Implementation Network Codes: status update Plenary Users’ Group 25/04/2018 D. Zenner

Status public consultation and submission FGC proposal Gen. Req. ABCD proposal Full scope info session Submission T&C BRP/BSP CuRe NC Workshop 12/3/2018 29/3/2018 17/5/2018 18/6/2018 2018 mrt apr mei jun 2018 Public consultation FGC 15/3 - 16/4 Public consultation GR 15/3 - 23/4 Public consultation T&C BRP/BSP 15/3 - 15/5 # Responses received public consultation FGC and GR : Next steps: 26 April 17 May FGC general WG Belgian Grid: discussion feedback public consultation Submission proposals Federal Grid Code, General Requirements and thresholds ABCD 7 10 Proposal Public consultation Submission Federal Grid Code FRA + NED FRA + NED (report FR/NL) General Requirements ENG FRA + NED (report ENG) T&C BRP T&C BSP RfG DCC HVDC 9 3 2 4 Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status

Feedback received public consultation: general remarks Translation / References / Style / coherency FGC-GR / coherency between chapters French and Dutch version equal importance, alignement with regional/other grid codes and contracts needed Definitions and terms used throughout the text Some definitions are missing, some conflicting with E-Law, some (too) complex Some terms are not consistently used throughout the text, resulting in interpretation issues Balance to be found between rights and obligations grid operator – grid user Questions/doubts about reasoning for certain track changes, missing (quantitative) justification Willing to have a feedback on each comment on the public consultation Aim for realistic implementation planning (iCAROS, T&C, IT-tools,…) Uncertainty issues Investment uncertainty: frontier between ‘new’ and ‘existing’, Approval derogations, market based mechanisms and possible remunerations (in content T&Cs) Submission of own GR proposals, while Elia proposal is still subject to change Appreciation of efforts made by Elia in the preparation of this proposal and in the > 2-years preparation track with stakeholders Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status

Comments public consultation oriented to competent authorities Investment uncertainty due to unkown frontier/requirements for new vs existing units What is applicable for units that are installed as of 17 May 2018 More information about this ‘investment vacuum’ on the next slide Determine vision with regards to derogations What type of derogations will / will not be accepted? What derogation period will be granted? Questions about transparency of the process, post - 17 May Stakeholders want to be kept on formally/informally consulted after 17 May Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status

Legal uncertainty ‘New vs. Existing’ Investment uncertainty Full RfG in application RfG EiF + 3y 27/4/19 Entry into force RfG 17/5/16 RfG EiF + 2y 17/5/18 Decision GR? 17/11/18 Old New Investment vacuum Art. 4.2 RfG: “For the purposes of this Regulation, a power-generating module shall be considered existing if: (a) it is already connected to the network on the date of entry into force of this Regulation; or (b) the power-generating facility owner has concluded a final and binding contract for the purchase of the main generating plant by two years after the entry into force of the Regulation. Art. 7.4 RfG The relevant system operator or TSO shall submit a proposal for requirements of general application, or the methodology used to calculate or establish them, for approval by the competent entity within two years of entry into force of this Regulation. On 17 May 2018, several investments considered as “new”’ while no decision by competent authorities on the applicable requirements  Investment vacuum Mitigation possibility in Art. 4.2: postponing the date for a GU to become “new” with 1 year (as France and UK already did) A Member State may provide that in specified circumstances the regulatory authority may determine whether the power-generating module is to be considered an existing power-generating module or a new power-generating module. Plenary UG - Implementation NC: status