Gas Resource Management - Stakeholder Working Group

The California ISO is seeking stakeholder feedback to inform internal assessment of problem statements discussed through the Gas Resource Management working group. The survey responses will not be published publicly.

Question Title

* 1. Name:

Question Title

* 2. Organization:

Question Title

* 3. Email:

Question Title

* 4. Phone number (in case the working group facilitator or scribe needs to contact you for additional clarification):

Question Title

* 5. Please rank the problem statements most important to your organization, in order of highest priority to lowest priority. For reference, these are listed in the Discussion Paper and the October Working Group slides. The ISO is dedicated to addressing each problem statement, but will use the top listed problem statements to indicate near term priorities for assessment and further discussion if necessary. Stakeholders will be able to update their preferences after each future assessment and working group discussion.

Problem statement 1: Participants do not have enough certainty in the accuracy of 2 day ahead advisory awards and forecasts to confidently utilize this information as a procurement target for gas in the more liquid timely nomination cycle

Problem statement 2: Because the Electric Day-Ahead results are not published until 1pm during Gas Day 1, participants do not have sufficient information about their own dispatch schedules to make confident and risk-informed gas procurement decisions (7am day ahead) to support those market schedules.

Problem statement 3: During episodes of natural gas system constraints and volatility, especially when participants are issued OFOs, generators encounter difficulties in representing their costs within the Energy Market because bid caps may be too restrictive and there may be a higher likelihood of being mitigated down.

Problem statement 4: The reference level change request processes are too burdensome because the automated process can only be submitted for one resource at a time, and the 8am deadline to submit a change request through the manual process conflicts with other trading activities. These restrictions limit their intended usefulness for cost recovery.

Problem statement 5: The current Default Commitment Costs and Default Energy Bids limit generators from reflecting actual gas costs.

Problem statement 6: The reasonableness thresholds used to assess automated reference level change requests are too low given the increasing volatility in today’s gas market.

Problem statement 7: Heat rates used for reference level calculations do not account for greater heat rate variation from larger temperature ranges in diverse western climates.

Problem statement 8: Energy markets do not reflect the appropriate gas day’s cost that are used in Default Commitment Cost and Default Energy Bid formulation for HE1 through HE7 despite the fact that this cost information is available.

Problem statement 9: Generators are unable to reflect accurate costs in the market due to a limitation on the number of gas hubs that can be reflected in the calculation of their reference levels.

Problem statement 10: Use-limited registration criteria does not explicitly recognize certain reliability-based limitations of gas resources in a balancing area and as a result, renders resources ineligible for the opportunity cost calculation.

Problem statement 11: Gas burn limitations are not reflected in the market for WEIM balancing areas, which may lead to inaccurate or infeasible unit commitment or dispatch instructions.

Question Title

* 6. Are there processes related to the problem statements listed above that you feel you need a deeper understanding of before assessing solutions?

Yes

If yes, please specify the problem statements.

Question Title

* 7. Do you have any further suggestions for metrics, sources of data, or analytics to help illustrate problems or asses potential solutions?

Question Title

* 8. Do you have additional recommendations for potential solutions to consider to the specific problem statements identified?

Yes

If yes, please specify.

Question Title

* 1. Name:

Question Title

* 2. Organization:

Question Title

* 3. Email:

Question Title

* 4. Phone number (in case the working group facilitator or scribe needs to contact you for additional clarification):

Question Title

Question Title

* 6. Are there processes related to the problem statements listed above that you feel you need a deeper understanding of before assessing solutions?

Question Title

* 7. Do you have any further suggestions for metrics, sources of data, or analytics to help illustrate problems or asses potential solutions?

Question Title

* 8. Do you have additional recommendations for potential solutions to consider to the specific problem statements identified?

Question Title

* 9. Additional questions or inquiries: