XVI th Madrid Forum Madrid, 28 May 2009 Walter Boltz (Gas Working Group Chair) Transparency guidelines and GRI transparency work

2XVI th Madrid Forum, 28 th May 2009 ERGEG work on transparency I ERGEG supports the Commission’s initiative to improve the existing chapter 3 of the annex to Regulation 1775/2005 ERGEG has worked on transparency, i.e. improving the publication of information on fundamental data concerning Transmission Systems LNG terminals Storages Transparency Fundamental data Infrastructure Access and usage Trading data Post-trade Supply and demand

3XVI th Madrid Forum, 28 th May 2009 ERGEG work on transparency II ERGEG has published several documents outlining the regulators’ views on transparency: CEER Paper on Calculation methodologies and transparency requirements with regard to available capacities of gas transmission, LNG and storage facilities (2002) GGP SSO (2005) GGP Balancing (2005 and 2006) Secondary Markets (2007) Compliance with Transparency Requirements of Gas Regulation 1775/2005/EC (2007) Additional Transparency Monitoring Report (2007) Capacity Calculation (2007) GGP – Third Party Access for LNG System Operators (2007) Strategic guidelines and codes: Example related to transparency in natural gas (2008) ERGEG principles for CAM & CMP; Annex 1 “ERGEG principles on transparency” (2008)

4XVIth Madrid Forum, 28th May 2009 Results of ERGEG monitoring work ERGEG carried out a public consultation on Gas Transparency Monitoring in November 2007 which has shown that there is a clear need to enforce existing transparency requirements as well as to develop additional transparency requirements. This was broadly supported by system users. ERGEG Monitoring on Compliance with Regulation 1775/2005/EC has shown though, that compliance is limited with regard to the geographic implementation and to the different topic areas this is a big problem since transparency is the first step in establishing an effectively functioning market Therefore Regulators suggest that the already accepted recommendations and conclusions from our monitoring exercises and Public Consultations are used as a basis for further development of transparency.

5XVIth Madrid Forum, 28th May 2009 Transparency of fundamental data Fundamental data Infrastructure Access and usage Transmission Technical information Services offered Definition of relevant points Capacity information Tariff information Balancing information User friendliness Storage Technical information Services offered Capacity information Tariff information User friendliness LNG Technical information Services offered Capacity information Tariff information User friendliness

6XVI th Madrid Forum, 28 th May 2009 Conclusions of ERGEG`s Monitoring on Transparency System users need real time information on capacity utilisation in Transmission, Storage and LNG (relevant also in case of supply disruptions) A lack of information on TPA services acts as a market entry barrier Data and information shall be published in a meaningful, quantifiably clear and easily accessible and standardized manner for example through a common transparency platform. ►Further clarifications needed at a very practical level under the current Regulation (Annexed Guidelines under existing Regulation 1775/2005) ►Principles for Input to Framework Guidelines

7XVI th Madrid Forum, 28 th May 2009 Voluntary Transparency work of GTE+ *technical, booked firm, available firm, interruptible, booked interruptible and available interruptible capacity as defined by GTE+ transparency platform **[%] of interconnection points listed at GTE+ transparency platform

8XVI th Madrid Forum, 28 th May 2009 Voluntary transparency work of TSOs Progress has been made regarding publications of TSOs Nevertheless, there is still room for improvements of overall transparency, e.g.: 3- shipper rule applied for many IPs Harmonised definitions and understanding of transparency elements Some information is published for 12 months instead of 18 months Interruptible information (maximum interruptible and available interruptible capacity) often not published because no obligation and not considered as reasonable Definition of traffic light system often not attached to database Information is often available only in pdf-Format Information pieces sometimes scattered on TSO web pages Some information not published in English

9XVIth Madrid Forum, 28th May 2009 EC Impact Assessment – ERGEG response Costs incurred by TSOs for fulfilling necessary transparency requirements will normally be covered in the regulated asset base in the individual Member States, if efficiently incurred ERGEG believes that the publication of additional data will increase TSO costs only by a very small amount Thus, these costs will not lead to a discernable increase in tariffs for network users and final consumers

10XVIth Madrid Forum, 28th May 2009 Enforcement & sanctions Since the last monitoring we have seen some progress in compliance Also GRI work has contributed to increased transparency The necessary additional improvements will only be achieved through the application of the new sanction mechanisms provided for in the 3rd Package

11XVIth Madrid Forum, 28th May 2009 Preliminary views on EC proposal ERGEG welcomes EC proposal to amend chapter 3 Proposal for amendment is a clear signal of the importance of transparency for the further development of the IEM Further analysis of the proposal is needed by ERGEG Preliminary analysis showed that proposal covers most of the open points and identifies issues where additional transparency is needed However, ERGEG would appreciate also the possibility of enforcement measures if needed ERGEG sees also room for improvement on transparency regarding the secondary market, confidentiality of information and historic utilisation of networks.

12XVIth Madrid Forum, 28th May 2009 Thank you for your attention! Mark your diary for the World Forum on Energy Regulation IV October 18-21, 2009 Athens, Greece