This is what I think.  I'll let you know when I get confirmation.

Keoni Almeida
California Independent System Operator
phone: 916/608-7053
pager:  916/814-7352
alpha page:  9169812000.1151268@pagenet.net
e-mail:  <mailto:kalmeida@caiso.com>




-----Original Message-----
From: Almeida, Keoni
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 1:29 PM
To: Ford, Greg
Subject: FW: Question


My response to the questions would be that they get the proxy price during
the mitigated intervals when they do not have a bid in.  If they have a bid
in, they get the higher of the proxy or the bid and they submit the cost
justification to FERC.  Right?
Who do they send cost justification to?

Keoni Almeida
California Independent System Operator
phone: 916/608-7053
pager:  916/814-7352
alpha page:  9169812000.1151268@pagenet.net
e-mail:  <mailto:kalmeida@caiso.com>




-----Original Message-----
From: Foster, Chris H. [mailto:Chris.H.Foster@ENRON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 1:21 PM
To: KAlmeida@caiso.com
Cc: tbarringer@edisonmission.com; Scott Hawley (E-mail); Cocke Jr.,
Stanley; Comnes, Alan
Subject: FW: Question


Keoni:

In addition to my questions below, can you clarify what we get paid when
we are inc'd pursuant to the FERC Order?  Is the proxy the inc? If we do
not have a bid in, do we get the inc?  If we have a supplemental bid in,
do we get the higher of the inc or the bid?   If we do get the higher
of, to whom do we send our cost data?

Chris

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Foster, Chris H.
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:53 PM
> To:	'"Almeida, Keoni" <KAlmeida@caiso.com>@ENRON'
> Cc:	Nelson, Kourtney; Comnes, Alan; Stokley, Chris
> Subject:	RE: Question
>
> K:
>
> I wanted to document what just happened on receiving a dispatch
> instruction from the ISO for Harbor Cogen (harbgn_7_units).   At 12:20
> we received a dispatch instruction from he ISO due to the Stage 1
> emergency.  The request was for 1 MW from Tosco and 27 MW from Harbor.
>
>
> As you know, we are no longer the SC for Tosco and have sent you the
> required documentation.  Can you make sure the ISO has this in their
> system?
>
> With respect to Harbor, we were running 60 MW and were inc'd 27,
> indicating a request for a total of 87 MW.  We already had an approved
> outage request from the ISO as indicated by the fax I sent you
> indicating that Harbor only had 80 MW available.  So, the ISO should
> only have been able to dispatch 20 MW.
>
> We initially declined the dispatch instruction from the ISO due to the
> errors the ISO made and the confusion it caused us.  We immediately
> "hit the phones" to clarify the facts and subsequently inc'd
> generation to 80 MW by 12:45.  Why did the ISO dispatch group not have
> our outage request indicating a maximum of 80 MW?
>
> We believe we have completely responded to the ISO's instruction and
> should have no penalty charges.  Please let me know the settlement
> implications of this confusion event.
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
>
>