1. Implementation Network Codes: status update
Plenary Users’ Group
25/04/2018
D. Zenner

2. Status public consultation and submission
FGC proposal
Gen. Req.
ABCD proposal
Full scope
info session
Submission
T&C BRP/BSP
CuRe NC Workshop
12/3/2018
29/3/2018
17/5/2018
18/6/2018
2018
mrt
apr
mei
jun
2018
Public consultation FGC
15/3 - 16/4
Public consultation GR
15/3 - 23/4
Public consultation T&C BRP/BSP
15/3 - 15/5
# Responses received public consultation FGC and GR :
Next steps: 26
April 17
May
FGC
general
WG Belgian Grid: discussion feedback public consultation
Submission proposals Federal Grid Code, General Requirements and thresholds ABCD 7 10
Proposal
Public consultation
Submission
Federal Grid Code
FRA + NED
FRA + NED (report FR/NL)
General Requirements
ENG
FRA + NED (report ENG)
T&C BRP
T&C BSP
RfG
DCC
HVDC 9 3 2 4
Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status

3. Feedback received public consultation: general remarks
Translation / References / Style / coherency FGC-GR / coherency between chapters
French and Dutch version equal importance, alignement with regional/other grid codes and contracts needed
Definitions and terms used throughout the text
Some definitions are missing, some conflicting with E-Law, some (too) complex
Some terms are not consistently used throughout the text, resulting in interpretation issues
Balance to be found between rights and obligations grid operator – grid user
Questions/doubts about reasoning for certain track changes, missing (quantitative) justification
Willing to have a feedback on each comment on the public consultation
Aim for realistic implementation planning (iCAROS, T&C, IT-tools,…)
Uncertainty issues
Investment uncertainty: frontier between ‘new’ and ‘existing’,
Approval derogations, market based mechanisms and possible remunerations (in content T&Cs)
Submission of own GR proposals, while Elia proposal is still subject to change
Appreciation of efforts made by Elia in the preparation of this proposal and in the > 2-years preparation track with stakeholders
Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status

4. Comments public consultation oriented to competent authorities
Investment uncertainty due to unkown frontier/requirements for new vs existing units
What is applicable for units that are installed as of 17 May 2018
More information about this ‘investment vacuum’ on the next slide
Determine vision with regards to derogations
What type of derogations will / will not be accepted?
What derogation period will be granted?
Questions about transparency of the process, post - 17 May
Stakeholders want to be kept on formally/informally consulted after 17 May
Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status

5. Legal uncertainty ‘New vs. Existing’
Investment uncertainty
Full RfG in application
RfG EiF + 3y
27/4/19
Entry into force RfG
17/5/16
RfG EiF + 2y
17/5/18
Decision GR?
17/11/18
Old
New
Investment vacuum
Art. 4.2 RfG:
“For the purposes of this Regulation, a power-generating module shall be considered existing if:
(a) it is already connected to the network on the date of entry into force of this Regulation; or
(b) the power-generating facility owner has concluded a final and binding contract for the purchase of the main generating plant by two years after the entry into force of the Regulation.
Art. 7.4 RfG
The relevant system operator or TSO shall submit a proposal for requirements of general application, or the methodology used to calculate or establish them, for approval by the competent entity within two years of entry into force of this Regulation.
On 17 May 2018, several investments considered as “new”’ while no decision by competent authorities on the applicable requirements  Investment vacuum
Mitigation possibility in Art. 4.2: postponing the date for a GU to become “new” with 1 year (as France and UK already did)
A Member State may provide that in specified circumstances the regulatory authority may determine whether the power-generating module is to be considered an existing power-generating module or a new power-generating module.
Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status