I have read recently one of multiple ESMA’s reports, and, I must say, it is pretty interesting to see how entirely subjective some important things are.


Consider REMIT carve-out: ESMA says it should be extinguished, it is bad, it flaws competition and a level-playing field between trading venues, etc.


Regulated markets - according to the ESMA - are the main victims because the electricity and gas products have been redirected to OTFs.


What’s funny, the same regulated markets say what an idea, they are happy with the REMIT carve-out.



Capacity withholding can sometimes be qualified as manipulative practice to artificially cause prices to be at a level not justified by market forces of supply and demand (including actual availability of production, storage or transportation capacity).


The precise delineation in this regard seems to be somewhat vague.


It is not a desirable situation from the perspective of legal certainty issues.

The recent ACER’s clarifications (Guidance on the application of REMIT (4th edition, updated on 15 October 2019, pkt 6.4.1 (i), p. 38, 39), although helpful, do not make the issue entirely comprehensive.


The ACER itself declares that the Agency “is committed to provide further clarifying guidance with respect to justifications mentioned in Section 6.4.1.(i)”.





Merciful EU energy watchdog granted relief from REMIT reporting for tenants in shopping malls. More clients are waiting...



Imagine a manufacturer who who consumes 595 MWh yearly. He sleeps well since convinced that REMIT itself, REMIT registration and operationally burdensome REMIT transactions and orders reporting are beyond the scope of his affairs. And suddenly somebody comes and says, "You have serious legal problems, you are not credible business partner". What's the point?



ACER has established a new, costly law for companies.



Do you still deliberate how often the list of organised markets must be checked?




Is it formally correct to conclude a contract in the wholesale energy market with the counterparty that has not registered in the European Registry of Energy Market Participants and, consequently, does not have the ACER Registration Code?



The scope for final customers reporting under the REMIT Regulation occurs much more extensive than anyone could so far expect.



Under the REMIT reporting scheme trades based on index may, theoretically, be reported in two alternative ways.





Are EFET master agreements reportable under REMIT? ACER's recent interpretations create confusion in the market.



Establishing circumstances where the RRM designation by the wholesale energy market participant is required, and where it is not, is almost entirely governed by ACER's frequently changing interpretations. 


This is not a comfortable situation from legal certainty point of view. If these interpretations were a little bit clearer...



Brokers role in the REMIT reporting framework appears somewhat complex. Let alone entirely different structuring of executing brokers and the clearing ones (where the clearing brokers have been placed - fundamentally - outside the REMIT market participants' scope), the reporting of life-cycle events with respect to trades executed with the broker's participation requires a careful reflection.


Another problematic case emerges when the firm has two different types of business - is an executing broker (exchange member) and is also an organised market place (it runs a broker platform). Recent updates to the ACER's reporting manuals offer some help while resolving these issues.




remit emir 

Are you completely certain on what occasions your energy supply and derivatives contracts must be reported to ACER and not to the trade repository?


Surprised? It may mean you are at risk of non-compliance...



As the latest version of the ACER's reporting guidelines acknowledges, the client participation in the trading venue not involving a membership does not entail a reporting requirement for the client under REMIT.



Do you identify differences between "forward contract" and "forward style contract"? No? You should start doing this. Since "forward style contract" can equally be a spot and your REMIT transaction reports may occur flawed.




There are first regulatory interventions sanctioning improper disclosure of REMIT inside information, in particular, regarding the power plant unplanned unavailability. 


It shouldn't be a surprise since the necessary content of such disclosure is sometimes missing.


The key dates approaching are 7 April 2016 and 7 July 2016.



In determining whether the electricity production facility is able to make use of the de-minimis exemption from the REMIT reporting requirement the three elements are relevant:

(1) spatial proximity (whether installations are spatially separated)

(2) ownership structure, and

(3) marketing for several smaller installations in one common contract/multiple contracts.



The latest version of a ACER's Questions and Answers on REMIT brings once more some important novelties of crucial practical importance.


However, one may still feel confused what is the clear requirement with respect to Registered Reporting Mechanism (RRM) designation when first registering with CEREMP.