Code decisions on prioritization space and CSC: FCFS abandoned for congestion mitigators 

The ACM recently published its final code decisions ‘Prioritization scope for transport requests 2025’ (A) and ‘capacity management contract’ (B). The first framework (A) determines which parties are given priority when allocating transport capacity. The decision gives congestion mitigators the highest priority for grid connections, provided they contractually commit to reducing congestion. The capacity management contract is an important way of doing this, and the final code decision (B) sets out the preconditions for this. 

Efficiency instead of FCFS

In line with ESNL's opinion, ACM has decided to abandon the first-come-first-serve (FCFS) approach for congestion mitigators. The focus is now on the principle of efficiency, based on the following criteria: at least should be involved: 

1. the location of the party in relation to the bottleneck or bottlenecks  
2. the amount of adjustable capacity offered; 
3. the effective date on which the controllable capacity offered by the party is available and the date on which the grid operator needs or expects to need the controllable capacity; 
4. the period during which the party makes the offered controllable capacity available to the grid operator; and 
5. the price in €/MWh that the party requests for the congestion management services it expects to provide. 

ESNL agrees with these criteria, but emphasizes that once again that it is crucial for network operators to be transparent and unambiguous about its application. The ACM also recognizes this and refers to it as “provide insight into anonymized scores of reported congestion relievers” as a way to ensure this. 

Best efforts obligation of network operators

Like ESNL, ACM has observed that far too few congestion mitigators are connected. ACM is therefore giving network operators ‘a best-efforts obligation to actively seek congestion-alleviating capacity’ACM also states that parties who believe that the network operator has exceeded a ‘reasonable period’ may, after contacting the network operator, request dispute resolution. ESNL considers creating clarity about the process steps and the influence that a potential congestion mitigator has on them to be an important means of limiting the number of disputes. 

Contractual requirements and fees

ESNL notes that there are still many questions surrounding the requirements that network operators can impose on congestion mitigators and the compensation they provide in return. ACM does not specify a specific contract type, but does state that “the contractual requirements should not go beyond what is necessary to ensure congestion-mitigating behavior, and the network operator should pay the congestion mitigator a fair compensation for its congestion-mitigating behavior.”ESNL is in talks with the network operators to come up with a workable and scalable system to compensate for storage, whereby the starting point must be to move with market dynamics.