Capacity Calculation. The Parties shall account for Interchange Capacity service on a calendar week basis and the Receiving Party shall pay for it at the rate provided in subsection 14(c), Interchange Capacity Imbalances. Such payment shall be based on the maximum amount requested and delivered during any hour as Interchange Capacity; provided if the Supplying Party is subsequently unable during that calendar week to deliver Interchange Capacity as great as the rate at which Interchange Capacity was previously delivered during such week, the lower amount shall be the Interchange Capacity delivered during such calendar week.
Capacity Calculation. The Receiving Party shall pay the Supplying Party the capacity charge provided in paragraph 14(d)(1), Capacity, for transfers of energy pursuant to paragraphs 9(n)(1) and 9(n)(2) above as follows. Transfers due to Forced Outages shall be accounted for on a calendar week basis. The capacity measurement for purposes of such charge shall be based upon the maximum amount requested and delivered during any hour; provided if the Supplying Party is unable during that calendar week to deliver subsequent transfer(s) at a rate equal to the initial transfer rate, the capacity measurement shall be reduced to the lesser amount.
Capacity Calculation. The Contract Capacity of the Project shall be the lesser of the Project’s Charging Capacity or Discharging Capacity measured pursuant to Part IV.B. above.
Capacity Calculation. Capacity available on Greece-Italy SUD border in day-ahead and intraday timeframes is in principle equal to 500 MW (when the Italy Greece DC cable is in operation) or to 0 MW (when the DC cable is out of service); in very seldom cases an intermediate value is offered to take into account some limitations due to faults in some equipment. Neglecting these very rare intermediate values, the 50° percentile thus results equal to 500 MW (when the cable was in operation for at least 50% of the hours of the two years before) or 0 MW (if an outage occurred in the past two years for more than 50% of the time). The floor value, being related to the 95° percentile, is instead expected to be 50 MW3. As a consequence, yearly capacity may be either 500 MW (when 50° percentile is 500 MW) or 50 MW (when 50° percentile is 0 MW and floor value applies). Monthly capacity, instead, may be either 0 MW (when a planned outage is expected for a given day4) or 500 MW. GRIT NRAs understand the reasons behind the TSOs’ choice, nonetheless they wonder whether a full statistical analysis is the best approach to compute the long-term cross-zonal capacity for a single line DC border as the Greece-Italy SUD one, where the full thermal capacity is usually offered to the market if the cable is in operation. For such borders, in fact, according to a security analysis, yearly capacity should be assumed equal to the cable thermal capacity (there is usually no need to limit cross-zonal exchanges because of local issues in Italian and Greek networks): prolongated planned unavailability of the cable shall be taken into account by auctioning products with reduction periods (i.e. not available during the planned outages). Monthly capacity should be assumed instead equal to the cable thermal capacity if the cable is expected to be in operation for the given day or 0 MW if the cable is planned to be out of service. XXXX XXXx are invited to elaborate on this topic and to evaluate whether it’s possible to overcome the statistical approach for the Greece-Italy SUD border in favor of the security analysis approachas suggested above. The conclusions of the analysis and the reasons behind the adopted choice shall be cited in the methodology and, if needed, properly detailed in a technical annex to the methodology itself. Italian internal bidding zone borders Capacity calculation GRIT TSOs propose the same statistical approach for AC and DC bidding zone borders: GRIT NRAs consider the statistical approach s...
