|RRM designation when first registering under REMIT - complicated case|
|Friday, 10 July 2015 07:39|
The latest version of a ACER's Questions and Answers on REMIT brings once more some important novelties of crucial practical importance.
On the face it may appear, it is necessary for the market participant covered by REMIT to identify RRM in Section 5 of the registration form, but after even cursory overview of the latest editions of the ACER Q&As documents, it seems, it is possible to avoid RRM designation effectively.
To begin with, separate reporting phases under REMIT need to be differentiated: the first - with deadline on 7 October 2015, and the second - ending on 7 April 2016.
The aforementioned ACER's Q&As stipulate that for the first phase of reporting, the market participant is required to identify RRM(s) in Section 5 of the market participant registration form only if the data is reported through an organised market place (OMP), trade matching or trade reporting systems that is different from the OMP where the transactions were executed.
Hence, the indication of the RRM in Section 5 of the registration form will not be required if the data is reported by the OMP on which the transactions were executed.
Presumably, circumstances where the data is reported through an organised market place (OMP), trade matching or trade reporting systems that is different from the OMP where the transactions were executed, will not in practice be a principle, hence, the bulk of REMIT market participants will not rather be forced to nominate RRM before 7 October 2015.
There may be also cases where market participant will see a benefit in routing all of its data to a single RRM, considering, in particular, the need for efficient management of transaction reporting issues.
Such services start to appear on the market (see for example REGIS-TR and EEX Group establish connectivity for REMIT reporting).
For the second phase of reporting (deadline - 7 April 2016), additionally, the market participant is required to identify RRMs that will report second phase data on its behalf.
However, according to the said ACER's Q&As, such identification of the RRM will not be required for the reporting of data in case the reporting delegation applies only to a particular transaction and the counterparty to the transaction reports on behalf of the market participant.
Thus, under the said circumstances, also after 7 April 2016 if the counterparty delegates reporting on a case-by-case basis with respect to particular transactions only, the RRM nomination's requirement will not apply.
The above nuances - as interpreted by the European energy regulator - are hardly to find in the REMIT Regulation itself, as well as the secondary legislation. It follows, ACER's Q&As are mandatory reading for every entity engaged in energy trading in the EU.