Références, date, lieu Xoserve Service Model – Shipper’s View Total Gas and Power Ltd Gaz de France ESS

2 - Références, date, lieu Overview Funding of Xoserve Services  Baseline Services  Volume Driven Services  Commercial Request Services Implications of Funding Changes. Governance Models Summary

3 - Références, date, lieu Current Funding of xoserve services Baseline Services Commercial Request Services Very little differentiation in funding arrangements.

4 - Références, date, lieu Future Funding of xoserve services Baseline Services Volume Driven Services Commercial Request Services It is anticipated that any changes in xoserve funding arrangements would create a mixture of different charging systems

5 - Références, date, lieu Baseline Services Those costs incurred by xoserve which cannot easily be varied or apportioned according to User requirements.  Infrastructure (buildings, computers, etc.)  Support Staff (IT, HR, Finance)  UK Link Communication Systems Services provided to Transporters or Customers.  Desc Activities.  Provision of Meter Point Serial Number  Change Management These services would continue to be funded through the allowed price control revenue, as Transporters would still have the incentive to control costs. Does not preclude differing apportionment of costs between Transporters

6 - Références, date, lieu Volume Driven Services Mandatory User Services that the Transporter’s agent is required to provide, but the source of cost can be clearly identified.  Supply Point Nominations.  Use of Supply Point Register.  Supply Point Ratchets Currently have such a process for limited numbers of other UNC activities (Must Reads). Attempts would be made to identify the costs that are incurred in providing these services; these would then be recovered from those that incur them in proportion. For simplicity, charges do not necessarily have to meet all costs for that service but should attempt to target some costs at the orginator.

7 - Références, date, lieu Volume Driven Services – Implementation and Operation. Case Study - Supply Point Nomination/Confirmation Process.  Transporter must validate Shippers Nomination and either submit a Supply Point offer to the User within Two Business Days or reject Nomination.  Responding to Supply Point Offer, Shipper must present a Supply Point Registration date at least 15 business days after submission.  Restrictions due to system capacity. At present anyone who wishes to have a quicker turnaround must either raise modification to adjust system for all Users. As new timescales would apply to all, very unlikely anyone would use longer timescales. Separating out costs for an individual Supply Point Confirmation Process will allow variation in service according to User needs  Reduce registration date to 10 business days  Allow multiple confirmations on different dates to become live simultaneously.

8 - Références, date, lieu Commercial Request Services Services which are not mandatory.  Adhoc Data Requests  Possibly iGT incorporation In theory such services can be contracted for via a bilateral agreement or a UK Link class 3 change. In reality such services have been very difficult to set-up and charges may not be efficently incurred. Creation of set criteria with visibilty to Shippers to allow efficient cost- setting Increase in the transparency of such services will allow multiple Users to use such a service and reduce costs.

9 - Références, date, lieu Funding Changes Implications Will always have a mixture of classifications. What is covered by which classification is a key question that needs to be decided equitably. Shippers will need to have input on cost-setting and definitions. Changes to governance will need to be made to give transparency of cost-setting. May adjust decisions on important changes to industry regime.

10 - Références, date, lieu System cost projections - Requirement to include foreseeable industry developments to inform worthiness decisions X X ?

11 - Références, date, lieu Preferred Governance Models ModelKey Benefits User Pays Model AUser Pays Model B Baseline Services GTs have service level obligations under UNC Ensures all stakeholders in the loop Increased risks between GTs and Agent Shippers do not have direct recourse under UNC Volume Driven & Commercial Service No value added by GTs involvement Potential for increased delay or reduced service levels Shipper to Agent direct relationship means better service level and increased leverage for shippers X X As there will be a mixture of service classifications, governance will need to recognise that.

12 - Références, date, lieu User Pays – Model A GTs xoserve User ASA Charges Service Request Service Provision Payments Invoice

13 - Références, date, lieu User Model B GTs xoserve User ASA Request and Provide Service (via UNC or commercial service) Invoice and Pay for Service User board Charge Definitions Information on Cost of Service

14 - Références, date, lieu Summary Xoserve replacement service presents unique opportunity to change Transporter Agent regime Meaningful differentiation of services can only occur when specific services are itemised. Cost reflectivity will also drive through efficient use of the Transporter Agent. Transparency and Shipper oversight will need to be improved to allow a robust process. Consideration needs to be given to both Transporter and Shipper needs.