On 25 March 2010 the Australian Energy Market Commission (Commission) gave notice under sections 102 and 103 of the National Electricity Law (NEL) of the making of the final Rule determination and final Rule (Rule as Made) for the timing for intervention compensation determinations Rule change request. Under sections 103 and 91A of the NEL, the Commission has made a more preferable Rule.

The Rule as made extends the time for the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to finalise intervention compensation determinations when an independent expert is appointed to determine additional claims for compensation and corrects minor errors in the Rules.

The Commission considers that the Rule as made will or is likely to better contribute to the achievement of the NEO compared to AEMO's proposed Rule as it has the following advantages:

• it provides flexibility in situations where an independent expert is appointed twice.  If a timeframe extension is not provided in this situation there is a risk that AEMO and the independent expert may not have sufficient time to finalise their obligations; and
• it corrects a further typographical error in the relevant Rules clauses.

Background

On 11 February 2010 the Commission gave notice under section 95 of the NEL commencing consultation on the Rule change proposal. The Commission accepted AEMO's request for this Rule change proposal to be treated as non-controversial. The proposal was therefore be assessed via the expedited process set out in section 96 of the NEL. Written objections to the proposal being treated as non-controversial were due by 25 February 2010. Written submissions and comments on the Rule change proposal were due by 11 March 2010.

On 25 November 2009 the AEMO submitted a Rule change proposal to the Australian Energy Market Commission.  The proposal sought to extend the period of time available for AEMO to complete its obligations to determine claims for additional compensation following AEMO's interventions in the market where an independent expert is required to be appointed (the relevant Rules clauses are clauses 3.12.2(l), 3.12.2(m), 3.15.7B(c) and 3.15.7B(d)).

AEMO contended that the current timeframe provided in the Rules of 100 business days is not enough time for it to complete its obligations where an independent expert is required to be appointed.  AEMO sought to extend the timeframe to 150 business days.

The Rule change proposal also sought to address minor errors in clauses 3.15.7(c), and 3.15.7B(a1) of the Rules, these being:

• In clause 3.15.7(c) that the reference to clause 3.15.17(d) is incorrect as this clause does not exist in the Rules and that the reference should in fact be to clause 3.15.7(d); and
• In clause 3.15.7B(a1) that the reference to clause 3.15.7A(a) should be a reference to clause 3.15.7A(b) as this clause covers the referable subject matter.

AEMO requested that this Rule change proposal be considered by the Commission as a request for a non-controversial Rule to be assessed under the expedited process set out in section 96 of the NEL.