Short-Term Competitions and Preemption.  Overview  Standards being covered are:  Motion 2 - Fixed Capacity Over Term of Request. ▪ Tier 1 Service –

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Achieving Price-Responsive Demand in New England Henry Yoshimura Director, Demand Resource Strategy ISO New England National Town Meeting on Demand Response.
Advertisements

W. WeathersModeled after Redirect Examples Examples: Reservations that are dotted show Capacity Available to Resell or Transfer. MWs in Gray are.
11 OASIS Subcommittee - Notification Task Force UPDATE May
DRAFT Recommendation Preemption & Competition CHALLENGER COUNTEROFFER June 25, 2013 NAESB OS.
1 Defender Mitigation Proposed Name Change: Defender Reservation True-up Jan 15, 2012 NAESB OASIS Subcommittee Progress Report.
Lottery Method in BPA’s Simultaneous Submission Windows and Potential Application to the Simultaneous Defender Matching Process NAESB Meeting 05/01/13.
Preemption and Competition Redirect Issues NAESB OS Meeting June 6, 2012 BPA Presenting.
Timing and Flowchart Assignment
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Timing Considerations for Short-term Preemption and Competition Automation NAESB OS Presentation.
BAL-002-WECC-1 Contingency Reserves
FERC Order minute Scheduling.
Resales and the Northwest Market A High Level Preview presented by Pacific Northwest Customers*
Tiers 1 & 3 Assignment Flat Profile Recommendation.
The information in this presentation has been collated by ELEXON and while all due care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this information, ELEXON.
NAESB OASIS Subcommittee Long Term Competition Mike Norris, Rebecca Berdahl May 13, /13/141.
DRAFT E-Tag Notification Presentation NAESB OS Mar 26-28, 2013 Seattle, WA.
WELCOME Western Area Power Administration1. Where did the journey begin? Western Area Power Administration2.
Treatment of Firm Redirects Recent FERC Order. Entergy Order Docket Nos. ER OA ER Issued May 16, 2013
Uniprocessor Scheduling Chapter 9. Aim of Scheduling The key to multiprogramming is scheduling Scheduling is done to meet the goals of –Response time.
A Capacity Market that Makes Sense Peter Cramton & Steven Stoft 18 March 2005.
Changes in Demand and Market Processes. Profits and Avocadoes Firms will grow avocadoes only if they can make a profit To make a profit, price must cover.
Trading Agent Competition (Supply Chain Management) and TacTex-05.
11 Why BPA Transmission Customers Aggregate Reservations Feb. 20, 2013.
DRAFT Request for Initiation of a NAESB Standard NAESB OS Oct 23-24, 2013 Richmond, VA.
Perfect Competition Chapter 7
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Resales, Aggregations & Redirects of Resales NAESB OS July 22-24, 2014 BPA Presenting.
Utah Cost of Service and Rate Design Task Force
The Marketplace: Supply. Review What is a Market? What things must a government provide for a market to work? Why?
Resale Business Practice Standards 3 Options remain.
Short-term Competition and Preemption (STCP) May 2015 Presenter: Marie Pompel Bonneville Power Administration.
1 2 nd INDUSTRY CONSULATION ON PROPOSED UNIFIED LICENSING FRAMEWORK IN KENYA: KCCT 19 th March 2008 Frequency Issues Communications Commission of Kenya.
Demand Response Workshop September 15, Definitions are important Demand response –“Changes in electricity usage by end-use customers from their.
Rate Design Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc. (INDIEC) presented by Nick Phillips Brubaker &
PJM©2013www.pjm.com Economic DR participation in energy market ERCOT April 14, 2014 Pete Langbein.
E-Tag Notification Assignment NAESB OS Sep 17-19, 2013 Seattle, WA Assignee – Robin Cross Seattle City Light Interested Resources: Marie Pompel - BPA Power.
Demand Side Working Group Chairman Slides June 27, 2008 Mary Anne Brelinsky Vice President 1.
Resale Business Practice Standards 3 Options remain.
NITS Concepts  Contract Data Model: NITS Agreement represented as a Contract Contract has one or more Facilities Facility may be one or more Resources.
OASIS SUBCOMMITTEE STATUS EC Meeting 4/29/14. Preemption and Competition Annual Plan Items Affected  2013 AP Item 2(a) Develop version 2 business practice.
Network Transmission and Rollover Rights July 22, 2015 BPA.
PJM© Demand Response in PJM 2009 NASUCA Mid-Year Meeting June 30, 2009 Boston, MA Panel: Price Responsive Demand – A Long-Term Bargain.
Duke Energy Carolinas Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting Independent Entity Services Wednesday, January 28, :00 to 3:00 p.m. ET.
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Capacity Reassignments, Aggregation & Redirects of Reassignments NAESB OS – May 13th, 2014 BPA.
Consolidation (API 5.d R09015) Business Practice Standards Draft WEQ OS Marie Pompel – July 2015.
October 29, Organizational role of Short-Term Planning and Hydro Duty Scheduling Relationship to other groups in BPA Planning and analysis job.
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Conditional Resales NAESB Assignment Update April 16th, 2014 Bob Zerfing, Rebecca Berdahl.
OPSI Annual Meeting October 13, Session 6 Reliability Pricing Model: Are Further Changes Necessary? Reluctantly…yes But States should also be.
02/19/14 REVIEW AND UPDATE FLOWCHART AND TIMING. Goals Finish going through the process flowchart listing the steps and various options for each. Develop.
CHAPTER 15 LEAN SYSTEM. THE CONCEPTS Operation systems that are designed to create efficient processes by taking a total system perspective Known as zero.
Motion 47 Concerns Bob Zerfing, Rebecca Berdahl June 17 th, 2014.
UNCONDITIONAL AND LEAD TIMES PREEMPTION AND COMPETITION TIMING.
NT Assignment Update: 9/17/13. NT Assignment Update Resources: CompanyResources BPARebecca Berdahl, Milos Bosanac, Ann Shintani, Bob Zerfing ClarkBrenna.
NAESB NITS, and Long-term Competition
Understanding Supply Chapter 5 Section 1
Preemption-ROFR Notification
NT Assignment Update: 9/17/13.
WEQ OASIS Subcommittee
BPA Formal Comments Overview to NAESB OS
BPA Formal Comments Recap of ‘Best Offer’ Proposal
Benefits of ICAP Reliability Economics
Duke Energy Carolinas Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting
Flexible Forward Contracts for Renewable Energy Generators
Service Across Multiple Transmission Systems
penetration of wind power
Preemption & Competition Standards BPA – Southern Compromise Proposal October 24, 2017 PURPOSE: Review and discuss the inequity with the Short-Term Firm.
Duke Energy Carolinas Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting
BPA Formal Comments Recap of ‘Best Offer’ Proposal
Short-term Competition and Preemption (STCP)
Transmission Workgroup June 7th 2012
OASIS Notification Recommendation.
Presentation transcript:

Short-Term Competitions and Preemption

 Overview  Standards being covered are:  Motion 2 - Fixed Capacity Over Term of Request. ▪ Tier 1 Service – can shape capacity of request  Motion 15 – Full Service Offered ▪ Proposal to allow for partial service offer, and requirement to take partial service  Proposed Language

 BPA as TP has no native load itself, their NT load is their NT customers  Customers must manage imbalance themselves with penalties for under scheduled energy use  NT service is based around load shapes only  Based on designated resources through an attestation process  No redirect possibility exists

 Motion 2 – A valid Challenger must be for fixed capacity over the term of the request.  Business Need:  Motion 2 would eliminate shaped requests from being valid Challengers ▪ NT Service is used to match resource output to serve load. This means that being able to shape request is the most accurate way to represent actual need ▪ NT service may not exceed load, don’t want to take more capacity than needed, shaping leaves more capacity for lower tiers  Operational outcome (current motion language)  Larger than needed flat requests for capacity ▪ Ensure I don’t under schedule to avoid penalty ▪ Unused capacity ▪ TP loses revenue when capacity is set aside

 Benefits for market and lower tier counterparties  Allows for more capacity to be available to market  Allows TP to resale un needed Capacity  Causes less capacity to be preempted, which eliminates hard ships on lower tier entities who could lose capacity and/or deal with partial reservations  Initial idea to flat products was to avoid gaming opportunities  Tier 1 customers have no incentive to game over duration because they inherently have bumping rights  FERC fines for boomerang activities using tier 1 products  Dependent on product being offered by TP in the first place  Suggestion:  Provide for an exception for shaped Tier 1 requests: ▪ “A request by a Tier 1 Service Type, with a shaped demand, may be a valid challenger for any shaped amount greater than zero.”

 Motion 15 – ST preemption and competition process will only be considered valid and initiated if the Challenger can be granted in full at the requested capacity and duration based on preemption of lower priority reservation exclusive of all defenders exercising their ROFR  Business Need:  LTF designated resources goes down, need to replace energy created  Current language creates incentive for Tier 1 service entity to submit multiple requests of decreasing MW demand to meet the “full service requirement.” ▪ Example: A Tier 1 Service Type Customer submits a request for short term service, but the request is denied due to insufficient capacity available to award full service. Customer will continue to submit in lesser amounts (e.g. 100, 1 MW requests for a 100 MW need) for Tier 1 service.  The use of multiple smaller reservations may lead to clogging the transmission queue (e.g. more time devoted to software processing, communication) and create more competitions, which adds to processing time and counterparty uncertainty

 Benefits of proposal ▪ Efficient queue processing by lowering the amount of preemptions that would take place. ▪ Efficient management of competition and preemption process by removing incentive to submit multiple Tier 1 service requests with lower demands to meet “full service” requirement. ▪ Less uncertainty to types of service preempted by Tier 1. ▪ One time bump and process is done  Suggestion –  Must accept partial offer  Exception to Motion 15 – ▪ Since there are no ROFR Defenders for Tier 1 Challengers, they shall be able to receive a partial offer of what they would preempt even if their initial request cannot be granted in full. This ability requires the challenger to accept whatever is available up to and including a full offer.

 Motion 2 – A valid Challenger must be for fixed capacity over the term of the request. If the product is offered by a TP a “Tier 1” customers may submit a shaped request to match load shape.  Motion 15 - ST preemption and competition process will only be considered valid and initiated if the Challenger can be granted in full at the requested capacity and duration based on preemption of lower priority reservation exclusive of all defenders exercising their ROFR. Since there are no ROFR Defenders for Tier 1 Challengers, they shall be able to receive a partial offer of what they would preempt even if their initial request cannot be granted in full. This ability requires the challenger to accept whatever is available up to and including a full offer.