Mod_37_18 Housekeeping 12th December 2018

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping 44 Modifications effective on the Baseline – additional minor errors found while compiling the v21 of the T&SC these included: - Missing headings, Appendix or AP titles; - Incorrect paragraph numbering or numbering style; - Incorrect list or sub list numbering; - Formatting and adjustments to terms upper/lower cases; - Punctuation; Provisional v21 is available with the Code updates as per FRR/AP notification/RA decision; Some inconsistencies with the FRR have been captured in comments in the published documents; Other errors that are more than just ‘housekeeping’ may lead to further modifications; however none of material impact; * Please note that any clerical updates (such as version update in the title, update to the content list, version history etc.) are still outstanding

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping – samples (1) A sample of the errors captured in this Mod are provided below: Text from FRR: Proposed housekeeping: 2.34 A Party (or Applicant, as applicable) shall, on registration of a Generator Unit, specify if the Unit is: a Wind Power Unit; an Energy Limited Generator Unit; a Pumped Storage Unit; a Demand Side Unit provided the Party has the approval of the Regulatory Authorities in accordance with paragraph 2.34B; an Aggregated Generator Unit provided the Party has the approval of the Regulatory Authorities in accordance with paragraph 2.34C; a Netting Generator Unit; an Interconnector Unit or A Dual Rated Generator Unit, provided the Party has the approval of the Regulatory Authorities in accordance with paragraph 2.34A. a Solar Power Unit; 2.34 A Party (or Applicant, as applicable) shall, on registration of a Generator Unit, specify if the Unit is: a Wind Power Unit; an Energy Limited Generator Unit; a Pumped Storage Unit; a Battery Storage Unit; * a Demand Side Unit provided the Party has the approval of the Regulatory Authorities in accordance with paragraph 2.34B; an Aggregated Generator Unit provided the Party has the approval of the Regulatory Authorities in accordance with paragraph 2.34C; a Netting Generator Unit; an Interconnector Unit; or Aa Dual Rated Generator Unit, provided the Party has the approval of the Regulatory Authorities in accordance with paragraph 2.34A.; or a Solar Power Unit.; * Please note Battery Storage had not yet been included in the T&SC version used for this original Mod

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping – samples (2) A sample of the errors captured in this Mod are provided below: Text from FRR: Proposed housekeeping: F.2.2.1A Each Scheduling Agent for a Participant shall not submit to the Market Operator details of any Contracted Quantities , as contemplated by clause F.2.2.1, for any Participant registered under a Party for whom suspension is in effect under a Suspension Order for any of its Units. H.11 Until the date that is the Mod_XX_18 Deployment Date, Section B, Paragraph B.18.4.1 shall be replaced with; B.18.4.1 The Supplier Suspension Delay Period and the Generator Suspension Delay Period in relation to each Jurisdiction shall be 7 days. F.2.2.1A Each Scheduling Agent for a Participant shall not submit to the Market Operator details of any Contracted Quantities , as contemplated by paragraphclause F.2.2.1, for any Participant registered under a Party for whom suspension is in effect under a Suspension Order for any of its Units. H.11 TIMING OF SUSPENSION H.11.1.1 Until the date that is the Mod_XX_18 Deployment Date, Section B, Pparagraph B.18.4.1 shall be replaced with;: “B.18.4.1 The Supplier Suspension Delay Period and the Generator Suspension Delay Period in relation to each Jurisdiction shall be 7 days.”

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping – samples (3) A sample of the errors captured in this Mod are provided below: Text from FRR: Proposed housekeeping: G.2.10.2 Where a SEM NEMO considers that a Contracted Quantity is invalid, then the SEM NEMO may notify the Market Operator where it believes there is a risk the costs (or part thereof) incurred in relation to the invalid Contracted Quantity will not be recovered under the Market Rules of the Ex Ante Market. Any notification so given will specify: the Unit to which the invalid Contracted Quantity relates (in this section G.2.10 called the “specified Unit”); and the applicable invalid Contracted Quantity; and the Imbalance Settlement Period to which the invalid Contracted Quantity relates; and the steps that the SEM NEMO (or any Delegate (as defined in paragraph B.8.1.4(a) of the Code) has taken or will take to recover the costs incurred in relation to the invalid Contracted Quantity and the mechanisms that will be used (whether by the SEM NEMO or any Delegate) to seek to recover those costs under the Market Rules of the Ex Ante Market; and the reason the SEM NEMO believes there is a risk that the costs (or part thereof) incurred in relation to the invalid Contracted Quantity will not be recovered under the Market Rules of the Ex Ante Market. G.2.10.2 Where a SEM NEMO considers that a Contracted Quantity is invalid, then the SEM NEMO may notify the Market Operator where it believes there is a risk the costs (or part thereof) incurred in relation to the invalid Contracted Quantity will not be recovered under the Market Rules of the Ex Ante Market. Any notification so given will specify: the Unit to which the invalid Contracted Quantity relates (in this section G.2.10 called the “Sspecified Unit”); and the applicable invalid Contracted Quantity; and the Imbalance Settlement Period to which the invalid Contracted Quantity relates; and the steps that the SEM NEMO (or any Delegate (as defined in paragraph B.8.1.4(a) of the Code) has taken or will take to recover the costs incurred in relation to the invalid Contracted Quantity and the mechanisms that will be used (whether by the SEM NEMO or any Delegate) to seek to recover those costs under the Market Rules of the Ex Ante Market; and the reason the SEM NEMO believes there is a risk that the costs (or part thereof) incurred in relation to the invalid Contracted Quantity will not be recovered under the Market Rules of the Ex Ante Market.

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping – samples (4) A sample of the errors captured in this Mod are provided below – however please note that in this case the changes do not show up as red line in the Mod: Interim Provisions means the provisions refer red to in section H commencing at clause section H.7, each of which shall apply, in accordance with paragraph H.6, until terminated on the relevant Modification Deployment Date. Text from FRR: Proposed housekeeping:

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping – samples (5) These two minor error were discovered in Part C after the Mod was published that can potentially be included in FRR Legal Drafting subject to Panel vote: Text from FRR: Proposed housekeeping: 11.12.3 Where the latest available Credit Report considered by the Market Operator shows that the Participant has Excess Collateral in place the Market Operator may apply a reallocate of Posted Credit Cover from and to the relevant Part A and Part B Participant, based on the reallocation amount specified in the collateral refund request under (as applicable) paragraph 11.12.1(a) or 11.12.1(b) (in any such case up to the applicable amount of Excess Collateral). 11.13.3 Where under (as applicable) paragraph 11.13.1 or 11.13.2 the Market Operator makes a Credit Call on a Participant’s Posted Credit Cover under the relevant Part of the Code, the Market Operator shall…. 11.12.3 Where the latest available Credit Report considered by the Market Operator shows that the Participant has Excess Collateral in place the Market Operator may apply a reallocateion of Posted Credit Cover from and to the relevant Part A and Part B Participant, based on the reallocation amount specified in the collateral refund request under (as applicable) paragraph 11.12.1(a) or 11.12.1(b) (in any such case up to the applicable amount of Excess Collateral). 11.13.3 Where under (as applicable) paragraph 11.13.1 or 11.13.2 the Market Operator makes a Credit Call on a Participant’s Posted Credit Cover under the relevant Ppart of the Code, the Market Operator shall….

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping - Other Other inconsistencies with the FRR are: - Part B Glossary definition of Aggregate Settlement Document Amount: the deletion of this term was dropped in the FRR for MOD_19_18 in error; the original modification clearly stated it should be deleted because covered in the variable list as SDApbc. The FRR has no comment with regard to the rejection of this change therefore we are including it for V21 as it was a clerical error; - Part B Section B shows updated numbering due to a new subsection title being added. Please disregard these as they are not updates from V.20 and they will not be shown in V21 once changes are accepted; - Some minor errors in the FRR Legal Drafting are highlighted with Comments on the published documents such as Part A and Part B Appendices;

Mod_37_18 Housekeeping – Follow up Additional potential Mods will be required to look into the following issues*: - Part B Glossary definition of Credit Assessment Volume (from Mod_07_17) currently only refers to “Participant’s Supplier Units or Generator Units”; should this be extended to Assetless Units as well, in light of the fact that they can become New or Adjusted Participants?; - Part B AP09 paragraph 2.11.2 (from Mod_15_17) contains multiple instances of ‘metered quantities’. Only one was changed to ‘Metered Demand’ while potentially all should have been captured; however this has to be confirmed and further checks of all Code’s documentation will need to be carried out; - Mod_17_17 introduced two new definitions: “Ex-Ante Market” and “ Market Rules”. However these terms are already used throughout the T&SC as non capitalised terms; a check of all instances will be carried out to verify which one are to be capitalised as in line with the defined terms and which ones won’t. * Please note these were only flagged as potential Modifications - a detailed analysis has not been carried out as yet

Clarification to Disputes Mod_35_18 Clarification to Disputes 12th December 2018

Mod_35_18 Clarifications to Disputes It’s no secret that in these first few months of I-SEM we have received a significant number of Disputes… Experience of processing Disputes has highlighted potential issues in the process as it currently stands: - do Participants have sufficient time to consider referral to a DRB when the timelines are the same as those for the resolution of a Pricing Dispute (i.e. 5WD from issue of Dispute Notice)?; - is it clear that a price can be re-opened when a manifest error is declared either by the MO or as part of a Pricing Dispute Resolution?; - is there a rationale to limiting the application of Settlement Recalculation Threshold and Price Materiality Threshold only to resolutions from a DRB?;

Mod_35_18 Clarifications to Disputes – B.19.2 (b) and AP14 – (1) do Participants have sufficient time to consider referral to a DRB when the timelines are the same as those for Dispute resolution (i.e. 5WD)?; It may happen (and indeed it has already occurred) that the MO may need the whole 5 WDs to conclude making an assessment of the issue; or or that a meeting/call cannot be agreed any time earlier than the final day in the 5 WDs assigned for resolution; This leaves very little time to PTs to be able to consider and action a referral to DRB; Although submitting a Referral Form is only the initial administrative step, which doesn’t necessarily bind the Raising Party to potential costs etc., it would seem appropriate to ensure at least the availability of one additional WD to consider it;

Mod_35_18 Clarifications to Disputes – B.19.2 (b) and AP14 – (2) do Participants have sufficient time to consider referral to a DRB when the timelines are the same as those for Dispute resolution (i.e. 5WD)?; This has been addressed by changing paragraph B.19.2 as follows: … (b) unless the Market Operator determines that a manifest error has occurred under paragraph E.3.8.1, a Disputing Party may refer the Pricing Dispute to a Dispute Resolution Board by issuing a Referral Notice as soon as practicable, and in any case within 65 Working Days of the issue of the Notice of Dispute, otherwise the Dispute will be deemed to be withdrawn. Same changes reflected in Agreed Procedure 14: Within 56 WD of the issue of the Notice of Dispute

Mod_35_18 Clarifications to Disputes – E.3.8.1– (1) is it clear that a price can be re-opened when a manifest error is declared either by the MO or as part of a Pricing Dispute Resolution?; Paragraph E.3.8.1 is quite restrictive about the ability of the MO to call a manifest error: E.3.8.1 If the Market Operator identifies a manifest error in a published Imbalance Settlement Price within 5 Working Days of its publication (whether or not as a result of a Settlement Query or a Pricing Dispute), the Market Operator shall correct the manifest error and shall publish the corrected Imbalance Settlement Price as soon as possible and within 1 Working Day of making the correction. Does this mean that a manifest error cannot be declared as part of a Dispute Resolution, which can potentially occur 10WDs after the publication of the Imbalance Settlement Price?

Mod_35_18 Clarifications to Disputes – E.3.8.1– (2) is it clear that a price can be re-opened when a manifest error is declared either by the MO or as part of a Pricing Dispute Resolution?; The proposed change just aims to clarify that there is no other reason for the MO to recalculate the Imbalance Settlement Price other than a manifest error (unless a DRB or a higher authority directs the MO otherwise); E.3.8.1 If the Market Operator identifies a manifest error in a published Imbalance Settlement Price: a) within 5 Working Days of its publication (whether or not as a result of a Settlement Query or a Pricing Dispute); or b) as part of the resolution of a Pricing Dispute as per paragraph B.19.2.2 (a); the Market Operator shall correct the manifest error and shall publish the corrected Imbalance Settlement Price as soon as possible and within 1 Working Day of making the correction.

Mod_35_18 Clarifications to Disputes – B.19.3 – (1) is there a rationale to limiting the application of Settlement Recalculation Threshold and Price Materiality Threshold only to resolutions from a DRB? Section B.19.3 title could be confusing: it does not refer specifically to General Disputes; it is a section that covers general provisions for different Dispute types; also the limitation of the application of Settlement Recalculation Threshold and Price Materiality Threshold is inconsistently applied to DRB decisions only; this is not in line with the rationale for introducing these thresholds: i.e. - reduce costs and inconvenience to the Market when outcome are immaterial; and - provide more stability and certainty to the Price; It is also inconsistent with the applications of the Settlement Recalculation Threshold following a Settlement Query; it seems appropriate therefore to apply them both to the resolutions of all Disputes;

Mod_35_18 Clarifications to Disputes – B.19.3 – (2) is there a rationale to limiting the application of Settlement Recalculation Threshold and Price Materiality Threshold only to resolutions from a DRB? Section B.19.3 title could be confusing: it does not refer specifically to General Disputes; it is a section that covers general provisions for different Dispute types; B.19.3 General Dispute Provisions for Disputes B.19.3.1 All decisions in relation to the resolution of a Dispute or a material* error identified by the Market Operator as per paragraph E.3.8.1of a Dispute Resolution Board are subject to the Settlement Recalculation Threshold and a Price Materiality Threshold determined as follows: … Please note this is meant to say “manifest” not “material”. Proposing to amend this in the Legal Drafting of FRR

Mod_35_18: Justification and Implication of not implementing This proposed Modification seeks to amend the T&SC where the strict applications of its provisions could lead to unclear or inconsistent outcomes; these include: Application of Settlement Recalculation Threshold and Price Materiality Threshold only to DRB resolutions or Settlement Queries while not to other Dispute types; Lack of clarity to whether the MO has the right to identify a manifest error after 5WDs as part of a Dispute resolution; It also addresses limitations to Participant’s timelines where a resolution of a Pricing Dispute cannot be agreed before the allocated 5WDs; The implications for not implementing this Modifications are: Participants left with little or no time to refer a Dispute to a DRB; More instances of referrals and therefore costs to PTs in case it is not explicitly stated whether the MO can identify manifest errors after 5WDs; Inconsistency in the application of Settlement Recalculation Threshold and Price Materiality Threshold in different types of Disputes and Queries.

Settlement Document and Invoice Terminology Clarifications MOD_36_18 Settlement Document and Invoice Terminology Clarifications 12nd December 2018

Summary Information There is ambiguity in the use of the defined term Settlement Document within areas of the Code where it is conflated with the Market Operator Charge invoice in error This proposal seeks to address these ambiguities via minor changes to affected drafting and aims to avoid more substantial redrafting insofar as is possible The distinction between Settlement Documents for energy/capacity and MO Charge invoices is of material importance since VAT is treated differently for the two documents G.18.1.1 – G.18.1.4 – Participant Settlement Amounts on Settlement Documents where the Market Operator is not obliged to calculate or reflect VAT/issue VAT invoices (VAT self accounted by Participants via reverse charge) G.18.1.5 Market Operator Charges where the Market Operator issues VAT invoices reflecting VAT (Market Operator accounts for and collects VAT) This distinction is also called on elsewhere to define, inter alia, issuance, payment and publication obligations as well (e.g. G.2.5.4 vs G.7.1.5 for payment obligations)

Summary Information Cont. While developing this proposal some additional related areas of potential clarification/correction were identified as follows; Appendix G, which details publication timings for Statements, Reports, MO Charge invoices and settlement documents does not include Settlement Statements for Market Operator Charges which has potential implications for Settlement Query provisions and re-settlement Appendix G mentions separate Fixed and Variable Market Operator Charge invoices and that the Market Operator ‘may’ include them on a single invoice where Mod_20_18 already clarified that this ‘shall’ be a single monthly invoice Agreed Procedure 15 ‘Settlement and Billing’ discusses a process for treating unpaid Variable Market Operator Charge as an Unsecured Bad Debt which it is not under Part B Agreed Procedure 15 also refers to Settlement Reports for Market Operator Charges in error. These are not detailed under Appendix G, nor are they issued operationally

Legal Drafting Changes – Appendix G

Legal Drafting Changes – Glossary

Legal Drafting Changes – Agreed Procedure 15 Section 2

Legal Drafting Changes – Agreed Procedure 15 Section 3

Justification and Implication of Not Implementing This proposed Modification seeks to correct errors where the term Settlement Document is incorrectly used in relation to Market Operator Charge items which do not relate to energy or capacity settlement and otherwise clarify the use of this terminology; Such references are incorrect and could cause confusion as to the application of the term and related Code provisions This proposal also seeks to address the other inaccuracies specified in the explanation; Include a reference to Market Operator Charge Statements Clarify the approach to invoicing for Fixed and Variable Market Operator Charge Remove a reference to Market Operator Charge Settlement Reports and Remove a reference to Market Operator Charge as Unsecured Bad Debt If this proposal is not implemented the stated inaccuracies and resulting diminished transparency will remain

Code Objectives Furthered This proposal aims to further the transparency objective by removing the stated ambiguities and contradictions so that the rules are internally consistent on the application of Settlement Document and Market Operator Charge invoice terminology This proposals also aims to ensure transparency in; Invoicing of Market Operator Charge The treatment of unpaid Market Operator Charge Issuance of Settlement Statements for Market Operator Charge and Non-issuance of Settlement Reports for Market Operator Charge