BPA Southern Compromise Proposal October 24 2017 PURPOSE Review and discuss the inequity with the ShortTerm Firm Preemption and Competition recommendation and compare the recommended changes to both Best Offer proposal and the Compromise proposal ID: 725966
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Preemption & Competition Standards" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Preemption & Competition StandardsBPA – Southern Compromise ProposalOctober 24, 2017
PURPOSE:
Review and discuss the inequity with the Short-Term Firm Preemption and Competition recommendation, and compare the recommended changes to both “Best Offer” proposal and the “Compromise” proposalSlide2
Preemption and Competition ProcessPreemption and Right of First RefusalStandardized rules for Short Term and Preemption competition on the OASISStandardized rules for Challengers and DefendersSlide3
Process Outline – “Re-evaluation”It is possible that enough ROFR Defenders bid down their remaining profiles, or the Challenger walks away, such that there is now capacity availableCurrent recommendation requires that Each confirmed
Defender without ROFR is re-evaluated
Each
pending
Defender without ROFR is re-evaluated
All competition flags are cleared and the process is concluded
Dependent transactions (REDIRECT and RESALE) are reconciled by the Transmission Customer and the Transmission ProviderSlide4
Problem Statement of “Inequity”Defenders who purposefully exercised ROFR but did not win are left out of the “Re-evaluation” phaseAfter the successful ROFR Defenders are processed the process moves on to re-evaluation of non-ROFR DefendersAs BPA pointed out in the formal comments, the non-ROFR Defenders are given higher priority in re-evaluation than ROFR Defenders who exercised ROFR but lostSlide5
BPA - Southern Compromise ApproachThis approach would recommend modifying the recommendation to allow for re-evaluation of ROFR Defenders before non-ROFR DefendersThese ROFR Defenders exercised ROFR, but were not successfulAfter the successful ROFR Defenders are evaluated
Simply re-evaluate the unsuccessful ROFR Defenders first and offer any remaining capacity
Then re-evaluate the non-ROFR Defenders.
Simply stated that any ROFR who has remained in the competition by choice will get re-evaluated before any non-ROFR defender.
No extra “best offer” flags are neededSlide6
BPA – Southern Compromise ApproachAdvantages This approach is consistent with already agreed upon standards, just another iteration of the same process No additional processes needed to make this approach workThis is a much simpler approach and not difficult to implement
This approach does not create another classification of ROFR Defenders
This approach preserves concerns about transmission prioritySlide7
Comparison of WEQ-001 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
“Best Offer”
1.8 table 4 added re-evaluation time limit
4.6.2.9 added definition of “best offer” flag explicit intent
4.6.3.3 added definition of “best offer” flag explicit opt out
4.6.5.3.c added “best offer” flag
4.6.5.3.d added “best offer” flag and deferred Defenders action
4.6.5.3.e added clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
4.6.6 added evaluation of capacity available to Challenger
4.6.7.2 added re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferred
“Compromise”
1.8 table 4 added re-evaluation time limit
N/A
N/A
4.6.5.3.c added lower remaining profile
4.6.5.3.d added deferred Defenders action
4.6.5.3.e added clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
4.6.6 added evaluation of capacity available to Challenger
4.6.7.2 added re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferredSlide8
Comparison of WEQ-002 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
“Best Offer”
4.3.6.6.1 added “best offer” flag definitions to template structure
4.3.6.6.1 added “best offer” flag to template structure for input and response
4.3.6.6.2 added “best offer” flag to template structure for response
6 added “best offer” flag to the conversion requirements
“Compromise”
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/ASlide9
Comparison of WEQ-003 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
“Best Offer”
0 added “best offer” flag data element
“Compromise”
N/ASlide10
Comparison of WEQ-013 Changes “Best Offer” vs “Compromise”
“Best Offer”
6.3 added definition of “best offer” flag explicit intent
6.3 added definition of “best offer” flag explicit opt out
6.3 added “best offer” flag and clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
6.3 added “best offer” flag and re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferred
“Compromise”
N/A
N/A
6.3 added lower remaining profile and clear competition flag for non-deferred Defenders
6.3 added re-evaluation of Defenders with ROFR that were deferred