1 Industry Shipperless &Unregistered Working Group Wednesday 5 th May 10.30am at xoserve

2 Agenda  Introduction: (30 minutes) (Alison Jennings & Mark Woodward) Previous minutes Straw Man Comments Proposals for unregistered process in project “Q”  Statistical Information: (15 minutes) (Mark Woodward) Overall industry position with unregistered and shipperless meter points  Root Cause: (1 hour 30 minutes) (ALL) RefRoot Cause TitleComments 1Timescales for MPRN Request Would an agreed industry-wide schedule from quote acceptance to confirmation resolve issues? 2 xoserve is not informed of new service job cancellation or deferment. Should UIPs provide xoserve with regular Complete/Cancelled/Deferred Reports (Weekly, monthly, bi-monthly) 3Service laid but no MPRN is requested. MPRN Creation Request rejections are not resubmitted. Later manifest as Fast Track Queries. 4Inaccurate tagging of services Potential dual billing. Potential duplication. Potential crossed meters.

3 Questions and Comments Captured at the Last Shipperless And Unregistered Workgroup Meeting Regarding the Shipperless and Unregistered Sites Process “Strawman” as Presented by David Watson. 1. The process set out in the Straw Man should only apply to MPRNs for which xoserve has received significant assurance that no shipper supplies gas to the site. 2. Do Networks have a legal right to disconnect Shipperless and Unregistered Sites where no illegal connection is involved? If not, what would be the end result of this process? 3. There is a potential for The Gas Act 1986 – Schedule 2b - Deemed Contract to have an influence on this. 4. How will this process be funded? Would shipper liabilities be appropriate if it is found that an end user has a contract with a shipper when a Network engineer attends to disconnect? 5. Will this process apply to existing Shipperless and Unregistered Population, or will it only apply to newly classified sites? 6. What are the governance options for this process? Will it be included in the UNC? 7. What criteria will be used to determine vulnerable customers, and what will be the end result for these?

4 Proposals for process in project “Q”  Background: Replacement system to conquest called Business Process Management Suite (BPMS) Although unregistered is not on conquest all processes are being reviewed for the benefits and efficiencies that BPMS could bring Industry Working groups have been set up in order to communicate the changes and any proposals to processes All presentational material issued so far is on xoserve’s web site.  Proposed Changes to process for unregistered: Utility Infrastructure Providers (UIP’s) to be automatically sent (bi monthly) the latest set of No Activity unregistered meter points after 12 months. Meter Asset Managers (MAM’s) will be automatically sent (bi monthly) the latest set of No Activity unregistered meter points after 12 months Meetings are being arranged over the next month with UIPs and MAM’s to discuss the above proposals

5 Proposals for process in project “Q”  Proposed impacts to shippers: Shipper Activity, Orphaned and shipperless reports will be available to view and manage through the new BPMS system, requesting the same return information as now. New updates will be available as now on a Bi monthly basis The response from shippers will be extended from the current 30 days to 60 days before being submitted into the orphaned queue Reminder notices to the Shipper Activity Report will be directed through BPMS at 20 and 40 days. Implementation for this process is currently planned for the 4 th quarter of this year The current Bi monthly reports will no longer be required upon implementation as they will be viewable through BPMS  Feedback Required: Project “Q” have challenged the process regarding returns from shippers stating is it possible for xoserve to automatically confirm sites on the shippers behalf where the response is a “YES”

6 Statistical Information

7 Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points

8  Latest set of reports for March sent out 1 st week in April Next set of reports for May to be produced 1 st week June  Shipper Activity: 1 shipper response to April Reports: The response was to everything on report  Orphaned Report: Februarys report there have been: Confirmations (3.23% against volume sent out) - 68 Meter points set to EX (0.44% against volume sent out) Aprils report there have been: Confirmations (1.10% against volume sent out) - 9 Meter points set to EX (0.06% against volume sent out)  Shipperless Sites (PTS&SSP): No responses to April Reports Since Februarys there have been: Confirmations (1.28% against volume sent out) - 3 Meter points set to EX/DE (0.10% against volume sent out) Aprils report there have been: Confirmations (0.47% against volume sent out) - 3 Meter points set to EX (0.07% against volume sent out)  No Activity: Volumes continue to decrease with anticipated significant reductions taking place for next meeting Overall Industry unregistered and Shipperless Sites meter points

9 Analysis of latest movement to the population from the reports sent out in late November for October/November 2008  Future statistical information: Please let me know if you would like to see any future statistical information or breakdowns Total initially sent out NovConfirmations Set to EXDeferred Legitimately Unregistered Left O/S With Meter details Unknown if Meter Fitted Shipper Activity Conquest Request141 Confirmation Rejection6 C&D Rejection204 Service Request94 No Activity1,  NB: Of the 551 that remain outstanding for No Activity 64% are for 1 UIP who we are now aware historically failed to send cancellations through

10 Root cause

11 Root Cause Topics Current high level process: Requester to UIP for infrastructure UIP to network Planning for load (This only happens where the connection will be made to Medium pressure) Quote to requester Quote Acceptance UIP submits a request to connect to network and receives authorisation prior to proceeding UIP request for M Number Creation to xoserve UIP provides requester with M Number UIP notifies network of intended start date of works UIP provides network connections with service completion details and receives either an adoption of assets or rejection for data/contents 1. Timescales for MPRN Request

12 UIP M Number Creation process Service Requester xoserve Service planned & M Number requested for creation on UK Link System validation checks performed Service cancelled Service laid and tagged Rejected Reinvestigated Request for Service Utility Infrastructure provider (UIP Start Details provided of M Number created on UK Link Accepted Details provided of M Number used for service Meter point details on UK Link set to EX Information returned on cancelled service Service Cancellation System validation checks performed Reinvestigated Rejected Accepted Batch of MPRN’s requested Finish Start Finish

13 Root Cause Topics 1. Timescales for MPRN Request

14  Problems/issues: Unnecessary work for participants with work not carried out (8.48% per month, details of this breakdown in next topic) Address amendments (Figures and analysis in third workshop) Unregistered meter points – Services not yet laid, deferred services  Discussion Points: When is the optimum time for an M Number to be created? What are the risks/issues in creating after the service is laid? What are the impacts to requesting the creation of a Meter Point only X month prior to service completion? What are the impacts/issues to creating M Number at UIP service planned date? Are Meter Asset Managers going to properties and the service is not yet laid? Root Cause Topics 1. Timescales for MPRN Request

15 2. xoserve is not informed of new service job cancellations or deferment On average 12,520 UIP requests received over a 2 month period On average 462 (3.69%) known cancellations are received during this period On average 2,500 (20%) sites remain unregistered after 12 months on a Bi monthly “no activity” report Based on the average “no activity” figure we have identified the number of cancellations not received amounts to 20-35% (analysis carried out with all UIP’s). Which equates to 500 (approx) missing cancellations every 2 months It is also evident that deferments are running between 5-10% therefore, Based on the remaining 2000 remaining unregistered sites the figure would be 100 (approx) sites This then leaves you with 1,900 unregistered sites on the “no activity” report This highlights there is a 4.79% deficit of unknown cancellations and deferred sites based on the bi monthly figure (12,520) This concludes the figure we should be receiving on average should be 1,062 or 8.48% Root Cause Topics

16 2. xoserve is not informed of new service job cancellations or deferment Problems/issues: Cancelled jobs are still live on our systems after 12 months If xoserve is not informed that job has deferred the site will not be classed as legitimately unregistered and become part of the no activity reports MOD517 queries (erroneous confirmation) Sites being confirmed and meters attached to cancelled jobs Discussions points: Should all creation be at planned status on UK Link and then put to Live following completion reports sent to xoseve by UIP’s Should UIP’s provide xoserve with a scheduled report on deferred & cancelled jobs? Should Networks provide scheduled completed job reports for all UIP’s? What checks about the service are completed by a shipper prior to confirmation? Are there suggestions on alternatives to overcome this? Root Cause Topics

17 3. Service laid but no MPRN provided Current MNC’s are running at an average of 2,076 per month Fast Track Queries are running at an average of 325 per month UIP Rejections are running at an average of 540 per month We carried out some analysis with the aim of identifying why fast tracks queries were not raised via the UIP route. Our Findings were as follows: Volume Percentage UIP Creation rejected and not returned % UIP Creation never raised 27063% UIP Creation received around the same time % Address or quality issue 153.5% Root Cause Topics

18 Root Cause Topics 3. Service laid but no MPRN provided  Problems/issues: Service laid however, no MPRN creation ever received Historic MPRN creations rejected back to UIP’s and never re-submitted High volume of MNC queries being raised  Discussions points: What check do networks have in place to ensure a new MPRN is created for a completed job. Does awareness need to be raised on what constitutes an MPRN creation upon job type (i.e alterations/ new connections What checks are completed by a shipper prior to creation of fast track or MNC’s

19 4.Inaccurate Tagging of Services Currently conducting some analysis on Duplicates raised this year and how many involve meter points created over the last couple of years.  Problems/issues: Duplicates/Dual billing/Crossed meters Meter points set to Dead/EX in error, wrong M Number and tag on service.  Discussions points: What do MAM’s do if asked to fit meters to properties with M Numbers a different way round or not the same as that requested by supplier ? Root Cause Topics