Tom Maes, ERGEG Gas Working Group19th Madrid Forum21 March 2011
Transit contracts
219th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Agenda
• Background• Enquiry of the TSOs
• Set-up• Results
• Response of the Commission• Way forward
319th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Background
• Gas transit is crucial• Depleting indigenous sources calls for additional and
diversified imports;• Fragmented and monopolistic markets need to be
interconnected;• Bidirectional flows increase security of supply.
• 18th Madrid Forum invited ERGEG to provide• an overview per Member State of the transit contracts
which are still in force;• a proposal as to how these contracts will be brought
in line with the provisions.
419th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Enquiry – Set-up
• Letter sent to 32 ENTSOG members
• As not to exclude any type of contract
• Intentionally open definition
• Two general questions
• Two reminders, one with copy to NRA
• Response of 29 TSOs
519th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Enquiry – Results / Legal Analysis
• Directive 2003/55/EC allowed a limited number of contracts to persist under the terms
of Directive 91/296
• As from 1 July 2006 (Regulation 1775/2005) access based on non-discriminatory,
transparent and cost reflective tariffs is fully applicable to the so-called (historical)
transit contracts
• Regulation 715/2009
• From 3 March 2011 tariffs shall be set separately for every entry and exit point;
• By 3 September 2011, network charges shall not be calculated on the basis of contract paths.
619th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Enquiry – Results / TSO responses
• Collected data is not complete and potentially ambiguous
• Only few TSOs acknowledge holding transit contracts
• Even less assume possible conflicts with European law
• No legal obligation to provide this information to ERGEG
• Not all NRAs have access to this kind of data
Num
ber
Coun
try
code
Com
pany
logo
Com
pany
nam
e
Answ
er re
ceiv
ed?
Hold
s tra
nsit
cont
ract
s?
Mor
e sp
ecifi
cally
, hol
ds tr
ansit
co
ntra
cts w
ithin
the
scop
e of
the
Tran
sit D
irecti
ve 9
1/29
6/EE
C?
Whe
n w
ill th
ese
cont
ract
s be
br
ough
t in
line
with
EU
law
?
- At e
xpira
tion
of co
ntra
cts
- By
3 M
arch
201
1
- Aft
er tr
ansp
ositi
on o
f 3rd
Pac
kage
Mak
es n
o di
stinc
tion
betw
een
dom
estic
tran
spor
t and
"tra
nsit"
?
Ope
rate
s an
entr
y-ex
it sy
stem
for a
ll tr
ansm
issio
n ca
paciti
es?
Appl
ies r
egul
ated
tariff
?
Have
neg
otiati
ons w
ith
coun
terp
artie
s sta
rted
yet
?
1 ATBOGBaumgarten-Oberkappel Gasleitungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Y N N
2 AT OMV Gas GmbH Y N N N
3 ATTAG GmbH(Trans Austria Gasleitung GmbH)
Y N N N
4 BE Fluxys Y Y Y
719th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Enquiry – Results / Suggestions
• Commission takes every opportunity to
• Address this issue;
• Pursue existing or open new infringement procedures;
• Cooperate with NRAs both in preliminary and litigation procedures.
• Commission further analyses this issue under the auspices of ACER.
819th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Response of the Commission
• Shared view that elimination of transit contracts not compliant with EU law is
needed for achieving internal market;
• Follow-up needed on this issue;
• Additional assessment by ERGEG is necessary pinpointing for which
countries/TSOs it continues to have doubts.
919th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Way forward
• Assistance of respective NRAs is needed for sound evidence
• Double scope
• Does the same regulated tariff / methodology apply for all transmission activities without exception for
border-to-border transmission?
• Does the same capacity allocation methodology apply at cross-border interconnection points irrespective
of the origin or destination of the gas? Is this organised in a fully decoupled entry-exit model?
1019th Madrid Forum, 21-22 March 2011
Thank you for your attention!
www.energy-regulators.eu
Top Related