EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF stronger leadership or a third party with a good holistic view of the industry to see how projects would fit together to achieve the low carbon objective. Another respondent felt it important to ensure the time taken for projects to reach business as usual is not too long as the longer the time, the greater the risk of the supply chain that have delivered projects over the last 5 years. Lifetime of the Fund A respondent made the following point; how much longer should a direct innovation stimulus be required, at a point the best situation would be the regulatory model encouraging DNOs to allocate funds and resource for research and development on the basis that it would benefit both shareholders and consumers. The response continued to say existing IQI and Totex incentive mechanisms aside, it needs to be ensured that that the ‘shareholder’ benefits are not relaxed too quickly, as they need to encourage the shareholder to fund the investment and take on the implementation risk. Support Low TRL Innovation The importance of supporting low TRL innovation was brought up by one respondent as this leads to prototypes that can be built on through NIC/NIA trials. Global Presence One respondent remarked that the LCNF has put the UK in the prime spot when it comes to innovation in the power sector, now often chosen by global providers as the location for trialling and piloting new technology. Another respondent) believed the focus should now be on taking advantage of export opportunities that the LCNF has generated; this will both alleviate the risk while UK DNOs transition solutions to BAU and promote UK export. Through experience of international trade shows (Middle East Electricity, Elecrama India, India Smart Grid Week, and European utility Week) a growth in interest has been seen in the UK energy sector and the technology developed and trialled under the LCNF, NIC and NIA. EIC The view of one respondent was that the EIC (as they say, protected by Ofgem) has taken on a role as gatekeeper and poacher when it comes to SME’s successful projects, thus the system does not work. Culture Change One respondent felt that the culture still has a risk adverse engineering ethos and need to change to become a more diverse culture with active risk management. Project Criteria It was thought by one respondent that in order to encourage more diverse innovation, the project evaluation criteria could be relaxed. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 180
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF C.4 Research Establishment Questions C.4.1 Increased Engagement with DNOs (Q4.1) Questions: Has the LCNF increased your engagement with DNOs? Please provide examples where you can C.4.1.1 Summary of Responses Two of the three respondents stated that the fund did increase their engagement with DNOs, with the other making the point that it is clear there has been a lot of engagement with some research establishments. One respondent said they have attended several talks where DNOs discuss LCNF projects. The other respondent stated that that LCNF (more IFI) increased DNO engagement from the all-time low it reached post privatisation. C.4.2 Fitting Into Existing GB Framework (Q4.2) Questions: Do you think the LCNF fits appropriately into the existing GB research framework? C.4.2.1 Summary of Responses One respondent felt that the LCNF incentivises the DNOs to take on work that would not yet justify commercial investment – but whether this is a good use of funding or not will become apparent over time. One of other respondents thought this could have been done more smoothly. DNOs have said at EPSRC panels that they are not allowed to engage in low TRL innovation. They believed OFGEM innovation has a place in the Energy Innovation landscape, and links with the other initiatives, though it was a challenge to link it with TSB/InnovateUK funding even though this would be a good way to encourage the best innovation. Focused calls were promoted but were more successful under the IFI, which they believe was very successful as a part of the innovation landscape. The respondent believes there could be better access to innovation projects than through the UKERC research atlas and the SFG portal; this is currently being reviews by Energy Systems Catapult. The response continued onto say that it was not possible to work with ETI mainly due to IPR constraints, and they hope that the Catapults will be better even though they have heard of no joint initiatives so far. The final respondent was of the opinion that the LCNF projects built heavily on innovation funding in several cases. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 181
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:
Page 133 and 134: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 183: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?