overview of marchwood determination
Post on 19-Jan-2016
25 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
UNC workstream
Overview of Marchwood determination
Mark FeatherAssociate Director, Ofgem
7 December 2006, Transmission Workstream
UNC workstream
Background (1)
Marchwood gas fired power station – 860 MW– Marchwood development owned by ESBI and SSE
Requested firm gas supply from the NTS from Oct 08 NTS proposed network reinforcements for Marchwood
– 28km/900mm pipe from Barton Stacey to Lockerley– £43m cost
MPL constructing own connecting pipe:– Marchwood to Lockerley on NTS– 22km/610mm pipe– £24m cost– MPL to own pipeline
UNC workstream
Avonmouth
Wormington
Lockerley
ICI Severnside
Ottery St. Mary Kenn
Fishacre Coffinswell
Lyneham Plymouth PS
Ilchester
NTS Compressor
NTS Offtake NTS Junction LNG Facility
Proposed NTS Pipeline
Existing NTS Pipeline
Proposed NTS Offtake
Barrington
Pucklechurch
Sapperton
Aylesbeare
Aylesbury Didcot PS Chalgrove
Winkfield
Nuffield
Ipsden
Braishfield
Mappowder
Seabank
Abson
Cirencester Littleton Drew Eastern Grey East
Illsley
Avonmouth
Wormington
Lockerley
ICI Severnside
Ottery St. Mary Kenn
Ilchester
NTS Compressor
NTS Offtake NTS Junction LNG Facility
Proposed NTS Pipeline
Existing NTS Pipeline
Proposed NTS Offtake
Barrington
Pucklechurch
Sapperton
Aylesbeare
Aylesbury Didcot PS Chalgrove
Winkfield
Nuffield
Ipsden
Braishfield
Mappowder
Seabank
Abson
Cirencester Littleton Drew Eastern Grey East Ilsley
Barton Stacey Michelmersh
Marchwood
Proposed Connecting Pipeline Proposed Compressor Mods
Buttsash
AGI on LTS
Existing LTS pipeline
Map of Marchwood area
UNC workstream
Background (2)
Proposals for development – since 2000 Various consents already secured:
– Generation licence– Consents to construct power station– Pipeline construction authorisation for connecting pipe to
NTS– Landowner consents along connecting pipe route– Connection and construction agreement with NGET
UNC workstream
The dispute (1)
Occurs in transitional offtake period Release of incremental exit capacity governed by NTS
Incremental Exit capacity release methodology (IEXCR)
Marchwood power station requires reinforcement IEXCR specifies that ARCA required where
investment needed NTS requested 14 year ARCA for payment of full
£43m MPL sought same terms as Langage – 2 year ARCA for
1 years charges
UNC workstream
The dispute (2)
MPL raised dispute under:– sections 21 and 27A of the Gas Act– Article 25(5) of Gas directive
Focus of dispute on terms of Advanced Reservation of Capacity Agreement (ARCA)
MPL sought same treatment as Langage MPL also raised connection issues.
UNC workstream
The process
Dispute raised – late March 2006
Ofgem initiates process – April 2006
Submissions received from parties – May 2006
Oral hearing requested – June 2006
Oral hearing – August 2006
Release decision – September 2006
UNC workstream
The key issue
The level of the ARCA commitment– Principles for determining commitment level– Risk assessment test– Comparisons with Langage– What are the efficient costs of reinforcement?
UNC workstream
Location of connection point
Initially some issues raised regarding location of connection point for charging purposes
The shallow connection test – set out in Ofgas 1997 document and applied in Langage.
‘Point of connection for charging purposes is the point where the new connection pipes join the existing main (that is, where the existing system has sufficient capacity to meet the connecting load, disregarding existing loads at that point)’.
Parties agreed at oral hearing that connection point was NTS connection at Lockerley
Connection issues therefore NOT in dispute.
UNC workstream
The level of commitment required under the ARCA
Discussions and Conclusions– Issue A: Approach to determining the level of
financial commitment– Issue B: Assessing the risk associated with the
Marchwood load– Issue C: Assessing the efficient costs or
reinforcement– DECISION
UNC workstream
Issue A: Approach to determining the level of financial commitment (1)
Key document – 1997 Ofgas report on ARCAs Case by Case assessment in transitional offtake period Langage a relevant comparator – not necessarily a
precedent ARCAs intended to protect NGG from stranded asset risk. In return the customer obtains firm exit capacity rights. Commitment beyond 1 year not normally appropriate as
code only requires capacity to be booked on annual basis. Additional commitment may be appropriate if load is
riskier than overall portfolio of firm loads.
UNC workstream
The one year commitment Why is there a one year commitment? Inappropriate to impose greater level of
commitment on new users whilst existing users roll over existing rights on a monthly basis.
As such, protects parties from risk of undue discrimination.
BUT, greater than one year commitment may be necessary where load poses significant risks (ie risker than overall portfolio of firm loads)
Onus of proof on NGG NTS Key issue is allocation of risk between users,
generality of customers and NGG NTS
UNC workstream
Enduring offtake
Marchwood decision applicable to transitional offtake arrangements
Enduring offtake framework under consultation Not appropriate to depart from Ofgas 1997
principles for transitional offtake If enduring offtake is implemented then Ofgas
1997 principles would no longer apply. Enduring offtake proposals subject to Authority
consideration
UNC workstream
Case by case: Assessing the risks
Jan 2006 IEXCR letter provided guidance on risk assessment:– Commitments must not discriminate between new and existing
users– Commitments should facilitate efficient investment and reduce
stranded asset risk– What is the risk profile of the load making the capacity request
relative to other present and future loads in the area?– Do the reinforcements benefit other present and future users in
the area?– How risky are the other loads that benefit?– Are there other ‘risky’ loads expected to reduce usage in the
future and create spare capacity in the area?
UNC workstream
Issue B: Assessing the risk associated with the Marchwood load
The following factors relevant to determining risk of Marchwood load: – More efficient than existing CCGT plant – less likely to exit
the wholesale electricity market.– Proposed power station is favourably located in the SW
area for electricity system– May benefit from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.– 15 year tolling agreement with SSE– Langage a relevant comparator – similarities exist
But, there are factors which may pose a greater risk to consumers: – Government’s Energy Review process; uncertainty over
allowances for EU ETS (although this is a concern for all generators); greater gas price volatility.
UNC workstream
Issue B: Assessing the risks (2) Ofgem placed in position of assessing risk for customers Absence of enduring offtake framework makes risk assessment
difficult. – Difficult to assess riskiness of load– Difficult to assess whether other users benefit from the reinforcements– Difficult to assess whether other loads in the area may reduce their
usage going forward NGG NTS did not provide bona fide risk assessment and required
100% commitment from Marchwood Effective NGG NTS risk assessment may have reduced user
commitment and likelihood of dispute – failure must be corrected. BUT, on balance:
– Marchwood load is NOT significantly more risky than overall portfolio of firm loads including other firm generating loads
– insufficient evidence to suggest that reinforcement of the Marchwood load benefits others
UNC workstream
Conclusions NGG NTS should enter into an ARCA for one
year’s worth of exit capacity charges. Going forward we would expect NGG NTS to
undertake risk assessments in the transitional offtake period on a case by case basis having regard to the relevant principles.
Need for reform of existing arrangements for securing exit capacity. – Appropriate for the risks associated with transmission
reinforcement to be managed by those parties best able to manage them
Efficient costs of reinforcement – not considered in determination…issue for TPCR.
UNC workstream
Transmission Price Control – Final proposals
UNC workstream
Offtake – key conclusions
Baselines – minor adjustments to baselines for exit and flat capacity. Flex baseline – 22 mcm Revenue drivers – apply for 5 years from contractual delivery -
updated upwards to reflect further information received from NGG NTS
Indexation applied to revenue drivers CLNG incentive targets for 09/10, 10/11 and 11/12 updated –
– NGG NTS volume requirements accepted (SE and SW)– Price – minor variation to medium case scenario chosen– No ex-ante funding of gas purchase costs in CLNG incentive– CLNG manager account – Targets: 09/10 - £4.3m, 10/11 - £3.6m, 11/12 - £2.9m.
UNC workstream
TPCR – Offtake - Key conclusions (2)
Transitional offtake – 15 day incentive retained but with “zero” targets and collar of £-2m.
Enduring offtake – Investment buy back incentive– £36m annual cap +monthly cap of £4m.– Aggregate downside cap across all buy back schemes is £48m.– 365 days of permits at 30 Gwh/day for exit – permits can only be used
in advance of long term allocations.– Permits can be cashed out if unused– value set at £3m – pro-rated to
number of unused days. Enduring offtake – non-obligated capacity incentive
– £20m cap and 50% sharing factor– Monitoring of conduct under NTS efficient operation licence condition
Enduring offtake – south west interruptibles– Allowance for long term contracting - £3.4m per annum – 50% sharing
factor.
UNC workstream
Other key highlights
Significant capital investment allowances Adjustment mechanisms flex revenues according
to demand Safety net and output measures Emphasis on user commitment models Post tax return – 4.4% Disallowance of proportion of St Fergus spend
UNC workstream
Promoting choice and value for all gas and electricity customers
top related