How to implement a settlement system before the 2020 deadline?
What are the options?
When it comes to energy settlement, most countries have two options. The first is to develop their own system from the ground up, with all associated costs. The second option is to join an existing solution. In many cases, countries can pay absurd amounts (up to €60 million) to develop a system that may not be properly configured to handle incoming data from onboard energy meters, in addition to being an unpredictable financial risk. With Eress, countries are able to implement a proven system, surrounded by a partnership of countries on a non-profit basis. All costs are divided equally among the partners, which lowers overall expenses and makes it the most cost-effective option for countries.
To learn more about current settlement systems in the EU and how they compare to the Erex settlement solution, we spoke with Dyre Martin Gulbrandsen, Director of Eress.
“Historically, a settlement system will only handle the statistical data of train runs,” states Mr. Gulbrandsen. “Figures regarding weight and distance are reported by the train operators, then translated over to an estimated energy consumption, using general factors. Train operators are invoiced based on these estimates as well as average energy prices. So, typically, they report one figure (average typical consumption) for the whole month and then infrastructure managers multiply that by the average energy price for that month. Overall, it isn’t a very accurate process. It also requires a lot of work for the train operators, who have to perform these calculations every time they need to generate a report for an infrastructure manager.”
When it comes to the benefits of using Erex for settlement, Mr. Gulbrandsen explains that, “Every invoice created from metered data allows train operators to closely examine their consumption, down to every hour, every five minutes, every minute. When they are invoiced based on real, measured data — connected to real-time market prices — it allows them to drill down on the energy they consume and cut costs. So, not only is it more accurate than the standard historical consumption estimate, it’s more effective in driving energy-saving measures.” He continues, “The most important thing here is that train operators actually pay for what they use, and that they get the correct market price. This is not the case in the old, manual way of doing settlement, where everything is based on an average. And it is precisely because of this, that some companies pay too much while other companies pay too little — all because they didn’t know how the energy was being consumed, at what time, or in what settlement area.”
The full version of this article can be found in Eress Magazine 2020.
Author: Annika Utgaard
Created Monday, October 7, 2019