Informational Forum

July 2020

Informational Forum

1

Q & A

Once the Moderator unmutes your line, please state your name and company affiliation.

To ask a question please use the Raise the Hand feature on WebEx

Informational Forum Agenda

Part I (Recorded)

• Executive Report

• Market and Operations Report

• Legal Update

• Key Take-aways – June Hot Topic

• 2021 STI Feedback Request

• Upcoming Events/Workshops

• Review of Action Items

Part II (Not Recorded)

• Josh Hodge, Duke Consulting – Smart Cities

3


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







4

Executive Update

• COVID-19Our Mission Continues

• Diversity and Inclusion

A Journey We Must Take Together

• Reliability ImperativePaving the Way for Future Reliability

• Market System Enhancement (MSE) ProgramTransitioning from Laying Groundwork to Execution

• CEO Dialogue at EEISupport on Path Forward

5


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







6

7

Monthly peak impacted by late-month high

temperatures and COVID-19 restriction relaxation

Reliability, markets and operational functions performed well in June

HIGHLIGHTS

SEVERE WEATHER ALERT

South Region

June 7-8Heavy rain, flooding, strong winds due to

Tropical Storm Cristobal along the Louisiana

coast and Mississippi-Alabama border

COVID-19

June (and early-July) data suggests COVID-19

impact on load and energy is diminishing due to

warmer weather, recovering to more historically

consistent levels

21 GW of planned generation outages across

the MISO footprint have been impacted by

COVID-19 – outages have ended early, delayed

start dates, cancelled and rescheduled to fall

2020

Low fuel prices continue to drive low energy prices

resulting in a 25% decrease over last June

111

117

108 107

2017 2018 2019 2020

$28$32

$23

$18

2017 2018 2019 2020

$/M

Wh

PEAK LOAD

REAL-TIME LMP

● Expected ◼ Concern/Monitor ▼ Review

Note: Dashboard metric criteria are reviewed and revised each year. Dashboard metric criteria are included in the Appendix.

Dashboard

8

Operational Excellence

Metric Chart

Current Month

Indicator

Previous Three MonthIndicators

Metric Chart

Current

Month

Indicator

Previous Three

Month Indicators

June 2020

May2020

April2020

March2020

June 2020

May2020

April2020

March2020

Percentage Price Deviation A ● ● ● ●Real-Time Obligation fulfilled by Day-Ahead Supply at the Peak Hour

I ● ● ● ●

Monthly Average Gross Virtual Profitability

B ● ● ● ●Day Ahead Wind Generation Forecast Error*

K ● ● ● ●

FTR Funding C ● ● ● ● Tie Line Error L ● ● ● ●

Market Efficiency Metric D ■ ■ ■ ●Control Performance –BAAL

M ● ● ● ●

RSG per MWh to Energy Price

E ● ● ● ●Control Performance –CPS1 and CPS1 12-month rolling

N ● ● ● ●

Day Ahead Mid-Term Load Forecast

F ● ■ ■ ■ ARS Deployment P ● ● ● ●

Short-Term Load Forecast G ● ● ● ●

Unit Commitment Efficiency* H ● ● ● ●

Customer Service

System Impact Study Performance

Q ● ● ● ● On-Time Real-Time Posting U ● ● ● ●

Settlement Disputes S ● ● ● ●On-Time Day-AheadPosting

V ● ■ ● ●

*New or revised 2020 Metric

9

The Market Efficiency metric was in Monitor status for June and the On-Time Day-Ahead Posting metric was in Monitor status in May

MetricExpected

CriteriaActual Status Comments

Market

Efficiency

Monthly Metric is >= 92% and

Rolling 12-Month Metric is

>= 94%

June = 97.5%

and Rolling 12-

Month = 93.9%

Monitor

Although performance exceeded

the expected criteria for the

month, performance in the

previous two months kept the

rolling 12-month average just

below the expected criteria

On-Time Day-

Ahead

Posting

>=95% May = 94% Monitor

Results were posted late on May

27 (13:52:29 EPT) and May 29

(13:30:59 EPT). Delays on both

days resulted from Phase Angle

Constraint violations in market

solutions, which resulted in invalid

solution results. Additional time

was needed for troubleshooting

and resolution.

For 2020-21, the Resource Availability and Need initiative is focused on sub-annual planning, resource accreditation and scarcity pricing

10

Operating HorizonPlanning Horizon Identify Reliability Needs

In-flight

2020-21 Focus

• LMR Accreditation (FERC filing May 2020)

• ICAP Deliverability (FERC filings May-June 2020)

• LOLE Enhancements

• Further enhancements to Multiday Operating Margin Forecast

• Additional analytic methods and study processes

• Sub-annual planning + Planning Resource Auction (PRA) Reform

• Resource accreditation

• Scarcity pricing reforms

• Forward Market Mechanism

• Analysis on reliability needs and metrics (whitepaper July 2020)

Progress to Date

• Outage coordination

• Load Modifying Resources (LMR)

• Multiday Operating Margin Forecast

• Four RAN whitepapers

• Stakeholder engagement

ICAP – Installed Capacity, LOLE – Loss of Load Expectation


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







11

12

359 Total Legal Filings as of 07/16/2020

Yearly Filing Comparison

13

2017 = 423

2018 = 453

2019 = 541

2020 = 359 Year to Date

Recent Filings & Orders Received

14

Please visit our website for the most recent filings and orders received.

Filings:https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/ferc-filings/

Orders:https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/ferc-orders/

https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/ferc-filings/

https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/ferc-orders/

45-Day Outlook of Upcoming Filings

15

#AnticipatedFiling Date

DocketNumber(s)

Description of Filing

1 7/31/2020 ER20-____-000

MISO to submit proposed revisions to its Tariff to “clean-up” various sections of MISO’s Tariff. Specifically, the proposed revisions: (1) correct formatting and typographical errors; (2) reconcile or otherwise modify certain sections of the Tariff to true-up language which was inadvertently omitted in subsequent Tariff filings; and (3) update cross-references to various Tariff provisions.

2 7/31/2020 ER20-____-000MISO to submit a Tariff filing to clarify registration and other processes related to Aggregator of Retail Customers (ARCs) participation in MISO markets.

3 7/31/2020 ER20-____-000MISO to submit proposed revisions to Section 9.7.3 and Attachment G of Attachment X, Appendix 6 (GIA) to adjust language in response to NERC guidelines for inverter based resources.

4 8/4/2020 ER20-____-000MISO to submit proposed revisions to Attachment X regarding the Self-Fund Deadline.

5 8/6/2020 ER20-____-000MISO to submit a Tariff filing to align Attachment FF-ATCLLC with FERC’s ruling on MISO’s cost allocation filing (Docket Nos. ER20-1723 and ER20-1724).

6 8/17/2020 ER20-____-000MISO to submit revisions to remove the exemption from Physical Withholding penalty charges for Resources that are not Planning Resources under Module E-1 of the Tariff.

Dates are estimated unless in response to a specific FERC deadline

45-Day Outlook of Upcoming Filings

16

#AnticipatedFiling Date

DocketNumber(s)

Description of Filing

7 8/31/2020 ER20-____-000MISO to submit Tariff revisions to provide a solution to the potential issue with insufficient compensation during Manual Redispatch.

Dates are estimated unless in response to a specific FERC deadline


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







17

June 2020 Hot Topic: COVID-19 SurveyOVERVIEW

• MISO worked with the

Advisory Committee

to survey stakeholders

on the impacts of the

COVID-19 pandemic

and stakeholder

forward-planning

• Responses were

received from 63

stakeholders,

representing all ten

Sectors

18

1 1 24

1

53

8

13

25

Responses

June 2020 Hot Topic: COVID-19 SurveyWORK IMPACT

• 95% of companies

said that remote or

alternate working

arrangements have

not negatively

impacted their

capabilities or

performance

19

95%

5%

Not Impacted Impacted

June 2020 Hot Topic: COVID-19 SurveyRETURN TO NORMAL

• While most

companies (67%)

have not yet

announced return-

to-office plans,

others anticipate a

phased approach

and enhanced

employee support

measures

20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Change Less than 25%Initial Return

50% InitialReturn

75% InitialReturn

100% InitialReturn

Employee Initial Return Plan

June 2020 Hot Topic: COVID-19 SurveyMEETING EFFECTIVENESS

• 83% of survey respondents said that MISO has successfully

managed the transition to virtual

meetings, and identified

opportunities for further

improvement

• The Advisory Committee also

noted the benefits of reduced

travel time/cost but said they

missed the loss of personal

interactions and networking opportunities

21


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







22

First step of the 2021 STI plan development process

23

Date Review Items

July Informational ForumInitial request for feedback on the STI plan structure; written feedback received in August

September Advisory Committee Meeting

MISO presents draft of 2021 STI plan; discuss structure & approach with the Committee; written feedback received in October

September Human Resources Committee Meeting

MISO Management proposal of Short-Term Incentive structure, metrics, and weighting

October-November Stakeholder comment period

December Human Resources Committee Meeting

Final draft of Short-Term Incentive Plan

STI Philosophy - Designed with the objectives of

fostering shared goals, teamwork, and

cooperation

24

• Annual incentive opportunities will be based on the major areas of

organization focus (e.g., operations, customer service, strategic

initiatives, etc.).

• Given MISO’s paramount goal of reliability, operational excellence

will be the core foundation of the annual incentive plan. However,

the accomplishment of strategic initiatives in support of reliability will

also be strongly emphasized in the plan.

• Behaviors and core values are expected as a base line level of

performance; consequently, annual incentive awards will be based

on progress toward and achievement of results.

Short term incentive goals are focused on reliability,

operations, and strategic initiatives

25

Annual incentive goals are constructed by MISO management with the aid

of subject matter experts within the company

– Goals and targets are established using historic data and typically represent

incremental improvements over current levels of performance and the

establishment of milestone objectives for key strategic initiatives

The goals are vetted through a stakeholder comment process

– MISO has received substantial input from stakeholders over the years

– Incentive goals are often amended or clarified based on this feedback

All incentive plan goals are reviewed and approved by the Board, with

authority delegated to the Human Resources Committee

– The Board reviews the goals for a balance between stretch achievements and

attainable results

2021 Short Term Incentive Discussion

26

2020 Annual Incentive Goals & Metrics

Summary: The table below provides an overall summary of incentive plan metrics and weights. Detailed information including performance criteria for individual metrics is included on the attached pages.

Goal Category Weight Threshold Target Excellent

Operations Metrics:

1. Reliability, Compliance & Security 25% 12.5% 25% 37.5%

2. Unit Commitment Efficiency 10% 5% 10% 15%

3. Market Efficiency 10% 5% 10% 15%

4. System Availability 5% 2.5% 5% 7.5%

5. Financial Control 10% 5% 10% 15%

6. Customer Service 10% 5% 10% 15%

Strategic Elements:

7.1 Market System Enhancements 10% 10% 10% 10%

7.2 Reliability System Enhancements 10% 10% 10% 10%

7.3 MISO Forward Initiatives 10% 10% 10% 10%

Total Plan Score 100% 65% 100% 135%


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







27

Upcoming Key Meetings and WorkshopsAdditional details and a list of all upcoming events is available atwww.misoenergy.org/stakeholder-engagement/calendar

• July 24: Renewable Integration Impact Assessment (RIIA) Workshop

• August 19: Steering Committee

• August 19: Advisory Committee

• September 10: Enhanced Combine Cycle (ECC) Tariff Workshop

• October 20: Informational Forum

• October 21: Stakeholder Governance Guide Workshop

Upcoming 2020 Board of Directors Meetings

• September 15-17

• December 8-10

http://www.misoenergy.org/stakeholder-engagement/calendar/#/month/04-17-2019


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







29


Part I (Recorded)



• Legal Update







30

Appendix Market and Operations Report

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Day-Ahead Mid-Term Load Forecast*

-1%

4%

9%

14%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

6/1

6/2

6/3

6/4

6/5

6/6

6/7

6/8

6/9

6/1

0

6/1

1

6/1

2

6/1

3

6/1

4

6/1

5

6/1

6

6/1

7

6/1

8

6/1

9

6/2

0

6/2

1

6/2

2

6/2

3

6/2

4

6/2

5

6/2

6

6/2

7

6/2

8

6/2

9

6/3

0

Err

or

Pe

rce

nt

GW

Daily MTLF: Actual vs. Mid-Term Forecasted Daily Peak Load

MTLF Peak Integrated Load Forecast Error Threshholds

Peak Day Peak HE

06/30/20 17

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20

Err

or

Pe

rce

nt

GW

Monthly MTLF: Average of Actual vs. Mid-Term Forecasted Daily Peak Load Monthly

MTLF Peak Integrated Load Forecast Error %

Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20

% Std of Error (CV) 61.20 67.40 96.57 84.16 70.94 77.35 66.65 68.59 83.07 84.60 108.39 82.01 67.57

Mean of Error (MW) 1909 1690 1312 1234 721 910 929 925 840 1101 921 1216 1894

Std of Error (MW) 1168 1139 1267 1038 512 704 619 635 698 932 999 997 1280

51

* Monthly data based on the average of the daily integrated peak hours in the month* Daily data based on the integrated peak hour of the day* Peak Day and Hour End based on Hourly Integrated Peak Load Hour

Source: MISO Forecast Engineering Department

F

Short-Term Load Forecast*

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

6/1

6/2

6/3

6/4

6/5

6/6

6/7

6/8

6/9

6/1

0

6/1

1

6/1

2

6/1

3

6/1

4

6/1

5

6/1

6

6/1

7

6/1

8

6/1

9

6/2

0

6/2

1

6/2

2

6/2

3

6/2

4

6/2

5

6/2

6

6/2

7

6/2

8

6/2

9

6/3

0

GW

Actual vs. Short-Term Forecasted Daily Peak Load

STLF Peak Load Forecast Error % Error Threshold

Mean Absolute Percent Error = 0.23%

Peak Day Peak HE

06/30/20 17

52 Source: MISO Forecast Engineering Department

Daily data based on the average of five-minute interval data at the peak hour of the day

Error Threshold calculated as 95% quantile of Forecast Error from Jan-Dec of the previous year

Peak Day and Hour End based on Hourly Integrated Peak Load Hour

G

53

54

55

56

57

58 Data Updated 9/23/2020

59 Data Updated 9/23/2020

60

61

62

63

64

5.7

7.1

10.4

4.9

4.2 3.7

6.4

8.0 7.8 8.3

7.6

9.8 9.4

12.5

11.5 11.5

0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

(1.0)

1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

13.0

15.0

20

18

20

19

20

20 Y

TD

Jun-1

9

Jul-1

9

Aug-1

9

Sep-1

9

Oct-

19

No

v-1

9

De

c-1

9

Jan-2

0

Feb

-20

Ma

r-2

0

Apr-

20

Ma

y-2

0

Jun-2

0

Mean

Ab

so

lute

Perc

en

t E

rro

r (%

)

Win

d A

ctu

al

an

d E

rro

r(G

W)

Day Ahead Wind Forecast Performance

Actual Wind MAE MAPE

65

Day-Ahead Wind Forecast Performance: Mean Absolute Error (MAE)

66

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

6/1

/20

20

6/2

/20

20

6/3

/20

20

6/4

/20

20

6/5

/20

20

6/6

/20

20

6/7

/20

20

6/8

/20

20

6/9

/20

20

6/1

0/2

02

0

6/1

1/2

02

0

6/1

2/2

02

0

6/1

3/2

02

0

6/1

4/2

02

0

6/1

5/2

02

0

6/1

6/2

02

0

6/1

7/2

02

0

6/1

8/2

02

0

6/1

9/2

02

0

6/2

0/2

02

0

6/2

1/2

02

0

6/2

2/2

02

0

6/2

3/2

02

0

6/2

4/2

02

0

6/2

5/2

02

0

6/2

6/2

02

0

6/2

7/2

02

0

6/2

8/2

02

0

6/2

9/2

02

0

6/3

0/2

02

0

Mean

Ab

so

lute

Perc

en

tag

e E

rro

r (%

)

Mean

Ab

so

lute

Err

or

(MW

)

Operating Day

DA MAE DA MAPE

Day-Ahead Wind Forecast Performance: Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74 Source: NERC Tool (as of June 25, 2020)

75

76

77

78

79

Source: MISO Transmission Planning Department

Generator Interconnection: OverviewThe current generator interconnection queue consists of 410 active projects totaling 62.4 GW

Notes:• The total active queue size is 410 projects and 62.4 GW

o 40 projects GIAs completed in 2020

o 83 projects have withdrawn in 2020

• DPP-2019-Cycle 1

o 267 projects totaling 39.2 GW in DPP-2019-Cycle 1

o 171 solar projects totaling 25,662 MW

o 18 hybrid projects totaling 2,699 MW

o 38 storage projects totaling 2,291 MW

• DPP-2020-Cycle 1: application submission closed on 6/25/2020 Results will be posted when validation process in completed.

• Detailed queue cycle information can be found on the next page or MISO’s website

Updated: 7/1/2020

80

https://www.misoenergy.org/planning/generator-interconnection/

Generation Interconnection Queue: DashboardMISO is managing 12 ongoing queue cycles with 2 more set to start in the next 12 months

Source: MISO Transmission Planning Department

R

For the latest full schedule details and delay tracking information of DPP cycles, please visit MISO’s website: Generator Interconnection

RegionPrevious /

Current Indicator

CycleRequests / Size (MW)

Est. Comp. Date Comment

Central AreaMO, IL & IN

/

2017-Aug 25 / 4,130 5/15/20202017-Aug GIA’s Complete

2018-Apr in Phase 22019-Cycle 1 in Phase 1

2018-Apr 38 / 7,694 6/18/2021

2019-Cycle 1 102 / 15,938 1/28/2022

2020-Cycle 1 TBD 9/12/2022

East (ATC) AreaWI & MI UP

/

2017-Aug 11 / 1,967 8/26/20202017-Aug GIA’s in Progress


2018-Apr 11 / 945 5/13/2021

2019-Cycle 1 17 / 1,741 11/22/2021

2020-Cycle 1 TBD 5/20/2022

East (ITC) AreaMI

/

2017-Aug 11 / 2,795 9/26/2020

2017-Aug GIA’s in Progress2018-Apr in Phase 3

2018-Apr 14 / 1,859 5/13/2021

2019-Cycle 1 34/ 4,191 11/29/2021

2020-Cycle 1 TBD 7/5/2022

South AreaTX, AR, LA & MS

/

2017-Aug 15 / 1,842 3/30/20202017-Aug GIA’s Complete


2018-Apr 12 / 1,681 11/27/2020

2019-Cycle 1 64 / 9,090 11/29/2021

2020-Cycle 1 TBD 3/11/2022

West AreaIA, WI, MN, ND, SD & MT

/

2016-Aug 12 / 2,002 3/1/20202016-Aug GIA’s Complete2017-Feb GIA’s Complete

2017-Aug in Phase 22018-Apr in Phase 2

2019-Cycle1 in Phase 1

2017-Feb 2 / 250 3/16/2020

2017-Aug 27 / 4,127 8/13/2021

2018-Apr 35 / 4,697 9/16/2021

2019-Cycle 1 50 / 8,126 1/21/2022

2020-Cycle 1 TBD 5/27/2022

Updated: 7/1/2020

Expected Phase Delay > 15%Phase delay < 15% Cycle Not Yet Started Updated values (italics)Cycle in GIA Phase/Complete(Bold)

81

https://www.misohttps/www.misoenergy.org/planning/generator-interconnection/GI_Queue/

82

83

84

85

86

Dashboard Metric Criteria (1 of 2)

*FTR YTD metric is applied beginning April

** Forecast errors observed in March, April, October and November will be measured by 1% lower thresholds


Metric ChartCriteria


● Expected ◼ Monitor ▼Review ● Expected ◼ Monitor ▼Review

Percentage Price Deviation

A

Absolute DA-RT price difference divided by DA LMP <=23.6%

Absolute DA-RT price difference

divided by DA LMP is >23.6% but

<=27.9%

Absolute DA-RT price difference divided by DA LMP >27.9%

Real-TimeObligation fulfilled by Day-Ahead Supply at the Peak Hour

I >=95%>=93% but

<95%<93%

Monthly Average Gross VirtualProfitability

B

Within the standard deviation bands (threshold $0.82/MWh)

Outside the standard deviation bandsDay Ahead Wind Generation Forecast Error*

K

# of days that the hourly average forecast error exceeds 10% <= 6

# of days that the forecast error exceeds 10% >6 or Forecast error exceeds 15% in = 3 days

# of days that the forecast error exceeds 10% >8 or Forecast error exceeds 15% in > 3 days or Forecast error resulted in declaring 1 Real Time Event

FTR Funding C

Monthly FTR Allocation % is >=92% and YTD FTR Allocation % is >=96%

Not in good statusAND Monthly FTR

Allocation % is >=87% AND Rolling

12-month FTR Allocation % is

>=93%

Not in Good AND not in Monitor

statusTie Line Error L <=1 >1 but <=3 >3

Market Efficiency Metric

D

Monthly Metric is >= 92% and Rolling 12-Month Metric is >= 94%

Not in Good Status AND Monthly

Metric is >= 87% and Rolling 12-

Month Metric is >= 92%

Not in Good AND Not in Monitor

Status

Control Performance –BAAL

MMonthly

performance score >=2

Monthly performance

score<2 but >=1

Monthly performance

score <1

RSG per MWh to Energy Price

E<=0.70%

>0.70% and <=0.87%

>0.87%

ControlPerformance –CPS1 and CPS1 12-month rolling

N >=100% <100%


87

Dashboard Metric Criteria (2 of 2)

*FTR YTD metric is applied beginning April

** Forecast errors observed in March, April, October and November will be measured by 1% lower thresholds




● Expected ◼ Monitor ▼Review ● Expected ◼ Monitor ▼Review

Day Ahead Mid-Term Load Forecast**

F

# of days that forecast error exceeds 3% <=6 AND # days that forecast error exceeds 4% <=4

# of days that forecast error

exceeds 3% > 6 OR # days that forecast

error exceeds 4%> 4 OR forecast error

exceeds 6% on >= 1 day

# of days that forecast error

exceeds 3% > 10 OR # days that forecast error exceeds 4%> 8 OR forecast error exceeds 7% on >= 1

day OR Forecast error resulted in declaring 1 Real

Time Event

ARS Deployment

P

DCS monthlyaverage % recovery (APR) = 100%

Analysis of event not yet complete

DCS monthlyaverage % recovery (APR) confirmed <100%

Short-Term Load Forecast**

G

Forecast error exceeding the 95% percentile of forecast error for the past year <= 2 days

3 days <= Forecast error exceeding the

95% percentile of forecast error for the past year <= 5

days

Forecast error exceeding the 95%

percentile of forecast error for

the pas year > 5 days

Unit Commitment Efficiency*

H

Monthly Metric >= 90% AND Rolling 12-Month Metric >= 92%

Not in Good Status AND 90% >

Monthly Metric >= 85% and 92% >

Rolling 12-Month Metric >= 90%

Not in Good AND Not in Monitor

Status

Customer Service

System ImpactStudy Performance

QStudies completed in less than 60 days

>=85%

Studies completed in less than 60 days

<85% but >=75%

Studies completed in less than 60 days

<75%

On-Time Real-Time Posting

U >=95%<95% but

>=92%<92%

SettlementDisputes

SIncrease of up to 20

disputesIncrease of between 20 and 50 disputes

Increase of more than 50 disputes

On-Time Day-Ahead Posting

V>=95% <95% but

>=92%<92%


Documents

Informational Forum