Powerex suggests that section 3.2.2 be revised and remove “long-term firm”, which is unnecessary, from the language associated with conditional firm service.

We also recommend that language identifying the buyer and seller of a system sale be modified to be more concise. In section 3.2.1, the first sentence should read “A System Sale for which the buyer is a Participant and the seller is a Participant...”. The same modification could be applied to section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3

 “Resources associated with qualified System Sales from sellers that are not Participants do not have to be registered.”

Does this mean that these resources are not to be submitted during the advance registration? Don't see a reason for making such exclusions.

In Section 3.2.1 we think “A System Sale for which a Participant is the buyer and a Participant is the seller” is better written as “A System Sale where buyer and seller are participants will...”

Similarly in Section 3.2.2. Participant Buyer – Non-Participant Seller, “A System Sale for which a Participant is a buyer, but a Participant is not the seller”, can be better written as  “…but a non-participant is the seller.”

Then in 3.2.3, “A System Sale for which a Participant is not the buyer” is better said as “A System Sale where a non-Participant is the buyer, and a Participant is the seller,”

Concerning Section 3.2.1 Participant Buyer – Participant Seller:

PacifiCorp believes that sales of firm capacity and firm energy should be declared and included as a capacity obligation in the Participant Seller’s FS Submittal.  This is consistent with the critical mission of WRAP to improve resource adequacy.  Without this requirement, WRAP participants could potentially sell firm capacity and or firm energy without declaring it in the forward showing thus potentially exacerbating resource adequacy issues in the region.  Non-firm capacity and non-firm energy exports that are curtailable by contract should not be included in the Participant Seller’s FS Submittal.  PacifiCorp also believes that the ability to pay liquidated damages on an undelivered firm energy contract does not constitute “curtailable” in this instance.

With this in mind, PacifiCorp believes BPM 106 does not capture the original intent of the JCAF. The JCAF requirement for transactions of firm capacity between Participant Buyers and Participant Sellers does not seem to be consistent with the tariff.      

WRAP tariff section 16.2.6.2 states attestation is not required for Participant Seller transactions:

“Surplus status may be demonstrated by a Senior Official Attestation with pertinent supporting details for such surplus status, including written assent of the non-Participant Seller, secured by the purchasing Participant. Such attestation is not required if the seller is a Participant, because the information needed to verify surplus status is already available.”

Additionally, Paragraph 39 of Attachment D of the WRAP Tariff Transmittal letter states: “If the contract’s seller is a Participant, the WRAP has the information it needs to confirm the capacity is surplus to the seller’s needs. If the Seller is not a Participant, the surplus status will need to be demonstrated through a Senior Official Attestation, with the non-Participant seller’s written assent.”

PacifiCorp does not believe requiring a JCAF between participants is consistent with the intent of the tariff regardless of whether the JCAF includes an attestation and sees no effective difference between a JCAF and an attestation.

Tariff language aside, PacifiCorp does not support the JCAF requirement for Participant Buyer / Participant Seller transactions.  In addition to the points above, this requirement shifts risk to the buyer. It is the Participant Buyer who risks Forward Showing Deficiency Charges if a seller is uncooperative or neglects to provide attestation. PacifiCorp appreciates WPP does not wish to act as an intermediary in the event of a dispute between Participants. However, in this case, any transaction in question would have an accompanying confirmation that could be produced, containing supporting details and affirmation by both parties.

Concerning 3.2.3 Non-Participant Buyer – Participant Seller:

PacifiCorp sees no utility in requiring a JCAF for a sale to a Non-Participant Buyer. Sales to Non-Participant Buyers should be included in a Participant Seller’s Forward Showing and contract QCC should be debited from total Forward Showing Resources. The Participant Seller’s entire Forward Showing submission is attested to by a senior official. Additionally, if a Participant includes a sale to a Non-Participant in its Forward Showing, but does not provide a JCAF for the transaction, what repercussion does the Participant face as a result?

NV Energy does not understand what is meant by the reference to provide additional transmission in the Forward Showing in order to meet the transmission requirement.  Specifically, would it be possible to count the contract capacity towards the Forward Showing without the transmission path known at the time of the Forward Showing demonstration with an assurance that it will be secured using firm transmission rights?  NV Energy argues that an assurance that firm transmission will be secured prior to the operational program should be sufficient as long as the participant can meet their 75% transmission requirement in the Forward Showing.

Section 3.2.2 provides additional detail for the requirements that are needed for a system sale to qualify towards meeting the Forward Showing, however, this section does not indicate if there is a cap or a quantity limit of the amount that could be purchased and applied towards the participant buyers Forward Showing.  This section should also specify whether or not any limits exist for purchases of a system sale.   

Annual attestation is not necessary. Attesting for the term of the contract, which is listed in the JCAF, is sufficient. Include the term of the power purchase in the initial JCAF will allow the JCAF to be durable for the entire term. 

City Light suggest that it is unreasonable to require a JCAF or acknowledgement mechanism by both the participant buyer and the non-participant seller of system sales. WRAP procedures and policies are obligations of Participants.

Section 3.2.1 Participant Buyer – Non-Participant Seller

City Light suggests that requiring a yearly attestation after the first JCAF for long term sales between participants is onerous, unnecessary, and burdensome.

3.2.2 Participant Buyer – Non-Participant Seller

City Light suggest that it is unreasonable to require a JCAF or acknowledgement mechanism by both the participant buyer and the non-participant seller of system sales. WRAP procedures and policies are obligations of Participants.

3.3.3 Non-Participant Buyer – Participant Seller

City Light suggests that requirements over and above listing system sales to non-participants in the FS workbook are onerous, unnecessary, and burdensome to participants.

3.2.2 – Participant Buyer – Non-Participant Seller.  Idaho Power echoes Seattle City Light’s comment that it is unreasonable to require a JCAF or acknowledgement mechanism by both the Participant Buyer and the Non-participant Seller of system sales. WRAP procedures and policies are obligations of Participants.