Newsroom  Site Map  Contact NERC       




Individual or group.  (16 Responses)
Name  (10 Responses)
Organization  (10 Responses)
Group Name  (6 Responses)
Contact Organization  (6 Responses)
Question 1  (15 Responses)
Question 1 Comments  (16 Responses)
Question 2  (15 Responses)
Question 2 Comments  (16 Responses)
Question 3  (15 Responses)
Question 3 Comments  (16 Responses)
Question 4  (0 Responses)
Question 4 Comments  (16 Responses)
 
Individual
Edward C. Stein
Self-Retired
Yes
 
Yes
This is more of a reliability practice than a business practice. It is my understanding that MISO has not accepted the reliability role of Resource Planner (RP), similar to PJM, even though they have accepted the role of Balancing Authority (BA) and run one of the largest electricity Markets in America. The only difference that I see is that MISO runs an energy only market where as PJM runs both an energy market and a capacity market. It very well may be that MISO is moving towards two markets, energy and capacity. My concern is that given the time that it took MISO to become a BA, it will take even longer for MISO to move towards two markets and the role of RP. I recommend that the Drafting Team develop a separate SAR to address the RP issue in order to speed the process of eliminating the MISO waivers since they truly are a BA.
Yes
 
 
Individual
Greg Rowland
Duke Energy
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Individual
Jeffrey V Hackman
Ameren Services
No
While the stated purpose is "limited to removing MISO waivers", the redline for the the INT shows in the revision block that VRF and VSL will be modified. This looks like a back door revision under this SAR language.
No
 
No
See response to Q1
 
Individual
James H. Sorrels, Jr.
American Electric Power
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Individual
Joe O'Brien
NIPSCO
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Group
Northeast Power Coordinating Council
Northeast Power Coordinating Council
 
 
 
We don't have any comments at the present time.
Individual
Alan Gale
City of Tallahassee
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
 
Individual
Kasia Mihalchuk
Manitoba Hydro
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Group
Bonneville Power Administration
BPA Transmission Reliability Program
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Individual
Dan Rochester
Ontario IESO
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Group
NERC Standards Review Subcommittee
Midwest Reliability Organization
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
N/A
Group
Public Service Commission of South Carolina
Public Service Commission of South Carolina
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Group
PJM
NERC and Regional Coordination
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Group
SERC OC Standards Review Group
Entergy
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Individual
Jason Marshall
Midwest ISO
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
 
Individual
Doug Hohlbaugh
FirstEnergy
Yes
 
No
 
Yes
 
FirstEnergy agrees that the BAL-006 waiver is obsolete given the Amended BA Agreement and matrix whereby MISO alone calculates and records its own inadvertent interchange and verifies net interchange with its neighbors. Absent the Amended BA Agreement/Matrix, the waiver was needed to give MISO an inadvertent account for its market. The waiver also specified that control areas within MISO would operate to net scheduled interchange with MISO, which is no longer the case under the Amended BA Agreement/Matrix. FirstEnergy also supports the two identified waivers proposed for removal from the INT-003 standard as they are also unneeded since the Amended BA Agreement/Matrix assigns interchange scheduling solely to MISO. FirstEnergy ask that the SAR DT also consider the removal of the third waiver reflected in the INT-003 standard - MISO Energy Flow Information Waiver. The Waiver was originally requested/approved to implement a multi-Control Area Energy Market. Even though the MISO Energy Flow Information Waiver says that it should also apply in the event that Control Areas in the RTO are combined into fewer Control Areas or into one Control Area it seems inconceivable that one would need a multi-control area waiver for one consolidated control area. We ask that the SAR DT reconsider the need for the MISO Energy Flow Information Waiver and provide reason for its continued use if deemed appropriate.