Gate 2 evidence submissions: Q&A webinar

00:00:05 – Pete Aston

Hello everyone and welcome to the webinar. This is a slightly different webinar that we’re running today, but this is a follow-up webinar from our most recent Connections Reform webinar that we ran on 7th of May, which was two or three weeks ago. I’m Pete Aston, one of the engineers here at Roadnight Taylor, and I’m joined by Kyle Murchie, Philip Bale and Catherine Cleary, my fellow colleagues. So, welcome everyone.

00:00:31 – Everyone

Thanks Pete, hello everyone.

00:00:32 – Pete Aston

Now there’s quite a few firsts today for us on this. This is the first webinar we’re running on Teams, the first full Q&A webinar that we’re running and the first time that we’re all in the room together doing a webinar. So, what could go wrong? So, bear with us if things don’t quite go as smoothly as expected.

In terms of format and what we’re going to do, we’re going to kick off with a few questions that we’ve got that we picked out from the last webinar, and then we’ll go into a Q&A session with all of you who are on the call. So, the format is if you want to pop in a question to the Q&A, and we will just pick those up as and when we can throughout the course of the webinar, and if you want to upvote those, we can then sort of pick the questions that have got most thumbs up, or whatever it is on Teams that gets that voting. So, without further ado, let’s go over to Kyle for the first one. Kyle, what has changed in the last three weeks, because Connections Reform seems to be like everything changes every day. So, you know, anything in particular that’s changed over the last three weeks.

00:01:42 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah. So actually, even if we just look back at the last week, there’s been quite a few new documents out. I wouldn’t say necessarily change, maybe more clarification, inevitably more, some more questions kind of raised from that. So, the big thing would be the well, actually even just yesterday, the Connections Reform FAQs so NESO’s connection from FAQs have been updated, so now a version 2 that was published yesterday. It had been getting a little bit out of date with a lot of old queries on there; so if you do have questions that obviously we didn’t quite get time to cover today, then that’s a good source, but also a lot more guidance. So, there’s the evidence submission handbook, which is probably the first thing I would recommend having a look at. But we’ve also got readiness pre-process, you’ve got gated modification guidelines and also importantly, guidance on advancement fees and costs if you’re going through a Mod App, so that’s relevant to both distribution and transmission customers. So quite a lot of information actually in the space of three weeks and certainly even just since last week – but we’ll get into a lot of that, I think, as we go through the questions.

00:02:55 – Pete Aston

And we’re going to go to Philip for this one, so Protection Clause 1, or Gate 1, and maybe you need to just briefly explain what those are, Philip, do you need to submit anything if you’re hoping to use Protection Clause 1 or go through Gate 1?

00:03:13 – Philip Bale

OK, so I think, in terms of Protection Clause 1, that’s for projects that are due to connect before the end of 2026. So those are the projects that can take advantage of Protection Clause 1. And the answer is I think it depends – if you’re due to be connected before the end of the effectively, before Gate 2 closes, then no, you do not need to go through anything, but if you are planning on using Protection Clause 1, and you’re going to connect after the end of Gate 1, sorry Clause 1, then you will need to go through and submit something, or risk getting a Gate 1 offer. If you get a Gate 1 offer, that’s for people that either don’t submit anything or people that are not successful, not needed, not seen as ready or needed, and then you receive a Gate 1 offer, which will effectively be – you will have an offer, it will be very light, it will basically say an indicative point of connection but effectively you won’t really have an offer and you won’t be connecting before 2035, unless you request advancement later on.

00:04:14 – Pete Aston

So, getting a Gate 1 offer is very easy. You do nothing and then you get Gate 1 offer.

00:04:19 – Philip Bale

Yes.

00:04:19 – Pete Aston

Yeah.

00:04:20 – Catherine Cleary

Protection clauses do you need to submit, unless you’re one of a very small number of people who are literally energizing sort of right now in the next couple of weeks.

00:04:26 – Philip Bale

Yeah.

00:04:27 – Pete Aston

Okay. Fantastic, okay, thanks for that.

Okay, Catherine, going to go to you first question. There’s two questions on redline boundaries, Catherine, can you just confirm what is meant within the documentation about original redline boundary?

00:04:44 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, so this has come up a few times. I think NESO have now done some good clarifications in the Q&A document, and there is a bit of explanation in their guidance document as well as the handbook – but there’s perhaps a bit of confusion there as well. The term original, so I think the context here is your original red line boundary is in fact just the red line boundary you submit in as part of your Gate 2 evidence declaration; it doesn’t need to be the same as for a transmission customer, sorry, just to be clear. It doesn’t necessarily need to be the same as the red line boundary you might have submitted as part of a letter of authority, or anything you might have submitted before that when you originally applied. So, the use of the word original is perhaps a bit confusing in some contexts. It’s obviously going to be used going forwards as the original. So, it’s almost, you know we’re drawing a line in the sand and saying please commit to your land now, and if you want to make any future changes after you’ve got your Gate 2 offer, those will all be compared against this, as the original red line boundary.

00:05:42 – Pete Aston

So, for transmission schemes it is almost a clean slate, isn’t?

00:05:44 – Catherine Cleary

It is effectively, yes. There is one nuance which I think has come up recently, which is that if you’re a, that’s probably true for pretty much all cases in England and Wales at transmission, perhaps in Scotland if you move your red line boundary you might actually be moving your connection point so where the transmission owner has to build out to you, and that could have a significant impact on your connection work. So, there’s a bit of a nuance there, but technically it is allowed under the kind of current guidelines.

00:06:10 – Pete Aston

So, if you moved your red line boundary net 50 miles away, you might find that NESO or the TO can’t honour the original connection point.

00:06:19 – Catherine Cleary

Exactly.

00:06:20 – Pete Aston

And change it, so it’s got to be within reason.

00:06:21 – Catherine Cleary

Well, I think there’s got to be some practical discussions about what happens. It might be that you end up with a Gate 2 offer that then has to be modified again. So, I think, yeah, there’s kind of obvious engineering challenges there. Should we just cover for distribution, because I suspect this was probably aimed at transmission, but a distribution, obviously your red line boundary is sort of effectively locked in by your distribution connection offer. So, this isn’t a clean slate, you know, obviously if you change your site, you’re still governed by all of the material changes guidance we have from the ENA. So, you know it’s not a chance for DNO customers to suddenly move their projects.

00:06:57 – Pete Aston

Yeah, yeah, okay, super thanks Catherine.

Keeping on the subject of redline boundaries, there was a question that had come in previously, if I just read it out – as of the 1st of January this year, we’ve been adhering to the ENA’s new G99 application guidelines, so more detailed single line diagrams, etc. But our pre 2025 projects don’t meet those requirements. Do we need to bring those projects up to the new ENA standards as part of our evidence submission?

00:07:27 – Catherine Cleary

So, for DNOs, obviously we’ve got the DNO portals now beginning to be open, so not everything is open yet, but beginning to be accessible. The DNOs are effectively requesting information, which is what NESO have asked for the evidence declarations. So, for most customers I’m going to generalise here, we’re not expecting customers to be resubmitting their G99 application forms. So, no, we wouldn’t expect people to be needing to kind of update to meet the new G99 form that came out in January this year.

00:07:57 – Philip Balle

Well, I should just add this is not necessary Connections Reform. Everyone should be filling in part four of the ENA form, because how can you go for a project progression if you don’t tell people your transformer impedances are? So please, people, always fill in your part four. You need to do it at any stage before you go through and commission the project anyway.

00:08:14 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, that’s kind of the obvious, isn’t it? That G99 is something you do have to go back and fill in when you do commission your generator.

00:08:22 – Philip Bale

But not CP2030.

00:08:25 – Pete Aston

Brilliant, okay, thank you very much for that.

Next question we’ve got is around advancement. Kyle, this is down to you, this is a really long question, so I’m going to get you to summarize the question and then answer it.

00:08:37 – Kyle Murchie

Sure.

So I think the first thing to mention about advancement is, if you’re distribution this was from a distribution perspective and you are currently going to be effectively classed as phase two based on your transmission access date, then, yeah, advancement is obviously very important because if you’d sit, unless you want to sit with that particular access date, but if you’re wanting to move, you know ahead, into kind of 2030 or before, then you would need to put in an advancement request to effectively achieve that. Now the specific question gets into a bit of a nuance and saying well, if I’m you know I’ve got there’s two projects I’m project A, and there’s project B, and we’re both effectively in the same project progression. We’re sitting behind the same, GSP and therefore the same constraint. If project b were to put an advancement request in, could it ultimately leapfrog my projects if I’m project A, and have a detrimental impact on project A?

There’s quite a lot to cover there because it’s quite a specific question, but I suppose the answer effectively is if you were project B, and you put an advancement request, then there’s a possibility you might be able to move forward ahead of the transmission works that you’re currently sitting behind. So, yes, you might be able to move forward in that case but again remembering that this process is for transmission access. So, it’s moving you forward from a transmission access perspective, not from a DNO queue position perspective. Now, in the case where that’s not possible, you can’t, you know SGT is still required and effectively you’d still remain in that same ordering.

There is a question of well, if that project, project B, were to move forward and therefore get an earlier access date, then as soon as it gets to the DNO delivery side, then of course the DNO delivery side might therefore progress that project first. But you’d see that today anyway the DNO delivery is not as per the queue position, it’s as per the requirements for the ultimate connection. So hopefully that addresses that question and kind of gives us a bit of comfort that you know, based on the bingo slide, if you’re going to go back to that, you know point eight does try to reorder the queue. It is a bit more complicated for a distribution case. So maybe looking at Appendix One of the methodology is probably a good starting point.

00:11:04 – Pete Aston

Which methodology?

00:11:06 – Kyle Murchie

So that’s the CNDM.

00:11:07 – Pete Aston

Okay, just testing!

So, onto the next one then. So, Catherine, I think you’re going to pick up this question. So, it’s about land. If a project has three landowners but one option is not in place, does the project have to exclude this unsigned land?

00:11:27 – Catherine Cleary

So, I think the short answer is yes, and that’s because you cannot submit, and so your evidence declaration, you’re being asked for a couple of different things. There’s that original red line boundary, it was talked about what the original means, and there is also the land rights declaration, so saying I’ve got an option for an agreement to lease or I’ve got the leasehold, or, you know, I own the land and so those two things can be different and NESO’s guidance, I think, on that is quite good and quite clear.

But I think the point, the question here is if I’m missing a bit in terms of the land rights, so I don’t have a signed lease agreement or signed option in place for that land and therefore the kind of parcels of land are smaller than I would like my original red line boundary, that’s not okay. So, they could be two different things, but the original red line boundary must fit within the secured land. So, at the moment you’d have to be making your Gate 2 declaration with just the two land parcels that you had got your signed option for. And I mean, I think it’s probably worth saying, that there are there are circumstances where it’s allowable to make a change to your red line boundary in future. So, if you then in future sign that option, you might be able to go back and add some of that land in as long as I think it’s 50%, so you know, as long as your original red line boundary doesn’t change by over 50%.

00:12:50 – Philip Bale

And ajoining land to the original red line boundary.

00:12:55 – Catherine Cleary

I didn’t know that.

00:12:56 – Philip Bale

That’s what I had from another DNO this week.

00:12:59 – Catherine Cleary

That’s an interesting question. I don’t know whether that’s in any of the NESO guidance the requirement for it to be adjoining.

00:13:05 – Philip Bale

That was a distribution ENA guideline, which was basically it had to be adjoining.

00:13:09 – Catherine Cleary

We’re only 15 minutes in and we’ve already found things I don’t know the answer too. I’m quite impressed we lasted 15 minutes.

00:13:13 – Kyle Murchie

Actually, on that question, we’ve got a couple of questions that have come in on redline boundary. So, one would be to clarify is it the case that 50% of your installed capacity can be out with the original redline boundary as part of your evidence submission?

00:13:29 – Pete Aston

I think the answer to that is no. I think the 50% refers to changes after the Gate 2 application. I don’t know if you’ve got a different.

00:13:40 – Catherine Cleary

That is also my. So, assuming that you are able to declare readiness on your Gate 2. Sorry, actually we should have said the question I answered did have some further wording in it, it did say note that the project in question could still meet Gate 2 compliance with the minimum acreage requirements with just those two out of the three land parcels. So effectively, if you can go through Gate 2 and you can still claim all of your tech because you’ve got enough land that you have signed agreements with, then you could make future changes after you’ve got your Gate 2 offer that might tweak that red line boundary within that 50% rule. But if you don’t currently have enough land signed up to be able to demonstrate that you’ve met the minimum acreage requirements, you will have a tech reduction, so you won’t get a Gate 2 offer for your full tech.

00:14:30 –  Kyle Murchie

I think the nuance there is for distribution, so for transmission, that’s absolutely the case. If it was distribution, though, then, yes, you already have a red line, boundary, and therefore land, and therefore, if you’re making a change to the installed capacity, then you’d have to adhere to…

00:14:47 – Pete Aston

Whatever rules the DNO has…

00:14:48 – Kyle Murchie

Whatever rule the DNO has which, generally speaking, most DNOs, particularly those that um like NGED, UKPN etc. have adhere to, around about that 50%, because that’s what the NESO one is based on; they took it from NGED’s kind of baseline.

00:15:03 – Pete Aston

Okay, yeah, we can pick up other sort of red line boundary type questions as we go through if we need to. There’s one more of our sort of questions that we’re coming with which is going to go to Philip around statement of works. If I have a variation, this would be a DNO offer variation stating that there’s no transmission works following a statement of works. Do I need to go through Gate 2, given statement of works does not result in a contract between the DNO and NESO?

00:15:32 – Philip Bale

So, my view on this is yes, and I think there’s several reasons for this that whilst many of the people have gone through the statement of works process, a lot of those DNOs then had Appendix G’s. When those Appendix G’s were brought in, those people that were on the statement of works were moved into those Appendix G’s. So, the customer may not have seen it, but there will be a contract between the DNO and NESO basically saying it can connect with the rights that it had under the statement of works. I still think the earlier comment comes through is that anyone that is going to connect after the window shuts needs to submit evidence in order to get a Gate 2 offer. That’s my view anyway.

00:16:16 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, I would agree. I think, looking at some of the most recent guidance it does become a bit vague because it talks about contracted position between the DNO and NESO. But if we go back to who is eligible for this process under CMP 434 and 435, as it was defined then, then yes, we get back to the specific, you know who’s embedded. If you’re embedded in your small, medium or large and a generation or storage customer, then then effectively you are part of this process.

00:16:49 – Pete Aston

Okay, I think we can now start to pick through some of the questions that are coming in. So, thank you for those who’ve submitted questions already.

Go for one from Anthony Lindley, thank you. If a project is expecting to receive Protection Clause 2A and has an existing 2027 connection date, would it be placed ahead of other 2A protected projects which does not have a 2027 date? But if a requested one, i.e. with the QB, ordered PC, not quite sure what PC means.

00:17:28 – Catherine Cleary

Protection clause one.

00:17:30 – Pete Aston

Protection clause to a protection 2027 protection clause to a others, and then other protected projects. Well, complicated question. Yeah, I don’t know. Is it worth just quickly, highlighting what the protection clauses are, just very briefly. I don’t know who wants to do that.

00:17:51 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, I can do that so very quickly. So, protection clause one is effectively well, one of the first things you have to have is a connection date in 2026. To be clear, connection date, that is your firm transmission access. So, for transmission it’s whatever your completion date is, and if you’re a distribution it is, it can be your non-firm date, so it could be what your technical limits date ultimately states, but it’s either technical state or your firm access date from a transmission perspective. Importantly, though, you have to have M7 completed as well, milestone seven from the queue management perspective.

So that is, I’m not going to go through all the different criteria of what you can have but effectively your financial commitment – so that could be through various different ways of doing that. 2a and this is 2A has had a bit of an extension, so 2A is, if you’re using the extended 2A clause project in 2027, you’d effectively be able to be protected in a very similar way to protection clause 1, i.e. your connection date and your connection point wouldn’t change. But you can also be protected under 2A where you are outside of that 2027 date, but your connection date and connection point could change. And then, yeah, I think that’s probably enough, otherwise, we’ll go through the other protections.

I think that’s quite important, that if you’re thinking about being expected to receive protection clause 2A and you’re in 2027, then just a reminder that these are protection clauses to get you a Gate 2 offer rather than reordering. So, it still comes back to CNDM 5.7, that bingo slide. You’re still going to be ordered in that format. It isn’t, you know, by being protected, you are guaranteed effectively your connection date and connection time scale. So, it shouldn’t really matter what other parties are doing around you in the queue.

00:19:54 – Pete Aston

Do you disagree with that, Catherine?

00:19:56 – Catherine Cleary

No, no, no, fully agree.

I think sometimes we get a bit obsessed with kind of queue order and it’s maybe not always super helpful because you know, I think this idea about if you are protected, you know, you know what date you’re going to get, you’re going to get your 2027 date. Someone else has asked for a 2027 date; if they don’t meet that existing 2027, sort of requirement for that clause 2A extended protection, then they might not get it. You know, actually, you know the fact that they could have been above you in the queue is a site – it’s perhaps a slightly kind of moot, moot point.

00:20:29 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, you could have a case where you’re protected and you’re right at the end of 2027, but that’s what you want to do and somebody else asks for an acceleration and manages to get an earlier 2027 date – I think very unlikely, to be honest in reality, given where we are in 2025. But in theory that could happen, but then it’s not a detriment to your project.

00:20:50 – Catherine Cleary

So, they haven’t queue jumped you, they’ve just, they’ve just managed to get an earlier date because they asked for one.

00:20:54 – Kyle Murchie

Yes.

00:20:55 – Philip Bale

And I think is it worth us also pointing out at this point around a few things.

So, if you are asking for an accelerated project, you will get different milestone dates. If you miss those milestone dates, then your project could be at risk of termination. And on top of that, if you are asking for acceleration, then you will have to go through and pay a project progression fee. If you’re the only one asking for an acceleration, it will be the full cost – if there’s others, then it will be shared. So just to make that clear, if you’re asking for acceleration, there is a financial aspect to it also you’re asking for acceleration, there is a financial aspect to it also.

00:21:28 – Pete Aston

Great okay let’s, let’s go on to next one.

00:21:31 – Kyle Murchie

Actually, on that one, do we want to say it says £11,250 for distribution or transmission, for anybody. But you’re right if your distribution is for requesting advancement, so the Mod App would still be the full Mod App fee. If you’re requesting advancement, it’s £11,250 and, as Philip says, if you’re distribution connected that’s the worst case; it might be less if other parties are doing the same.

00:21:54 – Pete Aston

Yeah.

Okay, so next question from Bilal is around providing planning evidence.

So, the NGED customer guidance gate to evidence checks document states that to provide planning evidence for strategic alignment, the applicant should also input the planning reference number for their submitted application, name the local authority, upload copies of consenting applications. Do they want us to provide the entire application as a zip file or just the application form? What do they mean by subsequent approvals? Is this an application validation?

So, getting into some specifics there around exactly what needs uploading, I mean, do we know the answer? Does anyone know the answer?

Stunned silence.

00:22:44 – Philip Bale

I was going to go to the FAQ quickly.

00:22:46 – Catherine Cleary

I mean, in general, most of the questions relating to you, so this is saying you know, I want to state that I have submitted planning, because that might make a difference to where you end up in a kind of zonal allocation pot; so as opposed to using planning as your kind of evidence for readiness. So, I think most of the time we just want justifiable evidence that can be cross-referenced. So, most of the time that would be your like planning application reference number, and then a validation letter, or a validation, sort of statement from the planning authority, and then obviously those are things which can are in the public domain. So, most of the time I don’t think people are going to be asking you to submit your full planning documents, because they can go find those if they wanted to investigate them?

00:23:28 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, absolutely, because you could be talking 20, 30 documents and what they’re not doing is trying to cross-check, you know, your site boundary, or your site layout with what you’ve done in the redline boundary. Ultimately, if you put a redline boundary and it’s different from your planning, that’s your risk and then, because later on you’re not going to be able to ultimately change that. So, yes, I wouldn’t advise uploading zip files full of documents – I don’t think DNOs would appreciate that

00:23:58 – Pete Aston

Okay, so that was a good one on planning. Maybe we’ll come back to some other planning ones in a bit. One from Cameron Goor here, for a large, embedded generator. Large, I assume that means large, as in the definition for a large. A large, embedded generator requesting advancement – will there be the option to switch from all works to contestable works only, or vice versa, via the Gate 2 to the whole queue advancement Mod App?

00:24:29 – Philip Bale

Now, this might be two completely separate elements. This is around your transmission impact assessment with NESO, versus your contractual arrangements with the DNO – so I think there are two completely separate elements.

00:24:41 – Pete Aston

Yeah, I mean there’s nowhere on the form to actually request this.

00:24:46 – Catherine Cleary

Exactly, a large embedded generator will be essentially providing information to NESO about their BEGA or their BELLA that they hold, which does not include the details of whether or not you’re going down the contestable route.

00:24:58 – Pete Aston

Which is a DNO issue.

00:24:28 – Catherine Cleary

DNO issue, yeah.

00:24:59 – Pete Aston

So, two completely separate things.

Okay, so let’s go to the next one, down from Chris Tom – thank you, Chris. Given the proposed readiness deadline of 29th of July, not quite sure what that means. Deadline of 29th of July? Anyway, let me finish the question because it’s got a bracket tentatively. And assuming we submit planning at the start of July, would it be worth waiting and using the planning reference to confirm readiness rather than the option? So, rather than the option being a land, option? Yeah, okay, so this is between maybe using readiness declaration based on planning versus land.

00:25:51 – Kyle Murchie

Or maybe protection?

00:25:54 – Philip Bale

You’re thinking it’s mainly for this, it’s basically submitting protection before the end of Gate 2 closes.

00:25:58 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah that.

00:25:59 – Philip Bale

I think that is what they’re asking.

00:26:00 – Kyle Murchie

We can probably cover both though.

00:26:02 – Pete Aston

Okay. Kyle, you sound like you know what you’re talking about.

00:26:08 – Kyle Murchie

Oh, great. Well, I think the 29th of July, intensively agreed, and I suppose the important thing is we don’t have confirmation yet, you know, NESO will, you’ve got up to four weeks effectively, before the start of the window, and then to confirm what that transmission window looks like. So, as we’ve discussed already, distribution window is generally open now, and different DNOs doing slightly different processes but effectively collating data now, with the transmission window expected to open in early July, 8th of July is what we’re kind of expecting, and not before, and then probably closure 29th of July, maybe earlier, maybe later.

00:26:49 – Catherine Cleary

You didn’t hear these dates here.

00:26:51 – Kyle Murchie

But yeah, and it is noted that you know they are looking at the distribution process as well to understand what are the good things that go really smoothly, what the pitfalls and how does that impact the timeline. So, you know there’s also a reason for not putting the timeline out and setting it in stone.

In terms of yes, we discussed there planning versus the land option route. So, if we’re thinking it’s split out into strategic alignment and protections and Gate 2 readiness, if we’re looking at Gate 2 readiness, there’s two options, two routes you can go down, either land or planning, and it was always intended that the vast majority of projects will go through land to justify, not planning. Planning was really opened up for projects that are going through a DCO that wouldn’t be able to demonstrate land. You know, like a nuclear site, for example, was always the kind of demonstrated example where you wouldn’t have land at the time of wanting to get certainty on your Gate 2 offer. So that’s what we’re expecting, we have noted that some of the DNOs interestingly, the way that they’ve presented it gives you the option, but it doesn’t necessarily make it clear that planning is only valid if you’re going to go down, or have gone down the DCO route.

00:28:08 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, and they’re expecting, you know, 99% of their customers to click on the land button, and a very small number of projects might have to go down the path.

00:28:15 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, so I think that is worth really kind of flagging and noting, because if you are starting to go through that process yourself, it’s remembering that there’s quite a big difference between the two. And then I think the point here around planning and whether you’re then trying to use planning as a protection. Then yes, if you are, they’re saying they’re submitted, so, we submit planning at the start of July, right. So, in that case it’s protected clause three, effectively. So, if you’ve submitted planning before the start of the process and you’re likely to be able to achieve that, then yes, there’s an opportunity to be protected under clause three. Noting, there are limitations on what clause three will protect, so I think it will depend on the technology as well. If you’re a battery, for example your lithium-ion battery, it’s very questionable whether that would make a considerable amount of difference.

00:29:10 – Pete Aston

Do you want to quickly just explain what protection clause three is and how it differs from 2A?

00:29:17 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, so 3 is…

00:29:21 – Philip Bale

It is basically a protection as long as you don’t exceed the national queue, which is then the reason why the concern that if everyone expects there to be significantly more battery storage, that ultimately finds its way through the queue, no one knows for sure who’s going to submit what in terms of the evidence. But the evidence looks like there’s going to be far more battery storage than will be needed under the national zonal pots, and therefore, if you then have a protection clause three, which says that you are protected as long as you don’t exceed the national parts, it isn’t really a protection. Whereas for solar, I think then for wind also, there is a view that ultimately, it’ll depend on what ends up going through the process, and there may still be some capacity that’s left.

00:30:01 – Kyle Murchie

Because protections was, it’s all set up around planning. Effectively, if you’re in a situation where you don’t have planning yet, then that’s when clause three comes into force. And you can either have, if you’re expected to have submitted planning by the 29th of or was it the 20th sorry of December. So, if you’ve, if you had submitted planning by that point, but don’t have planning permission in place by the time the Gate opens, then you can go down the route of 3A. And if you are in this situation, based on this question, where you’d be looking to submit planning before the evidence window opens up for transmission, then you’d fall under 3B.

00:30:43 – Pete Aston

Okay, good, thank you. Let’s go over to the question from Rex Chiu.

If I want to push back my connection, so, rather than advance, it push it back from 2026 to 2027, for a large embedded project. Can I do this by submitting a Mod App when the NESO freeze is lifted/concurrently with Gate 2 to the whole queue submission.

00:31:15 – Catherine Cleary

So, I guess there’s we can answer half, half of that’s really easy – you can’t delay the date as part of the Gate 2 the whole queue submission. So, it would need to be, you would need to go through the Gate 2 to the whole queue exercise with your current date, or an accelerated date, which sounds like you don’t want, you could submit a Mod App in future to push that date back. Kyle, my understanding, I think, is that that a project there would effectively need to go through the Gate 2 to the whole queue process, and then submit a Mod App into the next Gate 2 window.

00:31:52 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, I think the risk is, if the next window opens, CMP 434 opens at the end of this year, which is stated it could do, and you don’t have your offer yet. Now, in theory, if you’re 2026 date, you should be probably getting it early. So, in the best case, you get it relatively early, you accept it. You then, as you say, have to go down the Mod App route. I think the difficulty with those dates that we mentioned are in 2026 and 2027 is that you’re still going to have to adhere to the milestones. So even if you can move the data out, you’re in that situation where you’ve probably hit most of those milestones or in that danger zone of being ultimately terminated there. So that would definitely be one where you’d have to have that conversation with NESO, and it would really depend as well what’s happened on the project. If you’re connecting at transmission level in 2027 or even 2026, you’d have to have done quite a lot by now.

00:32:47 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, yeah, of course.

0:32:49 – Pete Aston

Yeah, this did say for a large embedded project so I guess you have to do the Mod App process, like you were just talking about, but you’ve also got to have the conversation with the DNO to make sure that they’re in a position to push back the connection dates as well. You know, can you actually get the outage or whatever you need in 2027, if one’s already booked for 2027?

00:33:10 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, I mean we are getting into the zone where you know projects have always had to change dates relatively close to energisation. So if it’s a project that actually is meeting all the milestones already in construction, but you don’t think you’re going to quite meet 2026 and it’s going to flow into 2027, then that is a slightly different case because you do be able to do that anyway.

00:33:29 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, exactly, in most cases you’d progress as normal now and once you know a bit closer to the time, you would submit would be termed a non-gated modification application. So essentially, in the new world you know, a Mod App you could submit at any time, you wouldn’t need to wait for a Gate 2 window.

00:33:45 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, it’s important that you could do that. If you were in that situation, you could effectively do that any time, as you say, from now on. You don’t have to wait for that window to open.

00:33:53 – Pete Aston

So, you can do that before the Gate 2 to the whole queue process, or you have to go through Gate 2 the whole queue, and then do that.

00:34:01 – Catherine Cleary

You have to get through Gate 2 to the whole queue, and then you…

00:34:03 – Pete Aston

Get the offer, sign it and then you could do a non-gated Mod App.

00:34:07 – Catherine Cleary

A non-gated Mod App, which would be effectively a relatively minor timescale amendment to account for your commissioning timeframes.

00:34:15 – Kyle Murchie

If you’re choosing anything more major though, you would then have to go through the CMP 434 gated process.

00:34:23 – Philip Bale

And just to say this is FAQ 21 in the document that’s published, so it’s on page 21 – just double checking.

00:34:30 –  Catherine Cleary

Did we say the right thing?

00:34:31 – Philip Bale

You nailed it.

00:34:33 – Pete Aston

Philp’s read all the FAQs in the car this morning. Okay, telling everyone our secrets now.

00:34:40 – Philip Bale

Driving, I should add.

00:34:42 – Pete Aston

Yeah, I was driving.

So, question from Ben Gostin. This theoretically should be easy, but I’m not sure it is. When is the proposed Gate 2 readiness deadline for this window for distribution customers, i.e. when’s the window open, I assume?

00:34:58 – Catherine Cleary

When does the window close?

00:34:59 – Pete Aston

When does it close?

00:35:00 – Catherine Cleary

We all care about when it closes, probably more than …

00:35:02 – Pete Aston

It’s worth saying, the windows are now open for all distribution Gate 2 applications, but when does it close? We’ve seen conflicting evidence.

00:35:11 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, and I think it is important to note that, although some DNOs have presented, you know, July the 29^th, some have also mentioned potentially July the 30^th – that is based on a lot of estimation. It’s based on expected closure of the transmission window and also, you know which hasn’t been fully confirmed yet, it’s also expecting that DNOs will be able to close their deadline at the same time and in parallel to the transmission window, which is expected. I know that they have built in some time, so NESO aren’t expecting that as soon as the DNO closes the submission window they submit all the evidence the next day to them, there us timeline built into that as some buffer. But of course, this is the first of a kind process. If it transpires that actually a lot of offers, or sorry a lot of submissions are coming in relatively late on in June or early July, then that might obviously change the date slightly. So, I think my view is, if you’re in a position where you’re starting to prepare this now, you’re on this webinar, you know what’s coming then try and get it done in the next month. You know, get it done in June. If you’re distribution connected, you’re in quite a good position because you’re a lot longer than transmission applicants will have in reality. You know, from a window opening perspective, and anytime in June, sorry any time in July is a bonus, but I don’t know what it is…

00:36:48 – Philip Bale

One of the DNOs at least, is also committed that they will give everyone a two-week warning of when it’s going to close. So, whilst we’re not 100% sure when it’s going to be, they did say that they would give everyone a two-week warning before it closes.

00:36:58 – Catherine Cleary

Well, that, I guess NESO said, they’re going to give everyone a four week warning.

00:37:02 – Philip Bale and Kyle Murchie

Yes.

00:37:04 – Pete Aston

I guess the advice is do it as soon as you possibly can to avoid missing the window closing.

Okay, right. Question here from Tawiyah – sorry if I’ve pronounced that incorrectly. Is advancement mandatory for protection of the Technical Limits firm connection date, or will the DNO be more reasonable in their assessments? So Technical Limits offers have a non-firm date and then a firm date when the transmission works are all completed. So is advancement mandatory, maybe, if, what about if the your firm connection date is after 2035? Do you think you would have to put in an advancement request at that point?

00:37:53 – Catherine Cleary

So, if you’re yeah, because if you normally have a connection date beyond 2035, you do need to request advancement to get a Gate 2 offer, to stand a chance getting a Gate 2 offer. So, I suppose, I don’t know if there’s any kind of exception to that if you’ve got a Tech Limit solution, you know where you’ve got a non-firm date beforehand. But I would sort of expect DNOs to be submitting advancement requests, I think in the majority of cases where they’re just thinking in practical terms, most customers under Tech Limits are going to ask for advancement because they’re going to have connected their project and it will be sitting there, being constrained, and they obviously want to bring that unconstrained date forward as much as possible. So, I suppose, in pragmatic terms, people you know, but I’m not sure about the letter of the kind of rules.

00:38:41 – Pete Aston

Whether it has to be or not.

00:38:42 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, I suppose it’s an interesting one because, with Technical Limits, Technical Limits are only there for 2026 and 2027 projects, i.e. those that are protected. If you have a Technical Limits offer in 2028, well that’s not guaranteed anyway and that Technical limits could be ripped up and…

00:39:00 – Catherine Cleary

Or it could be pushed back.

00:39:01 – Kyle Murchie

Or it could be pushed back, or potentially not required at all. I suppose that’s the justification, is well, we might not need Technical Limits in that particular case if we can move the firm date forward by six months or a year or whatever the timeframe is.

00:39:17 – Pete Aston

So, it would seem likely that most schemes where they’ve got Technical Limits will want to ask for advancement of the firm date, but whether it’s an absolute mandatory requirement.

00:39:28 – Kyle Murchie

If nobody asked for it under that GSP or under that particular project progression, then I mean ultimately no one’s paying for that request because ultimately the DNO is the one that’s making that payment to make that request, advancement request to NESO. So, if no customer asks for it, then ultimately it wouldn’t be.

00:39:49 – Pete Aston

Yeah.

00:39:50 – Kyle Murchie

It would be asked,

00:39:53 – Pete Aston

Okay, maybe we can do some digging while we’re on the call.

00:39:56 – Philip Bale

I’m just doing some digging now. I’m struggling. I’m struggling to find anything in the FAQs at the moment.

00:40:00 – Pete Aston

What we’ll do then we’ll circle back around to that, I have noticed actually there’s a few questions going to the chat function, if you could put those questions in the Q&A, that would be really helpful, just because it helps us manage those. But maybe it will try and pick up some of the ones that have gone in the chat as well.

Okay, so question from George Dunlop should your NESO connections contact manager help us through this process? I.e. I guess could you pick up the phone and call someone to go – can you help me get through Gate 2 please?

00:40:37 – Catherine Cleary

I think there’s lots of, I mean NESO have obviously published huge amounts of material and so on, and there are, and all of NESO’s webinars are recorded, which I always think is quite helpful, you know. So, if you can’t join them at the time, you can go and find them on the website. So, I suppose often it’s not that your CCM won’t pick up the phone, it’s just that sometimes it might be worth, you know, making like you know you can get the specific answer to your specific question, maybe kind of already recorded in black and white. So, I guess it’s probably worth, for the benefit of some CCM sanities, sort of checking that question isn’t answered elsewhere first maybe. But otherwise, it’s nice to see kind of how proactive people have been at kind of reaching out and trying to be helpful.

00:41:16 – Pete Aston

Okay. So, a question from Amir Fazeli If a project hasn’t received stage two offer back, would the project be assessed in CMP 435 for Gate 2 compliance? Okay, so I guess that’s at what point can an offer still be accepted and make it into the 435 Gate 2 to the whole queue process?

00:41:46 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, so we’re talking there about stage two from a…

00:41:49 – Catherine Cleary

From a DNO, sorry, I suspect a DNO. Yeah, the project is DNO connected and the DNO hasn’t received their kind of stage two, or second step offer back from their project progression.

00:42:01 – Philip Bale

Or they just haven’t communicated it to the customer.

00:42:05 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, because there has been a lot of work on that to try to ensure that all of those projects are effective, in a contracted position from a transmission point of view by the deadline of the 13th of June. So, what’s been going on in the background? There’s a few different approaches, but one of the approaches is to put in, basically, a transitional offer between the DNO and the NESO for that particular case. So, the reason normally they’re not back yet is because the DNO and NESO still haven’t agreed the full terms. So, removing anything contentious out of there, putting a transitional offer in place which is effectively equivalent of a Gate 1 offer, and the new process then that allows you know, ensures that they’re contracted and it allows those projects to make a submission.

I think the issue might be for, you know, the DNOs are only finding that out now. They’re not going to have enough time to ultimately issue a variation in all cases on that basis, but my understanding is they’re going to be trying to get in contact with all those customers to at least confirm via email. So, yeah, that was definitely one that you should reach out and just confirm with your DNO. But the intention is that any project that’s waiting for a stage two offer back, should be in a position to submit through 435.

00:43:24 – Pete Aston

Okay, picking up a question from the chat. Well, one of them we’ve answered already about DNO windows closing. From Thomas Burnett – could you please clarify something quite fundamental. The Gate 2 process is all about managing the grid queue at transmission level and the queue at the DNO level isn’t impacted, just remains the same as previously advised by the DNO? So, does this process of gate two to the whole queue only change the transmission queue or is it going to change the distribution queue as well?

00:44:00 – Philip Bale

I think this is one that’s a bit grey. We’re having this debate before the webinar started debate before the webinar started.

00:44:11 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, there are some changes, because if you fall out of the transmission access queue, so you’re, you’re moved to Gate 1, you don’t get a Gate 2 offer. And then the DNOs have clarified, that effectively that means that you would get a sort of equivalent of a Gate 1 offer at distribution as well. So I like to think of it as a sieve, you know, and if so, you know, I suppose we’re doing a sieve on transmission access; but if you fall through that, but those holes, you know, you get a Gate 1 offer, you fall out of that queue, then you also fall out of the distribution queue. So, we would expect to see some compaction of the distribution queue as a result.

00:44:43 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, and certainly looking at 435 and 434, you know what that set out would do exactly that. I think there may be an argument that with the layering on of protections, the layering on of protections has potentially meant that the number of projects that will flow through that sieve is going to be less. But that’s ultimately to be seen and is a factor of the protections rather than the actual process itself. But that could be the same at transmission level, not just distribution level.

00:45:12 – Philip Bale

I mean, I think the concern then comes around the fact that there’s talk of reordering of the distribution queue based on the transmission queue, and I think the conversation we were having earlier was depends on where you sit in that before 2030 or between 2030 and 2035.

00:45:28 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, so certainly some DNOs have presented their intention. I suppose it’s just a concept at the moment, but an intended concept that if you were in phase two and you’re still remaining in phase two and others have advanced to phase one, then there would be a change in the in the LIFO stack, because it’s not fair that projects sitting in phase two effectively are going to then benefit, they’re going to move further up the LIFO stack when they connect your five years later. But that is only between two phases, if you’re both in phase one and one project was 2030, another project was 2027 and there was a move around in the queue, then you wouldn’t necessarily change the position.

00:46:12 – Philip Bale

And there was talk also around works as well, if there was reinforcement of an asset, that then may not be, needed as well but yeah. I’m still a bit grey on that at the moment, and I’m not sure why, I’ve seen it in black and white as it stands at the moment.

00:46:23 – Kyle Murchie

No, I agreed. I think that particular aspect is something we’ll probably see more of. Part of the argument is it depends on really what the result is. But yes, it’s definitely something to continue the conversation.

00:46:39 – Pete Aston

Okay, thank you. A question from Connor O’Sullivan. In the recently published Gated Modification Guidance Document, what is the significance of Gate 1 agreements with and without reservation? I know we talked a few times about this, Kyle, recently, about having capacity and or bay positions reserved at Gate 1, but I don’t know if, Kyle or Catherine, you’ve got any thoughts around that.

00:47:06 – Catherine Cleary

I did. There is some quite useful stuff, and I can’t remember whether it’s in the handbook or the FAQs, actually Philip may tell me, but you know, really just clarifying that there are a relatively specific number of scenarios where Gate 1 projects will benefit from reservation of capacity.

So, you know, effectively, unless you’re one of these things, if you’re a Gate 1 project you’re not going to have anything reserved for you. And that is effectively where there has been a coordinated design exercise, done. So, the example for that is things like offshore, and you know the Celtic Sea perhaps, you know where there is a proposed solution already for how those projects will be connected and therefore there is a kind of an easy route to reserve some capacity in the future for those projects. But noting that effectively what that’s doing is sort of saying we’re reserving that capacity, we’re not necessarily, you know, confirming yet which projects it is that will benefit from that capacity. And the other example is essentially projects which are offering sort of services directly to NESO and again there’s kind of some parallels here with the project designation, criteria. So, I guess that’s, you know, things like some of the stability projects.

00:48:21 – Kyle Murchie

So, what we used to call pathfinder.

00:48:24 – Catherine Cleary

Exactly, thank you, Kyle. I’m not sure what the next generation is called now.

00:48:28 – Philip Bale

Yeah, 20, 29, I think, is the current one that’s going through, expression of interest at the moment so.

00:48:35 – Catherine Cleary

So, unless you’re one of those projects and you probably would know if you were and then you know there isn’t currently an opportunity to have capacity reservation at Gate 1.

00:48:46 – Pete Aston

Okay, so it’s pretty specific yeah for capacity reservation.

00:48:49 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, we’ll try and find the bit…

00:48:51 – Philip Bale

Page 73 on the FAQ number 24.

00:48:54 – Pete Aston

I love it. Thank you, Philip amazing.

Okay, so I think there’s a question here from Matthew Dowds, but I think we’ve answered already. If you receive a Gate 2 offer during reform, will there be enough time to submit a Mod App in the next window to delay a project’s trigger date? I think we talked about doing a Mod App after you’ve signed your …

00:49:13 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, after you’ve signed your Gate 2, but if it’s a Mod App that has to go through the gated process, and bear in mind there’s another guidance doc about this which is useful. So, this is the gosh, what’s it called …Gated? I think it might be called gated modification application guidance. So that basically tells you, once you’ve got a Gate 2 offer based on the change you’re making, do you have to wait for a Gate 2 window to make that change or is it a change you can make at any time? If it’s a change you could make at any time, in theory, if you were the very first Gate 2 offer out the door, you might technically have time to make a change. And then you know, before the next trigger year kicked in on the 1st of April 2026. But for the vast majority of projects, no, they won’t have time – they won’t have the 90 days required from clock start to make that. And for projects that were going to make, if the change they were going to make was a required gated modification application, then they wouldn’t be able to do that because that gated window probably wouldn’t have closed by then anyway.

00:50:12 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, because also the 1st of April 2026, you have to put the security in place significantly before that.

00:50:18 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, I was going to say your security deadline is March, isn’t it? And yeah, so say no, I think in practice, no.

00:50:24 – Pete Aston

Okay, one here from Matthew Hilton. Thank you, Matthew. It’s a longish question around capacity pots, I think. My exports grid connection is for both solar and wind and we do not have planning submitted or approved for either. The wind pot already has planning granted which exceeds the 2035 target, whereas there’s plenty of solar capacity in the Gate 2 queue. As a scheme, we’re more interested in developing the solar. Should we drop wind from the grid connection as part of the Connections Reform, as we have been advised previously? Doing so will be classed as a major variation, and we would lose our current place in the queue.

00:51:07 – Philip Bale

I can pick this one up first. So, I think at the moment, obviously, if you were to take both parts of it through and the wind pot was exceeded, you would then have a hybrid project. You potentially could get a Gate 2 offer for the solar but not for the wind, and that’s how it’s going to work for hybrid projects where one of them is in the pot and one of them isn’t. The only other point I’d state here is that just because a project has planning does not mean it’s a viable project, does not necessarily mean that someone’s going to go through and develop it out and build it. There are some consented projects which are unviable because they’ve got planning, they’ve gone through further works with the grid and then, as a result, uncovered cost prohibitive issues that come through. So, I think in this instance you would potentially put both of the projects through acetone, where it comes through, and then they would be split out under the hybrid elements – that’s my view anyway.

00:51:57 – Catherine Cleary

I think it’s interesting the sort of second bit of Matthew’s question, you know it suggests he’d been advised that, dropping the wind, so removing a technology, was going to be classed as a major variation and they’d lose their place in the queue. I mean, I think we could probably categorically say that’s not the case for a transmission connected scheme. So if you were declaring your Gate 2 readiness and you only chose to declare it on one technology and you move to Gate 1 for the other technology, if that doesn’t result in a reduction in your tech, then that is not what you’ve sort of called a major variation but effectively that is an allowable strategy at the Gate 2 process. So, I wonder perhaps if Matthew’s project is distribution connected, or if it was going to result in a significant change in tech, in which case, it’s still allowable. You’re not going to lose your queue position, but you would face a cancellation charge potentially.

00:52:53 – Philip Bale

And a distribution project that had both wind and solar, and if you’re to drop or not develop one of the technologies, it would only be seen as a material change if the capacity would use so much that you should have been connected at another voltage level, which then makes a major change in the scheme – so I think it depends on the nuance of the individual scheme.

00:53:09 – Catherine Cleary

Sounds like probably that major variation might be a bit of a red herring now, but it is project specific.

00:53:18 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, agreed, and I think the point that we just raised there as well that you could go through and get a Gate 1 offer for that particular part of the technology and then deal with it at that point where the securities and liabilities have fallen away. So yeah, few options.

00:53:32 – Pete Aston

Okay, take a question from Keith Houston, previous colleague, unless there’s someone else out there called Keith Houston who my previous colleague wasn’t, in which case I apologise.

Okay, large embedded with BELLA/BEGA asking for advancement. So, the submission goes to NESO. However, how are the dates agreed with DNO? The handbook seems to suggest the generator must secure agreement for the DNO first, but other material contradicts this. Is there a form process, as otherwise, how could the DNO fairly assess at the stage? Any thoughts? A difficult one.

00:54:06 – Catherine Cleary

Basically, if you request advancement, I suppose the context for this for those less in the know than Keith if you request advancement, there is a really important stage whereby either the DNO, if you’re an embedded project, or the TO, if you’re a transmission connected project, can say you know, not on your nelly, you know there’s no, without doing any studies whatsoever, I know for a fact we can’t advance this project and in which case your advancement request just gets rejected. You know so you don’t even get assessed in that phase that you’ve been asked for. You know, I don’t think you pay the fee, I’m not sure about that. But essentially so, I guess that’s the reason that there needs to be a discussion with the DNO to say I’m going to request advancement, advancement, you gave me a 2035 date and I’m going to ask for 2026. And there needs to be a conversation for them to say yeah, by the way, if you do that, we’re just going to reject that, we’re going to say that advancement is not possible. So, I suppose there’s motivation for there being a conversation on both sides, but I don’t know if there’s a formal process.

00:55:04 – Kyle Murchie

I suppose it’s covered probably under part five of the CNDM, under that kind of multicoloured bingo slide, because it does specifically say obviously, as you said, kind of network limitations and it does imply that there’d have to be conversation and kind of engagement between the two. But exactly what, that formal process is agreed, that’s not what we’ve seen publicly.

00:55:26 – Catherine Cleary

And I suppose without a formal process, there is a bit of a risk that, there might be a benefit to asking early. You know who gets in there first, you know, so I suppose that that’s also worth bearing in mind, DNOs might need to be thinking, or might already be thinking, about you know actually how we’re going to kind of assess all of those requests and then decide which ones are reasonable.

00:55:43 – Philip Bale

I mean, I think it also depends as well, which is probably why it’s grey. So if you take as an example a project that has a 2037 date and it’s to a new connection node and someone’s requesting advancement because they think there’s a lot of other projects ahead of them that are going to drop out, potentially they’re going to connect to a new existing GSP, which then actually might mean that they’ve got a completely different view and it depends on the outcome of the CP2030 work as to whether the DNO could facilitate that advancement or not.

00:56:07 – Catherine Cleary

Yes, and to be clear, the idea of vetoing advancement requests, I think that you know the NESO wording is quite good and quite clear, that it is where it is, you know, effectively obvious without doing studies. And so, the examples I would give would be where you know it’s going to be relevant for things like some island connections. You know where there is not going to be an HVDC link to your island until a certain point, you know in time, and it doesn’t matter what changes in the connections queue, you’re never going to connect to a different body of land, you know. So, I think things like that would be examples where we’d expect network operators to veto advancement requests. It’s not where it’s greyer. I suppose the expectation would be they wouldn’t veto it, they’d wait and study it and see.

00:56:52 – Pete Aston

Okay, we’re going to take the next question which has got the first heart associated with it, which is very nice, from Rosie Lord. Do you know how queue progression milestones that have already been fulfilled will be treated in a Gate 2 Mod offer? Will they simply be marked in the revised offer as fulfilled, or will new deadlines apply? I appreciate that new dates will be calculated for milestones that are not fulfilled at the date of issue of a Gate 2 offer and assuming a new connection date has been allocated. Do we know?

00:57:25 – Catherine Cleary

Good, good question.

00:57:26 – Kyle Murchie

It is a good question.

00:57:26 – Catherine Cleary

I didn’t heart it, but I might have done.

00:57:32 – Kyle Murchie

My view is I would suspect that, yes, anything that has been met already would be marked as fulfilled. I have seen transmission offers before where in that Appendix it does highlight where they have already been fulfilled, and the evidence has already been submitted.

00:57:45 – Pete Aston

Does it matter if it’s not been marked as fulfilled, because it has been fulfilled whether it’s marked as fulfilled or not.

00:57:50 – Catherine Cleary

I think this is probably one of these things where we’re going to need to, bearing in mind however many re-offers NESO are going to have to. These are probably things which aren’t actually contractually vital to customers. So, yes, you might get recalculated new dates which will be in the future, to be clear you know they’re not going to be in the past. Or they or they might do the individual homework to say, actually, this particular project really fulfilled it – you can probably live with either, hopefully.

00:58:14 – Kyle Murchie

Agreed yeah because I think, yeah, as you say, if they’re doing, they’re just taking the dates and putting into the calculator. It’s much easier just to pop those dates straight into the table than rather than going and specifically marking off, oh yes, you’ve already submitted as part of your evidence, but yeah either option.

00:58:29 – Catherine Cleary

It’s worth saying that, you know, I suppose if someone was doing like due diligence or sort of reviewing someone else’s connection agreement, just because a date isn’t marked as fulfilled, um wouldn’t normally be a red flag. We don’t re-offer, or, sorry, we don’t see um connection agreements updated every time a milestone is reached. So, you know, by definition, at some point in the project the project would have passed those key management milestones and there’ll still be historic dates for them in the offer.

00:58:55 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah.

00:58:57 – Pete Aston

Okay, question from Lamin.

Not quite sure I understand it, so hopefully you do. Is installed capacity has to be megawatt P or megawatts as elaborated in the handbook.

00:59:12 – Philip Bale

I can do this one. I think it’s pretty clear. It’s just megawatts, so it’s megawatts for inverters. This is around a solar question which is basically are you doing the AC or the DC? And I think all the evidence consistently says it’s the AC capacity. It’s based on the inverters that’s going through, it doesn’t relate to the DC.

00:59:29 – Catherine Cleary

So, megawatt peaks is DC rating panels.

00:59:33 – Pete Aston

Okay, that’s what I didn’t understand.

Okay, perfect, great.

00:59:37 – Kyle Murchie

We learned something new in the video today.

00:59:39 – Pete Aston

Question from George Dunlop. Guidance Letter of Authority for onshore transmission connection applications, page five, which I’m sure you’ve all read and remembered. The factor for demand, so this is the energy density factor includes data centres and traction is 0.087. This is an incorrect factor that we have agreed with SPT, but do we need to meet this requirement?

01:00:13 – Philip Bale

So, I think this goes back to the fact that if you don’t meet the requirement, you can still write a letter to explain why you don’t meet the requirement and why that’s not an issue. And I think we did some calculations on some data centre sites that we’re developing and realised that had they had to go through them, they wouldn’t meet that requirement. So, I think where you have a project which won’t meet that requirement, you just have to justify and explain the reasons why – that’s my understanding

01:00:42 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, because if you do, I think our example internally was if you took the shard in London, then it wouldn’t meet that requirement based on its energy density.

01:00:52 – Philip Bale

If it was transmission connected.

01:00:53 – Pete Aston

If it was transmission connected, yes.

01:00:57 – Pete Aston

Yeah, and I’m pretty sure the reference to an incorrect figure is for demand. It’s actually 0.084, because I was looking at it the other day, rather than 0.087, I’m not sure that makes a difference.

01:01:12 – Kyle Murchie

It’s probably a good point actually that there are quite a few errors that have been identified in the guidance, the evidence guidance from NESO, so we are expecting an updated version of that soon or imminently. So, therefore if there are factors that are flagged, then obviously, or you notice other potential errors, then it is worth flagging that.

01:01:35 – Catherine Cleary

This one wasn’t really an error, I suppose, was it? You know this was an estimate by NESO of a demand density, wasn’t it? I think it’s just that there have been some challenges on whether it’s going to apply in all projects, unless anyone. I don’t think it’s a typo, basically.

01:01:48 – Pete Aston

Well, I think the 0.08. I have seen that some people in some places is 0.087 rather than 0.084, which is another place, although that’s a fairly minor difference. But, I think the point is that data, like you’re saying, for the certain demand types could have a much higher energy density than others.

01:02:10 – Philip Bale

And I think also in their defence at this point, I think that’s a herculean change in terms of going through and there’s been a lot of FAQs and documents that comes out and there will be some mistakes and possibly we’ll say some things here that’s a mistake, but hopefully, if it’s the four of us that also don’t understand it, then this is enough sort of uncertainty everywhere else, but I think ultimately we’ll hopefully work out most of them before the end.

01:02:36 – Kyle Murchie

It is probably worth noting, actually, on density, that the transmission figure and the distribution figure for the same technologies does differ. Yes, so if you’ve looked at a particular figure before but haven’t gone back to the guidance and the handbook, then definitely do that. I think, as we’ve said, as long as you can justify it, then there shouldn’t be any major issues. In most projects, if you’re looking at solar, for example, you know when the minimum acreage is, you know relatively small compared to actually what you would generally expect, but there is a methodology that’s gotten behind getting to those two sets of figures.

01:03:07 – Pete Aston

Yeah, we’ve got the figures there.

01:03:08 – Kyle Murchie

You’ve got the figures there. You can read them also.

01:03:10 – Philip Bale

This only applies for demand that only applies to transmission directly connected schemes. There isn’t a requirement for distribution and better schemes to go through this process anyway for demand.

01:03:18 – Catherine Cleary

For demand.

01:03:19 – Philip Bale

For demand, yeah, it doesn’t apply.

01:03:21 – Catherine Cleary

Distribution demand is out of scope.

01:03:22 – Pete Aston

Yes. Question from Thomas Burnett on the chat will the Gate 2 offer be a firm offer? I assume that means…

01:03:33 – Catherine Cleary

Favourite definition of firm.

01:03:35 – Pete Aston

I assume that means not a transitional offer.

01:03:38 – Catherine Cleary

Yes, I think that Gate 2 offers will need to not be transitional offers. I think that there isn’t a kind of mechanism to have a transitional Gate 2 offer, no sort of transitional sort of perhaps part of the old world. Yeah, so if you’ve currently got a transitional offer, for example, you have to submit a Modification Application when you go through the Gate 2 evidence declaration process to transition that to a full offer. So yeah, that’s my thinking.

01:04:07 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, and I think it’s again as we say, that definition of firm, you know, are we saying that the price is firm? Are we saying the date is, you know?

01:04:15 – Catherine Cleary

It’s a system access firm.

01:04:18 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, exactly, yeah, we should perhaps…

01:04:19 – Kyle Murchie

There’s quite a few different aspects of the kind of definition there. But yeah, as you said, Catherine, in terms of Gate 2, you’re expecting that it’s going to be a full offer. And as we we’re speaking to Ofgem earlier this morning and you know, we know, that the end-to-end review will be coming out with some recommendations and the intention is that those recommendations will be taken into account within the Gate 2 offer as well. So, you know that hasn’t been forgotten about, but we don’t have sight of that right now as we’re speaking.

01:04:53 – Pete Aston

Okay, worth saying at this point we are running through to half three, so if you want to submit your questions, you probably need to do it in the next. I would suggest 10 to 15 minutes for us to have a chance of getting through to answering your question, because we’ve got a hard stop at half three -Catherine’s got a very hard stop at half three.

Yeah, so let’s take next question from Melissa Spence. Thank you, Melissa. What happens in the Gate 2 assessment if there is an infrastructure build required such that nobody in the area can connect earlier than 2028, do all projects requiring connection to this infrastructure fall into phase two? Well, I guess phase two is from 2031 to 35. So, I guess if, if the if there was some infrastructure work that prevented connection in phase one, does that mean everyone gets assessed in phase two.

01:05:52 – Catherine Cleary

And I guess that would be an example of the, sorry I suppose in that specific case if the structure was going to be delivered in 2028, there could definitely be phase one projects in 2029 and 2030, as you say, Pete. But if, for example, there had been works that had gone all the way up to 2030, that would be an example of where, even if people had asked to be accelerated into phase one, the acceleration requests would get vetoed because we’d say no, we know that in this area there’s absolutely no infrastructure until we’ve done this work. And so, I suppose, yeah, effectively there’s no sort of special provisions for if you’re kind of blocked by infrastructure and you would remain blocked by that infrastructure structure.

01:06:30 – Pete Aston

Yeah, okay, that seems fairly good. Thank you, Catherine. Okay, question from Andy Hoe. Transmission offers in the gate to template there is no reference to either site coordinates or installed capacity of the original application/offer. Therefore, is it safe to say that the installed capacity and original redline boundary coordinates submitted in Gate 2 evidence will supersede the respective data in the original application? Therefore, this is a good opportunity to represent a more accurate design. Yeah, so certainly the site coordinates bit can be new, can’t it? But installed capacity bit, that’s the bit that I was probably more confused around with that one

01:07:21 – Catherine Cleary

Well, yeah, I mean, I think this is a great, it’s a good, it’s a good geeky chat, isn’t it really? Because install capacity isn’t a definition that we use at transmission, and we probably should a bit more. And we talk about CEC, but your CEC might sometimes…

01:07:36 – Pete Aston

Which stands for…

01:07:37 – Catherine Cleary

Sorry, connection entry capacity.

So, but I suppose you know that we’ve seen lots of examples where someone’s connection entry capacity, which would generally speaking be the sort of the capability of the generator as opposed to the tech you’re commercially paying for, but sometimes the capability of the generator is limited by things like transformers. So that might not, you know, you might have some wind and some solar and they might both be going through the same SGT and you might say well, actually I think the CEC of my project is limited by that SGT, so CEC isn’t quite the same thing as installed capacity often.

So, I think probably, in short, an answer to Andy’s question yes, it’s a great opportunity to tell them what your installed capacity is, because it might not be very well reflected in your current offer. There is obviously I mean, probably the most useful kind of data that goes into a transmission connection agreement is the user data in the construction agreement appendices, which tends to say you know, okay, it’s a best power park module and it’s got this many inverters and it’s a wind farm and it’s got this many wind turbines. It kind of deals with the granular data of the generators but it’s not generally, unless I’m missing something, it’s not really captured anywhere else.

01:08:46 – Philip Bale

No, I think the only thing is on FAQs, page 24, number 27, basically says that projects will not be able to change their CEC as part of the gate to the whole queue.

01:08:57 – Catherine Cleary

Okay, that’s a good clarification.

01:08:58 – Kyle Murchie

But, as you say, install capacity can be completely different.

01:09:02 – Philip Bale

Because it doesn’t really matter.

01:09:04 – Kyle Murchie

Because your CEC needs to be at least the same as your tech or greater, obviously, because otherwise you’ve got a problem. But yeah, as we’ve said tech, registered capacity, those are the sorts of terms that you would normally expect to transmission level rather than installed capacity. And even on registered capacity, you’ve got registered capacity and registered megawatts, which aren’t necessarily the same thing either. So, yeah, we’ll probably get into a kind of definition beyond that. But also, those figures do change when you go through the whole compliance process and fill out the many DRC schedules, and beyond one point DRC schedule 1.4.

01:09:39 – Catherine Cleary

So, in some ways, when you fill out your gate to your readiness declaration, if you’re being asked for a parameter that you haven’t defined anywhere else then, yeah, it’s a great opportunity isn’t actually to just give the most realistic value of your site to date, yeah.

01:09:53 – Pete Aston

Yeah, yeah, okay. Question from Theo how long do we expect the appeal process to be, will it be uniform across all DNOs. Okay, I think we need to explain the appeal process, because I’m not entirely sure what this is referring to. I know that there’s some sort of appeal process through Gate 2, but if you’re like, for example, if NESO queries your readiness documents and they decide to say that you’re not ready, and you want to appeal that, then you effectively don’t go through the Gate 2 process. But I’m not quite sure what it means in reference to DNOs, I’m not sure.

01:10:37 – Philip Bale

I mean, I think you take it two ways. You could either take it in terms of a planning appeal, but I suspect it’s probably someone’s get a response. They don’t agree with the response, they want to appeal it, and I’m not sure I’ve seen that there is one, I’m not aware of one anyway.

01:10:48 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, so I suppose that, like you said Pete, what has been highlighted is effectively there isn’t space for an appeals process within the Gate 2 the whole queue exercise. So, I don’t think that’s, that’s not, you know, from a kind of like strategic or malicious intent. You know that’s being very pragmatic, you know it would delay everything far too much.

So, I suppose we’re not expecting there to be a sort of formal appeals channel where you think you should have got a Gate 2 offer and you haven’t and that to all kind of fit within the Gate 2 to the whole key process. I’m sure there will be some challenge, you know, on a project specific basis, won’t there? But I’ve not yet seen anything about kind of the timeframes within which those might be dealt with kind of the time frames within which those might be dealt with.

01:11:32 – Philip Bale

So, I’m not sure that necessarily be the evidence presented in the public domain that you could actually formally launch an appeal because you wouldn’t see it all.

01:11:37 – Catherine Cleary

I suppose it would be if one example might be if a project had declared readiness and you know, we know that the DNOs and the NESO are going to do some kind of checks on those readiness declarations, you know, potentially involving sort of external consultants perhaps, and I suppose you know if, if a party had said we don’t think this project passes readiness criteria, that is something quite specific which you could potentially contest. You can imagine there might be a…

01:12:07 – Pete Aston

So, there is a section in the Gate 2 criteria methodology, section 8.16, I’m doing a Philip now, all users who do not meet the Gate 2 readiness criteria detailed checks can dispute that decision, but they will not receive a Gate 2 offer as part of the gated design process.

01:12:25 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, and I think that might be referring to the dispute process as per the CUSC section 7 as it stood, or stands at the moment. Because when we’re going through the 434 and 435 process, the point of burn disputes came up and it was just ultimately stated that well, there’s already a dispute process from a CUSC perspective already, and so I suspect that the guidance is ultimately referring to that, but just confirming that well, if that dispute process happens, you’re not going to get a Gate 2 offer, it’s going to have to happen in parallel.

01:12:55 – Catherine Cleary

And I don’t think it’s straightforward as to how that, what would happen if you were DNOL connected, you know noting that that question sort of specifically references DNOs and obviously if there was any kind of argument about whether the DNO had correctly assimilated your information or passed it on, that that’s another level of complexity.

01:13:12 –  Kyle Murchie

Yeah, I think it’s more straightforward if you find that out in September when you’re told you’re going to be Gate 1 and you go hold on, there’s obviously been an error and it’s through NESO it’s a bit easier because it’s that direct contact. But yeah, through the DNO I think it’s, we’ll have to wait and see – let’s be optimistic.

01:13:32 – Pete Aston

Yeah, h interesting question here about NESO and DNO workloads from Rory Stewart. Have NESO/the DNO stated how they will be practically reviewing all of the evidence submitted. It will be a mammoth task and presumably some technology required to review them all. It’ll be interesting to see how free text answers are reviewed and decisions made. As it’s probably worth noting, some of the DNOs are accepting submissions via email, which I assume makes reviewing on a technological basis harder than if there was a portal.

01:14:10 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, and I know that certainly AI was discussed at the time. I don’t know if anybody else does the specifics on whether any DNOs are going to use about that in the background. But also, it’s worth saying it’s not necessarily going to DNO staff that are actually doing all the analysis, you know some of that will be passed out to consultancies, certainly from a NESO perspective.

01:14:36 – Pete Aston

Certainly not Roadnight Taylor, just to be clear on that.

01:14:37 – Kyle Murchie

No, no, no we are not doing that.

01:14:40 – Philip Bale

On top of that, we are aware that there has been people being recruited because obviously, if you take NESO as an example checking, planning, versus redline boundaries and all those sorts of things that’s something that historically they won’t have done and I know for a fact that they’ve recruited some people into those roles to support those functions. So, I think there’s been a certain element of recruitment that’ll help, but it is a herculean task and it’s going to be a challenge.

01:15:04 – Pete Aston

I was looking through some lease documents from a client just this morning to go well, they were going – do you think this meets the criteria? And it’s like it’s quite difficult to tell. You know, you’ve got to really read through. So, it’s a difficult job, so I don’t know that we know the answer, particularly to this, Rory, but it’s definitely a very personal question.

01:15:25 – Catherine Cleary

It is it is good to see, I think you know, especially the, specifically the NESO declaration spreadsheet, which I suppose would you, we get to see how that kind of translates into a portal. But you know, they’ve been quite explicit about where there are free text opportunities and in the majority of cases it’s a yes, no question with a free text opportunity if you can’t say yes. So, I suppose, Pete, in your example of you know, you know a lease option. It would essentially be saying, you know, does your lease option have a minimum term of three years? And you know, and if you thought actually, you know what this is really quite grey you might have to say no but then have an explanation according. And I suppose what they’re hoping is that it’s the minority of respondents in each case they’ve made it so that you know the majority should be ticking the binary box which requires no free type, and it’s the minority which should have to be having to provide kind of supplementary free typed evidence. But I think it’s definitely worth bearing in mind, isn’t it that this isn’t necessarily going to go straight to your, your CC, your kind of connections manager who knows all about your project. It might be going to someone who’s you know who’s literally never seen it before. So yeah, hopefully you can tick as many…

01:16:35 – Pete Aston

Make it as straightforward clear boxes as possible and you can put like covering note in something couldn’t you to explain you know you’ve got all these lease documents in there or whatever, but here’s my covering letter explaining how everything fits together nicely, and yeah, make it as easy as possible.

01:16:50 – Catherine Cleary

And if that just lets you then tick the box that says yes, I have three years, you know it’s valid for it, then that is really, I think it’s work worth doing.

01:16:58 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, the more you do now, over and above what the bare minimum requirements are will definitely help.

01:17:07 – Pete Aston

There’s a sort of related question to land and so on from Zico. What are the land option length requirements, if any, for CMP 435 projects that have completed milestones M1 to M3? So, milestones M1 to M3 are land rights, submitted planning and obtained planning consent. So yeah, any thoughts around that? I’m assuming that even if you’ve completed those milestones already, you still have to submit evidence for land because it’s a land agreement, not a land option.

01:17:40 – Kyle Murchie (Host)

Yes, because it’s a land agreement, not a land option. Sorry, sorry, land rights rather than a land option. There’s a difference between what M1 and? M3 sorry, it’s M3, isn’t it?

01:17:50 – Catherine Cleary

M3 is the land rights milestone, and effectively so. There would have been some weaker options that would have let you put sort of exclusivity agreements, for example, which would let you meet M3 in the old world, but which aren’t enough to guarantee you Gate 2 readiness.

01:18:00 – Kyle Murchie

So yeah, so this is an option to with an agreement effectively sitting behind it. So, it’s significantly more advanced. Then you may have already had that and submitted that as part of your M3, because you did that at the same time. But yeah, as we said, you’d still need to provide that evidence.

01:18:17 – Philip Bale

This is page 37 of the FAQs, number 6 that’s at the bottom of the page.

01:18:23 – Catherine Cleary

I think we’re going to get a gif of Philip.

01:18:28 – Pete Aston

We have, Mr FAQ now.

Question coming from Thanos what are the pros and cons of complying with Gate 2 readiness criteria through land rights or TCPA planning? I can’t remember what TCPA stands for.

01:18:41 – Catherine Cleary

Town and Country Planning Act.

01:18:43 – Pete Aston

Oh, there we go, thank you. Readiness criteria through land rights or Town and Planning Country Act applicable to small and medium embedded generation products, can you do readiness criteria through the town and planning country?

01:19:01 – Catherine Cleary

No, I think your readiness criteria options are land or planning if you are a DCO project who is seeking compulsory purchase powers.

01:19:09 – Kyle Murchie

Yes.

01:19:09 – Catherine Cleary

So, I would say…

01:19:11 – Kyle Murchie

If you go to dictionary corner, do you have that one?

01:19:12 – Philip Bale

I don’t but I did check it because we’re discussing this one beforehand in terms of going through, so that’s one that we ought to focus on.

01:19:20 – Catherine Cleary

So pro Gate 2 gradious criteria through land rights. Because you’re allowed to do that.

01:19:25 – Pete Aston

and you can’t do the other one.

01:19:26 – Catherine Cleary

And you can’t do the other one.

01:19:28 – Pete Aston

Okay that was good.

01:19:33 – Catherine Cleary

Unless we’ve missed something major, in which case someone shouted us in the chat.

01:19:39 – Pete Aston

Yeah.

Okay, question from Rex. Please can you clarify for advancement requests that DNOs cannot accommodate, will they be vetoed or will they change it to the earliest possible date they can accommodate, before submitting to NESO? Nice question.

01:20:01 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, that’s a really good point. My interpretation was that they might just be vetoed. So, for example, if you had a 2035 connection date somewhere with no infrastructure and there was going to be some infrastructure built in 2034, and you asked to be accelerated to 2032, they would just say no, but if you asked to be accelerated to 2034, that would then be considered, if that makes sense. So, I think, because this is a very early stage decision which has to be taken prior in that bingo slide, prior to the strategic alignment assessment, I don’t think there will be time for them to come back to you and say you asked for this, how about that? So, I think I think you need to be a bit smart in those…

01:20:46 – Philip Bale

So, one of the DNOs on one of their webinars did say that they encouraged you to ask beforehand, but it wasn’t mandatory and if you asked for something that they couldn’t do, they would endeavour to come back and discuss it with you.

01:20:56 – Catherine Cleary

That was very nice of them.

01:20:57 – Philip Bale

But the sheer number of what’s going on means I think that may not be possible. So, I think if it was my project and I was in that situation, I would definitely pick up the phone and have that conversation with them to try and understand what the date could be.

01:21:11 – Pete Aston

What’s the risk of asking for a date that they can’t do? Do you just ultimately revert back to whatever your existing date is?

01:21:20 – Catherine Cleary

Yes.

01:21:21 – Pete Aston

Is there a risk of being kicked out the queue if you ask for something advancement that they can’t manage.

01:21:26 – Catherine Cleary

Does anyone know what the If you were beyond 2035, so if you’re 2036, 2037, 2038 project, obviously you have to ask for advancement if you want a Gate 2 offer, if you ask for advancement but that advancement is deemed not possible by the DNO, I think there might be an asterisk somewhere. I think, do you still sit in phase two, but at the back?

01:21:47 – Kyle Murchie

Because you can’t be brought forward. Because you can’t be brought forward, because if you’re sitting behind, a new GSP that’s not going to be built.

01:21:52 – Catherine Cleary

But you did ask to be brought forward. So I think can you still get a Gate 2 offer in that case?

01:21:57 – Pete Aston

Not sure, maybe, we have six minutes left.

01:22:06 – Philip Bale

Can I suggest we go to questions come in in the chat.

01:22:08 – Pete Aston

Yeah, go for it.

01:22:09 – Philip Bale

From Chris Style, which, I’ll let you read if you want, Pete.

01:22:12 – Pete Aston

No, you want to do it.

01:22:14 – Philip Bale

So, isn’t it absolute nonsense, that someone with full planning permission can only go through via the land route and they’ll be judged along someone who might only have just submitted planning application. Is there no certainty that full planning will be granted to them, as they can no longer see how they can confirm readiness? I think there’s a slight misinterpretation of what we just said there, which is you go down the land auction in terms of because that’s how you submit it, but then you go back to the colour bingo, which then says someone that has full planning is a green project and therefore you then get your green, your ambers and your reds compared to other people in the protections.

01:22:48 – Kyle Murchie

So, this is a split between Gate 2 readiness and strategic alignment and effectively how protections are applied. So, if we’re focusing specifically on Gate 2 readiness then absolutely there’s two routes land, which I’m just looking actually at page 18 of the evidence guidance, which is the Connection Reform evidence submission handbook. So, page 18 very clearly states we expect most projects to seek gate to readiness via the land route and, as we’ve just said, it’s Gate 2 readiness only the planning route there is for DCO projects, and it clearly states that that’s the case.

01:23:27 – Catherine Cleary

It sort of does make sense to me, I think, in terms of it not being not being nonsense, that that you know that effectively you are, essentially you’re being given two options are you either have you either got those land option agreements in place, or are you undertaking really quite an arduous planning route to go down the compulsory purchase order route in order to get land agreements in place. So, I don’t think we should sort of be kind of weighing them up and saying, oh well, that’s sort of giving DCO projects an easy ride. I think, you know, there’s quite a high bar to do a DCO and get those compulsory purchase powers.

01:24:02 – Philip Bale

But I think basically the sort of the element of it is that if you have full planning, you will be advanced ahead of people who’ve only just submitted planning and the protections that come with that as well. So, yeah, I think there’s just a sort of a nuance in this.

01:24:16 – Pete Aston

We’ve had, which is the final thing we’ve got in at present, so there’s probably space for one or two more questions if anyone wants to put one in. But Matthew Dowse has come back with maybe more of a clarification and question. My understanding of advancement requests is that you can request advancement from 2034 to 2029, which puts you in the 2030 capacity pot even if the TO cannot build out in 2029. So, the date would remain 2034 but would be assigned to the 2030 capacity pot allowance. Do you agree with this? It doesn’t seem to be the case for DNOs, just for TOs.

01:24:58 – Catherine Cleary

I don’t think that’s quite what it says in the CNDM methodology. I think it says in that scenario, if you were to request your advancement from 2034 to 2029, and the network operator identifies at the very first chance that that’s not going to be remotely technically feasible, then effectively your advancement request is rejected, and you are not assessed in phase one. Instead, you’re assessed in phase two. It is yeah, something. I don’t know if anyone’s got the CNDM slides.

01:25:30 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, so it’s point four, isn’t it? Determine the planning status, yes, identify its sort of point five actually relevant to TO and DNO identify any network limitations preventing advancement prior to the detailed network study. And then, after point five, you then go into point six, which is then based on where you’re on the queue, then doing the ultimate reordering and then adding those additional projects and so I think, based on that, I would I would agree, Catherine, that if you were, yeah, that decision has been made before you get to that particular point in the process.

01:26:15 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, there’ll be lots of, I think, you know I guess we’re kind of making assumptions about a process that hasn’t happened yet, but there will probably be lots of cases where it’s not obvious, you know so, lots of grey areas where you request advancement and maybe they can accommodate it, maybe they can’t, but they’re going to need to do some studies. So, in that case you do go into the phase you’ve asked for advancement into, but for study purposes there’s no guarantee you’ll get a pre-2030 connection date but you would be studied in phase one – it’s only if there is an obvious limitation.

01:26:41 – Pete Aston

Yeah, so we have two minutes left, no more questions outstanding. Somehow or other, we got through them all, which is, brilliant. I guess there’s just a minute and a half left to sort of go around the table. Is there anything else that you think is really important that we sort of haven’t covered that would be worth just highlighting before we end the webinar? It feels like we’ve gone through quite a lot of things.

01:27:08 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, I think from my perspective it’s just doing what you can now. You know, we’ve covered it already, but sooner you do things the better and you try it out. You might find that the first thing you’re going through it you’re learning quite a lot. You know it depends on if you’ve got portfolio projects or only one specific site, if you’re going through, if you’ve got projects and multiple DNOs and TO connections, then there’s going to be quite a lot to do in quite a lot of different processes. So, get yeah, get that in as good a position as possible. We’ve also mentioned covering letters, that type of thing you know identify where there might be explanations needed. If you’re reading it, going back through, and you’re not clear yourself somebody from a DNO or TO or NESO o sorry, it’s going to have that same challenge.

01:27:56 – Pete Aston

So yeah, anything else?

01:28:01 – Catherine Cleary

Portal access is the only thing I was thinking is maybe, and for all these transmission connected customers and a large embedded generators, just making sure your portal access is up to date and you know who in your company has access to NESOs connections portal.

01:28:14 – Pete Aston

That is it, time is up. Thank you, you three been brilliant. Thank you everyone for sort of joining us and for questions that you’ve asked, and we thank you and we hope you join us on the next webinar. See you again

01:28:33 – Kyle Murchie

Thanks, Pete.

01:28:34 – Catherine Cleary

Thank you very much, Pete.