|
|
Enron Mail |
"Roy J. Shanker" <royjshanker@worldnet.att.net< writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Chuck, please see that this gets on the appropriate distributions lists, TIE and BIC. In thinking over the discussions at the BIC meeting I found two areas related to interactions with PJM where I am a bit confused due to what is either my misunderstanding, or conflicting information provided by NY and PJM. I would appreciate it if the NYISO would clarify these items. I will also make a similar request of PJM. 1) Common interface tool. My understand from the PJM EMC meeting was that PJM was going basically do this entirely (or almost entirely) on their own, and just allocate some costs between NY and PJM. The product as I understood it would be available to participants of both pools for transactions scheduling. The users would input to the tool, and NY and PJM would basically get screened/coordinated input simultaneously in order to accelerate scheduling and minimize checkout problems etc. If this was the case, I don't understand the comments at the BIC that NY wont be able to do this by the summer. Is this a PJM or NY constraint? Is PJM unable to complete what they offered? I can understand that that would hold things up as they proposed to do most of the work. However at the PJM EMC I got the impression that PJM was all set to go, could make the schedule, and just needed NY agreement. If this is a NY constraint I would also like to know more about it. Can you please clarify what is going on here? 2) Inter ISO Congestion Pilot. I was disappointed in the "lukewarm" presentation that Rick Gonzales made at the BIC. I realize that this program is very limited in scope, but it seems to me this is a very important precedent to the future coordination of the ISO's. As we left things it seems likely that this will die in committee before the summer. However, I would like a technical explanation of one of things that Rick said. He commented that one of his discomforts related to a request by PJM that NY pay for some generation in Northern New Jersey. At first blush this got a very negative response in the group. Then I started to think about this more. My understanding is the basic structure of the agreement is that ISO A only makes payments to ISO B if B is taking an action such as re-dispatch to ease a constraint in A. Thus if PJM was suggesting NY pay for North Jersey generation, presumably this was to be for PJM adding generation there to ease a NY constraint. Now I am not a great electrical engineer, but my limited understanding of the systems suggests to me that if PJM is adding generation in North Jersey to help NY, this has to do with modification to the PAR flows and support of SENY through the PSEG cable. Is this correct? IF CORRECT, DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE NYISO HAS REJECTED A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE SUPPLIES TO SENY FOR THIS SUMMER BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR REDISPATCH IN PJM? I hope that this is an incorrect conclusion, otherwise we have some big problems. I would appreciate a further explanation of this, as perhaps I don't understand what is physically happening. Thanks for the help Roy J. Shanker 9009 Burning Tree Road Bethesda, MD 20817 301-365-3654 301-365-3657 FAX royjshanker@worldnet.att.net
|