Please insert at least 3 characters

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question III.4.2.21

Market Participant (MP) “A” owns a pipeline business in the UK that transports gas from Point “X” (Exit point of the National Grid´s National Transmission System – certified TSO) or Point “Y” (Entry terminal) to four customers (two oil refineries and two Combined Cycle Gas Turbines).

Qualification of reporting obligations for transportation contracts concluded as a result of primary capacity allocation by or on behalf of the TSO:

MP “A” is not a TSO under Art. 2(11) REMIT and hence, is not obliged to report the transportation contracts with its customers as transportation contracts concluded as a result of a primary explicit capacity allocation by or on behalf of the TSO in sense of Article 6(2) in conjunction with Article 3(1)(b)(i) REMIT Implementing Regulation. This conclusion is based on the following points:

  • Article 2(11) REMIT refers to the TSO definition laid down by Article 2(4) Directive 2009/73/EC and Directive 2009/72/EC.
  • According to Article 10 of the above Directives, each TSO shall be designated and certified as a TSO by the National Regulatory Authority (NRA). MP “A” is not certified as a TSO by the respective NRA (Ofgem).
  • The gas pipeline, owned and operated by MP “A”, has a named license exemption from requiring a TSO certification under the UK Gas Act 1986. Not being certified as a TSO, MP “A” remains out of the scope of the obligations posed on the TSOs. The latter includes the reporting obligations pursuant to Article 6(2) in conjunction with Article 3(1)(b)(i) REMIT Implementing Regulation which stipulate that TSOs or third parties acting on their behalf shall report contracts relating to transportation of natural gas in the Union concluded as a result of a primary explicit capacity allocation by or on behalf of the TSO.

Qualification of reporting obligations for transportation contracts concluded between market participants on secondary market:

The gas transportation contracts that MP “A” has with its customers do not meet the criteria of a secondary capacity allocation foreseen under Article 3(1)(b)(ii) REMIT Implementing Regulation read in conjunction with the reporting format of Table 4 and TRUM pp. 133-155. This assessment is based on the following points:

  • REMIT or REMIT Implementing Regulation do not define what means secondary market for the purposes of Article 3(1)(b)(ii) REMIT Implementing Regulation.
  • A definition of the above term can be found in Article 2(6) Regulation 715/2009 which defines secondary market as “the market of the capacity traded otherwise than on the primary market”. Primary market is defined in point (22) of the same Article as “the market of the capacity traded directly by the TSO”. REMIT or REMIT Implementing Regulation do not make a reference to the above mentioned definitions of primary and secondary market contained in Regulation 715/2009 and these definitions do not therefore directly apply for the purposes of REMIT.
  • Table 4 and the respective passages in the TRUM (pp. 133-155) are designed on the presumption that the contracts concluded between market participants on secondary markets in sense of Article 3(1)(b)(ii) REMIT Implementing Regulation are contracts that govern a secondary allocation of a capacity which was previously and primarily allocated by a TSO, e.g. price paid to a TSO [for the primary capacity allocation] is a mandatory field when reporting secondary capacity allocation.

Questions:

1)    Primary Capacity Market: Are the transportation contracts in question between MP “A” and its four customers reportable under REMIT regulation as transportation contracts concluded as a result of primary explicit capacity allocation by or on behalf of the TSO? Who should be identified as the TSO since MP “A” is NOT a designated and certified TSO in sense of Article 2(11) REMIT?

2)    Secondary Capacity Market:

a. Considering no primary capacity allocation through a TSO has occurred, are these transportation contracts reportable under REMIT regulation as transportation contracts concluded between market participants on secondary markets?

b. How should MP “A” and its customers report fields #25 TSO 1 identification, TSO 2 identification and #34 Price paid to TSO (underlying price) in Table 4, which in the case of the contracts in question are neither applicable nor available?

Business Case:

Market Participant (MP) “A” owns a pipeline business in the UK that transports gas from Point “X” (Exit point of the National Grid´s National Transmission System – certified TSO) or Point “Y” (Entry terminal) to four customers (two oil refineries and two Combined Cycle Gas Turbines).

MP “A” is not considered a TSO and the gas transportation obligations (subject of the contract) are not issued out of primary capacity market (i.e. not traded with a TSO).

Secondly, the nature of the contracts do not satisfy the requirements to report the contracts as secondary capacity since there is no TSO involved, hence a number of key attributes cannot be reported.

Our interpretation is that the above described gas transportation contracts fall outside of the scope of REMIT trade reporting since these contracts are not concluded on a primary market (between TSO and Market Participant), neither do they qualify under the definition of a secondary capacity allocation.

We would be grateful for ACER’s immediate response on this matter please.


Answer:

There are currently no requirements for the reporting of transportation contracts involving locations that are not balancing zones.

If the transportation contracts between MP “A” and its four customers allow to flow gas from points X to Y which are in a non-balancing zone, the transportation contracts are not reportable. The same will apply if the transportation contracts between MP “A” and its four customers would allow to flow gas from points X (balancing area) to Y (non-balancing area). This is in line with FAQ 4.2.19.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question III.4.2.22

The question is about how to handle gas capacity contract transaction reporting to ARIS when a Market Participants on shipper side (contract holders) either exit the market (on voluntary basis or e.g. because they run bankrupt) or change their company structure affecting the contract holders name (e.g. split of a company transferring the capacity to the legal successor of the former contract holder) or if a company simply change their names (but the contract holder in fact is the same, no new legal entity). The question does only refer to possible cases in the future and does not affect already reported cases under back loading.

General rule: In general we propose to report these cases depending on what is from a legal point of view happening between the Market Participants (TSO and shipper). In the following cases applying this general rule would mean:

a) Market exit of market participant (=shipper, = contract holder), no matter whether on voluntary basis or because of insolvency/bankruptcy;

b) Legal succession cases (e.g. change in company structure).

Two cases to be distinguished:

  • A new company is established. When the former contract holder is still ‘alive’ he transfers the capacity contract to the new company on secondary market.
  • A new company is established, but there is no special handling between the old and the new company regarding the contract via secondary market but simply all the legal rights and obligations are shifted from the old company to the new one (either by a special contract or – depending on the national civil law – simply by law).

c) Simple change of a name of a company, no new legal entity is established.


Answer:

With regard to point a), the answer depends on:

a) If the contract is Suspended, then there is no need to report anything; or

b) if the contract is cancelled, it should be reported as any other cancellation of a contract.

The cancellation of the contract that has been already reported to the Agency,  through the Gas Transportation Contracts / Edig@s REMIT GasCapacityAllocations_Document schema should be submitted by setting the XML fields as follows:

  • Appropriate report file naming (according to the mandatory naming convention);
  • CREATIONDATETIME – should be set according to the date and time of the creation of the new report file;
  • PROCESS_TRANSACTION.ACTION_STATUS.CODE attribute = 63G (Cancelled, the report is no longer valid);
  • TIMEINTERVAL – delivery end (field 11. End date and time) shall reflect when the termination of the contract takes effect.

Following the cancellation of the contract, the capacity can:

a) be re-allocated to the market and this should be reported as any other allocation; or

b) not allocated to the market and there is no need report it.

With regard to point b):

1. This case should be reported as any other secondary market transaction (reporting obligation lies with the market participants = shippers transferring the capacity contract amongst them).

The TSO should not report any transaction modification through Gas Transportation Contracts through Edig@s REMIT Gas Capacity Allocation schema.

2. The modification of a contract that has been already reported to the Agency, through the Gas Transportation Contracts / Edig@s REMIT GasCapacityAllocations_Document schema should be submitted by setting the XML fields as follows:

  • Appropriate report file naming (according to the mandatory naming convention);
  • CREATIONDATETIME – should be set according to the date and time of the creation of the new report file;
  • PROCESS_TRANSACTION.ACTION_STATUS.CODE attribute = 66G (Changed, the report is valid after having been updated);
  • PRIMARY_MARKETPARTICIPANT.IDENTIFICATION – CODINGSCHEME attribute content modified and filled with the EIC of the “New company;
  • TIMEINTERVAL – delivery start (10.Start date and time) shall reflect when the first delivery of the contract takes place.

The new company has to register with the National Regulatory Authority as a Market Participant.

With regard to point c):

Since the name of the PRIMARY_MARKETPARTICIPANT.IDENTIFICATION is never reported to the Agency through the Gas Transportation Contracts / Edig@s REMIT GasCapacityAllocations_Document, the TSO should not undertake any actions for reports modification. In the reports submitted by the gas TSOs (or on their behalf), the PRIMARY_MARKETPARTICIPANT.IDENTIFICATION is done though the EIC of the Market Participant.

It is the Market Participant’s obligation to properly modify its CEREMP profile and inform the relevant NRA and the Agency about the change in its name. In addition the MP should inform the LIO that maintains its EIC code.A) If the contract is cancelled, it should be reported as any other cancellation of a contract.

RSS_Icon Last update: 14/12/2016  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question III.4.2.23

According to Art. 21 Paragraph 3 Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/459 (CAM NC), the European Gas TSOs are obliged to offer a capacity conversion mechanism for their network users to enable them to convert unbundled capacities in bundled capacities. Some TSOs have already started to offer such service as an early implementation approved by their NRAs.
ENTSOG has prepared a model describing the minimum functions of the capacity conversion service (see attached document CAP0717-17 ENTSOG’s Capacity conversion model, 24 July 2017) and especially in its annex 2 the possible conversion scenarios.

However, the model leaves some discretion how to implement the conversion of the transportation contracts legally, especially how the national civil law arrangements/GT&Cs are structured to complete the conversion in a legal manner. Therefore, we as European TSOs like to propose a way, how to properly report these contractual changes under REMIT, taking into account the different possible conversion scenarios and the different national legal implementations.


Answer:

Generally, there are two basic approaches regarding the reporting of a fully converted contract, depending on national implementation:

A) The original contract with unbundled capacity is modified and a new contract is reported.

The capacity amount of the old unbundled contract is reduced to zero and this reduction is reported within the REMIT reporting as a change of the existing contract.

In addition, a new (bundled) contract is reported. This bundled contract contains the whole amount of the capacity. (Please note that reporting data with the approach described in this option does not necessarily imply that a new contract has been concluded under national law.)

OR

B) The original contract with unbundled capacity is modified.

The full conversion is done without reporting a new contract. Such a conversion of capacity is reported as a modification of the existing contract of the unbundled capacity. In this case, the following information should be updated (note that some fields are filled with the existing information):

All relevant information covering the allocation process (TRUM table 4, Data Field No 2-13) as well as information on the lifecycle reporting (TRUM table 4, Data Field No 14), on the premium price (TRUM table 4, Data Field No 21), on the specifications of bundling, and on the counter TSO (TRUM table 4, Data Field No 26).

Regarding the conversion of only part of the unbundled capacity into bundled capacity the following applies:

  • The original contract is modified by reducing the capacity amount by the part of the capacity that is converted into bundled capacity (updating the information in TRUM table 4, Data Field No 15).

AND

  • The part of the capacity that is converted into bundled capacity is reported as a new contract for bundled capacity.

RSS_Icon Last update: 20/07/2018  

RSS_Icon Subscribe to this Category’s RSS