Would you please review this stuff and tell us whether we should be happy 
with it or not.  Also, I would like you to be the "go-to" guy re this issue, 
as I assume you already think you are.  Then, Sue and Jeff will know who to 
formally iterate these issues with.  Sue and I probably have all the old 
stuff the Carl Imparato did re "no grandfathering" vs "ACCM".
----- Forwarded by David Parquet/SF/ECT on 04/11/2001 09:26 AM -----

	Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
	04/11/2001 08:26 AM
		 
		 To: David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Samuel Wehn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laird 
Dyer/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael McDonald/SF/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Cal ISO interconnection proc. Amend 39

FYI.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/11/2001 10:25 AM -----

	Christi L Nicolay@ECT
	04/11/2001 09:21 AM
		 
		 To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff 
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Cal ISO interconnection proc. Amend 39

I reviewed the Cal ISO filings below (in Sue's note) to determine general 
consistency with FERC orders on interconnection procedures.  Potential issues 
are identified below and you all can decide if Enron should protest/intervene 
(the West Developers may want to review this too).   Since I am not familiar 
with the Cal ISO procedures, I cannot determine whether protest is necessary 
(for example, PJM, NY, and NEPOOL have certain interconnection policies that 
would not be acceptable outside the pool, but that work ok for the pool).  
The TOs have also filed Amend. 39 interconnection procedures, but I have not 
looked at those to see if they mirror these.  Maybe one of the paralegals 
could check that.  In addition, one of you should review the filing letter 
and procedures to make sure that the statements made by Cal ISO are correct.

(Filing letter) The Cal ISO states that these procedures are filed in 
response to FERC's orders and that the Cal ISO and Market Participants are 
examining policies that will ensure that the ISO Controlled Grid is expanded 
to support competitive markets.  It also states that it would have liked to 
propose complementary changes to its long-term planning and expansion 
process, but other priorities have prevented it from doing so.
Discusses the two previously methodologies regarding interconnection 
procedures -- "No Grandfathering of Transmission Rights" and "Advance 
Congestion Cost Mitigation" (which was apparently rejected last year.
(Filing Letter at 10) -- Cal ISO does not propose a method of sharing upgrade 
costs, but states that the procedures do not preclude such a provision.  This 
is one we have used in other Inter. Agreements:  If required by law or if the 
Parties mutually agree to allow one or more third parties to use the 
Interconnection Facilities or any part thereof (whether by transfer of the 
Interconnection Facilities to an RTO or otherwise) and such use decreases the 
capacity of the Interconnection Facilities available to TO or the Facility or 
otherwise causes any detriment to TO or the Facility or benefits any party 
(including TO) other than Generator, or if TO is compensated for the costs of 
the Interconnection Facilities (in whole or in part) for any reason, 
Generator will be entitled to compensation from TO based upon the pro rata 
use of the Interconnection Facilities by TO, all third party users, and 
Generator, for the greater of (i) whatever costs Generator incurred in 
connection with the Interconnection Facilities, plus interest at the Interest 
Rate from the date of Generator's payment of the costs in connection with the 
Interconnection Facilities and (ii) the value that TO receives for the 
Interconnection Facilities.  Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the 
Parties may use any other mutually agreed upon methodology to determine such 
compensation.
3.3 If one or more third parties are to use the Interconnection Facilities in 
accordance with Section ___, Generator's obligation to reimburse TO for the 
operation and maintenance costs incurred by TO in connection with the 
Interconnection Facilities shall be based on the pro rata use of the 
Interconnection Facilities by TO, all third parties users, and Generator, or 
on some other mutually agreed upon methodology; provided, however, that, 
under no circumstances shall Generator's share of TO's operation and 
maintenance costs be greater than its pro rata use of the Interconnection 
Facilities.
(Procedures) The timelines for submitting applications and responding to 
system impact studies (SIS) and facilities study (FS) are fine, per previous 
FERC orders (in fact, Cal ISO asks for 60 days to complete the Facilities 
Study -- PGE just filed requesting 90 days).
5.7.3.1.1.(c)  I would add "on a non-discriminatory basis" after "unless 
otherwise agreed by the ISO, and the Interconnecting PTO"
5.7.4.2 allows the generator to perform its own SIS and FS, subject to review 
by the Cal ISO and TO (this is a good provision that has not been adopted by 
many utilities).
5.7.4.2.1 -- The SIS will identify adverse impact on "Encumbrances" 
(undefined).  Someone needs to check this provision since I am not familiar 
with this Cal ISO rule.
5.7.4.2.2 -- A New Facility Operator is entitled to amend its Completed 
Application once without losing its queue spot.  Other utilities allow 
amendments as long as the change is not "material", which has only been 
defined by the utility and approved by FERC in several cases.  This Cal ISO 
proposed provision could be problematic to other generators in the queue if 
it is not limited to "material", (unless Enron is making the one time 
change!)  In any event, check with West Developers on this provision.
5.7.4.3 -- This provision requiring a New Facility Operator to execute (or 
have filed unsigned at FERC) an Interconnection Agreement within 10 days (if 
no upgrades) or within 30 days (if upgrades) can be a problem.  Cal ISO does 
not file a pro forma Interconnection Agreement in these procedures.  If Cal 
ISO tenders a poor interconnection agreement draft (which happens all the 
time with other utilities), then there is no way that Enron would typically 
want to execute it within those time limits.  For example, Duke did not file 
an pro forma interconnection agreement, but does allow 90 days for 
negotiation.  In my experience, the negotiation of the interconnection 
agreement can take a long time.  It would be advisable for the Cal ISO to 
file a pro forma at FERC, then you can protest, if necessary, and at least 
there will be a fairly decent interconnection agreement to use.
5.7.4.4.1(a)  -- The Queuing Milestones appear to be fairly rigid and quick:  
require the New Facility Operator to comply with the ISO tariff and the TO 
tariff and within 6 months of its Completed Application Date, satisfy all 
applicable Data Adequacy Requirements of state and local siting and other 
regulatory authorities.  I don't know that 6 months is achievable.  FERC has 
approved milestones in other cases, but most contain language requiring 
reasonable movement toward the milestones.  For example in Duke ER01-794 
Section 41.5: (Transmission Provider may reasonably extend any such milestone 
dates in the event of delays not caused by the Generation Interconnection 
Customer, such as unforeseen regulatory or construction delays that could not 
be remedied by Gen. Int. Customer through the exercise of due diligence, and 
may also reasonably extend milestone dates to which the Gen. Int. Customer 
has not agreed and which the Gen. Int. Customer has challenged at the 
Commission pending a Commission determination as to the reasonableness of 
such dates.)  In addition, the Cal ISO only allows one extension of 30 days 
-- probably not enough.
5.7.4.4.1 (b) -- requires a New Facility License within 15 months after 
satisfying the Data Adequacy Requirements.
5.7.5 -- does not provide for transmission credits for "network upgrades" 
(upgrades other than the costs of interconnection).  The Cal ISO recognized 
this exclusion in its filing letter at 11, but thinks that such issues are 
appropriately addressed as part of the process to revise the ISO's long-term 
grid planning process.  Enron has argued and won at FERC for transmission 
credits in other utility cases, but I don't know what is appropriate under 
Cal ISO system, so please check this carefully.
---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 04/11/2001 
08:02 AM ---------------------------


Susan J Mara@ENRON
04/05/2001 03:18 PM
To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: RE: FERC FIlings

I complained to the ISO Webmaster and Voila!  I guess I was looking in the 
wrong spot

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 04/05/2001 01:14 PM -----

	WebMaster <WebMaster@caiso.com>
	04/05/2001 01:11 PM
		 
		 To: "Mara, Sue" <smara@enron.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: RE: FERC FIlings

Its under Public Info, FERC Filings and Rulings, Tariff Amendments.
Here's the direct link

http://www2.caiso.com/docs/2001/04/02/200104021630021868.html

-----Original Message-----
From: smara@enron.com [mailto:smara@enron.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:05 PM
To: webmaster@caiso.com
Cc: webmaster@caiso.com
Subject: FERC FIlings


I am looking for the ISO's FERC filing that was made on April 2 --  of
Amendment No. 39 on the New Facility Interconnection procedures.