|
|
Enron Mail |
"Stephen Fernands" <srfernands@cesolution.com< writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Studies...We just want out April 2000 True Up Bills. Please. Stephen Fernands Consultant AES NewEnergy ----- Original Message ----- From: <Tom.May@enron.com< To: <nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net< Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:21 PM Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements < < Tom.May@enron.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: < < < I would like to pay the NYISO to conduct a study for me on the price impact < of the transmission outages planned each day. Since I would be paying for < this, I wouldof course be entitled to get the results one day in advance of < all other market participants. The ISO would of course be free to release < the results to the rest of the marketplace just following the release of < the day ahead results each day. This would ultimately be in the best < interests of the marketplace since I would immediately arbitrage the daily < market to the correct prices and thereby increase efficiency. Upon review, < all would be amazed at just how efficient the marketplace has become based < upon how accurate it was at predicting settlement prices. < < Tom May < Enron < < < < < "Gantner, Craig" <craig.gantner@nrgenergy.com<@lists.thebiz.net on < 04/25/2001 06:33:59 AM < < Please respond to market_relations@nyiso.com < < Sent by: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net < < < To: "'market_relations@nyiso.com'" <market_relations@nyiso.com<, < nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net < cc: < < Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements < < < "Gantner, Craig" <craig.gantner@nrgenergy.com< writes to the < NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: < < If I read Mr. Palazzo's message correctly, the ISO is acting as a paid < consultant doing contract work for NYPA? < < Now I am starting to share some of Roy's discomfort. < < Not only does this call into question the objectivity of such contracted < studies, it also offers some insight into the inability for non-paying < participants to get their technical issues addressed by the ISO. < Craig Gantner < NRG Power Marketing < < -----Original Message----- < From: Palazzo, William [mailto:William.Palazzo@nypa.gov] < Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:17 AM < To: 'market_relations@nyiso.com'; nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net < Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements < < < < "Palazzo, William" <William.Palazzo@nypa.gov< writes to the < NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: < < In response to Roy's comments. NYPA is paying for all the work conducted < by < the ISO staff. NYPA defined the study objective and all the ISO staff did < was conduct the MARS studies and document the results in the write-up we < provided to the tech exchange. < < -----Original Message----- < From: Roy J. Shanker [mailto:royjshanker@worldnet.att.net] < Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:35 PM < To: market_relations@nyiso.com; nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net < Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements < < < < "Roy J. Shanker" <royjshanker@worldnet.att.net< writes to the < NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: < < As a separate item to the concerns I had about the technical content, I was < a little confused on what was done here administratively. The last < paragraph < says something about NYPA sharing the study. I didn't think they had < anything at all to say about it in the first place if it is an ISO work < product. If they do, could you explain why this is the case? If the ISO did < this, why wasn't this all posted on the OASIS at the same time NYPA got < this? The date on this shows a March 26 release. Ignore these comments if < this was done, but I wasn't aware of this. < < I am more than a little uncomfortable with a single market participant < having a month's lead time on ISO studies that can have significant < commercial impact. Think about the implications of this in the context of < people negotiating long term bi lateral ICAP agreements over the last < month. < Depending on your take on the type of market changes that this type of < analysis might support, there could be enormous changes to the economics of < seasonal versus annual agreements, choice of equipment etc. This simply < isn't fair. Even if posted, this type of work by the ISO that can have < large < potential commercial impacts should go out on all of the distributions at < the same time as release to anyone and OASIS posting. < < Roy J. Shanker < 9009 Burning Tree Road < Bethesda, MD 20817 < 301-365-3654 < 301-365-3657 FAX < royjshanker@worldnet.att.net < < -----Original Message----- < From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net < [mailto:owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net]On Behalf Of Palazzo, < William < Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:42 PM < To: 'nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net' < Subject: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements < < At NYPA's request ISO staff conducted a limited analysis of < the winter locational ICAP requirements for Long Island and New York City < areas. While such ICAP requirements have historically been set as a single < number for the entire year, it is NYPA's belief that this holdover from the < old way of doing business must be re-examined. It is NYPA's belief that < most if not all of the contribution to loss of load risk occurs in the < summer months. As such, some reduction in winter ICAP requirements should < be possible with no impact on the Loss of Load criterion of one day in ten < years. < < NYPA requested that the ISO start with the database that < resulted in the locational requirements of 80% and 98% for New York City < and < Long Island, respectively. At NYPA's request the ISO modeled winter < ratings on the transmission interfaces into NYC and LI and determined how < much the 80% and 98% could be reduced in the winter before any impact on < the < statewide Loss Of Load occurred. The report indicates that winter < requirements of 75% and 92% of the summer peak load resulted for NYC and < LI, < respectively. < < While this in no way reflects an exhaustive analysis of winter < locational requirements, the results from this study suggest that some < reduction in the winter requirement may be warranted and a < consideration of seasonal requirements should be incorporated in future < ICAP < requirement studies. NYPA believes that having an ICAP requirement < for summer and winter seasons based on the LSE's peak load for the < respective season would send the proper ICAP price signal. < < < NYPA is sharing the study results in the attached report in < an effort to begin a dialog which we hope will lead to a broader < examination < of locational requirements when the issue is revisited again next year. We < would appreciate hearing the views of other market participants. < < <<NYPA_LR_wint.PDF<< <<TRAN_SYS_001129.PDF<< < < < < <
|