Get documents about "i Interested third parties
Document Sample
APPENDIX 1.1
(referred to in paragraph 1.7)
i
Interested third parties
British Steel Corporation
Chemical Industries Association
Electricity Consumers' Council
Electrical Contractors' Association
Glass Manufacturers' Federation
National Chamber of Trade
National Coal Board
National Federation of Clay Industries
Radio, Electrical and Television Retailers' Association (RETRA) Ltd
Yorkshire Electricity Consultative Council (YECC)
174
APPENDIX 2.1
(referred in paragraphs 2.21 and 2.26)
.YORKSHIRE E L ECTR I OARD
HIAO OfflCt •
At!A OfFICIS O
WSKICI WHCIS O
OTHtl TOWNS •
APPENDIX 3.1
(referred to in paragraph 3.3)
THE ELECTRICITY COUNCIL
1
Dn Committee Industrial Senior
1 Research C ommittee
1
Performance Indicators Financial a nd Pricing
1
Corporate Planning
Relat ons Management 1 Committee Policy Committee Committee
Committee Conference (of Deputy Chairman) '
1
Electricity Utilisation Research | 1
Medium Term Supply Research Panel Load and Cost Purchasing and
Industrial Council Research Panel Contracts Matters
Relations
Plan Working — Central Computer Committee __ Distribution Retail Tariffs
Party (has links directly with Research Panel Pa nel
Chief Accountants' EDP
Committee and Chief Engineers'
Conference Resources and Computing
Consultancy Group) Study Group
— on Distribution
— Manpower Committee Research Appraisal
Chief Officers' Functional Conferences
Reporting to EC Standing Committee or
SMC as appropriate
1
Chief Accountants'
1
Lawyers' Conference Chief Engineers' Conference
1
Public Relations Conference Chief Commercial Officers' Conference
Conference
1
— Current Cost Accounting Panel 14 Chief Engineers' Consultancy Groups — Joint Liaison Committee with Chief Accountants
— Joint Liaison Committee with Chief Engineers
1 Planning Sector Group
—~ Industrial Energy Marketing Group*
Indices Reveiw Group Corporate Planning
— Allocation Guide Working Party System Development — Working Party on Environmental Loads
System Utilisation
Research Liaison
9V 9 P
— Committee of London Clearing Operations and Safety Consultancy Group
Bankers Negotiating Panel Operations and Rel ability
System Automation and Protection
—Training of Accountants — Industrial Relations Liaison Group
Resources and Computing
Working Group
Safety Liaison — Corporate Planning Group
— Chief Accountants' EDP Committee
— General Purposes Group
Equipment Sector Group
1 Cables c L
- EB/AMDEA Committee
Overhead Lines 1
— ICL User Group Switchgear
Working Groups
Transformers
Metering and Load Control | | |
—Training Working Party Communications and System Control Cooker Marketing Space Heating Spares and Service
— Computers & Privacy
— National Joint Utilitites Group
^_^^^^^_
I I I I
— ESI/Manufacturers' Committee Strategy Working Contracting Working General Purposes Service Working
for Standards Policy Group Group Working Group Group
a — EB/BEAMA Joint Commercial Committee
b c
Joint Sub-Committee o n Commercial Matters • I I I 1
General Purposes Brown Goods Small Heating Refriger,
d — EB/OTLC Commercial Committee Working Working Party Appliances Working Worki
Party Working Party Part
1 Partv
— EB/BEAMA Joint Plant Technical Committee
The Sector Group Chairmen also report directly
Source: Electricity Council. to the Energy Marketing and Advertising Committee
:nergy Marketing and Management Assessment. Load Forecasting
"1
National Joint National
dvertising Committee Development and Group Co-ordinating Council (GB) Joint
Succession Committee Negotiating
I Machinery
NJNC
Market Research - ESITC NJM
Panel — HESAC NJB
NJC
— JCC (E&W) and JCC (S) NJIC
NJ(B&CE)C
- JNC
Education and Training Secretaries' Conference Regional Safety
Officers' Conference Officers' Conference
Working Party on Estates and Way leaves Committee
Audio Visual
— Insurance Officers' Conference
Equipment
— Corporate Planning Working Party
1
. 1
r 1
I 1 1 1
f EB/CEMA Joint Catering Air Conditioning Industry Wayleaves Home Office Radio Development
Panel Board Payments Stations Panel Land Tax
Reviews Panel
1 Panel
EB/CEMA Joint British Air Conditioning
Technical Liaison Approvals Board
Committee
Abbreviations Key
f Environments ~|
— 1 Water Heating & Home Laundry 1 3 Sectors: a BEAMA British Electrical and Allied
1 Cooking & Refrigeration I Manufacturers' Association
b EB/ECMC Electricity Boards/Electric Cable
Makers' Confederation
c EB/STCM Electricity Boards/Super Tension
1 Cable Makers
ing and Approvals d EB/OTLC Electricity Boards/Overhead Line
•forking Group Contractors
e EB/AMDEA Electricity Boards/Association
of Manufacturers of Domestic
Electrical Appliances
1 1 f EB/CEMA Electricity Boards/Catering
Vacuum Home Cooker Equipment Manufacturers' Association
Cleaner Laundry Working g ESITC Electricity Supply Industry Training
Working Working Party Committee
Party Party
h HESAC Health and Safety Committee
i JCC Joint Co-ordinating Committee
j JNC Joint Negotiating Committee
176
APPENDIX 4.1
(referred to in paragraph 4.7)
Organisation of the YEB Head Office
The Board
Chairman
i
Deputy Chairman
Part Time Members
Chief Engineer Chief Commercial Officer Chief Accountant Secretary and Solicitor
Deputy C.E Deputy C.C.O.* Deputy C.A. Deputy Secretary!
Assistant C.E's Assistant C.C.O's Assistant C.A's. Assistant Secretaries Management Services
Officer
Buildings Customer Operations Financial & Management Estates & Wayleaves
Construction Marketing Accounting Legal
Operation Industrial Sales & Terms Customer Accounting Personnel
Technical Tariffs, Statistics & Centralised Accounting Purchasing & Stores
System Design Special Agreements Internal Audit
Transport (Senior Computer Services
Exec. Officer)
* Also responsible for Domestic and Commercial Development Section and Commercial Administration,
t Also responsible for Administration and Education, Training & Advisory Sections.
Source: YEB.
APPENDIX 4.2
(referred to in paragraph 4.24)
Organisation of a typical YEB Area
(Showing relationship with Head Office and the most recent type of District structure, eg Otley)
Chairman
Deputy Chairman
I I
Chief Engineer Chief Commercial Officer Chief A ccountant Secretary & Solicitor
Area Manager
1
Area Er igineer Area Comme rcial Officer Area A :countant Area Secretary
System Design Domestic anc Commercial Incorne Administration
Construction Developmt>nt Expe nditure Personnel
Operation Customer Op
Technical Industrial Development
\
Transport Commercial /\dmin.
Appliance Meirketing
District EEngineer District Industrial Staff . District Industrial Staff District Industrial Staff
Engineering Clerical Staff
Engir eers
Industri at Staff (Otley is an example of this type of District structure)
Source: YEB.
APPENDIX 4.2 (contd)
Organisation of a typical YEB Area
(Showing relationships with Head Office and the Doncaster type of District structure)
Chairman
Deputy Chairman
I
Chief E ngineer Chief Commercial Officer Chief Ac countant Secretary & Solicitor
1
1
1
Area b anager
1
Area Engineer Area Commercial Officer Area Accountant Area Secretary
Domestic and Commercial Administration
Development Personnel
Customer Operations Purchasing & Stores
Industrial Development
Commercial Admin.
Appliance Marketing
District Engineer Commercial Engineers District Administrative
Officer
Engineers
I
Industrial Staff
I
Office Staff
Industrial Staff (Doncaster is an example of this type of District structure) Industrial Staff
Source: YEB.
APPENDIX 5.1 (a)
(referred to in paragraph 5.15)
Yorkshire Electricity Board: historical cost accounts 1977-78 to 1981-82
Revenue Account £'000
1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82
Sales of electricity 454,863 515,350 571,958 694,808 798,687
Rentals of apparatus and small
repairs 686 728 2,268 2,563 2,620
Miscellaneous 398 374 506 510 576
455,947 516,452 574,732 697,881 801,883
Deduct:
Purchase of electricity 365,898 415,031 478,923 564,551 646,640
Distribution ' 15,528 18,989 22,383 26,108 30,147
Customer service 4,906 5,979 9,049 10,751 12,068
Meter reading, billing and
collection of electricity accounts 6,351 7,068 8,125 10,291 11,459
Administration and general
expenses 5,337 6,168 7,381 8,872 9,877
Training and welfare 1,890 2,441 3,465 4,323 4,499
Rents, insurances etc 828 773 974 • 1,172 1,017
00 Rates 7,490 8,160 9,660 12,346 15,092
o Proportion of Electricity Council's
expenses 1,250 1,522 1,806 2,098 2,206
Changes of systems of supply 6 —- — — —
Historical cost depreciation 11,730 12,135 12,834 13,436 14,206
Supplementary depreciation 4,882 5,062 5,344 5,570 5,861
426,096 493,328 559,944 659,518 753,072
Operating profit/loss :
Electricity supply 29,851 33,124 14,788 38,363 48,811
Contracting and sales of
appliances 1,035 1,410 2,670 1,913 1,546
30,886 34,534 17,458 40,276 50,357
Additional costs arising from early
retirements prior to 1 April 1978 — -1,183 — —
—
30,886 33,351 17,458 40,276 50,357
Interest and financing expenses 13,632 12,026 12,177 12,907 8,918
Profit/loss (—) transferred to Area
reserve 17,254 21,325 5,281 27,369 41,439
Source: YEB.
APPENDIX 5.1(0)
(referred to in paragraph 5.15)
Yorkshire Electricity Board: historical cost accounts 1977-78 to 1981-82
As at 31 March £'000
Fixed assets 7975 7979 1980 1981 7952
Expenditure at 31 March 385,254 399,299 420,510 444,671 468,858
Less : Accumulated depreciation 197,677 209,786 226,122 242,290 260,778
187,577 189,513 194,388 202,381 208,080
Current assets
Stocks and stores 5,572 6,658 5,614 5,679 6,512
Contracting work-in-progress 498 485 561 491 364
Debtors :
Electricity (consumption read
in year) and other sales 52,335 61,432 50,836 70,303 80,176
Electricity (estimated unread
consumption) 25,517 32,670 36,110 40,804 41,400
Hire purchase and deferred
payment instalments not yet due 7,645 8,844 10,613 10,499 9,431
Miscellaneous 642 1,117 2,743 3,618 2,997
92,209 111,206 106,477 131,394 140,886
Bank balance and cash 11,192 9,637 6,419 9,768 13,061
Less: 103,401 120,843 112,896 141,162 153,941
Current liabilities
Central Electricity Generating
Board :
purchase of electricity 34,701 41,089 53,484 62,924 60,543
Creditors and accrued liabilities 12,669 13,514 15,947 16,201 16,537
Provisions 129 129 — — —
47,499 54,732 69,431 79,125 77,080
Net current assets 55,902 66,111 43,465 62,037 76,861
Net capital employed 243,479 255,624 237,853 264,418 284,941
Financed by :
Indebtedness to Electricity
Council 159,682 145,370 116,928 110,504 83,683
Area reserve 78,847 100,172 105,453 132,822 174,261
Supplementary depreciation
reserve 4,950 10,082 15,472 21,092 26,997
Source: YEB. 243,479 255,624 237,853 264,418 284,941
APPENDIX 5.1(c)
(referred to in paragraph 5.15)
Yorkshire Electricity Board: historical cost accounts 1977-78 to 1981-82
Contracting and sales of appliances
£'000
1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-31 1981-82
Contract- Sales of Contract- Sales of Contract- Sales of Contract- Sales of Contract- Sales of
ing appliances Total ing appliances Total ing appliances Total ing appliances Total ing appliances Total
Sales
Cash and credit 5,558 5,663 11,221 6,481 7,739 14,220 5,349 10,210 15,559 15,512 10,121 15,633 6,112 1 1,226 17,338
Hire purchase and similar sales 332 5,551 5,883 365 6,652 7,017 483 8,050 8,533 457 7,077 7,534 261 6,333 6,594
5,890 11,214 17,104 6,846 14,391 21,237 5,832 18,260 24,092 5,969 17,198 23,167 6,373 17,559 23,932
Direct cost of sales
Materials 1,926 8,402 10,328 2,212 10,933 13,145 2,142 13,812 15,954 . 2,076 12,899 14,975 2,309 13,325 15,634
Salaries and related costs 1,651 1,651 2,038 2,038 1,741 1,741 1,875 1,875 2,073 2,073
3,577 8,402 11,979 4,250 10,933 15,183 3,883 . 13,812 17,695 3,951 12,899 16,850 4,382 13,325 17,707
Gross trading profit 2,313 2,812 5,125 2,596 3,458 6,054 1,949 4,448 6,397 2,018 4,299 6,317 1,991 4,234 6,225
Hire purchase etc
interest charges 74 1,502 1,576 102 1,844 1,946 133 2,215 2,348 158 2,601 2,759 - 161 2,792 2,953
Gross profit 2,387 ' 4,314 6,701 2,698 5,302 8,000 2,082 6,663 8,745 _ 2,J76 6,900 . 9,076 2,152 7,026 9,178
Indirect costs
Salaries and related costs 2,835 3,247 2,906 3,490 ' 3,760
Training and welfare 289 372 398 459 503
Transport and delivery 748 885 915 975 1,075
Work under guarantee and sundry
expenses 747 920 751 845 863
Publicity and exhibitions 233 241 279 412 394
Rents, rates and insurances 283 308 280 319 333
Bad and doubtful debts 94 147 141 164 161
Historical cost depreciation 97 95 66 74 75
Supplementary depreciation 68 70 46 50 44
Proportion of general charges 272 305 293 374 422
5,666 6,590 6,075 7,163 7,632
Operating profit as shown in
revenue account 1,035 1,410 2,670 1,913 1,546
, Source: YEB.
APPENDIX 5.2(a)
(referred to in paragraph 5.24)
Yorkshire Electricity Board: 1979^80 to 1981-82
Revenue account
Current Cost £'000
7979-30 1980-81 1981-82
Sales of electricity 571,958 694,808 798,687
Rental of apparatus and
small repairs 2,268 2,563 2,620
Miscellaneous 506 510e 576
574,732 697,881 801,883
Deduct:
Purchase of electricity 478,923 564,551 646,640
Distribution 22,938 26,544 30,500
Customer service 9,122 10,806 12,107
Meter reading, billing and
collection of electricity
accounts 8,172 10,329 11,493
Administration and general
expenses 7,402 8,888 9,892
Training and welfare 3,467 4,324 4,499
Rents, insurances, etc 974 1,172 1,017
Rates 9,660 12,346 15,092
Proportion of Electricity
Council's expenses 1,806 2,098 2,206
Depreciation* 35,853 43,724 44,389
578,317 684,782 777,835
Operating profit/(loss)
before MWCA:
Electricity supply (3,585) 13,099 24,048
C and SA 2,218 1,614 1,327
(1,367) 14,713 25,375
MWCA 8,030 7,287 5,096
Operating profit/(loss) (9,397) 7,426 20,279
Interest and financing expenses 12,177 12,907 8,918
Profit/(loss) after interest
transferred to Area Reserve (21,574) (5,481) 11,361
Source: YEB annual accounts.
* Excludes depreciation of transport assets, allocated over the various revenue account headings.
183
APPENDIX 5.2(6)
(referred to in paragraph 5.24)
Yorkshire Electricity Board: 1980 to 1982
Balance sheet
Current cost £'000
As at 31 March 1980 1981 1982
Fixed assets
Expenditure less customers'
.contributions 1,908,397 2,104,882 2,017,409
Less: Accumulated
depreciation 1,087,011 1,209,709 1,184,146
821,386 895,173 833,263
Current assets
Stocks and stores 5,741 5,721 6,584
Contracting work in progress 567 492 364
Debtors:
Electricity (consumption read
in year) and other sales 50,836 70,303 80,176
Electricity (estimated unread
consumption) 36,110 40,804 41,400
Hire purchase and deferred
payment instalments not yet due 10,613 10,499 9,431
Miscellaneous 2,759 3,622 3,001
106,626 131,441 140,956
Bank balance and cash 6,419 9,768 13,061
113.045 141.209 154,017
Less:
Current liabilities
CEGB: Purchase of electricity 53,484 62,924 60,543
Creditors and accrued
liabilities 15,947 16,201 16,537
69,431 79,125 77,080
43,614 62,084 76,937
865,000 957,257 910,200
Financed by:
Indebtedness to Electricity Council 116,928 110,504 83,683
Area reserve 161,212 155,731 167,092
Current cost reserve 586,860 691,022 659,425
865,000 957,257 910,200
Source: YEB annual accounts.
184
APPENDIX 5.2(c)
(referred to in paragraph 5.24)
Yorkshire Electricity Board: 1979-80 to 1981-82—contracting and
sales of appliances trading account
Current cost £'000
1979-SO 1980-81 1981-82
Sales of Sales of Sales of
Contracting appliances • Total Contracting appliances Total Contracting appliances Total
Sales
Cash and credit 5,349 10,210 15,559 5,512 10,121 15,633 6,112 11,226 17,338
Hire purchase and similar
sales 483 8,050 8,533 457 7,077 7,534 261 6,333 6,594
5,832 18,260 24,092 5,969 17,198 23,167 6,373 17,559 23,932
Direct cost of sales
Materials 2,238 14,042 16,280 2,117 12,999 15,116 2,331 13,372 15,703
Salaries and related costs 1,741 — 1,741 1,875 — 1,875 2,073 — 2,073
3,979 14,042 18,021 3,992 12,999 16,991 4,404 13,372 17,776
Gross trading profit 1,853 4,218 6,071 1,977 4,199 6,176 1,969 4,187 6,156
Hire purchase etc interest
charges 133 2,215 2,348 158 2,601 2,759 161 2,792 2,953
Gross profit 1,986 6,433 8,419 2,135 6,800 8,935 2,130 6,979 9,109
Indirect coni
Salaries and related costs 2,906 3,490 3,760
Training and welfare 398 459 503
Transport and delivery 942 1,005 1,095
Work under guarantee and
sundry expenses 751 845 865
Publicity and exhibitions 279 412 394
Rents, rates and insurances 280 319 333
Bad and doubtful debts 141 164 161
Depreciation* 211 253 249
Proportion of general charges 293 374 422
6,201 7,321 7,782
Operating profit as shown
in revenue account 2,218 1,614 1,327
' Excludes depreciation of transport assets which is included in transport and delivery.
APPENDIX 5.3
(referred to in paragraph 5.40)
Yorkshire Electricity Board: 1977-78 to 1981-82—source and application of funds statement
7977-75 7975-79 7979-50 7950-57 7957-52
Source of funds
Profit/(loss) after interest 17,254 21,325 (21,574) (5,481) 11,361
Depreciation—net 12,376 12,829 37,156 44,960 45,517
Supplementary depreciation 4,950 5,132 — — —
Cost of sales adjustment — — 533 273 133
Monetary working capital adjustment — — 8,030 7,287 5,096
Id SRO 10 ''Rfi "M IdS d7 010 f,"1 107
Sales of assets, customers' contributions
and other capital receipts 5,697 6,278 5,095 5,892 6,266
total from internal sources 40,277 45,564 29,240 52,931 68,373
Application of funds
Expenditure on fixed assets during the
year including net transfer between
electricity boards 17,257 21,043 23,444 27,935 26,728
Increase/(decrease) in working capital
Stocks and work in progress 694 1,073 (941) (95) 735
Debtors 286 17,924 (3,760) 24,910 8,780
Bank balance and cash 7,948 (1,555) (3,218) 3,349 3,293
8,928 17,442 (7,919) 28,164 12,808
Change in current liabilities (728) (7,233) (14,699) (9,694) 2,045
8,200 10,209 (22,618) 18,470 14,853
Current cost revaluation of stocks and
X
work in progress, not involving the
movement of funds — — (28) 102 (29)
8 ">0fl i A ">no O") MK\ 1 ft S?') 1 A. 874
Decrease in indebtedness to the
Electricity Council 14,820 14,312 28,442 6,424 26,821
40,277 45,564 29,240 52,931 68,373
Source: YEB published accounts.
APPENDIX 5.4
(referred to in paragraph 5.53)
YEB Revenue Account 1977-78 to 1981-82
Comparison of actual with financial forecasts
£ million
Historical cost Current cost
7977-75 1978-79 7979-50 1980-81 7957^52
Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate
Sales of electricity 454-8 447-4 515-4 520-5 571-9 566-5 694-8 768-1 798-7 841-9
Purchase of electricity 365-9 368-0 415-0. 429-1 478-9 470-7 564-6 642-1 646-6 693-1
Gross margin 88-9 79-4 100-4 91-4 93-0 95-8 130-2 126-0 152-1 148-8
Other income 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-2 2-8 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-4
90-0 80-5 101-5 92-6 95-8 98-9 133-3 129-2 155-3 152-2
Less:
Distribution "^
Customer service
Meter reading, billing, collection I
Admin and general expenses T 34-8 34-4 41-5 39-5 51-4 47-6 .62-0 65-5 69-5 71-6
00
-J Training and welfare
Rents, insurance, etc J
Rates 7-5 7-9 8-2 8-4 9-6 9-0 12-4 12-3 15-1 15-6
Proportion of EC expenses 1-2 1-3 1-5 1-4 1-8 1-7 2-1 2-3 2-2 2-7
Depreciation 16-6 16-5 17-2 17-4 18-2 18-1 43-7 43-2 44-4 50-5
60-1 60-1 68-4 66-7 81-0 76-4 120-2 123-3 131-2 140-4
Operating profit/(loss)
Electricity 29-9 20-4 33-1 25-9 14-8 22-5 13-1 5-9 24-1 11-8
C&SA 1-0 0-3 1-4 0-8 2-7 1-1 1-6 1-3 1-3 0-8
30-9 20-7 34-5 26-7 17-5 23-6 14-7 7-2 25-4 12-6
MWCA (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (7-3) —t (5-1) (7-6)
30-9 20-7 34-5 26-7 17-5 23-6 7-4 7-2 20-3 5-0
Interest and financing (13.6) (17-1) (12-0) (14-1) (12-2) (12-6) (12-9) (11-9) (8-9) (11-1)
Profit/(loss) after MWCA and interest 17-3 3-6 22-5* 12-6 5-3 11-0 (5-5) (4-7) 11-4 (6-1)
Source: YEB.
* Subjects to additional costs of early retirements prior to 1.4.78, not included in financial forecasts. (1-2)
t Not estimated. 21-3
APPENDIX 5.5
(referred to in paragraph 5.70)
Operating costs
Summaries of primary expenditure
for the five years 1977-78 to 1981-82
7977-75 7975-79 7979-50 7950-57 7957-52
£'000 % of budget £'000 % of budget £'000 % of budget £'000 % of budget £'000 % of budget
Expenditure summary
Distribution 8,471 101 10,572 103 12,302 106 14,251 101 16,304 101
Customer service 1,983 92 2,456 103 4,083 95 4,999 101 5,772 98
Meter reading, billing and collection 2,967 108 3,463 101 3,843 103 4,776 105 5,346 105
Administration 1,072 107 1,284 111 1,434 105 1,525 91 1,796 107
Training 543 99 691 106 875 105 1,048 106 1,035 97
Welfare 1,018 109 2,590 247 2,304 166 2,653 103 2,754 105
Rent, rates and insurances 8,655 94 9,313 96 10,919 102 13,865 100 16,628 99
Standardisation 5 15 34 39 14 151 15 84 13 45
oo Repairs and maint-non-op buildings 1,317 106 1,545 110 1,743 104 2,101 105 2,401 97
oo Non-industrial salaries 17,374 100 20,278 100 24,858 105 30,586 99 33,891 99
General charges
Printing and stationery 446 102 519 102 608 109 648 104 639 90
Postages 550 106 596 102 607 94 707 102 811 100
Telephones 357 87 392 96 426 99 545 107 654 98
Repairs and maintenance—furniture 143 104 175 119 348 106 432 100 518 91
Computer expenditure 479 103 582 95 608 93 1,291 97 1,240 88
45,380 99 54,490 104 64,972 105 79,442 100 89,802 100
Source analysis
Non-industrial salaries 17,374 100 20,278 100 24,858 105 30,586 99 33,890 99
Industrial salaries 8,727 98 11,039 105 13,780 106 16,700 100 19,247 103
Materials 2,262 98 2,684 109 3,350 102 3,406 92 3,741 96
Other costs 15,791 99 19,103 108 21,158 104 26,460 102 30,473 99
Transport 1,231 109 1,384 102 1,825 112 2,294 111 2,447 96
45,385 99 54,488 104 64,971 105 79,446 100 89,798 100
Source: YEB.
Notes: 1. Differences between Expenditure Summary and Source Analysis totals are due to roundings at intermediate levels of aggregation.
2. The figures for all years exclude 132 kV system maintenance costs charged to YEB by CEGB.
APPENDIX 6.1
(referred to in paragraph 6.2)
YEB: 1981 to 1985 capital programme—supplementary
information
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85
Actual (as a % Present (as a % Present Present
of the estimates of the estimates estimates
(a) total) (b) total) (b) (b)
A. Schemes to deal with new business
1. Load related
(a) Industrial supplies 3-4 (12%) 3-8 2-6 2-9
(b) New housing 2-0 (7%) 2-1 2-4 2-4
(c) Other new or increased
supplies 1-2 (4%) 1-4 1-5 1-5
(d) (i) Services and meters for
new housing 2-3 (8%) 2-7 2-7 2-8
(ii) Services and meters for
other new or increased
supplies 2-4 (8%) 2-6 2-7 2-8
2. Non-load related
(a) Service replacement 2-5 (9%) 2-8 3-3 2-8
(b) Replacement meters 0-1 (0%) 0-1 0-1 0-1
Sub-total 13-9 (48%) 15-5 (46%) 15-3 15-3
B. Reinforcement of board's systems
1. Load related 0-6 (2%) 0-6 0-8 1-1
2. Non-load related
(a) CEGB prompted 0-9 (3%) 1-3 1-9 0-6
(b) Replacement and renewal
(i) sub-stations and plant 0-6 (2%) 0-8 0-6 0-7
(ii) overhead mains 3-7 (13%) 4.4 4-4 4-4
(iii) underground mains 0-7 (2%) 0-8 0-8 0-5
(c) Voltage changeover and
standardisation 1-3 (4%) 1-1 0-7 0-6
(d) Earthing for existing
consumers 0-2 (1%) 0-2 0-2 0-2
(e) Diversions not rechargeable 0-7 (2%) 0-8 0-8 0-7
(/) Telecontrol — — 0-5 1-8
(g) Telecommunications for
telecontrol — — 0-1
(h) Operational improvement* 0-7 0-9 —
1-3 1-2
(2%)
(0 * — — — —
Sub-total 9.4 (32%) 10-9 (33%) 12-0 11-9
continued
* Under B2 (h) and (i) identify separately any other major schemes of a non-load related nature,
(a) Outturn prices (b) Average 1982-83 prices.
189
APPENDIX 6.1 (continued)
7957-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85
Actual (as a% Present (as a % Present Present
of the estimates of the estimates estimates
(a) total) (b) total) (b) (b)
C. Other
1. Land and buildings
(a) Stores, garages and
workshops 0-3 d%) 1-7 0-4 0-1
(b) Offices 0-7 (2%) 0-3 1-1 1-3
(c) Shops 0-2 (1%) 0-7 0-1 —
(</) Other 0-1 (0%) 0-1 0-4 0-4
Sub-total 1-3 (4%) 2-8 (8%) 2-0 1-8
2. Vehicles and mobile plant 1-2 (4%) 1-1 (3%) 0-9 1-5
3. Miscellaneous
.(a) Telecommunications and
radio equipment (excluding
telecontrol) 1-0 (3%) 0-8 1-8 1-9
(b) Tools and instruments 0-6 (2%) 0-8 0-8 0-6
(c) Office furniture and
equipment 1-6: (5%) 1-3 1-0 1-4
(d) Apparatus and wiring on hire 0-2 (1%) 0-2 0-3 0-3
Sub-total 3-4 (12%) 3-1 (9%) 3-9 4-2
Total capital expenditure 29-2 33-4 34-1 34-7
190
APPENDIX 6.2
(referred to in paragraph-6.14)
Capital e;xpenditure split by programme heads at average 1982-83 prkes
NEW BUSINESS
REINFORCEMENT
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
WIT A no Is) CO •» u< o> ^J C
YEARS I I I I i i I
ACTUAL EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE
AT 1982-83 PR ICES AT 1982-83 PRICES
191
APPENDIX 6.3
(referred to in paragraph 6.17)
Analysis by authorisation level of capital projects 1977-78 to 1982-83
Type of project 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
6 months
No £'000 No £'000 No £'000 No £'000 No £'000 No £'000
OPERATIONAL
New business
Board resolution 8,003 — 7,119 — 6,227 — 8,440 — 9,015 - (-)812*
Chairman/Deputy Chairman 451 — 899 — 1,219 — 1,587 — 1,248 — 881
Chief Officer — 849 — 2,861 — 2,543 — 2,169 — 1,914 — 1,243
Area Manager 1,960 — 2,161 — 2,132 — 2,177 — 2,349 — 1,548
Total new business — 11,263 — 13,040 — 12,121 — 14,373 — 14,526 — 2,860
Reinforcement
Board resolution — 2,573 — 2,397 — 1,796 - (-)18t — 1,677 — 834
Chairman/Deputy Chairman 593 — 2,058 — 1,020 — 1,781 — 1,392 — 1,008
Chief Officer 1,122 — 2,383 — 2,161 — 2,415 — 2,040 — 1,071
Area Manager 3,103 — 3,311 — 3,069 — 3,734 — 5,431 — 3,008
Total reinforcement — 7,391 — 10,149 — 8,046 — 7,912 — 10,548 — 5,921
Operational total
Board resolution 92 10,576 (-)14+ 9,516 4 8,023 7 8,422 17 10,692 3 22
Chairman/Deputy Chairman 59 1,044 30 2,957 36 2,239 81 3,368 53 2,640 30 1,809
Chief Officer 200 1,971 330 5,244 329 4,704 261 4,584 213 3,962 103 2,314
Area Manager 2,065 5,063 2,027 5,472 1,935 5,201 1,782 5,911 1,979 7,780 1,132 4,556
Total 2,416 18,654 2,373 23,189 2,304 20,167 2,131 22,285 2,262 25,074 1,268 8,781
NON-OPERA TIONAL
Non-op land and buildings
Board resolution 249 — 1,105 — 111 1,014 2,227 — 70
Chairman/Deputy Chairman 69 330 152 — 15
Chief Officer 127
:
— 154 — 229 129 199 — 39
Area Manager 88 — 82 — 83 156 177 — 19
Total non-op land and buildings 464 — 1,341 — 492 — 1,629 — 2,755 —
APPENDIX 6.3 (continued)
Vehicles
Board resolution — 942 2,379 — 1,771 1,064 — 976
Chairman/Deputy Chairman 25 — 155 — 179 101
Chief Officer 54 60 201 75 4 — 62
Area Manager 54 86 71 55 92 3
Total vehicles — 1,075 — 2,680 — 2,043 — 1,373 — 1,253 — 65
MISCELLANEOUS
Board resolution 88 — 27 926 100 449 — 1,052
Chairman/Deputy Chairman — 41 — 41 — 407 562 61
Chief Manager 223 801 639 578 — 839 427
Area Manager 228 337 359 543 867 285
Total miscellaneous — 580 — 1,165 — 1,965 — 1,628 — 2,717 — 1,825
£2 Non-operational total
Board resolution 13 1,279 16 3,511 11 2,808 9 2,178 12 3,652 2 1,122
Chairman/Deputy Chairman 2 66 2 155 5 110 15 916 15 815 1 76
Chief Officer 99 404 140 1,015 110 1,069 87 782 131 1,122 53 528
Area Manager 348 370 416 505 383 513 424 754 532 1,136 174 307
Total 462 2,119 574 5,186 509 4,500 535 4,630 690 6,725 230 2,033
TOTAL— ALL PROJECTS
Board resolution 105 11,855 2 13,027 15 10,831 16 10,600 29 14,344 5 1,144
Chairman/Deputy Chairman 61 1,110 32 3,112 41 2,349 96 4,284 68 3,455 31 1,965
Chief Officer 299 2,375 470 6,259 439 5,773 348 5,366 344 5,084 156 2,842
Area Manager 2,413 5,433 2,443 5,977 2,318 5,714 2,206 6,665 2,511 8,916 1,306 4,863
i
Total '2,878 20,773 2,947 28,375 2,813 24,667 2,666 26,915 2,952 31,799 1,498 10,814
Source: YEB.
• (-) £812,000—Project cancellation (authorised 1980-81).
* (-) £ 18,000—Project cancellation (authorised 1976-77) and resubmission of project to Chairman/Deputy Chairman previously authorised by Board resolution in 1973-74.
J (-) 14 due to resubmission of projects to be authorised by Chairman/Deputy Chairman or Chief Officer which were previously authorised by Board resolution (authorisation limits increased).
APPENDIX 6.4
(referred to in paragraph 6.27 et seq)
Case studies of YEB's capital investment appraisal
YEB expenditure
on project
type as a
Latest Date of proportion of
estimated authorisation total capital
gross or latest expenditure
Scheme title cost appraisal Scheme type in 1981-82
A. British Gas, £177,500 at 1982 Operational—new 12%
Easington— business: load related,
11 kV mains industrial supplies
B. Lower Manor £37,100 May 1982 Operational—new 7%
redevelopment— business: load related,
Phase 2 new housing
C. Hunmanby66/llkV £485,500 Nov 1982 Operational—reinforce- 2%
sub-station— ment: load related
replacement of
66/11 kV trans-
formers and 11 kV
switchgear
D. Skelton Grange— £272,000 Oct 1982 "
rearrangement
of 132 kV con-
nections Operational reinforce- 3%
E. Ring Road, £2,484,000 Sep 1981 >- ment: non-load related,
CEGB prompted
Horsforth —new
132/33 kV sub-
station and
132 kV mains
F. Reconductoring £325,000 Dec 1980 Operational — reinforce- 13%
Wakefield B— ment; non-load related,
West Melton replacement and
132 kV overhead ;
renewal of overhead
lines mains
G. Telecontrol £14,000,000 [ ] 1982 Operational— reinforce- n/a
ment: non load related,
•.. telecontrol
H. Development of £2,341,000 Dec 1982 Non-operational —land 2%
Central Depot, and buildings; offices
Hull—Phase 3 :
Provision of new
office block
I. Supply of an ICL £1,052,000 [ ] 1982 Non-operational —mis- 5%
2988 computer cellaneous: office furni-
system ture and equipment
The case studies illustrated authorisation types representing 44 per cent of YEB's capital'expenditure in 1981-82.
Appendix 6.1 shows the relative importance of all authorisation types. Case studies D and E illustrated to same
authorisation type but were both included partly because D threw some light upon E and partly because each
also raised an issue not noted elsewhere.
194
APPENDIX 6.4(a)
British Gas, Easington associated 11 kV mains
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number, 6-7670
Value of authorisation, £177,500
Date of authorisation, 5 October 1982
Date to commence work, July 1982
Date for completion, January 1983
Brief description
2. British Gas has established a compressor station at Easington for which
it requested 5 MVA normal and standby supplies for a load rising on occasion
to 7-5 MVA. YEB provided a normal supply by erecting a 33 kV overhead
line from Patrington 33 kV sub-station to Easington where it set up a 33/11
kV sub-station. Authorisation number 6-7670 relates to the standby supply.
This was provided by a 33 kV overhead line, energised at 11 kV, built from
Withernsea 33/11 kV sub-station to Easington where it will be automatically
connected to the 11 kV busbars of the Easington sub-station should the normal
supply from Patrington fail.
Observations on YEB proposals
3. The normal supply from YEB can be expected to provide a high level
of reliability with a probable failure rate of less than a few hours per year.
The standby supply from YEB emanates from the same 132 kV sub-station
as does the normal supply. The 33 kV overhead lines are necessarily close
to each other over some of the route so that adverse weather conditions affect-
ing one line could affect the other. YEB agreed that there will be rare occasions
when both the normal and standby supplies would be unavailable.
4. It is apparent from YEB's file for this project and from the capital author-
isation form that British Gas would be installing generating plant at Easington
to provide emergency electricity supplies in the event of the total failure of
YEB supplies. In a YEB inter-office memorandum dated 17 November 1981
to the Chief Engineer from the Area Manager at Hull it is stated that British
Gas proposed to supply all its load by means of its private generation in
the event of the loss of normal YEB supply from Patrington when the British
Gas load exceeded 5 MVA. This correspondence seems to indicate that the
capacity of the generating plant provided by British Gas would exceed 5 MVA.
5. YEB subsequently calculated that its standby supply cost only 57p per
kWh likely to be rescued from interruption (cf paragraphs 6.32 to 6.35). But
Merz and McLellan advised us that YEB's standby supply was not necessary
because British Gas had installed its own generating plant. It may be that
British Gas acted too cautiously in providing for a standby supply both from
195
YEB and from its own generating plant. However, we could see no evidence
in the YEB correspondence file to suggest that YEB had discussed with British
Gas the necessity for a YEB standby supply, despite YEB's corporate objec-
tives, which included the aims to provide supplies as cheaply as possible and
to advise consumers on the wise use of electricity.
6. YEB told us that all the circumstances were known to British Gas who,
so far as YEB was concerned, must be deemed competent to make its own
investment decision. YEB did not interpret its objective of advising consumers
on the wise use of electricity as relating to large industrial consumers.
196
APPENDIX 6A(b)
Lower Manor redevelopment—phase 2
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number, 3-7184
Value of authorisation, £37,100
Date of authorisation, 13 May 1982
Date to commence work, April 1982
Date for completion, April 1983
Brief description
2. At Lower Manor, Sheffield, 54 new houses have been built, forming
the second phase of a housing development. The houses were to be supplied
through low voltage underground cables from an existing 750 kVA sub-
station. The present load on the 750 kVA transformer is 503 kVA which
is expected to increase to 584 kVA after the connection of the new houses,
well within the transformer rating,
Observations on YEB proposals
3. YEB confirmed that it used a computer programme to optimise the
design of networks to supply housing estates. Cable sections were selected
following studies of voltage conditions under maximum system loading to
ensure satisfactory voltage to all consumers on the estate. Merz and McLellan
advised us that the type and rating of proposed equipment appeared to be
satisfactory.
197
APPENDIX 6.4(c)
Hunmanby 66/11 kV sub-station
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number, 6-0098
Value of authorisation, £479,500
Date of authorisation, 14 December 1982
Date to commence work, March 1983
Date for completion, March 1984
Brief description
2. The two 7-5 MVA, 66/11 kV transformers in Hunmanby sub-station
were carrying a maximum load of some 7'6 MVA in 1982; with the loss
of one transformer the other would be very marginally overloaded. An addi-
tional load of 1 MVA was expected to be connected in 1983 and a further
load of 1 MVA was expected in 1984, each imposed by extensions to the
nearby Butlin's holiday camp. Together with some allowance for annual load
growth the total demand on this sub-station was expected to rise to around
10 MVA by 1986-87. YEB subsequently told us that the maximum load on
the sub-station would rise in summer to 13 MVA because of the need to
carry, in the event of a 66 kV outage, an additional 3 MVA normally supplied
from Butterwick sub-station.
3. YEB proposed replacing the existing 7-5 MVA transformers with two
new 12/24 MVA continuous emergency rated (CER) transformers; and chang-
ing the existing 11 kV switchboard because it had incoming circuit breakers
of an inadequate rating for the new transformers—the switchgear was 30 years
old and of an obsolete design.
Observations on YEB proposals
4. Two 12/24 MVA CER transformers are capable of providing a firm
capacity of 18 MVA when operating under summer conditions. Firm capacity
is defined as the ability of to supply continuously the total transformer load
with one transformer not connected, as would be the case under fault or
maintenance in respect of one transformer. The provision of firm transformer
capacity is an established and accepted practice. Normally two or more trans-
formers share a sub-station load but when one transformer is unavailable
the remaining transformers supply all the load.
5. A CER transformer is equipped with fans and oil pumps which are
automatically switched on to cool the transformer when its load exceeds its
naturally cooled rating. In the case of a 12/24 MVA CER unit the fans and
oil pumps would be switched on when the load exceeds 12 MVA so that
the transformer could carry 18 MVA in summer..
198
6. At a voltage level of 66 kV Merz and McLellan considered that any
reinforcement scheme should provide capacity for load growth for perhaps
8 or 9 years ahead. For Hunmanby YEB chose to instal transformers with
firm capacity of 18 MVA to meet an expected load of 13 MVA in 1986-87.
Merz and McLellan told us that this transformer capacity was somewhat
excessive since a firm capacity of 18 MVA was expected to be adequate until
at least the end of the present century provided no additional large loads
were connected. YEB's choice was in line with its standard policy to purchase
only one rating of 66/11 kV or 33/11 kV transformer, namely 12/24 MVA
CER throughout its area.
7. Merz and McLellan advised us that a number of 66/11 kV or 33/11
kV transformers, of differing capacities for each voltage transformation, could
be obtained readily in the United Kingdom. For Hunmanby, a more economi-
cal solution, saving around £30,000 over the authorised scheme, would have
been to install two 12-5 MVA naturally cooled transformers. These were not
equipped with fans but could take some overload for short periods thus having
a firm capacity of 15 MVA in summer. Naturally cooled units have signifi-
cantly lower capital costs and slightly lower maintenance costs than CER
transformers. Further savings could result from matching 11 kV cabling to
expected loads instead of to the standard transformer rating as was YEB's
practice. Finally, we asked YEB whether a more flexible purchasing policy
might increase the scope for exchanging distribution equipment from areas
where demand had declined with lower rated units from areas of expanding
demand.
8. YEB did not think that the total saving would be as high as £30,000.
YEB argued as follows. The additional cost at a few sub-stations of using
its standard transformer was slight and more than offset by the advantages
of standardisation to YEB and the ESI. A higher number of annual purchases
than the present very infrequent rate (less than one or two) by each area
board would be required before the ESI could benefit from ordering more
than one standard rating, bearing in mind production economies of scale,
particularly in design. YEB could have omitted fans from its standard trans-
former but would not then have been sure of obtaining them when later
required or have been able to use them now as spares for more heavily loaded
transformers. 11 kV cabling to match YEB's standard transformer rating was
more costly if purchased initially, than added later. Finally, the switching
of equipment between areas of differing demands was not usually economically
attractive because of the relatively high costs of dismantling, transporting
and reinstalling major items of plant, particularly transformers.
9. We noted that YEB agreed that a saving could have been made by order-
ing a naturally cooled transformer for Hunmanby and we believe YEB should
examine its standard rating policy for transformers more closely, taking par-
ticularly into account the expected times before equipment needs to be uprated
which may in some cases, Merz and McLellan advised us, be as much as
10 or 15 years.
199
Cost benefit analysis
10. At our request, YEB attempted to carry out a cost benefit analysis
for the Hunmanby scheme. It calculated that the cost of each kWh likely
to be rescued by the project was as high as £2.40 (cf paragraphs 6.32 to
6.35), if all the costs of the project were attributed to improvements in security.
YEB subsequently told us that a major reason for replacing the transformers
at Hunmanby was because their connections were not of a standard form.
YEB had inherited transformers with different forms of connection which
could not tfe easily connected together in a unified distribution system. A
standard policy had been adopted following a cost benefit analysis. It was
not easy to attribute a particular benefit for following the standard policy
in the Hunmanby case. Merz and McLellan told us that it would not have
advised replacing transformers simply to obtain a standard form of connec-
tion.
200
APPENDIX 6A(d)
Skelton Grange
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number, 6-7670
Value of authorisation, £272,000
Date of authorisation, 29 October 1982
Date to commence work, June 1983
Date for completion, December 1983
Brief description
2. Three 60 MVA generating sets at Skelton Grange 'A' power station
are to be retired by CEGB by the end of 1983, resulting in insufficient capacity
at Skelton Grange 'A' to meet the load normally supplied from there. YEB
therefore proposes to transfer load from Skelton Grange 'A', generating
station and 275/132 kV sub-station to Kirkstall 275/132 kV sub-station which
has spare capacity. Additionally, it proposes to transfer load from Skelton
Grange 'A' to Skelton Grange 'B' 132 kV busbars. This is to be accomplished
by the rearrangement of 132 kV overhead line and cable circuits associated
with Kirkstall and Skelton Grange 275/132 kV sub-stations. Supply to Beeston
Royds 132 kV sub-station is to be transferred from Skelton Grange 'B' to
Kirkstall sub-station. CEGB would thus make annual savings in the order
of £0*6 million to £1 million.
Observations on YEB proposals
3. YEB expects there to be firm transformer capacity in all the Kirkstall
'B' and Skelton Grange sub-stations to beyond 1994. The definition of 'firm
capacity' used here is the same as that used in Appendix 6A(c), paragraph
4. Merz and McLellan had no adverse comment to make in so far as the
proposal would minimise costs to the ESI as a whole.
4. There may however be a charging problem in so far as YEB will carry
the costs of a scheme which benefits the entire industry. ESI rules relating
to the ownership and responsibility for transmission and distribution assets
state that when a generating station embedded in the 132 kV system is closed,
the cost of any necessary alteration or reinforcement of the local area board
network will be borne by that area board, since the closure is in pursuit
of the economy of the ESI as a whole. YEB said that CEGB took into account
the alteration or reinforcement costs falling on to area boards when deciding
in which order power stations should be closed to minimise costs for the
ESI as a whole.
5. Two or three area boards pressed for a review of the rules when in
1975 CEGB proposed advanced closure of a number of power stations to reduce
the over-capacity by successive reductions in national load forecasts. These
201
boards considered that the advanced closures put an unfair commitment on
them to replace lost capacity, usually through having to invest in transformers
to step down from the 132 kV system instead of taking lower voltage lines
directly from the local generating station. The counter argument was that
these boards had previously enjoyed lower distribution costs through having
generating stations in their areas. In September 1981 the Electricity Council
approved a Working Party recommendation that the rule should remain un-
changed.
6. As noted in Chapter 12, the ESI follows long run marginal cost
pricing principles in devising the structure, but not the levels of tariffs. These
principles suggest that bygones are bygones so that each area board should
bear proportionately the costs of improvements only in so far as these can
be related to the current and future demands of its own customers. Thus
the cost of allowing CEGB to make annual savings through power station
closures should, if these benefit the industry at large, be paid for by the in-
dustry at large, being recovered through a tariff based for example on each
area board's basic capacity charge.
7. YEB said that each area board would have less incentive to minimise
its system modification costs if it were not having to meet them. But this
assumes that CEGB or the Electricity Council would scrutinise modification
proposals of the area boards less efficiently than the area boards or the Electri-
city Council scrutinse CEGB's estimates of savings arising from its proposed
power station closure programme. In principle, a redistribution of charges
could affect the willingness of area boards as a whole to bear the costs or
particular power stations and thus could alter the order in which they close.
8. YEB considered that such a redistribution of charges would have a de
minimis effect on each area board's finances, although it had not made a
detailed calculation. YEB also argued that it would be unfair to alter the
rules now that its consumers had faced some of the costs of the power station
closure programme which was already well advanced in its area, whereas the
programme in London Electricity Board's area was only in its early stages
and the bulk of its costs had still to be met. Overall, the problem is changing
in so far as no power stations by the 1990s will be connected at or below
132 kV so that in general no reinforcement of area board systems would
be necessary in respect of closures thenceforth.
202
APPENDIX 6A(e)
Ring Road, Horsforth
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number 8-2704
Value of authorisation, £2,484,000
Date of authorisation, September 1981
Date to commence work, April 1982
Date for completion, October 1983
Brief description
2. YEB had originally, in July 1976, authorised for Ring Road, Horsforth,
a new 132/33 kV sub-station equipped with two 90 MVA transformers to
offset a shortfall in capacity resulting from the expected retirement within
a year or two of Kirkstall 'C' Power Station.
3. Following the original authorisation, YEB received planning objections
to part of the scheme, namely a double circuit 132 kV overhead line from
Kirkstall to Ring Road, Horsforth. The objections resulted in a public inquiry
in which YEB argued that its scheme would be cheaper than what it considered
to be the best alternative of installing additional transformer capacity at the
retiring station, Kirkstall. This alternative followed the usual solution to capa-
city lost through generating plant retirement. The comparative costs which
YEB produced for the inquiry are shown at Annex A.1 YEB's preference
for the authorised scheme stemmed from its belief that it would provide supply
more efficiently to existing and future loads and from its expectation that
it would be necessary in 10 or 15 years time to transfer Rodley 132 kV sub-
station from the reduced Skelton Grange system to the Kirkstall system. If
the Ring Road, Horsforth, sub-station were established, a relatively short
overhead route from Rodley to Horsforth could be used for the transfer,
instead of a more expensive underground route from Rodley to Kirkstall.
4. As a result of the public inquiry, YEB was instructed to adopt 132 kV
underground cables over part of the route from Kirkstall to Horsforth, signifi-
cantly increasing the cost of the scheme which was then revised and resubmit-
ted for Board approval during September 1981 (see paragraph 1). Because
of a reduced load forecast YEB decided to install only one 90 MVA trans-
former and to lay initially only one underground cable circuit.
5. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, YEB met the load at Kirkstall, which
in 1976 was 125 MVA at 33 kV, by arranging there two 30 MVA 132/11
kV transformers and two 20 MVA 11/33 kV transformers, which together
with the two existing 60 MVA 132/33 kV transformers were assigned a firm
1
The costs appeared to show that YEB's authorised scheme was £400,000 cheaper than the
alternative; internal costings, which discounted future expenditure by 5 per cent per annum,
showed the saving to be £140,000.
203
capacity (see Appendix 6A(c), paragraph 4) of only 101 MVA because of the
load sharing capability of these units. The remaining shortfall of 24 MVA
was met by transferring load to Leeds North sub-station which was in turn
supplied by Skelton Grange sub-station.
Observations on the proposed schemes
6. Merz and McLellan advised us that the 180 MVA transformer capacity
originally proposed in July 1976 for Ring Road, Horsforth, was excessive,
bearing in mind the load forecast at that time which gave rise to an expected
shortfall in capacity of around 65 MVA by 1983-84. YEB has standardised
on only one rating, namely 90 MVA, of 132/33 kV transformer and Merz
and McLellan considered that one or two other ratings should be available
(cf Appendix 6.4(c), paragraph 9).
7. As shown in Annex B, Merz and McLellan advised us that the Kirkstall
scheme would be around £0'4 million cheaper than the original Ring Road,
Horsforth scheme if allowance were made for its being cheaper to build on
an established site as at Kirkstall, rather than on a greenfield site such as
at the Ring Road; and if the transformers at Kirkstall were arranged in a
manner not in accordance with YEB policy. The Kirkstall scheme would be
£0-9 million cheaper if the Rodley transfer could be ignored.
8. For the interim solution, Merz and McLellan advised us that the assig-
nation of only 101 MVA for the grouping of relatively old transformers was
prudent, four of them being more than 40 years old in 1976. We wondered
whether this solution made the new Ring Road, Horsforth, scheme redundant,
bearing in mind that there had apparently, if fortunately, been no sub-station
overloading in the Kirkstall area since 1976 and that, as a result of lower
load forecasts, no overloading problems were now expected at Skelton Grange
or Kirkstall sub-stations up to 1994. YEB pointed out that the four old trans-
formers at Kirkstall were in a very poor condition, with leaking radiators
and unserviceable voltage control equipment, and should be removed from
the system as soon as possible; failure of any of the 132 kV transformers,
including the two 60 MVA transformers of more recent manufacture, would
cause widespread loss of supplies in the Leeds area, constituting an unaccept-
able risk. In addition, there was a need to consider the future transfer for
Rodley sub-station (see paragraph 3).
9. As a further possible alternative to the presently preferred scheme, Merz
and McLellan noted that the load of the Ring Road, Horsforth area was
and is supplied from Kirkstall by a number of 33 kV cable circuits, apparently
with spare capacity and in good condition. In addition, a currently redundant
66 kV double circuit overhead line between Kirkstall and the Ring Road,
Horsforth area could apparently be used, if required, to reinforce the 33 kV
circuits. But, bearing in mind the transfer of Rodley 132 kV sub-station, we
concluded that without a much more detailed study of YEB's strategy in
relation to power station closures it was impossible to assess the case fully.
204
ANNEX A TO APPENDIX 6A(e)
Summary of expenditure on proposed reinforcement
and on alternative reinforcement at Kirkstall
Alternative
Proposed reinforcement
reinforcement at Kirkstall
Item at Ring Road Power Station
£ £
INITIAL EXPENDITURE
132 kVswitchgear at
Kirkstall 180,000 180,000
0-52 km 2 x 500 mm2
132 kV cable and
terminations 258,000
4-34 km 175 mm2
double circuit
132 kV line 434,000
132/33 kV sub-station 1,137,000 1,137,000
33 kV cabling 185,000 214,000
1,936,000 1,789,000
Capitalised value of
additional 33 kV
system losses 220,000
Additional2 cost for
400 mm 132 kV
overhead line
conductor 87,000
2,023,000 ,0,0
20900
Additional cost for
undergrounding
0-82 km by 2 x 500 mm2
132 kV cable 265,000
2,288,000 ,0,0
20900
2. FUTURE EXPENDITURE
Uprate one 132 kV
circuit by 0-85 km
1 x 500 mm 2 cable 195,000
132 kV connection to
transfer Rodley from
Skelton Grange to
Kirkstall 275/132 kV
sub-station 125,000 999,000
2,608,000 3,008,000
Source: YEB.
Notes: 1 Prepared for Public Inquiry January 1981.
2 For its internal use, YEB discounted future expenditure (expected to take place 10 years later) by 5 per cent
per annum, reducing the totals of £2,608,000 and £3,008,000 to £2,485,000 and £2,622,000 respectively.
205
ANNEX B TO APPENDIX 6.4(e)
Ring Road, Horsforth, and Kirkstall sub-station schemes
(all figures in £'000)
Estimated adjusted
. by Aferz and McLellan
Ring Road Kirkstall
Initial expenditure
132 kV switchgear at Kirkstall 180 -(ft)
132 kV overhead lines 408
132 kV underground cables 378 220
132/33 kV sub-station 1,137 850(6)
33 kV cabling 203 203
Capitalised cost of extra losses 220
2,306 1,493
Discounted future expenditure
Duplicate one of 132 kV underground cables (10
years later) 120
Transfer Rodley load from
Skelton Grange to Kirkstall
(10 years later) 77 613
Total expenditure 2,503 2,106
Source: Mere and McLellan.
Note: The significant differences between YEB's internal and Merz and McLellan's costings are that Merz
and McLellan would have:
(a) saved around £180,000 by arranging the transformers at Kirkstall, in a manner which was not
in accordance with YEB policy; and
(b) expected it to be around £287,000 cheaper to build a sub-station or an established site such
as at Kirkstall rather than on a greenfield site such as at the Ring Road.
206
APPENDIX 6A(f)
Reconductoring Wakefield (B' to West Melton 1 and 2
132 kV overhead lines
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number, 8-3337
Value of authorisation, £325,000
Date of authorisation, 16 December 1980
Date to commence work, May 1981
Date for completion, November 1981
Brief description
2. The ownership of 132 kV overhead lines in YEB's area was transferred
from CEGB to YEB on 1 April 1969. CEGB was however retained as an
agent, carrying out the planning, construction and maintenance of the lines.
YEB took over the planning and construction of its lines in the mid-1970s
and is now also taking over the maintenance. YEB had, before the ownership
of the lines passed to it, little experience of the construction or maintenance
techniques for these 132 kV lines and furthermore such experience could not
be obtained in a short period. YEB was, and still is, dependent on advice
from CEGB, particularly for maintenance requirements.
3. As a result of a CEGB report and recommendation, YEB agreed that
a number of its 132 kV overhead lines over 25 years old should be
reconductored; the policy was expected to cost around £300,000 per annum
for 10 years. So far YEB has approved the capital expenditure for three lines,
with gross costs totalling £540,000; the work was to be engineered and carried
out by CEGB.
4. The Elland to Thornhill and Elland to Halifax 132 kV overhead lines
had already been reconductored at YEB's expense, prior to the authorisation
of the scheme which we considered and which had been deferred by CEGB
until 1982.
Observations on YEB proposal
5. The reconductored lines in the scheme which we considered were about
25 years old, which Merz and McLellan told us was surprising bearing in
mind that lines of this type would normally be expected to have much longer
lives.
6. From the information obtained from YEB it appeared that for some
sections of the lines the steel core inside the aluminium conductor was greased
only partially when the conductor was manufactured in accordance with the
specification of the day. Present practice is to grease fully the steel core and
first layer or layers of aluminium. As a result of earlier practice, corrosion
207
apparently took place on the conductors of the Wakefield 'B' to West Melton
lines. The aluminium strands of the conductor oxidised and yielded low ducti-
lity figures; Infra-red camera examinations showed hot joints and fittings.
A number of failures occurred over the previous seven years, a few of which
appeared to be attributable to aged conductors.
7. The information provided in the YEB capital authorisation form and
in other papers examined did not, in the view of Merz and McLellan, justify
the cost of reconductoring. Merz and McLellan told us that it would have
required a much more detailed report on the CEGB investigations and to
know, for instance, how many samples of conductor were examined and where
on the lines the samples were obtained, before saying whether the expenditure
was justified.
8. We think it surprising that YEB approved expenditure for reconductor-
ing three lines when it was apparently not able to assess fully whether or
not the work was essential. YEB did carry out some post-investment sampling
of cables taken down by CEGB. We note that further schemes for reconductor-
ing of 132 kV lines in the YEB area have been postponed.
208
APPENDIX 6.4(g)
A telecontrol scheme for YEB
Project details
1. Value of authorisation, £13,000,000
Date of authorisation, February 1983
Date for commencement, November 1984
Date for completion, February 1989
Brief description
2. At present CEGB, as agent for YEB, telecontrols the 132 kV circuit
breakers and associated equipment in YEB's area. (The control system and
the 132 kV circuit were formally taken over by YEB from CEGB in 1969.)
The control system is said to be obsolete but is still in use. CEGB has agreed
to maintain it until 1987 when it must be replaced or other arrangements
made. As a stop-gap measure for 132 kV sub-stations built since 1974, YEB
installed cheap multiplex alarms without remote control facilities. YEB cannot
at present control remotely the rest of its electricity supply system.
3. YEB proposed to introduce a telecontrol system which it believed was
broadly similar to those already installed by many of the other area electricity
boards in England and Wales. A limited number of remote control rooms
would be able to identify faults, to gather information about feeder loadings
and to control circuit breakers in all 132 kV, 66 kV, and 33 kV sub-stations.
Observations on YEB proposals
4. Based upon its experience with similar installations, Merz and McLellan
considered the estimated cost of £13 million for the scheme to be reasonable
for the facilities that would be provided.
5. The telecontrol scheme would allow earlier restoration of electricity sup-
plies following a system fault, particularly in rural areas, than was possible
with the present control system.
6. YEB derived the estimated increase in kWh that the scheme was likely to
rescue from interruption by examining fault statistics and simulated network
conditions using typical parameters. Merz and McLellan believed these calcu-
lations to be reasonable.
7. YEB assumed that consumers would be willing to pay up to £1.50 for
each kWh saved from interruption, around 35 tunes the normal cost of a
unit of electricity. The 35 times multiplier was derived from a survey, reviewed
by the Electricity Council, of consumers' opinion in Finland, following a strike
lasting nearly eight weeks of power station technicians in 1977. The result
was said to be substantiated by a recent survey of consumer opinion in Sweden,
209
estimates of the costs of the blackout in New York in 1977, and several other
studies none of which related directly and comprehensively to United King-
dom consumers.
8. The Finnish opinion survey suggested that the value placed by consumers
on preventing an interruption varied widely according to, for example, the
occupation or business of respondents, whether they were in urban or rural
areas, the length or time of day of any interruption and whether advance
warning of an interruption was given. YEB derived the 35 times multiplier
by reducing by 20 per cent the average value that it inferred was placed by
Finnish consumers on the prevention of emergency interruptions. YEB said
the reduction was in line with Electricity Council advice to cover what it
called inevitable uncertainties; moreover, under-investment in a distribution
system was less costly to rectify than over-investment. YEB also pointed out
that the 20 per cent reduction was just sufficient for its recommended scheme
still to show a 5 per cent real rate of return (see paragraph 13).
9. We were uncertain how far the Finnish opinion survey could indicate
the benefits YEB consumers would derive from the telecontrol scheme. The
premium a consumer would be willing to pay to avoid an emergency interrup-
tion is likely to depend upon the probability of it otherwise occurring. This
may be very low, particularly if the proposed improvement in security relates
to a system which already has a high capability for avoiding interruptions,
as Merz and McLellan advised us was the case for YEB (see paragraph 17).1
10. We were also uncertain how much allowance should be made for the
effect that a certain level of security for one consumer, especially in a residen-
tial area, may well give much the same level of security for his neighbour,
leading a respondent in an opinion survey to suggest a larger value than
he really has on improved security, especially if he believes that the probability
of power cuts will be lower the higher the sum he suggests; and that the
burden of paying for improved security will be spread on to his neighbour.
YEB argued that, conversely, a consumer may understate the cost of an inter-
ruption in order to avoid increased charges.
11. Other types of studies reviewed by the Electricity Council involved plac-
ing a value on domestic consumers' leisure time; making a macro-economic
estimate of the cost of a national blackout; and inferring the value placed
on security by previous electricity distribution managers through measuring
the costs of rescued kWh implied by their practices.
12. Almost 90 per cent of the measured annual net benefits claimed for
the telecontrol scheme came from calculating the amount of energy likely
to be rescued at £1*50 per kWh; and deducting net maintenance costs of some
£240,000 per year. For the rest, annual savings of £159,000 were estimated
1
YEB rejected the idea that it should have applied a range of multipliers to different parts
of its systems, reflecting that whereas its preferred telecontrol scheme was replacing a perhaps
highly valued 132 kV security system, it was elsewhere improving upon an already acceptable
system, particularly in urban areas. Research had found no significant difference between the
multipliers relevant to the different voltage levels of the system to be telecontrolled; there were
greater variations between multipliers relating, eg, to different times a day.
210
would arise from reduced staff time and travelling costs incurred in carrying
out field work, comprising data collection, normal and emergency switching
and other operations.
13. The scheme was marginally viable when measured costs and benefits
were discounted at the required 5 per cent real rate of return. YEB emphasised
that it had deliberately minimised expected benefits; unmeasured benefits
included:
(a) faster restoration of supplies to collieries to meet safety standards,
although interruptions lasted rarely longer than a few minutes because
of the already relatively high degree of security of their supplies;
(b) better handling of national supply emergencies, in line with other area
board telecontrols;
(c) better network planning, although savings from this would emerge only
when load started growing again and even then savings would not
appear for many years; and
(d) a faster reaction to, eg, gas alarms from large transformers and oil
pressure alarms from oil-filled cables.
14. In respect of alternative schemes presented to the Board, the undis-
counted capital costs and estimated annual disbenefits of a number of options
were compared to their disadvantage with those of the recommended scheme.
The so-called 'do-nothing' option involved spending around £0'4 million on
replacing the obsolete 132 kV remote control system with more multiplex
alarms and putting general alarms elsewhere. No annual benefits were esti-
mated for this option which was rejected because it would not have met the
security standards recommended by the Electricity Council. Other rejected
options, nof presented to the Board, included telecontrolling down only to
the 33 kV switchgear.
15. The recommended scheme was eventually authorised for a number of
reasons. Inter alia, a 5 per cent rate of return was considered sufficient bearing
in mind the likely lack of a capital budget restraint and that even if another
option could show a higher rate of return it would not have met the security
standards recommended by the Electricity Council.
16. YEB subsequently told us that it was sure none of its consumers would
object to the recommended scheme if they realised that they could be getting
aborted energy cut by 28 per cent for only 0-004 pence per unit. Since the
average cost of a unit is about 4-3 pence, the average consumer would be
getting a big improvement in service for less than 0-1 per cent on his bill.
17. Merz and McLellan advised us that security was already of a very high
standard, particularly in urban areas. The telecontrol scheme was either replac-
ing an obsolete system or adding marginally to this very high standard.
211
APPENDIX 6A(h)
Centralisation of Hull Area and Hull District Engineering
functions at central depot, 200 Clough Road, Hull:
Phase 3—Office block
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number, 6-0052
Value of authorisation, £2,245,200
Date of authorisation, 14 December 1982
Date to commence work, July 1983
Date for completion, March 1984
Brief description
2. The office block represents the third phase of the centralisation of Hull
Area and Hull District Engineering functions at YEB's central depot in Hull.
Phase 1 was the construction of an additional storey on and refurbishment
of the existing offices on the site; it was completed in May 1980, having
cost around £260,000. Phase 2 is the construction of a new Area and District
engineering workshop, together with a stores building and ancillary works.
For this, the Board authorised in October 1981 gross expenditure estimated
at £2,100,000. Work was expected to start in January 1981 and last two years.
Observations on YEB proposals
3. No benefits were identified for Phase 1 which was an essential preliminary
stage to Phases 2 and 3. YEB said the three phases should be taken together.
For the other two phases, savings were estimated in terms of:
(a) the sale or lease of depots and offices currently being used elsewhere
in Hull;
(b) lower maintenance, electricity and telephone costs; and
(c) lower numbers of staff required as messengers and less time spent by
other staff travelling between depots and offices.
4. YEB discounted estimated costs and benefits valued at constant prices
by 0 per cent and 10 per cent, interpolating between these results to estimate
the discount rate (known as the internal rate of return) at which estimated
costs equalled estimated benefits. The internal rates of return were estimated
to be 7 per cent for Phase 2 in September 1981 and 7-2 per cent for Phase
3 in November 1982. YEB approved the expenditures on these phases because
it deemed their rates of return were high enough; moreover, measured savings
had been conservatively estimated and there were other savings which could
not be measured objectively (eg improvements in management, supervision
and communication resulting from staff being located on one site).
212
5. When the Board made its decision, YEB had in mind a 10 per cent target
real rate of return, discounting it for benefits which could not be measured.
More recently, it has followed Electricity Council advice by moving towards
a 5 per cent target real rate of return on all types of investment, in line
with the 1978 White Paper.1
6. Treasury guidelines on 'Investment Appraisal in the Public Sector', issued
in 1982, recommend against the use of the internal rate of return which can
give misleading results when comparing mutually incompatible projects or
in times of capital restraint. Instead the guidelines recommend computing
net benefits (divided by capital expenditure where capital rationing is necess-
ary) discounted at target rates of return. The guidelines also recommend the
use of sensitivity analysis to highlight the impact of critical but uncertain
assumptions. The guidelines are issued initially to central government account-
ing officers but are also intended to be relevant to nationalised industries.
The Department of Energy have not drawn them specifically to the attention
of the Electricity Council partly because the Electricity Council had drawn
up its own guidelines some years ago, on the basis of which area boards
have prepared their own guidelines.
7. As noted in paragraph 6.23, non-operational schemes are controlled by
Head Office within an agreed total programme. For the Hull phases, no alter-
native project, apart from carrying on as before, was considered formally
by the Board (see paragraph 11). YEB did not subject its results to detailed
sensitivity checks for unexpected changes in costs and benefits. It relied instead
on assuming that it had under-estimated net benefits, in the case of staff time
saved by up to 20 to 25 per cent. The calculations were subject to close scrutiny
by Head Office which accepted the Hull Area estimates of staff-time savings,
similar estimates for the centralisation of depots and offices in Doncaster
in 1976 having been proved accurate by a post-investment appraisal. YEB
called in outside advice for costings only in the case of architects required
for Phase 3, YEB's own architects being fully employed on Phase 2. Estimated
costs for Phase 2 rose by around 15 per cent at constant prices during the
period between the Board's authorisation in principle in September 1980 and
its final authorisation in October 1981. However, prices tendered in April
1982 suggested that costs might be around 20 per cent lower than the level
finally authorised by the Board.
8. We discounted by 5 per cent in real terms YEB's estimates of costs
and benefits for all three phases and converted the values to a common base
year, 1983-84, and a common price level, for September 1981. We then tested
the sensitivity of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 estimates, albeit only by varying
total costs and total benefits by certain percentages in either direction. We
found that only under the pessimistic assumptions of non-compensating errors
for total costs and total benefits in the order of 20 per cent might the three
Phases, taken together, not have been approved, given a 5 per cent target
real rate of return. In the event, as indicated in paragraph 7, the tender figure
for the building contract for Phase 2 was about 20 per cent lower than
originally forecast.
1
Op cit.
213
9. It is possible that the net benefits should have been higher than estimated.
First, no benefit was included for the possible sale of YEB's Osborne Street
site. When Phase 2 was designed, staff had already been moved from Osborne
Street but the site there remains partly in use as an operational sub-station
and its future is still uncertain.
10. Secondly, the standard of insulation for the office block in Phase 3
exceeded, if only just, the requirements laid down by Department of Environ-
ment regulations. Such investment was thought likely to pay for itself within
two years. No credit was taken for the advertisement value of achieving a
highly efficient standard of heating and ventilation through recently developed
heat pumps.
Development of options
11. Alternative sites inside Hull were not looked at in detail, although YEB
thought it had a fair idea of their relative values and had implicitly borne
them in mind. Land adjoining the existing office block had been bought as
early as the 1960s, having since been under-used for a transport section and
covered storage. The land appears to have been purchased mainly with some
form of the present centralisation project in mind. Alternative sites outside
Hull were not considered. The question of rearranging areas, including com-
bining Hull and Grimsby, is discussed in Chapter 4.
214
APPENDIX 6A(i)
Enhancement of the ICL dual 2972 computer system
Project details
1. YEB authorisation number, 8-3593
Value of authorisation, £1,000,000
Date of authorisation, July 1982
Brief description
2. In 1982 YEB proposed to uprate its current computer capacity from
an ICL dual 2972 to an ICL dual 2976 system and to acquire an ICL 2988
processing system in order to meet its known computer requirements up to
the end of 1985.
3. The current dual 2972 system, replacing the previous ICL System 4 com-
puters, was commissioned in August 1980, following the Board's acceptance
of ICL's tender which was the only one it invited. The sole invitation resulted
from an 18 month survey of more widespread tendering requested by industry
in general and other area boards, particularly the South of Scotland and the
North West Electricity Boards who were seeking to replace configurations
about the same as YEB's and whose future workloads would be similar.
4. From June to October 1981, YEB staff and ICL carried out a detailed
sizing exercise to determine whether the dual 2972 system could cope with
the new projects proposed by the Computer Development Group (see Chapter
8) as well as with the higher than initially expected load from existing uses.
5. YEB staff and ICL then considered how best to meet YEB's known
computer requirements up to the end of 1985. As a result, ICL offered the
package noted in paragraph 2.
Observations on YEB proposals
6. In essence, cost benefit appraisal had been applied to the projects
approved by the Computer Development Group, leaving a cost-minimisation
exercise for determining which option to pursue for additional hardware. That
apart, YEB confidently expected that fulfilment by its recommended scheme
of its known computer requirements up to 1985 and of its likely requirements
beyond would achieve savings equivalent to at least 25 clerical grade staff,
the critical number required to earn a 5 per cent real rate of return over
seven years on £1 million capital expenditure. (To earn 10 per cent, the critical
number was 29.) YEB's confident estimate resulted from experience gained
from a number of computerisations of clerical work over the last decade or
so, the larger of which have generally been subject to detailed post-investment
appraisals.
215
7. YEB did not seek outside advice, apart from ICL, in devising this scheme.
It said that options were severely limited by the need to make the enhancement
compatible with current computer equipment. Plug compatible equipment
manufactured by companies other than ICL could have been used, as could
other equipment through the use of software aids. These options were not
considered desirable because of likely increases in maintenance costs and prob-
lems in fault identification and correction when dealing with two manufac-
turers. Options were also limited in 1977 when the Board decided to request
a tender only from ICL. This had been done partly because conversion aids
were not then well developed and partly because a new hardware system needs
to be run in tandem with its predecessor for at least two years while faults
in the new system are eliminated (incompatible systems running in tandem
require different software and costs are significantly increased). A centralised
computer system, rather than linked area computers, was preferred in the
1960s, when YEB introduced its first computer; this was considered the only
sensible course because lower unit costs result from economies of scale and
from faster responses. Distributed processing was again considered in 1982
but found to be too costly.
216
APPENDIX 7.1
(referred to in paragraph 7.11)
Sequence of design and planning of a typical sub-station
5 years to placing of contract stage
2 years from capital authorisation to completion
Consumer demand The public
T
I Identification of consumer requirement Terms Engineers
I
The 'what' specification System Design Section
Includes determination of T Construction, Building and
transformer requirements The 'how' specification
Technical Sections
and . . . specifications
T
Report containing draft schedules
for the distribution reinforcement System Design Section
instruction (DRI)
Technical consent plus Routing of lines clarification Construction & Estates
deemed planning consent comments on technical proposals ACEs, Safety Eng & CEGB
T
Refinement of technical proposals System Design Section
T
Costs of proposals Construction Section
T
Final DRI System Design Section
Gives
Technical consent for scheme System Design Section
Enabling
I
Detailed Engineering of
project up to point prior to Construction Section
placing of contracts
Authorisation of rates of
spend pre-determined . . . Authorisation of project spend System Design Section
by policy
Specified tendering . ..
Selection of specific contractors Construction Section
process
Authorisation of rates of
spend pre-determined .. . Authorisation of individual contracts Construction Section
by policy
Contracts placement Construction Section
Contracts Section
Delegation of site Management and control of project
supervision to area . . . Construction Section
through to completion
construction section
Source: MMC study.
217
APPENDIX 7.2
(referred to in paragraph 7.15)
Unit Distribution in YEB System—1981-82
TOTAL INPUT - FROM CEGB 21,420 M AND FROM OTHER SOURCES 5 M SMD = 4,205 MW LF - 57.9%
AGGREGATE MD ON BSP's 5256 MVA. AT PF. 0.931, MD = 4893 MW
<> JL
Demand
Diversity
0.86
f~ d
1 I
1^ **.«.. .
. 132 kV
L __,
1
14950 M T 555 M
x^-v 400/66 kV(1 off) /- '•V 275/66 or 33 kV (14off|/^ «v 132/66 or 33 or 22 kV (55 off) /*>^ 132/1 1 or 6.5 kV (6 off)
C •CI MD 128 MVA
360 MVA
Cap. ( JCap. 3735 MVA f I Cap. 8765 MVA ( ) Cap. 360 MVA
>=
c ) U = 36%
Agg. >« S< Agg. MD 1603 MVA >CIK Agg. MD 3372 MVA >0< Agg. Md 153 MVA
sI
' LF - 34%
f JU = 43%
V LF = 46%
X
(
r*
)U = 38%
S LF = 52%
(Transformer losses 93 M)
{ J U = 43%
^rS LF = 43%
(Transformer losses 4 Ml
t (PF = 0.726) 1 (PF • 0.888) ' (PF = 0.967) (PF = 0.953)
I 273 M 5634 M j 14857 M
71 M
I
NEEB
I
BST CUSTOMERS
2638 M
f
33 kV NETWORK
BST CUSTOMERS
18085 M
(Mains losses 82 M) t
LOCAL
1
GENERATION
£
emand
iversity
0.93
MD = 21 MV *, Agg. MD 946 MVA 688 M RM
LF=41% Agg. MD 1.10 MVA
LF = 74% /^\66or33or22kV/11 or6.6kV (36.8 off)
1 1 f O IVIVM
(PF. - 0.783) (PF.- 0.961) >«=<lA9^f!ID 4379 MVA
( ) U = 39%
Lf
^Y
•
°* 7%
(Transformer losses 128 M) '
I 17167 M (PF. = 0.95)
551 M
1 ]1(.. Demand
Diversity
151 KM 0.71
(Ma ns losses 147 M)
BSTC USTOMERS OTHERPRIMARY
* IlkVNETWORK
'* OTHER
SUB/ST CUSTOME RS CUSTOMS RS SOURCES
10718 M
487 M 2038 M 4333M 5M
LF = 64% LF-45% LF=41%
(PF.- 0.928) (PF. - 0.96) (PF. = 0.95)
9858 M ' £160 M
GROUND MOUNTED POLE EQUIPMENTS
11or6.6kV/LV|135" 6 off) ^Av ^^ 11or6.6kV/LV 1 15426 off)
Cap. 7809 MVA
Agg. MD 3849 MVA ( I
w ( J
w Cap.
Agg.
861 MVA
MD 600 MVA
U = 49%
LF=30%
(j
vx I
Vx
U = 70%
LF = 16%
(Transformer losses 213 M) | 1 (Transformer losses 44 M)
(PF. = 0.96) T 9645 M 816 Ml IPF. = 0.97)
TOTAL YEB SYSTEM LOSSES 10461 M
EXCLUDING 132 kV MAINS * 958 (Mains Services and Meter losses 242 M)
OR 4.5% OF PURCHASES
TOTAL SENT OUT BY YEB « 20472
TOTAL SALES TO CUSTOMERS = 29353 f I I 1
Small Industrial Domestic Comm. Other
1380M 5847 M 2052 M 940 M
Source: YEB.
218
APPENDIX 7.3
(referred to in paragraphs 7.25 and 7.34)
1981-82—Summary of incidents by fault cause and main equipment group—LV
Yorkshire
O/H Power Sw/Gr
Total lines . cables Fuse/Gr Others
Total all causes 9,268 1,219 5,882 666 1,501
01 Lightning 8 2 3 1 2
02 Rain 18 — 5 13
—
03 Snow, sleet and blizzard 272 238 5 5 24
04 Ice 3 3 — — —
05 Freezing fog and frost 1 1 — — —
06 Wind and gale (excl windborne material) 122 108 — 13 1
07 Solar heat
10 Airborne deposits (excl windborne mater-
ial) 1 1
14 Condensation 2 — 1 — 1
15 Corrosion 17 7 9 — 1
16 Mechanical shock or vibration 9 1 5 1 2
17 Ground subsidence 112 1 110 1 —
18 Flooding 46 — 9 9 28
19 Fire not due to faults 56 6 24 — 26
20 Growing or felling trees (not felled) 177 169 3 4 1
21 Windborne materials 17 15 — 1 1
22 Disruption of intended indoor environ-
ment 19 — 2 1 16
Total weather and environment 880 552 176 36 116
30 Birds (including swans and geese) 4 4 —
32 Vermin, wild animals and insects 4 — 3 — 1
33 Farm and domestic animals 22 22 — — —
Total birds, animals and insects 30 26 3 .1
39 Wilful damage interference or
theft, accidental contact, damage
or interference: 107 21 25 16 45
42 by Post Office or its contractors 126 1 124 — 1
43 by Gas Board or its contractors 419 — 419 — —
44 by water/sewage authorities or
their contractors 248 7 241
45 by highway authorities or their
contractors 178 6 167
48 involving farm workers or farm
implements 28 14 12
49 involving aircraft or unmanned
balloons
50 by private individuals (excl 49 and 56) 246 43 179 15
53 by unknown third parties 443 22 414 5
54 by local building authorities or
contractors 109 104
219
Yorkshire
0/H Power Sw/Gr
Total lines cables Fuse/Gr Others
55 by private developers or their
contractors 358 11 336 1 10
56 involving leisure pursuits 1 1 — — —
57 by other third parties 57 9 47 — 1
Total third party 2,320 137 2,068 31 84
60 Ace contact; boards or contractors
(inc live line) 65 6 57 1 1
61 Switching error by A B personnel — — — — —
62 Testing or commissioning error by
A B personnel 1 1
63 Incorrect records, labelling or
identification 11 1 8 1 1
65 Incorrect application of board's
equipment 8 5 3
66 Faulty installation or
construction 917 37 719 92 69
67 Load current above previous
assessment 149 2 19 106 22
68 Incorrect protection settings
of fuse rating 12 1 11
69 Unsuitable protection characteristics 2 — 2 —
—
70 Inadequate rupturing or short
circuit capacity 1 — 1 —
—
71 Deterioration due to ageing wear
(excl corrosion) 2,540 300 852 260 1,128
72 Fault on A B equipment faulting
adjacent equipment 5 — 4 — 1
73 Unsuitable parallelling conditions 1 — — 1 —
75 Operational or safety restriction 22 4 11 6 1
77 Inadequate or faulty maintenance 7 1 — 6 —
87 Local generation failure
(isolated system) — — — — —
Total area boards 3,741 351 1,676 490 1,224
88 A B equipment affected by
generating board
90 Faulty manufacturing design
assembly or materials 12 — 5 6 1
98 Causes unclassified 20 3 7 1 9
99 Cause unknown 2,265 150 1,947 102 66
Total unclassified, unknown 2,285 153 1,954 103 75
Source: ESI National Fault Statistics.
220
APPENDIX 8.1
(referred to in paragraphs 8.16 and 8.23)
Schedule of Management Information
(as provided by YEB)
Note:
'General Distribution' in Section B of the schedule means that the data is
circulated normally with a covering letter to:
Chairman
for information
Deputy Chairman
Chief Engineer
Chief Commercial Officer
Chief Accountant
Secretary
Area Managers
Management Services Officer
Registry
For the other cases under Section B the data is usually received in its original
format—often computer produced.
Management Information
A. Items Presented at Board Meetings and the Chairman's Conference
1. SECRETARIAL
Board Chairman's Conference
Number of Employees (S 1) Quarterly Quarterly
Stock Levels Compared to Targets in
Operating Plan (S2(a)) Quarterly Quarterly
Board Summary of Stock Statistics by Primary
Classes (S2(b)) Quarterly
Meter Disputes Referred to Secretary of State
for Energy (S3) Six monthly Six monthly
Quarterly Analysis of Customers' Complaints
(S4(a)) Quarterly Quarterly
Cumulative Analysis of Customers'
Complaints (S4(b)) Three times each year Three times each year
Substation Sites and Wayleaves (S5) Annually Annually
Disabled Persons (S6) Annually Annually
Employees' Suggestion Scheme (S7) Annually Annually
Energy Conservation (S8) Annually Annually
Board Plan Annually
Secretarial Annual Review Annually
Manpower Plan Annually
221
, Board Chairman's Conference
2. COMMERCIAL
Electricity Purchased (Cl) i£ Monthly Monthly
Growth in Units Purchased—Graph Monthly Monthly
Electricity Purchased—Graph ., Monthly Monthly
Electricity Sold (C2) !! Quarterly Quarterly
Sales of Appliances (C3) •* Monthly Monthly
Cookers and Immersion Heaters (C4) it
(a) Number Installed in New Dwellings !< Six monthly Quarterly
(b) Summary of Pro portion of New
Dwellings with Cookers and Immersion
Heaters e Six monthly Quarterly
Electricity Purchased and Units
Billed—Monthly Tariffs (C5) Monthly Monthly
Bulk Supply Tariff Annually
Commercial Annual Review », Annually
Publicity Expenditure Annually
Tariffs ,, Annually—but may be
more frequent
Load Forecasts f Annually
Rechargeable rates on Appliance Repairs Annually
Domestic Appliance Maintenance Scheme and
'Carefree' rates Annually
3. ENGINEERING
Electricity Purchased and Allocation to Areas
Annually
Quarterly Distribution System Maintenance
Progress (AE2) Quarterly Quarterly
Distribution System Maintenance Wood ,:
Poles—Testing and Replacement Progress
(AE3) - Quarterly
Progress in Mains Records Conversion (AE4) — Quarterly
Progress in Improving LV Network Earthing
(AE5) t Quarterly Quarterly
Standard System Phasing Progress (AE6) •' Annually Quarterly
Switchgear Improvements Progress (AE7) Annually Annually
Summary of Reconstruction and Improvement £
of O/H Lines (AE9) * Six monthly Six monthly
Mains Commissioned and Disconnected
(AE10) Annually Annually
Sub-stations Commissioned (AEI 1) Annually Annually
Transport (AEI 2) •[ Six monthly Six monthly
Fault Performance (AEI 3) -'Annually Annually
Telecommunications Plant Maintenance
(AEI 5) Quarterly Quarterly
Safety Performance (AE 1 6) Annually Quarterly
Engineering Annual Review Annually
Capital Expenditure Schemes Submitted for
Approval Monthly
Summary of Capital Authorisations
(£50,000-£200,000 : Individual Schemes) Monthly
4. ACCOUNTANCY
Capital Expenditure (A2)
(a) Expenditure to Date Compared with
Budget Quarterly Quarterly
(b) Final Costs of Completed Capital
Schemes Six monthly Six monthly
Summary of Capital Authorisations (Value) Monthly
Summary of Capital Authorisations (Number
and Value) rf Six monthly
Revenue Expenditure (A3)
(a) Operating Costs in Relation to Target " Quarterly Quarterly
(b) Training Costs in Relation to Target 0
Six monthly Six monthly
(c) Transport Costs Six monthly Six monthly
222
Board Chairman's Conference
Contracting and Sales of Appliances and
Appliance Servicing (A4) Six monthly Quarterly
Manpower and Productivity (A5)
(a) Non-Industrial Six monthly Six monthly
(b) (i) Industrial Hours and Earnings Six monthly Six monthly
(ii) Industrial Numbers Employed Six monthly Six monthly
(iii) Industrial Performance Data Six monthly Six monthly
(c) (i) Industrial Sickness Data Six monthly Six monthly
(ii) Non-Industrial Sickness Data Six monthly Six monthly
Canteen (A6) Annually Annually
Billing and Collection (AT)
(a) Ratio of Debtors to Related Turnover Annually Annually
(b) Quarterly Energy Accounts—Final
Accounts and Bad Debts Annually Annually
(c) Monthly and Miscellaneous
Accounts—Collection Data Annually Annually
(d) Meter Reading Billing and Collection
(Miscellaneous Indicators) Annually Annually
(e) Meter Reading (Incidence of Meter
Readings etc) Annually Annually
(/) Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity
Boards) Act 1954 Annually Annually
(g) Prepayment Meters Broken Open Annually Annually
(h) General Statistics Annually Annually
(i) Sundry Debtors Accounts Six monthly Six monthly
(/) Extended Credit Sales Six monthly Six monthly
(Jt) Large Power Monthly Billed Accounts Quarterly Quarterly
(/) Quarterly Credit Debts—Analysis by
Type Six monthly Six monthly
Industrial Staff Overtime Hours as a % of
Hours Worked (A8) Annually Annually
Accountancy Annual Review Annually
Capital Expenditure Budgets (Current Year
Plus Five Years) Annually
Capital Expenditure Programme (Secretary of
State's Approval) Annually —
Report and Accounts Annually —
Revenue Estimates Annually—but may be —
more frequent
Accounts for the Year—Area Analysis — Annually
Comparison of the Results of All Area Boards Annually Annually
Financial Statistics Annually circulated for —
information
B. Other Data
Frequency Recipient
1. MANPO WER, SALARIES AND PRODUCTIVITY
1.1 Non-Industrial Salaries
Details of Salaries (NIS 1) Quarterly Assistant Chief
Accountant—Financial and
Management Accounting (FAMA),
Area Accountant
Cost Centre Analysis of Salaries (NIS 2) Monthly Deputy Chief Officers, Area Senior
Officers
Area Summary by Function (NIS 3) Monthly Area Accountants, Assistant Chief
Accountant—FAMA
YEB Summary (NIS 4) Quarterly General Distribution
Summary by Negotiating Body (NIS 5) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA
223'
Frequency Recipient
1.2 Industrial Salaries
Summary of Hours and Earnings (ISS 1) Monthly Cost Centre Supervisors
Staff with an average of more than five
hours overtime per week (ISS 1 A) Monthly Cost Centre Supervisors
Details of Salaries (ISS IB) Quarterly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Area Accountant
Area Summary of Hours and Earnings
(ISS 2) Monthly Deputy Chief Officers, Area •
Managers, Area Senior Officers
YEB Summary of Hours and Earnings
(ISS 3) Monthly Chief Officers, Area Managers,
Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA
1.3 Manpower
Non-Industrial (Analysis over months) Monthly Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Chief
Accountant, Secretary, Deputy Chief
Accountant, Assistant Chief
Accountant—FAMA
Industrial (Analysis over months) Monthly Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Chief
Accountant, Secretary, Deputy Chief
Accountant, Assistant Chief
"* Accountant—FAMA
1.4 Miscellaneous
Sickness Absence Data Quarterly Area Managers, Head Office
Personnel
Sickness Statistics and Indicators Quarterly Chief Officers, Area Managers,
Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA
Industrial Staff Overtime Monthly Chief Officers, Area Managers,
Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA
Labour Turnover, Industrial Staff Monthly Area Managers, Head Office
Personnel
1.5 Labour Cost Control
Cost Centre Return (MC 1) Monthly Cost Centre Supervisors
Area Summary Return (MC 2) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers
Board Summary Return (MC 3) Quarterly General Distribution
1.6 Training
Report on Education and Training Annually General Distribution
1.7 Clerical Work Measurement
Control Data Monthly Section Supervisors
2. REVENUE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
2.1 Revenue
Revenue Estimates Updated as Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Chief,.
necessary Commercial Officer, Chief
Accountant, Deputy Chief
Accountant, Assistant Chief
Accountant—FAMA
Monthly Financial Statement Monthly Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Chief
Engineer, Chief Commercial Officer,
Chief Accountant, Assistant Chief
Accountant—FAMA
Operating Costs in Relation to Target Monthly Chief Officers, Area Managers
Cost Centre Statements (MIS 1) Monthly Cost Centre Supervisors
Area Summary of Expenditure (MIS 2) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Area Managers, Area Senior Officers
YEB Summary of Expenditure (MIS 3) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA
Area Source Analysis (MIS 4) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Area Managers, Area Senior Officers
224
Frequency Recipient
YEB Source Analysis (MIS 5) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA
Publicity (PCS 1 (Parts 1, 2 and 3)) Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Training (PCS 2 and Supplement) Area
Summary Quarterly Area Secretaries
Training YEB Summary Quarterly Secretary
Training YEB Summary (Supplement) Quarterly Chief Officers, Area Managers
Stores Handling (PCS 3) Monthly Area Secretaries
Repair and Maintenance of Buildings
(PCS 4) Quarterly Senior Officer Responsible for
Maintenance of Buildings
Management Services Unit (PCS 5) Monthly Management Services Officer
Transport and Mobile Plant Return
(TPT1)
Part 1 Individual Area Statements Six monthly Chief Engineer, Area Managers, Area
Engineers
YEB Consolidated Statement Six monthly Chief Engineer, Chief Accountant
Part 2 Annual Chief Engineer
Transport and Mobile Plant Return
(TPT2) Six monthly Transport Officers
YEB Transport Cost Ratios Six monthly Chief Officers, Area Managers
2.2 Capital
Outstanding Capital Schemes Annually General Distribution
Expenditure to Date Compared with
Budget Monthly Chief Officers, Area Managers
Final Costs of Completed Capital Scheme Six monthly Chief Officers, Area Managers
Capital Authorisation Monthly Appropriate Level of Authority
Budget Category Analysis Monthly Senior Executive Officer—FAMA
Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Project Follow-Up—Summary Monthly Senior Executive Officer—FAMA
Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Financial Account Analysis Monthly Senior Executive Officer—FAMA
Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Accepted Project Analysis Monthly Senior Executive Officer—FAMA
Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Investment Review Monthly Controlling Officer
Early Warning Statement By exception Controlling Officer
Completion Schedule on Closed Jobs Monthly Controlling Officer/Authorising
Officer
CAP 2 Forms—Data On process Controlling Officer
of closure
notice
Summary of Revised Final Costs and Late
Costs On process Senior Executive
of late Officers—Expenditure, Controlling
costs Officer
2.3 Miscellaneous
Meter Reading Billing and Collection
Costs Six monthly General Distribution.
Repair and Maintenance of Meters, Head
Office Costs Quarterly Assistant Chief Engineer—Technical
Area Costs Annually Assistant Chief Engineer—Technical
Analysis of Computer Costs Monthly Chief Accountant, Assistant Chief
Accountant—Computer Services
Printing Section—Trading Statement Quarterly Chief Commercial Officer
Costing Indicators (Unbilled Jobs:
Unmatched Items: Dummy Jobs) Quarterly General Distribution
Canteen Costs Quarterly General Distribution
225
Frequency Recipient
2.4 Costing Operational Statements
COS 1 Capital Assets—Transfer and
WnteOff Annually Senior Executive Officer, FAMA
COS2 Rechargeable Jobs—Delayed \
Billing Monthly Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS3 Rechargeable Jobs—Completed
Job Details Weekly Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS5 Special Jobs—Closed Job
Summaries Weekly Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS6 Special Jobs—Summary of Costs
for Specified Jobs Monthly Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS? Special Jobs—Total Costs for a
Financial Year for Permanent
Jobs Annually Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS8 Special Jobs—Total Costs at a rf
Financial Year End for
Temporary Jobs Annually Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS 15 Rechargeable Jobs—List of Jobs
Unmoved for Two Months Monthly Senior Executive
js Officers—Expenditure
COS 16 List of Vehicles Scrapped During
a Financial Year Annually Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS 17 Rechargeable Jobs—Work in
Progress for Jobs Over £100 Monthly Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS18 Vehicle Running Costs by Year
of Purchase Annually Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS19 Vehicle Costs for the Year to
Date by User Cost Centre Monthly Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
COS20 Vehicle Depreciation Statement Annually Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
3. CONTRACTING AND SALES OF APPLIANCES (INCLUDING MARKETING)
District Trading Statement (CSA 3) Monthly Senior Commercial Engineer/District
rl Commercial Engineer, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Gross Profit
Summary—Contracting (CSA 4) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Senior Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Gross Profit Summary—Sales of
Appliances (CSA 5) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Marketing Controllers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Trading Statement—Contracting
(CSA 6) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Senior Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Trading Statement—Sales of
Appliances (CSA 7) Monthly Area Managers, Area Officers,
Marketing Controllers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Shop Gross Profit Statement (CSA 9) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Marketing Controllers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
226
Frequency Recipient
YEB Gross Profit
Summary—Contracting (CSA 10) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Customer Operations, Area
Managers
YEB Gross Profit Summary—Sales of
Appliances (CSA 11) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Area Managers
YEB Trading Statement—Contracting
(CSA 12) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Customer Operations, Area
Managers
YEB Trading Statement—Sales of
Appliances (CSA 13) Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Area Managers
YEB Trading Statement—Combined
(CSA 14) Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Assistant Chief
Commercial Officer—Customer
Operations, Area Managers
Bad Debt Analysis Annually General Distribution
Quick Service Sales Six monthly General Distribution
Shop Sales by Product Group and
Product Sub-Group (MKG 1 and 1 A) Weekly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Marketing
Controllers
YEB Summary of Sales Turnover by
Product Group (MKG 2 and 3) Weekly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Area Managers,
Marketing Controllers
YEB Summary of Appliance Sales by
Make and Model (MKG 4) Weekly Assistant Chief Commercial
u Officer—Marketing Managers, Area
Marketing Controllers
Analysis of Sales by the Major Product
Groups (MKG 5) Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Area Managers, Marketing
Controllers
Manufacturers' Shares of Product Groups n
(MKG6A-6G) Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Manufacturers' Shares of the Total
Appliances and Accessories Sold by the
Shop and YEB (MKG 7) Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Analysis of Methods of Payment for all
Appliances and Accessories Sold (MKG
8) Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Analysis of Payment Method by Product
Group (MKG 9A-9H) Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Sales of Appliances and Accessories by
Individual Sales Employee (MKG 10) Quarterly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Marketing
Controllers
Appliance Stock Availability and Sales by
Make and Model (MKG 20) Twice weekly Marketing Controllers, Senior
Executive Officers—Supplies and
Stores
227
Frequency Recipient
YEB Holdings of Standard Selling Stocks
(MKG31) Weekly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing Assistant
Secretary—Supplies and Stores,
Marketing Controllers
Area Holdings of Non-Standard Selling
Stock (MKG 32-32A) Monthly Marketing Controllers, Senior
Executive Officers—Supplies and
Stores
YEB Holdings of Non-Standard Selling
Stock (MKG 33) Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Seasonal Campaign Analysis by Shop __
(MKG 40) On request Marketing Controller
Seasonal Campaign Analysis by Area and
YEB (MKG 41) On request Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Area
Commercial Officers, Marketing
Controllers
Sales of Storage Radiators—Package
Sizes (MKG 44) Weekly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Storage Radiator Campaign
Analysis—Package Sizes (MKG 45) Weekly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing
Appliance Sales by Product Marketing Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Controllers
Contracting Monthly Report Monthly Chief Commercial Officer, Deputy
Chief Commercial Officer, Assistant
Chief Commercial Officers, Area
Commercial Officers
Market Planning Figures Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Marketing
Controllers
Order of Shops by Turnover Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Marketing, Marketing
Controllers
3.2 Appliance Servicing
District Trading Statement (APPREP 1
(Part 1)) Monthly District Commercial Engineer/Senior
Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Analysis of Indirect Costs (APPREP 2
(Part 2)) Monthly District Commercial Engineers/Senior
Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Income Summary (APPREP 2 (1)) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Senior Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Gross Profit Summary (APPREP 2
(2)) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Senior Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Gross Profit Statistics (APPREP 2
(3)) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Senior Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Area Trading Summary (APPREP 4 (1)) Monthly Area Managers, Area Senior Officers,
Senior Commercial Engineers, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
YEB Income Summary (APPREP 3(1)) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officers—Customer Operations, Area
Managers
228
Frequency Recipient
YEB Summary Gross Profit Statistics
(APPREP 3(3)) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Customer Operations, Area
Managers
YEB Trading Summary (APPREP 5(1)) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Customer Operations, Area
Managers
YEB Trading Summary—Statistics
(APPREP 5 (2)) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Customer Operations, Area
Managers
4.1 Purchasing, Stores and Creditors
Summary of Stocktaking Adjustments
(STR4) Monthly General Distribution
YEB Summary of Stocktaking Adjustments
(STR 6) Six monthly General Distribution
YEB Summary of Stock Values (STR 11) Monthly Assistant Secretary—Supplies and
Stores
YEB Summary of Number of Weeks Stock
in Hand—by Units (STR 12) Monthly Assistant Secretary—Supplies and
Stores
YEB Summary of Number of Weeks Stock
in Hand—by Value (CS888PO1) Weekly Assistant Secretary—Supplies and
Stores
Area Summary of Stock Holdings (STR 13) Monthly Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Area Summary of Stock Values and the
Number of Weeks Stock in Hand by Store
(STR 14) Monthly Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Stock Values and Number of Weeks Stock
in Hand for Individual Commodities within
Areas (STR 15) On request Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Stock Values and Number of Weeks Stock
in Hand for Commodities Held at
Individual Stores (STR 16) On request Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
General Stock Control and Usage Print
(STR 17) On request Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Slow Moving Stock Return (STR 19) Quarterly Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
YEB Slow Moving Stock Return (STR 20) Quarterly Assistant Secretary—Supplies and
Stores
Stores Turnover (STR 21) Quarterly Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Stores Forecasting Check List (STR 28) Weekly Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Stock Re-order Print (STR 29) Weekly Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Appliance Spares Imprest Stock Usage
(STR 37) Quarterly Senior Commercial Engineers
List of Commodities in Store (STR 38) Quarterly Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Appliance Spares (CASS) Issues of
Commodities Not Stocked in Area Store
(STR 39) Quarterly Senior Commercial Engineers
Turnover by Stock Classification (STR 99) Monthly Assistant Secretary—Supplies and
Stores
229
Frequency Recipient
Bulk Purchase Contracts and Fixed Price
Contracts (CPP 43) By exception Assistant Chief
Accountant—Centralised Accounting.
Senior Executive Officers—Supplies
and Stores
Shop Domestic Appliance Stockholdings
(CS888PO2) j Monthly Assistant Secretary—Supplies and
Stores
Pareto Analysis (CS888 )26) ' On request Assistant Secretary—Supplies and
Stores
Combined Invoice/Diary Sheets—Analysis Monthly General Distribution
Official Order File—Rejections etc. Quarterly General Distribution
5. CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING
5.1 Quarterly Credit and Prepayment
5.1.1 Meter Reading
Meter Reading by District Quarterly General Distribution
Meter Reading (Incidence of Meter
Reading etc) Six monthly General Distribution
Prepayment Meters Broken Open Six monthly General Distribution
5.1.2 Billing ,
Hand Delivery Quarterly General Distribution
Amended and Reissued Accounts Monthly Chief Accountant, Deputy Chief
Accountant
5.7.3 Collection
5.1.3.1 Collection Performance Booklet Quarterly General Distribution
1. Ratio of Debtors to
Turnover—Quarter End
2. Ratio of Debtors to Turnover—Five
Year Graph
3. Age of Debt Analysis
4. Number of Normal Accounts
Outstanding per 1,000 normal
Customers
5. Number of Final Accounts
Outstanding for More than Six Months
as a Percentage of Total Final Accounts
Outstanding
6. YEB Statement of Area Collection
Performance
7. Individual Area Statement of
Collection Performance
8. Welfare Debts—Average Debt Per
Customer—All Areas
9. Quarterly Accounts on Computer
Files—Board Summary—produced
Annually in March
10. Individual Area Graph—Customers
Who Pay Before Reminder/Notice
11. Individual Area Graph—Customers
Who Pay Before Recorded Delivery
Letter
12. Individual Area Graph—Customers
Who Pay Before First Disconnection
Order
13. Area Analysis of Customers Who Pay
Before Reminder/Notice, Recorded
delivery, or Disconnection Order
14. Number of Disputes Outstanding Over
Three Months Old
230
Frequency Recipient
5.1.3.2 Miscellaneous
Age of Debt Summary Quarterly General Distribution
Follow Up Statistics Daily Assistant Chief
Accountant—Customer Accounting,
Senior Executive Officers—Income
Debit Balances Outstanding at the
Preparation of Meter Reading Sheets—
Details Daily Senior Executive Officers—Income
Debit Balances Outstanding at the
Preparation of Meter Reading Sheet—
Summary Ad Hoc General Distribution
Customers Disconnected for Non-Payment
of Account for more than One Month Quarterly Area Accountants
Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity
Boards) Act 1954 Six monthly General Distribution
Analysis of Budget Plan Customers by
Method of Payment Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant-
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Ratio of Debtors to Related Turnover Quarterly General Distribution
5.1.4 General
Analysis of Prepayment Meters by Type of
Coin Mechanism Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Analysis of Customers by Status Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Analysis of Customers by Collection
Method Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Analysis of Customers by Payer Status Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Number of Customers Subject to Selected
Miscellaneous Conditions Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Customers Subject to Non-Standard
Follow-up Quarterly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
5.2 Monthly Credit
Meter Reading by District Quarterly General Distribution
Ratio of Debtors to Turnover Quarterly General Distribution
Monthly Energy and Miscellaneous
Accounts Collection Data Annually General Distribution
Debts Outstanding—Age Analysis Monthly General Distribution
5.3 Extended Credit Sales
Extended Credit Sale Agreements Quarterly General Distribution
Control Statistics (ECS 18) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Summary of Agreements—Collection
Reports Issued and No Payment Received
for Two Months (ECS 21) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Analysis of Age and Action Taken on
Outstanding Collection Reports (ECS 22) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
231
r Frequency Recipient
Cash Processed Against Collection Reports
(ECS 23) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
5.4 Sundry Debtors Accounts
Debts Outstanding Quarterly General Distribution
Detailed Summary of Outstanding
Amounts—Age Monthly Chief Commercial Officer, Area
Managers
Analysis of New Debt Weekly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Analysis of Outstanding Debt Weekly Assistant Chief Accountant—
Customer Accounting, Senior
Executive Officers—Income
Ratio of Debtors to Turnover Quarterly General Distribution
6. SALES OF ELECTRICITY
Customer Classification of Electricity Billed
(Table Al) Quarterly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial Officer—
Tariffs & Economics, Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Electricity Billed to Industrial Consumers
(Table A2) Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Tariffs & Economics, Senior
Executive Officers—Expenditure
Tariff Classification of Electricity Billed
(Table A3 Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Quarterly Analysis of Billed Units and
Revenue Quarterly Assistant Chief Commercial Officer—
Tariffs & Economics
Monthly Analysis of Billed Units and
Revenue Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial Officer—
Tariffs & Economics
Quarterly Credit Billing Statistics Quarterly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Senior Executive Officers—
Expenditure
Quarterly Credit Commercial Statistics Quarterly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial Officer— .
Tariffs & Economics, Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Monthly Accounts Premises Summary Monthly Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial Officer—
Tariffs & Economics, Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Monthly Accounts Premises—Twelve
Month Summary Annually Assistant Chief Accountant—FAMA,
Assistant Chief Commercial Officer—
Tariffs & Economics, Senior Executive
Officers—Expenditure
Monthly Accounts Tariff Analysis Annually Tariffs and Economics
Monthly Accounts Premises Analysis Annually Tariffs and Economics
Percentage Change in Units Billed Monthly Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Chief
Commercial Officer, Chief
Accountant, Assistant Chief
Commercial Officer—Tariffs &
Economics
Units Purchased and Billed—% Change
Over Corresponding Period of Previous
Year Quarterly Chief Officers, Area Managers
232
Frequency Recipient
Industrial Energy Sales Quarterly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Tariffs & Economics, Senior
Industrial Sales and Terms Engineers
Monthly Billed Management Information Monthly Assistant Chief Commercial
Officer—Tariffs & Economics
Analysis of Customers by Consumption Per
Tariff . Quarterly Assistant Chief Commercial Officer—
Tariffs & Economics
Number of Customers Quarterly General Distribution
Pocket Statistics Quarterly General Distribution
Analysis of Domestic and Commercial
Energy Sales by Salesman Monthly Area Managers
Analysis of Industrial Sales by Salesman Monthly Area Managers
7. ENGINEERING DATA
7.1 Primary System Construction
Programme Quarterly Chief Officers, Area Managers
7.2 Overhead Line Maintenance
Progress of Inspection (OHL SI) Monthly Chief Engineer, Area Engineers,
District Engineers
Information for Table El (OHL S2) Monthly Chief Engineer, Area Engineers,
District Engineers
Information for Table E2 (OHL S3) Monthly Chief Engineer, Area Engineers,
District Engineers
Progress of Painting (OHL S4) Monthly Chief Engineer, Area Engineers,
District Engineers
District Forecast of Inspections Due in
Year (OHL 41-47,51) Annually Area Engineers, District Engineers
District Forecast of Painting Due in Year
(OHL 40) Annually Area Engineers, District Engineers
District Forecast of Decayed Poles to
Retest in Year (OHL 49) Annually Area Engineers, District Engineers
District Forecast of Tree Lopping Jobs in
Year (OHL 52) Annually Area Engineers, District Engineers
Ten Year Forecast of Inspections (OHL 53) Annually Area Engineers, District Engineers
7.3 National Fault and Interruption
Reporting Scheme
System and Equipment Performance Annually Chief Officers, Area Managers
Miscellaneous Information On request
7.4 Plant Maintenance
Quarterly Maintenance Schedule Quarterly Area Engineers, District Engineers
Maintenance Defect Report and Switchgear
Count Six monthly Area Engineers, District Engineers
Annual Maintenance Schedule Annually Area Engineers, District Engineers
Distribution Sub-station Future Work
Programme Quarterly Area Engineers, District Engineers
Trip Test Schedule Quarterly Area Engineers, District Engineers
Maintenance Performance Monthly Area Engineers, District Engineers
Transformer Changes Monthly Area Engineers, District Engineers
8. MISCELLANEOUS
Financial Statistics Annually General Distribution
Review of Operating Plan including
Performance Indicators (Year Completed
and Ensuing Year) Annually Chief Officers, Area Managers,
Management Services Officer
Accident Statistics Quarterly Chief Officers, Area Managers
Meter Recertification Programme Alternate Chief Commercial Officer, Deputy
Months Chief Commercial Officer, Assistant
Chief Commercial Officers, Area
Commercial Officers
233
APPENDIX 9.1
(referred to in paragraph 9.5)
YEB: Labour cost control systems—summary of management
control information
Frequency Summary of Primary Indicators Distribution
Monthly By activity and cost centre:
Produced —monthly performance/moving average Engineer or
manually performance Executive Officer
by districts —overtime, waiting, diverted, other responsible for
work(%) employees in the
—equivalent units per man-day cost centre
—other indicators (access rates,
miles per job etc)
By activity and district:
—target performance Area senior
^-current performance management
—Moving average performance
By activity and district:
—current performance TU Side Secretary
Quarterly By activity and area:
—target performance Chief officers
—quarterly performance over 15 months Area managers
By selected activities and area:
Produced —target performance Chairman's
on PET —quarterly performance over 15 months Conference
microcomputer
atHQ
By activity for the Board:
—output units Electricity
—attendance hours Council
Bi-annually By activities and district:
Produced —current performance DJIC
manually —moving average performance
atHQ
Source: YEB.
234
APPENDIX 9.2
(referred to in paragraphs 9.12 and 9.17)
Electricity Supply Industry—G.B.
Salary Scales and Related Payments (All Employees). Issued: November 1982
SALARY SCALES « pa) SALARY SCALES (I pa)
NJB—EflectTfe from : 1 February 1982 NJB—Research Bands—Effecthre from: 1 February 1982
Eng.1 3rd1 2nd ht Snr. Prin. Band 4 Band 3 Band 2 Band 1 Band 1 A
Asst. Engr. Engr. Engr. Engr. Engr. 6,046 13,386 15,132
9,791 11,279
6,046 7,044 9,500 11,279 13,386 16,086 6,223 10,083 11,597 13,822 15,606
6,223 7,264 9,791 11,597 13,822 16,571 6,411 10,379 11,926 14,259 16,086
6,411 7,484 10,083 11,926 14,259 17,061 6,615 10,675 12,254 14,695 16,571
6,615 7,706 10,379 12,254 14,695 17,552 6,830 10,972 12,605 15,132 17,061
6,830 7,927 10,675 12,605 15,132 18,047 7,044 11,279 12,955 15,606 17,552
7,044 8,148 10,972 12,955 15,606 18,548 7,264 11,597 13,386 16,086 18,047
7,264 8,374 11,279 13,386 16,086 19,055 7,484 11,926 13,822 16,571 18,548
7,484 8,627 11,597 13,822 16,571 7,706 12,254 14,259 17,061 19,055
7,706 / 8,918 11,926 14,259 17,061 7,927 12,605 14,695
7,927 / 9,209 12,254 14,695 8,148 15,132
8,148 / 9,500 12,605 15,132 8,374
8,374 9,791 8,627
8,627 10,083 8,918
8,918 10,379 9,209
9,209 10,675 9,500
9,500 9,791
10,083
Plus responsibility payment: £292 pa, made to all NJB staff, 10,379
except 10,675
Scientific Assistants
Technical Staff Trainees Plus responsibility payment: £292 pa
Graduate Trainees
Note: 1. Includes Assistant Technical Officer
2. Includes Technical Officer
SALARY SCALES (£ pa) SALARY SCALES (£ pa)
NJMC—Effectire from: 1 Aprfl 1982 NJC—Effective from : 1 May 1982
Band Band Band Band Band Band Band Schedules 'A' & «B' Staff— PAG Grades
II III IV V VI VII VIII PAG I* PAG 2 PAG 3 PAG 4 PAG 5 PAG 6* PACT*
14,763* 17,399* 18,961* 20,562 . 21,628 22,704 23,780 6,985 7,663 8,577 9,829 11,424 13,542 15,526
15,290t 17,926 19,508 21,090 22,166 23,242 24,318 7,211 7,889 8,809 10,109 11,801 14,038 16,026
15,817 18,453 20,035 21,628 22,704 23,780 24,909 7,437 8,115 9,041 10,389 12,179 14,534 16,526
16,344 18,981 20,562 (22,166) (23,242) (24,318) (25,500) 7,663 8,345 9,274 10,675 12,599 15,030 17,026
16,872 19,508 (21,090) 7,889 8,577 9,549 11,047 13,046 15,526 17,526
17,399 20,035 8,115 8,809 9,829 11,424 13542 16,026 18,026
17,926 8,345 9,041 10,109 11,801 14,038 16,526 18,526
8,577 9,274 10,389 12,179 14,534 17,026 19,027
* Points to be deleted 1 April 1983 9,549 10,675 12,599 15,030
t Point to be deleted 1 April 1984
0 Points to be added 31 March 1983 * Schedule A staff only
Schedule A Staff—CA Grades (six monthly increments)
CAJ CA2 CA3 CA4 CAS CA6 CA7
2,768 3,960 4,357 4,654 5,544 5,837 6,518
2,860 4,059 4,455 4,753 5,642 5,935 6,614
2,953 4,158 4,555 4,853 5,739 6,031 6,712
3,046 4,258 4,654 4,952 5,837 6,129 6,823
3,139 4,357 4,753 5,051 5,935 6,226 6,935
(3,463) 4,455 4,853 5,151 6,031 6,324 7,046
3,562 4,555 4,952 5,250 6,129 6,420 7,158
3,662 4,654 5,051 5,349 6,226 6,518 7,268
3,761 4,753 5,151 5,447 6,324 6,614 7,380
3,860 4,853 5,250 5,544 6,420 6,712 7,490
3,960 5,349 5,642 6,518 6,823 7,602
4,059 5,447 5,739 6,614 6,935
5,544 5,837 7,046
5,642 5,935
5,739 6,031
6,129
6,226
Whistleholder Payment (CA6 and CA7 only) £207 pa
() Minimum salary on set incremental date following 18th birth-
day.
235
SALARY SCALE (f pa) SALARY SCALES (£ pa)
NJC—Schedule B Slaff— Effecthre from: 1 May 1982 NJIC AND NJ(B&CE)C—Foremen grades, Effective from:
(six monthly increments) 17 March 1982
Sales Shop Supervisor
Trainee Person/ Senior Scale I Scale II Scale III
Sales Demon- Sales Small Medium 7,101 7,601 8,133
Person strator Person Shop Shop 7,351 7,866 8,400
2,768 4,555 5,739 5,935 7,601 .8,133 8,667
6,518 7,866 8,400 8,934
2,860 4,654 5,837 6,031 6,614
2,953 4,753 5,935 6,129 6,712 8,133 8,667 9,201
3,046 4,853 6,031 6,226 6,823
3,139 4,952 6,129 6,324 6,935 NJIC and NJ(B&CE)C—Industrial grades, Effectire from:
(3,463) 5,051 6,226 6,420 17 March 1982
7,046
3,562 5,151 6,324 6,518 7,158 Band I Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Band 5
3,662 5,250 6,420 6,614 7,268
3,761 5,349 6,518 6,712 7,380
5,383 5,764 6,192 6,630 7,071
3,860 5,447 6,614 6,823 7,490
5,510 5,902 6,337 6,777 7,219
3,960 5,544 6,712 6,935 7,602
5,637 6,047 6,483 6,924 7,367
4,059 5,642 6,823 7,046 7,713
5,764 6,192 6,630 7,071 7,517
4,158 5,739 7,158 7,823
5,837 7,936
5,935
6,031
6,129
Schedule A & B Staff: Junior Administrative Grade—£3662 to
£6420 pa
() Minimum salary on set incremental date following 18th Birth-
day.
Schedule B Additional
Payments:
Sales Targets—First Payment£96 pa
Sales Targets—Second
Payment £207 pa
Supervisor of One man Shop £207 pa
Late Night Opening £3-95 per occasion
Work spread over more than
5 days £4-70 per week
Saturday as part of Normal £3-20 to £6*15 depending on
Working Week grade. Payments are made
for each morning and/or
afternoon worked.
OUT-OF-HOURS PAYMENTS
NJB EMPLOYEES
First Excess Hour Worked:
Day employees would receive a payment of £22-00 for a call-out on a normal working day,
and £33-00 for a call-out on a normal day-off. For other than call-out day employees would
receive the ordinary time rate plus 25% on a normal working day and a payment of £33*00
on a normal day-off.
Shift employees would receive the ordinary time rate plus 25% on a normal working day and
a payment of £33-00 on a normal day-off.
Additional excess hours worked are paid at ordinary time rate plus 25%. Staff may request
equivalent time off in lieu of payment.
Weekly Standby Payment:
Standby retainer £44-00.
NJC—PAG GRADED EMPLOYEES
First Excess Hour Worked:
Day employees would receive a payment of £22-00 for a call-out on a normal working day,
and £33-00 for a call-out on a normal dayoff. For other than call-out day employees would
receive the plain time rate plus 25% on a normal working day and a payment of £33-00 on
a normal day-off.
Shift employees would receive the plain time rate plus 25% on a normal working day and a
payment of £33-00 on a normal dayoff.
Additional excess hours worked are paid at plain time rate plus 25%.
Staff may request equivalent time-off in lieu of payment.
236
NJC—CA AND RELATED GRADES
Time Worked in Extension of a Normal Working Day or Shift:
First 2 hours in any week; payment at plain time rate plus 25%. For each hour in excess of
2 hours in any week; payment at plain time rate plus 50%.
Work on Normal Day-off:
A payment of £27-50 or £33-00 (depending on Grade) for the first hour and thereafter equivalent
time-off.
Call-Out on Normal Working Day:
A payment of £22-00 for the first hour and thereafter payment at plain time rate plus 25%.
Call-Out on a Normal Day-Off:
A payment of £33-00 for the first hour and thereafter payment at plain time rate plus 25%.
Weekly Standby Payments: (All NJC Employees)
Standby Retainer Monday to Sunday £44-00
Monday to Friday £19-50
OVERTIME PAYMENTS
NJIC AND NJ(B&CE)C EMPLOYEES
Day Employees:
Monday to Friday; normal starting time to Midnight paid at plain time rate plus 50%. Midnight
to normal starting time paid at double plain time rate (if called in at or after 6am payment
at plain time rate plus 50%), plus plain time rate for hours between leaving work and normal
starting time next day.
Weekend; Saturday up to normal starting time paid at double plain time rate (if called in at
or after 6am payment at plain time rate plus 50%).
Normal starting time to Midnight paid at plain time rate plus 50%. Sunday; Midnight to Midnight
paid at double plain time rate.
Shift Employees:
Monday to Saturday; shift overtime rate plus 50% for the first 4 hours, double shift overtime
rate until next shift.
Sunday. Days off and Public Holidays; double shift overtime rate
Weekly Standby Payment:
Standby Retainer: £35-00.
SHIFT ALLOWANCES
Payment for fully continuous 3 shift working: 24 hours 7 days a week
NJB: Effective from 1 February 1982
£1,775 to £3,610 pa dependent on grade and incremental point.
NJC: Effective from 1 May 1982
£1,935 to £3,600 pa for PAG graded employees dependent on grade and incremental point.
£810 to £2,055 pa for CA and Related grade employees dependent on grade and incremental
point.
NJIC and NJ(B&CE)C: Effective from 17 March 1982
An annual allowance of £100 plus an unsocial hours payment for normal shift hours based
on an hourly rate of between 185 and 255 pence per hour (depending on salary band), at
the rate of:
(i) half time for all hours worked on a Saturday
(ii) single time for all hours worked on Sundays and public holidays
(iii) half time for all hours worked between 8pm and 6am.
237
LONDON WEIGHTING
Effective from: 1 July 1982
Inner London Allowance:
Over 18 years of age—£1,333 pa.
Up to 18 years of age—£941 pa.
Outer London Allowance:
Over 18 years of age—£615 pa.
Up to 18 years of age—£356 pa.
London Allowance is reckonable for superannuation, holidays and sick pay purposes, but is
not reckonable for other purposes.
Source: Electricity Council.
Note: Salary scales for NJIC and NJB staff have recently been revised. Details are available from the Electricity Council.
238
APPENDIX 11.1
(referred to in paragraph 11.28)
Retail prices of selected appliances
The tables below show the prices obtaining in various outlets in the YEB
area on 9 February 1983. Comparing prices is made difficult by (a) part-
exchange offers which may either be genuine (ie the retailer sells the old
appliance back to the manufacturer for reconditioning) or a form of discount
(ie it is offered for any appliance regardless of its condition), (b) variations
in arrangements and charges for delivery and connection; (c) offers of interest-
free credit and (d) minor variations in model. As far as possible, allowance
has been made for these factors in the tables. On the limited range of
appliances surveyed, the tentative conclusions are:
1. Vacuum cleaners. YEB tends to be cheaper than the regional town centre
stores (Wigfalls, Vallances) but more expensive than the national chains
(Currys, Comet).
2. Fridge-freezers. YEB is slightly more expensive.
3. Cookers. YEB is competitive on the cheaper model; the more expensive
model appears to be relatively expensive at YEB.
Prices of selected appliances in YEB area, 9 February 1983
Vacuum cleaners (excluding delivery)
Electrolux 502S
Hoover 1104 (with tools)
Price Index Price Index
Retailer (£) (YEB=100) Retailer (£) (YEB = 100)
Wigfalls 70 (113) Vallances 74 (106)
Vallances 67 (108) Leeds Co-op 71 (101)
YEB 62 (100) YEB 70 (100)
Currys 57 (92) Wigfalls 67 (96)
Comet 56 (90) Currys 65 (93)
Leeds Co-op ^ Cole Brothers "1
55 (89) 62 (89)
Cole Brothers J Comet J
Notes: 1 Prices are rounded to the nearest £.
2. YEB's Hoover vacuum cleaner is the 1108, which is exclusive to the Electricity Boards. It differs in minor respects
from the 1104 (eg it has a headlight).
3. Part exchange is offered by several of these retailers. Leeds Co-op and Wigfalls offer £7, YEB and Vallances
£5. Comet and Cole Brothers do not offer part exchange.
4. Vallances price includes 12 month's interest-free credit.
239
Fridge-freezers (including delivery)
LEG T241 SL LEG T201 SL
Price Index Price Index
Retailer (£) (YEB =100) Retailer (£) (YEB=100)
YEB 174 (100) YEB 159 (100)
Vallances 167 (96) Vallances 158 (99)
Currys 163 (94) Currys 153 (96)
Wigfalls 158 (91) Wigfalls 150 (94)
Comet 145 (83) Comet 136 (86)
Note: Neither of these fridge-freezers was in stock in Leeds Co-op or Cole Brothers. Vallances price includes 12 month's
interest-free credit.
Cookers (including delivery and connection)1"
Tricity Tiara 1414 Tricity Contessa 1655
Price Index Price Index
Retailer (£) (YEB =100) Retailer (£) (YEB = 100)
Vallances 204t§ (107) Wigfalls 289t (107)
Vallances 279t§ (104)
Currys 195t (103) YEB 269* (100)
YEB 190* (100) Currys 260t (97)
Leeds Co-op 188| (99) Leeds Co-op 255 (93)
Cole Brothers 186t (98) Cole Brothers 247t (92)
Comet 186* (98) Comet 245 (91)
Wigfalls 182t (96)
* YEB includes connection and testing in its price. Comet has an installation service for cookers, charging £14-50 (included
in the price shown).
+ Customer has to make own arrangements for connection. We have added an estimated £17 for this service (including the
value of the customer's time).
J Leeds Co-op makes a charge for connection of between £8 and £12. The price shown above includes an estimated average
of £10 for connection.
8 Vallances price includes 12 months' interest free credit.
240
APPENDIX 12.1
(referred to in paragraph 12.5)
Price Indkes (1972 = 100)
% Change % Change
YEB on RPI on
previous previous
year year
1972 100 100
1973 105 5 109 9
1974 134 28 127 17
1975 186 39 157 24
1976 223 20 183 17
1977 253 13 212 16
1978 276 9 230 8
1979 302 9 261 13
1980 389 29 308 18
1981 457 17 344 12
1982 497 9 374 9
as published by
industrial price of gas j
the Department of Energy
wholesale price of coal as published by
the Department of
wholesale price of medium fuel oil Trade and Industry
index of retail prices - from figures published by the
Department of Employment
average price per unit paid by customers in YEB area
850 i oil
800
.-gas
650
coal
600
500
77 / YEB
' electricity
450
400
retail price
index
350
300
250
150
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Source: YEB, MMC study.
241
APPENDIX 12.2
(referred to in paragraph 12.6)
YEB Tariff Income Indices: 1971-72 = 100
YEB % change BST % change RESIDUAL % change RPI % change
TOTAL on COMPONENT on COMPONENT on on
INCOME previous previous previous previous
year year year year
1971-72 100 100 100 100
1972-73 102 2 104 4 95 -5 107 7
1973-74 108 6 112 8 92 -3 118 10
1974-75 146 35 166 48 76 -17 139 18
1975-76 204 40 213 28 171 125 1,74 25
1976-77 233 14 244 15 196 15 200 15
1977-78 263 13 272 11 232 18 228 14
1978-79 287 9 297 9 252 9 . 247 8
1979-80 327 14 352 19 240 -5 286 16
1980-81 416 27 435 24 353 47 333 16
1981-82 473 14 492 13 405 15 371 11
1982-83 518 10 546 11 421 4 398 7
YEB Tariff Income Indices:
1971 - 7 2 = 100
550 Total Income
BST Component
Residual Component
(covering YEB's other costs and profits)
500
450
400
350 .////
'/
300 /!
250
/
-S^
200
150
100 I /
71 -72 "72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83
Source: YEB, MMC study. ^""*^/
242
APPENDIX 12.3
(referred to in paragraph 12.15)
The annuity factor applied to the costs of notional increments of
distribution capacity
1. The annuity factor includes the 5 per cent real rate of return required
for investment by nationalised industries (see paragraph 6.7); a 2-25 per cent
premium for maintenance and repairs in the earlier years of an asset's life;
and a further 2 per cent premium (known as a tilt). The tilt is included partly
because maintenance and repair costs are expected to rise beyond 2-25 per
cent towards the end of an asset's life; partly because switches in the pattern
of demand between areas are likely to render some assets redundant before
the end of what would otherwise have been considered their expected life;
and partly because of lower costs associated with new assets resulting from,
eg technological improvements over the current system. Part of the 'tilt' there-
fore contributes to the costs of increments made in previous years, simplifying
what could otherwise be the task, under LRMC pricing principles, of incorpor-
ating in current tariffs the sum of annuities, adjusted for inflation, relating
to previous increments.
2. The formula for the annuity factor (f) applied to present capital values
is f=a+m, where a=(r+t)Q-(l-t) n (H-r)~ n ]- 1 ; r=the required annual
real rate of return (=O5); t=tilt (=-02); n=expected life of the assets which
is assumed to equal 40 years; and m = the premium for maintenance and
repairs in the earlier years of an asset's life (=0-0225). The value of a is
very sensitive to change in assumptions about t, the value for which has been
fixed following Electricity Council research; a is not very sensitive to plausible
changes in assumptions about n.
243
APPENDIX 12.4
(referred to in paragraph 12.34 and 12.39)
Complaints about tariffs from some large industrial consumers
1. The British Steel Corporation (BSC), the National Federation of Clay
Industries (NFCI) and the Chemical Industries Association (CIA) made refer-
ence to the competitive disadvantage suffered by their members through pay-
ing more for electricity than their continental rivals particularly in Germany
and France. NFCI think that the Government should set the ESI a lower
financial target to allow area boards to face the market-place more competi-
tively. In reply, YEB said it is! difficult to establish the reasons for international
price differences: they are affected from time to time by fluctuating exchange
rates; there is some evidence that the German price is linked to that of brown
coal; and in France the electricity industry is operating at a considerable
loss, with some £1*4 billion of debt having been written off. The ESFs financial
objectives are a matter for the Government.
2. BSC, NFCI, CIA and the Glass Manufacturers Federation (GMF)
argued for relief for continuous, ie high load factor (HLF) consumers. NFCI
said that the overwhelming majority of these are unable to take advantage
of contract load management terms. YEB said that HLF consumers contend
that they should not pay for contributions to system peaks but should be
charged instead according to the lower costs of base load generating plant.
The Electricity Council told us that this type of plant has high capital costs
but low running costs compared with other plant. At load factors above 65
per cent, base load plant is cheaper overall than other plant. But detailed
studies carried out during the latest BST review (see paragraph 12.8) have
shown that there would be very little effect on charges if the BST were altered
to reflect the costs of different types of plant; for example the HLF consumer
would pay during daytimes a lower unit rate but a higher capacity charge.
The Electricity Council thinks its tariff structure is superior in its reflection
of marginal costs for all levels of load factor, high or low. With particular
reference to BSC, the Electricity Council said BSC plants have annual load
factors ranging from 15 per cent to only 63 per cent, below the point where
base load plant became cheaper overall; YEB pointed out that BSC does
take advantage of contract load management terms (see paragraphs 7 and
8 below). On GMF's suggestion that glass manufacturers should be charged
on Saturdays and Sundays at the night rate, YEB told us that the BST does
not differentiate between days of the week for unit charges; it could not so
differentiate without affecting other charges.
3. One CIA member company suggested that its charges should be lower
bearing in mind that its HLF plant is near two large power stations. YEB
said it is impossible to identify which power stations feed which consumers,
because each power station feeds into the National Grid.
4. On contract load management terms, CIA said that many consumers
have pointed to the associated potential disruption and cost. YEB said that
the extent of the disruptions and costs is not revealed; in practice, an average
244
of only 5-3 hours per annum have been made subject by CEGB to load mana-
gement restrictions in the five year period 1978 to 1983. Another CIA member
company thinks that a financial penalty accrues against a consumer whose
performance meets the contract terms. But, as explained in paragraph 12.32,
YEB said that its rebates are made with appropriate interest payments.
5. One CIA member said that, although industrial tariffs reflect the BST,
there are rapidly diminishing reductions in unit charges when a consumer
improves his load factor to over 50 per cent. YEB replied that the net advan-
tage to the consumer depends on how the load is spread. The benefit from
extending shifts from five to seven days are not as high as from introducing
a third daily shift for the night period.
6. NFCI pointed out that YEB's demand charges are much lower than
those of the East Midlands and North Eastern Electricity Boards, but that
this is completely overriden by YEB's much higher unit charges. YEB replied
that differences in charges between area boards are to be expected since each
acts as an autonomous body. Charging differentials reflect for example differ-
ing costs and differing annual financial objectives.
7. NFCI said that visits by its members to YEB offices have given a 'no
expense spared' feeling. BSC thinks that insufficient attention is given to
administrative efficiency; a percentage on-cost procedure has simply allowed
administration costs to escalate in line with what have been massive coal
price increases. YEB said that its offices are designed as efficient units, incor-
porating standards of comfort which any caring employer might reasonably
be expected to provide for his staff. The share of administration costs in
total BSC charges had fallen from 5-4 per cent in 1978-79 to 3-1 per cent
in 1982-83. Excluding rates and Electricity Council expenses, the share had
fallen from 2*7 per cent to —0-6 per cent, the apparent loss being justified
by the allowance for flexibility in the target rate of return for load management
contracts.
8. Finally, BSC said that it wishes to negotiate directly with CEGB, noting
that more than 95 per cent of its electricity charges reflect purchases from
CEGB. YEB replied that it has never merely passed on costs arising from
BST. It has campaigned strongly on issues raised by BSC and other consumers
in discussions with CEGB. through contract load terms and the flexibility
allowance, YEB and CEGB have trimmed BSC's terms to the point where
YEB believes any further reduction could be challenged under the undue pre-
ference provisions of the Electricity Acts. In sum, YEB does not believe BSC
could get better terms if it were to negotiate directly with CEGB.
245
APPENDIX 12.5
(referred to in paragraph 12.45)
The case for reviewing connection charge policy
1. The case depends in part upon the variation in costs of connection of
between £100 to beyond £2,500 (see paragraph 12.24). But the variation is
largely reflected by the system of abnormal connection charges. There remain
some variations in what YEB terms the normal costs of supply, owing mainly
to the design and phasing of construction of new estates. At present YEB
recovers a notional minimum supply cost through a combination of its higher
standard connection charge and the standing charge. It is possible that costs
might be recovered more fully by employing a larger number of standard
charges, more closely reflecting the variety in the designs and phasings of
construction of new estates, although this could involve YEB in additional
expenditure through trying to explain their basis.
2. Residual costs associated with connections are recoverecl in principle
through the unit charge. These include the costs of transformers, sub-stations
and reinforcement of the higher voltage system which bear on improved secur-
ity. As explained in paragraph 6.34 we do not believe that these costs should
be recovered through connection charges where the improved security result-
ing from the additional assets is shared by a large number of consumers.
3. Residual costs also include the relatively unimportant costs of providing
up to 60 feet of electric line falling outside a consumer's property, in accord-
ance with section 27(1) of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899. If the
present standard connection charges were raised so that they fully recovered
normal costs, area boards would face greater risk of challenge under section
27(1) in respect of low cost connections.
4. For connection costs which can properly be related to individual con-
sumers, capital charges may be preferred to revenue charges in that owners
or occupiers of premises are each more likely to bear the costs each imposes
on the system, passing these on to future owners or occupiers through altered
property prices. Revenue charges (whether standing or unit charges) apply
to current and future customers at large, with none specially concerned to
apply downward pressure on the cost of any particular development of the
electricity system. They may be appropriate where it is difficult to identify
the consumers, current or future, benefitting from marginal extensions to the
system. Moreover, in so far as more of these costs could be attributed to
particular customers and capital charges made for them, annual revenue
charges may not be much reduced unless the financial target were reduced
accordingly.
Printed in the UK. for Her Majesty's Stationery Office
Dd 401014 CIS 9/83 (7381)
