RSS Feed for Proposed Revision Request - 1644

PRR - 1644

Value cannot be null. Parameter name: stream

Announcement for PRR - 1644

Description: This PRR is on hold to give the CAISO an opportunity to develop language that better accomplishes LSA’s purpose.
-By Williamson-Duffney, Joseph on Thursday, October 16, 2025 12:35:51 PM

Initial Comment for PRR - 1644

Description: This PRR clarifies the risks that Interconnection Customers assume if they elect to self-build Stand-Alone Network Upgrades. It is a matter of fact that no maximum cost responsibility protection for self-build upgrades. EDF Power Solutions also understands that the CAISO’s position on COD delays due to SANU delays is that they should not be considered “PTO delays.” The nomenclature of “PTO delay” is not appropriate for such delays. However, delays to SANU building not caused by the developer should be executed based on the same logic. Interconnection customers are not immune to the various delays that PTOs experience. CAISO should have a provision to allow for COD extensions based on unavoidable SANU delays. This delay type can be categorized under its own category, “SANU COD delays” or something similar. Adopting a policy for SANU COD delays is also very forward looking for the CAISO. Emerging federal policies, government shut down, permitting agency staffing, and international politics straining supply chains for large transformers, control equipment, steel structures, and certified high-voltage labor are likely to cause COD delay no matter which party is building an upgrade – PTO or interconnection customer. Interconnection customers should be allowed to extend CODs under provisions PTO has access to when the interconnection customer has the same responsibilities and development environment. Submitted by: Raeann Quadro, Gridwell Consulting
-By Williamson-Duffney, Joseph on Friday, October 17, 2025 11:59:30 AM

Recommendation Comment for PRR - 1644

Description: The Recommendation Details suggest approving the PRR "as modified," but as of the comment date, the attachment to the PRR appears to include only the language originally proposed by the PRR sponsor. The Six Cities request that the CAISO clarify whether the attachment currently reflects the language the CAISO proposes to adopt. If it does not, the Six Cities further request that the CAISO provide the modified language it proposes to adopt and extend the Recommendation Comment period for potential comments on the modified language.
-By Bonnie Blair (Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside, CA) on Thursday, January 8, 2026 12:30:34 PM

Announcement for PRR - 1644

Description: This PRR will go through an additional review cycle as the recommendation was not posted prior to the January comment deadline.
-By Madrigal, Radha on Thursday, January 22, 2026 5:19:05 PM

Recommendation for PRR - 1644

Proposed Language:

Approve as modified.

Action: Approve the BPM PRR as modified.
Effective Date: 01/01/0001

Final Decision for PRR - 1644

Final Decision: Change management process completed. The latest redline version of the BPM will be published to the document library.
Stakeholder Comment: consensus achieved
Action: Adopt the recommendation as modified
Effective Date: 02/27/2026