DERTF: Dispute Resolution (IR070) (20211101)

The Organization of MISO States Distributed Energy Resources Workgroup (OMS DERWG) appreciates this opportunity to provide feedback on the dispute resolution process outlined by MISO. The OMS DERWG would appreciate further discussion of this topic at the January RERRA workshop. The OMS DER WG is open to working through case examples or joint presentations as needed to prepare for that conversation. As MISO has noted, there are multiple areas in which potential disputes could occur and a clear understanding of where disputes should be directed will be essential. The OMS DERWG agrees that any existing dispute resolution processes that MISO anticipates using for these processes should be as closely mirrored to existing MISO processes as possible (or enhanced or adapted as appropriate.)

Consumers Energy appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the FERC Order 2222 language regarding dispute resolution.

CE generally supports WPPI's feedback.

It would be helpful for MISO and RERRAs to delineate where issues will be addressed and by which parties. Should the RERRA also not want to be the arbiter of technical disputes, the burden fall on the EDC/LBA to resolve issues of a Market Product. If MISO does not want to the the arbiter of technical disputes, the products offered should be limited to those which fit the MISO model.

Xcel Energy appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the dispute resolution presentation made at the 11/1/21 DERTF:

• Regarding the matrix of Dispute Resolution provided on page 6 of the presentation:
• "Disputes regarding information sharing"
• The subject of the dispute will drive the "Expected Parties" and the "Forum" so we recommend that MISO provide more details underlying these type of disputes.  For example, a dispute regarding information sharing could be driven by RERRA requirements, so the RERRA would need to be involved.
• "Disputes regarding concerns raised by the distribution utility related to interconnection"
• Interconnection is a state jurisdiction so "Expected Parties" should include the RERRA
• "Forum" for these type of disputes should be the RERRA
• MISO's process for DERa dispute resolution needs to be much more efficient and timely than the current ADR process.  The EDCs recommend a progressive dispute resolution process.

Please see email attachment for full feedback.

MEMORANDUM
TO: MISO DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCE TASK FORCE
FROM: THE ENTERGY OPERATING COMPANIES
SUBJECT: FERC ORDER 2222 FILING FRAMEWORK – DISPUTE RESOLUTION
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2021

The following feedback is offered by the Entergy Operating Companies ("EOCs")[1] in response to the request made during the November 1, 2021 Distributed Energy Resource Task Force (DERTF) meeting concerning FERC Order 2222 filing framework and the related topic of dispute resolution. 

Dispute Resolution

• The EOC’s agree that there is a need to clearly define the dispute resolution process related to Order 2222.  Among other things, this should be done in a way that avoids issues seen under the current ARC dispute process, where the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) process must be used to address most issues, including metering differences.  While the ADR process will still have its place, it would be appropriate to resolve day to day market issues that impact settlements, including M&V issues, using MISO’s current settlements dispute process.  As submitted in former feedback, MISO’s compliance with Order 2222 should include a data repository where meter data and other standardized transaction data can be stored and which can be reviewed by the LSE and EDC.  The meter data provided by the DERA to MISO would come from the repository.    

• As MISO discussed during the DERTF meeting, Entergy agrees that it would likely be appropriate to have a dedicated and streamlined process that combines the relevant aspects of the settlement dispute and ADR processes to address other issues, such as registration and interconnection issues.     

The EOCs appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Michigan PSC Staff agrees with the OMS comments that discussing this item in more detail at the January RERRA workshop would be beneficial to differentiate between dispute resolution duties that would be solely within MISO’s authority, versus those that may interact with or fully fall within RERRA jurisdiction. MPSC Staff would also suggest that it may be beneficial to differentiate between the DERa registration process and the EDC aggregation review. (Slides 5-6) Separating these two workstreams may help unwind the complexity inherent in dispute resolution and add clarity on which roles may fall on the RTO, and which may fall on the RERRA.

WPPI offers the following feedback on MISO’s discussion at the DERTF, 11/1/2022 re FERC Order 2222 and dispute resolution:

• WPPI agrees, for issues within MISO’s purview, MISO’s existing dispute resolution process is reasonable.
• If the Relevant Electric Retail Regulatory Authorities agree, perhaps it would be helpful to list the issues that fall under the RERRA dispute resolution process.
• It seems any issue should fall under either MISO’s or the RERRA’s purview vs. a joint determination.