Ray and ISAS -

Just going through the past four days of email, so please excuse this
response if it has been already addressed.

What was said at the Jan 17th meeting of the ESWG was, I (Bob Harshbarger)
was not prepared to address the issues surrounding voting, membership, etc.
at that meeting.  

ESWG will have to adopt some form of structure if we are to proceed as
quickly as the ESC.  The ESWG was formed at the direction of the Joint
Guidance Committee.  We have been asked to consider formalized or structure
membership based on the same guidelines that ISAS has been given.  The
intent is not to leave anyone out but to ensure we can address issues in a
timely manner.

There is no perfect solution.  A weighted sector voting structure does
appear to give broader voice to the masses, yet even within a single sector
the participants can opposing view points and still feel under represented.
What the ESWG adopts is to be seen.  

Robert Harshbarger
Puget Sound Energy
OASIS Trading Manager
425.462.3348 (desk)
206.604.3251 (cell)
mailto:bharsh@puget.com

cc: ESWG

> ----------
> From: 	Grinberg, Ray[SMTP:Ray.Grinberg@PacifiCorp.com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:57 AM
> To: 	Interchange Scheduling & Accounting Subcommittee (ISAS)
> Subject: 	RE: ISAS Meeting Agenda 2/14&15/2002
> 
> Steve;
>  
> I share Bob Winn's concerns regarding the administration and governance of
> the ISAS committee.   I've attended numerous meetings of the ISAS on
> behalf of Pinnacle West and now, PacifiCorp Power Marketing.   I never
> knew there was a formal requirement for membership.  If anything I thought
> that only Transmission providers were the actual voting members.  I
> believe this was how it was explained by mark hackney during one of last
> year's meetings.  As a marketer, and now a generation owner too, this was
> never and issue for me.  However your membership list (which I don't know
> where it came from) belies my understanding.  What exactly are the
> requirements to be a voting member of ISAS?
>  
> If I am going to be excluded from active participation, I request that
> PacifiCorp Power Marketing  (PPMI) be added as a member of the ISAS and I
> as its representative.  PPMI is a separate legal entity from PacifiCorp
> the utility.  I don't want to get bogged down in the governance issues
> that dominated the ESC meeting in Las Vegas but I agree with Bob that
> there needs to be some "known" rules about membership and participation.
> But something along the ESC's membership requirements and voting structure
> may be appropriate.  Especially if the OC is concerned about the
> effectiveness of the ISAS committee.  I understand the OC's desire for the
> ISAS to be more effective, but it shouldn't come at the cost of denying
> participation to interested and affected parties.
>  
> I request that we add this issue to the February Meeting Agenda.  I
> realize this could take up quite a bit of time, but I think its worth an
> hours discussion.  
>  
> I think you should be aware that at the meeting of the EWG at the Las
> Vegas Airport on Jan 17, the group decided to operate without a formal
> membership requirement and to allow all parties to participate and vote.  
>  
> Thanks for listening,
>  
> Ray Grinberg
> PacifCorp Power Marketing, Inc.  
> 650 NE Holladay, Suite 700
> Portland, OR  97232
> 503-813-5712
>  
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: sccobb@srpnet.com [mailto:sccobb@srpnet.com]
> 	Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:05 PM
> 	To: RWINN@pnm.com
> 	Cc: ISAS@wscc.com; ISASCOR@wscc.com; dmillam@utilicorp.com;
> Demetrios.Fotiou@powerex.com; Dianeg@ncpa.com; ECHANG@wapa.gov;
> jmcintosh@caiso.com; MMEYER@wapa.gov; Mons.Ellingson@pinnaclewest.com;
> Ray.Grinberg@PacifiCorp.com
> 	Subject: RE: ISAS Meeting Agenda 2/14&15/2002
> 
> 
> 	Bob,
> 	 
> 	I appreciate your input.
> 	 
> 	The OC Steering Committee has asked us to become more effective. We
> need to do our best to satisfy their request.
> 	 
> 	Our goal is to ensure we get the best product in the most efficient
> manner we can. ISAS has always had voting members. These members have
> determined the outcome of issues that the group is responsible for. I
> believe the current voting structure of ISAS is typical of the Operations
> Committee and the Sub-committees reporting to the OC. An OC member has the
> ability to appoint one representative from his/her company. In at least
> one case in the WSCC, an individual company has two OC members. One member
> represents the transmission/reliability side and one member represents the
> merchant side. 
> 	 
> 	Diverse opinions often lead to the best decisions. The intent of
> focusing on the voting members is to make the most of the limited time we
> have to make decisions. Non-voting members will still have the ability to
> take the floor to voice their views. However, the discussion will be
> limited so that we can complete our business. I suggest that we see how
> the February meeting goes. We can discuss proposed changes to the format
> prior to the next meeting. However, these changes must still comply with
> WSCC guidelines and OC direction.
> 	 
> 	The Joint Guidance Committee is currently revising the "Guidelines
> For Administering the Membership of WSCC Subcommittees, Work Groups And
> Task Forces."
> 	The proposed revision is attached.
> 	 
> 	Thanks.
> 	 
> 	 
> 
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Winn, Robert [mailto:RWINN@pnm.com]
> 	Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:03 PM
> 	To: 'sccobb@srpnet.com'; ISAS Correspondents
> 	Subject: RE: ISAS Meeting Agenda 2/14&15/2002
> 
> 
> 
> 		Steve, 
> 		  
> 
> 		We have some concerns regarding the format you suggest for
> the upcoming ISAS meeting which consists of the agenda and discussion
> being driven primarily by the voting member.  As you know in PNM's case
> (and others) we have only one WSCC membership. Our Merchant and
> Reliability functions are still under the same company as required by
> current laws and regulations.  We do however operate as totally
> independent shops thus having different tasks, issues, insights and etc.
> Neither shop is able to sufficiently represent the issues of the other.  
> 
> 		We are concerned that by limiting discussions to only "the
> voting member" much insight will be lost.   We would be interested in
> hearing from both sides of a company on issues.  I would suggest this
> committee consider structuring discussion and voting privileges along the
> lines of those being set up in other industry forums {ESC, GISB, NAERO,
> NAESB and etc.} where a company represented in WSCC would have
> voting/discussion privileges for representatives from each business
> sector.  In WSCC that should include at least a Reliability and/or a
> Merchant rep.(if applicable) even if the company holds only one WSCC
> membership.  
> 
> 		I do understand and support the need to control the size of
> this meeting and would not want to see decisions made strictly from votes
> by those in attendance. We feel it very important to have fair
> representation in the subcommittee of all concerned entities.  
> 
> 		I have been trying to find someone at WSCC who is involved
> with revision of the document titled "Guidelines For Administering the
> Membership of WSCC Subcommittees, Work Groups And Task Forces" which you
> indicated was being revised.  I have not been able to find out who this
> person is and am unable to find anything about it on the WSCC web
> site...could you provide a name?  As you know, this document has not been
> modified since 1991.  We would like to make sure the revisions reflect the
> needs of all the industry as we know it today.  We have some thoughts and
> concerns which we would like considered in the revision process.
> 
> 		Thanks, 
> 		Bob Winn 
> 		PNM  
> 		-----Original Message----- 
> 		From: sccobb@srpnet.com [ mailto:sccobb@srpnet.com] 
> 		Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:18 PM 
> 		To: ISAS Correspondents 
> 		Subject: ISAS Meeting Agenda 2/14&15/2002 
> 
> 
> 		ISAS Members and Guests, 
> 
> 		Attached is the agenda package for the February meeting. The
> hotel has 
> 		extended the room availability through 2/1/02. 
> 
> 		Thanks. 
> 
> 		 <<WSCC Meeting 2-14-02.pdf>>  <<ISAS February 2002 Meeting
> >> 
> 
> ==========================================================================
> ==
> 
> This email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
> 
> It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone
> else, unless expressly approved by the sender or an authorized addressee,
> is unauthorized.
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or any action omitted or taken in reliance on it, is
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe that you have received this
> email in error, please contact the sender, delete this e-mail and destroy
> all copies.
> 
> 
> ==========================================================================
> ====
> 
> 
>