Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull The AQ Operational Review Group 2010 AQ Review 2010 “Whilst every effort is made to ensure the technical accuracy.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull The AQ Operational Review Group 2010 AQ Review 2010 “Whilst every effort is made to ensure the technical accuracy."— Presentation transcript:

1 04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull The AQ Operational Review Group 2010 AQ Review 2010 “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 contained within this presentation”

2 Outstanding Actions Actions from previous AQ Meeting held on 18/03/2010 AQ Review 2010

3 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 Calc This 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. AQ Review 2010

4 Actions 3. Slide 18, 19 and 20 AQ Appeal Activity These 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 Business Eleanor (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. AQ Review 2010

5 Theft Of Gas Report AQ Review 2010

6 04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull The AQ Operational Review Group 2010 AQ Review

7 Introduction 2007 Total Calculated: 17,917,849 SSP: 17,559,109 – LSP: 358,740 Carried Forward: 236,634 Non Calcs: 4,770,232 SSP: 4,605,182 LSP: 165, Total Calculated:19,050,615 SSP:18,748,122 – LSP: 302,493 Carried Forward: 197,550 Non Calcs: 3,916,118 SSP: 3,765,301 LSP:150, Total Calculated: 18,417,477 SSP: 18,088,731 – LSP: 328,746 Carried Forward: 258,468 Non Calcs: 4,371,570 SSP: 4,195,203 LSP: 176, Total Calculated: 18,696,274 SSP: 18,373,665 – LSP: 322,609 Carried Forward: 231,347 Non Calcs: 4,186,595 SSP: 4,031,034 LSP: 155,561 AQ Review

8 LSP Energy Movement AQ Review

9 SSP Energy Movement Small Supply Point Movement AQ Review ,423,783, ,044,547, ,269,795,150

10 AQ’s Calculated – Actual Calc Year of CalcTotal Re-Calculated Smaller Meter Points Total Re-Calculated Larger Meter Points Actual Calc million358,740 Actual Calc million328,746 Actual Calc million322,609 Actual Calc million302,493 AQ Review

11 SSP & LSP Calculation Performance 6 AQ Review 2010

12 Meter Point Movement : Current to Amended AQ AQ Review

13 Energy Movement : Current to Amended AQ AQ Review

14 Meter Points Calculated Large Supply Points Total Meter Points Calculated 302,493 (150,817 Non-Calcs)  Energy as at 01/10/ tWh  xoserve Calculated Energy 240 tWh  Final Applied Energy 01/10/ tWh (Incl.1.5tWh SSP - LSP – 12,811) Small Supply Points Total Meter Points Calculated 18,748,122 (3,765,301 Non-Calcs)  Energy as at 01/10/ tWh  xoserve Calculated Energy 391 tWh  Final Applied Energy 01/10/ tWh (Incl.2.5tWh LSP - SSP – 16,682) AQ Review

15 Warnings Report (LSP) AQ Review

16 Warnings Report (SSP) AQ Review

17 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 Review

18 AQ 2010: Speculative Calculator File Submission By SHP AQ Review

19 AQ Amendments Total AQ Amendments Received  Total Accepted2,234,453 (95.9%)  Total Rejected 95,807(4.1%) - Inclusive of Referrals Total Referrals  Total Accepted6,097(65.5%)  Total Rejected3,222(34.5%) Standards Of Service  100% Clearance in……..15 Days  100% Clearance in……… 5 Days  99.7% Clearance in……….2 Days AQ Review

20 Total Amendments Received As % of Shipper Portfolio AQ Review

21 % of Amendments Accepted or Rejected by Shipper AQ Review

22 Amendment Rejections by Rejection Code AQ Review

23 Amendment Rejections by Rejection Code Top 10 Rejection Reasons AQ Review

24 % of Amendments + or – xoserve Proposed AQ by Shipper AQ Review

25 Total Number of Amendments by Shipper : Count & Energy AQ Review

26 AQ Review 2010 AQ Appeal Activity

27 Appeal Activity 2010 – January to October N.B. The appeals window was closed from 31 July to 14 September AQ Review

28 AQ Appeal Activity 2009 v 2010 January to October Average Days Taken to Clear (2010) 3 AQ Review

29 Seasonal Normal Review Update AQ Review

30 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 AQ Review 2010

31 A.O.B. 27

32 xoserve Discussion Item AQ Review

33 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 processIndividual AQ for the Sub Deduct 1000 Current Prime AQ value2000 Prime & Sub Meter AQ Review 29 AQ Review 2010

34 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. Prime & Sub Meter AQ Review Example of: Individual AQ for Prime 1000 netting off processIndividual AQ for the Sub Deduct 1000 Prime AQ value AQ Review 2010

35 Prime & Sub Meter AQ Review 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. 31 AQ Review 2010


Download ppt "04 November – 31 Homer Road, Solihull The AQ Operational Review Group 2010 AQ Review 2010 “Whilst every effort is made to ensure the technical accuracy."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google