Unfortunately it isn't yet live on the CfD contract by the look of things, this is  why it hasn't been getting CfD payments yet  I assume and does not hence get curtailment payments in general. Until then everything is at risk anyway which should have been made much clearer with all these sort of investments. They should really only have been advertised to FCA Sophisticated Investors, they really aren't suitable for standard retail investors. 

A generator doesn't immediately go under a CfD contract after the first time it exports, in fact in the past some wind turbines held off as they could get more money in the open market for their electricity.... 

The expected start date was 1st July 2026 with a long stop July 2027. 

https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-DWS-700/

I assume there are no contractual obligations before this which is why they have been told that they have no insurance cover or compensation. 

You would also need to check if there were any get out clauses in the CfD contract when it actually kicks in. 

Having got caught out myself with green investments, I would strongly urge people not to get involved unless they were OK loosing all their investment. I got lucky, once with compensation instructed by the FOS, the other time with compensation via the FSCS. Many are not so lucky.

This is a typical FCA warning more recently introduced for these sort of investments

At present there doesn't seem to be any 'body' who takes responsibility for ensuring that forthcoming generation sites are added to the electricity network in such a way that security of supply is assured.

Instead, NESO found themselves needing to take urgent action to remove generation from sites which had already

• been through the planning process
• been given an Offer to Connect
• installed the on-site physical hardware
• paid the DNO to implement the connection
• started exporting to the grid

Since such urgent action was required by NESO, I think we should categorise this as a National Security issue.

IF it were the case that the RESP was a body of people, and that it included elected representatives, then I'm going to suggest that they should accept responsibility for that critical oversight. The presence of Councillors (or even MPs) could ensure that the RESP meetings were open and their decisions were transparent.

However, it is Ofgem, the Regulator, who moved the goal-posts.

Ofgem has placed NESO in a position where they don't have elected representatives.
It is Ofgem themselves who ensure that NESO act independently and transparently.... and Ofgem can't receive complaints directly from the public.
Ofgem confines itself to regulating those organisations to whom it issues licences.

I am a participant in the RESP process...
... and in the same geographical area where Derril Water exists.

I do have sufficient grasp of the technology to understand the underlying concepts.

I am well aware of other large-scale applications for more solar and BESS in the region, and also seeking connections to Route-K.

So if you were in my position, what would you do next?

But should they not have known about the need for stability provided by Reactive Power support at that time?

I knew that Reactive Power support was required by the grid operator.
It was explained to me many years ago by the senior engineer at a hydro-electric plant I visited.

He also told me that his turbine sets could continue to provide Reactive Power support if he left them idling, but not actually feeding power to the grid.

That was an eye-opener. It meant that the Grid Operator could pay for Reactive Power support independently of the electricity itself. I don't know if that actually happened. I confess I was far more interested in the physics than the finances.

I wonder who you mean when you write should they not have known...?

NG-ESO obviously knew, and all those on the operations side of NESO must know.
They use Reactive Power support within the strategy for voltage control.

I wonder now why it was that NESO didn't explain the situation to the 100-odd attendees at their SW Regional in-person workshop on 23rd June.

It was at an NGED meeting a week later that it first occurred to me there could be a link between Derril Park ceasing all export and the request for Reactive Power support from NESO. That's why I was able to ask direct questions of a senior engineer.

The problem with these workshops is twofold:

1: The Agenda is set in advance by the Energy Company (NESO or NGED in this instance) and they decide which platform speaker will deliver what message.

2: I am on a discussion-table where the attendees come from a variety of backgrounds. Very few have any appreciation of technical issues.

There might be a Councillor or Council Officer who has responsibility for the Climate Change policies and initiatives. That could be anything from a policy to change Council vehicles to electric-power, or holding meetings of Community Energy enthusiasts.

There might be someone from a transport company, a regional airport or a large hospital.

And there's likely to be a lecturer or facilities manager from a university.

I have no idea how NESO imagines it can use that starting point to pull together a Strategic Board and advisory work-groups who could create a competent regional energy plan.

From my viewpoint there does need to be strategy, but I can't see how any combination of the attendees at these workshops would have the clout to tell Derril Water "There's insufficient Reactive Power support in the area for your proposal. Either you need to invest in grid-forming inverters, or else you require a binding commitment from the DNO that they will install sufficient PFC apparatus rather than merely offer you a grid connection."

The present situation of covering the countryside with solar-panels, wind turbines and battery storage (BESS) which aren't permitted to export is frankly ludicrous.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

As we can see demonstrated by the the fact that many generation sites have had their export ceiling reduced to zero, NESO is content to sit on the fence.

 

Does that matter.  Or put another way does anyone lose other than the investors who have knowingly taken a risk which may or may not pay off, as is common with investments of all types.  Provided of course neso were transparent at the time they were asked with the best info to hand.  This isn't a precise or entirely predictable problem so there are bound to be some problem cases.

In my opinion, yes that does matter.

Any situation that lends itself to developers taking investors' money and then claiming circumstances outside their control for not paying money back to the investors is a situation ripe for fraudulent exploitation. I'm not suggesting anything like that has gone on here but I believe there really should be some safeguards within the planning process that ensure any approved project stands at least a reasonable degree of feasibility for doing what it claims to be trying to do. Current planning approval simply seems too fragmented and "well investors knew it was a risky undertaking", however true, should not be used as an excuse.

what must have been apparent at that time was that the energy that would be generated would have nowhere to go!

That isn't the dominant factor in the case of Derril Water and its neighbours on the 132kV Route-K.
It isn't a matter of supply & demand, whatever the Minister of State says.

The issue which caused those sites to cease generation is an instruction from NESO. It's based on a technical requirement to have enough Reactive Power support in a geographical area.

Note that the MPs (in Hansard) have only been talking about the national picture.

The same is the case for the News Release from NESO earlier today.

It's the geographical information which we need to notice in the Request for Reactive Power support from NESO, dated 5th June.

They needed Reactive Power in the South West.

That's the same region where solar export has been shut down.

That's not a coincidence.