List of BSC Issues

There are growing concerns in the industry about rising electricity losses, especially as shown by Line Loss Factors (LLFs) and the Group Correction Factor (GCF). BSCP128: Production, Submission, Audit & Approval of Line Loss Factors explains how to calculate LLFs. However, many in the industry do not fully understand why LLF and GCF values change.

Even though measures are in place to reduce settlement errors from LLFs and GCF, industry participants believe more could be done to uncover the main reasons for changes in LLF and GCF, which would help predict their future values.

To address the trend in electricity losses, we should:

• Review the LLF methodology to understand what it is, identify possible failure points, and determine if and how to improve its clarity and effectiveness.
• Assess the existing controls for the failure points identified.
• Examine the GCF methodology and consider whether it is still a fair way to share Settlement Error costs.

By reviewing these controls, we can suggest ways to improve current practices, which may lead to changes in the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC), its related documents, or industry practices.

The current Market-wide Half Hourly Settlement (MHHS) design doesn’t accommodate advanced market segment Metering Point Administration Number (MPANs) where customers have opted out of Half-Hourly billing/Settlement consents. This limitation prevents the exchange of multi-rate meter register readings and meter configuration details among MHHS participants. Consequently, Suppliers face two significant issues. First, accurate billing is hampered as bilaterally obtained readings lack essential meter configuration data, making read-to-register matching impossible and potentially conflicting with Supplier Licence Condition 21B.1-21B.2 regarding read accuracy. Second, a lack of firm knowledge of meter configuration risks Suppliers using incorrect meter registers (e.g., non-cumulative) for Settlement purposes. Furthermore, the baseline MHHS design doesn’t incorporate Standard Settlement Configuration (SSC) or Time Pattern Regime (TPR) mappings for Settlement provisions, meaning crucial meter configuration understanding will be absent from Industry Standing Data.

Energy Theft is a significant contributor to Settlement inaccuracies, directly linked to 018 SVA Risk: ‘Revenue Protection volumes are not settled Risk 18’ . The failure to correctly account for energy theft in Settlement can lead to erroneous or estimated data entering Settlement. It is estimated that the financial impact of unaddressed energy theft exceeds £1 billion annually creating substantial risks for both Suppliers and the wider industry.

The following areas contribute to the inaccurate recording of Settlement Post-Theft:

•   Inadequate reporting: Evidence of tampering is not consistently reported on or documented correctly.

• Incorrect Adjustments: There are failures in recording meter advance adjustments, recalculating meter advances, as well as making accurate estimates, as required by Revenue Protection Services.

• Lack of Industry Awareness: A limited understanding of the Distribution Connection and Use of System Agreement (DCUSA), Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) and UK Revenue Protection Association (UKRPA) frameworks lead to inconsistent applications of theft resolutions procedures.
• Insufficient Settlement Correction Mechanisms: The current process does not facilitate proactive resolution of Settlements post-theft, which discourages Suppliers from addressing discrepancies.

By improving the alignment between the processes used to track and address energy theft (Revenue Protection) and the Settlement Correction mechanism, the industry can be better incentivised to accurately report and rectify Theft-Related energy discrepancies. Strengthening these measures will support compliance.

Code of Practice (CoP) 1: ‘The Metering of Circuits with a Rated Capacity Exceeding 100 MVA for
Settlement Purposes’ and CoP2: ‘The Metering of Circuits with a Rated Capacity not Exceeding 100
MVA for Settlement Purposes’ currently refer only to the inductive Current Transformers (CTs) and
Voltage Transformers (VTs) of the 61869 series of standards.

However, CoPs 1 and 2 also contain a clause (in 5.1 ‘Metering Equipment’) that allows for individual
items of Metering Equipment to be combined to perform the same task, provided ‘the requirements’ of
the relevant CoP are met.

It is unclear if other types of equipment like Low Power Instrument Transformers (LPITs) could be used
as part of a combination of Metering Equipment that would constitute a Metering System.
Enabling this would allow manufacturers to develop innovative Metering Systems.

LPITs can provide the following benefits compared to conventional CT/VTs:

• Small and light weight: a major benefit especially for Offshore substations
• Improved personal safety: no dangerous voltages if the secondary winding of the current
  measuring element is left ‘open-circuit’
• Accurate at harmonics
• Very good linearity: convenient calibration at low voltage and current test points

To prevent double-counting in the Balancing Mechanism (BM), Modification P344,  requires Suppliers and Virtual Lead Parties (VLPs) to notify their Supplier Volume Allocation Agent (SVAA) of Meter System ID (MSID) Pairs (both Import and Export MSIDs). This creates challenges for Suppliers who may have different Import and Export Suppliers at a single site, leading to compliance issues. Additionally, the current AMSID registration process, with its three-stage manual validation, is inefficient for bulk updates and restrictive with regard to automation.

The proposed solution aims to streamline asset registration by using APIs and reducing manual steps for efficient updates. It also clarifies BSC rules on MSIDs to prevent double-counting, potentially allowing separate management of Import and Export MSIDs or giving a single BSP control over both.