Future role of GRI NW Stakeholder Group Meeting The Hague, 7 may 2010 Peter Plug Chairman of GRI NW

2 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Background  Programme Board initial discussion last year at Stockholm  Since then:  Further analysis has been undertaken on impact of 3rd package on RIs  Informal discussions have been held by NMa with key opinion formers, including PB members, key member states, project leaders  European Commission has announced planned Communication in September on their policy on Regional Initiatives

3 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Third package – Regional implications  3rd package fill ‘regulatory gap’ – the lack of cross border regulatory framework  Past voluntary approach of RIs there to be reviewed  Key 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

4 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Roles and responsibilities Stakeholders

5 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010  Two potential roles with significant differences: Role of GRI NW ‘Implementation’‘Pro-active’  Implementation of (mainly) Framework Guidelines and network codes  Regional co-ordination of overall approach to national implementation (as implementation is a cross border issue)  Engagement with all parties – including member states and stakeholders  Projects which can inform development of Framework Guidelines and network codes  projects with can be implemented directly within existing regulatory framework EU

6 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Organisation  Significant, 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 of ENTSO-G and ACER work  Must contribute to overall single market objective

7 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Scope of regional decisions  ‘Implementation’ activity will still have scope for regional differences: EU Regional National Scope Detail 7

8 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Cross border co-ordination may be necessary for implementation  Scope 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 of implementation – both the process and basic model – should be shared across borders as Guidelines and codes will be aimed at cross border issues

9 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 GRI NW structures – roles ‘Implementation’‘Pro-active’ RCCCo-ordination of development, regulatory implementation and operation of cross border regulatory framework Co-ordination of voluntary work with stakeholders Member StatesPolicy oversight of implementation and compliance with EU obligations in liaison with RCC, including on ‘design’ Observer/intelligent customer where issues of interest Programme BoardNon-executive advice to lead regulator, co-ordination of projects across all participants, and facilitation CommissionComplianceEU ‘vision’ IGPro-active and some implementation work SGConsultative body

10 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Practical effect on organisation  Decisions on scope of GRI NW in relation to implementation  RCC to consider its role and organisation in relation to cross border implementation  Member states and stakeholders to be closely engaged on implementation issues

11 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 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

12 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Conclusions  GRI NW has a central role to play in co-ordinating the implementation of Framework guidelines and network codes  Closer liaison with ministries is needed  Important pro-active work will continue in areas where GRI NW can add real value, based on existing projects for 2010/11  The nature of GRI NW will change as a binding regulatory framework resulting from the 3 rd package is developed  Stakeholder involvement will remain of central importance

13 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Thank you!