The former chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and long-term MEP, Giles Chichester sees little need for a fourth liberalisation package for energy markets. The rapporteur on the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) calls for more serious effort at timely transposition and implementation before passing judgement.

How has Parliament strengthened the agency?

One example is the structure of the agency. We negotiated and ended up with an agreement on a board of nine members, five from the Council, two each from Parliament and the Commission. This is important as it means the agency is accountable to the Parliament and not just the Council. Even more important was requiring the director to appear before the Parliament. We had wanted to vote on the director, but Council did not accept that.

Another important point was the board of regulators deciding on regulatory issues. We wanted the chair of the regulatory board to have the opportunity of coming before Parliament. This is important not just for accountability, but also to give the regulators a platform to express themselves in public. Regulators appreciate this as their arguments carry more authority than if kept solely to closed meetings with the Commission or Council. As we did not get what we wanted on ownership unbundling, it was important to counter-balance with stronger powers for the national regulators and the agency.

Why did Parliament want the agency to be based in Brussels?

We put down an amendment saying it should be here. It would be better if it were in Brussels. The European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG) and the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) are already based here. We were told that this decision [of where the agency will be located - Ed] was the Council’s prerogative. We then settled on a compromise that the agency should remain in Brussels until a decision is made. In all events, ACER should be somewhere that is easy to get to.

European regulators came out clearly for ownership unbundling as the sole option. Will their job not be made difficult having several other options?

This will make the agency’s job difficult. But we have given the ACER powers, especially on cross-border issues. The roles of the national regulatory agencies have also been strengthened. Getting this regulatory aspect right – giving the agency as much power as we could – is essential in making markets function efficiently. By beefing up the agency we were in some way compensating for the fact that ownership unbundling was not fully retained.

Do you see the imperfections of the legislation leading to a fourth energy liberalisation package?

I hope this liberalisation package will be transposed and implemented for a sufficient amount of time so as to allow judgement to be passed upon it. One could even say that this third liberalisation package was a little premature, especially given the slow way two specific member states [a reference to France and Germany - Ed] have implemented the second liberalisation package [including the 2003 electricity and gas directive and regulations - Ed]. Let’s not go through this process again too soon. That said, the compromises allowing an independent transmission operator (ITO) and independent system operator (ISO) are probably not sustainable. But we would need hard evidence not just opinion on this point.