View
219
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended