BSC Panel 193 BSC Panel 193 12 January 2012 Report on Progress of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BSC Panel 193 BSC Panel 193

12 January 2012

Report on Progress of Report on Progress of Modification Proposals

Adam Richardson 12 January 2012

Modifications Overview New P281 New P281 Definition

• P272 P274 P275 P276 P277

Assessment P272, P274, P275, P276, P277, P278, P280, Standing Issue 43 Report Report

• With

Authority

• Authority

Authority Determined

• Determined

Self-Gov Determined P279 Implemented

2

Determined

Modifications Overview

Mod Title Progression Panel Rec Ofgem Dec Dec By Est Imp IWA Assess Report Authority P266 Reactive Power Oct-10 Feb-11 Mar-11 14-Mar-11 Approve Approved 29-Apr-11 Feb-12 P268 P/C Status export BMU Feb-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Aug-10 Approve Approved − Feb-12 P269 BMU Account flipping Mar-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 N/A: Self-Gov Approved − − Feb-12 P272 Mandatory HH for PC 5-8 Jun-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 SVA Funding Share N/A: P273 SVA Funding Share Calculation Aug-11

• Sept-11

Self-Gov _ Feb-12 P274 Cessation of Compensatory Adjustments Oct-11 Mar-12 P275 Extending BSC Performance Oct-11 Mar-12 P275 Assurance Oct 11 Mar 12 P276 Trigger/Threshold for suspending market Oct-11 Mar-12 P277 Interconnector BM Units to choose their P/C Status Oct-11 Mar-12 P278 Transmission Losses for Interconnector Users Oct-11 Mar-12 P280 New Measurement Classes Dec-11 Apr-12

3

P281 Change of BSCCo Board Jan-12

Modification P272: Half Hourly Settlement for fil Cl 8 Profile Classes 5-8

Assessment Report Assessment Report

Michael Edwards

P272: Background and proposal g p p

» Supply Licence requires

• All PCs 5-8 customers have HH-capable advanced meter by 6

April 2014 » P272 (proposed by SmartestEnergy) » P272 (proposed by SmartestEnergy)

• Require these customers to be settled Half Hourly

» Proposed solution undergone industry impact assessment

• 22 July – 12 August

S l C ll O

• Impacts Suppliers, Data Collectors, Meter Operator Agents,

Distributors

P272: Process followed

» IWA: 09 June 2011

• Terms of Reference agreed

» Workgroup met four times » One Impact Assessment » Two Consultations

• To get industry views on P272 and confirm impacts
• To better quantify the costs and benefits of P272, to help

Ofgem inform their recommendation to the BSC Panel

P272: Proposed Solution (1)

» F om 6 Ap il 2014 NHH settlement not allo ed fo PCs 5 8

p ( )

» From 6 April 2014, NHH settlement not allowed for PCs 5-8

• Except if advanced meter could not be installed
• new PARMS Serial to monitor these

new PARMS Serial to monitor these » Suppliers choose how to switch prior to 06 April 2014

• e.g. whether to settle HH on installation, or switch later

» Current HH Elective transition » Current HH Elective transition

• Current HH Elective customers will not be able to switch back

to being settled as NHH (unless they leave Profile Classes 5-8 for Classes 1-4) after the approved implementation date Performance Serial (SP08c) tightened Performance Serial (SP08c) tightened

• 99% at R1 (rather than RF)

P272: Proposed Solution (2)

» Additional decimal places on HH eadings

p ( )

» Additional decimal places on HH readings

• Flows J0177, J0021, J0281
• Allow for lower-volume customers

Allow for lower volume customers » Profiles frozen for Profile Class 5-8

• Still available for customers without advanced meters, UMS,

micro-generation » PARMS Serial SP04 widened to include advanced meters

• Profile Class 5-8 metering systems with an Advanced Meter

that are being settled on a NHH basis after 06 April 2014 will be included within the scope of PARMS Serial SP04. » New PARMS Serial

P272: Alternative Solution

» The G o p de eloped an Alte nati e sol tion hich

• ld dela

» The Group developed an Alternative solution which would delay the mandating of HH Settlement for Profile Classes 5-8, and the requirements, until 06 April 2015. » Some of the workgroup believed that mandating P272 from the 06 April 2014 would not provide enough time for Suppliers to resolve April 2014 would not provide enough time for Suppliers to resolve a number of complex issues, and that a ‘transitional period’ should be introduced.

P272: Applicable Objectives Proposed Proposed

For Against

(c)

Minority: Increasing the amount of energy which is settled half hourly will Majority: The current arrangements allow Suppliers to settle NHH customers in which is settled half hourly will provide greater cost transparency, enable suppliers to offer customers greater flexibility to manage their pp Profile Classes 5 – 8 on a half hourly

• basis. Mandating HH Settlement for

these customers does not improve g y g energy usage, create new customer tariffs and have more accurate billing competition There are potential benefits for i i i d i HH Reduces financial risks and removes barriers to new entrants and smaller Suppliers competition in mandating HH settlement for current PC5-8 sites in the longer term, but the total industry

• t
• ld o t eigh of m nd ting it

Suppliers Increases competition between agents costs would outweigh of mandating it from April 2014 the benefits in the short term

P272: Applicable Objectives Proposed Proposed

For Against

(d)

Minority: There would no longer be the requirement for load research PC5 – 8 Majority: Not efficient to put through a solution now that doesn’t take into requirement for load research PC5 8 sites as profiles would be ‘frozen’ Inaccuracy in settlements would be now that doesn t take into consideration future changes Whilst this may lead to an increased Inaccuracy in settlements would be reduced and the work and resultant costs of all Parties and Agents monitoring and managing the Whilst this may lead to an increased accuracy in settlements it does not do it in an efficient way monitoring and managing the inaccuracy The int od tion of in e e in ELEXON would still be required to perform profile research for other p ofile l e the e m gin l The introduction of a increase in performance completeness to 99% at R1 would bring significant increases in efficiency particularly for billing and profile classes, the very marginal benefit that will come from not undertaking the activity for PC 5-8 is immaterial versus the costs of making efficiency, particularly for billing and invoice reconciliation immaterial versus the costs of making the change

P272: Consultation responses p

» The recurring theme throughout the responses was the cost of the Proposed Modification against the benefits » No new arguments for or against P272 were identified » 5 Alternatives suggested; workgroup didn’t support these » No unintended effects identified

Yes No Other

A li bl BSC Obj ti f ilit t d 11 6 1

» No unintended effects identified

Applicable BSC Objectives facilitated 11 6 1 Further examples of customer impact 6 12 Do you think another alternative solution would better meet the BSC Objectives 5 12 1

P272: Impacts and Costs

» Supplier concerns

p

» Supplier concerns

• Customer impact (e.g. higher costs)
• Supplier Agent contractual issues
• DUoS differential between HH and NHH

NHH A » NHH Agents

• Need to re-qualify (or Suppliers will need to change agents)

» Distributors

• Issues with IT system scalability and timescales

P272: Impacts and Costs

» Customers – concerns

p

» Customers concerns

• Costs
• Contracts

» Meters C i i d hi h d l

• Communication upgrades to support higher data volumes

» Impacts » Impacts

• Costs and timings higher than previously identified

P272: Impacts and Costs p

Type of Party Initial (£) Ongoing (£) Meter Administrator Meter Administrator HHDC, HHDA, NHHDC, NHHDA and MOP (HH and 0 – 500k and MOP (HH and NHH) NNHDC,NHHDA and Several millions unknown Mop Distributor 5 – 200k 0 – 250k Supplier 0 – 10 million 250k – 8 million Supplier 10 million 250k 8 million

* These are costs are per party

P272: Modification Group views p

» P272 Workgroup recommends P272 proceed to Report Phase » P272 should not be made » Recommended implementation Date: » Recommended implementation Date:

• 06 April 2014

» Draft legal text provided for Proposed Modification

Recommendations

» NOTE P272 Workgroup’s recommendations O

• g oup s eco

e da o s » AGREE an initial recommendation that Proposed Modification P272 should not be made; AGREE i iti l d ti th t th Alt ti M difi ti » AGREE an initial recommendation that the Alternative Modification P272 should not be made; » AGREE the draft legal text; g ; » AGREE that Modification Proposal P272 be submitted to the Report Phase; and AGREE th t ELEXON h ld i P272 d ft M difi ti R t » AGREE that ELEXON should issue P272 draft Modification Report for consultation and submit results to the Panel to consider at its meeting on 08 March 2012.

Modification P272: Half Hourly Settlement for fil Cl 8 Profile Classes 5-8

Assessment Report Assessment Report

Michael Edwards

P272: Background and proposal g p p

» Supply Licence requires

• All PCs 5-8 customers have HH-capable advanced meter by 6

April 2014 » P272 (proposed by SmartestEnergy) » P272 (proposed by SmartestEnergy)

• Require these customers to be settled Half Hourly

» Proposed solution undergone industry impact assessment

• 22 July – 12 August

S l C ll O

• Impacts Suppliers, Data Collectors, Meter Operator Agents,

Distributors

P272: Process followed

» IWA: 09 June 2011

• Terms of Reference agreed

» Workgroup met four times » One Impact Assessment » Two Consultations

• To get industry views on P272 and confirm impacts
• To better quantify the costs and benefits of P272, to help

Ofgem inform their recommendation to the BSC Panel

P272: Proposed Solution (1)

» F om 6 Ap il 2014 NHH settlement not allo ed fo PCs 5 8

p ( )

» From 6 April 2014, NHH settlement not allowed for PCs 5-8

• Except if advanced meter could not be installed
• new PARMS Serial to monitor these

new PARMS Serial to monitor these » Suppliers choose how to switch prior to 06 April 2014

• e.g. whether to settle HH on installation, or switch later

» Current HH Elective transition » Current HH Elective transition

• Current HH Elective customers will not be able to switch back

to being settled as NHH (unless they leave Profile Classes 5-8 for Classes 1-4) after the approved implementation date Performance Serial (SP08c) tightened Performance Serial (SP08c) tightened

• 99% at R1 (rather than RF)

P272: Proposed Solution (2)

» Additional decimal places on HH eadings

p ( )

» Additional decimal places on HH readings

• Flows J0177, J0021, J0281
• Allow for lower-volume customers

Allow for lower volume customers » Profiles frozen for Profile Class 5-8

• Still available for customers without advanced meters, UMS,

micro-generation » PARMS Serial SP04 widened to include advanced meters

• Profile Class 5-8 metering systems with an Advanced Meter

that are being settled on a NHH basis after 06 April 2014 will be included within the scope of PARMS Serial SP04. » New PARMS Serial

P272: Alternative Solution

» The G o p de eloped an Alte nati e sol tion hich

• ld dela

» The Group developed an Alternative solution which would delay the mandating of HH Settlement for Profile Classes 5-8, and the requirements, until 06 April 2015. » Some of the workgroup believed that mandating P272 from the 06 April 2014 would not provide enough time for Suppliers to resolve April 2014 would not provide enough time for Suppliers to resolve a number of complex issues, and that a ‘transitional period’ should be introduced.

P272: Applicable Objectives Proposed Proposed

For Against

(c)

Minority: Increasing the amount of energy which is settled half hourly will Majority: The current arrangements allow Suppliers to settle NHH customers in which is settled half hourly will provide greater cost transparency, enable suppliers to offer customers greater flexibility to manage their pp Profile Classes 5 – 8 on a half hourly

• basis. Mandating HH Settlement for

these customers does not improve g y g energy usage, create new customer tariffs and have more accurate billing competition There are potential benefits for i i i d i HH Reduces financial risks and removes barriers to new entrants and smaller Suppliers competition in mandating HH settlement for current PC5-8 sites in the longer term, but the total industry

• t
• ld o t eigh of m nd ting it

Suppliers Increases competition between agents costs would outweigh of mandating it from April 2014 the benefits in the short term

P272: Applicable Objectives Proposed Proposed

For Against

(d)

Minority: There would no longer be the requirement for load research PC5 – 8 Majority: Not efficient to put through a solution now that doesn’t take into requirement for load research PC5 8 sites as profiles would be ‘frozen’ Inaccuracy in settlements would be now that doesn t take into consideration future changes Whilst this may lead to an increased Inaccuracy in settlements would be reduced and the work and resultant costs of all Parties and Agents monitoring and managing the Whilst this may lead to an increased accuracy in settlements it does not do it in an efficient way monitoring and managing the inaccuracy The int od tion of in e e in ELEXON would still be required to perform profile research for other p ofile l e the e m gin l The introduction of a increase in performance completeness to 99% at R1 would bring significant increases in efficiency particularly for billing and profile classes, the very marginal benefit that will come from not undertaking the activity for PC 5-8 is immaterial versus the costs of making efficiency, particularly for billing and invoice reconciliation immaterial versus the costs of making the change

P272: Consultation responses p

» The recurring theme throughout the responses was the cost of the Proposed Modification against the benefits » No new arguments for or against P272 were identified » 5 Alternatives suggested; workgroup didn’t support these » No unintended effects identified

Yes No Other

A li bl BSC Obj ti f ilit t d 11 6 1

» No unintended effects identified

Applicable BSC Objectives facilitated 11 6 1 Further examples of customer impact 6 12 Do you think another alternative solution would better meet the BSC Objectives 5 12 1

P272: Impacts and Costs

» Supplier concerns

p

» Supplier concerns

• Customer impact (e.g. higher costs)
• Supplier Agent contractual issues
• DUoS differential between HH and NHH

NHH A » NHH Agents

• Need to re-qualify (or Suppliers will need to change agents)

» Distributors

• Issues with IT system scalability and timescales

P272: Impacts and Costs

» Customers – concerns

p

» Customers concerns

• Costs
• Contracts

» Meters C i i d hi h d l

• Communication upgrades to support higher data volumes

» Impacts » Impacts

• Costs and timings higher than previously identified

P272: Impacts and Costs p

Type of Party Initial (£) Ongoing (£) Meter Administrator Meter Administrator HHDC, HHDA, NHHDC, NHHDA and MOP (HH and 0 – 500k and MOP (HH and NHH) NNHDC,NHHDA and Several millions unknown Mop Distributor 5 – 200k 0 – 250k Supplier 0 – 10 million 250k – 8 million Supplier 10 million 250k 8 million

* These are costs are per party

P272: Modification Group views p

» P272 Workgroup recommends P272 proceed to Report Phase » P272 should not be made » Recommended implementation Date: » Recommended implementation Date:

• 06 April 2014

» Draft legal text provided for Proposed Modification

Recommendations

» NOTE P272 Workgroup’s recommendations O

• g oup s eco

e da o s » AGREE an initial recommendation that Proposed Modification P272 should not be made; AGREE i iti l d ti th t th Alt ti M difi ti » AGREE an initial recommendation that the Alternative Modification P272 should not be made; » AGREE the draft legal text; g ; » AGREE that Modification Proposal P272 be submitted to the Report Phase; and AGREE th t ELEXON h ld i P272 d ft M difi ti R t » AGREE that ELEXON should issue P272 draft Modification Report for consultation and submit results to the Panel to consider at its meeting on 08 March 2012.

IWA Phase P281: P281: Change of BSCCo Board of Directors & Chairman Recommendation: Recommendation: Assessment Procedure

Kathryn Coffin

193/05

Kathryn Coffin 12 January 2012

Modification P281

Thursday 12 January 2012

Change of BSC Co Board of Directors & Chairman

Thursday, 12 January 2012

Purpose of the Modification

The independent report commissioned by Ofgem, and Standing Issue 40 group concluded that in order to facilitate Elexon’s aspirations to diversify g p p y it would be necessary to revise the BSC Co Board, to 1 To allow BSC Parties a more active say in the management and 1. To allow BSC Parties a more active say in the management and

• versight of BSCCo; and

2. To ensure the appropriate separation of the BSCCo Board from the management of ELEXON Limited, should ELEXON be permitted to diversify its activities. This proposal seeks to introduce an elected board constituted of BSC Parties, with an independent chair, whose appointment would be ratified b h A h i d d d h C d G R i by the Authority – as recommended under the Code Governance Review.

12 January 2012, E.ON, Page 34

Proposed Strawman for BSC Co Board

• 2 Suppliers
• 1 large

g

• 1 small
• 2 Generators
• 1 large
• 1 large
• 1 small
• 1 Independent Chair (ratified by the Authority) – holding a casting vote
• nly.
• Independent Experts (non-voting) – appointed by the Board to assist

them them.

• IT
• Procurement

Fi i l

• Financial

12 January 2012, E.ON, Page 35

Strawman: Chair and Board of Directors

• Each seat on the Board would be representative of a constituency – and the

members of that constituency would elect their representative to sit on the BSC Co

• Board. Voting in the election would be by the constituency representatives for that

seat only and would be in proportion to their market share.

• No Group of companies would be able to hold more than one seat on the Board.
• The elected representative of the constituency would not need to be directly

employed by the BSC parties it represents, thereby allowing smaller parties a degree of flexibility in their choice of preferred candidate degree of flexibility in their choice of preferred candidate.

• All Board decisions would be on the basis of non-weighted majority voting - one

director one equal vote, with the Chair holding the casting vote in the event of deadlock.

12 January 2012, E.ON, Page 36

P281: Modification Proposal

• BSCCo Board currently comprises 5 voting Directors:

p

• BSCCo Board currently comprises 5 voting Directors:
• Chairman, who is the BSC Panel Chairman appointed by Ofgem
• 2 non-executive Industry Directors nominated by the Panel
• 2 non-executive, non-industry Directors nominated by Chairman after

consultation with the Panel

• P281 proposes that the BSCCo Board should be made up of:
• 4 voting Party representatives, elected by Parties on a constituency basis

by market share: by market share:

• 2 generator seats (1 large, 1 small)
• 2 Supplier seats (1 large, 1 small)
• Independent Chairman with casting vote only, appointed by Board and

ratified by Ofgem (would also fulfil role of Panel Chairman)

• Up to 3 non-industry, non-voting expert advisors appointed by Board

37

Up to 3 non industry, non voting expert advisors appointed by Board

P281: Things to consider (1 of 3)

1) What p in iples sho ld g ide the onstit tion of the BSCCo Boa d?

g ( )

1) What principles should guide the constitution of the BSCCo Board?

• Panel/Workgroup may wish to consider:
• The Board’s role
• The Board s role
• The original Ofgem/DTI conclusions on the Board’s role/constitution
• Any relevant considerations of Issue 40 and the Morse report
• Any relevant considerations of Issue 40 and the Morse report
• Any interaction with Ofgem’s consultation on expanding ELEXON’s role
• Any published guidance on non-exec Directors / good corporate

Any published guidance on non exec Directors / good corporate governance

• Any relevant requirements of the Companies Act
• How best to ensure BSCCo meets the objectives in BSC B1.2.1
• How best to ensure BSCCo is accountable to Parties and any relevant

third parties

38

third parties

P281: Things to consider (2 of 3) g ( )

2) Does the current Board structure allow decisions to be carried against the will of the Industry Directors?

• Panel/Workgroup may wish to ask ELEXON for analysis of % of Board

decisions carried by majority

3) What is the impact (if any) of P281 on the Transmission Company?

BSCC f lfil TC’ li i t di BSC

• BSCCo fulfils TC’s licence requirements regarding BSC
• BSC gives TC (as BSCCo Shareholder) certain rights regarding

appointment/removal of Directors from BSCCo Board pp

39

P281: Things to consider (3 of 3) g ( )

4) What detailed Board member appointment processes are necessary/appropriate to support the P281 solution?

• Panel/Workgroup may wish to consider:
• Detailed election process for Party representatives
• How to define a ‘large’ or ‘small’ generator or Supplier, and

establish market share

• Term of office remuneration and expenses for Board members
• Term of office, remuneration and expenses for Board members

under P281

• Implementation lead time needed to appoint/elect new Board

b members

40

P281: Proposed progression

• Recommend P281 undergoes a Workgroup Assessment Procedure

p p g

• Recommend P281 undergoes a Workgroup Assessment Procedure
• Workgroup membership open to all Parties / interested third parties
• 3-month or 4-month Assessment Procedure?

Does Panel wish to wait for outcome of Ofgem’s consultation before

• Does Panel wish to wait for outcome of Ofgem’s consultation before

commencing P281 Workgroup meetings?

• No links with any current SCRs

Proposer is not requesting Self Governance

• Proposer is not requesting Self-Governance
• Agree P281 does not meet Self-Governance Criteria

41

P281: Recommendations

The Panel is invited to;

• NOTE IWA;
• SUBMIT P281 to Assessment Procedure;

SUBMIT P281 to Assessment Procedure;

• AGREE Assessment Procedure timetable;
• AGREE basis for selecting Workgroup membership;

AGREE W k ’ T f R f

• AGREE Workgroup’s Terms of Reference;
• AGREE P281 has no SCR interaction; and
• AGREE P281 does not meet Self-Governance Criteria

42

Chairman’s Report Chairman s Report BSC Panel

Andrew Pinder 12 January 2012

Smart Update Smart Update BSC Panel

Chris Rowell Chris Rowell 12 January 2012

Smart Metering: Revised SMIP Delivery Plan Revised SMIP Delivery Plan

45

Source: DECC Delivery Plan – 21 December 2011

Smart Metering: Impact on Key Milestones Impact on Key Milestones

Key Milestone Mar 2011 Dec 2011

Prospectus Response Revised Plan

• 1. Draft technical specifications complete

Jul 2011 Jul 2011

• 2. EU notification period for tech specifications complete

Jan 2012

(a) Q2 2012 (May?) (b) Q4 2012 (Dec?)

3 Fi t t h f l t bli ti li Q2 2012 Q4 2012

• 3. First tranche of regulatory obligations on suppliers

comes into force (equipment; installation code of practice; rollout) Q2 2012 Q4 2012 (Oct?)

• 4. DCC Licence Application process starts*

Q2 2012 Q3 2012 (Aug?)

• 5. ‘Smart’ change of supplier arrangements become

standard Q4 2012 Q4 2013 (Sep?)

• 6. DCC Licence awarded*

Q4 2012 Q2 2013 (May?)

• 7. DCC service providers appointed*

Q4 2012 Q2 2013 (May?)

• 8. Start of mass roll out*

Q2 2014 Q4 2014 (Sep?)

46

NOTE: Quarters are calendar quarters Months attributed on the basis of position of the milestone on diagram * denotes cited critical path

Smart Metering: Supplier Exemption Consultation Supplier Exemption Consultation

AUG 2011 LICENCE CONSULTATION

ALL Suppliers to install a compliant smart meter by completion of roll out

PROPOSAL

• Small Suppliers (< 250,000 meters)

pp

( )

• Meters meet Advanced Domestic Meter (ADM) definition
• Installed in period Mar 2012 - tech specs (SMETS)

C i i h i lli li

• Customer remains with installing supplier

metering system NOT required to be replaced with a compliant meter prior to end of life Evidence on Questions

Separate discussion: Time limited exemption f l S li ?

47

installation

13 Jan

• n policy

27 Jan for large Suppliers?

Smarter Markets: Propositions Propositions

Enabling Retail Market Development 1. Time of use tariffs (to reduce consumption) 2 Demand-side response (to reduce costs) 2. Demand side response (to reduce costs) 3. Energy Services (to increase consumer benefits) 4. Payment Methods (increased options) Improving Market processes 5 Settlement Arrangements (HH settlement)

7 Mar

5. Settlement Arrangements (HH settlement) 6. Change of Supplier process (next day) 7. Data Processing & aggregation (central) 8 Code Consolidation (SEC to form retail code) 8. Code Consolidation (SEC to form retail code)

48

Source: Ofgem Consultation - Promoting Smarter Energy Markets (15 Dec 2011)

Smarter Markets: Timetable Timetable

Policy Scoping Phase Policy Development Implementation

Start work programme Implement Reforms Evidence Gathering Develop & Consult

Apr 2011 Summer 2012 2013

• nwards?

Dec 2011 2011 2012

• nwards?

2011

49

Source: Ofgem Presentation – Smart Metering Forum (1 Dec 2011)

Smart Grids: Smart Grid Forum Solution Sets Smart Grid Forum Solution Sets

Identifies whether new commercial arrangements will arrangements will be needed for 2020 & 2030

50

ELEXON Report ELEXON Report

193/01

Peter Haigh 12 January 2012 12 January 2012

Distribution Report Distribution Report

David Lane 12 January 2012

National Grid Update National Grid Update

Ian Pashley 12 January 2012

European Update: European Update: Ofgem

12 January 2012

Business Plan Timetable

193/06 193/06

David Jones 12 January 2012

Timetable Timetable

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Panel Note Process & K Th Review draft Consider t & Strategy l 1 10 8 3 Request to 6 Panel & Key Themes Strategy comments & revisions approval vary timetable Board Consider comments & Review Budget & Strategy Consider Panel 9 7 2 11 Approve Budget revisions gy Workshop comments 5 g Parties Issue for comment Workshop 4

Recommendation

The BSC Panel is invited to;

• CONSENT that BSCCo may vary the timetable for approval of the

Business Strategy. gy

57

Non compliant Non compliant Energisation of a new circuit at Tilbury GSP circuit at Tilbury GSP

Dave Welland 12 January 2012

193/07

12 January 2012

New Circuit at Tilbury GSP y » A new circuit at Tilbury GSP was energised by National Grid on 5 November prior to the registration steps p g p being completed » This resulted in a settlement error for a period of 17 p Settlement Days. This is now being addressed by a Trading Dispute » Subsequently, a new circuit at Rayleigh GSP was energised by National Grid on 20 December without the b d k h ll registration requirements being undertaken. This will also give rise to a Trading Dispute

59

New Circuit at Tilbury GSP y » The Code (K.1.4) requires that the Transmission Company should not energise or re-energise a GSP or TSBP Circuit until all the necessary registration steps have been completed (and confirmed as such by ELEXON) ELEXON) » On 5 occasions in the last 15 months, non compliant i t ti b N ti l G id h i d th i i registrations by National Grid have required the raising

• f Trading Disputes with combined materiality of circa

£1 2M £1.2M

60

Transmission Company Actions » The Transmission Company have investigated the p y » The Transmission Company have investigated the Tilbury non-compliance and produced an action plan to ensure The Code and BSCP25 will be adhered to » The action plan recognises a lack of knowledge and full understanding throughout the Transmission Business of understanding throughout the Transmission Business of the BSC requirements » Amendment to National Grid process to ensure new » Amendment to National Grid process to ensure new registrations are completed in a timely manner are targeted to be in place by March 2012

61

Next Steps p » ELEXON will continue to support the Transmission Company with the process p y p » A joint workshop to learn the lessons from Tilbury (and now Rayleigh) and to walk through BSCP25 is planned now Rayleigh) and to walk through BSCP25 is planned for 19 January 2012 » ELEXON will inform Panel of any future non-compliant » ELEXON will inform Panel of any future non compliant energisations

62

Recommendations Th P l i i it d t The Panel is invited to: NOTE th i f ti t i d i thi » NOTE the information contained in this paper; » NOTE the next steps proposed by ELEXON; and » NOTE that ELEXON will provide an update on the progress of future registrations that are due to be energised in the ELEXON report energised in the ELEXON report

New EU Requirements for New EU Requirements for Reporting of Electricity Market Data

193/08

Steve Wilkin & John Lucas 12 January 2012

New European Reporting and Disclosure Requirements Requirements

• In force now:
• EU Regulation on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency

(REMIT) i bli di l f i id i f ti (REMIT) requires public disclosure of inside information

• ACER Guidance on REMIT: inside information should be disclosed in a

manner ensuring it is capable of being disseminated to as wide a bli ibl ” public as possible”

• Future:
• Fundamental Electricity Data Transparency Guidelines will require

market data reporting to a central Europe-wide ENTSO-E data platform platform

• (REMIT will require reporting of wholesale market transactions to

ACER)

65

Possible timings g

• Now – interim solutions for disclosure of REMIT inside information
• Ofgem REMIT working group on 11 January
• First half 2013? – enduring solutions for REMIT inside information

reporting epo t g

• ACER Guidance suggests mandatory central platforms approved by

national regulators

• Second half 2013? – possible implementation of reporting

requirements in the Guidelines on Fundamental Electricity Data Transparency

66

Potential enduring solutions g

• At Joint European Standing Group (JESG) on 23 November 2011:
• Efficient route to delivering the Transparency Guidelines’ requirements

b i G id C d d BSC (BMRS) may be via Grid Code and BSC (BMRS)

• ELEXON analysis confirmed data requirements are similar to

existing requirements in GB Codes

• Modifications to BSC and Grid Code and BMRS would be required

REMIT i id i f i i b i li k d i h

• REMIT inside information requirements are being linked with

Transparency Guidelines requirements so a similar GB Codes/BMRS route may be efficient.

• Any Mod to deliver REMIT inside information reporting by June

2013 would need to be raised in this Quarter

67

2013 would need to be raised in this Quarter.

Interim Solution for REMIT inside information information

• ELEXON Portal could be utilised as a message board for industry to

post inside information required by REMIT

• Views of REMIT Working Group on this….

68

Recommendation

The Panel is invited to:

• NOTE that ELEXON is investigating the possibility of making the

ELEXON Portal available to Parties as an interim solution for them to disclose inside information (as required by REMIT) to disclose inside information (as required by REMIT)

69

Any Other Business Any Other Business