APPENDIX D IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS – POLICY BENEFITS COSTS KEY RISKS OPTION Status Quo Nil Existing shippers Adequate unused capacity that would facilitate gas trade may Maintenance of market positions. not be offered to the market, thus limiting the ability to build market liquidity. The market may operate to the detriment of the NGO resulting in higher costs to consumers. Information Industry Participants and Consumers AEMO Incumbent shippers may not Provision offer up sufficient unused Lower barriers to market entry for new Upgrading data/administrative systems. capacity to facilitate the retailers. Staffing costs to manage additional establishment of a meaningful Reduce capacity trading transaction costs, information. market. including search and negotiation costs. The market may operate to the Improved contestability may result in wider Shippers and Pipeliners detriment of the NGO resulting choice of gas retailers and potentially in higher costs to consumers. Possible upgrading of existing competitive pressure could result in lower data/administrative systems. prices. Staffing costs to collect and provide Better-informed decision making. information to AEMO. Policy Makers Consultation costs associated with Better-informed decision making. developing a standardised contract and responding to the regulatory changes. Australian Governments/Regulatory Agencies Legislative/regulatory change costs. Stakeholder engagement and legal costs. Enforcement costs to ensure compliance with information requirements.
APPENDIX D – IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS POLICY OPTION BENEFITS COSTS KEY RISKS Status Quo Existing shippers Maintenance of market positions. Nil Adequate unused capacity that would facilitate gas trade may not be offered to the market, thus limiting the ability to build market liquidity. The market may operate to the detriment of the NGO resulting in higher costs to consumers. Information Provision Industry Participants and Consumers Lower barriers to market entry for new retailers. Reduce capacity trading transaction costs, including search and negotiation costs. Improved contestability may result in wider choice of gas retailers and potentially competitive pressure could result in lower prices. Better-informed decision making. Policy Makers Better-informed decision making. AEMO Upgrading data/administrative systems. Staffing costs to manage additional information. Shippers and Pipeliners Possible upgrading of existing data/administrative systems. Staffing costs to collect and provide information to AEMO. Consultation costs associated with developing a standardised contract and responding to the regulatory changes. Australian Governments/Regulatory Agencies Legislative/regulatory change costs. Stakeholder engagement and legal costs. Enforcement costs to ensure compliance with information requirements. Incumbent shippers may not offer up sufficient unused capacity to facilitate the establishment of a meaningful market. The market may operate to the detriment of the NGO resulting in higher costs to consumers.
Gas%20Transmissin%20Pipeline%20Capacity%20Trading%20-%20Decision%20RIS%20-%20Dec%202013.docx