Message-ID: <11759217.1075852368010.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT) From: m..forney@enron.com To: bhunsucker@ercot.com Subject: RE: Question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Forney, John M. X-To: '"Hunsucker, Brett" @ENRON' X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JFORNEY (Non-Privileged)\Forney, John M.\Sent Items X-Origin: FORNEY-J X-FileName: JFORNEY (Non-Privileged).pst que paso, pawpaw JMF -----Original Message----- From: "Hunsucker, Brett" @ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Hunsucker+2C+20Brett+22+20+3CBhunsucker+40ercot+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:54 PM To: Miller, Jeffrey; Patterson, Mark Cc: Forney, John M. Subject: RE: Question Jeff, If you've rec'd a deployment instruction that is a Category 2,3 or 4, it implies the deployment is to relieve operational, or local, CONG. The Security Constrained Economic Dispatch algorithm has determined your unit is located such that its movement per the instructions will help to alleviate the local congestion. Following is copied from the document, "Market Bulletin-Thursday August 8, 2001". This is the last paragraph on page 2 of that document. "Therefore, when Operational Congestion exists, the solution found in STEP 1 may be augmented in STEP 2 with both resource specific and modified portfolio awards. The result of STEP 2 is always a set of final portfolio based and resource specific dispatch instructions to be issued to the QSEs to solve the operational congestion. Because the final portfolio based dispatch instruction equals the net result of the preliminary STEP 1 portfolio based balancing energy awards and any STEP 2 portfolio adjustments, the QSE's bid curve may not match the MCPE determined in STEP 1. This may be causing the appearance of being incorrectly "struck". Whenever a QSE receives unit specific deployments, it will also receive a Category 1 portfolio based deployment. ERCOT expects that the portfolio-based instruction will be followed." So, even though your customer is determining your bids, your unit could be called upon to relieve any local Cong that results from "Step 1" (per the referenced bulletin) deployments to resolve load/gen imbalances and zonal cong, if that unit is deemed to have an effect (the shift factor) on the constrained line. Clear as mud? Hope this helps. I'm leaving here in about five minutes to go to an appt with Holly, but will be back in on Monday. Regards, Brett -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey.Miller@enron.com mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@enron.com << File: mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@enron.com >> ] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:53 AM To: Bhunsucker@ercot.com Cc: John.M.Forney@enron.com Subject: RE: Question Brett-- we're being deployed down (DBES) for more than what our bid states. In other words, we had a DBES Bid in for $-5 and we're getting deployed to dec generation and the MCP is $28. The kicker is the "category" of DBES in which we're being deployed. I just got off the phone with Mark Paterson & he's indicated that if you are deployed to provide DBES in "category" 2 through 4, then that DBES Deployment was given--unit specific-- OUTSIDE THE BID STACK (he said it was because we were CAUSING congestion). My concern is that our bids are instructed by our customer. The customer is wondering why we're being deployed above our bid. Also of concern is that, according to Mark, that these DBES's--categories 2 through 4 are treated and settled as OOM's--largely a different settlement than DBES. Add to that that the "category" treatment relative to settlement (or even being mentioned, for that matter) is NOT in the protocols--per Mark. He's just sent me a one-page explanation of this process so I need to review it but have you heard of this? -----Original Message----- From: "Hunsucker, Brett" @ENRON mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Hunsucker+2C+20Brett+22+20+3CBhunsucker+40ercot+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com << File: mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Hunsucker+2C+20Brett+22+20+3CBhunsucker+40ercot+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com >> ] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:37 AM To: Miller, Jeffrey Subject: RE: Question What's the question? -----Original Message----- From: Miller, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@ENRON.com << File: mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@ENRON.com >> << File: mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@ENRON.com << File: mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@ENRON.com >> >> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:06 AM To: Brett Hunsucker (E-mail) Subject: Question Would it be prudent for me to call Cheryl Moseley for a Market Ops question? (a la Nancy Traweek in CA?) ********************************************************************** This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. **********************************************************************