- •Abstract
- •Foreword
- •Acknowledgements
- •Executive summary
- •Many models of multilateral power trade
- •Minimum requirements
- •Proposed trade models for ASEAN
- •Findings and recommendations
- •Highlights
- •Overview of study
- •Categories of multilateral power trade
- •International experiences in multilateral power trading
- •Minimum requirements for establishing multilateral power trading
- •Political requirements
- •Technical requirements
- •Institutional requirements
- •Building upon existing efforts
- •LTMS–PIP
- •Proposed trade models for ASEAN
- •Harmonised bilateral trading
- •Secondary trading model
- •Primary trading model
- •Conclusion
- •1. Introduction
- •Models of cross-border power trade
- •ASEAN principles for developing multilateral power trade
- •Overview of ASEAN’s energy sector
- •References
- •2. AMS perspectives
- •APG region: North
- •Cambodia
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Myanmar
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Thailand
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Viet Nam
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •APG region: South
- •Indonesia (Sumatra)
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Malaysia (Peninsular)
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Singapore
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Malaysia (Sarawak and Sabah)
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •APG region: East
- •Brunei Darussalam
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •Indonesia (West Kalimantan)
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •The Philippines
- •Planned development, including cross-border integration
- •References
- •3. Regional perspectives
- •Existing regional integration efforts among AMS
- •LTMS–PIP
- •BIMP–EAGA interconnectivity project
- •Building off existing efforts: The GMS grid codes
- •References
- •4. International case studies
- •Primary power trading arrangements
- •Power pooling in PJM’s eastern territory
- •The measurable value of markets in the PJM region
- •ISO New England
- •Market overview
- •Market structure
- •Nord Pool
- •Governing agreements and regulation
- •Market overview
- •Market structure
- •Policy and regulation
- •Secondary power trading arrangements
- •SAPP
- •SIEPAC
- •Market overview
- •Nascent power trading arrangements
- •SARI/EI
- •Market overview
- •Market structure
- •Key findings: Lessons for ASEAN
- •Drivers and benefits
- •Design options and minimum requirements
- •The need for enabling institutions
- •Financial implications of regional institutions
- •References
- •5. Establishing multilateral power trade in an ASEAN context
- •Minimum requirements for establishing multilateral power trade
- •Harmonised technical standards (grid codes)
- •Summary of minimum level of grid code harmonisation
- •Building off existing efforts: The GMS grid codes
- •External (third-party) access to domestic grids
- •Wheeling charge methodology
- •Data and information sharing requirements
- •Dispute resolution mechanism
- •Other minimum requirements
- •Funding implications of stepwise implementation
- •Role of institutions
- •Overview of existing ASEAN regional institutions
- •ASEAN Secretariat
- •HAPUA
- •AERN
- •Mechanism for settling transactions
- •Potential role of a CCP
- •Optional requirement: Trading currency or currencies
- •Potential options for regional institutions in ASEAN
- •References
- •6. Models for establishing multilateral power trade in ASEAN
- •Overview of proposed models
- •Establishing harmonised bilateral trade with wheeling
- •Overview of trade model
- •Additional requirements and analytical gaps
- •Potential role of institutions
- •Example transaction
- •Establishing a secondary trading model
- •Overview of trade model
- •Additional requirements and analytical gaps
- •Potential role of institutions
- •Example transaction
- •Establishing a primary trading model
- •Overview of trade model
- •Additional requirements and analytical gaps
- •Potential role of institutions
- •Example transaction
- •7. Implications for ASEAN stakeholders
- •Utilities
- •Regulators
- •Investors
- •Consumers
- •Acronyms and abbreviations
- •Table of contents
- •List of figures
- •List of tables
Establishing Multilateral Power Trade in ASEAN |
International case studies |
Finally, nascent efforts are ones where the details of the multilateral trading regime are still under development. ASEAN would fall into this category, but there are many initiatives in other regions that can provide useful lessons.
Primary power trading arrangements
Four of the case studies in this section are primary power trading arrangements: PJM and ISO New England in the United States, Nord Pool in Europe, and India (which has a fully unified domestic power system).
PJM
Today, the PJM Interconnection in the United States (US) co-ordinates the movement of electricity in all or parts of 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia, serving 65 million customers with 178 564 MW of generating capacity. A brief summary of key statistics on the portion of the US bulk electric grid under PJM operating control is depicted inTable 6.
Table 6. |
Statistical information about PJM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Population (number of customers served) |
65 million |
||
Number of states served |
|
13 + District of Columbia |
|
Electricity consumption |
|
773.5 TWh (2017) |
|
Peak load |
|
|
165.5 GW |
Installed capacity |
|
180 GW |
|
Length of transmission network |
|
135 252 km |
|
Number of generation sources |
|
1 379 |
|
Geographic area |
|
630 447 sq. km |
|
Source: PJM, (2018a), 2018 PJM Annual Report.
Figure 34. PJM’s service territory within the Eastern Interconnection
Note:This map is without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Source: PJM.
PJM is the largest regional transmission organisation in the United States in terms of load served.
54
Establishing Multilateral Power Trade in ASEAN |
International case studies |
Power pooling in PJM’s eastern territory
The concept of forming a power pool was originally centred on the benefits of optimising the dispatch of a shared hydroelectric plant located in the original PJM footprint. That hydroelectric plant had more capacity than was needed by any one owner. As a result, an agreement was reached among the co-owners of the hydro facility to share generation reserves from the plant as well as jointly plan and build transmission lines in order to maximise utilisation of the facility among the three co-owners.
Figure 35. PJM’s eastern territory
Note:This map is without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Source: PJM.
PJM’s earliest members were all located in its eastern territory.
From these early initiatives, the concept of neighbouring utilities operating through a “power pool” was born. In addition to sharing the costs of such large infrastructure investments, the pool also took advantage of differences in load profiles and weather conditions to realise the advantages of diversity of demand over a larger footprint. However, this structure minimised competition as it was closed to any IPPs.
The pool operated successfully as an agreement among its utility members from 1927 to the mid-1990s. Although there was limited access to move power through the PJM transmission grid through negotiated wheeling contracts, it was not until Congressional passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that new merchant entities got access to both to the transmission grid and to the pool itself, where they were able to buy and sell power.
In essence, the move toward competition in the United States in the mid-1990s drove the transformation of the “closed” power pool into a regional non-discriminatory market for energy, capacity and ancillary services.
55
