1. Preemption & Competition Standards BPA – Southern Compromise Proposal October 24, 2017
PURPOSE: Review and discuss the inequity with the Short-Term Firm Preemption and Competition recommendation, and compare the recommended changes to both “Best Offer” proposal and the “Compromise” proposal

2. Preemption and Competition Process
Preemption and Right of First Refusal
Standardized rules for Short Term and Preemption competition on the OASIS
Standardized rules for Challengers and Defenders

3. Process Outline – “Re-evaluation”
It is possible that enough ROFR Defenders bid down their remaining profiles, or the Challenger walks away, such that there is now capacity available
Current recommendation requires that
Each confirmed Defender without ROFR is re-evaluated
Each pending Defender without ROFR is re-evaluated
All competition flags are cleared and the process is concluded
Dependent transactions (REDIRECT and RESALE) are reconciled by the Transmission Customer and the Transmission Provider

4. Problem Statement of “Inequity”
Defenders who purposefully exercised ROFR but did not win are left out of the “Re-evaluation” phase
After the successful ROFR Defenders are processed the process moves on to re-evaluation of non-ROFR Defenders
As BPA pointed out in the formal comments, the non-ROFR Defenders are given higher priority in re-evaluation than ROFR Defenders who exercised ROFR but lost

5. BPA - Southern Compromise Approach
This approach would recommend modifying the recommendation to allow for re-evaluation of ROFR Defenders before non-ROFR Defenders
These ROFR Defenders exercised ROFR, but were not successful
After the successful ROFR Defenders are evaluated
Simply re-evaluate the unsuccessful ROFR Defenders first and offer any remaining capacity
Then re-evaluate the non-ROFR Defenders.
Simply stated that any ROFR who has remained in the competition by choice will get re-evaluated before any non-ROFR defender.
No extra “best offer” flags are needed

6. BPA – Southern Compromise Approach
Advantages
This approach is consistent with already agreed upon standards, just another iteration of the same process
No additional processes needed to make this approach work
This is a much simpler approach and not difficult to implement
This approach does not create another classification of ROFR Defenders
This approach preserves concerns about transmission priority

7. Comparison of WEQ-001 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
1.8 table 4 added re-evaluation time limit
added definition of “best offer” flag explicit intent
added definition of “best offer” flag explicit opt out
c added “best offer” flag
d added “best offer” flag and deferred Defenders action
e added clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
4.6.6 added evaluation of capacity available to Challenger
added re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferred
“Compromise”
1.8 table 4 added re-evaluation time limit
N/A
c added lower remaining profile
d added deferred Defenders action
e added clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
4.6.6 added evaluation of capacity available to Challenger
added re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferred

8. Comparison of WEQ-002 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
added “best offer” flag definitions to template structure
added “best offer” flag to template structure for input and response
added “best offer” flag to template structure for response
6 added “best offer” flag to the conversion requirements
“Compromise”
N/A

9. Comparison of WEQ-003 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
0 added “best offer” flag data element
“Compromise”
N/A

10. Comparison of WEQ-013 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
6.3 added definition of “best offer” flag explicit intent
6.3 added definition of “best offer” flag explicit opt out
6.3 added “best offer” flag and clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
6.3 added “best offer” flag and re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferred
“Compromise”
N/A
6.3 added lower remaining profile and clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
6.3 added re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferred