Message-ID: <13069270.1075857366661.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 04:12:00 -0700 (PDT) From: smith.day@enron.com To: madhup.kumar@enron.com, alan.chen@enron.com, richard.broussard@enron.com, jim.homco@enron.com, lloyd.will@enron.com, jeffrey.miller@enron.com, tom.may@enron.com, clint.dean@enron.com, smith.day@enron.com Subject: Fwd: FW: Generator unit consolidation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Smith L Day X-To: Madhup Kumar, Alan Chen, Richard Broussard, Jim Homco, Lloyd Will, Jeffrey Miller, Tom May, Clint Dean, Smith L Day X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Clint_Dean_Jun2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: Dean-C X-FileName: cdean.nsf After reading this I am wondering how we modeled Fronterra for testing. Anyone know? Thanks, Smith Day ---------------------- Forwarded by Smith L Day/HOU/ECT on 05/15/2001 11:11 AM --------------------------- "Greg Graham" on 05/15/2001 08:17:48 AM To: cc: , "James Hamann" , "Jill Traffanstedt" , "Jim Gleitman" , "Steven Schultz" Subject: Fwd: FW: Generator unit consolidation See attached EMail from John Adams: If this approach to Combined Cycle Plants (separate Resource ID's for each GT and ST) is of concern to you, please let your client rep and John Adams know. This approach leads to multiple resource id's for plants that are in many cases managed at a plant level...not "unit" level as this approach implies. The burden to submit resource plans at the component level and the possibility of receiving a Unit Specific deployments, along with the proliferation of resource id's (many of these plants are owned by multiple entities...leading to even more resource id's) points out that different solution is needed. Greg Graham ggraham@lcra.org Received: from hood.lcra.org by lcuuser.lcra.org; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:38:22 -0600 Received: from wrangell.lcra.org (wrangell.lcra.org [198.214.247.194]) by hood.lcra.org (8.9.3 (PHNE_18546)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09342 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:38:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.ercot.com (mail.ercot.com [65.67.37.83]) by wrangell.lcra.org with ESMTP (8.9.3 (PHNE_18546)/8.7.1) id TAA19016 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:38:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:38:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Adams, John" To: "Northcutt, Robert" Cc: "Kessler, Amy" , "Boecker, Arthur" , "Trinh, Thong" , "Cohea, James" , "Boecker, Arthur" , "Myers, Steven" , "Graham, Greg" , "Donohoo, Ken" , "Tamby, Jeyant" , "Saathoff, Kent" Subject: FW: Generator unit consolidation Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:38:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0DCD7.6616BF20" Robert There has been considerable discussion and argument over the need of the security applications to have each unit described in the model uniquely to allow the stability applications to work properly. Operations has argued strongly that every unit over a size (20 mw) has got to be modeled for the stability analysis modules to work. I understand that every unit modeled in registration MUST have a corresponding ( one to one) entry in the network model.? As I understant it, this leads to the following chain where the symbol => means "requires" Operations needs all synchronous units > 20 MW? modeled & telemeter=> All units over 20 MW must be registered uniquely (elements of combined cycle plants registered uniquely)?? Consequence of Design All units must be settled matching the registration database => ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? Consequence of Design All resource plans must be submitted for each unit of a Combined Cycle unit => Jointly owned Combined Cycle units must submit resource plan items for each owner of each unit of a Combined Cycle plant for each scheduling period => A combined cycle plant with 6 units and 3 owners results in 6 * 3 * 96 entries per day. I understand many QSE's are balking at this requirement as burdensome and un-necessary. (LCRA, OXY,etc) We also have a problem with modeling of MANY MANY very small resources to get them into the settlement system. It occurs to me that the Operations Requirement is NOT that the individual units be settled separately, or scheduled separately.? Only that they be modeled separately and telemetered separately. Why can't we have a single entry in the settlement system map to many units in the network model, and conversely have many entries in the settlement system (many small units) map to a single, or even NO entry in the network model? Why can't we break the link between unit registration and the network model?? or at least modify it?? Or do I mis-understand the situation? Please let me know if my understanding of the situation is correct or correct me if I misunderstand.? I would appreciate suggestions on how to improve the situation. ?-----Original Message----- From: ? Kessler, Amy? Sent:?? Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:11 AM To:???? Kessler, Amy; 1 Client Service Reps; Adams, John; Boecker, Arthur; Trinh, Thong; Bian, Jessica; Donohoo, Ken; Cohea, James Subject:??????? RE: Generator unit consolidation The meeting will be Friday, May 11 at 9:30 in the small conference room in the blue building. ?-----Original Message----- From: ? Kessler, Amy? Sent:?? Wednesday, May 09, 2001 5:49 PM To:???? 1 Client Service Reps; Adams, John; Boecker, Arthur; Trinh, Thong; Bian, Jessica; Donohoo, Ken Subject:??????? Generator unit consolidation Please plan to attend a meeting to discuss the following topics: Gen. unit consolidation (generation units of less than 20 mW) Gen. unit consolidation (generation units of 20mW or greater from PUCT SGC certificated resource entity) Gen. units behind a large industrial meter (PUCT SGC certification) Network model names for new resources The meeting will be held at the small conference room in the blue building at 9:30. If you are not able to attend, please send someone in place.? Thanks, Amy Kessler EMS Team 512-248-3163