Sub-deduct Networks Update Jessica Jarvis 26 th June 2014

Agenda 2  Executive summary  Customer approach  Case studies  Keele University  St Pancras Cemetery  Samlesbury Brewery  Phase one results  Phase two

Executive Summary  RIIO commitment to declare ‘off risk’ to all sub deduct networks  National Grid aim to complete project in 3 years due to associated risk  962 known sub deduct networks were identified at GDPCR1  Following surveys in 2008/9 each sub deduct network was assigned a qualitative risk score  Sites have been sub divided into three groups  Group sites where during the 2008/9 survey no sub deduct meter was identified  Group 2 – 742 sites where during the 2008/9 survey a sub deduct network was identified  Group 3 – 42 complex sites which consist of high relative risk scoring sites or sites owned by a National Body, e.g. HM Prison, Ministry of Defence, Royal palaces Network No of sub-deduct sites East Anglia37 East Midlands114 London239 North West144 West Midlands428 TOTAL962

4 Customer Approach Our approach to engage customers and provide them with ongoing service is:  A National Grid engineer will conduct a survey of each sub deduct network  Packs put together to provide the customer with further information and reference material  Central point of contact for all customer queries  Engagement with xoserve to ensure suppliers are kept up to date for billing reasons  Enduring process with xoserve implemented for sub deduct queries

5 Case Study – Keele University  22 sub deduct meters located in a residential area within Keele University  Residential area is no longer part of Keele University and owned by housing association  Engagement has been ongoing with Keele University to discuss options that are available, further engagement with the housing association is underway  Preferred option for National Grid and Keele is to engineer out sub deduct network as per the attached picture This is an example of a site where the situation has changed since the installation of the sub deduct network, it effects a number of customers and further engagement is required.

Case Study – St Pancras Cemetery 6  Proposed solution was to run a new service to the sub deduct meter  Work would have been disruptive and only able to be undertaken on a Sunday  Further engagement with the customer revealed that there was no longer a requirement for the sub deduct network, therefore the meter was removed and pipework bridged saving time, money and disturbance This is an example of where engineering work was required but the approach needed changing due to challenges.  Existing sub deduct meter was 500m from the primary meter  Customer did not want to formally adopt the network  Due to operational requirements the site could not be without gas

Case Study – Samlesbury Brewery 7 This is an example of a site that have been maintaining their sub deduct network as their own and have decided to formally adopted the network  Meeting with customer onsite revealed that they had been maintaining the sub deduct network as they believed it was their responsibility  One redundant sub deduct meter has been removed since our site survey in 2008/09  Further secondary meters had been added and the sub deduct network was still required  Customer decided to formally adopt the pipework and no engineering work was required

Phase One Results 8  The focus for year one was to concentrate on 619 sub deduct networks. This included all of Group 1 and Group 3 with the addition of the less complex sites in Group 2. These were identified by the risk score assigned following 2008/9 surveys  71% of planned workload was declared ‘off risk’  183 sub deduct networks remain at risk due to:  Access issues  Awaiting customer decision  Deferred due to site uncertainty  Re-engineering required by GDSP  Other e.g. Easement or consent to lay  49% of total population of sub deduct networks declared ‘off risk’ in year one

Phase Two 9  Phase two of the project commenced in April 2014  There are 518 sites made up of the more complex sub deduct networks of group 2 and the 183 sites carried over from 2013  ‘No access’ issues to be addressed by consulting Land Registry for proprietor information  Further engagement required with customers who are yet to make a decision