This is Icebreaker One’s response to Elexon’s P494 Assessment Procedure Consultation.

Please note that throughout this consultation, Icebreaker One uses the terms Open, Shared and Closed data as defined here.

If you have any questions about our submission or require clarifications please do not hesitate to contact us via policy@ib1.org. We have omitted questions which we did not answer. 

Consultation response:

1. Do you agree with the Workgroup’s initial view that P494 does better facilitate the Applicable BSC Objectives than the current baseline?* Please provide your rationale and, if ‘No’, please provide full details of your Alternative Modification(s) and your rationale as to why it / they better facilitate the Applicable BSC Objectives. 
  • Yes
  • No 
  • Neutral / No Comment 
  • Other 

Rationale: Elexon is unable to fulfil the potential benefit of making the data available with its current position as Data Processor.

2. Do you agree with the Workgroup that the draft legal text in Attachment B delivers the intention of P494?
  • Yes
  • No 
  • Neutral / No Comment 
  • Other 

Rationale: 

  • Data Controller is limited to “Relevant BSC Personal Data” which only applies to data about natural persons. This will exclude data protections for company data envisaged in the DUAA. It leaves a lot of heavy lifting to the SDR Rules for non-personal but commercially-sensitive company data.
  • SDR Rules not sufficiently developed at this time to assess whether, in combination with the code change, they are sufficient to ensure adequate data protection under the DUAA:
    • Identifying legitimate agents
    • Identifying meter owners not covered by CCS
    • Licensing and access arrangements for commercially-sensitive but non-personal data
  • The consultation notes that “The means of determining whether a data set is commercially sensitive or personal data are being explored and are outside of P494”. This leaves a lot of work for the SDR Operations Manual to cover. The SDR is described on p27 of the consultation as containing “list of all APIs and reports published as well as technical details for how SDR users can interact with the SDR”. It will need to have much more detailed governance information. There is a risk that these considerations will “fall between the stools” of the BSC modification and the SDR Operations Manual.
3. Do you agree with the Workgroup’s recommended Implementation Date?
  • Yes
  • No 
  • Neutral / No Comment 
  • Other 
4. Do you agree with the Workgroup that there are no other potential Alternative Modifications within the scope of P494 which would better facilitate the Applicable BSC Objectives?
  • Yes
  • No 
  • Neutral / No Comment 
  • Other 
5. Do you agree with the Workgroup’s assessment of the impact on the BSC Settlement Risks?
  • Yes
  • No 
  • Neutral / No Comment 
  • Other 
6. Will P494 impact your organisation?

* If it will impact, please provide a description of the impact(s) and any activities which you will need to undertake between approval and implementation (including any necessary changes to your systems, documents and processes) and any on-going operational impacts. Where applicable, please state any difference in impacts between the Workgroup’s proposed solutions. 

  • High 
  • Medium 
  • Low
  • None 
  • Other 

Rationale: There is potential for P494 to affect the Perseus smart meter scheme positively, opening up a wider array of the kind of meter points used by SMEs. 

7. How much will it cost your organisation to implement P494?

* If any, please provide details of these costs, how they arise. Please also state whether it makes any difference to these costs whether implemented as part of or outside of a normal BSC Systems Release. Where applicable, please state any difference in costs between the Workgroup’s proposed solutions and if applicable, between the different roles. 

  • High 
  • Medium 
  • Low
  • None 
  • Other 

Rationale: P494 does not drive any direct costs

8. What will the ongoing cost of P494 be to your organisation?

* If any, please provide details of these costs, how they arise. Please also state whether it makes any difference to these costs whether P494 is implemented as part of or outside of a normal BSC Systems Release. Where applicable, please state any difference in costs between the Workgroup’s proposed solutions and if applicable, between the different roles. 

  • High 
  • Medium 
  • Low 
  • None
  • Other 
9. How long (from the point of approval) would you need to implement P494?

* Please provide an explanation of your required lead time, and which activities are the key drivers behind the timescale. Please also state whether it makes any difference to this lead time whether implemented as part of or outside of a normal BSC Systems Release. Where applicable, please state any difference in lead times between the Workgroup’s proposed solutions. 

  • 0-6 months 
  • 6-12 months 
  • >12 months 
  • Other

Rationale: P494 does not require any action from us

10. Do you agree with the Workgroup’s assessment of the consumer benefits?
  • Yes 
  • No 
  • Neutral/No comment
  • Other
11. Do you agree with the Workgroup’s assessment that P494 does impact the European Electricity Balancing Guideline (EBGL) Article 18 terms and conditions held within the BSC?
  • Yes 
  • No 
  • Neutral/No comment
  • Other
12. Do you have any comments on the impact of P494 on the EBGL objectives?

No

13. Which of the following funding options do you prefer for the recovery of SDR costs?
  • Costs recovered from Suppliers based on the number of MPANs supplied (option one)
  • Costs recovered from Suppliers based on their share of delivered energy volumes (option two)
  • Costs recovered from Suppliers using a hybrid approach combining MPAN-based and volume-based charging (option three) 
  • Costs recovered through existing BSC arrangements and borne by all BSC Trading Parties (option four) 

Rationale: No comment

14. Do you have any views on when the full review of the cost to SDR Users should occur?
  • Yes 
  • No 
  • Neutral/No comment
  • Other
15. Do you agree with the legal basis to establish and operate the SDR?
  • Yes 
  • No 
  • Neutral/No comment
  • Other

Rationale: The underlying mechanism of creating the SDR Manager and giving it Processor rights seems sound, but it is lacking detail for non-domestic users as noted in our response to Question 2

16. Do you have any views on what the de minimis aggregation level should be?
  • Yes 
  • No 
  • Neutral/No comment
  • Other

Rationale: The proposed choice of 10 MPANs is not presented with a clear evidence based rationale. If there is a more detailed rationale this should be put forward transparently. There is an opportunity to build a more nuanced context-specific decision on the appropriate level of aggregation based on factors such as geographic dispersal and existence of generation and storage capabilities that may provide a “signature” in the data. Also consider differentiating “highly aggregated” data (say 50+ MPANs) that may be widely licensed, and “minimally aggregated” data (5-10 MPANs) that may have more restrictive access and licensing to prevent abuse.

17. Do you have any further comments on P494? 

There is a considerable amount of work to be done in the SDR Operations Manual in order to achieve the goals of the SDR Trust Framework. The following are some key elements left to be defined:

  1. ID & Verification for non-CCS access is not defined (and even for CCS requires that to have been established). CCS should eventually cover business meters , and hopefully this will extend to smart and AMR meters. But that may not be until 2028. Businesses are key potential beneficiaries of SDR, for both cost reduction and net-zero impact. A number of the expected SDR Users focus on services intended for business. How will SDR support businesses in the interim? How will the SDR Users be verified, their data usage controlled, and how will they provide evidence for meter data access from businesses?
  2. The data sensitivity classes need more definition and clear policies for application
  3. The eligibility requirements and decision-making process for executing an Access Agreement and allowing access must be defined, as well as policies/processes for ensuring SDR Users remain eligible
  4. Data licensing requirements are not mentioned in the consultation. How will purposes be categorised and policed? What is permitted/not permitted for the various levels of non-open data?
  5. Liability and redress are not mentioned in the consultation. What policies and processes will enable data subjects harmed by the SDR to seek redress?

Since SCR covers a wider range of legal bases and potential data users than CCS, we recommend early consideration of how governance elements such as those above may be harmonised with other data sharing initiatives. This may be achieved through identifying opportunities for common definitions around ID&V, data sensitivity, purposes (or classes of purpose), and licences. Icebreaker One and Open Energy have research and experience, drawn from wide stakeholder engagement, that can inform this work.