I was fortunate to work with EirGrid between 2001 and 2003 as a consultant focusing on technical implementation of the SEM design. I learned that EirGrid has some of the most talented power systems engineers in the world that have faced some difficult situations throughout the energy transition sweeping across Ireland. I’ll never forget Jon O’Sullivan calling out loudly “more megavars” one memorable day in the trenches. Facing steep increased demand from data centers and rapidly expanding wind deployments and a “thin” transmission grid (very little excess transmission capacity), these power engineers have mastered the solutions rising from challenges in the energy transition, based on my experiences working in the industry since 1990. Well done, EirGrid.
Today, I learned that EirGrid is now pursuing a new market design to procure grid services capacity “Future Arrangements for System Services (FASS) Programme”. This approach has some similarities to the AOCE concept introduced on Energy Central in 2019 and submitted to NEPOOL in 2021, with one big difference: FASS uses a sealed RFP pricing mechanism, AOCE uses a Capacity Exchange mechanism with bids/offers between parties, which the Grid/Market Operator selects from to clear capacity, as needed for reliability and resilience each hour of the operating year, based on many dynamic factors, i.e. weather, seasonal changes, contingencies/unplanned outages, etc. An ISO Reliability Bid can be placed into AOCE at any time by the grid operator expressing a need for grid services capacity using both short term (tomorrow) and long term requirements (2 years in the future) depending on studies of projected grid service capacity shortfalls needed to ensure reliability and resilience.
EirGrid’s focus on Grid Services capacity is consistent with other initiatives, such as the US Grid Services standards developed by NAESB (WEQ-025 and RMQ-030), passed in 2023.
One very significant difference between the FASS approach and other US capacity market designs. such as ISO New England and PJM, is the FASS design relies on generator offers for capacity whereas ISO-NE and PJM apply a “guessed discount factor” (ELCC and rMRI) to estimate capacity contributions. I sincerely doubt that any solution relying on guesses will succeed given the dynamics at play in the energy transition. I learned a valuable lesson from Ralph Nader during the “seat belt wars”: “We are a very hard society to change cognitively.“
Don’t I know it! No more head banging – moving on to a more welcoming experience.
