Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism gaining traction in Europe

Edge2020_Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

The European Parliament is introducing new climate legislation including a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The new package aims to reduce emission by at least 55% by 2030 and will include a series of measures which will have big impacts to many large industry customers who now will have millions of tonnes of carbon at risk.

The proposal will include phasing out of the free European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) allowances after 2026, including maritime shipping within the ETS and a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The latter of these the CBAM or Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will impose a tariff on goods whose production is carbon intensive and shows the greatest risk of carbon leakage, in Australia the most vocal opponents of this scheme are unsurprisingly the cement, aluminium and steel industries.

As a quick digress the term carbon leakage is referring to the idea that you move the most carbon intensive parts of your production abroad, into countries with less stringent climate policies, and then import them back into Australia.

The idea of the CBAM is this will place a price on the carbon which has been emitted during this production phase. The price being derived from the price of carbon which was paid for the product to be developed and produced within Australia.

Those keen eyed amongst us will remember the Safeguard Legislation, which will come into effect on the 1st July 2023, cited a review would be undertaken to examine the feasibility of a CBAM within Australia, including a consideration for early commencement for those high-exposure sectors such as steel and cement.

Now with the EU making the leap and the likely follow on from the UK, Japan and Canada, amongst others, including the US via its own Polluter Import Fees Australia, we will surely have to comply to ensure both our own goods are being protected as well as meeting the requirements of the global expectations.

However, what is the cost of compliance. Whilst the legislation is quite straight forward the compliance cost will increase. Cradle to gate / grave accounting is complex and with auditors being stretched between, NGERs, Safeguard and now this, finding a resource to complete the calculations and data collection will be one thing, but looking to have these accounts audited will be another. With the CER having only 75 registered auditors on their books will the cost of this be wider than the government are imagining?

AEMO adds to the spooking of the Energy Market post Liddell Shutdown

Energy Market - AEMO _ Liddell Shutdown

On Thursday (25th May 2023) AEMO released their Scheduling Error notification (incident number 54) confirming they had incorrectly scheduled three of the Liddell units into one of their systems, post the Liddell shutdown, which caused price spikes across the NEM and forwards market on the morning of 1st May 2023.

As has been widely documented the last three Liddell units came offline on the 24th of April (Unit 4), 26th April (unit 2) and finally unit 1 on the 28th of April. This should have flowed through to the systems within the AEMO dispatch engines, however due to an error this was not the case, and the market was affected by the error between midnight and midday on the 1st of May 2023.

The error was cause by a mismatch of data used within the systems which feed the NEMDE (NEM Dispatch Engine) used by AEMO, whereby one part of the system removed the units from 00:01 on the 1st May. However, a separate part of the NEMDE’s data feed system, which controls the constraints still included the Liddell units at their “initial values” i.e. 500MW, not their real value of zero.

When the equations within the constraint tried to equalise, there was a “drop” of 1500MW on one side of the equation from the first interval on the 1st May 2023.

To rectify this AEMO reduced flow coming from Victoria into NSW and around 173MW of generation was dispatched down.

Prices reacted as expected with 6 periods between midnight and 6am having prices between $2,771.58/MWh and $2,964.04/MWh and increasing the daily average price by around 30% to an average of $288.86.

With a marketplace reacting to every cough of a power station, especially in the days following the Liddell closure the added constraint was enough to also strengthen the forwards market with the Q323 close price rising $5.50/MWh on the day in comparison to the day before across QLD, Vic and NSW and even SA was affected with an $8/MWh increase on the previous days close.

This strength continued into the next few weeks as outages came into the mix, a tube leak delaying the return to service of Bayswater 2 to the 3rd May, Kogan Creek, Eraring 2 and Tarong taking outages, the return of Callide being delayed and an unexpected interest rate hikes putting additional pressure on the market. Speculators were quick to act trading the spread between states thus increasing prices across the NEM.

This reactionary sentiment is one we feel will remain for a while, with the spot market quickly correcting however the futures continue to hold value down the curve.

News from Rewiring The Nation

Australian Power Lines

Over the last week Chris Bowen has been selling from everyone to industry to landowners on the government’s $20 billion “Rewiring the Nation” project. He has stated that “securing social license to build the transmission lines is the single most pressing issue for the Australian energy transition.

The proposal involves the development and construction of 10,000km of lines before 2030 and the key to achieving this will be community and stakeholder relationships, which are now being built into the regulatory investment test (RIT-T) process. To facilitate this the NSW and VIC government are offering $200,000 per km for the land crossed by these new infrastructure projects.

Ian Learmonth, the head of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, said that Australia will need an estimated 29GW of large-scale renewables to meet our ambitious goals, which breaks down to around 3.6GW a year.

This compares to last year’s large-scale wind and solar where Australia only installed 2.3GW. The 29GW required to be installed is challenged by the slow progress in developing essential new transmission lines and therefore Australia’s targets are at risk.

Daniel Westerman, the Chief Executive of AEMO, has stated that “From our control room we can see that increasing amounts of solar and wind generation are being curtailed because there’s not enough transmission capacity to transport it.”

Despite this, the share of renewables in the grid is hitting new highs, averaging 37% in Q1, and peaking at 66% for a half-hour dispatch period. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from the grid were at their lowest recorded ever in Q123.

Additionally, there is concern from AEMO that there is 14GW of coal powered generation capacity retiring by 2030, which exceeds the 8GW of renewables announced so far. The effect of this could be starkest in the short term. With Eraring (2,880MW) due to come off in late 2025, there are concerns of a significant short term firming capacity gap for first few summers in NSW.

However, with a new Capacity scheme expected to be announced in the next few months, and the next ESOO due in October expected to show the shortfall for NSW, the possibility of extension is one being seriously discussed.

With the VIC – NSW West Interconnector final drafts expected soon and Humelink approval expected early next year, the move to new transmission is starting. However, questions remain as to whether it is too late for the government to meet its targets.

2023 Federal budget: slight update SA and VIC named for cap scheme

Melbourne, Victoria

Further to Edge’s update on the 2023 federal budget shared last week, more information has become evident from Hon Chris Bowen’s MP office around the actual schemes to be introduced and their allocation of the budget.

There is no doubt Australia, as in much of the world, they are pinning their hopes on a Hydrogen Economy. The governments ‘modernised’ energy economy is being underpinned by a technology which yet is not to scale and is unproven, can anyone say carbon capture and storage (CCS)! Now I do not believe Hydrogen is another CCS boondoggle, but the amount being invested, and the legislation changes to allow it to occur are akin to those of its previous silver bullet government neighbour.

The budget has allocated half of the $4bn green energy package, $2bn, to the Hydrogen Fund. The idea is the investment will assist in the commerciality of these projects and allow for 1GW of capacity to be on the system by 2030. The allocation of this will come in the form of “production credits” and as was later confirmed these will be allocated via a ‘competitive process’ however details of this are scarce. The funding is likely to have come in part to keep up with our European and US counterparts who have signaled similar investment in the industry through their own budgets (the US giving a $3/KG (USD) tax rebate if it relates to H2 production.

This will be supported by the new REGO or Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin scheme which was first floated in the papers released at the end of last year.  $38million has been allocated to the project which will be used to certify the energy and emissions from these projects.

The details around the controversial capacity scheme continues to be scarce. With ‘commercial sensitivities’ being touted as a reason for non-disclosure. However, we do expect these to be run state by state and through auctions, so we hope for more detail to be shared on this in the future, especially given SA and VIC have already been named to lead the charge on this later this year. The choice of these states is unsurprising given the high renewable penetration on those grids.

We have also seen a little more information come out around the function of the “Net Zero Authority” who received $83m on Tuesday. It is anticipated that they will be working with local state and territory governments as well as lobbyists and stakeholders to create a roadmap to net zero in those regions, focus will naturally sit in heavy mining regions such as Queensland, the Hunter Valley and Latrobe Valley. From the 1st July the executive agency will be established and they will be tasked with supporting those in heavy industry to transition into a low carbon economy, assist with policies around this and assist with investment in the regions. No small feat to say the transition is already well underway.

Federal Budget 2023 – A shock to the Gas Industry

Australian Parliament House

Under a tightly embargoed budget speculators and hedgers alike could be forgiven for worrying the 2023 Federal budget hid an unknown shock, on top of a Liddell closure, Bayswater trip and extended outages. Last week’s market uncertainty was definitely not dampened by the little information coming out of Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP’ office.

However, there was good news to be had, in contrast to the October 2022 budget which forecast a deficit of $36.9bn for this financial year the Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP was almost giddy to announce a surplus of $4bn, it is the first in 15 years, yet is everything that glimmers actually gold?

Little was made of the fact 20 per cent of the surplus came from increased commodity prices, a nod was made to the Ukraine crisis but little to the other drivers and opportunist behaviour which has been within our market for the past 12 months. There was certainly no mention of the huge windfalls the treasury gained from the commodity industry.

The Gas and Coal caps were mentioned but there has been no discussion of the Coal Cap either being extended or removed in December 2024 when it expires. In contrast, the Gas cap has been confirmed to remain until 2025 and as such the potential for a market move in the summer months is still possible.

Overall, the budget was light on Energy for large business, the most focus was on infrastructure for Electric Cars and cost of living relief for residential and small businesses. The creation of a National Net Zero Authority was predicted under the Chubb review and therefore no shocks were seen.

There was a slight nod to a new Hydrogen head start program, giving $2bn to the scheme and more investment in green industry, which was unsurprising. A curious section was on a Capacity Investment Scheme “unlocking over $10 billion of investment in firmed-up renewable energy projects up and down the east coast” as a throw away comment and I am sure a few more details will emerge over the next few days – this one did pique my curiosity.

Undoubtably in the commodity space the biggest losers this evening were the Gas companies, between the extension of the Gas cap at $12/GJ into 2025, increased taxes due to the extraordinary market conditions would follow, but a second stab at the inflated pie has come in the form of the Petroleum Rent Resource Tax. I think its mention was all of 3 seconds of the budget, yet this piece of legislation will increase the government coffers to the tune of $2.4bn over the forward estimates. On top of the Safeguard mechanism changes and power the greens had in ensuring many new gas projects do not get off the ground easily if at all, this is yet another cost to the industry. Yet in comparison to those enforced overseas, and especially in the UK, this was light touch, and it will be interesting to see if it is strengthened at all by the Greens, whom Labor will need to pass this through the house.

Overall, not a great deal of shock waves this evening, a budget which I am sure will be picked apart and a barrage of “inflationary pressures” will be dissected, yet overall, no real change to the status quo. Looking down the barrel of economic growth slowing to one and a half per cent in the next financial year, coupled with increasing wages it’s not the time to be throwing about cash, however hitting industry for half baked wins for those at the other end of the scale may not be enough to make any new friends and certainly could lose this government more.

Solar and wind are the big losers in latest AEMO MLF forecasts

woman on a windy day

As the electricity market evolves the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) makes assessments of the changing landscape from a transmission and security of supply perspective.

Recently AEMO released its final assessment of Marginal Loss Factors (MLFs). MLF determine how much energy is lost between the generator and the region reference node in each state.

In this next round of MLFs many of the big losers are the intermittent generators. Changes to the grid and the closure of thermal generators have had a detrimental impact on wind and solar farms. Lower MLF’s impact the amount of revenue generators can make.

The final MLF numbers are not as bad as what was published in AEMO draft report providing some positive news for wind and solar developers. Since the draft report new modelling has included the delayed return to service of the Callide C units.

The primary driver for changes in the new MLF forecasts has been changes in availability due to the closure of Liddell, revised return to service dates for Callide C, revised demand forecasts and the increased penetration of solar and wind generation into the grid.

Recent transmission line work has resulted in an increased capacity between Queensland and NSW which means increased flows from Queensland which results in wind and solar projects located in the north of NSW being constrained.

MLF generally gets worse for generators at the end of a long transmission lines, this has resulted in generation in northern NSW being the big loser this year. Some solar farms in the New England region have dropped by over 3%.

While a 3% fall sounds bad, it is not as bad as the MLF for Moree, a 57MW solar farm in western NSW which loses over 20% of its generation by the time it gets to the regional reference node. Previously Moree solar farm had an MLF of 0.8275, this year it is 0.7977.

The return to service of Callide C significantly impacted solar farms in central Queensland, however the delayed return to service has lessened the impact. Daydream, Collinsville, Kidston, and Moura are some of the solar farms most impacted by the new MLFs.

So what does the mean to end users? While we are seeing a rapid increase in renewable generation, the location of this generation is important to the success of a project. If we use the example of Moree where over 20% of the renewable generation does not reach the market then the question has to be, was it built in the correct part of the grid. Many people focus on the size of the project while the volume of electricity produced needs to be of greater importance. Unfavourable MLF will impact the success of the project, will reduce the renewable energy available to the market and potential can leave end users with less renewable energy than what they had signed up for.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Warning

Edge20202 Drought Landscape

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 6th Assessment Report (AR6) last week, on 20th March. This has been an eight-year assessment and involved over 250 climate scientists.

It was as bleak as can be expected and shows the catastrophic impact of increasing greenhouse gasses. The report discusses how we have already reached a 1.1 degrees Celsius increase in global warming and how this is affecting summer arctic ice coverage, ocean acidification and concentrations of Carbon Dioxide.

The focus isn’t just on the current impacts as it reveals the irreversible affects that can occur at as low as a 1.5-degree overshoot, including species extinction and loss of life.

The report is a must read and will be discussed over the next few weeks by many. Interestingly one of the first out of the gate was the UN, whose secretary general has urged nations to abandon the 2050 net-zero target for new stronger 2040 packs. Antonio Guterres is calling for developed nations to phase out coal by 2030 and block new oil or gas extraction. This may, in his opinion, hold us at the 1.5-degree warming cap.

The true test will be in COP28 in the UAE in November and December 2023. However, with the attendance of chair, H.E. Dr Sultan Al Jaber, being the CEO of the 12th largest oil business will likely see a softening of approaches happening there!

What the AR6 does tell us is that we are close to the point of no return. The impacts of climate change are visible and require immediate action. We must react, or it will be irreversible.

Edge2020 have an eye on the energy market, enabling us to support price benefits as well as customer supply and demand agreements. Our clients rely on our experts to ensure they are informed, equipped, and ideally positioned to make the right decisions at the right time. If you could benefit from an expert eye on your energy portfolio, we’d love to meet you. Contact us on: 1800 334 336 or email:

Is UFE the UIG of Australia?

Anyone who knew me in my past life in the UK knows that I harped on about Unidentified Gas (UIG) A LOT!

The idea behind UIG is simple, allocate the gas which couldn’t be attributed to a meter in an area across all end users in that area, in which it was used (off-taken). Seems simple right. But when was the last time you actually gave a meter reading? Possibly six months to a year ago? Well that means your off-take (unless you are on a smart meter) is estimated and you will be either over or under on allocated unidentified gas.

Although this seems sensible with everyone eventually giving a meter read and therefore it will all work out in the wash, what exacerbates the issue, especially at the moment, is the extreme increase in the gas price at which these charges are now passed through to retailers and then in turn our bills.

Now what does understating this UK gas usage or allocation have to do with Australia? Well, quite a lot. The system is similar, but not the same.

Following Global Settlements being introduced by AEMO we have started seeing Australia’s version of these charges coming into our bills. We allocate the unidentified – called Unaccounted for Energy (UFE) within each region by the off-takers in that area.

What we are not doing yet, which in the UK’s defense they do there (through XOServe), is take into account those meters which are half hourly ready (smart(er) meters) and therefore their usage should be known. Currently in Australia the offtake in a region will be directly linked to your proportion of an energy being allocated to you and you literally have no say in these charges, despite having updated metering capability.

The sore point of it all is that this is occurring at a time when our electricity market is extremely high and therefore there is a possibility of the combination of large UFEs  being passed through to end users at high prices, with companies having no control over the volume or price it is passed through at. This is leading to significant shocks to companies’ outgoings, as there is little to no visibility on the charge on any given month, and no way to forecast them to budget.

I fear that UFE will become my new soap box issue, and I can guarantee this isn’t the last anyone will hear on this. I am pretty sure I won’t be the only one who will be making noise.

Is this happening to your business? If you feel you need more control of your company’s energy spend, please reach out to discuss joining our Edge Utilities Power Portfolio (EUPP) where we use the power of bulk purchasing to help Australian businesses of all sizes save on their energy bills. Read more: or call us on: 1800 334 336 to discuss. 


Labor pushes ahead with a controversial capacity market

What is the goal of a capacity electricity market?

You may be forgiven for not sitting through the full press conference last Thursday, where the Albanese government stated Australia would be strengthening their 2030 targets to 43% under the Paris Agreement. However, if you had, around 30 minutes in you would have heard Chris Bowen, the newly appointed Minister for Climate Change and Energy state, “in relation to the short term, State and Territory Ministers agreed with me last week, that we should proceed at haste, at pace, with the capacity mechanism. I asked, on behalf of all Energy Ministers, the Energy Security Board to proceed with that work, at speed, and they are doing that. I am very confident I will be able to get agreement of State and Territory Ministers for a comprehensive capacity mechanism and I’ll have more to say when that work is ready.”

Well that work dropped this morning (20th June) at 7am. They have given those who wish to respond until (25th July) to submit their views on this paper so at pace it shall be. However; given the response following the ESB Post 2025 paper I am not sure that any amount of noise and lobbying from the industry is going to stop this juggernaut from achieving its goal, especially since it is being backed by those generators who have the most to gain from this market. Not only that, but unless there is a big bump in the road, a first look Capacity Mechanism will be in place by 1st July 2025.

What is the goal of this market? – Well in my opinion there is only one reason that this would be encouraged and that is to subsidise coal-fired power stations which have had their financial viability severely questioned by the growing penetration of lower cost renewables within the system. Don’t get me wrong, the longer-term markets have the potential to encourage other faster starting generators onto the market, but this hasn’t really been the case in other capacity markets i.e. Great Britain (GB).

This argument is only further strengthened when looking at how the GB Market ended up achieving their stability, in their high renewable penetrated market, which is from nuclear power which has been guaranteed a strike price of £92.50/MWH or ~$163/MWh. Thus, making any capacity market payment minuscule in comparison to the underpinning of the generation at that rate.

The ESB are arguing, and convincing themselves and the government in the process, that this mechanism is the answer to AEMO’s ISP step change scenario, in which demand increases and coal exits the system. If that is indeed their argument, then they are ultimately stating they cannot efficiently run a system in which coal is not part of the generation mix and unless this is financially managed there will be a ‘disorderly transition.’

The question therefore isn’t will there be a capacity mechanism from July 25, but how centralised or decentralised will the final design be? Will it sit as a Physical Retailer Reliability Obligation – PRRO design, one in which the market determines for itself the level of the required capacity, or do we go wholly down the regulated route with AEMO determining in long term auctions (similar to the GB model which has several T-year auctions) and they forecast demand and supply to determine the required level of capacity and sell these capacity certificates to retailers to meet their requirements.

There is no grey area for the ESB, they have stated openly in the paper they wish for the forecasting and determination of the capacity requirements to be centralised and for AEMO to manage these purchases on behalf of market participants. In essence they would moderate the capacity of these generators, for a cost, at certain times of day or periods of high system stress to allow them to ensure capacity is available to the market operator when needed. End users would then pay for that management of the system and their portion of that capacity.

The other point to note, keenly hidden within the paper is the four yearly review of the Reliability Standard and Settings Review (RSSR) that is about to be undertaken, with significant interest been taken in the Market Cap, especially given the gas price cap is equating to a marginal cost of generation higher than the electricity price cap (Presuming a normal heat rate of 8-12). If the caps are risen for both the caps $300/MWh and spot $15,100/MWh markets as expected, could the requirement of ‘capacity’ in the market become a moot point? Surely the exacerbation of the current situation could be avoided if the gas generators were certain of meeting the cost of generation and you cannot truly believe that a market cannot efficiently run with enough capacity if they are achieving $15,100/MWh or possibly more?

The real key argument which has not been addressed by the paper however, is the idea that aging coal plants are unlikely to be able to ramp in time to fill the gaps between this growing renewable penetration. Therefore, the question really needs to be asked is this the right investment if you really want to transition this grid or should this be put into different technology rather than prolonging the life of unsuitable assets?

Ultimately however the bottom line remains ‘user pays.’ As such any one of the options being floated will be passed through to end users through retailer or network tariffs.

I will let the retailers and generators pick apart the nuances of the paper, but needless to say the government will be pushing ahead with this in some form, the only question will be how much say we will have in the centralisation of the market or not, and therefore how much control retailers will have on the costs of this capacity.

Written by Kate Turner, Senior Manager – Markets, Analytics, and Sustainability

Future of Contract Markets and the Baseload Swap

It is no surprise, when I say the National Electricity Market (NEM) is going through a vast transition and transformation, with an ever-increasing penetration of renewable generation, in the form of both utility scale renewable generation and household installations.

The world as we know is also battling the global pandemic that is Coronavirus. This has had a significant impact on people and their livelihoods and health.  along with a significant impact on energy markets around the globe. To top it all off, energy markets have had to endure a supply price war recently, between OPEC’s unelected leader, Saudi Arabia and non-OPEC oil producer, Russia.

With a rapidly evolving and ever-changing energy landscape, what should our contract markets look like? Are the current products fit for purpose or offer value in an energy landscape like the NEM? As a generator, the days of capturing value and running flat out all hours of the day, are indeed starting to dwindle, with quick, nimble, and easily dispatchable fast-start generation likely to excel in the near to longer-term landscape. Take South Australia (SA) as a good example, as to the success of fast-start plant. On the 04/04/2020 at 12:00pm, the 5 minute spot price was down at -$1,000/MWh, which is where it stayed the majority of the morning, due to low demand and strong generation, trying to send megawatts into Victoria (VIC), maxing out the interconnector. Shortly after that, at 12:20pm, prices spiked to above $300/MWh for the next 30 to 40 minutes or so, with fast-start gas generation swooping in and capturing this short-term high price period.

If this type of generation is the key to success in this new look NEM that we operate in, where fast-start, short burst generation is taking its place to complement the intermittent renewable generation in wind and solar, utility or household, that continues to penetrate the market, why are our contract markets continuing to predominantly offer baseload swaps?

A baseload swap is a contract for energy, say 5 MW for $70/MWh, for a defined period, for a month, a quarter, a calendar, or financial year. The way a swap works is the $60/MWh becomes the strike price in which the seller of the swap pays the floating price (the price of the underlying wholesale product which is electricity in this instance) and the buyer pays the fixed $70/MWh.

Say you have contracted a baseload swap for 5 MW for the entire calendar year of 2020, this would mean that for every half hour (with electricity settling every half hour as per the underlying wholesale market settlement regime in the NEM), of the entire 2020 calendar year, the buyer will pay the seller $70/MWh, and the seller will pay the buyer the underlying wholesale or spot price. For example, say this morning the wholesale or spot price for electricity for the half hour ending period of 9:30am was $40/MWh; this would result in the buyer paying the seller $70/MWh for 5 MW, whilst the seller would pay the buyer $40/MWh for 5 MW, resulting in a $30/MWh contract for difference (CFD) payment going from the buyer to the seller.

However, think about this, the baseload swap is exactly that, baseload. So, a contract for calendar year 2020 means you are locked into that same position (unless you sell out of the position) 24 hrs, 365 days.

So, do baseload contracts offer appropriate value anymore, in a market which are short-lived upward volatility and recently longer periods of downward volatility?

Mid last month, Snowy Hydro struck a contract defined as a ‘super-peak’ swap, which will cover what has been defined as the “super peak” periods of the day, generally morning and evening peak usage when solar is ramping up or down. The trade was brokered through an over-the-counter (OTC) trading hub operated by Renewable Energy Hub, and it is believed, similar deals will be a gateway to funding and bringing into the market technology such as batteries and demand-response into the energy markets.

Snowy Hydro has been procuring renewable PPA’s for a while, through wind and solar generation, including the 90 MW it procured from the Sebastopol Solar Farm in NSW. They are looking to use the renewable generation and back it with their significant hydro fleet, to sell a new range of products to its customers.

With wholesale energy prices reducing significantly since September 2019, and the overabundance of generation in states such as QLD and SA, and with the rapid introduction of new technology, it is likely a significant number of customers will choose to take more wholesale/spot price exposure, rather than contracting ahead of time.,

This fuels the argument for the need to have more flexible and robust products, ones that are for particular trading intervals, perhaps in the day, day-ahead products, week-ahead products, or perhaps more products like Snowy’s ‘super peak’ product?

If you have any questions regarding this article or the electricity market in general, call Edge on 07 3905 9220 or 1800 334 336.