1. GRI NW TRANSPARENCY PROJECT Transparency Workshop 31 March 2009

2. 2 PHASE ONE

3. 3 IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW E.ON GT Fluxys Svensk a Kraftnä t RWE TNG Natio nal Grid Interc onnec tor Gaslink WINGA S TRANS PORT Ontras GRTga z Energine t.dk GasunieDEP Swede gas GdFDTGTSBBL (C1) Max technical capacity in place (C2) Interruption in place April in place (C3) Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity in place (F1) Daily flow / aggregated Allocation in place April in place Marchin place May 2009 (F2) Daily prompt allocation information in place (F3) Daily aggregate day-ahead nominations in place April JulyMarch in place Dec 2009 (F4) Historic gas flow information database in place April in place May 2009 Number of IPs2219158418396721525 4 3 minus rule IPs05030003300000012 0 TSOs report publishedSpecific date Less than three shippers Not published/no date Not applicable

4. 4 16 TSOs x 7 Types of data = 112

5. 5 OUTSTANDING ACTIONS TSOISSUECOMPLETION DATE BBLIT issues delayed expected release date (F1, F4, F3) May 2009 & Dec. 2009 DEPIT issues (F3)March 2009 Energinet.dkIT issues (F3)April 2009 GdF DTResource constraints (F3)July 2010 (?) GRTgazShipper consultation (F3)July 2009 GUDIT issues (F3)March 2009 OntrasNew IT system, -3 shipper rule (C2, F1, F3, F4) April 2009 WINGAS TRANSPORT Shipper concerns (F1, F3)?

6. 6 PHASE TWO

7. 7 NETWORK USERS’ COMMON POSITION Gas Quality Information Information on Capacity availability Gas Flow Information Balancing and Security of Supply Information THE PRIORITIES Why these priorities?  EFET  Eurogas  IFIEC  GEODE  eurelectric  OGP “common position on minimum transparency requirements” 1. Harmonisation of existing information Two proposed workstreams 2. Incremental release of new information

8. 8 POSSIBLE PHASE 2 PRIORITIES Harmonisation of phase one information 1.The type of gas flow information that is published 2.Maximum technical capacity 3.The time period for which capacity information is published Incremental release of information 1.Day ahead demand information 2.Balancing information 3.Gas quality information 4.Gas flow information

9. 9 HARMONISATION Gas flow information –Some TSOs publish the actual volume of gas flowing through a pipeline, others publish the final allocations  Should all TSOs publish actual flow information?  Highlight the extent of contractual and/or physical congestion  Help value interruptible and firm products  Information on the actual supply situation, help Network Users make efficient portfolio choices

10. 10 HARMONISATION Maximum technical capacity –Some TSOs frequently update maximum technical capacity, other TSOs have a fixed definition  Determines the volume of firm capacity that a TSO can offer for sale  How should this number be calculate and reported? Contract length and period for which capacity availability is published –Some TSOs publish capacity availability for a shorter period of time than maximum contract length  Should all TSOs publish the available capacity for the maximum capacity contract length?

11. 11 HARMONISATION: EXAMPLE Historical information on the capacity products that have been sold Maximum technical capacity Actual gas flows

12. 12 INCREMENTAL 1: GAS DEMAND FORECASTS Network Users believe that all TSOs should publish demand forecast information –TSOs in 5 out of 9 GRI NW countries reported that demand forecasts are published or will be published in the near future  Do Network Users need to be able to understand system demand?  Improve security of supply  Enable Network Users to ensure that they have sufficient gas to meet demand  Reduce balancing costs  All market participants equally well informed

13. 13 INCREMENTAL 2: BALANCING INFORMATION TSO responses highlighted 3 areas where information provision fell short of Network User requirements: 1.Real time information on imbalance charges 2.Linepack information – relevant for all systems? 3.Details of TSO balancing actions (nature, timing, volume and cost information)  Not clear if all TSOs publish required information  Information is intended to reduce overall system balancing costs

14. 14 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

15. 15 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

16. 16 CONCLUSION WHAT PRIORITIES FOR PHASE 2?

17. 17 POSSIBLE PHASE 2 PRIORITIES Harmonisation of phase one information 1.The type of gas flow information that is published 2.Maximum technical capacity 3.The time period for which capacity information is published Incremental release of information 1.Day ahead demand information 2.Balancing information 3.Gas quality information 4.Gas flow information

18. 18