Here you go:

There is no banking mechanism.    If A&B are net long,  they receive the balancing energy price for all of their mw's.   If C & D are short,   then their short position is covered by the Ercot ISO;    C & D are charged the balancing energy price plus replacement reserve /mw.

If the money, at the end of the day,   is insufficient to pay A&B,  then this full cost will be allocated on a load share ratio basis.     This charge will be allocated under the UFE (unaccounted for energy) charge type.      
If C & D serve load,  then they will share the expense of paying for the balancing energy price to A & B.      A & B escapes this expense allocation, as they do not serve load.


JForney






 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Maheu, Peter  
Sent:	Wednesday, August 08, 2001 8:28 AM
To:	Forney, John M.
Subject:	Re: ERCOT SETTLEMENTS


---------------------- Forwarded by Peter Maheu/HOU/EES on 08/08/2001 08:27 AM ---------------------------

 
Peter Maheu
07/30/2001 12:55 PM
To:	John M Forney/ENRON@enronXgate @ ENRON
cc:	Kenneth Farrar/HOU/EES@EES, Gary Galow/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject:	Re: ERCOT SETTLEMENTS   << OLE Object: StdOleLink >> 

Example assumptions:
Market consists entirely of 4 QSEs who have the following schedule-actual variances in a particular hour; A=+50MW; B=+50MW; C=-25MW & D=-25MW.
Market energy price is $100/MWH.

Since money paid by C & D is insufficient to fully reimburse A & B (5000+5000-2500-2500=5000), what happens in the settlement?  Do A & B get proportionally less than they otherwise would have gotten?  Or, is there a banking mechanism that builds up in hours where there are overages and is drawn down in hours where there are shortages (such as example above)?



<Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>