❓ A parliamentary question regarding Western Power's negotiations with Epic Energy (DBNGP) concerning gas pipeline capacity, tariffs, and a government loan's GST implications. The Minister provides detailed responses, clarifying the status of agreements and financial obligations.
AnsweredQoN 1056Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I asked this question on Friday, and I wonder whether the minister has an answer today. It relates to Western Power and Epic Energy. Hon Nick Griffiths: Yes, I have an answer to that question. Hon NORMAN MOORE: In that case - (1) Is it correct that as far back as last year, negotiations between Western Power and Epic Energy reached a point of agreement on a commercial package comprising rights to capacity expansion and prices that would be significantly lower than those contained in the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator’s final decision? (2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
Hon Nick Griffiths: Yes, I have an answer to that question. Hon NORMAN MOORE: In that case - (1) Is it correct that as far back as last year, negotiations between Western Power and Epic Energy reached a point of agreement on a commercial package comprising rights to capacity expansion and prices that would be significantly lower than those contained in the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator’s final decision? (2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: In that case - (1) Is it correct that as far back as last year, negotiations between Western Power and Epic Energy reached a point of agreement on a commercial package comprising rights to capacity expansion and prices that would be significantly lower than those contained in the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator’s final decision? (2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(1) Is it correct that as far back as last year, negotiations between Western Power and Epic Energy reached a point of agreement on a commercial package comprising rights to capacity expansion and prices that would be significantly lower than those contained in the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator’s final decision? (2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
Hon Nick Griffiths: Yes, I have an answer to that question. Hon NORMAN MOORE: In that case - (1) Is it correct that as far back as last year, negotiations between Western Power and Epic Energy reached a point of agreement on a commercial package comprising rights to capacity expansion and prices that would be significantly lower than those contained in the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator’s final decision? (2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: In that case - (1) Is it correct that as far back as last year, negotiations between Western Power and Epic Energy reached a point of agreement on a commercial package comprising rights to capacity expansion and prices that would be significantly lower than those contained in the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator’s final decision? (2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(1) Is it correct that as far back as last year, negotiations between Western Power and Epic Energy reached a point of agreement on a commercial package comprising rights to capacity expansion and prices that would be significantly lower than those contained in the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator’s final decision? (2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(2) Is it correct that the proposed agreement provided Epic, as the then owner of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, with the means to expand the gas pipeline, unlike the regulatory outcome? (3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(3) Will the minister explain why the proposed agreement was not finalised and a new contract signed with Epic? (4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(4) Does the government loan to the new DBNGP owners under the financial assistance agreement constitute a taxable supply under the goods and services tax Act; and, if so, has the Government paid the GST equivalent to the new owners, the DAA consortium? (5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(5) What is Western Power’s current contracted T1 capacity, and when will Western Power enter into a standard shipper’s contract to facilitate the initial expansion commitments of an extra 23 to 42 terajoules a day? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
The Minister for Energy has provided the following response - (1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(1) Western Power and Epic Energy reached agreement in principle on a commercial package. The tariff path in that package was higher than the firm service reference tariff of the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator. The regulator did not determine a T1 reference tariff. However, in his final decision the regulator had speculated on what a T1 tariff might be in view of his determination of a firm service tariff. The package agreed in principle was for a lower tariff than this speculative T1 tariff. However, the regulator’s speculation on the T1 tariff was of no legal effect and was not repeated in his further final decision. (2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(2) Epic represented to Western Power that the tariff path in that agreement would enable Epic to afford to expand the pipeline, and the agreement in principle included agreement that Western Power would have a right to call for expansions. The regulatory decision did not provide for expansion. This was provided for under the gas access code. Under that code Western Power could seek an expansion, but Epic maintained that it could not afford to do so. (3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(3) Negotiations were under way when a receiver was appointed to Epic. (4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(4) Under the loan agreement, the obligations imposed on the DAA consortium are likely to constitute the taxable supply, and the loan from the Minister for State Development is likely to constitute the consideration for that taxable supply. As the Minister for State Development has not received a tax invoice from the DAA consortium, the minister is not required to pay any goods and services tax pursuant to clause 3.10 of the loan agreement. (5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
(5) T1 capacity is commercial confidential information. Western Power has entered into a contract based upon Epic’s standard shipper contract, which provides for initial expansion commitments of 23 and 42 terajoules per day.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.