IEEJ : December 2002
September 9, 2002
373rd Regular Study Meeting
Abstract of the report

Liberalization of Gas Industries in Europe and the U.S.1
LNG terminals' third-party access in Europe and the U.S.,and state-by-state status of gas industries in the U.S.
Hideo Hasegawa, Senior Researcher
Gas Group<Background and Objective of Research>
In accordance with discussions held over a period of a year by the "The Study Forum on Gas Regulatory
Reform" - a private study forum of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry - regarding reform of theJapanese gas industry, in April 2002, the "Grand Design (Long-Term Policy Prospects)" was presented as
the fundamental policy. Based on the discussions of the forum, discussions on system reform will beresumed from this fall by the government's Gas Utility Industry Committee.
This study focused particularly on "Expansion of the Scope of Retail Liberalization" and "LNG Terminals'
Third-Party Access" (hereinafter referred to as "TPA") of all system reform items discussed by the forum.
The state-by-state situations2 in the U.S. and the nation-by-nation statuses3 in Europe and the U.S. weresurveyed for the former and the latter, respectively.
When we look at the U.S. gas market in terms of "Retail Liberalization," we find that the gas distribution
stage is under the authority of Public Utility Commission (PUC) - the regulatory body of each state - andthe progress of liberalization, particularly that of retail sales to home-use consumers, varies from state tostate.
For "LNG Terminals' TPA," on the other hand, access systems are individually established in respective
countries based on the orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC) in the U.S. and EU Gas
Directive in Europe.
This survey is intended not only to enable understanding of the status of overseas gas industries, but also toclarify the considerations in pushing ahead with "Expansion of the Scope of Retail Liberalization" and"LNG Terminals' TPA" in Japan, in light of the differences between overseas gas markets and ours.
<Conclusion>
I. Liberalization of gas markets in the U.S.
1. The liberalization level of gas markets in the U.S. varies among states; as of December 2001, total
liberalization including that for residential consumers has been achieved in six states, while partial
liberalization for residential consumers has been achieved in seven states. Further, it is possible forresidential consumers to select suppliers in eight states through voluntary pilot programs established by
the Local Distribution Companies (LDCs).
2. As a result of the upsurge in natural-gas prices in the winter of 2000-2001, hedging against risks ofprice-volatility of procured gas and the provider of last resort4 (POLR) to consumers associated with the
expansion of liberalization became serious issues for the LDCs and the state's regulatory authority (Stateof Georgia). Moreover, the bankruptcy of Enron (end of 2001) - a firm that had been in the limelight
due to its energy trading - has had no little impact on states' liberalization policies.
3. When we look at the percentages of consumers selecting marketers (migration) in those states in which
residential consumers' liberalization is progressing, we find that they are 37.7%, 12.5%, and 6.8% for
the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, respectively, while the percentages are 3.0% or less in
the remainder of the ten states selected for this research (figures based on the number of customers). As

1

IEEJ : December 2002
for residential consumers' liberalization, LDC pilot programs have been newly approved in the Statesof Michigan, Ohio, and others. However, pilot programs for liberalization were discontinued in theStates of Delaware and Wisconsin due to the fact that marketers were unable to become
price-competitive over existing LDCs.
4. LDC-conducted unbundled transportation service is similar to that in Japan in that charges are basically
set in "Cost of Service" basis. In the states targeted for this study, however, imbalance (the difference
between the amount consumed at demand-side and the actual amount of gas transported) is determinedon a daily basis and settled on a monthly basis (with Japanese system, imbalance is determined everyhour).
5. States and LDCs are establishing systems and strategies for public-interest-related challenges such as"Supply Reliability," "Provider of Last Resort (POLR)," "Stranded Cost,"5 and "Consumer Protections
such as for Low-Income and Elderly Consumers" in pushing ahead with liberalization. Among such
efforts, how the LDC-committed interstate-pipeline capacity and underground-storage-system capacity
are to be maintained by LDCs or assigned to marketers has become important in terms of securing"Supply Reliability" in winter demand period and ensuring that LDCs are able to recover the "Stranded
Cost."- Considerations in expanding the scope of retail liberalization in Japan
1. The LDC-committed interstate-pipeline capacity cost (including expenses arising from capacity
contracts) is often taken up first as a stranded cost for LDCs in the U.S. If we look at stranded costs inJapan from the same viewpoint as in the U.S., these costs correspond to contracts such as LNG purchase
contracts concluded, and natural-gas wholesale supply contracts prior to expansion of the scope ofliberalization. Future challenges will likely include appropriately evaluating the stranded costs of thesecontracts arising from breakaway demand, and taking necessary recovering measures in considerationof operators' (gas utilities’) managerial efforts.
2. In the U.S., imbalance is often determined on a daily basis and settled on a monthly basis. In Japan,
however, if we assume that liberalization will be expanded to residential consumers, questions ofwhether to provide a separate balancing menu in addition to existing balancing (demand adjustment) by
the hour as in the current system, how to meter gas on the demand side during transportation service by
gas utilities, and how to determine imbalance will need to be addressed.
3. Japan is headed in the direction in which the "borders between energy industries" will be removed as aresult of amendment of the Electric and Gas Utility Industry Laws. At the same time, questions havebeen raised regarding the concept of "fair competition" in competition between electric, gas, and oil
industries. In the future, issues concerning mutual market entries, operation permits, taxes, andobligations of stockpiling will be among the subjects of debate.
II. LNG terminals' TPA in Europe and the U.S.
1. In the United States, LNG terminals' TPA is regulated, as in the case of interstate pipelines, based on the
FERC Order. In Europe, Spain and Italy established their regulated TPAs (hereinafter referred to as"R-TPAs" in 1997 and 2001, respectively, based on EU directives, as in the case of the U.S. Belgium, on
the other hand, is in a transitional stage from Negotiated TPA (TPA based on negotiations between
operators) to R-TPA. In France, however, the TPA rules were established voluntarily in August of 2000
by the operator (Gaz de France).
2. LNG terminals in Europe and the U.S. generally offer a higher regasified-gas delivery capacity relative
to the LNG storage capacity compared to terminals in Japan, thus providing a higher apparent facility
utilization factor. Note, however, that this is probably due to the fact that the demand-adjustment andstockpiling functions are rarely requested for LNG storage tanks, unlike in Japan, due to the availabilityof the underground storage system6.
3. LNG accounts for only a several-percent share7 of the natural-gas supply in both Europe and the U.S.
However, its demand is expected to increase substantially in the future, with power generation as the2

IEEJ : December 2002
primary application, and as a result the building of many terminals is planned. In relation to theconstruction of new LNG terminals, Italy has set a higher rate of return for new terminals than forexisting ones, to enhance economic incentive for investment.
4. Except for in Spain, establishment of the LNG terminals' TPA systems in Europe began in around 2000,
and these systems are therefore in the early stage of introduction. To determine whether the LNG
terminals' TPA system is actually useful at the time of access to the gas market of the country concernedby a new entrant (shipper), it is necessary to comprehensively evaluate factors such as access to theunderground storage system, as required for demand adjustment and calculation of the pipeline
utilization charge.
5. Although gas trading with liquidity (spot trading or resale) can be considered one of the factors inenhancing LNG terminals' TPA, European operators are aware of the importance of upgrading thenatural-gas infrastructure in preparation for the future increase in demand, and that this requires"operational stability" based on long-term contracts. As a result, attention must be paid to how EU
Commission will go about competitive gas trading, such as through the "shortening of long-term
contracts" and the "abolition of the destination clause,"8 while ensuring long-term stable gas supply
must also be taken into consideration.
- Considerations in Japan's LNG terminals' TPA
1. In cases in which there are no pipelines running across the country and natural gas markets are
separately distributed over urban areas as in Japan, LNG terminals' TPA can be treated as an option
for promoting competition if LNG trading with no "destination clause" becomes increasingly
common.
2. Another challenge will be ensuring the scale of minimum consumption (sales volume) required ofentrants for access to LNG terminals. For example, such a scale is generally larger than the size of a
new PPS9 power plant, if power-generation demand is premised on the size of the LNG tanker. Further,
it is unclear whether TPA, which is intended for supply to newly built PPS power-generation facilities,
will move amid the ongoing investment delays in power stations of existing power companies, and thelowering of electricity rates.
3. Moreover, Japanese less developed underground storage system compared with that in Europe and the
U.S. requires that LNG storage tanks possess demand-adjustment and stockpiling functions. How
storage-tank utilization charges are set in TPA-related negotiations between terminal owners andshippers is likely to become an important factor in the future, in consideration of the differences in theabove-mentioned functions.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The contents of this report are based on the "Survey on TPA System Design and Operation of LNG Terminals
in Europe and the U.S." and the "Detailed Survey on System Design Associated with LDC Level
Liberalization in the U.S." commissioned by the Gas Market Section, Electric, and Gas Industry Division of
the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry and made public with the consent of METI.
The states focused for the state-by-state status survey were selected in accordance with the progress level ofretail liberalization; the ten (10) states chosen were New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio,
Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The LNG-terminal TPA system survey focusing five nations, the United States, France, Belgium, Spain, andItaly, was conducted locally in Europe in February 2002.
Refers to the final supply service used in liberalized markets if a consumer is unable to conclude a supply
contract with a new supplier other than the existing LDC, or if a new supplier cannot provide gas service forany reason. Basically, an existing LDC plays that role.
Refers to the costs associated with assets, contracts, and the like for which investment has become partiallyunrecoverable due to variations in market prices and demand as a result of regulatory changes and theprogress of liberalization.
Refers to the natural-gas storage system using abandoned gas fields, aquifers, salt domes, and the like thathas been prevalent, particularly in Europe and the U.S. This system is utilized for stockpiling,season-to-season demand adjustment, and other purposes.
As of 2000, LNG accounted for 8% and 1% of the total natural-gas supply in Europe and the U.S.,
respectively.

3

IEEJ : December 2002
8

Said clause is normally included in the gas-supply contracts concluded between gas producers such as
Algeria, Russia, and Norway and European consumers, in which buyers are prohibited from reselling. The
EU side demands that the provision be eliminated, claiming that it constitutes a detriment to the "formationof competitive gas markets."
9 New entrants to power retail markets. Abbreviation for "Power Producer and Supplier."<Description>(1) Liberalization of U.S. gas markets
As for interstate gas trade, the U.S. pushed forward with ensuring interstate pipelines' open access andunbundling gas transport/sales features, particularly since 1985 and primarily through FERC Orders 436
and 636. At the same time, the U.S. has seen the state-level stage-by-stage expansion of liberalization,
including residential consumers and the LDC-handled provision of transportation service.
From a national standpoint, the level of liberalization varies among states, with some states already in astage of complete liberalization including that of residential consumers, or in a tryout stage in the formof pilot programs and the like limited to the liberalization of only industrial large-volume consumers.
States in the stage of 100% liberalization of residential consumers and those on the ways to enacting
such liberalization are relatively those consuming much natural gas, with some exceptions.
As for liberalization for residential consumers, issues such as last resort to consumers (State of Georgia)
and price volatility risk handling by LDCs (price hedging) have raised concerns. Because of incidents
such as the natural-gas price upsurge in the winter of 2000-2001, California's power crisis and thebankruptcy of Enron, whose major business transactions were centered on energy marketing, more
careful examination is needed with regard to recent pro-liberalization discussions. In the case of
LDC-conducted pilot programs, some were discontinued based on the judgment that market competition
was not effectively functioning in terms of marketers' activities and consumers' program participationlevel (States of Delaware and Wisconsin).

4

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 1: Structural Change in the Natural-Gas Industry (Upstream to Downstream)
Well source
1978

1985

1989

Liberalization of natural-gas prices

2000

Transition to competitive natural-gas prices

Natural Gas Policy Act1978
Newly developed gas-price liberalization→Increase in natural-gas prices(Interstate) pipeline operators
1978
1985

Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act 1989
Full liberalization of natural-gas prices

1990

1992 1993/94(Interstate) pipeline open access

Pipeline operators withgas sales function

FERC Order 436

2000

Transformation of the pipeline transportcapacity into a commercially tradable"commodity"

FERC Order 636

Voluntary open access

Mandatory open access (exception: DOMAC)

Gas (sales) operators
Bundled service only

Provision of LDCs' transport service
to large-volume consumers

Liberalization ofsmall-volume consumers(Source: Prepared from data provided by Arthur Andersen/CERA)
Fig-Table 2: Gas-Price Changes at Major Hubs and City Gates (December 1995 through January 2002)

16.00
Henry Hub, La.
14.00

ChicagoNGPLLASoCal Gas

NYC
TranscoSeattleNorthwest

Gas price: $/MMBtu

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
Dec-95

Apr-96

Aug-96

Dec-96

Apr-97

Aug-97

Dec-97

Apr-98

Aug-98Dec-98Apr-99(Source: Prepared from the Natural-Gas Week Database)5

Aug-99Dec-99Apr-00Aug-00

Dec-00

Apr-01

Aug-01

Dec-01IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 3: Statuses of Liberalization for Home-Use Consumers in North America (as of December 2001)

Liberalization stage

States (The shaded states are those surveyed in this study.)

Statewide unbundling carriedout

Washington DC(DC), New Jersey (NJ), New Mexico (NM), New York (NY),
Pennsylvania (PA), West Virginia (WV)

Statewide unbundling inprogress

California (CA), Colorado (CO), Georgia (GA), Maryland (MD), Massachusetts(MA), Ohio (OH), Virginia (VA)

Pilot programs carried out

Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Kentucky (KY), Michigan (MI), Montana (MT),Nebraska (NE), South Dakota (SD), Wyoming (WY)

Unbundling not carried out
but under study

Iowa (IA), Kansas (KS), Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN), Nevada (NV),New Hampshire (NH), Oklahoma (OK), South Carolina (SC), Texas (TX),
Vermont (VT)Unbundling not carried out

Alaska (AK), Alabama (AL), Arkansas (AR), Arizona (AZ), Connecticut (CT),
Florida (FL), Hawaii (HI), Idaho (ID), Louisiana (LA), Mississippi (MS),Missouri (MO), North Carolina (NC), North Dakota (ND), Oregon (OR),Rhode Island (RD), Tennessee (TN), Utah (UT), Washington (WA)

Pilot programs discontinued

Delaware (DE), Wisconsin (WI)6

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 4: Relationship between Home-Use Natural-Gas Consumption and Home-Use Price (1999)

Residential Unit Price: $/1,000 CF

14
Massachusetts

Florida12

Connecticut
10

Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania

New York

8
New Jersey

6
Texas
AlaskaMinnesota

Colorado

Georgia

Illinois
MichiganIndiana4

California

Ohio

2
0
0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Residential natural-gas consumption: 1,000 CF (Cubic Feet)(Source: Prepared from the EIA Natural Gas Annual of the Information Agency of the U.S.
Department of Energy)
Fig-Table 5: Basic Characteristics of the 10 States Surveyed (1999)
State

Home-use
natural-gas
consumption
rankingHome-use
natural-gas
consumption
share %

Home-use
natural-gas
pricerankingGas
self-sufficiency%

Storagedependence%

Commencement ofliberalization forlarge-volume &residential consumers

New Jersey
7th
34.2
18th
0.0
0.48
1995, 1997
Pennsylvania
6th
38.0
15th
6.3
12.5
1996, 1996
Massachusetts
14th
31.4
5th
0.0
1.57
1987, 1996
Ohio
5th
38.4
28th
4.5
8.18
1993, 1997
Colorado
13th
36.3
42nd
55.9
2.85
1982, 1999
Illinois
2nd
45.4
40th
0.01
9.08
-, 1997
Indiana
9th
25.9
32nd
0.04
1.15
1984, 1998
Michigan
4th
40.3
46th
13.6
18.9
1988, 1997
Oklahoma
21st
12.1
35th
73.4
5.7
1991, Texas
8th
4.7
31st
88.33
4.5
Note: The natural-gas consumption ranking is listed in order of descending consumption, while the natural-gas
price ranking is listed in order of descending price.
Transport demand was excluded from natural-gas consumption in the calculation of consumption andresidential shares.
Gas self-sufficiency and storage dependence represent the percentages of total supply (interstate trade andimports, gas production, and stored-gas delivery) accounted for by in-state production and stored-gas
delivery, respectively.
Commencement of the liberalization of large-volume consumers is shown first, followed by that ofresidential consumers (commencement of pilot programs).
(Source: Prepared from the EIA, State Energy Data Report, and Natural Gas Annual of the U.S.
Department of Energy)

7

IEEJ : December 2002
When we look at the percentages of consumers selecting marketers (migration) in the states in whichliberalization for residential consumers is moving ahead, we find that they are 37.7%, 12.5%, and 6.8% for theStates of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, respectively, while the percentages are 3% or less for the remainderof the ten states selected for this research (figures based on the number of customers). As for liberalization forresidential consumers, LDC pilot programs have been newly approved in the States of Michigan, Ohio, andothers. However, pilot programs for liberalization were discontinued in the States of Delaware and Wisconsin due
to the fact that marketers were unable to achieve price-competitiveness over existing LDCs.
In response to price competition between marketers and LDCs, the State of Michigan, for example, saw several
firms (e.g., Consumer Energy, MichCon (Michigan Consolidated Gas), and SEMCO) offer rate menus in which
the procured-gas price was fixed for multiple years, as a result of which, also due to the natural-gas price upsurge
in the winter of 2000-2001, marketers could not maintain a price-competitive edge over existing LDCs.
Fig-Table 6: Percentages of Customers Selecting Marketers in 10 States
Liberalization level - State

States in which
100% statewide
liberalization forhome-use
consumers was
carried out

States in whichstatewide
liberalization forhome-use
consumers is inprogress

New Jersey

Number of
Number ofcustomers
customers
residential(A) migrated (B)LDC
Elizabethtown
NJNG
PSE&G
South Jersey
Total

Pennsylvania

Columbia Gas
Dominion Peoples
Equitable
PECO Gas
Total
Total

Massachusetts
Ohio

Colorado
Illinois
IndianaStates in whichpilot programs
are carried out

MichiganStates in whichliberalization is

Oklahoma
Texas

CG&E
Columbia Gas
East Ohio Gas
Total
Consignment service used by somelarge-volume consumers
Total
Total
Consumers Energy
MichCon
SEMCO
Total

-

235,792
389,048
1,461,057
268,046
2,353,943
392,000
325,365
239,102
198,478
2,072,621
1,278,781
360,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
2,660,000

0
15,637
1,364
40,03957,040120,221114,113
24,4998
258,841
14,607
11,500460,000
530,000
1,001,500

1,315,619

3

3,631,762
1,590,925

65,833
10,001
168,660
31,200
3,732
203,592-

2,979,832
887,371
3,695,058%(B)/(A)
0.0%
4.0%
0.1%
14.9%
2.4%
30.7%
35.1%
10.2%
0.0%
12.5%
1.1%
3.2%
38.3%
48.2%
37.7%
0.0%
1.8%
0.6%

6.8%
-

Numerical data for the State of New Jersey is that available as of the end of December 2001.
Numerical data for the State of Pennsylvania is that available as of January 2002.
Numerical data for the State of Massachusetts is that available as of 2000. Note, however, that residential
consumers' selection of customers is not conducted as of March 2002.
Numerical data for the State of Ohio is that available as of November 2001.
Numerical data for the State of Colorado is that available as of 2000.
The number of customers who selected marketers and the number of residential customers for the State of
Illinois are those available as of December 2001 and 2000, respectively.
The number of customers who selected marketers and the number of residential customers for the State ofIndiana are those available as of October 2001 and 2000, respectively.
The number of customers who selected marketers and the number of residential customers for the State ofMichigan are those available as of December 2001 and 2000, respectively.
The numbers of residential customers for the States of Oklahoma and Texas are those available as of 2000.
(Source: Prepared from HPs for the respective states of the Department of Energy, EIA Natural-Gas Annual 2000, andother materials)

8

IEEJ : December 2002
The five-year gas-price changes from 1995 through 2000 show that residential gas prices rose in all statessurveyed. Note, however, that whether the proportion of increase in the residential gas price is larger than that forcommercial-use and industrial-use gas prices varies among states.
Fig-Table 7: State-by-State Natural-Gas Price Changes(Nominal Values from 1995 through 2000; Price Unit: $/1,000 Cubic Feet)
1995

City Gate
Home use
Commercial use
Industrial use
City Gate
Home use
Commercial use
Industrial use
City Gate
Home use
Commercial use
Industrial use
City Gate
Home use
Commercial use
Industrial use
City Gate
Home use
Commercial use
Industrial use

1999

2000

State of New Jersey
3.34
4.48
5.34
7.27
7.46
7.28
5.76
3.99
5.92
3.11
3.14
5.15
State of Pennsylvania
3.09
3.65
5.09
7.16
8.3
8.49
6.28
7.29
7.72
3.9
3.99
5.03
State of Massachusetts
3.53
3.74
5.43
9.04
9.25
9.91
6.59
7.63
8.61
4.43
5.23
7.47
State of Ohio
3.84
4.83
6.1
5.46
6.24
7.7
4.92
5.59
7.02
3.93
3.94
5.12
State of Colorado
2.65
2.31
3.53
4.8
5.38
6.14
4.23
4.43
5.37
2.86
2.82
3.49

Price
change
1995-99

Pricechange
1995-00

1.14
0.19
-1.77
0.03

2
City Gate
0.01
Home use
0.16 Commercial use
2.04 Industrial use

0.56
1.14
1.01
0.09

2
City Gate
1.33
Home use
1.44 Commercial use
1.13 Industrial use

0.21
0.21
1.04
0.8

1.9
City Gate
0.87
Home use
2.02 Commercial use
3.04 Industrial use

0.99
0.78
0.67
0.01

2.26
City Gate
2.24
Home use
2.1 Commercial use
1.19 Industrial use

-0.34
0.58
0.2
-0.04

0.88
City Gate
1.34
Home use
1.14 Commercial use
0.63 Industrial use

1995

1999

2000

State of Illinois
2.59
3
5.01
4.66
5.5
7.33
4.42
5.2
6.9
3.57
4.06
5.81
State of Indiana
2.84
2.46
4.03
5.37
6.03
6.42
4.38
5.17
5.74
3.41
4.16
5
State of Michigan
2.61
2.83
3.23
4.72
5.13
5.11
4.46
4.87
4.79
3.62
3.69
3.87
State of Oklahoma
2.52
2.84
3.91
5.56
5.97
7.36
4.48
5.11
6.43
2.27
3.52
5.3
State of Texas
2.95
2.84
4.39
5.92
6.09
7.41
4.09
4.42
5.74
1.89
2.55
4.1

Price
change
1995-99

Pricechange
1995-00

0.41
0.84
0.78
0.49

2.42
2.67
2.48
2.24

-0.38
0.66
0.79
0.75

1.19
1.05
1.36
1.59

0.22
0.41
0.41
0.07

0.62
0.39
0.33
0.25

0.32
0.41
0.63
1.25

1.39
1.8
1.95
3.03

-0.11
0.17
0.33
0.66

1.44
1.49
1.65
2.21

(Source: Prepared from the EIA Natural-Gas Annual 2000 of the U.S. Department of Energy)

Although LDC-conducted transportation service is similar to that in Japan in that charges are basically set in"Cost of Service basis," it is not a "forward-looking"10 transportation service charge that takes into account suchfactors as future improvements in managerial efficiency.
Note that Japan's transportation system, which targets large-volume consumers, calculates imbalance by the hour,while imbalance (the difference between the volume consumed at demand side and the actual amount of gas
supplied) is often determined on a daily basis and settled on a monthly basis in the states surveyed in this study. In
general, the unit price of penalty charges imposed according to the level of imbalance varies. Note also thatimbalance may be estimated from the daily anticipated load and gas transported, which in turn are estimatedbased on factors including past gas consumption and atmospheric temperature, in the case of small-volume
demand such as that of residential and small-scale commercial-use consumers.

10

Factors to be considered in forward-looking costs (fair expenses in the future) include past actual expenses, thelikelihood of success in managerial efficiency improvement, expected demand, and expected macroeconomic
indicators.

9

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 8: Balancing Concept in Consignment11

Balancing and settlement for imbalance adjustment method• Balancing is requested on a daily basis and settled on a monthly basis.
• Note that gas consumption is estimated using formulas based on past gas-consumption patterns and actual

consumption on specific days in the case of small-scale commercial/industrial-use consumers. Theseestimates are used as the basis for imbalance calculations (States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana).

• In the case of MichCon and Consumers Energy, a marketer is requested to make deliveries every day inequal amounts 1/365 of the annual gas consumption (estimated consumption) by that customer. The
tolerance on the deviation level is 10% of actual demand. Settlement is made on an annual basis (State ofMichigan)• The balancing issue is settled through individual negotiations between LDC and the marketer (State ofTexas).

(Source: Prepared from various materials)

States and LDCs are establishing systems and strategies for public-interest-related challenges such as "Supply
Reliability," "Provider of Last Resort (POLR)," "Stranded Cost," "Consumer Protections such as for Low-Income
and Elderly Consumers" in pushing ahead with liberalization. Among such efforts, how the LDC-committed
interstate pipeline capacity and underground-storage-system capacity are to be maintained by LDCs or assigned
to marketers has become important in terms of securing "Supply Reliability" in winter demand period, andenabling LDCs to recover "Stranded Cost."
Some states voluntarily or forcedly assign LDC interstate pipeline-capacity to marketers, rather than themarketers securing the interstate pipeline capacity on their own, thus allowing these states to secure gas-supply
reliability and prevent LDC-committed interstate pipeline capacity costs from becoming stranded costs as a resultof breakaway demand.

11

The balancing concept shown in Fig-Table 8 is targeted primarily at "small-scale consumers," including small-volumecommercial- and industrial-use consumers, and does not necessarily cover consignment cases targeted for home-use
demand.

10

IEEJ : December 2002

Fig-Table 9: Concept of Security for Public-Interest-Related Challenges (Examples of States Surveyed)

Item

Outline• LDCs have established criteria (e.g., a gas storage level) for marketers to address peakdemand (States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

• Marketers supply an amount equivalent to 1/365 of the annual load every day, while LDCs

Supplyreliability

stock supplied gas in underground storage until the high-demand winter season sets in(State of Michigan).

• LDCs mandatorily assign an interstate pipeline capacity to marketers in order to guarantee
supply during peak demand (State of Massachusetts).

• It is expected to become possible in the near future to make an application to the state
Provider of Last
Resort (POLR)

regulatory authority for an entity other than existing LDCs to be the provider of last resort(State of Pennsylvania).

• Existing LDCs play the role of provider of last resort (States other than Pennsylvania).
• It is granted by the state regulatory authority that the interstate pipeline capacity cost can be
Stranded costprimarily recovered as a stranded cost (States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Colorado, Illinois, and Oklahoma).

• There are no rules regarding stranded-cost recovery (States of Massachusetts, Indiana,
Michigan, and Texas).

Consumerprotections suchas forlow-income andelderly
consumers
Economic
incentives forpipeline
investment
Hedging against
procurednatural-gas pricevolatility• There are rules regarding delaying supply discontinuing and payments for elderly andlow-income consumers (States of Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Illinois).

• A fund, discount rates, and a system in which gas service is provided with the payment of a
fixed percentage of income are available for those with low income (States of New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Michigan).

• No states explicitly adopt the subsidy system. This is due to the fact that LDC pipeline

investment can be recovered through transportation charges and the like even after
liberalization.

• It is granted by the state regulatory authority that LDCs hedge risks associated withnatural-gas price volatility through financial derivatives (States of New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Michigan).

• LDCs are considering hedging prices through financial derivatives (States of
Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois).

(Source: Prepared from various materials)(2)

Considerations in expanding the scope of liberalization in JapanThe LDC-committed interstate pipeline capacity cost is often taken up first as a stranded cost for LDCs in the
U.S. It is conceivable that consumer response facilities (e.g., call centers) and human assets, which areconsidered stranded costs in anticipation of the future increase in breakaway demand, are perceived but not
explicitly addressed. If we look at stranded costs in Japan from the same viewpoint as in the U.S., these costs
correspond to contracts such as LNG purchase contracts concluded natural-gas wholesale-supply contracts,prior to expansion of the scope of liberalization, as well as wholesale transportation contracts concluded in the
future. Future challenges will likely include appropriately evaluating the stranded costs of these contracts
arising from breakaway demand, and taking recouping necessary measures for recovering such costs inconsideration of operators' (=utilities’) managerial efforts.

11

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 10: Comparison of the Gas Supply System between the U.S. and Japan■ U.S.
Natural-gas wellInterstate pipeline

Distribution pipeline

Citygate
Interstate trade (federal regulation)·Liberalized (FERC Orders 380 to 637)

■Japan·No regulations (negotiations between seller and buyer)

LDC (Local Distribution Company)·Large-volume and some residential consumers liberalized (including aggregation)·Only areas serviced by the former Atlanta Gas Light (State of Georgia) were fully
liberalized.
·Large-volume consumers(consumers of 1 million m3 or more per annum) liberalized

International trade

Natural-gas liquefaction

facility

Importing of LNG

Town-gas operator

LNG unloading, storage,
re-gasification, delivery
Re-gasification facility

Distribution pipeline(source : Prepared by the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan)

In many of the states focused by this study, imbalance is determined on a daily basis and settled on a monthly
basis. In Japan, however, if we assume that liberalization will be expanded to residential consumers, various
issues will need to be addressed, such as questions of whether to provide a separate balancing menu in addition to
the balancing (demand adjustment) by the hour demanded of the current transportation system, how to meter gas
on the demand side during transportation, and how to identify imbalance. More specifically, it must be decided
whether imbalance determination should be based on actual measurement using an hourly or daily meter, or
whether the estimated load, derived from past gas-consumption data and the atmospheric temperature, should be
used.
Finally, Japan is headed in the direction in which the “borders between energy industries” will be removed as aresult of amendment of the Electric and Gas Utility Industry Laws, with a view toward expanding the scope ofliberalization. At the same time, questions have been raised regarding what is truly “fair competition” between
electric, gas, and oil industries. In the future, issues such as mutual market entries patterns12, operation permits,
operators-borne taxes, and obligations of stockpiling13 will be subjects of debate.

12

For example, the main focus will be whether a firm should enter a new industry through as it is or as the form of its
subsidiary, and how to handle assets divertible for entry into another operation (common assets). The approvalconditions (February 2002) used by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, applied when electric utilities
enter Class-1 Telecommunications Industries, will serve as a reference.
13
It has previously been pointed out by other industries at the time of the easing of large-volume supply requirements
in town-gas operation that “fairness,” associated with the presence/absence of obligations to bear oil taxes per heat
quantity of oil and natural gas and stockpiling obligations, was detrimental to fair competition.

12

IEEJ : December 2002
(3) LNG terminals' TPA in Europe and the U.S.
In the United States, LNG terminals' TPA is carried out in accordance with regulations, as in the case ofinterstate pipelines based on FERC Order 636, and LNG terminals' capacity is assigned to entrants (shippers)
through bidding (open season).
Fig-Table 11: Outline of Open Season
Request for

1. Request to use terminal from potential shipper

Service

2. LNG terminal operator announces on its electronic bulletin board that it
will hold an open season. Information such as the terminal specs, theservices provided, and the available capacity will be shown.

3. Parties wishing to use the terminal bid to obtain the terminal usage
right. The net present value (NPV) is calculated based on the shippers'
desired LNG import volume, the usage charge, and the contract period.
In addition to NPV, factors such as the likelihood of the conclusion of acontract for LNG imports are considered to determine the final
successful bidder.

Bid
No.Bid3
No.Bid2
No. 1

4. A service contract is concluded between the successful bidder and theterminal operator.

In Europe, on the other hand, Spain and Italy established their regulated TPAs (hereinafter referred to as"R-TPA") in 1997 and 2001, respectively, based on EU Gas Directive, as in the case of the U.S. Belgium is in astage of transition from Negotiated TPA (TPA based on negotiations between operators) to R-TPA as a result of
amendment of its federal gas law in July 2001, while the TPA system was established voluntarily in August of
2000 by the operator (Gaz de France) in France.
Fig-Table 12: Outline of the Gas Operation Structure in European Countries Surveyed

Distribution sales

Transport storage

Domestic
production- import

Italy
Eni

FranceEnel

EAP
EdisonGas

BelgiumGas
NaturalDistrigaz

EnagasFluxysGDF
Gaz deFranceSnam Rete
Gas

Spain

CFM
GSO

Distrigaz

ItalgasOther local
distribution
companies

Other local
distribution
companies

Local
distribution
company

Local
distribution
company

Note: EAP of France is a subsidiary of TotalFinalElf, while CFM and GSO are firms jointly financed by GDF and
TotalFinalElf.
(Source: Prepared from IEA, Energy Policies in OECD countries, and other sources)

13

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 13: Recent Developments in LNG Terminals in Europe and the U.S. (Outline for 2000 and beyond)

Belgium

Snohvit

7/2001: Policy changed from N-TPA to R-TPA as a result of amendment of
the Federal Gas Law
7/2002: Commission of Regulation of Electricity and Gas (CREG) proposes
TPA guidelines concerning pipelines, LNG terminals, andunderground storage systems(Norway 2006~)

Italy
6/2001: LNG terminals' TPA tariff criteria set by theregulatory authority
9/2001: Tariff for LNG terminals and the like announced
by Snam Rete Gas, a transport division of Snam
8/2002: Revised tariff announced by Snam Rete Gas

Zeebrugge

Fos Sur Mer
Montoir
2001.9.11
NY terrorist
attacks

Everett(Tractbel North America)

Barcelona

Edison Gas, BG, and Enel. are planning new receiving
terminals

Cove Point (Williams)
Elba Island (El Paso)

Zeebrugge, Montoir
Routes changed to the terminals Zeebrugge
and Montoir

La Spezia

Egypt(2004~)

Arzew, Skikda
Lake Charles(CMS Trunkline LNG)

Point Fortin(Trinidad)
North Paria

U.S.
-

Terminal reopening and expansion plans announced(Everett, Cove Point, Elba Island, and Lake Charles)
New-terminal plans for the East and West Coasts and
Mexico announced (by Dynegy, Shell, El Paso, etc.)
New LNG markets in the U.S. explored by European firms(Tractbel, GDF, Enel, Gas Natural, etc.)
There is a move afoot to shift the U.S.-bound LNG back to
Europe in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the U.S.
Williams and CMS are pushing forward with an
examination of terminal sell-offs (as a result of slack
energy trading).

HuelvaBonny(Nigeria)(Sonatrach)FranceCartagena(Venezuela 2005~)

Spain
12/1997: TPA rates system defined by Royal
Decree3/2000, 8/2000: TPA rates revised
8/2001: TPA system revised again by Royal
Decree
TPA contracts already concluded
with Cepsa, Shell, BP, Iberdrola,
Union Fenosa, etc.
andDomestic electric utilities
are planning new
14
receiving terminals.

8/2000:

LNG terminals' TPA rates voluntarily
announced by Gaz de France
4/2001: France's Ministry of Economy, Finance, andIndustry requests that France's commission ofregulation of electricity (CRE) review theabove tariff. The results of the review are
made public.
10/2001: Spot cargo from Nigeria unloaded at theMontoir terminal by CMS Energy
1/2002: TPA rates revised by GDF. No changes in
LNG terminals.

Angola(2006~)(Source: Prepared from various materials by
the INSTITUTE OF ENERGY ECONOMICS, JAPAN)IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 14: Outline of LNG Terminals' TPA

Nation(terminal owner)FranceEntityimplementing
TPA
None

Gaz de France
Belgium

None

FluxysRemarks
Entities wishing to implement TPA can use the terminal on afirst-come, first-served basis if it has reserve capacity.
Entities wishing to implement TPA can use the terminal on afirst-come, first-served basis if it has reserve capacity.
Fluxys is currently holding consultations with potential terminal users.

Spain

Shell, CEPSA

EnagasBP, Iberdrola

Entities wishing to implement TPA can use the terminal on afirst-come, first-served basis if it has reserve capacity.
Imported LNG is used for CCGT power plants, gas operators, and the
like.

Italy

Enel, Eni Gas& Power,

As for long-term contracts, terminal capacity is assigned in accordancewith the contracted LNG volume.

Snam Rete Gas

Edison Gas

Acceptance of spot LNG is basically on a first-come, first-served basis.

U.S.

Duke Energy

TPA is not implemented at Everett terminal (closed operation). Users
are determined through a bidding system referred to as "open season,"as in the case of interstate pipelines.

CMS Energy
Tractbel

Coral Energy

Williams

MirantEl PasoTractbel

CMS Energy

El PasoElba Island Terminal (El Paso) sold its upgrading-generated additional
capacity through "open season," with the winning bid made by Shell
Gras & Power (30 years from 2005).
As for Lake Charles Terminal, the current residual capacity andadditional one made through upgrading will be committed by BG(British Gas Group) for 22 years from 2002.

(Source: Prepared from various materials)

LNG terminals in Europe and the U.S. generally offer a higher re-gasified gas delivery capacity relative to
the LNG storage capacity than those in Japan, thus providing a higher apparent functions utilization factor.
Note, however, that this is likely due to the fact that the demand-adjustment and stockpiling features are
rarely requested for LNG storage tanks, unlike those in Japan, due to the availability of the undergroundstorage system.

15

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 15: Delivery and Storage Capacities of the World's Major LNG Receiving Terminals
Note: Sodegaura terminal excluded
Storage capacity(Kl)
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
Zeebrugge

1,400,000
La Spezia

1,200,000
Cartagena

1,000,000

Huelva800,000
600,000
400,000
Montoir-de-Bretagne

200,000
Fos-sur-Mer

0
0

10,00020,00030,00040,000Barcelona
50,00060,000

Delivery capacity (1000 m3/day)(Source: Prepared from the World LNG/GTL Review 2001-2002 by Zeus Development Corp.)

16

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 16: Delivery and Storage Capacities of the World's Major LNG Receiving Terminals(Numerical Data)
Delivery capacity
Storage capacity(1000 m3/day)(Kl)
40,000720,000

Receiving terminal
Nihonkai LNG Higashi Niigata LNG Terminal
Tokyo Electric Futtsu LNG Terminal

60,000860,000

Tokyo Electric Tokyo Gas Sodegaura LNG Terminal

110,000

2,660,000

Tokyo Electric Higashi Ogijima LNG Terminal

55,000540,000

Tokyo Electric Ogijima LNG Terminal

10,000600,000

Tokyo Electric Tokyo Gas Negishi Plant
Shimizu LNG Shimizu LNG Terminal

53,000400

1,250,000
177,200

Chubu Electric Toho Gas Chita LNG Joint Terminal

25,000300,000

Chita LNG Chita LNG Terminal

33,000640,000

Chubu Electric Yokkaichi LNG Center

23,000320,000

Toho Gas Yokkaichi Plant

2,400

160,000

Chubu Electric Kawagoe LNG Terminal
Osaka Gas Senboku No. 1 LNG Terminal

20,0009,000

480,000
180,000

Osaka Gas Senboku No. 2 LNG Terminal

50,0001,585,000

Osaka Gas Himeji Manufacturing Plant

15,000560,000

Kansai Electric Himeji LNG Control Station

17,000520,000

Hiroshima Gas Hatsukaichi LNG Terminal

400

85,000Chugoku Electric Yanai LNG Terminal
Oita LNG Oita LNG Terminal

9,000
12,000480,000
460,000

Kitakushu LNG Toita LNG Terminal

25,000480,000

Seibu Gas Fukuhoku LNG Terminal

4,100

70,000Nihon Gas Kagoshima LNG Plant

300

36,000Toho Gas Chita Midorihama Plant

16,000200,000

Everett Massachusetts
Cove Point Maryland

12,00028,300154,000
240,000

Elba Island Gerogia

15,290

189,000

Lake Charles Louisiana

19,000286,200

Eco Electrica Terminal , Penuelas/Puerto Rico

5,500

160,000

Montoir-de-Bretagne

36,000360,000

Fos-sur-Mer
La Spezia

22,00010,000150,000
100,000

Barcelona

24,000240,000

Huelva10,800160,000

Cartagena

2,136

55,000

Bilbao

7,400

300,000

Sines
Zeebrugge

450
16,000200,000
261,000

Marmara Ereglisi

16,000255,000

Revithousa

12,000130,000

Pyeong Taek

50,0001,000,000

Inchon25,0001,000,000

Yung An, Kaohsiung

28,000690,000(Source: Prepared from the World LNG/GTL Review 2001-2002 by Zeus Development Corp.)

LNG accounts for only a several-percent share of the natural-gas supply in both Europe and the U.S.
However, its demand is expected to increase substantially in the future, with power generation as the17

IEEJ : December 2002
primary application, and as a result the building of many terminals is planned. In relation to new LNG
terminals, Italy has set a higher rate of return for such terminals than for existing ones to enhance economic
incentive for investment.
Fig-Table 17: Position of LNG in Europe (Year 2000 Data) and New-Terminal Construction Plans

Gm3 = 1 billion m3
LNG accounts for 8% of natural-gas
demand.
<Breakdown>
Algeria (77%), Nigeria (15%)
Libya (2%), Trinidad (2%)
Middle East (3%)
16 Gm343 Gm3

Belgium (25% LNG)

France (25% LNG)
2 Gm3

Portugal

15 Gm3

Italy (7% LNG) 2 Gm3(15% LNG)

GreeceSpain (50% LNG)

Projects

Country

Le Verdon
Fos sur Mer 2
Sines
Bilbao (underconstruction)
El Ferrol

FranceFrancePortugal
Spain

Sagunto (Valencia)
Marina di Rovigo
Brindisi
Izmir
Offshore Izmir
Iskenderun

69 Gm321 Gm3

Turkey (25% LNG)

(15% LNG)

Participants

TFE
GdF
Transgas
BP, Repsol, Iberdrola,
EVE
Spain
Sonatrach, Union
FenosaSpain
Union Fenosa
Italy (offshore Adriatic) Edison, Exxon Mobil
Italy
BG Group
TurkeyPrivate companies
TurkeyTurkeyBotas

Note: Other than the above, ENEL, an electric utility, is planning the construction of receiving terminals in Italy.
(Source: Sylvie Comot-Gandolphe, "LNG Recent Development in Europe" IEA)18

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 18: Estimated LNG Demand in Europe (Unit:Million t)

Country

Estimated demand in2010
10 to 123 to 3.5
11 to 13
5 to 6

Demand in 2000

France9.3
Belgium
3.1
Spain
6.3
Italy
2.9
(Source: Cedigaz, World LNG Outlook 1999)

Annual average
growth %0.7 to 2.6-0.3 to 1.2
5.7 to 7.5
5.6 to 7.5

Fig-Table 19: Natural-Gas Production and Imports in the U.S. and Breakdown of LNG Imports (2000)

Others(LNG)
1.0%

M exicoAustralia 2.7% Oman
(LNG)3.6% (LNG)2.5%
Nigeria(LNG)9.0%

Canada15.3%

Total: 663.67
billion m3/year

Domestic
production
83.7%

Algeria
(LNG)
19.5%

Breakdown of"Others"

T&T(LNG)
42.4%

Qatar(LNG)
20.3%

Natural gas was imported from Mexico through pipelines.
(Source: IEA Energy Balance of OECD Countries)

Note:

LNG demand in the U.S. was approximately 4.9 million tons in 2000, and is expected to increase
approximately fourfold, to 16.8 million tons, in 2010, according to the U.S Department of Energy's EIA
forecast14.
(Source: IEA Energy Balance of OECD Countries)

14

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (AEO2002) reference case, U.S. Natural-Gas Markets: Mid-Term
Prospects for Natural-Gas Supply Dec. 2001

19

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 20: LNG-Receiving-Terminal Construction Plans

Existing
PlannedPlan discontinued
Ensenada / Tijuana
10.CMS+Sempra
11.El Paso+Phillips
12.Marathon Oil
13.Shell
14.BP+Williams

St. John
1.Irving Oil

Chesapeak
2.Conoco
Sabine Pass
7.Cheniere

Hackberry
6.DynegyRadio Island-El Paso

Freeport
8.Cheniere
Brownsville
9.Cheniere

Tampa
-BP

Bahamas
3.El paso
4.AES
5.GdF
-Enron

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Capacity:
MMcf/d
500
275
500
550
N.A.
750
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
680
750
1,300
N.A.

Note: In addition to the above, Belgium's Tractbel(owner of the Everett Terminal)is planning theconstruction of a receiving terminal in Lazaro Cardenas Port, in western Mexico. There is also a plan
to construct a 475-bcf/year terminal in the Altamira region of eastern Mexico by El Paso and Shell.
(Source: Prepared from various materials)

Except for in Spain, establishment of the LNG terminals' TPA systems in Europe began in around 2000, andthese systems are therefore in the early stages of introduction. To determine whether the LNG terminals'
TPA system is actually useful at the time of access to the gas market of the country concerned by a new
entrant (shipper), it is necessary to comprehensively evaluate factors such as access to the undergroundstorage system15, as required for demand adjustment and calculation of the pipeline utilization charge.
Although gas trading with liquidity (spot trading or resale) can be considered one of the factors in theinvigoration of LNG terminals' TPA, European operators are aware of the importance of upgrading thenatural-gas infrastructure in preparation for the future increase in demand, and that this requires "operational
stability" based on long-term contracts. As a result, attention must be paid to how the EU will go about
competitive gas trading, such as through the "shortening of long-term contracts" and the "abolition of thedestination clause," while ensuring long-term stable gas supply must also be taken into consideration.

15

TPA for underground storage systems has been established in Spain and Italy through regulations, unlike inFrance. In Belgium, it will be established in the future.

20

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 21: Increase in Natural-Gas Import Dependence in Europe

900
800
700

bcm

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1997

2020
Net Imports of Gas
Gas Production(Source: World Energy Outlook 2000 WEO 2001 "Assessing today's supply to fuel tomorrow's growth")(4) Considerations regarding Japan's LNG terminals' TPA
In cases in which there are no pipelines running across the country and natural gas markets are separately
distributed over urban areas as in Japan, LNG terminals' TPA can be treated as an option for promoting
competition if LNG trading with no "destination clause" becomes increasingly common.
Another challenge will be ensuring the scale of minimum consumption (sales scale) required of entrants
for access to LNG terminals. For example, such a scale is generally larger16 than the size of a new PPS
power plant, if power-generation demand is premised on the size of the LNG tanker. Further, it is unclear
whether TPA, which is intended for supply to newly built PPS power-generation facilities, will move
amid the ongoing investment delays in power stations of existing power companies, and the lowering ofelectricity rates.
Moreover, Japanese less developed underground storage compared with that in Europe and the U.S.
requires that LNG storage tanks possess demand-adjustment and stockpiling functions. How
storage-tank utilization charges are set in TPA-related negotiations between terminal owners andshippers is likely to become an important factor in the future, in consideration of the differences in theabove-mentioned functions17.

16

17

Let us suppose that the LNG tanker is 145,000 m3 in size. Then, this tanker contains approximately 65,000
tons of LNG. Based on the assumption that the annual availability factor, heat efficiency, and station power use
ratio are 80%, 50%, and 2%, respectively, this LNG volume is equivalent to a power station of 70 megawatts.
For example, in France, a tank storage charge is collected according to the LNG volume unloaded per ship
arrival, regardless of the frequency of LNG ships' entry into ports per annum. This system drew criticism from
France's Commission of Regulation of Electricity (CRE), which claimed that it constituted a cost burden forsmall-size shippers to carry out TPA and access markets with competitive prices.

21

IEEJ : December 2002
Fig-Table 22: Major Pipelines and LNG Terminals in Japan

Fig-Table 23: Outline of Underground Storage in Europe and the U.S.

NumberPossible storage capacity Annual gas consumption ofof(A)/(B)%of 100 million m3 (A)100 million m3 (B)facilities
France
15
108
430
25
Belgium
1
5
160
3
Spain
2
13
210
6
Italy
9
151
690
22
U.S.
415
1,104
5,794
19
Japan
5
12
762
1.6
Note: Storage capacity based on Year 2000 data with working gas basis
Annual consumption determined from Year 2000 data such as BP and Cedigaz statistical data
Plans afoot to upgrade the underground storage capacity in Belgium and Spain
Underground-storage data for Japan quoted from the "Survey on Natural-Gas Storage Systems" of theInformation Center for Petroleum Exploration and Production (ICEP)(Source: Prepared from various materials)
contact: ieej-info@tky.ieej.or.jp
Country22