Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCali Gragg Modified over 10 years ago
1
Future role of GRI NW Stakeholder Group Meeting The Hague, 7 may 2010 Peter Plug Chairman of GRI NW
2
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
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
4 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Roles and responsibilities Stakeholders
5
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 Stakeholder Group meeting The Hague, 7 May 2010 Thank you!
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.