Ofgem receives NESO preliminary report on electricity system events

There’s a reason the police go door to door investigating crimes rather than simply putting out an appeal for witnesses. For example, who can forget the great “Who Took the Last Doughnut?” case of 2007? The chief suspect denies there ever was a doughnut. His colleagues disagree. So you appoint some lawyers to investigate. The lawyers interview 28 of the 130 people working in the building. Mostly senior non-doughnut-eating people, naturally. They also send an email inviting anyone with information about the missing doughnut to come forward…. Three people respond. Excellent. Everyone else must know nothing about doughnuts. Meanwhile, there’s a nervous chap in the corner, staring at his shoes, with icing sugar down his shirt. Every time someone mentions doughnuts, he looks towards the chief suspect. A police detective might be tempted to have a quiet word with him. But not these lawyers. We shouldn’t make assumptions. He’s not on the interview list. And he hasn’t replied to the email. Box ticked! Someone suggests checking the telephone recordings, but apparently reviewing all of them would be rather onerous. Never mind that AI could help transcribe and search recordings for references to doughnuts. Instead, the lawyers examine the available documentary evidence. They discover empty doughnut bags, sugar on the suspect’s chin, and that the doughnut inventory was routinely overwritten without preserving earlier records. They also identify a workplace culture in which people are reluctant to discuss doughnuts. But crucially, no actual doughnut can be found. Investigation complete. Client is happy and invoiced. A job well done! Headline: “INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF DOUGHNUT.” Management celebrates its complete vindication. The nervous chap in the corner quietly wipes the icing sugar off his shirt. Of course, none of this proves who ate the doughnut. But there’s a difference between investigating where the doughnut went and producing a very expensive report confirming that you couldn’t find one. Particularly when the original allegation was that management had instructed everyone not to keep records of doughnuts. Sir Humphrey would have been proud. Which brings me to NESO’s response to the Eversheds investigation…

An other code modification that took 5 years to conclude; and in which Ofgem defends cost recovered from those who drive the cost. 👇

Today's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decision supports Ofgem's original decision to reject a proposal that would have shifted more unexpected electricity network costs from certain electricity generators onto consumers. The outcome reinforces the importance of evidence-based regulation and gives confidence that our decisions can withstand independent scrutiny. We will continue to take decisions in the interest of consumers and robustly defend those when needed. Learn more about the decision: https://ow.ly/CR9Z50ZYUKH

I have no particular dog in this fight and, for what it’s worth, I suspect Ofgem probably reached the right decision. But I’m slightly surprised by the triumphal tone of this announcement. The CMA may have dismissed the appeal, but it also identified factual errors and flaws in Ofgem’s analysis. And a lot of the argument in their favour appeared to be VAR style, “not enough to warrant overturning the original assessment” rather than always a ringing endorsement. Surely the appropriate response to independent scrutiny is not simply to celebrate having won, but to reflect on what could have been done better? I’m also not entirely convinced that publicly funded regulatory chest-thumping is the best use of resources. I can’t help wondering how Ofgem would react if a regulated utility responded to a similar finding in the opposite direction with quite the same level of self-congratulation. Regulatory accountability ought to work both ways.

📢 Self-build and transfer of transmission assets incoming 👇 Ofgem have just published a consultation on proposals that will allow customers to self-build and transfer sole use connection assets that connect their site to the existing transmission system. Some initial observations: ⚡Ofgem acknowledges that 'sole use' includes a GridCo model which is good news (us energy lawyers love a GridCo) ⚡New licence obligations proposed for TOs to facilitate competition and the TOs will also need to rapidly produce standard adoption agreements and technical standards ⚡The consultation includes proposals on the split of responsibility and risk between the connecting customer and the TO which is useful e.g. a 5 year defect notification period for the self-build assets is currently on the cards. New Planning & Infrastructure Act 2025 powers allow Ofgem to move at pace to implement the changes - the consultation closes on 13 Nov 2026 with the aim to have an outcome in Q1 2027.

My latest post looks at the quandary Ofgem has got itself into on Long Duration Electricity Storage, and what the options are from here. To be quite frank, I have a lot of sympathy for the pace at which Ofgem has been compelled to work on this process, but this has come with some drawbacks. If we're going to start buying portfolios of assets we need to be able to value that portfolio as a whole, including the locations of all the bits. https://lnkd.in/emtBW2R5

JUST IN: $WULF TeraWulf announces the expansion of its Muskie data campus to 1 gigawatt The second 500 MW phase is now planned for 2029 rather than 2030 https://lnkd.in/eRzikBuH

Existing heat network operators and suppliers are required to register their heat networks under the new heat network regulations by 26th January 2027. Organisations are encouraged to begin the process if they haven’t already. The first step is creating an account, after which heat networks can be added. 💻Access to the digital service and assistance can be found on Ofgem's website: https://lnkd.in/e5DWMKxC Ofgem has also published resources, including its Heat Networks Learning playlist on YouTube, to support organisations through registration: 🔗https://lnkd.in/ekWd_Epg #HeatNetworks

𝗛𝗣𝗕𝗖 𝟮.𝟬 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝘆𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗻-𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 Field tests in Sanya, China, conducted under tropical muddy conditions, found that LONGi’s HPBC 2.0 modules generated 2.03% more specific energy yield than the tested TOPCon modules under unshaded conditions. Under column shading, the difference increased to 14.96%. The results provide field data on module performance across two outdoor test scenarios. Explore the test setup and findings in our latest blog. Link in the comment. #LONGi #BackContact #BCvsTOPCon #SolarTechnology #CGC #PVTest

This week, we partnered with the Long Duration Energy Storage Council (LDES Council), RMI and the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry for a webinar on making thermal energy storage (TES) work for industry. HILT CRC’s Mitchell Burt joined Shubhra Thakur, Gadi Sharir, Kira Rundel, Ph.D., Giulio Lolli and Alexander Hogeveen Rutter to discuss what's needed to move TES from promising technology to practical deployment across the Asia-Pacific region. Mitch highlighted the scale of the industrial heat challenge, including the implications of electrifying large thermal loads (e.g. alumina refining), and the importance of assessing TES in the context of the whole industrial energy system. He also drew on HILT CRC’s 'TES for Industrial Heat' practical guide, including its step-by-step approach to assessing site needs, integration, infrastructure and commercial viability (scan the QR code in the screenshot below to get hold of the guide!). Thanks to the LDES Council and partners for bringing together industry, technology and policy perspectives on this important challenge. 📺 Watch the webinar recording at https://lnkd.in/eS-nKwY6