1. Connected System Exit Points Administration Options
DNOs Views
(National Grid Distribution, Wales & West Utilities, Northern Gas Networks, Scotia Gas Networks)

2. Option 1 - The DCUSA Model
DNO invoices the aggregate transportation invoice to the iGT based upon load information provided to it by the iGT
Subsequently, the iGT would levy an aggregate transportation invoice (in respect of both DNO/NTS and iGT services) per User (to a meter point level of detail) registered at the relevant CSEP Network

3. Option 1 - The DCUSA Model
(Or other governance)

4. Option 1 - Assumptions
Obligations on lead/nesting iGT to procure/provide load data
Replica of NTS reform model

5. Option 1 - Advantages Fewer counterparties for the DNO
Single transportation and energy invoice for the User
Effectively places an obligation on iGTs to reconcile Meter Point data – targets resolution on appropriate party
Consistent with NTS/DNO relationship
Incorporates solution for nested arrangements (based on the relevant ‘assumption’)
Lends itself to harmonisation of governance (one UNC)
Incentive is appropriately placed on iGTs not to bear DNO costs if the iGT invoices User erroneously

6. Option 1 – Disadvantages
Reliance on information provision by iGTs who have no commercial interest in providing the data
Potentially not effective unless the offtake is metered (option 1A)
As the iGT would effectively be charged as a User (Shipper) of the NTS/DN networks this is likely to require exemption from Gas Act section 7(3) and section 7A(3)
Likely to require new Transporter licence obligation
Credit arrangements required between NTS/DNO and iGT
Lack of clarity for the requirements in respect of nested arrangements
Risk of understatement of demand (metering of some offtakes may be required)

7. Option 2 - Individual Meter Point Detail
load information (including Larger Supply Point (LSP) reconciliation volumes) will be issued by iGTs to DNOs at a meter point level of detail. Any changes in respect of load or Registered User (transfers) will be required to be issued to DNOs on daily basis
‘de-coupling’ of the physical and commercial processes such that the registration of the first Supply Point/s at a CSEP will not require the DNO authorisation of the engineering aspects of the CSEP connection
nested iGTs would be required to issue appropriate meter point information directly to xoserve along with meter point reconciliation volumes for LSPs

8. Option 2 - Individual Meter Point Detail

9. Option 2 - Advantages
Enables Users to identify meter point mismatches between NTS/DNO and iGT invoices
Highlights the major cause of the current Supply Point mis-match
Provides method of capturing nested load
Augments SCOGES services
Appropriate parties retain control over their invoicing
Not significant regime change

10. Option 2 – Disadvantages
Continued requirement for information provision by iGTs for whom there is no benefit in the provision the data
Requires DNOs to establish an alternative method of addressing engineering validation and potential load breaches as these will no longer frustrate the commercial processes
Requires significant system change and also the management of a greater quantity of data items
New iGT-DNO file formats required
Does not resolve the issue

11. Option 3 - Industry Data Manager
The DNOs’ service provider (DSP) would build and maintain a Supply Points Register on behalf of iGTs to support both the DNO invoicing of Users and the iGTs UNC obligation to maintain a Supply Point Register
Users would perform their SPA transactions directly with the DSP and consequently iGTs would take information from this register (either via direct access or periodic data feed?) to facilitate its own invoicing
The DSP would potentially utilise a clone of the existing Sites and Meters database and therefore file format requirements are likely to be in line with those in use for directly connected Supply Points

12. Option 3 - Industry Data Manager
User 1
iGT
DSP
User 2
SPA Transactions
SPA Data feed
iGT Transportation Charges
DNO Transportation Charges

13. Option 3 - Assumptions
All iGTs utilise common service provider (the DSP) pursuant to a licence obligation
Beneficiaries required to contribute
Data cleansing exercise required for implementation
Appropriate governance and funding in place

14. Option 3 - Advantages
Removes the majority of the reliance on data provision by iGTs
DNO agent maintains control of data necessary to levy NTS/DNO invoice
Single dataset utilised to levy NTS/DNO and iGT invoices
Single communication protocol for User – Transporter communications
Allows the streamlining of demand allocation and settlement processes operated by the DNOs agent
Provides a greater level of confidence to DNOs that costs are being apportioned accurately in line with UNC and licence
Proven model already exist (Sites and Meters) – a clone system is likely to deliver the solution
Reduce SCOGES costs for iGTs
Moves to a ‘real-time’ position
Estimated £2million annual cost saving for top six Users

15. Option 3 – Disadvantages
Requires major regime reform – new contractual terms (and potentially licence obligations?) would be required
Requires the management of a greater quantity of iGT related data by DSP. (c.1million additional Supply Points)
Requires consideration of set up and ongoing funding issues

16. Option 4 - Enhance Current Regime (interim solution?)
maintain the current regime and make incremental improvements such as ‘de-coupling’ of the physical and commercial processes such that the registration of the first Supply Point/s at a CSEP will not require the DNO authorisation of the engineering aspects of the CSEP connection

17. Option 4 - Enhance Current Regime (interim solution?)
xoserve
SPA Aggregate Data
DN/iDN
Invoice (NTS/DN/iDN Network)
Reconciliation Volume
Uniform Network Code
NExA
Shipper
iGT
iGT Network Code
SPA Activity
Meter Readings
Invoice (iGT Network)

18. Option 4 - Advantages
Offers ‘solutions’ that can potentially be delivered in the short term
Maintains the current LMN level of detail held by xoserve

19. Option 4 – Disadvantages
Requires DNOs to establish an alternative method of addressing engineering validation and potential load breaches as these will no longer frustrate the commercial processes
Does not enable Users to directly identify meter point discrepancies
Continued requirement for information provision by iGTs for whom there is no benefit in the provision the data
Requires potential system and validation changes for xoserve / DNO processes