EDF Energy Thermal Generation pays GBP 6 million over balancing data
Ofgem found that for more than two years EDF Energy Thermal Generation frequently inflated the stable export limit it declared for West Burton B, at times when the plant was not planning to generate, so that National Grid ESO had to buy more power than needed. EDF ETG admitted an inadvertent breach and agreed to pay GBP 6,000,000 into Ofgem's voluntary redress fund; Ofgem opened no formal investigation.
On this page
The decision
- Authority
- Ofgem (OFGEM), Great Britain
- Published
- 16 December 2020
- Participants
- EDF Energy (Thermal Generation) Limited
- Commodity
- Electricity
- Market
- GB Balancing Mechanism
- Conduct period
- September 2017 to March 2020
- REMIT
- Article 5 (Market manipulation)
- Type of conduct
- Misleading balancing data
- Penalty
- GBP 6,000,000 paid into Ofgem's voluntary redress fund; no formal investigation opened
- Status
- Final
What Ofgem found
Ofgem's decision of 16 December 2020 says its monitoring found that from September 2017 to March 2020 EDF Energy (Thermal Generation) Limited regularly sent misleading signals to National Grid ESO about the capabilities of the West Burton B plant. For more than two years it frequently inflated the Stable Export Limit, the minimum power the plant said it could supply, at times when the plant was not planning to generate. In many cases, Ofgem says, the system operator had to buy more energy from the plant than it needed when the plant was used to balance the system.
Ofgem found two breaches. The first was of the generation licence, through the Grid Code requirement that dynamic parameters submitted to the system operator reasonably reflect the expected true operating characteristics of the unit; inflated limits did not. The second was of Article 5 of REMIT, because the submissions gave false or misleading signals as to the supply of wholesale energy products.
The company's account
Ofgem recognised that EDF ETG did not consider its approach would raise the system operator's overall balancing costs. EDF ETG had considered that by recovering its fixed costs over a greater volume it could offer the system operator lower prices. It now acknowledges that, while the approach committed the system operator to buying a larger volume from West Burton B, it sometimes resulted in unnecessary spending to balance the system.
The outcome
EDF ETG admitted an inadvertent breach of the Grid Code and of Article 5, took swift action to prevent a recurrence, cooperated fully, and agreed to pay GBP 6,000,000 into Ofgem's voluntary redress fund. Ofgem concluded there was no merit in opening a formal investigation, giving as reasons the admissions, the steps taken to prevent recurrence and the redress. The decision does not state a penalty, a discount or a calculation. It points to Ofgem's open letter of 29 September 2020, which sets out Ofgem's expectations on the accuracy of generator data.
That open letter states Ofgem's view, in line with its InterGen finding, that a generator which submits dynamic parameters for commercial reasons that do not reflect the unit's operating characteristics gives, or attempts to give, false or misleading signals and would be likely to breach Article 5. It says that where running at a lower output costs more, the cost belongs in bid and offer prices and not in the Stable Export Limit, and that a unit with a Physical Notification of zero should not declare a higher limit than normal to force the system operator to buy more.
For a surveillance function
Ofgem's decision and open letter place declared technical parameters inside the REMIT prohibition. A firm's compliance review of balancing activity covers the limits and times it declares as well as its bids and offers, and who sets them and on what technical basis.
Sources
- Ofgem, EDF Energy (Thermal Generation) Limited agrees to pay GBP 6 million for breaching wholesale energy market regulations, 16 December 2020 (Decision)
- Ofgem, Open letter: dynamic parameters and other information submitted by generators in the Balancing Mechanism, 29 September 2020 (Guidance)
- ACER, overview of REMIT sanction decisions (ACER register)
Sources read on 27 October 2026. This page restates what the authority published and adds no finding of its own. A decision under appeal is not final, and its status may have changed since: check the source before relying on it.