Mod 0273: 3 rd Development Group Workshop 4 th March 2010.
-
Upload
belinda-lang -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of Mod 0273: 3 rd Development Group Workshop 4 th March 2010.
Contents
1. Answers to 1st Workshop Questions
Number of large Projects
Capacity Application/Connection Timeline
2. Overview of Shipper and GT issues identified at 1st Workshop
3. Possible solutions to issues identified
4. Appendix A – Issues Summary
More information on CUSC process
Number of large projects
3/4 power stations in Gas
Similar number of power stations in Electricity
20~ other large electricity projects (tbc)
How does gas connection process fit in with associated capacity request?
Conc. Design Detailed Design
Gas Year +1 Gas Year +2 Gas Year +3 Gas Year +4Annual Window
(July)
For a new Exit Connection, Shippers / Developers should approach National Grid’s Customer Services Team as early as possible to discuss the capacity & connection process
Initial Discussion
NTS License Amendment
NTS Re-enforcement (if necessary)
SiteworksFeasibility Study
Agree & Sign NExA
Cap
acit
yN
ew
Co
nn
ecti
on
NE
xA
NTS Exit (Flat) Capacity Request
(For Capacity from Gas Year +4)
Summary of Key Issues Identified
CustomerEnquiry
Agree studyrequirements
and obtaindata required
ContractsAgreed
NGCommencestudy andengage
contractorsrequired
Studychallenged
andreviewed
Reportissued toCustomer
Key
Customer Network Design
Contractor Customer Services
Contractorsundertake
Study
Lack of process transparency
Unknown timescales & costs at outset
Difficulties in understanding requirements /agreeing study scope
Elongated contractual negotiation
Poor communication
Difficulties in providing information
No set timescales
Process – Possible Solutions
Potential Solution Advantages Disadvantages
Develop template to ensure all required info is provided up front
Able to implement relatively quickly
Will reduce admin timescales & enable projects to be agreed & start ASAP
May reduce flexibility of transporters to begin project with minimal data and build up info as project progresses
Customers may need time to populate, especially if info is required from elsewhere or it may be seen as bureaucratic if unnecessary info is requested
Standard contractual terms
Able to implement relatively quickly
Will reduce admin timescales & enable projects to start ASAP/once scope of study is agreed
Does not provide contractual flexibility Delays may still occur in signing
contract and have a knock on effect to study start times
Customer Enquiry Form
A Standard Form has now been developed for new connections (see form)
A Form for Modification requests is under development
Standard Contractual Terms
NG already have standard T&Cs but a review is underway to assess whether they are fit for purpose/could be enhanced (Design & Build Agreement first, then Feasibility Agreement)
Would an industry consultation be advantageous?
Communication – Possible Solutions
Potential Solution Advantages Disadvantages
Create standard project communications documents
Formalised Comms. Process will report regular progress, next steps & risks / issues (on monthly basis)
Could be applicable to all ongoing projects irrelevant of size
Additional admin work for both parties
Does not capture (future) work not yet progressed/discussed
Increased Cost Increased red tape Potential delays to study process
Develop & agree a high-level project plan to highlight key milestones
Visibility of important milestones
Manages customer expectations & allows customer to plan activities accordingly
Planned timescales may be subject to change
Provision of key contact information
Will enable right people to talk to each other direct and reduce hand time taken to obtain information, etc.
Include key Engineer & Commercial contacts within new modification enquiry form (see previous slide)
A high-level project plan template is under development
Timing – Possible Solutions (1)
Potential Solution Advantages Disadvantages
Review NTS website to ensure new connection & modification processes timescales are transparent and meet customer requirements
Able to implement relatively quickly Low cost Aid visibility of end-to-end process
(inc feasibility) Manage customer expectations of
overall process duration
Unlikely to directly ‘speed up’ process
Case studies may not cover every scenario
Improve case studies both on-line and within Charging Methodology Statement
Review of connection information on National Grid website
Website Improvements are due to be implemented this summer
Review of Gas Connection Charging & Methodology Statement
See further examples – Do they aid understanding of timescales / likely costs?
Development of Feasibility Study Cost / Timescale Matrix
Combined with the above example, does this provide enough indicative information?
Timing – Possible Solutions (2)
Potential Solution Advantages Disadvantages
Introduce ‘no longer than’ timescale for all feasibility studies
Provides users with confidence in timescales
Allows ‘worst case’ date to be utilised in user planning process
Longer term solution – how would it be introduced (licence change)?
Blanket ‘worst case’ date may not be suitable for all types of study
Does not focus on root cause of issue (time spent to agree scope/costs, etc.)
May increase cost of survey if required timescales are shorter than current times
Defining appropriate fixed timescales up front may be difficult given complexity of requests
Introduce ‘fixed’ timescales for feasibility studies
Fixed timescales?
When would clock start??
Costs – Possible Solutions
Potential Solution Advantages Disadvantages
Develop on-line ‘decision tree’ & develop time/cost matrix to support
Able to implement in medium term
Medium cost Will provide a more accurate
indication of cost & timescale to users
May prove difficult to capture all eventualities / variety of projects
If not robust may cause customer challenges
Develop fixed prices Published fixed prices will manage customer expectations/reduce challenges (take it or leave it?)
May prove difficult to price up all possible projects
Current process requires obtaining price from external contractors
May frequently change due to market prices
Some Customers may still want indicative prices (possible refund) and any effort spent in developing fixed prices will have been wasted
See timing solution slide 1 (improved indicative price information/examples)
Fixed Prices?
Very rarely chosen in Electricity!
Summary of Possible Solutions
CustomerEnquiry
Agree studyrequirements
and obtaindata required
ContractsAgreed
NGCommencestudy andengage
contractorsrequired
Studychallenged
andreviewed
Reportissued toCustomer
Key
Customer Network Design
Contractor Customer Services
Contractorsundertake
Study
Enhance process information to provide greater clarity / transparency
Streamline process - templates
Provide enhanced indicative timescales & costs
Revised terms and conditions
Set timescales ? – costs and benefits
Process - Issues
User Transporters
No standardisation across Transporters. No standard documentation / T&Cs / applic. process. Number and nature of studies required unknown until
well into the process and can change as project develops within Transporter.
Lack of process transparency. No guarantee of non-discrimination in treatment by
Transporter – e.g. how can we be certain that Transporter not prioritising all the “easier” requests?
Unclear definitions of types of study – e.g. what is the difference between “feasibility study” and “pre-feasibility study”?
Transporters not always clear what info they want from Shippers and is what they ask for always relevant / necessary?
Number of gas enquiries is small compared to electricity
Some enquiries are speculative in nature Scope creep is sometimes a problem Customers don’t always know what they
want! Customers often experience difficulties in
providing the information requested, especially if it needs to be provided by their equipment suppliers
Difficulties in agreeing Contractual terms (between Customer and NG)
By offering flexibility and offering new products (e.g. pre-feasibility) definitions have been diluted
Communication - Issues
User Transporters
Relies on individuals within Transporter to progress request, rather than established process.
May require Shippers to do lots of chasing to obtain updates on progress.
No visibility of upcoming work (types, number, nature and frequency) - receiving a number of enquiries in a relatively short period can cause workload planning difficulties
Costs - Issues
User Transporters
Unknown at outset.
True costs often not known until well into the application process and can differ substantially from initial estimate (where provided)
No idea whether costs are currently “cost-reflective” and Shippers in a poor position to challenge them
Breakdown of costs – not always clear what we are actually paying
Rough costs are provided upon initial application
Refined costs are provided upon agreement of scope
Complexity of exit connections/modifications and associated differences in scope make it difficult to define exact costs upfront
License states that Transporters can charge users in respect of the cost incurred
Timing - Issues
User Transporters
Open-ended process – no established time limits.
Unable to initially gauge how long Transporter will take to deal with request(s).
No obligation on Transporter to respond by any set date(s).
Indicative timescales are provided and contracts include end dates for scheduled completion of works
Complexity of exit connections/ modifications and associated differences in scope make it difficult to define exact timescales upfront