1. BSC Panel 239 14 May 2015

2. Health & Safety 2

3. Report on Progress of Modification Proposals 14 May 2015

4. BSC Modifications Overview 4 Initial Written Assessment P321 Assessment Procedure P308, P315, P318, P320, P322 Report Phase P302, P319 With Authority - Authority Determined - Self-Gov. Determined P317 Fast Track Determined - Open Issues -

5. BSC Modifications Timelines Mod/ Issue May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Jan 16 Feb 16 Mar 16 Apr 16 … P302 DMR P308 ARDMR P315 ARDMR P318 ARDMR P319 DMR P320 ARDMR P321 IWAARDMR P322 DMR

6. P305 implementation update 14 May 2015 Nick Rubin and Jon Spence 239/04

7. P305 implementation update 7 ■ What’s the issue? – P305 requires new DTC data flows – MDB rejected DTC CP 3459A because of concern with one of the proposed flows ■ Alternative implementation approach: – Add a new ‘p-flow’ to the SVA Data Catalogue – Raise an urgent DTC CP to implement the other DTC flows ■ Rationale for our approach: – Pragmatic solution – Delivers intent of the P305 Final Requirements – Satisfies Party Agents’ demand for clear file structures – Satisfies DNOs’ demand for flexibility and simplicity

8. P239/05: Recommendations 8 We invite Panel Members to: ■ APPROVE the proposed change to the P305 requirements to enable the use of an SVA Data Catalogue data flow rather than a DTC data flow.

9. P321 ‘Publication of Trading Delivery Mode’ 14 May 2015 David Kemp 239/05 Initial Written Assessment

10. P321 – Publication of Trading Unit Delivery Mode Miles Macallister

11. The Proposal Publication of Trading Unit Delivery Mode Every GSP Group at every Reconciliation Run, for every Settlement Period Volumes (gross) of generation and demand in every GSP Group In a user friendly and downloadable format accessible to non-BSC parties 11

12. The Defect Identifying ‘Flipping’ through the TLM is unsatisfactory The Trading Unit Delivery Mode can affect the bills of embedded generators and customers on pass-through contracts. Embedded generators/customers are not able to independently see when ‘Flipping’ has occurred Embedded generators/customers are unable to make any forecasts for when flipping might occur in future 12

13. Advantages of this modification Embedded generators/customers have visibility on something which affects their bill They can make investment and generation/load shedding predictions based on evidence Balancing Incentives would have greater impact Increase trust and openness in the industry Aid to competition 13

14. BSC Objectives This modification meets 2 BSC Objectives: Objective (b) The economic and co-ordinated operation of the National Electricity Transmission System Objective (c) Promoting Effective Competition 14

15. P321: Proposed solution 15 ■ Publish whether a Trading Unit was delivering or offtaking in a Settlement Period

16. P321: Areas to consider 16 ■ What information should be published? ■ How and where should the information be made available? ■ Should P321 be progressed as a Self-Governance Modification?

17. P321: Proposed progression 17 ■ Four month Assessment Procedure – Assessment Report by 10 September 2015 ■ Workgroup membership to include experts in Trading Units

18. P321: Recommendations 18 We invite the Panel to: ■ AGREE that P321 progresses to the Assessment Procedure; ■ AGREE the proposed Assessment Procedure timetable; ■ AGREE the proposed membership for the P321 Workgroup; and ■ AGREE the Workgroup’s Terms of Reference.

19. P302 ‘Improving the Change of Supplier Meters read process for smart Meters’ 14 May 2015 Simon Fox-Mella 239/06 Modification Report

20. P302: Issue 20 ■ Background – Smarter Markets Change of Supplier Expert Group (COSEG) – Ofgem open letter to the Panel (6 Dec 2013) – Issue 53 ■ P302 seeks to – support the change of Supplier (CoS) read process for a Data and Communications Company (DCC) serviced smart Metering System – reduce the dependencies between the two Supplier hubs involved in a CoS event

21. P302: Proposed Solution 21 ■ The new Supplier will – collect the total cumulative and time of use Meter register readings via the DCC – pass these to the old Supplier using D0010 ‘Meter Readings’ data flow ■ Where this is not possible P302 sets out the timescales and processes for initiating the legacy CoS process ■ Optional use for non-DCC serviced smart Meters where both Suppliers agree

22. P302: Consequential changes 22 ■ DTC CP – Supplier-Supplier instance of the D0010 – new Requested Action Code value for use in the D0170 ■ Potential changes – DTC CP new data item for D0155 to indicate that the smart CoS process should be used – MAP08 review and changes – further changes to BSCP504 and BSCP514 following MAP08 review – post DCC go live changes – HH Settlement

23. P302: Panel’s initial recommendations 23 ■ Panel’s initial unanimous recommendations – Does better facilitate Objective (d) and therefore that P302 should be approved – agreed that the draft redlined changes to the BSC, BSCP504 and BSCP514 deliver the intention of P302 – recommended 30 June 2016 (June 2016 Release) if an Authority decision is received on or before 29 June 2015

24. P302: Report Phase Consultation responses 24 View against ■ The solution was not optimal ■ Preference for the previous proposed solution Views on objectives ■ Does better facilitates objective (d) (11 against 1) ■ Two respondents also believed that it facilities objective (c) YesNoNeutralOther Agree approval11100

25. P302: Report Phase Consultation responses 25 View against ■ Only one respondent disagreed with the detail set out in the CSDs but was supportive if clarifications were made YesNoNeutralOther Agree legal and redlined text?9111

26. P302: Report Phase Consultation responses 26 Views from those that disagree ■ Alignment with DCC go live date ■ Level of industry change makes implementation challenging ■ Workgroup not unanimous and a need for further change YesNo Agree Implementation Date?93

27. P302: Panel’s final views 27 We invite each Panel Member to confirm whether they agree with the Panel’s initial unanimous view that compared to the existing baseline ■ P302 does better facilitate Applicable BSC Objectives (d) ■ Confirm any difference in their rationale from that expressed in the initial views, and any views against the other Objectives

28. P302: Recommendations 28 We invite you to ■ APPROVE an Implementation Date of 30 June 2016 as part of the June 2016 Release, if an Authority decision is received on or before 29 June 2015 ■ APPROVE the draft BSC legal text and redlined changes to the CSDs for P302 and ■ APPROVE the P302 Modification Report

29. P319 ‘Removal of annual RMP review from PAF’ 14 May 2015 Matthew Woolliscroft 239/07 Modification Report

30. P319: Background and issue 30 ■ P319 was raised by the Panel following a recommendation from the Performance Assurance Board ■ Information contained within the annual review of Parties’ Risk Management Plans duplicates information already provided through other means – Parties have confirmed that they place little value on this annual review

31. P319: Solution 31 ■ P319 proposes to remove the requirement for ELEXON to produce an initial RMP and annual review these ■ It will rename Risk Management Plans to Risk Management Determinations – Better describes the way we provide this information ■ Proposed for implementation on 5 November 2015

32. P319: Panel’s Initial Views 32 ■ The Panel initially unanimously agreed that P319 will better facilitate Objective (d): – Seeks to remove duplication of effort and information ■ The Panel initially unanimously agreed: – P319 should be treated as Self-Governance – Direct to Report – 5 November 2015 implementation – Draft legal text changes deliver intention of the Modification

33. P319: Report Phase Consultation responses (1 of 2) 33 QuestionYesNoNeutralOther Do you agree that P319 should be approved? 1000 Do you agree P319 should be Self- Governance? 1000 Do you agree with the Implementation Date? 1000 Do you agree with the redlined changes? 1000

34. P319: Report Phase Consultation responses (2 of 2) 34 ■ The respondent did not provide any specific comments ■ Two respondents to ELEXON’s initial consultation confirmed they support P319 – current process is a cost to ELEXON which could be perceived as unnecessary and inefficient and hence reflect poorly on ELEXON QuestionYesNoNeutralOther Will P319 impact your organisation?0100 Will your organisation incur any costs implementing P319? 0100

35. P319: Recommendations 35 We invite the Panel to: ■ AGREE that P319 DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (d); ■ DETERMINE (in the absence of any Authority direction) that P319 is a Self- Governance Modification Proposal; ■ APPROVE P319; ■ APPROVE an Implementation Date of 5 November 2015 as part of the November 2015 BSC Systems Release; ■ APPROVE the draft legal text; and ■ APPROVE the P319 Modification Report.

36. CP1434 ‘Amend the three digit numeric Line Loss Factor Class (LLFC) ID to an alphanumeric LLFC ID ’ 14 May 2015 Simon Fox-Mella 239/08 Change Proposal - Assessment Report

37. CP1434: What is the issue? 37 ■ LLFC IDs are three digit codes DSOs use to group particular customer types and voltage levels together for allocating DUoS charges ■ Three digits limits number to 999 available ■ Concern DNOs will run out of LLFCs in near future

38. CP1434: Proposed solution 38 ■ Change the three digit numeric LLFC ID to a three character alphanumeric code – Increases number of LLFCs available to each DSO from 999 to 39,304 ■ Previous work on solutions – Issue and some options explored summer 2012 – Including extending number of digits from three to four/five

39. CP1434: Impacts and costs 39 ■ Amendments to – BSCP509 appendices 1 and 2 – Central Systems (MDD, SVAA and the ‘Pool Application’ of PARMS) – NHHDA system – ELEXON’s internal systems ■ Impacts – Suppliers and DSOs – Party Agents, including SMRAs and UMSOs ■ Central implementation costs ~£200k ■ Consequential changes: DTC CP to amend J0147 data item

40. CP1434: Implementation approach 40 ■ 30 June 2016 (June 2016 Release) – Allows participants at least 12 months lead time to implement the changes to their systems and processes – Would make new LLFC IDs available from 1 April 2017

41. CP1434: CP consultation responses 41 ■ 17 responses with majority of 12 in support ■ 5 respondents disagreed – All agreed something should be done – 3 preferred alternative of increasing from three digits to four/five due to cost – 2 believed full review of LLFs needed before making costly changes

42. CP1434: SVG discussion 42 ■ CP initially presented to SVG on 3 March 2015 – SVG had no comment on CP ■ Following IA, presented back to SVG on 28 April 2015 ■ SVG could not make an informed decision as it did not know: – When LLFCs would run out – Why LLFCs would run out – The impact of reaching LLFC limit – If the CP1434 solution is the most cost effective approach ■ SVG suggested a potential alternative solution that had not been developed

43. CP1434: SVG decision 43 ■ The SVG could not make a unanimous decision – Minority view that CP1434 should be implemented ASAP as needed to ensure DSOs meet obligations – Majority recommended a Workgroup to get further information and explore other options ■ It noted that deferring CP1434 rules out its proposed June 2016 implementation and creates uncertainty as to when any solution could be implemented

44. CP1434: Following SVG 44 ■ Request for information issued (Attachment C - confidential) – Very short timescales ■ Responses indicated: – Not all DNOs impacted – Critical issue for IDNOs and out of area DNOs – Increased demand for more LLFC IDs and P300 has reduced the number available – LLFCs may run out as early as 2017 for some Parties – If they had further time could assess cost and impact of potential alternative solutions – If there are no more LLFCs DNOs cannot meet their obligations

45. CP1434: ELEXON’s recommendation 45 ■ Panel to defer pending further investigation ■ Issue consultation on other options, allowing longer to respond ■ Present responses to SVG on 2 June – SVG to make recommendation based on additional information it lacked previously ■ If needed, come back to Panel on 11 June ■ Benefit: – Allows time to seek clarifications – Allows informed decision to be made – Can still make June 2016 implementation

46. CP1434: Panel options 46 ■ Approve CP1434 – Benefit: changes in time for June 2016 – Drawback: may be more efficient solution ■ Reject CP1434 – Drawback: does not solve problem industry agree must be solved eliminates change for June 16 implementation ■ Defer to workgroup – Benefit: discussion on other solutions – Drawback: already had issue on this topic eliminates change for June 16 implementation wouldn’t solve wider issues with LLFCs due to CP scope

47. CP1434: Recommendations (1 of 3) 47 We invite you to: ■ REQUEST the SVG reconsiders CP1434 in June following further information being sought.

48. CP1434: Recommendations (2 of 3) 48 Should the Panel decide not to send CP1434 back to the SVG with additional information, we invite you to: ■ DEFER a decision on approval of CP1434 pending a CP Workgroup’s conclusions; and ■ NOTE that deferring CP1434 rules out its proposed June 2016 implementation and creates uncertainty as to when any solution (whether an alphanumeric or other alternative solution) could be implemented.

49. CP1434: Recommendations (3 of 3) 49 Should the Panel decide not to defer CP1434 pending further information or a Workgroup, we invite you to: ■ AGREE the amendments to the proposed redlining for BSCP509 Appendix 1 for CP1434 made following the CP Consultation; ■ AGREE the proposed changes to BSCP509 Appendix 1 and BSCP509 Appendix 2 for CP1434; and ■ AGREE that CP1434 should be approved for implementation on 30 June 2016 as part of the June 2016 Release.

50. Location of EMR Requirements in BSCPS 14 May 2015 Talia Addy 239/09 Issue

51. Background 51 ■ Implementation of DECC’s EMR policy requires supporting provisions under the BSC ■ ELEXON included these in existing BSC documents – We believe this approach to be more efficient than duplicating and developing a new set of EMR documents and reduces the risk of inconsistencies

52. What is the issue? 52 ■ IMServ raised a number of concerns about the location of EMR requirements: – Existing BSCPs are for BSC Settlement, not appropriate to include EMR obligations – Location for EMR obligations should not have been based on convenience ■ IMServ has suggested that all EMR obligations be moved into a single new BSCP ■ Consideration also required for other non-BSC Settlement obligations such as Warm Homes and DSBR/SBR

53. SVG Recommendations 53 ■ The SVG recommends to the Panel that an Issue Group be established to consider: – How EMR processes dovetail with existing BSC processes – How DECC’s requirements have been implemented in BSCP503 – BSC Settlement Risk associated with the impact on HHDA systems and processes – What changes may be required to the BSC Architecture Principles

54. Proposed Progression 54 If the Panel agrees that an Issue should be raised, we recommend: ■ Issue raised in the next month ■ First Issue Group meeting held in July – Allowing time to consider the impact of moving EMR obligations and the BSC Architectural Principles

55. Recommendations 55 We invite the Panel to: ■ AGREE that an Issue Group be established to consider the SVG’s concerns.

56. CACoP Principle 13 14 May 2015 Oliver Xing 239/10

57. Recommendations 57 We invite the Panel to: ■ NOTE that ELEXON will consult the industry on the draft CACoP Principle 13.

58. Minutes of Meetings 236, 237 & 239 and Actions arising 14 May 2015 Adam Richardson

59. Chairman’s Report 14 May 2015 Michael Gibbons

60. ELEXON Report 14 May 2015 Mark Bygraves 239/01

61. EMR Update 1.EMR Service Readiness a.EMR services went live on 1 April 2015 as planned. b.Due to a number of issues with the enduring settlement system, contingency arrangements, to enable daily invoices and backing data to be issued from 29 April 2015, have been invoked. 2.Funding a.Grant (and from 1 April Service Agreement) invoices are being paid in accordance with the agreed payment schedule and we continue to maintain a positive cash-flow. b.“Actual” resource utilisation is not materially different to “budget” and “forecast”. 3.Circulars Since the last Panel meeting, the following EMR Circulars, which may be of interest to BSC Parties, were issued: a.EMR Circular 41: Update on the BSC Changes to support Energy Intensive Industry for Electricity Market Reform. b.EMR Circular 42: Invoicing the CFD Operational Costs Levy to Suppliers. c.EMR Circular 43: Further update on invoicing to Suppliers. d.EMR Circular 44: Non-Payment Register for the Capacity Market is now published. e.EMR Circular 45: Update on DTC changes to support Energy Intensive Industry and Green Excluded Electricity for Electricity Market Reform. f.EMR Circular 46: New Publications now available on the EMRS website. 61

62. Distribution Report 14 May 2015 David Lane

63. National Grid Report 14 May 2015 Ian Pashley

64. Ofgem Report 14 May 2015 Rory Edwards

65. Reports from the ISG, SVG, PAB,TDC 14 May 2015 239/01a-d

66. Report from the JESG 12 March 2015 235/01e

67. Report from the ECCAF Date/Month/Year Verbal

68. Trading Operations: BSC Operations Headline Report 14 May 2015 239/02

69. Change Report 14 May 2015 239/03

70. Approval of Funding Shares Audit Scope 14 May 2015 239/12 Darren Draper

71. BSC Funding Share Audit Scope Insert: Document title 71 ■ Funding Shares used to charge ELEXON’s costs to Trading Parties ■ Funding Shares Audit required by the BSC ■ Panel required to agree scope of Audit ■ Scope is limited to calculation of Funding Shares - costs separately audited ■ Funding Share data accompanying ELEXON’s invoices can be checked against the website and assistance is always available from the Finance Team

72. BSC Funding Share Audit Scope Insert: Document title 72 ■ Calculation of Main Funding Shares, SVA (Consumption) Funding Shares, SVA (Production) Funding Shares, and General Funding Shares (on a default basis) ■ Calculation of Annual Funding Shares (used by FAA) ■ Checking of BSC Cost shares through to invoices

73. Recommendations Insert: Document title 73 The Panel is invited to: ■ APPROVE the proposed scope of the Funding Shares Audit

74. BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 14 May 2015 239/13 Adam Richardson

75. Review of the BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 75 ■ Reviewed on a quarterly basis ■ BSC Panel Sponsors and Committee Chairs met in April 2015 to consider changes ■ Document sets out: – Updates on work undertaken in Q4 (Jan-Mar) – Key milestones and amendments to work streams in Q1 (Apr-Jun) – Some revisions to scheduled work programme ■ Panel is invited to approve amendments at this six month review ■ Next Review: End of August 2015

76. PRIORITY 1: Delivery of Core BSC Services 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 76 Extended NEW Extended

77. PRIORITY 2: Addressing Known Settlement Issues 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 77 NEW Extended Potential for further amendment subject to deliberations in respect of paper 239/11

78. PRIORITY 3: Efficient Working Practice and Committee Communication 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 78 Aligned with DTN Work Stream Extended

79. PRIORITY 4: Addressing Evolving Settlement Risks 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 79 NEW Concluded

80. PRIORITY 5: Future Settlement Design and Development - Drivers for Change 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 80

81. PRIORITY 5: Future Settlement Design and Development - Drivers for Change 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 81 NEW Potential Extension Brought Forward Updated NEW

82. PRIORITY 6: Other Considerations 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 82 Development work extended

83. Recommendations 239/13 - BSC Panel Strategic Work Programme - Update 83 The BSC Panel is invited to:  APPROVE the amendments to the Strategic Work Programme; and  NOTE that the revised Strategic Work Programme will be published on the ELEXON website following the May Panel meeting

84. Next Meeting: 11 June 2015