Change Proposal Circular
To / BSC Change Administrators (BCAs)/ Party Agent Change Administrators (PACAs)
No. / CPC00662
Purpose / For Consultation
From / Change Delivery
Date / 05 June 2009

Impact Assessment of DCP0041, DCP0042, DCP0043, DCP0044, CP1267 v2.0, CP1295, CP1296, CP1297, CP1298, CP1299 and CP1300

In CPC00662 there are4Draft Change Proposals and 7Change Proposalsfor Impact Assessment by your organisation:

Draft Change Proposals

DCP No. / Title / SVA/CVA / Summary of Proposal
DCP0041 / Clarifications to Gross Volume Correction (GVC) Process / SVA / ELEXON has raised DCP0041 with input from the Gross Volume Correction (GVC) working group.
DCP0041 is proposing 6 possible changes to BSCP504 to add clarity to when GVC can be applied.
Please review and comment on each of the 6 changes in the spacesprovided in the DCP0041 response form on page 5 of this document.
DCP0042 / Replacing Erroneous Forward Looking EACs / SVA / ELEXON has raised DCP0042 with input from the GVC working group.
DCP0042suggests 4 mutually exclusive options to clarify the circumstances in which EAC’s can be replaced to achieve consistency in the application of the process.
DCP0042 also suggest 5 mutually exclusive options around extending the EAC replacement to the Final Reconciliation (RF) deeming process.
In your response please indicate which of options you prefer and provide supporting rationale.
DCP0043 / Use of Gross Volume Correction in Post Final Settlement Runs (PFSR) / SVA / ELEXON has raised DCP0043 with input from the GVC working group.
DCP0043 has been raised to explore three options that will ensure that Suppliers and NHHDCs apply GVC consistently in the event of a Post Final Settlement Run (PFSR).
In your response please indicate which option you prefer and provide supporting rationale.
DCP0044 / Changes to Long Term Vacant (LTV) Site process where a reading is obtained via a warrant / SVA / ELEXON raised DCP0044 to progress one of the outcomes of BSCP40 issue 0004 ‘Improvements and Clarifications to the LTV Site Process’ review group.
Currently, when a reading is obtained via a warrant, a LTV site is removed from the LTV process, because a read has been obtained. When the site re-enters the LTV site process, the deemed read will be based on a positive EAC, which is likely to be inaccurate. This can lead to an error in Settlement.
DCP0044 proposes two options to resolve these issues. In your response please indicate which option you prefer.

For details on the expected impacts on participants, please refer to the DCP Participant Impact Matrix via the following link: DCP Participant Impact Matrix

Change Proposal

CP No. / Title / SVA/CVA / Summary of Proposal
CP1267 v2.0 / Registration of UMSOs and MAs in SMRS / SVA / CP1267 seeks to amend the process for Suppliers registering an Unmetered Supplies Operator (UMSO) or Meter Administrator (MA) in the Supplier Meter Registration System (SMRS).
Following comments received via CPC00650, CP1267 was updated to version 2.0, which provides a more robust solution.
CP1295 / Process for distribution of MDD Updates not included in D0269/D0270 flows / SVA / Currently the majority of MDD updates are sent over the DTN. Certain MDD updates are sent separately as MS Word documents via email, and include:
  • GSP Group Profile Class Default EACs (GGPCDEAC) – currently sent to NHHDAs;
  • GSP Group Profile Class Tolerances – currently sent to NHHDCs and Suppliers; and
  • HH Default EACs – currently sent to HHDAs, HHDCs, Suppliers and LDSOs.
These values have historically not been changed often and separately have not warranted a change to include them in the MDD update flows. However it has come to ELEXON’s attention that several participants are not receiving this information and are not aware that they should be receiving this information.
In order to resolve this issue, ELEXON has raised CP1295 which proposes that:
  • it is highlighted (in BSCP505, BSCP508 and the SVA Data Catalogue) that NHHDAs will be issued GGPCDEAC data via email; and
  • ELEXON provide SQL scripts to facilitate the loading of this data.

CP1296 / Mandatory Capability to Record Reactive Power Demand (kvar) Values in Code of Practice 5 (CoP5) Meters / SVA/CVA / Following a Working Group on Absent and Erroneous Reactive Power Data ELEXON has raised CP1296. This is one of 4 CPs (1296, 1297, 1298 and 1299) which have resulted from the group’s work.
CP1296 recommends an amendment to Code of Practice 5 (CoP5), to require that the Meter has the capability to record Demand (kvar) values for Reactive Import and Reactive Export.
CP1297 / Mandatory Capability to Record Reactive Power Demand (kvar) Values in Code of Practice 10 (CoP10) Meters / SVA/CVA / ELEXON has raised CP1297, which recommends an amendment to Code of Practice 10 (CoP10), to require that the Meter has the capability to record Demand (kvar) values for Reactive Import and Reactive Export.
CP1298 / Requirement on MOAs to Configure Meters to Record Half Hourly Reactive Power Data (for Half Hourly Settled CT-Metered Customers) / SVA / ELEXON has raised CP1298 which recommends the amendment of BSCP514. The change will place a specific obligation on MOAs - when they install or reconfigure Half Hourly Metering Equipment that is supplied via measurement transformers, they should configure the Metering Equipment to record Half Hourly demand values for both Reactive Import and Reactive Export (provided that the Metering Equipment has the capability to do so).
CP1299 / Requirement on Half Hourly Data Collectors to Collect and Report Reactive Power Data (where the Meter is configured to record it) / SVA / ELEXON has raised CP1299 which recommends that the current requirement in BSCP502 relating to collection of Reactive Power data should be strengthened to oblige the HHDC to collect and report Reactive Power data, where the MOA has so configured the Meter.
This change will largely formalising existing practice
CP1300 / System changes to support Change of Market Participant ID for the SVA Agent and MDD Agent Roles from ‘CAPG’ to ‘SVAA’ / SVA / ELEXON has raised CP1300 with the support of the SVG, whichproposes changing the Market Participant ID (MPID) for the SVA Agent and MDD Agent roles from ‘CAPG’ to ‘SVAA’.
Whilst the change from ‘CAPG’ to ‘SVAA’ is a relatively simple MDD change, ELEXON recognises there are many potential impacts on BSC systems and BSC Party systems and processes.
In your response please indicate the impact and costs that this change will have on your organisation.

For details on the expected impacts on participants, please refer to the CP Participant Impact Matrix[1] via the following link: CP Participant Impact Matrix

Details of these Draft Change Proposals and Change Proposals will shortly be published on the ELEXON Website.

Impact Assessment

Please carry out an Impact Assessment and redline text review, as appropriate, of the attached DCPs and CPs and return your response using the attached forms by 5:00pm on Thursday 02 July 2009.

Please let me know as soon as possible if you are unable to meet this deadline. Please note that a lack response to this CPC does not indicate that you disagree with the proposed changes.

If you have any queries, please contact me on 020 7380 4327 or email . Alternatively, contact (Ysanne Hills) on 020 7380 4162 or email .

David Barber

ELEXON Change Delivery

Table of Attachments

DCP/ CP No. / Attached Documents
DCP0041 / DCP0041
DCP0042 / DCP0042
DCP0043 / DCP0043
DCP0044 / DCP0044
CP1267 v2.0 / CP1267 v2.0
CP1267 v2.0 Attachment A
CP1267 v2.0 Attachment B
CP1267 v2.0 Attachment C
CP1295 / CP1295
CP1295 Attachment A
CP1295 Attachment B
CP1295 Attachment C
CP1295 Attachment D
CP1296 / CP1296
CP1296 Attachment A
CP1296 Attachment B
CP1297 / CP1297
CP1297 Attachment A
CP1297 Attachment B
CP1298 / CP1298
CP1298 Attachment A
CP1299 / CP1299
CP1299 Attachment A
CP1300 / CP1300

To: David Barber

Email:

Change Proposal Impact Assessment Forms

Organisation:
Capacity Organisation operates in (e.g. Supplier, HDDC, etc.)
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Please tick if this information is to be used for all DCPs/CPs:
Draft Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / DCP No: / 0041
Title: / Clarification to Gross Volume Correction Process
Do you agree with the intention of the DCP? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments
Are you impacted by the DCP? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which your Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Do you agree with the 6 changes outline in the ‘Proposed Solution’ in the DCP0041 form?
Change 1 (delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Comments
Change 2 (delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Comments
Change 3 (delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Comments
Change 4 (delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Comments
Change 5 (delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Comments
Change 6 (delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Comments
Impact on Organisation (e.g. systems/process changes)
What are the costs to your organisation from the DCP?[2]
How much Implementation Notification would be required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Is there a difference in impacts, costs and lead times for your organisation depending on which of the 6 suggested changes are progressed? (delete as appropriate) / Yes/No
If yes, please provide a high level description of the differences – including ball-park costs where possible.
Other Comments:
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Draft Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / DCP No: / 0042
Title: / Replacing erroneous forward looking EACs
Do you agree with the intention of the DCP? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments
Are you impacted by the DCP? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which your Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Which of the 4 Requirement Options set out in the ‘Proposed Solution’ section of the DCP do you prefer? (delete as appropriate) / REQ 1/REQ 2/REQ 3/REQ 4
Why is this?
Which of the 5 RF Deeming Options set out in the ‘Proposed Solution’ section of the DCP do you prefer? (delete as appropriate) / RF 1/ RF 2/ RF 3/ RF 4/ RF 5
Why is this?
Impact on Organisation of your preferred options? (e.g. systems/process changes)
What are the costs to your organisation of your preferred option?[3]
How much Implementation Notification would be required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Is there a difference in impacts, costs and lead times for your organisation under the other options set out in the DCP? (delete as appropriate) / Yes/No
If Yes, please provide a high level description of the differences – including ball-park costs where possible.
Do you agree that an automated solution should be adopted for the replacement of negative EACs using the EAC/AA calculator?: / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Why is this?
Other comments
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Draft Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / DCP No: / 0043
Title: / Use of Gross Volume Correction in Post Final Settlement Runs (PFSR)
Do you agree with the intention of the DCP? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments
Are you impacted by the DCP? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which your Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Which of the 3 options set out in the ‘Proposed Solution’ section of the DCP do you prefer? (delete as appropriate) / Option 1/ Option 2/ Option 2
Why is this?
Impact on Organisation of your preferred options? (e.g. systems/process changes)
What are the costs to your organisation of your preferred option?[4]
How much Implementation Notification would be required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Is there a difference in impacts, costs and lead times for your organisation under the other options? (delete as appropriate) / Yes/No
If Yes, please provide a high level description of the differences – including ball-park costs where possible.
Other comments
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Draft Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / DCP No: / 0044
Title: / Changes to Long Term Vacant (LTV) Site process where a reading is obtained via a warrant
Do you agree with the intention of this DCP? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments
Which solution do you prefer? (delete as appropriate) / Solution 1/ Solution 2
Why is this?
Impact on Organisation’s Systems and/or Processes? (Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Impact on Organisation (e.g. systems/process changes)
How much Implementation Notification would be required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Please provide details of the associated costs on your organisation to implement the change. (If you would like any details to remain confidential and only for use by the Panel/Panel Committees when making a decision only please indicate accordingly).
Other Comments:
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / CP No: / 1267 v2.0
Title: / Registration of UMSOs and MAs in SMRS
Proposed Implementation Date: / February 2010 Release
Agree Change?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments / Comments
Impact on Organisation’s Systems and/or Processes?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Impact on Organisation (e.g. systems/process changes)
How much Implementation Notification is required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Would implementation in the proposed Release have an adverse impact? (please state impact)
Please provide details of the associated costs on your organisation to implement the change. (If you would like any details to remain confidential and only for use by the Panel/Panel Committees when making a decision only please indicate accordingly).
Other Comments:
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Please review the Redline text for CP1267 v2.0 and use the following table to for any comments you have.
Point no. / Document name (e.g. BSCPXXXX/CoPX) / Location (Section and paragraph numbers) / Severity Code (H/M/L – see below) / Comments by Reviewer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Severity Codes:

H (high): Prejudices document’s conclusions, recommendations or fitness for purpose.

M (medium): Matter of substance, but not high.

L (low): Minor error but document’s intention is clear.

Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / CP No: / 1295
Title: / Process for distribution of MDD Updates not included in D0269/D0270 flows
Proposed Implementation Date: / February 2010 Release
Agree Change?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments / Comments
Impact on Organisation’s Systems and/or Processes?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Impact on Organisation (e.g. systems/process changes)
How much Implementation Notification is required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Would implementation in the proposed Release have an adverse impact? (please state impact)
Please provide details of the associated costs on your organisation to implement the change. (If you would like any details to remain confidential and only for use by the Panel/Panel Committees when making a decision only please indicate accordingly).
Other Comments:
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Please review the Redline text for CP1295 and use the following table to for any comments you have.
Point no. / Document name (e.g. BSCPXXXX/CoPX) / Location (Section and paragraph numbers) / Severity Code (H/M/L – see below) / Comments by Reviewer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Severity Codes:

H (high): Prejudices document’s conclusions, recommendations or fitness for purpose.

M (medium): Matter of substance, but not high.

L (low): Minor error but document’s intention is clear.

Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / CP No: / 1296
Title: / Mandatory Capability to Record Reactive Power Demand (kvar) Values in Code of Practice 5 (CoP5) Meters
Proposed Implementation Date: / February 2010 Release
Agree Change?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments / Comments
Impact on Organisation’s Systems and/or Processes?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Impact on Organisation (e.g. systems/process changes)
How much Implementation Notification is required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Would implementation in the proposed Release have an adverse impact? (please state impact)
Please provide details of the associated costs on your organisation to implement the change. (If you would like any details to remain confidential and only for use by the Panel/Panel Committees when making a decision only please indicate accordingly).
Other Comments:
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Please review the Redline text for CP1296 and use the following table to for any comments you have.
Point no. / Document name (e.g. BSCPXXXX/CoPX) / Location (Section and paragraph numbers) / Severity Code (H/M/L – see below) / Comments by Reviewer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Severity Codes:

H (high): Prejudices document’s conclusions, recommendations or fitness for purpose.

M (medium): Matter of substance, but not high.

L (low): Minor error but document’s intention is clear.

Change Proposal Impact Assessment Form / CP No: / 1297
Title: / Mandatory Capability to Record Reactive Power Demand (kvar) Values in Code of Practice 10 (CoP10) Meters
Proposed Implementation Date: / February 2010 Release
Agree Change?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No/ Neutral
Comments / Comments
Impact on Organisation’s Systems and/or Processes?(Please delete as appropriate) / Yes/ No
Capacity in which Organisation is impacted (e.g. Supplier, HHDC, etc)
Impact on Organisation (e.g. systems/process changes)
How much Implementation Notification is required from receipt of approved redline text changes?
No. of Calendar Days / Comments
Would implementation in the proposed Release have an adverse impact? (please state impact)
Please provide details of the associated costs on your organisation to implement the change. (If you would like any details to remain confidential and only for use by the Panel/Panel Committees when making a decision only please indicate accordingly).
Other Comments:
Assessor Name
Contact Name (if different to Assessor) / BCA/PACA:
Contact email: / Phone no:
Please review the Redline text for CP1297 and use the following table to for any comments you have.
Point no. / Document name (e.g. BSCPXXXX/CoPX) / Location (Section and paragraph numbers) / Severity Code (H/M/L – see below) / Comments by Reviewer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Severity Codes: