BSC Panel 239 14 May 2015. Health & Safety 2 Report on Progress of Modification Proposals 14 May...
-
Upload
reynard-wilson -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of BSC Panel 239 14 May 2015. Health & Safety 2 Report on Progress of Modification Proposals 14 May...
BSC Panel 239
14 May 2015
Health & Safety
2
Report on Progress of
Modification Proposals
14 May 2015
BSC Modifications Overview
4
Initial Written Assessment P321
Assessment Procedure P308, P315, P318, P320, P322
Report Phase P302, P319
With Authority -
Authority Determined -
Self-Gov. Determined P317
Fast Track Determined -
Open Issues -
BSC Modifications Timelines
Mod/ Issue
May 15
Jun 15
Jul 15
Aug 15
Sep 15
Oct 15
Nov 15
Dec 15
Jan 16
Feb 16
Mar 16
Apr 16
…
P302 DMR
P308 AR DMR
P315 AR DMR
P318 AR DMR
P319 DMR
P320 AR DMR
P321 IWA AR DMR
P322 DMR
P305 implementation update
14 May 2015Nick Rubin and Jon Spence
239/04
P305 implementation update
7
■ What’s the issue?
– P305 requires new DTC data flows
– MDB rejected DTC CP 3459A because of concern with one of the proposed flows
■ Alternative implementation approach:
– Add a new ‘p-flow’ to the SVA Data Catalogue
– Raise an urgent DTC CP to implement the other DTC flows
■ Rationale for our approach:
– Pragmatic solution
– Delivers intent of the P305 Final Requirements
– Satisfies Party Agents’ demand for clear file structures
– Satisfies DNOs’ demand for flexibility and simplicity
P239/05: Recommendations
8
We invite Panel Members to:
■ APPROVE the proposed change to the P305 requirements to enable the use of an SVA Data Catalogue data flow rather than a DTC data flow.
P321 ‘Publication of Trading Delivery
Mode’
14 May 2015David Kemp
239/05
Initial Written Assessment
P321 – Publication of Trading Unit Delivery Mode
Miles Macallister
11
The Proposal
Publication of Trading Unit Delivery Mode
Every GSP Group at every Reconciliation Run, for every Settlement Period
Volumes (gross) of generation and demand in every GSP Group
In a user friendly and downloadable format accessible to non-BSC parties
The Defect
Identifying ‘Flipping’ through the TLM is unsatisfactory
The Trading Unit Delivery Mode can affect the bills of embedded generators and customers on pass-through contracts.
Embedded generators/customers are not able to independently see when ‘Flipping’ has occurred
Embedded generators/customers are unable to make any forecasts for when flipping might occur in future
12
13
Advantages of this modification
Embedded generators/customers have visibility on something which affects their bill
They can make investment and generation/load shedding predictions based on evidence
Balancing Incentives would have greater impact
Increase trust and openness in the industry
Aid to competition
14
BSC Objectives
This modification meets 2 BSC Objectives:
Objective (b) The economic and co-ordinated operation of the National Electricity Transmission System
Objective (c) Promoting Effective Competition
P321: Proposed solution
15
■ Publish whether a Trading Unit was delivering or offtaking in a Settlement Period
P321: Areas to consider
16
■ What information should be published?
■ How and where should the information be made available?
■ Should P321 be progressed as a Self-Governance Modification?
P321: Proposed progression
17
■ Four month Assessment Procedure
–Assessment Report by 10 September 2015
■ Workgroup membership to include experts in Trading Units
P321: Recommendations
18
We invite the Panel to:
■ AGREE that P321 progresses to the Assessment Procedure;
■ AGREE the proposed Assessment Procedure timetable;
■ AGREE the proposed membership for the P321 Workgroup; and
■ AGREE the Workgroup’s Terms of Reference.
P302 ‘Improving the Change of Supplier
Meters read process for smart Meters’
14 May 2015Simon Fox-Mella
239/06
Modification Report
P302: Issue
20
■ Background
–Smarter Markets Change of Supplier Expert Group (COSEG)
–Ofgem open letter to the Panel (6 Dec 2013)
– Issue 53
■ P302 seeks to
–support the change of Supplier (CoS) read process for a Data and Communications Company (DCC) serviced smart Metering System
– reduce the dependencies between the two Supplier hubs involved in a CoS event
P302: Proposed Solution
21
■ The new Supplier will
–collect the total cumulative and time of use Meter register readings via the DCC
–pass these to the old Supplier using D0010 ‘Meter Readings’ data flow
■ Where this is not possible P302 sets out the timescales and processes for initiating the legacy CoS process
■ Optional use for non-DCC serviced smart Meters where both Suppliers agree
P302: Consequential changes
22
■ DTC CP
–Supplier-Supplier instance of the D0010
–new Requested Action Code value for use in the D0170
■ Potential changes
–DTC CP new data item for D0155 to indicate that the smart CoS process should be used
–MAP08 review and changes
– further changes to BSCP504 and BSCP514 following MAP08 review
–post DCC go live changes
–HH Settlement
P302: Panel’s initial recommendations
23
■ Panel’s initial unanimous recommendations
–Does better facilitate Objective (d) and therefore that P302 should be approved
–agreed that the draft redlined changes to the BSC, BSCP504 and BSCP514 deliver the intention of P302
– recommended 30 June 2016 (June 2016 Release) if an Authority decision is received on or before 29 June 2015
P302: Report Phase Consultation responses
24
View against
■ The solution was not optimal
■ Preference for the previous proposed solution
Views on objectives
■ Does better facilitates objective (d) (11 against 1)
■ Two respondents also believed that it facilities objective (c)
Yes No Neutral Other
Agree approval 11 1 0 0
P302: Report Phase Consultation responses
25
View against
■ Only one respondent disagreed with the detail set out in the CSDs but was supportive if clarifications were made
Yes No Neutral Other
Agree legal and redlined text? 9 1 1 1
P302: Report Phase Consultation responses
26
Views from those that disagree
■ Alignment with DCC go live date
■ Level of industry change makes implementation challenging
■ Workgroup not unanimous and a need for further change
Yes No
Agree Implementation Date? 9 3
P302: Panel’s final views
27
We invite each Panel Member to confirm whether they agree with the Panel’s initial unanimous view that compared to the existing baseline
■ P302 does better facilitate Applicable BSC Objectives (d)
■ Confirm any difference in their rationale from that expressed in the initial views, and any views against the other Objectives
P302: Recommendations
28
We invite you to
■ APPROVE an Implementation Date of 30 June 2016 as part of the June 2016 Release, if an Authority decision is received on or before 29 June 2015
■ APPROVE the draft BSC legal text and redlined changes to the CSDs for P302 and
■ APPROVE the P302 Modification Report
P319 ‘Removal of annual RMP review
from PAF’
14 May 2015Matthew Woolliscroft
239/07
Modification Report
P319: Background and issue
30
■ P319 was raised by the Panel following a recommendation from the Performance Assurance Board
■ Information contained within the annual review of Parties’ Risk Management Plans duplicates information already provided through other means
– Parties have confirmed that they place little value on this annual review
P319: Solution
31
■ P319 proposes to remove the requirement for ELEXON to produce an initial RMP and annual review these
■ It will rename Risk Management Plans to Risk Management Determinations
– Better describes the way we provide this information
■ Proposed for implementation on 5 November 2015
P319: Panel’s Initial Views
32
■ The Panel initially unanimously agreed that P319 will better facilitate Objective (d):
– Seeks to remove duplication of effort and information
■ The Panel initially unanimously agreed:
– P319 should be treated as Self-Governance
–Direct to Report
– 5 November 2015 implementation
–Draft legal text changes deliver intention of the Modification
P319: Report Phase Consultation responses (1 of 2)
33
Question Yes No Neutral Other
Do you agree that P319 should be approved?
1 0 0 0
Do you agree P319 should be Self-Governance?
1 0 0 0
Do you agree with the Implementation Date?
1 0 0 0
Do you agree with the redlined changes?
1 0 0 0
P319: Report Phase Consultation responses (2 of 2)
34
■ The respondent did not provide any specific comments
■ Two respondents to ELEXON’s initial consultation confirmed they support P319
– current process is a cost to ELEXON which could be perceived as unnecessary and inefficient and hence reflect poorly on ELEXON
Question Yes No Neutral Other
Will P319 impact your organisation?
0 1 0 0
Will your organisation incur any costs implementing P319?
0 1 0 0
P319: Recommendations
35
We invite the Panel to:
■ AGREE that P319 DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (d);
■ DETERMINE (in the absence of any Authority direction) that P319 is a Self-Governance Modification Proposal;
■ APPROVE P319;
■ APPROVE an Implementation Date of 5 November 2015 as part of the November 2015 BSC Systems Release;
■ APPROVE the draft legal text; and
■ APPROVE the P319 Modification Report.
CP1434 ‘Amend the three digit numeric Line Loss
Factor Class (LLFC) ID to an alphanumeric LLFC ID’
14 May 2015Simon Fox-Mella
239/08
Change Proposal - Assessment Report
CP1434: What is the issue?
37
■ LLFC IDs are three digit codes DSOs use to group particular customer types and voltage levels together for allocating DUoS charges
■ Three digits limits number to 999 available
■ Concern DNOs will run out of LLFCs in near future
CP1434: Proposed solution
38
■ Change the three digit numeric LLFC ID to a three character alphanumeric code
– Increases number of LLFCs available to each DSO from 999 to 39,304
■ Previous work on solutions
– Issue and some options explored summer 2012
– Including extending number of digits from three to four/five
CP1434: Impacts and costs
39
■ Amendments to
–BSCP509 appendices 1 and 2
–Central Systems (MDD, SVAA and the ‘Pool Application’ of PARMS)
–NHHDA system
–ELEXON’s internal systems
■ Impacts
–Suppliers and DSOs
–Party Agents, including SMRAs and UMSOs
■ Central implementation costs ~£200k
■ Consequential changes: DTC CP to amend J0147 data item
CP1434: Implementation approach
40
■ 30 June 2016 (June 2016 Release)
–Allows participants at least 12 months lead time to implement the changes to their systems and processes
–Would make new LLFC IDs available from 1 April 2017
CP1434: CP consultation responses
41
■ 17 responses with majority of 12 in support
■ 5 respondents disagreed
–All agreed something should be done
–3 preferred alternative of increasing from three digits to four/five due to cost
–2 believed full review of LLFs needed before making costly changes
CP1434: SVG discussion
42
■ CP initially presented to SVG on 3 March 2015
–SVG had no comment on CP
■ Following IA, presented back to SVG on 28 April 2015
■ SVG could not make an informed decision as it did not know:
–When LLFCs would run out
–Why LLFCs would run out
–The impact of reaching LLFC limit
– If the CP1434 solution is the most cost effective approach
■ SVG suggested a potential alternative solution that had not been developed
CP1434: SVG decision
43
■ The SVG could not make a unanimous decision
–Minority view that CP1434 should be implemented ASAP as needed to ensure DSOs meet obligations
–Majority recommended a Workgroup to get further information and explore other options
■ It noted that deferring CP1434 rules out its proposed June 2016 implementation and creates uncertainty as to when any solution could be implemented
CP1434: Following SVG
44
■ Request for information issued (Attachment C - confidential)
–Very short timescales
■ Responses indicated:
–Not all DNOs impacted
–Critical issue for IDNOs and out of area DNOs
– Increased demand for more LLFC IDs and P300 has reduced the number available
–LLFCs may run out as early as 2017 for some Parties
– If they had further time could assess cost and impact of potential alternative solutions
– If there are no more LLFCs DNOs cannot meet their obligations
CP1434: ELEXON’s recommendation
45
■ Panel to defer pending further investigation
■ Issue consultation on other options, allowing longer to respond
■ Present responses to SVG on 2 June
–SVG to make recommendation based on additional information it lacked previously
■ If needed, come back to Panel on 11 June
■ Benefit:
–Allows time to seek clarifications
–Allows informed decision to be made
–Can still make June 2016 implementation
CP1434: Panel options
46
■ Approve CP1434
–Benefit: changes in time for June 2016
–Drawback: may be more efficient solution
■ Reject CP1434
–Drawback: does not solve problem industry agree must be solved
eliminates change for June 16 implementation
■ Defer to workgroup
–Benefit: discussion on other solutions
–Drawback: already had issue on this topic
eliminates change for June 16 implementation
wouldn’t solve wider issues with LLFCs due to CP scope
CP1434: Recommendations (1 of 3)
47
We invite you to:
■ REQUEST the SVG reconsiders CP1434 in June following further information being sought.
CP1434: Recommendations (2 of 3)
48
Should the Panel decide not to send CP1434 back to the SVG with additional information, we invite you to:
■ DEFER a decision on approval of CP1434 pending a CP Workgroup’s conclusions; and
■ NOTE that deferring CP1434 rules out its proposed June 2016 implementation and creates uncertainty as to when any solution (whether an alphanumeric or other alternative solution) could be implemented.
CP1434: Recommendations (3 of 3)
49
Should the Panel decide not to defer CP1434 pending further information or a Workgroup, we invite you to:
■ AGREE the amendments to the proposed redlining for BSCP509 Appendix 1 for CP1434 made following the CP Consultation;
■ AGREE the proposed changes to BSCP509 Appendix 1 and BSCP509 Appendix 2 for CP1434; and
■ AGREE that CP1434 should be approved for implementation on 30 June 2016 as part of the June 2016 Release.
Location of EMR Requirements in
BSCPS
14 May 2015Talia Addy
239/09
Issue
Background
51
■ Implementation of DECC’s EMR policy requires supporting provisions under the BSC
■ ELEXON included these in existing BSC documents
–We believe this approach to be more efficient than duplicating and developing a new set of EMR documents and reduces the risk of inconsistencies
What is the issue?
52
■ IMServ raised a number of concerns about the location of EMR requirements:
–Existing BSCPs are for BSC Settlement, not appropriate to include EMR obligations
–Location for EMR obligations should not have been based on convenience
■ IMServ has suggested that all EMR obligations be moved into a single new BSCP
■ Consideration also required for other non-BSC Settlement obligations such as Warm Homes and DSBR/SBR
SVG Recommendations
53
■ The SVG recommends to the Panel that an Issue Group be established to consider:
–How EMR processes dovetail with existing BSC processes
–How DECC’s requirements have been implemented in BSCP503
–BSC Settlement Risk associated with the impact on HHDA systems and processes
–What changes may be required to the BSC Architecture Principles
Proposed Progression
54
If the Panel agrees that an Issue should be raised, we recommend:
■ Issue raised in the next month
■ First Issue Group meeting held in July
–Allowing time to consider the impact of moving EMR obligations and the BSC Architectural Principles
Recommendations
55
We invite the Panel to:
■ AGREE that an Issue Group be established to consider the SVG’s concerns.
CACoP Principle 13
14 May 2015Oliver Xing
239/10
Recommendations
57
We invite the Panel to:
■ NOTE that ELEXON will consult the industry on the draft CACoP Principle 13.
Minutes of Meetings 236, 237 & 239 and Actions arising
14 May 2015Adam Richardson
Chairman’s Report
14 May 2015Michael Gibbons
ELEXON Report
14 May 2015Mark Bygraves
239/01
EMR Update
1. EMR Service Readiness
a. EMR services went live on 1 April 2015 as planned.
b. Due to a number of issues with the enduring settlement system, contingency arrangements, to enable daily invoices and backing data to be issued from 29 April 2015, have been invoked.
2. Funding
a. Grant (and from 1 April Service Agreement) invoices are being paid in accordance with the agreed payment schedule and we continue to maintain a positive cash-flow.
b. “Actual” resource utilisation is not materially different to “budget” and “forecast”.
3. Circulars
Since the last Panel meeting, the following EMR Circulars, which may be of interest to BSC Parties, were issued:
a. EMR Circular 41: Update on the BSC Changes to support Energy Intensive Industry for Electricity Market Reform.
b. EMR Circular 42: Invoicing the CFD Operational Costs Levy to Suppliers.
c. EMR Circular 43: Further update on invoicing to Suppliers.
d. EMR Circular 44: Non-Payment Register for the Capacity Market is now published.
e. EMR Circular 45: Update on DTC changes to support Energy Intensive Industry and Green Excluded Electricity for Electricity Market Reform.
f. EMR Circular 46: New Publications now available on the EMRS website.61
Distribution Report
14 May 2015David Lane
National Grid Report
14 May 2015Ian Pashley
Ofgem Report
14 May 2015Rory Edwards
Reports from the ISG, SVG, PAB,TDC
14 May 2015
239/01a-d
Report from the JESG
12 March 2015
235/01e
Report from the ECCAF
Date/Month/Year
Verbal
Trading Operations: BSC
Operations Headline Report
14 May 2015
239/02
Change Report
14 May 2015
239/03
Approval of Funding Shares
Audit Scope
14 May 2015
239/12
Darren Draper
BSC Funding Share Audit Scope
Insert: Document title71
■ Funding Shares used to charge ELEXON’s costs to Trading Parties
■ Funding Shares Audit required by the BSC
■ Panel required to agree scope of Audit
■ Scope is limited to calculation of Funding Shares - costs separately audited
■ Funding Share data accompanying ELEXON’s invoices can be checked against the website and assistance is always available from the Finance Team
BSC Funding Share Audit Scope
Insert: Document title72
■ Calculation of Main Funding Shares, SVA (Consumption) Funding Shares, SVA (Production) Funding Shares, and General Funding Shares (on a default basis)
■ Calculation of Annual Funding Shares (used by FAA)
■ Checking of BSC Cost shares through to invoices
Recommendations
Insert: Document title73
The Panel is invited to:
■ APPROVE the proposed scope of the Funding Shares Audit
BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme -
Update
14 May 2015
239/13
Adam Richardson
Review of the BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update75
■ Reviewed on a quarterly basis
■ BSC Panel Sponsors and Committee Chairs met in April 2015 to consider changes
■ Document sets out:
–Updates on work undertaken in Q4 (Jan-Mar)
–Key milestones and amendments to work streams in Q1 (Apr-Jun)
–Some revisions to scheduled work programme
■ Panel is invited to approve amendments at this six month review
■ Next Review: End of August 2015
PRIORITY 1: Delivery of Core BSC Services
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update76
ExtendedNEW Extende
d
PRIORITY 2: Addressing Known Settlement Issues
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update77
NEW Extended
Potential for further amendment
subject to deliberations in respect of
paper 239/11
PRIORITY 3: Efficient Working Practice and Committee Communication
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update78
Aligned with DTN Work
Stream
Extended
PRIORITY 4: Addressing Evolving Settlement Risks
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update79
NEW NEWConclude
d
PRIORITY 5: Future Settlement Design and Development - Drivers for Change
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update80
PRIORITY 5: Future Settlement Design and Development - Drivers for Change
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update81
NEW
NEW
Potential
ExtensionBrought Forward
Updated
NEW
PRIORITY 6: Other Considerations
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update82
Development
work extended
Recommendations
239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update83
The BSC Panel is invited to:
APPROVE the amendments to the Strategic Work Programme; and NOTE that the revised Strategic Work Programme will be published on
the ELEXON website following the May Panel meeting
Next Meeting: 11 June 2015