Marginal Loss Factor revisions are treated like background noise. They aren't. Three things AEMO publishes that, taken together, tell you exactly which connection points are about to crater.
By FelixFusion research
We see MLF treated, in deck after deck, as a flat 0.95 input. It is not flat. It moves. In some zones, it has moved more than 12 percent in eight years — which, on a 200 MW project at A$80/MWh, is roughly A$8 million of revenue per year that quietly evaporates.
The defensible question is not 'what's the MLF today.' It is 'what is the trajectory of MLF at this point given the queue of committed and probable generation behind it.'
AEMO publishes three things that, taken together, answer this: the annual MLF tables, the connection enquiry register, and the published binding constraints for the surrounding zone. Joined and modelled correctly, you get a P50 MLF trajectory per connection point.
FelixFusion's parcel scores already incorporate this. Where the model says the trajectory is steep, you'll see it in the per-parcel sensitivity panel. If you disagree with our forecast — and you might — every input is named and the alternative scenario can be run with one click.
Book a 30-minute walkthrough on a region you know. We will surface three parcels you have not seen, and explain — line by line — why our score for one of yours disagrees with your developer's gut.