Joint E oint Eur uropean opean Stak Stakeholder Gr eholder Group oup Thursday 18 June 2015: Meeting 4
1. Introductions and Apologies Barbara Vest JESG Independent Chair
2. Review view of of Action Action Log Log Sara-Lee Kenney JESG Technical Secretary
JESG Standing Actions ID Topic Lead Party Source Continue to review the membership of the JESG and engage S1 JESG Chair JESG S3 additional industry parties where appropriate. Prepare a commentary / comparison document between the Network Code and the existing GB arrangements at S2 NGET/Ofgem/DECC JESG S1 appropriate stages in the Code development for each Network Code. Share any intelligence about how other member states are DECC / Ofgem / approaching demonstrating compliance through information Industry parties with S3 ECCAF 3/2 gained from other government departments, regulators or European parent parent companies companies Stakeholders are requested to provide specific examples of inconsistent or problematic definitions in the Network Codes to S4 All Stakeholders JESG S6 Ofgem (natasha.z.smith@ofgem.gov.uk) and DECC (elena.mylona@decc.gsi.gov.uk).
JESG Open Actions ID Topic Lead Party Update 4 DECC to update JESG on how GB TSO voting will work DECC To be covered under CACM and what information will be published with under Agenda regards to voting. Item 4 11 Open letter to stakeholders on the HVDC and DCC DECC/Ofgem/ Update to be implementation approach, also through JESG Weekly JESG Chair provided at Update. June JESG
3. Sum Summar mary y Sta Status of tus of Eur European opean Netw Networ ork k Codes Codes Plus DECC/Ofgem Updates on; • 4-5 June Florence Forum • Cross-Border Committee - Latest development and next steps • Status of ACER’s Recommendation – Balancing Network Code
Joint Eur oint European S opean Stak takeholder Gr eholder Group oup European Electricity Codes Development Status: 18 June 2015 EC 18 months – 3+ years 6 programm See note † months e 12 months 3 months depending on Code Publication in OJEU ACER develops Implemented ACER recommends ENTSO-E to develop NC EC invites ENTSO-E ACER Network Code to EC FWGL develops reviews Member State Comitology Network Network Implementation Revisions to ACER Code Code Code after revises Opinion opinion Reg 543/2013 Transparency Balancing E&R Potential Future ENCs: indicated as future ENCs, no timescales advised to date Connection Procedures Staff Training and Certification Preparation for Cross-Border Cross-Border-Committee Council & Parliament Committee Discussion and Voting Approval Tariffs † Timescales for the stages of Comitology are not specified and under the Commission’s control †† Current indications from the Commission is that OS, OPS and LFCR will be merged in to one single guideline All queries to: europeancodes.electricity@nationalgrid.com
4. GB TS GB TSO V O Voting under the oting under the CA CACM CM Guideli Guideline Upda ne Update te (JE (JESG Action SG Action 4) 4) DECC
Allocating the UK vote among TSOs Jon Robinson, DECC, June 2015 • Ofgem has finished consulting on its minded to decision around the allocation of responsibilities under CACM to GB TSOs, the UR and CER consultation for the SEM is about to end. • Member States have to allocate the single UK vote among the TSOs responsible for each decision. • CACM sets out requirements for consultation and regulatory approval - this processes is about formal decision-making by responsible parties. • DECC and DETINI are considering options and will bring forward proposals for consultation. • Those proposals are likely to set out a methodology to determine the use of the single UK vote which can be applied by those TSOs required to be involved in decisions. • This discussion is intended to be an opportunity for JESG members to express views on the issues to be considered in developing that methodology for DECC and DETINI to take on board when developing proposals.
Discussion points • Representative - different sets of TSOs have responsibility for different decisions under CACM. To what extent is an equal share of the vote for each responsible TSO an important factor? • Proportionate – the TSOs involved in decisions may be of very different sizes or with different responsibilities. To what extent is it important to recognise these differences through the shares of the vote? • Clear outcomes – some methods would always produce a clear answer, others might, under some circumstances, not. To what extent would a decisive answer be important? • Resolution mechanism - if a decisive answer was not reached in a particular circumstance, what could be appropriate mechanisms to resolve • Transparency - at the last JESG discussion transparent voting – with the individual votes recorded and published – was requested. What would be the right forum for presenting this information? • Other considerations – what more should we be taking into account?
5. Implementing CACM: Update from JESG mapping workshop & call for stakeholder comments Ofgem
Implementing CACM – update following JESG mapping workshop and call for stakeholder comments Ofgem 18/06/15
Implementing ENCs in GB Implementing ENCs will require changes to the GB framework Changes will need to go through existing processes. The suite of change will need to be coordinated. As set out in our open letter 18 December 2014, multiple parties have a role to play in this Responsibilities DECC will make legislative changes where there is no alternative Ofgem will change licences and require changes to access rules and charging methodologies Industry code changes will be coordinated by relevant industry parties and the timely delivery overseen by code panels Stakeholders should use the opportunities provided to engage in the process 13
Mapping CACM to the GB framework Scope: • These slides capture our initial thinking of the initial GB framework changes to implement CACM. • Once CACM becomes law we expect all responsible parties to identify which changes are required and take them forward using existing processes to ensure full and timely compliance with CACM. Approach: • Changes may be necessary for one, two or all of the below reasons: 1) A CACM article that is not sufficiently clear / precise requires clarification / interpretation 2) A CACM article or methodology requires the removal of an inconsistency in the GB framework 3) A change in the GB framework is necessary to enable the requirements of the Regulation to be met / provide Ofgem with enforcement powers 14
JESG mapping workshop 19 February 2014 • We tested our analysis with stakeholders 19 February. • The results of the workshop were circulated to the JESG mailing list 20 March 2015 for further consideration and comment. • We received 1 informal response. 15
The CACM timeline S ummary: • Implementing CACM is an iterative processes consisting of 3 waves that will each happen at different points in time. • Changes are likely to be associated with each wave. • The analysis will need to be reviewed at each stage. 2 ) Develop and approve 3) Consequential changes 1) Allocate responsibilities methodologies Changes relating to Review the need for Engage in the development, definitions, roles, changes linked to approved consultation, approval of responsibilities and terms, conditions and terms, conditions and monitoring methodologies methodologies Initial Tasks Watching Brief No immediate action 16
Initial analysis (1) Wave 1 (3-12 months from entry into force) Wave 1 • Determining roles and responsibilities, definitions and (Initial Tasks) monitoring: o Ofgem – assign TSO responsibilities, designate NEMOs o DECC – implement regulatory framework for NEMOs through legislative change, allocate TSO and NEMO voting 1) Allocate responsibilities rights Changes relating to o All stakeholders including Ofgem, DECC and Industry Code definitions, roles, Panels etc.) – review definitions to ensure there are no responsibilities and inconsistencies between the GB framework and CACM monitoring o ACER and ENTSO-E develop a monitoring plan – we encourage all stakeholders to input into the type and format of the data required from market participants. 17
Initial analysis (2) Wave 2 Wave 2 (9 – 30 months from entry into force) (Watching Brief) • Wave 2 relates to the development, consultation and approval of terms, conditions and methodologies by TSOs and NEMOs respectively. • We expect parties developing methodologies, terms and 2) Develop and approve conditions to keep industry informed of progress and methodologies timings via JESG and populating our shared common plan. Engage in the development, consultation, approval of terms, conditions and methodologies 18
Initial analysis summary (3) Wave 3 Wave 3 (No Immediate • Wave 3 are consequential changes relating to approved Action) terms conditions and methodologies. • No immediate action is required on these articles. • Relevant code panels and industry will need to assess 3) Consequential changes whether a change to the GB framework is necessary during development. Review the need for changes linked to approved terms, • We expect parties to use JESG to share, coordinate and conditions and discuss proposals. methodologies 19
Recommend
More recommend
