Sissetulev kiri

From: Armin Ilisson - KA <[email protected]>
Sent: 09 April 2026 13:47
To: Gaia MORLEO (ACER) <[email protected]>; Csilla BARTOK (ACER) <[email protected]>; Joaquin GARCIA GIMENEZ (ACER) <[email protected]>; Cristiano ARTIZZU (ACER) <[email protected]>; Alessandro BARBIERO (ACER) <[email protected]>; Camilla CRISMA (ACER) <[email protected]>
Cc: Kaspar Selke <[email protected]>; marilin tilkson <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: ACER draft reasoned opinion on ECA derogation request - for comments by 9 Apr COB

Caution: This email originated from outside ACER. Be vigilant.

Dear Gaia, dear ACER colleagues,

The Estonian Competition Authority appreciates the opportunity to review the draft opinion prepared by ACER concerning the derogation request for the Luhamaa entry and exit point.

1. 1. We would like to draw attention to a fundamental divergence between the position presented in the draft opinion and the prior regulatory consensus regarding the applicability of Regulation (EU) 2024/1789. As previously established, the Luhamaa interconnection point is utilized exclusively for transit purposes to Kaliningrad. Because it does not serve the European internal market, we have formerly received guidance from the European Commission indicating that the aforementioned Regulation, alongside its related network codes and guidelines, does not apply to this specific interconnection point.

Consequently, the prevailing understanding has been that an exemption under Article 70 paragraph 3 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1789 is inherently unnecessary. This interpretation was explicitly corroborated by a representative of ACER in an email dated December 9, 2025. In that communication, it was confirmed that following exchanges with European Commission colleagues, the provided clarifications were deemed sufficient to conclude that no derogation would be required for interconnection points connecting to the Russian borders.

Given this established background, we note with concern that the current draft opinion departs from this shared understanding by suggesting that the network codes established under the Regulation should still apply to some extent at the Luhamaa point. We respectfully request that the draft opinion be reconsidered and aligned with the previously confirmed position that the internal market rules and corresponding network codes do not govern an interconnection point used purely for transit (in this case Luhamaa).

2. 2. During the meeting, a question about the daily multipliers was brought up. We have now confirmed with our tariff team that it is correct that a daily multiplier of 1.5 is also applied at the Luhamaa entry point.

3. 3. An additional question that was brought up was concerning the imbalance charges at Luhamaa. Estonian TSO assured that in the very unlikely event of there being an imbalance between the Luhamaa and Kiemenai entry/exit points, the imbalance is covered in the same way as between other entry/exit points.

4. 4. Regarding the Article 16 of IO NC, Estonian TSO has informed us that it is indeed the case that the measuring equipment for the gas quality is on the Russian side of the border. For Estonian TSO to be able to publish the necessary information stemming from the article, it would mean the construction of separate measuring equipment on the Estonian side of the border.

If you have any additional questions, then please don’t hesitate to contact us.