Message-ID: <12525344.1075840029581.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 19:29:21 -0700 (PDT) From: csmith@caiso.com To: isas@wscc.com Subject: RE: Transmission Stacking up for debate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Smith, Chris 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: All, It is my understanding that transmission stacking was to be used when aggregating multiple OASIS reservations from the same transmission provider on a single tag. The stacking of OASIS reservations in descending order of priority works for a single xmn provider, and the tag author's use of the descending stacking methodology can be verified by that transmission provider. Doesn't using multiple xmn providers eliminate this checking mechanism? Or is the idea of the transmission provider verifying the stack order distasteful? Finally, is allowing xmn stacking with multiple xmn providers the logical extension of allowing xmn stacking with one provider? Chris Smith California ISO Prescheduling Phone (916) 351-2180 Email at csmith@caiso.com -----Original Message----- From: Scholtes, Diana [mailto:Diana.Scholtes@ENRON.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:02 PM To: Interchange Scheduling & Accounting Subcommittee (ISAS) Subject: Transmission Stacking up for debate et al: I have a Preschedule Tag (implemented only for the day) that is raising some eyebrows that needs to be up for discussion. Transaction Path CA TP PSE Product Path OASIS # Level Info Ref PNM PNMMS1 G;FS PV5 AZPS SRP PNM PNMMS1 7-F PV5/WW 8155 9 FS 9 MW'S SRP EPE PNMMS1 7-F PV5/WW 413 6 FS 6 MW'S AZPS WALC SRP PNMMS1 7-F WW/MED 00005703 FS EPMIWE FS NEVP CRCH1 L;FS SWA No. 14.. Business Practices- "Multiple transmission reservations or grand fathered transmission contracts may use the "level" capability of the e-tag. The PSE should list their stacked transmission segments in descending order of priority." The reason this is causing some problems is due to the multiple transmission providers. All CA's and TP's approved the tag initially, but then was rejected as a future tag. I would propose having the Business practice amended to allow the tag to display multiple transmission providers. On the original tag, the MW break-out was clearly defined under the Reference field and also on the Comments field. It appears that all control areas also should be able to check out with one another. Diana Scholtes Enron North America (503) 464-3807 ********************************************************************** 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. **********************************************************************