RSS Feed for Proposed Revision Request - 1691

PRR - 1691

Value cannot be null. Parameter name: stream

Impact Analysis for PRR - 1691

-By Williamson-Duffney, Joseph on Tuesday, July 28, 2026 8:01:41 AM

Initial Comment for PRR - 1691

Description: PacifiCorp appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on PRR 1691. PacifiCorp requests the CAISO confirm that this PRR only affects CAISO scheduling coordinators. PacifiCorp's understanding of the Circular Schedule Rule, based on reading the Market Operations Business Practice Manual, is that the rule only applies to CAISO scheduling coordinators. If PacifiCorp's understanding is correct, PacifiCorp suggests adding language to the BPMs to specify that the Circular Scheduling rule only applies to CAISO scheduling coordinators.
-By Vijay Singh (PacifiCorp) on Wednesday, August 5, 2026 11:59:05 AM

Initial Comment for PRR - 1691

Description: Thanks for the comment and I completely agree with your recommendation. A modification will be posted.
-By Martin, Michael on Monday, August 10, 2026 9:40:31 AM

Initial Comment for PRR - 1691

Description: This PRR is related to PRR 1690 and should be considered in parallel. PacifiCorp has submitted an Initial Comment on PRR 1691 expressing its understanding that the circular scheduling rule only applies to Scheduling Coordinators in the CAISO BAA, and the CAISO’s response agrees with that view. The Six Cities do not agree that the circular scheduling settlement rule should apply only to Scheduling Coordinators in the CAISO BAA. The circular scheduling settlement rule arose from determinations by the FERC following the 2000-2001 Energy Crisis that circular scheduling, as described in Attachment H, violates market conduct rules. In an integrated market, there is no apparent reason why market conduct rules should be different for participating BAAs. Appropriately defined exceptions for transactions between non-contiguous portions of a BAA should apply to all BAAs under comparable circumstances, but there should be no categorical limitation of the circular scheduling rule to CAISO Scheduling Coordinators alone.
-By bblair@thompsoncoburn.com on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 3:35:47 PM

Initial Comment for PRR - 1691

Description: *Please note: Because this PRR is closely linked to PRR 1690, the posted response will also be included in this PRR for reference. PRR 1690 covers a narrow and well-defined scenario – moving power between non-contiguous portions of the same balancing authority area. The PRR explains there is operational benefit from having such transactions reported on separate eTags. Such schedules also do not pose the sort of operational and market risks as schedules FERC has deemed to be circular schedules in prior instances. The CAISO understands PG&E’s concern that a market participant could cite the language from this PRR to justify breaking up the legs of a circular schedule into separate transactions and evade the impact of the settlement rule. The CAISO addressed this concern when it proposed the circular scheduling settlement rule in 2012. The CAISO explained that if “it believes that a market participant intentionally sought to circumvent the proposed settlement rules by submitting multiple e-Tags that “chop-up” the path of what is essentially a single transaction so as to avoid application of the proposed settlement rule, then DMM would consider referring that conduct as either potentially manipulative or involving the submission of false information. The same would apply if there were reason to believe that a single scheduling coordinator sought to avoid the settlement rule by including a third party on the e-Tag where there was no legitimate arm’s-length transaction between the two parties.” (CAISO transmittal letter, p.15. also review CAISO answer to protest and comments, pp.8-10). The CAISO has been monitoring, and will continue to monitor, for transactions that seek to circumvent or evade the settlement rule. As relates to PRR 1690, this monitoring would include the use of separate eTags for a schedule sourcing and sinking in the same balancing authority area, unless the schedule was used to move power between non-contiguous portions of the same balancing authority area. ~Michael Martin
-By Williamson-Duffney, Joseph on Friday, August 28, 2026 10:43:43 AM

Recommendation Comment for PRR - 1691

Description: As noted previously, PRRs 1690 and 1691 are related and should be considered in parallel. Both the Six Cities and PG&E submitted Initial Comments raising questions about the language proposed for PRR 1690 and, in the Six Cities’ Initial Comments, questioning CAISO’s response to the PacifiCorp Initial Comment on PRR 1691. While the CAISO’s response to the Initial Comments suggests that the CAISO plans to continue enforcing the rule against circular scheduling, it does not expressly address the questions PG&E raised, and it does not clarify the meaning of the earlier response to PacifiCorp’s Initial Comment. The Six Cities request express clarification that the CAISO will apply the rule against circular scheduling consistently for all BAAs participating in the Extended Day-Ahead Market, subject to any appropriately tailored exceptions explicitly detailed in the BPM.
-By bblair@thompsoncoburn.com on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 2:48:22 PM

Recommendation for PRR - 1691

Proposed Language:

Approve the BPM PRR as submitted

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