2017 operational review of Electricity Information Exchange Protocols (EIEPs)
5 Aug 2019
As a result of our 2017 Operational review of EIEPs, we have made amendments to EIEPs 1 - 12. The amendments to the EIEPs, excluding EIEP5A, will come into effect on 1 October 2019. The amendments to the EIEPs are available on the EIEP webpage.
See below for implementation memos and an EIEP1 version 11 example file..
Last updated: 5th August 2019
Last updated: 23rd September 2019
5 Aug 2019
As part of the implementation of the 2017 Operational review of EIEPs we are publishing a list of questions asked by participants. Please send any other questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
1. EIEP1 v11, business requirement 25
In EIEP1 v11, business requirement 25 states:
25. Traders must report the distributor’s price component code and delivery price in the EIEP1 files regardless of what they invoice the customer, except where a delivery price is unbillable at the time of customer billing and forces repackaging (e.g. where the chargeable peak period(s) required to bill a coincident peak demand charge is(are) unknown at the time of customer billing) in which case the trader may determine and report its own price code and repackaged price
Would this also include where a network only has time-block pricing available, but the retailer doesn’t have the interval data to allocate to the time blocks? If a retailer only has daily or monthly reads from an AMI meter then the Distributor’s time block tariffs are unbillable without repackaging (bundling).
It should apply only where information was required that related to future components such as coincident demand or peak annual demand that have not yet occurred.
It was not intended to include time blocking, as that information can be available in most cases the next day. The retailer could source that information and may need to modify its requirements with an MEP, or change the MEP, to meet the distributors pricing requirements.
2. Can RM normalised files contain negative consumption?
It depends what the “negative” value represents. Using an incremental approach, a negative value may exist, but using a replacement RM normalised billing methodology a negative value should not exist. Exceptions may be where the start read for a gaining trader was too high, and the gaining trader declares a negative value to pull the meter reading into synch with reality (which is it not necessarily the best way of doing it).
Note that negative values should not be used to indicate generation, there is an energy flow direction indicator in EIEP1 for that.
3. ICP days
The changes indicated on business requirement 39 and 40(b) on the EIEP1 marked up copy mention the provision of all ICP-days. Would you please clarify where the ICP days is to be provided in the file?
The term ICPdays = chargeable days. We were trying to say that the chargeable days provided to the distributor should match the ICP days provided to the reconciliation manager.
4. For regulated EIEPs, is version 11 effective for both file creation and file processing as of 1 October 2019?
As at 1 October, the regulated amended EIEPs are in force and should be used regardless of the date of the data. The only time a version other than version 11 can be expected is where both parties have agreed in their use of system agreement to use something else or a different version. Amendments to EIEPs do not override current use of system agreements.
5. "Day” unit of measure
What unit of measure is appropriate to use instead of the previous “Day” unit of measure in the EIEP2 file to reflect that the unit quantity is the actual number of chargeable ICP days rather than the “ICP” or “Con” count? We consider it would be misleading to change the existing UOM in the EIEP2 file from “Day” to “ICP or Con” as the actual unit quantity in the file is the number of “ICP Days” rather than the number of connections or ICPs.
“Day” has been excluded from the unit of measure table in both the EIEP1 and EIEP2 files so it must not be used as a valid unit of measure from 1 October 2019. With regard to what should be used in its place, “ICP” or “Con” does not appear appropriate in the EIEP2 file as the unit quantity field (or the chargeable days field for that matter) is not the number of ICPs or connections but rather the (number of ICPs) x (days).
“ICPDays” is a more of a natural fit for the unit of measure to represent the figure in the unit quantity but this is not a standard unit defined in table 3. However, the footnote in table 3 does make it clear that the list is not exhaustive and alternative units may be used if contained in the distributor’s price schedule. Also ICPDays is a commonly used and understood term across the industry (even appearing in multiple times in the EIEP1 file spec (para 32(b), 39, 40 (b), 42, 43(b)).