[attachment=5537]
Options for the Scope of the DCC

Executive Summary

We are pleased to be given the opportunity to provide further analysis and input to the DECC/Ofgem Smart Metering Implementation Programmed on the scope of central communications and data services for smart metering. This Executive Summary is intended as a stand-alone document to describe the output of our analysis as it stands at 10th May 2010. Given the short 3 week turnaround requested by Ofgem, this analysis is still in progress, but we have prioritized a subset of our complete analysis to give a picture of the potential impact of different central service options. We have analyzed a subset of key processes required to be supported by smart metering and analyzed the impact of the options laid out by Ofgem. It is important to stress that we have completed only a proportion of the analysis required to show the complete picture for smart metering, but we have chosen some key smart metering retail use cases (e.g. Change of Supplier). This input is an early, illustrative view of this restricted scope of analysis. As such, it is cannot be an ERA position paper on preferred options for the scope of central communications and data services. We have not been able to complete a cost/benefit assessment at this stage and agree this with ERA members, who are likely to make their own individual submissions with a view on impact. Our Conclusions Completing this interim analysis has demonstrated the complexity of the evidence gathering required to clearly define the options for central communications and data services, let alone making a decision on the preferred option and the implementation roadmap to deliver the optimum smart metering infrastructure. The scale of change for smart metering is huge within the industry. The single biggest change is the introduction of the DCC itself and the requisite access control to the smart metering infrastructure. There is no “no change” option. Overlay of smart metering on existing industry processes in Option A is not straightforward and may not necessarily be quicker to deliver than Option B. Without the detailed analysis we simply do not know. It is difficult to represent the scale of change in this impact assessment, given it is a comparison between options. Both options have extensive change and this should be reflected in future comprehensive impact assessments. We have highlighted where the main variations are between the options and the scale of change underpinning this assessment should not be underestimated, particularly given the restricted scope of this interim assessment. There needs to be a full capture of the pan-industry requirements of smart metering so that potential options can be defined clearly and assessed by all affected industry parties against the achievement of the objectives for a successful smart metering roll-out.