Comments on ACC Final Proposal

Hybrid resources

Print
Comment period
Jun 04, 02:30 pm - Jun 14, 05:00 pm
Submitting organizations
View by:

California Community Choice Association
Submitted 06/14/2021, 02:46 pm

Contact

Lauren Carr (lauren@cal-cca.org)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:

CalCCA appreciates the opportunity to submit comments and supports the CAISO’s proposal to allow multiple aggregate capability constraints (ACCs) at a single generating facility with co-located resources.

2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:

CalCCA supports the proposed enhancements to allow multiple aggregate capability constraints (ACCs) at a single generating facility with co-located resources through the “master” ACC that prevents dispatch above the point of interconnection limit and “sub” ACCs that model contractual limits when there are multiple off-takers for a co-located resource. Given the investment tax credit (ITC) incentivizes the pairing of new storage at existing solar sites, it is likely sub-ACCs will be highly utilized to model separate contracts with new and existing resources at the same generating facility.

CalCCA understands sub-ACCs will have lower priority than the power-balance constraint, and higher priority than economic bids.[1] As such, ACCs may be relaxed when the market struggles to meet supply and demand. This is a reasonable outcome when additional MWs are needed and available to maintain reliability. However, CalCCA requests the CAISO provide additional detail as to specifically how and when sub-ACCs will be relaxed, and how and when relaxation of those constraints will be communicated to market participants.

 


[1] Final Proposal at 9.

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:

CalCCA has no comments on the revised draft tariff language at this time.

4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:

CalCCA has no additional comments at this time.

California ISO - Department of Market Monitoring
Submitted 06/21/2021, 03:58 pm

Contact

Adam Swadley (aswadley@caiso.com)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:

Please see DMM's comments at the following location:

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/DMM-Comments-on-Hybrid-Resources-Aggregate-Capability-Constraint-for-Co-Located-Resources-Final-Proposal-Jun-15-2021.pdf

2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:

Please see link to DMM comments in Section 1.

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:

Please see link to DMM comments in Section 1.

4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:

Please see link to DMM comments in Section 1.

Clean Coalition
Submitted 06/14/2021, 08:41 pm

Contact

Ben Schwartz (ben@clean-coalition.org)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:

The Clean Coalition strongly supports the Final Proposal, released by CAISO as part of the hybrid resources stakeholder process, which details requirements for Aggregate Capability Constraints (“ACC”). The revised tariff will increase operational flexibility for DER while abiding by the interconnection requirements of each of the respective IOUs. The addition of subordinate constraints to a project will allow for greater market participation, making DER deployments that were previously unfeasible possible due to an increased number of economic opportunities. Community Microgrids and Virtual Power Plants in particular, will be extremely benefitted by the implementation of this proposal, as will to a lesser degree, smaller sized aggregations. Clean Coalition believes that the ACC should be available for use as soon as possible and requests clarification about how subordinate ACC might be changed for a project over time, should an off-taker become interested in a different revenue stream.

2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:

The provision in the final proposal about control of ACC during emergency market conditions is a welcome addition. Implementation of the proposal will not only allow DER greater access to wholesale markets, but will also allow the ISO to better manage the supply of energy during critical situations by relaxing constraints. It is important that CAISO has as many different tools as possible to ensure reliable service continues, even in extreme circumstances.

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:

The Clean Coalition supports the revisions made to the Draft Tariff. We believe that the proposal will provide the greatest number of economic opportunities for off-takers when the Cal ISO posts a Market Notice allowing a deployment with Aggregate Capability Constraints to bid into ancillary service markets.

4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:

Full length comments are attached below.

EDF-Renewables
Submitted 06/14/2021, 04:58 pm

Submitted on behalf of
EDF-Renewables

Contact

Raeann Quadro (rquadro@gridwell.com)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:

EDF-R appreciates the change in the final proposal to allow for multiple ACC constraints at a single generating facility, to be represented as a sub-ACC.

In these comments EDF-R seeks to communicate three main points:

  • clarify that it is not that EDF-R or other generators do not want to provide supply during tight supply conditions, in some cases the facilities are not capable of delivering above their design, and thus relaxing all sub-ACCs unilaterally may drive inefficient market outcomes and fail to drive increased supply
  • requests the CAISO develop and provide standardized reporting on when it relaxes master or sub ACC constraints
  • express concern about any additional delay to implementing the software functionality needed to implement the Hybrid stakeholder initiative
2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:

EDF-R appreciates the change in the final proposal to allow for multiple ACC constraints at a single generating facility, to be represented as a sub-ACC constraints. This ability represents a big step for implementing storage effectively into the CAISO market system. Currently the market system is not capable of representing the unique way that battery energy storage systems (BESS) can be designed to operate, in that the facility nameplate PMAX may above what they are capable of delivering due to other physical design limitations within the facility itself. By allowing for sub-ACCs the CAISO improves market outcomes by more closely reflecting the generating facilities and thus the physical system.

In its final proposal the CAISO outlines a framework to relax sub-ACC constraints when the market is having difficulty balancing supply and demand. During the June 3 call on the same topic stakeholders expressed concern for this part of the proposal. EDF-R shares concern about a proposal that unilaterally relaxes all sub-ACC constraints during tight system conditions. EDF-R wishes to make clear that sub-ACC constraints are not always just financial positions, they can be physical limitations within the facility design. (E.g. RES_ID has nameplate for 100 MW, sub-ACC for 80 MW, and a physical automatic tripping scheme for 80 MW. In this hypotheitcal example, the 80 MW limit is represented in two ways.) Because these limitations may be in the physical design, they cannot be quickly discarded even if system needs, prices, or penalties are at extraordinary levels. So, if the CAISO were to unilaterally relax all sub-ACC constraints during extraordinary system conditions intending to drive up supply, the actual market result may instead be infeasible dispatches. Currently the CAISO coordinates with its engineers, PTOs, and generators when it relaxes transmission constraints during tight system conditions (i.e. relaxes master-ACC constraints) and EDF-R encourages the CAISO to prioritize accurate market results in the implementation of sub-ACC constraints with two additions to the policy:

  1. include in the market design the ability to relax sub-ACCs at the individual sub-ACC level and
  2. adopt procedures that include similar communication with generators before relaxing their sub-ACCs.  EDF-R also requests the communication procedure be recorded in a BPM or operating procedure.

EDF-R requests the CAISO develop and provide standardized reporting on when it relaxes master- or sub ACC constraints, including which constraints are relaxed, when, why, and for how long. With respect to the umbrella term “tight system conditions” EDF-R requests CAISO clarify if sub-ACC constraints may be relaxed during declared emergencies, and if not, how CAISO will identify the tight system conditions that trigger the relaxing and how the CAISO will communicate and report the frequency of those events.

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:
4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:

EDF-R appreciates the CAISO’s agile response to last summer’s events and the resource loading required to meet development and implementation milestones for the Summer 2021 initiative. EDF-R appreciates CAISO’s commitment to develop the full implementation of the aggregate capability constraint (master and sub components) in Fall 2021. On the June 3 call the CAISO mentioned that it plans to syphon of some of the Hybrid initiative development scope into a later deployment. This is a concern for EDF-R. The full scope of the hybrid implementation has already been delayed and is much needed. EDF-R will follow up on this item in the release planning forum.

LSA and SEIA
Submitted 06/15/2021, 11:29 am

Submitted on behalf of
Large-scale Solar Association and Solar Energy Industries Association

Contact

Susan Schneider (schneider@phoenix-co.com)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:

LSA and SEIA very much appreciate the CAISO’s willingness to fix the ACC-related problems with the Hybrid Resources Initiative (HRI) Phase 1 tariff filing.  LSA and SEIA strongly support expanding ACC capability to facilitate multiple ACCs for a single Generating Facility. 

The current restrictions were imposed without any discussion in the HRI Phase 1 stakeholder process, through inclusion in the cover note for the FERC filing.  They conflict significantly with the manner in which larger Mixed-Fuel Resources (MFRs) are being developed and contracted.

That said, LSA and SEIA have these comments on the Proposal, explained in more detail below.

  • The CAISO should request expedited approval for the proposed ACC applicability expansion, to accommodate resources coming on line now and in the very near future as well as late-stage Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) negotiations.
  • The CAISO should remove the need for a “Master ACC” for Generating Facilities where all capacity is included under “Sub-ACCs” or covered under the otherwise-applicable practice for dividing POI capacity between Resource IDs.
  • The CAISO should delete the proposed provision allowing “breach” of boundaries between ACCs under conditions besides System Emergencies.  This modification is needed to prevent unjust and unreasonable discrimination against resources under ACCs, compared to those in separate Generating Facilities.
  • The CAISO should allow Pseudo Tie MFR resources to use ACCs.
2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:

EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF ACC ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION

LSA and SEIA repeat their request from the last stakeholder meeting (supported by other attendees) that the CAISO ask for expedited processing for the ACC applicability expansion from FERC, and revise any needed internal procedures to accommodate implementation as soon as possible.  Resources needing this feature are coming on line now and in the very near future; based on the HRI stakeholder process, developers of these projects expected that this capability would be available last Fall, and it is urgently needed for these new facilities.

The delay is also causing developers problems concluding Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) negotiations for future resources.  PPAs are now “on hold” as off-takers wait for confirmation that they will be able to get the separate scheduling and settlement provisions they need from new contracted resources.

 

MSATER ACC REQUIREMENT

This requirement should be removed.

First, the CAISO should clarify that MFRs configured as CLRs do not need any ACCs at all (master or otherwise) if they have sufficient capacity at the Point of Interconnection (POI) to accommodate full output from both CLRs.  While this configuration is not typical, the pre-ACC convention of dividing the POI limit between the CLR Resource IDs can be used, and therefore no ACC is needed.

Second, the CAISO has yet to explain the need for a Master ACC when all the Generating Facility capacity is covered under “Sub-ACCs,” or the prior practice for dividing capacity at the POI.

  • Where all the capacity for a Generating Facility is covered under Sub-ACCs, each Sub-ACC would have a maximum limit for scheduling and real-time dispatch, and those limits would total to the POI limit of the Generating Facility.  The required POI controls would ensure that real-time output of the entire Generating Facility does not exceed the limit.
  • Where all the Generating Facility capacity is not covered under Sub-ACCs, the pre-ACC convention dividing up the POI capacity would yield the same result without a Master ACC.  In other words, ACCs are only needed where POI capacity use for scheduling and dispatch covers shared POI capacity, and not otherwise.

For example, assume a 100 MW MFR Generating Facility with three Resource IDs:  (1) Solar and storage CLRs with a 70 MW ACC limit; and (2) a Hybrid Resource (HR) Resource ID with the remaining 30 MW.  The CAISO’s Master File rules would require the POI capacity to be split between the 70 MW ACC resources and the 30 MW HR. 

The ACC would ensure that the CLR scheduling and dispatch do not exceed 70 MW, and the 30 MW Pmax for the HR would ensure that scheduling and dispatch for that Resource ID does not exceed 30 MW.  Thus, there is no need for a Master ACC to ensure that scheduling and dispatch for the Generating Facility does not exceed the allowed levels.

Finally, the CAISO has not explained how or if a Master ACC would interact with Sub-ACCs, or why it would be needed given the rest of the resource configuration. 

In summary, because all MFR Generating Facility Resource IDs would be covered by either Sub-ACCs or conventional Pmax splits, the requirement for a Master ACC should be removed.  The CAISO should avoid superfluous requirements in the absence of any need for them.

 

BOUNDARIES BETWEEN ACCs

LSA and SEIA strongly believe that the CAISO should not “breach” the boundaries between ACCs at the same Generating Facility in real time except under the same conditions – System Emergencies – as for separate Generating Facilities.  As explained further below: (1) There is no rationale for its proposal to breach ACC boundaries under less-dire circumstances (before the “power balance” constraint); (2) it is likely to lead to unintended consequences that the CAISO does not want; and (3) the CAISO’s proposal is unworkable. 

Lack of rationale:  CAISO’s own diagrams show that there is no rationale for its proposal to treat ACCs different from separate Generating Facilities.  

Below is the diagram in Slide 7 of CAISO’s June 3 meeting presentation, showing CLRs in two different ACCs at one Generating Facility (“Situation 1”).  Each ACC has its own part of the POI capacity, at 110 and 123 MW, respectively. 

image(10).png

LSA and SEIA maintain that this is exactly the same diagram that would be used to illustrate two separate MFR Generating Facilities – 110 and 123 MW, respectively – sharing a single gen-tie line (“Situation 2”).  The fact that Situation 1 CLRs would be under one GIA and Situation 2 CLRs would be under multiple GIAs has absolutely no bearing operationally.

In other words, more generally, multiple ACCs for a single Generating Facility and multiple Generating Facilities sharing a single gen-tie are “similarly situated.”  Treating similarly situated resources differently without justification is the very definition of “unduly discriminatory.” 

Unintended consequences:  The above diagram makes is clear that developers could work around the CAISO proposal simply by installing the exact output-limit controls for Situation 2 as the CAISO mandates for Situation 1 – namely, software or equipment limitations that prevent ACC resource on the left collectively from physically exceeding their allotted share of POI capacity.  The CAISO said at the June 3rd meeting that it “prefers” that developers not install these limitations, but it likely that they will become common should the CAISO adopt this proposal.

Lack of workability:  The proposal is unworkable, because it:

  • Would confound numerous already-executed PPAs.  Most PPAs for resources coming on line now and in the next couple of years have been long executed, based on the CAISO’s long-standing historic treatment of multiple-Resource ID Generating Facilities to date and, more recently, representations in the HRI stakeholder process.  The CAISO’s entirely new proposal here was obviously not contemplated when those contracts were negotiated, and the proposal has raised fears among off-takers that they will not receive the products and services they have contracted to pay for.
  • Would make larger Generating Facilities less valuable, because presumably it would result in potential ACC boundary breaches more frequently than for System Emergencies.

It is extremely efficient, for both CAISO and Interconnection Customers, to structure new Generating Facilities as large projects in the interconnection request and study process, and then split them contractually later.  Larger projects cost less to process than multiple smaller projects with the same collective capacity, and they impose lower workload burdens on the CAISO and PTOs in the study and GIA development process.

However, the CAISO proposal would provide more protection to off-takers for smaller but separate Generating Facilities than those that are portions or phases of larger Generating Facilities.  The result could be a proliferation of smaller projects in the interconnection process – say, a Cluster 15 workload for the CAISO and PTOs of two or three time the 377 projects in Cluster 14.

  • Lacks any recognition of practical implementation issues.  For example, there is no indication of how frequently the specified conditions could occur, exactly what actions the CAISO may take under those conditions, or how or when Market Participants would be notified of these conditions or actions.

Conclusion:  The proposal to allow ACC breaches “just before” the power balance is relaxed is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, and unworkable.  It is likely to draw a challenge at FERC for those reasons, and the CAISO should withdraw this proposal.

 

PSEUDO TIE ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCs

The CAISO should remove its prohibition on use of ACCs by Pseudo Tie resources.  Like the ban on multiple ACCs per Generating Resource, this prohibition was included in the cover letter for the HRI Phase 1 tariff filing without any vetting or even mention in the stakeholder process, and there is no substantive reason for continuing it.

The CAISO tariff filing stated as follows, on p.9 (emphasis added):

For resources using other modeling constraints it may be problematic to apply an aggregate capability constraint that could conflict with existing constraints for purposes of issuing market awards or dispatch instructions. For this reason, and out of an abundance of caution, the CAISO has proposed that the following resource types will be ineligible to use the aggregate capability constraint: Multi-Stage Generators, Pseudo-Tie Resources, Proxy Demand Response, Pumped Storage Hydro Units, Metered Sub-Systems, and Use-Limited Resources. These resource types have yet to express an interest in using an aggregate capability constraint in the CAISO’s stakeholder initiative, and there are very few, if any, of each type in the CAISO interconnection queue.24 Expanding the aggregate capability constraint to these resource types would create significant additional complexity in implementing the constraint this year.

With all due respect:

  • No evidence was presented (see above, e.g., no vetting in the HRI stakeholder process) to support any conclusion that “modeling constraints” related to these resource types could cause any conflicts with the ACC construct.  Even the CAISO language only says it “may be” problematic, hardly a strong case for excluding resources from a vital market tool.
  • The filing allows EIM Resources to qualify for ACCs, even though those resource are certainly subject to many “modeling constraints.”  There appears to be no basis for concluding that those “modeling constraints” would be any less problematic for ACC eligibility than those for the resources listed here or, conversely, that the modeling constraints for the listed resources would be any more problematic than those for EIM Resources.  At least the other resources (including Pseudo Tie Resources) are part of the CAISO BAA, unlike EIM Resources.
  • With respect to potential MFR Pseudo-Tie Resources specifically:
  • There would be no reason for developers of these resources to “express interest” separately from other developers in the HRI stakeholder process, since there was no indication that the CAISO had any intent of excluding them from ACC eligibility. 
  • Developers of these resources are often not different entities than developers of CAISO-area resources, who have actively participated in the HRI.  Certainly, LSA members are developing MFRs outside California that will likely use the Pseudo Tie model to sell into California, in addition to CAISO-area resources.
  • There is no way they can be listed in the CAISO Interconnection Queue, since they do not submit Interconnection Requests to the CAISO, only to their Host BAA.
  • These resources simply will not be able to participate in CAISO markets if they cannot use ACCs, for the same reason that ACCs were needed for market participation by CAISO-area MFRs, i.e., the different fuel types could not share POI capacity.
  • Any concerns regarding transmission reservations should be resolvable as part of establishing the Pseudo Tie and associated ACC.  Instead of demonstrating that they have sufficient transmission reserved for the total capacity, they would have to demonstrate that they have sufficient transmission reserved for the interconnection-service capacity, and the ACC would "connect" the applicable Resource IDs for this purpose. 
  • These resources are at least part of the CAISO BAA, unlike EIM Resources, which are eligible to use ACCs.  

Since the CAISO’s statements in the filing regarding Pseudo Ties (at least) cannot be supported, there is no apparent reason for excluding MFR Pseudo Tie Resources from ACC eligibility.  Thus, the CAISO should revise this policy and allow Pseudo Tie Resources to qualify for ACCs.

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:

Please see the attached file.

4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:

Marin Clean Energy
Submitted 06/14/2021, 02:02 pm

Contact

Michael Callahan (mcallahan@mcecleanenergy.org)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:

Marin Clean Energy (MCE) would like to thank the CAISO for its work on the Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) and the sub-ACC constraint in the Hybrid Initiative and appreciates the CAISO implementing the sub-ACC constraint as soon as possible. MCE suggests CAISO request FERC shorten the time to approve this tariff change to allow for the fastest possible implementation of the sub-ACC. Allowing for a sub-ACC constraint value is very important for hybrid projects especially those with multiple off-takers. The sub-ACC constraint is important to MCE and its counterparties as we contract for supply, both at present and in the future. The sub-ACC constraint is critical for efficient capacity procurement and generator market operations. 

MCE is concerned by aspects of the proposal to relax the sub-ACC constraint for reliability. First, the relaxation may not actually achieve the intended outcome because resources may be limited by contracting and hardware/software implemented by the project operator. We understand the CAISO doesn’t want contractual limitations to reduce availability of assets for reliability, however off-takers strike the balance of meeting capacity obligations at the least cost to consumers. Second, MCE is concerned about impacts of off-takers leaning on each other’s interconnection access if the sub-ACC constraint is relaxed. The sub-ACC constraint provides multiple off-takers fair access to the grid under the terms of their off-take contract. The CAISO proposes to relax the sub-ACC constraint during constrained conditions.  These conditions typically coincide with higher market prices which may incent certain bidding and dispatch decisions. When the sub-ACC constraint is relaxed, this opens the possibility of leaning on another party’s interconnection access.

MCE requests CAISO provide stakeholders and the market more information about what conditions exactly would allow for the sub-ACC constraint relaxation, how the CAISO identifies reliability concerns and the timing in which the relaxation would be applied, and the way in which the sub-ACC relaxation would be communicated to market participants.      

MCE is also interested in a framework whereby one off-taker cannot avoid a sub-ACC imposed on other off-takers behind the same Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA). To address this concern, the CAISO should allow only the LGIA holder to request enforcement of sub-ACCs, as opposed to individual off-takers. If individual off-takers were able to avoid a sub-ACC, it may result in off-takers leaning on other’s interconnection rights and making awarded bids infeasible to dispatch.

2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:

MCE supports implementing the ACC and sub-ACC constraints as quickly as possible. MCE suggests CAISO request relevant waivers at FERC to allow for the fastest possible implementation of the sub-ACC.

MCE expresses concern around the proposal to relax the sub-ACC constraint when reliability is threatened. First, the relaxation may not actually achieve the intended outcome because resources may be limited by contracting and hardware/software implemented by the project operator. We understand the CAISO doesn’t like the idea of contractual limitations however off-takers must make agreements for capacity which strike the balance of meeting capacity obligations at the least cost to consumers. Second, MCE is concerned about the potential of leaning on interconnection access if the sub-ACC constraint is relaxed. The sub-ACC constraint allows multiple off-takers to participate with fair and contracted access to the grid under the terms of their off-take contract. The CAISO proposes to relax the sub-ACC constraint during constrained conditions.  These conditions typically coincide with higher market prices which may incent certain bidding and dispatch decisions. When the sub-ACC constraint is relaxed, this opens the possibility of leaning on other party’s interconnection access.

Relatedly, MCE is interested in a framework whereby one off-taker cannot avoid a sub-ACC imposed on other off-takers behind the same LGIA. To address this concern, the CAISO should allow only the LGIA holder to request enforcement of sub-ACCs, as opposed to individual off-takers. If individual off-takers were able to avoid a sub-ACC, it may result in off-takers leaning on other’s interconnections and risking the feasibility of awarded bids.

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:

If the CAISO moves forward with relaxing the sub-ACC constraint, MCE requests CAISO provide stakeholders and the market more information about what conditions exactly would allow for the constraint relaxation, how the CAISO identifies reliability concerns and the timing in which the relaxation would be applied, and the way in which the sub-ACC relaxation would be communicated to market participants. On the stakeholder call, there was discussion this could happen a day or two in advance of reliability concerns and sub-ACC constraint relaxation.  What is the exact process for how this happens? When would market participants be alerted? MCE would also encourage a reporting requirement on when the sub-ACC constraints are relaxed for transparency to market participants that allows for sufficient planning time and information between project operators and off-takers.

MCE encourages CAISO to provide clarity around the topics above and believes information and processes should be included in the Business Practice Manuals (BPMs).

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:

If the CAISO moves forward with relaxing the sub-ACC constraint, MCE requests CAISO provide stakeholders and the market more information about what conditions exactly would allow for the constraint relaxation, how the CAISO identifies reliability concerns and the timing in which the relaxation would be applied, and the way in which the sub-ACC relaxation would be communicated to market participants. On the stakeholder call, there was discussion this could happen a day or two in advance of reliability concerns and sub-ACC constraint relaxation.  What is the exact process for how this happens? When would market participants be alerted? MCE would also encourage a reporting requirement on when the sub-ACC constraints are relaxed for transparency to market participants that allows for sufficient planning time and information between project operators and off-takers.

MCE encourages CAISO to provide clarity around the topics above and believes information and processes should be included in the Business Practice Manuals (BPMs).

4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:

No additional comments at this time. 

Pacific Gas & Electric
Submitted 06/14/2021, 04:17 pm

Contact

Michael Volpe (michael.volpe@pge.com)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:

PG&E offers one comment on the conditions leading to relaxing the sub-ACC constraint. 

2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:

On page 8 of the June 3rd presentation, the CAISO explained how they will relax sub-ACC constraints when “reliability is threatened.” When asked on the call for more clarification, the CAISO responded that it was similar to the relaxing of the power balance constraint but did not indicate how often such conditions are expected. PG&E requests further details on what is meant by “reliability is threatened” and for the CAISO to include those details in its implementation rollout.  

3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:
4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:

Southern California Edison
Submitted 06/14/2021, 09:21 am

Contact

Aditya Chauhan (aditya.chauhan@sce.com)

1. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on Aggregate Capability Constraint (ACC) proposal:
2. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC final proposal:
3. Provide your organization’s comments on the ACC revised draft tariff language:
4. Provide any additional comments. You may upload attachments using the “attachments” field below:
Back to top