Impacts of Mod 244 Steve Nunnington xoserve. Background  96.5% of transportation charges based on capacity.  These are dependent on historical throughput.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Presenters:- Steve Nunnington xoserve & Sallyann Blackett E.on Sallyann Blackett E.on Rolling AQ – A Straw Man.
Advertisements

PN UNC Workgroup (AQ topic)
12/10/20141 Project Nexus Workgroup Settlement Issues 15 th May 2012.
Proposal to Change the UNC AQ ‘Backstop Date’ to accommodate the 2010 Seasonal Normal Review DESC – 2nd October 2009 NOTE: Instances where TBC is stated.
1 Project Nexus Market Differentiation Topic Workgroup 14 th & 15 th July 2009.
Project Nexus Workgroup 9 th September Background During detailed design a number of areas have been identified that require clarification with.
Project Nexus Workgroup Unique Sites 4 th November 2014.
CSEP Transportation Charges 11 th August Background Action NEX0604 from 18 th June PN UNC requested Xoserve to provide a presentation on how Supply.
UNC Urgent Modification Proposal 0275 Supplemental Analysis and Timeline.
Mod 0445 – Amendment to the Arrangements for Daily Metered Supply Point Capacity Ofgem Direction to Provide Further Evidence National Grid Distribution.
AQ Overview.  Annual Quantity (AQ) is a value held for each meter point that reflects the expectation as to the volume of gas that a meter point will.
Draft Review Proposal 175 Encouraging Participation in the elective DM Regime Phil Broom 25 October 2007.
PN UNC Workgroup Supply Point Register 25 th October 2011.
“Introduction of a New Shipper Obligation in Relation to the Procurement of Gas Below the Gas Safety Monitors” Transmission Workstream 4 th Jan 2007 Chris.
Project Nexus Workgroup AQ Backstop Date Options 7 th October 2014.
Joel Martin 23 rd November 2010 MOD 329 – UNC Rules on setting SHQs / SOQs & the Network Referral Process.
UNC G7.3.7 Invoicing Read Estimation Proposal Requirement for Read Estimation & Proposed Methodology Dean Johnson Distribution Workstream – 25 th August.
Nexus Workgroup CSEP Transition Topic June
IGT Single Service Provision Requirements Update – 27 th March 2013.
UNC (Urgent) Modification Proposal 0044: “Revised Emergency Cash-out & Curtailment Arrangements” UNC Transmission Workstream 11 th August 2005.
CSEPs Reconciliation “Read Window” proposal. 2 Background  I&C CSEPs (supply point AQ >73,200) are subject to reconciliation  IGTs are obliged to provide.
Governance and Charging Methodology for User Pays Services 10 th January 2007.
Meter Read Validation 11 th August Background The meter read validation principles were developed under ‘The Settlement’ BRD and formed part of.
Mod 270 Potential Options Rob Hill 15/02/2009. Six potential options following discussion at last months Development Workgroup OptionNameDescription 1Elective.
Distribution Network Interruption - Initialisation 28 September 2010.
1 v1 iGT CSEP Billing Solution ScottishPower Proposals April 08.
AQ Review Team August 2009 Dean Johnson Operations Manager Analytical Services Susan Prosser AQ Officer John Harris AQ Administrator.
1 Review Group 264 Rules & Options Analysis for BSSOQ Methodology Changes Post MOD th September 2009.
Version PNUNC AQ Principles Workgroup Mod 0209 – Rolling AQ Presenter: Steve Nunnington 23 rd March 2010.
Datalogger / DMV Modification Proposals - Summary Simon Trivella – 26 th August 2010 Distribution Workstream - Elexon U P D A T E.
1 UNC Review Group 175 – Encouraging Participation in the Elective Daily Metered Regime 26 th June 2008.
UNC Modification Proposal 0380 Periodic Annual Quantity Calculation Calculation of Daily Supply Point Capacity Alan Raper – DNCMF 26 th September 2011.
MOD Proposal 0224 Facilitating the use of AMR in the Daily Metered Elective Regime 28 May 2009 Code User Pays Services.
DN Interruption Reform Transmission Workstream Mark Freeman 5 th April 2007.
IGT and Shipper Workgroup meeting 28 th February 2011.
Stuart Forrest, Network Planning Manager, Scotia Gas Networks 19 th October 2010 MOD Review of Industry Charging & Contractual Arrangements in Relation.
Rolling AQ – Initial Calculation
UNC Modification Proposal 0202 National Grid Distribution
Consideration of issues raised by UNC Modification Proposal 0244
UIG Task Force Progress Report
Nexus Meter Read Performance April 2018
Must Read Process Guide For Shippers
Mod 430 iGT Mod 047 Workgroup Update
Reduction of Exit Capacity at DM Supply Points
CSEPs Reconciliation Proposals
Impacts of Project Nexus Implementation Date to AQ17
Transporter Initiated SPA Confirmations on behalf of User Potential Impact Discussion with UK Link Committee.
AUG Query Responses 21st November 2013.
Connected System Exit Points - Update
Nexus Workgroup Winter Consumption and the influence on Winter Annual Ratio (WAR) Bands 8th January 2014.
Joint Theft Reporting Review (from meeting 1st March 2019)
CSEPs SPA Rejections November 2007 update
AQ BTU Form – Process & Timeline 29th September 2009
Overview of RbD Risk Modelling 31 March 2008
DN Interruption Phase II
AQ Review System Calculation Overview
Development Work Group 0209 Straw Man Update
MOD Proposal 0224 Facilitating the use of AMR in the Daily Metered Elective Regime Distribution Workstream Update Following Completion of Analysis 23rd.
Nexus Workgroup Read Validation Scenarios
CSEPs SPA Rejections December 2007 update
Meter Read Rejections ..
Meter Reads.
PN UNC Workgroup (AQ topic)
CSEPs SPA Rejections January – August 2007
UK Link Timeline June-19 Sept-19 (EUC) Nov-19
Customer Issue Management CoMC Update for June 2019
Enabling Large Scale Utilisation of Class 3
Customer Issue Management Dashboard CoMC - July 2019
Customer Issue Management Dashboard CoMC - July 2019
XRN Enabling large scale utilisation of Class 3 – MOD0700
Presentation transcript:

Impacts of Mod 244 Steve Nunnington xoserve

Background  96.5% of transportation charges based on capacity.  These are dependent on historical throughput.  Capacity charges on DM sites are based on:-  Bottom Stop SOQ. (BSSOQ) applicable to certain Interruptible sites.  DM SOQ.  Interruptible sites still pay 50% of firm costs.  BSSOQ can only be amended in the AQ Amendment window.  BSSOQ is based on the consumption of the Uncapped Winter Peak. (Highest daily demand between Oct – May)  Challenges are currently only allowed to those meter readings and consequently their derived consumption.  Number of challenges are very low.

Background  DM SOQ can only be reduced by shipper from October to January each year.  DM SOQ cannot fall beneath the value of the prevailing bottom stop SOQ.  DM SOQs are all passed to Networks for approval be they increases or decreases.  DM mandatory level is AQ of 58,600,000 Kwh below which they become voluntary.  Interruptible threshold AQ of 5,860,000 Kwh below which sites cannot be interruptible.  DM threshold. Site cannot be DM below AQ of 73,200 Kwh. There are currently 158 of these.  AQ needs to be reduced in line with SOQ to ensure the supply point falls within the correct charging band.  Ratchet mechanisms currently apply only Oct – May.  All these processes are fully systematised and are robust.

Analysis  There are 2058 DM supply points on xoserve systems.  Under Mod 244 there would be the following eligible sites:-  DM Interruptible 1410  DM Firm Mandatory 185  TOTAL1595  There are also 115 Unique Sites which qualify under the terms of the Mod but these could be dealt with under current US off line processes.

Analysis Comparing Feb 2008 & Feb 2009 % Change in Consumption DM FIRM MandatoryDM InteruptibleTotal Count% % % N/A 116%1138%1248% = -100% 84%1017%1097% -90% to -99% 42%171%211% -80% to -89% 53%50%101% -70% to -79% 32%111%141% -60% to -69% 63%211%272% -50% to -59% 84%373%453% -40% to -49% 95%413%503% -30% to -39% 126%675%795% -20% to -29% 179%916%1087% -10% to -19% 2715%15411%18111% 0% to -9% 3217%24517%27717% Increased Consumption 4323%50736%55034% Total Supply Points

Analysis  This would mean under the terms of Mod 244 for all DM Mandatories the number of candidate sites would be as follows  20% 587  30% 479  40% 400  50% 350  Additionally 51 US would fall in line with the 20% rate. Looking ahead  Should BSSOQ as a concept be scrapped or the definition be changed? (E.G AQ/365)  Should we allow DM SOQ appeals throughout the year?  Should ratchets be applied all year round for eligible sites?

Possible solutions  Rebates on Billing (Off-Line)  Bills issued as normal using SOQs  Rebate issued at M+2 to amended SOQ values  Monitoring of usage against various thresholds and consumption  Ratchet process required  Admin charge  Re-confirmation of the site under a new MPRN. (Off-Line)  Co-ordinated end date of MPRN and creation of new one  New values to be applied to new MPRN  Monitoring of usage against various thresholds and consumption  Ratchet process required  Admin charge  System solution (On-Line)  Investigating availability of a screen to amend BSSOQ.  Window for reducing DM SOQ may be parameterised.  Develop solution to monitor and carry out correct solutions when breaches apply.

Risks of an Off Line Solution  UK Link may not reflect true values  Labour Intensive.  Unique Sites process handles 115 sites.  Very labour intensive  Deals with around 20-25% of throughput  With 4.75 FTEs  Mod 244 currently has 587 candidates  Daily monitoring  Reads  SPA process (Does the Mod span transfers?)  Thresholds  Ratchets  Admin charge

Risks 2  Demand forecasting for Networks  Potential for manual errors in Billing  AQ could be out of sync with SOQ.  Process required to increase SOQ/AQ when site returns to normal production  Incorrect information regarding capacity availability.  Potential emergency impact if interruptible values are incorrect.  Development of off-line solution may be time consuming. Estimates range from 3 – 6 months from Ofgem approval.  Where shippers fail to comply there are complex activities such as ratchets that will need to be undertaken which will be both time consuming and labour intensive.  If analysis is incorrect and large volumes of supply points are submitted through this process the developed solution may not be appropriate.  DM CSEPS have not been considered along with impacts on IGTs.

Conclusions  Mod 244 should be driven by take up.  Small numbers will mean off line system  Larger numbers mean that a systematised solution is essential.