Podcast: Grid News and Views #17

00:00:51 – 00:01:06 – Catherine Cleary

Hello, and welcome to another episode of Roadnight Taylor’s Grid News and Views. I’m Catherine Cleary and I’m joined by Kyle Murchie and very excitingly for her first podcast as an official Roadnight Taylor Connectologist®, we have a familiar face to some Rachael Eynon. Welcome, Rachael.

00:01:07 – 00:01:10 – Rachael Eynon

Thank you. Yeah, very excited to be here.

00:01:11 – 00:01:12 – Catherine Cleary

And I was supposed to actually clap,

00:01:13 – 00:01:27 – Catherine Cleary

I thought drum roll, but I’m sure it might mess up the audio. So, Racheal, obviously we’ve interacted with you quite a lot in your old role at NESO and I think someone referred to you this morning as the methodology…

00:01:28 – 00:01:34 – Rachael Eynon

‘The methodology Maestro’ definitely not taking claim for all the methodologies, but yeah.

00:01:35 – 00:01:45 – Catherine Cleary

But yeah, so I think, I think a lot of people will remember you very eloquently describing things like the CNDM methodology, colour bingo slide. We’re delighted to have you with us and an amazing addition to the team.

00:01:46 – 00:01:46 – Rachael Eynon

Thank you.

00:01:47 – 00:02:05 – Catherine Cleary

We’ve got loads of stuff to cover even though I think our last Grid News and Views was only a few weeks ago, but February has been a busy month. So, I think first and foremost, a couple of points on demand. So, we saw Ofgem publish their call for input on Demand Reform, Kyle, I don’t know if you want to take us through that one?

00:02:06 – 00:02:50 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah. So, I think that’s, that was quite a big announcement because we knew something was going to happen in the demand space for a while, I suppose just to kind of revisit what, why demand now, when we were back in summer of 2024, the demand queue was around 42 gigawatts and both T and D combined that shot up to about 125 before the pause came in and new applications at transmission level couldn’t be made. And while transmission connected demand is part of the Connection Reform process as it is, and the CMP435 process, it’s pretty loose in terms of the requirements.

00:02:51 – 00:02:52 – Catherine Cleary

It had a bit of an easier ride.

00:02:52 – 00:02:53 – Kyle Murchie

Yes.

00:02:53 – 00:02:54 – Catherine Cleary

It just had to be ready. It didn’t have to be needed.

00:02:55 – 00:04:08 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, exactly and demand at distribution level didn’t have to be involved at all. I think it was felt maybe in the very early stages that actually, if this is all going to be delivering positive outcomes, you know, improved connection timescales, removing the requirement for reinforcement, then actually it’s going to improve the situation for distributed connected demand as well.

And if for why bring them through, drag them through the whole process, which actually can see, like, thinking back then, you know, I was just thinking the other day, that was almost two years ago, CMP434 working group started in May 2024, so two, yeah, two years ago that felt like probably the right thing to do.

But obviously everything’s changed and that 125 odd gigawatts is, is still very much there. So, we’ve known it’s been coming for a while, that we do something to that queue and some sort of Reform, but to kick things off, Ofgem have issued a call for information, and are predominantly asking networks and transmission connected demands to contribute to that. But we would say the more information the better.

00:04:09 – 00:04:47 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, and there might be a reason that quite a lot of generation customers, for example, will have a very strong view about what demand should kind of, I guess, effectively the sort of Gate 2 criteria that demand should have to meet. Because at the moment, I, you know, perhaps if you are a, an offshore wind farm, you know, and you’re sort of sitting in the Gate 2 Phase 2 queue, you might be eyeing up all of this demand, you know, which is a much larger number than was originally anticipated and thinking – hang on a moment, you know, are they, is a speculative data center about to steal my connection bay? Or you know, I guess there’s a, there’s a significant competition isn’t there, within those kind of, quite large queues for, for network build out. Yeah, so I think it’s probably a question which interests the whole sector.

00:04:48 – 00:05:46 – Kyle Murchie

Absolutely. And particularly, there’s obviously that comment and kind of thought about bay sharing and how you’d actually physically do that versus just losing the bay to another, you know, to a demand customer. But then also, how do they interact with your offer that you get? Because has your offer been based on the expectation that some of that demand is there? So really if you separate the two out and issue Gate 2 offers only based on generation storage and don’t come to demand element or the full queue, the full demand queue, could we be in a situation where some of those offers need to be revisited in the future? And that’s obviously not what we want.

People want to have, Gate 2 offers that they can then run with and actually build out rather than thinking, oh, after this Demand Reform is something else going to happen. So, lots to, you know, we’re never going to cover it all on this podcast, but lots to going to feed into that; the closing date is the 13th of March.

00:05:47 – 00:07:05 – Catherine Cleary

13th of March, yes. 13th of March. And it, and it is, it’s got its call for input. It is basically a consultation, so they’re asking specific questions asked. And I guess there’s, it’s worth flagging there are a couple of different elements of that – so, Ofgem have called it CURATE is the kind of first pillar, which I think you, we could kind of broadly summarize as being additional barriers that might be put in place to ensure that demand is really ready and needed. So that’s possibly a bit more of the kind of stick elements to make sure that only the right projects are going into the Gate 2 queue, and then there is a second kind of pillar, which is around the connections themselves – and that’s actually got a bit more kind of carrot in it, so definitely, I think we’d flag that, that’s looking at things like are there Connection delivery solutions that would help improve the situation for, you know, data centers looking to accelerate their build out, for example, how do we prioritize kind of key strategic AI growth zones, for example.

And a really critical point about the ownership of asset. So, trying to get a bit more thought and feedback into do data centers, for example, you know, who in England and Wales have, have traditionally been offered kind of 132kV connections. Do they have appetite to want to build out 275kV, 400kV assets, you know, much like generators do – so that’s another element which I imagine some people want to feed into.

00:07:06 – 00:07:50 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, I think it’s worth saying you could feed into that directly. We know that the DNOs are working away on submissions as well and are looking for some customer inputs, and of course the trade bodies as well. So even whether you come out from a generation angle, a storage angle or, or demand, we know the trade bodies are also working up some responses.

I think it’s, it’s interesting because something that’s come up in a few conversations that we’ve had is, what’s the problem we’re trying to solve? And that’s one thing that isn’t necessarily evident from the call for input. Is it the data center and a large demand at that scale, but then what’s the definition? You know, do you still include 132 kV connected demand at distribution level, for example, or where do you stop?

00:07:51 – 00:08:15 – Catherine Cleary

And who’s to define what a data center is? Because I think you know, that sounds like a really sensible thing to say, right, you know, there’s going to be some rules for data centers because they appear to be a lot of the queue. But actually, when you submit a grid application, you might submit a grid application a couple of years ago, you know, you don’t if, if it, that was a transmission application, your DRC data doesn’t anywhere say I’m building a data center, it just says I’d like this much demand, please, you know, I could be an aluminium smelter. So actually contractually, how do we define a data center?

00:08:16 – 00:08:27 – Kyle Murchie

And we’ve seen data centers as well, that are really quite small. You know, they’re in the, the megawatts scale, not the tens or even, you know, hundreds of megawatts sort of scale. So yeah, I think that’s a really good, good point around definition.

00:08:28 – 00:08:38 – Rachael Eynon

Yeah. Maybe that’ll start to look similar to the generation where we had to define those technologies as they were submitted and have more, yeah, concrete before application.

00:08:38 – 00:08:39 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah.

00:08:39 – 00:08:49 – Rachael Eynon

And you said it was transmission, demand that Ofgem were aiming for responses for is, is it open for distribution customers as well? Is there anything on scope in there?

00:08:50 – 00:09:36 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, there’s nothing that precludes anybody else from putting information in. I can see why it’s maybe focused on transmission because a lot of Reform to begin with has obviously been transmission focused, but I think those demands customers, particularly those that are maybe working on a strategic level looking after kind of large areas or supporting large areas, maybe, you know, with a grouping together for technology types or industries where they might be wanting to respond as a combined group, I think that would be a sensible view because yeah, as an individual site it might have very little impact, but as a cluster of, you know, industry trying to decarbonize, for example, then that, you know, you start adding up the numbers and that can become quite big load.

00:09:37 – 00:10:06 – Catherine Cleary

I guess some of the specific proposals in that Reform paper at the moment are very tied to transmission. So, some of them are like things like extending the PCF, the Project Commitment Fee, which is currently a transmission financial mechanism to demand, looking at things like kind of fixed bond sort of, again, cancellation charges. I mean there’s even, you know, it’s quite blue sky thinking. There’s even reference to, you know, coming up with sort of different TNUoS mechanisms or different, you know, sort of quite, quite radical thinking, but I suppose mostly tied to to transmission.

00:10:07 – 00:10:18 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, definitely agree. I think the one clause that stood out for me, well maybe not quite clause, but one sentence in there that said, you know, this is both transmission and distribution connected demand is in scope.

00:10:19 – 00:10:19 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, okay.

00:10:20 – 00:10:38 – Kyle Murchie

So I agree it’s very much focused on coming from a transmission angle, but noting the DNOs are also feeding in. It could quite quickly change its narrative, so good opportunities to get involved. Actually, just thinking about, I know Catherine, you just touched on there around the ownership aspect as well, which also brings us into that broader conversation about ownership.

00:10:39 – 00:11:39 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, so I think it’s something that Roadnight Taylor will definitely write a response to that call for input, you know, obviously probably being more agnostic on some of the sort of commercial mechanisms, but when it comes to the technical, and asset ownership boundaries, we are seeing a really kind of unified position from lots of our clients, where effectively we’ve got large clients who want the flexibility to build up, you know if I’m a 600 megawatt data centre, they want the flexibility to build out that 400kV connection in the most sort of engineeringly efficient way. They don’t want to have to be cabling back at 132kV for 600 megawatts and so on.

So Roadnight Taylor have drafted a, a kind of what, what would be a class exemption proposal, so a potential change to the license exemptions on the Electricity Act to try and, sort of facilitate demand, having the same kind of ownership boundary as generations. So, I think that’s probably something we’ll do a separate podcast on, but we will try and get some information out there before the 13th of March so that customers who are interested in that policy can kind of perhaps take a look at that and, and feedback and to Ofgem if it’s something they’re supportive of.

00:11:51 – 00:12:51 – Catherine Cleary

I guess moving away from demand because lots of other things happened as well. I think we probably got the call for demand input about a day or two later than we had the slightly earth-shattering news from Ofgem in relation to NESO and the TOs letter on potential delays to projects. So, I think this is pretty grim news for most people at the beginning of February, and I think the key stats, so this was a letter that Ofgem were writing in response to NESO and the TOs who’d effectively asked for a bit of grace or tolerance to be applied, to their requirement to protect the dates of 26 and 27 projects that met those kind of clause 1 and enhanced clause 2A protections.

There were some numbers about how many projects they thought were affected, so I think it was something like 62% of transmission connected projects with 26, 27 dates are now expected to be delayed. So that’s, pretty big news for the industry.

00:12:52 – 00:13:09 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, I think the only positive out of that paper was that of all those projects, the point of connection really wasn’t going to be, oh yeah, I think there one, there was one project maybe had points of connection. So that’s, that was quite positive from that perspective.

00:13:10 – 00:13:11 – Catherine Cleary

Glass half full Kyle.

00:13:12 – 00:13:28 – Kyle Murchie

Well I’m trying to pull the positive out because that week I think that was also the same week really had quickly time flies, but I’m pretty sure it’s roughly around that time we got the updated timeline as well. So combined it was, yeah, it was a bit of a bad news.

00:13:29 – 00:13:33 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, by the way, your Gate 2 offer might be later than you think, and when you get it, it might not have the date you wanted.

00:13:34 – 00:13:37 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, but it makes us input a connection. So, one out of the three.

00:13:38 – 00:14:02 – Catherine Cleary

I like the positivity I guess that does really, that stat does really shine the light on the fact that, that there are probably going to need to be some conversations around realistic delivery timelines, making sure that when Gate 2 offers do come out, they are actually aligned to what customers can build to, so that we’re not kind of creating more work for ourselves. And I guess also milestones, you know, there’s being a big discussion about what happens to milestones as well if, if TOs are pushing back date.

00:14:03 – 00:14:56 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, and particularly that requirement in the moment or the expectation certainly that yes, you can change milestones, but it’s the obligation is on the user to try to make those milestone changes, you know, within quite a short space of time after receiving and accepting the offer.

So, I think we need to relook at that. If, if dates are all going to start changing, I think what I’d be really keen to understand as well is. Well, one, what’s triggered those dates not to look back and question it more looking forward, because we also know that there are a lot of transmission projects and you know, particularly looking at T3 plans, knowing what the transmission projects are, knowing the pipeline, knowing where they are planning and the planning news hasn’t been great across GB in, in recent months. Not saying that these projects won’t get planning, but they’re not going to get, they haven’t got planning in the first round. So that’s …

00:14:56 – 00:14:58 – Catherine Cleary

And that could be like planning for new substation planning.

00:14:59 – 00:16:10 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah. New substations are overhead line, that type of thing. So hopefully that was maybe built into the program, but you know, the industry doesn’t have that sort of visibility yet. That type of thing might have come through the tCSNP, and then more into the CSMP. But with that all moving out as well and being delayed, there is that gap.

But that one thing that we don’t really have a huge amount of is that transparency, we know connections will be moving out based on that information that was published in that letter. We also can see that some projects are being delayed for various different reasons. We also know that TOs are working on solutions to advance connections. So, there’s positives and negatives. There is that pool, but just that transparency isn’t there. We don’t have, the CSMP that’s obviously being moved out, so we’re not the, I suppose that time where we’ve got the void and even when information comes out through Gate 2 offers, there will be that question of, okay, that’s what the Gate 2 offer says.

The concept that Ofgem come up with through the end-to-end review is we’re going to try and hold TOs more to that date. That’s not going to come out until really T4 potentially.

00:16:11 – 00:16:12 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah. It’s not contractually binding.

00:16:12 – 00:16:23 – Kyle Murchie

Don’t, yeah. So, we’re, we’re ending up in this situation where there’s lots of positive developments in the future, more information, but that doesn’t necessarily help projects in the short term or even the medium term. So, I think we do have to, to close that gap.

00:16:24 – 00:16:35 – Rachael Eynon

And do we know if there’s anything coming in the interim until these projects. See their offers. So, we, it’s quite an exact, it is an exact percentage if we’re saying 62. So that suggests we there is, they know exactly what exactly which projects are delayed.

00:16:36 – 00:17:44 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah. So, let’s say, do you know exactly which projects, because Ofgem have pushed the TOs quite hard to say, look, we can’t really opine on this until you tell us, you know, which projects are affected – that’s not a public list, but the TOs have, or all three TOs have come out and said that if you are one of those effective projects, they should have already been talking to you. So, I mean that, those kind of statements are you, I can see where they come from the TOs perspective, they’re actually really not that reassuring for industry because I don’t know if I, if you haven’t talked to me, I don’t know whether that was because you didn’t have my contact details or whether, because I’m one of these okay projects. So, I suppose thinking about how do you, how do you publish information in such a way where, you know, you’re still protecting the anonymity of individual projects, but you’re giving people kind of comfort that they are either in this effective group and you’ve spoken to them or not.

I really echo that call for kind of transparency on, on how we’re doing on reinforcement timelines as well. It feels like I mean we’ve been saying it for a long time now, haven’t we; but the Scottish TOs obviously have their kind of quarterly Tory updates, you know, quarterly is probably not frequently enough, maybe nowadays, but you know, actually in England and Wales region we have, we have nothing. So, you know, definitely a, a call for something there for NGET.

00:17:45 – 00:17:58 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, because you have to go on the website, you get all that bit information, but generally speaking, you know, pathways 2030 timelines are always mentioned, but that backend date. Is it going to happen in 2030? Is it going to be 2032? Is it be later?

00:17:59 – 00:18:16 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, and just a kind of current status that, you know, someone has written, even if it’s a couple of lines, you know, it’s been written that, that month, last month, you know, it sort of says we’re in planning, or like you say, you know, planning to be rejected, we’re appeal actually that kind of, that sort of just gives a bit more flavour than, than some of these glossy timelines where you think, how old is this?

00:18:17 – 00:18:17 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, absolutely.

00:18:17 – 00:19:00 – Catherine Cleary

I guess alongside, that’s that kind of a sort of delay notice, we’ve also had the first Gate 2 offers actually issued. So, I suppose maybe we should sort of celebrate that as a milestone. So, we’ve had, I think well NESO on their webinar last week had said they issued eight. I think we’ve possibly had a few more from them, it sounds like possibly the majority of those been issued in Scotland. So seen some of the Scottish TOs perhaps a little bit further ahead.

I mean, I guess the rate of progress is probably still something which is concerning industry. So I think NESO had a few ideas about how they were maybe going to try and instil a little bit more confidence as to how far along the offer process we’ve got, how many people have got offers and so on.

00:19:01 – 00:19:01 – Kyle Murchie

We just get more out.

00:19:02 – 00:19:03 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, that would be good too.

00:19:03 – 00:19:23 – Kyle Murchie

But, yeah, but I think it is worth noting that from a CPA perspective, so the data and that a NESO to send across to the TOs for them to do their system studies. So, from what we understand, all the Phase 2, sorry, all the Phase 1 projects have been submitted to the Tos – the TOS have all that information.

00:19:23 – 00:19:26 – Catherine Cleary

And being agreed effectively with the TOs.

00:19:27 – 00:20:07 – Kyle Murchie

So those studies are either in progress or have already happened, and therefore TOCO are going from the TOs back to NESO, and that’s where the offers are coming from. So, I think that’s really positive because if that’s the situation, then you know, it might be a slow start with you know, mentioning eight. We don’t want to extrapolate that out because we’ll be here for decades before everyone gets an offer. But if that starts to really ramp up over the coming weeks, then that will be a really, yeah, again, looking for the positives, that will be a bit of a positive turning point.

Phase 2 projects though – that’s still seemingly in the pipeline, so I know NESO are working their way on that, and I know believe they’re working to the 13th of March …

00:20:08 – 00:20:08 – Catherine Cleary

To issue CPAs.

00:20:09 – 00:20:33 – Kyle Murchie

To issue CPAs have all CPAs issued for, for Phase 2, and then obviously that will then go through the process, and be, be managed for the TOs. Often there’s quite a lot to get through and that’s still going to take time. So even if it does come out from NESO in the next couple of weeks, it doesn’t mean the offers are going to be turned around, they say it’s still going to be a good few weeks for the, for the TOs, and then pass that on to, to NESO.

00:20:34 – 00:21:00 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, and NESO have suggested that they would be open to trying to publish a bit more public information to show customers how far along that journey they are, you know, rather than individual projects, just having to wait until they get their Gate 2 offer. So, I think initially it was being sort of, drafted as a barometer. So, you might see a barometer page on the website that shows whether we are heading for stormy conditions or whether the weather’s going to get fairer.

00:21:01 – 00:21:07 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, I hope is better than my Grans barometer, which always says historic conditions and doesn’t ever move!

00:21:08 – 00:21:08 – Catherine Cleary

Is it in Scotland?

00:21:09 – 00:21:14 – Kyle Murchie

It is in Scotland, yes. Yeah, so we’ll maybe move the barometer to, sunnier climes.

00:21:15 – 00:21:49 – Catherine Cleary

So yeah, so we’ll, we’ll look forward to seeing that. I guess within that kind of Phase 1, Phase 2, there are still a few pretty big fundamental questions outstanding about where schemes like schemes with staged offers where they sit in that process, you know, where protected projects with protected dates, but which have got a Phase 2 classification again, are they sort of expecting their connection dates imminently? Have we, have we had any sort of movement on those? Are those questions keep coming up again and again on webinars, but I think we haven’t really yet seen answers.

00:21:50 – 00:22:20 – Kyle Murchie

No. I think what we have seen through some projects that are, in the thick of it and trying to actually connect, where the decisions being made to try to minimize the amount of effort required, given the size of the queue, and trying to make sure that, you know, studies not being redone for every single stage, but by doing so inevitably that means that or the default position has been, let’s look at the last stage to …

00:22:21 – 00:22:37 – Catherine Cleary

So, if I’m a connecting and I’ve got three, three stages, three firm stages in my offer, actually the, you know, the TOs saying, I want to study you once because that’s the most efficient thing to do and therefore I might do that using the CPAs and so on that relate to the third final stage of your connection.

00:22:38 – 00:22:48 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, so for a couple of projects, we know that, you know, they’re connecting before 2030 i.e. now, they’re also going to have a second stage before 2030, but a third or fourth stage is beyond 2030 and stage two. And the CPA has not been, completed yet and has fallen into phase two. So that’s definitely given the indication.

00:22:49 – 00:22:59 – Catherine Cleary

So that’s holding them back from being studied.

00:23:00 – 00:23:07 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, now it might not mean that they have to wait until the Phase 2 offers are released, but they are on the Phase 2 …

00:23:08 – 00:23:11 – Catherine Cleary

Let’s hope not if they’ve got a 2030 connection date…

00:23:11 – 00:23:40 – Kyle Murchie

But I think by doing so, we are now kind of created that situation where, you know, projects that can connect you now, this year into next year are, are at a disadvantage because they’re not going to have that certainty, they’re going to potentially have to connect under their existing contracts, and not be able to Mod App, you know, have a, have a ability to Mod App even change dates, for example and that’s something that needs to be resolved quite quickly.

00:23:41 – 00:24:35 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah, I mean, I have quite a fundamental concern about this because I think we were sort of running through an example here, but hypothetically, if you were a wind farm and you built, you know, a third of your wind farm; that stage one you build, you know, the next bit and that stage two and the final segment of wind farm is stage three. You know, quite a lot of those projects would’ve applied at one, at one point in time for the whole shebang, you know? So, they would’ve said, I’d like a staged offer because I’m going to build out stage. But if effectively all of those stages of connection would’ve had the same key position, you, they would’ve been a single application, received a single offer back.

And I think, I mean it probably goes back to the colour bingo slide, Rachael. But my view is actually that it’s really important that we do preserve this concept of queue position, you know, in Phase 1 particularly, and that the projects are studied in that queue order. So I, I’d be really worried, I think if a TO came out and said, well, just because you’ve got multiple stages, we sort of need to artificially take you out of that, that correct queue order and kind of study you later down the line, I think that would be worrying.

00:24:36 – 00:24:49 – Rachael Eynon

Yeah and again, would go against that principle of, of keeping, keeping order, but also keeping the kind of network reinforcement plan the same for up to that 2030 period and giving us that certainty if we start moving your rings around.

00:24:50 – 00:25:19 – Kyle Murchie

I think that’s, that’s probably the key clarification that we need, you know, as an industry, you know, if you’re, if one CPA is being created and it’s based on Phase 2, that’s one thing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to get an offer out within the Phase 2 timing. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a Phase 2 project either based on from a positioning point of view. So that just creates a lot of confusion. You know, really you want to have a really clean that if you are, if your first firm stage is in Phase 1…

00:25:20 – 00:25:26 – Catherine Cleary

And you are expecting offer in phase one, and it’s an offer for your full project.

00:25:27 – 00:25:52 – Kyle Murchie

And your CPAs were all designed in phase one, there might have to be a second one that looks at, well, once everything’s connected, what’s the situation at that time? But that’s not today – that’s not when you are actually connecting, so yeah, that might be an additional layer of work, a kind of front end and back, kind of first stage view and the last stage view. But without doing that, it’s not really clear at the moment how, you know exactly when those offers are going to come out and exactly what we have included is a risk.

00:25:53 – 00:26:47 – Catherine Cleary

And I suppose it, you know, that kind of example of the, the wind farm with three firm stages is, is the kind of simple answer. Hopefully that, that, that I think we, we think there is a clear position on, there’s probably a bit more ambiguity isn’t there, around things like distribution projects with tech limits; so projects with non-firm first stages. And we know that, you know, the, that the methodologies were quite clear. It’s the firm kind of date which sets your, sort of your queue ordering position in that methodology stage. So, I mean, I think we’re, that’s still, you know, the methodology is quite clear, but it still has potentially quite a big unintended consequence for tech limits schemes, for example at distribution.

So, you know, they’re now not expecting to get their offers until, because many tech limits schemes, the firm connection date is 2031 and beyond and they’re now not expecting to get their offers until Q1 2027, which kind of means, you know, tech limits is a bit of a dead duck for 2026.

00:26:48 – 00:27:12 – Kyle Murchie

Well, interestingly, NGED did come out with a slides at their webinar last week on the 25th of February, and it did clearly say that you know, developers who have a technical limits contracts, so an existing technical limits solution that was agreed previously, can still connect before they get there, they get to offer revised Gate 2 offer, but at their own risk.

00:27:13 – 00:27:17 – Catherine Cleary

I.e. it’s their risk that that Gate 2 offer says something that commercially they don’t like.

00:27:18 – 00:28:14 – Kyle Murchie

Yes, commercially that they don’t like. But also even as, I think an extreme example, but if through the review, a big change needs to happen at that GSP, you know, not, you know, adding a second or third GSP is the right solution; having something like a completely different scenario and therefore that point on the network, that that customer’s connecting to is no longer connected to the correct GSP. Is that a scenario that could, that’s a possibility? Speaking to some of the DNOs, they can’t rule it out, so that’s why the at your own risk is you can do some feasibility on what that’s slightly to look like.

And I think in the majority of cases we wouldn’t be expecting that sort of level of change. But with timelines moving out, it doesn’t, it doesn’t instil confidence. And maybe that’s something that the TOs can help with; the TOs would have that visibility before they’ve maybe completed the studies.

00:28:15 – 00:29:00 – Catherine Cleary

Yeah. And I think, I think, you know, aware that like from an engineering perspective, there probably are things, you know, it, it is perhaps slightly easier for a DNO to look at regions where they think that’s a risk and whether that’s not a risk. I know a couple of the DNOs have already started talking about how confident or how, you know, whether they think points of connection are really going to change, you know, so transmission access, points of connection, because obviously makes a big difference to them preparing their offers, you know.

So, we’ll wrap up soon, I guess last bits, we always like to flag consultations. So, we flagged the call for input from Ofgem, for Demand Reform, closing on the 13th of March. Kyle, can you remind us where we are on, SGT charging consultations?

00:29:01 – 00:30:00 – Kyle Murchie

Yeah, so SGT Charging the, so CMP 460, which was the kind of big, the much larger Mod that won’t be coming into play until kind of, probably early 2027 at best. That consultation has closed, that closed last week; noting that’s the first consultation. So, there will be at least a work group consultation that will come out further down the line, and there’s still opportunity for alternatives to be raised. So, yeah, there’s still opportunity to get involved in that, but that has closed.

And then DCP461, that’s the slightly smaller, a bit more to the point; kind of more DNO focused change? And that’s coming out second consultation. To the point to the point, yes, as far as again, glass half full. But yeah, that’s coming to a consultation, second consultation soon, pretty imminently. It’s, it’s prepared; it’s just getting the kind of bells and whistles added before it’s released, so we’d expect that out in the next week or so.

00:30:01 – 00:30:09 – Catherine Cleary

Okay, so look for DCP460, which will be a, sorry, 461, which will be a DCUSA consultation, but anyone can respond to it, you don’t have to be a DCUSA member.

00:30:10 – 00:30:21 – Kyle Murchie

Fantastic, brilliant. Well, thank you very much both Kyle and Rachael for joining us today, and we will join you again soon with another Grid News and Views, thank you everyone.