Sharing of Maximum Export Capacity (MEC) behind a Single Connection Point - Dashboard

Closed3 Mar, 2025, 09:00 - 14 Apr, 2025, 17:30

Primary tabs

Status: 
Closed
Open Date: 
03.03.2025 - 09:00
Close Date: 
14.04.2025 - 17:30

Review Submissions

  • Stage 1 Comments
  • Stage 2 Proposal
  • Stage 3 Revisions

By Theme

Q1. Do stakeholders agree on the classification and the definition of hybrid co-located projects?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q2. Do stakeholders believe that the sharing of MEC for co-located hybrid projects should be pursued ahead of integrated hybrid projects?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q3. When do stakeholders foresee the need to facilitate integrated hybrid projects in the power system? Please provide rationale for your answer.
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q4. The CRU invites feedback from stakeholders on the benefits associated with the potential implementation of sharing of MEC. Is there a net benefit to the consumer in terms of costs and other potential benefits?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q5. Are there any drawbacks associated with this proposal on MEC sharing? Please elaborate on the risks.
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q6. Do stakeholders support the proposal to allow for the sharing of MEC behind a single connection point for hybrid co-located projects? Will this facilitate additional renewable electricity production?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q7. Do respondents foresee any difficulty with ensuring the export for a hybrid co-located project is limited to the MEC at all times?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q8. Do participants envisage challenges with managing the interaction of different market and availability requirements (e.g. declarations of availability for active power and system services) at the connection point?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q9. The CRU notes that this proposal does not facilitate energy sharing between units behind a connection point. However feedback is invited as to what measures may be required to address this and whether this can be addressed in ongoing workstreams.
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q10. Feedback is requested on whether there are risks associated with the sharing of MEC being applicable to all generation technologies.
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q11. Some of the changes needed in existing policies and processes are noted in Section 2.2. What are your views on these changes? Are there other changes in current processes needed to facilitate the sharing of MEC?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q12. How can the associated control requirements (e.g. MEC limit at connection point) and mechanisms for sharing MEC be implemented?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q13. Do respondents consider it feasible to submit software models that are an accurate representation of the total site and each of the Generator Units that are connecting behind the connection point prior to the connection of such hybrid units to grid?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q14. Do respondents have concerns over potential unintended consequences on the SEM Energy Markets Capacity Market and System Services and if so how these can be prevented or mitigated?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q15. Comments are sought on the predicted impacts on the system operations discussed under Section 2.2.10 and Appendix E.
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q16. Are there any other risks that should be considered as part of the decision-making process and how can these risks best be mitigated?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q17. Do stakeholders believe that conducting a Pilot project is warranted to provide learnings in advance of full implementation of the sharing of MEC proposals?
Submissions 0
Observations 0
Q18. Are there any additional considerations that should be taken into account in the formation of this policy?
Submissions 0
Observations 0

By Observations

By Location

Theme Cloud

Q1. Do stakeholders agree on the classification and the definition of hybrid co-located projects?
Q2. Do stakeholders believe that the sharing of MEC for co-located hybrid projects should be pursued ahead of integrated hybrid projects?
Q3. When do stakeholders foresee the need to facilitate integrated hybrid projects in the power system? Please provide rationale for your answer.
Q4. The CRU invites feedback from stakeholders on the benefits associated with the potential implementation of sharing of MEC. Is there a net benefit to the consumer in terms of costs and other potential benefits?
Q5. Are there any drawbacks associated with this proposal on MEC sharing? Please elaborate on the risks.
Q6. Do stakeholders support the proposal to allow for the sharing of MEC behind a single connection point for hybrid co-located projects? Will this facilitate additional renewable electricity production?
Q7. Do respondents foresee any difficulty with ensuring the export for a hybrid co-located project is limited to the MEC at all times?
Q8. Do participants envisage challenges with managing the interaction of different market and availability requirements (e.g. declarations of availability for active power and system services) at the connection point?
Q9. The CRU notes that this proposal does not facilitate energy sharing between units behind a connection point. However feedback is invited as to what measures may be required to address this and whether this can be addressed in ongoing workstreams.
Q10. Feedback is requested on whether there are risks associated with the sharing of MEC being applicable to all generation technologies.
Q11. Some of the changes needed in existing policies and processes are noted in Section 2.2. What are your views on these changes? Are there other changes in current processes needed to facilitate the sharing of MEC?
Q12. How can the associated control requirements (e.g. MEC limit at connection point) and mechanisms for sharing MEC be implemented?
Q13. Do respondents consider it feasible to submit software models that are an accurate representation of the total site and each of the Generator Units that are connecting behind the connection point prior to the connection of such hybrid units to grid?
Q14. Do respondents have concerns over potential unintended consequences on the SEM Energy Markets Capacity Market and System Services and if so how these can be prevented or mitigated?
Q15. Comments are sought on the predicted impacts on the system operations discussed under Section 2.2.10 and Appendix E.
Q16. Are there any other risks that should be considered as part of the decision-making process and how can these risks best be mitigated?
Q17. Do stakeholders believe that conducting a Pilot project is warranted to provide learnings in advance of full implementation of the sharing of MEC proposals?
Q18. Are there any additional considerations that should be taken into account in the formation of this policy?