ACER Decisions 12 and 13-2026 FRR Implementation Frameworks Third Amendment (2026)

Two ACER decisions of 18 September 2026 (Ljubljana; Board of Regulators’ favourable opinion 16 September) on the third amendment of the implementation frameworks for the European platforms for balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves: Decision 12/2026 for automatic activation (aFRRIF, the PICASSO platform) and Decision 13/2026 for manual activation (mFRRIF, the MARI platform). Each approves, with ACER’s changes, all TSOs’ proposal of 18 December 2025 for harmonised terms and conditions for balancing service providers (BSPs), focused on FRR prequalification. Svenska kraftnät is one of the addressees. The two decisions are 42 pages each and are near-identical in substance; the URL is the publisher’s site because the document links were not recorded. The annexes (Annex I, the amended text, and Annex III, the consultation evaluation) are not in the files.

The six priority areas

TSOs’ proposal covers: terms and conditions published in English; communication between TSO and BSP allowed in English; a harmonised FRR prequalification process; switching of reserve-providing units between BSPs; re-prequalification; and data exchange standards. The procedure ran from two TSO surveys (2023, 2024) and a TSO consultation (1 December 2024 to 31 January 2025) through ACER’s consultation (26 January to 23 February 2026), seven working-level meetings, a hearing on 21 May 2026 and a reopened written procedure in July 2026.

What ACER decided (Decision 12; Decision 13 follows the same structure)

• Three prequalification routes on equal footing for first-time prequalification: activation test, ex-post verification and an optional fast-track (with “incentives” rather than “penalties”), each TSO choosing which to offer in national terms approved by its regulator. No route is the default. Ex-post verification is not available in balancing capacity markets, and TSOs keep the right to limit the volume of units with temporary status (RPGs can exceed 100 MW in some systems). Participants in integrated scheduling must undergo an activation test.
• Timelines. Maximum 5 months in a clean case (up to 8 weeks to confirm completeness, 3 months for technical evaluation, both from Art. 159 of the SO Regulation); in cases of errors or negative results the maximum was cut from 9 months to 6 months and 10 working days. The TSO’s reassessment of a corrected application is 10 working days (TSOs proposed 4 weeks, ACER first proposed one week); only this step can be derogated from by a regulator.
• Small and identical units. The TSO can test a subset of an RPU or RPG, or all of it, and the definition of small controllable units and RPUs is set nationally. ACER moved its general “reduce administrative burden” wording from the binding text into the recitals after the French regulator warned of inconsistent interpretation.
• Switching (RPUs only; RPGs were dropped after strong TSO opposition): the RPU keeps its prequalification status; the receiving BSP submits the request with the system user’s consent; 15 working days (TSOs asked for 6 weeks, saying the process is manual and needs DSO validation); the TSO may require re-prequalification under national terms; RPUs with “direct communication” with the TSO can skip the communication test if the BSPs’ communication infrastructures are compatible.
• Re-prequalification. BSPs notify planned changes 4 weeks ahead (was 6); the TSO decides within 15 working days (ACER had proposed 2 weeks); triggers are an exhaustive list (national discretion removed), including capacity change above 10 % or 3 MW (whichever is lower) and at least 0.5 MW, and a new technology counts only through that capacity threshold; the scope is limited to what changed, and ex-post verification or fast-track can be used for RPGs of identical controllable units or small or identical RPUs. Unaffected parts may keep delivering.
• Termination. Failure to deliver can be addressed by re-prequalification, but TSOs get back the right to terminate prequalification status immediately for non-delivery.
• Data exchange standards. The list of European standards is due July 2027, aligned with ACER Recommendation 01/2025 on the demand response network code (TSOs wanted 18 months after the decision); existing non-standardised interfaces may continue.
• Process. The stakeholder survey runs every 2 years (TSOs wanted 3 and an exclusion period for implemented topics). ACER will align Annex I with the qualification rules of the demand response network code once that enters into force.

Implementation and legal route

TSOs submit amended national terms and conditions for BSPs within 6 months of ACER’s approval (TSOs asked for 12), regulators decide within 6 months of receipt (Art. 5(6) EB Regulation), and TSOs implement within a maximum of 24 months after approval (TSOs asked for 36; the whole proposal had said 60 months); regulators may set shorter deadlines. The addressees may appeal to ACER’s Board of Appeal within two months.

Relevance

A new European harmonisation layer on top of national BSP terms such as Svk’s (Source - Svk BSP BRP Villkor Status (2026)); it makes it faster for small and aggregated resources to enter and for resources to change BSP. See Balancing Markets, BSP and BRP Roles and Aggregation, and the platform connections in Balancing Markets › PICASSO and MARI — European platform connections.

Limits of this summary

Decision 12 was read in full; Decision 13 was compared against it and its key figures checked (60/24/6-month timeline, July 2027, 10 and 15 working days), so mFRR-specific wording may differ in detail. Annex I (the amended text) and Annex III (consultation responses) were not available.