1

Industry Shipperless Industry Shipperless &Unregistered Working Group&Unregistered Working Group

Wednesday 5Wednesday 5thth May 10.30am May 10.30amat xoserveat 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)

Ref Root Cause Title Comments

1 Timescales for MPRN RequestWould an agreed industry-wide schedule from quote acceptance to confirmation

resolve issues?

2xoserve is not informed of new service job

cancellation or deferment.Should UIPs provide xoserve with regular Complete/Cancelled/Deferred Reports

(Weekly, monthly, bi-monthly)

3 Service laid but no MPRN is requested.MPRN Creation Request rejections are not resubmitted. Later manifest as Fast

Track Queries.

4 Inaccurate 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 4th 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

Jul-09 Sep-09 Nov-09 Jan-10 Mar-10 Trend Description

369 643 578 670 646

These reports are sent out shipper specif ic and include sites w here shippers have provided an activity w hich suggests intention to confirm i.e., Confirmation rejection, Meter asset update to the C&D store, Conquest raised to create the M Number, service requests. They are for created sites > 12 months

TOTAL 15,672 15,524 15,839

With Meter

5,118 5,276 5,387

608 667 658 655 845

2,021 2,294 2,254 2,232 3,441

27,323 28,275 23,771 24,947 21,682These contain meter points created on UK Link w here no shipper activity has been recorded and that remain unconfirmed. They are for created sites > 12 months

6,193 5,987 6,572 6,841 9,271

These contain sites w hich can represent one of the follow ing reasons: Vacant sites No Gas meter but service laid Deferred sites

25,798 31,058 26,032 26,484 26,049These f igures provide details of meter points that have a created date < than 12 months that remain unconfirmed - If not confirmed they w ill gradually feed into some of the above reports going out to industry

74,539 83,546 75,537 77,353 77,773TOTAL

Shipperless Sites - Shipper

Shipperless Sites - Industry

Shipper Activity

Legitimately Unregistered

Meter Point created less than 12 months

Orphaned

No Activity

Industry Unregistered and Shipperless Sites (Produced on a Bi-Monthly Basis)

These contain sites w hich have previously been confirmed and w ithdraw n w ith meter removed. Information provided suggests either the existing meter still on site or a new meter has been f itted e.g. Gas Safety Regulations (GSR)

12,227 14,622

This report is sent out to the w hole industry either follow ing a shippers response to the shipper activity report, that they have no further interest in the M Number or that no response

is received w ithin the period of production of the next Bi monthly report. They are for created sites > 12 months

Unregistered Sites

8

Latest set of reports for March sent out 1st week in April Next set of reports for May to be produced 1st week June Shipper Activity:

• 1 shipper response to April Reports:• The response was to everything on report

Orphaned Report: • Februarys report there have been:-

- 501 Confirmations (3.23% against volume sent out) - 68 Meter points set to EX (0.44% against volume sent out)

• Aprils report there have been:- - 174 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:-

- 37 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:- - 20 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 Nov

Confirmations

Set to EX Deferred

Legitimately Unregistered

Left O/S

With Meter details

Unknown if Meter Fitted

Shipper Activity 579 86 48 0 0 445 204 241

Conquest Request 141

Confirmation Rejection 6

C&D Rejection 204

Service Request 94

No Activity 1,659 265 205 68 570 551 86 465

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 processS

erv

ice

Re

qu

est

er

xose

rve

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

Util

ity I

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

pro

vid

er

(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

Meter Point Creation to Confirmation breakdown

Mnth MP_Creations July-09 August-09 September-09 October-09 November-09 December-09 January-10 February-10 March-10 April-10 No_Confs

01-Jul-09 7,206 1.03% 25.16% 47.28% 62.27% 67.64% 72.66% 75.70% 78.20% 80.25% 80.46% 19.51%

01-Aug-09 6,431 0.79% 25.17% 50.88% 61.97% 69.93% 73.39% 77.56% 80.00% 80.35% 19.65%

01-Sep-09 7,344 0.91% 24.25% 43.76% 59.33% 65.13% 69.32% 73.04% 73.38% 26.62%

01-Oct-09 8,179 1.14% 22.07% 47.85% 60.39% 67.31% 71.99% 72.39% 27.61%

01-Nov-09 7,378 0.83% 24.13% 43.39% 56.40% 65.71% 66.82% 33.18%

01-Dec-09 6,663 1.38% 21.03% 40.00% 56.45% 58.65% 41.35%

Meter Point Creation to Meter Fix breakdown

Mnth MP_Creations July-09 August-09 September-09 October-09 November-09 December-09 January-10 February-10 March-10 April-10 No Meter Fix

01-Jul-09 7,206 1.03% 9.46% 17.53% 26.05% 35.54% 37.94% 43.56% 70.86% 76.34% 77.41% 21.20%

01-Aug-09 6,431 1.99% 12.13% 22.69% 34.89% 42.33% 48.58% 69.86% 78.07% 79.51% 21.57%

01-Sep-09 7,344 2.57% 12.42% 27.95% 41.48% 51.06% 60.73% 68.67% 70.11% 29.89%

01-Oct-09 8,179 1.99% 14.05% 33.16% 48.83% 56.72% 65.80% 68.03% 31.97%

01-Nov-09 7,378 2.18% 14.38% 33.04% 44.10% 58.01% 60.41% 39.59%

01-Dec-09 6,663 2.07% 13.12% 27.45% 46.95% 51.70% 48.30%

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 periodOn 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 93 21.7%

UIP Creation never raised 270 63%

UIP Creation received around the same time 4911.8%

Address or quality issue 15 3.5%

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