LOAD RESPONSE PROGRAM

Robert Burke

February 13, 2001

Agenda

• Why Simplification was necessary– complexity of original proposal– proposed modifications

• Example

• After the summer

• “Seeding” the program

Why Simplification?• Original proposal included reallocation of

the interrupted load to multiple suppliers

• Determination of individual monthly peak load effected

• Within Market Settlement System, this reallocation results in changes to “Load”

• Lost revenue calculation and debits/credits

• Lost revenue verification and auditability

Proposed Modifications

• Processed outside of the Market Settlement System

• Eliminate reallocation

• Eliminate lost revenue

• Payments for interruption made to Participant that signed up customer

• Cost allocated to Electric Load

ExamplePrior to Interruption

Load Asset10 MW

Comp. B

30% - 3MW

Comp. C

20% - 2MW

Comp. A

50% - 5MW

New Type 61 MW

L.A.F.I.Signed byComp. X

ExampleAfter Interruption

Load Asset9 MW

Comp. B

30% - 2.7MW

Comp. C

20% - 1.8MW

Comp. A

50% - 4.5MW

New Type 61 MW

L.A.F.I.Signed byComp. X

1MW interruption determined

by ISO

Example

Company A Company B Company C

Load Prior to interruptionfrom AMR data

5.0 3.0 2.0

Load after 1 MWinterruption from AMR data

4.5 2.7 1.8

Energy either sold or notpurchased at ECP because ofinterruption (MW)

0.5 0.3 0.2

Example

Company X Cost Allocated

Prior to interruptionfrom AMR data

0

Interruption creditbased upon ISOcalculation (MW)

1

Payment forinterruption(ECP= $100)

$100 $100

Seeding the Program

• ISO proposed that the installation costs for the first 1,000 sites be socialized

• Consistent with the installation of RIGs