04 november – 31 homer road, solihull the aq operational review group 2010 aq review 2010...

04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull

The AQ Operational ReviewThe AQ Operational ReviewGroup 2010Group 2010

AQ Review 2010AQ Review 2010

““Whilst every effort is made to ensure the technical accuracy of the information contained within this presentation, xoserve can Whilst every effort is made to ensure the technical accuracy of the information contained within this presentation, xoserve can accept no responsibility for any claims (however they arise) made against the company as a result of using the information accept no responsibility for any claims (however they arise) made against the company as a result of using the information

contained within this presentation”contained within this presentation”

Outstanding Actions

Actions from previous AQ Meeting held on 18/03/2010


Actions

1. Actions from previous meeting – November 2009 A previous agenda item for Theft of Gas was reviewed as there was an outstanding action from the November forum. Matt Jackson (MJa) from British Gas openly gave his comments and concerns to the xoserve scenario, this then opened up to further discussions. There were several ideas given for consideration. Eleanor Laurence (EL) asked the question if xoserve could report on Meter Points where the Theft of Gas has been proven within the same AQ calculation period and the proposed AQ value.

Action: xoserve to report the Theft of Gas following the AQ2010 review. EL from EDF Energy agreed to support xoserve by having some input into the format of this report to ensure that it’s fit for purpose. Action Open.

2. Slide 11 SSP Warnings Reports 2010 Trial CalcThis slide shows the number of Meter Points that failed to calculate and the reasons why.A question was raised by Eleanor Laurence (EL) the difference between the Warning Reason ‘AQ not calculated due to the absence of reads since the previous AQ calculation’ and ‘Insufficient Consumption data to calculate AQ’. Action: xoserve to provide an explanation to the differences between the following two Warning Reasons, please see below. Action closed.

‘AQ not calculated due to the absence of reads since the previous AQ calculation’ – AQ failed to calculate due to no meter reads being received since the last AQ calculation.

Insufficient Consumption data to calculate AQ’ – Although a meter read(s) have been loaded onto Sites and Meters since the last year AQ calculation, the required 6 months and 1 day (NDM) and 12 months (DM) of reads are not available.


Actions

3. Slide 18, 19 and 20 AQ Appeal ActivityThese slides show how many Appeals are increasing or decreasing the AQ. A question was raised if the top 10 AQ Appeals that are potentially looking to increase their AQ value could be reviewed by xoserve and out of interest see if these AQ Appeals have utilised Meter Reads derived from Reads from the System. Action: xoserve to investigate the top 10 AQ Appeals and confirm which of these have used meter reads other that those submitted to xoserve. Action closed.xoserve have investigated the top 10 AQ Appeals that could potentially increase the AQ value as suggest at the forum. The following is the conclusion of our analysis:

The Appeals were raised for the different market sectors LSP-LSP and SSP-LSP. During Trial Calc 2010, 7 Meter Points failed to calculate (were on the Warnings Report), the

most popular reason being ‘Insufficient Consumption Data to Calculate AQ’. Some of the Appeals raised had utilised Meter Reads from the system, however xoserve have

been unable to drawn any concise conclusions. Only one of these the Appeals went on to be Nominated and Confirmed.

4. Any Other BusinessEleanor (EL) requested that xoserve produce a report that would identify what the backstop date was for Meter Points, this will help to reduce the volumes of rejection. Action: xoserve to provide a report for each of Shippers. Action Open.


Theft Of Gas Report


MPRN SSC Theft Start Date Theft End Date Current AQ at 2008 Proposed AQ2009 AQ Start Read AQ End Read08/02/2007 03/09/2008 16996 15707 07/11/2007 12/02/200908/07/2008 18/08/2008 4791 3524 21/06/2007 18/08/200815/06/2007 14/08/2008 32892 561 15/06/2007 10/11/2008

04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull

The AQ Operational ReviewThe AQ Operational ReviewGroup 2010Group 2010

AQ Review 2010AQ Review 2010 1

IntroductionIntroduction

2007Total Calculated: 17,917,849SSP: 17,559,109 – LSP: 358,740Carried Forward: 236,634Non Calcs: 4,770,232SSP: 4,605,182 LSP: 165,050

2010Total Calculated:19,050,615 SSP:18,748,122 – LSP: 302,493Carried Forward: 197,550Non Calcs: 3,916,118SSP: 3,765,301LSP:150,817

2008Total Calculated: 18,417,477SSP: 18,088,731 – LSP: 328,746Carried Forward: 258,468Non Calcs: 4,371,570SSP: 4,195,203LSP: 176,367

2009Total Calculated: 18,696,274SSP: 18,373,665 – LSP: 322,609Carried Forward: 231,347Non Calcs: 4,186,595SSP: 4,031,034LSP: 155,561


LSP Energy Movement

Large Supply Points Movement

193

240232

0

50

100

150

200

250

AQ as at 01/10/09 xoserve Calculated Final Applied01/10/2010

Ene

rgy(

TWH

)

231,764,005,614 239,858,686,493

193,028,901,912


SSP Energy Movement

329

391

361

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

AQ as at 01/10/09 xoserveCalculated

Final Applied01/10/10

En

erg

y (

TW

H)

Small Supply Point MovementSmall Supply Point Movement


361,423,783,111 391,044,547,864 329,269,795,150

AQ’s Calculated – Actual Calc

Year of Calc Total Re-Calculated Smaller Meter Points

Total Re-Calculated Larger Meter Points

Actual Calc 2007

17.6 million 358,740

Actual Calc

2008

18.0 million 328,746

Actual Calc

2009

18.4 million 322,609

Actual Calc 2010

18.7 million 302,493


SSP & LSP Calculation Performance

6AQ Review 2010AQ Review 2010

Meter Point Movement : Current to Amended AQ


Energy Movement : Current to Amended AQ


Meter Points Calculated

Large Supply PointsTotal Meter Points Calculated 302,493 (150,817 Non-Calcs)

Energy as at 01/10/2009 232 tWh xoserve Calculated Energy 240 tWh Final Applied Energy 01/10/2010 193 tWh

(Incl.1.5tWh SSP - LSP – 12,811)

Small Supply PointsTotal Meter Points Calculated 18,748,122 (3,765,301 Non-Calcs)

Energy as at 01/10/2009 361 tWh xoserve Calculated Energy 391 tWh Final Applied Energy 01/10/2010 329 tWh

(Incl.2.5tWh LSP - SSP – 16,682)


Warnings Report (LSP)


Warnings Report (SSP)


Calculated AQs

Threshold Crossers – SSP to LSP

Total Meter Points Crossing 12,811 Previous AQ 667,678,010 kWh Final Applied AQ 1.5 tWh

Threshold Crossers – LSP to SSP

Total Meter Points Crossing 16,682 Previous AQ 5.2 tWh Final Applied AQ 2.5 tWh


AQ 2010: Speculative Calculator File Submission By SHP


AQ Amendments

Total AQ Amendments Received Total Accepted 2,234,453 (95.9%) Total Rejected 95,807 (4.1%)

- Inclusive of Referrals

Total Referrals Total Accepted 6,097 (65.5%) Total Rejected 3,222 (34.5%)

Standards Of Service 100% Clearance in……..15 Days 100% Clearance in……… 5 Days 99.7% Clearance in……….2 Days


Total Amendments Received As % of Shipper Portfolio


% of Amendments Accepted or Rejectedby Shipper


Shipper %Accepted %Rejected Tokyo 77.94% 22.06%Athens 96.30% 3.70% Ottowa 96.49% 3.51%

Brussels 84.21% 15.79% Lisbon 81.78% 18.22%Rome 80.00% 20.00% I stanbul 90.00% 10.00%

Frankfurt 96.48% 3.52% Cardiff 93.26% 6.74%Geneva 73.05% 26.95% Havana 72.97% 27.03%Helsinki 97.81% 2.19% Montreal 85.56% 14.44%

Copenhagen 97.70% 2.30% Mexico City 96.88% 3.12%Casablanca 69.59% 30.41% Christchurch 93.60% 6.40%

Durban 89.81% 10.19% Sydney 97.42% 2.58%Auckland 99.42% 0.58% Bangkok 100.00% 0.00%

Paris 46.00% 54.00% Delhi 99.79% 0.21%Berlin 93.81% 6.19% Stockholm 97.40% 2.60%

New York 96.14% 3.86% Prague 86.86% 13.14%Oslo 94.34% 5.66% Budapest 83.26% 16.74%

Melbourne 93.80% 6.20% Port Elizabeth 99.80% 0.20%Total 95.89% 4.11%

Amendment Rejections by Rejection Code


Amendment Rejections by Rejection Code

Top 10 Rejection Reasons


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

SHI10 AQA19 MPO24 RRR10 RRR11 RRR15 STD216 AQA18 STD179 RRR12

% of Amendments + or – xoserve Proposed AQ by Shipper

69% 75

%

0%

66%

58% 61

%

61%

73%

69%

63%

91%

61%

64%

80%

64%

62% 69

%

68% 71

%

63%

33%

77%

60%

82%

69%

100%

65%

60% 66

%

53%

64%

30% 25

%

100%

34%

42% 39%

39%

27%

31%

37%

9%

39% 36%

20%

36%

37% 32

%

32% 27

%

37%

67%

23%

41%

18%

31%

0%

35%

40% 34

%

47%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ath

ens

Bru

ssel

s

Ro

me

Fra

nkf

urt

Gen

eva

Hel

sin

ki

Co

pen

hag

en

Cas

abla

nca

Du

rban

Au

ckla

nd

Par

is

Ber

lin

New

Yo

rk

Osl

o

Mel

bo

urn

e

To

kyo

Ott

ow

a

Lis

bo

n

Ista

nb

ul

Car

dif

f

Hav

ana

Mo

ntr

eal

Mex

ico

Cit

y

Ch

rist

chu

rch

Syd

ney

Ban

gko

k

Del

hi

Sto

ckh

olm

Pra

gu

e

Bu

dap

est

Po

rt E

lizab

eth

Shipper

Per

cen

tag

e

% of SHP Amendments Reducing % of SHP Amendments Increasing


Total Number of Amendments by Shipper :Count & Energy



AQ Appeal Activity

2010

22

Appeal Activity 2010 – January to October

N.B. The appeals window was closed from 31 July to 14 September 2010.


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

2009

2010

AQ Appeal Activity 2009 v 2010January to October

Average Days Taken to Clear (2010) 3


Seasonal Normal Seasonal Normal Review UpdateReview Update


The Backstop date was changed to 30/09/2006 and applied to 18,304,775 Meter Points. The remaining Meter Points had a Backstop date after the revised date.

New WAALP values were calculated and applied to Sites and Meters for the period 01/10/2006 – 30/09/2010. The new values were used in all AQ calculations for the 2010 AQ Review – 19,050,615 Meter Points.

The WAALP reduction was applied to all Warnings Meter Points that did not receive a successful AQ Amendment following the closure of the Window – 1,666,340 million.

The reduction of the AQ values can be attributed to a mixture of the revised WAALP calculation and the environment and economical influences, 9% overall from AQ2009 for the SSP market, and 17% for the LSP market.

Note: the LSP market has reduced by 31,427 (7%) Meter Points from AQ2009.

Seasonal Normal Review 2010


A.O.B.A.O.B.


xoserve Discussion Itemxoserve Discussion Item


The objective of this agenda item is for xoserve to present and facilitate an open discussion on

the suggestion of reviewing the way in which we undertake the Prime and Subs AQ Review.

The volume of NDM Prime Meter Points is 1,497, SSP – 838, LSP – 659.

History:

At present the AQ value for the majority of NDM Prime Meter Points is reflective of

the Individual consumption of the Prime Meter, and that of the collective Sub-Deducts. This

results in the consumption/energy for the Sub-Deducts being recorded twice on Sites and

Meters.

Example of: Individual AQ for Prime 1000

existing process Individual AQ for the Sub Deduct 1000

Current Prime AQ value 2000

Prime & Sub Meter AQ Review


Area for discussion

To net off the consumption/energy of the Sub-Deduct Meter(s) from that of the NDM Prime

Meter Points AQ value thus resulting in the Prime AQ value being reflective of its individual

consumption/energy.


Example of: Individual AQ for Prime 1000

netting off process Individual AQ for the Sub Deduct 1000

Prime AQ value 1000



Things to consider

• Prime Meter AQ reflective of individual consumption• EUC band allocation derived on individual Prime consumption• Less impact on the reconciliation process• Potential system impacts for xoserve and Networks• Shipper impacts?

What happens next

The discussion at today's meeting will be documented and discussed.


04 november – 31 homer road, solihull the aq operational review group 2010 aq review 2010...

Documents