1 / 28

Kick-off Meeting on IP 14 A, B, C (Oude Statenzijl; H-Gas) GTS <> BEB; EGT; WTKG

Kick-off Meeting on IP 14 A, B, C (Oude Statenzijl; H-Gas) GTS <> BEB; EGT; WTKG. I. Status Quo. Former IP # 13A - D. GTE map 2005. Map: GTE. I. Status Quo. New IP # 14A - C. GTE map 2006. Instructions for adjacent TSOs: Please bring missing data to the meeting. I. Status Quo.

khoi
Download Presentation

Kick-off Meeting on IP 14 A, B, C (Oude Statenzijl; H-Gas) GTS <> BEB; EGT; WTKG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Kick-off Meeting on IP 14 A, B, C (Oude Statenzijl; H-Gas) GTS <> BEB; EGT; WTKG

  2. I. Status Quo Former IP # 13A - D GTE map 2005 Map: GTE

  3. I. Status Quo New IP # 14A - C GTE map 2006

  4. Instructions for adjacent TSOs: Please bring missing data to the meeting. I. Status Quo Availability of Data / Confidentiality Problems (cf. report pages 65ff) confid. = data labelled (at least partly) confidential *utilisation rates: In the questionnaire it was asked for min/max utilisation rates (flow as percentage of total technical capacity). Delivered by GTS, BEB was the min/max contractual allocation in m³/h and kWh/h. EGT & WTKG delivered physical net flow as percentages (WTKG as percentage of booked firm!)) Therefore, no final statement on existence of physical congestion possible!

  5. I. Status Quo Main Problems identified in the report (cf. pages 65ff)

  6. I. Status Quo Booking situation at IP 14A (GTS  EGT) • GTS website: • No firm entry from EGT available until end of 2012 • Until 2008/09/30 19-66% of firm exit to EGT available, thereafter technicalcapacities mainly confidential, but a substantial amount of firm exit still available • EGT website: • Until 2007/09/30 no firm entry nor exit capacity available • Further data not yet available, due to new calculation of technical capacities in the EGT-system

  7. I. Status Quo Booking situation at IP 14B (GTS  WTKG) Similar situation as IP 14A • GTS website: • No firm entry from Wingas available until end of 2012 • Until 2008/09/30 69-89% of firm exit to WTKG available, afterwards technical & booked capacities mainly confidential, but a large amount of firm exit still available • WTKG website: • Until 2010/03/31 >70%WTKG exit capacity to GTSavailable • 22%entry until 2007/09/30 available, afterwards until 2010/03/31 52% available

  8. I. Status Quo Booking situation at IP 14C (GTS  BEB) • GTS website: • Until end of 2009 no firm entry capacity from BEB available • Until end of Sept. 2009: 58% – 75% firm exit to BEB available • BEB website: • Until end of 2009 no firm entry nor exit capacity available

  9. Technical Cap. and maximum utilisation 2005 at IP 14A I. Status Quo • GTS Entry partly confidential • Mismatch of technical capacities • EGT net flow max. 53% • GTS contractual flow Net Flows Contractual Flows

  10. Technical Cap. and maximum utilisation 2005 at IP 14A I. Status Quo • Mismatch of technical capacities • Note: GTS tech. capacity calculated flexibly! • Low max. GTS Exit Utilisation (allocation) Contractual Flows

  11. Technical Cap. and net flow in 2005 at IP 14A I. Status Quo • Mismatch of technical capacities • GTS partly confidential • Full util. in Oct. • Variation in balanced flows between GTS/EGT due to Ref. GCV?

  12. Technical Cap. and maximum utilisation 2005 at IP 14B I. Status Quo • GTS Entry capacity confidential • GTS Entry utilisation partly confid. • No complete evaluation possible

  13. Technical Cap. and maximum utilisation 2005 at IP 14B I. Status Quo • WTKG Entry max. physical utilisation partly confidential and at low level (max. 43%) • GTS Exit low max. util. (contractual, not net flow) • Mismatch of technical capacities • No complete evaluation of flows possible

  14. Technical Cap. and maximum utilisation 2005 at IP 14C I. Status Quo • BEB Entry max. utilisation partly not available (Why?) • Mismatch of technical capacity Both Con-tractual Flows

  15. Technical Cap. and maximum utilisation 2005 at IP 14C I. Status Quo • Capacity partly n.a. (Why?) • GTS Entry and BEB Exit utilisation (allocation) highly exceeding techn. capacity and diverting • BEB remark: physical (balanced) flow shows no physical congestion

  16. Technical Cap. and balanced flow in 2005 at IP 14C I. Status Quo • BEB 9-12: physical (balanced) flow shows no physical congestion (max. 44% util. in Sept) • Data for 2006 BEBGTSneeded • Difference in balanced flows between GTS/BEB due to Ref. GCV?

  17. I. Status Quo: additional detailed information Summary of results: GTS-WTKG (report – double click for full details)

  18. I. Status Quo: additional detailed information Summary of results: GTS-E.ON GT (report – double click for full details)

  19. I. Status Quo: additional detailed information Summary of results: GTS-BEB (report – double click for full details)

  20. II. Implementation Goals: Proposal by BNetzA / DTe

  21. II. Implementation Goals: Proposal by BNetzA / DTe(cont‘d)

  22. II. Implementation Goals: Proposal by TSO(s) [xxx] Instructions for adjacent TSOs: Please fill in the table together with connected TSOs. Do you agree with the findings of the report or are there other experiences? Is there any other issue of importance? Please use the following slides to specify on each implementation goal and its respective remedies.

  23. II. Implementation Goal: Maximisation of Capacity TSO(s) should present answers to the following questions: • Which specific measures you can reasonably implement to improve capacity situation? • Reasons for low capacity utilisation rates • Role and feasibility of stricter and more frequent application of UIOLI • Room for improvements • Role of investments • Role and feasibility of auctions • Can improvements be achieved within a reasonable timeframe?

  24. II. Implementation Goal: Transparency TSO(s) should present answers to the following questions: • which specific measures you can reasonably implement? • Role, scope and feasibility of measures of improvement • Room for improvement • reasonable timeframe

  25. II. Implementation Goal: Products TSO(s) should present answers to the following questions: • which specific measures you can reasonably implement? • Role, scope and feasibility of measures of improvement • Room for improvement • reasonable timeframe

  26. II. Implementation Goal: xxx TSO(s) should present answers to the following questions: • which specific measures you can reasonably implement? • Role, scope and feasibility of measures of improvement • Room for improvement • reasonable timeframe

  27. II. Implementation Goals: Proposal by Stakeholder(s) [xxx] Instructions for stakeholders: Please fill in the table (where possible together with other stakeholders). Do you agree with the findings of the report or are there other experiences? Is there any other issue of importance? Where you need additional space for your response, please use extra slides.

  28. Instructions for all meeting participants: This table is to be filled in at the meeting. III. Way forward Decision on the agenda: detailed next steps and deadlines for implementation goal increase available capacity Other tasks: EG:Report outcome of kick-off meeting to RCC by 18 May 07 Next meeting: [15 or 28 june], [hannover], [BEB]

More Related