

Aidan Morrison
3.7K posts

@FootnotesGuy
Researching energy and defence. Physics and data science background. Happy getting into the weeds.



Adding a neutral, unconstrained baseline, and exposing the cost of public policy constraints would: "create a level of uncertainty and confustion that would render the ISP ineffective". That's what Australian Energy Market Commission has just published in a draft determination, rejecting the @CISOZ rule change, and closing ranks with @AEMO_Energy who have chosen to make the ISP a slave to government policy assumptions. If the purpose of the ISP is simply to support the achievement of government policy, then I suppose that logic is correct. But if the purpose of the ISP was to bring independent expert analysis to bear in support of achieving the National Electricity Objective, which is meant to be about the interests of consumers, this is appalling. Governments have campaigned relentlessly on AEMO's independent expert analysis being the reason for policies (to promote renewables) being adopted. So to have the AEMC now claim that it's impossible for AEMO's ISP to actually measure those policies up against a true least-cost alternative is galling. Another chapter in the institutional betrayal of consumer interests, and common sense. 1/

I joined the AEMO ISP 2016 webinar and had a couple of question upvoted that were ‘answered’, thanks AEMO. Q1: how does AEMO model BESS revenue, when BESS need increased price spread but BESS reduce price spread. A1: AEMO don’t consider developer revenue Q2: is it realistic to expect 5 GW of coal to retire in 2029 A2: AEMO use advised retirement dates, VRE will cover it no problem My interpretation: AEMO are not interested in modelling reality, they are only interested in justifying new transmission projects in order to meet targets.








This is the most damning and outrageous draft-final change in the latest ISP. In the draft, just Stage 1, ie one 500KV line, modelled to New England. Ongoing analysis and stakeholder engagement needed "to ascertain whether the second stage will optimise benefits to consumers..." Crystal clear that AEMO knows full well that there are no projects likely to close in the REZ, and this will be a white-elephant, with terrible costs imposed on consumers with no chance of proportional benefit. So what happened with the analysis and stakeholder engagement? Well, one stakeholder trumped all others. The NSW government wrote and declared that they're doing both lines, in a single project, and asked for it to be treated as 'anticipated' which makes it a sunk-cost in the ISP, so AEMO would not do any further analysis on whether it makes economic sense for consumers. The sheer bloody-mindedness of this move is just breathtaking. There can be no pretense now that the ISP does anything at all to coordinate investment or protect consumers. A supremely arrogant government can just over-rule the community, and consumer interests, and the ISP just nods along, puts it all in the path called 'optimal'. 1/

Update!! 🔔🚨 This talk I gave up at Walcha a few weeks ago has now been published by @JohnAndersonAC on his channel. Very glad to share this experience, where my ivory tower economic analysis meets the faces of farmers being trampled by transmission. Link in reply.

@FootnotesGuy It's not the only protest or petition. The west of NSW is angry we've had enough. walchadeclaration.au
