DOCSLIB.ORG

Newsletter Power & Utilities in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Newsletter Power & Utilities in Europe Power & Utilities May 2020 Newsletter Power & Utilities in Europe Commodities Crude oil ($/bbl) Having recovered in Q4 2019 to reach the highest levels observed since Q2 2019, both Brent and WTI oil prices fell dramatically by around 47 percent Crude oil ($/bbl) across Q1 2020 in response to both demand and supply side shocks, reaching 90 US$33.73/bbl and US$30.46/bbl respectively on average by the end of 80 March 2020. Oil prices fell so significantly in February that analysts reported 70 a temporary ‘contango’ market, where purchasing oil for storage was briefly 60 moreSpot profitable Brent than sale. 50 Spot WTI 40 TheFuture first Brent quarter of 2020 was overshadowed by unprecedented demand-side 30 collapseFutureWTI that impacted all fuel commodities. The novel coronavirus outbreak, 20 henceforth COVID-19, originated in Wuhan, China and culminated in mass worldwide lockdown of over 25% of the global population, which applied increasing downward pressure on prices as global demand for oil and other Spot Brent Future Brent Source: Bloomberg fuels contracted strongly in both consumer and industrial markets from the Spot WTI Future WTI end of January onwards. By February, the IEA published estimates that global oil demand was set to fall to the lowest level since the great recession, with reduced demand expectations and applied further downward pressure on price. Indeed, by March investor disillusionment in oil markets led to a large increase in speculative investment in the commodity, further marginalising the otherwise healthy fundamentals observed before the COVID-19 outbreak. These movements were compounded by escalation of geopolitical supply-side uncertainty across the quarter. In early January, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard commander, Qassem Soleimani, was killed by a missile strike in Baghdad, leading to strong contractionary supply-side sentiment from crude investors that applied upward pressure on price. Confidence surrounding prompt US de-escalation of political tensions following the attack and the relatively high oil price observed in the market following the strong recovery in Q4 2019, confounded these pressures. Supply-side sentiment was also rendered volatile across the quarter by tensions between members of the Opec+ oil alliance. A reported disagreement over expected production cuts following the spread of COVID-19 led to Russian defection from the alliance, and a price war was triggered resulting in expectations of oversupply coupled with strong price cuts. Newsletter Power & Utilities Another commodity market impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK’s NPB Gas (€/MWh) gas benchmark and the Dutch TTF equivalent each fell by over 30% to €8.64/ mWh and €6.83/mWh on average by the end of the first quarter of 2020 - the lowest levels observed in their respective time series. Emerging from a mild 30 winter applied downward pressure on price as seasonal household demand 26 contracted month-on-month, whilst oversupply of natural gas continued, 22 although the global economic lockdown initialised following the COVID-19 18 outbreak stymied gas delivery. 14 10 As was the case with oil, global quarantine increasingly hindered demand 6 for gas across the quarter, applying strong downward pressure on price. The positive influences of trade war de-escalation between the US and China characterising a strong international demand for gas at the start of the quarter Spot NBP Future NBP Source: Bloomberg were quickly eliminated as the pandemic spread, with projections of global gas Spot TTF Future TTF demand falling in line with industry shutdown and news that gas exporters increasingly were unable to establish contracts with importing counterparties. On the supply-side, additional influences interacted with the large downward demand-side pressures on price. A deal announced between Russia and Ukraine extending gas supplies through existing central European pipelines led to an increase in supply expectations in early January 2020, which put downward pressure on gas prices. Furthermore, Gazprom announced plans to continue the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline without help of foreign countries, which maintained ongoing uncertainty in modes of European gas supply, but contributed to an overall expansionary supply sentiment. Inter-continental pressures confounded this effect somewhat, as persistently low prices led to a projected fall in US natural gas production for the first time since 2016. As the COVID-19 crisis developed in February, Chinese state-tied LNG importers began to announce plans to freeze contracts – predominantly for seaborne gas imports – as domestic demand became increasingly suppressed. These reduced supply expectations contributed some mitigating influence on downward price trends. In accordance with the EU’s focus on renewable energy and reducing coal Coal ($/metric ton) fired power generation to reduce carbon emissions, ARA prices continued their decline in the first quarter of 2020, falling 12% to settle at $47.40 per metric tonne on average by the end of March. The observed downward price 110 movements of the index likely under-represent coal fundamentals; it is likely 100 that a seasonal surge in demand is priced into these movements, with coal 90 producers burning stock in preparation for a longer term shift away from coal 80 supply. 70 60 The COVID-19 pandemic overshadowed the nuanced dynamics of coal’s 50 demand-side, with industrial demand for the fuel slashed following global 40 lockdown. This demand fallout is the predominant driver of the downward price trend observed. Some possibly positive demand influence may have been priced into this trend, as burning of European coal stockpiles may be Spot ARA Future ARA Source: Bloomberg considered a viable substitution for gas in short-term power generation under circumstances of contract cancellation or freezing. Supply of coal, which is being phased out gradually from EU economies, continued its downward trajectory in January following Germany’s announcement that it will substitute from coal power completely by 2038 in a €40bn package. Coal’s decline was further accentuated in February following news that Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal producer, suspended dividend payments following 2019’s warm winter leading to gas prices undercutting those of coal, and had a large-scale merger with Arch Coal blocked by US antitrust regulators. Finally, London’s Anglo Pacific group formally announced its divestment from coal towards more green commodities. These supply-side pressures likely mitigated the demand-side decline of coal, leading to the shallow curve observed across the quarter. 2 Newsletter Power & Utilities Carbon prices sharply contracted in the first quarter in line with global demand Carbon (€/ton) fallout triggered by COVID-19, falling by approximately 19% on average from December 2019 to March 2020 to €19.83 per metric tonne. Analysts note that this may mark the end of a speculative buying phase following the introduction 33 Market Stability Reserve (MSR) mechanism which sought to reduce oversupply 28 of carbon credits in the EU market. 23 By the end of Q4 2019, demand sentiment was moderately bullish driven by strong fundamentals, with demand for credits by emitting producers initially 18 expected to continue into 2020. However, COVID-19 superseded these 13 sentiments, with enforced suppression of economic activity leading to heavily 8 reduced demand for all fuels, and hence for traded carbon allowances. 3 The supply-side volatility driven by uncertainty surrounding the UK’s exit from the European Union is likely to still persist beneath the demand-side drivers that dominated commodity markets across the quarter, though Spot EUA Future EUA Source: Bloomberg these influences currently appear negligible given the long-term uncertainty of economic growth. Furthermore, some degree of certainty as to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU ETS carbon scheme can be considered, given Government’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s previous commitment to continue engaging in an ETS carbon scheme equivalent following an exit from the EU, coupled by the majority government’s commitment to secure this exit. It would be interesting to monitor developments on the oncoming review of MSR, in the next quarter (Q2 2020), in terms of the levels of withdraw rates as an impact of COVID 19. Baseload electricity prices fell by at least 20% on average in the first quarter of Baseload Spot Day Ahead (€/MWh) 2020 for all four of the countries under consideration in this sample, though UK and German prices rose somewhat between February and March, in line 90 with underlying fuel price contractions observed across many commodities triggered by COVID-19. 80 On the demand-side, a warmer-than-expected winter continued to reduce 70 heating requirements for many households, though this downward pressure 60 on price became less pronounced across the quarter as spring approached. Furthermore, baseload electricity prices are downwardly influenced by falling 50 carbon prices, incentivising supply. Industrial demand for baseload electricity was also strongly impacted across Europe due widespread stoppages of 40 commercial and industrial activity enforced following the COVID-19 outbreak 30 from March onwards. 20 Meanwhile, on the supply side renewables continued to fluctuate in their contribution to aggregate energy composition, as storage technology remains small-scale and localised. In particular, wind power generation varied week- Germany UK Italy France Source: Bloomberg on-week, with surges reported frequently in Germany and France. Supply-side disruption from the COVID-19 outbreak was not observed beyond uncertainty regarding the fulfilment of fuel contracts, though planned strikes reduced power generation by 6% of capacity in January. 3 Newsletter Power & Utilities Clean spark spreads, capturing the price surplus or deficit generated by UK pellet & spark spreads burning a natural gas for energy after accounting for carbon credit tariffs, (£/MWh) UK pellet and clean spark spreads (£/MWh) continued to remain positive in the first quarter, though fell further towards 35 35 zero as falling gas prices continued to suppress profitability.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Powering Ahead! Making Sense of Business Models in Electric Vehicle Charging
    Powering ahead! Making sense of business models in electric vehicle charging October 2018 In association with Contents Acknowledgements 1 Foreword from Energy UK 2 Setting the scene 4 Our approach 5 Key findings 6 How the charging market stacks up 11 Where does charging take place and 14 how does it work? Bringing your business model to life 26 Deep dive on business models 28 What should you do next? 33 Strategy& is PwC’s global strategy consulting team. We help you transform your business by creating strategy that starts with your greatest strengths and builds in execution at every step. We call this strategy that works, and it delivers immediate impact and lasting value for you. As part of the PwC network, we combine 100 years of strategy consulting experience with PwC’s deep industry and functional capabilities. PwC has more than 250,000 people in 158 countries committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax, and advisory services. Acknowledgements To research and fully understand the constantly evolving landscape that is the electric vehicle charging market, we had the good fortune to speak to a number of companies and individuals who are at the very heart of this transformation. We would like to thank everyone who contributed to the report for their insights and time. Addison Lee – Andrew Wescott and Justin Patterson Chargemaster – Tom Callow Ecotricity – Mark Meyrick EDF Energy – Roy Collins ELEXON – Kevin Spencer Elsden Consultants – Miles Elsden Energy UK – Sam Hollister InstaVolt – Tim Payne National Grid – Graeme Cooper and Thomas Maidonis Ovo Energy – Tom Packenham Pivot Power – Matt Allen Pod Point – James McKemey ScottishPower – Malcom Paterson Tesla Western Power Distribution – Ben Godfrey Powering ahead! Making sense of business models in electric vehicle charging 1 Foreword from Energy UK Lawrence Slade Chief Executive I am delighted to work with PwC to bring their insight to investigating the market dynamics of The EV revolution is already upon us.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the GB Energy B2C Retail Market – 'The Disruption Of
    22nd Edition November 2020 World Energy Markets Observatory A brief history of the GB energy B2C retail market – ‘the disruption of incumbents’ Over the last 15 years, the GB energy retail market has changed significantly. A look back to 2005 shows 12 suppliers, with the ‘Big 6’ incumbent energy retailers – EDF Energy, British Gas, SSE, Scottish Power, npower (RWE) and E.ON having a market share of effectively 100% of the 30 million customers in the UK.1 Only 15 years later, the market in 2020 looks dramatically million in gas.3 Of these, 22% were customers switching away different - with over 50 suppliers, and the market share of the from the six largest suppliers.4 legacy incumbents’ being reduced to circa 70%. Moreover, suppliers previously thought of as “challengers” or “small Not every new entrant or challenger that has entered the suppliers” have made large acquisitions and/or grown market has been successful. In particular, in 2018 we witnessed significantly. The market is now dominated by Ovo Energy, 14 exits from the market, with Ofgem, the energy regulator, EDF, British Gas, Scottish Power and E.ON. needing to use supply of last resort arrangements for over one million customers.5 Further, a series of acquisitions from Figure 1 provides a chronicle (2005 to 2020) of how the market Octopus Energy (including ENGIE, Co-Operative Energy, structure has changed and how the UK energy retail market Affect Energy and Iresa Energy) have seen their customer base has become one of the most competitive in Europe. The increase to over one million in less than five years.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Energy White Paper April 2014 Contents
    Community Energy White Paper April 2014 Contents Letter from the CEO .............................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................. 4 Redefining energy ............................................................................... 5 Today’s challenges .............................................................................. 8 The future of energy .......................................................................... 11 A solution: Decentralisation ............................................................... 14 Why focus on communities? .............................................................. 15 What can we learn from other countries? ........................................ 20 A platform for success ...................................................................... 24 How will it work? ............................................................................... 25 Government support ......................................................................... 26 Appendix: The UK Government’s community energy strategy ....... 27 Bibliography ....................................................................................... 29 2 Letter from the CEO All industries evolve. If they don’t, they die out or are supplanted by something different. Evolution can take many forms - value for money, customer service, product innovation, operational efficiency. But one way or another, change means survival and growth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Energy Tariff Greenwash They're Growing in Popularity
    THE ENERGY TARIFF GREENWASH They’re growing in popularity, but are renewable electricity tariffs offering what customers expect? Sarah Ingrams exposes unclear claims and busts myths to help you choose a supplier with green credentials you’re happy with 20 WHICH? MAGAZINE OCTOBER 2019 GREEN ENERGY f you’re attracted to it through the lines to your the idea of a renewable property’ – at best an example THE ELECTRICITY I energy tariff to do your of staff ignorance. bit for the environment, YOU USE TO POWER a quick comparison suggests Unclear claims YOUR APPLIANCES you’ve got plenty of choice. When Myths aside, there are big we analysed the 355 tariffs on the differences in what companies do IS THE SAME AS market, more than half claimed to support renewable generation renewable electricity credentials. but it’s not always clear from their YOUR NEIGHBOUR’S, Three years ago it was just 9%. The websites. When Good Energy cheapest will cost you around £500 states ‘we match the power you use REGARDLESS OF THE less than the priciest, per year. But in a year with electricity generated you may be shocked to find out the from sun, wind and water’, it TARIFF YOU’RE ON differences between them. means it buys electricity directly In a survey of almost 4,000 from renewable generators to people in late 2018, a third told match customer use for 90% of us that if an energy tariff is marked half-hour units throughout the year. ‘green’ or ‘renewable’, they expect But similar-sounding claims from that 100% renewable electricity is others don’t mean the same thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Industry Background
    Appendix 2.2: Industry background Contents Page Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Evolution of major market participants ....................................................................... 1 The Six Large Energy Firms ....................................................................................... 3 Gas producers other than Centrica .......................................................................... 35 Mid-tier independent generator company profiles .................................................... 35 The mid-tier energy suppliers ................................................................................... 40 Introduction 1. This appendix contains information about the following participants in the energy market in Great Britain (GB): (a) The Six Large Energy Firms – Centrica, EDF Energy, E.ON, RWE, Scottish Power (Iberdrola), and SSE. (b) The mid-tier electricity generators – Drax, ENGIE (formerly GDF Suez), Intergen and ESB International. (c) The mid-tier energy suppliers – Co-operative (Co-op) Energy, First Utility, Ovo Energy and Utility Warehouse. Evolution of major market participants 2. Below is a chart showing the development of retail supply businesses of the Six Large Energy Firms: A2.2-1 Figure 1: Development of the UK retail supply businesses of the Six Large Energy Firms Pre-liberalisation Liberalisation 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    [Show full text]
  • WP 1702 Capacity Market
    The development of the Capacity Market for electricity in Great Britain Matthew Lockwood EPG Working Paper: 1702 Abstract: A Capacity Market (CM) for electricity was introduced in Great Britain in the early 2010s, with the first auctions being held in 2014. The CM has been controversial in its design and effects. In particular it has been seen as benefitting existing, often high-carbon, capacity and large incumbent generators, rather than new entrants and technologies, such as demand side response. More broadly, it is seen by some as working against, rather than for, the development of a low-carbon flexible future energy system. This paper traces the development of the Capacity Market as a policy process, with a particular focus on the influence of incumbents in that development. It is based on interviews with participants in and close observers of that process, and on a close reading of the policy process documentation, such as consultation submissions. The study of corporate influence in this case is complicated by the confluence of incumbent interests and political incentives facing government actors to keep the lights on. In the main decisions regarding the CM, including the decision to adopt a mechanism in the first place, and in deciding to have a market-wide approach, the incumbent lobby was split. However, in both these cases, the government’s decisions were in line with the wishes of, and used the arguments of the majority of incumbents. There is also evidence that incumbents lobbied effectively against a more supportive design of the CM for demand side response providers.
    [Show full text]
  • Q2 2014 Data Report
    Monitoring company performance – quarterly reporting Ofgem monitors the performance of domestic suppliers in relation to debt, disconnection, prepayment meters and help for customers in vulnerable positions. Information is collected from suppliers on a quarterly and annual basis and the data received is set out in the tables that follow and published on the Ofgem website. The published data should be read in conjunction with the accompanying guidance notes which contains definitions on the data collected. The guidance is available on the Ofgem website at the link below: Social Obligations Reporting Guidance Notes You may notice that a data field is left blank. This indicates that the supplier was unable to provide the required data for that specific reporting period. For the reconnections table, suppliers will only be shown if they have disconnected customers in the relevant reporting period. Payment Methods June 2014 Quarterly Budgeting Monthly Prepayment Electricity cash / Fuel Direct payment Other Total direct debit meter cheque schemes Addito 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Axis Telecom 95.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 100.0% British Gas 50.2% 21.0% 23.0% 0.1% 2.8% 2.9% 100.0% Co-operative Energy 83.6% 0.3% 15.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% E.ON 51.8% 17.0% 27.5% 0.1% 1.0% 2.5% 100.0% economyenergy 0.0% 99.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Ecotricity 39.6% 24.3% 26.8% 0.0% 0.1% 9.2% 100.0% EDF Energy 56.5% 14.9% 21.3% 0.1% 2.9% 4.3% 100.0% Epower 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Extraenergy 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% First
    [Show full text]
  • Supercharged Climate Positive® Investing in Europe
    Supercharged Climate Positive® Investing in Europe November 2020 Emmanuel DeSousa, Eric Kosmowski, Joaquin Rodriguez Torres, Melanie Nakagawa Contributing Authors Jake Hansen, Scott Himmelberger, Martin Steinweg [email protected] Supercharged Climate Positive® Princeville Capital I. Executive Summary — As global technology investors we are constantly evaluating Based on our engagements with over 400 companies trends in capital markets and governmental policies that headquartered in Europe and around the world coupled shape technology development, adoption and growth with our analysis of Europe’s market and policy conditions, around the world. We have been particularly focused on we believe the following technologies and tech-enabled the extraordinary rise in climate technology companies business models are well positioned for accelerated – whose funding has grown five times faster than overall growth: venture capital, attracting approximately $16 billion in 2019.1 Several factors contribute to this growth - including 1. Residential clean energy solutions macroeconomic changes, expedited policy adoption, 2. Virtual power plants and distributed energy resources increasing demand, and access to focused capital. We 3. Digital utilities have taken a closer look at where these factors are likely 4. Electric vehicle charging network operators to have a prominent impact and believe that investment 5. Mobility data platforms opportunities in technology companies addressing climate 6. Mobility-as-a-service providers change are supercharged for delivering outsized returns 7. Intelligent building energy management in this decade – 2020 through 2030 – and particularly in 8. Energy efficiency-as-a-service providers Europe. We selected these technologies and models based on We conclude what makes this decade distinct from their high growth, capital efficiency, ability to deliver previous years are four macrotrends: positive unit economics, and the policy pull driving accelerated decarbonization.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Flexibility: the Survival of Utilities During the Transformations of the Power Sector
    Research Paper Antony Froggatt and Daniel Quiggin Energy, Environment and Resources Department | August 2018 The Power of Flexibility The Survival of Utilities During the Transformations of the Power Sector The Power of Flexibility: The Survival of Utilities During the Transformations of the Power Sector Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 4 2 The Second Phase of Transformations 26 3 The New Power Landscape 51 4 Conclusions 61 Appendix 1: Additional Notes 64 Abbreviations and Acronyms 65 About the Authors 67 Acknowledgments 68 1 | Chatham House The Power of Flexibility: The Survival of Utilities During the Transformations of the Power Sector Summary • The race for electricity system flexibility is unleashing a new phase of transformations in the power sector, for which existing companies are ill prepared. Due to the accelerating deployment of an array of ‘flexibility enablers’, the spectre of cost escalation – resulting from the expense of managing intermittent wind and solar power at huge volumes – may never materialize. New technologies that enhance system flexibility include smart electric vehicle (EV) charging, battery storage, digitalization with intelligent control, and demand-side management. Companies providing these solutions may come to dominate the power sector in the coming decades. • EV uptake is gathering pace, with global deployment of new EVs exceeding 1 million units for the first time in 2017. Smart, staggered EV charging could enable significant advances in system flexibility. By 2030, smart EV charging in the UK could be equivalent to 18 per cent of the country’s current generating capacity. Rapid cost reductions in battery manufacturing, driven by increased deployment of EVs, are enabling affordable static, grid-level storage, in turn enhancing power system flexibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Young and Carbon Free
    YOUNG AND CARBON FREE What people think, feel and do YOUNG AND CARBON FREE Opinium Research INTRODUCTION Wellies and waterproofs were decidedly in season over the 2019/20 winter period. Britain saw the wettest February since 1862. It was less Beast from the East and more Wet, Wet, Wet. On the other side of the world we watched Australian bush fires burn. As extreme weather becomes more common, people are linking them more to climate change and looking for solutions. Our latest instalment of our annual look at the consumer energy market delves into how these themes are working themselves out in the minds of UK consumers as we heat our homes and power our lives. Traditional energy providers including the Big Six continue to be top of mind amongst consumers. But their success is threatened by the changing landscape of consumerism. Brand culture, values and beliefs are now considered to be more important to consumers than brand familiarity and so being big no longer means being the best especially for young consumers. Entering the market at a time when support for greener policies and practices is on the rise, challenger brands have capitalised on their greener brand values using these to connect with consumers on a much deeper level than the Big Six are able to. This has resonated the most with younger generations, whose concern for the environment has exploded since Greta Thunberg’s ‘School strike for the climate’ and since climate emergency activist groups have caught the attention of the mainstream media. This year’s report focusses on the attitudes of Millennials and Generation Z – those aged 18-34.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial BM Igov-Report
    Analysis of UK electricity system actors Dr Jeffrey Hardy Senior Research Fellow Grantham Institute, Imperial College London January 2019 This report is the independent expert opinion of the author. Contents List of figures Figure 1: Total registered GB domestic electricity suppliers (as of 29th June 2018) 07 Figure 2: Active GB domestic electricity suppliers (as of 29th June 2018) 07 Figure 3: Business size of GB domestic electricity suppliers 08 List of figures 02 Figure 4: Operational years of GB domestic electricity suppliers 08 L ist of tablesofList 02 Figure 5: Share of domestic electricity suppliers that are SIAB 09 Figure 6: Market share of SIAB with licenced domestic electricity suppliers 10 Foreword 03 Figure 7: Market share of companies that set up SIAB 10 1 Introduction04 Figure 8: Market share for companies that set up SIAB for active suppliers 11 2 2 Methods 04 Figure 9: Number of active domestic electricity suppliers offering different value propositions 13 Figure 10: Value propositions offered by each active domestic electricity supplier 14 2.1 Key sources of information 04 Figure 11: Value propositions of non-traditional suppliers 15 2.2 Approach 04 Figure 12: Emerging domestic electricity supplier value propositions compared to broad NTBM themes 17 2.2.1 Data cleaning 04 Figure 13: Active, non-active and dissolved non-domestic electricity suppliers 22 Figure 14: Size of non-domestic suppliers 23 2.2.2 Segmentation approach 05 Figure 15: Year of market entry of non-domestic suppliers 23 2.2.3 Wider Supply chain interactions
    [Show full text]
  • V2G a Comprehensive Analysis of Vehicle-To-Grid Technology Worldwide
    The A to Z of V2G A comprehensive analysis of vehicle-to-grid technology worldwide Laura Jones, Kathryn Lucas-Healey, Björn Sturmberg, Hugo Temby and Monirul Islam January 2021 This report has been created for knowledge sharing as part of the Realising Electric Vehicle to Grid Services project. This Project received funding from ARENA as part of ARENA’s Advancing Renewables Program. The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Australian Government. Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 6 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 9 Standards and rules ....................................................................................................... 9 Customer value proposition ......................................................................................... 10 Open value transfer ..................................................................................................... 11 Fostering an industry ................................................................................................... 12 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 14 1.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]