|
|
Enron Mail |
Good question, Bob, as this is new to me, too. Here's my understanding.
While a "path" can be either one line or a group of lines, it has a beginning and an end (a POR and a POD). Example: Midway to COB. A "flowgate", on the other hand, is a reference monitoring position (which can physically be a collection of locations lumped into a virtual point). It can be used for scheduling as well as for metering and is generally described as going "into" somewhere. Example: You could combine COB and NOB into a single flowgate defined as "Into California (Southbound)". "Granularity" refers to the degree of detail in your model (i.e., to what extent it is seen through a wide-angle lens vs. through a magnifying glass). So far, I've seen it applied to schedule changes (how many times an hour), transmission products (how small a time increment someone can buy) and transmission grids. With respect to transmission grids, it can be used to describe both paths and flowgates. Here's a pair of examples: the Mc Cullough 500 - Eldorado 500 path (one line, 3000 feet long -- part of a model with small granularity), and "Into WSCC" (a flowgate in a model with extremely large granularity). When I wrote "the more granular the flowgate model" below, I meant "the larger the scale of your transmission model by flowgates"; in fact, I had the "Into WSCC" example in mind at the time, whereby someone in the Eastern Interconnection could conceivably purchase a transmission right to send energy westward to a sink anywhere in the Western Interconnection. I'm cc-ing the rest of the ESWG on this message in case (as I suspect) I owe our other colleagues the same clarification. Your fellow student, John -----Original Message----- From: Robert Schwermann [mailto:BSchwer@smud.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 6:41 AM To: Hormozi, John Subject: RE: ESC conference calls to discuss individual Business Practices John, I hate to ask dumb questions as I suppose I should understand this new terminology...but I don't. You mention "the more granular the flowgate Model", Is it possible to explain "granularity" and the difference between flowgate and path models. I hate to always burden you with questions, but you are knowledgeable on these issues and I need to get up to speed. I guess I owe you a few beers now. Thanks - Bob Robert D. Schwermann SMUD 916-732-5519 (Voice) 916-732-6436 (Fax) 800-946-4646 Pin 1426534 (Pager) email: bschwer@smud.org <mailto:bschwer@smud.org< -----Original Message----- From: Hormozi, John [SMTP:jhormo@ladwp.com] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:43 PM To: Electronic Scheduling Work Group Subject: RE: ESC conference calls to discuss individual Business Practices John, I appreciate your giving the sublists a once-over. I'll reply to your comments in the order you wrote them. BP 4 says, in essence, "Before you sell a transmission right, make sure your grid can support it." The gist of BP 9 is: "If your Transmission Customer wants to move energy someplace not mentioned in the purchased transmission right, but you can still fit it in, then let it flow anyway." At the ESC meeting, I was looking past the linkage statement about these two BPs, instead focusing on the fact that BP 4 is really an "OASIS" practice while BP 9 is about energy scheduling. Now, though, in the tranquility of my office, I'm inclined to agree that they should still be considered together. Both of these BPs give you a choice between path and flowgate models (and the more granular the flowgate model, the closer you get to a purely financial transmission market), so how would you feel about calling both of them "model-independent"? BP 25 discusses fragmentary scheduling (i.e., letting a group of entities in the transaction chain submit pieces of a schedule which, when pieced together, form a complete and continuous schedule). As written, the BP doesn't seem to tie us to any particular transmission model, because the fragments could conceivably use any combination of physical and financial transmission rights. So this BP would appear to belong in the "model independent" category. We in the West have suggested a rewording of BP 1, 10 and 12 (hopefully, soon to be shared with the ESC) to allow regions like ours to minimize the operational impact of changing the frequency and duration of non-emergency generator ramping. As drafted, these changes would have no effect on current practices in the East, so more than one version of each BP would be unnecessary. The "Applicability" section of BP 24 reads, in part: "This Business Practice addresses the implementation of a curtailment/reload by (a Scheduling Authority). It does not address the process items leading up to the curtailment ..." I would say that BP 24 does not depend on the choice of congestion management method selected. By the way, I'm sharing these comments with ESC Business Practice Task Force Chair Mike McElhany, who is apportioning the BP discussions among a series of conference calls to begin as early as January 30. Thank you, John, for your valuable input. John Hormozi, LADWP (818) 771-6775 -----Original Message----- From: Canavan, John S [mailto:jcanavan@mtpower.com] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:41 AM To: Hormozi, John; Electronic Scheduling Work Group Subject: RE: ESC conference calls to discuss individual Business Practices John, just a couple of quick comments. First BP 9 is identified as an "independent issue" and BP 4 is identified as a "dependent Issues", yet both of these BP's work in tandem. I would think both of these should be "dependent", unless I am missing something. I guess I would have the same comment for BP #25. The last page describes BP's (1, 10, and 12) that the WSCC is asking to be worked independently. I am not sure what this means - a West and East proposal for each of these practices? Does BP 24 (Curtailments and Reloads) assume a common (nationwide) Congestion Management scheme, or is this BP totally unrelated or insignificant to any Congestion Management scheme (physical or financial)? Thanks John, John Canavan Montana Power Company < -----Original Message----- < From: Hormozi, John [SMTP:jhormo@ladwp.com] < Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 5:22 PM < To: Electronic Scheduling Work Group < Subject: ESC conference calls to discuss individual Business < Practices < < Greetings, everyone. < < The message below, from the ESC's Mike McElhany, describes the ESC's < effort to subdivide its 31 proposed business practices into < "model-independent" and "model-dependent" business practice sublists. < The ESC intends to debate the "model-independent" business practices < first, in anticipation of upcoming FERC pronouncements on transmission < market models. < < At last week's WSCC Electronic Scheduling Work Group Meeting (which < followed the ESC meeting), I promised to reproduce my breakdown lists < (that I handed to Mike on my way out the door) and forward them to you < for your perusal. Specifically, we in WSCC should check whether we < concur with this first-cut categorization. Remember: for this question, < we're not talking about the pros and cons of each business practice, but < simply identifying which ones, as currently drafted, presuppose a < particular transmission model -- be it physical, financial, or some < hybrid of the two. < < Guess what? The attached list below, which Mike prepared for the ESC, < is MY breakdown! (Thanks, Mike.) So here it is for you to see. After < reading my meeting notes, I'm not sure whether this was supposed to go < to the entire ESWG or only to an ESWG task force (Bob Harshbarger, < please refresh my memory on this), so I chose to err on the side of < wider dissemination. < < Unless anyone out there strongly feels otherwise (and I recommend we < read the actual business practices before reaching such a conclusion), I < believe this breakdown to be accurate enough to facilitate discussion. < I suggest we proceed with our strategem of organizing ESWG conference < calls &/or meetings on the business practices (of course, at our < chairman's discretion) in advance of the corresponding ESC conference < calls, now that we know the ESC's game plan. < < In case of questions, you can reach me by replying to this or at < (818) 771-6775. < < Sincerely, < John Hormozi, LADWP < < -----Original Message----- < From: Mike McElhany [mailto:McElhany@wapa.gov] < Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:56 PM < To: estf@nerc.com < Subject: ESC conference calls to discuss Business Practices < < < All, < < At the ESC meeting held in Las Vegas last week it was decided to hold < a number of conference calls to futher the development of the 31 < Business Practices. We have come up with a 1st cut list of the BPs that < are not impacted by the 8 design issues that we filed with FERC. Our < intention is to hold conference calls on 2-4 BPs at a time, these calls < are open to any and all. We will announce which BPs are to be < discussed, the outstanding items, and any comments that have been < received as part of the agenda for each conference call. This is not < intended to be the final review of the BPs, rather it will help get some < actual work accomplished. I have attached the 1st cut of the BPs that < are independant of Design Issues, and ask for input as to the order and < the groups of BPs that should be discussed. I would like to schedule < the 1st call for Wednesday the 30th. If you have concerns with the < lists and/or the grouping of the BPs, please respond as soon as < possible. On Monday the 28th, the offical announcement and agenda for < the 1st conference call will be sent. Please get your comments to me if < you are not able to participate on any particular call. It may be that < some the the BPs will be included in multiple conference calls, so you < will have several opportunities to participate. < < Mike << File: Independent of RTO Design Issues.doc <<
|