| When PJDS entered the contestable connections market in 2008, contestability in connections was limited in most areas and still required substantial input from the network operators with associated costs and time delays. |
| Over the years OfGEM, various user groups and individual Independent Connections Providers (ICP's) - including PJDS - had been pushing the network operators into opening up the market to increase areas of contestability. |
| PJDS led the way in some network operators areas in developing live LV connections both on-site and for live connections to the operators network. Indeed, PJDS were one of the first ICP's to achieve the full Live LV Network Connections accreditation. PJDS were the first ICP to undertake a live network connection within the UKPN area and also to undertake live network connections to metered highway services - a scope that did not exist when we approached UKPN with a request to make this work contestable. |
| Some network operators had taken contestability on board, not least of all because OfGEM offered incentives to network operators in allowing them to charge unrestricted margins in areas where competition has been shown to be effective. Others weren less willing to open up their networks to contestability. |
| Following competition reviews, OfGEM decreed that the loss of market share by the network operators was too slow. A call for evidence was issued for stakeholders to list their requirements for more open competition, as well as show examples of best practice across all of the network operators.This information was submitted to OfGEM who, after consideration, issued an ultimatum to the network operators to produce a Code of Paractice (CoP) incorporating best practice and adressing areas of competition where they considered that obstacles were still in place preventing effective competition within the market. |
| A draft CoP was issued for discussion and stakeholders were invited to comment on whether the document addressed all of the areas highlighted in the review. Comments and proposed revisions were again submitted to OfGEM and the network operators were charged with adressing the remaining sticking points. |
| A final draft was then issued for approval by stakeholders prior to submission to OfGEM. With more amendments, this was then submitted to OfGEM for approval. OfGEM have now approved the CoP. in 2015, this document became subject to legal compliance by the network operators as part of their distribution licence conditions. |
| The network operators must comply with the CoP. This has opened up competition considerably, and enables suitably accredited and competent Independent Connection Providers such as PJDS to offer you a much more competitive quote, both financially and in speed of delivery - as network operators input has been removed or reduced to the minimum amount required to facilitate the connection process. |
| Under this new era of de-regulation, we (PJDS) are able to train, assess and authorise our own craftsmen to work on all DNO networks under our own Operational Safety Rules. |
profile
