Jan. 5, 2024, 2:23 p.m.
MICHAEL WATKINS | Seattle C…

Seattle City Light has no comments on this section.


Jan. 4, 2024, 4:16 p.m.
BENJAMIN FAULKINBERRY | PacifiCor…

None


Jan. 4, 2024, 10:05 p.m.
RAJ HUNDAL | PWX
No response submitted.

Jan. 5, 2024, 9:42 a.m.
LINDSEY SCHLEKEWAY | NVE
No response submitted.

Jan. 5, 2024, 11 a.m.
JOE STIMATZ | NorthWest…

Minor point - this appendix seems out of order relative to the attestations in appendices H and I, which seem more appropriately grouped with appendices A through F.


Jan. 5, 2024, 1:01 p.m.
JERRET FISCHER | SRP
No response submitted.

Jan. 5, 2024, 1:04 p.m.
NICOLE BLACKWELL | Idaho Pow…
No response submitted.

Jan. 5, 2024, 1:41 p.m.
TYLER MOORE | Arizona P…

In calculating Portfolio QCC, APS believes that the formula has the wrong use of planned outages as commented on by APS in question #9 of this comment template. APS strongly believes you shouldn’t consider every unit on outage in the month they don't overlap and are not on outage on the highest cumulative day of planned outages in the month.


Jan. 5, 2024, 2:36 p.m.
SACHI BEGUR | Puget Sou…
No response submitted.

Jan. 5, 2024, 6:44 p.m.
ANNE SIMON | Public

FS Summary feels very prescribed..  By including it here (in the BPM) it creates a requirement of how it is laid out!  Would suggest that this appendix should include the components of what the bare minimum included in the FS Summary is, rather then how it is laid out, simply a list of the components the summary must include.

 

"Total Portfolio QCC"

Shouldn’t this say the Participant’s demonstrated FS Transmission rather than their Total Portfolio QCC? Our understanding is that CC does not measure transmission.