Question 1

Q1) SEC modifications seem to be the longest process out of all the codes. What changes can be done to make this faster and smoother?

Accepted Answer

We acknowledge that modifications are taking longer to progress than we would expect, and we are taking steps to address this.

We are working with the DCC to reduce their timescales in providing DCC Assessments, to align with the SLAs introduced into the SEC in November 2018. The DCC is now engaged earlier in the process as business requirements are developed, and we are encouraging a lighter-touch approach at the Preliminary Assessment stage. The Panel will continue to monitor timescales and act as necessary.

Additionally, since the start of the year, several changes have been introduced to the modifications framework in order to streamline the process. The Development Stage, overseen by the Change Sub-Committee, was introduced to ensure the issue or problem identified in a proposal is fully understood, before any consideration of solutions begin. We have also placed greater onus on the Proposer to own their proposals and seek industry comments offline, minimising the number of Working Group meetings needed.

We will be performing a post-implementation review of these changes at the start of next year, where we will assess the impact these changes have had and what else we can do to further improve the framework.

Question 2

Q2) Does the Panel think the SEC change process is working well - and if not why?

Accepted Answer

Please refer to the response provided to Question 1 above.

The Panel believes that the underlying framework is effective, however has expressed some disappointment regarding the timescales for delivery of DCC Assessments and the cost of change are falling short of expectations.

The wider BEIS-led projects such as Release 2.0 and SMETS1 Enrolment and Adoption have also contributed to delays, impacting both the DCC’s ability to complete Assessments and the time it takes to implement changes. The Panel also schedules SEC Releases to avoid overloading Parties with too much change.

The Panel recognises the frustrations of Parties and is working to ensure the Modifications Process is effective and allows for change to be progressed. The Panel has been fully engaged and supportive of the initiatives SECAS has developed and implemented over the last 12 months, in order to improve the SEC Modifications Process and ensure it is delivering an effective mechanism for change.

Question 3

Q3) Given that the average elapsed time for a SEC Mod to be implemented is 305 days, does the Panel consider this to be fit for purpose?

Accepted Answer

Please see responses to Q1 and Q2.

The Panel recognises that the lead-time for some modifications to reach decision has been too long. Primary drivers behind this have been the duration of DCC Assessments and obtaining full DCC implementation costs, which have resulted in significant delays to decisions on some proposals. The Panel is working to ensure that the DCC reduces its timescales in line with the new SLAs introduced into the SEC in November 2018.

The Panel has been fully engaged and supportive of the initiatives SECAS has developed and implemented over the last 12 months, in order to streamline the SEC Modifications Process and ensure it provides an effective and efficient mechanism for change. These improvements are now beginning to realise benefits, with Panel Members providing positive feedback from their Party Categories on the new Development Stage.

The Panel will continue to monitor and drive improvements to the process to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

Question 4

Q4) How will the Panel ensure that the transition from current change process to future process brings all groups / concerns with them?

Accepted Answer

The transition from BEIS-led programmes to the enduring arrangements has been an area of focus for the Panel. Towards the end of 2018, the Panel considered the powers and provisions needed for overseeing releases on an enduring basis, resulting in SECMP0061 being implemented in February 2019. The Panel is now reviewing the underlying mechanisms for delivering SEC Releases as documented in the SEC Release Management Policy. As the BEIS-led programmes come to an end, Modification Proposals, which can be raised by any SEC Party in response to issues or concerns they have with the current arrangements, will be the primary driver of change to the SEC. Expert groups under the transitional arrangements are also being retained under the enduring arrangements. In particular, the Technical Specifications Issues Resolution Subgroup (TSIRS) will become a sub-group under the Technical Architecture and Business Architecture Sub-Committee (TABASC), ensuring this group of experts can continue to review and resolve issues in this area.

Question 5

Q5) G3.20 continues to be an issue for Suppliers - current SEC obligations and licence conditions put MAPs in a position of power. Is this being addressed?

Accepted Answer

The SEC obligations in G3.17 to G3.20 are mitigations for identified security risks, considered necessary by the Security Sub-Committee (SSC). The SSC has provided suggested contractual wording here, which is deemed suitable for Suppliers to meet the requirements of G3.17 – G3.20. The wording was originally developed with SSC members comprising Large and Small Supplier Representatives, the User CIO and the Community of Meter Asset Providers (CMAP) and has been generally accepted by all parties. The arrangements well established for installed Devices. The SSC is aware of some isolated issues experienced with inherited Devices and the SSC has liaised with MAPs in relation to this. The SSC Chair and TABASC Chair will be attending the next CMAP meeting to discuss any remaining problems to ensure that arrangements continue to be suitable for G3.17 – G3.20. Both SECAS and the SSC continue to work with Suppliers on an ad-hoc basis where concerns are raised with compliance to G3.17 – G3.20.

Question 6

Q6) Given the new smart meters will be able to gather information, for example show a consumer’s peak usage time, would this be viewed as a personal data breach?

Accepted Answer

Suppliers have a condition in their license (SLC 47), introduced through the Data Access and Privacy Framework, that prevents them from accessing smart meter data for periods of less than a day (e.g. half-hourly data) without providing notice to the customer of the purpose that they may use this data and receiving explicit consent to the data being obtained for those purposes. SLC 47.10 also sets out restrictions on the use of consumption data which must be adhered to. The customer has the right to withdraw their consent to accessing consumption data relating to a period of less than one month at any time. Suppliers are also required to notify customers of how they use and process their data in a Privacy Notice, that is normally available on their website.

Question 7

Q7) Is the SEC thinking further ahead to future 'strategic' changes in the industry, e.g. demand-side response, flexibility, Electric Vehicle charging and storage?

Accepted Answer

We are in the process of preparing a strategic plan and roadmap for the SEC, which considers these areas, and will share this with SEC Parties once completed.

Question 8

Q8) Do you feel Suppliers get good value for money and how would you advise this is measured?

Accepted Answer

We are very aware of the need to deliver value for money to SEC Parties. As such, we engage SEC Parties in the annual budgeting process, to ensure we are focussing on the areas that matter to the industry. We also manage outputs and expenditure closely to budget, working to deliver efficiencies where possible, and returning any unspent budget to the DCC.

On an annual basis, we commission an independent customer satisfaction survey in order to establish the extent to which we are meeting customer needs, and at the end of each year perform a ‘look-back’ review to assess what we have achieved against what we set out to, identifying areas for focus in the coming year.

Question 9

Q9) What are the Panel’s thoughts on current consumer engagement? Are there any plans from BEIS/SECAS to drive consumer engagement to support Suppliers rollout plans?

Accepted Answer

We have identified that Consumer Engagement is a hot topic for Suppliers and have engaged Smart Energy GB to provide insight and guidance at our upcoming Spotlight on the SEC event on 12 September, and in future newsletters. In terms of whether the Panel play a broader role in consumer engagement, we will discuss this as part of our upcoming Strategic Planning.

Question 10

Q10) Credit arrangements: have rules in other gas/electricity codes been looked at to see whether better rules exist already? Could an all codes review be an option?

Accepted Answer

SECAS has initiated a cross-code review of Credit Cover arrangements and will communicate progress via the SECAS newsletter.

Question 11

Q11) Do we know when the last eligible DMC will make it on to the Eligible Products Combination List for Initial Operating Capability?

Accepted Answer

Following the BEIS SMETS1 Industry Day on 5 September 2019, the DCC took an action to update the Joint Industry Plan with regards to the forecast DMC readiness dates. The DCC is working on a Change Request, and its anticipated that BEIS will publish the Change Request consultation to industry in late September.

Question 12

Q12) The first two Itron meters to be enrolled on 5 August 2019 - how were they selected? Can Suppliers put their supply points forward to be involved in early stages of Enrolment and Adoption?

Accepted Answer

While the DCC has deemed consent on dormant meters, they work closely with energy Suppliers to ensure the full end to end process is understood in these early days. The selection of the actual installations was jointly decided by the DCC, the MSP and energy Supplier. If you have dormant meters in the current DMC that is being enrolled, you have the option to put forward a list of priority MPxNs. If you wish to discuss this with the DCC, please contact Enrolment.adoption@smartdcc.co.uk.

Question 13

Q13) How do I know whether I have one of the 4,000 Itron dormant meters, and when it will be enrolled?

Accepted Answer

The DCC has proactively engaged energy Suppliers to advise them of the eligible devices that they are responsible for and discuss the enrolment timetable. In line with the Transition and Migration Approach Document, Suppliers will also be formally notified of pending enrolment through the receipt of Configuration Update File and Dormant Meter Migration Schedule File at least 15 Working Days prior to enrolment.

Question 14

Q14) If during the SMETS1 migration i.e. 1st cohort a meter set to be migrated occurs an issue who is informed and how would this be communicated?

Accepted Answer

This is managed by the DCC Migration Control Centre (MCC) and the Early Life Support Team. They work with the end-to-supply chain and including the MSP and Energy Supplier.

Question 15

Q15) If smart meter WAN coverage is so good in the North, why are installs still proving be problematic?

Accepted Answer

A15) The Panel recognise there have been a number of issues however these have now been resolved, with thousands of second-generation meters are being installed in the North every day.

Question 16

Q16) What is the future of DCC engagement with stakeholders and how can we work together to ensure value for money is achieved?

Accepted Answer

Regular events are run by SECAS and DCC to engage with SEC Parties. Details of engagement events are communicated to SEC Parties via the newsletter and published on the SEC and DCC websites.

Question 17

Q17) Will DCC run hackathons to stimulate innovation?

Accepted Answer

The DCC are considering how appropriate this would be.

Question 18

Q18) Is access to labs charged? If so, are small Suppliers at a disadvantage?

Accepted Answer

There is no charge for access to labs.

Question 19

Q19) If the consumer does not want smart meter functionality, is there a process in place if they have dormant SMETS1 meter in place?

Accepted Answer

Smart metering will bring significant benefits to consumers and the wider energy system. Government expects energy suppliers to have processes in place to respond to concerns about smart metering, including providing information that may reassure consumers. Once installed, energy suppliers are required under their licence to take all reasonable steps to maintain the smart metering system, including the HAN and WAN. Ofgem is responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with these licence conditions.

Question 20

Q20) Is there a possibility Alt HAN may never actually deliver a viable solution, that it may just be an expensive experiment?

Accepted Answer

Alt HAN is important because it seeks to ensure that no classes of customers, for example residents in high-rise apartment blocks, are left behind in the rollout of smart metering functionality and the service improvements that this can support. The solutions in development by Alt HAN use proven technologies and will be rigorously tested before being rolled out at scale. From an economic perspective, there are controls in place to ensure costs are kept to efficient levels, and that these costs are acceptable. For example, Alt HAN Co must demonstrate that its costs are “economic and efficient”, and there are annual and milestone-specific mechanisms to approve budgets. Government can also reduce the scope of Alt HAN if it concludes, based on evidence, that the costs of delivering Alt HAN solutions are “disproportionate” for certain classes of premise.

Question 21

Q21) If the smart deadline is end of 2020, surely July 2020 is too late for Alt HAN to make a significant impact?

Accepted Answer

The economic case for Alt HAN assumes that the rollout of smart meters will continue beyond 2020 and the policy objective of a mass rollout will be retained, even if at this stage the regulatory obligations and targets for the period beyond 2020 are not set.

Question 22

Q22) Is AltHANCo co-ordinating with the CSS provider regarding building data?

Accepted Answer

The data requirements for identifying Alt HAN candidate premises have been developed fully through a competitive procurement process for Operational Services. A wide range of data sources are being used and kept under review.

Question 23

Q23) Are the costs of Alt HAN socialised to all SEC Parties?

Accepted Answer

Alt HAN costs are recovered in full via DCC charges from All Relevant Supplier Parties. Costs which are appropriate to socialise (e.g. the current development phase) will be recovered through Fixed Charges, but costs relating to the provision of equipment for use at individual premises will be recovered through Supplier-specific Explicit Charges.

Question 24

Q24) What evidence is there from the deployment of smart meters that consumers are changing their energy usage?

Accepted Answer

Smart Energy GB undertake regular research into smart meters and how they are used. The outcomes are published on their website. Research published in May 2019 here found that smart meter owners are more engaged with energy compared to non-owners. They are more likely to understand their own energy use and have a desire to reduce it. Households with a smart meter are doing slightly more to save energy than those without. In particular, smart meter owners are more likely to look into ways to use less energy. Over time, smart meter owners continue to encourage others to use less energy, and increasingly look into energy efficiencies.

Annual SEC Engagement Day Panel Q&A Responses

Highlights

Quick Links

Featured Downloads

Upcoming Meetings

SEC Monthly Working Group Meeting – July 2022

TABASC Meeting 79

Operations Group Meeting 75

Latest Newsletters

SEC Newsletter 29 June 2022

SEC Newsletter 30 May 2022

SEC Newsletter 29 April 2022

SEC Newsletter 31 March 2022

SEC Newsletter 25 February 2022

Newsletter Signup