Application Martin No: gr9902 Jones Contents

Clause 27 Electronic bulletin board

Origin considers that changes to the EBB should only be made with the consent of all current users of the pipeline system because an amendment could result in commercial detriment to a user.⁴⁰³ It also submits that it is unreasonable for users to pay a fee to inspect data removed from the EBB as the provision of electronic data is inexpensive and general practice is to allow inspection free of charge.⁴⁰⁴

Commission’s considerations

In its Draft Decision, the Commission required Epic to make an amendment to clause 27.4(d). Clause 27.4(d) has been deleted in the revised access arrangement of 29 June 2001, and as a result proposed amendment A3.21 is no longer relevant.

The Commission considers that it is reasonable for the service provider to have the ability to change the format of its forms. However, the Commission believes that it would be unreasonable for Epic to significantly increase the obligations of users or to significantly reduce its own obligations.

The Commission requires the following amendments to be made with respect to the provision of the EBB.

Amendment FDA3.

For the access arrangement to be approved, the Commission requires Epic to:

• 
  Add to clause 27.1(b) the following:
  

The Service Provider may amend the format and/or content of any forms from time to time as it considers appropriate as long as the obligations of the Service Provider are not significantly decreased or the obligations of the User are not significantly increased.

Clause 28 Receipt and Delivery Points
Clause 29 Measurement at Receipt and Delivery Points

Origin made the following points in relation to clause 28 and schedule 8:⁴⁰⁵

• 
  Meters should not be treated by Epic as if they were Epic’s property. The phrase as ‘if it were its property’ is ambiguous because it is not clear whether Epic would be liable for any damage it caused or if it could encumber the property. Further, there may be circumstances where it would not be possible for the user to make the equipment available to the service provider, such as where the equipment is operated by a third party.
  
• 
  The specifications in schedule 8 should only apply to substantial new receipt and delivery points. Users do not own existing receipt and delivery points and do not have contractual rights to ensure that existing equipment is upgraded and will therefore not be able to comply with clause 28. If the service provider wishes to upgrade existing equipment it should negotiate with the owner of the infrastructure directly.
  
• 
  Under clause 28 and schedule 8, the service provider has too much discretion to determine the specifications that measuring equipment must meet.
  

Epic made the following comments in response:⁴⁰⁶

• 
  The access arrangement is forward looking and designed to accommodate multiple users. Clause 28 provides for the future when the service provider controls receipt and delivery points, through ownership or by arrangement, which it submits is necessary for optimal service to all parties where there are multiple users. Clauses 28.1 and 28.2 do not effect existing agreements.
  
• 
  The integrity of the pipeline system is dependent on the accuracy of measurement and the ability of the service provider to control the operation of the system and therefore the schedule 8 requirements are reasonable.
  
• 
  It is appropriate for the service provider to require a level of metering that enables it to determine each shippers daily imbalance. Epic is reluctant to introduce inferior metering standards on the basis of size of a delivery point as it is attempting to standardise all delivery point standards.⁴⁰⁷
  

Commission’s considerations

Epic’s original access arrangement proposed that all users would be required to comply with minimum equipment requirements for measuring gas quantity and quality at delivery points. In the Draft Decision, proposed amendment A3.22 required Epic to amend clauses 28 and 29 and schedules 8 and 9 to establish threshold values at which such equipment would be required.

Epic indicated that it would relax its requirement for on-line chromatography. The Commission notes that 28.2(g) of the 29 June 2001 access arrangement provides that gas quality can be inferred by gas chromatograph at delivery points which have a throughput of less than 1 TJ. This is sufficient to satisfy concerns raised in submissions and the Commission’s concern that such requirements might have imposed an unnecessary barrier to entry for small users.

In respect of metering equipment and schedules 8 and 9, the Commission considers that Epic’s assertion that the integrity of the pipeline system is dependent on the accuracy of measurement and the ability of the service provider to control the operation of the system is reasonable. It is also reasonable for the service provider to require a level of metering that enables it to determine each shippers daily imbalance. As such, the Commission considers that amendments made by Epic are sufficient to address the concerns raised in submissions and the Draft Decision.

The Commission accepts that it is reasonable for the service provider to require access to receipt and delivery points given that this can affect the service Epic is able to provide other users and the operation and integrity of the pipeline and there are multiple users on the pipeline. Further, given that clause 28 does not apply to existing agreements existing users are not affected.

However, the Commission is concerned by the implications of the words ‘as if it were its own property’. As indicated by Origin, the service provider might not be liable for damage caused. Accordingly, the Commission requires that these words be deleted from the access arrangement, which is reflected in amendment FDA3.27.

Amendment FDA3.

For the access arrangement to be approved, the Commission requires that Epic delete from clause 28.1(a)(i) and 28.2(a)(i) the words ‘as if it were its property’.