Overview of the Victorian Error, the SA transformers matter, AWEFS matter and Queensland scheduling error matters considered together with each of the compensation claims outlined below.
A number of compensation claims for scheduling errors under clause 3.16.2 were brought to the Adviser. Under the National Electricity Rules a dispute resolution panel is required to consider the claims before compensation is available. Compensation for these claims is awarded from a participant compensation fund that is established for the purpose.
There was agreement between AEMO and the participants about the circumstances arising leading to a need for compensation and the amounts of compensation that were payable. The total amount of compensation for the claims exceeded the total amount in the participant compensation fund which has been established to compensate these matters. This required a DRP in any individual claim to consider how best to apportion the amounts in the participant compensation fund. The Adviser worked with the parties and the DRP to facilitate the matters being dealt with by a DRP in a combined way together to ensure efficiency, reduce the cost of the DRP and also enable a single DRP to consider the allocation of compensation from the participant compensation fund with full control over the totality of the claims at the same time.
By agreement facilitated by the Adviser costs were shared on a pari passu basis by all participants in the process.
|Dispute resolution panel||Peter Gray QC was constituted as a single member dispute resolution panel (at Melbourne) for determination of compensation under clause 3.16.2 of the National Electricity Rules.|
|Determination||Dispute Resolution Panel - Determination and Reasons both dated 8 May 2017 ( PDF 314.31 KB )|
|Procedural directions|| Dispute Resolution Panel - procedural direction no 1 - 28 December 2016
PDF 95.86 KB
Dispute Resolution Panel - procedural direction no 2 - 21 February 2017 ( PDF 81.09 KB )
|This includes the following matters||
EP - 66kV Line Rating Error - Joint Submission - 23 March 2017
PDF 614.25 KB
SA transformers matter:
AGL Hydro Partnership (ABN 86 076 691 481) and those identified in Schedule 2 of the Determination
AWEFS matter: ( claim for black energy only)
(the AWEFS Alliance) and those identified in Schedule 3 of the Determination.
AGL Hydro Partnership (ABN 86 076 691 481) and those identified in Schedule 4 of the Determination.
|DRP costs||$18 900 plus GST (fixed fee)|
|Adviser costs||$4,000 plus GST per matter plus costs for travel (total $20,393.14 plus GST).|
|Determination||Multi-party participant compensation fund declared scheduling error|
|Overview||On 31 October 2015, AEMO declared under clause 3.8.24(a)(2) of the NER that a scheduling error had occurred that affected the Generating Systems from the dispatch interval ending 1110 hr on 2 May 2014 to the dispatch interval ending 1740 hr on 6 June 2014.
The declaration was contained in a report entitled “NEM SCHEDULING ERROR INCORRECT TASMANIAN SOUTHERN AREA LOAD" Published: November 2015.
The matter was referred to the Adviser by way of a notice in writing on 29 June 2016 by Hydro Tasmania. The Adviser consulted with other effected participants and assisted with the finalisation of the joint submission.
On 18 October 2016, the Adviser established a panel comprising of Geoff Swier. Other participants were joined to the DRP process by the DRP with their express consent.
|Joint submission||Joint submission and schedules to the Dispute Resolution Panel - 2016 ( PDF 1.85 MB )|
|Dispute Resolution panel||Geoff Swier|
Determination and Reasons for the DeterminationDispute Resolution Panel - Determination -Tasmanian scheduling error - 8 November 2016 ( PDF 519.86 KB )
|DRP costs||$5,000.oo plus GST of 10 percent|
|Adviser costs||(Adviser process and DRP administration): 2.8 days- fixed fee for each participant.|
|Disbursements||Nil hearing by Zoom|
|Total amount paid out of the compensation fund:||$ 296,661.14|
Multi-party dispute between:
The following participants were joined by the Adviser:
The matter before the dispute resolution panel (DRP relates to the interpretation and application of Rules affecting the calculation of trading amounts under Rule 3.15.6A(i) for ancillary services transactions, specifically relating to the recovery of the costs of regulation services.
|Dispute resolution panel||Peter R D Gray QC chair, Linda McMillan (Farrier Swier Consulting Pty Ltd), Gregory Thorpe (Oakley Greenwood).|
|Adviser referral notice||Stage 2 Adviser Referral Notice issued by Origin - 28 April 2016 ( PDF 591.14 KB )|
|Hearing dates||3 days Victoria: 25-27 July 2016 Langham Hotel Melbourne|
No 1 dated 17 June 2016, No 2 dated 15 July 2016, no 3 dated 20 September 2016, and number 4 dated 26 September 2016.
|Dispute Adviser||Shirli Kirschner (Resolve Advisors)|
|Dispute Adviser costs|
Disbursements for hearing
Submissions and hearing materials
(please request from Adviser)
Hearing Book FOLDER A AEMO published documents
Hearing Book FOLDER B & C Rule change and ACCC, AER docs
Hearing Book FOLDER D submissions
Hearing Book FOLDER E legislation
Hearing Book FOLDER F Cases
|Determination||Multi-party UIGF - participant compensation fund declared scheduling error - spot market claim (panel 1 of 2)|
On 7 June 2012 AEMO declared a scheduling Error pursuant to clause 3.8.24(2). The declaration was contained in a report entitled “Incorrect Unconstrained Intermittent Generation Forecasts for Semi-Scheduled Generators” the (UIGF scheduling error) . The Adviser met with AGL, AEMO and other effected participants to assist them to agree on principles for compensation and the exchange of information in preparation for a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) process.
The matter was referred to a DRP determination of spot market losses, by way of a notice from AGL Hydro dated 23 July 2012.
On 30 October 2012, the Adviser established a panel comprising of Peter Gray SC to hear the matter. Five other participants applied and were joined to the DRP process seeking compensation for spot market losses. A copy of the joint submissions, the Determination of Peter Gray SC and Reasons for the Determination are published below. The compensation amounts are published in the Determination.
|Joint submission||UIGF scheduling error spot market claim - Joint submission and schedules to the Dispute Resolution Panel - November 2012 ( DOCX 1.26 MB )|
|Dispute Resolution panel||Peter Gray SC|
|Adviser cost||(Adviser process and DRP administration): 8.5 days: 29,700.00 plus GST of 10 percent|
|DRP cost||$13,150.00 plus GST of 10 percent|
|Disbursements||$1,241.26 plus GST of 10 percent. (Paid for in proportions as agreed by the parties).|
|Final determination||Dispute Resolution Panel - AGL Hydro & Ors determination and reasons - 27 November 2012 ( PDF 1.35 MB )|
|Determination||Infigen UIGF scheduling error - REC claim (panel 2 of 2)|
|Overview||In addition to seeking compensation in the nature of lost spot market revenue, Infigen also lodged a claim for compensation for renewable energy certificates that it would, but for the UIGF scheduling error have been entitled to create. The Adviser established a panel comprising of Michael Black AO QC, Peter Gray SC and Geoff Swier to determine this claim for compensation.|
|Dispute resolution panel||Michael Black AO QC, Peter Gray SC and Geoff Swier
|Adviser cost||$7,000.00 plus GST of 10 percent|
|DRP cost||$44,000.00 plus GST of 10 percent|
|Disbursements||$2,943.36 plus GST of 10 percent|
|Submissions|| AEMO-Infigen submission as to compensation for REC losses on UIGF scheduling error (Final)- November 2012
PDF 527.46 KB
Infigen submission to the Dispute Resolution Panel re compensation for REC losses - 8 November 2012 ( PDF 2.15 MB )
Infigen submission in reply to AEMO's submission (dated 8 November 2012) - 12 November 2012 ( PDF 150.95 KB )
AEMO response to Infigen submission - 12 November 2012 ( DOCX 27.94 KB )
AEMO further submission post DRP hearing - 19 November 2012 ( PDF 382.58 KB )
Infigen supplementary submission - 16 November 2012 ( PDF 32.85 KB )
|Final determination|| Dispute resolution panel determination Infigen and AEMO - 12 December 2012
PDF 7.6 KB
Dispute resolution panel reasons for determination Infigen and AEMO - 12 December 2012 ( PDF 206.07 KB )
|Determination||Synergen Power scheduling error|
Claim for compensation by Synergen Power Pty Limited in relation to a declared scheduling error affecting the Mintaro Gas Turbine Station in South Australia.
The scheduling error is the subject of a Market Event report prepared by AEMO dated 26 August 2010 and provided below. This matter went to an Adviser Process which assisted in clarifying the scope of the issues and preparing it for determination.
The request for compensation went to a DRP. Synergen Power was awarded $246,858.78 - the amount sought.
|Dispute Resolution Panel||Geoff Swier|
|Adviser process cost||$4500.00 plus GST|
|DRP cost||$8406.24 plus GST (includes DRP and Adviser, not including parties legal costs if any)|
|Disbursements||$860.00 plus GST|
|Submissions|| Synergen and AEMO joint submission to dispute resolution panel
PDF 252.12 KB
Market Event Report affecting the dispatch of Mintaro Power Station - 26 August 2010 ( PDF 172.93 KB )
|Final determination||Determination - Synergen and AEMO ( PDF 959.38 KB )|
|Determination||AGL scheduling error|
In a Scheduling Error Report, dated 20 January 2010 AEMO declared that “it failed to follow the central dispatch process....” for the five minute dispatch intervals on 19 November from 14:50 to 17:05 hours and on 20 November for the majority of dispatch intervals from 10:55 to 13:15hours. . Subsequently, AGL initiated a claim that it suffered a net loss as a consequence of the scheduling error. The claim was referred to a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) seeking a determination that an amount of compensation should be paid to AGL.
AGL was awarded $571,935.06 - the amount sought.
The DRP raised a question whether an applicant under section 3.16.2 of the Rules was entitled to actual losses or reasonable losses. The DRP decided that in this case there would be no material difference in amount whether using actual or reasonable loss and therefore it was unnecessary to determine the issue in this case.
|Dispute Resolution Panel||Greg Thorpe|
|DRP costs||$10 000 (not including parties own legal costs)|
|Submissions||AGL and AEMO - Joint submission to dispute resolution panel ( PDF 443.12 KB )|
|Final determination||Determination - AGL and AEMO - June 2010 ( PDF 66.4 KB )|
|Determination||Macquarie Generation and NEMMCO scheduling error|
|Overview||Claim for compensation by Macquarie Generation following a scheduling error on 22 October 2007.|
|Dispute Resolution Panel||John Clarke QC and Greg Thorpe|
|DRP costs||$14 835.98 (not including parties own legal costs)|
|Hearing date||20 March 2008, Sydney|
|Commencement||Adviser Notice to the Market-clause 8.2.5(e) - 11 March 2008 ( PDF 12.59 KB )|
Macquarie Generation and NEMMCO - Joint submission to the dispute resolution panel
PDF 205.57 KB
|Final Determination||Determination - Macquarie Generation and NEMMCO - 24 April 2008 ( PDF 373.15 KB )|
|Determination||Millmerran and NEMMCO (all participants joined) - loss factors|
|Overview||Key issues: Joinder of market, MLF calculation, whether NEMMCO was functus officio once it had calculated and published intra-regional loss factors for a financial year in accordance with clauses 3.6.2(f) and 3.6.2(f1) of the National Electricity Rules.|
|Commencement||Adviser notice to the marketâ€“clause 8.2.5(e) - 21 November 2006 ( PDF 18.07 KB )|
|Joinder of market participants|| Direction by DRP re joinder and publication - 6 December 2006
PDF 148.45 KB
Notice of direction to become a party to dispute - 6 December 2006 ( PDF 267.6 KB )
|Final Determinations|| Interim determination - 22 December 2006
PDF 19.36 KB
Final determination - 25 January 2005 ( PDF 33.05 KB )
Recalculated loss factors 2006-07 ( PDF 18.62 KB )
|Determination||Snowy Hydro Ltd and NEMMCO scheduling error|
|Overview||Dispute between Snowy Hydro Limited and National Electricity Market Management Company|
|Commencement||Adviser notice to the market clause 8.2.5(e) - 7 August 2006 ( PDF 25.57 KB )|
|Final Determinations|| Preliminary question re s119 - 25 September 2006
PDF 35.31 KB
Interim determination confidentiality - 4 November 2006 ( PDF 736.95 KB )
Scheduling error - 1 January 2007 ( PDF 133.53 KB )
Decision - Compensation principles - 29 August 2007 ( PDF 50.99 KB )
Decision - Compensation determination - 18 October 2007 ( PDF 68.64 KB )
|Determination||Sithe and Integral - avoided transmission use of system payments|
Integral Energy and Sithe Australia Power in 2002 invoked the market’s alternative dispute resolution arrangements to resolve a dispute over the payment of avoided transmission use of system (TUOS) payments.
Under clause 5.5 of the code, as amended following our transmission and distribution pricing review, distribution network service providers (DNSPs) must pass through to an embedded generator the amount of customer TUOS charges the DNSP would otherwise have had to pay to a transmission network service provider had the embedded generator not been connected to the DNSP’s network. This is so-called avoided TUOS. The dispute between Sithe and Integral hinged on whether clause 5.5 in itself gives Sithe a right to payment of avoided TUOS by Integral.
A three-member dispute resolution panel, chaired by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE sitting with GE (Tony) Fitzgerald AC QC and Dr Phillip Williams, issued a binding determination relating to the content of future connection agreements or perhaps modifications to existing agreements, not with altering the rights and obligations of parties to existing agreements, which do not enter into new agreements or perhaps modify existing agreements after the changes to clause 5.5 came into effect. The full text of the panel’s determination is available to download.
The dispute was resolved in just over three months. A notice of dispute was issued on 24 September, and referred to the dispute resolution panel on 30 October, last year. The panel issued its determination to the parties on 8 January 2003.
|Final Determination||Summary of dispute resolution panel decision - January 2003 ( PDF 169.47 KB )|
|Determination||Participant fee structure dispute|
|Overview||The ‘Second Group’ chaired by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE that was responsible for deciding the participant fee structure dispute made a determination on 6 December 2002. A summary of that determination is available to download. The Second Group dismissed each of the errors that were alleged to have been made by NEMMCO in its 2000 fee structure determination and therefore upheld that determination.|
|Final Determination||Summary of Second Group determination - December 2002 ( PDF 56.63 KB )|
|Determination||Distribution loss factor clause 3.6.3(c)|
On 15 September 1999 a dispute resolution panel chaired by John Clarke QC issued a determination relating to the appropriate loss factor under clause 3.6.3(e) of the code. A summary of the panel’s decision, slightly amended in order not to name the parties involved in the dispute, is available to download.
The panel recommended, amongst other things, that NEMMCO should not make any new determination of a loss factor in relation to the generator than was the subject of the dispute until the wider issues of the financial impact of distribution loss factors have been considered by NECA as part of its current review of the scope for integrating the energy market and network services.
Commenting on the panel’s decision, Stephen Kelly, NECA’s managing director, said that:
"I welcome the panel’s recognition of the need to resolve the wider issues surrounding distribution loss factors. It is essential to ensure there are no barriers to entry, or unfairly discriminatory access to the market, for new entrants. We shall ensure that this issue is addressed four-square within the review we have launched of the scope for integrating the energy market and network services. The appropriate basis for determining distribution loss factors will be discussed, and comments invited, in the issues paper we shall shortly be publishing as the basis for consultation on the review."
|Final Determination||Summary of dispute resolution panel decision - 25 September 1999 ( PDF 228.59 KB )|