Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream...
-
Upload
augustus-snow -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream...
![Page 1: Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream - 4 th March 2010.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bff31a28abf838cbca1b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies
Customer Experiences
Julie Cox
Transmission Workstream - 4th March 2010
![Page 2: Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream - 4 th March 2010.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bff31a28abf838cbca1b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Member Survey
• AEP Members were surveyed to gather information on their experiences of obtaining or changing NExAs– Timescales
– Cost
– Process
• Comments relate to nearly 20 sites with NExAs• NTS and DN, Supply Points and CSEPs• Minimum and Full Connections
![Page 3: Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream - 4 th March 2010.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bff31a28abf838cbca1b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Timescales
• 6 months to get a first quote for a study • 18 months for a study then 12 months for minor
amendment request • 12 months from initial request to projected completion of
study• 18 months end-to-end for NExA• It all seems to take longer than it used to….. • Lethargic response is the norm
• CCGTs can be built in 24 months this can become a
critical path issue
![Page 4: Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream - 4 th March 2010.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bff31a28abf838cbca1b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Costs
• Flow rate change at existing site outside range quoted by NG.
• Draft Feasibility agreement no mechanism to inform party of changes to costs or to approve them
• Budget met but set high to start with and higher for each project
• Never come in under budget - little appetite for cost control
• Never had any clarity on actual costs
• Blank cheques?
![Page 5: Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream - 4 th March 2010.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bff31a28abf838cbca1b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Process
• Information requirements – not always clear at start, eventually becomes clear, but varies for each project, seem to need more and more…
• Do not understand why some info needed• Information required generally available
• User requirements may change during feasibility study period as often runs in parallel with tendering, contractual discussions etc. Its unrealistic to expect it not to change…..
• NG do not appear to fully understand the implications of NExAs being delayed on power station projects
![Page 6: Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream - 4 th March 2010.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bff31a28abf838cbca1b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Anything else…..
• In the last year or so the people looking after this for NG
NTS sites seem to have begun to be more commercially aware which is helpful. The DNs have not….
![Page 7: Mod 273 – Governance of Feasibility Studies Customer Experiences Julie Cox Transmission Workstream - 4 th March 2010.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bff31a28abf838cbca1b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Summary
• Issues with costs, timescales, commercial implications
• Scope for – Better project management approach
– Standardisation of information requirements
– Cost control
– Improved communications and understanding