c) Should future demand and generation led reinforcement costs be included or excluded in EDCM to provide locational cost signals. If so, are the current FCP and LRIC demand and generation approaches providing satisfactory cost reflective charges – if not, recommend how can we facilitate improvement including delivery timescales. They should be excluded, for the reasons given in the DCP 206 proposal form. d) Is there sufficient transparency of the EDCM, and effective communications with customers, bearing in mind the requirement not to disclose individual customers’ confidential data to others? If not, who should do this work? There is not sufficient transparency. In particular, customers are not able to verify that the DNO has calculated charges correctly, and are not able to explore the impact of possible scenarios without disclosing their possible business plans to the DNO. DNOs should be remedying the lack of transparency by publishing alongside their charging statements and CDCM models all the non-customer-specific information in their EDCM models, including: all the DNO-wide input data entered in sheet 11 of the model, and all the aggregated information that appears in the sheet OneLiners or Aggregates of a populated EDCM model. None of these data are individual data. customers’ confidential The work that I did in the context of MIG issue 70, including the MIG issue 70 models available from , would facilitate the task of any DNO that wanted to improve the transparency of its own models. In addition to these data from the EDCM tariff model itself, DNOs should also be more transparent about other data feeding into the methodology. In particular, DNOs should publish alongside their charging statements and CDCM models the following: All the volume, capacity, asset counts and circuit length assumptions underpinning their 500 MW model (with or without DCP 133). Only unit costs of individual network components should be eligible to be redacted. The denominator (a £/kW figure) in the calculation of network use factors for each of the five EDCM network levels. Whilst FCP or LRIC is still in use, system diagram information enabling a user to match nodes or network groups in the charge 1 statement with items in the long term development statement, and mapping information establishing a correspondence with accurate geographical locations. Whilst FCP or LRIC is still in use for demand, the kW and kVA figures associated with charge 1 at each node or network group. (These figures affect demand charges.)
c) Should future demand and generation led reinforcement costs be included or excluded in EDCM to provide locational cost signals. If so, are the current FCP and LRIC demand and generation approaches providing satisfactory cost reflective charges – if not, recommend how can we facilitate improvement including delivery timescales. They should be excluded, for the reasons given in the DCP 206 proposal form. d) Is there sufficient transparency of the EDCM, and effective communications with customers, bearing in mind the requirement not to disclose individual customers’ confidential data to others? If not, who should do this work? There is not sufficient transparency. In particular, customers are not able to verify that the DNO has calculated charges correctly, and are not able to explore the impact of possible scenarios without disclosing their possible business plans to the DNO. DNOs should be remedying the lack of transparency by publishing alongside their charging statements and CDCM models all the non-customer-specific information in their EDCM models, including: all the DNO-wide input data entered in sheet 11 of the model, and all the aggregated information that appears in the sheet OneLiners or Aggregates of a populated EDCM model. None of these data are individual customers’ confidential data. The work that I did in the context of MIG issue 70, including the MIG issue 70 models available from , would facilitate the task of any DNO that wanted to improve the transparency of its own models. In addition to these data from the EDCM tariff model itself, DNOs should also be more transparent about other data feeding into the methodology. In particular, DNOs should publish alongside their charging statements and CDCM models the following: All the volume, capacity, asset counts and circuit length assumptions underpinning their 500 MW model (with or without DCP 133). Only unit costs of individual network components should be eligible to be redacted. The denominator (a £/kW figure) in the calculation of network use factors for each of the five EDCM network levels. Whilst FCP or LRIC is still in use, system diagram information enabling a user to match nodes or network groups in the charge 1 statement with items in the long term development statement, and mapping information establishing a correspondence with accurate geographical locations. Whilst FCP or LRIC is still in use for demand, the kW and kVA figures associated with charge 1 at each node or network group. (These figures affect demand charges.)
Franck%20Latr-moli-re%20initial%20submission.docx