IESO Technical Panel Meeting 222
IESOTP 223-1 v1_0
______________________________
Draft Minutes of Meeting
Date held: February 24, 2009
Time held: 9:00 am
Invited/Attended:
Constituency Represented or
Company Name:
Panel Members
Brian Bell
Generator Representative
Tracy Brason
Generator Representative
Pascal Cormier
Generator Representative
Harry Chandler
Chair
Edith Chin
Natural Gas Industry Rep.
Wayne Clark
Industrial Consumers Rep.
David Curtis
Transmitter Representative
Bill Harper
Residential Consumers Rep.
William Houston
Commercial Consumers Rep.
Paul Kerr
Retailers and Wholesalers Rep.
George Mychailenko
Distributor Representative
Rob Nicholson
Financial Services Rep
Don Tench
IESO Representative
Ray Tracey
Distributor Representative
Observers
David Brown
OEB
Alexander Plagiannakos
Hydro One Networks
Secretariat
John MacKenzie
IESO
Diljeet Singh (scribe)
IESO
Roy Stewart
IESO
Richard Lanni
IESO
All meeting material is available on the IESO web site at:
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/amendments/tp_meetings.asp
March 24, 2009
Public
Location held:
IESO Minto Boardroom
Attendance Status:
(A)ttended; (R)egrets; (S)ubstitute
A
R
S (for Tracy Brason)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Page 1 of 7
Technical Panel
Committee Chair: Harry Chandler
harry.chandler@ieso.ca
Agenda Item 1 – Administration
Agenda: no changes
Minutes and Action Items: The Panel unanimously approved the draft minutes of the TP 221 meeting
with no changes (refer to document IESOTP 222-1 Draft v2_0).
Refer to table at the end of this document for information related to action items.
Chairs Remarks:


The Chair informed the Panel that the IESO Board approved the two market rule amendments
(MR-00339 & MR-00355) recommended unanimously by the Technical Panel to the Board.
The Chair advised the Panel of a potential conflict of interest in chairing agenda item 3 (Real-Time
and Day-Ahead Generator Cost Guarantee) because of his role in supporting the work of the
Market Surveillance Panel that had identified issues related to the cost guarantee programs. The
Commercial Consumers representative also declared a potential conflict of interest as the proposed
change may have an adverse impact on one of his company’s clients that may diverge from the
interests of commercial consumers.
To this, the IESO General Counsel suggested that there are provisions in the IESO governance and
structure by-law regarding such conflicts of interest but since this was not a voting item, such
provisions did not have to be invoked. A generator representative suggested that the declaration of
potential conflicts by Panel members in advance, as had been done in this case, results in
transparency and allows the Panel to decide the best course of action when this occurs. Panel
members agreed that this practice should continue.
Agenda Item 2
Enhanced Day Ahead Commitment Process (EDAC)
IESO Support Staff
John Boudreau, Al Miller, Indi Sharma
Stakeholder Plan
SE-21
1. The IESO introduced the EDAC Market Design to the Technical Panel. The IESO staff presented the
overview of the EDAC process which included information on history, project schedule and
milestones, design features and scope and work plan of market rule amendments (refer to
documents IESOTP 222-2 a, b).
2. The following comments were made by the Panel members during the discussion:

A generator representative requested that the IESO update the Panel with the expected date
for EDAC to come into service. In response, the IESO representative stated that as per the
current schedule it is expected come into service by early 2011. However, the focus is to get
market trials started by end of 2010. The actual in-service date may vary depending on the
results of market trials which may be dictated by participant readiness.
March 24, 2009
Public
Page 2 of 7
Technical Panel
Committee Chair: Harry Chandler
harry.chandler@ieso.ca

The retailers and wholesalers representative requested that the IESO clarify the direction
from Audit Committee to the Technical Panel on market rule development of EDAC. While
noting the distinction from other Technical Panel issues, he stated that this task for the Panel
members would be different. The IESO representative suggested that there is agreement
with the market design. The next step is to proceed with the detailed design. The task for the
Panel is to develop and recommend market rules to implement the approved design. The
IESO recognizes that detailed design development may identify changes to the current
market design and that the market rules may need to be revised in response. However these
changes are expected to be relatively small.

The transmitter representative asked whether the market rule development or the detailed
design would lead the EDAC development. To this, the IESO staff replied that the detailed
design would lead the EDAC development. The retailers and wholesalers representative
raised a concern regarding the high level nature of market rules with the details to be
included in the applicable market manual. The IESO representative acknowledged the
concern; however, he suggested that the market rules for calculation engine and settlement
equations would be very detailed.

A generator representative stressed that in light of increased penetration of embedded
generation and decrease in overall demand, the important issue of surplus baseload
generation (SBG) needs to be addressed. Also, the possibility of not including export
commitments in the day-ahead schedules of EDAC may exacerbate the issue of SBG.

The financial community representative asked if the economic scheduling and dispatch of
linked wheel issues1 will re-surface during the EDAC detailed design and market rule
development. To this, the retailers and wholesalers representative suggested that the IESO
with support of Inter-Jurisdictional traders is considering more efficient ways (congestion
pricing) of pricing linked wheels and it could be further integrated in the EDAC detailed
design.

A generator representative requested that the IESO prepare a summary of the implications
of rule changes on market participant sectors resulting from EDAC. The retailers and
wholesalers representative, while supporting the suggestion, stated that a summary of the
changes from the existing Day Ahead Commitment Process (DACP) to EDAC would also be
helpful.

Panel members requested clarification of the proposed third party review e.g. what is the
mandate and scope of the review and will it include “common sense” evaluation of the
detailed design. The IESO responded that the review is intended to determine whether the
settlement equations and calculation engine formulations in the market rules meet the
market design principles. The third party review will also include an assessment of
1
In November 2008, the Linked Wheel Economic Dispatch (MR-00338) working group presented draft design (to achieve
congestion pricing and economic based scheduling and dispatch of linked wheels) proposal to the Technical Panel. The
Working Group also identified the remaining design issues with the proposal (refer to documents IESOTP 219-2a/b/c/d).
March 24, 2009
Public
Page 3 of 7
Technical Panel
Committee Chair: Harry Chandler
harry.chandler@ieso.ca
unintended adverse consequences. The third party review findings and report will be
shared with Panel members.

A generator representative also asked when the detailed design process will address the
new reports generated by EDAC, so that the market participants could initiate relevant tool
development and enhancement. The IESO expects to identify to market participants the
need to produce any new EDAC reports through detailed design process. Solution
specification for these reports should be available in early 2010.
3. The Chair proposed an additional training session before the next Technical Panel meeting in
March and suggested March 30th as a tentative date for the session. The Chair asked Panel members
to identify any schedule conflicts with the proposed date.
Agenda Item 3
Real-Time and Day-Ahead Generator Cost Guarantees
IESO Support Staff
Pat Kamstra, Jeannette Briggs
Stakeholder Plan
N/A
1. The Technical Panel reviewed the discussion paper and other information provided by the IESO
(refer to documents IESOTP 222-3a, b, c).
2. Panel members made the following comments:

There is a consensus among all members that the problems identified need to be addressed.

The retailers and wholesalers representative expressed concern over the Market Rules
definition of Minimum Run Time (MRT) and Minimum Generation Block Run Time
(MGBRT). He stressed that inconsistency in definitions could lead to operational/dispatch
and market efficiency issues and suggested that revisions to these definitions were required.

The residential consumer representative recommended caution in making interim changes
to the programs that would impact operating reserve (OR) offers and perhaps create other
problems.

The natural gas representative emphasized that the Panel should also consider expected
changes in the fleet of gas fired generators post 2009 and the impact of OPA contracts. The
fuel cost for future gas-fired generation may be more difficult to determine, which
encourages the use of the offer price in calculating the combined generation cost. The OPA
CES contracts may be written such that OR participation is assumed, OR revenues are
netted out of generator revenues and these revenues are passed back to the OPA.

A generator representative suggested to open an action item (refer to AI 222-1) to assess the
impact of OPA contracts on incentives to provide OR. He expressed a desire on behalf of his
constituency members for a stakeholder session and requested OPA contracts be made
March 24, 2009
Public
Page 4 of 7
Technical Panel
Committee Chair: Harry Chandler
harry.chandler@ieso.ca
available in the public domain. He further stated that Real-time Generation Cost Guarantee
(RT-GCG) is an interim solution; however, there is a need for long term solution in
anticipation of changes in the existing generation fleet. The Panel members agreed.

The retailers and wholesalers representative asserted that raising the requirements for Day
Ahead Generation Cost Guarantee (DA-GCG) may have reliability implications. If the
requirements for RT-GCG are also raised, it could result in additional barriers for gas fired
generation and could have an impact on reliability. In response, a generator representative
suggested that addressing inefficiency does not necessarily lead to reduced reliability.
Further, SBG mitigation could be a side benefit of “raising the bar” on guarantee program
eligibility.

The commercial consumer representative raised concern over moving quickly on this issue,
questioning whether there would be sufficient time to conduct diligent analysis. He
requested that the IESO recognize the impact on market participants such as cost of
software changes and consider the fact that existing generation facilities are long term
investments built on current market conditions. He suggested that the IESO should remain
open to other alternatives which may be less disruptive in nature. The IESO representative
requested more information on other alternatives, and noted that there would be a general
stakeholder session to discuss concerns.

The industrial consumer representative requested that the IESO assess the materiality of the
change(s) in terms of efficiency and impact on market prices.

A generator representative suggested the Panel consider correcting the identified defects in
the programs be considered a high priority in light of new gas fired generation expected to
come into service.
3. The IESO noted the concerns of the Panel members and will consider them in further development
of program design changes and priority, with an update at the next Panel meeting.
Agenda Item 4
Other Business/Updates/Member Issues
IESO Support Staff
John MacKenzie, John Boudreau
Stakeholder Plan
N/A
a) The Panel reviewed the active market rule amendment tracking report and forward agenda with no
comment (refer to documents IESOTP 222-4a, b, c). The IESO provided verbal updates to the Panel
on the following rule amendments:
1. MR-00252: The amendment submission has been sent to generator representatives for their
review. The IESO will hold a meeting with generator representatives prior to external posting of
the amendment submission for stakeholder comment and review.
March 24, 2009
Public
Page 5 of 7
Technical Panel
Committee Chair: Harry Chandler
harry.chandler@ieso.ca
2. MR-00352: TransAlta Sarnia is currently studying the IESO-proposed solution within the
existing market framework. Any potential market rule amendment is contingent on the
proponent’s decision on the proposal.
3. MR-00351:- The retailers and wholesalers representative asked how the Panel plans to further
deal with this proposed market rule submission. He suggested that the Panel expects progress
reports from the concerned participants. Therefore, OPG and the IESO should work
collaboratively to develop a work plan. The financial community representative supported the
notion and stated that there should be some expectation from the Panel for an update. A
generator representative expressed willingness to meet with the IESO over next few months to
address the Panel’s concern.
b) MR-00350- Publication of 18-month outlook: The Technical Panel unanimously determined that
market rule amendment submission MR-00350-Q00 no longer warrants consideration. The
amendment is now closed. Refer to documents IESOTO 222-4d, e.
Next Panel meeting: Tuesday, April 1st, 2009.
March 24, 2009
Public
Page 6 of 7
Technical Panel
Committee Chair: Harry Chandler
harry.chandler@ieso.ca
Action Items
Action Item Summary
#
Date
Action
AI 219-1
30 Sept. 08
IESO to update Panel
regarding the possible
changes in the Operating
Reserve requirement.
AI 220-1
16 Dec. 08
One year after MR-00339
comes into effect, the Revenue
Metering Standing Committee
is to review the amendment
and report back to the
Technical Panel on:
Status
Comments
Closed
The NERC at this point not
willing to consider intertie
offers for 10NS reserve. There
are no changes made to 30R
reserve requirement.
Open
Refer to agenda item 2 in
document IESOTP 221-1. This
report will occur sometime
after June 3, 2010.
market participant requests
under MR-00339 amendment;
the IESO decision and
rationale on each request.
AI 220-2
16 Dec. 08
IESO to clarify basis for
existing settlement treatment
of a load facility and
generation facility registered
as a single facility as described
in Option 3 of document
IESOTP 220-3a.
Open
Refer to agenda item 3 in
document IESOTP 221-1.
AI-222-1
24-Feb.-09
IESO to assess the impact on
OR payments under proposed
changes to DA and RT GCG.
Open
Refer to agenda item 3 in
document IESOTP 222 1.
March 24, 2009
Public
Page 7 of 7
Technical Panel
Committee Chair: Harry Chandler
harry.chandler@ieso.ca