01: Please supply any comments related to the Introduction, Definitions, or Background sections.
No response submitted.
02: Please supply any comments related to the Contracts Eligible for QCC value section (3).
No response submitted.
03: Please supply any comments related to the Contracts Eligible for QCC value - Resource-Specific Capacity Agreements section (3.1).
No response submitted.
04: Please supply any comments related to the Contracts Eligible for QCC value - System Sale section (3.2).
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?
05: Please supply any comments related to the Joint Contract Accreditation Forms section (4).
PacifiCorp does not see a difference between “100% off take” and “100% off take and must take”, and does not view a JCAF as necessary for either category. In addition, resource-specific contracts for less than 100% off-take of a resource registered in the WRAP should not require a JCAF. The resources included in the Forward Showing are attested to by a company senior official, and the Participant bears the risk of non-performance. PacifiCorp views the requirement of a JCAF for every capacity agreement as a significant administrative burden with little incremental benefit to the program.
06: Please supply any comments related to the Calculating Net Contract QCC section (5).
Contrary to the tables in section 4, which describe the requirement of a JCAF for Participant sales to Non-Participants, paragraph two of Section 5 states:
“Firm capacity sales by a Participant to parties outside the WRAP Region must be declared and included as a capacity obligation in the Participant’s FS Submittal; a JCAF is not required for firm capacity sales to non-WRAP participants”
07: Please supply any comments related to the Resource Adequacy Transfers (RA Transfers) section (6).
No response submitted.
08: Please supply any comments related to Appendix A.
No response submitted.
09: Please supply any comments related to Appendix B.
No response submitted.
10: Please supply any comments related to Appendix C.
No response submitted.
11: Please supply any comments related to Appendix D.
No response submitted.
General Comment
PacifiCorp understands and supports the need to seek assurances capacity from outside the WRAP footprint will be available when needed. PacifiCorp supports the creation of a standard document, such as the JCAF, which can become commonplace and recognizable within the industry.
However, PacifiCorp views the requirement of a JCAF as being too broadly applied in this BPM. It is PacifiCorp’s understanding that the JCAF was intended to create a method to ensure contracts for unspecified capacity were backed by firm capacity before being included in the Participants FS Submittal. However, this BPM has extended the JCAF requirements to resource specific contracts and contracts between participants both of which the Program Operator has the ability to confirm without creating both a significant administrative burden for Participants, and potentially undermining the purpose of WRAP.