|
|
Enron Mail |
-----Original Message----- From: =09Fromer, Howard =20 Sent:=09Friday, June 08, 2001 1:45 PM To:=09Jeffery.Ader@enron.com; Brown, Michael - COO London; Davis, Mark Dana= ; Dutta, Tom; Suarez, John; Sewell, Doug; Ring, Richard; Decker, Charles; L= lodra, John; May, Tom; Hammond, Pearce; Nicolay, Christi; Novosel, Sarah; S= taines, Dan; Duran, W. David; Lydecker Jr., Richard; Montovano, Steve; Stef= fes, James; Sullivan, Kathleen; Brown, Jeff; Scheuer, Janelle; Bachmeier, R= ick; Hinrichs, Lance; Meyn, Jim; Aucoin, Berney C.; Thompkins, Jason; Wheel= er, Rob; Hamlin, Mason; Ferris, Frank; Gupta, Gautam; Philip, Willis; Misra= , Narsimha; Thomas, Paul D. Subject:=09NYISO - Weekly Update 6/8/01 Attached FYI is the weekly update prepared by the NYISO. In addition, sever= al noteworthy actions were taken at Wednesday's Management Committee meetin= g: ICAP: Culminating an 18-month effort that I have been chairing, the MC gave= final approval to two fundamental changes to NY's ICAP market, that, if ap= proved by FERC, would go into effect on Nov.1, 2001, with the start of the = winter capability period. The first changes the nature of determining the p= roduct to be bought and sold from one based on tests results (ICAP) to one = that includes, as an element, a unit's forced outage rate (referred to as u= nforced capacity or UCAP). The design adopted by NY is very similar to the = accreditation system that has been used in PJM for many years. It will rew= ard units that are more available than the average unit in the state, and i= ncent the below average units to improve their availability. The second maj= or change adopted moves NY to a monthly procurement requirement for loads. = The current requirement is six months at a time. The change should facilita= te customer switching under retail access programs and avoid the experience= just witnessed in upstate NY for this summer capability period, where 1400= MW of load were deficient and got stuck paying a huge deficiency price for= the entire six month period. Under the revised program, load could cover t= heir positions month by month. This latter change was approved by the MC ov= er the objections of the PSC and certain utilities, who continued to argue = that any change to the current ICAP rules may damage NY's reliability.=20 Penalty and Public Disclosure Provisions: In a surprise vote, the PSC-led e= ffort to get the MC to approve additions to the ISO's Market Mitigation Pla= n that would add penalty and public disclosure provisions for parties whose= bids are mitigated by the ISO was defeated when only 55% voted for the mea= sure. (A 58% vote is required for passage.) An earlier version of the propo= sal had been passed by the MC but had been rejected by the ISO Board becaus= e it applied only to suppliers and not to all market participants found to = engage in behavior detrimental to the market. The PSC-led effort to respond= to the Board's concerns apparently caused enough supporters of the origina= l version to change their vote this time around. Whether this effort is res= urrected again (by the PSC/utilities or the Board itself) may hinge on what= FERC decides with respect to the circuit breaker proposal pending before F= ERC. The ISO Board has made clear it wants something in effect this summer = to help it manage price spikes. Unbundling of Schedule 1 Charges: Efforts to finalize the unbundling of the= ISO's fixed schedule 1 charges (nearly $100 million a year) were sent back= to a working group for further work. However, the direction to be taken fo= r some issues appears clear.=20 TCCs: We succeeded in convincing the group that no costs should be assigned= to existing TCCs, and that if costs are to be assigned to this market, the= y should be allocated on the basis of the relative price paid for the TCCs = compared to the annual auction revenues, rather than on the basis of number= of TCCs purchased. Exports and Wheelthroughs: We succeeded in getting a separate category crea= ted for these transactions that will result in $/MWH costs that are much le= ss than what is currently charged. Conversely, there is now likely to be a = small charge on imports into NY; however, since all generation will be hit = with this charge, it should be reflected in everyone's bids equally and sim= ply passed on to the loads through the market clearing price. The exact amount of these various charges will depend on resolution of a nu= mber of issues including whether the TOs should be assessed a portion of th= e ISO's overhead right off the top. ----- Forwarded by Howard Fromer/NA/Enron on 06/08/2001 02:00 PM ----- =09kkranz@nyiso.com Sent by: owner-nyiso_bic@lists.nyiso.com 06/08/2001 12:= 46 PM =09 To: market_relations@nyiso.com cc: Subject: NYISO - Weekly U= pdate 6/8/01=09 Dear Members of the MC, BIC, OC, and TIE List, Attached, please find the NYISO Weekly Update. This Update is written jointly by Mollie Lampi and other NYISO staff. The NYISO Weekly Update provides a brief status report of, or progress on, a range of issues that are under discussion at NYISO Committee meetings or are being undertaken by NYISO Staff. Many, but not all, of these issues are being addressed through the NYISO Committee structure. Market participants may raise any comments or questions on items covered in the update through the Committee structure, or directly to Mollie Lampi (mlampi@nyiso.com.). Prior editions of the Weekly Update on the "NYISO Committees" page of the NYISO web site: http://www.nyiso.com ---< Services ---< Committees ---< Weekly Update or by clicking on the following link: http://www.nyiso.com/services/documents/groups/weekly_updates/wkly_updates.= html (See attached file: weekly060801.PDF) - weekly060801.PDF
|