![]() It was, though, a significant improvement upon the status quo ante and it was expected to lead in due course to a state of full compliance. ![]() In many ways, the most interesting and consequential aspect of the latest ruling concerns the powers and duties of a regulator (such as GEMA) when confronted with a situation whereby a system (here a charging methodology) is not compliant with the law (in this case, the provisions of Annex B to the retained version of the EU Commission Regulation 838/2010 ( Annex B)) and cannot be rendered compliant easily or immediately. In this case, GEMA’s expert judgment was that the transition to a state of compliance was best achieved in two stages with the first being a “stop gap” applicable in the short term pending a full resolution of the issue (with the corollary being that, because the stop gap was a staging post it would, unavoidably, not yet be fully compliant with the law). In a judgment handed down on 8 November 2022, the Court of Appeal in London ended the third and latest round of the contest to review the decision of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority ( GEMA) approving changes to the GB grid charging methodology under the Connection and Use of System Code (the CUSC or the Code).įollowing an appeal to the Competition and Markets Authority (which upheld the decision) and a judicial review ruling by the High Court (which struck it down), the Court of Appeal reinstated the GEMA decision – it remains to be seen whether the UK Supreme Court may now weigh in on the matter. But is a public body lawfully entitled to select the 'good' over the 'perfect' when faced with the choice of sanctioning a 'stop-gap' in the journey to compliance? ![]() The perfect, it is often said, may be the enemy of the good. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |