Download
1 / 57
570 likes | 588 Views
Minutes from the IGG meeting on 10th April 2013 for approval. Insights on LTNA analysis and Energy Act 2012 implications discussed. Retail Market Assurance and harmonization activities update.
E N D
Minutes Minutes from IGG meeting 10th April 2013 For Approval today
IGG Action Items Updated IGG Action List issued in advance of meeting • Actions closed since last IGG meeting: 12 • IGG Actions carried forward: 9
CER Update Industry Governance Group 12th June 2013
CER Update Industry Governance Group 12th June 2013
IGG Action Item 822: LTNA analysis of supplier data • This slide presented for suppliers A & B at February IGG, reproduced here for all suppliers who responded with data and shows analysis of sites with de-energisation orders
IGG Action Item 822: LTNA analysis of supplier data • Conclusion • Data provided by four suppliers shows 83% of de-energisation orders logged are for NPA, 17% are for vacant LTNA sites • The DUoS standing and capacity charge associated with these vacant LTNA sites is €20,500 per annum (€18,000 associated with DG5/6 sites) • Given the low materiality of the charges there is no case to undertake either system changes or a manual system in order to provide relief on DUoS charges associated with LTNA sites
IGG Action Item 843: Energy (Misc Provisions) Act 2012 • Legal Opinion • LTNA scenario with vacated site and outstanding debt is a civil matter, no grounds under 2012 Act to apply for a warrant to gain access • NPA scenario where customer refuses access to de-energise may offer grounds for using 2012 Act to apply for a warrant to gain access, however • Uncertain if a Court would view this as a criminal offence • Documented case history required from initial supplier contact, warning notices, ESBN notice to arrange access, customer refusing access (as opposed to simply not being present when access sought) • Success in obtaining a warrant in one District Court does not create a precedent, each application on its own merits and subject to the attitude of the presiding Judge • Legal costs at District Court estimated between €2000 - €3000 passed through to supplier whose cooperation will be required in bringing the case
Retail Market Assurance Services for the Irish Electricity Market Ben Coates IGG 12th June 2013 ben.coates@gemserv.com
Assurance Activity UpdateBusiness As Usual (RMDS) • Supplier Assurance • Two Assurance Reports with CER awaiting approval (one Large Supplier, one Self Supply/DSU) • Assurance Products • Post Implementation Review Phase 2 Terms of Reference submitted for IGG Approval
Harmonisation & Service Packs ProjectPost Implementation Review (Phase 2) • Review to contain two aspects: • Questionnaire covering planning, information and support provision • Review covering communications problems encountered following Go-Live • Separate reports for each of the above to include: • Analysis of Questionnaire results • Findings of the review of communication problems • A ‘Lessons Learned’ analysis
Harmonisation & Service Packs ProjectPost Implementation Review (Phase 2) 1. Perceptions of the quality of planning, information and support provided to stakeholders for the changes to the communications infrastructure; (this aspect will be covered by means of a questionnaire to all market participants) 2. A review seeking to identify, for the communications problems that followed go-live: • a. The nature of the problems • b. The actions taken to identify root causes • c. The root causes themselves • d. The corrective actions that have been put in place or are planned • e. At what point(s) there was an opportunity to avoid the problems • f. Why the problems were not identified in testing • (this aspect will be covered by means of interviews with parties involved in specifying, building, deploying and testing the infrastructure components)
Harmonisation & Service Packs ProjectPost Implementation Review (Phase 2) Outputs: There will be separate reports produced for each of the two aspects set out in the scope: 1. An analysis of the responses to the questionnaire that identifies the level of satisfaction with the various elements of the sub-project leading up to go-live. This report will be presented to the IGG; 2. A report that sets out the findings of the review of the communications sub-project including the elements listed in the Scope. The distribution of this report will be determined by the CER; 3. A “lessons learned” analysis, covering both phases of the PIR and the “communications infrastructure” review, which sets out where changes to, or strengthening of, Market Change processes, including assurance, are needed. This report will be presented to the IGG.
MRSO Update James Long
COS in-progress 10th June 2013 – 9,058 • Reviewed Monthly • Suppliers notified of individual switches outstanding and reason • Switch outstanding for Energisation or Token Meter Removal will not time-out • Contact Customer or submit cancellation • 27 Switches held due to an existing Open Service Order
IGG Action Item 845: Debt Flagging Debt Flagging: Analysis of breakdown Domestic/Business for Debt Flags issued to Gaining Suppliers Examined the number of valid debt flags raised and issued to the gaining supplier for the month of May 2013, the analysis shows a breakdown between Domestic and Business as Domestic 94% Business 6%
Marina HuntESB Networks Customer Service Update to IGG
Planned Outage Communication Currently post cards to customers detailing planned outages for their area This method is inflexible i.e. changes to dates, times etc. cannot be communicated quickly Proposal to send information on planned outages via customers mobile phones Currently have approx 20-30% mobile numbers, but need to clean and add to this data Origin of these numbers is both from Suppliers and ESB Networks
Collecting Customer Mobile Numbers Networks application for supply already advises customers that phone number will be used unless they tick ‘opt out’ box ESB Networks will amend website to facilitate customers inputting phone numbers for contact purposes NCCC will continue to register mobile numbers from customers who call
Collecting Customer Mobile Numbers - Suppliers Suppliers currently obtain information (personal data) from customers that is passed to ESB Networks (name, address, phone number) In their role as service provider (data processor) ESB Networks currently use name and address to contact customer Suppliers can request ESBN (data processor) to also use phone number to contact their customers Suppliers may need to update their Terms & Conditions to ensure that customers are aware of this ‘Opt out’ process and flagging this in systems will need to be implemented before we go live
Powercheck Available on ESB Website and as a smart phone app Google Map linked to OMS Fault System Went live November 2012 Currently over 26k hits Positive response from customers and media Working to improve accuracy of Estimated Restoration Times Updating application to include more information
Use of Social Media Twitter Launching ESB Networks Twitter shortly Main objective is to provide information on faults to customers Safety and other messages may also be tweeted We will also deal with any general queries received (offline). Managed by Networks Customer Care Centre Will review operation in six months Youtube Use of video to demonstrate ‘how to’ e.g. Read a Meter, Updating Credit on Keypad Meter
Training on NPA Activity Developed a pilot programme for NTs carrying out De-energisation for Non Payment Subjects covered by the training: dealing with difficult situations role of ESBN and NT in NPA activity legal aspects of NPA Will roll out to all NTs engaged in this activity over the coming months
Prepayment Meter Stats Carmel O’Connor
Prepayment Meter Stats • Keypad Meter Stats • Total installed up to 7/6/2013 : 26,232 • Total installed in 2013 up to 7/6/2013 : 10,808 Token Meter Stats • Total installed up to 1/6/2013: 17,302 • Token Meter Removed calls for April/May : 988 (634 for COS) • Token Meter Exchange calls for April/May : 149
Sundry Updates • Meeting of the IGG 12 June 2013 Footer
Sundry Updates 116R An item has been highlighted where message 116R has incorrectly been triggered on a small number of occassions with reject reason code of ‘IA’. Where the Supplier resends the 016 message these complete successfully without rejecting . Separately, it has been identified that the Market Message Guide needs to be changed to include 'IA' Invalid Action as a valid reject reason code for MM116R. 016 CoLE At the last IGG it was flagged by ESBN that reads that are provided on the 016MM are not being used in the CoLE process in certain circumstances, and that it was too early in our investigations to propose a timeline for correction of this item. One Supplier is impacted and where requested, ESBN has manually revised the CoLE to the reads requested by that Supplier.
Retail Market Design Update Aileen O Connor RMDS
DR 1133 V1.0 -Working Practice for Grouped Unmetered Debt Flagging Discussion Request • DR raised to present Working Practice 23 • This details the procedure for Debt Flagging of Grouped Unmetered MPRNs • New Email Templates to cater for Objection Rejection, Cancellation, Cancellation Rejection and Cancellation Notifications • Amendment of MM110 Email Template to incl. CoLE flag • Effective date of this WP will be at Go Live of Automated Debt Flagging Solution At Today’s Meeting: • Classification as ROI Specific at ReMCoWG • Recommendation for Approval requested at IGG
DR1135 Market Webservice as opposed to a Market Website to provide On-Demand Customer Information • Discussion Request • To provide a new Webservice to include all fields currently on the Extranet • Similar to NIE and Gas Market and not Broker Solution • Be enabled to make unlimited webservice calls per MPRN, per 24hr period and 24 x 7 availability • No future development work if the Extranet site changes • At today’s Meeting • Classification as ROI Specific at ReMCoWG • Recommendation for Approval requested at IGG
Erroneous Transfers IGG 12/02/13 RMDS presented a review of Guidelines for Treatment of Objections due to Erroneous Transfer Initial Objection Outcome mainly CoS is cancelled without interim process being initiated (72% of Total Objection) Initial Objection Email(27% of Total Objections) ‘CoS confirmed’ most frequent reason Outcome mainly Customer switches to New Supplier(20% of Total Objection) Escalation Objection Email(10% of Objections) Outcome mainly Customer remains with Old Supplier Shows more pro-active Supplier behaviour and adherence to Interim Process Overall number of Objections is decreasing
Options for Next Steps Market Participants asked for feedback on: • Process and the Preferred Option for continuing: • Continue with existing process • Continue but with amended Process (escalation only) • Withdrawal of Draft Discussion Request for a Market Messaging Solution Feedback received from 3 Suppliers: • 1 Supplier - Continue with Current Process with amendment • 2 Suppliers - Continue with Current Process on a permanent basis
DR 1020 ‘Change to CoS Objections process with the aim of reducing volumes of Erroneous Transfers’ Set aside by RMDS but incomplete and never brought to forum Approval now being sought to Cancel as: Does not reduce number of Objections System driven CoS cancellation vs Supplier CoS cancellation Old Supplier is King but introduces further complexities to workflow if New Supplier does not want to cancel e.g. suspend CoS until resolved might not be appropriate better solution would be that workflow would cancel all CoS and resolve disputes out-of-system. If dispute upheld then submit another 010MM Consider impact on Debt Flagging as only one Objection (MM012) reason at one time Current Process is working well.
