text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: OJ L158, 14.6.2019, p. 22. Page 1 of 10

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: https://www.acer.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Framework_ Guidelines/Framework%20Guidelines/FG_For_Joint_TYNDP_Scenarios.pdf 3 https://2024.entsos-tyndp-scenarios.eu/

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: Navigating the hydrogen ecosystem | Strategy& (pwc.com)

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: E.g., while the hydrogen demand for the EU in NT2030 in the summary file is 483 TWh, the native demand in NT2030 in the Plexos-based data file is 423 TWh.

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: Opinion No 05/2024

text: Opinion No 05/2024 This Opinion is addressed to ENTSO-E, ENTSOG, the Member States and the European Commission. Done at Ljubljana, on 30 September 2024.

identifier: ACER Opinion No 05/2024

title: ACER Opinion 05-2024 on ENTSO-E and ENTSOG Scenarios for TYNDP 2024 and Guidelines

text: OPINION No 05/2024 OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS of 30 September 2024 on the compliance of ENTSO-E and ENTSOG draft TYNDP 2024 Scenarios Report with ACER Scenarios Guidelines

text: THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS, Having regard to

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/942

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (“ACER”) and, in particular,

text: Article 11

text: (c) thereof, Having regard to

text: Regulation (EU) 2022/869

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and, in particular,

text: Article 12(5)

text: thereof, Having regard to the outcome of the consultation with ACER’s Electricity and Gas Working Groups, Having regard to the favourable opinion of ACER’s Board of Regulators of 18 September 2024, delivered pursuant to

text: Article 22(5)

text: (a) of

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/942

text: , Whereas:

text: 1. INTRODUCTION

text: Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/869

text: (‘TEN-E Regulation’) tasks ACER to develop and publish framework guidelines with criteria for a transparent, nondiscriminatory and robust development of the joint scenarios to be developed by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (‘ENTSO-E’) and the European Network of Transmission System Operators for gas (‘ENTSOG’) for their respective Union-wide ten-year network development plan (‘TYNDP’).

text: ACER issued such framework guidelines on 25 January 2023 (‘TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines’).

text: (2) Article 12(2) of the TEN-E Regulation requires ENTSO-E and ENTSOG (jointly ‘ENTSOs’) to follow ACER’s framework guidelines for the joint scenarios when developing the draft joint scenarios to be used for the Union-wide network development plans and to submit a draft joint scenarios report to ACER, the Member States and the European Commission for their opinion.

text: (3) On 30 May 2024, the ENTSOs submitted their joint TYNDP 2024 Scenarios Report (“draft Scenarios Report 2024”) to ACER for its review.

text: (4) Article 12(5) of the TEN-E Regulation tasks ACER to issue an opinion on the compliance of the scenarios presented in the draft scenarios report with ACER’s framework Guidelines for the joint scenarios, including possible recommendations for amendments, to the ENTSOs, the Member States and the European Commission.

text: (5) The present Opinion embodies ACER’s analysis and conclusions regarding the compliance of the scenarios set out in the draft Scenarios Report 2024 with the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines.

text: 2. ASSESSMENT OF THE DRAFT SCENARIOS REPORT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES

text: (6) ACER notes some positive developments in comparison with the previous scenarios reports, such as: a. The development of the National Trends+ (NT+) scenario (which aims to follow the National Energy and Climate Plans [NECPs] whilst respecting the most recent policy targets, following the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines envisaged central scenario). ACER also recognises the difficulty in working with largely outdated NECPs and amening these to meet the most recent policy targets, where needed. b. The enhanced stakeholder consultations, which allowed for more in-depth discussions on crucial scenario elements. c. The continuous development of new energy-system elements, such as electric mobility, battery storage, prosumers, hydrogen and synthetic fuels, etc.

text: Criteria for a timely scenario development process

text: (7) Paragraph (18) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines provides that the draft scenarios reports are expected to be published and submitted to ACER, the Member States and st the European Commission by 31 December of every odd-numbered year.

text: (8) The draft Scenarios Report 2024 was thus expected by the end of 2023. However, its nd th final publication was on 22 May 2024 and its submission to ACER was on 30 May 2024.

text: (9) Paragraph (19) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines recommends the ENTSOs to identify and propose, together with the Stakeholder Reference Group, a cut-off date by which adopted energy and climate policies should be considered by the ENTSOs when developing scenarios.

text: (10) No such cut-off date was published or communicated to ACER, let alone agreed with ACER.

text: (11) Paragraph (20) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines underlines the essentiality of the revised NECPs being taken into account in the scenario preparation to the extent possible.

text: (12) The draft Scenarios Report 2024 states on p. 16 with regard to the NT+ scenario, ’For TYNDP 2024, the dataset collection is finalised in 2023 Q1, prior to the publication of the draft updated NECPs, which were due to be published in summer 2023. Consequently, differences between updated NECPs and the datasets are anticipated’.

text: (13) It is not clear whether the ENTSOs amended the NECP inputs to bring them in line with the latest policies and technology cost developments as envisaged in paragraph (31) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines. Therefore, it appears that this requirement was not met.

text: Criteria for robust, objective-driven scenarios

text: (14) Paragraph (23) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines recalls the requirement of Article 12(1) of the TEN-E Regulation that the scenarios are to be in line with the energy-efficiency-first principle. The latter can have a great impact on the identification of infrastructure needs and plays a similarly important role as those of other main scenario assumptions.

text: (15) From the draft Scenarios Report 2024 it is not clear whether and how this alignment was guaranteed by the ENTSOs.

text: (16) To help improve the understanding of how assumptions impact scenarios, paragraph (27) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines requires the ENTSOs to provide a qualitative assessment of how the scenarios would be impacted by the uncertainty around the main assumptions and drivers. This would facilitate a broader understanding of the energy system and enable informed policy decisions to not only support new infrastructure with more confidence, but also influence the support and development of drivers affecting infrastructure usage.

text: (17) Such assessment was not included in the draft Scenarios Report 2024.

text: (18) Paragraph (33) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines states that stability and comparability must be enhanced by building scenarios around consistent time horizons, fixed around ‘0 and ‘5 years And that scenarios shall be developed at least for the short-term (indicatively up to year 7 after the TYNDP year), the mid-term (approximately up to 10 years after the TYNDP year) and the long-term horizon (approximately 15 years after the TYNDP year). These time frames are crucial when deciding on infrastructure projects, as the relative risk of failing to accurately predict does not yet overwhelm the acceptability of cost-benefit assessment results.

text: (19) The draft Scenarios Report 2024 states on p. 16, ‘Additionally [to 2030 and 2040], a snapshot for the 2035 time horizon is provided in the datasets and in the visualisation platform, representing an average between the 2030 and 2040 time horizons’.

text: (20) Such an approach does not ensure the data quality and robustness for year 2035, which is the essential time horizon to be studied in the TYNDP simulations to decide on the projects which are to be completed before year 2035. The assessment of the first 10 to 15 years is crucial as the forecasts are considered sufficiently accurate and thus trustworthy. Using the average of the adjacent timeframes fails to capitalise on that, as it would speculate on assumptions that cannot be averaged (e.g. half a powerplant generating electricity, half of an industrial site consuming energy, …).

text: (21) According to paragraphs (35), (37) and (38) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines, the set of scenarios must be balanced and informative to decision makers.

text: a. In terms of a balanced set of scenarios, ACER observes that the two deviation scenarios, “Distributed Energy” (DE) and “Global Ambition” (GA) do not appear to deviate from the NT+ scenario in a balanced way, i.e. equally to both sides alongside the same assumption made in the NT+, as required by paragraph (38) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines. For example, the total 2040 hydrogen demand for NT+ scenario is 1688 TWh (approx. 51Mt), while for GA 2189 TWh (approx. 66Mt) and for DE 1750 TWh (approx. 53Mt), meaning that both deviation scenarios go beyond the NT+ ambitions when it comes to hydrogen demand in 2040. Furthermore, as the current total hydrogen consumption is approx. 264 TWh (8Mt), alongside only 3 GW of electrolyser projects confirmed (with an annual capacity of 8.4TWh or 0.25Mt) , even the central NT+ target of 500 TWh (15Mt) for 2030 and 1688 TWh (51Mt) for 2040 appears very optimistic, thus a less ambitious hydrogen target for one of the alternative scenarios would provide valuable insight.

text: b. In terms of being informative to decision makers, and in line with paragraph (37) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines, ACER requests high and low economy variants to stress test the central, NECP-based scenario. ACER finds the alternative deviation scenarios proposed by the ENTSOs (DE and GA) do not

text: meet the requirement of providing an informative and balanced stress-test. Namely, the draft Scenarios Report 2024 fails to provide the reasoning behind the choice of DE and GA (and not some other alternatives), which reduces their informative value and trustworthiness.

text: Criteria for a transparent, inclusive and streamlined development process

text: (22) Paragraph (42) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines required the ENTSOs to create the Stakeholder Reference Group within 3 months after the adoption of these th guidelines. The TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines were adopted on January 25 , 2023. The main driver to create the Stakeholder Reference Group was to further enhance the cooperation between the ENTSOs and stakeholders impacted by or having impact on network development scenarios. ACER believes that only through enhanced, continuous cooperation between stakeholders throughout the scenario development process would the final scenarios be trustworthy and accepted by the majority. In turn, this enhances the decision makers’ trust of the entire network development process, of which scenarios are a crucial element.

text: (23) The ENTSOs opened the call for Stakeholder Reference Group membership on May th 5 , i.e. after the 3-month deadline, and the Stakeholder Reference Group became active only as late as November 2023, i.e. 7 months after the 3-month deadline. ACER believes that ENTSOs could have facilitated a faster creation of the Stakeholder Reference Group, which could have in turn helped improve the trustworthiness of scenarios.

text: (24) The draft Scenarios Report 2024 indicates on p. 19 a potential reassessment of the Stakeholder Reference Group’s involvement in the scenario development process if the Stakeholder Reference Group is no longer able to contribute recommendations from a balanced variety of interests.

text: (25) In that regard it is to emphasise that paragraph (45) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines tasks the Stakeholder Reference Group to act independently from the ENTSOs. If the ENTSOs perceived and dismissed any of the Stakeholder Reference Group’s recommendations as biased, they should transparently explain why this would be the case (according to paragraph (58) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines), and they should inform ACER accordingly. However, although the ENTSOs can dismiss individual Stakeholder Reference Group recommendations provided that they give reasons for such action, this is no ground for a denial of the Stakeholder Reference Group’s involvement in the scenario development process. Furthermore, such denial would contradict the legal obligations under Article 12(3) of the TEN-E Regulation.

text: (26) Paragraphs (46) and (47) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines require the ENTSOs to publish a comprehensive process timeline and stakeholder engagement plan specifying the key moments for decision makers, stakeholders and the public to provide inputs. These should include different steps of scenario construction, cut-offdate for the particular scenario building process, timing of updates to be shared with

text: stakeholders (including data and other documents) and how the Stakeholder Reference Group and other stakeholders are engaged in the scenario development process.

text: (27) At the beginning of the scenario development process, the ENTSOs presented a generic time plan of it. However, this plan did not provide all the abovementioned information, required by the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines.

text: (28) Paragraph (52) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines requires that, for informed stakeholders, the ENTSOs publish all data sets, qualitative assumptions and formal hypotheses, as granular and disaggregated as possible, in an appropriate and predefined format to be consulted with the Stakeholder Reference Group.

text: (29) The draft Scenarios Report 2024 and its accompanying documents provide no evidence that the identification of formats took place as required.

text: (30) ACER notes that the draft Scenarios Report 2024 is accompanied by a summary Scenarios Report Data Figures file (spreadsheet) and a Visualisation Platform. However, the disaggregated data at country or, where relevant, bidding zone level are hardly retrievable, making it impossible to execute a thorough scrutiny of scenarios, which is needed e.g. to assess consistency of national scenarios with TYNDP scenarios. Nonetheless, several significant inconsistencies between the draft TYNDP scenarios and official national data were discovered. For example, regarding Austria, PV generation is lower than in the Austrian integrated network infrastructure plan (ÖNIP) in the NT+ scenario, while in DE it is grossly overestimated. Electricity storage levels also fail to reflect reality, as the current battery levels are already higher than the ones forecasted under “high trajectory”. Similarly, the regulatory authority of the Czech Republic also reported deviations which are especially notable on usage of pellets and heat-pumps. Also, the relation between the data in the summary Scenarios Report Data Figures file and the detailed Plexos-based data files is not very clear .

text: (31) To further enhance transparency, paragraph (53) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines tasks the ENTSOs to benchmark their scenarios with the most relevant external scenarios, by providing a comparison of the key inputs and outputs and explaining the reasons for any deviations.

text: (32) The draft Scenarios Report 2024 contains a chapter on benchmarking. However, it fails to provide reasons for the deviations displayed.

text: (33) In general, it is to note that transparency is a key element in the process of developing scenarios as well as of assessing their compliance with the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines. Accordingly, paragraph (66) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines calls on the ENTSOs to ‘transparently report on how the scenarios and the scenariosdevelopment process ensure compliance with the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines.’

text: (34) The draft Scenarios Report 2024 states on p. 14, ’The TYNDP 2024 scenarios apply part of the guideline set in the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines, which were published midway through the 2024 scenario building process. These include guidelines on the extended stakeholder engagement process, the transition to more robust and transparent tools, and improved methodologies to capture increased sectorial integration and flexibilities (…)’. Except this sentence, the draft Scenarios Report 2024 and its accompanying documents do not indicate how the scenarios developed in the draft Scenarios Report 2024, and the process of their development, ensure compliance with the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines.

text: (35) Such an approach fails to transparently report, contrary to paragraph (66) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines, how the scenarios and the scenarios development process ensure compliance with the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines.

text: Ensuring stakeholder scrutiny

text: (36) Paragraphs (54) to (58) of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines provide general guidance on the cooperation between the Stakeholder Reference Group and the ENTSOs in the scenario development process.

text: (37) However, as noted in paragraph (23) of this Opinion the cooperation between the Stakeholder Reference Group and the ENTSOs was hampered by a substantial delay in Stakeholder Reference Group creation.

text: (38) Effective stakeholder scrutiny can only be fulfilled by a continuous involvement of stakeholders in the scenario development process, allowing them to scrutinise the inputs and decisions and other processes leading to the outputs. To which extent such scrutiny was enabled and achieved, is not clear from the draft Scenarios Report 2024. Yet, the creation of the Stakeholder Reference Group late in the scenario development process inevitably impacted the stakeholder scrutiny of scenarios.

text: (39) As published in Annex I of the draft Scenarios Report 2024 , the Stakeholder Reference Group provided feedback to the draft preliminary 2024 TYNDP Scenarios Results. This feedback consists of 36 proposals for improvement. However, the draft Scenarios Report 2024 does not include detailed information on whether and how these proposals have been taken into account. ACER believes that proper stakeholder engagement requires respectful and transparent treatment of all received inputs, even if these inputs are disregarded, which remains under full authority of the ENTSOs as the ones responsible for the scenarios development.

text: 3. CONCLUSIONS

text: (40) The scenarios presented in the draft Scenarios Report 2024 show several incompliances with the TYNDP scenarios Guidelines, the most prominent being:

text: a. Continued usage of diverging scenarios. Distributed Energy and Global Ambition were used, while high and low economy variants, as required by the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines, were not. ACER notes that this incompliance can be attributed to the timing misalignment between the start of the scenario development process mid-2022 and the TYNDP Scenario Guidelines adoption in January 2023.

text: b. Unbalanced set of scenarios. The chosen diverging scenarios are not developed in a balanced way around the assumptions of the central NECP-based “NT+” scenario. An obvious example of this is that the hydrogen demand is higher compared to the central NT+ scenario in both DE and GA.

text: c. Late creation of the Stakeholder Reference Group and the resulting

text: suboptimal involvement of stakeholders into the scenario development

text: process. ACER notes that this can be attributed largely to the aforementioned misalignment between the 2024 scenario development process and the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines adoption in January 2023, although a faster Stakeholder Reference Group creation could be achieved and would aid in further developing trust in the delivered draft scenarios.

text: d. Unmet transparency standards remain. Despite providing increased transparency compared to the previous scenario cycle, the development of the scenarios presented in the draft Scenarios Report 2024 did not fully meet the transparency standards set by the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines. Among others, an insufficiently detailed planning of both the scenario development process and the involvement of stakeholders limit the planning needed by the Stakeholder Reference Group to be actively involved and understand its role, which hampers effective stakeholder involvement significantly, also beyond the stakeholder Reference Group, and limits improvements of future scenario cycles.

text: e. Significantly delayed delivery of the draft Scenarios Report 2024. These delays are detrimental to the rest of the TYNDP process, as they reduce the time and efforts dedicated to project assessments and finalisation of the TYNDP itself, and adverse to the consistency of national scenarios with TYNDP scenarios, putting at risk the coherence of national development plans with the TYNDP scenarios (and therefore the EU energy and climate policies). In addition, these delays are not explained in the draft Scenarios Report 2024 and there are no obvious reasons for such delays in this network development cycle.

text: f. Unclear alignment with policy targets and latest national data. The latest revised NECPs were not considered, and information on whether and how the information was processed to overcome this shortcoming was not provided. This

text: inevitably leads to question if scenarios are up-to-date, and if alignment with the most recent policy targets was fully considered. This is further substantiated by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, which found that the draft scenarios are not compatible with the EU’s climate 2030 targets for energy and climate and its 2050 climate neutrality objective ,

text: HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

text: 1. The scenarios presented in the draft Scenarios Report 2024 are not fully compliant with the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines.

text: 2. For the final Scenarios Report 2024 and its subsequent usage in TYNDP 2024, it is recommended that ENTSO-E and ENTSOG improve the draft Scenarios Report 2024 by:

text: a. promptly complying with the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines’ specifications concerning data publication and publishing the key parameters of TYNDP 2024 scenarios, in particular electricity, methane and hydrogen demand (per bidding zone in each scenario and time horizon), in an easily understandable format (e.g. by expanding the Scenarios Report Data Figures spreadsheet); and

text: b. promptly publishing their evaluation of comments and proposal for improvements prepared by the Stakeholder Reference Group.

text: 3. For the future scenario development processes, starting with the TYNDP 2026 development cycle, it is recommended that ENTSO-E and ENTSOG devote further attention to fully respecting the criteria and specifications of the TYNDP Scenarios Guidelines, and to streamlining the scenario development process. In particular:

text: a. ENTSO-E and ENTSOG should make available the planning of the scenarios development process for the 2026 TYNDPs, defining milestones and expectations regarding stakeholders’ and the inputs of the Stakeholder Reference Group.

text: b. ENTSO-E and ENTSOG should also investigate streamlining options, such as analysing the perspective for the very long-term horizons (2050) separately from scenario building until year n+15 and preparing two separate reports with different timings, thereby allowing more in-depth assessment for each study and mitigating the risk of delays in the scenario development activities for the TYNDPs.

text: - SIGNED -

text: Fоr the Agency The Director

text: C. ZINGLERSEN

type: vagledning

utgivare: acer


text: OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 22. 2 OJ L 152, 3.6.2022, p. 45. Page 1 of 14

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: REPowerEU Plan 4 ACER Hydrogen Market Monitoring Report (H2 MMR). 5 In terms of consumption, the average total hydrogen consumption in the EU over the last five years (2019-2023) is 7.2 Mt. The current consumption of renewable hydrogen is minimal, with only 23 kt produced via electrolysis in 2023. Comparing these figures to the EU's aspirations, the EU has set a strategic goal of 20 Mt of renewable hydrogen consumption by 2030 (source: H2 MMR). 6 Renewable hydrogen is three to four times more expensive than fossil-based hydrogen (source: H2 MMR). 7 A practical example of such a challenge is visible in Denmark, where the planned hydrogen network buildout in the Jutland peninsula is heavily influenced by demand expectations in Germany. Due to the prevailing uncertainty, the initial infrastructure development in the region has been scaled back, with the full build-out now more conditional than originally planned.

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: ACER Opinion on the draft TYNDP 2022 12 ACER Opinion on Scenario Report 2024 13 ACER feedback on ENTSOG PC

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: https://2024.entsos-tyndp-scenarios.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2022-07-20-TYNDP-2024-Scenarios- Storyline-Workshop.pdf 15 ACER feedback on ENTSOG PC

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: I.e., National Trends+ (‘NT+’), Distributed Energy (‘DE’) and Global Ambition (‘GA’). 17 From TYNDP 2026, and in line with the ACER Scenario Framework Guidelines, ENTSO-E and ENTSOG are expected to develop a TYNDP a central scenario based on NECPs and two stress-test variants (pp. 10-11 of ACER Scenario Framework Guidelines) 18 OPINION No 05/2024 19 Most of the price input are based on 2022 reports (i.e., IEA 2022 World Energy Outlook and 2022 Booze&co) which for example still reflect pre-crisis gas prices. 20 As also recommended by the TYNDP scenarios Stakeholders Reference Group, in the absence of final NECPs at the time of developing the TYNDP 2024 scenarios, the CO2 and commodities prices should have been at least aligned with the European Commission's recommended harmonized NECP parameters for fuel and CO2 prices (https://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet/docs/govreg/projections/govregart18_ec_parameters_projections_2021. zip/view).

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: Hydrogen demand assumptions for EU provided by member states was in total 38% lower than the demand used in the IGI report.

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: IGI indicator 1: Hydrogen market clearing price spreads in DHEM; IGI indicator 2.1: Curtailed hydrogen demand in DHEM and DGM for reference weather year, IGI indicator 2.2; Curtailed hydrogen demand in DHEM and DGM for stressful weather year. 23 See related Opinion on ACER website – Section related documents

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: See ACER Opinion No 06/2023.

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: Opinion No 05/2025

text: Opinion No 05/2025

identifier: ACER Opinion No 05/2025

publisher: Europeiska unionens byrå för samarbete mellan energitillsynsmyndigheter

sprak: en

title: ACER Opinion 05-2025 on ENTSOG's hydrogen Infrastructure Gaps Identification report 2024

serie: yttranden

text: PUBLIC

type: stycke

text: OPINION No 05/2025 OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS of 27 May 2025 ON ENTSOG’s DRAFT HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IDENTIFICATION REPORT

type: rubrik

text: THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS, Having regard to

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/942

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), and, in particular,

text: Article 11

text: (c) thereof, Having regard to

text: Regulation (EU) 2022/869

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure , and, in particular, Articles

text: and

text: thereof, Having regard to the outcome of the consultation with ACER’s Gas Working Group, Having regard to the favourable opinion of the Board of Regulators of 14 May 2025, delivered pursuant to

text: Article 22(5)

text: (a) of

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/942

text: , Whereas:

text: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

text: Hydrogen market developments and future challenges

text: (1) The European hydrogen market is gradually taking shape, driven by ambitious EU-wide strategies and national policies. However, despite the aim for renewable hydrogen set in REPowerEU Plan , significant challenges remain in achieving the 2030 milestones and ensuring a well-functioning market by 2040. These elements are outlined in ACER's Hydrogen Market Monitoring Report , issued in November 2024, which provides a detailed assessment of market trends, barriers, and future developments.

text: (2) At present, renewable hydrogen consumption is minimal , and while EU decarbonisation goals are expected to drive demand, uptake has been slower than anticipated. Many planned electrolyser projects are awaiting final investment decisions, but deployment faces uncertainties, from demand to future renewable electricity prices. Additionally, the cost of hydrogen produced via electrolysis remains significantly higher than that of hydrogen derived from natural gas , posing financial risks for early adopters.

text: (3) Given the sector’s strong dependence on policy support and the uncertainties surrounding future demand and supply, assessing infrastructure gaps requires a careful balance between policy aspirations and realistic market needs. Unlike other sectors, such as electricity, hydrogen infrastructure is not yet in place, meaning that the absence of a network itself represents a fundamental gap at every border from the start. In certain cases, infrastructure development in a country may be heavily influenced by demand projections in countries from the region. When demand forecast remains uncertain, this can lead to more cautious and conditional planning approaches, with infrastructure scaled back or delayed until greater clarity emerges.

text: (4) As the Infrastructure gaps identification (IGI) report is a key tool in this process, intended to provide a trustworthy and robust assessment of future EU hydrogen infrastructure gaps based on demand and supply estimations, this ACER Opinion sets out proposals for further improvements to strengthen the gap identification methodology, with its main findings and recommendations presented below.

text: Key findings and recommendations

text: (5) ACER acknowledges the inherent complexity of identifying hydrogen infrastructure gaps, especially given the sector’s early development stage, strong reliance on policy support, and uncertainties surrounding future hydrogen demand and supply. Unlike more mature sectors such as electricity, hydrogen lacks an established network, making the task particularly challenging. ACER commends ENTSOG’s efforts to address these methodological challenges and to deliver analytical outputs under such evolving and uncertain conditions. Furthermore, ACER also appreciates ENTSOG’s ongoing stakeholder consultations and values its efforts to foster transparency and collaboration in the development of the methodology.

text: (6) ACER notes delay in the delivery of the IGI report, mainly due to Scenarios Report delays, and encourages ENTSOG to make additional efforts in streamline future process and to introduce further improvements to the infrastructure gaps methodology at an earlier stage, using already available data. Furthermore, ACER considers that stronger and more inclusive stakeholder engagement would effectively support ENTSOG in developing an improved methodology, align assumptions, increase transparency, and enhance the credibility of the results.

text: (7) While ENTSOG’s IGI report already provides indication of bottlenecks hinting at possible infrastructure shortages on certain borders, ACER identifies several opportunities to improve the current infrastructure gaps methodology used by ENTSOG, resulting in a more robust gaps identification. In ACER’s view, one of the most valuable improvements would be a more precise identification of gaps, on a per border basis. Furthermore, a more cross-sectoral modelling approach could help capturing the impact of hydrogen infrastructure on electricity needs, thereby supporting a more coherent and less fragmented network planning. In addition, ACER calls on ENTSOG to include a range of scenarios with sensitivities, where the main hydrogen demand and supply drivers are considered. These scenarios should support the assessment of infrastructure needs under different assumptions, helping to capture uncertainties and identify the appropriate size of infrastructure to meet future needs.

text: The benefits of a more robust and actionable IGI report

text: (8) ACER believes that its recommendations would enhance the robustness of future ENTSOG’s assessment of infrastructure gaps, ultimately supporting more efficient investment decisions. Clearer indications on where such infrastructure gaps exist would provide policymakers with better information on the most appropriate projects to meet the identified needs. A well-aligned cross-sectoral infrastructure development approach would allow additional opportunities for system-wide optimisation, leading to more efficient investments across other energy carriers, such as electricity.

text: (9) By integrating ACER’s recommendations, the IGI report has a potential to fully realise its intended purpose, delivering a robust, and actionable assessment of Europe’s future hydrogen infrastructure gaps. This would not only support well-informed decisions and mitigate investment risks but it would also strengthen stakeholders’ support and contribute to the development of an efficient and cost-effective hydrogen market.

text: 1. INTRODUCTION

text: Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2022/869

text: mandates that every two years, the European associations of transmission system operators for electricity, gas and hydrogen (ENTSO- E, ENTSOG and ENNOH) assess and report on infrastructure gaps within their respective sectors. These infrastructure gaps identification (IGI) reports must be developed within the framework of the Union-wide ten-year network development plan (TYNDP) according to the requirements set forth in

text: Article 13

text: , including an extensive consultation and opinions from ACER, the Commission and Member States.

text: (11) The first IGI reports must be published within six months following the approval of joint scenarios report developed by the associations under Article 12(6) of the same Regulation. ACER has three months to issue its opinion on the IGI report and submit it to the respective association, the Commission and Member States. After receiving ACER’s opinion, the Commission will have an additional three months to issue its own opinion to the respective association, considering both ACER’s opinion and the input from the Member States. The respective association must then adapt its report taking due account of ACER’s opinion and in line with the Commission’s and the Member States’ opinions and ensure that its final report is publicly available.

text: (12) Given that ENNOH is not yet formally established,

text: Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1789

text: stipulates that, during a transitional period until 1 January 2027, ENTSOG s tasked with developing TYNDP for hydrogen and the associated deliverables, including the IGI report for hydrogen. This process should involve hydrogen transmission network operators and ENNOH, once it has been established.

text: (13) Considering the above, ENTSOG developed and submitted the draft IGI report for hydrogen for year 2024 (draft 2024 IGI report) to ACER on 10 March 2025, seeking its opinion. The draft 2024 IGI report, along with the results from ENTSOG’s consultation process, is available on ENTSOG’s TYNDP website.

text: (14) ACER has assessed the draft 2024 IGI report, focusing on its intended purpose to provide a trustworthy and robust assessment of future EU hydrogen infrastructure gaps, noting the specificities of the H2 network development, based on the requirements set forth in

text: Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2022/869

text: • Alignment with established scenarios - The analysis should be based on scenarios developed under Article 12 of the TEN-E Regulation.

text: • Integration within the Union-wide TYNDP framework - The IGI report must be conducted within the framework of the Ten-Year Network Development Plans (TYNDPs) to ensure consistency with broader energy system planning.

text: • Focus on EU climate and energy targets - The assessment should prioritize infrastructure gaps that could impact the Union’s ability to meet its 2030 climate and energy targets and its 2050 climate neutrality objective.

text: • Robust stakeholder engagement - The process must include an extensive public consultation with all relevant stakeholders, followed by a stakeholder feedback report and a summary of how the input was considered.

text: (15) ACER has also considered its previous opinions, recommendations and positions on 11 12 TYNDP and on TYNDP scenarios , as certain past recommendations remain valid and are reiterated. Moreover, main recommendations should still be considered as key elements for improving the future infrastructure gaps identification process.

text: (16) Furthermore, ACER has also considered its preliminary feedback document on ENTSOG’s first consultation regarding infrastructure gaps identification elements, calling for further improvements in the methodology.

text: (17) Based on ACER’s Hydrogen market monitoring report, issued in November 2024, which provides a detailed assessment of market trends, barriers, and future developments, the European hydrogen market is gradually taking shape, driven by ambitious EU-wide strategies and national policies. However, despite the aim for renewable hydrogen set in REPowerEU Plan, significant challenges remain in achieving the 2030 milestones and ensuring a well-functioning market by 2040.

text: (18) At present, renewable hydrogen consumption is minimal, and while EU decarbonisation goals are expected to drive demand, uptake has been slower than anticipated. Many planned electrolyser projects are awaiting final investment decisions, but deployment faces uncertainties, from demand to future renewable electricity prices. Additionally, the cost of hydrogen produced via electrolysis remains significantly higher than that of hydrogen derived from natural gas, posing financial risks for early adopters.

text: (19) Given the sector’s strong dependence on policy support and the uncertainties surrounding future demand and supply, assessing infrastructure gaps requires a careful balance between policy aspirations and realistic market needs. Unlike other sectors, such as electricity, hydrogen infrastructure is not yet in place, meaning that the absence of a network itself represents a fundamental gap at every border from the start. A practical example of this challenge is visible in Denmark, where the planned hydrogen network build-out in the Jutland peninsula is heavily influenced by demand expectations in

text: Germany. Due to the prevailing uncertainty, the initial infrastructure development in the region has been scaled back, with a full built-out now more conditional than originally planned.

text: (20) The Infrastructure gaps identification report is a key tool in this process, intended to provide a trustworthy and robust assessment of future EU hydrogen infrastructure gaps based on demand and supply estimations.

text: 2. ACER’S ASSESSMENT

text: Delays in submission of the IGI report

text: (21) The draft IGI report was submitted to ACER on 10 March 2025. ACER acknowledges this late submission is largely caused by the delays in the 2024 Scenario Report development, which was delayed by circa eight months compared to ENTSO-E’s and ENTSOG’s initial proposal .

text: (22) ACER encourages ENTSOG to assess the reasons of these delays, propose and implement measures to streamline the IGI report development process to ensure a timely delivery. ACER would see a need the IGI report is delivered by end of the year of the TYNDP process in order to fit PCI/PMI selection process and allow timely analysis of the needs identified for the PCI/PMI selection.

text: (23) ACER recommends ENTSOG to consider allocating additional resources, including personnel and technological enhancements, to address recurring delays and strengthen its capacity to manage future challenges effectively.

text: Timing and content of the consultations

text: (24) ENTSOG conducted the first public consultation on guidance documents for system and project assessment from 19 June to 9 July 2024 and held a public webinar on 24 June 2024. ACER provided its views on the consulted elements and published its response on the ACER website . ACER appreciates ENTSOG took some of the ACER feedback into consideration for further developing elements of the IGI methodology and published the consultation report. However, ACER notes that ENTSOG did not complement the methodology with a proposed indicator for identifying cross-border capacities.

text: (25) ENTSOG conducted the second public consultation on the draft IGI report and supporting documents from 18 December 2024 to 22 January 2025. A dedicated public stakeholder event was held on 15 January 2025, where ENTSOG presented the draft IGI report. Additionally, ENTSOG published a consultation report outlining how stakeholder

text: comments were considered, amendments were primarily focused on correcting figures in the tables of the IGI report, without any further revisions to the methodology or recalculations of the results. ACER appreciates that ENTSOG has acknowledged its recommendation and intends to perform additional analysis under the assumption of unlimited hydrogen import capacity. However, as stated in the consultation report, this analysis will only be published in the final IGI report.

text: (26) Based on the positive experience of the Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) for the Joint TYNDP Scenarios, ENTSOG may consider establishing a similar dedicated platform for the Hydrogen Infrastructure Gaps Identification process. This would enhance transparency, foster constructive dialogue, and strengthen stakeholder trust by ensuring that the views of impacted stakeholders are adequately considered throughout the methodology development process. Such a platform would likely contribute to a more robust and widely accepted methodology for identifying hydrogen infrastructure gaps.

text: Use of scenarios

text: (27) Even though three scenarios were prepared for TYNDP 2024 and covering the years 2030, 2040 and 2050, the IGI exercise was performed only on one scenario for two timehorizon (i.e., NT+ for 2030 and 2040 time-horizons). ACER welcomes the use of NT+ scenario as the central scenario, but further emphasises the need to properly consider future uncertainties, both by extending the analysis to the scenario variants and by adding a sensitivity assessment of the most impactful drivers. In ACER’s view, such approach would provide decision makers with the information necessary to make informed decisions, based on different assumptions regarding hydrogen supply and demand forecasts.

text: (28) As already stated in its Opinion “on the compliance of ENTSO-E and ENTSOG draft TYNDP 2024 Scenario Report with ACER Scenarios Guidelines” , ACER acknowledges that some assumptions in the TYNDP 2024 scenarios are outdated or not fully aligned with the NECPs . This creates an obvious mismatch as the identified needs as well as inevitably affected by outdated input and cannot be fully consistent with the NECPs. During the PCI/PMI selection process 2025, Member States updated the hydrogen supply and demand forecast for the purpose of System needs methodology,

text: primarily reflecting a less ambitious hydrogen demand projection for 2040 . ACER emphasizes that any last-minute changes to one of the main scenario assumptions should follow the process outlined in Chapter 6 of the ACER Scenario Framework Guidelines - Guidance for Establishing a Quick Update Process. This would ensure that last-minute modifications to scenario assumptions and data, like Member States’ updates to supply and demand forecasts, are properly considered. Furthermore, incorporating the aforementioned sensitivity assessment of the most impactful drivers, such as hydrogen demand, could enhance the trustworthiness of the final results, as the existing scenario variants, as defined by the Scenario Guidelines, are not necessarily intended to be more or less ambitious regarding hydrogen projections.

text: Interlinked model

text: (29) The current modelling approach, which is being used by ENTSOs, involves the development of separate sectoral models (e.g., electricity, gas, hydrogen) by each ENTSO. Individual sectoral models are then combined to form the interlinkages with other sectors. While this approach allows each sector to focus on its unique characteristics, it may also introduce certain limitations and additional steps in the TYNDP process.

text: (30) In ACER’s view a potential drawback of this method is that the separate models may not always share the same assumptions, infrastructure levels, methodologies, or harmonized approaches in general. This lack of alignment could lead to inconsistencies in outputs, making it more difficult to perform cross-sector analysis or to identify interdependencies between energy carriers. Moreover, the integration process itself could become cumbersome, as differing models may require additional effort to reconcile results, leading to inefficiencies in planning and optimization. Ultimately, while the current approach of modelling may deliver useful outputs for individual sectors, it may fall short in delivering a truly integrated view of system-wide infrastructure planning, particularly in system needs assessment. Since the hydrogen sector has direct implications on electricity grids, potentially requiring reinforcements, these costs should also be considered when analysing hydrogen system needs and vice versa.

text: (31) ACER calls on ENTSOG to focus, together with ENTSO-E, on further improving sector integration. This should include better harmonisation of assumptions, methodologies and data usage across separate models, as well as ensuring that output approaches are aligned across all sectors to the greatest extent possible. Such improvements would help mitigate the risks of fragmented network development, which is particularly important to avoid, especially as hydrogen sector is still in its early deployment phase and ensure that crosssectoral challenges are addressed more effectively.

text: Infrastructure gaps identification methodology

text: 2.5.1. Construction and use of Hydrogen Infrastructure Levels

text: (32) In the current infrastructure gaps identification process, ENTSOG bases its analysis on two assumptions of future hydrogen infrastructure grids. The hydrogen infrastructure model includes a subset of projects submitted by project promoters during the TYNDP 2024 project collection. This subset, referred to as the Infrastructure Level (IL), is defined by the following criteria:

text: 1) PCI/PMI hydrogen Infrastructure Level - includes existing infrastructure, Final Investment Decision (FID) projects, and projects that are part of the 6th PCI/PMI Union list;

text: 2) Advanced Hydrogen Infrastructure Level - builds upon the PCI/PMI hydrogen infrastructure level by incorporating advanced maturity status projects.

text: (33) ACER proposes to keep the concept of hydrogen infrastructure levels only for the purpose of the CBA process, where projects are assessed based on the estimated hydrogen infrastructure level (reference grid) for the specific simulation year. At the same time ACER underlines the importance of properly reflecting the different purposes of the starting grid for IGI and the reference grids for CBA. ACER believes the IGI starting grid capacities should be built based on currently available transfer capacity, complemented by capacity increases from projects that are in advanced stage and certain to be built, while less-advanced projects should be excluded. As such, ACER recommends that the IGI starting grid should be one, referring to the short-term time horizon and composed only by projects which are in the construction phase and, at the most, projects which have successfully completed the environmental impact assessment. The grid composition for the medium- and long-term horizons would then be the result of an expansion optimisation based on the starting grid.

text: However, ENTSOG could still assess benefits of these less-advanced PCI/PMI projects during the project assessment phase when applying the CBA methodology. Given the lack of maturity of these less-advanced projects, ACER’s proposed approach would enable a fairer assessment and more realistic estimation of infrastructure gaps.

text: 2.5.2. Proposals for methodology improvements

text: (34) The Infrastructure Gaps Identification methodology assesses how Europe’s planned hydrogen infrastructure is expected to meet future demand from market integration and security of supply perspective. It aims to identify potential cross-border infrastructure gaps by analysing projected hydrogen supply and demand for two simulation years: 2030

text: and 2040. The assessment relies on three indicators , one measuring the hydrogen market clearing price spread and two evaluating the reduction of hydrogen curtailment. In addition, the report also includes a comparison analysis of maximum utilisation rates of interconnectors between the two infrastructure levels, indicating potential bottlenecks on certain borders, hinting at possible infrastructure gaps.

text: (35) While ACER recognizes the added value of such analyses, identifying the problem by providing information on hydrogen clearing market price spreads and hydrogen demand curtailment rates, these indicators are primarily seen as supplementary information and a starting point for analysis of infrastructure gaps. ACER does not consider the proposed indicators as directly relevant for identifying hydrogen infrastructure gaps. Furthermore, drawing firm conclusions based on the interconnector utilisation rates remains challenging, as there is no clear indication of the additional capacities needed per border to mitigate the identified potential bottlenecks.

text: (36) To strengthen the identification of gaps, ACER recommends implementing an optimisation process, so called network expansion, to determine where optimal crossborder capacities are needed, as a solution to resolve the bottlenecks. After identifying optimal capacity needs, additional results should be presented, demonstrating the benefits of addressing these needs, specifically, the reduction of hydrogen market clearing price spread and curtailment of hydrogen demand in the system.

text: In this optimisation process ENTSOG should also incorporate unit investment costs for infrastructure to determine the capacity and cost of infrastructure needed to mitigate the bottlenecks. In ACER’s view, such an approach would make the methodology more robust and trustworthy for further system planning and would also ensure further consistency with the well-established electricity Identification of System Needs approach, considering potential deficiencies as identified in ACER’s Opinions on the methodological aspects of the ENTSO-E draft TYNDPs . ACER believes that implementing the proposed improvements would significantly enhance the IGI report’s trustworthiness for network development purposes. Finally, ACER encourages ENTSOG to ensure early consultation on the methodological principles and key assumption parameters for optimisation, such as threshold for price spread differences, demand curtailment thresholds, and unit investment cost values, so that the process is transparent, well-informed, and widely supported.

text: (37) ACER also suggests reconsidering the inclusion of IGI indicator 2.2, which assesses scenario based on a stressful weather year from security of supply perspective. Given the early stage of hydrogen grid development, such an analysis is deemed premature, as stressful weather years are typically used to assess security of supply risks in sectors with an established market and well-developed infrastructure. At this point, the focus should

text: be on establishing a sufficient infrastructure that effectively addresses the needs of current assumptions before incorporating extreme weather sensitivities into the analysis. Prematurely factoring in such stress scenarios may lead to misleading conclusions about infrastructure needs, diverting attention from more fundamental challenges in hydrogen network development.

text: (38) As already stated in ACER’s assessment of the TYNDP 2022 and preliminary feedback on ENTSOG’s guidance documents for system assessment , ACER believes that ENTSOG should consider revisiting its approach for the gaps identification. The main outcome of the gaps identification would be, in ACER view, better expressed in terms of quantified capacities (i.e. how much capacities should be built to address the need of the market and where these capacities could be built). Not showing the results in terms of capacities is making the results of the infrastructure gaps identification much less applicable.

text: (39) Comparing the resulting capacities with the collected projects would help identify competing projects (in cases where two projects have submitted capacities higher than the target capacities, these projects would be identified as “at least partially” competing) as well as those situations where not enough capacity was submitted to TYNDP by project promoters.

text: (40) The 2024 IGI report shows that some of the demand curtailment is actually caused by not having enough supply potential that could reach Europe from extra-EU countries like Norway, North Africa, etc., instead of being (solely) caused by capacity bottlenecks within Europe. Therefore, ACER calls on ENTSOG to include an additional analysis in the final 2024 IGI Report by providing simulation results under the assumption of unlimited import capacity from extra-EU countries. By estimating the extent of crossborder infrastructure constraints in the absence of hydrogen supply limitations, given the rest of assumptions remain unchanged, would help isolate the impact of the lack of supply potential from the internal bottlenecks. ACER believes that such an analysis would provide valuable insights into the sufficiency of the planned infrastructure within Europe. Furthermore, the proposed approach should further be consulted with stakeholders as part of the TYNDP 2026 – infrastructure gaps methodology.

text: (41) Furthermore, ACER sees value in clearly defining expectations for the identification of infrastructure gaps methodology through neutral and transparent guidelines. These guidelines should serve as a basis for the methodology, ensuring that ENTSOG can follow a structured approach before initiating the infrastructure gaps identification process. This could contribute to a more streamlined approach and consistent methodology, ultimately facilitating the timely delivery of the IGI report.

text: (42) ACER encourages ENTSOG to develop a stable and forward-looking methodology that aligns with ACER’s views and can be applied consistently across future cycles. In

text: ACER’s view this would minimize the need for frequent adjustments and significantly shorten the development time required, as mainly input parameters would change from one round to the next,

text: HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

text: 1. ACER acknowledges the inherent challenges in developing hydrogen infrastructure, particularly given the sector’s strong reliance on policy support and the significant uncertainties surrounding future demand and supply. As a result, identifying infrastructure gaps is a complex and evolving task. Unlike more mature sectors such as electricity, hydrogen infrastructure is not yet in place, meaning that the absence of a network itself represents a fundamental gap at every border from the start. Furthermore, ACER recognises ENTSOG efforts in addressing this methodological challenge and producing analytical outputs under these challenging circumstances.

text: 2. Based on the foregoing assessment, ACER notes delays in the submission of the TYNDP deliverables, particularly the TYNDP 2024 Scenarios report, which has also led to the late submission of the IGI report. ACER calls on ENTSOG to assess the reasons of these delays, propose and implement measures to streamline the IGI report development process to ensure a timely delivery in the next process.

text: 3. While ENTSOG’s IGI Report provides indications of bottlenecks hinting at possible infrastructure shortages on certain borders, ENTSOG should consider further improvements for better identification of infrastructure gaps and enhancing the level of granularity needed to support such assessments. Specifically, ACER would see a value in ENTSOG’s strengthening the identification of cross-border capacity needs through the introduction of a network expansion approach, which could offer more accurate cross-border infrastructure gaps assessment. Given the high level of uncertainty surrounding hydrogen market development and its impact on infrastructure development, ACER emphasizes the importance of incorporating scenario variants and sensitivity analyses to better reflect a range of possible future infrastructure needs assessments. This would allow for a more adaptable assessment of infrastructure gaps, while also helping to reduce the risk of misaligned investments. Furthermore, ACER underscores the importance of continued progress in sector integration, particularly given the early development phase of the hydrogen sector, by promoting a coherent and forward-looking multi-sectoral planning approach and identifying the cross-sectoral challenges that as well need to be considered.

text: 4. To address these issues, ACER emphasises that the 2026 IGI report would benefit from the integration of its recommendations to enhance the report’s trustworthiness and usability. In particular, ACER calls for improvements in sector integration through interlinked modelling, the application of a single and more realistic starting grid, the extension of the analysis to include scenario variants and sensitivity assessments of the most impactful drivers. For the identification of infrastructure gaps, an optimisation process should also be considered to determine where optimal cross-border capacities may be required. ACER further encourages more inclusive stakeholder engagement to

text: support the development of an appropriate methodology, alignment of assumptions, increase transparency, and enhanced credibility of the results. A methodology strengthened by these enhancements would better ensure that ENTSOG’s findings effectively support well-informed investment decisions. Therefore, ACER calls on ENTSOG to implement the proposed improvements outlined in this Opinion, ensuring that the 2026 IGI report is delivered on time and provides a high level of credibility.

text: 5. Finally, to ensure that the infrastructure gaps methodology is ready for the 2026 process, ACER encourages ENTSOG to test the proposed methodology improvements at an early stage, using already available 2024 data, instead of waiting for updated 2026 scenarios. Improving the infrastructure gaps methodology in advance would enable a thorough discussion and validation of the methodology, thereby strengthening its robustness and credibility. Early testing could also help avoid delays and build confidence in the final results. ACER emphasises that this process does not need to follow formal procedures or require any special deliverables, rather, the focus should be on openly sharing and assessing results in a collaborative manner.

text: This Opinion is addressed to ENTSOG, the Commission and Member States.

text: Done at Ljubljana, on 27 May 2025.

text: - SIGNED -

text: Fоr the Agency The Director

text: C. ZINGLERSEN

text: ANNEX I – Information to be published in the final 2024 IGI report

text: • Simulation results with the assumption of unlimited import capacity as described in paragraph (40) of this Opinion. • Analysis with hypothetical infrastructure approach with a more detailed explanation of the methodology – chapter already indicated in the IGI report. • In the final IGI report, relevant tables should be complemented with units for the lists of borders exceeding the threshold of IGI Indicator 1, as it is unclear whether the figures in the table represent units of days or EUR/MWh. • Additional figures and graphs for a clearer presentation of examples in the Annex D2.

text: ENTSOG should consider also an improvement of results presentation for the next process by presenting the results in a more interactive format, as an online dashboard, allowing the user to set the parameters/variables and obtain results based on that.


text: Regulation (EU) 2024/1789

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen, amending Regulations

text: (EU) No 1227/2011

text: (EU) 2017/1938

text: (EU) 2019/942

text: and

text: (EU) 2022/869

text: and Decision

text: (EU) 2017/684

text: and repealing

text: Regulation (EC) No 715/2009

text: (recast) Official Journal L, 2024/1789, 15.7.2024.

text: Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/459 of 16 March 2017

text: establishing a network code on capacity allocation mechanisms in gas transmission systems and repealing

text: Regulation (EU) No 984/2013

text: . C/2017/1660. Official Journal L 72, 17.3.2017. 3 Annex 1 to the recast Gas Regulation, item 2.2 “Congestion management procedures in the event of contractual congestions”.

text: Regulation (EU) 2024/1789

text: (EU) No 1227/2011

text: (EU) 2017/1938

text: (EU) 2019/942

text: and

text: (EU) 2022/869

text: and Decision

text: (EU) 2017/684

text: and repealing

text: Regulation (EC) No 715/2009

text: (recast). Official Journal 2024/1789, 15.7.2024. ‘Until 5 February 2026, regulatory authorities may submit a request to the Commission for a derogation from the application of the network codes and guidelines referred to in paragraph 1 at entry points from and exit points to third countries pursuant to paragraph 2, point (d). The request for a derogation shall be submitted simultaneously to the Commission and to ACER. Within three months of the date of receipt of the request for a derogation ACER shall provide a reasoned opinion to the Commission. The Commission shall adopt a decision on the request for a derogation, taking into account ACER’s reasoned opinion and after assessing whether the regulatory authority has: (a) demonstrated that a network code or guideline, or specific element of those acts, cannot be effectively implemented at entry points from and exit points to third countries; in the case of interconnection points with third countries which have the obligation to adapt to the Union energy acquis, including this Regulation, pursuant to an agreement concluded between the Union and those third countries, but where application or implementation has not been completed, the request for a derogation shall specify which provisions of this Regulation have not been effectively applied or implemented in the third country concerned or which technical rules or lack of technical rules in the third country impede the application of the specific provisions of the relevant network code or guideline; (b) explained which measures were taken to alleviate the obstacles to the application of the specific provisions of the relevant network code or guideline; (c) demonstrated that the derogation is not detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal market for natural gas, or to the security of supply of the Union or of a Member State. The derogation shall be limited to the specific provisions that cannot be effectively implemented and shall be granted for a limited period of time.’

text: This may cause a delayed implementation of EU rules from the Energy Community contracting parties, as additional legislative steps are necessary to transpose the 'Acquis Communautaire’.

text: Regulation (EU) No 984/2013

text: . C/2017/1660. Official Journal L 72, 17.3.2017.

text: Serbia implemented the CAM NC in 2022. 9 Decision of AERS on the Exemption of the New Interconnector for Natural Gas No 40/2018-D-03/62 dated 5 March 2019.

text: For 20 years, starting from October 2021.

text: During bilateral discussions, EWRC indicated that changes to the licensing regime would require corresponding amendments to national legislation. EWRC does not have the authority to initiate such legislative amendments.

identifier: ACER Opinion No 05/2026

title: ACER Opinion 05-2026 on the derogation request submitted by the Bulgarian Energy & Water Regulatory Commission (EWRC) from the application of the network codes and guidelines

text: No 05/2026

text: OPINION

text: on the derogation request submitted by the Bulgarian Energy & Water Regulatory Commission (EWRC) from the application of the network codes

text: Regulation (EU) 2024/1789

text: , at the entry points from and the exit points to Serbia, North Macedonia and Turkey

text: 28 April 2026

text: A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: Executive summary

text: Pursuant to

text: Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1789

text: (‘Gas Regulation’), ACER is required to provide the European Commission with a reasoned opinion within three months of the date of receipt of a request for a derogation, submitted by a national regulatory authority (‘NRA’) in line with the aforementioned provision, from the implementation of network codes or guidelines, referred to in Article 70(1) of the Gas Regulation, or specific elements of them. On 5 February 2026, Energy & Water Regulatory Commission (‘EWRC’) submitted to the European Commission and ACER a derogation request concerning the interconnection points connecting: Bulgaria and Serbia, Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS) and Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS); Bulgaria and North Macedonia, Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK); Bulgaria and Turkey, Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR). As Contracting Parties to the Energy Community Treaty, Serbia and North Macedonia are required to align their national legislation with, and implement, relevant parts of the EU energy acquis, as transposed into the Energy Community acquis. The Bulgarian NRA has requested a derogation from the application of Chapter IV of the

text: Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/459

text: (‘CAM NC’), specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products, and from CAM NC Chapter VII in relation to the use of a joint capacity booking platform at the Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS). In addition, EWRC has requested a derogation from CAM NC Chapter IV, specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products at the Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) interconnection point. Furthermore, EWRC has requested a derogation from the application of CAM NC Chapter IV, specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zhidilovo (MK) interconnection point, and from CAM NC Chapter VII in relation to the use of a joint capacity booking platform. In addition, EWRC requested a derogation from the application of the congestion management procedures (CMP) Guidelines at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK). Moreover, EWRC has requested a derogation from the application of CAM NC Chapter IV concerning the bundling of standard capacity products; CAM NC Chapter V, regarding the Incremental Capacity Mechanism; and CAM NC Chapter VII, in relation to the use of a joint capacity booking platform at the Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) interconnection points.

text: Conclusion

text: With reference to the derogation request regarding Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS), and taking into account the justifications provided by the Bulgarian NRA, ACER is of the opinion that in the case at issue a derogation from CAM NC Chapter IV and Chapter VII should be granted as the requirements listed in Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation are fulfilled. In relation to the derogation request regarding Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) and taking into account the justifications provided by the Bulgarian NRA, ACER is of the opinion that in the case at issue a derogation from CAM NC Chapter IV should be granted as the requirements listed in Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation are fulfilled. Concerning the derogation request regarding Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK), and taking into account the justifications provided by the Bulgarian NRA, ACER is of the opinion that in the case at issue a

text: A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: derogation from the application of CAM NC Chapter IV and Chapter VII and from the application of the CMP guidelines should be granted as the requirements listed in Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation are fulfilled. With reference to the derogation request regarding Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR), ACER deems it unnecessary to submit a derogation request from the application of the provisions of network codes and guidelines requiring a mutual implementation from Turkey. Indeed, Bulgaria, as a Member State, cannot implement provisions whose application depends on the simultaneous implementation by the third country, which is outside Bulgaria’s control, as these provisions are not binding for Turkey.

text: A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: 1. Background

text: Regulation (EU) 2024/1789

text: (‘Gas Regulation’) extends the application of network codes and guidelines, referred to in Article 70(2) of the Gas Regulation (‘network codes and guidelines’), to the entry points from and exit points to third countries, namely countries that are not members of the European Union. The principle embedded in the Regulation at issue is the enhancement of the internal gas market by supporting cross-border trade and efficient operations also at the borders with third countries. Applying network codes at these border points helps to avoid market fragmentation and ensures the seamless functioning of the internal market, in particular by guaranteeing consistent rules, non-discriminatory access and efficient cross-border trading conditions, even at the borders of the Union.

text: Article 70(2)

text: (d) of the recast Gas Regulation lays down that network codes and guidelines, adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 of the same provision, shall apply to all interconnection points within the Union and to entry points from and exit points to third countries from 5 August 2026.

text: 3 Furthermore,

text: Article 70(3)

text: thereof states that until 5 February 2026 national regulatory authorities (‘NRAs’) may submit a request to the European Commission and ACER for a derogation from the application of the network codes and guidelines at entry points from and exit points to third countries pursuant to

text: Article 70(2)

text: (d).

text: 4 ACER shall provide a reasoned opinion to the European Commission within three months of the date of receipt of the request for a derogation. In its reasoned opinion ACER provides an assessment on the request submitted by the NRA. The European Commission shall adopt a decision on the request for a derogation, taking into account ACER’s reasoned opinion and after assessing the existence of the conditions listed in

text: Article 70(3)

text: (a), (b) and (c).

text: 5 Notably, whether the NRA has demonstrated that provisions of a network code or guideline cannot be effectively implemented at an entry point from or exit point to a third country; has taken measures to alleviate obstacles to such implementation; and has shown that the derogation is not detrimental to the internal gas market or to the security of supply of the Union or of a Member State. The derogation shall be limited to specific provisions that cannot be effectively implemented and shall be granted by the European Commission for a limited period of time. A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: 6 Furthermore, Recital 95 of the recast Gas Regulation acknowledges that specific circumstances, including the existence of long-term contractual arrangements or legal difficulties in establishing dispute resolution procedures with transmission system operators or natural gas suppliers established in third countries, may prevent the effective application of network codes in the short term. A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: 2. Procedure

text: 8 On 5 February 2026, ACER received from the Energy and Water Regulatory Commission (‘EWRC’) in written form via electronic post a request for derogation from the application of network codes and guidelines pursuant to Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation.

text: 9 Upon the submission of the derogation request, and after an in-depth analysis thereof, ACER has requested additional information to the involved NRA to further clarify elements of its derogation request. ACER has taken due account of the additional information provided by the Bulgarian NRA in its assessment complementing its argumentation.

text: 10 On 1 April 2026, ACER shared the draft version of the reasoned opinion with the involved NRA for factual checks and to verify the completeness of the information provided.

text: 11 On 28 April 2026, ACER adopted this reasoned opinion and sent it to the European Commission in accordance with Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation following the prescribed timeline.

text: 3. Summary of Derogation Request

text: 12 EWRC has submitted a derogation request for the following interconnection points: • Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS) and Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS), that are two interconnection points connecting Bulgaria and Serbia; • Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK), connecting Bulgaria and North Macedonia; • Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR), that are two interconnection points connecting Bulgaria and Turkey.

text: 3.1. Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS)

text: 13 Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS) interconnection point is operated by Transportgas Srbija LLC Novi Sad (‘Transportgas’) on the Serbian side. The national regulatory authority of Serbia is the Energy Agency of the Republic of Serbia (‘AERS’). As a Contracting Party to the Energy Community Treaty, Serbia is required to align its national legislation with, and implement relevant parts of, the EU energy acquis, as transposed into the Energy Community acquis.

text: 14 In its derogation request, EWRC explains that it has contacted AERS, the Serbian regulator, and the Serbian transmission system operator (‘TSO’) Transportgas. Following these exchanges, the two parties have identified the need for a derogation with respect to certain legal provisions that could not be effectively implemented at the Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS) interconnection point by 5 August 2026.

text: 15 In particular, EWRC has requested a derogation from the application of Chapter IV of the

text: Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/459

text: (‘CAM NC’), specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products at the referred interconnection point, and from CAM NC Chapter VII, in relation to the use of a joint capacity booking platform, until 1 October 2027. A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: 16 In EWRC’s view, the effective implementation of CAM NC provisions referred above is impeded, within the meaning of

text: Article 70(3)

text: (a) of the recast Gas Regulation, at the Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS) interconnection point by 5 August of 2026 for the following reasons, as described by the Bulgarian regulator: • Firstly, CAM NC has only been recently implemented by Transportgas, and further steps are necessary for its full application; • Secondly, the set-up of a joint capacity booking platform is still on going, and substantial developments to Transportgas’ internal IT systems are considered necessary to allow its full implementation; • Lastly, the contractual framework for standard capacity products at the Serbian side will be implemented in two phases: the standard capacity products will be offered as unbundled with the starting of the Gas year 2026/27, while the bundling of all products is expected to be completed for the Gas year 2027/28.

text: 17 No technical constraints or implementation impediments have been highlighted by the Bulgarian TSO, which currently applies the CAM NC provisions to the maximum extent possible on the Bulgarian side of the interconnection point and awaits developments on the Serbian side to enable the full implementation of capacity bundling and joint booking platform provisions.

text: 18 The derogation timeline indicated is considered by EWRC necessary to allow sufficient time for the completion of technical developments and for setting up the contractual framework for standard capacity products, on the Serbian side, as well as for coordinating the cross-border implementation for the bundling of capacity and the joint operation of the booking platform, in order to ensure the full compliance with the CAM NC provisions.

text: 19 EWRC considers it has fulfilled its obligations in addressing the obstacles to the application of network codes or guidelines by coordinating with its third-country counterparty to facilitate the identification of technical constraints and consequently support the future implementation of the network codes.

text: 20 EWRC considers that this time-limited derogation will not affect the proper functioning of the internal natural gas market or the security of supply of the European Union or its Member States.

text: 3.2. Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS)

text: 21 Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) interconnection point is operated by Gastrans on the Serbian side. The national regulatory authority of Serbia is AERS. As a Contracting Party to the Energy Community Treaty, Serbia is required to align its national legislation with, and implement relevant parts of, the EU energy acquis, as transposed into the Energy Community acquis.

text: 22 In its derogation request, EWRC explains it has contacted AERS and the Serbian TSO, Gastrans. Following these exchanges, the parties have established the need for a derogation with respect to certain legal provisions that could not be effectively implemented at the Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) interconnection point by the deadline of 5 August 2026.

text: 23 The Serbian legal framework provides a wide exemption to the Serbian TSO Gastrans in accordance with the national Exemption Act , issued by AERS in 2019. Notably, 90% of technical capacity of the interconnection point on the Serbian side is exempted and allocated under long A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 term contracts , while the remaining 10% is offered as short-term products (quarterly, monthly, daily, within-day) subject to the provisions of the CAM NC. Capacity products are currently offered as unbundled products on the Regional Booking Platform (‘RBP’).

text: 24 Consequently, EWRC has requested a derogation from CAM NC Chapter IV, specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products at the Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) interconnection point, until 1 October 2027.

text: 25 In EWRC view’s, the effective implementation of CAM NC provisions referred above is impeded, within the meaning of

text: Article 70(3)

text: (a) of the recast Gas Regulation, at the Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) interconnection point by 5 August of 2026 for the following reasons, as described by the Bulgarian regulator: • Firstly, the Exemption Act and its effects on the allocation of transmission capacity rights constitute an objective legal constraint, within the meaning of Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation, which impedes the effective application of the capacity bundling; • Secondly, Gastrans generally does not offer firm yearly capacity products, which impedes the effective application of the capacity bundling for yearly capacity products; • Lastly, AERS has further indicated that the immediate application of bundled capacities is not feasible until certain technical adjustments are performed by Gastrans on its Electronic Data Platform.

text: 26 Another element that has been brought forward by Gastrans as a limitation in relation to the offer of bundled capacities, is the risk of an unlevel playing field between network users from the Energy Community contracting parties and network users from the EU countries. These limitations consist of the need for Energy Community or non-EU traders to establish an EU company to obtain a license in the EU in order to acquire bundled capacity products and be able to trade gas, leading to additional costs and obstacles for these potential users.

text: 27 No technical constraints or implementation impediments have been highlighted by the Bulgarian TSO, which currently applies the CAM NC provisions to the maximum extent possible on its side of the interconnection point and awaits developments on the Serbian side to enable the full implementation of the CAM NC.

text: 28 The derogation timeline indicated is considered by EWRC necessary to allow sufficient time for the completion of technical developments and for setting up the contractual framework for standard capacity products, on the Serbian side, as well as for coordinating the cross-border implementation for the bundling of capacity and the joint operation of the booking platform, to ensure full compliance with the CAM NC provisions.

text: 29 EWRC considers it has fulfilled its obligations in addressing the obstacles to the application of network codes or guidelines by coordinating with its third-country counterparty to facilitate the identification of technical constraints and consequently support the future implementation of the network codes.

text: 30 EWRC considers that this time-limited derogation will not affect the proper functioning of the internal natural gas market or the security of supply of the European Union or its Member States.

text: 3.3. Kyustendil (BG)/Zhidilovo (MK)

text: 31 Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK) is an interconnection point connecting Bulgaria and North Macedonia, and it is operated by Nomagaz AD. The national regulatory authority of North Macedonia is the Energy Regulatory Commission (‘ERC’). As a Contracting Party to the Energy A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 Community Treaty, North Macedonia is required to align its national legislation with, and implement relevant parts of the EU energy acquis, as transposed into the Energy Community acquis.

text: 32 In its derogation request, EWRC explains that it has contacted the North Macedonian national regulator. Following these exchanges, the parties have established the need for a derogation with respect to certain legal provisions that could not be effectively implemented at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zhidilovo (MK) interconnection point by 5 August 2026.

text: 33 Currently the North Macedonian TSO does not apply the recast Gas Regulation, and in this respect is taking initial steps towards the implementation of the rules governing the capacity allocation and the implementation of a joint booking platform. The implementation of the allocation methodology and the booking platform are foreseen for the Gas year 2027/2028.

text: 34 Consequently, EWRC has requested a derogation from CAM NC Chapter IV, specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zhidilovo (MK) interconnection point, and from CAM NC Chapter VII with reference to the use of a joint capacity booking platform, until 1 October 2027.

text: 35 The derogation timeline indicated is considered by EWRC necessary to allow sufficient time for the completion of technical development, as well as for coordinated cross-border implementation to ensure full compliance with the CAM NC provisions and for setting up the contractual framework for standard capacity products, capacity bundling and joint operation of the booking platform.

text: 36 No technical constraints or implementation impediments have been highlighted by the Bulgarian TSO, which currently applies the CAM NC provisions to the broadest extent possible on the Bulgarian side of the interconnection point and awaits developments on the North Macedonian side to enable the full implementation of capacity bundling and joint booking provisions.

text: 37 In addition, in the derogation request, EWRC describes the existence of a long-term contract under which transmission capacity is reserved. The remaining capacity is offered by the Bulgarian TSO in the capacity booking platform RBP following the CAM NC provisions.

text: 38 EWRC remarks that, due to the contractual condition of the aforementioned long-term contract, none of the congestion management procedures could be effectively implemented at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK) for the capacity reserved but unused under the long-term contract, without breaking the contractual terms and conditions.

text: 39 Following the above, EWRC has requested a derogation from the application of the CMP Guidelines at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK) until the termination of the long-term contract at issue on 31 December 2030, with reference to the capacity reserved under the mentioned contract.

text: 40 EWRC considers it has fulfilled its obligations in addressing the obstacles to the application of network codes and guidelines by coordinating with its third-country counterparty to facilitate the identification of technical constraints and consequently support the future implementation of them.

text: 41 The Bulgarian NRA considers that this time-limited derogation will not affect the proper functioning of the internal natural gas market or the security of supply of the European Union or its Member States.

text: 3.4. Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) - Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR)

text: 42 The Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) are interconnection points connecting Bulgaria to Turkey. A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: 43 EWRC notes that Turkey is not a Member State of the European Union nor a Contracting Party to the Energy Community Treaty; therefore, EU regulations have not been implemented in Turkey and neither they are envisaged to be implemented.

text: 44 Consequently, EWRC has requested derogation until 31 December 2041 from the application of: CAM NC Chapter IV concerning the bundling of standard capacity products; CAM NC Chapter V, regarding the Incremental Capacity Mechanism; and CAM NC Chapter VII, in relation to the use of a joint capacity booking platform.

text: 4. ACER assessment

text: 4.1. Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS)

text: 45 ACER is of the opinion that the provisions of CAM NC included in the derogation request, cannot be effectively applied at the Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS) interconnection point until the Serbian TSO, Transportgas, has fully applied the CAM NC with all its technical requirements to bundle capacity products at the interconnection point.

text: 46 Concerning the derogation request for CAM NC Chapter VII, ACER acknowledges that the Bulgarian TSOs has already joined the RBP booking platform and that the Serbian TSO is working to join the same booking platform.

text: 47 In addition, ACER notes that the auction calendar for the Gas year 2027/2028 foresees the offering of the yearly product in July 2027, the first auction for the quarterly product in August 2027 and the first monthly auction in September 2027. ACER remarks that the products mentioned above, with the proposed derogation timeline on the 1 October 2027, will not be offered as bundled products through the selected joint booking platform considering that these auctions will be held before the derogation expiration.

text: 48 ACER invites the Bulgarian NRA to consider aligning the derogation request timeline with the auction calendar to enable the offering of bundled capacity for all the products of the Gas year 2027/2028.

text: 49 With reference to the measures adopted to alleviate the above-mentioned obstacles, ACER notes that EWRC has taken all possible steps to ensure the highest level of implementation on its side of the interconnection point. Specifically, ACER acknowledges that EWRC has engaged in discussions with both the Serbian NRA and the relevant TSO to address the identified technical constraints and to fully implement the network code provisions to the extent possible within its jurisdiction.

text: 50 Moreover, ACER notes that, according to the information provided regarding the potential market impact, and the demonstration that the derogation would not be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal natural gas market or to the security of supply of the Union or a Member State is limited. ACER acknowledges EWRC’s position that the time-limited derogation will not affect market dynamics or security of supply, and the presence of such risks are limited.

text: 4.2. Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS)

text: 51 ACER is of the opinion that the provisions of the CAM NC, included in the derogation request, cannot be effectively applied at the Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) interconnection points, until the Serbian TSO Gastrans, has not fully applied the CAM NC with all its technical requirements to bundle capacity products at the interconnection point.

text: 52 ACER notes that the auction calendar for the Gas year 2027/2028 foresees the offering of the yearly product in July 2027, the first auction for the quarterly products in August 2027 and the A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 first monthly auction in September 2027. ACER remarks that the products mentioned above, with the proposed derogation timeline on the 1 October 2027, will not be offered as bundled products through the selected joint booking platform, considering that these auctions will be held before the derogation expiration.

text: 53 ACER invites the Bulgarian NRA to consider aligning the derogation request timeline with the auction calendar to enable the offering of bundled capacity for all the products of the Gas year 2027/2028.

text: 54 ACER highlights that the capacity auctions for bundled products will cover only 10% of the technical capacity, as the rest is exempted. ACER further remarks that, based on the information provided in the derogation request, it cannot be determined whether, after the expiry of the derogation period, Gastrans will commence offering yearly capacity products for the available capacity not subject to long-term contracts. ACER highlights that this condition is necessary to enable the offering of bundled capacity for all standard products at the interconnection point.

text: 55 In relation to the potential limitation on capacity trading of bundled capacity products arising from the different licensing regimes and to which extent this limitation hinders the possibility for EU and non-EU companies to acquire bundled products, ACER notes that, based on the information provided, it is not possible to fully assess the impact of this element. ACER therefore considers this element as noteworthy, and it points out that further investigation is necessary from the Bulgarian NRA to adopt all measures that can mitigate the effects of licensing differences while ensuring seamless application of EU rules.

text: 56 With reference to the measures adopted to alleviate the above-mentioned obstacles, ACER notes that EWRC has taken all possible steps to ensure the highest level of implementation on its side of the interconnection point. Specifically, ACER acknowledges that EWRC has engaged in discussions with both the Serbian NRA and the relevant TSO to address the identified technical constraints and to fully implement the network code provisions to the extent possible within its jurisdiction.

text: 57 ACER notes that the information provided regarding the potential market impact and the demonstration that the derogation would not be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal natural gas market or to the security of supply of the Union or a Member State is limited. ACER acknowledges EWRC’s position that the time-limited derogation will not affect market dynamics or the security of supply, and the presence of such risks are limited.

text: 4.3. Kyustendil (BG)/Zhidilovo (MK)

text: 58 ACER is of the opinion that the provisions of the CAM NC, included in the derogation request, cannot be effectively applied at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zhidilovo (MK) interconnection point, until the North Macedonian TSO, NOMAGAS, has not fully applied the CAM NC provisions and implemented all technical requirements necessary to bundle capacity products at the interconnection point.

text: 59 Concerning the derogation request from the application of CAM NC Chapter VII, ACER acknowledges that the Bulgarian TSOs has already joined the RBP booking platform and that the North Macedonian TSO plans to do the same.

text: 60 ACER notes that the auction calendar for the Gas year 2027/2028 foresees the offering of the yearly product in July 2027, the first auction for the quarterly products in August 2027 and the first monthly auction in September 2027. ACER remarks that the products mentioned above, with the proposed derogation timeline on the 1 October 2027, will not be offered as bundled products A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 through the selected joint booking platform, considering that these auctions will be held before the derogation expiration.

text: 61 ACER invites the Bulgarian NRA to consider aligning the derogation request timeline with the auction calendar to enable the offering of bundled capacity for all the products of the Gas year 2027/2028.

text: 62 Concerning the derogation request from the application of the CMP Guidelines at the Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK) interconnection point, ACER notes that Recital 95 of the recast Gas Regulation identifies specific circumstances, such as the existence of long-term contractual arrangements, that may prevent the effective application of network codes and guidelines in the short term. ACER considers the circumstances described are justified on the basis of objective reasons and until the termination of the long-term contract on 31 December 2030, for the capacity volumes reserved under the aforementioned contract.

text: 63 With reference to the measures adopted to alleviate the above-mentioned obstacles, ACER notes that EWRC has taken all possible steps to ensure the highest level of implementation on its side of the interconnection point. Specifically, ACER acknowledges that EWRC has engaged in discussions with both the North Macedonian NRA and the relevant TSO to address the identified technical constraints and to fully implement the network code provisions to the extent possible within its jurisdiction.

text: 64 ACER notes that the information provided regarding the potential market impact and the demonstration that the derogation would not be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal natural gas market or to the security of supply of the Union or a Member State is limited. ACER acknowledges EWRC’s position that the time-limited derogation will not affect market dynamics or the security of supply, and the presence of such risks are limited.

text: 4.4. Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) - Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR)

text: 65 As regards the Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) interconnection points, ACER points out that the EU regulatory framework, and particularly the network codes and guidelines, are not binding for third countries that are not part of the EU.

text: 66 As a consequence, and due to the fact that some provisions of network codes and guidelines (such as the ones addressing bundled capacity and joint operation of booking platforms) require a coordinated and aligned implementation by the TSOs and/or relevant entities on both sides of an interconnection point, the effective implementation of these provisions is not unilaterally possible by Member States in the absence of such alignment.

text: 67 For the above reasons, in ACER’s view it is not necessary to submit a derogation request from the application of network codes or guidelines at the entry from and exit to Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) because Bulgaria, as a Member State, cannot implement provisions whose application depends on the simultaneous implementation by the third country, which is outside Bulgaria’s control, as these provisions are not binding for Turkey.

text: 5. Conclusions

text: 68 With reference to the derogation request regarding Kalotina (BG)/Dimitrovgrad (RS), and taking into account all the aforementioned reasons, ACER is of the opinion that in the case at issue a derogation from the application of CAM NC Chapter IV and of Chapter VII, specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products and to the use of a joint capacity booking A C E R O P I N I O N N O 0 5 / 2 0 2 6

text: 69 In relation to the derogation request regarding Kireevo (BG)/Zaychar (RS) and taking into account all the aforementioned reasons, ACER is of the opinion that in the case at issue a derogation from the application of CAM NC Chapter IV, specifically with regard to the bundling of the standard capacity products, should be granted as the requirements listed in Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation are fulfilled.

text: 70 As regards the derogation request regarding Kyustendil (BG)/Zidilovo (MK), and taking into account all the aforementioned reasons, ACER is of the opinion that in the case at issue a derogation from the application of CAM NC Chapter IV and Chapter VII, specifically with reference to the bundling of the standard capacity products and to the use of a joint capacity booking platform, and from the application of the CMP guidelines, should be granted, as the requirements listed in Article 70(3) of the recast Gas Regulation are fulfilled.

text: 71 Lastly, in relation to the derogation request regarding Strandzha 1 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR) and Strandzha 2 (BG)/Malkoclar (TR), ACER deems it unnecessary to submit a derogation request from the application of the provisions of network codes and guidelines requiring a mutual implementation from Turkey. Indeed, Bulgaria, as a Member State, cannot implement provisions whose application depends on the simultaneous implementation by the third country, which is outside Bulgaria’s control, as these provisions are not binding for Turkey. This Opinion is addressed to the European Commission. Done at Ljubljana, on 28 April 2026. — SIGNED — V. ZULEGER, ACER Director ad interim