​​​

Proposed Revision Request Detail Help
PRR Life Cycle*********On Hold
PRR Details
PRR #
1658
Title Clarifications on use of the off grid charging indicator
Date Submitted 1/5/2026 10:16 AM
PRR Category A
Priority Normal
Owner Martin, Michael (CAISO)
Status On Hold
Status End Date 2/18/2026 11:59 PM
Related BPM Market Operations
BPM Section 2.1.19.3 Business process for Co-Located Resources to elect Off Grid Charging Indicator (OGCI)
RSS Subscribe
Existing Language

​See Attached

Proposed Language

​See Attached​

Reason For Revision

This PRR provides additional specificity about the existing statement in the BPM that a scheduling coordinator’s use of the off grid charging indicator (OGCI) bid parameter does not supersede outage reporting rules or resource adequacy obligations.  ​​

Announcements
This PRR has been placed on hold to allow additional time to review and consider the comments received.
Posted On - 3/2/2026 5:19 PM
Impact Analysis
Impact Analysis not available.
Initial Comments
CPA Comments on PRR 1658 & 1659_Final.pdf    
We have received written comments from Ben Gustafson on behalf of Clean Power Alliance on 2/18/26. Please see attached.
2/18/2026 4:45 PM
Logged By - Madrigal, Radha (CAISO)
Joint CCA Comments on PRR 1658.pdf    
We have received written comments from Sabrinna Soldavini on behalf of Marin Clean Energy, Pioneer Community Energy, San Diego Community Power, and San José Clean Energy on 2/18/26. Please see attached.
2/18/2026 4:31 PM
Logged By - Madrigal, Radha (CAISO)
It is the Six Cities’ understanding that Section 2.1.19.3 of the BPM for Market Operations applies only to co-located storage resources.  If the CAISO does not consider that understanding of the scope of Section 2.1.19.3 to be correct, the Six Cities request that the CAISO provide a detailed explanation of the scope of that section.
In the next-to-last sentence on the first page of the Attachment to PRR 1658, the initial word “If” should be corrected to “It.”
The Six Cities also request that the CAISO clarify the intent of the last sentence of the proposed additional language at the bottom of the first page of the PRR attachment.  The phrase “may have submitted infeasible bids to meet the Resource Adequacy must-offer obligation” suggests that the CAISO will presume any submission of an infeasible bid by a Resource Adequacy resource constitutes a compliance violation.  If that is the intent of the phrase, the Six Cities request that the CAISO identify the basis for such a presumption, including supporting tariff language.  Changing “may have submitted” to “has submitted” in that sentence would avoid the suggestion of an unwarranted presumption.
2/18/2026 2:51 PM
Logged By - Bonnie Blair (Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside, CA)
Recommendation Comments
No Recommendation Comments available for this PRR.
Attachments