Table Summary of FERC Staff s Deficiency Letters to

Reviews
Shared by: Laura Arden
Stats
views:
2
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
3/5/2009
language:
English
pages:
0
Table 1 Summary of FERC Staff's Deficiency Letters to Other MBR Filings Issued on October 29, 2004 Applicants Pinnacle West Puget Sound Consumers Southern √ √ √ √ Entergy Alliant Deficiency Areas 1 Broader Geographic Market (Need to provide supporting documents) PSNM KCPL Duke AEP DPL [4] [5] √ Note These are not ISO\RTO Market definition. [4] Puget defines its market as Pacific Northwest. FERC Staff also requests the tests for the broader market's firsttier [5] PSNM performed the broader market for southern California, southern Nevada, and western Arizona. [6] Need to define "current data" used to conduct its revised analyses. 2 Not Using most recent 12 months data Using Seasonal Capacity instead of Nameplate Capacity 3 (Need to explain why) 4 Affiliate generation as supply of competitors 5 Descrepancies in its calculations/presented data and exhibits 6 Limit import capability to historical peak hour of all seasons Excluding Weekends and Holidays from Load Calculation 7 (Need to explain why) 8 Used wrong load number (e.g. used needle peak for average daily peak) No Deduction of Lt sales firm non-requirement for Applicant' s 9 competitors 10 Request for additional data on RFP and ATC for competing generation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ [6] √ √ √ √ 11 Other Three-Part Tests Fail to include the revision of FERC's 12 2003 Market Behavioral Rules in the tariff √ √ √ [2] [3] √ [2] [2] DPL and Pinnacle West did not discuss affiliate abuse/reciprocal dealing. [3] Entergy's discussion on other three prongs of market power are inadequate. 1 of 2 Summary of FERC Staff's Deficiency Letters to Other MBR Filings Issued on October 29, 2004 Applicants Pinnacle West Puget Sound Consumers Southern √ √ √ Entergy Alliant Deficiency Areas Workpapers of Inputs and Calculations of Two Indicative Screens PSNM KCPL Duke AEP DPL Note [1] For AEP-SPP's first-tier markets and how AEP determined maximum demand of its wholesale load in "truncated market share analysis" 13 [1] √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14 Explanation of Truncated Analysis Transmission √ SIL should be by season. * Applicant does not need to submit additional data response requested in Appendix A of the letter if its analysis does not consider imports by competitors. 15 Simplified SIL Studies (Data Request in Appendix A)* 16 SIL Workpapers as required in Appendix E of the April Order Do Applicant and affiliates have firm or network transmission 17 to import remote generation in first-tier markets? If so, they get priority use, remaining then should be pro-rata. Delivered Price Test 1 Load used in AEC calculation 2 Need to separate TDU 3 Multifaceted backup requested Mitigation Request more details on mitigation under PNM's cost-based rates √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Issue on treating PV and Redhawk as remote generation but using prorata to bring power of these units inside APS for some seasons. √ √ √ √ 2 of 2

Related docs
FERC NOPR
Views: 269  |  Downloads: 0
FERC’s Implementation of PUHCA 2005
Views: 17  |  Downloads: 1
FERC Staff Phone Number Listing
Views: 1965  |  Downloads: 5
Interfacing with the FERC Tariff System
Views: 41  |  Downloads: 0
CHS comments to FERC
Views: 10  |  Downloads: 0
FERC FY 2006 Annual Financial Report
Views: 24  |  Downloads: 0
FERC Annual Performance Review for FY 2001
Views: 4  |  Downloads: 0
Cogen v. FERC
Views: 228  |  Downloads: 2
Other docs by Laura Arden