Minutes

Meeting name / Grid Code Review Panel(GC0100/GC0101/GC0102)
Meeting number / 12
Date of meeting / Thursday 8 February 2018
Location / Webex - National Grid House

Attendees

Name / Initials / Role
Trisha McAuley / TM / Chair
Chrissie Brown / CB / Code Administrator
Naomi Davies / ND / Code Administrator
Gurpal Singh / GSH / Authority Representative
Nadir Hafeez / NH / Authority Representative (Observer)
Damian Jackman / DJ / Panel member
Graeme Vincent / GV / Panel member
Alastair Frew / AF / Panel member
Kate Dooley / KD / Panel member
Alan Creighton / AC / Panel member
Steve Cox / SC / Panel member
Sigrid Bolik / SB / Panel member (alternate)
Rob Wilson / RW / National Grid (alternate)
1 Introductions and Apologies for Absence

1324.

TM commenced the Webexmeeting by completing the introductions noting apologies from Kyla Berry (KB) and acknowledgingRob Wilson (RW) as the nominated alternate in attendance;Guy Nicholson (GN)acknowledging Sigrid Bolik (SB) as the nominated alternate in attendance;Robert Longdon (no alternate) and Nick Rubin.

All presentations referred to at this Grid Code Review Panel meeting can be found in the Grid Code Panel area on the National Grid website:

The draft Final Modification reports circulated ahead of the Panel meeting and to which the meeting refers can be accessed via the following links:

App

2 / Review of Code Administrator Consultation

1367.CB referred attendees to the Code Administrator slides as circulated online ahead of the meeting (refer to above weblink) and reviewed the Consultation responses with Panel members.

1368. CB invited RW, in his capacity as Proposer of the Modifications, to offer clarity where required around some of the technical responses which arose through the Consultation. Panel members were satisfied that RW was providing only technical clarity where it was required. This answered a particular point of governance raised by AC.

1369. RW referred Panel members to the 12 slide NGET presentation circulated ahead of the meeting (titled ‘NGET Response to Consultation’ on the website). RW stated that the text highlighted on the slides in yellow are those where a potential change or impact to the solution have been identified.

1370. RW addressed the RWE response to GC0100as highlighted on slide 2 in respect of ‘substantial modification’. RW confirmed that, in the view of the Proposer, the RfG text is compliant stating that any activation of the clause is based on total replanting and a set of very rare circumstances. The slides clarify the Proposer position.

1371. RW continued to talk through the GC0101 responsesas per the slide presentation, addressing the ‘as much as possible’ contention raised by RWE as one which does not take potential cost into account.

1372. RW addressed the issue raised by RWE Generation in relation to the GC0102 response, acknowledging that this might infact represent a disconnect in their Workgroup representation.

1373. On conclusion of the Proposer presentation, CB invited views from Panel members on each of the points raised within the slides presented by RW. All Panel members agreed with all of the clarification points presented and the Proposed way forward outlined.

1374. In relation to the ‘substantial modifcation’ issue, Ofgem confirmed that they consider the Proposer interpretation to be the correct one. GS confirmed that the current determination process used to address any dispute will continue to apply. AF thanked Ofgem for their position on this. CB confirmed that there was no requirement to amend the legal text as a result of this clarification being provided by the Authority.

1375. In respect of the typographical issues raised by Northern Powergrid in their Consultation response, Panel members agreed for these to be corrected as highlighted. There was an acknowledgement that taking it out would make it neater but neither does it affect any party. AC to liaise with Proposer to clarify the typographical error in Article 11.

These amendments would be made under the following Governance Rule (GR 22.4)

(i) if the change required is a typographical error the Grid Code Review Panel may instruct the Code Administrator to make the appropriate change and the Panel Chairman will undertake the Grid Code Review Panel Recommendation Vote; or

ACTION 89: Code Administrator to correct typographical errors for the Final Modification Reports

1376.SB raised a potential issue she had identified in the legal drafting re active power recovery. It was acknowledged that this was not an issue that had previously been raised in the Workgroup stage. RW reviewed the applicable section (3.3.2.2 Active Power Recovery) and was able to clarify that NGET is not looking to change existing GB requirements so no further amendment is required. Panel members were happy with this clarity.

1377. Panel members discussed the AMPS/ADE response to GC0101 and agreed that consideration should be given to raise a modification to address the issue surrounding the new requirements for embedded Type B generators(LFMS-O Type B). It was agreed that this issue would be added to the next GCDF (Grid Code Development Forum) for Industry to discuss further and that it would be noted in the Final Modification to the Authority that this course of action was being completed.

As per the Governance Rule below the Panel decided after reviewing the Code Administrator consultation responses that no amendments were required to the legal text provided for these modifications (GR22.4)

(ii)if a change is not required after consideration, the Panel Chairman will undertake the Grid Code Review Panel Recommendation Vote.

ACTION 90: Code Administrator to raise issue at the Grid Code Development Forum in order to raise the profile of the issue

3 / Recommendation Vote

1378. The Recommendation Vote took place with all votes recorded on the Master Voting template. Panel members were reminded of the voting process, specifically for votes to be cast in person during the Panel meeting.

1379.Following the discussions held above, Panel members voted on the modifications against the Grid Code Objectives. The Panel members agreed by majority, across all three modifications that the Original was better than the baseline and recommended that all three should be implemented.

10 / Any other business

The next Grid Code Panel meeting is taking place on the 22 February 2018.

Page 1 of 3