It is common knowledge that power producers in many countries outside the EU are not facing carbon constraints similar to those present under European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

As a consequence, there are, however, investors that consider building power facilities outside the EU and importing electricity (provided technical and regulatory requirements allow). It seems that such a situation may be perceived as a regulatory gap that should be eliminated as quick as possible in order to avoid undermining the objectives of the revised EU ETS Directive.



The possibility “for freezing allowances and accounts” is specified in more detail in Articles 70, 71 and 73 of the Commission’s proposal for the Registry Regulation amendment and amounts to three differing legal measures with distinct premises, effects and entities authorised to use them, i.e.:

- suspension of all access by authorised representatives,

- suspension of access to allowances or Kyoto units,

- suspension of processes.



What does it mean CA GHG Allowance? If somebody wish to invest in such an assets for strictly speculative purposes should apply to ARB to become VAE. Beneath an approximation of what could be expected from an investor taking into account purely formal aspects of the potential application. The issue may gain quite practical importance in 2012 already.



The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (commonly referred to as the European Market Infrastructure Regulation - EMIR) provides for some new obligations envisioned to be imposed on non-financial counterparties (among others commodity firms) acting also on the emission market. The impacts are far-reaching and may require mayor organisational changes among market participants. There are also ambiguities regarding the practical implementation of the new measure.



Taking into account the division of powers and responsibilities between central and national administrators of the future Union Registry it could rise doubts whom to turn to with matters regarding specific cases within their practical functioning.

It follows from Annex I to the Regulation that the account administrator for operator holding account is a national administrator of the Member State “where installation is located”. For person holding account the account administrator is a national administrator that “has opened an account”. This crucial differentiation creates an area for possible choices as regards jurisdictional matters – mainly for the prospective holders of person holding accounts.



Are such categories of data like operational dispatching decisions and the bidding behaviour of electricity producers at power exchanges, interconnection auctions, reserve markets and over-the-counter-markets, the per-plant and per-hour information on available generation capacity and committed reserves, allocation of those committed reserves on a per-plant level etc. all inside information under REMIT?



Trusted account list, the differentiation between trading and holding accounts, 24-hour delay in effecting transfers, view-only access to the accounts enabling such services as “safe zone” as well as strict rules on finality of transactions entered into the registry are some of the measures that could contribute to the enhancement of the security of the registries and, consequently, of the assets of the account holders. Some of these new instruments are designed as mandatory, but other will require decisions to be made by the emissions market participants depending on the politics and strategies they pursue.


Considering the strict legal consequences following the classification of a certain data as an ‘inside information’ under the REMIT provisions, the question arises which exact categories of information available on the energy market are covered by this definition.



Nowadays we have MiFID Europe-wide passport encompassing trading in financial instruments and – possibly, if CEER proposals materialize – Europe-wide passport for wholesale trading in electricity and gas. What about all cross-border issues relating to the other remaining commodities (in particular other fuels and EUAs) taking part in the production of electricity?



The Discussion paper in view of a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) stakeholder meeting on carbon market oversight organised by the Commission services Brussels, 4th May 2011 considers the implications of classifying emission allowances and other EU ETS compliance units as financial instruments under MiFID. It seems, however, not probable taking into account arguments of many participants of various market sectors and branches in their responses to the MiFID review consultation.


According to the European Investment Bank all sales of CO2 allowances from the new entrant reserve (NER300) will be of a forward nature for settlement in December 2013 at the earliest. The options for the monetisation method are: auctions, on an exchange and over the counter.

It follows from the Cooperation Agreement between European Commission and the European Investment Bank on the implementation of Commission Decision C(2010) 7499 that the main elements of the monetisation method including the defined monetisation period and the expected total volume of monetisation should be published on the EIB's website but it has not been done yet.

This publication is impatiently awaited because there are some ambiguities as regards important for EUETS participants features of monetisation.


Does the ICE Futures Europe Circular 11/038 of 10 March 2011 mean that the trader that was delivered by the Clearing House and the Exchange “prohibited” emission allowances has no legal remedies against the seller? Such a rule would be difficult to accept from the position of legal interests of the buyer as a party to the agreement. It seems that in the said document there are also other points that should be carefully considered.