|
|
Enron Mail |
The west desk also supports these comments.
To: Bob Carter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: APS Answer/Interconnection Filing FYI re: a Duke/Enron answer to APS' reply to our protest. I will forward Arizona PS's reply to Steve, and Mary. Alan and Bob, let me know if you would like to see it. ---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 01/09/2001 10:39 AM --------------------------- Christi L Nicolay 01/09/2001 10:40 AM To: teresabrown@duke-energy.com @ ENRON cc: lebarrett@duke-energy.com@ENRON, schottg@dsmo.com@ENRON Subject: Re: APS Answer/Interconnection Filing See comments below. Sorry this is so delayed. Thanks. teresabrown@duke-energy.com on 01/02/2001 01:22:39 PM To: cnicola@ect.enron.com cc: lebarrett@duke-energy.com, schottg@dsmo.com Subject: APS Answer/Interconnection Filing Christi, Attached are comments Gretchen generated regarding APS' answer to our joint protest of APS' interconnection procedures. We are considering filing a reply, and I wanted to get your input. Generally, DENA does not like to file answers to answers as it is in FERC's discretion whether to accept such responses, but we may want to consider clarifying our position regarding the monthly direct assignment charges under Article 12 of the IA. Please let me know your take. Best Regards, Teresa Brown (713) 627-6592 We've taken a look at the answer Arizona Public Service Company filed on 12/22/00 in response to our protest. There are a number of issues to which DENA should consider responding. Responses must be filed by Monday, January 8, 2001. * Study assumptions (APS Answer, at 8-9): APS argues that there is no benefit from disclosing assumptions and that this would give a generator an unfair market advantage over other market participants. While APS does not indicate to whom there is no benefit, presumably it means APS. We should consider challenging this since there is a benefit to disclosure of the study assumptions -- how else is a generator to determine whether it is being asked to goldplate APS' system? APS' answer to this is to say that the IA's Willful Action provisions prevent APS from conducting activities or making decisions based on motive to serve financial benefit. We are at a loss, however, as to how the provisions accomplish that since what they really do is shield APS from liability.I agree -- and agree that APS' response doesn't make sense. I believe that the Commission has required Entergy to provide more study data to a generator in one of last year's complaints against Entergy (either Dynegy or NRG?). **What about a response on the "must -run" issue (p. 27-28). I think APS is trying to back door the Arizona proposed requirements (that are still being fought and are not accepted?) This is a big issue and APS' response does not address our arguments other than stating that Must Run should be required in the IA. I do not know of any other interconnection agreements that have must-run provisions. * Transmission credits (APS Answer, at 30-31): APS claims that transmission credits are appropriate only for firm service, a proposition the Commission just rejected in the ComEd order issued on 12/8/00.Absolutely agree that it should be for firm and non-firm. * Monthly Direct Assignment Charges (APS Answer, at 32-33): We should consider clarifying our position on this issue, which APS appears to misunderstand. APS argues that, in our protest, we addressed the cost of modifications, not the cost of operation and maintenance, and thus were comparing apples to oranges. This is not true. Rather, what we argued is that we should not be responsible for the cost of operating and maintaining any facilities for which we were not responsible for the initial installation cost. APS apparently missed the point.I agree. * Willful Action (APS Answer, at 33-37): APS essentially argues that the strict liability provisions in the IA are appropriate because it cannot make a profit by entering into an IA. Unlike with respect to transmission service, it recovers only its actual costs. APS ignores the fact that, by interconnecting a generator, APS will ultimately generate transmission revenue. APS also ignores the benefits that new generation bring to the table. APS has not justified why the liability provisions are "consistent with, or superior to" the pro forma tariff and why a generator should be required to bear the consequences of APS' negligence and, in many instances, intentional misconduct, particularly where APS is not provided any incentive to act prudently, simply because APS receives no profit.I agree. APS' proposed restrictions are wholly unwarranted and are outrageous. There are no other interconnection agreements (that I know of) containing anything remotely similar. Please let us know how you'd like to proceed. If you have any questions, let us know. Thanks. Gretchen
|