Rule Change: Completed
On 1 September 2016, the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) made a rule, which is a more preferable rule, that requires transmission network service providers (TNSPs) to establish, publish and maintain a register of large generator connections to their network. TNSPs will also be required to undertake impact assessments for new large generator connections to consider the impact of the connection upon the transmission network.
The rule commenced on 1 July 2017.
On 8 March 2016, the AEMC received a rule change request from the COAG Energy Council to amend the National Electricity Rules.
The rule change request arises from a recommendation made in the Optional Firm Access, Design and Testing (OFA) review. The OFA review concluded in June 2015, and, amongst other things, recommended increasing the level of transparency relating to the effect of transmission connections in the NEM on the network.
A consultation paper was published on 23 June 2016 to facilitate discussion on the key issues in the rule change request. Submissions closed on 21 July 2016. Three submissions to the consultation paper were received, which are available below.
The Commission considered that the rule change request should be subject to the expedited rule making process on the grounds that it considers the rule change request to be non-controversial. Written objections to the expedited process closed on 7 July 2016. One stakeholder objection was received to the rule change request being considered non-controversial. In accordance with section 96 of the National Electricity Law (NEL), the Commission considered the objection to be lacking in substance. Therefore the rule change request was assessed as a non-controversial rule under the expedited rule making process.
On 18 August 2016, the AEMC announced it was extending until 15 September 2016 the period of time for making the final determination, and if needed, a final rule, on this rule change request. This extension of time was required as a result of the complexity of issues raised by stakeholder submissions to this consultation paper.
At the time of publishing the consultation paper, the time for making the final determination on this rule change under the expedited process was also extended by two weeks since it raised issues of sufficient complexity or difficulty. While the rule change was considered appropriate for an expedited process, it warranted an extension of the time between the publication of the consultation paper and the final determination from six weeks to eight weeks, allowing more time to consider submissions to the consultation paper.