ENTSO-E and the EU DSO Entity welcome the release of the ACER draft Framework Guidelines on Demand Response on 2 June. The present statement is a high-level joint analysis of these guidelines, that will be completed by more detailed separate answer. As the common voice of the community of TSOs and DSOs, we agree on the following:
- Both associations endorse and support the overall objective of the Framework Guidelines to integrate demand-side flexibility in transmission and distribution-related services on a level playing field with other resources. We note that several recommendations of the joint TSO-DSO Roadmap on Distributed Flexibility published in 2021 have been acknowledged by ACER in its proposal.
- Both associations welcome that the rules to be developed should be technology neutral, and not only address demand response. Facilitated market access for distribution-connected resources should be considered in parallel with fair competition conditions for all services providers.
- Both associations advise to avoid introducing new definitions and terminology as part of the Framework Guidelines and to leave this task with the legal provisions that are to be developed.
- Both associations emphasise the need to achieve more simplicity and adaptability at national level. In particular, the development of joint proposals by the TSO(s) and DSOs of a Member State should be limited to those TSOs and DSOs for which the particular topic is of relevance.
- Both associations welcome the introduction of new joint responsibilities for ENTSO-E and the EU DSO Entity, but we invite ACER to consider simplification and streamlining of these tasks, especially in view of regular reportings.
Once the final Framework Guidelines are published, ENTSO-E and the EU DSO Entity are ready to work together on the co-development of regulation, per the principles of the Memorandum of Understanding signed this year, and with the importance of ensuring consistency with existing network codes and guidelines, the implementing acts on data interoperability and access, and propose, where relevant, possible evolutions.
Specific comments on the Framework Guidelines
In addition to the aforementioned points, both associations would like to draw ACER attention on specific paragraphs of its proposal.
SOs coordination, (60) to (70)
- A framework for cooperation between TSOs and DSOs is desirable but the scope and rules for establishing and implementing System Operation Congestion Groups should be simpler and tailored for varying national situations;
- Both TSOs and DSOs should have access to the relevant data, from each other and from grid users, that they need to operate the system;
Data exchange & SO service provision tool, (71) to (83)
- TSOs and DSOs have always supported a flexibility register and agree on the principle of a unified interface for simplifying registration and prequalification of service providers but the architecture (one tool or set of common procedures), and the additional functionalities should be for national implementation;
Prequalification, (43) to (49)
- TSOs and DSOs have always supported a facilitated market access through the introduction of conditional or dynamic grid prequalification where possible and we welcome this has been acknowledged in the Framework Guidelines;
- The Framework Guidelines should strike a balance between simplifying market access for service providers wherever possible and the reliability of ancillary services provision. The choice between ex-post verification or ex-ante product prequalification procedures may therefore vary per Member State and per service;
Congestion management, (84) to (104)
- TSOs and DSOs see an added value in achieving standardisation of products at national level, but certain proposed EU-wide market rules enter into an unnecessary level of details;
Transparency towards market parties is important to support the development of liquid and efficient markets but the publication of grid and market data can also be deleterious in some cases as the ability to predict congestions can cause gaming and market power abuse opportunities. The timing and level of details of data shared with market parties should therefore be carefully considered, for instance by implementing:
- Spatial aggregation (e.g., verify if information can be aggregated at regional level)
- Temporal aggregation (e.g., verify if information can be aggregated at monthly/annual level and thus published ex-post)
Requirements for Market access, (18) to (38)
- The list of independent aggregation models should not be exhaustive as this could preclude the development of alternative, innovative market design.
- While TSOs and DSOs recognise the importance of untapping the potential of distributed flexibility, we think that the Electricity Directive already provides clear and sufficient guidelines for national implementation regarding the ownership and operation of storage assets by TSOs or DSOs.