adjusting or disallowing funding for leakage reduction, water resilience, water supply and wastewater schemes on the grounds that funding is provided through base allowances or was provided in previous periods (ie customers are not ‘paying twice’). 61. The Disputing Companies have also asked us to carry out individual assessments where disputing Ofwat’s use of benchmarking in the determination of enhancement allowances and in considering a new claim for funding enhancement investment. 62.
Ofwat has recommended that we deprioritise the redetermination of expenditure allowances associated with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances ( PFAS ), cyber security, the large schemes gated process and major project development costs on the basis that it already has mechanisms or ongoing processes to address these concerns. 28 63. We intend to deprioritise the following requests on the basis of there being an alternative route, as we expect Ofwat to address these issues within the PR24 period through existing mechanisms: (a) Northumbrian’s request for Ј4 million to fund preparatory work on the Bacton desalination bulk supply pipeline.
Ofwat has said that this scheme should be progressed through PR29 or alternative funding mechanisms closer to the required lead-in time and that it could be incorporated into the RAPID gated scheme process; 29 (b) Northumbrian’s request to delay spend on the Suffolk Strategic Network scheme from AMP8 to AMP9. Ofwat has said that it could manage scheme delays and costs through the large scheme gated process; and (c) South East’s request for Ј9 million to fund to six PFAS raw water deterioration schemes. Ofwat has said that it could incorporate these schemes into the PFAS uncertainty mechanism. 64.
In addition, we intend to deprioritise the following claims for additional funding on de minimis grounds (and none raises substantial wider issues of principle): 30 (a) Southern’s for Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS) Flow monitoring at sewage treatment works; 28 Ofwat (2025) Overview of our response to the SoCs , paragraph 5.2, and Ofwat (2025) Response to Northumbrian’s SoC , table 4.5. 29 We note that this request might also be deprioritised on de minimis grounds. 30 We calculated the value of each relevant issue as a percentage of the Disputing Company’s PR24 water totex or wastewater totex, as appropriate, depending on whether the spend related to water or wastewater activities.
Each issue accounts for 0.5% or less of the Disputing Company’s PR24 water totex or wastewater totex. 17