marketrelations@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

This is being posted at PSEG's request, inasmuch as they are having problems
accessing the TIE List Server this morning.


----- Forwarded by XXXXX on 11/27/00 09:11 AM -----
"XXXXX, XXXXX." <XXXXXX.XXXX@pseg.com>
11/27/00 08:28 AM

To: XXXX XXXXX/NYISO@NYISO
cc:
Subject: Price Corrections for the 16 November 2000 Day-Ahead Market



PSEG shares the concerns that have been raised on this tie list concerning
the price correction to the November 16 DAM market.  In addition to clearly
explaining exactly what happened, we request the ISO address the following
issues at the November 30 BIC meeting:

1.  How, if this was an error, did it get so far into the SCUC process -
especially given the impact it had on system prices?
2.  Explaining exactly what authority the ISO is acting under in eliminating
the "problem" bid.
3.  Defining the time frame of all actions taken involving this transaction
(i.e., will you provide participants with a time-line from beginning to end
with these transactions)
4.  Outlining the security issues that will be taken to insure the data
integrity and time stamps associated with all levels of this transaction,
including MIS data and correspondence between the participant and the ISO.
5.  Assuring the market participants that the financial implications and
credit restrictions on the bidding entity were NOT the driving force behind
changing prices (the impact of this could bankrupt certain market
participants - we want to know that this is not a concern the ISO is
addressing).
6.  In Jim's notification he states:  "The NYISO experienced software
anomalies with respect to the submission of these transactions that may have
contributed to the difficulties experienced in confirming the initial bids."
The word "may" in this statement infers there may be a doubt that there was
a direct connection between the software problem and the bids.   Will you be
committing in this meeting to exactly what caused the problem?

Ray