|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks John.
That reminds me there was a list of action items from our last meeting. I've attempted to list here. Any comments, additions, or corrections, let me know: * split list of 31 business practices into market design dependent and independent - done * participate in ESC conference calls - pending * distribute latest version of John Hormozi's white paper - "what makes WSCC so different" - done * attempt a correlation of the differences to business practices (small group) - pending * promote registration into the ESC sector voting through out the WSCC - week of Jan 28th expected ESC sector registration begins * confirm meeting for election of ESC officers - done, election at April meeting in Dallas * encourage nomination of WSCC members for ESC office positions - one volunteer so far * Steve McCoy to contact SEGWIG and/or SEASIC (excuse my spelling) regarding the 31 business practices (ideally the RTOs could review the practices and cite problem areas) - pending * Others Robert Harshbarger Puget Sound Energy OASIS Trading Manager 425.462.3348 (desk) 206.604.3251 (cell) mailto:bharsh@puget.com < ---------- < From: Hormozi, John[SMTP:jhormo@ladwp.com] < Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 4:22 PM < To: Electronic Scheduling Work Group < Subject: ESC conference calls to discuss individual Business < Practices < < <<File: Independent of RTO Design Issues.doc<< < 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 e-mail 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 <
|