|
|
Enron Mail |
I may be too late, because I took a couple of days of vacation, but I will
still respond. I think with adjustments and broadening, there should be a proposal that Enron and Reliant could both support. 1. Under Reliant's plan, the customer is selling a call option for interruption, rather than a block of energy. This means the customer is not planning ahead to shift production, but waiting for the call to be exercised. This doesn't do much for forward planning and it makes it difficult for an industry to plan ahead. Some customers who cannot live with an interruption on call, can nevertheless move production on a planned basis to another day, another factory, or even give up production for a period. The best outcome is for the customer to be able to bid for either sale of a preplanned block of energy or sale an interruptible call option. This is the broadening of the proposal I suggest. 2. WSCC is the WRONG the absolutely WRONG place for the market to be organized. They have no experience or infrastructure for handling market activity. WSCC runs in terror whenever an economic issue is raised. The utilities have way to much voting power. The list goes on. Under WSCC the proposal will be talked to death. You need someone with infrastructure to run a market. Why limit this to one market or marketer. The key is getting the state tariff riders in place, then the utilities can place the orders with whatever vendor offers the best price. If a neutral site for posting is needed, use APX or maybe even the WSPP bulletin board. This centralization in a single market is not helpful. Steve Richard Shapiro@ENRON 04/12/2001 01:30 PM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Reliant Negawatt proposal Comments? ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 04/12/2001 01:29 PM --------------------------- From: Tom Briggs on 04/12/2001 11:46 AM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Reliant Negawatt proposal I have attached a proposal prepared by Reliant. Reliant hopes that it is something that Enron can support (with any modifications). Steve Walton has concerns about the role of the WSCC. ELCON supports the concept with some other modifications. I recognise that there are issues. Nonetheless, to respond to Barton's short term emergency measures, it would be usefule to know whther a negawatt program across the WSCC can be im[plemented by June.
|