Avista would prefer the following:
“The Energy Declined Settlement Price is the lesser greater of (i) 0.08 times the Total Settlement Price, or (ii) the Real-Time Applicable Index Price for the hour.” This approach acknowledges the seller's opportunity to transact in either DA or the RT market vs providing holdback.
- 'Lesser' - See related comment above
No response submitted.
No response submitted.
No response submitted.
"Declined Energy" is not defined in this document, the WRAP design document or the WRAP tariff.
"Energy Declined Settlement Price" is a somewhat confusing term, as in some cases it is used when calculating settlement for energy that was deployed, not declined.
I have raised this comment before, but Energy Declined Settlement Price is a misnomer, this should be named Energy Deployed Settlement Price.
No response submitted.
This section could benefit from some examples of what this would look like.
Shell Energy suggests Energy Deployment Settlement [Energy Declined Settlement in the BPM draft] should consist of “the greater of the Total Settlement Price or the Real-Time Applicable Index Price for the hour” as this concept captures the (DA or RT, whichever is higher) opportunity costs incurred by surplus participants providing holdback.
No response submitted.
No comments in this section