Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34,Anonymous, for Donating to support the site

ECJ capacity ruling

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

ECJ capacity ruling

#180555

Postby dspp » November 15th, 2018, 2:28 pm

UK must halt Capacity Market payments after EU Court ruling
The European Court of Justice has suspended the scheme which means the UK cannot hold any auctions either until it receives clearance
https://www.energylivenews.com/2018/11/ ... rt-ruling/

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1220
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#180676

Postby Sorcery » November 15th, 2018, 8:48 pm

dspp wrote:UK must halt Capacity Market payments after EU Court ruling
The European Court of Justice has suspended the scheme which means the UK cannot hold any auctions either until it receives clearance
https://www.energylivenews.com/2018/11/ ... rt-ruling/


So we are breaking the rules but it's ok for Germany to burn lignite?
And you like the ECJ so much you want to stay in?
It takes all sorts I suppose...

Edit: It may not be clear but I have quite a lot of respect for you dspp, maybe you don't like the ECJ so much, but to be clear do you think this ECJ decision is sensible on a scale of 0 to 100 where 100 is green to the point of insensible.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#180706

Postby dspp » November 15th, 2018, 9:56 pm

mmmm ..........

I have not seen the ECJ ruling itself, so I am quite sure there is plenty I am missing. However I'll have a stab at it.

Tempus were making the point that demand-side responses should be given a level playing field with supply-side responses. I can see why Tempus would make this criticism since they are a demand-side aggregator.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the reason this was heard by the ECJ was because market interventions by a state have to be notified by UK Gov to the EC who can then choose to intervene or give them a pass.* Therefore if something arises that needs ruling on, it naturally ends up in the ECJ as that is the place that is, in legal terms, best-suited to opine on the EC (and, seeing through the EC, also on DECC or whatever branding that bit of UKGov had at the time).

So there are really three questions:
1. Is the ruling correct.
2. Is the process of referral of state intervention to EC correct.
3. Is the ruling originating in the correct place, i.e. ECJ.

Broadly speaking I would say all three are correct.
1. State interventions should be limited to the minimum required to deliver a functioning market in the public interest (very short term: no blackouts; longer term: no emissions), and to not unnecessarily distort the market. I can get Tempus's asymmetric distortion argument. However there will be a short term conflict with the minimum distortion aspect, and a longer term conflict with the objective of reducing emissions. Finding that public interest balance will be complex and I am quite sure that if UK Gov puts their mind to it they will find better mechanisms to deliver a better balance between the objectives. So the ECJ has likely ruled correctly, but I'd need to read the judgement to properly form a view. I also note that Tempus are of course just as much in pursuit of their commercial objectives as anyone else. By the way I almost bid on the 2014 round but chose not to (on the supply side).

2. Absolutely correct. Otherwise nation-states can (and do) shamelessly rig their local markets for a whole variety of unwarranted reasons. I'm not saying the EC makes the right call all the time, indeed this is one where the wrong call seems to have been made. But somebody has to seek to keep the market as level as possible across the EU. Note that all states should go through the same referral processes, this is not a UK-specific thing. This function of course goes right back to the ECSC, and is a major reason for peace in Europe (and if you don't understand that then you need to read into the nature of industrialised warfare etc), and so is absolutely fundamental.

3. Since this relates to a non-intervention by the EC then most likely yes. If it had been a purely UK-thing, then perhaps it could have been handled at a UK level, but self-evidently it was not just a UK thing as the non-intervention of EC was part of the issue.

regards, dspp



* Back in the day, things I wrote, used to have to go this same route. I may not have the legal intricacies correct in this case, but I am pretty sure it is the same underlying intent/process. I used to have to choreograph stuff with DECC carefully because of this, and hold their hands on the technical bits. Not as often, but often enough, I observed that other states were doing their corresponding referrals. Some states are more punctilious than others. Nothing is perfect.

** PS . By all means make whatever points you want to about German lignite, but can I suggest you do so on a different thread. Judging by the restructuring of the German power companies going on at present (EON, RWE), I think they are seeking to get out of the lignite business as expeditiously as they can, shedding business and political liabilities as carefully as possible. But please consider cases individually: two wrongs do not make a right.

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1220
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#180800

Postby Sorcery » November 16th, 2018, 11:42 am

Thank you for that response dspp, it's obviously a lot more complex than I thought.

Maybe I am reading too much into this judgement but fossil fuel power generation would seem to be essential (without power storage solutions) for the high demand winter months to prevent blackouts. If fossil fuel power generation is to be kept idle in reserve then they need to be paid for being the reserve as well as for the power they produce. It's all very well having a level playing field for the likes of Tempus but suspending the capacity market before a solution is found seems rash.

Do you think this makes blackouts more likely?

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#180816

Postby dspp » November 16th, 2018, 12:17 pm

Sorcery,

To misquote Mencken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong". So don't worry, you are in popular company.

In winter in the UK the electrical loads tend to be greater, but so too are the windspeeds. We know we can go to 40% renewables penetration with no need for additional storage, and we are at about 30% or so at present (I can't see the number at the moment). These supply side capacity mechanisms are at present not really any greater than if the fleet were purely conventional, and by the time we get into territory where storage is needed it will be there.

Going forwards it appears cheaper to build battery storage, than to build idle capacity. The 2014 call was intended to trigger some of that (though I cannot remember if any won). See viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14745 for latest in PG&E etc on storage vs generation (though actually one of those storage plants is for line constraint reasons the underlying trend is clear). See also viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14670 .

The normal suspects will screech loudly that this makes blackouts more likely. Truth is otherwise. Nevertheless in the short term some fancy footwork is required to keep everyone solvent, politically unembarrassed, and no change to risk. And of course the union jack Y front brigade will screech loudly, that's just what they do.

regards, dspp

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8178
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 4078 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181114

Postby tjh290633 » November 17th, 2018, 4:43 pm

Surely the logical position is that no form of intermittent energy production should be allowed, unless it has a standby source of energy to cover the intermittent lack of production.

That could take many forms, like GT generators, diesel or gas generators, pumped storage, batteries, capacitors or some other form, yet to be invented. That could be owned or contracted, but the onus has to be on the provider of the intermittent energy, not the government or the consumer.

TJH

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3592
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 546 times
Been thanked: 1578 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181157

Postby gryffron » November 17th, 2018, 10:03 pm

Surely all forms of energy production are "intermittent". "Unreliable" is more like the word you are looking for. Neither wind, nor wave nor solar can guarantee against extreme weather conditions. But you're right. Therefore we cannot rely on renewables alone without backup.

Gryff

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6426
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 929 times
Been thanked: 2241 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181165

Postby Nimrod103 » November 17th, 2018, 10:42 pm

dspp wrote:Sorcery,

To misquote Mencken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong". So don't worry, you are in popular company.

In winter in the UK the electrical loads tend to be greater, but so too are the windspeeds.


This link says that wind speeds do not tend to be greater in cold weather (http://euanmearns.com/peak-demand-and-the-winter-wind/). To assume the opposite is wishful thinking by the Met Office and the renewables industry. I can remember plenty of static winter high pressure systems over Scandinavian which have brought bitterly cold windless days and nights to the UK. And they are not extreme events, but occur every winter.

This looks like an ill thought out and/or biased judgment.

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 846
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 779 times
Been thanked: 342 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181209

Postby PeterGray » November 18th, 2018, 9:59 am

This link says that wind speeds do not tend to be greater in cold weather (http://euanmearns.com/peak-demand-and-the-winter-wind/). To assume the opposite is wishful thinking by the Met Office and the renewables industry.

Actually, your link also quotes the met office as saying exactly that too - cold winter spells often coincide with low wind speeds (high pressure). The article is mostly about a small subset of that, where a large study has suggested that the very coldest days don't fit that pattern, and are often windy. I can't judge, but given the choice between a large study involving a lot of scientists at several institutions or your blogger, my inclination is towards the former!

However, this is a side show. There real issue is not disputed (as you want to suggest) by the Met Office. Renewables alone cannot cope with energy demands - in cold spells as one example. No one seriously disputes that. But that doesn't mean that renewables, plus storage - and likely nuclear and gas for the foreseeable future, cannot. And if storage improves, as it has, the former are going to come to play a bigger and bigger role.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181404

Postby dspp » November 19th, 2018, 2:36 pm

WIND SPEEDS
For UK windspeeds per month may I suggest you look at BRE's plotting of typical data from 26 UK met stations over a 30-year period https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2 ... d_Data.pdf . My own analysis of much more detailed data sets allies closely with this for the UK case.

It is also the case that high pressure can set in in winter for prolonged periods, and affecting a large geographical area - certainly the entire British Isles and some of the immediate neighbours. I have studied this as part of my analysis of detailed data sets and it is a scenario that a responsible network operator needs to design for. It is not a real concern at the current levels of renewables penetration on the grid, but it is one that needs to be planned for in the future. You only need to observe what is actually being done now on the HV grid to appreciate that people are thinking well in advance of this becoming an insurmountable problem.

My rule of thumb is that about a week is a good scenario to plan for in the UK context. I'm not going to post details of my past work on this here right now, but you can look at this Reading University article (http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/weather-and- ... e-weather/) and see similar work by them (you'll have to follow the trail via Google from there onwards). If you want you can come at the same work by reading the EM link (http://euanmearns.com/peak-demand-and-the-winter-wind/) which in turn links through to the same work stream from MetOffice & Reading Uni. Much of EM's work is good, but this particularly attempt at criticism by him doesn't seem very thoughtful - for example he has just looked at a meta-artefact in the power data and dismissed this as being reflective of the wind data (which it need not necessarily be).

INTERMITTENCY / AVAILABILITY and BACKUP
All forms of generation experience periods of unavailability. Sometimes these are planned, and sometimes unplanned. Much more important is how far in advance the unavailability can be meaningfully predicted so as to manage the operation of the network. It doesn't matter whether it is a nuke, or a gas turbine, or a wind farm this holds true. At the moment I am told (and what I am told fits with my own relevant engineering experience, and is told to me by people who are well placed to know) that the design-driving situation for having a large amount of backup generation available to the UK grid is in fact the unplanned and unforecast unavailability of the largest nuclear plant, i.e. the 1.2MW Sizewell B. There are a myriad of other possible outage situations which have to be planned for, each of different durations and reasons and with different forecasting horizons. However this particular one is quite problematic since it can occur with very little warning in some circumstances. There are other large generating sets that similarly create issues that require management in terms of providing backup, and at present these are more significant than renewables (as renewables can be forecast with a very high level of confidence, and the unanticipated loss of any individual turbine etc is not meaningful).

When planning for unavailability it is (in general) better to plan at the largest possible scale rather than the smallest. So it is best not to force every single generator to have its own backup as that would be an uneconomic over-provision. Provided that there is no other constraint (and in some cases there are), backups can be shared across the UK grid. However there are world-level (IEC) moves afoot to require all generating plant (inc renewables) to meet certain technical criteria regarding availability as if they were a black box in grid design terms.

regards, dspp

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181570

Postby dspp » November 20th, 2018, 9:29 am

Moderator Message:
FACTS vs RANTS
This area of TLF is for investment matters. Therefore please can people try to keep the discussion on these Sectors & General Shares board based upon facts. If you have a opinion based on a lack of knowledge, please phrase it as a question - and then more knowledgeable people can choose whether or not to answer your question. If on the other hand you simply disgorge your ignorance for all to clear up that is not helpful as it provokes a rather different reaction. In the future I (or any other Mod) will not hesitate to move the latter type of posts down to Polite Debates (if we have time on our hands), or simply delete them (if perhaps we are short of time). I don't think I have made this sufficiently clear in the past, your assistance & support in this respect is appreciated.

regards, dspp

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1220
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181795

Postby Sorcery » November 20th, 2018, 9:39 pm

dspp,

Thanks for that, very informative. I think I have slept on this twice now and I'm still not sure why you started this thread and appear to want posts of a certain type circumscribed. I don't really understand either how you can afford the time to be a moderator here given your directors role & adviser to government (is it?).

Goodnight, Godbless and Regards,
Sorcery

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#181995

Postby dspp » November 21st, 2018, 5:55 pm

For those that are into this sort of thing a slide deck of a continent scale grid study can be found here : https://cleanenergygrid.org/wp-content/ ... x-2018.pdf

A slightly more digestable press release can be found here: https://cleanenergygrid.org/groundbreak ... nsmission/

The people doing the work are described here: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/seams.html

Note that the slide deck is the only public domain piece of literature on this, there is no "report".

regards, dspp

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: ECJ capacity ruling

#203106

Postby dspp » February 22nd, 2019, 9:46 am

"The European Commission (EC) has opened an in-depth investigation into the UK’s Capacity Market (CM) scheme. Under the initiative, generators are offered financial incentives for ensuring power plants are kept on standby and are ready to provide back-up electricity when demand is at its peak, especially during the winter months. The launch of the investigation follows the EU Court’s landmark ruling which led to the suspension of the scheme last November. .......... etc"

https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/02/ ... et-scheme/

So we now have the interesting situation where the big utilities + UK Gov + European Commission are collectively opposing the upstart little UK cleantech/fintech company Tempus who were supported by the ECJ in considering the CM to be flawed/rigged and unfair.

Funny old world ....

dspp


Return to “Oil & Gas & Energy (Sector & Companies)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests