23 February 2011 IGTRP0030 Potential impacts on Parties of changes to NExA Table

Introduction IGTRP030 established to consider review of “CSEP NExA Table” Considering the impacts on RPC within the scope and deliverables

Parties who will be impacted Shippers iGTs GDNs Customers Ofgem

Impacts on RPC for Shippers RPC invoice/backing data format contains AQ Values used at RPC entry Format is as set down and agreed in iGT UNC Many shippers have worked with IGTs to produce validation routines around existing invoice formats Changes to NExA tables will require Shippers to be able to keep track of table changes in order to validate transportation invoices – this could require systems changes There could be an increase in invoice queries as a result of any change What is your validation routine?

Impacts on RPC for IGTs Does not affect current connections – the WSSP factor will be the same Reduces revenues on new developments (should AQs decrease) Systems changes will be needed to move from the current 8 Band/ 3 geographical area Requires lead times that allow not only for systems changes but take account of commercial terms to house builders Introduces greater disparity between GDN ATW and CSEP + IGT ATW- equivalent Issues limited, in part, on frequency of change to table.

Impacts on GDNs GDNs have doubts about the recent falling trend in AQ/SOQ values as revealed by the AQ review – they are investigating with XoServe AQ Review exercise – will changes in formats affect existing dataflows/structures?

Impacts on RPC for Consumers Positive, assuming Suppliers passes savings on?

Impact on Ofgem Ofgem are launching a review of regulation of independent networks – consultation paper is imminent – 12 month project Should NExA table values be changed as the consultation process starts Will RPC itself be reviewed?

Summary Amending the NExA Table impacts upon RPC Systems changes will be required by both Shippers and IGTs Commercial contracts will need to be considered if updated tables implemented Likely impact on Ofgem and possibly GDNs Process for ratifying value changes to table must be underpinned by robust process Consideration must be given to frequency of review – Cost-v- Benefit Consumers should benefit, no more IGT surcharges.