CSEP Data Assurance Performance Monitoring Capability
|05 May 2020||
09 Oct 2020
|Proposer||Wales & West Utilities||Impacted DSC service area||
Service area 10 (Previous Dec 18 – Mar 21)
Connected system exit points
|Customer Change Team Leaderemail@example.com|
Problem Statement 1
GTs and IGTs are currently notified of breaches in CSEP MAX AQ through a UK Link file format – (.CGI) – the .CGI file was designed prior to Project Nexus implementation, with a set of pre-agreed triggers being used to generate it based on the CSEP details reaching 85% of the CSEP MAX AQ. The .CGI file did not take into consideration related CSEP data that is needed to help IGTs and GTs to better understand, review and monitor the characteristics of each CSEP – examples of data that would prove beneficial for GT and IGT monitoring purposes is listed below:
· Nested CSEP Indicator
· Parent CSEP ID
· CSEP Hierarchy Level
· CSEP Level
· CSEP Connection Max AQ (provided by GT)
· Connection Date – as provided by the GT
In addition, whilst the .CGI file was developed to support monitoring of CSEP MAX AQs, the current Breach Figure of 85% is not suitable and does not support flexibility of GTs and IGTs to set their own appropriate levels.
Problem Statement 2
The CSEP Inconsistency Notification file (.CIN) was developed to alert IGTs and GTs to differences in the CSEP data that have been provided by the respective parties as part of the CSEP Creation and CSEP Amendment processes.
Whilst this notification remains beneficial where critical CSEP data items are inconsistent between IGT and GT datasets there are several data items that trigger the .CIN file which are not critical.
Where non critical CSEP data items trigger the .CIN it becomes difficult for GTs and IGTs to legitimately use this information to challenge and update their respective datasets. A list of critical CSEP data items are listed below;
· CSEP Post Town
· CSEP Postcode Outcode
· Number of ISEPs
· LDZ Identifier
· CSEP Exit Zone Identifier
· CSEP Connection Max AQ
· CSEP Connection Max SHQ
· Condition 16 Max AQ
· Nested CSEP Indicator
· Directly Connected CSEP ID
· Directly Connected CSEP GT Reference Number
· IGT Short Code
In addition, details about a CSEPs Nested Status, and details upstream of the any Nested CSEPs such as “Directly Connected CSEP ID” and “Directly Connected CSEP GT Reference Number” would prove beneficial in aiding data analysis and taking any remedial action regarding inconsistencies.
Problem Statement 3
It is currently difficult to obtain clear visibility of the validity and behaviour of CSEP AQ and SHQ data due to the information being provided through multiple files – in addition, there is no alert or warning where AQ data being provided by the IGT is inconsistent across a CSEP.
Problem Statement 4
There is a need to be able to easily identify and alert parties where default or invalid values have been populated in CSEP data items. Examples such as GT Reference Number being provided as ‘Default’ or ‘TBC’.
Impacted Customer Types
|Document title||Last updated||Type|
|CCR for 5164||20/May/2021|
|BER Data Discovery Platform - Drop 9||16/Jun/2020|
|XRN5164 - CP||05/May/2020|
Contact the Change Team
Need to get in touch with a member of the Change Team?
You can email us at: firstname.lastname@example.org and we'll get back on the same day between the hours of 9:00am to 4:30pm.