6 August 2025

Electricity market review delivers interim report with recommendations for reform

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
16
powerlines at sunset

The National Electricity Market needs serious reform to maintain a reliable and affordable energy grid into the future. Photo: EvoEnergy.

Greater reliance on the weather and changes in energy sources are demanding reform to the National Electricity Market (NEM) to meet the needs of modern-day Australians, without costing them the earth.

That’s the takeout from the NEM Wholesale Market Settings Review’s draft report, which has just been released.

Established in November 2024, the review is investigating how the market can be reformed to promote long-term investment in firmed, renewable energy and storage, while also addressing price volatility and delivering more predictable, stable bills for consumers.

Chaired by Associate Professor of Economics at Griffith University Tim Nelson, the review’s draft report outlines several recommendations, including how governments might support investment after the Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS) concludes in coming years.

“While the NEM continues to function reasonably efficiently for dispatch, the cumulative pressures across short, medium, and long-term horizons demand coordinated, forward-looking reform,” Dr Nelson says in his report.

“The NEM is facing mounting pressures. Due to changes to the way we generate and consume electricity, the NEM is becoming a system that is more weather dependent, more energy constrained, less scheduled and less dispatchable.”

READ ALSO Policy ideas everywhere as productivity roundtable draws closer

The review panel is of the view, however, that these issues can be resolved, and the risks of operating in an increasingly weather-dependent system can be managed.

Its recommendations go to encouraging investment in infrastructure and unlocking barriers to new investment in electricity generation projects.

They also aim at improving the functioning of markets to ensure consumers get the best services possible at the lowest cost.

“If we get the right market settings in place, we can deliver a secure, affordable, low-emissions electricity system that works better for everyone,” Dr Nelson said.

“Our draft report makes nine major recommendations aimed at re-establishing the NEM’s core strengths: efficient markets to guide investment decisions, efficient dispatch, manage financial risk, and deliver the affordable and reliable energy consumers deserve and expect.

“We are confident that the pathway we’ve set out – one that strengthens markets, supports investment, and puts consumers first – is the right one.”

READ ALSO Climate change policy too important for frivolous bills in parliament

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said reform was currently underway to unlock long-term investment in the grid as it transitions away from “ageing, unreliable coal”.

He said getting a good deal for consumers remains central to the Federal Government’s plan.

“Australia has the world’s best sun and wind to power our future,” the Minister said.

“In our first term, we did the urgent repair work needed to address a decade of energy market neglect, which was leaving consumers too exposed to ageing, unreliable coal and international price spikes.

“We’ve provided the certainty to get investment flowing, to secure the jobs we need now and into the future.

“We are working with the states and territories to deliver a better, fairer energy system that Australians deserve.”

The NEM covers all of Australia except Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and is one of the largest interconnected electricity networks in the world, supplying power to more than 23 million people every day.

The findings from the review’s draft report are open for public consultation, with responses due by 17 September.

The independent review panel is expected to deliver its final recommendations to Commonwealth, state and territory energy ministers by the end of 2025.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

16
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The future electricity grid will have numerous technological problems that don’t exist today. The majority of generation will be weather dependent, which means electricity will be readily available only when the weather is favourable. The majority of generation will no longer be dispatchable, which means grid voltage and frequency will become unstable. More generation will occur from small home inverters with no coordination to the NEM, making the grid more unstable. The future grid will be energy limited when wind and sun generation are low, which means load shedding will become regular. The future grid will have no mechanical inertia, which means more grid-wide blackouts will be triggered.

To fix all of these technological problems brought about by the generation transition will cost a King’s ransom, and it’s a future cost that is generally ignored by the proponents of a renewable-only power generation future.

Nuclear power is not weather dependent, is entirely dispatchable, would be fully coordinated into the NEM, will not require periods of load shedding, and has inertia similar to coal generators. Plus no greenhouse gas emissions!

“To fix all of these technological problems brought about by the generation transition will cost a King’s ransom, and it’s a future cost that is generally ignored by the proponents of a renewable-only power generation future.”

The costs are already assessed and included in assessments showing firmed renewables as the cheapest option.

And your nuclear dream as the most expensive. If youre worried about cost, Nuclear is the last option you would promote.

It’s really silly to see people make an argument that the grid can’t change that boils down to its “always been this way”. Except it wasn’t, today’s grid was built out to solve similar challenges related to reliability and redundancy from the power plants that currently exist. It isn’t some magical solution that just appeared.

Solutions to the challenges listed above are already commercialised and available, its simply a matter or implementing them. The same way improvements to the existing grid have always been made.

Chewy14, all the future costs are not included, mainly because the extent of the changes required to the grid to maintain essential system services is still uncertain, still being understood as the grid undergoes this transition.

Nobody you’re going to confuse the young ‘uns here, they think that all climate science is settled 🫣

Nobody,
So you want to claim on one hand that a whole heap of transition costs exist and will be enormous.

But at the same time saying we dont know enough about the problems to understand the potential solutions and costs.

Hmmmm.

Strange also that you dont acknowledge the similar unknowns that exist for implementing Nuclear power in Australia with potentially enormous implementation costs, well above what’s already been included in estimates.

“entirely dispatchable”

No, unless you are offering an alternative definition to “able to be switched on and off”. Nuclear can readily be curtailed but ramping up again without potential damage takes hours to days depending on the prior state.

I note you completely ignore firming, which is already costed into generation models. With variable demand, inertia is more a problem than a solution.

Power is costed at the most expensive unit of power. If you can get it 99% free wind and solar and the 1% is expensive firming the whole lot is paid at the firming rate. Those investing in wind and solar are going to make a killing and the prices are going to be insane.

Chewy14, the countries that can get close to 100% renewable generation are those with abundant hydro-power to carry the grid when there is no wind or solar, or with near-surface geothermal sources such as Iceland. We have the direst continent on Earth, and our geothermal has not worked so far. Nuclear could solve our future grid problems.

Axon, coal and nuclear are dispatchable sources of power as they can be gradually adjusted up and down to follow the varying demands on the grid throughout the day. Solar is not dispatchable as it cannot be adjusted up to meet peak load this evening as the sun will be set. Inertia is an essential system service provided by large spinning turbines from coal or nuclear generators to smooth out any ripples on the grid caused when large loads are switched.

“coal and nuclear are dispatchable sources of power as they can be gradually adjusted up and down to follow the varying demands on the grid throughout the day.”

Except they can’t be, they only have limited flexibility around power adjustment and it creates large inefficiencies in operation and reduced asset lifespans to attempt to use them in that way.

It’s the reason why in recent years some of our coal plants have been willing to accept zero or negative prices for putting power into the grid rather than turn their output down.

nobody, nobody said solar was dispatchable. It can be turned down but is capped by availability. For nuclear, chewy has answered. It is not dispatchable except under your “slowly” definition which in fact is fast down (for safety reasons this must be so) but slow up, potentially dragging out over a day or more to protect the reactor. Search it. This is the question of inertia, slow change.

Grid frequency control is response to supply/demand changes such that grid frequency is affected. Traditionally this has been through hydro and thermal though the task is being taken over by batteries precisely because they are not inertially constrained but can respond with speed and precision. That was a primary task of the large scale battery installed in SA after towers were knocked down; maligned by some on the grounds it was not “big”, yet doing this critical job.

Wow, you both just mounted an argument without the usual nasty stuff. But sadly again, you’re both wrong. Nuclear is very dispatchable. Much like coal and especially gas.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544223019254

“Unreliable coal” claims Bowen. Perhaps he could point out how coal, which has reliably underpinned our economic growth for decades, is unreliable. 🤣

Perhaps you should look at the reliability statistics for the current coal fleet before making a bigger fool of yourself.

Of course you still haven’t worked out the difference between electricity and energy yet, so we may be waiting a while.

Dear goodness chewy, recommending penlol read something likely to involve percentages, as well as needing to understand the difference between electricity and energy.

They will need a good lie down after trying to interpret that 😛

They can’t cost benefit long term repairs when they keep trying to shut them down.

Id rather a 40 year old coal plant than a 40 year old solar panel. The panel would be useless.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.