AER to develop two Rule Change proposals about Semi-Scheduled generation
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
AEMC Rule Change
AEMC Rule Change (Feb 2020) agrees with much of what ERM proposed – for ‘Improving transparency and extending duration of MT PASA’
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.
About ERM’s two rule change proposals in at the AEMC
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.
Where’s Loy Yang A unit 2?
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.
Let’s Talk Losses
Guest author, Tom Geiser, discusses the different approaches to loss factors amid recent market proposals.
All aboard the Negawatt Express … but where are we really headed?
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.
Transitional challenges require greatly enhanced analytical capability (exemplified in MT PASA Rule Change proposals, for instance)
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.
War of Losses
Some thoughts from Derek Chapman, from Adani Renewables, in conjunction with two rule change requests at the AEMC relating to Marginal Loss Factors.
A twenty year review of 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 site links to more details. On that page, the AEMO…
Some thoughts about Demand Response, in parallel with AEMC deliberations
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
AEMC released Final Determination on Five Minute Settlement on 28th November 2017
A quick look back at the AEMC’s Final Determination on Five Minute Settlement.
It’s complete baloney to claim that there’s “less than 1%” of peak demand in the NEM that is currently providing Demand Response
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
Using this train analogy to critique some recent developments with Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS)
[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.
Puzzling through three rule change requests
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
Is the real issue related to 5 minute dispatch and 30 minute settlement?
Some thoughts from another guest author, Greg Denton, about the current rule change proposal “Bidding in Good Faith” being assessed by the AEMC.