Sissetulev kiri

Dear Kaspar, dear Armin,

It was a pleasure meeting you two weeks ago, when we preliminary discussed ECA’s derogation request under Article 70.3. of EU Gas Regulation 2024/1789.

We would like to clarify certain aspects of the derogation request. We understand that, currently, cooperation between the Estonian TSO Elering and the Russian TSO (nor any Russian-controlled entity) is not possible due to:

• * National security considerations following Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine.

• * The Russian gas import ban effective in Estonia since 1 January 2023.

• * The absence of conditions for reciprocity between Elering and the Russian TSO.

We would appreciate clarification on the following:

1. 1. How is the transit of Russian gas through the Estonian TSO network currently allowed/working in practice?

• * Subparagraph 5.10. of the “Common Regulations for the Use of Natural Gas Transmission System” (approved by NRAs May 30, 2025) establishes that at Luhamaa entry exit point, capacity is booked as a daily product, via a nomination notification to be submitted to Elering by the Russian TSO, which shall include, among others, the EIC code of the network user requiring the transit.

• * What are the pre-conditions for the Russian TSO to be able to submit such nomination notifications?

• * Is there any short- or long-term agreement between Elering and the Russian TSO enabling such transits?

• * If yes, could you please provide details of such agreement, including conditions, volumes, start/end dates, prices, and capacity booking/use?

• * Is there a list of EIC codes of network users allowed to book capacity via the Russian TSO’s nominations at Luhamaa entry exit point?

• * Among the requirements under sub paragraph 5.10, there is the need to submit the same nomination for the “transit exit point”. Can you clarify which exit point this is: does it have to be Šakiai  exit point located Lithuania only? Or can it also be any other exit point within the integrated gas system involving Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, including access to Latvian’s storage facility?

2. 2. As ACER is required to issue a reasoned opinion to the European Commission within three months, we need to fully understand the technical reasons preventing the implementation, on the Estonian side of the Luhamaa entry and exit point, of the provisions of the following EU NCs and FGs that do not require reciprocity, in the context of gas transits to Kaliningrad (i.e. provisions that do not require agreement or cooperation with the neighbouring TSO):

• * CAM NC

• * TAR NC

• * CMP FGs

• * BAL NC

• * INT NC.

We would appreciate receiving your reply by Monday, 2 March 2026. I am also available to discuss these points via a bilateral ACER-ECA telco at your convenience.

Thank you kindly in advance for your cooperation.

Best Regards,

Gaia

DISCLAIMER: The information and views set out in this message and attachments are those of the author and cannot be considered as an official communication or position of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, unless expressly stated otherwise in written. The information contained in this message and attachments are intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee. They may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you receive this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and irrevocably delete or destroy this message, any attachments and any copies. Any unauthorised disclosure, use or dissemination, either in whole or in part, is prohibited. The sender cannot be held responsible for a change to this message, including its annexes that would result from its electronic transmission.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.