FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.50

There is a type of transaction that occurs in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere) referred to Gas-Retro-Deals. These are physical trades executed after the gas day at beach terminals. Shippers are incentivised to enter into such deals on occasion to reduce transportation costs or imbalances. These are done after delivery but before settlement. Therefore, they would have a timestamp after the delivery start date.

We do not believe an example is required here but if it necessary, please let me know.

We believe that Gas-Retro-Deals fall within the scope of ‘…day after markets.’ We believe this is a common understanding amongst industry participants who trade such contracts. We would appreciate confirmation from ACER on this interpretation. In addition, any other guidance ACER would like to provide at the same time on the reporting of such contracts would also be helpful.


Answer:

[UPDATED] based on additional input provided by the Agency’s stakeholders

In the Agency’s view, a balancing trade is a contract between a party and a System Operator (SO), in most cases TSO, who is in charge of keeping the energy in the network/system (either gas or electricity) in balance.

It is our understanding that in “…day after markets”, and any other retro-deal market, [added] where an SO or TSO is not involved, market participants balance/adjust their positions with other market participants. If this is the case, these contracts should be reported by both parties as wholesale energy products.

In the Agency’s view, balancing trades are well defined in Articles (2)9 to (2)11 of COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1348/2014, in the sense that they are related to balancing energy and services:

(9) ‘balancing energy’ means energy used by TSOs to perform balancing;

(10) ‘balancing capacity (reserves)’ means the contracted reserve capacity;

(11) ‘balancing services’ means

  • for electricity: either or both balancing capacity and balancing energy;
  • for natural gas: a service provided to a TSO via a contract for gas required to meet short term fluctuations in gas demand or supply.

In addition, whenever market participants (MP) may have any doubts about the delivery point, we would recommend (MP A) to report the transaction in any case, even if the other counterparty (MP B) would not agree with (MP A). In this case (MP A) would not take the risk of not reporting a reportable contract according to REMIT. The EIC for the destination delivery point can be reported in this case.

We also recommend market participants to read Questions 3.1.21, 3.1.22, 3.1.23 and 3.1.24 of the FAQs on transaction reporting document which, in the Agency’s view, would help to understand the scope of LNG contracts under REMIT.

RSS_Icon Last update: 20/07/2018  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.51

Does technical delivery of natural gas for gasification purposes or emergency delivery has to be reported under REMIT?

A “service company” has been asked by TSO or DSO to provide natural gas in case of network failure/damage. This action can take up to 2-3 days of delivery realized for a relatively small group of final consumers within specific area of the network, where regular delivery is not possible due to supply failure. Sometimes such delivery is not direct, but one service company sells natural gas to another service company. Does such contract have to be reported under REMIT?

As volumes are very small, transaction has no influence on the market and this delivery has semi-balancing purpose, it does not have to be reported.

A “service company” is a firm which repairs a transmission or distribution network in case of its damage. Let’s say that there is a small village supplied with gas by a single pipe. This pipe has been damaged due to some construction works. A service company has been called to repair the pipe. The repair work has been scheduled for two business days. During this time the village is without gas supply. To avoid such gas supply interruption (especially during the winter), the service company provides gas to the village, usually using LNG cistern and small regasification station (short time emergency delivery).

In such situation a service company does not sell gas to the final customers, it just provides gas to the network and sells it to the operator (in our understanding this is for balancing purposes). Sometimes there are two service companies due to technical specifics of repair works and it happens that one service company (main contractor of repair works) sells gas to another service company (subcontractor of repair works).

Our question is whether such contracts should be subject to REMIT reporting. In our view this is balancing (or filling the network) so it is not subject to REMIT reporting.


Answer:

In the Agency’s view, based on the information provided above, this contract seems to be a contract for the supply of gas for a period of maintenance, and not for a balancing service.

In the Agency’s view, balancing trades are well defined in Articles (2)9 to (2)11 of COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1348/2014, in the sense that they are related to balancing energy and services:

(9) ‘balancing energy’ means energy used by TSOs to perform balancing;

(10) ‘balancing capacity (reserves)’ means the contracted reserve capacity;

(11) ‘balancing services’ means,

  • for electricity: either or both balancing capacity and balancing energy;
  • for natural gas: a service provided to a TSO via a contract for gas required to meet short term fluctuations in gas demand or supply.

RSS_Icon Last update: 20/07/2018  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.52

There are different views within the industry about the reporting of purchase seller agreement when transactions consist of different parts. For example:

  • Company A can sell electricity to Company B in accordance with the terms and conditions of their purchase seller agreement; but also
  • Company B can sell electricity to Company A in accordance with the terms and conditions of their purchase seller agreement

How should such a contract be reported?

  1. Some market participants believe that the contract should be split in two different reporting streams: one contract for the sold quantity and one contract for the bought quantity
  2. Other market participants suggested to report one contact using C as buy/sell indicator

This different views may result in the reporting of the same contract with different formats:

  1. Company A reports a Table 2 with a “C” as buy/sell indicator;
  2. Company B report two separate Table 2, one for the sold quantity and one contract for the bought quantity
    What is the right way to report such purchase seller agreement transaction?

Answer:

In the Agency’s view, purchase-seller agreements should be reported with Table 2, as per the examples available in Annex II to the TRUM provided by the Agency’s stakeholders.

With regard to the reporting of a transaction under a purchase-seller agreement with Table 2, if market participants have different views on the reporting of such contracts, they can report their purchase-seller agreement with Table 2 either as one contract with a “C” as buy/sell indicator, or two separate contracts, one as “B” for Buy and one as “S” for Sell, provided that the meaning of the reports is the same.

As a result, any EXECUTION under that framework agreement should be reported with Table 1. Please see examples in Annex II to the TRUM.

RSS_Icon Last update: 20/07/2018  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.48

XXX is considering to supply (i.e. sell) liquefied natural gas (LNG) to wholesale customers by means of LNG trucks. For this purpose, XXX will enter into one or more LNG sales agreements with one or more wholesale customers.

Do the above-mentioned LNG sales agreements between XXX and its wholesale customers qualify as transactions which are required to be reported to ACER in accordance with Article 8(1) of REMIT in conjunction with Article 3 of REMIT Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014?

Example: XXX will transport and deliver the LNG sold under such agreements to these wholesale customers by means of LNG trucks (i.e. in trucks that are suitable for the transportation of certain volumes of LNG).

Please note that the delivery point is neither the truck loading facility nor the fuelling station but it is potentially any physical point between the truck loading facility and the flange of the unloading facility where the LNG has to be delivered (and possibly re-gasified) on behalf of the wholesale customer.

As already expressed by ACER in the FAQs on fundamental data and inside information document (Q. 3.2.2) “LNG truck loading is out of scope for reporting fundamental data reporting. For the same reason, the Agency believes that transaction for the supply to LNG trucks are non-reportable.”

Given that, in our opinion it is not entirely clear, reason for which we are asking a further clarification, what “supply to LNG trucks” means exactly in this context (supply to trucks might mean from storage to truck or from a fuelling station to an LNG powered truck).

In our opinion any transaction where LNG is delivered either “to truck” or “by truck” or “in truck” has not to be reported.


Answer:

In the FAQs on transaction reporting document (Question II.3.1.26) it is written:

“The Agency has already clarified in the FAQs on fundamental data and inside information document (Q. 3.2.2) that LNG truck loading is out of scope for reporting fundamental data reporting.

For the same reason, the Agency believes that transaction for the supply to LNG trucks are non-reportable.” 

Please note that this answer only addresses the “loading” of LNG trucks issue raised in Question 3.1.26:

“Downstream LNG transactions, for example LNG truck loading and LNG marine fuel deliveries. These transactions are in scope as they are understood to take place at or after the entry flange of an EU LNG regasification terminal. Similar guidance to pipeline gas applies for reporting.”

However, the case described in Question II.3.1.26 is different than the one described in the above question.

In general, if the LNG is sold to a truck, it may not be reportable – see Question II.3.1.26. However, if the LNG is sold from the truck to any system connected to the network (e.g. National Transmission System, Distribution Network, LNG facility, storage etc.), then the contract would be reportable.

In any case when the contract counterparties are already REMIT market participants and if there are any doubts regarding the reporting, we would recommend to report the transaction, even if the other counterparty would not do so.

In this case the reporting market participant(s) would not take the risk of not reporting a reportable contract according to REMIT. The EIC for the destination delivery point (or the National Transmission System, Distribution Network, LNG facility, storage etc. connected to) can be reported in this case.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.49

What constitutes “delivery” for the purposes of REMIT? We are particularly interested in what constitutes the delivery in the context of LNG supplies.

According to ACER’s Q&A (III.3.36), “ACER considers any importation or offloading of LNG in any LNG facility (including flanges that connect the LNG vessel to the LNG terminal) in the EU as delivery in the Union as far as the delivery of the product takes place in the European Union“. This suggests that “delivery” means the physical delivery of the product.

However, in FAQ #3.1.21, ACER states that “in the Agency’s view contracts for the supply of LNG before the entry flange of an EU LNG regasification terminal, for example an exchange of title on the high seas outside the EU, are not subject to transaction reporting“. This suggests that title transfer constitutes delivery of the product.

We note that Incoterms definitions, which are commonly used in the LNG sector, of delivery relate to the physical delivery / transfer of risk and are silent on transfer of title, separating the concept of delivery into two. For example,

In a DES transaction “delivery” occurs at the time when the goods are placed at the disposal of the buyer on board the vessel at the named port of destination in such a way as to enable them to be removed from the vessel by the buyer. At the point of delivery, the risks transfer from the seller to the buyer. In a DES scenario, delivery is tied to the physical delivery / transfer of risk, and not to the transfer of title; and

In an FOB transaction, “delivery” occurs at the time when the goods are on board the vessel at the named port of shipment (i.e. the location where the LNG is passed over the ship’s rail). At the point of delivery, the risks transfer from the seller to the buyer. Again, in an FOB scenario, delivery is tied to the physical delivery / transfer of risk, and not to the transfer of title.

Does REMIT distinguish between the physical delivery of LNG into the EU and the transfer of title to the LNG?

Example 1:

A contract for the supply of LNG has the following characteristics:

transfer of title between the buyer and the seller happens in international waters; and after the title is transferred to the buyer, the seller delivers on a DES basis to the flange of an EU regasification terminal.

Is this contract subject to REMIT? Does the seller have to register as a market participant / report this transaction?

Example 2:

A contract for the supply of LNG has the following characteristics:

the seller delivers the goods on an FOB basis; the named port of shipment is outside of the EU; and transfer of title to the goods happens in the EU.

Is this contract subject to REMIT? Does the seller have to register as a market participant / report this transaction?


Answer:

In the Agency’s view, REMIT does not distinguish between the physical delivery of LNG into the EU and the transfer of title to the LNG. We believe that market participants know where the delivery takes place and they should be able to derive their own conclusions.

In addition, whenever market participants (MP) may have any doubts about the delivery point, we would recommend (MP A) to report the transaction in any case, even if the other counterparty (MP B) would not agree with (MP A). In this case (MP A) would not take the risk of not reporting a reportable contract according to REMIT. The EIC for the destination delivery point can be reported in this case.

We also recommend market participants to read Questions 3.1.21, 3.1.22, 3.1.23 and 3.1.24 of the FAQs on transaction reporting document which, in the Agency’s view, would help to understand the scope of LNG contracts under REMIT.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.8

How to report a bilateral contract (initially classified as a non-standard contract and also reported in a non-standard format) in cases of any price fixing events (e.g. the client exercises an option)? This especially concerns such events which could be interpreted as a standard contract in a stand-alone perspective. (Vanilla) options are considered as being standard contracts (Table 1) and reportable in Phase 1 if executed over an OMP or identical to a product admitted to trading over an OMP (although the REMIT reporting requirement would be met if the trade falls within the scope of EMIR and has been reported as such).


Answer:

[UPDATED] based on additional input provided by the Agency’s stakeholders

Please see the example in Annex II to the TRUM. In Section 2 of the annex there are several examples on how to report bilaterally traded contracts and executions under those non-standard contracts.

If the price fixing event (e.g. the client exercises an option) is related to a non-standard contract reported with Table 2, then the event should be reported as execution with (Table 1) under the framework of a non-standard contact and not be interpreted as a standard contract. Please see Q. 3.1.28 whether the execution should be reported as EXECUTION or BILCONTRACT contract, also considering that examples reported in Annex II to the TRUM are non-exhaustive.

On the contrary, vanilla options that are considered as standard contracts should be reported with Table 1 and reportable in Phase 1 if traded over an organised market place and do not have reportable executions associated to them.

RSS_Icon Last update: 10/07/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.15

Reference to documents: TRUM V2.0 , 3.2.6, page 20

TRUM V 2.0 3.2.10, pages 26-26; TRUM Annex II v 2.0* (2015-11-16) pages  6-9; TRUM Annex II v 2.0*, example 3.09

Reporting of Executions in case of a standard/non – standard Option contract (volume optionality)

As understood, EXECUTIONS need to be reported in case volume is not defined when concluding the contracts.

However, it is not clear if the same logic applies with Option contract with a definite strike prices and delivery period. As described in TRUM, an option exercise is not considered a lifecycle event. In the example 3.09 (option via a broker platform), it is not clear whether any subsequent event (“execution”) needs to be reported in order to specify the final volume.

A swing option, traded outside OMP

-fixed premium

-fixed strike price

-fixed delivery period

-maximum daily volume

-minimum total volume (for the entire delivery period)


Answer:

[UPDATED] based on additional input provided by the Agency’s stakeholders

The reporting of these type of flexible contracts is based on the reporting of non-standard contracts with Table 2 followed by EXECUTION or BILCONTRACT contract EXECUTION (s) no later than 1 month after the price and the volume are known. Please see Q. 3.1.28 whether the execution should be reported as EXECUTION or BILCONTRACT contract, also considering that examples reported in Annex II to the TRUM are non-exhaustive.

RSS_Icon Last update: 10/07/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.34

For transactions with a load profile is there the whole profile to be reported? 365 * 24 * 4 = 35040 quarterly hour values for a year profile?

Example: Shaped transaction (load profile) for 2017.

I don’t need to provide the whole load profile but just the information “shaped”.


Answer:

If transactions with a load profile have different quantity and price for each time interval, each time interval should be reported within the report. If a shaped transaction has 365 * 24 * 4 = 35040 quarterly hour values, all of them should be reported.

RSS_Icon Last update: 26/04/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.35

Reference to documents: Implementing regulation No. 1348/2014, Annex (Details of reportable contracts), Table 1, data field 32 Linked Transaction ID

Reporting geographical swaps across EU borders (e.g. one leg with delivery in EU, other leg with delivery out of EU).

Example:

  1. EU market participant performing geographical swap – selling in Germany, Buying in Switzerland
  2. EU market participant performing geographical swap – selling in Hungary, buying in Serbia

Possible interpretations:

  1. Only transaction with delivery in EU is reportable. Linked transaction outside EU is out of scope of REMIT. The respective EU leg is reported as a single transaction

Or

Both legs of geographical swap is reportable as linked transactions as long as one side of trade is in EU.


Answer:

In case of a geographical swap where one leg has delivery in the Union and the other leg has delivery outside the Union, only the leg with the delivery in the Union shall be reported according to Article 3(1)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014.

RSS_Icon Last update: 26/04/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.36

We are a service providers for public utilities. We will conduct REMIT messages for our customers. Regarding the reports we have a question.

Please tell us, if also load profile data, in an hourly (gas) or quarter-hourly granularity (power), must in addition be reported with the messages for shaped gas products (with fixed price)? Or must the shaped-products be reported as standard products (without additional load data)?

Profiled gas contracts with a defined price and quantity should be reported with Table 1.

Must load profile data, in an hourly (gas) or quarter-hourly granularity (power), in addition be reported with the table1-messages?

Example for shaped product:

Company A sells 6000 MWh @ €21 to Company B. The profile of the delivery is:

Jan16: 1,0 MW

Feb16: 2,0 MW

Mrz16: 1,5 MW

Apr16: 0,8 MW

May16: 0 MW

Jun16: 0,2 MW

… etc.

we believe that no load profiles must be reported additionally to the table1-Data.


Answer:

If transactions with a load profile have different quantity and price for each time interval, each time interval should be reported within the report. If a shaped transaction has 365 * 24 * 4 = 35040 quarterly hour values, all of them should be reported.

RSS_Icon Last update: 26/04/2017  

RSS_Icon Subscribe to this Category’s RSS