via electronic mail to: members and alternates of …feb 03, 2017 · 96296800.4 david t. doot...
TRANSCRIPT
96296800.4
David T. Doot Secretary
January 27, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
TO: MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES OF THE NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE
RE: Supplemental Notice of February 3, 2017 NEPOOL Participants Committee Meeting
Pursuant to Section 6.6 of the Second Restated New England Power Pool Agreement, supplemental notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Participants Committee will be held onFriday, February 3, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. at the Seaport Hotel, Boston MA. The Participants Committee meeting will be held for the purposes set forth on the attached agenda and posted with the meeting materials at http://nepool.com/NPC_2017.php. For your information, this meeting is recorded, as are all the NEPOOL Participants Committee meetings.
Directions to the Seaport Hotel are included with this notice. As indicated previously, rooms at the Seaport for the February 3 meeting are available at the rate of $169.00 per night, on a first-come, first-served basis. Please note, the cut-off for making reservations has been extended until Monday, January 30. To take advantage of these arrangements, please contact the hotel directly (1-877-732-7678) and reference the “NEPOOL Participants Committee” block of rooms.
Respectfully yours,
/s/ David T. Doot, Secretary
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 3, 2017 MEETING
96296800.4
FINAL AGENDA
1. To approve the draft preliminary minutes of the Participants Committee teleconference meeting held on January 6, 2017. The preliminary minutes of the January 6 teleconference meeting, which have not changed from the draft circulated with the initial notice, are included with this supplemental notice and posted with the meeting materials.
2. To adopt and approve all actions recommended by the Technical Committees set forth on the Consent Agenda included with this supplemental notice and posted with the meeting materials.
3. To receive an ISO Chief Executive Officer Report.
4. To receive an ISO Chief Operating Officer Report.
5. To consider and take action, as appropriate, on revisions to the ISO Tariff related to interconnection clustering, as recommended by the Transmission Committee at its January 24, 2017 meeting. Background materials and a draft resolution are with this supplemental notice and posted with the meeting materials.
6. To consider and take action, as appropriate, on balloting an amendment to the NEPOOL and Participants Agreements to implement a proposal to create a Small Standard Offer Provider Group Seat in the Supplier Sector. Background materials and a draft resolution are included with this supplemental notice and posted with the meeting materials.
7. To receive a report on current matters relating to regional wholesale power and transmission arrangements that are pending before the regulators and the courts. The litigation report will be circulated and posted in advance of the meeting.
8. To receive reports from Committees, Subcommittees and other working groups:
• Markets Committee • Reliability Committee • Transmission Committee • Budget & Finance Subcommittee • GIS Agreement Working Group • Others
9. To receive a report on administrative matters.
10. To transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3743
PRELIMINARY
A meeting of the NEPOOL Participants Committee was held via teleconference
beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 6, 2017, pursuant to notice duly given. A quorum
determined in accordance with the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement was present and acting
throughout the meeting. Attachment 1 identifies the members, alternates and temporary
alternates who participated in the teleconference meeting.
Mr. Thomas Kaslow, Chair, presided and Mr. Sebastian Lombardi, Acting Secretary,
recorded.
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 2, 2016 MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Kaslow referred the Committee to the preliminary minutes for the December 2, 2016
meeting as circulated in advance of the meeting. Following motion duly made and seconded, the
preliminary minutes of the December 2 meeting were unanimously approved without change.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Kaslow referred the Committee to the Consent Agenda that was circulated in
advance of the meeting. Following motion duly made and seconded, the Consent Agenda was
unanimously approved without discussion or comment.
ISO CEO REPORT
Mr. Gordon van Welie, ISO Chief Executive Officer (CEO), referred the Committee to
the summaries of the ISO Board and Board Committee meetings that had occurred since the
December 2 meeting, which had been circulated and posted in advance of the meeting. There
were no questions or comments on the summaries.
In follow up to a request at the December meeting, Mr. van Welie reported the ISO
would participate in the proceeding by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3744
Protection (MA DEP) on proposed emission regulations. At Mr. van Welie’s request, Ms. Anne
George, ISO Vice President External Affairs and Corporate Communications, explained that the
ISO was still formulating its comments based on its ongoing review of how the imposition of the
limitations proposed by the MA DEP on carbon emissions from Massachusetts generators might
impact dispatch of generation outside of Massachusetts, regional emissions, cost, reliability, and
fuel security. She stated that the ISO would testify at one of the public hearings, although she
was not sure at which one, and planned to follow up its testimony with written comments before
February 24. She explained, in response to a question, that the ISO would likely not have the
chance to review its position with the Reliability Committee or Planning Advisory Committee
(PAC) because of that amount of work needed to be done and how quickly comments were
required.
ISO COO REPORT
Dr. Vamsi Chadalavada, ISO Chief Operating Officer (COO), reviewed highlights from
the January COO report, which was circulated in advance of the meeting and posted on the
NEPOOL and ISO websites. Focusing on report highlights, which he explained reflected data
through December 28, 2016, he reported for December that: (i) Energy Market value was $566
million, up $313 million from November 2016 and up $318 million from December 2015; (ii)
natural gas prices ($6.88/MMBtu) were 168% higher than November 2016 average values; (iii)
average Real-Time Hub LMPs ($55.48/MWh) were 128% higher than November 2016 LMPs;
(iv) average daily (peak hour) Day-Ahead cleared physical Energy, as a percent of forecasted
load, was 97.4% in December, up from 97.1% in November; (v) daily NCPC for November
totaled $6.4 million, down $8.5 million from November 2016 NCPC and up $1.6 million from
December 2015; (vi) first contingency payments, totaling $4.8 million, were $2.1 million higher
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3745
than November’s; (vii) second contingency payments totaled $1.5 million, $10.8 million less
than in November’s; (viii) voltage support payments totaled $174,000, up $154,000 from
November 2016; and (ix) NCPC payments were 1.1% of the total Energy Market value.
He explained that December’s Energy Market value was substantially higher than
November’s largely due to higher natural gas prices. He reported that almost all the uplift in
December was for first contingency payments, with the relatively small second contingency
costs divided between NEMA (due to commitments driven by load levels and miscellaneous
outages) and SEMA/RI (due to a transmission outage that happened to coincide with an
unplanned unit outage).
Turning to the Winter Reliability Program, Dr. Chadalavada reported that, on December
1, when official measurement of inventory levels for potential compensation under the 2016/17
Winter Reliability Program were taken, there were 3.05 million barrels of oil eligible for fuel
compensation. The maximum total exposure for oil program compensation was $31.16 million.
There was a reduction in liquefied natural gas (LNG) program enrollment from October, with
two units participating with about 171,000 MMBtu, for a maximum cost exposure of $291,000.
The maximum exposure for the demand response (DR) program was $71,000 for 23 MW of
interruption capability. He stated that the ISO had not yet collected December fuel usage data
but would have that information distributed when available.
Dr. Chadalavada concluded his report reviewing FCM highlights. He reported that final
preparations were being made for the eleventh Forward Capacity Auction (FCA11) scheduled to
begin on February 6, with a mock auction scheduled on January 30 at 10:00 a.m. He encouraged
participation in the mock auction process to ensure preparedness for FCA11. He reported that
the next installment of financial assurance for new capacity resources participating in FCA11
was due on January 23.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3746
In response to a question, Dr. Chadalavada reported that the difference between LMPs
and natural gas prices on December 16 was driven in part by a snowstorm on December 16-17,
an under-forecast of load by more than 1,000 MW, and minor constraints on the Algonquin
pipeline. Those factors all drove up the LMPs.
CONE, NET CONE AND ORTP VALUE UPDATES
Mr. Alex Kuznecow, Markets Committee Chairman, referred the Committee to the
materials posted in advance of the meeting concerning Tariff revisions to update the Cost of New
Entry (CONE), Net CONE and Offer Review Trigger Prices (ORTP) values in FCM. He
explained that the current CONE, Net CONE and ORTP values were specifically enumerated in
the ISO Tariff and were last updated by the ISO, and filed with and approved by the FERC, in
2014. He stated the Market Rules required those values to be recalculated at least once every
three years using updated data and the Tariff revisions reflected the results of the required
recalculation. He reported that the ISO would use updated values, as approved by the FERC,
beginning with FCA12.
Mr. Kuznecow reported that the Markets Committee, at its December 6, 2016 meeting,
considered and recommended Participants Committee support, by a 65.70% Vote in favor, for
the ISO’s proposed values with one change relating to the ORTP for on-shore wind resources
(the Participant Proposal). That change was proposed by RENEW Northeast, and moved by the
Union of Concerned Scientists on behalf of RENEW (together, the sponsors). As changed by
RENEW Northeast’s proposal, the ORTP value for on-shore wind resources would be
$4.496/kW-mo., as compared with the ISO-proposed $11.025/kW-mo. The reason for the lower
ORTP value recommended by the Market Committee was the use of a higher capacity factor
assumption for on-shore wind than assumed by the ISO (35% versus 32%). Mr. Kuznecow
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3747
reported that the Markets Committee also considered a proposed amendment to the CONE
values offered by Calpine, but that amendment did not have sufficient Markets Committee
support to be part of the package of changes recommended to the Participants Committee.
Continuing, he explained that the ISO did not support the Markets Committee-recommended
ORTP value for on-shore wind resources and requested a vote on its own proposal with the
higher ORTP value for on-shore wind (ISO Proposal). That proposal received a 36.53% Vote in
favor and was therefore not recommended by the Markets Committee.
Mr. Lombardi reported that, following the December 6 Markets Committee meeting, the
sponsors of the Participant Proposal decided not to pursue that Proposal at the Participants
Committee, as reported to the Committee in a notice circulated December 22, 2016, and as
explained by the sponsors in a memorandum provided by RENEW, which was circulated with
the meeting materials. In addition, Calpine advised NEPOOL Counsel that it would offer for
Participants Committee consideration the same amendment it had previously offered at, and
which was not supported by, the Markets Committee.
Mr. Lombardi then summarized the suggested process for consideration of the proposals,
which had been described more fully in the NEPOOL Counsel memorandum circulated with the
meeting materials. He noted first that Participants Committee consideration would normally
begin with the proposal recommended by the Markets Committee (in this case, the Participant
Proposal). Given the decision of the sponsors to not pursue the Participant Proposal at the
Participants Committee, as explained in the memo to the Committee, NEPOOL Counsel
suggested that beginning with the ISO Proposal as the main motion might be more efficient.
That deviation from the normal process, though, would only be followed if no one objected to
the ISO Proposal being reflected in the main motion. If anyone objected, the Participant
Proposal would be reflected in the main motion and the Committee would then need to vote to
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3748
amend the main motion to vote instead on the ISO Proposal. Without any objection to the
suggested procedure, the following main motion was then duly made and seconded, reflecting
the ISO Proposal:
RESOLVED, that the Participants Committee supports revisions to Market Rule 1 and Appendix A to Market Rule 1 to update Cost of New Entry (CONE) and Net CONE values and recalculate the Offer Review Trigger Prices (ORTPs) using updated data for FCA12, as recommended by ISO New England and circulated to this Committee in advance of this meeting, together with such non-substantive changes as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Markets Committee may approve.
Calpine Amendment
The Calpine representative then reviewed Calpine’s proposed amendment that a combined-
cycle gas turbine be used as the reference technology for the calculation of CONE and Net CONE,
resulting in higher values than those proposed by the ISO. He expressed his view that the ISO
decision since the last CONE determination to change the basis for the calculation of CONE and
Net CONE from a combined-cycle gas turbine to a combustion turbine was unjustified and added
considerable uncertainty to the market. He said that recently cleared greenfield projects in New
England had all been combined-cycle (Towantic, Clear River Energy) and that the combined-cycle
technology was a better fit for the region since it was much more able with a lower carbon footprint than
single-cycle technology to support dispatch requirements and fluctuations in generation output.
The motion to amend the main motion was then duly made and seconded to increase CONE
to $15.62/kW-mo. and to increase Net CONE to $10.00/kW-mo. (Calpine Amendment).
Members then discussed and debated the Calpine Amendment. Speaking in favor of the
Calpine Amendment, members noted the importance of investor certainty and continuity,
explaining that decisions had already been made, money lent, and capital committed based on the
use of a combined-cycle technology, and the adverse impact that a 30% drop in the Net CONE
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3749
would have on investor certainty. Supporters pointed to the experiences over the last three FCAs
that demonstrated in their view the correctness of the conclusion that new merchant greenfield
generation would choose combined-cycle technology over the less-expensive combustion turbine
technology. This more flexible generation was, they argued, needed for reliability reasons. They
explained that the ISO-proposed change in Net CONE and its resulting impact on the
establishment of the FCA Starting Price would produce prices that could eliminate fast-start
peaking units from participating in future auctions.
Others spoke in opposition to the Calpine Amendment. They argued that there would
still be opportunities for combined-cycle units to continue to participate and clear in auctions
going forward, and could better manage any related investment risk. They strongly supported
the certainty and benefits associated with the ISO employing then, and in the future, the lowest-
cost, reasonably available resource technology for setting Net CONE (which the Concentric
analysis demonstrated the ISO Proposal would do). The NESCOE representative reported that
the States opposed the amendment because it would produce an unjustified increase of more than
40% over the FCA10 clearing price. He pointed out also that, even if the ISO-proposed values
proved to be wrong, the transitional sloped demand curves would produce prices closer to those
that would result if the Calpine Amendment passed, and the States were confident that the Net
ICR would remain at an acceptable level for resource adequacy purposes.
On behalf of the ISO, Mr. Mark Karl stated that, with respect to the choice of technology,
the ISO believed that the analysis performed supported the use of the combustion turbine
resource in establishing the CONE/Net CONE values. He summarized concerns identified three
years ago that, despite the fact that the single-cycle combustion turbine was the cheaper
technology, there would not be willingness to build that technology in New England. He
explained the ISO’s view that those concerns were no longer justified because, over the past
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3750
three years, single-cycle combustion turbines had cleared in the marketplace at prices close to the
recommended number. Accordingly, he concluded that a single-cycle combustion turbine was
the right reference technology and the resulting values were appropriate.
The Committee then voted the Calpine Amendment, which failed with a 44.21% Vote in
favor (Generation Sector – 17.12%; Transmission Sector – 1.72%; Supplier Sector – 17.12%;
AR Sector – 8.25%; Publicly Owned Entity Sector – 0%; and End User Sector – 0%). (See Vote
1 on Attachment 2).
ISO Proposal
The Committee then considered the main motion for NEPOOL to support the ISO
Proposal. Commenting against that proposal, a representative of NEPGA argued that the
proposed calculation of NET CONE employed by the ISO to calculate ancillary service revenue
offsets failed to reflect properly planned market structure changes and could overstate revenues
from those markets. He stated that NEPGA had received from the ISO and its consultant certain
information and details as to the modeling and analysis performed, and continued to evaluate that
additional information and its resulting conclusions. Based on analysis and discussion to date,
NEPGA would be opposing the filing of the updated CONE, Net CONE and ORTP values, and
would be providing additional information explaining the bases for that opposition.
Noting concern that the ISO Proposal could produce inappropriate FCM values for
multiple FCAs, a member asked whether the ISO would be willing to re-evaluate CONE/Net
CONE values earlier than the three-year full recalculation required under the Tariff should there
be dramatic changes in the marketplace. Mr. Karl indicated that if dramatic changes in the
market called into question the appropriateness of CONE/Net CONE values, the ISO would
consider revisiting them in the stakeholder process and with the FERC earlier than required
under the Tariff.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3751
A representative of the AR Sector stated the companies he represented would abstain on
the vote to support the ISO Proposal because of the change in circumstances since the Markets
Committee. The representative of the Maine and New Hampshire consumer advocates explained
that abstentions on the main motion by those Participants would be attributable specifically to the
ISO-proposed ORTP value for on-shore wind resources, and not to the Net CONE or the CONE
values. The SunEdison representative noted Sun Edison would oppose the motion. He
explained that SunEdison supported the process followed by this Committee in not voting on the
Participant Proposal, but was very concerned with the process undertaken and the analysis
performed by the ISO in relation to the ORTP for on-shore wind resources. He expressed his
opinion that the ISO’s calculation of ORTP for on-shore wind was an exercise in false precision
that was not unsupported by the data.
The NESCOE representative stated that NESCOE supported the overall reasonableness
of the ISO Proposal but that support did not mean that the States supported or agreed with every
individual assumption used in the CONE and Net CONE calculations. He thanked the ISO for
its commitment to revisit these values earlier, rather than wait a full three years, if circumstances
support such an early revisitation.
Mr. Jeffrey McDonald, ISO Internal Market Monitor (the IMM), offered his assessment
that the ISO Proposal reflected an accurate set of ORTP values that were consistent with the
relative economics of the different generation technologies and consistent with the intent of the
Minimum Offer Price Rule. He expressed IMM support for the ORTP values, noting that,
although the higher ORTP for on-shore wind might well impose a greater burden on the IMM to
specifically analyze more offers, that value would not deny any resource the opportunity to
participate in the market at a competitive price.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3752
The Committee then voted on the main motion (ISO Proposal), which failed with a
49.66% Vote in favor (Generation Sector – 0%; Transmission Sector – 15.42%; Supplier Sector
– 0%; AR Sector – 0%; Publicly Owned Entity Sector – 17.12%; and End User Sector –
17.12%). (See Vote 2 on Attachment 2). The ISO reported its plan to file the proposal with the
FERC by January 13.
PROPOSAL TO IMPLEMENT A SMALL STANDARD OFFER SUPPLIER SECTOR GROUP SEAT
At the request of Mr. Kaslow, Mr. Patrick Gerity, NEPOOL Counsel, referred the
Committee to the materials circulated in advance of the meeting regarding a proposal to amend
the NEPOOL and Participants Agreements to create a “Small Standard Offer Group Seat” in the
Supplier Sector (the Proposal). He explained that the Proposal would establish a group seat in
the Supplier Sector that was intended to facilitate participation by Market Participants who are
solely serving standard offer load and whose average hourly Real-Time Load Obligation (RTLO)
(looking back over all hours with RTLO during the prior 12 months) was 10 MWh or less. He
said that this matter would be presented for consideration and vote to ballot at the February 3,
2017 Participants Committee meeting. He reported that the Membership Subcommittee was
scheduled to meet on January 18 to review theis Proposal further, and encouraged those
interested to participate in that meeting. In response to a request, Mr. Gerity committed to
circulate notice of the Subcommittee meeting to the members when NEPOOL Counsel circulated
the Notice of Actions of this meeting.
LITIGATION REPORT
Mr. Lombardi referred the Committee to the January 4 Litigation Report that had been
circulated and posted in advance of the meeting. He referenced two recent Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPRs) which addressed electric storage participation in RTO/ISO markets
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3753
(RM16-23) and fast-start pricing (RM17-3). He stated he would provide an overview of the
NOPRs to members at the January 10 Markets Committee meeting, and would solicit feedback
on any proposed comments that NEPOOL may want to submit in those proceedings. Mr. Gerity
added that all the FCA proceedings were concluded through FCA8. He said that briefing before
the D.C. Circuit on FCA9 and FCA10 was ongoing. He reported that oral argument on the
appeal of the FERC’s orders on New England’s Order 1000 compliance filings was scheduled
for January 13.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Markets Committee. Mr. William Fowler reported that the next Markets Committee
meeting was scheduled for January 10 as a half-day meeting.
Transmission Committee. Mr. José Rotger reported that the Transmission Committee
was scheduled to meet on January 11, with the agenda including further discussions on the ISO’s
proposal for an interconnection process clustering mechanism and related Tariff language and
amendments, for a vote at its January 24 meeting and final consideration at the February 3
Participants Committee meeting. He requested that anyone with amendments to the ISO’s
proposal to submit them soon or at least advise the officers of their intent to submit an
amendment for Transmission Committee consideration when it votes in January.
Reliability Committee. Mr. Robert Stein reported that the Reliability Committee was
scheduled to meet on January 17 and would start to review changes to the Coordination
Agreements between New York, Hydro-Quebec, New Brunswick, and the ISO and would begin
with the New York Coordination Agreement.
Budget & Finance Subcommittee. Mr. Ken Dell Orto reported that the Budget &
Finance Subcommittee was scheduled to meet on January 26, 2017 to review FAP and Billing
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1
Marked to Show Changes from Jan 24, 2017 draft
3754
Policy changes, as well as to review NEPOOL Generation Information System (GIS) exemption
requests.
GIS Agreement Working Group. Mr. David Cavanaugh reminded the Committee that
NEPOOL is currently operating under a one-year extension of its agreement with APX. He
stated the GIS Agreement Working Group was evaluating proposals from APX and ISO, looking
to recommend to NEPOOL the GIS administrator following expiration of the one-year extension.
He said that the Working Group would submit clarifying questions to APX on its proposal and
would schedule further discussions with the ISO on its interests. Lastly, he reported the Working
Group sent out three letters seeking expressions of interest from others should the Working
Group recommend soliciting by the end of the first quarter of 2017 further proposals for GIS
services (RFP). He reported two of the three parties expressed interest in participating in the
RFP.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Lombardi reminded the Committee of the January 25 IMAPP meeting that was
scheduled to take place at the Doubletree Hotel in Westborough, MA. He reported that the next
Participants Committee meeting was scheduled for February 3, 2017, at the Seaport Hotel in
Boston, MA.
There being no further business, the teleconference meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________ Sebastian M. Lombardi, Acting Secretary
ATTACHMENT 2 VOTES TAKEN ON
JANUARY 6, 2017 PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCE MEETING
PARTICIPANT NAME SECTOR/ GROUP
MEMBER NAME ALTERNATE NAME PROXY
American PowerNet Management Supplier Mary Smith
Ashburnham Municipal Light Plant Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
AVANGRID (CMP/UI) Transmission Eric Stinneford Christian Bilcheck
Belmont Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Boylston Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
BP Energy Company Supplier Nancy Chafetz
Brookfield Energy Marketing Supplier Aleks Mitreski
Bucksport Generation Generation Brett Kruse
Calpine Energy Services, LP Supplier Brett Kruse William Fowler
Chester Municipal Electric Light Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Chicopee Municipal Lighting Plant Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Citigroup Energy Inc. Supplier Brett Kruse
CLEAResult Consulting, Inc. AR Doug Hurley
Concord Municipal Light Plant Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Coop. Publicly Owned Brian Forshaw
Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel End User Joe Rosenthal David Thompson
Conservation Law Foundation End User Jerry Elmer
Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. Supplier Jeff Dannels
Covanta Haverhill Associates, LP AR Brett Kruse
CPV Towantic, LLC Generation Dan Pierpont
Cross-Sound Cable Supplier Jose Rotger
Danvers Electric Division Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Direct Energy Business, LLC Supplier Nancy Chafetz
Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc. Generation Jim Davis
DTE Energy Trading, Inc. Supplier Nancy Chafetz
Dynegy Marketing and Trade, LLC Supplier ` William Fowler
Emera Maine Transmission Sandi Hennequin Stacy Dimou
Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC Generation Ken Dell Orto William Fowler
EnerNOC, Inc. AR Sarah Griffiths
Essential Power, LLC Generation Lisa Krueger William Fowler
Eversource Energy Transmission James Daly Cal Bowie
Exelon Generation Company Supplier Steve Kirk William Fowler
FirstLight Power Resources Management, LLC Generation Tom Kaslow
Galt Power, Inc. Supplier Nancy Chafetz
Generation Group Member Generation Abby Krich Bob Stein
Georgetown Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Groton Electric Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Groveland Electric Light Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc. Supplier Louis Guilbault Bob Stein Abby Krich
Harvard Dedicated Energy Limited End User Mary Smith Paul PetersonDoug Hurley
High Liner Foods (USA) Incorporated End User William P. Short III
Hingham Municipal Lighting Plant Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Holden Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Hull Municipal Lighting Plant Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Industrial Energy Consumer Group End User Donald Sipe
Invenergy Energy Management LLC Generation Brett Kruse
Ipswich Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Jericho Power, LLC AR Thomas Hoatson
Long Island Lighting Company (LIPA) Supplier Bill Killgoar
Littleton (MA) Electric Light & Water Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Littleton (NH) Water & Light Department Publicly Owned Craig Kieny
ATTACHMENT 1 PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES
PARTICIPATING IN JANUARY 6, 2017 TELECONFERENCE MEETING
PARTICIPANT NAME SECTOR/ GROUP
MEMBER NAME ALTERNATE NAME PROXY
Maine Power, LLC Supplier Jeff Jones
Maine Public Advocate Office End User Paul Peterson
Maine Skiing, Inc. End User Donald Sipe
Mansfield Municipal Electric Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Marblehead Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Marble River, LLC Supplier John Brodbeck
Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (MA AG) End User Fred Plett Christina Belew
Mass. Development Finance Agency Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Mass. Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC) Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Mercuria Energy America, Inc. Supplier Nancy Chafetz
Merrimac Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Middleborough Gas and Electric Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Middleton Municipal Electric Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
National Grid Transmission Timothy Brennan Timothy Martin
New Hampshire Electric Cooperative (NHEC) Publicly Owned Brian Forshaw
New Hampshire Office of Consumer Advocate (NH OCA) End User Paul Peterson
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Generation Michelle Gardner
NRG Power Marketing LLC Generation Dave Cavanaugh
Pascoag Utility District Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Paxton Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Peabody Municipal Light Plant Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
PowerOptions, Inc. End User Cindy Arcate
Princeton Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC Supplier Joel Gordon
Repsol Energy North America Company Supplier Nancy Chafetz
Rowley Municipal Lighting Plant Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Russell Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Shrewsbury Electric & Cable Operations Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Small Load Response Group Member AR Doug Hurley Brad Swalwell
Small Renewable Generation Group AR Erik Abend
South Hadley Electric Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Sterling Municipal Electric Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Stowe Electric Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
SunEdison companies AR John Keene Bob Stein, Abby Krich
Talen Energy Marketing, LLC Supplier Tom Hyzinski
Taunton Municipal Light Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Templeton Municipal Lighting Plant Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
The Energy Consortium End User Mary Smith
Union of Concerned Scientists End User Francis Pullaro
Vermont Electric Cooperative Publicly Owned Craig Kieny
Vermont Electric Power Company Transmission Frank Ettori
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation AR Doug Hurley
Vermont Public Power Supply Authority Publicly Owned Brian Callnan
Verso Maine Energy LLC Generation Brett Kruse
Vitol Inc. Supplier Joseph Wadsworth
Wakefield Municipal Gas and Light Department Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Wallingford DPU Electric Division Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Wellesley Municipal Light Plant Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
West Boylston Municipal Lighting Plant Publicly Owned Brian Thomson
Westfield Gas & Electric Light Department Publicly Owned Tim Hebert
Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. AR William Fowler
ATTACHMENT 2VOTES TAKEN ON
JANUARY 6, 2017 NEPOOL PARTCIPANTS COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCE MEETING
TOTAL
Sector/Group Vote 1 Vote 2
GENERATION 17.12 0.00
TRANSMISSION 1.72 15.42
SUPPLIER 17.12 0.00
ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES 8.25 0.00
PUBLICLY OWNED ENTITY 0.00 17.12
END USER 0.00 17.12
% IN FAVOR 44.21 49.66
GENERATION SECTOR
Participant Name Vote 1 Vote 2
Bucksport Generation F O
CPV Towantic, LLC F O
Dominion Energy Marketing F O
Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing F O
Essential Power, LLC F O
FirstLight Power Resources F A
Generation Group Member A A
Invenergy Energy Management F O
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC F O
NRG Power Marketing, LLC F O
Verso Maine Energy LLC F O
IN FAVOR (F) 10 0
OPPOSED (O) 0 9
TOTAL VOTES 10 9
ABSTENTIONS ( A) 1 2
TRANSMISSION SECTOR
Participant Name Vote 1 Vote 2
AVANGRID (CMP/UI) O F
Emera Maine S1
S1
Emera Maine O F
Emera Energy Services Subsidiaries F O
Eversource Energy O F
National Grid O F
Vermont Electric Power Co. O F
IN FAVOR (F) 0.5 4.5
OPPOSED 4.5 0.5
TOTAL VOTES 5.0 5.0
ABSTENTIONS (A) 0.0 0.0
1 Pursuant to Section 6.2 of the NEPOOL Agreement, Participants and their Related Persons are for voting purposes together permitted to join only one Sector to which any of them is eligible to join, but are permitted to split the vote in that Sector as they see fit. Emera Maine and the Emera Energy Services Subsidiaries, as Related Persons, are collectively members of the Transmission Sector, but sometimes split their vote evenly between the companies’ transmission (Emera Maine) and generation (Emera Energy) interests.
ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES SECTOR
Participant Name Vote 1 Vote 2
Renewable Generation Sub-Sector
Covanta Haverhill Associates F O
Jericho Power LLC F O
Small RG Group Member F A
SunEdison (First Wind) A O
Wheelabrator North Andover Inc. F O
Distributed Generation Sub-Sector
CLEAResult Consulting, Inc. O A
Load Response Sub-Sector
EnerNOC, Inc. A A
Small LR Group Member O A
VT Energy Investment Corp. O A
IN FAVOR (F) 4 0
OPPOSED 3 4
TOTAL VOTES 7 4
ABSTENTIONS (A) 2 5
SUPPLIER SECTOR
Participant Name Vote 1 Vote 2
American PowerNet Management A A
BP Energy Company A A
Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc. F O
Calpine Energy Services F O
Citigroup Energy Inc. F O
Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. F O
Cross-Sound Cable Company F A
Direct Energy Business, LLC A A
DTE Energy Trading, Inc. A A
Dynegy Marketing and Trade, LLC F O
Exelon Generation Company F O
Galt Power, Inc. A A
H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc. F A
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) A A
Maine Power, LLC -- A
Marble River, LLC F A
Mercuria Energy America, Inc. A A
PSEG Energy Resources & Trade F O
Repsol Energy North America F O
Talen Energy Marketing, LLC F O
Vitol Inc. F A
IN FAVOR (F) 13 0
OPPOSED 0 9
TOTAL VOTES 13 9
ABSTENTIONS (A) 7 12
ATTACHMENT 2 VOTES TAKEN ON
JANUARY 6, 2017 NEPOOL PARTCIPANTS COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCE MEETING
.
END USER SECTOR
Participant Name Vote 1 Vote 2
Conn. Office of Consumer Counsel O F
Conservation Law Foundation A F
Harvard Dedicated Energy Limited O F
High Liner Foods (USA) Inc. A A
Industrial Energy Consumer Group A A
Maine Public Advocate Office O A
Maine Skiing, Inc. A A
Mass. Attorney General's Office O F
NH Office of Consumer Advocate O A
PowerOptions, Inc. O A
The Energy Consortium O F
Union of Concerned Scientists A A
IN FAVOR (F) 0 5
OPPOSED 7 0
TOTAL VOTES 7 5
ABSTENTIONS (A) 5 7
PUBLICLY OWNED ENTITY SECTOR
Participant Name Vote 1 Vote 2
Ashburnham Municipal Light Plant O F
Belmont Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Boylston Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Chester Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Chicopee Municipal Lighting Plant O F
Concord Municipal Light Plant O F
Conn. Mun. Electric Energy Coop. O F
Danvers Electric Division O F
Georgetown Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Groton Electric Light Department O F
Groveland Electric Light Dep’t O F
Hingham Municipal Lighting Plant O F
Holden Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Hull Municipal Lighting Plant O F
Ipswich Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Littleton (MA) Electric Light Dep’t O F
Littleton (NH) Water & Light Dep’t O F
Mansfield Municipal Electric Dep’t O F
Marblehead Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Mass. Development Finance Agc’y O F
Mass. Mun. Wholesale. Elec. Co. O F
Merrimac Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Middleborough Gas & Elec. Dep’t O F
Middleton Municipal Electric Dep’t O F
New Hampshire Electric Coop. O F
PUBLICLY OWNED ENTITY SECTOR cont’d
Participant Name Vote 1 Vote 2
Pascoag Utility District O F
Paxton Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Peabody Municipal Light Plant O F
Princeton Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Rowley Municipal Lighting Plant O F
Russell Municipal Light Dep’t O F
Shrewsbury's Elec. & Cable Ops. O F
South Hadley Electric Light Dep’t O F
Sterling Mun. Elec. Light Dep’t O F
Stowe (VT) Electric Department O F
Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant O F
Templeton Mun. Lighting Plant O F
Vermont Electric Cooperative O F
VT Public Power Supply Authority O F
Wakefield Mun. Gas & Light Dep’t O F
Wallingford (CT) Div. Pub. Utils. O F
Wellesley Municipal Light Plant O F
West Boylston Mun. Lighting Plant O F
Westfield Gas & Elec. Light Dep’t O F
IN FAVOR (F) 0 44
OPPOSED 44 0
TOTAL VOTES 44 44
ABSTENTIONS (A) 0 0
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #2
CONSENT AGENDA
From the notice of actions of the January 17, 2017 Reliability Committee1 meeting, dated January 17, 2017, which has been previously circulated:
1. PP-3 Revisions (Reliability Standards for New England Area PTF)
Support revisions to ISO Planning Procedure (PP) No. 3 (to be entitled ‘Reliability Standards for the New England Area Pool Transmission Facilities’) (PP-3), including general clean-up and updates to ensure PP-3 design criteria applies to, and provides an appropriate set of requirements for, all Pool Transmission Facilities (PTF), as recommended by the Reliability Committee at its January 17, 2017 meeting, with such further non-material changes as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Reliability Committee may approve.
The motion to recommend Participants Committee support was approved unanimously with one abstention in the Publicly Owned Entity Sector.
2. Market Rule 1 Section 12 Revisions (Deletion of RTEG Reference No Longer Needed with DR Full
Integration)
Support revisions to Tariff Section III.12 to remove a reference to Real-Time Emergency Generation (RTEG), no longer be needed with the full integration of Demand Response (DR) Resources into wholesale markets and changes in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, as recommended by the Reliability Committee at its January 17, 2017 meeting, with such further non-material changes as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Reliability Committee may approve.
The motion to recommend Participants Committee support was approved unanimously.
From the notice of actions of the January 10, 2017 Markets Committee2 meeting, dated January 10, 2017, which has been previously circulated:
3. Market Rule 1 and Tariff Revisions (Deletion of Active DR Provisions No Longer Needed with DR
Full Integration)
Support revisions to Market Rule 1 and Tariff Section I.2.2 to remove Real-Time DR and RTEG Resource provisions (Active DR Provisions) that will no longer be needed with the full integration of DR Resources into wholesale markets and changes in EPA regulations, as recommended by the Markets Committee at its January 10, 2017 meeting, with such further non-material changes as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Markets Committee may approve.
The motion to recommend Participants Committee support was approved unanimously.
4. Manual M-20 Revisions (ETU, FCM Enhancements Phase I and Resource Retirement Reforms Projects Supporting Changes)
Support revisions to Manual M-20 (Forward Capacity Market) to support recent initiatives including Elective Transmission Upgrade (ETU), FCM Enhancements Phase I and Resource Retirement Reforms projects, and to reflect reformatting and other changes to enhance Manual functionality, as recommended by the Markets Committee at its January 10, 2017 meeting, with such further non-material changes as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Markets Committee may approve.
The motion to recommend Participants Committee support was approved unanimously.
1 Reliability Committee Notices of Actions are posted on the ISO website at: http://iso-ne.com/committees/reliability/reliability-committee.
2 Markets Committee Notices of Actions are posted on the ISO website at: https://iso-ne.com/committees/markets/markets-committee.
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Summary of ISO New England Board and Committee Meetings
February 3, 2017 Participants Committee Meeting
Since the last update, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee met by
teleconference on January 10. On January 19, the Compensation and Human Resources
Committee, the System Planning and Reliability Committee, the Markets Committee, and the
Board of Directors each met in Holyoke.
At its January 10 Meeting, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee confirmed the
budgets for employees’ 2017 salary increases using updated compensation survey information.
The Committee then met in executive session to review corporate goals for 2017 and additional
compensation matters.
At its January 19 Meeting, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee met in
executive session to consider a variety of compensation-related matters. During executive
session, the Committee reviewed the achievement of 2016 goals and discussed officer
compensation for 2017.
The System Planning and Reliability Committee discussed the panel session format for the 2017
Regional System Plan public meeting, and reviewed the latest information on solar photovoltaic
impacts on the New England power system. The Committee then held an executive session to
assess achievement of 2016 corporate goals.
The Markets Committee reviewed reports from both the Internal and External Market Monitors
on key market issues during the 2016 fall season. There was a general discussion concerning the
overall performance of the capacity and energy markets over the past several years, as well as
the issues that are likely to arise over the next several years. Next, the Committee discussed
potential means of addressing the market impact of state public policy initiatives favoring the
development of renewable resources. Finally, during executive session, the Committee assessed
achievement of 2016 corporate goals.
The Board of Directors received an update from the Chief Executive Officer, and reports from
the standing committees. During executive session, the Board approved the corporate goals for
2017.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3
ISO-NE PUBLIC
F E B R U A R Y 3 , 2 0 1 7 | B O S T O N , M A
Vamsi Chadalavada E X E C U T I V E V I C E P R E S I D E N T A N D C H I E F O P E R A T I N G O F F I C E R
February 2017
NEPOOL Participants Committee Report
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE 02/03/2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Table of Contents • Highlights Page 3 • System Operations Page 12 • Market Operations Page 25 • Back-Up Detail Page 42
– Load Response Page 43 – New Generation Page 45 – Forward Capacity Market Page 52 – Reliability Costs - Net Commitment Period Compensation
(NCPC) Operating Costs Page 59 – Regional System Plan (RSP) Page 90 – Operable Capacity Analysis – Winter 2016/17 Page 117 – Operable Capacity Analysis – Spring 2017 Page 124 – Operable Capacity Analysis – Appendix Page 131
2
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 3
Highlights
• Energy market value was $378M, down $236M from December 2016 and down $67M from January 2016 – January natural gas prices over the period were 23% lower than
December 2016 average values – Average RT Hub Locational Marginal Prices ($37.54/MWh) over the
period were 30% lower than December 2016 averages – Average January 2017 natural gas prices and RT Hub LMPs over the
period were up 16% and up 10%, respectively, from January 2016 averages
• Average DA cleared physical energy during the peak hours as percent of forecasted load was 98.5% during January, up from 97.5% during December 2016*
*DA Cleared Physical Energy is the sum of Generation and Net Imports cleared in the DA Energy Market
Underlying natural gas data furnished by:
Data are through January 25, 2017, except where otherwise noted.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 4
Highlights, cont.
• Daily Net Commitment Period Compensation (NCPC) – January NCPC payments totaled $3.3M over the period, down $3.3M
from December 2016 and down $4.0M from January 2016 • First Contingency payments totaled $3.0M, down $2.0M from December
– $2.9M paid to internal resources, down $2.0M from December » $1.48M charged to DALO, $1.3M to RT Deviations, $176K to RTLO
– $54K paid to resources at external locations, up $22K from December » $54K to RT Deviations
• Second Contingency payments totaled $340K, down $1.1M from December – Commitments for NEMA on two days (January 9 and 10)
• Voltage payments totaled $26K, down $148K from December
– NCPC payments over the period as percent of Energy Market value were 0.9%
* Generator Performance Auditing (GPA) and Posturing are included in the First Contingency amount and totaled $132K and $44K, respectively.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 5
2016/17 Winter Reliability Program As of December 1, 2016 (unchanged since last month) • Oil Program
– As of December 1st, participation from 84 units for a total of 4.394 million barrels of oil
– 3.052 million barrels of the total inventory on December 1 are eligible for compensation per the winter program rules
– Total oil program cost exposure is expected to be $31.16M (@$10.21/barrel)
• LNG Program – As of December 1st, participation from 2 units, representing 171 thousand
MMBTU – Total LNG program cost exposure is expected to be $291K (@$1.70/MMBTU)
• DR Program – As of December 1st, participation from 6 assets providing 23.0 MW of
interruption capability – Total DR program cost exposure is anticipated to be $70.5K
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 6
December 2016 Winter Program Usage (January 2017 usage will be available next week)
• Winter Program Oil Inventory Changes: – Dec 2016: 76,967 BBLs
• Winter Program LNG usage: – Dec 2016: none
• Winter Program DR Events: – Dec 2016: none
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 7
Highlights, cont.
• Final preparations are being made for the eleventh Forward Capacity Auction (FCA #11), which is scheduled to begin on Monday, February 6
• 2016 Economic Study - NEPOOL Scenario Analysis – Phase I observations and key messages are complete
– Phase II is underway, reviewing certain market and operations impacts
• 2017 long-term load forecast, energy-efficiency forecast, and solar PV forecast are all under development – ISO staff will be working with the relevant working groups and then
presenting results at the March PAC meeting
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 8
Forward Capacity Market (FCM) Highlights
CCP – Capacity Commitment Period RTEG – Real-Time Emergency Generation ICR – Installed Capacity Requirement COS – Capacity Supply Obligation
• CCP #8 (2017-2018) – ICR and related values were filed with FERC on December 1 and
approved by FERC on January 9 – Third and final bilateral window closed, results were posted on
January 11, and all transactions were accepted • Approximately 183 MW of RTEG resources shed their CSO, leaving only
6 MW of CSO remaining • First bilateral in which seasonal bilaterals were received
– Third and final reconfiguration auction will be March 1-3
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 9
FCM Highlights, cont. • CCP #9 (2018-2019)
– Second bilateral window will be May – Second reconfiguration auction will be August
• CCP #10 (2019-2020) – First bilateral transaction window will be April – First reconfiguration auction will be June
• CCP #11 (2020-2021) – Forward Capacity Auction #11 to commence on February 6
• CCP #12 (2021-2022) – Preparations for qualification have begun and training dates are set – On February 24, the ISO will notify existing resource qualifications of
their values – Retirement de-list bids and permanent de-list bids are due March 24 – Show of Interest window will be April 14-28
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 10
FERC Order 1000
• Intraregional Planning – Several parties have submitted information to be considered as
Qualified Transmission Project Sponsors, and 13 companies have been approved
– Public Policy process was initiated on January 11
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 11
Highlights, cont. • The lowest 50/50 and 90/10 Winter Operable Capacity Margin
Week is projected for week beginning February 4, 2017.
• The lowest 50/50 and 90/10 Spring Operable Capacity Margin Week is projected for week beginning May 13, 2017.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
SYSTEM OPERATIONS
12
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
System Operations
13
Weather Patterns
Boston Temperature: Above Normal (5.0°F) Max: 61°F, Min: 11°F Precipitation: 3.81” – Normal Normal: 3.80” Snow: 6.85”
Hartford Temperature: Above Normal (5.4°F) Max: 56°F, Min: 1°F Precipitation: 3.07” - Below Normal Normal: 3.73” Snow: 4.96”
Peak Load: 19,587 MW Jan 9, 2017 18:00 (ending)
MLCC2: None
OP-4 : None
NPCC Simultaneous Activation of Reserve Events:
Date Area MW
1/12 ISO-NE 1500
1/17 ISO-NE 650
1/25 ISO-NE 750
1/26 NBSO 378
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
System Operations
14
Minimum Generation Warnings & Events:
None
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Month J F M A M J J A S O N D AvgMo Avg 1.54 1.54Day Max 4.58 4.58Day Min 0.33 0.33
Summer Goal 2.60 2.60 2.60Rest of Year Goal 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Rest of Year Actual 1.54 1.54Summer Actual
2017 System Operations - Load Forecast Accuracy Dashboard Indicator
Rest of Year Goal < 1.5% Summer Goal < 2.6%
15
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Month J F M A M J J A S O N D AvgMo Avg 1.43 1.43Day Max 4.41 4.41Day Min 0.01 0.01
Summer Goal 2.60 2.60 2.60Rest of Year Goal 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Rest of Year Actual 1.43 1.43Summer Actual
2017 System Operations - Load Forecast Accuracy cont. Dashboard Indicator
Rest of Year Goal < 1.5% Summer Goal < 2.6%
16
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
J F M A M J J A S O N D AvgAbove % 53.3 53Below % 46.7 47Avg Above 168.3 168Avg Below -156.1 -156Avg All 21 21
2017 System Operations - Load Forecast Accuracy cont. Target = 50% Plus/Minus = 5%
17
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
2017 System Operations - Load Forecast Accuracy cont.
18
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:wnnel GR:nel
Ann Tot (TWh): 127.1 125.8 124.0 .
Weather Normalized NEL
2014 2015 2016 2017G
Wh
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Ann Tot (TWh): 127.2 127.0 124.2 8.7
Net Energy for Load (NEL)
2014 2015 2016 2017
GW
h
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Recorded Net Energy for Load (NEL) and Weather Normalized NEL
NEPOOL NEL is the total net energy required to serve load and is analogous to ‘RT system load.’ NEL is calculated as: Generation – pumping load + net interchange where imports are positively signed. Current month’s data may be preliminary. Weather normalized NEL may be reported on a one-month lag.
19
Partial
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:PeakEnergy GR:SeasonalPeak
System Peak Load
2014 2015 2016 2017
MW
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
28,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Weather Normalized Seasonal Peaks
Winter beginning in year displayed
Summer Winter
MW
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
29,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Monthly Peak Loads and Weather Normalized Seasonal Peak History
F – designates forecasted values, which are updated in April/May of the following year; represents “net forecast” (i.e., the gross forecast net of passive demand response and behind-the-meter solar demand)
F
20
F
*Revenue quality metered value
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Horizon [Hours Ahead]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mea
n A
bsol
ute
Err
or [%
]
Rolling 30-day MAE for ISO Wind Power Forecast, as of January 29, 2017
Individual Wind Plants
Fleet
Dashboard Indicator
Wind Power Forecast Error Statistics: Medium and Long Term Forecasts MAE
Ideally, MAE and Bias would be both equal to zero. As is typical, MAE increases with the forecast horizon. MAE and Bias for the fleet of wind power resources are less due to offsetting errors. Across all time frames, the ISO-NE/DNV-GL forecast is very good compared to industry standards, and monthly MAE is mostly within the yearly performance targets.
Yearly Fleet Performance targets
21
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Horizon [Hours Ahead]
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Bia
s E
rror
[%]
Rolling 30-day Bias for ISO Wind Power Forecast, as of January 29, 2017
Individual Wind Plants
Fleet
Wind Power Forecast Error Statistics: Medium and Long Term Forecasts Bias
Dashboard Indicator
Ideally, MAE and Bias would be both equal to zero. Positive bias means less windpower was actually available compared to forecast. Negative bias means more windpower was actually available compared to forecast. Across all time frames, the ISO-NE/DNV-GL forecast compares well with industry standards, and monthly Bias is mostly within yearly performance targets.
Yearly Fleet Performance targets
22
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230
Horizon [Minutes Ahead]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mea
n A
bsol
ute
Err
or [%
]
Rolling 30-day MAE for ISO Wind Power Forecast, as of January 29, 2017
Individual Wind Plants
Fleet
Wind Power Forecast Error Statistics: Short Term Forecast MAE
Ideally, MAE and Bias would be both equal to zero. As is typical, MAE increases with the forecast horizon. MAE and Bias for the fleet of wind power resources are less due to offsetting errors. Across all time frames, the ISO-NE/DNV-GL forecast is very good compared to industry standards, and monthly MAE is within the yearly performance targets out to two hours ahead.
Dashboard Indicator
Yearly Fleet Performance targets
23
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230
Horizon [Minutes Ahead]
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Bia
s E
rror
[%]
Rolling 30-day Bias for ISO Wind Power Forecast, as of January 29, 2017
Individual Wind Plants
Fleet
Wind Power Forecast Error Statistics: Short Term Forecast Bias
Dashboard Indicator
Ideally, MAE and Bias would be both equal to zero. Positive bias means less windpower was actually available compared to forecast. Negative bias means more windpower was actually available compared to forecast. Across all time frames, the ISO-NE/DNV-GL forecast compares well with industry standards, and monthly Bias is within yearly performance targets.
Yearly Fleet Performance targets
24
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
MARKET OPERATIONS
25
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Hubwgas
Elec
tric
ity P
rices
($/M
Wh)
$0.00
$30.00
$60.00
$90.00
$120.00
$150.0001/0
1/17
01/03/1
7
01/05/1
7
01/07/1
7
01/09/1
7
01/11/1
7
01/13/1
7
01/15/1
7
01/17/1
7
01/19/1
7
01/21/1
7
01/23/1
7
01/25/1
7
Fuel
Pric
e ($
/MM
Btu)
$0.00
$6.00
$12.00
$18.00
$24.00
$30.00
Gas price is average of Massachusetts delivery pointsAverage percentage difference over this period ABS(DA-RT)/RT Average LMP: 16%
Average price difference over this period ABS(DA-RT): $5.98Average price difference over this period (DA-RT): $3.67
RT LMP DA LMP Natural Gas
Daily Average DA and RT ISO-NE Hub Prices and Input Fuel Prices: January 1-25, 2017
Underlying natural gas data furnished by:
26
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:DA_Bar
LMP Congestion Marginal Losses
$/M
Wh
$-10
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Hub ME NH VT CT RI SEMA WCMA NEMA
( 2.0%) ( 0.7%) ( 1.6%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.4%) 0.1% ( 0.2%)
DA LMPs Average by Zone & Hub, January 2017
ME - Maine NH – New Hampshire VT – Vermont CT – Connecticut
RI – Rhode Island SEMA – Southeastern Massachusetts WCMA – Western/Central Massachusetts NEMA – Northeastern Massachusetts
27
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:RT_Bar
LMP Congestion Marginal Losses
$/M
Wh
$-10
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Hub ME NH VT CT RI SEMA WCMA NEMA
( 3.1%) ( 0.9%) ( 2.3%) ( 0.6%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.3%) 0.0% 0.3%
RT LMPs Average by Zone & Hub, January 2017
28
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Definitions
Day-Ahead Concept Definition
Day-Ahead Load Obligation (DALO)
The sum of day-ahead cleared load (including asset load, pump load, exports,
and virtual purchases and excluding modeled transmission losses)
Day-Ahead Cleared Physical Energy The sum of day-ahead cleared generation and cleared net imports
29
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph36R GR:Graph36L
Fixed Dem PrSens Dem DecsLosses Exports
Avg
Hou
rly
MW
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
NOV2016 DEC2016 JAN2017
Gen ImportsIncs
Avg
Hou
rly
MW
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
NOV2016 DEC2016 JAN2017
Components of Cleared DA Supply and Demand – Last Three Months
DA Fcst Load
Demand
Act Load
Supply
Gen – Generation Incs – Increment Offers DA Fcst Load – Day-Ahead Forecast Load
Fixed Dem – Fixed Demand PrSens Dem – Price Sensitive Demand Decs – Decrement Bids Act Load – Actual Load
30
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph37R GR:Graph37L
Load Exports
Avg
Hou
rly
MW
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
NOV2016 DEC2016 JAN2017
Gen Imports
Avg
Hou
rly
MW
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
22,500
NOV2016 DEC2016 JAN2017
Components of RT Supply and Demand – Last Three Months
Supply
DA Fcst Load
Demand
31
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
DAM Volumes as % of RT Actual Load (Peak Hour)
Note: Percentages were derived for the peak hour of each day (shown on right), then averaged over the month (shown on left). Values at hour of forecasted peak load.
32
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
Jan-
16
Feb-
16
Mar
-16
Apr-
16
May
-16
Jun-
16
Jul-1
6
Aug-
16
Sep-
16
Oct
-16
Nov
-16
Dec-
16
Jan-
17
% o
f RT
Act
ual L
oad
DA Bid FixedDA Bid PriceDALO
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
1-Ja
n2-
Jan
3-Ja
n4-
Jan
5-Ja
n6-
Jan
7-Ja
n8-
Jan
9-Ja
n10
-Jan
11-Ja
n12
-Jan
13-Ja
n14
-Jan
15-Ja
n16
-Jan
17-Ja
n18
-Jan
19-Ja
n20
-Jan
21-Ja
n22
-Jan
23-Ja
n24
-Jan
25-Ja
n
% o
f RT
Actu
al Lo
ad
DA Bid Fixed DA Bid PriceDALO DA Phys Clrd Energy100%
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph26 GR:Graph27
DA
% o
f RT
96.6% 96.8%
97.0% 97.2%
97.4% 97.6% 97.8%
98.0% 98.2%
98.4% 98.6% 98.8%
99.0% 99.2%
99.4%
JAN20
16FE
B2016
MAR20
16APR
2016
MAY2
016
JUN20
16JU
L201
6AUG20
16SE
P201
6OCT
2016
NOV2016
DEC20
16JA
N2017
Monthly, Last 13 Months
DA
% o
f RT
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
101%
102%
103%
104%
105%
106%
1/ 1
1/ 2
1/ 3
1/ 4
1/ 5
1/ 6
1/ 7
1/ 8
1/ 9
1/10
1/11
1/12
1/13
1/14
1/15
1/16
1/17
1/18
1/19
1/20
1/21
1/22
1/23
1/24
1/25
1/26
1/27
1/28
1/29
1/30
1/31
Daily, This Year vs. Last Year
Last_Year This_Year
DA vs. RT Load Obligation: January, This Year vs. Last Year
*Hourly average values
33
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:dapce_dalo_pct_fxlo_fpk_dly_small GR:dapce_dalo_pct_fxlo_fpk_mly_small
Perc
enta
ge o
f Pea
k For
ecas
t Loa
d 80.0%
84.0%
88.0%
92.0%
96.0%
100%
104%
108%
112%
01JAN17
02JAN17
03JAN17
04JAN17
05JAN17
06JAN17
07JAN17
08JAN17
09JAN17
10JAN17
11JAN17
12JAN17
13JAN17
14JAN17
15JAN17
16JAN17
17JAN17
18JAN17
19JAN17
20JAN17
21JAN17
22JAN17
23JAN17
24JAN17
25JAN17
Daily: This Month
DA Cleared Physical Energy DALO100% line
Perc
enta
ge o
f Pea
k For
ecas
t Loa
d
93.0%
95.0%
97.0%
99.0%
101%
103%
105%
JAN2016
FEB2016
MAR2016
APR2016
MAY2016
JUN2016
JUL2016
AUG2016
SEP2016
OCT2016
NOV2016
DEC2016
JAN2017
Monthly, Last 13 Months
DA Cleared Physical Energy DALO100% line
DA Volumes as % of Forecast (Peak Hour)
*Forecasted peak hour is reflected.
34
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:dapce_delta_fpk_dly_bar
MW
h
-3,000
-2,500
-2,000
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
01JAN2017
02JAN2017
03JAN2017
04JAN2017
05JAN2017
06JAN2017
07JAN2017
08JAN2017
09JAN2017
10JAN2017
11JAN2017
12JAN2017
13JAN2017
14JAN2017
15JAN2017
16JAN2017
17JAN2017
18JAN2017
19JAN2017
20JAN2017
21JAN2017
22JAN2017
23JAN2017
24JAN2017
25JAN2017
DA Cleared Physical Energy Difference from RT System Load at Peak Hour*
*Negative values indicate DA Cleared Physical Energy value below its RT counterpart. Forecast peak hour reflected.
DA H
ighe
r
DA Lower
35
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph32 GR:Graph33
Net
MW
h
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
01JA
N16
02JA
N16
03JA
N16
04JA
N16
05JA
N16
06JA
N16
07JA
N16
08JA
N16
09JA
N16
10JA
N16
11JA
N16
12JA
N16
13JA
N16
14JA
N16
15JA
N16
16JA
N16
17JA
N16
18JA
N16
19JA
N16
20JA
N16
21JA
N16
22JA
N16
23JA
N16
24JA
N16
25JA
N16
26JA
N16
27JA
N16
28JA
N16
29JA
N16
30JA
N16
31JA
N16
Hourly Average by Day, Last Year
Day-Ahead Real-TimeN
et M
Wh
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
01JA
N17
02JA
N17
03JA
N17
04JA
N17
05JA
N17
06JA
N17
07JA
N17
08JA
N17
09JA
N17
10JA
N17
11JA
N17
12JA
N17
13JA
N17
14JA
N17
15JA
N17
16JA
N17
17JA
N17
18JA
N17
19JA
N17
20JA
N17
21JA
N17
22JA
N17
23JA
N17
24JA
N17
25JA
N17
Hourly Average by Day, This Year
Day-Ahead Real-Time
DA vs. RT Net Interchange January 2017 vs. January 2016
Net Interchange is the sum of daily imports minus the sum of daily exports Positive values are net imports
36
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Var_Cost_Gas_Mly
$0
$40
$80
$120
$160JA
N2015
FEB2
015
MAR2
015
APR20
15M
AY201
5JU
N2015
JUL2
015
AUG2015
SEP2
015
OCT20
15NOV20
15DEC
2015
JAN20
16FE
B201
6M
AR201
6APR
2016
MAY2
016
JUN20
16JU
L201
6AUG20
16SE
P201
6OCT
2016
NOV2016
DEC20
16JA
N2017
Var Cost Gas
Variable Production Cost of Natural Gas: Monthly
Note: Assumes proxy heat rate of 7,800,000 Btu/MWh for natural gas units.
Underlying natural gas data furnished by:
37
$/M
Wh
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Var_Cost_Gas_Dly
$0
$40
$80
$120
$16001
JAN20
1702
JAN20
1703
JAN20
1704
JAN20
1705
JAN20
1706
JAN20
1707
JAN20
1708
JAN20
1709
JAN20
1710
JAN20
1711
JAN20
1712
JAN20
1713
JAN20
1714
JAN20
1715
JAN20
1716
JAN20
1717
JAN20
1718
JAN20
1719
JAN20
1720
JAN20
1721
JAN20
1722
JAN20
1723
JAN20
1724
JAN20
1725
JAN20
17
Var Cost Gas
Variable Production Cost of Natural Gas: Daily
Note: Assumes proxy heat rate of 7,800,000 Btu/MWh for natural gas units.
Underlying natural gas data furnished by:
38
$/M
Wh
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:DA_Hrly
$/M
Wh
$-100
$-50
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Hourly Day-Ahead LMPs
Hub ME NH VT CTRI SEMA NEMA WCMA
Hourly DA LMPs, January 1-25, 2017
39
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:RT_Hrly
$/M
Wh
$-100
$-50
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Hourly Real-Time LMPs
Hub ME NH VT CTRI SEMA NEMA WCMA
Hourly RT LMPs, January 1-25, 2017
40
* No Minimum Generation Emergencies were declared in December.
Tight capacity with binding reserve constraints during the morning pickup
Binding NEMA reserve constraints over evening peak
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 41
System Unit Availability
Data as of 1/27/17
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Syst
em W
EAF
Annual/Monthly Weighted Equivalent Availability Factor (WEAF)
2015 2016 2017
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD2017 91 912016 93 94 89 82 78 90 95 96 91 77 85 90 882015 97 89 88 84 80 94 96 96 88 74 79 91 88
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
BACK-UP DETAIL
42
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
LOAD RESPONSE
43
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Capacity Supply Obligation (CSO) MW by Demand Resource Type for February 2017
44
* Real Time Demand Response ** Real Time Emergency Generation NOTE: CSO values include T&D loss factor (8%).
Load Zone RTDR* RTEG** On Peak Seasonal
Peak Total ME 65.3 0.0 129.7 0.0 194.9 NH 9.9 0.0 70.7 0.0 80.6 VT 31.1 0.0 106.6 0.0 137.7 CT 70.4 1.1 59.8 355.4 486.7 RI 7.0 0.0 178.0 0.0 185.0
SEMA 11.1 0.0 257.8 0.0 268.9 WCMA 27.6 0.0 230.7 51.4 309.8 NEMA 31.5 0.0 497.4 0.0 528.9
Total 253.9 1.1 1,530.6 406.9 2,192.5
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
NEW GENERATION
45
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
New Generation Update Based on Queue as of 1/30/17
• No new projects have applied for interconnection study since the last update
• Two projects withdrew from the queue and one project went commercial, resulting in a net decrease in new generation projects of 490 MW
• In total, 75 generation projects are currently being tracked by the ISO, totaling approximately 12,900 MW
46
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
• 2017 values include the 16 MW of generation that went commercial in 2017 • DR reflects changes from the initial FCM Capacity Supply Obligations in 2010-11
Actual and Projected Annual Capacity Additions By Supply Fuel Type and Demand Resource Type
47
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Meg
awat
ts (M
W)
Demand Response -Passive
Demand Reponse -Active
Wind/OtherRenewables
Oil
Natural Gas/Oil
Natural Gas
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total MW
% of Total1
Demand Response - Passive 330 196 212 0 0 0 0 738 5.7Demand Response - Active -37 -433 -270 0 0 0 0 -739 -5.7Wind & Other Renewables 360 658 2,681 1,216 800 0 800 6,515 50.3Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0Natural Gas/Oil2 74 1,519 904 1,757 0 0 0 4,254 32.9Natural Gas 808 189 1,183 0 0 0 0 2,180 16.8Totals 1,535 2,129 4,711 2,973 800 0 800 12,947 100.01 Sum may not equal 100% due to rounding2 The projects in this category are dual fuel, w ith either gas or oil as the primary fuel
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Actual and Projected Annual Generator Capacity Additions By State
• 2017 values reflect the 16 MW of generation that went commercial in 2017
48
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Meg
awat
ts (M
W)
Vermont
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Maine
Massachusetts
Connecticut
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total MW
% of Total1
Vermont 42 30 0 0 0 0 0 72 0.6Rhode Island 60 0 1,268 0 0 0 0 1,328 10.3New Hampshire 102 65 28 5 0 0 0 200 1.5Maine 197 566 2,553 1,145 0 0 0 4,461 34.5Massachusetts 741 224 746 128 800 0 800 3,439 26.6Connecticut 100 1,481 173 1,695 0 0 0 3,449 26.6Totals 1,242 2,366 4,768 2,973 800 0 800 12,949 100.01 Sum may not equal 100% due to rounding
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
•Projects in the Natural Gas/Oil category may have either gas or oil as the primary fuel •Green denotes projects with a high probability of going into service •Yellow denotes projects with a lower probability of going into service or new applications
New Generation Projection By Fuel Type
49
Fuel TypeNo. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)
Biomass/Wood Waste 2 112 0 0 2 112
Hydro 4 103 0 0 4 103
Landfill Gas 1 2 0 0 1 2
Natural Gas 13 2,243 1 100 12 2,143
Natural Gas/Oil 12 4,254 2 1,009 10 3,245
Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solar 13 745 0 0 13 745
Wind 28 5,397 1 23 27 5,374Battery Storage 2 77 0 0 2 77
Total 75 12,933 4 1,132 71 11,801
Total Green Yellow
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
• Green denotes projects with a high probability of going into service • Yellow denotes projects with a lower probability of going into service or new applications
New Generation Projection By Operating Type
50
Operating TypeNo. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)
Baseload 5 182 0 0 5 182
Intermediate 18 5,422 1 801 17 4,621
Peaker 24 1,932 2 308 22 1,624Wind Turbine 28 5,397 1 23 27 5,374
Total 75 12,933 4 1,132 71 11,801
Total Green Yellow
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
New Generation Projection By Operating Type and Fuel Type
• Projects in the Natural Gas/Oil category may have either gas or oil as the primary fuel
51
Fuel TypeNo. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)No. of
ProjectsCapacity
(MW)
Biomass/Wood Waste 2 112 2 112 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hydro 4 103 1 5 2 32 1 66 0 0
Landfill Gas 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 13 2,243 1 63 9 1,991 3 189 0 0
Natural Gas/Oil 12 4,254 0 0 7 3,399 5 855 0 0
Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solar 13 745 0 0 0 0 13 745 0 0
Wind 28 5,397 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 5,397Battery Storage 2 77 0 0 0 0 2 77 0 0
Total 75 12,933 5 182 18 5,422 24 1,932 28 5,397
Wind TurbineBaseload Intermediate PeakerTotal
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
FORWARD CAPACITY MARKET
52
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 53
Capacity Supply Obligation FCA 6
* Real-time Emergency Generators (RTEG) CSO not capped at 600.000 MW
** Change columns contain the changes in CSO amount resulting from the specific FCM Event as well as adjustments for Delisted MW released according to MR 1, Section 13.2.5.2, and changes that occurred (terminations, etc.) prior to the event reported in the column.
*** Grand Total reflects both CSO Grand Total and the net total of the Change Column.
Resource Type
Resource Type
FCA Proration Annual Bilateral for
ARA 1 ARA 1 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 2 ARA 2 Annual Bilateral for ARA 3 ARA 3
*CSO CSO **Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
Demand
Active Demand
2,001.510 1,918.662 -82.848 1,368.608 -550.054 1,271.984 -96.624 1,085.347 -186.64 842.791 -242.56 789.366 -53.425 638.393 -150.973
Passive Demand
1,643.334 1,553.054 -90.280 1,521.535 -31.519 1,521.535 0.000 1,516.504 -5.03 1,700.586 184.08 1,694.766 -5.82 1,687.458 -7.308
Demand Total 3,644.844 3,471.716 -173.128 2,890.143 -581.573 2,793.519 -96.624 2,601.851 -191.67 2,543.377 -58.47 2,484.132 -59.245 2,325.851 -158.281
Generator
Non-Intermittent
29,866.098 27,957.613 -1,908.485 28,121.731 164.118 28,343.440 221.709 28,442.424 98.98 28,727.16 284.73 28,881.019 153.859 28,971.511 90.492
Intermittent 891.069 840.563 -50.506 827.047 -13.516 828.252 1.205 829.219 0.97 820.743 -8.48 777.924 -42.819 754.101 -23.823
Generator Total 30,757.167 28,798.176 -1,958.991 28,948.778 150.602 29,171.692 222.914 29,271.643 99.95 29,547.9 276.26 29,658.943 111.043 29,725.612 66.669
Import Total 1,924.000 1,768.111 -155.889 1,768.111 0.000 1,641.821 -126.290 1,616.821 -25.00 1,399.037 -217.78 1,337.037 -62 1,337.037 0
***Grand Total 36,326.011 34,038.003 -2,288.008 33,607.032 -430.971 33,607.032 0.000 33,490.315 -116.72 33,490.32 0.00 33,480.112 -10.208 33,388.5 -91.612
Net ICR (NICR) 33,456 33,456 0 33,456 0 33,456 0 33,114 -342 33,114 0.00 33,391 277 33,391 0
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 54
Capacity Supply Obligation FCA 7
* Real-time Emergency Generators (RTEG) CSO not capped at 600.000 MW
** Change columns contain the changes in CSO amount resulting from the specific FCM Event as well as adjustments for Delisted MW released according to MR 1, Section 13.2.5.2, and changes that occurred (terminations, etc.) prior to the event reported in the column.
*** Grand Total reflects both CSO Grand Total and the net total of the Change Column.
Resource Type
Resource Type
FCA Proration Annual Bilateral for
ARA 1 ARA 1 Annual Bilateral
for ARA 2 ARA 2 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 3 ARA 3
*CSO CSO **Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
Demand
Active Demand 1,116.698 1,043.719 -72.979 944.27 -99.45 932.721 -11.549 781.206 -151.52 671.28 -109.926 575.63 -95.65 556.453 -19.177
Passive Demand 1,631.335 1,519.740 -111.595 1,519.311 -0.43 1,543.793 24.482 1,544.276 0.48 1,544.119 -0.157 1,607.705 63.586 1,884.902 277.197
Demand Total 2,748.033 2,563.459 -184.574 2,463.581 -99.88 2,476.514 12.933 2,325.482 -151.03 2,215.399 -110.083 2,183.335 -32.064 2,441.355 258.02
Generator
Non-Intermittent
30,704.578 28,146.837 -2,557.741 28,127.044 -19.79 28,523.002 395.958 28,307.339 -215.66 28,791.131 483.792 28,948.677 157.546 29,152.793 204.116
Intermittent 936.913 893.710 -43.203 903.244 9.53 913.083 9.839 838.626 -74.46 824.833 -13.793 800.286 -24.547 735.174 -65.112
Generator Total 31,641.491 29,040.547 -2,600.944 29,030.288 -10.26 29,436.085 405.797 29,145.965 -290.12 29,615.964 469.999 29,748.963 132.999 29,887.967 139.004
Import Total 1,830.000 1,606.862 -223.138 1,606.862 0.00 1,616.401 9.539 1,576.401 -40.00 1,576.401 0 1,440.401 -136 1,162.202 -278.199
***Grand Total 36,219.524 33,210.868 -3,008.656 33,100.731 -110.14 33,529.000 428.269 33,047.848 -481.15 33,407.764 359.916 33,372.699 -35.065 33,491.524 118.825
Net ICR (NICR) 32,968 32,968 0
33,529
561
33,529
0 33,529 0.00 33,529 0 33,152 -377
33,152
0
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 55
Capacity Supply Obligation FCA 8
* Real-time Emergency Generators (RTEG) CSO not capped at 600.000 MW
** Change columns contain the changes in CSO amount resulting from the specific FCM Event as well as adjustments for Delisted MW released according to MR 1, Section 13.2.5.2, and changes that occurred (terminations, etc.) prior to the event reported in the column.
*** Grand Total reflects both CSO Grand Total and the net total of the Change Column.
Resource Type
Resource Type
FCA Annual Bilateral for
ARA 1 ARA 1 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 2 ARA 2 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 3 ARA 3
*CSO CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
Demand
Active Demand 1,080.079 887.493 -192.59 891.604 4.111 772.352 -119.252 601.852 -170.5 400.487 -201.365
Passive Demand 1,960.517 1,958.874 -1.64 1,956.663 -2.211 2025.383 68.72 2,036.906 11.523 2,112.758 75.852
Demand Total 3,040.596 2,846.367 -194.23 2,848.267 1.9 2,797.735 -50.532 2,638.758 -158.977 2,513.245 -125.513
Generator
Non-Intermittent
28,547.813 28,523.796 -24.02 28,666.87 143.074 28,658.35 -8.52 28,863.752 205.402 28,888.84 25.092
Intermittent 876.925 898.955 22.03 922.173 23.218 918.782 -3.391 920.037 1.255 916.51 -3.527
Generator Total 29,424.738 29,422.751 -1.99 29,589.043 166.292 29,577.132 -11.911 29,783.789 206.657 29,805.35 21.565
Import Total 1,237.034 1,237.034 0.00 1,375.53 138.496 1,375.53 0 1314.43 -61.1 1,394.43 80
***Grand Total 33,702.368 33,506.152 -196.22 33,812.84 306.688 33,750.397 -62.443 33,736.977 -13.417 33,713.03 -23.948
Net ICR (NICR) 33,855 34,061 206.00 34,061 0 34,061 0 34,061 0 33,138 -923
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 56
Capacity Supply Obligation FCA 9
* Real-time Emergency Generators (RTEG) CSO not capped at 600.000 MW
** Change columns contain the changes in CSO amount resulting from the specific FCM Event as well as adjustments for Delisted MW released according to MR 1, Section 13.2.5.2, and changes that occurred (terminations, etc.) prior to the event reported in the column.
*** Grand Total reflects both CSO Grand Total and the net total of the Change Column.
Resource Type
Resource Type
FCA Annual Bilateral for
ARA 1 ARA 1 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 2 ARA 2 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 3 ARA 3
*CSO CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
Demand
Active Demand 647.26 596.701 -50.559 553.857 -42.844
Passive Demand 2,156.151 2153.94 -2.211 2150.196 -3.744
Demand Total 2,803.411 2,750.641 -52.77 2,704.053 -46.588
Generator
Non-Intermittent
29,550.564 29,558.181 7.617 29,783.831 225.65
Intermittent 891.616 864.924 -26.692 872.425 7.501
Generator Total 30,442.18 30,423.105 -19.075 30,656.256 233.151
Import Total 1,449 1449 0 1449 0
***Grand Total 34,694.591 34622.746 -71.845 34,809.309 186.563
Net ICR (NICR) 34,189 33,883 -306
33,883
0
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 57
Capacity Supply Obligation FCA 10
* Real-time Emergency Generators (RTEG) CSO not capped at 600.000 MW
** Change columns contain the changes in CSO amount resulting from the specific FCM Event as well as adjustments for Delisted MW released according to MR 1, Section 13.2.5.2, and changes that occurred (terminations, etc.) prior to the event reported in the column.
*** Grand Total reflects both CSO Grand Total and the net total of the Change Column.
Resource Type
Resource Type
FCA Annual Bilateral
for ARA 1 ARA 1 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 2 ARA 2 Annual Bilateral for
ARA 3 ARA 3
*CSO CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change CSO Change
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
Demand
Active Demand 377.525
Passive Demand 2,368.631
Demand Total 2,746.156
Generator
Non-Intermittent
30,520.433
Intermittent 850.143
Generator Total 31,370.576
Import Total 1,449.8
***Grand Total 35,566.532
Net ICR (NICR) 34,151
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Active/Passive Demand Response CSO Totals by Commitment Period
58
Commitment Period Active/ Passive Existing New Grand Total
2010-11 Active 1246.399 603.675 1850.074
Passive 119.211 584.277 703.488 Grand Total 1365.61 1187.952 2553.562
2011-12 Active 1768.392 184.99 1953.382
Passive 719.98 263.25 983.23 Grand Total 2488.372 448.24 2936.612
2012-13 Active 1726.548 98.227 1824.775
Passive 861.602 211.261 1072.863 Grand Total 2588.15 309.488 2897.638
2013-14 Active 1794.195 257.341 2051.536
Passive 1040.113 257.793 1297.906 Grand Total 2834.308 515.134 3349.442
2014-15 Active 2062.196 41.945 2104.141
Passive 1264.641 221.072 1485.713 Grand Total 3326.837 263.017 3589.854
2015-16 Active 1935.406 66.104 2001.51
Passive 1395.885 247.449 1643.334 Grand Total 3331.291 313.553 3644.844
2016-17 Active 1116.468 0.23 1116.698
Passive 1386.56 244.775 1631.335 Grand Total 2503.028 245.005 2748.033
2017-18 Active 1066.593 13.486 1080.079 Passive 1619.147 341.37 1960.517
Grand Total 2685.74 354.856 3040.596
2018-19 Active 565.866 81.394 647.26
Passive 1870.549 285.602 2156.151 Grand Total 2436.415 366.996 2803.411
2019-20 Active 357.221 20.304 377.525
Passive 2018.201 350.43 2368.631 Grand Total 2375.422 370.734 2746.156
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
RELIABILITY COSTS – NET COMMITMENT PERIOD COMPENSATION (NCPC) OPERATING COSTS
59
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
What are Daily NCPC Payments?
• Payments made to resources whose commitment and dispatch by ISO-NE resulted in a shortfall between the resource’s offered value in the Energy and Regulation Markets and the revenue earned from output during the day
• Typically, this is the result of some out-of-merit operation of resources occurring in order to protect the overall resource adequacy and transmission security of specific locations or of the entire control area
• NCPC payments are intended to make a resource that follows the ISO’s operating instructions “no worse off” financially than the best alternative generation schedule
60
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Definitions
1st Contingency NCPC Payments
Reliability costs paid to eligible resources that are providing first contingency (1stC) protection (including low voltage, system operating reserve, and load serving) either system-wide or locally
2nd Contingency NCPC Payments
Reliability costs paid to resources providing capacity in constrained areas to respond to a local second contingency. They are committed based on 2nd Contingency (2ndC) protocols, and are also known as Local Second Contingency Protection Resources (LSCPR)
Voltage NCPC Payments
Reliability costs paid to resources operated by ISO-NE to provide voltage support or control in specific locations
Distribution NCPC Payments
Reliability costs paid to units dispatched at the request of local transmission providers for purpose of managing constraints on the low voltage (distribution) system. These requirements are not modeled in the DA Market software
OATT Open Access Transmission Tariff
61
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Charge Allocation Key
Allocation Category
Market / OATT Allocation
System 1st Contingency
Market
DA 1st C (excluding at external nodes) is allocated to system DALO. RT 1st C (at all locations) is allocated to System ‘Daily Deviations’. Daily Deviations = sum of(generator deviations, load deviations, generation obligation deviations at external nodes, increment offer deviations)
External DA 1st Contingency
Market
DA 1st C at external nodes (from imports, exports, Incs and Decs) are allocated to activity at the specific external node or interface involved
Zonal 2nd Contingency
Market DA and RT 2nd C NCPC are allocated to load obligation in the Reliability Region (zone) served
System Low Voltage
OATT (Low) Voltage Support NCPC is allocated to system Regional Network Load and Open Access Same-Time Information Service (OASIS) reservations
Zonal High Voltage
OATT
High Voltage Control NCPC is allocated to zonal Regional Network Load
Distribution - PTO OATT
Distribution NCPC is allocated to the specific Participant Transmission Owner (PTO) requesting the service
System – Other Market Includes GPA and Generator/DARD Posturing NCPC (allocated to RTLO) and Min Generation Emergency NCPC (allocated to RTGO).
62
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph23 GR:Graph23m NCPC Dollars
2014 20152016 2017
Mill
ions
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
NCPC Energy*
2014 20152016 2017
GW
h 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Year-Over-Year Total NCPC Dollars and Energy
* NCPC Energy GWh reflect the DA and/or RT economic minimum loadings of all units receiving DA or RT NCPC credits, assessed during hours in which they are NCPC-eligible. All NCPC components (1st Contingency, 2nd Contingency, Voltage, and RT Distribution) are reflected.
63
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph01 GR:Graph02 JAN-17 Total = $3.33 M
Day-Ahead Real-Time
48%
52%
Last 13 Months
Day-Ahead Real-Time
Mill
ions
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
JAN20
16FE
B2016
MAR20
16APR
2016
MAY2
016
JUN20
16JU
L201
6AUG20
16SE
P201
6OCT
2016
NOV2016
DEC20
16JA
N2017
DA and RT NCPC Charges
64
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph04 GR:Graph03 JAN-17 Total = $3.33 M
1st C 2nd CVoltage
89%
10%
1%
NCPC Charges by Type
1st C – First Contingency 2nd C – Second Contingency Distrib – Distribution Voltage – Voltage
65
Last 13 Months
1st C 2nd CVoltage Distrib
Mill
ions
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
JAN16
FEB16
MAR16
APR16
MAY1
6JU
N16JU
L16
AUG16SE
P16
OCT16
NOV16DEC
16JA
N17
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:ncpc_bytype_stack_dly
1st C 2nd C Voltage Distribution
Thou
sand
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$70001
JAN20
1702
JAN20
1703
JAN20
1704
JAN20
1705
JAN20
1706
JAN20
1707
JAN20
1708
JAN20
1709
JAN20
1710
JAN20
1711
JAN20
1712
JAN20
1713
JAN20
1714
JAN20
1715
JAN20
1716
JAN20
1717
JAN20
1718
JAN20
1719
JAN20
1720
JAN20
1721
JAN20
1722
JAN20
1723
JAN20
1724
JAN20
1725
JAN20
17
Daily NCPC Charges by Type
66
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:xchart_ncpc_chgs_alloc_cat GR:xpie_ncpc_chgs_alloc_cat Last 13 Months
System 1stC Ext DA 1stCZonal 2ndC System Low VZonal High V Dist - PTOSystem Other
Mill
ions
$0.0
$8.0
$16.0
$24.0
$32.0
$40.0
JAN16
FEB16
MAR16
APR16
MAY1
6JU
N16JU
L16
AUG16SE
P16
OCT16
NOV16DEC
16JA
N17
JAN-17 Total = $3.33 M
System 1stC Ext DA 1stCZonal 2ndC System Low VZonal High V Dist - PTOSystem Other
84%
0.0%
10%
0.8%0.0%0.0%
5.3%
NCPC Charges by Allocation
67
Note: ‘System Other’ includes, as applicable: Resource Posturing, GPA, and Min Gen Emergency
0.8%
0.8%
5%
0.8%
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:chart_firstc_rt_bydev_13mo GR:pie_firstc_rt_bydev JAN-17 Total = $1.36 M
Gen ImportInc Load
10.8%
7.2%17.3%
64.7%
RT First Contingency Charges by Deviation Type
Gen – Generator deviations Inc – Increment Offer deviations Imp – Import deviations Load – Load obligation deviations
68
Last 13 Months
Gen ImportInc Load
Mill
ions
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
JAN16
FEB16
MAR16
APR16
MAY1
6JU
N16JU
L16
AUG16SE
P16
OCT16
NOV16DEC
16JA
N17
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:lscpr_charges_byzone_13mo
CT ME NEMA NHRI SEMA VT WCMA
Mill
ions
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$8.0
$9.0
$10.0
$11.0
$12.0
$13.0
JAN16
FEB16
MAR16
APR16
MAY16
JUN16
JUL1
6
AUG16
SEP16
OCT16
NOV16
DEC16
JAN17
LSCPR Charges by Zone
CT – Connecticut Region ME – Maine Region NH – New Hampshire Region RI – Rhode Island Region VT – Vermont Region
SEMA – Southeast Massachusetts Region WCMA – Western/Central Massachusetts Region NEMA – Northeast Massachusetts Region EXT – External Locations
69
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:var_charges_stack_13mo
DA HV NCPC DA LV NCPC RT HV NCPC RT LV NCPC
Thou
sand
$0.0
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
JAN16
FEB16
MAR16
APR16
MAY16
JUN16
JUL1
6
AUG16
SEP16
OCT16
NOV16
DEC16
JAN17
NCPC Charges for Voltage Support and High Voltage Control
70
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:NCPC_Stack Value of Charges
1st C 2nd C Distr Voltg
Mill
ions
$0
$25
$50
$75
$100
$125
$150
$1752015
2016
2017
JAN2017
FEB2017
MAR2017
APR2017
MAY2017
JUN2017
JUL2
017
AUG2017
SEP2017
OCT2017
NOV2017
DEC2017
$11
8.1
$73
.1
$3.
3
$3.
3
NCPC Charges by Type
71
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:NCPC_pct_Stack NCPC By Type as Percent of Energy Market
1st C 2nd C Distr Voltg
Perc
ent
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%2015
2016
2017
JAN2017
FEB2017
MAR2017
APR2017
MAY2017
JUN2017
JUL2
017
AUG2017
SEP2017
OCT2017
NOV2017
DEC2017
2.0
%
1.8
%
0.9
%
0.9
%
NCPC Charges as Percent of Energy Market
72
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph19 GR:Graph20 Value of Charges
Mill
ions
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
2015
2016
2017
JAN2
017
FEB2
017
MAR
2017
APR2
017
MAY
2017
JUN2
017
JUL2
017
AUG2
017
SEP2
017
OCT2
017
NOV2
017
DEC2
017
$70
.0
$40
.4
$3.
0
$3.
0% of Energy Market Value
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
2015
2016
2017
JAN2
017
FEB2
017
MAR
2017
APR2
017
MAY
2017
JUN2
017
JUL2
017
AUG2
017
SEP2
017
OCT2
017
NOV2
017
DEC2
017
1.2
%
1.0
%
0.8
%
0.8
%
First Contingency NCPC Charges
Note: Energy Market value is the hourly locational product of load obligation and price in the DA Market plus the hourly locational product of price and RT Load Obligation Deviation in the RT Market
73
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph21 GR:Graph22 Value of Charges
Mill
ions
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
2015
2016
2017
JAN2
017
FEB2
017
MAR
2017
APR2
017
MAY
2017
JUN2
017
JUL2
017
AUG2
017
SEP2
017
OCT2
017
NOV2
017
DEC2
017
$42
.7
$31
.1
$0.
3
$0.
3% of Energy Market Value
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
2015
2016
2017
JAN2
017
FEB2
017
MAR
2017
APR2
017
MAY
2017
JUN2
017
JUL2
017
AUG2
017
SEP2
017
OCT2
017
NOV2
017
DEC2
017
0.7
%
0.8
%
0.1
%
0.1
%
Second Contingency NCPC Charges
Note: Energy Market value is the hourly locational product of load obligation and price in the DA Market plus the hourly locational product of price and RT Load Obligation Deviation in the RT Market
74
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph18 GR:Graph17 % of Energy Market Value
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
2015
2016
2017
JAN2
017
FEB2
017
MAR
2017
APR2
017
MAY
2017
JUN2
017
JUL2
017
AUG2
017
SEP2
017
OCT2
017
NOV2
017
DEC2
017
0.1
%
0.0
%
0.0
%
0.0
%
Value of Charges
Mill
ions
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
2015
2016
2017
JAN2
017
FEB2
017
MAR
2017
APR2
017
MAY
2017
JUN2
017
JUL2
017
AUG2
017
SEP2
017
OCT2
017
NOV2
017
DEC2
017
$5.
4
$1.
5
$0.
0
$0.
0
Voltage and Distribution NCPC Charges
Note: Energy Market value is the hourly locational product of load obligation and price in the DA Market plus the hourly locational product of price and RT Load Obligation Deviation in the RT Market
75
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
DA vs. RT Pricing
The following slides outline:
• This month vs. prior year’s average LMPs and fuel costs
• Reserve Market results
• DA cleared load vs. RT load
• Zonal and total incs and decs
• Self-schedules
• DA vs. RT net interchange
76
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
DA vs. RT LMPs ($/MWh)
77
Arithmetic Average Year 2015 NEMA CT ME NH VT RI SEMA WCMA Hub
Day-Ahead $42.56 $41.23 $40.81 $42.11 $41.58 $42.20 $42.23 $41.93 $41.90 Real-Time $41.58 $40.58 $39.23 $40.21 $40.22 $41.03 $41.21 $40.96 $41.00 RT Delta % -2.3% -1.6% -3.9% -4.5% -3.3% -2.8% -2.4% -2.3% -2.2% Year 2016 NEMA CT ME NH VT RI SEMA WCMA Hub
Day-Ahead $30.66 $29.77 $29.07 $29.64 $29.66 $29.66 $29.88 $29.85 $29.78 Real-Time $29.74 $29.00 $27.81 $28.60 $28.49 $28.87 $29.01 $28.98 $28.94 RT Delta % -3.0% -2.6% -4.3% -3.5% -3.9% -2.7% -2.9% -2.9% -2.8%
January-16 NEMA CT ME NH VT RI SEMA WCMA Hub Day-Ahead $38.63 $38.35 $37.21 $38.36 $38.40 $38.54 $38.73 $38.68 $38.60 Real-Time $34.13 $33.93 $32.36 $33.57 $33.53 $34.02 $34.15 $34.04 $33.99 RT Delta % -11.7% -11.5% -13.0% -12.5% -12.7% -11.7% -11.8% -12.0% -11.9% January-17 NEMA CT ME NH VT RI SEMA WCMA Hub Day-Ahead $41.13 $40.95 $40.41 $40.94 $40.55 $41.04 $41.05 $41.26 $41.22 Real-Time $37.65 $37.32 $36.39 $37.21 $36.69 $37.39 $37.42 $37.55 $37.54 RT Delta % -8.5% -8.9% -9.9% -9.1% -9.5% -8.9% -8.8% -9.0% -8.9%
Annual Diff. NEMA CT ME NH VT RI SEMA WCMA Hub Yr over Yr DA 6.5% 6.8% 8.6% 6.7% 5.6% 6.5% 6.0% 6.7% 6.8% Yr over Yr RT 10.3% 10.0% 12.4% 10.8% 9.4% 9.9% 9.6% 10.3% 10.4%
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph25
Mar
ch 2
003=
1.00
0
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
MAR2003JU
N2003SEP2003DEC2003
MAR2004JU
N2004SEP2004DEC2004
MAR2005JU
N2005SEP2005DEC2005
MAR2006JU
N2006SEP2006DEC2006
MAR2007JU
N2007SEP2007DEC2007
MAR2008JU
N2008SEP2008DEC2008
MAR2009JU
N2009SEP2009DEC2009
MAR2010JU
N2010SEP2010DEC2010
MAR2011JU
N2011SEP2011DEC2011
MAR2012JU
N2012SEP2012DEC2012
MAR2013JU
N2013SEP2013DEC2013
MAR2014JU
N2014SEP2014DEC2014
MAR2015JU
N2015SEP2015DEC2015
MAR2016JU
N2016SEP2016DEC2016
MAR2017
Natural Gas Hub RT LMP
Monthly Average Fuel Price and RT Hub LMP Indexes
Underlying natural gas data furnished by:
78
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:hubwgas_mly_smd
$/M
MBt
u (F
uel)
$0.00
$3.00
$6.00
$9.00
$12.00
$15.00
$18.00
$21.00
$24.00
$27.00
$30.00
MAR2003
JUN20
03SE
P200
3DEC
2003
MAR2004
JUN20
04SE
P200
4DEC
2004
MAR2005
JUN20
05SE
P200
5DEC
2005
MAR2006
JUN20
06SE
P200
6DEC
2006
MAR2007
JUN20
07SE
P200
7DEC
2007
MAR2008
JUN20
08SE
P200
8DEC
2008
MAR2009
JUN20
09SE
P200
9DEC
2009
MAR2010
JUN20
10SE
P201
0DEC
2010
MAR2011
JUN20
11SE
P201
1DEC
2011
MAR2012
JUN20
12SE
P201
2DEC
2012
MAR2013
JUN20
13SE
P201
3DEC
2013
MAR2014
JUN20
14SE
P201
4DEC
2014
MAR2015
JUN20
15SE
P201
5DEC
2015
MAR2016
JUN20
16SE
P201
6DEC
2016
MAR2017
$/M
Wh
(Ele
ctric
ity)
$0.00
$40.00
$80.00
$120.00
$160.00
$200.00
Natural Gas Hub RT LMP
Monthly Average Fuel Price and RT Hub LMP
Underlying natural gas data furnished by:
79
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:three_pools_prices_dly GR:three_pools_prices_mly
Elec
tric
ity
Pric
es ($
/MW
h)
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
JAN20
16FE
B2016
MAR20
16APR
2016
MAY2
016
JUN20
16JU
L201
6AUG20
16SE
P201
6OCT
2016
NOV2016
DEC20
16JA
N2017
Monthly, Last 13 Months
*Note: Hourly average prices are shown.
ISO-NE NY-ISO PJM
New England, NY, and PJM Hourly Average Real Time Prices by Month
80
Elec
tric
ity
Pric
es ($
/MW
h)
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
01JA
N1702
JAN17
03JA
N1704
JAN17
05JA
N1706
JAN17
07JA
N1708
JAN17
09JA
N1710
JAN17
11JA
N1712
JAN17
13JA
N1714
JAN17
15JA
N1716
JAN17
17JA
N1718
JAN17
19JA
N1720
JAN17
21JA
N1722
JAN17
23JA
N1724
JAN17
25JA
N17
Daily: This Month
*Note: Hourly average prices are shown.
ISO-NE NY-ISO PJM
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:three_pools_prices_fpk_dly GR:three_pools_prices_fpk_mly
Elec
tric
ity
Pric
es ($
/MW
h)
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90
$100 $110 $120 $130 $140
01JA
N1702
JAN17
03JA
N1704
JAN17
05JA
N1706
JAN17
07JA
N1708
JAN17
09JA
N1710
JAN17
11JA
N1712
JAN17
13JA
N1714
JAN17
15JA
N1716
JAN17
17JA
N1718
JAN17
19JA
N1720
JAN17
21JA
N1722
JAN17
23JA
N1724
JAN17
25JA
N17
Daily: This Month
ISO-NE NY-ISO PJM
Elec
tric
ity
Pric
es ($
/MW
h)
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
$110
JAN20
16FE
B2016
MAR20
16APR
2016
MAY2
016
JUN20
16JU
L201
6AUG20
16SE
P201
6OCT
2016
NOV2016
DEC20
16JA
N2017
Monthly, Last 13 Months
ISO-NE NY-ISO PJM
New England, NY, and PJM Average Peak Hour Real Time Prices
*Forecasted New England daily peak hours reflected
81
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 82
Reserve Market Results – January 2017 • Maximum potential Forward Reserve Market payments of
$2.3M were reduced by credit reductions of $22K, failure-to-reserve penalties of $36K and no failure-to-activate penalties, resulting in a net payout of $2.2M or 97% of maximum – Rest of System: $1.29M/1.33M (97)% – Southwest Connecticut: $0.22M/0.22M (99)% – Connecticut: $0.72M/0.73M (98)%
• $619K total Real-Time credits were reduced by $23K in Forward Reserve Energy Obligation Charges for a net of $597K in Real-Time Reserve payments – Rest of System: 145 hours, $341K – Southwest Connecticut: 145 hours, $81K – Connecticut: 145 hours, $65K – NEMA: 148 hours, $109K
* “Failure to reserve” results in both credit reductions and penalties in the Locational Forward Reserve Market.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph39 LFRM Charges by Zone, Last 13 Months
CT ME NEMA NHRI SEMA VT WCMA
Mill
ions
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
JAN16
FEB16
MAR16
APR16
MAY16
JUN16
JUL1
6
AUG16
SEP16
OCT16
NOV16
DEC16
JAN17
LFRM Charges to Load by Load Zone ($)
83
Partial
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph28 January Monthly Totals by Zone
Cleared Offered
MW
h
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
Hub ME NH VT CT RI SEMA WCMA NEMA
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
Zonal Increment Offers and Cleared Amounts
84
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph29 January Monthly Totals by Zone
Cleared Bid
MW
h
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Hub ME NH VT CT RI SEMA WCMA NEMA
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
2016
2017
Zonal Decrement Bids and Cleared Amounts
85
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph30 Zonal Level, Last 13 Months
Cleared Bid/Offered
MW
h
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
JAN
2016
FEB2
016
MAR
2016
APR2
016
MAY
2016
JUN
2016
JUL2
016
AUG
2016
SEP2
016
OCT
2016
NO
V201
6
DEC2
016
JAN
2017
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
INC
DEC
Total Increment Offers and Decrement Bids
Data excludes nodal offers and bids
86
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:Graph31 Total Monthly Energy; Dispatchable % Shown
Non-Dispatchable Dispatchable
GWh
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
JAN2016
FEB2016
MAR2016
APR2016
MAY2016
JUN2016
JUL2
016
AUG2016
SEP2016
OCT2016
NOV2016
DEC2016
JAN2017
45.
2%
41.
1%
40.
9%
48.
9% 43.
2%
43.
7%
45.
2%
48.
8%
47.
5%
45.
8%
47.
5% 48.
4%
46.
3%
Dispatchable vs. Non-Dispatchable Generation
* Dispatchable MWh here are defined to be generation output that is not self-scheduled (i.e, not self-committed or ‘must run’ by the customer).
87
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:rolling_avg_per_big
CT ME NEMA ROP
$/KW
-Mon
th
$0.00
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
monthJAN16 FEB16 MAR16 APR16 MAY16 JUN16 JUL16 AUG16 SEP16 OCT16 NOV16 DEC16 JAN17
Rolling Average Peak Energy Rent (PER)
Rolling Average PER is currently calculated as a rolling twelve month average of individual monthly PER values for the twelve months preceding the obligation month.
Individual monthly PER values are published to the ISO web site here: Home > Markets > Other Markets Data > Forward Capacity Market > Reports and are subject to resettlement.
88
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
GR:fcm_per_adj_byzone_big
CT ME NEMA ROP
Mill
ions
($)
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
monthJAN16 FEB16 MAR16 APR16 MAY16 JUN16 JUL16 AUG16 SEP16 OCT16 NOV16 DEC16 JAN17
PER Adjustments
PER Adjustments are reductions to Forward Capacity Market monthly payments resulting from the rolling average PER.
89
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
REGIONAL SYSTEM PLAN (RSP)
90
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 91
Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)
• RSP17 scope of work was discussed with the PAC at the January 18 meeting and work is proceeding
• February 9 PAC Meeting Agenda* – Interregional Planning Update
– Maine Resource Integration Study
– Northern New England-Scobie+394 Interface Update
– Public Policy Stakeholder Presentations
* Agenda items are subject to change. Visit https://www.iso-ne.com/committees/planning/planning-advisory for the latest PAC agendas.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 92
Load, Energy Efficiency, and Photovoltaic Forecast
• Load Forecast – Development of the ten-year load forecast is ongoing – Next Load Forecast Committee meeting will be in early April to
discuss the final forecast which will be published as part of the 2017 CELT Report on or about May 1
• Energy Efficiency (EE) Forecast – Preliminary EE forecast is being developed and will be discussed with
stakeholders at the next EE working group meeting on February 16
• Photovoltaic (PV) Forecast – Preliminary PV forecast is being developed and will be discussed with
stakeholders at the next Distributed Generation Forecast working group meeting on February 28
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 93
Economic Studies and Keene Road Market Efficiency Transmission Upgrade Needs Assessment • 2016 Economic Study - NEPOOL Scenario Analysis results remain
ahead of schedule – Phase I observations and key messages and results for requests for additional
metrics and sensitivities were discussed with the PAC for the six base scenarios – Work is proceeding on the Phase II scopes of work discussed at the December 14
PAC meeting and are scheduled for completion during 2017 • Natural gas pipeline results • Scope of work for FCA auction results • Scope of work for regulation, ramping, and reserves
– Phase I report is on schedule for first quarter 2017
• Keene Road Market Efficiency Transmission Upgrade needs assessment final results were posted on the PAC website – Initial ISO recommendation not to proceed with an RFP due to anticipated
transmission upgrade costs was discussed at the January 18 PAC meeting
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 94
RSP Project Stage Descriptions
Stage Description
1 Planning and Preparation of Project Configuration 2 Pre-construction (e.g., material ordering, project scheduling) 3 Construction in Progress 4 In Service
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Project Benefit: Addresses system needs in the Connecticut River Corridor in Vermont
Note: The above listing focuses on major transmission line construction and rebuilding.
UpgradeExpected In-Service
Present Stage
Rebuild 115 kV line K31, Coolidge-Ascutney Oct-17 3Ascutney Substation - Add a +50/-25 MVAR dynamic reactive device May-18 3Hartford Substation - Split 25 MVAR capacitor bank into two 12.5 MVAR banks Dec-16 4
Chelsea Station - Rebuild to a three-breaker ring bus Dec-17 3
Connecticut River Valley Status as of 1/30/17
95
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Project Benefit: Addresses Needs in New Hampshire and Vermont
Note: The above listing focuses on major transmission line construction and rebuilding.
UpgradeExpected In-Service
Present Stage
Eagle Substation Add: 345/115 kV autotransformer Dec-16 4*Littleton Substation Add: Second 230/115 kV autotransformer Oct-14 4New C-203 230 kV line tap to Littleton NH Substation Nov-14 4New 115 kV overhead line, Fitzwilliam-Monadnock Feb-17 3New 115 kV overhead line, Scobie Pond-Huse Road Nov-15 4*New 115 kV overhead/submarine line, Madbury-Portsmouth Dec-18 2New 115 kV overhead line, Scobie Pond-Chester Dec-15 4
New Hampshire/Vermont 10-Year Upgrades Status as of 1/30/17
96
* Placed in-service ahead of schedule
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Project Benefit: Addresses Needs in New Hampshire and Vermont
Note: The above listing focuses on major transmission line construction and rebuilding.
UpgradeExpected In-Service
Present Stage
Saco Valley Substation - Add two 25 MVAR dynamic reactive devices Aug-16 4Rebuild 115 kV line K165, W157 tap Eagle-Power Street May-15 4Rebuild 115 kV line H137, Merrimack-Garvins Jun-13 4Rebuild 115 kV line D118, Deerfield-Pine Hill Nov-14 4Oak Hill Substation - Loop in 115 kV line V182, Garvins-Webster Apr-15 4*Uprate 115 kV line G146, Garvins-Deerfield Mar-15 4Uprate 115 kV line P145, Oak Hill-Merrimack May-14 4
* Placed in-service ahead of schedule
New Hampshire/Vermont 10-Year Upgrades, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
97
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Project Benefit: Addresses Needs in New Hampshire and Vermont
Note: The above listing focuses on major transmission line construction and rebuilding.
UpgradeExpected In-Service
Present Stage
Upgrade 115 kV line H141, Chester-Great Bay Nov-14 4Upgrade 115 kV line R193, Scobie Pond-Kingston Tap Mar-15 4*Upgrade 115 kV line T198, Keene-Monadnock Nov-13 4Upgrade 345 kV line 326, Scobie Pond-NH/MA Border Dec-13 4Upgrade 115 kV line J114-2, Greggs - Rimmon Dec-13 4Upgrade 345 kV line 381, between MA/NH border and NH/VT border Jun-13 4
* Placed in-service ahead of schedule
New Hampshire/Vermont 10-Year Upgrades, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
98
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Hartford and Central Connecticut (GHCC) Projects* Status as of 1/30/17
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub-areas of Greater Hartford, Middletown, Barbour Hill and Northwestern Connecticut and increases western Connecticut import capability
* Replaces the NEEWS Central Connecticut Reliability Project ** Placed in-service ahead of schedule
99
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Add a 2nd 345/115 kV autotransformer at Haddam substation and reconfigure the 3-terminal 345 kV 348 line into two 2-terminal lines
Jun-17 3
Terminal equipment upgrades on the 345 kV line between Haddam Neck and Beseck (362) Dec-17 3
Redesign the Green Hill 115 kV substation from a straight bus to a ring bus and add two 115 kV 25.2 MVAR capacitor banks
Dec-17 2
Add a 37.8 MVAR capacitor bank at the Hopewell 115 kV substation Dec-16 4**Separation of 115 kV double circuit towers corresponding to the Branford – Branford RR line (1537) and the Branford to North Haven (1655) line and adding a 115 kV breaker at Branford 115 kV substation
Dec-17 3
Increase the size of the existing 115 kV capacitor bank at Branford Substation from 37.8 to 50.4 MVAR Dec-17 3
Separation of 115 kV double circuit towers corresponding to the Middletown – Pratt and Whitney line (1572) and the Middletown to Haddam (1620) line
Dec-16 4
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub-areas of Greater Hartford, Middletown, Barbour Hill and Northwestern Connecticut and increases western Connecticut import capability
* Replaces the NEEWS Central Connecticut Reliability Project
Greater Hartford and Central Connecticut Projects, cont.* Status as of 1/30/17
100
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Terminal equipment upgrades on the 115 kV line from Middletown to Dooley (1050) Jun-15 4
Terminal equipment upgrades on the 115 kV line from Middletown to Portland (1443) Jun-15 4
Add a new 115 kV underground cable from Newington to Southwest Hartford and associated terminal equipment including a 2% series reactor Dec-18 2
Add a 115 kV 25.2 MVAR capacitor at Westside 115 kV substation Dec-18 2Loop the 1779 line between South Meadow and Bloomfield into the Rood Avenue substation and reconfigure the Rood Avenue substation
Dec-17 3
Reconfigure the Berlin 115 kV substation including two new 115 kV breakers and the relocation of a capacitor bank Dec-17 2
Reconductor the 115 kV line between Newington and Newington Tap (1783) Dec-18 2
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Hartford and Central Connecticut Projects, cont.* Status as of 1/30/17
101
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub-areas of Greater Hartford, Middletown, Barbour Hill and Northwestern Connecticut and increases western Connecticut import capability
* Replaces the NEEWS Central Connecticut Reliability Project
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Separation of 115 kV DCT corresponding to the Bloomfield to South Meadow (1779) line and the Bloomfield to North Bloomfield (1777) line and add a breaker at Bloomfield 115 kV substation
Dec-17 3
Separation of 115 kV DCT corresponding to the Bloomfield to North Bloomfield (1777) line and the North Bloomfield – Rood Avenue – Northwest Hartford (1751) line and add a breaker at North Bloomfield 115 kV substation
Dec-17 3
Install a 115 kV 3% reactor on the 115 kV line between South Meadow and Southwest Hartford (1704) Dec-18 2
Replace the existing 3% series reactors on the 115 kV lines between Southington and Todd (1910) and between Southington and Canal (1950) with a 5% series reactors
Dec-17 2
Replace the normally open 19T breaker at Southington 115 kV with a normally closed 3% series reactor Dec-17 2
Add a 345 kV breaker in series with breaker 5T at Southington Dec-17 2
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Hartford and Central Connecticut Projects, cont.* Status as of 1/30/17
102
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub-areas of Greater Hartford, Middletown, Barbour Hill and Northwestern Connecticut and increases western Connecticut import capability
* Replaces the NEEWS Central Connecticut Reliability Project ** Placed in-service ahead of schedule
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Add a new control house at Southington 115 kV substation Dec-17 2Add a new 115 kV line from Frost Bridge to Campville Jun-18 3Separation of 115 kV DCT corresponding to the Frost Bridge to Campville (1191) line and the Thomaston to Campville (1921) line and add a breaker at Campville 115 kV substation
Dec-18 3
Upgrade the 115 kV line between Southington and Lake Avenue Junction (1810-1)
Dec-16 4
Add a new 345/115 kV autotransformer at Barbour Hill substation Dec-16 4**Add a 345 kV breaker in series with breaker 24T at the Manchester 345 kV substation Dec-16 4**
Reconductor the 115 kV line between Manchester and Barbour Hill (1763) Dec-16 4**
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Southwest Connecticut (SWCT) Projects Status as of 1/30/17
103
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Add a 25.2 MVAR capacitor bank at the Oxford substation Dec-16 4*Add 2 x 25 MVAR capacitor banks at the Ansonia substation Dec-18 2Close the normally open 115 kV 2T circuit breaker at Baldwin substation Dec-17 3Rebuild Bunker Hill to a 9-breaker substation in breaker-and-a-half configuration** Dec-18 1
Reconductor the 115 kV line between Bunker Hill and Baldwin Junction (1575) Dec-16 4Loop the 1990 line in and out the Bunker Hill substation** Dec-18 1Expand Pootatuck (formerly known as Shelton) substation to 4-breaker ring bus configuration and add a 30 MVAR capacitor bank at Pootatuck
Jun-18 2
Loop the 1570 line in and out the Pootatuck substation Jun-18 2Replace two 115 kV circuit breakers at the Freight substation Dec-15 4
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub-areas of Frost Bridge/Naugatuck Valley, Housatonic Valley/Plumtree – Norwalk, Bridgeport, New Haven – Southington and improves system reliability
* Placed in-service ahead of schedule ** Project to be cancelled
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Southwest Connecticut Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
104
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub-areas of Frost Bridge/Naugatuck Valley, Housatonic Valley/Plumtree – Norwalk, Bridgeport, New Haven – Southington and improves system reliability
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Add two 14.4 MVAR capacitor banks at the West Brookfield substation Dec-17 1Add a new 115 kV line from Plumtree to Brookfield Junction Dec-18 1Reconductor the 115 kV line between West Brookfield and Brookfield Junction (1887) Dec-18 2
Reduce the existing 25.2 MVAR capacitor bank at the Rocky River substation to 14.4 MVAR Dec-17 2
Reconfigure the 1887 line into a three-terminal line (Plumtree - W. Brookfield - Shepaug) Dec-18 1
Reconfigure the 1770 line into 2 two-terminal lines (Plumtree - Stony Hill and Stony Hill - Bates Rock) Dec-18 1
Install a synchronous condenser (+25/-12.5 MVAR) at Stony Hill Dec-18 2Relocate an existing 37.8 MVAR capacitor bank at Stony Hill to the 25.2 MVAR capacitor bank side Dec-18 2
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Southwest Connecticut Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
105
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Relocate the existing 37.8 MVAR capacitor bank from 115 kV B bus to 115 kV A bus at the Plumtree substation Dec-17 3
Add a 115 kV circuit breaker in series with the existing 29T breaker at the Plumtree substation Dec-16 4*
Terminal equipment upgrade at the Newtown substation (1876) Dec-15 4*Rebuild the 115 kV line from Wilton to Norwalk (1682) and upgrade Wilton substation terminal equipment May-17 3
Reconductor the 115 kV line from Wilton to Ridgefield Junction (1470-1) Dec-17 2Reconductor the 115 kV line from Ridgefield Junction to Peaceable (1470-3) Dec-17 2
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub-areas of Frost Bridge/Naugatuck Valley, Housatonic Valley/Plumtree – Norwalk, Bridgeport, New Haven – Southington and improves system reliability
* Placed in-service ahead of schedule
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Southwest Connecticut Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
106
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Add 2 x 20 MVAR capacitor banks at the Hawthorne substation Mar-16 4*Upgrade the 115 kV bus at the Baird substation May-18 3Upgrade the 115 kV bus system and 11 disconnect switches at the Pequonnock substation Dec-14 4
Add a 345 kV breaker in series with the existing 11T breaker at the East Devon substation Dec-15 4
Rebuild the 115 kV lines from Baird to Congress (8809A / 8909B) Apr-19 2Rebuild the 115 kV lines from Housatonic River Crossing (HRX) to Barnum to Baird (88006A / 89006B) Dec-20 1
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub areas of Frost Bridge/Naugatuck Valley, Housatonic Valley/Plumtree – Norwalk, Bridgeport, New Haven – Southington and improves system reliability
* Placed in-service ahead of schedule
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Southwest Connecticut Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
107
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Remove the Sackett phase shifter Mar-17 3Install a 7.5 ohm series reactor on 1610 line at the Mix Avenue substation Dec-16 4Add 2 x 20 MVAR capacitor banks at the Mix Avenue substation Dec-16 4Separate the 3827 (Beseck to East Devon) and 1610 (Southington to June to Mix Avenue) double circuit towers* Dec-18 1
Upgrade the 1630 line relay at North Haven and Wallingford 1630 terminal equipment Jan-17 4
Rebuild the 115 kV lines from Devon Tie to Milvon (88005A / 89005B) Nov-16 4Replace two 115 kV circuit breakers at Mill River Dec-14 4
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the four study sub areas of Frost Bridge/Naugatuck Valley, Housatonic Valley/Plumtree – Norwalk, Bridgeport, New Haven – Southington and improves system reliability
* Project to be cancelled
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Boston Projects Status as of 1/30/17
108
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Install new 345 kV line from Scobie to Tewksbury Dec-17 3Reconductor the Y-151 115 kV line from Dracut Junction to Power Street Dec-17 3*Reconductor the M-139 115 kV line from Tewksbury to Pinehurst and associated work at Tewksbury Jun-17 3
Reconductor the N-140 115 kV line from Tewksbury to Pinehurst and associated work at Tewksbury Jun-17 3
Reconductor the F-158N 115 kV line from Wakefield Junction to Maplewood and associated work at Maplewood Dec-15 4
Reconductor the F-158S 115 kV line from Maplewood to Everett Jun-17 2Install new 345 kV cable from Woburn to Wakefield Junction, install two new 160 MVAR variable shunt reactors and associated work at Wakefield Junction and Woburn
May-19 2
Refurbish X-24 69 kV line from Millbury to Northboro Road Dec-15 4Reconductor W-23W 69 kV line from Woodside to Northboro Road Dec-17 2
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the Greater Boston area and improves system reliability
* Eversource portion of the project is complete
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Boston Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
109
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Separate X-24 and E-157W DCT Jul-17 2Separate Q-169 and F-158N DCT Dec-15 4Reconductor M-139/211-503 and N-140/211-504 115 kV lines from Pinehurst to North Woburn tap May-17 4*
Install new 115 kV station at Sharon to segment three 115 kV lines from West Walpole to Holbrook Sep-19 2
Install third 115 kV line from West Walpole to Holbrook Sep-19 2Install new 345 kV breaker in series with the 104 breaker at Stoughton May-16 4Install new 230/115 kV autotransformer at Sudbury and loop the 282-602 230 kV line in and out of the new 230 kV switchyard at Sudbury Dec-17 3
Install a new 115 kV line from Sudbury to Hudson Dec-20 1
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the Greater Boston area and improves system reliability
* Placed in-service ahead of schedule
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Boston Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
110
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Replace 345/115 kV autotransformer, 345 kV breakers, and 115 kV switchgear at Woburn May-19 3
Install a 345 kV breaker in series with breaker 104 at Woburn May-17 3Reconfigure Waltham by relocating PARs, 282-507 line, and a breaker Dec-17 3Upgrade 533-508 115 kV line from Lexington to Hartwell and associated work at the stations Aug-16 4
Install a new 115 kV 54 MVAR capacitor bank at Newton Dec-16 4Install a new 115 kV 36.7 MVAR capacitor bank at Sudbury May-17 3Install a second Mystic 345/115 kV autotransformer and reconfigure the bus Jun-18 3Install a 115 kV breaker on the East bus at K Street Jun-16 4Install 115 kV cable from Mystic to Chelsea and upgrade Chelsea 115 kV station to BPS standards Jun-19 2
Split 110-522 and 240-510 DCT from Baker Street to Needham for a portion of the way and install a 115 kV cable for the rest of the way Dec-18 2
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the Greater Boston area and improves system reliability
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Boston Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
111
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Install a second 115 kV cable from Mystic to Woburn to create a bifurcated 211-514 line Dec-18 2
Open lines 329-510/511 and 250-516/517 at Mystic and Chatham, respectively. Operate K Street as a normally closed station.
Jun-18 3
Upgrade Kingston to create a second normally closed 115 kV bus tie and reconfigure the 345 kV switchyard Jun-18 2
Relocate the Chelsea capacitor bank to the 128-518 termination postion Dec-16 4
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the Greater Boston area and improves system reliability
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Greater Boston Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
112
UpgradeExpectedIn-Service
Present Stage
Upgrade North Cambridge to mitigate 115 kV 5 and 10 stuck breaker contingencies Nov-17 3
Install a 200 MVAR STATCOM at Coopers Mills Sep-18 2Install a 115 kV 36.7 MVAR capacitor bank at Hartwell May-17 3Install a 345 kV 160 MVAR shunt reactor at K Street Dec-18 1Install a 115 kV breaker in series with the 5 breaker at Framingham Jun-17 3Install a 115 kV breaker in series with the 29 breaker at K Street Mar-17 3
Plan Benefit: Addresses long-term system needs in the Greater Boston area and improves system reliability
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Project Benefit: Addresses system needs in the Pittsfield/Greenfield area in Western Massachusetts
UpgradeExpected In-Service
Present Stage
Separate and reconductor the Cabot Taps (A-127 and Y-177 115 kV lines) Mar-17 3
Install a 115 kV tie breaker at the Harriman Station, with associated buswork, reconductor of buswork and new control house Nov-17 3
Modify Northfield Mountain 16R Substation and install a 345/115 kV autotransformer May-17 3
Build a new 115 kV three-breaker switching station (Erving) ring bus Mar-17 3Build a new 115 kV line from Northfield Mountain to the new Erving Switching Station May-17 3
Install 115 kV 14.4 MVAR capacitor banks at Cumberland, Podick and Amherst Substations Dec-15 4
Pittsfield/Greenfield Projects Status as of 1/30/17
113
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Project Benefit: Addresses system needs in the Pittsfield/Greenfield area in Western Massachusetts
UpgradeExpected In-Service
Present Stage
Rebuild the Cumberland to Montague 1361 115 kV line and terminal work at Cumberland and Montague. At Montague Substation, reconnect Y177 115 kV line into 3T/4T position and perform other associated substation work
Dec-16 4
Remove the sag limitation on the 1512 115 kV line from Blandford Substation to Granville Junction and remove the limitation on the 1421 115 kV line from Pleasant to Blandford Substation
Dec-14 4
Loop the A127W line between Cabot Tap and French King into the new Erving Substation Mar-17 3
Reconductor A127 between Erving and Cabot Tap and replace switches at Wendell Depot Apr-15 4
Pittsfield/Greenfield Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
114
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Project Benefit: Addresses system needs in the Pittsfield/Greenfield area in Western Massachusetts
UpgradeExpected In-Service
Present Stage
Install a 115 kV 20.6 MVAR capacitor at the Doreen substation and operate the 115 kV 13T breaker N.O. Dec-17 1
Install a 75-150 MVAR variable reactor at Northfield substation Dec-17 1Install a 75-150 MVAR variable reactor at Ludlow substation Dec-17 1Construct a 115 kV three-breaker ring bus at or adjacent to Pochassic 37R Substation, loop line 1512-1 into the new three-breaker ring bus, construct a new line connecting the new three-breaker ring bus to the Buck Pond 115 kV Substation on the vacant side of the double-circuit towers that carry line 1302-2, add a new breaker to the Buck Pond 115 kV straight bus and reconnect lines 1302-2, 1657-2 and transformer 2X into new positions
Dec-19 1
Pittsfield/Greenfield Projects, cont. Status as of 1/30/17
115
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 116
Status of Tariff Studies
7 8 515 10 8
2 3 2 3 4 4 2
14 1412
108 9
11 11 12 14 13 14 16
0 00
00 0
0 0 00 0 0 0
40 4245
43
4238
40 3831 28 28 27 26
00 0
0
00 1 1
1 1 2 1 1
8 7 67
108 10 12
15 14 14 14 15
22 2222
2423
24 24 2425 25 24 22 21
6 6 6
66
6 7 6 6 7 75 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17
13,323MW
13,994MW
14,134MW
13,795MW
11,740MW
11,447MW
11,583MW
12,325MW
12,156MW
12,553MW
13,331MW
13,403MW
12,949MW
Num
ber o
f Pro
ject
s
Generator Project Status
Distribution
Executed IA
Negotiating IA
Facility Study
Sys. Impact Study
Optional Study
Feasibility Study
Scoping
9699
105
9286
999593 95
92 9297
87
https://irtt.iso-ne.com/external.aspx Note: As of January 2017, there are 9 ETU’s in SIS, 1 in OSIS, 2 in FS, 3 in Scoping, and 2 in Neg. IA
Note: January 2017 based on partial data
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Winter 2016/17
117
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Winter 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis 50/50 Load Forecast (Reference) February - 20172
CSO February - 20172
SCC
Operable Capacity MW 1 30,246 32,829
OP CAP From OP-4 RTDR (+) 254 254
OP CAP From OP-4 RTEG (+) 1 1
Operable Capacity with OP-4 DR and RTEG 30,501 33,084
External Node Available Net Capacity, CSO imports minus firm capacity exports (+) 994 994
Non Commercial Capacity (+) 0 0
Non Gas-fired Planned Outage MW (-) 844 860
Gas Generator Outages MW (-) 489 562
Allowance for Unplanned Outages (-) 5 3,100 3,100
Generation at Risk Due to Gas Supply (-) 4 2,780 3,050
Net Capacity (NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW) 3 24,282 26,506
Peak Load Forecast MW(adjusted for Other Demand Resources) 2 20,834 20,834
Operating Reserve Requirement MW 2,305 2,305
Operable Capacity Required (NET LOAD OBLIGATION MW) 23,139 23,139
Operable Capacity Margin 3 1,143 3,367 1Operable Capacity is based on data as of January 16, 2017and does not include Capacity associated with Settlement Only Generators, Passive and Active Demand Response, and external capacity. The Operable Capacity (CSO ) and SCC values are based on data as of January 16, 2017. 2 Load forecast that is based on the current CELT report and represents the week with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin, week beginning February 4, 2017. 3 Includes OP4 actions associated with RTEG and RTDR 4 Total of (Gas at Risk MW) – (Gas Gen Outages MW) 5 Allowance For Unplanned Outage MW is based on the month corresponding to the day with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin for the week.
118
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Winter 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis 90/10 Load Forecast (Extreme) February - 20172
CSO February - 20172
SCC
Operable Capacity MW 1 30,246 32,829
OP CAP From OP-4 RTDR (+) 254 254
OP CAP From OP-4 RTEG (+) 1 1
Operable Capacity with OP-4 DR and RTEG 30,501 33,084
External Node Available Net Capacity, CSO imports minus firm capacity exports (+) 994 994
Non Commercial Capacity (+) 0 0
Non Gas-fired Planned Outage MW (-) 844 860
Gas Generator Outages MW (-) 489 562
Allowance for Unplanned Outages (-) 5 3,100 3,100
Generation at Risk Due to Gas Supply (-) 4 3,143 3,451
Net Capacity (NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW) 3 23,919 26,105
Peak Load Forecast MW(adjusted for Other Demand Resources) 2 21,507 21,507
Operating Reserve Requirement MW 2,305 2,305
Operable Capacity Required (NET LOAD OBLIGATION MW) 23,812 23,812
Operable Capacity Margin 3 107 2,293 1Operable Capacity is based on data as of January 16, 2017 and does not include Capacity associated with Settlement Only Generators, Passive and Active Demand Response, and external capacity. The Operable Capacity (CSO ) and SCC values are based on data as of January 16, 2017. 2 Load forecast that is based on the current CELT report and represents the week with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin, week beginning February 4, 2017. 3 Includes OP4 actions associated with RTEG and RTDR 4 Total of (Gas at Risk MW) – (Gas Gen Outages MW) 5 Allowance For Unplanned Outage MW is based on the month corresponding to the day with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin for the week.
119
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 120
Winter 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 50/50 Forecast (Reference)
CSO 50/50
CSO
1/16/17 11:20 KBO_170116_February_COO_AMS_case7707 50/50
with RTDR and RTEGSCC 90/10
AVAILABLE OPCAP MW
EXTERNAL NODE AVAIL
CAPACITY MW
NON COMMERCIAL CAPACITY MW
NON-GAS PLANNED
OUTAGES CSO MW
GAS GENERAT
OR OUTAGES CSO MW
ALLOWANCE FOR
UNPLANNED OUTAGES MW
GAS AT RISK MW
NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW
PEAK LOAD FORECAST
MW
OPER RESERVE REQUIREMENT
MW NET LOAD
OBLIGATION MW
OPCAP MARGIN
MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 ACTIVE
REAL-TIME DR MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/
OP4 actions through OP4 Step 2 MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 REAL-TIME EMER.
GEN MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/ OP4 actions
through OP4 Step 6 MW
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]1/28/2017 30,246 994 0 441 489 3,100 2,780 24,430 21,110 2,305 23,415 1,015 254 1,269 1 1,2702/4/2017 30,246 994 0 844 489 3,100 2,780 24,027 20,834 2,305 23,139 888 254 1,142 1 1,1432/11/2017 30,246 994 0 576 489 3,100 2,416 24,659 20,804 2,305 23,109 1,550 254 1,804 1 1,8052/18/2017 30,246 994 0 910 489 3,100 2,174 24,567 20,533 2,305 22,838 1,729 254 1,983 1 1,9842/25/2017 29,982 1,037 21 1,265 903 3,100 1,276 24,496 19,512 2,305 21,817 2,679 362 3,041 177 3,2183/4/2017 29,982 1,037 21 1,946 735 2,200 1,081 25,078 19,151 2,305 21,456 3,622 362 3,984 177 4,161
3/11/2017 29,982 1,037 21 2,574 887 2,200 808 24,571 18,949 2,305 21,254 3,317 362 3,679 177 3,8563/18/2017 29,982 1,037 21 3,371 887 2,200 320 24,262 18,572 2,305 20,877 3,385 362 3,747 177 3,9243/25/2017 29,982 1,037 21 4,037 556 2,200 291 23,956 17,988 2,305 20,293 3,663 362 4,025 177 4,202
(874)1. Available OPCAP MW based on resource Capacity Supply Obligations, CSO. Does not include Settlement Only Generators.2. External Node Available Capacity MW based on the sum of external Capacity Supply Obligations (CSO) imports and exports.3. New resources and generator improvements that have acquired a CSO but have not become commercial.4.Non-Gas Planned Outages is the total of Non Gas-fired Generator/DARD Outages for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Non Gas-fired Forced Outages.5. All Planned Gas-fired generation outage for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Gas-fired Forced Outages.6. Allowance for Unplanned Outages includes forced outages and maintenance outages scheduled less than 14 days in advance per ISO New England Operating Procedure No. 5 Appendix A. 7. Generation at Risk due to Gas Supply pertains to gas fired capacity expected to be at risk during cold weather conditions or gas pipeline maintenance outages. 8. Net OpCap Supply MW Available (1 + 2 + 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 = 8)9. Peak Load Forecast as provided in the 2016 CELT Report and adjusted for Passive Demand Resources. http:/ / www.iso-ne.com/ system-planning/ system-plans-studies/ celt10. Operating Reserve Requirement based on 120% of first largest contingency plus 50% of the second largest contingency. 11. Total Net Load Obligation per the formula(9 + 10 = 11)12. Net OPCAP Margin MW = Net Op Cap Supply MW minus Net Load Obligation (8 - 11 = 12)13. OP 4 Action 2 Real-time Demand Response based on OP4 Appendix A. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.14. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response through OP4 Step 2 (12 + 13 = 14) 15. OP 4 Action 6 Emergency Generation Response without the Voltage Reduction requiring > 10 Minutes based on OP4 Appendix A. Real Time Emergency Generation is capped at 600MW. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.16. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response and Real Time Emergency Generation through OP4 Step 6 (14 + 15 = 16) This does not include Emergency Energy Transactions (EETs).
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
STUDY WEEK (Week Beginning,
Saturday)
This analysis is a tabulation of weekly assessments shown in one single table. The information shows the operable capacity situation under assumed conditions for each week. It is not expected that the system peak will occur every week during June, July, and August and Mid September.
February 3, 2017 - 50/50 FORECAST using CSO values
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 121
Winter 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 90/10 Forecast (Extreme)
CSO 50/50
CSO1/16/17 11:53
KBO_170116_February_COO_AM 90/10 with RTDR and RTEGSCC 90/10
AVAILABLE OPCAP MW
EXTERNAL NODE AVAIL
CAPACITY MW
NON COMMERCIAL CAPACITY MW
NON-GAS PLANNED
OUTAGES CSO MW
GAS GENERAT
OR OUTAGES CSO MW
ALLOWANCE FOR
UNPLANNED OUTAGES MW
GAS AT RISK MW
NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW
PEAK LOAD FORECAST
MWOPER RESERVE
REQUIREMENT MW
NET LOAD OBLIGATION
MW
OPCAP MARGIN
MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 ACTIVE
REAL-TIME DR MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/
OP4 actions through OP4 Step 2 MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 REAL-TIME EMER.
GEN MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/ OP4 actions
through OP4 Step 6 MW
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]1/28/2017 30,246 994 0 441 489 3,100 3,143 24,067 21,791 2,305 24,096 (29) 254 225 1 2262/4/2017 30,246 994 0 844 489 3,100 3,143 23,664 21,507 2,305 23,812 (148) 254 106 1 1072/11/2017 30,246 994 0 576 489 3,100 2,739 24,336 21,476 2,305 23,781 555 254 809 1 8102/18/2017 30,246 994 0 910 489 3,100 2,470 24,271 21,197 2,305 23,502 769 254 1,023 1 1,0242/25/2017 29,982 1,037 21 1,265 903 3,100 1,518 24,254 20,145 2,305 22,450 1,804 362 2,166 177 2,3433/4/2017 29,982 1,037 21 1,946 735 2,200 1,282 24,877 19,774 2,305 22,079 2,798 362 3,160 177 3,3373/11/2017 29,982 1,037 21 2,574 887 2,200 996 24,383 19,565 2,305 21,870 2,513 362 2,875 177 3,0523/18/2017 29,982 1,037 21 3,371 887 2,200 454 24,128 19,177 2,305 21,482 2,646 362 3,008 177 3,1853/25/2017 29,982 1,037 21 4,037 556 2,200 385 23,862 18,575 2,305 20,880 2,982 362 3,344 177 3,521
(3,247)1. Available OPCAP MW based on resource Capacity Supply Obligations, CSO. Does not include Settlement Only Generators.2. External Node Available Capacity MW based on the sum of external Capacity Supply Obligations (CSO) imports and exports.3. New resources and generator improvements that have acquired a CSO but have not become commercial.4. Non-Gas Planned Outages is the total of Non Gas-fired Generator/DARD Outages for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Non Gas-fired Forced Outages.5. All Planned Gas-fired generation outage for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Gas-fired Forced Outages.6. Allowance for Unplanned Outages includes forced outages and maintenance outages scheduled less than 14 days in advance per ISO New England Operating Procedure No. 5 Appendix A. 7. Generation at Risk due to Gas Supply pertains to gas fired capacity expected to be at risk during cold weather conditions or gas pipeline maintenance outages. 8. Net OpCap Supply MW Available (1 + 2 + 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 = 8)9. Peak Load Forecast as provided in the 2016 CELT Report and adjusted for Passive Demand Resources. http :/ /www.iso -ne .co m/syste m-p la nning /sys te m-p la ns-s tud ie s /ce lt10. Operating Reserve Requirement based on 120% of first largest contingency plus 50% of the second largest contingency. 11. Total Net Load Obligation per the formula(9 + 10 = 11)12. Net OPCAP Margin MW = Net Op Cap Supply MW minus Net Load Obligation (8 - 11 = 12)13. OP 4 Action 2 Real-time Demand Response based on OP4 Appendix A. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.14. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response through OP4 Step 2 (12 + 13 = 14) 15. OP 4 Action 6 Emergency Generation Response without the Voltage Reduction requiring > 10 Minutes based on OP4 Appendix A. Real Time Emergency Generation is capped at 600MW. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.16. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response and Real Time Emergency Generation through OP4 Step 6 (14 + 15 = 16) This does not include Emergency Energy Transactions (EETs).
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
STUDY WEEK (Week Beginning,
Saturday)
This analysis is a tabulation of weekly assessments shown in one single table. The information shows the operable capacity situation under assumed conditions for each week. It is not expected that the system peak will occur every week during June, July, and August and Mid September.
February 3, 2017 - 90/10 FORECAST using CSO values
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 122
Winter 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 50/50 Forecast (Reference)
(1,000)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
28-J
an
4-Fe
b
11-F
eb
18-F
eb
25-F
eb
4-M
ar
11-M
ar
18-M
ar
25-M
ar
Ope
rabl
e C
apac
ity M
argi
n (M
W)
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS - - with RTDR and RTEG- 50/50 FORECAST
January 28, 2017- March 31, 2017, W/B Saturday
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 123
Winter 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 90/10 Forecast (Extreme)
(1,000)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
28-J
an
4-Fe
b
11-F
eb
18-F
eb
25-F
eb
4-M
ar
11-M
ar
18-M
ar
25-M
ar
Ope
rabl
e C
apac
ity M
argi
n (M
W)
January 28, 2017 - March 31, 2017 W/B Saturday
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS with RTDR and RTEG
- 90/10 FORECAST
- -
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Spring 2017
124
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Spring 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis 50/50 Load Forecast (Reference) May - 20172
CSO May - 20172
SCC
Operable Capacity MW 1 29,964 32,829
OP CAP From OP-4 RTDR (+) 367 367
OP CAP From OP-4 RTEG (+) 184 184
Operable Capacity with OP-4 DR and RTEG 30,515 33,380
External Node Available Net Capacity, CSO imports minus firm capacity exports (+) 1,037 1,037
Non Commercial Capacity (+) 21 21
Non Gas-fired Planned Outage MW (-) 3,252 3,866
Gas Generator Outages MW (-) 804 983
Allowance for Unplanned Outages (-) 5 3,400 3,400
Generation at Risk Due to Gas Supply (-) 4 0 0
Net Capacity (NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW) 3 24,117 26,189
Peak Load Forecast MW(adjusted for Other Demand Resources) 2 20,811 20,811
Operating Reserve Requirement MW 2,305 2,305
Operable Capacity Required (NET LOAD OBLIGATION MW) 23,116 23,16
Operable Capacity Margin 3 1,001 3,073 1Operable Capacity is based on data as of January 16, 2017 and does not include Capacity associated with Settlement Only Generators, Passive and Active Demand Response, and external capacity. The Operable Capacity (CSO ) and SCC values are based on data as of January 16, 2017 . 2 Load forecast that is based on the current CELT report and represents the week with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin, week beginning May 13, 2017. 3 Includes OP4 actions associated with RTEG and RTDR 4 Total of (Gas at Risk MW) – (Gas Gen Outages MW) 5 Allowance For Unplanned Outage MW is based on the month corresponding to the day with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin for the week.
125
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Spring 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis 90/10 Load Forecast (Extreme) May - 20172
CSO May - 20172
SCC
Operable Capacity MW 1 29,964 32,829
OP CAP From OP-4 RTDR (+) 367 367
OP CAP From OP-4 RTEG (+) 184 184
Operable Capacity with OP-4 DR and RTEG 30,515 33,380
External Node Available Net Capacity, CSO imports minus firm capacity exports (+) 1,037 1,037
Non Commercial Capacity (+) 21 21
Non Gas-fired Planned Outage MW (-) 3,252 3,866
Gas Generator Outages MW (-) 804 983
Allowance for Unplanned Outages (-) 5 3,400 3,400
Generation at Risk Due to Gas Supply (-) 4 0 0
Net Capacity (NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW) 3 24,117 26,189
Peak Load Forecast MW(adjusted for Other Demand Resources) 2 22,687 22,687
Operating Reserve Requirement MW 2,305 2,305
Operable Capacity Required (NET LOAD OBLIGATION MW) 24,992 24,992
Operable Capacity Margin 3 -875 1,197 1Operable Capacity is based on data as of January 16, 2017 and does not include Capacity associated with Settlement Only Generators, Passive and Active Demand Response, and external capacity. The Operable Capacity (CSO ) and SCC values are based on data as of January 16, 2017 . 2 Load forecast that is based on the current CELT report and represents the week with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin, week beginning May 13, 2017. 3 Includes OP4 actions associated with RTEG and RTDR 4 Total of (Gas at Risk MW) – (Gas Gen Outages MW) 5 Allowance For Unplanned Outage MW is based on the month corresponding to the day with the lowest Operable Capacity Margin for the week.
126
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 127
Spring 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 50/50 Forecast (Reference)
CSO 50/50
CSO
1/16/17 11:20 KBO_170116_February_COO_AMS_case7707 50/50
with RTDR and RTEGSCC 90/10
AVAILABLE OPCAP MW
EXTERNAL NODE AVAIL
CAPACITY MW
NON COMMERCIAL CAPACITY MW
NON-GAS PLANNED
OUTAGES CSO MW
GAS GENERAT
OR OUTAGES CSO MW
ALLOWANCE FOR
UNPLANNED OUTAGES MW
GAS AT RISK MW
NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW
PEAK LOAD FORECAST
MW
OPER RESERVE REQUIREMENT
MW NET LOAD
OBLIGATION MW
OPCAP MARGIN
MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 ACTIVE
REAL-TIME DR MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/
OP4 actions through OP4 Step 2 MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 REAL-TIME EMER.
GEN MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/ OP4 actions
through OP4 Step 6 MW
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]4/1/2017 29,964 1,037 21 5,291 1,244 2,700 0 21,787 17,290 2,305 19,595 2,192 367 2,559 184 2,7434/8/2017 29,964 1,037 21 4,772 1,240 2,700 0 22,310 17,031 2,305 19,336 2,974 367 3,341 184 3,5254/15/2017 29,964 1,037 21 4,898 1,161 2,700 0 22,263 16,504 2,305 18,809 3,454 367 3,821 184 4,0054/22/2017 29,964 1,037 21 5,174 393 2,700 0 22,755 16,230 2,305 18,535 4,220 367 4,587 184 4,7714/29/2017 29,964 1,037 21 3,687 254 3,400 0 23,681 15,683 2,305 17,988 5,693 367 6,060 184 6,2445/6/2017 29,964 1,037 21 2,425 1,530 3,400 0 23,667 19,782 2,305 22,087 1,580 367 1,947 184 2,1315/13/2017 29,964 1,037 21 3,252 804 3,400 0 23,566 20,811 2,305 23,116 450 367 817 184 1,0015/20/2017 29,964 1,037 21 2,134 848 3,400 0 24,640 21,767 2,305 24,072 568 367 935 184 1,1195/27/2017 29,964 1,037 21 567 261 3,400 0 26,794 22,816 2,305 25,121 1,673 367 2,040 184 2,224
(874)1. Available OPCAP MW based on resource Capacity Supply Obligations, CSO. Does not include Settlement Only Generators.2. External Node Available Capacity MW based on the sum of external Capacity Supply Obligations (CSO) imports and exports.3. New resources and generator improvements that have acquired a CSO but have not become commercial.4.Non-Gas Planned Outages is the total of Non Gas-fired Generator/DARD Outages for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Non Gas-fired Forced Outages.5. All Planned Gas-fired generation outage for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Gas-fired Forced Outages.6. Allowance for Unplanned Outages includes forced outages and maintenance outages scheduled less than 14 days in advance per ISO New England Operating Procedure No. 5 Appendix A. 7. Generation at Risk due to Gas Supply pertains to gas fired capacity expected to be at risk during cold weather conditions or gas pipeline maintenance outages. 8. Net OpCap Supply MW Available (1 + 2 + 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 = 8)9. Peak Load Forecast as provided in the 2016 CELT Report and adjusted for Passive Demand Resources. http:/ / www.iso-ne.com/ system-planning/ system-plans-studies/ celt10. Operating Reserve Requirement based on 120% of first largest contingency plus 50% of the second largest contingency. 11. Total Net Load Obligation per the formula(9 + 10 = 11)12. Net OPCAP Margin MW = Net Op Cap Supply MW minus Net Load Obligation (8 - 11 = 12)13. OP 4 Action 2 Real-time Demand Response based on OP4 Appendix A. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.14. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response through OP4 Step 2 (12 + 13 = 14) 15. OP 4 Action 6 Emergency Generation Response without the Voltage Reduction requiring > 10 Minutes based on OP4 Appendix A. Real Time Emergency Generation is capped at 600MW. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.16. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response and Real Time Emergency Generation through OP4 Step 6 (14 + 15 = 16) This does not include Emergency Energy Transactions (EETs).
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
STUDY WEEK (Week Beginning,
Saturday)
This analysis is a tabulation of weekly assessments shown in one single table. The information shows the operable capacity situation under assumed conditions for each week. It is not expected that the system peak will occur every week during June, July, and August and Mid September.
February 3, 2017 - 50/50 FORECAST using CSO values
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 128
Spring 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 90/10 Forecast (Extreme)
CSO 50/50
CSO1/16/17 11:53
KBO_170116_February_COO_AM 90/10 with RTDR and RTEGSCC 90/10
AVAILABLE OPCAP MW
EXTERNAL NODE AVAIL
CAPACITY MW
NON COMMERCIAL CAPACITY MW
NON-GAS PLANNED
OUTAGES CSO MW
GAS GENERAT
OR OUTAGES CSO MW
ALLOWANCE FOR
UNPLANNED OUTAGES MW
GAS AT RISK MW
NET OPCAP SUPPLY MW
PEAK LOAD FORECAST
MWOPER RESERVE
REQUIREMENT MW
NET LOAD OBLIGATION
MW
OPCAP MARGIN
MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 ACTIVE
REAL-TIME DR MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/
OP4 actions through OP4 Step 2 MW
OPCAP FROM OP4 REAL-TIME EMER.
GEN MW
OPCAP MARGIN w/ OP4 actions
through OP4 Step 6 MW
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]4/1/2017 29,964 1,037 21 5,291 1,244 2,700 0 21,787 17,863 2,305 20,168 1,619 367 1,986 184 2,1704/8/2017 29,964 1,037 21 4,772 1,240 2,700 0 22,310 17,595 2,305 19,900 2,410 367 2,777 184 2,9614/15/2017 29,964 1,037 21 4,898 1,161 2,700 0 22,263 17,053 2,305 19,358 2,905 367 3,272 184 3,4564/22/2017 29,964 1,037 21 5,174 393 2,700 0 22,755 16,771 2,305 19,076 3,679 367 4,046 184 4,2304/29/2017 29,964 1,037 21 3,687 254 3,400 0 23,681 16,223 2,305 18,528 5,153 367 5,520 184 5,7045/6/2017 29,964 1,037 21 2,425 1,530 3,400 0 23,667 21,575 2,305 23,880 (213) 367 154 184 3385/13/2017 29,964 1,037 21 3,252 804 3,400 0 23,566 22,687 2,305 24,992 (1,426) 367 (1,059) 184 (875)5/20/2017 29,964 1,037 21 2,134 848 3,400 0 24,640 23,720 2,305 26,025 (1,385) 367 (1,018) 184 (834)5/27/2017 29,964 1,037 21 567 261 3,400 0 26,794 24,854 2,305 27,159 (365) 367 2 184 186
(3,247)1. Available OPCAP MW based on resource Capacity Supply Obligations, CSO. Does not include Settlement Only Generators.2. External Node Available Capacity MW based on the sum of external Capacity Supply Obligations (CSO) imports and exports.3. New resources and generator improvements that have acquired a CSO but have not become commercial.4. Non-Gas Planned Outages is the total of Non Gas-fired Generator/DARD Outages for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Non Gas-fired Forced Outages.5. All Planned Gas-fired generation outage for the period. This value would also include any known long-term Gas-fired Forced Outages.6. Allowance for Unplanned Outages includes forced outages and maintenance outages scheduled less than 14 days in advance per ISO New England Operating Procedure No. 5 Appendix A. 7. Generation at Risk due to Gas Supply pertains to gas fired capacity expected to be at risk during cold weather conditions or gas pipeline maintenance outages. 8. Net OpCap Supply MW Available (1 + 2 + 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 = 8)9. Peak Load Forecast as provided in the 2016 CELT Report and adjusted for Passive Demand Resources. http :/ /www.iso -ne .co m/syste m-p la nning /sys te m-p la ns-s tud ie s /ce lt10. Operating Reserve Requirement based on 120% of first largest contingency plus 50% of the second largest contingency. 11. Total Net Load Obligation per the formula(9 + 10 = 11)12. Net OPCAP Margin MW = Net Op Cap Supply MW minus Net Load Obligation (8 - 11 = 12)13. OP 4 Action 2 Real-time Demand Response based on OP4 Appendix A. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.14. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response through OP4 Step 2 (12 + 13 = 14) 15. OP 4 Action 6 Emergency Generation Response without the Voltage Reduction requiring > 10 Minutes based on OP4 Appendix A. Real Time Emergency Generation is capped at 600MW. Reserve Margins and Distribution Loss Factor Gross Ups are Included.16. OPCAP Margin taking into account Real Time Demand Response and Real Time Emergency Generation through OP4 Step 6 (14 + 15 = 16) This does not include Emergency Energy Transactions (EETs).
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
STUDY WEEK (Week Beginning,
Saturday)
This analysis is a tabulation of weekly assessments shown in one single table. The information shows the operable capacity situation under assumed conditions for each week. It is not expected that the system peak will occur every week during June, July, and August and Mid September.
February 3, 2017 - 90/10 FORECAST using CSO values
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 129
Spring 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 50/50 Forecast (Reference)
(2,000)
(1,000)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1-A
pr
8-A
pr
15-A
pr
22-A
pr
29-A
pr
6-M
ay
13-M
ay
20-M
ay
27-M
ay
Ope
rabl
e C
apac
ity M
argi
n (M
W)
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS - - with RTDR and RTEG- 50/50 FORECAST
April 1, 2017 - June 2, 2017, W/B Saturday
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC 130
Spring 2017 Operable Capacity Analysis (MW) 90/10 Forecast (Extreme)
(2,000)
(1,000)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1-A
pr
8-A
pr
15-A
pr
22-A
pr
29-A
pr
6-M
ay
13-M
ay
20-M
ay
27-M
ay
Ope
rabl
e C
apac
ity M
argi
n (M
W)
April 1, 2017 - June 2, 2017 W/B Saturday
ISO-NE 2017 OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS with RTDR and RTEG
- 90/10 FORECAST
- -
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC ISO-NE PUBLIC
OPERABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS Appendix
131
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Possible Relief Under OP4: Appendix A OP 4
Action Number
Page 1 of 2 Action Description
Amount Assumed Obtainable Under OP 4
(MW)
1 Implement Power Caution and advise Resources with a CSO to prepare to provide capacity and notify “Settlement Only” generators with a CSO to monitor reserve pricing to meet those obligations. Begin to allow depletion of 30-minute reserve.
0 1
600
2 Dispatch real time Demand Resources. February 254 3
March 362 3
April & May 367 3
3 Voluntary Load Curtailment of Market Participants’ facilities. 40 2
4 Implement Power Watch 0
5 Schedule Emergency Energy Transactions and arrange to purchase Control Area-to-Control Area Emergency
1,000
6 Voltage Reduction requiring > 10 minutes Dispatch real time Emergency Generation
134 4 February 1 3
March 177 3
April & May 184 3 NOTES: 1. Based on Summer Ratings. Assumes 25% of total MW Settlement Only units <5 MW will be available and respond. 2. The actual load relief obtained is highly dependent on circumstances surrounding the appeals, including timing and the amount of advanced notice that can be given. 3. The RTDR and RTEG MW values are based on FCM results as of January 16, 2017. 4. The MW values are based on a 26,930 MW system load and the most recent voltage reduction test % achieved.
132
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
ISO-NE PUBLIC
Possible Relief Under OP4: Appendix A
OP 4 Action
Number Page 2 of 2
Action Description Amount Assumed Obtainable
Under OP 4 (MW)
7 Request generating resources not subject to a Capacity Supply Obligation to voluntary provide energy for reliability purposes
0
8 Voltage Reduction requiring 10 minutes or less 267 4
9 Transmission Customer Generation Not Contractually Available to Market Participants during a Capacity Deficiency. Voluntary Load Curtailment by Large Industrial and Commercial Customers.
5
200 2
10 Radio and TV Appeals for Voluntary Load Curtailment Implement Power Warning
200 2
11 Request State Governors to Reinforce Power Warning Appeals.
100 2
Total February 2,801 3 March 3,085 3
April & May 3,097 3 NOTES: 1. Based on Summer Ratings. Assumes 25% of total MW Settlement Only units <5 MW will be available and respond. 2. The actual load relief obtained is highly dependent on circumstances surrounding the appeals, including timing and the amount of advanced notice that can be given. 3. The RTDR and RTEG MW values are based on FCM results as of January 16, 2017. 4. The MW values are based on a 26,930 MW system load and the most recent voltage reduction test % achieved.
133
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
96408578.1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NEPOOL Participants Committee Members and Alternates
FROM: Eric Runge, NEPOOL Counsel
DATE: January 27, 2017
RE: Interconnection Clustering Revisions
At the February 3, 2017, meeting of the Participants Committee you will be asked to vote on revisions to Sections I and II of the ISO New England Inc. (“ISO-NE” or “the ISO”) Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (“ISO-NE Tariff”) to reflect an ISO-NE proposal to enable the clustering of interconnection requests for study and cost allocation purposes (collectively, the “Interconnection Clustering Revisions”).1 At its January 24, 2017 meeting the Transmission Committee recommended Participants Committee support for the Interconnection Clustering Revisions with a vote of 73.55% in favor.2 The ISO has expressed its intent to file the revisions in late February/early March.
The Interconnection Clustering Revisions were proposed by ISO-NE and developed further by ISO-NE and NEPOOL during several NEPOOL Transmission Committee meetings from September 2016 through January 2017. The purpose of the Interconnection Clustering Revisions is to provide a clustering mechanism by which projects can be studied and information provided about the needed infrastructure and costs in a transparent way, so that projects can decide whether or not to move forward, and thereby help to reduce or eliminate backlogs in the interconnection queue caused by the lack of transmission infrastructure. The Interconnection Clustering Revisions are intended to carry out this purpose through the following primary features and activities:
(1) a trigger mechanism will identify the need for clustering when two or more interconnection requests cannot be processed without significant transmission upgrades;
1 The Interconnection Clustering Revisions and related explanatory materials from the ISO have been included with this memorandum.
2 All of the votes on this matter require a two-thirds or better vote in support to pass. The vote at the Transmission Committee on the ISO-NE’s proposal passed with a vote of 73.55% in favor. The individual Sector votes were Generation (11.42% in favor, 5.71 % opposed, 3 abstentions); Transmission (8.56% in favor, 8.56% opposed, 1 abstention); Supplier (13.70% in favor, 3.43% opposed, 2 abstentions); Alternative Resources (9.05% in favor, 5.32% opposed, 1 abstention); Publicly Owned Entity (17.13% in favor, 0% opposed); End User (13.70% in favor, 3.43% opposed, 2 abstentions); Provisional (0% in favor, 0% opposed, 1 abstention). NESCOE also stated its support for the ISO proposal.
96408578.1 -2- .
(2) once a need is triggered, a study under the Regional System Planning process, conducted through the Planning Advisory Committee, will identify the “Cluster Enabling Transmission Upgrade” or “CETU”)3 that would allow for the processing of the identified interconnection requests;
(3) a Regional System Planning process that results in a report (the “Cluster Enabling Transmission Upgrade Regional Planning Study” report or “CRPS” report) that identifies the CETU and the interconnection requests that are eligible to join a cluster study, conducted under the interconnection procedures, that would include the CETU
(4) cluster eligibility and cluster participation requirements;
(5) cluster deposit requirements;
(6) provisions for populating the cluster, withdrawal from the cluster and backfilling the cluster;
(7) provisions for the Cluster System Impact Study and Cluster Facilities Study (including cost estimates of required interconnection facilities and related transmission upgrades);
(8) cost allocation provisions that allocate costs to the participants in the cluster on the basis of a distribution factor methodology,4 which multiplies a distribution factor times the megawatt value of each interconnection customer’s project in the cluster to come up with proportionate shares of costs among cluster participants; and
(9) a transition mechanism that would make the Northern/Western Maine queue backlog the first trigger for the clustering provisions and would make the currently ongoing Maine Resource Integration Study the first CRPS, with the plan being that the initiation of a cluster would commence fairly soon after the Effective Date of the Interconnection Clustering Revisions (the Effective Date is expected to be by early May 2017).
The Interconnection Clustering Revisions do not, and are not designed to, ensure the funding of transmission infrastructure, but instead provide a mechanism for clustering of studies and cost allocation. These cost allocations do not impact sources of potential upgrade funding available to the interconnection customer, such as state procurement agreements and/or participant funding. During the course of the Transmission Committee discussions, there were two funding-related motions to amend that were introduced, one from RENEW and one from
3 The CETU is additional network transmission that must be built to enable the interconnection of two or more interconnection requests located electrically in the same part of the transmission system, and does not include interconnection facilities or other network upgrades that would need to be built to meet interconnection standards.
4 The distribution factor is the measure of responsiveness or change in electrical loading on system facilities due to a change in electric power transfer from one part of the electric system to another, expressed in percent of the change in power transfer.
96408578.1 -3- .
AVANGRID. Both proposals were put forward in the form of amendments to the ISO-NE proposal, and both failed, with the RENEW amendment receiving 63.83% support,5 and the AVANGRID proposal receiving 12.84% support.6 The RENEW amendment was intended to provide a mechanism to synchronize state energy procurements with the clustering process, and would have allowed for electric distribution companies (“EDCs”) to contract to pay for the facilities identified through the clustering process, under provisions in Schedule 11 of the ISO-NE OATT. Without the amendment, EDC-funding of the interconnection costs would need to be accomplished outside of the OATT, as they are now (e.g., via contracts between the EDC and the interconnection customer). The AVAGRID proposal proposed to recognize the costs to the interconnecting transmission owner of managing the major transmission upgrades associated with a cluster, and would have provided funding options to the interconnection customer, including: (1) the transmission owner builds the facilities and the interconnection customer makes an upfront payment to the transmission owner to reflect upgrade costs plus an appropriate markup to recognize value added by the transmission owner in managing the process; (2) the transmission owner builds the facilities and funds the upgrades, and the transmission owner receives payments from the interconnection customer over a 20-year period, with the payments including a recovery of costs and a return on investment for such funding; and (3) the interconnection customer builds and pays. Both RENEW and AVANGRID have indicated that they will pursue their amendments at the Participants Committee and their materials have been included with this memo.7
During discussion of the Interconnection Clustering Revisions proposed by the ISO and the proposed amendments to that proposal, some of those who did not support the proposals expressed some of the following concerns. For those who opposed the ISO proposal, some did so on the basis that it did not include either the RENEW or AVANGRID funding-related proposals, or, in their view, because it would not otherwise fund transmission and get transmission built. Others raised concerns that the proposal was inconsistent with Order 1000 competitive processes for transmission development. Others raised questions about the implementation of certain provisions, particularly those related to ETUs, and whether the language needs further consideration and refinement to reflect implementation details. There
5 The vote on the RENEW amendment failed to pass with a vote of 63.83% in favor. The individual Sector votes were: Generation (8.56% in favor, 8.56% opposed, 2 abstentions); Transmission (6.85% in favor, 10.28% opposed); Supplier (12.84% in favor, 4.28% opposed, 3 abstentions); Publicly Owned Entity (8.56% in favor, 8.56% opposed, 23 abstentions); Alternative Resources (9.88% in favor, 4.49% opposed); End User (17.13% in favor, 0% opposed, 2 abstentions); and Provisional Members (0% in favor, 0% opposed, 1 abstention).
6 The AVANGRID amendment failed to pass with a vote of 12.8% in favor. The individual Sector votes were Generation (0% in favor, 17.12% opposed, 3 abstentions); Transmission (12.84% in favor, 4.28% opposed, 1 abstention); Supplier (0% in favor, 17.12% opposed, 7 abstentions); Publicly Owned Entity (0% in favor, 17.12% opposed); Alternative Resources (0% in favor, 14.37% opposed, 1 abstention); End User (0% in favor, 17.12% opposed, 4 abstentions); and Provisional (0% in favor, 0.017% opposed).
7 Note that the AVANGRID marked tariff revisions do not reflect a change of scope they announced at the January 24 Transmission Committee, which is that the proposal applies only to clustered facilities and would not apply to non-clustered upgrades above a certain dollar threshold, as initially proposed. AVANGRID will confirm this change at the Participants Committee meeting.
96408578.1 -4- .
was a widespread view among committee members that the ISO’s proposal was a positive step in the right direction and will help alleviate the backlog in the queue.
For those who opposed the RENEW amendment, some did so on the grounds that it would provide for non-comparable treatment of interconnection customers, introduce potential interconnection process bias, and potential adverse market impact by facilitating funding of some projects and not others in the queue. Some raised concerns that the proposal was an attempt to build transmission to meet public policy requirements without going through the Order 1000 competitive process for public policy transmission. Others thought the proposal was outside the scope of the changes being proposed by the ISO and that the RENEW proposal needed more development time. Others expressed concern that it would lengthen the cluster study process. NESCOE stated that the states generally supported the RENEW amendment, so long as it does not delay the implementation of the ISO’s proposal, and so long as all references to NESCOE are removed from the provisions. The ISO stated its threshold concerns regarding the inclusion of state procurement processes into the federal interconnection process, particularly the introduction of additional delays. The ISO further stated that even if the RENEW proposal goes forward, there needs to be additional design work done on it, especially to make sure its provisions do not slow down the interconnection clustering process. Several Participants supported the amendment on the grounds that this proposal, or something similar, is needed to synchronize the cluster process with state energy procurements and the related agreements, without which transmission might not get funded.
For those who opposed the AVANGRID amendment, some did so on the basis that they thought that at least some of the proposal was contrary to FERC policies and precedent regarding transmission owner recovery of interconnection costs, especially with respect to the markup provision under the upfront payment option. Others expressed the views that the proposal should provide for competition, or that the proposal needed more development time and effort to provide more clarity about its implementation. NESCOE stated that the majority of the states opposed the AVANGRID amendment. The ISO noted that it has observed that there is recent FERC action on these types of issues but wanted to hear input from NEPOOL. Some Participants stated that the proposal was innovative and might help get transmission built.
During the January 24 Transmission Committee meeting, some clarifications in the language of certain documents were discussed. The ISO committed to review the language after the vote and make any non-substantive changes agreed to by the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee. The ISO has made those changes, with the approval of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transmission Committee, in Schedules 22, 23 and 25 of the ISO-NE OATT and they are marked in the documents that have been forwarded to the Participants Committee.8
8 For your convenience in finding the additional revisions they are listed here: Schedule 22: 4.2.3.2(2) – Delete extra “provision” term; 4.2.3.2(3) – Replace “CSIS commences” with “Cluster Entry Deadline”; 4.2.3.3.3 – Delete subsection reference; 4.4.1 – Deleted “original” and added “requested of the Cluster Entry Deadline”; Cluster System Impact Study Form – Corrected editorial error. Schedule 23: 1.5.3.3.2.2(2); 1.5.3.3.2.2(3); 1.5.3.3.3.3; 1.5.5 (all revised consistent with Schedule 22). Schedule 25: 4.2.1 – Added clarification regarding inclusion of Internal ETU that may be considered in place of CETU; 4.2.3.2(3) – Revised consistent with Schedule 22; 4.4.1 – Revised consistent with Schedule 22.
96408578.1 -5- .
As noted in footnote 2 of this memo, all votes on this matter are subject to a two-thirds or better threshold to pass. Additionally, none of the provisions of the ISO-NE Tariff that are being revised are Market Rules and, therefore, are not subject to the “jump-ball” provisions of the Participants Agreement.
The following resolution could be used as the main motion for Participants Committee consideration of this matter:
RESOLVED, that the Participants Committee supports the Interconnection Clustering Revisions, as recommended by the Transmission Committee and as reflected in the materials distributed to the Participants Committee for its February 3, 2017 meeting, together with [any changes agreed to at the meeting and] such non-substantive changes as may be agreed to after the meeting by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transmission Committee.
Once that resolution has been put before the Committee, the following form of resolution can be used for Committee consideration of proposed amendments to the main motion:
RESOLVED, that the Participants Committee supports the amendment to the Interconnection Clustering Revisions, as proposed by [RENEW] [AVANGRID] as reflected in the materials distributed to the Participants Committee for its February 3, 2017 meeting, together with [any changes agreed to at the meeting and] such non-substantive changes as may be agreed to after the meeting by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transmission Committee.
memo
ISO New England Inc.One Sullivan Road, Holyoke, MA 01040-2841
www.iso-ne.com T 413 535 4135 F 413 540-4226
To: Participants Committee
From: Jay Dwyer, Secretary, NEPOOL Transmission Committee
Date: January 24, 2017
Subject: Actions of the Transmission Committee
This memo is notification to the Participants Committee of the following actions taken by theTransmission Committee at its January 24, 2017 meeting. A quorum was present in all Sectors.
Agenda Item No. 1(A):
November 17, 2016 Meeting Minutes
ACTION: APPROVED
Based on a show of hands, the Transmission Committee unanimously approved the minutes of theNovember 17, 2016 and December 15, 2016 Transmission Committee meetings.
Agenda Item No. 2:ACTION: RECOMMEND SUPPORT
The following motion was moved and seconded by the Transmission Committee:
Resolved, that the Transmission Committee recommends Participants Committee support for ISO NewEngland Inc. proposed revisions to Section I.2, and Attachment K and Schedules 11, 22, 23, and 25 ofSection II of the ISO New England Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff, as reflected in thematerials distributed to the Transmission Committee for its January 24, 2017 meeting, together withany changes adopted by ISO New England Inc. at the meeting, and any non-substantive changesapproved by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transmission Committee after the meeting.
(Vote 1 – Failed (Union of Concerned Scientists Amendment on behalf of RENEW) Before themain motion could be voted, it was moved and seconded by the Transmission Committee to amendthe main motion as follows:
Resolved, that the Transmission Committee supports an amendment offered by the Union of ConcernedScientists on behalf of RENEW to ISO New England Inc.’s interconnection clustering proposalcovered in the main motion, as reflected in the RENEW amendment revisions to Section II of the ISONew England Inc. Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff contained in the materials for the January24, 2017 Transmission Committee, together with any changes agreed to at the meeting, and any non-substantive changes approved by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Transmission Committee after themeeting.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
memo
ISO New England Inc.One Sullivan Road, Holyoke, MA 01040-2841
www.iso-ne.com T 413 540 4518 F 413 535 4343
The motion to amend the main motion was then voted. The motion to amend failed with a vote of63.83% in favor. The individual Sector votes were: Generation (8.56% in favor, 8.56% opposed, 2abstentions); Transmission (6.85% in favor, 10.28% opposed); Supplier (12.84% in favor, 4.28%opposed, 3 abstentions); Publicly Owned Entity (8.56% in favor, 8.56% opposed, 23 abstentions);Alternative Resources (9.88% in favor, 4.49% opposed); End Users (17.13% in favor, 0%opposed, 2 abstentions) Provisional Members (0% in favor, 0% opposed, 1 abstention)
(Vote 2 – Failed (AVANGRID Amendment) Before the main motion could be voted, it was movedand seconded by the Transmission Committee to amend the main motion as follows:
Resolved, that the Transmission Committee supports an amendment offered by AVANGRID to ISONew England Inc.’s interconnection clustering proposal covered in the main motion, as reflected in theAVANGRID amendment revisions to Section II of the ISO New England Inc. Transmission, Marketsand Services Tariff contained in the materials for the January 24, 2017 Transmission Committee,together with any changes agreed to at the meeting, and any non-substantive changes approved by theChair and Vice Chair of the Transmission Committee after the meeting.
The motion to amend the main motion was then voted. The motion to amend failed with a vote of12.84% in favor. The individual Sector votes were Generation (0% in favor, 17.12% opposed, 3abstentions); Transmission (12.84% in favor, 4.28% opposed, 1 abstention); Supplier (0% in favor,17.12% opposed, 7 abstentions); Publicly Owned Entity (0% in favor, 17.12% opposed); AlternativeResources (0% in favor, 14.37% opposed, 1 abstention); End Users (0% in favor, 17.12% opposed, 4abstentions); Provisional (0% in favor, 0.017% opposed).
(Vote 3 – Passed (Main Motion)) The main motion was then voted. The main motion passedwith a vote of 73.55% in favor. The individual Sector votes were Generation (11.42% infavor, 5.71 % opposed, 3 abstentions); Transmission (8.56% in favor, 8.56% opposed, 1abstention); Supplier (13.70% in favor, 3.43% opposed, 2 abstentions); Alternative Resources(9.05% in favor, 5.32% opposed, 1 abstention); Publicly Owned Entity (17.13% in favor, 0%opposed); End User (13.70% in favor, 3.43% opposed, 2 abstentions); Provisional (0% infavor, 0% opposed, 1 abstention).
cc: Transmission Committee
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
Al McBride S Y S T E M P L A N N I N G
Proposed Interconnection Queue Clustering Tariff Changes
J A N U A R Y 2 4 , 2 0 1 7 | W E S T B O R O U G H , M A
Summary of Final Changes Made to the Tariff Redlines
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
2
Interconnection Queue Clustering
Proposed Effective Date: Q1/Q2 2017
• ISO New England (ISO-NE) is proposing to incorporate a clustering methodology in the Interconnection Procedures – Methodology will provide information to Interconnection Customers and to the Region
regarding the infrastructure needed to interconnect requested projects – Will provide a mechanism to expedite interconnection processing in circumstances where a
backlog would be likely to persist with the continued application of the serial queue process – Will allow, under such circumstances, for two or more Interconnection Requests (IRs) to be
analyzed in the same System Impact Study (SIS) effort – The IRs participating in a cluster would be able to share cost responsibility for certain shared
interconnection related transmission upgrades
• The ISO and NEPOOL had fruitful discussions over the course of 6 months – Preceded by discussions at the Planning Advisory Committee in March and May 2016 – Design description memo issued to the Transmission Committee (TC) on September 20, 2016 – Design description presentation made to the TC on September 27, 2016 – Suggestions by RENEW Northeast discussed at the TC on October 11, 2016 – Tariff redlines discussed at the November and December 2016 TC meetings
• Final redlines have been posted for the January 24, 2017 TC meeting and this presentation summarizes those changes, which reflect comments and suggestions raised by the members
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
3
Summary of Final Tariff Redline Changes Made in Response to TC Comments
• Attachment K – Clarified that the cost estimates provided in the CRPS (Cluster Enabling
Transmission Upgrade [CETU] Regional Planning Study) will be calculated in accordance with the proposed Schedule 11 cost allocation methodology
– Clarified that the CRPS will be posted on the ISO website – Clarified that the Maine Resource Integration Study will be the first
CRPS
• Schedule 11 – Clarified that the proposed distribution factor methodology does not
counteract the existing provision related to the treatment of Reliability Transmission Upgrades
– Clarified that Elective Transmission Upgrades (ETUs) taking the place of CETUs are not included in the cost allocation process
– Clarified that the cost allocation for bidirectional ETUs accounts for the directionality of distribution factor impact
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
4
Summary of Final Tariff Redline Changes Made in Response to TC Comments, continued
• Schedule 22 (and 23 and 25) – Sub-divided Section 4.2.3.2 for readability – Replaced “separately” with “serially” in Section 4.2 – Clarified, in Section 4.2.2, that the ISO will notify Interconnection
Customers if they are being included in a cluster – In part (2) of Section 4.2.3.2.2, changed the termination of any existing
study agreement to coincide with the execution of the cluster system impact study agreement
– Section 4.2.3.3.3 was changed to provide that all eligible backfill resources are notified at the same time
– In Section 4.2.3.4, extended the deadline to the date of Cluster System Impact Study (CSIS) execution for the indication of any contractual agreement between an ETU and another project
– Various minor ISO clean-up changes
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
Al McBride a m c b r i d e @ i s o - n e . c o m
5
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public ISO-NE PUBLIC
APPENDIX Examples of Methodology for Distribution Factor Cost Allocation and the processing of Non-Clustered Projects
6
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
• The distribution factor (DFAX) is the measure of responsiveness or change in electrical loading on system facilities due to a change in electric power transfer from part of the electric system to another, expressed in per cent of the change in power transfer
• Example:
7
DFAX Cost Allocation
CETU 1
QP100
QP120
QP121
QP122
QP101 QP102
CETU 2
CETU 3
QP100 DFAX (%)
QP101 DFAX (%)
QP102 DFAX (%)
QP120DFAX (%)
QP121 DFAX (%)
QP122 DFAX (%)
CETU1 100 0 0 100 100 0
CETU2 50 30 30 50 50 30
CETU3 50 70 70 50 50 70
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
8
DFAX Cost Allocation, continued
• The individual distribution impact will be calculated by multiplying the distribution factor by the MW size of the Interconnection Request
• The total distribution impact for the upgrade will be calculated as the sum of all of the individual distribution impacts
• The upgrade cost responsibility for entity included in the cluster would be the total cost of the upgrade multiplied by the ratio of the entity’s individual distribution impact divided by the total distribution impact for the entire cluster
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
9
DFAX Cost Allocation Example
QP100 DFAX (%)
QP101 DFAX (%)
QP102 DFAX (%)
QP120DFAX (%)
QP121 DFAX (%)
QP122 DFAX (%)
CETU1 100 0 0 100 100 0
CETU2 50 30 30 50 50 30
CETU3 50 70 70 50 50 70
Cost $M
CETU1 100
CETU2 200
CETU3 100
QP100 QP101 QP102 QP120 QP121 QP122
MW 50 100 200 100 100 200
Distribution Factors, Calculated from the Power Flow Case
MW Size of the Interconnection Request
Upgrade Cost
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
10
DFAX Cost Allocation Example, continued
QP100 Impact
MW
QP101 Impact
MW
QP102 Impact
MW
QP120Impact
MW
QP121 Impact
MW
QP122 Impact
MW
Total Impact
MW
CETU1 50 0 0 100 100 0 250
CETU2 25 30 60 50 50 60 275
CETU3 25 70 140 50 50 140 475
QP100 Impact Share
QP101 Impact Share
QP102 Impact Share
QP120Impact Share
QP121 Impact Share
QP122 Impact Share
CETU1 0.2 0 0 0.4 0.4 0
CETU2 0.09 0.11 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.22
CETU3 0.05 0.15 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.29
QP100 Cost
Alloc. $M
QP101 Cost
Alloc. $M
QP102 Cost
Alloc. $M
QP120Cost
Alloc. $M
QP121 Cost
Alloc. $M
QP122 Cost
Alloc. $M
CETU1 20 0 0 40 40 0
CETU2 18.18 21.82 43.64 36.36 36.36 43.64
CETU3 5.26 14.74 29.47 10.53 10.53 29.47
Cost $M
CETU1 100
CETU2 200
CETU3 100
Distribution Impact = MW x Distribution Factor
Impact Share = Distribution Impact/Total Impact
Cost Allocation = Cost x Impact Share
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
• Studies for an IR that does not have an electrical interaction with the cluster (e.g., assume that QP 110 does not electrically interact with the cluster) can move forward independently
• An IR that does have an interaction with the cluster (e.g., QP 111) will assume that the CETUs and the MW from earlier queued eligible IRs in the CSIS are in its base case – The cluster proposal, as well as
moving the cluster forward, will allow projects like QP 111 to also move forward
11
How Are Non-Cluster Queue Positions Processed?
CETUs
AC Bulk Power System
QP100
QP120
QP121
QP122
QP101 QP102
QP111
QP110
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
Al McBride S Y S T E M P L A N N I N G
Interconnection Queue Proposed Clustering Methodology
O C T O B E R 2 6 , 2 0 1 6 | W E S T B O R O U G H , M A
Transmission Committee
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
2
Project Title: Interconnection Queue Clustering
Proposed Effective Date: Q1/Q2 2017
• ISO New England (ISO-NE) is proposing to incorporate a clustering methodology in the Interconnection Procedures
• The proposed clustering methodology will allow, under specific circumstances, for two or more Interconnection Requests (IRs) to be analyzed in the same System Impact Study (SIS) effort
• The IRs participating in a cluster would share cost responsibility for certain shared interconnection related transmission upgrades
• Design description memo issued to the Transmission Committee on September 20, 2016
• Design description presentation made to the Transmission Committee on September 27, 2016
• Suggestions by RENEW Northeast discussed at the Transmission Committee on October 11, 2016
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
3
Purpose of Today’s Presentation
• To discuss the comments received regarding ISO-NE’s proposal
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
BACKGROUND Review
4
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
5
Background
• The ISO-NE Interconnection Queue has experienced a persistent backlog of requests to interconnect in northern & western Maine
• Elsewhere in New England, the Interconnection Queue has proceeded well – On average, system impact studies are completed within a year of the
interconnection request
• All of the other ISOs/RTOs include some form of clustering in the interconnection process – Stakeholders have requested that ISO-NE investigate clustering – In response to an American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) petition,
FERC held a technical conference regarding interconnection issues in May 2016
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
6
Addressing the Issues
• In 2015, ISO-NE began a two-phase discussion with Stakeholders to address these specific interconnection issues
• The first phase of the ISO-NE interconnection process improvements was approved by FERC in April 2016 (FERC Docket No. ER16-946-000) – Designed to make wind and other inverter-based generator projects
more “study-ready,” similar to conventional generators • Reactive performance requirements for wind generators • New technical data requirements for wind and inverter-based generators
• The second phase of interconnection process improvements focuses on how to address the identified infrastructure issues – This proposed clustering methodology – Maine Resource Integration Study
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
7
A Note on The AWEA Petition*
• The AWEA Petition for Rulemaking argued for a number of interconnection process changes including: – Reforms to improve certainty in the study/restudy process – Requirements for timely and accurate studies and restudies – Limitations on restudies or the provision cost-certainty that would
eliminate the need for restudies – Requirements to provide cost estimate information earlier in the study
process – Requirements to standardize study costs – Reforms to improve transparency in the interconnection process – Reforms to improve certainty of network upgrade costs
• All of the above objectives would be harmed by the application of a poorly designed clustering methodology or by the unnecessary application or over-application of clustering
*FERC Petition of Rule Making: RM15-21-000
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
8
Interactions with the Forward Capacity Market
• The procedures already include a form of an annual cluster study – A CNR Group Study is conducted as part of qualification for each
Forward Capacity Auction (FCA)
• Resources that enter the interconnection queue before the FCA Show of Interest deadline may apply to the FCA – Resources may have a completed System Impact Study, or, may have
just entered queue
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
• In the FCM Group Study, requesting resources are studied in queue order and will be qualified for the FCA if needed upgrades can be completed in time – Later queued resources will
learn if their upgrades depend on the outcome for earlier resources
• Resources that obtain a Capacity Supply Obligation receive Capacity Interconnection Service – even if they clear before an earlier queued resource – “First-cleared, first served”
9
Interactions with the Forward Capacity Market, continued
AC Bulk Power System
New Resources
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
10
Interactions with the Forward Capacity Market, continued
• The coordination of the interconnection process with FCM participation, while complicated for both ISO-NE and for participating resources, has been successful in allowing many projects to move forward
• The imposition of a (second) clustering methodology in all circumstances where there are new resources in proximity would over-complicate and impede FCM participation – Resources would have to await the outcome of the additional
clustering process before having sufficient information to participate in FCM
– Such a design would run counter to the competitive dynamic that is created under the current FCM Group Study design
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
11
Objective of the Proposed Clustering Design
• Provide a mechanism to expedite interconnection processing in circumstances where ISO-NE determines that a backlog would be likely to persist with the continued application of the serial queue process – Do so without harming the overall efficient participation of new
resources in the Forward Capacity Market – Limit the likelihood of re-study – which is key to the success of the
clustering approach
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
SUMMARY OF THE ISO-NE PROPOSAL
Review
12
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
13
ISO-NE Proposal: Two-Phase Process
Phase 1
• Identification of cluster study trigger
• CETU Regional Planning Study
• Conducted in the Regional Planning Process (Attachment K)
• Scope and results presented and discussed with PAC
• 12 months best-efforts to complete
• Study will identify: • CETU Description
• MW Quantity enabled by the CETU
• Approximate cost of CETU and associated supporting upgrades
• Eligible Queue Positions
Phase 2
• Cluster System Impact Study
• Conducted under the ISO-NE Interconnection Procedures
• Cluster is filled in queue position order by eligible queue positions electing to participate
• Cluster Entry Requirements: • 5% Deposit of expected CETU and other
upgrades cost allocation responsibility – forfeited upon withdrawal (unless all withdraw)
• Site Control
• All Data and Models required for a system impact study
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public ISO-NE PUBLIC
FEEDBACK REGARDING CUSTOMER COMMENTS The following slides provide feedback regarding the comments received on the ISO-NE proposal
14
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
CLUSTER TRIGGER DESIGN
15
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
16
Modification to Trigger Threshold
• In response to Stakeholder feedback, ISO-NE has modified the proposed threshold for the cluster formation trigger to include one or more new 115 kV or greater transmission lines
• ISO-NE is not proposing to use a cost threshold to trigger the cluster process – Costs estimates are not known until the end of the System Impact
Study – Some projects chose to pay (even relatively large) upgrade costs that
have been assessed for a given Interconnection Request under the serial queue construct
• ISO-NE is not proposing to introduce clustering in every circumstance where there are resources in proximity – As described earlier, this would run counter to the objectives of the
clustering design *October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 6
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
17
Modification to ISO-NE Proposal: Cluster Trigger
• A cluster approach will be triggered by ISO-NE’s identification of the following circumstances in the ISO New England Interconnection Queue 1. There must be a backlog of two or more requests in the same part of
the ISO-NE transmission system 2. ISO-NE must have identified that none of the applicable
interconnection requests will be able to interconnect, either on an individual basis or as a cluster, without incurring significant transmission upgrades (i.e., one or more new 115 kV or above transmission line(s) or HVDC lines) • The ‘significant transmission upgrades’ shall be known as Cluster
Enabling Transmission Upgrades (CETU)
• ISO-NE will announce and discuss the creation of a given cluster with the PAC through the Regional Planning Process
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
CETU REGIONAL PLANNING STUDY Additional Details
18
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
19
Additional Details Regarding the Scope of the CETU Regional Planning Study
• In response to Stakeholder feedback* ISO-NE is providing additional details regarding the deliverables in the CETU Regional Planning Study (the Phase 1 study) – A study report will be posted to the PAC website providing:
• a planning level description of the CETU and an order-of-magnitude estimate, developed by the applicable Transmission Owner, of the costs for the CETU
• a list of other network upgrades that may be needed in addition to the CETU and an order-of-magnitude estimate, developed by the applicable Transmission Owner, of the costs for those upgrades
– the CRPS will not provide descriptions of expected Interconnection Facilities (e.g., the lead connecting the resource to the CETU) for specific Interconnection Requests in the cases where the Interconnection Facilities cannot be finalized until the actual Interconnection Requests that will be moving forward in the cluster is known
• the approximate megawatt quantity of resources that could be interconnected in a manner that meets the (i) Network interconnection standards and (ii) Capacity interconnection standards
• a list of the Interconnection Requests, by Queue Position that are identified as eligible to participate in the Cluster Interconnection System Impact Study
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 10
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
20
Additional Details Regarding the Results of the CETU Regional Planning Study
• In response to Stakeholder feedback* ISO-NE is providing additional details regarding the review of the CETU Regional Planning Study (the Phase 1 study) – A review of the study report will take place at the Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) – If necessary, discussions will take place at more than one PAC meeting
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 11
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
21
The Updating of Points of Interconnection
• Additional discussion was requested* regarding the updating of Points of Interconnection (POI)
• The updating of POIs is already provided for under today’s procedures – no further change is required – Section 7.2 of the current LGIP
» If the Interconnection System Impact Study uncovers any unexpected result(s) not contemplated during the Scoping Meeting … a substitute Point of Interconnection identified by the System Operator, Interconnection Customer, Interconnecting Transmission Owner, or any Affected Party as deemed appropriate by the System Operator in accordance with applicable codes of conduct and confidentiality requirements, and acceptable to each Party, such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld, will be substituted for the designated Point of Interconnection specified above without loss of Queue Position …
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 12
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
CLUSTER PARTICIPATION Feedback on Stakeholder comments regarding “opt-in”, “step-aside” & “off-ramps”
22
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
23
At the Beginning of Phase 1: Assume All Queue Positions Seek to Proceed
• The proposed Phase 1 process will not seek expressions of interest from a subset of the area queue positions* – It is assumed that all of the Interconnection Requests in the queue
intend to proceed toward interconnection – Unlikely that projects will know they are ready to move forward 12
month before the completion of the Phase 1 CETU Regional Planning Study
– Such expression of interest would not be binding and projects could change their decision
• ISO-NE will develop the scope of the (Phase 1) CETU Regional Planning Study based on the Interconnection Requests that are located in the same part of the ISO-NE transmission system
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 9
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
24
Eligible Projects May Not Refuse to be Clustered
• Once the cluster provisions have been triggered, eligible projects may not refuse to be considered within the cluster study – Including in cases where an IR’s serial System Impact Study is already
underway
• Refusing to be clustered would block the progress of the interconnection process for all other eligible projects
• Conversely, an Interconnection Request with a completed System Impact Study may not elect to join a cluster – The interconnection study phase is complete for such a project
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 7
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
25
Choices at the Beginning of the Phase 2 Study
• In response to Stakeholder feedback* ISO-NE is providing additional details regarding the entry into the Cluster SIS
• All eligible Interconnection Requests that are located in the same part of the ISO-NE transmission system will be identified in the Phase 1 CETU RPS study report
• By the Cluster Entry Deadline, eligible projects will have the following choices: 1. Enter the cluster 2. Move to the bottom of the queue in the same relative queue order as other
eligible projects that make this choice (no new $50,000 Interconnection Request deposit)
3. Withdraw the Interconnection Request, and receive a refund of the unspent portion of the $50,000 IR deposit
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 8
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
CLUSTER WITHDRAWAL Off Ramps
26
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
27
CPD Refundable if Cluster Initially Undersubscribed
• In response to Stakeholder feedback* ISO-NE will include a provision whereby the initial Cluster Participation Deposit is refundable, upon withdrawal, following the determination that the cluster is initially undersubscribed as indicated by IR participation immediately following the cluster entry deadline – E.g., If the cluster was developed to enable 1,000 MW and only 500
MW met the cluster entry requirements, then, before the commencement of the Cluster SIS, projects may withdraw and receive refund of the CPD
– Such a process may required multiple iterations before stasis is reached and the CSIS can start
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 18
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
28
CPD Refundable if Cost Estimate Changes Significantly
• In response to Stakeholder feedback* ISO-NE will include a provision whereby the Cluster Participation Deposit is refundable upon withdrawal when the total cost of the CETU and network upgrades for the cluster has increased by a given percentage – Seeking feedback from the Transmission Committee regarding the
appropriate percentage
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 18
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
29
No Additional Deposit at the End of the SIS
• The proposal will not require an additional Cluster Participation Deposit* at the end of the Cluster System Impact Study – Sufficient commitment from the initial CPD at cluster entry and the
additional CPD that follows the Cluster Facilities study
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 19
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
FORM OF DEPOSITS
30
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
31
Why is the Cluster Participation Deposit Required?
• The initial CPD is required to demonstrate commitment to proceeding towards interconnection – Because it will include more than one project, the cluster study is
dependent on more than one project moving forward • Projects in the cluster need assurance that the other cluster projects are also
moving forward
• The additional CPD is required before entering the Interconnection Agreement phase so that there is reassurance of commitment to move forward before developing all of the Interconnection Agreement details
• Unless forfeited, the initial and additional CPD (including any additional reallocations) are returned following the payment of the cost responsibility deposit required by the Interconnection Agreement
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
32
Cluster Participation Deposits
• The proposal will require that Cluster Participation Deposits are in the form of cash, consistent with other deposits provided to ISO-NE in the interconnection process – This is necessary to ensure commitment to completing the cluster
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 21
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
33
Deposits Due with Interconnection Agreement
• In response to Stakeholder feedback* the proposal will call for 20% (instead of the initially proposed 100%) of the total upgrade costs to be provided in the form of cash to the Transmission Owner(s) upon execution of the IA – Once paid, ISO-NE will return the initial and additional CPDs (including
any additional reallocations) to the IRs with executed IAs
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 20
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
CLUSTER SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY
34
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
35
Application of the Network Capability Interconnection Standard*
• Detailed examples regarding the application of the Network Capability Interconnection Standard (“minimum interconnection standard”), in the context of clustering, will be provided at the November 16, 2016 PAC meeting as part of the discussion of the Maine Resource Integration Study
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 13
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
• Studies for an IR that does not have an electrical interaction with the cluster (e.g., QP 110 – assume that it does not electrically interact with the cluster) can move forward independently
• An IR that does have an interaction with the cluster (e.g., QP 111) will assume that the CETUs and the MW from earlier queued eligible IRs in the CSIS are in its base case – The cluster proposal, as well as
moving the cluster forward, will allow projects like QP 111 to also move forward
36
How Are Non-Cluster Queue Positions Processed?
CETUs
AC Bulk Power System
QP100
QP120
QP121
QP122
QP101 QP102
QP111
QP110
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
37
CETU is Not Redesigned During SIS
• ISO-NE will develop the Phase 1 CETU Regional Planning Study by studying the ranges of MW in the Interconnection Queue – As such, the CRPS may include CETU solutions that are based upon the
total MWs of eligible projects expected to enter the CSIS – See example of the Maine Resource Integration Study
• Recall that, according to the trigger design, all of the eligible projects in the cluster require new enabling infrastructure
• Therefore, it will not be necessary to redesign the CETU during the SIS if an eligible project withdraws*
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 14
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION OF ELECTIVE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES
38
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
39
Can Elective Transmission Upgrades Participate in the Cluster?
• Elective Transmission Upgrades (ETUs) can participate in the cluster in Queue Position order – External ETUs can be considered as eligible projects
• Participate in the same way as generators • Requested import and export capability are recognized
– Internal ETUs can be considered as eligible projects and/or potential CETU solutions* • An ETU will only be considered in the place of a CETU for the cluster in the
case where all of the eligible projects in the cluster that need to use the CETU have made a contractual commitment to pay for the ETU
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 23
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
ISO-NE INTERNAL USE
ISO-NE PUBLIC
INTERCONNECTION UPGRADE COST ALLOCATION
40
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
41
ISO-NE Proposal: Upgrade Cost Allocation
1. Direct allocation of direct-connect costs • e.g., the generator lead that would connect the generator to the CETU
2. CETUs will be allocated to each cluster project by MW ratio share • e.g., if a $500 million CETU enables the interconnection of 500 MW of
resources, then a 100 MW project in the cluster would be allocated a CETU contribution cost of $100 million
3. Network upgrades (other than the CETU(s)) will be allocated to each project in the cluster by MW ratio share • e.g., if the re-conductoring of an existing line costs $50 million and there are
500 MW of resources in the cluster, then a 100 MW project would be allocated a cost of $10 million
4. All upgrade costs paid by Interconnection Customers in the cluster • No regional or local rate-payer support for interconnection upgrades
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
42
Why Use Upgrade Cost Allocation on a Per-MW Basis?
• The methodology hinges on “enabling” upgrades – None of the projects could interconnect without the enabling
upgrades – The amount of generation that the upgrades can enable will be limited
by MW
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
• The distribution factor (DFAX) is the measure of responsiveness or change in electrical loading on system facilities due to a change in electric power transfer from part of the electric system to another, expressed in per cent of the change in power transfer
• Example:
43
For Discussion: Alternative Cost Allocation
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 15
CETU 1
QP100
QP120
QP121
QP122
QP101 QP102
CETU 2
CETU 3
DFAX (%)
QP100 QP101 QP102 QP120 QP121 QP122
CETU1 100 0 0 100 100 0
CETU2 50 30 30 50 50 30
CETU3 50 70 70 50 50 70
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
44
For Discussion: Alternative Cost Allocation, Continued
• The individual distribution impact will be calculated by multiplying the distribution factor by the MW size of the Interconnection Request
• The total distribution impact for the upgrade will be calculated as the sum of all of the individual distribution impacts
• The upgrade cost responsibility for an entity included in the cluster would be the total cost of the upgrade multiplied by the ratio of the entity’s individual distribution impact divided by the total distribution impact for the entire cluster
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
45
For Discussion: Late Comer Provision
• Would apply only to CETUs and their costs – not other upgrades – Because of the expected investment in, utilization of and importance of CETUs
• Late Comer Projects (LCPs)* are IRs being placed into commercial operation within 5 years of the commercial operation of the CETU. The obligation to reimburse a share of the CETU costs would be conditional on the following for the LCP:
1. Connects directly to the CETU; or 2. Connects to a substation where the CETU terminates; or 3. Has an impact on the CETU that is greater than 5% of the CETU normal rating or
has a distribution factor on the CETU that is ≥ 20% using the distribution factor methodology described above
• Late Comer Projects would reimburse, to the other cluster projects and LCPs that have contributed to the payment of the CETU, the corresponding reduction in CETU costs (including depreciation, ARR compensation, LCP payments, other) for those other cluster projects and LCPs that would have occurred if the LCP had participated in the original CETU cost determination – Assessment utilizes the LCP’s individual/cluster SIS model to determine cost
allocation – May need to be modified based on the cost allocation selected (slide 45 vs 47)
*October 11 RENEW Northeast TC Presentation – Slide 17
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
46
Conclusion & Next Steps
• ISO-NE has incorporated many of the suggestions made by Stakeholders on the clustering design
• November Transmission Committee – Tariff redlines – Any stakeholder alternative redlines (see memo to the Transmission
Committee dated October 21, 2016)
• December Transmission Committee – Vote on tariff redlines – Any stakeholder amendments (see memo to the Transmission
Committee dated October 21, 2016)
• January 2017 – NEPOOL Participants Committee vote – FERC filing
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
Al McBride a m c b r i d e @ i s o - n e . c o m
47
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public ISO-NE PUBLIC
APPENDIX Previously presented description of the ISO-NE proposal
48
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
49
Why Does the Design Have Two Phases?
• The first phase (the CETU Regional Planning Study) provides a significant amount of information to Interconnection Customers regarding the infrastructure needed and costs – Interconnection Customers can decide to move forward or not
• As a comparison: – The California ISO methodology also includes two primary phases –
with increased commitment required to enter the second phase – The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project was effectively carried
out in two phases • The first phase was conducted in the regional planning process • The second phase was conducted in the interconnection process
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
50
ISO-NE Proposal: Withdrawal, Re-study, Backfill & Oversubscription
• An additional 5% Cluster Participation Deposit is required to move from the Facility Study phase to the Interconnection Agreement phase
• Cluster Participation Deposit(s) forfeited upon withdrawal – Divided among remaining cluster participants on a per-MW basis – All deposits returned if everyone withdraws
• Cluster is re-studied if there is a withdrawal – Cost responsibilities updated – Later-queued eligible projects can enter the cluster (backfill) if there is a
withdrawal (which could mitigate the need for a re-study)
• If a cluster is oversubscribed (more eligible projects remain in the queue than can ultimately be accommodated by the CETU), then another CETU Regional Planning Study will be commissioned – First round of eligible projects proceed with the first CETU cluster study – Process is repeated for second round of eligible projects – with a second
CETU cluster study
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
51
What is the Proposed Transition?
• The current Maine Resource Integration Study will form the basis of the first cluster study – It will provide the:
• CETU(s) Description • MW Quantity enabled by the CETU(s) • Approximate cost of CETU(s) and associated supporting upgrades • Eligible Queue Positions
– Interconnection Requests in the interconnection queue located in the relevant portions of Northern and Western Maine that do not have a completed System Impact Study by the effective date of the clustering methodology will be considered as eligible resources
– The CSIS entry deadline will be 30 Calendar Days after the later of the effective date of the clustering methodology or the issuance of the final Maine Resource Integration Study report
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
ISO-NE Public
52
What will not change?
• The current “default” serial interconnection process and cost allocation methodology will continue for all queue positions, unless they participate in a cluster
• The addition of the proposed cluster methodology in the Interconnection Procedures will not change the existing service products that result from the interconnection processes – Resources meeting the applicable procedural milestones will continue to be eligible to
request and receive Network Resource Interconnection Service, or Network Import Capability Interconnection Service in the case of eligible external ETUs, and Capacity Network Resource Interconnection Service, or Capacity Network Import Capability Interconnection Service in the case of eligible external ETUs
• Finally, there will be no changes to the existing dispatch, market and OATT structures within the ISO-NE Tariff – No introduction of firm reservations, grandfathering or point-to-point rights over the
any Pool Transmission Facilities, including those that are built/upgraded as a result of the cluster or serial SIS processes
– Internal transmission facilities, regardless of categorization for rate purposes, will be operated/scheduled by ISO-NE without recognition of physical transmission rights
– No change to the FCM milestones or procedures – Requested CTRs and ARRs will be allocated for system upgrades as appropriate in
accordance with existing rules
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
Francis Pullaro Executive Director
Voice: 646-734-8768 Email: [email protected]
Web: renew-ne.org
Q&A on RENEW Northeast Amendment to ISO New England Cluster Study Process
January 27, 2017
1. The RENEW proposal imposes a mandate on the states.
False. The RENEW proposal gives the states a free option to: a) Receive additional information from ISO on the effectiveness of transmission alternatives
for use in state RFP evaluations b) Coordinate the timing of the ISO cluster study process with the timing of state RFP
decisions c) Require the ISO plan for use of an alternative transmission solution if selected in a state
RFP, and d) Use a pre-approved FERC method for the EDC to fund cluster upgrades if a contract for
such funding has resulted from a state RFP and requires FERC approval. All of these are options available to the states under the RENEW proposal. None are required and none are options under the ISO proposal.
2. The RENEW proposal poses risks to the states. False. Again, the RENEW proposal places no obligations on the states. It still allows the states to manage generation project risks through terms in PPAs as has been the case in past RFPs. Developers are still required to post security deposits to enter the Cluster Study even if EDCs commit to funding interconnection upgrades.
3. The RENEW proposal is “not essential” for giving states certainty of the ability to the fund the cost of network upgrades needed for clean energy generation bidding into state RFP.
False. Under the bid category of a “PPA with the Transmission Project under FERC Tariff” that was available in the tristate RFP, any transmission upgrades needed to deliver the energy was priced separately from the energy and the recovery of associated costs was to be through a FERC filed tariff (in addition to any state statute requiring approval by its utility commission). The RENEW proposal is necessary to provide certainty on the viability at FERC of this funding approach by having the concept placed into FERC pre-approved Tariff covering the cluster study process and payments.
4. The states can avoid FERC approval altogether if they use only the bid category requiring generators to include the cost of the new transmission in its bid for a PPA
True, but the bid category “PPA with the Transmission Project under FERC Tariff” gives the soliciting parties more control and greatly increases the likelihood transmission and generation projects will get built. If bundled within the PPA bid, a generator must assume what its share of cluster-related upgrade costs will be, with no knowledge of which projects will ultimately be selected in the RFP (and subsequently join the cluster). If the RFP selects fewer cluster projects than assumed, the generator’s share of upgrade costs will increase. This could cause the winning bidders to forfeit their PPAs, in turn leaving the states without projects fulfilling RFP needs. By contrast, if the transmission costs were kept separate from the generator bids, this would allow the RFP evaluation team to have control over the total, all-in cost of the generation and transmission as it would be selecting which projects to award contracts with full knowledge of the associated upgrade costs for that set of generation.
5. The RENEW proposal allows NESCOE to approve transmission upgrades and bind
the states to paying for them.
False. In the previous RENEW language developed in collaboration with NESCOE and several states, NESCOE might have communicated certain information to the ISO on behalf of a state. However, as requested by NESCOE at the January 24 Transmission Committee meeting, this been eliminated, leaving only the governor or state executive agencies with the ability to provide informational (and still non-binding) notices to ISO. RENEW has and will continue to defer to the states on how to construct the language involving the parties that can inform the ISO.
Under the RENEW proposal, only a state EDC a) with a contract in place with the interconnection customer obligating it to fund the cluster upgrades and b) that also becomes a party to the Interconnection Agreement at the end of the interconnection process would be bound to fund the upgrades. NESCOE is not involved in the selection or funding of upgrades.
6. Without the RENEW proposal, if future generation or energy import projects
utilize as part of their interconnection plans a competitively-selected transmission upgrade that was originally funded by a state to further its policy goals, that state can recover costs from those later projects (e.g. if they do not serve the state’s policy goals or if they receive a PPA with another state).
False. The RENEW proposal provides that Late Comer Projects using the headroom from a CETU cluster upgrade or ETU that has taken the place of a CETU must pay for their share of the headroom used as they connect. The ISO requires Late Comers to pay their fair share of only the CETU (the ISO-identified, incumbent-built solution), not of the ETU (competitive solution in place of the CETU). The ISO proposal lets Late Comers to state funded competitive transmission projects become free riders at the expense of ratepayers in the EDCs host state.
7. The RENEW proposal unnecessarily delays the interconnection process for small projects not requiring significant upgrades.
False. The RENEW proposal, identically to the ISO proposal, allows existing interconnection requests that are not eligible for the initial Maine cluster, because they do not require major interconnection upgrades, to move to the top of queue when the initial cluster collapses. A cluster will collapse as a result of the cluster-eligible projects not posting cluster participation deposits because they do not yet have PPAs. The RENEW proposal neither changes the likelihood of this occurring this spring nor delays its timing.
8. The RENEW proposal unnecessarily delays the overall cluster interconnection process.
False. Once the ISO begins restudying the cluster following the collapse described in Question (7), one or more states could request that ISO’s new Planning Study include evaluation of one or more competitive transmission solutions if they have an ongoing competitive procurement process in which the competitive transmission solution is participating. After the ISO completes this Planning Study, RENEW has allowed the states to postpone the opening of the window in which generators may elect to enter the Cluster Study process by up to five months if there is an ongoing competitive procurement process considering projects eligible to join the cluster and/or competitive transmission solutions. The up to five-month postponement is necessary to allow consideration by the RFP evaluation team of the results of the final Planning Study against generation and transmission bids in a pending RFP. As it is likely that no Cluster Study will form without state support from PPAs and transmission, this delay during the pending RFP evaluation is not unreasonable.
9. The ISO proposal allows for competition for needed network upgrades.
Nearly False. The states would have the ability to pick a solution and contract to pay for it, but the ISO would still require the generators in the cluster to build and pay for the ISO-identified, incumbent-built solution unless every project entering the cluster was able to show a contractual arrangement in place with the competitive transmission solution prior to submitting the Cluster Study agreement to the ISO. This is a threshold that would be extremely difficult to achieve under the timeline required in the ISO’s proposal. The RENEW proposal injects competition for transmission into the cluster process by allowing more competitive proposals to be considered by the states and requiring the ISO to recognize and utilize a transmission solution in the cluster process if it was selected in a state procurement process.
10. The RENEW proposal helps ratepayers in addition to offering competition.
True. The RENEW proposal gives states the option to have transmission be amortized and depreciated over its long useful life instead of consumers paying for the cost over a shorter time period defined by the term of a generator PPA (e.g., if the state expects the upgrade to provide benefits beyond the PPA duration).
11. The RENEW proposal requires that EDCs funding cluster interconnection upgrades recover their costs over a 40-year period.
False. This would be possible, as described in Question (10), but if a state and EDC preferred to have the transmission costs fully recovered during the lifetime of a generator’s PPA, this would still be an option. The RENEW proposal does not change or attempt to dictate how a state would run its competitive procurement process or how it would structure the resulting contracts. It only seeks to harmonize the ISO cluster study process with the state process to enable various options the states may want to utilize.
12. The RENEW proposal makes an end-run around the MOPR by reducing the apparent interconnection costs
False. The ISO Internal Market Monitor (IMM) has confirmed that under the existing Minimum Offer Price Rule, new resources would have to indicate which project cash flows are supported by a regulated rate (i.e., are "Out of Market"). The IMM considers the cost of interconnection to be a type of project cash flow, and if an EDC were funding interconnection costs as a result of a state RFP as contemplated as a possibility in the RENEW proposal, the IMM in its evaluation would replace this with the "In Market" cash flow which would be the new resource funding its entire share of interconnection upgrades. Thus, there would be no impact on a new resource’s Minimum Offer Price if an EDC were funding its interconnection costs.
Distribution Utility Funding Process for ClusterRelated Interconnection Upgrades
1
January 24, 2017
NEPOOL Transmission Committee
About RENEWAn association of the renewable energy industry and environmental advocates
united to promote renewable energy in New England and New York. The comments expressed herein represent the views of RENEW and not necessarily those of any
particular member of RENEW.
2
Overview of RENEW Proposal
(1) Integrates competitive state solicitation for transmission upgrades and energy into ISO cluster process;
(2) Injects more competition for transmission into cluster process; and
(3) Enables states through their EDCs opportunity to fund one or more generators’ share of the Cluster Enabled Transmission Upgrade (CETU), which is incumbent-built, or an Elective Transmission Upgrade (ETU), which can include a non-incumbent, in place of a CETU, under a cluster process approved by FERC.
3
Cluster & Procurement Processes
ISO Proposal
Start: ISO sends Notice of Initiation of Cluster and CRPS to Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)
End: ISO submits final CRPS report to PAC
Esti
mat
ed 1
2 m
on
ths
RENEW Proposal
1 m
on
th Cluster System Impact Study (CSIS) Entry Window
Start: CSIS
During CRPS: States submit statement to ISO that CETU or ETU supports state need; makes request for CRPS to analyze any CETU alternatives
Esti
mat
ed 1
2 m
on
ths
End: ISO submits final CRPS report to PAC that includes analysis of CETU alternatives
5 m
on
th li
mit
Soliciting parties evaluate clean energy and transmission proposals including CETU and ETU alternatives with CRPS report
ISO submits RFP results to PAC
Cluster System Impact Study (CSIS) Entry Window
1 o
r 2
mo
nth
s
Start: CSIS
State RFP
Esti
mat
ed 1
2 m
on
ths
Cluster Regional Planning Study (CRPS)
RFP issued
Soliciting parties evaluate clean energy and transmission proposals including CETU and ETU alternatives
RFP results submitted to ISO
PPAs and/or transmission agreements signed
2 m
on
ths
Bids due
CETU/ETU Legal Relationships
5
CETU/ETUDeveloper
Generator
ISO/TO EDCs
InterconnectionAgreement
InterconnectionAgreement
Benefits for States1. Tariff mechanism, FERC approved, increases efficiency and provides
information on network upgrade needs and costs by meshing timing of state competitive procurement with cluster process;
2. Injects more competition for transmission into cluster process by allowing more ETU proposals to be considered;
3. Allows the capitalized CETU, or ETU in place of the CETU, to be amortized and depreciated over its long useful life instead of consumers paying for the cost of the CETU, or ETU in place of the CETU, over a shorter time period defined by the term of a generator PPA;
4. Reduces the risk of the winning bidders ultimately forfeiting their PPAs due to altered CETU cost allocation after RFP selections are made; and
5. Developers still required to post security deposit to enter Cluster System Impact Study even if EDCs commit to funding interconnection upgrades.
6
memo
ISO-NE PUBLIC
iso-ne.com isonewswire.com @isonewengland
iso-ne.com/isotogo iso-ne.com/isoexpress
ISO New England Inc. One Sullivan Road Holyoke, MA 01040-2841 413-540-4223 [email protected]
To: New England Power Pool Participants Committee
From: Alan McBride, Director, Transmission Strategy & Services
Date: February 1, 2017
Subject: ISO-NE Response Regarding RENEW Amendment
At the February 3, 2017 meeting, ISO New England Inc. (the “ISO”) will be asking the Participants Committee to provide advisory input on the ISO’s proposed revisions to Sections I and II of the ISO New England Inc. Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (“ISO Tariff”) to incorporate a locational specific clustering methodology in the Interconnection Procedures (the “Clustering Revisions”). The Clustering Revisions provide the mechanism to expedite interconnection processing in circumstances where a backlog resulting from a lack of significant infrastructure would be likely to persist with the continued application of the serial queue process. At the February 3 meeting, the Participants Committee will also be asked to consider RENEW’s proposed amendments to the ISO’s Clustering Revisions. The ISO provides this memorandum to explain its reasoning for not supporting RENEW’s proposal to insert a sate procurement process into the ISO New England interconnection process.
First, the RENEW proposal is unnecessary as the ISO’s Clustering Revisions already provide a mechanism for the states to provide input to the ISO. Specifically, the Clustering Revisions incorporate into the ISO New England interconnection process a two-phased clustering methodology, the first phase of which provides for the identification of the projects that may be eligible to participate in a cluster study, the infrastructure needed to interconnect the projects and the associated costs in an open and transparent forum – the Regional System Planning Process. The states, and any other interested stakeholder, can take an active role in that phase of the process and inform the ISO of its views on the infrastructure and even identify other solutions for the ISO’s consideration. The outcome of the first phase of the clustering process can be used to inform the state selection process taking place outside of the interconnection process, and those projects that are selected, may elect to move forward, in that case having the certainty of underlying state-sponsored power purchase agreements. Additionally, a state or electric distribution company is already able to commit to pay any or all of an interconnection project’s costs outside of, and without causing a delay to, the interconnection process.
Second, the ISO’s interconnection process is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“the Commission”) under the principles of open transmission access whereby those public utilities that offer transmission services must offer nondiscriminatory, standardized interconnection service. However, as RENEW explains in the materials provided for the Participants Committee meeting, the RENEW proposal provides for the insertion of state procurement processes into the ISO’s interconnection process. More specifically, the RENEW proposal would require the ISO to delay the cluster study process to allow for the conduct of a portion of a state procurement process, in which the state may be considering, with no obligation to purchase, some of the projects that may be identified as eligible to participate in a cluster. In
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
Participants Committee February 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2
ISO-NE PUBLIC
iso-ne.com isonewswire.com @isonewengland
iso-ne.com/isotogo iso-ne.com/isoexpress
ISO New England Inc. One Sullivan Road Holyoke, MA 01040-2841 413-540-4223 [email protected]
addition, instead of the ISO identifying the upgrades required to interconnect, the proposal would obligate the ISO to evaluate and use transmission solutions that are selected by one or more states through the state procurement process for the interconnection of the selected projects regardless of whether or not those transmission solutions are available to all area projects that are seeking to interconnect to the system.
As a practical matter, the proposed insertion of a state procurement process into the interconnection process will introduce significant delays, uncertainties and costs into the interconnection process, thereby aggravating the very concerns that have been raised by RENEW in the past. The proposal would be harmful to other projects that are identified as eligible to participate in a cluster, but are not pursuing the same or any state procurement process as a funding source, as well as to those projects outside of the cluster, including lower-queued small projects, that will be delayed because they depend on the certainty of the cluster.
For these reasons, the ISO cannot support the RENEW proposal.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
www.avangrid.com 1
Paul Dumais
Transmission Committee Proposal
January 24, 2017
Interconnection
Clustering – Cost
Recovery of
Transmission
Upgrades
www.avangrid.com 2
Purpose: Discuss changes to the Transmission Owner cost recovery proposal for CETUs, cluster-enabled
Network Upgrades and other significant Interconnection Network Upgrades
Agenda:
1. Proposal - January 11 meeting
2. January 11 Feedback and AVANGRID Response
3. Payment option scenarios
4. Tariff Changes
TIME: 90 Minutes
Table of Contents
www.avangrid.com 3
Principles
1. Typical generator interconnections are limited in scale and scope (generally
lines to connect into transmission network) and current practices is that they
are 100% paid by developer. The NETOs recover ongoing O&M costs monthly
under the IA based upon current transmission formula rate information.
2. The scale and scope of CETUs and Network Upgrades from the Maine Cluster
Study (and future Cluster studies) would be a size and magnitude significantly
beyond that of typical generator interconnections. The CETUs and Network
Upgrades would be additions to the Bulk Electric System that are identified as
part of a regional planning process. These upgrades will require significant
NETO resources to manage, plan, design, site, procure and construct and
could present substantial challenges to the execution of NETO capital
investment plans
3. Therefore, Avangrid considers it critical that an appropriate ratemaking
mechanism is in place for CETUs and cluster related Network Upgrades,
similar to that in place for Reliability Benefit Transmission Upgrades but
charged to the interconnecting customer and not load customers. Avangrid
also proposes to extend this treatment to significant Network Upgrades
resulting from non-cluster interconnections
www.avangrid.com 4
Proposal on January 11
1. Applies to: a. CETUs and Network Upgrades identified under clustering; and
b. Significant Network Upgrades for non-cluster system impact studies
(equal to or greater than $100 M).
2. Interconnecting customers have two options for paying for upgrades
described in Item 1 above: a. Pay net present value of revenue requirement of cost of upgrades in
advance, recognizing value brought by TO; or
b. TO funds upgrades and interconnecting customer pays over time
using revenue requirement construct for Pool Transmission Facility
Reliability Benefit Upgrades (Attachment F).
c. This optionality consistent with current FERC proposal contained in
recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Interconnection Reforms
(RM17-8-000)
www.avangrid.com 5
Feedback from January 11 TC Meeting With AVANGRID Revisions
Feedback AVANGRID January 24 Revisions
Upfront payment should not include NPV of 40 year revenue requirement (about 20% over costs). Desire to keep upfront payment option that exists today.
Costs plus an appropriate markup (to be negotiated) - similar to EPC construct. Markup recognizes value provided by TO for these substantial upgrades. Interconnecting Customer has option to build CETUs in accordance with TO standards, approved contractors and oversight (and turn over facilities for TO ownership and maintenance).
Credit support as proposed for pay over time option is expensive
Credit support during construction same as today. Once interconnecting customer facilities in commercial operation, credit support for rolling five years of payments )
Pay over time period can vary depending on customer specific situation. And NPV construct may not pick up changes due to income taxes or ROE
Investment recovery period of 20 years unless other recovery period mutually acceptable. Calculations point to regional formula rate where returns and income taxes change over time
www.avangrid.com 6
TO Builds - Pay Upfront – Revised Proposal
1. Negotiated markup over costs, recognizing the value brought by the
interconnecting TO:
a. Interconnecting customer pays for O&M same as today;
b. The amount of markup not credited to Attachment F or Schedule 21;
c. Deposits and credit requirements same as today.
www.avangrid.com 7
TO Builds - TO Funds and Interconnecting Customer Pays Over Time - Revised Proposal
1. TO funds upgrades and interconnecting customer pays over 20 year period using
revenue requirement construct in Attachment F with 20 year investment depreciation
a. 20% deposit still required from interconnecting customer and TO will refund
upon commercial operation;
b. TO to recover investment over 20 years using Attachment F, excluding O&M
elements and with depreciation of investment over 20 year. TO and
interconnecting customer can negotiate different recovery period depending on;
i. Term of any contract that interconnecting customer has to sell its service;
ii. Credit worthiness of interconnecting customer; and
iii. Other items as appropriate.
2. Interconnecting customer pays for O&M same as today; and
3. Revenue received by TO to be credited to Schedule 21, where investment and
costs reside.
www.avangrid.com 8
TO Builds - TO Funds and Customer Pays Over Time – Credit Requirements
1. TO will require security during construction – same as today; and
2. Once interconnecting customer facilities in commercial operation,
TO requires security for rolling five years of payments.
www.avangrid.com 9
Summary - Options For Interconnecting Customers
1. TO build upgrades and IC pays upfront;
2. TO builds upgrades and IC pays over 20 years;
3. IC builds upgrades.
www.avangrid.com 10
Provisions for Competition in Clustering
1. Generators in cluster can partner with transmission developer and
have an Elective Transmission Upgrade (ETU) as all or some of
CETUs (ISO-NE proposal);
2. State can opt-in with results of RFP and have ISO-NE study
ETU(s) from RFP process as all or some of CETUs (RENEW
Northeast proposal); or
3. Interconnecting customer has option to build CETUs (AVANGRID
proposal here and being considered in FERC Interconnection
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
www.avangrid.com 12
Tariff Revisions
1. Definitions
2. Schedule 11
3. Schedule 22 and IA
4. Schedule 23 and IA
5. Schedule 25 and IA
www.avangrid.com 13
Treatment of Cluster-like Transmission Upgrades in other
Regional Transmission Organizations
www.avangrid.com 14
Treatment in Other RTOs
1. CAISO: permits interconnection facilities to be eligible for regional
recovery (like RBTUs in NE) if the network upgrades meet the following
criteria:
a. The Network Upgrades consist of new transmission lines 200 kV
or above, and have capital costs of $100 million or greater;
b. The Network Upgrade is a new 500 kV substation that has capital
costs of $100 million or greater; or
c. The Network Upgrades have a capital cost of $200 million or
more.
CAISO tariff permits regional recovery (like RBTUs in NE) of public policy-
driven transmission solutions designed to facilitate delivery of energy to
meet state RPS.
www.avangrid.com 15
Treatment in Other RTOs
2. SPP: direct assignment facilities for standard interconnections – customer
pays (like NE). For Network Upgrades related to an interconnection,
included in transmission revenue requirements and all or a part is eligible
for regional cost allocation (like RBTUs in NE) and the rest included in local
rates (like Local RBTUs in NE).
a. Direct Assignment Upgrade Costs are:
i. Paid as a lump-sum; or
ii. Paid as periodic charges - payment equal to NPV of the annual
revenue requirements over a 20 year plant life (using the levelized
fixed charge rate, based on full depreciation over a 20 year plant
life and including operating and maintenance expenses and any
applicable tax consequences)
3. MISO: standard interconnections – customer pays (like NE). For
upgrades to deliver energy in support of public policies are called Multi-
Value Projects and are included in regional transmission rates (like RBTUs
in NE)
Large Generation Interconnections
TO Build - Today and Two CETU Options
Comparison Today Today - O&M Option A Aotion A - O&M Option B Option B - O&M
Current Approach with
Interconnections - Pay
for construction as it
occurs
Annual O&M
and Property
Tax payments
Proposed Option
A - Pay for
construction as it
occurs
Annual O&M
and Property
Tax payments
Pay annual
revenue
requirement
over 20 years
Annual O&M
and Property
Tax payments
Capital Expenditure (1)500 500 500
Financing (AFUDC rate) 5.0%
Capitalized Asset 500$ 500$ 536$
Utility Margin Adder 0.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Total Expenditure 500$ 800$ 550$ 800$ 1,110$ 800$
O&M % 4.0% 4.0% 3.7%
Present Value (Yr-4) @ 10.0% 374$ 134$ 411$ 134$ 379$ 134$
Construction cost timing:
Year -3 5% 25$ -$ 28$ -$ -$ -$
Year -2 17% 85$ -$ 94$ -$ -$ -$
Year -1 43% 215$ -$ 237$ -$ -$ -$
Year 0 35% 175$ -$ 193$ -$ -$ -$
Year 1 20$ 20$ 87$ 20$
Year 2 20$ 20$ 84$ 20$
Year 3 20$ 20$ 80$ 20$
Year 4 20$ 20$ 77$ 20$
Year 5 20$ 20$ 73$ 20$
Year 6 20$ 20$ 70$ 20$
Year 7 20$ 20$ 66$ 20$
Year 8 20$ 20$ 63$ 20$
Year 9 20$ 20$ 60$ 20$
Year 10 20$ 20$ 56$ 20$
Year 11 20$ 20$ 53$ 20$
Year 12 20$ 20$ 50$ 20$
Year 13 20$ 20$ 46$ 20$
Year 14 20$ 20$ 43$ 20$
Year 15 20$ 20$ 40$ 20$
Year 16 20$ 20$ 37$ 20$
Year 17 20$ 20$ 35$ 20$
Year 18 20$ 20$ 33$ 20$
Year 19 20$ 20$ 31$ 20$
Year 20 20$ 20$ 29$ 20$
Year 21 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 22 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 23 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 24 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 25 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 26 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 27 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 28 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 29 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 30 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 31 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 32 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 33 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 34 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 35 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 36 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 37 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 38 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 39 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
Year 40 20$ 20$ -$ 20$
(1) Capital Expenditure includes: Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Fees, Spares, Contingency, EPC Project Mgmt, EPC A&G, and Utility A&G
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
AVANGRID Revisions: Comparison
Net Present Value Revenue Requirement Network Upgrade Revenue Requirements (excluding management fee) Lvl ARR 51$ 55$ 63$ 68$ 74$
536$ Maine For $1,000 Capital 40-yr 30-yr 20-yr 15-yr 10-yr FIT - Book FIT Bonus SIT Capital Weighted Weighted
Investment 536$ Structure Rate Present Value 635 635 635 591 501 MULTIPLIER FACTOR Tax Depr (180) (19) (161) (27) CMP Structure AT AT ETR PT PT
PTROR 12.985% ATROR 7.687% Equity 55% 11.070% Equity 10-yr PMT 93 93 93 87 74 Investment Total Cost PV Book Depr 27$ 27 - 27$ Equity 55% 11.07% 6.09% 40.80% 18.70% 10.29%
Depreciation Rate 5.00% Debt 45% 6.000% Debt 15-yr PMT 73 73 73 68 57 $1= 1.18315 Tax - Book Depr (153) 8 (161) - Debt 45% 3.55% 1.60% 40.80% 6.00% 2.70%
Property Tax 0.00% SIT 8.93% SIT 20-yr PMT 63 63 63 59 50 Discount Rate: 7.687% ~ATROR SIT 14 (1) 14 - ROR 100% 7.69% 12.99%
O&M and A&G 0.00% FIT 35% FIT 30-yr PMT 55 55 55 51 43 (139) 7 (147)
Escalation 1.00% CCBT 40.80% CCBT 40-yr PMT 51 51 51 48 41 0.408045 FIT (49) 3 (51)
* Estimate uses CMP capital structure of 55% equity at 11.07% and debt at 6% for 40-year asset 0.318745
O&M, Property Taxes and Depreciation Expense Rate Base **Estimate includes 30% Bonus Depreciation for assets placed in service 2019 & 2020 30% Composite Composite
O&M Exp - Property Book Initial Accumulated Net EOP for ME EOP for ME Prepay, M&S EOP for ME Return on Revenue PV Present 15-yr Tax Accum Combined EOP for ME Bonus Accum Accum MACRS Same
Year Transmission Taxes Depreciation Total Exp Investment Depreciation Plant Net Plant ADIT Working Capital Rate Base Investment Requirement Factor Value Year MACRS Depreciation Tax Depr SIT&FIT ADIT SIT&FIT ADIT FIT Depr MACRS for Model Answer
1 - - 27$ 27 536 (27)$ 510 510 (49) - 461 60 87 92.86% 80 1 5.000% 27 (27) (49) (49) (180) 27.26% 27.2628% (49) 0.272628203
2 - - 27$ 27 536 (54)$ 483 496 (54) - 443 57 84 86.23% 73 2 9.500% 51 (78) (54) (54) (215) 34.54% 7.2737% (54)
3 - - 27$ 27 536 (80)$ 456 469 (57) - 412 54 80 80.08% 64 3 8.550% 46 (124) (57) (57) (248) 41.08% 6.5463% (57)
4 - - 27$ 27 536 (107)$ 429 443 (59) - 384 50 77 74.36% 57 4 7.695% 41 (165) (59) (59) (276) 46.97% 5.8917% (59)
5 - - 27$ 27 536 (134)$ 402 416 (60) - 356 46 73 69.05% 50 5 6.926% 37 (202) (60) (60) (302) 52.28% 5.3025% (60)
6 - - 27$ 27 536 (161)$ 376 389 (59) - 330 43 70 64.12% 45 6 6.233% 33 (236) (59) (59) (326) 57.05% 4.7723% (59)
7 - - 27$ 27 536 (188)$ 349 362 (58) - 304 39 66 59.55% 39 7 5.905% 32 (267) (58) (58) (348) 61.57% 4.5211% (58)
8 - - 27$ 27 536 (215)$ 322 335 (57) - 278 36 63 55.30% 35 8 5.905% 32 (299) (57) (57) (370) 66.09% 4.5211% (57)
9 - - 27$ 27 536 (241)$ 295 308 (56) - 252 33 60 51.35% 31 9 5.905% 32 (331) (56) (56) (392) 70.61% 4.5211% (56)
10 - - 27$ 27 536 (268)$ 268 282 (55) - 227 29 56 47.68% 27 10 5.905% 32 (362) (55) (55) (415) 75.13% 4.5211% (55)
11 - - 27$ 27 536 (295)$ 241 255 (54) - 201 26 53 44.28% 23 11 5.905% 32 (394) (54) (54) (437) 79.65% 4.5211% (54)
12 - - 27$ 27 536 (322)$ 215 228 (53) - 175 23 50 41.12% 20 12 5.905% 32 (426) (53) (53) (459) 84.18% 4.5211% (53)
13 - - 27$ 27 536 (349)$ 188 201 (52) - 149 19 46 38.18% 18 13 5.905% 32 (457) (52) (52) (481) 88.70% 4.5211% (52)
14 - - 27$ 27 536 (376)$ 161 174 (51) - 124 16 43 35.46% 15 14 5.905% 32 (489) (51) (51) (503) 93.22% 4.5211% (51)
15 - - 27$ 27 536 (402)$ 134 148 (50) - 98 13 40 32.93% 13 15 5.905% 32 (521) (50) (50) (525) 97.74% 4.5211% (50)
16 - - 27$ 27 536 (429)$ 107 121 (44) - 77 10 37 30.58% 11 16 2.952% 16 (536) (44) (44) (536) 100.00% 2.2606% (44)
17 - - 27$ 27 536 (456)$ 80 94 (33) - 61 8 35 28.39% 10 17 - (536) (33) (33) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% (33)
18 - - 27$ 27 536 (483)$ 54 67 (22) - 45 6 33 26.37% 9 18 - (536) (22) (22) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% (22)
19 - - 27$ 27 536 (510)$ 27 40 (11) - 29 4 31 24.49% 7 19 - (536) (11) (11) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% (11)
20 - - 27$ 27 536 (536)$ - 13 (0) - 13 2 29 22.74% 6 20 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
21 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 21.11% (0) 21 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
22 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 19.61% (0) 22 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
23 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 18.21% (0) 23 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
24 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 16.91% (0) 24 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
25 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 15.70% (0) 25 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
26 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 14.58% (0) 26 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
27 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 13.54% (0) 27 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
28 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 12.57% (0) 28 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
29 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 11.68% (0) 29 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
30 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 10.84% (0) 30 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
31 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 10.07% (0) 31 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
32 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 9.35% (0) 32 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
33 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 8.68% (0) 33 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
34 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 8.06% (0) 34 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
35 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 7.49% (0) 35 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
36 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 6.95% (0) 36 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
37 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 6.46% (0) 37 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
38 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 6.00% (0) 38 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
39 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 5.57% (0) 39 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
40 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 5.17% (0) 40 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
41 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 4.80% (0) 41 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
42 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 4.46% (0) 42 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
43 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 4.14% (0) 43 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
44 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 3.84% (0) 44 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
45 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 3.57% (0) 45 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
46 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 3.32% (0) 46 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
47 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 3.08% (0) 47 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
48 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 2.86% (0) 48 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
49 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 2.65% (0) 49 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
50 - - -$ - 536 (536)$ - - (0) - (0) (0) (0) 2.47% (0) 50 - (536) (0) (0) (536) 100.00% 0.0000% -
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
AVANGRID Revisions: Comparison
Summary of AVANGRID Proposed Tariff Revisions
Section I.2
Adding definition of “Significant Interconnection Upgrades”
Schedule 11
Section 5
Section 7
Section 8
Schedule 22, Appendix 6 (Large Generator Interconnection Agreement)
Article 1 (adding definition of “Significant Interconnection Upgrades”)
Article 5.1.3
Article 5.2
Article 11.3
Article 11.7
Schedule 23 (Standard Small Generator Interconnection Agreement)
Article 4.1.2
Article 5.2
Article 5.5
Attachment 1 (Glossary of Terms) (adding definition of “Significant Interconnection Upgrades”)
Schedule 25, Appendix 6 (Elective Transmission Upgrade Interconnection Agreement)
Article 1 (adding definition of “Significant Interconnection Upgrades”)
Article 5.1.3
Article 5.2
Article 11.3
Article 11.7
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5
AVANGRID Revisions: Summary
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96161665.6
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NEPOOL Participants Committee Members and Alternates
FROM: Pat Gerity and Jennifer Galiette, NEPOOL Counsel
DATE: January 27, 2017
RE: Proposal to Implement a Small Standard Offer Supplier Sector Group Seat
At the February 3, 2017 meeting, you will be asked to approve for balloting amendments to the NEPOOL and Participants Agreements that would create a “Small Standard Offer Group Seat” in the Supplier Sector (the “Proposal”). As reported at the January 6 teleconference meeting, the Proposal is designed to facilitate participation by Market Participants1 who are solely serving standard offer load and whose average hourly Real-Time Load Obligation (“RTLO”) (looking back over all hours with RTLO during the prior 12 months) is 10 MWh or less through a group seat arrangement in the Supplier Sector. Since the January 6 Participants Committee meeting, the Proposal was further discussed and considered at the January 18 Membership Subcommittee meeting. As more fully described below, those participating in that discussion did not reach a consensus with respect to the Proposal. This memorandum provides additional materials describing the Proposal in more detail and includes a draft One Hundred Thirtieth Agreement that would effect the changes to the NEPOOL and Participants Agreements required to implement the Proposal (the “Amendments”).
As reported previously, discussion leading to the Proposal was initiated by Maine Power LLC, which has since been selected by the Maine Public Utilities Commission to serve large non-residential class standard offer load in Maine’s Emera Maine - Bangor Hydro District. The Proposal was vetted amongst and refined by those participating in the November and December Membership Subcommittee meetings , and subject to further discussion and consideration at the January Subcommittee meeting.
The Subcommittee did not reach a consensus on the Proposal. Those supporting the Proposal expressed the view that it was consistent with NEPOOL’s history of implementing appropriate arrangements to facilitate participation in the New England Markets and stakeholder process. They further asserted that it was designed to ensure that it would only be of very limited impact from Participant Expense and voting share allocation perspectives. Those who did not support the Proposal identified a number of continuing concerns, including (i) concerns that application of the proposed treatment would not necessarily be limited to Entities defined in the Proposal and could be requested by others in similar but not exactly the same circumstances (“slippery slope” concerns); (ii) if not limited, concerns with potential impacts on Participant Expense allocation; (iii) a discomfort with establishing arrangements applicable to too-narrow a class of Entity; and (iv) a preference to maintain consistent requirements/obligations for all competitive suppliers (“level playing field”).
This Proposal is at the stage of requiring a Participants Committee decision as to whether to proceed to ballot Amendments to governing documents that would be required to implement the Proposal. A motion to ballot must be approved by two-thirds Vote and, if approved, the ballots would be circulated
1 Capitalized terms used but not defined in this memorandum are intended to have the same meaning given to such terms in the Second Restated New England Power Pool Agreement (the “2d RNA”), the Participants Agreement, or the ISO New England Inc. (“ISO-NE”) Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (“ISO-NE Tariff”).
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96161665.6 -2- .
for signature. The changes to the governing documents could only be made if the Amendments reflected in the Proposal are then approved in balloting by 66.67% Vote from enough members to satisfy the Minimum Response Requirement.
The following form of resolution could be used to direct the balloting of the proposed Amendments:
RESOLVED that the Participants Committee authorizes and directs the Balloting Agent (as defined in the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement) to circulate ballots for the approval of agreements amending the New England Power Pool Agreement and Participants Agreement, to effect the Small Standard Offer Group Seat Proposal, as presented at this meeting, together with [such changes as were discussed and agreed to by the Committee and] such non-substantive changes as may be agreed to after the meeting by the Chair or any Vice-Chair of the Participants Committee, to each Participant for execution by its voting member or alternate on this Committee or such Participant’s duly authorized officer.
If approved in balloting, the Amendments would be filed with the FERC with a request that they become effective as of March 1, 2017. If there are any questions in advance of the meeting concerning the Amendments, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
96226338.2
ONE HUNDRED THIRTIETH AGREEMENT AMENDING NEW ENGLAND POWER POOL AGREEMENT
(Small Standard Offer Supplier Proposal)
THIS ONE HUNDRED THIRTIETH AGREEMENT AMENDING NEW ENGLAND POWER POOL AGREEMENT, dated as of February 3, 2017 (“130th Agreement”), amends the New England Power Pool Agreement (the “NEPOOL Agreement”).
WHEREAS, effective February 1, 2005 the NEPOOL Agreement was amended by the One Hundred Seventh Agreement Amending New England Power Pool Agreement and restated as the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement, and has subsequently been amended numerous times; and
WHEREAS, the Participants desire to amend further the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement to reflect the revision detailed herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, upon approval of this 130th Agreement by the NEPOOL Participants Committee in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement, the Participants agree as follows:
SECTION 1 AMENDMENTS
1.1 Addition of Definitions. The following definitions are added to Section 1 of the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement and inserted in the appropriate alphabetical order:
Small Standard Offer Group Seat is the group in the Supplier Sector comprised of all Small Standard Offer Suppliers.
Small Standard Offer Supplier is a Participant that (a) has been selected by a New England state’s public utilities commission to provide “standard offer” electric generation service to all or a specified portion of consumers in that state receiving standard offer service; (b) serves no load except such standard offer load; and (c) whose average hourly aggregate RTLO (averaged over all hours in which that Participant had an RTLO during the prior twelve (12) calendar months) is ten (10) MWh or less.
1.2 Amendment to Section 1.50(c). Section 1.50(c) (Member Adjusted Voting Share) is amended to read as follows:
(c) for a member of the Provisional Member Group Seat or the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat which casts an affirmative or negative vote on a proposed action or amendment, is the member’s Member Fixed Voting Share.
1.3 Addition of new Section 1.51(b). The following new Section 1.51(b) (Member Fixed Voting Share) is added (with existing Sections 1.51(b) and (c) re-ordered to reflect that addition):
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96226338.2
.
(b) for a member of the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat, until there are five or more Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat members, the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat Member Fixed Voting Share shall be one-fifth of the Member Fixed Voting Share of a Supplier Sector member that is not a member of the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat times the total number of Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat members; and
1.4 Amendment to Section 1.51(c). Reordered Section 1.51(c) is amended to read as follows:
(c)(b) for a voting member of each active Sector (other than the AR Sector), whether or not the member is in attendance, is the quotient obtained by dividing (i) the Sector Voting Share of the Sector to which the Participant or group of Participants which appointed the voting member belongs by (ii) the total number of voting members appointed by members of that Sector, adjusted, if necessary, to take into account (A) the manner in which the voting shares of End User Participants are to be determined while they are members of the Publicly Owned Entity Sector, and (B) any required change in the voting share of the Transmission Group Member, as determined in accordance with Section 6.2(b), and (C) the voting share of the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat; and
1.5 Amendment to Section 3.1(c). Section 3.1(c) (Membership) is amended to read as follows:
(c) The application fee to be paid by each Entity seeking to become a Participant (i) shall be in addition to the annual fee provided by Section 14.1 and (ii) shall be $500 for an applicant which qualifies for membership only as an End User Participant or a Data-Only Participant, $1,000 for an applicant which together with its Related Persons owns or controls less than 5 MW (or its equivalent) of Alternative Resources and qualifies for membership as an AR Provider or an applicant which qualifies for membership as a Provisional Member, $1,500 for an applicant which qualifies for membership as a Small Standard Offer Supplier, and $5,000 for all other applicants, or such other amount as may be fixed by the Participants Committee.
1.6 Amendment to Section 14.1(d). Section 14.1(d) (Annual Fee) is amended to read as follows:
(d) Each Provisional Member and Small Standard Offer Supplier Participantshall pay an annual fee of $1,500.
1.7 Amendment to Section 14.2(e)(1). Section 14.2(e)(1) (Participant Expenses) is amended to read as follows:
(1) in the Supplier Sector, Related Person Suppliers and Small Standard Offer Suppliers shall each pay a portion of the Supplier Sector share in the same proportion as the vote that Participant is entitled to in the Supplier Sector;
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96226338.2
.
SECTION 2 MISCELLANEOUS
2.1 This 130th Agreement shall become effective March 1, 2017, or on such other date as the Commission shall provide that the amendment reflected herein shall become effective.
2.2 Capitalized terms used in this 130th Agreement that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96226338.2
.
AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO PARTICIPANTS AGREEMENT
(Small Standard Offer Supplier Proposal)
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO PARTICIPANTS AGREEMENT (“Amendment No. 10”) is made and entered into as of this 3rd day of February, 2017 by and between ISO New England Inc. (the “ISO”) and the New England Power Pool, an unincorporated association created pursuant to the New England Power Agreement dated as of September 1, 1971, as amended and restated, acting herein by and through the NEPOOL Participants Committee (“NEPOOL”).
WHEREAS, the Participants Agreement by and among the ISO and NEPOOL became effective as of February 1, 2005 and has subsequently been amended nine times.
WHEREAS, the ISO and NEPOOL desire to amend the Participants Agreement to reflect the revisions detailed herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, upon approval of this Amendment No. 10 by the ISO and by the NEPOOL Participants Committee in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Participants Agreement, the ISO and NEPOOL agree as follows:
1. Amendments to Section 1.1 (Defined Terms).
1.1 Addition of Definitions of Small Standard Offer Group Seat and Small Standard Offer Supplier. The following definitions are added to Section 1.1 of the Participants Agreement:
“Small Standard Offer Group Seat” shall mean the group in the Supplier Sector comprised of all Small Standard Offer Suppliers.
“Small Standard Offer Supplier” shall mean a Participant that (a) has been selected by a New England state’s public utilities commission to provide “standard offer” electric generation service to all or a specified portion of consumers in that state receiving standard offer service; (b) serves no load except such standard offer load; and (c) whose average hourly aggregate RTLO (averaged over all hours in which that Participant had an RTLO during the prior twelve (12) calendar months) is ten (10) MWh or less.
1.2 Amendment to Definition of “Member Adjusted Voting Share”. The following sub-section (c) is added to the definition of Member Adjsuted Voting Share as follows:
(c) for a member of the Provisional Member Group Seat or the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat which casts an affirmative or negative vote on a proposed action or amendment, is the member’s Member Fixed Voting Share.
1.3 Amendment to Definition of “Member Fixed Voting Share”. The definition of Member Fixed Voting Share is amended to read as follows:
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96226338.2
.
(a) for a member of the Provisional Member Group Seat, whether or not the member is in attendance, is the quotient obtained by dividing (i) the Provisional Member Group Seat Voting Share by (ii) the total number of Provisional Members in the Provisional Member Group Seat; and
(b) for a member of the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat, until there are five or more Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat members, the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat Member Fixed Voting Share shall be one-fifth of the Member Fixed Voting Share of a Supplier Sector member that is not a member of the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat times the total number of Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat members; and
(c) for a voting member of each active Sector (other than the AR Sector), whether or not the member is in attendance, is the quotient obtained by dividing (i) the Sector Voting Share of the Sector to which the Participant or group of Participants which appointed the voting member belongs by (ii) the total number of voting members appointed by members of that Sector, adjusted, if necessary, to take into account (A) the manner in which the voting shares of End User Participants are to be determined while they are members of the Publicly Owned Entity Sector, (B) any required change in the voting share of the Transmission Group Member, as determined in accordance with Section 6.2(b), and (C) the voting share of the Small Standard Offer Supplier Group Seat; and.
(d) for a voting member of an AR Sub-Sector whether or not the member is in attendance and until the sum of the Member Fixed Voting Shares of the Sub-Sector voting members equals or exceeds the Fully Activated Sub-Sector Voting Share, is either 1 2/3% if the voting member represents a Participant or Participants which own or control, together with their Related Persons, more than 15 MW (or its equivalent) of Alternative Resources or 1% if the voting member represents less than 15 MW (or its equivalent) of Alternative Resources. When the sum of the Member Fixed Voting Shares of the AR Sub-Sector voting members equals or exceeds the Fully Activated Sub-Sector Voting Share, the Member Fixed Voting Share for the voting member whether or not the voting member is in attendance will be the quotient obtained by dividing (i) the Fully Activated Sub-Sector Voting Share by (ii) the total number of voting members appointed by Participants in that Sub-Sector.
2. Effective Date. This Amendment No. 10 shall become effective on March 1, 2017 or on such other date as the Commission shall provide that the amendments reflected herein shall become effective.
3. Counterparts. Counterparts of this Amendment No. 10 may be signed by the parties, each of which shall be an original but both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
4. Governing Law. This Amendment No. 10 shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96226338.2
.
5. Miscellaneous. Terms used in this Amendment No. 10 that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Participants Agreement, the Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement, or the ISO’s Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff.
[The next page is the signature page.]
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
96226338.2
.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the ISO and NEPOOL have caused this Amendment No. 10 to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.
ISO NEW ENGLAND INC. NEW ENGLAND POWER POOL acting through the NEPOOL Participants Committee
By:____________________________ By:______________________________ Name: Gordon van Welie Name: Thomas W. Kaslow Title: President and Chief Executive Officer Title: Chair, NEPOOL Participants
Committee
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEEFEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
Revised Draft for Discussion Dec 27, 2016
Small Standard Offer Supplier Sector Group Seat Proposal
Eligibility:
• Must have been selected by a New England state’s public utilities commission as a
standard offer provider to provide all or a specified portion of electric generation service
to consumers in that state receiving standard offer service.
• Only serves standard offer load.
• Average hourly load (aggregate customer hourly RTLO) over the last 12 months of 10
MWh or less.
Principal Committee Participation and Voting Share:
• Small Standard Offer Suppliers to participate as members of a Small Standard Offer
Group Seat in the Supplier Sector.
• Group Seat would have the same Member Fixed Voting Share and Member Adjusted
Voting Share as other members of the Supplier Sector once the Group Seat achieves five
members.
• Until the total number of Group Seat members is five, the Group Seat Voting Share shall
be the Member Fixed Voting Share and Member Adjusted Voting Share of the other
members of the Supplier Sector times the quotient obtained by dividing the total
number of Group Seat members by 5.
Annual Fee (§ 14.1):
• $1,500 each.
Participant Expenses (§14.2):
• Each Group Seat member would pay monthly participant expenses equal to one-twelfth
(1/12) of the following amount: the amount of Participant Expenses paid by an
individual voting Participant in the Supplier Sector (other than a Related Person
Supplier) pursuant to Section 14.1(f) of the 2dRNA during the previous calendar year,
multiplied by the Group Seat Member’s fractional Voting Share of the Group Seat Voting
Share.
Revised Draft for Discussion Dec 27, 2016
Proposed Definition of Small Standard Offer Supplier (§1):
A Small Standard Offer Supplier is a Participant that (a) has been selected by a New England
state’s public utilities commission to provide “standard offer” electric generation service to all
or a specified portion of consumers in that state receiving standard offer service; (b) serves no
load except such standard offer load; and (c) its average agregate hourly RTLO (averaged over
all hours with RTLO during the prior twelve (12) calendar months) is ten (10) MWh or less.
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
96425355.5
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NEPOOL Participants Committee Members and Alternates
FROM: NEPOOL Counsel
DATE: February 1, 2017
RE: Implications of the Resignation of Norman Bay and the Lack of a FERC Quorum
Responding to numerous questions asked of us recently, as of Friday, February 3, the number of sitting FERC Commissioners will shrink to two, which means that Commission will lack a quorum and will be unable to vote on orders, regulations or policy initiatives. This memorandum summarizes what we can expect to happen until the President appoints, and the Senate confirms, additional Commissioners for the FERC. Attached is a table that identifies pending matters being tracked in the NEPOOL litigation report and our thoughts concerning the impact on those matters.
The FERC developments follow a series of events since President Trump took office. First, on January 20, 2017, the White House issued a broad directive to all executive agencies, referred to as the Regulatory Freeze memorandum, that directed all federal departments and agencies to publish no new regulations or to temporarily postpone regulations that have not yet taken effect.1 Second, on Monday, January 23, 2017, President Trump elevated Cheryl LaFleur to Acting Chairman of the Commission. Three days later, on January 26, former Chairman, now Commissioner, Norman Bay announced that he would resign from the Commission on Friday, February 3, 2017. The following day, Acting Chairman LaFleur issued a statement explaining that the Regulatory Freeze no longer applied to the FERC because, as provided in that memo, there was a “triggering event” that permitted continued FERC regulatory actions.2
While the Commission cannot, without a quorum, issue substantive orders, regulations, or policy initiatives,3 the Commission continues to have statutory obligations that need to be met. The Commission satisfies many of its routine obligations through delegated authority and generally has broad statutory authority to perform acts and to make rules that are necessary or appropriate to carry out its statutory functions.4 The matters now delegated to staff generally are uncontested matters “which in many cases represent nothing more than a ministerial judgment by
1 White House Management and Budget Office, Regulatory Freeze Pending Review, 82 Fed. Reg. 8346 (Jan. 20, 2017). The Regulatory Freeze memorandum the White House issued on January 20, 2017 does not apply to the FERC at this time.
2 FERC Statement on Regulatory Freeze Memorandum, available at https://ferc.gov/media/news-releases/2017/2017-1/01-27-17.asp.
3 42 U.S.C. § 7171(e) (2012). 4 See Regulations Delegating Authority, Order No. 492, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,814, at 31,117
& n.2 (1988) (citing 16 U.S.C. 825h (Federal Power Act), 15 U.S.C. 717o (Natural Gas Act), and 15 U.S.C. 3411 (Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978)).
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
96425355.5 -2-
.
the office director concerning procedural matters.”5 The scope of this existing delegated authority is set forth in Part 375, Subpart C, of the FERC’s regulations, and expressly prescribes the tasks that can be performed by the various office directors.6
Recognizing its pending inability to act on certain matters, the Commission has indicated that it will issue a supplemental delegation order that will grant expanded authority to certain FERC office directors.7 Significantly, none of the existing delegations, or the additional authority that may be delegated, allows the Commission, without a quorum, to rule on contested cases, to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity, to adopt new rules,8 or to rule on initial decisions that are issued by one of the FERC’s Administrative Law Judges.
It is unclear when the Commission will have a third confirmed member. Recently, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, issued a statement concerning the Commission’s lack of a quorum, stating that she would make it “a top priority to work with President Trump and my colleagues to move nominees rapidly and to re-establish a working quorum on the Commission.”9 While predictions about the timing of the Presidential nomination and confirmation process are often imperfect, given the numerous issues surrounding the new administration’s nominations and confirmations across the executive branch, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Commission will be without a third voting member, and therefore a quorum, for at least the next two to three months.10
Given these circumstances, we expect during the interim the following impacts on New England matters (and have grouped them accordingly in the attached table):
• Pending Filings. Filings on which the Commission must act or those filings will otherwise be “deemed accepted”11 are likely to be acted on by delegated authority, either (i) subject to a deficiency letter if there are matters staff concludes require further information or explanation; (ii) being approved by letter order if acceptable
5 See J.R. Ferguson and Assoc., 20 FERC ¶ 61,132 at p. 61,291 (1982). 6 18 C.F.R. §§ 375.301 – 315 et seq. (2016). 7 The Commission issued an order delegating authority in 1993 when it similarly anticipated that
it would lack a quorum. See Order Delegating Authority to the Secretary and Certain Office Directors, 63 FERC ¶ 61,073 (1993).
8 On Monday, January 30, 2017, an Executive Order requiring “that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination.” At this time, it is not clear how this Executive Order will be applied to the FERC’s existing or future rulemakings. Seehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/30/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-and-controlling.
9 Available at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/sen-murkowski-statement-on-ferc-quorum.
10 For example, Commissioner Honorable was nominated by President Obama in August 2014 and was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate until December 2014. Commissioner Honorable’s term expires in June 2017.
11 16 U.S.C. § 824d(d) (2016).
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
96425355.5 -3-
.
and unchallenged by a party; or (iii) if challenged or unacceptable in part, conditionally approved subject to refund and/or further action by the Commission.
• Compliance Filings. Compliance filings will generally remain pending without Commission action (since there is no statutory time by which the Commission must act on such filings), though some may be accepted by letter order if uncontested.
• Contested Cases. We expect that contested cases that have already been set for hearing or settlement will proceed without interruption in accordance with their procedural schedules. Pending Offers of Settlement or Initial Decisions will remain pending without Commission action.
• Requests for Rehearing. Matters subject to requests for rehearing will remain pending with Staff likely issuing orders, referred to as “tolling orders,” that prevent rehearing from being denied by operation of law because of Commission inaction.12
• Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (“NOPRs”). No Commission action will be taken on NOPRs or in response to Administrative (“AD” Docket) Proceedings until after a quorum is re-established and the Commission has been able to consider fully the comments provided. NOPRs with comment deadlines that have not passed will proceed according to the published schedules.
12 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(f) (2016).
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
96425355.5 -4-
.
Current New England Matters (summarized in the Feb. 1, 2017 Litigation Report)
Pending Filings (delegated action expected):
• ER17-680 (Sub-Hourly Settlement NCPC Changes) (uncontested) • ER17-576 (Effective Date Update: Fast Start Pricing & DARD Pump Parameter Changes) (uncontested) • ER17-857 (Attachment K Revisions - Public Policy Transmission Studies Timeline
Modifications and Clean-Up/Admin Changes to Section 6.3 and Appendices 2 & 3) (uncontested)• ER17-899 (February 2017 Membership Filing) (uncontested)• ER17-795 (CONE & ORTP Updates) (expected to be contested)• EC17-62 (203 Application: NSTAR/WMECO Merger) (Jan 1, 2018 effective date requested;
order not expected before July 2017)
Compliance Filings (will remain pending unless uncontested):
• ER17-774 - Order 825 Compliance: 5-Min. Settlement of Regulation Capacity & Service Credit (uncontested)
• ER16-2695 (New England’s Orders 827/828 Compliance Filing) (uncontested) • ER13-2266 (2013/14 Winter Reliability Program Remand Proceeding) • EL11-66 (Opinion 531-A/531-B Regional & Local Refund Reports) • EC16-93 (203 Application: GDF Suez Energy Resources/Atlas Power (Dynegy/ECP))
Contested Cases Set for Settlement Judge Proceedings/Hearings (to proceed uninterrupted; no final action will be taken):
• EL16-120 (NEPGA PER Complaint) • EL16-64 (Base ROE Complaint IV (2016)) • EL16-19 (RNS/LNS Rates and Rate Protocols) • ER15-1434 et al. (Schedule 21-EM: Recovery of BHE/MPS Merger-Related Costs) • ER15-1429 et al. (Emera MPD OATT Changes) • EL13-33/EL14-86 (Base ROE Complaints II & III (2012 & 2014) – initial decision pending)
Rehearing Requests (will remain pending):
• EL16-120 (NEPGA PER Complaint) (Expected) • ER17-337 (Natural Gas Index Changes) (Possible)• EL16-64 (Base ROE Complaint IV (2016)) (tolled)• ER16-2451 (FCM Enhancements) (tolled)• ER16-551 (FCM Resource Retirement Reforms) (tolled)• ER14-1639 (Demand Curve Changes Remand Proceedings) (tolled)• RM16-15 (Order 833: Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) Procedures) (tolled)• RM16-5 (Order 831: Price Caps in RTO/ISO Markets) (tolled)• RP16-618 (Algonquin EDC Capacity Release Bidding Requirements Exemption Request)
NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
96425355.5 -5-
.
NOPRs/Admin Proceedings (comment deadline in parentheses if not passed) (no action will be taken):
• PL17-1 (NOI: FERC's Policy for Recovery of Income Tax Costs & ROE Policies) (Mar 8)• RM17-8 (LGIA/LGIP Reforms) (Feb 16)• RM17-3 (Fast Start Pricing in RTO/ISO Markets) (Feb 8)• RM16-22 (New NERC Reliability Standards: PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1) (pending)• AD16-25 (Electric Storage Resource Utilization in RTO/ISO Markets) (pending)• AD16-18 (Competitive Transmission Development Rates) (pending)• AD16-17 (Reactive Supply Compensation in RTO/ISO Markets) (pending)• AD16-16 (PURPA Implementation) (pending)• AD14-14 (Price Formation in RTO/ISO Energy & Ancillary Services Markets) (pending)• RM16-17 Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance/MBR Purposes) (pending)• RM16-6 (Primary Frequency Response - Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-
Power System) (pending)• RM16-13 (Revised Reliability Standards: BAL-005-1 & FAC-001-3) (pending)• RM14-7 (ATC NOPR - Revised Reliability Standard MOD-001-2) (pending)• RM13-6 (BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand NOPR) (pending)
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page ES-1
41536280.171
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Status Report of Current Regulatory and Legal Proceedings
as of February 1, 2016
The following activity, as more fully described in the attached litigation report, has occurred since the report dated January 4, 2017 was circulated. New matters/proceedings since the last Report are preceded by an asterisk ‘*’. Page numbers precede the matter description.
I. Complaints/Section 206 Proceedings
1 NEPGA PER Complaint (EL16-120)
Jan 19
Jan 25 Jan 26 Feb 1
FERC (i) grants in part NEPGA’s complaint and (ii) sets in part for hearing and settlement judge procedures the question of the appropriate method of calculating the PER Strike Price; refund effective date of Sep 30, 2016 established Chief Judge Cintron designates H. Peter Young as settlement judge NHEC moves to intervene out-of-time Judge Young schedules 1st settlement conference for Feb 16
2 Base ROE Complaint IV (2016) (EL16-64)
Jan 13 Jan 17 Jan 23
FERC Trial Staff on behalf of active parties submits discovery plan Trial Judge Glazer issues order adopting discovery plan Trial Judge Glazer establishes procedural schedule, which includes hearings Aug 2-8 and an initial decision by Nov 15
II. Rate, ICR, FCA, Cost Recovery Filings
5 ICR-Related Values and HQICCs – Annual Reconfiguration Auctions (ER17-472)
Jan 9 FERC accepts ICR-Related Values, eff. Jan 30
III. Market Rule and Information Policy Changes, Interpretations and Waiver Requests
* 5 CONE & ORTP Updates (ER17-795)
Jan 13
Jan 17-Feb 1
ISO-NE files updates to CONE, Net CONE, ORTP values; comment date Feb 3 Calpine, ConEd, Exelon, National Grid, NESCOE intervene
* 5 Order 825 Compliance: 5-Min. Settlement of Regulation Capacity & Service Credit (ER17-774)
Jan 11
Jan 17-25
ISO-NE and NEPOOL jointly file changes to settle Regulation Capacity Credit and Regulation Service Credit on a 5-minute (rather than on an hourly) basis EPSA, National Grid, NRG intervene
5 Sub-Hourly Settlement NCPC Changes (ER17-680)
Jan 5-17 National Grid, Eversource, Exelon intervene
6 Effective Date Update: Fast Start Pricing and DARD Pump Parameter Changes (ER17-576)
Jan 5-6 Eversource, National Grid intervene
6 Natural Gas Index Changes (ER17-337)
Jan 9 FERC accepts changes, eff. Jan 10
7 Waiver Request: RTEG Resource Type/De-List (ER16-1904)
Jan 19 FERC denies CPower request for rehearing of the ISO RTEG Waiver Request Order
9 2013/14 Winter Reliability Program Remand Proceeding (ER13-2266)
Jan 23 ISO-NE submits compliance filing recommending that “there is insufficient demonstration of market power to warrant modification of program”; comment date Feb 13
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page ES-2
41536280.171
IV. OATT Amendments / TOAs / Coordination Agreements
* 10 Attachment K Revisions (ER17-857)
Jan 26
Jan 30
ISO-NE and NEPOOL file revisions to modify the Public Policy Transmission Study Process timeline and to update Section 6.3(Interregional Coordination) and Appendices 2 and 3; comment date Feb 16 NESCOE intervenes
V. Financial Assurance/Billing Policy Amendments
No Activity to Report
VI. Schedule 20/21/22/23 Changes
10 Schedule 23: FPL Energy Wyman SGIA (ER17-581)
Jan 19 FERC accepts non-conforming SGIA governing interconnection of Wyman’s 16 MW battery energy storage facility; eff. Nov 30, 2016
11 Schedule 21-ES: Eversource Recovery of NU/NSTAR Merger-Related Costs (ER16-1023)
Jan 31 FERC approves settlement agreement
11 Schedule 21-EM: Recovery of BHE/MPS Merger-Related Costs (ER15-1434 et al.)
Jan 11 Settlement Judge Dring issues status report indicating that the parties have reached a settlement in principal and are memorializing their agreement, and recommending settlement procedures be continued
VII. NEPOOL Agreement/Participants Agreement Amendments
No Activity to Report
VIII. Regional Reports
* 12 IMM Quarterly Markets Reports - 2016 Fall (ZZ16-4)
Jan 27 IMM files 2016 Fall Report
* 12 LFTR Implementation: 32nd Quarterly Status Report (ER07-476)
Oct 14 ISO files its 32nd quarterly report
IX. Membership Filings
* 13 February 2017 Membership Filing (ER17-899)
Jan 31 NEPOOL requests the FERC accept (i) the membership of NRDC; (ii) the termination of Artis Energy Holdings, EMI Power Systems, Jeffrey A. Jones, and Powerex; and (iii) the name change of NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC; comment date Feb 21
13 January 2017 Membership Filing (ER17-682)
Jan 25 FERC accepts (i) the memberships of Emera Energy Services Subsidiaries 11-15; and (ii) the termination of the Participant status of Summit Hydropower and StatArb Investments and (iii) the name change of Calpine (f/k/a/ Noble Americas) Energy Solutions
X. Misc. - ERO Rules, Filings; Reliability Standards
13 Reliability Standard Retirement: BAL-004-0 (RD17-1)
Jan 18 FERC approves retirement of BAL-004-0
14 Order 835: Revised Reliability Standard: BAL-002-2 (RM16-7)
Jan 19 FERC approves BAL-002 Changes, eff. [60 days after publication in the Federal Register]
14 Order 830-A: New Reliability Standard: TPL-007-1 (RM15-11)
Jan 19 FERC denies rehearing of Order 830
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page ES-3
41536280.171
XI. Misc. - of Regional Interest
* 16 203 Application: NSTAR/WMECO merger (EC17-62)
Jan 13
Jan 27
Eversource files for approval of merger of WMECO with and into NSTAR; comment date Feb 3 MA AG intervenes
16 203 Application: GDF Suez Energy Resources/Atlas Power (Dynegy/ECP) (EC16-93)
Jan 10 Jan 13 Jan 19
UWUA Local 464 and R. Clark protest Dec 27 compliance filing Applicants answer UWUA Local 464 protest UWUA Local 464 answers Applicants Jan 13 answer; Applicants answer UWUA Local 464 Jan 19 answer
* 17 LGIA: CMP/ReEnergy Livermore Falls (ER17-909)
Jan 31 CMP LGIA with ReEnergy Livermore Falls; comment date Feb 21
* 17 MOPR-Related Proceedings (PJM, NYISO) (EL16-49; ER13-62)
Jan 24, 30 NEPOOL files limited comments requesting that any Commission action or decision be limited narrowly to the facts and circumstances as presented in the applicable market/proceedings, not New England
17 Emera MPD OATT Changes (ER15-1429; EL16-13, ER12-1650)
Jan 24 Settlement Judge Dring issues status report indicating the parties have reached a settlement in principal (which is to be filed in Mar) and recommending settlement judge procedures be continued
* 18 FERC Enforcement Action: Covanta Haverhill Associates (IN17-3)
Jan 23 Feb 1
Staff issues NoV concerning Covanta’s New England activities FERC approves Agreement resolving OE’s investigation of Covanta; Covanta required to pay a civil penalty of $36,000 and implement procedures to improve compliance, subject to semi-annual report monitoring
* 19 FERC Enforcement Action: GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA (IN17-2)
Feb 1 FERC approves Stipulation and Consent Agreement with GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, requiring GSEMNA to pay a $41 million civil penalty and to disgorge $40.8 million to resolve the FERC’s investigation into violations of its Anti-Manipulation Rules
XII. Misc. - Administrative & Rulemaking Proceedings
23 NOPR: Electric Storage Participation in RTO/ISO Markets (RM16-23; AD16-20)
Jan 19-31 6 parties file comments; comment date Feb 13
* 21 NOI: FERC's Policy for Recovery of Income Tax Costs (PL17-1)
Jan 4 FERC extends comment date to Mar 8, 2017; reply comment date, Apr 7
* 21 Order 834: Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments (RM17-9)
Jan 9 FERC issues final rule increasing maximum civil monetary penalties it may assess; market manipulation penalties increased to $1,213,503 per violation, per day; eff. Jan 24, 2017
22 NOPR: LGIA/LGIP Reforms (RM17-8)
Jan 17 Schulte Associates submits comments
24 Order 833: Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) Procedures (RM16-15)
Jan 17 FERC issues tolling order affording it additional time to consider EEI’srequest for rehearing of Order 833
24 NOPR: Primary Frequency Response -Essential Rel. Services & the Evolving BPS (RM16-6)
Jan 24-25 Over 30 parties submit comments
25 Order 831: Price Caps in RTO/ISO Markets (RM16-5)
Jan 4 Jan 13 Jan 17
PJM Market Monitor opposes Exelon’s request for clarification MISO submits comments supporting NYISO request for rehearing FERC issues tolling order affording it additional time to consider requests for rehearing of Order 831
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page ES-4
41536280.171
XIII. Natural Gas Proceedings
28 New England Pipeline Proceedings Atlantic Bridge Project (CP16-9)
Jan 25 FERC grants certificate of public convenience and necessity for Atlantic Bridge Project
XIV. State Proceedings & Federal Legislative Proceedings
No Activity Reported
XV. Federal Courts
29 FCA10 Results and FCA9 Results (16-1408 and 16-1068 consol.)
Jan 17 Jan 31
FERC moves for consolidation of two proceedings Court consolidates cases
30 Order 1000 Compliance Filings (15-1139, 15-1141**) (consolidated)
Jan 13 Oral argument held before Judges Brown, Wilkins and Edwards
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 1
41536280.171
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NEPOOL Participants Committee Member and Alternates
FROM: Patrick M. Gerity, NEPOOL Counsel
DATE: February 1, 2017
RE: Status Report on Current Regional Wholesale Power and Transmission Arrangements Pending Before the Regulators, Legislatures, and Courts
We have summarized below the status of key ongoing proceedings relating to NEPOOL matters before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), state regulatory commissions, and the Federal Courts and legislatures through February 1, 2017. If you have questions, please contact us.1
I. Complaints/Section 206 Proceedings
• NEPGA PER Complaint (EL16-120) On January 19, the FERC (i) granted in part NEPGA’s complaint2 and (ii) set in part for hearing and
settlement judge procedures the question of the appropriate method of calculating the PER Strike Price under Market Rule 1 section III.13.7.2.7.1.1.1.3 In granting NEPGA’s complaint in part, the FERC found that “for the period at issue in NEPGA’s complaint (September 30, 2016 – May 31, 2018), the PER mechanism has become unjust and unreasonable as a result of the interaction between the PER mechanism and the higher Reserve Constraint Penalty Factors.”4 Accordingly, the FERC required the ISO to revise the method by which it calculates the PER Strike Price as set forth in Tariff section III.13.7.2.7.1.1.1. But, finding NEPGA’s request that the PER Strike Price be increased by $250 per MWh “raises issues of material fact that cannot be resolved based upon the record before us and that are more appropriately addressed in the hearing and settlement judge procedures”, the FERC set the question of the appropriate method of calculating the PER Strike Price for hearing and settlement judge procedures under section 206 of the FPA.5 The FERC established a refund effective date of September 30, 2016 (the date of the complaint). In establishing a September 30, 2016 effective date, the FERC clarified that “any changes to the calculation of the PER Strike Price under ISO-NE Tariff section III.13.7.2.7.1.1.1 would be prospective only from September 30, 2016, as required by FPA section 206, and would not impact the application of any PER Adjustment occurring before September 30, 2016.”6 Challenges, if any, to the PER Complaint Order will be due on or before February 21.
Settlement Judge Procedures. On January 25, Chief Cintron designated Judge H. Peter Young as the Settlement Judge in these proceedings.
1 Capitalized terms used but not defined in this filing are intended to have the meanings given to such terms in the Second Restated New England Power Pool Agreement (the “Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement”), the Participants Agreement, or the ISO New England Inc. (“ISO” or “ISO-NE”) Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (the “Tariff”).
2 NEPGA’s complaint asked the FERC (i) to find the ISO Tariff's Peak Energy Rent (“PER”) Adjustment provisions unjust & unreasonable; (ii) to direct the ISO to file revisions to the PER Adjustment sections of the Tariff that return the PER Adjustment to a just & reasonable level; (iii) to establish a refund effective date of September 30, 2016; and (iv) to issue an order granting the complaint by November 29, 2016.
3 New England Power Generators Assoc., Inc. v. ISO New England Inc., 158 FERC ¶ 61,034 (Jan. 19, 2017). 4 Id. at P 48. 5 Id. at P 57. 6 Id. at P 61.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 2 41536280.171
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Joe Fagan (202-218-3901; [email protected]), Jamie Blackburn (202-218-3905; [email protected]), or Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• Base ROE Complaint IV (2016) (EL16-64) On September 20, 2016, the FERC established hearing and settlement judge procedures (and set a
refund effective date of April 29, 2016) for the 4th ROE Complaint.7 As previously reported, EMCOS8 filed the 4th ROE complaint on April 29, 2016. The Complaint asked the FERC to reduce the TOs’ current 10.57% return on equity (“Base ROE”) to 8.93% and to determine that the upper end of the zone of reasonableness (which sets the incentives cap) is no higher than 11.24%. EMCOS identified three main considerations requiring submission of this Complaint: (1) the continuing decline of the market cost of equity capital, which makes NETOS’ currently authorized ROE “excessive, unjust and unreasonable, and therefore ripe for adjustment under FPA Section 206”; (2) “divergent rulings concerning the persistence of the “anomalous” capital market conditions”; and (3) “the extent to which the Commission’s anomalous conditions rationale in Opinion No. 531 is intended to reflect changes in its long-standing reliance on the DCF methodology, and particularly the DCF midpoint, for determining ROE remains unclear.”
In setting the complaint for hearing and settlement judge procedures, the FERC found that the Complaint “raises issues of material fact that cannot be resolved based upon the record before us and that are more appropriately addressed in the hearing and settlement judge procedures we order.”9 The FERC also found “unpersuasive the assertions of New England TOs and EEI that the Commission should dismiss the Complaint because the New England TOs’ base ROE continues to fall within the zone of reasonableness. The Commission has repeatedly rejected the assertion that every ROE within the zone of reasonableness must be treated as an equally just and reasonable ROE.”10 Further, the FERC rejected arguments as to the propriety of allowing a fourth complaint against the TOs’ ROE after three previous complaints have been filed since 2011. As it did when it allowed Complaints II and III to go forward, the FERC found that Complaint IV was properly set for hearing as it is based on newer, more current data than prior Complaints subsequent hearings.11 The FERC is “initiating an entirely new proceeding, based on an entirely separate factual record, that may or may not reach the same conclusions as those reached in the earlier ROE proceeding.”12 The FERC estimated that, if this case does not settle and goes to hearing, the Commission’s ultimate decision would be issued on or before June 30, 2018.13 Both the TOs and EEI requested rehearing of the Base ROE Complaint IV Order. The FERC issued a tolling order on November 21, affording it additional time to consider the requests for rehearing, which remain pending.
Settlement Judge Procedures. On October 4, Chief Judge Cintron designated Judge Jennifer Long, the FERC’s newest ALJ, as the Settlement Judge. Settlement conferences have thus far been held on November 8 and December 20, 2016; a third settlement conference is tentatively scheduled for March 22,
7 Belmont Mun. Light Dept. et al. v. Central Me. Power Co. et al., 156 FERC ¶ 61,198 (Sep. 20, 2016) (“Base ROE Complaint IV Order”).
8 “EMCOS” are: Belmont Mun. Light Dept., Braintree Elec. Light Dept., Concord Mun. Light Plant, Georgetown Mun. Light Dept., Groveland Elec. Light Dept., Hingham Mun. Lighting Plant, Littleton Elec. Light & Water Dept., Middleborough Gas & Elec. Dept., Middleton Elec. Light Dept., Reading Mun. Light Dept. (“Reading”), Rowley Mun. Lighting Plant, Taunton Mun. Lighting Plant, and Wellesley Mun. Light Plant.
9 Base ROE Complaint IV Order at P 37. 10 Id. at P 38. 11 Complaint IV was filed 21 months after the July 31, 2014 filing of Complaint III, nearly nine months after
the July 2, 2015 close of the Complaint III evidentiary hearing record, and six months after the end of the Complaint III refund period.
12 Base ROE Complaint IV Order at P 40. 13 Id. at P 44.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 3 41536280.171
2017 (subject to change depending on disposition of Emera Maine v. FERC (DC Cir. case No. 15-1118). On January 3, Settlement Judge Long issued a status report indicating that the parties remain open to settlement and recommending that settlement judge procedures be continued concurrently with the hearings described below.
Concurrent Hearing Procedures. On December 21, 2016, in response to a request of the parties and supported by Settlement Judge Long, Chief Judge Cintron designated Steven A. Glazer as presiding judge for hearings in this matter, so that hearing procedures can proceed concurrently with settlement judge procedures still underway before Judge Long. Absent a settlement, these hearing procedures will be conducted under the FERC’s “Track II” procedural time standards, which requires that an initial decision be issued within 47 weeks, or by November 15, 2017. Judge Glazer scheduled a preliminary conference for January 17, 2017, noting that hearing has been set for August 2, 2017 (with September 27, 2017 as the deadline for reply briefs). At the January 17 conference, Participants proposed the remaining procedural schedule, which was adopted by Judge Glazer in an order issued January 23. In addition, Judge Glazer has issued orders adopting rules for the conduct of the hearing (December 21, 2016) and the discovery plan (January 17). Complainants’ and Parties Supporting Complainants’ Direct Testimony and Exhibits (with summaries) were due and filed on February 1. Respondents’ and Parties Supporting Respondents’ Answering Testimony and Exhibits (with summaries) are due March 23. Hearings are scheduled for August 2-8, with an initial decision to be issued November 15, 2017.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Eric Runge (617-345-4735; [email protected]) or Jamie Blackburn (202-218-3905; [email protected]).
• 206 Proceeding: RNS/LNS Rates and Rate Protocols (EL16-19) Settlement discussions in this proceeding are on-going. As previously reported, the FERC instituted this
Section 206 proceeding on December 28, 2015, finding that the ISO Tariff is unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential because the Tariff “lacks adequate transparency and challenge procedures with regard to the formula rates” for Regional Network Service (“RNS”) and Local Network Service (“LNS”).14 The FERC also found that the RNS and LNS rates themselves “appear to be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful” because (i) “the formula rates appear to lack sufficient detail in order to determine how certain costs are derived and recovered in the formula rates” and “could result in an over-recovery of costs” due to the “the timing and synchronization of the RNS and LNS rates”.15 Accordingly, the FERC established hearing and settlement judge procedures to develop just and reasonable formula rate protocols to be included in the ISO-NE Tariff and to examine the justness and reasonableness of the RNS and LNS rates. The FERC encouraged the parties to make every effort to settle this matter before hearing procedures are commenced.16 Hearings are being held in abeyance pending the outcome of settlement judge procedures underway.17 The FERC-established refund date is January 4, 2016.18
Settlement Judge Procedures. As previously reported, John P. Dring was designated the Settlement Judge in these proceedings. Five settlement conferences have thus far been held: January 19, March 24, April 28, August 30, and November 18 (telephonically). Judge Dring issued his latest status report on December 8 indicating that the parties are making progress toward settlement and recommending that the settlement procedures be continued. The Transmission Committee is being kept apprised of settlement efforts. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Eric Runge (617-345-4735; [email protected]).
14 ISO New England Inc. Participating Transmission Owners Admin. Comm. et al., 153 FERC ¶ 61,343 (Dec. 28, 2015), reh’g denied, 154 FERC ¶ 61,230 (Mar. 22, 2016).
15 Id. at P 8. 16 Id. at P 11. 17 Id.18 The notice of this proceeding was published in the Fed. Reg. on Jan. 4, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 1) p. 89.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 4 41536280.171
• Base ROE Complaints II & III (2012 & 2014) (EL13-33 and EL14-86) (consolidated) Judge Sterner’s findings and Initial Decision, and pleadings in response thereto, remain pending
before the FERC. As previously reported, the FERC, in response to second (EL13-33)19 and third (EL14-86)20 complaints regarding the TOs’ 11.14% Base ROE, issued orders establishing trial-type, evidentiary hearings and separate refund periods. The first, in EL13-33, was issued on June 19, 2014 and established a 15-month refund period of December 27, 2012 through March 27, 2014;21 the second, in EL14-86, was issued on November 24, 2014, established a 15-month refund period beginning July 31, 2014,22 and, because of “common issues of law and fact”, consolidated the two proceedings for purposes of hearing and decision, with the FERC finding it “appropriate for the parties to litigate a separate ROE for each refund period.”23 The TOs requested rehearing of both orders. On May 14, 2015, the FERC denied rehearing of both orders.24 On July 13, 2015, the TOs appealed those orders to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (see Section XIV below), and that appeal remains pending.
Hearings and Trial Judge Initial Decision. Initial hearings on these matters were completed on July 2, 2015. In mid-December 2015, Judge Sterner reopened the record for the limited purpose of having the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) calculations re-run in accordance with the FERC’s preferred approach and re-submitted. A limited hearing on that supplemental information was held on February 1, 2016. On March 22, 2016, Judge Sterner issued his 939-paragraph, 371-page Initial Decision, which lowered the base ROEs for the EL13-33 and EL14-86 refund periods from 11.14% to 9.59% and 10.90%, respectively.25 The Decision also lowered the ROE ceilings. Judge Sterner’s decision, if upheld by the FERC, would result in refunds totaling as much as $100 million, largely concentrated in the EL13-33 refund period. Briefs on exceptions were filed by the TOs, Complainant-Aligned Parties (“CAPs”), EMCOS, and FERC Trial Staff on April 21, 2016; briefs opposing exceptions, on May 20, 2016. Judge Sterner’s findings and Initial Decision, and pleadings in response thereto, remain pending, and will be subject to challenge, before the FERC. The 2012/14 ROE Initial Decision and its findings can be approved or rejected, in whole or in part.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Joe Fagan (202-218-3901; [email protected]) or Eric Runge (617-345-4735; [email protected]).
19 The 2012 Base ROE Complaint, filed by Environment Northeast (now known as Acadia Center), Greater Boston Real Estate Board, National Consumer Law Center, and the NEPOOL Industrial Customer Coalition (“NICC”, and together, the “2012 Complainants”), challenged the TOs’ 11.14% return on equity, and seeks a reduction of the Base ROE to 8.7%.
20 The 2014 Base ROE Complaint, filed July 31, 2014 by the Massachusetts Attorney General (“MA AG”), together with a group of State Advocates, Publicly Owned Entities, End Users, and End User Organizations (together, the “2014 ROE Complainants”), seeks to reduce the current 11.14% Base ROE to 8.84% (but in any case no more than 9.44%) and to cap the Combined ROE for all rate base components at 12.54%. 2014 ROE Complainants state that they submitted this Complaint seeking refund protection against payments based on a pre-incentives Base ROE of 11.14%, and a reduction in the Combined ROE, relief as yet not afforded through the prior ROE proceedings.
21 Environment Northeast, et al. v. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., et al., 147 FERC ¶ 61,235 (June 19, 2014) (“2012 Base ROE Initial Order”), reh’g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,125 (May 14, 2015).
22 Mass. Att’y Gen. et al. -v- Bangor Hydro et al., 149 FERC ¶ 61,156 (Nov. 24, 2014), reh’g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,125 (May 14, 2015).
23 Id. at P 27 (for the refund period covered by EL13-33 (i.e., Dec. 27, 2012 through Mar. 27, 2014), the ROE for that particular 15-month refund period should be based on the last six months of that period; the refund period in EL14-86 and for the prospective period, on the most recent financial data in the record).
24 Environment Northeast, et al. v. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., et al. and Mass. Att’y Gen. et al. -v- Bangor Hydro et al., 151 FERC ¶ 61,125 (May 14, 2015).
25 Environment Northeast, et al. v. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., et al. and Mass. Att’y Gen. et al. -v- Bangor Hydro et al., 154 FERC ¶ 63,024 (Mar. 22, 2016) (“2012/14 ROE Initial Decision”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 5 41536280.171
II. Rate, ICR, FCA, Cost Recovery Filings
• ICR-Related Values and HQICCs – Annual Reconfiguration Auctions (ER17-472) On January 9, the FERC accepted materials that identify the Installed Capacity Requirement (“ICR”),
Local Sourcing Requirements (“LSR”), Maximum Capacity Limits (“MCL”), Hydro Quebec Interconnection Capability Credits (“HQICCs”), and capacity requirement values for the System-Wide Demand Curve (collectively, the “ICR-Related Values”) for the third annual reconfiguration auction (“ARA”) for the 2017/18 Capability Year to be held March 1, 2017, the second ARA for the 2018/19 Capability Year to be held August 1, 2017, and the first ARA for the 2019/20 Capability Year to be held June 5, 2017. The ICR-Related Values were accepted effective as of January 30, 2017, as requested. Unless the January 9 order is challenged, this proceeding will be concluded. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Eric Runge (617-345-4735; [email protected]).
III. Market Rule and Information Policy Changes, Interpretations and Waiver Requests
• CONE & ORTP Updates (ER17-795)
On January 13, the ISO filed updated FCM Cost of New Entry (“CONE”), Net CONE and Offer Review Trigger Price (“ORTP”) values. With respect to CONE and Net CONE, the ISO will use a gas-fired simple cycle combustion-turbine (“CT”) as the reference technology for the updated values, $11.35 and $8.04, respectively. The ISO will use a Capacity factor of 32%, resulting in a $11.02 ORTP for on-shore wind resources. The ISO requested a March 15, 2017 effective date for the new values to coincide with the beginning of the administrative cycle for FCA12. The CONE & ORTP Updates were not supported by the Participants Committee when considered at the January 6 meeting. Comments on this filing are due on or before February 3. Doc-less interventions have thus far been filed by Calpine, ConEd, Exelon, National Grid, and NESCOE. If you have any questions concerning this proceeding, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• Order 825 Compliance: 5-Min. Settlement of Regulation Capacity & Service Credit (ER17-774) On January 11, the ISO and NEPOOL jointly filed changes that, in accordance with Order 825,26
change the settlement interval for the Regulation Capacity Credit and Regulation Service Credit to five minutes (rather than hourly). A December 1, 2017 effective date was requested. The Regulation Capacity & Service Credit changes were supported by the Participants Committee by way of the January 6, 2017 Consent Agenda (Item #5). Comments on this filing were due on or before February 1; none were filed. Doc-less interventions were filed by EPSA, National Grid, and NRG. This matter is pending before the FERC. If you have any questions concerning this proceeding, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• Sub-Hourly Settlement NCPC Changes (ER17-680)
On December 27, 2016, the ISO and NEPOOL jointly filed changes to the Net Commitment Period Compensation (“NCPC”) credit rules (the “NCPC Revisions”) related (i) to the implementation of sub-hourly Real-Time settlement (including adding “Real-Time Dispatch Lost Opportunity Cost NCPC Credit” as an NCPC credit type) and (ii) to Dispatchable Asset Related Demand (“DARD”). A March 1, 2017 effective date (coincident with the Real-Time sub-hourly settlement effective date) was requested. The NCPC Revisions were supported by the Participants Committee by way of the December 2, 2016 Consent Agenda (Item #3). Comments on this filing were due on or before January 17, 2017; none were filed. Doc-less interventions were filed by Eversource, Exelon and National Grid. This matter is pending before the FERC. If you have any questions concerning this proceeding, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
26 Settlement Intervals and Shortage Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Indep. Sys. Operators, Order No. 825, 155 FERC ¶ 61,276 (June 16, 2016) (“Order 825”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 6 41536280.171
• Effective Date Update: Fast Start Pricing and DARD Pump Parameter Changes (ER17-576) On December 19, 2016, the ISO filed changes to make March 1, 2017 (rather than March 31, 2017)
the effective date for the following two sets of previously-approved Tariff Changes: (i) the Fast Start Changes (improvements to Real-Time price formation when fast start resources are deployed);27 and (ii) the DARD Pump Parameter Changes (improvements to pump storage hydro-generating resource modeling and dispatch).28 The accelerated effective date was requested to make the two sets of changes effective coincident with the March 1, 2017 implementation of sub-hourly settlement. Comments on this filing were due on or before January 9, 2017; none were filed. Doc-less interventions were filed by NEPOOL, Eversource and National Grid. This matter is pending before the FERC. If you have any questions concerning this proceeding, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• Natural Gas Index Changes (ER17-337) On January 9, the FERC accepted changes to the Tariff that replace the Algonquin Citygates location
with the AGT-CG (Non-G) hub (a newer hub established by ICE) as the source for natural gas prices to be used in the calculation of the Peak Energy Rent Strike Price, the Import Capacity Resource offer threshold price, and the Forward Reserve threshold price (“Natural Gas Index Changes”).29 The Natural Gas Index Changes were accepted effective as of January 10, 2017, as requested. In accepting the Natural Gas Index Changes, the FERC rejected Dominion’s alternative proposal, finding that Dominion had not provided any evidence that the continued use of the AGT-CG index would meet the FERC’s minimum index conditions.30
Challenges, if any, to the Natural Gas Index Changes Order are due on or before February 8. If you have any questions concerning this proceeding, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• FCM Enhancements (ER16-2451) The FERC’s FCM Enhancements Order31 remains subject to a request for rehearing by Indicated
NYTOs.32 As previously reported, the FERC accepted changes to the Tariff to increase liquidity in the FCM by increasing Market Participant opportunities to enter into reconfiguration auctions and bilateral contracts for the exchange of CSOs (“FCM Enhancements”). Specifically, the FCM Enhancements (i) modify certain FCM qualification rules to facilitate the ability of New Capacity Resources to supply capacity beginning four months after participating in their first FCA; (ii) provide Import Capacity Resources backed by one or more External Resources the opportunity (currently available to generators and demand response) to provide capacity beginning one or two years after participating in their first FCA; and (iii) establish a new form of bilateral contracting in which Market Participants can, as the Capacity Commitment Period approaches, trade CSOs for a seasonal strip of CSOs. The FCM Enhancements included several smaller improvements as well, including the elimination of a requirement that the ISO make a FERC filing in order to terminate the CSO of a resource that has voluntary withdrawn from the FCM resource development process. The FCM Enhancements were accepted, effective as of October 19, 2016, as requested.
27 See ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool, Revisions to Fast-Start Pricing and Dispatch, Docket No. ER15-2716 (filed Sep. 24, 2015; accepted Oct. 19, 2015).
28 See ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Comm., DARD Pump Parameter Changes, Docket No. ER16-954 (filed Feb. 17, 2016; accepted Mar. 22, 2016).
29 ISO New England Inc., 158 FERC ¶ 61,016 (Jan. 9, 2017) (“Natural Gas Index Changes Order”). 30 Id. at PP 20-21. The FERC’s conditions for minimum levels of activity at a particular trading location are:
(1) average daily volume traded of a least 25,000 MMBtus/day for gas or 2,000 MWh/day for power; (2) average daily number of transactions of five, eight, 10, or more (depending on whether it is a daily, weekly, or monthly index); and (3) average daily number of counterparties of five, eight, 10, or more (depending on whether it is a daily, weekly, or monthly index). See Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 66.
31 ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Comm. and NY Indep. Sys. Op., Inc., 157 FERC ¶ 61,025 (Oct. 18, 2016) (“FCM Enhancements Order”), reh’g requested.
32 “Indicated NYTOs” are Central Hudson Gas & Electric, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, New York Power Authority, New York State Electric & Gas, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 7 41536280.171
In accepting the FCM Enhancements, the FERC noted that “protestors do not challenge the justness and reasonableness of the specific tariff revisions … the concerns raised by NYISO are not the result of ISO-NE’s proposed tariff revisions, but result from NYISO’s treatment of generators that export capacity from within a constrained locality under its current market rules.”33 Accordingly, the FERC was “not persuaded that the potential behavior of New York suppliers provides a sufficient basis to reject ISO-NE’s filing in this case, and deferring the effective date of an otherwise just and reasonable proposal would be inconsistent with the notice provision in section 205 of the FPA.”34 The FERC did acknowledge NYISO’s concerns about a potential flaw in its market rules, and encouraged NYISO stakeholders to timely complete discussions underway to address that flaw.
As noted above, on November 17, Indicated TOs’ requested rehearing of the FCM Enhancements Order. On December 19, the FERC issued a tolling order affording it additional time to consider Indicated TOs’ rehearing request, which remains pending before the FERC.
NYISO Tariff Revisions in Response to FCM Enhancements (ER17-446). On January 27, the FERC conditionally accepted in part, and rejected, in part, NYISO tariff revisions proposed in response to the acceptance of the FCM Enhancements, to correct a pricing inefficiency in NYISO’s Installed Capacity (“ICAP”) market design related to capacity exports from certain zones in the New York Control Area.35
Specifically, the FERC accepted NYISO’s proposed locality exchange factor methodology to be implemented immediately but rejected NYISO’s proposed one-year transitional mechanism.36 In accepting the immediate implementation of NYISO’s Locality Exchange Factor methodology, the FERC found the proposed methodology “just and reasonable because it corrects a pricing inefficiency in NYISO’s ICAP market design. NYISO’s proposed methodology will now recognize that an exporting generator continues to operate within its Locality, which would be reflected in the ICAP Spot Market Auction clearing prices by accounting for the portion of exported capacity that can be replaced by capacity located in Rest of State. Therefore, NYISO’s proposal will ensure that prices within the Localities reflect actual market conditions and prices.”37 In rejecting the transition mechanism, the FERC found that “that the mechanism lacks analytical basis and will delay efficient market signals … because it could overstate the extent to which the capacity export will unencumber NYISO’s transmission capability into Southeast New York.”38 NYISO was directed submit a compliance filing on or before February 27, 2017 removing the one-year transition mechanism provisions.39
If you have any questions concerning these proceedings, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• Waiver Request: RTEG Resource Type/De-List (ISO-NE) (ER16-1904) On January 19, the FERC denied CPower’s request for rehearing of the ISO RTEG Waiver Request
Order.40 As previously reported, the FERC granted the limited waiver requested by the ISO of Tariff Sections III.13.1.4.2.5.2, III.13.1.4.3.1.2 & III.13.1.2.3.1.1.41 The waiver allows Real-Time Emergency
33 Id. at P 31. 34 Id.35 NY Indep. Sys. Op., Inc., 158 FERC ¶ 61,064 (Jan. 27, 2017). 36 Id. at P 20. 37 Id. at P 35. 38 Id. at P 55. 39 Id. at P 61. 40 ISO New England Inc., 158 FERC ¶ 61,033 (Jan. 19, 2017) (“ISO RTEG Waiver Request Rehearing
Order”). 41 ISO New England Inc., 156 FERC ¶ 61,096 (Aug. 8, 2016) (“ISO RTEG Waiver Request Order”), reh’g
denied, 158 FERC ¶ 61,033 (Jan. 19, 2017).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 8 41536280.171
Generation Resources (“RTEGs”) either to change their resource type to Real-Time Demand Response Resources or to de-list (“Waiver Request”), particularly in connection with FCA11, but also, to the extent applicable, for FCA8, FCA9, and FCA10, in light of (i) a May 4, 2016 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”) reversing and remanding United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) rules that provided for a 100-hour exemption for operation of emergency engines for purposes of emergency demand response under National Emissions Standards; and (ii) an April 15, 2016 EPA Guidance Memorandum, which in anticipation of the DC Circuit order, indicated that the EPA will not develop an alternative to the rules reversed by the DC Circuit. In granting the waiver, the FERC rejected CPower’s request for limited modifications thereto, finding CPower’s proposed modification “beyond the scope of ISO-NE’s instant proposal,” and that it “would decrease incentives for RTEG market participants to exhaust existing remedies”. The FERC also found “speculative CPower’s characterization that applying the FCA Starting Price to the Third Annual Reconfiguration Auction, rather than the FCA Payment Rate, would essentially cause a ‘penalty’.”42 On September 7, CPower requested rehearing of the ISO RTEG Waiver Request Order, which, as noted above, the FERC denied on January 19. In dismissing rehearing, the FERC clarified that it dismissed CPower’s proposal without prejudice.43
If you have any questions concerning this proceeding, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]) or Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
• FCM Resource Retirement Reforms (ER16-551) A request for rehearing by NEGPA, NextEra and Exelon of the FERC’s Resource Retirement Reforms
Order44 remains pending. As previously reported, the FERC conditionally accepted, effective March 1, 2016, changes to the FCM rules for resource retirements proposed by the ISO and its Internal Market Monitor (“IMM”) (the “ISO/IMM Proposal”). The FERC conditioned its acceptance of the ISO/IMM Proposal on the filing of Tariff revisions “establishing a materiality threshold for determining whether or not a particular proxy de-list bid will replace a Retirement Bid in an FCA,”45 which were filed with and accepted by the FERC.46 NEPGA, Exelon and NextEra jointly requested rehearing of the Resource Retirement Reforms Order. On June 13, the FERC issued a tolling order affording it additional time to consider the joint rehearing request, which remains pending before the FERC. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• Demand Curve Changes Remand Proceedings (ER14-1639) Rehearing remains pending of the FERC’s April 8, 2016 Demand Curve Remand Order.47 As previously
reported, the FERC conditionally accepted, on May 30, 2014, revisions to the FCM rules that establish a system-wide sloped demand curve (“Demand Curve Changes”).48 The Demand Curve Changes defined the shape of the
42 Id. at P 19. 43 ISO RTEG Waiver Request Rehearing Order at P 21. 44 ISO New England Inc., 155 FERC ¶ 61,029 (Apr. 12, 2016), reh’g requested (“Resource Retirement
Reforms Order”). As previously reported, the ISO/IMM Proposal requires (i) that capacity suppliers with existing resources to submit a price for the retirement of a resource (to replace the existing Non-Price Retirement Request process), (ii) the use of a Proxy De-List Bid, and (iii) notice of the potential retirement and proposed retirement price to be submitted prior to the commencement of an FCA’s qualification process for new resources. The ISO/IMM Proposal was considered but not supported by the Participants Committee at its Dec. 4, 2015 meeting.
45 Id. at P 62. 46 ISO New England Inc., 15 FERC ¶ 61,067 (July 27, 2016) (“Resource Retirement Reforms Compliance
Order”). 47 ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Comm., 155 FERC ¶ 61,023 (Apr. 8,
2016), reh’g requested (“Demand Curve Remand Order”) (affirming its earlier finding that the renewables exemption from the minimum offer price rule is just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential).
48 ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Comm., 147 FERC ¶ 61,173 (May 30, 2014) (“Demand Curve Order”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 9 41536280.171
system-wide sloped demand curve (with key points defined by CONE and the 0.1 days/year LOLE target), extended the period during which a Market Participant may “lock-in” the capacity price for a new resource from five to seven years, establish a limited renewables resource exemption, and eliminated, at the system-wide level, the administrative pricing rules that were necessary in certain market conditions under the vertical demand curve construct. In response to challenges, the FERC denied rehearing of the Demand Curve Order,49 but clarified (agreeing with Exelon and Entergy) that a resource that elects to utilize the renewables minimum offer price rule exemption should not also be allowed to utilize the new resource lock-in).50 A compliance filing clarifying that a resource may not utilize both the renewable resource exemption and the new resource price lock-in was submitted, accepted, and became effective on May 2, 2015.51 NextEra, NRG and PSEG petitioned the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the FERC’s Demand Curve orders (March 30, 2015). Following submission of Petitioner and Intervenor for Petitioner briefs (October 5 and 20, 2015, respectively), the FERC, on November 20, 2015, requested that the Court remand the case back to the FERC for further proceedings (stating that “review of the opening briefs indicates that further consideration by the Commission is appropriate”). On December 1, 2015, the Court granted FERC’s unopposed motion, and remanded the case back to the FERC for further proceedings, which, as noted above, resulted in the Demand Curve Remand Order. NextEra, NRG and PSEG jointly requested rehearing of the Demand Curve Remand Order on May 9, 2016. On June 3, NESCOE answered the NextEra/PSEG/NRG rehearing request. On June 8, 2016, the FERC issued a tolling order affording it additional time to consider the NextEra/PSEG/NRG request for rehearing, which remains pending before the FERC. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• 2013/14 Winter Reliability Program Remand Proceeding (ER13-2266) On August 8, 2016, the FERC issued its long-awaited remand order.52 As previously reported, the
DC Circuit remanded the FERC’s decision in ER13-2266, agreeing with TransCanada that the record upon which the FERC relied is devoid of any evidence regarding how much of the 2013/14 Winter Reliability Program cost was attributable to profit and risk mark-up (without which the FERC could not properly assess whether the Program’s rates were just and reasonable), and directing the FERC to either offer a reasoned justification for the order in ER13-2266 or revise its disposition to ensure that the Program rates are just and reasonable.53 In the 2013/14 Winter Reliability Program Remand Order, the FERC directed the ISO to request from Program participants the basis for their bids, including the process used to formulate the bids, and to file with the FERC, by December 6, 2016, a compilation of that information, an IMM analysis of that information, and the ISO’s recommendation as to the reasonableness of the bids, so that the FERC can further consider the question of whether the Bid Results were just and reasonable.54 On November 7, the ISO requested, and on November 15 the FERC granted, a 45-day extension of time to submit the directed filing. The ISO submitted its compliance filing on January 23. In that filing, the ISO reported the IMM’s conclusion that “the auction was not structurally competitive and a ‘small proportion’ of the total cost of the program may be the result of the exercise of market power” but that the “vast majority of supply was offered at prices that appear reasonable and that, for a number of reasons, it is difficult to assess the impact of market power on cost.” Based on the IMM and additional analysis, the ISO recommended that “there is insufficient demonstration of market power to warrant modification of program.” Comments on the ISO’s report are due
49 ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Comm., 147 FERC ¶ 61,173 (May 30, 2014) (“Demand Curve Order”), reh’g denied but clarif. granted, 150 FERC ¶ 61,065 (Jan. 30, 2015).
50 ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Comm., 150 FERC ¶ 61,065, at P 27 (Jan. 30, 2015) (“Demand Curve Clarification Order”).
51 The changes become effective with FCA-10, and will not apply to the resources in FCA9, totaling 12.96 MW, that utilize both the renewable resource exemption and the price lock-in election.
52 ISO New England Inc., 156 FERC ¶ 61,097 (Aug. 8, 2016) (“2013/14 Winter Reliability Program Remand Order”).
53 TransCanada Power Mktg. Ltd. v. FERC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22304 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 54 2013/14 Winter Reliability Program Remand Order at P 17.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 10 41536280.171
on or before February 13. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
IV. OATT Amendments / TOAs / Coordination Agreements
• Orders 827/828 Compliance Filing: New England (ER16-2695) The revisions to Schedules 22 and 23 of the ISO OATT filed jointly by the ISO, NEPOOL and PTO
AC on September 29, 2016 to comply with the FERC Order Nos. 82755 and 82856 are pending before the FERC. As previously reported, Schedules 22 and 23 were revised to incorporate the pro forma revisions set forth in Orders 827 and 828 with variations necessary to recognize New England reactive power requirements and overall structure previously accepted under the “independent entity variation” standard and to make certain enhancements “consistent with or superior to” the pro forma revisions. An October 5, 2016 effective date was requested. The compliance filing changes were supported by the Participants Committee at its September 9 meeting. Comments on this filing were due on or before October 20, 2016; none were filed. Doc-less interventions were filed by National Grid and NRG. This matter is pending before the FERC. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Eric Runge (617-345-4735; [email protected]).
• Attachment K Revisions (Public Policy Transmission Studies Timeline Modifications and Clean-Up/Admin Changes to Section 6.3 and Appendices 2 & 3) (ER17-857) On January 26, the ISO and NEPOOL filed revisions to Attachment K of the OATT to modify the
timeline associated with the Public Policy Transmission Study Process and to reflect clean-up changes to Section 6.3(Interregional Coordination) and to Appendices 2 (List of Entities Enrolled in the Transmission Planning Region) and 3 (List of Qualified Transmission Project Sponsors). A March 22, 2017 effective date was requested. The Attachment K Revisions were supported by the Participants Committee at its January 6 meeting (Consent Agenda Item #s 1 and 2). Comments on this filing are due on or before February 16. A doc-less intervention has thus far been filed by NESCOE. If you have any questions concerning this proceeding, please contact Eric Runge (617-345-4735; [email protected]).
V. Financial Assurance/Billing Policy Amendments
No Activity to Report
VI. Schedule 20/21/22/23 Changes
• Schedule 23: FPL Energy Wyman SGIA (ER17-581) On January 19, the FERC accepted a non-conforming, 3-party SGIA between the ISO, Central Maine
Power (“CMP”), and FPL Energy Wyman (“Wyman”). As previously reported, the SGIA governs the interconnection of Wyman’s approximately 16 MW battery energy storage facility through existing facilities that are currently owned, operated and maintained by Wyman and FPL Energy Wyman IV (“Wyman IV”) for Wyman Station and Wyman Station IV. The SGIA is non-conforming in that it reflects the fact that the Interconnection Facilities include facilities that are not for the sole use of Wyman’s battery storage facility. The SGIA was accepted effective as of November 30, 2016, as requested. Unless the January 19 order is challenged, this proceeding will be concluded. If there are questions on this matter, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
55 Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation, Order No. 827, 155 FERC ¶ 61,277 (June 16, 2016) (“Order 827”), order on clarification and reh’g, 157 FERC 61,003 (Oct. 3, 2016).
56 Requirements for Frequency and Voltage Ride Through Capability of Small Generating Facilities, Order No. 828, 156 FERC ¶ 61,062 (July 21, 2016) (“Order 828”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 11 41536280.171
• Schedule 21-ES: Eversource Recovery of NU/NSTAR Merger-Related Costs (ER16-1023) On January 31, the FERC accepted Eversource’s November 22 offer of settlement57 to resolve the
issues in this proceeding (as described in previous reports, principally whether the $38.9 million in FERC-jurisdictional, merger-related transmission costs incurred as the result of the April 10, 2012 NU/NSTAR merger that Eversource sought to recover through changes to Schedule ES-21 were just and reasonable58). Eversource was directed to file revised tariff records in eTariff format, on or before March 2, 2017, to reflect the FERC’s approval of the settlement. Unless the January 31 order is challenged, this proceeding will be concluded. If you have any questions concerning these proceedings, please contact Pat Gerity ([email protected]; 860-275-0533).
• Schedule 21-EM: Recovery of Bangor Hydro/Maine Public Service Merger-Related Costs (ER15-1434 et al.) On June 2, 2016, the FERC accepted, but established hearing and settlement judge procedures for,59
March 31 filings by Emera Maine in which Emera Maine sought authorization to recover certain merger-related costs viewed by the FERC’s Office of Enforcement’s Division of Audits and Accounting (“DAA”) to be subject to the conditions of the orders authorizing Emera Maine’s acquisition of, and ultimate merger with, Maine Public Service (“Merger Conditions”). As previously reported, the Merger Conditions imposed a hold harmless requirement, and required a compliance filing demonstrating fulfillment of that requirement, should Emera Maine seek to recover transaction-related costs through any transmission rate. Following its recent audit of Emera Maine, DAA found that Emera Maine “inappropriately included the costs of four merger-related capital initiatives in its formula rate recovery mechanisms” and “did not properly record certain merger-related expenses incurred to consummate the merger transaction to appropriate non-operating expense accounts as required by [FERC] regulations [and] inappropriately included costs of merger-related activities through its formula rate recovery mechanisms” without first making a compliance filing as required by the merger orders.
In the June 2 Order, the FERC found that the Compliance Filings raise issues of material fact that could not be resolved based on the record, and are more appropriately addressed in the hearing and settlement judge procedures.60 The FERC reiterated several points with respect to transaction-related cost recovery explained in prior FERC orders and provided guidance on other transaction-related cost recovery points.61
The FERC encouraged the parties to make every effort to settle their disputes before hearing procedures are commenced, and will hold the hearing in abeyance pending the outcome of settlement judge procedures.62
The separate compliance filing dockets were consolidated for the purposes of settlement, hearing and decision.63
Settlement Judge Procedures. ALJ John Dring is the settlement judge for these proceedings. A first settlement conference was held on June 29; a second settlement conference, October 25. A third settlement conference, scheduled for November 22, 2016, was cancelled and subsequently held on December 1. Since the last Report, Judge Dring issued a status report indicating that the parties have reached a settlement in principal and are memorializing their agreement, and recommending settlement procedures be continued. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Pat Gerity ([email protected]; 860-275-0533).
57 ISO New England Inc. et al., 158 FERC ¶ 61,096 (Jan. 31, 2017). 58 See ISO New England Inc. et al., 155 FERC ¶ 61,136 (May 3, 2016). 59 Emera Maine and BHE Holdings, 155 FERC ¶ 61,230 (June 2, 2016) (“June 2 Order”). 60 Id. at P 24. 61 Id. at PP 25-26. 62 Id. at P 27. 63 Id. at P 21; Ordering Paragraph (B).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 12 41536280.171
VII. NEPOOL Agreement/Participants Agreement Amendments
No Activity to Report
VIII. Regional Reports
• IMM Quarterly Markets Reports - 2016 Fall (ZZ16-4)
On January 27, the Internal Market Monitor (“IMM”) filed with the FERC its report for the Fall quarter of 2016 of “market data regularly collected by [it] in the course of carrying out its functions under … Appendix A and analysis of such market data,” as required pursuant to Section 12.2.2 of Appendix A to Market Rule 1. These filings are not noticed for public comment by the FERC.
• LFTR Implementation: 33rd Quarterly Status Report (ER07-476; RM06-08) The ISO filed the thirty-third of its quarterly status reports regarding LFTR implementation on
January 13, 2017. The ISO again reported its plan to focus on implementation of the monthly reconfiguration auctions (accepted in ER12-2122). The ISO reported that it will file in early 2017 a Participants Committee-supported financial assurance design and for monthly reconfiguration auctions and will subsequently renew efforts to address LFTR financial assurance issues leveraging that design. As in previous reports, the ISO described the 18-month implementation process that will follow once the LFTR financial assurance issues are resolved. These status reports are not noticed for public comment and no comments have been filed.
• Opinion 531-A Local Refund Report: FG&E (EL11-66) On June 29, 2015, FG&E filed its refund report for its customers taking local service during the
refund period in accordance with Opinion 531-A. Comments, if any, on this filing were due on or before July 2015; none were filed and this matter is pending before the FERC. If there are questions on this matter, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
• Opinions 531-A/531-B Regional Refund Reports (EL11-66) On November 2, 2015, the TOs submitted a refund report documenting resettlements of regional
transmission charges by the ISO in compliance with Opinions No. 531-A64 and 531-B.65 As previously reported, refunds resulting from Opinion No. 531-B were completed by August 31, 2015. If there are questions on this matter, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
• Opinions 531-A/531-B Local Refund Reports (EL11-66) In accordance with Opinions 531-A and 531-B, the following TOs filed their refund reports for their
customers taking local service during the refund period (comment date on refund report noted in parentheses):
♦ Central Maine Power (Jan 21, 2016) ♦ Emera Maine (Jan 29, 2016) ♦ Eversource (CL&P, PSNH, WMECO) (Jan 21, 2016) ♦ National Grid (Jan 13, 2016) ♦ NHT (Jan 21, 2016) ♦ NSTAR (Jan 21, 2016) ♦ United Illuminating (Jan 21, 2016); supplement (Feb 1, 2016) ♦ VT Transco (Feb 3, 2016)
All comments dates have passed. No comments were filed in response to any of the reports and each is pending before the FERC. If there are questions on this matter, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
64 Martha Coakley, Mass. Att’y Gen. et al., 149 FERC ¶ 61,032 (Oct. 16, 2014) (“Opinion 531-A”). 65 Martha Coakley, Mass. Att’y Gen. et al., Opinion No. 531-B, 150 FERC ¶ 61,165 (Mar. 3, 2015) (“Opinion
531-B”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 13 41536280.171
• 2015 ISO-NE SIL Limits (AD10-2-009) On December 20, 2016, the ISO submitted an information filing with the 2015 simultaneous import
limits (“SIL”) for the New England market and the Connecticut Import Interface (“CT Import Interface”) and the Southwest Connecticut Import Interface (“SWCT Import Interface”) geographic submarkets. The SILs may be used by New England sellers in updated market power indicative screens and Delivered Price Test (“DPT”) analyses submitted under Order 697. [Note: in the GDF Suez Energy Resources/Atlas Power (Dynegy/ECP) order in EC16-93/94 discussed in Section XI below, the FERC found that “Connecticut and Southwest Connecticut are no longer submarkets in the ISO-NE energy market.”66] If there are questions on this matter, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
IX. Membership Filings
• February 2017 Membership Filing (ER17-899) On January 31, NEPOOL requested that the FERC accept (i) the Governance Only End User membership
of Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), effective April 1, 2017; (ii) the termination of the Participant status, each effective January 1, 2017, of Provisional Members Artis Energy Holdings, LLC (formerly Nxegen, LLC and EMI Power Systems, Inc., Jeffrey A. Jones, P.E. (Related Person of Maine Energy LLC), and Powerex Corp. (Supplier Sector); and (iii) the name change of NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC (f/k/a/ NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC). Comments on this filing are due on or before February 21.
• January 2017 Membership Filing (ER17-682) On January 25, the FERC accepted (i) the memberships of Emera Energy Services Subsidiary Nos. 11,
12, 13, 14, and 15 [each Related Persons of Emera Maine, Transmission Sector]; (ii) the termination of the Participant status of Summit Hydropower (AR Sector Small RG Group Member) and StatArb Investments (Supplier Sector); and (iii) the name change of Calpine Energy Solutions (f/k/a/ Noble Americas Energy Solutions).
X. Misc. - ERO Rules, Filings; Reliability Standards
Questions concerning any of the ERO Reliability Standards or related rule-making proceedings or filings can be directed to Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
• Reliability Standard Retirement: BAL-004-0 (RD17-1) On January 18, 2017, the FERC approved NERC’s retirement of Reliability Standard BAL-004-0 (Time
Error Correction) which, due to improvements to other Standards (e.g. BAL-003-1.1 and BAL-001-2) had become redundant. BAL-004-0 will be retired effective on the later of: (i) April 1, 2017 or (ii) the effective date of the retirement/reservation of North American Energy Standard Board (“NAESB”) WEQ006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standard (“NAESB WEQ-006”). Unless the January 18 order is challenged, this proceeding will be concluded.
• New Reliability Standards: PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1 (RM16-22) On September 2, 2016, NERC filed for approval (i) two new Reliability Standards -- PRC-027-1
(Coordination of Protection Systems for Performance During Faults) and PER-006-1 (Specific Training for Personnel), (ii) associated Glossary definitions, (iii) an implementation plan, (iv) VRFs and VSLs, and (v) the retirement of PRC-001-1.1(ii) (together, the “Protection System Changes”). NERC stated that the purpose of the Protection System Changes is to: (1) maintain the coordination of Protection Systems installed to detect and isolate Faults on Bulk Electric System (“BES”) Elements, such that those Protection Systems operate in the intended sequence during Faults; and (2) require registered entities to provide training to their relevant personnel on Protection Systems and Remedial Action Schemes (“RAS”) to help ensure that the BES is reliably operated. NERC requested that the new Standards and definitions become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 24 months following the effective date of the FERC’s order approving the Standards. As of the
66 Atlas Power Finance, LLC et al., 157 FERC ¶ 61,237 (Dec. 22, 2016)) at P 48.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 14 41536280.171
date of this Report, the FERC still has not noticed a proposed rulemaking proceeding or otherwise invited public comment.
• NOPR: Revised Reliability Standards: BAL-005-1 & FAC-001-3 (RM16-13) On September 22, the FERC issued a NOPR proposing to approve Reliability Standards BAL-005-1
(Balancing Authority Control) and FAC-001-3 (Facility Interconnection Requirements), and associated Glossary definitions, implementation plan, VRFs and VSLs (together, the “Frequency Control Changes”).67 As previously reported, NERC stated that the Frequency Control Changes clarify and refine Requirements for accurate, consistent, and complete reporting of Area Control Error (“ACE”) calculations. NERC indicated that the Frequency Control Changes will improve reliability by supporting efforts to maintain Interconnection frequency at 60 Hz in a manner consistent with FERC directives, technological developments, and NERC’s current framework of integrated Reliability Standards. NERC requested that the Frequency Control Changes become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the effective date of an order approving the Standard, pursuant to the Implementation Plans included with the Changes. Comments on the Frequency Control Changes NOPR were due on or before November 28, 2016,68 and were filed by NERC, EEI, Bonneville, Idaho Power and J. Appelbaum. The Frequency Control Changes NOPR is now pending before the FERC.
• Order 835: Revised Reliability Standard: BAL-002-2 (RM16-7) On January 19, the FERC approved revised Reliability Standard -- BAL-002-2 (Disturbance Control
Performance - Contingency Reserve for Recovery from a Balancing Contingency Event), and eight associated Glossary definitions, implementation plan, VRFs and VSLs (together, the “BAL Changes”).69 Order 835 also directs NERC: (1) to collect and report on data regarding additional MW losses following Reportable Balancing Contingency Events during the Contingency Reserve Restoration Period; and (2) to study and report on the reliability risks associated with MW losses above the most severe single contingency (“MSSC”) that do not cause energy emergencies. As previously reported, BAL-002-2 is intended to ensure that balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups are able to recover from system contingencies by deploying adequate reserves to return their Area Control Error (“ACE”) to defined values and by replacing the capacity and energy lost due to generation or transmission equipment outages. Order 835 will be effective [60 days after publication in the Federal Register].70
• Order 830-A: New Reliability Standard: TPL-007-1 (RM15-11) As previously reported, the FERC issued, on September 22, 2016, a final rule approving a new Reliability
Standard -- TPL-007-1 (Geomagnetic Disturbance (“GMD”) Operations) -- and one new definition (Geomagnetic Disturbance Vulnerability Assessment), associated VRFs and VSLs (“Order 830”).71 In addition, the FERC directed NERC (i) to develop modifications to the benchmark GMD event definition set forth in TPL-007-1 Attachment 1 so that the definition is not based solely on spatially-averaged data, (ii) to require the collection of necessary geomagnetically-induced current monitoring and magnetometer data and to make such data publicly available; and (iii) to include a one-year deadline for the development of corrective action plans and two and four-year deadlines to complete mitigation actions involving non-hardware and hardware mitigation, respectively. The FERC also directed NERC to submit a work plan and, subsequently, one or more informational filings that
67 Balancing Authority Control, Inadvertent Interchange, and Facility Interconnection Rel. Standards, 156 FERC ¶ 61,210 (Sep. 22, 2016) (“Frequency Control Changes NOPR”).
68 The Frequency Control Changes NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on Sep. 28, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 188) pp. 66,555-66,562.
69 Disturbance Control Standard - Contingency Reserve for Recovery from a Balancing Contingency Event Reliability Standard, Order No. 835, 158 FERC ¶ 61,030 (Jan. 19, 2017) (“Order 835”).
70 Order 835 was published in the Fed. Reg. on [Feb __, 2017 (Vol. 82, No. ___) pp. _____.] 71 Rel. Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events, Order
No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,2115 (, 2016) (“Order 830”), rehearing denied, 158 FERC ¶ 61,041, Order No. 830-A (Jan. 19, 2017) (“Order 830-A”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 15 41536280.171
address specific GMD-related research areas. Order 830 became effective November 29, 2016.72 Rehearing of Order 830 was requested by EEI, the Foundation for Resilient Societies (“FRS”), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (“JINSA”), but denied on January 19.73 Unless Orders 830 and 830-A are challenged in Federal Court, this proceeding will be concluded.
• NOPR: Revised Reliability Standard: MOD-001-2 (RM14-7) The ATC NOPR remains pending before the FERC. As previously reported, the FERC’s June 19, 2014,
NOPR74 proposed to approve changes to MOD-001-2 (Modeling, Data, and Analysis - Available Transmission System Capability) to replace, consolidate and improve upon the Existing MOD Standards in addressing the reliability issues associated with determinations of Available Transfer Capability (“ATC”) and Available Flowgate Capability (“AFC”). MOD-001-2 will replace the six Existing MOD Standards75 to exclusively focus on the reliability aspects of ATC and AFC determinations. NERC requested that the revised MOD Standard be approved, and the Existing MOD Standards be retired, effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 months after the date that the proposed Reliability Standard is approved by the FERC. NERC explained that the implementation period is intended to provide NAESB sufficient time to include in its WEQ Standards, prior to MOD-001-2’s effective date, those elements from the Existing MOD Standards, if any, that relate to commercial or business practices and are not included in proposed MOD-001-2. The FERC sought comment from NAESB and others whether 18 months would provide adequate time for NAESB to develop related business practices associated with ATC calculations or whether additional time may be appropriate to better assure synchronization of the effective dates for the proposed Reliability Standard and related NAESB practices. The FERC also sought further elaboration on specific actions NERC could take to assure synchronization of the effective dates. Comments on this NOPR were due August 25, 2014,76 and were filed by NERC, Bonneville, Duke, MISO, and NAESB. On December 19, 2014, NAESB supplemented its comments with a report on its efforts to develop WEQ Business Practice Standards that will support and coordinate with the MOD Standards proposed in this proceeding. NASEB issued a report on September 25, 2015, informing the FERC that the NAESB standards development process has been completed and NAESB will file the new suite of business practice standards as part of Version 003.1 of the NAESB WEQ Business Practice Standards in October 2015. As noted above, the ATC NOPR remains pending before the FERC.
• NOPR: BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand (RM13-6) The BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand NOPR 77 remains pending. As previously explained, this NOPR
proposes to remand NERC’s proposed interpretation of BAL-002 (Disturbance Control Performance Reliability Standard) filed February 12, 2013 (which would prevent Registered Entities from shedding load to avoid possible violations of BAL-002). NERC asserted that the proposed interpretation clarifies that BAL-002-1 is intended to be read as an integrated whole and relies in part on information in the Compliance section of the Reliability Standard. Specifically, the proposed interpretation would clarify that: (1) a Disturbance that exceeds the most severe single Contingency, regardless if it is a simultaneous Contingency or non-simultaneous multiple Contingency, would be a reportable event, but would be excluded from Compliance evaluation; (2) a pre-acknowledged Reserve Sharing Group would be treated in the same manner as an individual Balancing Authority; however, in a dynamically allocated Reserve Sharing Group, exclusions are only provided on a Balancing
72 Order 830 was published in the Fed. Reg. on Sep. 30, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 190) pp. 67,120-67,140. 73 Rel. Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events, Order
No. 830-A, 158 FERC ¶ 61,041 (Jan. 19, 2017) (“Order 830-A”). 74 Modeling, Data, and Analysis Rel. Standards, 147 FERC ¶ 61,208 (June 19, 2014) (“ATC NOPR”). 75 The 6 existing MOD Standards to be replaced by MOD-001-2 are: MOD-001-1, MOD-004-1, MOD-008-1,
MOD-028-2, MOD-029-1a and MOD-030-2. 76 The MOD-001-2 NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on June 26, 2014, (Vol. 79, No. 123) pp. 36,269-
36,273. 77 Elec. Rel. Org. Interpretation of Specific Requirements of the Disturbance Control Performance Standard,
143 FERC ¶ 61,138 (2013) (“BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand NOPR”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 16 41536280.171
Authority member by member basis; and (3) an excludable Disturbance was an event with a magnitude greater than the magnitude of the most severe single Contingency. The FERC, however, proposes to remand the proposed interpretation because it believes the interpretation changes the requirements of the Reliability Standard, thereby exceeding the permissible scope for interpretations. Comments on the BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand NOPR were due on or before July 8, 2013,78 and were filed by NERC, EEI, ISO/RTO Council, MISO, NC Balancing Area, Northwest Power Pool Balancing Authorities, NRECA, and WECC. As noted, the BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand NOPR remains pending before the FERC.
XI. Misc. - of Regional Interest
• 203 Application: NSTAR/WMECO Merger (EC17-62) On January 13, Eversource filed an application requesting FERC authorization for an internal
reorganization under which Western Massachusetts Electric Company (“WMECO”) will merge with and into NSTAR Electric Company (“NSTAR”), with NSTAR as the surviving entity. Eversource indicated its expectation that the Merger would be consummated on January 1, 2018, following the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals, waivers, and orders. Comments on the application are due on or before February 3, 2017. This far, a doc-less intervention was filed by the MA AG.
• 203 Application: GDF Suez Energy Resources/Atlas Power (Dynegy/ECP) (EC16-93) On December 22, the FERC conditionally authorized, subject to mitigation, the acquisition of GDF Suez
Energy Resources by Atlas Power Finance, a subsidiary of Atlas Power (a recently-formed joint venture between Dynegy Inc. and Energy Capital Partners III, LLC) (“Acquisition”) and the purchase of approximately 10 percent of Dynegy’s outstanding shares by a subsidiary of ECP III, Terawatt Holdings, LP (“Stock Purchase”).79 In authorizing the transaction, the FERC found that the applicants had not shown that either the Acquisition or the Stock Purchase would not adversely affect competition within the SENE capacity zone.80 Specifically, the FERC disagreed with applicants that, because GSENA was pivotal prior to the Transactions and Atlas would be pivotal after the Transactions, albeit with an additional 224 MW, there would be no adverse impact on competition. Rather, the FERC identified concerns that, because there would be an increase in the degree to which Atlas would be pivotal, Atlas would have an increased ability to exercise market power in an FCA when its resources enter or exit the market. Accordingly, as a condition to its authorization, the FERC suggested that Atlas propose in a 30-day compliance filing tailored mitigation mechanisms to address that concern, including divestiture of generation units or a commitment to keep resources in the FCM for a specified period of time.81
Compliance Filing. In its compliance filing, applicants propose to divest within six months an amount of generation equal to or greater than the amount by which they would become more pivotal post-transaction (i.e. the 224 MW currently controlled by Dynegy and ECP in SENE), so that the amount of generation controlled in SENE is equal to or less than the amount of generation currently controlled by GDF Suez. Until that divestiture is accomplished, applicants will rely on pre-existing market mitigation provisions for annual FCA purposes and, for monthly and reconfiguration auctions, a commitment to limit capacity bids to a level no greater than the FCA clearing price for the applicable planning period. Comments on the compliance filing were due on or before January 10. A protest was filed by Utility Workers of America Local 464 (“UWUA Local 464”) and Robert Clark, who contended that the compliance filing was inadequate because it failed to provide for the divestiture of Brayton Point or address anti-competitive concerns that the failure to divest that unit raises. Atlas Power, Dynegy and ECP answered the UWUA Local 464 protest on January 13. On January 19, UWUA Local 464 answered
78 The BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on May 23, 2013 (Vol. 78, No. 99) pp. 30,245-30,810.
79 Atlas Power Finance, LLC, 157 FERC ¶ 61,237 (Dec. 22, 2016) (“Atlas 203 Order”). 80 Atlas 203 Order at P 45. The FERC also found that the Applicants had not shown that the Acquisition
would not adversely affect PJM’s COMED Local Deliverability Area, and that the protest filed by Public Citizen was beyond the scope of the proceeding.
81 Id. at P 56.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 17 41536280.171
Applicants’’ January 13 answer and Applicants answered that answer later that day. The compliance filing is pending before the FERC. If there are questions on this matter, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
• MOPR-Related Proceedings (PJM, NYISO) (EL16-49; ER13-62) In two proceedings which, unless narrowly limited solely to the unique facts of the directly applicable
markets (PJM in EL16-49; NYISO in ER13-62), could impact the New England market through FERC jurisdictional or other determinations, NEPOOL filed limited comments requesting that any Commission action or decision be limited narrowly to the facts and circumstances as presented in the applicable market. NEPOOL urged that any changes that may be ordered by the Commission in the proceedings not circumscribe the results of NEPOOL’s stakeholder process or predetermine the outcome of that process through dicta or a ruling concerning different markets with different history and different rules. NEPOOL’s comments were filed on January 24 in the NYISO proceeding; January 30 in the PJM proceeding, and are pending before the FERC. If you have any questions concerning these proceedings, please contact Dave Doot (860-275-0102; [email protected]) or Sebastian Lombardi (860-275-0663; [email protected]).
• LGIA: CMP/ReEnergy Livermore Falls (ER17-909) On January 31, 2017, CMP filed a non-conforming Large Generation Interconnection Agreement
(“LGIA”) with ReEnergy Livermore Falls to govern the interconnection of ReEnergy’s 39 MW biomass-fueled generating facility located in Livermore Falls, Maine. Since the LGIA continues the existing interconnection arrangements between CMP and Livermore Falls, without modification to the facility’s capability or operating characteristics, a new three-party Interconnection Agreement (that would include the ISO) was not required. A January 1, 2017 effective was requested. Comments on this filing are due on or before February 21, 2017. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Pat Gerity ([email protected]; 860-275-0533).
• Emera MPD OATT Changes (ER15-1429; EL16-13, ER12-1650) As previously reported, the FERC conditionally accepted, on December 7, 2015, changes to the
Maine Public District (“MPD”) Open Access Transmission Tariff (“MPD OATT”), including to the rates, terms, and conditions set forth in MPD OATT Attachment J.82 However, the FERC found, ultimately, that the changes to the MPD OATT had not been shown to be just and reasonable, may be unjust and unreasonable, instituted a Section 206 proceeding (in EL16-13) to examine the provisions, and set the matter for a trial-type evidentiary hearing, to be held in abeyance pending the outcome of settlement judge procedures (see below).
Background (ER15-1429). Emera Maine, as successor to Maine Public Service Company (“Maine Public”), provides open access to Emera Maine’s transmission facilities in northern Maine (the “MPD Transmission System”) pursuant to the MPD OATT. Emera Maine stated that the changes to the MPD OATT were needed to ensure that, in light of the filing by Emera of consolidated FERC Form 1 data (data comprising both the former Bangor Hydro and Maine Public systems), charges for service under the MPD OATT reflect only the costs of service over the MPD Transmission System. Emera Maine also proposed additional, limited changes to the MPD OATT. A June 1, 2015 effective date was requested. The “Maine Customer Group”83 filed a motion to reject (“Motion to Reject”) the April 1 Filing, asserting the April 1 Filing was deficient because, rather than actual rates, it included proxy rates that MPD said would be replaced with 2014 Form 1 numbers when MPD’s 2014 Form 1 was available. On April 22, the Maine PUC and the Maine Customer Group protested the filing. The MPUC challenged three aspects of the filing: (i) the proposed increase of ROE from 9.75% to 10.20% based on anomalous economic conditions; (ii) the change from a measured loss factor calculation to a fixed loss factor; and (iii) the use of end-of-year account
82 Emera Maine, 153 FERC ¶ 61,283 (Dec. 7, 2015). 83 The “Maine Customer Group (“MCG”) is comprised of: the Maine Office of the Public Advocate
(“MOPA”), Houlton Water Company (“Houlton”), Van Buren Light and Power District (“Van Buren”), and Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“EMEC”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 18 41536280.171
balances, rather than average 13-month account balances, for determination of facilities that are included in rate base. In addition to those aspects, the Maine Customer Group further challenged: (iv) inclusion of an out-of-period adjustment to rate base for forecasted transmission; (v) the proposed capital structure, which they assert is artificially distorted to accommodate a requirement resulting from the merger of Emera Maine’s predecessor companies; and (vi) the proposed new cost allocation scheme. On April 24, Emera Maine answered the Maine Customer Group’s Motion to Reject. On April 29, the Maine Customer Group answered Emera Maine’s April 24 answer. On May 1, Emera Maine filed an amendment and errata to its April 1 filing, in part reflecting 2014 FERC Form 1 data rather than estimated data. On May 7, Emera Maine answered the April 22 Maine PUC and MCG protests and the MCG’s April 29 answer. On May 8, MCG moved to compel revision to Emera’s May 1 filing, asserting that it was not filed in accordance with Emera’s OATT, and specifically the Protocols for Implementing and Reviewing Charges Established by the Attachment J Rate Formulas (the “Motion to Compel”). MCG also protested the May 1 filing on May 22. On May 26, Emera Maine answered MCG’s May 8 Motion to Compel, which MCG answered the next day.
On June 2, 2016, the FERC granted Maine Customer Group’s Motion to Compel, and set the remaining issues with respect to Emera Maine’s 2014 and 2015 Annual Updates for hearing and settlement judge procedures.84 The FERC also consolidated ER12-1650 with this proceeding. In addition, the FERC directed that Emera Maine to make a compliance filing, on or before July 5, that (1) revises its 2014-2015 formula rate charges to correct the errors the Maine Customer Group raised with respect to amortization of long-term debt costs and post-retirement benefits other than pensions, and (2) imputes the retired debt balance for the tax-free Maine Public bonds ($22.6 million) into the capital structure calculation for the 2014-2015 Rate Year. Emera Maine requested rehearing of the June 2 order on July 5. On January 6, 2017, the FERC denied rehearing and Emera Maine’s alternative request for consolidation with the ongoing proceedings in Docket Nos. EC10-67-002, et al.85
Compliance Filing (ER12-1650). The January 6 Order also conditionally accepted Emera Maine’s July 5, 2016, pending compliance filing. submitted in response to the June 2 Order described above. The compliance filing was contested by the Maine Customer Group, which asserted that Emera’s compliance filing was incorrect as to two of the three refund issues, and Emera should be ordered to pay immediate refunds in accordance with the corrected revised formula rate it proposed. While the FERC sided with Emera Maine on the refund issues, it agreed with the Maine Customer Group that immediate refunds were in order. Accordingly, the FERC directed Emera Maine to make adjustments during the 2014-2015 Rate Year and refund the nearly $400,000 of excess revenue requirement as shown in its compliance filing, demonstrating in a refund report due on or before February 6 how the excess charges will be refunded.86
Hearing and Settlement Judge Procedures. The FERC encouraged the parties to make every effort to settle their disputes before hearing procedures are commenced, and is holding the hearing in abeyance pending the outcome of settlement judge procedures. As previously reported, Chief Judge Cintron substituted ALJ Dring in place of ALJ Johnson in mid-September as the settlement judge for these proceedings. Settlement conferences before Judge Johnson were held on January 5, March 3, and April 26, 2016 and on October 25 before Judge Dring. A fifth settlement conference, scheduled for November 22, was held on December 1. Since the last Report, Judge Dring issued a status report on January 24 (i) indicating that the parties have reached a settlement in principal and are memorializing their agreement (which is to be filed in March), and (ii) recommending that settlement judge procedures be continued. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Pat Gerity ([email protected]; 860-275-0533).
• FERC Enforcement Action: Covanta Haverhill Associates (IN17-3)
On February 1, 2017, the FERC approved on a Stipulation and Consent Agreement between OE and Covanta Haverhill Associates LP (“Covanta”) that, among other things, levied a $36,000 civil penalty and
84 Emera Maine, 155 FERC ¶ 61,233 (June 2, 2016), reh’g denied, 158 FERC ¶ 61,012 (Jan. 6, 2017). 85 Emera Maine, 158 FERC ¶ 61,012 (Jan. 6, 2017) (“January 6 Order”). 86 Id. at PP 39-40.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 19 41536280.171
required Covanta to implement procedures to improve compliance, subject to monitoring via submission of semi-annual reports for at least two years.87 OE determined, following a referral from the ISO, that Covanta failed to provide instantaneous metered data from an RTU to the ISO, as required by the Tariff, relying instead on its Local Control Center (LCC) to provide such output data through its settlement system. Covanta did not complete installation of the necessary equipment to provide such data until June 29, 2016. OE determined that Covanta violated sections 1.3.2, II.22.1, II.22.2 of the Tariff, and thereby violated the FERC’s Unit Operation Market Behavior Rule. The February 1 order was preceded on January 23, 2016 by a staff notice of alleged violations.
• FERC Enforcement Action: GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA (IN17-2)
Also on February 1, the FERC approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement88 that resolves the Office of Enforcement’s (“OE”) investigation into whether GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA (“GSEMNA”) violated the FERC’s Anti-Manipulation by improperly targeting and increasing its receipt of lost opportunity cost credits (“LOCs”) in the PJM market. In summary, GSEMNA offered units into the PJM Da-Ahead market at discounted prices, resulting in Day-Ahead commitments and LOCs at times when the units would have been out of the money had they not been offered at discounted prices.89 OE determined that GSEMNA’s offers did not reflect the price at which it wanted to generate power, but rather the price at which it could obtain a Day-Ahead award and then receive LOCs during periods when the discounted units likely could not have been operated profitably. OE further determined that, in order to increase LOCs, GSEMNA discounted the cost-based offers for the units when it discounted their price-based offers. Accordingly, OE concluded that GSEMNA’s strategy of targeting and inflating LOCs was contrary to supply and demand fundamentals and impaired the functioning of the LOC provisions of the PJM market and PJM’s unit commitment process.90 Under the Settlement, in which GSEMNA neither admits nor denies the alleged violations, GSEMNA agreed to disgorge $40.8 million to PJM and pay a $40 million civil penalty to the United States Treasury. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
• FERC Enforcement Action: Order of Non-Public, Formal Investigation (IN15-10) MISO Zone 4 Planning Resource Auction Offers. On October 1, 2015, the FERC issued an order
authorizing Enforcement to conduct a non-public, formal investigation, with subpoena authority, regarding violations of FERC’s regulations, including its prohibition against electric energy market manipulation, that may have occurred in connection with, or related to, MISO’s April 2015 Planning Resource Auction for the 2015/16 power year.
Unlike a staff notice of alleged violation, a FERC order converting an informal, non-public investigation to a formal, non-public investigation does not indicate that the FERC has determined that any entity has engaged in market manipulation or otherwise violated any FERC order, rule, or regulation. It does, however, give OE’s Director, and employees designated by the Director, the authority to administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance and testimony, take evidence, compel the filing of
87 Covanta Haverhill Assoc. LP, 158 FERC ¶ 61,105 (Feb. 1, 2017). 88 GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc., 158 FERC ¶ 61,102 (Feb. 1, 2017). 89 OE explained that GSEMNA implemented its strategy of offering the units into the DA market with
discounted price-based and cost-based offers, seeking to obtain a Day-Ahead award and to profit from LOCs at times when its units would have operated at a loss if dispatched. GSEMNA would discount a given unit’s Day-Ahead offer based on an assessment of the likelihood that the unit would not be dispatched in the Real-Time market, weighing the risk of running the unit at a loss if dispatched against the potential reward of LOCs if the unit was not dispatched. When GSEMNA expected that a CT unit would be dispatched in the Real-Time market, it typically offered the unit at or above cost and did not discount its Day-Ahead energy offer. GSEMNA typically offered uncommitted units (which were not eligible for LOCs) in the Real-Time market without discounting.
90 Id. at PP 12-13.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 20 41536280.171
special reports and responses to interrogatories, gather information, and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, contracts, agreements, or other records.
• FERC Audit of ISO-NE (PA16-6) The FERC’s audit of ISO-NE docketed in this proceeding is on-going. As previously reported, the
FERC informed ISO-NE on November 24, 2015 that it would evaluate ISO-NE’s compliance with: (1) the transmission provider obligations described in the Tariff, (2) Order 1000 as it relates to transmission planning and expansion, and interregional coordination, (3) accounting requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts under 18 C.F.R. Part 101, (4) financial reporting requirements under 18 C.F.R. Part 141; and (5) record retention requirements under 18 CFR Part 125. The FERC indicated that the audit will cover the July 10, 2013 period through the present.
XII. Misc. - Administrative & Rulemaking Proceedings
• Electric Storage Resource Utilization in RTO/ISO Markets (AD16-25) On November 9, the FERC held a technical conference to discuss the utilization of electric storage
resources as transmission assets compensated through RTO/ISO transmission rates, for grid support services that are compensated in other ways, and for multiple services. On November 14, the FERC invited all those interested to file, on or before December 14, 2016, post-technical conference comments on the topics discussed in the November 1 Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference. Comments were filed by over 45 parties, including Avangrid, Brookfield, EEI, Energy Storage Association, Exelon, FirstLight, NEPGA, NextEra, PSEG, Solar City/Tesla, and UCS. This matter is pending before the FERC.
• Competitive Transmission Development Rates (AD16-18) The FERC held a technical conference on a June 27-28, 2016 to discuss competitive transmission
development process-related issues, including use of cost containment provisions, the relationship of competitive transmission development to transmission incentives, and other ratemaking issues. In addition, participants had the opportunity to discuss issues relating to interregional transmission coordination, regional transmission planning and other transmission development issues. Pre-technical conference comments were filed by over 20 parties, including by NESCOE, BHE US Transmission, LSPower, and NextEra Energy Transmission. Technical conference materials are available on the FERC’s e-Library. On August 3, the FERC issued a notice inviting post-technical conference comments on questions listed in the attachment to the notice. Following requests by Utility Trade Associations91 and the New Jersey BPU, the deadline for comments was extended to October 3, 2016. Comments were filed by over 60 parties, including: ISO-NE, Avangrid, AWEA, BHE US Transmission, EDF Renewables, EEI, ELCON, Eversource, Exelon, LSP Transmission Holdings, MMWEC, National Grid, NESCOE, NextEra, and PSEG. Since the last Report, NEPOOL filed its Status Report, which was approved at the November 4 meeting. This matter is pending before the FERC.
• Reactive Supply Compensation in RTO/ISO Markets (AD16-17) A workshop to discuss compensation for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control (Reactive Supply) in
RTO/ISO markets was held on June 30, 2016. The workshop explored the types of costs incurred by generators for providing Reactive Supply capability and service; whether those costs are being recovered solely as compensation for Reactive Supply or whether recovery is also through compensation for other services; and different methods by which generators receive compensation for Reactive Supply (e.g., FERC-approved revenue requirements, market-wide rates, etc.). The workshop also explored potential adjustments in compensation based on changes in Reactive Supply capability and potential mechanisms to prevent overcompensation for Reactive Supply. Technical conference materials are available on the FERC’s e-Library. Written comments were due on or before July 28, 2016, and were filed by, among others, NYISO, PJM, the PJM IMM, AWEA, EEI, EPSA, EDF Renewables, Talen, Essential Power, and Exelon. EDF
91 The “Utility Trade Associations” are APPA, EEI, Large Public Power Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (“NRECA”), and Transmission Access Policy Study Group (“TAPS”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 21 41536280.171
Renewables filed reply comments on August 19. Since the last Report, the PJM IMM filed comments answering and objecting to AWAE’s July 28 comments suggesting that wind units should receive cost of service compensation for reactive capability apart from how the rules apply to other types of generators. This matter remains pending before the FERC.
• PURPA Implementation (AD16-16) A workshop to discuss issues associated with the FERC’s implementation of PURPA was held on
June 29, 2016. The conference focused on two issues: the mandatory purchase obligation under PURPA and the determination of avoided costs for those purchases. Panelists’ advanced written comments and materials from the technical conference are available on the FERC’s e-Library. On September 6, the FERC issued a notice inviting post-technical conference comments to be filed. Such comments may address (1) the use of the “one-mile rule” to determine the size of an entity seeking certification as a small power production qualifying facility (“QF”); and (2) minimum standards for PURPA-purchase contracts. Comments were due on or before November 7, 2016 and were filed by over 40 parties, including AWEA, Covanta, CT PURA/MA AG, Duke, EDP, EEI, ELCON, NARUC, and NRECA.
• Price Formation in RTO/ISO Energy and Ancillary Services Markets (AD14-14) As previously reported, the FERC directed each RTO/ISO to publicly provide information related to five
price formation issues:92 (1) pricing of fast-start resources; (2) commitments to manage multiple contingencies; (3) look-ahead modeling; (4) uplift allocation; and (5) transparency. The FERC directed each RTO/ISO to file a report that provides an update on its current practices in the identified topic areas, that provides the status of its efforts (if any) to address each of the five issues, and that fully responds to the questions. The FERC indicated it would use the reports and comments to determine what further action is appropriate. The RTO/ISO reports were filed February 17 by PJM, March 4 by ISO-NE, CAISO, MISO, and NYISO (corrected on March 23), and March 7 by SPP. Comments on the reports were due on or before April 693 and were filed by over 25 parties, including Exelon, EEI, and EPSA. This matter is pending before the FERC.
• NOI: FERC's Policy for Recovery of Income Tax Costs & ROE Policies (PL17-1) On December 15, 2016, the FERC issued a notice of inquiry (“NOI”) seeking comments regarding how to
address any double recovery resulting from the FERC’s current income tax allowance and ROE policies.94 The NOI follows the D.C. Circuit’s United Airlines95 holding that the FERC failed to demonstrate that there is no double recovery of taxes for a partnership pipeline as a result of the income tax allowance and ROE determined pursuant to the DCF methodology, and remanding the decisions to the FERC to develop a mechanism “for which the Commission can demonstrate that there is no double recovery” of partnership income tax costs”.96 In response to requests for an extension of the comment and reply comment deadlines, and objections to those requests, the FERC extended the comment and reply comment deadlines to March 8 and April 7, 2017, respectively.
• Order 834: Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments (RM17-9)
On January 9, the FERC issued Order 83497 to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules, and orders within FERC’s jurisdiction. The FERC
92 Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 153 FERC ¶ 61,221 (Nov. 20, 2015).
93 In the order directing the reports, the FERC provided that public comment in response to the RTOs/ISOs’ reports may be submitted within 30 days of the filing of the reports. Apr. 6 was 30 days after the filing of the last of the reports, the SPP report, on Mar. 7.
94 Inquiry Regarding the FERC’s Policy for Recovery of Income Tax Costs, 157 FERC ¶ 61,210 (Dec. 15, 2017).
95 United Airlines Inc., et al. v. FERC, 827 F.3d 122, 134, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“United Airlines”). 96 Id. at 137. 97 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments, Order No. 834, 158 FERC ¶ 61, 170 (Jan. 9, 2017) (“Order
834”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 22 41536280.171
is required to update each such civil monetary penalty on an annual basis every January 15.98 Of particular interest is the increase in potential civil penalties for market manipulation, which were increased from $1,193,970 to $1,213,503 per violation, per day. Order 834 became effective January 24, 2017.99
• NOPR: LGIA/LGIP Reforms (RM17-8) On December 15, the FERC issued a NOPR100 proposing reforms designed to improve certainty,101
promote more informed interconnection,102 and enhance interconnection processes.103 Based, in part, on input received in response to AWEA’s petition for changes to the pro forma LGIP/LGIA, and the FERC’s May 13, 2016 technical conference to explore generator interconnection issues (as reported previously under Docket Nos. RM16-12; RM15-21), the FERC has identified proposed reforms which it states could remedy potential shortcomings in the existing interconnection processes. The FERC also seeks comment on whether any of its proposed reforms should be applied to the pro forma SGIP/SGIA.104 Comments on the LGIP/LGIA Reforms NOPR are due March 14, 2017.105 Thus far, comments have been submitted by Schulte Associates.
98 See Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, 599. The FERC made its first adjustment under the Act in July 2016. See Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments, Order No. 826, 81 FR 43937 (July 6, 2016), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,386 (2016).
99 Order 834 was published in the Fed. Reg. on Jan. 24, 2017 (Vol. 82, No. 14) pp. 8,137-8,139. 100 Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements, 157 FERC ¶ 61,212 (Dec. 15, 2016)
(“LGIP/LGIA Reforms NOPR”). 101 To accomplish this goal, the FERC proposes to: (1) revise the pro forma LGIP to require transmission
providers that conduct cluster studies to move toward a scheduled, periodic restudy process; (2) remove from the pro forma LGIA the limitation that interconnection customers may only exercise the option to build transmission provider’s interconnection facilities and standalone network upgrades if the transmission owner cannot meet the dates proposed by the interconnection customer; (3) modify the pro forma LGIA to require mutual agreement between the transmission owner and interconnection customer for the transmission owner to opt to initially self-fund the costs of the construction of network upgrades; and (4) require that the RTO/ISO establish dispute resolution procedures for interconnection disputes. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which a cap on the network upgrade costs for which interconnection customers are responsible can mitigate the potential for serial restudies without inappropriately shifting cost responsibility. Id. at P 6.
102 The FERC proposes to: (1) require transmission providers to outline and make public a method for determining contingent facilities in their LGIPs and LGIAs based upon guiding principles in the Proposed Rule; (2) require transmission providers to list in their LGIPs and on their OASIS sites the specific study processes and assumptions for forming the networking models used for interconnection studies; (3) require congestion and curtailment information to be posted in one location on each transmission provider’s OASIS site; (4) revise the definition of “Generating Facility” in the pro forma LGIP and LGIA to explicitly include electric storage resources; and (5) create a system of reporting requirements for aggregate interconnection study performance. The FERC also seeks comment on proposals or additional steps that the Commission could take to improve the resolution of issues that arise when affected systems are impacted by a proposed interconnection. Id. at P 7.
103 The FERC proposes to: (1) allow interconnection customers to limit their requested level of interconnection service below their generating facility capacity; (2) require transmission providers to allow for provisional agreements so that interconnection customers can operate on a limited basis prior to completion of the full interconnection process; (3) require transmission providers to create a process for interconnection customers to utilize surplus interconnection service at existing interconnection points; (4) require transmission providers to set forth a separate procedure to allow transmission providers to assess and, if necessary, study an interconnection customer’s technology changes (e.g., incorporation of a newer turbine model) without a change to the interconnection customer’s queue position; and (5) require transmission providers to evaluate their methods for modeling electric storage resources for interconnection studies and report to the Commission why and how their existing practices are or are not sufficient. Id. at P 8.
104 Id. at P 11. 105 The LGIP/LGIA Reforms NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on Jan. 13, 2017 (Vol. 82, No. 9 pp. 4,464-
4,501.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 23 41536280.171
• NOPR: Fast Start Pricing in RTO/ISO Markets (RM17-3) On December 15, the FERC issued a NOPR proposing to require each RTO and ISO to incorporate
market rules that meet certain requirements when pricing fast-start resources.106 The FERC stated that these reforms should lead to prices that more transparently reflect the marginal cost of serving load, which will reduce uplift costs and thereby improve price signals to support efficient investments. Specifically, the FERC proposes to require that each RTO/ISO incorporate the following five requirements for its fast-start pricing:
1. an RTO/ISO must apply fast-start pricing to any resource committed by the RTO/ISO that is able to start up within 10 minutes or less, has a minimum run time of one hour or less, and that submits economic energy offers to the market;
2. when an RTO/ISO makes a decision to commit a fast-start resource, it should incorporate commitment costs, i.e., start-up and no-load costs, of fast-start resources in energy and operating reserve prices, but must do so only during the fast-start resource’s minimum run time;
3. an RTO/ISO must modify its fast-start pricing to relax the economic minimum operating limit of fast-start resources and treat them as dispatchable from zero to the economic maximum operating limit for the purpose of calculating prices;
4. if an RTO/ISO allows offline fast-start resources to set prices for addressing certain system needs, the resource must be feasible and economic; and
5. an RTO/ISO must incorporate fast-start pricing in both the Day-Ahead and Real-Time markets.
Comments on the Fast-Start Pricing NOPR are due on or before February 28, 2017.107
• NOPR: Electric Storage Participation in RTO/ISO Markets (RM16-23; AD16-20) On November 23, the FERC issued a NOPR proposing to require each RTO and ISO to revise its
tariff “to (1) establish a participation model consisting of market rules that, recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, accommodates their participation in the organized wholesale electric markets and (2) define distributed energy resource aggregators as a type of market participant that can participate in the organized wholesale electric markets under the participation model that best accommodates the physical and operational characteristics of its distributed energy resource aggregation.”108 Comments on the Storage NOPR were initially due on or before January 30, 2017,109 but following requests for an extension of time, are now due February 13, 2017.
The Storage NOPR follows FERC Staff’s data request directing the RTO/ISOs to submit information on rules that affect the participation of electric storage resources in their markets, including, but not limited to, the eligibility of electric storage resources to participate in the markets, the qualification and performance requirements for market participants, required bid parameters, and the treatment of electric storage resources when they are receiving electricity for later injection to the grid. (Information from each of the ISO/RTOs, including ISO-NE’s information, was submitted on May 16).
• NOPR: Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance and MBR Purposes (RM16-17) As previously reported, the FERC issued a July 21, 2016 NOPR, which supersedes both its
Connected Entity NOPR (RM15-23) and Ownership NOPR (RM16-3), proposing to collect certain data for analytics and surveillance purposes from market-based rate (“MBR”) sellers and entities trading virtual
106 Fast-Start Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 157 FERC ¶ 61,213 (Dec. 15, 2016) (“Fast-Start Pricing NOPR”).
107 The Fast-Start Pricing NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on Dec. 30, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 251 pp. 96,391-96,404.
108 Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Orgs. and Indep. Sys. Operators, 157 FERC ¶ 61,121 (Nov. 17, 2016) (“Storage NOPR”).
109 The Storage NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on Nov. 30, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 230 pp. 86,522-86,550.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 24 41536280.171
products or holding FTRs and to change certain aspects of the substance and format of information submitted for MBR purposes.110 The Data Collection NOPR presents substantial revisions from what the FERC proposed in the Connected Entity NOPR, and responds to the comments and concerns submitted by NEPOOL in that proceeding. Among other things, the changes proposed in the Data NOPR include: (i) a different set of filers; (ii) a reworked and substantially narrowed definition of Connected Entity; and (iii) a different submission process. With respect to the MBR program, the proposals include: (i) adopting certain changes to reduce and clarify the scope of ownership information that MBR sellers must provide; (ii) reducing the information required in asset appendices; and (iii) collecting currently-required MBR information and certain new information in a consolidated and streamlined manner. The FERC also proposes to eliminate MBR sellers’ corporate organizational chart submission requirement adopted in Order 816. Comments on the Data Collection NOPR were due on or before September 19, 2016111 and were filed by over 30 parties, including: American Public Power Association (“APPA”), Avangrid, Brookfield, EPSA, Macquarie/DC Energy/Emera Energy Services, NextEra, and NRG.
Technical Workshops. The FERC held two technical workshops. The first technical workshop was held on August 11 and focused on the Data Collection NOPR’s draft data dictionary. The second technical workshop was held on December 7, 2016 and focused on the submittal process, with case studies serving as a platform for discussion of (i) the steps to submit data; (ii) data review and validation processes; and (iii) the notifications to be provided through the data validation and receipt process. Staff also provided a high-level update on proposed technical refinements to the data dictionary based on input received during the first workshop and additional outreach.
• Order 833: Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) Procedures (RM16-15) On June 16, the FERC issued Order 833 amending its regulations to implement provisions of the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation (“FAST”) Act that pertain to the designation, protection and sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information (“CEII”) and to amend its regulations that pertain to CEII.112 The amended procedures will be referred to as the Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) procedures. Order 833 will become effective February 21, 2017.113 On December 19, 2016, EEI requested rehearing of Order 833. The FERC issued a tolling order on January 17, affording it additional time to consider the EEI request for rehearing, which remains pending.
• NOPR: Primary Frequency Response - Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System (RM16-6) On November 17, 2016, the FERC issued a NOPR proposing to require all newly interconnecting
large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection.114 To implement these requirements, the Commission proposes to revise the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (“LGIA”) and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (“SGIA”). The Primary Frequency Response NOPR follows the FERC’s Frequency Response NOI115 from early 2016. Comments on the Primary Frequency
110 Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 (July 21, 2016) (“Data Collection NOPR”).
111 The Data Collection NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on Aug. 4, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 150 pp. 51,726-51,772.
112 Regulations Implementing FAST Act Section 61003 – Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Amending Critical Energy Infrastructure Information; Availability of Certain North American Electric Reliability Corporation Databases to the Commission, Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 (Nov. 17, 2016) (“Order 833”).
113 Order 833 was published in the Fed. Reg. on Dec. 21, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 245) pp. 93,732-93,753.114 Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, 157
FERC ¶ 61,122 (Nov. 17, 2016) (“Primary Frequency Response NOPR”). 115 Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, 154
FERC ¶ 61,117 (Feb. 18, 2016 ) (“Frequency Response NOI”).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 25 41536280.171
Response NOPR were due on or before January 24, 2017116 and were filed by over 30 parties, including AWEA, EEI, ELCON, EPSA, ESA, the IRC, NRECA, and UCS.
• Order 831: Price Caps in RTO/ISO Markets (RM16-5) On November 17, 2016, the FERC issued Order 831117 requiring each RTO/ISO: (i) to cap each
resource’s incremental energy offer at the higher of $1,000/MWh or that resource’s verified cost-based incremental energy offer; and (ii) cap verified cost-based incremental energy offers at $2,000/MWh when calculating locational marginal prices (“LMP”). In addition, the FERC clarified that the verification process for cost-based incremental offers above $1,000/MWh should ensure that a resource’s cost-based incremental energy offer reasonably reflects that resource’s actual or expected costs. Order 831 modified the FERC’s Offer Cap NOPR by including a $2,000/MWh hard cap for the purposes of calculating LMPs. Order 831 will become effective, and Market Rule changes implementing Order 831 will be required to be filed, February 21, 2017.118 On December 19, 2017, American Municipal Power Inc. (“AMP”) and American Public Power Association (“APPA”), Exelon, NYISO, and the Transmission Access Policy Study Group (“TAPS”) requested rehearing and/or clarification of Order 831. The FERC issued a tolling order on January 17, affording it additional time to consider the requests for rehearing, which remain pending. On January 4, the PJM Market Monitor opposed Exelon’s motion for clarification and/or rehearing. On January 13, MISO submitted comments supporting NYISO request for rehearing.
• Order 825: Settlement Intervals/Shortage Pricing (RM15-24) As previously reported, Order 825119 revises FERC regulations to require that each RTO/ISO (i) settle (a)
energy transactions in its real-time markets at the same time interval it dispatches energy; (b) operating reserves transactions in its real-time markets at the same time interval it prices operating reserves; and (c) intertie transactions in the same time interval it schedules intertie transactions; and (ii) trigger shortage pricing for any dispatch interval during which a shortage of energy or operating reserves occurs. The FERC stated that adopting these reforms will align prices with resource dispatch instructions and operating needs, providing appropriate incentives for resource performance. Order 825 will become effective September 13, 2016.120
Compliance. Each RTO/ISO was required to submit a compliance filing with the tariff changes needed to implement this Final Rule within 120 days of the Final Rule’s September 13, 2016 effective date (on or before January 11, 2017). As noted in Section III above, New England’s Order 825 compliance filing was submitted on January 11. The FERC will allow a further 12 months from the compliance filing date for the tariff changes implementing reforms to settlement intervals to be effective, and 120 days from that same compliance filing date for the tariff changes implementing shortage pricing reforms to be effective. As previously noted, the ISO’s and NEPOOL’s jointly filed Sub-Hourly Settlement Changes, which changed to five minutes the settlement interval in the Real-Time Energy and Reserves Markets, was filed and accepted by the FERC.
116 The Primary Frequency Response NOPR was published in the Fed. Reg. on Nov. 25, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 227) pp. 85,176-85,190.
117 Offer Caps in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, Order No. 831, 157 FERC ¶ 61,115 (Nov. 17, 2016 ) (“Order 831”), reh’g requested.
118 Order 831 was published in the Fed. Reg. on Dec. 5, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 233) pp. 87,770-87,800.119 Settlement Intervals and Shortage Pricing in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations
and Independent System Operators, Order No. 825, 155 FERC ¶ 61,276 (June 16, 2016) (“Order 825”). 120 Order 825 was published in the Fed. Reg. on June 30, 2016 (Vol. 81, No. 126) pp. 42,882-42,910.
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 26 41536280.171
XIII. Natural Gas Proceedings
For further information on any of the natural gas proceedings, please contact Joe Fagan (202-218-3901; [email protected]) or Jamie Blackburn (202-218-3905; [email protected]).
• Algonquin EDC Capacity Release Bidding Requirements Exemption Request (RP16-618) On March 31, 2016, the FERC conditionally accepted Algonquin tariff modifications and request for
waiver that provided an exemption from capacity release bidding requirements for certain types of firm transportation capacity releases by Electric Distribution Companies (“EDCs”) that are participating in state-regulated electric reliability programs.121 As previously reported, Algonquin stated that the modifications were consistent with the FERC’s current policy of exempting releases pursuant to state-regulated retail access programs of natural gas local distribution companies (“LDCs”) from bidding requirements. Algonquin added that its proposal (i) supports the efforts of EDCs to increase the reliability of supply for natural gas-fired electric generation facilities in New England and to address high electricity prices during peak periods in New England and therefore is in the public interest; and (ii) furthers the FERC’s initiatives related to gas-electric coordination. On May 9, 2016, the FERC held a technical conference to examine “concerns raised regarding the basis and need for the waiver.” Initial comments were due May 31. Almost two dozen sets of initial comments were filed, raising numerous issues both in support and in opposition to the Algonquin proposal. Reply comments were due June 10, 2016 and were filed by Algonquin Gas Transmission, Sequent Energy Management, L.P. and Tenaska Marketing Ventures, Indicated Shippers, National Grid, Eversource, Repsol, Calpine, Exelon/NextEra, New England LDCs, CT PURA and the MA AG.
On August 31, 2016, the FERC issued an order in which it rejected Algonquin’s request for a waiver that would have exempted gas-fired generators from capacity release bidding requirements but accepted Algonquin’s proposal to exempt from bidding an EDC’s capacity release to an asset manager who is required to use the released capacity to carry out the EDC’s obligations under the state-regulated electric reliability program.122 The FERC explained that its capacity release regulations seek to balance the interests of the releasing shipper in releasing capacity to a replacement shipper of its choosing while still ensuring that allocative efficiency is enhanced by ensuring the capacity is used for its highest valued use.123 Algonquin’s proposal, whereby any gas-fired generator to whom EDCs release capacity would be a pre-arranged replacement shipper, failed to meet the standard of “improving the competitive structure of the natural gas industry” as formulated by the FERC in granting bidding exemptions for state-regulated retail access programs.124 Furthermore, the FERC found that exemption proponents had not shown why such a broad exemption was necessary in order for EDCs to have a sufficient ability to direct their capacity releases to natural gas-fired generators in order to accomplish the goal of increasing electric reliability.125 On September 30, 2016, ConEd and Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. (“O&R”) requested clarification of the Algonquin Order Following Technical Conference, asking the FERC to clarify certain aspects of its approval exempting from bidding an EDC’s capacity release to an asset manager. Algonquin Gas Transmission, National Grid Electric Distribution Companies, and Sequent Energy Management and Tenaska Marketing Ventures filed answers to the requests for clarification on October 17. Those requests are pending before the FERC.
On September 23, Algonquin submitted a compliance filing in response to the requirements of the Algonquin Order Following Technical Conference. Comments on that compliance were due on or before October 5; none were filed. The compliance filing is pending before the FERC.
121 Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 154 FERC ¶ 61,269 (Mar. 31, 2016). 122 Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 156 FERC ¶ 61,151 (Aug. 31, 2016) (“Algonquin Order Following
Technical Conference”) 123 Id. at P 27. 124 Id. at P 34. 125 Id. at P 35
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 27 41536280.171
• Natural Gas-Related Enforcement Actions The FERC continues to closely monitor and enforce compliance with regulations governing open access
transportation on interstate natural gas pipelines:
BP (IN13-15). On July 11, 2016, the FERC issued Opinion 549126 affirming Judge Cintron’s August 13, 2015 Initial Decision finding that BP America Inc., BP Corporation North America Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP Energy Company (collectively, “BP”) violated Section 1c.1 of the Commission’s regulations (“Anti-Manipulation Rule”) and section 4A of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”).127 Specifically, after extensive discovery and hearing procedures, Judge Cintron found that BP’s Texas team engaged in market manipulation by changing their trading patterns, between September 18, 2008 through the end of November 2008, in order to suppress next-day natural gas prices at the Houston Ship Channel (“HSC”) trading point in order to benefit correspondingly long position at the Henry Hub trading point. The FERC agreed, finding that the “record shows that BP’s trading practices during the Investigative Period were fraudulent or deceptive, undertaken with the requisite scienter, and carried out in connection with Commission-jurisdictional transactions.”128 Accordingly, the FERC assessed a $20.16 million civil penalty and required BP to disgorge $207,169 in “unjust profits it received as a result of its manipulation of the Houston Ship Channel Gas Daily index.” The $20.16 million civil penalty was at the top of the FERC’s Penalty Guidelines range, reflecting increases for having had a prior adjudication within 5 years of the violation, and for BP’s violation of a FERC order within 5 years of the scheme. BP’s penalty was mitigated because it cooperated during the investigation, but BP received no deduction for its compliance program, or for self-reporting. The BP Penalties Order also denied BP’s request for rehearing of the order establishing a hearing in this proceeding.129 BP was directed to pay the civil penalty and disgorgement amount within 60 days of the BP Penalties Order. On August 10, BP requested rehearing of the BP Penalties Order. On September 8, the FERC issued a tolling order, affording it additional time to consider BP’s request for rehearing of the BP Penalties Order, which remains pending.
On September 7, BP submitted a motion for modification of the BP Penalties Order’s disgorgement directive because it cannot comply with the disgorgement directive as ordered. BP explained that the entity to which disgorgement was to be directed, the Texas Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (“LIHEAP”), is not set up to receive or disburse amounts received from any person other than the Texas Legislature. In response, on September 12, the FERC stayed the disgorgement directive (until an order on BP’s pending request for rehearing is issued), but indicated that interest will continue to accrue on unpaid monies during the pendency of the stay.130
Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. et al. (IN12-17). On April 28, 2016, the FERC issued a show cause order131 in which it directed Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (“TGPNA”) and its West Desk traders and supervisors, Therese Tran f/k/a Nguyen (“Tran”) and Aaron Hall (collectively, “Respondents”) to show cause why Respondents should not be found to have violated NGA Section 4A and the FERC’s Anti-Manipulation Rule through a scheme to manipulate the price of natural gas at four locations in the southwest United States between June 2009 and June 2012.132
126 BP America Inc., et al., Opinion No. 549, 156 FERC ¶ 61,031 (July 11, 2016) (“BP Penalties Order”). 127 BP America Inc., et al., 152 FERC ¶ 63,016 (Aug. 13, 2015) (“BP Initial Decision”). 128 BP Penalties Order at P 3. 129 BP America Inc. et al., 147 FERC ¶ 61,130 (May 15, 2014) (“BP Hearing Order”), reh’g denied, 156
FERC ¶ 61,031 (July 11, 2016). 130 BP America Inc. et al., 156 FERC ¶ 61,174 (Sep. 12, 2016) (“Order Staying BP Disgorgement”)
131 Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., et al., 155 FERC ¶ 61,105 (Apr. 28, 2016) (“TGPNA Show Cause Order”).
132 The allegations giving rise to the Total Show Cause Order were laid out in a September 21, 2015 FERC Staff Notice of Alleged Violations which summarized OE’s case against the Respondents. Staff determined that the Respondents violated section 4A of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule by devising
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 28 41536280.171
The FERC also directed TGPNA to show cause why it should not be required to disgorge unjust profits of $9.18 million, plus interest; TGPNA, Tran and Hall to show cause why they should not be assessed civil penalties (TGPNA - $213.6 million; Hall - $1 million (jointly and severally with TGPNA); and Tran - $2 million (jointly and severally with TGPNA)). In addition, the FERC directed TGPNA’s parent company, Total, S.A. (“Total”), and TGPNA’s affiliate, Total Gas & Power, Ltd. (“TGPL”), to show cause why they should not be held liable for TGPNA’s, Hall’s, and Tran’s conduct, and be held jointly and severally liable for their disgorgement and civil penalties based on Total’s and TGPL’s significant control and authority over TGPNA’s daily operations. Respondents field their answer on July 12, 2016. OE Staff replied to Respondents’ answer on September 23, 2016.
• New England Pipeline Proceedings The following New England pipeline projects are currently under construction or before the FERC:
• Atlantic Bridge Project (CP16-9)
Algonquin Gas Transmission filed for Section 7(b) and 7(c) certificate on Oct. 22, 2015.
132,700 Dth/d of firm transportation to new and existing delivery points on the Algonquin system and 106,276 Dth/d of firm transportation service from Beverly, MA to various existing delivery points on the Maritimes & Northeast system.
6.3 miles of replacement pipeline along Algonquin in NY and CT; new 7,700-horsepower compressor station in Weymouth, MA; more horsepower at existing compressor stations in CT and NY.
Seven firm shippers: Heritage Gas Limited, Maine Natural Gas Company, NSTAR Gas Company d/b/a Eversource Energy, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (as assignee and asset manager of Summit Natural Gas of Maine), Irving Oil Terminal Operations, Inc., New England NG Supply Limited, and Norwich Public Utilities.
Certificate of public convenience and necessity granted Jan. 25, 2017.133
• Connecticut Expansion Project (CP14-529)
Tennessee Gas Pipeline filed for Section 7(c) certificate July 31, 2014.
72,100 Dth/d of firm capacity.
13.26 miles of three looping segments & facility upgrades/modifications in NY, MA & CT.
Three firm shippers: Conn. Natural Gas, Southern Conn. Gas, and Yankee Gas.
Notice of Schedule issued Sept. 1 with FERC EA to be issued Oct. 23 and 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline set at Jan. 21, 2016.
Environmental Assessment (EA) issued on Oct. 23, 2015.
Certificate of public convenience and necessity granted Mar. 11, 2016.134
Construction expected to begin 4th Quarter 2016.
In-service: Nov. 2017 (anticipated).
and executing a scheme to manipulate the price of natural gas in the southwest United States between June 2009 and June 2012. Specifically, Staff alleged that the scheme involved making largely uneconomic trades for physical natural gas during bid-week designed to move indexed market prices in a way that benefited the company’s related positions. Staff alleged that the West Desk implemented the bid-week scheme on at least 38 occasions during the period of interest, and that Tran and Hall each implemented the scheme and supervised and directed other traders in implementing the scheme.
133 Order Issuing Certificate and Authorizing Abandonment, Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,061 (Jan. 25, 2017).
134 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 154 FERC ¶ 61,191 (Mar. 11, 2016) (order issuing certificate); reh’g requested. See also 154 FERC ¶ 61,263 (Mar. 30, 2016) (order denying stay); 155 FERC ¶ 61,087 (Apr. 22, 2016) (order denying stay).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 29 41536280.171
• Constitution Pipeline (CP13-499) and Wright Interconnection Project (CP13-502)
Constitution Pipeline Company and Iroquois Gas Transmission (Wright Interconnection) concurrently filed for Section 7(c) certificates on June 13, 2013.
650,000 Dth/d of firm capacity from Susquehanna County, PA (Marcellus Shale) through NY to Iroquois/Tennessee interconnection (Wright Interconnection).
New 122-mile interstate pipeline.
Two firm shippers: Cabot Oil & Gas and Southwestern Energy Services.
Final EIS completed on Oct 24, 2014.
Certificates of public convenience and necessity granted Dec 2, 2014.
On April 22, 2016, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied Constitution’s application for a Section 401 permit under the Clean Water Act. The decision effectively guarantees that the Constitution Pipeline project will, at best, be delayed by several years.
On May 16, 2016, the New York Attorney General filed a complaint against Constitution at the FERC (CP13-499) seeking a stay of the December 2014 order granting the original certificates, as well as alleging violations of the order, the Natural Gas Act, and the Commission’s own regulations due to acts and omissions associated with clear-cutting and other construction-related activities on the pipeline right of way in New York.
Construction was expected to begin Spring 2016 (after final Federal Authorizations), but has been plagued by delays. On October 13, 2016, the FERC approved Constitution’s request to proceed to
remove the felled trees in Pennsylvania.
XIV. State Proceedings & Federal Legislative Proceedings
No Activity to Report.
XV. Federal Courts
The following are matters of interest, including petitions for review of FERC decisions in NEPOOL-related proceedings, that are currently pending before the federal courts (unless otherwise noted, the cases are before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). An “**” following the Case No. indicates that NEPOOL has intervened or is a litigant in the appeal. The remaining matters are appeals as to which NEPOOL has no organizational interest but that may be of interest to Participants. For further information on any of these proceedings, please contact Pat Gerity (860-275-0533; [email protected]).
• FCA10 Results (16-1408) and FCA9 Results (16-1068) Underlying FERC Proceedings: ER16-1041135 ER15-1137136
Petitioners: UWUA Local 464 and Robert Clark UWUA Local 464 and Robert Clark (“Petitioners”) filed petitions for review of the FERC’s orders on
the FCA10 and FCA9 Results Filings. On January 17, the FERC moved to have the FCA10 Results and FCA9 Results appeals consolidated. On January 31, the Court consolidated the two cases, and directed the Clerk to issue an appropriate briefing order.
135 155 FERC ¶ 61,273 (June 16, 2016); 157 FERC ¶ 61,060 (Oct. 27, 2016). 136 153 FERC ¶ 61,378 (Dec. 30, 2015); 151 FERC ¶ 61,226 (June 18, 2015).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 30 41536280.171
• NEPGA PER Complaint and FCM Jump Ball and Compliance Proceedings (16-1023/1024) Underlying FERC Proceeding: ER14-1050;137 EL14-52;138 EL15-25139
Petitioner: NEPGA As previously reported, NEPGA filed, on January 19, 2016, a petition for review of the FERC’s
orders on NEPGA’s first PER Complaint. On February 24, 2016, the Court granted NEPGA’s motion to consolidate this proceeding with 16-1024. Briefing was completed on November 28, 2016 and this matter remains pending before the DC Circuit.
• Base ROE Complaints II & III (2012 & 2014) (15-1212) Underlying FERC Proceedings: EL13-33; EL14-86140
Appellants: New England Transmission Owners As previously reported, the TOs filed a petition for review of the FERC’s orders in the 2012 and 2014
ROE complaint proceedings on July 13, 2015. On August 14, 2015, the TOs filed an unopposed motion to hold this case in abeyance pending final FERC action on the 2012 and 2014 ROE Complaints (see Section I above). On August 20, 2015, the Court granted the TOs’ motion to hold the case in abeyance, subject to submission of status reports every 90 days. The most recent status report, the fifth such report filed, was filed on November 14, 2016. In that report, the parties again indicated, ultimately, that the proceedings upon which the TOs based their request for abeyance of this appeal remain ongoing. This case continues to be held in abeyance.
• Order 1000 Compliance Filings (15-1139, 15-1141**) (consolidated) Underlying FERC Proceedings: ER13-193; ER13-196141
Appellants: New England Transmission Owners (NETOs); NESCOE/CT DEEP/CT PURA, et al. As previously reported, NETOs142 and NESCOE, et al., filed a petition for review of the FERC’s orders in
the Order 1000 Compliance Filing proceeding on May 15, 2015. Briefing has been completed and oral argument was held on January 13, 2017 before a panel comprised of Judges Brown, Wilkins and Edwards. This matter is now pending before the DC Circuit.
• Base ROE Complaint I (2011) (15-1118, 15-1119, 15-1121**) (consolidated) Underlying FERC Proceeding: EL11-66143
Appellants: NETOs On April 30, 2015, NETOs filed a petition for review of the FERC’s orders in the 2011 Base ROE
Complaint Proceeding. All briefing was completed and oral argument was held on December 6 before Judges Millett, Sentelle and Randolph. This matter is now pending before the DC Circuit.
137 153 FERC ¶ 61,224 (Nov. 19, 2015); 153 FERC ¶ 61,223 (Nov. 19, 2015); 147 FERC ¶ 61,172 (May 30, 2014). 138 153 FERC ¶ 61,222 (Nov. 19, 2015); 150 FERC ¶ 61,053 (Jan. 30, 2015). 139 153 FERC ¶ 61,222 (Nov. 19, 2015); 150 FERC ¶ 61,053 (Jan. 30, 2015). 140 147 FERC ¶ 61,235 (June 19, 2014); 149 FERC ¶ 61,156 (Nov. 24, 2014); 151 FERC ¶ 61,125 (May 14,
2015). 141 150 FERC ¶ 61,209 (Mar. 19, 2015); 143 FERC ¶ 61,150 (May 17, 2013). 142 “NETOs” are Emera Maine; Central Maine Power Co., National Grid; New Hampshire Transmission
(“NHT”), Eversource (on behalf of its electric utility company affiliates CL&P, WMECO, PSNH, and NSTAR), UI, and Vermont Transco.
143 150 FERC ¶ 61,165 (Mar. 3, 2015); 149 FERC ¶ 61,032 (Oct. 16, 2014); 147 FERC ¶ 61,234 (June 19, 2014).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page 31 41536280.171
• FCM Pricing Rules Complaints (15-1071**, 16-1042) (consol.) Underlying FERC Proceeding: EL14-7,144 EL15-23145
Petitioners: NEPGA, Exelon On March 31, 2015, NEPGA filed a petition for review of the FERC’s orders on NEPGA’s FCM
Administrative Pricing Rules Complaint. On May 22, the Court granted NEPGA’s motion to hold the case in abeyance pending a decision in EL15-23 and, following the FERC’s decision in EL15-23 and Exelon’s appeal of that case (16-1042), Exelon’s motion to consolidate this proceeding with 16-1042. All briefing in the consolidated proceeding has now been completed and this matter is now before the Court.
• Allco Finance Limited v. Klee et al. (Commissioners, CT DEEP and CT PURA) (2d Cir. 16-2946) In this proceeding, an appeal from an unsuccessful challenge of Connecticut’s actions under the 2015
multi-state clean energy RFP (“Clean Energy RFP”) in Connecticut District Court, Allco continues its challenges to Connecticut’s actions under the Clean Energy RFP. Allco asserts that Connecticut’s actions are inconsistent with PURPA and constitutional principles recently addressed by the Supreme Court in Hughes v Talen Energy Marketing and summarized in prior Reports. As reported at the November Participants Committee meeting, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on November 2 granted Allco’s motion for an emergency injunction. The emergency injunction enjoined Connecticut (but not Massachusetts or Rhode Island) from “awarding, entering into, executing, or approving any wholesale electricity contracts in connection with the [Clean Energy RFP] during the pendency of this appeal.” The injunction did “not apply retroactively to any wholesale electricity contract that has been entered into, executed, and approved” as of November 2, 2016. Briefs and Amicus Briefs were filed. Oral argument was held on December 9, 2016 and on December 12, 2016 the Court vacated the November 2 injunction, indicating that an opinion would follow in due course. That opinion has not yet been issued.
144 150 FERC ¶ 61,064 (Jan. 30, 2015); 146 FERC ¶ 61,039 (Jan. 24, 2014). 145 154 FERC ¶ 61,005 (Jan. 7, 2016); 150 FERC ¶ 61,067 (Jan. 30, 2015).
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page I-1
41536280.171
INDEX Status Report of Current Regulatory and Legal Proceedings
as of February 1, 2017
I. Complaints/Section 206 Proceedings
206 Proceeding: RNS/LNS Rates and Rate Protocols .......................................................... (EL16-19) .............................. 3 Base ROE Complaints II & III (2012 & 2014) (Consolidated) ............................................ (EL13-33 and EL14-86)......... 4 Base ROE Complaint IV (2016) ........................................................................................... (EL16-64) .............................. 2 NEPGA PER Adjustment Complaint ................................................................................... (EL16-120) ............................ 1
II. Rate, ICR, FCA, Cost Recovery Filings
206 Proceeding: RNS/LNS Rates and Rate Protocols .......................................................... (EL16-19) .............................. 3 Base ROE Complaints II & III (2012 and 2014) (Consolidated) .......................................... (EL13-33 and EL14-86)......... 4 Base ROE Complaint IV (2016) ........................................................................................... (EL16-64) .............................. 2 ICR-Related Values and HQICCs – Annual Reconfiguration Auctions............................... (ER17-472) ............................ 5 NEPGA PER Adjustment Complaint ................................................................................... (EL16-120) ............................ 1
III. Market Rule and Information Policy Changes, Interpretations and Waiver Requests
2013/14 Winter Reliability Program Remand Proceeding ................................................... (ER13-2266) .......................... 9 CONE & ORTP Updates ...................................................................................................... (ER17-795) ............................ 5 Demand Curve Changes Remand Proceedings..................................................................... (ER14-1639) .......................... 8 Effective Date Update: Fast Start Pricing and DARD pump Parameter Changes ................ (ER17-576) ............................ 6 FCM Enhancements ............................................................................................................. (ER16-2451) .......................... 6 FCM Resource Retirement Reforms ..................................................................................... (ER16-551) ............................ 8 Natural Gas Index Changes .................................................................................................. (ER17-337) ............................ 6 Order 825 Compliance: 5-Min. Settlement of Regulation Capacity & Service Credit ........ (ER17-774) ............................ 5 Sub-Hourly Settlement NCPC Changes ............................................................................... (ER17-680) ............................ 5 Waiver Request: RTEG Resource Type/De-List (ISO-NE) ................................................. (ER16-1904) .......................... 7
IV. OATT Amendments/Coordination Agreements
Attachment K Revisions ....................................................................................................... (ER17-857) .......................... 10 Orders 827/828 Compliance Filing ...................................................................................... (ER16-2695) ........................ 10
V. Financial Assurance/Billing Policy Amendments
No Activity to Report
VI. Schedule 20/21/22/23 Updates
Schedule 21-EM: Bangor Hydro/Maine Public Service Merger-Related Costs Recovery ... (ER15-1434 et al.) ............... 11 Schedule 21-ES: Eversource Recovery of NU/NSTAR Merger-Related Costs ................... (ER16-1023) ........................ 11 Schedule 23: FPL Energy Wyman SGIA ............................................................................. (ER17-581) .......................... 10
VII. NEPOOL Agreement/ Participants Agreement Amendments
No Activity to Report
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page I-241536280.171
VIII. Regional Reports
2015 ISO-NE SIL Limits ...................................................................................................... (AD10-2-009) ...................... 13 LFTR Implementation: 33rd Quarterly Status Report .......................................................... (ER07-476; RM06-08) ......... 12 IMM Quarterly Markets Reports - 2016 Fall ........................................................................ (ZZ16-4) .............................. 12 Opinion 531-A Local Refund Report: FG&E ....................................................................... (EL11-66) ............................ 12 Opinions 531-A/531-B Local Refund Reports ...................................................................... (EL11-66) ............................ 12 Opinions 531-A/531-B Regional Refund Reports ................................................................. (EL11-66) ............................ 12
IX. Membership Filings
February 2017 Membership Filing ....................................................................................... (ER17-899) .......................... 13 January 2017 Membership Filing ......................................................................................... (ER17-682) .......................... 13
X. Misc. - ERO Rules, Filings; Reliability Standards
New Rel. Standards: PRC-027-1 and PER-006-1 ................................................................. (RM16-22) ........................... 13 NOPR: BAL-002-1a Interpretation Remand ........................................................................ (RM13-6) ............................. 15 NOPR: Revised Rel. Standards: BAL-005-1 & FAC-001-3 ................................................ (RM16-13) ........................... 14 NOPR: Revised Rel. Standard: MOD-001-2 ........................................................................ (RM14-7) ............................. 15 Order 830: New Rel. Standard: TPL-007-1 ......................................................................... (RM15-11) ........................... 14 Order 835: Revised Rel. Standard: BAL-002-2 ................................................................... (RM16-7) ............................. 14 Rel. Standards Retirement: BAL-004-0 ................................................................................ (RD17-1) .............................. 13
XI. Misc. Regional Interest
203 Application: GDF Suez Energy Resources/Atlas Power ............................................... (EC16-93) ............................ 16 203 Application: NSTAR/WMECO Merger ........................................................................ (EC17-62) ............................ 16 Emera MPD OATT Changes ................................................................................................ (ER15-1429; EL16-13) ........ 17 FERC Audit of ISO-NE ........................................................................................................ (PA16-6) .............................. 20 FERC Enforcement Action: Covanta Haverhill Associates ................................................. (IN17-3) ............................... 18 FERC Enforcement Action: Formal Investigation
(MISO Zone 4 Planning Resource Auction Offers) ............................................... (IN15-10) ............................. 19 FERC Enforcement Action: GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA ......................................... (IN17-2) ............................... 19 LGIA: CMP/ReEnergy Livermore Falls ............................................................................... (ER17-909) .......................... 17 MOPR-Related Proceedings (NYISO, PJM) ........................................................................ (ER13-62; ER16-49 ............. 17
XII. Misc: Administrative & Rulemaking Proceedings
Competitive Transmission Development Rates .................................................................... (AD16-18) ........................... 20 NOPR: Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance and MBR Purposes .......................... (RM16-17) ........................... 23 NOPR: Electric Storage Participation in RTO/ISO Markets ................................................ (RM16-23; AD16-20) .......... 23 NOPR: LGIA/LGIP Reforms ............................................................................................... (RM17-8) ............................. 22 NOPR: Primary Frequency Response -
Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System .................... (RM16-6) ............................. 24 Order 825: Settlement Intervals/Shortage Pricing ................................................................ (RM15-24) ........................... 25 Order 831: Price Caps in RTO/ISO Markets ........................................................................ (RM16-5) ............................. 25 Order 833: Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) Procedures ............. (RM16-15) ........................... 24 Order 834: Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments .................................................. (RM17-9) ............................. 21 Price Formation in RTO/ISO Energy and Ancillary Services Markets ................................ (AD14-14) ........................... 21 PURPA Implementation ....................................................................................................... (AD16-16) ........................... 21 Reactive Supply Compensation in RTO/ISO Markets ......................................................... (AD16-17) ........................... 20 Electric Storage Resource Utilization in RTO/ISO Markets ................................................ (AD16-25) ........................... 20
February 1, 2017 Report NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE FEB 3, 2017 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7
Page I-341536280.171
XIII. Natural Gas Proceedings
Algonquin EDC Capacity Release Bidding Requirements Exemption Request ................... (RP16-618) .......................... 26 Enforcement Action: BP Initial Decision ............................................................................. (IN13-15) ............................. 27 Enforcement Action: Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. ............................................ (IN12-17) ............................. 27 New England Pipeline Proceedings ...................................................................................... ............................................. 28
XIV. State Proceedings & Federal Legislative Proceedings
No Activity to Report
XV. Federal Courts
Allco Finance Limited v. Klee et al. .................................................................................... 16-2946 ((2d Cir.) ................ 31 Base ROE Complaint I (2011) .............................................................................................. 15-1118 et al. (DC Cir.) ....... 30 Base ROE Complaints II & III (2012 & 2014) ..................................................................... 15-1212 (DC Cir.) ................ 30 FCM Pricing Rules Complaints ............................................................................................ 15-1071/16-1042 (DC Cir.) . 31 FCA10 Results and FCA9 Results........................................................................................ 16-1068/16-1408 (DC Cir.) . 29 NEPGA PER Complaint and FCM Jump Ball and Compliance Proceedings ...................... 16-1023/1024 (DC Cir.) ....... 30 Order 1000 Compliance Filings ........................................................................................... 15-1139 (DC Cir.) ................ 30