14: Please supply any comments related to the Submitting Loads from Multiple Subregions section. (8)




June 17, 2024, 3:46 p.m.
STEVE KERNS | NLSL Group
No response submitted.

June 17, 2024, 4:32 p.m.
JERRET FISCHER | SRP
No response submitted.

June 17, 2024, 10:53 a.m.
IAN WHITE | SE

No comment.  


June 17, 2024, 11:12 a.m.
STEFAN CRISTEA | Portland …

No comments.


June 17, 2024, 1:27 p.m.
RAJ HUNDAL | PWX
No response submitted.

June 17, 2024, 1:39 p.m.
MATT HAYES | BPA
  • Bonneville suggests that this section be re written so that is clearly articulates the following: 1) How a single workbook can be used (with all requirements of loads and transmission), and 2) clearly identify any and all additional requirements that the participant has to use the lower FSPRM factor.

June 17, 2024, 3:48 p.m.
LINDSEY SCHLEKEWAY | NVE
No response submitted.

June 17, 2024, 3:51 p.m.
BENJAMIN FAULKINBERRY | PacifiCor…

PacifiCorp would appreciate additional language in this section on how these loads are combined to reach a total P50 load forecast. PacifiCorp is of the view that loads in two subregions should be combined on a coincident peak basis for use in the P50 peak calculations, as opposed to a summation of two non-coincident peaks. For example, if load in one subregion peaks on July 10th, and load in the other subregion peaks on July 13th, while the coincident peak of both loads occurred on July 12th, the coincident July 12th peak value should be used for modeling purposes.


June 17, 2024, 4:39 p.m.
TYLER MOORE | Arizona P…

Should this say Sections 2 through 7 or is there a different way that Demand Response should be handled by Participants submitting loads from multiple subregions?


June 17, 2024, 6:13 p.m.
SOMMER MOSER | Davison V…
No response submitted.

June 18, 2024, 9:14 a.m.
SANDEAP REDDY | Puget Sou…

No Comment. 


June 18, 2024, 3:22 p.m.
GABRIELLE GLYNN | Tacoma Po…
No response submitted.