Good question, Bob, as this is new to me, too.  Here's my understanding.

While a "path" can be either one line or a group of lines, it has a
beginning and an end (a POR and a POD).  Example: Midway to COB.

A "flowgate", on the other hand, is a reference monitoring position
(which can physically be a collection of locations lumped into a virtual
point).  It can be used for scheduling as well as for metering and is
generally described as going "into" somewhere.  Example: You could
combine COB and NOB into a single flowgate defined as "Into California
(Southbound)".

"Granularity" refers to the degree of detail in your model (i.e., to
what extent it is seen through a wide-angle lens vs. through a
magnifying glass).  So far, I've seen it applied to 
schedule changes (how many times an hour), transmission products (how
small a time increment someone can buy) and transmission grids.  With
respect to transmission grids, it can be used to describe both paths and
flowgates.  Here's a pair of examples: the Mc Cullough 500 - Eldorado
500 path (one line, 3000 feet long -- part of a model with small
granularity), and "Into WSCC" (a flowgate in a model with extremely
large granularity).  

When I wrote "the more granular the flowgate model" below, I meant "the
larger the scale of your transmission model by flowgates"; in fact, I
had the "Into WSCC" example in mind at the time, whereby someone in the
Eastern Interconnection could conceivably purchase a transmission right
to send energy westward to a sink anywhere in the Western
Interconnection.

I'm cc-ing the rest of the ESWG on this message in case (as I suspect) I
owe our other colleagues the same clarification.

Your fellow student,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Schwermann [mailto:BSchwer@smud.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 6:41 AM
To: Hormozi, John
Subject: RE: ESC conference calls to discuss individual Business
Practices


	John, I hate to ask dumb questions as I suppose I should
understand
this new terminology...but I don't.  You mention  "the more granular the
flowgate
Model",  Is it possible to explain "granularity" and the difference
between
flowgate and path models.  I hate to always burden you with questions,
but
you are knowledgeable on these issues and I need to get up to speed. I
guess
I owe you a few beers now. Thanks - Bob

Robert D. Schwermann
SMUD
916-732-5519 (Voice)
916-732-6436 (Fax)
800-946-4646  Pin 1426534 (Pager)
email: bschwer@smud.org <mailto:bschwer@smud.org> 

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Hormozi, John [SMTP:jhormo@ladwp.com]
	Sent:	Monday, January 28, 2002 3:43 PM
	To:	Electronic Scheduling Work Group
	Subject:	RE: ESC conference calls to discuss individual
Business Practices

	John, I appreciate your giving the sublists a once-over.  I'll
reply
to
	your comments in the order you wrote them.

	BP 4 says, in essence, "Before you sell a transmission right,
make
sure
	your grid can support it."  The gist of BP 9 is: "If your
Transmission
	Customer wants to move energy someplace not mentioned in the
purchased
	transmission right, but you can still fit it in, then let it
flow
	anyway."  At the ESC meeting, I was looking past the linkage
statement
	about these two BPs, instead focusing on the fact that BP 4 is
really an
	"OASIS" practice while BP 9 is about energy scheduling.  Now,
though, in
	the tranquility of my office, I'm inclined to agree that they
should
	still be considered together.  Both of these BPs give you a
choice
	between path and flowgate models (and the more granular the
flowgate
	model, the closer you get to a purely financial transmission
market), so
	how would you feel about calling both of them
"model-independent"?

	BP 25 discusses fragmentary scheduling (i.e., letting a group of
	entities in the transaction chain submit pieces of a schedule
which,
	when pieced together, form a complete and continuous schedule).
As
	written, the BP doesn't seem to tie us to any particular
transmission
	model, because the fragments could conceivably use any
combination
of
	physical and financial transmission rights.  So this BP would
appear
to
	belong in the "model independent" category.

	We in the West have suggested a rewording of BP 1, 10 and 12
(hopefully,
	soon to be shared with the ESC) to allow regions like ours to
minimize
	the operational impact of changing the frequency and duration of
	non-emergency generator ramping.  As drafted, these changes
would
have
	no effect on current practices in the East, so more than one
version
of
	each BP would be unnecessary.

	The "Applicability" section of BP 24 reads, in part: "This
Business
	Practice addresses the implementation of a curtailment/reload by
(a
	Scheduling Authority).  It does not address the  process items
leading
	up to the curtailment ..."  I would say that BP 24 does not
depend
on
	the choice of congestion management method selected.

	By the way, I'm sharing these comments with ESC Business
Practice
Task
	Force Chair Mike McElhany, who is apportioning the BP
discussions
among
	a series of conference calls to begin as early as January 30.

	Thank you, John, for your valuable input.

	John Hormozi, LADWP
	(818) 771-6775

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Canavan, John S [mailto:jcanavan@mtpower.com]
	Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:41 AM
	To: Hormozi, John; Electronic Scheduling Work Group
	Subject: RE: ESC conference calls to discuss individual Business
	Practices


	John, just a couple of quick comments. 

	First BP 9 is identified as an "independent issue" and BP 4 is
	identified as
	a "dependent Issues", yet both of these BP's work in tandem.  I
would
	think
	both of these should be "dependent",  unless I am missing
something.
I
	guess I would have the same comment for BP #25.

	The last page describes BP's (1, 10, and 12) that the WSCC is
asking
to
	be
	worked independently.  I am not sure what this means - a West
and
East
	proposal for each of these practices?  

	Does BP 24 (Curtailments and Reloads) assume a common
(nationwide)
	Congestion Management scheme, or is this BP totally unrelated or
	insignificant to any Congestion Management scheme (physical or
	financial)?


	Thanks John,


	John Canavan
	Montana Power Company







	> -----Original Message-----
	> From:	Hormozi, John [SMTP:jhormo@ladwp.com]
	> Sent:	Thursday, January 24, 2002 5:22 PM
	> To:	Electronic Scheduling Work Group
	> Subject:	ESC conference calls to discuss individual
Business
	> Practices
	> 
	> Greetings, everyone.
	> 
	> The message below, from the ESC's Mike McElhany, describes the
ESC's
	> effort to subdivide its 31 proposed business practices into
	> "model-independent" and "model-dependent" business practice
sublists.
	> The ESC intends to debate the "model-independent" business
practices
	> first, in anticipation of upcoming FERC pronouncements on
transmission
	> market models. 
	> 
	> At last week's WSCC Electronic Scheduling Work Group Meeting
(which
	> followed the ESC meeting), I promised to reproduce my
breakdown
lists
	> (that I handed to Mike on my way out the door) and forward
them to
you
	> for your perusal.  Specifically, we in WSCC should check
whether
we
	> concur with this first-cut categorization.  Remember: for this
	question,
	> we're not talking about the pros and cons of each business
practice,
	but
	> simply identifying which ones, as currently drafted,
presuppose a
	> particular transmission model -- be it physical, financial, or
some
	> hybrid of the two.
	> 
	> Guess what?  The attached list below, which Mike prepared for
the
ESC,
	> is MY breakdown!  (Thanks, Mike.)  So here it is for you to
see.
	After
	> reading my meeting notes, I'm not sure whether this was
supposed
to go
	> to the entire ESWG or only to an ESWG task force (Bob
Harshbarger,
	> please refresh my memory on this), so I chose to err on the
side
of
	> wider dissemination.
	> 
	> Unless anyone out there strongly feels otherwise (and I
recommend
we
	> read the actual business practices before reaching such a
conclusion),
	I
	> believe this breakdown to be accurate enough to facilitate
discussion.
	> I suggest we proceed with our strategem of organizing ESWG
conference
	> calls &/or meetings on the business practices (of course, at
our
	> chairman's discretion) in advance of the corresponding ESC
conference
	> calls, now that we know the ESC's game plan.
	> 
	> In case of questions, you can reach me by replying to this
e-mail
or
	at
	> (818) 771-6775.
	> 
	> Sincerely,
	> John Hormozi, LADWP 
	> 
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Mike McElhany [mailto:McElhany@wapa.gov]
	> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:56 PM
	> To: estf@nerc.com
	> Subject: ESC conference calls to discuss Business Practices
	> 
	> 
	> All,
	> 
	>   At the ESC meeting held in Las Vegas last week it was
decided to
	hold
	> a number of conference calls to futher the development of the
31
	> Business Practices.  We have come up with a 1st cut list of
the
BPs
	that
	> are not impacted by the 8 design issues that we filed with
FERC.
Our
	> intention is to hold conference calls on 2-4 BPs at a time,
these
	calls
	> are open to any and all.  We will announce which BPs are to be
	> discussed, the outstanding items, and any comments that have
been
	> received as part of the agenda for each conference call.  This
is
not
	> intended to be the final review of the BPs, rather it will
help
get
	some
	> actual work accomplished.  I have attached the 1st cut of the
BPs
that
	> are independant of Design Issues, and ask for input as to the
order
	and
	> the groups of BPs that should be discussed.  I would like to
schedule
	> the 1st call for Wednesday the 30th.  If you have concerns
with
the
	> lists and/or the grouping of the BPs, please respond as soon
as
	> possible.  On Monday the 28th, the offical announcement and
agenda
for
	> the 1st conference call will be sent.  Please get your
comments to
me
	if
	> you are not able to participate on any particular call.  It
may be
	that
	> some the the BPs will be included in multiple conference
calls, so
you
	> will have several opportunities to participate.
	> 
	> Mike << File: Independent of RTO Design Issues.doc >>