2002 AGN JUL 02 I17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ISO to allocate those costs to the remaining Scheduling Coordinators in proportion to their relevant metered Demands (with the proviso that such costs could not exceed on an individual basis the $0.095/MWh limit stated in the California ISO's filed Tariff). In the March 14 Order, the Commission also concluded that the Southern Cities' complaint about the manner in which the California ISO allocated energy costs resulting from underscheduling was moot because the California ISO had amended its Tariff, after the Southern Cities filed their complaint, to allocate these costs only to those Scheduling Coordinators who actually deviated from their schedules. This change to the California ISO's allocation methodology was filed with and approved by the Commission on December 8, 2000, as part of Amendment No. 33 to the California ISO's Tariff; however, the California ISO did not implement the change until December 12, 2000. The Southern Cities, Vernon, and the California ISO applied for rehearing of the Commission's March 14 Order. On December 29, 2000, the California ISO filed an amendment to its Tariff to explicitly state that the limit on neutrality adjustment charges would be applied on an annual basis, rather than an hourly basis. The Commission approved this Tariff change prospectively and it went into effect on February 27, 2001.2 On May 14, 2001, the Commission issued an order granting in part and denying in part rehearing of the March 14 Order.4 The Commission reaffirmed its requirement that the $0.095/MWh limit on neutrality charges must be applied on an hourly basis and again denied the Southern Cities' request to change the cost allocation methodology. California Independent System Operator Corp., 94 FERC 161,266 (2001). Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, and Riverside, California v. Califomia Independent System Operator Corporation, 95 FERC % 61,197 (2001). 0