|
|
Enron Mail |
|
In order to explain who WECC is, I must lay a little historical background.=
If you will recall, when EPAct'92 was passed, the usual view was that FER= C could order wheeling, but only on a case by case basis. There had been a= n effort to include an RTG provision in the bill, but it died when the conf= erence committee was finalizing the bill. There was a view by many in the = West at the time, that it would still be better to move ahead with self-imp= lementation of open access rather than waiting for litigation. In the summ= er of 1994, first WRTA (Western Regional Transmission Assocation) then SWRT= A (Southwestern Regional Transmission Association) and NRTA (Northwest Regi= onal Transmission Association) were filed. They were developed in an open = process that included, perhaps for the first time, the transmission owners,= the transmission dependent utilities, new market entrants and state regula= tors. The IPPs and Marketers were participants, including Enron, Electric = Clearing House (now Dynegy), DesTec, CalPine, Tenaska, etc. FERC responded= in November telling WRTA that it would have to accept comparable transmiss= ion access. Instead of collapsing as predicted by the "just say no" crowd,= the members accepted the conditions and accepted those conditions. WRTA f= ormed in June of 1995. =20 =20 While the RTGs appear rather tame today, at the time they challenged the tr= aditional view, offering to provide open access tariffs. When the FERC iss= ued the NOPR that gave us Orders 888/889 just prior to WRTAs formation, the= participants in the three Western RTGs members responded during the summer= of 1995 by working together to develop the key concepts of what became OAS= IS. With the filing of the current OATTs, much of the ground breaking work= of the RTGs was done, but they remained a forum for discussion of the inte= rface between commercial and reliablity. A common planning data base was d= eveloped in which included non-traditional participants and their ideas to = be included. The Western Market Interface Committee (WMIC) was organized b= y the RTGs and has had a continuing role in bringing the the three (soon to= be two?) RTOs proposals together. =20 When the Western RTGs were organized in 1995 they were formed outside of WS= CC. WSCC had a very restrictive policy, allowing only utilities to be memb= ers. When they grudgingly allowed IPPs to join, it was still by half-measu= res. For instance, WSCC would allow only employees of the member to attend= , so new, small members could not employ a consultant for joint representat= ion. When the RTG discussions were underway, the good old boys wanted it i= nside WSCC with the same kinds of restrictions. We broke that mold, formed= separately and then through the FERC order approving WRTA force WSCC to op= en its membership fully or to face the creating of a separate planning orga= nization. The change passed by one vote, but the change occured. =20 Once all the organizations were up and running (WSCC, WRTA, NRTA, SWRTA) it= was obvious that there was substantial duplication of meetings and functio= ns. Serions talks of a merger began in about 1998. They went very slowly= , but finally produced a common organization to be called the Western Elect= ric Coordinating Council (WECC), which would merge WSCC, WRTA and SWRTA tog= ether initially. NRTA will likely vote to merge as well. WECC is a RRG as= far as NERC is concerned. =20 =20 While the new bylaws do not go as far as I would have liked, they do furthe= r open up the WSCC process and provide for some consideration of the commer= cial impact of reliablity rules. Is this a transitional phase? Perhaps. D= oes it go as far as the EISB proposal? No, but I see no reason to play "sm= ash-em, bash-em" will every effort that hasn't followed the latest turn in = our thinking. As I hope this memo shows, we have been evolving the industr= y, never as fast as Enron or others (myself included) have wanted it to cha= nge. The WECC will reconsititue the WSCC board under new membership rules = and opens the possiblity of changing the entrenched senior staff as WSCC to= breath some life into the organization. At a minimum, the change from WSC= C/WRTA/SWRTA/NRTA to WECC will provide interim improvement while the debate= over EISB works its way to a conclusion and further change takes place. =20 Steve =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Yeung, Charles=20 Sent: Fri 9/28/2001 8:26 AM=20 To: Shelk, John; Novosel, Sarah=20 Cc: Robertson, Linda; Nersesian, Carin; Walton, Steve; Perrino, Dave; Rodri= quez, Andy=20 Subject: RE: WECC This is the first I have heard of WECC. I assume it is a "Western" NERC -t= ype organization?=20 I understand that the traders in the West are not too concerned about form= ing single standards applicable to both the East and West. They would howe= ver, like to see more consistency in practices between TPs within the West = itself. Sounds like WECC may be able to do this. One of the big problems w= ith the WSCC has been that it was not as stringent in dictating operating r= equirements on its members as the East has tried to be. At NERC, WSCC mem= bers have always argued deference to the West due to system differences. U= nfortunately deference to the West has meant little to no standardization i= n the West over many transmission access practices, leaving it up to the su= b-regions or individual TPs to decide. I am not saying they are not techni= cally justified, but there has been no incentive to bring about more consis= tent practices. Is WECC consistent with EISB? It depends, if WECC is sovereign over any ot= her organization for standards approval, then I would say no. I think WECC= should be subject to the EISB process and have to get standards approved t= hrough EISB as well. The problem is that EISB is voluntary and if WECC can= go directly to FERC, then it becomes effectively the same as "deference to= the West" -type language we have been fighting against. =20 So my verdict on WECC depends.....=20 As I noted in an earlier note, I believe there are those pushing for NERC t= o continue doing "reliability-only" and establish a contractual relationshi= p to coordinate with EISB. The WECC could take the same approach. If this= scenario plays out, I believe customers will leave NERC and put their mone= y into EISB. We must then work towards making NERC merely a transmission o= perators' advocacy group ( i.e. EEI is transmission owners advocacy group).= They can exist to focus on reliability - but have no direct standards set= ting authority. They must be a member of EISB and participate as a member = in one of the market sectors. If anyone has any more info on WECC, please share it.=20 Charles Yeung=20 713-853-0348=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Shelk, John =20 Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 7:05 AM=20 To: Novosel, Sarah; Yeung, Charles=20 Cc: Robertson, Linda; Nersesian, Carin=20 Subject: WECC=20 What do we think of FERC's approval of the new WECC this week? As I unders= tand it from the trade press, this new group is a merger of the WSCC and tw= o other groups. The new entity will handle reliability for RTOs, etc. and = others in the West. Is this consistent with our views on reliablity, EISB,= etc.? Thanks.
|