DERTF: Compliance Tariff Redlines on Dispute Resolution (MSC-2019-2) (20240111)

WPPI’s feedback on Item 04b Dispute Resolution (MSC-2019-2) presentation and discussion at the DERTF, 1/11/2024 is as follows:

• (1.) s. 5, proposed new Module A, Section 12.g: “Disputes between or among the [DER, DERA, DEAR] and an [EDC, LSE and/or RERRA] involving market disagreements, meter data, settlements, billing and/or payments [pursuant to contracts, regulations, requirements or regulations that are not subject to this Tariff.]”
  • (a.) Section 12 currently includes a. through d. Why is the proposed addition “g.” (and not “e.”)?
  • (b.) The proposed addition seems unnecessary (and therefore potentially confusing) when Section 12 makes clear that Attachment HH (Dispute Resolution Procedures) applies only to “Any dispute between a Tariff Customer or User and the Transmission Provider [MISO] and/or an ITC…?”
    • Instead of including the proposed addition in the Tariff, it seems more appropriate to modify, as needed, the list of “…issues not considered covered disputes…” in BPM -005 Market Settlements, Section 5.1.
• (2.) s. 5, proposed revision (additions underlined) to Module C, Section 38.7.D: “The Transmission Provider shall review the participation of a DERA in the Energy and Operating Reserve Markets when the DERA’s settlements are successfully disputed more than ten percent (10%) of the time by a relevant LSE and the financial impact(s) of such successful disputes exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) for an individual dispute or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in the aggregate for all successful disputes.”
  • Note, the proposed revision:
    • Was prompted by Entergy’s concerns about MISO spending time on small amounts of money.
    • Appears modeled on Module A, Section 12A.g, discussion of a Continuing Error, including the dollar amounts proposed.
  • On s. 6, MISO’s description of the intent of its proposed Tarriff changes includes: “2) …If the RERRA concludes that a relevant LSE has successfully disputed meter data more than 10% of the time in the relevant quarter they are referred to MISO to investigate.”
    • (a.) The intent specifies an entity (“RERRA”), whereas the proposed Tariff revision does not. WPPI thinks it is appropriate not to specify the entity. (We think the most likely entity will be the Market Participant for the relevant LSE.)
    • (b.) The intent specifies a time frame (“relevant quarter”), whereas the proposed Tariff revision does not. We think it is reasonable to specify a time frame; however, it should be longer than a quarter (see d.).
    • (c.) The intent suggests MISO is notified at more than 10% and then MISO determines whether a dollar threshold has been met. We think this sequencing needs clarification (see d.)
    • (d.) As a result, we suggest revising (additions underlined) to Section 38.7.D along the lines of the following: “The Transmission Provider shall review the participation of a DERA in the Energy and Operating Reserve Markets when notified the DERA’s settlements [delete: are] have been successfully disputed more than ten percent (10%) of the time by a relevant LSE over a period of twelve (12) consecutive Months, and the Transmission Provider determines the financial impact(s) of successful disputes over this period exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for a relevant Market Participant or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), in the aggregate, for all relevant Market Participants .”

DTE Electric appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the DERA Dispute Resolution Proposals.

MISO should enact and enforce metering and data submission requirements, and not preclude dispute of instances where such requirements are not met. If MISO delegates to RERRAs, such activity should be monitored and enforced.

MISO needs to ensure RERRA dispute resolution process is set in accordance with MISO Tariff and does not impose barriers for MPs or EDCs to meet MISO Tariff requirements. For example, RERRA process timing must set requirements to allow meter data issue resolution in accordance to MISO meter data submission timeline. Also, RERRA meter data dispute resolution process must enforce MPs to meet MISO Tariff’s meter data accuracy requirements.

MISO should set a clear and easy to follow escalation process for when RERRA dispute resolution process is unable to resolve disputes in a reasonable timeframe or is ineffective.

Voltus, Inc. Tariff Redline Pursuant To MISO’s January 11, 2024 DERTF Proposal, Presentation And Request For Feedback

January 29, 2024

Voltus is concerned about the lack of clarity regarding MISO’s proposal for new Section 12.g that states:

“Disputes between or among the [DER, DERA, DEAR] and an [EDC, LSE and/or RERRA] involving market disagreements, meter data, settlements, billing and/or payments [pursuant to contracts, regulations, requirements or regulations that are not subject to this Tariff.]”[1]

There is no delineation or provision of examples of matters that are "pursuant to" contracts, etc. that  “are not subject to this Tariff.”  FERC stated in its Order on Compliance (185 FERC ¶ 61,01[2])  to which this proposal responds that “We do not expect MISO to resolve issues that are beyond its authority …. Nevertheless, some disputes may fall within MISO’s authority.”[3] FERC then gave an example of “disputes about information sharing during distribution utility review that could be appropriately resolved using RTO/ISO dispute resolution procedures.”[4] 

Despite this, MISO states: “In the event of a meter data dispute, the preferred path of resolution will be with the RERRA.”[5]

Note that in a similar instance, in PJM’s FERC Order 2222 compliance filing (ER22-962), FERC admonished PJM in its First Compliance Order and on rehearing  about “overly broad” provisions that “unreasonably restrict[] a DER Aggregator’s use of PJM’s dispute resolution procedures” … “when those procedures may be appropriate.”[6]

Language exempting disputes “pursuant to” contracts etc. “that are not subject to this Tariff” is overly broad and forecloses disputes that could be within MISO’s authority.  A blanket statement that the “preferred path of resolution will be with the RERRA” does not seem consonant with FERC’s repeated directives on these issues.  Voltus would propose removing proposed new section 12.g altogether, or in the alternative:

“Disputes between or among the [DER, DERA, DEAR] and an [EDC, LSE and/or RERRA] involving market disagreements, meter data, settlements, billing and/or payments [that are not subject to MISO’s authority.]”

More clarity regarding MISO’s role will improve the dispute resolution process and prevent unnecessary delays. 

[1] https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20240111%20DERTF%20Item%2004b%20Dispute%20Resolution%20(MSC-2019-2)631340.pdf at slide 5.

[2] https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filedownload?fileid=48F60577-CE46-CD00-96A3-8B1BB4000000.

[3] 185 FERC ¶ 61,01 at para. 312.

[4] Id.

[5] https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20240111%20DERTF%20Item%2004b%20Dispute%20Resolution%20(MSC-2019-2)631340.pdf at slide 6.

[6] https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filedownload?fileid=25192586-1208-CA61-8B94-869FE6400000 at para. 323 and https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filedownload?fileid=D4B8E657-3F4B-C486-96CD-8946F7700000 at para. 9.

The Entergy Operating Companies ("EOCs")^[1] appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on MISO’s Compliance Tariff Redlines on Dispute Resolution. The EOCs comments regarding the feedback requested is provided below. 

^[1] The Entergy Operating Companies are Entergy Arkansas, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, LLC, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, and Entergy Texas, Inc. 

Proposed New Section 12.g, exempting the following disputes from Attachment HH of the Tariff: 

Disputes between or among the [DER, DERA, DEAR] and an [EDC, LSE and/or RERRA] involving market disagreements, meter data, settlements, billing and/or payments [pursuant to contracts, regulations, requirements or regulations that are not subject to this Tariff.] 

The Entergy Operating Companies (EOCs) urge MISO to take a different approach to complying  with the Commission’s direction in paragraph 313 of its Order on MISO’s Order 2222 Compliance filing.  The EOCs have previously expressed (see comments submitted to the DERTF on November 15, 2021, with respect to “FERC Order 2222 Filing Framework – Dispute Resolution” linked below), and continue to have concerns with MISO’s proposed approach to Dispute Resolution relating to data and performance validation of Distributed Energy Resources and aggregations of these resources.  (See the links below for “Additional Resources”.)  Rather than proposing amendments to its procedures or new dispute resolution procedures specific to this subject area, the EOCs urge MISO to take a step back and re-evaluate the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the participation of ARCs and DERAs in MISO’s markets.

As MISO assesses its approach to the resolution of meter-related disputes, MISO should first address some foundational issues in relating to roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the performance and validation of Distributed Energy Resources participating in MISO’s markets. Fundamentally, MISO’s current Dispute Resolution process for validating DER and DER Aggregation meter data mischaracterizes the nature of the dispute as a disagreement between Market Participants, to be resolved between those parties, as further described in the comments below.  The EOCs do not agree with that characterization of such disputes.  Specifically, the EOCs do not accept the premise that an LSE acts in its role as a Market Participant when it undertakes the function of validating DER/Aggregator performance.

The EOCs assert that MISO’s proposed approach to this policy does not adequately address the needs for revision to existing tariff language . We view the current MISO system for handling meter disputes as flawed, overly complex, and burdensome for Load Serving Entities tasked with validating the performance of resources located on Distribution Facilities. We recommend that MISO should first revise the existing requirements and responsibilities of Load Serving Entities (LSEs) before addressing disputes relating to aggregations of DERs under Order 2222. 

In order to achieve a Dispute Resolution Process that appropriately addresses concerns relating to the payment of services offered by these resources to Network Customers, we suggest that MISO focus first on resolving the foundational concerns within the existing meter dispute process before introducing new terms into its tariff filing, and should concentrate on refining the current meter dispute framework before proceeding with developing FERC Order 2222-compliant language.  Due to these concerns, described in more detail in the comments below, Entergy does not support using the current dispute resolution process as the basis for resolving disputes relating to validating the performance of DER aggregations.

For purposes of compliance with the Commission’s order, the EOCs urge MISO to explain to the Commission that it will utilize the DERTF stakeholder process to reevaluate its approach to dispute resolution with respect to DER-related performance issues.  The EOCs recommend MISO consider the issues described below.

Specific concerns that should be addressed first include: 

1. There is a need for clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the parties.

a. Performance Validation - MISO's current process requires LSEs to verify meter data from Distributed Energy Resources/DERAs and approve it in the MISO DRT as per the tariff. In defining roles and responsibilities of the entities involved in this process, MISO should acknowledge that LSEs may have multiple roles in this process, acting as the official metering authority for an Electric Distribution Company (EDC), a market participant, and potentially as a meter agent (MDMA) for a DER. 

b. Meter data quality - Requirements applicable to LSEs, DERAs, and MPs should be established to standardize meter data quality, along with specification of the types of meters that must be used for Market Participation, including standardization of data collection and communication requirements. 

 2. The absence of a robust data validation process and a dedicated dispute resolution process that is formalized and streamlined to manage discrepancies in meter data identified by the LSE.

a. This process should recognize the role of the LSE and MISO as functionally equivalent to the LBA for validation of meter data for settlement purposes, rather than equating the LSE to a Market Participant.  

b. If the LSE does not approve the data submitted by the MP into the DRT, the MP should be required to address the discrepancy identified by the LSE, and the issue and resolution should be documented.

c. Due to the anticipated volume of data and likely repetitive nature of meter data disputes, MISO should establish a dedicated process for meter data dispute resolution, rather than relying on the more general Alternative Dispute Resolution process or the submission of the dispute to FERC.

Proposed Revision to Section 38.7.D 

The Transmission Provider shall review the participation of a DERA in the Energy and Operating Reserve Markets when the DERA’s settlements are successfully disputed more than ten percent (10%) of the time by a relevant LSE and the financial impact(s) of such successful disputes exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) for an individual dispute or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in the aggregate for all successful disputes. 

The EOCs are concerned with, and do not support, MISO’s proposed Section 38.7.D.  MISO’s current process does not provide a solid foundation for a future with increased participation and general complexity associated with the participation of DER aggregations in wholesale markets.

1. Without the improvements described above and in our prior comments linked below, the EOCs believe the process will unduly complicate the process for LSEs to file meter disputes.
2. The inclusion of a 10% successful dispute threshold, when there is no clear path to a successful resolution, will frustrate LSEs that attempt to initiate the dispute resolution process in good faith.
   1. It is unclear how these thresholds will be applied since the review is performed on a quarterly basis.  
   2. The proposal adding artificial financial requirements will add unnecessary complexity for all involved as well as limit MISO’s involvement in the dispute resolution process.
3. Regarding Module C Section 38.7.D, the EOCs question why the responsibility to prove the accuracy of meter data falls on the Load Serving Entities (LSEs), rather than on Aggregators. It should be noted that LSEs use revenue quality meters, whereas DERAs/ARCs are not required to adhere to the same metering standards.
4. The EOCs are also confused by the inclusion of the RERRA in this particular process, and the additional burden this would place on LSEs and other MPs in resolving meter data disputes.  MISO market disputes should not be redirected to the RERRAs.  Rather, such disputes should be resolved through investigations and discussions with MISO, the organization responsible for market settlement accuracy. 
5. Finally, the EOCs believe that more work and refinement are needed in the wording of Section 38.6 before adding new language to Sections 12.G or 38.7.D. The EOC’s feel that there is a need to clearly define a dedicated dispute resolution process in MISO’s implementation of Order 2222.  Among other things, this should be done in a way that avoids issues seen under the current data validation and dispute processes, which rely on the Alternate Dispute Resolution.  

The EOCs have concerns that without the changes suggested above, the process will become even more challenging for all parties involved. 

Additional References 

MISO Response to Feedback 3/17/22 (DERTF) 

https://cdn.misoenergy.org/DERTF%20Order%202222%20Tariff%20Language%20(MSC-2019-2)%20(20220317)623743.pdf 

DERTF Feedback DERTF: Dispute Resolution (IR070) (20211101) 

https://www.misoenergy.org/engage/stakeholder-feedback/2021/dertf-dispute-resolution-ir070-20211101/