Transmission Transparency Workshop European Strategy and Environment 10 July 2008

2 NW Gas Regional Initiative  Regional Initiatives  Started Spring 2006  Practical bottom up approach to reform  Engage all stakeholders  North West Region  Nine Members (+ Norway)  Majority of European gas trade and consumption  Transparency  One of three priority areas 1.Transparency 2.Capacity 3.Investment Objective: overcome barriers to gas trade between Member States on a non-discriminatory basis

3 Participating TSOs Netherlands United Kingdom GermanyBelgium FranceIreland Sweden Northern Ireland Denmark ?

4 Context – original information shopping list Gas Quality Gas Balancing Transmission Capacity Gas Flows Supply and Demand Agreed as priority areas Important issues for future focus To be delivered… Gas Flows  Daily flow and interruptions  Daily prompt allocations  Daily aggregate day-ahead nominations  Historic gas flows Transmission Capacity  Max technical capacity  Interruption probability  Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity focus on prioritised subset of information

5 Which interconnection points? 121 Interconnection Points 87 Public 34 Confidential (?) Greater information transparency at “confidential” interconnection points? EC Law: Less than three shippers; can request authorisation from NRAs not to publish information 3 rd package amendment IMPACT OF LESS THAN THREE SHIPPER RULE ON PROJECT

6 TSOs committed to milestones

7 Implementation schedule Data Type % provided in December 2007 % expected by May 2008 % expected by September 2008 % expected by December 2008 (C1) Max technical capacity 6994 (C2) Interruption (C3) Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity (F1) Daily flow / aggregated Allocation (F2) Daily prompt allocation information (F3) Daily aggregate day-ahead nominations (F4) Historic gas flow information database Example: 25% of TSOs already provided aggregate daily flow and interruptions (F1), by December % of TSOs should provide this info

8 Implementation progress: May 2008 MIXED PROGRESS: ON TRACK IN 3 BUT BEHIND SCHEDULE ON 4

9 Max technical capacity (C1) ALMOST ON TRACK: ONLY ONE TSO LEFT TO IMPLEMENT Planned Fluxys, BGE, Energinet.dk, Swedegas Implemented Fluxys, BGE, Energinet.dk Delayed Swedegas

10 Probability of interruption (C2) BEHIND SCHEDULE: 6 TSOs TO IMPLEMENT BY SEPTEMBER Planned Ontras, Energinet.dk, Swedegas Implemented E.ON Delayed Ontras, Energinet.dk Swedegas

11 Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity (C3) ROUGHLY ON TRACK: ONE TSO IMLPEMENTED EARLY ONE TSO FAILED Planned Fluxys, BGE, Energinet.dk Implemented NG, BGE, Energinet.dk Delayed Fluxys

12 Daily flow/aggregated allocation (D+1) (F1) BEHIND SCHEDULE: 4 TSOs TO IMPLEMENT BY SEPTEMBER; 3 BY DECEMBER Planned E.ON, WINGAS, Ontras, Energinet.dk, BEB, DEP, Swedegas, GdF DT Implemented E.ON, BEB, DEP, GdF DT Delayed Fluxys, WINGAS, Ontras, Swedegas

13 Daily prompt allocation information (F2) ON TRACK: ALL TSOs NOW REPORT TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION Svenska Kraftnät and E.ON now report that they provide this information

14 Daily aggregate day ahead nominations (F3) BEHIND SCHEDULE: 3 TSOs PROVIDE NO ANSWER ON IMPLEMENTATION Planned WINGAS, Ontras, DEP Implemented E.ON Delayed WINGAS, Ontras, DEP

15 Historic gas flow database (F4) ON TRACK: 5 TSOs STILL NEED TO IMPLEMENT THIS INFORMATION Planned WINGAS, Ontras, BEB Implemented E.ON, DEP, WINGAS, BEB Delayed Ontras

16 TSOs that report new information release TSOs that report full compliance already

17 Next Steps  Incorporate your feedback into the implementation report: feedback by 18 July  Publish the implementation report and press release: end of July 2008  Questionnaire for second progress report: October 2008  Publication of second progress report: November 2008  North-West Region Stakeholder Conference in London: 14 November  Deadline for implementation: 31 December 2008  Final project report/workshop: Early 2009

18 Key issues Implementation accuracy 1.At which interconnection points will the relevant data be published? 2.Are the definitions for each data type appropriate? 3.Has there been any further progress since May? User views 1.Network user feedback on accessibility and usefulness of the data 2.Improvements to project management and reporting 3.Any other key issues? TSO feedback 1.Reasons for delays in releasing new data 2.Re-confirmation of implementation commitment

19 Risks to successful project? How will we handle delays in project implementation?  First implementation report and press release to be published at the end of July  Second and final implementation reports published in November and early 2009  Updates at GRI Stakeholder(November 2008) and Madrid Fora Escalation of concerns?  National regulators to engage with TSOs  Engage Programme Board in project implementation  Timelines to be revised?

20 BIG THANK YOU TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS! PROJECT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT POSITIVE AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF ALL THOSE INVOLVED WANT POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR EVERYBODY

21