Sub-deduct Networks Update

Jessica Jarvis

26th June 2014

Agenda

2

Executive summary

Customer approach

Case studies

Keele University

St Pancras Cemetery

Samlesbury Brewery

Phase one results

Phase two

Executive Summary

RIIO commitment to declare ‘off risk’ to all sub deduct

networks

National Grid aim to complete project in 3 years due to

associated risk

962 known sub deduct networks were identified at

GDPCR1

Following surveys in 2008/9 each sub deduct network

was assigned a qualitative risk score

Sites have been sub divided into three groups

Group 1 - 178 sites where during the 2008/9 survey no sub

deduct meter was identified

Group 2 – 742 sites where during the 2008/9 survey a sub

deduct network was identified

Group 3 – 42 complex sites which consist of high relative

risk scoring sites or sites owned by a National Body, e.g.

HM Prison, Ministry of Defence, Royal palaces

NetworkNo of sub-deduct

sites

East Anglia 37

East Midlands 114

London 239

North West 144

West Midlands 428

TOTAL 962

4

Customer Approach

Our approach to engage customers and provide them with ongoing service is:

A National Grid engineer will conduct a survey of each sub deduct network

Packs put together to provide the customer with further information and reference material

Central point of contact for all customer queries

Engagement with xoserve to ensure suppliers are kept up to date for billing reasons

Enduring process with xoserve implemented for sub deduct queries

5

Case Study – Keele University

22 sub deduct meters located in a residential area within Keele University

Residential area is no longer part of Keele University and owned by housing association

Engagement has been ongoing with Keele University to discuss options that are available, further engagement with the housing association is underway

Preferred option for National Grid and Keele is to engineer out sub deduct network as per the attached picture

This is an example of a site where the situation has changed since the installation of the sub deduct network, it effects a number of customers and further engagement is required.

Case Study – St Pancras Cemetery

6

Proposed solution was to run a new service to the sub deduct meter

Work would have been disruptive and only able to be undertaken on a Sunday

Further engagement with the customer revealed that there was no longer a requirement for the sub deduct network, therefore the meter was removed and pipework bridged saving time, money and disturbance

This is an example of where engineering work was required but the approach needed changing due to challenges.

Existing sub deduct meter was 500m from the primary meter

Customer did not want to formally adopt the network

Due to operational requirements the site could not be without gas

Case Study – Samlesbury Brewery

7

This is an example of a site that have been maintaining their sub deduct network as their own and have decided to formally adopted the network

Meeting with customer onsite revealed that they had been maintaining the sub deduct network as they believed it was their responsibility

One redundant sub deduct meter has been removed since our site survey in 2008/09

Further secondary meters had been added and the sub deduct network was still required

Customer decided to formally adopt the pipework and no engineering work was required

Phase One Results

8

The focus for year one was to concentrate on 619 sub deduct networks. This included all of Group 1 and Group 3 with the addition of the less complex sites in Group 2. These were identified by the risk score assigned following 2008/9 surveys

71% of planned workload was declared ‘off risk’

183 sub deduct networks remain at risk due to:

Access issues

Awaiting customer decision

Deferred due to site uncertainty

Re-engineering required by GDSP

Other e.g. Easement or consent to lay

49% of total population of sub deduct networks declared ‘off risk’ in year one

Group Total Jobs No SubRe-

engineer Req

3rd Party Jobs

Completed

% of Total Jobs

Complete

Group 1 196 147 19 8 173 88%

Group 2 381 109 153 43 136 36%

Group 3 42 0 2 27 27 64%

Total 619 256 174 78 437 71%

Phase Two

9

Phase two of the project commenced in April 2014

There are 518 sites made up of the more complex sub deduct networks of group 2 and the 183 sites carried over from 2013

‘No access’ issues to be addressed by consulting Land Registry for proprietor information

Further engagement required with customers who are yet to make a decision

Network WorkloadEA 10EM 58NL 115NW 81WM 254Total 518