Message-ID: <28275718.1075862131295.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 05:27:36 -0800 (PST)
From: tcanino@cenhud.com
To: nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
Subject: Local Reliability????
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: "Thomas J. Canino" <tcanino@cenhud.com>
X-To: TIE Group \(E-mail\) <nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \PTHOMAS2 (Non-Privileged)\Thomas, Paul D.\Deleted Items
X-Origin: Thomas-P
X-FileName: PTHOMAS2 (Non-Privileged).pst


On Saturday, 11/17, the Operational Announcements  state that both Roseton units would be committed for Local  Reliability on Sunday.  I have two questions concerning this  commitment; 1) What happened after SCUC ran that required two 600 mw units be  put on at minimum?  2) Since the local Transmission Owner didn't request  these units on, why is it referred to as Local Reliability?  There is a  substantial amount of uplift generated ( no pun intended ) by this decision and  when the term Local Reliability is used it raises a question as to the  allocation of this cost.