EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF a lower TRL level. They hope that Energy Systems Catapult can provide support in these instances. They concede that support for technology development and commercialisation is a bigger barrier to innovation than any issues with the LCNF mechanism. Finally, one respondent is of the view that EIC ensures that projects that don’t fit in with their political and commercial plan are side-lined. C.2.3 Effect of Third Party Access to LCNF Funding (Q2.3) Questions: Do you think third party access to LCNF funding would improve the quality of innovation projects and if so why? C.2.3.1 Summary of Responses The responses were varied for this question, with the only consensus that DNO involvement is essential regardless of third party access. Around a third of respondents felt that access would improve the quality of projects, with three respondents feeling it would definitely not aid the quality. One respondent had no clear view and one respondent did not answer this question. C.2.3.2 Third Parties Already Have Access Two respondents would class third parties as already having access through their partnership with DNOs. Both provided the example of the My Electric Avenue project which was led by a non DNO, EATL. Another respondent also mentioned that LCNF projects were often led by non DNOs. C.2.3.3 Third Party Access Would Improve the Quality One respondent felt that the funding structure and control of DNOs can sometimes hinder projects coming forward; also there are some projects that are not obviously beneficial to the DNO but are beneficial otherwise they are less appealing to DNOs, but this could lead to asset stranding across the sector. Another respondent felt it could be provided but the rules would need to be strict. One respondent feels that giving third party access would inject a new energy into the fund – projects would be looked at from a different perspective including that of the customers, not just the DNOs. Another respondent felt that if a way to give third party access without taking away Ofgem’s rights to exercise due governance over project delivery could be developed; third party access could bring a wider variety of proposals. The response carried on to say it needs to be ensured that the projects are delivered and the roll-out benefit is secured from the attendant IPR as funded by customers, for the good of the DNO customers. Finally, one respondent believes that it would improve the quality as the current need to secure political support from the EIC is a hindrance. C.2.3.4 Against Third Party Access Three respondents felt it would not be a good idea. One of these respondents felt that having the network operator involved makes sense as it means the project is realistic and PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 178
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF provides some credibility, also having no DNO on board would create hindrances when it came to testing. Another respondent agreed with this point saying that the danger would be funding unfeasible innovation. These points were further agreed with by another respondent stating it would be hard for third parties to see if solutions could be “business as usual” without GDN involvement. Another respondent in the group supported the credibility point saying winning over the DNOs who are responsible for their assets is a key element in the process. One of the respondents did not think providing the funds to a third party that does not serve the consumers (who fund up to 90% of the project) would ensure equality, or ultimately benefit consumers. They feel that the best plan for a third party with a good idea is to partner with a DNO. One respondent thinks that even though the access probably would generate more project ideas, IP ownership would most likely become a barrier. Another respondent that felt access could possibly be beneficial made the point that the main area for improvement is the conceptual stage – and Ofgem are in a good position to check that the individual projects generate an output worth more than the sum of its parts. Finally, a respondent believes though it could improve the quality, the screening process would need to be thorough as third parties tend to misconstrue current energy challenges. C.3 Additional Comments C.3.1 Additional Comments (Q3.1) Questions: Please make any additional comments in respect of the LCNF success or otherwise here. C.3.1.1 Responses Positive Comments One respondent felt the projects funded by the LCNF return real benefits to the consumers who funded it. Another respondent echoed this point and also feels the competitive nature of the project selection process is very effective, if unusual in the utilities sector. This respondent also feels that the scale and stability of multi-year budgets for LCNF have definitely aided the success of the fund. Another respondent commented that they appreciate the fund and hope it continues. The success of the fund was pointed out by another respondent. LCNF is Ongoing One respondent made the point that the LCNF is ongoing so in order to ensure an allencompassing view of the projects is presented you have to consider that it is still going, so the outcomes and benefits to the customer are not known for all projects. Business as usual One response stated that more needs to be done to ensure more projects reach business as usual, the response continued to say more value could be injected by Ofgem having a PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 179
Page 1 and 2:
AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 181: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
show all

EVALUATION

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?