(a)

A clear message from the public consultation was that stakeholders supported the focused approach of the Commission prioritising the work to deliver key elements that are necessary for the completion of the internal energy market. Stakeholders are of the view that the Commission has pointed out in its consultation the most important tasks to be done for further integration of the internal energy market and no more tasks should be added to the annual priority lists for 2014.

(b)

Several stakeholders are emphasising the importance of a proper implementation of already adopted network codes, some of them calling for a more active role of the Commission and ACER in ensuring a coherent implementation. Furthermore, stakeholders seek clarity on future amendments of adopted network codes and what the governance would be. One stakeholder states the urgent need for a global and unique definitions list valid for all network codes.

(c)

Several stakeholders stressed the importance of a transparent, efficient and coherent process which guarantees early and close stakeholder involvement. It was also mentioned that the necessary timeslots for the development of robust network codes, with sufficient time for consultation of involved actors need to be given. In this context stakeholders requested that draft proposals for the framework guidelines and network codes should be accompanied by the relevant Impact Assessment which has been subject to stakeholder consultation.

(a)

Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the network codes under development do not provide for a sufficient level of harmonisation on a European level, pointing at the fact that many decisions (e.g. on values and methodologies) are not taken in the code itself but left open to a further decision making/approval process by TSOs and national regulatory authorities. Stakeholders fear that this could lead to a supplementary regulatory layer at European level, adding rather than solving existing diversity in network management and market design rules.

(b)

Some stakeholders were concerned about possible inconsistencies between network codes and stated that developing several network codes under the same framework guideline has proven not be the most efficient way to establish European rules and therefore proposed to develop only one network code in line with the respective framework guideline. Some emphasised that in order to ensure the consistency at least some network codes need to be developed together such as the rules on requirement for generators, rules for longer term (forward) capacity allocation, balancing rules and rules on emergency requirements.

(c)

Several stakeholders support the development of rules regarding harmonised transmission tariff structures, as the existing variety of tariff structures creates inequalities for electricity generators within the EU as some need, for example, to pay grid tariffs and others not.

(d)

ENTSO-E expressed its concern that the annual priority list for 2014 does not include rules on investment incentives while they were part of the list for 2013. ENTSO-E is of the opinion that relying on the process set up by the new Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (4) (‘楾EN-E Regulation‘�, by which the EC may issue guidelines in case it considers that the methodology to be published by 31 March 2014 by the national regulatory authorities on the basis of best practice recommendations from ACER, is not sufficient to ensure the timely implementation of projects of common interests, endangers the efficiency of the entire TEN-E Regulation.

(a)

The majority of stakeholders welcome that incremental capacity has been put on the annual priority list for 2014 and emphasise that rules need to be thoroughly consulted on with stakeholders in their preparation and be coherent with the network code on capacity allocation mechanisms. Several stakeholders including ENTSOG point out the strong interaction of rules on tariffs and incremental capacity and that care needs to be given to the consistency between both topics.

(b)

Several stakeholders including ENTSOG support the undertaking of a scoping exercise on rules for trading in 2014 in order to identify whether harmonised European rules for the design of capacity products and contracts as regards firmness, restrictions to allocation and secondary markets are needed. The scoping shall take into account the experience gained from implementing the network code on capacity allocation mechanisms and on balancing and the possible impacts of increasing renewable penetration in electricity markets. One stakeholder proposes to undertake a step-by-step analysis of the differences in contractual terms and transmission system operators processes at each Interconnections Point. ENTSOG calls for recognising the fact that mismatches of capacity and different levels of firmness are an inevitable consequence of implementation entry-exit systems. One stakeholder raised strong opposition with regard to the further harmonisation of the design of capacity products and contracts as it is not required and would lead to an insufficient offer of firm capacity and finally to inefficient investments. Furthermore it was stated that rules for trading should avoid adding complexity to the process of implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1227/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) on Energy Market Integrity and Transparency.

(c)

One stakeholder calls for a network code for gas quality and a network code for benchmark-related efficiencies including its tariffs in order to achieve the goal of an internal market in an efficient and effective manner, suggesting as a first step to mandate ACER to do a comparison of all European TSOs, including all provided services.

(d)

One stakeholder suggests including in the priority list the development of guidelines to solve the situation of the historical contracts, in accordance with Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009.

(a)

Some stakeholders welcome rules on setting the principles to judge the adequacy of transmission networks, and thus the requirement towards third parties. Other stakeholders are of the opinion that rules on reserves, adequacy and capacity mechanisms are not included in Article 8(6) of the Electricity and Gas Regulation and therefore do not appear legally sound, instead falling in the remit of national governments.

(b)

Several stakeholders are asking for clarification what will be included in the rules on operational coordination.

(c)

One stakeholder proposes to develop rules on procurement, trading and governance of ancillary services as well as all types of flexibility and capability services with the overall aim of developing a European market for grid support services, including balancing and all types of flexibility services.

(a)

Several stakeholders were of the opinion that rules on network connection and emergency procedures have to be coherent with Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply.

(b)

Stakeholders were questioning the scope of network connection rules with respect to provide locational signals and were not supporting development of such rules.

‘�/p>

rules on requirements for generators (Commission adoption phase)

‘�/p>

rules on distribution system operator and industrial load connection (Commission adoption phase)

‘�/p>

rules on high-voltage direct current transmission system connection (finalise network code and start Commission adoption phase),

‘�/p>

rules on operational security (Commission adoption phase)

‘�/p>

rules on operational planning and scheduling (Commission adoption phase)

‘�/p>

rules on load-frequency control and reserves (Commission adoption phase)

‘�/p>

rules on emergency requirements and procedures (finalise network code and start Commission adoption phase),