The COVID-19 pandemic threat and the Government’s response to it have introduced extraordinary changes to our communities and our economy. As businesses deemed non-essential were forced to close, and others restructured to idle towards the proposed ‘snap-back’ on the other side, energy businesses have ramped up their capability as they simultaneously restructured their entire operating model – thrown into chaos by the closure of borders, safety and hygiene requirements and new flexible work arrangements to keep their workforces safe.
As providers of essential services, energy businesses – generators, retailers, and networks – understand their responsibility to deliver for Australian homes and businesses. Retailers are at the front line, responsible for managing the customer experience of residential and business customers alike. In the past three weeks more than 780,000 people have lost their jobs[i], and over 850,000[ii] businesses applied for Government’s assistance[iii]. The strain expected to fall on retailers tasked with helping these impacted customers maintain connection and mitigate unmanageable debts will be remarkable.
Generators are facing different challenges. As operators of large plant, generation businesses have had to develop processes and procedures that would maintain supply and system security during the height of the pandemic. This remains a logistical challenge, and one likely to continue for many months, irrespective of the number of new cases of COVID-19 found in the population. As the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) seeks to ensure the grid remains stable, essential maintenance approaches must be reconsidered, fuel loads managed, and the planning of large outages faces the challenge of exactly how and when to get access to expert contractors – some of which are based overseas. At the same time, generators have been required to procure enough PPE to keep their teams safe should an outbreak occur at what is critical infrastructure for a functioning economy.
There is also a broad range of proposed and existing regulatory changes underway many with looming deadlines that impact the resourcing of energy businesses. In the last few years, the market evolution has been marked. Rule changes and market reviews are constant, with implementation windows booked some years in advance. Given the pace and volume of current regulatory reforms, the AEC wrote to the COAG Energy Council seeking a review of the regulatory reform roadmap to ensure that critical supply and reliability could be prioritised, focusing on delivering the outcomes customers expect today.
In a letter to COAG Energy Ministers dated 19 March 2020, the AEC sought the delay of a number of pending reforms to allow energy businesses to redeploy committed project teams to where they were more critically needed. These reforms included:
Since the COAG EC meeting on 20 March, the market bodies have taken these proposals on board, and are reviewing the appropriateness of the reform agenda in light of the impacts of COVID-19. The AEC strongly supports this current pragmatic approach.
Where to from here
Energy businesses have now been operating in crisis mode for more than six weeks. During this time businesses have gradually decentralised their operations from central offices to a more dispersed workforce with staff working from home. This transition has been made exponentially more difficult by the global impact of COVID-19, and in particular on those retailers with significant reliance on offshore infrastructure.
Generators have focused on contingency planning, building up stockpiles of PPE, developing risk mitigation strategies including implementing multiple shifts at generating units, and reconsidering outages and maintenance.
Due to the latency of energy billing cycles, retailers are anticipating impacted customers to increasingly seek help during the latter months of the pandemic. Customers on quarterly billing cycles might not realise affordability issues and broader vulnerability until May, June, and July. Of concern to energy retailers is winter consumption, and in particular the impacts of high heating usage during the cooler months as more customers are isolated in their own homes.
The regulatory roadmap consultation being conducted by the market bodies represents a significant step in mitigating the risks facing energy consumers. At the same time, the changed market conditions caused by the pandemic creates an opportunity to prioritise and optimise the future reform agenda. The AEC is not seeking to re-litigate the merits of key reforms, but rather, ensure they are sequenced in a manner that will allow efficient resource allocation during this time of crisis.
Since the AEC presented its view on 19 March, the market bodies have confirmed one major change to the reform agenda – a 12 month delay to the 5MS and GS implementation[viii]. Whilst this is a longer delay than the AEC had contemplated, it is recognised that a January start for 5MS would have been problematic.
In addition to the reforms outlined above, there is also a long list of proposed major reforms suggested for implementation over the medium term – the next five years. Some, such as those proposed recently by the COAG Energy Council associated with reliability, were done without open consultation, in hasty response to forecasts of market conditions that are likely to now be considerably changed with the economic conditions. Others are associated with various lines of activity regarding “ahead markets” and locational pricing. It is appropriate for the Energy Security Board (ESB) to now take stock and reconsider the urgency of this schedule.
Whilst the 12 month delay of the 5MS and GS implementation have garnered the most attention, the AEC is aware that a number of electricity businesses have already locked in resources to the current timelines that would take some effort to unpick. What is unanimously supported however is that 5MS and GS are fundamental reforms that should be carefully sequenced with other reforms currently in train. Of particular note is the need to implement the wholesale demand response mechanism after 5MS is implemented to avoid effectively building out the reform twice.
Not addressed yet however is the AEC’s key concern - the implementation of the Mandatory Primary Frequency Control program throughout the 2020/2021 financial year. This reform will require significant engineering and technical capability to occur on site, often using international expertise to model and reprogram the generator’s governors to deliver changed performance. In an environment where international travel is prohibited, and domestic travel extremely constrained, onsite development will be next to impossible for a period of some months. The AEC believes that a delay of at least a quarter to AEMO’s implementation schedule is unavoidable.
The retail reforms are less defined, with implementation dates still up in the air for key projects such as the consumer data right, reduced customer switching times, and the MSATS standing data review. The latter two projects should be implemented at the same time to avoid the need for multiple scheme changes. In addition to 5MS, implementing these projects separately as per AEMO’s proposed schedule would result in three separate schema changes in a 6 month period. This would be extremely burdensome for retail businesses rightly focusing ensuring customers remain connected during this pandemic and beyond.
Challenges create opportunities, and the AEC strongly considers that now is the time for optimisation of the future works program. With some minor amendments to the sequencing of immediate reform projects, and reconsideration of the agenda for more major reforms, significant costs could be avoided, and the long-term interests of consumers enhanced.
The first quarter of 2021 for the NEM's spot market was notable for its lack of notability. But in a measure of the how the NEM can turn, the Q2 Queensland average price to date is $135.83/MWh, versus $42.64/MWh over Q1. We look at how the market almost always successfully responds to the NEM’s variations, and its reliance on hydro and gas-fired generation to keep the lights on.
In February Texas endured a winter storm that dragged temperatures well below freezing. Electricity generation plant and gas infrastructure proved unprepared for these temperatures and around a third of the state’s effective capacity went offline for some or all of this period, just as demand was spiking to a new winter record.
A perennial discussion in energy market policy is the contest between what we are ultimately trying to achieve: “customer benefits” or “market benefits”. When making market rules, or building monopoly assets, rules require that we assess “net market” benefits. A number of recent government policies have been justified on customer benefit assessments alone.
Send an email with your question or comment, and include your name and a short message and we'll get back to you shortly.