GRI NW and Implementation

1. GRI NW and Implementation David Halldearn Energy Market Insights Limited halldearn@blueyonder.co.uk 5 July 2010

2. Background • NMa identified need to update the Roadmap following adoption of 3rd package • Review identified new role for GRI NW in co-ordinating implementation of 3rd package measures (notably Framework Guideline policies and network codes) • Current project is to specify how GRI NW can take implementation work forwards operationally • The proposals are for discussion!

3. Objectives • Improve the regulatory implementation process and of decision making by ministries on implementation • Enhance monitoring and enforcement by NRAs where there are cross border aspects • Assist ACER in undertaking its regional co-ordination functions

4. Principles • GRI NW co-ordinates NRA decisions in the region – it does not take decisions itself • Implementation work undertaken by GRI NW must be complementary to the work of ACER • The work of GRI NW must take account of possible binding guidelines under the 3rd package on NRA co-operation; and of the possibility of binding decisions following dispute resolution by ACER should NRAs disagree • The forward work plan of GRI NW on implementation must take account of the 3 year work plan published by the Commission • Co-ordination should enable more efficient use of regulatory resources

5. Scope of GRI NW work on implementation • Core co-ordination work: • national implementation by NRAs of European requirements • monitoring activities required of NRAs where there is a cross border interaction • enforcement action by an NRA where there is a cross-border aspect to the case • regulatory assessment of the regional TYNDP • Possible additional co-ordination work: • Interaction between NRAs and member states • regulatory supervision of the implementation work by TSOs

6. Roles and responsibilities • Member states: formal responsibility for member state compliance • NRAs: Detailed aspects on implementation (although scope varies) and for monitoring and enforcement • TSOs: practical implementation • Stakeholders: -are the customers!

7. Possible Governance • 2 options: ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ • Each has different attributes and implies a different level of co-ordination of regulatory decisions • Shallow model assumes voluntary co-operation as now • Deep model assumes formal arrangements exist for co-ordination of regulatory decisions

8. Shallow model Advantages Disadvantages • No change • No legal barriers • No additional formal governance needed • Low prospects of delivering regulatory co-ordination on implementation • May encourage Agency to propose guidelines to bind NRAs in co-operation • Would not provide a sound basis for co-operation between NRAs on cross-border monitoring and enforcement

9. Deep model Advantages Disadvantages • Potentially sound basis for NRA co-ordination on implementation, monitoring and enforcement • Formality could integrate GRI NW as recognised (but not formal) part of wider 3rd package institutional structure • Would reinforce shift to compulsory rather than voluntary • A formalised arrangement could be difficult to reach agreement on • Any arrangements must not be bureaucratic

10. Governance implications of deep model • RCC remit to be formalised based on enhanced agreement • Role of member states to be recognised • Operational arrangements to be developed • Role of other GRI NW structures to be refined • Processes for interaction with ACER to be developed

11. Next Steps • Proposals to be revised following RCC discussion • Procedural aspects to be developed • Discussions to be held with other involved organisations

12. Thank you David Halldearn Energy Market Insights Limited halldearn@blueyonder.co.uk 5 July 2010