By way of discussion
NON-BALANCES WHEN ACCOUNTING WATER:

causes and ways to reduce
V.P. Kargapoltsev, O.A. Mitskevich
The mass introduction of water meters used to account for tap water consumed in the residential sector has led to problems with making calculations based on the readings of these devices. In accordance with the government decree "On the procedure for providing utilities citizens” calculation of apartment owners with a water supply organization for consumed resources is carried out on the basis of indications of apartment water meters (if installed) or water consumption standards (if meters are not installed). As a result of applying this calculation method, it turned out that the monthly water consumption according to the general house water meter in most cases exceeds the sum of the readings of apartment water meters and volumes according to consumption standards. The discrepancy in some cases reaches tens of percent even when water meters are installed in all apartments. This situation leads to the appearance in the settlements between the water supplier and the consumer of the “thirteenth receipt”, which is issued to the apartment owners once a year and compensates the water supply organization for the costs of supplying unpaid water volumes to the house during the year.

The reasons for the imbalance in most publications include the following: - leaks and unauthorized drains in the intra-house network outside the apartments; - excess water consumption by apartment owners who have not installed water meters. As an axiom, the absolute reliability of the readings of apartment water meters is perceived.

Meanwhile, the water meter as a device is designed to solve specific task- measurements of the volume of water consumed during the reporting period (month) at its consumption in the passport range of expenses. This range is set by the passport for the device and the corresponding GOST. Based on the requirements of the standard, manufacturers produce apartment water meters of classes A, B and C (more accurate class C meters are quite expensive and are practically not in demand). The most widely used devices with a nominal diameter of 15 mm. The minimum passport flow rate for class A and B is 60 and 30 liters per hour, for class C - 15. At flow rates less than the minimum, water meters work unstably. At flow rates below the sensitivity threshold (which, based on the standard, should be no more than half the minimum flow rate), the meters do not record the flow rate at all. Water meters with a diameter of 15 mm, offered on domestic market, depending on the manufacturer, have a sensitivity threshold of 6, 10, 12, 15, 30 liters per hour. Thus, when drawing water with a flow rate less than the sensitivity threshold of the water meter, the tenant receives the “legal” right not to pay for the consumed water, which becomes one of the reasons for the appearance of an imbalance in the readings of the general house and the sum of readings of apartment water meters.

Reducing the threshold of sensitivity is unprofitable for manufacturers, because. increases production costs, increases the selling price, reduces sales and profits. The consumer is interested in purchasing a cheaper meter with a higher sensitivity threshold. Such a meter does not record low costs - it is more "economical"; after the completion of the calibration interval, it is more likely to pass the verification. However, the use of such a device will inevitably be reflected in an increase in unbalance.

How big is the contribution of the water consumption component underestimated by the instruments to the total imbalance? In the course of an experiment conducted in Moscow in a typical 84-apartment building to install water meters in all apartments of a residential building, install a common house water meter and organize automated data collection, the monthly imbalance for cold water was 20%, for hot water - 30%. Household water meters have not counted 92 cubic meters of cold and 154 cubic meters of hot water for a month. Is it possible to attribute such volumes to indoor leaks outside the apartments? A leak of 246 cubic meters of water per month (average consumption of 340 liters per hour) in a single-entrance building would hardly have gone unnoticed by the residents.

Water meters at different times of the day operate both in the passport range of costs, and at costs below the minimum. Studies conducted by specialists of the Moscow State University of Civil Engineering showed the following:

Water consumption during the day in an average apartment has a discrete character: - "technological consumption" - with open taps; - "flow rate of leaks" - with closed taps;

The duration of the "technological consumption" is only 1 - 2% of the total time of the day (24 hours); during the remaining 98 - 99% of the daily time, the water entering the apartment is spent on leaks.

Even with a small leakage flow rate due to its long duration, the total volume for these 98 - 99% of the time (with unadjusted toilet cisterns, leaks in taps, the use of household filters, etc.) can be comparable to the total consumption volume. One meter with a sensitivity threshold of 30 liters per hour in this case, in the limit, can allow underestimation of water (30 liters x 24 hours x 0.98) = 705 liters per day. The indicated leakage value of 705 liters is by no means a mathematical abstraction. For example, a common house device in a 108-apartment building in Lipetsk showed that the average consumption of cold water per person here exceeds 800 liters per day. After the faulty faucets and toilet bowls were repaired, the average consumption decreased by three and a half times.

Such a situation (a high level of water leakage due to the poor quality of networks and water fittings) is generally typical for domestic water supply systems and differs only quantitatively in different buildings. At the same time, the end consumer of water (the tenant) is weakly, only indirectly - through the "thirteenth receipt" - interested in eliminating leaks. Today, Ivanov himself, his neighbors Petrov, Sidorov, as well as all other residents of the house who installed water meters, pay for a leaking toilet in the apartment of a tenant Ivanov. Saving water by the tenant, in which he is directly interested, is the reduction of its consumption only during the “technological flow”, at which the meters record consumption. With a constant water intake during the “leak consumption”, a decrease in the useful water intake by a tenant (water saving) leads to a relative increase in the imbalance distributed among all tenants who have installed water meters in proportion to the areas of their apartments.

The low quality of tap water or the meters themselves leads to accelerated wear of the internal elements of the water meters, a shift in the sensitivity threshold towards higher flow rates, often to the level of the minimum flow rate, which leads to a further increase in the unbalance value. Significant amount devices (up to 70%) after the completion of the calibration interval (4 - 5 years) do not undergo periodic verification and are recognized as unsuitable. Moreover, the main part of the meters during verification is rejected precisely because of the inoperability or excess error on minimum flow. A sufficiently long calibration interval does not make it possible to quickly identify devices that conduct unreliable records and reduce imbalance during operation.

The sensitivity threshold of the devices is set by the manufacturers and indicated in the certificates for the meters. An analysis of the verification methods posted on the websites of instrument manufacturers shows that not all plants control this parameter when they are released from production. In these methods, in accordance with which verification is carried out after the completion of the calibration interval, for the most part, performance monitoring at the sensitivity threshold is not provided at all. This parameter becomes purely formal and is not controlled by anyone.

When carrying out verifications after the completion of the next calibration interval, the suitability of a water meter for further operation is determined in most cases by the average integral error, where certain weight coefficients are assigned to all verification costs, a coefficient of 0.65 corresponds to the nominal flow, and 0.02 to the minimum. With this method of determining the total error, rather large instrument errors at low flow rates are “masked” by their low weight, based on the assumption that the main water analysis occurs at high flow rates. As a result, the verification certificate for the device formally confirms the compliance of the device with its documentation, but does not guarantee the accuracy of accounting for water consumption at long-term low flow rates.

Based on this, it is reasonable to assume that the above "leakage rate" is not recorded by water meters not in a narrow range "from zero to the sensitivity threshold", but twice as wide a range "from zero to the minimum flow rate". At the same time, the values ​​of the volumes of daily water consumption recorded by the devices by the residents and the values ​​of the volumes of daily leaks not recorded by the devices become comparable. This is the most probable cause of the appearance described in different sources information of situations when, with 100% equipment of apartments with metering devices, the house imbalance reaches many tens of percent.

Thus, the most likely reason for the imbalance between the readings of the general house water meter and the sum of the readings of the apartment water meters is not leaks outside the apartments, but the discrepancy between the actual flow ranges of the water meters and the real flow ranges existing in the apartment water supply systems. The value of the unbalance increases with the increase in the service life of the meters.

The domestic system for organizing accounting for communal water consumption, consisting of a large number of federal and regional regulatory documents, does not take into account the fact that domestic water supply systems differ significantly from Western ones in a significant intra-apartment volume of leaks that are not recorded by apartment metering devices.

To create an effective system of public water supply and water accounting that stimulates water conservation, a number of organizational and technical measures are needed:

a) in the field of water supply and water consumption:

- the use of water folding and shut-off valves with a minimum level of leakage;

- organizing and conducting periodic preventive examinations and adjustments of water folding and shutoff valves;

- improving the quality of tap water and bringing its characteristics in line with current standards;

b) in the field of water accounting:

- development mandatory requirements regulating the production and use of water meters with the lowest possible sensitivity thresholds and minimum lower limits of measurement ranges;

- introduction of additions to the methods of verification of instruments, obliging to control the sensitivity threshold upon release from production and during periodic verifications;

- organization of incoming control of the performance of water meters at the threshold of sensitivity and minimum flow rate before their installation;

- during the operation of devices in the event of imbalances - the organization of operational diagnostics of the state of metering devices at the place of their operation.

FEDERAL STATE UNITARY ENTERPRISE
"ALL-RUSSIAN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
INSTITUTE OF METROLOGICAL SERVICE»
(FSUE VNIIMS)
STANDARD OF RUSSIA

State system for ensuring the uniformity of measurements.

Volume and mass of oil and oil products.
Methodology for assessing the accuracy of measurements (definitions)
quantities of oil and oil products during distribution
imbalance between suppliers and consumers in
OAO LUKOIL

MI 2772-2002

Moscow
2002

DEVELOPED	FSUE VNIIMS
PERFORMERS	B.M. Belyaev Yu.A. Bogdanov (head of the theme) A.I. Vereskov
APPROVED
REGISTERED
INTRODUCED	FIRST

1. Introduction

1.1. This recommendation applies to the volume and weight of oil and oil products and establishes a methodology for assessing the accuracy of measuring (determining) the amount of oil and oil products when distributing the imbalance between suppliers and consumers in OAO LUKOIL.

1.2. The initial provisions adopted in solving the problem of unbalance distribution, and the features of its formulation are given in the appendix.

1.3. The recommendation was developed taking into account the requirements of MI 2525-99 “GSI. Recommendations on metrology, approved by the State Scientific Metrological Centers of the Gosstandart of Russia.

2. Classification of product transmission and distribution systems

Typical systems "suppliers-consumers (recipients)", used in practice, include the following:

2.1. The simplest system "one supplier, one recipient" is represented by diagram 1 in Fig. . This case corresponds, for example, to the release of oil into a tanker, when the quantity is measured twice - first by coastal metering stations, then by ship measuring instruments.

Picture 1

Communication schemes in systems "suppliers-consumers". Designations: () - participants in the accounting operation; two horizontal lines indicate product transfer points; double vertical - the direction of transfer of the product with the performance of measurements of its quantity (in diagram 3, the rectangle indicates the intermediate participant in the accounting operation)

2.2. The system "one supplier, several recipients" presented by scheme 2 in fig. , is realized during the transfer of oil through the pipeline. The dispensed quantity is measured by the metering unit, then parts of this quantity are measured by the recipients.

2.3. The system "several suppliers, several recipients" is represented by diagram 3 in fig. . An example is the work of an oil depot.

2.4. system with enough overall structure connections is presented by scheme 4 in fig. . For example, it can be a system for transporting and supplying oil from the original suppliers to the final consumers through intermediate links.

Scheme 4 clearly demonstrates the possible variety of relationships in the "supplier-consumer" systems. The second of the considered systems is a special case of the fourth one and is included in it as a subsystem. A distinctive feature of systems 3 and 4 is the presence in them of intermediate participants in accounting operations, which are both recipients and suppliers of the product.

3. Solution method

3.1. The problem of multivariate statistical analysis is solved by performing the operations below.

a ij = 1 if the j-th participant is a supplier in i-th paragraph,

a ij = -1 if the j-th participant is the recipient in the i-th point,

a ij = 0 if the j-th participant does not participate in the i-th product transfer point, where a ij is the element located on i-th intersection row and j-th column.

It is required to determine the accounting values ​​u = (u 1 ..., u n).

unbalance distribution Accounting values ​​are determined in the optimization problem as a result of the decision

under constraints in the form of inequalities

The double vertical bars in () denote the vector norm, defined by the equality

Note- The method for solving the problem, as well as its modification described in paragraph , corresponds to the statistical method for estimating parameters, which allows you to obtain both traditional and robust estimates. In accordance with the theory of mathematical statistics, the value of p in () should be chosen depending on the type of distribution of measurement errors. In particular, under a normal distribution law, estimates with optimal statistical properties are obtained at p = 2 using the least squares method.

All calculations are carried out using the program developed by VNIIMS in automatic mode.

3.5. The algorithm for calculating accounting values ​​using the p. method is based on an iterative procedure, at each step of which a vector of approximate values ​​ũ q is determined, where q is the iteration number.

3.5.1. Check the fulfillment of the inequalities (), substituting u = ũ q in them, and, if necessary, correct the values ​​of ũ q.

3.5.2. Calculate the difference vector between the measured and approximate values ​​v - ũ q .

3.5.3. Calculate the vector of unbalance of approximate values, in accordance with the formula (), equal to Аũ (vector of dimension m).

3.5.4. The obtained values ​​of the vectors v - ũ q and Аũ are substituted into (). The vector of approximate values ​​ũ q is determined so that the value of the left side () at the current iteration is less than the corresponding value at the previous iteration.

The presence of the first term in () ensures that the accounting values ​​are close to the measured ones. The second term is included in () to minimize the value of the residual imbalance of accounting values, equal to Au.

3.6. It is taken into account that the restrictions () are due to the fact that the assignment of an accounting value u j that differs from the measurement result v j by more than the value of the maximum permissible absolute error Δ j may cause disagreement of the j-th participant in the accounting transaction (see p.).

3.7. The resulting solution satisfies the constraints (), however, the distribution of the imbalance can be either complete or partial - depending on the specific numerical values ​​of the initial data. Based on the practical needs of the user and the task facing him, the full distribution of the imbalance may be relevant. In this regard, a second variant of solving the problem is provided.

3.13. The program provides for the possibility of choosing the value of the control parameter p (see p. ), which affects the solution of the problem in the following way: its value determines whether the imbalance will be distributed to a greater extent among the "large" participants in the accounting operation or its distribution will be more uniform. Based on this, the user can choose the most appropriate parameter value in the range specified in p. Alternatively, you can use the results of data analysis and the recommendation for choosing the p value obtained by the program.

3.13.1. The program checks the statistical hypothesis about the correspondence of the errors of the measurement results to the normal distribution. If the hypothesis is accepted, the value p = 2 is recommended, which corresponds to the least squares method.

3.13.2. By agreement with the customer, during the development of the program, a certain parameter value can be selected and fixed, or the operator can vary its value. In the latter case, when calculating according to the p. method, the following sequence of actions can be recommended. The calculation is carried out according to the program with a value of p = 2. If the imbalance turned out to be completely distributed, the solution is obtained. If not, by gradually changing the value of the parameter, to achieve, if possible, complete information balance.

3.14. The method of statistical data processing used, in addition to the estimates of the true values ​​themselves, makes it possible to obtain the values ​​of the standard deviations of the estimates (see the output of the program in the appendix). Based on these values, taking into account known values the limits of permissible measurement errors calculate the accuracy indicators for determining the amount of oil and oil products.

3.15. It follows from the general theoretical results [ , ] that the estimates obtained by this method are more accurate than the initial measurement results (they have less dispersion).

4. Algorithmic and software implementation

The formulated problem is solved in the algorithm and the program implementing it "The balance of oil and oil products in OAO" LUKOIL ", developed by VNIIMS. Mathematical software takes into account the special form and data structure of specific tasks. The structure of links in the "suppliers-consumers" system must be specified by the customer in the form of a diagram (figure) and a matrix (table) and agreed with the developer.

The balance sheet program provides additional features. For certain participants in the accounting operation (for example, for some of the suppliers), the initial measured values ​​\u200b\u200bcan be fixed, which remain unchanged as a result of solving the problem. It may be possible to take into account the natural loss and loss of the product within the established norm, which in this case will not affect the magnitude of the initial unbalance according to the measurement results.

6.1. Specify the numerical values ​​of the following quantities:

n - the number of participants in the accounting operation,

m - number of product transfer points,

v 1 , …, v n - results quantity measurements,

Δ 1 , …, Δ n - limits of permissible absolute measurement errors.

6.2. The structure of connections in the system is set using a matrix (table) A of size m × n, the elements of which are determined according to the rule formulated in paragraph .

7. Performing calculations

7.1. To obtain accounting values ​​of the product quantity, correction quantities (equal to the difference between the accounting and measured values) and correction factors (equal to the ratio of the accounting value to the measured value) to the measured values, the magnitude of the residual unbalance (if any), the data listed in the section are processed according to the method described in section .

7.2. The calculation is carried out according to the program "Balance of oil and oil products in OAO" LUKOIL ".

8. Engineering method of calculation

8.1. The algorithms for balancing balances between suppliers and consumers, described in the previous sections, make it possible to optimize this procedure for a large number of participants in accounting and settlement operations. Therefore, they are based on the methods of successive iterative procedures. At the same time, in practice, there are often problems of balancing the imbalance between two participants in the transaction: the supplier and the consumer. In this case, you can use simpler methods based on the use of weight coefficients for the distribution of imbalance depending on the ratio of errors in measuring the quantity of the supplier and the consumer. The method of unbalance distribution for such a problem is considered below.

8.2. Conditions of the problem

The supplier measured the quantity of goods released M 1 with an absolute error δM 1 This value is recorded in the invoice.

The consumer, having received the goods, measured its quantity M 2 with an absolute error δM 2 . This value is reflected in the act of acceptance.

The task was set: to obtain the corrected values ​​of Mʹ 1 and Mʹ 2, which should be fixed by the supplier and consumer, based on the condition Mʹ 1 = Mʹ 2 (assume that natural decline not available on delivery).

8.3. The solution of the problem

Spend the ranking of the obtained values ​​of M 1 ; δM 1 and M 2 ; δM 2 by the magnitude of the error.

1 option

Let | δM 1 | < |δM 2 |, then we have for M 1 > M 2:

at M 1< М 2:

Option 2

Let | δM 2 | < |δM 1 |, then we have for M 2 > M 1:

at M 2< М 1:

Thus, the shipping invoice and the acceptance certificate should be adjusted by 94.4 tons.

Annex A

Processing the results of measuring the amount of oil and oil products during their transfer from suppliers to consumers requires the use of a special statistical procedure. This is due, firstly, to the complex structure of relationships in the "suppliers-consumers" system, characteristic of most such systems, and secondly, to the significant deviation of the measurement results by individual participants in accounting operations from the true values ​​that often occurs in practice. - for violations of the conditions regulated by the MVI, losses and other reasons. As a result, the distribution of the error in the measurement results may not correspond to the normal law and cause large unbalance values ​​(the difference between the measurement results of suppliers and consumers), significantly exceeding the values ​​that may be due to errors in measuring instruments.

When processing measurement results, it is necessary to take into account the listed features of the task, the purpose of which is to determine the values ​​of the amount of oil and oil products (hereinafter referred to as the product) during accounting operations (hereinafter referred to as accounting values).

The optimal statistical procedure should use all available information, in particular, the balance condition, i.e. equality of the values ​​of the released and received quantities of the product. This procedure serves to correct the measurement results taking into account the balance condition as additional information.

The results of measurements corrected in this way must satisfy the balance condition, which indicates an increase in the accuracy of measurements and allows solving the problem of distributing the imbalance between suppliers and consumers.

The problem of statistical data processing in the formulation of the problem has the following features. First, in the general case, it is required to solve the problem of multivariate statistical analysis with a constraint on variables , which is a mathematical expression of the balance condition. For example, in system 2 in Fig. - this is the equality of the values ​​of the quantity of the product released by the supplier and received by consumers.

Another feature is associated with the above-mentioned possible deviation from the normal distribution of measurement errors by individual participants in accounting operations. In cases where this happens, it is necessary to involve robust methods of statistical data processing, i.e. methods that are stable with respect to deviations from the normal law.

The initial data for solving the problem are the results of measurements, the values ​​of the limits of measurement errors and the structure of relationships in the "suppliers-consumers" system. Under the normal law of distribution of measurement errors for some particular types of systems with a simple structure, the solution can be obtained analytically. In the general case, the solution is algorithmic in nature and is implemented using a special program developed by VNIIMS.

Annex B

The calculation example is based on the program "Balance of oil and oil products in OAO LUKOIL", developed by FSUE VNIIMS.

The accounting values ​​were determined and the balance of the amount of the product, measured in m . Numbers 1 to 10 correspond to the numbers of participants in the accounting operation in this figure.

The initial numerical data of measurements v j and error limits Δ j are contained in the output of the program presented below.

Let's illustrate some stages of the technique on this example.

In accordance with the diagram in fig. and by the rule in p. the matrix A has the form

According to the formula (), the vector of the initial imbalance d is equal to

68500 + 33600 - 51000 - 29900 - 20100 = 1100

51000 - 22400 - 13900 - 13500 = 1200

29900 - 21000 - 8400 = 500.

The limit of permissible initial unbalance, the vector d n is equal to

1027 + 604 + 1020 + 747 + 502 = 3900

1020 + 560 + 403 + 391 = 2374

747 + 525 + 243 = 1515.

Comparing the corresponding components of the vectors d and d n , we make sure that the condition for complete balancing of the balance formulated in paragraph 1 is satisfied. As a result of testing the statistical hypothesis, we are convinced that there is no reason to doubt that the errors in the measurement results correspond to the normal distribution (this test, like all the calculations given here, is performed by the program in automatic mode.)

In the presented fragment of the program output, the correcting amount is equal to the difference between the accounting and measured values, the correction factor is the ratio of these values. The solution was obtained for the value of the parameter p = 2, which corresponds to the normal law of distribution of errors in the measurement results. You can make sure that the ratios () are fulfilled for the obtained accounting values, that is, the balance is completely brought together.

The table of mutual influence of factors (reference) characterizes the degree of statistical connection between the participants in the accounting operation in accordance with the accepted numbering.

Figure B.1

Scheme of connections in the system "suppliers-consumers". Designations: (1), (2) - suppliers; (3), (4) - intermediate participants in the accounting transaction; (5) - (10) - consumers; two horizontal lines indicate product transfer points; double vertical - product transfer directions with measurements of its quantity

Product Pickup Point 1 (*suppliers marked with an asterisk)

	measured value	Burial limit rel., %, abs		accounting value	Adjusted amount	Correction factor
	68500	1,50	1027	67497	1002	0,9854
	33600	1,80		33252		0,9897
	51000	2,00	1020	50624		0,9926
	29900	2,50		29786		0,9962
	20100	2,50		20339		1,0119

Measured: suppliers 102100, recipients 101000, original unbalance 1100

Accounted for: suppliers 100750, recipients 100750, residual unbalance 0

Product transfer point 2

	measured value	Burial limit rel., %, abs		accounting value	Adjusted amount	Correction factor
	51000	2,00	1020	50624		0,9926
	22400	2,50		22810		1,0183
	13900	2,90		14112		1,0153
	13500	2,90		13700		1,0149

Measured: suppliers 51000, recipients 49800, original unbalance 1200

Accounted for: suppliers 50624, recipients 50624, residual unbalance 0

Product transfer point 3

	measured value	Burial limit rel., %, abs		accounting value	Adjusted amount	Correction factor
	29900	2,50		29786		0,9962
	21000	2,50		21317		1,0151
	8400	2,90		8468		1,0081

Measured: suppliers 29900, recipients 29400, original unbalance 500

Accounted for: suppliers 29786, recipients 29786, residual unbalance 0

Free information

ELEVENTH ARBITRATION COURT OF APPEALS

443070, Samara, Aerodromnaya st., 11A, tel. 273-36-45, e-mail: [email protected] www.11aas.arbitr.ru

RESOLUTION

arbitration court of appeal

mountains Samara

Case No. А55-3179/2016

Eleventh arbitration Court of Appeal consisting of the presiding judge Nikolaeva S.Yu., judges Balakireva E.M., Pyshkina N.Yu., while keeping the minutes by the secretary of the court session Trifonkina N.V. open joint-stock company Syzrangaz for decision Arbitration Court of the Samara region of April 28, 2016, adopted in case No. A55-3179 / 2016 (judge Razumov Yu.M.)

on the claim of the Open Joint Stock Company "Syzrangaz" (OGRN 1026303057626)

to the Society with limited liability Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara (OGRN 1026301421068)

on the settlement of disputes at the conclusion of the contract,

when participating in a court session:

from the plaintiff – Gudkova H.The. representative by power of attorney No. 206 of 06/06/2016, Porfiryeva N.S. representative by power of attorney dated 01/15/2016;

from the defendant – Khritonenkov M.N. representative by power of attorney No. 16-02 of 01/12/2016, Grechanin A.V. representative by power of attorney No. 15-46 dated 17.08.2015,

Installed:

The plaintiff - Open Joint Stock Company "Syzrangaz" filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region against the defendant - Limited Liability Company "Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara" on the settlement of disagreements that arose during the conclusion of the gas supply agreement No. 45-5-0001 / 16 dated November 01, 2015 year, namely, according to p.p. 2.1, 2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 5.1.2, according to Appendices No. 2 and No. 4, asks to accept the disputed clauses of the contract in its version:

Clause 2.1 "The supplier undertakes to supply GDS at the exit from main gas pipelines natural gas and / or combustible natural dry stripped gas (hereinafter referred to as gas) in the estimated volumes agreed in Appendix No. 1, and the GDS to receive gas, use it for technological needs and to compensate for technological (actual) losses arising in gas distribution networks owned by the GDO on the right of ownership and on other legal grounds, pay the Supplier the cost of gas and fees for supply and distribution services.

The volumes of gas agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 1 are determined in accordance with the Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of enterprises gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems (RD 153-39.4-079-01), approved by the Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated August 01, 2001 No. 231”;

Clause 2.3 “When determining the actual volumes of gas for technological needs, technological (actual) gas losses, the parties are guided by the Gas Accounting Rules, approved. Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated December 30, 2013 No. 961, Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems (RD 153-39.4-079-01) and the procedure established by section 4 of the Agreement "Procedure for accounting for the quantity and determination gas quality indicators”;

Clause 4.3.1 “Technological (actual) gas losses in accordance with Section 6 of the Methodology (RD 153-39.4-079-01) are divided into two groups: operational losses and accidental emissions.

For operational losses in gas distribution networks owned by GDOs or on other legal grounds, the volume of gas is determined by calculation in accordance with Section 6 of the Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems (RD 153-39.4- 079-01), approved by the Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated August 1, 2001 No. 231 and the Methodology for calculating the specific indicators of pollutants in emissions (discharges) into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities, developed by Giproniigaz OJSC and approved by Rosgazifikatsiya OJSC .

On a monthly basis, the GDO, before the 2nd day of the month following the reporting one, provides the Supplier with a calculation of operational losses in accordance with the Methodology (RD 153-39.4-079-01).”;

Clause 4.3.2 “Actual gas losses caused by emergency situations are determined by the Gas Supplier for each specific place of their formation and are documented by joint accident registration reports signed by the Supplier and GDO. These acts contain data on the volume of emergency gas losses, and the calculation of the volume of emergency emissions, performed according to the Method for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems. The form of the act is agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 2.

In the absence of emergency situations during the reporting period, the GDO, before the 2nd day of the month following the reporting one, draws up and sends to the Supplier for signing an act on the absence of emergency gas emissions in the form in accordance with Appendix No. 4 ";

Clauses 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2 should be combined and clause 4.4 should be stated as follows: “The supplier, before the 3rd day of the month following the settlement month, draws up in 2 copies the Act on the amount of supplied - accepted gas and provided supply - marketing services for technological needs and technological (actual) losses for the billing period (Appendix No. 3), signs, seals and sends to the GDO for signing”;

Paragraph 5.1.2 shall be deleted;

Appendix No. 2 The act on registration of an emergency on the gas distribution networks of Syzrangaz OJSC shall be stated as follows:

on registration of an emergency situation at the gas distribution networks of Syzrangaz OJSC under the Contract for the supply of gas for technological needs and technological (actual) losses in gas distribution networks No. 45-5-0001/16 dated 01.11.2015

mountains Syzran "__" ________ 2016

We, the undersigned,

Syzrangaz OJSC, hereinafter referred to as GRO, represented by Director General Grishin Sergey Gennadievich, acting on the basis of the Charter, on the one hand, and OOO Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara, hereinafter referred to as the "Supplier", represented by a representative of __________________________________, acting on the basis of __________, on the other hand, in accordance with Agreement No. 45-5 -0001 /16 dated 01.11.2015 drew up this Act stating that _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(day, month, location, start date and time, release end date and time

______________________________________________________________________________

characteristic of damage to the gas pipeline, characteristic of the gas pipeline and disconnected sections)

an emergency was registered on gas distribution networks owned by Syzrangaz OJSC on the right of ownership and on other legal grounds (due to the fault of 3 persons /), resulting in emergency gas emissions in the amount of ______ m3

The calculation of the volume of emergency gas losses is determined in accordance with RD 153-39.4-079-01 "Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems", "Methodology for calculating the specific indicators of pollutants in emissions (discharges) in atmosphere (reservoirs) at gas facilities"

The calculation of the volume of emergency gas releases is attached.

GRO: Supplier:

OJSC Syzrangaz LLC Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara;

Appendix No. 4 The act on the absence of emergency gas emissions at the gas distribution networks of Syzranyaz OJSC shall be stated as follows:

on the absence of emergency gas emissions at the gas distribution networks of Syzrangaz OJSC under the Contract for the supply of gas for technological needs and technological (actual) losses in gas distribution networks No. 45-5-0001/16 dated 01.11.2015

Syzran "___" ________ 2016

We, the undersigned, OJSC Syzrangaz, hereinafter referred to as the GRO, represented by General Director Grishin Sergey Gennadievich, acting on the basis of the Charter on the one hand, and Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC, hereinafter referred to as the Supplier, represented by the representative __________________, acting on the basis of _______________, on the other hand, in accordance with clause 4.3.2 of Agreement No. 45-5-0001 / 16 dated November 01, 2015, drew up this Certificate stating that for the billing period from __________ 2016 to _______ 2016 inclusive, there were no emergencies that resulted in emergency gas emissions on gas distribution networks owned by Syzrangaz OJSC on the right of ownership and on other legal grounds.

GRO: Supplier:

OJSC Syzrangaz LLC Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara

The Respondent, in the response and additions to it, requests clause 2.1 of the agreement to be adopted in the following wording: “The supplier undertakes to supply GDS at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization with combustible natural gas and / or combustible natural dry stripped gas (hereinafter referred to as gas) in the volumes agreed in Annex No. 1 to the Agreement, and the GDO undertakes to accept gas, use it for technological needs and losses in gas distribution networks owned by the Buyer and / or on other legal grounds and pay the Supplier the cost of gas and fees for supply and distribution services.

The volumes of gas agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 1 are determined on the basis of regulatory parameters in accordance with the Methodology for calculating specific indicators, pollutants in emissions into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities, developed by Giproniigaz OJSC and approved by Rosgazifikatsiya OJSC by Order No. 1711 dated April 17, 1997.

Clauses 2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, Appendix No. 2, the defendant asks to leave the supplier in the wording, agrees to the exclusion of clause 5.1.2 from the contract, and also asks not to supplement the contract with Appendix No. four.

On December 03, 2015, Syzrangaz OJSC received from the defendant a draft gas supply agreement No. 45-5-0001/16 dated November 01, 2015 for technological needs and gas losses in gas distribution systems.

Having considered the said draft agreement, on December 30, 2015, Syzrangaz OJSC, No. 2942/13, sent a protocol of disagreements to Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC.

As the plaintiff pointed out, the protocol of disagreements signed by the supplier was not received by the plaintiff, therefore, the parties did not reach an agreement on the terms of the contract No. 45-5-0001 / 16 dated November 01, 2015, namely: 2.1; 2.3; 4.3.1; 4.3.2; 4.4; 4.4.1; 4.4.2; 5.1.2; according to Appendix No. 2 and Appendix No. 4 to the contract, and the version of the clauses of the contract proposed by the plaintiff complies with the current legislation, which was the basis for filing this claim with the court.

By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region dated April 28, 2016, the court settled the disagreements that arose between Syzrangaz OJSC and Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC when concluding a gas supply agreement No. 45-5-0001 / 16 dated November 01, 2015, and adopted clauses 2.1 , 2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2 of the agreement as amended by the respondent, namely:

Clause 2.1 “The Supplier undertakes to supply the GDS at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization with combustible natural gas and / or combustible natural dry stripped gas (hereinafter referred to as gas) in the estimated volumes agreed in Appendix No. 1 to the Contract, and the GDS undertakes to accept gas, use it for technological needs and losses in gas distribution networks arising in gas distribution networks owned by the Buyer on the basis of ownership and / or on other legal grounds and pay the Supplier the cost of gas and fees for supply and distribution services.

The volumes of gas agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 1 are determined on the basis of regulatory parameters in accordance with the Methodology for calculating specific indicators, pollutants in emissions into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities, developed by Giproniigaz OJSC and approved by Rosgazifikatsiya OJSC by Order dated April 17, 1997 No. 1711. ”;

Clause 2.3 “The actual volumes of gas losses in gas distribution networks are determined in the manner prescribed by Section 4 of the Agreement “Procedure for accounting for the quantity and determination of gas quality indicators”;

Clause 4.3.1 “The volume of gas losses is determined according to the “Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems” RD 153-39.4-079-01, approved by Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated 01.08.2001 No. 231, as follows order:

For the billing period from January to November 2016, the volume of gas losses is assumed to be 1/12 of the volume specified in Appendix No. 1 of the Agreement, and for the billing period of December 2016, the volume of gas losses is determined by the formula: Vp. december 2016 = V total losses - V GDO losses for 11 months,

V common. losses - the difference between the total volume of gas transferred by the Supplier at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transmission organization to the gas distribution networks of the GDS for further transportation in the period from 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2016, determined in accordance with the acts drawn up in accordance with clause 4.4.1 of the Agreement, and the volume of gas actually sold to Buyers (Subscribers), including industrial and household consumers, the population and GDOs for their own and technological needs, in the period from January 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

V GDS losses for 11 months - the volume of gas losses in the GDS networks for 11 months from January to November 2016 inclusive, calculated at 1/12 of the volume specified in Appendix No. 1 of the Agreement and specified in the acts drawn up in accordance with clause 4.4 .2 Agreements”;

Clause 4.3.2 “For emergency emissions in case of damage to gas pipelines or equipment that occurred through the fault of 3 persons, the volume of gas is determined on the basis of joint accident registration certificates signed by the Supplier and the GDO, containing data on the volume of emergency gas losses, and the calculation of the volume of emergency emissions according to the "Methodology for determining gas consumption for technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems" RD 153-39.4-079-01, approved by Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated 01.08.2001 No. 231. ";

Clauses 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2:

“4.4 The Supplier, no later than the 3rd day of the month following the billing month, draws up in 2 copies, signs, seals and sends the following acts to the GDO for signing:

4.4.2 Act on the amount of supplied - received gas and provided supply and marketing services for the billing period (Appendix No. 3.».

Clause 5.1.2 shall be excluded from the contract.

The court recovered from Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC in favor of Syzrangaz OJSC the state duty expenses in the amount of 1,000 rubles.

The applicant, Syzrangaz Open Joint Stock Company, disagreeing with the decision of the court of first instance, filed an appeal with the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal, asking the court's decision to cancel and adopt a new judicial act in the case.

By the decision of the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal dated June 03, 2016, the consideration of the appeal was scheduled for July 05, 2016 at 14:00. 30 minutes.

Information on the acceptance of the appeal for proceedings, the progress of the case, the time and place of the court session is posted by the arbitration court on the official website of the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal on the Internet at: www.11aas.arbitr.ru in accordance with the article of the Arbitration Procedure Code Russian Federation.

Representatives of the plaintiff at the hearing supported the arguments of the appeal.

Representatives of the defendant objected to the satisfaction of the appeal on the grounds set forth in the response.

The legality and validity of the appealed judicial act is checked in accordance with the articles of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

As follows from the case file and established by the court of first instance, when concluding a gas supply agreement No. 45-5-0001 / 16 dated November 01, 2015, disagreements arose between Syzrangaz Open Joint Stock Company and Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara Limited Liability Company.

When challenging the judicial act, the applicant pointed out that the court of first instance did not reflect the grounds on which it had refused to apply the rules of law referred to by the plaintiff. Also, according to the applicant, the court did not take into account that clause 2.3 of the contract, proposed by the defendant and approved by the court, goes beyond the scope of the subject of the contract. In addition, the court referred to a practice that does not have prejudicial significance for the present dispute.

Having considered the arguments of the appeal, reasoned response, having heard the explanations of the representatives of the parties and having studied the materials of the case, the court of appeal finds no grounds to cancel the disputed judicial act.

According to the articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of disagreements between the parties when concluding an agreement and submitting them to the court, the terms of the agreement on which there were disagreements are determined in accordance with the decision of the court.

The arguments of the appeal that the court decision did not reflect the motives for which the court did not apply the rules of law referred to by the plaintiff, the court did not indicate the mandatory rule of law that prescribes the inclusion of a disputed condition in the contract, etc., are unfounded and contradict the facts of the case.

In the draft contract, the defendant sets out clause 2.1 as follows: “The supplier undertakes to supply GDS at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization with combustible natural gas and / or combustible natural dry stripped gas (hereinafter referred to as gas), and GDS - to accept and pay for the supplied gas for technological needs and losses in gas distribution systems. The volumes of gas are agreed by the Parties in Appendix No. 1, which is an integral part of the Agreement.

In the protocol of disagreements, the plaintiff proposed to state this clause in the following wording: “The supplier undertakes to supply GDS at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization flammable natural gas and / or flammable natural dry stripped gas (hereinafter referred to as gas) in the estimated volumes agreed in Appendix No. 1, and the GDO to receive gas, use it for technological needs and to compensate for technological (actual) losses arising in gas distribution networks owned by the GDO on the basis of ownership and on other legal grounds, pay the Supplier the cost of gas and fees for supply and marketing services.

The volumes of gas agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 1 are determined in accordance with the Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems (RD 153-39.4-079-01), approved by Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated August 01, 2001 No. 231".

In the response, the defendant proposes to accept this clause in the version proposed by him, in a different way than in the offer, namely: “The supplier undertakes to supply GDS at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization flammable natural gas and / or flammable natural dry stripped gas (hereinafter referred to as gas) in the volumes agreed in Appendix No. 1 to the Agreement, and the GDO undertakes to accept gas, use it for technological needs and losses in gas distribution networks owned by the Buyer and / or on other legal grounds and pay the Supplier the cost of gas and payment for supply - marketing services.

The volumes of gas agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 1 are determined on the basis of regulatory parameters in accordance with the Methodology for calculating specific indicators, pollutants in emissions into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities, developed by Giproniigaz OJSC and approved by Rosgazifikatsiya OJSC by Order dated April 17, 1997 No. 1711.".

In support of the acceptance of clause 2.1 of the contract as amended by the plaintiff, the latter indicates that the wording of clause 2.1 of the contract proposed by the defendant obliges the Claimant to accept and pay for the supplied gas for technological needs and losses in gas distribution systems. At the same time, the Respondent does not specify exactly what losses and in what gas distribution systems.

In accordance with paragraph 7 of the Basic Provisions for the Formation and state regulation gas prices and tariffs for gas transportation services on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1021 dated December 29, 2000, state regulation of tariffs for gas transportation services through gas distribution networks is carried out by federal agency executive power in the sphere of state regulation of prices (tariffs). Such body, in accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 373 of July 21, 2015, is the Federal Antimonopoly Service. The previously mentioned tariff regulation authority was federal Service by tariffs.

Approved by Order No. 411-e/7 of December 15, 2009 of the Federal Tariff Service of Russia “Methodological guidelines for regulating tariffs for gas transportation services through gas distribution networks” define the principles for regulating and calculating tariffs for gas transportation services through gas distribution networks, as well as the specifics of their application on the territory of the Russian Federation. Tariffs are applied when paying for gas transportation services through gas distribution networks. Gas transmission services are provided by gas distribution organizations that own or otherwise legally own gas distribution networks to all consumers of services that have gained access to gas distribution networks in accordance with Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 24, 1998 No. to local gas distribution networks.

An article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that the burden of maintenance shall be borne by the owner, unless otherwise provided by law or contract.

And as the plaintiff points out, the wording of clause 2.1 of the agreement proposed by him, containing the clarification: “in gas distribution networks owned by GDOs on the basis of ownership and on other legal grounds,” complies with applicable rules and regulations.

As follows from the version of the presentation of this clause of the contract by the defendant proposed during the trial, he expressed his consent to this clarification.

Further, according to the wording of this clause of the agreement, the plaintiff indicates that clause 2.1 of the agreement determines the subject of the agreement. In accordance with the wording proposed by the Supplier, gas is supplied "... for technological needs and losses in gas distribution systems." The connecting union “and”, according to the plaintiff, indicates that we are talking about technological needs and technological losses in gas distribution systems, i.e. when transporting gas.

In paragraph 1.1. The parties agreed that the terms and definitions are subject to interpretation, including in accordance with the Methodology for determining gas costs for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems RD 153-39.4-079-01, approved by Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated August 01, 2001 No. 231.

The wording of the clause of the Agreement proposed by the Claimant (GRO), according to the Claimant, corresponds to this normative act, based on the following.

Clause 4.4. Methodology No. 231 determines what gas costs for technological needs include, and clause 6.1. Methodology No. 231 defines the classification of losses in gas distribution systems.

In accordance with clause 6.1. Methods No. 231, losses in gas distribution systems are divided into "imaginary" and "real".

The "imaginary" ones include the amount of gas received and usefully used by the consumer, but not taken into account (and therefore unpaid) due to the imperfection of methods for monitoring and accounting for gas consumption.

As the plaintiff points out, its wording of this clause of the agreement complies with the current legislation and provides for the inclusion in the subject of the Agreement of a wording that excludes the volume of the Supplier's losses that are not related to technological losses of GDOs associated with gas transportation.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules for the supply of gas to the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 05, 1998 No. 162, the supply contract must comply with the requirements of paragraph 3 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

An article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation determines that, under a supply contract, a supplier-seller carrying out entrepreneurial activities undertakes to transfer, within a specified period or terms, the goods produced or purchased by him to the buyer for use in entrepreneurial activity.

Also, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules on the energy supply contract apply to relations related to the supply of gas through the connected network.

Paragraph 1 of Art. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that the amount of energy supplied to the subscriber and used by him is determined in accordance with accounting data on its actual consumption.

In accordance with the charter of OAO Syzrangaz, gas transportation services are business activities.

However, in accordance with the definition of "imaginary" losses (clause 6.1. of Methodology No. 231), gas is transferred not to GDS, but to other (not taken into account) consumers.

Thus, in order to carry out its business activities, the GDO enters into a contract for the supply of gas for technological needs and technological (actual) losses arising in gas distribution networks during gas transportation.

The adoption of this clause as amended by the defendant with reference to clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231 implies, subsequently, during the execution of the contract, the payment by the claimant of the entire volume of losses (imbalance), defined as the difference between the amount of gas released by the Supplier from the GDS in the GDS network and the amount of gas sold to industrial consumers, the public and GDOs for their own and technological needs, which does not comply with the provisions of the current regulations and established judicial practice.

The Respondent, insisting on accepting this clause of the agreement in the amended version proposed by him, refers to the fact that Methodology No. 231 contains such definitions (terms) as “technological needs” and “gas losses in gas distribution systems”.

When determining the terms of the contract, its subject and terms, the defendant was guided by the provisions of the current legislation, and used the terms specified in Methodology No. 231. The defendant believes that the wording of the subject "... for technological needs and losses in gas distribution systems ..." corresponds to the named Method No. 231. The specified Method, both in terms of determining the gas balance of a gas distribution organization (clause 4.1.), And in the formula for determining the volume of losses, as an expense item of the balance of a gas distribution organization (clause 4.6.), does not contain the term "valid", on which the Plaintiff insists. According to the defendant, the plaintiff, specifying the subject of the contract, in fact, limits his obligation under the contract to pay the supplier the cost of gas and payment for supply and marketing services only in the estimated volumes, thereby leveling his obligation to reimburse the supplier for the cost of actual gas losses, which are inevitable arise in the plaintiff's gas distribution systems in the process of gas transportation to subscribers. Gas losses that inevitably occur in the plaintiff's gas distribution systems are calculated based on the results of the supply and transportation period in the manner prescribed by paragraph 4.6 of Methodology No. 231.

Further, the defendant indicates that the procedure for determining the volume of gas losses, enshrined in clause 4.3.1 of the agreement as amended by Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara, corresponds to clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, since it determines gas losses in the manner similar to the procedure established in clause 4.6 of the Methodology No. 231. Since clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231 refers specifically to “gas losses”, which are determined by the formula, the defendant believes that the addition of the subject matter of the contract with the words “technological (actual)” losses is at odds with the principles laid down in Methodology No. 231, and besides moreover, it obviously creates contradictions in the mechanism for the execution of the contract.

The Court of First Instance rightly indicated that it considered the plaintiff's arguments in this part of the disagreement untenable for the following reasons.

According to paragraph 2 of Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to relations related to the supply of gas, oil and oil products, water and other goods through the connected network, the rules on an energy supply contract (Art. - Civil Code of the Russian Federation) apply, unless otherwise provided by law, other legal acts or stems from the nature of the obligation.

By virtue of Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the energy supply contract refers to public contracts.

Clause 3 of Article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that laws and other legal acts on energy supply, as well as mandatory rules adopted in accordance with them, apply to relations under an energy supply agreement not regulated by this Code.

From the foregoing, it follows that disputed legal relations are regulated by paragraph 6 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Energy Supply), the provisions of the Federal Law of March 31, 1999 No. 69-FZ “On Gas Supply in the Russian Federation”, Gas Supply Rules No. 231, since the subject of the agreement is the supply of gas for technological needs and gas losses in gas distribution systems.

By virtue of paragraph 21 of the Rules for the supply of gas, the supply and withdrawal of gas without taking into account its volume is not allowed. Accounting for the volume of gas is carried out in the manner approved by the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation (clause 22 of the Rules).

Order No. 961 of the Russian Ministry of Energy of December 30, 2013 approved the Gas Accounting Rules, which establish the procedure for accounting for the amount (volume) of produced, transported, processed, stored and consumed natural gas, petroleum (associated) gas, stripped dry gas, gas from gas condensate fields produced and collected by gas and oil processing organizations, and gas produced by gas and oil processing organizations (clause 1.1 of the Gas Accounting Rules).

According to clause 2.3 of the Rules for gas accounting during transportation, the following gas is subject to accounting: received from the consignor for transportation; handed over to the consignee; transferred by one pipeline transport organization to another pipeline transport organization; lost.

By virtue of par. 2 clause 2.10 of the Rules for gas accounting for gas supplies by a gas transmission organization of a gas distribution organization, the volume of gas is measured by measuring instruments and (or) technical systems and devices with measuring functions of a gas transportation organization.

From the above provisions of the regulatory enactments, it follows that accounting for the total amount of gas transferred from the gas transmission organization to the gas distribution organization is mandatory.

By virtue of clause 2.11 of the Gas Accounting Rules, the quantity (volumes) of gas is recorded monthly from the beginning of the year in the form of a gas balance.

In accordance with clause 3.5 of the Rules for Gas Accounting, based on the results of activities in the reporting period, the organization draws up a balance sheet for natural gas production based on acts of acceptance and delivery of the amount produced, transferred for transportation to other organizations, accepted from other organizations, burned in flares, used for its own production and technological needs, taking into account actual losses.

In the process of transporting gas through gas distribution networks, technological gas leaks (gas losses) inevitably occur due to leaks in gas pipelines and the fittings and equipment installed on them. These leaks are inevitable due to the impossibility of achieving absolute tightness of threaded and flanged connections, valves, gas equipment (clause 3.1.1. Methods for calculating the specific indicators of pollutants in emissions (discharges) into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities. Saratov, Giproniigaz, 1996).

In order to organize an objective accounting of gas consumption for technological needs and gas losses in its distribution systems, to ensure the rational and economical use of gas by gas distribution organizations of the fuel and energy complex of the Russian Federation, as well as to reduce gas losses, the Order of the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation dated August 01, 2001 No. 231 approved the Methodology determination of gas consumption for technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems RD 153-39.4-079-01.

As follows from clause 4.1 of Methodology No. 231, the gas balance of gas distribution organizations can be represented as an equation linking gas fuel income and consumption items: Qн = Qch + Qth + Qav + Qpt + Qpr (where: Qн - the amount of gas supplied from the supplier; Qch - the amount of gas consumed for own needs; Qth - the amount of gas consumed for technological needs; Qav - the amount of gas consumed for emergency operations; Qpt - gas losses in gas distribution systems; Qpr - the amount of gas sold by the gas distribution organization to industrial consumers and population.

In accordance with clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, gas losses are determined by the formula: the amount of gas supplied from the supplier on a monthly basis, confirmed by a 2-sided act (acceptance, release) of gas by the supplier and the gas distribution organization minus the amount of gas sold. In turn, the amount of gas sold is determined by the formula: the amount of gas sold to industrial consumers on a monthly basis (including the amount of gas sold by the supplier to the plaintiff for its own and technological needs), confirmed by a 2-sided act, plus the amount of gas sold to the population on a monthly basis (calculated according to current standards, and if there are meters - according to their testimony).

As follows from clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, determined by the gas loss formula, they represent the difference between the total amount of gas received from the supplier in the network of the gas distribution organization (claimant) and accounted for by measuring instruments in the manner prescribed by law, and the amount of gas sold by the supplier to all buyers (the number of which is determined in the manner prescribed by law).

In fact, clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231 establishes a method for determining actual gas losses in gas distribution systems.

At the same time, Methodology No. 231 includes a norm on the basis of which it is possible to calculate planned estimated losses (clause 6.2.1 of Methodology No. 231), for example, in order to calculate gas distribution company tariffs for gas transportation, which follows from the Information Letter Federal Tariff Service of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2005 No. CH-3923/9 "On Accounting for Gas Losses".

So, according to paragraph 6.2.1 of Methodology No. 231, operational (technological) gas losses in quantitative terms can be calculated in accordance with paragraphs 2.1.3 - 2.1.8, 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Methodology for calculating the specific indicators of pollutants substances in emissions (discharges) into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities (Saratov, Giproniigaz, 1996) or determined by in-situ measurements of gas leaks using the instrumental method at real objects- representatives of gas supply systems with subsequent statistical processing of measurement results. Optimal (to achieve reliable results) is a combination of both methods.

At the same time, operational gas leaks include gas losses through detachable connections (due to their leakage) on gas pipelines, fittings and equipment, since absolutely complete tightness of flanged, threaded and pin connections is practically unattainable.

It should be taken into account that the volume of operational (technological) gas losses, determined on the basis of the specific indicators established in the methodology (Giproniigaz, 1996), is indicative (planned), since in the process of gas transportation these losses can be minimized through the use of new equipment and materials, as well as improving the quality of maintenance of gas supply systems (clause 6.2.1 of Methodology No. 231), or, on the contrary, exceed the calculated (planned) volume due to improper maintenance of gas supply systems, as well as for other reasons, for example, due to damage to the gas pipeline, theft of gas, technological process, gas transportation modes (pressure, gas density) associated, including with the temperature factor.

Thus, according to the results of activities in the reporting period, the actual volumes of gas losses may differ from the planned (indicative) volumes of gas losses, which were determined by calculation in accordance with the methodology (Giproniigaz, 1996) based on specific indicators.

From the systematic interpretation of clauses 21, 22 of the Gas Supply Rules, clauses 2.3, 2.10, 3.5 of the Gas Accounting Rules, as well as clauses 4.1 of Methodology No. 231, it follows that in order to draw up a gas balance, not only the total amount of gas transmitted from the supplier to the plaintiff's network is subject to accounting, but also the amount of gas actually lost during its transportation.

As follows from the actual circumstances of the case and the terms of the contract as amended by the defendant, the gas is transferred by the supplier at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization to the gas distribution networks of the GDO (plaintiff) for further transportation.

Therefore, by virtue of the above provisions of the law, in without fail subject to accounting and reflection in the relevant acts is not only the total volume of gas received from the supplier in the network of the gas distribution organization (plaintiff), but also the volume of gas actually lost during its transportation through gas distribution networks owned by the gas distribution organization (plaintiff).

The court of first instance rightfully found that the plaintiff incorrectly applied the interpretation of the connecting union “and”, stating that the connecting union “and” indicates that we are talking about technological needs and technological losses in gas distribution systems.

In accordance with Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, when interpreting the terms of the contract, the court takes into account the literal meaning of the words and expressions contained in it. The literal meaning of the terms of the contract in case of its ambiguity is established by comparison with other terms and the meaning of the contract as a whole. If the rules contained in the first part of this article do not allow determining the content of the contract, the actual common will of the parties must be clarified, taking into account the purpose of the contract. In this case, all relevant circumstances are taken into account, including negotiations and correspondence preceding the contract, the practice established in the mutual relations of the parties, customs, the subsequent behavior of the parties.

According to the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language (Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80 OOO words and phraseological expressions / Russian Academy Sciences. Institute of the Russian Language. V. V. Vinogradova. - 4th ed., supplemented. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. - 944 p.) union "and" - single or repeating, connects homogeneous members of the sentence, as well as parts of a compound sentence.

In the context of the terms of the contract, the court considers that the use of the connecting union "and" by the parties means that in interpreting it is necessary to take into account both conditions connected by this union.

As the defendant points out, when determining the terms of the contract, its subject and terms, the defendant was guided by the provisions of the current legislation, and used the terms specified in Methodology No. 231.

Thus, the following formulations are used in Methodology No. 231, which contain the words “technological needs and losses”, namely: 1) in the preamble: In order to organize an objective accounting of gas consumption for technological needs and losses in its distribution systems; 2) section 1. Scope: will allow organizing an objective accounting of gas consumption for technological needs and gas losses in its distribution systems; 3) section 4. Gas balance of gas distribution organizations: Qpt - gas losses in gas distribution systems; 4) point 4.6: gas losses; 5) section 6. Gas losses in gas distribution systems.

Therefore, the court of first instance reasonably considered the defendant's arguments in this part to be justified, and therefore, the clauses of the contract as amended by the defendant, which contain the words "technological needs and losses", comply with the current legislation, and the use of the connecting union "and" in the contract means, that in interpreting the contract it is necessary to take into account both conditions connected by this union.

Thus, the court of first instance rightfully considered that paragraph 2.1 in the wording proposed by the defendant: “p. 2.1. The Supplier undertakes to supply the GDS at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transmission organization with combustible natural gas and / or combustible natural dry stripped gas (hereinafter referred to as gas) in the volumes agreed in Appendix No. 1 to the Contract, and the GDS undertakes to receive gas, use it for technological needs and losses in gas distribution networks owned by the Buyer on the right of ownership and / or on other legal grounds and pay the Supplier the cost of gas and fees for supply and distribution services.

The volumes of gas agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 1 are determined on the basis of regulatory parameters in accordance with the Methodology for calculating specific indicators, pollutants in emissions into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities, developed by Giproniigaz OJSC and approved by Rosgazifikatsiya OJSC by Order dated April 17, 1997 No. 1711. fully complies with the law, is accepted by the court, and the adoption of this clause of the contract as amended by the plaintiff should be rejected.

After analyzing the argument of the complaint regarding the incorrect acceptance of paragraph 2.1, the judicial panel believes that the court of first instance, having studied paragraph 2.1 of the agreement, sets out the wording of the parties, after which, accepting it in the wording of the defendant, sets out the legal grounds on which he came to such a conclusion.

Thus, the decision of the court contains the conclusions and grounds (motives) on which the court recognized the plaintiff's arguments as untenable. The conclusions of the court set out in the decision are consistent, logical and correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. Norms substantive law applied correctly. Violations of the norms of procedural law, which could be the basis for the cancellation of the appealed judicial acts, are not available by the cassation instance.

In the draft agreement, clause 2.3 is set out by the defendant in the following wording: “The actual volumes of gas losses in gas distribution networks are determined in the manner prescribed by section 4 of the Agreement “Procedure for accounting for the quantity and determination of gas quality indicators”.

The plaintiff considers it necessary to state clause 2.3 as follows: “When determining the actual volumes of gas for technological needs, technological (actual) gas losses, the parties are guided by the Gas Accounting Rules, approved. Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated December 30, 2013 No. 961, Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems (RD 153-39.4-079-01) and the procedure established by section 4 of the Agreement "Procedure for accounting for the quantity and determination gas quality indicators.

In support of the presentation of this paragraph in the wording of the plaintiff, the latter refers to the fact that the proposed version of determining the volume of gas for technological needs and technological losses corresponds to the subject of the agreement and contains a reference to the normative act, which provides for a mechanism for determining such a volume of gas.

At the same time, the plaintiff believes that the wording of the clause proposed by the Supplier goes beyond the scope of the subject of the contract.

Subject to Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the interpretation of the terms of the contract must proceed from the literal meaning of the words and expressions contained in it.

In order to avoid disputable situations, the Claimant considers it unacceptable to accept the wording of the paragraph, which contains a reference to gas losses in gas distribution networks without indicating that these are technological (actual) losses.

The defendant proposes to leave paragraph 2.3 of the agreement as amended by the supplier, since the plaintiff's reference to Methodology No. 231 in paragraph 2.3 increases the scope (content) of the agreement, while not affecting the rights and obligations of the parties and the gas accounting procedure, since paragraph 2.3 contains reference provisions to section 4 of the agreement (Procedure for accounting for the quantity and determination of gas quality indicators), and in section 4 of the agreement, in clause 4.3, cases are defined in which the provisions of Methodology No. 231 are applied.

Accepting this paragraph as amended by the defendant, the trial court rightly referred to the Gas Accounting Rules, approved. Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated December 30, 2013 No. 961, and Methodology No. 231 are contained in clause 1.1 of the agreement.

Regarding paragraph 4.3.1 of the contract, the court of first instance rightfully stated the following.

In the draft agreement, clause 4.3.1 is set out by the defendant as follows: “The volume of gas losses is determined according to the “Methodology for determining gas costs for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems” RD 153-39.4-079-01, approved by Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated August 01, 2001 No. 231, in the following order:

For the billing period from January to November 2016, the volume of gas losses is assumed to be 1/12 of the volume specified in Appendix No. 1 of the Agreement, and for the billing period of December 2016, the volume of gas losses is determined by the formula: Vp. December 2016 = V gen. losses - V GDO losses for 11 months,

Vp. December 2016 - the rest of the GDO gas losses.

V common. losses - the difference between the total volume of gas transferred by the Supplier at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization to the gas distribution networks of the GDS for further transportation in the period from 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2016, determined in accordance with the acts drawn up in accordance with clause 4.4.1 of the Agreement, and the volume of gas actually sold to Buyers (Subscribers), including industrial and household consumers, the population and GDOs for their own and technological needs, in the period from January 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

V GDS losses for 11 months - the volume of gas losses in the GDS networks for 11 months from January to November 2016 inclusive, calculated at 1/12 of the volume specified in Appendix No. 1 of the Agreement and specified in the acts drawn up in accordance with clause 4.4 .2 Agreements”.

The plaintiff in the protocol of disagreements suggested that this paragraph be stated in the following wording:

Technological (actual) gas losses in accordance with Section 6 of the Methodology (RD 153-39.4-079-01) are divided into two groups: operational losses and accidental emissions.

For operational losses in gas distribution networks owned by GDOs or on other legal grounds, the volume of gas is determined by calculation in accordance with Section 6 of the Methodology for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems (RD 153-39.4- 079-01), approved by the Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated August 01, 2001 No. 231 ”and the Methodology for calculating the specific indicators of pollutants in emissions (discharges) into the atmosphere (water bodies) at gas facilities, developed by Giproniigaz OJSC and approved by Rosgazifikatsiya ".

On a monthly basis, the GDO, before the 2nd day of the month following the reporting one, provides the Supplier with a calculation of operational losses in accordance with the Methodology (RD 152-39.4-079-01)."

In justification for the adoption of this clause of the contract in its version, the plaintiff refers to the following, that the version of clause 4.3.1 proposed by the defendant. and which is a formula for calculating the technological losses of OAO Syzrangas, does not comply with the current legislation.

Rules for the supply of gas in the Russian Federation (clauses 1 and 5) determine the relationship between suppliers and buyers of gas and are binding on all legal entities involved in the relationship of gas supply through pipeline networks. Gas is supplied on the basis of an agreement between the supplier and the buyer, concluded in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, federal laws, these rules and other regulatory legal acts.

By virtue of paragraph 21 of the Rules for the supply of gas, the supply and withdrawal of gas without taking into account its volume is not allowed. Clause 22 of the Gas Supply Rules provides that the accounting of the volume of gas transferred to the buyer is carried out by control and measuring devices of the party transmitting gas, and is drawn up by a document signed by the parties in the form and within the time specified in the gas supply agreement. In the event of a malfunction or absence of instrumentation at the transmitting side, the volume of transferred gas is taken into account according to the instrumentation of the receiving party, and in their absence or malfunction - by the volume of gas consumption corresponding to the design capacity of unsealed gas-consuming installations and the time during which gas was supplied during the period of malfunction of devices, or by another method provided for by the contract (clause 23).

Considering that both the plaintiff and the defendant do not have gas meters, the parties to the agreement established that when determining the volume of technological (actual) gas losses, they are guided by Method No. 231, according to clause 6.1 of which gas losses are divided into imaginary and real.

In turn, the actual gas losses are divided into two groups:

1. Operational gas leaks in gas pipelines and equipment, as well as gas losses during loading and unloading operations at gas pumping stations, gas pumping stations, gas filling stations, tank units;

2. Emergency gas emissions due to damage to gas pipelines and equipment.

Operational gas leaks include gas losses through detachable connections (due to their leakage) on gas pipelines, fittings and equipment.

Operational gas losses in quantitative terms are calculated on the basis of technical data and characteristics of gas pipelines used for transportation (clauses 2.1.3-2.1.8; 3.1.1.and 3.1.2 Methods for calculating the specific indicators of pollutants in emissions (discharges) into the atmosphere (reservoirs) at gas facilities).

In the information letter of the Federal Tariff Service of Russia dated June 28, 2005 No. CH-3923/9, in order to resolve disagreements arising between gas suppliers, consumers and gas distribution organizations on the issue of accounting for gas losses, the following explanations are given: “The difference between the total volume of gas received from the supplier ( according to gas metering stations installed at the GDS) and the volume of gas sold to consumers, including the population and GDS (according to gas metering devices from consumers or in case of their absence or non-compliance with the requirements of the standards - according to the established consumption standards and / or design capacity gas-using equipment), creates an imbalance of gas. At the same time, responsibility for it is distributed between the supplier - the defendant and the GDO - the plaintiff as follows:

On the financial results gas supplier should include losses (profit) received:

Due to the deviation of the actual consumption of gas by the population for domestic needs from the consumption standards approved in in due course, since the resulting gas losses are not losses during gas transportation.

Due to the deviation of gas volumes due to the measurement error of the installed gas flow meters at the gas distribution station, for industrial consumers and the population. The error of metering devices is determined on the basis of passport data and in accordance with GOST 8.143-75.

The Claimant considers the formula for determining technological losses proposed by the Supplier as not provided for by Section 6 of Methodology No. 231 “Gas Losses in Gas Distribution Systems”, indicating that paragraph 4.1. This Method provides for a possible formula for the gas balance of GRW in the form of an equation: Qp = Qsn + Qtn + Qav + Qpt + Qpp.

This formula uses the initial components of such a balance, including Qtn - the amount of gas consumed for technological needs and Qpt - gas losses in gas distribution systems.

In paragraph 4.4. Methodology No. 231 gives the formulation of gas consumption for technological needs, and in paragraph 4.6. The methodology is supposed to determine gas losses according to a formula similar to that offered by the Gas Supplier: Qpt = Qp - Qr.

The Claimant indicates that the formula in the form proposed by the Provider is not provided for by any normative act, while point 4.1. Methodology No. 231 contains a recommendatory wording - “the gas balance of a gas distribution organization can be represented as an equation ...” and is not the basis for settlements between the Supplier and the GDO, which, according to the plaintiff, indicates that the legislator provides for another possible variant for information on the gas balance of GRW.

Further, the plaintiff refers to the fact that the analysis provided for by paragraph 4.6. Technique No. 231 of the formula for determining gas losses (similar to the Supplier's formula) allows us to conclude that we are talking about a gas imbalance, since the difference between the amount of gas supplied from the Supplier and the amount of gas sold is determined. The amount of gas sold is determined as the sum of the amount of gas sold to industrial consumers and the amount of gas sold to the population.

Taking into account the agreement concluded by the Gas Supplier for the sale of GDO gas for technological needs and technological losses, this volume of gas is taken into account in the amount of gas sold to industrial consumers. Thus, the determination of the volume of gas losses according to the formula proposed by the Supplier cannot be applied to the determination of the volume of technological losses of GDS.

This conclusion, as the plaintiff points out, is confirmed by the Information Letter of the Federal Tariff Service of Russia dated June 28, 2005 No. CH-3923/9 - “The difference between the total volume of gas received from the supplier (according to the gas metering units installed at the GDS) and the volume of gas sold to consumers, including the population and GDS (according to the data of metering devices at consumers or in case of their absence or non-compliance with the requirements of the standards - according to the established consumption standards and / or the design capacity of gas-using equipment) forms an imbalance of gas ... ".

The preamble of the letter indicates that it was issued in order to resolve disagreements on the issue of accounting for gas losses and it refers to the imbalance of gas.

According to the Claimant, the formula proposed by the Supplier goes beyond the scope of the subject of the contract, and attributing the entire volume of "imbalance" of gas to the Claimant's financial result is unacceptable and contradicts the above documents.

Objecting in this part of the disagreement, the defendant does not agree with the plaintiff's argument on determining the volume of gas losses that occurs in the plaintiff's gas distribution networks in the process of gas transportation, exclusively by calculation.

At the same time, the defendant believes that the procedure for determining the volume of gas losses, established in clause 4.3.1 of the agreement, complies with the law, referring to the following.

JSC "Syzrangaz" is a gas distribution organization - a specialized organization that provides services for the transportation of gas through gas distribution networks that it owns or has other legal grounds.

In the process of transporting gas through gas distribution networks, gas leaks (losses) inevitably occur, since absolutely complete tightness of flange, threaded and pin connections on gas pipelines, fittings and equipment is practically unattainable (clause 6.2.1 of methodology No. 231 and clause 3.1.1 Methods for calculating the specific indicators of pollutants in emissions (discharges) into the atmosphere (reservoirs) at gas facilities. Saratov, Giproniigaz, 1996). In addition, the amount of losses depends on the implementation of the measures specified in paragraph 6.3. Methods No. 231.

In order to reimburse the supplier for the cost of the volume of gas losses that inevitably occur during its transportation through the GDO gas distribution networks, Syzrangaz OJSC concludes an appropriate gas supply agreement with the gas supplier.

At the time of the conclusion of the contract, it is impossible to determine the exact (actual) volumes of gas losses that may occur during transportation. Therefore, due to the specifics of legal relations at the time of the conclusion of such an agreement, the amount of gas is indicative (planned) and is determined in accordance with the established procedure by calculation.

In this case, it should be taken into account that the calculation method for determining gas losses is probabilistic in nature, since when performing the calculation, data that have absolute values ​​or correction factors are taken as a basis.

According to the results of the gas supply and transportation period, the actual volumes of gas losses may differ from the “planned (calculated)” volumes of gas losses, since, as noted above, absolutely complete tightness of flanged, threaded and pin connections on gas pipelines, valves and equipment is practically unattainable.

In addition, it should be taken into account that the actual volumes of losses depend not only on the state of gas distribution networks, but also on the technological process of gas transportation (pressure, gas density, related, including with the temperature factor).

As the FTS of Russia points out in its letters dated June 03, 2010, ref. No. 9-473 and June 10, 2010 ref. No. 9-502, the actual volumes of technological losses depend on the technological process, gas transportation modes (pressure, gas density) associated, including with the temperature factor, as well as on the state of gas distribution networks, they may differ from the planned ones.

Also, the FTS of Russia in a letter dated June 10, 2010 ref. No. 9-502 clarifies that if the proven volume of technological losses differs from those accounted for in the tariffs (i.e., from the “planned (calculated)” volumes of gas losses)), the GDO must reimburse the supplier for the cost of gas lost during transportation in the amount actually prevailing during this period of gas transportation. If the proven volume of technological losses actually formed and paid by the supplier differs from the volume of technological losses included in the gas transportation tariff, then the difference can be taken into account when calculating the tariff for gas transportation through gas distribution networks for the next regulated period in case of submission of supporting documents.

In the Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District dated September 16, 2011 No. F09-5699/11 in case No. A76-25984/2010, the court also indicated that if the proven amount of technological losses differs from that taken into account in the tariffs, then the GDO must reimburse the supplier for the cost gas lost during transportation, in the amount actually formed during the given period of gas transportation.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation agreed with the conclusions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District (Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 2012 No. VAS-17175/11 in case No. A76-25984/2010).

Thus, both the authorized executive body in the field of state regulation of prices (FTS of Russia) and the court directly indicate that the actual volume of gas losses may differ from the “planned (estimated)” volume of gas losses. At the same time, if the actual volume of gas losses exceeds the “planned (calculated)” volume of gas losses, the GDO must reimburse the supplier for the cost of gas lost during transportation in the amount actually formed during the given period of gas supply and transportation.

The Respondent points out that of all legislation in the field of gas supply, only Methodology No. 231 establishes a method for determining gas losses.

Based on the formula for determining gas losses established in paragraph 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, it follows that gas losses are determined as the difference between the amount of gas supplied from the supplier to the gas distribution networks and the amount of gas sold to buyers (consumers).

This conclusion is confirmed in judicial practice (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District of October 13, 2011 in case No. А55-19422/2010, Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District of March 03, 2015 No. Ф06-19597/2013 in case No. А55-2168/ 2014, Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District of July 17, 2013 in case No. А55-27660/2012).

So, in accordance with paragraph 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, gas losses are determined by the formula: the amount of gas supplied from the supplier on a monthly basis, confirmed by a 2-sided act (acceptance, release) of gas by the supplier and the gas distribution organization minus the amount of gas sold.

In turn, the amount of gas sold (also clause 4.6.) is determined by the formula: the amount of gas sold to industrial consumers on a monthly basis (including the amount of gas sold by the supplier to the plaintiff for its own and technological needs), confirmed by a 2-sided act, plus the amount gas sold to the population on a monthly basis (calculated according to current standards, and if meters are available, according to their readings).

By virtue of the law, the supply and withdrawal of gas without taking into account its volume is not allowed, and gas metering is carried out in the manner and in the ways established in the relevant laws and regulations (Civil Code of the Russian Federation, LC RF, Rules for Gas Supply and Rules for Gas Accounting, etc.) .

When accounting for gas, the supplier, based on the results of the gas supply period, has data on the amount of gas supplied to the GDO gas distribution network and the volume of gas sold by the supplier to all buyers (subscribers), incl. and GDO, and, therefore, can determine the resulting difference.

The difference between the total volume of gas supplied from the supplier to the GDS gas distribution networks and the volume of gas sold by the supplier to buyers (subscribers), including industrial and household buyers (subscribers), the public and GDS for their own and technological needs, forms a gas imbalance .

By virtue of paragraph 4.1 of Methodology No. 231, the gas balance of gas distribution organizations can be represented as an equation linking the items of income and consumption of gas fuel.

In turn, gas losses, by virtue of clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, are defined as the difference between the total volume of gas supplied from the supplier to the gas distribution network and the volume of gas sold by the supplier to buyers (subscribers), including industrial and household buyers (subscribers), the population and the gas distribution organization (JSC Syzrangaz) for their own and technological needs.

The procedure for determining the volume of gas losses, enshrined in clause 4.3.1 of the agreement as amended by Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC, also boils down to determining the volume of gas losses as the difference between the total volume of gas transferred by the supplier at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization to the gas distribution networks JSC Syzrangaz and the volume of gas actually sold to buyers (subscribers), including industrial and household buyers (subscribers), the population and JSC Syzrangaz for own and technological needs.

The court of first instance rightfully considered these arguments of the defendant justified, therefore, the procedure for determining the volume of gas losses, enshrined in clause 4.3.1 of the agreement as amended by Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara, complies with the requirements of the law and clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, the claimant's requirements under clause 4.3.1 . are unfounded.

As follows from the materials of the case, Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC has repeatedly applied to the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region with a claim against Syzrangaz OJSC to recover the amount of debt for gas under gas supply contracts to make up for the volume of losses (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District dated October 13, 2011 of the year in case No. A55-19422 / 2010, Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated March 03, 2015 No. F06-19597 / 2013 in case No. A55-2168 / 2014, Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District dated July 17, 2013 in case No. A55-27660 /2012, Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga District of April 07, 2011 in case No. А55-6812/2010).

In these disputes, Syzrangaz OJSC also raised objections to the requirements of Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC, the essence of which was that the volume of gas losses arising in the GDO gas distribution networks cannot exceed the “planned (calculated)” volumes of gas losses agreed in the contract, and also referred to the fact that the volume of gas losses should be determined exclusively by calculation in accordance with clause 6.2 of Methodology No. 231.

Meanwhile, in the judicial acts adopted in the framework of these cases, the arguments and objections of Syzrangaz OJSC were recognized as untenable, and the requirements of Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC were substantiated, while the following was noted:

Natural network gas can be supplied to subscribers only through the networks of a gas distribution organization, therefore, the amount of gas sold to subscribers, in fact, should be equal to the amount of transported gas;

The gas supplier is not a consumer, it does not have gas-using equipment, there are no gas distribution networks, therefore, there are no technological losses of gas;

The volumes of technological gas losses are indicative and are determined by the Federal Tariff Service of Russia for GDOs when calculating the tariff for gas transportation services through gas distribution networks;

The gas supplier is obliged to reimburse the cost of the services rendered by the GDO in the amount recognized by the subscribers (the population);

Losses of gas that occurred in the GDS networks are not the volume of gas sold to the population;

For the billing periods - from January to November, the parties accept the volume of gas losses in the amount of 1/12 of the planned (estimated) volume specified in the contract, and for the billing period of December, the parties determine the volume of gas losses according to the formula for calculating actual losses;

The actual volume of gas losses was calculated by OOO Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara in accordance with the terms of the contract and the current methodology No. 231;

Only the gas distribution organization has reliable information about the causes and amount of actual gas losses in the networks, since the supplier has neither networks nor equipment, does not transport gas and is not a gas consumer, in addition, in contrast to the rules for setting tariffs for services for GDO, when setting tariffs for the services of a supplier normative documents they do not include material costs in the form of gas losses.

It should also be noted that Information mail The Federal Tariff Service of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2005 No. CH-3923/9 “On accounting for gas losses” is advisory, but not mandatory, and, therefore, its provisions can only be applied if the parties have reached an agreement on the possibility of making settlements according to the issue of accounting for gas losses in the manner specified in the FTS letter. There is no such agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant; evidence to the contrary is not presented by the plaintiff in the case file.

In addition, according to the explanations of the FTS, which are contained in the letter of the Federal Tariff Service of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2005 No. CH-3923/9, the volume of technological losses of gas in gas distribution systems (operational leaks, etc.) and, accordingly, the level of GDO expenses under this article is determined according to Methodology No. 231 for the purpose of calculating GDO tariffs.

Thus, the “estimated” method for determining technological gas losses, established by clause 6.2 of Methodology No. 231, is applicable for the purposes of determining “planned (estimated)” volumes of losses per future period, as well as for the purposes of calculating the tariffs GRO (plaintiff), t.to. the parties at that time did not have data to determine the actual volumes of gas losses.

Determining the actual volume of gas lost during its transportation is consistent with the goals defined in Methodology No. 231, as well as with the provisions of other regulatory legal acts in the field of gas supply, since it allows you to keep an objective account of gas consumption.

As follows from Methodology No. 231, this document approved by the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation in order to organize an objective accounting of gas consumption for technological needs and gas losses in gas distribution systems, ensure the rational and economical use of gas by gas distribution organizations of the fuel and energy complex of the Russian Federation, as well as reduce gas losses.

On the contrary, the determination of gas losses solely by the calculation method does not meet the objectives of this methodology, since it does not allow for an objective accounting of gas consumption, and also leads to the fact that the GDO, as the owner of gas distribution networks, will not be interested in taking measures aimed at reducing gas losses, since the degree of care and discretion required of her.

In view of the foregoing, the court of first instance reasonably considered that paragraph 4.3.1 of the contract as amended by the supplier does not inherently contradict paragraph 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, since it determines the actual volume of gas losses as the difference between the total volume of gas transferred by the supplier to the gas distribution networks of "Syzrangaz" and the volume of gas actually sold to buyers (subscribers), incl. OAO Syzrangaz, therefore, this paragraph should be adopted as amended by the respondent.

According to paragraph 4.3.1 of the agreement, the plaintiff in his complaint indicates that “by deciding to include in the Agreement a condition not provided for by the imperative rule of law, the court actually replaces the legislative power.”

At the same time, this argument of the complaint is rejected by the Judicial Board as unfounded.

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the agreement must comply with the rules binding on the parties, established by law and other legal acts (imperative norms) in force at the time of its conclusion, that is, the parties are not entitled to conclude an agreement on conditions that are contrary to law.

Therefore, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens ( individuals) and legal entities are free to establish their rights and obligations on the basis of the contract and to determine any conditions of the contract that do not contradict the law.

In the draft agreement, clause 4.3.2 is set out as follows:

“For emergency emissions in case of damage to gas pipelines or equipment that occurred through the fault of 3 persons, the volume of gas is determined on the basis of joint accident registration certificates signed by the Supplier and the GDO, containing data on the volume of emergency gas losses, and the calculation of the volume of emergency emissions according to the “Methodology for determining costs gas for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems "RD 153-39.4-079-01, approved by Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated 01.08.2001 No. 231.".

In the protocol of disagreements, the plaintiff proposes to state this paragraph in the following wording: “The actual gas losses caused by emergency situations are determined by the Gas Supplier for each specific place of their formation and are drawn up by joint accident registration reports signed by the Supplier and GDO. These acts contain data on the volume of emergency gas losses, and the calculation of the volume of emergency emissions, performed according to the Method for determining gas consumption for the technological needs of gas facilities and losses in gas distribution systems. The form of the act is agreed by the parties in Appendix No. 2.

If there are no emergencies during the reporting period, the GDO, before the 2nd day of the month following the reporting one, draws up and sends to the Supplier for signing an act on the absence of emergency gas emissions in the form in accordance with Appendix No. 4.

In support of the presentation of this paragraph in its wording, the plaintiff points out that the wording of the paragraph proposed by the defendant:

a) involves limiting compensation for losses in case of accidents only through the fault of third parties (excluding the parties to the contract);

b) does not determine by whom the calculation of such losses should be made.

The wording of the disputed paragraph proposed by the plaintiff, according to the plaintiff, eliminates these gaps.

Losses of gas in emergency situations are by their legal nature the losses of the gas owner.

In accordance with Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is the defendant, being the owner of the gas, who will be obliged to prove the volume of gas lost during the accident.

In accordance with Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff in the proposed wording of the paragraph eliminates the occurrence of disputes in the performance of the contract.

In this regard, Syzrangaz OJSC proposed the following forms of acts:

Act on registration of an emergency on the gas distribution networks of Syzrangaz OJSC (Appendix No. 2 to the agreement (Appendix No. 1 to the protocol of disagreements);

Act on the absence of emergency gas emissions at the gas distribution networks of Syzrangaz OJSC (Appendix No. 4 to the agreement (Appendix No. 2 to the protocol of disagreements).

In the event of emergencies or in their absence, the Supplier and the GDO shall draw up documents reflecting the opinion of the parties on these events. Considering that the current legislation does not provide for a standard form of acts fixing the presence or absence of an emergency, the parties have the right to independently agree on the form of these documents.

The defendant in his response to the claim believes that clause 4.3.2 in the draft agreement complies with the law, therefore he asks the plaintiff's editorial office to reject it.

Rejecting the plaintiff's arguments on the adoption of this paragraph of the contract in its wording, the court of first instance reasonably proceeded from the following.

Accidental gas releases occur when gas pipelines or equipment are damaged.

The defendant is not the owner of the gas distribution networks through which gas is transported, and also does not have equipment. There is no evidence to the contrary in the plaintiff's case file.

On the contrary, the plaintiff himself in the claim indicates that the gas distribution networks belong to him on the basis of ownership or on other legal grounds, and he, by virtue of Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, bears the burden of maintaining its networks and equipment.

Clause 5 of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 20, 2000 No. 878 “On Approval of the Rules for the Protection of Gas Distribution Networks” states that, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, gas distribution networks are classified as hazardous production facilities, due to the explosive and fire hazardous properties of the gas transported through them . The fundamentals of the safe operation of gas distribution networks are defined by the Federal Law "On industrial safety hazardous production facilities”.

It should also be noted that the GDO, being the owner of hazardous production facilities, is obliged to create an emergency dispatch service, which is a separate structural unit GDS, which provide a permanent opportunity to localize accidents and eliminate them, at all facilities serviced by the GDS, related to both the transportation of natural gas and the supply of liquefied gas, as well as other activities, which include, among other things, the maintenance of gas distribution networks and VDGO under agreements with the owners.

Thus, the court of first instance rightfully agreed with the defendant's arguments that only the owner of the networks and equipment has reliable information about emergency situations that may occur on gas distribution networks and equipment.

At the same time, in violation of the article of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff did not substantiate which provision of the law prescribes the requirement to draw up an act on the registration of emergency situations and an act on the absence of emergency emissions on a monthly basis.

In view of the foregoing, the court of first instance legally and reasonably considered that clause 4.3.2 should be adopted as amended by the supplier.

In the draft contract, the defendant proposed clauses 4.4, 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 as follows:

“4.4. The Supplier, no later than the 3rd day of the month following the billing month, draws up in 2 copies, signs, seals and sends the following acts to the GDO for signing:

4.4.1 Act on the total amount transferred by the Supplier at the outlet of the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization to the gas distribution networks of the GDO for the billing period (Appendix No. 2).

4.4.2. Act on the amount of delivered - received gas and provided supply and marketing services for the billing period. (Appendix No. 3).".

In the protocol of disagreements, clauses 4.4, 4.4.1. 4.4.2 the plaintiff proposes to merge and state clause 4.4 in the following wording: “The supplier, before the 3rd day of the month following the settlement month, draws up in 2 copies an Act on the amount of supplied - accepted gas and provided supply and marketing services for technological needs and technological (actual) losses for the billing period (Appendix No. 3), signs, seals and sends to the GDO for signing.

In support of its wording of these paragraphs, the plaintiff refers to the fact that the wording of these paragraphs, proposed by the Supplier, provides for the drawing up of two acts, one of which is the Act on the total amount of gas transferred to the GDS gas distribution networks, and the second is the Act on the amount of supplied - accepted gas and provided supply and marketing services for the billing period. According to the plaintiff, drawing up an Act on the total amount of gas transferred by the Supplier at the exit from the main gas pipelines of the gas transportation organization to the gas distribution networks of the GDO for the billing period, which goes beyond the limits of the Contract in question.

The preparation of this act may be regulated by a separate agreement between the Supplier and the GDO and is not related to determining the volume of technological (actual) losses arising during gas transportation, which must be determined by calculation in accordance with Section 6 of Methodology No. 231.

At the same time, the plaintiff believes that the method proposed by the defendant for determining the volume of gas constituting the technological (actual) losses of the plaintiff and, accordingly, the execution of the Act on the total amount of gas, does not comply with Method No. 231.

In his response to the claim, the defendant proposes to leave clauses 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2 of the agreement in the wording of the draft agreement, since these clauses comply with the current legislation and are based on the provisions of clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231, referring to the fact that gas losses are determined by formula: the amount of gas supplied from the supplier on a monthly basis, confirmed by a 2-sided act (acceptance, release) of gas by the supplier and the gas distribution organization minus the amount of gas sold.

The act on the total amount of gas transferred from the main gas pipelines of the gas transmission organization to the buyer's gas distribution networks for the billing period (Appendix No. 2) contains information on the amount of gas supplied monthly from the supplier to the buyer's network.

This act is required when compiling the annual gas balance according to the formula established by paragraph 4.6 of Methodology No. 231.

The method proposed by the plaintiff for fixing the amount of gas supplied by drawing up one act (Act on the amount of supplied - accepted gas and provided supply and marketing services), fixes only the volume of gas determined by calculation.

Meanwhile, the actual volumes of gas losses may differ from the volumes of gas obtained by the calculation method, and, therefore, the determination of gas losses by the calculation method and the execution of an act that does not contain data on the amount of gas transferred to the GDO gas distribution networks contradicts clause 4.6 of Methodology No. 231 and does not allow for an objective accounting of gas consumption.

The arguments of the complaint that when calculating the technological losses of gas, the total length of the networks is of fundamental importance, are untenable for the following reasons.

When approving for the plaintiff the tariffs for gas transportation services rendered to consumers for 2009, the Federal Customs Service of Russia took into account the volume of technological losses of gas in the amount of 2186,000 thousand m3 (planned volume).

When concluding gas supply contract No. 45-5-0001/16 dated November 01, 2015, the plaintiff indicated the planned volume of technological gas losses in the amount of 1241.107 thousand m3.

At the same time, as follows from the annual reports of Syzrangaz OJSC, posted by Syzrangaz OJSC on the official website on the Internet in the Annual Reports section, the plaintiff annually carries out construction and installation work on the construction of gas distribution networks. According to annual report in 2009, the plaintiff built 25.84 km of gas pipelines, in 2010 - built 26.16 km of gas pipelines, in 2011 - built 28.05 km of gas pipelines, in 2012 - built 29.375 km of gas pipelines. In total, during the period from 2009 to 2012, the plaintiff built 109.425 km of gas pipelines.

Taking into account the fact that the plaintiff's gas pipelines were increasing every year, but the volume of actual gas losses decreased (from 2,186,000 thousand m3 in 2009 to 1,241.107 in 2015), the plaintiff's argument about the dependence on the length of the gas pipeline cannot be considered consistent.

It should also be taken into account that at the time of the conclusion of the contract it is impossible to determine the exact (actual) volumes of gas losses that may occur during transportation. Therefore, due to the specifics of legal relations at the time of the conclusion of such an agreement, the amount of gas is indicative (planned) and is determined in accordance with the established procedure by calculation. In this case, the calculation method for determining gas losses is probabilistic in nature, because when performing the calculation, data that have absolute values ​​or correction factors are taken as a basis. According to the results of the gas supply and transportation period, the actual volumes of gas losses may differ from the planned (calculated) volumes of gas losses, since, as noted above, absolutely complete tightness of flanged, threaded and pin connections on gas pipelines, fittings and equipment is practically unattainable.

In addition, according to clause 6.2.1 of Methodology No. 231, technological (actual) gas losses can be minimized through the use of new equipment and materials, as well as improving the quality of service for gas supply systems.

In view of the foregoing, the conclusion of the court of first instance that the volume of operational (technological) gas losses, determined on the basis of the specific indicators established in the methodology (Giproniigaz, 1996), is indicative (planned), since these losses can be reduced in the process of gas transportation to a minimum through the use of new equipment and materials, as well as improving the quality of service of gas supply systems (clause 6.2.1 of Methodology No. 231), or, on the contrary, exceed the calculated (planned) volume due to improper maintenance of gas supply systems, as well as for other reasons, for example, due to damage to the gas pipeline, theft of gas, technological process, gas transportation modes (pressure, gas density), including those associated with the temperature factor (page 12 of the decision).

Thus, the authorized executive body in the field of state price regulation (FTS of Russia) directly indicates to the plaintiff that the actual volume of gas losses may differ from the planned (calculated) volume of gas losses. At the same time, if the actual volume of gas losses exceeds the planned (calculated) volume of gas losses, the GDO must reimburse the supplier for the cost of gas lost during transportation in the amount actually formed during the given period of gas supply and transportation.

Therefore, the court of first instance rightly indicated that it finds these arguments of the defendant as consistent with the current legislation, therefore, these clauses of the contract should be accepted as amended by the defendant.

In the draft agreement, paragraph 5.1.2 was proposed by the defendant in the following wording: “When supplying additional volumes of gas produced by OAO Gazprom and its affiliates, under the terms of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 28, 2007 No. 333 - from the regulated wholesale price for gas, determined by agreement of the Parties in the range between the maximum and minimum levels of wholesale prices, and fees for supply and marketing services, determined in the manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Wholesale gas prices, determined in the range between the maximum and minimum levels of wholesale prices, are agreed by the Parties in additional agreements to this Agreement."

Clause 5.1.2. the plaintiff in the protocol of disagreements proposed to be excluded, justifying that the relations between the parties between the Supplier and the GDO on compensation for losses arising in the gas distribution system are not subject to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 333 dated May 28, 2007. OAO Syzrangaz carries out a regulated type of activity, therefore, the price of gas under the contract under consideration can only be formed from the regulated wholesale price of gas and the payment for supply and distribution services, determined in the manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation.

During the trial, the defendant, in addition to the withdrawal, agreed to the exclusion of this clause from the contract, and this clause was excluded by the court of first instance.

The applicant's arguments, set out in the appeal, do not contain facts that would not have been verified and not taken into account by the court of first instance when considering the case and would have legal significance for issuing a judicial act on the merits, affected the validity and legality of the court decision, or refuted the conclusions of the court of first instance. instances, in connection with which, are recognized by the court of appeal as insolvent, not entailing the cancellation of the contested decision. The appeal does not contain other arguments based on the evidence base, the arguments of the complaint express disagreement with them and are generally aimed at reassessing the evidence in the absence of legal grounds for this, and therefore are rejected by the court of appeal.

In connection with the foregoing, the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal finds no grounds to cancel the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region dated April 28, 2016, adopted in case No. A55-3179 / 2016 and to satisfy the appeal.

In accordance with the article of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the costs of the state fee on an appeal are to be attributed to the complainant.

Guided by the articles, - Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, arbitration court

RESOLVED:

The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region dated April 28, 2016, adopted in case No. A55-3179 / 2016, is left unchanged, and the appeal of the Syzrangaz Open Joint Stock Company is not satisfied.

The ruling may be appealed against within a period not exceeding two months from the date of entry into force, to the court of cassation.

presiding C.Yew. Nikolaev

Judges E.M. Balakirev

N.Yu. Pyshkin

Court:

11 AAC (Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal)

Plaintiffs:

JSC "Syzrangaz"

Respondents:

Gazprom Mezhregiongaz Samara LLC

Litigation on:

Lost profit

Arbitrage practice on the application of Art. 15, 393 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Under a supply agreement

Judicial practice on the application of the norms of Art. 506, 507 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Damages

Judicial practice on the application of the norm of Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

I do not know how things are at the GDS of other legal entities - I can only talk about the GDS of my own transgas.

Transgaz is a gas supplier for RTGs, which supplies gas to direct consumers and settles accounts with them. Therefore, transgaz, as a legal entity, has no financial interest in distorting flow readings, and representatives of the IWG cannot carry out any manipulations with gas flow meters at the transgas GDS (these are not their objects).

The situation when the IWG is unable to collect payment from consumers for the whole gas released from GDS are found everywhere and, as practice shows, in 99% of cases this is not due to incorrect (in all senses) measurement of gas flow at GDS. Representatives of the IWG annually visit all our SRSs with checks. At the flow measurement nodes, they sealed everything that is possible (and even what, as we thought, could not be sealed). All parameter changes are recorded in the electronic archives of calculators and duplicated (through the telemechanics system) on the computers of the dispatch service.

"Leaving zero" is rather typical for pressure sensors (especially "absolutes"), but if the gas flow starts to differ from the average values, then the reasons immediately begin to be clarified.

Therefore, I suggest "do not look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is not there."

Alexey Georgievich, yes, I was not going to "look for cats" just a question was asked about theoretical the possibility of manipulating the balance on the GDS - theoretically, there are possibilities ...

As for practically, I completely agree with you here, the probability is quite low - as far as I know, everyone regional representation There are intermediate suppliers of Transgaz, with their own metering units ... And it seems that the balances in the system are rather rigidly tracked - how much came into the system through booster stations, the same amount should go out through the GDS, so in order to cheat qualitatively, you need to simultaneously tweak the SI at all stages gas supplies, which is quite unlikely ...

But when the gas enters the MRG, then much more black holes appear there, for example - not only does the MRG use a different gas density for calculations (relative, in air), they also somehow average it over some of their calculations (for season, six months, a year - it's hard to say) - it's possible that everything is legal there, but from the outside it looks suspicious ...

Again, temperature coefficients for SI without temperature correction, installed on the street - where is it taken into account that the SI is on the street, how are they applied? And if the SI is in the room, but the flow rate is large enough (column, kettle) and the gas does not have time to warm up and goes cold enough, is this taken into account somewhere?!

	measured value	Error rel., % abs		accounting value	Adjusted amount	Correction factor	Standard off accounting value
	68500	1,50	1027	67497	1002	0,9854
	33600		FLOW CONVERTERS ELECTROMAGNETIC PREM 1. Introduction Recommendations for eliminating mass imbalance in the heating system can be used ONLY at workable equipment included in the heat meter. Mass unbalance- the difference between the measured values ​​of the masses of the supply and return pipelines of the heat supply system. Attention! 1. Lack of flow on any measurement channel is a system failure and has nothing to do with mass unbalance 2. The weights of the impulses indicated in the passports of the PREM must correspond to the setting of the calculator! In cases where there are no flow readings on the heat quantity calculator, these recommendations NOT APPLICABLE. When analyzing the causes of mass imbalance, the following conditions must be met: PREM must be constantly filled with the measured liquid; There must be an electrical contact between the PREM and the measured liquid (equalizing conductors are connected). When working, you should be guided technical documentation on the devices used (Operating Instructions, Installation Instructions, etc.). Causes of mass imbalance: Violation of the requirements of mechanical and electrical installation. The characteristics of the heating system do not correspond to the declared ones. The composition of the coolant does not meet the requirements. The presence of interference from electrical installations. Peculiarities of operation algorithms for heat quantity calculators. The presence of air in the system. Departure of the metrological characteristics of the transducer. Requirements for the heating system: The system must be airtight - no leaks, drops should be observed. The shut-off valve must be in good working order. The system must fully comply with the project and not contain additional (unaccounted for) tie-ins. Results of control of the metering unit Upon completion of work, it is necessary to draw up an act listing the causes of mass imbalance at the metering unit and the actions taken, as well as submit hourly archives and calculator settings. 2Finding and eliminating the causes of mass imbalance 2.1 Monitoring compliance with installation requirements Check the installation of flowmeters for compliance with the requirements of the installation instructions. At the same time, it is necessary to turn Special attention for the following points: The PRM must be completely filled with water. The possibility of airing the channel should be excluded. PREM on horizontal pipes must be installed with the electronic unit up. There must be no pulsations or swirling of the flow in the measuring section. In straight sections there should be no elements that cause distortion of the fluid flow. 2.1.1 Violation of the mechanical installation 2.1.2 Violation of the electrical installation Diagnostics Solutions 1. Check the quality of the connection between the potential equalization wires and the pipeline. Tighten the nuts (screws) and ensure reliable contact of the wires with the pipeline. 2. Make sure that there is no additional (and / or separate) grounding of the potential equalization points. Disconnect additional grounding points from the PREM electronic unit. 3. Make sure that there is no electrical contact and voltage between the minus of the power source and the potential equalization point. If there is electrical contact and/or voltage, find the cause and eliminate it. 4. Make sure that there is a protective conductor. Install a protective conductor. 5. Make sure there is no potential between the pipes. Equalize the potential between the pipelines by installing jumpers. 2.2 The characteristics of the system do not correspond to the declared Diagnostics Solutions 1. Using shut-off valves, reduce (increase) the values ​​of the coolant flow rates. After establishing the costs, fix the difference in the readings 2. Make sure there are no leaks in the system. 2.1. For a closed system: close the return line, make sure there is no direct flow. Then block the straight line and make sure that there is no flow or that there is no change in the sign of the flow on the return line. 2.2. For an open system: turn off the DHW and check that there is no DHW flow. After that, take actions according to clause 2.1 The presence of a flow in a straight pipe with a closed return or a change in the sign of the flow in the return with a blocked straight indicates leaks inside the system. The presence of a return flow (without sign change) indicates leaks outside the system. The change in the sign of the flow rate to the opposite - about leaks inside the system. If there are no leaks, see paragraphs 1;2;3;4 ATTENTION: With supply line pressure > 6 kg/cm 2 . only the straight pipe is blocked to prevent the system from bursting 2.3 The composition of the coolant does not meet the requirements 2.4 Interference from electrical installations With a high level of industrial interference, as well as in the case of long cable lines, the installation must be carried out with a shielded cable. Signal wires and power wires should not be in one shielding braid. Grounding of the shielded cable is only allowed on one side (computer side). Influence of power supplies. Attention! Each of the PREMs must have its own power supply! It is forbidden to connect several PREMs to one power supply unit! 2.5Features of algorithms for the operation of calculators for the amount of heat 2.6Departure of the metrological characteristics of the PREM Diagnostics Solutions 1. Analyze the archives of the calculator before and after changing the installation locations of the PREM. If after replacing the devices in some places the situation has not changed, then the metrological characteristics PREM is normal. Otherwise, verification of the PRM is required. 2. In the standard version, the converter is made in reverse version. However, the PREM errors in the forward and reverse directions are different (within tolerance). In the event of an insignificant (2-3%) mass imbalance, change the installation direction of one of the PREM to the opposite one. Fix the system startup time after the PREM reinstallation. 3. Analyze the archives of the calculator for the moments before and after the change in the direction of the PREM installation.