All,

It is my understanding that transmission stacking was to be used when
aggregating multiple OASIS reservations from the same transmission provider
on a single tag.  The stacking of OASIS reservations in descending order of
priority works for a single xmn provider, and the tag author's use of the
descending stacking methodology can be verified by that transmission
provider.  Doesn't using multiple xmn providers eliminate this checking
mechanism?  Or is the idea of the transmission provider verifying the stack
order distasteful?

Finally, is allowing xmn stacking with multiple xmn providers the logical
extension of allowing xmn stacking with one provider?


Chris Smith 
California ISO
Prescheduling
Phone  (916) 351-2180
Email at csmith@caiso.com



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scholtes, Diana [mailto:Diana.Scholtes@ENRON.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:02 PM
To: Interchange Scheduling & Accounting Subcommittee (ISAS)
Subject: Transmission Stacking up for debate


et al:

I have a Preschedule Tag (implemented only for the day) that is raising
some eyebrows that needs to be up for discussion.  


Transaction Path

CA	TP	PSE		Product	Path		OASIS #	Level	Info
Ref	

PNM		PNMMS1
G;FS	PV5	
AZPS									
SRP	PNM	PNMMS1	7-F		PV5/WW	8155		9	FS
9 MW'S

SRP	EPE	PNMMS1	7-F		PV5/WW	413		6	FS
6 MW'S	
AZPS									
WALC	SRP	PNMMS1	7-F		WW/MED	00005703		FS

		EPMIWE
FS		
NEVP		CRCH1
L;FS	SWA	
									


No. 14.. Business Practices- "Multiple transmission reservations or
grand fathered transmission contracts may use the "level" capability of
the e-tag.  The PSE should list their stacked transmission segments in
descending order of priority."

The reason this is causing some problems is due to the multiple
transmission providers.  All CA's and TP's approved the tag initially,
but then was rejected as a future tag.  I would propose having the
Business practice amended to allow the tag to display multiple
transmission providers.  On the original tag, the MW break-out was
clearly defined under the Reference field and also on the Comments
field.  It appears that all control areas also should be able to check
out with one another.  

Diana Scholtes
Enron North America
(503) 464-3807


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you. 
**********************************************************************