EnergyPath - EnergyPath Networks Tool Gap Analysis Report
||Baringa Partners LLP EnergyPath - EnergyPath Networks Tool Gap Analysis Report, ETI, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5286/UKERC.EDC.000822. Cite this using DataCite
||Baringa Partners LLP
||Energy Systems Catapult, Baringa, Element Energy, Hitachi, University College London
||ETI-SS1203: Smart Systems and Heat (SSH) Programme - EnergyPath Networks
||No associated datasets
||Energy consultancy Baringa Partners were appointed to design and develop a software modelling tool to be used in the planning of cost-effective local energy systems. This software is called EnergyPath and will evolve to include a number of additional packages to inform planning, consumer insights and business metrics. Element Energy, Hitachi and University College London have worked with Baringa to develop the software with input from a range of local authorities, Western Power Distribution and Ramboll. EnergyPath will complement ETI’s national strategic energy system tool ESME which links heat, power, transport and the infrastructure that connects them. EnergyPath is a registered trade mark of the Energy Technologies Institute LLP.
This Deliverable comprises a presentation which sets out an analysis of the potential enhancements to the Energy Path Networks Toolkit which could be progressed in the Toolkit Development Project.
The objective of this report is to define the priority software limitations of the EnergyPath Networks tool R2.1 with a particular focus on the requirements of local area stakeholders, i.e. the Local Authorities and Network Operators. Some of the prioritised items are low-regret and easy to implement, others are more major development items. Our proposal is to scope these items further before implementation. The full list of limitations have been collated from views expressed by local stakeholders, the tool developers and the internal Energy Systems Catapult EnergyPath team. These items were prioritised subjectively as high, medium or low priority by the EnergyPath Networks team based on the following criteria:
High priority items have been discussed in detail in the body of the report and shared with members of the wider SSH1 team to build consensus.
- How often studies requiring these functionality enhancements /data improvements have been requested bystakeholders.
- How much the credibility of the model is affected by not having these improvements.