review group 221: 23 january analysis of the impacts of the proposal on users
DESCRIPTION
Review Group 221: 23 January Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users. Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users. New analysis tool Tool developed to analyse RG221 Proposals Utilises all Auction Bid Values – AMSEC & QSEC Data is provided by ASEP and User Apology - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Review Group 221: 23 January Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users
2
Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users
New analysis tool
Tool developed to analyse RG221 Proposals Utilises all Auction Bid Values – AMSEC & QSEC
Data is provided by ASEP and User
Apology
Error (double counting) identified with previous Auction Bid Values presented at 10 December RG221 meeting
£1.9bn total QSEC auction bid value figure less at £1.3bn
Figures for other options have also been impacted (but to a lesser degree)
See graph for full details
Split by Baseline and Incremental capacity to be confirmed
3
Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users
Total Auction Bid Value by Options
140,483,866
1,334,956,524
597,491,018
284,619,054 298,729,018
0
200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
800,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
i ii iii iv v
Options
£
(i) Next full Gas Year– 140,483,866 - 10.52%(ii) All auction bids within a forward looking period - all bids. 1,334,956,524 - 100%(iii) All auction bids within a forward looking period - Next 4 full Gas Years 597,491,018 - 44.76%(iv) Next full Gas Year + Y+4 auction year 284,619,054 - 21.32% (v) Next full Gas Year + peak year in the 8 year NPV test period. 298,729,018 - 22.38%
4
Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users
Credit Rating - 50% to be applied to this risk element
Element X (25%) – applied to all Users
Element Y (25% * Credit rating risk (See table))
Standard and Poor’s Moody’s Investors Service Independent Assessment Score
Users Credit Rating Risk
AAA/AA Aaa/Aa 0
A A 60
BBB+ Baa1 10 80
BBB Baa2 9 81
BBB- Baa3 8 82
BB+ Ba1 7 83
BB Ba2 6 84
BB- Ba3 5 85
4 86.5
3 90
2 93.33
1 96.5
No credit rating No credit rating 0 100
5
Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users
Credit Rating - 50% to be applied to this risk element (25% minimum)
Observations User Credit Rating (IGR) – not available in all cases
Parent Credit Rating is available (where a PCG is currently used as security)
Large number of Users where no credit rating is available/recorded (27 Users)
Credit Rating
obtained
Description Number (IGR) Number (PCG)
Aaa Highest quality – smallest
degree of risk
0 1
Aa1, Aa2. Aa3 High Quality – very low
degree of risk
2 5
A1, A2, A3 Medium Grade – low credit
risk
8 5
Baa1, Baa2,
Baa3
Medium Grade - Moderate
credit risk
2 2
6
Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users
Project risk - 25% to be applied to this risk element
Only 3 Users have an entry capacity holding and have projects that are currently under construction
1 User has been allocated the full 25%
1 User has been allocated 20% (feasibility study in place)
1 User has been allocated 20% but the affect is reduced when aggregated to an all ASEPs level (has capacity at more than 1 ASEP)
All (49) Users are unaffected by this risk element
7
Analysis of the impacts of the proposal on Users
Community Impact Risk - 25% to be applied to this risk element
The risk to the community can be measured by the proportion of the revised auction bid value against the existing User holding
Difficulties experienced on how to implement/test Test assumption: last years auction data used to derive a revised auction bid value
Impact
Suggest percentage for this risk element (currently 25%) be reduced to 10% and all figures updated at next years auction
Percentage
applied (range)
0% 0-10% 0-20% 20-25%
Number of
Users
Twenty Fifteen Five Twelve
Percentage 38% 29% 10% 23%
Review Group 221: Assessment of Implementation Risks
9
Assessment of implementation risks
Risk1: Users may decide not to provide the security required and project fails
2 single ASEP Users Barrow
Fleetwood
£190m combined Auction Bid Value
High risk but this risk exists today
No security currently required
10
Assessment of implementation risks
Risk2: Users may decide not to provide the security required and repurchasing some
of the cancelled capacity at a later date.
Risk could apply to 8 Users at St Fergus that have capacity holding at this entrypoint but have little holding at other terminals.
2009 St Fergus auction price higher than historical prices
St Fergus Medium Risk Analysis
2
2
3
1
1
A1
A2
Aa1
Aa2
Baa1
Total Credit Limit £184,230,000All have Investment Rating by Moodys
Credit Rating Shipper A A2 Shipper B A2 Shipper C A1 Shipper D Baa1 Shipper E A1 Shipper F Aa2 Shipper G Aa1 Shipper H Aa1 Shipper I Aa1