Don’t have time to post more about this one today, but want to flag this as a place holder such that I can refer to it more directly from time to time – like with respect to the linked posts I’ll progressively add in here:
|Prior to Sept 2017||There have been posts made in the past that reference this Analytical challenge.
When I have time to dig them up, I’ll link them in here for your reference – to highlight the diversity of when analysts need to be conscious of “what might have otherwise been”.
|Mon 4th Sept 2017||Following some claims made in the SMH that pointedly implied that the establishment of the market was the root cause of the (much more recent) escalation in wholesale prices in the NEM, I posted this rebuttal (and I again apologise for the colourful language that’s still doing the rounds on social media).
These sort of arguments inevitably include a strong element of “what would otherwise have been” if [INSERT KEY CHANGE PROPONENT DOES NOT LIKE] had not happened.
In that particular case (in my view), the writer from the ETU disliked the establishment of the market but drew a very long bow to link it to much more recent escalation of prices that have arisen for other reasons.
|Fri 15th Sept 2017||In this post published at the end of an 8-week sample period, I tried to estimate the volume of energy curtailed by AEMO as a result of the binding of the “S_WIND_1200_AUTO” constraint equation.
In doing this, I obviously needed to try to try to
|After Sept 2017||When I remember, I will also try to link them in here…|
Of course, if you want to start the ball rolling (even before content is provided here) feel free to add your comments below….