Message-ID: <30877645.1075857912381.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT) From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net To: market_relations@nyiso.com, nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net Subject: Re: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net X-To: , X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Larry_Campbell_Jun2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: Campbell-L X-FileName: lcampbel.nsf "Stephen Fernands" writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Studies...We just want out April 2000 True Up Bills. Please. Stephen Fernands Consultant AES NewEnergy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:21 PM Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements > > Tom.May@enron.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: > > > I would like to pay the NYISO to conduct a study for me on the price impact > of the transmission outages planned each day. Since I would be paying for > this, I wouldof course be entitled to get the results one day in advance of > all other market participants. The ISO would of course be free to release > the results to the rest of the marketplace just following the release of > the day ahead results each day. This would ultimately be in the best > interests of the marketplace since I would immediately arbitrage the daily > market to the correct prices and thereby increase efficiency. Upon review, > all would be amazed at just how efficient the marketplace has become based > upon how accurate it was at predicting settlement prices. > > Tom May > Enron > > > > > "Gantner, Craig" @lists.thebiz.net on > 04/25/2001 06:33:59 AM > > Please respond to market_relations@nyiso.com > > Sent by: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net > > > To: "'market_relations@nyiso.com'" , > nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net > cc: > > Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements > > > "Gantner, Craig" writes to the > NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: > > If I read Mr. Palazzo's message correctly, the ISO is acting as a paid > consultant doing contract work for NYPA? > > Now I am starting to share some of Roy's discomfort. > > Not only does this call into question the objectivity of such contracted > studies, it also offers some insight into the inability for non-paying > participants to get their technical issues addressed by the ISO. > Craig Gantner > NRG Power Marketing > > -----Original Message----- > From: Palazzo, William [mailto:William.Palazzo@nypa.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:17 AM > To: 'market_relations@nyiso.com'; nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net > Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements > > > > "Palazzo, William" writes to the > NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: > > In response to Roy's comments. NYPA is paying for all the work conducted > by > the ISO staff. NYPA defined the study objective and all the ISO staff did > was conduct the MARS studies and document the results in the write-up we > provided to the tech exchange. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy J. Shanker [mailto:royjshanker@worldnet.att.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:35 PM > To: market_relations@nyiso.com; nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net > Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements > > > > "Roy J. Shanker" writes to the > NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: > > As a separate item to the concerns I had about the technical content, I was > a little confused on what was done here administratively. The last > paragraph > says something about NYPA sharing the study. I didn't think they had > anything at all to say about it in the first place if it is an ISO work > product. If they do, could you explain why this is the case? If the ISO did > this, why wasn't this all posted on the OASIS at the same time NYPA got > this? The date on this shows a March 26 release. Ignore these comments if > this was done, but I wasn't aware of this. > > I am more than a little uncomfortable with a single market participant > having a month's lead time on ISO studies that can have significant > commercial impact. Think about the implications of this in the context of > people negotiating long term bi lateral ICAP agreements over the last > month. > Depending on your take on the type of market changes that this type of > analysis might support, there could be enormous changes to the economics of > seasonal versus annual agreements, choice of equipment etc. This simply > isn't fair. Even if posted, this type of work by the ISO that can have > large > potential commercial impacts should go out on all of the distributions at > the same time as release to anyone and OASIS posting. > > Roy J. Shanker > 9009 Burning Tree Road > Bethesda, MD 20817 > 301-365-3654 > 301-365-3657 FAX > royjshanker@worldnet.att.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net > [mailto:owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net]On Behalf Of Palazzo, > William > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:42 PM > To: 'nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net' > Subject: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements > > At NYPA's request ISO staff conducted a limited analysis of > the winter locational ICAP requirements for Long Island and New York City > areas. While such ICAP requirements have historically been set as a single > number for the entire year, it is NYPA's belief that this holdover from the > old way of doing business must be re-examined. It is NYPA's belief that > most if not all of the contribution to loss of load risk occurs in the > summer months. As such, some reduction in winter ICAP requirements should > be possible with no impact on the Loss of Load criterion of one day in ten > years. > > NYPA requested that the ISO start with the database that > resulted in the locational requirements of 80% and 98% for New York City > and > Long Island, respectively. At NYPA's request the ISO modeled winter > ratings on the transmission interfaces into NYC and LI and determined how > much the 80% and 98% could be reduced in the winter before any impact on > the > statewide Loss Of Load occurred. The report indicates that winter > requirements of 75% and 92% of the summer peak load resulted for NYC and > LI, > respectively. > > While this in no way reflects an exhaustive analysis of winter > locational requirements, the results from this study suggest that some > reduction in the winter requirement may be warranted and a > consideration of seasonal requirements should be incorporated in future > ICAP > requirement studies. NYPA believes that having an ICAP requirement > for summer and winter seasons based on the LSE's peak load for the > respective season would send the proper ICAP price signal. > > > NYPA is sharing the study results in the attached report in > an effort to begin a dialog which we hope will lead to a broader > examination > of locational requirements when the issue is revisited again next year. We > would appreciate hearing the views of other market participants. > > <> <> > > > > >