Väljaminev kiri

Dear Armin, all,

Once again sorry for the delay – it was hard to find the time to take a closer look at the ACER position again, relevant methodologies and your question in detail. Thanks as well for the phone call just now. Below you will find my thoughts in written form as well.

As I mentioned over phone, we cannot make preliminary decisions, and EV has not made any formal assessments of the situation. Nor do we have any cases like this on the table at the moment. The answers below thus come with a disclaimer that it might not represent EV´s official views since we have made no actual decisions on the matter.

1. 1. Do you agree with ACER's position that FTRs on the FI-EE bidding zone border should not be curtailed for the purpose of ensuring that operation remains within operational security limits?
   • * At least to me, this would seem to be the case, due to the fact that it is hard to link the FTRs to actual operations as per ACER arguments.

2. 2. In your view, does the assessment of whether the curtailment falls under the clause “remaining within operational security limits” fall within Energiavirasto's competence? In other words, do you consider that you have the legal mandate to assess this?
   • * Yes, this would seem to be a very typical NRA -task.

3. 3. If yes, do you intend to take any action towards the TSO, should they proceed with curtailment of FTRs on the basis of the operational security clause, contrary to ACER’s opinion?
   • * EV´s task is practically ex-post -monitoring. We understand that there is no specific case ongoing now, but we of course assess the TSOs actions continuously. If something seems to be against the regulation, we assess the situation in detail and take action if needed.

4. 4. According to the Article 3 (5) of the FRC methodology (see attached), if the TSOs have exhausted all the congestion income, they shall cover the remuneration costs of LTTRs eventually, by any other financial resources of a TSO responsible for that bidding zone border. Do you see that, in such a case, the remuneration costs could also be covered from the transmission tariff?
   • * This unfortunately goes too detailed for me to take a stand without there being an active case, with sufficiently thorough legal assessment.

5. 5. Based on the above-mentioned provision of the methodology, it follows (or at least this is how it appears to me) that the TSO responsible must eventually use any other financial resources to cover the remuneration costs of LTTRs. I would be interested to hear if you have a different perspective on this, or how you interpret this matter.
   • * Same as the previous

Please do keep us informed of the discussion with Elering if something changes. I think you are correct that the TSOs might plan to amend the methodology determinining the FTR volumes, but that is something we will handle, as it falls on our tables.

Best regards,

Jori Säntti

Erityisasiantuntija – Senior Specialist
Markkinat – Markets
Energiavirasto – Energy Authority

Lintulahdenkuja 2 A

00530 Helsinki

Puhelin +358 29 5050 079

www.energiavirasto.fi

Dear Jori,

As some time has passed, I would like to follow up and ask whether you have had the opportunity to discuss this matter internally, and whether it would be possible for us to arrange a telco on this topic.

Dear Jori,

I hope you had a pleasant holiday. I am writing to follow up on the matter outlined in my message of 9 June (please see below). Have you had the opportunity to discuss it internally with the relevant colleagues? If so, my suggestion would be that we arrange a Teams meeting to go through this topic and the questions I raised in my earlier message.

In fact, in addition to the questions set out in my 9 June message, I would also like to add a few following aspects in order to take the discussion a bit further.

1. 1. According to the Article 3 (5) of the FRC methodology (see attached), if the TSOs have exhausted all the congestion income, they shall cover the remuneration costs of LTTRs eventually, by any other financial resources of a TSO responsible for that bidding zone border. Do you see that, in such a case, the remuneration costs could also be covered from the transmission tariff?

2. 2. Based on the above-mentioned provision of the methodology, it follows (or at least this is how it appears to me) that the TSO responsible must eventually use any other financial resources to cover the remuneration costs of LTTRs. I would be interested to hear if you have a different perspective on this, or how you interpret this matter.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know a suitable time for you to have a discussion on this topic.

Dear Jori,

I am writing to you regarding ACER's opinion on the FI-EE FTRs, specifically relating to the curtailment of FTRs. We are aware of Energiavirasto's position that, since the legal prerequisites for assessing whether any event qualifies as force majeure are not met, your authority does not engage in the assessment of force majeure, not even upon request from the TSO. ECA has reached a similar conclusion – that we have not been granted the necessary mandate to assess force majeure.

However, as ECA is responsible for the supervision of the FCA Regulation in Estonia, we see that we do have the mandate to assess whether the curtailment of FTRs is justified based on ensuring that operation remains within operational security limits clause. In this regard, we intend to agree with ACER’s opinion, as there are no strong counterarguments, that FTRs on the FI-EE bidding zone border should not be curtailed for the purpose of ensuring that operation remains within operational security limits prior to the day-ahead firmness deadline in accordance with Article 53 of the FCA Regulation.

We have been informed via Estonian TSO that, since ACER’s opinion is not legally binding, Fingrid intends not to take it into account and, in practice, does not plan to change its current approach to the curtailment of FTRs (including curtailment applied for the purpose of ensuring that operation remains within operational security limits). In other words, they would still apply operational security clause in accordance with Article 54 of the FCA, which, according to ACER’s opinion, should not be done.

In light of the recent developments and the non-binding nature of the ACER opinion, we are reaching out to Energiavirasto, as the selection of the reason for curtailing FTRs is subject to coordinated decision-making between the relevant TSOs, and should be based on their mutual consensus.

Therefore, we would appreciate your view on the following:

1. 1. Do you agree with ACER's position that FTRs on the FI-EE bidding zone border should not be curtailed for the purpose of ensuring that operation remains within operational security limits?

2. 2. In your view, does the assessment of whether the curtailment falls under the clause “remaining within operational security limits” fall within Energiavirasto's competence? In other words, do you consider that you have the legal mandate to assess this?

3. 3. If yes, do you intend to take any action towards the TSO, should they proceed with curtailment of FTRs on the basis of the operational security clause, contrary to ACER’s opinion?

We would greatly appreciate your position on this matter as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance.