Embedded Benefits: Impact Assessment and Decision on industry proposals (CMP264 and CMP265) to change electricity transmission charging arrangements for Embedded Generators
Decision
- Publication date
- Industry sector
- Transmission Network
- Generation and Wholesale Market
Related links and consultations
- Embedded Benefits: Decision on industry proposals CMP269 and CMP270
- Embedded Benefits: Decision on industry proposals P348 and P349
- Embedded Benefits: Impact Assessment and Decision on industry proposals CMP264 and CMP265
- Open letter: Charging arrangements for embedded generation
- Publication of supplementary modelling report on CMP264/265 minded to decision and optional workshop to discuss report
- Responses to our July open letter on charging arrangements for embedded generation
- Update letter: Charging arrangements for embedded generation
Update 22 June 2018
On 23 October 2017 Ofgem was served with a claim for judicial review concerning its decision to approve WACM4 of CUSC modifications CMP264 and CMP265.
The case number is: CO/4397/2017.
Following a hearing in April 2018, the Court has today (22 June 2018) dismissed the application for judicial review of Ofgem’s decision.
The modification reduces payments which smaller electricity generators can receive for generating at peak times. These payments are not available to larger generators.
The claimants had applied to quash the decision, which came into force on 1 April 2018.
Our view is that it is good news for consumers that the Court has upheld our decision. Ofgem will continue to take action that is in the interest of consumers and will robustly defend its decisions when challenged.
These payments cost customers around £370 million in 2016 alone and, without the changes following our decision, this amount would have increased further.
The reduction in this payment will make sure costs are kept as low as possible for consumers.
Ofgem remains committed to working constructively with the entire industry to deliver an energy system that is fit for purpose for the future and continues to deliver significant benefits for consumers.
Update 23 October 2017
Ofgem has been served with a claim for judicial review concerning its decision to approve WACM4 of CUSC modifications CMP264 and CMP265.
The case number is: CO/4397/2017.
National Grid Electricity Transmission plc has been named by the claimants as an interested party to the proceedings.
Ofgem has filed its Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance for contesting the claim.
Any bodies that consider themselves interested parties, should take their own legal advice in relation to this matter.
Ofgem’s decision to approve WACM4 of CUSC modifications CMP264 and CMP265 stands unless quashed by the court.
Background
This page was originally published on the 22 June 2017 with the CMP264/5 decision document and impact assessment.
Following our March 2017 consultation on industry proposals CMP264 and CMP265 and our consideration of responses, we have decided to direct that WACM4 be implemented, from 1 April 2018. This document covers our assessment of the impact of those proposals and their 23 alternatives.
Since last year, we have highlighted concerns about the electricity transmission network charging arrangements for smaller Embedded Generators (EGs), including the exemptions and payments collectively referred to as ‘Embedded Benefits’. We have previously indicated that the ability of a supplier to use sub-100MW (‘smaller’) EG to reduce transmission use of system charges, and for smaller EG to be paid to help others avoid them, is a distortion. We indicated in July and again in December last year that one element – specifically the TNUoS Demand Residual (TDR) – was a significant cause for concern. Industry raised modifications CMP264 and CMP265 to address these distortions. This impact assessment covers those modification proposals and the 23 Workgroup Alternative CUSC Modification proposals (WACMs) produced during the industry self-governance workgroup process.
We have assessed which of these proposals better, and then ultimately best, facilitates the CUSC objectives and furthers our statutory duties, in line with our duties as independent regulator. We have undertaken both a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the 25 proposals available to us. We considered each proposal against the CUSC objectives and our statutory duties. Our assessment took into account the responses to our July 2016 open letter, views of the CUSC Panel, the consultation responses from the workgroup process,the Final Modification Report and the responses to our minded to decision. Our quantitative assessment takes into consideration the quantitative assessment from modelling and consultancy support that we commissioned for this purpose from Lane Clark and Peacock LLP and Frontier Economics.
Our draft impact assessment and minded to decision found that several proposals better facilitated the CUSC objectives – in particular on competition and cost reflectivity grounds, with WACM4 the option most likely to best facilitate the objectives. This remains our view, and our impact assessment sets out the rationale for our decision and our assessment of the likely impacts.
Our decision is to direct that WACM4 be implemented. The level of TDR payments to smaller EG should be reduced to the avoided GSP costs, and the changes should be introduced through a three-year phased implementation, beginning on 1 April 2018.