ACER and EU Commission Hold REMIT II Implementation Workshop

What were the key announcements made during the workshop?

1] REMIT Implementing Regulation: text finalised, adoption in Q1 2026

What was discussed: The new REMIT implementing regulation on data reporting has:

• Passed comitology with a unanimous vote.
• Finalised its text.
• Moved into translation and adoption procedures.
• Adoption and publication in the Official Journal are expected in Q1 2026.

Why it matters: Defines what you must report, how and when under REMIT II. The fact the text is now final means firms can start planning against a relatively stable target although updates to the technical guidance, including the Manual of Procedures (MoPs) is still critical for firms to begin their technical implementation initiatives.

2] New “periodic reporting” layer and scope (hydrogen, gas storage, balancing, exposures)

What was discussed: The new implementing regulation introduces periodic reporting and confirms several new data categories:

• Hydrogen transactions: now explicitly covered via periodic reporting.
• Gas storage contracts >12 months: periodic reporting of such contracts.
• Exposure reporting: Quarterly exposure reporting for gas and electricity (hydrogen not yet included).
• Electricity balancing transactions: To be reported in aggregated, monthly form under periodic reporting.
• A dedicated article on transactions executed via trade-matching systems.

Why it matters: Clarifies how major new REMIT II data obligations will be operationalised and signals that regulators are trying to balance burden versus oversight by using periodic, aggregated datasets instead of pushing everything into continuous T+1 reporting streams.

3] Reporting deadlines changing: organised marketplaces (OMP) trades T+2, OTC T+10

What was discussed: The implementing regulation adjusts some key transaction-reporting timelines:

• For OMPs: moving from T+1 to T+2.
• For OTC contracts: moving from T+30 to T+10.

Why it matters: Firms and RRMs need to adapt their internal reporting processes to the new deadlines. For NRAs/ACER, shorter OTC deadlines improve the timeliness of surveillance.

4] Delegated Act on RRMs and IIPs: text done, adoption also in Q1 2026 (with 2-month scrutiny)

What was discussed: The delegated act on authorisation, organisational requirements, supervision, and withdrawal of authorisation for Registered Reporting Mechanisms (RRMs) and Inside Information Platforms (IIPs) has been finalised and is in translation.

• It will be adopted in Q1 2026, but must:
  • Be sent to the Council and European Parliament.
  • Undergo a two-month scrutiny period.
• It is intended to enter into force and be published on the same day as the implementing regulation.

Why it matters: Sets the formal supervisory framework for RRMs and IIPs under REMIT II. It also clarifies the position of existing RRMs/IIPs as they transition into the new regime.

5] New REMIT Fee Decision 2025/771: higher fees, IIP fees, inflation link, 2025 surcharge

What was discussed: A new REMIT fee decision has already been adopted:

• Decision (EU) 2025/771 replaces the previous 2020 fee decision.
• Extends fees formally to IIPs.
• Raises the flat enrolment fee for:
  • RRMs from €9,000 to €15,000.
  • IIPs: same €15,000 enrolment fee.
• Increases other fee components due by RRMs.
• Introduces an automatic inflation adjustment: if ACER fee income falls below eligible costs, fees can automatically adjust.
• Adds a one-off 2025 “surcharge” to cover a €7.6 million deficit:
  • Invoices sent to RRMs.
  • RRMs are free to allocate that cost across their market participants as they see fit.

Why it matters: RRMs and IIPs face higher and more dynamic fee obligations. Market participants may see these costs passed through via their reporting/service providers.

6] Inside Information Thresholds: Joint Research Centre (JRC) analysis underway, decision track for 2026, full consultation promised

What was discussed: The delegated regulation on thresholds for inside information is now in the hands of the Commission’s JRC for econometric analysis (for electricity and gas).

• Work and key policy decisions are planned for 2026, with an early 2026 kick-off.
• The Commission flagged several open design questions:
  • Separate thresholds for gas versus electricity (they are “leaning towards a yes”).
  • EU-wide versus regional/national thresholds (particularly complex for gas).
  • Absolute versus descriptive threshold definitions.
• Crucially, the Commission confirmed a full impact assessment and public consultation would be held going beyond the shorter “feedback” processes used for the implementing and delegated acts.

Why it matters: Inside Information thresholds will directly impact when events become “inside information” requiring disclosure having ramifications both for disclosure compliance under Article 4 and inside information surveillance for breaches under Article 3. The confirmation of a full consultation gives market participants a concrete opportunity to shape this longstanding, and sometimes controversial topic.

7] Penalties report and stance on criminal penalties under REMIT II

What was discussed: The Commission is preparing a report on REMIT penalties, due in Q1 (same general timeline as other 2026 deliverables).

• The Commission signalled that it does not intend to recommend criminal penalties as the main route for REMIT enforcement, based on observed effectiveness.
• It will:
  • Assess how Member States have implemented the harmonised maximum fine levels under Article 18 of REMIT II.
  • Check whether NRAs have the full set of powers foreseen under REMIT II.
  • Consider enforcement action (infringement procedures) where Member States have not properly implemented the full NRA enforcement regime.

Why it matters: This is an early indication of the Commission’s renewed enforcement approach under REMIT II and a warning to Member States that incomplete transposition of penalties/powers will not be tolerated.

8] Gas Market Task Force: REMIT implementation as a key deliverable

What was discussed: The EU Commission set up a Gas Market Task Force (first announced in February this year as part of the Affordable Energy Action plan - see RegTrail's commentary here).

• It stressed that REMIT’s revised rules and expanded sanctions framework were at the core of ensuring that energy markets are not only efficient, but also fair and politically sustainable.

Why it matters: REMIT implementation is seen not just as a legal/compliance workstream but as part of the broader EU gas market functioning and security agenda.

9] New transparency tools live: REMIT Data Reference Centre and Single Access Point for UMMs

What was discussed: ACER confirmed two major transparency tools are already up and running:

• REMIT Data Reference Centre:
  • Launched on 8th of May.
  • Provides pre-prepared datasets for download, based on REMIT data but aggregated/anonymised and delayed.
  • Accessible free to the general public.
• Single Access Point for Inside Information:
  • Aggregates REMIT inside information from 23 IIPs.
  • Publishes ex-post, not in real time, to reduce commercial sensitivity.
  • Allows users to search across all inside information disclosures from one place.

Why it matters: These are practical, tangible outputs of REMIT II’s transparency mandate that market participants and policymakers can use immediately despite concerns from some about the value and usefulness of the data currently available.

10] Article 15(5a) and 15(5b) reports: first editions published, next wave coming covering surveillance effectiveness

What was discussed: ACER has published its first report under Article 15(5a) REMIT, assessing PPAT surveillance arrangements (see RegTrail's commentary on the report here).

• ACER has also published the first “15(5B)” report, summarising:
  • STORs submitted by PPATs to NRAs.
  • How NRAs analyse them, handle poor quality STORS, and progress investigations.
• Both reports were published on 8 May.
• A second wave of reports is planned:
  • Including surveillance effectiveness assessments, not just paper-based set-ups.

Why it matters: These annual reports will set benchmarks and expectations for PPAT surveillance and give the industry a clearer picture of what “good” looks like.

11] ACER Investigations Department: structure and go-live timing

What was discussed: ACER laid out concrete details of how its new cross-border investigations mandate is being implemented:

• A dedicated Investigations Department with 11 posts.
• Two investigation teams:
  • Roughly 30% economists/data specialists.
  • Roughly 70% lawyers.
• A three-phase implementation:

1. Design (2024) - projects, governance, recruitment strategy.
2. Build-out (2024–2026) - staffing, training, IT (case management, e-discovery, investigation register), procedures (on-site inspections, structured interviews, non-compliance penalties).
3. Operational phase (from H2 2026) - first live cross-border REMIT investigations.

• ACER will not start investigating live cases before second half of 2026.
• On enforcement:
  • For non-cooperation with investigations, ACER can impose periodic penalty payments, appealable at the EU level.
  • For substantive REMIT breaches, NRAs remain responsible for enforcement via national courts.

Why it matters: Sets foundations for the new cross-border enforcement layer by ACER under REMIT II. It clarifies when firms might start seeing ACER-led investigations and how they interact with national procedures.

REMIT Implementation: Key Audience Question and Answers

During the four hour workshop, audience members posed a number of probing questions to the host regulators. We summarise below a number of these questions and the related responses below.

1] Will there be a consultation on the new inside information thresholds?

Q: Will market participants get a chance to comment on the new thresholds for inside information?

A: Yes. The Commission confirmed there will be a full impact assessment and a dedicated public consultation, not just a short feedback window. Webinars and further industry engagement are also planned as the delegated regulation is developed for 2026.

The answer is clear, yes, there will be… a public consultation… and I’m pretty sure there will also be discussions and webinars.

2] Is there more time to prepare for exposure reporting?

Q: Given the scale of work, will there be a longer implementation period, especially for exposure reporting?

Why it matters: The new periodic exposure reporting regime is a major new obligation for many firms.

A: Yes. The Commission explicitly changed the timeline after feedback. The first exposure reports are now due in October 2027, with ACER guidance to be issued well in advance so firms can design and test their processes.

First reporting will be in October 2027… and well before that there will be guidance issued by ACER.

3] Was simplification actually considered, or is it just more fields and products?

Q: The new framework adds hydrogen, long-term gas storage, balancing, new fields, and thresholds. Was simplification seriously considered?

Why it matters: Firms are concerned that REMIT II implementation could become purely additive, with high cost and limited supervisory benefit.

A: The Commission was clear that many additions (hydrogen, gas storage, stronger balancing coverage) are hard-wired into REMIT II Level 1 rules, so it cannot avoid them. However, it deliberately avoided defaulting to continuous reporting for everything and has introduced “periodic reporting” and aggregation e.g. monthly aggregated balancing data to reduce the operational load where possible.

Some obligations come directly from REMIT II… we didn’t have the luxury to say we dismiss all this… [but] we came up with periodic reporting precisely to strike the right balance.

4] How will you stop NRAs asking for the same data twice?

Q: How will the Commission and ACER ensure NRAs don’t demand extra ‘direct’ reporting on top of what REMIT already requires?

Why it matters: Double reporting is one of the biggest pain points for market participants and RRMs.

A: The Commission stressed that REMIT sets a harmonised minimum reporting framework. It cannot legally forbid NRAs from asking for more where they can justify it for enforcement purposes. However, if an NRA is simply duplicating REMIT data, there are strong legal arguments against that. ACER’s role is to improve data access and quality for NRAs so they do not feel compelled to ask market participants for the same data again.

We set out a harmonised framework… [but] enforcement is national… if it’s just replicating what REMIT already says, I’m pretty sure there are good legal arguments to stop this.

5] What is happening on penalties and NRA powers - will criminal sanctions be pushed?

Q: Will the Commission use the upcoming penalties report to push criminal sanctions or further harmonise enforcement?

Why it matters: Firms want clarity on the future enforcement climate and whether they face criminal as well as administrative risk.

A: The Commission signalled it will not recommend criminal penalties as the primary tool, because they have not proven to improve enforcement outcomes. Harmonisation is already achieved through maximum fine levels in REMIT II. The Commission’s focus now is to check whether Member States have actually implemented these penalty levels and the full set of NRA powers, and to launch infringement action where they have not.

We will not be putting forward a recommendation for criminal penalties… what we will be doing is checking that Member States have implemented the new framework and following up where they haven’t.

6] When will ACER actually start cross-border investigations?

Q: Is ACER already reviewing cases, or will investigations only start once the new department is fully built?

Why it matters: This will shape how seriously firms treat ACER’s new investigation mandate and when they may expect cross-border cases. It may also impact firms' market abuse risk assessments.

A: ACER was explicit: no live investigations before the second half of 2026. Until then, the focus is on recruiting the team, building procedures and tooling. Substantive enforcement remains with NRAs in the interim. Once ACER starts taking cases, its reports will be sent to NRAs, who will then pursue penalties at national level.

We will start in the second half of 2026… before that we will need all the time to make sure we are ready to do the investigations.

7] How far will data transparency go - especially around prices?

Q: Will ACER’s new data tools (Reference Centre, Single Access Point) eventually expose too much commercially sensitive information?

Why it matters: Market participants are trying to balance research and policy needs against the risk of revealing trading strategies.

A: ACER and NRAs repeated that protecting confidentiality is core. Public tools (like the REMIT Data Reference Centre and inside information Single Access Point) are aggregated and anonymised, while raw transaction-level REMIT data are shared only with competent authorities under strict secrecy rules. Any expansion (for example, adding prices to public datasets) will be consulted on, with both user and reporting-party perspectives taken into account.

We are dealing with highly commercially sensitive data, so to protect it is our core mandate… public datasets are aggregated; the detailed data stay within the regulatory system.

Deeper Dive: Key Themes

We analyse the above themes in further detail and provide additional context and quotes. Please note that some of the detail already outlined above is repeated in order to provide a full standalone analysis.

1] Implementing REMIT II: timelines, scope and penalties

The Commission set out a clear message: the legislative architecture for REMIT II is largely designed and the next challenge will be to operationalise it.

The new implementing regulation on data reporting has passed comitology with a unanimous vote and is now in translation and internal procedures. Adoption and publication are expected in Q1 2026, although the exact Official Journal date is still to be confirmed. This act:

• Brings hydrogen transactions into the REMIT reporting framework, following their inclusion in the definition of wholesale energy products in REMIT II.
• Introduces a new periodic reporting category, positioned between continuous (T+1) and purely ad hoc reporting. Periodic reporting will initially cover:
  • Hydrogen transactions;
  • Gas storage contracts with a duration of more than 12 months;
  • Quarterly exposure reporting for gas and electricity;
  • Electricity balancing transactions, reported in aggregated, monthly form.
• Codifies and clarifies reporting of trades executed via trade-matching systems.
• Adjusts reporting deadlines to T+2 for organised marketplaces (from T+1) and T+10 for OTC contracts (from T+30), reflecting lessons from the price crisis and the need for more timely visibility.

In parallel, a delegated act on the authorisation, organisational requirements, supervision and withdrawal of authorisation for RRMs and IIPs has been developed through expert group discussions. It will also be adopted in Q1 2026 and must enter into force in lockstep with the implementing regulation due to cross-references.

On the financing side, the new ACER REMIT Fee Decision (EU) 2025/771 replaces the 2020 decision and responds to ACER’s expanded remit and growing data volumes. Key elements include:

• Extending fees formally to IIPs;
• Increasing the flat enrolment fee for RRMs (from €9,000 to €15,000) and applying the same enrolment fee to IIPs;
• Introducing an automatic inflation adjustment so fee income can keep pace with eligible costs;
• Providing for a one-off 2025 surcharge to address a €7.6 million deficit, invoiced via RRMs on the basis of their market participants.

Alongside this, the Commission is working on a delegated regulation on inside information thresholds, supported by JRC econometric analysis across electricity and gas. Open questions include:

• Separate thresholds for gas and power (the Commission is “leaning towards a yes”);
• EU-wide vs regional or national thresholds;
• Whether thresholds should be absolute or more descriptive.

Finally, a Commission report on the harmonised penalties framework under REMIT II is due in Q1, alongside tighter scrutiny of whether Member States have fully implemented maximum fine levels and supervisory powers.

REMIT II really lays the foundation in order to deliver on these objectives, so its implementation will be really crucial to achieve them.

2] Data reporting is broadening – and trying to stay proportionate

A recurring theme across the technical presentations was the tension between expanded data needs and proportionality.

The Commission emphasised that several additions to the reporting framework (hydrogen, gas storage, enhanced balancing reporting, exposure data) are not optional add-ons but direct obligations from REMIT II. At the same time, it recognised concerns raised during the public feedback process about complexity and cost.

The introduction of periodic reporting is the main attempt to square that circle. Rather than forcing everything into continuous (T+1) transaction feeds, the new layer allows ACER and NRAs to receive structured snapshots of positions and exposures on a quarterly or monthly cycle, reducing operational strain on firms while still giving regulators a more holistic view.

On balancing transactions, the shift from ad hoc reporting to periodic, aggregated monthly reports is meant to provide better visibility of balancing actions and potential incentives, without requiring every individual balancing trade to be streamed in real time.

The Commission and ACER were explicit that they tried to avoid duplicating existing financial reporting regimes, but also underlined the limits of simplification:

• The legal obligation to implement REMIT II overrides “luxuries” of saying no to new datasets.
• Simplification mainly comes through aggregation and timing, rather than cutting out entire categories of information.

The Commission tried to come up with ways of lessening the burden to the extent possible, while allowing ACER to still receive sensible data for their surveillance tasks.

3] Transparency, data access and the REMIT Reference Centre

The workshop devoted a full panel to “making data available and enhancing transparency”, reflecting how central this has become to REMIT’s evolution.

ACER reminded participants that REMIT data now forms the most complete dataset on EU wholesale power and gas markets, capturing millions of orders and trades a day at transaction level. These data support:

• Market surveillance and enforcement under REMIT;
• ACER’s annual Market Monitoring Reports and REMIT Quarterlies;
• The analytical work of other EU and national authorities;
• An increasing body of academic research.

Two recent transparency deliverables from REMIT II were highlighted:

• REMIT Data Reference Centre:
  • Launched on 8 May;
  • Provides downloadable, free datasets derived from REMIT data, suitably aggregated and anonymised to respect confidentiality;
  • Aimed at policymakers, researchers and other interested users.
• Single Access Point for inside information:
  • Aggregates disclosures from 23 IIPs into one place;
  • Publishes data ex-post (unlike live IIPs) which is aggregated and anonymised to reduce perceived commercial sensitivity;
  • Enables users to search across all REMIT UMMs without visiting each IIP individually.

ACER was candid about the practical difficulties of opening up such a granular, commercially sensitive dataset:

• Ensuring that trading strategies cannot be reverse-engineered from public data;
• Handling small markets and thin liquidity, where aggregation may still reveal individual actors;
• Maintaining data quality and consistent definitions across the pipeline.

Both industry and academic panellists strongly supported the idea of greater public access, but stressed the need for clear use-cases and careful aggregation rather than simply “dumping” raw data.

The goal is how to enhance transparency through making data available” while still protecting commercial confidentiality and market integrity.

4] Multi-stage monitoring: tightening Article 15 in practice

The second panel turned to multi-stage monitoring, centred on the revised Article 15 REMIT obligations for PPATs/PPETs.

ACER stressed that REMIT is a decentralised regime, in which:

• PPATs and PPETs are the first line of defence against market abuse;
• NRAs form the second line;
• ACER sits above as data hub and coordinator, now with its own investigatory role for cross-border cases.

Under REMIT II, ACER must now publish annual reports assessing:

• How effectively PPATs/PPETs have set up “arrangements, systems and procedures” to detect and notify suspicious behaviour (Article 15(5a));
• How NRAs analyse suspicious transaction and order reports (STORs), handle poor-quality reports, and pursue cases (Article 15(5b)).

For the first PPAT report, ACER surveyed around 120 PPATs and achieved a 70% response rate after working with NRAs and using its own networks. Headline findings included:

• Around 50% showed moderate performance, 29% good performance and 21% significant room for improvement, based on the “paper form” of their surveillance frameworks.
• Procedures tended to be better developed than systems, which were identified as the weakest area.
• Larger, more established venues had stronger frameworks; six PPATs account for around 90% of known bilaterally traded energy volumes.
• Exchanges and major organised marketplaces generally scored highest; capacity allocation platforms and some TSOs had more work to do.

ACER also flagged some clear red flags:

• Entities with no surveillance function at all;
• Management influencing or blocking notifications to NRAs/ACER;
• Insufficient safeguards against conflicts of interest among staff.

On the NRA side, the Article 15(5b) report looked at STOR volumes and quality for 2023–24, focusing only on those submitted by PPATs. Key messages:

• STOR numbers are rising, particularly around inside information disclosure obligations since REMIT II made these explicitly reportable.
• Only a very small proportion of STORs were judged to be “poor quality” - ACER attributed improvements to closer NRA–PPAT engagement and feedback.
• Many cases are still under preliminary analysis or investigation, which is normal given the time needed to assess complex behaviour.
• NRAs highlighted resource constraints but also the importance of closing older cases and reopening them if new evidence emerges.

Both ACER and NRAs encouraged PPATs/PPETs to speak early and often to their home regulators about surveillance tools, thresholds and definitions, rather than waiting for formal reviews.

PPATs and PPETs are very well placed as a first line of defence against market abuse, but only if their systems are independent and properly resourced.

5] ACER’s new cross-border investigations department

The final session provided a first public look at how ACER is implementing its new cross-border investigatory powers under REMIT II.

ACER emphasised that its role is complementary to that of NRAs:

• NRAs remain fully responsible for enforcement and national court actions.
• ACER will investigate cross-border wholesale energy cases and deliver investigation reports – with evidence and analysis – to the relevant NRAs.
• NRAs can object if ACER proposes to take on a case that they believe should stay national.

The implementation is structured in three phases:

• Design (2024) mapping all projects needed (governance, IT, procedures, recruitment, training).
• Build-out (2024–2026):
  • Creating a dedicated Investigations Department with 11 posts;
  • Two investigation teams, mixing legal and economic/data skills (roughly 30% economists/data specialists; 70% lawyers);
  • Developing internal procedures for case selection, evidence gathering, on-site inspections, structured interviews and reporting;
  • Building a case management and e-discovery toolset, plus a secure investigations register;
  • Rolling out targeted training for new staff.
• Operational phase (from H2 2026) first live cross-border investigations, with experience fed back into methods and training.

ACER was clear that it will not start live casework before the second half of 2026; until then, the focus is on getting structures, tools and people into place.

On enforcement powers, ACER distinguished between:

• Non-cooperation or obstruction of its investigations, where it can impose periodic penalty payments, appealable to the EU courts.
• Substantive REMIT breaches, where NRAs retain exclusive enforcement powers and national courts remain the forum for appeals.

ACER’s new mandate is complementary to what the national regulatory authorities for energy are doing, not a replacement for national enforcement.