1. Review Group 175 Encouraging participation in the elective DM Regime - Potential Models 22 November 2007

2. 2 Objectives To develop a number of business models to support/enhance the DM elective regime Identify process flow owner and draft obligations – using a top down approach To enable Advantages/Disadvantages to be identified for each business models Enable preferred business model to be identified

3. 3 Current Situation Transporter responsible for and maintains device Charges applied Device provides reading direct to Transporter Transporter validate information and provides reads to Shippers/suppliers Obligations are on the Transporter Estimates

4. 4 Current Situation

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10 Current Situation

11. 11 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations Shipper responsible for and maintains device Device provides readings direct to Transporter Transporter validate information and provides reads to Shippers/suppliers Obligations are on the Transporter as now Estimates Device provides additional stream of data direct to shipper and/or customer

12. 12 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

13. 13 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

14. 14 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

15. 15 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

16. 16 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

17. 17 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

18. 18 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

19. 19 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

20. 20 Model 1 – Minimum Change Transporter Retain obligations

21. 21 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations Shipper responsible for and maintains device Device provide readings direct to Shippers Shipper validate information and provides reads to relevant Transporter Obligations are on the Shippers Estimates

22. 22 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

23. 23 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

24. 24 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

25. 25 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

26. 26 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

27. 27 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

28. 28 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

29. 29 Model 2 : Shipper takes obligations

30. 30 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector Device owned and maintained by Shipper Appointment and de-appointment of Data Collector (DC) required by shipper RGMA type process? Device provides readings direct to Data Collector Data collector validate information and provides reads to Shippers/Transporter/Customer Read Obligations are on the shipper, discharged to the Data Collector (DC) Device maintenance obligation on Shippers, May be discharged to the DC

31. 31 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

32. 32 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

33. 33 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

34. 34 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

35. 35 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

36. 36 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

37. 37 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

38. 38 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

39. 39 Model 3 – Competitive Data Collector

40. 40 Model 4 – Single Data Collector Shipper responsible for and maintains device Data Collector (DC) Appointment by Transporter Device provide readings direct to Data Collector Data collector validate information and provides reads to Shippers/Transporters/Customers Read Obligations are on the Transporter, discharged to the data collector Device maintenance obligation on Shippers

41. 41 Model 4 – Single Data Collector Note: Same process as in model 3

42. 42 Model 1(Minimum Change) – Evaluation PositivesNegatives Minimises change (assumes change required) Allows for other options at a later date (staged roll out) Low risk to participants Lowest set up costsScope for cost reduction limited

43. 43 Model 2 (Shipper Obligation) – Evaluation PositivesNegatives Significant reduction in Transporter operation costs High volume/risk of change & cost of change (potential barrier to entry) Shipper visibility of actual costsChange of Supplier issues / Device ownership Possible additional switching costs

44. 44 Model 3 (Competitive Data Collector) – Evaluation PositivesNegatives Introduces competitionHigh volume of change/risk & cost of change Potential reduction in costsHigher CoS issues / Device ownership (DC competition)

45. 45 Model 4 (Single Data Collector) – Evaluation PositivesNegatives Introduces transparencyMedium volume of change &/ cost of change Single DC service providerCoS issues Economies of scaleMonopoly DC costs Direct pay

46. 46 Questions / Areas to Consider Initial Preferences? Can any models be immediately excluded? Other models to consider? More evaluation required of costs and benefits