1 / 9

Draft cross-regional roadmap for Long-Term Transmission Rights

. Draft cross-regional roadmap for Long-Term Transmission Rights. Still work in progress, for discussion 27 June 2011. This draft cross-border roadmap is based on Regional work plans 2011-2014 AESAG input FG on CACM 4 important areas of work have been identified:

luther
Download Presentation

Draft cross-regional roadmap for Long-Term Transmission Rights

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft cross-regional roadmap for Long-Term Transmission Rights Still work in progress, for discussion 27 June 2011

  2. This draft cross-border roadmap is based on Regional work plans 2011-2014 AESAG input FG on CACM 4 important areas of work have been identified: Harmonisation of the allocation rules Harmonisation of the allocation platforms Harmonisation of the nomination process Possible implementation of FTRs Background and outline

  3. Harmonisation of the allocation rules (1/3) • CWE-CSE-CEE-FUI, SWE (IFE) and SEE: • At the latest by September 2011: all NRAs shall provide an implementation planning for the main features of the CACM FG (especially firmness issue) as well as reasons for not implementing these features right from the start • NE, NE – Continent, Baltic, IPE • At the latest by December 2011: decision to be taken on the type of products to be allocated (PTR with UIOSI, FTR or no TR but CfD)

  4. Harmonisation of the allocation rules (2/3) • CWE – CSE • Q1 2011: Comparison of the auction rules and wish list for harmonisation (NRA) • Q2-Q3 2011: Drafting of the rules (TSO) • Q4 2011: Approval procedures and entry into force of the rules (NRA + TSO); firmness in line with the CACM FG at least in CWE

  5. Harmonisation of the allocation rules (3/3) • All • Q1-Q3 2012: Comparison of the auction rules with the CWE-CSE rules and common wish list for a single European set of allocation rules (NRAs coordinated by ACER) •  A dedicated ACER TF needs to becreated • Q4 2012-Q2 2013: Drafting of the rules (TSOs coordinated by ENTSO-E) •  A corresponding ENTSO-E TF needs to be created • Q3-Q4 2013: Approval procedures and entry into force of the rules (NRAs + TSOs);

  6. Harmonisation of the allocation platforms • CWE, CSE, SWE (IFE, from mid 2012): CASC • NE, NE – Continent, Baltic, IPE joining CASC depending on the decision of December 2011 • CEE: CAO • SEE: decision on the extension of CAO to SEE in 2012 or creation of a new regional allocation platform • At the latest by mid 2013: NRAs’ decision on merging or not the existing allocation platforms based on a CBA performed by TSOs. This CBA shall especially take into account the foreseen phase-out of daily explicit auctions (replaced by market coupling) and the wish list for a single European set of allocation rules (Q3 2012)

  7. Harmonisation of the nomination process • Q4 2011: • Status of the current nomination procedures (TSOs) • Definition of quick wins which could be quickly implemented (NRAs + TSOs) • By Q4 2012: • Definition of the remaining points to be harmonised based on a CBA (NRAs + TSOs) • Agreement on an implementation schedule (NRAs + TSOs) • By Q1 2014: • Harmonisation and conformity to the CACM FG

  8. Possible implementation of FTRs • Q3-Q42011: • Creation of an ACER dedicated TF to assess the legal consequences to move to FTRs (would MiFID legislation be applicable and if so which impacts on the allocation platforms?) • Q1-Q3 2012: • depending on the conclusions of this TF, elaboration of regional implementation planning to move to FTRs NB: The allocated products shall be compatible within a region (FTRs vs. PTRs, obligations vs. options, firmness…)

  9. Thank you for your attention www.acer.europa.eu

More Related