Configuration Guide for: CC 7829Monthly ICPM Allocation / Date: 0202/111/0911
Settlements & Billing
BPM Configuration Guide: Monthly ICPM Allocation
(CC 7829)
Version5.10
CAISO, 2018 / Page 1 of 13Settlements & Billing / Version: 5.10
Configuration Guide for: CC 7829Monthly ICPM Allocation / Date: 0202/111/0911
Table of Contents
1.Purpose of Document
1.1Revision History
2.Introduction
2.1Background
2.2Description
3.Charge Code Requirements
3.1Business Rules
3.2Internal Business Rules
3.3Internal Validation Rules
3.4Predecessor Charge Codes
3.5Successor Charge Codes
3.6Inputs - External Systems
3.7Inputs - Predecessor Charge Codes or Pre-calculations
3.8CAISO Formula
3.9Subscripts Used
3.10Outputs
4.Charge Code References and Internal Comments
4.1Charge Code Effective Date
4.2Document References
4.3Unresolved Policy and Technical Issues
CAISO, 2018 / Page 1 of 13Settlements & Billing / Version: 5.10
Configuration Guide for: CC 7829Monthly ICPM Allocation / Date: 0202/111/0911
1.Purpose of Document
The purpose of this document is to capture the requirements and design specification for a Charge Code in one document.
2.Introduction
2.1Background
The Interim Capacity Procurement Methodology (ICPM) provides an orderly, pre-approved means for the CAISO to procure backstop capacity where and when needed to meet Reliability Criteria or otherwise maintain reliable grid operations. Although Resource Adequacy (RA) programs are in place under California law, and RA requirements have been established by Local Regulatory Authorities, there may be instances when Resource Adequacy Resources are not sufficient to meet all of the operational needs of the CAISO and enable it to meet Reliability Criteria. This circumstance could happen as a result of Load-Serving Entities (LSEs) failing to comply with resource adequacy requirements, unforeseen or changed circumstances affecting system conditions or grid operations, or the ineffectiveness of procured RA resources at meeting the CAISO’s specific reliability needs. It is imperative that the CAISO have the appropriate tools at its disposal under such circumstances to maintain reliable operations. In particular, the CAISO needs the ability to procure resources when such instances occur in order to maintain the reliability of the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. The ICPM provides the CAISO with that ability. Further, it is prudent that the ICPM backstop capacity procurement mechanism be in place at the start of MRTU, which represents a fundamental change in the CAISO’s market structure. The CAISO also believes that a backstop mechanism should provide a transparent process for the use of any backstop procurement so that the CPUC and other Local Regulatory Authorities can make any necessary modifications to their RA programs. The ICPM provides that transparency via its reporting provisions. The CAISO expects that the effective date for the ICPM to be coincident with the effective date of MRTU implementation. The ICPM is intended to have but short-term effect, as it is expected to automatically sunset on December 31, 2010. At that time, the CAISO anticipates developing a more permanent backstop mechanism that will complement a long-term RA framework that the CPUC and CAISO are designing at the State of California level.
Upon its introduction the ICPM will replace the pre-MRTU tariff-based procurement mechanism entitled the "Reliability Capacity Services Tariff" (“RCST”) that followed on the heels of what was known as the must offer obligation (“MOO”) implementation. .As a result of the 2000-2001 California Energy Crisis, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) established a prospective mitigation and monitoring plan for the California wholesale electric markets. A fundamental element of the plan was the implementation of the MOO. The CAISO implemented the MOO beginning in July 2001.
In an order issued on July 8, 2004, the Commission advised that if a supplier believed the payments under the MOO to be unjust and unreasonable, they may seek to initiate a Section 206 proceeding to challenge the current method and seek an alternative proposal. On August 26, 2005, IEP filed a complaint in Docket No. EL05146 to replace the MOO with the RCST. Following extensive settlement discussions, on March 31, 2006, certain parties filed an Offer of Settlement of the IEP complaint, which proposed the institution of an RCST. The RCST provided a backstop capacity procurement mechanism to the CAISO that included provisions establishing:
(1) must-offer capacity payment rates;
(2) RCST rates due to designation resulting from a Significant Event;
(3) RCST rates due to designation resulting from deficiency in Resource Adequacy (RA) showings; and
(4) payments to frequently mitigated units.
In addition, the RCST established cost allocation methodologies and governed the rules by which the CAISO can procure RCST capacity. The Commission has proposed to continue the RCST until either a successor RCST is filed or until the implementation of the ICPM with MRTU. As mentioned earlier, the CAISO expects the ICPM to become effective with the introduction of MRTU.
To settle the Energy procured through the ICPM, the CAISO has defined eight (8) settlement Charge Codes in MRTU. The Charge Codes are identified as follows:
CC 7820 Monthly ICPM Settlement
CC 7829 Monthly ICPM Allocation
CC 7890 Annual ICPM Settlement
CC 7899 Annual ICPM Allocation
CC 7870 Monthly Significant Event ICPM Settlement
CC 7879 Monthly Significant Event ICPM Allocation
CC 7890 (Annual ICPM Settlement) provides for the settlement of ICPM Capacity that the CAISO procures to ensure that local and system-wide capacity area resource requirements are satisfied in a Scheduling Coordinator’s annual Resource Adequacy Plan. Under CAISO MRTU Tariff Section 43.2.1, designations for failure by a Scheduling Coordinator to demonstrate sufficient Local Capacity Area Resource procurement in its annual plan will have a minimum ICPM designation term of one month and a maximum term of one year. To determine the term of the designation, the CAISO will examine the period of the shortfall based on its evaluation of all of the Resource Adequacy Plans (with the overscheduled quantity of Local Capacity Area Resources by a Scheduling Coordinator being applied to a Scheduling Coordinator who has not met its specific local capacity area resource requirements). Thus, if the shortfall (accounting for both under and over procurement) is for only one month of the year, the CAISO would designate only for that month. If the shortfall is for a longer period, the CAISO would designate for a corresponding period of time. CC 7890 includes any ICPM amount resulting from ICPM procurement related to satisfying system-wide Planning Reserve Margin requirements established by a Local Regulatory Authority as well as CAISO-established Local Capacity Area Resource requirements derived and allocated according to Tariff Section 40.3. Under Tariff Section 43.2.4, ICPM Capacity designated under Tariff Section 43.1.3 shall have a minimum commitment term or one month and a maximum commitment term commensurate with the maximum duration of the requirements established by the Local Regulatory Authority (currently five months for entities under the CPUC’s jurisdiction), if the shortfall is in the Reserve Margins required to be identified in the annual Resource Adequacy Plan or a term of one month if the deficiency is associated with the corresponding requirements of the monthly Resource Adequacy Plan. As with the determination of the length of the designation under Tariff Section 43.2.1, the CAISO would attempt to limit its procurement to the actual period(s) of the shortfall. Thus, if the Scheduling Coordinator was only short for one month of its annual plan, the CAISO would not engage in a five-month procurement.
If there is a failure to identify sufficient Resources in a monthly Resource Adequacy Plan on either a Local Capacity Area or system-wide basis, the ICPM designation term is to be for one month. CC 7820 (Monthly ICPM Settlement) provides for the settlement of CAISO procurement of Local Capacity Area Resources for a Scheduling Coordinator who has under-scheduled said resources for a LSE based on either Local Capacity Area requirements established by the CAISO or a system-wide Planning Reserve Margin set by a Local Regulatory Authority.
It is possible that even if all Scheduling Coordinators for LSEs in a particular local area meet their procurement obligation for Local Capacity Area Resources, the collective procurement of all such Scheduling Coordinators will still not permit the CAISO to meet Reliability Criteria. If Scheduling Coordinators do not procure the additional capacity necessary to ensure the Reliability Criteria can be met, Tariff Section 43.1.2 authorizes the CAISO to designate additional capacity to address the shortfall. Under Tariff Section 43.2.2, the CAISO would designate resources to respond to the collective shortfall situation for a minimum term of one month and a maximum term of one year. Again, the CAISO would base the term of the designation on its evaluation of what the period(s) of the shortfall will be after examining all of the Resource Adequacy Plans for that area. CC 7890 (Annual ICPM Settlement) and CC 7820 (Monthly ICPM Settlement) provide for the settlement of collective annual and monthly shortfalls, respectively.
In addition to ensuring that RA requirements and Reserve Margins established by Local Regulatory Authorities are set at a level that provides sufficient capacity to account for the occurrence of outages, the CAISO needs the ability to produce additional capacity under certain circumstances. Specifically, the CAISO must be able to address a single event, or a combination of events, that the CAISO determines to result in either:
- a material difference from what was assumed in the RA program for purposes of determining the RA capacity requirements, or
- a material change in system conditions or CAISO-Controlled Grid operations, that causes, or threatens to cause, a failure to meet Reliability Criteria absent the recurring use of a non-Resource Adequacy Resource(s) on a prospective basis.
In accord with the above circumstances, the CAISO expects to designate ICPM Capacity to respond to an “ICPM Significant Event” which is defined as:
A substantial event, or a combination of events, that is determined by the CAISO to either result in a material difference from what was assumed in the resource adequacy program for purposes of determining the Resource Adequacy Capacity requirements, or produce a material change in system conditions or in CAISO Controlled Grid operations, that causes, or threatens to cause, a failure to meet Reliability Criteria absent the recurring use of a non-Resource Adequacy Resource(s) on a prospective basis.
Charge Code CC 7870 provides for the settlement of ICPM procured as a result of an ICPM Significant Event.
In developing the cost allocation schemes for the ICPM, the CAISO has sought to match payment responsibility to those entities that are either responsible for the shortfall or will benefit the most by the CAISO’s backstop procurement. The allocation is generally consistent with the approach utilized under the RCST and previously approved by the Commission.
Pursuant to Tariff Section 43.7.1, if the CAISO makes ICPM designations under Tariff Section 43.1.1.1 to address a shortage resulting from the failure of a Scheduling Coordinator for an LSE to identify sufficient Local Capacity Area Resources to meet its applicable Local Capacity Area capacity requirements in its annual Resource Adequacy Plan, then the CAISO will allocate the total costs of the ICPM Capacity Payments pro rata to each Scheduling Coordinator for every deficient LSE based on the ratio of the LSE’s Local Capacity Area Resource Deficiency to the sum of shortfall in Local Capacity Area Resources in the deficient Local Capacity Area(s) within a TAC Area. This approach is consistent with basic cost causation principles because it ensures that only deficient LSEs pay for the costs of ICPM procurement resulting from such deficiencies. Allocated annual costs attributable to ICPM procurement that is intended to remedy a situation where there are insufficient RA resources specified for a Local Capacity Area in an annual Resource Adequacy Plan will be assessed on a monthly basis for each LSE and Scheduling Coordinator through Charge Code CC 7899.
Similarly, pursuant to Tariff Section 43.7.2, if the CAISO makes ICPM designations under Tariff Section 43.1.1.2 to address a shortage resulting from the failure of a Scheduling Coordinator for an LSE to identify sufficient Local Capacity Area Resources in its monthly Resource Adequacy Plan, then the CAISO will allocate the total costs of the ICPM Capacity Payments for such ICPM designations in the same manner as described for a Local Capacity Area deficiency in an annual Resource Adequacy Plan. This approach ensures that deficient LSEs bear the costs of ICPM procurement that results from such deficiencies and is consistent with the cost allocation principles adopted under the RCST. Allocated monthly costs attributable to ICPM procurement that is intended to remedy a situation where there is a Local Capacity Area insufficiency in RA resources presented by a monthly Resource Adequacy Plan will be assessed on a monthly basis for each LSE and Scheduling Coordinator through Charge Code CC 7829.
Under Tariff Section 43.7.3, if the CAISO makes designations under Tariff Section 43.1.2 for a collective shortfall, the CAISO will allocate the costs of such designations to all Scheduling Coordinators for LSEs that serve Load in the deficient TAC Area(s) based on the Scheduling Coordinators’ proportionate share of load in such TAC Area(s) as calculated pursuant to Tariff Section 40.3.2. This is the same basis upon which the original Local Capacity Area Resource requirements were developed as approved by the Commission under Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff. This allocation methodology recognizes that, for “effectiveness” procurement, no LSE was deficient in meeting its RA obligations, only that the resources procured were insufficient to meet the CAISO’s defined reliability needs. The CAISO would exclude Scheduling Coordinators for LSEs that procured additional capacity in accordance with Tariff Section 43.1.2.1 on a proportionate basis, to the extent of their additional procurement. This approach recognizes that LSEs who cure their allocable portion of a collective deficiency should not be charged for the additional ICPM procurement associated with any remaining deficiency. Allocated monthly costs attributable to ICPM procurement due to a collective monthly plan shortfall of RA resources in a Local Capacity Area will be assessed for each LSE, TAC Area and Scheduling Coordinator through Charge Code CC 7829. Similarly, CC 7899will provide for the determination of procurement costs that are allocated to an LSE, TAC Area and Scheduling Coordinator as the result of a collective annual plan shortfall of RA resources in a Local Capacity Area.
Pursuant to Tariff Section 43.7.4, if the CAISO makes ICPM designations under Tariff Section 43.1.3 for the failure of a Scheduling Coordinator or group of Scheduling Coordinators to procure sufficient Resource Adequacy Resources (to meet a Planning Reserve Margin established for a LSE by a Local Regulatory Authority) to meet applicable system-wide Demand and Reserve Margin requirements, then the CAISO will allocate the total costs pro rata to each Scheduling Coordinator for an LSE based on the proportion of its deficiency to the aggregate deficiency. This approach is consistent with the RCST cost allocation provisions for LSEs that are deficient in meeting their RA requirements. Costs related to Tariff Section 43.1.3 ICPM procurement as a result of Scheduling Coordinators failing to satisfy a system-wide Planning Reserve Margin established by their Local Regulatory Authority are settled through Charge Codes CC 7899 (for an annual Resource Adequacy Plan deficiency) and CC 6876 (for a monthly Resource Adequacy Plan deficiency).
Under Tariff Section 43.7.5, if the CAISO makes any ICPM Significant Event designations under Section 43.1.4, the CAISO will allocate the costs of such designations to all Scheduling Coordinators for LSEs in the TAC Area(s) in which the ICPM Significant Event caused or threatened to cause a failure to meet Reliability Criteria based on the LSE’s percentage of actual load in the TAC Area(s) to total load in the TAC Area(s) as recorded in the CAISO Settlements system for the actual days during any Settlement month over which the designation occurred. This allocation methodology recognizes that the load that is using the grid during an ICPM Significant Event is the load that benefits from the capacity that is procured to address the ICPM Significant Event. In other words, the ICPM Capacity has a 24 hour per day availability obligation and helps to support reliability throughout the period of the ICPM Significant Event. For each LSE, TAC Area and Scheduling Coordinator the cost of ICPM procurement that is attributable to an ICPM Significant Event is settled on a monthly basis through Charge Code CC 7879.
The CAISO believes that the defined cost allocation methodologies are consistent with cost causation principles. Tariff Section 43.7 properly aligns the payment obligations with the entities that are either responsible for, or benefit the most from, the ICPM procurement. The allocation should also provide the correct incentive for Scheduling Coordinators to meet their resource adequacy obligations and not lean on the procurement of others.
2.2Description
As mentioned in the prior section, CC 7829 (Monthly ICPM Allocation) provides an allocation of the cost associated with ICPM Capacity that the CAISO procures to ensure that Local Capacity Area resource requirements for a LSE serving Load in the Local Capacity Area are satisfied in a Scheduling Coordinator’s monthly Resource Adequacy Plan. When the CAISO procures ICPM for reason of a Local Area Capacity or collective Local Area Capacity shortfall, outputs for each Scheduling Coordinator and Trading Month a single total amount (in $) for the following charges owed by the Scheduling Coordinator: