Responses to Mod_14_19 Working Group 20th February
Description: Responses to Mod1419 Working Group 20th February 2020 Committee Composition No changes to Modifications Committee 4 of the 5 respondents didnt want the committee to remain in its current form One respondent suggested retaining current
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Responses to Mod_14_19 Working Group 20th February" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Responses to Mod_14_19 Working Group 20th February 2020<br>
slide2. Committee Composition No changes to Modifications Committee 4 of the 5 respondents didn’t want the committee to remain in its current form
One respondent suggested retaining current form while allowing an extra step in final recommendation report to consult with industry to ensure RAs hear all of the industry’s views<br>
slide3. Committee Composition Addition of an independent, non-voting member None of the respondents supported this proposal
A couple of the respondents noted that no person selected could be truly independent
Another raised concerns over the sourcing and cost of this prospective member<br>
slide4. Committee Composition Addition of an interconnector member Voting
2 of the 5 respondents supported this, while another felt similarly but felt the method of determining IC representation needed to be further examined
2 of the 5 respondents didn’t support this, one felt that this would lead to an IC member voting on issues that don’t affect them Non-Voting
2 of the 5 respondents supported this
3 respondents did not, one noting that there wouldn’t be much difference between this and a role as observer<br>
slide5. Committee Composition Splitting suppliers and generators into subgroups (and potential expansion) Most of the respondents supported expanding the committee to 5 generators and 5 suppliers, including 1 dedicated renewable seat under generators
One respondent was unsure why it was necessary to increase the number of generator seats
Another wondered whether it is just independent renewables allowed<br>
slide6. Committee Voting Half of the respondents favoured a single transferrable vote system, while the other half favoured simple majority.
One respondent supported the addition of alternates for chair/vice-chair, one did not and one thought it would complicate matters if a split member was the chair.
One respondent supported making voting more transparent post-election, but not for the election of the chair.
Some respondents wanted to see code amended to be more clear on the process<br>
slide2. Committee Composition No changes to Modifications Committee 4 of the 5 respondents didn’t want the committee to remain in its current form
One respondent suggested retaining current form while allowing an extra step in final recommendation report to consult with industry to ensure RAs hear all of the industry’s views<br>
slide3. Committee Composition Addition of an independent, non-voting member None of the respondents supported this proposal
A couple of the respondents noted that no person selected could be truly independent
Another raised concerns over the sourcing and cost of this prospective member<br>
slide4. Committee Composition Addition of an interconnector member Voting
2 of the 5 respondents supported this, while another felt similarly but felt the method of determining IC representation needed to be further examined
2 of the 5 respondents didn’t support this, one felt that this would lead to an IC member voting on issues that don’t affect them Non-Voting
2 of the 5 respondents supported this
3 respondents did not, one noting that there wouldn’t be much difference between this and a role as observer<br>
slide5. Committee Composition Splitting suppliers and generators into subgroups (and potential expansion) Most of the respondents supported expanding the committee to 5 generators and 5 suppliers, including 1 dedicated renewable seat under generators
One respondent was unsure why it was necessary to increase the number of generator seats
Another wondered whether it is just independent renewables allowed<br>
slide6. Committee Voting Half of the respondents favoured a single transferrable vote system, while the other half favoured simple majority.
One respondent supported the addition of alternates for chair/vice-chair, one did not and one thought it would complicate matters if a split member was the chair.
One respondent supported making voting more transparent post-election, but not for the election of the chair.
Some respondents wanted to see code amended to be more clear on the process<br>