Also the document “Public Consultation by the Directorate General for Energy on measures to ensure transparency and integrity of wholesale markets in electricity and gas” of 31 May 2010 contains an extensive considerations in respect of the possible scope of the future REMIT Regulation:
1. On page 11, point 4.3. “Which markets are covered?”:
“The impetus for action arises because of the recognition of particular issues in the electricity and gas markets. Limiting the scope to these two commodities brings practical advantages. For example the existing legal and institutional framework applicable to the electricity and gas markets can more easily be adapted to address issues relating to market integrity.
However, electricity and gas markets are clearly interlinked with other commodity markets, in particular with markets for primary energy products. In the case of oil and coal these markets are to a significant degree global. This means that designing a regime which encompasses oversight of such markets would require a strategy for international regulatory cooperation to provide real benefits to Europe. There is not yet an international consensus about the appropriate regulatory regime for such markets. It is not appropriate to delay steps to ensure the integrity of wholesale electricity and gas markets until such consensus is reached on how to cover these markets. If necessary a specific EU regime covering oil and coal can be developed in the future.
However the strong cross-commodity inter-linkages suggest that carbon market should be taken into account when assessing market misconduct on markets within the framework of a market integrity regime for electricity and gas markets. The power sector is the largest single user of allowances within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), although it is not the only user with industrial companies who are customers of the power sector making up the remainder. Although the aim is to see the EU ETS linked up with compatible emission trading systems in other parts of the world, notably in the USA, the EU ETS is currently limited to the European Economic Area. Consequently, price formation on the energy market is driven by the actions of EU ETS actors based in Europe.
By and large the carbon market is an exchange based market with the bulk of transactions in carbon allowances taking place either on power exchanges or on dedicated carbon exchanges that are either regulated markets or multilateral trading facilities within the meaning of MiFID.
As such they are either regulated by the market abuse rules provided for in MAD or these rules are applied by the carbon or power exchange to the participants in the exchange on a contractual basis under their market conduct rules.”;
2. In remarks on fundamental data on page 13:
“In relation to data on physical production, transmission and consumption of gas and electricity the third package allows for the adoption of legally binding guidelines. Therefore it is not necessary to address fundamental data disclosure obligations in relation to electricity and gas in any proposals designed to ensure the integrity of wholesale markets. Any specific proposals in this regard will follow the procedure for developing network codes set out in the third package,.
This would not be the case if the regulatory initiative on market integrity were to capture commodities beyond electricity and gas, in particular the carbon market. The revised EU ETS provides for clear rules for the publication of fundamental data regarding the annual cap on allowances issued, the number of allowances to be allocated for free, the annual volume of auctioned allowances, the results of individual auctions as well as the volume of verified emissions from an installation during the preceding calendar year. It should be possible for an authority responsible for the oversight of the energy market to access data relating to the amount of credits held, the volume of emissions and all other fundamental data.
In the context of the forthcoming review of the level of protection of the carbon market from market abuse as well as the review of the auctions foreseen under the Auctioning Regulation, the Commission will consider whether a greater level of transparency (e.g. publication) is appropriate or desirable for market predictability.”
The separate issue is that the definition of “market manipulation” (which is in the core of the REMIT) seems to be quite useless without the notions for ‘accepted market practices’ and ‘legitimate reasons’ (Article 2(2)(a) of the REMIT) being specified. This difficult task was assigned to the delegated acts of the European Commission, however, it seems quite impossible to design uniform abovementioned definitions for all relevant – really differentiated – commodities and markets. This is the pivotal differential of commodities markets against, so often recalled in this context, the MAD (Market Abuse Directive) regime, where as regards financial instruments marketplaces, although also fragmented, ‘accepted market practices’ and ‘legitimate reasons’ seem to be already to a greater extent identified.
The most prominent feature of gas as a fuel for the generation of the electricity that first comes to mind, is the dominant way of transportation (that is through the pipelines), as opposite to the coal or biomass for instance. But obviously it can’t be the main reason for including gas – in contrast to the coal, oil, biomass and EUAs – into the scope of REMIT. What are the other reasons? Notwithstanding the Commission's efforts to explain the issue, I really still don't know.
In responses to different consultations conducted recently, inter alia on carbon market oversight, many stakeholders were supportive of the view that appropriate regulatory measure in that regard would be to include the activity in emissions trading into the scope of the future REMIT Regulation.
We will see what will be the ultimate scope of the REMIT Regulation then.
Presumably, the electricity and gas markets are covered by REMIT as a first stage of the wider commodities market transparency regime as was the case with the emission trading concept where first captured were mainly CO2 and power plants – due to, among others, the level of the complexity of the regulation.
After all, all above considerations lead to the conclusion that regardless of the current shape of the draft REMIT Regulation there could be expected a regulatory bias towards creating - for other fuels and inputs for the production of electricity - regulatory frameworks at an European level for market integrity and transparency, similar to REMIT (and consequently - to MAD). The logic of the inherent mechanisms for the common internal market for electricity speaks for such a supposition. On the other hand, without doing this, European internal market for electricity would still preserve regulatory gaps and opportunities for manipulative gaming.
As regards EUAs, so far ERGEG Advice Comitology Guidelines on Fundamental Electricity Data Transparency Ref: E10-ENM-27-03 7 December 2010 didn’t mention data on emissions in its requirements for information to be published on a common European website provided by ENTSO-E.
Editorial note: an update of the information on the legislative process for REMIT can be found in: