|
|
Enron Mail |
Robin/Ron: Must get rid of this sub-QSE language. Please give me a shout
asap to discuss. Having these sub-QSE's is bad for EPMI for the following reasons: (1) sub-QSE's are settled as stand-alone QSE's and thus - EPMI gets smaller deadband limits for each sub-QSE - Wind deviations could not be covered with % deadband of other schedules (wind would have to be setup as its own sub-QSE) (2) sub-QSE's significantly affect EPMI's ability to make profits by optimizing a portfolio of customers - EPMI is better off with one large QSE that it can share/balance among different schedules - Customers could request to be setup as a sub-QSE and it would be difficult for EPMI to optimize between customers and make profits. We lose the ability of having a black box where customers can not see how we optimize our portfolio. Thanks, - Mike ---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Curry/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000 09:29 AM --------------------------- "Moseley, Cheryl" <CMoseley@ercot.com< on 12/05/2000 08:32:41 PM To: 1 Retail Users Group Ad Hoc Subcommittee <isonp@ercot.com< cc: Subject: Proposed modification to PIP 108 Attached is the proposed modification to PIP 108, Subordinate QSEs. - 108PIP sub-QSE.doc
|