1. Commission’s draft staff working document on Art. 22 ERGEG’s view ERGEG’s Gas Focus Group (GFG) XV Madrid Forum, 6/7 November 2008

2. 2 ERGEG’s draft Guidelines on Art. 22 28 responses (4 of them confidential) 17 suppliers/traders/integrated energy companies 3 TSOs 6 Associations 1 SSO 1 Regulator

3. 3 XV Madrid Forum, 6/7 November 2008 Results from ERGEG’s public consultation The majority ofrespondents agreed on the following points: The scope should include “identical” new technology Exemption procedure has to be considered on a case-by- case basis Open Seasons should not be mandatory and should not be used for allocating equity There should be no ex-ante preference for LNG terminals Consultations with neighbouring authorities should take place when dealing with infrastructure of cross-border relevance

4. 4 XV Madrid Forum, 6/7 November 2008 Results from ERGEG’s public consultation- respondents’views Partial exemptions are preferable over full exemptions, however case-by-case evaluation is needed Incumbents should not be excluded from exemptions, but this should remain an exception. In such cases NRAs should give preference to partial exemption. There is a need to establish ex-ante transparent, stable and consistent rules on the circumstances under which an exemption could be reviewed “Diversification of suppliers” should be added to the list as another means to fortify Security of supply The criterion of “Risk assessment” should not be dependent on project dimensions only Exemption reviews should be subject to the condition that transparent, stable and predetermined rules are defined

5. 5 XV Madrid Forum, 6/7 November 2008 Consensus achieved between ERGEG and the Commission ERGEG welcomes the clearly structured paper which provides pragmatic guidance and a useful basis for the further harmonisation of Art. 22 practise among responsible authorities ERGEG thanks the Commission for aligning its paper with the work produced by the ERGEG and the findings from the respective public consultation.

6. 6 XV Madrid Forum, 6/7 November 2008 Consensus achieved between ERGEG and the Commission Several aspects of the revised “Commission Draft Staff Working Document” draw on the results from the ERGEG consultation: Proportionality may make partial exemption preferable over full exemption Application of anti-hoarding procedures to the exempted part of the infrastructure Taking into account specifics of LNG terminals not a priori, but on the basis of the case by case approach Consultation with neighbouring authorities should not be limited to interconnectors, but be conducted when dealing with all infrastructure of cross-border relevance

7. 7 XV Madrid Forum, 6/7 November 2008 ERGEG recommendations Additional and new points in the Commission’s Draft Staff Working Document Natural Monopoly vs. infrastructure competition (Box on p. 7) and Risk assessment where a regulated and a merchant infrastructure are planned in parallel (Box on p. 15)  Creating parallel infrastructure may in some cases be inefficient and costs to consumers must be considered.  Regulators and competition authorities need to ensure against any collusion or anti-competitive behaviour where competing infrastructure does exist. Points from Madrid Forum 14 ERGEG still sees a need for better guidance through a higher level of detail on preconditions and consequences of review clause

8. 8 XV Madrid Forum, 6/7 November 2008 Further information is available at www.energy-regulators.eu Thank You !