|
|
Enron Mail |
Good morning, everyone!
I am sorry it has taken me so long to contact you. This e-mail is intended to get things rolling for the RTO West Legal Subgroup working on the Generation Integration and Load Integration Agreements, as well as Security Coordination and Scheduling Coordinator Agreements if necessary. First, for your reference I have attached the following documents: (1) a list of participants in our subgroup; (2) the original IndeGO Generation Integration Agreement ("GIA"); and (3) the original IndeGO Load Integration Agreement ("LIA"). If you know of anyone who would like to be included in this subgroup that does not appear on the attached participants list, please let me know. I will also post each of the attached documents on the RTO West website, at the link on the Legal Work Group page set up for our subgroup. Second, I would like to share some initial feedback I have received with respect to our assigned tasks: (A) Concerning the Generation GIA, I have the following initial feedback: - Carl Imparato has expressed strong concern about existing provisions in the GIA designed to address instances when hydro generation facility operators are forced to move water through turbines, rather than spill it, to avoid dissolved gas super-saturation problems; - James Mosher has expressed concern that the GIA as currently drafted does not adequately address issues unique to Qualifying Facilities, and would like us to work on that; and - Steve Larson of BPA has contacted me to let me know that BPA has developed some initial comments on the GIA (and LIA), but I have not yet had a chance to have a conversation with BPA representatives about what those comments are. I hope to do that sometime tomorrow (Thursday, June 22) if possible. (B) I have talked with John Boucher, who leads the Implementation Work Group, and he says that the initial consensus within the Implementation Work Group is that we should begin with the approach that security coordination for RTO West will be accomplished through the existing organization set up in the Northwest to perform security coordination (Pacific Northwest Security Coordinator or "PNSC," which is a Washington non-profit corporation); and (C) John Boucher says that the initial thinking in the Implementation Work Group about scheduling coordinators as that we should assume that we will have scheduling coordinators for RTO West and therefore will need to develop a scheduling coordinator agreement. With that in mind, I have also attached to this e-mail an e-mail message from Barney Speckman on this topic. Barney's e-mail describes input he has received from Carl Imparato concerning areas in the West that have already developed scheduling coordinator agreements, and includes an e-mail from Carl with sample documents. I will also post these on the RTO West website as soon as possible, along with the basic form of Security Coordination Agreement developed for PNSC. I think it might be useful to plan to meet or have a telephone conference call during the week of July 10 (early in the week, if possible) to discuss our various tasks and strategies for accomplishing them. If most of you are going to be at the Legal Work Group meeting on June 27, that might be a good opportunity to try to identify a time and date that works for most subgroup members and to decide whether to meet in person or by telephone conference. I also hope to make initial "cosmetic" changes to the GIA and LIA very soon, and will put the initial revised versions of those documents on the website as soon as they are ready. In the meantime, if anyone else has some input they would like to offer with respect to the issues and documents assigned to our subgroup, you are welcome to contact me by e-mail or telephone. Thank you very much. Sarah Dennison-Leonard Krogh & Leonard 506 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 750 Portland, OR 97204-1533 Office: (503) 219-9649 Fax: (503) 224-1895 E-mail: sdleonard@earthlink.net - Legal WG - GIA&LIA Subgroup List June 21 2000.doc.rtf - IndeGO Generation Integration Agreement.doc - IndeGO Load Integration Agreement.doc Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by kestrel.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA12999 for <sdleonard@earthlink.net<; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:53:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Bmspeckman@aol.com Received: from Bmspeckman@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id o.4e.6c3cb91 (8392); Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4e.6c3cb91.2676371a@aol.com< Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:52:42 EDT Subject: Fwd: NWRTO-Scheduling Coordinator Concept To: JBoucher@kemaconsulting.com, dhackett@kemaconsulting.com, kristiwallis@sprintmail.com, sdleonard@earthlink.net, ekrogh@sev.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_4e.6c3cb91.2676371a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 X-UIDL: 9275d7f5920d1155c83013f628204bbf Attached is a couple of documents that Carl Imparato has sent me on the concept of the Scheduling Coordinator(SC) in other ISOs/RTOs.The SC is the business entity in some areas which buys transmission service, schedules transactions, pays for congestion and imbalances and other RTO/ISO charges(A/S, losses and unaccounted for energy etc.). It seems important to discuss this and develop a working model for the various workgroups to all be using. I will plan to discuss it at my A/S mtg on Tues. What do you think is the best way to proceed? I do agree with Carl that it is probably an RRG issue ultimately. In the near term it could be something the work groups agree to use as a working assumption then get it to RRG later or we could take it to the RRG this week. Barney Speckman RTO West KEMA Team Portland Office Phone 503-258-0475 RTO West Offices 5933 NE Win Sivers Drive Portland, Oregon BMS Consulting 2130 Belford Drive Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 925-287-0365 (Walnut Creek Phone and Fax) Return-Path: <cfi1@tca-us.com< Received: from rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (rly-zb01.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.1]) by air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v74.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:58:49 -0400 Received: from polaris.shore.net (polaris.shore.net [207.244.124.105]) by rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (v74.16) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:58:14 -0400 Received: from pppa5-resaleoakland1-2r1016.saturn.bbn.com (default) [4.16.32.64] by polaris.shore.net with smtp (Exim) id 131NDk-00076f-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:57:12 -0400 Message-ID: <39447BE9.53A8@tca-us.com< Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:58:01 -0700 From: Carl Imparato <cfi1@tca-us.com< Reply-To: cfi1@tca-us.com Organization: Tabors, Caramanis & Associates X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bmspeckman@aol.com, jpm@aelaw.com, mpa@aelaw.com, kewh@dynegy.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, dperrino@apx.com, rlewis@apx.com, ed@apx.com CC: dave.robertson@gt.pge.com, scott.miller@gen.pge.com, sean.crandall@enron.com Subject: NWRTO-Scheduling Coordinator Concept Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------700255F0224D" Barney: When IndeGO was drafted several years ago, little thought was given to explicitly creating the concept of "Scheduling Coordinator." As you are aware from the California experience, the concept is very important because it defines the roles and duties of the entity that is responsible for handling the needs of unbundled retail customers, as well as wholesale customers, on a non-discriminatory basis. Attached are two documents. The first document provides an overview of the SC concept as well as an overview of what transmission access is really all about in a one-part tariff. The document is adapted from the Mountain West ISA tariff and the Desert STAR draft tariff. The second document is a recent version (not the most current, but in my opinion, the most rational) of the Desert STAR Scheduling Coordinator document. The DSTAR document built on the Mountain West ISA document, which in turn built on the California foundation. (I also note that the ERCOT model also includes a Scheduling Coordinator concept, although in ERCOT the entities are called QSEs - Qualified Scheduling Entities.) I believe that the SC concept is a very important concept for NWRTO to discuss and adopt. It is one of the cornerstones (along with the FTR model) of the decentralized coordination model which I believe NWRTO plans to consider. I do not know which of the NWRTO workgroups would be the lead on the concept (although it is very well fleshed out and probably needs little, if any, additional work). Certainly, it is important for the Congestion Management, Ancillary Services and Implementation workgroups to understand the concept; and it is equally important for the Legal group and the RRG to adopt the concept since the contractual relationships between the RTO and grid users are through the Scheduling Coordinator. I would appreciate your discussing this issue with project management and forwarding the attached documents to the proper workgroups. I will also be available to discuss this at the RRG this Thursday. Thank you, Carl Imparato - NWRTOSch.zip
|