Under Turkey's supply continuity regulation, a distribution company owes consumers interruption compensation when defined limits are exceeded. Who gets paid, and how much, is derived from outage records: how many interruptions an installation experienced, how long it was without supply in total, and how long any single interruption lasted.
The weak link in that chain is rarely the calculation method. It is the data going into it. A mistyped time, a missing stage or a misclassified outage can travel all the way into the report and from there into compensation. An error discovered after payment is the hardest kind to correct, both financially and from an audit standpoint. This article covers three tools for catching faulty records early: quality control rules, simulation and reporting period locks.
Why Is Compensation So Sensitive to Data?
Interruption compensation broadly arises from two situations: a consumer's interruptions over the year exceeding limits in number or duration, and a single interruption lasting too long. Either way, the calculation is done per installation. One error in a single outage record can therefore change the compensation status of every installation that outage affected.
Outage records are also living data. Field crews complete details later, related outages are merged, planned outages are linked to their records. All of these changes are legitimate, but a compensation run made before the "final" state of the data is settled can soon contradict a record that has since changed.
Quality Control Rules: Making Suspicious Records Visible
Reviewing thousands of outage records by eye is not practical. Records need to be tested automatically against rules instead, asking questions such as:
- Are the outage's start and end times in a sensible order?
- Are the stages complete, with the opened network element recorded for each one?
- Does an outage classified as planned have a notification and a linked record?
- Is the duration unusual compared with similar outages?
These rules need to be configurable, because every company's processes and data habits differ. When the rules give each outage a score, records are not simply split into right and wrong; they are ranked by how suspicious they look. Listing suspicious records by period tells teams exactly where to focus before the period closes, so incomplete or inconsistent records are fixed before reporting.
Cross-Table Consistency
Quality is not limited to individual records. The tables submitted to EPDK are summaries of the same outage data seen from different angles, so they are expected to agree with each other. When the tables are produced directly from outage data and their consistency is checked, cases where one table's figures fail to reconcile with another's become visible before the report is filed.
Simulation: Seeing the Impact Before the Final Run
Running compensation straight to a final result means data problems only surface once the result is already out. A simulation mode reverses that order. A simulation run during the period, or before it closes, shows which installations fall within compensation and what the overall impact looks like, without being binding.
The practical value is considerable. An unexpectedly high result is often a sign of a recording error: an outage with the wrong time, or a stage tied to the wrong feeder. Reviewed alongside the quality control list, such records are corrected before they ever enter the final calculation.
Period Locks: A Fixed Basis for Reports and Compensation
Once errors are cleared, the data has to be frozen at some point. That is what a reporting period lock does. Records in a locked period stay fixed as the basis for reports and compensation. Allowing the final compensation calculation to run only for a locked period ensures that data changed afterwards never contradicts compensation already paid.
It also matters that the lock happens automatically on a set day rather than by hand. The previous month's period then closes on a predictable, calendar-driven schedule, and "has the period closed?" no longer depends on anyone remembering. Teams know exactly when their corrections must be done.
Change History and Integrity
A locked period guarantees the data stays put, but auditors ask another question: how did this record get to this state? Recording every change to an outage with chained signatures makes the integrity of the change history verifiable, and any retroactive edit becomes visible. Reports and compensation then rest on data that is not only correct but provably so.
Conclusion: Calculate Compensation in Locked, Traceable Periods with GeoEner Tedarik Sürekliliği
GeoEner Tedarik Sürekliliği (GeoEner Supply Continuity) scores every outage with configurable quality rules and lists suspicious records by period, so incomplete or inconsistent records are fixed before they reach a report. EPDK Tables 1, 3, 4, 5 and the Customer Interruption Record are produced directly from outage data, with cross-table consistency checks.
Annual and long-interruption compensation is first viewed as a simulation; the final calculation runs only for a locked reporting period, and the previous month's period locks automatically on a set day. Outage change records are chain-signed and their integrity can be verified in one step. If you would like to walk through your compensation process using your own outage data, get in touch and we will set up a demo.
