Source: https://www.fepaauction.com/FAQ.aspx
Timestamp: 2020-06-02 13:13:41
Document Index: 223809875

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

FEPA > FAQ
GEN 00128 (revised 09/25/2019)
Answer: The same legal opinion must be submitted as part of the Part 1 Application and if the applicant is chosen as a Default Service Supplier. The legal opinion should be signed by counsel when submitted as part of the Part 1 Application.
GEN 00133
Question: (1) Could you please confirm that a legal opinion and officer certificate that were accepted in the June 2019 procurement does not need to be resubmitted in the Part 1 Application for the October 2019 auction? (2) If the legal opinion and officer certificate were executed in the June 2019 auction, do you require a re-submission of the executed copies of the legal opinion and officer certificate as part of the Part 2 Application and/or at the time of the execution of the Supplier Master Agreement and Guaranty?
Answer: New executed copies of the legal opinion and officer certificate must be re-submitted for each auction. The legal opinion and officer certificate must be executed and submitted twice by the supplier: (1) with the Part 1 Application, and (2) at the time of the execution of the Supplier Master Agreement should the supplier become a Default Service Supplier.
GEN 00134
Question: As of now, the effective NITS rate for Allegheny Power Zone is $14,364 per megawatt per year. Do you know if they will have another filing on the horizon to change their effective NITS rate?
Answer: There are no changes to the NITS rate for Allegheny Power Zone. The rate is still $14,364 per megawatt per year.
GEN 00135
Question: Can FEPA please confirm the AEPS compliance percentages that will be required of the suppliers is as shown in Appendix E of the DSP-V SMA? The language in Appendix E changed in DSP-V vs DSP-IV. Also, the reporting year 2020 solar AEPS percentage shown in DSP-V Appendix E does not match the solar percentage shown on the PA AEPS Website (https://www.pennaeps.com/electricity-suppliers/).
Answer: The Tier I Solar percentage for compliance year 6/1/2019 to 5/31/2020 is 0.4433%. Appendix E of the SMA lists it as 0.44%. This is the result of rounding to two decimal places.
GEN 00136
Question: Will suppliers be responsible for the Tier I Non-Solar Adjustment under Act 129?
Answer: Yes. Suppliers are responsible for the Tier I Non-Solar Adjustment.
GEN 00137
Question: Please clarify whether the volume of Solar Photovoltaic Alternative Energy Credits (SPAECs) and Tier 1 Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) provided for West Penn Power 24-month Residential product will be half of the allocation of the 24-month number or whether the volume will go to zero completely as Planning Year compliance for Reporting Year 2020/2021 happens after June 1, 2021.
Answer: The long-term contracts West Penn Power has for Solar Photovoltaic Alternative Energy Credits (SPAECs) and Tier 1 Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) will expire on May 31, 2021. West Penn Power will not have any SPAECs or AECs to allocate to suppliers beginning in Reporting Year 2021/2022.
GEN 00138
Question: In Section 16.13 of the FSA, there are a number of Federal Regulations that the supplier must conform to in the event that said Regulations become applicable. Can you please tell us if those regulations are currently applicable? If they are not, can you tell us under what circumstances would those regulations become applicable under this agreement?
Answer: This provision is applicable only to governmental bidders.
GEN 00139
Question: Does Allegheny Power Zone have a plan to change their NITS rate, or have a FERC filing to change their NITS rate?
GEN 00140
Question: (1) Since Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power directly meet the solar AEC requirements for their loads, is a supplier's Tier 1 Non-Solar obligation equal to the Tier 1 obligation less the Tier 1 Solar obligation listed in Appendix E of the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA)? As an example, for the Compliance Period June 1, 2019 - May 31, 2020, is a supplier's obligation for Tier 1 Non-Solar AECs equal to 7.06%? (2) Can you confirm that a supplier is not responsible for the Tier 1 Quarterly Adjustment and that the utilities meet that requirement? Per the last paragraph of Appendix E, the utilities would meet the Tier 1 Quarterly Adjustment as the utilities are responsible for any changes in the AEPS compliance requirements from the values listed in the table in Appendix E. "If Alternative Energy Portfolio requirements change by law or any other reason, the Companies shall be responsible for any incremental AEPS compliance requirement in order to comply with DS Supplier’s obligations under DS Supply."
Answer: In West Penn Power, the suppliers are responsible for all Tier I requirements, which includes Tier I Solar, Tier I Non-Solar, and Tier I Adjustments. In Met-Ed, Penelec, and Penn Power, the suppliers are responsible for the Tier I requirements, except for the Tier I Solar. The PA RPS requirements for 6/1/19 - 5/31/20 are as follows: Tier I Solar is 0.4433%, Tier I Non-Solar is 7.0567%, and the Tier I Adjustment will be determined by the PA AEPS administrator.
GEN 00141
Question: I have a question related to the West Penn Power AECs Allocation Table in FAQ GEN 00124. In viewing FAQ GEN 00124, I wanted to confirm the allocation for the SPAECs and Tier I AECs for the 24-month terms. Does the table represent the allocations per year or does the table represent that total number of SPAECs and AECs allocated to the term as a whole? If it is the latter, can you outline when they are issued to us? Do we get all of them during the first year or are half issued in the first energy year and the other half in the second?
Answer: The allocations in the table in FAQ GEN 00124 are per year. After June 1, 2021, there will be no AECs allocated -- see FAQ GEN 00137.
GEN 00142
Question: With the FERC order on rehearing and clarification on the MOPR ruling that addresses the PJM Reliability Pricing Model, the Commission seems to have confirmed the opinion that state-run default service auctions are to be considered state subsidies for suppliers with generation bidding into the PJM capacity auction thereby making suppliers that receive default service auction awards subject to the MOPR rule. Does FEPA plan on taking any steps to ensure suppliers with generation that could be subject to MOPR are aware of the potential implications of bidding in the upcoming RFP?
Answer: Information is available in the public domain regarding the most recent rulings on the Minimum Offer Price Rule (“MOPR”). The Company has not yet developed additional communications to make suppliers aware of this information.
DAT 00125 (revised 04/23/2019)
NSPL 169,094 229,556 276,100 83,248
DAT 00130
Question: Can you confirm DAT 00125 – Penelec NSPL, Non-Shopping Commercial data in the third table?
Answer: There was a typo in the table for FAQ DAT 00125. The Penelec Non-Shopping Commercial aggregate NSPL should be 229,556 not 29,556. The table has been corrected.
DAT 00131 (revised 05/21/2019)
Question: (1) In the PLC data posted in FAQ DAT 00126, have the 100 kW+ customers been migrated to the Industrial class? (2) To confirm, the historical commercial load in West Penn, Met-Ed, and Penelec still includes customers that average over 100 kW, correct?
Answer: Yes, the historical commercial loads in West Penn, Met-Ed, and Penelec reflect customers with billing demands greater than 100 kW for twelve consecutive months ending January 2018 as a proxy for commercial customers expected to migrate from the commercial to industrial class starting June 1, 2018. FAQ DAT 00126 initially was published in October 2018. Since October 2018, there has been a change in shopping status for these commercial customers expected to migrate in June. The PLC data were revised in April 2019 to reflect this change from non-shopping to shopping.
DAT 00132 (revised 05/21/2019)
Question: Monthly migrating commercial class loads are updated in FAQ SMA 00037 for Met-Ed, Penelec, and WestPenn. Hourly loads of Penn Power (that show the migrating class) are still from January. Can you please either update the migrating load table in SMA 00037 with Penn Power, or provide refreshed hourly loads of Penn Power for the migrating class?
Answer: Penn Power hourly loads have been updated through 3/31/2019 to reflect the expected commercial migration starting 6/1/2019.
DAT 00133
Question: In Hourly Load by Class for Penelec listed on the Information Site, the Excel file has a strange character in one of the cells. In the spreadsheet, go to the "Penelec old <2011" tab, and check row 691 column R (data for 2008/06/29 TOTAL PN COMPANY). The value shows up as "???/1652179". Would you be able to amend this for future revisions?
DAT 00134
Question: Regarding the Penn Power historical Commercial load, which tab and column within the load file reflects the migrated load? From what date forward are the migrated load available?
Answer: Historical loads representing the expected commercial migration starting 6/1/2019 are available from 9/1/2017 through 3/31/2019. In the file "Penn Power Hourly Load by Class", please refer to the columns "Commercial (1)" and "Commercial Migration (2)" -- and the notes associated with those columns -- in the tabs "PP Load 010118-Current" and "PP Load 060111-123117".
DAT 00135
Question: For Penn Power, there is a considerable level (600-800 kW) change starting Sept. 2018 in migrating commercial load (customers with demands greater than 100 kW for 12 consecutive months that will transition to the Industrial class on June 1, 2019) compared to 2018 and 2017. Is there any explanation for this change?
Answer: There was an error in the hourly data posted for August 2018. The primary data were not updated to reflect secondary data despite the label. Also, the non-shop commercial hourly loads were overstated for all hours of August 31. The necessary corrections have been made now, and as a result the change has been normalized to look in line with previous periods.
DAT 00136 (revised 05/21/2019)
Question: For Met-Ed, West Penn, and Penelec, do the data for the Non-Shopped Commercial customers in the Hourly Load by Class files represent (1) all non-shopping Commercial customers, or (2) non-shopping Commercial customers that have not voluntarily switched to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider? If the answer is option 2, then what period of historical data is impacted by the customers that have voluntarily switched to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider? Are the historical Capacity PLS and Transmission PLS values also reduced for customers that have voluntarily switched to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider?
Answer: For Met-Ed, West Penn, and Penelec, the hourly data for the non-shopped commercial load represent all non-shopping commercial customers in the Hourly Load by Class files for the posted time periods.
DAT 00137
Question: Based on the response to FAQ GEN 00120, as of February 1, 2019, all four utilities have deployed smart meters to more than 90% of their customers. For Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn, do the historical hourly data reported in the Hourly Load by Class reflect interval usage collected from these smart meters or is the usage for customers with smart meters still based on utility temperature based profiles scaled to monthly customer meter reads? We note that when Penn Power’s customers became smart meter enabled in February 2017, and the utility switched from profile to actual load, the shape of the load changed meaningfully. We do not see a similar change in the load data for Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn.
Answer: When interval data from a smart meter have been bill certified, it is reported in the Hourly Load by Class files as of that bill certification date forward. The utility weather informed profile is no longer used to report hourly load for that account. Please note there are time lags between deploying/installing smart meters and bill certifying their interval output. In order to determine meaningful load shape changes, most if not all smart meters would need to be bill certified and reported in the Hourly Load by Class files for twelve months. All customers in Penn Power were bill certified in February 2017 enabling that load change comparison. In contrast, customers in Met-Ed, Penelec, and West Penn have been bill certified using a phased-in approach over the past couple of years.
DAT 00138
Question: I understand that the hourly volumes cannot be provided for the Meted, Penelec, and West Penn Power commercial customers that are migrating to industrial. Would it be possible to provide historical monthly or annual volumes for the customers that are migrating over?
Answer: Please refer to FAQ SMA00037 for historical monthly volumes for customers migrating between the commercial and industrial classes in MetEd, Penelec, and West Penn Power.
DAT 00139
Question: After checking both Capacity and NSPL Tags for June, we don’t see the expected effects of the commercial customers supposed to be moved to the LCI class. Can you please tell us the reason? Is the reclassification supposed to happen later in the month?
Answer: Data have been re-posted to reflect the reclassification. Data that were originally posted for June reflected estimates that did not include the reclassification.
DAT 00140
Question: In FAQ response DAT 00125, it was stated that there would be about 5%-10% of non-shopping Commercial customers (based on PLC/NSPL) metered over 100kW. We would expect these customers to be required to take Default Service through the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider starting June 1, 2019. However, when comparing the historical utility NSPL values between May 31, 2019 and June 1, 2019, we noticed that the change in NSPL values was less than 1%. Does this mean that the customers have yet to be moved to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider, and that the NSPL values have yet to reflect this change, or have these customers already moved to the Hourly Pricing Default Service Rider as of a prior date?
Answer: Please re-check the data posted to the Website. Estimates were posted for June prior to the migration which did not reflect the change since it had not occurred yet. Actual data now are posted for the first few days in June which reflect the commercial-to-industrial migration.
DAT 00141
Question: Could you provide Penn Power PLC daily zonal scaling factors for a few days in June 2019?
Answer: These are available on the Website through 6/6/2019.
DAT 00142
Question: In the posted data files for load, NSPL, and PLC, are the migrating commercial to industrial customers in the commercial class for dates prior to 6/1/19 and industrial class for dates 6/1/19 and after?
DAT 00143
Question: In the Penn Power hourly load data, we noticed that the Non-Shopped Commercial load between the tabs “PP Load 090118 – Current” and “PPLoad010118-052219_W_Migration” are different for the months of November 2018, and February – March 2019. For the Shopped Commercial load, the difference exists only in March 2019. Which tab contains the correct hourly volumes?
Answer: Refreshed data have been posted to the Website. The numbers should tie between the two tabs for all months.
DAT 00144
Question: Can you please update the tables in FAQ SMA 00037 for 2018 Fall and after? The NSPL change between May 31 and June 1, and also load level change in Penelec, West Penn , MetEd, and Penn Power, don't reflect the expected migration for June due to the load redefinition.
Answer: Please re-check the data posted to the Website for NSPL from June 1, 2019 through June 6, 2019 as the data demonstrate a load shift in the Non-Shopping MW between the Commercial and Industrial classes. June 1, 2019 forward values posted to the Website before the actual date reflected estimates that did not include the migration.
DAT 00145
Question: In the "WPP_Hrly_Data" file, the settlement type for June 2019 is "P". While for July 2019, it is "S". Can you please confirm that is correct?
Answer: Please recheck the WPP_Hrly_Data file, the Settlement type for June is "S". There may have been a delay in updating the June data.
DAT 00146
Question: Reconciled load data are provided for three of the Utilities (Penelec, Met-Ed, and Penn Power) through June 2019. Can the data be updated through July 2019? Also, can West Penn Power post reconciled data for both June 2019 and July 2019?
Answer: Reconciled hourly load data are posted for Met-Ed, Penn Power, and West Penn Power through July 2019. Reconciled hourly load data for Penelec will be posted for July 2019 by close of business on October 14, 2019. Hourly load data are posted by the fifth business day of the month for the previous calendar month as well as the last reconciled period. Our Data Description Document will be updated to indicate this frequency.
DAT 00147
Question: In the Met-Ed and Penelec load data, what's the reason that the Commercial Shopped load dropped in June 2019? Even if I add up the shopped and non shopped commercial data, there is still a drop in June 2019 in Penelec data.
Answer: Customers with billing demands greater than 100kW for twelve consecutive months migrated from the Commercial to the Industrial customer class starting June 1, 2019.
DAT 00148
Question: Since the commercial data from 6/1/19 - current is indicative of the commercial customer migration, can you please provide the Penn Power settled load data for April 2019-May 2019? The data currently listed on PPLoad010118-052219_W_Migration show "P" in the settlement field for those two months. Looking at the PP Load 090118 - Current tab, the Commercial [1] is no longer present and the data up until 6/1/19 appear to revert back to the pre-migration Commercial load so there is this two month gap where the final settled Commercial Migration load is unknown.
Answer: The PPLoad10118-052219_W_Migration tab has been updated to reflect hourly secondary data for April and May 2019.
DAT 00149
Question: Can the utilities provide shopping statistics on a daily basis? If not possible, at least a monthly number for the time period: April 1, 2019 to October 1, 2019. The current files (Shopping_Stats.xls for Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power) only provide data at the quarterly level.
Answer: The information requested cannot currently be produced on a daily or monthly basis. We will look into the feasibility to provide it on a more frequent basis than quarterly.
DAT 00150
Question: Would you please clarify that the shopped commercial load data of Penn Power include the load above the 100kW power (the migrating class) before 6/1/2019?
Answer: Yes, it does. Only the non-shopping commercial load was broken out to indicate commercial migration starting June 1, 2019.
DAT 00151
Question: Would you please provide secondary settlements of the commercial migration load for Penn Power from 4/1/2019 to 5/31/2019?
Answer: April and May 2019 have been updated to reflect hourly secondary settlements for commercial migration in the PP_Hourly_Load file.
DAT 00152
Question: With increased supplier uncertainty given the recent rate reclassifications across all utilities, will there be any backcasted load information provided?
Answer: Please see FAQ SMA 00044.
DAT 00153
Question: Looks like the data posted on SMA 00044 are off from the baseline provided in SMA 00037, from August 2018 to September 2018 WPP Percentage of “Commercial Load served by non-shopping accounts with billing demands greater than 100 KW” went from 11.8% to 22.6% (91% change). Met-Ed changed by a factor of 120%. Penelec also changed 12%. Can we please confirm that SMA 00044 values are incorrect? And if so, ask for a timely correction.
Answer: Please note the customer counts were different responding to SMA 00037 versus SMA 00044. As identified in the customer count chart, SMA 00037 used the non-shopping customer population identified from February 2017 through January 2018 that met the criteria for migration in order to provide a back-cast of percentage of commercial load movement from September 2017 through August 2018. SMA 00044 used the non-shopping customer population that actually migrated in June 2019 to provide a back-cast of percentage of commercial load movement from September 2018 through May 2019. Using West Penn Power as an example, the non-shopping customer count used to respond to SMA 00044 was significantly higher than the non-shopping customer count used to respond to SMA 00037 (322 versus 182). Additional customers qualifying for migration and shopping status changes adjusted the customer counts between the time a response was originally composed and revised for SMA 00037 versus provided for SMA 00044.
DAT 00154
Question: Can FirstEnergy describe what the driver is in the difference in load percentages in the responses to SMA 00044 and SMA 00037? Additionally, since there were differences in the load percentages, why were the ICAP and NSPL percentages not affected also?
Answer: Please note the customer counts were different responding to SMA 00037 versus SMA 00044 driving the change in non-shopping commercial load back-cast percentages. SMA 00044 requested a back-cast for September 2018-May 2019 which is what the response provided.
DAT 00155
Question: (1) Are the NITS rates ($/MW/Year) published for 2020 based on 2019 NSPL values or 2020 NSPL values? If you used 2020 NSPL values, can you please provide those values to us? (2) Can you provide us with a snapshot of 2020 NSPL values for Residential and Commercial Shopping and Non-Shopping load?
Answer: 2020 NSPL values will not be calculated and made available until the middle/end of December 2019. A snapshot can be provided closer to that time.
DAT 00156
Answer: Please note the customer counts were different responding to SMA 00037 versus SMA 00044 driving the change in non-shopping commercial load back-cast percentages. SMA 00044 requested a back-cast for migrating non-shopping commercial load percentages from September 2018-May 2019 which is what the response provided.
DAT 00157
Question: Can FirstEnergy provide NSPL tags for 2020? If not, can FirstEnergy provide guidance on how NSPL tags are assigned to customers within each zone?
Answer: NSPL tags for 2020 will not be available until the end of December 2019. Please refer to FirstEnergy's Capacity Manual for details on how NSPL tags are assigned/calculated by customer in FE zones.
DAT 00158
Question: We noticed that total number of customer accounts for Met-Ed has increased from April 2019 to July 2019, mostly by 836 customer counts increase in the non-shopping group. However, FAQ SMA 00044 suggests that there should be 998 accounts to migrate from commercial to industrial class. Similar in Penelec and West Penn Power, number of accounts in Penelec has increased in non-shopping group by 1359 and the total accounts has increased by 151 between April19 and Jul19. Suggested by FAQ SMA 00044, there should be 1270 accounts migrating from commercial to industrial class. On the other hand, the total number of accounts in industrial group in all three utilities has increased between Jul19 to Oct19, and not in June 2019. Is it due to migration from the commercial to the industrial group? And if so, is there any delay for these migration as it was expected on June 2019. Can you please explain the difference between the migrating accounts posted in the Shopping_Stats file compared to the data reported in FAQ SMA 0044? And if there is any inconsistency or the delay between reporting account numbers and the actual migration? Did all commercial to industrial migration happen on June 1, 2019? If so, can you please confirm if PLC, NSPL, Hourly load and counts are adjusted correspondingly for the migration starting on June 1, 2019?
Corrected July 1, 2019 Customer Shopping Statistics
Company Name Rate Class Customer Count
Met-Ed Residential 142,019
Met-Ed Commercial 29,322
Met-Ed Industrial 1,696
Met-Ed Total 173,037
Penelec Residential 121,807
Penelec Commercial 34,699
Penelec Industrial 1,840
Penelec Total 158,346
Pennsylvania Power Co Residential 33,918
Pennsylvania Power Co Commercial 9,427
Pennsylvania Power Co Industrial 516
Pennsylvania Power Co Total 43,861
West Penn Power Company Residential 147,421
West Penn Power Company Commercial 35,932
West Penn Power Company Industrial 2,115
West Penn Power Company Total 185,468
DAT 00159
Question: Follow up questions to FAQ DAT 00157 - Referring to: https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/supplierservices/files/supplier-registration/PJMCapacityManualPN.pdf. (1) Is the Zone’s Restricted Peak and Hour designated in the “PJM Network Transmission Service Peak Loads” such as this document: https://pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/settlements/network-service-peak-loads-2020.ashx?la=en? (2) Will the peak hour designated by PJM in question 1 determine if the zone is winter or summer peaking? (3) Can the PJM published zonal load on dataminer (https://dataminer2.pjm.com/feed/hrl_load_metered) be used to determine the 5 highest season peak hours for the zone (winter or summer as determined in questions 1 and 2)? (4) Can the class load data published on the FEPA Auction Information site (https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx) be used to determine CUST_NSPL by averaging the class level load data for the five hours determined in question 3?
Answer: The transmission peak published by PJM determines the transmission season (winter or summer) for the FE zones. Both PJM's dataminer and the class load published on the FEPA Auction Information site can be used as proxies for determining average CUST_NSPL; however, customer move-in/move-outs after the peak may limit the accuracy as well as weather normalization factors. Please use the suggested method for prior years to analyze possible deltas.
DAT 00160
Question: The shopped commercial capacity PLS data beginning 6/1/2019 in the WPP_Cap_Trans file show a significant drop and then recovery on 6/10/2019. Data for 6/10/2019 forward seem to hold steady similar to the other PLS values. Is the period of 6/1/2019-6/10/2019 accurate in the file? If not, will updated data be posted?
Answer: There was an error in the data posting and it will be resolved by the afternoon, 11/13/19.
DAT 00161
Question: We noticed that the initial settlement load data from PJM for September and October 2019 do not tie out with the preliminary hourly load data posted on the FEPA DSP Auction Information Website. We compared the published hourly load which is at Eastern Standard Time and, based on the Data Description document, “include both distribution and transmission system losses and are not de-rated for marginal transmission losses and do not include UFE” with the PJM initial load settlement at load with losses level. Our source for the PJM settlement volumes was the “Load InSchedule With and Without Losses” from the MSRS Report Catalog, and we used the “Load with Losses” values. For the data from the FEPA utilities, we used the load data from the files posted under “Hourly Load by Class” and converted them to Eastern Prevailing Time (EPT) to line them up with the PJM data. We noted that the Data Description document described the hourly load data as including “both distribution and transmission system losses and are not de-rated for marginal transmission losses and do not include UFE”. We did not adjust the FEPA load data for UFE as per FAQ DAT 00009, which states that “PA utilities will be responsible for total UFE and no longer allocate UFE to LSE loads.” As an example, for hour ending 9 EPT on September 1, 2019, the Penelec commercial load in the non-shopping segment, based on the data posted on the FEPA Website, was 78.2 MW, whereas the PJM load with losses showed a value of 75.18 MW for the same hour. The published value on the FEPA Auction Information Website is consistently different from the PJM load across the months of September and October 2019.
Answer: UFE is included in the primary settlement at PJM and is removed from the LSEs during the secondary settlement in which it is then assumed by the PA utilities. Both September and October have only primary settlement data available since the secondary 60-day settlement has not occurred yet.
DAT 00162
Question: Can you please advise when load data will be updated for the January auction? Currently the last update was 11/30/2019.
Answer: Data are posted through 1/1/2020.
DAT 00163
Question: Regarding the Capacity PLS numbers provided in the "PP_Cap_Trans" file, there is a significant volumetric shift from Dec 31, 2019 to Jan 1, 2020 in the Commercial and Industrial classes. The eligible Commercial Capacity moves from 218,546 kW to 267,459 kW while the eligible Industrial Capacity moves from 240,142 kW to 191,118 kW. The variances are practically offsetting, which would indicate a load re-classification. Since load re-classifications historically occur in June, can you indicate why this shift is occurring in January and if it is indeed correct?
Answer: There was a formula error in the Jan 1, 2020 data posted. This data have been corrected and the corrected file is now posted.
DAT 00164
Question: We compared the settlement UCAP data we received from PJM for Commercial Penelec, against the historical PLC provided on the FEPA auction Information Website. We converted the PJM daily UCAP to the PLC level by adjusting for the Final Forecast Pool Requirement (FRR) and Final Zonal RPM Scaling Factor (ZSF) and daily zonal factor for PLC. We noticed there is a consistent 1.4% difference between the PLC calculated from PJM settlement and PLC from the FEPA auction Information Website. We have tested the methodology for Met-Ed and the difference between PLC calculated from settlement data and PLC from the FEPA Information Website is ignorable. The sources of our data are as follows: UCAP from PJM : MSRS report “Locational Reliability Charge Summary“ FRR and ZSF : 2019/2020 3rd Incremental Auction Results from PJM https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/rpm.aspx Daily Zonal Scaling Factor and Historical PLC: “Daily Zonal Scaling Factor” and “Capacity and Transmission PLC by Rate” reports https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx) We have attached the PLC calculation as a reference for your observation. Can you please explain the difference between settlement PLC and historical non-shopping Commercial Penelec PLC data?
Answer: The capacity and transmission data are rounded to the proper format as required for PJM submission to the Capacity Exchange. The data posted to the FEPA Default Service Program (DSP) auction Information Website are the raw un-rounded data.
DAT 00165
Question: While reviewing the hourly average load by month for Penelec, we’ve noticed some shifts in the profile shape for 2018 and 2019 compared to the other posted history. For example, in May the nightly ramp down occurs around Hour Beginning 20, but in 2018/2019 that ramp down starts an hour earlier. That data were separated onto its own tab recently and the overlap on the “Penelec New 2018” and “Penelec old <2018” tabs are not consistent with each other. Did the “New” data come from a different source? We understand there will likely be some change in the profile based on the recent tariff reclassification, but some uniformity in terms of the daily ramp up/ramp down would be expected.
Answer: The source data for the new and old tabs have not changed. The only variable data within the load profile shape is weather.
DAT 00166
Question: As a follow up to FAQ DAT 00161, we compared the settlement load data we received from PJM, adjusted for the 60-day revisions, for Commercial load in West Penn Power and Penelec, against the hourly load data provided on the FEPA auction Information Website. We converted all of the PJM settlement data to the equivalent of the Load With Losses level so as to line it up with FEPA hourly load data. Per the data description file, “All hourly energy values include both distribution and transmission system losses and are not de-rated for marginal transmission losses.” Based on the response to FAQ DAT 00161, we did not adjust the FEPA hourly load data for the UFE factors posted on the FEPA Information Website. The sources of our data are as follows: (a) Initial settlement data from PJM: MSRS report “Load InSchedule With and Without Losses”, (b) 60 day revisions: MSRS report “Energy & Inadvertent Load Recon Charge Summary”, (c) FE PA Data: Non-Shopped Commercial hourly load data (https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/LoadandOtherData.aspx). As detailed in the attached file for West Penn Power Commercial case, we continue to see that the RFP data do not tie out with the PJM settlement volumes. As an illustration of the difference in volumes, we provide a table comparing the values for September 2019. Could you please provide an explanation as to the difference in the values?
Answer: Upon reviewing the attachment in association with this FAQ, there appears to be a discrepancy within the date-time format of the data reflected that is causing the variance in question.
DAT 00167
Question: Regarding the answer provided for FAQs DAT 00166 and DAT 000161, we aligned the PJM settlement data with West Penn Power load data posted on the FEPA auction Information Website based on the answer provided in FAQ DAT 00166. There is still a 3-4% difference between the West Penn Power load data (which includes both distribution and transmission system losses based on the data description file) and the PJM settlement load (load with losses). While it may be coincidental, we noticed this difference is close to the deration factor posted on the FEPA auction Information Website. Has West Penn Power taken its load data, which should be at the same level as the PJM data with losses and inadvertently scaled it up by the deration factor twice? This would seem to double count the adjustment due to the deration factor. We updated the previously attached file (adjusted for date-time difference) and included it to further illustrate our point. The file is sent by email to FEPAAuction@crai.com.
Answer: Upon further review of the data posted to the FEPA auction Information Website, a stray rate category was found that is not being allocated into the Default Service load groupings. The data associated with this rate category are the delta found within the comparison of the posted data to the PJM settlement data. The load data used for PJM settlement are accurate and complete as this discrepancy is only within the power procurement reports posted. We will review our system processes that compile the data for the power procurement reporting to ensure all rate categories are included. The Data Description document also will be updated to reflect these changes.
DAT 00168
Question: Do you have an idea of when FEPA will be able to update the load data on the DSP auction Information Site with the latest set of reconciled info from PJM (January 2020 final settles, etc.)?
Answer: The updated hourly load reports are expected to be posted by the end of day today (April 9, 2020).
DAT 00169
Question: Can the utilities provide a PLC forecast for Planning Year 2020/2021 for both shopped and non-shopped across Residential and Small Commercial customer classes (this is the PY2020/2021 update to the unscaled PLC data provided in FAQ DAT00126)?
Answer: Documents have been updated to include a 06.01.20 PLC Forecast tab and have been posted.
DAT 00170
Question: I saw the data updates, but it looks like Met-Ed hourly load data are not updated, and the Deration Factor and UFE files are not available on FirstEnergy's Website (I get a “page not found” error on the last two). Can you please make sure this is corrected?
Answer: The Met-Ed Load Data reports will be posted before end of day today (4/14/2020).
DAT 00171
Question: (1) In Penelec load data sheet new 2018, why are the data settled for Jan 2020 but preliminary for Dec 2019? There are also two extra columns starting from Dec 2019, what are they? (2) In Met-Ed load data sheet 2019+, are the Jan 2020 data also in kW? Why are they significantly smaller than all other months? Thanks.
Answer: For question #1, the Penelec hourly load data for December 2019 have been corrected and posted. Regarding question #2, there was a previous issue with the Met-Ed hourly data report which was resolved and reposted.
DAT 00172
Question: It looks like the Deration and UFE files are ok now, but the Hourly load data have incorrect RES data (both shopped and non-shopped). Can someone from the utility please take a look at the Jan20 values? https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/upp/files/pa/load-data/meted/ME_Hrly_Data.xls
Answer: The correct data for January 2020 have been confirmed and uploaded.
DAT 00173
Question: Do the utilities have an estimate for plan year 2020-21 capacity PLC scaling factors (such as those provided in FAQ DAT 00126)?
Answer: FEPA will not be providing an estimate for the 2020/2021 PLC scaling factors.
DAT 00174
Question: Can FEPA provide projected PLC tags for PY2020/2021?
Answer: The 6/1/2020 PLC forecasts for the PJM Planning Year 2020/20201 are posted within the individual PA operating company Capacity and Transmission Load Data pages.
DAT 00175
Question: Can the utilities update FAQ DAT 00126 and provide PLC estimates for PJM Planning Year 2020/2021, by customer class?
Answer: The 6/1/2020 PLC forecasts for the PJM Planning Year 2020/2021 are posted within the individual PA operating company Capacity and Transmission Load Data pages.
DAT 00176
Question: Could you please: (1) Confirm that the NSPLs posted in the data room for Jan 1, 2020 are correct, and (2) Provide NSPL and PLC data from Jan 1, 2020 through Jan 20, 2020?
DAT 00177
Question: Thank you for providing the PY 20/21 PLCs. Could you also provide the corresponding Daily Zonal Scaling Factor for those numbers? Also, could you please clarify what day the data are as of, so we know how to interpret the migration levels in the data?
Answer: The posted 2020/21 PLC forecast data for June 1 are as of April 10, 2020. As stated in FAQ DAT 00173, FEPA will not be providing an estimate for the 2020/21 PLC scaling factors.
DAT 00178
Question: Based on the answer to FAQ GEN 00108, I have two follow-up questions (my first question has two parts). We will very much appreciate the answers to them today as we need the clarifications for the upcoming auction on April 27. (1)(a): In the example that has been used in the answer to FAQ GEN 00108, the 52.2 MW/Tranche includes both the non-shopped and shopped accounts. So, if a Default Service Supplier was serving one tranche of such load (i.e., 52.2 MW/Tranche), would the capacity MW value obligation for the Supplier be = 52.2 x {[844,325 (non-shopped)]/[844,325 (non-shopped) + 419,337 (shopped)]} = 34.87 MW/Tranche. (1)(b): In the upcoming auction (i.e., auction on April 27, 2020), the MW/Tranche for Penelec’s Commercial (Fixed Price) is 49.64 MW. The 06.01.20 Forecast of Commercial Capacity PLS is 183,302 (non-shopped) and 315,303 (shopped). So, if a Default Service Supplier serves one tranche of such load (i.e., 49.64 MW/Tranche), would the forecast capacity MW value obligation for the Supplier be = 49.64 x {[183,302 (non-shopped)]/[183,302 (non-shopped) + 315,303 (shopped)]} = 18.25 MW/Tranche. (2): For the upcoming auction (i.e., auction on April 27, 2020), the 06.01.20 forecast of Penelec’s Commercial Capacity PLS is 183,302 (non-shopped) and 315,303 (shopped) i.e., 183,302 + 315,303 = 498,605 is the Total forecast Penelec Commercial Capacity PLS. The Total Tranches for Penelec Commercial is 14 (I calculated 14 because 1 tranche is 7.14% of Total Tranches, and 1/0.0714 = 14). Lately, the DZSF of Penelec has been ~0.99. So to calculate MW/Tranche, I did (0.99) x (498,605/14), which yields 35,614.64 kW/Tranche (or 35.614 MW/Tranche). However, the published MW/Tranche is 49.64 MW. Why is my calculation of 35.614 MW so different from the published 49.64 MW?
Answer: "MW/Tranche" is approximate only and based on historical data. The values (as reflected on the News page of the FEPA Default Service Program Information Website) are provided for reference purposes only and may be updated prior to the auction as explained in the Bidding Rules. The Companies -- Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power -- do not represent that each tranche will have the loads shown or any particular MW value, and it is noted that the actual nominal MW quantity during the Delivery Period will depend upon many factors. The data used in the calculation for 2020/2021 6/1 PLC are forecast data only and may not align to the MW/Tranche data posted.
Answer: A Default Service Supplier will be paid for the de-rated MWh volumes from PJM's InSchedules, which also are the basis for PJM's energy charges to the Supplier.
Answer: The Default Service Suppliers independently participate in the PJM ARR/FTR auctions and are awarded ARRs and FTRs from the PJM auction into their individual PJM account. The FEPA Utilities do not have access to the awarded ARR paths or nominated FTR paths for any Default Service Supplier.
PJM 00031
Question: The Part 1 Application requests the applicant to provide documentation from PJM that the Applicant has a PJM E-Account. What documentation satisfies this requirement and what are these e-accounts?
Answer: A screenshot of the applicant's PJM E-Account will be sufficient proof that the applicant is a PJM Market Participant and Load Serving Entity in PJM. If the applicant does not currently have an E-Account, they may certify in the Part 1 Application that "there exist no known impediments for the Applicant to establish the PJM E-Accounts necessary to provide Default Service Supply and execute the PJM E-Account contract(s) for the supply period prior to the beginning of the supply period."
PJM 00032
Question: We understand PJM is moving to 5 minute settlement for real-time trading. Could you tell us if/how this would affect the settlement for Default Supply?
Answer: PJM’s transition to 5-minute settlements will have no impact on the pricing of the Default Service products. As per the Supplier Master Agreement, the LMP used for variable pricing is the real-time hourly LMP for the given delivery point.
PJM 00033
Question: There has been discussion at PJM regarding the introduction of a new PJM Billing Line Item #1115, which is for a "Black Box" settlement related to a FERC Order in regards to reallocation of historical Transmission Enhancement Charges. This line item will allocate charges based on FERC EL05-121 TEC Settlement Agreement beginning in July 2018. Will the charges/credits for this line item be the responsibility of the FEPA EDCs or of the Default Service Supplier?
Answer: The Companies’ interpretation of their Default Service auction documents, including the Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), is that the EDCs will bear responsibility for new line item 1115 charges/credits.
PJM 00034
Question: Given that the three out of the four zones in the FirstEnergy Pennsylvania auction use a formula-based NITS cost, are there any plans for West Penn Power to move to a formula? Are there any known plans to increase the West Penn Power NITS rate?
Answer: There has been nothing filed to convert to a formula-based NITS rate for West Penn Power and there are currently no known plans to increase the West Penn Power NITS rate.
PJM 00036 (revised 01/16/2019)
Question: Do you know if Allegheny Power Zone (West Penn Power) has any plans to update its current NITS rate some time between now and 2021? Its NITS rate has not changed since 2002. Has it filed any changes to FERC that bidders should be aware of regarding its NITS rate?
Answer: On March 15, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Stated Rate Order to Show Cause to public utilities that use a stated transmission rate under an open access transmission tariff to address the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 reduction in the Federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. On November 15, 2018, in FERC docket number ER18-1595-000, the FERC approved the APS rate change (with effective rates retroactive to March 21, 2018) associated with the reduction in the Federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. West Penn Power is not able to speculate on future APS NITS rate updates. The NITS rate for Allegheny (West Penn Power) can be found at https://www.fepaauction.com/Documents/NITSRateInformation.aspx.
PJM 00037
Question: In the file published 1/16/2019 by PJM (located here: https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/billing-settlements-and-credit.aspx) the APS NITS rate is $17,895/MW-Year. Why does the NITs rate published on 1/15/2019 on the FEPA Information Site not agree with PJM’s published rate?
The $17,895/MW/Year NITS rate, published on PJM’s Website, does not include two applicable credits as provided within Allegheny Power’s Attachment H-11 of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff. The current effective tariff (as accepted in FERC Docket No. ER18-1595) states, "For Network Integration Transmission Service … customers in the AP Zone a credit of $2,499 per megawatt per year will be applied, reducing the effective rate to $15,396 per megawatt per year for such customer’s delivery points existing on, or added after, April 1, 2002…." The tariff goes on further to state, "As of March 21, 2018, the effective rate for these customers is $14,364 per megawatt per year." Consequently, per the tariff, the current effective NITS rate is $14,364/MW/Year.
PJM 00038
Question: On the Information Website, the APS NITS rate is listed as $14,364/MW/Year; however, the PJM Website shows the APS NITS rate starting in January 2020 as $17,865/MW/Year. Can you please confirm the NITS rate that APS suppliers were charged in December 2019, and what that rate will be/is in January 2020?
Answer: The $17,895/MW-Year rate on PJM’s Website represents the GROSS AP Zone NITS rate. However, due to credits applied per Attachment H-11 of the PJM OATT, the NET AP Zone NITS rate billed to the applicable suppliers is $14,364/MW-Year. Since the AP Zone is under a stated transmission rate, there is no change from year to year.
PJM 00039
Question: Can FEPA provide ARR paths nominated for PY20/21?
Answer: The awarded auction revenue rights (ARRs) for the PA accounts for the unassigned load for PY 20/21 can be found on the FEPA Default Service Program Information Website's Documents page using the ARR Results link.
PJM 00040
Question: Do we have updated NITS rate for the new planning year 20/21 for the METED, PENELEC zone?
Answer: The MAIT NITS rate (applicable to the Met-Ed and Penelec Zones) is $37,083.18/MW-Year effective January 1, 2020. The MAIT NITS rate that will be effective January 1, 2021 will be published in October.
SMA 00030 (revised 05/21/2019)
Answer: Please see FAQ GEN 00013. In addition, the Companies (Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power) will send each Default Supplier notification of its AEC obligation along with the due date for the AEC transfer. Suppliers must transfer the AECs to the Company-specific PJM GATS account. The Companies will review, accept, and retire the AECs in GATS. The AEPS Program Administrator then determines if compliance for the energy year has been met and then issues a letter to the Companies stating that retirement requirements were met.
The Companies (Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power, and West Penn Power) are electric distribution companies ("EDCs"). Default Suppliers are considered Electric Generation Suppliers ("EGSs"). Both EDCs and EGSs must submit quarterly reports to the AEPS Program Administrator.
SMA 00037 (revised 04/26/2019)
SMA 00041
Question: For the AEPS obligation, can you confirm that the MWh that the percentages are applied to are based on the same load that the DS Supplier is serving and receiving payments?
Answer: Per Appendix E of the FEPA Companies' Supplier Master Agreement (SMA), AEPS obligation percentages are applied to total MWh supplied by the Default Service Supplier based on PJM Settlement amounts.
SMA 00042
Question: Did the FE Companies nominate PY 2019/2020 ARRs for the contracts starting on June 1, 2019, or was it the Default Supplier as of March 4, 2019, when the 2019/2020 ARR - Stage 1A window opened? If it was the FE Companies, could you provide the paths that were awarded?
Answer: See FAQs PJM 00024 and SMA 00028. The Default Service Suppliers independently participate in the PJM ARR/FTR auctions and are awarded ARRs and FTRs from the PJM auctions into their individual PJM accounts. The FEPA Utilities do not have access to the awarded ARR paths or nominated FTR paths for any Default Service (DS) Supplier. There may be times when not all the load is assigned to DS Suppliers in time to participate in the PJM Annual Auction Revenue Rights (ARR) Allocation process. In this case, the FE Companies will be responsible for this load and will obtain the ARRs. Once DS suppliers are secured for the unassigned load, the ARRs obtained are allocated to the DS Suppliers by PJM pursuant to the PJM Agreements.
SMA 00043
Question: Can you please replace references to "BGS Supplier" with "DS Supplier" in Sections 1 and 4 of "APPENDIX G - GUARANTY" in the SMA, or confirm that winning bidders can make the change in the Guaranty they would issue?
Answer: Going forward, "BGS Supplier" will be replaced with "DS Supplier" in Appendix G - Guaranty in all Supplier Master Agreements (SMAs) sent to winning bidders.
SMA 00044 (revised 10/24/2019)
Question: Can we please reach out to the Utilities and ask for an update for FAQ SMA 00037 to include Sep-18 through May-19 data?
Answer: Accounts Metered Over 100 kW 12 Consecutive Months
Please refer to the chart below for the number of customers served on rate tariffs GSM in Penelec, Met-Ed, and Penn Power, and GP30 in West Penn Power, with billing demands greater than 100kW for 12 consecutive months that migrated from the Commercial to the Industrial customer class starting June 1, 2019. Using this population of migrated customers, a monthly backcast of the percentage of Commercial load served by the non-shopping accounts is provided for reference from September 2018 through May 2019.
# of Accounts as of 06/2019
Shopping Accounts as of 06/2019
Non-Shopping Accounts as of 06/2019
Total # of Accounts as of 06/2019
Percentage of Commercial Load served by Non-Shopping Accounts on the GSM and GP30 rate tariffs with billing demands > 100kW for 12 Consecutive
SMA 00045
Question: In the event we have an existing Default Service Supplier Master Agreement in place with a utility, will we need to issue a new legal opinion post auction: (1)	if we are amending an existing guaranty to increase the amount? (2) if we issue a new guaranty to replace an existing guaranty?
Answer: The legal opinion needs to be executed and submitted twice by the supplier: (1) with the Part 1 Application, and (2) at the time of the execution of the Supplier Master Agreement should the supplier become a Default Service Supplier. Another legal opinion is not required post-execution of the Supplier Master Agreement.