Day: October 8, 2024

Recently I attended the 3rd Annual Global Arbitration Review (GAR) Live Energy Disputes conference in London.  A stimulating day of discussion about developments in the international energy business closed with a vigorous debate on the following motion: “This house believes that there’s no law in gas pricing arbitration”.

Those supporting the motion focused on the complex commercial and economic exercise arbitrators in a gas pricing dispute must tackle.  In essence, they contended the arbitrators, by reference to current market conditions, try to update the parties’ commercial deal by copying the economic exercise those parties undertook when they agreed their long-term SPA.  In short, arbitrators decide what the parties should have agreed given the current facts.

Those arguing against the motion forcefully reminded the conference that gas and LNG price reviews take place within the legal structure set out in the SPA.  So, interpretation of the scope of the relevant price review clause remains at the heart of the dispute.  Further, any award the arbitrators make in the first price review under the SPA will inevitably impact later reviews under that contract, i.e. applying the law of issue estoppel is often central to pricing disputes.  So, a price review is not just a commercial and economic exercise.

I have some sympathy for both sides’ opinions.  However, while respecting the central role economic arguments play, it is going too far to say there is no law in gas pricing arbitration.

My experience of gas pricing disputes is that most of both sides’ cases focuses on the economic evidence with the independent experts take opposing views on several topics. For example, the state of the relevant market(s) at particular times, what are the competing fuels and, critically, the most apt data and methods for calculating a new price.  As a result the economic issues can dominate the arbitration.  One point of view is that price reviews are intended simply to re-run the economics underlying the parties’ original deal to update the price to reflect current market conditions.

However, most of the audience at the GAR conference did not accept this limited view of gas pricing arbitrations.  Although economic arguments may dictate the arbitration and final hearing, the parties must always present those arguments through the prism of the law.  All the price review arbitrations I have worked on raised difficult questions about interpreting the price review clause.  In my most recent price review, submissions expressly dealt with applying the English Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arnold v Britton to the clause.  I accept the economic evidence may colour how a party chooses to advance its case on the meaning of the price review clause.  Nonetheless, the experts must present their evidence given the instructions they receive upon the exercise the price review clause requires.  Further, ultimately, the tribunal must apply their understanding of the expert evidence to the objective criteria in the clause to decide whether (and, if so, how) the price should change.  Deciding how the price clause is to be interpreted and whether, in the light of two different experts’ opinions, the test it sets is met, are inherently legal exercises.  That is why parties send price reviews to arbitration, not expert determination.  It is also why parties choose lawyers as arbitrators rather than economists, although hopefully lawyers who can understand complex economic evidence.

Finally, it was notable that the moot arbitrators at the GAR conference mentioned issue estoppel as a key reason they could not accept the motion.  Those of us who have worked on second (and later) price reviews will know how important this area of law can be.  The award on a first price review will reverberate through the remaining term of the SPA.  In particular, the tribunal’s interpretation of the price review clause will often bind future tribunals considering price reviews under that SPA.  The second edition of GAR’s Guide to Energy Arbitrations recognises the central role issue estoppel plays in price reviews.  It includes a new chapter that Liz Tout and I have written tackling this subject.  So, perhaps next year, the motion considered at the GAR conference should be: “This house believes contractual interpretation and issue estoppel lie at the heart of disputes under long-term energy contracts”.

Things may be starting to move a bit faster in the world of GB energy policy after what you could be forgiven for thinking was a Brexit-induced slowdown. On 24 July 2017, the UK government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the energy regulator Ofgem published a number of documents that reveal their evolving thinking about the future of the GB electricity system. These publications followed on from some significant initiatives by Ofgem and National Grid. This is the first of series of posts assessing where all this activity may be leading.

The full holiday reading list from 24 July was as follows.

• The centrepiece was the BEIS / Ofgem response to the joint “call for evidence” on a “smart, flexible energy system” that they issued in November 2016 (CFE). As well as the response itself (the Response), there is a “smart systems and flexibility plan” (the Plan), ending with a helpful summary of the current state of play and next steps.
• Alongside the Response and the Plan, BEIS publicised some significant funding initiatives for battery technology under the umbrella of the government’s industrial strategy, on which the Secretary of State for BEIS, Greg Clark, gave a speech in Birmingham.
• The final contribution from BEIS was the innocuously titled “Capacity Market: improving the Framework” (the CM Consultation).
• Ofgem set out its “views on the design of arrangements to accommodate independent aggregators in energy markets” (the IDA policy paper), supported by an “assessment of the economic value of demand-side participation in the Balancing Mechanism and an evaluation of options to improve access” from Charles River Associates (the CRA Report).
• At the same time, Ofgem published work by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates on the distributional impacts of time of use tariffs (the CEPA Report).
• Finally, an Ofgem update and a launch statement and other documents kicked off a Significant Code Review on mandatory half hourly metering (the SCR Papers).

Other recent official publications that are relevant in this context and referred to below include:

Overview

The Response and the Plan cover a broad range of subjects; many of the other documents are rather more monothematic. We will follow the topic headings in the Response, referring to the other documents where they are relevant. However, it is helpful to start by framing some of the key themes underlying this area of policy by turning to the Pöyry / Imperial Report.

The CCC has recommended that in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the Climate Change Act 2008 (reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050), the carbon intensity of the power sector should fall from 350 gCO₂/kWh to about 100 gCO₂/kWh by 2030.  Pöyry / Imperial observe that in any future low carbon electricity system, “we should anticipate:

• a much higher penetration of low-carbon generation with a significant increase in variable renewable sources including wind and solar and demand growth driven by electrification of segments of heat and transport sectors;
• growth in the capacity of distribution connected flexibility resource;
• an increased ‘flexibility’ requirement to ensure the system can efficiently maintain secure and stable operation in a lower carbon system;
• opportunities to deploy energy storage facilities at both transmission and distribution levels; and
• an expansion in the provision and use of demand-side response across all sectors of the economy.

System flexibility, by which we mean the ability to adjust generation or consumption in the presence of network constraints to maintain a secure system operation for reliable service to consumers, will be the key enabler of this transformation to a cost-effective low-carbon electricity system. There are several flexibility resource options available including highly flexible thermal generation, energy storage, demand side response and cross-border interconnection to other systems.”.

This explains why technologies and mechanisms that can increase system flexibility are a dominant theme in current GB electricity sector policy-making. But Pöyry / Imperial then go on to discuss the extent of the uncertainty that, based on their modelling, they consider exists about how much the main types of flexible resource may be needed on the way to achieving the CCC’s target. This is clearly shown in the table, reproduced below, setting out their assessment of “the required range of additional capacity of different flexible technologies to efficiently meet 2030 carbon intensity targets”.

With the exception of interconnectors, the table shows the amounts of each flexible technology in the low and high scenarios, at each of the three dates, varying by a factor of 5 or more. As regards interconnectors, an illustration of the potential uncertainties in the different scenarios modelled by National Grid in FES 2017 is provided by the two FES 2017 charts below.

Source: National Grid, FES 2017

Source: National Grid, FES 2017

The need for more flexible resources is clear, and Pöyry / Imperial calculate that integrating them successfully, as compared to the use of “conventional thermal generation based sources of flexibility”, could save between £3.2 billion and £4.7 billion a year in a system meeting the CCC’s 2030 target.  But it is also clear that there are many different possible pathways that could be followed to achieve this level of flexibility, and that even if we get to 100 gCO₂/kWh by 2030 – which is by no means guaranteed – there will inevitably be, at least relatively speaking, “winners” and “losers” in terms of which flexible technologies, and which individual projects, end up taking a greater or lesser share of what could be loosely called the “flexibility market”.

What will determine who wins or loses out most in this competition will be the same factors as have driven changes in the generation mix in the UK and elsewhere in recent years – in particular, the interplay of regulation and technological change.  In 2016, as compared with 2010, the UK consumed 37% less power generated from fossil fuels and more than twice as much power generated from renewable sources: see the latest Digest of UK Energy Statistics. That shift is the result of subsidies for renewable generating capacity and reductions in the cost of wind and solar plants combined with other regulatory measures that have added to the costs of conventional generators. But whereas in the initial stages of decarbonising the generating mix, the relationship between regulatory cause and market impact has been relatively straightforward, making policy to encourage flexible resources is more complex: it is like a puzzle where each piece put in place changes the shapes of the others.

This is perhaps why the actions recommended by Pöyry / Imperial as having a high priority, summarised below, all sound difficult and technical, and require a large amount of collaboration.

Storage

We looked at the current issues facing the UK energy storage sector and recent market developments in some detail in a recent post, so we will not dwell too much on the background here.

Storage – conceptually if not yet in practice – is the nearest thing there is to a “killer app” in the world of flexible resources.  It has the potential to be an important asset class on a standalone basis, but it can also be combined with other technologies (from solar to CCGT) to add value to them by enabling their output to match better the requirements of end users and the system operator.

In GB, as in a number of other jurisdictions, there is intense interest in developing distributed storage projects based on battery technology (for the moment at least, predominantly of the lithium ion variety), and a strong focus on doing so in a way that allows projects to access multiple revenue streams. There is also a general feeling that the regulatory regime needs to do more to recognise storage as a distinct activity but at the same time to do less to discriminate against it in various ways.

So, what do the Response and the Plan tell us about the vision for storage?

• The Response points to National Grid’s SNaPS work, “which specifically considers improving transparency and reducing the complexity of ancillary services”.
• It also points to work that has been done and/or is ongoing to clarify how storage can be co-located with subsidised renewable electricity generating projects and to provide guidance on the process of connecting storage to the grid. BEIS / Ofgem note that they see no reason why a network operator should not “promote storage…in a connection queue if it has the objective of helping others…to connect more quickly or cheaply”, and point out that Ofgem can penalise DNOs who fail to provide evidence that they are engaging with and responding to the needs of connection stakeholders.
• BEIS / Ofgem highlight the proposals in the TCR Consultation on reducing the burden faced by storage in terms of network charges, notably the removal of demand residual charges at transmission and distribution level, and reducing BSUoS charges, for storage. A response to that consultation is to be published “in the summer”.
• In relation to behind the meter storage, BEIS / Ofgem observe that at present: “technology costs and the limited availability of Time of Use (ToU)/smart tariffs are greater barriers…than policy or regulatory issues”. This may invite the response from some readers that it is precisely a matter for policy and regulation to promote time of use / smart tariffs: the CEPA Report makes interesting reading in this context.
• BEIS / Ofgem “agree with the view expressed by many respondents” that network operators should be prevented from directly owning and operating storage” whilst slightly fudging the extent to which this may already be the case as a result of existing EU-based rules on the unbundling of generation from network operation, but “noting” the current EU proposals in the November 2016 Clean Energy Package to prohibit ownership of storage by network operators except in very limited circumstances and with a derogation from the Member State.
• Flexible connections “should be made available at both transmission and distribution level”.
• BEIS / Ofgem agree that the lack of a legal definition or regulatory categorisation of storage is a barrier to its deployment. Legislation will be introduced to “define storage as a distinct subset of generation”. This will enable Ofgem to introduce a new licence for storage before the changes to primary legislation are made. The “subset of generation” approach will also “avoid unnecessary duplication of regulation while still allowing specific regulations to be determined for storage assets” – such as whether the threshold for requiring national rather than local planning consent should be the same for storage as for other forms of generation.
• The prospect of storage facilities benefiting, as generation, from relief from the climate change levy is also noted – although since the principal such relief (for electricity generated from renewable sources) no longer applies, this may be of limited use to most projects.

What the Response says about storage is typical of its approach to most of the issues raised in the CFE. If one wanted to be critical, it could be said that although, on the whole, BEIS / Ofgem engage with all the points raised by stakeholders, there is rarely an immediate and decisive answer to them: there is always another workstream somewhere else that has not yet concluded that holds out the prospect of something better than they can offer at present. On the other hand, perhaps that just highlights the points implicit in the Pöyry / Imperial Report’s recommendations: no one body can by itself create all the conditions for flexibility to be delivered cost-effectively, and it will be difficult fully to judge the success of the agenda that BEIS and Ofgem are pursuing for another two or three years.

But wait a minute.  On the same day as it issued the Response and the Plan, BEIS also published the CM Consultation. The sections of the Response on storage say nothing about this document, but it is potentially the most significant regulatory development in relation to storage for some time.

• The Capacity Market is meant to be “technology neutral”. Above a 2 MW threshold, any provider of capacity (on the generation or demand side) that is not in receipt of renewable or CCC subsidies can bid for a capacity agreement in a Capacity Auction that is held one year or four years ahead of when (if successful) they may be called on to provide capacity when National Grid declares a System Stress Event.
• A key part of the calculations of any prospective bidder in the Capacity Market, particularly one considering a new build project, who is hoping that payments under a capacity agreement will partly fund its development expenses, is the de-rating factor that National Grid applies – the amount by which each MW of each bidding unit’s nameplate capacity is discounted when comparing the amount of capacity left in the auction at the end of each round against the total amount of capacity to be procured, represented by the demand curve. Some of the de-rating factors applied in the 2016 T-4 Auction are set out below.

• In the table above, storage has, for example, a de-rating factor approximately 10 percentage points higher than DSR and hydro and, if successful at auction, would receive correspondingly higher remuneration per MW of nameplate capacity than those technologies.
• The typical potential storage project competitor in the Capacity Market is now more likely to be a shed full of batteries than a pumped hydro station. This has prompted industry participants to question whether such a high de-rating factor is appropriate to all storage. Ofgem, in considering changes to the Capacity Market Rules proposed by stakeholders, declined to take a view on this, deferring to BEIS.
• BEIS, in the CM Consultation, finds merit in the arguments that (i) System Stress Events may last longer than the period for which a battery is capable of discharging power without re-charging; (ii) batteries degrade over time, so that their performance is not constant; (iii) a battery that is seeking to maximise its revenues from other sources may not be fully charged at the start of a System Stress Event. It proposes to take these points into account when setting de-rating factors for the next Capacity Auction (scheduled to take place in January 2017, and for which pre-qualification is ongoing), and splitting storage into a series of different categories based on the length of time for which they can discharge without re-charging (bands measured in half-hourly increments from 30 minutes to 4 hours). Bidders will be invited in due course to “self-select” which duration-based band they fall into.
• Of course, deterioration in performance over time is not unique to batteries – other technologies may also perform less well by the end of the 15 year period of a new build capacity agreement than they did at the start. And, as with other technologies, such effects can be mitigated: batteries can be replaced, and who knows by what cheaper and better products by the late 2020s. However, a fundamental difficulty with the CM Consultation is that it contains an outline description of a methodology, based around the concept of Equivalent Firm Capacity, but no indicative values for the new de-rating factors.
• It may be that BEIS’s concerns about battery performance have been heightened by the fact that the parameters for the next Capacity Market auctions show that it is seeking to procure an additional 6 GW of capacity in the T-1 auction (i.e. for delivery in 2018). There is reason to suppose that battery projects could make a strong showing in this auction, given their relatively quick construction period and the number of projects in the market, some of which may already have other “stacked” revenues (see our earlier post). Clearly it would be undesirable if a significant tranche of the T-1 auction capacity agreements was awarded to battery storage projects which then failed to perform as required in a System Stress Event.
• It is arguable that the three potential drawbacks of battery projects are not necessarily all best dealt with by de-rating. For example, the risk that a battery is not adequately charged at the start of a System Stress Event is ultimately one for the project’s operator to manage, given that it will face penalties for non-delivery. Nor is it only battery storage projects that access multiple revenue streams and may find themselves without sufficient charge to fulfil their Capacity Market obligations on occasion: pumped hydro projects do not operate only in the Capacity Market, and even though they may be able to generate power for well over four hours, they too cannot operate indefinitely without “recharging”.  Moreover, National Grid is meant to give 4 hours’ notice of a System Stress Event, which may provide battery projects with some opportunity to prepare themselves.
• However, the real objection to the de-rating proposal is not that it is not addressing a potentially real problem, but that it is only doing so now – given that the issue was raised by stakeholders proposing Capacity Market Rules changes at least as long ago as November 2016 – and with no published numbers for consultees to comment on.
• The de-rating proposal illustrates a fundamental feature of the flexible resources policy space: one technology’s problems provide an up-side for competing technologies. Self-evidently, what may be bad news for batteries is good news for other storage technologies to the extent that they are not perceived to have the same drawbacks.
• Seen in this light, the CM Consultation appears to be the main (perhaps only) example of a policy measure that supports the “larger, grid-scale” storage projects (using e.g. pumped hydro or compressed air technology) about which the Response has relatively little to say. However, a few percentage points more or less on de-rating may not make up for the lack of e.g. the “cap and floor” regulated revenue stream advocated by some for such projects.

In Part 2 of this series we will focus on the role of aggregators (featuring the analysis in the CRA Report on independent aggregators) and the demand-side more generally.

On 29 September 2017, Ofgem published two storage-related consultations on possible modifications to the standard licence conditions of electricity generation and distribution licences.

Ofgem and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) are minded to classify storage as a sub-set of the regulatory category of generation.  Clarifying the regulatory framework for electricity storage: licensing elaborates on this proposition and comes with a full set of generation standard licence conditions marked up to show the resulting changes.

Consistent with this approach, Ofgem takes the view that distribution network operators (DNOs) should not operate storage facilities – just as (with only minor exceptions) they are not permitted to operate generating stations.  Enabling the competitive development of storage in a flexible energy system: changes to the electricity distribution licence provides some more detail in this area and includes a draft standard licence condition 43B to keep generation and storage generally separate.

Take generation first. To begin with, Ofgem gives us a definition of storage: “the conversion of electrical energy into a form of energy, which can be stored, the storing of that energy, and the subsequent reconversion of that energy back into electrical energy”.  This comes with a list of technologies that Ofgem thinks the definition covers, which seems fairly comprehensive.  The definitions of “generating station”, “generation business” and “generation set”, would all be revised to include reference to storage.

A huge number of generating stations that are connected to DNO networks in GB operate without holding a generation licence. Clearly it would not be practicable for every household with a few solar panels on its roof to be required to hold a generating licence, but plenty of commercial generation operators also benefit from the statutory licence exemption regime.  Exemption from the obligation to hold a generation licence is more or less automatic up to 50 MW and is frequently granted by BEIS up to 100 MW.  It is generally thought that a licence-exempt generator stands to gain more than it loses by not holding a licence.  Licensees must shoulder a greater regulatory burden, complying with a range of industry codes such as the Balancing and Settlement Code.  This potentially gives them a voice in industry self-governance, but few small generators have the resources to make much of that opportunity, and many prefer simply to avoid the associated costs of code compliance.  Among the other, relatively limited perks of licensed status is the ability to use compulsory purchase powers against recalcitrant landowners in order to develop infrastructure.

It is conceivable that some storage providers may find those compulsory purchase powers useful. Of perhaps more general interest is the prospect that as a licensed storage operator, you would not be subject to “final consumption levies” (FCLs) – the charges that are imposed on suppliers (and therefore in most cases passed through to their customers) to fund the Renewables Obligation, Feed-in Tariffs, Contracts for Difference and Capacity Market payments to generators / capacity providers.  That could persuade some who would not otherwise have to apply for a new storage-friendly generation licence to do so: the rationale is that those who are only operating an intermediate stage in the value chain between generation and final consumption should not be liable for FCLs just because their interaction with the wholesale electricity markets comes through a licensed supplier.

But this is where it starts to get tricky. Storage technology, particularly some kinds of batteries, are becoming significantly cheaper.  Ofgem does not want every large industrial user, for example, to go out and buy a battery as a way of avoiding FCLs.  So a new Condition E1 is proposed: “The licensee shall not have self-consumption as the primary function when operating its storage facility.”  But as Ofgem notes, the notion of a facility’s “primary function” could be defined in many ways.

More generally, it is unfortunate that BEIS and Parliament do not currently have time to regularise matters fully by incorporating the new generation and storage definitions into the relevant legislation, but on balance, Ofgem’s approach of starting with the licence provisions seems a legitimate and pragmatic first step given the importance of clarifying this area.

Turning to the DNOs. According to Ofgem, the existing rules “are clear that the DNOs cannot directly own or operate large-scale storage over 100MW. However, because generation below this threshold does not require a generation licence, there is a grey area where DNOs can own smaller scale storage”.  The underlying rationale of Ofgem’s approach is that since they “control the infrastructure needed to trade energy and flexibility services”, DNOs “have the ability to restrict the activities of market participants by denying (or otherwise impeding) their network access”.  DNOs should therefore not operate storage facilities, as they may be tempted to use their position to gain an unfair advantage over competing storage providers.

This extends the conventional thinking that DNOs should not operate generating stations, and the principle that the monopoly and competitive parts of the electricity supply chain should be kept in separate hands – embodied in the “unbundling rules” set out in EU and UK legislation. Exceptions to the general principle are made in the case of emergency equipment such as uninterruptible power supplies.  These would continue.  It would also be possible for a company that formed part of a DNO’s corporate group to operate a storage facility subject to suitable legal separation from the DNO business and compliance with the existing unbundling rules.

Ofgem does not close the door on a third category of exception to the general rule, which would have to be individually applied for where the market is not able to provide an efficient solution, storage is the most economic and efficient solution, and conflicts of interest are minimised. Guidance is proposed to flesh out these principles.  Meanwhile, a way will be found to deal with the existing DNO owned and operated storage facilities built under Low Carbon Network innovation funding.

DNOs are particularly well placed to know where storage would be most useful in their networks. It must make sense to regulate in a way that encourages competition in providing storage, even where its primary purpose is to improve the functioning of a DNO network.  But the intensity of that competition will be determined in part by other ongoing regulatory workstreams (for a list, see the previous post in this series).