The texts of the draft Rules, as well as the discussed changes in the Law on Energy (sent opinion from the State Energy and Environmental Protection Agency to the Ministry of Economy and Energy with Ex. No. E-03-17-1/09.10.2013), harm the Bulgarian industry, take away the rights of ownership of the direct connection gas pipelines built by it and limit the role of the various participants in the natural gas market, in direct contradiction to the EU's Third Energy Package. In this spirit, we support the opinion of BFIEK on the texts of the rules for trading in natural gas introduced with No. E-04-00-23/04.02.2014 and their position under the ZID of ZE.
The energy policy conducted in this way does not stimulate Bulgarian producers and directly leads to a decrease in their competitiveness. Rather than re-industrialisation, these actions create a real risk of downsizing or closing production. There has been no economic assessment of the impact on economic subjects of the changes in the rules and the law - there is no Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).
With the changes in the rules and the law, it is possible for customers of Bulgargaz to be transferred to the gas distribution companies. Thus, on the basis of changes in the regulatory framework, the user's freedom of choice is limited!
The managements of the mentioned employers' organizations, as representatives of the responsible Bulgarian business, insist that the proposals made be discussed and reflected in the draft Rules for trade in natural gas. In addition, they inform that if changes in ZE are accepted, giving monopoly advantages to gas distribution companies, we will refer the Commission for the protection of competition, Directorate "Competitiveness" of the European Commission, the Minister of Economy and Energy and all other interested institutions in the country.
In addition, we offer specific proposals for changes to the texts of the rules, namely:
1. We insist that paragraph 3, paragraph 4, paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 of Article 33 should be deleted, as the provisions regarding the serviceability of technical facilities should not be subject to the Rules for Trading in Natural Gas, but should be regulated in a separate ordinance for technical maintenance and safe operation, to be agreed with the State Agency for Metrological and Technical Supervision authorized for this activity.
2. In the event that the State Environmental Protection Agency considers our proposal to drop the texts to be unfounded, we insist on the following revision of Article 33, paragraph 3:
"Art. 33.(3). In the event that it is proven by the competent authority for technical supervision that the owner(s) of a directly connected facility does not fulfill the conditions under para. 1, he undertakes to take actions in order to eliminate the inconsistencies in the following sequence:
1. Within a period of 6 (six) months, to remove the identified discrepancies.
2. In the event that the inconsistencies are not removed within the period under item 1, within a period of 6 months, to conclude a contract for technical support with a company possessing a certificate of entry in the register of the State Agency for Metrological and Technical Supervision.
3. In the event that the faulty facility is directly connected to the gas transmission network and the owner does not take action under item 1 and item 2, the Commission issues mandatory administrative orders to the operator of the gas transmission network for technical maintenance of the faulty facility, which is carried out at the expense of to the owner of the facility.
4. In the event that the faulty facility is directly connected to the gas distribution network and the owner does not take action under item 1 and item 2, the Commission issues mandatory administrative orders to the operator of the gas distribution network for technical maintenance of the faulty facility, which is carried out at the expense of to the owner of the facility."
3. We categorically oppose your proposal to provide the capacity in the own gas pipelines to other persons, including the gas distribution companies.
The capacity is an element of the property of the facility, and the property is protected in the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and should be inviolable and not be limited or violated by a by-law. The right of ownership cannot be made dependent on the serviceability of the facilities.
Therefore, a contract for the provision of capacity can only be concluded with the express consent of the owner. The connecting gas pipelines are not part of the gas distribution network, which is evident from the definition in $1 item 9 of the DR of ZE. The gas distribution company, in accordance with the provision of Art. 24.(2) of Ordinance 7/09.06.2004, becomes the owner of those diversions and facilities for connection to the distribution network that it has built. The direct connection gas pipelines are not built by the gas distribution company and therefore it does not have any rights over these gas pipelines.
Also, the provision of capacity to the gas distribution company limits the right of free choice of supplier to the consumers connected to it. This would lead to a restriction of the competitive environment, to an artificial increase in the price of natural gas for the industry and to the imposition of a monopoly by a gas distribution company that has received a license for the relevant separate license territory.
The supply of natural gas from gas distribution companies to existing consumers directly connected to the gas transmission network is not part of the investment program when issuing a gas distribution license. Therefore, the texts proposed by you unlawfully favor the final suppliers, who, in order to win a competition for a gas distribution license, have prepared and presented unrealistic investment programs, which subsequently cannot be implemented, and the investments returned. Your proposal creates a new, unforeseen and unlicensed source of revenue for the gas distribution companies (from capacity and future supplies) at the expense of the increasingly uncompetitive Bulgarian industry. In this way, you actually create completely new rights for the final suppliers, which they do not have either by law, nor in the licensing regime, nor according to the European directives.
http://www.turbulence.tech