FAQs
Supply Agreement
< Previous | Showing 31 to 40 | Next > | << Back to FAQ Categories
-
FAQ-158:
Suppliers are responsible for providing full requirements service to SSO customers of AEP Ohio, excluding PIPP customers, and to bear all costs that are associated with this responsibility. SSO Supply means unbundled Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services, including, to the extent not expressly assumed by AEP Ohio pursuant to Section 3.2, all transmission and distribution losses and congestion and imbalance costs associated with the provision of such services, as measured and reported to PJM, and such other services or products that an SSO Supplier may be required to provide, by PJM or other Governmental Authority, in order to meet the requirements of SSO Service. Can AEP Ohio or the CBP Auction Manager provide additional details surrounding the actual product requirements of SSO, such as ancillary services, and the settlement of the product so that we can price the risk?
Suppliers, not AEP Ohio, are responsible for understanding the cost components of SSO Supply. How an SSO Supplier decides to review or assess the pricing of such service for purposes of submitting a bid in the auction is ultimately a responsibility of the SSO Supplier, not AEP Ohio. Each SSO Supplier should understand the terms of the Master SSO Supply Agreement and the obligations of the SSO Supplier thereunder. Each SSO Supplier, on its own account, should also understand and price the risk in fulfilling such SSO Supply obligations. This assessment is on each SSO Supplier as each SSO Suppler is responsible for supplying the SSO Supply product.Please note that the Master SSO Supply Agreement provides further and full details on the obligations of the SSO Supplier. While you are responsible for reviewing the entirety of the Master SSO Supply Agreement and agreeing to its terms, we note that the SSO Supplier’s obligations to provide SSO Supply, as well as other obligations, are referenced in section 3.1, and that additional obligations are discussed throughout Article 3 and the Agreement more generally. Attachment F provides a sample PJM invoice that identifies line items of the PJM billing statement, in terms of whether such item is the responsibility of the responsibility of the SSO Supplier. As the various PJM services are itemized, please note which services the SSO Supplier is or is not responsible for under the Master SSO Supply Agreement.
The CBP Auction Manager responds to questions on the Competitive Bidding Process itself and on the governing documents. The remainder of your question mainly concerns pricing risk. Pricing of any risk is an evaluation for which each bidder is entirely responsible, and not the CBP Auction Manager or AEP Ohio. PJM may be able to provide information regarding ancillary services; market data on ancillary services is available on PJM’s website: http://pjm.com/markets-and-operations/ancillary-services.aspx and PJM has other resources available to PJM members: http://www.pjm.com/en/about-pjm/who-we-are/contact-us. An SSO Supplier may choose to secure information about PJM’s markets from other sources.
To reiterate and notwithstanding the foregoing, each bidder is responsible for its own independent assessment of all sources of information that may be pertinent and is responsible for making all investigations it deems necessary or advisable in its sole discretion before deciding to participate in any auction under the CBP.
10/25/2017 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-157:
Can you provide a redline that shows the changes in the Master SSO Supply Agreement between the version used in ESP III and the Amended ESP III?
Yes, the redline showing the differences between the changes in the Master SSO Supply Agreement between the version used in ESP III and the Amended ESP III, please click here.
10/17/2017 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-117:
Where can I find a redline of the Master SSO Supply Agreement comparing the March 4, 2016 version and the prior version?
A redline version of the revised pages of the Master SSO Supply Agreement comparing the version posted on March 4, 2016 and the prior version has been posted to the CBP Website under the Background -- Archives -- Document Archives -- ESP III - March 2016 Auction page.
03/18/2016 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-106:
How does the March 2nd PUCO Order change the auction product under AEP Ohio’s CBP?
On March 2, 2016, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio issued a Finding and Order in Case No. 16-247-EL-UNC. To comply with this Order, AEP Ohio is removing the load of Percentage of Income Payment Plan customers (“PIPP Customers”) from the auction product under AEP Ohio’s CBP. This change is effective starting with the fourth auction under AEP Ohio’s CBP and only affects auctions under AEP Ohio’s CBP going forward. Master SSO Supply Agreements signed pursuant to winning bids in prior auctions under AEP Ohio’s CBP are unaffected by this Order.
03/04/2016 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-104:
If the RFP auction process fails to procure supply for PIPP Customers, will SSO Suppliers be required to serve the PIPP load?
No. If the initial RFP auction process was not successful, then a supplemental RFP auction would be held. If the supplemental RFP auction was also unsuccessful, then AEP Ohio would procure supply through the market.
03/04/2016 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-103:
Are there additional requirements in order for bidders to participate in the upcoming CBP auction as a result of the March 2nd Commission Order?
Yes. The CBP Rules and the Master SSO Supply Agreement will be revised to comply with the Commission Order. Bidders will be required to agree to the terms of the revised CBP Rules and revised Master SSO Supply Agreement as a condition of qualifying to bid in the auction.Bidders will provide this agreement by completing Insert #P2-C, which can be found in the updated Part 2 Inserts zip file: https://aepohiocbp-application.com/part-2-inserts. Please submit this Insert by upload to the Justification of Omissions section of the online Part 2 Form or by email to AEP-CBP@nera.com.
03/04/2016 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-94:
Please confirm that each tranche is equal to the MW-measure of about 27MW.
No. Each tranche represents a fixed percentage of SSO Load. The “MW-measure” provided is for reference purpose only and the amount of actual quantity to be delivered depends on many factors including migration of SSO-customers.
01/29/2016 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-91:
Does a SSO supplier need an electricity retail license in Ohio to provide SSO supply under the terms of the Master SSO Supply Agreement?
No, an Applicant to the AEP Ohio CBP does not need to hold an electricity retail license in Ohio. The Applicant must either: (1) be a PJM member in good standing and qualified by PJM as a “Market Buyer” and “Market Seller” pursuant to PJM Agreements and qualified as a PJM “Load Serving Entity”; or (2) certify that there exist no impediments for the Applicant to be qualified by PJM as a “Market Buyer” and “Market Seller” pursuant to PJM Agreements and to be qualified as a PJM “Load Serving Entity” by the start of the supply period. The Applicant must also undertake to be qualified by PJM as a “Market Buyer”, a “Market Seller” pursuant to PJM Agreements, and to be qualified as a PJM “Load Serving Entity” by the start of the supply period should the Applicant become an SSO Supplier.
01/19/2016 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-70:
Are changes to the Master Standard Service Offer Supply Agreement permitted?
No. The Master Standard Service Offer Supply Agreement is non-negotiable and thus changes are not permitted.
09/03/2015 in Supply Agreement
-
FAQ-62:
How will any incremental costs related to PJM’s Capacity Performance Product, if approved by the FERC, need to be incorporated into bids?
On December 12, 2014, PJM filed reforms to the Reliability Pricing Market (“RPM”) in regards to the Capacity Performance Product in Docket ER15-623. Additionally, on April 10, 2015, PJM filed a response to FERC’s letter dated March 31, 2015 that informed PJM that its initial proposal was deficient and requested additional information. In this response, PJM is requesting that the FERC accept the reforms effective April 1, 2015 as initially proposed, so that PJM can implement these changes for the 2018/2019 Base Residual Auction.
Neither the Auction Manager nor AEP Ohio can comment on this product or when it will be implemented. Bidders and SSO Suppliers are entirely responsible for investigating potential market changes in PJM and for any other circumstances or factors that may affect their evaluation of providing full requirements to AEP Ohio’s SSO customers. As stated in the Recitals of the Master Standard Service Offer (“SSO”) Supply Agreement, “each SSO Supplier will satisfy its Capacity obligations under the PJM Agreements associated with its respective SSO Supplier Responsibility Share in accordance with the PJM Agreements, including, without limitation, through participation in the base residual auction and incremental auctions administered by PJM.”
Additionally, please see Paragraph 3.1(d), which states “during the Term, each SSO Supplier is responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for any changes in PJM products and pricing required for the delivery of its SSO Supplier Responsibility Share, including all other costs and expenses related to transmission and Ancillary Services in connection with the provision of SSO Supply in proportion to its SSO Supplier Responsibility Share, except for any changes to products or the pricing of such products that are the responsibility of AEP Ohio pursuant to Section 3.2.” Thus, to the extent that PJM introduces a change to its capacity market structure in the form of a Capacity Performance Product or in some other manner, SSO Suppliers are responsible for any increase or decrease in capacity costs that would result.
05/04/2015 in Supply Agreement
< Previous | Showing 31 to 40 | Next > | << Back to FAQ Categories