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 >>