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