Supplier Failure - Advice re Supplier of Last Resort (SoLR) process not fit for purpose

PowerDev

Qyburn said:

PowerDev said:
 

To make a change to a query which is already reading all the Records in the Table involved is trivial.  The relevant fields in table are   Meter Point Allocation Number, Supplier assigned to same and Date that Supplier was assigned.  Hence anyone who has switched will have more than one record.  The current query only extracts the latest record and not that as at the last date prior to the failure of the Supplier whose Customers the extract is trying to find..  

On the face of it that seems a reasonable point. But what is the magnitude of the issue?  What percentage of the failed supplier' s customer base in fact switch away during the elapsed time between supplier failure and the query? I was with Neo when they failed (lost their licence) on 9th July 2022. Octopus made contact on the 11th so the query must have been run by then. I can't imagine many customers had switched away in those two days.

Peoples Energy (my Supplier C) actually did the same thing as Octopus when my Supplier A ceased Trading.  They sent emails to Supplier A's customers offering a Tariff.  All well before the SoLR process (to Supplier B  ) completed. 

All the Suppliers (and anyone else subscribed) will of course have seen the Daily OFGEM notices re Neo.  First reporting any transgressions against their Licence conditions and then the removal of their Licence and cessation of Trading.  Thus suppliers can of course interrogate the National Database to find out which Customers were with Neo and make contact and offer a Tariff if they switch.  Any such switch will be well before the SoLR process completes.

Octopus did indeed end up as the SoLR for Neo Energy's Customers but that was not confirmed by OFGEM until Septermber 7 2022.  Charging Neo Customers for Energy from July 9. 

So, Octopus contacted you well before the SoLR process got going.  As OFGEM first have to first send a request to find out which Suppliers are prepared to act as SoLR for Neo customers and under what conditions.  Including a declaration as to whether they will or will not cover any shortfall in Customer credit with Neo, when they receive payment from Neo's assets to cover same.   

Quite a lot of articles on OFGEMs website on handling the failure process. Including recovery of Supplier Failure Costs via the Standing Charge to all Customers (through Distribution Use of System charges as I cited earlier).

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/search?keyword=Supplier Failures

PowerDev

And to be fair, Switching had a very bad reputation in the early days from 1998, then dominated by the large suppliers.  With some pretty dodgy and incompetent actions.  Still issues in the last decade and may be continuing.  Mind you Commercial customers suffered even worse problems.   

PowerDev

(Removed by Forum Team)

(Removed by Forum Team)

As I told you, I knew how 91, 94 and 98 projects worked as regards Supply liberalisation.  And I cited the issues with the Suppliers, some with millions of customers at the start, handling switching from 1998 onwards including the registrations into the National database MPAN to Supplier ID table.  And the issues I'm sure discouraged a lot of Customers from switching frequently although the process improved with time and OFGEM intervention as regards the bad practices. 

Therefore as I said I don't expect each SoLR process, involving thousands of Customer switches, to be carried out instantly.  However, I would have thought the process could have been properly designed and reviewed against the risks (first seen in 2018) of unexpected Price hikes. To allow rapid post failure switching.

As the Settlement Change Administrator for the ESO under the Pool I had all the documentation on the First and Second Tier Meter Registration system changes as we had to watch the configuration of the Demand data we got from Pool Settlement (NGC ESIS).  Especially as the Meter configurations changed (1994) and to work out Customer Engagement.  Including learning from one of the Pool's IT consultants, who previously worked as part of the IT team on our Schedulers, how dial up Retail HHR metering and Non HHR Customer Profiling was configured. 

And I've lost count of the number of times I put entities in our databases to represent managed Customer Demand Reaction!!   Now represented under NETA, as I predicted in 1999, by Aggregator entities just representing the Variable elements.  So yes I can understand how the SoLR system works and its shortcomings under an increasing Retail Price elements situation.     

CSI_Yorkshire

PowerDev said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

PowerDev said:

QrizB said:

And your qualifications in the Energy Field are?

Are irrelevant to this discussion, as are mine or yours.

"Appeal to authority" is a common logical fallacy.

Knowlege of the process is entirely relevant to any discussion on same.  The SoLR process is unique, especially  as regards Administration where the Customer Energy payment Credits are protected and they are not just a normal 'creditor of the Company'.    

(Removed by Forum Team)

Another uniformed dismissive comment.  As I told you I knew how 91, 94 and 98 projects worked as regards Supply liberalisation.  As the Settlement Change Administrator for the ESO under the pool I had all the documentation on the Second Tier Meter Registration system changes as we had to watch the configuration of the Demand data we got from Pool Settlement (NGC ESIS), especially how the Meter configurations changed and to work out Customer Engagement.  Including learning from one of the Pool's IT consultants, who previously worked as part of the IT team on our Schedulers, how HHR metering and Profiling was configured.   And I've lost could of the number of times I put entities in our databases to represent managed Customer Demand Reaction!!   Now represented under NETA, as I predicted in 1999, by entities just representing the Variable elements.  So yes I can understand how the SoLR system works and its shortcomings under an increasing Retail Price elements situation.     

Neither the pool, NETA or BETTA, scheduling. HHR, profiling nor settlement have anything to do with the SoLR process.  To continue, neither does ASDP, STOR, FFR, TNUoS or the Cheviot transit.

Quoting obscure (at least to those outside the industry) systems and processes and Capitalising random Words does not support your argument.

Unfortunately, you have now discovered someone with the background to call you out on it.

PowerDev said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

PowerDev said:

QrizB said:

And your qualifications in the Energy Field are?

Are irrelevant to this discussion, as are mine or yours.

"Appeal to authority" is a common logical fallacy.

Knowlege of the process is entirely relevant to any discussion on same.  The SoLR process is unique, especially  as regards Administration where the Customer Energy payment Credits are protected and they are not just a normal 'creditor of the Company'.    

(Removed by Forum Team)

Another uniformed dismissive and irrelevant comment and we certainly dont know your qualifications for making such statements.  You say your or my expertise is irrelevant but then cite mine as a reason to ignore me!!  

To avoid confusion on this aspect, I was responding to your specific comment that "Knowledge of the process is entirely relevant".  You do not have specific knowledge of the process and, therefore, if there is a minimum knowledge requirement to participate in the discussion, you do not meet it.

I, however, accept that anyone can participate in an open discussion, and do not require a minimum qualification to do so.

QrizB

If we've all finished measuring bits of anatomy ...

... we seem to be on page 6 of this thread, and so far we haven't found anyone other than the OP who thinks the specific topic that he's wound up about is a major issue.

Perhaps we can let the thread die now?

PowerDev

CSI_Yorkshire said:

PowerDev said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

PowerDev said:

QrizB said:

And your qualifications in the Energy Field are?

Are irrelevant to this discussion, as are mine or yours.

"Appeal to authority" is a common logical fallacy.

Knowlege of the process is entirely relevant to any discussion on same.  The SoLR process is unique, especially  as regards Administration where the Customer Energy payment Credits are protected and they are not just a normal 'creditor of the Company'.    

So, as your career history is in transmission and scheduling through working for what is now the ESO, without any history of work for either OFGEM or a retail supplier (the two parties involved in the system) we can ignore your opinion.

Good to know.

Another uniformed dismissive comment.  As I told you I knew how 91, 94 and 98 projects worked as regards Supply liberalisation.  As the Settlement Change Administrator for the ESO under the pool I had all the documentation on the Second Tier Meter Registration system changes as we had to watch the configuration of the Demand data we got from Pool Settlement (NGC ESIS), especially how the Meter configurations changed and to work out Customer Engagement.  Including learning from one of the Pool's IT consultants, who previously worked as part of the IT team on our Schedulers, how HHR metering and Profiling was configured.   And I've lost could of the number of times I put entities in our databases to represent managed Customer Demand Reaction!!   Now represented under NETA, as I predicted in 1999, by entities just representing the Variable elements.  So yes I can understand how the SoLR system works and its shortcomings under an increasing Retail Price elements situation.     

Neither the pool, NETA or BETTA, scheduling. HHR, profiling nor settlement have anything to do with the SoLR process.  To continue, neither does ASDP, STOR, FFR, TNUoS or the Cheviot transit.

Quoting obscure (at least to those outside the industry) systems and processes and Capitalising random Words does not support your argument.

Unfortunately, you have now discovered someone with the background to call you out on it.

PowerDev said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

PowerDev said:

QrizB said:

And your qualifications in the Energy Field are?

Are irrelevant to this discussion, as are mine or yours.

"Appeal to authority" is a common logical fallacy.

Knowlege of the process is entirely relevant to any discussion on same.  The SoLR process is unique, especially  as regards Administration where the Customer Energy payment Credits are protected and they are not just a normal 'creditor of the Company'.    

So, as your career history is in transmission and scheduling through working for what is now the ESO, without any history of work for either OFGEM or a retail supplier (the two parties involved in the system) we can ignore your opinion.

Good to know.

Another uniformed dismissive and irrelevant comment and we certainly dont know your qualifications for making such statements.  You say your or my expertise is irrelevant but then cite mine as a reason to ignore me!!  

To avoid confusion on this aspect, I was responding to your specific comment that "Knowledge of the process is entirely relevant".  You do not have specific knowledge of the process and, therefore, if there is a minimum knowledge requirement to participate in the discussion, you do not meet it.

I, however, accept that anyone can participate in an open discussion, and do not require a minimum qualification to do so.

As you can see from my post I have been through the issue with the SolR process under Switching pre completion with discussions with the Supplier involved.  And I have the supporting background knowledge as to how the Supplier processes work from Market to Customer to understand the switching and billing process.   

Including the database which has to be updated at each switch as part of the the fundamental requirement to ensure that Wholesale Settlement calculates the correct demand against each Supplier Consumption Account at each Half hour to be compared against the Energy purchased to that Account for that half hour.   

Your assertions are meaningless and your attitude is disgraceful.   
All you keep repeating is the patronising advice from the Regulator which avoided them having to require the Supplier systems to properly handle Customers of a failing Supplier who switched before the database extract was executed.  BY simple change to the query to find which customers are on the failed supplier as at the date of failure and the next record of any supplier assignment after that date.  In the latter case they then know precisely the period for which they are SoLR and which supplier will give them final meter readings for the end of the period they supply the customer.

And one fundamental point about the Supplier processes.  Normal switching has to have all the Account and National Database setup in place before the date of the switch.  Thus the Supplier systems are set up in advance.  For an SoLR the process starts after the date of the Customer transfers so systems will have been set to handle that.  Further mods will be necessary to accommodate an following switch already in place but the systems are already able to handle retrospective entry.  

And in fact the extract from the National Database may be executed by the DNOs who are also involved in the process.

PowerDev

QrizB said:

If we've all finished measuring bits of anatomy ...

... we seem to be on page 6 of this thread, and so far we haven't found anyone other than the OP who thinks the specific topic that he's wound up about is a major issue.

Perhaps we can let the thread die now?

Because most customers treat OFGEMs advice as mandatory not a lot of them will switch before SoLR completes although there are two of us on this thread who did.  And a lot of people do not like switching anyway because of the issues I cited, especially in the early days from 1998.  Thus no one appreciates the issue and what it has cost them; including the other 349998 customers of my Supplier C.    

PowerDev

But again to be fair if a lot of Customers rapidley switched to Supplier E's fixed tariff, because of the risks of further Wholesale price hikes from September 2021, Supplier E will probably have stopped that Fixed Tariff offer earlier than they probably did.  Does not however excuse the fault with the National Database extraction or not cross checking same against the Customer list from the failed Supplier C.    

Mstty

Are you getting any positive traction on your views anywhere else? 

PowerDev

Mstty said:

Are you getting any positive traction on your views anywhere else? 

Just waiting to see my MPs approach to DESNZ.  He is rather busy at present so these things take time.  And any criticism of actions of the 'Executive' or the 'Emanations of the State' (Regulators, Quangos and NGOs) causes a clamp up and non specific rebuttal.