NYISO on March 26 unexpectedly pulled a vote on modeling improvements for capacity accreditation from the Management Committee’s agenda, delaying further discussion until April 9.

Shaun Johnson, NYISO vice president of market structures, told the committee the ISO wanted more time to incorporate stakeholder feedback into the proposed tariff language.

“Unfortunately we’ve been entertaining and modifying the tariff up until yesterday,” Johnson said. “And we received feedback from stakeholders that’s really inappropriate for the MC. I completely agree that folks have not had enough time to review and vet the tariff language in advance of the meeting, so we pulled it from today’s agenda.”

Johnson said the revisions would be discussed April 9, on which a meeting of the Installed Capacity Working Group is scheduled. After that the proposal would be brought either to the MC’s normal meeting or a special meeting if needed.

The changes include new requirements for generators that say they are firm, with penalties for those that are unavailable when called upon. (See NYISO Business Issues Committee OKs Firm Fuel Accreditation Concept.)

Johnson acknowledged that many stakeholders had concerns over the penalty structure, which would have two tiers based on the reason why the generator says it did not have fuel. Johnson reiterated that the ISO believed it was important to implement penalties that incentivize the correct behavior from generators attesting that they have guaranteed fuel arrangements.

“We are not in favor of pay-for-performance-type penalties that you’ve seen in other ISOs, which, for lack of a better term, can be called ‘bankruptcy penalties,’” Johnson said. “Penalties of that size can incur such high risk that folks are not going to participate, which is not the purpose of the firm fuel concept.”

A stakeholder representing generator interests said that it would be helpful if a special MC meeting was scheduled directly after the April 9 meeting because generators were running out of time to elect for firm fuel.

“If you file in the middle of May and don’t ask for a waiver of the 60-day period, you’re giving us about a week and a half to confirm if we are going to be firm fuel or not,” they said. “That presumes that FERC does nothing.”

The stakeholder said they understood that the ISO was in a tight place schedule wise but that they wanted to make sure the procedures were followable. They did not want generators to opt not to declare firm fuel when they otherwise were firm because they did not understand the new rules. “I’m hoping we can think about how we can maneuver timing so that we can afford as much time as possible.”

Johnson said the ISO would consider those concerns.

“I think your statement itself identifies part of the problem: You envision having the language that you’re looking for as giving the ISO the ability to apply the penalty when the evidence is gray, rather than black and white,” another stakeholder representing generators said. “That’s a huge problem.”

The Market Monitoring Unit also chimed in, saying the language as written would “weaken the firm fuel capacity accreditation rules relative to the status quo.” This was because generators with deficient operating plans could go many years without being detected or penalized, and the proposed penalty would not be an adequate disincentive against this situation, the Monitor argued.