Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line. European Developments Transmission Workgroup 6 th September 2012

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line. EU CAM Network Code and CMP Guideline – Update Transmission Workgroup 6 th September 2012

CAM Stakeholder Engagement  Following the ACER opinion on the CAM Code, ENTSOG issued a Stakeholder ‘engagement’ document on the 27 th July for a short period until 10 th August  ENTSOG sought industry views on potential changes to the CAM Code  ENTSOG have not accepted some suggested changes proposed by ACER  ENTSOG received 22 responses  GB Stakeholders responded  Engagement letter and non confidential   Summary of responses follow:

CAM Stakeholder Responses - Summary 4 Overview of stakeholder support for ENTSOG proposals

CAM Progress & Next Steps  CAM Code undergoing internal review and change  Stakeholder feedback being considered by ENTSOG  Ongoing discussions with ACER as to potential changes  ACER requested revised Code to be sent back by 17 th Sept  To keep the Commission’s deadline for the start of Comitology beginning end of Dec 12  ACER plan a workshop on 19 th Sept to discuss opinion and revised CAM version  Madrid Forum 20 th Sept – CAM most likely to be an agenda item.  Further information please contact

Constraint Management Principles (CMP) Update  CMP approved by Member States at the Comitology meeting on 20 th April 2012  Now Issued in the Official European Union Journal dated 24 th Aug 12  GB has to be compliant by 1 st October 2013 (July 2016 for Firm Day Ahead UIOLI)  Compliance / Impact Assessment continues to be discussed with Ofgem  In principle National Grid CMP arrangements already broadly compliant  But continue to focus on areas where clarification required  Ofgem is also discussing compliance with other GB Interconnector Operators.  Further information please contact

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line. EU Gas Balancing Code – Update Transmission Workgroup 6 th September 2012

ENTSOG - Current project plan 8 Stakeholder Workshop Dec Jan Feb MarApr JuneJuly MayNovJunJulOct Apr Aug Sep Nov Invitation from Commission Submit Network Code Project launch 13/14 Dec 23 SJWS 7-8 SJWS Consultation May Workshop FG Development of Network Code with stakeholder on the basis of the final Framework Guidelines ACER Development of draft network code in cooperation with stakeholders ENTSOG Oct 9 SJWS 26 SJWS SJWS DateEvent 12 June 2012Deadline for responses to the public consultation 26 July 2012Post-consultation workshop 13 September 2012ENTSOG board approval of refined Draft Code 28 September 2012Stakeholder Support process ends 5 November 2012Final ENTSOG Draft Code submitted to ACER 1428 SSP

Overview of consultation responses

BAL NC Refinement Workshop 26 July 2012  Event well attended - 83 stakeholders  ACER presented initial reaction to Draft Code  ENTSOG reported briefly on:  51 responses to the public consultation; and  Processes to identify key stakeholder issues contained within the replies to the 57 consultation questions  The stakeholder issues, rather than the questions were addressed:  Preliminary views provided on key issues at workshop  Further details to be provided in the “Analysis of Decision” (AoD) supporting document 10

NG View on refined Draft Code  NG initial impact assessment on Draft Code presented May 2012 to TX Workgroup. Draft Code is:  Generally consistent with ACER’s Framework Guidelines  Broadly consistent with the GB regime  However, there are some conflicts with the UNC:  Majority were initiated via the ACER framework Guidelines  Nominations at Interconnection Points  No further impacts identified as a result of the code refinements but NG have reservations about how one key issue has been addressed 11

Rejection of nomination due to a physical constraint  22 Respondents raised issues  Including BP Gas Marketing, Centrica and Energy UK  Rejection criteria related to when a physical constraint occurs is not precise enough  The TSO should not be able to reject nominations because of a physical constraint unless an emergency or Force Majeure are in place  Rationale for arguments:  T his clause will undermine the concept of firm capacity  TSO can manage problems in balancing the system using market products or using balancing services  TSOs can offer interruptible capacity - it’s a capacity issue  Workshop 26 July – E.ON raised concerns again

ENTSOG revised proposal*  Amendments are proposed to allow a rejection or amendment of a nomination under two main circumstances:  the gas quantity to be transported is likely to endanger the system integrity of the transmission network; or  the TSO has already taken actions for that Gas Day to manage the availability of capacity at that Interconnection Point including but not limited to:  curtailment of interruptible capacity rights;  capacity buy-back in accordance with the Regulation;  any other arrangement defined under the national rules.  The use of this rule is supported by a provision that the TSO must maintain a record of these circumstances and agree a rule to report them to their NRA *Note: at time of the development of these slides

AoD Justification*  Capacity management rules are not part of the network code  “It has become apparent to ENTSOG in the development of the code that there is no capacity management rule set for dealing with issues in regard to a network user’s inability to use capacity rights.  These issues while clearly important are nevertheless outside of the scope of the balancing network code and may need to be addressed in a subsequent code” *Note: at time of the development of these slides

NG Reservations  Given the Nominations at IPs strong link to flows, this proposal raises issues with the GB constraint management process, where such a “free option” [to reduce gas flows] is not currently included  NG have raised concerns about the potential conflict with Reg 715/CAM introduced by the ENTSOG proposal  ‘…firm capacity means gas transmission capacity contractually guaranteed as uninterruptible…’  ‘interruptible capacity’ means gas transmission capacity that may be interrupted by the transmission system operator ….’  Reasons for interruption are specified in CAM 15

Stakeholder Support Process  14 th September to 28 September  ENTSOG will publish:  Refined Draft code  AoD  This is not a formal consultation  Stakeholders will be able to indicate support (yes or no) by chapter and the code overall

Next Steps  Stakeholder support process - 14 th Sept to 28 Sept  Another iteration of the code will be submitted for ENTSOG Board approval in October  ENTSOG will submit the final Draft Code and AoD document to ACER on 5 November 2012  Commission will complete the impact assessment and have encouraged ACER, ENTSOG and individual stakeholders to contribute data to inform the Commission’s IA  With this in mind a questionnaire has been issued to TSOs and NRAs – to be completed by 28 September 17

Place your chosen image here. The four corners must just cover the arrow tips. For covers, the three pictures should be the same size and in a straight line. EU Interoperability & Data Exchange Network Code Transmission Workgroup 6 th September 2012

19 Current Position  ACER published Draft Framework Guidelines on 16 th March 2012  Responses were submitted by 16 th May 2012  ACER published final Framework Guidelines and its Evaluation of Responses on 26 th July 2012  This presentation summarises:  the main changes to the FGs  ENTSOG’s indicative timetable for this Code

20 Topic Areas  Interconnection Agreements  Harmonisation of Units  Gas Quality  Odourisation  Data Exchange  Capacity Calculation

Draft v Final Framework Guideline  Largely ‘tweaks’ rather than fundamental change  Implementation period has been reduced from 18 months post comitology to 12  New section on dispute resolution  Removal of requirement to develop a ‘standard’ Interconnection Agreement  Potential for use of common units to be extended to other measurements in addition to energy, volume pressure and CV  Suppliers to be considered in addition to shippers and end- consumers to receive gas quality information  Text on odourisation has been softened  Removal of ‘Cross-border Cooperation’ section

Indicative Timeline for Code Development

EU Updates Timetable  Timetable aims to highlight the key items (consultations, workshops, decisions, etc.) National Grid NTS expect to cover via this agenda item in the forthcoming months TopicTX Workgroup ENTSOG Winter Outlook report December 2012