Thank you for joining the Open Networks Advisory Group meeting.

• If you are unable to play the audio through your device, you can dial in by calling 020-3478-5289and using access code 321 650 251

• Please ensure that your microphone is switched to ‘mute’ to avoid background noise, and that your camera is not in use.

• You may ask questions or make comments via the chat function throughout the meeting. We will address as many of these as possible during the presentation, and publish our formal response shortly after the meeting.

• We have a scheduled 10 minute break at 11:00am.

• If you would like to receive information about the Open Networks Project or have any feedback you would like to submit, please get in touch with us at opennetworks@energynetworks.org.

1

The Advisory Group is essential to our project to:

▪ Ensure stakeholders are aware and taking the Project into account;

▪ Request input from stakeholders to improve the quality of our products;

▪ Increase awareness about project risks & issues, ask for views on risks & issues and collaboratively resolve where appropriate.

We will provide input to:

▪ Steering Group on project scope, progress, risks & issues;

▪ Workstreams with deliverable comments/feedback.

We will seek to send information in advance of meetings to ensure that views can be sought by trade associations in advance. Our objective is to encourage open feedback from you all across all of our work.

Thank you for the continued input.

2

Advisory Group ToR Reminder

3

Running Order of the Day

Summary of Breakout Sessions:

Upcoming Flexibility ConsultationObjective: Seek feedback on some feedback on how stakeholders would like to respond to the consultation paper

Workstream 1A Product 4: Commercial Arrangements Objective: Provide an update and seek input on possible solutions for addressing indemnities and liabilities.

Workstream 1B, Product 2 (Whole System FES - Coordination of National and Regional FES)

Objective: Seek feedback on potential areas for standardisation of DFES

Workstream 1B, Product 5 (Whole System FES - Signposting of Potential Network Capacity Requirements)

Objective: Provide an update and seek input on potential benefits of options for standardising evaluation and signposting of network capacity.

Energy

Networks

Association

Open Networks Progress Update

Jason Brogden (ENA)

5

Progress update –Recent publications & upcoming work

Workplan consultation & updated 2020 PID

May 20

Standard Contract for Flexibility & Stakeholder

Review

(WS1A P4)

Jun 20

DSO Implementation Plan & Potential CoI & UC

Register

(WS3 P1 & P2)

Jun 20

Queue Management Consultation

(WS2 P2)

Apr 20

Other publications

WS1A P2: Existing Approach to Procurement(Mar 20)2019 WS1A P3: Good Practice for Dispatch and Settlement(Mar20)2019 WS1A P5: Final Report - DSO Services: Conflict Management & Co-optimisation(Apr 20)WS1B P5: Interim Report: Signposting of Potential Network Capacity Requirements(May 20)WS4 P1: Phase 1 Report - Whole System CBA (Apr 20)WS4 P3: Phase 1 Report - Whole System FES – Gas input into Whole System FES (Apr 20)WS4 P5: Coordinated Gathering Regional Data Report (Jun 20)WS4 P6 : Current network resource data report (Jun 20)

Coming up in Q3

•Flexibility Consultation on all 2020 work in WS1A (end of Jul – end of Sep)

•Scoping Report for D FES Standardisation (Jul)

•SWRR Phase 2 Implementation (Jul/Aug)

•Community Energy Forum (TBC)

•Update to CoI and UC register (Aug)

•Data sharing process for gas input to Whole System FES (Aug)

6

EventsComing UpThe Open Networks Project is committed to stakeholder engagement for all its work, and regularly hold events, webinars, and roundtables to support its work. Find some of our upcoming events below or visit our events page.

In consultation with Workstream 5, Open Networks has made the decision to hold all meetings for the rest of 2020 remotely, either by video or conference call.

Open Networks Events• DSO Implementation Plan Webinar: 16 July, 15:00 – 16:00, register to attend here• Applications Interactivity Webinar: 20 July, 13:30 – 15:00, register to attend here• Community Energy Forum 1: Date TBC – late July / Early August• Flexibility Consultation Webinar 1: 26 August, 14:00 – 15:00, register to attend here• Flexibility Consultation Webinar 2: 9 September, 14:00 – 15:00, register to attend here

We are currently planning to hold 3 community energy forums in 2020. While we are still confirming the dates of all three, the first will fall during the Flexibility Consultation

period. We will bring details of all forums to the Advisory Group.

ENA Innovation Events• Energy Innovation Forum #6: 24 June, 09:00 – 12:00, register to attend here

o Sharing information and learnings on the recently released Innovation Strategies• DWG Webinar: TBC – beginning of July

o More information and registration details will be circulated ahead of the event

Energy

Networks

Association

WS3 P1: DSO Implementation Plan

Steve Atkins (SSEN)

8

DSO Implementation Plan - Introduction

The DSO Implementation Plan is a key project deliverable that sets out a clear pathway to the implementation of distribution system operation and will be a key input to RIIO2 business planning processes.

This provides a consolidated view of outcomes from ONP and industry to progress the transition and provides greater visibility of implementation progress.

This provides insights into actions implemented to date as well as anticipated windows for future implementation.

It serves as a tool to report progress and identify any barriers and gaps in delivering DSO functionality.

The plan represents a snapshot in time as at June 2020 with a plan for an update in Q1 2020.

Interactive Roadmap

Report

Outputs

Demonstration video

The link for the roadmap, report, and video will be updated closer to the AG date when they become available.

Webinar: 16th July 2020, 3-4pm – Register to attend here

Energy

Networks

Association

WS3 P2: Conflict of Interests and Unintended Consequences Register

Fiona Navesey (ENA ONP)

10

Conflict of Interest & UC Tracker - June Update

Conflicts of Interest and Unintended Consequences

Tracker updates drawn from stakeholder feedback, directly or through other consultation documents, and from relevant industry projects.

Update Tracker, Publish and Facilitate Stakeholder Input Cycle

Mitigation Routes

Considered

Revised CoI & UC Tracker

ON-P Advisory Group

Feedback

ON-P 2020 PID Consultation Responses

Latest Workstream

Progress

Latest Industry Progress

Collate & Review

Publish Updated Tracker

June

Discuss Routes with Projects

Mitigation Progress: ON-P and Industry

Conflicts of Interest and Unintended Consequences11

Main changes since November 2019 release

Change Headlines:

• Section D - System Security

• D9: Reduced system security due to uncoordinated or untested approaches to new markets.

• D10: DNO/TO receives an unplanned benefit from a Peer to Peer trade (because it inadvertently mitigates a different network issue for which the Peer to Peer parties are not rewarded)

• Section E - Distributional Customer Impacts:

• D5: Lack of incentives for innovation in commercial solutions, potentially preventing smaller Market Actors from adopting a more innovative delivery approach or flexibility coming to market

Change Sources:

• Input based on the 2019 Market Rules Simulations 'War Games' (developed by TRANSITION and LEO projects)

• Stakeholder comments and feedback captured from the Open Networks Project 2020 PID responses

Total1. Open - Not

addressed

2. Open -Acknowledged by risk owner

3. Closed -Mitigation

solution started

4. Closed -Mitigation

solution deployed

Conflicts of Interest 9 1 3 4 1

Unintended consequences 32 8 12 11 1

12

Next Steps: Optimising the CoI & UC Risk Log

Conflicts of Interest and Unintended Consequences

A material update in August 2020 – subject to stakeholder feedback. To include improvements to “signposting”, accessibility and reporting for stakeholders & action owners; plus alignment with the DSO Implementation Plan.

Change suggestions for consideration…

• Include an overarching Dashboard / Heatmap with a more visual approach to signal overall risk status and / or signpost where to review

• Include a ‘Status Change’ column to flag when there has been a change between updates

• Improve Scorecard to highlight risk movements between updates

• Highlight risks requiring further stakeholder or risk owner input

• Engage risk owners more frequently and improve update process

• Align with the DSO Implementation plan – ensure they complement each other and use same language

The Risk Log is rich in detailed information but…

• No overarching summary making it difficult to assess overall position and / or review progress quickly

• No reporting options - not always obvious what has changed and / or why

• Engagement by owners, stakeholders, workstreams could be improved

13

Feedback Needed

Conflicts of Interest and Unintended Consequences

Ahead of committing to any approach, we want to capture your views:

1. Is the content about right - does the approach adequately address the perceived gaps identified during the PID consultation?

2. Improving risk engagement and reporting – will these proposals make engagement easier and more efficient for both stakeholders and risk-owners? Other suggestions?

3. DSO Implementation Plan interactions - is there a need to look at CoI and UC with the transition timeline in mind? Does such a phased approach aid resolution or create an unnecessary layer of detail?

4. Optimising the information - any other suggestions for improving stakeholder and risk-owner interaction?

You can answer these questions in the chat box or through our online survey form here.

A link to these questions will also be emailed to you following the conclusion of this meeting

Energy

Networks

Association

2019 WS1A P5: ANM vs Flexibility Stackability

Ben Godfrey (WPD)

15

Outputs of ON2019 WS1A P5ON2019 WS1A P5 focused on the conflict management and co-optimisation of flexibility services within the whole electricity system. This covered the interactions between network constraints and service accommodation across transmission, distribution and iDNOnetworks.

OutputsThere were three key reports published:• Conflict Management and Co-Optimisation Framework

This identified a process for identifying conflicts between network constraints and service accommodation and the informationrequired to do so. Additionally, potential mitigations were outlined to be taken forward through real-life examples of conflict as this becomes apparent on the system.

• Stackability of DSO ServicesReview of the compatibility between DSO and other services likely to form part of the revenue streams for a flexibility asset. The review included the stackability of different revenue streams within the same half-hour and also in adjacent half-hours/periods.

• The stackability of ANM and FlexibilityExplanation of the typical implementation of ANM versus Flexibility –highlighting differences in approaches and usage. Examination of current likelihood of ANM users solving issues where flexibility is sought. Proposals for resolving conflict potential.

Interaction between ANM and DSO Flexibility Services

16

ANM and Flexibility

There is a substantial difference in coverage and scale of ANM vs Flexibility Services currently.

DNO Flexible Connections ANM/Flexible Connections (MW)

Industry Total - End of 2018 2517.8

Industry Total - End of 2019 3169.6

DNO Flexibility Services MW Contracted

Industry Total - End of 2018 61.8Industry Total - End of 2019 157.4

17

ANM and Flexibility

ANM has the following characteristics:• Real time operation• Embodied in the connection agreement• ANM connection option is chosen by customer when seeking

a new or modified connecting, but subsequent curtailment is mandatory

• Requires ANM equipment physically on site to manage the connection

• Dispatch of curtailment is controlled end to end by DNO systems

• Forms an enduring requirement• Limits distribution network access• Used where the user is responsible for costs• Uncompensated for activation• Reduces up front connection charges• Curtailment shared by a deterministic approach (Last in, first

out; proportional)• Operation of existing connections unaffected

Flexibility Services have the following characteristics:• Forms a distinct commercial agreement• Participation is voluntary and compensated• Used where the network is responsible for costs• Services are contracted for a set period of time• Contract can be terminated subject to the terms and

conditions• No inherent requirement for physical equipment to manage

the connection• Dispatch can be through intermediary platforms• Services can be scheduled ahead of time or dispatched in real

time • Network access is not affected, but there may be commercial

penalties for not following an agreed load profile• Connection agreement, and associated connection costs still

required• Open for any existing user to participate

18

ANM and Flexibility

Crucially, as the curtailment of ANM connections is forecasted, service procurers should be able to take a view on when ANM i s likely to conflict when providing Flexibility Services.

There is no inherent reason why ANM users cannot provide, or be compensated for providing Flexibility Services.

For DSO Flexibility Services, the standard terms developed by Open Networks have no exclusivity clauses pertaining to ANM connections.

19

Previous Work

User InformationUser assets managed by ANM systems will be provided sufficient information on ANM Constraint Information, as per ON2018 WS2 P7.When procuring Flexibility or Balancing Services, the flexibility providers will be given sufficient information to understand potential service windows and will have to warranty that their connection agreement does not prohibit provision of services within those service windows.ProcurementFlexibility Services will be procured in line with recommendations of ON2019 WS1A P2 – DER with non-firm connection arrangements will be assessed to understand the probability of curtailment during the service window.Conflict ManagementProcesses for identifying potential conflict of services and accompanying mitigations for resolving the conflict have been developed under ON2019 WS1A P5 Conflict Management & Co-optimisation.

Development through Open Networks

Potential Future Work

Non-DSO Services Data and information to enable non-DSO platforms to undertake these functions

Standardisation of ANM to Flexibility Services• Termination of existing ANM connection and re-application for a

new connection with associated costs• Continuation of existing ANM terms and conditions• Procurement of flexibility to provide short-term firmness of

network access rights; either• through interaction with the DNO; or• trading with peer to peer markets

• Longer term conversion to an unconstrained connection through the DNO using flexibility (associated costs apportioned)

Energy

Networks

Association

Gas Goes Green

Thom Koller (ENA)

© ENA 2020

Introduction to Gas Goes Green

2 July 2020

Thom Koller

DEL IVERING THE PATHWAY TO NET ZERO

© ENA 2020

The Gas Goes Green programme will deliver the world’s first zero carbon gas grid, helping meet the UK’s net zero carbon emissions target.

It will make the changes needed to move Britain's gas network infrastructure from delivering methane-based natural gas to zero carbon hydrogen and biomethane.

Delivering the pathway to net zero

© ENA 2020

Pathway to net zero

D E L I V ER ING TH E P A TH WA Y TO N E T Z E R O

© ENA 2020

The 2019 ‘Pathways to Net Zero’ report identified fifteen low-regret actions that gas network operators should take in order to enable progress on the pathway to net zero.

The Gas Goes Green scope of work has been allocated across six workstreams, each of which supports the net zero drive.

How we formed the programme

WS1. Investing in net zero

WS2. Gas quality and safety

WS3. Consumer options

WS4. System enhancement

WS5. Hydrogen transformation

WS6. Communications

and stakeholder engagement

Workstream 1Investment in Net

Zero

Workstream 3Consumer options

Workstream 5Hydrogen

Delivering your Net Zero energy networks

‣Products aligned and divided between projects

‣Cross-over member representation

‣Joint Positions on achieving Net Zero

Advisory

GroupCross-vector

membership

ModernisingEnergy

Data: Data Working Group

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 11 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0

01010

01

Workstream 4Whole Energy

Systems

Advisory

GroupCross-vector

Membership

0101010

0

Open Networks

Project

© ENA 2020© ENA 2020

2020 deliverables

WS1. Investing in

net zero

WS2. Gas quality

and safety

WS3. Consumer

options

WS4. System

enhancement

WS5. Hydrogen

transformation

WS6.

Communications and stakeholder

engagement

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WS1.1 - Carbon commitment

WS1.2 – IMRRP emissions sav ing

WS1.3 – Dev eloping the pathway to net zero

WS2.1 – Strengthen case for GS(M)R amendment

WS2.2 – Grid-scale trials of gas separation

WS3.1 – Hydrogen production, storage and carbon capture geological studies

WS3.2 - Production, Storage and Carbon Capture

Locational and Capacity Requirements

WS3.3 – Future of gas in transport

WS4.1 – Entry connection standardisation

WS4.2 – Grid capacity optioneering

WS4.3 – Assessing network fugitiv e emissions

WS5.1 – Hydrogen transformation plan

WS5.2 – Hydrogen collaboration

and dissemination

WS6.1 – A whole systems approach to heat decarbonisation

Support Gas Goes Green deliv erables and communicate gas network projects

WS3.4 – Heating system

demonstrations

WS1.4 – Local, regional and national pathways studies

© ENA 2020

D E L I V ER ING TH E P A TH WA Y TO N E T Z E R O

New Gas Goes Green publications

• Planned investment worth £900m in decarbonising gas networks by 2026

• Sets out achievable cost reduction projections for hydrogen

Hydrogen: Cost to

customer

© ENA 2020

Thank you

Thom Koller

Thomas.Koller@energynetworks.org

Register your interest in Project updates

GasGoesGreen@energynetworks.org

Energy

Networks

Association

Open Networks Project 2020 Flexibility Consultation Framework

Jason Brogden (ENA)

30

Placeholder – for slides after they have been amended by Jason

Energy

Networks

Association

BreakWe will resume the session at 11:10am

Energy

Networks

Association

WS1A P4: Commercial ArrangementsIndemnities and Liabilities Update

Alex Howison (SSEN)

33

Company Primary Representative

SSEN-D

Alex Howison – Product Lead Gemma Lampert

NG (SO) Andrew Rice

NIEN Andy Smith

NPG Andrew McKenna

SPEN-D Wendy Mantle

ENWL Lois Clark

UKPN

Stathis Mokka, Helen Hassan & Rebecca Slattery

WPD Helen Sawdon

WS1 P4 Members in 2020

ON WS1A P4 – Liabilities & Indemnities update

Agenda

Problem Statement

Stakeholder Feedback

DNO feedback

Further discussion points

Possible Solutions

Actions & Summary

34

ON WS1A P4 – Customer Feedback examples

‘Contractual responsibilities should be proportionate to

contract values’ to give a more level playing field for smaller providers.’ At the same time

stakeholders acknowledged that this may facilitate free-riding. A

wider point was made in order to facilitate the parties to undertake risk in a proportionate manner to

their size

There are a lot of small flex providers coming through, how can you make these (clauses) more palatable for

them, as the threat of penalties can quickly make their business cases fall through. If the DSO is best placed to

manage that risk, then why pass it onto the DER/flex provider?

If terms were standardised – could

a potential 3rd provider step in as

an insurance provider?

35

ON WS1A P4 – Indemnities & Liabilities - Problem

The P4 Team and WS1A members held a discussion with BEIS and Ofgem in June following significant difficulty in identifying a single solution to the liability, indemnity and insurance problems, outlined below;

• Feedback from stakeholders has often been conflicting, with both capped and contract value tracked values being suggested

• Reducing liabilities and indemnities increases DNO risk significantly, especially where lack of service provision could result in outages, asset damage or need for accelerated reinforcement to meet demand

• In a more mature market where DER saturation is higher, these risks reduce as alternative providers are readily available without significant cost increases, but in this evolving market DNO risk remains high

• Conflict between ability of larger providers to easily meet higher indemnities, liabilities and insurances and smaller providers who are unable to field larger policies

• Additional conflict between the insurances/liabilities within initial procurement steps (EOI/ITT often £5m) and following contracted values (capped to contract/set cap examples)

• P4 focused on contract value cap for Version 1, however one DNO opted out in favor of fixed cap based on direct feedback and company preference

36

ON WS1A P4 –Feedback/Concerns

• Single capped liability does not consider the differences in risk between a single small participant and a large aggregator running multiple assets

• Contract value capping does not consider providers working under a single contract across multiple years and/or multiple CMZs

• Discourages longer term contracts (higher contract values = higher liabilities)

• Ability to agree a ‘contract value’ in fault response services (Dynamic/Restore) where these costs cannot be estimated with any confidence ahead of faults

• Implementing could mean increasing liabilities for existing participants

• While stakeholder feedback would suggest support for DNO’s absorbing these costs/higher risks, with the recovery of costs through regulatory incentives, or 3rd party funds supporting these providers there is an apparent risk of distorting competition

• By implementing caps to insurance and liabilities could enable larger organisations to manipulate services, open the markets to ‘gaming’ and result in the socialisation of costs which larger organisations are in a better position to absorb

37

ON WS1A P4 – Possible solutions

• Retention of the contract value capped approach

• Adoption of the single cap approach in use already (ESO/WPD)

• An annual cap on liability, based on the charges from the past year, with a minimum to apply in the first contract year / where volume falls below a minimum threshold, which can be assessed at outset based on anticipated volume

• Incentive or recoverable investment allowance for DNO absorption of additional risk, enabling lower contractual indemnities

• ‘3rd Party’ set up or appointed to support smaller organisations with higher insurance, liability/indemnity requirements

• In all cases, inherent need for adaptation of procurement driven liabilities to align with contract liabilities, industry approach needed to inform/direct procurement process changes

38

ON WS1A P4 – Discussion Outcomes

Instead of pressing for a single approach, the P4 Team will produce a set of solutions for review and approval, discussion will be needed on how these solutions are implemented;

• Based on service type• Optimum solution selected by the Provider• Optimum solution selected by the DNO• A mix of the above

The P4 team will also produce a roadmap on how these solutions evolve into a single solution over time.

Both steps to be completed for version 2 adoption.

In addition, WS1A will investigate the relationship between risk vs costs for flexibility services as per additional discussion points.

Energy

Networks

Association

WS1B P2: Whole System FES - Coordination of National and Regional FES

Hadi Khouzani (SSEN)

Whole System Electricity FES40

Objectives

Objective B: Identify a common process for the DFES standardisation

Objective C: Identify elements (assumptions, profiles and limits) subject to standardisation

Objective D: Identify a common timeline and process for FES/DFES cycle

Complete

Complete

Complete

Objective E: Identify a mechanism to update tools, assumptions and processes in each

cycle

Objective A: Establish the same high level framework for DFES between all DNOs

Complete

Complete

Whole System Electricity FES41

Objective A: Establish the same high level framework

• All DNOs confirmed that they

are following a similar

framework for their DFES

publication

• All DNOs have adopted

common set of building

blocks (BB) for their DFES

publication

To get started, click the What is Visio? tab below

Welcome to VisioTop tips for a simpler way to work

Defining the scenarios

Capture regional growth in each

scenario

Production of forecasts

Forecast outputs Publication

• evidence base & stakeholder engagement

• customers• local authorities• local enterprise

partnerships• local housing

planning• local energy

strategy• local economic &

industrial strategy

Stage 1: baseline(historical data, base

year)

Stage 2: pipeline(planned developments,

connections, network planning info)

Stage 3: long-term growth

(zero carbon targets, LA action plans)

• demand, generation, storage

• seasonal outputs• daily/half-hourly

profiles

• DFES reports• regional forecast

data

Whole System Electricity FES42

Objective B: Criteria for the Standardisation Process

The proposed process should:

• gives the opportunity to check the detailed assumptions if there is any major

differences between license area and nationwide trends

• provides a feedback loop required to debate and update the data, models

and forecast employed by each network company

• allows enough flexibility to DNOs to engage with local stakeholders and

capture local ambitions and targets in their forecast

• be achievable and provides a foundation in such that further

standardisation could be introduced if necessary.

Whole System Electricity FES43

Objective B: Candidates for the Standardisation Process

Common Scenario Framework

Model

Initial Alignment & Feedback

Model

Fully Integrated FES/DFES

Process

• The same scenario framework as

the GBFES

• Greater flexibility for DNOs to

adjust their own levers and

assumptions

• Could lead to greater differences

between national and license area

trends

• Does not require additional

resource

• The same scenario frameworks

as the GBFES

• The same high-level assumptions

as the GBFES

• A process to review and address

differences and take appropriate

actions to update models,

assumptions and data.

• Resource intensive process

• All processes/models are the same

• High degree of interaction between

the ESO and DNOs

• Much greater alignment and

consistency

• May prevent each DNO from

capturing and reflecting local

targets and trends

• Much more resource intensive

process

DNOs Flexibility

Level of Standardisation

Whole System Electricity FES44

Objective B: Initial Alignment and Feedback Model Process

• Single Scenario Framework for GBFES & DFESs (common scenario

names, 2x2 formats, building blocks and GB wide assumptions)

• Strong interaction between ESO and DNOs following GBFES & DFES

publications to ensure assumptions and models reflect best available

information

• DFES scenarios considers latest regional targets and stakeholder inputs

while retaining the same high level assumptions as GBFES

• Where regional targets and stakeholder inputs diverge from GBFES, there

will be a process to review and address differences and take appropriate

actions to update models, assumptions and data

Whole System Electricity FES45

Objective C: Standardisation subjects

• Based on FES Scenario Framework Assumptions

• Adopting all relevant assumptions for their scenario framework

High-level Assumptions

• Profiles are region specific and should not be subject to standardisation.

• Profiles should be compared and debated.

• Profiles will be publish in the FES/DFES document.

Profiles

• Best estimate of the building blocks based on different records

• Demand and generation measurement according to P2/7 and week 24 documents and processes

Forecast Starting

point

Whole System Electricity FES46

Objective C: Standardisation subjects

❑ Assumptions and levers defining the scenarios: FES Scenario Framework Assumptions

There are 73 assumptions in four themes (Political, Economic, Social and Technological) and

13 categories in FES2019:

• Political-Support and incentives,

• Political-Targets, Regulation, legislation and constitutional issues

• Economic-Commodity prices

• Social-Residential behaviour

• Social-Transport

All DNOs are agreed to adopt relevant assumptions for their scenario framework. In the case

of any divergence from these assumptions, DNOs will justify and publish their assumption in

DFES publication

Theme CategoryAssumption

numberAssumption name Description

Community

RenewablesTwo Degrees

Steady

Progression

Consumer

Evolution

Community Renewables

descriptionTwo Degrees description Steady Progression description Consumer Evolution description

Political Support and incentives 1.1.1Support for low carbon

solutions

The level of support mechanisms available

for low carbon solutionsHigh High Low Low

High level of incentive support to

encourage low carbon solutions

required to meet the carbon budgets

High level of incentive support to

encourage low carbon solutions

required to meet the carbon budgets

Low support as the focus is on

reducing short-term costs

Low support as the focus is on

reducing short-term costs

Whole System Electricity FES47

Objective C: Standardisation subjects

❑ Profiles

• It was agreed that profiles for different technologies are region specific (due to differences

in the customer behaviour, network status, climate) and should not be subject to

standardisation

• The profiles are expected to have the same form and shape and a relatively similar peak

value. The shape and peak might be slightly different from region to region

• For further transparency, it was agreed to publish profiles in the DFES document

• It should be highlighted to DFES stakeholders that profiles are defined for network

planning purpose.

Whole System Electricity FES48

Objective C: Standardisation subjects

❑ DFES forecast Starting point

• For some building blocks, DNOs don’t have the exact baseline volume. In these cases,

DNOs use their best estimate based on different records they have

• There should also be consistency in measuring our demand/generation baseline for the

forecast.

This can be achieved by ensuring the same fundamentals are employed to establish our

baseline (ER P2/7 and Week 24).

Whole System Electricity FES49

Objective D: Common timeline and process for FES/DFES cycle

• Timeline assumes GBFES publication in July with DFES publications

sometimes between October to December, where all DNOs do not

necessary publish in the same month.

• If any changes in modelling or assumptions is concluded after the

comparison of DNOs and ESO data, the corrections should be captured in

the next publication of FES/DFES.

• Update from latest DFES’s

GBFES

• Update from GBFES

DFESs• Update

from latest DFES’s

GBFES

Whole System Electricity FES

Objective D: Common timeline and process for FES/DFES cycle

50

Oct 20 Mar 21 July 21 Oct 21 Dec 21 Jan 22Jan 21

DFES

Publications

GBFES

Publication

DFES

Publications

1st touchpoint/meeting to:

• Check and justify major differences in 2020 FES and DFES

publications both BB volumes and projections (MVA)

• Update models and assumptions

This will be materialised through an initial interaction between DNOs and

ESO and then with a meeting with all DNOS and ESO representatives

Dec 20

2nd touchpoint/meeting point to:

• Receive and debate the high level assumption and levers for FES

2021

1st touchpoint/meeting to:

• Check and justify major differences in 2021 FES and DFES

publications both BB volumes and projections (MVA)

• Update models and assumptions

This will be materialised through an initial interaction between DNOs and

ESO and then with a meeting with all DNOS and ESO representatives

The existing timeline for FES/DFES coordination between ESO and DNOs can be employed to

incorporate the standardisation discussions.

Whole System Electricity FES51

Objective E: Identify a mechanism to update tools, assumptions and processes after each cycle

• It is suggested to adopt a framework to reflect local/regional differences.

The assumption framework should allow local variation subject to

providing proof such legislation or track record of local authorities.

• For the comparison, It is required all network companies (DNOs and

ESO) to provide their projection of different BBs (volumes and MW) for

each GSP.

• It is required all network companies (DNOs and ESO) to provide the

modelling data they used to forecast different technologies (building

blocks) if there is a divergence between DNO and ESO forecasts.

Whole System Electricity FES52

Steps to finalise the work

• The work has been presented to the ENA ON Workstream 1B Group and the

feedbacks have been incorporated

• The work has been presented to the ENA ON Steering Group and the feedbacks have

been incorporated

• The work will be presented to the Advisory Group on 2nd July in order to include their

views in the final stage of the work

• The work will be submitted to the Workstream 1B Group and the Steering Group for

sign off by 16th July

Whole System Electricity FES53

Question for the Advisory Group

• Does the process provide a reasonable level of standardisation? Does it allow DNOs to project local trends accurately?Q1

• What are the benefits and drawbacks of greater DFES standardisation?Q2

• Will the proposed approach and timescales enable wider stakeholders to fully engage with the DFES? Q3

• Should there be an ongoing process involving stakeholders to review and update DFES processes each year?Q4

Thank You

54

Energy

Networks

Association

WS1B P5: Whole System FES – Signposting of Potential Network Capacity Requirements

Gill Williamson (ENWL)

56

WS1B P5 – Advisory Group 2nd July 2020 Agenda

Today’s objective is to introduce WS1B P5’s work and

seek your inputs on potential benefits of

options for standardising DNO evaluation and signposting of network capacity

1. Introduction to P5

2. Options for standardisation

3. Cost Benefit Analysis approach

57

P2 and P5 interface

Definition of

principles and

scenarios

Forecasts of LCT, EV, HP and DG numbers

Electricity forecasts (detailed

profiles define max and min

etc.)

Evaluate network capacity and constraints

Report network capacity and constraints

P2 P5

WS1B P5

DNO processes

WS1B P558

WS1B P5 - Objectives O

bje

ctiv

e A Identify a

common system for evaluating network capacity

Ob

ject

ive

B Identify a standard report for signposting network capacity O

bje

ctiv

e C Monitored

implementation of recommended signposting across DNOs

Why do it?• Deliver consistency and improve DNO network capacity is reported and publicised to the

wider market• A standardised transparent approach will help industry participants identify network issues

and develop mitigations

WS1B P559

WS1B P5 - Programme O

bje

ctiv

e A Identify a

common system for evaluating network capacity

Ob

ject

ive

B Identify a standard report for signposting network capacity O

bje

ctiv

e C Monitored

implementation of recommended signposting across DNOs

On-going On-going Not started

March 2020 November 2020 January 2021

WS1B P560

WS1B P5 – Steps and Deliverables

Survey current network capacity evaluation and reporting approaches

Develop standardisation

options

Evaluate options including CBA

Make recommendation

Survey report Report incImplementation Plan

Ob

ject

ive

A Identify a common system for evaluating network capacity

Ob

ject

ive

B Identify a standard report for signposting network capacity O

bje

ctiv

e C Monitored

implementation of recommended signposting across DNOs

61

WS1B P5–Current Network Capacity Reporting Survey

“Findings of the survey on network operator current practices for evaluating and signposting future network capacity”

Report now published https://energynetworks.org/electricity/futures/open-networks-project/workstream-products-2020/ws1b-planning-and-forecasting.html

Key Findings:-Network operators are already preparing and sharing a variety of network capacity reports with some consistency, especially where mandated

Reports can be characterised by parameters which can be used to define a standard approach:• Extent of the network covered by the report • Presentation, platform & update frequency• Range of dates over which network capacity is evaluated • Forecast scenarios

Different approaches within and between DNOs are necessary for reasons including: • Different purposes and audiences • Different attitudes to risk• Technical reasons such e.g. network configuration, active networks, calculation tolerances

WS1B P562

One Scenario Multiple Scenarios

Year

s

Bespoke DFES reports

GAP

GAP(some DNOs)

Opportunities for a

standardised report?

WS1B P5 – Developing options for standardisation

2030–

2050

8

End ED1

2020

Load Index

P2/7

LTDS

Heat Maps

SWRR/SoW

Consider:-➢ Purpose➢ Audienceas we debate and agree details of standard approach➢ Stakeholder engagement➢ Development of CBA

WS1B P563

WS1B P5 – CBA

Our CBA will focus on the additional

costs and benefits arising from

standardised reporting

Costs are easier for us to identify than

benefits

Most of the benefits accrue to

stakeholders

Costs for preparing and sharing network capacity

reports

Stakeholder benefits arising from the use of consistent

network reporting

WS1B P564

WS1B P5 – Questions

Q1 : What are the stakeholder benefits from standardising the way in which DNOs report network capacity limitations?

Q2 : Over what timeframe is there value reporting on network capacity requirements? Up to 5 years say? Or out to 2050?

Q3 : What are the advantages in reporting network capacity requirements against multiple scenarios (e.g FES Scenarios) compared to a single scenario?

Q4 : DNOs will evaluate capacity requirements differently depending on the characteristics of their network, their analysis systems etc. Are there particular aspects that DNOs should look to evaluate and report?

WS1B P565

WS1B P5

Thank You!

Please contact Gill Gillian.Williamson@ENWL.co.uk

or John johnwest12@virginmedia.com

for more information or to share further thoughts

Energy

Networks

Association

Wrap UpJason Brogden (ENA)

67

Wrap Up

There are some challenges ahead if we want to meet our carbon targets while providing a safe and

secure energy grid at an affordable price.

However, by enabling flexible networks we can address these; open up new markets for customers for

low carbon and innovative technologies; and deliver efficient network costs for consumers.

We are working together and dedicated to making this work with input from stakeholders in an open

and transparent way.

We would welcome feedback on how this meeting went, as well as thoughts on length, frequency,

and format – you can access our feedback survey here. The feedback form will also be emailed

around after the conclusion of this meeting.

We welcome feedback from all our stakeholders. If you have any comments that you would like to

share, please feel free to submit them to opennetworks@energynetworks.org.