Decision tree E_0407: erneut Netznutzungsabrechnung prüfen

# E_0407 — Check grid usage settlement again check grid usage settlement again | Attribute | Value | |---|---| | Designation | Check grid usage settlement again | | Market role | LF | | Regulatory determination / chapter | GPKE | | Section | 6.10.5: AD: Grid usage settlement | | Check identifiers | Response: [33003](/en/schnittstellen/202604/pruefi/REMADV/PI_33003) | | EBD version | 4.2 | | As at | 2026-06-23 | ## Decision tree \nDecision tree E_0407: erneut Netznutzungsabrechnung prüfen\n\n\n\nE_0407\nerneut\nNetznutzungsabrechnung\nprüfen\nChecking role: LF\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\nno\n\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\nyes\n\n\nno\n\n\n ## Result codes | Result code | Cluster | Meaning | |---|---|---| | `AC1` | Rejection at header level | The LF continues to reject payment of the invoice because the NB could not refute all objections of the LF. Note: The objection is to be described in the response. | | `A01` | Rejection at header level | The LF is not assigned to the market location for a single day of the billing period. | | `A02` | Rejection at header level | The LF is not assigned to the market location for the entire billing period. Note: The LF states the expected billing period. | | `A03` | Rejection at header level | The invoice recipient is not the payer of the invoice. | | `A04` | Rejection at header level | The NB is not assigned to the market location for a single day of the billing period. | | `A05` | Rejection at header level | The NB is not assigned to the market location during the entire billing period. | | `AF3` | Rejection at header level | An intra-year grid operator change took place at the market location within the service period, and the NBA of the market location was not specified in the grid operator prices segment (RFF+Z56). | | `AF5` | Rejection at header level | An intra-year grid operator change took place at the market location within the service period, and at least one price is not identical to that of the NBA. | | `A07` | Rejection at header level | Invoice date is in the future. | | `A08` | Rejection at header level | Although this is not an instalment invoice, the invoice date is < the end of the billing period. | | `AC7` | Rejection at header level | The deadline for the instalment invoice was not met. | | `AC8` | Rejection at header level | The requirement that payment is to be made in arrears was not met. | | `A09` | Rejection at header level | Invoice number has already been used. | | `A06` | Rejection at header level | Invoice does not comply with §14 UStG. Note: The rejection must be justified. | | `A10` | Rejection at header level | The payment term is undercut. | | `A11` | Rejection at header level | The payment term is exceeded. | | `A79` | Rejection at header level | The message date of the special invoice is ≤ 01.01.2023 00:00 | | `A80` | Rejection at header level | The type of the present billing has already been corrected in a previous special invoice. Note: All affected special invoices are to be specified. | | `A95` | Rejection at header level | From the invoice recipient's point of view, the special invoice is not in order. Note: The rejection is to be justified. | | `A12` | Rejection at header level | Billing period is billed twice. Note: The LF states the invoice number of the invoice in which a part or the whole of the time period billed in this invoice has already been billed. | | `AE1` | Rejection at header level | Billing period is billed twice. Note: The LF states the invoice number of the invoice in which a part or the whole of the time period billed in this invoice has already been billed. | | `A13` | Rejection at header level | The LF does not have a delivery note for the invoice. | | `A14` | Rejection at header level | The delivery note for the invoice was cancelled. | | `AE0` | Rejection at header level | The grid operator transmitted the invoice before the deadline for the response message to the delivery note had expired. | | `A15` | Rejection at header level | The delivery note for the invoice was successfully rejected and was not contested and refuted by the NB. | | `A16` | Rejection at header level | The referenced delivery note does not cover the entire billing period of the invoice. Note: The LF states the time period that is not contained in the referenced delivery note. | | `A17` | Rejection at header level | Invoice type does not match the agreed grid usage billing variant. | | `AF4` | Rejection at header level | The LF does not have a price sheet for grid usage. | | `A18` | Rejection at header level | The LF does not have a price sheet for grid usage. | | `A19` | Rejection at header level | This is an impermissible invoice type. Usage note: The invoice type 13th invoice (13R) can no longer be used for time periods whose start date is ≥ 01.01.2023 00:00. | | `A90` | Rejection at header level | Other error in the header data. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: open | | `A20` | Rejection at line item level | The line item was not split into < and ≥ 01.01.2023 00:00. | | `A22` | Rejection at line item level | No article number is permitted for the line item period and the invoice type. | | `A23` | Rejection at line item level | There is a calculation error. Note: The calculation error is communicated in the rejection. | | `A24` | Rejection at line item level | The VAT rate contained in the line item is not correct. | | `A25` | Rejection at line item level | The end date of this line item > the end date of the billing period. | | `A26` | Rejection at line item level | The instalment amount is not plausible. Note: The LF states the expected instalment amount. | | `A81` | Rejection at line item level | The start date of the line item period < the start date of the billing period. | | `A27` | Rejection at line item level | Billing period is billed twice. Note: The LF states the invoice number of the invoice in which a part or the whole of the time period billed in this invoice has already been billed. | | `A82` | Rejection at line item level | Overlap of instalment period too large. Note: The instalment invoice with which the billing period overlaps must be specified. | | `A28` | Rejection at line item level | The article number used in this item is not valid. | | `A99` | Rejection at line item level | Other error at line item level. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: open | | `A83` | Rejection at line item level | The start date of the line item period < the start date of the billing period. | | `A84` | Rejection at line item level | The article ID used in the stated item should not have been listed for the entire item period. Note: Within the item period, the supplier states the time period in which this article ID is not valid. | | `A85` | Rejection at line item level | The master data item of the line item is incorrect from the point of view of the LF. | | `A31` | Rejection at line item level | This article ID is not permitted for this invoice type in the item period concerned. | | `A32` | Rejection at line item level | Surcharge or discount was not taken into account as exchanged in the master data. | | `AE2` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice because the sum of the quantities does not match the delivery note. | | `A33` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice with reference to the line item that does not match the quantities on the transmitted delivery note. | | `A34` | Rejection at line item level | The energy quantity/quantities is/are missing and has/have already been claimed via ORDERS. Note: The LF states the business transaction number of the ORDERS with which the missing energy quantity was claimed. | | `A39` | Rejection at line item level | Values from the MSB are missing or incorrect values were sent by the MSB and these have already been claimed via ORDERS. Note: The LF states the business transaction number of the ORDERS with which the missing values or incorrect values were claimed. | | `A35` | Rejection at line item level | The price for the article is incorrect. Note: the LF communicates the expected price for the article ID. | | `A36` | Rejection at line item level | The price for the article is incorrect. Note: the LF communicates the expected price for the article ID. | | `A37` | Rejection at line item level | The price was not specified (neither in the price sheet nor via master data) and is not known from “statutory requirements” either. | | `A38` | Rejection at line item level | The NB used the wrong price for the statutory surcharge or levy. Note: The LF states the expected price for the statutory surcharge or levy. | | `A99` (3 outputs) | Rejection at line item level | Other error at line item level. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: open | | `A46` | Rejection at line item level | The article ID used in the stated item should not have been listed for the entire item period. Note: Within the item period, the supplier states the time period in which this article ID is not valid. | | `AC9` | Rejection at line item level | The special contract customer concession levy is being billed although no billing of the concession levy was agreed via the master data exchange. | | `A43` | Rejection at line item level | This article ID is not permitted for this invoice type in the item period concerned. | | `A42` | Rejection at line item level | This article ID is not permitted for this invoice type in the item period concerned. | | `A44` | Rejection at line item level | Surcharge or discount was not taken into account as exchanged in the master data. | | `A87` | Rejection at line item level | The determination of the resulting value with this article ID has failed. | | `A88` | Rejection at line item level | The resulting value is < 01.01.2023 00:00. | | `A89` | Rejection at line item level | The resulting value does not match the corresponding resulting value. | | `AA1` | Rejection at line item level | Not all line items of preceding MVR invoices have been reversed. Note: The invoice numbers of the MVR must be stated. | | `AE3` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice because the sum of the quantities does not match the delivery note. | | `A45` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice with reference to the line item that does not match the quantities on the transmitted delivery note. Filling instruction: „Identification of the line/item in the document“: The LF states the highest line item number of the article ID for which the resulting value of the invoice does not match the quantity from the delivery note. | | `AA2` | Rejection at line item level | Values from the MSB are missing or incorrect values were sent by the MSB and these have already been claimed via ORDERS. Note: The LF states the business transaction number of the ORDERS with which the missing values or incorrect values were claimed. | | `AA3` | Rejection at line item level | Due to the supplier switch during the year, the maximum demand and the energy quantity for the period of the year before the supplier switch are missing, which the NB should have sent. | | `AA8` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice with reference to the line item that does not match the maximum demand of the delivery note. | | `A47` | Rejection at line item level | The price for the article is incorrect. Note: the LF communicates the expected price for the article ID. | | `A48` | Rejection at line item level | The price for the article is incorrect. Note: the LF communicates the expected price for the article ID. | | `A60` | Rejection at line item level | The price was not specified (neither in the price sheet nor via master data) and is not known from “statutory requirements” either. | | `A50` | Rejection at line item level | The NB used the wrong price for the statutory surcharge or levy. Note: The LF states the expected price for the statutory surcharge or levy. | | `A51` | Rejection at line item level | Billing period of the resultant is billed twice Note: The LF states the invoice number of the invoice in which this item has already been billed. | | `AA4` | Rejection at line item level | A change of connection user took place within the time period of the resulting time series. | | `AA6` | Rejection at line item level | The service to be billed has already been billed in a previous MVR. Note: The LF states the reference of the invoices (MVR) in which the service to be billed has already been billed. | | `AD0` | Rejection at line item level | Within the same invoice, the concession levy is charged once for tariff customers and once for special contract customers. | | `AA7` | Rejection at line item level | The concession levy for tariff customers has already been billed in a previous MVR and was not withdrawn. Note: The LF states the reference of the invoices (MVR) in which the concession levy has already been billed. | | `A77` | Rejection at line item level | The article ID used in the stated item should not have been listed for the entire item period. Note: Within the item period, the supplier states the time period in which this article ID is not valid. | | `AD1` | Rejection at line item level | The special contract customer concession levy is being billed although no billing of the concession levy was agreed via the master data exchange. | | `A53` | Rejection at line item level | This article ID is not permitted for this invoice type. | | `A54` | Rejection at line item level | This article ID is not permitted for this invoice type in the item period concerned. | | `A55` | Rejection at line item level | Surcharge or discount was not taken into account as exchanged in the master data. | | `AA9` | Rejection at line item level | The determination of the resulting value with this article ID has failed. | | `AB1` | Rejection at line item level | The resulting value < 01.01.2023 00:00. | | `AE4` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice because the sum of the quantities does not match the delivery note. | | `A56` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice with reference to the line item that does not match the quantities on the transmitted delivery note. Filling instruction: „Identification of the line/item in the document“: The LF states the highest line item number of the article ID for which the resulting value of the invoice does not match the quantity from the delivery note. | | `AB2` | Rejection at line item level | Values from the MSB are missing or incorrect values were sent by the MSB and these have already been claimed via ORDERS. Note: The LF states the business transaction number of the ORDERS with which the missing values or incorrect values were claimed. | | `AB3` | Rejection at line item level | Due to the supplier switch during the year, the maximum demand and the energy quantity for the period of the year before the supplier switch are missing, which the NB should have sent. | | `AC6` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice with reference to the line item that does not match the maximum demand of the delivery note. | | `A58` | Rejection at line item level | The price for the article is incorrect. Note: the LF communicates the expected price for the article ID. | | `A59` | Rejection at line item level | The price for the article is incorrect. Note: the LF communicates the expected price for the article ID. | | `AC2` | Rejection at line item level | The price was not specified (neither in the price sheet nor via master data) and is not known from “statutory requirements” either. | | `A61` | Rejection at line item level | The NB used the wrong price for the statutory surcharge or levy. Note: The LF states the expected price for the statutory surcharge or levy. | | `A62` | Rejection at line item level | Billing period of the resultant is billed twice. Note: The LF states the invoice number of the invoice in which this item has already been billed. | | `AB4` | Rejection at line item level | A change of connection user took place within the time period of the resulting time series. | | `AB5` | Rejection at line item level | Incorrect article ID used. | | `AB7` | Rejection at line item level | Incorrect article ID used. | | `A63` | Rejection at line item level | One of the two error situations exists: 1) Too few or too many line items from the preceding MVR are reversed. 2) The article ID was billed for the wrong utilization hours. | | `AB8` | Rejection at line item level | The service to be billed has already been billed in a previous MVR. Note: The LF states the reference of the invoices (MVR) in which the service to be billed has already been billed. | | `AD6` | Rejection at line item level | The concession levy has already been billed in a previous MVR. Note: The LF states the reference of the invoices (MVR) in which the concession levy has already been billed. | | `AD5` | Rejection at line item level | The reversal line items do not fully reverse all concession amounts already paid. | | `AD3` | Rejection at line item level | The wrong concession levy is being billed for the calendar year. | | `AD7` | Rejection at line item level | The concession levy is billed incorrectly. | | `AD8` | Rejection at line item level | The concession levy is billed twice. | | `AE5` | Rejection at line item level | The LF rejects the invoice because the sum of the quantities does not match the delivery note. | | `AD4` | Rejection at line item level | The energy quantity of the resulting value does not match the delivery note | | `AD9` | Rejection at line item level | The netted energy quantity of the resulting values does not match the delivery note | | `A78` | Rejection at summary level | Expected article ID not present in the invoice. Note: The expected article IDs must be stated. | | `AD2` | Rejection at summary level | The grid fees taking into account the flat-rate grid fee reduction under §14a EnWG are not calculated correctly. | | `A66` | Rejection at summary level | Stated taxable amount does not match the sum of the individual items of the tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX must be stated. | | `AC3` | Rejection at summary level | The sum of the prepaid amounts with this tax rate does not correspond to the prepaid amount with this tax rate stated in this invoice. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX are to be stated. | | `AC4` | Rejection at summary level | The total of the taxes of the invoice does not match the total of the taxes of the prepaid invoices. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX are to be stated. | | `A67` | Rejection at summary level | The sum of the prepaid amounts with this tax rate does not correspond to the prepaid amount with this tax rate stated in this invoice Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX are to be stated. | | `A68` | Rejection at summary level | The total of the taxes does not match the total of the prepaid taxes from the referenced invoices. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX are to be stated. | | `A69` | Rejection at summary level | The total of all invoice line items (net) of this invoice to which this tax rate is assigned, multiplied by this tax rate, does not match the stated tax amount for this tax rate. Note: The tax rate (from DE5278) and the control category (from DE5305) of the SG52 TAX are to be stated. | | `A70` | Rejection at summary level | Invoice amount (taxable amount including tax amount) of the total is not correct. | | `A71` | Rejection at summary level | Amount due is not correct. | | `A72` | Rejection at summary level | The total of the municipality discount is not correct. | | `AC5` | Rejection at summary level | Not all previously paid partial payment invoices are included for the billing period of the invoice (JVR, ZVR, ABR) Notes: The LF states the invoice numbers of all partial payment invoices it expected in this invoice. | | `A74` | Rejection at summary level | References to previously paid partial payment invoices are missing. Notes: The LF states the invoice numbers of the partial payment invoices that it expected in this invoice and that were not taken into account in this invoice. | | `A73` | Rejection at summary level | The prepaid amount shown is not correct. | | `A76` | Rejection at summary level | At least one instalment invoice taken into account in this invoice was rejected or not answered by the LF. Requested but unpaid instalment invoices are to be cancelled by the NB. Note: The LF states the invoice numbers of the instalment invoices that should not have been taken into account in the present invoice. | | `A75` | Rejection at summary level | At least one referenced instalment invoice has already been offset. Note: In the rejection, the LF states the instalment invoice(s) that have already been offset as well as the invoice(s) (in RFF+AFL) in which the instalment payment(s) (in FTX+Z14) have already been taken into account. | | `A96` | Rejection at summary level | Other error in the summary section. Note: The identified problem is to be described/named in the response. End of usability: open | *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.* :::note{title="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. :::