SACHI BEGUR | Puget Sou…
TYLER MOORE | Arizona P…
Do we need to provide language here that describes applicable portions of jointly owned units?
The following language is used in several places and is confusing, Section 3.1 IV “(network integration transmission service [NITS] from resources not designated as network resources or conditional firm long-term firm point-to-point [PTP])” and the confusion is around why it says “from resources not designated as network resources”. Is this trying to protect against making capacity sales from already designated network resources? If so, that seems like a problem for the seller and not an issue for WRAP to worry about. We would propose striking, and just leave it as NERC priority 6 (NITS and PTP), because a designated resource can utilize NERC priority 6 NITS.
RAJ HUNDAL | PWX
Powerex suggests that section 3.1.iv be revised and remove “long-term firm”, which is unnecessary, from the language associated with conditional firm service.
BENJAMIN FAULKINBERRY | PacifiCor…
LINDSEY SCHLEKEWAY | NVE
MATT HAYES | BPA
MICHAEL WATKINS | Seattle C…
City Light recommends that Resource Specific Capacity Agreements section contain language allowing for agreements where entities have contractually obligations to provide firm energy amounts with environmental attributes regardless of the performance of the resource. In these cases, the QCC of the Resource Specific Capacity Agreements would be the contracted firm energy delivery amount.
JERRET FISCHER | SRP