Message-ID: <3177740.1075851970894.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: brendan.devlin@enron.com
To: peter.styles@enron.com, nailia.dindarova@enron.com, 
	richard.shapiro@enron.com
Subject: Micahel Albers on Competition policy
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Brendan Devlin
X-To: Ross Sankey/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Paul Dawson/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Peter Styles, Nailia Dindarova, Bruno Gaillard/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Teun van Biert/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Philip Davies/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Paul Hennemeyer/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Doug Wood/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Richard Shapiro
X-cc: Richard Harper/ENRON@EUEnronXGate
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Shapiro_Nov2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: SHAPIRO-R
X-FileName: rshapiro.nsf

Michael Albers, Head of unit for Energy in DG Competition gave a talk on 
competition priorities in Brussels yesterday.

Highlights:

Priorities for DG Comp are:  1) foster supply competition; for examlpe, new 
candidate for DG Comp's help has been identified in Belgium and it would be 
necesary to intervene to help this new competitor. In merger control, 
emphasis will be on supply solutions and not transmission market issues. 2) 
Crossborder Network Access: proceedings will be initiated after the summer 
re. French/Spanish and Dutch/Belgian borders. General policy will be spelt 
out in an Art. 19(3) notice on Viking Cable. [If we want to influence general 
policy we should make a submission on this before it appears: an Art 19(3) 
notice is a Commission Decision and constitutes a binding legal precedent. 
Although comments on Viking Cable can be made after the event, we would not 
be in a position to influence the policy published in the Notice. BD to 
follow up.] 3) Eligible customers should be able to choose their suppliers: 
most cases are resolved informally. 4) State Aid especially stranded costs; 
also environmental policy notice will have impact in this area (Nailia:please 
follow up.)

Specific cases:

On UK Gas Interconnector: no news.

Long term Agreements (gas and electricity): "dominant firms cannot have 
exclusivity caluses, and long-term contracts as such may be a problem".

SNAM/GAZPROM contracts: destination clauses are illegal, Commission to 
initiate proceedings after the Summer break; there will be no blue lining, 
meaning that in a contract where a clause is illegal, the Commission will 
press for the contract to be terminated, and not allow the contract to 
continue intact but the offending article 'blue lined' out. [This suggests we 
ought to offer some thoughts on draft model long term contracts.BD to follow 
up.]  Applicable mutatis mutandisto GFU contracts.

A gas case that will specify the limits of gas TPA regimes will be "heard 
more of after the summer break". (Access to Pipelines Case, TPA ex.-Emden, is 
my guess.)

Gas Release Programmes: no indication that this was an emerging issue: Albers 
offered no views.

Art 86(3) Directive -- cannot achieve what one can with an Art 95 Directive 
(I will write a separate explanation of this -- basically an Art 86(3) 
Directive cannot force regulatory structures on countries, i.e. a regulator, 
but can change a company's behaviour, i.e. account unbundling.)


Any views welcome

Brendan