FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.21

Contracts for the supply of LNG before the entry flange (FAQs on REMIT transaction reporting, Answer to Question 1.1.9) of an EU LNG regasification terminal  include, for example an exchange of title on the high seas with a free delivery clause/full diversion rights or at a non- EU liquefaction terminal. Based on the principle that the above delivery points are not at an EU LNG regasification terminal, then these contracts should not be reported.

However, if the buyer subsequently decides to send a cargo bought under this type of contract to an EU LNG regasification terminal, the cargo unloading will be subject to fundamental data reporting by the buyer. If the cargo — once bought under this type of contract — is “re-traded” by the buyer at or after the entry flange of an EU LNG regasification terminal then the contract relevant to this new transaction will be subject to reporting.


Answer:

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 E.U., are not subject to transaction reporting.

Cargos traded under such contracts are subject to the reporting of fundamental data provided once the cargo is unloaded at an EU LNG regasification terminal.

If the cargo – once bought on the high seas outside the E.U. under this type of contract is re-traded by the buyer at or after the entry flange of an EU LNG regasification terminal then the transaction related to the new contract will be subject to reporting.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.22

Contracts for the supply of LNG at the flange of an LNG regasification terminal should not be reported unless there is an obligation to deliver to at least one EU LNG regasification terminal.  In case of contracts with flexible delivery location including non EU destinations, this obligation arises only when a commitment is made to deliver a cargo at an EU LNG regasification terminal.

Once a cargo is confirmed to be delivered at an EU LNG regasification terminal, the transaction and commercial details relating to the cargo delivery can be reported using table 2 and after delivery, an “execution” via table 1 will be reported.  Such reporting would apply to each cargo under “multi cargo or single cargo deliveries” contracts.

For multi cargo deliveries where all terms are similar for every cargo (e.g. price, delivery location, etc), the Market Participant could take a more efficient approach and ignore the “per cargo” approach. It could report the transaction and commercial details via a single table 2 and the aggregated volume and price of executions once known via table 1.

Please see examples in Annex I.


Answer:

The Agency has discussed the following scenarios with its stakeholders. In the Agency’s view the following scenarios may occur:

Scenario 1: Single cargo supply contract agreement is made on the day the contract is signed (10th April 2016) that delivery will be at an EU LNG terminal. Delivery is due on 1st June. Cargo is made on 1st June and volume is 99% of estimated total.

This should be reported with: Table 2 for Non-standard contracts within 1 month from the day the delivery into the EU was agreed + Table 1 for the EXECUTION (delivery) within 1 month from the when price and volume are known.

Scenario 2: Single cargo supply contract, originally agreed to deliver to a Non-EU LNG terminal on the day the contract is signed, (April 10th 2016) but at a later date (May 12th 2016) the delivery optionality is exercised and parties agree  to deliver to an EU LNG terminal . Delivery is due on 1st August. Delivery is made on 1st August and is 98% of estimated total.

This should be reported with: Table 2 for Non-standard contracts, within 1 month from the day the delivery into the EU was agreed + Table 1 for the EXECUTION (delivery) within 1 month from the when price and volume are known.

Scenario 3: Multi cargo supply contract and buyer has the option to choose where delivery is made globally depending on commercial preference at the time. Signed on 10th April 2016- agreed to deliver 10 cargos (each cargo 3million mmbtu) over 3 years to any LNG terminals in the world. On 7th September 2016, the parties agree to deliver one of the cargos to an EU LNG terminal. Delivery is due 1st December 2016. Delivery is made on 1st and 2nd December and is 102% of the estimated total.

This should be reported with: Table 2 for Non-standard contracts for the cargo, within 1 month from the day the delivery into the EU was agreed + Table 1 for the EXECUTION (delivery) within 1 month from the when price and volume are known. Any subsequent delivery / cargo delivered into the EU will be reported similarly.

Scenario 4. Single cargo supply contract, originally agreed to deliver to an EU LNG terminal on the day the contract is signed, (April 10th 2016) but at a later date (May 12th 2016) the delivery optionality is exercised and parties agree to deliver to a non-EU LNG terminal  instead.

This should be reported with: Table 2 for Non-standard contracts within 1 month from the day the delivery into the EU was agreed + Lifecycle event (Cancel) once the commercial agreement has been made to deliver to a non-EU location within 1 month from the day it was agreed to deliver the cargo to a non-EU LNG terminal.

Scenario 5: Multi cargo supply contract signed on 10th April 2016- agreed to deliver 10 cargos (each cargo 3million mmbtu) over 3 years, all with the same volume, price and delivery location which is an EU LNG terminal. First delivery is due 1st May. Delivery is made on 1st May and volume is 101% of estimated total.

This should be reported with: Table 2 for Non-standard contracts within 1 month from the day the delivery into the EU was agreed + Table 1 for the EXECUTION (delivery) per cargo, within 1 month from when price and volume are known.

Scenario 6: Spot in tank transfer Agreed to deliver gas in tank at an EU LNG terminal – fixed quantity of gas with spot delivery, at a fixed price. Contract is signed on 1st October for delivery on 2nd October.

This should be reported with: Table 1 for Non-Standard BILCONTRACT contracts with outright price and volume for the contract (as per normal pipeline gas supply contracts with outright price and volume) within 1 month from the when price and volume are known.

Scenario 7: Term in tank transfer. Agreed to deliver gas in tank at an EU LNG terminal – variable quantity over a 3 month delivery, with a formula based price. Contract signed 1st May and first months deliveries occur daily over May, June, July.

This should be reported with: Table 2 for Non-standard contracts within 1 month from the day the delivery at EU LNG terminal was agreed + Table 1 for the EXECUTION (delivery) per invoicing cycle period (i.e.  monthly as per normal non-standard pipeline gas supply contracts) within 1 month from the when price and volume are known

Any contracts that were outstanding on 7 April 2016 should be reported as back loading, same as for any other contract for the supply of gas or electricity.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.23

Contracts for the supply of LNG after the entry flange of an EU LNG regasification terminal should be reported by both parties and the EIC W code for the facility should be used. Depending on the characteristics of the contract, table 1 or Table 2 formats may be used, according to TRUM guidance article 3.2.5.


Answer:

In the Agency’s view the EIC W code is the correct EIC code to be reported. Please see FAQ 1.1.16: “Where contract for the supply of gas may be delivered at an LNG or a gas storage facility, then the EIC W code for that facility should be reported.”

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.24

LNG commercial transactions, associated with reloads at an EU LNG regasification terminal, (which are physical operations), are only  reportable when the contract explicitly specifies a delivery point to be at or after the entry flange of an EU regasification terminal.  For example, a reload can be associated with the following commercial transactions:

1. At the origin EU regasification terminal:

  • No title transfer happens, so there is no transaction reporting required (eg counterparty A reload gas from its in-tank inventory).
  • A title transfer happens in tank or at or after the entry flange, then this transaction is reportable (counterparty A transfers title to counterparty B at the flange which loads a cargo).

2. At the destination regasification terminal:

  • In case of a title transfer happens, paragraph A1-3 applies.
  • If there is no title transfer or commercial transaction, there is no transaction reporting.

NB: The physical operation of reloading is covered by fundamental data reporting.


Answer:

One terminal

In the Agency’s view it is reasonable to say that, if the reload occurs at the origin EU regasification terminal and no-title transfer happens there is no transaction reporting required. Market participant A reload gas from its in-tank inventory.

However, if a title transfer happens in tank or at after the entry flange, then this transaction is reportable if counterparty A transfers title to counterparty B at the flange which loads a cargo.

Two terminals

Whereas a title transfer happens at an EU destination (Market participant A reload its own cargo from any (EU or non-EU) LGN facility and sell it to Market participant B at another EU LNG facility, destination) this transaction is reportable.

If there is no title transfer or commercial transaction, there is no transaction reporting.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.25

In the event that a decision is taken to divert a cargo from the EU terminal already notified to ACER then there might either be an amendment to the original transaction (where the new destination is within the EU) or a cancellation of the original transaction (where the new destination is outside of the EU/not known by the seller).


Answer:

In case of cargo diversion from an EU terminal for a transaction already reported to the Agency, a modification (M) to the original transaction (where the new destination is within the EU) or a termination (C) of the original transaction (where the new destination is outside of the EU/not known by the seller) should be reported.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.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.


Answer:

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 believe that transaction for the supply to LNG trucks are non-reportable.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.27

How to report index trades. We would like to request further clarification in relation to the reporting of index trades. Should index trades be reported using Table 1 only or should we report a Table 2 first, followed by a Table 1 document once the price is known?


Answer:

Some contracts (both derivatives and non-derivatives) for physical delivery of gas or electricity (and/or their transportation) are traded on the basis that the price will be fixed by an index value or reference price upon its publication. When these types of contracts are traded bilaterally, market participants should consider the following examples in order to decide to report their trades with Table 1 or Table 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014:

Trade example 1: A market participant (MP) buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract has a fixed price and quantity.  Reporting using Table 1.

Trade Example 2: A MP buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract does not have a fixed price, but uses the following index:

ELECTRICITY-DAILY INDEX BASE SPOT-EXCHANGE X: meaning that the price for a Pricing Date will be that day’s Specified Price per MWh of electric energy at constant power for delivery on the Delivery Date, stated in Euros, published on the exchange website.  Reporting using Table 1.

Trade Example 3: A MP buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract does not have a fixed price, but uses the following index:

ELECTRICITY-MONTH FUTURES BASE-EXCHANGE X: meaning that the price for a Pricing Date will be that day’s Specified Price per MWh of base electricity on the EXCHANGE X of the Futures Contract, stated in Euros, published on the exchange website. Reporting using Table 1.

Trade Example 4: A MP buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract does not have a fixed price, but uses the following formula index:

EUR2/MWh + ELECTRICITY-DAILY INDEX BASE SPOT-EXCHANGE X: this means that the price for a Pricing Date will be that day’s Specified Price per MWh of electric energy at constant power for delivery on the Delivery Date, stated in Euros, published by EXCHANGE X on the exchange website. Reporting using Table 1  with the value of EUR 2 in Field N (36) Index Value

Trade Example 5: A MP buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract does not have a fixed price, but uses the following formula/basket index:

50% ELECTRICITY-DAILY INDEX BASE SPOT-EXCHANGE X + 50% ELECTRICITY-MONTH FUTURES BASE-EXCHANGE X. Reporting using Table 2. Executions will be reported using Table 1.

Trade Example 6: A MP buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract does not have a fixed price, but uses the following index:

A bilaterally agreed unpublished price e.g. the yearly unit cost of production of a gas rig in the North Sea that they jointly own. Reporting using Table 2. Executions will be reported using Table 1.

Trade Example 7: A MP buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract does not have a fixed price, but uses the following formula/basket index:

50% ELECTRICITY-MONTH FUTURES BASE-EXCHANGE X + 50% of a bilaterally agreed unpublished price e.g. the yearly unit cost of production of a gas rig in the North Sea that they jointly own. Reporting using Table 2. Executions will be reported using Table 1.

Trade Example 8: A MP buys an electricity forward contract directly from a counterparty for delivery of 25MW in Country A for the month of August 2016. The contract has no fixed price, but uses the following index:

MONTHLY AVERAGE OF ELECTRICITY-DAILY INDEX BASE SPOT-EXCHANGE X: meaning that the price for a Pricing Date will be the average of all day’s Specified Prices in the month per MWh of electric energy at constant power for delivery on the Delivery Date, stated in Euros, published on the exchange website. Reporting using Table 2. Executions will be reported using Table 1.

When the price of an Index trade is calculated, then Table 2 should apply for the traded and Table 1 for the EXECUTION.  Any available index trade that does not have a calculation, rather than a price differential, without calculation should be reported with Table 1. The examples above apply to both gas and electricity contracts.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.28

Can the Agency provide additional guidance on the difference between bilateral contracts executed outside an organised market place and EXCUTION under the framework of non-standard contracts?


Answer:

In the Agency’s view, in order to distinguish bilateral contracts executed outside an organised market place and EXCUTION under the framework of non-standard contracts the framework under which these contract are executed may play a key role.

The Agency’s stakeholders have provided the following input:

A typical structure of the bilateral contracts for the supply for electricity and/or gas may include (EFET master agreement for electricity:

  1. General Agreement („main body“): Who can use it as a Party? : traders, generators, suppliers, grid operators, customers, having access to the grid

Products: standard physical power/gas products (base/peak, intraday, spot, gas day, forward), non-standard physical products or physical options as well

  1. Election Sheet: contains the results of the negotiation between the Parties about the processes described in the General Agreement:

Clauses marked („…unless otherwise specified in the Election Sheet…“) in the main body have to be customised. Any other clause may be customised.

  1. Annexes (part of the General Agreement by default): Definitions, Confirmation templates

Appendices (optional, selection): Credit Support Annex (bilateral Margining), Allowances Appendix (Emissions Allowances)

  1. Individual transactions defining precisely the energy related contract.

However, other master agreements may not include some of the parts indicated above but are general contracts for the supply for electricity and/or gas that have two main parts: a commercial part and an economic part.

 

Scenario (1)

If market participants have agreed commercial terms under a General Agreement, then market participants may:

  1. Negotiate the economic terms and conclude a contract (commercial + economic terms) a REMIT bilateral contract reportable with Table 1; or
  2. Negotiate the economic terms and conclude a contract (commercial + economic terms) with flexibility, a REMIT non-standard contract reportable with Table 2

 

Scenario (2)

Alternatively, depending on the agreement they may have, market participant may have already agreed commercial and economic terms in one agreement (contract) which include non-standard contract clauses such as take or pay and/or reselling of already purchased quantities and/or different pre-defined pricing formulas.

Under such a contract, a REMIT non-standard contract reportable with Table 2, quantities are not necessarily pre-defined (but they may be) and at least one of the parties is obliged to deliver/offtake agreed quantity or has the single right to request this from the other party.

Under this type of agreement there may be different nomination, pricing flexibility, option exercise and possibility to enter into forward contracts or additional volumes.

Under such a framework agreement, market participants may:

  1. Negotiate the economic terms and conclude a new contract: a REMIT bilateral contract reportable with Table 1; or
  2. Use the flexibility and fixing events which can be reported as EXECUTION with Table 1.

 

Below a few examples related to scenario (1) and (2):

 

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.29

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on REMIT transaction reporting Question 2.1.26 provides additional guidance about the difference between a bilateral contract (BILCONTRACT) executed outside an organised market place and the reporting of an EXCUTION executed under the framework of non-standard contract.

How should market participants report their BILCONTRACT executed outside an organised market under the framework of non-standard contracts? Examples 24.01 and 27.01 are about options which seem to execute BILCONTRAT but they show the reporting of EXECUTION.


Answer:

On the basis of the input provided to the Agency’s by its stakeholders, example 24.01 27.01 may (but not necessarily) be amended accordingly. As the non-standard contract reported with Table 2 is an option with monthly exercise on the 4th business day preceding the start of month and based on Question 2.1.26, the transaction as result of the option exercise should be reported as BILCONTRACT transaction linked to the non-standard contract previously reported with Table 2.

Similarly, example 27.01, if the transaction is executed ahead of the delivery with the characteristics of any other transaction of BILCONTRACT type, please see Question 3.1.28, then such a transaction should be reported as BILCONTRACT transaction linked to the non-standard contract previously reported with Table 2.

 

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.30

As OMP we are planning to expand our portfolio of services with implementation of a centralized market for bilateral contracts. Our trading activities will be based on two matching mechanisms: auctions based mechanism and continuous trading mechanism. Therefore, we will offer standardized products as base load, peak load, off peak load products with different delivery time intervals (hourly products, weekly, monthly, half-year, year, etc.) via continuous trading mechanism. Our REMIT reporting problem issue is that we cannot classify some of our products that we will offer through this auctions market mechanism according to ACER manuals criteria.

Our OMP will act as a central counter party for the products traded via the auctions based trading mechanism as the products traded on the continuous trading screen will be dealt bilaterally.

For example, we will offer a product that according to REMIT guidance could not be classified as block hour and neither as base load, so we could not decide how to classify in the list with standard contracts or more precisely, is it possible to standardize products with daily deviations of +/- 10% or 20% traded via auctions trading mechanism?

Also, how do we need to report offers and trades for products traded via auctions mechanism? May be we need to report them on T+1 with table 1, but for a one-year delivery contract, dealt on auctions mechanism we will have different quantities each hour in the coming days with possibility for different daily deviations between  +/- 20%?

We have classified and specified in ACER`s list of standard contracts product Customizable (+/20%) one-year Base Load with deviations in the load of +/- 20%. This product will be available for trading via our OMP auctions trading mechanism. Every day, MP may have different quantities with +/- 20% for each hour during one-year period.

This kind of contacts usually on XYZ market are reported via Table 2 and as execution with Table 1 after the delivery and after counterparts have received invoices clarifying the prices and the quantity. As OPM, how do we need to report this contract as the future quantities will not be clear to us at time when this contact is concluded, as the quantity deviations will be dealt between the both parties one day before the delivery day?

As the MP`s will have agreed one contract by OMP auctions mechanism with defined terms of payment, what is the right way to report this kind of trades? Do we need to report on a daily basis the different quantities under one-year Customizable (+/20%) Base Load product for this contract every day regarding the nominations schedules not clarifying that this kind of contact is one-year contract under which conditions MP could trade +/-20% deviations from the base load or do we need report this kind of contract just once on T+1 after the auction is finished?

If we have one year contract with base load 10 MW and +/-20% deviations at price of 30 Euro/MW, than the MP that won the auction session will have contract for execution and the buyer will need to send nominations schedules to the seller day before the delivery day regarding his needs, with quantities between 8 MW and 12 MW at price of 30 Euro/MW. If this contract is been concluded once on auctions mechanism at the OMP together with this contract details, what is the right way for reporting?

The auction is anonymous and XXXX is always central counterparty. For example:

  1. company A initiates an auction for sale;
  2. XXXX on behalf of company A holds an auction, as XXXX publishes the auction on the webpage and in the ETS;
  3. company B and C are the buyers;
  4. XXXX signs a contract for purchase with company A and two contracts for sale with companies B and C;
  5. company A sends nominations to the TSO for delivery and to XXXX for consumption;
  6. XXXX sends nominations for delivery to the TSO for company B and C and companies B and C also sent nominations for consumption to XXXX;
  7. companies A, B, C remain anonymous for each other, as they sign contracts only with XXXX.

Answer:

Based on the information provided above, although the exchange acts as counterparty it seems that the auction is organised on behalf of one party and there is no organised market place. Please see Question 1.1.15.

Therefore, based on the above assumptions,  the Agency would expect the following transaction reports on a T+1 month basis the following transactions:

Sell Side: One report for a contract between:

  • MP1 (the generator) and other market participant (OMP ID) of the exchange to be reported with Table 2 (including the details of the Price, quantity and any flexibility of the contracts)

When the exchange has an ACER code (e.g. is also an RRM) or an LEI (the one used for the registration to the list of OMPs) one of the two can be used. However when the OMP does not have and ACER code or an LEI but only a MIC code, then a fictitious code such as  XMIC00000.EU can be used (where XMIC is the MIC code of the exchange acting as central counterparty, please see also  Q. 2.1.5).

Buy side: several reports as many buyers entered into transaction, between:

  • MP2 (the buyer) and other market participant (OMP ID) to be reported   with Table 2 (including the details of the Price, quantity and any flexibility of the contracts)
  • MP3 (the buyer) and other market participant (OMP ID) to be reported   with Table 2  (including the details of the Price, quantity and any flexibility of the contracts)
  • MP….. (the buyer) and other market participant (OMP ID) to be reported   with Table 2  (including the details of the Price, quantity and any flexibility of the contracts)

All the above with the same CONTRACT ID.

Table 2 has a field called CONTRACT ID (rather than UTI) and this should be filled in with the same ID for all the above transactions.

At this point, the following should be considered:

1) If the total quantity it not know prior to the delivery and the delivery is nominated every day during the contract, e.g. a contract for December is nominated daily according to the flexibility of the contract, meaning that the total volume on 30 November is not known, then the execution should be reported according to the example in Annex II, Section 2 of the TRUM .e.g. once a month after the delivery on a T+1 month basis.

Please see Annex II of the TRUM for further guidance. The final agreed delivered volume and price, from the sell side and from the buy side should be reported with Table 1 as EXECUTION and linked to the CONTRAC ID reported in Table 2.

2) If the price and volume are fix prior to the delivery e.g. are known in November for all the delivery period of December, both party have agreed on the final volume and price. Once these are set, cannot be changed and therefore these contracts a forward contracts. The final agreed delivered volume and price, from the sell side and from the buy side should be reported with Table 1 as BILCONTRACT contract and linked to the CONTRAC ID reported in Table 2.

Please note that given the complex nature of these contracts, if they have a defined volume and price prior to delivery of the commodity, these executions should be treated as forward contracts (please FAQs document on transaction reporting, Question 3.1.14 and 3.1.28), meaning that they are reportable as BILCONTRACT contracts linked to TABLE 2 which was previously reported. This implies that the report has to represent the same granularity of information of any other BILCONTRACT contract (please see examples in Annex II, Section 1 for bilateral contracts) and not the type of information with the granularity of the EXECUTION as per ANNEX II, Section 2.

Irrespective of the type of execution, e.g. BILCONTRACT contract or EXECUTION, these have to be reported with Table 1 within 1 month from when the price and quantity are known and, they should include:

Sell Side: One report for a contract between:

  • MP1 (e.g. the generator) and other market participant (OMP ID) to be reported with Table 1 (including the details of the price and quantity, and if the contract is BILCONTRACT type one, with a full delivery profile of the contract). Please see Annex II for examples.

Buy side: several reports as many buyers entered into transaction, between:

  • MP2 (the buyer) and other market participant (OMP ID) to be reported with Table 1 (including the details of the price and quantity, and if the contract is BILCONTRACT type one, with a full delivery profile of the contract). Please see Annex II for examples.
  • MP3 (the buyer) and other market participant (OMP ID) to be reported with Table 1 to be reported with Table 1 (including the details of the price and quantity, and if the contract is BILCONTRACT type one, with a full delivery profile of the contract). Please see Annex II for examples.
  • MP….. (the buyer) and other market participant (OMP ID) to be reported  with Table 1 (including the details of the price and quantity, and if the contract is BILCONTRACT type one, with a full delivery profile of the contract). Please see Annex II for examples.

All of the above (both sell side and buy side) with the same UTI (only for BILCONTRACT contract type) in Table 1 and (still in table 1) Linked transaction ID reporting the CONTRACT ID previously reported with Table 2.

Please note that while there is no obligation for the exchange that is organising the auction to report the market participants records (the obligation lays with market participant) nothing prevents the exchange to provide the reporting service to their clients.

In addition, as already stated in Question 1.1.15, if the Auction is or is not a multilateral system (or any other system or facility in which multiple third-party buying and selling interests in wholesale energy products are able to interact in a way that results in a contract) and therefore not an Organised Market Place, has to be assessed by the person who runs the Auction.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

RSS_Icon Subscribe to this Category’s RSS