bsc panel 224 - elexon · 2018. 4. 23. · of their activities directly accountable to pab/elexon....

BSC Panel 249

11 February 2016

Health & Safety

2

Open Session

11 February 2016

Report on Progress of Modification

Proposals

11 February 2016 Adam Lattimore

P332 ‘Revisions to the Supplier Hub

Principle’

11 February 2016 Dean Riddell

249/05

P332 – Revisions to the Supplier Hub Principle Colin Prestwich, Head of Regulatory Affairs

The Proposal

The purpose of this Modification is to revise the nature of the Supplier Hub Principle

by making Agents Signatories to the Code and to make all of their activities directly accountable to PAB/ELEXON. or relaxing the Supplier Hub Principle only where there is no contractual relationship between customer and supplier and monitoring performance accordingly.

7

The Defect BSC does not take account of the fact that Suppliers do not always have a contractual relationship with the Agents they are supposed to be managing

Approximately 90% of MPANs in the I&C market are under direct contract between customer and DC/DA The Supplier Hub Principle is inappropriate in this instance

There is not sufficient direct accountability for Agent performance

8

Advantages of this modification

Agent performance generally would improve if there were a direct relationship between BSC and Agents and the incentives were in the right place. Supplier Charges need to be revamped anyway with more and more actual HH data available. Customers will be able to appoint their own agent without creating a conflict between Supplier and Agent Agents being able to raise change would widen the base of Parties with this ability and will lead to the introduction of change which facilitates innovation. 9

BSC Objectives

SmartestEnergy believes this modification meets 2 BSC Objectives:

Objective (c) Promoting Effective Competition: Suppliers and Customers will not be treated differently depending on whether there is a direct relationship or not. Objective (d) Promoting Efficiency in the Implementation of the Balancing and Settlement Arrangements : should result in better and more consistent performance from Agents; ability to raise modifications should enhance BSC.

10

P332: Solution

■ Revise the Supplier Hub principle by making Party Agents signatories to the BSC

–Data Collectors

–Data Aggregators

–Meter Operator Agents

–Meter Administrators

■ Proposer’s anticipated changes

–The specified Party Agents become signatories to the BSC

–Accreditation and role contingent on being a signatory

–Agents become directly responsible for relevant BSC/BSCP requirements/standards

–PARMs and Supplier Charges reviewed and changed as appropriate

–Likely changes around performance assurance, qualification, committee constitution, etc.

P332: Solution

■ Possible solution options and considerations

–Could revise Supplier Hub only where no contractual relationship

–Obligate Agents to remain until another is appointed

–Could potentially limit scope to HH Agents only

P332: Areas to Consider

■ P332 specific areas:

–What issues are caused by customers choosing Agents?

–What is the materiality of the issues?

–What means are presently available to address the issues?

–What is the best way in principle to address the issues?

■ Standard areas:

–What changes are needed to BSC documents, systems and processes to support P332 and what are the related costs and lead times?

–Are there any Alternative Modifications?

–Does P332 better facilitate the Applicable BSC Objectives compared with the current baseline?

P332: Proposed Progression

■ Submit P332 to an Assessment Procedure for Workgroup consideration

–Potentially large and complex change – solution and scope not clear

– Initial indicative nine month timetable

–First Workgroup meetings to scope and develop solution

– Impact assessment and consultation

– Indicative date for presentation of Assessment Report to Panel: 10 November 2016

–Keep timetable under review

■ Workgroup membership – individuals with expertise in:

–Supplier role

–Party Agent roles

P332: Recommendations

We invite the Panel to:

a) AGREE that P332 progresses to the Assessment Procedure;

b) AGREE the proposed Assessment Procedure timetable;

c) AGREE the proposed membership for the P332 Workgroup; and

d) AGREE the Workgroup’s Terms of Reference

P333 ‘Inclusion of DSBR volumes into the

cashout price in time for publication after the

end of the Settlement Period’


249/06

00/00/2015 TITRE DE LA PRESENTATION ( MENU "INSERTION / EN-TETE ET PIED DE PAGE") 17

BSC Panel meeting 11th February 2016 BSC Modifications P333 Libby Glazebrook ENGIE

Why these cashout reforms are necessary

00/00/2015 PRESENTATION TITLE ( FOOTER CAN BE PERSONALIZED AS FOLLOW: INSERT / HEADER AND FOOTER") 18

From Ofgem’s Electricity Balancing Significant Code Review

DSBR is a last resort balancing service that can be called by the SO to avoid demand disconnection

Providers specify the reduction in demand they can offer and the settlement periods between 4 and 8pm on winter weekdays (Nov-Feb) that this quantity can be delivered

DSBR is normally dispatched with at least 2 hours notice

When DSBR is called, it is priced for cashout purposes at £3000/MWh

This price and the volume dispatched are currently incorporated in the cashout price for the WD+5 II settlement run

P333 – Demand Side Balancing Reserve (DSBR)


MP 333

For winter ‘15/16 there is around 500MW of DSBR (when de-rated 177MMW)

On 4th November, a Notification of Insufficient Margin was issued at 13:31 for 16:30 to 18:30,

At 15:16, a DSBR notice was published on the BMRS indicating that DSBR would be dispatched in SPs 35 and 36

Power exchange prices rose to £259/MWh in SP 35

The system out-turned long, estimate that under P305 cashout would have been c. £44/MWh in SP 35

The next day, National Grid notified that 43MW of de-rated DSBR had been dispatched

Use of DSBR


MP 333

Cashout is meant to provide the principle incentive for demand and supply to be balanced in the short term.

P305 introduces ‘explosive’ cashout where the price can quickly change from tens of pounds to £3000/MWh

The delay in including the volume could lead to a very large positive change in the cashout price reported at WD+5 compared to the one reported immediately after the Settlement Period has ended

The use of DSBR could also create an expectation that prices will rise to £3000/MWh but because of the Net Imbalance Volume (NIV) tagging process this may not happen (ref 4th November).

These actions need to be captured in cashout to provide timely price signals. Knowing what the cashout price is 5WD later can lead to sub optimal real time trading decisions being made and more balancing actions that have to be taken by the SO

Why P333 is needed


MP 333

Place a specific requirement on the Transmission Company to provide its best estimate of Demand Side Balancing Reserve (DSBR) volumes as part of its Balancing Services Adjustment Data required under paragraph 6.3.1(a) (ii) of BSC Section Q ‘Balancing Mechanism Activities’.

From a BSC perspective, this change is very simple to make

It has the added benefit that it provides certainty of the volume dispatched - with a 2 hour lead time, this is ahead of gate closure

The change would also provide more time to post additional credit cover

The change needs to be in place by November 2016 to ensure that timely cashout prices include use of DSBR in winter 2016/17

Arguably this is a more important change than the modifications in the November 2016 BSC Release

— P297 - Receipt and Publication of New and Revised Dynamic Data Items

— P321 - Publication of Trading Unit Delivery Model

Required BSC changes


MP 333

Without MP333, cashout prices will continue to lack a timely fundamental scarcity pricing signal

Impact on the Applicable BSC Objectives


Objective (b) - a 5WD delay in determining the cashout price will not provide a timely signal to the market to maximise plant availability at times of system stress and can also lead to poor trading decisions being made. Removing this delay will improve the is efficient and economic and co-ordinated operation of the GB Transmission System.

Objective (c) –Smaller players may have less resources to estimate the revised cashout price. Implementation will better promote competition in the sale and purchase of electricity as the whole market will have access to the same information

Objective (d) - While there will still be post event cashout changes, this modification will reduce the number of changes. This promotes efficiency in the implementation and administration of the balancing and settlement arrangements

MP 333

P333: Solution

■ Place a requirement on the Transmission Company to provide its best estimate of Demand Side Balancing Reserve volumes in its initial submission of Balancing Services Adjustment Data by the end of the Settlement Period

P333: Areas to Consider

■ P333 specific areas:

– Is a BSC Modification the best way to achieve the aim of P333?

–What is the impact of implementing P333?

–What is the benefit of P333?

■ Standard areas:

–What changes are needed to BSC documents, systems and processes to support P333 and what are the related costs and lead times?

–Are there any Alternative Modifications?

–Does P333 better facilitate the Applicable BSC Objectives compared with the current baseline?


■ Submit P333 to a four month Assessment Procedure

–Two/three Workgroup meetings

–Joint industry IA & consultation if possible (may enable earlier report submission)

–Present Assessment Report to the Panel on 9 June 2016

■ Workgroup membership

– Individuals with expertise in imbalance prices and calculation methodologies

–Members of previous relevant groups (P305, P323, Issue 56)



a) AGREE that P333 progresses to the Assessment Procedure;

b) AGREE the proposed Assessment Procedure timetable;

c) AGREE the proposed membership for the P333 Workgroup; and

d) AGREE the Workgroup’s Terms of Reference

P334 ‘Inclusion of Non-BM STOR costs and volumes into the cashout price in time for publication after the end of

the Settlement Period’


249/07


BSC Panel meeting 11th February 2016 BSC Modifications P334 Libby Glazebrook ENGIE

National Grid has contracted for c. 2000MW of non BM STOR for this winter, a lot of this is not available during winter peak periods as generation is instead used for TRIAD avoidance

Non BM STOR prices and volumes have been included in the cashout calculation since MP305 was implemented on 5th November 2015

— Currently this is on an aggregated basis due to issues with disaggregation as required under MP 305

Whilst non BM STOR volume are published at the end of the SP, there is currently a 5WD delay in including these and also their offer prices into the cashout calculation

Both the system direction and the cashout price can change once non BM STOR is included

P334 - Non BM STOR


MP 334

MWh use of Non BM STOR SP 17/11 18/11 19/11 10/1 22/1 15 43 16 3 217 17 143 250 18 164 51 351 19 164 100 352 20 173 162 317 21 259 168 279 22 270 168 236 23 242 150 144 24 78 28 25 1 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 17 34 166 35 232 36 163 37 81 38 4 39

Impact of excluding non BM STOR (1)


Changes in NIV do not match aggregated non BM STOR volume published after end of settlement period Change in the cashout price may be bigger once non BM STOR is disaggregated

MP 334

Impact of excluding non BM STOR (2)


MP 334

There is almost always a mismatch between on the day reported use of non BM STOR and D+1 reported use in BSAD submission

Potential data quality issue?


Section 6.3.1 (a) (ii) requires the Transmission Company to submit its best estimate of Balancing Services Adjustment Data as soon as reasonably practicable after Gate Closure for, and in any event not later than the end of, such Settlement Period

6.3.1 (b) requires this information to again be submitted the next day. It is incorporated in the recalculated cashout price in the WD+5 settlement run

This modification would place a specific requirement on the Transmission Company to provide its best estimate of non BM STOR volumes and costs as part of the Balancing Services Adjustment Data required under 6.3.1(a) (ii) (i.e. as soon as reasonably practical after gate closure)

This is a very simple change to the BSC

Required changes to the BSC


Timely cashout prices provide the reason to trade to minimise disparity between metering and contractual position

Impact on the Applicable BSC Objectives

111/02/16 35

Objective (b) - a 5WD delay in determining the cashout price can lead to poor trading decisions being made. Removing this delay will improve the is efficient and economic and co-ordinated operation of the GB Transmission System.

Objective (c) – Non BM STOR volume are published at the end of the SP so a party can establish the impact on the system direction and estimate (based on previous acceptances) how the cashout price might be affected. Smaller players may have less resources to estimate the revised cashout price. Implementation will better promote competition in the sale and purchase of electricity as the whole market will have access to the same information

Objective (d) - While there will still be post event cashout changes, this modification will reduce the number of changes. This promotes efficiency in the implementation and administration of the balancing and settlement arrangements

MP 334

ELEXON recommendation to reject


From the P334 IWA

• Agree with ELEXON on the rationale to reject as the BSC requires non BM STOR to be included in the indicative prices

• Currently non BM STOR is not included in these submissions (and even if it was there appear to be data quality issues)

• Is this due to the disaggregation problems and will be resolved soon?

P334: Solution

■ Place a specific BSC requirement on the Transmission Company to provide its best estimate of non BM STOR volumes and costs as part of its initial submission of BSAD by the end of the relevant Settlement Period

P334: ELEXON Assessment

■ The BSC currently requires the Transmission Company to send

– Initial estimated BSAD by the end of a Settlement Period

–Complete BSAD the following day

■ BSAD Methodology Statement currently includes non-BM STOR in estimated BSAD

■ Specifying an element of BSAD in the BSC would not add any additional value

–Would not affect existing obligation to send the non-BM STOR data

–BSC clarification would not add incentive to meet existing obligation

■ Specifying BSAD elements in the BSC is not efficient

– If BSAD is changed or updated then the BSC must also be updated

–Potential inconsistencies and market confusion about source of BSAD information


■ Proceed directly to the Report Phase with an initial recommendation to reject

■ Applicable BSC Objectives:

–Objective (a), (b) and (c) – Neutral

–Objective (d) – Detrimental

■ Not Self-Governance

–Potential interactions with the BSAD Methodology Statement mean P334 should be considered by the Authority

■ Report Phase consultation (12 Working Days)

■ Present Modification Report to the Panel on 10 March 2016



a) AGREE that P334 progresses directly to the Report Phase;

b) AGREE that P334 DOES NOT better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (d);

c) AGREE an initial recommendation that P334 should be rejected;

d) AGREE an initial Implementation Date of 10 Working Days after an Authority decision is received;

e) AGREE the production of draft legal text; and

f) NOTE that ELEXON will issue the P334 draft Modification Report (including the draft BSC legal text) for a 12 Working Day consultation and will present the results to the Panel at its meeting on 10 March 2016

P329 ‘Changes to REMIT inside

information reporting’

11 February 2016 Simon Fox-Mella

249/08

P329: Background

■ European Union Regulation on Wholesale Energy Markets Integrity and Transparency (REMIT) (Dec 11)

–aims to prevent market abuse in wholesale energy markets

– the Agency for the Co-operation of Energy Regulators (ACER) prefers central reporting platforms

■ P291 ‘REMIT Inside Information Reporting Platform for GB Electricity’ (31 Dec 14)

–made the Balancing Mechanism Reporting Service (BMRS) the common platform for publishing inside information on the electricity market in Great Britain

P329: Issue

■ The ACER published its requirements for the collection of REMIT inside information data from REMIT platforms (30 Sep 15)

– the BMRS to expose a web feed and

– for this to comply with the requirements for collection by ACER

■ BMRS provides a web feed, but it is not aligned with ACER’s requirements

–ACER specified the web feed must be either Rich Site Summary (RSS) or ATOM

P329: Solution

■ P329 proposes to align the BSC and BMRS with the ACER’s requirements to enable it to collect REMIT inside information data

■ In addition, P329 would enable the submission of outage profile information to BMRS (originally raised under Issue 63)

■ Proposed Modification Solution: as above, plus remove MODIS for REMIT submissions

■ Alternative Modification Solution: as above, but retain MODIS for REMIT submissions

P329: REMIT Data Flow (AS IS)

45

ELEXON Portal

User Interface

Web API

National Grid

User Interface

FTP

Industry Participants

REMIT XML

BMRS

REMIT Info

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

REMIT Info

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

P329: REMIT Data Flow in (Proposed)

46

ELEXON Portal

User Interface

Web API

National Grid

User Interface

FTP


REMIT XML

BMRS

REMIT Info

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

REMIT Info

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

Removed

P329: REMIT Data Flow in (Alternative)

47

ELEXON Portal

User Interface

Web API

National Grid

User Interface

FTP


REMIT XML

BMRS

REMIT Info

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

REMIT Info

REMIT XML

REMIT XML

Impacted by P329

P329: BMRS changes and Data Flow out (Both)

48

Industry

Participants

BMRS REMIT XML

BMRS Website

UI

ACER ATOM

RESTFul API

Data Push Service

TIBCO

Optional

P329: Impacts and costs

■ P329 is expected to impact

–all participants that use BMRS for REMIT

– the Transmission Company (system changes)

– the Balancing Mechanism Reporting Agent (BMRA), which operates the BMRS

–ELEXON to implement the change

■ The central systems implementation costs are ~£72k.

– this will be reassessed and confirmed during implementation

P329: Transmission Company impacts and costs

■ Proposed Modification

–£100k to £200k

–due to need to remove MODIS

■ Alternative Modification

–£600k to £1.1m

–due to the need to update MODIS and provide participant testing and support

–NGET has indicated implementation risk and issues

■ Neither Proposed nor Alternative Modification change the ongoing operating cost of MODIS

P329: Implementation approach

■ The Workgroup recommends an Implementation Date for P329 of 23 February 2017 as part of the February 2017 BSC Systems Release

–ACER’s Start Date (7 July 2016) would be preferable, but February 2017 is the earliest feasible Release for implementation by ELEXON and NGET

–NGET highlighted significant risks associated with the February 2017 date for Alternative Modification

P329: Views against the Applicable BSC Objectives

52

Applicable BSC Objective (b) Proposed Modification Alternative Modification Beneficial (majority) • Participants will be able to make more informed

decisions due to increased transparency Neutral (minority - one)

• No impact

Beneficial (Unanimous) • As per Proposed Modification

Applicable BSC Objective (c)

Proposed Modification Alternative Modification Beneficial (Unanimous) • Increased transparency may enable participants

to make informed decisions, and the new platform could particularly benefit participants with fewer resources

Beneficial (Unanimous) • As per Proposed Modification

P329: Views against the Applicable BSC Objectives

53

Applicable BSC Objective (d)

Proposed Modification Alternative Modification Detrimental (minority) • Due to the existing investment in MODIS by

participants

Beneficial (majority) • Wide use of the platform may mean

participants are better informed and hence balance their positions more effectively

Detrimental (minority - Proposer) • Due to the risks associated with MODIS

Neutral (minority - one) • No impact

Beneficial (majority) • As per Proposed Modification

Applicable BSC Objective (e)

Proposed Modification Alternative Modification Beneficial (unanimous) • The BMRS is the means for delivering the

national platform (P291), therefore any applicable regulations relating to REMIT are relevant

Beneficial (unanimous) • As per Proposed Modification

P329: Workgroup’s final view

Insert: Document title 54

■ The Workgroup’s unanimous view that both Proposed and Alternative are better than the baseline

■ Workgroup’s majority view that the Alternative is better than the Proposed

–Alternative better facilitates (d) as the impact on participants is reduced by retaining MODIS

– therefore recommends that P329 Alternative should be approved

P329: Proposed progression under Self-Governance

55

■ We believe P329 meets Self-Governance criteria as it has no material impact on

–consumers

–competition

– the Transmission System

–BSC governance

■ There will be no impact on Parties beyond what they are already required to implement under the EU REMIT Implementing Regulation

P329: Approved Timetable under Self-Governance

56

Event Date

Issue High Level Requirements to Workgroup 10 Dec 15

Workgroup Meeting 1 (teleconference) 15 Dec 15

Assessment Procedure Consultation (15 WDs) 21 Dec 15 – 13 Jan 16

Workgroup Meeting 2 18 Jan 16

Present Assessment Report to Panel 11 Feb 16

Report Phase Consultation (10 WD) 12 – 26 Feb 16 Present Draft Modification Report to Panel

10 Mar 16

Publish Final Modification Report 11 Mar 16

Appeal Window (15 WD) 11 Mar – 5 Apr 16

P329: Recommendations (1 of 3)

We invite the Panel to

a) AGREE that the P329 Proposed Modification

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (b)

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (c)

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (d) and

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (e)

b) AGREE that the P329 Alternative Modification

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (b)

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (c)

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (d) and

–DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (e)


We invite the Panel to (cont.)

c) AGREE that the P329 Alternative Modification is better than the P329 Proposed Modification;

d) AGREE an initial recommendation that the P329 Alternative Modification should be approved and that the P329 Proposed Modification should be rejected;

e) AGREE an initial Implementation Date for the Proposed Modification of 23 February 2017;

f) AGREE an initial Implementation Date for the Alternative Modification of 23 February 2017


We invite the Panel to (cont.)

g) AGREE the draft legal text for the Proposed Modification;

h) AGREE the draft legal text for the Alternative Modification;

i) AGREE that P329 is submitted to the Report Phase; and

j) NOTE that ELEXON will issue the P329 draft Modification Report (including the draft BSC legal text) for a 10 Working Day consultation and will present the results to the Panel at its meeting on 10 March 2016

Minutes of Meetings 248 and

Actions arising

11 February 2016 Victoria Moxham

Chairman’s Report

11 February 2016 Michael Gibbons

ELEXON Report

11 February 2016 Mark Bygraves

249/01

Distribution Report

11 February 2016 David Lane

National Grid Report

11 February 2016 Alex Haffner

Ofgem Report

11 February 2016 Rory Edwards

Reports from the ISG, SVG, PAB,TDC

and SRAG

11 February 2016

249/01a-e

Trading Operations: BSC

Operations Headline Report

11 February 2016

249/02

System Price Analysis Report

11 February 2016

249/03

Change Report

11 February 2016

249/04

Approval of BSCCo Business Strategy

2016/17

11 February 2016

249/11

Mark Bygraves

The BSC Panel Report from the

SRAG

11 February 2016

249/13

Kevin Spencer

SRAG Conclusions

Panel 249 72

The SRAG recommends a simplified end-to-end elective HH Settlement process for smart metered customers that includes:

■ Improved data transfer processes for smart meter data from Suppliers to their Agents

■ Removal of processes (such as proving and protocol testing) which are not necessary for smart meters

■ Reduced validation requirements for smart meter data and data estimation processes where initial, or replacement data, is required for Settlement; and

■ Changes to address potential inaccuracies in the precision used in data flows that contain HH data.

SRAG Recommendations (1)

Panel 249 73

■ BSC Changes

It is proposed that two Change Proposals (CPs) are raised in early 2016 for implementation as soon as practicable in 2016/early 2017:

■ A Change Proposal affecting BSCP502 ‘Half - Hourly Data Collection For SVA Metering Systems Registered in SMRS’ (BSCP502)‘– to define new processes and requirements for data validation and data estimation

■ A Change Proposal affecting BSCP601 ‘Metering Protocol Approval and Compliance Testing’ – to indicate that this BSCP is not applicable to Smart Metering Equipment Technical Specifications SMETS 1 and 2 smart Meters.

SRAG Recommendations (2)

Panel 249 74

Related Changes

A number of associated changes to Master Registration Agreement (MRA) Data Transfer Catalogue (DTC) flows will be required to support the improved end-to-end elective HH Settlement process (including increased data precision):

■ MRA Changes to data flows (D0010, D0003, D0275, D0012) to allow the Supplier to send these flows to other Parties

■ Changes to data flow items (J0177, J0021 and J0281) and HH Agent Systems – to allow HH metered values to be declared to the nearest Watt hour (Wh) (i.e. to three decimal places)

These changes will require sponsorship under the MRA. ELEXON, working under the Code Administration Code of Practice, will seek to promote these changes and work with the relevant Code Administrators. SRAG members who are parties to the MRA will also promote these changes.

SRAG Recommendations: Embedded Generation

Panel 249 75

Conclusions

■ The SRAG recognises that spill from embedded generation is currently an issue for Suppliers and for the accuracy of Settlement. It supports ELEXON's view that that export from embedded generation should be metered and settled.

Recommendations: BSC Changes

■ The SRAG recommends that a BSC Party raises a BSC Modification to create new Consumption Component Classes (CCCs) for Aggregated HH Export. This will allow aggregated HH export data to enter Settlement for smaller customers (that are in Measurement Class F ‘Domestic HH Current Transformer (CT) and whole current (WC) Metering Systems’ or Measurement Class G ‘non-domestic HH WC metered Metering Systems’). This change will provide for the interaction of the improved HH settlement processes recommended above and the implementation of new Measurement Classes with Modification P300 in November

SRAG Recommendations: Further Work

Panel 249 76

■ The SRAG proposes that ELEXON conducts a review of the application of Grid Supply Point Group Correction Factors (GSPGCFs) to HH consumption values. This is to investigate, identify and seek to remove any perverse barriers to elective HH Settlement that maybe caused by embedded generation on GSPGCF

■ The SRAG recommends work is conducted on the smart Change of Measurement Class process

■ Work Area 4 should be progressed by Ofgem in its work on HH Settlement

■ The SRAG should be stood down.

SRAG Recommendations: Other considerations

Panel 249 77

Transmission Use of System and Distribution Use of System charging methodologies

■ The SRAG has recommended that both National Grid and Distribution Businesses look at any related adjustments to Transmission Use of System (TNUoS) and Distribution Use of System (DUoS) charging methodologies. This is in light of the potential increase in the number of customers being settled HH and the impact this may have on the current methodologies for setting charges for NHH and HH customers. The recommendation also takes into account the long lead in periods normally applied before changes can be implemented to Network charges

Interactions with Europe

■ Finally, the SRAG recommends that consideration must also be given to any interaction with the review of the Imbalance Settlement Period (ISP) by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and this has been highlighted in the report and flagged to Ofgem/DECC.

Panel Recommendations

Panel 249 78

We invite you to: a) NOTE the report and recommendations of the SRAG

b) NOTE that ELEXON will raise the required Change Proposals and MRA DTC changes once the SRAG report has been considered by the BSC Panel

c) NOTE that a BSC Party will need to raise a BSC Modification to create new Consumption Component Classes (CCCs) for Aggregated HH Export and that ELEXON will seek a sponsor for the BSC Modification

d) NOTE that ELEXON will support BSC Parties on the new elective HH settlement processes and will develop associated guidance and communication in line with the proposed changes;

e) NOTE that ELEXON will undertake a review of the application of Grid Supply Point Group Correction Factors (GSPGCFs) to HH consumption values when the BSC Modification is raised NOTE that ELEXON will consider the impacts of the new elective HH settlement process on CoMC/CoT processes and CoP10 following the assessment/implementation of the above changes in 2016/17

f) AGREE that the SRAG be stood down.

Proposed Changes to the CAP process

11 February 2016

249/14

Thomas Routier

Credit Committee meeting 25

80

■ The Credit Assessment Price (CAP) is set at £42/MWh since 24 December 2015

■ The CAP reference price breached the lower Trigger level of £38/MWh on 29 December 2015

■ Parties were consulted on changing the current CAP value to £37/MWh and whether the current Trigger Level (+/- £4/MWh) was appropriate

■ We received two responses, representing nine BSC Parties

■ The Credit Committee met on Tuesday 12 January 2016

The Credit Committee decisions

81

■ Decreased the CAP value from £42/MWh to £38/MWh

■ Keep the CAP Trigger Level at current value of +/- £4/MWh

■ Agreed to implement those values on Tuesday 9 February 2016

Ad Hoc CC meeting 26 - Review of the CAP setting process

82

■ The Credit Committee met on 2 February to review options to improve the CAP review process

■ The CC agreed on changes to send out to industry for consultation

■ These are the changes to the process proposed by the Credit Committee in the consultation:

– Changing the products used to calculate the reference price

– Reducing and moving forward the ‘Reference period’

– Shortening the notice period for implementing a new CAP value

Ad Hoc CC meeting 26 - Review of the CAP setting process

83

■ Products used to calculate the reference price

– the Credit Committee suggested changing the prices used in the calculation from average baseload + peak prices to solely peak prices

■ Reference period

– The Credit Committee recommend changing the current Reference Quarter to account for closer to date data with the next two months

■ Notice period for implementing a new CAP value

– The Credit Committee recommended shortened the period from 20 to 15 Working Days after the notification of a decision

– Would require a Modification to be raised to change BSC Section M1.4.2 b)

Next step…

84

■ With your approval, ELEXON will publish the Consultation document and proforma seeking industry’s views on the proposed changes

■ At the beginning of March, the Credit Committee will meet and will formulate its final recommendations for decision at the next Panel meeting, on 10 March 2016.

Recommendations


a) NOTE the decisions taken by the Credit Committee at its meeting on 12 January 2016;

b) AGREE that ELEXON perform a consultation on the proposed options on behalf of the Credit Committee; and

c) NOTE that the Credit Committee will review the result of the consultation and make recommendations to the Panel at its meeting on 10 March 2016.

BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme:

Update

11 February 2016

249/10

Victoria Moxham

Review of the BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme

87

■ Document sets out:

–Updates on work undertaken in Q3 (October – December)

–Key milestones and amendments to work streams in Q4 (January - March)

–Some revisions to scheduled work programme (largely to reflect the changes in the December panel paper on delivering strategic activities)

■ Next Review: late April 2016

–Panel to approve any amendments arising from this six-month review in May 2016

PRIORITY 1: Delivery of Core BSC Services

Mod process and doc architecture reviews combined and timescales amended

On hold – timetable amended to reflect this

Nov implementation added

NEW Publication date of findings report added

Actions following lessons learnt added

Timetable amended

PRIORITY 2: Addressing Known Settlement Issues

Revised mod timetable Timetable amended

PRIORITY 3: Efficient Working Practice and Committee Communication

Workstream deferred Review extended Replaces BSC Systems and processes re-design

PRIORITY 4: Addressing Evolving Settlement Risks

Amended to reflect revised timetable for review of Assurance framework for Smart

Moved to accommodate revised timetable for doc architecture review

PRIORITY 5: Future Settlement Design and Development - Drivers for Change

Date added

Date added

NEW - Locational Transmission Losses mod

NEW

PRIORITY 6: Other Considerations

93

Timescale revised to reflect extension of Assessment Phase

Recommendations

94

The BSC Panel is invited to:

a) NOTE the amendments to the Strategic Work Programme; and

b) NOTE that the revised Strategic Work Programme will be published on the ELEXON website following the February Panel meeting

Review of BSC Credit Modifications

11 February 2016

249/15

Elliot Hall

Review of BSC Credit Modifications

Review of BSC Credit Modifications 96

■ ELEXON has undertaken a post-implementation review of Credit Modifications

–Requested by the Panel

–To assess benefits realisation

–Detailed findings were presented at January ISG meeting

■ 14 November 2014 implementation

–P306 ‘Expanding the definition of a ‘Letter of Credit’ to include regulated insurance companies’

■ 25 June 2015 implementation

–P307 ‘Amendments to Credit Default arrangements’

–P310 ‘Revised Credit Cover for Exporting Supplier BM Units’

Summary of Findings

Review of BSC Credit Modifications 97

£5.2m

£7.6m

£6.9m

P310 credit

Credit Withdrawn

Potential Withdrawal

Remaining Credit

■ P306

–Approved Insurance Products not yet utilised by BSC Parties

–Mod has allowed two LoC to be accepted

■ P307

–Analysis spanned 25 June 2015 to 7 January 2016

–28 ‘Level 1’ default notices to 20 individual Parties

–Mod saved two BSC Parties from ‘Level 2’ Credit Default

■ P310

–Analysis spanned 25 June 2015 to 31 December 2015

–11 BSC Parties affected, two withdrew £5.2m credit

–Five BSC Parties could withdraw up to £7.6m

■ ELEXON will bring further update in the summer

Recommendations

We invite the Panel to

a) NOTE the update given on the impact of Modification P306;

b) NOTE ELEXON’s plan to complete a further review of Modifications P307 and P310 in July 2016; and

c) PROVIDE comments on the analysis to ELEXON.

Next Meeting: 10 March 2016

bsc panel 224 - elexon · 2018. 4. 23. · of their activities directly accountable to pab/elexon....

Documents