Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Cma Energy Market Investigation Scottishpower ’ S Response to the Updated Issues Statement 1
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Copyright Year | 2015 |
| Abstract | 1.4 Updated Theory of Harm (ToH) 1 raises a number of important issues relating to wholesale market rules. We agree with the CMA that differences between self-dispatch and centralised dispatch are relatively minor and are not as substantive as certain third parties may have submitted to the CMA; indeed, in our view self-dispatch may lead to more efficient dispatch decisions. We share the CMA's concerns regarding Ofgem's cash out proposals, and for the reasons set out below in more detail believe that a combination of single cash out price and a move to PAR100, without reserve scarcity pricing (RSP), would be better. The CMA is right to highlight the importance of competition in the contracts for difference (CfD) allocation mechanism – as evidenced by the outcome of the February 2015 auction – but we do not believe the first two issues raised by the CMA (CfD 'pots' and the transition from renewables obligation (RO) certificates (ROCs)) will lead to material inefficiencies in practice and we think the third (reserve power to award contracts noncompetitively) may be necessary for support to nuclear or innovative technologies. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/552645fbe5274a1418000008/Scotish_Power.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
