Code Governance Review UNC Modification Proposals Chris Shanley - National Grid NTS

Significant Code Review (‘SCR’)  UNC Modification Rules change  3 main elements of proposal:  Prevent an SCR related non-urgent Modification Proposal being raised during an associated SCR period  The treatment of Modification Proposals determined as relating to a SCR  Withdrawal or variation of SCR driven Modification Proposals’

Self-Governance (‘SG’)  UNC Modification Rules change  3 main elements of proposal:  Clarification of when a Modification Proposal shall follow the Self Governance route  A Self Governance Determination by the UNC Panel  Appeals Process

Environment / Objectives  where the impact is likely to be material, the evaluation of the proposed modification in respect of the relevant objectives shall include an assessment of the quantifiable impact of the proposed modification on greenhouse gas emissions, to be conducted in accordance with any such guidance (on the treatment of carbon costs and evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions) as may be issued by the Authority from time to time; and  Key Elements –  Evaluation of proposed modifications shall include assessment of the quantifiable impact on greenhouse gas emissions  Details to be included in reports produced during progression of the proposal

Charging Methodologies  Two proposals  NTS Charging Methodology and Connection Charging Methodology  Distribution Network Charging Methodology  Key elements:  Existing methodology (to be detailed in Appendix A) is incorporated within the Uniform Network Code  UNC Modification Rules are amended to reflect that:  a change to the Charging Methodology is not able to be made unless the requirements of the UNC Modification Rules are complied with  the Transporters must convene regular meetings of the charging methodology forum/s  a Modification Proposal in respect of a UNC Charging Methodology may only be made by a UNC signatory or a Materially Affected Party (being a person or class of persons designated by the Authority for this purpose)

Role of Code Administrators & Code of Practice  The CGR Final Proposals require that code administrators:  Act as a ‘critical friend’, in particular to small participants; and  Act consistently with the Code Administrator Code of Practice.  Other key elements:  Ofgem send back powers  Published reasons for Panel recommendations (based on relevant objectives)  Legal text provision  Cost information  Super Mod (in terms of volume of changes to the mod rules)

Alternatives  Aspect of the CoP workstrand - the approach to be taken when raising alternatives to Amendment Proposals:  alternative solutions being developed to the same degree as an original solution; and  alternative proposals are raised prior to or during the working group stage.  Proposed that the UNC adopt a similar approach to the CUSC

Alternatives flow chart (part 1) – pre panel No later than noon on D-1

Alternatives flow chart (part 2) – development route Alternative outline provided to Panel originally - Modification should be supplied no later than D-5 of the first meeting

Alternatives flow chart ( part 3) – consultation route

Appointment and Voting Rights for a Consumer Representative and Independent Panel Chair  Modification Proposals 0286 and 0286A: “Extending Modification Panel Voting Rights to Consumer Representative(s)”  Ofgem minded to approve 0286A (early July?)  Main elements of proposal:  Option for the Authority to appoint a further Consumer Representative member  Independent chair’s casting vote  Other industry participants may wish to consider any other beneficial changes to the composition of the UNC Panel. It is our view that this should be addressed outside of this proposal.