Agenda item

Mr Neil Madgwick (Head of Service Delivery, UKPN) was in attendance for this item.

(1)          The Chairman welcomed Mr Madgwick, who gave a presentation about the UK Power Networks.

(2)          There were three main aspects to UKPN’s work:

                                          i.    Keeping the lights on – ensuring the system was fit for purpose.

                                        ii.    Ensuring knowledge around local plans was up to date.

                                       iii.    Providing a service to customers who wanted to connect to the grid. Customers would state how much power they required.

(3)          Mr Madgwick explained that the South East was the area of the largest demand growth across the Country. The way power was generated was changing to become more decentralised, bi-directional, intermittent, hybrid and flexible. Customers were also able to self-produce their power with options such as solar panels.

(4)          Peaking power plants were very popular because of current government policy.

(5)          The use of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) was a huge growth area. UKPN forecasts had been underestimated by 27%. Some developers wanted to install rapid EV chargers at 50kW+, but Mr Madgwick explained that the power required to do that was equivalent to installing a 22-storey block of flats. Therefore their use had to be justifiable.

(6)          UKPN’s performance was rated by the regulator Ofgem. They considered a number of measures, including how many power cuts there had been. UKPN’s power cut performance had improved 42% since 2010/11.

(7)          Mr Madgwick informed members of the committee about the new single phone number to call in the event of a power cut (105). There was also a “Track My Power” tool online for customer use. The use of social media such as Twitter to report issues was being utilised just as much as traditional phone calls.

(8)          Special services were available to vulnerable/ priority customers in the event of a power cut. UKPN’s definition of a priority customer had developed over time, and there were around 1 million customers on the Priority Services Register at that time. The implementation of GDPR had added a number of challenges, but UKPN had partnered with South East Water and continued to provide support to customers.

(9)          Distribution Network Operator’s (DNO’s) were not incentivised to anticipate future developments, as they did not receive funding to make speculative decisions on where development might occur. However, UKPN ensured when it was replacing assets no longer fit for purpose, it installed larger ones to accommodate future growth. Customers were required to pay for connections when there was not adequate spare capacity.

(10)       UKPN had looked into areas where capacity was nearly at its limit. It had recently identified 25 sub-stations in specific post codes where this was an issue. They were working with other market participants to see if they could provide the additional capacity; for example, in two contracts had been signed with other providers in order to provide capacity during peak times. Mr Madgwick explained UKPN aimed to utilise the current network because it increased efficiency, reduced cost and created an income stream for customers.

(11)       Kent had significant constraints on its grid, and UKPN was working to unlock latent capacity.

(12)       A Member noted the huge pressure on District Councils to build more houses, and how this would impact the grid. Mr Madgwick commented that landowners were looking to reduce the average power requirement per house from 2.2kW to 1.5kW.

(13)       A Member questioned if there was a shortage of land for the infrastructure required to house sub-stations. Mr Madgwick explained that landowners and developers often did not appreciate the space required for sub-stations, and also landowners wanted to sell their land to commercial enterprises in order to achieve maximum profit.

(14)       When asked if UKPN interacted with other networks, Mr Madgwick explained that there was opportunity to share information and lessons learned at Local Enterprise Partnership meetings and at DNO forums.

(15)       Members requested some site visits in order to broaden their minds and see the issues first hand.

(16)       The Chairman thanked Mr Madgwick for his presentation and invited him to stay for the remainder of the meeting.

RESOLVED that Mr Madgwick be thanked for his presentation and for attending the meeting and that Members attend some site visits – the details of which to be determined.