Energy Market Regulation. Dr. Maximilian Kuhn Gazprom Germania

Transcription

1 Energy Market Regulation Dr. Maximilian Kuhn Gazprom Germania

2 What are the gas industries risks? 2

3 Regulatory Risks for the gas industry Regulatory Risks 4 th Energy Package Quo Vadis Gas Market Methane Emissions All electric society Certificates of origin for NG Paris Agreement Climate targets Externalisation of cost to Gas exporters to Europe Single European TSO 4 th Energy Package False argument about high leakage rates in Europe / Russia default values for gas limiting sales Climate Action plans disadvantage gas No future for gas grids Certificates of Origin for natural gas, biogas and hydrogen green labelling Loss of market share for hydrogen generation from gas and disadvantage for gas RES are eating into the running hours of GuD Gas loses its market position despite advantages Golden age of gas? Upcoming Market Challenges 3

4 Political Risk - Value at stake Threat Value at stake * Key assumptions Regulation limiting gas sales > 120 MM The gas industries business case in Europe is * 1 BCM 10 MM MWh min 120 MM (Germany) [1 MWh natural gas [min. wholesale price EEX] = 12 ] exposed to considerable regulatory risk. In fact, up to 30% of EBITDA of most energy companies operations are at risk due to political imponderability's (regulatory threats, discrimination of natural gas, etc.) Political communication mitigates this threat, safeguarding a beneficial regulatory framework and defends future sales of natural gas in European key markets. An early warning mechanism allows to identify political and regulatory developments which threaten gas sales. This allows adequate responses at a very early state. 4

5 What is the gas industry strategy? Expelled Passive role No influence on the game Watch Play along Dominate Leave the playing field to others Find alternatives to losses in the core business Be part of a broader mix Be a key player and leading partner Set the rules of the game Be a first mover Do nothing Monitoring and report Industry alliance and utilize synergies Active negotiation and discussion partner Present vision and solutions 5

6 CASE: Uncertainties about Methane Emissions Measure, document, reduce 6

7 Methane Management: Data transparency A multi-level approach Zukunft Erdgas Study / DBI Upstream & midstream focused scope Looks only at Production to Pipeline (EU Border) Defines the default values for Russian gas GHG emissions Questions Upstream data of Exergia study Provides data clarity and fosters transparency NGVA Study / Thinkstep Transmission & downstream focused scope Looks at utilization from EU Border Reinforces the default values for Russian gas GHG emissions Questions Downstream data of Exergia study Provides data clarity and fosters transparency More voices = more influence Nord Stream 2 Project Study / Thinkstep LNG vs. Pipeline focused scope Provides data clarity and fosters transparency Provides environmental justification for the Nord Stream 2 Project Russian dataset certified 7

8 CARBON FOOTPRINT OF NATURAL GAS Updated best available data for Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Russia used within GHGenius Source: Own illustration DBI based on 8

9 Different STREAMS: RUSSIA TO CENTRAL EU Result for the Russian stream is a weighted average of the 3 different corridors Carbon Footprint [gco 2 e/gj] 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, ,675 (without dispensing) 18,211 17,554 15,053 16,282 16,375 13,621 10,005 9,671 9, Exergia DBI (Ukrainian Corridor) DBI (Belarussian Corridor) DBI (Nord-Stream Corridor) 9

10 CARBON FOOTPRINT OF NATURAL GAS Carbon footprint of Russian pipeline gas to EU28 via Nord Stream corridor and from different sources via LNG 10

11 THE RUSSIAN GAS SECTOR S SHARE OF TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 94 % NATURAL GHG EMSSIONS 1 % METHANE S SHARE (ANTHROPOGENIC) OF TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: 0.1 % % GLOBAL OIL & GAS INDUSTRY METHANE S SHARE RUSSIAN GAS INDUSTRY METHANE S SHARE 6 % ANTHROPOGENIC GHG EMISSIONS ~ 8.2 ( ) ~ 1.2 ( ) ~ 0.03 Gt of CO2-eq. per year ( ) Gt of CO2-eq. per year ( ) Gt of CO2 -eq. per year (2015) Gt of CO2-eq. per year (2015) Source: ROSSTAT Source: 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

12 TOXIC FOOTPRINT OF NATURAL GAS Toxic footprint of Russian pipeline gas used for heating 12

13 TOXIC FOOTPRINT OF NATURAL GAS Toxic footprint of pipeline gas used for residential heating Other environmental Impacts 13

14 TOXIC FOOTPRINT OF NATURAL GAS 14

15 Proposed next steps Commercial Risk and next steps Fully utilize IBC for regulatory issues and coordinate between IBC members for studying new energy regulation. Work on a full life cycle analysis that studies the environmental impacts per energy unit in comparison to other fuels for heating and power generation Fostering a technological open dialog for reaching Climate targets Provide a policy roadmap to archive political climate targets (with gas) [in preparation for COP23 and G20 in Argentina] Utilize this joint vision for stakeholder and political decision makers 15

16 Thank You! Dr. Maximilian Kuhn Public Affairs Expert GAZPROM Germania GmbH Markgrafenstraße 23 D Berlin Mail Web maximilian.kuhn@gazprom germania.de germania.de/ 16

17 A bottom up perspective Top down lobbying approach Elaboration of a proposal Institutions Hierarchical approach via high level decision makers Technical experts left to one side Late intervention Politicized debate Bottom up lobbying approach Curve of legislative influence Institutions Comitology Expert Groups Associations Behind the scenes work with technical experts Intervention at an early stage Proposals can still be modified Intervention based on expertise The argument prevails Work a bottom up approach; behind the scenes on a technical level with experts Well established contacts to Research Institutions, NGOs and Universities 17