Additional market monitoring at European level

Figure 1 The margin available for cross-zonal trade

Figure 1 The margin available for cross-zonal trade Source: The Authors

To ensure consistency and assist regulatory authorities in sharing good practices, the Agency deemed it necessary to provide guidance to TSOs and regulatory authorities on how to monitor the achievement of the CEP70 requirement. On 8 August 2019, ACER issued its Recommendation 01/2019 on the implementation of the minimum margin available for cross zonal trade (hereafter “ACER Recommendation”). 

The Agency also started to provide an overview of the implementation of the minimum requirement in all Member States as part of their annual electricity wholesale market monitoring pursuant to Art. 15 of Regulation 2019/942. Against the background of this market monitoring, the Agency requests an annual reporting of relevant data from the TSOs. For its report, the Agency follows an approach laid down in the ACER Recommendation and asks TSOs to tailor their provided data accordingly. In case ACER regards the provided data incompliant or incomplete to their approach, public data is used to fill these perceived gaps. This may lead to different data bases being used for national assessments than for ACER’s report.

In its latest report published on 3 July 2024 the Agency concluded that “[...] in 2023, the TSOs furthest away from offering a minimum of 70% MACZT on all CNECs were the Austrian and Romanian TSOs, followed by the Dutch and German TSOs.[…]” [1]. In its reports and communications, ACER focuses heavily on assessing whether the 70% target has been reached today. As explained above and as it is shown in the annual reports of the German TSOs on available cross-zonal capacity, this assessment is less relevant for the moment. More relevant is the assessment of annual targets in accordance with the national action plan or derogation. Thus, ACER’s assessment may be misleading and diverting the attention from the considerable progress made so far. In addition, a detailed analysis of the differences between the national and the ACER methodology for the annual assessment is essential.

2 / 4

Ähnliche Beiträge