I-SEM Business Liaison Group (BLG) NEMO. 21 st June 2017 Minutes & Notes

Transcription

1 I-SEM Business Liaison Group (NEMO) 21 st June 2017 Minutes & Notes Meeting Details Meeting Purpose Location Chair Secretariat I-SEM Business Liaison Group (BLG) NEMO EirGrid, Dublin / Lync Mark Needham(I-SEM ) Louise Dalton (I-SEM ) Date 21 June 2017 Key Notes 1 & Decisions Peter Carruthers provided an update on the Implementation Project. A question was raised as to when the testing environment will be available to participants. Proposed changes to the interim IDA design were confirmed, following extensive discussion with GB NEMOs. Key changes include: o IDA1 gate closure at 17:30 rather than 15:30 o IDA3 to operate as a local auction rather than a regionally coupled auction for go live, with extension of IDA3 to include regional coupling to be based upon liquidity and market experience post go-live. A Change Request (JCR287) will be released for the IDA1 gate closure change and a Day-2 deferral request prepared for the IDA3 local auction change. A question was asked as to how long it will take for the intraday auction to clear. Answer: It will take approximately 45 minutes to clear, it is a full Euphemia auction and there are a number of procedures and checks to complete as it is a coupled auction. It was noted that these procedures, rather than any other aspect of the auction, which were the primary driver for the timeframe and were needed to manage the multiple parties involved in a coupled auctions (i.e. TSOs and NEMOs) 1 Additional to those covered in the meeting slide pack Page 1 of 7

2 A suggestion was raised that the UK intraday afternoon auction be moved to 15:00 from 15:30, clarification was given that EPEX were not supportive and there would need to be a consultation with GB market participants. It was suggested that the 17:30 auction might be brought forward to 14:00; however, clarification was given that there would have been difficulty in getting GB NEMO support for coupling due to the short window between 14:00 and 15:30, also the short window from 11:00 to the proposed new timeslot of 14:00 would potentially cause difficulties in adjusting for wind changes etc. A concern was raised that if the 15:30 GB auction satisfies GB participants, there is a risk that GB participants then simply won t turn up to the 17:30 auction, meaning the auction will be crossborder in theory but not in practice. It was noted that there is a risk to liquidity in establishing any new market and that SEMOpx had explored numerous options and feel that 17:30 will be the best option to provide agreement on the cross border elements as well as liquidity. Nordpool intend to introduce a regional intraday auction to GB at 14:30, the possibility of coupling to this rather than the 17:30 was brought up, however there is no liquidity in this auction and a too-short window from the 11:00 auction. A question was raised as to whether participants can register for the capacity market in order to meet registration deadlines and then not participate variable operators may not be sure of what they want to do until after the REFIT decision is published. Answer: variable generators are not obliged to take part in the capacity market and may opt not to register. For those who register, they will be obliged to take part in the auction at their qualified amount. Question: What is the maximum clip size for a block order? Answer: The final conditons for products will only be set after the successful completion of the PCR testing process. However, the current limit in other EPEX markets is 600 MW. Question: What is the back-up if SEMOpx market fails testing? Answer: This is a risk that needs to be managed by building a strategy that we are confident will pass. This will include as many tests as are appropriate to provide this confidence. SEMOpx noted that the primary concern at this point is addressing the underlying challenges in the testing process and that is the primary driver for the new strategy. Question: Can it be confirmed that without the advocacy route being successful, is it true that results of IAT3 testing shows that even the minimum product set would not be successful? Page 2 of 7

3 Answer: Until the advocacy route is fully explored, it is unclear what the test conditions will be. IAT3 indicated that the preferred option would not pass testing under the current conditions. However, IAT3 was not a test of the minimum approach and so we are not clear on whether this would pass. The minimum product set is proposed as simple and complex orders for go-live, with block orders to be implemented as soon as practicable afterwards. This approach is proposed as it provides participant certainty in relation to the products available for go live, provides functionality that is expected to be sufficient to enable the market to go live, and lowers the risk in relation to PCR approvals. Question: If version of Euphemia will not be available until Q1 and then during the testing product types may be changed on offering, what is impact on Market Trial e.g. if we start Market Trial with a minimum product types and then change based on PCR feedback will the Market Trial need to be reset and repeated? Answer: No, we will not be resetting Market Trial. It has been noted as a project risk that the PCR test will occur during market trial and that the uncertainty of the results may have caused a need for changes. SEMOpx have addressed this uncertainty by confirming the minimum approach of complex and simple order only for the DAM and committing to deliver at least this. It was pointed out that external factors can impact on the testing process and we cannot just rely on the testing process; we need external advocacy and the prioristisation of allocation process (that must recognise legislative implementation dates rather than the current first-come, first-served process). The consequence of us failing the PCR approval process will mean the SEM cannot couple with the European market, this argument is currently being made to the NEMO committee, who will decide of the methodology for managing changes to the day-ahead solution. While the NEMO committee will be the ultimate decision makers, due to their technical expertise, it is possible that the PCR group may feed into the NEMO committee (which is Europe wide) position if asked to do so. The RAs, through their role in ACER, are being asked to push the agenda and SEMOpx as a member of the NEMO committee will be pushing the agenda there as well A question was raised regarding reporting, the timescale mentions REMIT reporting, does the option imply that EMIR reporting is also relevant as it s a financial trade? A question was raised regarding C94A is the de-rating value going to come in the auction information pack in July? Answer: the information pack will contain tables outlining the de-rating factors for the various technologies. Participants will need to use these to determine the specific de-rating factor applicable to their unit. A question was asked regarding C94 and c92 forms will the updated forms be released with the Page 3 of 7

4 auction pack in July? [awaiting clarification on this. Either the forms or the pack will need to be updated and it is under discussion as to which will be done] Some participants have had difficulties with the LMS- only one module (Road to ISEM) appears to be working at present. This is being worked on, the training team is in contact with the LMS provider as a small amount of particpants have had a similar issues. During the Market Trial Update it was emphasised that the ideal nominee is a programme manager or someone with experience of a market trial. A question was raised regarding the relationship between a unit and balancing market entering into a breach status and triggering a trading halt. In this case, can the entity on the exchange sever ties? Answer: it was confirmed that in all cases, an entity may sever ties with a unit on the exchange as a change to their registration data. As regards timing, this will be subject to a registration process which is not yet defined but may take a number of working days to complete. The trading halt will be put in place following the expiration of the response period defined in the trading and settlement code. This response period is subject to RA consultation currently. Clarification was sought regarding product types on the continuous exchange will the products be in line with IFA blocks on the UK market. Answer: the pre-defined blocks for the continuous market are outlined in the draft SEMOpx operating procedures. These are based on the blocks used for the DAM. It will be possible to add new pre-defined blocks over time. A question was raised regarding timelines for trading and settlement code - there is no mention of the 28 July agreement date for signing in the ISEM milestone report. Answer: this date has been included in the transitional registration plan and communicated to registration contacts. The date in the level 2 milestones of 15 th of September is for the full completion of the accession process including the SEMO processing of forms. In order to complete this process on time, forms must be submitted to SEMO by the 28 th of July. Actions Action Responsibility Existing Actions From Previous Meetings Remaining Open After 21 May BLG Action 236: Action to check if there is any link back to the department regarding REFIT. Page 4 of 7

5 Action 237: Confirm with EPEX ASAP an indicative projected timeline for the 30 minute product and minimum accepted ratio. Request to provide a timeline for these changes ASAP. Action 243: Summarise what the three proposed Intraday auctions are. Action 246: RA rep to raise issue of REFIT internally and provide further information at next BLG. New actions from 21 June BLG Some participants have had difficulties with the LMS- only one module (Road to ISEM) appears to be working at present. This is being worked on, the training team is in contact with the LMS provider as a small amount of particpants have had a similar issues. Confirmation to be provided regarding C94 and c92 forms will the updated forms be released with the auction pack in July? Either the forms or the pack will need to be updated and it is under discussion as to which will be done. Clarification to be provided regarding reporting, the timescale mentions REMIT reporting, does the option imply that EMIR reporting is also relevant as it s a financial trade? Page 5 of 7

6 Appendix: Attendee List Name In Person Adam Diamond Aidan Cummins Aidan Jones Alan Reynolds Alex MacGregor Brian Mongan Catherine Joyce-O'Caollai Chloe Kinsella Darrell Thomas David Gascon David Horan Ellen Phelan Francis Mallon Glenn Hogg Gregg Allen Hugh Mullany Ian McLelland Julie-Anne Hannon Liz Kelly Louise Dalton Marie Barry Marina Petcova Mark McGarrity Mark Needhan Michael Kelleher Mike Guy Paraic Higgins Patrick O'Hagan Paul Comins Peter Carruthers Peter Grogan Philip Mc Daid Robert McCarthy Shauna Ferry Sinead O'Hare Tom Poole Company Go Power ElectroRoute ESBIE Electric Ireland DSU Brady Power NI Supply, Energia, Power NI PPB Indaver Ireland Cenergise RUSAL Aughinish ESB CUSTOMER SUPPLY _PES Viridian Interconnector Unit CRES Templederry PrePayPower Enerco Energy Bord Gais Energy ABB attending on behalf of AES ESB PGEN Bord na Mona Powergen Captured Carbon Limited Bord Gais Energy Dunmore Tynagh Energy Limited Viridian Group Gaelectric Interconnector Trading ROI Limited Budget Energy Ltd Project Plug Limited 'TA' ClickEnergy NIE Power Procurement Business Page 6 of 7

7 Adam Diamond Aidan Cummins Aidan Jones Alan Reynolds Alex MacGregor Brian Mongan Catherine Joyce-O'Caollai Chloe Kinsella Darrell Thomas David Gascon David Horan Ellen Phelan Francis Mallon Glenn Hogg Gregg Allen Hugh Mullany Ian McLelland Julie-Anne Hannon Liz Kelly Louise Dalton Go Power ElectroRoute Brady Power NI Supply, Energia, Power NI PPB Indaver Ireland Cenergise RUSAL Aughinish ESB CUSTOMER SUPPLY _PES Viridian Interconnector Unit CRES Templederry PrePayPower Enerco Energy Bord Gais Energy ABB attending on behalf of AES Page 7 of 7