1. GRI NW TRANSPARENCY PROJECT
13th RCC Meeting
The Hague
25 March 2009

2. PHASE ONE

3. IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
E.ON GT
Fluxys
Svenska Kraftnät
RWE TNG
National Grid
Interconnector
Gaslink
WINGAS TRANSPORT
Ontras
GRTgaz
Energinet.dk
Gasunie
DEP
Swedegas
GdFDT
GTS
BBL
(C1) Max technical capacity
in place
(C2) Interruption
 in place
 April
(C3) Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity
(F1) Daily flow / aggregated Allocation
 March
May 2009
(F2) Daily prompt allocation information
(F3) Daily aggregate day-ahead nominations
 July
March
 Dec 2009
(F4) Historic gas flow information database
Number of IPs 22 19 1 5 8 4 3 9 6 7 2 25
3 minus rule IPs 12
TSOs report published
Specific date
Less than three shippers
Not published/no date
Not applicable

4. PRESENT PROJECT CONCLUSIONS AT MADRID FORUM
OUTSTANDING ACTIONS
TSO
ISSUE
COMPLETION DATE
BBL
IT issues delayed expected release date (F1, F4, F3)
May 2009 &
Dec. 2009
DEP
IT issues (F3)
March 2009
Energinet.dk
April 2009
GdF DT
Resource constraints (F3)
July 2010 (?)
GRTgaz
Shipper consultation (F3)
July 2009
GUD
Ontras
New IT system, -3 shipper rule
(C2, F1, F3, F4)
WINGAS TRANSPORT
Shipper concerns (F1, F3) ?
PRESENT PROJECT CONCLUSIONS AT MADRID FORUM

5. GAS STORAGE TRANSPARENCY

6. HIGHLIGHTED IN LETTER TO GAS STORAGE EUROPE
EXISTING PUBLICATION
ISSUES
Importance of coordinated European and regional approach
RCC letter to GSE suggests areas for improvement:
Frequency with which information is updated
Zone of aggregation
Number of participating storage facilities
The types of information that SSOs publish
HIGHLIGHTED IN LETTER TO GAS STORAGE EUROPE

7. Formal Gas Storage Europe response to RCC letter on 17 March 2009
PROGRESS TO DATE
Formal Gas Storage Europe response to RCC letter on 17 March 2009
Next enhancement of GSE Aggregate Stock Inventory:
Daily publication of stock levels
Extension of platform coverage to new storage system operators
Role for GRI NW to encourage all SSOs to publish daily stock information
20 APRIL JOINT RCC AND GSE MEETING ON IN BRUSSELS
OBJECTIVE: GSE TO PROPOSE PROJECT MILESTONES

8. TRANSMISSION PHASE TWO

9. NETWORK USERS’ COMMON POSITION
THE PRIORITIES
Gas Quality Information
Information on Capacity availability
Gas Flow Information
Balancing and Security of Supply Information
Why these priorities?
EFET
Eurogas
IFIEC
GEODE
eurelectric
OGP
“common position on minimum transparency requirements”
Two proposed workstreams
1. Harmonisation of existing information
2. Incremental release of new information

10. POSSIBLE PHASE 2 PRIORITIES
Harmonisation of phase one information
The type of gas flow information that is published
Maximum technical capacity
The time period for which capacity information is published
Incremental release of information
Security of supply information
Balancing information
Gas quality information
Gas flow information

11. NEXT STEPS

12. GTE+ TRANSPARENCY WORKSHOP BRUSSELS – HOTEL BLOOM! – 31 MARCH

13. GRI NW TRANSPARENCY WORKSHOP BRUSSELS – HOTEL BLOOM! – 31 MARCH
DRAFT AGENDA
14:30
Opening and welcome
Ofgem
Review of Phase 1
14:40
Overview of TSO response to Network User requirements
15:10
Network User Presentation
EFET
15:25
Eurogas
15:40
Coffee Break
16:00
TSOs on demand forecasts
TBC
16:20
TSO presentation on balancing
16:40
Discussion on 2009 deliverables
Panel
17:30
Workshop Ends

14. ANNEX 1

15. HARMONISATION 1: ACTUAL FLOWS
Gas flow information
Some TSOs publish the actual volume of gas flowing through a pipeline, others publish the final allocations
Some TSOs publish real time information others publish information with a time lag
Should all TSOs publish actual flow information?
BENEFITS
COSTS
Address problem of contractual congestion
Determine probability of interruption

16. FOR EXAMPLE
Historical information on the capacity products that have been sold
Maximum technical capacity
Actual gas flows

17. HARMONISATION 2: MAXIMUM CAPACITY
Maximum technical capacity
Some TSOs frequently update maximum technical capacity, other TSOs have a more fixed definition
Should all TSOs be required to explain how, why and when maximum technical capacity changes?
BENEFITS
COSTS
Address problem of contractual congestion
Help determine true value of interruptible products
Increase capacity availability?

18. HARMONISATION 3: TIME PERIOD ON CAPACITY AVAILABILITY
Contract length and period for which capacity availability is published
Some TSOs publish available capacity (maximum capacity) for the same time period as the maximum available contract length, other TSOs publish capacity availability for a shorter period of time
Should all TSOs publish the available capacity for the maximum capacity contract length
BENEFITS
COSTS
Address problem of contractual congestion
Highlight long term network investment requirements

19. 20 Year Maximum Contract Length
FOR EXAMPLE
20 Year Maximum Contract Length

20. INCREMENTAL 1: GAS DEMAND FORECASTS
Network Users believe that TSOs should publish demand forecasts information
TSOs in 5 out of 9 GRI NW countries reported that demand forecasts are published or will be published in the near future
BENEFITS
COSTS
Enable shippers to ensure that they have sufficient gas to meet demand
Reduce balancing costs
Improve security of supply

21. FOR EXAMPLE FEBRUARY FORECASTS

22. INCREMENTAL 2: BALANCING INFORMATION
TSO responses highlighted 3 areas where information provision fell short of Network User requirements:
Real time information on imbalance charges
Linepack information
Details of TSO balancing actions (nature, timing, volume and cost information)

23. INCREMENTAL 3: RESTORATION OF GAS FLOWS
Network Users specified that TSOs should publish information on the restoration of gas flows on a non-discriminatory basis
It was not clear if all TSOs provided this information on a non-discriminatory basis

24. INCREMENTAL 4: GAS QUALITY INFORMATION
TSOs should publish information on their systems’ gas quality parameters and the daily measured values of those parameters
It was not clear if all TSOs publish information on the gas quality requirements of their respective systems
TSOs in 7 out of 9 GRI NW countries reported that they published some daily information on measured values of key gas quality parameters

25. ANNEX 2

26. COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY
The three dimensions of data granularity that determine the extent to which it is commercially sensitive:
The period of aggregation
The zone of aggregation
The time lag of publication
THE TSO SHOULD DEMONSTRATE WHY THE INFORMATION IS COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE

27. DEMENSION 1: PERIOD OF AGGREGATETION
The time period over which the information to be released has been aggregated

28. DIMENSION 2: ZONE OF AGGREGATION
The ‘geographic’ or ‘market specific’ detail contained in the information to be released

29. DIMENSION 3: TIME LAG
The time lag associated with the release of the information