EVALUATION

AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LCNF
On the other hand, half of the respondents (ten) were aware of examples of DNOs
implementing learning from other DNOs’ trials not just their own. One respondent gave
the examples of UKPN using experience from other LCNF projects including storage for
their own project, and NPG utilising the outcome of WPD, SSEPD and UKPN trials to
build aspects of their CLNR.
Another example provided by a respondent is DSR where a lot of knowledge from LCL
and FALCON is being utilised by DNOs. A further example was given by another
respondent – WPD utilised available information on similar projects both as part of the
project and post-project reviews. Another respondent had an example of DNOs utilising
the trial of another DNO – several DNOS adapted the ANM co-developed and trialled with
SHEPD in the Orkney Smart Grid program, though they did then run their own trials.
One of the other respondents was aware of other DNOs using the primary transformer
ratings based on the SPEN Flexible Networks project.
One respondent mentioned that the outcomes of CLASS will be informing part of the joint
National Grid and UK Power Networks 2016 NIC project TDI 2.0, and that Active Network
Management (in several LCNF projects) is being adopted by a number of DNOs. They
went on to say they believe that trial outcomes have provided an insight into the additional
work needed to consider both system wide implications and the particular circumstances
of different network areas – solutions that work in one area won’t necessarily be beneficial
in another.
Finally, one respondent made the point that DNOs often say they find it easier to
implement learning from their own projects into BAU, but actually adopting the learning of
trials that were not yours comes with a reduced risk and cost savings. Also say that
different DNOs have different processes for identifying opportunities and delivering
innovation.
Competition between DNO’s
A quarter of the respondents felt competition between DNOs was having a negative
impact on the success of the LCNF.
One respondent made the point that it is possible that DNOs are prioritising their own
LCNF projects to maximise value internally. The respondent went on to say that in the
future the most successful projects, “winners”, will become clear and there will be publicly
available information DNOs can access.
One of the respondents believes that there are few examples of DNOs implementing any
knowledge from the project of another DNO, believing this is due to competition between
DNOs and that it is not their idea meaning it is harder to bring about change. Another
respondent made a point about competition between DNOs – stating that the competitive
element should be reduced so DNOs feel they can share the truth about the project
instead of trying to project that everything went perfectly. They also state that there may
be evidence of DNOs working more collaboratively under RIIO where they have a good
‘fit’.
Competition was mentioned by another respondent– they believe that a lot of the work
carried out could have been performed better through collaboration or at least coordination,
rather than the competition driving the DNOs apart.
PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
October 2016
713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx
136