1. 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 3 rd package Review identified new role for GRI NW in co- ordinating implementation of 3 rd 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! 2

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 3

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 3 rd 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 4

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 5

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! 6

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 7

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 8

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 3 rd 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 9

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 10

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

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