Transcript www.gie.eu

ERGEG MONITORING GGPLNG
GLE Workshop on LNG
Rocío Prieto
13th March 2009, Bilbao
GGPLNG – Monitoring
INDEX
1. GGPLNG main provisions
2. GGPLNG monitoring design
3. GGPLNG preliminary results
4. Conclusions and next steps
2
GGPLNG – Main provisions
 Objective: establish common rules to guarantee transparent, nondiscriminatory and appropriately homogeneous TPA
 Scope: rTPA LNG facilities on a voluntary basis
 Tariffs: general principles on methodology and structure, to assure costreflectivity, non-discrimination and transparent principles
 TPA services: common rules regarding agents’ roles and responsibilities,
services definition and cooperation with adjacent TSOs
 Capacity allocation and congestion management: main principles on
capacity calculation, CAM and CMP to increase efficient capacity use,
market competition and liquidity. Rules for offering unused capacity to
market, defining a mechanism to deal with systematically underutilised
capacity
 Transparency requirements: LSOs’ required to publish both operational
(responsibilities, capacities,…) and commercial (services, tariffs, …)
information in a user-friendly manner, updated and in English.
 Trading of capacity rights: general provisions promoting secondary markets
3
GGPLNG – Monitoring
INDEX
1. GGPLNG main provisions
2. GGPLNG monitoring design
3. GGPLNG Preliminary results
4. Conclusions and next steps
4
GGPLNG – Monitoring design
 First ERGEG online survey, with external participation
 Agents invited to answer:
 LSOs operating regulated terminals
 LSOs operating exempted terminals (main characteristics,
cooperation with TSOs, scheduling procedures, CAM,
14 LSOs
CMP and trading of capacity rights)
 Future LSOs terminals (under construction or projects)
 Current and potential LNG terminals users – approx. 38 Users
 NRAs – 7 Regulators
 Countries participating:
 Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Greece, France, UK and Spain
5
GGPLNG – Monitoring design
LSOs’ questionnaires:
1.

LSOs responsibilities in defining tariffs, terminal code and CAM and
CMP

Services offered

CAMs and CMPs in force

Cooperation with interconnected TSOs

Secondary capacity market
Users’ questionnaires:
2.

Business relationship with the terminal/s

Service needs and their role in defining them

Preferences regarding CAMs, CMPs, and cargoes unloading notice
period

Transparency needs

Services to facilitate secondary capacity market
6
GGPLNG – Monitoring desing
 Main points to monitor (cont.):
3. NRAs’ questionnaires:
National regulation regarding TPA for LNG terminals, exclusion
from TPA and transparency
National regulation affecting vertically integrated companies to
avoid anticompetitive behaviour
NRAs’ role in defining tariffs, services offered, CAM, CMP,
Rules for excluding TPA, penalties for non compliance with
contractual obligations and underused or underutilized
capacity
7
GGPLNG – Monitoring
INDEX
1. GGPLNG main provisions
2. GGPLNG monitoring design
3. GGPLNG Preliminary results
4. Conclusions and next steps
8
GGPLNG – Results
 Level of response up to present day
 NRAs: 100% (7 responses)
 LSO:
Number of
LSOs
(terminals)
Responses
received
Level of
response
4(6)
4(6)
100%
3
0
0%
2(3)
2(3)
100%
Italy
2
2
100%
Portugal
1
1
100%
Belgium
1
1
100%
Greece
1
1
100%
TOTAL
16(17)
11(14)
67% (74%)
Country
Spain
UK
France
9
GGPLNG – Results
 Level of response, up to present day (cont.)
 Users:
Country
Responses
received
Spain
5
France
2
Italy
3
UK
1
Belgium
0
Portugal
3
Greece
1
TOTAL
15
10
GGPLNG – Monitoring
INDEX
1. GGPLNG main provisions
2. GGPLNG monitoring design
3. GGPLNG Preliminary results
4. Conclusions and next steps
11
GGPLNG – Next steps
 Next steps (depending on the “quality” of answers):
 Draft report by chairs –March 2009
 General Assembly approval – May 2009
 Monitoring report to be presented at Madrid Forum meeting
in May 2009
12
Conclusions
• Transparency needs to be achieved all around
European LNG terminals, as a priority:
• Users need to be able to understand all services
provided in all terminals
•Common approach and common “language” for all
commercial services and all technical requirements.
•Effort to be made by GLE to encourage a common
market understanding as services providers.
13
Conclusions
• Congestion management procedures could also be on
the agenda for next months:
• Further analysis of anti-hoarding mechanisms and
notice period for all type of terminals
•Minimum requirements concerning the anti-hoarding
mechanisms: harmonization of the definition of capacity
hoarding and type of mechanism to be used.
14
GGPLNG – Monitoring
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected]
15