Type 0) no Demand Response

For completeness, worth adding in here a “type 0” that represents all of the energy users that don’t currently participant in Demand Response of any type.

Type 1) Scheduled Load

Since the start of the NEM, there has been a registration category that of Scheduled Load.

In the early days of battery operations, they were required to registered as a pair of units:

• An [DUID-PREFIX]G1 unit as a Scheduled generator;
• plus an [DUID-PREFIX]L1 unit as a Scheduled Load.

… but since the IESS rule change implementation, they have been transformed into Bi-Directional Units (BDUs).

That leaves the only remaining Scheduled Loads being the pumping side of the (currently) 3 x pumped hydro units operating in the NEM … with Kidston coming before too much longer (and then others after that, we hope).

Type 2) Spot Exposure

2a) as Wholesale Market Customer

Different than the ‘Scheduled Load’ is a registration category of ‘Wholesale Market Customer’, which allows for the Market Customer to buy power directly from AEMO’s wholesale market.

In the AEMO’s current list of Registered Participants (i.e. downloaded today):

• There are 116 entities listed as ‘Market Customer’
• But keep in mind that …
  • this classification (also/primarily) covers those entities who buy (on spot) from the wholesale market in order to on-sell to their customers in the retail market (i.e. retailers)
  • Quickly eyeballing the list (so noting that I probably missed some) I counted 10 on the list that I’d classify as large energy users who would be consuming all of what they buy on the spot market.

2b) via a Retailer

But registering as a Wholesale Market Customer only tends to suit some of the largest energy users, in part because of the AEMO’s requirements for registering (prudentials, payment terms, etc)

It’s far more common (and has always been this way) that energy users engage some retailer to offer them some permutation of spot price pass-through in their retail contract.

In our focus at the C&I end of the spectrum, we’ve come across a wide range of types of approach, including:

• Covering just some loads and not the whole site or portfolio;
• Potentially only for specific periods of time (or with respect to other conditions);
• With other types of hedging available (and sometimes used) on top.

In more recent years, we’ve seen retailers operating at a more residential level also offer spot-price pass-through arrangements for their clients.  A topical example is that of Amber Electric, which gained a mention in Jared’s article ‘Australia’s Amber Electric lands $10m investment to help UK homes control consumption’ in the Australian today – which I mention because it included the note:

‘Launched in 2017 by Mr Thompson and Dan Adams (a former Tesla and Boston Consulting Group executive), Amber has become Australia’s dominant provider of residential solar and battery automation, securing more than 40 per cent of the domestic market.’

… which is important because:

• It highlights that Amber is a significant player in this space
• But not the only one.

It’s worth also noting that (in speaking at the 2025 EUAA Conference) I commenced a review of this traditional form of Demand Response:

• noting some emerging challenges we’ve been seeing
• the first part of which made its way into ‘A review of the traditional form of Demand Response (part 1)’.
• with other parts that might follow … time permitting

Type 3) Negawatts

3a) via a Retailer

Type 3a is different from Type 2b in that (in this instance) the retailer might have some form of agreed fixed price agreement with a retail energy user – but with this including some form of ‘call option’ (which might be firm, or not firm) that

• gives them the ability to call on that energy user (at times of the retailer’s choosing) to ask the energy user to reduce consumption for a specified period of time
• if the energy user is able to do this, then the energy user receives some specific benefit from the retailer for that instance of the response (which might be as simple as some percentage of the ‘avoided spot cost’ represented by the negawatt curtailment).

Type 3a has always existed in the NEM, since the start of the NEM … and there are some high profile examples of this.

3b) Centrally Dispatched

There have been two stages in the evolution of this approach:

• Earlier, with respect to FCAS markets…
  • In March 2016 the AEMC passed a rule (ERC0186) to allow Negawatts to supply FCAS … commencing 1st July 2017;
  • Then on 8th Aug 2017 (via ERC0221) expanded eligibility of this.
• With respect to the ENERGY market:
  • On 24th October 2021 we saw the WDRM commence as a ‘centralised negawatt dispatch mechanism’
  • On 13th March 2025, the AEMC published a consultation paper to commence a review of the WDRM, leading up to its 4th anniversary of its commencement (which is now under a month away).

Type 4) ‘Out of Market’ Demand Response

4a) via Reserve Trader (RERT)

For readers here on WattClarity® the most obvious type of this ‘out of market’ demand response falls under the ‘Reserve Trader’ category (a.k.a. RERT).

4b) via AEMO/Government Requests

But it’s also useful to keep in mind that a broader type of this response is the type of response that occurs when the AEMO and Governments ask the general public for some form of restraint/response at times of system stress (thankfully that happens rarely).

4c) New Forms?

Also worth noting that the Nelson Review draft report has spoken to an interest in other forms of ‘out of market’ peaking plant … though not necessarily related to Demand Response.

Type 5) ‘Dispatch Mode’ via IPRR

‘Active VSR’

(a)  There’s a category established on WattClarity about IPRR into which we’ll add articles over time.

(b)  It calls for a new ‘Dispatch Mode’ to commence in May 2027.

This reform process was formerly called ‘Scheduled Lite’.  The final determination was made by the AEMC back in December 2025 but (at least in part because commencement is >18 months away, and we have many other things to work through in the meantime) we’ve not had time to really read through the details.

But I do note in the draft report of the Nelson Review that Recommendation #2 references this change and even seems to advocate for a change to the voluntary nature of this classification?

‘Inactive VSR’