Mod 270 Potential Options

Rob Hill15/02/2009

Six potential options following discussion at last months Development Workgroup

Option Name Description

1 Elective DM for SSPs

Use daily elective regime (Mod 224) to move a SSP with automated meter reading capability into a daily read submission regime.

2 Aggregate logical meter number (CSEP)

Aggregate SSPs with automated meter reading capability behind a single logical meter per LDZ using existing CSEP functionality. Shipper would then submit a single monthly aggregate read by logical meter for daily energy allocation. AQ and read submission process for individual SSPs to be continued as current.

3 Aggregate large supply point

Aggregate SSPs with automated meter reading capability as a single large supply point. Shipper would then submit a single monthly read for the LSP for energy allocation.

4 Smart EUC (Rolling AQ)

Build on mod 209 to allow monthly read submission to adjust AQs on a rolling basis.

5 AQ Appeals for SSPs

Open up the LSP AQ appeal process to SSPs, use regular read submission (mod 202) to allow more frequent appeal.

6 LSP Elective Allow shippers to elect SSPs with automated meter reading capability as LSPs with a monthly read cycle.

Option 1 Elective DM for SSPs

Description Use daily elective regime (Mod 224) to move a SSP with automated

meter reading capability into a daily read submission regime.

Strengths Uses existing systems capability

Weaknesses Cost prohibitive for SSPs (c£800/year) Would require daily nomination of gas Resource intensive for shippers and Xoserve Systems constrained to a maximum number of sites 25,000

Issues This is not a practical solution and has already been discounted in the

modification proposal

Option 2 Aggregate logical meter number (CSEP)

Description Aggregate SSPs with automated meter reading capability behind a single

logical meter per LDZ using existing CSEP functionality. Shipper would then submit a single monthly aggregate read by logical meter for daily energy allocation. AQ and read submission process for individual SSPs to be continued as current.

Strengths Uses existing logical meter capability Available to all shippers with SSPs with automated meter reading capability

Weaknesses Some systematic changes required to enable aggregation, de-aggregation

and continued SSP AQ review process.

Issues Who is best placed to aggregate and how are aggregated reads kept in sync

with SSP reads? How would the COS process work for aggregation and de-aggregation?

Option 3 Aggregate large supply point

Description Aggregate SSPs with automated meter reading capability as a single

large supply point. Shipper would then submit a single monthly read for the LSP for energy allocation.

Strengths Uses existing aggregation and de-aggregation meter capability Available to all shippers with SSPs with automated meter reading

capability

Weaknesses Complex aggregation and de-aggregation process. Breaks ‘linked by purpose’ rules for aggregation

Issues How would the COS process work for aggregation and de-aggregation?

Option 4 Smart EUC (Rolling AQ)

Description Build on mod 209 to allow monthly read submission to adjust AQs on a

rolling basis.

Strengths Changes required are well defined

Weaknesses Long lead time for implementation Uncertainty over regulatory support

Issues

Option 5 AQ Appeals for SSPs

Description Open up the LSP AQ appeal process to SSPs, use regular read

submission (mod 202) to allow more frequent appeal.

Strengths Uses a well defined and existing process

Weaknesses Semi manual processes therefore resource intensive. AQ dead band may preclude AQ adjustment for SSPs

Issues

Option 6 LSP Elective

Description Allow shippers to elect SSPs with automated meter reading capability

as LSPs with a monthly read cycle.

Strengths Uses a well defined and existing process Open to all shippers

Weaknesses Potential maximum volume cap due to system constraints

Issues Shipper loss process would need to de-elect from LSP to SSP