Message-ID: <13756013.1075857358810.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:18:00 -0800 (PST) From: bjones5@txu.com To: isonp@ercot.com Subject: Protocols Implementation Plan Review Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: "Brad Jones" X-To: isonp@ercot.com X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Clint_Dean_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Notes inbox X-Origin: Dean-C X-FileName: cdean.nsf As part of your preparation for the RUG meeting on Wednesday and Thursday, please conduct an individual review of the Protocols Implementation Plan items e-mailed by Vikki Gates on Sunday. We will begin our review of the PIP on the afternoon of the 6th . In particular, the list below identifies PIP items that require a review by RUG because of a potentially significant change in Protocol language. Item 103 - Default QSE Item 107 - Uninstructed Deviation Tolerance Limit Proposal by Floyd Trefny Item 108 - Sub QSE (payment process, invoicing, and liability) Proposal by C. Moseley Item 109 - DC Tie (Oklaunion exclusion) Proposal by Richard Ross Item 120 - Local Balancing Energy Premium Proposals by Don Blackburn and Manny Munoz Item 126 - Plant vs. Resource Specific Output in OOME Items 144 and 200 - LSE/QSE allocation of AS Proposal by B. Jones Item 146 - Notification vs. Posting of Loss Factors Item 187 - TX SET Concurrent Processing Approach Proposal by B. White Item 204 - EPS Meter Data Transmittal Proposal by J Cohea In addition to to these items, the Protocols may have been changed to correct unclear language or an inconsistency in the Protocols in an effort to reconcile a gap. These changes were identified in the PIP Master List as refinements and carried a criticality assessment of 1. I recommend your attention to these items as well. As there are about 100 PIP Items, we will not specifically address each one. However, all parties are encouraged to raise questions or challenge any of the reconciliation documents at the RUG meeting. -- Brad