The issue of minor importance (in comparison with the previous one) is further finding that differences occur also on the identification and treatment of power exchanges’ costs related to market coupling.

 

Considering the questions of legislative grounds and the market coupling process it is noteworthy to mention that currently no sufficiently concrete legislation is in place setting requirements and determining responsibilities for implementing the market coupling target model. The high-level technical and business process requirements of market coupling, as well as deadlines for implementation will be defined only in the network code (on capacity allocation and congestion management). The allocation of roles and responsibilities in market coupling will also need regulatory guidance.

 

Thus the situation of the absence of regulatory framework in that regard will only change when the network codes are developed (vide: draft Network Code on Capacity Allocation & Congestion Management (CACM) of 28 March 2012), that is when ACER verifies whether ENTSO-E draft code complies with the Framework Guideline and make a recommendation to the European Commission. Assuming the European Commission agrees with the recommendation, they will then begin the process of Comitology. This process will transform the network code into a regulation. The regulation will be legally binding on all parties and will have direct effect (i.e. it will not need to be transposed into national law).

 

It follows that the shortcoming resulting from the absence of legally binding uniform European Network Code regulating market coupling is of temporary nature.

But the problem mentioned at the beginning i.e. regulatory divergences in the legal framework for operation of energy exchanges seem rather fundamental. It appears that somebody at a certain point in time made an assumption that the uniform legal framework for energy exchanges isn’t necessary for the efficient creation of the uniform European electricity market. But is such a hypothesis correct? Have it ever been scientifically verified?