MSB (55 / 54)
E_0207 — Check request
Check request
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Designation | Check request |
| Market role | MSB |
| Regulatory determination / chapter | WiM electricity |
| Section | 8.11.1: AD: Request for invoice processing of metering point operation via LF by LF |
| Check identifiers | Response: 21033 |
| EBD version | 4.2 |
| As at | 2026-06-23 |
Decision tree
| Step | Check | Result | Code | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is there a valid contract between MSB and LF governing the invoice handling of the metering point operation towards LF? | no | A01 | No valid contract |
| — | — | yes | → Step 2 | — |
| 2 | Does the requested start of the takeover of the billing of the metering point operation fall within the period of an agreement on the handling of the metering charge already confirmed by MSB with the requesting LF? | yes | A08 | Handling of the metering charge already completed |
| — | — | no | → Step 3 | — |
| 3 | Are all metering locations of the requested market location equipped with kME? | yes | A02 | Equipped exclusively with kME |
| — | — | no | → Step 4 | — |
| 4 | Does a contract with the connection holder under MsbG exist? | yes | A03 | Contractual relationship with the connection holder does not permit this. |
| — | — | no | → Step 5 | — |
| 5 | Does a contract for metering point operation with the connection user exist that was not concluded implicitly? | yes | → Step 6 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 7 | — |
| 6 | Is billing via the LF excluded by the contract? | yes | A04 | Contractual relationship with the third party does not permit this. |
| — | — | no | → Step 7 | — |
| 7 | Is the fee already paid via the generating market location? | yes | A05 | Charge is billed by the generating market location. |
| — | — | no | → Step 8 | — |
| 8 | Is the fee paid via another market location? | yes | A06 | Charge is billed via another market location. |
| — | — | no | → step 9 | — |
| 9 | Does the MSB want to refrain from creating a quotation for the requested date and from creating and sending the quotation? | yes | → Step 10 | — |
| — | — | no | → Step 11 | — |
| 10 | Does an invoice handling agreed with LF for this market location already exist for a later point in time? | yes | A09 | The agreed invoicing arrangement for this market location is retained. No metering charge is invoiced for the time interval between the requested date and the agreed invoicing arrangement. |
| — | — | no | A10 | The MSB does not create a quotation for the requested date. Note: If the MSB wants to start billing at a later point in time, it will send a quotation in accordance with the use case „Quotation for invoice processing of metering point operation via the LF by the MSB“. |
| 11 | Does the requested start of the takeover of the billing of the metering point operation fall within a period already billed by MSB? | no | End | Send quotation |
| — | — | yes | → Step 12 | — |
| 12 | Has the LF made the request for the next possible date? | no | A07 | Start date falls within the time period already billed. |
| — | — | yes | End | Send quotation |
Result codes
| Result code | Cluster | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
A01 | — | No valid contract |
A08 | — | Handling of the metering charge already completed |
A02 | — | Equipped exclusively with kME |
A03 | — | Contractual relationship with the connection holder does not permit this. |
A04 | — | Contractual relationship with the third party does not permit this. |
A05 | — | Charge is billed by the generating market location. |
A06 | — | Charge is billed via another market location. |
A09 | — | The agreed invoicing arrangement for this market location is retained. No metering charge is invoiced for the time interval between the requested date and the agreed invoicing arrangement. |
A10 | — | The MSB does not create a quotation for the requested date. Note: If the MSB wants to start billing at a later point in time, it will send a quotation in accordance with the use case „Quotation for invoice processing of metering point operation via the LF by the MSB“. |
A07 | — | Start date falls within the time period already billed. |
Notes on this page
Role of the numbers: »response« are the check identifiers that list this tree in the ebd_code column of the check identifier table (knowledge-collection · FV 202604); »checked« is the difference set to it from the return path of the process steps.
Not checked against a process
No consistency check was carried out for this decision tree — no generated BPMN found. Whether the MACO APP implements this tree completely is therefore not evidenced here.