|
|
Enron Mail |
Jim,
I have added my comments to your draft. My concern with the "Adopt PJM" approach is that it will become a fiat accompli with regard to congestion management. and the nature of future transmission rights. Once adopted as the standard, nothing else will be accepted and any move to a decentralized approach is highly unlikely. Unlike the British, we have a hard time changing horses because of our multi-jurisdictional Federal system of government. The PJM's lack of a secondary FTR market is more that just an allocation problem. If that were true, they New York would have a secondary market -- none exists there either. The unpredictability of prices is probably the biggest problem since no one knows how to value FTRs or TCCs. I think the nature of instrument is also not particularly helpful. During our discussion of Seabron Adamson's last draft, I maintained that a centralized unit commitment process didn't fit the Pacific Northwest (PNW) with its pattern of trading to achieve coordination between hydroelectric and thermoelectric generation. You asked me to provide more detail hydro-thermal operation. I am including a paper that covers the nature of PNW operations and contracting with observations about the nature of unit commitment. Given other work and travel, it has taken some time to complete the paper and its examples. I hope this will help to explain why I am hesitant to endorse a centralize unit commitment implementation. Steve James D Steffes@ENRON 06/18/2001 01:48 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT cc: Subject: INTERIM MODEL TALKING POINTS Here is the draft of an Interim step for Enron to give to Lay. Please give me your comments. This is CONFIDENTIAL and should not be shared outside the company. Jim
|