EU gas supply sourcing costs fell to record low in 2020 due mainly to COVID-19 gas demand reductions and record LNG deliveries

Image
Image

EU gas supply sourcing costs fell to record low in 2020 due mainly to COVID-19 gas demand reductions and record LNG deliveries

What is ACER's preliminary assessment of gas supply sourcing costs about?

Average gas supply sourcing costs declined in 2020 in most EU Member States and the Energy Community Contracting Parties by more than 4 Euros/MWh year on year, according to today's preliminary assessment of the EU Agency for the Cooperation for Energy Regulators (ACER) and the Energy Community. When comparing gas sourcing costs in 2020 to their average between 2012-2019, prices declined by 8 Euros/MWh.
The assessment measures the average yearly price at which nationwide suppliers can source their wholesale gas. The calculation considers the prices of products traded at the national hubs as well as declared cross-border gas imports and domestically produced gas.
 

The main drivers of the price decline were the demand reduction caused by COVID-19 and the highest-ever liquefied natural gas (LNG) deliveries registered during the first half of 2020. These resulted in historically low EU hub spot prices in the second quarter of 2020. The decline in the prices of other energy commodities and the above average underground storage stocks at the beginning of the injection season were other contributing factors. Even though hub prices partly recovered from the third quarter, average yearly supply sourcing costs reached their record low since ACER started to assess them in 2012.

Convergence in sourcing prices remained overall robust amongst a majority of Member States, with the largest differences rounding about 3 Euros/MWh. This demonstrates the benefits of the Internal Gas Market. For example, in 2013 sourcing cost spreads of more than 5 Euros/MWh were frequent, implying extra yearly expenditure from 40 to 60 Euros for the average final household consumers in higher costing gas markets. Increased convergence in gas sourcing cost is estimated to have yielded​ average annual welfare gains in the range of 3 billion Euros for EU gas consumers since 2013.​

Full map gas supply costs

Source: ACER and Energy Community calculation based on Eurostat Comext, ICIS Heren and National Regulatory Authorities.

Note: Gas sourcing cost within a given Member State vary per shipper and supply period, shaped by the features of the various contracts, hedging strategies as well as distinct supply origins. To infer an average yearly gas supply price, the Agency uses a methodology that considers three main types of sourcing costs (see MMR 2015, Annex 6): i) based on an explicit basket of hub products (in markets with sufficient forward transactional activity), ii) based on declared cross-border imports and iii) based on domestic production prices. The map displays the arithmetic average of all sourcing mechanisms; the report will contain the exact price estimates per supply mechanism.

Despite the impact of COVID-19 on gas demand and the enhanced availability of liquefied gas, the average gas price did not decline uniformly across the EU. This resulted in some price gaps between the Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF) hub-based benchmark and the sourcing costs of some Member States. Prices were higher on average at Member States with a higher reliance on long-term supply contracts indexed either to oil or longer-curve' hub products. The highest average sourcing costs were reported in Southern East, Mediterranean and some Central East Member States. All Baltic countries (excluding Finland), and also Greece, reported very price-competitive import prices in 2020. ACER considers that in both cases this is due to the larger relative indexation to hub prompt products in their more recent LNG supply contracts.

Sourcing costs at the Energy Community Contracting Parties were uneven, shaped by the characteristics of the diverse markets. In the majority of them, gas prices continued to be somewhat higher than for the average of EU Member States due to a prevalence of less favourable long-term contracts and more limited upstream supply competition. However for example in Ukraine the price gap have lessened following market reforms that have made import prices more correlated with EU hubs. Ukraine retains also ample cost-competitive domestic gas production.

In a related exercise, the upcoming 2020 ACER Gas Wholesale Market Monitoring Report will analyse the level of price convergence of spot products traded at EU hubs. The preliminary results indicate a strong price alignment across the North West European region, where price differences against the TTF benchmark remained below 1 Euro/MWh for almost all trading days, as the figure below illustrates. Hub spreads commonly remain below transportation costs despite the gradual expiration of long-term capacity contracts, which is reducing in turn EU shippers' short-run marginal costs bidding (the Market Monitoring Report will analyse this trend in depth). Record liquefied gas deliveries and flexible North Sea supplies, together with the structural fostering of hub trading at the region, are deemed as limiting price decoupling.

While hub price convergence tends to be stronger at regional level, Central and South Eastern hubs, as well as Mediterranean and Baltic ones, still show some higher spreads when comparing against the TTF benchmark. Those differences arise because of higher transportation tariffs as well as from the specific interplay of marginal supply and opportunity pricing at the individual markets.  Nonetheless, overall, spot price alignment increased year on year with lower demand combined with high liquefied gas deliveries and storage stocks. The improvement was notable at the Hungarian, Italian and Spanish hubs. For example, unusually, the Italian hub quoted at a discount to the Austrian hub across the summer months, on the grounds of extra liquefied gas deliveries.

2020 TTF convergence V3

Sourcing costs and hub price individual assessments will be further examined in the next edition of the Gas Wholesale Market Monitoring Report, to be published in July 2021. Furthermore, the report will focus on presenting the results of the ACER Gas Target Model metrics for the year 2020 as well as on assessing the effects of gas network codes implementation. It will include a new chapter identifying the contributions that the gas sector can make to the EU decarbonisation ambitions. 

Open Call

Open Call

Open call for Gas Capacity Booking Platforms to submit offers for Mallnow and GCP

The Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) calls for the submission of offers to select a web-based capacity booking platform to be used by transmission system operators (TSOs) for the offering of bundled gas capacity products at the Mallnow physical interconnection point (IP) and the GCP virtual interconnection point (VIP) between Germany and Poland.
Capacity booking platforms that are active in the European Union and fulfil the requirements of the EU Regulation establishing a Network Code on Capacity Allocation Mechanisms can submit their offers until noon, 7 June 2019. All capacity booking platforms fulfilling the requirements of Article 37(1) and (2) of the NC CAM are invited to participate.
Following the receipt and the evaluation of the offers, the Agency will decide which capacity booking platform shall perform the capacity allocations for the above-mentioned IPs for a period no longer than three years.

Our vision: a competitive, secure European gas market that benefits all consumers

Our vision: a competitive, secure European gas market that benefits all consumers

A bridge to 2025

Image
acer image

​​​In the “Bridge to 2025”, regulators set out their thinking on the key challenges and the possible responses to secure the appropriate regulatory framework for the coming decade. The present document renews and updates the Gas Target Model (GTM) developed in 2011. The core principles that underpin our vision for European gas markets will remain the same today as when the GTM was first published. This vision is of a competitive European gas market, comprising entry-exit zones with liquid virtual trading points, where market integration is served by appropriate levels of infrastructure, which is utilised efficiently and enables gas to move freely between market areas to the locations where it is most highly valued by gas market participants. However, the European gas market and the uncertainties and challenges it faces have changed fundamentally, and this requires a new mind set in order to adopt the correct regulatory approach when looking forward to the next decade. You can have a look at the latest GTM here.  

The Network Codes will bring Europe closer to this vision. Implementing them in full and on schedule is the right priority and the focus for regulators and other stakeholders today. However, the Network Codes alone are unlikely to deliver a “well-functioning transparent gas wholesale … market” that benefits consumers across Europe, as required by Regulation (EC) No 715/2009. Consequently, this revised GTM not only guides the coherent development and implementation of the Network Codes, but also specifies the steps required to realise liquid and dynamic gas markets thereby enabling all European consumers to benefit from secure gas supplies and effective retail competition.    

Increasing uncertainty in supply and demand     

An important factor in revising the GTM has been changing gas market dynamics. The supply and demand picture has become increasingly uncertain in recent years. For a long period, gas demand had been rising relentlessly. A combination of factors has changed that. In particular, the shale gas revolution in America has put gas-intensive European industrial enterprises at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, the coal displaced from the American generation mix has lowered coal prices in Europe such that coal-fired generation is now far more profitable than running gas-fired power stations. The low emission allowance price has also exacerbated this phenomenon. On the supply side, European Union (EU) production, which is located largely in the UK and the Netherlands, is declining. Whilst unconventional gas production will be a positive development as far as domestic output is concerned, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on gas supplies, even in the most optimistic scenarios, until well into the 2020s.    

Competitive markets ensure Security of Supply    ​

Security of Supply and competition work in concert; the more pluralistic upstream supply is in Europe, the less we will depend on any one source of supply that may be subject to either physical restrictions or political interference. Our research shows that thirteen Member States do not meet the original GTM target of a Residual Supply Index (RSI) of over 110% of demand, whilst most Eastern European countries cannot currently hit this target.     

The GTM strongly affirms that well-functioning gas markets remain essential providers of supply security. Building on the original GTM, we recommend further enhancements to market-based measures, such as ensuring that imbalance prices remain dynamic throughout an emergency, with no cap on prices (up to the value of lost load, or VoLL), in order to strengthen incentives for market participants (including storage users) to deliver supply security. In addition, we propose full unbundling of storage products and setting appropriate network tariffs for storage users. We note that it can be difficult to give Transmission System Operators (TSOs) incentives to work together to build large, complex projects from relatively distant regions (and such projects are often unable to access capital markets). Relevant public bodies should give priority status to such infrastructure investments and be able to promote them as projects of common interest (PCIs).    
 

Wholesale market functioning    ​

The GTM interprets the Gas Regulation requirement of “facilitating the emergence of a well-functioning and transparent wholesale market” as implying a liquid spot market and, crucially, a liquid wholesale forward and/or futures market, so that cost-effective wholesale market risk management is possible. For example, this means that a new entrant can sell a fixed-price contract to a consumer for delivery of gas in a year’s time, and in turn purchase the required gas at a fixed price in the wholesale gas market. Research we have undertaken shows that forward trading is highly limited across the EU. This point is of critical importance.     

Interconnections have a key role to play in achieving a functioning EU market. The Capacity Allocation (CAM) Network Code and the Congestion Management Procedures (CMP) Guidelines represent a fundamental step forward, but are not sufficient in many cases. The updated GTM therefore includes an assessment of the functioning of wholesale markets at national level, developing a revised series of metrics to assess whether a wholesale market is ‘well-functioning’. These metrics are based on the analysis of data and information not available when the first GTM was drafted and can be grouped into two key characteristics of markets:    

  1. They meet market participants’ needs: products and liquidity are available that enable effective management of wholesale market risk; and,   

  2. They have “market health”: the wholesale market is demonstrably competitive, resilient and has a high degree of Security of Supply.    

The self-evaluation process    ​

We propose that all Member States assess whether they are likely to meet, or continue to meet, these revised GTM metrics by 2017 (and every three years thereafter) in order to determine whether their market will be well functioning. If it will not, the GTM suggests considering structural market reforms. Three market integration tools have been identified (this list is not exhaustive):    

  1. Full market merger: full merger of two or more adjacent markets by merging their virtual trading points and balancing zones;     

  2. Trading region: partial merger of two or more adjacent markets at the wholesale level by merging their virtual trading points and establishing a cross-border trading balancing zone; and,    

  3. Satellite market: substantial linking (via pipeline capacity) of a non-functioning gas market to a directly neighbouring, well-functioning wholesale gas market.    

Additional tools, including market coupling, can have a beneficial effect by facilitating coordinated, simultaneous access to capacity and spot gas markets.    

Any reforms undertaken by Member States should be based on an appropriate cost-benefit analysis to ensure their economic viability.   

The role of gas in complementing renewable energy source generation  

We believe that more can, and should, be done to ensure that regulatory and market arrangements allow for more efficient use of gas-fired power plants. We predict that significant gas-fired generating capacity is likely to be needed to provide flexible back up to renewable energy sources (RES) whilst also running at a far lower load factor than was previously the case. To optimise the joint working of the electricity and gas sectors, we propose that gas and electricity TSOs should be legally obliged to cooperate with one another. This could include: (i) improved information flows so that system operators and market participants benefit from more timely information, allowing all parties to make more optimised operational decisions; and, (ii) a cooperative review of gas and electricity industry timelines, among other things.    

New developments in the gas supply chain 

We have also considered new developments in the use of gas. These include: (i) the intensification of gas use in the transportation sector (in both liquefied (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) forms); (ii) small-scale applications of LNG and CNG, including alternative means of distribution such as virtual pipelines; and, (iii) pioneering technologies that facilitate the storage of electricity in the form of hydrogen or synthetic gas (“power to gas” or P2G).    

As regulators, it is important that we facilitate the emergence of these new uses of gas through appropriate and limited interventions only. The areas we have considered in our review include:    

Clarification as to which of these activities require regulatory intervention (in particular loading/bunkering activities at LNG storage facilities);    

Ensuring that LNG and CNG filling stations are not considered as suppliers of gas, and consequently should not be subject to third party access (TPA) or licensing procedures;    

Facilitating a level-playing field between piped and non-piped supplies, so that gas-to-gas competition is possible if the market demands it; and,    

Particularly in the case of P2G, the technical provisions for injecting hydrogen and synthetic gas in the gas system, the pricing regime, the role of the P2G operators, the balancing aspect and integration in the electricity system.   ​

Conclusion    

​Our 2014 Market Monitoring Report estimated that insufficient interconnection of wholesale gas markets led to a gross-welfare loss of approximately EUR 7 billion in 2013. The implication is that functioning European gas markets which meet the needs of EU gas consumers are the exception rather than the rule in 2014, when the internal energy market was due to be completed. Security of gas supplies is again the focus for policymakers across the EU and the costs of dependence on a single supplier have again been made clear. This revised GTM identifies how Europe can realise its potential and reap the vast benefits of a secure, fully implemented internal gas market for all its citizens.   

Methodologies

Methodologies

Methodologies and indicators

Image
acer image

The analysis included in the Agency's market monitoring reports rely on methodologies and indicators, which are elaborated and debated with national regulators, the European Commission and other relevant stakeholders.​​

Methodologies

Electricity Wholesale Markets

To facilitate its reading, the most relevant monitoring methodologies used across the Electricity Wholesale Markets Volume have been compiled into a set of 'methodological papers', which are cross-referenced in the relevant chapters where those methodologies are applied.