LORI HERMANSON | Avista
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.
KATIE NELSON | BPA
- 'Lesser' - See related comment above
RAJ HUNDAL | PWX
JOHN MAYHEW | Public Se…
LINDSEY SCHLEKEWAY | NVE
BENJAMIN FAULKINBERRY | PacifiCor…
"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.
SANDEAP REDDY | Puget Sou…
I have raised this comment before, but Energy Declined Settlement Price is a misnomer, this should be named Energy Deployed Settlement Price.
LEAH MARQUEZ-GLYNN | Tacoma Po…
MARA KONTOS | Seattle C…
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.
CAMILLE CHRISTEN | Idaho Pow…
TYLER MOORE | Arizona P…
No comments in this section