Product Provisions |
Annex Provisions |
| Conversion Convention Provisions
Product Provisions for Use with the EEI Master Contract
Modification of Cinergy Hub Language for Transition of Duke Ohio and Duke Kentucky from MISO to PJM; Version 1.0
On October 21, 2010, Duke Ohio and Duke Kentucky received conditional approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to transition from MISO to PJM effective January 1, 2012. As a result, a substantial portion of the EP nodes formerly comprising Cinergy Hub will also transition from MISO to PJM at that time. The Modification of Cinergy Hub Language for Transition of Duke Ohio and Duke Kentucky from MISO to PJM” may assist parties in addressing these issues in their bilateral agreements. It consists of two parts: (1) Annex 1, which will enable parties trading under an EEI Master Agreement or an ISDA Master Agreement with a North American Power Annex to agree, on a bilateral basis, to incorporate fallback language into confirmations for physical transactions on a prospective basis, and (2) Annex 2, which contains a bilateral amendment agreement that can be used by parties to modify their outstanding, bilateral physically-settled or financially-settled Cinergy Hub transactions effective as of the later of the date of the amendment or the date that Duke Ohio and Duke Kentucky transition from MISO to PJM. In both Annex 1 and Annex 2, a definition of Indiana Hub, which could serve as a substitute for Cinergy Hub, is included in the fallback language. Parties can also agree to an alternative fallback in Annex 1 and Annex 2 by agreeing to a different replacement hub and a suggested mechanism for defining that hub, as set-out in both annexes. This document is the product of a joint initiative of the EEI Contract Drafting Committee and International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA).
MISO APRC Confirmation
This document is intended to facilitate the documentation and trading of Aggregate Planning Resources Credits, as defined by MISO, relating to the requirements of Module E of the MISO Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. As set forth in the confirmation, one Aggregate Planning Resource Credit represents one megawatt (“MW”) of Unforced Capacity, as defined by MISO, which qualifies to satisfy the resource adequacy requirements of Module E of the MISO Tariff starting June 1, 2009.
Parties that have entered into transactions using the MISO Module E Capacity Transaction Confirmation dated October 20, 2008 (Version 1.0 or Version 1.1) are advised to seek appropriate legal and accounting advice to determine whether such confirmations should be amended or replaced using the MISO Aggregate Planning Resources Credit Transactions Confirmation.
MISO Module E Capacity Confirmations
These documents are intended to facilitate the trading of capacity products in MISO in accordance with the requirements of Module E of the MISO Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. As MISO is currently implementing revisions to Module E, as approved by FERC, the first document (i.e., Version 1.0) is meant to facilitate the trading of capacity products in MISO until such revisions are fully implemented.
The second document (i.e., Version 1.1) is intended to facilitate trading of capacity products with delivery periods occurring after full implementation of the revisions to Module E. However, full implementation of the revisions to Module E would not invalidate the use of the first document (i.e., Version 1.0); rather, such document contains additional provisions regarding the requirements of Module E prior to full implementation of the revisions to Module E that are not necessary for transactions with terms after the effective date of full implementation of the revisions to Module E. The second document (i.e., Version 1.1) does not contain these additional provisions.
ERCOT Seller's Choice Language
The optional ERCOT Seller’s Choice Language is an attempt to provide clarity around the obligations of a Buyer and Seller of electricity when they enter into an “ERCOT Seller’s Choice” product. Some of the more useful features of the Language include clear scheduling timeframes which Seller must adhere to in designating the Delivery Point for a given day, as well as Buyer’s remedies if Seller fails to designate the Delivery Point by the relevant deadline. The Language addresses not only the current ERCOT zonal structure but also the upcoming LMP market structure.
ERCOT Delivery Point Language
The optional ERCOT Delivery Point Language is an attempt to provide clarity and certainty to the obligations of a buyer and seller of electricity if and when ERCOT redrafts ERCOT Congestion Zone boundaries or if and when LMP is introduced in ERCOT, based on the information that is available today.
Word | PDF
ERCOT RUC Language
The following Amendments address ERCOT's planned assessment of hourly and day-ahead Reliability Unit Commitment "RUC" charges in the Nodal Market for firm physical deliveries which are scheduled after the relevant hourly or day-ahead deadline (the day-ahead RUC deadline is currently 2:30 pm).
The first document, Version 1.0 of the Amendment, clarifies that the scheduling time corresponds to the time in which the ERCOT runs the day-ahead and hourly RUC markets. The second document, Version 2.0 of the Amendment, contains a more defined scheduling timeline than Version 1.0 for transactions that must be scheduled in the HRUC. Under Version 2.0, transactions that are entered into in the first half of each hour must be scheduled by the next hour's HRUC deadline. For example, if the parties enter into a transaction at 8:15, they would need to schedule the transaction before the start of the first HRUC after 9 am. Transactions that are entered into during the second half of each hour (i.e., up to 30 minutes prior to the top of each hour) must be scheduled, not by the next hour's HRUC deadline, but rather by the one after that. For example, if the parties enter into a transaction at 8:45 instead of 8:15, they would need to schedule the transaction prior to the first HRUC after 10 am. Version 1.0 of the amendment has a more generalized HRUC scheduling deadline. Parties may find the more specific deadlines in Version 2.0 to be advantageous by comparison to Version 1.0. The third document is a redline showing the difference between Versions 1.0 and 2.0.
SP15/NP15 Delivery Point Definition
The optional SP15/NP15 Delivery Point Definition is an attempt to provide clarity and certainty to the obligations of a buyer and seller of electricity if and when LMP is introduced in California based on the information that is available today.
- SP15 /NP15 (LMP-EEI) Delivery Point Definitions - Discussion of Optional Provisions
Word | PDF
- SP15 (LMP-EEI) Delivery Point Definition
Word | PDF
- NP15 (LMP-EEI) Delivery Point Definition
Word | PDF
These definitions facilitate the trading of regional capacity products.
This definition is intended to facilitate the trading of non-unit specific capacity products in PJM on and after June 1, 2007 when PJM implements its Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) capacity market. Version 1.1 updates the product definition as a result of changes made by PJM to the RPM Business Rules that (1) address default to PJM by either buyer or seller and (2) update the list of pricing points.
An optional definition may be used with the Master Contract for transactions involving energy delivered at a California Delivery Point. This traded product is commonly known as "CAISO Energy." The following entities have agreed to use this definition: American Electric Power, Calpine, Constellation Power Source, Dynegy, Edison Mission Energy, El Paso Merchant Energy, Enron, Mirant, PG&E National Energy Group, Reliant Energy Services, Southern California Edison, Tractebel, and the Williams Companies.
THE DOCUMENTS AND DESCRIPTIONS ON THIS PAGE ARE PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE USING THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED ON THIS PAGE.