ENTSOG BAL NC Monitoring Report 2016

Table 1.2: Reported key challenges and identified solutions in the implementation process

COUNTRY

KEY CHALLENGES REPORTED

A) DURING AND

B) AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION AND

C) THE SOLUTIONS IDENTIFIED

a) low level of liquidity and lack of flexible sources for balancing purposes; IT issues; market constraints;

b) network users inability to meet the requirements; need for additional regulatory actions; negotiations with the adjacent TSOs.

To set up internal rules for physical balancing, which the legislation presuppose, but which are not adequately described in the legislation.

To set up principles into the ICT system and to train staff. To adapt the system of physical balancing to (in some cases) unclear, inaccurate or ambivalent legislation.

b) Most significant challenge after implementation: low within-day market liquidity.

c) within-day balance pricing, market-maker for within-day product at exchange, change in trading behaviour by TSO when balancing actions are needed.

a) data exchange problems – consumption data from DSOs for balance settlement;

b) implementing the data provisions; imbalance charge;

c) data exchange IT solution

a) – Information provision/IT systems

– Need for fundamental changes of market model

– Differences in market regimes of adjacent Transmission Systems

b) – Achieve sufficient national market liquidity;

– Implementation of Reg. (EC) 703/2015 provisions at IPs with non EU countries;

– Achieve sufficient regional market liquidity.

a) – lack of a Trading platform for the Irish Balancing Point (tender to be issued in early 2017).

– 'Bandwidth' of the TSO and industry in a relatively small market to undertake implementation of the entire suite of EU Network Codes, as well as BAU activities (ongoing issue).

– Initial lack of consensus amongst Irish industry as to the implementation plan and timescales (overcome through significant industry consultation and workshops).

a) – Upgrading of IT systems to comply with BAL NC provisions.

– Clarification of TSO goals in the participation to the market and corresponding incentives schemes.

– Definitions of TSO operational flexibility.

b) – Attitude of Users to trade in the within-day market instead of concluding OTC trades.

– Improvement of 3rd parties metering in order to provide more reliable information to Users.

a) + b) [challenges faced during AND after implementation phase] Implementation of EU harmonised Gas day.

c) – Facilitation of gas trade and commercial exchanges.

– Definition of appropriate commercial rules for the management of gas quantities allocation.

L-GAS

a) – all gas sources belong to one producer,

– no connection points with adjacent balancing areas, no possibility to convert gas,

– only 2 shippers active in this balancing area

b) – no network users interested in activity on the balancing platform - no transaction on balancing platform,

– no OTC transaction since VTP creation,

– no possibilities and no interest to make the market liquid

c) TSO will cooperate with trading platform operator to offer dedicated product for this balancing area at the trading platform.

If no other possibility, the TSO will take balancing actions using balancing services.

a) Establishing MIBGAS as the Trading platform and making available to TSO some kind of balancing actions; Implementing information provision based on variant 2,

mainly type DM as it depends on DSO/TSO interaction.

b) Establishing MIBGAS as the Trading platform (and future increase of liquidity) and making available to TSO any STSPs; also stabilising variant 2 information provisions.

c) Mibgas is not yet operating in the Portuguese balancing zone due to legal administrative hindrances.

For the purpose of making available balancing actions to the TSO, ERSE implemented balancing services based on ad hoc auctions triggered as per TSO needs. This is to be

maintained during a transitional period until MIBGAS' trading platform and STSPs become available. The difficulties of implementing the information provisions ofvariant 2 are

being dealt with stakeholder’s involvement. Also, improvements are being made by the Forecasting Party on the NDM forecast model.

Taking into account that we are still in the implementation stage, we will refer to the challenges faced during the implementation:

– the incipient development stage of the domestic gas market;

– the reluctancy of the network users in adopting changes in the day to day practice;

– the slow development and implementing the new provisions of the primary and secondary legislation.

UK-NI

The main challenge has been insufficient liquidity. Northern Ireland is a small region, in the context of the European Union. At present, there are 10 Shippers in Northern Ireland.

Peak daily demand during 2013/2014 was around 6.5 mcmd, and in 2015/2016 it was a little lower, around 59 GWh (c.5.4 mcmd).

For comparison, in GB there are over 200 companies registered as shippers, of whom at least 40 are sizeable and active parties.

The highest demand day for GB during winter 2015 – 2016 was 393 mcmd.

The Northern Irish market is evidently much smaller in terms of participants and in terms of gas demand than GB. Given the relatively small geographical scale of Northern

Ireland, there is a limit to how much growth could ever be reasonably expected to develop within the market compared to GB.

However, some small steps towards market development are occurring. Trading at the NI BP has commenced for the first time this year, and though at very low volumes, there is

at least some trade taking place on a regular basis, reflecting the use of the NI BP as a contract delivery point.

ENTSOG BAL NC Monitoring Report 2016 |