Industry Governance Group Meeting Minutes
Date: / 31 October 2012Chair: / Seán mac an Bhaird, CER
Attendees: / RMDS – Aileen OConnor, Mary Baxter, David Walshe
Electric Ireland – Sean Doolin, Tom Shiels
Airtricity – Siobhan Melvin
MRSO – Gerry Halligan
Eirgrid – John O’Dea
Energia – Paul McCormick / ESBN – Carmel OConnor, Bob Turley, Conor Garrigan, Theresa O’Neill
Gemserv – Niemesh Amin
BGE – Stephen Schooling, Joseph O’Dowd
Power NI – Graeme Hunter
CER – Seán mac an Bhaird
Apologies:
Version Number / 1.0
Change Made / Issued to Market
Slides of the meeting are issued separately
Agenda:1. / Minutes from Previous IGG Meeting / Aileen OConnor, RMDS
2. / Review of Action Items / Aileen OConnor, RMDS
3. / CER Update / Seán Mac an Bhaird, CER
4. / Gemserv Update / Niemesh Amin, Gemserv
5. / MRSO Update / Gerry Halligan, MRSO
6. / HSP Project Update / Conor Garrigan, ESBN
7. / RMDS Update / Aileen OConnor, RMDS, Conor Garrigan, ESBN
8. / AOB / Aileen OConnor, RMDS
9. / Next Steps / Aileen OConnor, RMDS
1. Minutes from Previous IGG Meeting /
Minutes from IGG Meeting 19th September 2012
Approved.
2. Review of Action Items /
Aileen OConnor presented the Review of Action Items.
Six items were closed, three carried forward.
809 – LTNA: Suppliers to provide details on connections that qualify (include MPRNs, DUoS Group, current MIC) in order to quantify cost impact of the proposals
S mac an Bhaird stated that CER had recently sent a reminder to Participants regarding this action. He highlighted that LTNA was being raised as a current issue by suppliers and he was keen that the work underway would be further progressed. P McCormick indicated that most of the debt was associated with DG5 sites, not DG6, therefore the proposed solution would not solve the complete issue. S mac an Bhaird stated that ESBN required specific information for analysis. G Halligan stated that Meter Operations would look at the MPRNs once they had been received, to establish why they cannot be de-energised. S Melvin added that Airtricity would have some issues with Small Business and Domestic sites also. G Halligan responded that outside of the city a number of these sites would be de-energised at the mini-pillar. He added that it was possible to trace a cable and de-energise at a relatively low cost, however, he would need to have the MPRN details in order to see the extent of the issue. S Melvin asked whether the action was around all LTNA sites, and G Halligan replied that it was originally intended for DG6, but indicated that, if there was a large volume of DG5s, these could be looked at. B Turley suggested dealing with the DG6 sites first and S Melvin responded that the exercise on the non-DG6 sites should be carried out in parallel. P McCormick responded that customers who could not be disconnected but would not pay bills was becoming a bigger issue.
S mac an Bhaird suggested that the initial data requested should be submitted and indicated that a separate analysis of the extent of LTNA at DG5 could be conducted. P McCormack stated that they should be done in parallel. S mac an Bhaird enquired about the timescale for this and asked if the information was submitted by end of the following week would it be possible for ESBN to have an update for the next IGG meeting. G Halligan responded that Meter Operations was ready to start however he would be reluctant to commit to a date until there was some indication of the scale of the issue. S Melvin reiterated that Domestic sites should be included also. S mac an Bhaird suggested that the current analysis for DG6 sites should be conducted, while quantifying the magnitude of LTNA for DG5 sites. He requested that the DG6 information be provided on one list and the data regarding DG5 sites be detailed in a separate document. Suppliers also took an action to provide details as to the extent of debt associated with LTNA for DG 5 sites. S mac an Bhaird clarified that this data should be sent only to the CER. B Turley and S Melvin agreed that a reasonable definition of what constitutes LTNA would be a site where three calls to de-energise had been made without access being gained.
New Action – LTNA: Suppliers to submit file of DG5 MPRNs for separate analysis by MRSO
New Action – LTNA: Suppliers to submit data re magnitude of debt associated with LTNA DG5 sites to CER
814 – ESBN to provide stats on Keypad installations at future IGGs
B Turley advised that a total of 12,710 keypad meters have been installed to date. He added that S mac an Bhaird had previously suggested that the number of token meters installed should be briefed also. He advised that the total figure for these stands at 19,628, with a drop-off of approximately 50 per month.
820 - SMS: ESBN to investigate Data Protection Implications
ESBN’s DP manager is currently following up on this with the Data Protection Commission.
3. CER Update /
S mac an Bhaird presented the CER Update.
Decision paper on the forthcoming Powersave and Winter Peak Demand Reduction Scheme published. Powersave is to continue under last year’s rules. The Winter Peak Demand Reduction Scheme will retain the same eligibility as last year but this year will be the last year of the scheme.
Review of Non Daily Metered Retail Gas Market – Consultation open until 16th November.
Debt Transfer – Consultation paper to issue in November.
Retail Market Reports Q2 2012 – Will issue shortly.
Forthcoming Reviews and workshops – A workshop will be held to review the CoS processes in the electricity and gas retail markets. The review will consider such matters as requirements of 3rd package and the cooling off period. The workshop is proposed for the start of December.
Smart Metering – Options Papers are currently being drafted and will be published before Christmas. Detailed design workshops will be held next year.
4. Gemserv Update /
N Amin presented the Gemserv Update.
Supplier Assurance – Gemserv stated that a Small Supplier had commenced the Assurance process for becoming a Large Supplier and that Gemserv had also had preliminary meetings with a potential new Large Supplier
Harmonisation - Activities leading to cutover – After the initial delay in Go-Live, a second set of performance testing was carried out in preparation for the rescheduled Go-Live. Following this performance testing Gemserv completed the Assurance process for the rescheduled Go-Live. The Assurance Report, which was submitted to the CER as an addendum of the original Assurance Outcome Report, has since been approved by CER.
S mac an Bhaird added that a review of lessons learned from the project would be conducted and N Amin responded that a post implementation review is standard process after each Market Release. N Amin then extended thanks to the HSP team for their co-operation.
5. MRSO Update /
G Halligan presented the MRSO Update.
S Melvin raised the issue where a customer name sent on a MM010 was not always the same as that received on the response MM102. She indicated that according to market processes this should not occur and the names should be the same. She added that such differences in names raised potential data protection concerns. G Halligan stated that, if the COLE option is set to “yes” on a MM010, this indicates that a change of customer has taken place and there is no intervention needed by MRSO. However, if the “no” option is chosen, and there is then any query with the name, it would be reviewed, the name checked, and it would be referred to MRSO to investigate the difference in the names on the MM010 & in the ESBN systems. A decision would then be taken by MRSO as to whether an inferred COLE could be deduced and, if it was found to be the case, the Switch would be updated accordingly. However, if it had been established that there was no inferred COLE, the process is that the existing name in the ESBN systems would be sent back on the MM102. S Melvin repeated that there had been cases where a different surname had come back on the MM102 and S mac an Bhaird replied that the system as described should not allow this and requested the MRSO to investigate the matter. S Melvin stated that she could supply at least two examples where this had occurred.
A OConnor commented that the problems seem to occur where there is only a slight difference in names and she suggested that more specific guidelines for MRSO as to what designates a CoLE would be useful. G Halligan agreed that there were differing views on what constitutes a COLE. S mac an Bhaird stated that any form of guidelines would have to be Data Protection compliant. A OConnor commented that there were two issues which could arise (a) if MRSO does not deem the Switch to be a COLE and (b) if Suppliers do not check the names. S Melvin replied that Suppliers would not currently check the names.
S mac an Bhaird added that a review of the Debt Flagging process would take place by December and that the CER would be approaching Suppliers and ESBN for information during the review.
New Action – MRSO to review their adherence to the process for reviewing CoS requests for inferred COLES
Email Encryption
G Halligan gave an update on proposals in ESBN to use a new email encryption process called Transport Layer Security (TLS). This arose following discussions on potential Data Protection issues arising from data being passed between MRSO and Suppliers, by email. The main issue is the email itself given that it could be accessed and potentially interfered with. Using TLS would mean a secure channel between two email domains and, once enabled, would ensure that all emails will be entirely secure.
S mac an Bhaird asked whether all outbound emails would need to go through the Transport Layer Security (TLS), and G Halligan replied that once the functionality was set up on both servers, and activated, all emails would go through this path and be encrypted automatically, at no extra cost.
G Halligan concluded by requesting MPs to take the information back to their organisations and let ESBN know if they are agreeable to using this encryption process or, alternatively, provide ESBN with their IT contact details, in order that ESBN can discuss the proposals with relevant IT personnel.
New Action – TLS: Suppliers to advise if TLS acceptable or provide IT contacts for ESBN to discuss with.
6. HSP Project Update /
C Garrigan presented the HSP Project Update.
Changes are in Production since Sunday last. Messages have been flowing over the common infrastructure and no significant issues have been encountered.
NIE has scheduled a body of work for the coming weeks, around Disaster Recovery sites. Two site switches are scheduled for November, taking place over two separate weekends. NIE has notified that the Market Hub will be down on 4th November and it has been confirmed that ROI will be affected. MPs will be formally notified of this. Physical switching of data centres will be carried out on 17th and 18th November and Market Messages will not flow for the period of the outage. Again, RMDS will notify MPs of the detailed timings. S Melvin enquired whether the site switches would be coordinated between the two jurisdictions and C Garrigan replied that the plan was to coordinate as far as possible.
8. RMDS Update
Aileen OConnor presented the RMDS Update.
WP001 – Requesting a Resend of Market Messages
C Garrigan provided a briefing on the revised WP, which has been modified to take into account the new messaging infrastructure. The main technical difference is that the decommissioned MPCC did not have the concept of an archive folder, therefore lost messages had to be resent from backend systems. TIBCO has both an inbound and outbound Archive folder and Suppliers will now be able to locate inbound messages in the Archive folder. He went on to add, that because Tibco treats messages differently to the MPCC – it does not allow duplicates - resending of messages will be more complex than previously. It will not be a trivial exercise in that it could involve the XML being resent or the EMMA database being updated. Therefore, message resends will only occur in future in exceptional circumstances and Suppliers must check the Archive folder first, before the resend request is forwarded to the relevant area.
S Melvin asked who the email contact would be if a message could not be located, and C Garrigan replied that the Archive folder would be checked first and then it would be the normal route - MRSO or RMDS; if a message were absent from the Archive folder, an assessment could then be carried out, on a case by case basis. P McCormick made reference to a number of billing message failures which Energia encountered due to incorrect data such as DLF codes on the messages. He went on to say that resending of these messages would not solve the problem as the messages needed to be re-created with different data. C Garrigan responded that in cases like this, a message with new data might be created, with a different transaction number. He requested P McCormick to forward examples in order that the matter can be looked into.
New Action - WP 001: Energia to forward list of message failures due to incorrect data on message.
Decision - WP 0001 v1.4 Approved.
MCR 1130 v1.0 - Working Practice for De-energisation of Essential Plant Sites
S Melvin enquired about the current position on the indemnification issue, and A OConnor replied that the understanding was that ESBN would only withdraw and not de-energise if there was a safety issue. She added that ESBN is happy to de-energise if the WP is adhered to. S Melvin responded that Networks had stated at the Conference Call that even if this was the case, indemnification would be still required. S mac an Bhaird stated that ESBN had been requested to write to CER on the matter of indemnification. However no submission has been receieved. A OConnor said that there was no caveat for indemnification in the WP. S Melvin referred to the minutes of the CC where the issue was discussed, where Networks stated that a site may not be de-energised in the case of health and safety issues, but that situations would be dealt with on a case by case basis.