We summarise the submissions and the key points are:
On the need for access reform generally, of the 28 submission, only 4 wholly supported reform, with 11 categorically opposed and 13 unsure on the basis that the ESB had not provided sufficient information.
- Many stakeholders felt that the status quo, while not ideal, was preferrable to reform.
- Many stakeholders felt other initiatives had removed the need for any access reform, such as: Rewiring the Nation (building transmission), Marginal Loss Factors (MLFs), 5 Minute Settlement; and AEMO & TNSPs sharing more information.
- Many stakeholders had concerns that reform would create uncertainties that would increase risk and disincentivise investment in renewable generation, storage and transmission.
- Many stakeholders expressed frustration that they continue to raise concerns with the ESB on the need for reform, but have been and continue to be ignored.
More specifically, on the ESB’s Congestion Management Model which looks to introduce Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP): of the 28 submissions showed that only 3 companies or organisations are in favour of the ESB’s Congestion Management Model. 23 stakeholders are opposed and 3 are unsure or did not state.
- Many stakeholders felt none of the models were sufficiently well-developed to allow them to make a decision.
- Many stakeholders want to see independent cost-benefit analyses provided on all of the various models before they can make a decision that will have material business and consumer impacts.
You can read the summary of submissions here: Nexa Advisory-Summary of submissions- Transmission Access reform August 2022 Nexa Advisory-Summary of submissions- Transmission Access reform August 2022