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.3.1.17

REMIT Implementing Act Article 5(1)(b) and Annex, table 1 data field 31 (Unique transaction ID), table 2 data field no 11 (contract ID).

We understand that market participants need to agree on their method of generating a Contract ID – this can include using the UTI algorithm provided by ACER. However, what should a MP do if its counterparty provides the ID after T+1 or T+30 or indeed not at all and they have not agreed to use the ACER algorithm? This is particularly of concern as the use of the ACER algorithm is not mandatory.

Under REMIT, phase 2 transactions need to be provided either under table 1 (for contracts that specify and outright price and volume) or under table 2.

In submitting a table 1 or 2 report the UTI field must be completed. However, it is possible a counterparty, who is not using the ACER algorithm, may not provide their UTI to us to enable us to report in the necessary timescales.

We are engaging with our CPs to ensure this does not occur but it is always a risk.

Our preferred approach is to:

1) Submit a temporary UTI, calculated based on the ACER algorithm.

2) Once we have received the UTI from the CP an ‘error’ report will be submitted to remove the previous report and a ‘new’ transaction report with the correct UTI will be submitted.

As an alternative to 2) we are also happy to simply submit a modify report if that is preferable to ACER.  Can ACER please confirm this is acceptable?


Answer:

Market participants should submit a temporary UTI, then once they have received the UTI from their counterparty, a ‘Modify’ report will be submitted to modify the previous report recalling the old UTI. In the schema there is a field called “AdditionalUtiInfo” field where the old UTI should be reported in the modified report. e.g.

Using Schema Table 1_Version 2

1st report Using Schema Table 1_Version 1

<uniqueTransactionIdentifier>UTI123</uniqueTransactionIdentifier>

<actionType>N</actionType>

2st report Using Schema Table 1_Version 1

<uniqueTransactionIdentifier>UTI456</uniqueTransactionIdentifier>

<previousUniqueTransactionIdentifier> UTI123 </previousUniqueTransactionIdentifier>

<actionType>M</actionType>

Using Schema Table 1_Version 1

1st report Using Schema Table 1_Version 1

<uniqueTransactionIdentifier>UTI123</uniqueTransactionIdentifier>

<actionType>N</actionType>

2st report Using Schema Table 1_Version 1

<uniqueTransactionIdentifier>UTI456</uniqueTransactionIdentifier>

< additionalUtiInfo> UTI123 </ additionalUtiInfo>

<actionType>M</actionType>

RSS_Icon Last update: 26/09/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.18

Reference to documents: TRUM – Table 2 Reporting

We can trade transactions which will be reportable under Table 2, for which a premium or fee is payable at inception, regardless of the delivery or flow of the underlying commodity, however the deal is not considered an option.

We are therefore unsure as to where to report the deal premium or fee. If the trade was an option, it would be reported under Field 15, but this could already be populated with the pricing formula of the trade.

As per example 9.01 in Annex II of the TRUM which is an annual gas swing contract. If a fee or premium was payable for that contract on transaction date, regardless of the final delivery flow, where in Table 2 would that premium be recorded?

An obvious place would be Field 15, but this has already been populated with the pricing formula for transaction.

A possible solution would be to describe the formula in Field 15 and then add the premium as an absolute amount at the end of the formula. Would this be acceptable to ACER?


Answer:

When a transaction reportable under Table 2 includes a premium or fee payable at inception, regardless of the delivery or flow of the underlying commodity and the deal is not considered an option, that deal premium or fee, if it pertains to the service the trade is providing and unrelated to the volume of said product, would not be reportable.

RSS_Icon Last update: 26/09/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.19

Reference to documents: ACER_REMIT_TRUM_v2.0, point 5

Question 1:

What has to be reported in the monthly reports of power Non-standard contracts, Table 1?

Question 2:

What has to be reported in the monthly reports of gas Non-standard contracts, Table 1?

Question 3:

Backloading for non-standard contracts table I: reporting obligation starting July 6th, 2016?

Question 1:

  • the total volume and the resulting average price of the contract (1 report) OR
  • the volume summarised by each transmission system operator (4 TSOs) (1 report including 4 volumes and prices) OR
  • the volume summarised by each transmission system operator (4 TSOs) (4 reports)

Question 2:

  • the total volume and the resulting average price of the contract (1 report) OR
  • the volume summarised by each gas market area (2 market areas) (1 report including 4 volumes and prices) OR
  • the volume summarised by each gas market area (2 market areas) (4 reports)

Question 3:

In our understanding the backloading of bilateral non-standard contracts have to be reported from July 6th on: these are contracts which were concluded before April 7th and are still in delivery since April 7th or will start in the future.

  • Is it correct that we report the framework contracts until July 6th and the first monthly table 1 report will be send in August?

Question 1:

  • the volume summarised by each transmission system operator (4 TSOs) (1 report including 4 volumes and prices)

Question 2:

  • the volume summarised by each gas market area (2 market areas) (1 report including 4 volumes and prices)

Question 3:

  • Is it correct that we report the framework contracts until July 6th and the first monthly table 1 report will be send in August?

Answer:

It is the Agency’s understanding that each transaction with each transmission system operator (different delivery point) has to be reported separately.

With regard to the backloading of bilateral non-standard contracts it is the Agency’s understanding that contracts which were concluded before 7 April and are outstanding on 7 April have to be reported by 6 July 2016.

RSS_Icon Last update: 26/09/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.20

Is a Hydro Storage Virtual Power Plant deal considered to be a contract for the supply of electricity and therefore reportable as a non-standard transaction under REMIT?

An example term sheet for such a deal would be:

Period: Cal-16

Delivery Point: French Power

Storage Volume: 50,000 MWh

Max Storage Level: 50,000 MWh

Min Storage Level: 0 MWh

Initial Storage Level: 30,000 MWh

Final Storage Level: 30,000 MWh

Inflows: 150,000 MWh – These would have a Hourly MW profile

Outflows: 50 MW – Daily nomination

The holder of the contact would then effectively be able to take physical power from the writer as long as they operated within the above constraints. The power taken would be at zero price in return for a premium paid upfront.

In the draft FAQ’s issues after the Dec-15 ACER roundtable meeting, we note that Virtual Gas Storage contracts are not considered contracts for the supply of gas and therefore not reportable.

Based on this, we do not deem a Hydro Storage Virtual Power Plant deal to be a contract for the supply of electricity due to the significant similarities between this type of transaction and that of a Virtual Gas Storage transaction.

Could ACER confirm this view is correct?


Answer:

If the holder of the contact is able to take physical power from the writer, this is a contract for the supply of electricity. This is a reportable contract pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014.

RSS_Icon Last update: 26/09/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.12

Article 7 (6) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1348/2014

Transaction Reporting User Manual (TRUM) – Annex II Examples of transaction reporting

Should lifecycle events be reported to ACER for transactions that have been reported on the back loading requirement?

Market participant concluded bilateral contract outside an organized market place before 7th April 2016. Regarding to the fact that market participants shall report contracts which were concluded before the date on which reporting obligations becomes applicable and remain outstanding on that date, Market participant reports this contract within 90 days after 7th April 2016 in the context of back loading requirement.

If the terms of the original contract (e.g. price or quantity) are modified after 7th April 2016 should market participant reported this fact (lifecycle event) to ACER?


Answer:

Contracts that are back loaded and then amended are subject to the life cycle event reporting.

RSS_Icon Last update: 24/03/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.13

Reference to documents: Article 3 (1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1348/2014 – Transaction Reporting User Manual (TRUM) – Annex II Examples of transaction reporting

In connection with practical example indicated below we would like to ask how such a trading situation should be reported?  Please indicate what combination of trading scenarios included in Annex II must we choose?

Trading scenarios included in Annex II envisage two steps: reporting bilateral contract and execution. What kind of reporting scenarios should be chosen when trading activities include three (or more) sequence? Example indicated below:

1.       Parties concluded General Agreement X (and they didn’t conclude any Individual Contract), there is no specified price and volume; after a few months.

2.       Parties concluded Individual Contract with maximum quantity, but they didn’t specify price; after a few months.

3.       Parties concluded Individual Contract with defined quantity and price.


Answer:

The FAQs document on transaction reporting (please see question 1.1.11) and Annex II to the TRUM address this question. Master agreements are not reportable. If the first report is about the non-standard contract, then executions under the framework of that non-standard contract have to be reported.

RSS_Icon Last update: 24/03/2016  

RSS_Icon Subscribe to this Category’s RSS