All Energy Industry Council
22nd October 2020-Via MS Teams
In attendance:
Chris Starkie - New Anglia LEP
Katie Snell - New Anglia LEP
Andy Paine - Vattenfall
Simon Gray - East of England Energy Group
Julian Munson - New Anglia LEP
Kirsty Adams - Scottish Power Renewables
Maxine Narburgh - Greater South East Energy Hub
Stuart Smith - People with Energy
Konstantinos Chalvatzis - UEA
Paul Warmington - Suffolk County Council
Johnathan Reynolds - Opergy/ New Anglia LEP
Bill Cattanach - Oil and Gas Authority
Martin Dronfield - James Fisher Marine Services
Ian Pease - Suffolk County Council/Orbis Energy
Tom McGarry - EDF Energy
Rich Mclean - West Norfolk College
Roberta Wilner - Norfolk County Council
Luke Wainwright - National Grid ESO
David Glason - Great Yarmouth Borough Council
Mark Goodall (Chair) - Aker Solutions
Shan Lloyd - BEIS
Guests:
Luke Wainwright - National Grid ESO
Apologies:
Graham Hacon - Worley
Stuart Rimmer - East Coast College
Vince Muspratt - Norfolk County Council
Andrew Harston - ABP
Sheila Oxtoby- Great Yarmouth Borough Council
1.
Welcome from the Chair
Actions
Mark Goodall (MG) Opened meeting, received apologies, and then thanked Patrick
Phelan (PP) for being EEEGR chair for last five years and who is standing down this
year with Martin Dronfield (MD) then taking over. PP has also offered his
resignation and standing down from the AEIC from immediate affect
The Regional Recovery plan (RR) circulated by Rob Bush (RB) ahead of the meeting
RB to
with all comments being sent back to Katie Snell (KS) but more detail in the
circulate KS
conversation, more details to be covered later in the meeting.
to compile
responses
2.
Recap on minutes and actions, subgroup
(MG) Recent meetings with National Grid around Rio2 consultation with AEIC
members Andy Paine (AP), Martin Dronfield (MD), Simon Gray (SG) and Mark
Goodall (MG). Purpose - To get a better idea of challenges and how the AEIC
can support. MD has drafted a letter to OFGEM but is wating on AP for some
detail
AP, MG, MD,
and SG to
(AP) Letter drafted to National Grid ESO, waiting feedback firm SNS 2020, and
finalise letter
Luke Wainwright’s, NG ESO, presentation. The small work group of P, MD,
ahead of 28th
MG, and SG will finalise the draft and send before 28th deadline.
October
RB to change
last minutes
(AP) Small change in minutes. Will liaise with (RB) to get this amended
Jonathan Reynolds (JR) Informed to council that he and other LEP
representatives had earlier met with Nadim Zahawi, BEIS minister. The meeting
looked at the green recovery, Oxford and Cambridgeshire Arc and New Anglia
Region and included the cable challenges, utility infrastructure mapping
generally in terms of pipelines, cable substations, the big picture and how this
relates down to some of the local transport infrastructure for EV. This was
second meeting and there is general interest in our region and is aware of
issues stated above and is very keen learn more. But we need to have more
local and regional engagement. These elements could feed into the letter being
drafted and JR happy to input if and where needed, to offer a complimentary
input into it.
(MG) Had the opportunity to speak to the LEP board to discuss some of the
challenges being faced i.e. cable routings and sub-station locations, offering a
very frank viewpoint on those organisations that are in opposition, to some of
the region’s major energy projects.
(SG) Had a really positive meeting with Graeme Cooper (GC) from National Grid
who is the Eastern project manager. NG want to understand how they can
engage more with stakeholders in the region. They have a number of
challenges ahead to reach the government’s 2040 target.
(MD) Laid out how acutely the challenges within region and also within NG
who want different things to be targeted. (GC) was very clear that some form
of sector group would be key this and (MD) thinks it should be this council that
provides platform.
(MG) action for next meeting is to invite Graham Cooper to the December all
RB to
energy industry council meeting
arrange GC
to present at
next meeting
(AP) Enquired to see if National Grid ESO and National Grid are working
together and if they are discussing the challenges, are they working together to
get an answer or are they working independently? (MD) Responded that they
are but there are some internal differences as to what each part of NG sees as
the top priority.
RB to make
Tom McGarry (TG) Highlighted a minor change in minutes, RB to liaise to make
corrections
those changes.
on previous
minutes
(TMG) Would like to place on record EDF’s thanks for, SG at EEEGR highlighting
the critical project points for Sizewell C and EEEGR’s continued support for the
project and writing to the government pushing the project forward.
Simon Cheeseman (SC) Highlighted the East’s real issue with energy
curtailment and how it's time the government actually comes forward and
supports these areas with plans and initiatives to try and mitigate that as much
as possible. Looking at strategic solutions which would then be filtered out
through the regions.
(SC) pushed a point back to JR asking whether BEIS is looking at this at a
strategic level. In response, it was no, however it is a changing environment,
and more focus will be put on transmission infrastructure connectivity.
(MG) action from last minutes was for Chris Starkie to speak to the offshore
wind growth partnership people at the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult
however unsure if this conversation has taken place yet.
(JR)The letter of support for the SuNRISE coast project is being drafted and will
JR to
be sent out to all stakeholders for support in the near future.
circulate
draft letter
(MG) Enquired to the council to see if anyone managed to attend the New
Anglia LEP Restart Festival which took place on the 29th and 30th September.
Julian Munson (JM) gave an update to say that it was well received with a good
uptake and that all content was recorded and is available on the LEP website.
The LEP will be very keen to conduct this again in the future as it worked so
well.
Sector updates
Oil and Gas
Bill Cattanach (BC) OGA, provided an update on Bacton as a potential energy
hub. Numerous stakeholders including the OGA, OGTC, EEEGR and Hydrogen
East are all looking at Bacton and its future role. The OGA are launching a study
and will be short listing consultants to carry out the study on Bacton to be
completed early in 2021. These will then be made freely available and
hopefully a public forum if COVID-19 restrictions allow. Bacton's role is
essential in the hydrogen environment with blue and green hydrogen
production. This would include UK's hydrogen usage but offer the potential to
ship across Europe
His second point was the perceived lack of activity in the SNS, as a result of low
oil and gas price and the impact of COVID-19, which has led to almost all
operators deferring projects or cancelling them and that we are now heading
towards a cliff edge, there's a real concern of many people being made
redundant in Q1 2021.
(BC) is confident of an upturn in activity however there will be a shortfall in
resources to fill those jobs. OGA are taking this very seriously they have written
to all operators to see if any deferred projects can be brought forward in
working with the partners in working with the supply chain just to create some
impetus and activity.
(BC) Third point was to highlight that on Wednesday 28th October the OGA will
bring together 22 operators at CEO level to present a couple of case studies to
show real examples of operators working with the supply chain to bring
forward projects and to use this to inspire operators to do the same. The aim is
to stimulate some activity and help for supply chain that is desperately needed
they will also be promoting well plug and abandonment, however, this a
greater challenge as when money is tight decommissioning in these areas is
seen as discretionary spending and therefore not needed and deferred.
(MG) In response to BC That it was disappointing to see sector’s supply chain
struggling and that ultimately the operators needed a fully ready supply chain
to be present as when operations resumed.
(JR) In response to BC and MG. The LEP met with Oil and Gas UK about 10 days
ago to specifically talk about SNS representation as part of the North Sea
Transition sector deal. It is understood that the six headlines, which are
variations on the Industrial Strategy themes, focus on decarbonisation. But
apart from that there was very little point in the regions engaging in the sector
deal because the proposals were still being firmed up and it was not
appropriate at that time to open up discussions with the regions. So there are
bits of information with Oil and Gas UK around the deal particularly, and there
is another meeting with, JR, SG, and RB on 3rd November with Mike (Tholen)
and colleagues from Oil and Gas UK to understand exactly where they are with
the sector deal and start providing some real input from the LEP.
BC suggested contacting Sian Lloyd-Rees (Aker Solutions) to assist with the
MG, BC to
above. Sian is the Board member on OGUK representing the supply chain.
take points
Action
raised and
move offline
Offshore wind/OWIC
(AP) The CFD round 4 has been delayed late 2021, equating to a 6-month
delay. The reason may well be due to facilitating a number of projects, against
a much higher cap, there's a risk as projects are staying the same, so it's
effectively squashing up the front end a little more, which is obviously implies a
big risk. It will also mean future rounds are also delayed as they tend to be two
years apart.
Sector deal refocussing on local content once more, Kwasi (Kwarteng) has
called a meeting on how this can be supported more. There is a belief that a
number of supply chain plans that have been produced have not delivered on
their promises, but this offers developers another chance to revisit these and
place greater scrutiny into the local content sections in the run up to round 4.
The seabed leasing round, also called round four, will also be delayed until
early 2021 from Q4 2020, no real reason as to why from Crown Estate.
(AP) The grid review is taking our attention - Luke (Wainwright) NG ESO to
discuss later.
(AP) OWIC is expecting to announce a new chair - name not confirmed yet.
P’s hope that the incoming chair will offer reinvigoration and momentum into
OWIC to the Sector Deal Work.
Nuclear
(TMG) Focussing on Sizewell C rather than Hinkley as there is more going on
here, many may be aware the development consent order (DCO) application
was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in May of this year and was
accepted in June. Which has allowed the project to move forward in July to
what's called a Section 56 notification period, this allows local people and all
the statutory stakeholder groups to have the opportunity to review the
application and send their relevant representations to the planning
inspectorate ahead of the examination period, to raise their key concerns on
the project, as well as the part they like.
(TMG)The responses from the Local Authorities has been to give a clear
indication that they would like to see certain changes made. One of the key
advantages of once this particular point in the project is to get far more
engineers involved than planners in the project. The potential upturn is that
solutions have been found to some of the issues raised by the Local Authority.
This has led to 14 material changes to the proposals being identified and in
mid-November, EDF will go out to a period of public consultation for 30 days
on these changes. These relate to transport, environment, and water. Around
the key point of transport is that EDF are finding ways where EDF can maximize
more of the use of rail and sea deliveries and reduce the number of HGVs that
will be required to deliver materials at peak construction times. TMG would
hope al AEIC members would input into this.
(TMG)The noises from Whitehall are positive so far and EDF is expectant of the
government’s Energy White paper to lay out how financing will work for new
nuclear schemes. JR has referred to the green recovery plan as well. EDF also
believe that nuclear will be will feature within the recovery plan.
(TMG) In relation to supply chain skills, the Sizewell consortium, which EEEGR
is a member of. A memorandum of understanding has been signed with the
north of England, with LEPs and MPs and others in the north of England.
Wales will be next. These will scope out on the learnings from Hinkley and
what we anticipate in the way that UK content can be broken down and what
the value of the project could be to those regions. There is a target to level up
from government, projects of this scale, regardless of where they are located,
can help with that. EDF are working on the memorandum of understanding
internally to present to the LEP, politicians, Chambers and EEEGR etc. EDF are
keen to sign a more detailed memorandum of understanding, as the Sizewell
consortium, with the East of England to clearly scope out precisely what EDF
think East of England content will look like in the Sizewell project.
In terms of the apprenticeship creation for the for the Hinkley Project, EDF are
over halfway to the original target for the number of apprentices working on
site with over 650. In response EDF have increased the target for Sizewell to
1500 for the project.
(TMG)Work is starting with some of the Tier 1 suppliers to start recruiting
apprentices from the East of England to work at Hinkley Point C and to build up
their skills so they will be hopefully ready to be in a position to start work at
Sizewell in 2022.
The regional recovery plan. Energy task group update
Chris Starkie (CS) provided an update on the regional recovery plan. Note from
Shan Lloyd (BEIS); BEIS will be refreshing the industrial strategy over the next
few months. It would appear the Energy White paper is imminent, form earlier
discussions with NZ.
(CS)Also made a point to the Minister, about UK content suggesting we should
be enforcing it rather than just being a good idea for offshore wind farms.
(SL) In response to questions over Whitehall working in silos BEIS have
appointed a Head of Place, this is going to be a key civil servant. There is one
for the East of England, which is Stephen Jones, who works in the cities and the
growth unit. He is aware of this council. His specific role is to work across the
whole of Whitehall to tackle any big issues that the area is facing. SL has
flagged energy sector and infrastructure as a key issue in this area.
(CS) The LEP has published a Norfolk and Suffolk wide restart plan as the first
phase of a recovery plan in the summer, built upon the “Pillars of Productivity”
from Industrial Strategy to include a section on people, section on business
environment, section on innovation, section on place, a very important section
on infrastructure. There is also sectoral focus as well, with Energy having a
substantial section. Building on the Economic Strategy and our Local Industrial
Strategy, which has clean energy and clean growth as the golden thread.
(CS) Restart Plan relatively new, around four months old. It outlines the main
interventions that the LEP and partners want to make, around innovation,
business support etc. It captures the interventions that have been made
locally, but also have been made by central government, including financial
support of businesses and the furlough scheme. The LEP was very clear that a
set of new interventions are needed whilst the previous ones are still working
through the system.
(CS) Restart progress update; it's a complementary plan which sits alongside
the original plan, highlighting what's happened in the last four months Includes
some interesting stats and data about redundancies, jobs, and job seekers,
furlough figures etc. Includes updates on the interventions that have been
agreed and what impact they are having.
(CS) Would welcome feedback when the council has seen the document, RB
sent it out and feedback should be sent to Katie Snell (KS). Feedback will then
be presented back to LEP board in November.
(MG) had quickly scanned the document and noted the amount of furloughed
staff in the energy sector was stated to be 124. Which he thought was
staggeringly low from his own experiences within the energy sector alone.
(CS) in responding, indicated that this figure could be more as SIC codes were
used to pull the stats together and there may well be some companies that
would not have been captured here, but would have been in other reports. But
this feedback was noted and useful.
(MG) Requested if there were means to gather more accurate stats to give a
proper focus on the impact on energy sector companies and its supply chain.
Julian Munson (JM) One of the actions from the last meeting of the council was
to establish a small task and finish group to work with LEP. JM wanted to thank
the people that have been involved. Comments from this group have been fed
into the plan as well. The draft plan should be available next month to share
with the council for their feedback and comment. Which would then hopefully
get signed off by the LEP board towards the end of January. JM acknowledged
that the work of those people and also people like Andy Holyland from the
catapult that's also fed in and been doing an excellent job.
Subgroup updates
BWCER
(RB) Report provided by Andy Holyland at the end of these minutes
Capability Matrix
(RB) It was requested that a scoping document be developed with input from
RB to get the
the capability matrix subgroup for input in order to scope and identify what is
panel
existing in our region and what considerations need to be given for a matrix.
selected and
Once the subgroup is happy with the scope (no further comments to add) the
meet before
next phase will be to pull together a small group from the council (6) and to get
next full
the three projects to briefly present their project or platform. This is the first
council
step; the panel will then decide on which they feel is a preferred model and
meeting
will present their findings at the next full council meeting date TBC.
(MG) Was pleased to see some movement and pressed home the importance
of getting this panel convened asap.
Cohesive Marketing
Ian Pease (IP) introduced Simon Price (SP) from Production Bureau to provide
an update on the EEEZ rebrand and to align with the AEIC ambitions for a clear
and consistent messaging
(SP) Presented to the council. Slides attached.
(MG) Thanked SP and IP for the presentation and enquired if there were any
areas that SP had been struggling with in finding the right information?
(IP) Responded that AEIC meetings and the Energy Task group and others were
RB will get
extremely useful forums to gain information that would feed into this
the
particular project. However, there is still some information need for O&G.
information
from the
OGA to assist
IP
Maxine Narborough (MN) The SE Energy hub would be more than happy to
IP and MN to
feed in a bit more on the area where you've got the onshore renewables, but
discuss after
still thinking about the broader agenda in terms of distributed generation,
the meeting
energy storage, energy efficiency, decarbonisation of heat and transport.
(MG) Asked SP if there was a particular message that he wanted from this
group?
(SP) In response; as an outsider to the to the sector and coming at it from a
creative marketing position, the information is there. However, it’s more about
the priority of messaging, because the one thing that Production Bureau has
recognised, within this project, is the breadth and depth and the complexity of
the audience, the subject matter and the number of stakeholders involved. It is
about making sure that we have the right information for any specific
audience. SP believes that this is still the priority and to make sure they are
aligned to what everybody else is saying.
Rich Maclean (RM) From an Academia perspective its vital they have the
opportunity to post the right information, for developing skills etc. Transition
to Net Zero is one of our vision statements for supporting that. Keen to have a
conversation on how best to market this both internally and externally.
(JR)How will this new work to refresh the brand identity link with the Norfolk
and Suffolk Unlimited place campaign, the brand we're using for the Local
industrial strategy positions ourselves as the UK's clean growth region. How we
do make sure that whatever comes out of this work is compatible and supports
Norfolk and Suffolk Unlimited because that is the place-based campaign?
(SP) There needs to be that conversation, to make sure that we are constantly
aligning those messages that we're supporting, and those messages are being
supported because that reinforcement is critical. It goes back to the point of
making sure that we are prioritising the same message so that audiences are
hearing the same thing.
(IP) In terms of what the brand looks like and whether Brand X has a place
within it. As the conversation continues it would appear that we we're moving
away from the EEEZ model to more of a less place-based brand. So, it will
comfortably sit alongside Norfolk & Suffolk Unlimited and EEEGR and the sort
of stakeholders that we've got within the region.
(JR) Originally went from the East as a regional campaign to Norfolk and Suffolk
JR and IP to
Unlimited because the East wasn't focused enough on our local place. Whereas
have an
offline
Norfolk and Suffolk Unlimited is very clear in terms of the place that we're
conversation
supporting.
on this
subject
(SG) East was quite useful, handy in terms of including Lincolnshire and Hull
possibly, useful way of bringing in others. Whether we ever extend the brand
to our colleagues in Essex and East was certainly useful for that whereas
Norfolk & Suffolk Unlimited does not include Essex. EEEZ has been something
that has been marketed for many years, with some recognition. Has it ever
been measured before we abandon it? Do we know EEEZ has not worked?
(CS) The East is not what will be going forward with. It has to align with Norfolk
& Suffolk Unlimited otherwise the board will reject it. Part of the problem with
the East is precisely that. Lincolnshire and Essex are not our, (LEP) area. By
diluting the edges, we end up with the East being linked to Cambridge and
Essex etc. We're not a membership organisation that's trying to attract
members from other parts of the country. The investment that has been put
into Norfolk and Suffolk Unlimited means that any EEEZ rebrand must fit into
this.
(MG) It perhaps feels time to move away from place, and the discussion that
we just had leans me to move away form place and focus on purpose and
something that really solidify what we're trying to do, as opposed to just trying
to put a boundary around it.
(MD) Can see both Simon’s and Chris’s arguments, MD sees conflict around
what the region is on a regular basis, his role as regional offshore wind cluster
which isn’t reflective of Norfolk and Suffolk its reflective of the East of England,
goes back to the sector deal in the way that the sector is split up with clusters.
It’s quite difficult in an environment where you're faced with a conversation
like we've just had, I think the best thing that we can do is move away from a
place descriptor, because it gives us a little bit of flexibility and it will absolutely
take away this debate about what do we do? What do we stand for? Where
are we? It absolutely underpins CS message. People like MD with a cluster hat
on and SG with a trade association hat on, do you need that flexibility in the
brand?
(CS) The geography is a problem. But when referring to Lincoln which is linked
to the Midlands engine, that area has it’s own branding and own identity. The
other point to make is that it would appear that Humber has got its act
together. But there is a name that's associated with it and its region. Our
challenge that regions stakeholders have different names for our area. So, the
idea of not having a location, makes sense because it does then sit alongside
the Norfolk and Suffolk Unlimited.
(MG) Thanked SP for his attendance today. The presentation was well
received, and a great start. Look forward to working with you as we progress
along the timeline from left to right a bit further. Hopefully, we'll see the
finished article before too long. Keep up the good work.
Luke Wainwright: System Operator, Offshore Energy Integration: Meeting the
target of 30GW by 2050
Luke shared slides - slides attached.
(SC) On your first slide, when you're looking at where the energy's coming
from, have you taken account of floating offshore wind for providing some of
that supply input, particularly floating offshore wind around Scotland and in
the Celtic Sea?
(LW). There is offshore floating wind in our design, offshore floating wind is
generally used more in the Mediterranean. This scenario indicates that the UK
wouldn’t need a huge amount of it but it's in there as part of the of the mix.
NG ESO haven’t gone into a huge amount of detail of exactly how some of the
wind will be produced, only because they are just trying to get at the very early
foundational stage of saying that an integrated approach is better than the
radial one.
(JR) Understanding from an East Anglia perspective, the volume of offshore
wind projects that are forecast to connect to our coast and your graphics,
really illustrate that very well, we’re saying there's the local engagement we
somehow need to strengthen, not just looking at the offshore transmission
review, but looking at some of the onshore connections and how it aligns with
other local planning.
Certainly, there's discussions happening with local authorities around transport
routes for electrification of vehicles, heavy goods, vehicles and other EV’s
hydrogen refuelling centres, water issues, so taking a much bigger cut, a
strategic review of utility infrastructure and then where the offshore
transmission connection add greater value. We have a lot of other interesting
onshore needs that we need to think about.
(LW) As far as the offshore coordination, some of the work that is being
conducted in the next stages of this project, which we're really beginning to
join up more of the steps in the process. So a developer will get that
connection and the onshore assessment of where it's best to land in a
coordinated way with other developers, with their seabed lease all at the same
time, so that type of coordination can at least then encompass things like
environmental considerations.
For example, you could envisage a world where an offshore hub is built in the
North Sea because the Crown Estate has said this zone of the North Sea will
now take a number of connections. It would all be coordinated with a utility
owned asset bringing it onshore. That could be a way you could implement
integration. We're just taking the initial steps of ensuring we've got the data to
say that integration could have a positive impact and cost reduction.
(CS) The physical number of connections coming into East Anglia, the
environmental impact, is why there are so many local MPs’ contacting NG ESO
and I am sure in time, this project will in time help resolve or minimise this
impact the LEP is supportive of that. The second point is we have energy
deserts in many parts of Norfolk and Suffolk, where it is unbelievably difficult
to get electricity connection, even though a main line is very close by. This
leads to frustration amongst communities and businesses who see this and
cannot get connected unless they are prepared a high price to do so, or that
there is no cabling near to them. So we do need a bit of an urgent discussion
about how the new offshore infrastructure that's coming in can actually be
utilised for onshore purposes as well. Which would diminish the negative
voices in these affected areas.
(LW) We are speaking to regulators and government about this as we're very
conscious of that, but it's extremely expensive to step down from 400 KV down
to very low voltage transformers and sometimes the business case is hard to
make. That is cold comfort, I'm sure, to those communities. The DNO’s have
been extremely supportive of the work we've done, but there is more to be
done, but not all this lies within NG ESO remit.
OFGEM still need to decide who will own and operate these assets and with
what regime they will be incentivised. LW advised feeding into Offshore
Network review to ensure that the above points were included. Feeding
directly into councils would also assist with this.
(CS) Enquired as to likely timeline.
(LW) We assumed in our work coordination could start 2025 but understands
that there some offshore projects that would start before this date, so a piece
of work is being conducted to look at the impact pushing back the coordination
the commencement to 2030. NG ESO are conscious that we don't want to stop
the longer-term projects, and getting the world ready for 40, 60, 70, and 80
gigawatts. There may be some technical options as well political pressure that
drives us forward, but NG ESO wants to be in the centre and seen as the
facilitator. We already know that there will two developers that between 2025
and 2030 who will be putting in a cable that comes very close if not crossing
each other. It clearly makes sense to have one route. But it must be decided
who pays for it and who owns it, NG ESO is working with OFGEM to formulate
those answers.
(MD) The unintended consequences of the delays to the projects that are
already consented to the points that you were just talking about for the
industry and for the supply chain in the industry would be savage. The
operators may well be able to live with it, but the effects on the supply chain in
the UK will be severe if there was now a drop off in new construction projects
by three, four, five years, which is what would need to happen for that
alignment. Has that been considered?
(LW) I don't think there has to be a drop off. NG ESO will honour all connection
agreements. NG ESO can be flexible in the first instance and if developers, that
have projects going through the consenting process prior to 2030, but wish to
be part of the coordination project, will be supported. However, a line in sand
will inevitably have to been drawn for coordination to happen. It will be looked
at a case by case basis and if the developer wants to have coordination then it
will be factored into the project.
(MG) The questions raised here are particularly pertinent in terms of time scale
as this region has the most major developments in planning.
(LW) Correct the East is relatively flat, with a shallow sea and good seabed
characteristics that will make this area of great significance to offshore
renewables for at least the next 30 years.
(MG) One question raised in the chat, from Paul Warmington (PW), do you
have the regulatory reforms coming in behind you from BEIS and OFGEM to
move this forward?
(LW) The industry as a whole recognises that this is one of the very large
questions that needs to be addressed now that integration needs to happen
and as quickly as it can, because there is massive value for consumers and
communities and everybody by moving this agenda forward.
(MG) would welcome regular updates from NG ESO to council, and thanked LW
for an excellent presentation. Before closing the meeting and thanking all who
attended
Date of next meeting
14th December, papers to circulated w/c 7th December