ENTSOG Tariff NC - Implementation Document 2nd Edition

Annex O Consideration of the EFET comment on allocating bundled capacity to the same network user on both sides of an IP ENTSOG received stakeholder feedback that allocating bundled capacity to the same network user on both sides of an IP is ‘an ENTSOG imposed rule, not a legal requirement’. However, ENTSOG is of the opinion that the CAM NC can only be in- terpreted in a way that it must be ‘the same network user’ bidding for, contracting and using both of the components of the bundled capacity. ENTSOG’s opinion is based on various supporting documents and was publicly discussed during early stages of the CAM NC development  1) . \\ Firstly, ENTSOG’s opinion is justified by the CAM NC intention and purpose to sell capacities at one or a limited number of booking platforms in an entry-exit system. Following an interpretation other than ‘ the same network user ’ would enable trading at the flange and therefore, undermine the concept of harmo- nised booking procedures at platforms. \\ Secondly, ENTSOG created an overview of different NCs’ rules that underpin ‘the same network user’ requirement: (i) the definition of bundled capacity in Article 3(4) of the CAM NC and its allocation as set out in Article 19(3); (ii) Article 19(8) of the CAM NC for trading at the secondary market; and (iii) the rules for nominations in the BAL NC. Also, the current terms and conditions of the TSOs are reflecting ‘the same network user’ interpretation. \\ Thirdly, the current technical design of the booking platforms and TSOs’ back- end systems also underpin ‘ the same network user ’ requirement. The timing for implementation of another interpretation and the associated costs are difficult to estimate but appear to be significant. Based on the above, ENTSOG is of the opinion that the associated complications of following a solution other than ‘ the same network user ’ would be contradictory to the intention of CAM NC. In addition, the implementation costs would be significant. Therefore, ENTSOG maintains its view that the bundled capacity must be booked by the same network user. Allowing for a solution other than ‘the same network user ’ would require a legal analysis as to whether different NCs’ rules listed above can be changed.

 1) The Launch Documentation: http://www.entsog.eu/public/uploads/files/publications/CAM%20Network%20 Code/2012/110321%20CAP0112-11%20CAM%20NC%20Launch%20Doc%20final.pdf : p. 25, point 5.4.3 ‘Bundled ser- vice concept’; p. 27 ‘Defining the bundled service concept’. Discussion at SJWS of 19 May 2011 http://www.entsog.eu/ public/uploads/files/publications/CAM%20Network%20Code/2012/ENTSOG%20slide%20package%20during%20 SJWS%201.pdf : slide 14 of the presentation. Discussion at SJWS of 19 May 2011 http://www.entsog.eu/public/uploads/ files/publications/CAM%20Network%20Code/2012/190511%20CAP0147-11%20Minutes%20of%20SJWS4%20final.pdf : p. 4 of the minutes. The Supporting Document http://www.entsog.eu/public/uploads/files/publications/CAM%20Net- work%20Code/2012/110621%20CAP0142-11%20Draft%20CAM%20NC%20-%20Consultation%20document%20FI- NAL.pdf : p. 26.

244 |

TAR NC Implementation Document – Second Edition September 2017