-----Original Message-----
From: 	"Almeida, Keoni" <KAlmeida@caiso.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Almeida+2C+20Keoni+22+20+3CKAlmeida+40caiso+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:49 AM
To:	Nelson, Kourtney
Subject:	FW: Returned mail: User unknown



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: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:25 AM
To: Foster, Chris
Subject: FW: Returned mail: User unknown


Please confirm receipt.  Thanks

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: Mail Delivery Subsystem [mailto:MAILER-DAEMON@wepex.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:23 AM
To: KAlmeida@caiso.com
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown


The original message was received at Thu, 24 May 2001 08:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
from uucp@localhost

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<IMCEANOTES-+22Izarraraz+2C+20Alicia+20I+22+20+3CIZARRAI+40bp+2Ecom+3E+40ENR
ON@ENRON.com>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mailman.enron.com.:
>>> RCPT
To:<IMCEANOTES-+22Izarraraz+2C+20Alicia+20I+22+20+3CIZARRAI+40bp+2Ecom+3E+40
ENRON@ENRON.com>
<<< 550 5.1.1
<IMCEANOTES-+22Izarraraz+2C+20Alicia+20I+22+20+3CIZARRAI+40bp+2Ecom+3E+40ENR
ON@ENRON.com>... User unknown
550
<IMCEANOTES-+22Izarraraz+2C+20Alicia+20I+22+20+3CIZARRAI+40bp+2Ecom+3E+40ENR
ON@ENRON.com>... User unknown


 - ATT321472.TXT 
Message-ID: <132A7F5BA87AD311AB8200508B7306E103F37627@csifiapp667.wepex.net>
From: "Almeida, Keoni" <KAlmeida@caiso.com>
To: "Foster, Chris" <Chris.H.Foster@Enron.com>, 	"\"Izarraraz, Alicia I\" <IZARRAI@bp.com>@ENRON" <IMCEANOTES-+22Izarraraz+2C+20Alicia+20I+22+20+3CIZARRAI+40bp+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com>
Subject: FW: Enron question on scheduling HA amounts
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:22:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain

We will change the Pmax to 31.  See note below.

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:	Ford, Greg
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:21 PM
> To:	Almeida, Keoni
> Cc:	Rothleder, Mark
> Subject:	Enron question on scheduling HA amounts
>
> Keoni:
>
> In our conversation Tuesday, Enron asked about how they should set their
> Pmax rating for a unit, given that they have to overgenerate above their
> Hour Ahead schedule to cover their GMM, and that we might dispatch them
> the difference between Pmax and their HA schedule to comply with the FERC
> order.
>
> Example:
>
> Enron has a 36MW unit that can reliably operate at 31 MW.  Their GMM is
> 0.967, or about 1 MW of losses.  They usually submit an HA schedule of 30
> MW, and generate at 31 MW to cover the GMM.  In this particular case the
> resource is fuel-limited, so that they can't usually generate at their
> maximum output.
>
> The answer from the compliance department is:
>
> A unit should set their P-max at the level that they are capable of
> generating at.  The ISO should be notified immediately if there is an
> outage or de-rate that would prevent the unit from operating at it's
> P-max, otherwise it will be presumed to be available.  A unit that keeps
> the ISO apprised of its availability in real-time and performs in
> accordance with its bid characteristics when dispatched should not receive
> penalties.
> 	A unit with a Final HA Schedule of 30 MW that is dispatched for the
> additional 1 MW and generates 31 MW according to meter data will not be
> penalized under CT 485.  The Total Obligation for CT 485 for a unit that
> is dispatched for Incremental Energy is Final HA Schedule + 90% of
> Instructed Incremental Energy.  The Total Obligation for the hour is
> compared to the hourly meter value for that unit and is not adjusted for
> transmission losses, i.e.. GMM is not taken into account. (Currently,
> penalties for failure to perform are assessed on an hourly basis, however
> CT 485 may be assessed on an interval basis in the future.)  So the Total
> Obligation for the unit is 30 MW + .9 MW ( 90% of 1 MW) = 30.9 MW which is
> less than the meter of 31 MW.  For CT 485 purposes, this unit will not
> receive any penalties.
> 	It is important to note that there is a 10% tolerance or 2 MW for
> Instructed Energy less than 20 MW on CT 485 penalties.  If the unit is
> instructed for less than 20 MW, 2 MW will be taken off of the Instructed
> Incremental Energy instead of 10%.  This means that any unit that has an
> Incremental Instruction for 2 MW or less would not be flagged for CT 485
> review.
> 	For other Settlement charge types such as, CT 401 and No Pay charges
> on Spin, Non-Spin, and Replacement, a unit is required to provide the
> Instructed Energy plus any transmission losses in order to receive full
> credit for providing  the Scheduled Energy and Ancillary Services.
>
> Greg Ford
> California ISO
> Market Operations
> (916) 351-2344
> gford@caiso.com
>
>