Questions Name Company Response Question 1: Do you agree with this principle of enforcing milestones more rigidly at the early stages of a project?

Transcription

1 Questions Name Company Response Question 1: Do you agree with this principle of enforcing milestones more rigidly at the early stages of a project? Ben Cosh TGC Renewables This principle should refer to planning APPLICATION not planning consent. In its RO consultations, DECC recognises the significant financial commitment milestone is the submission of planning to the LPA. Mark Candlish Solafields Partly Agree - I agree with the enforcement of milestones prior to planning *submission* - planning consent is outside of a customer's control and can take several years Yes. We understand the principle that as a project progresses and the developer incurs costs the more likely the project is to proceed. Nevertheless, with later milestones such as the requirement to commence the works, if delayed the developer must still evidence to the DNO s reasonable satisfaction that concrete steps are being taken. The developer should not be able to cite the requirement for more flexibility if the project is ultimately mothballed. RenewableUK Yes. RenewableUK supports the position that projects should face stricter connection criteria in the earlier phases of development, where fewer resources may be dedicated to the development of a project than at its latter stages and, consequently, less consideration may be given by developers to speedily achieving completion. We support this position as a means to enforce and ensure efficient and equitable connection queue management. We recognise that it is difficult for the DNOs to terminate connection agreements in cases where a developer who has accepted an agreement has stagnated in the development of a project, which can lead to connection capacity for embedded generation in the rest of the local queue being effectively sterilised. We hold to our position that strong connection queue management is needed to avoid the cliffedge in reinforcement costs for generation connections in areas of high congestion which would result where undeveloped projects capture but do not use precious connection volumes. We and our members recognise the importance of imposing strongly enforced milestones to ensure that DG projects progress to build out, or get removed from the connection queue. Yes, the allocation of capacity to projects that aren't actively progressing has a significant impact on the capacity available for projects that are consented and ready to move forward, but unable to progress due to grid constraints. Often, the investment and commitment required by generation projects to secure a grid connection is a lot lower than the investment needed to progress with planning and consents. This mismatch can result in grid capacity secured for projects that cannot or do not progress successfully through the planning system. However, caution is required; enforcement of milestones must be balanced against the risk of being too aggressive, potentially threatening generation projects that are continuing to make progress. We also note that the grid connection date (or likely impact of transmission reinforcements/constraints) will often drive project programme for generation sites. Therefore, planning and land rights may not be on the 'critical path.' Milestones relating to these may force generators to invest in these activities well in advance of when the investment would have otherwise been made. It is important that this is recognised by the DNO in establishing the most appropriate timing of the milestones and underlines the need to consult and agree with the generator before the dates are set. Elaine Hanton Niels Kronginger Jill Cainey Catherine Wicks HIE Green Hedge Energy Electricity Storage Network ABO Wind In principle we agree that milestones should be enforced more rigidly at the early stages of a project but it is not clear that this should mean planning. We ve been involved in several hundred grid connection applications and in a number of cases the uncertainty for the project came from a) statement of works/ng interaction that was not resolved for many months after accepting the offer and b) general government changes to the revenue side of a project, or threatened further cuts and policy uncertainty. While we understand that it s in everyone s interest to withdraw connection offers where a developer does not take steps which a reasonable developer with the intention of developing a site would take, it would be wrong to force developers to increase their bets on projects (by submitting planning applications) if other stakeholders are really to blame for the delay. Yes. At the early stage of a project expenditure should be less than that for a more developed project. In principle, we believe DNOs enforcing milestones more rigidly at pre-planning consent stages could be a useful tool for network management, however, we believe projects liable for transmission network upgrade securities are vulnerable to much higher financial risks at these early stages than are recognised by the consultation document, therefore should not be subject to rigid enforcement of pre-planning consent milestones. Where large monetary deposits or securities have been made, the developer has clearly shown intention to progress the project, therefore any decision to terminate an offer must go through due process to review evidence for and against termination. Yes, the early stages are more appropriate than later stages where more financial commitment has been made to development and construction, as long as the milestones are realistic and reasonable. Ruth Kemsley Wind Prospect Yes. As the project progresses the amount of money invested and the chance of Dan Thomas Banks renewables completion/connection increases, therefore there should be more flexibility later in the project development. Yes. It is important to enforce the early milestones more rigidly as this will help to reduce numbers of applications where developers are less serious about completing a project, therefore potentially blocking space for more genuine applications. This will also allow for more room for manoeuvre towards the later stages of a project (i.e. the later milestones) when developers need Nick Wood STA it. An important question is how planning is defined and we ask the ENA to detail this more clearly please in its response to this consultation. Yes. The establishment of clear and transparent principles that enable DNOs to focus resources on those We agree that it is sensible to enforce milestones more at the early stages of a project and we agree with the ENA's rationale that fewer resources are deployed at this point. Given that it is free to apply for a distribution grid offer, there is little incentive on developers not to sit on grid connections. Later on in the process there are more legitimate reasons for delays outside of the developer's control such as supply chain or weather causing construction delays. However, the current timeframes proposed for the planning milestones are not realistic. We have presented more detail on this in our response to questions 13 and 14. stress that rigid enforcement of the early milestones is not appropriate if the planning timeframes are left as currently proposed. We must there We agree with the principle underlying the proposal for DNOs to enforce milestones more rigidly at the early stages of a project, and to show greater flexibility as a project progresses further. We recognise that at a project s early stages a customer deploys fewer resources and incurs fewer costs, so it is easier for the customer to accept a connection offer and not subsequently progress the project. There is a self-perpetuating incentive to apply for connection offers at ever earlier stages of the development cycle in the absence of any milestones. This means that projects that are less likely to materialize block capacity and add to the queue. More stringent enforcement of milestones at the early stages of a project could prove helpful in giving DNOs confidence that a project will be progressed, and could help ensure that the projects of customers who can make progress are not held up by those who cannot. Energy UK recognizes that, critical to this process, is understanding the complexity and sometime time consuming nature of gaining planning consent. DNOs must also understand this. Having noted this, the intention of principle 5 is to allow flexibility to the planning consent milestone, in that customers should present evidence to demonstrate third party being at fault for not meeting this milestone. Yes. It is more important to be rigid with milestones in the earlier phases of projects. InnogyUK fully agrees with the rationale provided in the ENA consultation. The suggested milestones mean projects need to be more committed in their plans to take forward the connection than under the status quo. The introduction of these milestones should deter speculative applicants and will also ensure that those with a connection offer actively pursue the developments rather than idling pre consent. We hope that the change will alleviate the grid queue issue that negatively impacts on all projects. We agree that there needs to be prioritisation and there should be some structure to this process. But it is not clear that sunk cost is a rationale for moving forward with a contract, and therefore a reliable indicator of project completion. In fact, by definition sunk cost is excluded from any future decision making process. Nonetheless, it is an indicator of the likelihood of a project progressing toward completion, but only to the extent that sunk cost may reduce the future costs and therefore keep a project viable. This will not always be the case of course, and at any given stage of a project one can/will assess whether it will have a positive NPV before deciding to continue investing further resources. To draw an example one may choose to not progress with further expenditure on a solar farm upon discovery that a high rise structure will be built beside it that will block the sun (a hopefully absurd case, made only to make clear the point). In this case one would not progress with the solar farm, regardless of how much money had been spent up to this point. Taking these points into account, we are broadly supportive of using the proposed approach, so long as it is applied with an equal measure of judgement and good sense so that it is not simply a box-ticking, one-size-fits-all exercise.

2 Question 2: Do you agree with the principle of having no single milestone linked to funding progression? Aidan Morris Frank Gordon Lightsource Renewable Energy REA We feel that it is important to have Milestones in Grid Offers and that the enforcement of these milestones needs to be fair and reasonable at all times. Yes this is an important consideration as sunk costs can be considerable the further a project progresses, making any change to connection more costly and damaging the more advanced the project. We agree that it is sensible to enforce milestones more at the early stages of a project and we agree with the ENA's rationale that fewer resources are deployed at this point. Given that it is free to apply for a distribution grid offer, there is little incentive on developers not to sit on grid connections. Later on in the process there are more legitimate reasons for delays outside of the developer's control such as supply chain or weather causing construction delays. However, the current timeframes proposed for the planning milestones are not realistic. We have presented more detail on this in our response to questions 13 and 14. We must therefore stress that rigid enforcement of the early milestones is not appropriate if the planning timeframes are left as currently proposed. Scottish Renewables supports the principle of enforcing milestones more rigidly at the early stages of a project. However, each project is likely to face its own unique Michael Rieley challenges. Therefore, it is important to ensure transparency through regular Scottish engagement between parties where milestones are not met, and that termination Renewables should always be seen as a last resort. Green Hedge Niels Kroninger Energy Yes - projects have many different routes to getting financed. Catherine Wicks ABO Wind with the objectives of promoting effective competition in generation and also in realising cost efficiencies. Mark Candlish Solafields Agree - funding is down to a large number of factors outside of the customer s control eg power prices, money markets, Government policy etc Ruth Kemsley Elaine Hanton Jill Cainey RenewableUK Wind Prospect HIE Electricity Storage Network Yes. RenewableUK agrees with this principle. We support the DG-DNO Steering Group s DG members view that it is not the role of the DNOs to establish the financial viability of a project, and we welcome the broader scope of the queue milestones. However, we do support the removal of projects from a connection queue which have failed multiple milestones due to lack of funding. Yes projects have varied funding models and failure to meet one standard defined milestone does not mean that a project will not achieve funding for construction. Yes. If milestones for initiating and securing planning permission are implemented then a further milestone linked to funding is superfluous and adds a further administrative burden. The developer should be able to explore different funding opportunities although we do have concerns how the uncertainty under the Contract for Difference process might affect the developers ability to proceed. Yes, we agree that setting a milestone relating to funding is inappropriate. However, as funding is a key part of many projects it is not unreasonable for the ONO to seek visibility of the funding strategy of the project and progress. We suggest that it is appropriate there is an obligation on projects to share information on the proposed funding strategy and key dates relating to this strategy and how this fits in with the remainder of the project programme. Neutral. Securing funding is critical to any project. However a DNO should not indefinitely hold a connection for a project if funding is never secured or takes a very long time to secure. Funding delays may be captured by the other milestones, but if a project fails to meet a milestone due to funding and a lack of funding is a mitigating point, then it is not clear how capacity would ever be released. Dan Thomas Banks renewables Yes. Although this is a key project step how it looks and how it could be evidenced would vary dramatically between projects, developers and funders. Nick Wood STA Yes. Funding is often one of the last aspects of a project to fall into place when developing a solar project. The early development and planning is usually funded out of a developer s own resource. The larger costs are incurred later, and it is usually in these later stages when funding becomes available as project plans become more secure and bankable. It would therefore be inappropriate to have milestones linked to funding. Yes. agrees that it is not practicable to establish a clear and transparent milestone that indicates when a project is economically viable nor is it reasonable to expect DNOs to make judgements in this area. We agree with the principle of having no single milestone linked to funding progression. We do not consider DNOs to be best placed to judge whether a project is financially viable. DNOs should be mindful of the nature of support mechanisms in that they occur every year, and missing out on a CfD or a Capacity Market Agreement one year should not amount to a project leaving the queue. In considering appropriate action when a customer misses other milestones we believe that taking into account delays in obtaining external funding may lead to abuse and continued unnecessary delays. Many sources of funding are available to market participants; if a customer does not obtain funding from one source, other funding avenues may well be available. To enhance transparency and to prevent potential abuse, we believe that each milestone should be judged on its own merits without a link to funding progression, including whether or not a project is in receipt of a Capacity Market Agreement, a CfD contract or not. Yes, we support this principle that no single milestone should be linked to funding progression. We welcome the position that DNOs will not treat projects differently based on different funding models. It is not the DNOs place to judge whether a project is financially viable. Funding progression would serve as a poor milestone as it is difficult to define, provide evidence for and police. It is difficult for a DNO to have sight of when a project switches from viable to no longer financially viable. Equally, it is unclear what kind of evidence a generator could provide to make the case that they are unequivocally financially viable. For example, some embedded projects are developed independent of support mechanisms (e.g. CHP schemes) therefore, a milestone linked to these would be inappropriate. Furthermore, it is simply unnecessary as a separate milestone. Under this proposal the DNOs have a suit of new milestones. If a critical funding deadline is missed then the project will soon end up missing its next relevant milestone anyway. At this point the DNO has the right to review the status of the contract. We disagree with the second element of the proposal that states: if other milestones, such as commencing works, are missed then the fact that the DG customer is awaiting confirmation of funding mechanisms can be taken into account. InnogyUK believe that each milestone should be judged on its own merits without a link to funding progression. Yes, we agree that this seems like a sensible approach. A single milestone would unfairly disadvantage some more than others. Frank Gordon REA Yes the rationale outlines why this is an important principle, funding sources and models should be entirely blind and irrelevant to the connection process. Aidan Morris Michael Rieley Lightsource Renewable Energy Scottish Renewables We agree that Grid Offers should not include any Milestones linked to the funding of the project. It is our view Milestones should only be linked to Planning and Construction. Yes, we strongly agree that there should be no single milestone linked to funding progression. We do not believe that the DNO best placed to assess what type of funding and what stage of funding application is sufficient evidence of progress. Furthermore, if specific requirements were set down then innovative funding mechanisms such as crowd source funding and bond issues could be discouraged. It is in our view important that there is no milestone linked to funding opportunities. While securing funds is a critical step in any development project, the introduction of competition in the allocation of funding is likely to lead to greater uncertainty through allocation risk. Where a project has been unsuccessful in securing funding through a competitive process this should not result in contract termination, particularly where there remains opportunity to enter future competitive rounds or to seek other means to progress. We propose that the other milestones proposed provide adequate measurement of project progression.

3 Question 3: Do you agree with the process outlined for enforcing milestones? Niels Kronginger Green Hedge Energy Yes - the applicant should have a chance to explain what he has done and why he has not done more. Ruth Kemsley Wind Prospect The principle seems reasonable but the 4-week deadline does not. Yes. However, we would like to suggest that the definition for the timing criteria is tightened up to state that a developer has 4 weeks from the recorded receipt of the letter from the DNO, so as RenewableUK to account for the possibility of the letter being sent to wrong address, or not arriving in the first place. No, the timescales and consequence of this milestone are inappropriate. Regarding timescales, we believe that the DNO should provide to the customer three-months advance notice of an upcoming milestone. This allows for realistic situations where the appropriate person that would make the decisions and/or gather evidence may be unavailable for weeks, potentially the full month and unable to comply with timescales. Three months is the industry standard timeline for connection application with both the DNOs and National Grid, therefore should also be adopted for queue management timelines. Furthermore, the customer should not be required to engage with the DNO on milestones unless prompted by the DNO. This principle has an effect on certain milestone viability (such as the management on expired land rights, Question 14). The developer must have Catherine Wicks ABO Wind recourse to an appeal system, should the DNO give notice to terminate after reviewing the evidence. We agree with the principle of the DNO writing to the developer to allow them the opportunity to provide evidence of progression even if a milestone is missed. However, the timescales for providing evidence should be shorter, perhaps 2 weeks (or 10 working days) as this should be more than sufficient time to prepare evidence and compile the response. The requirement for the DNO to request further clarification or for the developer to further ENA Progression Milestones May 2016 question the DNO s findings mean that assessment periods could run into months under longer response times thus potentially delaying the release of capacity for the benefit of others. Elaine Hanton HIE Yes, we consider the proposed approach is reasonable. Enforcement of milestones needs to be clear to give the DNOs confidence to act as the enforcer. Jill Cainey Electricity Storage Network Yes. 4 weeks should be ample time for a developer to provide reasons for a missed milestone. The difficulty will be determining whether a mitigation is a valid reason for the delay and so whether a connection should remain secured to that developer. Dan Thomas Nick Wood Banks renewables STA Yes. The DNO should however have discretion over whether to enforce a milestone. If there is no competition in that area for capacity the DNO should be allowed to choose to not enforce or to extend a milestone. The period is stated as 4 weeks from a letter. We believe the level of flexibility on each milestone should be agreed at acceptance. A longer period may be suitable for later milestones. Yes. Western Power Distribution already do this and it works very well. However, we are aware of instances of some DNOs withdrawing their offer without notification to the developer, e.g. if payment is late or a milestone is marginally missed. This rigidity is particularly unhelpful. Yes. supports the process as outlined. In particular, supports that the tenor of the process is to communicate to the customer that there is an urgent need for communication with the DNO and for effective follow up action in order to protect their contracted queue position. agrees that 4 weeks notice of the need for action is appropriate but would suggest that the letter should be supplemented by other, earlier attempts at customer communication, including . We support appropriate enforcement action. However, DNOs should maintain frequent and effective communication with customers and have an accurate idea of a customer s progress towards a project milestone before the need to send an enforcement letter might arise. We consider that it would improve the transparency of the process outlined for enforcing milestones if a definition of evidence which would be considered convincing were to be provided. 4 of 9 We welcome that a certain degree of grace is allowed to projects that miss the milestones for valid reasons outside of their control and that an opportunity to evidence this is provided. Yes. For clarity it should be specified that it is 4 weeks of letter receipt. (We assume that DNOs would contact the customer electronically as well as using recorded delivery). We think that this proposal is potentially too harsh. There should be more than one instance of communication made and these should include s and phone calls. In addition, once contact has been made, there needs to be consideration that some projects are more straightforward than others, and it is possible that this approach will only work for simple and straightforward connection offers. There needs to be an exception for those projects which are subject to other more complicated factors such as statement of works or modification applications as these change the correlating project progression factors for the customer Question 4: Do you agree with the principle of having milestones spaced out over the timeline for a connection project, where possible? Aidan Morris Frank Gordon Lightsource Renewable Energy REA Scottish Renewables We agree with the proposed process. The letter should set out a date on which the contract will be terminated unless satisfactory evidence is produced that the DNO s reasons for terminating are unjustified. This letter should also make it very clear how and when evidence must be presented. Yes however notification should also be provided so that as much time as possible can be afforded to the developers to progress the matter. In some circumstances, four weeks may not be sufficient (for example if information is awaited from third parties), so there should be some flexibility provided (within reason). Subject to our proposed amendments with respect to planning timeframes, we support this proposal. We agree that for most instances it is reasonable for the customer to have a warning once their milestone has elapsed and to be given four weeks to respond once they have received this warning. Yes. However, there is an administrative risks attached with this process. For example, many renewables developments are taken forward under complex ownership structures with multiple parties sharing interest. Therefore it is essential that all parties agree the most appropriate point of contact for such information at the start of the connection process and that both parties endeavour to keep this up-to date. Green Hedge Yes. Timelines should be realistic, though - some DNOs have required a planning application submission within three months of accepting an offer, which a) is simply not possible and b) would Niels Kronginger Energy require the applicant to ride roughshod over a best practice approach to engage stakeholders first Ruth Kemsley Wind Prospect Yes, as long as they recognise the specifics of the project in question (e.g. its size, technology, planning issues etc). Elaine Hanton RenewableUK HIE Yes. RenewableUK supports this view, however the spacing of the milestones as well as the differentiation between different milestone categories for the purpose of setting the initial counting dates should be consistent across all the DNOs. Yes, ensuring that there are regular, spaced milestones is important to ensure that stagnant projects are identified as early as possible. However, the milestones set need to be clear, with easily identifiable outcomes (that can be evidenced) so that the DNOs can effectively measure the progress of a project. Therefore, it may prove difficult to set regular milestones. Milestones should be spaced so as to reflect reasonably anticipated timescales for meeting each activity. This ensures that progress is being maintained throughout key stages of the project. Milestones for initiating/securing planning permissions or for obtaining Land Rights should be set from acceptance of the Connection Offer. If construction related milestones are worked backwards from the target date for commissioning then sensible dates must be set. Developers should not be incentivised to push target dates too far out and back-stop dates should be considered to prevent this. DNO s should not be forced to commit capacity over extended periods. Catherine Wicks ABO Wind Yes, we agree there should be milestones spaced out through to completion of construction as this allows the DNO to track progress over time.

4 Jill Cainey Electricity Storage Network Yes. The approach seems reasonable. Who will be responsible for providing the milestone times? The developer and/or DNO? What will happen if the developer doesn t provide milestone timings? Will the DNO impose milestone times on the developer? Will the milestone times be negotiated? This might generate considerable work for the DNO. If the developer is to provide the milestone timings, then should the milestone timings be provided as part of the pre-offer process? It should be possible for a developer to provide the milestone timings even if no specific date is set for connection, since the process of placing the milestones should have been already assessed as part of good project management practice. Dan Thomas Banks renewables Yes Nick Wood STA Yes, with the caveat that spaced out does not mean evenly spaced. We suggest the spacing could be based on project spend, so that developers can commit funding as and when needed to reach milestones, not in advance. When a connection date is contained within an offer letter it is often different to that which is later agreed, and so special attention must be paid to reference to the agreed connection date. It should also be noted that milestones will not be hit in the same order for every project. It is important to have more structure, but there should be no rigidity about hitting milestones in a set chronological order. Yes. proposes that there should be a maximum time period between milestones (or at least interim updates). An initial maximum limit of 1 year for progress updates (with the option to subsequently review) seems appropriate. We support the principle of having milestones spaced out over the timeline for a connection project where possible. These milestones need to be set appropriately to reflect the general development cycle for a particular technology and scale of the project (further comments provided in Q6). Critically, they should be applied on a consistent basis by all DNOs. Each DNO should and hold reviews at key milestones as appropriate. Yes, there should be a series of formal milestones set out throughout the connection project timeline. The milestones should provide critical review points enabling DNO to terminate or queue shuffle. We see the logic and support the approach that: In general, construction related milestones will work backwards from the target date while planning, design and TSO4 process initiation will normally work forwards from acceptance, where reasonable to do so. Yes, we agree this is sensible. The spread of milestones spaced out over the timeline for a connection project should take account of DNO and customer timelines. Frank Gordon REA Qualified Yes However, the date of accepting the offer MUST be the date of the full connection offer including any works defined under the Statement of Works (SoW) process and not simply the DNO s connection offer which, more often than not, has less meaning. Question 5: Do you agree with the principles on which DNOs will assess whether milestones have been met? Adian Morris Lightsource Renewable Energy Scottish Renewables All Milestones must be fair, reasonable and relevant. Additional Milestones should not be introduced solely to give an even spread across a projects timeline. We agree that it makes sense that for construction milestones to be spaced out and work backwards from the grid connection date. In relation to planning milestones, we agree that it makes sense to work forwards from the date of the grid connection offer; however, again we must stress that it is essential that the planning timeframes be increased. Yes. A simple timeline would be helpful in demonstrating this process. Niels Kronginger Green Hedge Energy Yes in principle though we are worried that DNOs will have too much discretion to establish what trying means. As mentioned above, it would be unreasonable to expect applicants to invest speculative funds into progressing a project further while NG or DECC have not made it absolutely clear what the rules for the project on commissioning will be Ruth Kemsley These have not been clearly-enough defined in the document to comment. There are also question marks about the transparency of this assessment, and the potential to appeal a DNO Wind Prospect decision. RenewableUK Yes Yes. High level principles should be set for DNO s to evaluate progress made against each milestone. This will mitigate the potential for a subjective approach and increase transparency and consistency of application. Catherine Wicks ABO Wind Yes, this principle will allow DNOs to establish if a project is dead or stalled with an identified route to a planning decision or construction, which is essential for a potential termination judgement. Due to the high risks to developers if there is a change in their connection offer, as well as the potential for DNOs to unfairly advantage or disadvantage a project, the threshold for burden of proof should be set at such a level that the connection offer is not changed or withdrawn without good cause. Additionally, as noted in the response to Question 3, there should be a system of appeal if it is unreasonable that the offer was terminated. Elaine Hanton Jill Cainey HIE Electricity Storage Network The consultation document states that the customer should 'demonstrate that they have tried to make progress and that delays are no fault of their own'. We would be concerned about applying this in what is a very complex development process, for smaller projects in particular. It is not clear why the customer should necessarily be penalised for being at 'fault'. There may be circumstances in which mistakes have been made or poor advice received but rather than a project being automatically derailed, we would prefer to see flexibility around the circumstances and consideration given to the type of developer. We do agree that it is important that generators are required to provide robust evidence to demonstrate progress, particularly when a milestone has not been met or the project programme is delayed. But equally, we believe that there are many reasons that all scales of project can be delayed at all stages of development and it does not follow that the grid capacity allocated to a delayed project should be immediately or automatically at risk. Yes. The onus should be placed on the developer to show there is a genuine reason for a delay. Dan Thomas Banks renewables Yes. The process needs to minimise subjectivity. Nick Wood STA Yes, Western Power Distribution already does this, and if DNOs do not adopt these principles there will be no penalty for capacity bagging and failing to develop. In general, connection dates in the DNO offers are normally excessively generous. However, this may be difficult to change as it is hard to be accurate on the connection date far in advance when putting in the original application. Yes. Customers should be required to provide evidence but the form of that evidence should be appropriate to the circumstances of that project. For example the planning procedures and associated documentation will vary with geographical location and scale of project. We agree that a customer should provide evidence that it has tried to make progress against the agreed milestones, and delays that arise not from a fault on the developer s part should be taken into consideration by the DNO when managing the contract. However, we have comments on the proposed evidence and timelines outlined in the milestones tables, which are documented in our answers to later questions.

5 Yes. The DNO should also be in dialogue with the customer discussing the progress of the project by both parties on a regular basis (6 monthly basis minimum). Where a cause for concern is identified regarding the customer s ability to hit the next milestone this can then be identified and managed as soon as possible. Yes, we agree, in principle. This approach should be applied carefully, as we can easily imagine where there may be complications, particularly when the customer is reliant on external factors. These circumstances are frequently not foreseen (by definition) and are not always straightforward. We therefore suggest a not overly prescriptive application of the criteria for milestone completion. Frank Gordon REA Yes there do not seem to be many other options for managing the process. Question 6: Do you agree that for a milestone on planning, the two simple categories of wind and non-wind are sufficient? Adian Morris Lightsource Renewable Energy Milestones should be drafted in such a way that the assessment of whether it has been met is not subjective. The fact that the introduction to Question 5 talks about a DG Customer being able to demonstrate that delays are no fault of their own immediately causes concern as the question of deciding who was at fault could very well be subjective. Yes, we agree that the developer should only be penalised when delays are their fault and should have the opportunity to respond and provide evidence where it is not. Scottish Renewables Yes. These categories are not appropriate. No application is the same. The timeline for the development process is impossible to determine in advance. Factors which influence it include: Planning issues: extended planning process due to specialist reports required (eg environmental surveys which can be required for simple Non-EIA applications and can only be carried out at certain times of year, constraints in resourcing for specialist reports which are dependent on certain specialist and ratre skills), delays in the appeal process due to insufficient resources in the Inspectorate, delays and adverse decisions at all stages due to Politics conflicting with local and national policy and case law, speculative JRs from interested parties. Land owner issues which delay completion of the option to lease: probate, land owner intra-family disputes, mortgagee consent, resolving unregistered titles and finding original title documentation Changes to regulatory regimes & macro economics which delay financial close (eg changes to RO, FIT, delays in CFD auctions, changes to LECs, proposed changes to TRIADS, BSUOUS),changes imposed by EU eg changes to Minimum Import Prices, changes to Euro/GBP exchange rate, changes to interest rates, Ben Cosh TGC Renewables Electricity Storage Jill Cainey Network Not relevant to electricity storage and consultation is needed with electricity storage stakeholders. Catherine Wicks ABO Wind No comment. Ruth Kemsley Wind Prospect No, because the planning requirements for non-wind technologies vary hugely. This is a gross oversimplification. No. We wish to point out that there are other technology types which have different needs and timetables to wind such as marine and tidal which may not comfortably fit within a generic nonwind category. We ask that consideration be given to the needs of these types of connection requests within connection queues, such as the length of time which funding and planning may take RenewableUK to achieve for developing technology types. The available categories should be kept to a minimum for ease of application as most technology types will undergo the same planning submission process. It is generally accepted that wind technology may be subject to a more onerous consultation process and that a reasonable extension to the timescales would be appropriate. Consideration should be given however, to any unintended discrimination between generation technology type and associated market distortion. James Hadfield Peel Energy We disagree with this categorisation, for example biomass projects can take longer than wind schemes to progress and large solar projects can be equally as challenging as wind. There is and will continue to be a wide variety of project types with their own issues that enter the grid connection process and they must be treated equally and fairly. Therefore, we consider that each generation project should be involved in setting the milestones to meet the connection date. We do not believe that the milestones should simply be mandated on a generic size/type of Elaine Hanton HIE generator. We are not convinced that two categories are sufficient, a pumped storage hydro scheme may have a planning period as long as a wind project. The planning period may also depend on Dan Thomas Banks renewables whether the decision will be made locally or by central government. Green Hedge Niels Kronginger Energy No - there is no reason for special rules for wind projects. Connections should be technology-neutral Yes (it was suggested that there could be one for storage or anaerobic digestion given the different specifications of such projects, though it was felt that this would be over-complicating the Nick Wood STA system) understands that the ENA is attempting to find a balance of definitions that are useful but which are not so detailed as to be burdensome or confusing. We support the concept of simplicity and the efforts to just display two categories noting that the over-riding principle is to align with the applicable planning rules and for the milestone periods on planning to be proposed in consideration of these rules (as they may change from time to time). However, the title of a category as non-wind, given that it could cover everything from solar to conventional fossil fuel to wave and tidal, is likely to engender many emotive responses please consider instead two categories of indicative timescales (non-eia) and indicative timescale (EIA) in keeping with your proposals for the planning submission milestone. We also suggest that the ENA should provide comfort that these guideline periods will be kept under appropriate periodic review. We recognise the desire to simplify the categories to reduce the number of permeations on milestones. We do not however regard the two simple categories of wind and non-wind (even if further split by voltage) as likely to deliver optimal outcomes. We do not believe that the consideration of all other technology types in one simple category of non-wind takes into account the great diversity of the various generation technologies. We do not consider that such an overly-broad categorisation of project technologies is in keeping with the principle cited in the consultation that [m]ilestones and associated specific time periods should be appropriate to the size and technology type of generation. With regard to potential differentiation by voltage, we recall that a low voltage project in a sensitive area may require as much or more pre-application consultation with the community, local planning authority and Statutory Consultees as an extra high voltage project in a less sensitive area. The DNO should be able to terminate the contract if the customer is unable to demonstrate significant progress towards a milestone, or evidence of a solution to achieve the milestone within a reasonable timescale. No. The wind category works, however the non wind category is currently specific to solar developments. We advise to split this out into different generation technologies: solar, hydro, marine, geothermal, fuelled plant (biomass, gas, biogas, EfW, CHP) and storage. This is a concern to our members. Each technology is developed following different timelines and including all non-wind technologies in the same band is overly simplifying matters. For example, a large biomass or ACT plant could take several years to progress from initial grid connection offer to commissioning and therefore follow more closely the wind commissioning timeline. The non-wind timeline most closely follows that of solar PV, but as this is one of the fastest deploying technologies there is, cannot have such projects associated development timelines applied to other technologies in a blanket approach. In addition, certain technologies can take longer to progress through planning, for example contentious energy from waste plants and geothermal projects. We would suggest that there is a separate category for solar PV projects (that could follow the non-wind timeframes), and that all other technologies are assigned the wind timeframes in order to reflect the similar timescales associated with such projects. The categories could be renamed as indicative timescale and indicative timescale- solar to avoid confusion. Frank Gordon REA As such, the time periods should be kept under regular review by the ENA as well as the categories applicable to each technology. We have no strong opinions on this. As a successful developer of power generation schemes we are confident that planning permission would be an unlikely cause of a scheme not progressing at the appropriate speed. Perhaps larger schemes should have a separate category as well, although this is partly covered below.

6 Question 7: Do you agree with the principle that different sized projects require different milestones? Question 8: Do you believe that the size of a project is best indicated by the voltage of connection or would export capacity be more appropriate? Scottish Renewables No, we do not believe that the distinction between wind and non-wind is an appropriate one. Non-wind projects can also be complicated and even small projects can take several years to achieve planning permission. A more appropriate categorisation would be based on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is needed or not. No. It is our view that a simple wind/non-wind categorisation is insufficient. Further categorisation should be introduces to cover additional technologies such as biomass CHP, Hydro, etc. Scottish Renewables will seek to provide further evidence on this point. Ben Cosh TGC Renewables These categories are not appropriate. No application is the same. The timeline for the development process is impossible to determine in advance. Factors which influence it include: It is generally understood that larger, more complex schemes will take longer to progress. For example, it is likely that a single 500kW wind turbine will go through planning much faster than a 20MW wind farm. RenewableUK Yes. We support the differentiation of timescales by connection size, and we acknowledge the consideration given by the DG-DNO Steering Group to the increased timescale required by larger projects to achieve milestone goals. Ruth Kemsley Wind Prospect Yes, but it is not clear that a generalised approach is sensible; a project-by-project basis seems more reasonable. Catherine Wicks ABO Wind No, we don t believe there is a benefit to adding or removing milestones based on project size as a 20MW project is broadly similar in process to a 100MW project. Elaine Hanton HIE Yes, larger projects have more complex planning requirements, will often take longer to finance and to design and build. However, as above the milestones should be set in consultation with the generation project to ensure that the programme and milestones for each one is suitable and not simply arbitrary based on generic criteria. Jill Cainey Electricity Storage Network The ENA will need to consult directly with electricity storage stakeholders on the best approach for electricity storage. Dan Thomas Banks renewables Yes. Niels Kronginger Green Hedge Energy No comment Nick Wood STA Yes accepts that there is a broad link between the size of a project and the delay to achieving planning consent but would also highlight that the applicable planning rules for the scheme in question, which may change from time to time, are the key consideration. We support the principle that different sized projects require different milestones. Projects of different sizes face varying challenges and require different milestones. Differentiation would also be in keeping with the principle that [m]ilestones and associated specific time periods should be appropriate to the size and technology type of generation. Yes. Consenting timelines in particular correlate with the size of projects. Yes, different size projects should require different milestones much the same as the DNOs have different lead times for different sized projects. Yes, we agree that there should be different milestones depending on the size of the project as large projects take significantly longer in both planning and construction phases. Frank Gordon REA Yes For the reasons stated in the rationale. Clearly the applicable planning rules for the scheme in question, which are subject to change, are a key consideration. Scottish Renewables Yes. In principle, larger projects tend to take longer. However it is important to note there are instances where issues out with the developers control lead to significant delay. It is important that such events are recognised in the process and can be appropriately managed. Ben Cosh TGC Renewables These categories are not appropriate. No application is the same. The timeline for the development process is impossible to determine in advance. Factors which influence it include: Dan Thomas Banks renewables Yes. This seems to provide a pretty good correlation with project size. RenewableUK We take no firm position here, though we recognise that from an administration point of view the use of connection voltage as a discriminator may ease the burden on DNOs, who already discriminate connections based on voltage levels. James Hadfield Peel Energy No as one or two years for LV and HV wind is not enough to produce a full EIA, bird surveys alone take two years. Sometimes these will not be done in parallel with other studies, in case a constraint is unearthed during the survey. An extra year is required for each category and extensions for appeal should be immediate. Additionally applications to extend must be considered for complicated schemes. Ruth Kemsley No. Neither of these parameters really helps clearly identify the likely risks of delays or difficulty in progressing a project sufficiently for a standardised deadline to be identified. A project-byproject basis seems more reasonable. Wind Prospect Using a capacity benchmark could create some inequalities insofar that schemes falling each side of the benchmark could have exactly the same design requirements but have different milestones. Inequalities could also arise using voltage but on balance it is probably best to use the highest voltage of works involved (including reinforcement) rather than the export capacity, as voltage will generally provide a better indication of the size and complexity of the project and hence the planning requirements. Catherine Wicks ABO Wind We believe this decision should be left to the DNO so that they may categorise projects in a way that greatest benefits their network management requirements, however export capacity would seem the logical choice to indicate project size, whereas voltage level would be best used to indicate connection type. We consider that the categories of milestone should be set to align with thresholds that exist within the planning system for different types of development. Both voltage and export capacity should therefore be Elaine Hanton considered. HIE Electricity Storage Jill Cainey Network The ENA will need to consult directly with electricity storage stakeholders on the best approach for electricity storage. Export capacity is more appropriate. Voltage is almost irrelevant and makes little difference for planning timeframes. The export capacity should be used to determine the size of projects. Nick Wood STA Additionally, where voltage is to be used, the LV, HV and EHV categories should be clarified numerically (e.g. 11kV 33kV) as different DNOs categorise these differently. Green Hedge Niels Kronginger Energy No comment Yes. There are other factors that could be taken into consideration but accepts that voltage of connection represents a helpful but simple indicator of the size and complexity of a generation development. We have no strong preference between the two options. Frank Gordon REA We would suggest voltage of connection is an appropriate metric. Voltage would fit with DNO s categorisation with customers in general. We do not take a strong view on this, whatever is easier for the DNO to administer while ensuring consistent treatment across the UK. We believe that a combination of voltage level and size would be appropriate, as there will often be a correlation between the two. Larger voltage connections require slower milestones. Typically, they involve a longer period in the feasibility and design period in addition to longer lead time items and more significant funding. Export capacity can also be relevant. Once they exceed a certain export capacity projects require more complex permitting and more involved environmental considerations. These factors can add considerable time to a project.