What's the role of ACER?
In the framework of the functionality process, ACER proposes solutions for cases notified on the platform by network users with the contribution of NRAs and ENTSOG. Users usually request practical improvements related to the implementation of the network codes and guidelines. Most cases end with technical and practical improvements, while in some cases policy guidance is needed.
Guidance Auction restriction (AGGM case)
Since 2017, restrictive conditions have been announced by some TSOs on the PRISMA platform for annual and quarterly auctions in the German NCG market area. The reason was that BNetzA requested TSOs operating in the NCG market area to re-allocate capacities after the annual and quarterly auctions at interconnection points (IP) to distribution exit points.
These restrictions on capacity marketing at IPs in the NCG market area are contrary to Article 8 NC CAM.
The underlying bodies at ACER provided policy guidance using ENTSOG technical inputs. Given the auction-based capacity allocation at IPs of the European Union are different from the capacity allocation processes at distribution exit points governed by national law, capacity cannot be allocated in a straightforward manner in Germany. Here, competing capacities are used by TSOs. The guidance suggests reallocation might be appropriate only exceptionally along with the requirement for TSOs to meet a number of predefined criteria.
Guidance on the implementation for Virtual Interconnection Points
The issue was raised at the joint Agency-ENTSOG Functionality Platform where implementation issues with Network Codes can be notified. The European Commission assessed that Article 19(9) of the CAM NC concerns all existing and future capacity contracts and encouraged NRAs and TSOs to solve the problem without further legislative changes. The policy guidance acknowledged the different models and recommended to clarify the CAM NC so that existing contracts can remain at the physical IPs.
Market actors had different interpretations of Article 19(9) of the CAM NC on the implications for existing contracts at the physical interconnection points involved in the VIP. In the interpretation of some transmission system operators and national regulatory authorities, existing contracts had to remain at the physical IPs, whereas others thought that also existing contracts should transfer to the VIP.