1,  Section 7.4:  BPA requests the language state:  "Therefore, to enable BPA to comply with its statutory preference obligations while participating in the Operations Program, it is recognized that the following waiver of the Delivery Failure and any associated Delivery Failure Charge (and of any other charge that would be assessed as a result of an Energy Delivery Failure) is presumptively established if:"

SRP appreciates the outline of the waiver process. To further assist stakeholders, SRP recommends adding clear directions or a direct link to the wavier form on the WPP website within the BPM, making it more accessible and easier to locate.

Lastly, SRP request the WPP clarify if the valid wavier justification examples are intended to require participants to experience situations as severe as EEA3.

No comments at this time.

It is important to note that, since the Program Sharing Requirements are determined on a preschedule basis, the forecasted information provided by the participants will always contain some uncertainty, and at times that uncertainty may be significant. For example, to accommodate a holiday occurring on or near a weekend, the Preschedule Day for a given WRAP Operating Day may be several days in advance of that Operating Day, and as such the uncertainty in the forecasts of load, VER output etc. could be significant, and unavoidable. Powerex would recommend adding the following to the examples of possible valid justifications in Section 7.2:

“4. A Participant’s actual load and resource value(s) deviating from the forecasts provided for the Operations Program Sharing Calculation Inputs. For example, it would be appropriate to grant a Waiver to a Participant if the Participant was unable to provide holdback because that Participant’s actual load at the time of the failure was higher than the load forecast they provided for the Sharing Calculation, and it can be demonstrated that the forecast provided was reasonable and accurate based on the information known at the time the information was prepared. “

“5. It can be that demonstrated that the Uncertainty Factor determined by the Program Operator and used in the Sharing Requirement Calculation for the period of the Delivery Failure (as outlined in BPM 203) was insufficient to cover a reasonable level of uncertainty faced by the Participant and resulted in variances between forecast values submitted on the Preschedule Day, and the actual values experienced during the period of the Failure in the Operating Day.”

Also, it should be expected that any review of an Energy Delivery Failure Charge would include a review of the Sharing Requirement Calculation that set the failing Participant's requirement during the period that the failure occurred. When performing that review, the Program Administrator may require additional information from all Participants that provided data into the Sharing Requirement Calculation during that period. Powerex recommends that the following language, or something similar, be added to section 7.2:

“When reviewing Waiver requests, in order to validate the Sharing Requirement calculation associated with the period of the failure, the PA may request additional information associated with the Sharing Requirement Inputs from all Participants during the period the Delivery failure occurred.”

N/A

PacifiCorp is of the opinion the provisions in Section 7 are too vague. PacifiCorp would like to see the waiver form included in the BPM as an attachment, as the form itself may impose requirements not otherwise subject to a review or governance process. By omitting the form from the BPM review process, Participants are unable to determine the nature of information needed to substantiate a delivery failure. Given the magnitude of scrutiny on reliability events, it may be reasonable to expect Participants would need to provide EMS data, call logs, or similar proprietary data, but that is not known by omitting the waiver form from this BPM.

In the list of potentially valid justifications for a waiver, item number one provides significant leeway, as ‘maintain system reliability’ affords many interpretations, some of which not all Participants may agree are valid.

Additionally, regarding item number one, losses and derates of generation resources routinely occur, and providers of WSPP Schedule-C firm energy (a product WRAP does not include in a Participant’s Forward Showing) are expected to replace that committed energy. A generation loss or derate does not constitute a valid reason to curtail WSPP Schedule-C energy. Also, this section does not include industry standard terms such as “unplanned” or “emergency loss”. This section also does not specify the generation loss or derate is for a reason outside of operator control or is inexcusable because the Participant failed or was otherwise unable to procure sufficient fuel.

7.4 BPA Presumptive Waiver:  Shell Energy understands the Federal Power Act and BPA’s statutory preference necessitates flexibility in some cases and thus accepts that Section 7.4 Paragraph 2, subsections A, B and D are reasonable.  However, edits are required to Paragraph 1.  The Paragraph 2 subsection C should be entirely removed.  Shell Energy respectfully makes the following recommendations:

• Regarding Paragraph 1, the BPA Administrator or another Senior Executive should be required to provide assurance to the WPP Board of Directors, via an Attestation, that BPA would have violated its statutory obligations to give preference if it had fulfilled its WRAP obligation.  As drafted, it would be permissible for any Agency employee to provide Attestation.  This is not reasonable, and this assurance should come from at least a senior executive at BPA. 

• Paragraph 2, subsection C, which states “BPA was unable to acquire additional power, either in the market or through WRAP, during the holdback operation period in the amount requested by WPP” should be entirely removed.  While unlikely to occur and not in the spirit of Good Utility Practice, this section, as drafted, would grant BPA a blanket waiver should BPA not be able to provide holdback—for any reason.  This waiver is not afforded to any other WRAP participant.  In other words, Shell Energy cannot see a situation arising where, BPA’s unique statutory obligations would obviate the need to procure energy for holdback either through the market or via WRAP.  Subsection C should be deleted accordingly.