Change of Supplier Expert Group Meeting 2 10 June 2013 Rowaa - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Change of Supplier Expert Group

Meeting 2 10 June 2013

2

OBJECTIONS

Rowaa Mahmoud

3 Recap from previous meeting

• Ofgem‟s aim is to reduce the impact of objections on the length of

time it takes to transfer and the uncertainly this causes for customers

Objections

4 Disclaimer

All charts presented in these slides represent information that Ofgem has received from Big six suppliers. Ofgem has undertaken limited validation on the data submitted so any information should be considered within this context.

5

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Objection rate - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

6

See caveat in slide 4

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Objection rate - Domestic

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Occurrences 2291 19695 8635 2533 902 486 827 472 131 48 30 36 33 28 19 8 7 4 1 Total number of objections 2291 39390 25905 10132 4510 2916 5789 3776 1179 480 330 432 429 392 285 128 119 76 20

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Frequency of objections (source: Xoserve)

8

80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% 2010 2011 2012

Objection reasons - Domestic

Related MPANs Co-operative Objection Customer Requested Objection Outstanding Debt

See caveat in slide 4

9

See caveat in slide 4

80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% 2010 2011 2012

Objection reasons - Domestic

Co-operative Objections Customer Requested Objections Outstanding Debt

10

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Objection withdrawal rate - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

11

See caveat in slide 4

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Objection withdrawal rate - Domestic

12 Reform options

Option Description Option 1 No objection process Option 2 Roll-backs Option 3a Shorter objection window: “x” hour objection window Option 3b Shorter objection window: fixed cut-off within day Option 3c Shorter objection window: 1 or 2 days Option 4a Central register of objections Option 4b New supplier can access central register of objections in advance of transfer Option 5 Losing supplier declaration of “no objection”

Objections

13 Objections

Criteria Option1 – remove Option 2 - Roll back Option 3a - x hour Option 3b - within day fixed cut-off Option 3c - 1 or 2 day window Option 4 - Central register Speed Transfer quicker No impact for elec but could speed up gas Transfer quicker Transfer quicker Transfer quicker Transfer quicker Ease More certainty on transfer Confusion to consumers Minimum effort for consumers Minimum effort for consumers Minimum effort for consumers Minimum effort for consumers Accuracy More ETs ETs could be prevented ET could be flagged but limited

• pportunity

ET could be flagged but limited

• pportunity

ET could be flagged Might not catch ETs Coverage Applicable to all customers Applicable to all customers Applicable to all customers Applicable to all customers Applicable to all customers Applicable to all customers Consumer expectations Faster transfers Effort and confusion to consumers Faster transfers Faster transfers Faster transfers Faster transfers Design - flexibility No longer need to consider this part

• f CoS process

Complex design tbc tbc Similar to gas tbc Integration No impact on

• ther systems

Complex design tbc tbc No impact tbc Design – robustness No regulatory input required Complexity makes it potentially difficult to regulate Require Ofgem to monitor and enforce Require Ofgem to monitor and enforce Require Ofgem to monitor and enforce Require Ofgem to monitor and enforce Solution cost/benefit tbc tbc tbc tbc tbc tbc Implementation tbc tbc tbc tbc tbc tbc

14

• Identify any further options for discussion at today‟s meeting
• Review options against the Evaluation Criteria
• Identify any differences in approach required between

– Smart and traditional meters – Domestic and non-domestic – Electricity and gas

• Consider the requirement to retain an objection resolution period?
• Identify any links and dependencies that should be taken into

account

COSEG has been asked to: Objections

15 ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION Objections

16 Next steps

• Summary and actions
• Is further information required to support COSEG‟s assessment of

the reform options

• Is a further discussion required at a future COSEG?

Objections

17

AMENDED TERMS OF REFERENCE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Andrew Wallace

18

• Focus remains on longer-term reform. However quick wins to be

recorded in minutes (and summarised in Q1 2014 consultation)

• Clarification on scope

– Cooling off-periods – Objections – Access to metering data

• Suppliers have right to request invitation to COSEG
• Papers provided at least 5 working days in advance of COSEG meeting
• Minuted discussion will not be attributed to an individual or
• rganisation (unless requested or related to an agreed action)

Amendments to Terms of Reference

19 Amendment to Evaluation Criteria

The transfer process should be transparent for consumers. Once a customer has chosen a new supplier, the process should be transparent and achieved with the minimum of effort for the consumer and for all parties who have an interest in the switch.

Ease

The transfer process should meet or exceed consumers’ expectations in terms of speed, ease, accuracy and coverage. Consumer expectations

20

CONFIRMATION WINDOW - GAS ONLY

Andrew Wallace

21 Recap from previous meeting

• Our high level aim is to promote faster switching and alignment

with electricity by removing or reducing the 7 WD timeframe between the objection window closing and the customer transfer date

Confirmation window

• Xoserve analysis on

interventions to improve demand attribution during 7 WD window

22

Option Description Option 1 Reduce confirmation window Option 2 Remove confirmation window

Reform options Confirmation window

23

Criteria Option1 – reduce confirmation window Option 2 – remove confirmation window Speed

Transfer quicker Transfer quicker (better met than option 1)

Ease

No impact No impact

Accuracy

No impact (CoS read for customers with traditional meters) No impact (CoS read for customers with traditional meters)

Coverage

Applicable to all customers Applicable to all customers

Consumer expectations

Faster transfers Faster transfers

Design - flexibility

No impact on current position – potential to restrict future business models and alignment with electricity No longer need to consider this part of CoS process

Integration

tbc No longer need to consider this part of CoS process

Design – robustness

No regulatory input required No regulatory input required

Solution cost/benefit

tbc – Xoserve provided initial cost of £500k

• n reducing confirmation window from D-7

to D-5 for UNC 396. tbc – what is the impact on the quality of demand attribution?

Implementation

tbc tbc

Confirmation window

24

• Identify any further options for discussion at today‟s meeting
• Review options against the Evaluation Criteria
• Identify any differences in approach required between

– Smart and traditional meters – Domestic and non-domestic – Electricity and gas

• Identify any links and dependencies that should be taken into

account

COSEG has been asked to: Confirmation window

25 ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION Confirmation window

26 Next steps

• Summary and actions
• Is further information required to support COSEG‟s assessment of

the reform options

• Is a further discussion required at a future COSEG?

Confirmation window

27

ERRONEOUS TRANSFERS

Andrew Wallace

28 Introduction

• Our aim is to eradicate/substantially reduce the number of

erroneous transfers

• Current ET rate at around 1% of transfers (excluding Customer

Service Returners)

• Impact for smart meters potentially more significant as could lead

to disruption in supply (PPM) and to services (load control)

• Shortening the objection window will reduce the opportunity to

block potential erroneous transfers

Erroneous Transfers

29

• Ofgem and Consumer Futures developed the ETCC with suppliers.
• ETCC aim is to transfer domestic customer back to previous

supplier with minimum of fuss. – Customer can contact either supplier to initiate process – Timescales for resolution – Customers informed of progress and resolution

• Supported by industry agreed procedures under SPAA and MRA
• Some suppliers have agreed to pay compensation if customer not

informed within 20 days that they will be returned

• RMR – standards of conduct?

Regulatory framework Erroneous Transfers

30

0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Erroneous transfer rate - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

31

See caveat in slide 4

0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Erroneous transfer rate - Domestic

32

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 2011 2012

Erroneous transfer reasons - Domestic

Suspected misleading information fraudulent practice and/or training issues Forgery-Proven Cancelled Contract Not Actioned Incorrect MPAN selected

See caveat in slide 4

33

See caveat in slide 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 2011 2012

Erroneous transfer reasons - Domestic

Suspected misleading information fraudulent practice and/or training issues Forgery - Proven Cancelled Contract Not Actioned Incorrect MPRN selected

34

0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Customer service returner rate - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

35

See caveat in slide 4

0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Customer service returner rate - Domestic

36

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Number of cases where you have paid the £20 compensation Number of cases where ET Charter 20 day letter is not sent Number of cases where ET Charter 5 day letter is not sent No of ETs initiated that the old supplier has not responded to within 2WDs Number of ETs you have not sent to old supplier within 8WDs Number of contacts from customer who have been ET'd Number of ETs you have not responded to within 8WDs Number of ETs referred to you by Old Supplier

Erroneous transfer procedures (Gaining suppliers) - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

37

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Number of cases where you have paid the £20 compensation Number of cases where ET Charter 20 day letter is not sent Number of cases where ET Charter 5 day letter is not sent Number of ETs you have initiated that new supplier has not responded to within 8 WDs Number of ETs you have not initiated within 2 WDs of initial customer contact Number of contacts from customer who believe they have been ET'd Number of ETs you have not responded to within 2 WDs of request from new supplier Number of ETs referred to you by new supplier

Erroneous transfer procedures (Losing suppliers) - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

38

See caveat in slide 4

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Number of cases where you have paid £20 compensation Number of cases where ET Charter 20 day letter is not sent Number of cases where ET Charter 5 day letter is not sent

• No. of ETs you've initiated that the old supplier has not

responded to within 2WDs Number of ETs you have not sent to old supplier within 8WDs Number of contacts from customer who have been ET'd Number of ETs you have not responded to within 8WDs Number of ETs referred to you by Old Supplier

ET procedures (Gaining suppliers) – Domestic

39

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Number of cases where you have paid £20 compensation Number of cases where ET Charter 20 day letter is not sent Number of cases where ET Charter 5 day letter is not sent Number of ETs you have initiated that new supplier has not responded to within 8 WDs Number of ETs you have not initiated within 2 WDs of initial customer contact Number of contacts from customer who believe they have been ET'd Number of ETs you have not responded to within 2 WDs of request from new supplier Number of ETs referred to you by new supplier

ET procedures (Losing suppliers) – Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

40 Causes of Erroneous Transfers - Discussion

• Incorrect MPxN selected
• Suspected misleading information, fraudulent practice and/or

training issues

• Cancelled contract not actioned
• Forgery – proven

Erroneous Transfers

41 Option 1 – Verification of MPxN

• New supplier acting as an ESCo could:

– Option 1a: Access meter and obtain meter read to verify with the consumer – Option 1b: Send a Customer Information Number (CIN) to the IHD to verify with the consumer

• Potential to use where uncertain about selection on MPxN
• Limited to customers with smart meters/IHD

Erroneous Transfers

42 Option 2 – Regulation

• Potential to increase the regulatory measures that could be taken

against a supplier that erroneously transfers a customer – Option 2a: Requiring a supplier to pay compensation to the consumer. – Option 2b: Performance assurance measures under industry codes. – Option 2c: Enforcement of licence conditions by Ofgem.

Erroneous Transfers

43 Option 3 – Reform ET data flows

• Automate data flows alerting suppliers as to when an ET has
• ccurred.
• We would like to take the opportunity with COSEG to review

improvements could be made to data flows between suppliers for resolving ETs; in particular in cases where security keys for SMETs meters need to be installed to correct a configuration.

Erroneous Transfers

44 Erroneous Transfers

Criteria Option 1 Verification of MPxN Option 2 Regulation Option C Reform ET Data flows Speed

May offer a faster way for suppliers to be sure that they are transferring the correct

• site. May add some delay if consumers have

difficulty accessing the information. Sanctions for suppliers could result in a slower sales and transfer process Potential to return customer to their preferred supplier more quickly

Ease

May be easier for customers to provide information to help confirm that the correct site is to be transferred (than for example looking on meter for serial number) No impact No impact

Accuracy

Helps ensure the correct supply point is switched Would encourage suppliers to take care when requesting a switch No impact

Coverage

Only works for SMART meters supported by DCC Works for all meter types Works for all meter types

Consumer expectations

Ensures the correct supply point is switched but adds an additional step, potential confusion and delay to the transfer process Helps meet customer expectations on accuracy of transfer but may slow the transfer process Helps meet customer expectations that they should be returned quickly and without fuss

45 Erroneous Transfers

Criteria Option 1: Verification of MPxN Option 2: Regulation Option 3: Reform ET Data flows Design - flexibility

No impact No impact No impact

Design – robustness

tbc May rely on regulatory intervention to secure compliance with standards tbc – are additional performance assurance measures required to meet consumer expectations?

Integration

Makes use of the ESCo facility No impact Potential to return customers more quickly if transfer process is shortened

Solution cost/benefit

Uses ESCo facility so not expected to increase central system costs. May lead to more customers dropping out

• f the sales process due to the

perceived hassle factor. Potential for increased supplier administration costs in sending of messages managing responses from consumers Cost of performance assurance measures could be proportionate to the benefits to consumers tbc

Implementation

Would it be used if a voluntary process only? May require changes to the regulatory

• framework. Some changes could require

agreement of suppliers. Potential that compliance may be required under the proposed RMR ‘Standards of Conduct’ provisions or codify appropriate behaviours under the SoC. tbc

46

• Are there any further options that should be considered?
• Are there differences in approach required between

– Smart and traditional meters? – Domestic and non-domestic? – Electricity and gas?

• Opportunity for improved data quality to reduce ET rates?

Questions

Further evaluation of options identified at next meeting

Erroneous Transfers

47

DATA TRANSFER AND ACCESS

Ted Hopcroft (PA – Consultant advising Ofgem)

48 Agenda

• Background
• How is data currently transferred?
• Does technology create time constraints?
• Opportunities from smart
• Opportunities for reform

49 Background

• Electricity and Gas data transfer designed in the late 90s.
• Some incremental improvements to the process, but underlying

technology remains largely unchanged

• Advances in technology significantly improve the ease of data

exchange and access. In addition, industry consolidation and substantial replacement of legacy systems

• Smart offers transformation opportunity through direct access
• Other markets based on modern technology offer one day change

50 Opportunity

• Could technology change significantly improve transfer?
• To what extent are timelines due to transfer rules/processes

independent of technology?

• How should process and technology change be enacted together?
• Quick wins, or centralised registration as a catalyst?

51

Old Supplier New Supplier Meter Operator Data Collector

Data Aggregat’r

MPAS Meter Operator Data Collector Data Aggreg- ator Settlement

Agree contract Appoint Appoint MTD Reading History Provide Customer Reading CoS read De-appoint Settle up to CoS Settle CoS

• nwards

Advance Advance CoS Read Registration De-Registration After Cool off Period Objection De-appoint De-appoint Appoint Supplier Registration Notify Supplier

• f loss

CoS Read Objection

How is data currently exchanged: electricity

NOSI Settlement Details Settlement Details

51

Read Meter Read Meter

12345

Customer

• Predominantly FTP/MPLS

52

Old Supplier New Supplier Xoserve

Registration Meter Details

Meter Asset Manager Meter Reading Agent Xoserve

Settlement

Agree contract Provide Customer Reading De-appoint After Cool off Period Read Meter De-appoint

New Shipper Old Shipper

NOSI Opening Read Meter Read Notify Withdrawal Supplier Nomination Objection Objection Notify Gain MTD MTD

• GTs. iGTs

Settlement Details Settlement Details Notify Loss Closing Read Settlement Details Closing Read

Meter Asset Manager Meter Reading Agent

Appoint MTD Appoint Request Read CoS read

52

Read Meter

12345

Customer

How is data currently exchanged: gas

• Predominantly FTP/MPLS

53 Could Technology Improve Time of Transfer? What are the constraints to change?

• 1. Raise

message

• 2. Send

message

• 4. Batch

& forward 5 Receive message 6 Process message

3 3

• 1. System needs to be capable of raising real-time message
• 2. Participant needs facilities to send near real-time messages
• 3. Network needs sufficient bandwidth
• 4. Avoid delays in:
• 1. Batching up messages for efficiency
• 2. Time dependencies between messages
• 5. Participant needs facilities to receive near- real-time

messages

• 6. Systems need to be able to „instantly‟ process message

54 Could Technology Improve Time of Transfer?

Dependency 1996 2013 Bandwidth Bespoke/expensive Freely available/cheap Processor Power Expensive Substantial reductions Storage Expensive Substantial reductions Message encoding Size management critical Bespoke standards Typically batch Size restriction alleviated International standards (XML) Move to real-time

• But, impact of legacy arrangements...

55 How have other industries addressed this?

• Move to „Straight

Through Processing‟

• Open standards

based on XML/Web Services

• Separate processors
• Integration layer

„Enterprise Bus‟

• Standards

bodies, eg: ACORD

56 How have other industries addressed this?

57 Opportunities of smart: real-time access/ centralisation of registration

Elec Gas Suppliers Other users Gate way Data function WAN HAN Other IHD Comms Networks Supply Chain Consumers DCC Service Providers (DSP, CSPs)

Ping Meter Advise customer Projected: 30 seconds £0.0008

58 Could Technology Improve Time - Strawman

• 1. Raise

message

• 2. Send

message 4. Forward 5 Receive message 6 Process message

3 3

1,2 Standards such as XML/Web services facilitate real-time message ccccdelivery 3 Bandwidth now „cheap‟ 4 Standards such as XML/Web services facilitate individual, not batch, delivery 4 Centralisation of registration reduces data access requirements 4 Time delays and dependencies between flows would require substantial review, but parallel processing could be facilitated 5,6 Core systems could remain a constraint, but opportunities on: 111streamlining process; availability of data; removal of errors; front 111end processing; use of upgrades to support DCC interaction

59

Old Supplier New Supplier Meter Operator Data Processor Data Aggregat’r

Central Regist’n

Meter Operator Data Processor Data Aggregat’r

Settlement

Appoint Appoint CoS read De-appoint Settle CoS

• nwards

Advance Advance CoS Read Regist- ration After Cool off Period

DCC

Send Read Meter Config Raw read Agree contract Provide Customer Reading Device Details, Meter Config (MTD) De-appoint De-appoint De-Regi- stration Settle up to CoS Objection Supplier Registration Notify Supplier

• f loss

Objection Read Meter Device Details Reading History CoS Read Appoint

Electricity Central Registr Streamlining Requiremen

Registration Data Settlement Details Settlement Details Trigger CoS Read Meter Config Device Details

59

Read Meter

12345

Customer

60 Initial Options for Reform

Short Term Strengths Weaknesses

1. Do nothing – focus attention on other areas Avoids technical change in parallel with smart metering No Progress

• 2. Upgrade DTN/IXN to allow

priority messages and greater user access using web services Move to more modern architecture Speed up some flows Does value justify expense? Technically feasible? How driven? 3. Focus in on key messages and data that makes a difference; central bodies to implement web services for them. Review rules Benefit if key flows/data can be identified Does value justify expense? Technically feasible? How driven?

61

Longer Term Strengths Weaknesses

4. Focus in on key messages and data that makes a

• difference. Review rules

move DTN/IXN to these Use existing central and participant architectures. Allows time to focus on key data/flows Not dependent on Registration Expanding parallel architectures in industry 5. Focus in on key messages and data that makes a

• difference. Review rules
• Examine feasibility of

including these in the centralisation of registration

• Utilise DCC real-time

architecture and suppliers mandated real-time architecture to provide more real-time service Avoids more technical change in parallel with smart metering Use new architectures and avoid risk of expense and complexity Do under centralisation regulatory approach No progress until central registration

Initial Options for Reform

62

UPDATED COS DATA

Rowaa Mahmoud

63

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Number of transfers - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

64

See caveat in slide 4

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Number of transfers - Domestic

65

See caveat in slide 4

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00% Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Rejection rate - Domestic

66

See caveat in slide 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 2011 2012

Rejection reasons - Domestic

Invalid Transfer Date Other Supply Point Already Confirmed By Another Supplier Incorrect MPRN/Postcode

67

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12

Invalid transfer date (previous winters) – Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

68

0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13

Confirmation withdrawal rate - Domestic

See caveat in slide 4

69

WRAP UP

70 Wrap up

• Review of work plan
• Date and location of next meeting
• Date for Glasgow meeting
• AOB

71 COSEG WORK PLAN

Purpose 20/5 10/6 01/07 22/07 28/08 09/09 01/10 Initial discussion on

• ptions

Objection process Confirmation window (gas only) Erroneous transfers Data transfer and access requirements Centralising registration services Registration processes (inc cooling off period and gas nomination Data

• wnership

and governance Access to metering data and support for metering market Security keys? Billing standards? Outstanding issues Review of end-to-end process

Further discussion on

• ptions and

evaluation

Objection process Confirmation window (gas only) Erroneous transfers Data transfer and access requirements Centralising registration services Registration processes (inc cooling

• ff period and

gas nomination Data

• wnership

and governance Access to metering data and support for metering market Security keys? Billing standards? Outstanding issues Review of end-to-end process

72