AUG Query Responses 21st November 2013

Overview AUGE Guidelines require AUGE to report outcome of Query Process to UNCC UNCC to consider AUGE recommendations UNCC to endorse AUGE’s recommended course of action or vote unanimously to reject (see section 8 of the AUGE Guidelines for details) Presentation covers two sets of queries ICoSS response on 23rd October 2013 British Gas response on 13th November 2013 Update on iGT CSEP volume error

ICoSS – Query 1 Modification 410A Response Introduces improvements to handling of unregistered sites and better control of the MPRN creation process Response Changes the way unregistered sites handled – specifically <12 months category Expect to see declining levels of permanent UG for unregistered sites during 2014/15 AUG Methodology requires update to reflect this Impact is material and will reduce permanent UG for these categories Volume and rate tables will need to be updated Query classed under 8.5 as “Material and can be implemented for final AUG table” Subject to previous agenda item regarding mismatch between UNC and AUGE Guidelines 3

ICoSS – Query 2 Mod 431S and SPA MAM 13/002 Mod 431S introduces a portfolio reconciliation between Shippers and Transporters which will help identify potential unregistered sites SPA MAM 13/002 introduces restrictions to stop meters being fitted without a supply contract Neither have been implemented and therefore cannot be incorporated into the methodology or figures for 2014/15 Impact of 431S cannot be assessed until the portfolio reconciliation occurs in any case Query classed under 8.4(a) as “Requiring no action” 4

ICoSS – Query 3 Mod 424 – re-establishment of Supply Points This modification reduces occurrence of shipperless sites The effects of this modification have already been documented in the 2013 AUGS for 2014/15 and included in the calculation of interim rates and volumes Query classified under 8.4(a) as “Requiring no action” 5

ICoSS – Query 4 Impact of data quality ICoSS raised various concerns about data quality and suitability for AUG calculations No specific issue was raised or estimation of impact it would have Response highlighted improvements in 2013 to address data quality issues Data quality issues have been highlighted previously and this is therefore not a new Unidentified Gas issue per se If specific issues are highlighted then we could investigate them Query classed under 8.4(a) as “Requiring no action”

British Gas - Query 1 Allocation issue Discrepancy identified in Allocation totals used in calculation spreadsheets Identified issue with EWCF used when calculating seasonal normal allocations Updated data not included in all calculations This needs to be corrected and volumes/rates table updated accordingly Nearest classification is under 8.5 “Material change that can be implemented for final gas volumes and rates” – it does not require a change to the AUGS

British Gas - Query 2 Concerns the calculation of the forward estimate of UG Query relates to the use of the balancing factor from the historical period rather than calculating it by difference for the forecast year We believe this is a misunderstanding of the process The AUGS could be clearer on how the forward calculation works If calculating by difference for forward years, any UG improvement initiatives only get converted to balancing factor (mainly theft) which would be incorrect Recommend additional clarifications added to AUGS to show how each UG segment is extrapolated from historic to forecast years Query classified as “8.4(b) requires a change to the AUGS but does not have material impact on volumes/rates” Subject to previous agenda item regarding mismatch between UNC and AUGE Guidelines

British Gas - Query 3 Concerns the suspected erroneous inclusion of large sites in Unregistered / Shipperless UG calculations Also queried the 5x multiplier for derivation of temporary UG Misunderstanding of the use of flags in spreadsheets Data not removed, but flagged for investigation. “Remove” flag is used when calculating average LSP AQ to avoid skewing the average The derivation of the 5x factor is also noted in query response and it is a coincidence that it is a whole number More details provided in response Query classed under 8.4(b) as “Requiring no action”

British Gas - Query 4 Concerns exclusion of large sites >58GWh pa when producing AQ scaling factors for shipperless/unregistered sites Response clarifies process and why sites left out as appropriate Noted insufficient evidence to assume that all large sites will always be revised downwards Summarised key process steps for clarification Query classified under 8.4(b) as “Requiring no action”.

British Gas - Query 5 Concerns CSEP consumption not being adjusted for sites with AQ>1 not consuming, resulting in under-estimate of UG We note that there is also the opposite issue of not adjusting consumption for sites where AQ=1 that are consuming resulting in a potential over-estimate of UG CSEPS were adjusted for both situations in an early draft of the AUGS During the year we identified that CSEP EUC bands were based on max AQ CSEP EUC banding therefore unreliable Latest AUGS estimates CSEPs consumption based on average aggregate AQ This is therefore not a new issue and has already been through consultation during the year Query classified under 8.4(b) “Requiring no action” 11

iGT CSEP Volume Issue update A large iGT CSEP has calculated volumes incorrectly This may or may not have a material impact on UG – no data provided to assess We understand the issue has been corrected going forward The effects are inherent in the interim AUG table Likely to be small CSEPS account for a small % of demand This is just one part of that market Issue concerns a subset of the portfolio We understand that we are unlikely to get corrections until after the final AUG table has been prepared 12

Next Steps Deal with any further queries or rejected queries from this meeting Prepare final AUG table for Gas Transporters on or before 1st January 2014 13

Thank you for your attention