Part Funded Reinforcement trial
This trial has now ended with no uptake from ICPs and IDNOs. However, should you wish to undertake future PFR works under a trial arrangement, please contact us to discuss.
We previously consulted on our proposals to undertake a trial under which would extend contestability to Part Funded Reinforcement (PFR). The proposed process was presented in a workshop to ICPs and IDNOs in 2014 which received a positive response. Following the ending of the consultation in April 2015, the arrangements for the trial and connection offer letter that will apply were set out.
- WPD still determine the need for reinforcement and the sizing
- It is open to an ICP who is the customer, or who has been appointed in writing by the end customer to undertake a specific contestable scheme. It is not open to an ICP who only wishes to pursue the PFR element
- The ICP must have entered into the WPD Framework Network Access and Adoption Agreement, confirming their independent accreditation and competency for the type of work contained in the PFR, and it is clear that it is the customer who engages the ICP to carry out the PFR work
- The PFR trial will not contain elements of other trials (i.e. no "trials within trials") and consequently HV switching on WPD network and the making of final energising HV/EHV joints for example, are excluded
- The aggregate value of PFR work for all schemes agreed across all WPD licences is capped at a maximum of £3.5 M (sum of customer and DUOS elements). No individual scheme having a total PFR cost in excess of £ 500,000 is included
- The trial is open to PFR schemes which have been accepted in writing up to 31 March 2016
- Under normal circumstances, WPD's connection offer letter will include two options; one for WPD to undertake all the contestable work on a new connection, and one whereby WPD only undertakes the non-contestable elements. Where, in the course of discussion with WPD prior to WPD making a connection offer, a need for PFR is identified and the ICP wishes to consider undertaking this and is competent to do so, the customer may request that WPD include within their connection offer letter, a costing for a third option, whereby the ICP undertakes the PFR
- Under "Option 3" , where the ICP would undertake the PFR, the connection offer will set out the maximum that WPD will contribute to the cost of the PFR. That value is derived following normal cost apportionment rules and follows the arrangements for sharing of costs of indirects set out in the previously circulated detailed documents**. The connection customer contracts with and pays the ICP directly. ( The DUOS Customer base will consequently not fund any more than it would have done if WPD had undertaken the PFR)
- In order to enable the trial to proceed without the need for long duration changes to IT systems and training of staff across the company, requests for such "Option 3" offers will be internally directed by WPD to be handled centrally. As a consequence, a maximum flow rate of PFR trial schemes is needed and, following the above consultation, is to be 5 per month. The offer letter will still come from the WPD Planner as previously, and WPD have voluntarily set the same timescales for response.
Following the above consultation, the following aspects are considered as measures for success of the trial:
- There is uptake from several ICPs
- That ICPs support the view that the arrangements provide a workable solution that can be adopted as business as usual
- There are no additional impacts on Customer Interruptions (CI's) or Customer Minutes Lost ( CML’s)
- Costs to the DUOS customer base are no higher than they would have been had WPD undertaken the PFR
- No issues are identified relating to competition legislation that adversely impact on the proposed arrangements
- No issues are identified relating to VAT that adversely impact on the proposed arrangements.
It is not believed that the current WPD Framework Network Access and Adoption Agreement is impacted by the proposed PFR trial, but, if required for cross reference, a copy can be found here.
The proposed methodology for handling of indirect costs was subject to prior consultation and is not included again here.