FYI.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Frazier, Doug [mailto:Douglas@chelanpud.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 12:54 PM
To: Interchange Scheduling & Accounting Subcommittee (ISAS)
Subject: RE: Business Practice #11



I have to tell you more than you want to know to preface this response. 
There are 5 hydro projects in the Mid-Columbia region. These 5 projects are owned and controlled by 3 control areas - Douglas County PUD, Chelan County PUD and Grant County PUD. Some of the generation from these 5 projects has been sold on a long-term basis to several participants. I'm not familiar with the term "take away rights", but every mwh generated at these 5 projects is either used for load in the 3 control areas or it is moved away to participant's control areas. The fact that some want to represent their share of generation as being part of a "single bus" and claiming it can be moved away without naming a transmission provider does not accurately represent the transfer of energy from one control area to another. Douglas, Chelan and Grant are the only control areas at the Mid-Columbia with other adjacent control areas.

Each participant has transmission capability (either their own or purchased) to transfer their share of generation from one of our control areas to their own. These transmission paths serve one of two purposes. 1) dynamic schedules or fixed schedules to serve load or 2) transfers for sale or resale.

The "single bus" idea at the Mid-C will soon be correctly represented for 4 of the 5 projects. Chelan and Grant plan to combine their control area boundaries (for scheduling and tagging purposes only) and call it the Mid-C HUB. This HUB is registered as a TP with NERC as MHUB and will accomodate transfers of energy BETWEEN participants. All other transactions will require other transmission to move energy OUT OF the Mid-C HUB. Douglas County PUD is not part of the Mid-C HUB or MHUB.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Hackney, Mark W(Z39911) [ <mailto:Mark.Hackney@aps.com>] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 3:04 PM 
To: Interchange Scheduling & Accounting Subcommittee (ISAS) 
Subject: Business Practice #11 


"For transactions that occur at only one bus (i.e. no OASIS/GF transmission 
involved) use a willing TP on the second line with the same PSE as on the 
first line and the words "Single Bus" in the OASIS reservation field and 
"7-F" as the Product." 

Is this practice not being practiced?  I've seen/heard that at the MID 
Columbia folks selling energy to those who have take away rights at MID C 
are have their tags denied because the tag creators are not using a "TP 
specific transmission path or designation".  It was agreed to use "Single 
Bus" in these situations to avoid the implications of transmission service 
where no transmission service was necessary from the MID C. 

If the sink control area is bringing the energy back to their system at that 
point then the sink should have it indicated that it's not a single bus for 
their transmission portion, but may be "GF" or "No reservation required" 
from the bus to the system.  But in this circumstance then the path is not 
MIDC-MIDC but MIDC-SYS.  That's my take.  Others wish to pipe in? 

Mark W. Hackney 
Section Leader 
Pre and Real-time Transmission Scheduling 
APS OATT Administration 
Arizona Public Service Company 
602.250.1128 - Office 
602.908.1423 - Cell 
602.250.1155 - Fax 
<mailto:Mark.Hackney@aps.com> 
_________________________________________________________________ 
Click to add my contact info to your organizer: 
<http://my.infotriever.com/cc2tf0ey>