1 / 8

Parking lot Tier 1 Issues

Short-Term Competitions and Preemption. Parking lot Tier 1 Issues. AGENDA . 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

moral
Download Presentation

Parking lot Tier 1 Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Short-Term Competitions and Preemption Parking lot Tier 1 Issues

  2. AGENDA • 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

  3. OVERVIEW • 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

  4. MOTION 2 • 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

  5. MOTION 2 • 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.”

  6. Motion 15 • 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

  7. Motion 15 • 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.

  8. PROPOSAL • 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.

More Related