Here’s an attempt to translate the concern underlying the AER Issues Paper into ‘plain English’ via the popular song.
AEMC Rule Change
It’s not a surprise to me to see that someone (the AER in this case) has released an Issues Paper canvassing options for changing the way Semi-Scheduled generators interact with the dispatch process. Not a surprise, as our prior analysis suggests the current approach is not sustainable or scalable.
My understanding is that the AEMC’s Final Rule relating to the push to implement a ‘Negawatt Dispatch Mechanism’ will be released in the morning. I wonder what the implications will actually turn out to be…
A brief note about the (also short) notice from the AER relating to two rule change proposals which it has been asked to propose by the COAG Energy Council
A back-dated article, looking back at the two ERM rule change requests which, when passed by the AEMC, had great effect in expanding transparency in the NEM in relation to generator availabilities from 20th August 2020.
Two earlier articles today prompt this follow-on piece, specifically focusing on what’s being requested by ERM Power in two separate rule change requests relating to the MT PASA process.
The ongoing (second) outage at Loy Yang A unit 2 is a timely reminder of the need to progress the 2 rule change proposals submitted by ERM Power with respect to MT PASA data duration, and granularity.
Guest author, Tom Geiser, discusses the different approaches to loss factors amid recent market proposals.
Better late than never (perhaps?) today I post a few thoughts about the AEMC’s proposed draft rule change for the incorporation of NegaWatts into centralized dispatch.
A few additional thoughts about proposed changes to the MT PASA process, informed by our conclusions in Theme 14 within Part 2 of our Generator Report Card.
Some thoughts from Derek Chapman, from Adani Renewables, in conjunction with two rule change requests at the AEMC relating to Marginal Loss Factors.
Last week the AEMO released a draft of the Marginal Loss Factors (MLFs) that would apply to both generation and loads connected to the NEM. This page on the AEMO…
A collection of thoughts that have been bumping around in my head for some time about the latest push by various parties to facilitate a broader range of demand response in the NEM, and whether there are better options
Some quick thoughts (before I run out of time) about why it’s all-too-commonly (but mistakenly) stated that there’s not much Demand Response in the NEM
[PART 2 of] a post by guest author, Bruce Miller – which was initially posted on LinkedIn as one piece, but which has been broken into two on WattClarity as each part serves different purposes.
Some ideas that I have been puzzling over – about the overlaps and contradictions between 3 rule changes under consideration at the AEMC currently
1) The Demand Response Mechanism (better known as the Negawatt buyback mechanism)
2) The Bidding in Good Faith deliberation
3) The Requirement for Price-Responsive (large) Demand to bid into central dispatch
Some thoughts from another guest author, Greg Denton, about the current rule change proposal “Bidding in Good Faith” being assessed by the AEMC.