Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“I'm able to do more in the day, which means I'm providing more value to my clients - and it's helped my margins in terms of how much I can bill. LexisNexis is helping me make money.”

ParrisWhittaker

Access all documents on PSO

PSO meaning

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert
What does PSO mean?
PSO (public service obligation) describes a requirement imposed by a public authority that an operator provide a service in the public interest which the market would not otherwise deliver, or would deliver inadequately, on a purely commercial basis. In practice, PSOs are most prominent in: - Aviation: “air route PSOs” under Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (applies in Ireland; retained and amended in the UK) allow authorities to designate routes essential for regional connectivity, set minimum frequencies/fares, tender exclusive rights and pay compensation. Awards must follow the regulation’s transparency and tendering rules and comply with EU State aid rules (Ireland) or UK subsidy control (UK). - Public passenger transport by rail and bus: public service obligations and contracts under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (applies in Ireland; retained and amended in the UK) permit competent authorities to impose minimum service levels and compensate operators, subject to competitive tendering or permitted direct awards. - Energy (Ireland): the electricity PSO levy, established under the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 and administered via CRU/ministerial orders, funds national policy schemes (e.g., renewable energy support). There is no equivalent PSO levy in Great Britain. Usage is broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland in transport; the...
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about PSO

NEWS
Pensions Ombudsman upholds PSO calculated as percentage of cash equivalent on valuation day; scheme could encash extra units after market fall (Mr S, CAS-30342–Z1B0)

Original news Mr S (CAS-30342–Z1B0) – 2 July 2024 Summary The PO has dismissed a complaint concerning a PSO. The PSO was correctly determined at the valuation date as a fixed percentage of the complainant’s cash equivalent transfer value. As the scheme’s unit prices fell after the valuation date, the administrators were right to cash in additional units to ensure the same monetary amount, as calculated at that date, was transferred to the ex-spouse’s pension arrangement. The PO’s decision highlights the challenges that can arise even when there is only a short delay in implementing a pension sharing order. What were the facts? Mr S was a member of the Fidelity Master Trust–Sytner Group Retirement Plan Section (the Scheme). A Pension Sharing Order (PSO) was issued against Mr S’s Scheme benefits. Section 29(2) Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (WRPA 1999) provided that: “Where the relevant order specifies a percentage value to be transferred, the appropriate amount …. is the specified percentage of the cash equivalent...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about PSO

PRACTICE NOTES
State aid—Lithuanian LNG terminal: EU General Court finds Commission should have opened formal investigation into 2016 LITGAS PSO compensation; partial annulment of 2018 no‑objections decision

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the position as at the judgment dated 8 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. For more detail, see the timeline. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court challenged the European Commission’s decision of 31 October 2108, which concluded that compensation paid by Lithuania to LITGAS for delivering a mandatory volume of liquefied natural gas to the LGN terminal facility in Klaipėda complied with the applicable State aid rules (SA.44678). Latest developments On 8 September 2021, the General Court delivered its judgment, partially allowing the appeal. Specifically, it held that, when assessing the Applicants’ complaint, the Commission had ‘objective and consistent evidence of serious difficulties’ and therefore ought to have opened an in‑depth investigation. In addition, the Court determined that the examination of compensation for certain costs was ‘incomplete, insufficient and inconsistent’. Parties Applicants: Achema AB and Achema Gas Trade (together, Achema) Defendant: European...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Republic of Ireland electricity market: regulatory framework, key entities, subsidies, balancing mechanisms, interconnectors and project routes to market; contrasts with Great Britain and SEM context

In the Republic of Ireland, electricity is governed by network, regulatory, policy and retail frameworks that differ from those in Northern Ireland. Although the two jurisdictions share a wholesale platform—the Single Electricity Market (SEM)—all other market arrangements remain separate. For further detail on the SEM, see Practice Note: Island of Ireland Single Electricity Market (SEM)—an introduction. Key entities within the RoI electricity market The RoI electricity sector can be described as consisting of: participants active in the all-island SEM with operations based in Ireland renewable and thermal generators, and suppliers within Ireland, specifically licensed by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU) under section 14 of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 the distribution network and related metering equipment, owned and run by ESB Networks the transmission system, owned by ESB Networks and operated by EirGrid interconnectors linked to RoI networks, including the Louth–Tandragee North–South Interconnector (NS Interconnector) and the East–West Interconnector (EWIC) end users connected to these networks, supplied by...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
EU State aid: CJEU dismisses Buonotourist and CSTP appeals—PSO compensation is unlawful new aid; Altmark not met; national res judicata no bar to Commission recovery

CASE HUB ARCHIVED — this archived case hub records the position as at the judgments of 4 March 2020 and is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals against the General Court’s rulings in Cases T‑185/16 and T‑186/15, which dismissed actions seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions in State aid Cases SA.35842 and SA.35843—PSO compensation relating to Buonotourist and CSTP Azienda della Mobilità. Latest developments On 4 March 2020, the Court of Justice delivered its judgments and dismissed the appeals in full. Parties Appellants: Buonotourist S.r.L. (Buonotourist). A privately owned provider of local public transport services operating under regional and municipal concessions. In particular, throughout the period examined it managed a network of bus routes as concessionaire for the Italian region of Campania (the Region), covering around 1.8m km per year. Consorzio Salernitano Trasporti Pubblici SpA (CSTP). A public limited liability company providing local public transport services pursuant to regional and municipal concessions...

Read More Right Arrow