"May, Tom" <Tom.May@ENRON.com> writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

As usual, Joe has cut directly to the issue and I could not agree more.
While there has been progress made in New York, the NYISO and the New
York market will never gain credibility or the confidence of the market
as long as these situations exist.  While the NYISO may not have the
ability to unilaterally change this, they would at gain some credibility
if they were the ones raising the issue and aggresively and publically
advocating for change.

Tom May
Enron

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net@ENRON   On
> Behalf Of "Kirkpatrick, Joe" <joe.kirkpatrick@nrgenergy.com>
> Sent:	Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:01 AM
> To:	nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
> Subject:	Who is in Control?
>
>
> "Kirkpatrick, Joe" <joe.kirkpatrick@nrgenergy.com> writes to the
> NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:
>
> In order to have a functioning market model it is imperative to have a
> level playing field for all market participants.
>
> Is it a level playing field or even appropriate for any individual
> market participant to dispatch generation and transmission facilities
> that affect the economics of other market participants? The dispatch
> of
> transmission and generation to resolve congestion must be made with
> the
> overall economics of the entire market in mind. The only entity that
> has
> the information and empowered to make these decisions is the NYISO.
>
> With that in mind why does a particular market participant have
> control
> over major interfaces that interconnect New York and PJM. Specifically
> the control points would be the Linden-Goethals phase angle regulator
> and the Hudson Farragut phase angle regulators. These PARs are under
> ConEd control and are utilized by ConEd to facilitate whatever
> requirements they deem required. As this is being written the New York
> PJM schedule is 546 MW out to New York with a flow of 762 MW the flow
> on
> these PARs (including Ramapo) is ~1500 MW to New York.
>
> Are the interests of all market participants being considered by a
> market participant that has over 40% of the load in New York State,
> that
> has control over a significant amount of generation utilizing OOM
> dispatches and by having control over a significant amount of
> transmission facilities capable of altering the flow into New York
> City
> and Central x East.
>
> I suspect not.
>
> Case in point..
>
> There is a transmission constraint in an area in New York city. This
> constraint can only be monitored by ConEd and therefore is resolved
> utilizing an OOM dispatch request. Generation was reduced to resolve
> the
> constraint, there is another generator in the area that can be reduced
> to resolve the constraint, but it would appear that this control
> action
> is not utilized . Coincidently the power from this other generator is
> under contract to ConEd (take-or-pay). There is also a PAR
> (Linden-Goethals) that can be moved to alleviate the constraint, which
> unfortunately is not utilized either. Instead generation is reduced
> that
> does result in additional uplift charges that is socialized as a cost
> to
> all loads in New York. Whether the right economic decisions are being
> made is an issue but the larger issue is why is a market participant
> with a large economic interest making these decisions.
>
> The NYISO was asked why the PAR was not utilized as a control action
> to
> alleviate the constraint, simply put since the PAR is not under their
> control they do not consider it as a control action.
>
> Since ConEd does not have the overall market view or the economic
> interests of all market participants in mind is it appropriate to
> allow
> them to operate and dispatch a large part of New York State?
>
> When the NYISO is not controlling major inter-area transmission
> interfaces but allows that control to be utilized by a market
> participant it is a compromise of the entire market. Economics of an
> individual market participant are overriding the economics of all
> other
> participants in New York.
>
> This is not a "best practice" that any sane individual would recommend
> for any RTO model.
>
>
> Joe Kirkpatrick


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
**********************************************************************