text: OJ L158, 14.6.2019, p. 22. 2 OJ L280, 28.10.2017, p.1. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/c_2020_6600_f1_commission_decision_en.pdf

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: “During our preparatory discussions, we as regulators were very keen to find a solution which would satisfy the solidarity requirement on the one hand and avoid financial burden for consumers on the other hand. Therefore, instead of applying for a total exemption, which we think would also have been justified based on the lack of significant additional gains to Austria’s security of supply, the two regulators strived to develop a solution that would be able to fulfil the requirements for bi-directionality, even if it is subject to the conditions detailed in the proposal and the decision.

text: Although there have been several significant infrastructure projects on the Hungarian gas system that improved the pressure characteristics of the network (e.g. the commissioning of Balassagyarmat IP and Szada compressor station, modifications of pipeline connections and Városföld node station and in Eastern Hungary, the addition of the Serbian entry point), the main difference between the previous and the current situations is not a difference of the available physical infrastructure, but of the regulatory approach to it. The proposed solution is about using the Hungarian natural gas transmission system in a manner that was not originally intended during the development of the infrastructure, in a way that is not the normal use case of the system, but which is nonetheless within the possibilities of its technical constraints. It is not a direct result of any new investment, but rather the result of an out-of-the-box-thinking approach to the infrastructure already available.

text: Regulation (EC) 994/2010

text: Article 7

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: Having an in-depth look into the technical possibilities of the Hungarian gas system, the affected parties found that the existing system can provide physical bi-directional flows subject to the conditions detailed in the proposal and the decision. As the aim of the SoS Regulation is not the strengthening of the internal energy market, but the improvement of the security of supply, we consider a solution that – while does not create commercially bookable capacities – enables the already existing permanent physical capacity to be used for the reasons of solidarity, to be in line with the goals and provisions of the Regulation.

text: Taking into consideration the above-detailed reasoning, we consulted the European Commission on whether it would be acceptable to define the conditions under which the physical flow from Hungary to Austria can already take place now, without any additional investment, which the European Commission representatives confirmed”

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: Granted by E-Control’s official decision V REV G 02/12 of 11 January 2013. 6

text: Regulation (EC) No 994/2010

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing

text: Council Directive 2004/67/EC

text: , OJ L295, 12.11.2010, p.1.

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: See E-Control’s Decision V REV G 02/20/3 of 29 October 2021, p. 3. 8 OJ L72, 17.3.2017, p.1. 9

text: Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of 13 July 2009

text: on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing

text: Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005

text: , OJ L211, 14.8.2009, p.36.

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: See E-Control’s Decision V REV G 02/20/3 of 29 October 2021, p. 3. 11

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No

text: and amending Regulations

text: (EC) No 713/2009

text: (EC) No 714/2009

text: and

text: (EC) No 715/2009

text: , OJ L 115, 25.4.2013, p. 39. 12 It does not meet the requirements of the gas CBA methodology pursuant to

text: Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 347/2013

text: currently in force, which is ENTSOG’s CBA methodology 2.0, cf. https://www.entsog.eu/sites/default/files/2019-03/1. ADAPTED_2nd CBA Methodology_Main document_EC APPROVED.pdf.

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: Given that no coordinated decisions had been reached within 6 months of receipt of the HUAT project proposal by the last receiving NRA as well as a referral letter of July 2018 by E-Control and MEKH, ACER became competent to decide on the HUAT project proposal pursuant to

text: Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009

text: . It did so by Decision 5/2019 of 9 April 2019. https://documents.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Individual%20decisions/ACER%20 Decision%2005-2019%20on%20HUAT.pdf 14 However, the conditions under which capacity was offered under the applicable rulebooks at the auction differed from those specified in ACER’s Decision 5/2019. 15 https://entsog.eu/sites/default/files/2021-11/2021_DAR_AT-HU.pdf

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: See E-Control’s Decision V REV G 02/20/3, p. 8. 17 See MEKH’s Decision H2668/2021, p.7.

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: There is no definition of feasibility study under the SoS Regulation. However, the European Commission Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis from 2014 of Investment Projects provides guidelines on the elements to be included in a feasibility study (cf. Section 2.6, p. 36-37 in https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf). 19 See p. 10, para 32 of ACER Opinion No 4/2020 on a request of exemption for a cross-border interconnection point from Germany to the Czech Republic https://documents.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Opinions/Opinions/ACER%20Opin ion%2004-2020%20on%20Reverse%20flow%20DE-CZ.pdf. 20 See E-Control’s Decision V REV G 02/20/3, p. 5. 21 Annex II to the SoS Regulation defines the N-1 indicator: “The N – 1 formula describes the ability of the technical capacity of the gas infrastructure to satisfy total gas demand in the calculated area in the event of disruption of the single largest gas infrastructure during a day of exceptionally high gas demand occurring with

text: a statistical probability of once in 20 years”

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: Table 1: Infrastructure standard indicator levels (N-1 indicator) as published in recent PAPs

text: AT HU Date of PAP 02/08/2019 01/09/2020 Baumgarten Largest (GCA, WAG, Lanžhot infrastructure TAG) Unit MNm³/d MSm³/d EPm 163.16 82.9 Pm 3.22 5.5 Sm_100% 78.6 Sm_30% 42.04 68 LNGm 0 0 Im 140.34 56.3 Dmax 52.4 77.4 N-1_100% 143% N-1_30% 130% 129%

text: Available at https://tyndp2020.entsog.eu/

text: Opinion No 01/2022

text: Note: Table compiled by ACER based on recent PAPs for Slovenia and Hungary, as available at DG- ENER website (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-security/secure-gas-supplies/commissionsopinions-preventive-action-plans-and-emergency-plans-submitted-member-states-2019_es).

text: Opinion No 01/2022

identifier: ACER Opinion No 01/2022

title: ACER Opinion 01-2022 on HU-AT Reverse Flow

text: PUBLIC

text: OPINION No 01/2022 OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS of 2 February 2022 on the elements of the coordinated decisions as result of the proceedings to review the exemption from the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the "Mosonmagyaróvár" cross-border interconnection point between Hungary and Austria

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

text: 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 , and, in particular,

text: Article 9(4)

text: thereof,

text: Having regard to

text: Regulation (EU) 2017/1938

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2017 concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and repealing

text: Regulation (EU) No 994/2010

text: , and, in particular,

text: Article 5(4)

text: and (5) and point 8 of Annex III thereof,

text: Having regard to Commission’s decision C(2020) 6600 final of 1 October 2020 on the revision of certain exemptions from the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity pursuant to

text: Regulation (EU) 2017/1938

text: Having regard to the consultation with the national regulatory authorities concerned, the competent authorities concerned and the competent authorities,

text: Having regard to the information provided by the competent authorities concerned and the transmission system operators concerned,

text: Whereas:

text: 1. INTRODUCTION

text: (1) On 2 November 2021, the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (‘ACER’) received from Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts und Erdgaswirtschaft (‘E-Control’) Decision V REV G 02/20/3 (‘the Austrian Decision’) of 29 October 2021. On 3 November 2021, ACER received from Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (‘MEKH’) Decision H2668/2021 of 3 November 2021 (‘the Hungarian Decision’). The Austrian Decision and the Hungarian Decision (‘the Decisions’) have been coordinated and reach a similar conclusion.

text: (2) The Decisions are the result of the proceedings to review the exemption from the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár interconnection point in accordance with

text: Article 5

text: and point 2 of Annex III to

text: Regulation (EU) 2017/1938

text: Regulation (EU) No 994/2010

text: (‘the SoS Regulation’).

text: (3) The request was jointly developed by FGSZ Zrt. (‘FGSZ’) and Gas Connect Austria GmbH (‘GCA’) and submitted to E-Control and MEKH on 15 April 2021. The Decisions accept the proposal submitted by the transmission system operators (‘TSOs’) by deeming that the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár interconnection is already fulfilled.

text: (4) On 18 November 2021, ACER published on its website a “Notice on ACER’s pending Opinions on Decisions on proceedings related to the review of the exemption from the obligation to enable bi-directional gas transmission capacity at two Interconnection Points: "Mosonmagyaróvár" (Hungary to Austria) and "Murfeld/Ceršak" (Slovenia to Austria). ACER invited third parties to provide any comments and observations they may have on this subject matter to ACER by 7 December 2021. By that date, no comments or observations were received.

text: 2. SCOPE OF THE OPINION

text: (5) ACER shall deliver an opinion on the elements of the Decisions taking into account the requirements of the SoS Regulation, in particular

text: Article 5

text: and Annex III, including any possible objection received pursuant to point 7 of Annex III.

text: 3. OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND ACER CONSULTATION

text: (6) By 3 January 2022, i.e. within 2 months of receiving the last coordinated Decision, the Competent Authorities did not submit any objections.

text: (7) From 20 December 2021 until 17 January 2022, period extended from 14 January 2022 by the request of E-Control, ACER consulted with the relevant Competent Authorities (E-Control and MEKH) and the European Commission on its draft Opinion on the elements of the coordinated decisions as result of the proceedings to review the exemption from the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the "Mosonmagyaróvár" cross-border interconnection point. By that date, ACER did not receive comments or confidentiality claims.

text: (8) On 20 December 2021, ACER requested from E-Control and MEKH to provide by 14 January 2022 additional information on additional investments and/or operational arrangements having taken place in the Austrian and Hungarian gas systems since 2013 that would evidence a different situation now in comparison to 2013. The comparison with 2012 is relevant since in that year, E-Control granted an exemption from the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity the "Mosonmagyaróvár" cross-border interconnection point based on Article 7 of the previous gas SoS Regulation . By joint request of E-Control and MEKH, the deadline to reply was extended until 17 January 2022.

text: (9) On 15 January 2022, E-Control and MEKH jointly replied to ACER stating their view that the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár interconnection point pursuant to gas SoS Regulation is already fulfilled, on the basis of legal changes rather than on technical changes. They argue that the current procedure was undertaken in the framework of the revised SoS Regulation, as opposed to the previous exemption procedure carried out in line with the provisions of previous SoS Regulation. MEKH and E-Control note that the former 2013 exemption was initiated unilaterally by E-Control, and it reflected Austria’s understanding that the development of the bi-directional capacity would not materially improve its security of gas supply. MEKH and E-Control sustain that the current proposal focuses on the ability of the Hungarian system to supply gas to solidarity protected customers in case a requesting Member State (in casu Austria) declares an emergency situation. MEKH and E-Control added that:

text: (10) ACER welcomes the good cooperation between E-Control and MEKH, understands the focus of regulators to avoid additional burden on consumers, and notes the fact that several significant infrastructure projects on the Hungarian gas system have improved the pressure characteristics of the Hungarian network in general, allowing to physically transporting from gas from Hungary to Austria under some configurations. At the same time, ACER notes that this ability to physically transport gas from Hungary to Austria is subject to detailed conditions (see Section 5.1 of the Opinion), that this proposal is not a direct result of any new investment aimed at enabling permanent physical capacity, and that it would not offer commercially bookable capacities from Hungary to Austria at the "Mosonmagyaróvár" cross-border IP.

text: 4. ASSESSMENT OF THE PROCEDURE

text: (11) The European Commission in its decision C(2020) 6600 of 1 October 2020, addressed among other Member States to Hungary and the Republic of Austria, requested the review of the exemption from the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border interconnection point between Austria and Hungary, in line with the procedure foreseen in Annex III to the SoS Regulation. The coordinated decision referred to in point 5 of Annex III shall be adopted by the competent authorities of the Member States on both sides of each interconnection point referred by 31 January 2022.

text: (12) On 3 December 2021 and 8 December 2020, E-Control and MEKH respectively, as competent authorities in Austria and Hungary, initiated the procedure by requesting that GCA and FGSZ prepare and submit a joint proposal for enabling bi- directional capacity or a request for prolongation of the exemption at the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border interconnection point by 15 April 2021. Several technical meetings followed, involving E-Control, MEKH, GCA and FGSZ.

text: (13) On 15 April 2021, GCA and FGSZ submitted a joint coordinated proposal to E-Control and MEKH (‘the Joint Proposal’), indicating that the obligation to enable bi- directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár interconnection point pursuant to SoS Regulation is already fulfilled. The Joint Proposal was submitted pursuant to point 2 of Annex III to SoS Regulation, following a consultation with the transmission system operators of the directly connected Member States which lasted from 29 March 2021 until 12 April 2021. There were no responses submitted on the contents of the proposal.

text: (14) Upon receipt of the Joint Proposal, in line with point 3 of Annex III to SoS Regulation, E-Control and MEKH jointly consulted the authorities of all neighbouring Member States, ACER, and the European Commission on the Joint Proposal. This consultation was open from 6 May 2021 until 5 September 2021. One response, submitted on 2 September 2021 by the Slovak regulatory authority (‘ÚRSO’) was received to this consultation. ÚRSO agreed with the Joint Proposal, by considering the proposal reasonable as it provides a solution to the requirement of bi-directionality without additional investments in line with the decarbonisation plans. In addition, ÚRSO reminded that in case of the activation of solidarity measures in line with the SoS Regulation, additional volumes could be provided from Hungary to Austria through the transport route HU-SK-AT.

text: (15) ACER welcomes that the Joint Proposal was prepared and consulted by the TSOs, GCA and FGSZ, and the regulatory authorities, E-Control and MEKH in compliance with the procedure under Annex III to the SoS Regulation.

text: 5. ASSESSMENT OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE DECISION

text: (17) The Decisions approve the joint proposal of GCA and FGSZ and include the relevant facts, background and the legal basis and elements of analysis leading to the Decisions.

text: (19) ACER’s considerations on the elements of the Decision, which are made in particular in view of the requirements of

text: Article 5(5)

text: SoS Regulation, are presented below.

text: On the overall proposal and the existence of permanent bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár IP

text: (20) The Joint Proposal and the Decisions argue that the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár interconnection point pursuant to the SoS Regulation is already fulfilled. Currently, there is an exemption from the obligation to enable bidirectional capacity for this IP granted in 2013 by the corresponding exemption request based on Article 7 of the previous SoS Regulation .

text: (21) E-Control, MEKH, GCA and FGSZ sustain that, contrary to the situation during the 2012/2013 proceedings, it can be considered that there is already permanent bidirectional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár IP, within the meaning of the SoS

text: Regulation. Point 2(a) of Annex III to the SoS Regulation refers to ‘physical reverse flow capacity’ as a ‘proposal to enable permanent physical capacity to transport gas in both directions for permanent bi-directional capacity concerning the reverse direction’. The Decisions refer to exchanges between the Competent Authorities and staff of the European Commission , where the European Commission clarified that the term ‘physical capacity’ does not refer to

text: Regulation (EU) 2017/459

text: establishing a network code on capacity allocation mechanisms in gas transmission systems (‘CAM NC’), but rather to the technical possibility to flow physically gas in both directions. Therefore, the term “permanent” may not equal to a “firm capacity product” (firm entry/exit) under the CAM NC, but rather refer to all the scenarios under which a Member State can rely on a physical reverse flow in case of a supply crisis.

text: (22) The Decisions state that “Based on these statements by the European Commission, GCA and FGSZ prepared a proposal that determines under which circumstances physical reverse flow is already possible, i.e. could be realised in the event of a supply crisis.”

text: (23) The capacity that would be offered from Hungary into Austria is 214,360 kWh/h, conditional on the following cumulative conditions:

text: a. “On the given gas day, the Hungarian domestic fossil gas consumption does not exceed 643,080,000 kWh/d.

text: b. On the given gas day, the mean temperature in the territory of Hungary is higher than -4 degrees Celsius.

text: c. The Republic of Austria has requested the application of the solidarity measure

text: according to Article 13 of gas SoS Regulation.”

text: (24) ACER notes that the concepts of “permanent bi-directional capacity” or “physical reverse flow capacity” -both terms are used throughout the proposal- are not unambiguously defined under the SoS Regulation. Therefore, there may be room for interpretation. In the context of the SoS Regulation, ACER does not object to an interpretation of this term which is related to a gas supply crisis, i.e. crisis scenarios under which a Member State can rely on a physical reverse flow capability. However, ACER notes that an association of the term “permanent” to a “firm capacity product” could also be possible, and refers to the definition of ‘technical capacity’ in

text: Article 2(1)

text: (18) of

text: Regulation (EC) 715/2009

text: as “the maximum firm capacity that the transmission system operator can offer to the network users, taking account of system integrity and the operational requirements of the transmission network”. ACER is not convinced that the cumulative conditions indicated in the Joint Proposal for physically flowing gas from Hungary to Austria could qualify as permanent physical bi-directional capacity. Since the conditions in the proposal could occur in the event of a very cold day and extreme gas demand in Hungary, it cannot be

text: assured that there will be a permanent physical flows capacity from Hungary to Austria in a crisis situation. ACER is of the view that the agreed crisis scenarios, including any conditionalities to the physical flow capability, must be relevant and meaningful to offer gas flows from Hungary to Austria in a supply crisis or, in the alternative case, a request for exemption should be submitted or a physical reverse flow project offering marketable capacity should be developed.

text: (25) In addition, both the TSOs (GCA and FGSZ) and the Competent Authorities (E-Control and MEKH) are of the view that “creating permanent marketable capacity would require large investments, in particular in Hungary, and that these would greatly outweigh the

text: benefits to security of supply in Austria.”

text: CBA prepared on the basis of the methodology pursuant to

text: Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: (26) ACER considers that there is insufficient evidence that the Cost-benefit Analysis (CBA) included in the Joint Proposal sufficiently follows the CBA methodology pursuant to

text: . The proposal submitted by GCA and FGSZ consists of a summary of eleven pages covering the elements set out in Article 5(5) of the SoS Regulation.

text: Assessment of market demand

text: (27) E-Control’s Decision concurs with the Joint Proposal, which evidences that so far shippers have not made binding capacity bookings at the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border interconnection point. Likewise, MEKH, in its Decision, concludes that there is no market demand for capacity that would justify a transmission capacity development in excess to the project proposal for the direction from Hungary to Austria.

text: (28) ACER notes that GCA and FGSZ elaborate on how capacity demand at the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border interconnection point has been regularly assessed since 2017 in line with the obligation imposed by the incremental capacity process from chapter V of CAM NC (

text: Article 26

text: , Articles

text: (a) and 16(5) of

text: Regulation (EC) 715/2009

text: and

text: Article 13(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC

text: ). Until now, no incremental capacity infrastructure project enabling bookings from Hungary into Austria has been initiated because the incremental capacity project has not attracted sufficient market interest at the auction under the conditions offered. In July 2017, the TSOs jointly published a demand assessment report, which concluded that there was sufficient non-

text: binding interest from network users in incremental capacity in the HUAT project to initiate an incremental capacity project in the meaning of Article 3(9) of the CAM NC. In April and October 2018, respectively, E-Control and MEKH took opposite decisions on the HUAT incremental capacity proposal, with E-Control approving and MEKH rejecting the project proposal. The auction held in July 2020 as a follow-up to the 2017 incremental procedure did not yield sufficient binding capacity bookings . Following the non-binding capacity demand assessment carried out in 2019, GCA and FGSZ could not agree on the joint project proposal to be submitted based on Articles 27 and 28 of CAM NC before May 2021, therefore no binding incremental capacity auction was held in July 2021. More recently, the non-binding demand assessment report was conducted again in October 2021 and no non-binding market demand was identified .

text: (29) ACER notes the existence of periodic assessments of market demand for the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border IP conducted based on the provisions of CAM NC,

text: Regulation (EC) 715/2009

text: and Directive

text: and that the most recent nonbinding demand assessment report of October 2021 did not identify market interest. However, ACER also points out that the conditions under which such capacity was offered for the binding phase in July 2020 differed from those specified by ACER in its decision, and were less attractive to network users. It is therefore an open question if demand for such capacity would have materialised if it would have been offered under the specified conditions set by ACER Decision 5/2019.

text: Projections for demand and supply

text: (30) E-Control concurs with the assessment of the projections of demand and supply presented in the Joint Proposal, while MEKH concludes that there are no gas demand and supply expectations that would justify capacity development in excess to the Joint Proposal at the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border IP for the direction from Hungary to Austria.

text: (31) The Joint Proposal presents projections for supply and demand for Austria and Hungary. As regards Austria, the Joint Proposal notes that Austria participates in the European gas market as a transit country, with significant storage infrastructure (larger than the annual domestic gas demand) and as an important gas trading hub, while domestic production is relatively low. Gas demand in Austria is expected to decrease in the future in view of decarbonisation objectives. Additionally, a replacement is expected of fossil natural gas with increasing quantities of renewable gases. As regards Hungary, the Joint Proposal predicts a constant decrease of domestic natural gas production, a steady level of gas

text: consumption in the mid-term and a decrease in the long-term, based on – among others – the vision of the National Energy Strategy for Hungary.

text: (32) ACER has no contra-indications to E-Control’s and MEKH’s Decisions where they state that, at the time of the submission of the Joint Proposal, i.e. in April 2021, neither the current market situation nor mid and long-term forecasts show a need to increase the capacity from Hungary to Austria at the Mosonmagyaróvár IP.

text: Possible economic impact on existing infrastructure

text: (33) E-Control and MEKH conclude that as the Joint Proposal allows for gas flows from Hungary into Austria via existing infrastructure under certain conditions (see Section 5.1) and does not require additional infrastructure investments, the proposal has no economic impact on the existing infrastructure. ACER supports such conclusion.

text: A feasibility study

text: (34) E-Control in its Decision notes that FGSZ has analysed the conditions under which gas could flow from Hungary into Austria through the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border interconnection point as a solidarity measure: “FGSZ declares readiness to provide a small amount of capacity at a low border pressure, provided that the temperature in Hungary is above a certain threshold and demand in Hungary is below a certain level. While FGSZ does not exclude the possibility that more capacity and a higher pressure might be available if necessary, this is subject to case-by-case evaluation and there can be no general commitment.” ECA also notes that “in the event of a crisis, the technical, legal and financial arrangements concerning the application of solidarity measures under Article 13

text: Regulation (EU) 2017/1938

text: are to be agreed between the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Austria. The authority deems the conditions described by FGSZ plausible. A solidarity agreement between Austria and Hungary, upon which basis solidarity measures would be remunerated, has not yet been concluded, but negotiations

text: are ongoing.”

text: (35) MEKH’s decision notes that the proposal states: “….the provision of 214 360 kWh/h on 33 bar in the reverse direction is feasible in case of the application of a solidarity measure. The transmission system operators submitting the Project Proposal reminded that at the time of the proposal’s submission the solidarity agreement between the Member States was not yet concluded. The Project Proposal evaluated the time necessary for the provision of reverse gas flows. The manual reversal of flow direction requires 8-

text: 24 hours.”

text: (36) ACER notes that the proposal only includes an analysis of the conditions under which the provision of 214 360 kWh/h on 33 bar in the direction from Hungary to Austria would be feasible in case of the application of a solidarity measure. ACER deems that, in

text: addition, the proposal should have included a complementary comprehensive feasibility study of a variant full-fledge permanent bidirectional capacity project at the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border interconnection point which would have allowed also for firm marketable reverse flow capacities. ACER maintains that such feasibility study should cover, as a rule, techno-economic elements which provide essential information about the basic design parameters of the main facilities, the associated cost estimates, and the possible implementation schedule of a potential full-fledge reverse flow project proposal allowing for marketable capacity, even when the study concludes that the project is not feasible. The feasibility study could have therefore provided additional information relevant for the purpose of deciding upon the request, or alternatively on a full-fledged reverse flow project.

text: Costs of implementing bi-directional capacity

text: (37) The Decisions note that, given that the Joint Proposal does not require any investments, there are no costs involved. E-Control adds that GCA stated that creating 1,277,397 kWh/h/y marketable capacity (based on the non-binding capacity demand assessment from 2019) entails investment costs of 3.3 m EUR in Austria and 233.6m EUR in Hungary . That project could be realised provided an economic test under the CAM NC would yield to positive results.

text: (38) ACER notes that the Joint Proposal does not entail additional investment costs. ACER notes that the Austrian Decision refers to cost estimates based on 2019 figures. A more updated and detailed assessment of the costs to enable bi-directional capacity requires knowledge about (i) the estimated compressor power and technology solutions needed to enable physical reverse flows at the interconnection point and (ii) other major infrastructure elements which would be required to enable bi-directional capacity.

text: Benefits to the security of gas supply taking into account the possible contribution to meet the infrastructure standard

text: (39) The Decisions note that GCA has calculated the N-1 infrastructure standard referred to in

text: Article 5

text: and defined in Annex II to the SoS Regulation, as calculated with the value of the parameters used in the Austrian Gas Grid Management AG (AGGM) long-term

text: plan for 2020. The current value of the N-1 for Austria is 140%, well above the 100% minimum value for Austria provided by the SoS Regulation. E-Control’s decision notes that given that only freely allocable capacity counts towards the infrastructure standard, the capacity from the project proposal makes no difference as regards the N-1 indicator in Austria. In Hungary, the project would have no effect on its N-1 indicator. The Decisions take note and support the analysis of the Joint Proposal, which shows that only in a very limited number of the security of supply flow scenarios published in ENTSOG’s 2020 ten-year network development plan (‘TYNDP’) would injections from Hungary be able to aid Austrian gas markets. The reason for this is that both Austria and Hungary are mainly supplied by Russia, and thus they would both have very similar risk exposure to interruption of Russian gas supplies.

text: (40) ACER concurs with these statements. ACER finds that the 140% value of the N-1 indicator in Austria indicated in the proposal stands at adequate levels, 10% above the N-1 values published in the most recently available Preventive Action Plan (‘PAP’) (c.f., Table 1), and above the minimum required by the SoS Regulation. Based on the proposal and the TYNDP simulations, ACER finds that there would be only a very limited number of scenarios where Hungary would be in a position to support Austria with gas deliveries. This N-1 indicator demonstrates the already existing adequacy of the technical capacity of the Austrian gas infrastructure to satisfy total gas demand in Austria in the event of disruption of the single largest gas infrastructure (Baumgarten) during a day of exceptionally high gas demand occurring with a statistical probability of once in 20 years.

text: (41) In light of the above, ACER considers that the Decisions rightly conclude that further firm entry capacity from Hungary to Austria would be unnecessary for the purpose of ensuring a sufficient level of security of gas supply in Austria.

text: Common risk assessment

text: (42) The Decisions and Joint Proposal do not refer to the results of the common risk assessment performed in accordance with Article 7(2) of the SoS Regulation of the Eastern gas supply risk group, Ukraine (cf. Annex 1.1.a) of the SoS Regulation. ACER notes that all scenarios compiled to assess the security of supply in the region in that common risk assessment found that it would not be necessary to use significant capacity from Hungary to Austria to ensure an adequate level of security of gas supply in Austria,

text: HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

text: 1. ACER welcomes that the Joint Proposal was prepared and consulted by the TSOs (GCA and FGSZ) and Competent Authorities (E-Control and MEKH) in compliance with the procedure under Annex III to the SoS Regulation and that the Competent Authorities timely decided on the proposal in a coordinated way.

text: 2. The Decisions and the Joint Proposal argue that the obligation to enable bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár interconnection point pursuant to the SoS Regulation is already fulfilled. The TSOs and Competent Authorities named above sustain that it can be considered that there is already permanent bi-directional capacity at the Mosonmagyaróvár IP, within the meaning of the SoS Regulation. Nowadays, it is possible to offer physical reverse flows from Hungary into Austria conditional to the following cumulative conditions: a certain maximum gas demand in Hungary, a o temperature in Hungary above -4 C and a request of application of solidarity by the Republic of Austria according to Article 13 of the SoS Regulation. ACER notes that the concepts of “permanent bi-directional capacity” or “physical reverse flow capacity” are not unambiguously defined under the SoS Regulation. However, ACER is not convinced that the cumulative conditions indicated in the proposal for physically flowing gas from Hungary to Austria could qualify as permanent physical bi-directional capacity. Since the conditions in the proposal could occur in the event of a very cold day and extreme gas demand in Hungary, it cannot be assured that there will be a permanent physical flows capability from Hungary to Austria in a crisis situation. ACER is of the view that the agreed crisis scenarios, including any conditionalities to the physical flow capability, must be relevant and meaningful to offer gas flows from Hungary to Austria in a supply crisis or, in the alternative case, a request for exemption should be submitted or a physical reverse flow project offering marketable capacity should be developed.

text: 3. The Decisions have assessed the substantive conditions contained in the Joint Proposal, in line with

text: Article 5(5)

text: SoS Regulation. However, it is based on a proposal that does not include:

text: a. a feasibility study for a reverse flow project enabling permanent marketable capacities; and

text: 4. A feasibility study is a regulatory requirement which should provide essential information about the design, cost estimates and implementation schedule of a project. In addition to the current proposal of no investments, the proposal may have benefited from the inclusion of a complementary comprehensive feasibility study of a variant fullfledge permanent bidirectional capacity project at the Mosonmagyaróvár cross-border interconnection point. That variant would have allowed also for firm marketable reverse flow capacities, and not only physical reverse flows under a solidarity security of supply scenario.

text: 5. The reasoning contained in the Decisions about the N-1 infrastructure standard indicator of the SoS Regulation is compelling. The N-1 indicator is at a more than adequate level in Austria already.

text: 6. ACER concurs with the Decisions that, at the time of the submission of the Joint Proposal, i.e. in April 2021, neither the current market situation nor mid- and long-term forecasts show a need to increase the capacity from Hungary to Austria at the Mosonmagyaróvár IP. The increase of the capacity from Hungary to Austria in the shortto medium-term, when not supported by the market, may result in inefficient investments, as the assessment show that the investment costs of having significant marketable firm reverse flow capacity at this IP would significantly outweigh the very limited prospective benefits for the security of gas supply it would provide.

text: This Opinion is submitted to the Commission for consequential actions deemed necessary, all competent authorities concerned, and the national regulatory authorities referred to in points 3 and 6 of Annex III SoS Regulation.

text: Done at Ljubljana, on 2 February 2022.

text: - SIGNED -

text: Fоr the Agency The Director

text: C. ZINGLERSEN


text: OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 22. OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 54. OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 1.

text: Opinion No 01/2023

text: See Annex I to ACER Decision No. 08/2020 of 6 March 2020 on the methodology for short-term and seasonal adequacy assessments.

text: Opinion No 01/2023

text: OJ L 197, 25.7.2015, p. 24.

text: Opinion No 01/2023

text: STSAA Annex I, point 36.

text: Opinion No 01/2023 This Opinion is addressed to ENTSO-E. Done at Ljubljana, on 31 January 2023.

identifier: ACER Opinion No 01/2023

publisher: Europeiska unionens byrå för samarbete mellan energitillsynsmyndigheter

sprak: en

title: ACER Opinion 01-2023 on the ENTSO-E Winter Outlook 2022-2023

serie: yttranden

text: PUBLIC

type: stycke

text: OPINION No 01/2023 OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS of 31 January 2023 ON THE ENTSO-E WINTER OUTLOOK 2022-2023

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 , and, in particular,

text: Article 4(3)

text: (b) thereof, Having regard to

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/943

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity and, in particular,

text: Articles 30(1)

text: (m) and 32(2) thereof, Having regard to

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/941

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on risk-preparedness in the electricity sector and, in particular,

text: Article 9(2)

text: thereof, Having regard to the favourable opinion of the Board of Regulators of 25 January 2023, delivered pursuant to

text: Article 22(5)

text: (a) of

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/942

text: , Whereas:

text: 1. INTRODUCTION

text: (1) This Opinion concerns the seasonal adequacy outlook report for winter 2022-2023 (Winter Outlook 2022-2023), carried out by the European Network for Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and published on 1 December 2022 (the Report).

text: (2) ENTSO-E submitted the Report to ACER for its opinion. ACER considers it appropriate to issue this Opinion in light of increased security of supply risks following the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has further increased the importance of a robust adequacy assessment for this winter and for the seasons ahead.

text: 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

text: (3) Pursuant to

text: Article 30

text: (l)(m) and

text: Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943

text: , ENTSO- E shall carry out and adopt seasonal adequacy assessments, and submit them to ACER for an opinion. These seasonal adequacy assessments shall be carried out in line with the methodology for short-term and seasonal adequacy assessments (the STSAA methodology ) and include a winter and a summer adequacy assessment, as specified in

text: Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/941

text: Article 4(3)

text: (b) of

text: Regulation (EU) 2019/942

text: states that ACER may provide opinions on ENTSO-E’s seasonal adequacy assessments, taking into account the objectives of non-discrimination, effective competition and efficient and secure functioning of the internal market for electricity.

text: 3. ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORT

text: (5) As Russia`s aggression against Ukraine has continued, fuel supply risks combined with drought over summer and low nuclear availability provided a particularly challenging backdrop for this year’s winter outlook report.

text: 3.1. Outlook preparation

text: (6) ACER appreciates ENTSO-E’s agile approach developing the outlook, including the creation and sharing of preliminary results with the Electricity Coordination Group (‘ECG’) since March 2022. In this fast evolving context, sharing of interim results will remain important for the ECG members in 2023 allowing them to anticipate the challenges ahead in a timely manner.

text: (7) ACER also welcomes the regular working-level exchanges with ENTSO-E’s drafting team, and trusts that this collaborative practice will continue in 2023.

text: 3.2. Additional analyse s

text: (8) ACER welcomes ENTSO-E’s efforts to reflect on the extraordinary circumstances by providing sensitivities (alternative scenarios to the most likely reference scenario) as well as analyses of critical gas volumes needed for electricity generation. These additional analyses provide useful insights for a broad range of stakeholders, in particular decision-makers. As the energy landscape is expected to evolve at fast pace,

text: ENTSO-E should be ready to adapt these additional assessments to the changing circumstances, so they remain policy-relevant.

text: 3.3. Methodology

text: (9) ACER notes the delay in the implementation of certain components of the STSAA methodology highlighted in ACER`s previous opinion (Opinion 07/2021). ACER understands from ENTSO-E that this is partly due to the new challenges to short-term security of supply following the invasion of Ukraine, and that ENTSO-E is finalisin g the implementation of the STSAA methodology in line with ACER`s recommendations. In particular, ACER highlights two key outstanding elements:

text: i. Implementation of flow-based modelling.

text: ii. Sensitivity analysis considering an exhaustive list of all non-market based measures beyond strategic (or similar) reserves.

text: 3.4. Cross-border capacities

text: (10) ACER agrees with ENTSO-E that the interconnected European electricity system is a key resource for adequacy. Maximising cross-border exchange capacity for the coming winter months is essential to fully exploit this potential.

text: (11) ACER recognises that some Member States may be more exposed to adequacy risks than others, and that some TSOs may have to constrain cross-border capacity available for day-ahead and intraday trading to varying degrees to maintain operational security. This may amount to a legitimate mitigation measure aiming at the safe operation of the system under

text: Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222

text: (12) However, the adequacy assessment in the reference scenario (the most likely base scenario) as well as in the additional sensitivity scenarios considered `no net exports ` for a Member State throughout the winter period. In ACER’s view, a permanent net zero export assumption stretches this type of mitigation action to its limits. In the context of an adequacy assessment, ‘no net exports’ means that the TSO - providing this input - expects extreme and prolonged operational security problems requiring it to fully constrain export capacity for each and every of the 2,904 hours of the winter period.

text: (13) ACER considers that such extreme assumption in the reference scenario is neither efficient nor realistic. It ignores the fact that the need to deploy mitigation measures such as capacity constraints - is not likely to be constant throughout an extended period of time. It is also not consistent with the STSAA methodology, according to which

text: maximum exchange capacity constraints should take into account variability in time e.g.: working day and not working day, day and night, etc.

text: (14) The reference scenario should reflect the most likely future state of the European power system, providing the grounds to plan and prepare an optimised and coordinated response. On the other hand, extreme `what if` sensitivity scenarios aim to anticipate unlikely yet still possible outcomes. The net zero export assumption seems to correspond to a ‘what if’ scenario, rather than to a reference scenario.

text: (15) The assumptions for the reference and the sensitivity scenarios should be clearly separated. Only a clear delineation can provide more transparency to the outlook and clarity to its results and as such, effectively help the TSOs and other relevant stakeholders to take informed decisions to ensure security of supply.

text: 4. CONCLUSION

text: (16) Section 4 sets out ACER’s assessment of the Report taking into account the extraordinary circumstances, the STSAA methodology and the recommendations from our previous opinions. In summary:

text: i. ACER welcomes ENTSO-E`s efforts to expand the scope of analysis and take a more agile approach in response to the uncertainties posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; ii. ACER agrees with ENTSO-E that efficient market integration and pooling of resources are key for adequacy support this winter. In general, resource-sharing in the spirit of EU energy solidarity is a key element supporting the resilience of the European power system; iii. There should be a clearer distinction between assumptions for the reference and the sensitivity scenarios. In particular, extreme situations that do not correspond to the most likely expected outcome for a given season belong to ‘what if’ sensitivity scenarios, rather than to the reference scenario. Such a clear delineation would enhance transparency of the assessment and clarity of the results, contributing to efficient decision-making,

text: HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

text: 2. Future seasonal assessments should appropriately take into account ACER’s comments and recommendations provided in this Opinion.

text: - SIGNED -

text: Fоr the Agency The Director

text: C. ZINGLERSEN

type: vagledning

utgivare: acer


text: OJ L163, 15.6.2013, p. 1. OJ L312, 28.11.2017, p. 6.

text: Opinion No 01/2024

text: Opinion No 01/2024

text: Opinion No 01/2024

text: Opinion No 01/2024

text: ECA specia l report 03/2023, pa ra gra ph 158, https://www.eca .europa .eu/en/publica tions/SR23_03.

text: Opinion No 01/2024

text: Opinion No 01/2024

identifier: ACER Opinion No 01/2024

title: ACER Opinion 01-2024 on the amended third update of the manual of procedures for the ENTSO-E central information transparency platform

text: PUBLIC

text: OPINION No 01/2024 OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS of 8 April 2024 on the amended third update of the manual of procedures for the ENTSO-E central information transparency platform

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

text: Having regard to

text: Commission Regulation (EU) No 543/2013 of 14 June 2013

text: on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex I to

text: Regulation (EC) No 714/2009

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council (Transparency Regulation), and, in particular,

text: Article 5

text: thereof ,

text: Having regard to

text: Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017

text: establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (EB Regulation), and, in particular,

text: Article 12(5)

text: thereof,

text: Whereas:

text: 1. INTRODUCTION

text: (1) On 8 February 2024, ENTSO-E submitted to ACER an amended version 3.4, dated 10 November 2023, of the Manual of Procedures for the ENTSO-E Central Information Transparency Platform (MoP), as required by Article 5 of the Transparency Regulation, including an update of separate documents referenced in the MoP. The referenced documents included a Detailed Data Descriptions (‘DDD’) document and a Business Requirements Specification (‘BRS’) document. Prior to the submission of the amended third update of the MoP, in accordance with the Transparency Regulation, ENTSO-E had conducted a public consultation with stakeholders and organised dedicated workshops with the ENTSO-E Transparency User Group (ETUG) to facilitate users’ feedback. ACER considers the Transparency Platform a key element for the energy transition in its role of providing accurate, complete, and timely data on electricity fundamentals to market participants, and

text: ENTSO-E’s MoP as the best means to ensure the appropriate quality of th e published data sets.

text: 2. ASSESSMENT OF THE UPDATED MANUAL OF PROCEDURES

text: 2.1. Legal framework

text: (2) According to Article 5 of the Transparency Regulation, the MoP for the central information transparency platform has to specify: the details and format of the submission of data laid down in Article 4(1) of the same Regulation; standardised ways and formats of data communication and exchange between primary owners of data, transmission system operators (‘TSOs’), data providers and ENTSO-E; the technical and operational criteria which data providers need to fulfil when providing data to the central information transparency platform; and an appropriate classification of production types referred to in Articles 14(1), 15(1) and 16(1) of the same Regulation.

text: (3) Moreover, according to Article 5 of the Transparency Regulation, ENTSO-E has to update the MoP when necessary and, before updating it, to submit a draft to ACER for an opinion, which is to be provided within two months. While

text: Regulation (EU) No 543/2013

text: does not define specific criteria to be taken into account for ACER’ s opinion, points (a) to (d) of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the same specify the aspects which the draft MoP should address. Therefore, ACER, in the present opinion, regarded those requirements as the main criteria for the assessment of the changes included in the draft update of the MoP (compared to its previous version).

text: (4) According to Article 12(5) of the EB Regulation, each TSO has to publish certain balancing-related pieces of information, as defined in paragraph 3 of the same Article, in a commonly agreed harmonized format, at least through the central information transparency platform, and ENTSO-E has to update the MoP referred to in Article 5 of the Transparency Regulation accordingly and submit it to ACER for an opinion. To that end, ENTSO-E submitted to ACER three versions of the MoP: version 3.0 of 20 March 2018, version 3.1 of 29 October 2018, and version 3.3 of 5 October 2021, on which ACER issued three opinions: Opinion No 04/2018 of 13 June 2018, Opinion No 08/2019 of 30 January 2019 and Opinion No 10/2021 of 2 December 2021, respectively.

text: 2.2. General comments

text: (5) The update of the MoP is required to include the details of new publications to be implemented on the Transparency Platform, i.e. flow based parameters for day-ahead capacity allocation publications according to

text: Article 11(1)

text: (b), energy storage publications, including the addition of batteries as a production type in publications on installed generation capacity according to

text: Article 14(1)

text: (a), on aggregated generation output according to

text: Article 16(1)

text: (b) and information on total load according to

text: Article 6(1)

text: (a) of the Transparency Regulation. A distinction between continuous trading, implicit allocation and explicit allocation was introduced, while amendments were introduced for the details of publications on forecasted and offered

text: cross-zonal capacity according to

text: Article 11(1)

text: (a), the day-ahead prices according to

text: Article 12(1)

text: (d), the net positions per bidding zone in case of implicit allocations according to

text: Article 12(1)

text: (e), and the sum of scheduled commercial exchanges in aggregated form between bidding zones 12(1)(f), and physical flows between bidding zones according to

text: Article 12(1)

text: (g) of the Transparency Regulation.

text: (6) As in previous versions of the MoP, the draft of version 3.4 consists of a concise ‘basic document’ that refers to more detailed documents (referenced documents), such as the DDD document and the BRS document. Since these three documents are the basis used for the elaboration of the other implementation guides, which are mainly relevant for data providers, this Opinion focuses on the ‘basic document’, the DDD and the BRS documents.

text: (7) In its Opinion No 10/2021 of 2 December 2021, ACER concluded that, subject to the implementation of a number of proposed changes, the updated MoP met the fundamental objective of the Transparency Regulation to ensure the provision of clear and timely information about balancing markets in a comparable format across borders. In the present opinion, ACER assesses the extent to which its opinion was implemented.

text: 2.3. Comments on definitions

text: (8) In the DDD, ENTSO-E has introduced definitions relating to the use of cross-zonal capacities, including definitions of ‘auction revenue’, ‘congestion income’, ‘explicit allocation’, ‘implicit allocation’, ‘net position’, ‘nomination of transfer capacity’, and ‘scheduled commercial exchanges’. ACER acknowledges updates on definitions and endorses them insofar as they are aligned with legal requirements, physical reality and other publications on the same topic and considers that the addition of definitions contributes to the consistent publication of data.

text: (9) Regarding the updated definition of ‘continuous allocation’, ACER considers that the detailed description of the publications on implicit allocations - the net positions & congestion income, as well as the detailed description and the publication deadline of the intraday offered cross-zonal capacity publications set the basis for future publications on the upcoming implementation of intraday auctions as part of the Single Intraday Coupling.

text: (10) ACER advocates that in the introduced definitions of explicit, implicit and continuous allocations, a distinction is made between implicit and explicit allocation as one allocation type, and continuous and auction-based allocation as another allocation type. This distinction is particularly pertinent for the filtering and sorting criteria described in the BRS that would require users to make a single choice between explicit, implicit, and continuous allocation types. ACER advocates that some clarification is added on the different options that exist in reality or that the filtering is based on the two separate allocation type categories, i.e. being able to filter separately for implicit or explicit allocation results, and continuous or auction -based allocation results.

text: 2.4. Comments on the updates concerning cross-zonal capacities data items

text: (11) The scope of the existing publications of data under

text: Article 11(1)

text: (b) of the Transparency Regulation has been enlarged in the DDD in order to include data items to better reflect the relevant flow-based parameters.

text: (12) ACER acknowledges the updates on publications in scope. ACER considers that the addition of data items and definitions contributes to the consistency and transparency of the publication of data.

text: (13) ACER suggest to fully align the flow-based parameters definitions with the underlying concepts and other documents on flow-based parameters. In this view, F_uaf should refer to ‘margin from non-coordinated capacity calculation’; minRAM_target should refer to ‘the minimum target for the margin from coordinated capacity calculation’; Ramr should refer to ‘the percentage of Fmax that needs to be available as minimum margin available for cross-zonal trade (MACZT)’

text: 2.5. Comments on opinion on balancing data items from ACER’s Opinion No 10/2021

text: (14) ACER re-iterates its positions expressed in its Opinion No 10/2021 regarding the terminology used in the definitions, as well as throughout the MoP documents. ACER considers it advisable that terminology follows as closely as possible the same terminology used in the EB Regulation, in the Implementation Frameworks of the European Platforms pursuant to

text: Articles 20

text: to 22 of the EB Regulation, and in approved methodologies from the EB Regulation. In particular, ACER acknowledges that, in version 3.4 of the MoP, the definitions of the terms ‘upward regulation’ and ‘downward regulation’ include a reference to the terms ‘positive balancing energy’ and ‘negative balancing energy’ respectively, however, ACER advocates that the former terms are replaced with the latter throughout the MoP documents.

text: (15) ACER advised that ENTSO-E provided a clear publication timeline for data items foreseen to be published at a later stage (e.g. information about TSOs requesting particular data items, inclusion of additional reasons whenever the adjustment to the balancing border capacity limit has been applied). ACER acknowledges the updates given by TSOs to market participants at the last Electricity Balancing Stakeholder Group and encourages them to keep interacting with market participants on the topic. This is important for regulatory authorities to oversee the implementation of all the data publication requirements envisaged in the EB Regulation and for market participants to be able to anticipate changes in the Transparency Platform.

text: (16) ACER recalls the comment expressed in its Opinion No 10/2021 on specific requirements to publish balancing border capacity limits in accordance with Articles 4(3) and 4(4) of ACER Decision No 13/2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the imbalance netting process (IN IF), Articles 4(3) and 4(4) of ACER Decision No 02/2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation (‘aFRR IF’), and Article 4(3) and 4(4) of ACER Decision No 03/2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform

text: for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation (‘mFRR IF’). ACER advises ENTSO-E to redraft the category text, so that it follows the requirements from the above-mentioned IFs, especially with respect to the timing of the publication of the specific data items. In addition, ACER advises ENTSO-E to update the category text to ensure that the requirement to publish balancing border capacity limits is per market time unit and not per imbalance settlement period. This becomes particularly relevant for aFRR service as the market time unit is smaller than the imbalance settlement period. Thus, data should be published after the end of relevant market time unit.

text: (17) ACER re-iterates its opinion on the structure of the DDD. In particular, ACER restates that the European platforms’ implementation frameworks (IF) extension document has not been referenced in the DDD and therefore risks hindering future consistency and coordination between all data items which are split between different documents. Thus, to increase consistency of data and remove ambiguity, ACER considers it appropriate to merge the IF extension document with the DDD into a single document where data is organised per category rather than per point in time when the updates of the MoP are realised.

text: 2.6. Comments related to other aspects of the Transparency Platform

text: (18) ACER reiterates the concerns, expressed in its Opinions No 04/2018 and No 10/2021 regarding the lack of clear procedures described in the DDD document to address data quality issues. Concerns on the quality and completeness of data of the Transparency Platform for ACER’s monitoring of Commission implementing regulations (network codes and guidelines) were highlighted by the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 03/2023: Internal electricity market integration . Quality issues include in particular when TSOs or other data providers deviate from the requirements prescribed in the applicable version of the MoP, as it can be often observed. While ENTSO-E is not explicitly obliged to ensure compliance of the data providers with the Transparency Regulation, it is best placed to facilitate data completeness, homogeneous data formats and data quality, and it should strive to do so as much as possible. ENTSO-E can further highlight data impacted by identified data quality or completeness issues. Furthermore, when users report issues with published data, ACER expects ENTSO-E to investigate the reported issues, reply to the user(s) with the outcome of the investigation and correct the published data if need be, within a reasonable amount of time. ACER invites ENTSO-E to report regularly about the rate of resolution of such reported issues on published data. As was indicated to ENTSO- E by a stakeholder during the public consultation on version 3.4 of the MoP, completeness and accuracy of data can also be verified against publications by TSOs on their own websites. ACER acknowledges as a positive step the foreseen establishment of a “Co-creation User Group”, as introduced at the ETUG meeting in

text: November 2023, and the plan to task it with identification and resolution of data quality issues.

text: (19) ACER also acknowledges and supports the efforts ENTSO-E and TSOs are undertaking with regards to addressing data quality issues reported by stakeholders and ACER.

text: (20) ACER welcomes the further classification of production types so that the use of production type “Other” in publications on installed generation capacity according to

text: Article 14(1)

text: Article 16(1)

text: Article 6(1)

text: (a) of the transparency regulation is minimised. ACER has observed that publications according to

text: Article 16(1)

text: (b) using the production type “Other” are heavily used by some data providers, which might hinder their transparency.

text: (21) ACER notes that not enough visibility is provided over all exception and clarification messages per particular areas which are often placed at the bottom of published data items, e.g. the clarification on the Day-ahead prices published for the German- Austrian bidding zone. Currently, these messages are visible only upon filtering the relevant data items and only at the bottom of the relevant pages of the Transparency Platform. In ACER’s view, a dedicated sub-page with a consolidated exhaustive list of the exceptions and clarifications would enhance transparency.

text: 3. CONCLUSION

text: (22) ACER finds that, subject to the implementation of the points included below, the updated Manual of Procedures reflects improvements in several aspects of the Transparency Platform and consequently better achieves the objectives of

text: Regulation (EU) No 543/2013

text: (23) ACER notes that certain of the points for improvement given in previous opinions have not been fully onboarded yet. ACER therefore believes that there is still room for improvement on the Manual of Procedures,

text: HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

text: 1. ACER has assessed ENTSO-E’s updated Manual of Procedures and welcomes that the submitted draft includes improvements, following exchanges between ACER and ENTSO-E.

text: 2. ACER finds that, subject to the implementation of the points included below, the updated Manual of Procedures reflects improvements in several aspects of the Transparency Platform and consequently better achieves the objectives of

text: Regulation (EU) No 543/2013

text: 3. With regard to the documents of the Manual of Procedures, ACER calls ENTSO-E to implement the following:

text: a. To remain vigilant as to aligning descriptions and definitions with the appropriate legal basis and other internal or external publications. The latter is important in order to ensure consistency between documents with similar goals. ACER particularly encourages ENTSO-E to merge the European platforms’ Implementation Framework extension document with the DDD into a single document and to use consistent flow-based definitions, as highlighted in paragraph (13).

text: b. To keep interacting with market participants on the topic of publication of data items regarding balancing.

text: c. To follow the requirements from the different Implementation Frameworks related to balancing, especially with respect to the timing of the publication of the specific data items. Moreover, ENTSO-E is called to ensure that the requirement to publish balancing border capacity limits is per market time unit and not per imbalance settlement period.

text: d. To further enhance in the Manual of Procedures the description of procedures to address data quality issues within the scope of ENTSO-E’s competences.

text: This Opinion is addressed to ENTSO-E.

text: Done at Ljubljana, on 8 April 2024.

text: - SIGNED -

text: Fоr the Agency The Director

text: C. ZINGLERSEN