Message-ID: <31860827.1075852397227.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: thane.twiggs@enron.com
To: doug.gilbert-smith@enron.com, larry.jester@enron.com, mike.curry@enron.com, 
	joseph.wagner@enron.com, david.portz@enron.com, 
	preston.ochsner@enron.com, m..forney@enron.com, l..day@enron.com, 
	rogers.herndon@enron.com, terrell.benke@enron.com
Subject: ERCOT Update
Cc: l..nicolay@enron.com, jean.ryall@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bcc: l..nicolay@enron.com, jean.ryall@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com
X-From: Twiggs, Thane </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=TTWIGGS>
X-To: Gilbert-smith, Doug </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Dsmith3>, Jester, Larry </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ljester>, Curry, Mike </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mcurry>, Wagner, Joseph </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jwagner2>, Portz, David </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Dportz>, Ochsner, Preston </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Pochsner>, Forney, John M. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jforney>, Day, Smith L. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Sday>, Herndon, Rogers </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rherndo>, Benke, Terrell </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Tbenke>
X-cc: Nicolay, Christi L. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Cnicola>, Ryall, Jean </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jryall>, Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jsteffe>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \JFORNEY (Non-Privileged)\Forney, John M.\Inbox
X-Origin: FORNEY-J
X-FileName: JFORNEY (Non-Privileged).pst


The ERCOT Board approved the congestion zones for next year, 2001. The ERCO=
T Board accepted the 3 CSC 4 CM Zone model for use in commercial congestion=
 management for 2002.  Effective date is January 1, 2002.  The three CSC's =
are Graham-Parker 345 kV DCKT, Sandow-Temple 345 kV DCKT and STP-DOW 345 kV=
 DCKT.  The four CM Zones are West02, North02, South02 and Houston02.  A po=
wer point presentation along with a map is available at ftp://ftp.ercot.com=
/CSCDATA/csc.htm. =20

Current Congestion Cost and Outlook.  The congestion charges that have been=
 incurred are 55.6 million or 137 million depending on the methodology used=
 to calculate the charge. If you look purely at the scheduled MWs then it i=
s 137 MM based upon the ERCOT protocols. The actual cost to redispatch and =
clear congestion as of Sept. 22, 2001 was 55.6 MM. Both obviously are very =
high considering it is for one month of operation.=20
When the 20 MM trigger was hit August 14, 2001, ERCOT has 6 month by Protoc=
ol and reaffirmed in the commission order to implement the full zonal model=
. This means that there will no longer be an uplift of interzonal congestio=
n, rather a direct assignment of the charge. The charge may be partially of=
fset by the TCR that will be auctioned. The PUCT has indicated an interest =
to move to direct assignment prior to the development and implementation of=
 a TCR instrument as a hedge.  I am chairing the congestion management work=
ing group that is deciding the TCR issue and will be dealing with the local=
 congestion issues when that trigger has been hit.  I will attach a copy of=
 the current draft of the TCR white paper.  In short, the TCR is a financia=
l option that can be purchased as hedge against zonal congestion.  There is=
 no physical requirement for the TCR in that you do not have to physically =
schedule to receive the benefit of the TCR.  There will be an auction on or=
 about the 4th of February, 2002 and the full zonal implementation will tak=
e place February 15, 2002.  The tentative schedule is as follows:
?=0910/5/01 - Distribute draft TCR White Paper
?=0910/22/01 - Review and edit draft TCR White Paper
?=0910/30/01 - Distribute TCR White Paper to WMS
?=0911/1/01 - WMS Meeting; vote on PRR
?=0911/8/01 - TAC Meeting
?=0911/19/01 - Board Meeting
?=0912/4/01 - ERCOT issues notice of TCR Auction
?=092/15/02 - First effective date of TCRs and direct assignment of CSC Con=
gestion Costs
=20
Capacity Auction.  The capacity auction workshops have begun to rework that=
 capacity rule and problems experienced with the last round.  There was an =
initial discussion on the problems that were experienced with credit and ho=
w the standard was one-way and the buyers of capacity were left without rec=
ourse.  There was a subsequent conference call with the credit professional=
s to discuss the issues ( I did not participate) and there will be an addit=
ional meeting on the 19th.  The purpose of the short-term meeting are to re=
ctify issues such as credit and documents prior to the March and July 2002 =
auctions.  Substantive issues such as the actual products, zone determinati=
on and the auction process will be part of a rulemaking prior to the Septem=
ber 2002 auction which includes annual products.=20

Protocol Implementation.  ERCOT is in the process of determining what shoul=
d be included in the Phase II design which will begin January 2001.  There =
is a priority list that is currently under review by ERCOT vendors to deter=
mine lead times of Phase II items in an attempt to deliver Phase II items A=
SAP.  Parviz Adib from MOD stressed that there are certain issues that the =
PUCT expects to be addressed in Phase II.  Issues that do not require major=
 system changes might still be doable in Phase II if the PRR Process is sta=
rted immediately.  There is a placeholder in the Protocols related to BULs =
and loads acting as resources.

Mechanism for Simultaneous Procurement of Ancillary Services.   The PUCT ha=
s expressed concern that there could be price reversals associated with the=
 ancillary services market (if it is assumed that the various ancillary ser=
vices have different levels of value to the market).  The Board had approve=
d a contingency plan to allow price modifications in the early markets, how=
ever the plan has not been implemented.  The WMS discussed, at length, the =
issue of simultaneously clearing all three markets - non-spinning, regulati=
on, and responsive reserve.  A task force was formed to initially identify =
the principles for developing a mechanism for simultaneous procurement of a=
ncillary services issue.  It was suggested that a consultant be hired to de=
velop Protocol language once the principles are identified.  The first task=
 force meeting was cancelled and has not been rescheduled. =20

Demand-Side Task Force.  Jay Zarnikau reported on activities of the Demand-=
Side Task Force that is addressing Balancing Up Load (BUL) Market Issues an=
d other demand-side issues.  The PUCT expects the full functionality to be =
in place on January 1, 2002.  The DSTF met last on October 1st (third meeti=
ng).  The DSTF completed a draft status report on Demand-Side Resources and=
 Demand Responsiveness.  It was noted that the work of the DSTF is not comp=
lete and has not been approved by any ERCOT Committee or the Board.  Howeve=
r, ERCOT was required to file a report on these issues in the STF Report.  =
The report reviews the policy considerations that have prompted interest in=
 the demand side of ERCOT's market, reviews the PUCT's directive, reviews t=
he role of demand-side resources in ERCOT's markets, and identifies the iss=
ues and impediments that the DSTF is presently addressing.  It also summari=
zes the options discussed by the DSTF to date.  The PUCT staff has suggeste=
d that ERCOT hire a consultant, such as Eric Hirsch, to provide more resour=
ces for this effort.  The group expects to wrap up BUL issues and address d=
irect load control issues at its next meeting.

Unit Specific Deployments.  At the next WMS meeting October 24, 2001, there=
 will be a discussion regarding unit specific deployments and ERCOT will di=
scuss the issues and the difficult that participants are having to meet the=
 ramp rates of the deployments.  The WMS will develop a list of issues and =
case studies for ERCOT to discuss.  The WMS also briefly discussed PRR 282 =
related to defining OOME as an Instructed Deviation.