rmdsie.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web view29/02/2008 · chair: karen kavanagh – cer...

Industry Governance Group 29.02.2008 Meeting Minutes

Date: 29.02.2008

Chair: Karen Kavanagh – CERAttendees: ESB Customer Supply - Gerry

McDonald, Tom Shields.

Energia – Edward Barr, Mandy Reid, Margaret Murray.

ESBIE – Bernadette Jennings, Anita Crammond, Emma Tighe.

Airtricity – Siobhan Leane, Noreen McGeough, Roy Baker.

ESB Networks – Walter Keady, Kieran Finucane, Mary Mulcahy, Tony Carroll.

Scottish & Southern – Rhona McLaren.

MRSO – John Dunphy.

Design Administrator – Oonagh Delaney, Cormac Madden, Colm Gaffney.

CER – Karen Kavanagh, David Egan, Elizabeth Farrelly.

Gemserv – Dinesh Sharma.

Eirgrid – Michael Callan

BGES – Tracy Costello

CHPower – Ann Fingleton

Apologies:

Slides of the meeting are issued separately

Agenda:

1. Minutes from Previous IGG Meeting C. Madden, RMDS

2. Change of Supplier Objection to Debt K. Kavanagh, CER

3. Review of Action Items C. Madden, RMDS

4. Schema Release T. Carroll, ESB Networks

5. CER Update K. Kavanagh, CER

6. Gemserv Update D. Sharma, Gemserv

7. Market Operations Update J.Dunphy, MRSO

8. Address Data Standards workshop update. C. Gaffney, RMDS

9. TAG Update C. Gaffney, RMDS

10. Retail Market Design Service Update C. Madden, RMDS

11. Market Design Update C. Madden, RMDS

12. Next Steps K. Kavanagh, CER

1. Minutes:1. K. Kavanagh apologised for the disruption to the regular IGG day and date. This is due to the

Smart Metering workshops which are ongoing.

K. Kavanagh commented that the IGGs were very detailed and would it be possible for RMDS to summarise some of the detailed information prior to the IGG in order to free up time for

of 25


1. Minutes:policy type issues. She asked if any the participants had any views.

None of the participants had any issues with the current IGG format.

C. Madden commented that the Closed and Carried Forward IGG actions were compiled and distributed to participants the previous day along with the slides for the presentation.

K. Kavanagh remarked that participants are responsible for checking the closed actions and if they had any further queries about these issues they should raise them at the IGG.

G. McDonald mentioned that the only real issue he had was with the timing of the distribution of the IGG documentation as it is difficult to comment on a particular closed item if it is issued the previous afternoon.

K. Kavanagh suggested sending out the summary of actions earlier as this would give participants time to review the actions prior to the IGG without having to go through each action in detail at the IGG.

C. Madden asked how far in advance participants would need the summary of action items.

G. McDonald suggested a full day in advance.

E. Barr suggested a week in advance.

C. Madden commented that some of the issues may close in the intervening period if it were a week in advance. He proposed that RMDS will look at this issue further.

K. Kavanagh mentioned that she wanted to discuss debt hopping and a proposal from R. McLaren of Scottish and Southern on the introduction of a 28 day termination clause to be included as standard in contracts. K. Kavanagh also suggested discussing how CER can facilitate the retail market by providing additional information for participants (as part of AOB).

Minutes of IGG 10th January 2008

C. Madden sought approval for the IGG Minutes held January 10 th. These minutes were approved by participants.

E. Barr commented that the minutes were very detailed at the moment and suggested reducing the level of detail.

C. Madden added that this would mean summarising a debate rather than giving the detail.

S. Leane disagreed with this point and complemented the level of detail of the IGG minutes. Currently you know who said what and what context. She felt that if you synopsise this information you may lose some important detail.

C. Gaffney suggested keeping the current detailed format but adding a high level summary at the beginning.

2. Change of Supplier Objection to Debt:2. Change of Supplier Objection to Debt

K. Kavanagh introduced the Change of Supplier Objection to Debt agenda item.

BackgroundThe Decision Paper CER/05/060 CER outlined a number of options open to suppliers in the management of debt. These measures have since proven to be insufficient and the debt hopping topic was reintroduced by S. Leane and R. Baker of Airtricity in September 2007.

of 25


2. Change of Supplier Objection to Debt:Suppliers were invited to make submissions to CER on debt hopping in October 2007. CER were interested in finding out why the proactive measures contained in the Decision Paper were not working. A number of submissions have since been presented by suppliers to CER. K. Kavanagh then opened the floor for any comments.

R. Baker remarked that the original submission still applies, and is very similar to the process in the North that relates to SMEs and Commercial customers. The current market design can facilitate this submission but there are some small changes required.

K. Kavanagh asked R. Baker to synopsise the issue for participants.

R. Baker explained that a 110 market message (Notification of Old Supplier to CoS) is received by the old supplier. This message is used to inform the old supplier that the customer is moving to a new supplier. The old supplier can then object to this CoS within two working days of receiving the 110 market message.

M. Murray commented that the change request is not about allowing customers to move, it is about preventing customers who have built up significant debt which is overdue, from defaulting. Customers know how the market operates and they know how to avoid paying debt by moving between suppliers. In the North if a customer is 30 days overdue and has a debt of more then £50, when they try to initiate a CoS she is notified and they have the ability to object to this CoS request. In the ROI they have tried using the mechanisms outlined by CER in the Decision paper (security deposits, direct debits etc.) but there is no way of preventing a customer from changing suppliers when you are about disconnect that customer. It is not in the customer’s interest to allow them to accumulate debt and be faced with legal action from a number of suppliers.

R. Baker mentioned that energy suppliers are picking up the cost of this debt hopping. 98% of the market is paying for the 2% of habitual debt hoppers. Other suppliers have made similar debt hopping submissions to CER. The statistics are available to indicate that this is a significant issue. He also suggested that this request is relevant to process harmonisation between North and South.

K. Kavanagh asked how you ensure that this objection capability is not abused or over used to limit a customer’s choice.

R. Baker replied that the change request submitted by Airtricity suggests using a far higher debt threshold [than NI] of €500 or above and 30 days overdue. There is still plenty of scope for customers to move but this upper debt limit enables suppliers to tackle the issue of debt hopping. He pointed out that this submission has been circulated and agreed by all suppliers within the ROI.

K. Kavanagh asked if this was the consensus of all suppliers.

A. Crammond indicated that they were happy with the thresholds proposed by Airtricity. She commented that they have their own debt management controls but that it would be useful to have the ability to object to a 110 market message.

K. Kavanagh asked if this proposal applied to domestic customers.

R. Baker clarified that the proposal does not apply to domestic customers.

K. Kavanagh asked how they will implement this proposal.

R. Baker commented that his understanding was the IGG need to agree to the submission made and then the market design impacts need to be assessed.

K. Kavanagh asked if there were any further comments.

of 25


2. Change of Supplier Objection to Debt:E. Barr pointed out that this was in the original design and CER ruled it out. His view was that they were just implementing something that was always required.

K. Kavanagh commented that the Commission was concerned that this Object to Debt process may be used to stifle customer movements.

R. Baker made the point that it cannot have a negative affect as the objection can only be initiated if there is a significant overdue balance.

S. Leane mentioned that this process has been in place in Northern Ireland for the last few years and there have never been any real issues.

K. Kavanagh took an action to raise this issue with the Commission in order to approve the change request in principle. The details of the implementation can then be looked at later.

Action Item – CER to agree in principle to progress the Supplier Objection to Debt process proposed by Market Participants.

3. Review of Action Items:1. C. Madden gave an update of the IGG Actions

He commented that the Closed and Carried Forward actions were distributed in Excel spreadsheet format prior to the IGG. He asked participants if they had any issue with the closed action items.

Participants had no issues with the closed action items.2. Action Item 41 - Raise a DR to propose the initiation of the updates to the Central Market

Systems of a QH to QH meter replacement at the same time as the MV90 is updated

This document has been issued and the process has been implemented. This process is currently being used by Profile Data Services and MRSO. This DR should be advanced to MCR request and dropped as an action item.

There were no objections from participants to moving this DR to MCR.

Action Item – RMDS progress DR 0153 Working Practice 0016 - QH to QH Meter Replacement to MCR

3. Action Item 95 - Investigate the possibility of addressing inconsistencies between the DUoS rules and the MICs and DUoS Groups in the MPRN data

This action item was to look at the various meter points to compare them to the system tariff rules and correcting any meter points which have moved off the correct tariff rate. G. Halligan of Networks Commercial is currently following up on this issue. A proposal will be submitted to CER on this issue.

Action Item – RMDS to distribute an update on Action Item 95 by March 7th.4. Action Item 108 (& Action Item 159) Issue Data Storage and Archiving Document to

Market Participants

An updated version of this document will be issued shortly.5. Action Item 109 New Commercial Policy required to cover Erroneous De-registrations

This document has been submitted to CER.

S. Leane asked if suppliers had the option of commenting on this document.

K. Kavanagh responded that any changes in policy will be communicated to suppliers.

of 25


3. Review of Action Items:6. Action Item 198 (& 197) RMDS to investigate the possibility of publishing the Generator

Unit ID / Generation Unit ID and the suitability of using the Export

O. Delaney mentioned that they didn’t have any problems with publishing the Generator Unit ID / Generation Unit ID. She asked suppliers why they might need the Export Arrangement ID and would a flag indicating the presence of an Export Arrangement ID suffice.

S. Leane responded that she discussed this issue with their Billing team and they have difficulty in finding any IDs associated with a Generator. This data does not appear to be sensitive information as it is just an ID. From the Extranet site you cannot see the supplier. These Generator IDs are required to set up a Generator on their wholesale system. It is currently time consuming trying to find the link between an MPRN, Generator Unit ID, Generation Unit ID and Export Arrangement ID.

E. Barr agreed with S. Leane’s comments.

S. Leane didn’t know of anywhere in the wholesale or retail market where all this data is readily available.

C. Madden summarised that when an Export Arrangement is in place for a Generator, this information is fed to MRSO and a supplier gets a copy of the Export Arrangement ID from MRSO. The supplier will have this Export Arrangement ID from this document. However from a data integrity perspective it is a useful piece of information to have on the Extranet.

S. Leane commented that having one location storing all the IDs saves time and effort. She then asked when these IDs will be added to the web site.

C. Madden responded that the next step was to carry out an impact analysis study. The fact that an MPRN can have multiple Export Arrangement IDs may require some web page development. Other issues such as SAP changes or interface modifications will also need to be impacted.

7. Action Item 206 - RMDS to check how the Usage Factor is affected in the case of an MPRN with a mixture of actual and estimated readings on the registers for the same reading visit

Usage factors will be updated if at least one reading is an actual reading value. RMDS have received good feedback on this issue from the Support Centre which can be distributed. In summary the Usage Factor is recalculated in each case where there is an actual read.

W. Keady mentioned that there are a few variances to this rule. He said he needed to investigate these exceptions further.

C. Madden proposed tracking this issue as a Market Issue.

K. Kavanagh asked how do suppliers see the Usage Factor.

E. Barr mentioned it is on the 300 Read Message.

Action Item – RMDS to distribute feedback from the Support Centre on action Item 206.

Action Item – RMDS to log variances of the Usage Factor rule on the Market Issues log.8. Action Item 210 - RMDS to follow up with Networks to see if the Service Order they

receive contains the meter type details

C. Madden commented that this action arose from the Universal Meter discussion. He pointed out that the Meter Configuration Code appears on the service order and not the meter type. The meter operator has the freedom to use a range of meter types to fulfil the service order. The meter type details therefore do not appear on the service order.

of 25


3. Review of Action Items:E. Barr asked is this not a problem for suppliers if they don’t know the RM code.

T. Costello commented that the service order doesn’t need to specify the RM code as it is covered under the MCCs.

C. Madden responded that the 332 message will have this detail and that he was only commenting on the paper service order the NT has.

M. Mulcahy remarked that she thought this issue was related to the new meter types that you no longer needed to change a meter if the meter is moving from single tariff to double tariff. Her question was does the NT know going out to the premises that they don’t need to bring a new meter with them.

C. Madden responded that the NT won’t know not to bring a meter.

M. Mulcahy asked will a meter have been booked out of the system even though it is not required.

C. Madden confirmed that it would.

E. Barr asked does this mean that this is a retained meter segment with a new configuration.

C. Madden responded that the segment for the existing and the segment for the new meter will be detailed as the same meter.

T. Costello asked if this will impact their systems. Will service request be rejected as there will be different MCC code.

S. Leane commented that this was currently happening with multifunction meters.

C. Madden mentioned that they could get a sample of a message and distribute it to participants.

Action Item – RMDS to distribute a sample 332 message indicating the meter data that suppliers should expect in the case of a universal meter with a changed MCC

9. Action Item 212 - To publish the Multiplier value associated with an MPRN on the Extranet site

C. Madden commented that he saw no reason why this value couldn’t be published.

S. Leane asked if PDS always adjust the consumption.

C. Madden commented that it was included in the market model for QH sites for information purposes only and in some cases it is not populated.

S. Leane mentioned that if they see a multiplier associated with a QH site and if there is no multiplier on the message then they know that they should ignore the multiplier value for that site. She then asked what is meant by ‘many of the values are not reliable’.

J. Dunphy commented that this is only for QH sites. Some of the QH data brought into SAP didn’t have a multiplier value. All new QH sites have the multipliers.

C. Madden mentioned that when PDS amend a multiplier then this value is also updated in SAP.

4. Schema Release:3. C. Madden introduced Tony Carroll the ESB Networks IT Manager. He has responsibility for

various IT systems including SAP ISU, which is the Central Market System. Any changes to

of 25


4. Schema Release:these systems come under his remit. His presentation is to give some background to the IT deliverables for the next year and a half.

T. Carroll remarked that he was asked by C. Madden to put into context how the implementation of changes in the market systems interact with the day to day work that takes place within ESB Networks. ESBN is currently implementing one of the biggest IT projects within ESB in terms of delivering an Enterprise Asset Management system. This has major implications on the resourcing of IT projects. The 2008 IT deliverables have been further complicated with the advent of the Smart Metering project. He therefore wanted to put into context the timings and limitations ESBN have in delivering changes to systems.

T. Carroll then presented the key ESBN deliverables for 2008.

1. Smart Metering. This was the last item to be included on his deliverable list but is now top of everybody’s agenda.

2. Upgrade of SAP ISU (CMS).3. Roll out of the hand held devices for Network Technicians.4. Appointments scheduling system for customers.5. Integrated Work Management solution for capital works and new customer

connections. This is tied into the overall market systems as it caters for the development of physical infrastructure while SAP ISU manages the commercial aspect of this infrastructure.

T. Carroll then presented the challenges in delivering Smart Metering. He showed a slide indicating a possible communications infrastructure for Smart Metering. He pointed out that there is considerable complexity in implementing any Smart Metering infrastructure. The ESB Smart Metering pilot will be implementing 4 different types of Smart Metering infrastructure in order to identify the most suitable Smart Metering infrastructure for Ireland.

The project will have a considerable impact on the IT systems. The geographic location of a customers premise will determine to some extent the Smart Metering infrastructure to be used. The data is gathered and fed back via a Wide Area Network (WAN) into a Head End Data Collector. There will be multiple Head End Data Collectors for the collection of data from multiple metering systems. These Head End Data Collectors interface with a Meter Data Management System (MDMS) which collects all the meter data. Smart Metering will increase the volumes of data by up to ten times the current CMS data volume. MDMS then feeds into SAP ISU (CMS) which in turn interfaces with the market.

SAP ISU cannot currently handle these volumes of data. Secondly the current version of the SAP software that ESBN use is currently on extended maintenance. SAP are building a new platform to deliver Smart Metering functionality. This will be built on the SAP ERP 6 platform. This will use a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) or as SAP call it an Enterprise Architecture. They will deliver a series of enhancement packs for different industry applications, one of which is Smart Metering. The first of these enhancement packs will be delivered in the second half of 2008. These enhancement packs will allow SAP to interact with an MDMS which holds all of the Smart Metering interval data. Therefore in order to pilot the Smart Metering infrastructure it is essential that ESBN upgrade the current version of SAP ISU to ERP 6. Irrespective of Smart Metering it is still a priority for ESBN to upgrade SAP ISU as 2009 is the last the last year of support for the current version of the SAP software.

SAP ISU also integrates with many other IT systems which are also currently changing. The systems which are changing include:

1. AREAS – for managing Meter work orders. This scheduling system provides the appointment slots for meter work orders. This system is over 20 years old and is based on an obsolete VMS platform. The scheduling module will be replaced and the customer connectivity is to be moved into SAP ISU. This will consolidate the customer facing work management into SAP ISU.

2. SAP Mobile – This is a hand held solution for handling Meter Works service orders.

of 25


4. Schema Release:Meter Works can now update the CMS systems the same day they are completed.

T. Carroll mentioned that new interfaces need to be created to integrate all these systems. Many of the existing IT systems such as HR and Financials etc. will be integrated into a single SAP environment.

The ISU upgrade is a technical upgrade and is not driven by a requirement for any new functionality. It is to ensure that the SAP solution remains in a stable environment for the foreseeable future. It is also being upgraded to facilitate Smart Metering. SAP ISU was scheduled to be upgraded in January 2008, but this upgrade was delayed by the prioritisation of the Smart Metering [pilot] project. SAP ISU needs to be able to identify a Smart Meter to be able to run the pilot.

S. Leane asked if the SAP ISU upgrade has any impact on the selection of the Smart Meter to be used by the market.

T. Carroll confirmed that the upgrade didn’t have any impact on the Smart metering selection. An RFQ has been issued for a smart metering system. A range of metering systems will be selected. Metering systems include a meter, communications system, concentrator and a head end collection system. He pointed out that a high percentage of the ROIs electricity network is overhead (70%) which is not the European norm. A number of different smart metering systems will be tested including meters with in-house displays.

The upgrade is beginning in June and so there is a software freeze from that time. It will take nine months to complete this upgrade and is due to be delivered in Easter 2009. Just before June there will be an ISU release. There is contention for resources and constraints for this ISU release. The planned release in May is to support and enable the Smart Metering pilot. Last year Smart Metering wasn’t even on the agenda, it is now top of the list and is an absolute priority from ESBN’s point of view. Support is also required for the roll out of the Meter Works mobile handhelds and the Scheduling and Works Management interfaces and then there is a Schema release. This is where the difficulty arises for ESBN as they cannot physically complete all these projects. ESBN have decided to:

1. Defer the release of the Scheduling system until next year2. Proceed with Smart Metering as this cannot be deferred.3. Proceed with the roll out of the Meter Works hand helds, (as it has already been

piloted).4. Proceed with the roll out of the Integrated Work Management system as this is a multi

million euro system that is being built at the moment.

The reality is that the schema release and scheduling system has to be deferred until after the ISU upgrade.

S. Leane asked when the schema release will be deferred to.

T. Carroll responded that the schema release is to be deferred until after Easter 2009. He stressed that this is unfortunate.

S. Leane asked if this Schema release was up for discussion or has the decision already been made.

T. Carroll responded that if a direction was given that the Schema release is more important then Smart Metering then they would have to go ahead with the schema release, but he doesn’t expect this to happen.

K. Kavanagh commented that she was concerned that Smart Metering is being used as a reason for preventing the Schema release. She pointed out that the SAP upgrade was going to happen anyway. She believed that a discussion is required to identify the impacts to the market in terms of what is included in this release and what is the impact of deferring any of

of 25


4. Schema Release:these market change requests. From a CER perspective she thought it was very short notice to be raising this issue. A practical discussion needs to be held with suppliers to identify the impact this delay in the schema release has on suppliers.

S.Leane mentioned that Airtricity would have to discuss the impact of not getting this schema release internally. She pointed out that there are only three Market Change Requests in this schema release out of a considerable number of change requests that have been raised over the last number of years. If this release is delayed until 2009 then all other requests will be delayed until 2010. In 2009 Global Aggregation is to be addressed and this will have a significant impact on retail market systems for 2009. A discussion needs to be held with ESBN to understand how they can cope with all these changes. She thought it was unacceptable that a schema release can be postponed when next year there may be something else that impacts the 2009 schema release. There is always some new project every year and it can’t be an option that there is no time or resources for the completion of a schema release.

K. Kavanagh asked when suppliers were briefed on this schema delay.

Participants responded that this was the first time they had heard of the schema delay.

S. Leane mentioned that they have been discussing this release for the last number of months. These change requests had been prioritised and had been discussed internally at length.

C. Madden commented that he understood what people were saying. He added that one of the three change requests has already been delivered (MCR 0063 - Addition of New Market Message for the Provision of Reconciliation Data). T. Carroll confirmed that he was committed to building the 131 market message (DR 0117 Proposal to add acceptance completion and cancellation message to Meter Works design) This will be worked on after the SAP upgrade.

S. Leane commented that the fact is that they are operating in the retail market, change requests are being raised and participants expect these change requests to be implemented in a reasonable period of time. She mentioned that MCR 0063 has been there since market opening. There are also a considerable number of change requests which didn’t make the prioritisation list and a number of new change requests to be raised for 2008. She asked when are all these change requests going to be completed.

K. Kavanagh asked which three change requests was to be part of this schema release.

C. Madden summarised the three change requests:

1. DR 0117 – Meter Works status message2. MCR 0063 – Aggregation Reconciliation Data 3. MCR 0127 - Decouple CA and CoS

G. McDonald commented that there were more change requests listed at the last IGG.

C. Madden clarified that there were three prioritised change requests and some other change requests which were subject to regulatory decisions. Vulnerable Customers and the Supplier of Last Resort were to be included.

K. Kavanagh asked, what is the impact on suppliers and customers of deferring each of these change requests.

C. Madden mentioned (for MCR 0127 - Decouple CA and CoS) that as a result of the CER decision the existing data on the system was amended for existing meter points and flagged as having Connection Agreements. Currently there are no volume issues but over time as Connection Agreements are not returned it will become an issue again. The original decision addressed where there was no Change of Legal Entity but there is a Change of Supplier at the existing meter point with an existing customer.

of 25


4. Schema Release:J. Dunphy remarked that if there is a Connection Agreement in place then the Change of Supplier goes through automatically. For customers with a Deemed Connection Agreement in place there is no hindrance. The volumes of provisional registrations due to lack of Connection Agreements is very small. Where Connection Agreements are not returned and reissued, these tend to be completed quite quickly. MRSO can handle the volumes at the moment. New connections are not currently an issue.

S. Leane asked if there was a significant change in the volumes of customers changing, would this be an issue for MRSO.

J. Dunphy responded that this would only be an issue if there was a Change of Legal Entity at the meter point for the Change of Supplier.

N. McGeough remarked that her preference was to go back to Airtricity and review the impacts internally. This would facilitate a more complete impact analysis.

K. Kavanagh asked was MCR 0063 an issue.

S. Leane commented that it hasn’t been released yet.

J. Dunphy pointed out that these reports from MCR 0063 are readily available from MRSO.

K. Kavangh thanked T. Carroll for his presentation. She commented that Participants were informed of this software freeze at short notice and it is a significant piece of information for suppliers to absorb. She suggested that suppliers need to further analyse the impact of this schema delay and feedback any comments they might have to CER by Tuesday March 4th.

E. Barr pointed out that CER have a vested interest in Vulnerable Customer phase 3.

K. Kavanagh asked RMDS to circulate the list of prioritised Change Requests along with the Regulatory decisions.

G. McDonald commented that ESB Customer Supply was nominated as the SoLR in February 2006. He felt that that ESB Customer Supply cannot fulfil their obligations if the schema release doesn’t go ahead.

K. Kavanagh mentioned that these were the types of issues they needed to hear about.

Action Item – RMDS to distribute the list of prioritised market change requests along with the regulatory decisions.

Action Item – Suppliers to give feedback to CER on the impacts of not having the schema release by March 4th.

5. CER Update:1. K. Kavanagh presented the following topics as part of the CER Update.

Retail Tariff Timetable 2008A draft timetable was distributed last week for the publication of the retail tariffs. This timetable shows the various key milestones that form the inputs into the creation of the tariffs. Participants fed back their requirements which have been incorporated into this timetable. The next step is to publish this Tariff Timetable by March 3rd.

Smart MeteringD. Egan mentioned that four meter working groups have been established. These working Groups are:

1. Customer Behaviour chaired by Therese Murphy SEI2. Networks chaired by Neil McGuiness ESBN

of 25


5. CER Update:3. Billing / Data Services chaired by Karen Cahill of Airtricity4. Tariffs chaired by Paul Cullen ESBCS.

An invite has been sent out to all participants to nominate a person to attend the working groups. At the SIG meeting in February they announced a Smart Metering pilot scheme. There will be six pilots and 200 meters per pilot. CER have invited their Northern counterparts to give a presentation to the Smart Metering Steering Group.

SIG UpdateA draft of the Debt Code of Practice was circulated. The issue of Carbon reduction scheme (Action Item 213) has been raised with his colleagues in renewables and generation. An update on this issue will be presented at a future IGG.

K. Kavanagh mentioned that there will be constant flow of information about Smart Metering over the upcoming IGGs. A document was circulated outlining the key objectives of the various working Groups which has to be finalised.

2. Scottish and Southern Proposal to introduce a Standard Termination Clause in Domestic Supply Contracts

K. Kavanagh introduced R. McLaren of Scottish and Southern to talk about a 28 day termination clause.

R. McLaren presented the Scottish and Southern Proposal to introduce a Standard Termination Clause in Domestic Supply Contracts for electricity and gas markets (the detail of which can be seen in the embedded document below).

K. Kavanagh asked what suppliers thought of the proposal.

E. Barr asked what CERs views were.

G. McDonald mentioned that he would need to take this information back to his team to identify potential impacts. His initial impression was that this was not currently an issue for domestic customers within the ROI.

R. McLaren suggested that there is nothing to prevent suppliers from changing their existing contract terms. From their experience in Britain, as competition increased in the domestic market, customers were subjected to tighter legal clauses which prevented competition. Customers are more likely to change suppliers if they know that there is a standard period for terminating a contract.

B. Jennings suggested that this proposal may be contrary to or may even be covered by pre existing legislation. She suggested that her legal team would need to examine this proposal further before they could give a response.

R. McLaren suggested that from her information the legislation covers a Cooling Off period.

B. Jennings confirmed that once money has been paid for goods or services customers are bound to a contract.

K. Kavanagh asked would this legislation encourage bad debt.

R. McLaren responded that this was an initial concern that customers could switch easily to avoid debt, but it never actually happened.

N. McGeough commented that customers with bad debt can currently change suppliers just as

of 25


5. CER Update:easily as their British counterparts.

K. Kavanagh asked is the debt hopping proposal contrary to this proposal.

N. McGeough remarked that debt hopping is a separate issue as it is about preventing customers changing suppliers until they pay their debts and not about holding customers to a particular clause in a contract.

K. Kavanagh suggested that this proposal be circulated and for participants to return their comments by March 14th.

G. McDonald asked if this was a specific license requirement within the UK.

R. McLaren confirmed that it was part of the license requirement but now it has been deemed that the market has been sufficiently established and new entrants no longer have this legislative protection.

E. Barr requested a soft copy of the Scottish and Southern proposal.

T. Costello asked what kind of contracts were used to tie in customers

R. McLaren responded that suppliers were targeting profitable customers and tying them in to fixed term contacts of 6 to 12 months. This prevented customers from moving.

T. Costello asked what is currently preventing customers from moving if they want to.

R. McLaren responded that if a customer signs up to a new supplier they may be in breach of their existing contract and as such cannot change suppliers. If a standardised termination clause is introduced then it makes it easier for customers to switch and enables sales staff to compete. Currently customers in the ROI have no means of objecting to a contract.

C. Madden mentioned that the sole ground for objection in RoI was on the basis of an error [erroneous transfer].

T. Costello commented that in the Commercial market customers are not bound by contracts instead they use Agreement forms.

R. McLaren mentioned that in the UK Commercial contracts tend to be negotiated every six months. Domestic customers are not tied into fixed term contracts and can move when contacted by a new supplier.

Action Item – RMDS to circulate the Scottish and Southern Proposal to introduce a Standard Termination Clause in Domestic Supply Contracts

Action Item – Suppliers to give feedback to CER on the Scottish and Southern Proposal by March 14th.

6. Gemserv Update

1. D. Sharma gave an update on the assurance for the Quinn Group.

The Quinn Group were the first new market entrant to enter the retail market since go live. The Quinn Group successfully completed the assurance for a small supplier. A two stage approach to this assurance process was adopted by Gemserv.

Stage 1 involved meeting with the Quinn Group, analysing their requirements and the completion of application forms.Stage 2 involved the successful completion of the Small Supplier Assurance tests

of 25


6. Gemserv Update

identified by Gemserv.

The evidence from the assurance tests was examined by Gemserv. Gemserv then formally recommended to CER that the Quinn Group had successfully completed the assurance steps.D. Sharma thanked CER, RMDS, ESBN and the Quinn Group for presenting very clear evidence of the various tests.

S. Leane asked who is monitoring the small supplier’s thresholds.

D. Sharma mentioned that the definitions for a Small and Large supplier are clearly outlined in the assurance strategy. The Quinn Group underwent the Small supplier assurance tests based on the discussions held with the Quinn Group. They are aware that if their business strategy or if their thresholds change significantly then they are obliged to contact RMDS and RMDS will contact Gemserv. Gemserv will then determine if additional assurance tests are required.

S. Leane asked is it up to the supplier to declare their change in strategy.

D. Sharma confirmed that this is the case.

C. Madden mentioned that the market is self regulating and there is no monitoring of thresholds.

S. Leane mentioned that at a recent SIG they were informed that since SEM larger customers are trying to set themselves up as a supplier and buying directly from the pool.

C. Madden asked what the implications of this are.

S. Leane responded that NIET&D can act on behalf of a small supplier without the supplier having the capability of receiving market messages. They are now trying to remove this facility in order to prevent an increase in workload for NIET&D. Airtricity proposed that same thresholds applied in the ROI should be applied to Northern market.

D. Sharma pointed out that while the thresholds are important other considerations are taken into account when assuring suppliers.

C. Madden added that each supplier’s assurance requirements are analysed on a case by case basis and may vary somewhat between suppliers.

K. Kavanagh asked if these thresholds needed to be tightened up.

C. Madden responded that the assurance strategy sets out guidelines which have a degree of flexibility purposely built in.

7. Market Operations Update

1. J. Dunphy presented the MRSO update.

Day + Month 4 AggregationThe month + 4 aggregations have commenced (1st Nov – 7th Nov 07). These aggregations issued this week in batches of 7 days at a time. There has been no adverse feedback from participants.

2. MCR 0063 – Aggregation Reconciliation Data

J. Dunphy mentioned that reports are now available for any aggregation and can be issued to suppliers on request. MRSO do not however have the resources to support daily aggregation requests from suppliers.

of 25



S. Leane asked who you contact in MRSO to get this aggregation report.

J. Dunphy mentioned that Jim Long was the best person to contact. Alternatively requests can be sent into the MRSO mailbox.

K. Kavanagh asked if this MCR was dependent on a schema release.

C. Madden commented that it was scheduled to coincide with the schema release. It just so happens that it doesn’t require a schema release as SEM had completed the work required.

K. Kavanagh asked if participants were happy with the current proposal.

S. Leane commented that Airtricity were happy

J. Dunphy added that the report when issued will be quite large.

S.Leane asked how long it takes to run the aggregation reports.

J. Dunphy replied that it is a quite a quick report to run and expects no real delays. It should be completed during normal working hours.

K. Kavanagh asked how participants would know of the availability of this report and the process to be followed when requesting this report.

C. Madden commented that the change request needs to be approved and released. He suggested that this information could possibly be hosted on the MRSO website.

B. Jennings asked in what format the report would be.

J. Dunphy commented that it would be an Excel file. He mentioned that he could send out a sample report for participants to view. This would indicate the type of information they will receive.

Action Item – MRSO to update their website to indicate the availability of the aggregation reports and the process to follow when requesting these reports.

Action Item – MRSO to distribute a sample Excel file showing the structure of the aggregation report.

3. Patrick’s/Easter Arrangements

MRSO will operate over the St. Patrick’s and Easter weekends as if they were normal working weeks. From an aggregation / re-aggregation point of view the market messages will be issued on a daily basis as per normal.

The September 2007 re-aggregation CDs has been issued.4. Replacement QH DATA MM341

K. Kavanagh mentioned that about 100 customers were impacted by this issue. CERs position is that customers should be credited where money is due. Customers should not be hit with additional bills because of this error.

J. Dunphy commented that data prior to October 1st 2006 would have to be compiled using data external to the market systems.

M. Callan commented that the amounts in the majority of cases are very small.

J. Dunphy mentioned that precise details have not yet been submitted to suppliers. All the instances need to be documented and sent to the relevant suppliers. This item was discussed

of 25



at the last IGG and steps have been put in place to prevent this issue from reoccurring. There is now an automatic upload in PDS where any new data is uploaded into the system. There is also a post end of month review of all estimated data that was issued. These steps should prevent any reoccurrence of this issue.

E. Barr mentioned that he noticed a time lag between the estimate and actual reads coming in, and that this time lag could be up to 3 months. This means that if you have billed on estimated data you may have to go back and cancel 2 or 3 bills already issued to the customer and then reissue them. This is time consuming and difficult to do.

J. Dunphy mentioned that PDS (QH data collector) will now be reporting to MRSO on all cases of estimated data. They now have to give a very good reason why data continues to be estimated. This information should be passed on to a supplier for any site that has up to month’s worth of estimated data. He believes having this length of estimated data is an unacceptable situation and suppliers should be aware that they are using estimated data and the reasons why.

S. Leane asked is this for both Imported and Exported data.

J. Dunphy responded that they don’t estimate Export data.

C. Madden mentioned that a certain formula does apply to estimated Export data.

J. Dunphy mentioned that he would check this out.

Action Item – MRSO / CER to distribute the 341 replacement details to the affected suppliers / customers.

Action Item – MRSO to investigate if Export 341 data is estimated.5. Duplicate QH data issued to Market Participants via 341 messages

Procedures have been put in place at the hub to prevent duplicate 341 market messages being issued.

S. Leane mentioned that she sent in a query to MRSO which identified duplicate export data. The transaction reference number was different but the content of the message was exactly the same. This second message was received within 3 hours of the original message. This happened for a number of generators in October, December and January.

J. Dunphy said he would check this out.

Action Item – MRSO to investigate duplicate export data on 341s with unique transaction Ids.

6. M. Mulcahy presented the Meter Operator Update.

Meter Ops Procedure for Supplier RefundsM. Mulcahy mentioned that there will be refunds given to give effect to a reduced charge per MPRN where there are multiple de-energisation / re- energisations made in a single visit on a set of MPRNs serviced by a single meter room. A new sliding scale of costs will now be applied. In 2007 Commercial Section Networks discussed this issue with CER and agreed the principle of a sliding scale of fees. One MPRN will cost €84 to de-energise and 10 MPRNs will now cost €367 and not €840.

B. Jennings asked do all the MPRNs have to be in the one location.

M. Mulcahy responded that the MPRNs have to be associated with a single site. This scenario generally occurs for the demolition of a site. M. Mulcahy then distributed a handout indicating the sliding scale charges. She pointed out that Networks, will not police the processing of

of 25



meter works to facilitate identification of multiple transactions on a single premise. The onus is on the Supply company to make a case to Meter Ops for a refund. Meter Ops will evaluate the claim, and if consistent with above, will arrange a refund to the Supply company. Meter Ops will send the details to DUOS Billing, amount of credit & MPRN nos. involved. DUOS Billing will issue the credit on the Monthly Transaction Charges & provide details of MPRN nos.

M. Mulcahy mentioned that if 10 premises in a unit need to be disconnected, the service orders have to come in together (one service order per disconnection). These disconnections will be completed and charged as normal but on the monthly transaction a credit will be associated with these disconnections.

S. Leane asked do Airtricity have to email the Meter Operator section to claim this credit.

M. Mulcahy confirmed that they do.

S. Leane asked what if there is more then one supplier involved in these multiple disconnections.

M. Mulcahy commented that it was a good question. The customer was still entitled to a refund but she didn’t know how this could be processed. She added that this would be an unusual scenario as one customer generally has one supplier. These charges really apply where one customer requests a number of disconnections at the same location on the same date. The credit is passed back to suppliers and then it is up to the suppliers to pass the credit on to the customer. If the site has ten different customer names only one refund is returned for this site. It is up to the suppliers to determine how they will refund the money to the customer.

G. McDonald asked will the published schedule of charges be amended to reflect these new charges. He was of the opinion that these changes in charges weren’t to apply until March 1st.

Participants were unsure if these figures were agreed and published.

M. Mulcahy explained the different charges on the handout. De-energisations are charged at a lower rate than disconnections. A disconnection is where both the service and the meter are removed.

Action Item – CER to follow up to see if the new de-energisation / disconnection charges have been approved and published, and communicate the date from which these charges take effect.

8. Address Data Standards workshop update:

1. Address Data Standards Workshop

C. Gaffney gave an update from the address data workshop. The main outcome of this workshop were:

1. All Address and Customer name Standards were agreed2. A number of key learning points were identified and documented3. 15 New Action Items

8 actions relate to the data standards document 7 other address actions

C. Gaffney asked if CER wanted to track these address actions through the IGG forum.

K. Kavanagh thought it was a very useful exercise to take this meeting off site to work through the various address issues. These new address actions should be tracked by RMDS and a general update given at subsequent IGGs. She asked where the key learning outcomes were

of 25


8. Address Data Standards workshop update:

documented.

C. Gaffney mentioned that the minutes contained the key learning points, actions and approvals. He thanked suppliers for their contributions and felt that all attendees learned a considerable amount during the workshop. He clarified that Address_Line1 takes precedence over Address_Line2 when it comes to filling in information prior to the Street Name.

Action Item – RMDS to give an update as to the progress of the address actions from the address workshop.

9. TAG Update:1. MPCC TAG Workshop

C. Gaffney gave an update from the MPCC TAG workshop. The main points to be taken from this workshop were:

1. The current MPCC will not be developed further2. There is limited tracking capability of messages3. Regular MPCC maintenance is required (message logs etc.)4. The current architecture doesn’t facilitate new market entrants.5. A single MPCC cannot support multiple suppliers.6. Current software has a shelf life of 3 to 5 years.

a. Software used is obsolete and out of supportb. Security issues (may require patches and separate hosting)

7. Software upgrades are difficult and cumbersome8. Licensing overhead.9. Technical Architecture used in the North is very similar to that of the ROI but is

using fully supported software10. ebXML is the business to business protocol used in NI as opposed to RossettaNet

in the ROI11. The MPCC may be stressed if volumes increase significantly.

K. Kavanagh asked is there any functionality for tracking orders.

C. Gaffney mentioned that there is a message ID and an individual transaction ID at the data level. Suppliers receive a Receipt Acknowledgement for the message but there is not much visibility of the data being processed.

C. Madden mentioned that there is limited tracking on the Extranet for key messages.

K. Kavanagh asked would you be able to track say a de-energisation.

T. Costello commented that you could check the progress of a de-energisation.

K. Kavanagh asked what the issue was with unsecured clients.

B. Jennings commented that anyone can log onto the MPCC client as the login used is a generic login. She mentioned that they had a recent break in, and security was an issue for them.

C. Gaffney stressed that any MPCC upgrade or new installations are difficult and time consuming. This is not ideal for new or existing market entrants. Possible solutions are:

1. Upgrade Seebeyond software suite.2. Use open source software Java, MySQL etc.3. Develop an MPCC using a different paradigm (e.g web services for smaller

suppliers)

of 25


9. TAG Update:

C. Gaffney asked CER and the Participants how they wanted to progress the MPCC architecture.

K. Kavanagh mentioned that CER would discuss this issue with their Northern colleagues. There appears to be a number of reasons to progress the MPCC architecture. She thought that it was important to follow up with some sort of upgrade.

C. Gaffney mentioned that there is an opportunity for building a system which opens up the market to more suppliers and different design paradigms should be explored.

K. Kavanagh asked if the SAP upgrade impacted the MPCC architecture.

C. Gaffney mentioned that ESB Networks are now adopted SAP XI. As interfaces transfer to SAP XI, gradually more resources will be working on SAP XI compared to SeeBeyond.

C. Madden mentioned that the SAP upgrade itself should not impact the MPCC. The messaging is separate from the Central Market System.

S. Leane asked if there was an obligation on ESB Networks to maintain the SeeBeyond expertise. She was concerned that ESB Networks were driving the architecture.

C. Madden responded that in this case RMDS are trying to point out that there is a time limit on the current MPCC architecture. He commented that it may be just as easy to build something new rather then re-engineer the existing MPCC. RMDS are just trying to highlight to participants that it is now time for a rethink on the MPCC architecture. ESB Networks are obliged however to support the existing software until such time as there is a different agreement.

10. Retail Electricity Market Issues Update1. C. Madden presented the Retail Market Issues Update

There were no new issues.

11. Retail Market Design Service Update:1 C. Madden introduced the Market design update.

Outage Notification Process (Action 195)C. Madden presented a high level process Outage Notification process in the form of a Visio process flow diagram (see slide 31).

S. Leane asked that the process be amended to show participants being informed that the outage is over and that services are back up and running.

C. Madden commented that they could add this step.

Action Item – Amend the Outage Notification process to show participants being informed when the Outage is over.

Action Item – Update the RMDS website with the Outage Notification process.2. DR 0153 - Working Practice 0016 – Document the procedure to be used for like-to-like

QH meter replacement

C. Madden mentioned that this was distributed to the market and that he was hoping to move the document to MCR.

of 25


11. Retail Market Design Service Update:E. Barr mentioned that he is not convinced that this is working. He mentioned that in a few instances he had to ask MRSO to resend some of the messages.

C. Madden asked whether, as the MCR was intended to enshrine the correct practice, it was in order to move this DR to MCR.

E. Barr mentioned that he agreed with the Change Request but last week the readings came in the wrong order. For two days the old meter number came back after the meter change. Once the meter is changed, Energia check that the data is associated with the correct register.

Action Item – MRSO to look into the issue where a QH meter is changed and the old Meter number is returned on a message (Working Practice 0016).

3. DR 0113 - Supplier of Last Resort

C. Gaffney presented DR 0113 the Supplier of Last Resort update. He mentioned that there was one outstanding issue about the distribution of an Alternative Suppliers list that couldn’t be resolved and required a decision from CER.

G. McDonald commented that the CER decision paper doesn’t mention that this information has to be distributed by the SoLR.

C. Madden pointed out that there is information in the revised MPD which wasn’t mentioned in the Direction.

G. McDonald commented that the final communication has not formally been agreed with the Commission.

S. Leane had no problem with the SoLR not sending the Alternative suppliers list. She was of the opinion that someone needs to communicate with the market, be it CER or MRSO to reassure customers that this is a one off event. Customers need to know that there is an alternative supplier available to them and that they don’t have to go back to the SoLR.

K. Kavanagh agreed with this opinion.

C. Gaffney commented that the Direction issued by CER doesn’t dictate the form or means of communication to be used when contacting the defaulting supplier’s customers. The DR is providing additional detail to the Direction given by CER.

S. Leane pointed out that during the different phases of market opening, letters were sent to customers, and suppliers were allowed to give feedback on the content and wording of these letters.

T. Shields pointed out that the defaulting suppliers customers have gone through the CoS process already and it is unlikely that they are going to be put off from moving suppliers again. He also mentioned that customers can go to CER and look up the website for a list of alternate suppliers.

S. Leane reiterated that these customers need some sort of market reassurance that the supplier of last resort event is a once off occurrence.

B. Jennings asked why is the onus on the SoLR to communicate with customers which aren’t theirs.

J. Dunphy pointed out that not everybody may have access to the CER website.

C. Madden mentioned that previously there had been reluctance to provide a list of suppliers because of the danger of leaving a newer one out. Now the list of active suppliers is well known and stable and is not really a risk.

of 25


11. Retail Market Design Service Update:K. Kavanagh said she would take an action to follow up on this issue.

C. Gaffney mentioned that a supplier queried the 3 month lock down period. He mentioned that this was part of the CER decision.

Participants had no issue with the 3 month lock down period.

Action Item – CER to make a decision on how a defaulting supplier’s customers for a SoLR event are to be notified about a list of alternate suppliers.

4. DR 0128 - Increase in tolerance levels for NQH Meter Reading Validation

C. Gaffney presented DR 0128 - Increase in tolerance levels for NQH Meter Reading Validation. He pointed out that this particular DR had been implemented. A query came in from a supplier asking ‘The 100% tolerance looks OK but should it not have a max consumption and not infinity (∞)’. He commented that calculations are based on having two actual reads and any abnormal consumption is regularly monitored.

S. Leane mentioned that she thought the DR was OK but could she get back by next week on this issue.

Action Item – Airtricity to feedback comments on DR 0128 by Friday March 7th.5. MCR 0154 – Versioning of the 341

C. Gaffney presented Action Item 200 RMDS to provide worked examples showing how the versioning of the 341 market message would work for the two proposed solutions. He presented two different solutions:

Solution 1 Provide a Version Number at the channel level. Solution 2 Provide a separate Version Number at the MPRN level for Import and Export data and a read replacement flag at the Channel Level Details

E. Barr asked if you only have one message how do you tell if it has been replaced. The version number could be 4 but you need to look at version 3 to see what has been physically replaced. This data could be loaded just for one interval for the 24hours. He also asked what happens if you are not taking the export data. If you are a registered supplier you get the import 50 and 51 channels but if you don’t take the export you don’t see the 52 and 53 channels. The 331 that you get shows the MCC code as MCC11. If you don’t get the export channels you are setting up registers which will never get data and that for Energia sets up an immediate flag.

S. Leane commented that this is an issue for the individual supplier. Airtricity have the same setup with a mixture of Import and Export, Import only and Export only.

C. Gaffney asked if this solution would work for them.

S. Leane commented that they wouldn’t set up 4 channels if it was Import or Export only.

E. Barr pointed out that the 331 market message will have 4 channels configured on it even if you only in receipt of 2 of these channels. If you are not taking the Export data you will not get data for channels 52 and 53.

C. Gaffney asked is this more a configuration issue.

E. Barr responded that the 331 is sent out with these channels and Energia use the 331 message to configure their system.

C. Madden mentioned that, since SEM, you don’t get the Export channels unless you have the Export arrangement for that site, so you should know how to configure that particular site.

of 25


11. Retail Market Design Service Update:

E. Barr commented that they should not be getting MCC11 if they do not have an export arrangement, instead they should receive an MCC10 with data for channels 50 and 51 only.

C. Gaffney asked for any feedback participants might have. He asked should the possibility of developing a 342 market message be raised again.

E. Barr mentioned that in view of the schema discussions held earlier the 342 should be a possibility.

S. Leane commented that in the longer term Airtricity were looking for two separate messages. The versioning of the 341 was seen as an interim solution.

E. Barr mentioned that we are now not going to get the interim solution until much later. He suggested going for the 342 option.

C. Madden mentioned that RMDS could recommend the 342 market message as a third option.

E. Barr mentioned that he is on record as saying that he favours a 342 message. As the interim 341 solution has been delayed then he thought it more practical to develop the 342 market message.

C. Gaffney pointed out that this MCR was not part of the prioritisation list.

C. Madden asked how we should progress this MCR.

E. Barr suggested discussing it at the next conference call.

Action Item – To discuss the future of MCR 0154 the Versioning of the 341 at the March 13th Conference Call.

6. MCR 0159 - Working Practice 0013

C. Madden presented MCR 0159 - Working Practice 0013, to document the procedure to be used to terminate Meter Point Reference Numbers identified as duplicates

E. Barr mentioned that this document needs to be updated as the document assumes that both MPRNs are with the same supplier.

C. Madden mentioned that there is a clause within the document that says that if the MPRNs are between two suppliers then MRSO have to decide on the registration.

E. Barr mentioned that MRSO have accepted both registrations as two different MPRNs. How do you deicide which supplier loses. If a supplier gains the registration and then subsequently loses it, then they need to be reimbursed for this wasted work. Currently Energia are receiving messages from Networks and have no involvement in the decision.

C. Madden remarked that the registration is determined by MRSO after talking to both suppliers.

E. Barr remarked that this is not happening.

C. Madden asked then if working practice 13 is in line with what suppliers would like to happen.

E. Barr mentioned that he would have to come back to RMDS on this issue.

C. Madden pointed out that when the working practice is approved this issue should be resolved. RMDS will look at the issues in the interim.

of 25


11. Retail Market Design Service Update:In general participants were happy with this MCR.

Action Item – RMDS to investigate why both suppliers are not currently being contacted as outlined in WP13.

Action Item – Energia to feedback comments on Working Practice 13.

12. Next Steps:

1. Next Meetings of IGG:

The following dates have been proposed for the IGG meetings for 2008.

03.04.2008 15.05.2008 26.06.2008 07.08.2008 18.09.2008 30.10.2008 11.12.2008 22.01.2009

K. Kavanagh mentioned that the following groups have been scheduled for Thursdays:

Smart Metering Steering Groups Working Groups Work Stream meetings

She commented that there may be problems with scheduling the IGG.

E. Barr mentioned that there are also SIG, IGG and Gas meetings.

K. Kavanagh suggested leaving these dates intact and she would try creating a CER calendar. These dates may have to be rearranged.

The following dates have been proposed for the IGG conference calls:

13.03.2008 27.03.2008

C. Madden added that RMDS were originally asked to attend the Smart Metering working groups. A request has been sent from ESB Networks senior management that RMDS are not to attend these Smart Metering meetings/ workshops. C. Madden is seeking further clarification on this issue.

K. Kavanagh asked if market participants wanted additional retail market information such as customer numbers, market share information etc.

B. Jennings mentioned that they would like to see the amount of customers using renewable energy.

K. Kavanagh commented that she would like to concentrate on the delivery on retail market reports. She suggested compiling reports that show the various retail market segments or how many MPRNs are in a geographic location.

J. Dunphy pointed out that it is difficult to geographically group MPRNs.

K. Kavanagh mentioned that she wanted to identify the sort of reports that would help new

of 25


12. Next Steps:

entrants figure out the various market segments.

R. McLaren agreed that a breakdown of the various market segments would be useful.

K. Kavanagh thanked participants and RMDS for their contributions

of 25


Action Items:AI

No.Description Assigned to Due Date

10 Prepare proposals on addresses in the Retail Market RMDS 15/11/2007

24 DR 112 New MPD 37 Market Process for New Transmission Connected site

RMDS

25 Investigate controls on 341 message RMDS

95ESBN to investigate the possibility of addressing inconsistencies between the DUoS rules and the MICs and DUoS groups in the MPRN data.

RMDS

109 New Commercial Policy required to cover erroneous deregistrations ESBN146 Review of ARIS and future releases in January / February RMDS 10/01/2008159 Issue Data Storage and Archiving Document to Market Participants. MRSO

166 Raise a Discussion Request to prevent the use of estimate reads for a Change of Supplier.

RMDS

171Provide additional clarification about how DR 0117 (Proposal to add Acceptance, Completion and Cancellation messages to Meter Works design) will operate at the next IGG.

RMDS

173 Update the SoLR process to take account of the SoLR decision paper CER/07/171.

RMDS

187 Document covering message reconciliation and resending processes to be sent to the IGG

10/01/2008

188 Document the measures that will be used to detect issues with future schema changes.

10/01/2008

193Communicate the process and message impacts for the withdrawal and replacement of estimate reads for the Recalculation of Estimates by the next conference call.

10/01/2008

195 RMDS to document the ‘Outage Notification Process’ and distribute it to market participants.

RMDS 10/01/2008

196 RMDS to demonstrate the new features of the ARIS Retail Market Design at a future IGG.

RMDS 10/01/2008

197Participants to detail their requirements for the publication of the Generator Unit ID / Generation Unit ID and The Export Arrangement ID on the Extranet.

SUPPLIER 10/01/2008

198RMDS to investigate the possibility of publishing the Generator Unit ID / Generation Unit ID and the suitability of using the Export Arrangement ID on the Extranet.

RMDS 10/01/2008

199RMDS to reissue DR 0117 - Proposal to add Acceptance, Completion and Cancellation messages to Meter Works design before January 10th IGG.

RMDS 10/01/2008

200 RMDS to provide worked examples showing how the versioning of the 341 market message would work for the two proposed solutions.

RMDS 10/01/2008

202 RMDS to redistribute the revised version of MCR 0063 The Addition of New Market Message for the Provision of Reconciliation Data

RMDS 10/01/2008

203 CER to finalise the approval of any outstanding MCRS CER 10/01/2008

206RMDS to check how the Usage Factor is affected in the case of an MPRN with a mixture of actual and estimated readings on the registers for the same reading visit.

RMDS

208 RMDS to publish a Glossary of Terms on the RMDS website. RMDS

210 RMDS to follow up with Networks to see if the Service Order they receive contains the meter type details.

RMDS

211 MRSO to report back on the preventative steps taken to prevent duplicate batch runs from occurring.

MRSO

212 To publish the Multiplier value associated with an MPRN on the Extranet site.

ESBN

213 K. Kavanagh to determine if CER have a Carbon Reduction programme.

CER 21/02/2008

223 RMDS to advise how the recalculations for the present less than previous will operate if there is a clock over.

RMDS

of 25


AI No.

Description Assigned to Due Date

224RMDS to report back on the two cases of failure by ESBN to adhere to the Change Control Process and the measures put in place buy the Support Centre to prevent a reoccurrence of this problem.

RMDS

225 RMDS to reissue DR 0117 and receive feedback from suppliers by the January 24th Conference call.

RMDS 17/01/2008

226 RMDS to advise market participants about the feasibility of amending MCR 127 to provide extra business benefit.

RMDS

227 RMDS to inform participants of the date for the next schema release. RMDS

256 CER to agree in principle to progress the Supplier Objection to Debt process proposed by Market Participants.

CER

257 RMDS progress DR 0153 Working Practice 0016 - QH to QH Meter Replacement to MCR

RMDS

258 RMDS to distribute an update on Action Item 95 by March 7th. RMDS

259 RMDS to distribute feedback from the Support Centre on action Item 206.

RMDS

260 RMDS to log variances of the Usage Factor rule on the Market Issues log

RMDS

261RMDS to distribute a sample 332 message indicating the meter data that suppliers should expect in the case of a universal meter with a changed MCC

RMDS

262 RMDS to distribute the list of prioritised market change requests along with the regulatory decisions.

RMDS

263 Suppliers to give feedback to CER on the impacts of not having the schema release by March 4th

CER 04/03/2008

265 Suppliers to give feedback to CER on the Scottish and Southern Proposal by March 14th.

SUPPLIER 14/03/2008

266MRSO to update their website to indicate the availability of the aggregation reports and the process to follow when requesting these reports.

MRSO

267 MRSO to distribute a sample Excel file showing the structure of the aggregation report.

MRSO

268 MRSO / CER to distribute the 341 replacement details to the affected suppliers / customers.

MRSO

269 MRSO to investigate duplicate export data on 341s with unique transaction Ids.

MRSO

270CER to follow up to see if the new de-energisation / disconnection charges have been approved and published, and communicate the date from which these charges take effect.

CER

271 RMDS to give an update as to the progress of the address actions from the address workshop.

RMDS

272 Amend the Outage Notification process to show participants being informed when the Outage is over.

RMDS

273 Update the RMDS website with the Outage Notification process. RMDS

274 MRSO to look into the issue where a QH meter is changed and the old Meter number is returned on a message (Working Practice 0016).

MRSO

275 CER to make a decision on how a defaulting supplier’s customers for a SoLR event are to be notified about a list of alternate suppliers.

CER

276 Airtricity to feedback comments on DR 0128 by Friday March 7th. SUPPLIER

277 To discuss the future of MCR 0154 the Versioning of the 341 at the March 13th Conference Call.

RMDS 13/03/2008

278 RMDS to investigate why both suppliers are not currently being contacted as outlined in WP13.

RMDS

279 Energia to feedback comments on Working Practice 13. SUPPLIER

of 25

rmdsie.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web view29/02/2008 · chair: karen kavanagh – cer...

Documents