EVALUATION

AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LCNF
Figure 20 – Suggestions for changes to LCNF: summary of questionnaire
responses
Governance
Project
direction
and
management
• Active management of risk
– Risk/benefit/management/Ofgem awareness to encourage wider innovation
• Ideally the regulatory model should encourage DNOs to dedicate funds and resources to
R&D on the basis that benefits would be shared equitably and proportionately between
shareholders and consumers
• Simplified change request process
• Recognition that embedding new technology and business process in BAU is not trivial
• Present emphasis is on strategic integration of proven technology and commercial innovation
– assistance to funding and business development challenge for start-ups to bring forward
and develop innovative ideas at the lower end of the TRL spectrum
• Extend access to competition outside DNOs
• Successful national Low Carbon Energy Strategy needs to exploit the synergies between
energy vectors
− include cross energy vector trials
• Overarching view needed of how innovation projects fit together to achieve common goals
• Ofgem should further commit to developing
− innovation cultures
− sector innovation capabilities
− good practice and excellence in innovation
− project delivery
− exploitation
• Recognition of innovation benefit to GB plc
4.4.4 Effect of LCNF on private sector innovation and third-party access to LCNF
funding
Questions:
Do you believe that LCNF has prevented, or otherwise discouraged, private sector
innovation?
Do you think third party access to LCNF funding would improve the quality of
innovation projects and if so why?
75% of respondents did not think that the LCNF has discouraged private sector
innovation, with several respondents suggesting LCNF had encouraged it by providing an
opportunity to demonstrate and prove technology on the DNO environment. 8% felt the
LCNF has had no effect on private sector innovation. This question was not answered by
17% of the respondents.
Responses to the question about third party access to funding varied with 28% of
respondents saying yes, 22% saying no and 36% having mixed opinions. Whilst third
parties can currently lead projects with a host DNO, this question questioned the idea of
undertaking projects without a DNOs direct involvement. The pros and cons of third party
access to funding identified by responses are summarised in Table 13. A number of
respondents felt that the involvement of a DNO, in some form, remains critical to the
relevance and success of the project.
PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
October 2016
713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx
67