1 madrid, 31 st may 2012 16 th sg meeting south gas regional initiative

1

Madrid, 31st May 2012

16th SG Meeting

South Gas Regional Initiative

2

Agenda10:30-10:40 I. Opening

I.1 Welcome

I.2 Agenda and minutes from the last meeting (for approval)

10:40 – 12:00 II. Capacity Allocation Mechanism

II.1 CAM to apply in the interconnection Spain-Portugal

Regulators presentation on the procedure

TSOs presentation of the Information Memorandum

II.2 Next steps and calendar (for information by Regulators)

12:00-12:45 III. Congestion Management Procedures harmonisation:

III.1 Results of the CMP comitology process (for information by Regulators)

III.2 Next steps and calendar (for discussion)

12:45 -13:00 COFFE BREAK

13:00-13:20 IV. Study on tariffs between Portugal and Spain: way forward (for information by

Regulators)

13:20-13:40 V. Transparency (compliance with Regulation 715/2009)

V.1 Stakeholders’ comments on the operators’ questionnaires: results of the

public consultation (for information by Regulators)

V.2 Next steps and calendar (for discussion)

13:40-14:15 VI. Review of actions considered in the Work Plan 2011-2014 (for discussion)

14:15-14:30 VII. AOB and next meetings

VII.1 Meetings calendar for second semester of 2012 (for information by

Regulators)

3

II. Capacity Allocation Mechanisms

Area of work Responsible

Starting

Deadline

CAM harmonisation proposal (CAM pilot testing Sp‐Pt borders)

TSOs Jan. 2011 Jun. 2012

II.1 CAM to be applied at the Portuguese-Spanish interconnection

Procedure approval (for information by NRAs)

Information Memorandum (for information by TSOs)

II.2 Next Steps and calendar (for information by NRAs)

4

Approval procedure

Regulators, in each country, will approve the common base of the CAM

methodology (auction)

The CNE draft document (Circular) was sent to Public Consultation,

which finished on 29th May. It is being reviewed taking into

consideration Stakeholders’ comments

Once the methodology had been approved, Regulators will revise and

approve TSOs’ Information Memorandum and Standard Contracts

After that, the Registration period for the interested parties to participate

in the auction will be opened and the procedure will start


5

Information Memorandum

(to be presented by TSOs)


6

III. Congestion Management Procedures

harmonization


Starting

Deadline

CMP harmonization proposal (CMP pilot testing Fr‐Sp borders)

NRAs-TSOs Jan. 2011 Jan. 2012

III.1 Results of the CMP comitology process (for information by

NRAs)

III.2 Next Steps and calendar (for discussion)

7

Results of the comitology process EC comitology guidelines on CMP have been recently approved (20th

April). They will apply to physical and virtual international connection points

and connection between different balancing zones.

No final version available yet (translation + impact assessment needed)

Formal approval by Parliament and Council expected in August. Final

adoption in September 2012.

Mechanisms considered in the CMP comitology are:

Oversubscription and buyback (to be proposed by TSOs and approved

by NRAs)

Firm day-ahead UIOLI (by NRAs request)

Surrender of contracted capacity

LT UIOLI (by NRA request)

III. Congestion Management Procedure

8

These mechanisms must be implemented before October 2013, except Firm

day-ahead UIOLI, for which the deadline is July 2016

ACER will annually monitor congestion. First ACER’s monitoring report will be

produced in 2014. In the meantime regulators will made a list of congested

interconnections and will monitor the implementation of the codes

So far in the SGRI, work was done on Long Term Use It Or Lose It NRA will request TSO to release underused capacity when this capacity have

not been offered to third parties under reasonable conditions Primary capacity holder will lose the underused capacity for a specific period of

time or until the end of the contract Primary capacity holder owns contract’s rights and obligations referred to the

released capacity until this capacity is contracted by a third party

Need to develop common criteria for oversubscription and buy-back?

III. Congestion Management Procedure

9

IV. Study on tariffs between Portugal and Spain


Starting

Deadline

CNE-ERSE joint study on tariff regimes in Spain and Portugal

NRAs 2010 Dec. 2011

10

Evaluation of comments from the Public Consultation 16 responses received during the Public Consultation, which denotes

market’s great interest. Responses include positive contributions into finding solutions. The comments received are published on regulators and ACER web sites

Regulators currently elaborating the evaluation of comments paper.

General conclusions showed in this document are:

Stakeholders agree on the tasks included in the SGRI work plan for 2011-2014, and consider they are being developed according to plan.

Full transposition of the EC third package should be the basis for the regulatory harmonization

A convergent goal for the regulatory harmonization is needed, not only at the cross border level but also at European level

Stakeholders favour the adoption of transitory measures, either on the regulatory side or on the operational side, than can produce results in the short term.

IV. Study on tariffs between Portugal and Spain

11

Consulta Pública sobre harmonização das tarifas de interligação de gás natural entre Portugal e EspanhaSummary of answers | Q1

Stakeholders welcomed the regulators’ overview of the Iberian transmission systems and its present regulatory framework

General agreement on the results• Results of the case studies are correct• Cross border payments result from adding transmission tariffs at the IPs• General support for the initiative of removing unjustified cost barriers at the

border• Eliminating tariff pancaking at cross border IPs could help the integration of

markets

More issues should be included in the analysis• Different load profiles and suppliers of smaller size (new entrants)• Balancing costs• Capacity Reservation• CBTs are not the only problem, regulatory framework harmonization should

include other infrastructures and activities

Question 1: Would you agree with the analysis made on current market situation and on the major issues affecting cross border trade between Portugal and Spain?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

12

Consulta Pública sobre harmonização das tarifas de interligação de gás natural entre Portugal e EspanhaSummary of answers | Q2 (i)

European regulatory framework• First step of any change in the present Iberian regulatory framework must be the

transposition of the European Directives and Regulations

CB tariffs should result from general entry-exit transmission tariff methodology• They should signal costs and physical constraints • Transmission and distribution tariffs should be separated to achieve a better cost

allocation• Cost and tariff additivity should be applied• Cross subsidies between activities and between PT and SP must be avoided• Each country’s transmission costs must be recovered• Security of supply costs (over capacity) should be covered by exit tariffs to consumers

Tariff structure harmonization should be achieved• Tariff methodology and capacity/commodity split• Price definitions (e.g. reserved capacity vs past 12M max)• Treatment of backhaul flows• Elimination of tariff discounts

Question 2: How do you think that transmission network costs should be allocated at cross border IP (both in Spain and Portugal), taking into account the defined principles (coherence, transparency, cost recovery and cost reflectiveness, etc) and the starting situation of the regulatory tariff framework in both countries?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

13

Consulta Pública sobre harmonização das tarifas de interligação de gás natural entre Portugal e EspanhaSummary of answers | Q2 (ii)

Cost transfer away from CBT• CB tariff could be reduced by transferring costs to entry points of MIBGAS

and lowering exits to customers in the exporting country This transference should be established in both countries under the same

objectives and transparent principles. Need to avoid cross-subsidies between systems, detrimental to national users of

one of the countries

• Inter TSO compensation schemes do not signal costs to network users• Other comments suggest a compensation mechanism between TSO and the

creation of a single Iberian entry-exit zone

Long term view of the CBT• Some comments propose the removal of CBT between PT&SP (e.g. electric)• Others propose that CBT should be kept

Question 2: How do you think that transmission network costs should be allocated at cross border IP (both in Spain and Portugal), taking into account the defined principles (coherence, transparency, cost recovery and cost reflectiveness, etc) and the starting situation of the regulatory tariff framework in both countries?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

14


Priorities of S-GRI WP2011-14 were confirmed• Transposition of EU Directives and Regulations into national law• Harmonization of CAM and CMP at the IP• Harmonization of balancing rules and incentives• Regional investment planning• Implementation of common operating license for market agents

Other topics were mentioned with detail proposals• Reduction of cross border tariff costs• Extend harmonized CAM to other capacity products (longer term) and apply

long term cap. booking at PT side to make possible to implement NC• Single point of nomination for the IPs• Harmonization of capacity payments (annual reserve vs past 12M max)

Question 3: Which do you feel are the most important aspects where harmonization (apart from the cross border tariffs harmonization) can contribute significantly to short term market integration?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

15


Some issues would require a longer time frame• Adoption of harmonized mechanisms for investment decisions (Open

Seasons)• Increase operational reserves for system management by TSO• Creation of a single Virtual IP between PT&SP• Harmonization of security of supply obligations• Single Iberian balancing zone• Common communication protocols and data formats for TSO

Question 3: Which do you feel are the most important aspects where harmonization (apart from the cross border tariffs harmonization) can contribute significantly to short term market integration?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

16


Question 4: How would you implement the proposed step-wise approach, aiming for a more integrated market in the longer term?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Agents proposed different steps, final targets and implementation speeds

Strategies can be arranged in several types:• A: the most conservative. Ends w/ harmonization of CAM, CMP and tariff principals.• B: Also conservative. Includes the proposal of reducing CB tariffs.• C: Includes CB tariff elimination in the long term and one Iberian hub.• D: The more forward looking strategies include the merger of the 2 Iberian balancing

areas and entry-exit zones. This strategy, though ambitious, proposes small incremental steps.

• E: Ambitious goals and fast moving.

For the first three tasks there is a general agreement between all comments. Most comments also propose the reduction of CB tariffs

17


Proposed road map A B C D E

EU Gas Dir.& Regs. transposition

New tariff system in SP and improvement in PT tariffsDecoupled E-E tariff system, Additive tariffsNo cross subs, transparent cost allocation; Tariff sufficiency

Harmonize CAM & CMPHarmonize Balancing rules (Network Codes)Transitory market-making measures

Reduce CB Tariffs (ITC, cost transf. to entries, discounts)

CB tariff elimination (no economic border)

VIP between PT&SP

Single HUB w/ 2 balancing zones (1 EE zone)

Single balancing zone, single EE area

Question 4: How would you implement the proposed step-wise approach, aiming for a more integrated market in the longer term?

1 1

1 11

2 2

2 2

3

3

4 3

3

Different strategies proposed

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

2

2

18


Operational level improvements• Common access platform to manage cross border trade• Harmonization of data formats, communication, nomination and schedule• Netting of imbalances for shippers in the 2 balancing areas• Operating the IP as a virtual point• Joint management of underground storage SP-PT and equal tariffs

Security of supply• Separate “efficient” cost level from extra costs driven by SoS objectives• How to look at SoS in an integrated Iberian market perspective• Possibility to locate strategic gas reserves in the Iberian space

Higher role for TSO activities• Providing more flexibility options to market agents• TSO working together to provide balancing services to shippers• Maximizing CB capacity availability (e.g. oversubscription & buyback)

Question 5: Would you identify new issues you think are important to create a favorable cross border trade environment? How would you set the timing and prioritization for the discussion on these issues?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

19


Compatibility of the existing long term contracts (transit)• Conciliate existing contracts with the new harmonized rules, respecting their

legal terms and EU Dirs&Regs

Long term capacity booking framework• Keep long term capacity contract at transmission infrastructures: efficient

cost signal, operative advantages, revenue stability, matches EU codes• Make LT contracts binding for TSO and shippers• Promote secondary capacity trading

HUB development• For wholesale market and balancing market purposes• Organized spot market development• Single balancing point

Extend good practices to higher goals• Tariff harmonization in the border FR-SP

Question 5: Would you identify new issues you think are important to create a favorable cross border trade environment? How would you set the timing and prioritization for the discussion on these issues?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

20

Consulta Pública sobre harmonização das tarifas de interligação de gás natural entre Portugal e EspanhaSummary of answers | Other issues (i)

Good practices on public consultation procedures• Hearing should give at least 8 weeks for comments

Trade off between costs and benefits of market integration• Investments linked to market integration should be compared against

increased competition benefits

CEER Gas Target Model interactions• NRAs shall develop an analysis on “market functioning” and propose

measures to achieve market integration and good market functioning by 2014

• CBT Public Hearing could set the grounds for this analysis

Other issues raised in the public hearing

21

Next steps1. Approve and publish the document reviewing and

analysing the comments received [deliverable VI.2 SGRI WP]

2. CNE-ERSE proposal for tariff harmonization in SP and PT [deliverable VI.2 SGRI WP]

3. Identify the priorities in MIBGAS market integration process, in particular concerning Cross Border tariff, CAM and CMP harmonization [deliverable VI.3 SGRI WP]

4. Start implementing small, concrete, steps for an harmonized tariff framework, following closely the European network codes in progress

Opportunities are there in PT (gas codes revision during 2012) and SP (EU Gas Dir. Transposed in March)

5. Carry on discussions within the SGRI framework and keep stakeholder involvement and updating

22


Starting

Deadline

Supervision of compliance with the implementation of the new provisions on transparency in the Regulation 715/2009/CE, for transmission, LNG and storage infrastructure operators

NRAs Sep. 2011 Jun. 2012

V. Transparency

V.1 Stakeholders’ comments on the operators’ questionnaires:

results of the public consultation (for information by NRAs)

V.2 Next steps and calendar (for discussion)

23

V.1 Comments received from Stakeholders on the public consultationonsulta Pública sobre harmonização das tarifas de interligação de gás natural entre Portugal e Espanha

Public Consultation on ACER website (end date was the 20th April)

Little participation

Participants: 5 agents (two answers are confidential) TSO Shippers / suppliers Industry associations

No answers from the French side

Note: the comments are shown as they were received, thus they may present inconsistencies and divergences

Regulators propose sending a reminder to SG members to encourage stakeholders to participate in Public Consultation

on compliance with transparency requirements (Regulation 715/2009/CE)

24


• One participant considers that in a number of cases regulatory requirements have not been met, or information has been provided with a delay, or in a inconsistent and complex manner (examples are not provided).

• There is need to disclose information in English from one TSO.• One operator thinks that, since questionnaire is complex, different criteria

could be used to answer some questions for the different operators, influencing the level of compliance (they must include explanations and comments)

• Two agents consider the links are often not specific of the information they should provide, and in some cases are referred to websites of third parties.

• One operator would have welcome the inclusion of a reply as a “partially compliant”.

Question 1: What are your views on the overall quality, consistency, frequency and availability of the information published by TSOs, LSOs and SSOs in order to comply with the Transparency requirements in Gas Regulation EC/715/2009? Are there any areas of improvement?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

25


Question 2: Do you consider the questionnaires responses accurately reflect the information that is made publicly available by TSOs, LSOs, and SSOs in order to comply with the Transparency requirements in Gas Regulation EC/715/2009? If you consider they do not, please provide specific examples.

• One operator considers that the conclusion presented with percentages of positive and negative answers is not reflecting the accurate level of compliance. The reasons are given: implicit subjectivity on the TSOs, LSOs and SSOs criteria many answers are conditioned by the existing regulatory framework in

the Member State: daily and not hourly flow nominations, a daily balancing regime, implicit UIOLI...

• One user says: most TSOs’ answers accurately reflect the public information some LSOs provide links to general information one SSO questionnaire is filled out with links to NRA’ website

Q2Q1 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

26


• One participant expresses that the degree of user-friendliness of websites and platforms differs considerably – proposal of standardisation between formats used by TSOs.

• Two agents considers that information published by one operator is difficult to access and to find relevant information (lack of advanced information, information failures, lack of historical information and useless information formats).

Question 3: Is the information that is published by TSOs, LSOs and SSOs in order to comply with the Transparency requirements in Gas Regulation EC/715/2009 user-friendly? Where you consider the information is not user-friendly, please provide specific examples.

Q3Q2Q1 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

27


• Two participants answer that no registration or charge is required in order to access public information from all operators websites.

Question 4: Is the information that is published by TSOs in order to comply with the Transparency requirements in Gas Regulation EC/715/2009 available free of charge without subscriptions and free of register for online access? Where you find it is not available free of charge please provide specific examples.

Q4Q2 Q3Q1 Q5 Q6 Q7

28


• One stakeholder considers difficult to assess from TSOs websites if they are providing the information as close to real time as possible. TSOs have access to more frequent data (more than daily) in order to operate their networks efficiently and safely. Encourage regulators to work for understanding fully the TSOs within-day information availability.

Question 5: Is the information that is required to be published at all relevant points by the TSOs (Annex 1, Chapter 3, Article 3.3 (a-g)) published “close to real time i.e. as soon as it is available to the system operator”? If not please provide specific examples.

Q5Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q6 Q7

29


• One operator underlines that two LSOs have already implemented the Transparency Platform, but some information (availability of slots for ship unloading operations) is difficult to obtain from some LSOs.

• One user answers that several LSOs are providing links to too general and extensive information, being difficult to quickly find the desired information.

• Two stakeholders said that most SSOs publish information in a clear and easily accessible way (two participants agree), even when improvements will be welcome in particular cases.

Question 6: Is the information that is required by the Regulation to be disclosed by the LSOs and SSOs published “in a meaningful, quantifiably clear and easily accessible way and on a non-discriminatory basis”? If you consider they do not, please provide specific examples.

Q6Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5Q1 Q7

30


Question 7: Do you consider the data on the use and availability of services offered by LSOs and SSOs are published “in a time-frame compatible with the facility users’ reasonable commercial needs”? If you consider they do not please provide specific examples.

• One operator expresses that regulatory frameworks vary in every Member State as well as maturity of market, level of services provided (tolerance, flexibility services), interest of groups of stakeholders...

Q7Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6Q1

31

Consulta Pública sobre harmonização das tarifas de interligação de gás natural entre Portugal e EspanhaSummary of answers – PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

• All participants welcome the public consultation on compliance monitoring of TSOs, LSOs and SSOs against the Third Package gas Transparency Requirements launched by SGRI. They support all the improvements and works to be done in order that the real internal gas market becomes a reality, as soon as possible.

• In general, a significant level of compliance is reported on all requirements, althought it is not the same in the three countries.

• In some TSOs websites the relevant information is not easy to find. Need to improve frequency of publication, historical data, language, different formats...

• Some LSOs and SSOs websites reflect the available information but there is room for improvement in easy and direct access.

• Subjective criteria, misunderstanding and particular national conditions can lead to different interpretations of compliance level.

32

V.2 Next steps and calendar (for discussion) onsulta Pública sobre harmonização das tarifas de interligação de gás natural entre Portugal e Espanha

Reminder to encourage furthers stakeholders participation in Public Consultation

New deadline to Public Consultation: 18th June

Regulators to publish the stakeholders’ answers in ACER website

33

VI. Review of actions in the WP 2011-2014 Areas of work Responsible Starting Deadline

Capacity allocation mechanisms ()

I.1. OSP France-Spain: annual allocation of short-term capacities

TSOsNov.

(yearly)Dec.

(yearly)

I.2. CAM harmonisation proposal between Spain and Portugal NRAs-TSOs Jan. 2011 Jun. 2012

I.2. CAM harmonisation proposal in the whole region NRAs-TSOs Jan. 2012 Dec. 2013

I.3. Set up a common TSO Allocation Platform: Roadmap and Implementation

TSOs Jul. 2012 Dec. 2014

Congestion management procedures (CMP)

II.1. CMP harmonisation proposal between Spain and France NRAs-TSOs Jan. 2011Dec. 2012

II.2. CMP harmonisation proposal between and Spain and Portugal NRAs-TSOs Jan. 2012 Jan. 2013

Investment in new infrastructure. Ten-Year Network Development Plans and projects of common (European) interest

III.1. Regular update and publication in CEER website of project status of OS 2013 and 2015

TSOs-NRAs Dec. (yearly) Jun. (yearly)

III.2. Drafting of the South Regional Investment Plan 2012 TSOs Jul. 2011 Jan. 2012

III.3. Feedback to ENTSO-G on contents and methodology of the regional investment plan

NRAs Jan. 2012 Jul. 2012

III.4. Input to ENTSO-G for the Community-wide TYNDP 2013 TSOs Jan. 2012 Jan. 2013

III.5. Creation of a working group in the region in order to test the process of PCI identification

NRAs -TSOs Mar. 2012 Dec. 2012

III.6. Drafting of the South Regional Investment Plan 2014 TSOs Jan. 2013 Jan. 2014

34

GRIP (Gas regional Investment Plan): A public consultation on the TSOs GRIP was launched on 7 February until 7 March 2012

.Only one answer received

.Stakeholders are again invited to send comments before 18th June 2012

.Regulators will issue their opinion on the following months taking into consideration stakeholders comments

VI. Review of actions in the WP 2011-2014

35


Areas of work Responsible Starting Deadline

Security of Supply (SoS)

IV.1 Periodically update on progress on Regulation 994/2010 implementation

Competent Authorities

Permanent

IV.2 Promotion of market’s participation through public consultations in the development of preventive action plans

NRAs Permanent

Balancing

V.1. Contributing to the FG and NC, by raising the regional experience and lessons learned

NRAs-TSOs Permanent

V.2. Investigation of the use of the gas markets in the region for balancing purposes

NRAs-TSOs Jun. 2012 Jun. 2013

V.3. Analyse the current configuration of balancing zones and possible merging of certain areas

NRAs-TSOs Jan. 2013 Dec. 2013

V.4. Pilot project for a common balancing platform in the three countries TSOs Jan. 2014 Dec. 2014

Tariffs

VI.1. CNE-ERSE joint study on tariff regimes in Spain and Portugal NRAs 2010 Dec. 2011

VI.2. CNE-ERSE proposal for tariff harmonization in Spain and Portugal NRAs 2010 Dec. 2012

V.I3. Further studies to evaluate the current tariff structures and propose improvements

NRAs Jan. 2012 Dec. 2012

36


Areas of work Responsible Starting Deadline

Interoperability

VII.1. Contribute with the regional experience to the development of the FG and the NC

NRAs-TSOs Permanent

VII.2. Analysis of interoperability aspects and procedures that need to be harmonised among the three countries (in line with the FG-NC)

TSOs Jan. 2013 Jan. 2014

VII.3. In particular, harmonisation of gas day, communication protocols between TSOs, quality standards, programming and nomination schedules, etc.

TSOs Jan. 2014 Dec. 2014

Implementation of the 3rd Package

VII.1. Supervision of compliance with the implementation of the new provisions on transparency in the Regulation 715/2009/CE, for transmission, LNG and storage infrastructure operators

NRAs Sep. 2011 Jun. 2012

Developing hub-to-hub trading in the South region

IX.1. Hub developmentNRAs-TSOs-stakeholders

Jan.2013 Dec. 2013

IX.2. Hub-to-hub gas trading in the regionNRAs-TSOs-stakeholders

Jan.2014 Dec. 2014

37

VI. AOB and next meetings

Infrastructures associated to OS 2013:

. TSOs should send as soon as possible the updated status records required already several times

38

Calendar 2nd semester 2012 - SGRIAPRIL MAY JUNE

M Tu W Th F Sat Sun M Tu W Th F Sat Sun M Tu W Th F Sat Sun1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 2423 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 3030

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBERM Tu W Th F Sat Sun M Tu W Th F Sat Sun M Tu W Th F Sat Sun Jul: CAM Portugal - Spain

1 1 2 3 4 5 1 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 99 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 2323 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 3030 31

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBERM Tu W Th F Sat Sun M Tu W Th F Sat Sun M Tu W Th F Sat Sun

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 Dec: OSP France-Spain8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dec: CMP France-Spain

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 1622 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 2329 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

2012 Jul: Feedback ENTSOG on

contents and methodology of RIP

Dec: NRAs analysis on tariff regulatory harmonization between Portugal and Spain

2012

IG meeting Green Spanish Bank HolidaySG meeting Purple Portuguese Bank HolidayDeadlines Blue French Bank Holiday

Proposal:• ???? July: 20th IG• 27 September : 17th SG • 6 November: 21st IG • 13 December: 18th SG

1 madrid, 31 st may 2012 16 th sg meeting south gas regional initiative

Documents

nras slide

underused capacity

spain slide

released capacity

agenda slide

discussion slide

nras information memorandum

regulatory harmonization