The lack of a common language for reporting was one of the many problems faced by market participants who last year attempted to communicate the details of their derivatives transactions under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (Emir). Emir, which came into force in August 2012, requires derivatives to be declared in warehouses similar to those of Remit, just as energy contracts must be reported to MR. But the imposition of the emir`s coverage is fraught with difficulties. One of the challenges was that the unique business identifiers (UTIs) – 52-digit codes that must be generated and assigned to each transaction – were not the same for each side of the same trade. Another setback was that even though the UTIs agreed, the electronic language used by different central repositories was not the same. Acer XML should solve at least one of these problems. SER members requested that the issue be interpreted in a binding manner, recognizing that the following report model is correct in light of the REMIT Regulation and implementing regulations and that no other model fully pursues the objectives of the regulation. Our interpretation is that the framework agreement that defines the mechanism for agreeing the gas swap contract is a general agreement that does not define the volume or price, it will not be corrected by REMIT. Whenever merchants agree to resume transactions related to the framework agreement, both transactions should be reported as separate standard contracts, executed as part of their respective main agreements and declared using Table 1 of The Day 1. This is our preferred approach and we are seeking ACER`s opinion on this approach. Therefore, the presentation of reports in which, due to national specificities, price elements other than the price of electricity and gas itself, such as additional taxes (for example. (B) excise) or other elements related to the implementation of the state`s policy on renewable energy sources or energy efficiency, leads to the information provided not meeting the primary objective of such communication, as they do not provide reliable information on the wholesale price of electricity/gas in the Xxxx market. In addition, a report containing price information, including all of the aforementioned derivatives, would prevent the Agency from carrying out a simple and reliable assessment of the relationship between electricity and gas prices on separate public markets within the European Union, the latter would nullify the priority objective of the regulation.
Not all companies are content with the idea of relying on OMPs to fulfill their obligations within the jurisdiction, with some considering the possibility of setting up their own systems. Of the five energy trading companies that were contacted for this article, none refused the opportunity to report themselves, which would require registration as an RRM itself. “The best approach is certainly to have a single MRR or use as few RRMs as possible,” says Nuria Jimenez, HEAD of implementation IT at Endesa, a Spanish energy supplier in Madrid. The company is looking at a “mixed model” of reporting, she says, “In some cases we will delegate to third parties, in others we will introduce ourselves.” For many energy trading companies, the reporting obligations of the European Regulation on the Integrity and Transparency of Wholesale Energy Trade (Remit) have long seemed somewhat distant. The law prohibiting market manipulation and insider trading in physical and financial energy and natural gas came into force for the first time in 2011. However, the introduction of trade relations under Remit could not begin until after the adoption of the long-awaited implementing acts by the European Commission (EC).