Regulator delays rule change that could accelerate battery storage | RenewEconomy

Regulator delays rule change that could accelerate battery storage

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Proposed rule change that could fast-track deployment of battery storage in Australia put on hold, a week after regulator was criticised by energy ministers for slow decisions.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

slow laneA proposed rule change that could accelerate the deployment of battery storage in Australia, increase competition and possibly reduce electricity prices has been put into the slow lane, with a draft determination delayed by seven months.

Just one week after the COAG energy ministers’ meeting vowed to provide more resources to the Australian Energy Market Commission to help it accelerate rule changes that could assist the energy transition, the main policy maker for the Australian energy markets has decided it needs more time.

The rule change has been proposed by Sun Metals, a major energy user, and calls for settlements on the wholesale electricity market to be made every 5 minutes, rather than every 30 minutes, so it can match the dispatch price interval.  Proponents and supporters say it will remove market distortion and increase competition, and reduce prices.

The rule has been supported by other energy users, battery storage and software developers, and independent energy analysts. Even the Australian Energy Regulator accepts it could reduce prices by removing a market distortion, and the Australian Energy Market Operator sees no technical issues and says it won’t cost much to implement.

But the proposal is being fiercely resisted by fossil fuel generators, particularly the owners of gas-fired generators, who fear losing their market power. Their principal lobby group – contradicting the assessment of the market operator – has argued that it will cause prices to rise and is not technically possible.

However, the AEMC announced on Thursday that the draft ruling would not be made this week, as originally planned, but would instead by delayed until March 30 next year, with a final decision not likely before July 31, 2017.

“The extended timeframe will enable the AEMC to evaluate the complex issues raised in responses to the consultation paper and consider the implications of inter-related AEMC projects,” it said in a statement. “It will also allow additional consultation with a large number of interested stakeholders.”

AEMC said the rule change represents a fundamental change to the price calculation in the wholesale electricity market, and was being made against the background of a market transformation, driven by the increasing share of renewable energy.

It warned that if it does agree to a rule change,  a transition period may be necessary to manage impacts on IT systems and contractual positions for retailers, generators and the market operator.

Some parties that had responded to the consultation paper argued that a rule change should be delayed to await the success, or otherwise, or new “bidding in good faith” rules.

Judging by the price spikes in South Australia in July, and independent assessments of bidding patterns by the dominant generators, these have had little impact. Indeed, the price gouging that these rules were supposed to remove has been endorsed by the country’ main competition regulator.

The Australia Institute said the recent price spikes in South Australia underscored the need for more competition in the market, which could be achieved by shifting settlement times to the same interval as dispatch prices.

“More importantly, and more certainly, the rule change is an important element of the more far-reaching changes that will be needed for the NEM to accommodate much higher levels of support from variable renewable electricity generation, supported by distributed batteries,” it said in its submission.

“We see the proposed rule change as an important part of the process of transforming the NEM towards a system for delivering a secure supply of low emission electricity to all consumers from a supply system using a high proportion of variable generation.

“As such, shifting to a 5 minute settlement interval will be essential within a few years. We can see no reason for delaying the implementation of this change.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 Comments
  1. Mike Dill 4 years ago

    Looks like someone was paid off (again).

  2. Paul Maher 4 years ago

    Most engineering screw ups stem from stopping one or two cuts short in development cycle in rush to market. I suggest that everyone stop for a moment and keep their eyes on Brillouin Energy and Phyllis Young, Spokeswoman of the Standing Rock Sioux.
    Truthout has run several pieces on this match up and covered the pair in their recent show and tell with Congress. Additionally the House Armed Services Committee has requested an up dated report on the utility of LENR from the Department of Defense. Imagine the Logistical jump inefficiency and cost reduction in not having to continually distribute Fossil Fuels to military vehicles. Spend a little time considering what is under development by many Universities, NASA, SPAWAR, ARPA-E, and DARPA before final decision regarding way to go in the world of new energy paradigms. Good stuff coming soon.
    @pmaher_art

  3. Tim Buckley 4 years ago

    The fossil fuel mantra – delay, delay, delay. Talk, and then delay some more.

    • FIFO69 4 years ago

      Would you prefer a hasty progression into unproven technology?

  4. david H 4 years ago

    Modern Australia = No decision is a good decision. We seem to have lost the ability to get things done.

  5. Alen T 4 years ago

    Does anyone else see the potential this may have on the EV market? Rather than being an expense only, you have a very real potential revenue stream from your vehicle in the energy stored in the batteries. Businesses with large EV fleets can aggregate their stored energy and regularly sell back in late afternoons / evening times when it is both favourable for the $/energy and for network support.

    I wonder if the EV in this scenario would also qualify for Local Network Generation Credits (another rule change currently being proposed).

  6. solarguy 4 years ago

    Insanity rides again!

  7. Daniel 4 years ago

    Hegemony of fossil fuel generators slowing emerging technologies

  8. mike hamblett 4 years ago

    Money talks loudest – regulators are only human………

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.