Concept of Data Collection

Vincent ScherrerJunior Adviser, System Development

ENTSOG’s Transparency Workshop

Brussels – 11 September 2012

2

Main goals of the project

Current Situation

Expected PDWS improvements

Conclusion

3

Main goals of the project

Current Situation

Expected PDWS improvements

Conclusion

4

Improve scope and qualityNew Transparency Guidelines> Binding publication> More relevant points (distribution systems, storages, production facilities...)> More data (physical flows, auction requests...)

More detailed ENTSOG deliverables> Demand breakdown (CCGT, final customers, industry)> More scenarios and cases> More accurate modelling

Upcoming tasks> Cost-benefit analysis> Gas quality

5

Streamline the data collection processesData collection among members> Automation> Web-based interfaces> Eliminated redundancy> Warning system

ENTSOG internal data collection> Single repository of data> Versioning> User-friendly manual import mechanisms> More time for analysis and better deliverables

6

Availability and openness

DataWarehouse TransparencyPlatform

Operational data

Future projects

Interruptions

TYNDP data

Auction results

Information should be meaningful, exploitable, and consistent

7

Main goals of the project

Current Situation

Expected PDWS improvements

Conclusion

8

Various data sources

Transparency TYNDP Forecast data

Infrastructure projects Other dataOutlook&Review

Historical data

System Development files

and databases

Transparency Platform/DB

TSOs TSOs TSOs Promoters Third parties (GSE, GLE, …)

Scattered environment, intensive treatment, insulated data

9

Complex aggregation procedures

Balancing zones

Relevant points

System enhancem

ents

DemandSupply

Technical capacitiesFlows

(Re)Nominations

10

Historical data analysisDetailed analysis of historical data and a comparison of multiple periods is a regular part of data processing

2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

30 Jan - 14 FebAverage demand

Highest 16 dayAverage demand

Highest 16 daysPeak day demand

2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/20120%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

UGS stock level 30 Jan.

Understanding the data and changes to them is crucial

> Different calculation assumptions ?> Uploaded at different points in time ?> Unmatched system enhancements ?

11

Data quality issues

12

Forecast vs Historical

> Data questionnaire corrupted ?

> Non-Standard Gross Calorific Value ?

> What to do ?

13

Varying data from different data sources

Spread ?

14

Main goals of the project

Current Situation

Expected PDWS improvements

Conclusion

Manual data collection : Web-based

15

16

Automated imports : Monitoring

Monitor the flow of messages> TSOs : direct access to the system, warning per mail ?> Detect an inform about odd values> Detect missing values> …

17

Data consistency and data views

Quality control and good datawarehouse practices will enable us to look at the data from many different angles

> Entry flows in a country ?> Exit flows out of a country ?> Aggregated EU-27 demand> For a particular relevant point, what infrastructure projects are planned ?> Analyze cross-border flows and loads> What are the most congested cross-border connections ?> What happened during the 2012 cold snap ?> Maximal and minimal demand over the last 52 weeks for each country ? At the EU

level ?> What is the net demand per country on a daily basis ?> What are the planned infrastructure projects per country ? Per infrastructure type ?

18

Data consistency : Infrastructure projects

Available as a Transparency Module> Different views but same data> Advanced search capabilities

19

Data consistency : Different time scales

From day…

To month…

To year

20

Odd values

Detect odd values with…> Fixed constraints> Comparison with the past> Check if missing> Comparison with previous versions of the same data

Treat odd values with…> Quarantine dubious values> Each value has a state> Associate with workflows (manual or automatic)

21

Data availability

Excel

XML

RSS

Conform to best practices> Push and pull mechanisms

> Most common formats

> Flexible data sets

> Quantitative and qualitative analysis

22

Export flexibility

1/01/2009 7/04/2009 12/07/2009 16/10/2009 20/01/2010 26/04/2010 31/07/2010 4/11/2010 8/02/2011 15/05/2011 19/08/2011 23/11/2011 27/02/2012

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

signed - Zone Germany - Hub - Demand - Energy quantity - GWh/d - Historical-Historical Demand by TSOssigned - Zone Connection Supplier Norway - Hub Germany - Flow Import - Energy quantity - GWh/d - Historical-Historical Flows from imports sent by the TSOssigned - Zone Connection Storage Germany - Hub Germany - Flow Storage - Energy quantity - GWh/d - Historical-historical Flows from storages sent by the TSOssigned - Zone Connection Supplier Russia(Mainland) - Interconnector OPAL - Flow Import - Energy quantity - GWh/d - Historical-Historical Flows from imports sent by the TSOssigned - Zone Germany - NP Send-out - Flow National Production - Energy quantity - GWh/d - Historical-Historical Flows from national production sent by the TSOs

23

Analysis

24

AggregationLNG imports

Hub-to-Hub

25

Main goals of the project

Current Situation

Expected PDWS improvements

Conclusion

The new system will facilitate data collection and processing and should significantly improve ENTSOG’s ability to deliver reports such as TYNDP, Outlooks and reviews

> Comprehensive quality control...

> Drastically expanded analysis possibilitiesfor ENTSOG, members, stakeholders, 3rd parties…

> Flexible data extracts and reports…

> Better deliverables from ENTSOG...

26

Benefits

Sound technical basis to face current and future

Transparency Requirements

27

Do you have any questions ?

Thank You for Your Attention

ENTSOG -- European Network of Transmission System Operators for GasAvenue de Cortenbergh 100, B-1000 Brussels

EML:WWW: www.entsog.eu

Vincent ScherrerJunior Adviser

Vincent.scherrer@entsog.eu