Fellow ISASarians:

I believe our business practice #11 (or work around #11) will still be
possible under 1.7.  If so, is it worth bringing-up the Control Area Bus
Transfers subject in Andy's letter?  Do we really want to argue for
transmissionless tag in 1.7?

Robert Harshbarger
Puget Sound Energy
OASIS Trading Manager
425.882.4643 (desk)
206.604.3251 (cell)


> ----------
> From: 	Harshbarger, Robert[SMTP:bharsh@puget.com]
> Sent: 	Friday, October 05, 2001 9:17 AM
> To: 	Interchange Scheduling & Accounting Subcommittee (ISAS)
> Subject: 	FW: WSCC Tagging practices
> 
> FYI 
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Rodriquez, Andy[SMTP:Andy.Rodriquez@enron.com]
> > Sent: 	Friday, October 05, 2001 8:26 AM
> > To: 	osc@nerc.com
> > Subject: 	WSCC Tagging practices
> > 
> > Please review this letter and make sure it is correct.  These issues
> > were brought up in our Phoenix tag training.  I will plan on sending to
> > the IS Monday morning.
> > 
> > 
> > Members of the IS,
> > 
> > In our recent E-Tag 1.7 Training sessions, we had two common issues
> > brought up regarding the way tags are handled in the WSCC.  We would
> > like your guidance and assistance in regard to these issues.
> > 
> > 1.) Jointly owned transmission
> > 
> > In the west, several jointly owned transmission facilities exist.  In
> > these situations, one particular line or path is managed by a single
> > control area, but has several different Transmission Owners.  In the
> > East, I believe that we  address this situation by having one entity
> > administer a single OATT and the TOs receive transmission revenues as
> > distributions from the administrator of the OATT (much the way that SPP
> > or MAPP distribute regional tariff revenues to their members).
> > 
> > In the west, they have taken a somewhat different approach.  In this
> > case, each TO administers their own tariff.  So it is possible (and
> > common practice) for a tag to be written that "stacks" TPs.  So we might
> > see in a tag a three transmission providers all flowing on the same path
> > within the same Control Area:
> > 
> > CA	TP	OASIS		PATH
> > 
> > AAA	AAA	123456	POINTA/POINTB
> > AAA	BBB	234567	POINTA/POINTB
> > AAA	CCC	345678	POINTA/POINTB
> > 
> > Is this procedure valid?  We perceive several potential solutions:
> > 
> > a.) Tag as above for convenience
> > b.) Tag as a separate tag for each TP
> > c.) Indicate to WSCC that process is invalid, and let them determine
> > their own solution
> > 
> > Some concerns have been raised by some WSCC members that "solution a" is
> > difficult during curtailment processing, as it is hard to determine
> > which cuts should be made at what points.  However, other entities point
> > out that the tag does represent energy flow along a single contract
> > path, and the "stacking" really only identifies contractual
> > relationships (and as such, should be allowed).
> > 
> > Regardless of how the issue is resolved, we encourage the development of
> > a standard method for handling this situation, and believe that standard
> > should be developed by either the WSCC or the IS.
> > 
> > 2.) Control Area Bus Transfers
> > 
> > In the west, there is the practice of moving energy to different Control
> > Area entities at a bus.  In the east, I we accommodate this through
> > title transfers and consider it a market mechanism rather than an
> > operations mechanism.  For example: 
> > 
> > Merchant MMMMMM Generates 100MW in Control Area AAAA
> > Marketer NNNNNN buys at the bus and sells to OOOOOO
> > Marketer OOOOOO buys at the bus and sells to PPPPPP
> > Marketer PPPPPP buys at the bus and wheels from AAAA to BBBB...
> > 
> > In the WSCC, such transactions are tagged in a different manner.
> > 
> > Merchant MMMMMM Generates 100MW in Control Area AAAA
> > The energy moves from Control Area AAAA into Control Area NNNN
> > The energy moves from Control Area NNNN into Control Area OOOO
> > The energy moves from Control Area OOOO into Control Area PPPP
> > Marketer PPPPPP buys at PPPP and wheels from PPPP to BBBB...
> > 
> > The WSCC practice is not currently supported by E-Tag 1.7.  The
> > structure of E-Tag 1.7 is predicated on the fact that energy cannot move
> > between Control Areas without use of transmission.  
> > 
> > This issue has recently been discussed by the IS with regard to such
> > situations where transactions use NO transmission (i.e., energy moves
> > between CAs across bus, with no transmission service).  If I remember
> > correctly, the IS discussed several different issues:
> > 
> > How can a single bus be simultaneously metered in several different
> > Control Areas?
> > If no physical movement of power occurs, why are these transactions
> > tagged?
> > If the power DOES move (even across a bus) then shouldn't that movement
> > be accomplished under a tariff?
> > 
> > As I remember the IS resolution, it was decided that such transactions
> > should indicate the use of PTP transmission if indeed power is moving
> > between Control Areas.  Otherwise, the market turn approach used in the
> > East (illustrated in the first example) should be utilized.
> > 
> > This specifically becomes an issue, as E-Tag 1.67 would allow the
> > current WSCC practice and 1.7 will not.  We would encourage the IS to
> > make sure WSCC is fully prepared for this situation, and has WSCC
> > practices in place that address this issue.
> > 
> > Andy Rodriquez
> > Regulatory Affairs - Enron Corp.
> > andy.rodriquez@enron.com
> > 713-345-3771 
> > 
> > 
> > **********************************************************************
> > 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. 
> > **********************************************************************
> > 
>