|
|
Enron Mail |
"Roy J. Shanker" <royjshanker@worldnet.att.net< writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: I agree with Mark. Further, in setting the baseline, the LOLP study obviously assumed an annual structure for maintenance scheduling and a lack of diversity in terms of outage rates for summer versus winter. These assumptions no longer are valid if the time step for planning becomes a capability period. Each reliability period would have to stand on its own, and you would have to entirely redo the assumptions about scheduled outages and come up with seasonal availabilities. My guess is that given the incentive to be around in the summer for the higher energy payments, these values should be highly skewed. Finally, lets also just cut to the chase. Even if this study were correct in its current form, what obviously is going on is an attempt to "evade" 50% of the deficiency charge. Applying this type of argument on seasonal installed requirement to deficiency payments just doesn't fly. If you believe that the current values for the deficiency payments are "correct" to begin with, it would make sense to me to at minimum allocate the deficiency charges by the LOLP incurrence, e.g. if 90% of the annual LOLP is in the summer period, then 90% of the deficiency should probably follow this allocation. Remember, the incentive is to force people to build, the cost of being short ever really should stay the same, or you diminish the incentive and thus undercut the entire reliability structure. 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 Mark Younger Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:18 PM To: William Palazzo Cc: Tech Team EMail List, Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements "Mark Younger" <mdy@slater-consulting.com< writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: How do you get from an initial estimate of "75% and 92% of the summer peak load ... for NYC and LI, respectively" to "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." The summer and winter ICAP requirements are based upon the summer peak load. Basing the winter ICAP requirement on the winter peak load would be a substantial change in the ICAP market. If we are going to consider a change in this direction then we also have to apply most of the annual deficiency rate to the summer period. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists1.thebiz.net [mailto:owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists1.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 << File: NYPA_LR_wint.PDF << << File: TRAN_SYS_001129.PDF << 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<<
|