Moldovagaz protests against the approval by the National Agency for Energy Regulation (ANRE) of the new methodology for determining the technological consumption and technical losses in the gas distribution networks, which came into force on January 21. According to the public gas utility, the Agency violated a number of technical and procedural norms when it approved the methodology, Info-Prim Neo reports, quoting a communiqué from Moldovagaz. According to the communiqué, first of all there was violated the procedure for holding public debates on the draft methodology, which should have involved the administration of Moldovagaz and other interested parties. Moldovagaz says the methodology was approved in secret, without coordinating it with the competent state bodies and that it was drafted without taking into account the international practice and the specifics of the infrastructure of Moldova’s gas sector. According to the new methodology, the volume of normative losses should be reduced four times compared with the old methodology. “If Moldovagaz implements this methodology, its losses in 2011 alone will rise to about 200 million lei. This irreparable damage will affect the company’s economic and financial situation and the payments to Russia’s Gazprom,” it is said in the communiqué. Moldovagaz considers the new methodology is the decisive factor that influenced the rise in the gas charge from January 1, 2011. According to the calculations done by the ANRE, the charge should be 4,541.2 lei per 1,000 cubic meters, up 10.8% compared with the current charge set on May 18, 2010. The public gas utility describes the methodology as unfounded and demands that the ANRE suspends its application until a multilateral and independent examination is carried out and that a commission of experts is set up to assess the theoretical basis and the applicability of the new methodology in Moldova. SA Moldovagaz says that until its demands are not satisfied, it will continue to challenge the ANRE’s decisions of the kind and will dispute the methodology in court.