 So, a few words, a few opening words from me as the work stream lead for flexibility for open networks, open networks is one of the key initiatives that bringing together all the network companies across transmission, including the system operator and northern island electricity and ESP to really look at some of the key issues on the optimum based smart systems and flexibility plan and all the other work around government and regulatory policy and get a common and standard way of delivering improvements in the, in the, in the short term, but also looking at some of the long term, longer, longer term issues. So, in flexibility, we are very much focused in how we can deliver liquid flexibility markets and standardized and common processes across, across transmission distribution within the next one on the years and immediate if you like improvements, we are building if you like the future from 2020 onwards and we have, we have a steering group where often embays sits and supports the steering of the project and we also have an advisory group, which has a quite wide range of stakeholders and provides input to, to the project in regular regular intervals. And, and criticize some of the comments on proposals and, and offers, if you like, additional ideas and a lot of the work that we are doing is stakeholder lead in the sense that our project initiation document, which is the annual. Our annual plan of work, if you like, has been, has been consulted. We have the advisory group and all the key parts of work are publicly consulted. And, and this is really part of, of this process where we want to ensure that a, the proposals that we put together work for all the market participants and all the affected parties, but also to recognize that we don't have all the answers. And, you know, we don't always fully was focused on networks. We might not always fully, you know, get some of the priorities that other parts of the system have. So this is really your opportunity to, to input we do take into account all the inputs that we get and we are building into, into our program, whatever we can. And if we can't, we say, we, why, why we kind of have a dialogue. So I think for me, the key thing for today is to encourage feedback and encourage really response to this consultation. It's really at the pivotal point in terms of, in terms of hard work. So, Dan, if you could move on to the next slide. Yeah, so the flexibility works, work stream has been running now since. Essentially, last year, so about the. 18 months now. And we have dedicated to develop the dedicated body of, of work. That looks at. Transparency standardized approaches across distribution network operators. It increasingly now looks at. Yes, so called the end DSO coordination and and and stacking of services. But we also have a product that is looking. Of how we can networks can facilitate markets and platforms that might need network data to to trade, but. The DSO is not necessarily the, the, the buyer or the procurer of, of the products that are traded on those markets. So, Dan, if we go to the next slide. So the 2020. Work really, which is the main thing we're here to talk about has. Seven main main products of work and we are going to cover. Most of them today, the work around the common evaluation methodology for flexibility that Wendy's going to cover procurement processes that I'm going to cover. Lois will do active active power services. The commercial arrangement is not something that we're going to talk about today, but this is the. Getting a common contract for flexibility services. Between the DNO's and flexibility provider, so we now have a common contract, a common contract was published earlier this year. We've received the 1st. Set of of comments because it's been it's already being implemented. And essentially by November, it will be implemented by all the nose. So we're taking that feedback. We are going to, we're going to publish a 1.1 version within the next probably 4 to 6 weeks. And then we're going to publish a version 2 and Q on at the end of Q on next year, which we are, we are aiming to be a common. DNO, but also ESO for at least for certain ESO products contract that flexibility providers will see and we can use across the UK. So significant milestone of getting that over the line and actually getting it now in in production and used by by DNO's. And product 5 is new DSO services. So this is about it's a placeholder for us to make sure that we apply the same rigor in standardizing where we have new products and product 7 is Helen is going to cover, which is about base lining. And there is a piece of work that we've got it from is actually an important piece of work we've got it from 2019 and we've reworked. To incorporate the latest developments and then it's going to talk about interactions between flexible connections and flexibility services and the revenue stacking work. So we're not going to go into the presentations and then we're going to allow some time for Q and a and of course it's a further questions we can pick them up after the webinar. So let's go on Wendy on the first presentation. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Wendy Mantle. I'm from energy networks and I'm a member of the product group looking to develop and implement a common evaluation methodology for the DNO's to use when assessing flexible the non flexible options to meet network needs. Next slide. The drivers for this product are to address a key action outlined in the July 2019 of German Bay's open letter to the DNA. Provide transparency on how pre procurement decisions are made when DNO's assess network solutions such as flexibility services, network reinforcement and they and m etc and to provide consistency to align how the DNO's make these decisions. The scope of the work which began at the beginning of this year was to analyze existing approaches to decision making adopted by DNO's and to understand the pros and cons in the areas of current practice. To develop a common decision making criteria and methodology for DNO's when choosing between options reviewing and reflecting input from stakeholders. And to develop a common flexibility valuation methodology as part of this to include gathering and assessing current practice within the UK and internationally value and flexibility. Consider and propose common valuation criteria and to develop the methodology, including tool and a user manual. Also, we would agree future governance for this methodology. The product group have been working with Bringer, they were permission to develop the methodology and tool. Slide to please and keep. The common evaluation methodology tool is built to support investment decisions when comparing flexibility products to traditional networking dimensions. The methodology and tool can be used to evaluate the defined flexibility products, namely the sustained, secure, dynamic and restore as well as options for alleviating export constraints where containment of the new board is occurring. This methodology is the initial baseline and I'll just give a brief overview to some of the key areas that it includes. The first one is the options to be considered. Here we would identify the range of options that were considered to meet the specific network need. The baseline scenario is largely considered to be one that involves the minimum level of intervention required for us to remain compliant with all relevant security standards. For each investment decision, explanations and supporting commentary relating to what assumptions have been used and which regulations the minimum level of intervention relates to, as well as any calculations that we have done external to the tool are to be included. Next is for us to define the service requirements and for this load both details to assess network needs are required. A scenario or a set of scenarios will be put into the model. It is anticipated that a best view and all the different scenarios that have been developed by the demons will be used and such scenarios will provide a view of what the annual exceedance have that particular asset across a range of potential outcomes by comparing the peak load to the current asset capacity. If the use case does not include reinforcement deferral, for example, the use of flexibility to reduce customer interruptions or customers lost risk, the network exceedance elements can be disabled with the requirements of social impact money. For flexibility requirements, specific functionality of the model allows us to be announced to input their flexibility requirements. These can either be tied to the load growth scenarios or input manual. Any over procurement will also be captured here. Service windows together with a view on the level of utilisation expected will be included and the space for commentary in order to aid transparency. For the point of view of economic assessment, the methodology is based on the option CBA to currently use for network investment decisions, thereby providing consistency as a number of inputs and values remain consistent. For example, customer interruptions, customer needs lost and weighted average cost of capital. For the time horizon, the methodology analyses the discounted cash flow for each solution over the lifetime of the asset for 45 minutes. This starts at the beginning of the deferral period and extends for 45 years from the end of the deferral period. Within the Ofgem CBA, the sharing factor from the Trotex incentive mechanism is applied to all costs. This tool follows the CBA templates and does not explicitly include the impact of the sharing factor in cash flows as it applies equally to different solution options. To allow the options to be assessed, the appropriate costs across the baseline scenario and all network intervention scenarios are used. Baseline will usually involve asset reinforcement, but other costs can be specified, for example, losses, provided they can be deferred or awarded through the use of flexibility. The tool also allows alternative intervention costs reflecting the cost to the DNA of the alternative solutions. One of the key elements is the value of deferring network reinforcement. When comparing a baseline with another solution, in many cases, the other solution involves the option to defer the decision to reinforce the network to some point in the future and use flexibility in the meantime. The tool compares the net present value of discounted cash flows of the baseline for the reinforcement scenario with the alternative flexibility solution and provides a view of potential outcomes in terms of net present value for each set of forward or forward scenarios. For demonstrating the potential future value across a range of scenarios, this methodology allows us to explore the potential option value that is created in the future by the decisions that we're making now. There is a facility within the model to explore this option further where probabilities can be applied. Finally, the methodology considers some of the wider network and societal impacts of the different networking dimensions, including the impact of network losses, emissions and potential asset condition-driven changes. Some of these inputs are considered core functionality and expected to be used each time this model is used, but in addition, and to have some future proofing, there is additional functionality that is optional at this stage, which we're referring to as sandbox functionality. It is expected that the degree of commonality will increase over time, and this will be discussed through the ongoing governance arrangements, and some of the sandbox functionality may become core and likely it may be possible to include greater standardisation input assumptions across due notes in the future. We go to slide three. The tool displays the results for us in three ways. It provides the ceiling price for the flexibility. This is for a given set of baseline costs, and the model shows the maximum cost of the flexibility solution before it becomes the complete economic and the traditional asset solution. The net benefit of the specified flexibility price, this is where from provided baseline costs of the counterfactual solution, and from specified utilisation and availability rates, the model shows the net benefit of the flexibility solution over the baseline. There is also a summary cost benefit analysis, providing the costs and benefits for the particular scenario over a specified deferral period, showing the relative impact on reinforcement costs, flexibility losses and emissions. The tool has also been developed to provide some reporting functionality within this is included a summary of statistics, where we would show, for example, the level of overall improvement that has been included in the assessments. A benefit summary showing the maximum potential benefit from a comparison or maybe option of optimal number of years as appropriate. And plus insights into the use of flex. This can be used with particular strategies, whereby probabilities may be assigned to the different scenarios. All of this information will feed into the support of the DNO's pre procurement decision making process. Next slide. As mentioned, this methodology is the initial baseline, and we would welcome your comments on the proposed methodology and we're encouraging feedback on our general approach and also any of the specifics included. And as a final to conclude the next steps for this product, I'll have the product group to obviously review and consider the feedback we receive in this consultation and then confirm a final methodology. With regards to future governance and in order to ensure the methodology involves arrangements will need to be confirmed. From earlier discussions, the product group are proposing to publish the common methodology and tool and the guide on the website and also on our individual DNO websites. Use the ENA's administration capability for the open governance office methodology and also to form a user's group under the ENA for the ongoing development of the methodology and the tool. And in relation to implementation, it is planned that DNO's will start to use the common evaluation methodology from the latest, the 1st of April 2021 and an implementation plan will be published by 31st of December 2020. Thank you. Thanks, Wendy. We'll now pass over back to Satyrus, who's going to be covering Andrew McKenna for Product 2 Procurement Processes. Yeah, so Andrew has led this work, but he's on holiday, so I'll cover for him and for the group. And the focus really of this work has been around further aligning and standardizing. First of all, the procurement timeline, which is the way and the timelines that DNO's use to go from signposting network information through to the flexibility that they actually tender to publication of the results and then on to testing of the assets and delivering. So, you know, getting that as a set of a great timelines with key milestones that all DNO's consistently use. And the other area that we've done work and we're inviting to use and comments and feedback is around kind of the procurement weightings and the procurement process. We've identified 4 stages and one of the key questions is, you know, when exactly do we undertake each of these? It's important to say that at the beginning of the year we did the work where we analyzed what each of the DNO's is doing and we use that as a basis to essentially further work around standardization. If we move to the next slide, please. Okay. So, in terms of the stages, I mentioned that the 4 stages of the assessment of the flexibility assets and the flexibility tenders. So, the 1st one is what is called stage 1 was commercial assessment. And this is all the legal stuff up front. And, you know, things like credit scoring and whether the company has a sound financial position. So it's the all the pretty standard stuff that you do. And you carry out to the organization that you were to engage to engage in the commercial in a commercial way. And that's the scoring criteria for this is pass or fail. Then we have the pre qualification technical assessment where we are basically saying does the the specific assets or specific provider meet the criteria. Of the product parameters as set out as a standard parameter. So these things are around minimum capacity, location, you know, are they in the right location, the right voltage? Do they meet the requirements around, you know, around times, metering, et cetera. So, again, that's a pass or fail assessment. We then look at the procurement and commercial score, which is the assessment of the beat against the. You know, against the, the, the, the budget basically and that's 70% of the, of the overall, if you like score, and then we are looking. At other aspects were proposed to look at the other aspects more so like a score type type approach where. It's around technical some of the technical characteristics such as the effectiveness in alleviating the constraint or conflicts. Or the type of connection and that has been a point of discussion really in the group. So that's that to be an area that would be very interested to hear. To hear feedback in terms of the commercial score versus the technical score and how, how is that as the best traction. And can we go to the next slide please Dan. So, these are the assessment criteria in terms of the proposed timelines. We've, first of all, we said that the assessment stages are carried out consistently across the. Across the network operators in terms of the procurement cycles, we propose maximum of two structure cycles per year and I'm going to run through how these are structured. And the idea behind this is that, you know, we, we come there's a steady stream of prompt communication of the network flexibility needs and the system needs. Without necessarily having excessive excessive procurement rounds. The seven stages we've identified is the first one is signed posting of requirements. So this is this is about providing a head so it's. It's nine months ahead but you know it could be could be longer given that some of that information including publications such as the long term development statement but the sign posting of requirements. And which is essentially as far as as far in advance as possible visibility of where the system needs. Then we have publication of firm requirements, which is the full requirement, you know, the type of product and the characteristics expect delivery windows, etc. The third stage is the opening of the procurement window, which is invitation for flex providers to formally begin. Then it's a close of the procurement window, which is a close to begin in particular take part. And after that, of course, you have the results and you have contract execution, which is the agreement of terms. You have us a testing and then finally delivery delivery windows. So these are the seven the seven key milestones we've identified. Let's go to the next done and in terms of in terms of the four and assessment criteria that identified with in the in the paper. We have looked at two options in terms of where the assessment takes place with regards to the stages of the of the tender. So, you know, stage one is the is the commercial pre qualification and stage two is the technical pre qualification. So, on the first option, a commercial pre qualification happens before technical prolific. Pre qualification and technical pre qualification happens before the start of the publication of the tender. So that's that's option one on option two commercial pre qualification happens as first thing as an option one. But technical pre qualification happens after the close of the tender. So the kind of the upfront assessment of, you know, where the parties are on the right location, voltage, et cetera, et cetera only happens at the end. So this is and there's a specific question where we inviting feedback on these two different approaches. These are the two different approaches that we identified when we looked how how the NOS are doing things currently. And, you know, they have pros and cons in terms of in terms of how much of the work is done upfront, but then perhaps how much of the, you know, opportunity is then carried out to the, you know, to the final, the final evaluation. So if we go to the next slide. So these are the these are the two. So these are the two tender rounds that we are proposing. So we call them the auto and the spring tender and essentially you are always signed posting the requirement as a minimum of five months ahead of publishing the requirement and the minimum of seven months ahead of publishing the tender. And as you can see, having signed posted and having given five months of publishing the requirement and seven months of publishing the tender, then it's quite a quick. I guess turn around of publishing the tender closing the tender and then you have contract execution delivery window and we propose to do one of those at the beginning of the year. And one of those essentially later. So kind of Q1 and Q3 that are about, you know, obviously to to look at this in a bit more detail, but that's the that's essentially what what we are looking to to standardize to. So that's it from product to, as I said, there are options in terms of when we're doing technical and commercial pre-qualification that we are inviting comments. We're inviting comments on the timeline and we're also inviting comments on the criteria and the waiting around the criteria in terms of the commercial and technical evaluation of the actual bits. Okay, so think of it to Ben now. Excellent. Thanks. So I'm Ben Godfrey. I'm going to go through some of the outputs of the interruptions between flexible connections and flexibility services from that paper and also the revenue stacking paper as well. Can flip to the next slide. So what we're aiming to do under this consultation is to seek some feedback out of some of the results and conclusions from this X connections, flexibility services interactions paper. So there was a significant number of actions that we're undertaking to clarify and provide more detail on some of the issues raised and also some continuing work and suggested work for the future to help improve the situation around flexible connections and flexibility services. So essentially what the paper did was set out the historical context, the systems involved and what their current level of interaction and then also looks at what the future levels of interaction may mean and what sort of systems and processes may need to be put in place to provide better coordination. What we're seeking feedback on is the scope and prioritization of some of this future activity. So if there are some good themes and preferences for additional work that wants to be taken into the future, please do let us know. Give us your thoughts on the scope and prioritization of that future activity. We also don't want to know what your thoughts are on the time and listen quality of information on network access rights, the kind of curtailment studies that have been provided by the DNOs. Are they adequate? Is the information being provided as per some of the guidelines that we've set out and has been agreed by network operators? Is there any improvement that can be made there? We want to understand any barriers that you've experienced for flexible connections and those participating in ESO or DSO services. Is this a current issue now or is it just something that we need to manage in the future? Have you experienced any barriers or confusion when trying to access and participate in some of those ESO or DSO services? Finally, we have suggested some approaches for better managing the curtailment risk. But if any of the respondents have ideas for market-based approaches for managing that curtailment risk or sort of commercial structures, they would like to see in place what information might be needed to manage that. We would be really interested in understanding those approaches and it may be something that we can take forward under future open networks and development work. Next slide. So there's a real large volume and body of work that's been undertaken at the moment in terms of providing detail around the interactions between flexible connections and flexible services. I've tried to pick out a few of the main themes here. So it's really about kind of service alignment, making sure that the same kind of units and building blocks are being used to describe those particular services. Ensuring that there's good visibility of those connections and where they might lie and also what the interaction and physical location is in terms of the flexibility services. So visibility of both the connections and the services will go some way in helping people understand and quantify the risk. A pretty solid basis. A lot of work being gone has previously gone into A&M curtailment information, hence our request to make sure that that's visible to everyone and being a service that's being received. And then we also touch on the quantification of A&M costs through the CVA tool. So a question's already been asked on this, but the CVA tool has the ability to quantify or a potential route to quantify the costs of A&M curtailment. And is that something that we should look to being used in anger when assessing, say, strategic investment or reinforcement of A&M systems? You know, should we be looking at the potential costs of A&M and any solutions to rectify that by using the CVA tool? And then finally, the last big theme there is the level playing field for both flexible services and flexible connections, ensuring that there's no preferential treatment of one for the other. So that's the mixture of the current actions that are being undertaken. There's some time scales and existing outputs signed posted within the report already. But there's also eight further proposed actions being considered, and that's really what we're seeking or feedback on the scope and prioritization of some of these. So understanding how A&M might be impacted upon by outcomes of the significant code review, a big one there. Understanding any future service overlaps and what we might need to do to manage that kind of level of interaction. Looking at D&O access to, say, pursuers, which might provide a bigger market and ability to Renumerate some of the flexibility costs that are either being market led or potentially being provided by A&M connections. Looking at future improvements to A&M curtailment information, is that something that people have ideas on and would like to feedback into? And then finally, looking at ensuring that there's transparency on those curtailment rules for when A&M is enacted. So is everyone able to clearly see when curtailment might be required and what's triggering it and enable to do their own analysis on the potential risk? The next slide looks at the type of feedback that we're seeking from the D&O flexibility services revenue stacking. So this great paper explains how DSO services are able to be sort of essentially stacked, but how multiple revenues from other markets can be operated either in adjacent time periods or in the same time period. And that kind of revenue stacking is explained and identified within that particular paper. So what we're really seeking feedback on is those identified barriers to participation and the scope and prioritization of any future activity being considered. And on the next slide, I've pulled up a few themes that are identified in the paper. So the six sections being undertaken, the major ones there in my view are the common baseline for DSR, which can feed into the flexibility services so that they're adequately renumerated. Whole system flexibility information sharing, ensuring that there is full visibility about all the potential services being operated so that they can be coordinated. Flexibility tendering timescale as alignment as we've just reviewed. That's an important one for making sure that revenue stacking is possible. And then finally this ESO and DSO service coordination framework. So that has been completed and there's a number of different methods that have been designed so that ESO and DSO can coordinate together to best ensure multiple revenue streams available to flexible services. We really want to take those forward and use those in anger to achieve better outcomes across the system. And then in terms of the proposed actions being considered, looking at whether the question of whether visibility should be available for all flexibility services. At the moment, there's a bit of a difference between the contractual availability of open information on ESO versus DSO services. We want to make sure that we've got a standardized and consistent view across the whole system on whether all data on services should be available or whether there's commercial sensitivities around those. So we're really welcome to welcome your views on that. Looking at improving the post event flexibility reporting and aligning that both across ESO and DSO. Ensuring that we've got good principles for addressing system needs and that rule set is well defined and understood so it can be applied fairly consistently and autonomously across the whole system. The potential for alignment of DSO non-delivery penalties ensuring that there's a bit more certainty of delivery may allow a truer value to be assigned to flexibility services. Resolving capacity market conflict is a good one as well. Ensuring that the rules for the capacity market are acknowledged DSO services and that there's no penalty for operation across capacity market and DSO services. And then finally addressing the potential supplier imbalance. So if DSO service that's called upon passes a potential imbalance problem across to the supplier. Are there routes and mechanisms that will redress that balance and where should the cost lie from that. So a number of important actions there that we think are the kind of suitable next steps we've identified them as barriers. We think that there would be useful and so we would look to try and gain some feedback on which ones should we prioritize and the scopes that we considered. Is it everyone agree that those are the right things that we should be looking at or if there's any sort of differences please do let us know we'd be very interested in that feedback. Thank you. Thanks Ben. I want to hand over to Lois from EMW to talk about product free. Hi there. Thanks. Thanks everyone. So my name is Lois Clark from electricity Northwest and I look after product route is active power services and parameters. And so I so in terms of the service definitions back in 2018 part of open networks we defined four services. But they were classified as reinforcement deferral or post fault or network restoration. And consequently they became interpreted in different ways and for different operations by each of the DNOs over the last few years. So last year we had a commitment to converge on the names of the branding for them, which is the these four here. So we have sustained secure dynamic and restore is the four main products and the aim of product three this year is to identify further ways in which we can converge on those services in terms of the parameters that we used to describe them and how they're operated. So these definitions are still consistent with how we defined the original products back in 2018. But now with the branding that's become a lot more familiar to everyone. And if we nip on to the next slide please. So the first aspect of our work within product three is to identify all of the parameter definitions and then those with ones which we identified as the most important and that we could converge on. So the common parameters between these four services are flexible capacity. So the minimum amount of capacity that you need that a flexible provider needs in order to participate in a flexibility tender and utilization as well. So how long a DNO will require the provision of the service and then looking to availability and utilization instructions. So the time periods that notification periods before which you will become committed or you'll get notice of being having to deliver a service. So that's what so we are consulting on that one as one of our questions in terms of do you think there are any additional parameters that we should be taking into consideration. At the moment they look like this. So this is our proposed convergence at the moment. So previously we undertook some gap analysis work that had so every DNO was operating each different product or service in a different manner. So this is the proposed new common operation of the mall. The key points to look at are that we have reduced the minimum flexible capacity to 50 kilowatts. But we've also done that. We used to have separate minimum capacities for aggregated or non aggregated resources. So traditionally aggregated resources were higher. So they might be set at 100 or 200 kilowatts instead. That's a kind of key point to note there. So we have reduced them and we set the minimum utilization and utilization duration capabilities to 30 minutes. So the main principle reason for doing this was to help remove barriers or potential flexible providers to engage within flexibility market as it provides some consistency that if you are participating or you have the ability to offer a sustained product. You know that you can offer that sustained product in London, Manchester or Glasgow and it's going to be operated in the same manner no matter which DNO you're engaging with. So in terms of our implementation plan, so these are the main aspects that we are consulting on within the paper. We just wanted to get some feedback on do you agree that this convergence of parameters does help to remove barriers to participation through simplifying the information that is there and available to you. And it's making it easier to engage with. And additionally, do you think that we have covered all of the main points? There are a lot of additional parameters, but that some of those will be covered off within other products that open networks is looking at over the next few years. So in terms of metering or base lining or dispatch and settlement processes, but this product was looking at the core functionalities of those active power services and how we operate those. So yeah, we're just looking to make things a bit easier really. So those are our main points that we're looking for a bit shorter than the other ones as we did the majority of the work was in 2019 in actually converging and all of those branding names already. So this is a bit easier this year. Great. Thanks less. Well now over to Helen. And if I could ask you speed up as well just like lowest that so we can get on to answer some questions in the QP. Great. So over time from WPD baseload determine the point of measurement from which we verify and reconcile a flex providers response. Do you want to click the next one Dan. So this is a new product for the 2020. And we'd recognize that the nose were operating different different methodologies to establish that their baselines and any possible sort of convergence or alignment in this area is really going to benefit both providers and and and the nose. So we're looking through this project to collate current industry baseline and practices so both in the UK and looking overseas as well at their baseline and practices. So we're going to assess the advantages of those practices and the ability of those to the UK DSO sexuality and recommend any methodologies that could be practical for us to adopt and any further actions that we could take to achieve consistency in this area. So as I said that this comprehensive assessment to open network to avoid the duplication of DNO is doing this individually and it also aligns to some of the stakeholder concerns that we've had and give stakeholders an opportunity to provide their input to baseline methodologies at this early stage. Hopefully, you know, increase in provider confidence in distribution flexibility and increase in station in distribution flexibility. I don't know if it to the next one. So we're taking a three stage approach for this product to keep tough in June. And we're in stage one pretty much at the moment that the mobilized and defined stage. So as a product team, we've been collating our existing practices around around baseline and and we've been developing what our common baseline in principles are. So what our priorities are that we need to be in in a baseline in methodology and identifying which of those are our priority and weight in the and considering what where we can wait those priorities as well. And as part of this product, we are also appointing a consultant to carry out some of that that research that research work for us in and assist us with the weight in and appropriateness of those. Those are the practices so they can make recommendations on on the best way for us to find a common approach. So stage two with the consultant is kind of kicked off this month's actually and we have appointed a consultant to undertake this work for us. And they'll be working with us as a product team to sort of take the the alignment of those baseline in principles and they'll be undertaking the research and existing practices. So that, as I said, UK DSO is the ESO as well and practices across Europe and USA in Australia. And it's not on there, but it's also important to note that they will be also taking into account responses from this consultation as well. So they'll be looking at consultation responses and seeing where they can feed that into to the research that they're doing. And then the final stage will be to sort of consolidate that that research review the findings and consider where we can implement a common approach for the baseline in and look at any gap analysis and how we can implement a potential implementation timeline for the DNO to converge and produce a final report on on the findings with some clear next step. When the project hopefully concluded or should conclude around early December time this year. Do you want to stick to the next one down. So, although it's in development, I've kind of just sort of a mind map there really of the some of the principles that we're looking at the characteristics and themes that that might feed into our principles to baseline in methodology. So some of those might have higher priorities than others and some of those we're still we're still considering and we need feedback from yourselves and we need feedback input from our consultants to really establish what those principles are. I'll also pop there a couple of statements that we established early at the early stage of the as a product around sort of assumptions on on baseline in and should we be looking at a common baseline in approach that fits all of our established select products. So sustain dynamic secure restore should should we be looking at a common a common baseline across those products. Should we have a suite of methodologies that would be more suitable to different technology types so turned down services opposed to generation services and should we be looking at using historical data to determine the the averages for the baseline. Which is going to support further stackability as opposed to a sort of a real time a real time baseline. So these areas on on this slide here are really where we're looking for for you feedback from from this consultation. And I think that's my last slide so I did that Chris I could down hopefully and that could be on. That's perfect. Thank you very much. I've seen that we've got quite a few questions that have come in as we've gone. We've got a few minutes left to get to some of them. We just start at the top. We've got one from Helen Stack that says to what extent does the CEM take account of the option value of flexibility. Has the work done by Frontier for SSEN and or E&W ROCBA model been considered when creating this product. I think that came in first. So it might be one for Wendy. Hi. The discussions on the option value have been ongoing throughout this product and with this the methodology that's being proposed at the moment is the sort of baseline initial methodology. So the option value is going to be sort of developed in the sandbox area of the two and you know for sort of future and speed and on that functionality in the future. And in relation to the sort of Frontier and other considerations and probably need to speak to our SSE colleagues to get a full answer on that. And that's where we're at with optionality. Great. We've also had another one from Matthew Cowan. I think on product one. How does the Beringa model take demand and certainty into account? Does it include option value of flex such as that demand comes before it becomes more certain? Sorry, I didn't catch all that. How does the Beringa model take demand and certainty into account? Does it include option value of flex such that demand becomes more certain? I mean, if it's a talking in relation to the sort of scenarios, we have the sort of different our sort of best view of the sort of requirement and load growth. And there are going to be input sort of five scenarios, which would be the best view plus the defense scenarios that can all be considered. These can be weighted with probabilities and potentially future and to sort of if demons want to have a look at that and sort of develop that further. And so at the moment that there's the sort of elements that are looking at that. Great. We've got one in Fajodi, which I think would be the product two. So if you're around to cover this off. Why does that technical score not include any carbon intensity when we have a net zero target? It might be for when do you offer materials? Yeah, so I think the carbon. We have the discussion. We have discussions also with optimum base around carbon. You know, carbon is priced in energy markets in different ways. So we are currently haven't incorporated this as a standard, if you like, but there's options there as the thinking develops to incorporate it. So I think it's still is still is still under discussion to a certain extent. So be good to provide feedback if the specific views in terms of how carbon should be incorporated. Great. We're about to run out of time, but I think we can get to one more. It's from Joe Kamish. Is standardization of historical flex service data along with access across PNO is, for example, prices, technologies, volumes, et cetera being thought about? Yes, in short. So what we'd like to try and do is come up with a standardized and machine readable format for some of the current and historic data on flexibility so that that can be used. Not just by DNOs and customers, but as general market information as well to use for future trending. So yes, it's very much in consideration of the scope. Great. Well, it's already three o'clock and we have this in for an hour. So if we can head to the wrap up. Thanks for sending in all your questions. We will get to them in our response document and we'll email that around to everyone who participated. So we just want to hand back to the terrorists really quickly. Yes. Really, the only thing to say is please respond to the consultation closes on the 25th of September. And if you prefer to reach out to us and have a one-to-one conversation or if you need some of the open networks team to support you with their response, then we can do that as well. So I think the key point is that all of these questions have underlying points behind them. So let's get all these points into the consultation so we can use them in the work moving forward.