|
|
Enron Mail |
Your ideas about decertifying the Cal ISO are very interesting but I question
your likelihood of success given FERC's lack of political will (thanks to George W.'s new leadership ) to sue the ISO to get rid of the newly-appointed ISO board. Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. From: Carl Imparato <cfi1@tca-us.com< 01/28/2001 02:42 PM Please respond to cfi1@tca-us.com To: Mary.Hain@enron.com cc: Alan.Comnes@enron.com, Chris.H.Foster@enron.com, Robert.Badeer@enron.com, James.D.Steffes@enron.com, Steve.Walton@enron.com, Sean.Crandall@enron.com, Tom_Delaney@enron.com Subject: Re: More on the Future of the CAISO Hi Mary, Here's the situation as I see it: DSTAR does indeed still have the bad governance problem to which you alluded. On the other hand, it's turned out that the independent Governing Board members have (except in a few cases) been pretty reasonable and pro-markets. So on the key issue of governance, what I think we need to do is get DSTAR filed, and then protest at FERC that the Advisory Committee is fatally flawed (by definition, it will always be 10 incumbents vs. 2 non-incumbents, with 2 more likely-to-side-with-incumbents) - so FERC should order the Bylaws regarding the Advisory Committee to be changed to something more equitable - e.g., what we have in RTOWest. But aside from the governance, there are a lot of good things about DSTAR (which have resulted from our pushback at the Board since the fall). recall that the two key flaws of RTOWest are that (i) FTRs are all preallocated to incumbents with no obligation to bring them to market; and (2) RTOWest would not have jurisdiction over all FERC services and associated facilities. On both of these issues, we are much better off in DSTAR. In DSTAR, FTR auction REVENUES, not FTRs, are being preallocated - so we've won in DSTAR on this important issue. And as to scope of jurisdiction, while the jury is still out (we don't know what the PTOs are going to do), the counsel to the Board is basically in agreement with our position. In most other ways, DSTAR and RTOWest are pretty much the same (the result of Enron's sponsorship of my work and Tom Delaney's advocacy of the Enron physical rights model over the years). There are still a number of important DSTAR issues to be resolved... but overall, we stand to win on most of them. So: the advantages of pushing FERC to decertify the CAISO and require the CA IOUs to join DSTAR (or else lose their market-based rate authority for themselves and their subsidiaries)are: (1) DSTAR+CA could be up and running within 12 months; (2) FERC doesn't have to get into pitched battle with CA over the CAISO governance issues. It simply gets rid of the CAISO, and with it, the xenophobic control over the ISO by the state of California; (3)DSTAR - which plans to file its Tariff in March/April, becomes a model for RTOWest. Carl ______ Mary.Hain@enron.com wrote: < < I thought we did not like the government of Desert Star (because it's ruled < by the publics and the federal government) and did not like other aspects < of it as much as we liked aspects of RTO West. Why not wait until we get < RTO West formed and then argue that the rest should be consolidated into < it? If we try to argue that California should join Desert Star it would be < sort of like the tail wagging the dog and I would be concerned that < California would try to take over. Besides with RTO West, we have an < organization that at least one Federal Power Marketer has said they could < join. < < Alan Comnes < 01/24/2001 07:40 AM < < To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT < cc: < Subject: More on the Future of the CAISOChris.H.Foster@enron.com, < Robert.Badeer@enron.com, James.D.Steffes@enron.com < < This seems like an idea that you would like ... < ---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT on 01/24/2001 07:41 < AM --------------------------- < < Carl Imparato <cfi1@tca-us.com< on 01/22/2001 06:56:14 PM < < Please respond to cfi1@tca-us.com < < To: Susan.J.Mara@enron.com < cc: Alan.Comnes@enron.com, Chris.H.Foster@enron.com, < Robert.Badeer@enron.com, James.D.Steffes@enron.com < < Subject: More on the Future of the CAISO < < Sue, < < I am amending my previous statement about the 2-year delay in creating a < multi-state RTO. If FERC were to decertify the CAISO and order the CA < utilities to join a regional RTO, I believe that DSTAR, the California < IOUs and the CAISO infrastructure/staff/systems could easily merge and < be up and running as a large Desert Southwest + California RTO before < the end of the year. This was basically what I had been trying to < achieve last summer when I was facilitating talks between CAISO and < DSTAR parties about merging the two. < < Why not lobby for that as the FERC-preferred solution to the state's < illegal takeover of CAISO governance? < < Carl < _______________________ < < Susan.J.Mara@enron.com wrote: < < < < Carl, < < < < It looks like CDWR is having some problems related to buying Operating < < Reserves. SHould we worry about what the ISO is doing? < < < < Sue < < ----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 01/23/2001 02:28 PM ----- < < < < "Katie < < Kaplan" To: <kaplan@iepa.com<, "Mark < Smith" < < <kaplan@iepa. <Mark.J.Smith@fpl.com<, "Bill < Carlson" < < com< <wcarlson@wm.com<, "Bill Woods" < < <billw@calpine.com<, "Bob < Escalante" < < 01/23/2001 <rescalante@riobravo-gm.com<, < "Carolyn Baker" < < 01:46 PM <cabaker@duke-energy.com<, "Cody < Carter" < < Please <cody.carter@williams.com<, < "Curt Hatton" < < respond to <curt.hatton@gen.pge.com<, "Dean < Gosselin" < < --------------------------------------------------------------- < < Name: $RFC822.eml < Part 1.2 Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream) < Encoding: base64
|