|
|
Enron Mail |
The individual RTOs have the upper hand as far as dictating what the
scheduling practices will be. This is driven by the fact that the RTO efforts have focused on the scheduling needs internal to their borders. The problem the Electronic Scheduling Collaborative (ESC) faces is trying to define standard business practices for OASIS II now - after most RTOs have taken great steps to defining their own internal scheduling practices. In the West, there is a coordination effort to address the seams between the 3 RTOs (there are some in theEast as well). FERC required in Order 2000, under Function 8, for RTOs to address seams issues. At the ESC workshop last week, several RTOs admitted that Function 8 is lowest on their list of priorities. Several, includig a rep from the West admitted that the real hard seams issues, those that cannot be patched, will likely need FERC involvement to "force" a compromise or settlement. The problem is that FERC is taking a light handed approach to the seams problems with acting Chairman Hebert opting to rely on the RTOs themselves to address the seams issues. Our argument, of course, is that these are the entities that have the least incentive to patch the seams. So, by August, the ESC intends to file at FERC the disposition of 26 scheduling practices - whether there is a single standard for each practice, or exactly which ones cannot be agreed upon to be standard (e.g. - losses, ramp rates). My supsicion is that there will be very little commonality ( for example - I am leading a group defining Congestion Management practices that will likely find very little common practice due to the diversity of congestion management approaches in the East) and that the filing will merely point out that several scheduling practices need to remain inconsistent at the borders -for reliability reasons internal to each RTO. The threat to us is that in order to schedule between RTOs, it may require some "lowest common denominator" approach that burdens one market with the ineffeciencies of another. If there are any pressing scheduling inconsistencies you see coming that will impede markets in the West due to the formation of RTOs, please express those to me as I am a bit removed from the activities of the West. Enron is party to a petition for FERC to hold a technical conference on seams issues to highlight the importance to the marketplace to patch the seams. I do intend to continue representing Enron at the ESC and hopefully with some additional FERC initiatives, put in place as many common scheduling practices as possible. Cara Semperger 03/22/2001 02:55 PM To: Charles Yeung/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Electronic Scheduling Hi Charles, I was going over the NERC meeting minutes and noticed that you were in attendance at the meeting. I would appreciate it if you would tell me your opinion about the process, your views on the Escheduling practice as it is shaping up, and if you plan to stay involved in the ESC meetings. You are welcome to call or e-mail me at your convenience. Thank you, Cara Semperger West Power Scheduling Supervisor 503/464-3814
|