Implementation progress – second stage Transmission Transparency Workshop London, 14 November 2008

2 Outline Background Project scope Implementation by data type Successful TSOs Work still required Conclusions and feedback

3 Project background Gas FlowsTransmission Capacity (F1)Daily flow and interruptions (C1)Max technical capacity (F2) Daily prompt allocations (C2)Interruption probability (F3) Daily aggregate day- ahead nominations (C3) Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity (F4)Historic gas flows TSO agreement on release new data during 2008 Focus on a priority subset of information Three stages of implementation Transparency key for market developments

4 Project scope: non-confidential IPs

5 Data types released where < 3 rule applied TSO Less than three shipper rule applies Data Type C1C2C3F1F2F3F4 RWE TNG Yes  Fluxys Yes   GTSYes  WINGAS TRANS.Yes  OntrasYes   

6 Already compliant TSOs that report new information release

7 October 2008: overview of progress

8 Impact of delays

9 Overview: Status October 08 E.ON GT Flux ys Sven. Kraft. RWE TNG Nat. Grid Interco nnector Gasli nk WIN GAS Ontras GRT gaz Ener ginet Gasu nie DEP Swed egas GdF DT GTSBBL (C1) Max technical capacity in place N/A in place final in place (C2) Interruptionin place 2009 ? N/A in place 2010 ? in place 3 - rule in place final in place final (C3) Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity in place N/A in place final in place final (F1) Daily flow / aggregated Allocation in place 2009 ? N/A in place final3 - rule in place final in place final in place final (F2) Daily prompt allocation information in place N/A in place (F3) Daily aggregate day- ahead nominations in place 2009 ? Final in place finalin place final3- rule 2009 ? final N/A 2009 ? in place 2009 ? (F4) Historic gas flow information database in place N/A in place 3 - rule in place final in place final Number of IPs minus rule IPs Later PublicationExisting October 2008In place December 2008FinalThree minus or not required Overall Implementation Progress

10 December 2008 – Final Stage

11 Late implementation ?

12 Conclusions and recommendations Positive progress made to date But significant work remains to be done –Some companies ahead of the game, others significantly delayed –Delays in key data: daily flows (F1) and day-ahead nominations (F3) –Knock-on effect of delays –2009 overruns need to specific on dates TSOs commitment is crucial for remaining data Completion of the project is starting point for further work Final implementation report to be published February 2009

13 Your feedback matters All stakeholders 1.Accessibility and usefulness of the data 2.Quality and consistency of the data published 3.Are the definitions for each data type appropriate? 4.Improvements to project management and reporting 5.Any other key issues?

Transparency project 2009 Transmission Transparency Workshop London, 14 November 2008

15 Where is the discussion at? Initial views on the need for a “phase 2” transparency project were discussed at workshop with stakeholders in July 2008 A second phase should be based on real benefits for users and take into account additional costs for TSOs Starting point should be full completion of “phase I” The (potential) second phase should keep up with increased transparency requirements in 3 rd package, as well as other GRI projects User views have been presented on project priorities

16 Consensus needs to be build solidly Goals What would be the benefits of improved transparency? Deliverables What additional information is needed to achieve the goals? Impact Costs of new data?

17 Our suggested approach Discussion of minimum requirements - TODAY Liaison Ofgem and all TSOs Summary of results at February workshop Agreement on project March 2009 Any future work to based on clear roles and responsibilities, sufficient resources, and commitment to timelines

18