Gas Performance Assurance Framework February 2013 Title slide [from Title Slide master] The title slide is available as a Title Master and the background and graphic elements are fixed. Text is editable for the slide heading and presentation details but the British Gas brand mark and other graphic elements are fixed on the Title Master. Font, type size and colours are fixed for the Title Master style and should not be modified.

The purpose of the Performance Assurance Framework must be defined as a first step. The purpose of the Performance Assurance Framework must be understood and defined, and its benefits quantified: Why is it needed? What does it need to achieve? How will it achieve it? How will the gas industry be improved? High level principles: The focus must be on assuring the performance of the Nexus settlement processes only. The critical parts of the Nexus design must be identified. Performance standards must be set appropriately to allow Nexus to work. Appropriate penalties should be developed if standards are not met. The process should run with a minimum of administration. The process must not require any subjective judgement decisions. There must be a process for review and revision of standards (e.g. Mod process).

Once the purpose is agreed, performance standards and measurement can be defined. Only then should detailed governance arrangements be considered. Performance standards should be defined against each of the Nexus processes, in light of the questions on the previous page: AQ Calculation Meter Reading Submission Reconciliation / Settlement Retrospective Updates. Performance should be regularly monitored against the agreed standards: Performance standards and penalties should be well defined and agreed. Regular MI is required to monitor performance against standards. The process should then be able to run itself (e.g. Mod 640), with a minimum of administration. Appropriate penalties will incentivise Shippers to perform to the required standard. Any industry-wide issues (e.g. shipperless sites, unidentified gas, shrinkage) which might affect performance should continue to be addressed in the relevant working groups. There is no need for a performance assurance board or committee to provide a subjective judgement on performance. If changes are required to the standards and reporting, the Modification process could be used.

PAF Roadmap and Planning

PAF Roadmap and Planning continued