AUG Query Responses
21st November 2013
Overview
• AUGE Guidelines require AUGE to report outcome of Query Process to UNCC
• UNCC to consider AUGE recommendations
• UNCC to endorse AUGE’s recommended course of action or vote unanimously to
reject (see section 8 of the AUGE Guidelines for details)
• Presentation covers two sets of queries
• ICoSS response on 23rd October 2013
• British Gas response on 13th November 2013
• Update on iGT CSEP volume error
ICoSS – Query 1
• Modification 410A
• Introduces improvements to handling of unregistered sites and better control of the MPRN
creation process
• Response
•
•
•
•
•
Changes the way unregistered sites handled – specifically <12 months category
Expect to see declining levels of permanent UG for unregistered sites during 2014/15
AUG Methodology requires update to reflect this
Impact is material and will reduce permanent UG for these categories
Volume and rate tables will need to be updated
• Query classed under 8.5 as “Material and can be implemented for final AUG table”
• Subject to previous agenda item regarding mismatch between UNC and AUGE Guidelines
ICoSS – Query 2
• Mod 431S and SPA MAM 13/002
• Mod 431S introduces a portfolio reconciliation between Shippers and Transporters which will
help identify potential unregistered sites
• SPA MAM 13/002 introduces restrictions to stop meters being fitted without a supply
contract
• Neither have been implemented and therefore cannot be incorporated into the
methodology or figures for 2014/15
• Impact of 431S cannot be assessed until the portfolio reconciliation occurs in any
case
• Query classed under 8.4(a) as “Requiring no action”
ICoSS – Query 3
• Mod 424 – re-establishment of Supply Points
• This modification reduces occurrence of shipperless sites
• The effects of this modification have already been documented in the 2013 AUGS for
2014/15 and included in the calculation of interim rates and volumes
• Query classified under 8.4(a) as “Requiring no action”
ICoSS – Query 4
• Impact of data quality
• ICoSS raised various concerns about data quality and suitability for AUG calculations
• No specific issue was raised or estimation of impact it would have
• Response highlighted improvements in 2013 to address data quality issues
• Data quality issues have been highlighted previously and this is therefore not a new
Unidentified Gas issue per se
• If specific issues are highlighted then we could investigate them
• Query classed under 8.4(a) as “Requiring no action”
British Gas - Query 1
• Allocation issue
• Discrepancy identified in Allocation totals used in calculation spreadsheets
• Identified issue with EWCF used when calculating seasonal normal allocations
• Updated data not included in all calculations
• This needs to be corrected and volumes/rates table updated accordingly
• Nearest classification is under 8.5 “Material change that can be implemented for final
gas volumes and rates” – it does not require a change to the AUGS
British Gas - Query 2
• Concerns the calculation of the forward estimate of UG
• Query relates to the use of the balancing factor from the historical period rather than
calculating it by difference for the forecast year
• We believe this is a misunderstanding of the process
• The AUGS could be clearer on how the forward calculation works
• If calculating by difference for forward years, any UG improvement initiatives only get
converted to balancing factor (mainly theft) which would be incorrect
• Recommend additional clarifications added to AUGS to show how each UG segment
is extrapolated from historic to forecast years
• Query classified as “8.4(b) requires a change to the AUGS but does not have material
impact on volumes/rates”
• Subject to previous agenda item regarding mismatch between UNC and AUGE Guidelines
British Gas - Query 3
• Concerns the suspected erroneous inclusion of large sites in Unregistered /
Shipperless UG calculations
• Also queried the 5x multiplier for derivation of temporary UG
• Misunderstanding of the use of flags in spreadsheets
• Data not removed, but flagged for investigation.
• “Remove” flag is used when calculating average LSP AQ to avoid skewing the average
• The derivation of the 5x factor is also noted in query response and it is a coincidence
that it is a whole number
• More details provided in response
• Query classed under 8.4(b) as “Requiring no action”
British Gas - Query 4
• Concerns exclusion of large sites >58GWh pa when producing AQ scaling factors for
shipperless/unregistered sites
• Response clarifies process and why sites left out as appropriate
• Noted insufficient evidence to assume that all large sites will always be revised
downwards
• Summarised key process steps for clarification
• Query classified under 8.4(b) as “Requiring no action”.
British Gas - Query 5
• Concerns CSEP consumption not being adjusted for sites with AQ>1 not consuming,
resulting in under-estimate of UG
• We note that there is also the opposite issue of not adjusting consumption for sites
where AQ=1 that are consuming resulting in a potential over-estimate of UG
• CSEPS were adjusted for both situations in an early draft of the AUGS
• During the year we identified that CSEP EUC bands were based on max AQ
• CSEP EUC banding therefore unreliable
• Latest AUGS estimates CSEPs consumption based on average aggregate AQ
• This is therefore not a new issue and has already been through consultation during
the year
• Query classified under 8.4(b) “Requiring no action”
iGT CSEP Volume Issue update
•
•
•
•
•
A large iGT CSEP has calculated volumes incorrectly
This may or may not have a material impact on UG – no data provided to assess
We understand the issue has been corrected going forward
The effects are inherent in the interim AUG table
Likely to be small
• CSEPS account for a small % of demand
• This is just one part of that market
• Issue concerns a subset of the portfolio
• We understand that we are unlikely to get corrections until after the final AUG table
has been prepared
Next Steps
• Deal with any further queries or rejected queries from this meeting
• Prepare final AUG table for Gas Transporters on or before 1st January 2014
Thank you for your attention