david halldearn 6 may 2010 1. background programme board initial discussion last year at stockholm...
Post on 17-Jan-2018
218 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
David Halldearn6 May 2010
1
BackgroundProgramme Board initial discussion last year
at StockholmSince then:
Further analysis has been undertaken on impact of 3rd package on RIs
Informal discussions have been held with key opinion formers, including PB members, key member states, project leaders
European Commission has announced planned Communication on Regional Initiatives in September
2
3rd package - regional implications3rd package fill ‘regulatory gap’ – the lack of
cross border regulatory frameworkPast voluntary approach of RIs there to be
reviewedKey measures:
Obligations of regional co-operation on member states, regulators (facilitated by ACER), and TSOs
Framework Guidelines, network codes and comitolgy procedure will create binding cross border regulatory framework – the basis for a single European energy market
3
Roles and responsibilities
4
Stakeholders
Role of GRI NWTwo potential roles with significant
differences:‘Implementation’ ‘Pro-active’
• Implementation of (mainly) Framework Guidelines vision and network code rules• Regional co-ordination of overall approach to national implementation (as implementation is a cross border issue)• Engagement with all parties – including member states
• Projects which can inform development of Framework Guidelines and network codes on regional specificities• projects with can be implemented directly within existing regulatory framework EU
5
OrganisationSignificant, but subtle, differences for each
role:‘Implementation’ – not voluntary
‘Pro-active’ - voluntary
• Legal implementation responsibility of member states and regulators – not ‘voluntary’•Need for co-ordination across national boundaries •‘Design’ of implementation across the region resulting from consultation and stakeholder involvement• RCC could have a more formalised role in regulatory co-ordination. • Member states have a legal interest• Others may receive legal obligations
• Voluntary and co-operative activity between stakeholders• Not different from existing GRI NW work – structures unchanged•No duplication with ENTSO-G or ACER work• Must contribute to overall single market objective
6
Scope of regional decisions ‘Implementation’ activity will focus on cross-
border coordination and regional differences: EU
Regional
National
Scope
Detail
7
Cross border co-ordination may be necessary for implementationScope to interpret high level EU Guidelines
and codes could result in problematic national differences persisting
Consultations in neighbouring countries should be co-ordinated to save confusion
The overall approach (‘design’) of implementation – both the process and basic model – should be shared across borders as Guidelines and codes will be aimed at cross border issues
8
GRI NW structures – roles‘Implementation’ ‘Pro-active’
RCC Co-ordination of development, regulatory implementation, and operation of cross border regulatory framework .
Co-ordination of voluntary work with stakeholders
Member States Policy oversight of implementation and compliance with EU obligations in liaison with RCC, including on ‘design’
Observer/intelligent customer where issues of interest
Programme Board Non-executive advice to lead regulator, co-ordination of projects across all participants, and
facilitationCommission Compliance EU ‘vision’IG Pro-active and some implementation workSG Consultative body – supplement to formal
consultations9
Practical effect on organisationDecisions on scope of GRI NW activities in
relation to implementation RCC to consider its role and organisation in
relation to cross border implementationMember states to be closely engaged on
implementation issues – but engagement could encompass whole cycle from Framework Guideline and network code development, through comitology, to implementation issues.
10
GRI NW 2010 Work Plan Clear view that current projects should continue as priority rather
than establishing new projects Main focus on:
Short term capacity and incentives. FG being drafted, but value can be added on implementation/for network codes by advancing thinking on capacity product definition and incentivisation, and secondary markets
Investment – but care is needed here to co-ordinate with EU developments. Value can be added in relation to regulatory co-ordination on investment decisions and feed into tariff Framework Guideline. Key option of addition on open seasons (but already in ERGEG work plan for 2010)
Interesting suggestion of project on capacity bundling at Dutch/German border to be considered
Some (TSOs) prefer no work in GRI NW other than implementation Implementation work could include:
Regional input to Framework Guidelines and network code drafting Assisting ACER on regional co-ordination of implementation
11
Possible discussion pointsDo you agree that GRI NW is the platform for
governments, TSO’s and NRA’s to discuss regional implementation & pro active issues?
Do you agree that GRI NW identifies and feeds in regional specifities to the EU level?
Do you agree that current bi annual meetings should be extended with pre comitology meetings. The first would be about CMP?
12
David Halldearn 6 May 2010
13
top related