GEN 00001 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 09/18/2013
Question: The PUCO press release stated the AES Ohio auction would be energy-only. However, the bidding documents state that the auction will be full requirements. Can you confirm which is correct?
Answer: The auctions are designed to procure all elements of full requirements service for SSO Customers of AES Ohio. Winning bidders will assume all responsibilities of a Load Serving Entity (LSE) and will be responsible for supplying all obligations associated with full requirements service. Full requirements service includes energy, capacity, market-based transmission service and market-based transmission ancillaries and any other LSE service or other service as may be required by PJM to serve the SSO Load of AES Ohio.
The initial PUCO press release on September 4, 2013 mistakenly stated that the AES Ohio auction would be energy-only. This press release has since been corrected.
GEN 00002 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 09/30/2013
Question: What are the switching rules for customers to/from CRES providers?
Answer: AES Ohio’s Competitive Retail Generation Service Tariff, Tariff Sheet No. G9, includes rules on switching to/from a CRES provider.
GEN 00004 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/02/2013
Question: As of the September 2015 CBP Auction, how many customers were enrolled as “Unique Arrangement Customers” as a % of total load in MWs? Can you also tell me what type of customers were enrolled?
Answer: Pursuant to the PUCO Order issued on September 4, 2013, Unique Arrangement Customer load should be included in the auction product. As of the September 2015 CBP Auction, there were two customers who had unique arrangement contracts with AES Ohio. Their combined load was approximately 65 MW. Unique Arrangement customers have the ability to switch to competitive retail electric service at any time.
GEN 00005 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/02/2013
Question: Approximately how many customers are enrolled as PIPP customers as % of total load in MWs for the upcoming September 2015 auction?
Answer: There are approximately 37,500 customers enrolled in the PIPP program as of the September 2015 CBP. PIPP load is approximately 20% of AES Ohio's total SSO load.
GEN 00006 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/14/2013
Question: Will residential, commercial and industrial customers receive the same generation rate, adjusted for losses? If the various customer classes receive different rates, then can you provide the rate translation mechanism used to calculate the rates for the individual customer classes?
Answer: See AES Ohio's ESP application filed on October 5, 2012 in Case No. 12-426-EL-SSO, specifically Schedule 5 (Calculation of Competitive Bid Retail Rates).
GEN 00007 Published On: 10/14/2013
Question: Given that a significant percentage of a non-shopping customer’s non-bypassable rate is set outside of the CBP, can you please provide additional information on these costs? Could you also provide an estimate of the costs for the CBP term?
Answer: See PUCO Case No. 12-426-EL-SSO.
GEN 00008 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/23/2013
Question: There are 9 rate classes listed in sales forecasts included in the AES Ohio’s ESP application, e.g., secondary, primary and high voltage, etc. Can you provide information on how these rate classes are mapped with respect to auction products (Residential, Commercial and Industrial)?
Answer:
The auction products do not relate to Residential, Commercial, and Industrial classes; the product is a tranche representing an equal percentage of all classes served on the Standard Service Offer.
The Standard Service Offer sales forecast was provided in AES Ohio’s ESP (PUCO Case No. 12-426-EL-SSO) is shown by Revenue Class on Workpaper-8B. The classes listed on Workpaper-8B are grouped into three classes (listed below) for the purpose of showing the historical load data for the auction.
Residential: Residential Non-Heating, Residential Heating
Commercial: Commercial, Public Authority, Public Street & Highway Lighting, Street Railway
Industrial: Industrial
GEN 00009 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/25/2013
Question: As a follow-up to FAQ GEN 00008, can you provide information on how rate classes listed on Workpaper-8 are mapped with respect to Residential, Commercial and Industrial load classes?
Answer: Individual customers are classified by their rate (voltage level of service) and a revenue type. Workpaper 8 shows both classifications. AES Ohio’s historical auction load data classes are only grouped by revenue type.
GEN 00010 Published On: 10/25/2013
Question: Can you confirm that the SSO Supplier will not be responsible for any Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard obligations associated with the SSO Load?
Answer: Auction winners will not be responsible for any Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard obligations associated with the SSO Load.
GEN 00011 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 07/25/2014
Question: If we were a Qualified or Registered Bidder from last year's CBP or a prior CBP, is there a shortened Part 1 process? Do returning Qualified Bidders need to submit a new Account Request Form and Confidentiality Agreement for load data access?
Answer: There is no abbreviated Part 1 Application for bidders from previous AES Ohio auctions. All applicants must submit a new Online Account Request Form, a new Confidentiality Agreement, and a complete full Part 1 Application.
GEN 00012 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 02/23/2017
Question: Is there a chance the dates of the auctions will change? Are they subject to the PUCO approving the current ESP case?
Answer: The PUCO has been involved in setting the proposed auction dates and CRA and AES Ohio believe these dates are final. However, it is unclear whether the approval of the pending ESP would have implications for the auction schedule.
GEN 00013 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 02/23/2017
Question: If a bidder initially proposed to bid in both auctions but then decides not to bid in the second auction can the bidder request the pre-bid security to be returned?
Answer: CRA and AES Ohio should be able to accommodate the return of pre-bid security in such situations.
GEN 00014 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 03/20/2017
Question: The FAQ numbered DAT 00010 states that " Currently, there is one customer who has a unique arrangement contract with AES Ohio. Their load is approximately 73 MW and their contract expires at the end of 2017. Unique Arrangement customers have the ability to switch to competitive retail electric service at any time." Is this customer is an Air Force base? And will AES Ohio allow any unique arrangement contracts to be signed in the future for June 2017 to May 2020 term?
Answer: The one customer identified in DAT 00010 is Wright Patterson Air Force Base. AES Ohio will allow unique arrangement contracts to be signed in the future. Unique arrangement contracts must be approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
GEN 00015 Published On: 03/24/2017
Question: In the current ESP case, are there any pending stipulations or litigation which could impact bypassable default service rates?
Answer: Information about the current ESP can be found in PUCO Case No. 16-395-EL-SSO. An Amended Stipulation and Recommendation was filed on March 14, 2017. An evidentiary hearing is currently scheduled to begin on April 3, 2017.
GEN 00017 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 04/04/2017
Question: Can you please provide the ARR paths you nominated for default service load for PY17/18?
Answer: Beginning in 2016, the CBP process is responsible for supplying 100% of AES Ohio SSO load. Therefore, AES Ohio does not nominate ARR paths for default service load. The LSEs select the ARR paths in the ARR allocation process in March. Please see PJM Manual 6 Section 4.6 for the explanation of the process PJM uses to reassign ARRs on a daily basis to account for switching.
GEN 00018 Published On: 03/08/2018
Question: For 2017, why does the NSPL value change from 5/31 to 6/1?
Answer: The change is due to a PJM zonal load shift as of 6/1/17.
GEN 00019 (revised 03/05/2019) Published On: 03/05/2019
Question: Please provide illustrative PLC's for all load classes for the 2019/2020 planning year as of today in a similar format to the information provided in FAQ DAT 00024 for the previous planning year.
Answer: The following are estimates only.
GEN 00027 Published On: 03/08/2022
Question: Can you please explain how DZSF is derived?
Answer: Current DZSF are available in the Historical Hourly Loads file on the Information Website. They are calculated in column K of the ‘Capacity PLC and DZSF’ tab: https://www.aes-ohioauction.com/LoadData.aspx
Cells M2 and M3 of the ‘Capacity PLC and DZSF’ tab represent the daily capacity obligation for the DAYTON zone. DZSF is calculated by dividing the daily capacity obligation for the DAYTON zone (found in cells M2 and M3) by the daily Capacity PLC (found in column I).
RUL 00001 (revised 03/24/2017) Published On: 10/10/2013
Question: Is there a seasonal billing factor that will be applied to the auction clearing price to adjust the payments to the SSO Suppliers?
Answer: As outlined in Section 3 of the Bidding Rules, there will be no seasonal adjustment to payments.
"The payment to SSO Suppliers for tranches won will be equal to the auction clearing prices. There will be no seasonal adjustments to prices."
DAT 00001 (revised 02/19/2021) Published On: 09/18/2013
Question: What was the expected size (MW), tenor, and what % was SSO of total load for the October 2013 CBP Auction?
Answer: Based on a Peak Load Contribution for Standard Offer load of 1,044 MW, one tranche would be 10.44 MW. Detailed information on AES Ohio load will be made available via the Information Website to prospective bidders who have submitted an Account Request Form and have been approved through the Part 1 Qualification process.
DATA 00002 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 09/26/2013
Question: How often will AES Ohio be providing updates to actual (realized) load data?
Answer: AES Ohio will update load data on a quarterly basis. Specifically, updates will occur in September, December, March, and June of every year.
DATA 00003 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/10/2013
Question: Can AES Ohio provide load data at the customer class level for communities that have switched to a supplier through government aggregation and load data for communities that have received approval for aggregation but have not yet started?
Answer: Municipal aggregation data will not be provided.
DATA 00004 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/11/2013
Question: Can you please confirm that the product of the following three items equals the PJM settlement data called load without losses? 1) hourly load 2) the AES Ohio UFE Factor, and 3) [1-Deration Factor]
Answer: The product of ‘Hourly Load’ & ‘AES Ohio UFE Factor’ is Load With Losses. Multiplying that by ‘Deration Factor’ results in Marginal (Transmission) Losses. To obtain Load Without Losses, subtract Marginal Losses from the product of ‘Hourly Load’ and ‘AES Ohio UFE Factor’.
DATA 00006 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/25/2013
Question: Are the Unique Arrangement Customers load included in the historic Non-shopped load data that was provided to the auction participants?
Answer: As explained in Section 2.1 of the Bidding Rules, SSO Load will include the requirements of any Unique Arrangement Customers of AES Ohio who are served under special contracts. Unique Arrangement customer load is included in the historic NonShop load data that is provided on AES Ohio’s Information Website.
DATA 00007 Published On: 08/18/2014
Question: Please confirm whether the Peak Load Contribution (PLC) data provided in the load data are scaled or unscaled values? Specially, is the peak at the PLU or PLO level?
Answer: The PLC data is unscaled, but the Daily Zonal Scaling Factor is also provided.
DATA 00008 Published On: 09/16/2014
Question: Can you confirm whether the NSPL is scaled or unscaled? The total NSPL between January and May appears to be at different level from NSPL between June and December. Is the NSPL reallocated every year after PLC is changed on June 1st?
Answer: The NSPL values are effective from January 1st to December 31st. The PLC values are effective from June 1st to May 31st. Like the PLC, the NSPL is unscaled.
DAT 00009 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 03/14/2017
Question: Does the Non-Shop hourly load data include PIPP hourly load?
Answer: Yes. The Non-Shop hourly load data currently includes PIPP. AES Ohio is planning to separately identify PIPP hourly load after June 1, 2017 and such load data will be appropriately labeled.
DAT 00010 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 03/15/2017
Question: How many Unique Arrangement Customers are currently taking service as SSO customer? What are their sizes (MW) and when will their special contracts end?
Answer: Currently, there is one customer who has a unique arrangement contract with AES Ohio. Their load is approximately 73 MW and their contract expires at the end of 2017. Unique Arrangement customers have the ability to switch to competitive retail electric service at any time.
DAT 00011 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 03/20/2017
Question: Is "2013_2017_PIPP" excel sheet in Load Data for AES Ohio only? I see "Total Ohio PIPP Load" in the sheet.
Answer: The data is AES Ohio's PIPP load only.
DAT 00012 Published On: 03/21/2017
Question: Can you please provide PLC’s for PIPP customers?
Answer: Historical PIPP PLCs are not available. As of March 20, 2017, the 2017/18 PLC for PIPP customers: 72,073 kW.
DAT 00013 Published On: 03/21/2017
Question: Is UFE included in the PIPP hourly load data? If not, should we use residential load UFE’s for PIPP customers?
Answer: UFE is not included in the PIPP hourly load data. Yes, the residential UFE factors should be used for PIPP load.
DAT 00014 Published On: 03/21/2017
Question: Can you please provide illustrative PLC's for all load classes for the 2017/2018 planning year as of today?
Answer: The following are estimates only. As of March 20, 2017, the 2017/18 PLC by load class excluding PIPP (kW):
DAT 00015 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 03/21/2017
Question: Can you provide the historical hourly load for current UAC contract (Wright Patterson Air Force Base)? And are they included in commercial or residential non-shop load?
Answer: AES Ohio does not provide individual customer hourly data. Wright Patterson Air Force Base load is included in commercial non-shop load.
DAT 00016 Published On: 03/31/2017
Question: The illustrative PLC of Jan 1, 2017 for non-shopping Res is 545,878 and it is said that this excludes PIPP customers. The given non-shopping Res PLC as of 2/28/2017 is 561,239 which is said to include PIPP. Given that PIPP is almost 15% of the default service Res load, can you please confirm that the illustrative PLC is correct?
Answer: The PLC's are correct. Please note the scaling factors. June 1, 2017 has a scaling factor of 1.0098, and February 28, 2017 has a scaling factor of 0.9719.
DAT 00017 Published On: 03/31/2017
Question: The PLC that we see for the industrial load class, non-shopping customers, in the data file provided is 27,199, as of Feb 28 2017. The illustrative PLC given for this load class as of March 20 2017 is 13,069 . Can you please confirm if the illustrative PLC's are correct? Why was there a 50% drop in PLC? Was there a major attrition in the industrial load from 2/28/2017 to 3/20/2017?
Answer: The PLC's are correct. There was an industrial customer that opened an account on 2/10/17 and then switched to a Competitive Retail Electric Service (CRES) provider as of 3/31/2017.
DAT 00018 Published On: 04/14/2017
Question: Can you confirm that the PLC values in FAQ DAT 00015 exclude the PIPP PLC? The PLC from DAT 00012 of 72,073 kW combined with the Residential PLC from FAQ DAT 00015 of 545,878 kW equals 617,951 kW. This is approximately 10% higher than the PLC as of 2/28/17 provided in the "Capacity PLC & DZSF" tab of the historical data file of 561,239 kW. Since this value includes PIPP it seems odd that the PY 17/18 PLC values excluding PIPP would be 10% higher than the current planning year PLC values which include PIPP, for dates that are within a month of each other.
DAT 00019 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 05/08/2017
Question: Can you please provide updated illustrative PLCs for Residential, Commercial, Industrial and PIPP Customers? The last data was as of March 20th.
Answer: AES Ohio will provide updated load data through the end of April 2017. This will be posted to the website before June 1st.
DAT 00020 Published On: 02/23/2018
Question: What's the difference between the hourly PIPP data in the "Historical Hourly Loads by Class 2017" and the same data in the "PIPP Load" file? For example, hour 24 of Sept 30, 2017 of the PIPP data in the "Historical Hourly Loads by Class 2017" = 22,952 kW and the same hour has a value = 25,208 kW in the "PIPP Load" file.
Answer: The 'PIPP Load' filed contains estimates based on monthly customer counts and usage. The 'Historical Hourly Loads' file contains actual settlement data. To avoid confusion, updated/corrected load data has been posted to the website which removes the hourly estimates from the 'PIPP Load' file beginning June 1, 2017.
DAT 00021 Published On: 02/23/2018
Question: Was there a customer reclassification on 1/1/2017? The load data you posted shows PLC for both shopping and non shopping commercial customers go down, while residential PLC increases on 1/1/2017. If it is not a reclassification, can you please explain the cause of the PLC change on 1/1/2017?
Answer: An error was discovered in the capacity data from 1/1/17 to 5/31/17. Updated/Corrected load data has been posted on the website.
DAT 00022 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 03/02/2018
Question: As a follow up question of DATA0004, will LSE be paid at auction clearing price * PJM settlement data called load without loss?
Answer: The LSE is paid the clearing price * all MWh delivered to the delivery point. The LSE is required to deliver to the delivery point sufficient supply to serve the slice of system load of AES Ohio’s Standard Service Offer load customers including distribution losses.
DAT 00023 Published On: 03/06/2018
Question: Can you please confirm? 1. PIPP data is carved out from Non-Shop load data starting from 6/1/2017. Non-Shop load data prior to 6/1/2017 published on the website still includes PIPP. 2. Eligible residential load data still includes PIPP.
Answer: 1. Confirmed 2. Total hourly load includes PIPP data both before and after 6/1/2017.
DAT 00024 Published On: 03/06/2018
Question: Can you please provide illustrative PLC's for all load classes for the 2018/2019 planning year as of today
Answer: The following are estimates only. As of February 21, 2018, the 2018/19 PLC by load class (kW):
DAT 00025 (revised 04/01/2024) Published On: 03/08/2018
Question: As in years past, will Wright Patterson Air Force Base load continue to be included in the SSO?
Answer: Wright Patterson Air Force Base currently has the ability to choose the SSO or another competitive supplier.
DAT 00026 Published On: 03/08/2018
Question: As a follow up question to DAT 00024, does the PLC provided for each class ( 191514 for Com non-shopping class ) already include Daily Zonal Scaling Factor?
Answer: The PLC data is unscaled, but the Daily Zonal Scaling Factor is provided.
DAT 00027 Published On: 03/30/2018
Question: We observed that "2013_2017_PIPP.xlsx" shows 25934 PIPP customers in Jun 2017, but "2017_DPL_Load_Data_FINAL_upd02222018.xlsx" file shows the average customer for Jun 2017 is only 24381 in " Count_PIPP" sheet. Can we know why the two numbers are different? Is there anything we are missing?
Answer: The total in the ‘2013_2017_PIPP.xlsx’ file is the total number of PIPP customers that billed in June 2017. This includes all accounts whether or not they were active at the beginning or end of June. The total in the ‘2017_DPL_Load_Data_FINAL_upd02222018.xlsx’ file is the total number of PIPP customers in any given day in that month. This number will be the net total as accounts are taken off and added to the PIPP program.
DAT 00028 Published On: 03/12/2019
Question: Before PIPP was separated out on June 1, 2017, was PIPP load (and PLC, etc) part of the Residential Non-shopping data?
Answer: PIPP was included as non-shopping load prior to June 1, 2017.
DAT 00029 Published On: 02/18/2020
Question: Can you please check the NSPL values for 2018 and 2019? The values for both years are the same - 2,766.9 MW. This seems odd since the zone increased from 3,225 MW in 2018 to 3,337 MW in 2019. Additionally, can you please provide us with the NSPL values for 2020?
Answer: The 2019 NSPL Value is 2,831,500, corrected data will be posted to the information website. The 2020 NSPL value is 2,770,300.
DAT 00030 Published On: 02/25/2020
Question: How many Unique Arrangement Customers are currently taking service as SSO customer? What are their average load sizes (MW) and when will their unique arrangement contracts expire? Do those customers have the ability to switch to competitive retail supply during the term of their unique arrangement contract, and if so, what limitations do they have on doing so?
Answer: There is one (1) unique arrangement SSO customer with an average load of 63 MW. The customer can choose alternative suppliers without restrictions.
DAT 00031 (revised 04/27/2023) Published On: 02/25/2020
Question: Can you provide estimated PLC values for all customer classes for PY 20/21 as of today as well as the Daily Zonal Scaling Factor?
Answer: AES Ohio
DAT 00032 Published On: 03/04/2020
Question: Can you please provide the NSPL values and Daily Zonal Scaling Factor on 1/1/2020?
DAT 00033 Published On: 03/07/2020
Question: Just as a follow up question to DAT 00031, could you provide us with the date the non-shopping and shopping values are based on? We want to line up the data with PY 19/20 PLCs and the corresponding migration level.
Answer: February 24th, 2020.
DAT 00034 Published On: 11/02/2022
Question: I am looking to get more information on the Peak Load Contribution methodology used by AES OH. Specifically, I am hoping to get clarification on whether a 1CP or 5CP is used to calculate customer contribution.
Answer: Information regarding the Peak Load Contribution methodology can be found at the following link: Capacity and Transmission - AES Ohio Supplier Site (aes-ohio.com)
CRE 00001 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 08/06/2015
Question: Is there a list of acceptable modifications to the Draft Pre-Bid Letter of Credit?
Answer: There is no list of acceptable modifications to Credit Documents.
If an applicant chooses to submit Draft Credit Documents, an electronic copy with any redlined changes must be sent as an email attachment to the Auction Manager at AES-Ohio.auctionmanager@crai.com by the Part 1 Application Due Date.
CRE 00003 Published On: 02/14/2020
Question: Is the SSO Supplier free to switch the collateral posted as assurance of performance from cash to Letter of Credit and vice versa?
Answer: Yes.
PJM 00001 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/25/2013
Question: Can you confirm that the SSO Supplier will receive all Auction Revenue Rights associated with the SSO Load?
Answer: Please refer to Appendix G - Sample PJM Invoice for a full itemization of the allocation of charges and credits. Appendix G is available at:
https://www.aes-ohioauction.com/Documents/SupplierDocuments.aspx
AGR 00001 (revised 02/19/2021) Published On: 09/18/2013
Question: Will the payments made by AES Ohio be based on the same level of load as the PJM energy charges or are the distribution losses part of the product?
Answer: Suppliers will be paid for all MWh delivered to the delivery point. Suppliers are required to deliver to the delivery point sufficient supply to serve the slice of system load of AES Ohio’s Standard Service Offer load customers including distribution losses.
AGR 00002 (revised 03/24/2017) Published On: 10/01/2013
Question: Are changes allowed to the Master SSO Supply Agreement?
Answer: No changes are allowed to the Master SSO Supply Agreement.
AGR 00003 Published On: 10/11/2013
Question: Is the PJM Sample Invoice (Appendix G of the Master SSO Supply Agreement) an accurate representation of the responsible party for each ID# (charges and credits)? In other words, can a SSO Supplier expect to only be billed for the PJM items that are labeled "SSO Supplier" under the responsible party?
Answer: The Sample Invoice is intended to identify the responsible parties for each line item. Auction suppliers are responsible for all load serving entity charges except those specifically listed in Attachment A to the Declaration of Authority. Appendix G is also subject to PJM-administered changes.
AGR 00004 Published On: 10/11/2013
Question: Can you please confirm that the winning supplier will be paid the product of the Price, as set forth in Appendix A, and PJM load without losses associated with non-shopping SSO customers?
Answer: Suppliers will be paid the winning price for their tranches multiplied by the MWh delivered to the delivery point.
AGR 00005 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/18/2013
Question: Can you clarify the provision in Section 6.8 of the Master SSO Supply Agreement whereby when an Early Termination Date occurs, irrespective of who is the Defaulting Party, AES Ohio may exercise rights of setoff and liquidation and draw on any LC. We understand that the Master SSO Supply Agreement may not be revised but we have no precedent for an agreement where a party other than the non-defaulting party may exercise such rights and we are required to provide an explanation for our contracts review process. Is there a requirement of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio or other similar explanation that you can perhaps provide to explain the particular wording of Section 6.8.
In the event of a termination, section 5.3(c) provides a process that establishes a Termination Payment that can result in payments made to or from either party, irrespective of which defaults. Section 6.8 provides AES Ohio with a security interest in the specified funds or credit instruments to ensure that it gets paid if the Termination Payment is owed to it.
Section 6.8 is standard language in Ohio. See, e.g., section 5.8 of Duke Energy, Inc.’s Master SSO Supply Agreement.
AGR 00006 (revised 09/15/2015) Published On: 10/25/2013
Question: The Master SSO Supply Agreement states that SSO Service “includes the load of customers served via the Percentage of Income Payment Plan (“PIPP”), unless or until Ohio Development Services Agency (ODSA) initiates and accepts a PIPP aggregation effort." Is there currently a PIPP aggregation effort underway and if so, when is the PIPP load expected to be carved out of the SSO Service?
Answer: The passage of Ohio House Bill 64 made changes to the law regarding the aggregation of PIPP customers. These changes become effective September 29,2015. The process, timing, and nature of PIPP aggregation action is uncertain. At present, the details of PIPP aggregation efforts are not available.
AGR 00007 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/25/2013
Question: Will new PJM charges be the responsibility of the SSO Supplier or AES Ohio? Section 2.4 of the Master SSO Supply Agreement states that “Each SSO Supplier is responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for any changes in PJM products and pricing during the Term”. Additionally, SSO Supply is defined as “unbundled load-following Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services, transmission and distribution losses, congestion and imbalance costs associated with the provision of the foregoing services, other obligations or responsibilities currently imposed or that may be imposed by PJM or NERC and such other services or products that are provided by a CRES Supplier or an SSO Supplier to fulfill its obligations to serve customer load, as required by Section 4928.141 of the Ohio Revised Code and shall further include any market-based transmission and ancillary services necessary to import electric power into PJM.” These two definitions seem to contradict Section 2.3(b) of the Master SSO Supply Agreement which states that “Any new PJM charges not reflected in Appendix G will be assigned based on how similar charges were assigned within Appendix G”.
Answer: AES Ohio cannot predict what new PJM products or pricing may apply during the term, and therefore cannot predict appropriate ultimate responsibility for those charges/credits. SSO Suppliers should initially assume responsibility for any new charges/credits, particularly those that are load-following. AES Ohio will review any new PJM charges/credits as they are introduced and will assign responsibility in a manner consistent with similar existing charges/credits. If AES Ohio determines it should be responsible for the new charge/credit, AES Ohio will notify SSO Suppliers and will work with them to update the signed DOA accordingly.
AGR 00008 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 10/25/2013
Question: In Appendix G (PJM Invoice) of the MSA, items 1302 (PJM Scheduling - System Control and Dispatch Service - FTR Administration ) and 1309 (PJM Scheduling - System Control and Dispatch Service Refund - FTR Administration) are listed as the responsibility of the Electric Distribution Co. However, under the Rider column, they are listed under TCRR-B (all other costs that are the responsibility of the Electric Distribution Co. are listed under rider TCRR-N). Can you please confirm that the costs for 1302 and 1309 will not be borne by the SSO Supplier?
Answer: AES Ohio inadvertently posted an incorrect version of Appendix G (PJM Invoice) to the Information Website. This version has been removed and the correct Appendix G has been posted. Items 1302 and 1309 will be the responsibility of the SSO Supplier.
AGR 00009 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 08/18/2014
Question: This is a two part question about unaccounted for energy (UFE). a) How did AES Ohio calculate or determine the UFE? and b) Does the supplier gets paid for the PJM settlement load, which includes UFE?
Answer: The SSO Supplier is paid for all MWh delivered to the delivery point in association with its SSO Supplier Responsibility Share. Suppliers will need to deliver sufficient supply as to cover UFE, and would therefore be paid for UFE. UFE is calculated hourly by comparing aggregate profiled load to actual metered zonal load. UFE is allocated by load ratio share to each non-interval customer account. Please refer to the Master SSO Supply Agreement available on the Information Website for more details on the obligations of SSO Suppliers.
AGR 00010 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 09/04/2014
Question: PJM may propose changing capacity market rules: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/committees-groups/committees/mrc/20140626/20140626-item-11-rpm-performance-issue-charge.ashx This performance risk premium could increase capacity price and/or capacity-related costs for Planning Year 2016/17+. Will SSO suppliers be responsible for this potential change?
Answer: AES Ohio cannot provide specific comments on the likelihood that a performance risk premium proposal will be adopted and, if so, how those charges may be assigned among PJM market participants. Section 2.1 of the Master Standard Service Offer Supply Agreement requires the SSO Supplier to purchase capacity from PJM. Thus, to the extent that any such charges affect the price of capacity as charged by PJM, the SSO Supplier would be responsible. Additionally, Section 2.3(b) specifies that any new PJM charges reflected in new line items on the PJM bill that are not currently assigned between the SSO Supplier and AES Ohio under Appendix G, will be assigned based on how similar charges are assigned under Appendix G. For more information on the PJM charges and how they are assigned, please refer to Article 2 of the Master Standard Service Offer Supply Agreement and Appendix G available on the Information Website.
AGR 00011 Published On: 09/08/2015
Question: The sample PJM LSE invoice (Appendix G) shows the SSO supplier as the responsible party for the following charges ID# 1302, 1309 and 1340. Please confirm if the EDC should be responsible for these since the charges are non-market based ancillaries.
Answer: The sample PJM LSE invoice (Appendix G) is correct and the SSO supplier is the responsible party for charges 1302, 1309, and 1340. By way of further explanation, Charges 1302 and 1309 are PJM administration fees and are only charged to FTR holders. It is the decision of the SSO supplier if it wants to participate in the FTR market. It is our understanding that SSO suppliers will not be billed for charges 1302 and 1309 if they choose not to participate in the FTR market. Charge 1340 is assigned to the SSO supplier because these are regulation and frequency response service charges that result from the regulation market that PJM conducts. Therefore Charge 1340 is properly charged to load serving entities.
AGR 00012 Published On: 03/01/2017
Question: Can you confirm that under the Master SSO Supply Agreement, the definition of SSO Service does not include PIPP load?
Answer: PIPP customer load is excluded from the SSO product under the Master SSO Supply Agreement.
AGR 00013 Published On: 03/21/2017
Question: Can you please confirm the delivery point is "DAY_RESID_AGG"?
Answer: Confirmed.
AGR 00014 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 03/21/2017
Question: Are SSO and PIPP suppliers responsible for Unaccounted For Energy?
Answer: Yes. SSO and PIPP suppliers are obligated to delivery sufficient energy to the delivery point for AES Ohio to meet the needs of its SSO and PIPP customers. For more information on the obligations of suppliers, please refer to the Master SSO Supply Agreement posted to the Information Website.
AGR 00015 Published On: 03/28/2017
Question: In Appendix G, Sample PJM LSE Invoice, Line Item 1375 (Balancing Operating Reserves) says that both the EDC and the SSO supplier are responsible for the charge. Can you please explain what this means?
Answer: The SSO supplier will be responsible for all of its charges associated with Bill Line Item 1375 (Balancing Operating Reserves). The EDC may also occasionally incur charges separately under Bill Line Item 1375, i.e. Balancing Operating Reserve Local Constraint Charge, which is a charge assessed directly to the EDC as a PJM transmission owner, but the SSO will not be responsible for such EDC charges.
AGR 00016 Published On: 03/31/2017
Question: For the upcoming auction, please confirm that the delivery point is Dayton Load Zone (PnodeID: 34508503) as stated in Master SSO Supply Agreement, and not Dayton Residual Aggregate (PnodeID: 116472937).
Answer: The delivery point is Dayton Residual Aggregate (PnodeID: 116472937).
AGR 00017 (revised 02/22/2021) Published On: 05/08/2017
Question: Can you confirm suppliers will be paid at PJM derated load level, which can be derived from hourly load * (1-deration factor) from historical load file.
Answer: Suppliers are paid for all MWh delivered to the delivery point. Suppliers need to deliver sufficient supply to meet the metered load needs of AES Ohio's default service customer load, including distribution losses.
The information provided in the Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) section of the Site has been prepared by AES Ohio and its advisors for the purposes of facilitating the CBP. The information presented and distributed here is subject to update, modification and/or amendment. The information is current as of the posting date. The material presented and distributed here is for informational purposes only and is made available with the understanding that any individual accessing it will use it for the sole purpose of participating in the aforementioned CBP. The information is not intended to form any part of the basis of any investment decision, valuation, or any bid that may be submitted during the CBP. This information should not be relied upon, and each recipient should make its own independent assessment of the subject opportunity after making all investigations it deems necessary.