CEER responds to ESMA Call for evidence on a comprehensive approach for the simplification of financial transaction reporting

• Do stakeholders agree with the description of the key challenges outlined above? Is there any other issue linked to multiple regulatory regimes with duplicative or inconsistent requirements that is not reflected in this section? Out of the 10 sources of costs identified in this section and the ones that you may add, what are the three main cost drivers in your view?

The Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) welcomes the opportunity to respond to ESMA’s Call for Evidence on the simplification of financial transaction reporting. While the consultation paper is from our view primarily addressed to financial market participants and responsible institutions under MiFIR, EMIR, and SFTR, it also selectively highlights overlaps with the REMIT framework. In this context, CEER - representing the European Energy Regulatory Authorities responsible for REMIT - finds it essential to highlight the progress made under REMIT and the importance of maintaining a tailored reporting and surveillance framework for energy markets. In particular, CEER calls for full implementation of recent energy market reforms before considering additional new legislation involving changes to data reporting.

REMIT was introduced in response to the specific dynamics of wholesale energy markets. Energy commodity derivatives share certain characteristics with traditional financial instruments but are intrinsically linked to the underlying physical markets and subject to the real-time dynamics of supply, demand, and infrastructure conditions. The recent reform of the REMIT framework ("REMIT II"), prompted by the evolving energy crisis, acknowledged this dual nature by enhancing cooperation between financial and energy regulators while strengthening the supervisory framework and closing loopholes in the regulatory regime. CEER welcomes the positive collaboration between energy and financial authorities in this regard.

At the same time, market monitoring differs fundamentally between the financial and energy sectors, reflecting divergent objectives and regulatory priorities. CEER supports efforts to reduce the burden on market participants. To reach this goal in a structured and well-defined manner, CEER intends to comment on the REMIT-related topics outlined:

• Frequent regulatory changes and lack of flexibility to enable a phased implementation, synchronisation and coordination of the changes in the different reporting regimes.

More than a decade after the initial implementation of REMIT, and taking into account the increasingly complex energy market dynamics and the unprecedented disruptions triggered by the energy crisis, REMIT II was introduced in 2024, as a regulatory upgrade, to address the structural and operational challenges faced by European energy markets and to incorporate targeted enhancements to the original framework, based on insights and lessons learned during its early years of enforcement.

The energy crisis accelerated structural changes within energy markets, including greater complexity in trading practices and the emergence of new types of participants. To address this evolving and complex context, REMIT II strengthens market abuse provisions by aligning them more closely with financial market regulations, incorporating broader and clearer definitions of insider trading and market manipulation, introducing catch-all clauses to capture complex trading behaviors (such us, algo trading and direct electronic access), more detailed reporting requirements, and improvements in data collection and in market monitoring. Additionally, REMIT II promotes closer cooperation between energy and financial regulators, such as ACER and ESMA, to better address complex trading behaviors and regulatory overlaps.

In this respect, CEER has long supported the principle of ensuring coherence and consistency between, on the one hand, financial regulation, and on the other, the electricity and gas markets sector- specific regulation, as well as the view that those two regulations are complementary, but distinct.

CEER agrees that constant and frequent legislative change undermines market confidence, deters investment, and is an issue for security of supply. Consequently, CEER calls for the full implementation (including EU new delegated acts and revised implementing regulation stemming from REMIT II) of these recent energy market reforms before considering new legislation. Stability is essential for market participants' confidence, allowing investors to operate effectively and enhancing the attractiveness of European wholesale energy markets. Regulatory authorities also need time to fully implement the changes and evaluate their effectiveness, shifting focus from constant legislative evolution to diligent market monitoring.

• Duplicative reporting of the same derivative instruments under MiFIR, EMIR, and REMIT; Different reporting channels across MiFIR, EMIR, SFTR, and REMIT.

It is important to distinguish between necessary differences in reporting —arising from the distinct surveillance needs of each regime— and avoidable duplication caused by misaligned definitions or data structures.

The REMIT framework provides comprehensive coverage of transactions and orders in wholesale energy markets, including both spot and derivative products, irrespective whether the products are traded via an organised market place, a broker, bilateral or other trading venues as standard or non- standard contract, and irrespective to whether the contract is settled physically or financially. It also includes fundamental data and inside information, all of which are essential for effective monitoring and enforcement. This comprehensive dataset allows robust market surveillance of cross-border and cross- markets.

This holistic system enables central reporting to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) via Registered Reporting Mechanisms (RRMs) and structured access to data for national energy regulators. It is important to note that a recent shift in reporting responsibilities to organised marketplaces (OMPs) has already reduced the burden on individual market participants substantially.

While some overlaps remain in derivative products —particularly in the case of transactions reported by organised marketplaces (OMPs) —these overlaps are not considered critical.

All order and trade data on exchanges share commonalities across regimes. However, under REMIT II, a few significant fields have been introduced. For instance, REMIT I gathers information on ultimate beneficiaries, while REMIT II introduced fields which provide valuable data for market surveillance e.g. related to algorithmic trading or portfolios of market participants.

For OMPs, reporting fully under REMIT is technically less complex and more cost-efficient than implementing granular filtering to align fully with differing financial and energy regulatory obligations. To reduce costs, a unified schema could be developed to parse information for each applicable regulatory reporting framework without altering the core information required by each regime. A possible approach to avoid double reporting would then be for ACER to share data received under REMIT with financial regulators and ESMA.

In addition, CEER agrees with an improved alignment of definitions and data fields across regimes where possible and appropriate (e.g. data fields identifying market participants, contracts, reference indices, can be aligned to improve cooperation). Streamlining such elements would enhance the comparability of datasets and support more effective data sharing between regulatory authorities. However, we caution against any simplification that compromises data completeness or impairs the ability of regulators to carry out their market surveillance mandates.

In this regard, particular attention should be given to the double reporting exemption set out in Article 8(3) of REMIT. This provision states that transactions reported under MiFIR or EMIR should not be subject to duplicate reporting under REMIT.
While this exemption is grounded in the assumption of equivalence across regimes, in practice such equivalence does not exist. The order and transaction reporting regime under REMIT today provides a broader and at the same time more granular dataset, specifically calibrated to capture the physical and operational realities of energy markets. Relying solely on the information contained in MiFIR or EMIR reports would result in the loss of critical data needed for effective energy market monitoring.

In light of the above, the double reporting exemption should be reformed to reduce the burden for market participants if REMIT reports —given their comprehensiveness and sector-specific relevance— were recognized as fulfilling applicable financial reporting requirements, rather than the other way around. In doing so, the Exposure/Position reporting regime can also be addressed.

This solution would also help to improve data sharing between ACER, ESMA, NCAs and NRAs. The REMIT data set can be leveraged without significantly increasing costs for market participants or increasing the regulatory burden on them.

• Different terminology and definitions within different reporting regimes

CEER agrees that further aligning the terminology for some of the data reported could help to reduce complexity and facilitate data sharing between financial and energy regulators.
Regardless, any initiative to streamline reporting obligations must preserve the distinct characteristics and regulatory nuances of both the energy and financial markets. Reporting simplification should not compromise the effectiveness of market oversight or the adequacy of sector-specific surveillance mechanisms. In CEER’s view, a proportionate and technically coordinated approach is the best path forward—one that improves data quality and data sharing among authorities first, without eroding the integrity of well-established, domain-specific legal frameworks.

Q16 - Option 2b:

Option 2b envisages an expanded report once principle, that includes other regulations with overlapping reporting requirements that could possibly be evaluated e.g. Solvency II or REMIT. We would like to emphasize the importance of maintaining a clear and structured approach when considering changes to the various transaction reporting regimes. In particular, we advise against intermingling ongoing or recent reforms under the REMIT with potential changes to the reporting regimes established under financial market legislation such as MiFIR, EMIR, and SFTR.

The REMIT II reform, which was initiated in response to the evolving dynamics of wholesale energy markets and the recent energy crisis, represents a significant and complex regulatory upgrade that is still in the process of being fully implemented. It encompasses a broad range of regulatory, technical, and procedural changes that must be thoroughly completed and operationalised before any further substantial adjustments to the broader reporting framework are considered.
Introducing a major overhaul of transaction reporting obligations across regimes while REMIT II is still being rolled out would risk creating significant uncertainty for market participants, infrastructure

providers, and national authorities alike. Such an approach would not only increase compliance costs and the likelihood of errors or inconsistencies but could also undermine the effectiveness of both new and existing frameworks.

For these reasons, we strongly recommend a stepwise and coordinated approach to a reporting reform between financial and energy regulators. In our view, it would be beneficial to first streamline financial transaction reporting frameworks—namely MiFIR, EMIR, and SFTR. These regimes are already more closely aligned in terms of their regulatory objectives and reporting structures and therefore provide a logical starting point for improving consistency and reducing duplicative or burdensome obligations (as is also shown by the different options proposed here) across the different regulatory frameworks. The perspective of REMIT and energy regulators should already be considered for these initial reforms.
Once a harmonised financial reporting regime is in place, it would then be appropriate to consider alignment in terminology, definitions, and data structures across sectors, including with the REMIT framework and other relevant legislation. This would ensure that any cross-regime harmonisation is based on a mature and stable reporting architecture, thereby improving data comparability and enabling more effective inter-agency cooperation without compromising the specific surveillance needs of individual sectors.

In this context, the regime with the wider information needed could serve as the main data reporting channel. With robust data sharing in place, e.g. the REMIT data, could then be made available to ESMA or NCAs by ACER. Vice versa, financial data with a wider scope, e.g. position reports, can be shared by financial regulators with ACER and subsequently the NRAs.

In summary, we caution against conflating the timelines and objectives of REMIT II with ongoing efforts to simplify or harmonise financial reporting regimes. A proportionate and sequential approach that first addresses fragmentation within the financial sector and only subsequently considers cross-sector alignment, offers the most effective and coherent path forward.

Press Contact:

Mr Sasan Sharifi

Tel: +32 492 20 09 74

E-mail: sasan.sharifi@ceer.eu