Details for: PG&E's Reply to Protest of Advice 5615-E.pdf


Click on the image for full size preview

Document data

Erik Jacobson
Director
Regulatory Relations

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
77 Beale St., Mail Code B13U
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, CA 94177
Fax: 415-973-3582

September 3, 2019
California Public Utilities Commission - Energy Division
Attention: Tariff Unit
505 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject:

PG&E’s Reply to Responses to Advice Letter 5615-E (Southern
California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and
San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s Demand Response Auction
Mechanism Pilot for 2020)

Dear CPUC Energy Division Tariff Unit:
In accordance with Section 7.4.3 of General Order (GO) 96-B, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) replies to the responses of OhmConnect, Inc. (OhmConnect), and the
California Efficiency and Demand Management Council (Council) submitted on August
26, 2019, and to the joint response of CPower and Enel X North America, Inc. (Enel X)
submitted on August 27, 2019. Per the direction of the Energy Division, PG&E shortened
the protest period for PG&E Joint Advice Letter 5615-E, et. al. to Monday, August 26,
2019. Similarly, the reply to the protest period was shortened to Monday, September 2,
2019. 1 Per General Order 96-B, Rule 1.5, the reply to the protest date would fall on Labor
Day, which is a holiday. Therefore, PG&E submits this reply on the next business day,
September 3, 2019.
Introduction
On July 12, 2019, the Commission issued D.19-07-009, authorizing an auction to take
place in 2019 for deliveries between June 2020 and December 2020 (“2020 DRAM”), as
well as annual auctions for deliveries in 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Commission ordered
the IOUs to implement eight improvements 2 for the 2020 DRAM and to submit an advice
letter by August 12, 2019, addressing all contract improvements and RFO guidelines.
CPower and Enel X submitted their joint response one day after the shortened time to
respond.
2 The improvements include: providing accurate qualifying capacity (QC) estimates, imposing a
penalty structure for shortfalls in demonstrated capacity (DC), calculating DC on invoices,
establishing invoice deadlines, replacement of the residential set-aside with a 10 percent setaside limited to new market entrants, elimination of the use of the August price cap, exclusion
of the Reliability Demand Response Resources (RDRR) in DRAM, and publication of auction
mechanism contract summaries. D.19-07-009, OP 6.
1





- Page 1 -

PG&E Reply to Protest of Advice Letter 5615-E -2- September 3, 2019 D.19-07-009 also authorized a working group to convene to discuss a number of issues, including Refinements to Appendix A and B Guidelines on qualifying capacity and demonstrating capacity. The working group filed its report on August 9, 2019, and the IOUs submitted Advice 5615-E on August 12, 2019. 3 On August 26, 2019, OhmConnect and the Council submitted responses to Advice 5615-E et al, and on August 27, 2019, CPower and Enel X submitted their joint responses to Advice 5615-E et al. PG&E submits its reply to these responses in accordance with the shortened time period directed by the Commission’s Energy Division. A. Response of CPower and Enel X CPower and Enel X seek a new term for partial dispatch that would be unique from and used differently than the CAISO definition. 4 PG&E agrees that clarification would be helpful.PG&E supports better defining of the term to clarify that a full dispatch is a CAISO market award that equals the qualifying capacity of the PDR, whereas a partial dispatch would be a CAISO market award that is less than the qualifying capacity of the PDR. To the extent a Seller’s performance under a full dispatch falls below the qualifying capacity of the PDR, such results should be used for the demonstrated capacity calculation, in accordance with Section 1.6 of the pro forma and other applicable sections. Similarly, if performance under a partial dispatch falls below the CAISO market award, the Seller is permitted to use such performance for its demonstrated capacity, but the Seller may also perform a capacity test to demonstrate capacity. CPower and Enel X claim that the dates in Section 3.1(a)(i) are now internally inconsistent, but also that the modifications to the dates in that Section did not change the relevant timelines in a substantive manner. 5 Supply plans are still due 15 calendar days before the Showing Month . 6 The IOUs kept the language requiring approximately 5 extra days to allow for additional review if the Seller seeks to modify the format of the supply plan. B. Response of OhmConnect OhmConnect claims that the weighting for prior performance in subsequent solicitations were capped at 5 percent, not 20 percent. 7 However, this claim ignores the 15 percent Advice 5615-E is PG&E’s advice letter, Advice 4054-E is Southern California Edison Company’s advice letter, and Advice 3418-E is San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s advice letter. Collectively they will be referred to within this advice letter as “Advice 5615-E et al.” 4 CPower and Enel X Joint Response, p. 2. 5 CPower and Enel X Joint Response, p. 3. 6 It was updated from 10 business days before the Buyer's supply plan due date to 15 calendar days because the common language understanding of when supply plans are due is 60 days before the first day of the Showing Month, which is 15 calendar days before the Buyer's supply plan is due. 7 OhmConnect Response, p. 4. 3
- Page 2 -

PG&E Reply to Protest of Advice Letter 5615-E -3- September 3, 2019 weight assigned to one of the two criteria for prior performance, 8 which could bring a bidder to a total of a 20 percent weight. With the 20 percent cap, this qualitative criteria is similar to prior solicitations. OhmConnect wants the IOUs to assess prior performance for each prior Seller in the 2020 DRAM auction and notify each such Seller of the results of such assessment in advance. 9 PG&E prefers that each bidder assess its prior performance and self-report it within the bid, and PG&E will use the cure period to issue any corrections, as has been done in prior solicitations. OhmConnect would like the language to be clarified regarding the requirement for Sellers to designate PDRs as containing bundled or unbundled customers. 10 PG&E notes that this language has not been modified from prior solicitations to make this requirement any more onerous than it had been. In addition, it is used to determine if CPUC registration is necessary, per the Rule 24 requirement that a DRP serving bundled customers must be registered with the CPUC. At minimum, PG&E requires this information on the aggregate level to administer the Rule 24 requirement. OhmConnect seeks clarification of the definition of “Dispatch Instruction”, particularly as it refers to the definition set forth in the CAISO Tariff. 11 PG&E prefers to keep this definition aligned with CAISO’s definition and to specify the aspects that apply to DRAM performance assessment within the DC dispatch definition, which provides the appropriate clarification. OhmConnect seeks to delete language that has been used in prior RFOs that requires Sellers to dispatch resources that receive market awards. OhmConnect seeks the reinstatement of Section 1.5(b), claiming the Commission's direction that Rule 24 registrations shall not limit DRAM procurement is not the same as DRAM delivery, and that there may not be sufficient Rule 24 registrations. 12 PG&E clarifies that Section 1.5(a) is broader than Section 1.5(b) and if there is an inability to process CISRs or CAISO locations due to the Rule 24 capacity available, then the DRAM Seller has the same relief as afforded under Section 1.5(b). PG&E seeks to simplify the contract where possible. The criteria with the 15 percent weight is “Have you willfully terminated or defaulted on a past DRAM PA, or submitted offers that demonstrated bidding behavior providing clear evidence of market manipulation or collusion?” 2019 DRAM Request for Offers Solicitation Protocol, p. 12. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/save-energy-money/energy-managementprograms/demand-response-programs/2019-demand-response/2019-DRAM-Protocol.pdf 9 OhmConnect Response, p. 4. 10 OhmConnect Response, p. 5. 11 OhmConnect Response, pp. 5-6. 12 OhmConnect Response, p. 6. 8
- Page 3 -

PG&E Reply to Protest of Advice Letter 5615-E -4- September 3, 2019 OhmConnect provides clarifying edits on cross-references contained within Section 7.2(b)(v)(B) that PG&E agrees with and will determine an appropriate procedural mechanism in consultation with the Energy Division to apply this correction. 13 OhmConnect seeks clarification on Section 1.6(f), which ensures the performance of a customer is not double counted. 14 The DRAM contract only utilizes language that limits performance from being included in more than one PDR and does not expressly refer to double-counting. As the Council was similarly confused by this language, PG&E agrees to adopt the clarification OhmConnect proposed. C. Response of the Council The Council seeks to retain language from prior RFOs for the performance assurance. 15 PG&E clarifies that this language was internally inconsistent and unclear, and the proposed edits better align the requirements such that the performance assurance is maintained during a dispute. D. Conclusion PG&E appreciates the opportunity to submit this response. The Commission should adopt PG&E’s AL 5615-E with the corrections described here. Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations cc: Service List A.17-01-012 Sarah Steck Mayers, Attorney at Law, ssmyers@att.net Mona Tierney-Lloyd, EnerNOC, Inc., mtierney-lloyd@enernoc.com Jennifer A. Chamberlin, CPower, JAC@CPowerEnergyManagement.com Erika Diamond, EnergyHub, diamond@energyhub.net John Anderson, john@ohmconnect.com Greg Wikler, gwikler@cedmc.org OhmConnect Response, p. 7. OhmConnect Response, p. 7. 15 Council Response, p. 3. 13 14
- Page 4 -