Common use of Testing for an Appreciable Clause in Contracts

Testing for an Appreciable. Amount of Redispatch Relief and Determining the Settlement Market Flow: When the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are not in-service, the ability of the Non-Monitoring RTO to provide an appreciable amount of redispatch relief will be determined by comparing the Non-Monitoring RTO’s Market Flow to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Flowgate. When the Non-Monitoring RTO Market Flow (also the Market Flow used for settlement) is greater than the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Flowgate, the Monitoring RTO will assume that an appreciable amount of redispatch relief is available from the Non-Monitoring RTO and will engage the M2M coordination process for the constrained M2M Flowgate. When any of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are in-service, the ability of the Non-Monitoring RTO to provide an appreciable amount of redispatch relief will be determined by comparing either (i) the Non-Monitoring RTO’s unadjusted Market Flow, or (ii) the Non-Monitoring RTO Market Flow adjusted to reflect the expected impact of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border (“LEC Adjusted Market Flow”), to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Flowgate. The rules for determining which Market Flow (unadjusted or adjusted) to compare to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement when any of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are in-service are set forth below.

Testing for an Appreciable. Amount of Redispatch Relief and Determining the Settlement Market FlowFlow for M2M Redispatch Flowgates: When the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are not in-service, the ability of the Non-Monitoring RTO to provide an appreciable amount of redispatch relief will be determined by comparing the Non-Monitoring RTO’s Market Flow to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Redispatch Flowgate. When the Non-Monitoring RTO Market Flow (also the Market Flow used for settlement) is greater than the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Redispatch Flowgate, the Monitoring RTO will assume that an appreciable amount of redispatch relief is available from the Non-Monitoring RTO and will engage the M2M redispatch coordination process for the constrained M2M Redispatch Flowgate. When any of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are in-service, the ability of the Non-Monitoring RTO to provide an appreciable amount of redispatch relief will be determined by comparing either (i) the Non-Monitoring RTO’s unadjusted Market Flow, or (ii) the Non-Monitoring RTO Market Flow adjusted to reflect the expected impact of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border (“LEC Adjusted Market Flow”), to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Redispatch Flowgate. The rules for determining which Market Flow (unadjusted or adjusted) to compare to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement when any of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are in-service are set forth below.