|
|
Enron Mail |
"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<<
|