On scheme (regulated) pipelines, the contractual limitations in (a) have been addressed through rule 105(2) in the NGR. This rule states that a user may, without the service consent, transfer all or any of its contracted capacity to another party if its rights provider’s against, and obligations to, the service provider are unaffected by the transfer. This provision does not, however, currently extend to non-scheme pipelines. One potential way this limitation could be overcome is to include an equivalent provision in the rules that would apply to non-scheme pipelines, although it may, as one project team member noted, need to be modified to recognise the right of a service provider to reject a transfer if the GTA has been suspended or terminated or the shipper has sold shipper’s more capacity than the MDQ specified in its GTA. Adopting an equivalent provision in the NGR for non-scheme pipelines is likely to be simpler than re-opening primary GTAs to remove this type of limitation. The GMRG is, however, interested in hearing from stakeholders about these two options and if there are any other matters the GMRG should consider in this context. Box 5.4: Questions on contractual limitations Are there any other provisions in primary GTAs that may limit a ability to shipper’s trade capacity? If so, please provide an overview of the provisions and the effect they have on a primary ability to trade. shipper’s How prevalent do you think these types of contractual limitations are? Do you think the contractual limitations on capacity trading need to be addressed? If so, should they be addressed through amendments to the NGR, or should the primary GTAs be re-opened? If not, please explain why.
On scheme (regulated) pipelines, the contractual limitations in (a) have been addressed through rule 105(2) in the NGR. This rule states that a user may, without the service provider’s consent, transfer all or any of its contracted capacity to another party if its rights against, and obligations to, the service provider are unaffected by the transfer. This provision does not, however, currently extend to non-scheme pipelines. One potential way this limitation could be overcome is to include an equivalent provision in the rules that would apply to non-scheme pipelines, although it may, as one project team member noted, need to be modified to recognise the right of a service provider to reject a transfer if the shipper’s GTA has been suspended or terminated or the shipper has sold more capacity than the MDQ specified in its GTA. Adopting an equivalent provision in the NGR for non-scheme pipelines is likely to be simpler than re-opening primary GTAs to remove this type of limitation. The GMRG is, however, interested in hearing from stakeholders about these two options and if there are any other matters the GMRG should consider in this context. Box 5.4: Questions on contractual limitations Are there any other provisions in primary GTAs that may limit a shipper’s ability to trade capacity? If so, please provide an overview of the provisions and the effect they have on a primary shipper’s ability to trade. How prevalent do you think these types of contractual limitations are? Do you think the contractual limitations on capacity trading need to be addressed? If so, should they be addressed through amendments to the NGR, or should the primary GTAs be re-opened? If not, please explain why.