RWE and EnBW (differing in the stance on the sufficiency of the aggregated data instead of unit-by-unit publication) are, however, of the same views as regards the necessity of the uniform approach towards the generation and consumption units.

RWE substantiates the need for establishing the principle that generation and consumption are treated the same. It argues that the market has the same interest in knowing the availability of a 100 MW generation unit and a 100 MW consumption unit, because any unexpected outage will have a similar degree of influence on the market. A unit-by-unit publication of energy consumption facility is valuable to the market as it allows market participants to analyse not only the consequences of a facility outage, but also to forecast the consumption for certain industries.


This approach is supported by EnBW which does not perceive any reason why there should be a different treatment of consumption data vis-à-vis generation data. EnBW underlines that it is the combination of supply and demand that is key determinant for the price formation.


RWE emphasises, moreover, that the future guidelines must ensure that large energy consumers will fully comply with the transparency requirements. In particular, the guidelines must make sure that energy consumers do not allocate consumption to a number of smaller units below the threshold in order to evade their transparency obligations.


The French utility EdF, in turn, the main focus of its contribution places on concerns on whether legitimate hedging and optimization activities that support the development of efficient, liquid and effective wholesale markets, are not undermined by the new requirements. EdF stresses, in particular, the current challenge is to carefully design a regulatory framework which, while promoting a high level of transparency requirements, still protects utilities from undue constraints preventing legitimate hedging and optimization activities of their assets in close interaction with their trading entities.