|
|
Enron Mail |
Howard --
If the ONE RTO doesn't have a day-ahead market, what happens? Jim -----Original Message----- From: =09Brown, Jeff =20 Sent:=09Thursday, September 20, 2001 9:37 AM To:=09Fromer, Howard Cc:=09Steffes, James D.; Jenkins, Beth; Paysse, Juan Carlos Subject:=09RE: MG Load Curtailment Option Howard, Since this will be a financial deal initially that could be physical in the= future, I have only included the value of the day-ahead program in our mod= el. Thus if we elect to become the physical provider during the 36 months,= we will have an incremental benefit. However, if we never become the phys= ical provider, I need to know that I will be paid in the Day Ahead program = for reducing load. Three key regulatory issues: 1. NYISO has an Hour-Ahead market that load needs to be allowed to partici= pate in. This would clearly increase the value of the MG deal and our NY = products in general. 2. The Day-Ahead Demand Response Program needs to remain in-tact. This al= lows EES to realize the value of our call options, whether we are financial= or physical. =20 3. The baseline calculation for load reduction does not work. This summer= , one of IBM's sites reduced load by 2 MW's, which is clear when reviewing = this usage curves on the day of curtailment. However, when comparing to th= eir CBL (as currently defined) there was no reduction and therefore no paym= ent for IBM or EES. As we have discussed, NY should look at ISO-New Englan= d's baseline calculations. This is a much better approach for Enron and ou= r customers. Thanks - Jeff From:=09Howard Fromer/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/20/2001 08:04 AM To:=09James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate cc:=09Jeff A Brown/HOU/EES@EES=20 Subject:=09RE: MG Load Curtailment Option Jim: I have participated in a number of calls with Jeff and his team over t= he past few weeks regarding this deal, goving over the details of how NY's = demand response programs work, reviewing draft contracts, and putting him i= n touch with appropriate ISO staff when even more detailed followup was nee= ded. I see little likelihood of NY's demand response programs being elimina= ted over the next few years given the increasingly tight supply situation t= he state faces and the long lead time for permitting and bulding new genera= tion, and the great success these programs achieved this past summer. (Most= folks credit the 600 MW produced by NY's day-ahead and emergency demand re= sponse programs with keeping the lights on in the northeast during the earl= y August heat wave.) Only the day-ahead incentive program has a risk of not= being continued beyond October 2003, it's current expiration date. However= , even there, there is likely to be pressure to extend it for an additional= year or two. With respect to potential RTO impacts, in our discussions wit= h PJM, they have stated that at a minimum they would allow NY to continue i= ts demand response programs in the new Northeast market on day 1, even if t= hey differed from the rest of the region.Further, PJM would even consider m= aking the NY programs applicable throughout the region on day 1 if that was= what the market participants in the region wanted to do.=20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Steffes, James D. =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:25 AM To:=09Fromer, Howard Subject:=09MG Load Curtailment Option Howard - Have you and Jeff Brown talked about the MG deal? I want to make sure that= you understand fully and appreciate any issues / concerns. Thanks.
|