​​​

Proposed Revision Request Detail Help
PRR Life Cycle*****Stakeholder Meeting on Recommendation****
PRR Details
PRR #
1684
Title Resource transitions from inside to outside the ISO balancing authority area
Date Submitted 6/26/2026 6:20 AM
PRR Category A
Priority Emergency
Owner Bogen, Melanie (CAISO)
Status Stakeholder Meeting on Recommendation
Status End Date 8/18/2026 11:59 PM
Related BPM Reliability Requirements
BPM Section 6.1.3.7
RSS Subscribe
Existing Language
​​Please see attached redline.
Proposed Language
​Please see attached redline.​
Reason For Revision
Continuation in accreditation for existing Resource Adequacy (RA) contracts with Full Capacity Deliverability Status (FCDS) or  Partial Capacity Deliverability Status (PCDS) resources moved out of the ISO Balancing Authority Area (BAA) by a change in ISO BAA boundary.​​

Effective date: 6/29/2026
Click here to view the Recommendation Details for this PRR
BPM PRR Submitter

Bogen, Melanie (CAISO)
Modified BPM language proposed by the PBM Chnage Management Coordinator

Identification of the authorship of comments

Action

Approve the BPM PRR as modified.

Approve the BPM PRR as modified
Statement of apparent requirements of the BPM PRR

Priority and rank for any BPM PRR requiring a CAISO system change

N/A
Proposed effective date(s) of the BPM PRR

6/29/2026
Other recommended actions

N/A
Announcements
No Announcements has been posted for this PRR.
Impact Analysis
PRR 1684 - PRR Impact Analysis Form.doc    
Notes:
Initial Comments
 The Six Cities agree with the stated objective for this PRR, “[c]ontinuation in accreditation for existing Resource Adequacy (RA) contracts with Full Capacity Deliverability Status (FCDS) or  Partial Capacity Deliverability Status (PCDS) resources moved out of the ISO Balancing Authority Area (BAA) by a change in ISO BAA boundary.”  Similarly, the Impact Analysis for the PRR indicates that “RA counting is maintained” both for resource owners and LSEs with RA contracts for a resource moved out of the CAISO BAA due to a boundary change.  However, there appears to be an asymmetry or inconsistency between the second bullet of the proposed language at pages 77 - 78 and the third bullet.  The language of the second bullet provides that the resource owner may obtain increased MIC in order to retain deliverability for a transitioning resource.  But the third bullet indicates that an LSE with an existing RA contract for the transitioning resource must rely on the Remaining Import Capability (“RIC”) process to “secure the increase in MIC attributed to such a transitioning resource.” 
The Six Cities request revision of the proposed language to correct the asymmetry described above.  An LSE with an existing contract for a transitioning resource should not be exposed to potential uncertainties of the RIC process.  Deliverability and the RA status of a transitioning resource should be assured for both the resource owner and any LSE with existing contract rights to the resource, consistent with the stated purpose for the PRR and with the Impact Analysis for the PRR.
7/15/2026 2:26 PM
Logged By - Bonnie Blair (Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside, CA)
---------------------------------------------
Thank you for your comment. CAISO agrees that the third bullet could use some additional clarity to address the priority on the new MIC.

CAISO will revise third bullet as follows:
"• Load serving entities (LSEs) that have an existing and on-going RA contract with the departing full capacity or partial capacity resource may submit a request to secure the increase in MIC as NUIC.  The LSE should make the request in the same process used by owners of Remaining Import Capability (RIC) in the current RA year.  The requesting LSE has first priority on the new MIC going into the upcoming RA year.  Grant of the request is contingent on the contract, resource, and LSE meeting all other conditions under the section 6.1.3.8 below. The LSE may also submit and be able to receive Pre-RA Import Commitment status if applicable."
7/27/2026 12:47 PM
Responded By - Bogen, Melanie (CAISO)
Recommendation Comments
No Recommendation Comments available for this PRR.
Attachments