EVALUATION

AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LCNF
• finally, one respondent felt DNO interpretation of financial management rules can be
counter-productive – had to wait 9 – 16 months for major bills to be paid on a project,
this was not true for all projects
B.1.8
Parts Of The LCNF Which Have Worked Or Not Worked (Q1.8)
Questions:
In your view, which parts of the LCNF have worked well and which haven’t? What
would you change in retrospect and why?
B.1.8.1 Summary of Responses
The responses to this part of the questionnaire were extremely varied, with a wide mix of
views and suggestions.
B.1.8.2 LCNF Successful Aspects
Two respondents commented on the creation of discussion and a knowledge pool
between different levels of the industry. One of these respondents and one other made
the same point that the LCNF has allowed an array of innovative projects to be carried out
that would not have been possible otherwise. With another respondent calling the LCNF
a watershed in the industry, leading the UK to become an established global leader when
it comes to smart networks innovation – they praised Ofgem and the UK government for
their leadership.
Finally, one respondent commented on the improvement of DNOs in proposing innovative
projects. They say that initially the proposals were conservative, involved a limited
number of companies and the DNO was hesitant to receive any suggestions from SMEs –
but this has changed.
B.1.8.3 LCNF Less Successful Aspects
One respondent mentioned that they contributed to the funding (overhead and personnel
costs) but it would have been better if they had been fully funded, as they are unsure of
any future benefits to them of having contributed financially.
Another respondent pointed out the importance of the requirement to have appropriate
partners involved, as on CLNR they feel econometricians should have been involved.
Other aspects one respondent had issue with were the slowness of the roll-out into BAU
and the limited understanding of DNOs of DSR, they thought it essential that DNOs start
to take note of DSR aggregators’ experience in designing customer proposals.
One response suggested that even though DNOs and other organisations in the industry
are learning from these projects, it does not necessarily mean that the government and
regulatory authorities will take these into account in reshaping the energy system to
become fit for transitioning to a low carbon economy. The regulator would need to learn
how to manage the risks of R&D projects as well as how to take projects from the trial
stage through to the business as usual stage. Also they must understand that not all
successful trials are appropriate to be rolled out across the UK, as several projects and
their associated business cases are local site specific.
Another respondent felt the issue can sometimes be the DNOs not having the resources
(people) to take advantage of all the opportunities the LCNF produces.
PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
October 2016
713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx
141