Elering: Kiisa battery park issue posed no threat to security of supply
According to network operator Elering, last week's disruption to electricity connections between Estonia and Finland caused no threat to security of supply. To prevent similar incidents in the future, the testing and monitoring processes of new market participants will be reviewed.
The chain of events leading to the disruption began during testing by the manufacturer of the soon-to-be-opened battery park – international technology giant NIDEC Conversion. This led to a technical irregularity.
"That irregularity in turn caused the battery park to behave in a way that triggered Elering's automatic protection systems, which in turn caused a temporary shutdown of EstLink," said Evecon CEO Karl-Joonatan Kvell.
"There was no real threat to Estonia's security of supply. On the contrary, the correct activation of these backup systems confirmed that the electricity system responded to the incident as expected," Kvell added.
At the initial stages of the EstLink outage, the power line connecting the Baltic countries with Poland took over their load. Frequency reserves were then activated to restore the balance between electricity production and consumption.
According to Elering management board member Reigo Kebja, nothing like this has ever happened in the Baltic region before, adding that it provides an important learning experience.
Work is now underway to reduce the impact of similar incidents in the future.
The control and monitoring processes in place for new market participants that are connecting to the grid are also being reviewed. On this occasion, the requirements applicable in continental Europe were violated.
"Just as there are different rules for traffic and roads, such as speed limits, there are also different rules for the behavior of market participants that are connected to the electricity system. And these rules are there for a reason. This example proves that violating these rules – just like violating traffic rules on the road – can lead to incidents, and such violations can have an impact on the system," said Kebja.
"Non-compliance with the requirements did not mean that the battery park itself does not comply with the requirements – it certainly does – but that the testing process was carried out with the incorrect settings and so, the parameters of the testing process did not comply with the requirements," Kvell explained.
Kvell added that during the configuration and testing period, the battery park is the responsibility of the system manufacturer. During that period, the behavior of the battery park is evaluated in unusual and extreme operating modes, which are not used during regular operations.
Nevertheless, according to Elering, fluctuations of this kind should never occur.
"We are reviewing the direct costs incurred as well as whether they can be passed on to the market participant that caused the violation, and if so, then how," Kebja said.
---
Editor: Michael Cole, Marko Tooming
