Jim and Rick

Please read Mike Gildea's issue 2. I work with Mike closely on operating 
policy issues.  He is with Duke NA, the IPP side, formerly with EEI.  I need 
some help on where Enron stands on current legislation as it relates to his 
question.

Do we think the language empowers NERC with too much authority?  Or does it 
allow for any organization, i.e. GISB/EISB to perform the functions.

I know Enron agrees with NERC not imposing restrictions on the RTOs and slow 
down market formation - but we certainly don't want to have to deal with 
every RTO as a reliability standard setting organization.

---------------------- Forwarded by Charles Yeung/HOU/ECT on 04/27/2001 02:04 
PM ---------------------------


"Michael F Gildea" <mfgildea@duke-energy.com> on 04/27/2001 01:36:40 PM
To: Charles.Yeung@enron.com
cc:  
Subject: Re: NERC Issues



Charles,
1. I believe we need a conference call with yourself, Lydia and few others
to assess the landscape, come to a common position and goal here.  I
believe the ugly train has left the station  and we are in damage control
at the moment.    Optimally, we need the three of us on the same page when
we go to the TCCG meeting in Tampa,  from there we can try to spread our
common message.

2. On another front, - the reliability legislation.  I told our DC office
(not that they will listen) that the legisation NERC is pushing on the
Capitol Hill is now outdated and puts too much emphasis for standards in
NERC hands when the game today is inthe RTOs.  A powerful NERC may slow up
market development.   What is the view of Enron here?  I assume the same,
but curious.  Apparently, some Hill Staffers called our DC office for
opinions on the NERC reliability legislation - so something afoot.
Micheal



                    Charles.Yeung
                    @enron.com           To:     mfgildea@duke-energy.com
                                         cc:
                    04/27/01             bcc:
                    01:06 PM             Subject:     Re: when the LCA is not 
the Sink







---------------------- Forwarded by Charles Yeung/HOU/ECT on 04/27/2001
01:05 PM ---------------------------


Charles Yeung@ECT
04/27/2001 12:53 PM

To:   LVollmer@pwrteam.com @ ENRON
cc:   Richard.Ingersoll@enron.com@ENRON, Charles.Yeung@enron.com@ENRON,
      mike_gildea@duke-energy.com@ENRON
Subject:  Re: when the LCA is not the Sink  (Document link: Charles Yeung)

I want to forward this to TCCG as agneda items for the Tampa meeting.




LVollmer@pwrteam.com on 04/27/2001 10:02:16 AM

To:   Richard.Ingersoll@enron.com
cc:   Charles.Yeung@enron.com, mike_gildea@duke-energy.com
Subject:  Re: when the LCA is not the Sink



Charles and Mike - At yesterday's Security Subcommittee meeting, a motion
passed to change SMEPA control area configuration in the IDC to reflect the
location of their share of generation in Entergy's territory that is needed
to serve their load.  The way the IDC was working was giving erroneous
information about an overload on the Weber-Richard line, which in fact was
not happening.  I tried to prevent this change for occurring stating that
policy 9 allows for the security coordinators to adjust the cut list when
known errors are occurring.

We need to have a definite action plan for how and when increased
granularity will be allowed to happen.  Lanny Nickell is suppose to make a
presentation at the next MIC meeting about this.  But we all need to be on
the same page to have an action plan in place that we can start shopping to
MIC members. I have volunteered to head a group to try to define the "end
state" of total granularity that we would ultimately want for the IDC and
the asociated costs to get there.

Another important issue that we need to address head on is the desire of
the SCs to allow for lowering of the impact thresholds for certain
flowgates that are now not getting relief at 5%.  I asked if this motion
was passed would it guarantee that less MW's will be cut in order to get
the relief needed -- the answer was no. Therefore, why should we support
any change?  This entire issue centers around a fundamental issue that has
existed from day one when flowgates were first allowed -- what are the
standards for allowing new flowgates?  To what extent should local problems
be addressed by the transmission provider with those problems, versus
putting the pain on the entire market place because the TP can't or won't
improve their transmission facility?  (In the first days of TLR, I raised
this issue over and over again when MAIN used a 500 kV line as a proxy for
the Albion Transformer -- which caused about 2,500 source-sink pairs to be
cut throughout the eastern interconnection).  This is an issue that
ultimately will be handled by the RTOs, but education is the key here as
flowgates are being defined around the country.


Another issue is OSL determination.  Ben Li has prepared Appendix 9C1A.
There was discussion at the meeting that implementing this would further
restrict transmission access.  The SCs are all over the board on this.  I
reminded them that the MIC had asked for data for each flowgate now in
existence for TLR purposes to define for us how they determine their own
limits -- I was told at this meeting  it was never done because there was
no agreement on how to measure the OSL.  So how, I asked, can a OSL be
determined via of a NERC standard?

I have real heartburn that NERC does not have any measurable standards for
allowing the items discussed above.  We have to force criteria and
measurable standards.

Let me know what you think.  Also, what we need to do to flesh out these
issues so everyone can understand them.

Lydia Vollmer
Exelon Power Team
300 Exelon Way
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-765-6620
lvollmer@pwrteam.com



                    Richard.Ingersoll
                    @enron.com               To:
Charles.Yeung@enron.com
                                             cc:     bill.rust@enron.com,
dgcipriany@aep.com, drboezio@aep.com,
                    04/24/2001 11:05         hyan@pwrteam.com,
idcgtf@nerc.com, idcusers@nerc.com,
                    AM                       lvollmer@pwrteam.com,
pehoffer@aep.com, ringers@ect.enron.com,
                                             vapr@dynegy.com
                                             Subject:     Re: when the LCA
is not the Sink






Charles, I agree with you buti think we need to resist increased
granularity at this time. ?It will only decrease transmission and increase
TLR,s. ?Also the increase in transmission segments will make it more
dificult to put a transaction together.



                             Charles Yeung            ? ? ? ? To:
                                                      pehoffer@aep.com @
                             04/23/2001 06:28 AM      ENRON
                                                      ? ? ? ? cc:
                                                      idcgtf@nerc.com@ENRON
                                                      ,
                                                      idcusers@nerc.com@ENR
                                                      ON,
                                                      dgcipriany@aep.com@EN
                                                      RON,
                                                      drboezio@aep.com@ENRO
                                                      N, hyan@pwrteam.com,
                                                      lvollmer@pwrteam.com,
                                                      bill rust,
                                                      ringers@ect.enron.com
                                                      , vapr@dynegy.com
                                                      ? ? ? ? Subject:
                                                      Re: when the LCA is
                                                      not the SinkLink




This sounds like a tagging problem and not an IDC granularity problem.
Yes - this can be fixed with a IDC granularity change but does NERC want to
change IDC granualaruty on a piecemeal basis for this and the othe 14
control areas? ?What abot when these 15 control areas change to another
control area service provider? ?What about the next 15?

I don't think that AEP's customers actually disconnected from the AEP grid
and reconnected at some other point in another control area's transmission
network. The IDC is not mapping flows for that customer any more "wrongly"
than when that customer purchased control area services from AEP.

This is why hard criteria is needed to verify whether these 15 situations
require granularity change or whether ALL existing control areas need more
granularity for that matter.


Sent by: ? ? ? ?owner-idcgtf@nerc.com

To: ? ? ? ?idcgtf@nerc.com, idcusers@nerc.com
cc: ? ? ? ?dgcipriany@aep.com, drboezio@aep.com
Subject: ? ? ? ?when the LCA is not the Sink


We have been informed by one of our customers who serves a load which has
been electronically removed from the AEP Control Area that ?from now on
they will use the Electronic Control Area as the LCA, instead of using the
Physical Control Area (AEP) as the LCA. In this way, the Electronic Control
Area will be properly notified of any adjustments and approvals regarding
this transaction. Unfortunately, the IDC will be mapping the flow into one
CA while it's really going to another.

Our representative to the SSC will be arguing strenuously at their next
meeting that these types of situations need to be addressed. Historically,
the creation of a new control area has been the answer. Lou has indicated
that there are 14 of these situations pending in the Eastern Interconnect.