

and the subsequent retail electricity price pressures
have led to calls from consumer and industry
groups as well as state and federal governments
for the AER to rein-in network businesses capital
spending. These discussions have been set amongst
a background of a slowing of Australian economic
growth and fall in the consumption of energy across
all customer segments.
As a consequence of a high degree of scrutiny
and ongoing reviews into all aspects of the
regulatory process, a number of changes continue
to be implemented. These are intended to limit the
possibility of over-investment and create additional
incentives for efficient investment (described in the
following section).
It is anticipated that network investment and the
regulatory framework will continue to be areas for
reform within the NEM.
4.2.2 Current demand trends for

electricity distribution networks
Over the past three years both total consumption
and maximum demand has fallen across all states
in Australia. This recent reduction has meant that for
many parts of the electricity network there is capacity
which is not currently being utilised.
Given the current pricing arrangements, this means
that electricity costs per unit of consumption (c/kWh)
are higher compared with a scenario where grid
consumption was higher. Put simply, the less often
the full capacity of network assets are utilised, the
less economic it becomes for consumers.
This recent scenario of reducing consumption has
become more profound given the sharp rise in
installation of rooftop solar PV across many states
inAustralia.
At this time most rooftop solar PV installations have

been in the residential sector and this has meant that
the volume (consumption) of grid-sourced electricity
for this sector of the network has reduced even
further. Solar PV-driven reduction in grid-sourced
consumption has been in addition to electricity
consumption savings from both more energy efficient
products and people being more aware of electricity
use (because of sharply rising retail prices). A
simulation of the impact of solar PV on electricity
distribution networks is discussed and shown in the
following section of this report.
4.2.3 Quantifying the impact of

rooftop solar PV
Solar PV is having a significant impact on how
network planners are forecasting network demand
and planning for future residential networks. Recent
analysis published by AEMO reported that the
number of installations of solar PV in 2010 and
2011 rose dramatically, reaching an estimated total
capacity of 1,450 MW at the end of February 2012.51
This is almost twice the capacity of Kogan Creek
(750 MW), the largest coal-fired electricity generating
unit in the NEM.
Within Australia, Queensland has the highest
number of rooftop solar PV systems installed
of any state with more than 313,000 systems,
followed by New South Wales with more than
231,000, Victoria 181,000, South Australia almost
142,000 and Western Australia with around
137,000. Tasmania has around 14,000, the ACT
12,000 and the Northern Territory 2,000
Estimations were that in 2011, approximately 74 MW

of capacity was added each month. In total, the
number of solar PV installations more than tripled in
number from the end of 2010 to the end of 201252.
These figures are believed to represent more than
1 million solar roof top PV units currently installed
across Australia.
Part of the explanation for this rapid adoption of solar
PV was the attractive incentives available at the time
(through generous feed-in-tariffs and the operation of
the RET). While the incentives offered have since been
moderated, AEMOs latest projections nevertheless
suggest that the economics of solar PV for consumers
will continue to improve, particularly during the period
2018 to 2025. It believes that these economics
combined with innovative financing which reduces upfront capital payments, will see solar PV installations
on commercial buildings increase. Beyond 2025,
AEMO suggests paybacks will improve again, driving
strong demand from both new and existing buildings.
In addition, from around 2025, older systems are likely
to require replacement and upgrades.
From a network maximum demand perspective, larger
amounts of solar PV on a feeder may not require an
immediate change in asset investment53. However,
under current network pricing models, there may
be negative consumer pricing impacts because in
most cases, the majority of network tariff revenue is
recovered via consumption charges if consumption
falls, then an increase in the unit cost is required in
order to compensate for the decrease in volume.
Source: Climate Commission, The critical decadeAustralias future solar energy 2013
51 Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), Rooftop

PV information paper, 2012.
52 Climate Commission, The critical decade: Australians

future solar energy, 2013.
53 Where solar exports do not meet domestic usage
and where that usage increases in peak times there
may still be a requirement to augment the distribution
network
Solar PV in South East

Queensland
Energex, South East Queenslands distribution
network provider has reported that as at 30 June
2013 there are 222 257 customers with gridconnected solar panels. This compared with 148
311 customers in 2012.
These PV installations represent 675 MW of
generation capacity and in 2012-13
389,625 MWh was fed into the electricity grid at a
cost of $167.1 million in feed-in-tariff payments. This
increased the costs of electricity for network users.
(Source: Energex Annual Performance Report
2012-13)
Although this adoption of greater volumes of smallscale distributed generation (particularly solar
PV) has had some unintended consequences, it
is broadly accepted that this trend towards small
customers seeking to rely to a greater extent on
solar-produced generation and battery storage
supplemented by electricity sourced from the grid
will increase with time.
A full discussion of the results of the Smart Grid,
Smart City Newington residential solar PV trials is
included in Part One of this report.
4.2.4 PV impacts on network

power quality
Power quality refers to the provision of electricity
supply to customers at, or as close as possible to,
the ideal sinusoidal voltage as possible. Reduction in
power quality can manifest in the form of any voltage,
current or frequency deviation causing failure or
faulty operation of customer equipment. Where any
of these disturbances occur, a number of issues can
result ranging from light flicker to irreparable damage
to appliances and equipment.
Of particular concern to electricity distribution
networks within Australia is the impact on power
quality of increasing penetration of rooftop solar PV.
There are a number of network integration issues
which are creating some challenges including:
Large amounts of PV systems can cause voltage
rise at the load. This is particularly an issue when
load is low and PV production is high
PV systems are designed to only supply real
power (maximising the financial outcomes for the
consumer). However if PV supplies a loads real
power requirements, the grid still has to supply the
reactive power and this causes the system power
factor to decrease, which is inefficient
Inverters can inject harmonics into the network
(the amount is regulated by industry standards)
but challenges occur where there are a number of
inverters of the same manufacturer connected in
an area. In this case, voltage harmonics can occur
and together they increase losses in the network
through heating
Each of these network stability issues requires

remediation by network companies. The cost of this
additional network investment is currently shared across
all consumers of a similar asset class within the network
(for example, all residential or small customers).
Although there are existing technological measures
to mitigate these network issues, there are also
newer classes of solutions emerging such as
intelligent power converters that may provide power
quality services, and microgrid control systems
that may allow parts of the network to be managed
autonomously subject to suitable performance
obligations.
The majority, if not all, of the issues associated with
increased numbers of distributed generators can be
overcome through either customer expenditure or
network investment. Additional network investment,
and in some cases increased operating and
maintenance costs, will be required to enable the
widespread connection of distributed generation.
Some of these challenges can be overcome by
smart grid technology solutions (such as Active Volt
VAr Control) which are characterised by additional
measurement and automation.
The uptake of distributed generation will also lead
to changing electricity flow patterns, with modern
distribution networks being expected to be more
responsive than the traditional electricity grid with
one-way flows of electricity from large centralised
generators to consumers. Combined with the need to
ensure the safe and reliable operation of distribution
networks, there may be a need for additional
investment in distribution assets including smart grid
technologies in the future.
4.2.5 Distribution network

reliabilitystandards
Network reliability refers to the frequency and
duration of outages experienced by electricity
customers, and is a key indicator of the performance
of an electricity network.
The delivery of improved levels of consumer
reliability of supply typically requires substantial
capital investment in the distribution network to
either increase redundancy in the network, or
implement alternative smarter technologies which
reduce outages. Investment to improve power
reliability therefore needs to be balanced against
the economic benefit, and importantly, the value of
reliability to affected customers.
Quantifying the value customers place on power
reliability (the Value of Customer Reliability or VCR) is
a complex and subjective process.
Current approaches to valuing customer reliability
consider the direct cost on business and residential
customers associated with supply outages, the
economic cost of substitution measures implemented
by customers during an outage, customers
willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid outages, or
willingness to accept (WTA) more outages in return
for lower electricity costs.
In general, studies have found that these alternative
approaches do not necessarily match, and the value
of customer reliability greatly varies depending on the
nature of the customer and the nature of the supply
interruption54. In a 2012 review of reliability standards
in New South Wales, the AEMC found a reduction in
reliability standards could reduce distribution network
investment by $275 million to $1.3 billion over 15 years,
depending on the extent of the reliability reduction.
An increase in average customer outages of 215
minutes per year was estimated for average customer
savings of $315 per year. In general the cost savings
associated with reducing reliability standards were
found to provide consumer benefits exceeding the
54 Where solar exports do not meet domestic usage
and where that usage increases in peak times there
may still be a requirement to augment the distribution
network
impact of weaker reliability performance, and the

costs of further improving reliability standards were
estimated to outweigh the benefits.55
The most common indices for measuring power
reliability in Australia are:
System Average Interruption Duration Index
(SAIDI) a measure of the average duration
of customer outages, usually as minutes per
customer per year
System Average Interruption Frequency Index
(SAIFI) a measure of the average frequency
of outages, usually as a number of outages per
customer per year
These indices are used to set power reliability
standards and targets, and monitor and report
network business performance in regard to
power reliability. There are also several other
indices which are derived from these measures
which are used by industry and governments.
Currently, state and territory governments are

responsible for determining how reliability standards
for distribution networks are set, delivered, enforced,
and reported on. The jurisdictional approach to power
reliability regulation has led to differences in how
reliability outcomes are delivered, the level of reliability
experienced by customers, and the costs of building
and maintaining distribution networks across the NEM.
The relationship between distribution network

reliability and network capital and operational cost
means that government decisions to change reliability
standards can significantly impact on the level of
network investment required, and ultimately affect
customer bills. In the case where state or territory
governments own the electricity network companies
there is an inherent conflict between the setting of
network reliability targets and the potential need for
increased capital expenditure and greater regulated
returns.
The costs to increase reliability standards need to
be balanced by the economic value of the benefits
to consumers. Similarly, cost savings associated
with decreasing reliability standards need to be
considered against economic costs to consumers.
The AER administers a Service Target
Performance Incentive Scheme (STPIS) to
encourage distribution businesses to maintain
or improve service performance for both supply
reliability and service performance.
The scheme sets targets for the average duration
(SAIDI) and frequency (SAIFI) of outages for
each electricity distribution business.
The scheme provides financial bonuses and
penalties of up to 5 per cent of revenue to
network businesses that meet or fail to meet
performance targets, as well as a guaranteed
service level (GSL) component under which
customers are paid directly if performance falls
below specified threshold levels.
In addition to the STPIS, jurisdictional GSL
schemes provide for payments to customers
experiencing poor service quality.
55 Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC),

2012, Draft Report NSW Workstream, Review of
distribution reliability outcomes and standards
In 2012, the AEMC proposed the introduction of a

nationally consistent framework for distribution
reliability, to improve consistency and transparency in
the approaching to delivering power reliability
standards across the NEM. The intention of the
proposed framework is not to apply a single standard
of power reliability across the NEM, but rather to
implement a consistent approach to setting,
delivering, and reporting on reliability targets and
outcomes, with jurisdictions retaining responsibility
for determining the appropriate level of
distributionreliability.56
In early 2013, the AEMC was tasked with developing
these national frameworks for distribution and
transmission, building on their previous work. In
May 2014 the COAG Energy Council discussed a
high level opt-in framework for a national framework
for reliability standards to be set out in the National
Electricity Rules. Ministers requested officials to
finalise a framework document for consideration in
their next meeting.
Regardless of the specific reliability standards
adopted and the mechanisms by which these
are set, delivering a satisfactory level of power
reliability to allow for continued economic growth is
expected to be an ongoing challenge for Australian
networkbusinesses.
The impacts of increasing population growth, energy
consumption and demand, the changing landscape
in electricity energy generation and consumption,
and in particular increases in distributed generation
and electric vehicles, can only be expected to
increase this challenge. In the future there is no
doubt that more cost effective means of achieving
required levels of power reliability will be demanded
by governments and consumers.
4.3 Electricity
generation investment
drivers
4.3.1 Current electricity
generation profile
In Australia, electricity is still mainly produced by
burning fossil fuels (such as coal and gas) to create
pressurised steam which is forced through a turbine
at high pressure to drive a generator. Other electricity
generation uses renewable energy sources including
solar, wind, hydro and waste (including sugar cane
waste (bagasse), animal waste and or other industrial
wastes) which all generate electricity using slightly
different processes.
Each generation technology and fuel source has its
own unique characteristics which determine when,
and for how long, it is able to produce electricity
each day across the year. Generally electricity
generators are considered to be:
Baseload (running almost continuously including
coal and combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT))
Intermediate (running less frequently than baseload
plants including CCGT)
Peaking (predominantly open cycle gas turbines
(OCGT), liquid fuels and hydro which run only
during short periods of peak demand); or
Intermittent generation such as wind and
solar which operate when weather conditions
arefavourable.
Hydroelectric plants are arguably the most versatile
of all electricity generators and can operate as either
baseload, intermediate or peaking plant and also
provide ancillary support services for AEMO.
56 Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC),

2012, Draft Report National Workstream, Review of
distribution reliability outcomes and standards
Across the NEM2, black and brown coal accounts

for 57 per cent of registered generation capacity, but
being baseload plants, supply 79 per cent of total
generation output. Gas-fired generation accounts for
around 21 per cent of registered capacity, but only
supplies around 11 per cent of generation output.
Hydroelectric generation accounts for 16 per cent
of registered capacity but less than 7 per cent of
output. Wind output accounts for about 4 per cent of
capacity and 3 per cent of output.
The growing contribution of solar photovoltaics (PV)
to electricity production is discussed in Section 4.2.3
of this appendix, however, across all of Australia, PV
was estimated to have contributed around 1.3 per
cent of output in 201257.
In South Australia, wind generation represents 24
per cent of generation capacity and 27 per cent
of output. On some days, wind has accounted for
up to 65 per cent of total generation. However,
wind generation is generally lower at times of peak
demand, and, on average, it contributes less than
nine per cent of supply at any given time during
summer58 when demand for electricity is generally
higher in this state.
Within the Northern Territory, 98 per cent of
generation is from natural gas59. In Western Australia
around 51 per cent of generation is from coal, 45
per cent from gas and 4 per cent from renewables60.
Themajority of stand-alone electricity generators use
diesel as a fuel source.
4.3.2 Dispatch of electricity

generators
National Electricity Market
AEMO issues dispatch instructions to generators in
the NEM at five-minute intervals throughout each day
based on the offers generators have submitted in the
bidding process. In this way there are 288 dispatch
intervals every day.
The dispatch price represents the cost to supply the
least expensive megawatt of electricity that is needed
to meet demand, and applies to all generators
scheduled regardless of the level of their original
offer. This price also applies to non-scheduled
generation such as wind turbines.
A trading interval in the NEM is a half hour period.
Therefore, there are 48 trading intervals each day
in the market. The spot price of electricity for all
30-minute trading intervals each day is the average
of the six dispatch prices during the preceding halfhour. There is a separate spot price for each trading
interval in each of the NEMs five regions (five states).
From all of the bids offered by available generators,
AEMO decides which generators will be deployed
to produce electricity, with the least expensive
dispatched into operation first.
Factors that contribute to variations in the spot price
in different regions of the NEM include limits on
interconnector capacity and reliance on differing fuel
sources for local supply in different NEM regions.
Because gas is a more expensive fuel than coal or
water, electricity produced using gas will generally
cost more than electricity produced by the other
means. Other factors including total system load,
plant outages, frequency control, voltage control,
testing and transmission outages also affect the
dispatch and spot prices.
AEMOs generator dispatch cycle is shown in
FigureA1-13
57 Climate Commission, The critical decade

Australias future solar energy, 2013.
58 Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), South
Australian wind study report, 2012.
59
Energy Supply Association of Australia, 2012.
60
Energy Supply Association of Australia, 2012.
Figure A1-13 AEMO generator dispatch cycle (Source AEMO)
Scheduling
Ranking bids
Data input
Established current
operational status of
generating units
Identifying the dispatch levels

of generating units
Assesing demand forecasts

Applying loss factors
Determining system
conditions
Dispatch
Issuing dispatch instructions
to generators
Western Australias capacity-only

generation market61
The Wholesale Electricity Market of Western Australia
(WEM) supplies electricity to the SWIS. The WEMs
market design differs from the NEM in two main ways:
The majority of energy volume in the WEM is traded
through bilateral agreements between market
generators and market customers. Only the volume
required to balance these positions is traded in a
Short-Term Energy Market (STEM) pool. Because
of this design, the STEM is referred to as a net pool
distinguishing it from the NEMs gross pool.
The electricity commodity market of the WEM is

not unlike its NEM counterpart. The market price is
determined by offers to supply and bids to purchase
(demand). However in the WEM, only the electricity
volume that is not already covered by bilateral
contracts is traded.
The WEM is comprised of an electricity commodity

market, a capacity market and an ancillary services
market, whereas the NEM is an energy only market.
61 http://eex.gov.au/energy-management/energyprocurement/energy-pricing/how-the-energymarket-operates/
Wholesale electricity prices
Currently wholesale electricity prices are at

historically low levels and as a result, during 2012
and 2013 a number of generators were either placed
in seasonal dry storage or decommissioned. AEMOs
Supply-Demand Snapshot of the NEM update
published in March 2014 indicated that 2,400 MW of
existing generation plant in the NEM has now been
withdrawn from the market (put in dry storage, but
not decommissioned). This includes both coal-fired
and combined cycle gas generation units.
The NEM as a wholesale market relies on a healthy

level of competition, which over the past five years
has seen some of the lowest prices since the NEM
commenced in 1996 (Figure A1-14).
Wholesale electricity prices are responsive to the
supply-demand balance. This was seen in 2007
when average wholesale electricity prices in the NEM
increased, largely as a result of record consumption
over the year combined with tight supply caused by
drought conditions across some states. In Queensland
some large coal-fired generating units were forced to
reduce output or withdraw capacity from the NEM due
to a lack of available water for cooling.
In addition, a number of generators have reduced

their generation availability in the market to reflect
the reduced requirement for electricity. Whilst from a
customer perspective low wholesale electricity prices
may be seen positively, current wholesale electricity
prices are unsustainable and it is likely that in the
medium to longer term could result in higher prices
for consumers as generators leave the market and
competition lessens.
Figure A1-14 Average monthly spot prices in the NEM (Source: BREE, Energy in Australia, May 2013)
400
350
250
200
150
100
50
NSW
QLD
Snowya
SA
TAS
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
0
2001
2011-12 $/MWh
300
VICb
Regardless of low average prices, during periods

of increased demand (such as during heat waves
or when for other reasons, generator availability is
low), short periods of higher prices do occur in the
NEM spot market. Whilst this can benefit generators
who will receive higher earnings in these short
periods, retailers use a range of financial hedging
and other strategies (such as dispatch agreements
with peaking generators) to manage their exposure in
these high-priced periods. These costs are reflected
in differentiated retail pricing, which generally reflects
the relative risk for retailers posed by different
customer segments.
5 Opportunities to improve
electricity sector economics
Given the broad electricity market trends and
investment drivers previously discussed in Sections
3 and 4, it is timely to consider how these can
be influenced to deliver a positive outcome for
governments, market participants and consumers.
There has been ongoing reform of Australias electricity
markets since the mid-1990s and there will be the need
for ongoing refinement to ensure that it continues to
meet the contemporary needs of electricity consumers
and facilitates the delivery of government policy as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
Australias energy market reforms are driven by the
COAG Energy Council with its (new) draft Terms
of Reference for the 18 months being considered
at its first meeting on 1 May 2014. The final Terms
of Reference for the COAG Energy Council will be
agreed by COAG later this year.
The COAG Energy Councils first Meeting
Communique indicated that this group will provide a
forum for collaboration on developing an integrated and
coherent national energy policy and any implications
from the Commonwealths abolition of the carbon tax.
Ministers statutory obligations under national energy
laws will also be core to the Councils work.
At this stage it is unclear how the reform agenda

agreed under the Standing Council on Energy and
Resources (SCER) will be included in the new work
program. This (previous) work program included a
commitment to:
Effective regulation of electricity networks to keep
future price rises to a minimum including:
Enhanced transparency in network
investmentdecisions
Improved access to quantitative data for
planning purposes
Improved data for benchmarking
betweenDNSPs
Improving network planning and connection (for
distributed generation)
Implementing a demand-side framework (as
outlined in the Power of Choice final report)
Implementing retail price deregulation, promoting
of competition in all NEM states (for upstream
gas and electricity markets) and encouraging
privatisation of electricity networks
Promoting greater efficiency and transparency in
publicly owned energy businesses
Extending governance arrangements and principles
to all electricity markets through a national
approach to energy laws and ensuring that energy
institutions have sufficient capacity, capability and
accountability to carry out their functions.
These reforms sought to improve the overall
economics of the generation, network and retail
electricity sectors in Australia.
One element to these opportunities for improvements
includes the deployment of smarter technologies
which facilitates the delivery of these reforms.
In order to quantify how some of these smart
technologies could be deployed to deliver improved
outcomes, the Australian Government provided a
significant amount of funding for a smart grid trial
known as the Smart Grid, Smart City Project. The
technologies deployed in this trial are described in
Part One of the main report.
To understand how smart grids could improve the

economics of the energy sector, it is necessary to
understand what is meant by a smart grid.
A smart grid is defined as an electricity network
that can intelligently integrate the action of parties
connected to it62.
The term smart grid is a description there is no
absolute level of capability or set of attributes which
marks the transition from a conventional electricity
network to a smart network. However, in general,

a smart grid is distinguished from a conventional
grid by the deployment of enhanced information
and communications systems, in order to manage
equipment in a way that achieves outcomes remotely,
automatically, more rapidly and more precisely63. A
typical smart grid is illustrated in Figure A1-15. This is
often termed a self-healing grid which has a number
of potential benefits for consumers.
Figure A1-15 A typical smart grid of the future
Common Platform Study

Active Volt-Var Control (AVVC)
Wide Area
Measurement
(WAM)
Fault
Detection,
Isolation and
Restoration
(FDIR)
Distributed
Generation
and
Distributed
Storage
(DGDS)
Electric
Vehicles
Customer
Applications
Bulk Supply
Point
Subtransmission
Substation
62 Standards Australia, Smart grid vocabulary

AS5711:2013.
Zone Substation
Distribution
Substation

63 Standards Australia, Smart grid vocabulary

AS5711:2013.
Prior to the investment in the Smart Grid, Smart

City Project, the then Australian Government
commissioned a (desktop) pre-deployment
study which provided information on the potential
economic and environmental benefits of a smart grid.
Additionally, other evidence and lessons learned from
earlier Australian Government programs including
Solar Cities, the Solar Flagships Program, the AEMOmanaged Smart Meter Program (endorsed by the
then Ministerial Council on Energy (now the COAG
Energy Council) with AEMO managing secretariat
and contractor arrangements), and the National
Broadband Network (NBN) program all contributed to
the smart grid project design.
What is clear is that Australia must manage and use
electricity more efficiently and effectively both from
environmental and economic perspectives.
The pre-deployment study suggested that

implementing smart grid technologies across
Australia could deliver at least $5 billion of gross
annual benefit to
Australian society including:
Improvements in the operation of the
powerindustry
A monetised estimate of the benefits from lower
greenhouse emissions and improved power
gridreliability
Smart technologies are critical components in
maximising improved consumer interaction and
participation in the energy market which is a priority
of governments in Australia, for example, to minimise
future growth in peak demand.
Part Two of this report provides a comparison of the
results of the cost benefit assessment
Figure A1-16 Potential sales of electric vehicles through to 2020 China, U.S., Japan and EU
6
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
0
2012
Annual EV sales (millions)
Year
China
United States
Japan
European Union
5.1 Improving
electricity network
economics
There are a number of elements to reducing
the future cost of providing electricity networks
in Australia, with these focussed on managing
capital investment, operational expenditure and
improving asset utilisation in the networks. A number
of opportunities to improve these aspects are
discussed below.
5.1.1 Demand side participation

As previously discussed, during the period 20052010 there was a significant focus on replacing aged
infrastructure built in the 1950s and 1960s. Although
much of this infrastructure program has now been
completed, replacing aged assets is an ongoing
element in managing distribution networks.
In some places, decreases in both consumption
and demand from consumers over the past three
years have resulted in excess capacity in many parts
of the distribution network. Capital expansion that
had been forecast by distribution companies and
previously approved by the AER during periods of
high network demand growth is no longer required,
and as a consequence, has been in some cases
deferredindefinitely.
Where network replacement is now required (due
to aged assets), the challenge is to decide on the
prudent level of capacity to install, particularly if there
has been a decrease in total demand within the
geographic area serviced by the network assets.
If lower levels of capital investment are to be
sustained with future load growth, mechanisms
to incentivise demand side management (DSM) /
demand side participation (DSP) for a broader base
of electricity customers will need to occur.
The aim of DSP is to more efficiently utilise existing

network assets, reduce the need for additional
capital investment and consequently, minimise
upward electricity price movement due to additional
network investment. One way it does this is to
implement price incentives in order to influence
consumers electricity consumption behaviour
(generally away from peak pricing or peak network
demand time periods).
DSP also has the potential to benefit retailers in
their management of price risk of the electricity
spot market where electricity costs can vary up to
$13100perMWh ($13.10 per kWh). The benefits
of managing price volatility generally are shared
between retailers and consumers participating in
these activities.
DSP programs are typically offered either by network
companies or retailers. The Smart Grid, Smart City
Program included DSP elements using both retail
and network-focussed incentives.
From a consumer perspective DSM could mean the
introduction of variable electricity prices across the
24-hour day, including higher electricity prices during
maximum demand times on the network and lower
prices during off-peak network times.
It may also see new types of electricity retail products
become available such as interruptible tariffs for nonvital appliances (like pool pumps, hot water systems,
air conditioner compressors and dishwashers)
which, in exchange for a cost saving, will allow
network operators to control the operation of
appliances for short periods of time. In some states
like Queensland, interruptible tariffs for appliances
like hot water systems and pool pumps have been
successfully used for many years.
Changes to existing retail tariff structures will

undoubtedly require a period of adjustment
and learning for consumers which should be
considered in the transition to new tariff structures.
It will also mean that consumers (particularly
residential consumers) who have traditionally been
passive electricity users will need to become
more knowledgeable of their own consumption
patterns and choices and be more proactive in
their interactions with energy markets and market
providers. This will only develop with time and
through education and development of new offerings
in the energy market.
trial elements extensively investigated consumer
responses to a number of technologies and variably
priced electricity tariffs intended to influence their
demand for electricity at different times of the day
in particular these trials sought to test consumers
willingness to reduce electricity consumption during
peak network and retail periods. In order to test
these impacts, a range of different technologies and
pricing products were offered to trial participants.
Customer responses in electricity demand and their
perspectives on different trial technologies and prices
were also collected using a range of survey tools.
5.1.2 Energy efficiency

Energy efficiency is a broad term which refers to the
energy consumed in order to produce a required
level of output or service. Improved energy efficiency
can therefore be defined as using less energy to
produce the same level of output or service64.
Energy efficiency, applied on any scale, has a wide
range of clear benefits. For consumers, energy
efficiency means consuming less (and therefore
paying for less) electricity, gas or fuel without any
change in behaviour, or amenity.
The benefits of energy efficiency such as the
utilisation of more energy efficient appliances in
the home, is becoming increasingly recognised by
consumers as energy prices continue to increase.
From an environmental perspective, energy
efficiency means consuming fewer resources,
and producing fewer emissions. Ultimately,
improving energy efficiency makes economic and
environmental sense, provided that the investment
required to achieve the improvement does not
outweigh the benefits.
A summary of these results can be found in Part One

and Two of this report whilst full details are provided
in the Customer Applications Technical Compendium
and the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Research
Report. These documents can be sourced from the
Smart Grid, Smart City Information Clearing House at
64 International Energy Agency (IEA), 20012, World

Energy Outlook 2012
Energy efficiency across the entire energy supply

chain, and across all sectors, is widely recognised
as essential to reducing energy demand growth and
achieving emissions targets.
Smart grid technologies have the potential to improve
energy efficiency in a number of areas including:
Providing consumers with the tools and information
needed to influence the adoption of energy efficient
approaches in the home, business and industry
Reducing energy losses in electricity networks
through better management of assets
Better balancing electricity supply and demand
Facilitating a higher penetration of renewable
energy and distributed storage in the grid (whilst
not strictly energy efficiency, this reduces overall
electricity generation from non-renewable sources)
5.1.3 Electric vehicles an

electricity-intensive appliance
Pure electric vehicles and electric hybrids are growing
in number as the purchase price reduces around
the world. Whilst in Australia there are currently low
numbers of vehicles which require charging from gridsupplied electricity, these numbers are expected to
increase in the coming decade.
Projections from the International Energy Agency
(IEA) show the potential number of annual electric
vehicle sales in China, the U.S., Japan and the
European Union (Figure A1-16). The uptake rates
seen in the early years are the result of government
funding in many of these countries.
Overseas trials have shown that if charging is
uncontrolled, the majority of vehicle charging would
take place at peak network demand times65. For this
reason, the COAG Energy Council is progressing
consideration of a range of recommendations from
the AEMC aimed at standardising conditions for
charging electric vehicles in Australia. This is being
progressed as part of the Demand Side Participation
Work Plan66. This proposal seeks to ensure that
electric vehicle owners are charged a cost-reflective
electricity tariff to incentivise vehicle charging
away from the network and generation peak of
4pmto8pm.
In a report completed for the AEMC, AECOM67
found that electric vehicles could contribute to the
growth in peak demand by an additional 7.3 per cent
through to 2020 or 36.5 per cent by 2030. AECOM
found that this growth in unmanaged peak demand
had the potential to be translated to network and
generation costs in the order of $10 000 per electric
vehicle between 2015 and 2020 (in terms of network
upgrades and peak generation requirements).
65 Green eMotion trial including 10 demonstration

regions [where] where more than 2,500 charging
stations are being deployed
66 https://scer.govspace.gov.au/workstreams/energymarket-reform/demand-side-participation/
67 AECOM, Final Advice on Impact of Electric Vehicles
and Natural Gas Vehicles on the Energy Markets,
report to the AEMC, June 2012 (Available at www.
aemc.gov.au)
Figure A1-16 Potential sales of electric vehicles through to 2020 China, U.S., Japan and EU
$800
$700
Installed Cost ($k Wh)
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
2013
2018
Lithium-ion (SET2013)
2023
Redox Row (SET2013)
2028
2033
Lead-Acid (Energiea 2013)
2038
Lithium-ion (DOE 2012)
This means that measures that seek to incentivise

efficient electric vehicle charging behaviour must be
implemented to ensure that additional network costs
are not borne by other consumers.
The eventual wide-scale uptake of electric vehicles

has the potential to transfer a large proportion of
Australias demand for transport energy from the
liquid fuel to the stationary energy sector. This
adoption represents both potentially a disruptive
impact for electricity distribution network operators,
but also has the potential to deliver a number
of benefits for consumers, the environment and
networks including:
Electric vehicles are electricity-intensive and have
the potential to draw large volumes of electricity
from the grid (in off-peak times) with the potential
to off-set the reduction in consumption from
solar PV customers thereby increasing network
assetutilisation68
Electric vehicles can be used for DSM because
they can generally be charged at different times
of the day. If electric vehicle charging is able to be
controlled, there is the potential to reduce demand
on the electricity network at peak times and
increase utilisation of the network at times of low
demand if required
It may be possible for an electric vehicle battery
to be a source of distributed generation through
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology (noting that
this technology is not offered in current models
of electric vehicles). V2G technology allows the
electric energy stored in the vehicle battery to be
fed into the grid (or a consumer premises) to supply
electricity during times of peak network demand
The challenge for industry will be to adequately

plan for electric vehicles to ensure that the potential
impacts do not impose unacceptable costs in
terms of network upgrades and that any potential
opportunities and benefits are captured. The Smart
Grid, Smart City EV trial sought to quantify the
potential impacts of EVs in Australia on the electricity
distribution network; to understand how the smart
grid could facilitate the collection of real-time
information; and to assess the impact of controlled
and efficient EV charging behaviour.
The EV trial sought to trial a number of the aspects
of future challenges and opportunities and included
the installation of 46 standard and six fast charge
points over the Sydney, Central Coast and Newcastle
regions which were used by 20 Mitsubishi i-MiEV
electric vehicles over a period of 24 months. These
vehicles were used both by individuals (Ausgrid staff
and home trial participants) as well as a number of
business users within a fleet trial.
Results of the Smart Grid, Smart City EV trial are
described in Part One of the main report with full
details available in the EV Technical Compendium
which is available on the Smart Grid, Smart
City Information Clearing House at https://ich.
68 It has previously been suggested that recharging

electric vehicles during the day could provide a
demand source for excess electricity generated from
the growing solar PV deployment. However, spatial
analysis of electric vehicle demand in conjunction
with charging behavioural analysis undertaken as
part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Electric Vehicle
Project showed that electric vehicle charging
profiles were generally not complementary to solar
PV generation profiles. This is further discussed
in the Ausgrid Electric Vehicle Project Technical
Compendium found at https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.
com.au/.
5.1.4 The role for battery

storagetechnology
Battery storage technology has a number of
applications for electricity networks, in particular, to
improve network flexibility in light of the increase in
intermittent (variable) renewable generation within the
grid. Recently a number of companies operating in
Australia have begun to offer battery storage for small
customers which are designed to be connected to
their solar PV systems and / or the electricity network.
Although small solar battery systems have been
available for many years (e.g. for camping purposes),
it is relatively recently that these larger batteries have
become more commonly available on the market.
In the future with the appropriate electricity tariff
incentives, some households may choose to install
battery storage to either store solar PV electricity
generated during the day for use during periods
of peak electricity network demand or high priced
wholesale electricity market events. Given the growth
in distributed generation within electricity networks,
battery storage may also be required in the future in
order to assist in maintaining grid security and stability.
In addition to network benefits, battery storage offers
potential financial benefits for electricity retailers,
which, similar to DSM, have the potential to assist
retailers manage their exposure to the risk of high
wholesale electricity prices.
Currently there are two key challenges relating to
storage cost and the efficiency of the storage
technology. Whilst large scale storage is currently
cost prohibitive, globally the current scaling up of
battery storage manufacturing capabilities along
withimproving technology (round trip) efficiencies
could lead to reduced costs over the next 10 to
20years. The potential cost reductions for different
types of battery storage options are shown in
FigureA1-17.69,70,71
69 Commission of the European Communities,
Completing the Commission Staff Working Paper:
Materials roadmap enabling low carbon energy
technologies, SEC 1609 Final, December 2011,
http://setis.ec.europa.eu/activities/materialsroadmap/Materials_Roadmap_EN.pdf/view.
70 Department of Energy http://energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2014/04/f14/1_introduction.pdf
71 Energeia, Game changer: The Australian residential
Distributed battery storage is not commonly used

by network operators at this stage within Australia,
however, the cost trajectories suggested by research
indicates that by the end of the current decade, this
could change72. In addition, combining distributed
generation (like solar PV) with local storage solutions
is likely to improve the value proposition of both
technologies for distribution networks.
RedFlow batteries were trialled by customers during
the Smart Grid, Smart City Distributed Generation
and Distributed Storage Project (discussed in Part
One of the main report and in greater detail in the
Distributed Generation and Distributed Storage
Project Technical Compendium on https://ich.
smartgridsmartcity.com.au)
In addition, extensive modelling on the future role
and impact of distributed battery storage has been
completed as part of the cost benefit assessment and
is presented in Parts Two and Three of the main report.
5.2 Opportunities
to improve electricity
generation economics
Given the current excess generation capacity in the
NEM, the legislated requirement to continue building
additional renewable generation (driven by the RET),
and the poor demand growth outlook, it is unlikely that
generator utilisation will improve dramatically in the
near future. However, in the future, once the excess
electricity capacity in the market is utilised, there will
be an economic benefit to managing the future growth
in electricity demand, in order to manage the need for
additional generation investment.
72
The future battery cost trajectories assumed for the

national cost benefit assessment work have been
detailed in the Modelling Information Technical
Compendium. This can be found on the Smart Grid,
Smart City Information Clearing House https://ich.
In addition, managing the growth in energy

consumption will also mean that fuel and carbon
emissions are lessened. Given the expected
increases in the cost of gas and coal across eastern
states of Australia, and the potential cost associated
with carbon emissions, this is also likely to deliver
generation cost savings.
The key challenge will be to manage future
investment between distributed and centralised
generation to guarantee supply reliability. Similarly,
there will be a need to manage backup generation
to guarantee supply when renewable resources are
not available. These are relatively new challenges,
but will grow rapidly over the next few years as the
proportion of solar and wind generation increases.
Maintaining generation assets which are used
infrequently means that these generators will bid to be
dispatched at high prices when it is economic to do so
(that is, the spot price is above their Long Run Marginal
Cost (LRMC)). Infrequently used generation assets will
be incentivised to recover their revenue during the short
periods of time in which they are dispatched. In turn
this could mean that retailers are exposed to a greater
number of periods of high price in the spot market,
increasing their price risk and increasing the cost to
consumers (especially those who do not participate in
demand side programs).
These implications have been modelled as part of the
cost benefit analysis of this project and will need to be
considered as part of the energy sector reform process.
5.3 Opportunities to
improve retail costs
There are a number of opportunities for retailers
to reduce their price risk through managing
exposure to wholesale electricity spot prices. These
include demand side participation / demand side
management, energy efficiency and battery storage.
Each of these aspects were trialled as part of the
Smart Grid, Smart City Program.
Cost reflective pricing offers the greatest opportunity
for retailers to incentivise desirable consumer
behaviour but this is contingent on the appropriate
metering. Accumulation meters are still the most
common type of meter in Australia for small
customers (small business and residential). These
meters do not provide 30 minute data which is
required for a number of the retail pricing options.
Some common network and retail pricing tariffs are
described in Table A1-3.
There are two types of meters which deliver 30 minute
data interval meters and smart meters. Smart meters
can be also be remotely read which delivers savings
to both retailers and network operators. There are
also other potential benefits for retailers from the
deployment of smart meters which include:
The ability to offer customers more attractive
products (in conjunction with pricing incentives)
Lower cost-to-serve per customer, including
reduced billing errors and lower numbers of
calls (and shorter call durations) of customers to
callcentres
Table A1-3 Potential network and retail pricing options for consumers
Tariff type
Tariff name
Description
Network
Flat network
tariffs
Network tariffs made up of both fixed and variable components, with the
fixed component charged to all customers on that network tariff and the
variable component charged based on the total electricity consumption
Capacity
network tariffs
Network tariffs which can include elements such as a:

Maximum demand charge
Variable component charged based on the total electricity consumption or
an inclining block approach (see retail inclining block tariff)
Retail
Flat retail tariff
The customer is charged based on a flat electricity price for all times of the
day. This is what many residential customers currently pay.
Inclining block
tariff (IBT)
Customers are charged in increasing (inclining) price increments based on

previously set electricity consumption. An IBT is based on the principle of
the more you use, the more you pay.
Time of use
(TOU)
Customers are charged a different price based on the time of day when
they consume their electricity. This can include peak, shoulder and offpeak times and pricing and is generally aimed at managing growth in peak
demand by higher pricing of electricity used during this time period. For
this tariff, a customer requires an interval meter (which records and stores
electricity consumption for each 30 minutes of the day). There are also
variations on this TOU tariff including seasonal time-of-use tariff
Dynamic
pricing
Dynamic pricing is often considered an essential part of demand reduction

programs. There are several forms of dynamic pricing including:
Critical peak pricing (CPP) where retail electricity prices are set differently
across the day. Customers are notified in advance of the prices and can
choose to reduce electricity during peak priced events which may be
designed to either reflect network constraints or high wholesale electricity
prices which a retailer is exposed to. For this tariff, a customer requires an
interval meter (which records and stores electricity consumption for each 30
minutes of the day).
Real time pricing (RTP) where electricity retail prices reflect the wholesale
cost of electricity paid by retailers. This type of tariff is unlikely to be
deployed for residential electricity customers in the near future in Australia.
5.4 Opportunities
to improve customer
pricing outcomes
The opportunities for consumers to manage their
electricity costs were tested during the Smart Grid,
Smart City trials using a range of smart (interactive)
technologies and pricing signals (time sensitive
electricity tariffs or rebates for demand reduction
during critical periods). During the retail trial
consumers volunteered to test different technologies
and tariffs, their patterns and volume of electricity
used in their homes were compared with similar
customers who were part of a control group (Ausgrid
customers who did not reject the installation of a
smart meter). For some trial participants who trialled
different cost-reflective tariffs, they were offered lower
electricity costs most of the time, but in exchange,
were incentivised to reduce their electricity usage
(through higher prices) during some periods which
were identified as being critical. This included
critical periods for both network peak demand and
also during periods of high wholesale market prices
for retailers. Participants during this trial were notified
by SMS at relatively short notice prior to these critical
peak periods asking them to reduce their electricity
consumption during these periods.
In general, there are a number of broad types of

cost-reflective network and retail priced tariffs which
Australian electricity consumers may see over the
next several years. A broad description of the different
types of tariffs that are either available now, or may
be in the future is described in Table A1-3. In general
the tariffs which include different network and / or
retail price elements at different times of the day or
during different seasons are not yet available to small
consumers in most states. However, in Victoria where
smart meter deployment has been occurring over the
past few years, voluntary seasonal time of use tariffs
were introduced in September 2013.
The results of these trials have been described in the

Customer Applications Technical Compendia and in
Parts One and Two of the main report. Further, trial
participant behavioural responses and attitudes towards
each of the different technologies, tariffs and rebates
have been described in the Customer Research Report.
Each of these detailed reports are available on the Smart
Grid, Smart City Information Clearing House at https://ich.
Appendix 2
Methodology
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix Two Methodology ARUP 349
Appendix 2 Contents
1 Introduction
Overview of Appendix Two
353
1.1
Approach to the business case assessment
2.1 Overview
354
2.2
355
2.3 Limitations
356
2.4
357
3
4
The BAU and smartgridcases

Impact and benefit types
4.1
Power quality
360
4.2
Network operation and maintenance
362
4.3
Impacts by technology type
364
5
6
Benefit transfers
Modelling inputs
6.1
Technology Feasibility
370
6.2
Technology Configuration
370
6.3
Technology costs
372
6.4
Customer types
375
6.5
Network types
378
The integrated modelling approach
Step-wise approach
350 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix Two Methodology ARUP
353
354
358
359
369
370
Macroeconomic scenarios
384
7.1 Overview
384
7.2
Detailed description of scenarios
385
7.3
Scenario planning workshop
393
7.4
Stakeholder validation
393
7.5
Other engagement
394
Preliminary cost benefit analysis
8.1
Benefit materiality assessment
395
8.2
Preliminary cost benefit analysis for retail and network tariffs and feedback technologies
399
8.3
Preliminary cost benefit analysis for smart meter infrastructure
404
8.4
Preliminary cost benefit analysis for grid technologies
407
Integrated benefits model
9.1
The customer model
411
9.2
Distributed energy resource (DER) model
411
9.3
Dynamic price and product model
416
9.4
Metering Model
418
9.5
Electric vehiclemodel
420
9.6
Diversity model
424
9.7
Generation modeloutputs
429
9.8
Network model
431
9.9
The retail model
436
395
409
1 Introduction
Smart grid technologies, products and supporting
ICT infrastructure have the potential to result in a
range of benefits across the electricity industry which
will ultimately benefit consumers. However, all of
these benefits will come with an associated cost of
deployment and implementation. The purpose of the
business case assessment is to determine which
individual smart grid technologies and combination
of technologies, demonstrate benefits that outweigh
thecosts.
Due to the complexity of the Australias electricity
industry, benefits and costs of smart grid technologies
and products may accrue both across and within
different stakeholder groups. This means that while
some technologies provide benefits to certain
stakeholders, they also have the potential to impose
costs on others.
Given this complexity, this business case assessment
sought to establish:
1.1 Overview of
Appendix Two
Appendix Two of this report provides a description of:
The overall approach to identifying and assessing
costs and benefits including an explanation of:
The types of benefits identified
The representative customer types and network
types used in this analysis
The three different macro-economic scenarios
The smart grid and business as usual (BAU)
case developed for each technology and
product type
The sources of data used to quantify the costs
and benefits
The integrated benefits model and sub-models
Which technologies offered net system

widebenefits
How these technologies can best be integrated
to provide the maximum benefit to the electricity
sector as whole
The consequences for wholesale electricity prices
and electricity bills for consumers
Which stakeholders have the potential to be
adversely affected, and what, if anything, could be
done to change these circumstances
2 Approach to the business

case assessment
2.1 Overview
The business case assessment is an economic
evaluation of the technologies and products trialled
in the Smart Grid, Smart City Program. This economic
assessment sought to determine:
Which technologies, customer feedback products
and dynamic tariffs deployed in which combination
over what timeframe could maximise national net
economic benefit
How these benefits are transferred within the
electricity system to impact the price of electricity
and customer bills
The electricity system includes network operators,
generators, retailers and consumers.
When combined with the Customer Research
Survey results this assessment provides a broader
perspective of the economic and societal opportunities
and challenges for deploying smart grid technologies
and dynamic tariffs in Australia
The electricity system is largely driven by customer

behaviour in terms of daily energy consumption
patterns, as well as purchasing decisions with respect
to energy efficient or energy intensive appliances,
electric vehicles and distributed generation and
storage technologies. Changes in customer behaviour,
both short term changes and long term trends,
require responses by the network, generation and
retail sectors. The system response gives rise to both
direct economic outcomes as well as electricity price
changes. The change in electricity price then acts as a
feedback loop to further affect customer behaviour.
The role of the smart grid in this system is to provide
all stakeholders with information and financial
incentives to encourage behaviour and investments
which optimise the economic efficiency, reliability and
environmental performance of the system.
These physical and financial interactions form the
scope of the business case assessment as shown
inFigure A2-1.
Figure A2-1 Scope of business case assessment
Networks
Customers
Generation
Retail
Economic benefits
Electricity Prices
It is important to note that the business case

assessment considered the role of smart grid
technologies and products within the electricity system
as a whole. In this sense, the assessment sought
to understand the role of various technologies and
products in the context of the broader market changes
currently occurring within the sector including changing
consumption and demand patterns and ashift towards
decentralised generation.
2.2 The integrated

modelling approach
In 2009, the Australian Government commissioned
a gross cost benefit assessment report1 which
made the case for a smart grid deployment in a
national context. The approach adopted in the 2009
assessment identified the individual benefits available
from eight separate technology types and summed
these together to estimate a gross benefit for Australia.
Over the course of the SGSC trials, various synergies
and interdependencies between technologies and
products were observed where either:
Two or more technologies provided the same
benefits (for example reliability benefits were
demonstrated by both SFM, FDIR)
The benefits of an individual technology were
directly related to the extent of deployment of
another (for example, greater penetration of
distributed generation resulted in increased power
quality impacts thereby improving the business
case for AVVC)
Further, benefits at the system level with respect to

deferred capacity investment (both within the network
and generation sector) were only available once
threshold levels of demand reduction were achieved. In
this sense, deferred capacity benefits were dependent
on the cumulative impact on peak demand of the
integrated and optimised deployment of technologies
and products over time.
The significance of the synergies and
interdependencies between technologies was a key
learning that emerged from the trials. An integrated
approach has therefore been adopted for the
purposes of this assessment so that the benefits of
individual context are considered in the context of the
broader system.
2.2.1 Benefits of an integrated

approach
The approach of assessing stand alone technology
benefits and then summing to determine the total
national cost benefit assessment has the potential to:
Double count benefits provided by two or more
technologies
Result in inaccuracies by failing to adequately
reflect the interdependencies between
technologies and products
Underestimate the peak demand benefits
achievable
An approach that assessed the benefits of an optimal
configuration of an integrated technology deployment
was therefore determined to be most appropriate
to avoid double counting and appropriately reflect
synergies and interdependencies.
Separate individual business cases were still provided
under the integrated approach by allocating system
level benefits to individual technologies based on the
extent of their contribution to the benefit2.
1 Australian Government, Department of the

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Smart
Grid, Smart City A new direction for a new energy
era, 2009
2 For completeness, and to demonstrate the difference

between the integrated and standalone approaches,
standalone business cases were also produced,
and these are available in the Modelling Inputs
Compendium (refer ICH)
2.3 Limitations
The business case assessment does not provide
a financial assessment or assess the appropriate
business model for individual stakeholders. In fact, for
non-grid technologies, the assessment is deliberately
agnostic in terms of which market stakeholder would
bear the costs or accrue the benefits of smart grid
technologies. The business model which allows
maximum value to be captured and shared with
consumers will depend on a number of factors
including broader market forces and the details of
regulatory reform, especially with respect to metering
contestability, which have not been explored in this
assessment.
The scope of the business case assessment is limited
to the electricity system. The assessment did not seek
to quantify broader economic impacts of the smart
grid technologies and benefits outside of this system.
The technologies and retail products assessed were
limited to those trialled as part of the Smart Grid,
Smart City Program.
The business case assessment focusses on the
potential of smart grid technologies and tariffs to affect
residential and business customers consumption
patterns and does not consider the large commercial
and industrial load. This additional load has been
considered as part of the generation sector modelling
but is assumed not to be affected by smart grid
interventions.
The business case assessment assigns technology

benefits based on average distribution network
attributes. Significant effort has been made to provide
granularity in network classification commensurate with
the accuracy required for a national business case.
However, there are likely to be specific circumstances in
individual networks where the business case outcomes
may not hold. In this sense, where the business case
shows a positive result for a particular network type,
this does not necessarily imply that the technology is
viable in all networks of that type. Similarly, a negative
result does not necessarily imply that the technology
should not be deployed in all networks of that type.
Network operators will need to assess the viability of
technologies on a case by case basis.
In some cases, Ausgrid data has been used to model
other networks and customers where data was not
available as described throughout this methodology.
Details on the source data for all inputs to the
model have been described in the Modelling Inputs
Compendium which can be found at
This implies that the results are likely to be
most accurate for the New South Wales area.
Notwithstanding, the approach adopted could be
refined for any region where equivalent data and
information are available.
2.4 Step-wise
approach
The overall approach to business case assessment
adopted the following step-wise approach:
1. Identify the range of impacts and associated
benefit types offered by smart grid technologies
and products
2. Identify which of the potential impacts and
associated benefits result from each of the
technology and product types trialled as part of the
3. Identify and collect data to quantify the potential
costs, impacts and benefits
4. Define a set of customer types in terms of
demographic and physical attributes to enable the
extrapolation of costs and benefits in a national
context
5. Define a set of network types in terms of physical
attributes and customer mix to enable the
extrapolation of costs and benefits in a national
context
6. Develop high, medium and low scenarios
to definethe respective underpinning
macroeconomicvariables
7. Describe a business as usual (BAU) case for the

deployment of technology and products based on
projected trends of uptake under current policy
settings and price trajectories for each scenario
a. Undertake a preliminary cost benefit analysis to
determine:
b. Which benefits were material to the overall
business case
c. Which retail products are likely to have a net
system wide benefits
4. Which grid technologies are likely to have a net
system wide benefits
5. Develop a smart grid case which included the
technology and product types based on the results
of the preliminary cost benefit analysis
6. Undertake an integrated benefits assessment
for each scenario to determine:
g. The overall net system benefit of the integrated
smart grid compared to the BAU case
h. The associated potential change in electricity
prices and electricity bills for different
customertypes
i. T
he contribution of each technology and
product type to the net system benefit
This process was also underpinned by a stakeholder
engagement process described further in Part Two of
this report.
3 The BAU and

smartgridcases
The preliminary cost benefit analysis informed the BAU
and smart grid case for each technology and product.
The BAU case assumed some level of deployment
of technologies based on existing drivers including
financial drivers for individual stakeholders and existing
policies as well as information relating to existing
deployment.
The smart grid case then considered how the
technology deployment would change with potential
Table A2-1
smart grid interventions such as facilitated technology

deployment or pricing signals to encourage
economically efficient outcomes.3
An explanation of the BAU and smart grid assumptions
for the nine smart grid technology investment types
is provided in Table A2-1. For the smart meter
infrastructure assessment both a retrofit and full
deployment were considered.
BAU and smart grid case assumptions
Technology
Business as usual (BAU)

Scope
Smart grid scope
Fault Detection, Isolation

No FDIR technology
Retrofit of automated HV field switches

with monitoring
Active Volt-Var Control

(AVVC)
No AVVC technology
Retrofit of automated capacitors or

voltage regulators

Monitoring (SFM)
No automated SFM technology
Retrofit HV feeder and distribution

transformer monitoring
Stand alone
Spinning disc metering to all

customers (except Victoria)
Retrofit of smart meters to all existing

customers
Dynamic tariffs
plus feedback
technologies
Voluntary adoption of dynamic tariffs by

some customers
Inclining block tariffs for all

customers
No feedback technology
Provision of an in home display

Inclining block tariffs for remaining
customers
Electric vehicle
charging
Distributed
generation
EV adoption with unconstrained

charging
EV adoption with dynamic tariffs and

controlled charging
Voluntary DG adoption by some

customers

customers
Size and configuration optimised for
dynamic tariffs
Size and configuration optimised

for inclining block tariff
Distributed storage

customers
Size and configuration optimised
for inclining block tariff
3


customers
Size and configuration optimised for
dynamic tariffs
It should be noted that partial deployment was not

considered and only full deployment was assessed.
4 Impact and benefit types

Smart grid technologies give rise to a range of impacts
across the electricity system. These impacts were
assessed under seven main categories:
These impacts lead to the following potential economic

benefits or costs:
1. Power quality
An operational expense to network service

providers
2. Reliability of supply
A capital expense to network service providers

An operational expense to retail sector
3. Peak demand
A capital expense to the retail sector
4. Grid consumption
An operational expense to the generation sector
5. Network operation and maintenance
A capital expense to the generation sector
6. Billing, metering and customer service
A value (or perceived benefit or cost) to customers

in terms of productivity or quality of life
7. Customer acquisition effort and customer churn
Environmental value
These impacts do not necessarily represent benefits in

themselves. They represent a change in the attributes
or characteristics of the electricity system that may
give rise to economic benefits (or costs).
A matrix showing the relationship between the

impacts and benefits is shown in Table A2-2. A tick
implies that a particular impact type will likely give
rise to a particular benefit (or cost) type within that
category.
Table A2-2 Impacts and benefits by category
Network capex
Billing metering
and customer
service
Customer
acquisition effort
and churn rate
Network Operation
and Maintenance
Grid Consumption
Peak Demand
Reliability
Network opex
Impacts
Power quality
Potential Economic
Benefits (or Costs)
Retail opex
Retail capex
Generation opex
Generation capex
Customer value
Environmental value
These impact categories and their corresponding

economic benefits are explained further in the
following sections.
It should be noted that the consideration of
environmental value is limited to carbon emissions.
This is expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalents (tCO2e) but has not been monetised for the
purpose of this assessment.
4.1 Power quality

Power quality refers to the provision of electricity
supply to customers at, or as close as possible to,
the ideal sinusoidal voltage. Reduction in power
quality can manifest in the form of any voltage,
current or frequency deviation causing failure or faulty
operation of customer equipment. Where any of these
disturbances occur, a number of issues can result
ranging from light flicker to irreparable damage to
appliances and equipment.
An economic value can be attributed to improvements
in power quality in terms of the customer value from
reductions in equipment damage and improvements in
productivity. Economic value also accrues where the
current costs of managing power quality are reduced
through the adoption of lower cost means.
Smart grid technologies can assist networks to improve
power quality by providing real time information
downstream of the zone substation and automating the
network response to power quality issues.
Apart from specific localised circumstances, the
technologies themselves may have little direct impact
in terms of improving power quality because existing
voltage regulation equipment and processes are
reasonably effective.
4.1.2 Reliability of supply

The reliability of a network is defined by the frequency
and duration of outages that occur within a given year.
Outages may occur as a result of impacts by trees,
animals or birds, equipment failures, interventions by
humans or weather events. Equipment failure including
faults on switches, transformers, insulators and
conductors, can also result in outages.
Smart grid technologies have the potential to reduce
the number of outages by monitoring network and
equipment conditions and better predicting when a
failure may occur. The duration of outages can also
be reduced by improving fault finding and restoration
time. Only outages lasting longer than one minute are
included as an outage for reporting and compliance
purposes.
Improving reliability, that is, increasing the total time
that supply to all or any customers within a network is
available, has an economic value known as the value
of customer reliability which is based on a customers
estimated economic loss due to a loss of supply and
their willingness to pay to avoid an outage.
Fewer faults can also reduce field services costs by
lowering requirements for 24hour-per-day manning
levels, enabling replacement of assets with incipient
faults during regular business hours instead of
overtime, lowering field search time for faulted assets
and lower switching costs due to improved switching
optimisation.
Smart grid technologies can be used to improve
reliability at lower cost, or to reduce the capital and/or
operational costs of maintaining reliability compared to
conventional industry approaches.
Power quality benefits are therefore more likely to

manifest in the near-term in the form of reduced
operational expenses for network management of
power quality.
Value of customer reliability

The value any one customer places on reliability depends on their vulnerability to outages. This will differ
by customer type. Some business customers will experience significant productivity losses as a result of
even very short outages, while for other customers, several minutes without electricity is unlikely to have any
impact on productivity or quality of life.
The Australian Energy Regulator provides some incentive for networks to invest in technologies to improve
reliability under the STPIS scheme. The extent of the incentive is linked to the value of customer reliability. The
values adopted in this study, as shown below, are sourced from theVCRs for each NEM region, developed
by OakleyGreenwood (2011) and derived from the Victorian surveys conducted in 2007. InitsNational
Value of Customer Reliability Report (2012)AEMOproposed to adopt the Oakley Greenwood values until
jurisdictional surveys are conducted.
Segment
Value of Customer Reliability ($/MWh)

VIC
QLD
NSW
SA
TAS
WA
Residential
20,395
15,318
17,190
16,469
18,532
16,469
Commercial
90,763
62,887
68,396
18,649
76,716
18,649
AEMO is currently undertaking a national review on the Value of Customer reliability numbers, it is anticipated
that these updated NEM wide values will be available by end of September 2014.
4.1.3 Peak demand

Changes in peak demand impact the entire electricity
system. Changes in peak demand can occur as
a result of changes in consumer peak demand or
changes in power factor.
The extent of network investment, in particular, is largely
determined by localised peak demand. Reductions
in future peak demand or at least the slowing of peak
demand growth, will result in reduced or delayed capital
expenditure required to augment the network. Avoided
network investment gives rise to benefits in customer
bills in terms of reduced network prices.
Economic benefits from the generation sector as

a result of changes in peak demand also arise in
the form of avoided or delayed investment in new
generation plant. This avoided capital expenditure
in the generation sector may produce a financial
benefit for consumers (depending on the impact that
the different demand and supply conditions have on
prices). Where demand and supply conditions do
result in a reduction in wholesale electricity prices,
competitive pressures generally result in these lower
prices being passed through to customers.
4.1.4 Grid consumption

Many of the smart grid technologies and dynamic
tariffs have the potential to change overall
consumption of grid electricity as a result of different
levels of decentralised generation, improvements in
energy efficiency or reduced network losses. Some
of the grid side technologies also have the potential to
reduce line losses in the network which will also result
in the requirement for less electricity to be generated
within the system as a whole.
The economic benefits of reduced consumption
largely occur within the generation sector as a
result ofreduced fuel use, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions from generation plant, and potentially a
reduced requirement for capital investment in new
plant. A reduction in total consumption does not
necessarily result in a reduction in network costs
unless coupled with a reduction in peak demand.
Electric vehicles have the potential to increase grid
consumption as a result of fuel switching from liquid
fuels to electricity. This fuel switching does however,
result in an additional economic benefit in the form of
reduced liquid fuel consumption. However, assessing
this contribution is outside the scope of this cost
benefit assessment.
4.2 Network operation

and maintenance
Smart grid technologies have the potential to improve
the efficiency of network operation and maintenance
processes.
In general, networks tend to operate their assets
with a built in safety factor or redundancy to avoid
outages. This redundancy comes at a high cost
reflecting the high value placed on customer reliability.
Smart grid technologies have the potential to provide
increased and real time data and information related
to equipment condition and performance. Such data
may allow more efficient use of assets by operating
them closer to their theoretical limits or with less
redundancy, without compromising safety or reliability.
Smart grid technologies also have the potential to
provide detailed information with respect to asset
performance, reducing the need for maintenance
and maintenance checks or allowing maintenance
tobe undertaken in a more efficient manner, such
asdirecting a technician directly to a fault.
Improved network asset utilisation therefore has the
potential to result in both capital and operational
savings for network businesses.
4.2.1 Billing, metering and

customer service
4.2.2 Customer acquisition effort

and churn rates
The provision of real time data and information

through smart grid technologies relating to customers
electricity supply allows for the automation of the
billing and metering processes as well as providing
customers with greater transparency of bill
calculations.
Innovative product offerings (combinations of

technologies and tariffs) have the potential to reduce
the costs of customer acquisition for retailers.
Customers adopting such products may also be less
likely to change retailers hence reducing the cost of
churn. These product offerings therefore represent an
operational cost saving to retailers.
These functions have the potential to result in a

reduction in the labour intensity of billing and metering
processes and, in theory, reduce the need to respond
to billing complaints.
Notwithstanding, some retailers have reported that
there are likely to be associated dis-benefits in the form
of increased capital costs to upgrade billing systems to
manage large amounts of data.
4.3 Impacts by
technology type
A summary of the seven categories of impacts and their
alignment to the Smart Grid, Smart City technologies and
products is shown in Table A2-3 below. Further detailed
benefits are shown in Table A2-4.
Positive impacts (likely to give rise to a gross benefit)

are shown in green and potential negative impacts
(likely to give rise to a gross cost) are shown inorange.
Table A2-3 Gross benefits by technology
Fault detection, isolation and

restoration
Active Volt VAr Control
Wide area measurement

Smart
Meters
With feedback
technologies
With dynamic prices

(enabled by smart
meter infrastructure)
With demand
reduction enabling
devices
Distributed generation
Distributed storage
Stand alone
Electric vehicle smart charging
effort and churn rate
Customer acquisition
Substation feeder monitoring
Billing, metering and

customer service
Network operation and

maintenance
Grid Consumption
Reliability
Peak Demand
Impacts
Power quality
Technology
4.3.2 Note about distributed

generation
4.3.2 Note about distributed

generation
It should be noted that electric vehicles are a special

case of technology in that they have the potential to
result in costs to the electricity sector in the form of
increased grid electricity consumption, power quality
issues and a potential increase in peak demand4.
Similarly, distributed generation has the potential to

give rise to costs to the electricity sector as a result
of power quality issues where systems are sized
to export large volumes to the grid. Further, where
incentives are not economically efficient in taking
into account environmental externalities, distributed
generation may potentially be deployed instead of
more efficient centralised generation options.
However, the national cost benefit assessment does

not seek to assess the costs or benefits of electric
vehicle technology. Rather, the assessment quantifies
the costs and benefits of alternatives for electric vehicle
charging for a given national electric vehicle fleet size
and travel behaviours. Specifically the assessment
addresses the costs and benefits of a smart grid
intervention in the form of controlled charging to
mitigate the peak demand and power quality impacts.
Such an intervention will have an immaterial impact on
the total grid consumption or corresponding carbon
emissions which are dependent on the size of the fleet
and travel behaviours and not the charging regime.
Distributed generation does however have the potential

to give rise to benefits in terms of peak demand
reduction, especially when combined with storage.
The national cost benefit assessment seeks to identify
how dynamic prices can optimise deployment of
distributed generation to maximise the benefits and
minimise the costs. The aim is to give rise to the
most economically efficient outcome. It should be
noted that this does not include any consideration
of environmental externalities other than a carbon
price which is included in the later stages of the high
scenario only (see Section 7).
4 The use of electric vehicles as a form of storage

incorporating vehicle to grid technology is not
explicitly built in to the model, although the results
with respect to distributed storage could be broadly
interpreted to demonstrate the benefit or otherwise of
such technology
Distributed
Generation
Demand
Reduction
Enabling Devices
Feedback
Technologies
Dynamic Prices
Stand alone
Wide Area
Measurement
Active Volt VAr

Control
Fault Detection
Isolation and
Restoration
Electric Vehicles
Technology
Distributed Storage
Impact
Substation Feeder
Monitoring
Table A2-4 Detailed impacts by technology
Power Quality
Avoided tap changer
maintenance (labour)
Avoided customer
equipment damage/
equipment lifespans
Avoided power quality

rectification costs
Reliability
Avoided unplanned
outages from switching
error
Avoided waiting time for

energisation
Faster restoration of
customers
Peak Demand
Avoided network
capacity investment
Avoided generation
capacity investment
Grid Consumption
Avoided generator
maintenance
Avoided carbon
emissions
Network operation and maintenance

Reduced fault finding
labour
Reduced field switching

labour
Avoided switching
maloperations
Avoided contact centre

calls for customer
outage reports
Avoided load surveys

labour
Avoided asset inspection

and maintenance
surveys
Distributed
Generation
Demand
Reduction
Enabling Devices
Stand alone
Wide Area
Measurement
Active Volt VAr

Control
Avoided fuel
consumption
Fault Detection
Isolation and
Restoration
Feedback
Technologies
Dynamic Prices
Substation Feeder
Monitoring
Electric Vehicles
Technology
Distributed Storage
Impact
Avoided field switching
Avoided in-situ asset

failures
Deferred replacement
(without compromising
safety or reliability)
Billing, metering and customer service

Avoided meter readings
Avoided tariff
reconfiguration
Avoided meter testing

calls for meter data
Avoided billing and mail

out costs
Avoided wasted call outs
Avoided meter
replacement
Requirement for new

billing systems
Customer acquisition effort and churn rate

Customer acquisition
costs
Customer churn
Electric Vehicles
Distributed
Generation
Demand
Reduction
Enabling Devices
Feedback
Technologies
Dynamic Prices
Stand alone
Wide Area
Measurement
Active Volt VAr

Control
Fault Detection
Isolation and
Restoration
Distributed Storage
Technology
Substation Feeder
Monitoring
Impact
5 Benefit transfers
The integrated benefits model identifies the impacts
according to where they physically occur within the
electricity system and then transfers the benefit to the
ultimate beneficiary, which is the customer in most
cases. This outcome presumes effective regulation of
network costs and benefits, and effective competition
in the wholesale and retailer sectors.
A summary of these benefits and transfers is shown in
Table A2-5.
For networks, it is assumed that any capex or opex
benefits, less the cost of their implementation, are
transferred to the customer in the form of a reduced
network component of an electricity tariff. For example,
the cost of demand response payments or avoided
network capacity charges are netted-off against the
benefits of deferred augmentation relatedcapex.
Benefits occurring within the generation sector translate

into an overall benefit to the economy in terms of a
reduction in fuel consumption and capital expenditure
on generation plant. As long as the generation sector
remains competitive, these benefits are likely to flow
through to retailers in the first instance (through reduced
purchases of electricity in the wholesale market, and
potentially also through reduced retail prices). Further
information on modelling of the generation sector can
be found in Section 9.7.
The extent to which retail benefits are transferred to
customers will depend upon the degree of regulation
and competition within any one jurisdiction. Further
information on modelling of the retail sector can be
found in Section 9.9.
The transfer of any benefits to the customer in the form
of reduced retail electricity prices forms a feedback
loop in the model affecting the extent to which
customers take-up and respond to technologies and
tariffs in future years.
Table A2-5 Summary of benefits and benefit transfers
Benefit/cost
Where the benefit/cost accrues
Network opex
Customer (Change in network component of electricity tariffs)
Network capex
Customer (Change in network component of electricity tariffs)
Retail opex
Customer (Change in retail component of electricity tariffs)
Retail opex
Customer (Change in retail component of electricity tariffs)
Generation opex
Customer (Change in wholesale component of electricity tariffs)
Generation capex
Customer (Change in wholesale component of electricity tariffs)
Customer value
Customer (Improved productivity, improved lifespan of equipment)
Environmental value
Environment (Climate change mitigation)
6 Modelling inputs
For each technology or product type, the modelling
required data and information to be capture under
three main categories:
Technology feasibility and configuration
Technology/product costs
Technology/product benefits
The following sections contain a description of the
types of inputs and how data was collected and
evaluated. Further information on the inputs can be
found in the Modelling Inputs Compendium.
6.1 Technology
Feasibility
A specific requirement of the national cost benefit
assessment was for each of the technologies and retail
products to have been demonstrated to be technically
feasible within an Australian setting. That is, the
technologies and products had to have met relevant
Australian standards for safety and legal requirements
as well as be operable given the unique characteristics
of Australian electricity networks.5 The Smart Grid,
Smart City Program provided a unique opportunity to
test this feasibility for technologies which otherwise
would not be implemented due to financial constraints
and/or existing market barriers6.
6.2 Technology
Configuration
The national cost benefit assessment required
assumptions with respect to technology size, scope
and configuration. Technology size, scope and
configuration was for the most part, modelled to
optimise to achieve maximum net benefit. However,
in some instances, configurations had been explored
within the Smart Grid, Smart City trials and so this
information was able to either be directly used, or used
to calibrate and validate modelling outcomes.
The technology configuration ultimately drove the cost
of the technology and the extent to which the benefits
could be realised.
6.2.1 Benefits
Each of the technology or product types has the
potential to deliver benefits as described in Section 3.
Quantification of these benefits required two specific
types of modelling inputs:
Baseline inputs
What is the current cost of delivering the service
or performance?
What is the current service level and how is
thisvalued?
Technology impact
How does the technology reduce the cost of
delivering the service?
How does the technology improve the
servicelevel?
5 Energeia, Modelling Inputs Compendium, Smart Grid,

Smart City Technical Compendium, 2014
6 Market barriers (real or perceived) are discussed in
Part Three of this report
PS+EDGE (Production System + Extended Data Grid Environment)

To complement and validate the field trials, a range
of advanced analytical modelling activities were
undertaken as part of the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program. The advanced bespoke modelling tool
developed is known as the Production System +
Extended Data Grid Environment (PS+EDGE) and
is built on GRIDLAB-D. It is a sophisticated real
time modelling and simulation tool, made up of the
following components:
The Network Model a granular time-series
analysis tool used to model network components
and load flow from the sub-transmission network
to the customer
The Load Model a mathematical model used to
estimate appropriate and scalable loads for each
customer and component on the network
The Real Time Simulations System a software
component that was developed to act as
the bridge between the Network Model and
production SCADA
PS+EDGE was extensively tested and validated

against actual Smart Grid, Smart City trial results
and collected data. Customer and network
component loads were derived from detailed
customer segmentation, grouping, partitioning and
clustering analysis based on data from a rich source
of monitoring devices installed for the trials.
PS+EDGE provided a production like environment
for specific Ausgrid networks which extended the
trials to provide valuable inputs to the national
cost benefit assessment. For example, by trialling
different configurations of devices, vehicle-to-grid
technology and high penetration of distributed
generation.
For further detail on PS + EDGE and GRIDLAB-D,
refer to the supporting document, GA1675 Smart
Grid PS+EDGE Platform available at the Smart Grid,
Smart City Information Clearing House
(https://ich.smartgridsmartcity.com.au/).
Baseline data
The baseline data refers to both the baseline level of
performance and the costs of delivering electricity.
Baseline performance and costs were provided by
Ausgrid and other distribution businesses for the
BAU case. It was generally not appropriate to source
baseline data from the trials themselves for the national
cost benefit assessment as these were highly specific
to one area of the network and in any case would be
representative of Ausgrid baseline costs.
Retail and generation sector costs were generally
based on literature or industry data. These costs were
not collected as part of the trials.
Technology/product impact
The technology/product impact refers to the extent
to which a technology or product is able to reduce
the costs of delivering an outcome and/or to improve
the outcome itself. For example distributed storage is
able to reduce peak demand (improved outcome) to
a certain level while substation and feeder monitoring
is able to reduce the cost of the network meeting the
same peak demand (avoided cost) by avoiding the
need for low voltage load monitoring.
Technology impacts were sourced, where possible,
directly from data obtained from the field trials. In
many cases the field trial data provided evidence
of the technology impact for one location or one
particular application. In these cases, modelling was
used to understand the potential impact in broader
applications, using the field trial data for calibration.
This field calibrated model data was used extensively
within the cost benefit assessment to estimate
technology impact.
6.3 Technology costs

Key to the cost benefit assessment was the cost input
data of each technology and product in terms of both
investment costs and operation and maintenance
costs.
The trials produced detailed cost data, however, in
most cases trial costs were not considered indicative
of future commercial scale costs and were therefore
not able to be used directly. In this sense, trial costs
were mostly either:
Non-representative due to the small scale nature of
the trials and lack of economies of scale
Non-representative due to the current technology
maturity and lack of competitive market
Non-representative due to the inclusion of
additional and/or non-optimal functionality
Free or heavily discounted having been donated by
Ausgrid or other trial partners.
Furthermore, given most of the technologies were
innovative and part of emerging markets, costs
are changing rapidly such that trial costs, dating
back to 2011 in some cases, have already reduced
significantly. Therefore, much of the cost data was
taken from vendor estimates and adjusted using
learning curves to represent future costs. In some
cases, trial data was able to be used as a starting
point or to validate vendor estimates.
6.3.1 Modelling inputs hierarchy

Data for the modelling task has come from a number
of sources in accordance with the modelling inputs
hierarchy shown Figure A2-2 below.
Figure A2-2 Modelling Inputs Hierarchy
Technology
Feasibility
Technology
Configuration
Benefits
Cost
Baseline Data
Technology
Impact
1. Field trial data
1. Field trial data
1. Industry data
1. Field trial data
1. Industry data
2. Modelling
calibrated with field
trial data
2. Modelling
trial data
2. Ausgrid baseline
data
2. Modelling
trial data
2. Field trial data
3. Literature review / other domestic and international trials to validate data and fill gaps
4. Subject matter experts as a last result and/or to reconcile different inputs
Where possible, trial data has been used to inform

results. In most cases, trial data has the highest data
pedigree representing a recent, geographically relevant
and field verified source. However, in some instances,
trial data was not deemed appropriate for use due to:
Incompleteness
Insufficient sample size or scale
Non-representativeness other than within a
trialcontext
Non-representativeness of technology performance
or cost effectiveness for future scenarios.
Using data from other sources
Ausgrid
Ausgrid, as a distribution network service provider with
one of the most advanced deployments of smart grid
technology in Australia, possesses a wealth of data
relating to costs and activities required to maintain
levels of service, capacity, reliability and power quality
to their customers, as well as a database on load
profiles related to their own customer mix.
Ausgrid was able to provide information related to:
Baseline network augmentation and
replacementcosts
Baseline operational costs
Where trial data was not considered appropriate

for use, or non-existent, alternative sources were
identified. These are described below.
Network asset and customer mixes

Baseline load profiles of customers by
demographic type
In some cases, Ausgrid data has been used to model
other networks where data was not available. This
implies that the results are likely to be most accurate
for Ausgrid. Notwithstanding, the approach could be
refined for any network where equivalent data and
information are available.
Industry data
Vendor data
Industry associations, other network service providers,

retailers and other members of the broader electricity
industry also have extensive data and information
which was relevant for the analysis. However, much of
this data was considered unlikely to have been readily
available for commercial reasons. Instead of sending
out a broad call to industry for data, industry was
provided with a list of data inputs and assumptions
for verification and validation prior to undertaking the
final analysis. This provided industry an opportunity
to review all model input metrics and assumptions
and suggest alternative sources and/or values where
appropriate.
Assumptions for the capital costs and operation and

maintenance of technologies were initially determined
based on literature, expert knowledge and/or the cost
observed in the trials themselves. However, in many
cases these costs are not current and moreover do not
reflect the likely costs of a deployment at scale. A number
of technology vendors were contacted to validate or
amend these capital cost assumptions. A description
of the vendor validation process is contained in Part 2
Section 2 Stakeholder Engagement.
Network data
Many of the baseline inputs related to network
configuration and were based on the CSIRO Feeder
Taxonomy7. The Feeder Taxonomy had some
limitations in terms of completeness and granularity
including the absence of data for Tasmania and the
Northern Territory and incomplete data for South
Australia, Western Australia and Victoria. Information
regarding feeder loads was also not available and
is a pertinent factor driving feeder capital cost. To
overcome these limitations, Ausgrid data was used as
default for other states.
Given this, it was important that all distribution
networks were provided with the opportunity to review
and validate/amend the assumptions with respect to
feeder types and configuration.
Literature review
A literature review was conducted in order to fill gaps
and develop an understanding of similar outcomes
in overseas trials and implementations. The data
sourced through the literature review supports the
trial data outcomes and places the Australian work
in an international context. Subject areas in which
supporting literature has been sought include:
Future energy system design
Smart grid policy and regulatory frameworks and
settings
Smart grid technology, trials and applications
Smart grid cost-benefit modelling
The literature review identified:
More than 20 cost benefit assessments
More than 70 trial documents
More than 60 smart grid drivers and
policydocuments
All Australian distribution network service providers

were provided with a list of assumptions via the Energy
Networks Association. Four DNSPs responded with a
list of amendments including Ergon Energy, Essential
Energy, Citipower and Powercor and Western Power.
These amendments were then adopted in the final
model.
7 Berry, A.M., Moore, T., Ward, J.K., Lindsay, S.A. and

Proctor, K, National Feeder Taxonomy Describing a
Representative Feeder Set for Australian Networks,
CSIRO, Australia, 2013
The review of these documents captured the following

aspects:
Smart grid systems and attributes
Comprehensive smart grid technology impacts,
costs and benefits
Technology maturity, implementation and
operational lessons learned
Smart grid related policy and regulatory framework
The inputs identified from the literature review are
documented in the Modelling Inputs Compendium.
Subject matter expert estimates

A number of subject matter experts with extensive
experience in Australian distribution network planning
and management were also consulted where there
were data gaps that could not be filled by any of the
above means. In such instances the subject matter
experts provided indicative assessments particularly
related to knowledge of internal business operations
and costs which were not available elsewhere.
In addition, often different data sources provided
different potential values. In these instances, subject
matter experts were utilised to make a judgement call
on the most applicable input given the scope of the
national cost benefit assessment.
6.4 Customer types

For the purposes of understanding smart grid benefits
in a national context, a number of customer types
were defined. Not all customers will receive the same
benefits from the smart grid. Benefits accruing to
customers depended upon their:
Individual energy consumption profile
Pre-existing level of network reliability and
powerquality
Willingness or capacity to shift or reduce energy
consumption from one time period to another
Willingness or financial capacity to invest in new
technologies to save or generate energy
In 2011, Futura Consulting in association with Taylor
Fry Smart produced a Smart Grid, Smart City detailed
sampling design. The design categorised each of the
Smart Grid, Smart City trial participants according to
five demographic or physical variables in order to test
the way these variables impacted customer response.
The variables were:
Two housing types Apartment or
detacheddwelling
Three income level bands High, medium or
lowband
Three gas consumption bands High, medium and
low band
Three electricity consumption bands High,
medium or low band
Two climate zones Zone 5 and Zone 6 for the
Ausgrid network
This gave rise to 108 possible combinations of

variables which became known as cells. For the
purpose of the cost benefit analysis it was necessary
to reduce the total number of customer types from
108 cells to a more manageable number due to the
constraints in the customer modelling task.
Of these 48 combinations, only 16 were found to

be present within Ausgrids network at a statistically
significant level. It was critical that the final customer
types were present within Ausgrids network in order
to mine data related to their half hourly load profiles for
the modelling tasks.
In order to reduce the number of customer types

to a manageable level for modelling, regression
analysis was undertaken to determine whether any
of the variables were substitutable (e.g. electricity
consumption for income level) and which had the most
significant impact on electricity load profile.
In addition, four commercial and industrial customer

types were defined based on total annual electricity
consumption, resulting in 20 customer types. While
commercial and industrial customers were not
specifically investigated within the Smart Grid, Smart
City Program, the contribution of these customers to
the system load profile at various levels of the network
was an important consideration in the modelling task.
The regression analysis considered the half hourly

weekday load profile based on the full sample of Smart
Grid, Smart City trial participants. It determined that no
particular variable was substitutable for another and
that of all the variables, total electricity consumption,
by far, had the greatest correlation with the half hourly
load profile.
Additionally, the presence of a solar panel and
the apparent temperature were also included as
explanatory variables in order to separate these effects
from the five main variables.
Based on this analysis, it was further determined that
the three electricity consumption levels would remain
as variables, but that for gas consumption and income
level, the bands could be consolidated to two (high
and low to medium) based on cluster analysis. This
then resulted in 48 possible combinations of variables
customer types.
Importantly, large industrial customers, with their

own dedicated network were excluded from the
modelling task (other than for the purposes of
modelling generation outcomes). Large scale industrial
customers are responsible for approximately 26
percent of electricity consumption within the NEM8.
Thisconsumption segment is also separately classified
by AEMO.
The final 20 customer types (residential and
commercial and industrial) are presented in TableA26.
8 Australian Electricity Market Operator (2013), National

Electricity Forecasting Report
Table A2-6 Customer Types
Building type
Annual Gas
consumption
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
Annual
Income Level
Climate
zone
House
Low to Medium
Low
High
Z5
House
Low to Medium
Medium
High
Z5
House
Low to Medium
High
High
Z5
House
High
High
High
Z5
Unit
Low to Medium
Low
High
Z5
Unit
High
Low
High
Z5
Unit
Low to Medium
Medium
High
Z5
House
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z5
House
Low to Medium
Medium
Med to Low
Z5
10
House
Low to Medium
High
Med to Low
Z5
11
House
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z6
12
House
Low to Medium
Medium
Med to Low
Z6
13
House
Low to Medium
High
Med to Low
Z6
14
Unit
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z5
15
Unit
Low to Medium
Medium
Med to Low
Z5
16
Unit
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z6
17
Commercial and industrial
0 -15 MWh
18
15-40 MWh
19
40-160 MWh
20
>160 MWh
Customer
Type
Hourly consumption data for a one year period was

collected for up to 150 randomly selected customers
for each customer type in order to characterise the
consumption profiles of each customer types including:
A Typical profile, taken as the median of the each
customer type based on annual consumption
A system profile at each level of the network
based on repeated random sampling of the 150
customers types by network segment
The characterisation data was taken from Ausgrids
database of customers with interval or smart meters.
These profiles then allowed for a statistical sample
of customer load profiles rather than just a single
typical customer type. This was important for the
consideration of diversity and impact on peak load
at various levels within the network (See Diversity
Modelling Box in Section 9.6).
without access to annual half-hourly customer load

profiles for particular customers. It is envisaged that
other distribution networks could refine the results for
their own regions using their own customer specific
results.
6.5 Network types

Smart grid technologies will not have the same
benefits on all network types. For the purposes of the
assessment, networks were defined by the number
and type of different feeders within the network. The
impact of any given technology at feeder level thus
depended upon:
The pre-existing level of reliability and power quality
The voltage level
The asset condition
The length of the feeder
However, this also resulted in a limitation in terms of

the extent to which the customer types were able
to represent all customers outside of the Ausgrid
region. While for Ausgrids network, the results are
likely to have a relatively high degree of accuracy, the
representativeness of the customer types is limited for
other networks, and in particular, for those in climate
zones other than Zone 5 or Zone 6.
The feeder construction type (overhead or

underground)
The customer profiles drive the uptake of distributed

generation and distributed storage. Therefore the
modelled uptake of distributed storage and generation
would likely differ if undertaken using profiles of
customers under other climate conditions.
As part of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program, a National

Feeder Taxonomy Study was prepared by Ausgrid and
CSIRO, working cooperatively with distribution network
service providers from across Australia.
Distributed storage is particularly sensitive to the load

profile characteristics. In general storage is more likely to
be taken up by customers with short, sharp peaks rather
than customers with long peaks over a large portion of the
day which would require large and expensive batteries to
offset. More extreme climate conditions could influence
the magnitude and duration of daily peak and therefore the
likelihood of storage uptake.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the approach
adopted represents a statistically valid approach to
estimating the impact of smart grid technologies on
customer load profiles at all levels of the network. This
methodology could not be replicated for other regions
The energy density of the area supplied by the feeder

The mix of customer types supplied by the feeder
Whether and to what extent smart grid
technologies and the associated ICT infrastructure
has already been deployed by networks
The National Feeder Taxonomy provided a collection of

representative feeders and their estimated prevalence
across Australia, validated against distribution network
characteristics provided by the Energy Supply
Association of Australia. This database was used to
broadly describe four sets of network types based on
reliability classification:
CBD feeders
Urban feeders
Short rural feeders
Long rural feeders
Table A2-7 Feeder properties
Properties
NSW
QLD
11kV
CBD
22kV
Urban
Short
Long
Urban
Short
11kV
Long
CBD
22kV
Urban
Short
Long
Short
Long
Number of feeders
56
3,285
1,267
107
59
137
117
67
1,619
726
48
93
56
Average length (km)
2.48
6.12
57.55
408.00
9.02
55.49
341.64
2.41
5.90
50.66
272.26
36.48
386.61
100%
55%
4%
1%
17%
0%
0%
100%
46%
8%
0%
26%
0%
0%
45%
96%
99%
83%
100%
100%
0%
54%
92%
100%
74%
100%
13,067
5,931
4,898
4,382
11,431
6,935
5,144
13,421
6,352
4,981
2,832
4,877
7,644
12
16
91
419
32
79
214
13
18
87
259
74
316
1,089
370
54
10
363
88
24
1,048
360
57
11
66
24
148
970
772
372
1,912
746
372
150
869
1,047
667
2,121
786
88.19
6.11
6.35
11.77
5.98
9.30
13.82
89.47
7.31
4.76
4.25
2.30
9.73
SAIDI
53
78
255
657
78
255
657
126
336
955
336
955
SAIFI
0.33
1.07
2.68
4.81
1.07
2.68
4.81
0.05
1.38
3.09
6.49
3.09
6.49
139
20,112
72,918
43,656
532
7,602
39,971
161
9,545
36,781
13,068
3,392
21,650
Average underground
(%)
Average overhead (%)

Average high voltage
rating (kVA)
Number of
distribution
substations
Average distribution
substation rating
(kVA)
Customers per feeder
Average customer
demand (kVA)
Total Length (km)
Properties
VIC
WA
11kV
CBD
22kV
Urban
Urban
11kV
Short
Long
CBD
22kV
Urban
Short
Urban
Short
Long
Number of feeders
70
484
640
281
150
48
174
16
259
146
63
Average length (km)
2.48
6.03
14.40
77.45
464.05
2.83
6.03
54.67
10.97
45.11
39.58
100%
51%
18%
6%
1%
100%
51%
6%
72%
100%
2%
0%
49%
82%
94%
99%
0%
49%
94%
28%
0%
98%
13,067
6,103
11,887
9,891
12,002
11,300
6,103
4,933
14,489
23,673
4,321
12
17
39
184
605
17
90
27
82
47
1,089
365
303
54
20
1,413
365
55
537
290
92
148
929
2,212
2,685
2,406
139
929
887
1,061
3,672
57
88.19
6.57
5.37
3.68
4.99
81.29
6.57
5.56
13.66
6.45
75.81
SAIDI
29
127
127
258
420
12
146
310
146
310
593
SAIFI
0.30
1.41
1.41
2.75
3.86
0.08
1.50
3.09
1.50
3.09
4.12
173
2,918
9,214
21,765
69,608
136
1,049
875
2,842
6,586
2,494
Average underground
(%)
rating (kVA)
Number of
distribution
substations
substation rating
(kVA)
Average customer
demand (kVA)
Total Length (km)
Properties
SA
NT
11kV
CBD
Urban
11kV
Short
Long
CBD
22kV
Urban
Short
Urban
Short
Long
Number of feeders
120
450
450
20
93
35
Average length (km)
2.48
6.03
54.67
349.82
2.48
6.03
54.67
12.75
56.31
391.76
100%
51%
6%
1%
100%
51%
6%
36%
27%
1%
0%
49%
94%
99%
0%
49%
94%
64%
73%
99%
13,067
6,103
4,933
3,718
13,067
6,103
4,933
12,223
10,619
8,841
12
17
90
350
12
17
90
34
113
407
1,089
365
55
11
1,089
365
55
361
94
22
148
929
887
904
148
929
887
1,739
2,277
1,374
88.19
6.57
5.56
4.11
88.19
6.57
5.56
7.03
4.66
6.44
SAIDI
15
136
310
362
112
146
511
146
511
1,672
SAIFI
0.14
1.39
2.00
2.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Length (km)
297
2,713
24,600
50
561
328
51
1,971
784
Average underground (%)


rating (kVA)
Number of distribution
substations
substation rating (kVA)

Average customer
demand (kVA)
Properties
TAS
11kV
22kV
CBD
Urban
Short
Urban
Short
Long
Number of feeders
23
101
27
25
68
24
Average length (km)
2.48
6.03
54.67
12.75
56.31
391.76
100%
51%
6%
36%
27%
1%
0%
49%
94%
64%
73%
99%
13,067
6,103
4,933
12,223
10,619
8,841
12
17
90
34
113
407
1,089
365
55
361
94
22
148
929
887
1,739
2,277
1,374
88.19
6.57
5.56
7.03
4.66
6.44
SAIDI
42
92
305
92
305
394
SAIFI
0.51
1.06
2.85
1.06
2.85
3.24
57
609
1,476
319
3,829
9,402
Average underground (%)

Average high voltage rating (kVA)
Number of distribution substations
Average distribution substation
rating (kVA)
Average customer demand (kVA)
Total Length (km)
For simplicity, it was further assumed that all

feeders originating from the same zone substation
were of the same reliability class. That is, zone
substations could be classified under one of the four
reliabilityclassification.
The properties of feeders under each classification
were defined for each state based on the National
Feeder Taxonomy. These are described in Table A2-It
should be noted that the Ausgrid customer mix on any
given feeder type was assumed to be representative
of all feeders of the same type nationwide. While this
assumption does have some limitations, it is likely to
be accurate to the extent that feeders of the same
design and construction type tend to supply the same
type of customer mix. This assumption means that
the results are most accurate for the Ausgrid network.
It is envisaged that this same methodology could be
repeated for other networks to refine the results where
more accurate data on the customer mix by feeder
type is available
7 Macroeconomic
scenarios
7.1 Overview
Clearly, the costs and benefits of smart grid
technology, and the implications of its deployment,
will depend on future conditions and outcomes in
the power sector and the economy as a whole. The
business case assessment was considered under
three macroeconomic scenarios reflecting three
different potential future states of the world.
The three macroeconomic scenarios were used to
test the sensitivity of the modelling outcomes to the
feasible range of future states of the world, which
are specified as distinct sets of internally consistent
demographic, economic, technological and energy
pricing conditions. These macroeconomic scenarios
(abbreviated to scenarios) included:
central case
conditions for the Australian economy, with
lower economic growth. Demographic trends
over the 30 year forecast period reflect slower
populationgrowth
higher economic growth. Demographic trends
over the 30 year forecast period reflect faster
populationgrowth
7.1.1 Scenario development

process
Early in the scenario development process, a scenario
planning workshop was held with key industry subject
matter experts and stakeholders. The objective of the
workshop was to test and refine an initial description
of the three scenarios. Workshop participants were
invited to provide their views on the appropriateness of
these initial descriptions, particularly the consistency of
the set of input assumptions initially proposed for each
scenario.
Following the scenario planning workshop, the
descriptions of the three economic scenarios were
refined to reflect stakeholder feedback and a complete
set of input assumptions for each scenario was
developed. The scenarios together with the input
assumptions, were circulated to workshop participants
for further comment.
During the delay between the scenario workshop
and agreeing the final modelling process there
were a number of changes which required some
contemporisation of the initial scenario. The need for
contemporisation included:
The release of a number of key reports impacting
on projections
A federal election which resulted in a change in the
Australian Government which in turn saw a number
of energy policy positions change
Macroeconomic changes, in particular, changes to
the exchange rate of the Australian dollar
The final macroeconomic scenarios and inputs are
presented in the following section.
7.2 Detailed
description of scenarios
7.2.1 Low scenario
The global economy remains stuck in low gear for
the next ten years, with weak demand for Australian
mineral and energy exports. Population growth slows
as migration policy is tightened and cost of living
concerns become a growing political issue. The lack of
demand for Australian exports leads to a rapid decline
in the Australian dollar. The Australian exchange rate
remains flat for the remainder of the 30 year period.
Technology Development
The extended economic malaise in Europe is
accompanied by rising retail energy prices due to
decades of generous feed-in tariffs (FiT), which cause
leading jurisdictions like California and Germany to end
their demand side supports for distributed generation
adoption.
Storage technology experiences a slow learning curve
and costs remain stubbornly high until the 2024-2034
period, which has a knock on effect on demand for
solar PV. Japans energy security policy shifts away
from distributed generation due to high costs and slow
progress.
Energy and Commodities

Domestic natural gas prices begin to rise from 2016
with the linkage of East Coast markets with Pacific
LNG prices. With lower exchange rates, the link to
Pacific LNG prices results in higher domestic gas
prices. The relatively high cost of distributed generation
and large scale renewables drives Japan, Korea and
China towards gas as their main low carbon fuel.
There is relatively strong community resistance to
the development of coal seam gas deposits, which
keeps natural gas prices linked to international levels.
The eventual replacement of Australias current gas
reserves must come from more distant conventional
deposits at higher cost.
Moderate global economic growth and flat energy
demand keep Pacific Basin LNG prices, low and
international carbon prices flat. The Australian
Government unwinds and disbands the carbon price
in 2014 moving to implement direct action. When
economic growth begins to pick up in the second
decade, fuel price rises remain in check due to the rise
of renewable generating capacity.
Wholesale electricity prices rise slowly but steadily
over the period due to the influence of LNG net back.
Policy and Regulation
The fall in the Australian dollar slows the domestic

price decline of solar PV. Falling market FiT prices and
cautious consumer sentiment following widespread
failure of inverters in the 2019-2024 period result in local
reduction in demand for solar PV.
Economic concerns trump environmental concerns,

and policy is focused on energy efficiency and vehicle
efficiency. Although the Renewable Energy Target
is retained, renewable energy supports are wound
down over the 2014-2024 period in favour of economic
stimulus programs.
Fuel cell prices and storage both begin to become

competitive with mains electricity in the 2024-2034
timeframe. Storage increases the competitiveness of
utility scale solar PV, wind and solar thermal.
Australias carbon price is unwound in the first year

of the assessment period and does not return for the
duration of the assessment period.
7.2.2 Medium scenario
Current economic weakness in Europe and China

persist for the next five years. The global economy
firms to the long term average over the following
decade, and moves to strong growth over the 20342044 timeframe. The Australian economy follows the
rest of the world, remaining relatively weak initially, but
as increased demand for resources impacts Australian
exports, the Australian dollar stabilises.
The disproportionate rise in energy costs ultimately

drives international governments away from
environmental targets in the second decade. Program
targets and arrangements are managed to keep
consumer electricity costs flat over the 2019-2024
period.
Technology investment in fuel cells, storage and
electric vehicles is initially slower than was historically
observed for solar PV. Solar PV demand continues at
current rates, but is tempered by lack of a FiT with PV
being sized to demand.
Relatively strong US, EU and Asian investment in
distributed energy technology begins to pay off in the
2019-2024 period as storage becomes cost effective.
High gas prices limit the commercial attractiveness of
fuel cells and high electricity prices undermine electric
vehicles.
High retail electricity prices prevailing at the start of the
2024-2034 period drive significant consumer demand
for energy efficiency, direct load control and demand
response products and services. This trend continues
over the last decade until market saturation is reached.

The return of stronger economic growth stokes
Asian demand for LNG, pushing Pacific LNG prices
higher and causing higher domestic prices. The
relatively strong Australian economy is able to absorb
the domestic price increase, with coal seam gas
development relieving some of the pressure.
Wholesale electricity prices jump in the 2024-2029
period as natural gas prices feed through, supported
by growth in energy demand.
Sustained high international gas prices and low
international coal prices begin to encourage relatively
greater coal demand and lower gas demand over the
second decade.
In accordance with the advertised Government policy

Australias carbon price is unwound in the first year
of the assessment period and does not return for the
duration of the assessment period.
7.2.3 High scenario

Australia quickly returns to strong growth as US and
Japan drive a global recovery including boosted
activity in India and China which flows through to
greater demand for Australian exports and only a
slight decline in the dollar in the short term. European
structural reforms underpin strong growth over the
2019-2024 period. A decade of strong economic
performance begins to slow in the 2024-2034
timeframe under the strain of labour and supply
capacity constraints. The global economy returns to
long-term average growth in the third decade.
Acceleration programs in California, Germany and
Japan succeed in rapidly driving down the cost of
storage and fuel cells over the 2014-2019 period.
High levels of coal seam and shale gas production
dramatically reduce natural gas prices in the US, and
underpin a boom in fuel cell adoption.
Japan, Korea and China look to renewables, electric
vehicles and storage technology for their incremental
energy security and carbon abatement needs. Global
adoption rates accelerate, significantly reducing
demand for mains electricity, LNG and natural gas over
the 2019-2024 period.
Low cost storage enables utility scale solar PV and
concentrated thermal generation to begin providing
base-load power by the third decade.

Although LNG demand remains as expected over the
next ten years, the reduction in energy consumption
due to widespread distributed generation adoption
keep domestic demand low. Incremental LNG demand
largely evaporates by the second decade, while coal
seam drilling puts further downward pressure on
domestic prices as producers seek a path to market.
Wholesale electricity prices experience a steady
decline over the decade as generators are unable to
respond fast enough to falling demand and changing
market dynamics. Rising levels of storage begin to
take effect in the 2024-2034 period, dampening price
spikes and levelling the demand profile.
The energy system transformation towards
decentralisation begins to stabilise around 2032, with
most energy produced and consumed onsite, or
traded within the zone.

The success of renewable energy technology
development programs leads to unforeseen
consequences for regulated sectors. Higher cost
reflective network prices are mandated to minimise
uneconomic investment by consumers, to provide
an appropriate pricing signal and to address wealth
transfers between consumer groups.
Australias carbon price is unwound in the first year of
the assessment period in line with current government
policy, and does not return for the duration of the
assessment period in its current form. Strong global
economic growth coincides with international action
on carbon emissions, resulting in a steadily increasing
international carbon price. Locally, emission pricing
occurs via a linkage to European markets from
2019/20.
7.2.4 Comparison of key scenario

input assumptions
The modelling leverages forecasts crafted as part
of the review of prices for the Independent Pricing
and Regulatory Tribunal9 (IPART) as the basis of the
economic variable outlooks.
The IPART report represents a recent internally
consistent set of assumptions that has undergone
industry validation. The assumptions have been
updated by Frontier since the release of the IPART
report to reflect more recent information, particularly
with respect to exchange rates.
The IPART assumptions have been supplemented
using subject matter expertise in the areas of
technology and wholesale energy modelling in order
to fill gaps. In particular future pricing curves for
emerging technologies have been estimated based
on past experience of technology learning curves and
research into forecasts of pricing curves for each of
the individual technologies.
Economic growth
The economic growth rates assumed for each period,
in terms of increase in gross domestic product, are
shown for each scenario in Figure A2-3.
Exchange rate
The exchange rate represents the value of the
Australian dollar with respect to the US dollar.
Theexchange rates assumed are shown in FigureA24. Under all scenarios rates reduce over the first
eight years and then stabilise. These reductions in
exchange rate increase the cost of both distributed
and centralised generation technologies for Australian
customers.
Population growth
Figure A2-5 shows the growth in Australias population
under each scenario. This shows population growing
over time reaching over 40 million under the high
scenario by 2050.
9
rontier Economics (2013), Input assumptions for

F
modelling wholesale electricity costs prepared for
IPART
EV Charging Load (KW)
0.00
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
$1.00
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Population (million)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Figure A2-3 Economic Growth Rates

$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
AEFI Scenario 3 High
USD exchange rate High
AEFI Scenario 3 High

AEFI Scenario 2 Medium
USD exchange rate Medium
AEFI Scenario 2 Medium

AEFI Scenario 1 Low
Figure A2-4 Exchange Rates
USD exchange rate Low
Figure A2-5 Population growth
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
AEFI Scenario 1 Low
Technology learning curves
Technology learning curves - solar PV
Technology experience curves reflect the reduction in

technology costs as a result of industry learning. Cost
declines may come from improvements in construction
or manufacturing techniques and economies of scale.
Technology learning curves for solar PV were

developed following a review of international forecasts,
potential drivers of additional cost reductions and
Australian trends.
Future cost curves for emerging technologies have

been estimated based on past observation of
technology evolution, such as solar PV, and detailed
analysis into the cost of construction, components and
current quantities of production.
The pricing curves for solar PV reflect key

scenario assumptions regarding the impact of
greater competition in the inverter market and the
commercialisation of building integrated PV (BIPV) and
organic technologies including solar roof tiles and solar
paint or dyes.
The technology learning curve adopted for solar PV is
presented in Figure A2-6.
Figure A2-6 Technology learning curve solar PV
Solar PV Costs $/KW (2014 Real)
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
2014
2019
Low
2024
Medium
2029
2034
High
Technology learning curves battery storage
Technology learning curves fuel cells
Technology learning curves for battery storage were

Australian trends. It reflects an assessment of the likely
evolution of various technology options (lead-acid,
lithium-ion, redox flow, nickel) over time.
Technology learning curves for fuel cells were

Australian trends. It reflects an assessment of the likely
evolution of various technology options (e.g. protonexchange membrane, solid oxide) over time.
The pricing curves for storage reflect key scenario

assumptions regarding the level of international
investment in R&D and capability development, relative
rates of cost decline among the storage technologies
due to economies of scale, the take-up of electric
vehicles and technology breakthroughs in metal air
and flow based technologies. The technology learning
curve adopted for battery storage is presented in
Figure A2-7.
The pricing curves for fuel cells reflect key scenario

rates of cost decline among the fuel cell technologies
due to economies of scale and technological
breakthroughs in materials.
The technology learning curve adopted for fuel cells is
Figure A2-7 Technology learning curve battery storage
Storage Costs $/KW (2014 Real)
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$.
2014
2019
Low
2024
Medium
2029
2034
High
Figure A2-8 Technology learning curve fuel cells
CHP Costs $/KW (2014 Real)
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
2014
2019
Low
2024
Medium
2029
High
2034
Technology learning curves Smart Meter

Infrastructure
Technology learning curves for SMI were developed
following a review of international forecasts,
Australiantrends.
The pricing curves for SMI reflect key scenario
rates of cost decline among SMI technologies due to
economies of scale and technology breakthroughs.
The technology learning curve adopted for SMI is
Smart Meter Cost Per Unit $ (2014 Real)
Figure A2-9
Technology learning curve SMI
Fuel costs
The fuel cost estimates required include gas prices, coal
prices and distillate prices for each region in the NEM and
for the SWIS. Of these, gas prices and coal prices are by
far the most important (distillate is used only infrequently for
power generation in the NEM and the SWIS).
The main driver of long term gas prices is the rate
at which prices rise to parity with international
LNG netback prices. That is, a price equivalent to
international landed LNG prices net of the costs
of seaborne transport, liquefaction and domestic
transport costs. Across the three scenarios, the
assumed gas prices reflect this internationalisation
occurring at different rates and rising to different
assumed LNG price levels. The assumed prices for
each scenario are shown in Figure A2-10.
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$.
2014
2019
2024
High
Medium
2029
2034
Low
Figure A2-10 Delivered gas prices for generation plant low scenario10
$14.00
Gas Price ($/GJ)
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
45
44
20
43
20
42
20
41
20
40
20
39
20
38
20
37
20
36
20
35
20
34
20
33
Gas Prices Medium
20
32
20
31
20
30
20
29
20
28
20
27
20
26
20
25
Gas Prices High
20
24
20
23
20
22
20
21
20
20
20
19
20
18
20
17
20
16
20
20
20
14
$0.00
Gas Prices Low
The coal price estimates used in the modelling are set

out in Figure A2-11 for the three scenarios. Similar to
capital costs, the long term driver of coal prices is the
assumed exchange rate. This is also main driver of
differences between the scenarios.10
Figure A2-11 Delivered coal prices for generation plant11

$5.00
$4.00
Coal Price ($/GJ)
$4.50
$3.50
$2.50
$3.00
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
20
14
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
20
41
20
42
20
43
20
44
20
45
$0.00
Coal Prices High
10
11
Coal Prices Medium
Source: Frontier Economics

Source: Frontier Economics
Coal Prices Low
7.3 Scenario planning 7.4 Stakeholder

workshop
validation
A select group of stakeholders were also invited to
contribute to the scenario planning workshop held on
14 June 2013. The workshop outlined three scenarios
relating to macro-economic influences including
technology costs, exchange rates, fuel prices, and
carbon prices, amongst others which drive distributed
energy resource adoption rates and influence the
response of the centralised generation sector within
the modelling task.
Each of the stakeholders were invited to participate in
a discussion to further define the scenarios and ensure
internal consistency.
Following the workshop, the stakeholder contributions
were collated and further review and analysis
undertaken to refine and quantify the final scenario
inputs for our modelling task. These refined
assumptions were then sent to the workshop
attendees for validation.
Two of the stakeholder groups (CSIRO and ESAA)
provided feedback requesting further detail on the data
sources and context. In particular there was concern
that the assessment involved the development of a
new economic framework. Communication of the use
of AMEOs economic forecasting as a basis for the key
economic inputs addresses these concerns.
All respondents were contacted and the suggested
changes discussed.
In addition to the initial stakeholder engagement

process, select stakeholders were given the
opportunity to validate or amend model inputs.
7.4.1 Network validation

Many of the assumptions related to network
configuration were based on the CSIRO Feeder
Taxonomy. The Feeder Taxonomy had some limitations
in terms of completeness and granularity including
the absence of data for Tasmania and the Northern
Territory and incomplete data for South Australia,
Western Australia and Victoria. Information regarding
feeder loads was also not available and is a pertinent
factor driving feeder capital cost. To overcome these
limitations, Ausgrid data was used as default for other
states.
Given this, it was important that all distribution
networks were provided with the opportunity to review
and validate/amend the assumptions with respect to
feeder types and configuration.
All Australian distribution network service providers
were provided with a list of assumptions via the Energy
Networks Association. Four DNSPs responded with
a list of amendments including Ergon, Essential,
Citipower and Powercor and Western Power. In
general there were limited requests for changes with
respect to network topology and asset parametisation.
These amendments were then adopted in the final
model.
7.4.2 Vendor validation
7.5 Other engagement
Assumptions for the capital costs and operation

and maintenance of technologies were determined
based on literature, expert knowledge and/or the cost
observed in the trials themselves12. However, in many
cases these costs are not current and moreover do
not reflect the likely costs of a deployment at scale.
A number of technology vendors were contacted to
validate or amend these capital cost assumptions.
Vendors contacted include:
In addition to the engagement, described a number

of presentations updating of progress and soliciting
feedback were held. These include:
ABB
Alcatel-Lucent
Cooper
Dynamic Ratings
EDMI
Ericsson
GE
GridSense
Three presentations to the Australian Government,

Department of Industry, Energy Division
One cross-departmental presentation to the
Australian Government including Department
of Prime Minster and Cabinet, Department of
Communications and the Bureau for Resource and
Energy Economics
Two stakeholder meetings with Australian
Energy Regulator and Australian Energy Market
Commission
Two presentations to the Strategic Policy and
Regulatory Steering Committee (including
representatives from):
Australian Government Department of Industry
Landis & Gyr
Energy Networks Australia
LumaSense
Energy Retailers Association of Australia
Noja
S&C Electric
Australian Energy Market Operator
Saturn South
Schneider
Secure
Siemens
Australian Energy Market Commission

Australian Council of Social Services
Tendril
Trilliant
Vendors provided key modelling inputs with respect to
technology costs and installation costs to validate trial
costs or provide alternative estimates where trial costs
were not considered appropriate.
12
See the Modelling Inputs Compendium for more

information
8 Preliminary cost
benefit analysis
A preliminary cost benefit analysis was undertaken
toidentify:
Which benefits are likely to be material to the
overallassessment
For each category of grid technologies (FDIR, SFM,
WAM and AVVC and grid side storage), which
specific technologies in what configuration provide
the greatest economic return
For each category of customer products trialled,
which specific combination of technologies and
tariffs provides the greatest economic return
The preliminary cost benefit analysis used detailed
cost data from Ausgrid to determine the network
based costs and benefits and estimates of generation
sector costs and benefits for changes in peak demand
and total generation. The integrated model was not
used for the preliminary cost benefitanalysis.
The detailed sources of data and assumptions
underpinning both the preliminary and final
cost benefit analysis are provided in Modelling
InputsCompendium.
8.1 Benefit materiality

assessment
The benefit materiality assessment aimed to determine
which of the detailed list of impacts described in Table
A2-4 were likely to give rise to material benefits in the
context of a national business case.
Benefits were deemed as immaterial where either:
Insufficient evidence was available to demonstrate
the materiality, and/or
Evidence suggested that the benefit would
represent less than 1 per cent of the gross benefits
for a technology business case (individually or
inaggregate)
The results of the materiality assessment are provided
in Table A2-8. Further information with respect to the
inputs to the materiality assessment can be found in
the Modelling Inputs Compendium.
Table A2-8 Materiality assessment
Impact
Benefit
Network
capex
Network
opex
Retail capex
Retail opex
Generation
capex
Generation
opex
Customer
value
Enviro
value
Power quality
Avoided tap changer
maintenance (labour)
NA
Not material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided customer equipment

damage/equipment lifespans
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Not material
NA

rectification costs
NA
Material
Avoided unplanned outages

from switching error
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
Avoided waiting time for

energisation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
Faster restoration of
customers
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Material
NA
Avoided network capacity

investment
Material
NA
NA
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
Avoided generation capacity

investment
Material
NA
NA
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
Avoided fuel
consumption
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Material
NA
NA
Avoided generator
maintenance
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Material
NA
NA
Avoided carbon
emissions
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Material
NA
Material
Reliability
Peak demand
Grid consumption
Impact
Benefit
Network
capex
Network
opex
Retail capex
Retail opex
Generation
capex
Generation
opex
Customer
value
Enviro
value
Network Operation and Maintenance

labour
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reduced field switching

labour
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided switching maloperations
NA
Not Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

calls for customer outage
reports
NA
Not material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided load surveys
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided power quality surveys
NA
Not material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided asset inspection and

maintenance
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided in-situ asset

failures
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Deferred replacement without

compromising safety or
reliability
Billing, metering and customer service

Avoided meter
readings
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided tariff
reconfiguration
NA
Not Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided meter testing
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided contact centre calls

for meter data
NA
NA
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
Impact
Benefit
Network
capex
Network
opex
Retail capex
Retail opex
Generation
capex
Generation
opex
Customer
value
Enviro
value
Avoided billing and mail out

costs
NA
NA
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided wasted call

outs
NA
Not Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Avoided meter replacement
NA
Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Requirement for new billing

systems
NA
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Customer acquisition effort and churn rate

Customer acquisition costs
NA
NA
NA
Not Material
NA
NA
NA
NA
Customer churn
NA
NA
NA
Insufficient
Evidence
NA
NA
NA
NA
For the most part, the impacts found to be material

were related to reliability, peak demand reduction
and grid consumption reduction. This is due to the
high value of capital investment required to increase
capacity to meet peak demand in the network and
generation sector as well as the significant value of
customer reliability.
There was insufficient evidence to suggest that retail
capex will be material. Evidence from the Victorian
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) roll out and
existing interval meter roll outs to large customers in
multiple jurisdictions suggests that retail systems are
able to cope with large data sets.
Further, customer acquisition costs and customer
churn costs were assumed to be immaterial for the
purposes of the final national cost benefit assessment.
While in the early years it is foreseeable that acquisition
costs and churn may be decreased as a result of the
attractiveness of the new products, in the long term,
once the products become commonplace, greater
competition for these products will return and any
benefits will be eroded.
8.2 Preliminary cost

benefit analysis for
retail and network
tariffs and feedback
technologies
For the customer engagement products, all 19 of
the Smart Grid, Smart City network and retail field
trial products were reviewed with respect to their
business case. A preliminary cost benefit analysis
was undertaken over a three year period, the average
customer contract length13. The preliminary cost
benefit analysis determined the net economic benefit
over those three years for an average customer.
The preliminary analysis drew on the adoption rates
and the response rates in terms of a change in peak
and total consumption observed in the trials.
The adoption rates were used to derive a cost of
acquisition for the retailer relative to standard industry
costs14. Due to the high rate of adoption of the
products observed in the trials, the cost of acquisition
was reduced significantly for some products. In
the long run, once the dynamic tariffs become
commonplace and greater competition returns, the
costs of acquisition are likely return to existing levels.
The reduced costs of acquisition are therefore likely to
be immaterial in the long run, but were considered a
useful metric against which to assess each products
attractiveness to the consumer and therefore deemed
to inform the short term preliminary business case.
13
ost retail contracts vary between 2- 3 years in

M
length
14 The uptake rates used were the Uptake 2 rates as
described in the Smart Grid, Smart City Customer
Applications Trials: Data analysis Methodology Report
May 2014
The response rates were used to estimate the

likely network and generation sector benefits using
estimates of the value of peak demand reduction.
The cost benefit analysis then selected the most cost
effective products in each category take forward to the
integrated business case. These were:
Prepayment plan with a smart meter and an in
home display
Seasonal time of use with a smart meter and an in
home display
Retail critical peak pricing with a smart meter and
an in home display
Network dynamic peak rebate with a smart meter
and an in home display
The results of the preliminary cost benefit analysis are
presented in Table A2-9 and Table A2-10.
Table A2-9 Preliminary cost benefit analysis for customer engagement products (network)
Product Name
Online
Monitor
N01
Product ID
Assessment
N02
Rebate
N03
Network +
Online
N04
Rebate +
Monitor
Online +
Monitor
N06
N07
N05
Air6
N08
Adoption Rate (%)
65.2%
64.3%
33.4%
60.5%
53.8%
63.6%
62.6%
2.3%
Energy Impact
0.1%
0.7%
3.3%
-0.7%
-3.4%
-2.0%
-2.4%
0.5%
Peak Demand Impact
-0.7%
2.9%
6.7%
18.5%
0.2%
14.3%
-2.5%
Customer Savings
$0
$3
$15
-$3
-$15
-$9
-$11
$2
Reduction in Cost to Acquire15
$286
$286
$273
$285
$283
$286
$286
-$100
Cost of Product and Installation
-$3
-$89
-$60
-$142
-$167
-$172
-$92
-$300
Retailer Margin Loss
$0
$0
-$1
$0
$1
$0
$1
$0
Retailer Net Benefit
$283
$196
$213
$143
$117
$115
$194
-$400
Avoided Generator Fuel Opex
$0
$3
$15
-$3
-$15
-$9
-$11
$2
Avoided Network Capex
-$8
$33
$75
$208
$2
$160
-$29
$0
$71
$71
$71
$420
$175
$337
$154
-$398
Avoided Network Opex

Net Integrated Benefits
$276
$233
$303
Table A2-10 Preliminary cost benefit analysis for customer engagement products (retail)
Pre-Payment Plan
Budget Smart with

Power Smart Online
& Home Control
Flow smart with

Power smart Online
Price Smart
Price Smart with

Power Smart
Monitor
Price Smart with

Power Smart Online
Price Smart with

Power Smart Online
& Home Control
Season Smart
Season Smart
with Power Smart
Monitor
Season Smart with

Power Smart Online
Dynamic Peak Price
Budget Smart with

Power Smart Online
Seasonal Time of Use
Budget Smart
with Power Smart
Monitor
Product Name
Air
Budget Smart
Product Type
Product ID
R01
R02
R03
R04
R05
R06
R07
R08
R09
R10
R11
R12
Adoption Rate (%)
1.2%
6.3%
3.9%
3.7%
0.28%
4.5%
10.3%
5.3%
3.9%
3.1%
4.9%
2.5%
Energy Impact
5.3%
5.9%
4.8%
-1.8%
0.0%
0.9%
4.0%
2.5%
0.6%
3.5%
3.3%
-1.2%
Peak Demand Impact
7.0%
4.8%
6.7%
0.9%
36.7%
35.4%
40.3%
43.1%
5.7%
8.2%
2.8%
Customer Savings
$24
$26
$21
-$8
$0
$4
$18
$11
$3
$16
$15
-$6
Reduced Cost to
Acquire2
-$423
$157
$69
$55
-$2,865
$98
$213
$131
$67
$9
$118
-$66
Cost of Product and
-$142
-$172
-$142
-$145
-$300
-$142
-$172
-$241
-$246
-$142
-$172
-$145
Retailer Margin Loss
-$1
-$1
-$1
$0
$0
$0
-$1
-$1
$0
-$1
-$1
$0
Retailer Net Benefit
-$566
-$16
-$74
-$90
-$3,165
-$44
$40
-$110
-$179
-$134
-$55
-$211
Avoided Generator Fuel
$188
$26
$21
-$8
$0
$4
$18
$11
$3
$16
$15
-$6
Avoided Network Capex
$78
$54
$76
$10
$0
$413
$398
$453
$485
$64
$93

$32
Avoided Network Opex
$71
$71
$71
$71
$71
$71
$71
$71
$71
$71
$71
Net Integrated Benefits
-$228
$136
$94
-$17
$444
$527
$425
$380
$17
$124
-$114
Installation
Opex
-$3,165
A fifth product, in the form of the interruptible tariff

based on the retail Flow Smart product was also
selected. This product had a negligible adoption rate
in the trials and therefore high selling cost in the15
preliminary cost benefit analysis. However, this was at
least in part due to a lack of compliant air conditioners.
Other states have had successful uptake of similar
tariffs16 and it is therefore likely that such a product
could be successful in a national context.
It should be noted that for the purposes of the cost
benefit analysis, the dynamic peak rebate product was
not adopted in the same form as applied in the trials.
Instead, the dynamic peak rebate was reflected in the
modelling by allowing critical peak pricing events to
be called by either networks or retailers in response to
peak events17.
15
Reduced acquisition costs were based on the

improved adoption rates observed in the

trials compared to industry standard of 3% adoption a

cost of $300 per customer.
16
Reduced acquisition costs were based on the

improved adoption rates observed in the

trials compared to industry standard of 3% adoption a

cost of $300 per customer.
17 In this sense the critical peak pricing product is
representative of both the dynamic peak price and
dynamic peak rebate products trialled
8.3 Preliminary
cost benefit analysis
for smart meter
infrastructure
During the assessment, the smart meters were
assumed to be compliant with the national minimum
function specification in the terms of an interval meter
with a communications card and a contactor.
Reliability benefits of smart metering

The potential reliability benefits of smart metering
are mainly due to an improved ability to locate faults.
The specific benefit of avoided nested outages
and improved fault location were investigated and
analysed as part of the CBA preliminary analysis.
Although there are reported benefits of using SMI
to identify nested outages (in the US in particular),
little specific data is available in the public domain,
and it is not a widely recognised problem within
the Australian distribution sector. It was therefore
deemed unlikely to be material.
The reliability benefits of SFM and FDIR technology
are due to their ability to provide more granular HV
outage information than is currently available. SMI
provides outage information at the LV network level.
Since HV faults typically trigger the zone substation
circuit breaker or midline recloser, all LV customers
connected to the feeder are disconnected at the
same time. SMI level reporting therefore provides
feeder level granularity, which is no better than the
existing SCADA system.
faults in a growing range of LV assets. The benefits

of this service arise when incipient failures are
able to be identified and a maintenance crew
dispatched during normal business hours to rectify
the situation. Replacing the asset before it fails in
service avoids a customer outage, and potentially
reduces field costs where the fault occurred outside
of business hours.
Evidence for this sort of benefit was still emerging
from the Victorian implementation and at the time of
model development was not able to be quantified
for the purpose of this assessment. Recent
modelling commissioned by the Energy Networks
Association has indicated that this benefit may be in
the order of $38 per customer19.
The potential reliability benefits of SMI from better
fault location were therefore screened out of the
integrated CBA.
Smart metering can also be used to detect incipient
For smart meter infrastructure three possible

deployment scenarios were explored for the
The first scenario involved a mandatory retrofit
of smart meters including full smart meter
functionality (generally known as advanced meter
infrastructure or AMI18 including communications)
for all customers
The second scenario involved an organic roll out of
smart meters (with full AMI functionality including
communications) by mandating installation for all
new and upgraded meters only
The third scenario involved the provision of smart
meters only to those customers who choose to
adopt distributed generation and storage combined
with dynamic tariffs or dynamic tariffs alone
Only benefits related to network operation and
maintenance and metering and billing services were
considered in the preliminary CBA.
An example of the preliminary stand-alone SMI CBA
for Tasmania for a mandatory retrofit undertaken in
2019 under the medium scenario is shown in Table A211. This demonstrates that SMI only breaks even in the
roll out in long rural networks.
18
These inputs to the preliminary CBA are equivalent for

all states with the exception of the benefit of avoided
power quality and load surveys which vary depending
on the number of customers per distribution
substation. Therefore the Tasmanian results showed
above are indicative for all states and all networks in
2019 with the exception of avoided load survey values.
The hardware costs also vary over time.
In the early years, the preliminary CBA was negative
for most network types in most states regardless of
whether a compulsory, organic or value driven roll out
was assumed. The mandatory retrofit was net positive
in some states in some networks from 2019.
The preliminary CBA demonstrated that an organic roll
out (new and replacement) has a negative business
case for all scenarios, all states and all network types
for all periods due to the increased installation costs.
The value driven roll out assumes that SMI is provided
only where a dynamic tariff is taken up (either
voluntarily or as a result of a distributed generation or
a distributed storage installation). This gives rise to the
potential for further benefits in terms of peak demand
reduction which are not included in the results above.
The value driven option was therefore retained for the
final cost benefit assessment.
Energeia, Review of the Potential Network Benefits

of Smart Metering, prepared for Energy Networks
Association, May 2014
Table A2-11 Preliminary cost benefit analysis for stand-alone SMI
Organic (New and Replacement)

Roll Out
Roll out
Long Rural
Short Rural
Suburban
CBD
Long Rural
Short Rural
Suburban
CBD
Cost/Benefit ($/Meter)
Annualised Capex
(Hardware)
$20
$20
$20
$20
$20
$20
$20
$20
Annualised Capex
(Installation)
$10
$10
$10
$10
$31
$31
$31
$31
Annual Comms Opex
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
Total Costs
$66
$66
$66
$66
$86
$86
$86
$86
Reconnections/
Disconnections
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27
Avoided load Surveys
$12
$2
$1
$2
$12
$2
$1
$2
Avoided conventional meter

costs
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$21
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
$5
$65
$55
$54
$55
$65
$55
$54
$55
$0
-$10
-$12
-$10
-$21
-$31
-$33
-$31
Annual IT Opex
Annual avoided meter

reading costs
Total Benefits
Total Net Benefit
8.4 Preliminary cost

benefit analysis for grid
technologies
For the grid technologies, there are a range of different
options and configurations for deployment of the
trialled technologies. The optimum configuration will
be highly dependent on network type and existing
technologies.
For the purposes of the business case assessment,
it was not practicable to undertake a detailed
assessment of technology configuration for
individual networks. Instead, assumptions were
adopted with respect to the most likely optimum
configuration for each of the four network types using
engineeringjudgement.
However, there were several technologies which were
excluded altogether due to a lack of information or
business case. These include the asset condition
monitoring elements of substation feeder monitoring
(including partial discharge, dissolved gas analysis and
thermal monitoring) and wide area measurement.
8.4.1 Wide area measurement

(WAM)
WAM technologies are able to increase transmission
and subtransmission asset utilisation while at the same
time managing the increased wide area outage risks
that accompany the economic benefits of doing so.
WAM technologies may therefore deliver improved
reliability in avoiding low-probability, high-impact
events and/or improved utilisation of existing network
assets.
The benefits of this technology in the avoidance of
system blackouts through post fault analysis, model
and measurement validation and real-time rating have
the potential to be very substantial.
However, WAM technology is essentially a diagnostic
tool and therefore the extent of the benefit of this
technology is probabilistic and difficult to predict.
The value of these benefits was not able to be
quantified as these are highly dependent on the
effectiveness of existing network analytics, engineering
practices and operational conditions, which represent
highly sensitive network business data for which there
exists no publicly accessible benchmarking data.
For these reasons, it was considered that there
was insufficient information available upon which to
develop a reliable business case estimate for WAM.
Notwithstanding, the benefits of WAM, in reducing or
eliminating low probability, but high impact nature of
system blackouts, is likely to warrant consideration
bynetworks.
Substation and feeder monitoring asset

condition monitoring
Substation and feeder monitoring (SFM) was broken
into two distinct types of smart grid solutionscovering:
Network state monitoring technologies which
monitor electrical characteristics including voltage,
current, load, frequency
Asset condition monitoring: technologies which
monitor the performance of a particular asset and
its likelihood of failure
The asset condition solution assumed the retrofitting

of sensors on transformers, circuit breakers and
switchgear to monitor partial discharge, dissolved
gases and hot spots in real-time. The preliminary
business case did not show a positive cost benefit
result. This was mainly due to the high cost of
retrofitting this technology for capacitors, transformers
and switchgear upgrades, and the relatively low value
of the avoided maintenance benefit as shown in
FigureA2-12.
Figure A2-12 Results of preliminary cost benefit assessment of SFM (asset condition)
16
14
19
21
17
18
Present Value ($ Million)
-4
-9
-14
-19
Conductors
Transformers
CAPEX
CAPEX
CAPEX
-24
Switchgear
The asset condition component of SFM was therefore

excluded from the business case including the avoided
asset inspection and maintenance benefits identified in
the materiality test.
9 Integrated
benefits model
In undertaking this assessment, a model was
developed which sought to replicate the interactions
and behaviours within and between different
stakeholders in the electricity industry including
customers, network operators, electricity retailers and
electricity generators. This model is known as the
integrated benefits model.
The integrated benefits model was developed for
the purpose of assessing the net economic benefit
of smart grid technologies. The model was used to
assess both individual technologies and an integrated
smart grid deployment which includes a combination
of technologies. This model is presented in
Figure A2-13.
The integrated benefits model works by first

quantifying the way in which products and
technologies at the customer level (including retail
products, smart meters, feedback technologies,
distributed generation and storage) are taken up by
different customer types. This is calculated based
on a financial analysis of technology costs, electricity
price and tariff structures and the baseline customer
load profile, assuming customers will take up the
configuration of technologies that provide the greatest
financial outcome. The ultimate change in customer
load profile is then estimated based on the extent of
take up of technologies.
Figure A2-13 Integrated benefits model
Electricty
price and
tariff
structure
Technology costs (Customer

applications, Distributed
generation and distrubited
storage)
Retail Model
Capital costs
Customer
Load
Profile 1
Customer
Load
Profile 2
Customer
Load
Profile i
(Grid applications,
Distributed generation and
distrubuted storage
Customer
Load
Profile 1
Customer
Model
Customer
Load
Profile 2
Customer
Load
Profile i
Diversity
Model
Network
Load
Model
Network
Model
System
Load
Profile
Retail
benefits
Generation
(Market)
Model
Generation
benefits
Network benefits
Environmental
benefits
This change in customer load profile affects the retail

sector in terms of revenue and the generation sector
in terms of avoided generation costs and associated
reduced environmental externalities. The change in
load profile also impacts the network from a peak
demand and load diversity perspective. Increases
in distributed generation may also impact the
requirement for voltage management. The network
model responds to the customer side changes to
determine appropriate network side response and the
ultimate impact on network costs.
The generation, retail and network costs and benefits
are then translated into a change in electricity
prices which provides a feedback loop into the
customermodel.
The integrated benefits model was run for both the
BAU and smart grid cases at five points in time - 2014,
2019, 2024, 2029 and 203419. The model was also
run separately for five states. Due to their relatively low
numbers, Northern Territory customers were assigned
to the Queensland network and ACT customers to the
NSW analysis.
The model was also run for the low, medium and high
scenarios to understand the sensitivity of the results to
exogenous macro factors. Altogether this represented
a total of 150 model runs.
The integrated benefits model is a series of smaller
models. The outputs of each sub-model, in turn,
formed the inputs to the other sub-models. An
explanation of the sub-models is presented below.
19 It should be noted that macroeconomic assumptions

out to 2049 were required in order to provide 15 years
of forecast data for investment decisions made in
2034.
9.1 The customer

model
9.2 Distributed energy

resource (DER) model
The customer model estimates customer adoption of

solar PV, fuel cells, battery storage, dynamic pricing
and load control products and EVs, and the impact
of this behaviour on system and spatial load shapes,
peak demand and industry revenues for each of the
20 individual customer types (16 residential and four
business types) in each assessment period.
The customer DER model determines the size and

rate of uptake of distributed generation and storage at
customer premises including solar PVs, fuel cells and
battery storage. The DER model is applied for each
customer segment for each assessment period (with
the exception of those customer types who previously
adopted retail products or DER).
For each customer type a representative sample

set of load profiles (up to 150 annual half hourly load
profiles each) was obtained from Ausgrids database.
For each representative sample set, a median load
profile (determined as the median of total annual
consumption) was identified as the typical load profile
for each of the customer types.
The optimum size and type of DER systems for each

customer type is determined by optimising the financial
return on investment based on:
The representative sample of load profiles for each

customer type was then adjusted over time based on:
An across the board energy efficiency impact taken
from AEMO20 projections
The uptake of distributed generation, storage,
dynamic tariffs, direct load control and electric
vehicles (as described in the following section)
The typical load profile for each customer type at

the time of the investment decision
The retail tariff and price projections at the time of
the investment decision
The price projections are modelled outcomes
determined as a result of changes in networks prices,
wholesale energy costs and the feed-in-tariff which
were derived from the network and generation (market)
model (See Section 8.7 and 8.8).
The uptake of the all distributed generation and
storage was determined based on:
The return on investment
Observed historical trends of rate of uptake of solar
PV compared to return on investment
A stylised version of this relationship is presented in
Figure A2-14.
20 Australian Energy Market Operator, National Electricity

Forecasting Report for the National Electricity Market
(NEM), 2012
Tale Up Rate (% of Population)
Figure A2-14 Effect of return on investment on take up rate
First Year Return on Investment
The use of historical trends of uptake compared to

ROI enables the effect of sub optimal decisions by
customers to be considered. That is, historically even
where there is a high return on investment, a large
proportion of customers do not adopt the technology.
Further, there is a small amount of uptake even when
the return on investment is negative.
The resultant change in load profile (in terms of grid

consumption) was then determined for each customer
type. This relative impact was then applied to the
representative sample set of load profiles for each
customer type to form a new database of customer
load profiles for each customer type adopting
distributed generation and storage.
A sharp increase is assumed once the return on

investment reaches a certain threshold level and
then flattens once the return on investment becomes
sufficiently high to encourage the majority of the
population to invest. There will be some portion of the
population who will not invest at any level of return.
The calculated take up rates for distributed solar are

shown for the medium scenario in Figure A2-15.
Under both BAU and smart grid cases there is
significant investment in distributed solar PV such that
around 40 per cent of customers adopt the technology
by 2034 under the BAU case and 26 per cent under
the smart grid case.
Under the BAU case where 100 per cent of customers

are assumed to be on inclining block tariffs, the
business case for larger size systems is improved. This
factor results in almost 23 GW of installed solar PV
capacity for the BAU case which is significantly greater
than the almost 20 GW of total solar capacity installed
under the smart grid case. A comparison of installed
distributed generation capacity for both BAU and
smart grid cases for the medium scenario is shown in
Figure A2-16.
The calculated take up rates for distributed fuel cells
are shown for the medium scenario in Figure A2-17.
Figure A2-15 National distributed generation (solar) take up rates (medium scenario)
National Solar Adoption (%)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
BAU Cumulative Adoption (%)
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
SG Cumulative Adoption (%)
Figure A2-16 National distributed solar capacity (medium scenario)
Solar Capacity Installed (GW)
25
20
15
10
5
0
2014
2019
2024
BaU Cumulative CHP
2029
2034
SG Cumulative CHP
Cumulative CHP Adoption (GW)
Figure A2-17 National distributed generation (fuel cell) take up rates (medium scenario)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2014
2019
2024
BaU Cumulative CHP
This shows that CHP is taken up by 3 per cent of the

population by 2034 under BAU and to a much reduced
extent under smart grid. This gives rise to cumulative
installed capacity of 2GW of CHP by 2034 compared
with less than 0.4 GW for the smart grid case.
2029
2034
SG Cumulative CHP
As with distributed generation, take up of distributed

storage was also based on the return on investment
for each individual customer given their existing load
profile and tariff type. Due to difference in tariffs,
take up rates were different between the smart grid
and BAU case. The calculated take up rates and the
resulting installed capacity of distributed storage over
time for the medium case are shown in Figure A2-18.
Figure A2-18 National distributed storage take up rates (medium scenario)
National Storage Adoption (%)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2014
2016
2018
2020
BAU Cumulative D $
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
Smart Grid Cumulative D $
2032
2034
Under the IBT tariff in BAU, there is no significant take

up of storage. The smart grid case, with a critical peak
price and capacity network tariff applied to storage,
incentivises significant uptake of storage, mostly for
use in the twelve critical peak price events.
In total by 2034, it is assumed that this investment
behaviour results in just over 4 GW of installed storage
nationally.
Grid storage, installed on the low voltage network
near to the connection of the distribution transformer,
was also considered. Grid side storage can potentially
obtain greater benefits than customer side by
managing voltage rises and by directly managing the
impact of peak demand on distribution transformers
rather than through price incentives.
The performance of grid storage was not able to be
determined from the trial results because the grid
battery was not able to be installed within the trial
timeframe. The Grid Battery Project was handed over
to Ausgrids Demand Management Group to manage
using Demand Management Funding allowed by the
Australian Energy Regulator. A new site was found
in Homebush, close to Newington, to install the grid
battery. The Grid Battery Project has been discussed
in the Distributed Generation and Distributed Storage
At this stage, it is not possible, based on available

information, to determine whether grid storage will
deliver a higher net economic benefit than storage
installed at the customer premises. The resulting
estimate of benefits of distributed storage adoption
could be considered to be valid for network
installations as the same benefit types would be
achieved. The extent to which distributed storage
benefits will occur depends upon whether proponents
(either customers or networks) are able to access
benefits through either cost reflective tariffs or direct
demand management incentives.
Grid storage More economic?

Most electricity asset investments benefit from
economies of scale. This would tend to advantage
grid storage relative to consumer side storage.
However, at this stage, there is relatively more
consumer side storage than grid side, and leading
international jurisdictions in California, Germany
and Japan are for the most part favouring
consumer side storage investment. It remains to
be seen whether storage will mirror the solar PV
market, in where consumer side investment has to
date far outpaced utility scaleinvestment.
Figure A2-19 National distributed storage capacity (medium scenario)
Cumulative DS Capacity Installed (GWh)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2014
2019
2024
BaU Cumulative DS
2029
2034
SG Cumulative DS
9.3 Dynamic price

and product model
For the critical peak price, it was assumed that in each

year a total of six peak events over a two hour period
were able to be called by networks and six by retailers.
As discussed in section 8.2, the dynamic price and

product model considers each of the residential
customer types and quantifies the extent to which
they adopt the four dynamic price and product
combinations selected from the preliminary cost
benefit analysis:
Pre-payment plan and in home display
Seasonal time of use and in home display
Critical peak price and in home display
Demand reduction enabling device for air
conditioning
Under the BAU case all customers were assumed to
remain on inclining block tariffs for the duration of the
assessment period. These four options were deemed
to have the greatest potential benefit based on trial
results both under Smart Grid, Smart City trials as
described in Section 8.2.
Average annual take up rates and the customer

response, in terms of total energy consumption and
peak demand reduction, of each product over the
assessment period was assumed to be consistent with
trial results for each of the 20 customer types.
The adoption and response for DRED was not able
to be determined from trial results due to the issues
with this product. Adoption and response inputs were
instead, taken from previous demand management
trials undertaken by SA Power Networks21 and
assumed to be the same for all customer segments.
The assumed take up and response to each tariff is
specific to each customer type as shown in below.
It was further assumed that these specific retail
products were not taken up by customers with
distributed generation and storage. Customers with
distributed generation and storage were instead
assumed to adopt a mandatory cost reflective tariff
that varied according to the scenario.
Table A2-12 Product and pricing uptake
Product Name
Pre-Payment Plan
with In Home
Display
AC Demand
Reduction
Enabling Device
Critical Peak
Price with In
Home Display
Seasonal Time of
(Budget Smart
with Power Smart
Monitor)
(Flow smart)
(Price Smart with

Power Smart
Monitor)
(Season Smart
Use with In Home

Display
with Power Smart
Monitor)
Adoption Rate (%)
6.3%
2.3%
10.3%
4.9%
Energy Impact
5.9%
0.5%
4.0%
3.3%
4.8%
27.0%
35.4%
8.2%
Peak Demand
Impact
21 ETSA Utilities submission to AEMC Issue Paper:

Power of choice giving consumers options in the
way they use electricity, September 2011
All other customers (those who did not take up either

the opt-in dynamic price options or the capacity tariff
and critical peak price associated with distributed
generation) were assumed to remain on inclining block
tariffs.
Under the BAU case, all customers were assumed to
be on inclining block tariffs.
Analysis undertaken by NERA as part of the Smart
Grid, Smart City trials22 suggested that pre-installation
of smart meters could increase the propensity for
customers to adopt a dynamic price product. It was
theorised that making the decision to have someone
install a smart meter may act as an initial hurdle to
accepting an offer, meaning that once people have
the infrastructure they are potentially more receptive to
accepting a product.
However, no assumption to increase product adoption

due to the presence of a smart meter was included
due to:
There being no decision point to opt-in to a smart
meter only (customers were allowed to opt-in to
a tariff plus smart meter or provided with a smart
meter roll out on a mandatory basis)
Lack of evidence to substantiate the theory23
A breakdown of the distribution of tariffs adopted by
customers over the assessment period for the smart
grid case is shown in Figure A2-20.
This figure shows that by 2034, for the smart grid case
medium scenario around 12 per cent of customers
remain on inclining block tariffs. Around 23 per cent
of customers, those that have adopted distributed
generation or distributed storage, are on capacity and
critical peak price tariffs. The remaining 65 per cent
of customers are assumed to have taken up dynamic
tariffs (either seasonal time of use, pre-payment plans,
direct load control for air conditioning or a critical peak
price tariff).
Figure A2-20 Assumed national take up of different types of customer tariff, medium scenario
Percentage of Customers with Pricing and Products
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2014
2019
Capacity and DPP
2024
PPM
22 NERA, Smart Grid, Smart City Customer Applications

Program - Review of Statistical Analysis, Draft Report,
17 October 2013
DPP
23
2029
STOU
DLC
2034
IBT
ERA notes that there is insufficient information to

N
confirm this theory, but it may represent a useful
avenue for further investigation.
9.4 Metering Model

As described in section 8.3, the smart grid case
adopted in the final business case involves deploying
smart meters either on a mandatory basis or to those
customers who choose to adopt dynamic tariffs,
distributed generation and/or distributed storage (value
driven).
The new and replacement scenario (for full AMI)

was found to have net negative business case for
all scenarios for all states and so was not further
considered in the metering model.
Outside of Victoria, the metering model allows for three
possible types of smart meter roll out as described in
Table A2-13.
Smart meters are also assumed to be deployed

to allVictorian customers from the start of the
assessment period.
Table A2-13 Metering model roll out options.
Roll Out
Meter
Functionality
Customers
Benefits realised
Installation Costs
Stand alone
Full AMI
Retrofit of smart
meters to all existing
customers
Network operation
and maintenance
Door to Door Rates

(low)
Voluntary adoption
of dynamic tariffs by
some customers
Network operation
and maintenance
Dynamic tariffs
plus feedback
technologies
Full AMI
Provision of a smart
meter
Metering and billing

services
Ad hoc rates (high)

services
Peak Demand
Provision of an in
home display
Inclining block
tariffs for remaining
customers
Electric vehicle
charging
Full AMI
EV adoption with
dynamic tariffs and
controlled charging
Provision of a smart
meter
Network operation
and maintenance
Network utilisation
services
Peak Demand
Ad hoc rates (high)
For the first mandatory roll out option, the model

assesses whether there is a positive business case
for a standalone smart meter roll out for all network
types for all states. If the business case is positive, a
mandatory roll out is selected.
The mandatory model roll is also sensitive to the level
of penetration of meters under the value driven case.
That is the model considers for each period whether it
is more cost effective to:
Roll out smart meters to only those customers who
take up dynamic tariffs, distributed generation and/
or distributed storage (value driven) and thereby
receive the full set of SMI benefits per customer but
higher per unit installation costs compared to a full
scale roll out; or
Roll out smart meters to all customers to achieve
lower per unit installation costs, but incur economic
losses on those customers with a smart meter but
without distributed generation, distributed storage
or a dynamic tariff
The results of this modelling are presented in Part Two
of this report.
9.5 Electric
vehiclemodel
The electric vehicle model applies the charging
regimes to each customers load profile. For the
purposes of the model, an electric vehicle is assumed
to represent a separate load from the customer
residential bill. In this way the total impact of electric
vehicles on peak demand for any given number of
customers can be determined.
It is assumed that electric vehicle uptake for both
BAU and the smart grid case corresponds with that
projected by AECOM24. These projections suggest that
by 2030, under AECOMs central scenario (assumed
to represent the medium scenario for this analysis)
electric vehicles will represent 16 per cent of the
national private vehicle fleet as shown in Figure A2-21.
This results in 0.25 electric vehicles per household by
2034.
For the high scenario, the electric vehicle uptake

doubles to 32 per cent. Under a low scenario, electric
vehicles make up seven per cent of the national private
vehicle fleet. It should be noted that this excludes any
fleet vehicles.
For both cases, each vehicle was assumed to be a
separate load and not connected to any particular
customer profile. It was further assumed that all
charging would occur at the home. The likely
prevalence of home based charging was a key finding
of the Smart Grid, Smart City trials. A typical charging
profile was assigned to each electricvehicle.
24 AECOM (2013), Electric Vehicle Uptake and Travel

Behaviour
Figure A2-21 Electric vehicle uptake rates
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Electric Vehicles
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
0%
Conventional ICE Vehicles
0:30:00
1:00:00
1:30:00
2:00:00
2:30:00
3:00:00
3:30:00
4:00:00
4:30:00
5:00:00
5:30:00
6:00:00
6:30:00
7:00:00
7:30:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
9:30:00
10:00:00
10:30:00
11:00:00
11:30:00
12:00:00
12:30:00
13:00:00
13:30:00
14:00:00
14:30:00
15:00:00
15:30:00
16:00:00
16:30:00
17:00:00
17:30:00
18:00:00
18:30:00
19:00:00
19:30:00
20:00:00
20:30:00
21:00:00
21:30:00
22:00:00
22:30:00
23:00:00
23:30:00
0:00:00

0:30:00
1:00:00
1:30:00
2:00:00
2:30:00
3:00:00
3:30:00
4:00:00
4:30:00
5:00:00
5:30:00
6:00:00
6:30:00
7:00:00
7:30:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
9:30:00
10:00:00
10:30:00
11:00:00
11:30:00
12:00:00
12:30:00
13:00:00
13:30:00
14:00:00
14:30:00
15:00:00
15:30:00
16:00:00
16:30:00
17:00:00
17:30:00
18:00:00
18:30:00
19:00:00
19:30:00
20:00:00
20:30:00
21:00:00
21:30:00
22:00:00
22:30:00
23:00:00
23:30:00
0:00:00

Figure A2-22 Assumed electric vehicle charging profile (BAU)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Figure A2-23 Assumed electric vehicle charging profile (smart charging)
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
The assumed charging profile under the BAU case is

shown in Figure A2-22 and Figure A2-23.
The smart grid charging profile also assumes a greater

response during critical peak times (which is not
shown in the previous figures), so that effectively the
impact on peak demand is zero. The ability of smart
charging to mitigate the impact of electric vehicles on
peak demand within the distribution network was a
key finding of the Smart Grid, Smart City trials.
For the purposes of the business case assessment,
the distribution of electric vehicles was assumed to
be uniform across all feeders. It is likely however, in
practice there will be certain locational hot spots of
electric vehicles due to clustering that was unable to
be reflected in the modelling task.
Figure A2-24 Customer type mix by network type
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CBD
Urban
Long Rural
Short Rural
CT1
CT2
CT3
CT4
CT5
CT6
CT7
CT8
CT9
CT10
CT11
CT12
CT13
CT14
CT15
CT16
CT17 (BUS)
CT18 (BUS)
CT19 (BUS)
CT20 (BUS)
9.6 Diversity model

The diversity model develops an estimate of after
diversity maximum demand (ADMD). It does this for
a given mix of customers (shown in Figure A2-24) at a
given level of the network, which is defined in terms of
the number of total customers connected.
The diversity model estimates ADMD by repeated
sampling of customers in the customer sample in
the ratios observed for each network segment. This
generated a distribution around the mean outcome
which could be determined at either a 90 per cent or
50 per cent confidence interval.
A 90 per cent threshold is typically used by industry to

plan network investment in areas without redundancy,
also known as N. Network planners use a 50 per cent
threshold where redundancy exists, also known as
N-1.
The ADMD per customer function developed by the
diversity model was aligned with the sample data to
enable estimation of ADMD for systems with more
customers than were contained in the sample, e.g.
loads at zone substations and or state wide. Functions
were re-estimated each year. An example function is
shown in Figure A2-25.
Figure A2-25 Example ADMD function
18
Estimated Coincident Peak Demand per Customer
16
14
12
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
Number of Customers
70
80
90
100
In total 120 diversity functions were developed to

reflect each of the four network types for each time
period, state and macro scenario for both BAU
and smart grid cases. An additional four diversity
algorithms were also developed at state system level
based on the total state customer mix.
Modelling Diversity
Customers exhibit significant diversity in their
electricity consumption patterns. This means that
one customers time of maximum electricity use is
unlikely to exactly coincide with another customers
use. Theimpact of this diversity is that the maximum
system demand at any level within an electricity
network isalways less than the sum of the individual
customer peak demands.
Diversity has a specific meaning within the
electricity industry. Diversity factor is defined as
the ratio between the sum of individual customers
peak demand within the system and the system
coincident maximum peak demand. Diversity factor
is between one and zero; the lower the diversity
factor, the more diversity in the system in terms of
consumption patterns.
The coincident maximum peak demand is far
more important to networks than the individual
customer peak demand. The coincident maximum
peak demand is used by networks in determining
the required capacity at various levels within the
network. The coincident maximum peak demand is
also important for the generation and retail sector at
a whole of system level in understanding how much
demand may be required at any one time. Diversity
is therefore essential in determining the cost of
generating, distributing and retailing electricity.
Generally, the more diversity in the system, the lower
the coincident maximum demand, and therefore the

lower the cost of electricity supply.
Network planners use standard diversity algorithms
to predict the capacity likely to be required to meet
the coincident maximum demand peak based on the
number of customers in a system. For a system with
one customer, the maximum system peak demand
will be equal to that customers own peak. For every
additional customer, the incremental increase in
system peak will be less than the new customers
individual peak due to diversity. An example of this
relationship was shown in Figure A2-25.
These algorithms are typically based on observed
data of historical load profiles. For the purposes
of the business case assessment a model was
required that could project how these diversity
algorithms would change over time as individual
customer load profiles were fundamentally altered
as a result of technology and product types. The
diversity model was accordingly developed to
project changes in diversity algorithms over time by
using a sampling approach of altered load profiles.
9.7.1 Generation model outputs

The generation (market) model is a stand-alone model
which captures the relationships between the adoption
of smart grid technologies and outcomes in the
generation sector. In particular, the model is focused
on capturing two relationships:
Smart grid technologies result in changes in
the electricity demand that must be met by the
generation sector. These changes in demand will
lead to different decisions about investment in,
and operation of, generation assets and, ultimately,
different costs of supplying electricity. Changes
in demand will also lead to different wholesale
electricity prices.
Changes in wholesale electricity prices will lead
to different retail prices and feed-in tariffs faced
by retail electricity consumers. These changes
in prices will lead to different decisions by retail
electricity consumers about the adoption of certain
smart grid technologies.
The generation (market) model is based on Frontier
Economics proprietary electricity market models:
WHIRLYGIG and SPARK.
WHRLYGIG and SPARK

WHIRLYGIG is a long-term investment model
which determines the least-cost mix of existing
generation plant and new generation plant to meet
system demand. For the purpose of the integrated
benefits assessment model, WHIRLYGIG is used
to determine investment in new generation assets
over the entire modellingperiod.
SPARK is a model of generator bidding which
determines dispatch of generation plant and
wholesale electricity prices. For the purpose of the
integrated benefits assessment model, SPARK is
used to determine wholesale electricity prices for a
large number of representative half-hourly demand
points in each year, enabling us to capture the
effect on prices of changes in system load, both
at an annual level and an intra-day level. SPARK
takes the investment decisions from WHIRLYGIG
as given, and determines dispatch of both existing
and new generationplant.
In the integrated benefits assessment model,
WHIRLYGIG and SPARK interact with the other
sectoral models. In particular, to reflect the
feedback loop between adoption of smart grid
technologies and outcomes in the generation
sector an iterative approach was used to model
adoption of smart grid technologies and outcomes
in the generation sector.
Figure A2-26 FiT outcomes, BAU case

14
12
FiT (c/kwh)
10
8
6
4
2
0
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
QLD
NSW
2024
SA
2026
2028
TAS
VIC
2026
2028
TAS
VIC
2030
2032
2034
2032
2034
WA
Figure A2-27 FiT outcomes, smart grid case
14
12
FiT (c/kwh)
10
8
6
4
2
0
2014
2016
2018
NSW
2020
2022
QLD
2024
SA
2030
WA
9.7 Generation
modeloutputs
The generation (market) model provides two sets of
results that are used in the integrated benefits model.
The first set of results is electricity prices. The generation
(market) model provides forecasts of half-hourly
wholesale electricity prices for 20 years for each region
in the NEM and for the SWIS. These wholesale electricity
prices then form the basis for determining the retail
electricity prices to consumers. In particular, wholesale
electricity prices are used to determine:
Wholesale energy costs (WEC). The WEC is the cost
that a retailer would face in purchasing electricity
from the wholesale market to supply to its small
retail customers (including both residential and small
business customers). Changes in the WEC are
estimated over time by measuring changes in the
weighted average price calculated by weighting the
forecast half-hourly wholesale electricity prices
from the Generation (market) model by a forecast

of the half-hourly demand of small retail customers.
Changes in this load-weighted price provide a
reasonable measure of changes in the WEC that
retailers face (because the WEC is driven by spot
prices, load shape and the correlation between spot
prices and load shape)
Feed-in tariffs. The feed-in tariff is the price that
a small retail customer would receive for any
electricity generated by the customer (for instance,
by solar PV panels on the customers roof) and
exported to the grid. Changes in the feed-in tariff
over time are estimated by measuring changes in
the market value for the feed-in tariff, calculated
by weighting the forecast half-hourly wholesale
electricity prices from the generation (market)
model by a forecast of the half-hourly exports of
electricity by small retail customers
The resulting change in FiT is shown in Figure A2-26
and Figure A2-27 below for the BAU and smart grid
case respectively.
The second set of results is total economic costs in the

generation sector including:
The total capital costs of investing in new
generation assets over the modelling period
The total operating costs of both existing and new
The total fuel costs of both existing and new
The total carbon costs of both existing and new
The distinction between the two sets of results from
the generation (market) model electricity prices and
total costs in the generation sector is important for
the implementation of the integrated benefits model.
Wholesale electricity prices are relevant to financial
outcomes for participants in the electricity sector,
including generators, retailers and consumers.
However, wholesale electricity prices are not directly
relevant to an assessment of economic costs and
benefits because prices represent a transfer between
buyers and sellers: higher prices increase consumers
bills but also increase revenues to suppliers. Total
costs in the generation sector are relevant to an
assessment of economic costs and benefits because
these measure the economic resources that are used
in the generation sector.
Naturally, the two sets of results from the generation

(market) model electricity prices and total costs
in the generation sector are consistent. They are
based on the same modelling and the same input
assumptions. Changes in input assumptions over time
are accounted for in both sets of results. But changes
in input assumptions may have different effects:
for instance, in some circumstances reductions in
demand do not have a material effect on electricity
prices (if the reduction in demand does not change
the marginal generator) but still result in a reduction
in resource costs (because total operating costs, fuel
costs and carbon costs will be lower).
For the final results reported from the generation model,
an ex-post adjustment has been made to account for
the final ex-post DER adjustment from the customer
and network models. As discussed in section 9.9.1, the
final DER uptake results from the customer and network
models incorporated a final ex-post DER adjustment
that was not included during the iterative process with
the generation model. This final adjustment lead to
changes in aggregate half hourly system demand in
each region that are relatively small during most day and
evening times, but did involve additional demand for
grid energy overnight.
Given the timing across the year of this final DER

adjustment, it is unlikely to materially impact on
wholesale price outcomes and, therefore, unlikely to
affect the iterative process between the generation
and customer models. The reason is that most of the
change occurs overnight when baseload generators
with similar variable costs are meeting demand: given
the supply curve overnight is relatively flat, a change
in demand is unlikely to result in much change in the
price. However, the final ex-post DER adjustment does
involve additional energy requirements which have
associated emissions and economic costs that need
to be accounted for. This involved three processes:
The ex-post adjustments made to the generation

model forecasts ensure consistency between the
generation and customer model results within the
integrated cost-benefit model that has been used to
assess the smart grid program.
Dispatch results: The incremental annual energy

associated with the final ex-post DER adjustment
was added to the relevant regional forecast
dispatch outcomes. This assumes that the
additional demand was met by generators within
each region. In the NEM, this is unlikely to occur
in practice, however the energy will ultimately be
met across the available generation fleet and the
allocation of overnight dispatch is a second order
issue within this study
9.8.1 Sizing and configuration
Emissions results: Emissions are reported on a

NEM (eastern states) and SWIS (Western Australia)
basis. Reflecting this, the volumes associated with
the NEM and SWIS final DER adjustment where
multiplied by the forecast average emissions
intensity by year of the respective markets. Given
that the average emissions intensity is likely to
be lower than the overnight emissions intensity
(reflecting a higher proportion of emission
intensive coal dispatch overnight) this is likely to
underestimate emissions at the margin
9.8 Network model

The network model is made up of a series of submodels which determine the relative economic
performance of a smart grid enabled network
compared to a BAU network. Each of the models is
sensitive to the customer consumption profile.
The sizing and configuration model determines what

augmentation is required at each level of the network
based on changes in ADMD per customer and the
number of connected customers. The model is run at
the zone substation, feeder and distribution substation
level for all network segments by state andscenario.
The model assumes that additional network
investment is required due to:
Reaching capacity due to demand growth, or
Asset replacement at the end of the typical lifetime
(e.g. 60 years for zone substations)
Under the medium and high scenarios, significant
demand response results in some states experiencing
flat or declining demand, in some parts of the network
over the study period. In these situations, a like for like
replacement of assets is assumed to occur.
Generation cost results: Similar to the approach

to emissions, the change in volume associated
with the final DER adjustment by region has been
multiplied by the relevant total average system
cost for the NEM or SWIS. Given that overnight
average costs are lower than annual average costs
(reflecting a higher proportion of low cost coal
dispatch overnight) this is likely to overestimate
generation costs at the margin
Figure A2-28 Assumed asset lifetimes for major asset classes

Asset Lifetime
100
90
80
Lifetime (Years)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Zone Substation
HIV Feeder
Distribition Substation
Sizing and configuration under

conditions of declining demand
The electricity distribution industry has become
accustomed to growth conditions over the last
twenty years. Under expectations of a long-term
rise in peak demand, efficient network planning
sizes new capacity to account for projected growth.
Asset replacement decisions are also affected by
expected increases in peak demand, which results in
replacement with larger assets in most cases to take
advantage of incremental costs.
Once it was observed that long-term growth could
plateau or even decline under certain scenarios, a
number of replacement rules were explored with
network planning experts to arrive at a robust
modelling approach. The following planning
strategies were examined:
Replacement with comparably sized assets at
end of life
Replacement of major equipment to extend
asset lifetime
Removal of existing assets at end of life and
load transfers to adjacent assets
Changes in ADMD were largely driven by changes in

the average customer load profile from customer side
interventions. However, costs were also impacted by
network side smart grid interventions including:
AVVC technologies which have the potential to
increase power factor and reduce voltage during
peak periods and therefore decrease the network
capacity required to meet peak demand
SFM technologies which have the potential to
allow assets to operate at closer to their rated
capacities through real-time monitoring of asset
and environmental conditions and dynamic rating
9.8.2 Asset condition and

replacement
The asset condition and replacement model estimates
the cost of network asset replacement based on
typical asset lifetimes, average ages and investment in
new assets over time.
None of the smart grid technologies capable of
impacting asset replacement resulted in a positive
net benefit. However, the model provided insight into
the benefits of avoided replacement capex through
relatively lower peak demand.
The main planning decisions were whether

to refurbish or remove the existing asset, and
the timing and size of the replacement asset.
Refurbishment was not necessarily considered
the lowest cost approach due to the complexity
of replacing in service assets. Planners observed
that reducing the size of the asset would only
result in marginal savings due to economies of
scale in equipment sizing at the expense of future
optionality.
It was ultimately determined that a reasonable
approach in the circumstances was to assume
a like-for-like replacement of zone substations at
end of life. This approach was supported by a
high level sensitivity analysis, which confirmed that
none of alternative approaches would be likely to
result in significantly different long-term estimates
of costs.
9.8.3 Reliability
The reliability model determined the impacts to SAIDI,
SAIFI, MAIFI and CAIDI as a result of FDIR and SFM
technologies.
Reliability impacts were modelled based on the
assumed search time per km of feeder, the length
of the feeder in a given network segment, and the
time required to switch the network once the fault
waslocated.
The model also calculated the associated impacts to
operational costs due to search time and fieldswitching.
9.8.4 Power quality

The power quality model was used to assess the
power quality implications as a results of export of
distributed generation mostly as a result of solar PV.
When distributed generation is exported to the grid in
significant quantities, above a certain threshold, major
reverse power flow can occur resulting in systematic
over-voltage on the distribution feeder and loss of
voltage regulation.
The value of this loss of voltage regulation was
assumed to be the lessor of:
The threshold level was determined based on

modelling undertaken using the bespoke PS+EDGE
(Production System + Extended Data Grid
Environment) built for the Smart Grid, Smart City
Program. The results of this analysis suggested that
on average, where the cumulative installed distributed
generation capacity within a distribution transformer
zone was greater than 40 per cent of the transformer
capacity then excess generation would be spilled. This
value, in practice, will be highly specific to individual
feeder conditions, including age and construction type.
Newer feeders may be able to cope with a cumulative
distributed generation capacity far in excess of the 40
per cent threshold value without any issues.
9.8.5 Fault detection, isolation and

restoration (FDIR) assumptions
FDIR was assumed to require the installation of
remotely controllable field switches or reclosers at
network reconfiguration points, which depend on
network topology. All devices were assumed to include
a network interface card, and incur annual mobile
communications charges.
The value of the lost generation spilled if

inverters were tripped in the event of an overvoltagecondition
CBD urban and short rural networks were assumed to

be meshed, while long rural was assumed to be radial.
This is consistent with the placement of air-break
switches to manually isolate faulted sections of the
network.
The replacement value of a distribution transformer

to rectify the power quality issue and allow full
value to be received for the distributed generation
to beexported
These switches or reclosers allow outages to be

automatically detected and isolated such that fewer
customers are impacted by any one outage resulting in
reliability benefits.
The improvement in reliability was subsequently
determined based on the existing reliability
performance of all feeders. A reduction was then
applied assuming that the FDIR technology would
enable only one section to experience an outage
instead of the entire feeder for each event.
9.8.6 Active Volt VAr Control

(AVVC) assumptions
In the smart grid case it was assumed that AVVC is
installed in the form of automated capacitor banks or
voltage regulators on high voltage feeders.
The technology configuration assumed the following
average technology configuration by network
feedertype:
CBD feeders were assumed to not need any power
factor or voltage support
Urban feeders were assumed to require one
solution per four feeders
Short rural feeders were assumed to require one
solution per three feeders
Long rural feeders were assumed to require one
solution per feeder
Each field solution was assumed to include one
remotely communicating and operable capacitor
and one voltage regulator. It was assumed that these
would be in addition to existing field devices.
The capacitor banks were assumed to have a 15 year
replacement period.
All devices were assumed to include a network
interface card, and incur annual mobile
communications charges.
9.8.7 Substation feeder

monitoring (SFM) assumptions
Substation feeder monitoring was assumed to include
sensors on high voltage feeders and distribution
substations with a centralised distribution monitoring
and control system for the purpose of network
monitoring. Asset monitoring aspects of SFM were
excluded (see preliminary business case in Section 8).
The network state solution assumed the installation
of smart meters in distribution substations and the
installation of one earth fault indicator or line fault
indicator per HV feeder section. All devices were
assumed to include a network interface card, and
incur annual mobile communications charges. Each
sensor was assumed to have a fifteen year lifespan.
These sensors and monitoring systems were assumed
to give rise to reliability benefits by enabling field labour
to reach outages sooner. The time savings were
dependent on the feeder length, average travel time
and number of sections.
Additional benefits were also calculated by assuming
that all distribution transformer load surveys and
distribution and LV power quality surveys could be
avoided. The cost of these surveys was based on
industry benchmarks.
The effectiveness of the AVVC technology was

determined from Smart Grid, Smart City trial results
compared with other international trials and applied as:
A three per cent improvement in power factor for
each feeder
A one per cent improvement in peak demand from
Conservation Voltage Reduction
Energy losses were assumed to be negligible based
on the trial results.
9.9 The retail model

Most existing and potential future retailer costs that
may be impacted by customer, third party or network
investments in smart grid technology are captured in
the customer, network or wholesale market models.
The cost of supply accounts for around 90 per cent
of a retailers annual turnover and is comprised of
wholesale energy and network service costs. These
costs have been captured in the wholesale market and
network models, respectively.
The cost of customer acquisition is captured in the
retail model and reduces over time.
The remainder of a retailers cost structure is
comprised of their profit and cost-to-serve, which
includes customer service, IT and billing. Neither
literature review nor trial results showed these cost
elements to be materially impacted by smart grid
technology. They have therefore been excluded from
the model.
Although potentially representative of retailer costs, the
costs associated with smart metering, energy solutions
and demand management, have been captured as
costs in the customer model as part of the customer
investment decision.
9.9.1 The feedback loop

The processes described above explain how customer
actions and investments affect network and generation
investment decisions and the ultimate associated
economic benefits. However, to more accurately
assess the impact of smart grid investments on this
system requires the incorporation of a feedback loop.
The feedback loop determines how these system wide
investment changes feed back into electricity prices,
customer bills and ultimately affect customer behaviour
and customer investment decisions.
To provide this feedback, the customer, diversity and
network models were run at five year increments for
each scenario for both the BAU and smart grid cases.
At the end of each five year period, electricity prices
faced by customers were reset based on:
The change in the wholesale energy cost as
modelled in the generation (market) model
The change in network costs as modelled in the
network model
In addition, a new feed in tariff was determined for
each five year time period based on the forecast halfhourly wholesale electricity prices from the generation
(market) model.
In practice, this process required a number of
iterations between the generation (market) model and
the customer and network models.
The first iteration of the generation (market) model
provided a set of base case wholesale electricity
price forecasts for financial years 2014 to 2034. The
first iteration of the customer model then determined
the extent of customer investment in distributed
generation and storage based on financial outcomes
under these forward price projections. The resultant
load profile at various levels of the network and system
level was then developed to feed into the network and
generation (market) models for the financial year 2014
to 2018.
The second iteration of the generation (market) model

changes demand in line with the changed demand
profile from customer model in iteration one. The
second iteration then provides a set of wholesale
electricity price forecasts for financial years 2019 to
2039. The second iteration of the customer model
accordingly determines the distributed generation
and storage investment decisions from financial year
2019 to 2023, which are based on the retail prices and
feed-in tariffs from the second iteration of wholesale
electricity price forecasts.
This process then continues through a further two
iterations to make four iterations in total.
A further enhancement was also adopted which

changed the treatment of electric vehicle charging
from the time of use shape derived from the Victorian
trial results to a shape reflective of a Direct Load
Control approach. These enhancements combined,
resulted in additional peak demand reduction and
an increase of (electric vehicle based) load during
off-peak hours under smart grid case. This final
DER adjustment was re-run through the full network
model to understand impacts on network peak
demand but was not able to be run through the full
generation (market) model and instead an ex-post DER
adjustment was made (refer to Section 9.7.1).
Ultimately, in order to assess total generation and

network benefits, segments of results from each
of these model iterations were fitted together. This
allowed the reporting of results that reflect the
feedback loop between adoption of distributed
generation and storage technologies and outcomes in
the generation and network sector.
Following the final run of the integrated benefits model,
it was decided to adopt an enhancement that changed
the approach to the treatment of storage under a
DPP in the DER model. This change incorporated
the consideration of DPP within the DER optimisation
process - effectively making it endogenous to the
coremodel.
Appendix 3
Table of Results
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix Table of Results
ARUP 437
Appendix 3 Contents
1
2
Overview of Appendix Three

National
440
441
2.1
Low Scenario
441
2.2
Medium Scenario
443
2.3
High Scenario
445
New South Wales
3.1
Low Scenario
447
3.2
Medium Scenario
449
3.3
High Scenario
451
447
4 Queensland
453
4.1
Low Scenario
453
4.2
Medium Scenario
455
4.3
High Scenario
457
5 Victoria
459
5.1
Low Scenario
459
5.2
Medium Scenario
461
5.3
High Scenario
463
South Australia
465
6.1
Low Scenario
465
6.2
Medium Scenario
467
6.3
High Scenario
469
Tasmania
7.1
Low Scenario
471
7.2
Medium Scenario
473
7.3
High Scenario
475
Western Australia
8.1
Low Scenario
477
8.2
Medium Scenario
479
8.3
High Scenario
481
438 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix Table of Results
471
477
ARUP
ARUP 439
1 Overview of
Appendix Three
This Appendix presents the detailed tables of outputs
from the national cost benefit assessment including
national and individual state business cases for the
low, medium and high macroeconomic scenarios.
The tables list both the net present value (costs and
benefits) for each of the eight individual smart grid
technologies, dynamic tariffs and customer feedback
technologies defined by:
Key gross benefit categories including peak
demand, generation, network operational and
capital expenditure, reliability and metering
andbilling
Types of electricity network including CBD, urban,
short rural and long rural (feeders)
Each of these tables show the gross costs and
benefits and the total net benefits for each of
thecategories.
The low, medium and high macroeconomic scenarios
were used to test the sensitivity of the cost benefit
assessment modelling outcomes to a feasible range
of future states of the world, which were specified
as distinct sets of internally consistent demographic,
economic, technological and energy pricing
conditions within the modelling.
A full description of these macroeconomic scenarios

and the process under which they were developed
has been described in Appendix Two (which details
the cost benefit assessment methodology). However,
a summary of the macroeconomic scenarios has
been provided here:
central case
lower economic growth. Demographic trends
over the 30 year forecast period reflect slower
populationgrowth
higher economic growth. Demographic trends
over the 30 year forecast period reflect faster
populationgrowth
ARUP
2 National
2.1 Low Scenario
(4)
(15,941)
(8)
(787)
(14)
144
Dynamic
tariffs
2,542
(1,304)
(91)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(208)
(5)
5,438
123
(744)
9,942
(1,388)
(848)
AVVC
115
SFM
125
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
(806)
(15,945)
(14,367)
(795)
(680)
(168)
(43)
(263)
(263)
(119)
(1,312)
(2,707)
(165)
(213)
(213)
1,245
624
6,062
(330)
(19,467)
(9,525)
(154)
(16,095)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Reliability
1,578
Metering and
Billing
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
FDIR
Generation
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
Figures in ( ) represent a positive net present

value i.e. a benefit whilst figures outside of the ( )
represent a cost or a negative net present value
ARUP 441
Short Rural
1,578
(7,983)
(7,962)
(15,945)
(14,367)
AVVC
115
(574)
(195)
(26)
(795)
(680)
SFM
125
(6)
(162)
(168)
(43)
Standalone
144
(1)
(116)
(82)
(65)
(263)
(119)
Dynamic
tariffs
2,542
(25)
(1,740)
(807)
(135)
(2,707)
(165)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(7)
(124)
(71)
(11)
(213)
(213)
DG/DS
5,438
(38)
784
109
(230)
624
6,062
9,942
(78)
(9,752)
(9,007)
(629)
(19,467)
(9,525)
Total integrated
ARUP
Total
Suburban
FDIR
Long Rural
CBD
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Technology
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
2.2 Medium Scenario
(4)
(15,741)
AVVC
99
(846)
(9)
SFM
164
333
Dynamic
tariffs
2,514
(1,798)
(121)
Electric
vehicle
charging
265
(360)
(15,235)
2,772
2,005
(10,527)
(232)
1,882
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
(22)
(15,745) (14,411)
(855)
(756)
(252)
(88)
(796)
(796)
(463)
(1,717)
(3,635)
(1,121)
(354)
(89)
4,981
(10,254)
(230)
204
(26)
(15,971)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
1,334
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
(2,309) (16,656) (27,183)
ARUP 443
Total
FDIR
1,334
(7,899)
(7,847)
(15,745)
(14,411)
AVVC
99
(609)
(205)
(41)
(855)
(756)
SFM
164
(9)
(243)
(252)
(88)
333
(4)
(418)
(299)
(75)
(796)
(463)
Dynamic
tariffs
2,514
(33)
(2,307)
(1,130)
(165)
(3,635)
(1,121)
Electric
vehicle
charging
265
(13)
(205)
(120)
(15)
(354)
(89)
(15,235)
725
1,983
1,649
624
4,981
(10,254)
(10,527)
666
(9,455)
(7,952)
85
(16,656)
(27,183)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
1,106
Generation
-
(4)
84
(629)
(9)
SFM
108
344
Dynamic
tariffs
2,529
(1,210)
(156)
Electric
vehicle
charging
265
(466)
(4)
(19,880)
4,292
3,850
(15,443)
1,987
3,681
AVVC
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
(13)
(17)
(15,793)
(15,797)
(14,691)
(638)
(554)
(247)
(139)
(931)
(931)
(587)
(1,898)
(3,264)
(735)
(470)
(204)
213
8,354
(11,526)
(2,616)
(12,992)
(28,435)
(234)
(16,027)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
FDIR
Metering and
Billing

Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
Reliability
2.3 High Scenario
ARUP 445
Total
FDIR
1,106
(7,921)
(7,876)
(15,797)
(14,691)
AVVC
84
(449)
(158)
(31)
(638)
(554)
SFM
108
(13)
(235)
(247)
(139)
(931)
(931)
(587)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
Standalone
344
Dynamic
tariffs
2,529
(27)
(2,018)
(1,081)
(137)
(3,264)
(735)
Electric
vehicle
charging
265
(18)
(271)
(160)
(21)
(470)
(204)
DG/DS
(19,880)
137
4,472
2,318
1,427
8,354
(11,526)
Total integrated
(15,443)
79
(6,186)
(6,957)
72
(12,992)
(28,435)
ARUP
3 New South Wales

3.1 Low Scenario
(1)
(4,483)
(3)
(320)
(0)
Dynamic
tariffs
1,219
(586)
(54)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(69)
(3)
1,643
208
(451)
3,626
(447)
(511)
AVVC
48
SFM
2
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
(322)
(4,484)
(3,779)
(323)
(275)
(2)
(0)
(39)
(39)
(31)
(562)
(1,202)
17
(72)
(72)
575
332
1,975
(26)
(5,791)
(2,166)
(2)
(4,485)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Reliability
705
Metering and
Billing
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
FDIR
Generation
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 447
Total
FDIR
705
(2,407)
(2,078)
(4,484)
(3,779)
AVVC
48
(264)
(60)
(323)
(275)
SFM
(2)
(2)
(0)
(39)
(39)
(31)
1,219
(5)
(879)
(253)
(65)
(1,202)
17
(1)
(49)
(18)
(3)
(72)
(72)
1,643
(7)
510
(112)
(59)
332
1,975
3,626
(15)
(3,089)
(2,521)
(166)
(5,791)
(2,166)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural

Suburban
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
Standalone
Dynamic tariffs
Electric
vehicle
charging
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
3.2 Medium Scenario
(1)
(4,417)
AVVC
42
(312)
(3)
SFM
167
Dynamic tariffs
1,232
(705)
(76)
Electric vehicle
charging
79
(106)
(6,054)
966
1,276
(3,935)
(157)
1,200
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
(0)
(2)
(4,418)
(3,822)
(315)
(273)
(3)
(0)
(293)
(293)
(125)
(688)
(1,469)
(237)
(102)
(23)
130
2,372
(3,681)
(850)
(4,228)
(8,163)
(3)
(4,419)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
596
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 449
Total
FDIR
596
(2,376)
(2,042)
(4,418)
(3,822)
AVVC
42
(254)
(57)
(3)
(315)
(273)
SFM
(3)
(3)
(0)
167
(0)
(162)
(84)
(47)
(293)
(125)
Dynamic
tariffs
1,232
(5)
(1,047)
(350)
(68)
(1,469)
(237)
Electric
vehicle
charging
79
(1)
(71)
(26)
(4)
(102)
(23)
(6,054)
162
1,384
594
232
2,372
(3,681)
(3,935)
152
(2,526)
(1,964)
111
(4,228)
(8,163)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
3.3 High Scenario
(1)
(4,324)
AVVC
36
(236)
(3)
SFM
173
Dynamic
tariffs
1,209
(434)
(74)
Electric
vehicle
charging
79
(138)
(2)
DG/DS
(7,543)
1,745
1,776
Total integrated
(5,550)
937
1,696
Standalone
(0)
(2)
(4,325)
(3,831)
(240)
(204)
(3)
(1)
(386)
(386)
(213)
(812)
(1,320)
(111)
(140)
(61)
129
3,650
(3,892)
(1,068)
(2,763)
(8,313)
(3)
(4,326)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
494
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid
Costs
(capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 451
Total
FDIR
494
(2,327)
(1,998)
(4,325)
(3,831)
AVVC
36
(190)
(43)
(6)
(240)
(204)
SFM
(3)
(3)
(1)
173
(1)
(248)
(90)
(46)
(386)
(213)
Dynamic
tariffs
1,209
(4)
(942)
(316)
(58)
(1,320)
(111)
Electric
vehicle
charging
79
(2)
(98)
(35)
(5)
(140)
(61)
(7,543)
49
2,311
649
641
3,650
(3,892)
(5,550)
40
(1,494)
(1,834)
525
(2,763)
(8,313)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
4 Queensland
4.1 Low Scenario
AVVC
26
(1)
(3,904)
(2)
(145)
-
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Metering and
Billing
SFM
Reliability
382
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
FDIR
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
(3,905)
(3,524)
(146)
(120)
Standalone
130
(211)
(211)
(81)
Dynamic
tariffs
663
(236)
(16)
(441)
(692)
(29)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(39)
(1)
(40)
(40)
945
(52)
(123)
302
127
1,073
2,147
(327)
(141)
(349)
(4,868)
(2,720)
DG/DS
Total integrated
(146)
(3,904)
ARUP 453
Long Rural
Total
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
FDIR
382
(1,486)
(2,420)
(3,905)
(3,524)
AVVC
26
(103)
(43)
(146)
(120)
Standalone
130
(1)
(116)
(82)
(13)
(211)
(81)
Dynamic
tariffs
663
(5)
(410)
(251)
(26)
(692)
(29)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(2)
(24)
(10)
(4)
(40)
(40)
945
(5)
152
66
(85)
127
1,073
2,147
(13)
(1,986)
(2,740)
(128)
(4,868)
(2,720)
SFM
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
4.2 Medium Scenario
323
(1)
(3,855)
AVVC
24
(138)
(2)
SFM
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Reliability
FDIR
Metering and
Billing
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
(3,857)
(3,534)
(140)
(116)
Standalone
83
(313)
(313)
(230)
Dynamic tariffs
602
(295)
(19)
(567)
(882)
(280)
Electric vehicle
charging
56
(59)
(58)
(2)
(2,964)
605
323
26
954
(2,010)
(1,876)
113
303
(855)
(4,296)
(6,172)
DG/DS
Total integrated
(1)
(3,855)
ARUP 455
Long Rural
Total
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
FDIR
323
(1,472)
(2,385)
(3,857)
(3,534)
AVVC
24
(96)
(41)
(3)
(140)
(116)
Standalone
83
(1)
(176)
(120)
(16)
(313)
(230)
Dynamic
tariffs
602
(6)
(529)
(320)
(26)
(882)
(280)
Electric
vehicle
charging
56
(3)
(35)
(14)
(6)
(58)
(2)
(2,964)
128
352
341
133
954
(2,010)
(1,876)
118
(1,956)
(2,539)
81
(4,296)
(6,172)
SFM
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
4.3 High Scenario
268
(1)
(3,905)
AVVC
19
(117)
(2)
SFM
(0)
(1)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Reliability
FDIR
Metering and
Billing
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
(3,907)
(3,639)
(119)
(100)
(1)
(0)
80
(337)
(337)
(257)
Dynamic
tariffs
625
(228)
(34)
(602)
(863)
(238)
Electric
vehicle
charging
56
(92)
(0)
(92)
(36)
DG/DS
(4,077)
1,025
871
26
1,921
(2,156)
Total integrated
(3,028)
588
834
(913)
(3,398)
(6,426)
Standalone
(1)
(3,906)
ARUP 457
Total
FDIR
268
(1,495)
(2,412)
(3,907)
(3,639)
AVVC
19
(82)
(35)
(3)
(119)
(100)
SFM
(1)
(1)
(0)
Standalone
80
(2)
(192)
(131)
(13)
(337)
(257)
Dynamic tariffs
625
(5)
(502)
(326)
(29)
(863)
(238)
Electric vehicle
charging
56
(4)
(55)
(24)
(9)
(92)
(36)
(4,077)
31
1,009
766
115
1,921
(2,156)
(3,028)
19
(1,318)
(2,161)
61
(3,398)
(6,426)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
5 Victoria
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Reliability
(1)
(5,549)
(2)
(186)
(14)
Dynamic
tariffs
(283)
(0)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(57)
(0)
2,490
(114)
(3)
2,864
(454)
(5)
232
AVVC
20
SFM
121
Standalone
FDIR
DG/DS
Total integrated
(5,550)
(5,317)
(187)
(167)
(163)
(43)
(283)
(283)
(57)
(57)
(117)
2,373
(6,357)
(3,494)
(149)
(200)
(5,698)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
Metering and
Billing
5.1 Low Scenario
ARUP 459
Long Rural
Total
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
FDIR
232
(3,389)
(2,160)
(5,550)
(5,317)
AVVC
20
(132)
(35)
(21)
(187)
(167)
SFM
121
(1)
(162)
(163)
(43)
Dynamic
tariffs
(3)
(207)
(47)
(26)
(283)
(283)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(2)
(32)
(21)
(2)
(57)
(57)
DG/DS
2,490
(6)
(121)
(117)
2,373
Total integrated
2,864
(4)
(3,753)
(2,270)
(331)
(6,357)
(3,494)
Standalone
ARUP
5.2 Medium Scenario
(1)
(5,481)
AVVC
17
(254)
(2)
SFM
159
Standalone
Dynamic
tariffs
(496)
(4)
Electric
vehicle
charging
75
(124)
(3,653)
620
52
(3,205)
(253)
46
DG/DS
Total integrated
(21)
(5,481)
(5,285)
(255)
(238)
(246)
(87)
(499)
(499)
(124)
(49)
672
(2,981)
(5,934)
(9,140)
(225)
(22)
(5,705)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
196
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 461
FDIR
AVVC
SFM
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Long Rural
Suburban
Short Rural
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
196
(3,354)
(2,127)
(5,481)
(5,285)
17
(180)
(47)
(28)
(255)
(238)
159
(3)
(243)
(246)
(87)
Standalone
Dynamic tariffs
(6)
(365)
(82)
(47)
(499)
(499)
Electric vehicle
charging
75
(3)
(70)
(47)
(4)
(124)
(49)
(3,653)
251
(15)
326
111
672
(2,981)
(3,205)
239
(3,985)
(1,978)
(211)
(5,934)
(9,140)
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
5.3 High Scenario
(1)
(5,504)
AVVC
14
(156)
(2)
SFM
103
Standalone
Dynamic
tariffs
(293)
(20)
Electric
vehicle
charging
75
(128)
(4,987)
711
567
(4,632)
133
545
DG/DS
Total integrated
(12)
(5,505)
(5,342)
(158)
(144)
(239)
(137)
(314)
(314)
(128)
(53)
1,278
(3,709)
(5,066)
(9,698)
(227)
(13)
(5,731)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
163
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 463
Total
FDIR
163
(3,376)
(2,129)
(5,505)
(5,342)
AVVC
14
(111)
(29)
(18)
(158)
(144)
SFM
103
(4)
(235)
(239)
(137)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
Standalone
Dynamic
tariffs
(3)
(231)
(50)
(30)
(314)
(314)
Electric
vehicle
charging
75
(3)
(73)
(48)
(4)
(128)
(53)
(4,987)
22
520
192
544
1,278
(3,709)
(4,632)
10
(3,270)
(2,065)
259
(5,066)
(9,698)
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
6 South Australia
6.1 Low Scenario
AVVC
10
(0)
(668)
(0)
(34)
-
(669)
(545)
(34)
(24)
Dynamic
tariffs
203
(50)
(9)
(94)
(153)
50
Electric
vehicle
charging
(11)
(0)
(11)
(11)
456
(68)
112
50
506
793
(54)
(78)
18
(817)
(24)
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
(34)
Total
Metering and
Billing
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
SFM
Reliability
124
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
FDIR
Generation
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
(668)
ARUP 465
Short Rural
Long Rural
Total
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Suburban
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
FDIR
124
(250)
(419)
(669)
(545)
AVVC
10
(21)
(13)
(34)
(24)
Dynamic tariffs
203
(6)
(77)
(69)
(1)
(153)
50
Electric vehicle
charging
(1)
(5)
(5)
(0)
(11)
(11)
DG/DS
456
(13)
42
21
(1)
50
506
Total integrated
793
(20)
(311)
(484)
(2)
(817)
(24)
SFM
Standalone
ARUP
6.2 Medium Scenario
(0)
(665)
AVVC
(32)
(1)
SFM
Standalone
23
Dynamic
tariffs
206
(62)
(8)
Electric
vehicle
charging
18
(17)
(1,241)
218
117
(880)
107
109
DG/DS
Total integrated
(0)
(665)
(561)
(32)
(24)
(57)
(57)
(34)
(143)
(212)
(5)
(16)
14
348
(893)
(186)
(635)
(1,515)
(665)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
105
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 467
Total
FDIR
105
(249)
(417)
(665)
(561)
AVVC
(20)
(13)
(32)
(24)
SFM
23
(1)
(27)
(28)
(0)
(57)
(34)
Dynamic
tariffs
206
(8)
(104)
(99)
(1)
(212)
(5)
Electric
vehicle
charging
18
(2)
(7)
(7)
(0)
(16)
DG/DS
(1,241)
159
69
81
39
348
(893)
Total integrated
(880)
149
(339)
(482)
37
(635)
(1,515)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
Standalone
ARUP
6.3 High Scenario
(0)
(692)
AVVC
(29)
(1)
SFM
Standalone
24
Dynamic tariffs
212
(53)
(7)
Electric vehicle
charging
18
(29)
(0)
DG/DS
(1,239)
212
169
Total integrated
(890)
101
161
(0)
(1)
(692)
(605)
(30)
(23)
(1)
(0)
(63)
(63)
(39)
(150)
(210)
(29)
(11)
18
399
(840)
(195)
(627)
(1,516)
(1)
(693)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
87
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 469
Total
FDIR
87
(259)
(433)
(692)
(605)
AVVC
(18)
(11)
(30)
(23)
SFM
(1)
(1)
(0)
Standalone
24
(2)
(30)
(31)
(1)
(63)
(39)
Dynamic
tariffs
212
(7)
(101)
(101)
(1)
(210)
Electric
vehicle
charging
18
(3)
(13)
(13)
(0)
(29)
(11)
(1,239)
19
200
175
399
(840)
(890)
(222)
(414)
(627)
(1,516)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
7 Tasmania
7.1 Low Scenario
SFM
(0)
(635)
(0)
(53)
(0)
Standalone
Dynamic
tariffs
75
(80)
(0)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(10)
(0)
266
48
(0)
384
(42)
(0)
DG/DS
Total integrated
(54)
(635)
(603)
(53)
(50)
(3)
(0)
(9)
(9)
(5)
(39)
(119)
(44)
(10)
(10)
38
86
352
(11)
(745)
(360)
(3)
(638)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
AVVC
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
32
FDIR
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak demand
Technology
ARUP 471
Total
FDIR
32
(157)
(477)
(635)
(603)
AVVC
(26)
(22)
(6)
(53)
(50)
SFM
(3)
(3)
(0)
Standalone
(9)
(9)
(5)
Dynamic
tariffs
75
(3)
(54)
(48)
(15)
(119)
(44)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(1)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(10)
(10)
DG/DS
266
27
51
86
352
Total integrated
384
(7)
(233)
(525)
20
(745)
(360)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
ARUP
7.2 Medium Scenario
27
(0)
(625)
AVVC
(61)
(0)
SFM
Standalone
12
Dynamic tariffs
78
(129)
(0)
Electric vehicle
charging
(18)
(358)
151
(231)
(57)
DG/DS
Total integrated
(0)
(0)
Net
Benefits
$M
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
(625)
(598)
(61)
(58)
(3)
(1)
(28)
(28)
(15)
(56)
(185)
(107)
(18)
(13)
161
(197)
(78)
(758)
(989)
Total
Long Rural
FDIR
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
(3)
(628)
ARUP 473
Long Rural
Total
FDIR
27
(155)
(470)
(625)
(598)
AVVC
(30)
(25)
(6)
(61)
(58)
SFM
(3)
(3)
(1)
Standalone
12
(0)
(8)
(11)
(9)
(28)
(15)
Dynamic
tariffs
78
(4)
(87)
(74)
(20)
(185)
(107)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(2)
(7)
(9)
(2)
(18)
(13)
DG/DS
(358)
18
(7)
65
86
161
(197)
Total integrated
(231)
(294)
(522)
49
(758)
(989)
Short Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Suburban
Smart
Grid
Costs
(capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
ARUP
7.3 High Scenario
(0)
(639)
AVVC
(44)
(0)
SFM
Standalone
16
Dynamic
tariffs
81
(87)
(0)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(25)
(520)
134
(391)
(23)
DG/DS
Total integrated
(0)
(0)
(639)
(616)
(45)
(42)
(3)
(1)
(30)
(30)
(14)
(59)
(147)
(66)
(25)
(20)
147
(373)
(83)
(741)
(1,132)
(3)
(642)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
22
Metering and
Billing
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Generation
Smart
Grid
Costs
(capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 475
Total
FDIR
22
(159)
(479)
(639)
(616)
AVVC
(22)
(18)
(5)
(45)
(42)
SFM
(3)
(3)
(1)
Standalone
16
(0)
(9)
(12)
(9)
(30)
(14)
Dynamic tariffs
81
(3)
(63)
(64)
(16)
(147)
(66)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(2)
(9)
(12)
(2)
(25)
(20)
(520)
48
90
147
(373)
(391)
(7)
(254)
(538)
58
(741)
(1,132)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
8 Western Australia
8.1 Low Scenario
(0)
(702)
(1)
(49)
0.9
Dynamic
tariffs
382
(70)
(12)
Electric
vehicle
charging
(22)
(1)
(364)
27
(99)
128
(64)
(112)
AVVC
SFM
Standalone
DG/DS
Total integrated
(50)
(702)
(600)
(50)
(43)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(176)
(257)
125
(22)
(22)
218
146
(218)
39
(889)
(760)
(702)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Reliability
102
Metering and
Billing
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
FDIR
Generation
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 477
Long Rural
Total
FDIR
102
(294)
(408)
(702)
(600)
AVVC
(28)
(23)
(50)
(43)
SFM
Standalone
0.9
(3)
(3)
(2)
Dynamic
tariffs
382
(3)
(114)
(138)
(2)
(257)
125
Electric
vehicle
charging
(1)
(9)
(12)
(0)
(22)
(22)
(364)
(15)
64
113
(16)
146
(218)
128
(19)
(380)
(467)
(22)
(889)
(760)
Short Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Suburban
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
8.2 Medium Scenario
(0)
(699)
AVVC
(51)
(1)
SFM
Standalone
47.4
Dynamic
tariffs
396
(111)
(14)
Electric
vehicle
charging
32
(36)
(965)
211
233
(398)
14
219
Total integrated
(0)
(699)
(612)
(52)
(46)
(106)
(106)
(58)
(263)
(388)
(35)
(3)
29
473
(492)
(339)
(806)
(1,204)
(699)
Total
Reliability
Metering
and Billing
Network
Operation
and
Maintenance
87
FDIR
DG/DS
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Generation
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Peak Demand
Technology
ARUP 479
Total
FDIR
87
(292)
(407)
(699)
(612)
AVVC
(29)
(23)
(52)
(46)
SFM
Standalone
47.4
(1)
(46)
(57)
(3)
(106)
(58)
Dynamic
tariffs
396
(4)
(176)
(205)
(2)
(388)
Electric
vehicle
charging
32
(2)
(14)
(18)
(0)
(35)
(3)
DG/DS
(965)
201
243
22
473
(492)
Total integrated
(398)
(356)
(467)
17
(806)
(1,204)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural

Suburban
Smart
Grid Costs
(capex and
opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
ARUP
72
(0)
(729)
AVVC
(1)
SFM
Standalone
50.7
Dynamic
tariffs
403
(20)
Electric
vehicle
charging
32
(1)
(1,515)
459
(952)
437
DG/DS
Total integrated
(0)
(730)
(658)
(47)
(41)
(116)
(116)
(65)
(275)
(410)
(7)
(55)
(23)
34
959
(556)
(356)
(398)
(1,350)
(729)
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Total
Reliability
FDIR
Network
Operation and
Maintenance
Smart Grid
Costs (capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
Generation
Technology
Metering and
Billing
8.3 High Scenario
ARUP 481
Total
FDIR
72
(305)
(425)
(730)
(658)
AVVC
(25)
(21)
(0)
(47)
(41)
SFM
Standalone
50.7
(1)
(50)
(62)
(3)
(116)
(65)
Dynamic
tariffs
403
(4)
(179)
(224)
(2)
(410)
(7)
Electric
vehicle
charging
32
(3)
(23)
(29)
(0)
(55)
(23)
(1,515)
14
425
490
29
959
(556)
(952)
(158)
(270)
24
(398)
(1,350)
Long Rural
Net
Benefits
$M
2014
Short Rural
Suburban
Smart
Grid
Costs
(capex
and opex)
($M 2014)
CBD
Technology
DG/DS
Total integrated
ARUP
Appendix 4
Customer Bill Impacts
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix Customer Bill Impacts
ARUP 483
Appendix 4 Contents
1 Overview of Appendix Four
2 New South Wales
488
491
2.1
Low BAU Customer 1 10
491
2.2
Low BAU Customer 11 - 20
493
2.3
Low SG Customer 1 - 10
495
2.4
Low SG Customer 11 - 20
497
2.5
Medium BAU Customer 1 10
499
2.6
501
2.7
Medium SG Customer 1 10
503
2.8
505
2.9
High BAU Customer 1 10
507
2.10 High BAU Customer 11 20
509
2.11 High SG Customer 1 10
511
513
Queensland
3.1
515
3.2
517
3.3
Low SG Customer 1 10
519
3.4
521
3.5
523
3.6
Medium BAU Customer 11-20
525
3.7
527
3.8
529
3.9
531
533
535
3.12 High SG Customer 11 -20
537
484 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Appendix Customer Bill Impacts
515
ARUP
South Australia
539
4.1
539
4.2
541
4.3
543
4.4
545
4.5
547
4.6
549
4.7
551
4.8
553
4.9
555
557
559
561
Tasmania
5.1
563
5.2
565
5.3
567
5.4
569
5.5
571
5.6
573
5.7
575
5.8
577
5.9
579
581
583
585
563
ARUP 485
6 Victoria
587
6.1
587
6.2
589
6.3
591
6.4
593
6.5
595
6.6
597
6.7
599
6.8
601
6.9
603
605
607
609
Western Australia
611
7.1
611
7.2
613
7.3
615
7.4
617
7.5
619
7.6
621
7.7
623
7.8
625
7.9
627
629
7.11
High SG Customer 1 10
631
7.12
High SG Customer 11 20
633
ARUP
ARUP 487
1 Overview of Appendix Four

This Appendix provides the detailed results of the
customer bill impacts for all 20 customer groups that
were defined for the cost benefit assessment. These
20 customer types include residential, commercial and
industrial 1 customers and are shown in Table A4-1.
It is important to note that this information is provided
only in the commercial-in-confidence copy of this
report to the Australian Government. Due to the
commercially sensitive nature of some of these
results it will not be included in the publicly released
copy of the national net benefit assessment report.
Given the commercial nature of the information
provided in this appendix it should not be circulated
to individuals or organisations outside of the
Australian Government.
These customer types were defined for the purposes

of understanding smart grid benefits in a national
context. This is because not all customers will receive
the same benefits from the deployment of a smart
grid benefits accruing to customers depended
upon their:
Individual energy consumption profile
Pre-existing level of network reliability and power
quality
Willingness or capacity to shift or reduce energy
consumption from one time period to another
Willingness or financial capacity to invest in new
technologies to save or generate energy
Further discussion about the statistical process
undertaken in defining and selecting the final 20
customer grouping is provided in the discussion of
the methodology which is provided in Appendix Two
of this report.
1 While commercial and industrial customers were not

specifically investigated within the Smart Grid, Smart
City Program, the contribution of these customers
to the system load profile at various levels of the
network was an important consideration in the
modelling task
ARUP
Table A4-1 Cost benefit assessment modelling definition of customer types
Customer
Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Building type
Annual Gas
consumption
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
Annual
Income Level
Climate
zone
House
Low to Medium
Low
High
Z5
House
Low to Medium
Medium
High
Z5
House
Low to Medium
High
High
Z5
House
High
High
High
Z5
Unit
Low to Medium
Low
High
Z5
Unit
High
Low
High
Z5
Unit
Low to Medium
Medium
High
Z5
House
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z5
House
Low to Medium
Medium
Med to Low
Z5
House
Low to Medium
High
Med to Low
Z5
House
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z6
House
Low to Medium
Medium
Med to Low
Z6
House
Low to Medium
High
Med to Low
Z6
Unit
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z5
Unit
Low to Medium
Medium
Med to Low
Z5
Unit
Low to Medium
Low
Med to Low
Z6
17
Commercial
and industrial
0 -15 MWh
18
Commercial
and industrial
15-40 MWh
19
Commercial
and industrial
40-160 MWh
20
Commercial
and industrial
>160 MWh
ARUP 489
The results as presented in the following tables are

shown categorised by:
State
Modelling period in five year blocks from the period
starting 2019 to 2034
Macroeconomic scenario (low, medium and high)
BAU and smart grid case
Customer groups
Differences for customers who either do, or do not
adopt distributed generation and distributed storage
The total customer bill (real $2014) is further broken
into individual bill components for the following
billaspects:
Network bill component
Retail bill component
Export revenues
Yearly solar investment
Yearly CHP investment
Battery investment
ARUP
2 New South Wales

2.1 Low BAU Customer 1 10
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$440
$571
$954
$1,140
$1,718
$2,332
$2,302
$3,279
$384
$456
$788
$1,098
$487
$487
$409
$545
$753
$1,080
$1,659
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$475
$614
$958
$1,113
$1,477
$1,891
$1,874
$2,458
$414
$490
$815
$1,078
$519
$519
$441
$585
$785
$1,066
$1,488
$1,732
Export revenues ($)
-$38
$-
-$77
$-
-$191
$-
-$189
$-
-$16
$-
-$76
$-
$-
$-
-$36
$-
-$68
$-
-$70
$-
Yearly Solar Invest ($)
$262
$-
$393
$-
$1,048
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$524
$-
Yearly CHP Invest ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,139
$1,184
$2,227
$2,253
$4,052
$4,223
$5,297
$5,737
$913
$946
$2,051
$2,176
$1,006
$1,006
$1,076
$1,130
$1,994
$2,145
$3,601
$3,796
Network bill ($)
$453
$588
$926
$1,175
$1,706
$2,403
$2,275
$3,379
$372
$470
$754
$1,131
$502
$502
$396
$562
$747
$1,113
$1,640
$2,127
Retail Bill ($)
$575
$743
$1,099
$1,347
$1,736
$2,289
$2,200
$2,975
$472
$593
$925
$1,305
$628
$628
$502
$708
$918
$1,290
$1,748
$2,096
Export revenues ($)
-$46
$-
-$190
$-
-$331
$-
-$381
$-
-$68
$-
-$188
$-
$-
$-
-$91
$-
-$130
$-
-$182
$-
$234
$-
$585
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,521
$-
$234
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,216
$1,331
$2,420
$2,522
$4,281
$4,692
$5,616
$6,354
$1,010
$1,063
$2,193
$2,436
$1,129
$1,129
$1,158
$1,270
$2,120
$2,402
$3,907
$4,223
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 491
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
2029
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$495
$691
$1,013
$1,382
$2,006
$2,826
$1,264
$3,974
$422
$553
$812
$1,330
$531
$590
$448
$661
$802
$1,309
$1,849
$2,502
Retail Bill ($)
$547
$762
$1,058
$1,382
$1,781
$2,349
$1,284
$3,053
$467
$608
$879
$1,339
$582
$644
$495
$726
$869
$1,323
$1,733
$2,151
Export revenues ($)
-$160
$-
-$428
$-
-$348
$-
-$620
$-
-$129
$-
-$426
$-
-$102
$-
-$152
$-
-$364
$-
-$423
$-
$401
$-
$902
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,102
$-
$301
$-
$1,002
$-
$200
$-
$401
$-
$902
$-
$1,002
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,288
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,283
$1,453
$2,544
$2,764
$4,441
$5,175
$4,319
$7,027
$1,060
$1,161
$2,267
$2,670
$1,212
$1,234
$1,192
$1,387
$2,209
$2,632
$4,161
$4,653
Network bill ($)
$566
$834
$1,121
$1,668
$2,421
$3,410
$1,422
$4,795
$460
$667
$980
$1,605
$584
$712
$492
$798
$904
$1,579
$2,134
$3,019
Retail Bill ($)
$482
$708
$908
$1,284
$1,655
$2,182
$1,123
$2,837
$391
$565
$817
$1,244
$497
$598
$419
$675
$758
$1,230
$1,551
$1,999
-$439
$-
-$1,192
$-
-$373
$-
-$1,259
$-
-$539
$-
-$457
$-
-$649
$-
-$564
$-
-$927
$-
-$1,123
$-
$687
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$772
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$1,459
$-
$1,716
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,064
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,295
$1,542
$2,552
$2,952
$4,561
$5,593
$4,066
$7,632
$1,085
$1,232
$2,198
$2,850
$1,291
$1,310
$1,205
$1,472
$2,194
$2,809
$4,278
$5,017
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
2.2 Low BAU Customer 11 - 20

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$408
$553
$796
$1,099
$1,317
$2,117
$365
$434
$755
$1,058
$356
$447
$842
$842
$2,776
$6,256
$10,471
$19,924
$30,138
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$441
$596
$820
$1,073
$1,266
$1,763
$391
$460
$785
$1,043
$384
$482
$911
$911
$2,503
$4,862
$7,719
$14,126
$21,049
$67,689
Export revenues ($)
-$30
$-
-$81
$-
-$190
$-
-$19
$-
-$130
$-
-$57
$-
$-
$-
-$325
$-
-$1,363
$-
-$4,102
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,407
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,081
$1,149
$2,059
$2,171
$3,572
$3,881
$869
$893
$2,065
$2,101
$945
$929
$1,753
$1,753
$8,360
$11,118
$27,309
$34,050 $108,506 $166,636
Network bill ($)
$396
$570
$792
$1,132
$1,268
$2,182
$377
$447
$724
$1,090
$367
$461
$868
$868
$2,766
$6,446
$10,066
$20,528
$31,052
$101,947
Retail Bill ($)
$502
$722
$963
$1,298
$1,447
$2,134
$473
$556
$893
$1,262
$464
$583
$1,102
$1,102
$2,955
$5,885
$8,768
$17,098
$25,477
$81,930
Export revenues ($)
-$85
$-
-$147
$-
-$377
$-
-$23
$-
-$256
$-
-$70
$-
$-
$-
-$490
$-
-$2,668
$-
-$5,009
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$1,404
$-
$117
$-
$819
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,164
$1,291
$2,193
$2,430
$3,742
$4,316
$944
$1,003
$2,180
$2,352
$996
$1,044
$1,970
$1,970
$8,508
$12,330
$27,868
$37,625
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$106,109 $183,877
ARUP 493
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$432
$670
$836
$1,331
$1,378
$2,566
$403
$525
$791
$1,282
$392
$542
$1,021
$1,021
$687
$7,581
$796
$24,143
$36,521
$119,902
Retail Bill ($)
$477
$740
$898
$1,332
$1,385
$2,190
$445
$571
$858
$1,295
$433
$599
$1,131
$1,131
$761
$6,038
$882
$17,543
$26,140
$84,062
-$203
$-
-$439
$-
-$741
$-
-$136
$-
-$438
$-
-$184
$-
$-
$-
-$827
$-
-$4,063
$-
-$5,269
$-
$501
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,804
$-
$301
$-
$1,002
$-
$401
$-
$-
$-
$2,205
$-
$4,009
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,576
$-
$12,878
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,207
$1,410
$2,297
$2,664
$3,826
$4,756
$1,012
$1,096
$2,213
$2,577
$1,042
$1,140
$2,152
$2,152
$5,401
$13,619
$14,502
$41,686
$103,191 $203,964
Network bill ($)
$465
$808
$904
$1,607
$1,634
$3,096
$455
$634
$954
$1,547
$415
$654
$1,232
$1,232
$745
$9,148
$707
$29,133
$24,166
$144,683
Retail Bill ($)
$396
$688
$756
$1,238
$1,267
$2,035
$387
$531
$798
$1,203
$353
$556
$1,051
$1,051
$635
$5,611
$603
$16,302
$13,643
$78,117
Export revenues ($)
-$685
$-
-$1,131
$-
-$924
$-
-$413
$-
-$470
$-
-$594
$-
$-
$-
-$1,270
$-
-$5,646
$-
-$19,180
$-
$1,030
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$601
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$5,149
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$10,637
$-
$42,549
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,206
$1,496
$2,245
$2,844
$3,693
$5,131
$1,029
$1,165
$2,140
$2,750
$1,033
$1,210
$2,283
$2,283
$4,640
$14,759
$11,451
$45,435
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
$78,341 $222,800
2.3 Low SG Customer 1 - 10

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$449
$571
$818
$1,140
$1,557
$2,332
$1,732
$3,279
$353
$456
$776
$1,098
$466
$487
$400
$545
$788
$1,080
$1,248
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$364
$613
$664
$1,112
$1,264
$1,891
$1,406
$2,458
$286
$490
$630
$1,078
$378
$518
$325
$584
$640
$1,065
$1,013
$1,731
Export revenues ($)
-$38
$-
-$77
$-
-$153
$-
-$151
$-
-$16
$-
-$76
$-
-$33
$-
-$36
$-
-$68
$-
-$70
$-
$262
$-
$393
$-
$917
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$524
$-
$131
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,037
$1,184
$1,798
$2,253
$3,585
$4,223
$4,166
$5,737
$754
$946
$1,854
$2,176
$942
$1,005
$951
$1,130
$1,884
$2,145
$2,715
$3,796
Network bill ($)
$463
$589
$814
$1,177
$1,517
$2,407
$1,702
$3,384
$336
$471
$741
$1,133
$480
$502
$384
$563
$756
$1,114
$1,256
$2,130
Retail Bill ($)
$440
$742
$774
$1,345
$1,443
$2,286
$1,619
$2,971
$320
$592
$705
$1,304
$457
$627
$365
$707
$719
$1,288
$1,194
$2,094
Export revenues ($)
-$46
$-
-$140
$-
-$329
$-
-$327
$-
-$68
$-
-$187
$-
-$40
$-
-$91
$-
-$180
$-
-$131
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,404
$-
$234
$-
$702
$-
$117
$-
$351
$-
$702
$-
$585
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,091
$1,330
$1,916
$2,522
$3,801
$4,693
$4,398
$6,355
$823
$1,063
$1,961
$2,436
$1,014
$1,129
$1,009
$1,270
$1,997
$2,403
$2,904
$4,224
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 495
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$501
$695
$874
$1,390
$1,792
$2,843
$1,868
$3,998
$379
$556
$795
$1,338
$568
$594
$433
$665
$835
$1,316
$1,395
$2,517
Retail Bill ($)
$413
$760
$721
$1,378
$1,478
$2,342
$1,541
$3,044
$312
$607
$656
$1,335
$468
$642
$357
$724
$688
$1,320
$1,151
$2,145
Export revenues ($)
-$158
$-
-$364
$-
-$343
$-
-$732
$-
-$128
$-
-$420
$-
-$42
$-
-$150
$-
-$359
$-
-$358
$-
$401
$-
$802
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,904
$-
$301
$-
$1,002
$-
$100
$-
$401
$-
$902
$-
$902
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,156
$1,455
$2,032
$2,768
$3,929
$5,185
$4,580
$7,042
$864
$1,163
$2,033
$2,674
$1,094
$1,236
$1,040
$1,389
$2,066
$2,636
$3,090
$4,662
Network bill ($)
$570
$849
$953
$1,697
$2,187
$3,470
$2,263
$4,880
$399
$679
$971
$1,634
$636
$725
$475
$812
$931
$1,607
$1,593
$3,072
Retail Bill ($)
$358
$706
$598
$1,281
$1,374
$2,177
$1,421
$2,829
$251
$564
$610
$1,241
$399
$597
$298
$673
$585
$1,227
$1,001
$1,993
Export revenues ($)
-$431
$-
-$1,104
$-
-$366
$-
-$845
$-
-$529
$-
-$449
$-
-$436
$-
-$486
$-
-$978
$-
-$1,103
$-
$687
$-
$1,630
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$772
$-
$858
$-
$601
$-
$772
$-
$1,545
$-
$1,716
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,183
$1,555
$2,077
$2,978
$4,053
$5,647
$4,555
$7,709
$894
$1,243
$1,989
$2,875
$1,200
$1,321
$1,060
$1,485
$2,083
$2,833
$3,207
$5,065
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
2.4 Low SG Customer 11 - 20

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$434
$553
$786
$1,099
$1,210
$2,117
$316
$434
$749
$1,058
$355
$447
$1,295
$842
$3,064
$6,256
$9,268
$19,924
$35,893
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$352
$596
$638
$1,072
$982
$1,763
$256
$460
$608
$1,042
$288
$482
$1,006
$910
$2,381
$4,861
$7,202
$14,123
$24,551
$67,676
Export revenues ($)
-$30
$-
-$80
$-
-$190
$-
-$19
$-
-$130
$-
-$57
$-
$-
$-
-$401
$-
-$1,362
$-
-$4,098
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,018
$1,149
$1,868
$2,171
$3,182
$3,880
$684
$893
$1,882
$2,100
$849
$929
$2,301
$1,753
$8,712
$11,117
$25,590
$34,047
$117,766 $166,623
Network bill ($)
$416
$570
$783
$1,134
$1,158
$2,185
$326
$447
$716
$1,092
$342
$461
$1,336
$869
$3,161
$6,455
$8,840
$20,558
$37,036
$102,099
Retail Bill ($)
$396
$721
$745
$1,297
$1,102
$2,132
$310
$556
$681
$1,260
$325
$583
$1,217
$1,101
$2,878
$5,877
$8,049
$17,077
$29,685
$81,830
Export revenues ($)
-$84
$-
-$146
$-
-$375
$-
-$23
$-
-$255
$-
-$120
$-
$-
$-
-$487
$-
-$2,652
$-
-$4,979
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$1,404
$-
$117
$-
$819
$-
$351
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,079
$1,291
$1,968
$2,430
$3,290
$4,316
$730
$1,003
$1,961
$2,352
$898
$1,044
$2,553
$1,970
$8,830
$12,333
$25,940
$37,635
$116,332
$183,929
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 497
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$432
$674
$826
$1,339
$1,244
$2,581
$358
$529
$779
$1,290
$368
$545
$1,579
$1,027
$1,082
$7,626
$10,443
$24,287
$43,753
$120,616
Retail Bill ($)
$356
$738
$681
$1,328
$1,026
$2,184
$295
$569
$642
$1,291
$304
$597
$1,246
$1,128
$854
$6,021
$8,246
$17,495
$30,412
$83,832
Export revenues ($)
-$259
$-
-$432
$-
-$730
$-
-$76
$-
-$432
$-
-$240
$-
$-
$-
-$1,167
$-
-$2,766
$-
-$5,192
$-
$601
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,804
$-
$200
$-
$1,002
$-
$501
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,576
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,130
$1,412
$2,077
$2,668
$3,344
$4,765
$777
$1,098
$1,991
$2,581
$933
$1,142
$2,825
$2,155
$6,150
$13,647
$25,945
$41,782
$114,772 $204,448
Network bill ($)
$460
$823
$890
$1,635
$1,486
$3,151
$391
$645
$951
$1,574
$394
$665
$1,927
$1,254
$1,320
$9,309
$1,237
$29,646
$30,468
$147,232
Retail Bill ($)
$289
$686
$559
$1,235
$933
$2,030
$245
$529
$597
$1,200
$247
$555
$1,158
$1,048
$794
$5,596
$744
$16,259
$16,124
$77,912
Export revenues ($)
-$741
$-
-$1,111
$-
-$908
$-
-$339
$-
-$462
$-
-$583
$-
$-
$-
-$1,247
$-
-$6,877
$-
-$18,840
$-
$1,116
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$515
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$6,865
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$10,637
$-
$42,549
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,123
$1,509
$2,054
$2,870
$3,228
$5,180
$812
$1,174
$1,944
$2,774
$917
$1,220
$3,085
$2,302
$5,397
$14,905
$12,607
$45,906
$87,464
$225,145
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
2.5 Medium BAU Customer 1 10

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$440
$571
$992
$1,140
$1,756
$2,332
$2,386
$3,279
$384
$456
$788
$1,098
$487
$487
$409
$545
$794
$1,080
$1,659
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$469
$606
$977
$1,099
$1,484
$1,867
$1,900
$2,427
$409
$484
$805
$1,065
$512
$512
$435
$577
$809
$1,052
$1,469
$1,710
Export revenues ($)
-$38
$-
-$41
$-
-$152
$-
-$113
$-
-$16
$-
-$75
$-
$-
$-
-$35
$-
-$33
$-
-$70
$-
$294
$-
$294
$-
$1,029
$-
$1,177
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,165
$1,176
$2,222
$2,239
$4,118
$4,199
$5,350
$5,706
$924
$940
$2,106
$2,163
$999
$999
$1,103
$1,123
$2,011
$2,132
$3,647
$3,775
Network bill ($)
$437
$594
$915
$1,187
$1,723
$2,427
$1,147
$3,413
$376
$475
$740
$1,142
$467
$507
$400
$568
$732
$1,124
$1,634
$2,148
Retail Bill ($)
$540
$731
$1,060
$1,325
$1,708
$2,252
$1,292
$2,928
$464
$584
$889
$1,284
$572
$618
$494
$696
$880
$1,269
$1,701
$2,063
Export revenues ($)
-$94
$-
-$235
$-
-$320
$-
-$357
$-
-$66
$-
-$232
$-
-$39
$-
-$88
$-
-$175
$-
-$227
$-
$329
$-
$658
$-
$1,096
$-
$767
$-
$219
$-
$767
$-
$110
$-
$329
$-
$658
$-
$767
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,027
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,213
$1,325
$2,399
$2,512
$4,207
$4,679
$3,875
$6,340
$993
$1,058
$2,164
$2,427
$1,109
$1,124
$1,135
$1,264
$2,094
$2,393
$3,875
$4,211
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 499
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$513
$716
$1,049
$1,432
$2,078
$2,928
$1,325
$4,117
$438
$572
$855
$1,378
$564
$611
$464
$685
$844
$1,356
$1,930
$2,592
Retail Bill ($)
$505
$703
$976
$1,275
$1,643
$2,167
$1,197
$2,817
$431
$561
$823
$1,236
$550
$594
$457
$670
$814
$1,221
$1,609
$1,984
Export revenues ($)
-$137
$-
-$367
$-
-$298
$-
-$481
$-
-$111
$-
-$314
$-
-$36
$-
-$131
$-
-$261
$-
-$311
$-
$377
$-
$848
$-
$942
$-
$942
$-
$283
$-
$848
$-
$94
$-
$377
$-
$754
$-
$848
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$878
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,257
$1,419
$2,506
$2,707
$4,366
$5,095
$3,862
$6,934
$1,040
$1,134
$2,212
$2,614
$1,171
$1,206
$1,168
$1,355
$2,151
$2,577
$4,077
$4,576
Network bill ($)
$622
$886
$1,234
$1,771
$2,570
$3,621
$563
$5,092
$516
$708
$1,040
$1,704
$658
$756
$547
$847
$992
$1,677
$2,314
$3,205
Retail Bill ($)
$431
$613
$812
$1,111
$1,432
$1,888
$390
$2,454
$357
$489
$706
$1,076
$454
$518
$380
$584
$677
$1,064
$1,366
$1,729
Export revenues ($)
-$183
$-
-$608
$-
-$288
$-
-$694
$-
-$207
$-
-$353
$-
-$186
$-
-$226
$-
-$454
$-
-$553
$-
$405
$-
$1,134
$-
$810
$-
$567
$-
$405
$-
$810
$-
$324
$-
$486
$-
$972
$-
$1,134
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$85
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,275
$1,498
$2,573
$2,881
$4,524
$5,509
$2,412
$7,545
$1,071
$1,197
$2,204
$2,781
$1,250
$1,274
$1,187
$1,430
$2,187
$2,740
$4,261
$4,934
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Network bill ($)
$408
$553
$831
$1,099
$1,355
$2,117
$365
$434
$789
$1,058
$389
$447
$842
$842
$884
$6,256
$1,185
$19,924
$30,138
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$435
$589
$841
$1,059
$1,280
$1,741
$386
$454
$805
$1,029
$414
$476
$899
$899
$944
$4,800
$1,264
$13,948
$20,783
$66,835
Export revenues ($)
-$30
$-
-$44
$-
-$152
$-
-$19
$-
-$92
$-
-$22
$-
$-
$-
-$188
$-
-$2,379
$-
-$4,054
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$1,177
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$147
$-
$-
$-
$1,471
$-
$2,941
$-
$29,413
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,938
$-
$14,690
$-
$29,380
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,107
$1,142
$2,069
$2,158
$3,660
$3,858
$880
$888
$2,089
$2,087
$928
$923
$1,742
$1,742
$6,048
$11,057
$17,702
$33,871
$105,661 $165,782
Network bill ($)
$400
$575
$777
$1,143
$1,259
$2,203
$358
$451
$710
$1,101
$350
$465
$877
$877
$694
$6,510
$868
$20,733
$31,362 $102,966
Retail Bill ($)
$494
$710
$924
$1,278
$1,402
$2,100
$440
$548
$857
$1,242
$432
$574
$1,085
$1,085
$859
$5,791
$1,074
$16,825
$25,070
$80,623
Export revenues ($)
-$82
$-
-$191
$-
-$415
$-
-$71
$-
-$298
$-
-$117
$-
$-
$-
-$458
$-
-$3,238
$-
-$4,846
$-
$329
$-
$658
$-
$1,425
$-
$219
$-
$877
$-
$329
$-
$-
$-
$1,754
$-
$3,289
$-
$21,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,053
$-
$10,266
$-
$20,531
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,140
$1,285
$2,168
$2,421
$3,672
$4,304
$947
$999
$2,147
$2,343
$995
$1,039
$1,961
$1,961
$4,903
$12,301
$12,258
$37,558
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$94,046 $183,589
ARUP 501
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$447
$694
$880
$1,379
$1,442
$2,658
$432
$544
$819
$1,328
$406
$561
$1,058
$1,058
$745
$7,854
$825
$25,011
$37,834
$124,213
Retail Bill ($)
$440
$683
$841
$1,229
$1,289
$2,021
$424
$527
$792
$1,195
$400
$552
$1,043
$1,043
$736
$5,571
$814
$16,187
$24,120
$77,566
Export revenues ($)
-$174
$-
-$325
$-
-$584
$-
-$66
$-
-$376
$-
-$158
$-
$-
$-
-$611
$-
-$3,481
$-
-$4,514
$-
$471
$-
$848
$-
$1,602
$-
$188
$-
$942
$-
$377
$-
$-
$-
$1,885
$-
$3,770
$-
$18,849
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,756
$-
$8,780
$-
$17,560
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,185
$1,377
$2,244
$2,608
$3,749
$4,679
$978
$1,071
$2,178
$2,523
$1,025
$1,114
$2,101
$2,101
$4,511
$13,425
$10,707
$41,198
$93,849 $201,779
Network bill ($)
$518
$858
$984
$1,706
$1,734
$3,287
$504
$673
$1,013
$1,642
$463
$694
$1,308
$1,308
$791
$9,713
$858
$30,932
$25,658
$153,619
Retail Bill ($)
$359
$595
$668
$1,071
$1,096
$1,760
$350
$459
$690
$1,041
$321
$481
$909
$909
$550
$4,854
$596
$14,102
$11,802
$67,575
-$320
$-
-$717
$-
-$713
$-
-$163
$-
-$363
$-
-$303
$-
$-
$-
-$981
$-
-$3,852
$-
-$14,808
$-
$648
$-
$1,377
$-
$1,620
$-
$324
$-
$810
$-
$567
$-
$-
$-
$2,268
$-
$4,051
$-
$16,203
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$7,509
$-
$30,037
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,206
$1,454
$2,312
$2,777
$3,737
$5,048
$1,014
$1,132
$2,150
$2,683
$1,049
$1,175
$2,217
$2,217
$4,130
$14,566
$9,162
$45,034
$68,893
$221,194
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
2.7 Medium SG Customer 1 10
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$1,107
$571
$1,027
$1,140
$1,850
$2,332
$1,666
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,028
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,626
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$592
$606
$998
$1,099
$1,787
$1,868
$2,106
$2,428
$429
$484
$880
$1,065
$527
$512
$586
$578
$1,062
$1,053
$1,422
$1,711
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$11
$-
-$10
$-
-$14
$-
$-
$-
-$18
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$11
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$292
$-
$584
$-
$-
$-
$292
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$292
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,699
$1,177
$2,159
$2,240
$3,920
$4,201
$4,343
$5,708
$1,155
$940
$2,183
$2,163
$2,473
$999
$1,263
$1,123
$2,142
$2,133
$3,328
$3,775
Network bill ($)
$1,105
$569
$955
$1,138
$1,623
$2,327
$1,447
$3,272
$724
$455
$881
$1,095
$1,942
$486
$675
$544
$979
$1,077
$1,551
$2,060
$703
$735
$1,111
$1,333
$1,822
$2,266
$2,232
$2,946
$516
$587
$886
$1,292
$623
$621
$693
$701
$931
$1,277
$1,619
$2,075
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$50
$-
-$142
$-
-$98
$-
$-
$-
-$92
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$41
$-
-$45
$-
$-
$-
$218
$-
$653
$-
$762
$-
$-
$-
$436
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$327
$-
$327
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$79
$-
$237
$-
$237
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$79
$-
$1,808
$1,305
$2,312
$2,471
$4,193
$4,593
$4,581
$6,218
$1,240
$1,042
$2,268
$2,388
$2,564
$1,107
$1,368
$1,245
$2,274
$2,354
$3,531
$4,135
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 503
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$1,063
$1,278
$1,658
$2,614
$1,465
$3,675
$813
$511
$985
$1,230
$2,181
$546
$758
$611
$1,089
$1,210
$1,590
$2,314
$712
$746
$1,050
$1,352
$1,686
$2,299
$2,084
$2,988
$523
$596
$863
$1,311
$631
$630
$701
$711
$867
$1,295
$1,533
$2,105
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$134
$-
-$315
$-
-$267
$-
$-
$-
-$132
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$124
$-
-$126
$-
$-
$-
$374
$-
$936
$-
$1,030
$-
$-
$-
$468
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$468
$-
$468
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$65
$-
$324
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$65
$-
$195
$-
Total
$1,953
$1,385
$2,418
$2,631
$4,289
$4,912
$4,636
$6,663
$1,336
$1,107
$2,313
$2,541
$2,811
$1,176
$1,460
$1,322
$2,365
$2,505
$3,660
$4,419
Network bill ($)
$1,392
$717
$1,178
$1,434
$1,860
$2,932
$1,618
$4,122
$912
$573
$1,090
$1,380
$2,446
$612
$851
$686
$1,212
$1,357
$1,772
$2,595
$664
$690
$886
$1,251
$1,567
$2,126
$1,777
$2,763
$485
$551
$712
$1,212
$589
$583
$655
$657
$741
$1,198
$1,349
$1,947
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$393
$-
-$319
$-
-$736
$-
$-
$-
-$391
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$334
$-
-$333
$-
$-
$-
$724
$-
$805
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$724
$-
$724
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$54
$-
$268
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$54
$-
$161
$-
$2,056
$1,407
$2,449
$2,684
$4,180
$5,058
$4,537
$6,886
$1,398
$1,124
$2,323
$2,592
$3,035
$1,195
$1,506
$1,343
$2,396
$2,555
$3,673
$4,542
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$639
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,241
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,479
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,896
$6,256
$11,843
$19,924
$74,436
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$598
$589
$1,054
$1,060
$1,473
$1,742
$411
$454
$1,013
$1,030
$460
$476
$939
$900
$2,608
$4,803
$7,824
$13,955
$45,249
$66,872
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$21
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$185
$-
-$655
$-
-$1,582
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$438
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,213
$-
$8,764
$-
$29,213
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,584
$1,142
$2,466
$2,158
$3,368
$3,859
$1,213
$888
$2,155
$2,088
$1,358
$923
$3,244
$1,742
$9,532
$11,059
$27,775
$33,879
$147,317 $165,819
Network bill ($)
$984
$552
$1,408
$1,096
$1,377
$2,113
$800
$433
$1,140
$1,056
$896
$446
$2,301
$841
$3,661
$6,242
$10,744
$19,879
$41,211
$98,725
Retail Bill ($)
$708
$715
$1,255
$1,285
$1,467
$2,113
$492
$551
$1,207
$1,249
$547
$578
$1,124
$1,091
$2,850
$5,826
$8,120
$16,928
$26,707
$81,118
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$145
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$483
$-
-$2,125
$-
-$4,942
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$762
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,049
$-
$9,800
$-
$21,779
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$21,597
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$789
$-
$1,692
$1,266
$2,664
$2,382
$3,540
$4,226
$1,292
$984
$2,347
$2,305
$1,443
$1,024
$3,425
$1,932
$9,077
$12,068
$26,539
$36,807
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$107,140 $179,843
ARUP 505
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$1,231
$1,316
$2,373
$899
$486
$940
$1,186
$1,006
$501
$2,584
$944
$4,112
$7,011
$11,811
$22,327
$45,948 $110,884
$717
$725
$1,271
$1,304
$1,334
$2,143
$499
$559
$819
$1,267
$554
$586
$1,139
$1,107
$2,887
$5,909
$7,969
$17,170
$26,952
$82,274
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$266
$-
$-
$-
-$197
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$468
$-
-$2,546
$-
-$4,779
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$936
$-
$-
$-
$562
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,621
$-
$9,361
$-
$18,721
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$18,206
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$259
$-
$-
$-
$259
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$973
$-
Total
$1,822
$1,344
$2,853
$2,535
$3,580
$4,516
$1,398
$1,045
$2,383
$2,453
$1,560
$1,087
$3,723
$2,051
$9,153
$12,920
$26,595
$39,497 $106,021 $193,158
Network bill ($)
$1,239
$695
$1,441
$1,381
$1,454
$2,662
$1,008
$545
$963
$1,330
$1,129
$562
$2,898
$1,059
$4,612
$7,864
$13,249
$25,044
$51,540
$124,377
$669
$670
$744
$1,206
$1,135
$1,982
$464
$517
$676
$1,172
$516
$542
$1,059
$1,024
$2,690
$5,466
$7,418
$15,880
$25,155
$76,095
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$402
$-
-$518
$-
$-
$-
-$402
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$473
$-
-$2,575
$-
-$4,833
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$1,207
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,253
$-
$8,047
$-
$16,093
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$15,332
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$54
$-
$214
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$803
$-
$1,908
$1,365
$2,641
$2,587
$3,492
$4,644
$1,472
$1,062
$2,310
$2,502
$1,645
$1,104
$3,957
$2,083
$9,082
$13,329
$26,138
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
$1,582
Retail Bill ($)
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
$620
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 13
$1,105
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
$40,924 $104,090 $200,472

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$440
$571
$954
$1,140
$1,718
$2,332
$1,210
$3,279
$384
$456
$788
$1,098
$487
$487
$409
$545
$753
$1,080
$1,659
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$483
$625
$975
$1,133
$1,504
$1,926
$1,198
$2,503
$422
$499
$830
$1,098
$528
$528
$449
$595
$799
$1,085
$1,515
$1,764
Export revenues ($)
-$40
$-
-$80
$-
-$198
$-
-$148
$-
-$17
$-
-$79
$-
$-
$-
-$37
$-
-$71
$-
-$73
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$1,171
$-
$439
$-
$146
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$293
$-
$586
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$977
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,177
$1,195
$2,288
$2,274
$4,195
$4,258
$3,676
$5,783
$936
$955
$2,124
$2,196
$1,015
$1,015
$1,113
$1,141
$2,067
$2,165
$3,687
$3,828
Network bill ($)
$420
$627
$843
$1,254
$1,820
$2,565
$417
$3,606
$343
$501
$737
$1,207
$439
$535
$354
$600
$671
$1,188
$1,605
$2,270
Retail Bill ($)
$541
$806
$1,033
$1,462
$1,884
$2,485
$537
$3,229
$442
$644
$930
$1,417
$566
$681
$456
$768
$853
$1,400
$1,766
$2,275
-$561
$-
-$1,160
$-
-$363
$-
-$1,787
$-
-$591
$-
-$445
$-
-$631
$-
-$1,225
$-
-$1,103
$-
-$1,092
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,274
$1,434
$2,465
$2,716
$4,216
$5,049
$1,852
$6,836
$1,068
$1,145
$2,097
$2,624
$1,249
$1,217
$1,335
$1,368
$2,171
$2,588
$4,027
$4,546
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 507
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
2029
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$614
$917
$1,232
$1,834
$2,662
$3,750
$156
$5,274
$501
$733
$1,078
$1,765
$643
$783
$518
$877
$981
$1,737
$2,347
$3,320
Retail Bill ($)
$532
$793
$1,017
$1,438
$1,854
$2,445
$135
$3,177
$434
$633
$915
$1,394
$557
$670
$449
$756
$839
$1,378
$1,737
$2,239
-$543
$-
-$1,122
$-
-$351
$-
-$2,438
$-
-$571
$-
-$430
$-
-$610
$-
-$1,185
$-
-$1,067
$-
-$1,057
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,182
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,341
$1,711
$2,602
$3,272
$4,903
$6,195
$510
$8,451
$1,102
$1,367
$2,300
$3,159
$1,327
$1,453
$1,257
$1,633
$2,229
$3,114
$4,502
$5,559
Network bill ($)
$906
$1,447
$1,864
$2,892
$4,112
$5,913
$179
$8,315
$725
$1,156
$1,633
$2,784
$953
$1,235
$755
$1,383
$1,479
$2,738
$3,622
$5,235
Retail Bill ($)
$452
$720
$888
$1,306
$1,654
$2,219
$89
$2,884
$362
$575
$799
$1,265
$476
$609
$377
$686
$732
$1,250
$1,549
$2,032
-$536
$-
-$1,127
$-
-$339
$-
-$2,476
$-
-$565
$-
-$421
$-
-$606
$-
-$1,194
$-
-$1,073
$-
-$1,063
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$996
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$1,501
$2,167
$2,925
$4,197
$6,105
$8,132
$89
$11,199
$1,200
$1,731
$2,690
$4,049
$1,501
$1,843
$1,238
$2,069
$2,438
$3,988
$5,408
$7,267
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$408
$553
$796
$1,099
$1,317
$2,117
$365
$434
$789
$1,058
$356
$447
$842
$842
$789
$6,256
$1,185
$19,924
$30,138
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$449
$607
$835
$1,092
$1,289
$1,796
$398
$468
$830
$1,062
$391
$491
$927
$927
$868
$4,951
$1,304
$14,385
$21,434
$68,930
Export revenues ($)
-$32
$-
-$84
$-
-$197
$-
-$20
$-
-$97
$-
-$59
$-
$-
$-
-$254
$-
-$2,499
$-
-$4,259
$-
$293
$-
$586
$-
$1,317
$-
$146
$-
$586
$-
$293
$-
$-
$-
$1,757
$-
$2,928
$-
$29,276
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,955
$-
$9,774
$-
$19,548
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,118
$1,160
$2,132
$2,191
$3,726
$3,913
$890
$902
$2,107
$2,120
$980
$938
$1,770
$1,770
$5,114
$11,207
$12,691
$34,308
$96,137
$167,877
Network bill ($)
$334
$608
$680
$1,208
$1,229
$2,328
$334
$477
$718
$1,163
$312
$492
$926
$926
$560
$6,880
$444
$21,910
$9,197
$108,812
Retail Bill ($)
$431
$783
$861
$1,409
$1,442
$2,317
$430
$604
$908
$1,370
$402
$633
$1,196
$1,196
$723
$6,387
$573
$18,558
$8,159
$88,929
-$1,206
$-
-$1,100
$-
-$899
$-
-$603
$-
-$457
$-
-$577
$-
$-
$-
-$1,235
$-
-$6,810
$-
-$33,873
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$-
$-
$2,449
$-
$6,996
$-
$17,491
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$4,676
$-
$28,055
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,308
$1,391
$2,190
$2,617
$3,521
$4,645
$1,035
$1,081
$2,043
$2,533
$1,012
$1,125
$2,123
$2,123
$3,432
$13,267
$5,879
$40,468
$29,029
$197,741
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 509
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$489
$889
$994
$1,767
$1,797
$3,405
$488
$697
$1,049
$1,701
$457
$719
$488
$1,355
$819
$10,060
$578
$32,039
$13,449
$159,117
Retail Bill ($)
$424
$771
$847
$1,387
$1,419
$2,279
$423
$594
$894
$1,348
$396
$623
$424
$1,177
$712
$6,285
$502
$18,260
$8,028
$87,501
Export revenues ($)
-$1,167
$-
-$1,064
$-
-$869
$-
-$583
$-
-$442
$-
-$558
$-
-$537
$-
-$1,195
$-
-$7,886
$-
-$32,766
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$-
$-
$2,065
$-
$7,375
$-
$14,751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$394
$-
$788
$-
$3,939
$-
$23,636
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,221
$1,660
$2,252
$3,153
$3,821
$5,684
$1,065
$1,292
$2,238
$3,049
$1,032
$1,342
$770
$2,532
$3,188
$16,345
$4,510
$50,300
$27,097
$246,618
Network bill ($)
$709
$1,402
$1,499
$2,786
$2,755
$5,368
$705
$1,099
$1,584
$2,682
$720
$1,134
$770
$2,136
$146
$15,862
$912
$50,514
$7,924
$250,869
Retail Bill ($)
$354
$700
$737
$1,259
$1,257
$2,069
$352
$539
$778
$1,223
$359
$566
$385
$1,068
$73
$5,705
$456
$16,576
$3,024
$79,428
Export revenues ($)
-$1,176
$-
-$1,070
$-
-$870
$-
-$577
$-
-$432
$-
-$572
$-
-$550
$-
-$2,746
$-
-$8,076
$-
-$49,753
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$-
$-
$1,742
$-
$6,220
$-
$12,440
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$332
$-
$1,327
$-
$3,319
$-
$26,550
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,187
$2,101
$2,467
$4,044
$4,443
$7,437
$1,158
$1,639
$2,608
$3,906
$1,129
$1,699
$937
$3,204
$543
$21,567
$2,830
$67,090
$184
$330,297
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$1,107
$571
$1,027
$1,140
$1,840
$2,332
$1,655
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,028
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,052
$1,080
$1,626
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$608
$625
$1,025
$1,133
$1,764
$1,926
$2,084
$2,504
$442
$499
$904
$1,098
$541
$528
$602
$595
$881
$1,086
$1,463
$1,764
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$12
$-
-$30
$-
-$30
$-
$-
$-
-$18
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$9
$-
-$12
$-
$-
$-
$145
$-
$436
$-
$727
$-
$-
$-
$291
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$291
$-
$291
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,716
$1,196
$2,185
$2,274
$4,010
$4,259
$4,436
$5,783
$1,168
$955
$2,205
$2,196
$2,487
$1,015
$1,279
$1,141
$2,215
$2,165
$3,367
$3,829
Network bill ($)
$1,123
$579
$1,006
$1,157
$1,822
$2,366
$1,627
$3,327
$736
$463
$1,008
$1,114
$1,974
$494
$653
$553
$1,035
$1,095
$1,613
$2,094
$765
$808
$947
$1,464
$1,890
$2,489
$2,138
$3,235
$564
$645
$853
$1,419
$676
$683
$432
$769
$801
$1,402
$1,525
$2,279
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,165
$-
-$364
$-
-$841
$-
$-
$-
-$447
$-
$-
$-
-$1,231
$-
-$1,108
$-
-$1,098
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$869
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,888
$1,386
$2,525
$2,621
$4,216
$4,855
$4,662
$6,562
$1,301
$1,107
$2,284
$2,533
$2,650
$1,176
$1,592
$1,323
$2,465
$2,498
$3,778
$4,373
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 511
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$693
$1,127
$1,385
$1,797
$2,833
$1,564
$3,983
$711
$554
$1,053
$1,333
$2,363
$591
$629
$663
$1,162
$1,312
$1,701
$2,508
$758
$799
$925
$1,450
$1,800
$2,464
$2,044
$3,203
$353
$638
$817
$1,405
$670
$676
$401
$762
$780
$1,388
$1,472
$2,256
Export revenues ($)
-$1,152
$-
-$360
$-
-$831
$-
-$586
$-
-$441
$-
$-
$-
-$1,216
$-
-$1,095
$-
-$1,085
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$733
$-
$1,465
$-
$733
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$68
$-
$342
$-
$342
$-
$68
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$68
$-
$205
$-
Total
$2,103
$1,492
$2,434
$2,835
$4,311
$5,297
$4,584
$7,186
$1,279
$1,192
$2,298
$2,738
$3,034
$1,267
$1,416
$1,424
$2,381
$2,700
$3,759
$4,764
Network bill ($)
$1,663
$857
$1,394
$1,713
$2,222
$3,503
$1,934
$4,926
$791
$685
$1,303
$1,649
$2,923
$731
$777
$819
$1,371
$1,622
$2,104
$3,101
$697
$728
$849
$1,320
$1,648
$2,244
$1,870
$2,916
$320
$581
$748
$1,279
$617
$615
$368
$694
$705
$1,264
$1,344
$2,055
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,191
$-
-$372
$-
-$859
$-
-$606
$-
-$456
$-
$-
$-
-$1,257
$-
-$1,132
$-
-$1,121
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$283
$-
$283
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$170
$-
$2,360
$1,585
$2,345
$3,033
$4,398
$5,747
$4,463
$7,842
$1,236
$1,266
$2,326
$2,928
$3,540
$1,347
$1,237
$1,513
$2,292
$2,886
$3,732
$5,156
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,345
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,468
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$1,602
$6,256
$11,399
$19,924
$41,933
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$614
$607
$1,083
$1,093
$1,441
$1,796
$423
$468
$1,041
$1,062
$473
$491
$966
$928
$992
$4,953
$7,612
$14,390
$23,362
$68,952
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$41
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$254
$-
-$1,028
$-
-$4,256
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$582
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,745
$-
$10,177
$-
$29,077
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,053
$-
$-
$-
$20,530
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,600
$1,160
$2,495
$2,191
$3,449
$3,914
$1,225
$902
$2,183
$2,120
$1,371
$938
$3,272
$1,770
$6,138
$11,209
$28,160
$34,313
$110,647 $167,899
Network bill ($)
$1,000
$561
$1,217
$1,115
$1,418
$2,148
$813
$440
$1,098
$1,073
$911
$454
$2,339
$855
$1,267
$6,346
$1,670
$20,210
$42,535 $100,367
$769
$785
$786
$1,412
$1,300
$2,321
$538
$605
$832
$1,372
$596
$634
$1,228
$1,198
$808
$6,399
$597
$18,591
$29,214
$89,087
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,105
$-
-$903
$-
$-
$-
-$459
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,241
$-
-$8,191
$-
-$5,521
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,432
$-
$8,686
$-
$17,372
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$972
$-
$4,860
$-
$9,720
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,769
$1,345
$2,635
$2,526
$3,552
$4,468
$1,351
$1,045
$2,339
$2,445
$1,507
$1,088
$3,567
$2,053
$4,239
$12,745
$7,623
$38,801
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$93,322 $189,454
ARUP 513
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$643
$671
$1,380
$1,335
$1,467
$2,572
$974
$527
$1,007
$1,285
$1,091
$543
$2,800
$1,023
$1,518
$7,598
$2,000
$24,198
$33,543
$120,177
Retail Bill ($)
$350
$777
$765
$1,398
$1,253
$2,297
$533
$599
$786
$1,358
$590
$628
$1,217
$1,186
$801
$6,335
$592
$18,405
$16,292
$88,194
Export revenues ($)
-$1,195
$-
-$1,092
$-
-$892
$-
$-
$-
-$454
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,227
$-
-$8,095
$-
-$18,511
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,051
$-
$7,325
$-
$14,651
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$793
$-
$3,965
$-
$15,859
$-
$342
$-
$68
$-
$205
$-
$-
$-
$274
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,027
$-
$1,606
$1,448
$2,586
$2,732
$3,498
$4,869
$1,507
$1,126
$2,346
$2,643
$1,681
$1,171
$4,017
$2,210
$3,936
$13,933
$5,787
$42,604
$62,860 $208,372
Network bill ($)
$796
$830
$1,707
$1,650
$1,814
$3,180
$1,204
$651
$1,151
$1,589
$1,349
$672
$3,463
$1,265
$1,877
$9,396
$2,473
$29,925
$41,480
$148,616
Retail Bill ($)
$318
$707
$701
$1,273
$1,145
$2,092
$488
$545
$712
$1,237
$542
$572
$1,114
$1,080
$739
$5,768
$546
$16,760
$14,990
$80,310
-$1,235
$-
-$1,129
$-
-$922
$-
$-
$-
-$468
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,268
$-
-$8,367
$-
-$19,133
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,730
$-
$6,178
$-
$12,355
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$645
$-
$3,223
$-
$12,892
$-
$283
$-
$57
$-
$170
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$848
$-
$1,397
$1,538
$2,571
$2,923
$3,441
$5,272
$1,692
$1,197
$2,295
$2,826
$1,891
$1,243
$4,577
$2,346
$3,722
$15,165
$4,053
$46,684
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Battery investm ($)

Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
$63,431 $228,926
3 Queensland
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$431
$571
$878
$1,140
$1,599
$2,332
$2,180
$3,279
$355
$456
$730
$1,098
$487
$487
$377
$545
$702
$1,080
$1,557
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$474
$625
$907
$1,133
$1,423
$1,926
$1,834
$2,503
$390
$499
$777
$1,098
$528
$528
$414
$595
$752
$1,085
$1,447
$1,764
Export revenues ($)
-$42
$-
-$169
$-
-$294
$-
-$302
$-
-$62
$-
-$123
$-
$-
$-
-$84
$-
-$118
$-
-$162
$-
$262
$-
$655
$-
$1,310
$-
$1,572
$-
$262
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$393
$-
$655
$-
$786
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,125
$1,195
$2,271
$2,274
$4,038
$4,258
$5,285
$5,783
$946
$955
$2,040
$2,196
$1,015
$1,015
$1,101
$1,141
$1,991
$2,165
$3,628
$3,828
Network bill ($)
$408
$565
$830
$1,129
$1,582
$2,308
$2,060
$3,245
$352
$451
$678
$1,086
$442
$482
$373
$540
$673
$1,069
$1,518
$2,043
Retail Bill ($)
$549
$759
$1,058
$1,376
$1,728
$2,339
$2,155
$3,040
$474
$606
$892
$1,334
$590
$641
$503
$723
$889
$1,318
$1,736
$2,142
Export revenues ($)
-$107
$-
-$322
$-
-$358
$-
-$600
$-
-$75
$-
-$262
$-
-$44
$-
-$102
$-
-$200
$-
-$255
$-
$351
$-
$819
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,872
$-
$234
$-
$819
$-
$117
$-
$351
$-
$702
$-
$819
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,201
$1,324
$2,386
$2,505
$4,123
$4,647
$5,487
$6,286
$985
$1,057
$2,128
$2,420
$1,105
$1,123
$1,125
$1,263
$2,064
$2,387
$3,818
$4,185
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 515
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$433
$637
$844
$1,274
$1,786
$2,605
$2,248
$3,663
$357
$509
$721
$1,226
$462
$544
$378
$609
$692
$1,206
$1,626
$2,306
Retail Bill ($)
$554
$814
$1,032
$1,477
$1,855
$2,510
$2,257
$3,262
$458
$650
$905
$1,431
$590
$688
$484
$776
$876
$1,414
$1,782
$2,298
Export revenues ($)
-$318
$-
-$952
$-
-$383
$-
-$904
$-
-$349
$-
-$475
$-
-$319
$-
-$376
$-
-$615
$-
-$744
$-
$601
$-
$1,603
$-
$1,002
$-
$2,004
$-
$601
$-
$1,002
$-
$501
$-
$702
$-
$1,203
$-
$1,403
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,271
$1,452
$2,527
$2,751
$4,260
$5,115
$5,606
$6,925
$1,067
$1,160
$2,154
$2,657
$1,234
$1,232
$1,188
$1,385
$2,155
$2,620
$4,067
$4,604
Network bill ($)
$490
$747
$964
$1,493
$2,093
$3,054
$2,635
$4,294
$400
$597
$845
$1,437
$515
$638
$412
$714
$776
$1,414
$1,868
$2,703
Retail Bill ($)
$520
$790
$980
$1,433
$1,800
$2,436
$2,191
$3,166
$424
$631
$878
$1,389
$547
$668
$437
$753
$817
$1,373
$1,701
$2,231
-$648
$-
-$1,330
$-
-$413
$-
-$974
$-
-$681
$-
-$512
$-
-$724
$-
-$1,412
$-
-$1,276
$-
-$1,258
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,220
$1,537
$2,330
$2,927
$4,339
$5,490
$5,568
$7,460
$1,001
$1,228
$2,070
$2,827
$1,196
$1,306
$1,154
$1,467
$2,033
$2,787
$4,028
$4,934
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$374
$553
$751
$1,099
$1,203
$2,117
$360
$434
$713
$1,058
$349
$447
$842
$842
$2,454
$6,256
$9,582
$19,924
$29,180
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$411
$607
$793
$1,092
$1,193
$1,796
$393
$468
$760
$1,062
$384
$491
$927
$927
$2,327
$4,952
$7,248
$14,388
$20,776
$68,942
Export revenues ($)
-$77
$-
-$133
$-
-$293
$-
-$21
$-
-$189
$-
-$63
$-
$-
$-
-$447
$-
-$1,992
$-
-$4,659
$-
$393
$-
$655
$-
$1,441
$-
$131
$-
$786
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$11,793
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,101
$1,160
$2,066
$2,191
$3,545
$3,913
$863
$902
$2,071
$2,120
$933
$938
$1,770
$1,770
$8,004
$11,208
$26,632
$34,311
$106,718 $167,889
Network bill ($)
$354
$547
$705
$1,087
$1,125
$2,095
$334
$429
$662
$1,047
$325
$442
$834
$834
$2,429
$6,191
$9,165
$19,716
$28,876
$97,918
Retail Bill ($)
$478
$738
$918
$1,327
$1,378
$2,181
$450
$569
$872
$1,290
$439
$596
$1,126
$1,126
$2,826
$6,014
$8,534
$17,474
$25,233
$83,730
Export revenues ($)
-$152
$-
-$277
$-
-$527
$-
-$80
$-
-$342
$-
-$132
$-
$-
$-
-$544
$-
-$2,993
$-
-$5,673
$-
$468
$-
$819
$-
$1,638
$-
$234
$-
$936
$-
$351
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,148
$1,285
$2,165
$2,414
$3,615
$4,276
$937
$998
$2,128
$2,337
$984
$1,039
$1,960
$1,960
$7,988
$12,205
$26,409
$37,190
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
$103,025 $181,649
ARUP 517
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$362
$618
$697
$1,227
$1,186
$2,365
$348
$484
$714
$1,182
$314
$499
$941
$941
$2,741
$6,988
$10,344
$22,254
$32,593
$110,521
Retail Bill ($)
$463
$791
$874
$1,424
$1,394
$2,340
$445
$610
$897
$1,384
$403
$640
$1,208
$1,208
$3,032
$6,453
$9,156
$18,748
$27,073
$89,836
-$433
$-
-$974
$-
-$960
$-
-$288
$-
-$494
$-
-$475
$-
$-
$-
-$582
$-
-$3,200
$-
-$6,066
$-
$802
$-
$1,704
$-
$2,004
$-
$501
$-
$1,002
$-
$802
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,194
$1,409
$2,300
$2,651
$3,625
$4,705
$1,006
$1,095
$2,119
$2,565
$1,044
$1,139
$2,149
$2,149
$7,998
$13,440
$26,321
$41,002
$99,399 $200,357
Network bill ($)
$386
$724
$798
$1,439
$1,391
$2,772
$387
$568
$836
$1,385
$356
$585
$1,103
$1,103
$591
$8,191
$12,126
$26,086
$38,206 $129,554
Retail Bill ($)
$410
$768
$830
$1,382
$1,353
$2,271
$411
$592
$871
$1,343
$378
$621
$1,173
$1,173
$629
$6,263
$8,887
$18,197
$26,278
$87,198
-$1,391
$-
-$1,277
$-
-$1,035
$-
-$693
$-
-$532
$-
-$662
$-
$-
$-
-$1,429
$-
-$3,450
$-
-$6,540
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$8,581
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$-
$-
$21,274
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,122
$1,492
$2,067
$2,820
$3,425
$5,044
$963
$1,160
$2,033
$2,728
$929
$1,206
$2,276
$2,276
$4,322
$14,454
$26,144
$44,284
$96,381
$216,752
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
3.3 Low SG Customer 1 10
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$440
$571
$775
$1,140
$1,434
$2,332
$1,640
$3,279
$320
$456
$721
$1,098
$463
$487
$365
$545
$739
$1,080
$1,194
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$364
$625
$640
$1,133
$1,185
$1,925
$1,355
$2,502
$265
$499
$596
$1,098
$383
$528
$302
$595
$610
$1,085
$987
$1,763
Export revenues ($)
-$42
$-
-$125
$-
-$294
$-
-$256
$-
-$62
$-
-$123
$-
-$36
$-
-$84
$-
-$118
$-
-$117
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,310
$-
$1,441
$-
$262
$-
$655
$-
$131
$-
$393
$-
$655
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,025
$1,195
$1,814
$2,273
$3,636
$4,257
$4,181
$5,781
$786
$955
$1,850
$2,195
$941
$1,015
$976
$1,140
$1,887
$2,165
$2,719
$3,827
Network bill ($)
$416
$570
$728
$1,139
$1,432
$2,329
$1,571
$3,275
$320
$455
$672
$1,096
$463
$486
$365
$545
$695
$1,078
$1,146
$2,062
Retail Bill ($)
$417
$757
$729
$1,372
$1,436
$2,332
$1,575
$3,031
$321
$604
$674
$1,330
$464
$639
$366
$721
$697
$1,314
$1,149
$2,136
-$106
$-
-$261
$-
-$355
$-
-$478
$-
-$74
$-
-$260
$-
-$44
$-
-$101
$-
-$257
$-
-$253
$-
$351
$-
$702
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,638
$-
$234
$-
$819
$-
$117
$-
$351
$-
$819
$-
$819
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,079
$1,326
$1,899
$2,511
$3,683
$4,661
$4,307
$6,306
$800
$1,060
$1,906
$2,426
$1,000
$1,126
$980
$1,266
$1,954
$2,393
$2,862
$4,197
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 519
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$445
$657
$748
$1,313
$1,651
$2,685
$1,709
$3,775
$328
$525
$722
$1,264
$511
$561
$376
$628
$739
$1,243
$1,246
$2,377
Retail Bill ($)
$414
$810
$696
$1,469
$1,536
$2,496
$1,591
$3,244
$305
$647
$672
$1,423
$475
$684
$350
$772
$688
$1,406
$1,160
$2,286
Export revenues ($)
-$311
$-
-$730
$-
-$375
$-
-$886
$-
-$274
$-
-$465
$-
-$177
$-
-$300
$-
-$603
$-
-$661
$-
$601
$-
$1,303
$-
$1,002
$-
$2,004
$-
$501
$-
$1,002
$-
$301
$-
$601
$-
$1,203
$-
$1,303
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,150
$1,467
$2,017
$2,781
$3,814
$5,181
$4,418
$7,019
$860
$1,172
$1,931
$2,687
$1,109
$1,245
$1,026
$1,399
$2,026
$2,649
$3,048
$4,662
Network bill ($)
$502
$774
$831
$1,547
$1,945
$3,164
$2,014
$4,449
$352
$619
$851
$1,489
$560
$661
$396
$740
$823
$1,465
$1,423
$2,801
Retail Bill ($)
$385
$785
$637
$1,424
$1,490
$2,420
$1,543
$3,146
$270
$627
$652
$1,380
$429
$664
$303
$748
$630
$1,364
$1,090
$2,216
-$632
$-
-$1,297
$-
-$403
$-
-$950
$-
-$664
$-
-$499
$-
-$707
$-
-$1,378
$-
-$1,245
$-
-$1,228
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,113
$1,559
$1,887
$2,971
$3,890
$5,584
$4,322
$7,594
$816
$1,246
$1,862
$2,869
$1,140
$1,324
$1,038
$1,488
$1,925
$2,829
$3,002
$5,017
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$394
$553
$744
$1,099
$1,082
$2,117
$311
$434
$708
$1,058
$349
$447
$1,295
$842
$2,895
$6,256
$8,505
$19,924
$67,171
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$326
$607
$615
$1,092
$895
$1,795
$257
$468
$585
$1,061
$288
$491
$1,024
$927
$2,290
$4,949
$6,728
$14,378
$46,776
$68,899
Export revenues ($)
-$77
$-
-$133
$-
-$337
$-
-$21
$-
-$189
$-
-$62
$-
$-
$-
-$446
$-
-$1,988
$-
-$1,886
$-
$393
$-
$655
$-
$1,572
$-
$131
$-
$786
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$11,793
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,036
$1,160
$1,881
$2,191
$3,212
$3,912
$679
$902
$1,890
$2,119
$837
$938
$2,319
$1,769
$8,408
$11,205
$25,037
Network bill ($)
$373
$552
$721
$1,097
$1,037
$2,115
$287
$433
$641
$1,057
$323
$447
$1,293
$841
$2,891
$6,248
$8,167
$19,898
$35,133
$98,819
Retail Bill ($)
$374
$735
$723
$1,323
$1,039
$2,174
$288
$567
$642
$1,286
$324
$594
$1,241
$1,123
$2,774
$5,995
$7,837
$17,419
$29,678
$83,470
Export revenues ($)
-$151
$-
-$217
$-
-$522
$-
-$80
$-
-$398
$-
-$131
$-
$-
$-
-$540
$-
-$2,969
$-
-$5,627
$-
$468
$-
$702
$-
$1,638
$-
$234
$-
$1,053
$-
$351
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,063
$1,287
$1,930
$2,420
$3,192
$4,289
$730
$1,000
$1,938
$2,342
$868
$1,041
$2,534
$1,964
$8,403
$12,243
$24,739
$37,317
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$34,302 $138,267 $167,846
$113,774 $182,288
ARUP 521
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$368
$636
$716
$1,265
$1,100
$2,437
$307
$499
$720
$1,218
$305
$515
$1,491
$970
$3,332
$7,202
$9,414
$22,935
$40,496
$113,902
Retail Bill ($)
$342
$787
$666
$1,416
$1,024
$2,327
$285
$607
$670
$1,376
$284
$636
$1,328
$1,202
$2,969
$6,417
$8,388
$18,643
$31,764
$89,336
-$492
$-
-$818
$-
-$941
$-
-$215
$-
-$484
$-
-$465
$-
$-
$-
-$570
$-
-$3,137
$-
-$5,946
$-
$902
$-
$1,503
$-
$2,004
$-
$401
$-
$1,002
$-
$802
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,119
$1,423
$2,067
$2,680
$3,187
$4,765
$778
$1,106
$1,908
$2,594
$925
$1,151
$2,819
$2,172
$8,538
$13,618
$24,687
$41,578
$112,114 $203,238
Network bill ($)
$385
$750
$803
$1,490
$1,296
$2,872
$330
$588
$848
$1,435
$343
$606
$1,757
$1,143
$1,094
$8,486
$11,093
$27,026
$47,719
$134,219
Retail Bill ($)
$295
$763
$615
$1,373
$993
$2,257
$252
$588
$650
$1,334
$263
$617
$1,288
$1,165
$802
$6,222
$8,134
$18,079
$30,802
$86,630
-$1,357
$-
-$1,246
$-
-$1,010
$-
-$676
$-
-$519
$-
-$646
$-
$-
$-
-$1,394
$-
-$3,366
$-
-$6,381
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$8,581
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$-
$-
$21,274
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,038
$1,513
$1,889
$2,863
$2,996
$5,129
$764
$1,177
$1,837
$2,769
$817
$1,223
$3,045
$2,308
$5,032
$14,708
$24,443
$45,105
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
$110,578 $220,849
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$431
$571
$905
$1,140
$1,630
$2,332
$2,246
$3,279
$380
$456
$730
$1,098
$487
$487
$402
$545
$730
$1,080
$1,588
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$487
$642
$957
$1,165
$1,485
$1,979
$1,926
$2,572
$429
$513
$799
$1,129
$543
$543
$453
$612
$800
$1,115
$1,509
$1,812
Export revenues ($)
-$45
$-
-$133
$-
-$266
$-
-$226
$-
-$19
$-
-$132
$-
$-
$-
-$43
$-
-$79
$-
-$125
$-
$294
$-
$588
$-
$1,324
$-
$1,471
$-
$147
$-
$735
$-
$-
$-
$294
$-
$588
$-
$735
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,168
$1,213
$2,317
$2,305
$4,172
$4,311
$5,417
$5,852
$936
$969
$2,133
$2,226
$1,030
$1,030
$1,106
$1,157
$2,039
$2,195
$3,707
$3,877
Network bill ($)
$393
$559
$775
$1,118
$1,567
$2,286
$1,972
$3,214
$326
$447
$633
$1,076
$418
$477
$345
$535
$627
$1,058
$1,450
$2,023
Retail Bill ($)
$571
$811
$1,072
$1,470
$1,847
$2,499
$2,247
$3,248
$474
$648
$901
$1,425
$604
$685
$501
$773
$900
$1,408
$1,799
$2,289
Export revenues ($)
-$181
$-
-$611
$-
-$385
$-
-$908
$-
-$212
$-
-$477
$-
-$182
$-
-$240
$-
-$411
$-
-$539
$-
$439
$-
$1,206
$-
$1,096
$-
$2,193
$-
$439
$-
$1,096
$-
$329
$-
$548
$-
$987
$-
$1,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,221
$1,370
$2,442
$2,588
$4,125
$4,785
$5,505
$6,463
$1,027
$1,094
$2,153
$2,501
$1,169
$1,163
$1,154
$1,307
$2,103
$2,467
$3,916
$4,312
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 523
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
2029
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$423
$645
$832
$1,289
$1,807
$2,636
$2,275
$3,707
$345
$515
$730
$1,241
$445
$550
$364
$617
$670
$1,221
$1,613
$2,334
Retail Bill ($)
$579
$880
$1,090
$1,595
$2,003
$2,711
$2,438
$3,524
$472
$702
$978
$1,546
$608
$743
$498
$838
$909
$1,528
$1,894
$2,483
-$599
$-
-$1,229
$-
-$382
$-
-$900
$-
-$629
$-
-$473
$-
-$669
$-
-$800
$-
-$1,179
$-
-$1,163
$-
$942
$-
$1,885
$-
$942
$-
$1,885
$-
$942
$-
$942
$-
$942
$-
$1,225
$-
$1,885
$-
$1,885
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,345
$1,525
$2,579
$2,885
$4,372
$5,348
$5,698
$7,231
$1,130
$1,218
$2,177
$2,787
$1,326
$1,294
$1,287
$1,455
$2,285
$2,749
$4,229
$4,817
Network bill ($)
$513
$781
$1,008
$1,562
$2,189
$3,193
$1,184
$4,490
$418
$624
$884
$1,503
$539
$667
$431
$747
$811
$1,479
$1,954
$2,827
Retail Bill ($)
$567
$862
$1,068
$1,563
$1,962
$2,656
$1,237
$3,452
$462
$688
$958
$1,514
$596
$728
$477
$821
$890
$1,496
$1,855
$2,432
-$621
$-
-$1,274
$-
-$396
$-
-$1,286
$-
-$652
$-
-$490
$-
-$694
$-
-$1,353
$-
-$1,222
$-
-$1,206
$-
$810
$-
$1,620
$-
$810
$-
$1,620
$-
$810
$-
$810
$-
$810
$-
$1,620
$-
$1,620
$-
$1,620
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$85
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,269
$1,643
$2,422
$3,124
$4,566
$5,849
$3,591
$7,942
$1,038
$1,312
$2,161
$3,017
$1,251
$1,395
$1,175
$1,568
$2,100
$2,975
$4,223
$5,259
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
3.6 Medium BAU Customer 11-20

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$399
$553
$778
$1,099
$1,233
$2,117
$360
$434
$742
$1,058
$349
$447
$842
$842
$2,454
$6,256
$9,978
$19,924
$29,180
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$451
$624
$841
$1,123
$1,253
$1,845
$404
$481
$809
$1,091
$394
$504
$953
$953
$2,391
$5,088
$7,729
$14,784
$21,349
$70,842
Export revenues ($)
-$36
$-
-$95
$-
-$265
$-
-$22
$-
-$155
$-
-$67
$-
$-
$-
-$476
$-
-$1,649
$-
-$4,964
$-
$294
$-
$588
$-
$1,471
$-
$147
$-
$735
$-
$294
$-
$-
$-
$4,118
$-
$11,765
$-
$29,413
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$29,380
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,108
$1,177
$2,112
$2,221
$3,690
$3,963
$889
$915
$2,131
$2,149
$971
$951
$1,795
$1,795
$8,487
$11,344
$27,823
$34,708 $104,357 $169,789
Network bill ($)
$330
$542
$644
$1,077
$1,050
$2,075
$311
$425
$626
$1,037
$289
$438
$826
$826
$2,405
$6,131
$9,077
$19,527
$28,599
$96,976
Retail Bill ($)
$480
$788
$913
$1,418
$1,398
$2,330
$452
$608
$893
$1,378
$420
$637
$1,203
$1,203
$3,020
$6,425
$9,117
$18,669
$26,958
$89,456
-$296
$-
-$632
$-
-$896
$-
-$220
$-
-$496
$-
-$339
$-
$-
$-
-$584
$-
-$3,215
$-
-$6,094
$-
$658
$-
$1,316
$-
$2,083
$-
$439
$-
$1,096
$-
$658
$-
$-
$-
$3,070
$-
$10,964
$-
$21,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$20,531
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,171
$1,330
$2,240
$2,494
$3,635
$4,405
$982
$1,033
$2,120
$2,415
$1,028
$1,075
$2,029
$2,029
$7,910
$12,557
$25,943
$38,195
$91,922
$186,433
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 525
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$338
$625
$689
$1,242
$1,201
$2,394
$334
$490
$722
$1,196
$307
$505
$952
$952
$510
$7,072
$438
$22,523
$32,986
$111,854
Retail Bill ($)
$462
$855
$924
$1,538
$1,506
$2,528
$457
$659
$969
$1,495
$420
$691
$1,305
$1,305
$700
$6,970
$600
$20,253
$29,246
$97,047
Export revenues ($)
-$1,070
$-
-$1,180
$-
-$956
$-
-$641
$-
-$492
$-
-$612
$-
$-
$-
-$1,320
$-
-$5,664
$-
-$6,044
$-
$1,602
$-
$1,885
$-
$1,885
$-
$942
$-
$942
$-
$942
$-
$-
$-
$2,639
$-
$5,655
$-
$18,849
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,756
$-
$8,780
$-
$17,560
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,333
$1,480
$2,318
$2,780
$3,635
$4,922
$1,094
$1,149
$2,142
$2,691
$1,058
$1,196
$2,258
$2,258
$4,285
$14,043
$9,809
$42,775
$92,598 $208,901
Network bill ($)
$404
$757
$834
$1,504
$1,454
$2,899
$405
$594
$875
$1,448
$372
$612
$1,153
$1,153
$618
$8,566
$378
$27,279
$39,952
$135,476
Retail Bill ($)
$447
$837
$905
$1,506
$1,475
$2,476
$448
$646
$949
$1,464
$412
$677
$1,279
$1,279
$685
$6,828
$419
$19,837
$28,646
$95,058
-$1,333
$-
-$1,223
$-
-$992
$-
-$664
$-
-$510
$-
-$635
$-
$-
$-
-$1,369
$-
-$8,813
$-
-$6,266
$-
$1,620
$-
$1,620
$-
$1,620
$-
$810
$-
$810
$-
$810
$-
$-
$-
$2,268
$-
$8,102
$-
$16,203
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$7,509
$-
$15,019
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,139
$1,594
$2,136
$3,011
$3,558
$5,375
$999
$1,239
$2,124
$2,913
$959
$1,289
$2,432
$2,432
$3,705
$15,393
$7,595
$47,116
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
$93,555 $230,533

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$1,107
$571
$1,026
$1,140
$1,827
$2,332
$1,642
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,044
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,041
$1,080
$1,616
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$648
$643
$1,073
$1,166
$1,756
$1,982
$2,094
$2,576
$471
$514
$827
$1,130
$565
$544
$628
$613
$870
$1,117
$1,466
$1,815
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$13
$-
-$62
$-
-$62
$-
$-
$-
-$88
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$39
$-
-$43
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$584
$-
$876
$-
$-
$-
$584
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$438
$-
$438
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,755
$1,214
$2,232
$2,307
$4,105
$4,314
$4,550
$5,856
$1,196
$970
$2,367
$2,228
$2,511
$1,030
$1,305
$1,158
$2,311
$2,197
$3,477
$3,880
Network bill ($)
$1,043
$538
$886
$1,075
$1,568
$2,198
$1,278
$3,091
$684
$430
$817
$1,035
$1,834
$459
$638
$514
$909
$1,018
$1,388
$1,946
$798
$818
$1,080
$1,483
$1,842
$2,520
$2,175
$3,275
$588
$653
$849
$1,437
$695
$691
$772
$779
$887
$1,420
$1,622
$2,307
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$290
$-
-$395
$-
-$532
$-
$-
$-
-$354
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$286
$-
-$281
$-
$-
$-
$653
$-
$1,089
$-
$1,525
$-
$-
$-
$871
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$762
$-
$762
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$79
$-
$158
$-
$316
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$158
$-
$1,841
$1,355
$2,409
$2,557
$4,261
$4,718
$4,762
$6,366
$1,272
$1,083
$2,341
$2,471
$2,528
$1,150
$1,410
$1,293
$2,351
$2,437
$3,649
$4,253
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 527
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$579
$939
$1,158
$1,497
$2,369
$1,302
$3,331
$737
$463
$877
$1,115
$1,976
$495
$525
$554
$970
$1,097
$1,419
$2,097
$841
$868
$984
$1,575
$1,898
$2,676
$2,167
$3,478
$622
$693
$863
$1,526
$732
$734
$424
$827
$830
$1,508
$1,575
$2,451
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,303
$-
-$405
$-
-$955
$-
$-
$-
-$502
$-
$-
$-
-$1,384
$-
-$1,250
$-
-$1,233
$-
$-
$-
$1,872
$-
$936
$-
$1,872
$-
$-
$-
$936
$-
$-
$-
$1,872
$-
$1,872
$-
$1,872
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$65
$-
$324
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$65
$-
$195
$-
Total
$1,966
$1,448
$2,557
$2,733
$4,250
$5,045
$4,711
$6,809
$1,359
$1,156
$2,304
$2,641
$2,709
$1,228
$1,566
$1,381
$2,486
$2,605
$3,827
$4,548
Network bill ($)
$1,232
$635
$1,029
$1,270
$1,641
$2,596
$1,427
$3,651
$581
$508
$961
$1,222
$2,166
$542
$575
$607
$1,063
$1,202
$1,555
$2,298
$825
$849
$965
$1,540
$1,858
$2,617
$2,121
$3,401
$366
$678
$845
$1,492
$718
$718
$415
$809
$813
$1,474
$1,541
$2,396
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,346
$-
-$418
$-
-$986
$-
-$689
$-
-$518
$-
$-
$-
-$1,429
$-
-$1,291
$-
-$1,273
$-
$-
$-
$1,609
$-
$805
$-
$1,609
$-
$805
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$1,609
$-
$1,609
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$54
$-
$268
$-
$268
$-
$107
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$54
$-
$161
$-
$2,057
$1,484
$2,311
$2,809
$4,153
$5,213
$4,439
$7,052
$1,170
$1,186
$2,201
$2,714
$2,884
$1,260
$1,277
$1,416
$2,248
$2,676
$3,593
$4,694
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,124
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,378
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,560
$6,256
$10,778
$19,924
$72,609
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$645
$625
$1,181
$1,124
$1,317
$1,848
$441
$482
$1,151
$1,093
$481
$505
$1,019
$954
$2,584
$5,096
$7,508
$14,805
$49,608
$70,944
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$141
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$386
$-
-$1,655
$-
-$2,021
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,022
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,798
$-
$11,685
$-
$29,213
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,631
$1,178
$2,593
$2,223
$3,576
$3,965
$1,242
$915
$2,293
$2,151
$1,379
$952
$3,325
$1,797
$9,555
$11,352
$28,316
$34,729
$149,409
$169,891
Network bill ($)
$455
$521
$1,330
$1,035
$1,177
$1,995
$756
$409
$960
$997
$846
$421
$2,173
$794
$3,295
$5,896
$9,374
$18,776
$67,836
$93,247
Retail Bill ($)
$404
$794
$1,453
$1,429
$1,320
$2,349
$550
$613
$877
$1,389
$599
$642
$1,270
$1,213
$3,093
$6,478
$8,475
$18,821
$60,524
$90,188
Export revenues ($)
-$664
$-
$-
$-
-$781
$-
$-
$-
-$443
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$600
$-
-$3,301
$-
-$2,538
$-
$1,198
$-
$-
$-
$1,851
$-
$-
$-
$980
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,049
$-
$10,889
$-
$21,779
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$395
$-
$789
$-
$1,472
$1,315
$2,783
$2,465
$3,567
$4,345
$1,306
$1,021
$2,453
$2,386
$1,445
$1,063
$3,443
$2,007
$8,837
$12,374
$25,832
$37,597
$148,391
$183,436
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)
Total ($)
ARUP 529
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$481
$562
$1,153
$1,116
$1,130
$2,151
$814
$440
$904
$1,075
$912
$454
$2,342
$856
$3,551
$6,354
$10,102
$20,236
$73,110
$100,497
Retail Bill ($)
$399
$844
$861
$1,518
$1,312
$2,495
$582
$651
$880
$1,475
$633
$682
$1,343
$1,288
$3,260
$6,880
$8,948
$19,989
$63,781
$95,784
-$1,363
$-
-$1,252
$-
-$1,014
$-
$-
$-
-$522
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$615
$-
-$3,382
$-
-$2,600
$-
$1,872
$-
$1,872
$-
$1,872
$-
$-
$-
$936
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,621
$-
$9,361
$-
$18,721
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$65
$-
$65
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$195
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$324
$-
$649
$-
$1,453
$1,405
$2,700
$2,634
$3,429
$4,646
$1,396
$1,091
$2,393
$2,550
$1,545
$1,136
$3,685
$2,144
$8,818
$13,234
$25,354
$40,225
$153,661
$196,282
Network bill ($)
$527
$615
$1,264
$1,223
$1,238
$2,357
$893
$483
$991
$1,178
$1,000
$498
$2,567
$938
$3,892
$6,964
$11,072
$22,178
$44,503
$110,145
Retail Bill ($)
$391
$825
$845
$1,484
$1,284
$2,440
$570
$636
$862
$1,443
$620
$667
$1,315
$1,260
$3,197
$6,727
$8,768
$19,545
$31,679
$93,656
-$1,408
$-
-$1,292
$-
-$1,047
$-
$-
$-
-$539
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$635
$-
-$3,491
$-
-$6,617
$-
$1,609
$-
$1,609
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,253
$-
$8,047
$-
$16,093
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$15,332
$-
$54
$-
$54
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$161
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$535
$-
$1,172
$1,440
$2,479
$2,707
$3,192
$4,797
$1,462
$1,119
$2,280
$2,620
$1,620
$1,165
$3,882
$2,198
$8,707
$13,691
$24,663
$41,723
$101,526
$203,801
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Battery investm ($)

Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$431
$571
$878
$1,140
$1,599
$2,332
$2,180
$3,279
$355
$456
$705
$1,098
$487
$487
$377
$545
$702
$1,080
$1,557
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$500
$659
$956
$1,196
$1,501
$2,032
$1,935
$2,641
$412
$526
$795
$1,159
$557
$557
$437
$628
$793
$1,145
$1,526
$1,861
Export revenues ($)
-$46
$-
-$187
$-
-$325
$-
-$333
$-
-$68
$-
-$186
$-
$-
$-
-$93
$-
-$130
$-
-$179
$-
$293
$-
$732
$-
$1,464
$-
$1,757
$-
$293
$-
$878
$-
$-
$-
$439
$-
$732
$-
$878
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,178
$1,230
$2,380
$2,336
$4,239
$4,364
$5,539
$5,921
$992
$982
$2,193
$2,256
$1,044
$1,044
$1,161
$1,174
$2,097
$2,225
$3,782
$3,925
Network bill ($)
$378
$576
$744
$1,152
$1,615
$2,356
$369
$3,313
$308
$461
$652
$1,109
$397
$492
$318
$551
$599
$1,091
$1,441
$2,086
Retail Bill ($)
$561
$853
$1,057
$1,546
$1,942
$2,628
$548
$3,416
$457
$681
$948
$1,499
$590
$721
$472
$812
$881
$1,481
$1,836
$2,407
-$640
$-
-$1,314
$-
-$408
$-
-$1,986
$-
-$673
$-
-$506
$-
-$716
$-
-$1,395
$-
-$1,261
$-
-$1,243
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,173
$1,429
$2,236
$2,699
$4,024
$4,984
$1,615
$6,729
$968
$1,142
$1,969
$2,608
$1,146
$1,213
$1,144
$1,363
$1,968
$2,572
$3,783
$4,492
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 531
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
2029
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$517
$788
$1,017
$1,575
$2,208
$3,221
$417
$4,529
$422
$630
$892
$1,516
$543
$673
$435
$753
$818
$1,491
$1,971
$2,851
Retail Bill ($)
$623
$947
$1,173
$1,716
$2,156
$2,917
$502
$3,792
$508
$756
$1,052
$1,663
$655
$800
$524
$902
$978
$1,644
$2,037
$2,672
-$661
$-
-$1,356
$-
-$421
$-
-$1,994
$-
-$694
$-
-$522
$-
-$739
$-
-$1,441
$-
-$1,301
$-
-$1,283
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$788
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$101
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,216
$1,734
$2,309
$3,292
$4,680
$6,138
$1,289
$8,321
$973
$1,386
$2,159
$3,180
$1,197
$1,472
$993
$1,655
$1,970
$3,135
$4,200
$5,523
Network bill ($)
$707
$1,078
$1,334
$2,155
$2,953
$4,406
$570
$6,196
$577
$861
$1,168
$2,074
$743
$920
$595
$1,031
$1,119
$2,040
$2,637
$3,900
Retail Bill ($)
$603
$917
$1,093
$1,663
$2,050
$2,826
$486
$3,673
$492
$732
$977
$1,611
$634
$775
$507
$874
$947
$1,593
$1,938
$2,588
Export revenues ($)
-$681
$-
-$1,372
$-
-$410
$-
-$2,055
$-
-$715
$-
-$514
$-
-$761
$-
-$1,484
$-
-$1,341
$-
-$1,300
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$664
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$82
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$1,251
$1,995
$2,355
$3,817
$5,271
$7,232
$991
$9,869
$975
$1,594
$2,309
$3,686
$1,238
$1,695
$862
$1,904
$1,970
$3,633
$4,575
$6,488
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$374
$553
$751
$1,099
$1,203
$2,117
$360
$434
$713
$1,058
$349
$447
$842
$842
$719
$6,256
$1,112
$19,924
$29,180
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$434
$641
$836
$1,153
$1,259
$1,895
$415
$494
$802
$1,120
$405
$518
$978
$978
$835
$5,224
$1,292
$15,178
$21,918
$72,730
Export revenues ($)
-$85
$-
-$147
$-
-$323
$-
-$23
$-
-$209
$-
-$69
$-
$-
$-
-$286
$-
-$2,758
$-
-$5,144
$-
$439
$-
$732
$-
$1,610
$-
$146
$-
$878
$-
$293
$-
$-
$-
$1,757
$-
$2,928
$-
$29,276
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,955
$-
$9,774
$-
$19,548
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,162
$1,193
$2,173
$2,251
$3,749
$4,012
$898
$928
$2,185
$2,178
$978
$965
$1,821
$1,821
$4,980
$11,480
$12,348
$35,102
$94,778
$171,677
Network bill ($)
$298
$558
$616
$1,110
$1,073
$2,139
$299
$438
$645
$1,069
$275
$452
$851
$851
$456
$6,320
$279
$20,127
$16,119
$99,957
Retail Bill ($)
$442
$829
$895
$1,491
$1,460
$2,451
$443
$639
$940
$1,449
$407
$670
$1,265
$1,265
$678
$6,757
$415
$19,632
$15,891
$94,073
-$1,374
$-
-$1,262
$-
-$1,023
$-
-$685
$-
-$526
$-
-$654
$-
$-
$-
-$1,412
$-
-$9,089
$-
-$20,553
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$-
$-
$2,449
$-
$8,746
$-
$17,491
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$4,676
$-
$18,703
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,115
$1,387
$1,999
$2,601
$3,259
$4,589
$932
$1,077
$1,934
$2,518
$902
$1,121
$2,117
$2,117
$3,107
$13,077
$5,026
$39,759
$47,651
$194,030
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 533
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$764
$842
$1,517
$1,467
$2,924
$408
$599
$882
$1,461
$375
$617
$1,163
$1,163
$624
$8,640
$381
$27,516
$22,037 $136,653
Retail Bill ($)
$491
$920
$994
$1,655
$1,620
$2,720
$492
$709
$1,043
$1,608
$452
$743
$1,405
$1,405
$753
$7,500
$460
$21,792
$17,638
$104,421
Export revenues ($)
-$1,419
$-
-$1,302
$-
-$1,056
$-
-$707
$-
-$543
$-
-$676
$-
$-
$-
-$1,457
$-
-$9,382
$-
-$21,217
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$-
$-
$2,065
$-
$7,375
$-
$14,751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$788
$-
$3,939
$-
$15,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$955
$1,683
$2,008
$3,172
$3,506
$5,644
$931
$1,308
$2,120
$3,069
$889
$1,361
$2,568
$2,568
$2,772
$16,140
$2,774
$49,307
$48,966
$241,074
Network bill ($)
$558
$1,044
$1,151
$2,076
$1,948
$4,000
$559
$819
$1,153
$1,999
$513
$845
$574
$1,592
$853
$11,819
$521
$37,639
$15,500 $186,929
Retail Bill ($)
$476
$891
$963
$1,603
$1,530
$2,635
$477
$687
$967
$1,558
$438
$720
$491
$1,361
$729
$7,266
$446
$21,111
$9,086
$101,158
-$1,462
$-
-$1,342
$-
-$1,064
$-
-$728
$-
-$535
$-
-$696
$-
-$625
$-
-$1,501
$-
-$9,667
$-
-$39,154
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$-
$-
$1,742
$-
$6,220
$-
$12,440
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$332
$-
$664
$-
$3,319
$-
$19,912
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$815
$1,935
$2,016
$3,679
$3,715
$6,635
$929
$1,506
$2,264
$3,557
$877
$1,565
$771
$2,952
$2,487
$19,085
$839
$58,750
$17,784
$288,088
ARUP
No Adoption
No Adoption
$408
Total
Adopting DG & DS
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$1,107
$571
$1,026
$1,140
$1,828
$2,332
$1,649
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,623
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$588
$547
$963
$992
$1,631
$1,687
$1,893
$2,192
$417
$437
$1,023
$962
$517
$462
$568
$521
$1,063
$950
$1,330
$1,544
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$12
$-
-$32
$-
-$34
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$12
$-
$-
$-
$145
$-
$436
$-
$727
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$291
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,695
$1,118
$2,122
$2,133
$3,863
$4,019
$4,236
$5,472
$1,143
$893
$2,157
$2,060
$2,463
$949
$1,245
$1,067
$2,143
$2,030
$3,232
$3,609
Network bill ($)
$1,139
$587
$954
$1,173
$1,515
$2,399
$1,319
$3,373
$746
$469
$887
$1,129
$2,001
$501
$596
$561
$981
$1,111
$1,502
$2,123
$701
$678
$822
$1,230
$1,528
$2,090
$1,716
$2,717
$505
$542
$678
$1,192
$614
$573
$359
$646
$697
$1,178
$1,257
$1,914
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,033
$-
-$330
$-
-$763
$-
$-
$-
-$394
$-
$-
$-
-$1,082
$-
-$980
$-
-$970
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$869
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$83
$-
$416
$-
$416
$-
$-
$-
$166
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$83
$-
$166
$-
$1,839
$1,265
$2,564
$2,403
$3,997
$4,489
$4,426
$6,090
$1,251
$1,011
$2,206
$2,321
$2,616
$1,074
$1,693
$1,207
$2,519
$2,288
$3,693
$4,038
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 535
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$713
$1,159
$1,425
$1,841
$2,915
$1,603
$4,098
$907
$570
$1,078
$1,372
$2,432
$609
$645
$682
$1,137
$1,350
$1,746
$2,580
$691
$667
$811
$1,210
$1,505
$2,057
$1,690
$2,674
$498
$533
$668
$1,173
$606
$564
$335
$636
$663
$1,159
$1,224
$1,884
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$975
$-
-$312
$-
-$720
$-
$-
$-
-$372
$-
$-
$-
-$1,022
$-
-$925
$-
-$915
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$733
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$68
$-
$342
$-
$342
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$137
$-
$205
$-
Total
$2,075
$1,380
$2,529
$2,636
$4,109
$4,972
$4,381
$6,772
$1,405
$1,103
$2,244
$2,545
$3,038
$1,173
$1,561
$1,318
$2,477
$2,509
$3,726
$4,464
Network bill ($)
$1,714
$883
$1,436
$1,766
$2,281
$3,611
$1,986
$5,078
$808
$706
$1,336
$1,700
$3,013
$754
$800
$845
$1,409
$1,672
$2,085
$3,197
Retail Bill ($)
$652
$621
$762
$1,126
$1,409
$1,914
$1,580
$2,488
$277
$496
$627
$1,091
$572
$525
$314
$592
$624
$1,079
$1,132
$1,753
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,022
$-
-$327
$-
-$755
$-
-$519
$-
-$390
$-
$-
$-
-$1,071
$-
-$969
$-
-$960
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$283
$-
$283
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$226
$-
$2,366
$1,505
$2,469
$2,892
$4,264
$5,526
$4,330
$7,566
$1,298
$1,202
$2,303
$2,792
$3,585
$1,279
$1,392
$1,436
$2,412
$2,751
$3,719
$4,950
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,384
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
3.12 High SG Customer 11 -20

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,330
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$1,480
$6,256
$10,921
$19,924
$38,761
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$575
$532
$1,132
$957
$1,221
$1,573
$379
$410
$1,052
$930
$421
$430
$929
$812
$867
$4,336
$6,702
$12,598
$21,046
$60,366
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$152
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$239
$-
-$1,083
$-
-$3,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,745
$-
$10,177
$-
$29,077
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,053
$-
$-
$-
$20,530
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,561
$1,085
$2,543
$2,055
$3,562
$3,690
$1,181
$844
$2,194
$1,988
$1,319
$877
$3,235
$1,654
$5,906
$10,592
$26,716
$32,521 $105,486 $159,313
Network bill ($)
$485
$569
$1,165
$1,130
$1,199
$2,178
$825
$446
$1,042
$1,088
$924
$460
$2,371
$866
$1,187
$6,434
$1,687
$20,491
$39,542
$101,766
Retail Bill ($)
$313
$659
$742
$1,186
$1,116
$1,949
$461
$508
$732
$1,152
$509
$533
$1,117
$1,006
$660
$5,374
$550
$15,613
$24,699
$74,816
-$1,065
$-
-$975
$-
-$795
$-
$-
$-
-$400
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,105
$-
-$5,232
$-
-$4,639
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,432
$-
$6,080
$-
$17,372
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$972
$-
$4,860
$-
$9,720
$-
$83
$-
$83
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$416
$-
$1,553
$1,228
$2,753
$2,316
$3,339
$4,127
$1,286
$954
$2,326
$2,240
$1,433
$993
$3,489
$1,873
$4,146
$11,808
$7,946
$36,104
$87,110
$176,582
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)
Total ($)
ARUP 537
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$589
$691
$1,416
$1,373
$1,457
$2,646
$1,002
$542
$951
$1,322
$1,122
$559
$2,882
$1,053
$1,442
$7,818
$1,953
$24,899
$31,440
$123,655
Retail Bill ($)
$309
$649
$733
$1,167
$1,100
$1,918
$455
$500
$663
$1,134
$502
$524
$1,102
$990
$652
$5,288
$456
$15,365
$13,697
$73,627
-$1,006
$-
-$920
$-
-$751
$-
$-
$-
-$378
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,043
$-
-$6,609
$-
-$14,314
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,051
$-
$7,325
$-
$14,651
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$793
$-
$3,965
$-
$15,859
$-
$68
$-
$68
$-
$68
$-
$-
$-
$342
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$684
$-
$1,426
$1,339
$2,762
$2,540
$3,340
$4,564
$1,457
$1,042
$2,310
$2,456
$1,624
$1,083
$3,983
$2,043
$3,895
$13,107
$7,089
$40,264
$62,017
$197,282
Network bill ($)
$730
$856
$1,754
$1,701
$1,805
$3,279
$1,242
$672
$1,178
$1,638
$1,391
$692
$3,570
$1,305
$1,698
$9,688
$2,141
$30,852
$38,957 $153,220
Retail Bill ($)
$289
$603
$693
$1,086
$1,035
$1,785
$426
$465
$622
$1,055
$470
$488
$1,035
$922
$565
$4,921
$366
$14,298
$12,969
$68,514
-$1,054
$-
-$964
$-
-$787
$-
$-
$-
-$396
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,093
$-
-$6,922
$-
-$15,004
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,730
$-
$6,178
$-
$12,355
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$645
$-
$3,223
$-
$12,892
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$283
$-
$565
$-
$1,257
$1,460
$2,775
$2,787
$3,345
$5,063
$1,667
$1,137
$2,304
$2,694
$1,861
$1,180
$4,606
$2,226
$3,657
$14,609
$5,269
$45,150
$62,734
$221,734
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Battery investm ($)

Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
4 South Australia

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$431
$571
$913
$1,140
$1,650
$2,332
$2,240
$3,279
$379
$456
$724
$1,098
$487
$487
$398
$545
$724
$1,080
$1,592
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$424
$559
$838
$1,014
$1,298
$1,723
$1,674
$2,240
$372
$447
$692
$983
$473
$473
$391
$533
$691
$971
$1,313
$1,578
Export revenues ($)
-$41
$-
-$120
$-
-$241
$-
-$203
$-
-$17
$-
-$116
$-
$-
$-
-$37
$-
-$70
$-
-$113
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,179
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,077
$1,130
$2,155
$2,155
$3,886
$4,056
$5,021
$5,519
$865
$903
$1,955
$2,081
$960
$960
$1,013
$1,078
$1,869
$2,051
$3,447
$3,643
Network bill ($)
$453
$599
$933
$1,198
$1,702
$2,451
$2,260
$3,446
$374
$479
$733
$1,154
$469
$512
$393
$573
$732
$1,135
$1,644
$2,169
Retail Bill ($)
$520
$686
$1,003
$1,243
$1,567
$2,113
$1,992
$2,746
$429
$547
$821
$1,205
$533
$579
$451
$653
$818
$1,191
$1,588
$1,935
Export revenues ($)
-$49
$-
-$195
$-
-$339
$-
-$398
$-
-$70
$-
-$189
$-
-$41
$-
-$94
$-
-$133
$-
-$187
$-
$234
$-
$585
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,521
$-
$234
$-
$702
$-
$117
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,158
$1,285
$2,326
$2,442
$4,100
$4,564
$5,375
$6,192
$967
$1,027
$2,067
$2,358
$1,078
$1,091
$1,101
$1,226
$2,002
$2,325
$3,747
$4,104
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 539
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$500
$711
$1,029
$1,420
$2,017
$2,905
$1,277
$4,085
$429
$568
$793
$1,367
$541
$606
$449
$679
$805
$1,345
$1,866
$2,571
Retail Bill ($)
$507
$718
$986
$1,302
$1,642
$2,213
$1,192
$2,877
$434
$573
$790
$1,262
$545
$607
$455
$684
$800
$1,247
$1,606
$2,027
Export revenues ($)
-$160
$-
-$422
$-
-$347
$-
-$597
$-
-$128
$-
-$414
$-
-$99
$-
-$152
$-
-$300
$-
-$416
$-
$401
$-
$902
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,102
$-
$301
$-
$1,002
$-
$200
$-
$401
$-
$802
$-
$1,002
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,288
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,247
$1,429
$2,495
$2,723
$4,314
$5,118
$4,262
$6,961
$1,035
$1,141
$2,171
$2,630
$1,188
$1,213
$1,152
$1,364
$2,107
$2,592
$4,058
$4,598
Network bill ($)
$582
$872
$1,166
$1,743
$2,475
$3,565
$608
$5,013
$481
$697
$973
$1,678
$607
$744
$510
$834
$923
$1,651
$2,189
$3,156
Retail Bill ($)
$458
$684
$871
$1,240
$1,564
$2,108
$478
$2,740
$379
$546
$752
$1,202
$477
$578
$401
$652
$715
$1,188
$1,473
$1,930
-$430
$-
-$1,164
$-
-$372
$-
-$1,260
$-
-$459
$-
-$445
$-
-$559
$-
-$418
$-
-$773
$-
-$1,094
$-
$687
$-
$1,716
$-
$858
$-
$1,116
$-
$687
$-
$858
$-
$772
$-
$687
$-
$1,287
$-
$1,716
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,296
$1,556
$2,589
$2,984
$4,525
$5,673
$3,068
$7,753
$1,087
$1,243
$2,139
$2,880
$1,297
$1,322
$1,180
$1,485
$2,153
$2,839
$4,285
$5,086
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$395
$553
$774
$1,099
$1,206
$2,117
$362
$434
$686
$1,058
$345
$447
$842
$842
$2,531
$6,256
$9,881
$19,924
$27,196
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$388
$543
$730
$978
$1,069
$1,607
$353
$419
$660
$950
$339
$439
$830
$830
$2,129
$4,431
$6,670
$12,873
$17,365
$61,686
Export revenues ($)
-$32
$-
-$85
$-
-$228
$-
-$21
$-
-$168
$-
-$57
$-
$-
$-
-$363
$-
-$1,488
$-
-$3,961
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$786
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,407
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,014
$1,096
$1,943
$2,076
$3,358
$3,724
$825
$853
$1,965
$2,008
$890
$886
$1,672
$1,672
$7,704
$10,687
$25,547
$32,797
$102,021
$160,633
Network bill ($)
$390
$581
$762
$1,154
$1,209
$2,225
$358
$456
$694
$1,112
$363
$470
$885
$885
$2,572
$6,573
$9,727
$20,934
$28,576
$103,965
Retail Bill ($)
$447
$666
$846
$1,199
$1,258
$1,970
$410
$514
$782
$1,165
$416
$538
$1,017
$1,017
$2,548
$5,432
$7,706
$15,784
$21,291
$75,634
Export revenues ($)
-$87
$-
-$203
$-
-$373
$-
-$76
$-
-$251
$-
-$69
$-
$-
$-
-$535
$-
-$2,830
$-
-$4,768
$-
$351
$-
$702
$-
$1,404
$-
$234
$-
$819
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,101
$1,247
$2,108
$2,353
$3,499
$4,195
$926
$969
$2,044
$2,277
$945
$1,008
$1,903
$1,903
$7,863
$12,006
$26,306
$36,718
$99,688
$179,599
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 541
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$426
$689
$816
$1,369
$1,332
$2,637
$410
$540
$761
$1,318
$375
$557
$1,049
$1,049
$640
$7,792
$690
$24,815
$33,873
$123,239
Retail Bill ($)
$431
$698
$810
$1,255
$1,236
$2,064
$416
$538
$762
$1,220
$380
$564
$1,066
$1,066
$650
$5,690
$701
$16,534
$22,302
$79,226
Export revenues ($)
-$199
$-
-$489
$-
-$659
$-
-$135
$-
-$421
$-
-$235
$-
$-
$-
-$698
$-
-$3,703
$-
-$4,874
$-
$501
$-
$1,102
$-
$1,704
$-
$301
$-
$1,002
$-
$501
$-
$-
$-
$2,004
$-
$4,009
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,576
$-
$12,878
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,159
$1,386
$2,240
$2,624
$3,613
$4,701
$992
$1,078
$2,104
$2,538
$1,021
$1,121
$2,115
$2,115
$5,172
$13,482
$14,574
$41,348
$97,100
$202,464
Network bill ($)
$475
$845
$902
$1,680
$1,592
$3,237
$471
$663
$934
$1,617
$413
$683
$1,288
$1,288
$672
$9,563
$713
$30,455
$21,576
$151,247
Retail Bill ($)
$374
$665
$701
$1,196
$1,151
$1,966
$370
$512
$726
$1,162
$325
$537
$1,015
$1,015
$529
$5,420
$562
$15,747
$11,355
$75,455
-$534
$-
-$1,099
$-
-$897
$-
-$403
$-
-$451
$-
-$573
$-
$-
$-
-$1,246
$-
-$4,600
$-
-$17,107
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$1,716
$-
$601
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$4,291
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$10,637
$-
$42,549
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,173
$1,510
$2,220
$2,875
$3,562
$5,202
$1,039
$1,175
$2,066
$2,779
$1,023
$1,221
$2,303
$2,303
$4,485
$14,982
$11,603
$46,201
$75,536
$226,702
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$433
$571
$802
$1,140
$1,472
$2,332
$1,660
$3,279
$344
$456
$700
$1,098
$461
$487
$381
$545
$747
$1,080
$1,211
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$320
$557
$591
$1,011
$1,086
$1,718
$1,225
$2,233
$254
$445
$516
$980
$340
$471
$281
$531
$551
$968
$894
$1,573
Export revenues ($)
-$40
$-
-$80
$-
-$199
$-
-$162
$-
-$17
$-
-$115
$-
-$34
$-
-$37
$-
-$70
$-
-$74
$-
$262
$-
$393
$-
$1,048
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$131
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$975
$1,128
$1,706
$2,151
$3,407
$4,050
$3,902
$5,513
$711
$901
$1,756
$2,078
$899
$958
$888
$1,077
$1,752
$2,048
$2,555
$3,638
Network bill ($)
$461
$608
$794
$1,214
$1,504
$2,483
$1,680
$3,492
$337
$486
$715
$1,169
$491
$518
$376
$581
$735
$1,150
$1,228
$2,198
Retail Bill ($)
$389
$678
$669
$1,230
$1,268
$2,091
$1,416
$2,718
$284
$542
$603
$1,192
$414
$573
$317
$646
$619
$1,178
$1,035
$1,915
Export revenues ($)
-$47
$-
-$186
$-
-$324
$-
-$330
$-
-$67
$-
-$180
$-
-$39
$-
-$90
$-
-$176
$-
-$179
$-
$234
$-
$585
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,404
$-
$234
$-
$702
$-
$117
$-
$351
$-
$702
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,038
$1,286
$1,863
$2,445
$3,618
$4,574
$4,170
$6,210
$788
$1,027
$1,840
$2,361
$983
$1,092
$955
$1,227
$1,880
$2,328
$2,787
$4,113
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 543
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$519
$748
$930
$1,495
$1,852
$3,058
$1,951
$4,300
$396
$598
$804
$1,440
$605
$638
$441
$715
$857
$1,416
$1,465
$2,707
Retail Bill ($)
$369
$705
$662
$1,278
$1,318
$2,173
$1,388
$2,824
$281
$563
$572
$1,239
$430
$596
$314
$672
$610
$1,224
$1,042
$1,990
Export revenues ($)
-$143
$-
-$276
$-
-$311
$-
-$565
$-
-$115
$-
-$320
$-
-$37
$-
-$136
$-
-$269
$-
-$270
$-
$401
$-
$702
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,704
$-
$301
$-
$902
$-
$100
$-
$401
$-
$802
$-
$802
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,145
$1,453
$2,017
$2,774
$3,860
$5,231
$4,478
$7,124
$862
$1,161
$1,958
$2,678
$1,098
$1,234
$1,019
$1,387
$1,999
$2,640
$3,039
$4,697
Network bill ($)
$565
$931
$1,010
$1,860
$2,239
$3,804
$2,301
$5,349
$460
$744
$911
$1,791
$718
$794
$451
$890
$947
$1,761
$1,674
$3,368
Retail Bill ($)
$308
$672
$551
$1,219
$1,221
$2,072
$1,255
$2,693
$251
$537
$497
$1,181
$392
$568
$246
$640
$517
$1,168
$913
$1,897
Export revenues ($)
-$190
$-
-$486
$-
-$309
$-
-$735
$-
-$230
$-
-$371
$-
-$147
$-
-$236
$-
-$431
$-
-$540
$-
$429
$-
$944
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$429
$-
$858
$-
$257
$-
$515
$-
$944
$-
$1,116
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$63
$-
$64
$-
$63
$-
$63
$-
$-
$-
$63
$-
$-
$-
$63
$-
$63
$-
$63
$-
$1,175
$1,603
$2,083
$3,079
$4,072
$5,876
$4,601
$8,042
$909
$1,281
$1,958
$2,972
$1,220
$1,362
$1,039
$1,530
$2,040
$2,929
$3,225
$5,265
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$380
$553
$756
$1,099
$1,080
$2,117
$310
$434
$667
$1,058
$339
$447
$1,295
$842
$2,825
$6,256
$8,377
$19,924
$31,757
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$280
$542
$557
$975
$796
$1,602
$228
$418
$492
$947
$250
$438
$914
$827
$1,995
$4,417
$5,915
$12,834
$19,739
$61,499
Export revenues ($)
-$72
$-
-$84
$-
-$226
$-
-$21
$-
-$167
$-
-$57
$-
$-
$-
-$360
$-
-$1,477
$-
-$3,932
$-
$393
$-
$524
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$786
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,407
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$982
$1,095
$1,753
$2,073
$2,960
$3,719
$648
$851
$1,779
$2,005
$794
$885
$2,209
$1,670
$7,866
$10,673
$23,299
$32,758 $108,986 $160,446
Network bill ($)
$380
$589
$775
$1,170
$1,060
$2,255
$330
$462
$654
$1,126
$334
$476
$1,379
$897
$2,923
$6,661
$8,239
$21,215
$33,815 $105,359
Retail Bill ($)
$321
$659
$653
$1,186
$894
$1,950
$278
$508
$551
$1,153
$281
$533
$1,113
$1,007
$2,359
$5,375
$6,649
$15,618
$24,021
$74,839
Export revenues ($)
-$133
$-
-$145
$-
-$406
$-
-$24
$-
-$289
$-
-$114
$-
$-
$-
-$511
$-
-$2,703
$-
-$4,554
$-
$468
$-
$585
$-
$1,521
$-
$117
$-
$936
$-
$351
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,036
$1,248
$1,869
$2,356
$3,069
$4,204
$701
$970
$1,852
$2,279
$852
$1,009
$2,492
$1,904
$8,049
$12,037
$23,888
$36,833
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
$107,872 $180,197
ARUP 545
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$428
$725
$839
$1,441
$1,235
$2,776
$377
$569
$760
$1,387
$370
$586
$1,698
$1,105
$1,023
$8,203
$10,146
$26,123
$41,639
$129,736
Retail Bill ($)
$305
$685
$597
$1,232
$879
$2,026
$268
$528
$541
$1,198
$263
$554
$1,156
$1,046
$697
$5,586
$6,909
$16,229
$24,961
$77,768
Export revenues ($)
-$231
$-
-$387
$-
-$540
$-
-$70
$-
-$378
$-
-$211
$-
$-
$-
-$831
$-
-$2,598
$-
-$4,377
$-
$601
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,603
$-
$200
$-
$1,002
$-
$501
$-
$-
$-
$2,405
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,576
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,103
$1,410
$2,050
$2,673
$3,177
$4,802
$775
$1,097
$1,925
$2,585
$924
$1,140
$2,854
$2,151
$5,870
$13,788
$24,478
$42,352 $108,022 $207,504
Network bill ($)
$434
$902
$860
$1,792
$1,396
$3,454
$435
$707
$877
$1,726
$415
$729
$2,112
$1,374
$1,186
$10,204
$1,398
$32,498
$27,957
$161,393
Retail Bill ($)
$237
$653
$469
$1,175
$761
$1,932
$237
$504
$478
$1,142
$226
$528
$1,103
$998
$619
$5,327
$730
$15,477
$12,848
$74,165
-$336
$-
-$772
$-
-$766
$-
-$181
$-
-$377
$-
-$386
$-
$-
$-
-$1,087
$-
-$4,012
$-
-$14,921
$-
$687
$-
$1,459
$-
$1,716
$-
$343
$-
$858
$-
$687
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$4,291
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$10,637
$-
$42,549
$-
$63
$-
$63
$-
$63
$-
$-
$-
$63
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,083
$1,555
$2,079
$2,967
$3,170
$5,386
$835
$1,211
$1,899
$2,868
$942
$1,257
$3,215
$2,372
$5,249
$15,531
$13,044
$47,975
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
$85,595 $235,559
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$431
$571
$982
$1,140
$1,723
$2,332
$2,323
$3,279
$379
$456
$759
$1,098
$487
$487
$398
$545
$724
$1,080
$1,629
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$428
$564
$902
$1,023
$1,355
$1,738
$1,734
$2,259
$375
$450
$726
$991
$477
$477
$394
$537
$697
$979
$1,348
$1,592
Export revenues ($)
-$42
$-
-$46
$-
-$168
$-
-$130
$-
-$18
$-
-$81
$-
$-
$-
-$39
$-
-$73
$-
-$77
$-
$294
$-
$294
$-
$1,029
$-
$1,177
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$294
$-
$588
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,111
$1,134
$2,132
$2,163
$3,940
$4,070
$5,103
$5,539
$883
$906
$1,992
$2,089
$964
$964
$1,047
$1,083
$1,936
$2,059
$3,489
$3,656
Network bill ($)
$438
$606
$922
$1,212
$1,721
$2,479
$1,133
$3,486
$379
$485
$703
$1,167
$474
$518
$398
$580
$701
$1,148
$1,640
$2,194
Retail Bill ($)
$489
$675
$968
$1,225
$1,544
$2,081
$1,160
$2,705
$423
$539
$769
$1,187
$525
$571
$444
$643
$766
$1,173
$1,546
$1,906
Export revenues ($)
-$99
$-
-$243
$-
-$333
$-
-$410
$-
-$69
$-
-$289
$-
-$40
$-
-$93
$-
-$234
$-
-$236
$-
$329
$-
$658
$-
$1,096
$-
$877
$-
$219
$-
$877
$-
$110
$-
$329
$-
$767
$-
$767
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,027
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,158
$1,282
$2,305
$2,437
$4,028
$4,560
$3,787
$6,191
$952
$1,024
$2,060
$2,354
$1,069
$1,088
$1,079
$1,223
$2,001
$2,321
$3,718
$4,100
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 547
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$525
$747
$1,082
$1,493
$2,120
$3,053
$589
$4,293
$451
$597
$834
$1,437
$569
$637
$459
$714
$833
$1,414
$1,947
$2,703
Retail Bill ($)
$465
$660
$905
$1,196
$1,508
$2,033
$522
$2,643
$399
$527
$726
$1,159
$500
$558
$406
$629
$724
$1,146
$1,467
$1,862
Export revenues ($)
-$139
$-
-$367
$-
-$301
$-
-$552
$-
-$112
$-
-$360
$-
-$86
$-
-$182
$-
-$311
$-
-$412
$-
$377
$-
$848
$-
$942
$-
$377
$-
$283
$-
$942
$-
$188
$-
$471
$-
$848
$-
$1,037
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,756
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,229
$1,407
$2,469
$2,689
$4,269
$5,086
$2,693
$6,936
$1,021
$1,124
$2,142
$2,597
$1,172
$1,195
$1,154
$1,343
$2,094
$2,559
$4,038
$4,565
Network bill ($)
$660
$969
$1,331
$1,937
$2,750
$3,961
$600
$5,570
$549
$774
$1,081
$1,865
$703
$827
$574
$926
$1,046
$1,834
$2,463
$3,506
Retail Bill ($)
$403
$590
$771
$1,071
$1,350
$1,820
$367
$2,365
$335
$472
$649
$1,038
$428
$499
$351
$563
$629
$1,025
$1,285
$1,667
-$234
$-
-$655
$-
-$291
$-
-$695
$-
-$257
$-
-$348
$-
-$233
$-
-$276
$-
-$451
$-
-$651
$-
$486
$-
$1,215
$-
$810
$-
$648
$-
$486
$-
$810
$-
$405
$-
$567
$-
$972
$-
$1,296
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$84
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,315
$1,559
$2,662
$3,008
$4,619
$5,781
$2,507
$7,935
$1,113
$1,246
$2,193
$2,902
$1,303
$1,326
$1,216
$1,489
$2,196
$2,860
$4,394
$5,173
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$395
$553
$809
$1,099
$1,243
$2,117
$362
$434
$719
$1,058
$380
$447
$842
$842
$796
$6,256
$1,058
$19,924
$27,196
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$392
$548
$765
$986
$1,105
$1,621
$356
$423
$692
$958
$377
$443
$837
$837
$791
$4,469
$1,052
$12,983
$17,513
$62,214
Export revenues ($)
-$33
$-
-$49
$-
-$197
$-
-$21
$-
-$134
$-
-$22
$-
$-
$-
-$190
$-
-$2,296
$-
-$4,107
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$1,324
$-
$147
$-
$735
$-
$147
$-
$-
$-
$1,471
$-
$2,941
$-
$29,413
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,938
$-
$14,690
$-
$29,380
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,048
$1,101
$1,967
$2,085
$3,474
$3,738
$844
$856
$2,012
$2,016
$882
$890
$1,679
$1,679
$5,806
$10,725
$17,446
$32,907
$99,396
$161,161
Network bill ($)
$376
$588
$752
$1,168
$1,180
$2,251
$362
$461
$663
$1,124
$346
$475
$895
$895
$618
$6,650
$755
$21,177
$28,907
$105,172
Retail Bill ($)
$420
$656
$815
$1,180
$1,201
$1,941
$403
$506
$731
$1,147
$386
$530
$1,002
$1,002
$692
$5,351
$845
$15,546
$20,970
$74,495
Export revenues ($)
-$137
$-
-$252
$-
-$470
$-
-$75
$-
-$350
$-
-$118
$-
$-
$-
-$464
$-
-$3,037
$-
-$4,684
$-
$439
$-
$767
$-
$1,535
$-
$219
$-
$987
$-
$329
$-
$-
$-
$1,754
$-
$3,289
$-
$21,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,053
$-
$10,266
$-
$20,531
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,098
$1,244
$2,083
$2,348
$3,447
$4,191
$910
$967
$2,030
$2,272
$944
$1,006
$1,898
$1,898
$4,653
$12,000
$12,119
$36,723
$87,653
$179,667
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 549
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$435
$724
$845
$1,438
$1,386
$2,772
$431
$568
$800
$1,385
$394
$585
$1,103
$1,103
$673
$8,189
$725
$26,079
$18,477
$129,519
Retail Bill ($)
$385
$641
$734
$1,153
$1,126
$1,896
$382
$494
$700
$1,121
$349
$518
$979
$979
$597
$5,228
$644
$15,189
$10,953
$72,783
-$223
$-
-$475
$-
-$623
$-
-$117
$-
-$365
$-
-$204
$-
$-
$-
-$606
$-
-$3,218
$-
-$13,848
$-
$565
$-
$1,131
$-
$1,696
$-
$283
$-
$942
$-
$471
$-
$-
$-
$1,885
$-
$3,770
$-
$18,849
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,756
$-
$8,780
$-
$35,120
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,163
$1,365
$2,234
$2,592
$3,585
$4,667
$978
$1,062
$2,076
$2,506
$1,011
$1,103
$2,082
$2,082
$4,305
$13,417
$10,701
$41,268
$69,551 $202,302
Network bill ($)
$542
$939
$1,017
$1,866
$1,769
$3,596
$537
$736
$1,037
$1,797
$466
$759
$1,431
$1,431
$769
$10,625
$792
$33,838
$23,973 $168,048
Retail Bill ($)
$331
$574
$614
$1,032
$994
$1,697
$328
$442
$626
$1,003
$285
$464
$876
$876
$471
$4,679
$485
$13,594
$9,803
$65,139
Export revenues ($)
-$316
$-
-$758
$-
-$702
$-
-$213
$-
-$353
$-
-$397
$-
$-
$-
-$876
$-
-$3,601
$-
-$13,393
$-
$648
$-
$1,458
$-
$1,620
$-
$405
$-
$810
$-
$729
$-
$-
$-
$2,106
$-
$4,051
$-
$16,203
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$7,509
$-
$30,037
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,206
$1,513
$2,331
$2,898
$3,680
$5,293
$1,056
$1,179
$2,120
$2,800
$1,082
$1,223
$2,307
$2,307
$3,973
$15,304
$9,236
$47,431
$66,623
$233,187
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$1,107
$571
$1,026
$1,140
$1,828
$2,332
$1,649
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,623
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$602
$566
$985
$1,026
$1,674
$1,743
$1,945
$2,266
$427
$452
$1,053
$994
$530
$478
$583
$539
$1,092
$982
$1,367
$1,596
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$13
$-
-$34
$-
-$35
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$13
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$438
$-
$730
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$292
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,709
$1,136
$2,144
$2,166
$3,906
$4,075
$4,290
$5,545
$1,153
$908
$2,187
$2,092
$2,476
$965
$1,260
$1,084
$2,171
$2,062
$3,269
$3,661
Network bill ($)
$1,123
$579
$970
$1,157
$1,511
$2,366
$1,332
$3,328
$736
$463
$894
$1,114
$1,974
$494
$687
$553
$986
$1,096
$1,440
$2,095
$707
$688
$1,078
$1,247
$1,677
$2,119
$1,988
$2,754
$509
$549
$833
$1,208
$621
$581
$683
$655
$873
$1,194
$1,433
$1,940
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$54
$-
-$151
$-
-$152
$-
$-
$-
-$95
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$85
$-
-$90
$-
$-
$-
$218
$-
$653
$-
$871
$-
$-
$-
$436
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$436
$-
$436
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$79
$-
$395
$-
$395
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$237
$-
$1,830
$1,266
$2,291
$2,404
$4,085
$4,485
$4,434
$6,082
$1,246
$1,012
$2,226
$2,322
$2,595
$1,075
$1,370
$1,208
$2,289
$2,290
$3,457
$4,035
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 551
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$659
$1,088
$1,318
$1,702
$2,694
$1,494
$3,789
$839
$527
$1,001
$1,268
$2,248
$563
$782
$630
$1,113
$1,248
$1,632
$2,385
$728
$712
$984
$1,291
$1,595
$2,195
$1,887
$2,853
$526
$569
$740
$1,252
$639
$602
$704
$678
$820
$1,237
$1,425
$2,010
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$247
$-
-$339
$-
-$451
$-
$-
$-
-$294
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$238
$-
-$187
$-
$-
$-
$562
$-
$936
$-
$1,310
$-
$-
$-
$749
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$655
$-
$562
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$65
$-
$324
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$65
$-
$195
$-
Total
$2,007
$1,371
$2,452
$2,609
$4,218
$4,889
$4,565
$6,642
$1,364
$1,095
$2,325
$2,520
$2,887
$1,164
$1,486
$1,309
$2,415
$2,484
$3,626
$4,395
Network bill ($)
$1,465
$755
$1,228
$1,509
$1,949
$3,087
$1,698
$4,340
$961
$604
$1,142
$1,453
$2,575
$644
$686
$722
$1,204
$1,429
$1,782
$2,733
$692
$671
$808
$1,216
$1,509
$2,067
$1,694
$2,686
$498
$536
$671
$1,179
$608
$567
$351
$639
$664
$1,165
$1,216
$1,893
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,078
$-
-$345
$-
-$796
$-
$-
$-
-$412
$-
$-
$-
-$509
$-
-$1,023
$-
-$1,012
$-
$-
$-
$1,609
$-
$805
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$1,609
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$54
$-
$268
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$107
$-
$214
$-
$2,158
$1,426
$2,620
$2,726
$4,186
$5,154
$4,472
$7,027
$1,459
$1,139
$2,313
$2,632
$3,184
$1,211
$1,440
$1,361
$2,562
$2,594
$3,809
$4,625
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,279
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,222
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,701
$6,256
$11,370
$19,924
$38,761
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$591
$550
$1,161
$989
$1,240
$1,625
$391
$424
$1,080
$961
$433
$444
$959
$839
$2,467
$4,482
$7,311
$13,022
$21,803
$62,397
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$125
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$221
$-
-$769
$-
-$4,117
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,022
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,213
$-
$8,764
$-
$29,213
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,085
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$221
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,576
$1,102
$2,573
$2,088
$3,581
$3,743
$1,193
$857
$2,223
$2,019
$1,331
$891
$3,265
$1,682
$9,161
$10,738
$26,677
$32,945
$116,745 $161,344
Network bill ($)
$1,000
$561
$1,432
$1,115
$1,167
$2,148
$814
$440
$1,159
$1,073
$911
$454
$2,340
$855
$3,543
$6,348
$10,499
$20,216
$39,011
$100,399
$694
$668
$1,351
$1,202
$1,273
$1,976
$467
$515
$1,264
$1,168
$515
$540
$1,135
$1,020
$2,668
$5,448
$7,531
$15,828
$25,193
$75,845
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$325
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$538
$-
-$2,314
$-
-$4,798
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,198
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,049
$-
$9,800
$-
$21,779
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$21,597
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$395
$-
$1,694
$1,229
$2,783
$2,317
$3,472
$4,124
$1,281
$955
$2,423
$2,242
$1,426
$994
$3,474
$1,875
$8,722
$11,796
$25,516
$36,044
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$103,175 $176,244
ARUP 553
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$548
$639
$1,631
$1,269
$1,310
$2,446
$926
$501
$881
$1,222
$1,037
$517
$2,664
$973
$1,353
$7,228
$11,727
$23,018
$44,123
$114,314
Retail Bill ($)
$352
$692
$1,389
$1,245
$1,280
$2,046
$483
$534
$719
$1,210
$532
$559
$1,170
$1,057
$707
$5,643
$7,537
$16,395
$25,783
$78,562
Export revenues ($)
-$486
$-
$-
$-
-$373
$-
$-
$-
-$356
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,019
$-
-$2,828
$-
-$4,764
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$936
$-
$-
$-
$1,123
$-
$-
$-
$842
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,434
$-
$9,361
$-
$18,721
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,821
$-
$-
$-
$18,206
$-
Battery investm ($)
$65
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$649
$-
Total
$1,414
$1,331
$3,020
$2,514
$3,471
$4,493
$1,409
$1,035
$2,411
$2,432
$1,569
$1,076
$3,834
$2,030
$5,296
$12,870
$25,796
$39,413
$102,718 $192,876
Network bill ($)
$626
$732
$1,499
$1,454
$1,543
$2,802
$1,061
$574
$1,007
$1,400
$1,189
$592
$3,052
$1,115
$1,527
$8,280
$13,215
$26,369
$50,547
$130,959
Retail Bill ($)
$319
$652
$733
$1,172
$1,103
$1,927
$457
$502
$665
$1,140
$504
$527
$1,110
$995
$654
$5,314
$7,009
$15,439
$24,578
$73,982
Export revenues ($)
-$740
$-
-$1,017
$-
-$830
$-
$-
$-
-$418
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,154
$-
-$2,874
$-
-$4,843
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$1,127
$-
$1,609
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,253
$-
$8,047
$-
$16,093
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,533
$-
$-
$-
$15,332
$-
Battery investm ($)
$54
$-
$54
$-
$54
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$535
$-
$1,385
$1,383
$2,878
$2,627
$3,479
$4,730
$1,518
$1,076
$2,326
$2,540
$1,692
$1,118
$4,162
$2,110
$4,815
$13,594
$25,664
$41,808
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
$102,244 $204,940
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$431
$571
$944
$1,140
$1,684
$2,332
$507
$3,279
$379
$456
$759
$1,098
$487
$487
$398
$545
$724
$1,080
$1,629
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$414
$545
$843
$989
$1,287
$1,681
$486
$2,185
$363
$436
$702
$959
$461
$461
$381
$520
$674
$947
$1,304
$1,540
Export revenues ($)
-$40
$-
-$80
$-
-$197
$-
-$331
$-
-$17
$-
-$77
$-
$-
$-
-$37
$-
-$69
$-
-$73
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$1,171
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$293
$-
$586
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,955
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,098
$1,116
$2,146
$2,130
$3,945
$4,013
$2,617
$5,465
$871
$892
$1,970
$2,056
$948
$948
$1,035
$1,065
$1,915
$2,027
$3,446
$3,604
Network bill ($)
$410
$623
$833
$1,246
$1,769
$2,548
$414
$3,583
$338
$498
$696
$1,199
$430
$532
$344
$596
$646
$1,180
$1,565
$2,256
Retail Bill ($)
$441
$668
$851
$1,212
$1,527
$2,059
$445
$2,677
$363
$534
$735
$1,174
$462
$565
$370
$637
$685
$1,160
$1,439
$1,886
-$479
$-
-$991
$-
-$317
$-
-$1,466
$-
-$503
$-
-$378
$-
-$532
$-
-$1,038
$-
-$940
$-
-$930
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,246
$1,291
$2,443
$2,458
$3,855
$4,607
$2,077
$6,259
$1,072
$1,032
$1,927
$2,374
$1,236
$1,097
$1,425
$1,233
$2,140
$2,340
$3,822
$4,141
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 555
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
2029
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$609
$926
$1,238
$1,851
$2,629
$3,786
$512
$5,324
$502
$740
$1,034
$1,782
$640
$791
$511
$886
$960
$1,753
$2,325
$3,352
Retail Bill ($)
$428
$649
$827
$1,177
$1,483
$2,000
$360
$2,599
$352
$518
$713
$1,140
$449
$548
$359
$618
$665
$1,127
$1,397
$1,831
-$427
$-
-$883
$-
-$282
$-
-$1,273
$-
-$448
$-
-$337
$-
-$474
$-
-$925
$-
-$838
$-
-$829
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$788
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$101
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,348
$1,575
$2,657
$3,028
$4,567
$5,786
$1,963
$7,923
$1,143
$1,258
$2,147
$2,922
$1,352
$1,339
$1,420
$1,504
$2,262
$2,880
$4,368
$5,183
Network bill ($)
$883
$1,437
$1,843
$2,872
$3,992
$5,872
$180
$8,257
$714
$1,148
$1,533
$2,764
$933
$1,226
$732
$1,373
$1,422
$2,719
$3,528
$5,198
Retail Bill ($)
$369
$599
$735
$1,087
$1,346
$1,847
$75
$2,400
$298
$478
$631
$1,053
$390
$506
$306
$571
$590
$1,041
$1,266
$1,691
-$436
$-
-$914
$-
-$283
$-
-$1,883
$-
-$458
$-
-$340
$-
-$486
$-
-$961
$-
-$869
$-
-$860
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$996
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$1,496
$2,036
$2,965
$3,958
$5,734
$7,719
$668
$10,658
$1,233
$1,627
$2,503
$3,817
$1,516
$1,732
$1,378
$1,944
$2,443
$3,760
$5,235
$6,890
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$395
$553
$809
$1,099
$1,243
$2,117
$362
$434
$719
$1,058
$345
$447
$842
$842
$796
$6,256
$1,058
$19,924
$27,196
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$379
$530
$740
$954
$1,069
$1,568
$344
$409
$670
$927
$331
$428
$809
$809
$765
$4,322
$1,017
$12,558
$16,939
$60,175
Export revenues ($)
-$31
$-
-$47
$-
-$186
$-
-$20
$-
-$127
$-
-$56
$-
$-
$-
-$180
$-
-$2,178
$-
-$3,897
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$1,317
$-
$146
$-
$732
$-
$293
$-
$-
$-
$1,464
$-
$2,928
$-
$29,276
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,955
$-
$9,774
$-
$19,548
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,036
$1,083
$1,942
$2,052
$3,442
$3,685
$832
$842
$1,993
$1,985
$913
$876
$1,652
$1,652
$4,800
$10,578
$12,599
$32,481
$89,063
$159,122
Network bill ($)
$320
$604
$644
$1,200
$1,138
$2,313
$328
$474
$667
$1,156
$295
$488
$920
$920
$480
$6,835
$510
$21,766
$15,421
$108,098
Retail Bill ($)
$344
$649
$685
$1,168
$1,124
$1,920
$353
$501
$709
$1,135
$317
$525
$992
$992
$517
$5,294
$549
$15,383
$11,093
$73,712
-$1,022
$-
-$935
$-
-$763
$-
-$512
$-
-$384
$-
-$487
$-
$-
$-
-$1,060
$-
-$3,913
$-
-$14,553
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$-
$-
$2,449
$-
$4,373
$-
$17,491
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$4,676
$-
$18,703
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,391
$1,253
$2,144
$2,368
$3,248
$4,233
$1,044
$974
$1,867
$2,291
$1,000
$1,013
$1,912
$1,912
$3,321
$12,129
$6,194
$37,149
$48,155
$181,810
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 557
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$476
$898
$958
$1,784
$1,691
$3,437
$488
$704
$992
$1,717
$439
$726
$493
$1,368
$713
$10,156
$531
$32,344
$10,788
$160,631
Retail Bill ($)
$334
$630
$665
$1,134
$1,092
$1,864
$343
$486
$688
$1,102
$308
$510
$347
$963
$502
$5,141
$374
$14,937
$5,316
$71,574
Export revenues ($)
-$911
$-
-$833
$-
-$680
$-
-$457
$-
-$342
$-
-$434
$-
-$374
$-
-$945
$-
-$5,481
$-
-$23,399
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$-
$-
$2,065
$-
$6,638
$-
$14,751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$394
$-
$788
$-
$3,939
$-
$23,636
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,374
$1,528
$2,264
$2,918
$3,577
$5,302
$1,112
$1,190
$2,075
$2,820
$1,050
$1,235
$860
$2,330
$3,123
$15,297
$6,001
$47,281
$31,090 $232,204
Network bill ($)
$677
$1,392
$1,417
$2,767
$2,544
$5,331
$694
$1,092
$1,466
$2,664
$680
$1,126
$765
$2,121
$1,106
$15,752
$784
$50,166
$5,440
$249,138
Retail Bill ($)
$283
$582
$588
$1,047
$982
$1,722
$290
$449
$607
$1,018
$284
$471
$321
$889
$464
$4,748
$329
$13,794
$1,865
$66,099
Export revenues ($)
-$946
$-
-$863
$-
-$702
$-
-$467
$-
-$345
$-
-$458
$-
-$394
$-
-$995
$-
-$6,307
$-
-$36,459
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$-
$-
$1,742
$-
$6,220
$-
$12,440
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$332
$-
$664
$-
$3,319
$-
$26,550
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,314
$1,974
$2,442
$3,814
$4,125
$7,053
$1,196
$1,541
$2,407
$3,682
$1,129
$1,596
$1,023
$3,010
$2,980
$20,500
$4,345
$63,960
$9,835
$315,237
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$1,107
$571
$1,026
$1,140
$1,828
$2,332
$1,649
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,623
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$588
$547
$963
$992
$1,631
$1,687
$1,893
$2,192
$417
$437
$1,023
$962
$517
$462
$568
$521
$1,063
$950
$1,330
$1,544
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$12
$-
-$32
$-
-$34
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$12
$-
$-
$-
$145
$-
$436
$-
$727
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$291
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,695
$1,118
$2,122
$2,133
$3,863
$4,019
$4,236
$5,472
$1,143
$893
$2,157
$2,060
$2,463
$949
$1,245
$1,067
$2,143
$2,030
$3,232
$3,609
Network bill ($)
$1,139
$587
$954
$1,173
$1,515
$2,399
$1,319
$3,373
$746
$469
$887
$1,129
$2,001
$501
$596
$561
$981
$1,111
$1,502
$2,123
$701
$678
$822
$1,230
$1,528
$2,090
$1,716
$2,717
$505
$542
$678
$1,192
$614
$573
$359
$646
$697
$1,178
$1,257
$1,914
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,033
$-
-$330
$-
-$763
$-
$-
$-
-$394
$-
$-
$-
-$1,082
$-
-$980
$-
-$970
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$869
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$83
$-
$416
$-
$416
$-
$-
$-
$166
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$83
$-
$166
$-
$1,839
$1,265
$2,564
$2,403
$3,997
$4,489
$4,426
$6,090
$1,251
$1,011
$2,206
$2,321
$2,616
$1,074
$1,693
$1,207
$2,519
$2,288
$3,693
$4,038
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 559
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$713
$1,159
$1,425
$1,841
$2,915
$1,603
$4,098
$907
$570
$1,078
$1,372
$2,432
$609
$645
$682
$1,137
$1,350
$1,746
$2,580
$691
$667
$811
$1,210
$1,505
$2,057
$1,690
$2,674
$498
$533
$668
$1,173
$606
$564
$335
$636
$663
$1,159
$1,224
$1,884
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$975
$-
-$312
$-
-$720
$-
$-
$-
-$372
$-
$-
$-
-$1,022
$-
-$925
$-
-$915
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$733
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$68
$-
$342
$-
$342
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$137
$-
$205
$-
Total
$2,075
$1,380
$2,529
$2,636
$4,109
$4,972
$4,381
$6,772
$1,405
$1,103
$2,244
$2,545
$3,038
$1,173
$1,561
$1,318
$2,477
$2,509
$3,726
$4,464
Network bill ($)
$1,714
$883
$1,436
$1,766
$2,281
$3,611
$1,986
$5,078
$808
$706
$1,336
$1,700
$3,013
$754
$800
$845
$1,409
$1,672
$2,085
$3,197
Retail Bill ($)
$652
$621
$762
$1,126
$1,409
$1,914
$1,580
$2,488
$277
$496
$627
$1,091
$572
$525
$314
$592
$624
$1,079
$1,132
$1,753
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,022
$-
-$327
$-
-$755
$-
-$519
$-
-$390
$-
$-
$-
-$1,071
$-
-$969
$-
-$960
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$283
$-
$283
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$226
$-
$2,366
$1,505
$2,469
$2,892
$4,264
$5,526
$4,330
$7,566
$1,298
$1,202
$2,303
$2,792
$3,585
$1,279
$1,392
$1,436
$2,412
$2,751
$3,719
$4,950
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,384
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,330
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$1,480
$6,256
$10,921
$19,924
$38,761
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$575
$532
$1,132
$957
$1,221
$1,573
$379
$410
$1,052
$930
$421
$430
$929
$812
$867
$4,336
$6,702
$12,598
$21,046
$60,366
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$152
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$239
$-
-$1,083
$-
-$3,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,745
$-
$10,177
$-
$29,077
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,053
$-
$-
$-
$20,530
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,561
$1,085
$2,543
$2,055
$3,562
$3,690
$1,181
$844
$2,194
$1,988
$1,319
$877
$3,235
$1,654
$5,906
$10,592
$26,716
$32,521 $105,486 $159,313
Network bill ($)
$485
$569
$1,165
$1,130
$1,199
$2,178
$825
$446
$1,042
$1,088
$924
$460
$2,371
$866
$1,187
$6,434
$1,687
$20,491
$39,542
$101,766
Retail Bill ($)
$313
$659
$742
$1,186
$1,116
$1,949
$461
$508
$732
$1,152
$509
$533
$1,117
$1,006
$660
$5,374
$550
$15,613
$24,699
$74,816
-$1,065
$-
-$975
$-
-$795
$-
$-
$-
-$400
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,105
$-
-$5,232
$-
-$4,639
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,432
$-
$6,080
$-
$17,372
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$972
$-
$4,860
$-
$9,720
$-
$83
$-
$83
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$416
$-
$1,553
$1,228
$2,753
$2,316
$3,339
$4,127
$1,286
$954
$2,326
$2,240
$1,433
$993
$3,489
$1,873
$4,146
$11,808
$7,946
$36,104
$87,110
$176,582
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)
Total ($)
ARUP 561
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$589
$691
$1,416
$1,373
$1,457
$2,646
$1,002
$542
$951
$1,322
$1,122
$559
$2,882
$1,053
$1,442
$7,818
$1,953
$24,899
$31,440
$123,655
Retail Bill ($)
$309
$649
$733
$1,167
$1,100
$1,918
$455
$500
$663
$1,134
$502
$524
$1,102
$990
$652
$5,288
$456
$15,365
$13,697
$73,627
-$1,006
$-
-$920
$-
-$751
$-
$-
$-
-$378
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,043
$-
-$6,609
$-
-$14,314
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,051
$-
$7,325
$-
$14,651
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$793
$-
$3,965
$-
$15,859
$-
$68
$-
$68
$-
$68
$-
$-
$-
$342
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$684
$-
$1,426
$1,339
$2,762
$2,540
$3,340
$4,564
$1,457
$1,042
$2,310
$2,456
$1,624
$1,083
$3,983
$2,043
$3,895
$13,107
$7,089
$40,264
$62,017
$197,282
Network bill ($)
$730
$856
$1,754
$1,701
$1,805
$3,279
$1,242
$672
$1,178
$1,638
$1,391
$692
$3,570
$1,305
$1,698
$9,688
$2,141
$30,852
$38,957 $153,220
Retail Bill ($)
$289
$603
$693
$1,086
$1,035
$1,785
$426
$465
$622
$1,055
$470
$488
$1,035
$922
$565
$4,921
$366
$14,298
$12,969
$68,514
-$1,054
$-
-$964
$-
-$787
$-
$-
$-
-$396
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,093
$-
-$6,922
$-
-$15,004
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,730
$-
$6,178
$-
$12,355
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$645
$-
$3,223
$-
$12,892
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$283
$-
$565
$-
$1,257
$1,460
$2,775
$2,787
$3,345
$5,063
$1,667
$1,137
$2,304
$2,694
$1,861
$1,180
$4,606
$2,226
$3,657
$14,609
$5,269
$45,150
$62,734
$221,734
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Battery investm ($)

Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
5 Tasmania
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$441
$571
$994
$1,140
$1,775
$2,332
$2,340
$3,279
$384
$456
$784
$1,098
$487
$487
$407
$545
$749
$1,080
$1,657
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$458
$591
$956
$1,072
$1,454
$1,822
$1,828
$2,369
$399
$472
$782
$1,039
$500
$500
$423
$563
$752
$1,027
$1,431
$1,669
Export revenues ($)
-$33
$-
-$37
$-
-$135
$-
-$125
$-
-$13
$-
-$63
$-
$-
$-
-$29
$-
-$55
$-
-$58
$-
$262
$-
$262
$-
$917
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,129
$1,162
$2,176
$2,213
$4,012
$4,155
$5,222
$5,648
$901
$928
$2,027
$2,137
$987
$987
$1,063
$1,109
$1,970
$2,107
$3,555
$3,734
Network bill ($)
$455
$588
$960
$1,176
$1,729
$2,405
$2,299
$3,381
$396
$470
$743
$1,132
$502
$502
$394
$562
$742
$1,113
$1,640
$2,129
Retail Bill ($)
$557
$718
$1,095
$1,302
$1,685
$2,212
$2,142
$2,876
$485
$573
$885
$1,261
$607
$607
$483
$684
$881
$1,247
$1,683
$2,026
Export revenues ($)
-$40
$-
-$127
$-
-$295
$-
-$282
$-
-$16
$-
-$159
$-
$-
$-
-$78
$-
-$109
$-
-$156
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,404
$-
$117
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,205
$1,306
$2,395
$2,478
$4,289
$4,617
$5,563
$6,257
$981
$1,043
$2,170
$2,393
$1,109
$1,109
$1,150
$1,246
$2,099
$2,360
$3,868
$4,155
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 563
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$495
$670
$1,007
$1,340
$1,969
$2,740
$2,444
$3,852
$424
$536
$784
$1,290
$527
$572
$432
$641
$783
$1,269
$1,803
$2,425
Retail Bill ($)
$542
$731
$1,037
$1,326
$1,716
$2,254
$2,076
$2,930
$464
$584
$841
$1,285
$572
$618
$473
$697
$838
$1,270
$1,666
$2,064
Export revenues ($)
-$91
$-
-$337
$-
-$314
$-
-$662
$-
-$64
$-
-$321
$-
-$38
$-
-$135
$-
-$268
$-
-$322
$-
$301
$-
$802
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,904
$-
$200
$-
$902
$-
$100
$-
$401
$-
$802
$-
$902
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,246
$1,402
$2,508
$2,666
$4,374
$4,994
$5,762
$6,782
$1,025
$1,120
$2,205
$2,575
$1,161
$1,190
$1,171
$1,338
$2,155
$2,539
$4,049
$4,490
Network bill ($)
$554
$799
$1,129
$1,597
$2,348
$3,266
$2,893
$4,593
$467
$639
$918
$1,538
$594
$682
$484
$764
$887
$1,512
$2,072
$2,891
Retail Bill ($)
$453
$652
$874
$1,183
$1,531
$2,011
$1,842
$2,614
$383
$521
$738
$1,147
$483
$551
$396
$622
$713
$1,133
$1,442
$1,842
Export revenues ($)
-$276
$-
-$725
$-
-$340
$-
-$775
$-
-$246
$-
-$405
$-
-$221
$-
-$326
$-
-$530
$-
-$710
$-
$515
$-
$1,201
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$429
$-
$858
$-
$343
$-
$601
$-
$1,030
$-
$1,287
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,245
$1,452
$2,479
$2,780
$4,397
$5,277
$5,678
$7,207
$1,033
$1,160
$2,108
$2,684
$1,199
$1,233
$1,154
$1,386
$2,100
$2,646
$4,091
$4,733
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$405
$553
$831
$1,099
$1,307
$2,117
$367
$434
$783
$1,058
$388
$447
$842
$842
$2,676
$6,256
$10,597
$19,924
$29,863
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$421
$575
$821
$1,034
$1,208
$1,699
$378
$443
$781
$1,005
$403
$464
$878
$878
$2,347
$4,685
$7,521
$13,613
$20,104
$65,232
Export revenues ($)
-$24
$-
-$37
$-
-$157
$-
-$17
$-
-$78
$-
-$19
$-
$-
$-
-$326
$-
-$1,173
$-
-$3,415
$-
$262
$-
$393
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$524
$-
$131
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,065
$1,127
$2,008
$2,132
$3,538
$3,817
$860
$877
$2,010
$2,063
$904
$912
$1,720
$1,720
$8,365
$10,941
$27,428
$33,537
$107,973 $164,179
Network bill ($)
$391
$570
$793
$1,133
$1,249
$2,183
$379
$447
$710
$1,091
$366
$461
$869
$869
$2,759
$6,450
$10,146
$20,542
$30,790
$102,019
Retail Bill ($)
$478
$698
$933
$1,255
$1,377
$2,063
$459
$538
$850
$1,220
$448
$564
$1,065
$1,065
$2,849
$5,688
$8,529
$16,526
$24,406
$79,187
Export revenues ($)
-$71
$-
-$128
$-
-$319
$-
-$20
$-
-$219
$-
-$61
$-
$-
$-
-$401
$-
-$2,321
$-
-$4,201
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$1,404
$-
$117
$-
$819
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,150
$1,268
$2,183
$2,388
$3,712
$4,246
$934
$985
$2,160
$2,310
$987
$1,025
$1,934
$1,934
$8,483
$12,138
$28,057
$37,068
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$105,584 $181,206
ARUP 565
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$649
$822
$1,291
$1,331
$2,487
$407
$509
$746
$1,243
$379
$525
$990
$990
$3,143
$7,349
$11,559
$23,404
$35,080 $116,234
Retail Bill ($)
$467
$711
$876
$1,279
$1,325
$2,102
$443
$548
$805
$1,243
$414
$574
$1,085
$1,085
$2,903
$5,796
$8,691
$16,839
$24,868
$80,689
Export revenues ($)
-$126
$-
-$341
$-
-$542
$-
-$70
$-
-$385
$-
-$165
$-
$-
$-
-$428
$-
-$2,477
$-
-$4,482
$-
$401
$-
$902
$-
$1,603
$-
$200
$-
$1,002
$-
$401
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,168
$1,360
$2,259
$2,569
$3,717
$4,589
$980
$1,057
$2,169
$2,486
$1,029
$1,100
$2,075
$2,075
$8,424
$13,145
$27,795
$40,243 $101,266 $196,923
Network bill ($)
$461
$774
$868
$1,539
$1,519
$2,965
$459
$607
$890
$1,482
$407
$626
$1,180
$1,180
$672
$8,761
$13,781
$27,902
$41,822
$138,570
Retail Bill ($)
$378
$634
$701
$1,141
$1,138
$1,875
$376
$489
$718
$1,109
$333
$513
$968
$968
$552
$5,170
$7,753
$15,022
$22,185
$71,983
Export revenues ($)
-$374
$-
-$907
$-
-$819
$-
-$195
$-
-$416
$-
-$418
$-
$-
$-
-$1,130
$-
-$2,678
$-
-$4,846
$-
$687
$-
$1,545
$-
$1,716
$-
$343
$-
$858
$-
$687
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$8,581
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$-
$-
$21,274
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,151
$1,408
$2,207
$2,679
$3,554
$4,840
$983
$1,096
$2,050
$2,590
$1,009
$1,139
$2,148
$2,148
$4,624
$13,932
$27,438
$42,924
$97,598
$210,553
ARUP
No Adoption
No Adoption
$426
Total
Adopting DG & DS
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$445
$571
$851
$1,140
$1,552
$2,332
$1,709
$3,279
$350
$456
$761
$1,098
$464
$487
$392
$545
$772
$1,080
$1,234
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$347
$589
$663
$1,068
$1,209
$1,815
$1,332
$2,359
$273
$470
$593
$1,035
$361
$498
$305
$561
$602
$1,023
$962
$1,662
Export revenues ($)
-$32
$-
-$36
$-
-$134
$-
-$125
$-
-$13
$-
-$62
$-
-$29
$-
-$29
$-
-$54
$-
-$57
$-
$262
$-
$262
$-
$917
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$524
$-
$131
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,021
$1,159
$1,739
$2,208
$3,544
$4,147
$4,095
$5,639
$741
$926
$1,817
$2,133
$927
$985
$930
$1,107
$1,844
$2,103
$2,663
$3,727
Network bill ($)
$467
$599
$827
$1,198
$1,535
$2,449
$1,728
$3,444
$338
$479
$731
$1,153
$487
$511
$380
$573
$776
$1,134
$1,261
$2,168
Retail Bill ($)
$417
$709
$739
$1,286
$1,372
$2,186
$1,545
$2,842
$302
$566
$653
$1,247
$435
$600
$340
$676
$694
$1,232
$1,127
$2,002
Export revenues ($)
-$39
$-
-$124
$-
-$289
$-
-$233
$-
-$59
$-
-$156
$-
-$35
$-
-$77
$-
-$107
$-
-$110
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,287
$-
$234
$-
$702
$-
$117
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$585
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,079
$1,309
$1,910
$2,484
$3,788
$4,636
$4,327
$6,286
$816
$1,045
$1,930
$2,400
$1,004
$1,111
$995
$1,249
$1,948
$2,366
$2,864
$4,170
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 567
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$502
$708
$903
$1,414
$1,812
$2,892
$1,891
$4,067
$381
$565
$788
$1,361
$575
$604
$428
$676
$839
$1,339
$1,412
$2,560
Retail Bill ($)
$382
$713
$687
$1,294
$1,380
$2,199
$1,439
$2,858
$290
$570
$600
$1,254
$438
$603
$325
$680
$638
$1,239
$1,074
$2,013
Export revenues ($)
-$138
$-
-$274
$-
-$302
$-
-$534
$-
-$112
$-
-$309
$-
-$37
$-
-$130
$-
-$258
$-
-$258
$-
$401
$-
$702
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,704
$-
$301
$-
$902
$-
$100
$-
$401
$-
$802
$-
$802
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,147
$1,421
$2,018
$2,708
$3,892
$5,091
$4,500
$6,924
$859
$1,135
$1,981
$2,615
$1,076
$1,207
$1,024
$1,356
$2,021
$2,578
$3,030
$4,574
Network bill ($)
$577
$852
$997
$1,702
$2,182
$3,481
$2,218
$4,895
$419
$681
$927
$1,639
$662
$727
$474
$814
$934
$1,612
$1,611
$3,082
Retail Bill ($)
$322
$630
$557
$1,143
$1,219
$1,942
$1,239
$2,525
$234
$503
$518
$1,108
$370
$533
$265
$600
$522
$1,095
$900
$1,779
-$265
$-
-$635
$-
-$325
$-
-$742
$-
-$295
$-
-$388
$-
-$153
$-
-$312
$-
-$566
$-
-$621
$-
$515
$-
$1,116
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$515
$-
$858
$-
$257
$-
$601
$-
$1,116
$-
$1,201
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,150
$1,482
$2,034
$2,845
$3,933
$5,424
$4,431
$7,420
$873
$1,184
$1,916
$2,746
$1,136
$1,260
$1,026
$1,415
$2,006
$2,706
$3,091
$4,861
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$424
$553
$814
$1,099
$1,177
$2,117
$315
$434
$732
$1,058
$350
$447
$1,295
$842
$2,959
$6,256
$9,082
$19,924
$67,816
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$331
$572
$634
$1,029
$917
$1,692
$245
$441
$570
$1,001
$273
$463
$966
$874
$2,207
$4,666
$6,775
$13,558
$44,530
$64,968
Export revenues ($)
-$23
$-
-$36
$-
-$156
$-
-$17
$-
-$109
$-
-$49
$-
$-
$-
-$324
$-
-$1,165
$-
-$1,266
$-
$262
$-
$393
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$993
$1,125
$1,805
$2,128
$3,118
$3,810
$675
$875
$1,848
$2,059
$836
$910
$2,261
$1,716
$8,512
$10,922
$25,174
$33,482
$137,286 $163,915
Network bill ($)
$410
$581
$787
$1,154
$1,135
$2,223
$331
$455
$703
$1,111
$368
$469
$1,360
$885
$3,108
$6,570
$8,729
$20,922
$71,214
$103,905
Retail Bill ($)
$366
$689
$704
$1,240
$1,014
$2,039
$296
$532
$628
$1,205
$329
$557
$1,164
$1,053
$2,659
$5,621
$7,469
$16,332
$53,641
$78,260
Export revenues ($)
-$69
$-
-$126
$-
-$313
$-
-$20
$-
-$215
$-
-$59
$-
$-
$-
-$394
$-
-$2,278
$-
-$1,538
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$1,404
$-
$117
$-
$819
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,058
$1,270
$1,951
$2,394
$3,240
$4,262
$723
$987
$1,935
$2,316
$871
$1,027
$2,523
$1,937
$8,650
$12,191
$25,623
$37,254
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
$146,723 $182,165
ARUP 569
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$686
$856
$1,363
$1,215
$2,626
$363
$538
$753
$1,312
$383
$554
$1,606
$1,045
$3,670
$7,758
$10,308
$24,706
$43,057 $122,700
Retail Bill ($)
$332
$693
$652
$1,247
$925
$2,050
$277
$534
$573
$1,212
$291
$560
$1,170
$1,059
$2,674
$5,652
$7,511
$16,423
$27,617
$78,696
Export revenues ($)
-$172
$-
-$277
$-
-$572
$-
-$68
$-
-$370
$-
-$159
$-
$-
$-
-$411
$-
-$2,382
$-
-$4,311
$-
$501
$-
$802
$-
$1,704
$-
$200
$-
$1,002
$-
$401
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,098
$1,379
$2,033
$2,610
$3,271
$4,676
$773
$1,072
$1,958
$2,524
$916
$1,115
$2,776
$2,103
$8,738
$13,410
$25,458
$41,129
$112,162 $201,396
Network bill ($)
$467
$825
$873
$1,640
$1,405
$3,161
$409
$647
$907
$1,579
$400
$667
$1,933
$1,258
$1,190
$9,339
$12,408
$29,740
$51,829
$147,699
Retail Bill ($)
$261
$612
$488
$1,102
$785
$1,811
$228
$472
$507
$1,071
$223
$495
$1,034
$935
$637
$4,994
$6,636
$14,509
$24,399
$69,525
Export revenues ($)
-$417
$-
-$868
$-
-$785
$-
-$186
$-
-$399
$-
-$400
$-
$-
$-
-$1,082
$-
-$2,564
$-
-$4,641
$-
$772
$-
$1,545
$-
$1,716
$-
$343
$-
$858
$-
$687
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$8,581
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$-
$-
$21,274
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,083
$1,438
$2,038
$2,742
$3,122
$4,972
$794
$1,120
$1,873
$2,650
$909
$1,162
$2,967
$2,193
$5,275
$14,332
$25,061
$44,249
ARUP
No Adoption
No Adoption
$436
Total
Adopting DG & DS
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
$110,025 $217,225
5.5
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$481
$571
$994
$1,140
$1,865
$2,332
$2,389
$3,279
$384
$456
$784
$1,098
$487
$487
$407
$545
$791
$1,080
$1,657
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$492
$582
$940
$1,055
$1,491
$1,793
$1,826
$2,330
$393
$465
$769
$1,022
$492
$492
$416
$554
$775
$1,010
$1,408
$1,642
Export revenues ($)
-$5
$-
-$36
$-
-$74
$-
-$94
$-
-$13
$-
-$62
$-
$-
$-
-$29
$-
-$26
$-
-$57
$-
$147
$-
$294
$-
$735
$-
$1,177
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,115
$1,152
$2,192
$2,195
$4,018
$4,125
$5,298
$5,610
$911
$921
$2,079
$2,120
$979
$979
$1,088
$1,100
$1,982
$2,090
$3,596
$3,706
Network bill ($)
$451
$584
$952
$1,167
$1,715
$2,386
$2,282
$3,355
$393
$467
$737
$1,123
$498
$498
$391
$558
$736
$1,105
$1,627
$2,112
Retail Bill ($)
$535
$690
$1,052
$1,251
$1,619
$2,126
$2,058
$2,763
$466
$551
$850
$1,212
$583
$583
$464
$657
$847
$1,198
$1,617
$1,947
Export revenues ($)
-$38
$-
-$122
$-
-$282
$-
-$270
$-
-$16
$-
-$153
$-
$-
$-
-$75
$-
-$105
$-
-$150
$-
$219
$-
$439
$-
$1,096
$-
$1,316
$-
$110
$-
$658
$-
$-
$-
$329
$-
$548
$-
$658
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,167
$1,274
$2,321
$2,418
$4,148
$4,512
$5,385
$6,118
$953
$1,017
$2,092
$2,335
$1,081
$1,081
$1,109
$1,215
$2,026
$2,303
$3,752
$4,059
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 571
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$504
$683
$1,063
$1,365
$2,007
$2,791
$2,553
$3,925
$432
$546
$816
$1,314
$537
$583
$458
$653
$835
$1,293
$1,877
$2,471
Retail Bill ($)
$472
$638
$932
$1,157
$1,497
$1,966
$1,842
$2,555
$405
$509
$748
$1,121
$499
$539
$429
$608
$762
$1,108
$1,478
$1,800
Export revenues ($)
-$75
$-
-$191
$-
-$258
$-
-$412
$-
-$52
$-
-$221
$-
-$31
$-
-$69
$-
-$135
$-
-$177
$-
$283
$-
$565
$-
$942
$-
$1,508
$-
$188
$-
$754
$-
$94
$-
$283
$-
$565
$-
$660
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,185
$1,321
$2,369
$2,522
$4,188
$4,757
$5,491
$6,480
$973
$1,055
$2,097
$2,435
$1,099
$1,122
$1,101
$1,261
$2,027
$2,400
$3,837
$4,271
Network bill ($)
$580
$809
$1,199
$1,618
$2,378
$3,308
$1,367
$4,652
$495
$647
$929
$1,557
$621
$691
$522
$774
$946
$1,532
$2,159
$2,929
Retail Bill ($)
$370
$514
$719
$932
$1,206
$1,584
$809
$2,058
$315
$410
$581
$903
$392
$434
$332
$490
$589
$892
$1,162
$1,450
Export revenues ($)
-$113
$-
-$308
$-
-$247
$-
-$405
$-
-$92
$-
-$295
$-
-$72
$-
-$106
$-
-$211
$-
-$296
$-
$324
$-
$729
$-
$810
$-
$891
$-
$243
$-
$810
$-
$162
$-
$324
$-
$648
$-
$810
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$86
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,161
$1,323
$2,340
$2,550
$4,147
$4,892
$3,498
$6,710
$961
$1,057
$2,026
$2,460
$1,103
$1,125
$1,072
$1,263
$1,972
$2,424
$3,836
$4,379
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$405
$553
$831
$1,099
$1,398
$2,117
$367
$434
$824
$1,058
$447
$447
$842
$842
$2,887
$6,256
$11,128
$19,924
$29,863
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$414
$565
$808
$1,017
$1,257
$1,672
$372
$436
$802
$988
$457
$457
$863
$863
$2,444
$4,609
$7,740
$13,392
$19,778
$64,173
Export revenues ($)
-$23
$-
-$37
$-
-$98
$-
-$17
$-
-$48
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$198
$-
-$852
$-
-$3,399
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$1,029
$-
$147
$-
$441
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,530
$-
$10,294
$-
$29,413
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$29,380
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,090
$1,118
$2,043
$2,116
$3,586
$3,789
$870
$870
$2,020
$2,046
$904
$904
$1,706
$1,706
$8,662
$10,865
$28,310
$33,316 $105,035 $163,120
Network bill ($)
$388
$566
$787
$1,124
$1,240
$2,166
$376
$444
$704
$1,082
$363
$457
$862
$862
$2,737
$6,400
$10,067
$20,383
$30,551
$101,228
Retail Bill ($)
$460
$670
$896
$1,206
$1,323
$1,982
$441
$517
$817
$1,172
$430
$542
$1,024
$1,024
$2,738
$5,466
$8,197
$15,881
$23,454
$76,100
Export revenues ($)
-$68
$-
-$123
$-
-$306
$-
-$20
$-
-$210
$-
-$58
$-
$-
$-
-$384
$-
-$2,224
$-
-$4,026
$-
$329
$-
$548
$-
$1,316
$-
$110
$-
$767
$-
$219
$-
$-
$-
$3,070
$-
$10,964
$-
$21,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$20,531
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,109
$1,236
$2,109
$2,330
$3,573
$4,148
$907
$960
$2,078
$2,254
$954
$999
$1,886
$1,886
$8,160
$11,866
$27,003
$36,264
$92,439
$177,328
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 573
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$454
$662
$872
$1,315
$1,375
$2,534
$414
$519
$777
$1,266
$402
$535
$1,008
$1,008
$3,202
$7,488
$11,778
$23,847
$35,743
$118,430
Retail Bill ($)
$425
$620
$791
$1,115
$1,169
$1,833
$387
$478
$717
$1,084
$376
$501
$947
$947
$2,531
$5,054
$7,579
$14,684
$21,686
$70,364
Export revenues ($)
-$62
$-
-$193
$-
-$401
$-
-$58
$-
-$273
$-
-$93
$-
$-
$-
-$351
$-
-$2,031
$-
-$3,675
$-
$283
$-
$660
$-
$1,414
$-
$188
$-
$848
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$2,639
$-
$9,425
$-
$18,849
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$17,560
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,100
$1,281
$2,130
$2,430
$3,556
$4,367
$932
$997
$2,070
$2,350
$968
$1,036
$1,955
$1,955
$8,022
$12,542
$26,751
$38,531
$90,163
$188,794
Network bill ($)
$498
$784
$959
$1,559
$1,553
$3,003
$475
$615
$901
$1,501
$457
$634
$1,195
$1,195
$767
$8,874
$13,958
$28,261
$42,359 $140,352
Retail Bill ($)
$317
$499
$597
$898
$903
$1,477
$302
$385
$566
$873
$291
$404
$763
$763
$489
$4,071
$6,106
$11,829
$17,470
$56,684
Export revenues ($)
-$141
$-
-$353
$-
-$553
$-
-$98
$-
-$303
$-
-$130
$-
$-
$-
-$568
$-
-$1,948
$-
-$3,526
$-
$405
$-
$891
$-
$1,539
$-
$243
$-
$810
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$1,782
$-
$8,102
$-
$16,203
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$-
$-
$15,019
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,080
$1,283
$2,095
$2,457
$3,443
$4,480
$923
$1,000
$1,974
$2,374
$942
$1,038
$1,957
$1,957
$3,973
$12,945
$26,217
$40,090
$87,525
$197,036
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$1,107
$571
$1,039
$1,140
$1,866
$2,332
$1,694
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,638
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$597
$583
$1,101
$1,058
$1,956
$1,798
$2,353
$2,337
$465
$466
$1,059
$1,025
$555
$493
$595
$556
$1,072
$1,013
$1,512
$1,647
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1
$-
-$1
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$0
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$292
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,705
$1,154
$2,139
$2,198
$3,968
$4,130
$4,338
$5,616
$1,191
$922
$2,193
$2,123
$2,501
$980
$1,272
$1,101
$2,151
$2,093
$3,296
$3,711
Network bill ($)
$1,112
$573
$968
$1,145
$1,534
$2,342
$1,338
$3,294
$729
$458
$892
$1,103
$1,954
$489
$680
$548
$985
$1,085
$1,442
$2,074
Retail Bill ($)
$701
$704
$1,163
$1,276
$1,975
$2,169
$2,244
$2,820
$546
$562
$916
$1,237
$644
$595
$695
$671
$936
$1,222
$1,606
$1,987
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$11
$-
-$31
$-
-$52
$-
$-
$-
-$43
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$31
$-
-$10
$-
$-
$-
$109
$-
$327
$-
$653
$-
$-
$-
$327
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$327
$-
$218
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$79
$-
$395
$-
$395
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$237
$-
$1,813
$1,277
$2,308
$2,422
$4,199
$4,512
$4,578
$6,113
$1,275
$1,020
$2,250
$2,340
$2,598
$1,084
$1,374
$1,218
$2,295
$2,307
$3,493
$4,060
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 575
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$640
$1,074
$1,280
$1,698
$2,617
$1,480
$3,680
$814
$512
$990
$1,232
$2,184
$546
$759
$612
$1,051
$1,212
$1,603
$2,317
$669
$667
$1,063
$1,210
$1,776
$2,056
$2,037
$2,672
$522
$533
$826
$1,172
$617
$564
$664
$636
$861
$1,159
$1,465
$1,883
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$42
$-
-$86
$-
-$109
$-
$-
$-
-$72
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$30
$-
-$34
$-
$-
$-
$187
$-
$468
$-
$749
$-
$-
$-
$374
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$281
$-
$281
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$65
$-
$324
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$195
$-
Total
$1,912
$1,307
$2,347
$2,490
$4,181
$4,673
$4,481
$6,352
$1,336
$1,044
$2,247
$2,404
$2,800
$1,110
$1,424
$1,248
$2,293
$2,370
$3,509
$4,200
Network bill ($)
$1,390
$716
$1,188
$1,431
$1,872
$2,927
$1,636
$4,116
$911
$572
$1,097
$1,378
$2,442
$611
$849
$685
$1,164
$1,355
$1,716
$2,591
$573
$554
$831
$1,005
$1,374
$1,708
$1,619
$2,221
$446
$443
$646
$974
$533
$469
$571
$528
$670
$963
$1,147
$1,565
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$159
$-
-$272
$-
-$261
$-
$-
$-
-$147
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$101
$-
-$103
$-
$-
$-
$402
$-
$805
$-
$966
$-
$-
$-
$483
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$402
$-
$402
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$54
$-
$268
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$214
$-
$1,962
$1,270
$2,316
$2,437
$4,046
$4,636
$4,227
$6,337
$1,357
$1,015
$2,186
$2,352
$2,976
$1,080
$1,421
$1,213
$2,242
$2,318
$3,377
$4,156
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,242
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,407
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,887
$6,256
$12,050
$19,924
$74,043
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$575
$567
$1,100
$1,020
$1,443
$1,676
$419
$437
$997
$991
$476
$458
$895
$866
$2,790
$4,622
$8,218
$13,431
$44,895
$64,357
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$32
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$143
$-
-$582
$-
-$1,273
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$584
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,213
$-
$8,764
$-
$29,213
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,561
$1,120
$2,512
$2,119
$3,402
$3,794
$1,221
$871
$2,139
$2,049
$1,374
$905
$3,201
$1,708
$9,748
$10,879
$28,449
$33,354 $146,878 $163,304
Network bill ($)
$990
$555
$1,418
$1,104
$1,149
$2,126
$805
$436
$1,147
$1,062
$902
$449
$2,316
$846
$3,654
$6,283
$10,923
$20,010
$73,731
$99,374
Retail Bill ($)
$677
$684
$1,288
$1,230
$1,325
$2,023
$495
$527
$1,178
$1,196
$558
$553
$1,068
$1,045
$2,993
$5,577
$8,410
$16,205
$52,571
$77,649
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$230
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$397
$-
-$1,849
$-
-$1,549
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,089
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,049
$-
$9,800
$-
$21,779
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$789
$-
$1,667
$1,239
$2,706
$2,334
$3,491
$4,149
$1,300
$963
$2,325
$2,259
$1,459
$1,002
$3,384
$1,891
$9,299
$11,860
$27,284
$36,214
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$147,321 $177,023
ARUP 577
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$1,106
$620
$1,584
$1,233
$1,284
$2,376
$900
$487
$1,282
$1,187
$1,008
$502
$2,587
$945
$4,082
$7,020
$11,932
$22,357
$82,380
$111,032
Retail Bill ($)
$646
$648
$1,231
$1,166
$1,262
$1,917
$472
$500
$1,123
$1,134
$533
$524
$1,015
$990
$2,863
$5,286
$7,782
$15,358
$50,134
$73,593
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$219
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$377
$-
-$2,181
$-
-$1,472
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$936
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,621
$-
$9,361
$-
$18,721
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$649
$-
Total
$1,752
$1,269
$2,815
$2,399
$3,394
$4,293
$1,371
$986
$2,405
$2,321
$1,540
$1,026
$3,603
$1,935
$9,190
$12,306
$26,894
$37,715
$150,413 $184,624
Network bill ($)
$1,237
$694
$1,772
$1,379
$1,436
$2,658
$1,006
$544
$968
$1,328
$1,127
$561
$2,894
$1,057
$4,566
$7,852
$13,087
$25,007
$91,751
$124,191
$550
$539
$1,055
$969
$1,068
$1,593
$401
$415
$593
$942
$457
$435
$853
$823
$2,466
$4,392
$6,521
$12,762
$42,507
$61,152
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$215
$-
$-
$-
-$203
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$371
$-
-$2,147
$-
-$1,449
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$563
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,253
$-
$8,047
$-
$16,093
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$911
$-
$1,787
$1,233
$2,827
$2,348
$3,201
$4,251
$1,407
$960
$2,189
$2,270
$1,584
$997
$3,747
$1,880
$8,914
$12,244
$25,775
$37,768
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
$149,813 $185,343
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$441
$571
$994
$1,140
$1,817
$2,332
$2,389
$3,279
$384
$456
$784
$1,098
$487
$487
$407
$545
$791
$1,080
$1,657
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$443
$571
$923
$1,035
$1,432
$1,760
$1,792
$2,287
$385
$456
$755
$1,003
$483
$483
$408
$544
$761
$992
$1,382
$1,611
Export revenues ($)
-$32
$-
-$36
$-
-$102
$-
-$93
$-
-$13
$-
-$62
$-
$-
$-
-$29
$-
-$25
$-
-$57
$-
$293
$-
$293
$-
$878
$-
$1,171
$-
$146
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,145
$1,141
$2,174
$2,176
$4,025
$4,092
$5,259
$5,567
$903
$912
$2,063
$2,101
$969
$969
$1,079
$1,089
$1,966
$2,071
$3,568
$3,676
Network bill ($)
$412
$595
$835
$1,190
$1,749
$2,434
$1,024
$3,422
$342
$476
$684
$1,146
$437
$508
$360
$569
$655
$1,127
$1,537
$2,154
Retail Bill ($)
$495
$712
$948
$1,291
$1,671
$2,195
$1,139
$2,853
$411
$569
$805
$1,252
$521
$602
$432
$678
$771
$1,237
$1,569
$2,010
Export revenues ($)
-$237
$-
-$675
$-
-$291
$-
-$940
$-
-$264
$-
-$347
$-
-$242
$-
-$280
$-
-$507
$-
-$662
$-
$525
$-
$1,312
$-
$875
$-
$1,662
$-
$525
$-
$875
$-
$437
$-
$612
$-
$1,137
$-
$1,399
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$468
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,195
$1,308
$2,420
$2,482
$4,004
$4,629
$3,352
$6,275
$1,014
$1,045
$2,016
$2,397
$1,153
$1,110
$1,125
$1,248
$2,057
$2,364
$3,843
$4,164
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 579
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$508
$761
$1,039
$1,520
$2,235
$3,109
$1,197
$4,372
$419
$608
$874
$1,464
$532
$649
$428
$727
$806
$1,440
$1,938
$2,752
Retail Bill ($)
$443
$661
$859
$1,199
$1,552
$2,039
$980
$2,650
$365
$528
$748
$1,162
$463
$559
$373
$630
$691
$1,149
$1,441
$1,867
Export revenues ($)
-$416
$-
-$868
$-
-$268
$-
-$874
$-
-$441
$-
-$320
$-
-$470
$-
-$913
$-
-$815
$-
-$808
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$394
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$103
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,272
$1,422
$2,505
$2,720
$4,256
$5,148
$3,275
$7,021
$1,080
$1,136
$2,039
$2,626
$1,262
$1,208
$1,363
$1,357
$2,157
$2,588
$4,047
$4,619
Network bill ($)
$697
$1,044
$1,426
$2,086
$3,006
$4,266
$1,642
$5,998
$575
$834
$1,199
$2,008
$730
$891
$587
$998
$1,106
$1,975
$2,659
$3,776
Retail Bill ($)
$385
$575
$746
$1,042
$1,326
$1,771
$851
$2,301
$317
$459
$650
$1,010
$402
$486
$324
$547
$601
$998
$1,252
$1,621
-$434
$-
-$905
$-
-$263
$-
-$910
$-
-$459
$-
-$333
$-
-$490
$-
-$951
$-
-$849
$-
-$841
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$332
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,270
$1,618
$2,511
$3,128
$4,746
$6,036
$3,242
$8,300
$1,054
$1,293
$2,137
$3,018
$1,264
$1,376
$1,204
$1,545
$2,101
$2,973
$4,313
$5,398
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$405
$553
$831
$1,099
$1,349
$2,117
$367
$434
$824
$1,058
$388
$447
$842
$842
$2,887
$6,256
$11,128
$19,924
$29,863
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$407
$555
$793
$998
$1,197
$1,641
$365
$428
$787
$970
$389
$448
$847
$847
$2,399
$4,524
$7,596
$13,144
$19,411
$62,982
Export revenues ($)
-$23
$-
-$36
$-
-$124
$-
-$16
$-
-$48
$-
-$18
$-
$-
$-
-$196
$-
-$841
$-
-$3,357
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$1,171
$-
$146
$-
$439
$-
$146
$-
$-
$-
$3,513
$-
$10,246
$-
$29,276
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$19,548
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,081
$1,108
$2,027
$2,097
$3,593
$3,758
$862
$861
$2,003
$2,028
$905
$896
$1,690
$1,690
$8,603
$10,780
$28,129
$33,067
$94,741
$161,929
Network bill ($)
$343
$577
$641
$1,147
$1,132
$2,209
$336
$452
$663
$1,104
$298
$467
$879
$879
$518
$6,528
$579
$20,789
$31,161
$103,247
Retail Bill ($)
$412
$692
$759
$1,245
$1,242
$2,047
$403
$534
$784
$1,210
$357
$559
$1,057
$1,057
$622
$5,643
$697
$16,396
$24,214
$78,565
-$321
$-
-$830
$-
-$702
$-
-$220
$-
-$357
$-
-$411
$-
$-
$-
-$867
$-
-$3,984
$-
-$4,155
$-
$700
$-
$1,662
$-
$1,749
$-
$437
$-
$875
$-
$787
$-
$-
$-
$2,274
$-
$4,373
$-
$17,491
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$4,676
$-
$9,352
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,134
$1,269
$2,232
$2,391
$3,420
$4,256
$957
$986
$1,965
$2,314
$1,031
$1,026
$1,936
$1,936
$3,482
$12,171
$6,341
$37,185
$78,062
$181,812
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 581
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$737
$813
$1,465
$1,446
$2,823
$409
$578
$847
$1,410
$375
$596
$1,123
$1,123
$640
$8,340
$588
$26,559
$39,809 $131,902
Retail Bill ($)
$351
$643
$700
$1,156
$1,153
$1,901
$357
$496
$728
$1,124
$327
$520
$982
$982
$559
$5,241
$514
$15,227
$22,488
$72,967
Export revenues ($)
-$898
$-
-$814
$-
-$647
$-
-$451
$-
-$329
$-
-$428
$-
$-
$-
-$892
$-
-$4,637
$-
-$3,827
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$-
$-
$2,065
$-
$5,163
$-
$14,751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$788
$-
$3,939
$-
$7,879
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,331
$1,380
$2,175
$2,621
$3,427
$4,723
$1,053
$1,074
$1,984
$2,534
$1,011
$1,116
$2,105
$2,105
$3,160
$13,581
$5,568
$41,787
$81,100
$204,868
Network bill ($)
$553
$1,011
$1,116
$2,010
$1,984
$3,873
$562
$793
$1,162
$1,935
$514
$818
$1,541
$1,541
$878
$11,443
$680
$36,441
$28,730
$180,978
Retail Bill ($)
$305
$558
$608
$1,004
$1,002
$1,651
$310
$430
$633
$976
$284
$451
$853
$853
$486
$4,552
$376
$13,226
$10,548
$63,378
Export revenues ($)
-$935
$-
-$848
$-
-$674
$-
-$470
$-
-$342
$-
-$446
$-
$-
$-
-$929
$-
-$6,397
$-
-$14,419
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$-
$-
$1,742
$-
$6,220
$-
$12,440
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$664
$-
$3,319
$-
$13,275
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,166
$1,569
$2,120
$3,014
$3,556
$5,524
$1,024
$1,224
$2,074
$2,911
$974
$1,269
$2,393
$2,393
$2,839
$15,995
$4,198
$49,667
ARUP
No Adoption
No Adoption
$403
Total
Adopting DG & DS
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
$50,574 $244,356
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$571
$1,027
$1,140
$1,853
$2,332
$1,668
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,638
$2,065
$581
$573
$999
$1,039
$1,782
$1,766
$2,122
$2,296
$458
$458
$1,026
$1,007
$523
$484
$585
$546
$1,041
$995
$1,484
$1,617
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$9
$-
-$8
$-
-$12
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$0
$-
$-
$-
$145
$-
$291
$-
$582
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$145
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,688
$1,144
$2,162
$2,180
$3,918
$4,098
$4,359
$5,575
$1,183
$914
$2,160
$2,105
$2,469
$971
$1,261
$1,091
$2,121
$2,075
$3,268
$3,682
Network bill ($)
$1,115
$574
$944
$1,148
$1,565
$2,348
$1,296
$3,302
$731
$459
$871
$1,105
$1,959
$490
$681
$549
$968
$1,087
$1,417
$2,079
$711
$724
$958
$1,314
$1,705
$2,233
$1,904
$2,902
$559
$578
$734
$1,273
$636
$612
$709
$690
$780
$1,258
$1,411
$2,045
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$425
$-
-$299
$-
-$682
$-
$-
$-
-$357
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$360
$-
-$358
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$869
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$83
$-
$333
$-
$416
$-
$-
$-
$166
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$250
$-
$1,825
$1,299
$2,428
$2,462
$4,173
$4,581
$4,671
$6,204
$1,290
$1,038
$2,283
$2,378
$2,595
$1,103
$1,391
$1,239
$2,340
$2,345
$3,588
$4,123
Retail Bill ($)
2019
Customer 3
$1,107
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 583
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$655
$1,066
$1,308
$1,711
$2,676
$1,476
$3,762
$833
$523
$993
$1,259
$2,232
$559
$593
$626
$1,046
$1,239
$1,606
$2,369
$677
$686
$849
$1,243
$1,603
$2,113
$1,810
$2,746
$533
$547
$698
$1,205
$607
$579
$353
$653
$663
$1,191
$1,275
$1,935
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$920
$-
-$284
$-
-$647
$-
$-
$-
-$339
$-
$-
$-
-$966
$-
-$863
$-
-$855
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$733
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$68
$-
$342
$-
$342
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$137
$-
$205
$-
Total
$1,947
$1,340
$2,529
$2,552
$4,105
$4,789
$4,447
$6,509
$1,366
$1,071
$2,221
$2,464
$2,839
$1,138
$1,582
$1,279
$2,448
$2,430
$3,696
$4,304
Network bill ($)
$1,481
$763
$1,243
$1,525
$1,995
$3,119
$1,721
$4,386
$971
$610
$1,157
$1,468
$2,602
$651
$692
$729
$1,219
$1,444
$1,804
$2,761
$605
$601
$758
$1,091
$1,423
$1,853
$1,606
$2,409
$477
$480
$619
$1,057
$544
$508
$314
$573
$590
$1,044
$1,112
$1,697
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$959
$-
-$296
$-
-$675
$-
$-
$-
-$353
$-
$-
$-
-$1,008
$-
-$900
$-
-$892
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$283
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$226
$-
$2,086
$1,364
$2,334
$2,616
$4,022
$4,972
$4,170
$6,795
$1,447
$1,090
$2,154
$2,525
$3,147
$1,159
$1,346
$1,302
$2,257
$2,488
$3,485
$4,458
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,270
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,382
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,887
$6,256
$12,050
$19,924
$74,043
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$559
$557
$1,075
$1,002
$1,325
$1,647
$398
$429
$966
$974
$451
$450
$874
$850
$2,707
$4,541
$8,036
$13,193
$43,668
$63,218
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$50
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$141
$-
-$577
$-
-$1,261
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$727
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,198
$-
$8,723
$-
$29,077
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,545
$1,110
$2,486
$2,101
$3,384
$3,764
$1,200
$863
$2,108
$2,032
$1,349
$897
$3,180
$1,693
$9,651
$10,797
$28,232
$33,116
$145,527 $162,165
Network bill ($)
$479
$557
$1,421
$1,106
$1,170
$2,132
$807
$437
$1,024
$1,065
$904
$450
$2,322
$848
$3,663
$6,299
$10,706
$20,060
$40,655
$99,625
Retail Bill ($)
$368
$704
$1,310
$1,266
$1,163
$2,082
$493
$543
$730
$1,231
$553
$569
$1,092
$1,075
$3,023
$5,740
$8,297
$16,677
$25,498
$79,914
-$439
$-
$-
$-
-$722
$-
$-
$-
-$367
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$408
$-
-$2,362
$-
-$4,272
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,432
$-
$8,686
$-
$17,372
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$9,720
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$832
$-
$1,359
$1,261
$2,732
$2,373
$3,431
$4,214
$1,300
$979
$2,339
$2,296
$1,458
$1,019
$3,413
$1,923
$8,710
$12,039
$25,327
$36,737
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)
Total ($)
$89,806 $179,539
ARUP 585
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$479
$557
$1,421
$1,106
$1,170
$2,132
$807
$437
$1,024
$1,065
$904
$450
$2,322
$848
$3,663
$6,299
$10,706
$20,060
$40,655
$99,625
Retail Bill ($)
$368
$704
$1,310
$1,266
$1,163
$2,082
$493
$543
$730
$1,231
$553
$569
$1,092
$1,075
$3,023
$5,740
$8,297
$16,677
$25,498
$79,914
-$439
$-
$-
$-
-$722
$-
$-
$-
-$367
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$408
$-
-$2,362
$-
-$4,272
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,432
$-
$8,686
$-
$17,372
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$9,720
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$832
$-
$1,359
$1,261
$2,732
$2,373
$3,431
$4,214
$1,300
$979
$2,339
$2,296
$1,458
$1,019
$3,413
$1,923
$8,710
$12,039
$25,327
$36,737
$89,806 $179,539
Network bill ($)
$632
$739
$1,519
$1,469
$1,554
$2,831
$1,072
$580
$1,022
$1,415
$1,201
$598
$3,083
$1,127
$4,865
$8,366
$13,944
$26,643
$53,579 $132,320
Retail Bill ($)
$290
$584
$650
$1,051
$983
$1,728
$416
$451
$585
$1,022
$470
$472
$915
$892
$2,590
$4,765
$6,945
$13,845
$21,480
$66,341
Export revenues ($)
-$992
$-
-$899
$-
-$715
$-
$-
$-
-$363
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$404
$-
-$2,335
$-
-$4,225
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,730
$-
$6,178
$-
$12,355
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$6,446
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$881
$-
$1,223
$1,324
$2,562
$2,521
$3,114
$4,560
$1,488
$1,030
$2,144
$2,437
$1,671
$1,070
$3,998
$2,019
$8,781
$13,131
$25,014
$40,488
$90,515
$198,661
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Battery investm ($)

Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
6 Victoria
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$441
$571
$959
$1,140
$1,739
$2,332
$2,299
$3,279
$384
$456
$748
$1,098
$487
$487
$407
$545
$749
$1,080
$1,657
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$468
$604
$946
$1,095
$1,459
$1,860
$1,841
$2,418
$408
$482
$768
$1,061
$510
$510
$432
$575
$767
$1,048
$1,461
$1,704
Export revenues ($)
-$34
$-
-$72
$-
-$176
$-
-$165
$-
-$14
$-
-$99
$-
$-
$-
-$30
$-
-$57
$-
-$60
$-
$262
$-
$393
$-
$1,048
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,137
$1,174
$2,226
$2,235
$4,070
$4,193
$5,285
$5,698
$909
$938
$2,072
$2,159
$997
$997
$1,070
$1,121
$1,983
$2,128
$3,582
$3,768
Network bill ($)
$445
$576
$940
$1,151
$1,693
$2,355
$2,252
$3,311
$364
$460
$727
$1,108
$492
$492
$386
$551
$726
$1,090
$1,606
$2,084
Retail Bill ($)
$569
$734
$1,120
$1,332
$1,724
$2,264
$2,191
$2,942
$466
$586
$905
$1,291
$621
$621
$494
$700
$901
$1,276
$1,722
$2,073
Export revenues ($)
-$41
$-
-$129
$-
-$300
$-
-$288
$-
-$61
$-
-$162
$-
$-
$-
-$80
$-
-$111
$-
-$159
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,404
$-
$234
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$702
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,208
$1,310
$2,398
$2,483
$4,286
$4,618
$5,560
$6,253
$1,004
$1,047
$2,172
$2,399
$1,112
$1,112
$1,151
$1,250
$2,102
$2,366
$3,870
$4,157
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 587
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$483
$654
$983
$1,308
$1,923
$2,675
$2,386
$3,761
$414
$523
$765
$1,259
$515
$558
$422
$626
$765
$1,238
$1,760
$2,368
Retail Bill ($)
$561
$758
$1,074
$1,375
$1,779
$2,336
$2,151
$3,037
$481
$605
$872
$1,332
$593
$641
$490
$722
$869
$1,317
$1,726
$2,140
Export revenues ($)
-$90
$-
-$334
$-
-$311
$-
-$655
$-
-$63
$-
-$318
$-
-$38
$-
-$133
$-
-$265
$-
-$318
$-
$301
$-
$802
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,904
$-
$200
$-
$902
$-
$100
$-
$401
$-
$802
$-
$902
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,255
$1,412
$2,526
$2,683
$4,393
$5,011
$5,787
$6,798
$1,033
$1,128
$2,221
$2,591
$1,170
$1,199
$1,180
$1,348
$2,170
$2,555
$4,070
$4,507
Network bill ($)
$527
$760
$1,074
$1,520
$2,234
$3,108
$1,316
$4,370
$444
$608
$873
$1,463
$565
$649
$468
$727
$844
$1,439
$1,971
$2,751
Retail Bill ($)
$490
$705
$944
$1,278
$1,654
$2,172
$1,133
$2,823
$413
$563
$797
$1,238
$522
$596
$435
$671
$770
$1,224
$1,558
$1,989
Export revenues ($)
-$271
$-
-$710
$-
-$333
$-
-$1,013
$-
-$241
$-
-$397
$-
-$216
$-
-$259
$-
-$519
$-
-$696
$-
$515
$-
$1,201
$-
$858
$-
$1,545
$-
$429
$-
$858
$-
$343
$-
$515
$-
$1,030
$-
$1,287
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,064
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,260
$1,465
$2,509
$2,798
$4,413
$5,280
$4,043
$7,193
$1,046
$1,170
$2,131
$2,701
$1,214
$1,244
$1,158
$1,398
$2,125
$2,663
$4,120
$4,740
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$405
$553
$795
$1,099
$1,271
$2,117
$367
$434
$747
$1,058
$355
$447
$842
$842
$2,676
$6,256
$10,597
$19,924
$29,863
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$430
$587
$807
$1,055
$1,205
$1,735
$386
$452
$766
$1,026
$376
$474
$896
$896
$2,395
$4,783
$7,677
$13,896
$20,523
$66,589
Export revenues ($)
-$25
$-
-$72
$-
-$197
$-
-$17
$-
-$114
$-
-$51
$-
$-
$-
-$340
$-
-$1,222
$-
-$3,558
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,073
$1,139
$2,055
$2,154
$3,589
$3,852
$867
$886
$2,054
$2,084
$942
$921
$1,738
$1,738
$8,400
$11,039
$27,535
$33,820 $108,248 $165,536
Network bill ($)
$383
$558
$776
$1,109
$1,223
$2,138
$371
$438
$695
$1,068
$358
$451
$851
$851
$2,701
$6,316
$9,934
$20,115
$30,149
$99,895
Retail Bill ($)
$490
$714
$954
$1,284
$1,409
$2,111
$470
$550
$870
$1,248
$458
$577
$1,090
$1,090
$2,915
$5,819
$8,727
$16,908
$24,971
$81,022
Export revenues ($)
-$72
$-
-$130
$-
-$325
$-
-$21
$-
-$223
$-
-$62
$-
$-
$-
-$409
$-
-$2,367
$-
-$4,283
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$1,404
$-
$117
$-
$819
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,151
$1,272
$2,185
$2,393
$3,711
$4,248
$936
$988
$2,160
$2,316
$989
$1,028
$1,940
$1,940
$8,484
$12,135
$27,998
$37,023
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$105,427 $180,918
ARUP 589
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$416
$634
$802
$1,260
$1,283
$2,428
$397
$497
$729
$1,213
$370
$513
$966
$966
$655
$7,175
$767
$22,849
$34,248
$113,477
Retail Bill ($)
$484
$737
$908
$1,325
$1,358
$2,178
$459
$568
$835
$1,288
$429
$595
$1,125
$1,125
$763
$6,007
$893
$17,452
$25,774
$83,626
Export revenues ($)
-$124
$-
-$337
$-
-$588
$-
-$69
$-
-$381
$-
-$163
$-
$-
$-
-$613
$-
-$3,724
$-
-$4,432
$-
$401
$-
$902
$-
$1,704
$-
$200
$-
$1,002
$-
$401
$-
$-
$-
$2,004
$-
$4,009
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,576
$-
$12,878
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,176
$1,371
$2,275
$2,585
$3,757
$4,607
$987
$1,065
$2,185
$2,501
$1,037
$1,108
$2,091
$2,091
$5,385
$13,181
$14,823
Network bill ($)
$439
$737
$834
$1,464
$1,445
$2,821
$436
$578
$847
$1,410
$387
$596
$1,123
$1,123
$661
$8,336
$740
$26,549
$39,794
$131,851
Retail Bill ($)
$408
$685
$764
$1,232
$1,229
$2,025
$406
$528
$776
$1,197
$360
$554
$1,046
$1,046
$616
$5,584
$689
$16,224
$23,961
$77,743
-$366
$-
-$828
$-
-$803
$-
-$191
$-
-$408
$-
-$410
$-
$-
$-
-$990
$-
-$4,552
$-
-$4,747
$-
$687
$-
$1,459
$-
$1,716
$-
$343
$-
$858
$-
$687
$-
$-
$-
$2,231
$-
$4,291
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$10,637
$-
$21,274
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,166
$1,421
$2,229
$2,696
$3,588
$4,847
$995
$1,106
$2,073
$2,607
$1,024
$1,149
$2,168
$2,168
$4,645
$13,920
$11,805
$42,773
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
$40,301 $101,390 $197,104
$97,444 $209,595
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$445
$571
$816
$1,140
$1,552
$2,332
$1,709
$3,279
$350
$456
$725
$1,098
$464
$487
$392
$545
$772
$1,080
$1,234
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$354
$601
$649
$1,091
$1,235
$1,854
$1,360
$2,409
$279
$480
$577
$1,057
$369
$508
$312
$573
$615
$1,045
$982
$1,698
Export revenues ($)
-$34
$-
-$71
$-
-$140
$-
-$130
$-
-$14
$-
-$98
$-
-$30
$-
-$30
$-
-$57
$-
-$60
$-
$262
$-
$393
$-
$917
$-
$1,179
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$131
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$524
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,027
$1,172
$1,788
$2,231
$3,564
$4,186
$4,119
$5,689
$746
$936
$1,859
$2,155
$934
$995
$935
$1,119
$1,855
$2,124
$2,681
$3,762
Network bill ($)
$457
$586
$809
$1,172
$1,502
$2,397
$1,665
$3,371
$331
$469
$715
$1,128
$477
$501
$372
$561
$760
$1,110
$1,235
$2,122
Retail Bill ($)
$427
$726
$757
$1,317
$1,404
$2,238
$1,556
$2,909
$309
$580
$669
$1,276
$445
$614
$348
$692
$710
$1,261
$1,154
$2,050
Export revenues ($)
-$39
$-
-$124
$-
-$289
$-
-$277
$-
-$59
$-
-$156
$-
-$35
$-
-$77
$-
-$107
$-
-$110
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,170
$-
$1,404
$-
$234
$-
$702
$-
$117
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$585
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,079
$1,313
$1,910
$2,489
$3,788
$4,635
$4,349
$6,280
$816
$1,049
$1,930
$2,405
$1,004
$1,114
$995
$1,253
$1,948
$2,371
$2,864
$4,172
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 591
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$507
$688
$878
$1,376
$1,763
$2,814
$1,858
$3,957
$389
$550
$767
$1,325
$559
$587
$416
$658
$816
$1,303
$1,373
$2,491
Retail Bill ($)
$413
$742
$715
$1,346
$1,436
$2,288
$1,513
$2,974
$316
$593
$624
$1,305
$455
$627
$339
$707
$664
$1,289
$1,118
$2,095
Export revenues ($)
-$82
$-
-$256
$-
-$282
$-
-$451
$-
-$57
$-
-$289
$-
-$34
$-
-$121
$-
-$241
$-
-$241
$-
$301
$-
$702
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,603
$-
$200
$-
$902
$-
$100
$-
$401
$-
$802
$-
$802
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,139
$1,431
$2,039
$2,722
$3,919
$5,102
$4,523
$6,930
$848
$1,143
$2,004
$2,629
$1,081
$1,215
$1,034
$1,365
$2,041
$2,592
$3,052
$4,586
Network bill ($)
$562
$813
$918
$1,626
$2,084
$3,325
$2,118
$4,676
$422
$650
$886
$1,565
$644
$694
$475
$778
$915
$1,540
$1,572
$2,944
Retail Bill ($)
$359
$687
$585
$1,246
$1,329
$2,118
$1,351
$2,753
$269
$549
$565
$1,208
$411
$581
$303
$655
$583
$1,193
$1,003
$1,940
Export revenues ($)
-$186
$-
-$395
$-
-$294
$-
-$669
$-
-$160
$-
-$350
$-
-$86
$-
-$177
$-
-$405
$-
-$403
$-
$429
$-
$858
$-
$858
$-
$1,716
$-
$343
$-
$858
$-
$172
$-
$429
$-
$944
$-
$944
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$65
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,164
$1,501
$2,032
$2,872
$3,977
$5,443
$4,516
$7,429
$874
$1,199
$1,959
$2,773
$1,140
$1,275
$1,030
$1,432
$2,037
$2,733
$3,116
$4,883
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$424
$553
$777
$1,099
$1,141
$2,117
$315
$434
$732
$1,058
$350
$447
$1,295
$842
$2,959
$6,256
$9,082
$19,924
$34,722
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$338
$584
$619
$1,051
$908
$1,728
$251
$451
$582
$1,022
$279
$472
$987
$893
$2,255
$4,766
$6,919
$13,847
$23,286
$66,354
Export revenues ($)
-$24
$-
-$71
$-
-$196
$-
-$17
$-
-$114
$-
-$51
$-
$-
$-
-$337
$-
-$1,212
$-
-$3,531
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35,215
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$999
$1,137
$1,849
$2,150
$3,163
$3,846
$679
$884
$1,856
$2,080
$840
$920
$2,282
$1,735
$8,546
$11,022
$25,272
$33,771
$115,898 $165,301
Network bill ($)
$401
$568
$771
$1,129
$1,111
$2,176
$324
$446
$688
$1,087
$360
$460
$1,331
$866
$3,042
$6,430
$8,544
$20,479
$35,690
$101,706
Retail Bill ($)
$375
$706
$720
$1,269
$1,038
$2,087
$303
$544
$643
$1,234
$336
$570
$1,191
$1,078
$2,722
$5,754
$7,646
$16,718
$28,113
$80,109
Export revenues ($)
-$69
$-
-$125
$-
-$313
$-
-$20
$-
-$215
$-
-$59
$-
$-
$-
-$394
$-
-$2,278
$-
-$4,123
$-
$351
$-
$585
$-
$1,404
$-
$117
$-
$819
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$11,703
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,058
$1,274
$1,951
$2,399
$3,240
$4,263
$723
$990
$1,935
$2,321
$871
$1,030
$2,522
$1,944
$8,647
$12,184
$25,614
$37,197
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
$114,269 $181,815
ARUP 593
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$425
$667
$833
$1,326
$1,201
$2,555
$353
$523
$733
$1,276
$372
$539
$1,562
$1,016
$3,570
$7,548
$10,029
$24,038
$41,891
$119,378
Retail Bill ($)
$346
$721
$678
$1,298
$978
$2,133
$288
$556
$597
$1,261
$303
$583
$1,218
$1,102
$2,782
$5,882
$7,816
$17,090
$28,738
$81,891
Export revenues ($)
-$161
$-
-$258
$-
-$486
$-
-$63
$-
-$346
$-
-$148
$-
$-
$-
-$384
$-
-$2,224
$-
-$4,025
$-
$501
$-
$802
$-
$1,603
$-
$200
$-
$1,002
$-
$401
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,111
$1,388
$2,055
$2,623
$3,296
$4,688
$779
$1,079
$1,986
$2,538
$928
$1,122
$2,780
$2,118
$8,775
$13,430
$25,642
$41,127
$112,404 $201,269
Network bill ($)
$469
$788
$881
$1,567
$1,342
$3,019
$401
$618
$866
$1,508
$405
$637
$1,846
$1,201
$1,137
$8,919
$1,449
$28,406
$26,992
$141,071
Retail Bill ($)
$299
$668
$562
$1,201
$856
$1,975
$256
$515
$552
$1,168
$259
$540
$1,127
$1,020
$694
$5,445
$885
$15,821
$14,507
$75,812
Export revenues ($)
-$270
$-
-$573
$-
-$708
$-
-$116
$-
-$360
$-
-$256
$-
$-
$-
-$976
$-
-$4,015
$-
-$15,148
$-
$601
$-
$1,201
$-
$1,716
$-
$257
$-
$858
$-
$515
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$4,291
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,127
$-
$10,637
$-
$42,549
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,098
$1,456
$2,071
$2,768
$3,206
$4,994
$799
$1,133
$1,917
$2,676
$922
$1,177
$2,973
$2,221
$5,385
$14,365
$13,246
$44,227
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
$86,062 $216,883
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$441
$571
$994
$1,140
$1,817
$2,332
$2,340
$3,279
$384
$456
$784
$1,098
$487
$487
$407
$545
$749
$1,080
$1,657
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$466
$601
$971
$1,089
$1,506
$1,851
$1,856
$2,406
$405
$480
$794
$1,055
$508
$508
$429
$572
$763
$1,043
$1,453
$1,695
Export revenues ($)
-$34
$-
-$39
$-
-$109
$-
-$132
$-
-$14
$-
-$66
$-
$-
$-
-$31
$-
-$58
$-
-$61
$-
$294
$-
$294
$-
$882
$-
$1,324
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$294
$-
$588
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,167
$1,171
$2,221
$2,229
$4,096
$4,183
$5,388
$5,685
$923
$936
$2,100
$2,153
$994
$994
$1,100
$1,118
$2,043
$2,123
$3,638
$3,759
Network bill ($)
$423
$573
$891
$1,145
$1,683
$2,342
$2,162
$3,293
$362
$458
$702
$1,102
$451
$489
$384
$548
$700
$1,084
$1,574
$2,073
Retail Bill ($)
$533
$719
$1,051
$1,304
$1,688
$2,217
$2,092
$2,881
$456
$574
$863
$1,264
$562
$608
$484
$685
$859
$1,249
$1,667
$2,030
Export revenues ($)
-$84
$-
-$216
$-
-$291
$-
-$418
$-
-$59
$-
-$203
$-
-$35
$-
-$77
$-
-$153
$-
-$201
$-
$329
$-
$658
$-
$1,096
$-
$1,645
$-
$219
$-
$767
$-
$110
$-
$329
$-
$658
$-
$767
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,200
$1,292
$2,385
$2,449
$4,176
$4,559
$5,481
$6,174
$979
$1,032
$2,130
$2,366
$1,087
$1,097
$1,119
$1,233
$2,065
$2,333
$3,808
$4,103
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 595
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$485
$676
$1,016
$1,351
$1,987
$2,764
$1,268
$3,886
$413
$540
$790
$1,301
$532
$577
$436
$646
$790
$1,280
$1,819
$2,447
Retail Bill ($)
$496
$690
$978
$1,251
$1,619
$2,127
$1,189
$2,764
$423
$551
$794
$1,213
$539
$583
$446
$657
$791
$1,198
$1,571
$1,948
Export revenues ($)
-$121
$-
-$283
$-
-$264
$-
-$383
$-
-$98
$-
-$270
$-
-$32
$-
-$113
$-
-$225
$-
-$270
$-
$377
$-
$754
$-
$942
$-
$848
$-
$283
$-
$848
$-
$94
$-
$377
$-
$754
$-
$848
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$878
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,238
$1,366
$2,465
$2,603
$4,285
$4,890
$3,799
$6,650
$1,022
$1,091
$2,163
$2,514
$1,134
$1,160
$1,146
$1,304
$2,110
$2,478
$3,968
$4,394
Network bill ($)
$567
$807
$1,169
$1,613
$2,371
$3,299
$537
$4,638
$481
$645
$927
$1,553
$608
$689
$507
$771
$915
$1,527
$2,124
$2,920
Retail Bill ($)
$427
$606
$830
$1,099
$1,422
$1,867
$404
$2,427
$362
$484
$685
$1,065
$455
$512
$381
$577
$675
$1,052
$1,355
$1,710
Export revenues ($)
-$162
$-
-$407
$-
-$255
$-
-$543
$-
-$139
$-
-$304
$-
-$120
$-
-$154
$-
-$307
$-
-$396
$-
$405
$-
$891
$-
$810
$-
$405
$-
$324
$-
$810
$-
$243
$-
$405
$-
$810
$-
$972
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$85
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,238
$1,413
$2,483
$2,712
$4,348
$5,166
$2,390
$7,065
$1,028
$1,129
$2,117
$2,617
$1,186
$1,201
$1,140
$1,349
$2,094
$2,579
$4,056
$4,630
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$405
$553
$831
$1,099
$1,349
$2,117
$367
$434
$783
$1,058
$388
$447
$842
$842
$2,774
$6,256
$1,263
$19,924
$29,863
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$428
$584
$834
$1,050
$1,259
$1,726
$384
$450
$793
$1,020
$410
$472
$891
$891
$2,448
$4,758
$1,322
$13,825
$20,417
$66,247
Export revenues ($)
-$25
$-
-$39
$-
-$133
$-
-$18
$-
-$82
$-
-$20
$-
$-
$-
-$274
$-
-$2,340
$-
-$3,593
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$1,177
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$147
$-
$-
$-
$3,824
$-
$2,941
$-
$29,413
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$14,690
$-
$29,380
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,102
$1,136
$2,067
$2,149
$3,652
$3,843
$881
$884
$2,082
$2,078
$925
$919
$1,734
$1,734
$8,772
$11,014
$17,876
$33,749
$105,480 $165,194
Network bill ($)
$381
$555
$750
$1,103
$1,171
$2,126
$348
$435
$669
$1,062
$337
$449
$846
$846
$611
$6,282
$869
$20,005
$29,984
$99,350
Retail Bill ($)
$479
$699
$912
$1,257
$1,336
$2,067
$436
$539
$828
$1,222
$425
$565
$1,067
$1,067
$771
$5,699
$1,096
$16,559
$24,455
$79,348
Export revenues ($)
-$70
$-
-$172
$-
-$406
$-
-$65
$-
-$262
$-
-$105
$-
$-
$-
-$485
$-
-$3,046
$-
-$4,155
$-
$329
$-
$658
$-
$1,535
$-
$219
$-
$877
$-
$329
$-
$-
$-
$1,973
$-
$3,289
$-
$21,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,053
$-
$10,266
$-
$20,531
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,119
$1,254
$2,148
$2,361
$3,636
$4,193
$938
$974
$2,113
$2,284
$986
$1,014
$1,913
$1,913
$4,925
$11,981
$12,474
$36,564
$92,743
$178,698
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 597
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$430
$655
$829
$1,302
$1,326
$2,509
$410
$514
$753
$1,254
$382
$530
$998
$998
$677
$7,413
$793
$23,609
$35,387
$117,252
Retail Bill ($)
$440
$671
$826
$1,206
$1,236
$1,983
$418
$517
$760
$1,173
$391
$542
$1,024
$1,024
$694
$5,468
$813
$15,886
$23,462
$76,125
Export revenues ($)
-$105
$-
-$286
$-
-$499
$-
-$59
$-
-$323
$-
-$139
$-
$-
$-
-$520
$-
-$3,159
$-
-$3,759
$-
$377
$-
$848
$-
$1,602
$-
$188
$-
$942
$-
$377
$-
$-
$-
$1,885
$-
$3,770
$-
$18,849
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,756
$-
$8,780
$-
$17,560
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,142
$1,326
$2,218
$2,508
$3,666
$4,492
$958
$1,031
$2,132
$2,426
$1,011
$1,072
$2,022
$2,022
$4,492
$12,881
$10,997
$39,496
$91,499
$193,377
Network bill ($)
$484
$782
$906
$1,554
$1,534
$2,995
$474
$613
$899
$1,496
$429
$632
$1,191
$1,191
$730
$8,848
$785
$28,178
$22,216 $139,943
Retail Bill ($)
$364
$589
$670
$1,059
$1,056
$1,741
$356
$454
$667
$1,029
$323
$476
$899
$899
$551
$4,800
$593
$13,946
$11,122
$66,828
Export revenues ($)
-$190
$-
-$544
$-
-$616
$-
-$101
$-
-$313
$-
-$223
$-
$-
$-
-$672
$-
-$3,492
$-
-$13,172
$-
$486
$-
$1,215
$-
$1,620
$-
$243
$-
$810
$-
$486
$-
$-
$-
$1,944
$-
$4,051
$-
$16,203
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,502
$-
$7,509
$-
$30,037
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,145
$1,371
$2,248
$2,613
$3,595
$4,735
$972
$1,067
$2,063
$2,526
$1,016
$1,108
$2,090
$2,090
$4,055
$13,648
$9,446
$42,124
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
$66,407 $206,770
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$571
$1,027
$1,140
$1,853
$2,332
$1,657
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,626
$2,065
$617
$603
$1,021
$1,093
$1,804
$1,857
$2,082
$2,414
$447
$481
$1,124
$1,059
$542
$509
$617
$574
$1,128
$1,046
$1,440
$1,701
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$10
$-
-$9
$-
-$26
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$9
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$292
$-
$730
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$292
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,724
$1,173
$2,184
$2,233
$3,940
$4,189
$4,443
$5,693
$1,173
$937
$2,258
$2,157
$2,488
$996
$1,293
$1,119
$2,208
$2,126
$3,349
$3,765
Network bill ($)
$1,082
$557
$935
$1,114
$1,602
$2,278
$1,350
$3,204
$709
$445
$862
$1,072
$1,901
$476
$661
$533
$953
$1,055
$1,457
$2,017
$729
$733
$1,131
$1,330
$1,880
$2,261
$2,169
$2,938
$535
$586
$898
$1,289
$639
$620
$724
$699
$907
$1,274
$1,604
$2,070
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$46
$-
-$93
$-
-$118
$-
$-
$-
-$78
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$68
$-
-$37
$-
$-
$-
$218
$-
$544
$-
$871
$-
$-
$-
$436
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$436
$-
$327
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$79
$-
$237
$-
$316
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$158
$-
$1,811
$1,291
$2,317
$2,444
$4,170
$4,539
$4,588
$6,142
$1,244
$1,031
$2,275
$2,361
$2,540
$1,096
$1,386
$1,232
$2,306
$2,329
$3,508
$4,087
Retail Bill ($)
2019
Customer 3
$1,107
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 599
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$616
$1,025
$1,231
$1,613
$2,517
$1,410
$3,539
$783
$492
$943
$1,185
$2,100
$525
$730
$589
$1,045
$1,165
$1,531
$2,228
$745
$752
$1,082
$1,364
$1,738
$2,318
$2,091
$3,013
$547
$601
$842
$1,322
$653
$636
$740
$716
$862
$1,306
$1,545
$2,122
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$127
$-
-$250
$-
-$238
$-
$-
$-
-$159
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$154
$-
-$112
$-
$-
$-
$374
$-
$842
$-
$1,030
$-
$-
$-
$562
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$562
$-
$468
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$65
$-
$324
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$65
$-
$195
$-
Total
$1,940
$1,368
$2,420
$2,594
$4,268
$4,835
$4,617
$6,552
$1,331
$1,093
$2,318
$2,506
$2,752
$1,161
$1,470
$1,305
$2,379
$2,471
$3,626
$4,350
Network bill ($)
$1,315
$678
$1,112
$1,355
$1,772
$2,771
$1,529
$3,896
$862
$542
$1,028
$1,304
$2,312
$578
$804
$648
$1,090
$1,283
$1,610
$2,453
$705
$705
$907
$1,278
$1,608
$2,172
$1,804
$2,823
$516
$563
$715
$1,238
$617
$596
$701
$671
$729
$1,224
$1,345
$1,989
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$481
$-
-$302
$-
-$688
$-
$-
$-
-$360
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$362
$-
-$414
$-
$-
$-
$885
$-
$805
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$885
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$54
$-
$268
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$214
$-
$2,020
$1,382
$2,476
$2,633
$4,151
$4,942
$4,522
$6,719
$1,378
$1,104
$2,295
$2,543
$2,929
$1,174
$1,505
$1,319
$2,368
$2,507
$3,640
$4,441
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,195
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,335
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,790
$6,256
$11,555
$19,924
$41,013
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$609
$585
$1,187
$1,053
$1,309
$1,731
$416
$451
$1,137
$1,024
$458
$473
$999
$894
$2,568
$4,774
$7,548
$13,871
$23,459
$66,468
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$104
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$211
$-
-$906
$-
-$3,615
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,022
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,506
$-
$10,225
$-
$29,213
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,085
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,594
$1,138
$2,599
$2,152
$3,563
$3,849
$1,218
$885
$2,279
$2,082
$1,356
$920
$3,305
$1,737
$9,653
$11,030
$28,421
$33,795
$121,155 $165,415
Network bill ($)
$963
$540
$1,379
$1,073
$1,161
$2,068
$783
$424
$1,116
$1,033
$877
$437
$2,252
$823
$3,554
$6,111
$10,387
$19,463
$39,449
$96,658
Retail Bill ($)
$720
$713
$1,391
$1,282
$1,350
$2,108
$498
$550
$1,334
$1,246
$546
$576
$1,188
$1,088
$2,881
$5,812
$7,960
$16,885
$27,391
$80,912
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$280
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$408
$-
-$2,363
$-
-$4,275
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,198
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,049
$-
$10,889
$-
$21,779
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$21,597
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$789
$-
$1,683
$1,253
$2,770
$2,355
$3,508
$4,176
$1,282
$973
$2,450
$2,280
$1,424
$1,013
$3,440
$1,911
$9,076
$11,923
$26,874
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$36,348 $106,729 $177,569
ARUP 601
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$597
$1,523
$1,186
$1,270
$2,285
$865
$468
$832
$1,142
$969
$482
$2,488
$909
$3,926
$6,751
$11,139
$21,500
$43,242 $106,776
Retail Bill ($)
$379
$731
$1,420
$1,315
$1,290
$2,161
$510
$563
$771
$1,278
$559
$591
$1,214
$1,116
$2,947
$5,959
$8,057
$17,313
$27,890
$82,961
-$432
$-
$-
$-
-$411
$-
$-
$-
-$264
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$401
$-
-$2,320
$-
-$4,199
$-
$936
$-
$-
$-
$1,310
$-
$-
$-
$749
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,621
$-
$9,361
$-
$18,721
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$18,206
$-
$65
$-
$-
$-
$65
$-
$-
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$324
$-
$1,011
$-
$1,461
$1,327
$2,943
$2,500
$3,525
$4,446
$1,375
$1,031
$2,411
$2,419
$1,528
$1,073
$3,702
$2,025
$9,093
$12,710
$26,561
$38,813
$104,872 $189,738
Network bill ($)
$565
$657
$1,677
$1,305
$1,380
$2,515
$953
$515
$908
$1,257
$1,067
$531
$2,739
$1,001
$4,322
$7,432
$12,263
$23,669
$47,604
$117,548
Retail Bill ($)
$357
$685
$1,346
$1,232
$1,116
$2,025
$480
$528
$685
$1,197
$527
$553
$1,146
$1,046
$2,780
$5,583
$7,587
$16,222
$26,384
$77,733
-$443
$-
$-
$-
-$728
$-
$-
$-
-$370
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$411
$-
-$2,378
$-
-$4,304
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$1,609
$-
$-
$-
$805
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,253
$-
$8,047
$-
$16,093
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$15,332
$-
$54
$-
$-
$-
$54
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$832
$-
$1,337
$1,341
$3,023
$2,537
$3,432
$4,540
$1,433
$1,043
$2,295
$2,454
$1,594
$1,085
$3,885
$2,046
$8,944
$13,015
$25,786
$39,891
Total
Export revenues ($)
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
No Adoption
No Adoption
$513
Battery investm ($)
Adopting DG & DS
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
$101,942 $195,281
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$441
$571
$959
$1,140
$1,775
$2,332
$1,173
$3,279
$384
$456
$748
$1,098
$487
$487
$407
$545
$749
$1,080
$1,657
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$465
$599
$939
$1,087
$1,474
$1,847
$1,119
$2,401
$405
$479
$762
$1,053
$506
$506
$429
$571
$762
$1,041
$1,450
$1,691
Export revenues ($)
-$34
$-
-$72
$-
-$142
$-
-$167
$-
-$14
$-
-$99
$-
$-
$-
-$31
$-
-$57
$-
-$61
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$1,025
$-
$586
$-
$146
$-
$732
$-
$-
$-
$293
$-
$586
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$977
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,164
$1,170
$2,265
$2,227
$4,132
$4,179
$3,688
$5,680
$921
$935
$2,143
$2,151
$993
$993
$1,098
$1,116
$2,039
$2,121
$3,632
$3,756
Network bill ($)
$399
$597
$816
$1,193
$1,754
$2,440
$406
$3,430
$329
$477
$685
$1,148
$418
$509
$336
$571
$632
$1,130
$1,521
$2,160
Retail Bill ($)
$501
$748
$971
$1,356
$1,755
$2,305
$510
$2,995
$413
$597
$846
$1,314
$523
$632
$422
$712
$782
$1,299
$1,629
$2,110
-$461
$-
-$962
$-
-$297
$-
-$1,499
$-
-$489
$-
-$355
$-
-$521
$-
-$1,011
$-
-$903
$-
-$895
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,312
$1,345
$2,573
$2,549
$4,086
$4,744
$2,102
$6,426
$1,127
$1,074
$2,051
$2,462
$1,294
$1,141
$1,495
$1,283
$2,260
$2,428
$4,004
$4,270
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 603
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$545
$817
$1,116
$1,632
$2,399
$3,338
$464
$4,694
$450
$653
$938
$1,571
$571
$697
$459
$781
$865
$1,546
$2,081
$2,955
Retail Bill ($)
$477
$712
$925
$1,291
$1,671
$2,194
$406
$2,852
$393
$569
$805
$1,251
$498
$602
$402
$678
$744
$1,237
$1,552
$2,010
Export revenues ($)
-$419
$-
-$873
$-
-$270
$-
-$1,320
$-
-$443
$-
-$322
$-
-$473
$-
-$918
$-
-$820
$-
-$812
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$788
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
$Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$102
$-
$-
$-
$-
$$-
$1,341
$1,529
$2,642
$2,923
$4,538
$5,532
$1,914
$7,546
$1,137
$1,221
$2,159
$2,823
$1,334
$1,299
$1,418
$1,459
$2,265
$2,782
$4,295
$4,964
Network bill ($)
$789
$1,182
$1,552
$2,362
$3,404
$4,830
$212
$6,792
$651
$944
$1,299
$2,274
$827
$1,009
$665
$1,130
$1,252
$2,237
$2,947
$4,276
Retail Bill ($)
$433
$647
$809
$1,172
$1,492
$1,993
$117
$2,590
$357
$516
$701
$1,136
$453
$546
$365
$616
$676
$1,123
$1,383
$1,825
-$437
$-
-$894
$-
-$265
$-
-$2,013
$-
-$463
$-
-$318
$-
-$494
$-
-$958
$-
-$856
$-
-$832
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$996
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$1,407
$1,828
$2,768
$3,534
$5,308
$6,823
$555
$9,382
$1,167
$1,461
$2,360
$3,410
$1,408
$1,555
$1,315
$1,746
$2,316
$3,359
$4,798
$6,101
Total
2034
Export revenues ($)
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$405
$553
$795
$1,099
$1,307
$2,117
$367
$434
$747
$1,058
$355
$447
$842
$842
$793
$6,256
$1,263
$19,924
$29,863
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$427
$582
$802
$1,048
$1,224
$1,722
$383
$449
$761
$1,018
$374
$471
$889
$889
$837
$4,748
$1,319
$13,796
$20,374
$66,107
Export revenues ($)
-$25
$-
-$72
$-
-$165
$-
-$17
$-
-$115
$-
-$52
$-
$-
$-
-$220
$-
-$2,336
$-
-$3,587
$-
$293
$-
$586
$-
$1,317
$-
$146
$-
$732
$-
$293
$-
$-
$-
$1,757
$-
$2,928
$-
$29,276
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,955
$-
$9,774
$-
$19,548
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,100
$1,135
$2,110
$2,146
$3,684
$3,839
$879
$883
$2,124
$2,076
$970
$918
$1,732
$1,732
$5,120
$11,004
$12,947
$33,719
$95,475 $165,055
Network bill ($)
$316
$578
$638
$1,149
$1,135
$2,215
$321
$454
$665
$1,107
$294
$468
$881
$881
$502
$6,544
$508
$20,841
$16,431
$103,503
Retail Bill ($)
$397
$727
$792
$1,307
$1,304
$2,149
$404
$560
$823
$1,271
$369
$587
$1,110
$1,110
$632
$5,925
$640
$17,214
$13,729
$82,488
Export revenues ($)
-$995
$-
-$902
$-
-$717
$-
-$500
$-
-$364
$-
-$474
$-
$-
$-
-$989
$-
-$4,594
$-
-$15,337
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$1,749
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$-
$-
$2,449
$-
$5,247
$-
$17,491
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$935
$-
$4,676
$-
$18,703
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,467
$1,305
$2,277
$2,456
$3,471
$4,364
$1,100
$1,014
$1,998
$2,377
$1,064
$1,055
$1,991
$1,991
$3,529
$12,469
$6,477
$38,055
$51,017
$185,991
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 605
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$432
$791
$873
$1,573
$1,553
$3,030
$440
$621
$909
$1,514
$402
$640
$1,206
$1,206
$687
$8,954
$532
$28,515
$10,642
$141,614
Retail Bill ($)
$378
$692
$754
$1,245
$1,241
$2,046
$384
$533
$784
$1,210
$352
$559
$1,057
$1,057
$602
$5,642
$466
$16,392
$6,465
$78,547
Export revenues ($)
-$903
$-
-$818
$-
-$650
$-
-$454
$-
-$330
$-
-$430
$-
$-
$-
-$897
$-
-$6,174
$-
-$25,712
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$-
$-
$2,065
$-
$7,375
$-
$14,751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$788
$-
$3,939
$-
$23,636
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,383
$1,483
$2,284
$2,817
$3,618
$5,076
$1,108
$1,154
$2,100
$2,724
$1,061
$1,199
$2,262
$2,262
$3,245
$14,595
$6,138
$44,907
$29,781
$220,161
Network bill ($)
$626
$1,145
$1,207
$2,276
$2,180
$4,385
$636
$898
$1,255
$2,191
$582
$926
$1,745
$1,745
$994
$12,957
$770
$41,263
$15,399 $204,928
Retail Bill ($)
$343
$628
$656
$1,130
$1,098
$1,858
$349
$484
$680
$1,099
$319
$508
$959
$959
$547
$5,123
$423
$14,885
$5,871
$71,324
Export revenues ($)
-$942
$-
-$837
$-
-$662
$-
-$474
$-
-$327
$-
-$449
$-
$-
$-
-$937
$-
-$6,446
$-
-$26,844
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$-
$-
$1,742
$-
$6,220
$-
$12,440
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$664
$-
$3,319
$-
$19,912
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,271
$1,773
$2,326
$3,406
$3,918
$6,243
$1,133
$1,383
$2,287
$3,290
$1,074
$1,434
$2,704
$2,704
$3,009
$18,080
$4,286
$56,148
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
$26,778 $276,252
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$571
$1,027
$1,140
$1,844
$2,332
$1,648
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,626
$2,065
$618
$601
$1,024
$1,091
$1,734
$1,854
$2,011
$2,409
$448
$480
$1,120
$1,057
$541
$508
$616
$573
$1,126
$1,044
$1,440
$1,697
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$10
$-
-$27
$-
-$46
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$9
$-
$-
$-
$145
$-
$436
$-
$872
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$291
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,725
$1,172
$2,187
$2,231
$3,987
$4,186
$4,485
$5,689
$1,174
$936
$2,255
$2,155
$2,487
$995
$1,293
$1,118
$2,206
$2,124
$3,348
$3,762
Network bill ($)
$1,088
$561
$976
$1,121
$1,715
$2,292
$1,576
$3,223
$713
$448
$913
$1,079
$1,912
$479
$633
$536
$1,002
$1,061
$1,562
$2,029
$754
$760
$936
$1,379
$1,799
$2,343
$2,034
$3,045
$555
$607
$786
$1,336
$659
$642
$416
$724
$764
$1,320
$1,448
$2,146
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$1,001
$-
-$309
$-
-$705
$-
$-
$-
-$369
$-
$-
$-
-$1,052
$-
-$940
$-
-$931
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$869
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,842
$1,321
$2,648
$2,499
$4,156
$4,635
$4,642
$6,268
$1,268
$1,055
$2,282
$2,415
$2,572
$1,121
$1,734
$1,260
$2,563
$2,382
$3,816
$4,175
Retail Bill ($)
2019
Customer 3
$1,107
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 607
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$643
$1,047
$1,285
$1,680
$2,627
$1,450
$3,694
$817
$514
$975
$1,237
$2,192
$548
$583
$614
$1,076
$1,216
$1,577
$2,325
$732
$734
$890
$1,332
$1,676
$2,263
$1,880
$2,942
$537
$586
$744
$1,291
$640
$621
$370
$700
$723
$1,275
$1,356
$2,073
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$937
$-
-$289
$-
-$660
$-
$-
$-
-$345
$-
$-
$-
-$984
$-
-$879
$-
-$871
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$733
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$68
$-
$342
$-
$342
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$68
$-
$205
$-
Total
$1,979
$1,377
$2,534
$2,616
$4,142
$4,890
$4,477
$6,636
$1,355
$1,100
$2,243
$2,527
$2,832
$1,169
$1,570
$1,314
$2,454
$2,492
$3,732
$4,398
Network bill ($)
$1,445
$745
$1,214
$1,489
$1,947
$3,045
$1,680
$4,281
$683
$595
$1,130
$1,433
$2,540
$636
$675
$712
$1,190
$1,410
$1,761
$2,695
$678
$672
$824
$1,219
$1,544
$2,072
$1,729
$2,693
$300
$537
$686
$1,182
$594
$568
$341
$641
$652
$1,168
$1,237
$1,898
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$973
$-
-$301
$-
-$685
$-
-$494
$-
-$358
$-
$-
$-
-$1,022
$-
-$913
$-
-$905
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$283
$-
$283
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$113
$-
$226
$-
$2,124
$1,417
$2,357
$2,708
$4,090
$5,117
$4,243
$6,974
$1,220
$1,132
$2,188
$2,615
$3,134
$1,204
$1,343
$1,353
$2,278
$2,577
$3,555
$4,593
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,247
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,335
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,790
$6,256
$11,555
$19,924
$41,013
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$608
$584
$1,185
$1,051
$1,307
$1,728
$416
$451
$1,134
$1,022
$457
$472
$994
$893
$2,564
$4,765
$7,527
$13,846
$23,210
$66,347
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$104
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$210
$-
-$904
$-
-$3,605
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,018
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,489
$-
$10,177
$-
$29,077
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$20,530
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,593
$1,137
$2,597
$2,150
$3,556
$3,846
$1,217
$884
$2,276
$2,080
$1,355
$919
$3,300
$1,735
$9,633
$11,021
$28,355
$33,769
$110,225 $165,294
Network bill ($)
$527
$543
$1,178
$1,080
$1,142
$2,081
$788
$426
$1,000
$1,040
$883
$439
$2,266
$828
$1,168
$6,149
$10,451
$19,582
$39,690
$97,248
Retail Bill ($)
$375
$739
$818
$1,329
$1,199
$2,185
$515
$570
$805
$1,292
$564
$597
$1,222
$1,128
$738
$6,023
$8,225
$17,501
$28,025
$83,860
-$1,035
$-
-$938
$-
-$746
$-
$-
$-
-$379
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$1,028
$-
-$2,437
$-
-$4,410
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$869
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,432
$-
$8,686
$-
$17,372
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$972
$-
$-
$-
$9,720
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$832
$-
$1,604
$1,282
$2,795
$2,409
$3,416
$4,266
$1,303
$996
$2,377
$2,331
$1,447
$1,036
$3,488
$1,956
$4,281
$12,172
$24,925
$37,082
$91,230
$181,109
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
Export revenues ($)

2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 609
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$533
$623
$1,279
$1,238
$1,309
$2,385
$903
$488
$932
$1,192
$1,011
$504
$2,597
$949
$1,338
$7,046
$1,551
$22,441
$45,133
$111,448
Retail Bill ($)
$346
$714
$775
$1,284
$1,161
$2,110
$499
$550
$725
$1,248
$547
$577
$1,185
$1,090
$716
$5,819
$508
$16,907
$27,115
$81,016
Export revenues ($)
-$968
$-
-$878
$-
-$698
$-
$-
$-
-$354
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$962
$-
-$6,616
$-
-$4,127
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,051
$-
$7,325
$-
$14,651
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$793
$-
$3,965
$-
$7,929
$-
$68
$-
$68
$-
$68
$-
$-
$-
$274
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$342
$-
$1,038
$-
$1,444
$1,336
$2,710
$2,521
$3,306
$4,495
$1,402
$1,039
$2,308
$2,439
$1,559
$1,080
$3,782
$2,039
$3,936
$12,865
$7,076
$39,348
$91,739
$192,464
Network bill ($)
$617
$722
$1,483
$1,434
$1,517
$2,764
$1,047
$566
$998
$1,381
$1,172
$584
$3,010
$1,100
$1,551
$8,167
$1,798
$26,009
$52,310
$129,169
Retail Bill ($)
$319
$653
$720
$1,175
$1,070
$1,932
$460
$504
$656
$1,142
$505
$528
$1,096
$998
$665
$5,327
$468
$15,478
$25,142
$74,167
-$1,006
$-
-$912
$-
-$725
$-
$-
$-
-$368
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$999
$-
-$6,870
$-
-$4,285
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,730
$-
$6,178
$-
$12,355
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$645
$-
$3,223
$-
$6,446
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$856
$-
$1,223
$1,375
$2,583
$2,610
$3,154
$4,696
$1,507
$1,070
$2,186
$2,523
$1,678
$1,112
$4,106
$2,097
$3,591
$13,494
$5,079
$41,487
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Battery investm ($)

Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
$92,824 $203,336
7 Western Australia

Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$425
$571
$902
$1,140
$1,613
$2,332
$2,193
$3,279
$375
$456
$708
$1,098
$487
$487
$392
$545
$712
$1,080
$1,570
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$423
$566
$839
$1,026
$1,292
$1,743
$1,667
$2,266
$373
$452
$686
$994
$478
$478
$389
$539
$689
$982
$1,315
$1,596
Export revenues ($)
-$43
$-
-$126
$-
-$251
$-
-$214
$-
-$18
$-
-$122
$-
$-
$-
-$40
$-
-$75
$-
-$118
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,179
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,068
$1,136
$2,140
$2,166
$3,833
$4,075
$4,957
$5,545
$861
$908
$1,928
$2,092
$965
$965
$1,004
$1,084
$1,849
$2,062
$3,422
$3,661
Network bill ($)
$429
$575
$909
$1,149
$1,626
$2,351
$2,211
$3,305
$378
$460
$714
$1,107
$491
$491
$395
$550
$717
$1,088
$1,582
$2,081
Retail Bill ($)
$459
$614
$912
$1,114
$1,403
$1,893
$1,811
$2,461
$405
$491
$745
$1,080
$519
$519
$423
$585
$748
$1,067
$1,428
$1,734
Export revenues ($)
-$37
$-
-$108
$-
-$217
$-
-$185
$-
-$16
$-
-$105
$-
$-
$-
-$34
$-
-$65
$-
-$102
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,053
$-
$1,170
$-
$117
$-
$585
$-
$-
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$585
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,085
$1,189
$2,180
$2,264
$3,865
$4,244
$5,007
$5,766
$884
$950
$1,939
$2,186
$1,010
$1,010
$1,018
$1,135
$1,868
$2,155
$3,494
$3,815
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 611
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$480
$644
$989
$1,288
$1,785
$2,633
$2,372
$3,703
$397
$515
$771
$1,239
$502
$550
$416
$616
$771
$1,219
$1,741
$2,331
Retail Bill ($)
$457
$611
$884
$1,109
$1,374
$1,885
$1,747
$2,449
$378
$488
$718
$1,075
$474
$517
$396
$583
$718
$1,062
$1,401
$1,726
Export revenues ($)
-$34
$-
-$133
$-
-$231
$-
-$272
$-
-$48
$-
-$130
$-
-$28
$-
-$65
$-
-$92
$-
-$127
$-
$200
$-
$501
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,303
$-
$200
$-
$601
$-
$100
$-
$301
$-
$501
$-
$601
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,104
$1,256
$2,241
$2,396
$3,930
$4,518
$5,149
$6,152
$927
$1,003
$1,961
$2,314
$1,048
$1,067
$1,047
$1,198
$1,898
$2,281
$3,615
$4,057
Network bill ($)
$521
$733
$1,099
$1,466
$2,032
$2,998
$2,640
$4,216
$452
$586
$853
$1,411
$572
$626
$473
$701
$852
$1,388
$1,954
$2,654
Retail Bill ($)
$381
$534
$755
$968
$1,200
$1,646
$1,502
$2,139
$330
$426
$610
$939
$414
$451
$346
$509
$610
$927
$1,209
$1,507
Export revenues ($)
-$63
$-
-$155
$-
-$212
$-
-$318
$-
-$44
$-
-$152
$-
-$26
$-
-$60
$-
-$118
$-
-$151
$-
$257
$-
$515
$-
$858
$-
$1,287
$-
$172
$-
$601
$-
$86
$-
$257
$-
$515
$-
$601
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,096
$1,268
$2,215
$2,435
$3,878
$4,644
$5,111
$6,355
$910
$1,013
$1,911
$2,350
$1,045
$1,077
$1,017
$1,210
$1,859
$2,316
$3,613
$4,161
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$388
$553
$763
$1,099
$1,180
$2,117
$358
$434
$680
$1,058
$342
$447
$842
$842
$2,359
$6,256
$9,435
$19,924
$64,404
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$386
$550
$729
$989
$1,062
$1,625
$354
$424
$661
$961
$340
$444
$839
$839
$2,047
$4,481
$6,468
$13,021
$40,810
$62,392
Export revenues ($)
-$33
$-
-$90
$-
-$243
$-
-$22
$-
-$180
$-
-$60
$-
$-
$-
-$382
$-
-$1,566
$-
-$1,752
$-
$262
$-
$524
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$786
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,407
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,002
$1,102
$1,926
$2,087
$3,310
$3,743
$821
$857
$1,948
$2,019
$883
$891
$1,682
$1,682
$7,430
$10,737
$24,819
$32,944 $129,668 $161,339
Network bill ($)
$391
$557
$769
$1,107
$1,190
$2,134
$361
$437
$685
$1,066
$344
$451
$849
$849
$2,291
$6,305
$9,509
$20,080
$26,365
$99,725
Retail Bill ($)
$419
$597
$792
$1,074
$1,153
$1,765
$384
$460
$718
$1,044
$369
$483
$912
$912
$2,165
$4,868
$7,025
$14,143
$18,374
$67,772
Export revenues ($)
-$29
$-
-$78
$-
-$209
$-
-$19
$-
-$155
$-
-$52
$-
$-
$-
-$403
$-
-$1,352
$-
-$3,605
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,170
$-
$117
$-
$702
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$9,362
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$31,183
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,015
$1,154
$1,952
$2,181
$3,304
$3,899
$844
$897
$1,951
$2,110
$895
$933
$1,761
$1,761
$7,330
$11,173
$24,545
$34,223
$95,723
$167,497
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 613
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$410
$624
$832
$1,240
$1,271
$2,390
$405
$490
$738
$1,194
$386
$505
$951
$951
$2,567
$7,063
$10,250
$22,494
$29,533
$111,710
Retail Bill ($)
$390
$594
$764
$1,069
$1,101
$1,757
$382
$458
$690
$1,039
$367
$480
$907
$907
$2,155
$4,845
$6,752
$14,077
$18,287
$67,454
Export revenues ($)
-$60
$-
-$105
$-
-$258
$-
-$17
$-
-$174
$-
-$47
$-
$-
$-
-$366
$-
-$1,576
$-
-$3,275
$-
$301
$-
$501
$-
$1,203
$-
$100
$-
$702
$-
$200
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$9,019
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$25,757
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,042
$1,218
$1,993
$2,309
$3,316
$4,148
$870
$948
$1,955
$2,233
$906
$985
$1,859
$1,859
$7,162
$11,908
$24,446
$36,570
$90,345
$179,164
Network bill ($)
$467
$711
$919
$1,413
$1,419
$2,722
$433
$558
$814
$1,360
$413
$575
$1,083
$1,083
$2,923
$8,043
$11,308
$25,614
$33,630 $127,206
Retail Bill ($)
$341
$519
$650
$934
$946
$1,535
$315
$400
$585
$907
$302
$419
$792
$792
$1,882
$4,231
$5,730
$12,294
$15,972
$58,913
Export revenues ($)
-$55
$-
-$129
$-
-$271
$-
-$48
$-
-$193
$-
-$76
$-
$-
$-
-$337
$-
-$1,785
$-
-$3,015
$-
$257
$-
$515
$-
$1,116
$-
$172
$-
$687
$-
$257
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$8,581
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$21,274
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,011
$1,230
$1,955
$2,346
$3,210
$4,257
$872
$958
$1,892
$2,268
$897
$994
$1,876
$1,876
$6,871
$12,274
$23,835
$37,908
$85,024
$186,119
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Network bill ($)
$426
$571
$793
$1,140
$1,413
$2,332
$1,593
$3,279
$340
$456
$684
$1,098
$459
$487
$375
$545
$701
$1,080
$1,161
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$316
$560
$587
$1,016
$1,047
$1,726
$1,180
$2,244
$252
$447
$507
$984
$340
$473
$278
$534
$519
$973
$860
$1,581
Export revenues ($)
-$42
$-
-$82
$-
-$244
$-
-$208
$-
-$17
$-
-$118
$-
-$34
$-
-$39
$-
-$114
$-
-$115
$-
$262
$-
$393
$-
$1,179
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$655
$-
$131
$-
$262
$-
$655
$-
$655
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$962
$1,131
$1,691
$2,156
$3,395
$4,058
$3,875
$5,523
$705
$903
$1,728
$2,082
$896
$960
$876
$1,079
$1,761
$2,053
$2,561
$3,645
Network bill ($)
$437
$585
$813
$1,170
$1,483
$2,393
$1,668
$3,364
$348
$468
$702
$1,126
$471
$500
$384
$560
$752
$1,108
$1,225
$2,118
Retail Bill ($)
$340
$604
$633
$1,094
$1,154
$1,860
$1,298
$2,418
$271
$482
$547
$1,061
$367
$510
$299
$575
$586
$1,048
$954
$1,703
Export revenues ($)
-$35
$-
-$68
$-
-$169
$-
-$139
$-
-$14
$-
-$98
$-
-$29
$-
-$32
$-
-$61
$-
-$62
$-
$234
$-
$351
$-
$936
$-
$1,053
$-
$117
$-
$585
$-
$117
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$468
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$977
$1,189
$1,729
$2,264
$3,404
$4,253
$3,880
$5,782
$722
$950
$1,736
$2,187
$926
$1,010
$885
$1,135
$1,745
$2,156
$2,585
$3,821
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 615
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$498
$667
$889
$1,334
$1,618
$2,728
$1,829
$3,836
$364
$533
$767
$1,284
$537
$570
$405
$638
$820
$1,263
$1,358
$2,415
Retail Bill ($)
$336
$596
$599
$1,081
$1,091
$1,837
$1,233
$2,387
$245
$476$-
$517
$1,047
$362
$504
$273
$568
$552
$1,035
$915
$1,682
Export revenues ($)
-$30
$-
-$88
$-
-$206
$-
-$180
$-
-$43
$- $-
-$116
$-
-$25
$-
-$58
$-
-$82
$-
-$83
$-
$200
$-
$401
$-
$1,002
$-
$1,102
$-
$200
$-
$601
$-
$100
$-
$301
$-
$501
$-
$501
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,005
$1,263
$1,801
$2,415
$3,505
$4,565
$3,985
$6,224
$767
$1,009
$1,770
$2,332
$975
$1,073
$921
$1,206
$1,791
$2,298
$2,691
$4,097
Network bill ($)
$540
$768
$914
$1,534
$1,861
$3,138
$2,040
$4,412
$419
$613
$851
$1,477
$618
$655
$466
$734
$909
$1,453
$1,527
$2,778
Retail Bill ($)
$281
$530
$476
$960
$969
$1,632
$1,062
$2,121
$218
$423
$443
$931
$322
$448
$243
$504
$473
$920
$795
$1,494
Export revenues ($)
-$56
$-
-$96
$-
-$190
$-
-$224
$-
-$39
$-
-$136
$-
-$23
$-
-$53
$-
-$105
$-
-$105
$-
$257
$-
$429
$-
$858
$-
$1,116
$-
$172
$-
$601
$-
$86
$-
$257
$-
$515
$-
$515
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$69
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,022
$1,297
$1,793
$2,495
$3,498
$4,770
$3,994
$6,533
$769
$1,036
$1,760
$2,408
$1,003
$1,103
$912
$1,238
$1,792
$2,372
$2,732
$4,272
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
Total
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$371
$553
$744
$1,099
$1,054
$2,117
$305
$434
$660
$1,058
$334
$447
$1,295
$842
$2,586
$6,256
$7,950
$19,924
$62,448
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$275
$544
$552
$979
$781
$1,609
$226
$420
$489
$952
$247
$440
$919
$831
$1,835
$4,438
$5,639
$12,893
$38,995
$61,783
Export revenues ($)
-$74
$-
-$88
$-
-$236
$-
-$21
$-
-$174
$-
-$58
$-
$-
$-
-$454
$-
-$1,521
$-
-$1,701
$-
$393
$-
$524
$-
$1,310
$-
$131
$-
$786
$-
$262
$-
$-
$-
$3,669
$-
$10,483
$-
$26,206
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$964
$1,097
$1,733
$2,078
$2,910
$3,727
$642
$853
$1,761
$2,010
$785
$887
$2,214
$1,674
$7,636
$10,694
$22,551
$32,817
$125,949 $160,730
Network bill ($)
$414
$567
$764
$1,127
$1,082
$2,172
$313
$445
$677
$1,085
$342
$459
$1,328
$864
$2,653
$6,418
$8,156
$20,439
$64,064 $101,509
Retail Bill ($)
$322
$586
$595
$1,055
$842
$1,734
$244
$452
$527
$1,026
$266
$474
$990
$896
$1,977
$4,782
$6,077
$13,895
$42,024
$66,581
Export revenues ($)
-$27
$-
-$73
$-
-$196
$-
-$17
$-
-$145
$-
-$49
$-
$-
$-
-$377
$-
-$1,264
$-
-$1,414
$-
$234
$-
$468
$-
$1,170
$-
$117
$-
$702
$-
$234
$-
$-
$-
$3,277
$-
$9,362
$-
$23,406
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$943
$1,154
$1,753
$2,182
$2,898
$3,907
$657
$897
$1,762
$2,111
$794
$933
$2,318
$1,760
$7,530
$11,200
$22,331
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
$34,334 $128,081 $168,089
ARUP 617
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 19
No Adoption
Customer 18
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 17
No Adoption
Customer 16
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 15
No Adoption
Customer 14
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 13
No Adoption
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Network bill ($)
$434
$647
$838
$1,285
$1,164
$2,477
$357
$507
$738
$1,238
$390
$523
$1,515
$985
$3,025
$7,318
$8,527
$23,306
$73,050
$115,746
Retail Bill ($)
$292
$579
$565
$1,042
$784
$1,713
$241
$447
$497
$1,013
$263
$468
$977
$884
$1,952
$4,722
$5,503
$13,720
$41,494
$65,742
Export revenues ($)
-$53
$-
-$93
$-
-$230
$-
-$15
$-
-$156
$-
-$42
$-
$-
$-
-$327
$-
-$1,730
$-
-$1,225
$-
$301
$-
$501
$-
$1,203
$-
$100
$-
$702
$-
$200
$-
$-
$-
$2,806
$-
$10,021
$-
$20,043
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$973
$1,226
$1,810
$2,327
$2,921
$4,189
$683
$954
$1,781
$2,250
$812
$991
$2,492
$1,870
$7,457
$12,040
$22,322
$37,026
Network bill ($)
$468
$744
$932
$1,478
$1,307
$2,849
$380
$583
$815
$1,423
$414
$601
$1,742
$1,133
$3,479
$8,417
$9,807
$26,804
$41,231
$133,119
Retail Bill ($)
$244
$515
$485
$926
$681
$1,522
$198
$397
$425
$900
$216
$416
$869
$786
$1,735
$4,196
$4,889
$12,190
$18,094
$58,414
Export revenues ($)
-$79
$-
-$115
$-
-$242
$-
-$43
$-
-$172
$-
-$68
$-
$-
$-
-$301
$-
-$1,594
$-
-$2,693
$-
$343
$-
$515
$-
$1,116
$-
$172
$-
$687
$-
$257
$-
$-
$-
$2,403
$-
$8,581
$-
$17,163
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$21,274
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$976
$1,258
$1,817
$2,404
$2,862
$4,370
$707
$980
$1,754
$2,323
$820
$1,017
$2,611
$1,919
$7,316
$12,612
$21,684
$38,995
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
$133,362 $181,488
$95,068 $191,533
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$425
$571
$975
$1,140
$1,737
$2,332
$2,281
$3,279
$375
$456
$742
$1,098
$487
$487
$392
$545
$753
$1,080
$1,608
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$423
$566
$899
$1,026
$1,370
$1,743
$1,715
$2,265
$373
$452
$714
$994
$478
$478
$389
$539
$723
$982
$1,340
$1,596
Export revenues ($)
-$44
$-
-$47
$-
-$134
$-
-$136
$-
-$18
$-
-$83
$-
$-
$-
-$41
$-
-$39
$-
-$79
$-
$294
$-
$294
$-
$882
$-
$1,177
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$588
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,099
$1,136
$2,120
$2,166
$3,856
$4,075
$5,038
$5,545
$876
$908
$1,962
$2,092
$965
$965
$1,035
$1,084
$1,878
$2,062
$3,457
$3,661
Network bill ($)
$415
$557
$855
$1,114
$1,544
$2,278
$2,078
$3,203
$343
$445
$667
$1,072
$434
$476
$360
$533
$667
$1,055
$1,506
$2,016
Retail Bill ($)
$470
$628
$908
$1,140
$1,412
$1,937
$1,812
$2,517
$388
$502
$738
$1,104
$487
$531
$407
$599
$738
$1,091
$1,440
$1,774
Export revenues ($)
-$41
$-
-$161
$-
-$280
$-
-$287
$-
-$58
$-
-$157
$-
-$34
$-
-$79
$-
-$112
$-
-$154
$-
$219
$-
$548
$-
$1,096
$-
$1,316
$-
$219
$-
$658
$-
$110
$-
$329
$-
$548
$-
$658
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,064
$1,186
$2,151
$2,253
$3,773
$4,215
$4,919
$5,720
$893
$947
$1,905
$2,177
$997
$1,007
$1,017
$1,131
$1,842
$2,146
$3,449
$3,790
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 619
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$447
$629
$942
$1,256
$1,741
$2,569
$2,240
$3,613
$387
$502
$731
$1,210
$490
$536
$406
$601
$730
$1,190
$1,674
$2,275
Retail Bill ($)
$463
$649
$919
$1,178
$1,460
$2,002
$1,813
$2,602
$401
$519
$742
$1,141
$503
$549
$420
$619
$742
$1,128
$1,471
$1,833
Export revenues ($)
-$77
$-
-$189
$-
-$259
$-
-$430
$-
-$54
$-
-$186
$-
-$31
$-
-$73
$-
-$144
$-
-$184
$-
$283
$-
$565
$-
$942
$-
$1,508
$-
$188
$-
$660
$-
$94
$-
$283
$-
$565
$-
$660
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total
$1,115
$1,278
$2,237
$2,434
$3,884
$4,571
$5,130
$6,215
$923
$1,021
$1,947
$2,351
$1,056
$1,085
$1,036
$1,220
$1,893
$2,318
$3,621
$4,108
Network bill ($)
$509
$716
$1,033
$1,431
$1,984
$2,927
$2,488
$4,116
$425
$572
$796
$1,378
$543
$611
$445
$685
$795
$1,355
$1,868
$2,591
Retail Bill ($)
$409
$575
$787
$1,042
$1,291
$1,771
$1,576
$2,302
$342
$459
$629
$1,010
$434
$486
$358
$547
$629
$998
$1,279
$1,622
Export revenues ($)
-$74
$-
-$260
$-
-$247
$-
-$532
$-
-$92
$-
-$256
$-
-$70
$-
-$109
$-
-$217
$-
-$256
$-
$243
$-
$648
$-
$810
$-
$1,539
$-
$243
$-
$729
$-
$162
$-
$324
$-
$648
$-
$729
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,088
$1,291
$2,208
$2,473
$3,838
$4,698
$5,071
$6,418
$919
$1,031
$1,897
$2,388
$1,068
$1,097
$1,017
$1,232
$1,856
$2,353
$3,619
$4,213
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$388
$553
$798
$1,099
$1,258
$2,117
$358
$434
$752
$1,058
$377
$447
$842
$842
$2,576
$6,256
$9,897
$19,924
$26,159
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$386
$550
$758
$989
$1,121
$1,625
$354
$424
$721
$961
$375
$444
$839
$839
$2,182
$4,481
$6,756
$13,019
$16,914
$62,387
Export revenues ($)
-$34
$-
-$51
$-
-$168
$-
-$22
$-
-$103
$-
-$23
$-
$-
$-
-$229
$-
-$1,177
$-
-$4,277
$-
$294
$-
$441
$-
$1,177
$-
$147
$-
$588
$-
$147
$-
$-
$-
$3,235
$-
$10,294
$-
$29,413
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$29,380
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,033
$1,102
$1,946
$2,087
$3,387
$3,742
$837
$857
$1,959
$2,019
$876
$891
$1,682
$1,682
$7,764
$10,737
$25,770
$32,943
$97,589
$161,334
Network bill ($)
$355
$540
$720
$1,073
$1,124
$2,068
$350
$424
$638
$1,033
$334
$437
$823
$823
$2,220
$6,110
$8,867
$19,457
$25,547
$96,632
Retail Bill ($)
$401
$611
$785
$1,099
$1,154
$1,806
$393
$471
$709
$1,068
$377
$494
$933
$933
$2,215
$4,979
$6,939
$14,468
$18,795
$69,326
Export revenues ($)
-$72
$-
-$127
$-
-$271
$-
-$21
$-
-$212
$-
-$57
$-
$-
$-
-$444
$-
-$1,911
$-
-$3,971
$-
$329
$-
$548
$-
$1,206
$-
$110
$-
$767
$-
$219
$-
$-
$-
$3,070
$-
$9,867
$-
$21,928
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$20,531
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,013
$1,151
$1,926
$2,172
$3,212
$3,874
$832
$894
$1,904
$2,101
$873
$930
$1,755
$1,755
$7,061
$11,089
$23,763
$33,925
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$82,830 $165,958
ARUP 621
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
$609
$768
$1,210
$1,197
$2,333
$371
$478
$697
$1,166
$354
$493
$928
$928
$2,505
$6,892
$9,691
$21,950
$28,819 $109,008
Retail Bill ($)
$396
$631
$773
$1,135
$1,134
$1,866
$383
$487
$712
$1,104
$367
$510
$964
$964
$2,289
$5,146
$6,969
$14,953
$19,425
$71,651
Export revenues ($)
-$108
$-
-$198
$-
-$372
$-
-$58
$-
-$236
$-
-$92
$-
$-
$-
-$412
$-
-$2,181
$-
-$3,683
$-
$377
$-
$660
$-
$1,319
$-
$188
$-
$754
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$2,639
$-
$9,425
$-
$18,849
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$17,560
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,047
$1,240
$2,002
$2,346
$3,278
$4,199
$885
$964
$1,927
$2,269
$911
$1,003
$1,892
$1,892
$7,021
$12,039
$23,903
$36,902
$80,971
$180,659
Network bill ($)
$420
$694
$822
$1,379
$1,327
$2,657
$423
$544
$757
$1,328
$386
$561
$1,057
$1,057
$2,854
$7,852
$11,040
$25,005
$32,831
$124,185
Retail Bill ($)
$338
$558
$647
$1,005
$980
$1,651
$339
$431
$602
$976
$310
$451
$853
$853
$2,025
$4,553
$6,165
$13,229
$17,186
$63,390
Export revenues ($)
-$143
$-
-$310
$-
-$435
$-
-$56
$-
-$304
$-
-$128
$-
$-
$-
-$392
$-
-$2,076
$-
-$3,506
$-
$405
$-
$810
$-
$1,296
$-
$162
$-
$810
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$2,268
$-
$8,102
$-
$16,203
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$15,019
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,020
$1,252
$1,970
$2,384
$3,168
$4,309
$868
$975
$1,865
$2,304
$892
$1,012
$1,910
$1,910
$6,755
$12,405
$23,231
$38,234
$77,733
$187,576
ARUP
No Adoption
No Adoption
$382
Total
Adopting DG & DS
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$1,107
$571
$1,025
$1,140
$1,834
$2,332
$1,658
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,621
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$590
$566
$938
$1,026
$1,666
$1,744
$1,985
$2,267
$427
$452
$1,077
$995
$531
$478
$575
$539
$1,061
$983
$1,387
$1,597
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$13
$-
-$12
$-
-$18
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$13
$-
$-
$-
$146
$-
$292
$-
$584
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$292
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,697
$1,137
$2,096
$2,167
$3,779
$4,077
$4,208
$5,547
$1,153
$908
$2,211
$2,093
$2,477
$965
$1,251
$1,085
$2,140
$2,063
$3,288
$3,662
Network bill ($)
$1,051
$541
$913
$1,082
$1,602
$2,213
$1,253
$3,112
$689
$433
$832
$1,042
$1,847
$462
$642
$518
$926
$1,025
$1,411
$1,959
$653
$639
$1,016
$1,159
$1,656
$1,969
$1,918
$2,560
$476
$510
$776
$1,123
$585
$540
$635
$609
$814
$1,110
$1,420
$1,803
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$13
$-
-$63
$-
-$64
$-
$-
$-
-$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$38
$-
-$42
$-
$-
$-
$109
$-
$436
$-
$653
$-
$-
$-
$436
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$327
$-
$327
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$79
$-
$158
$-
$395
$-
$-
$-
$158
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$79
$-
$158
$-
$1,704
$1,180
$2,103
$2,241
$3,788
$4,183
$4,155
$5,672
$1,165
$943
$2,119
$2,165
$2,432
$1,002
$1,277
$1,126
$2,107
$2,135
$3,273
$3,763
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 623
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2034
2029
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$1,112
$573
$954
$1,146
$1,492
$2,343
$1,314
$3,294
$729
$458
$881
$1,103
$1,955
$489
$680
$548
$975
$1,085
$1,424
$2,074
Retail Bill ($)
$664
$652
$939
$1,182
$1,540
$2,008
$1,853
$2,610
$484
$520
$790
$1,145
$594
$551
$645
$621
$781
$1,132
$1,380
$1,839
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$83
$-
-$128
$-
-$130
$-
$-
$-
-$80
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$74
$-
-$76
$-
$-
$-
$281
$-
$562
$-
$749
$-
$-
$-
$374
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$374
$-
$374
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$65
$-
$324
$-
$324
$-
$-
$-
$130
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$65
$-
$195
$-
Total
$1,776
$1,225
$2,156
$2,327
$3,791
$4,351
$4,110
$5,905
$1,213
$978
$2,095
$2,248
$2,549
$1,040
$1,325
$1,169
$2,122
$2,216
$3,297
$3,913
Network bill ($)
$1,175
$605
$1,003
$1,210
$1,562
$2,475
$1,375
$3,480
$770
$484
$922
$1,165
$2,065
$517
$718
$579
$1,026
$1,146
$1,499
$2,191
Retail Bill ($)
$591
$567
$800
$1,029
$1,264
$1,749
$1,541
$2,273
$428
$453
$640
$997
$532
$480
$576
$541
$665
$985
$1,185
$1,602
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$118
$-
-$235
$-
-$241
$-
$-
$-
-$155
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$110
$-
-$111
$-
$-
$-
$322
$-
$724
$-
$885
$-
$-
$-
$483
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$402
$-
$402
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$54
$-
$268
$-
$268
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$54
$-
$161
$-
$1,766
$1,173
$2,061
$2,239
$3,583
$4,223
$3,828
$5,753
$1,198
$937
$1,997
$2,162
$2,597
$996
$1,294
$1,119
$2,036
$2,131
$3,137
$3,792
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,416
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,584
$6,256
$11,057
$19,924
$69,857
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$580
$550
$1,093
$989
$1,363
$1,627
$391
$424
$1,008
$962
$461
$445
$945
$840
$2,295
$4,485
$6,815
$13,031
$42,770
$62,441
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$68
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$229
$-
-$791
$-
-$1,792
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$730
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,213
$-
$8,764
$-
$29,213
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,565
$1,103
$2,505
$2,088
$3,441
$3,744
$1,192
$858
$2,150
$2,020
$1,359
$892
$3,251
$1,682
$8,864
$10,741
$25,845
$32,954 $140,048 $161,388
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,416
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,584
$6,256
$11,057
$19,924
$69,857
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$580
$550
$1,093
$989
$1,363
$1,627
$391
$424
$1,008
$962
$461
$445
$945
$840
$2,295
$4,485
$6,815
$13,031
$42,770
$62,441
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$68
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$229
$-
-$791
$-
-$1,792
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$730
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,213
$-
$8,764
$-
$29,213
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,565
$1,103
$2,505
$2,088
$3,441
$3,744
$1,192
$858
$2,150
$2,020
$1,359
$892
$3,251
$1,682
$8,864
$10,741
$25,845
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$32,954 $140,048 $161,388
ARUP 625
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$990
$555
$1,418
$1,104
$1,150
$2,127
$805
$436
$1,147
$1,063
$902
$449
$2,316
$846
$3,380
$6,284
$9,793
$20,014
$69,880
$99,394
Retail Bill ($)
$652
$633
$1,227
$1,139
$1,138
$1,873
$444
$488
$1,137
$1,107
$519
$512
$1,068
$967
$2,351
$5,163
$6,398
$15,002
$47,857
$71,888
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$279
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$458
$-
-$2,423
$-
-$1,715
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,030
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,621
$-
$9,361
$-
$18,721
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$195
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$324
$-
Total
$1,643
$1,189
$2,645
$2,243
$3,233
$4,000
$1,250
$924
$2,284
$2,170
$1,421
$961
$3,384
$1,813
$7,895
$11,448
$23,129
$35,016 $135,068 $171,282
Network bill ($)
$1,046
$587
$1,498
$1,166
$1,209
$2,247
$851
$460
$1,013
$1,122
$953
$474
$2,446
$894
$3,571
$6,638
$10,344
$21,139
$73,810
$104,983
$581
$551
$1,096
$992
$897
$1,631
$392
$425
$598
$964
$462
$446
$947
$842
$2,089
$4,496
$5,654
$13,063
$42,715
$62,597
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$578
$-
$-
$-
-$251
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$438
$-
-$2,317
$-
-$1,641
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,448
$-
$-
$-
$644
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,253
$-
$8,047
$-
$16,093
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$107
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$268
$-
$1,627
$1,138
$2,593
$2,158
$3,083
$3,877
$1,242
$885
$2,111
$2,087
$1,415
$920
$3,394
$1,736
$7,475
$11,134
$21,727
$34,202
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
$131,245 $167,581
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 3
No Adoption
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
2024
2019
Scenario
Customer 1
Network bill ($)
$425
$571
$975
$1,140
$1,690
$2,332
$2,281
$3,279
$375
$456
$742
$1,098
$487
$487
$392
$545
$753
$1,080
$1,608
$2,065
Retail Bill ($)
$445
$595
$945
$1,078
$1,409
$1,833
$1,804
$2,382
$392
$475
$751
$1,045
$503
$503
$409
$566
$760
$1,033
$1,409
$1,678
Export revenues ($)
-$45
$-
-$49
$-
-$179
$-
-$141
$-
-$19
$-
-$87
$-
$-
$-
-$42
$-
-$40
$-
-$82
$-
$293
$-
$293
$-
$1,025
$-
$1,171
$-
$146
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$586
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,117
$1,165
$2,163
$2,219
$3,945
$4,165
$5,115
$5,661
$894
$931
$1,993
$2,143
$989
$989
$1,052
$1,112
$1,912
$2,112
$3,520
$3,743
Network bill ($)
$388
$562
$790
$1,124
$1,558
$2,298
$1,940
$3,232
$325
$449
$614
$1,082
$426
$480
$349
$538
$614
$1,064
$1,455
$2,035
Retail Bill ($)
$440
$635
$848
$1,151
$1,427
$1,957
$1,733
$2,544
$368
$507
$683
$1,116
$479
$537
$395
$605
$685
$1,103
$1,403
$1,792
Export revenues ($)
-$130
$-
-$391
$-
-$282
$-
-$655
$-
-$152
$-
-$340
$-
-$80
$-
-$125
$-
-$295
$-
-$340
$-
$350
$-
$875
$-
$875
$-
$1,749
$-
$350
$-
$875
$-
$175
$-
$350
$-
$787
$-
$875
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,047
$1,197
$2,122
$2,275
$3,577
$4,255
$4,767
$5,775
$890
$956
$1,832
$2,198
$1,000
$1,016
$970
$1,142
$1,791
$2,167
$3,393
$3,827
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
ARUP 627
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
No Adoption
Customer 9
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 8
No Adoption
Customer 7
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 6
No Adoption
Customer 5
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 4
No Adoption
2029
Customer 3
Network bill ($)
$431
$659
$859
$1,318
$1,826
$2,695
$2,275
$3,789
$355
$527
$720
$1,268
$449
$563
$379
$630
$681
$1,248
$1,633
$2,385
Retail Bill ($)
$427
$652
$813
$1,182
$1,465
$2,009
$1,779
$2,612
$352
$521
$701
$1,146
$445
$551
$376
$621
$669
$1,132
$1,389
$1,840
-$325
$-
-$877
$-
-$280
$-
-$650
$-
-$346
$-
-$337
$-
-$471
$-
-$317
$-
-$585
$-
-$827
$-
$590
$-
$1,475
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$590
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$590
$-
$1,106
$-
$1,475
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,123
$1,311
$2,270
$2,500
$3,749
$4,704
$4,879
$6,401
$952
$1,047
$1,821
$2,414
$1,161
$1,114
$1,029
$1,251
$1,871
$2,380
$3,670
$4,225
Network bill ($)
$524
$814
$1,061
$1,627
$2,255
$3,327
$1,223
$4,678
$430
$650
$888
$1,566
$554
$695
$440
$778
$822
$1,540
$2,016
$2,945
Retail Bill ($)
$391
$606
$755
$1,099
$1,362
$1,867
$863
$2,427
$321
$484
$652
$1,065
$414
$512
$328
$577
$608
$1,052
$1,291
$1,710
-$429
$-
-$886
$-
-$283
$-
-$889
$-
-$450
$-
-$341
$-
-$476
$-
-$931
$-
-$845
$-
-$836
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$332
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,108
$1,420
$2,174
$2,725
$3,955
$5,194
$2,856
$7,105
$923
$1,134
$1,821
$2,631
$1,114
$1,207
$1,081
$1,355
$1,829
$2,593
$3,715
$4,655
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
Export revenues ($)

2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$388
$553
$798
$1,099
$1,258
$2,117
$358
$434
$752
$1,058
$377
$447
$842
$842
$2,458
$6,256
$9,897
$19,924
$26,159
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$405
$578
$797
$1,039
$1,178
$1,709
$372
$445
$759
$1,010
$394
$467
$882
$882
$2,217
$4,711
$7,103
$13,688
$17,783
$65,592
Export revenues ($)
-$35
$-
-$53
$-
-$174
$-
-$23
$-
-$107
$-
-$24
$-
$-
$-
-$319
$-
-$1,220
$-
-$4,433
$-
$293
$-
$439
$-
$1,171
$-
$146
$-
$586
$-
$146
$-
$-
$-
$3,513
$-
$10,246
$-
$29,276
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$19,548
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,051
$1,131
$1,981
$2,138
$3,433
$3,826
$854
$879
$1,989
$2,068
$894
$914
$1,725
$1,725
$7,869
$10,967
$26,026
$33,612
$88,333 $164,539
Network bill ($)
$320
$545
$625
$1,083
$1,030
$2,086
$320
$427
$594
$1,043
$292
$441
$830
$830
$2,240
$6,165
$8,668
$19,633
$25,778
$97,506
Retail Bill ($)
$363
$617
$694
$1,110
$1,072
$1,825
$363
$476
$665
$1,079
$331
$499
$942
$942
$2,238
$5,031
$6,813
$14,618
$18,991
$70,047
Export revenues ($)
-$211
$-
-$448
$-
-$544
$-
-$110
$-
-$347
$-
-$192
$-
$-
$-
-$448
$-
-$2,370
$-
-$4,003
$-
$525
$-
$1,049
$-
$1,487
$-
$262
$-
$875
$-
$437
$-
$-
$-
$2,449
$-
$8,746
$-
$17,491
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$9,352
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$997
$1,162
$1,919
$2,193
$3,045
$3,911
$835
$903
$1,787
$2,121
$867
$939
$1,772
$1,772
$6,479
$11,196
$21,856
$34,251
$67,608
$167,553
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
ARUP 629
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
2029
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$350
$639
$667
$1,269
$1,175
$2,446
$350
$501
$697
$1,222
$306
$517
$973
$973
$2,627
$7,228
$10,163
$23,019
$30,223
$114,319
Retail Bill ($)
$347
$633
$654
$1,140
$1,075
$1,873
$347
$488
$683
$1,108
$303
$512
$967
$967
$2,298
$5,166
$6,995
$15,009
$19,498
$71,920
-$404
$-
-$831
$-
-$683
$-
-$304
$-
-$345
$-
-$433
$-
$-
$-
-$444
$-
-$2,353
$-
-$3,974
$-
$738
$-
$1,475
$-
$1,475
$-
$516
$-
$738
$-
$738
$-
$-
$-
$2,065
$-
$7,375
$-
$14,751
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$7,879
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,031
$1,272
$1,965
$2,409
$3,042
$4,320
$910
$989
$1,772
$2,330
$913
$1,029
$1,941
$1,941
$6,545
$12,394
$22,181
$38,028
$68,377 $186,238
Network bill ($)
$406
$789
$824
$1,567
$1,451
$3,020
$421
$619
$860
$1,509
$377
$638
$1,202
$1,202
$559
$8,923
$389
$28,418
$37,312
$141,133
Retail Bill ($)
$303
$589
$608
$1,059
$999
$1,741
$315
$454
$635
$1,030
$282
$476
$899
$899
$418
$4,801
$291
$13,949
$18,121
$66,840
Export revenues ($)
-$917
$-
-$840
$-
-$690
$-
-$459
$-
-$348
$-
-$437
$-
$-
$-
-$951
$-
-$4,923
$-
-$4,017
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$1,244
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$622
$-
$-
$-
$1,742
$-
$4,976
$-
$12,440
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$664
$-
$3,319
$-
$6,637
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,036
$1,377
$1,836
$2,626
$3,004
$4,761
$899
$1,072
$1,768
$2,539
$843
$1,114
$2,101
$2,101
$2,431
$13,724
$4,052
$42,367
$70,493
$207,972
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Export revenues ($)
Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 11
Total
ARUP
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$571
$1,025
$1,140
$1,834
$2,332
$1,646
$3,279
$726
$456
$1,134
$1,098
$1,946
$487
$677
$545
$1,080
$1,080
$1,621
$2,065
$619
$600
$987
$1,088
$1,753
$1,850
$2,001
$2,404
$450
$479
$1,130
$1,055
$556
$507
$603
$572
$1,113
$1,042
$1,459
$1,694
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$14
$-
-$13
$-
-$40
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$14
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$-
$-
$145
$-
$291
$-
$727
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$291
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Total ($)
$1,727
$1,171
$2,143
$2,229
$3,865
$4,182
$4,334
$5,684
$1,176
$935
$2,264
$2,153
$2,502
$994
$1,280
$1,117
$2,193
$2,122
$3,358
$3,758
Network bill ($)
$1,039
$536
$941
$1,070
$1,676
$2,189
$1,449
$3,078
$681
$428
$930
$1,030
$1,826
$457
$635
$512
$964
$1,014
$1,499
$1,938
$654
$641
$864
$1,162
$1,473
$1,975
$1,766
$2,567
$477
$512
$710
$1,126
$587
$542
$636
$611
$739
$1,113
$1,337
$1,809
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$215
$-
-$294
$-
-$348
$-
$-
$-
-$258
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$163
$-
-$209
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$-
$-
$521
$-
$869
$-
$1,129
$-
$-
$-
$695
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$521
$-
$608
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$83
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,694
$1,176
$2,112
$2,233
$3,722
$4,164
$4,080
$5,645
$1,158
$940
$2,077
$2,157
$2,413
$999
$1,272
$1,123
$2,061
$2,127
$3,235
$3,747
Retail Bill ($)
2019
Customer 3
$1,107
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2024
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total ($)
ARUP 631
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 10
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 9
No Adoption
Customer 8
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 7
No Adoption
Customer 6
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 5
No Adoption
Customer 4
$566
$924
$1,131
$1,519
$2,312
$1,267
$3,251
$719
$452
$853
$1,088
$1,929
$483
$671
$541
$949
$1,071
$1,449
$2,047
$655
$641
$783
$1,162
$1,402
$1,976
$1,576
$2,568
$477
$512
$634
$1,126
$587
$542
$636
$611
$659
$1,113
$1,211
$1,809
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$454
$-
-$291
$-
-$678
$-
$-
$-
-$351
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$354
$-
-$552
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$-
$-
$806
$-
$733
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$1,026
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$68
$-
$274
$-
$342
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$68
$-
$137
$-
Total
$1,752
$1,207
$2,126
$2,293
$3,636
$4,288
$3,972
$5,819
$1,197
$964
$2,006
$2,215
$2,516
$1,024
$1,307
$1,151
$2,055
$2,184
$3,270
$3,856
Network bill ($)
$1,178
$607
$984
$1,213
$1,563
$2,481
$1,359
$3,489
$772
$485
$916
$1,168
$2,070
$518
$548
$580
$1,013
$1,149
$1,484
$2,197
$611
$590
$680
$1,070
$1,287
$1,818
$1,457
$2,363
$443
$471
$589
$1,037
$549
$499
$288
$562
$572
$1,025
$1,075
$1,665
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
-$918
$-
-$293
$-
-$681
$-
$-
$-
-$353
$-
$-
$-
-$964
$-
-$875
$-
-$866
$-
Yearly Solar Invest

($)
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$618
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
Yearly CHP Invest

($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$57
$-
$283
$-
$283
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$57
$-
$170
$-
$1,789
$1,197
$2,038
$2,283
$3,457
$4,300
$3,654
$5,852
$1,215
$956
$1,882
$2,205
$2,619
$1,017
$1,220
$1,142
$2,003
$2,173
$3,099
$3,862
Retail Bill ($)
2029
Customer 3
$1,098
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Network bill ($)
Retail Bill ($)
2034
Customer 2
Adopting DG & DS
Scenario
Customer 1
Total
ARUP
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$986
$553
$1,412
$1,099
$1,400
$2,117
$802
$434
$1,142
$1,058
$898
$447
$2,306
$842
$3,584
$6,256
$11,057
$19,924
$69,857
$98,947
Retail Bill ($)
$609
$583
$1,147
$1,049
$1,360
$1,725
$412
$450
$1,060
$1,020
$484
$471
$994
$891
$2,412
$4,755
$7,176
$13,816
$44,853
$66,205
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$104
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$245
$-
-$846
$-
-$1,916
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$872
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,198
$-
$8,723
$-
$29,077
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,594
$1,136
$2,558
$2,148
$3,527
$3,842
$1,214
$883
$2,202
$2,078
$1,382
$918
$3,300
$1,733
$8,949
$11,011
$26,111
$33,740
$141,871 $165,152
Network bill ($)
$925
$519
$1,325
$1,031
$1,172
$1,987
$753
$407
$1,014
$993
$843
$420
$2,164
$791
$3,159
$5,872
$9,150
$18,700
$65,568
$92,871
Retail Bill ($)
$643
$623
$1,210
$1,120
$1,023
$1,842
$438
$480
$694
$1,089
$512
$503
$1,053
$951
$2,317
$5,078
$6,303
$14,755
$47,342
$70,702
Export revenues ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$718
$-
$-
$-
-$268
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$467
$-
-$2,475
$-
-$1,753
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,737
$-
$-
$-
$695
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,432
$-
$8,686
$-
$17,372
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Battery investm ($)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,568
$1,142
$2,535
$2,152
$3,213
$3,829
$1,190
$887
$2,135
$2,082
$1,355
$923
$3,217
$1,742
$7,441
$10,950
$21,665
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Total ($)
2024
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2019
Scenario
Customer 11
Total ($)
$33,455 $128,529 $163,573
ARUP 633
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Adopting DG & DS
No Adoption
Customer 20
No Adoption
Customer 19
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 18
No Adoption
Customer 17
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 16
No Adoption
Customer 15
Adopting DG & DS
Customer 14
No Adoption
Customer 13
Network bill ($)
$474
$548
$1,122
$1,089
$1,112
$2,099
$795
$430
$941
$1,049
$890
$443
$2,286
$835
$3,336
$6,202
$9,664
$19,751
$68,962
$98,088
Retail Bill ($)
$288
$623
$629
$1,121
$978
$1,842
$438
$480
$632
$1,089
$512
$503
$1,053
$951
$2,318
$5,079
$6,304
$14,757
$47,207
$70,714
Export revenues ($)
-$681
$-
-$763
$-
-$711
$-
$-
$-
-$359
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$463
$-
-$2,451
$-
-$1,735
$-
$1,099
$-
$1,319
$-
$1,465
$-
$-
$-
$733
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,051
$-
$7,325
$-
$14,651
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$68
$-
$68
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$137
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$342
$-
$1,248
$1,171
$2,375
$2,210
$2,980
$3,941
$1,233
$910
$2,083
$2,138
$1,402
$947
$3,339
$1,786
$7,242
$11,281
$20,843
$34,508 $129,427 $168,802
Network bill ($)
$505
$588
$1,203
$1,169
$1,194
$2,253
$853
$461
$1,010
$1,126
$955
$476
$2,453
$896
$3,580
$6,656
$10,372
$21,197
$74,013
$105,273
Retail Bill ($)
$260
$573
$574
$1,031
$907
$1,695
$406
$442
$587
$1,002
$477
$463
$979
$875
$2,159
$4,674
$5,853
$13,581
$44,088
$65,078
Export revenues ($)
-$949
$-
-$871
$-
-$715
$-
$-
$-
-$361
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
-$465
$-
-$2,464
$-
-$1,744
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$1,236
$-
$-
$-
$618
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,730
$-
$6,178
$-
$12,355
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$57
$-
$57
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$113
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$283
$-
$1,107
$1,161
$2,199
$2,200
$2,734
$3,948
$1,259
$903
$1,967
$2,128
$1,433
$939
$3,433
$1,772
$7,004
$11,330
$19,939
Bill Component
($2014 Real)
Battery investm ($)

Total
2034
Customer 12
Adopting DG & DS
2029
Scenario
Customer 11
Battery investm ($)

Total
ARUP
$34,779 $128,995 $170,352
Acronyms
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Acroynms ARUP 635
Table of Acronyms
Abbreviation
3G/ 4G
AC
ACMA
ACT
ADMD
AEFI
Term
Third Generation/ Fourth Generation (mobile communications technology)
Alternating Current
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Australian Capital Territory
After Diversity Maximum Demand
Arup, Energeia, Frontier Economics, and Institute for Sustainable Futures
Consortium
AEMC
Australian Energy Market Commission
AEMO
Australian Energy Market Operator
AER
AMI
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
ARRA
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009
ATO
Activity Target Outcomes
AUD
Australian Dollar
AVVC
BAU
Business As Usual
BEV
Battery Electric Vehicle
BIPV
Building Integrated Photovoltaics
BREE
CBD
CA
CAA
Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics

Central Business District
Customer Acquisition Application
CAIDI
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index
CAIFI
Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index
CAPEX
Capital Expense
CBA
Cost Benefit Analysis
CBD
CCGT
CHP
CIS
COAG
COAGEG
CO2
CO2-e
CPP
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

Combined Heat and Power
Customer Information System
Council of Australian Governments
Council of Australian Governments Energy Council
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
Critical Peak Pricing
CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission
CRM
Customer Relationship Management
636 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Acroynms ARUP
Abbreviation
CSIRO
CVR
Term
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Conservation Voltage Reduction
DC
Direct Current
DC
Distribution Centre
0C
Degrees Celsius
DER
DERMS
DFA
DG
DLC
DM&C
DMEGCIS
DMS
Distributed Energy Resources

Distributed Energy Resource Management System
Distribution Feeder Automation
Direct Load Control
Distribution Monitoring and Control
Demand Management and Embedded Generation Connection Incentive
Scheme
Distribution Management System
DNMS
Distribution Network Management System
DNSP
Distribution Network Service Provider
DOE
Department of Energy (United States)
DOI
DP
Department of Industry
Data Priorities
DPP
Dynamic Peak Pricing
DPR
Dynamic Peak Rebate
DRED
Demand Response Enabling Device
DRET
(former) Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
DS
Distributed Storage
DSP
Demand Side Participation
DSM
Demand Side Management
DSR
Demand Side Response
DTS
Distributed Temperature Sensing
ECA
Energy Consumers Australia
EEIS
South Australia Energy Efficiency Improvement Scheme
EGS
Enhanced Geothermal System
EMS
Energy Management System
ENA
Energy Networks Association
EPRI
Electric Power Research Institute
ERA
Economic Regulation Authority
ERM
Energy Resource Management
ESAA
Energy Supply Association of Australia
Abbreviation
Term
ESB
Enterprise Service Bus
ESS
New South Wales Energy Savings Scheme
EU
European Union
EV
Electric Vehicle
EVSE
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FAN
Field Area Network
FAR
Field Area Router
FBT
Feedback technology
FDIR
FiT
FP7
FTTN
FTTP/ FTTH
GA
Fault Detection, Isolation and Restoration

Feed In Tariff
7th Framework Programme
Fibre to the Node
Fibre-To-The-Premises/ Fibre-To-The-Home
Grid Applications
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GPS
Global Positioning System
GreenPower
GreenPower
GSL
Guaranteed Service Level
GST
Goods and Services Tax
GW
Gigawatt
GWh
Gigawatt Hours
HAN
Home Area Network
HEMS
HEV
HV
HWLC
Hz
Home Energy Management System

Hybrid Electric Vehicle
High Voltage
Hot Water Load Control
Hertz
IBT
Inclining Block Tariff
ICE
Internal Combustion Engine
ICH
Information Clearing House
ICT
Information & Communication Technology
IEA
International Energy Agency
IEC
International Electrotechnical Commission
IFI
IGCC (black coal)
IHD
Innovation Funding Incentive

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Black Coal
In Home Display
Abbreviation
IMO
IP
IPART
IVVC
Term
Independent Market Operator
Internet Protocol
Independent Pricing and Regulation Tribunal
Integrated Volt-VAr Control
km
Kilometre
KPI
Key Performance Indicator
kV
Kilovolt
kW
Kilowatt
kWh
Kilowatt Hour
LAN
Local Area Network
LGA
Local Government Area
LGCs
LNG
Large-scale Generation Certificates

Liquefied Natural Gas
LRMC
Long Run Marginal Cost
MAIDI
Momentary Average Interruption Duration Index
MAIFI
Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index
Mbps
Megabits per second
MIC
Modelling Inputs Compendium
MMP
Monitoring and Measurement Plan
MMR
Monitoring and Measurement Report
MMS
Meter Management System
MPLS
ms-1
Mt
MVA
MW
NA
Multiprotocol Label Switching

Meter Per Second
Millions of tonnes
Millivolt ampre
Megawatt
Not Applicable
NBN
National Broadband Network
NEL
National Electricity Law
NEM
NER
National Electricity Rules
NERR
National Energy Retail Rules
NGGI
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory
NGR
National Gas Rules
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NMI
National Metering Identifier
Abbreviation
NPV
NSMP
Term
Net Present Value
National Smart Metering Program
NSW
New South Wales
NTD
Network Termination Device
NTNDP
National Transmission Network Development Plan
NWIS
North West Interconnected Systems
OCGT
Open Cycle Gas Turbine
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OEM
OPEX
PF
PHEV
PINC
Plt
Original Equipment Manufacturer

Operating Expense
Power Factor
Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Platform for Intelligent Network Communications
Long Term flicker susceptibility
PMU
Phasor Measurement Unit
PNM
Power Network Model
PNNL
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PP
Policy Priority
PQ
Power Quality
PS+EDGE
Production System + Extended Data Grid Environment
Pst
Short Term flicker susceptibility
PV
Photovoltaics
QCA
Queensland Competition Authority
R&D
Research and Development
REC
Renewable Energy Certificate
RET (LRET & SRET)

RIT-D
Renewable Energy Target

Regulatory Investment Test for Distribution
RTM
Requirement Traceability Matrix
RTP
Real Time Pricing
RTU
Remote Telemetry unit
SAIDI
System Average Interruption Duration Index
SAIFI
System Average Interruption Frequency Index
SC (coal)
SCADA
SCER
Supercritical Black Coal/ Supercritical Brown Coal

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
Standing Council on Energy and Resources
Abbreviation
Term
SFM
Substation Feeder Monitoring
SFM
Substation and Feeder Monitoring
SGA
SGI
Smart Grid Initiative
SGSC
SMI
SMS
SP

Smart Metering Infrastructure
Short Message Service
SRMC
Short Run Marginal Cost
STATCOM
Static VAr Compensation
STC
Small-Scale Technology Certificate
STEM
Short Term Energy Market
STPIS
Service Target Performance Incentive Scheme
SUV
SWIS
TOU/ STOU
Suburban (or sport) Utility Vehicle

South West Interconnected Systems
Time of Use/ Seasonal Time of Use
THD
Total Harmonic Distortion
TSO
Transmission System Operators
TWh
Terrawatt Hours
UK
United Kingdom
UMTS
USA
USC (coal)
USD
V
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System

United States of America
Ultra-supercritical Black Coal/ Ultra-supercritical Brown Coal
United States Dollar
Volt
V2G
Vehicle-to-Grid
VAr
Volt-Ampere reactive
VCR
VEET
WA
Value of Customer Reliability

Victoria Energy Efficiency Target
Western Australia
WAC
Wide Area Control
WAM
WAMPAC
Wide Area Monitoring, Protection And Control
WAN
Wide Area Network
WEC
Wholesale Energy Costs
Abbreviation
WEM
WiMAX
Term
Wholesale Energy Market
Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
WMS
Work Management System
WTA
Willingness to Accept
WTP
Willingness to Pay
xDSL
ZigBee
Digital Subscriber Line

Standards based protocol for the network and application layer for wireless
network applications
Glossary of terms
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Glossary of terms ARUP 643
Glossary of terms
Abbreviation
Term
Description
3G/ 4G
Third Generation/
Fourth Generation
(mobile communications
technology)
3G telecommunication networks support services that

provide an information transfer rate of at least 200 kbit/s.
4G telecommunications networks are the successor to 3G
standards. A 4G system provides mobile ultra-broadband
Internet access, for example to laptops with USB wireless
modems, to smartphones, and to other mobile devices.
AC
Alternating Current
A form of electrical current where the flow of electrical

charge reverses periodically.
ACMA
Australian
Communications and
Media Authority
An Australian government statutory authority within the

Department of Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy (Australia) (DBCDE) portfolio. The ACMA
is tasked with ensuring most elements of Australia's media
and communications legislation, related regulations,
and numerous derived standards and codes of practice
operate effectively and efficiently, and in the public
interest.
ACT
Australian Capital
Territory
The ACT is a territory in the south east of Australia,

enclaved within New South Wales. It is the smallest selfgoverning internal territory in Australia.
ADMD
After Diversity Maximum

Demand
The maximum probable demand in a defined electricity

system, taking into account the diversity in individual
consumer electricity consumption patterns. The maximum
demand from each consumer will not occur at the same
time, and so the coincident maximum peak demand is
less than the sum of each consumer's peak demand.
AEFI
Arup, Energeia, Frontier

Economics, and Institute
for Sustainable Futures
Consortium
The Project Team undertaking the Smart Grid Smart City

Analysis and Reporting Project.
AEMC

Commission
The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) was

set up by the Council of Australian Governments through
the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2005. The AEMC has
two roles in relation to national energy markets - as rule
maker and as a provider of advice to Ministers on how
best to develop energy markets over time. The AEMC
actively considers market development when it considers
rule change proposals, policy advice and energy market
reviews.
AEMO

Operator
The Australian national energy market operator and

planner. AEMO plays an important role in supporting the
industry to deliver a more integrated, secure, and cost
effective national energy supply.
644 National Cost Benefit Assessment: Glossary of terms ARUP
Abbreviation
Term
Description
AER
Australian Energy
Regulator
The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) is Australias

national energy market regulator and an independent
statutory authority.
Advanced Metering
Infrastructure
The meters, communications systems, data collection

and management systems and business arrangements
necessary to support smart metering and the contractual
and billing arrangements that rely on smart metering. Also
known as smart meter infrastructure (SMI).
American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act 2009
The ARRA 2009, commonly referred to as the Stimulus

or the Recovery Act, was an economic stimulus package
enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February
2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by
President Barack Obama. The Act included direct
spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy,
federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment
benefits and other social welfare provisions. The
approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was
estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage.
ATO
Activity Target Outcomes
A set of outcomes defining the activities the Australian

Government expects to be undertaken by Ausgrid to
deliver the Smart Grid, Smart City trial results and data
and prove or disprove the hypotheses.
AUD
Australian Dollar
Unit of currency in Australia.
A smart grid technology which uses equipment to

measure and actively control Volt and VAr conditions
across a network to minimise electrical losses, manage
demand and reduce energy consumption. AVVC was a
Smart Grid, Smart City - Grid Applications Project.
BAU
Business As Usual
The normal execution of standard functional operations

within an organisation - which forms a baseline
comparator for projects or programs which might
introduce change.
BEV
Battery Electric Vehicle
A vehicle that is powered by electric motors, using

electricity stored in batteries.
BIPV
Building Integrated
Photovoltaics
Photovoltaic materials that are used to replace

conventional building materials in parts of the building
envelope such as the roof, skylights or facades.
BREE
Bureau of Resource and

Energy Economics
BREE is part of the Australian Government Department of

Industry and operates as an economic research unit.
CBD
The CBD is the commercial and often geographic heart of

a city.
AMI
ARRA
AVVC
Abbreviation
Term
Description
CA
The component of Smart Grid, Smart City project that

focused on smart meter based applications that could
impact customer behaviour.
CAA
Customer Acquisition
Application
An iPad and web application designed and built for the

SGSC Customer Application Program to support the
acquisition of customers to the relevant trials.
CAIDI
Customer Average
Interruption Duration
Index
A commonly used reliability indicator by electric power

utilities. The sum of the duration of each sustained
customer interruption (in minutes), divided by the total
number of sustained customer interruptions (SAIDI
divided by SAIFI). CAIDI excludes momentary
interruptions (one minute or less duration).
CAIFI
Customer Average
Interruption Frequency
Index

utilities indicating the number of customers affected out
of the whole customer base. It is calculated as the total
number of customer interruptions, divided by the total
number of customers who had at least one interruption.
CAPEX
Capital Expense
Expense incurred when a business buys a new asset or

adds to the value of an existing asset.
CBA
Cost Benefit Analysis
A systematic process for calculating and comparing

benefits and costs of a project.
CBD
The commercial and often geographic heart of a city.
Combined Cycle Gas

Turbine
An assembly of gas turbines working together from the

same heat source to produce electricity. The exhaust
heat of one turbine is used as the heat source for another,
increasing the system's overall efficiency. CCGT plant
capture heat from the exhaust of the gas turbine in a heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG) to produce steam to
drive a steam turbine. The capture of waste heat improves
the efficiency of the plant, meaning that CCGT use less
fuel and produce less carbon emissions than OCGT plant.
Combined heat and

power
Cogeneration or combined heat and power (CHP) is the

use of a heat engine or power station to simultaneously
generate electricity and useful heat. CHP is also known as
a fuel cell.
Customer Information
System
An IT system to manage information related to customers

including name, address and interactions. The CIS
developed for the SGSC Program included a customer
relationship management (CRM) system and a customer
acquisition application (CAA).
CCGT
CHP
CIS
Abbreviation
Term
Description
Council of Australian
Governments
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is the

peak intergovernmental forum in Australia. The role of
COAG is to promote policy reforms that are of national
significance, or which need coordinated action by all
Australian governments.
Council of Australian
Governments Energy
Council
The Council of Australian Governments Energy Council

is responsible for pursuing priority issues of national
significance in the energy and resources sectors. It
provides the leadership and sets the investigative (reform)
agenda throughout Australia. This body was formerly
referred to as SCER, Standing Council on Energy and
Resources
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
A naturally occurring chemical compound, and an

important greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is released
through the burning of carbon-based fuels to produce
energy (as well as many other natural and anthropogenic
processes), and so the reduction of carbon dioxide
emissions is a key focus for the energy industry.
CO2-e
Carbon Dioxide
Equivalents
A measure used to describe how much global warming

a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause,
using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration
of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the reference.
CPP
Critical Peak Pricing
A type of electricity tariff in which very high 'critical peak'

prices are assessed for certain hours of certain days
where electricity demand is expected to be extremely
high (often limited to 10-15 per year). Prices during critical
peaks are significantly higher than the standard rate.
Peak time rebates can be used in which customers can
get credit for load reduction during critical peaks, but no
penalty for increased load.
CPUC
California Public Utilities

Commission
A regulatory agency for privately owned public utilities

within the State of California.
CRM
Customer Relationship
Management
An IT system to store all interactions with a customer. For

the SGSC Program, the CRM was a component of the
customer information system (CIS).
CSIRO
Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research
Organisation
Australia's national science and research agency.
COAG
COAGEC
Abbreviation
Term
Description
Consumer / customer
The terms consumer and customer have been used

throughout the report. The term customer is used
when it refers to a person or class of persons generally
prescribed by the National Electricity Rules. The
term consumer is used when the report is generally
describing persons who consume electricity, rather than a
specific type of customer.
CVR
Conservation Voltage
Reduction
Reducing voltage can cause a reduction in power

consumed by loads such as households. This can be
applied on according to a strategy to achieve network
benefits such as delaying the need to construct additional
network capacity.
DC
Direct Current
A form of electrical current where the flow of charge is in

one direction only.
DC
Distribution Centre
Also known as distribution substations or pole top

transformers.
0C
Degrees Celsius
Celsius, also known as centigrade, is a scale and unit of

measurement for temperature.
DER
Distributed Energy
Resources
Energy generation (e.g. photovoltaics, fuel cells, wind

turbines, generator sets) and storage devices (e.g.:
batteries) distributed throughout a distribution network,
normally at customer premises but also connected to
network operator's low voltage plant.
DERMS
Distributed Energy
Resource Management
System
An integrated management system for the control

of distributed energy resources with capabilities for
dispatch, shutdown, startup and varying input/output.
DFA
Distribution Feeder
Automation
Automatic isolation and reconfiguration of distribution

feeders using sensors, controls, switches and
communication systems.
Distributed generation, also called on-site generation,

dispersed generation, embedded generation,
decentralized generation, decentralized energy or
distributed energy, generates electricity from many small
energy sources.
DLC
Direct Load Control
Direct load control allows a third party such as a network

operator or retailer to have remote access to different
customer appliances such as hot water systems,
swimming pools, air conditioners (refer to DRED definition)
and controllable electric vehicle load.
DM&C
Distribution Monitoring
and Control
Internal project to deploy RTUs in distribution centres to

monitor and control the electricity distribution network.
Consumer /
customer
DG
Abbreviation
Term
Description
DMEGCIS
Demand Management
and Embedded
Generation Connection
Incentive Scheme
An incentive scheme developed by the AER in order to

provide funding for DNSPs to implement efficient non
network alternatives or to manage the expected demand
for standard control services in some other way or to
efficiently connect embedded generators
DMS
Distribution Management
System
A system which enables network operators to monitor and

control in near real time information about the electricity
distribution network.
DNMS
Management System
A system which enables network operators to access

near real time information about the electricity distribution
network and to control/switch the network remotely.
DNSP
Service Provider
A business that manages the distribution of electricity

through the "poles and wires" network. In NSW, DNSPs
also own and manage metering infrastructure.
DOE
Department of Energy
(United States)
The United States DOE is a government department

whose mission is to advance energy technology and
promote related innovation in the United States.
Department of Industry
On 18 September 2013 the Australian Government's

Department of Industry portfolio was established. The
department includes portfolio areas of energy, resources,
science and skills.
Data Priorities
A set of priorities defining, at a high level, the results and/

or benefits the Australian Government expects from each
Smart Grid, Smart City application trial.
Dynamic Peak Pricing
Dynamic pricing is often considered an essential part of

demand reduction programs. There are several forms of
dynamic pricing including Critical Peak Pricing and Real
Time Pricing (refer to definitions in this Glossary).
DPR
Dynamic Peak Rebate
Within the Smart Grid, Smart City trials some customers

participated in the trialling of a rebate for reducing
electricity use during nominated peak events.
DRED
Demand Response
Enabling Device
A device that enables the remote control of customer

appliances by a DNSP in response to electricity pricing
signals.
DRET
(former) Department of
Resources, Energy and
Tourism
The (former) Department of Resources, Energy and

Tourism provided advice and policy support to the
Australian Government regarding Australia's resources,
energy and tourism sectors. The energy functions of this
department are now the responsibility of the Department
of Industry.
DS
Distributed Storage
Storage of electric energy in a decentralised manner such

as batteries in many households.
DOI
DP
DPP
Abbreviation
Term
Description
Demand Side
Participation
DSP refers to the ability of energy consumers to make

decisions regarding the quantity and timing of their
energy consumption that reflect their value of the supply
and delivery of electricity. These decisions include both
short-run decisions in response to specific events, and
longer-run investment decisions about energy efficiency.
DSM
Demand Side
Management
DSM refers to the modification of consumer demand

for energy through various methods such as financial
incentives and education. DSM aims to encourage
consumers to use less energy during peak times, or shift
the time of energy use to off-peak times.
DSR
Demand Side Response
A reduction, shift or flattening of energy demand profile

occurring through activities undertaken at the point of
consumption.
DTS
Distributed Temperature
Sensing
Devices which measure temperatures by means of optical

fibres functioning as linear sensors. Allows high accuracy
of temperature determination over longer distances.
ECA
Energy Consumers
Australia
The establishment of ECA is a commitment by the COAG

Energy Council by no later than 1 January 2015. The
role of ECA will be to promote the long term interests of
consumers of energy with respect to the price, quality,
safety, reliability and security of supply of energy services
by providing and enabling strong, coordinated, collegiate
evidence based consumer advocacy on national energy
market matters of strategic importance or material
consequence for energy consumers, in particular for
residential and small business customers.
EEIS
South Australia Energy

Efficiency Improvement
Scheme
The South Australian scheme which aims to assist

households and businesses to reduce electricity
consumption and electricity costs, by creating financial
incentives to invest in energy savings activities.
EGS
Enhanced Geothermal
System
Geothermal EGS power stations, also known as hot dry

rock (HDR) power stations, use heat from the earths crust
to raise steam and generate electricity.
EMS
Energy Management
System
A system of computer-aided tools used by network

operators to monitor, control and optimise the
performance of an electricity network.
Energy Networks
Association
The peak national body for Australias energy networks

which provide the vital link between gas and electricity
producers and consumers. ENA represents gas
distribution and electricity network businesses on
economic, technical and safety regulation and national
energy policy issues.
DSP
ENA
Abbreviation
Term
Description
EPRI
Electric Power Research

Institute
An institute that conducts research on issues related to

the electric power industry in the USA.
Economic Regulation
Authority
The ERA in Western Australia is responsible for regulating

third party access to electricity infrastructure and
administers licenses for the electricity sector. One of the
ERAs primary functions is to observe the behaviour of the
WEM in the SWIS to ensure that it is meeting its market
objectives.
ERM
Energy Resource
Management
The component of Smart Grid, Smart City project that

focuses on distributed energy generation, storage and
management. This project within the trials was renamed
DGDS Project.
ESAA
Energy Supply
The peak industry body representing the stationary

energy sector in Australia.
ESB
Enterprise Service Bus
A software architecture model used for designing and

implementing the interaction and communication between
mutually interacting software applications.
ESS
New South Wales Energy

Savings Scheme
The New South Wales scheme which aims to assist

households and businesses to reduce electricity
consumption and electricity costs, by creating financial
incentives to invest in energy savings activities.
EU
European Union
An economic and political union of 28 member states

located primarily in Europe.
EV
Electric Vehicle
A vehicle that uses one or more electric or traction motors

for propulsion. There are various kinds of EV's which differ
in the way their batteries are charged including Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (HEV), Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(PHEVs), and Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV). Refer to the
respective acronyms in the glossary for full definitions.
EVSE
Electric Vehicle Supply

Equipment
Infrastructure that supplies electric energy for the

recharging of plug-in electric vehicles.
FAN
Field Area Network
A network enabling communications for the distribution

network.
FAR
Field Area Router
Multi-service communication platforms built to use in Field

Area Networks.
Feedback technology
A group of smart grid technologies and a Smart Grid,

Smart City - Customer Applications project focusing
on evaluating the potential for Smart Meters and other
technologies to provide consumers with better quality
information that will have a measurable impact on total
energy consumption and/or peak demand.
ERA
FBT
Abbreviation
Term
Description
Fault Detection, Isolation

and Restoration

Smart City - Grid Applications project focusing on
capability of an electricity network to discover the
occurrence of a fault, detect the location of that fault,
isolate the equipment responsible for that fault and then
deploy resources in a manner that will restore power to
as much of the affected area as possible, usually with
the assistance of advanced algorithms and remotely
controllable switches.
FiT
Feed In Tariff
A policy mechanism designed to accelerate uptake of

distributed energy technologies whereby contracts are
formed with distributed energy generators (e.g. customers
with PV) for excess energy fed into the grid.
FP7
7th Framework
Programme
The 7th European Union Framework Programme for

Research and Technological Development, covering the
period 2007 to 2013.
FTTN
Fibre to the Node
A form of fiber-optic communication delivery, in which an

optical fiber is run to a cabinet serving a neighborhood
FTTP/ FTTH
Fibre-To-The-Premises/
Fibre-To-The-Home
A generic term for any communication infrastructure

which uses fibre-optic cable extending all the way to
homes and commercial premises.
GA
Grid Applications
FDIR
A component of the SGSC Program involving a

combination of grid side projects trialing smart
technologies within Ausgrid's distribution
network. Included Active Volt-VAr Control (AVVC),
Fault Detection, Isolation and Restoration
(FDIR), Substation Feeder Monitoring (SFM) and
(WAM).
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
An economic indicator reflecting the strength of a nation's

economy. GDP is defined as the market value of all
officially recognised goods and services produced within
a country within a specified time period.
Abbreviation
Term
Description
GPS
GPS is a system of earth-orbiting satellites, transmitting

signals continuously towards the earth, that enables
Global Positioning System the position of a receiving device on or near the earth's
surface to be accurately estimated from the difference in
arrival times of the signals.
GreenPower is a government accredited voluntary
program that enables Australian energy retailers to
purchase renewable energy on behalf of their customers.
The participating renewable energy generators generate
electricity from sources which produce no net greenhouse
gas emissions.
GreenPower
GreenPower
GSL
A set performance level under the Service Target

Guaranteed Service Level Performance Incentive Scheme (STPIS), below which
consumers must be compensated.
GST
Goods and Services Tax
Goods and services tax (GST) is a broad-based tax of 10

per cent on most goods, services and other items sold or
consumed in Australia.
GW
Gigawatt
Unit of power equal to one thousand million watts.
GWh
Gigawatt Hours
Unit of power equal to one thousand million watt hours or

1000 megawatt hours.
HAN
Home Area Network
A communications network within a customer's dwelling

that supports smart meter based feedback technologies,
water/gas meters, etc.
HEMS
Home Energy
Management System
An appliance control and sub metering system operated

within a customer's dwelling. It provides real time
electricity consumption information of appliances via
smart plugs and wireless connectivity to a router. A
HEMS system can provide information to the customer or
electricity provider via the Internet (i.e. it does not rely on
a smart meter).
HEV
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
A vehicle that is powered by a combination of an internal

combustion engine and an electric motor.
HV
High Voltage
Electrical energy at high voltage.
HWLC
Hot Water Load Control
The management of the time of day which power is

supplied to domestic hot water systems.
Hz
Hertz
The SI unit fo frequency, equal to one cycle per second.
Inclining Block Tariff
A type of electricity tariff in which electricity prices are

divided in to blocks, based on consumption. Electricity
prices charged to the consumer are increased when their
overall consumption for the charging period exceeds
defined threshold (block) levels. Customers are therefore
charged in increasing price increments with increasing
consumption.
IBT
Abbreviation
Term
Description
ICE
Internal Combustion
Engine
An engine that his powered by the combustion of a fuel

with an oxidiser. The majority of private vehicles have
ICEs.
ICH
Information Clearing
House
A purpose built web platform designed by Ausgrid to

provide the communication mechanism to share the
results of the trials after the Smart Grid, Smart City team
has been disbanded. There is both an Ausgrid internal
edition as well as a public edition accessed by a web
portal The public edition can be found at https://ich.
ICT
Information &
Communication
Technology
Technologies that provide access to information through

telecommunications.
IEA
International Energy
Agency
An intergovernmental autonomous organisation which

works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy
for its 28 member countries and beyond. The IEA's four
main areas of focus are: energy security, economic
development, environmental awareness, and engagement
worldwide.
IEC
International
Electrotechnical
Commission
A non-profit, non-governmental international standards

organization that prepares and publishes International
Standards for all electrical, electronic and related
technologies.
IFI
Innovation Funding
Incentive
A scheme implemented by the UK government as a

mechanism to encourage distribution network operators to
invest in appropriate research and development activities
that focus on the technical aspects of network design,
operation and maintenance.
IGCC (black coal)
Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle Black
Coal
IGCC power stations use a gasifier to convert coal to

syngas, which is then used to power a combined cycle
turbine. One of the advantages of IGCC plant is that
the technology can readily be used to reduce carbon
emissions.
IHD
In Home Display
Devices which display smart meter data (such as

electricity demand, consumption and real time pricing
information) in the home, providing information to enable
consumers to change behaviour.
IMO
Independent Market
Operator
The IMO in Western Australia is an industry-funded

organisation whose role is to operate and develop the
WEM and the Gas Information Services Project (GISP) in
Western Australia.
IP
Internet Protocol
The method or protocol by which data is sent from one

computer to another on the Internet.
Abbreviation
Term
Description
IPART
Independent Pricing and

Regulation Tribunal
The independent regulator that determines the maximum

prices that can be charged for certain retail energy, water
and transport services in New South Wales.
IVVC
Integrated Volt-VAr
Control
Control algorithms which gain inputs from multiple VoltVAr measurement and control points across the network
in order to implement control functions (for example,
to minimise electrical losses, to manage demand or to
reduce energy consumption).
km
Kilometre
Unit of measurement (distance) equivalent to one

thousand metres.
KPI
Key Performance
Indicator
A performance indicator or key performance indicator. KPI

is industry jargon for a type of performance measurement.
KPIs are commonly used by an organisation to evaluate
its success or the success of a particular activity in which
it is engaged.
kV
Kilovolt
A unit of electromotive force, equal to one thousand volts.
kW
Kilowatt
Unit of energy equal to one thousand watts.
kWh
Kilowatt Hour
A unit of energy equal to one thousand watt hours.
LAN
Local Area Network
A computer network that links devices within a building or

group of adjacent buildings, generally within a radius of
less than 1 km.
LGA
Local Government Area
Administrative area that local government holds

responsibility for.
LGCs
Large-scale Generation
Certificates
Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) is an

electronic form of currency created by eligible large-scale
renewable energy installations sized 100kw or more.
LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas
Natural gas that has been converted to liquid form for

ease of storage or transport.
LRMC
Long Run Marginal Cost
The change in the long-run total cost of producing a

good or service resulting from a change in the quantity of
output produced.
MAIDI
Momentary Average
Index

utilities to indicate the average duration of momentary
interruptions that a customer would experience during a
given period.
MAIFI
Momentary Average
Index

utilities to indicate the average number of momentary
interruptions that a customer would experience during a
given period.
Megabits per second
Megabits per second refers to the data transfer speeds

as measured in megabits. This term is commonly used in
communications and data technology to demonstrate the
speed a which a transfer takes place.
Mbps
Abbreviation
Term
Description
MIC
Modelling Inputs
Compendium
An SGSC document that demonstrates where data and

information generated from the Smart Grid, Smart City
trials have been used either as direct inputs or to validate
and inform the modelling inputs of the national cost
benefit assessment.
MMP
Monitoring and
Measurement Plan
Plan issued by Ausgrid to the Australian Government

outlining the proposed approach to delivering the MMR.
MMR
Monitoring and
Measurement Report
Progress reports issued by Ausgrid to the Australian

Government after the completion of each six month period
in accordance with Item 4 of Schedule 2 in the SGSC
Funding Agreement.
MMS
Meter Management
System
An IT system that allows a DNSP to remotely manage

each smart meter's lifecycle, firmware and security and
facilitates meter configuration and remote meter reading
of the customer's electricity consumption and any
distributed generation.
MPLS
Multiprotocol Label
Switching
A standards-approved technology for speeding up

network traffic flow and making it easier to manage.
ms-1
Meter Per Second
Meter per second is an SI derived unit of both speed

(scalar) and velocity (vector quantity which specifies both
magnitude and a specific direction), defined by distance
in meters divided by time in seconds.
Mt
Millions of tonnes
Millions of tonnes (in the context of millions of tonnes of

carbon dioxide equivalents Mt CO2-e)
MVA
Millivolt ampre
Milli volt is one thousandth of a volt and milli amp is one

thousandth of an amp.
MW
Megawatt
Unit of energy equal to one million watts.
NA
Not Applicable
Abbreviation for not applicable.
NBN
National Broadband
Network
The national wholesale-only, open-access data network

under development in Australia. Fibre broadband
connections are sold to retail service providers, who then
sell Internet access and other services to consumers.
NEL
National Electricity Law
The framework outlining how the regulatory systems

operate within the National Electricity Market.
NEM
The NEM is a wholesale exchange for electricity for the

Commonwealth adjacent areas and those States and
Territories that are electrically connected - Queensland,
NSW, ACT, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.
NER
National Electricity Rules
The NER govern the operation of the National Electricity

Market (NEM). The Rules have the force of law, and are
made under the National Electricity Law (NEL).
Abbreviation
Term
Description
NERR
National Energy Retail

Rules
The NERR are primarily focused on the sale and supply of

energy to small retail customers, and provide the detailed
content of the consumer protection measures and
model contracts that govern the relationships between
consumers, retailers and distributors.
NGGI
The compilation of Australias emissions data, undertaken

centrally by the Department of Climate Change and
National Greenhouse Gas
Energy Efficiency. The NGGI conforms to international
Inventory
guidelines adopted by the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
National Gas Rules
The NGR govern the operation of the National Gas

Market. The Rules have the force of law, and are made
under the National Gas Law.
NIST
National Institute
of Standards and
Technology
The USA National Institute of Standards and Technology

has a goal to promote domestic innovation and
competitiveness by advancing measurement science,
standards, and technology in ways that enhance
economic security and improve quality of life.
NMI
National Metering
Identifier
A unique identifier for each connection point within the

National Electricity Market.
Net Present Value
The value of a future investment or sum of money in

present day currency, discounted to reflect inflation and
potential investment returns.
NSMP
National Smart Metering

Program
In June 2008 the then Ministerial Council on Energy

confirmed the need to engage industry stakeholders
to support the development of a consistent national
framework for smart metering in the National Electricity
Market. The Australian Energy Market Operator is
managing secretariat and contractor arrangements to
support this process.
NSW
New South Wales
The most populated state in Australia. The state in which

the Smart Grid, Smart City trials were conducted.
NTD
Network Termination
Device
A device that connects the customer's data or telephone

equipment to a carrier's line that comes into a building or
an office.
NTNDP
National Transmission
Network Development
Plan
A strategic report developed by AEMO aiming to provide

the energy industry with a comprehensive information
source to enable dialogue and support the development
of nationally efficient transmission planning.
NWIS
North West
Interconnected Systems
NWIS is a separate energy market located on the North

West coast of Australia. The grid is physically separated
from the other grids located around the country.
NGR
NPV
Abbreviation
Term
Description
OCGT
Open Cycle Gas Turbine
A form of internal combustion engine that uses gas as a

fuel. OCGT power stations consist of a gas turbine.
OECD
Organisation for
Economic Co-operation
and Development
The OECD is an international economic organisation

dedicated to world trade and economic progress. The
OECD provides a forum in which governments can work
together to share experiences and seek solutions to
common problems.
OEM
Original Equipment
Manufacturer
An original equipment manufacturer manufactures

products or components that are purchased by another
company and retailed under that purchasing company's
brand name. When referring to automotive parts, OEM
designates a replacement part made by the manufacturer
of the original part.
OPEX
Operating Expense
Ongoing expense incurred by a business as part of the

normal operation and maintenance of an asset.
Power Factor
The power factor of an AC electrical power system is

defined as the ratio of the real power flowing to the load to
the apparent power in the circuit and is a dimensionless
number between 0 and 1. Usually, the higher the number,
the more efficient the system.
PHEV
Plug in Hybrid Electric

Vehicles
A hybrid vehicle which utilizes rechargeable batteries, or

another energy storage device, that can be restored to full
charge by connecting a plug to an external electric power
source (usually a normal electric wall socket).
PINC
Platform for Intelligent

Network Communications
A high-speed fibre-optic telecommunications platform.
Plt
Long term flicker

susceptibility
Lamp flicker occurs when the intensity of the light from

a lamp varies due to changes in the magnitude of the
supply voltage. This changing intensity can create
annoyance to the human eye. The perceptibility of flicker
is quantified using a measure called the short-term flicker
index, Pst, which is normalised to 1.0 to represent the
conventional threshold of irritability. The measurement
period for Pst is 10 minutes. A derived long-term flicker
index, Plt, is the averaged value of Pst over a 2 hour
interval (ie 12 x Pst contiguous measurements).
PMU
A phasor measurement unit is a device which

measures the electrical waves on an electricity grid,
Phasor Measurement Unit using a common time source for synchronisation. The
measurements, also referred to as synchrophasors, are
defined in the IEEE C37.118 standard.
PF
Abbreviation
Term
Description
PNM
Power Network Model
The PNM is the Master Data Manager for the electrical

network and topology in Ausgrid. The PNM data model is
aligned with the standard IEC 61970 common information
model.
PNNL
Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
PNNL is is one of the USAs Department of Energy

National Laboratories, managed by the Department of
Energy's Office of Science.
Policy Priority
A set of strategic priorities for energy and energy market

development in Australia as identified by the Australian
Governments Energy White Paper 2012, and other
relevant publications from the AEMC, AER and the
Productivity Commission.
PQ
Power Quality
The fitness of electrical power to consumer device.

Power quality is defined in terms of continuity of service,
variation in voltage magnitude, transient voltages and
currents, and harmonic content in the wave forms for AC
power.
PS+EDGE
Production System +
Extended Data Grid
Environment
A method of feeding the production control system

as deployed in the Smart Grid, Smart City trials with
additional data to test a wider range of scenarios.
Pst
Short term flicker

susceptibility
Lamp flicker occurs when the intensity of the light from

a lamp varies due to changes in the magnitude of the
supply voltage. This changing intensity can create
annoyance to the human eye. The perceptibility of flicker
is quantified using a measure called the short-term flicker
index, Pst, which is normalised to 1.0 to represent the
conventional threshold of irritability. The measurement
period for Pst is 10 minutes.
PV
Photovoltaics
A method of generating electrical power by converting

solar radiation into direct current electricity using
semiconductors that exhibit the photovoltaic effect.
QCA
Queensland Competition
Authority
An independent Statutory Authority regulating competition

in Queensland. The QCA seeks to provide a recognised
avenue whereby both government and third parties
can rely on an independent, objective appraisal of the
issues subject to its review. The QCA regulates retail and
distribution electricity prices in Queensland.
R&D
Research and
Development
Research and technology/product development activities

carried out by business, government and research
organisations.
REC
Renewable Energy
Certificate
A tradable commodity attached to eligible installations of

renewable energy systems (including solar panels, solar
water heaters and heat pumps).
PP
Abbreviation
Term
Description
RET (LRET &

SRET)
Renewable Energy Target
The Australian Government's renewable energy target.

The RET operates as two parts. The Large-scale
Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and Small-scale
Renewable Energy Target (SRET). The LRET encourages
the deployment of large-scale renewable energy projects
such as wind farms, while the SRET supports the
installation of small-scale systems, including solar panels
and solar water heaters.
RIT-D
Regulatory Investment
Test for Distribution
The RIT-D establishes consistent, clear and efficient

planning processes for distribution network investments in
the national electricity market.
RTM
Requirement Traceability
Matrix
A matrix developed by AEFI to provide a transparent

record of the approach undertaken in utilising data
obtained through literature review, trials and modelling,
to address the key government and industry stakeholder
objectives for the Smart Grid, Smart City Project.
RTP
Real Time Pricing
A form of dynamic pricing where the consumer price

reflects the retail price of electricity.
RTU
Remote Telemetry Unit
An electronic device that interfaces physical network

infrastructure to a distribution control system or SCADA
system by transmitting telemetry data.
SAIDI
System Average
Index

utilities to indicate the average outage duration for each
customer served.
SAIFI
System Average
Index

utilities to indicate the average number of interruptions
that a customer would experience.
SC (coal)
Supercritical Black Coal/

Supercritical Brown Coal
Supercritical pulverised coal steam turbines have boilers

that operate at higher temperatures and pressures than
older subcritical pulverised coal steam turbines. This
improves the efficiency of these turbines, reducing both
fuel use and carbon emissions.
SCADA
Supervisory Control and

Data Acquisition
A computerised control system which uses remote

monitoring and control devices as well as computerised
algorithms, to monitor and control industrial equipment.
Standing Council on
Energy and Resources
The Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) Standing

Council on Energy and Resources is responsible for
pursuing priority issues of national significance in the
energy and resources sectors. It provides the leadership
and sets the investigative (reform) agenda throughout
Australia. This has now been replaced by the COAG
Energy Council.
SCER
Abbreviation
Term
Description
SFM
Substation Feeder
Monitoring

Smart City - Grid Applications project investigating how
communications between substations and back-end
information technology systems can act as a strategic
enabler for the deployment of different monitoring
technologies, at a reduced incremental cost.
SFM

Monitoring

Smart City - Grid Applications Project focusing on
advanced asset utility asset monitoring in substations and
feeder locations.
SGA
Smart Grid Australia is a non-profit alliance dedicated to

an enhanced, modernised electric system.
SGI
Smart Grid Initiative
The section within the Department of Industry responsible

for the management of the SGSC Program.
A Federal government initiative aiming to demonstrate the

societal and economic benefits of smart grids and assist
with the identification of barriers to a broader industry
adoption across Australia.
Smart Metering
Infrastructure
The meters, communications systems, data collection

and management systems and business arrangements
necessary to support smart metering and the contractual
and billing arrangements that rely on smart metering. Also
known as advanced meter infrastructure (AMI).
Short Message Service
A text messaging service component of phone, web,

or mobile communication systems, using standardized
communications protocols that allow the exchange of
short text messages between fixed line or mobile phone
devices.
A set of priorities defining the results and/or benefits

Industry Stakeholders and the public expect from each
Smart Grid, Smart City application trial, as identified
through stakeholder engagement.
SPARK
SPARK is a proprietary model of generator bidding which

determines dispatch of generation plant and wholesale
electricity prices. For the purpose of the integrated
benefits assessment model, SPARK is used to determine
wholesale electricity prices for a large number of
representative half-hourly demand points in each year.
SRMC
Short Run Marginal Cost
The change in short run total cost for an extremely small

change in output.
STATCOM
Static VAr Compensation
Electrical devices which provide fast acting reactive

power on high-voltage electricity transmission networks.
SGSC
SMI
SMS
SP
Abbreviation
Term
Description
STC
Small-Scale Technology
Certificate
A tradable commodity attached to eligible installations of

small-scale renewable energy systems (including solar
panels, solar water heaters and heat pumps).
STEM
The STEM in WA is a daily forward market which allows

market participants to trade around their bilateral contract
Short Term Energy Market position. STEM clearing prices and volumes are published
on a daily basis by the Independent Market Operator
(IMO).
STPIS
Service Target
Performance Incentive
Scheme
An incentive scheme administered by the Australian

Energy Regulator to encourage distributors to improve
and maintain service performance for both reliability and
performance.
SUV
Suburban (or sport) Utility

Vehicle
A sport utility vehicle or suburban utility vehicle (SUV) is

a vehicle similar to a station wagon or estate car, usually
equipped with four-wheel drive for on- or off-road ability.
SWIS
South West
Interconnected Systems
SWIS is a separate energy market located on the South

West coast of Australia. The grid is physically separated
from the other grids located around the country. It is the
second largest within Australia.
TOU/ STOU
Time of Use/ Seasonal

Time of Use
A type of electricity tariff in which customers pay different

prices at different times of the day. Electricity consumed
at peak times is charged at a higher rate, and electricity
consumed at off-peak times is charged at a lower rate
than a 'standard' rate. The price schedules is fixed and
predefined based on season, day of week and time of
day.
THD
Total Harmonic Distortion
A measure of the distortion or deviation from the

sinusoidal (electrical) waveform.
TSO
Transmission System
Operators
In electrical power business, a transmission system

operator (TSO) is an operator that transmits electrical
power from generation plants over the electrical grid to
regional or local electricity distribution operators. In the
European Union, the European Commission formally
defines a TSO in Article 10 of the Electricity and Gas
Directives of 2009.
TWh
Terrawatt Hours
One TWh is equal to one million MWh or
Universal Mobile
Telecommunications
System
A 3G networking standard used throughout much of the

world as an upgrade to the earlier GSM mobile networks.
one billion kWh

(109).
UMTS
Abbreviation
Term
Description
USC (coal)
Ultra-supercritical Black
Coal/ Ultra-supercritical
Brown Coal
Ultra-supercritical pulverised coal steam turbines have

boilers that operate at higher temperatures and pressures
than both supercritical and subcritical pulverised coal
steam turbines. This improves efficiency, reducing both
fuel use and carbon emissions.
USD
United States Dollar
Unit of currency in the USA.
Volt
The SI (International System of Units) unit of electromotive

force the different of electrical potential between two
points of a conductor carrying a constant current of one
ampere, when the power dissipated between these points
is equial to one watt.
V2G
Vehicle-to-Grid
V2G refers to technologies in which plug-in electric

vehicles can be used to deliver electricity into the grid, or
adjust charging rates in response to grid signals, with the
objective of reducing energy demand at peak times.
VAr
Volt-Ampere reactive
A unit of reactive power.
Value of Customer
Reliability
The value that electricity consumers place on avoiding

service interruptions. The cost of an outage of a given
duration to individual electricity consumers varies
widely between agricultural, residential, industrial and
commercial customers based on their location and other
characteristics. These costs depend on the extent to
which the typical consumers activities rely on electricity
and their ability to postpone these activities without
cost. Outage costs may either consist of expenses that
arise directly as a result of the outage, or else consist of
foregone benefits as a result of the outage. There may
also be social disruption costs that spread beyond the
direct consequences and location of an individual outage.
VEET
Victoria Energy Efficiency

Target
The Victorian scheme which aims to assist households

and businesses to reduce electricity consumption and
electricity costs, by creating financial incentives to invest
in energy savings activities. A recent review of the VEET
scheme (May 2014) announced that the current scheme
will operate under a reduced target of 2.0 million tonnes of
GHG emissions savings for 2015.
WA
Western Australia
Western Australia is a state occupying the entire western

third of Australia.
Wide Area Control
An extension of Wide Area Measurement (WAM) systems

which enable a transmission system to automatically
detect issues with transmission system stability and
perform remedial actions in an automated manner.
VCR
WAC
Abbreviation
Term
Description
WAM

Smart City - Grid Applications project that uses PMUs
to monitor high voltage network stability and associated
parameters. A WAM system uses multiple PMU data
streams to increase visibility of network conditions.
WAMPAC
Wide Area Monitoring,

Protection and Control
A system which is designed to detect abnormal network

conditions and take measures to preserve system
integrity.
Wide Area Network
A computer network that links devices across a broad

area using private or public communication network
transports.
Wholesale Energy Costs
The WEC is the cost that a retailer would face in

purchasing electricity from the wholesale market to supply
to its small retail customers (including both residential and
small business customers).
Wholesale Energy Market
The Western Australian WEM operates in the SWIS

and aims to facilitate greater competition and private
investment and allow generators and wholesale
purchasers of electricity (such as retailers) greater
flexibility as to how, and whith whom, they sell or procure
electricity.
WAN
WEC
WEM
WHIRLYGIG is a proprietary long-term investment model

which determines the least-cost mix of existing generation
plant and new generation plant to meet system demand.
For the purpose of the integrated benefits assessment
model, WHIRLYGIG is used to determine investment in
new generation assets over the entire modelling period.
WHIRLYGIG
WiMAX
Worldwide Interoperability A wireless communications standard providing highfor Microwave Access

speed data rates.
WTA
Willingness to Accept
A customer's willingness to accept is a variable used in

describing the Value of Customer Reliability. It describes
the willingness of the customer to accept more outages to
in return receive lower costs.
WTP
Willingness to Pay
A customer's willingness to pay is a variable used in

describing the VCR. It describes the willing ness of the
customer to pay more to receive less outages.
Digital Subscriber Line
A term referring to all types of digital subscriber line

communications technologies, the two main categories
being asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) and
symmetric digital subscriber line (SDSL).
xDSL
ZigBee
Standards based protocol for the network and application

layer for wireless network applications.
National Cost Benefit Assessment: Glossary of terms ARUP COVER3

SGSC Shaping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SGSC Shaping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smart Grid, Smart City:

Part 1 Overview of Australias energy sector

Overview of Australias Energy Sector

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

In March 2013, a consortium of Australian-based

AEFI would like to thank Ausgrid and Australian

TheAEFI consulting consortium included:

This report was prepared by Arup in connection with

WRITING AND PROJECT

Overview of the national cost

Provides the background to the

Presents the cost benefit

Have limited time and require

You have a good understanding of

You have detailed knowledge of

Available from the ICH

Provides a strategic discussion of

These are a series of technical

You have detailed knowledge of the

You require detailed technical

Available from the ICH

You are also likely to have a

Funding for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program

Location of smart grid trial activities

Scope of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program 17

An introduction to transitioning Australias electricity

Defining a smart grid

Is a smart grid right for Australia?

Overview of Part One of this report

The global evolution towardssmart grids

Reporting the findings of the Smart Grid, Smart City Program

Global smart grid supporting policies and programs

Common platform study and NBN interoperability

The role of a common platform inasmart grid

Grid applications workstream an overview

What are Active Volt-Var Control (AVVC) technologies?

AVVCs role in a smart grid

AVVC Smart Grid, Smart City Project objectives and timelines

Where are AVVC technologies currently deployed?

High level lessonslearned

High level trialresults

Fault Detection, Isolation and Restoration (FDIR)

What are fault detection, isolation and restoration (FDIR) technologies?

FDIR role in a smart grid

Where are FDIR technologies currently deployed?

Substation and feeder monitoring (SFM) technologies

What are substation and feeder monitoring (SFM) technologies?

SFM role in asmart grid

Where are SFM technologies currently deployed?

High level trialresults

Wide Area Measurement (WAM)

What are Wide Area Measurement (WAM) technologies?

WAMs role in a smart grid

High level trial results

Where are WAM technologies currently deployed?

High level trialfindings

10 Electric Vehicles (EVs)

10.1 What are electric vehicle (EV) technologies?

10.2 The role of electric vehicles in a smart grid

10.4 Where are electric vehicles currently deployed?

10.6 High level trial findings

10.7 Further considerations for Electric Vehicle deployment for Australia

11 Smart Meter Infrastructure (SMI)

11.2 Smart meter infrastructures role ina smart grid

An introduction to transitioning Australias electricity

12.2 The role for customer applications in a smart grid

13.3 Distribution generation and distributed storage objectives and timelines

13.4 Where are distribution generation and distributed storage technologies

1 The Smart Grid,

1 The Guidelines refer to the Smart Grid, Smart City Program

3 Reporting the analysis in this way prevents double

5 Standards Australia AS5711 Australian Standard: Smart Grid

6 Standards Australia AS5711 Australian Standard: Smart Grid

7 World Energy Council, Smart grids: best practice

8 The Modelling Information Compendium was developed by

9 Funding for the Smart Grid, Smart City Program is