1 / 5

Presentation to Ofgem’s licence exempt networks forum

Presentation to Ofgem’s licence exempt networks forum. Franck Latrémolière Friday 16 May 2014. Why this presentation. My focus is on third -party access on industrial networks that are Supplier-metered at the boundary Different problems from non-Supplier metered networks Some issues:

raven-hess
Télécharger la présentation

Presentation to Ofgem’s licence exempt networks forum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation to Ofgem’slicenceexempt networks forum Franck Latrémolière Friday 16 May 2014

  2. Why this presentation • My focus is on third-party access on industrial networks that are Supplier-metered at the boundary • Different problems from non-Supplier metered networks • Some issues: • Is there any role for DNOs in private Supplier-metered networks beyond the boundary meter? • Why did DCP 158 and DCP 158A fail? What are the alternatives? • Using difference metering for supply competition: where can it work? Is it appropriate? Is it enough? • Is DCUSA governance delivering what we need? • How can this forum help?

  3. Ofgem’s reasons for rejecting DCP 158/158A • Ofgem’s criticisms of DCP 158/158A (extracts): • “increase the scope for error and the administrative burden” • “increase in the number of data sets and forms to be exchanged” • “concerned about introducing new obligations” • “the proposal will affect … caravan sites and housing associations” • “We support the intention of DCP158 and DCP158A but … the main parties affected [must be] involved …” • No consultation, no visibility, no facts, no comment on the British Gas proposal or its limitations, no apparent awareness of 2012 ENA report, nothing on the impact of possible delays caused by rejection

  4. British Gas counter-proposal for DUoS billing • Proposal raised in British Gas response to a DCUSA consultation; mentioned in two supplier votes • Each supplier pays separately for use of DNO network • But how would the capacity in the connection agreement for the site be allocated between the different MPANs? • Butfor EDCM sites, how could the sneaky charge levied for super-red consumption two years previously be allocated? • The licensed DNO recovers private network use of system charges on behalf of the private network • But on what authority would the DNO levy these charges? • But on what authority would the private network be denied the opportunity to levy its own charges itself if it wishes to do so?

  5. Possible elements of a way forward for this forum • Does this forum have the right focus? • Risk of conflation of issues for non-Supplier metered (legal liabilities) and for Supplier-metered (third party access) • Are we sure that all the other issues that might impair third-party access are being addressed elsewhere? • It would be nice if Ofgem’s decisions were adequately reasoned and based on disclosed and verifiable facts • Not just a one-off problem (see e.g. DCP 139) • DCUSA is not just an industry contract any more; lack of openness is a roadblock to effective governance • DCP “Enhance transparency of DCUSA change management” • Will Ofgem enable consideration of this DCP?

More Related