10 Krey Boulevard Rensselaer, NY 12144
June 3, 2015
Hon. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Proposed Amendment to Correct June 1 Filing in Docket No. ER12-
2414-003 of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and
Request for Waivers, Docket No. ER12-2414-00_
Dear Secretary Bose:
On June 1, 2015, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”)
filed proposed compliance tariff revisions (the “June 1 Filing”) in accordance with
Paragraph 2 and Ordering Paragraph (C) of the Commission’s April 16, 2015 order in the
above captioned proceedings.1 The transmittal letter and Attachment I and Attachment II
to the June 1 Filing accurately described and set forth the proposed Market Administration
and Control Area Services Tariff (“Services Tariff”) compliance tariff revisions that the
NYISO intended to submit. However, other attachments containing tariff revisions
inadvertently were not included in the June 1 Filing or were on an unintended eTariff base.
The June 1 Filing also inadvertently included proposed tariff revisions that were unrelated
to its subject matter (and thus were not described or referenced in the transmittal letter.)
In order to correct these inadvertent ministerial errors and to ensure a complete and
accurate record, the NYISO respectfully requests that the Commission accept this
amendment to the June 1 Filing.2 To be clear, this amendment is not proposing any
1 Astoria Generating Company, et al. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2015) (the “April 16 Order”). The April 16 Order ruled on the NYISO’s,
Compliance Filing in Docket No. ER12-2414-000 (Aug. 6, 2012); Errata to Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER12-2414-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), and Refiling of Base Tariff Section to Correct
Ministerial Error and Request for Waiver of Public Notice Requirement, Docket No. ER12-360-
003 (Oct. 12, 2012) (“2012 Compliance Filing”).
2 As required by the April 16 Order, this compliance filing includes tariff language that the
NYISO was expressly directed to develop. It also includes certain proposed minor adjustments to
the Services Tariff that the NYISO believes are necessary for clarity. These clarifications are
similar to those that the Commission has allowed the NYISO to include in prior compliance filings.
See, e.g., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 125 FERC ¶ 61,206 at P 41 (2008)
(accepting revisions proposed in a compliance filing “as needed to implement the modifications
directed” in an order, even though the order did not specifically direct the filing of such revisions).
See also New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 127 FERC ¶ 61,042 at 12 (2009) (accepting
revisions that “make ministerial changes that permit the effective implementation” of the proposal
that is the subject of the compliance filing).
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 2
substantive change to the revisions described in or proposed by the June 1 Filing. The only purpose of this proposed amendment is to correct the ministerial filing errors summarized above and described in more detail below. This filing does so by re-submitting all of the
attachments that were intended to be included in the June 1 Filing and omitting all
attachments that were not.
This filing also submits a corrected version of the original transmittal letter. The
only changes from the June 1 Filing’s transmittal letter are to: correct Section I (i.e., the list
of “Documents Submitted”); update certain internal references to conform to the correct
list of submitted Attachments; adjust the proposed effective date of what is described
below as the “CEE reference phrase;” and to correct a typographical error in the base
version of Services Tariff Sections 23.4.5.7.4 and 30.10.4 shown and described in Section
III.3
To the extent that the Commission deems necessary, the NYISO is seeking any
waiver needed for it to re-submit compliance tariff revisions that were correctly described
in the June 1 Filing transmittal letter and in Attachments I and II, and to submit those that
were due to be included with the filing on June 1 but were inadvertently excluded from it,
two days out of time. The NYISO also respectfully requests any other waiver that the
Commission deems necessary to permit it to correct and complete the June 1 Filing by this
amendment.
The NYISO notes that on June 2, 2015, the Commission issued a notice that
comments on the June 1 Filing are due on June 22, 2015. The NYISO respectfully asks the Commission to adopt a revised comment deadline for this amended filing to replace the one established for the June 1 Filing. There is no reason for interested parties to comment separately on the June 1 Filing instead of simply commenting on the corrected and
complete version of the NYISO’s compliance proposal herein.
Finally, as discussed in Section IV of both the June 1 Filing transmittal letter and
this corrected transmittal letter, the NYISO respectfully requests an effective date of June
22, 2012 for the compliance tariff revisions that were expressly directed in the April 16
Order. The NYISO notes, however, that the additional clarifying revisions to Section 30
proposed herein incorporate revisions to that Section that were accepted and have an
effective date after June 22, 2012. In order to facilitate the Commission’s and parties’
review of the proposed revisions in the context of the current Services Tariff, Attachments
III (clean version of Services Tariff Section 23), IV (blacklined version of Services Tariff
Section 23), VII (clean version of Services Tariff Section 30,) and Attachment VIII
(blacklined version Services Tariff Section 30), as described below, present the version of
the etariff incorporating all revisions proposed as of the date of this filing.4 The
3 See n. 32, 37.
4 All such pending revisions are either effective or have a proposed effective date prior to the date of this filing.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 3
consolidated etariff version that is set forth in Attachments III and VII therefore would reflect the eTariff through May 12, 2015.
I.DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
The NYISO respectfully submits this filing letter and the following documents in
support of this filing:
1.A clean version of the proposed revisions to Services Tariff Section 23
(Attachment H) (“Attachment I”);5
2.A blacklined version of the proposed revisions to Services Tariff Section 23
(Attachment H) (“Attachment II”);6
5 The base tariff language in Attachment I and Attachment II (i.e., the language which the
compliance tariff revisions described herein are proposed to modify) only reflects language that
was accepted and effective, or was pending before the Commission, as of the 2012 Compliance
Filing. It reflects the language presented to the Commission in the 2012 Compliance Filing, which
parties reviewed and filed comments on, as described in the April 16 Order. It does not reflect
effective or pending language from the following proceedings: (a) New York Independent System
Operator, Inc., Delegated Letter Order, Docket No. ER12-360-004 (August 23, 2013) (accepting
second compliance filing in response to the June 6, 2013 Order effective September 1, 2012); (b)
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 144 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2013) (order accepting tariff
revisions effective January 27, 2014 regarding the establishment of a new capacity zone
encompassing Load Zones G, H, I and J and establishing a technical conference) (the “Mitigated
Capacity Zone revisions”); (c) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Delegated Letter
Order, Docket Nos. ER14-1735-000 and ER14-1735-001 (June 27, 2014) (accepting tariff
revisions to permit improved fuel indexing of Day-Ahead generator reference levels effective June
18, 2014); (d) NYISO compliance filing in Docket No. ER15-1498-000 regarding buyer-side
mitigation rules dated April 13, 2015 in response to FERC Order 150 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2015); (e)
NYISO compliance filing in Docket No. ER10-2731-002 regarding an offer floor exemption for
Special Case Resources dated April 20, 2015 in response to FERC Order 150 FERC ¶ 61,208
(2015) (“SCR Compliance Filing”); (f) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Delegated
Letter Order, ER13-1380-005 (August 5, 2014) (accepting compliance filing to delete the current
exclusion of forward capacity sales in Services Tariff Section 23.4.5.5(1) effective March 23,
2015) (the “G-J Pivotal Supplier Revision”); (g) New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Compliance Filing, Request for Commission Action by May 14, 2015, and Request for Limited
Waiver, Docket No. ER15-1498-000 (April 13, 2014) (“Competitive Entry Exemption Compliance
Filing”) with the effective date it directed in Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et
al. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 150 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2015) (“Competitive
Entry Exemption Order”), i.e., February 26, 2015, (h) New York Independent System Operator,
Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,075 (2015) (the “Outage States Order”) which conditionally accepted
revisions effective May 1, 2015, subject to a June 1, 2015 compliance; and (i) New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. Delegated Letter Order, Docket No. ER15-1281-000 (May 6,
2015) (accepting “Additional CRIS” tariff revisions effective May 12, 2015 as described in such
order (the “Additional CRIS Order”)).
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 4
3. A clean version of revisions to Services Tariff Section 23 (Attachment H)
proposed in this filing, along with all revisions accepted by or pending
before the Commission as of the date of this filing, such pending revisions are those proposed in the Competitive Entry Exemption Compliance Filing, the SCR Compliance Filing, and the revisions accepted in the Outage States Order or proposed in the June 1, 2015 Outage States compliance filing7 as of this date (“Attachment III”);8
4. A blacklined version of the revisions to Services Tariff Section 23
(Attachment H), marked on the eTariff base that incorporates all revisions accepted by or pending before the Commission as of the date of this filing. (“Attachment IV”);
5.A clean version of the proposed revisions to Services Tariff Section 30
(Attachment O) (“Attachment V”);9
6.A blacklined version of the proposed revisions to Services Tariff Section 30
(Attachment O) (“Attachment VI”);
7. A clean version of the revisions to Services Tariff Section 30 (Attachment
O) proposed in this filing, along with the all other revisions accepted by or pending before the Commission as of the date of this filing, such pending revisions are those proposed in the Competitive Entry Exemption
Compliance Filing (“Attachment VII”);10
6 Id.
7 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Compliance Filing in Docket No. ER14-
2518-000, Docket No. ER14-2518-003 (June 1, 2015) (“Outage States June 1 Filing”).
8 Attachments III and IV would reflect Services Tariff Section 23 should the Commission
accept the revisions to Services Tariff Section 23 proposed, with the respective requested effective
dates, in: (a) the Competitive Entry Exemption Compliance Filing, (b) the SCR Compliance Filing,
(c) Outage States June 1 Filing, and (d) the revisions proposed herein. As of the date of this filing, the latest actual or proposed effective date to a revision in Section 23 is May 12, 2015 (i.e., the tariff revisions accepted in the Additional CRIS Order.)
9 The base tariff language in Attachment V and Attachment VI (i.e., the language which the compliance tariff revisions described herein are proposed to modify) only reflects language that
was accepted and effective, or was pending before the Commission, as of the 2012 Compliance
Filing. It reflects the language presented to the Commission in the 2012 Compliance Filing, which parties reviewed and filed comments on, as described in the April 16 Order. The only pending
revisions to Services Tariff Section 30 as of the date of this filing are those proposed in the
Competitive Entry Exemption Compliance Filing.
10 Attachment VII and VIII would reflect Services Tariff Section 30 should the
Commission accept the revisions to Services Tariff Section 30 proposed in the Competitive Entry
Exemption Compliance Filing with the effective date directed in the Competitive Entry Exemption
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 5
8. A blacklined version of the proposed revisions to Services Tariff Section 30
(Attachment O) proposed in this filing, marked on the eTariff base that
incorporates all revisions accepted by or pending before the Commission as of the date of this filing (“Attachment VIII”);11
9. Solely for purposes of showing the build of the eTariff, a table reflecting a
list of the tariff sections revised along with filing dates and pertinent Commission orders (“Attachment IX”); and
10. Solely for purposes of showing the build of the eTariff, the series of tariff
sections that are described in Attachment IX (Attachment X).12
II.BACKGROUND
The April 16 Order granted clarification, in part, and denied rehearing of the
Commission’s June 2012 Order13 partially granting and partially denying a complaint
against the NYISO.14 The Complaint alleged that the NYISO had improperly
implemented its buyer-side capacity market power mitigation measures (“BSM Rules”)15
in the New York City Installed Capacity16 (“ICAP”) Market. The June 2012 Order
Order, i.e., February 26, 2015, and the revisions proposed herein. As of the date of this filing, the latest actual or proposed effective date for a revision to Section 30 is May 12, 2015 (i.e., the tariff revisions accepted in the Additional CRIS Order.)
11 Id.
12 The documents that comprise Attachment X, the etariff build, solely reflect the Services
Tariff language effective on a particular date. They do not necessarily reflect the language as
presented to the Commission in a filing. Examples of the manner in which language pending
before the Commission was proposed for revision before the Commission acted on proposed
language filed earlier, or was later revised in compliance with a Commission order on rehearing,
can be seen in, e.g., the Additional CRIS Compliance Filing Section IV; the Competitive Entry
Compliance Filing Section IV; the NYISO’s Request for Expedited Clarification of the New York
Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket Nos. EL07-39-007, ER08-695-005, ER10-2371-001
(March 30, 2015); and the SCR Compliance Filing. The Commission’s record in the respective
proceedings provides the full context, whereas certain documents in Attachment X do not.
13 Astoria Generating Company, et al. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 139 FERC ¶ 61,244 (2012) (the “June 2012 Order”).
14 The complaint was filed by Astoria Generating Company L.P.; NRG Power Marketing LLC; Arthur Kill Power, LLC; Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC; Dunkirk Power LLC; Huntley Power LLC, Oswego Harbor Power LLC; and TC Ravenswood, LLC (collectively, the
“Complainants”). Astoria Generating Company, et al. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing (June 3, 2011) (“Complaint”).
15 The BSM Rules are set forth in Section 23.4.5.7, et seq. of the Services Tariff.
16 Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this filing shall have the meaning specified in the Services Tariff.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 6
directed the NYISO to, among other things, make a compliance filing that included certain revisions to its Services Tariff.17 The April 16 Order accepted the NYISO’s compliance filing,18 as corrected, to be effective June 22, 2012, subject to a compliance filing.
Specifically, the April 16 Order required the NYISO to: (1) clarify the first-year
Unit Net CONE value that will be used in its “Part B Test”19 and Unit Offer Floor;20 (2)
incorporate language into the Services Tariff that allows the NYISO’s independent Market
Monitoring Unit (“MMU”) to consider all factors relevant to mitigation exemption and
Offer Floor determinations when it reports on such determinations (“MMU Report”);21 and
(3) clarify the use of inflation and escalation rates under the BSM Rules.22
III.PROPOSED COMPLIANCE TARIFF REVISIONS
A.Use of First-Year Unit Net CONE Value in Part B Test
The NYISO asserted that the June 2012 Order was unclear with respect to the
comparison to be made between the “Default Offer Floor”23 and Unit Net CONE when
determining Offer Floors. The NYISO requested clarification that in determining the Offer Floor (i.e., the lower value of 75 percent of Mitigation Net CONE, or Unit Net CONE), the value for Unit Net CONE to be used should be only the first year value of the three-year average of annual Unit Net CONE.24
The April 16 Order confirmed that the NYISO’s understanding of how the Offer
Floor should be determined was correct.25 The Commission noted that there was a need to
17 April 16 Order at P 2.
18 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER12-
2414 (Aug. 6, 2012) (“2012 Compliance Filing”).
19 The “Part B Test” is the term sometimes used for one of the tests that the NYISO uses to
determine if a new entrant is eligible for an exemption from Offer Floor mitigation under the BSM
Rules. It compares the average annual three-year price forecast, three Capability Years out from
the Class Year, to the Unit Net CONE. An Examined Facility is exempt from an Offer Floor if that
three-year average forecasted price exceeds the calculated Unit Net CONE. See Section 23.4.5.7.
20 April 16 Order at P 16.
21 Id. at P 75.
22 Id. at PP 20, 90-93.
23 “Default Offer Floor” is a term described in the April 16 Order. It is not a defined term in the NYISO’s tariffs. It has the same meaning as “Mitigation Net CONE Offer Floor,” a defined term that was accepted with other Services Tariff revisions in the Additional CRIS Order.
24 Request for Expedited Clarification, and Alternate Request for Rehearing, of the New York Independent System Operator (July 23, 2012) (“Request for Clarification”) at 8.
25 April 16 Order at PP 15-16.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 7
clarify the Services Tariff because Section 23.2.1 defines “Unit Net CONE” as a singleyear value, but the NYISO uses a three-year average of the defined “Unit Net CONE” value in determining “Unit Net CONE” for purposes of the Part B Test. Thus, to “avoid confusion and ambiguity in the future,” the Commission directed the NYISO to revise the Services Tariff to provide clearly for the use of the first-year Unit Net CONE value as defined in the Services Tariff for its Part B Test and Unit Offer Floor.26
The NYISO therefore proposes the following addition to Section 23.2.1 to provide clearly for the use of the first-year Unit Net CONE value as defined in the Services Tariff for the Offer Floor determination:27
For purposes of Section 23.4.5 of this Attachment H, “Offer Floor” for a
Mitigated Capacity Zone Installed Capacity Supplier that is not a Special Case
Resource shall mean the lesser of (i) a numerical value equal to 75% of the
Mitigation Net CONE translated into a seasonally adjusted monthly UCAP value
(“Mitigation Net CONE Offer Floor”), or (ii) a the numerical value that is the first
year value of the Unit Net CONE determined as specified in Section 23.4.5.7.3,
translated into a seasonally adjusted monthly UCAP value using an appropriate
class outage rate, (“Unit Net CONE Offer Floor”). The Offer Floor for a Mitigated
Capacity Zone Installed Capacity Supplier that is a Special Case Resource shall
mean a numerical value determined as specified in Section 23.4.5.7.5. The Offer
Floor for Additional CRIS MW shall mean a numerical value determined as
specified in Section 23.4.5.7.6.
B. Clarifying the Use of “Inflation” and “Escalation”
The April 16 Order discussed the use of the terms “inflation” and “escalation,”
noting, for example, that the NYISO correctly used the “escalation” rate for the Default
“Part A Test” for 2014 in Table 1 of Attachment A of its Request for Clarification.28 The
Commission ordered the NYISO to amend its tariff provisions to reflect the use of the
inflation component, rather than the escalation rate, for Unit Net CONE for all years of the
26 Id. “Unit Offer Floor” is a term described in the April 16 Order. It is not a defined term in the NYISO’s tariffs. It has the same meaning as “Unit Net CONE Offer Floor,” a defined term that was accepted with other Services Tariff revisions in the Additional CRIS Order.
27 The revisions to Services Tariff Section 23 shown in Sections III.A and III.B of this
filing letter are shown here as blackline on the version of this eTariff filing that is Attachments III
and IV.
28 April 16 Order at n. 13, 14. The April 16 Order’s observation that the NYISO should
have used “Inflation,” rather than “Escalation” to refer to adjustments to the “Annual Net CONE of Examined Facility” in certain examples included in the Request for Clarification does not
otherwise affect the accuracy of those examples. Id. at n 13. Nor does the difference in
terminology impact any mitigation determination that the NYISO has made since the June 2012
Order. It does not do so because inflation and escalation at the time of the BSM Rule
determinations had the same value.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 8
Mitigation Study Period for which there are accepted ICAP Demand Curves.29 The
Commission clarified that, for Mitigation Study Periods that extend beyond those included
in the accepted ICAP Demand Curves, the NYISO should use the escalation rate of the last
year’s accepted ICAP Demand Curves.30 The Commission also ordered the NYISO to
revise Section 23.4.5.7.3.6 to make clear that the Default Offer Floor should be compared
to the annual Net CONE value for the first year of the Mitigation Study Period.31
In accordance with this directive, the NYISO proposes the following revisions.32
23.4.5.7.2.4 … When the ISO is evaluating more than one NCZ Examined Project concurrently, the ISO shall recognize in its computation of the
anticipated ICAP Spot Market Auction forecast price that Generators or
UDR facilities will clear from lowest to highest, using for each NCZ
Examined Project the lower of (i) the first year value of its Unit Net CONE, or (ii) the numerical value equal to 75 percent of the Mitigation Net Cone, then inflated escalated in accordance with 23.4.5.7 for each of the year two and year three of the Mitigation Study Period.
23.4.5.7.3.2 … When the ISO is evaluating more than one Examined
Facility concurrently, the ISO shall recognize in its computation of the
anticipated ICAP Spot Market Auction forecast price that Generators or
UDR facilities will clear from lowest to highest, using for each Examined Facility the lower of (i) the first year value of its Unit Net CONE, or (ii) the numerical value equal to 75 percent of the Mitigation Net Cone, then
inflated escalated in accordance with 23.4.5.7 for each of the year two and year three of the Mitigation Study Period.
23.4.5.7.3.6 If an Installed Capacity Supplier demonstrates to the
reasonable satisfaction of the ISO that the value equal to the first of the
three year values in the Mitigation Study Period that comprise its Unit Net
CONE is less than any Offer Floor that would otherwise be applicable to the
29 April 16 Order at P 90.
30 Id. at P 91.
31 Id. at P 93.
32 The June 1 Filing inadvertently did not reflect a phrase in the base of Services Tariff
Section 23.4.5.7.4 that the NYISO is proposing to delete. Attachment I and Attachment II to the
June 1 Filing did correctly reflect the base tariff and the proposed deletion of the phrase.
Specifically, the phrase “for any year for which the accepted” shown above in strike out was
intended to be a proposed deletion from the phrase: “the inflation rate component of the escalation
factor of the last year of accepted relevant ICAP Demand Curves if relevantfor any year for which
the accepted ICAP Demand Curves do not apply to the year; ..” That typographical error is
corrected in this filing.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 9
Installed Capacity Supplier, then its Offer Floor shall be reduced to a numerical value equal to the first year of its Unit Net CONE.
23.4.5.7.4 For purposes of Sections 23.4.5.7.2(b) and 23.4.5.7.6(b), the
ISO shall identify (A) the Unit Net CONE and the price on the ICAP
Demand Curve projected for a future Mitigation Study Period using: (i) the
inflation rate component of the escalation factor of the relevant ICAP
Demand Curves for any year for which there are accepted ICAP Demand
Curves, and; or (ii) the inflation rate component of the escalation factor of
the last year of accepted relevant ICAP Demand Curves if relevantfor any
year for which the accepted ICAP Demand Curves do not apply to the year;
and (B) the price on the ICAP Demand Curve projected for a Mitigation
Study Period using (i) the escalation factor of the relevant ICAP Demand
Curves for any year for which there are accepted ICAP Demand Curves;
and (ii) the escalation factor of the last year of accepted ICAP Demand
Curves if relevant ICAP Demand Curves do not apply to the year. For
purposes of Section 23.4.5.7.2(a), the ISO shall use the escalation factor of
the relevant ICAP Demand Curves.
C.The MMU Report
The June 2012 Order directed the NYISO to revise the Services Tariff to specify
that the MMU would prepare the MMU Report. The purpose of the MMU Report is to
confirm that the NYISO’s determinations and calculations under the BSM Rules were
performed in accordance with the terms of the Services Tariff and, if not, to identify any
flaws.33 To implement this directive, the 2012 Compliance Filing proposed a modification
to Section 23.4.5.7.8, new language for Section 30.10.4, and corresponding revisions to
Section 30.4.6.2.11.34
The April 16 Order found that the language regarding the MMU Report “should not
be restricted to only the Offer Floor and exemption determination sections of Attachment
H (i.e., sections 23.4.5.7.2 and 23.4.5.7.7), but should be sufficiently open-ended so as not
to limit the review performed by the MMU to those sections.”35 Thus, the Commission
directed the NYISO to incorporate language into the Services Tariff “that allows the MMU
to consider all factors relevant to mitigation exemption and Offer Floor determinations.”36
33 2014 Order at P 63; 2012 Order at P 130.
34 2012 Compliance Filing at 4-5.
35 April 16 Order at P 75.
36 Id.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 10
In accordance with the Commission’s directive, the NYISO proposes the following revisions to Sections 30.4.6.2.12 and 30.10.4.37 The NYISO also proposes some minor clarifications and corrections to these Sections.38
30.4.6.2.12 When evaluating an Examined Facility or NCZ Examined Project
request by a Developer or Interconnection Customer pursuant to Section 23.4.5.7 of
the Market Mitigation Measures, the ISO shall seek comment from the Market
Monitoring Unit on matters relating to the determination of price projections and
cost calculations. As required by Section 23.4.5.7.8 of Attachment H to this
Services Tariff, the Market Monitoring Unit shall prepare a written report
discussing factors that affect the ISO’s mitigation exemption and Offer Floor
determinations, and confirming whether the ISO’s Offer Floor and exemption
determinations and calculations conducted pursuant to Sections 23.4.5.7.2 and
23.4.5.7.6, the NYISO’s determination of eligible or ineligible for an exemption
pursuant to Section 23.4.5.7.9 of the Market Mitigation Measures, were conducted
in accordance with the terms of the Services Tariff, and if not, identifying the flaws
inherent in the ISO’s approach. This report shall be presented concurrent with the
ISO’s posting of its mitigation exemption and Offer Floor determinations.
Pursuant to Section 23.4.5.7.810 of the Market Mitigation Measures, the ISO shall
also consult with the Market Monitoring Unit when evaluating whether any
existing or proposed Generator or UDR project in a Mitigated Capacity Zone,
37 The revisions to Services Tariff Section 30 shown in this filing letter Section III.C and III.D are shown here as blackline on the version of this eTariff filing that is Attachments VII and VIII. The June 1 Filing incorrectly reflected that the Services Tariff base contained the word “and” in the following phrase, which the June 1 Filing showed as a proposed deletion: “The Market
Monitoring Unit shall prepare a written report as described in Section 30.4.6.2.12 and
confirming…..” That typographical error is corrected in this filing.
38 The NYISO notes that certain revisions to Services Tariff Section 30.10.4 would modify
a limited portion of a revision pending before the Commission as of the date of this filing in the
Competitive Entry Exemption Compliance Filing. That phrase is shown above in strike out: “and
the NYISO’s determination of eligible or ineligible for an exemption pursuant to Services Tariff
Section 23.4.5.7.9” (the “CEE reference phrase”). This pending revision is ministerial in nature in
that the balance of the revisions proposed herein to Section 30.10.4 cross reference Services Tariff
Section 30.4.6.2.12. These revisions operate so that the deletion of the CEE reference phrase
proposed herein, along with the insertion of the cross reference to Section 30.4.6.2.12, establishes the requirement that there be an MMU Report on the NYISO’s determination of eligible or
ineligible for an exemption pursuant to Section 23.4.5.7.9. It does not alter the substance of the
Competitive Entry Exemption Compliance Filing. Accordingly, the NYISO is proposing that the
deletion of the CEE reference phrase proposed herein have the same effective date as the insertion of that phrase proposed in the Competitive Entry Exemption Compliance Filing; i.e., February 26, 2015. However, the effectiveness of the deletion of the CEE reference phrase would be contingent upon the Commission’s acceptance of that language in the Competitive Entry Exemption
Compliance Filing. Thus, the deletion of the CEE reference phrase proposed herein would become effective upon Commission action on that proposed language in Docket No. ER15-1498-000,
assuming the CEE reference phrase is accepted therein.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 11
except New York City, has Commenced Construction, and determinations of
whether it shall be exempted from an Offer Floor under that Section. …
30.10.4Reports on Offer Floor or Exemption Determinations
The Market Monitoring Unit shall prepare a written report as described in Section
30.4.6.2.12 confirming whether the ISO’s Offer Floor and exemption
determinations and calculations conducted pursuant to Sections 23.4.5.7.2 and
23.4.5.7.7, and the NYISO’s determination of eligible or ineligible for an
exemption pursuant to Section 23.4.5.7.9, of the Market Mitigation Measures were conducted in accordance with the terms of the Services Tariff, and if not, identifying the flaws inherent in the ISO’s approach. The Market Monitoring Unit’s report shall be presented concurrently with the ISO’s posting of the exempt/non-exempt determinations.
The NYISO believes, and the MMU has stated that it concurs, that the MMU Reports to date have been, and future reports through the date of the order on this compliance filing can be expected to be, complete and consistent with a good faith understanding of the Commission’s requirements.
D.Additional Minor Clarifications
As the NYISO developed the language to comply with the April 16 Order’s
directive regarding the MMU Report, the NYISO identified the need to correct the cross-
references in several sections to Section 30.4.6.2.12 of Attachment O. Accordingly, the
NYISO is proposing minor corrections to Sections 23.4.5.7.2.5, 23.4.5.7.3.3, 23.4.5.7.6.8,
and 23.4.5.7.8.
IV.EFFECTIVE DATE
The April 16 Order accepted the 2012 Compliance Filing effective June 22, 2012,
subject to this compliance filing.39 The NYISO therefore requests a June 22, 2012
effective date for the revisions proposed in Attachments I, II, V and VI of this filing, with
the exception of the deletion of the CEE reference phrase in Services Tariff Section
30.10.4. As noted, above, that deletion has a proposed effective date of February 26, 2015,
and is contingent on the Commission’s acceptance of that language in Docket No. ER15-
498-000.
39 April 16 Order at P 2.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 12
V.MMU REVIEW
The MMU was given an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed
compliance tariff revisions. The MMU has authorized the NYISO to state that it supports
the revisions proposed herein.
VI.COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE
All communications and services in this proceeding should be directed to:
Robert E. Fernandez, General Counsel
Raymond Stalter, Director of Regulatory Affairs * Gloria Kavanah, Senior Attorney
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
10 Krey Boulevard
Rensselaer, NY 12144
Tel: (518) 356-6103
Fax: (518) 356-7678
rfernandez@nyiso.com
rstalter@nyiso.com
gkavanah@nyiso.com
*Designated for receipt of service.
VII. SERVICE
* Ted J. Murphy
Hunton & Williams LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: (202) 955-1588
Fax: (202) 778-2201
tmurphy@hunton.com
*Noelle J. Coates40
Hunton & Williams LLP Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 536-2734
Fax: (305) 810-1635
ncoates@hunton.com
This filing will be posted on the NYISO’s website at www.nyiso.com. It will serve
the parties in Docket Nos. EL11-42, ER12-2414, and ER15-1498-000. In addition, the
NYISO will e-mail an electronic link to this filing to the official representative of each
party to this proceeding, to each of its customers, to each participant on its stakeholder
committees, to the New York Public Service Commission, and to the New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, the New York Independent System Operator,
Inc. respectfully requests that the Commission accept the compliance tariff revisions
proposed in this filing and make them effective on the dates noted above. The NYISO also
requests, to the extent that the Commission deem necessary, a waiver of the June 1
40 The NYISO respectfully requests waiver of the Commission’s regulations (18 C.F.R. § 385.203(b)(3)(2014) to the extent necessary to permit service on counsel for the NYISO in both Miami and Washington, D.C.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary June 3, 2015
Page 13
compliance filing deadline in this proceeding, and any other waivers that may be required
to allow this submission to correct and complete the June 1 Filing by this amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gloria Kavanah
Gloria Kavanah
Counsel for the
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
cc:Michael Bardee
Gregory Berson
Anna Cochrane
Morris Margolis
David Morenoff
Daniel Nowak
Kathleen Schnorf
Jamie Simler
Kevin Siqveland
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person
designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §385.2010.
Dated at Rensselaer, NY this 3rd day of June, 2015.
/s/ Joy A. Zimberlin
Joy A. Zimberlin
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
10 Krey Blvd.
Rensselaer, NY 12144 (518) 356-6207
