Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transmission Marketplaces

  • Chapter
EU Electricity Trade Law

Abstract

Transmission capacity is allocated in the transmission marketplace. The allocation methods can be market-based (explicit or implicit auctions) or not market-based (bilateral contracting). One can also distinguish between primary and secondary capacity markets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For definitions, see points 3 and 5 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  2. 2.

    EFET (2007).

  3. 3.

    Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  4. 4.

    Recital 11 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  5. 5.

    Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive)

  6. 6.

    Article 9(5) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  7. 7.

    Article 9(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  8. 8.

    Articles 9(1)(b) and 9(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  9. 9.

    US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2010), statement of Vincent P. Duane.

  10. 10.

    Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  11. 11.

    Article 13(4) of 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  12. 12.

    Vogelsang I (2006).

  13. 13.

    The FERC has described the phenomenon of parallel path flow as follows: “In general, utilities transact with one another based on a contract path concept. For pricing purposes, parties assume that power flows are confined to a specified sequence of interconnected utilities that are located on a designated contract path. However, in reality power flows are rarely confined to a designated contract path. Rather, power flows over multiple parallel paths that may be owned by several utilities that are not on the contract path. The actual power flow is controlled by the laws of physics which cause power being transmitted from one utility to another to travel along multiple parallel paths and divide itself along the lines of least resistance. This parallel path flow is sometimes called ‘loop flow.’” Indiana Michigan Power Co. and Ohio Power Co., 64 FERC ¶ 61,184, at 62,545 (1993).

  14. 14.

    Purchala K et al. (2005).

  15. 15.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 115.

  16. 16.

    Article 16(2) of Regulation 714/2009 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  17. 17.

    This is reflected in Article 14(2) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  18. 18.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), Executive Summary.

  19. 19.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011).

  20. 20.

    Point (d) of Article 12 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  21. 21.

    Regulation 543/2013 (on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation 714/2009).

  22. 22.

    Point 4 of Article 4 of Regulation 1227/2011 (REMIT). See also Commission Implementing Regulation 1348/2014 for the details of the data reporting obligation.

  23. 23.

    Recital 5 of Regulation 1227/2011 (REMIT).

  24. 24.

    ACER, Guidance on the application of Regulation (EU) No 1227/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency, 3rd edn (29 October 2013), pp. 15–16.

  25. 25.

    See, for example, Talus K and Wälde T (2006), point 3.

  26. 26.

    Commission, Role of interconnectors in the electricity market. A competition perspective. Press release, MEMO/01/76, 12 March 2001.

  27. 27.

    DG Competition Report on Energy Sector Inquiry, SEC(2006) 1724 (10 January 2007), paras 548–550.

  28. 28.

    Point (f) of Article 12 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive). For connection points, see Article 23. For the duties of regulatory authorities, see point (d) of Article 36.

  29. 29.

    Article 12(2) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  30. 30.

    DG Competition Report on Energy Sector Inquiry, SEC(2006) 1724 (10 January 2007), para 550. For the trend, see, for example, de Hauteclocque A and Talus K (2011).

  31. 31.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 4.1.

  32. 32.

    Commission, Press Release IP/01/30, Increased scope for electricity imports competition in Northern Europe—a step forward towards an internal market for electricity, 11 January 2001. See Cameron PD (2007), p. 341 paras 13.53–54.

  33. 33.

    C-17/03 VEMW and others [2005] ECR I-4983, para 49.

  34. 34.

    C-17/03 VEMW and others [2005] ECR I-4983, para 48.

  35. 35.

    C-17/03 VEMW and others [2005] ECR I-4983, para 71.

  36. 36.

    The most important components are; Total Transfer Capacity (TTC, the maximal possible power transfer between two adjacent areas); Transmission Reliability Margin (TRM, cross-border capacity withdrawn from the market for security reasons); Net Transfer Capacity (NTC, NTC = TTC – TRM); Already Allocated Capacity (AAC); and Available Transmission Capacity (ATC, cross-border capacity available for commercial trade, ATC = NTC – AAC).

  37. 37.

    DG Competition Report on Energy Sector Inquiry, SEC(2006) 1724 (10 January 2007), para 545, Table 27.

  38. 38.

    EPEX Spot Exchange Rules (28 November 2014), Title 4, Chapter 3.

  39. 39.

    EPEX Spot Exchange Rules (28 November 2014), Title 4, Chapter 3.

  40. 40.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 1.04.

  41. 41.

    Creti A et al. (2010) citing DG competition report on energy sector inquiry (2007), p. 186.

  42. 42.

    See Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  43. 43.

    Spicker J (2010), p. 50, number 33.

  44. 44.

    Purchala K et al. (2005).

  45. 45.

    Purchala K et al. (2005): “An alternative market organization is a centralized pool model”.

  46. 46.

    See Purchala K et al. (2005).

  47. 47.

    See OECD/IEA (2005), p. 77.

  48. 48.

    Purchala K et al. (2005).

  49. 49.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 178.

  50. 50.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  51. 51.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  52. 52.

    Article 13(1) of Regulation 715/2009 on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks.

  53. 53.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Article 13(5) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  56. 56.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  57. 57.

    See Harvey SM et al. (1996), p. 46.

  58. 58.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008). See also CAISO (2006) (submission of CAISO’s Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade Tariff or “MRTU Tariff”); ERCOT (2008); Hogan WW (1999).

  59. 59.

    FERC, Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888 (10 May 1996).

  60. 60.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Final Rule. Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 1.48: “Transmission Service: Point-To-Point Transmission Service provided under Part II of the Tariff on a firm and non-firm basis”.

  61. 61.

    El Paso Electric Company v. Southwestern Public Service Company, 68 FERC _ 61,182 at 61,926 n.9 (1994) (citing Entergy Services, Inc., 58 FERC _ 61,234 at 61,768 (1993), reh’g dismissed, 68 FERC_ 61,399 (1994)). Cited in FERC, Order No. 888, Final Rule, footnote 65.

  62. 62.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 1.35 (Point-To-Point Transmission Service); Section 1.13 (Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.18 (Long-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.42 (Short-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.27 (Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service).

  63. 63.

    FERC, Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890 (16 February 2007).

  64. 64.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 13.1.

  65. 65.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 13.2; FERC, Order No. 890, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 13.2.

  66. 66.

    FERC, Order No. 890, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 2.2.

  67. 67.

    See FERC, Order No. 888, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 2.2.

  68. 68.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 83.

  69. 69.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 84.

  70. 70.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 445.

  71. 71.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 455.

  72. 72.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 461.

  73. 73.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 480.

  74. 74.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 489.

  75. 75.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 496.

  76. 76.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 504.

  77. 77.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 529.

  78. 78.

    FERC, Order No. 890, para 552.

  79. 79.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  80. 80.

    Twomey P et al. (2006), p. 19.

  81. 81.

    Monopolkommission (2013), number 514.

  82. 82.

    EFET (2007).

  83. 83.

    FERC (2012), p. 66.

  84. 84.

    Supponen M (2011), pp. 60–61.

  85. 85.

    Supponen M (2011), pp. 60–61.

  86. 86.

    See, for example, Article 2(1) of ENTSO-E Network Code on Forward Capacity Allocation (2 April 2014).

  87. 87.

    For the allocation of FTRs, see Frontier Economics Pty Ltd (2009), section 2.4.1.

  88. 88.

    Frontier Economics Pty Ltd (2009), section 4.1.3.

  89. 89.

    Purchala K et al. (2005).

  90. 90.

    NordREG (2007); FERC (2012), p. 66.

  91. 91.

    Green R (2003), p. 140.

  92. 92.

    See, for example, Supponen M (2011), p. 61.

  93. 93.

    Article 16(2) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  94. 94.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 6.4. For the day-ahead market, see section 3.3.

  95. 95.

    Ibid, section 6.2. See also point 45 of Article 2 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  96. 96.

    Articles 59(1), 58(1) and 59(2) of ENTSO-E Network Code on Forward Capacity Allocation (2 April 2014).

  97. 97.

    Article 62 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  98. 98.

    Article 71 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  99. 99.

    Article 63 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014); Article 72 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  100. 100.

    Articles 61 and 68 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  101. 101.

    Article 60 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  102. 102.

    Article 72 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  103. 103.

    First subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Regulation 714/2009.

  104. 104.

    Point 26 of Article 2 of Regulation 543/2013 (on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation 714/2009).

  105. 105.

    See Purchala K et al. (2005).

  106. 106.

    For a definition, see for example, point 13 of Article 2 of Regulation 543/2013 (on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation 714/2009).

  107. 107.

    Purchala K et al. (2005).

  108. 108.

    Green R (2003), pp. 148–149.

  109. 109.

    Energy Market Authority, Finland (2013), p. 32. See also NordREG (2007), Executive summary.

  110. 110.

    Svenska Kraftnät (2007), p. 6; Green R (2003), p. 149. See also Purchala K et al. (2005): “Counter-trading is also used in Nord Pool. However, its Nordic version is actually a coordinated re-dispatching used to handle intra-zonal constraints and therefore is very much different from the method perceived in continental Europe”.

  111. 111.

    Energy Market Authority, Finland (2013), p. 10.

  112. 112.

    Statens energimyndighet (2006), p. S-12.

  113. 113.

    Monopolkommission (2013), number 356.

  114. 114.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 6.3.

  115. 115.

    EFET (2007).

  116. 116.

    EFET (2007), Executive summary.

  117. 117.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 1.1.

  118. 118.

    Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  119. 119.

    Article 57 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014). See also CACM Framework Guidelines, section 4.

  120. 120.

    Article 56(3) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  121. 121.

    Recital 11 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  122. 122.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 2.2.

  123. 123.

    Article 32 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  124. 124.

    Article 33 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  125. 125.

    ETSO, Procedures for cross-border transmission capacity assessments (October 2001).

  126. 126.

    The most important components are; Total Transfer Capacity (TTC, the maximal possible power transfer between two adjacent areas); Transmission Reliability Margin (TRM, cross-border capacity withdrawn from the market for security reasons); Net Transfer Capacity (NTC, NTC = TTC – TRM); Already Allocated Capacity (AAC); and Available Transmission Capacity (ATC, cross-border capacity available for commercial trade, ATC = NTC – AAC).

  127. 127.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 2.1.2.

  128. 128.

    Ibid, section 2.1.1.

  129. 129.

    ERGEG, Draft Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity: Initial Impact Assessment. Ref: E10-ENM-20-04 (8 September 2010), pp. 20–31.

  130. 130.

    Recital 6 and Articles 14–15 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  131. 131.

    Point 8 of Article 2 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation): “‘coordinated net transmission capacity approach’ means the capacity calculation method based on the principle of assessing and defining ex ante a maximum energy exchange between adjacent bidding zones”. Point 9: “‘flow-based approach’ means a capacity calculation method in which energy exchanges between bidding zones are limited with power transfer distribution factors and available margins on critical network elements”.

  132. 132.

    Recital 4 and Article 20(1) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  133. 133.

    Recital 7 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  134. 134.

    Recital 7 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  135. 135.

    Article 15(3) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  136. 136.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 2.2; point 3 of Article 2 of Regulation 543/2013 (on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation 714/2009).

  137. 137.

    Article 15 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  138. 138.

    Article 12(a) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  139. 139.

    Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  140. 140.

    Article 15(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  141. 141.

    Article 32(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  142. 142.

    See Lanz M et al. (2011), section 4.3.2.1, p. 107.

  143. 143.

    §§ 9(1) and 9(3) EEG 2012; § 8 EEG 2014.

  144. 144.

    § 11(1) EnWG.

  145. 145.

    §§ 9 and 12 EEG 2012; § 13 EEG 2014; § 13 EnWG. See also § 32(1) EnWG and Lanz M et al. (2011), section 4.3.2.1, pp. 109–110.

  146. 146.

    Article 34 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  147. 147.

    Point 15 of Article 2 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  148. 148.

    Article 16(2) of Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive).

  149. 149.

    Recital 13 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation); recital 25 of ENTSO-E Network Code on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management (27 September 2012). Compare Article 1(1) of ENTSO-E Network Code on Forward Capacity Allocation (2 April 2014) that uses explicit auctions as the default rule.

  150. 150.

    Article 12(2) of Regulation 714/2009.

  151. 151.

    Point 2.1 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  152. 152.

    Point 2.8 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  153. 153.

    Point 30 of Article 2 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  154. 154.

    Recital 5 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  155. 155.

    Recital 13 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  156. 156.

    Article 64 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  157. 157.

    Article 15 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  158. 158.

    For cross-border flows, see Article 16 of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  159. 159.

    Point 3.1 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009; ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), sections 5, 6.3 and 6.4; Articles 76–80 of ENTSO-E NC CACM (27 September 2012); recitals 10, 12 and 17 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation); Article 35 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  160. 160.

    Article 35 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  161. 161.

    Recital 5 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  162. 162.

    Recitals 16 and 17 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  163. 163.

    Article 36(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  164. 164.

    Article 1(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  165. 165.

    ERGEG, Draft Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity: Initial Impact Assessment. Ref: E10-ENM-20-04 (8 September 2010), p. 53: “The establishment of this product might … be less complicated for most of the Member States than the introduction of a new product, even though it does not deliver the highest optimum and welfare”.

  166. 166.

    Article 2(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  167. 167.

    ERGEG, Draft Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity: Initial Impact Assessment. Ref: E10-ENM-20-04 (8 September 2010), p. 55.

  168. 168.

    Article 2(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014): “… Auction means the process run by Allocation Platform(s) by which long term Cross Zonal Capacity is offered and allocated to Market Participants who submit bid(s) …” “… Allocation Platform means the Single Allocation Platform or Regional Platform(s) for the attribution of Long Term Cross Zonal Capacity …”

  169. 169.

    Recitals 13 and 14 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  170. 170.

    Article 15(4) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014). See also recital 7 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014) and ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 2.1.1.

  171. 171.

    Article 29 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  172. 172.

    See recital 5 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014): “… at least at the yearly and monthly timeframes …”

  173. 173.

    Recital 61 of Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive): “… In order to accelerate grid connection procedures, Member States may provide for priority connection or reserved connection capacities for new installations producing electricity from renewable energy sources”.

  174. 174.

    Regulation 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure.

  175. 175.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 1.1.

  176. 176.

    DG Competition Report on Energy Sector Inquiry, SEC(2006) 1724 (10 January 2007), para 547.

  177. 177.

    Article 6(1) of Regulation 1228/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity. See also Annex to Regulation 1228/2003, General, point 1.

  178. 178.

    Commission Decision of 9 November 2006 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (2006/770/EC).

  179. 179.

    Paragraph 2.1 of Commission Decision 2006/770/EC.

  180. 180.

    Paragraph 2.3 of Commission Decision 2006/770/EC.

  181. 181.

    Articles 12(2) and 16(1) of Regulation 714/2009. Point 2.1 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  182. 182.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008). For a definition of PTRs, see, for example, Article 2(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  183. 183.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  184. 184.

    See Article 12(1)(h) of Commission Regulation 543/2013.

  185. 185.

    Article 1(4) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  186. 186.

    Article 1(5) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  187. 187.

    Article 80 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  188. 188.

    Energy Market Authority, Finland (2013), pp. 28–29.

  189. 189.

    Energy Market Authority, Finland (2013), p. 33; Energy Market Authority, Finland (2014), p. 23.

  190. 190.

    Nord Pool Spot, Exchange information, No. 22/2014, 14 May 2014.

  191. 191.

    Energy Market Authority, Finland (2013), pp. 28–29; Energy Market Authority, Finland (2014), p. 23.

  192. 192.

    Energy Market Authority, Finland (2014), pp. 23–24.

  193. 193.

    EFET (2007), Executive summary.

  194. 194.

    Article 38(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  195. 195.

    Article 1 of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  196. 196.

    Articles 12(2) and 16(1) of Regulation 714/2009. Point 2.1 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009. See also DG Competition Report on Energy Sector Inquiry, SEC(2006) 1724 (10 January 2007), para 547.

  197. 197.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 4.1. Recital 13 and Article 2(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  198. 198.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 3.1.

  199. 199.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 5.

  200. 200.

    EFET (2007), Executive summary.

  201. 201.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 2.1.1: “The FB method … is … to be preferred to the ATC method for short term capacity calculation in cases where transmission networks are highly meshed and interdependencies between the interconnections are high (e.g. the ENTSO-E Continental Europe regional group, or the ACER Central West Europe (CWE) and Central East Europe (CEE) regional initiative groups) … Provided that it is done in a coordinated way, ATC is considered as an acceptable method for short term capacity calculation in less meshed networks, such as the Nordic power system or possibly the cases of interconnections of or between the large peninsulas or islands in Europe …”

  202. 202.

    Article 15(4) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014). See also recital 7 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014); ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 2.1.1.

  203. 203.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 4.2.

  204. 204.

    Ibid, section 5.

  205. 205.

    Ibid, section 5.

  206. 206.

    EFET (2007), Executive summary.

  207. 207.

    Point 2.5 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  208. 208.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 6.4.

  209. 209.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 3.3.

  210. 210.

    Ibid, section 5.

  211. 211.

    Article 47(5) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  212. 212.

    Articles 69–70 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  213. 213.

    Article 71 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  214. 214.

    Point 44 of Article 2 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  215. 215.

    Recital 23 and Article 76 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  216. 216.

    Article 72 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  217. 217.

    EFET (2007), Executive summary.

  218. 218.

    Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  219. 219.

    Point (f) of Article 12 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  220. 220.

    Article 15(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  221. 221.

    Recital 36 and Article 12 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive). See also Articles 25, 32(1), 37(1), 37(6)(a), 37(8), and 37(10) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  222. 222.

    Point 2.7 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  223. 223.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 5.

  224. 224.

    Ibid, section 6.4.

  225. 225.

    EFET (2007), Executive summary.

  226. 226.

    Article 16(3) of Regulation 715/2009. See also Point 2.2 of Annex I to Regulation 715/2009.

  227. 227.

    Point 2.12 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  228. 228.

    Point 2.5 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  229. 229.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), sections 4.1 and 4.2.

  230. 230.

    Ibid.

  231. 231.

    Article 1(1) of Article 2 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  232. 232.

    Article 2 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  233. 233.

    Article 53 of Article 2 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  234. 234.

    Article 49(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  235. 235.

    Article 42(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  236. 236.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 1.01.

  237. 237.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 1.04.

  238. 238.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 2.03.

  239. 239.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 1.01.

  240. 240.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 1.04.

  241. 241.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 9.01.

  242. 242.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 9.01(b). The costs are fully covered by congestion revenues in accordance with Article 16(6) of Regulation 714/2009 or the Swiss Federal Electricity Supply Act, as the case may be.

  243. 243.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 8.01. For a definition of UIOSI, see, for example, Article 2(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  244. 244.

    CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 8.02.

  245. 245.

    Article 56(1) of Article 2 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  246. 246.

    For a definition for the purposes of REMIT, see point 8 of second subparagraph of Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation 1348/2014: “‘nomination’ means, – for electricity: the notification of the use of cross zonal capacity by a physical transmission rights holder and its counterparty to the respective transmission system operator(s)(TSOs) …”

  247. 247.

    Article 56(2) of Article 2 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014). See also Article 56(3): “The harmonised Allocation Rules shall contain regional specificities, where appropriate”.

  248. 248.

    See ENTSO-E (2013b).

  249. 249.

    ENTSO-E (2013b).

  250. 250.

    Point n of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II).

  251. 251.

    Generally, see ENTSO-E Overview of transmission tariffs in Europe: Synthesis 2013 (June 2013). See also Ruester S et al. (2012).

  252. 252.

    Spicker J (2010), p. 49, number 31.

  253. 253.

    Monopolkommission (2013), number 347. For Germany, see also Spicker J (2010), p. 52, numbers 34–35.

  254. 254.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 20.

  255. 255.

    Green R (2003), p. 137.

  256. 256.

    This is reflected in Article 14(2) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  257. 257.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 180.

  258. 258.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 28; Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 176.

  259. 259.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 194.

  260. 260.

    Brown MH and Sedano RP (2004), p. 23.

  261. 261.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), pp. 29–30. See also Monopolkommission (2013), numbers 345–348.

  262. 262.

    Krause T (2003), p. 10; Cannella MA et al. (1996).

  263. 263.

    Green R (1997), p. 178; Niederprüm M and Pickhardt M (2002). Compare US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2008), testimony by Gary Hanson, Chairman South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

  264. 264.

    Ruester S et al. (2012).

  265. 265.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 190.

  266. 266.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), pp. 190–191.

  267. 267.

    Laffont JJ and Tirole J (1986).

  268. 268.

    Rogerson WP (2003).

  269. 269.

    See Kopsakangas-Savolainen M and Svento R (2010, 2014).

  270. 270.

    See, for example, Hsu M (1997), p. 257: “The overall costs for a transmission network can be separated into the following four major components: 1. Returns and depreciation of the capital equipment; 2. operation and maintenance to ensure that the network is robust; 3. losses incurred in transmitting power; and 4. opportunity costs of system constraints”.

  271. 271.

    Curien N (2003), pp. 37–38.

  272. 272.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 114.

  273. 273.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 105.

  274. 274.

    Article 14 of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  275. 275.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 115.

  276. 276.

    Crampes C (2003), pp. 116–117.

  277. 277.

    Green R (2003), p. 138.

  278. 278.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 180.

  279. 279.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 20.

  280. 280.

    Vogelsang I (2006).

  281. 281.

    Regulation 838/2010 on laying down guidelines relating to the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism and a common regulatory approach to transmission charging.

  282. 282.

    Article 13(6) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  283. 283.

    Recital 7 of Regulation 838/2010; paragraph 1.1 of Part A of Annex to Regulation 838/2010; paragraph 1.2 of Part A of Annex to Regulation 838/2010.

  284. 284.

    See, for example, Bhattacharyya SC (2011), pp. 308–309.

  285. 285.

    Green R (2003), pp. 137–138.

  286. 286.

    Green R (2003), p. 142.

  287. 287.

    Green R (2003), p. 138.

  288. 288.

    TenneT TSO is a transmission system operator based in Germany and the Netherlands. Bundesnetzagentur, the German regulatory authority was reluctant to grant an authorisation for Tennet TSO because of Tennet’s funding. See Bundesnetzagentur, Bundesnetzagentur trifft erste Zertifizierungsentscheidungen, press release (9 November 2012).

  289. 289.

    PJM (2010), p. 23.

  290. 290.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 191.

  291. 291.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 21. For national differences, see ENTSO-E (2013a).

  292. 292.

    Niederprüm M and Pickhardt M (2002).

  293. 293.

    Krause T (2003), pp. 11–12; Shirmohammadi D et al. (1991).

  294. 294.

    PJM (2010), Appendix A: Guide of Cost Allocation Methods, and pp. 1–2.

  295. 295.

    Niederprüm M and Pickhardt M (2002).

  296. 296.

    Krause T (2003), p. 13.

  297. 297.

    Krause T (2003), p. 13.

  298. 298.

    Krause T (2003), pp. 14–15.

  299. 299.

    Leuthold FU et al. (2005).

  300. 300.

    Twomey P et al. (2006).

  301. 301.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  302. 302.

    Twomey P et al. (2006).

  303. 303.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 20.

  304. 304.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  305. 305.

    Article 13(1) of Regulation 715/2009 on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks.

  306. 306.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 45, footnote 95.

  307. 307.

    Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  308. 308.

    Recital 15 and Article 13(6) of Regulation 714/2009.

  309. 309.

    Article 13(4) of Regulation 714/2009.

  310. 310.

    Article 14(2) of Regulation 714/2009.

  311. 311.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 45: ”The Commission explained that this “[g]reater pricing flexibility is appropriate in light of the significant competitive changes occurring in wholesale generation markets, and in light of our expanded wheeling authority under the Energy Policy Act of 1992”, referring to FERC Stats. & Regs. _ 31,005 at 31,136.

  312. 312.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Final Rule. Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 1.48: “Transmission Service: Point-To-Point Transmission Service provided under Part II of the Tariff on a firm and non-firm basis”.

  313. 313.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 1.35 (Point-To-Point Transmission Service); Section 1.13 (Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.18 (Long-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.42 (Short-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.27 (Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service).

  314. 314.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008); Frontier Economics Pty Ltd (2009), section 4.1.3.

  315. 315.

    FERC, Order No. 888, pp. 301–304.

  316. 316.

    For electricity, see Article 14(2) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  317. 317.

    See recital 36 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive). See Articles 15(7), 32(1), 37(1), 37(6), 37(8) and 37(10) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive). See also Article 13(4) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity: “The Commission shall decide on the amounts of compensation payments payable …”

  318. 318.

    Article 13(1) of Regulation 715/2009 on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks.

  319. 319.

    See, for example, Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation 715/2009 (on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks) on storage and LNG facilities.

  320. 320.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 45, footnote 95.

  321. 321.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 44, footnote 94.

  322. 322.

    Brown MH and Sedano RP (2004), pp. 24–25.

  323. 323.

    Article 14(1) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.

  324. 324.

    Brown MH and Sedano RP (2004), pp. 24–25. See also US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2008), testimony by Gary Hanson, Chairman South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

  325. 325.

    Article 4 of Regulation 1228/2003 and now Article 14 of Regulation 714/2009; Cameron PD (2007), p. 152, para 5.81; Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 25.

  326. 326.

    Article 14(5) of Regulation 714/2009.

  327. 327.

    Cameron PD (2007), p. 152, para 5.82.

  328. 328.

    Brown MH and Sedano RP (2004), pp. 24–25.

  329. 329.

    US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2008), testimony by Gary Hanson, Chairman South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

  330. 330.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 44, footnote 94.

  331. 331.

    US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2008), testimony by Gary Hanson, Chairman South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

  332. 332.

    Brown MH and Sedano RP (2004), pp. 24–25.

  333. 333.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 45.

  334. 334.

    Verbändevereinbarung über Kriterien zur Bestimmung von Netznutzungsentgelte für elektrische Energie.

  335. 335.

    Article 16 of Directive 96/92/EC (First Electricity Directive).

  336. 336.

    Article 18(1) of Directive 96/92/EC (First Electricity Directive).

  337. 337.

    Article 17(1) of Directive 96/92/EC (First Electricity Directive).

  338. 338.

    Heuterkes M and Janssen M (2008), pp. 53–54.

  339. 339.

    Cameron PD (2007), pp. 334–335, para 13.34.

  340. 340.

    Niederprüm M and Pickhardt M (2002). See also Growitsch C and Wein T (2005).

  341. 341.

    See Cameron PD (2007), p. 336, para 13.38.

  342. 342.

    Directive 2003/55/EC (Second Electricity Directive).

  343. 343.

    Nord Pool Spot, Point tariff system: “This means for example, that a retailer in Southern Sweden may buy power from a producer in Northern Sweden. Of course, such a deal does not cause the producer’s power to go all the long way from Northern Sweden to Southern Sweden. The principle is simply that for each hour of operation a producer has to pour an amount of power into the grid that corresponds to the amount that the retailer’s customers have tapped off the grid. This system is also referred to as a stamp tariff system”.

  344. 344.

    Subsection 2 of section 15 of the Electricity Markets Act (elmarknadslag/sähkömarkkinalaki 386/1995): “Nätinnehavaren skall för sin del ordna förutsättningar för att en kund genom att betala avgifterna får rätt att använda hela landets elnät utgående från sin anslutningspunkt, med undantag av utlandsförbindelser (punktprissättning)”.

  345. 345.

    Chapter 4, section 2 of the Electricity Act (ellag 1997:857).

  346. 346.

    Chapter 4, section 1 of the Energy Act (energiloven).

  347. 347.

    US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2008), testimony by Gary Hanson, Chairman South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

  348. 348.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 179.

  349. 349.

    Leuthold FU et al. (2005).

  350. 350.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), pp. 185–186.

  351. 351.

    Leuthold FU et al. (2005).

  352. 352.

    Leuthold FU et al. (2005).

  353. 353.

    Case COMP/B-1/39.351—Swedish Interconnectors.

  354. 354.

    See also Teusch J et al. (2012), p. 23.

  355. 355.

    Teusch J et al. (2012), p. 23.

  356. 356.

    MEMO/09/191.

  357. 357.

    Notice published pursuant to Article 27(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case COMP/B-1/39.351—Swedish Interconnectors (2009/C 239/04).

  358. 358.

    Energimarknadsinspektionen (2012): “Eftersom bakgrunden till att Sverige delades in i fyra elområden den 1 november 2011 var en anmälan från Dansk Energi hos EU:s konkurrensmyndighet som senare resulterat i ett tioårigt åtagande från Svenska kraftnät om en indelning av Sverige i fyra områden med gränser i snitt 1, 2 och 4 så innebär det att elområdena kommer att vara gällande under åtminstone tio år”.

  359. 359.

    Energimarknadsinspektionen (2012).

  360. 360.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 1.1.

  361. 361.

    Ibid, section 3.1.

  362. 362.

    Ibid, section 3.2.

  363. 363.

    Ibid, section 3.1.

  364. 364.

    Recital 10 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014), recital 10.

  365. 365.

    Neuhoff K et al. (2011a), p. 3. See also Neuhoff K et al. (2013).

  366. 366.

    Hogan WW (1999). See Leuthold FU et al. (2005).

  367. 367.

    Creti A et al. (2010). See also Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Olmos L (2005); Bjorndal M and Jornsten K (2007); Glachant JM et al. (2006).

  368. 368.

    OECD/IEA (2005), pp. 19 and 95.

  369. 369.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 184. See also Schweppe FC et al. (1988).

  370. 370.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 184.

  371. 371.

    Crampes C (2003), pp. 114–115.

  372. 372.

    Crampes C (2003), pp. 114–115.

  373. 373.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 184.

  374. 374.

    See, for example, Hogan WW (1999); Neuhoff K et al. (2011a), pp. 4–5.

  375. 375.

    It is also regarded as more efficient than redispatching. See Monopolkommission (2013) number 343.

  376. 376.

    Neuhoff K et al. (2011), p. 27. See also Monopolkommission (2013), number 342.

  377. 377.

    Neuhoff K et al. (2011b), p. 11.

  378. 378.

    OECD/IEA (2005), p. 77.

  379. 379.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 184.

  380. 380.

    Oren SS et al. (1995).

  381. 381.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 177.

  382. 382.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 114.

  383. 383.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 105.

  384. 384.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), pp. 184–185.

  385. 385.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 189.

  386. 386.

    US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2010), statement of Vincent P. Duane. Citing Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, 81 FERC 61,257 at 62,240–241 (1997).

  387. 387.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), pp. 186–187. For difficulties, see Box 7–1.

  388. 388.

    OECD/IEA (2005), pp. 84–86. For the costs and benefits of PJM’s model, see Mansur ET and White MW (2012).

  389. 389.

    Frontier Economics Pty Ltd (2009), Executive summary.

  390. 390.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 105.

  391. 391.

    Generally, see ENTSO-E Overview of transmission tariffs in Europe: Synthesis 2013 (June 2013). See also Ruester S et al. (2012).

  392. 392.

    Ruester S et al. (2012).

  393. 393.

    Articles 13(3) and 14(1) of Regulation 714/2009.

  394. 394.

    Article 13(1) of Regulation 714/2009.

  395. 395.

    Articles 13(6), 14(2) and 14(3) of Regulation 714/2009.

  396. 396.

    Article 17(1)(e) of Regulation 714/2009.

  397. 397.

    Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of Regulation 714/2009.

  398. 398.

    Recital 7 of Regulation 838/2010. Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of Part A of Annex to Regulation 838/2010.

  399. 399.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 26.

  400. 400.

    Point 5.3 of Part A of Annex to Regulation 838/2010.

  401. 401.

    See ENTSO-E, Overview of transmission tariffs in Europe: Synthesis 2013 (June 2013).

  402. 402.

    PJM, A Survey of Transmission Cost Allocation Issues, Methods and Practices (10 March 2010), pp. 1–2; Monopolkommission (2013), number 347.

  403. 403.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 21.

  404. 404.

    Monopolkommission (2013), number 345. For the need to increase the use of the G-component due to Energiewende, see number 348.

  405. 405.

    Ibid, number 346.

  406. 406.

    Article 12 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  407. 407.

    Articles 3(3) and 25 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  408. 408.

    Recital 36 and Article 12 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive). See also Articles 25, 32(1), 37(1), 37(6)(a), 37(8), and 37(10) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  409. 409.

    First subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive). See also second subparagraph of Article 16(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive), and Article 14(1) of Regulation 714/2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges.

  410. 410.

    Article 16(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive).

  411. 411.

    Pérez-Arriaga IJ and Smeers Y (2003), p. 191.

  412. 412.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 22.

  413. 413.

    SOU 2008:13, p. 200, Table 5–3.

  414. 414.

    § 17 Abs. 2a EnWG. See also Bundesnetzagentur (2009); Tscherning R (2011), p. 83.

  415. 415.

    In Germany, failure to connect offshore wind farms to the grid can lead to liability for loss sustained by the wind farm operators. See §§ 9 and 10 EEG 2012. Tennet TSO settled one such case. See Windreich AG, Windreich und TenneT einigen sich auf Interimgsanbindung für Offshore-Windpark Deutsche Bucht, press release (25 October 2012).

  416. 416.

    § 17e and § 17f EnWG.

  417. 417.

    SOU 2008:13, pp. 200–203.

  418. 418.

    FERC Order No. 888, Pro Forma Open Access Transmission Tariff, Appendix D, Section 1.10 Direct Assignment Facilities; FERC Order No. 888, Pro Forma Open Access Transmission Tariff, Appendix D, Section 34 Rates and Charges.

  419. 419.

    NVE, Annual Report 2009, pp. 30–34.

  420. 420.

    Article 14 of Regulation 714/2009.

  421. 421.

    Regulation 838/2010 on laying down guidelines relating to the inter-transmission system operator compensation mechanism and a common regulatory approach to transmission charging.

  422. 422.

    Article 14 of Regulation 714/2009.

  423. 423.

    Article 1 of Regulation 838/2010.

  424. 424.

    Point 1 of Part B (Guidelines for A Common Regulatory Approach to Transmission Charging) of Annex to Regulation 838/2010.

  425. 425.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 25. For national differences, see ENTSO-E, Overview of transmission tariffs in Europe: Synthesis 2013 (June 2013).

  426. 426.

    Points 1–3 of Part B (Guidelines for A Common Regulatory Approach to Transmission Charging) of Annex to Regulation 838/2010.

  427. 427.

    Point 4 of Part B (Guidelines for A Common Regulatory Approach to Transmission Charging) of Annex to Regulation 838/2010.

  428. 428.

    Article 1(1) of Regulation 347/2013 (Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure).

  429. 429.

    Recital 35 of Regulation 347/2013.

  430. 430.

    Supponen M (2011), p. 66.

  431. 431.

    Ruester S et al. (2012), p. 21.

  432. 432.

    Niederprüm M and Pickhardt M (2002).

  433. 433.

    Point 3 of Article 2 of Regulation 543/2013 (on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation 714/2009): “… ‘bidding zone’ means the largest geographical area within which market participants are able to exchange energy without capacity allocation; …”

  434. 434.

    Articles 32(1), 37(1)(a), 37(6)(a) and 37(8) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  435. 435.

    Article 3 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  436. 436.

    Article 51(1)(a) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  437. 437.

    Article 51(1)(e) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  438. 438.

    Article 55(1) of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  439. 439.

    Recital 13 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  440. 440.

    Article 32(1) and recital 36 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  441. 441.

    Case C-206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord BV and Others [2008] ECR I-05497; see Gram Mortensen BO (2008).

  442. 442.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 45: “… [g]reater pricing flexibility is appropriate in light of the significant competitive changes occurring in wholesale generation markets, and in light of our expanded wheeling authority under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 …” FERC referred to FERC Stats. & Regs. _ 31,005 at 31,136.

  443. 443.

    Article 14(1) of Regulation 714/2009.

  444. 444.

    The terms charges and tariffs seem to be are used interchangeably. For the use of the term tariffs, see recital 15 of Regulation 714/2009, recital 32 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive) and Article 14(2) of Regulation 714/2009. For the use of the term charges, see Article 14(1) of Regulation 714/2009.

  445. 445.

    Recital 15 of Regulation 714/2009.

  446. 446.

    Article 16(7) of Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive).

  447. 447.

    Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  448. 448.

    See also Article 37(8) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive): “In fixing or approving the tariffs or methodologies and the balancing services, the regulatory authorities shall ensure that transmission and distribution system operators are granted appropriate incentive, over both the short and long term, to increase efficiencies, foster market integration and security of supply and support the related research activities”.

  449. 449.

    Energy Markets Inspectorate (2012), p. 22.

  450. 450.

    ERGEG, Draft Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity: Initial Impact Assessment. Ref: E10-ENM-20-04 (8 September 2010), p. 43 and Annex 4, p. 73; Creti A et al. (2010).

  451. 451.

    Article 12(2) of Regulation 714/2009.

  452. 452.

    Points 2.1 and 2.8 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  453. 453.

    Point 2.1 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  454. 454.

    Article 14(5) of Regulation 714/2009.

  455. 455.

    Article 1(1) of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  456. 456.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 4.1.

  457. 457.

    Recital 10, Article 33(2) and Article 45 of ENTSO-E NC FCA (2 April 2014).

  458. 458.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), section 3.1.

  459. 459.

    Article 38 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  460. 460.

    Article 42 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  461. 461.

    Articles 54–55 of Commission Regulation …/.. (CACM Regulation).

  462. 462.

    Bellenbaum J et al. (2014).

  463. 463.

    Article 13(1) of Regulation 715/2009 on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks: “… By 3 September 2011, the Member States shall ensure that, after a transitional period, network charges shall not be calculated on the basis of contract paths …”

  464. 464.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  465. 465.

    See FERC, Order No. 888, p. 45.

  466. 466.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), sections 1.1 and 2.1.1.

  467. 467.

    Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of Regulation 714/2009.

  468. 468.

    Point 3.2 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  469. 469.

    Article 13(1) of Regulation 715/2009 on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks: “… Tariffs for network users shall be non-discriminatory and set separately for every entry point into or exit point out of the transmission system. Cost-allocation mechanisms and rate setting methodology regarding entry points and exit points shall be approved by the national regulatory authorities …”

  470. 470.

    See, for example, Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation 715/2009 (on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks) addressing storage and LNG facilities.

  471. 471.

    See Article 14(2) of Regulation 714/2009.

  472. 472.

    Point 2.1 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  473. 473.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), sections 1.1 and 2.1.1.

  474. 474.

    Ibid, section 3.2.

  475. 475.

    For the definition of bidding zone, see point 3 of Article 2 of Regulation 543/2013 (on submission and publication of data in electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation 714/2009): “… ‘bidding zone’ means the largest geographical area within which market participants are able to exchange energy without capacity allocation …”

  476. 476.

    See Articles 15(7), 32(1), 37(1), 37(6), 37(8) and 37(10) of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive). See also Article 13(4) of Regulation 714/2009: “The Commission shall decide on the amounts of compensation payments …”

  477. 477.

    Recital 36 of Directive 2009/72/EC (Third Electricity Directive).

  478. 478.

    Nord Pool Spot (2014). See also Hammer U (2009), p. 273.

  479. 479.

    Energy Market Authority, Finland (2012), section 3.1.3.

  480. 480.

    Article 14(1) of Regulation 714/2009.

  481. 481.

    CEER (2002).

  482. 482.

    Point 2.1 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009.

  483. 483.

    ACER, Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity (29 July 2011), sections 1.1 and 2.1.1.

  484. 484.

    Article 16(6) of Regulation 714/2009. See also point 6 of Annex I to Regulation 714/2009. For example, Article 16(6) of Regulation 714/2009 was considered in CWE Auction Rules, Version 1.0, Article 9.01(b): “For the avoidance of any doubt, all costs which arise by guaranteeing the compensations to Participants for Reductions of Held Capacities are fully covered by the congestion revenues used as described in article 16.6 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 …”

  485. 485.

    Article 17(1) of Regulation 714/2009.

  486. 486.

    Crampes C (2003), p. 105.

  487. 487.

    Hogan WW (1999).

  488. 488.

    FERC, Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888 (10 May 1996).

  489. 489.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Final Rule, Open Access. See also FERC, Order No. 888, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 1.48: “Transmission Service [means]: Point-To-Point Transmission Service provided under Part II of the Tariff on a firm and non-firm basis”.

  490. 490.

    FERC, Order No. 888, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Section 1.35 (Point-To-Point Transmission Service); Section 1.13 (Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.18 (Long-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.42 (Short-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service), Section 1.27 (Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service).

  491. 491.

    FERC, Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890 (16 February 2007).

  492. 492.

    FERC, Order No. 888, p. 301: “… we will allow a transmission provider to propose a formula rate that assigns costs consistently to firm point-to-point and network services. While not requiring the use of any particular rate methodology, we will no longer summarily reject a firm point-to-point transmission rate developed by using the average of the 12 monthly system peaks”.

  493. 493.

    Duthaler C and Finger M (2008).

  494. 494.

    US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2010), statement of Vincent P. Duane.

References

  • Bellenbaum J, Bucksteeg M, Kallabis T et al (2014) Intra-day cross-zonal capacity pricing. Study on behalf of OFGEM. University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics Prof. Dr. Christoph Weber

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya SC (2011) Energy economics: concepts, issues, markets and governance. Springer, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-0-85729-268-1

  • Bjorndal M, Jornsten K (2007) Benefits from coordinating congestion management—the Nordic power market. Energy Policy 35(3):1978–1991. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.06.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MH, Sedano RP (2004) Electricity transmission: a primer. National Council on Electricity Policy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • CAISO (2006) California independent system operator corporation electric tariff filing to reflect market redesign and technology upgrade, February 9. Available at CAISO website. http://www.caiso.com/Documents/TransmittalLetter_09-Feb-06.pdf

  • Cameron PD (2007) Competition in energy markets: law and regulation in the European Union, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannella MA, Disher EO, Gagliardi RT (1996) Beyond the contract path: a realistic approach to transmission pricing. Electr J 9(9):26–33. doi:10.1016/S1040-6190(96)80455-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEER (2002) Guidelines for tariff structure pertaining to intrastate and cross border transport and transit. Position Paper of the CEER for the Madrid V Regulatory Forum, Madrid, 7/8 February 2002. Version 2.0, 28 January

    Google Scholar 

  • Crampes C (2003) Cost recovery and short-run efficiency. In: Lévêque F (ed) Transport pricing of electricity networks. Kluwer, Boston, pp 105–154. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3756-1_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Creti A, Fumagalli E, Fumagalli E (2010) Integration of electricity markets in Europe: relevant issues for Italy. Energy Policy 38(11):6966–6976. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curien N (2003) Cost calculation. In: Lévêque F (ed) Transport pricing of electricity networks. Kluwer, Boston, pp 35–72. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3756-1_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Hauteclocque A, Talus K (2011) Capacity to compete: recent trends in access regimes in electricity and natural gas networks. In: Delvaux B, Hunt M, Talus K (eds) EU energy law and policy, vol 3. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 234–235

    Google Scholar 

  • DG Competition Report on Energy Sector Inquiry, SEC(2006) 1724 (10 January 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Duthaler C, Finger M (2008) Financial transmission rights in Europe’s electricity market. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and Delft University of Technology, Discussion paper series on the coherence between institutions and technologies in infrastructures, WP0803, November. http://mir.epfl.ch/webdav/site/mir/users/181931/public/wp0803.pdf

  • EFET (2007) Key principles in the treatment of electricity transmission capacity rights and their linkage to day ahead allocation mechanisms, June

    Google Scholar 

  • Energimarknadsinspektionen (2012) Elområden i Sverige. Analys av utveckling och konsekvenserna på marknaden. EI R2012:06. Eskilstuna

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Market Authority, Finland (2012) National report 2012 to the agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators and to the European Commission Finland, 13 July

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Market Authority, Finland (2014) National report 2014 to the agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators and to the European Commission, 10 July

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Markets Inspectorate (2012) The Swedish electricity and natural gas markets 2011. EI R2012:11. Eskilstuna

    Google Scholar 

  • ENTSO-E (2013a) Overview of transmission tariffs in Europe: synthesis 2013. June

    Google Scholar 

  • ENTSO-E (2013b) Policy note on TSO capacity buy-back schemes. Market Integration Working Group, November

    Google Scholar 

  • ERCOT (2008) Understanding: Texas Nodal Market Implementation. Available at ERCOT website

    Google Scholar 

  • FERC (2012) Energy primer: a handbook of energy market basics, July. Available at FERC website

    Google Scholar 

  • Frontier Economics Pty Ltd (2009) Generator Nodal pricing – a review of theory and practical application: a report prepared for the Australian Energy Market Commission, Melbourne, February

    Google Scholar 

  • Glachant JM, Belmans R, Meeus L (2006) Implementing the European internal energy market in 2005–2009. Eur Rev Energy Mark 1(3):51–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Gram Mortensen BO (2008) The European Court of justice decision in Case C-206/06, Essent Netwerk Noord BV. Eur Energy Environ Law Rev 17(6):389–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Green R (1997) Electricity transmission pricing: an international comparison. Utilities Policy 6(3):177–187. doi:10.1016/S0957-1787(97)00022-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green R (2003) Cost recovery and the efficient development of the grid. In: Lévêque F (ed) Transport pricing of electricity networks. Kluwer, Boston, pp 137–153. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3756-1_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Growitsch C, Wein T (2005) Negotiated third party access—an industrial organisation perspective. Eur J Law Econ 20:2165–2183. doi:10.1007/s10657-005-1735-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer U (2009) Norwegian regulation of wind turbines. In: Anker HT, Egelund Olsen B, Rønne A (eds) Legal systems and wind energy: a comparative perspective. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp 269–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey SM, Hogan WW, Pope SL (1996) Transmission capacity reservations implemented through a spot market with transmission congestion contracts. Electr J 9(9):42–55. doi:10.1016/S1040-6190(96)80457-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuterkes M, Janssen M (eds) (2008) Die Regulierung von Gas‐ und Strommärkten in Deutschland. Beiträge aus der angewandten Wirtschaftsforschung Nr. 29. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan WW (1999) Transmission congestion: the Nodal-Zonal debate revisited. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/whogan/nezn0227.pdf

  • Hsu M (1997) An introduction to the pricing of electric power transmission. Utilities Policy 6(3):257–270. doi:10.1016/S0957-1787(97)00013-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopsakangas-Savolainen M, Svento R (2010) Comparing welfare effects of different regulation schemes: an application to the electricity distribution industry. Energy Policy 38(11):7370–7399. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopsakangas-Savolainen M, Svento R (2014) Sähkömarkkinoiden sääntelystä ja sääntelymuotojen hyvinvointivaikutuksista. Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja 110(2):151–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause T (2003) Evaluation of transmission pricing methods for liberalized markets – a literature survey. ETH, EEH power systems laboratory, Zürich, 7 July

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffont JJ, Tirole J (1986) Using cost observation to regulate firms. J Polit Econ 94(3):614–641. doi:10.1086/261392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanz M, Fricke B, Anthrakidis A et al (2011) CO2-Emissionsminderung durch Ausbau, informationstechnische Vernetzung und Netzoptimierung von Anlagen dezentraler, fluktuierender und erneuerbarer Energienutzung in Deutschland. Umweltbundesamt, Climate Change 20/2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuthold FU, Rumiantseva I, Weigt H et al (2005) Nodal pricing in the German electricity sector – a welfare economics analysis, with particular reference to implementing offshore wind capacities. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1137382

  • Mansur ET, White MW (2012) Market organization and efficiency in electricity markets. Working Paper, January

    Google Scholar 

  • Monopolkommission (2013) Sondergutachten 65. Energie 2013: Wettbewerb in Zeiten der Energiewende. Sondergutachten der Monopolkommission gemäß § 62 Abs. 1 EnWG. Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhoff K, Boyd R, Grau J et al (2011a) Renewable electric energy integration: quantifying the value of design of markets for international transmission capacity. DIW Discussion Papers No. 1166, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhoff K, Hobbs BF, Newbery D (2011b) Congestion management in European power networks: criteria to assess the available options. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, DIW Discussion Papers 1161, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhoff K, Barquin J, Bialek JW et al (2013) Renewable electric energy integration: quantifying the value of design of markets for international transmission capacity. Energy Econ 40:760–772. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niederprüm M, Pickhardt M (2002) Electricity transmission pricing: the German case. Atlantic Econ J 30(2):136–147. doi:10.1007/BF02299158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nord Pool Spot (2014) The Nordic electricity exchange and the Nordic model for a liberalized electricity

    Google Scholar 

  • NordREG (2007) Congestion management in the Nordic region: a common regulatory opinion on congestion management. Report 2/2007, June. NordREG, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/IEA (2005) Lessons from liberalised electricity markets. IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Oren SS, Spiller PT, Varaiya P, Wu F (1995) Nodal prices and transmission rights: a critical appraisal. Electr J 8(3):24–35. doi:10.1016/1040-6190(95)90198-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Arriaga IJ, Olmos L (2005) A plausible congestion management scheme for the internal electricity market of the European Union. Utilities Policy 13(2):117–134. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2004.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Arriaga IJ, Smeers Y (2003) Guidelines on tariff setting. In: Lévêque F (ed) Transport pricing of electricity networks. Kluwer, Boston, pp 175–203. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3756-1_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • PJM (2010) A survey of transmission cost allocation issues, methods and practices, 10 March

    Google Scholar 

  • Purchala K, Meeus L, Belmans R (2005) Congestion management in a market environment. In: Mielczarski W (ed) The European power supply industry. Elecktroenergetyki Politechniki Lodzkiej, pp 169–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson WP (2003) Simple menus of contracts in cost-based procurement and regulation. Am Econ Rev 93(3):919–926. doi:10.1257/000282803322157160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruester S, von Hirschhausen C, Marcantonini C et al (2012) Topic 6. EU involvement in electricity and natural gas transmission grid tarification. Final Report. European University Institute, January. doi:10.2870/35561, doi:10.2870/35676

  • Schweppe FC, Caramanis MC, Tabors RD, Bohn RE (1988) Spot pricing of electricity. Kluwer, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shirmohammadi D, Rajagopalan C, Alward ER, Thomas CL (1991) Cost of transmission transactions: an introduction. IEEE Trans Power Syst 6(3):1006–1016. doi:10.1109/59.117002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SOU 2008:13. See Ackermann T, Centeno-Lopez E (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicker J (2010) A. Formen des OTC-Handels. In: Schwintowski HP (ed) Handbuch Energiehandel, 2nd edn. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, pp 31–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Statens energimyndighet (2006) Prisbildning och konkurrens på elmarknaden. ER 2006:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Supponen M (2011) The influence of national and company interests on European electricity transmission investments. Dissertation, Aalto University

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenska Kraftnät (2007) The Swedish electricity market and the role of Svenska Kraftnät. January

    Google Scholar 

  • Talus K, Wälde T (2006) Electricity interconnectors: a serious challenge for EC competition law. Competition Regul Netw Indus 7(3):355–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Teusch J, Behrens A, Egenhofer C (2012) The benefits of investing in electricity transmission: lessons from Northern Europe. CEPS Special Report, January

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscherning R (2011) The European offshore supergrid and the expansion of offshore wind energy in Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom – legal, political and practical challenges. Part 1. Eur Energy Environ Law Rev 20(3):76–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Twomey P, Neuhoff K, Newbery D (2006) Incentives for an adequate, economic and reliable Swiss transmission grid. Final version. Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2008) Challenges and regional solutions to developing transmission for renewable electricity resources, 17 June

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelsang I (2006) Electricity transmission pricing and performance-based regulation. Energy J 27(4):97–126. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No4-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Accounting and Commercial Law, Hanken School of Economics, Vaasa, Finland

    Petri Mäntysaari

Authors
  1. Petri Mäntysaari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mäntysaari, P. (2015). Transmission Marketplaces. In: EU Electricity Trade Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16513-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation