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.3.5.6

We experienced several novations in the past and were confronted with different proposals on how to report such events to ACER. Could you please further specify the different data fields which need to be populated?

Could you please provide more clarity about the precise reporting requirements in case of novation? What values have to be reported?

Supply contract for gas for 1.4.16-1.4.17 was concluded on 15.02.2016. Novation agreement was signed on 15.12.2016 with effective date on 01.01.2017.

For the old transaction the following scenarios are possible:

Scenario Start of delivery End of delivery Contract date Termination date Event
(fields table 1 / 2) (# 49 / # 42) (# 50 / # 43) (#30 / #12) (#43 / – ) (# 58 / #45)
Reported 1.4.16 1.4.17 15.2.16   NEW
A 1.4.16 1.4.17 15.12.16 1.1.17 Cancel
B 1.4.16 1.1.17 15.12.16 1.1.17 Cancel
C 1.4.16 1.1.17 15.12.16   Modify

 

For the reporting of the new contracts the following scenarios are possible:

Scenario Start of delivery End of delivery Contract date Event
(fields table 1 / 2) (# 49 / # 42) (# 50 / # 43) (#30 / #12) (# 58 / #45)
I 1.4.16 1.4.17 10.2.16 NEW
II 1.4.16 1.4.17 15.12.16 NEW
III 1.1.17 1.4.17 10.2.16 NEW
IV 1.1.17 1.4.17 15.12.16 NEW

 


Answer:

All the open trades have to be novated with the name of the new legal entity to notify the change of the counterparty to the contract. In order to report a novation, an early termination with the old UTI and a new trade with a new UTI should be reported.

Both market participants, MP1 and MP2 have to submit an early termination report with Action Type “C” to cancel the old trade and MP1 and MP3 have to provide a new submission with Action Type “N” for the new trade between MP1 and MP3 with a new UTI. In addition:

  • The early termination should be reported with the timestamp/contract date of the early termination agreement day.
  • The termination date refers to the date the contract ceases to exist, and not the agreement date (timestamp/contract date, see above).
  • “Modify” should not be used.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.2.1.38

Data Field (48)

A Market Participant is buying gas for its own needs (fuel gas) outside an OMP via bilateral contract.

The delivery point of the gas under the contract conditions (where the commodity changes hands) is a connection point between a storage facility and gas transmission system. The point name is XYZ. Point XYZ is bidirectional.

XYZ (entry) is the point direction from the Storage facility to the Gas transmission system;

XYZ (exit) is the point direction from the Gas transmission system to the Storage facility.

Q. 1  For reporting purposes under the requirements of Article 3(1)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014, what data shall be provided in the respective field of schema REMITTable 1 or REMITTable 2:

  • DELIVERY POINT OR ZONE, if the commodity changes hands at XYZ (entry) or
  • the EIC of the connection point between a storage facility and gas transmission system (XYZ entry) or the EIC of the Balancing zone to which the gas is entering?

Q. 2  For reporting purposes under the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014, point 3.1 (a), what data shall be provided in the respective field of schema REMITTable 1 or REMITTable 2: DELIVERY POINT OR ZONE, if the commodity changes hands at XYZ (exit)?


Answer:

Q 1. The Balancing zone the gas is entering into.

Q 2. The Balancing zone the gas storage facility belongs to.

Q 3. There is no need to add a connection point between a storage facility and gas transmission system via the Agency’s web-tool for mapping/supply of EIC information.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.2.1.39

Data Field (48)

Could the Agency clarify the reporting of EICs and their mapping to the balancing zones/areas, interconnection points, LNG and storage facilities?


Answer:

In the Transaction Reporting User Manual (TRUM) after consulting the industry through two public consultations, the Agency has indicated that the Energy Identification Code (EIC) to be reported for transaction reporting purposes for Table 1 and Table 2 has to identify the commodity delivery point or zone.

This field reports the EIC Y code (or an alternative code to be agreed with the Agency if the EIC is not available) to identify the delivery and/or balancing point for the contract. In addition, the TRUM clarifies that since gas can also be delivered at the interconnection point, then the EIC Z Code for that interconnector may be used.

Furthermore, in the FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.3.1.23, the Agency has indicated that where the gas is delivered at an LNG or a gas storage facility, then the EIC W code for that facility should be reported.

Based on more than 1 billion transactions (Table 1 and Table 2) reported to the Agency, it was found that market participants and organised market places are using more than 4000 codes to indicate the delivery points. In some occasions more than 1000 different codes were used to indicate the same balancing zone.

Since the Agency (supported by the input provided by the industry) does not find this diversification reasonable and has seen that 95% of the overall transactions have been reported with the correct EICs, on 26 June 2017 the Agency has published Annex VI to the TRUM (including the list of accepted EICs) in the REMIT portal and will only consider the codes listed in the list of accepted codes.

In the Agency’s view, if 95% of the reported transactions are compliant with REMIT, there is no reason for the remaining 5% of transactions to be reported with alternative codes.

Market participants that use different codes for nomination purposes at domestic/industrial aggregate points, distribution zones/networks or production sites should report in any case the EIC of the balancing zone these points are connected to. While they may want to keep using those codes for nomination purposes, they will need to translate those codes into the EIC of the balancing zone they are related to when reporting the transaction to the Agency for REMIT purposes.

With regard to interconnection points, the Agency has explained in Annex VI to the TRUM that the reportable Y EIC code has to belong to the interconnection point where gas is delivered and then transferred to the other side of the interconnection point by the system operator. This case applies to unbundled interconnection capacity only.

In Annex VI to the TRUM the Agency has explained that only the EICs in the list of accepted codes are reportable codes. All the other codes available in the sheet “EICs Validity Check” and flagged as “Invalid” , “ENTSO-E” and “Missing” (please carefully read Annex VI to the TRUM) are not considered compliant with the Agency’s guidance according to Article 5(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014.

However, in order to help market participants and organised market places to comply with REMIT, the Agency has given the opportunity to clear their transaction reporting history (related to the EICs) through the online “EIC mapping form” (please see Annex VI to the TRUM for the link).

The online form allows reporting parties to map a previously reported EIC (Missing, Invalid, ENTSO-E list) to a code listed in the “List of Accepted EICs” and to report a code for a zone/area/facility that is not included in the “List of Accepted EICs” (or changing its name/function).

However, market participants that have submitted new codes for domestic/industrial aggregate points, distribution zones/networks or production sites connected to a balancing zone, should not expect the inclusion of those codes in the list of accepted codes, unless the Agency believes there is reasonable ground for their inclusion in the list.

The Agency has already updated the list of EICs codes to accommodate TSOs or market participants requests where the Agency believed there was a reasonable ground for the inclusion of new EICs (this is visible in the EIC list of accepted codes spreadsheet attached to Annex VI to the TRUM).

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.2.1.40

Data Field (48)

A Market Participant is buying gas for its own needs (fuel gas) outside an OMP via bilateral contract. The location where commodity changes hands under the contract conditions is a Gas storage facility.

For reporting purposes under the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014, point 3.1 (a), what data shall be provided in the respective field of schema REMITTable 1 or REMITTable 2: DELIVERY POINT OR ZONE – the EIC of the Gas storage facility or the EIC of the Balancing zone to which the Gas storage facility belongs?


Answer:

 

Assuming that the seller is withdrawing the gas from the system and injecting it into the storage, then handing it over to the buyer, or if the seller sells the gas that he already owns in the storage to the buyer, the EIC of the Gas storage facility should be reported.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.2.1.42

Data Fields (49) and (50)

Could the Agency clarify further “contract start date and delivery start date may be different: e.g. the contract starts on 1 January 2017, but for peak contracts the delivery starts on Monday morning, which is 2 January 2017.“ statement available on its Open letter on REMIT transaction reporting data quality?


Answer:

As indicated in the letter, market participants should refer to the Agency’s guidance on transaction reporting, namely the TRUM, Annex II to the TRUM and the FAQs on transaction reporting and they should also liaise with the RRMs reporting on their behalf as they may provide with additional instructions.

Based on the Agency’s schemas, and the ISO 8601 standard which says “Midnight is a special case and may be referred to as either “00:00” or “24:00″, our understanding is that midnight may be represented as either 00:00:00, 24:00:00 or 23:59:59.

For example, 2016-08-01 00:00:00 represents the same date and time of 2016-07-31 23:59:59 or 2016-07-31 24:00:00.

However, according to the guidance, 23:59:59 and 24:00:00 should not be reported for delivery start time. Time 23:59:59 or 24:00:00 on Day X should be reported as 00:00:00 in day X+1. The same applies to 06:00:00 and 05:59:59 to represent the end of a gas day.

Example: a typical yearly electricity baseload contract is wrongly reported if the delivery start date and time is 2016-12-31 00:00, 2016-12-31 23:59:59 or 24:00:00. The delivery start date and time should be reported as 2017-01-01 00:00:00.

With regard to “contract start date and delivery start date may be different: e.g. the contract starts on 1 January 2017, but for peak contracts the delivery starts on Monday morning, which is 2 January 2017” reporting parties should pay attention to the guidance.

REMIT transaction reporting fields include Field N. (53) “Days of the week” which plays a pivotal role in the simplification of the reporting of delivery profiles. Please see also FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.2.1.40.

When “Days of the week” is reported correctly, the reported delivery profile will always be the same of the “actual delivery profile” of the contract.

Case 1 – delivery period falls within the calendar period

For electricity contracts, e.g. see example 2.11 in Annex II to the TRUM, a report for the monthly electricity peak load delivery for August 2014. The hourly delivery profile is defined by the fields:

Field N. (49) “Delivery Start Date”: 01/08/2014 identifies the date at which the delivery of the commodity starts as specified in the contract.

Field N. (50) “Delivery End Date”: 31/08/2014 identifies the date at which the delivery of the commodity ends as specified in the contract.

Field N. (53) “Days of the week”: WD identifies on which days of the week the delivery takes place, i.e. week days, as specified in the contract.

Field N. (54) “Load Delivery Intervals”: 08:00/20:00, as specified in the contract

In this specific case 1 August 2014 is Friday, therefore the physical delivery starts on that date. 31 August 2014 is Sunday, thus the physical delivery ends on Friday 29 August.

Case 2 – delivery period falls outside the calendar period

Furthermore, reporting parties should also pay attention to some special circumstances.

For gas contracts, e.g. see example 2.8 in Annex II to the TRUM, given a gas day 06:00 on day D to 06:00 to D+1 may affect the reporting of their monthly contracts. A monthly gas delivery for August 2014, with physical delivery starting on 1 August 2014 delivers gas from 06:00 to 06:00 and the actual physical delivery ends on 1 September 2014 at 06:00. Therefore, the correct way of reporting this contract is:

Field N. (49) “Delivery Start Date”: 01/08/2014

Field N. (50) “Delivery End Date”: 01/09/2014

Field N. (53) “Days of the week”: empty to indicate every day

Field N. (54) “Load delivery intervals”: 06:00/06:00 Another special circumstance is when a monthly electricity off-peak load delivery for August 2014 start at 19:00:00 on 31/07/2014. These are typical monthly contracts but the delivery period falls outside the calendar days, rather than within them.

We are aware that these are industry standards and are used by Organised Market Places (OMPs) and the Agency would expect the reporting of delivery Start and End Date as shown above and in Annex II to the TRUM. The Agency is also aware that in most cases the same standards are used in bilateral trades (non-OMPs trades).

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.2.1.37

Data Field (48)

A Market Participant is buying gas for its own needs (fuel gas) outside an OMP via bilateral contract. The delivery point of the gas under the contract conditions (where the commodity changes hands) is an Entry point ABC from production facility. The point ABC is a connection point between the production facility and the gas transmission system of the TSO.

For reporting purposes under the requirements of Article 3(1)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) N1348/2014, what data shall be provided in the respective field of schema REMITTable 1 or REMITTable 2: DELIVERY POINT OR ZONE – the EIC of the Entry point ABC or the EIC of the Balancing zone to which the gas is entering?

If the EIC of the Entry point ABC shall be filled in the XML field DELIVERY POINT OR ZONE, the MP needs to add said EIC code to the list of valid EICs. Could you please confirm that it will be possible to add such an EIC via the Agency’s web-tool for mapping/supply of EIC information, e.g. via using “Other” in the point type drop down?


Answer:

The EIC of the Balancing zone should be reported. There is no need to add the Entry point ABC via the Agency’s web-tool for mapping/supply of EIC information.

The same would apply to Domestic/Industrial aggregate points and Distribution zones/networks. If these points are connected to a balancing zone from where the gas/electricity is withdrawn/supplied from, the EIC of the balancing zone should be reported.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.1.1.29

The TSO in AAA, XXX, shows the occurred imbalances of previous periods and the active companies shall try to find a partner to offset the positions on bilaterally basis. If the companies cannot find offsetting volumes the TSO finally balances the accounts.

Could you please specify if pre-arranged contracts to offset the volumes are regarded as balancing contracts or as bilateral contracts which needs to be reported under REMIT?

In case they have to be reported, we would like to make ACER aware that the transaction timestamp is after the delivery start date which seems to be conflicting according to remarks in the letter to improve the data quality.

To our understanding only contracts with the TSO are defined as balancing contracts and the contracts needs to be reported as Table 2 contracts with monthly executions of the exchanged volumes to avoid balancing.


Answer:

Please refer to Question 3.1.50. 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 the Agency’s understanding that in “…day after markets”, and any other retro-deal market, 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.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

FAQs on transaction reporting – Question II.1.1.30

Company deconsolidation from the group perimeter

The companies “XXX” and “YYY” are part of the same group and both registered MPs subject to REMIT. The companies “XXX” and “YYY” entered into transactions but accordingly to Article 4(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2014 they did not send on a regular basis any reporting related to the contracts.

On 1 July the company “XXX” is going to be deconsolidated from the consolidated financial statement of the company “YYY”. From a reporting point of view, should the contracts in place be reported to ACER? With which timetable? What is the contract date that should be used?

With reference to the reporting of the outstanding contracts, our interpretation is that they should not be reported because agreed out of normal market rules in an infra group context.

In case the Agency believes that those contracts have to be reported, our interpretation is that

  • the reporting should be done in T+1 month from the date of deconsolidation of company “XXX”
  • the contract date should be the same of T.

Answer:

As on 1 July the company “XXX” is going to be deconsolidated from the consolidated financial statement of the company “YYY” and it changes status, in the Agency’s view it is reasonable that company XXX should report all its contracts on T+1 month from its status change with the date of its status change.

RSS_Icon Last update: 08/12/2017  

RSS_Icon Subscribe to this Category’s RSS