Skip to main content

IDNO UMS under DNO MPAN

DIF 30 - IDNO UMS under DNO MPAN

  • Proposer
  • Proposing Company ESP ELECTRICITY LIMITED
  • Status Closed
  • Urgent No
  • Synopsis

    Where a housing developer chooses to use an IDNO rather than the DNO for the electricity distribution network on a new development this currently has a detrimental effect on the Local Authority’s (LA) street lighting budget due to Supplier charges applied to separate MPANs.

    1. An additional MPAN must be obtained to account for the unmetered energy consumed on the IDNO network and therefore a standing charge for each MPAN is applied by the Supplier (typically this is £26.25 per calendar month – £315 PA). Where there are less than ten lamps (as is often the case on IDNO networks) this standing charge is likely to exceed the energy cost.

    2. A Meter Administrator (for Pseudo HH) must be appointed to produce detailed energy consumption of the unmetered equipment for each IDNO MPAN – typically £2000 pa. Again for inventories of less than 10 lamps, this is not acceptable.

    3. Additional MPAN means additional LA admin required to process Supplier invoices and maintain separate inventories etc.

    4. When LA appoints Supplier to IDNO MPAN, the cost of the electricity is charged at ‘today’s rates’ as it is considered a new connection – whereas if the IDNO inventory was added to the DNO MPAN, the agreed contract rates would be applied.

    These costs are not under the control, or can be influenced by, the IDNO. The costs are part of the commercial relationship between the Supplier and the LA.

    These issues have been raised and discussed at a recent Elexon UMS workshop and a workable solution to the above problem has been offered up for consideration. The IDNOs and LAs present at the meeting considered it a quick and easy fix to the problem.

    The intent is not to hand over all responsibility of the UMS to the DNO – the IDNOs would still continue to respond to UMS faults on their own networks and maintain inventories of the equipment connected etc. It is purely the billing arrangements between parties that is being considered.

    Elexon are currently looking at potential impact that the proposed solution may have on registrations (and the MRA) as well as the BSC and issues such as liability and responsibilities etc.

    ESPE took an action to raise the issue at the next DCUSA SIG and if agreed by all as a workable solution, Schedule 19 – Portfolio Billing – would need to be amended to incorporate UMS reporting similar to the current HH reporting requirements.||