Closed trader-short closed 1 year ago
zghanty
commented
1 year ago @trader-short - Hi I have looked at this , the platform is correctly processing the data as received but the question you raised is valid. I will have to ask NGESO for clarification as you would expect this to be close to MEL.
I've flag this as 'won't fix' as it is not an issue with Insights Platform but a data issue that needs further investigation and I will confirm the response here.
trader-short
commented
1 year ago Thanks for the update @zghanty. Just to add some more information, all these BM units have changed their offer prices to £1500 from settlement period 4 of 13.06.2023, which is what they used to offer at before. Offering 1000MW at £1500 makes for better reasoning than at -£35, which was observed in the last week since the probability of these offers getting accepted becomes minimal.
zghanty
commented
1 year ago @trader-short - Here's the response from NGESO: "_it’s a common practice that parties will insert a set of Bid-Offer Data every so often which will have higher levels than their generator capacity (GC) or demand capacity(DC), they would then let this data default ( i.e. roll over to the next day and so forth until they decide to change it.
I would like to think it’s because at some point they intend to be bigger in the future ( eg wind farms) and have put in a holding value even if they cant make it today , and then allow them to roll over to the following day , until they change it. However I feel that its related to the issue with ‘Deemed Bids and offers’ as they don’t quite understand it how they work , therefore don’t want to get caught out and get a deemed BOA and be paid a price they are not happy with. There is nothing in the codes that forbid this. As long as the party doesn’t generate above its MEL or below its SEL there is no issue. BM should not create BOAs above the unit MEL as the BOAs are created from the capped committed level ( min( MEL, FPN±BOAij))_"
I will close this for now as it is not an Insights Platform issue, rather tightening up the rules in the codes (e.g. Gridcode)
Describe the issue
For 03.06.2023 settlement period 28, bid-offer data submitted by T_BHLAW-1 BM unit has 1000MW offer volume at -£35 while the Maximum Export Limit(MEL) for this BM unit is 108MW. How is it possible for a BMU to offer to increase its generation in excess of its generating capacity? Some BMUs do submit excess volumes but in such cases, the offer prices are over VoLL(Value of Lost Load at £5000), thus effectively nullifying the chances of these offers getting accepted.
In this case, take note of the negative price at which the volume is offered. In cases when the grid has a lot of surplus energy with negative imbalance prices, offers submitted at -ve prices are observed. But the SP28 had a positive net imbalance volume(NIV) of 239MWh.
Steps to Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Expected behaviour
In an ideal scenario, the volume offered by a BM unit in a settlement period would be less than its maximum export limit(MEL)
Observed behaviour
1000MW of offer volume at -£35.
Additional Information
Same pattern was observed for the following BM units: T_DUNGW-1, T_GORDW-1, T_GRIFW-1, T_GRIFW-2, T_STLGW-1, T_STLGW-2, T_STLGW-3, T_TDBNW-1. They had offered volumes(800-1000MW) which are in excess of MEL and offered at a price of -£35. Almost all of these are wind farms based in Scotland.
Is this a result of invalid submissions by the BM units themselves or did some error get picked up during the validation and processing?
Screenshots
Checks
Please answer the following questions for yourself before submitting an issue.