Panel determinations
A summary of the determinations made by the dispute resolution panel in relation to wholesale electricity disputes.
Application for compensation for 1 May 2023 scheduling error - 20 June 2024
Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP): Tom Clarke of counsel was appointed as the single member of the DRP, convening via Zoom to address compensation claims under clause 3.16.2 of the National Electricity Rules (NER).
Referral by WEMDRA: The Wholesale Energy Market Dispute Resolution Adviser (WEMDRA) referred the matter to the DRP following a scheduling error reported by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). This error, listed as Error 54 by AEMO, occurred from the trading interval ending at 00:00 hours to the interval ending at 12:05 hours on 1 May 2023.
Issue Details: The scheduling error involved the Liddell Power Station generating units, which had been deregistered but were not updated in the National Electricity Market Dispatch Engine (NEMDE). This oversight led to incorrect dispatch instructions being issued. The error was corrected by noon on the same day.
Compensation Process: Compensation claims from affected parties were processed using a methodology that calculated potential earnings based on "what if" dispatch levels versus actual dispatch levels during the error period. Adjustments were made for spot prices and other agreed factors.
Total Compensation: The total agreed compensation for the claimants due to this scheduling error is $293,133.03. This amount will be drawn from the Participant Compensation Fund maintained by AEMO, which holds sufficient funds to cover the payment.
Cost Allocation: As this was an uncontested application for scheduling error compensation, the DRP applied the decision regarding claimants’ liability for their respective shares of DRP and WEMDRA costs. These costs are included in the compensation payable from the Participant Compensation Fund, consistent with the precedent set by the Dundonnell Wind Farm Scheduling Error compensation in December 2021.
Determination: DRP - Final determination and reasons - Application for compensation for 1 May 2023 scheduling error - 20 June 2024
| Overview | Overview of the application for compensation in relation to the scheduling error on 10 August 2022 declared by AEMO on 12 August 2022 outlined below. AEMO declared a scheduling error as a result of events on 10 August 2022 when AEMO implemented a software upgrade to the National Electricity Market Dispatch Engine that was affected by a programming error. The application for compensation was made under clause 3.16.2 under the National Electricity Rules (NER). A dispute resolution panel (DRP) is required to consider the claims before compensation is available. Compensation is awarded from a participant compensation fund that is established for the purpose. WEMDRA worked with the participants seeking compensation and consolidated the claim by agreement to be determined by a single panel comprised of Mr Tom Clarke of counsel. There was agreement between AEMO and the participants about compensation methodology and the amount of compensation that was payable to each was agreed between AEMO and each claimant individually. The nature of the software error had significance for the characterisation of the scheduling error and the way that compensation was calculated for this scheduling error, particularly the calculation of the spot price: see [24] to [25], [33] and [42] to [43] of the Determination. The DRP did not net-off any benefits received for over-dispatch as, among other things, the financial impact in this case appeared to be small. The DRP noted that the question of whether the netting-off of benefits received from over-dispatch may be required (or permitted) is a question that may warrant attention by a DRP in compensation claims flowing from future scheduling errors: see [55] to [61]. The total amount of compensation for the claim was awarded as it would not cause any substantial depletion to the compensation fund which has been established for this purpose. As this was an uncontested application for scheduling error compensation, the DRP applied his decision as to the claimants’ liability for their respective shares of the DRP and WEMDRA costs to be included in the compensation payable out of the participant compensation fund in line with the determination of the Dundonnell Wind Farm Scheduling Error claim for compensation in December 2021. |
|---|---|
| Dispute resolution panel | Tom Clarke of counsel was constituted as a single member dispute resolution panel (by Zoom) for determination of compensation under clause 3.16.2 of the National Electricity Rules. |
| Determination | Determination and reasons - 10 Aug 2022 scheduling error - 16 May 2023 |
| Procedural directions | Not applicable |
| DRP costs and Adviser procedural costs | Paid from the participant compensation fund DRP - $10,200 incl of GST WEMDRA - $13,522.60 incl of GST
|
| Overview | Overview of the Dundonnell Wind Farm scheduling error compensation claim outlined below. This compensation claims for a scheduling error under clause 3.16.2 were brought to the Adviser. Under the National Electricity Rules (NER) a dispute resolution panel is required to consider the claims before compensation is available. Compensation 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 amount of compensation that was payable. The total amount of compensation for the claim was small and well within the amount in the participant compensation fund which has been established for this purpose. The provisions of the NER only provide for direct costs to be compensated from the fund. By agreement the Adviser made submissions that the direct costs for errors of this kind can be taken from the fund. The Adviser contended that the object of compensating a claimant out of the Fund for scheduling errors is to place the claimant, so far as practicable, in the same position as it would have been in had the scheduling error not occurred. The achievement of that objective is furthered, rather than undermined, by permitting the claimant to be reimbursed out of the Fund for the DRP and WEMDRA costs that it must incur in order to make good its entitlement to compensation under cl 3.16.2. This contention was upheld by the DRP. |
|---|---|
| Dispute resolution panel | Tom Clarke of counsel was constituted as a single member dispute resolution panel (by Zoom) for determination of compensation under clause 3.16.2 of the National Electricity Rules. |
| Determination | Determination and reasons - Dundonnell WF scheduling error - 21 Dec 2021 |
| Procedural directions | Not applicable |
| DRP costs and Adviser procedural costs (fixed fee) | Paid from the participant compensation fund DRP - $3,300 incl of GST WEMDRA - $1,925 incl of GST Please note this is an important precedent matter on the payment of costs out of the participant compensation fund. A fixed fee was structured to reflect the amount in dispute, the fact that all matters were agreed, and the precedent value. These arrangements may not be available in all cases. |
| Adviser costs | The costs of the adviser application were paid from the Adviser's retainer. |
| Overview | 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 |
| Procedural directions | Dispute Resolution Panel - procedural direction no 1 - 28 December 2016
Dispute Resolution Panel - procedural direction no 2 - 21 February 2017 |
| This includes the following matters | Victorian Error: EP - 66kV Line Rating Error - Joint Submission - 23 March 2017 |
SA transformers matter: EP - SE Transformer Error - Joint Submission - 23 March 2017 AGL Hydro Partnership (ABN 86 076 691 481) and those identified in Schedule 2 of the Determination | |
AWEFS matter: ( claim for black energy only) EP - Joint Submission - AWEFS Error - 23 March 2017 (the AWEFS Alliance) and those identified in Schedule 3 of the Determination. | |
Queensland matter: EP - Incorrect SCADA - Feeder 7145 in Qld - Joint Submission - 23 March 2017 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 |
| Dispute Resolution panel | Geoff Swier |
| Determination | Determination and Reasons for the Determination Dispute Resolution Panel - Determination -Tasmanian scheduling error - 8 November 2016 |
| 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 |
| Determination | Multi-party UIGF - participant compensation fund declared scheduling error - spot market claim (panel 1 of 2) |
|---|---|
| Overview | 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 | |
| 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 |
| Determination | Synergen Power scheduling error |
|---|---|
| Overview | 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
Market Event Report affecting the dispatch of Mintaro Power Station - 26 August 2010 |
| Final determination |
| 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 |
| Submissions | Macquarie Generation and NEMMCO - Joint submission to the dispute resolution panel Schedule 2 - Market Event Report - 27 October 2007
NEMMCO - Submission to the dispute resolution panel - 4 April 2008
Macquarie Generation - Submission to the dispute resolution panel - 4 April 2008 |
| Final Determination | Determination - Macquarie Generation and NEMMCO - 24 April 2008 |
| 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 market–clause 8.2.5(e) - 21 November 2006 |
| Joinder of market participants | Direction by DRP re joinder and publication - 6 December 2006
Notice of direction to become a party to dispute - 6 December 2006 |
| Final Determinations | Interim determination - 22 December 2006
Final determination - 25 January 2005
|
| Determination | Sithe and Integral - avoided transmission use of system payments |
|---|---|
| Overview | 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 |
| 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 |
| Determination | Distribution loss factor clause 3.6.3(c) |
|---|---|
| Overview | 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 |