Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Feedback receiveda) Responses to specific consultation questions Timeline: Initial draft published online [23 rd Dec 2013] DCC Design Forum sessions with.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Feedback receiveda) Responses to specific consultation questions Timeline: Initial draft published online [23 rd Dec 2013] DCC Design Forum sessions with."— Presentation transcript:

1 Feedback receiveda) Responses to specific consultation questions Timeline: Initial draft published online [23 rd Dec 2013] DCC Design Forum sessions with SEC Parties, Metering Equipment Manufacturers and DECC [Jan/Feb 2014] Liaised with SECAS to ensure that SEC Parties were informed. DCC requested feedback on ICHIS draft (6 th –20 th Jan 2014) 15 entities submitted feedback: ICHIS consultation process at a glance Who contributed the responses? 13 of 15 respondents provided responses for the three specific questions. Energy suppliers had the most queries about ICHIS. Metering equipment manufacturers raised the most issues about the ICHIS draft. b) Queries and issues raised Consultation process Observations: Participation by SEC Parties and Metering Equipment Manufacturers (MEMs) deemed satisfactory. DNO concerns were mostly around power outage/restore alerts and the power supply via the ICHI. Service user concerns regarding size of the Comms Hub addressed through Comms Hub Data Sheets to be released end March 2014 (some data already provided to TBDG in Feb). * Metering equipment manufacturers include the UK Meter Forum † Other SEC Party is a natural person Response: Q1: Do you agree that the Specification is achievable? Q2: Do you agree with the wording concerning cradles, adaptors and flying leads? Q3: Is there a market requirement or desire to mount a Comms Hub on any other devices apart from than a ESME, Cradle or Hot Shoe as defined in ICHIS? Almost all parties consulted agreed that ICHIS is achievable Almost all parties consulted agreed with the wording. Almost all parties consulted responded there was no market requirement for additional scenarios other than as proposed in ICHIS. How did DCC act on the responses? Detailed replies provided for all queries and issues. ICHIS consultation feedback log published online at consolidated_consultation_feedback_log190214f.xlsm Of the 25 queries raised, 8 led to changes in ICHIS. Of the 151 issues raised, 68 led to changes in ICHIS. SEC Parties and Metering Equipment Manufacturers (MEMs) submitted 215 comments in response to the ICHIS draft sent out for consultation. Five key areas were identified from the issues and queries raised by SEC Parties and MEMs: i) Scope of ICHIS; ii) Size of the Comms Hubs; iii) Damage on installation; iv) Tamper detection over the flying lead; and v) Definition of RF emission limits. The number of changes made to ICHIS in these areas were as follows: Question: ICHIS achievability (Q1) was rated as the most important matter for parties consulted. Low Medium High

2 Feedback receiveda) Feedback on the DCC User Gateway Interface Timeline: DCC Design Forum sessions with SEC Parties to discuss aspects of the DCC User Gateway Interface, Self-Service Interface and Registration Data Interface and to review working drafts of the Interface Specifications and Codes of Connection [Nov 2013 – Feb 2014] Interface Specifications and Codes of Connection drafts for consultation made available to Service Users online [8 th Jan 2014] DCC requested feedback on drafts (8 th –22 nd Jan 2014) 18 entities provided responses: DSP Interface consultation process at a glance Who contributed the responses? b) Feedback on the Self-Service Interface (SSI) Engagement with SEC Parties Observations: Participation by SEC Parties deemed satisfactory. Many queries and issues raised related to GBCS not to DUGIS. Concern over completion of GBCS/DUGIS now being addressed through DECC GBCS Release Strategy How did DCC act on the responses? Detailed replies provided for all queries and issues. Of the 444 queries raised, 175 led to changes. Of the 567 issues raised, 281 led to changes. SEC Parties submitted 1011 responses: 4 general comments, 621 concerning Interface Specifications, 386 on Codes of Connection (CoCos) c) Feedback on the Registration Data Interface Interface Specifications comprised of: Main Document, Service Request Definitions (SRD), and an XML Schema. A total of 139 changes were made to these documents as a result of consultation feedback. 64 were rated as high importance by parties consulted. - A number of queries and issues depend on GBCS developments for resolution. A total of 77 changes were made to the CoCo, with 18 rated as high importance. A total of 53 changes were made to the Interface Specification, 19 of which were rated as high importance. - No formal change request received yet for the SSI to provide a M2M interface. A total of 70 changes were made to the Code of Connection, with 12 rated as high importance by parties consulted. Interface Specs and CoCos split for Electricity and Gas Registration Data. A total of 54 changes were made to the Interface Specifications (Gas & Elec.), 23 of which were rated as high importance by parties consulted. A total of 62 changes were made to the Codes of Connection (Gas & Elec.), with 14 rated as high importance. - A number of queries and issues will be addressed in the DCC Registration Data Provider Incident Management Policy, to be published for consultation in May * Other SEC Party is a natural person


Download ppt "Feedback receiveda) Responses to specific consultation questions Timeline: Initial draft published online [23 rd Dec 2013] DCC Design Forum sessions with."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google