The Future of RCCs: Discussion from the N-SIDE Connect Event

Introduction

At the N-SIDE Energy Connect event on April 16th, 2026, one message came through clearly:  Europe needs further regional coordination, and our success as a whole will be shaped by how all actors will manage to connect regulation, operational security, and market efficiency in a much more integrated manner.

Throughout the day, discussions moved from high-level regulatory evolution to the practical realities of Capacity Calculation. We explored the impact of recent Capacity Calculation Regions (CCRs) developments, the implementation of the 70% rule in the South East Europe (SEE) region, and the accuracy challenges still present in the CORE Day-Ahead Capacity Calculation process. 

Together, these topics set the stage for a roundtable focused on one central question: what is coming next for RCCs and for the regions they support?

The Expanding Scope of Regional Coordination in Europe

The answer starts with the broader European context. Currently, the system is becoming more interconnected and demanding for both TSOs and RCCs, creating the need for broader regional coordination as compared to the more traditional national approach. 

The creation of new CCRs, the merger of CORE and Italy North into a broader Central Europe (CE) region, and the extension of regional processes towards intraday Capacity Calculation (IDCC), Regional Operational Security Coordination (ROSC), and the Coordinated Redispatch and Countertrading all point in the same direction: regional coordination is expanding in both scope and importance.

At the same time, methodology remains a decisive factor. The discussions around the 70% rule and CORE DA Capacity Calculation reminded us that coordination is not only about governance. It is also about the quality of the inputs, the assumptions behind the models, and the way available capacity is translated into market outcomes. 

What could CACM 2.0 change in practice?

Europe’s debate on electricity market design is entering a new phase. What once felt like a highly technical conversation about Capacity Calculation methodologies is now becoming a broader discussion about how regional coordination should work in practice, how far integration should go, and how quickly the system is ready to move.

One initial thought emerged very distinctly. From a technical perspective, larger and better-aligned regions can bring real benefits. A broader regional view makes it easier to reflect the reality of power flows, to capture cross-border interactions more accurately, and to use flow-based approaches in a more efficient way. The ambition is simple: if the system is increasingly interconnected, the coordination framework should reflect that as well.

But the conversation did not stop at a technical level. The next question was organizational: what does a more efficient regional design mean for governance, operational responsibility, and the role of RCCs? A bigger region may look more efficient on paper, yet it can also become harder to manage in practice. Coordination becomes more demanding, visibility can become more diffuse, and the need for clear roles and consistent processes becomes even greater.

The Role of ROSC in Coordinated Security Assessments

This is also where ROSC makes its way into the conversation. Better coordinated security assessment is widely seen as one of the keys to making a more integrated framework work. If regional validation becomes stronger, more harmonized, and more reliable, then more efficient capacity outcomes become easier to interpret and justify. 

ROSC is therefore not just a technical acronym in the background. It is increasingly part of the foundation for a more coordinated market design.

At the same time, there is a strong sense that operational readiness still matters. European market design may be moving toward larger regional solutions, but implementation remains decisive. The closer coordination moves toward real time, the more demanding the process becomes. Validation windows become narrower. Corrective actions become harder to organize. And confidence in the robustness of the final outcome becomes more important than ever.

Moving towards more coordination in the Capacity Calculation process

That point came through especially clearly in the discussion on the 70% rule. The principle behind it is well known: a significant share of network capacity should be made available for cross-zonal trades, rather than being held back to manage internal constraints. In day-ahead timeframes, that objective is already demanding. In intraday, it becomes even more challenging.

The reason is simple. Timeframes tighten dramatically. With markets operating much closer to delivery, there is less time to validate capacity, less time to coordinate remedial actions, and less room for error. 

Hence, the case for efficient cross-zonal capacity allocation comes forward even stronger. At the same time, it sharpens the practical question of how market ambition and operational security can be balanced in the final stages before delivery.

Designing the Future of Regional Coordination in Europe

This is where the participants at the roundtable started debating the possibility of a wider reform. Across the sector, there is broad support for moving toward greater standardization and stronger coordination. There is also a clear recognition that flow-based approaches and more integrated regional models can bring long-term value. 

Change is necessary, but the more difficult answer to seek is about the sequence of such changes. Should the system move quickly toward larger regional structures and adapt operational practice along the way? Or is a more gradual, step-by-step path the better route to durable reform?

For many observers, that may be the most important issue now taking shape. The debate is no longer about whether Europe should coordinate more. The question is how to do so in a way that is technically sound, operationally realistic, and institutionally robust.

That makes this a particularly important moment for CACM 2.0. The reform discussion is clearly gathering momentum. The appetite for a more coherent regional model is real. But the success of that model will depend not only on market design principles, but also on the practical ability of Europe’s coordination architecture to deliver them.

The direction is increasingly shared. The real work lies in turning that direction into an operational reality.