CASE STUDY: STEDIN Stedin is a regional grid manager for electricity and gas within the Randstad region with more than 2,2 bn customers that daily depend on the delivery of energy and gas to live, to work and to do business. Stedin Group consists of the electricity and gas grid managers Stedin and Enduris, which operate in a large part of the province of Zuid-Holland, Utrecht, Zeeland and in parts of Noord-Holland and Friesland. In addition, the group offers services in the field of electricity and gas infrastructure under the names Joulz and DNWG Infra. Energy has become indispensable in the world in which we live. The energy transition requires substantial adjustments to the energy grid, or more accurately, our energy system. Challenge Stedin used to be part of the Eneco Group, an integrated utility company responsible for the sales, service and distribution of electricity and gas. Being one company, Stedin and Eneco used the same legacy Treasury Management System (TMS) for over 10 years. Due to regulations the company however needed to unbundle and separate the commercial units from the grid operator activities. The goal for the Treasury team was to select and implement a new Treasury management systems which met the specific requirements of both companies and have both systems in place at the unbundling date. Parallel to the system implementation the organisation needed to (physically) split up, the banking system and IT infrastructure needed to be duplicated and two financial closings were planned near the go-live date. 54 TREASURY SOLUTIONS 2019 Project approach A multidisciplinary project team including support from Orchard Finance was set-up to analyse three possible scenarios for the replacement of the current TMS: Split the legacy system; One company keeps the legacy system, the other implements a new system; Both companies implement (the same) new systems. The first option was abandoned since the legacy system was end-of-life and support would cease in the near future. The second option was considered a fallback option since carving out data from the legacy system would not be easy. And the option for two new systems was not considered due to resource and timeline constraints. The decision was made to select new systems for both companies. Although both companies had different types of needs, the RFP process was a joint effort with the objective to serve the current and future needs of both companies in a first phase. In a second phase, diverging of functionalities was foreseen. The key objectives were defined as: Improved control over liquidity, interest and currencies (financial risk reduction); Enhanced reporting and scenario planning capabilities; Operational risk reduction: - simplified structures and standardized processes; - link with ERP workflows and improve ‘straight through processing’; - less dependency on local infrastructure and availability local employees; An automated accounting interface with SAP and hedge accounting under IFRS 9.
57 Online Touch Home