[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4128-4129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-121]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER02-1656-017 and EL03-216-001]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
Agenda of Staff Technical Conference

January 21, 2004.
    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on 
December 16, 2003, the Commission Staff will convene a technical 
conference on January 28-29, 2004, to discuss with state 
representatives and market participants in California various 
substantive issues related to the California Independent System 
Operator's (CAISO) Revised MD02 proposal, including the flexible offer 
obligation proposal, the residual unit commitment process, pricing for 
constrained-output generators, marginal losses, and ancillary services 
and other market efficiency issues not related to the mitigation of 
market power. The market power mitigation issues will be discussed at 
the technical conference proposed to be held in San Francisco, 
California in early March 2004.
    The conference will focus on the six issue areas identified in the 
agenda, which is appended to this notice. The discussion of each topic 
on the conference agenda will begin with a short presentation by the 
Commission Staff to frame the issue, followed by an open discussion 
amongst all participants. Participants are encouraged to be prepared to 
discuss the issues substantively.
    The conference will begin at 9 a.m. eastern time on both days, and 
will adjourn at 5 p.m. eastern time on January 29, 2004. The conference 
will be held in the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. The conference is 
open for the public to attend, and registration is not required.
    For more information about the conference, please contact: Olga 
Kolotushkina at (202) 502-6024 or at [email protected].

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

Agenda for January 28-29 Staff Technical Conference

I.Flexible Offer Obligation Proposal \1\

     How will the implementation of this proposal 
affect day-ahead (DA) and real-time (RT) market timelines?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See California Independent System Operator Corporation, 105 
FERC ] 61,140 (2003) (October 28 Order) at P 217-232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To what extent does the Flexible Offer 
Obligation provide adequate incentive to suppliers to participate in 
CAISO's markets and provide CAISO with the reliability it needs?
     Explain why, if at all, slow-start units 
present special circumstances that justify exempting them from the 
Flexible Offer Obligation requirements. What are the alternatives 
for a slow-start unit to protect itself from unrecovered start-up 
and minimum-load costs by bidding into the DA market?

II. Residual Unit Commitment (RUC) Issues \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See October 28 Order at P 99-130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Energy Procurement Target.
     Why is energy procurement needed if procured 
capacity can ensure reliability?
     Explain what impacts the procurement of 
energy could have on the DA market, e.g., discouraging load from 
bidding.
     Would energy purchased through RUC receive a 
different price than energy procured from the DA market? Explain.
     Who would pay for energy that was procured 
but ultimately not needed?
     Treatment of and obligations for imports.
     Explain the extent to which the purchase of 
only capacity (not energy) gives imports sufficient incentive to 
acquire the necessary transmission capacity across the ties.
     Rescission of RUC availability payment.
     How does the RUC availability payment differ 
from a call option?
     How does the RUC availability payment differ 
from offering operating reserve capacity?
     Netting of start-up/minimum load (SU/ML) 
costs.
     What are the pros and cons of permitting 
units that are committed in the DA market to receive payment to 
cover SU/ML costs in the DA market and retain all revenues for 
subsequent sales?
     Obligations from commitment in DA market and 
RUC.
     Explain how, if at all, units committed to 
supply capacity in RUC are obligated to offer energy in real time. 
What are the impacts to markets?
     Discussion of use of daily or monthly gas 
indices in cost-based option for SU/ML costs.

III. Ancillary Services (A/S) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See October 28 Order at P 79-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To what extent should the ISO have well-
defined, transparent A/S procurement rules? How much flexibility 
should the ISO have in determining when to purchase needed A/S? What 
are the impacts?

[[Page 4129]]

     Should market participants have the 
opportunity to buy their A/S position back in the hour-ahead market? 
What impact would this have on markets and system operators?

IV. Constrained-Output Generators \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See October 28 Order at P 85-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Explain when is it appropriate for 
constrained-output generators to set the market clearing price.
     Explain whether and why different pricing 
rules between the DA and RT markets may be appropriate.

V. Marginal Losses \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See October 28 Order at P 71-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     How can the excess revenues created through 
marginal loss pricing be returned to the appropriate participants 
without distorting efficient price signals?
     How should entities that self-provide losses 
be treated?
     Discussion of alternative proposals, 
including that of FPL Energy, LLC.

VI. Miscellaneous Issues

 [FR Doc. E4-121 Filed 1-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P