[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-246251-105":53,"doc-detail-246251-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","arem-comments-on-high-level-prioritization-of-market-enhancements-stakeholder-ranking-process","AReM Comments on High Level Prioritization of Market Enhancements - Stakeholder Ranking Process","","Stakeholder comments template for the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM) addressing the ISO’s High Level Prioritization of Market Enhancements. The template guides respondents to revise rankings for initiatives categorized as “High,” reassess items ranked “Medium” or “Low,” and comment on missing initiatives from the Market Design Catalogue. It also requests suggestions to improve the annual roadmap process, with submission deadlines and instructions for MS Word submissions to the specified email.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/arem-comments-on-high-level-prioritization-of-market-enhancements-stakeholder-ranking-process/246251/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/arem-comments-on-high-level-prioritization-of-market-enhancements-stakeholder-ranking-process/246251.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Ben Jamin","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-09-12",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"When are comments due and how should they be submitted?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Comments are due by July 30, 2009. Submissions should be provided in MS Word to MIRoadmap@caiso.com by close of business on Thursday, July 30, 2009.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Should stakeholders change rankings for initiatives labeled “High” in the preliminary process?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Yes, stakeholders should indicate whether rankings should be different for “High” initiatives. If changes are suggested, the template asks for the revised ranking and the factors driving the decision.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What topics should stakeholders cover beyond ranking adjustments?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"Stakeholders should comment on whether any initiatives are missing from the Market Design Catalogue and provide reasons, and they should suggest improvements to the annual roadmap process, including ranking top priorities for implementation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},246251,1790671304,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":76,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":9},2336478466772,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","ISO Comments Template for Market Initiatives Roadmap  \nStakeholder Comments Template  \nSubject: Market Initiatives Roadmap – High Level  \nRanking Process  \n\n| Submitted by | Company | Date Submitted |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Sue Mara\u003Cbr>RTOAdvisors\u003Cbr>(415) 902-4108\u003Cbr>[sue.mara@rtoadvisors.com](sue.mara@rtoadvisors.com) | Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM) | 7/30/09 |\n\nThe ISO is requesting written comments on the Preliminary Results of the High Level Prioritization of Market Enhancements published on the ISO website and discussed at the July 23rd, 2009 stakeholder meeting. This template is offered as a guide for entities to submit comments; however participants are encouraged to submit comments in any form. Comments are due by July 30th, 2009.  \nAll documents related to the Market Initiatives Roadmap Process are posted on the ISO Website at the following link: [http://caiso.com/1fb1/1fb1856366d60.html](http://caiso.com/1fb1/1fb1856366d60.html)  \nUpon completion of this template please submit (in MS Word) to MIRoadmap@caiso.com. Submissions are requested by close of business on Thursday, July 30, 2009.  \nPlease answer the following questions on the results of the high level ranking:  \n1. Should rankings be different for the initiatives that the ISO ranked “High” in the preliminary ranking process? If yes:  \na) Provide your revised ranking of the initiative  \nb) Explain what factors led to your ranking decision  \nAReM supports or otherwise has no comments on the initiatives ranked as “high” by the CAISO. In particular, AReM strongly supports completing the implementation of the Standard Capacity Product (\\# 8. 1) in time for 2010 Resource Adequacy compliance.  \n2. Should rankings be different for the initiatives that the ISO ranked “Medium” or“Low” in the preliminary ranking process? If yes:  \na) Provide your revised ranking of the initiative  \nISO Comments Template for Market Initiatives Roadmap  \nb) Explain what factors led to your ranking decision  \n7.8 Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs)– CAISO Rank = Medium  \nAReM recommends a “high” ranking for this initiative. Moving to ARRs from CRRs would simplify the transfer of congestion rights to reflect load migration, which is expected to increase within the next year if SB 695 passes or as a result of R.07-05-025. At present, tiny fractional amounts of point-to-point and Trading Hub CRRs must be calculated and tracked from month to month. ARRs would avoid that, as well as the current, time-consuming, tiered allocation method. AReM understands that ARRs would take time to develop and implement, but supports beginning the process now.  \n6.1 Ancillary Services Substitution – CAISO Rank = Low  \n6.3  Multi-Settlement System for Ancillary Services – CAISO Rank = Medium AReM would reverse these rankings. Implementing ancillary services (A/ S) substitution could potentially address some of the issues identified by LECG without adding the complexity of a multi-settlement system.  \n3. Are there initiatives that were missing from the Market Design Catalogue (or the presentation) ?  \na) Describe the Market Design Initiative to be added  \nb) Rank the initiative and provide the reasoning for your ranking.  \nNo comment.  \n4. Do you have any comments on or suggestions to improve the annual roadmap process?  \nAReM suggests that, in the next round of comments, the CAISO ask stakeholders to rank their top 3 priorities for implementation. This approach was used in the Roadmap process last year and should provide useful information to the CAISO on stakeholder views.  \n5.  Other comments on initiatives.  \n7.2  CRR Source Verification – CAISO Rank = Low  \nAReM strongly supports the rank of “low” for this initiative and would support removing it from the catalogue of CAISO Market Initiatives. AReM has consistently and vigorously opposed source verification for CRRs as anti-competitive and discriminatory. When the CAISO first proposed the CRR allocation method including the Priority Nomination Process (","cbCaimhDHojKty11","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimhDHojKty11","pdf",118083,"English","# Ranking Process\n## High / Medium / Low Ranking Questions\n## Missing Initiatives and Roadmap Improvements\n## Other Comments on Initiatives","[{\"question\":\"When are comments due and how should they be submitted?\",\"answer\":\"Comments are due by July 30, 2009. Submissions should be provided in MS Word to MIRoadmap@caiso.com by close of business on Thursday, July 30, 2009.\"},{\"question\":\"Should stakeholders change rankings for initiatives labeled “High” in the preliminary process?\",\"answer\":\"Yes, stakeholders should indicate whether rankings should be different for “High” initiatives. If changes are suggested, the template asks for the revised ranking and the factors driving the decision.\"},{\"question\":\"What topics should stakeholders cover beyond ranking adjustments?\",\"answer\":\"Stakeholders should comment on whether any initiatives are missing from the Market Design Catalogue and provide reasons, and they should suggest improvements to the annual roadmap process, including ranking top priorities for implementation.\"}]","AReM Comments on High Level Prioritization of Market Enhancements - Stakeholder Ranking Process | PDF",1789234357]