Subject: Re: FERC Orders
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], mbrown
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 02:46:00 -0700 (PDT)

Actually, it sounds like NE has adopted NY's EXISTING market monitoring plan. 
The proposed NY "circuit breaker" would "automate" the current process and 
implement the mitigation as part of the process of setting the DAM prices. 
Currently, the investigation occurs after the DAM prices are set and if 
mitigation is warranted would affect bidding for the next day and thereafter. 
It's this automation that's at the heart of the dispute in NY, since it 
basically eliminates the consultation between the ISO and the bidder 
concerning why the bid was appropriate that exists under the current program. 
The one day lag was an important balance between acting quickly to prevent 
the exercise of market power and premature action which affects posted prices 
and that ultimately proves not to have been warranted by the ISO. 

Howard