1 / 58

Agenda

Agenda. 10:00 – 10:15 Opening Address 10:15 – 10:45 Presentation of preliminary general findings 10:45 – 11:15 Comments from network operators and stakeholders 11:15 – 11:45 Coffee Break 11:45 – 12:15 Presentation of the situation at selected interconnection points

amethyst-reid
Download Presentation

Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agenda • 10:00 – 10:15 Opening Address • 10:15 – 10:45 Presentation of preliminary general findings • 10:45 – 11:15 Comments from network operators and stakeholders • 11:15 – 11:45 Coffee Break • 11:45 – 12:15 Presentation of the situation at selected interconnection points • 12:15 – 13:00 Comments from network operators and stakeholders, proposal & discussion on the way forward and workshop results for closing session • 13:00 Lunch

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

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

  4. 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

  5. I. Introduction Specific difficulties • Very large number of confidential data  Reason: 3-minus-rule? • Partially imprecise / unclear / missing answers & data

  6. 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

  7. 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

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

  9. 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

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

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

  12. 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 datarequested have been • provided

  13. 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 datarequested have been provided

  14. 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 confidentialdata • 6 IPs (26% of all IPs): all datarequested have been provided

  15. 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?

  16. 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

  17. 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 alwaysseparately andnotcoordinated  Importance of matching of booking procedures?

  18. 4. Physical congestion & CAM • 4.1 Maximum Utilisation Rates 2005  Missing data needs to be delivered to CRE / BNetzA

  19. 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 – TSO’s 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 (TSO’s answer) • At all IPsno coordination of CAM between adjacent TSOs

  20. 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 (TSO’s answer) • Auctions are not coordinated between adjacent TSOs

  21. 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?

  22. 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

  23. 6. Contractual congestion & CMP Availability of firm capacity in 2005: Directionof flow Availability 0% <10% Overall Indication for the IPs considered

  24. 6. Contractual congestion & CMP Rates of subscription in 2007: Directionof flow Availability 0% <10% Overall Indication for the IPs considered  insufficient firm capacity available

  25. 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?

  26. 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?

  27. 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

  28. 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?

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

  30. 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?

  31. 1. Obergailbach / Medelsheim Map: GTE

  32. 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

  33. 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?

  34. 2. Taisnières/Blaregnies/Quévy Map: GTE

  35. 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

  36. 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?

  37. 3. Oude Statenzijl (13E) Map: GTE

  38. 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% < utiliz. rate (Oct.-Dec. 2005) = 67% • rates of subscription for 2007 = 100%

  39. 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?

  40. 4. Eynatten Map: GTE

  41. 4. Eynatten Fluxys (B)  RWE (D) / E.ON Gastransport (D) Fluxys (B)  Wingas

  42. 4. Eynatten Key findings Fluxys  EGT/RWE Mismatches: • EGT fully booked out: 2005exit, 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 EGTseized capacities by application of UIOLI and offered it on interruptible basis • RWE does not apply Easee-gas CBP

  43. 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?

  44. 5. Bacton Map: GTE

  45. 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

  46. 5. Bacton

  47. 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?

  48. 6. Zevenaar Map: GTE

  49. 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 capacity:GTS 3 months, EGT 20 working days in advance (acceptable?)

More Related