17 Please supply any comments related to the Qualifying Capacity Contribution of Resources – Demand Response section.




July 3, 2023, 2:26 p.m.
IAN WHITE | SE
No response submitted.

July 10, 2023, 2:09 p.m.
MICHAEL WATKINS | Seattle C…

City Light has no comments on this section of the BP.


July 11, 2023, 7:50 a.m.
WILLIAM GODDARD | Calpine E…
No response submitted.

July 13, 2023, 2:50 p.m.
KATIE NELSON | BPA
No response submitted.

July 14, 2023, 12:41 p.m.
CONNOR CURSON | Powerex
No response submitted.

July 17, 2023, 3:37 p.m.
LEAH MARQUEZ-GLYNN | Tacoma Po…

Is it an issue that ESRs can qualify with 2-4 hours of discharge but DR must be deployed for 5 hours to qualify? Should the treatment of ESRs and DR be consistent?

“The QCC value of the DR Qualified Resource is determined by multiplying the load reduction in MWs by the number of hours the resource can demonstrate load reduction capability divided by five” We are not sure we understand the mechanics here. For a DR resource that is capable of reducing demand for 5 hours this seems pretty straightforward, but what about a resource that is capable of demonstrating 20 hours of a 5MW reduction? Am I understanding correctly that it will get credited with a 20MW QCC despite only being able to provide 5MW? 

“Testing for new DR programs in their first year of operation will be allowed if the Participant intends to claim QCC of more than 50% of the expected capability.” This was confusing to me. Is the program determining the QCC of the DR or is the Participant determining it? The previous section provided the calculation for determining the QCC, but this section seems to suggest that a Participant might claim a QCC of less than that. 

Why does the Operational Test only require the DR program to achieve 50% of the stated capability? And for only 1 hour rather than the 5 hours it claims to be able to perform?


July 18, 2023, 8:54 a.m.
KATIE NELSON | BPA
No response submitted.

July 18, 2023, 9:28 a.m.
LORI HERMANSON | Avista

If DR is included in load, it effectively receives a 100% QCC and reduces the PRM requirement.  New DR only qualifies for QCC based on five continuous hours (so could be less than 100%) and therefore is not equivalent in its capacity benefits. to ensure the greatest reliability, DR should be removed from historical load and the load forecast and only included as a resource? Further the 5 hour method should be replaced with an ELCC approach.  

 


July 18, 2023, 1:42 p.m.
TYLER MOORE | Arizona P…

APS believes the wording saying “up to 5 hours” in the first paragraph is unclear. Does this mean a program that is more than 5 hours is not eligible? We believe that it is suppose to say that QCC will be based off the performance of the DR over 5 hours.


July 18, 2023, 3:02 p.m.
LINDSEY SCHLEKEWAY | NVE
No response submitted.

July 18, 2023, 3:48 p.m.
AMY BURTON | PSE
No response submitted.

July 18, 2023, 3:50 p.m.
CAMILLE CHRISTEN | Idaho Pow…
No response submitted.

July 18, 2023, 4:28 p.m.
BENJAMIN FAULKINBERRY | PacifiCor…
No response submitted.

July 18, 2023, 4:29 p.m.
JERRET FISCHER | SRP

 No comment at this time.


July 18, 2023, 4:47 p.m.
SACHI BEGUR | Puget Sou…
No response submitted.