"Palazzo, William" <William.Palazzo@nypa.gov> writes to the 
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

In response to Roy's comments.  NYPA is paying for all the work conducted by
the ISO staff.  NYPA defined the study objective and all the ISO staff did
was conduct the MARS studies and document the results in the write-up we
provided to the tech exchange.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy J. Shanker [mailto:royjshanker@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:35 PM
To: market_relations@nyiso.com; nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements



"Roy J. Shanker" <royjshanker@worldnet.att.net> writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

As a separate item to the concerns I had about the technical content, I was
a little confused on what was done here administratively. The last paragraph
says something about NYPA sharing the study. I didn't think they had
anything at all to say about it in the first place if it is an ISO work
product. If they do, could you explain why this is the case? If the ISO did
this, why wasn't this all posted on the OASIS at the same time NYPA got
this? The date on this shows a March 26 release.  Ignore these comments if
this was done, but I wasn't aware of this.

I am more than a little uncomfortable with a single market participant
having a month's lead time on ISO studies that can have significant
commercial impact. Think about the implications of this in the context of
people negotiating long term bi lateral ICAP agreements over the last month.
Depending on your take on the type of market changes that this type of
analysis might support, there could be enormous changes to the economics of
seasonal versus annual agreements, choice of equipment etc. This simply
isn't fair. Even if posted, this type of work by the ISO that can have large
potential commercial impacts should go out on all of the distributions at
the same time as release to anyone and OASIS posting.

Roy J. Shanker
9009 Burning Tree Road
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-365-3654
301-365-3657 FAX
royjshanker@worldnet.att.net

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net
[mailto:owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net]On Behalf Of Palazzo,
William
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:42 PM
To: 'nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net'
Subject: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements

At NYPA's request ISO staff conducted a limited analysis of
the winter locational ICAP requirements for Long Island and New York City
areas.  While such ICAP requirements have historically been set as a single
number for the entire year, it is NYPA's belief that this holdover from the
old way of doing business must be re-examined.  It is NYPA's belief that
most if not all of the contribution to loss of load risk occurs in the
summer months.  As such, some reduction in winter ICAP requirements should
be possible with no impact on the Loss of Load criterion of one day in ten
years.

NYPA requested that the ISO start with the database that
resulted in the locational requirements of 80% and 98% for New York City and
Long Island, respectively.   At NYPA's request the ISO modeled winter
ratings on the transmission interfaces into NYC and LI and determined how
much the 80% and 98% could be reduced in the winter before any impact on the
statewide Loss Of Load  occurred.  The report indicates that winter
requirements of 75% and 92% of the summer peak load resulted for NYC and LI,
respectively.

While this in no way reflects an exhaustive analysis of winter
locational requirements, the results from this study suggest that some
reduction in the winter         requirement may be warranted and a
consideration of seasonal requirements should be incorporated in future ICAP
requirement studies.   NYPA believes that       having an ICAP requirement
for summer and winter seasons based on the LSE's peak load for the
respective season would send the proper ICAP price signal.


NYPA is sharing the study results in the attached report in
an effort to begin a dialog which we hope will lead to a broader examination
of locational requirements when the issue is revisited again next year.  We
would appreciate hearing the views of other market participants.

<<NYPA_LR_wint.PDF>>  <<TRAN_SYS_001129.PDF>>