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 >>