Implementation progress – second stage

Transmission Transparency WorkshopLondon, 14 November 2008

2

Outline

• Background

• Project scope

• Implementation by data type

• Successful TSOs

• Work still required

• Conclusions and feedback

3

Project background

Gas Flows Transmission Capacity(F1) Daily flow and

interruptions(C1) Max technical capacity

(F2)Daily prompt allocations

(C2) Interruption probability

(F3)Daily aggregate day-ahead nominations

(C3)Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity

(F4) Historic gas flows  

• TSO agreement on release new data during 2008

• Focus on a priority subset of information

• Three stages of implementation

• Transparency key for market developments

4

Project scope: non-confidential IPs

5

Data types released where < 3 rule applied

TSOLess than three shipper rule applies

Data Type

C1 C2 C3 F1 F2 F3 F4

RWE TNG Yes

Fluxys Yes

GTS Yes

WINGAS TRANS. Yes

Ontras Yes

6

Already compliant

TSOs that report new information release

7

October 2008: overview of progress

8

Impact of delays

9

Overview: Status October 08

 E.ON GT

Fluxys

Sven. Kraft.

RWE TNG

Nat. Grid

Interconnector

Gaslink

WINGAS

OntrasGRTgaz

Energinet

Gasunie

DEPSwedegas

GdF DT

GTS BBL

(C1) Max technical capacity

in placein

placeN/A

in place

in place

in placein

placein

placein

placein

placein

placein

placein

placefinal

in place

in place

in place

(C2) Interruption in place2009 ?

N/Ain

placein

placein place

2010?

in place

3 - rulein

placein

placein

placein

placefinal

in place

in place

final

(C3) Daily commercial firm and interruptible capacity

in placein

placeN/A

in place

in place

in placein

placein

placein

placein

placein

placein

placein

placefinal

in place

in place

final

(F1) Daily flow / aggregated Allocation

in place2009 ?

N/Ain

placein

placein place

in place

final 3 - rulein

placefinal

in place

in place

finalin

placein

placefinal

(F2) Daily prompt allocation information

in placein

placein

placein

placein

placein place

in place

in place

in place

in place

in place

in place

in place

N/Ain

placein

placein

place

(F3) Daily aggregate day-ahead nominations

in place2009

?Final

in place

final in placein

placefinal 3- rule

2009?

2009?

final final N/A2009

?in

place2009

?

(F4) Historic gas flow information database

in placein

placeN/A

in place

in place

in placein

placein

place3 - rule

in place

in place

in place

in place

finalin

placein

placefinal

Number of IPs 22 23 1 5 8 4 1 8 3 9 6 7 2 1 5 25 4

3 minus rule IPs 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0

Later Publication Existing October 2008 In place

December 2008 Final Three minus or not required

Overall Implementation Progress

10

December 2008 – Final Stage

11

Late implementation - 2009 ?

12

Conclusions and recommendations

• Positive progress made to date• But significant work remains to be done

– Some companies ahead of the game, others significantly delayed– Delays in key data: daily flows (F1) and day-ahead nominations

(F3)– Knock-on effect of delays– 2009 overruns need to specific on dates

• TSOs commitment is crucial for remaining data• Completion of the project is starting point for further work• Final implementation report to be published February 2009

13

Your feedback matters

All stakeholders1. Accessibility and usefulness of the data2. Quality and consistency of the data published3. Are the definitions for each data type appropriate?4. Improvements to project management and reporting5. Any other key issues?

Transparency project 2009

Transmission Transparency WorkshopLondon, 14 November 2008

15

Where is the discussion at?

• Initial views on the need for a “phase 2” transparency project were discussed at workshop with stakeholders in July 2008

• A second phase should be based on real benefits for users and take into account additional costs for TSOs

• Starting point should be full completion of “phase I”

• The (potential) second phase should keep up with increased transparency requirements in 3rd package, as well as other GRI projects

• User views have been presented on project priorities

16

Consensus needs to be build solidly

17

Our suggested approach

Any future work to based on clear roles and responsibilities, sufficient resources, and commitment to timelines

18