Message-ID: <30328948.1075840029116.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 12:17:29 -0700 (PDT) From: bharsh@puget.com To: isas@wscc.com Subject: FW: WSCC Tagging practices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Harshbarger, Robert X-To: Interchange Scheduling & Accounting Subcommittee (ISAS) X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \ExMerge - Scholtes, Diana\STF\Current issues X-Origin: SCHOLTES-D X-FileName: FYI > ---------- > From: Rodriquez, Andy[SMTP:Andy.Rodriquez@enron.com] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 8:26 AM > To: osc@nerc.com > Subject: WSCC Tagging practices > > Please review this letter and make sure it is correct. These issues > were brought up in our Phoenix tag training. I will plan on sending to > the IS Monday morning. > > > Members of the IS, > > In our recent E-Tag 1.7 Training sessions, we had two common issues > brought up regarding the way tags are handled in the WSCC. We would > like your guidance and assistance in regard to these issues. > > 1.) Jointly owned transmission > > In the west, several jointly owned transmission facilities exist. In > these situations, one particular line or path is managed by a single > control area, but has several different Transmission Owners. In the > East, I believe that we address this situation by having one entity > administer a single OATT and the TOs receive transmission revenues as > distributions from the administrator of the OATT (much the way that SPP > or MAPP distribute regional tariff revenues to their members). > > In the west, they have taken a somewhat different approach. In this > case, each TO administers their own tariff. So it is possible (and > common practice) for a tag to be written that "stacks" TPs. So we might > see in a tag a three transmission providers all flowing on the same path > within the same Control Area: > > CA TP OASIS PATH > > AAA AAA 123456 POINTA/POINTB > AAA BBB 234567 POINTA/POINTB > AAA CCC 345678 POINTA/POINTB > > Is this procedure valid? We perceive several potential solutions: > > a.) Tag as above for convenience > b.) Tag as a separate tag for each TP > c.) Indicate to WSCC that process is invalid, and let them determine > their own solution > > Some concerns have been raised by some WSCC members that "solution a" is > difficult during curtailment processing, as it is hard to determine > which cuts should be made at what points. However, other entities point > out that the tag does represent energy flow along a single contract > path, and the "stacking" really only identifies contractual > relationships (and as such, should be allowed). > > Regardless of how the issue is resolved, we encourage the development of > a standard method for handling this situation, and believe that standard > should be developed by either the WSCC or the IS. > > 2.) Control Area Bus Transfers > > In the west, there is the practice of moving energy to different Control > Area entities at a bus. In the east, I we accommodate this through > title transfers and consider it a market mechanism rather than an > operations mechanism. For example: > > Merchant MMMMMM Generates 100MW in Control Area AAAA > Marketer NNNNNN buys at the bus and sells to OOOOOO > Marketer OOOOOO buys at the bus and sells to PPPPPP > Marketer PPPPPP buys at the bus and wheels from AAAA to BBBB... > > In the WSCC, such transactions are tagged in a different manner. > > Merchant MMMMMM Generates 100MW in Control Area AAAA > The energy moves from Control Area AAAA into Control Area NNNN > The energy moves from Control Area NNNN into Control Area OOOO > The energy moves from Control Area OOOO into Control Area PPPP > Marketer PPPPPP buys at PPPP and wheels from PPPP to BBBB... > > The WSCC practice is not currently supported by E-Tag 1.7. The > structure of E-Tag 1.7 is predicated on the fact that energy cannot move > between Control Areas without use of transmission. > > This issue has recently been discussed by the IS with regard to such > situations where transactions use NO transmission (i.e., energy moves > between CAs across bus, with no transmission service). If I remember > correctly, the IS discussed several different issues: > > How can a single bus be simultaneously metered in several different > Control Areas? > If no physical movement of power occurs, why are these transactions > tagged? > If the power DOES move (even across a bus) then shouldn't that movement > be accomplished under a tariff? > > As I remember the IS resolution, it was decided that such transactions > should indicate the use of PTP transmission if indeed power is moving > between Control Areas. Otherwise, the market turn approach used in the > East (illustrated in the first example) should be utilized. > > This specifically becomes an issue, as E-Tag 1.67 would allow the > current WSCC practice and 1.7 will not. We would encourage the IS to > make sure WSCC is fully prepared for this situation, and has WSCC > practices in place that address this issue. > > Andy Rodriquez > Regulatory Affairs - Enron Corp. > andy.rodriquez@enron.com > 713-345-3771 > > > ********************************************************************** > 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. > ********************************************************************** >