Agenda

1
(No Transcript)
2
Agenda

• 1000 1015 Opening Address
• 1015 1045 Presentation of preliminary
  general findings
• 1045 1115 Comments from network operators
  and stakeholders
• 1115 1145 Coffee Break
• 1145 1215 Presentation of the situation at
  selected interconnection points
• 1215 1300 Comments from network operators
  and stakeholders, proposal discussion
  on the way forward and workshop results for
  closing session
• 1300 Lunch

3
Content

• Introduction general / procedural matters
• Preliminary findings on general issues
• Situation at selected interconnection points
• Way foward / next steps

4
Content

• Introduction general / procedural matters
• Preliminary findings on general issues
• Situation at selected interconnection points
• Way forward / next steps

5
I. Introduction

• Development
• Questionnaire / action report for discussion in
  IG / SG meetings approved by the RCC on 21st Nov
  2006
• ? involved key operators E.ON Gastransport,
  BEB and GRTgaz (at a later stage)
• Questionnaire sent on 6th Nov. for answers on 6th
  Dec.
• ? E.ON Gastransport Fluxys answered late
  (mid-january)
• ? Gassco (N) did not answer
• ? Bocholtz Ellund questionnaire not sent to
  all concerned TSOs
• Therefore only 23 IPs were analysed and
  assessment of answers by CRE BNetzA delayed
• ? Answering to questionnaires has to be improved

6
I. Introduction

• Specific difficulties
• Very large number of confidential data
• ? Reason 3-minus-rule?
• Partially imprecise / unclear / missing answers
  data

7
I. Introduction

• The following targets have been agreed and have
  been covered in the questionnaire
• Target 1 Capacity products and services offered
  at interconnections should be compatible so that
  trade and competition is not distorted -
  Questionnaire Part 4
• Target 2 Allocation rules of capacity and
  booking rules/procedures at cross-border points
  should be coordinated by adjacent TSOs so that
  trade and competition is not distorted -
  Questionnaire Part 5 Part 6

8
I. Introduction

• Target 3 Congestion management procedures need
  to be coordinated so that trade and competition
  is not distorted incl. investments issues -
  Questionnaire Part 7
• Target 4 Nomination, re-nomination and matching
  procedures should be harmonized or at least made
  compatible at each cross-border point -
  Questionnaire Part 8

9
I. Introduction
14 TSOs involved
38 interconnection points (IP)
10
I. Introduction

• Goals for the workshop
• Summary of the findings
• 1.) general
• 2.) specific findings for selected IPs
• ? details to be found in the report
• Comments by the TSOs and stakeholders to identify
  relevant issues and priority setting
• Selection of IPs of high importance to be dealt
  with primarily
• Development of a working schedule

11
Content

• Introduction general (organizational) matters
• Preliminary general findings
• Situation at selected interconnection points
• Way foward / next steps

12
II. Preliminary general findings

• Data confidentiality
• Capacity Products Services offered
• Capacity Booking Procedures
• Physical Congestion Capacity Allocation
  Mechanisms (CAM) 4.1. Utilization rates
  2005 4.2. CAM for existing capacity
• Investments in new cross-border capacities / CAM
• Contractual Congestion Congestion Management
  Procedures (CMP) 6.1. Status of booked capacity
  for 2007 6.2. Application of CMPs
• Nomination, Re-Nomination Matching

13
1. Data confidentiality

• Confidentiality on Capacities (2005)
• 1 IP
• only confidential
• 17 IPs (74 of all IPs)
• rate of confidential data
• between 0 and 100
• Only 5 IPs (22 of all IPs)
• all data requested have been
• provided

14
1. Data confidentiality

• Confidentiality on Utilization Rates (2005)
• 16 IPs (70 of all IPs) rate of confidential
  data between 0 and 100
• 3 IPs only confidential
• 4 IPs (17 of all IPs) all data requested have
  been provided

15
1. Data confidentiality

• Confidentiality on Rates of Subscription (2007)
• 15 IPs (65 of all IPs) rate of confidential
  data between 0 and 100
• 2 IPs only confidential data
• 6 IPs (26 of all IPs) all data requested have
  been provided

16
2. Capacity Products

• Questions on type of capacity products offered
• Entry / Exit capacities
• Firm / Interruptible capacities
• Daily / monthly / yearly / multi-yearly
  capacities
• General findings
• At 14 out of 25 Interconnection Points (IPs) all
  involved TSOs offer all listed products for the
  main direction of flow
• At 6 IPs there are mismatches (different products
  at each side)
• At 5 IPs problems exist
• ? Importance of combined capacity products?

17
2. Capacity Products

• Questions on Capacity Situation 2005
• Maximum Technical capacity
• Firm / Interruptible capacity
• General findings
• Technical ( firm) capacity at IPs where data has
  been provided does not match between adjacent
  TSOs
• Mostly only interruptible capacities available
  (esp. reverse flow)
• ? Importance of matching of technical capacities?

• Entry / Exit capacity
• Contracted / Available capacity

18
3. Booking procedures

• Questions on
• Booking Periods
• Separate booking / coordination of Booking
  Procedure
• General findings
• At only 2 cross-border points the timeframe for
  booking matches for daily firm (Entry or Exit)
  capacity.
• The shorter the duration for booking is, the less
  the timeframe for booking procedure is the same.
• For any given duration, the timeframe matches
  more frequently for interruptible capacity than
  for firm capacity
• Booking at adjacent TSOs always separately and
  not coordinated
• ? Importance of matching of booking procedures?

19
4. Physical congestion CAM

• 4.1 Maximum Utilisation Rates 2005

? Missing data needs to be delivered to CRE /
BNetzA
20
4. Physical congestion CAM

• 4.2 CAM for existing capacity
• Questions on
• Type of CAM applied (FCFS, Open Subscription)
• Coordination of CAM between adjacent TSOs
• General findings
• CAM applied or legally required for does not
  match at 3 IPs
• FCFS is always applied, except for Fluxys
  (although legally required TSOs answer)
• FCFS is legally required in D, NL, B, UK (TSOs
  answers)
• Open Subscription is only applied in F, UK and
  legally required in UK (TSOs answer)
• At all IPs no coordination of CAM between
  adjacent TSOs

21
4. Physical congestion CAM

• Questions on Auctions
• Auctions undertaken for existing capacity
• General findings
• Only National Grid (UK) untertakes long medium
  term auctions annually, GdFD one auction in 2005,
  daily short term auctions done by National Grid
  (UK) and GRTgaz (F) (since 11/06)
• In Belgium auctions are forbidden by law (TSOs
  answer)
• Auctions are not coordinated between adjacent
  TSOs

22
4. Physical congestion CAM

• Questions on Day ahead capacities auctions
  (DACA)
• Auctioning of day-ahead capacity implemented /
  feasible
• General findings
• Only GRTgaz has implemented day ahead auctions at
  3 IPs
• Feasibility study Wingas, EGT
• 3 TSOs feasible
• 4 TSOs not feasible due to implementation
  constraints (IT-System), conflicting
  implementation periods
• FCFS most frequently used CAM
• Rarely other mechanisms
• Better coordiniation necessary? FCFS no?
  Auctions yes?
• Improvement of CAMs?

23
5. Investments / new capacities

• Questions on
• Type of CAM applied for new capacities (Auction,
  Open Season)
• Coordination of CAM for new cross-border
  capacities
• Auctions
• General findings
• CAM not legally required at 87 of all IPs
• Where increases are planned, capacities are
  mostly already allocated
• Open Season applied by BEB (D), GTS (NL),
  Interconnector (UK), GRTgaz (F)
• No auctions applied for new capacity
• No coordination concerning CAMs for new
  capacities
• ? Capacity allocation has to be non-discriminatory

24
6. Contractual congestion CMP

• Availability of firm capacity in 2005

Directionof flow
Availability
0
lt10
Overall Indication for the IPs considered
25
6. Contractual congestion CMP

• Rates of subscription in 2007

Directionof flow
Availability
0
lt10
Overall Indication for the IPs considered
? insufficient firm capacity available
26
6. Contractual congestion CMP

• Questions on
• applied CMPs (firm/interruptible UIOLI, sec.
  Market)
• UIOLI details, coordination
• General findings
• Booking level at which CMPs are applied
  different (e.g. 90, any level, at each refusal)
• firm UIOLI often implemented but practically
  rarely applied
• Zero-nomination on day before delivery leads to
  Lose it at only 35 of IPs
• Only 35 of TSOs have seized an amount of
  capacity by application of UIOLI but offered it
  to the market only on interruptible basis
• Is coordination necessary?
• Should capacity be offered as firm capacity?

27
7. Nomination Matching

• Questions on
• Application of Easee-gas CBP concerning
  nomination, re-nomination and matching
• General findings
• Easee-gas nomination, re-nomination and matching
  procedures applied at 75 of IPs
• At the remaining IPs at least one TSO does not
  apply the procedures
• ? Should Easee-gas CBP always be applied?

28
Summary

• Few data have been provided. Missing data to be
  delivered to CRE / BNetzA
• Offer of capacity products not everywhere
  coordinated
• Booking procedures are not coordinated
• Allocation mechanism for existing capacities
  mostly FCFS
• Day ahead capacity auctions rarely implemented
• Capacities seized by application of UIOLI are
  offered on interruptible basis
• Auctions for allocation of new capacities are an
  exception

29
Discussion

• What are the key priorities?
• Importance of matching of products and booking
  procedures?
• Improvement of CAMs?
• Insufficient firm capacity available?
• Should CMPs be improved?
• Investment in new cross-border capacities
  necessary?

30
Content

• Introduction general (organizational) matters
• Preliminary general findings on main issues
• Situation at selected interconnection points
• Way foward / next steps

31
III. Situation at selected IPs

• Key findings for 6 selected interconnection
  points
• Taisnières (F B)
• Obergailbach (F D)
• Oude Statenzijl (NL D)
• Eynatten (B D)
• Bacton (UK UK)
• (Zevenaar) (NL D)
• Selection criteria
• Trying to represent the whole region (as many
  different TSOs as possible)
• Importance / dimension regarding technical
  capacity
• Avoid IPs with missing data / answers from
  adjacents TSOs (e.g. Gassco, Eni, Dangas)
• ? Importance in the shippers view?

32
1. Obergailbach / Medelsheim
Map GTE
33
1. Obergailbach / Medelsheim

• What does not match / problems
• Allocation of new capacities not coordinated
• in 2005, investments in new cross-border
  capacities on both sides were not coordinated
• Data on monthly capacities
• provided by GRTgaz EGT, provided for only Q4
  2005 by GDFDT
• only GRTgaz GDFDT publish historical capacities
  on their website
• Data on rates of subscription
• GRTgaz publishes (monthly) booked capacities
  (2007) on its website
• EGT and GDFDT publish nothing on their website
• Utilization rates
• EGT provided monthly data on utilization rates
  (2005). GRTgaz and GDFDT have provided it for
  only Q4 2005.
• In 2006, GRTgaz published daily flows, but EGT
  and GDFDT published only monthly maximum/minimum
  utilization rates

34
1. Obergailbach / Medelsheim

• Main issues to be solved
• Harmonization of published data on capacities and
  flows
• What information on capacities and gas flow are
  needed? / What information should be published by
  TSOs on their website?
• Are maximum/minimum flows sufficient and useful
  signals for shippers? / Should daily flows be
  published instead of maximum and utilization
  rates?
• Inter-TSO coordination
• How can CAM for new capacities be coordinated?
• Possible solutions / Priority goals / Way
  forward?

35
2. Taisnières/Blaregnies/Quévy
Map GTE
36
2. Taisnières/Blaregnies/Quévy

• What does not match
• The levels of booked capacities do not match
• for 2007

In 2005 the level of booked capacity was higher
than that of firm capacity at Quévy (exit from
Finpipe)
However, the utilization rate was lower than the
level of firm capacity
37
2. Taisnières/Blaregnies/Quévy

• Main issues to be solved
• Inter-TSO coordination
• How can CMP and CAM be coordinated?
• Harmonization of published data on capacities and
  flows
• What information on capacities and gas flow are
  needed? / What information should be published by
  TSOs on their website?
• Are maximum/minimum flows sufficient and useful
  signals for shippers? / Should daily flows be
  published instead of maximum/utilization rates?
• Possible solution
• / Priority goals
• / Way forward?

38
3. Oude Statenzijl (13E)
Map GTE
39
3. Oude Statenzijl (13E)

• What does not match
• Data on capacity, rates of subscription and
  utilization rates provided and published by BEB
• GTS data confidential  
• CAM for new capacities are different OSWPR for
  GTS vs OSWR for BEB
• CAM for existing capacities
• FCFS applied but not coordinated
• ST and LT UIOLI for existing/new
• capacities not coordinated

At the German border side 4 lt utiliz. rate
(Oct.-Dec. 2005) 67 rates of subscription for
2007 100
40
3. Oude Statenzijl (13E)

• Main issues to be solved
• Harmonization of published data on capacities and
  flows
• What information on capacities and gas flow are
  needed? / What information should be published by
  TSOs on their website?
• Are maximum/minimum flows sufficient and useful
  signals for shippers? / Should daily flows be
  published instead of maximum and utilization
  rates?
• Inter-TSO coordination
• How can CMP and CAM for existing/new capacities
  be coordinated?
• Day-ahead capacity auctions
• Should a market day-ahead capacity auction
  mechanism be implemented?
• Possible solutions / Priority goals / Way
  forward?

41
4. Eynatten
Map GTE
42
4. Eynatten
Fluxys (B) ?? RWE (D) / E.ON Gastransport (D)
Fluxys (B) ?? Wingas
43
4. Eynatten

• Key findings Fluxys ?? EGT/RWE
• Mismatches
• EGT fully booked out 2005 exit, 2007 both
  directions
• Fluxys entry and exit available 2005 and 2007
• Confidentiality RWE
• Fluxys does not offer interruptible products,
  except domestic entry
• Fluxys does not offer online booking for
  non-domestic transports
• Fluxys does not apply UIOLI for non-domestic
  transports (although legally required?)
• Only EGT seized capacities by application of
  UIOLI and offered it on interruptible basis
• RWE does not apply Easee-gas CBP

44
4. Eynatten

• Further Problems
• No auctions (in Belgium forbidden by law?)
• No Coordination booking procedure, (short-term)
  CAM, UIOLI
• Key findings Fluxys (B) ?? Wingas
• Rate of subscription 2007 exit Wingas 99-100
• No data on utilisation of Wingas exit and Fluxys
  entry
• Basically same problems as for Fluxys / RWE and
  EGT
• Priority issues to be solved
• ? non-combined capacity products?
• ? UIOLI?

45
5. Bacton
Map GTE
46
5. Bacton

• Key findings Bacton (H-Gas)
• National Grid (UK) ?? Interconnector (UK)
• Problems Mismatches
• Firm Interconnector capacity sold out until 2018
  long term contracts
• ? only interruptible cap. available on an
  hourly basis, but NG (entry) offers daily
  capacity
• No data on contracted Interconnector capacity
• Interconnector seized no capacity by application
  of UIOLI, although there was no full utilisation
• No coordination of CAM, booking, UIOLI, auctions

47
5. Bacton
48
5. Bacton

• Further problems
• National Grid does not apply Easee-gas CBP
• UIOLI products not fully compatible (regarding
  timing)
• NG raised a modification proposal to reform exit
  capacity regime
• Now situation has changed (new import routes
  (BBL), LNG)?
• Priority issues to be solved
• ? non-combined capacity products?
• ? Improve coordination
• ? Offer firm long term UIOLI products?
• ? Interconnector auctions?

49
6. Zevenaar
Map GTE
50
6. Zevenaar

• Key findings Zevenaar (L-Gas)
• Gas Transport Services (NL) ? RWE (D) / E.ON
  Gastransport (D)
• Matches
• All TSOs offer all capacity products
• All TSOs apply all listed CMPs
• Mismatches
• RWE does not apply Easee-gas CBP
• UIOLI procedure not harmonised
• Zero-nomination on day before delivery leads to
  lose it only EGT and GTS
• Booking periods of daily firm capacityGTS 3
  months, EGT 20 working days in advance
  (acceptable?)

51
6. Zevenaar

• Further mismatches problems
• GTS delivered no data on exit quantities,
  utilization subscription rates, amount monthly
  seized by UIOLI
• RWE delivered confidential data
• No auctions implemented (day ahead auctioning
  would require considerable IT adjustments (GTS))
• No Coordination of (short-term) CAM, booking
  procedure (separate), UIOLI
• General comments by TSOs
• GTS Primary market needs capacity (not
  more/different CAMs)
• ? efforts needed to stimulate investment
• EGT Reliable and secure services should be kept
  in mind when discussing methods for firm capacity
  on the primary market

52
Discussion
Important IPs to be dealt with primarily?
53
Content

• Introduction general (organizational) matters
• Preliminary general findings on main issues
• Situation at selected interconnection points
• Way foward / next steps

54
IV. Way forward / next steps
Comments to olivier.choffrut_at_cre.fr thomas.hoelze
r_at_bnetza.de
55
General remarks

• Prepare a common slide revealing the outcome of
  this workshop! (15min)

56
Conclusions

• Way forward should focus on the details at
  specific interconnection points
• Assessment of the situation at specific IP
  requires an improved data basis (Solution
  publishing of (aggregated) data, provide data to
  NRAs)
• Investment important issue where contractual (?)
  and physical congestions occur efficient CMP for
  contractually congested IP.
• Better coordination of capacity products and
  booking procedures
• Inter-TSO and inter-NRA coordination
• Interconnection points all the IP proposed in
  the slides plus Ellund, Zelzate shippers are
  encouraged to give their priorities
• No objections on the time schedule proposed

57
Way forward / actions

58
(No Transcript)