|
|
Enron Mail |
p. 8 "Electric Transmission" -- Would be interesting to find out what the 25
MW of firm transmission is that Entergy "committed to." Also, a customer does not have transmission until it is confirmed on OASIS. Either PTP (firm or non-firm) or the additional off system resources (have to list a source) under network would need to be purchased for wheeling in and out of Entergy to make parking/lending effective. p.9 "Delivery Point" --This point is actually the "POR" /Point of Receipt for tariff purposes if generating the power or the POD/Point of Delivery if wheeling into Clarksdale. p. 10 says that EPMI would manage the existing firm transmission rights. As of now, I don't think Clarksdale has the transmission rights (since Marvin is submitting the request today). Therefore, for contract purposes, want to have language that gives them the risk of not getting transmission approved by Entergy. Firm can be difficult to obtain. Can also include a provision that non-firm could be used, if available, but EPMI probably does not want to take any transmission risk. Non-firm is close to non-existent in the summer. p. 12 Be careful about using the term "balanced schedules" for supply, load and transmission capacity from all entities it serves. We are fighting any RTO requirements for day ahead balanced schedules. NERC in May is considering changes certain rules that would allow marketers, etc. the advantages of parking and lending through the submission of schedules (although it probably won't pass.) In any event, I think that "appropriate schedules, as required by the SPP (or successor organization) rules, practices, etc...." is safer language. Thanks. Reagan Rorschach@ENRON 02/28/2001 12:15 PM To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Clarksdale/Yazoo City Christi- See attached. Call me with any questions. Thanks very much, Reagan 5.3363
|