Is it formally correct to conclude a contract in the wholesale energy market with the counterparty that has not registered in the European Registry of Energy Market Participants and, consequently, does not have the ACER Registration Code?

The scope for final customers reporting under the REMIT Regulation occurs much more extensive than anyone could so far expect.

Under the REMIT reporting scheme trades based on index may, theoretically, be reported in two alternative ways.

Read more...

Are EFET master agreements reportable under REMIT? ACER's recent interpretations create confusion in the market.

Establishing circumstances where the RRM designation by the wholesale energy market participant is required, and where it is not, is almost entirely governed by ACER's frequently changing interpretations. 

This is not a comfortable situation from legal certainty point of view. If these interpretations were a little bit clearer...

Brokers role in the REMIT reporting framework appears somewhat complex. Let alone entirely different structuring of executing brokers and the clearing ones (where the clearing brokers have been placed - fundamentally - outside the REMIT market participants' scope), the reporting of life-cycle events with respect to trades executed with the broker's participation requires a careful reflection.

Another problematic case emerges when the firm has two different types of business - is an executing broker (exchange member) and is also an organised market place (it runs a broker platform). Recent updates to the ACER's reporting manuals offer some help while resolving these issues.

Read more...

Are you completely certain on what occasions your energy supply and derivatives contracts must be reported to ACER and not to the trade repository?

Surprised? It may mean you are at risk of non-compliance...

As the latest version of the ACER's reporting guidelines acknowledges, the client participation in the trading venue not involving a membership does not entail a reporting requirement for the client under REMIT.

Do you identify differences between "forward contract" and "forward style contract"? No? You should start doing this. Since "forward style contract" can equally be a spot and your REMIT transaction reports may occur flawed.

There are first regulatory interventions sanctioning improper disclosure of REMIT inside information, in particular, regarding the power plant unplanned unavailability. 

It shouldn't be a surprise since the necessary content of such disclosure is sometimes missing.

The key dates approaching are 7 April 2016 and 7 July 2016.

Is there still a room for Central Dispatch Model is the EU Internal Electricity System? 

In the recent Recommendation No 03/2015 of 20 July 2015 on the Network Code on Electricity Balancing, the European overseer of electricity markets - the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) - departs from its earlier stance expressed in the Framework Guidelines on Balancing (which acknowledged the parallel existence of central dispatch and self-dispatch arrangements of European electricity markets when drafting the Network Code on Electricity Balancing) and nominates the Self-Dispatching Model to be "the primary dispatching model to be applied by TSOs for determining generation and consumption schedules".

Consequently, Central Dispatch has been allowed for Transmission System Operators only as an exemption, provided the relevant authorities' approval has been granted.

Read more...

In determining whether the electricity production facility is able to make use of the de-minimis exemption from the REMIT reporting requirement the three elements are relevant:

(1) spatial proximity (whether installations are spatially separated)

(2) ownership structure, and

(3) marketing for several smaller installations in one common contract/multiple contracts.

The latest version of a ACER's Questions and Answers on REMIT brings once more some important novelties of crucial practical importance.

However, one may still feel confused what is the clear requirement with respect to Registered Reporting Mechanism (RRM) designation when first registering with CEREMP.

ACER recommends, REMIT publication schema should include, among others, the field "impact on carbon permit prices" as well as "decision time" in order to allow users to evaluate the timeliness of the disclosure.

If a person enters into a transaction on a derivative contract related to EU gas and electricity (such as a futures contract only for financial settlement that is traded on exchange located outside the EU), that person is not a REMIT market participant. 

However, according to the European energy market regulator, if that person also enters into transactions, including the placing of orders to trade, in one or more wholesale energy markets, e.g. enters on a physical trade (or derivative) for the delivery of gas or electricity (or transportation of gas or electricity) within the EU, that person is a market participant and has to report all the transactions on wholesale energy products including those trades outside the EU that are only for financial settlement.

This interpretation imposes REMIT reporting requirements on the - quite extensive - category of extra-EU financial derivatives trades and counterparties.

Read more... 

So, given that the final TRUM is already adopted and published, the key point for any engaged in energy trading is now to establish whether:

(1) the trading platform at issue qualifies as an "organised market place", and

(2) the contract at issue is a "standard contract" or a "non-standard" one.

While the former determination looks like not so difficult (but, sometimes, surprising), the latter appears quite a complex task.

Finally, the identification of "non-standard contracts specifying at least an outright volume and price" (for which specific reporting rules apply) is really a puzzle!

Two power plants of identical overall capacity of 120 MW each have divergent transparency obligations, depending on the capacity of their electricity generators.

For market participants with physical assets, "person responsible for operational decisions" should be "the person who is responsible for decisions relating to the running of these assets". And for market participants who don't possess such assets?