A year ago we reviewed the market outcomes of wholesale demand response (WDR) in the NEM. It’s been 2 years now, providing a new milestone from which to review participation and impact. Can we say yet, whether the mechanism is a square peg in a round hole?
Casting a look over wholesale demand response in the NEM, one year on, how has participation grown and the capability been used?
A look to see how far WDR has come since it was introduced in October, and to what extent the units registered under the mechanism are helping to alleviate supply-demand tightness during events like last night.
Taking a look on the demand side of the equation, to see what was visible of demand side responses during the tight supply/demand balance period in Queensland on Tuesday 1st April 2022.
A very brief look into how many units have been registered for the WDRM, and how many MW have been dispatched since the rule change was implemented roughly two months ago.
It’s Sunday 24th October 2021 and the AEMO’s new Centralised Negawatt Dispatch Mechanism has started operations. What can we see?
A feature of the upcoming EMMS technical specification that distinguishes demand response units from scheduled loads could impact some users of NEM data, if left unmanaged.
A week ago (Thursday 21st Jan 2021) we received an email from AEMO following the publication of Draft Guidelines for the Wholesale Demand Response Mechanism. We share some thoughts here today.
A recent development over in the WEM (paying energy users to consume, when there’s too much solar and wind) highlights the lack of foresight in the NEM … where we’ve implemented a significant reform (yet to start) that will do nothing to address negative prices.
Considerations on how key aspects of the upcoming wholesale mechanism might dictate how much response capability will be realised once the mechanism goes live before Summer 2021-22
University of Queensland PhD candidate, Nicole Lashmar, is conducting a research project which aims to identify the motivations, risks and opportunities for businesses when deciding to participate in demand response programs.
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…
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 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
One more example of not focusing on the real problems seems to be a tendency for some to obsess about one narrow type of Demand Response (i.e. dispatch of NegaWatts) whilst seeming to lose focus of what the overall objective is (a more active and responsive demand side).
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 about the structure of FERC Order 745, and the arguments for & against setting it aside the in the US Court of Appeals – and the relevance for the Australian National Electricity Market