Message-ID: <16920036.1075840018937.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: alan.comnes@enron.com
To: diana.scholtes@enron.com, cara.semperger@enron.com
Subject: FW: WECC
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Comnes, Alan </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ACOMNES>
X-To: Scholtes, Diana </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Dscholt>, Semperger, Cara </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Csemper>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \ExMerge - Scholtes, Diana\FERC
X-Origin: SCHOLTES-D
X-FileName: 

Diana, Cara:
=20
Walton provides a good history of Western transmission organization.  I am =
passing this along because I thought it may be of interest, perhaps to some=
 of your newer employees.
=20
GAC
-----Original Message-----
From: Shelk, John=20
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 7:36 AM
To: Walton, Steve; Yeung, Charles; Novosel, Sarah
Cc: Robertson, Linda; Nersesian, Carin; Perrino, Dave; Rodriquez, Andy; Sha=
piro, Richard; Kaufman, Paul; Landwehr, Susan M.; Comnes, Alan
Subject: RE: WECC


Steve--
=20
The history is helpful to putting this in context.

-----Original Message-----
From: Walton, Steve=20
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 10:24 AM
To: Yeung, Charles; Shelk, John; Novosel, Sarah
Cc: Robertson, Linda; Nersesian, Carin; Perrino, Dave; Rodriquez, Andy; Sha=
piro, Richard; Kaufman, Paul; Landwehr, Susan M.; Comnes, Alan
Subject: RE: WECC


In order to explain who WECC is, I must lay a little historical background.=
  If you will recall, when EPAct'92 was passed, the usual view was that FER=
C could order wheeling, but only on a case by case basis.  There had been a=
n effort to include an RTG provision in the bill, but it died when the conf=
erence committee was finalizing the bill.  There was a view by many in the =
West at the time, that it would still be better to move ahead with self-imp=
lementation of open access rather than waiting for litigation.  In the summ=
er of 1994, first WRTA (Western Regional Transmission Assocation) then SWRT=
A (Southwestern Regional Transmission Association) and NRTA (Northwest Regi=
onal Transmission Association) were filed.  They were developed in an open =
process that included, perhaps for the first time, the transmission owners,=
 the transmission dependent utilities, new market entrants and state regula=
tors.  The IPPs and Marketers were participants, including Enron, Electric =
Clearing House (now Dynegy), DesTec, CalPine, Tenaska, etc.  FERC responded=
 in November telling WRTA that it would have to accept comparable transmiss=
ion access.  Instead of collapsing as predicted by the "just say no" crowd,=
 the members accepted the conditions and accepted those conditions.  WRTA f=
ormed in June of 1995. =20
=20
While the RTGs appear rather tame today, at the time they challenged the tr=
aditional view, offering to provide open access tariffs.  When the FERC iss=
ued the NOPR that gave us Orders 888/889 just prior to WRTAs formation, the=
 participants in the three Western RTGs members responded during the summer=
 of 1995 by working together to develop the key concepts of what became OAS=
IS.  With the filing of the current OATTs, much of the ground breaking work=
 of the RTGs was done, but they remained a forum for discussion of the inte=
rface between commercial and reliablity.  A common planning data base was d=
eveloped in which included non-traditional participants and their ideas to =
be included.  The Western Market Interface Committee (WMIC) was organized b=
y the RTGs and has had a continuing role in bringing the the three (soon to=
 be two?) RTOs proposals together.
=20
When the Western RTGs were organized in 1995 they were formed outside of WS=
CC.  WSCC had a very restrictive policy, allowing only utilities to be memb=
ers.  When they grudgingly allowed IPPs to join, it was still by half-measu=
res.  For instance, WSCC would allow only employees of the member to attend=
, so new, small members could not employ a consultant for joint representat=
ion.  When the RTG discussions were underway, the good old boys wanted it i=
nside WSCC with the same kinds of restrictions.  We broke that mold, formed=
 separately and then through the FERC order approving WRTA force WSCC to op=
en its membership fully or to face the creating of a separate planning orga=
nization.  The change passed by one vote, but the change occured.
=20
Once all the organizations were up and running (WSCC, WRTA, NRTA, SWRTA) it=
 was obvious that there was substantial duplication of meetings and functio=
ns.   Serions talks of a merger began in about 1998.  They went very slowly=
, but finally produced a common organization to be called the Western Elect=
ric Coordinating Council (WECC), which would merge WSCC, WRTA and SWRTA tog=
ether initially.  NRTA will likely vote to merge as well.  WECC is a RRG as=
 far as NERC is concerned. =20
=20
While the new bylaws do not go as far as I would have liked, they do furthe=
r open up the WSCC process and provide for some consideration of the commer=
cial impact of reliablity rules.  Is this a transitional phase? Perhaps.  D=
oes it go as far as the EISB proposal?  No, but I see no reason to play "sm=
ash-em, bash-em" will every effort that hasn't followed the latest turn in =
our thinking.  As I hope this memo shows, we have been evolving the industr=
y, never as fast as Enron or others (myself included) have wanted it to cha=
nge.  The WECC will reconsititue the WSCC board under new membership rules =
and opens the possiblity of changing the entrenched senior staff as WSCC to=
 breath some life into the organization.  At a minimum, the change from WSC=
C/WRTA/SWRTA/NRTA to WECC will provide interim improvement while the debate=
 over EISB works its way to a conclusion and further change takes place.
=20
Steve
=20
-----Original Message-----=20
From: Yeung, Charles=20
Sent: Fri 9/28/2001 8:26 AM=20
To: Shelk, John; Novosel, Sarah=20
Cc: Robertson, Linda; Nersesian, Carin; Walton, Steve; Perrino, Dave; Rodri=
quez, Andy=20
Subject: RE: WECC



This is the first I have heard of WECC.  I assume it is a "Western" NERC -t=
ype organization?=20

 I understand that the traders in the West are not too concerned about form=
ing single standards applicable to both the East and West.  They would howe=
ver, like to see more consistency in practices between TPs within the West =
itself.  Sounds like WECC may be able to do this. One of the big problems w=
ith the WSCC has been that it was not as stringent in dictating operating r=
equirements on its members as the East has tried to be.   At NERC, WSCC mem=
bers have always argued deference to the West due to system differences.  U=
nfortunately deference to the West has meant little to no standardization i=
n the West over many transmission access practices, leaving it up to the su=
b-regions or individual TPs to decide.  I am not saying they are not techni=
cally justified, but there has been no incentive to bring about more consis=
tent practices.

Is WECC consistent with EISB?  It depends, if WECC is sovereign over any ot=
her organization for standards approval, then I would say no.  I think WECC=
 should be subject to the EISB process and have to get standards approved t=
hrough EISB as well.  The problem is that EISB is voluntary and if WECC can=
 go directly to FERC, then it becomes effectively the same as "deference to=
 the West" -type language we have been fighting against. =20

So my verdict on WECC depends.....=20
As I noted in an earlier note, I believe there are those pushing for NERC t=
o continue doing "reliability-only" and establish a contractual relationshi=
p to coordinate with EISB.  The WECC could take the same approach.  If this=
 scenario plays out, I believe customers will leave NERC and put their mone=
y into EISB.  We must then work towards making NERC merely a transmission o=
perators' advocacy group ( i.e. EEI is transmission owners advocacy group).=
  They can exist to focus on reliability - but have no direct standards set=
ting authority.  They must be a member of EISB and participate as a member =
in one of the market sectors.

If anyone has any more info on WECC, please share it.=20

Charles Yeung=20
713-853-0348=20

 -----Original Message-----=20
From:   Shelk, John =20
Sent:   Friday, September 28, 2001 7:05 AM=20
To:     Novosel, Sarah; Yeung, Charles=20
Cc:     Robertson, Linda; Nersesian, Carin=20
Subject:        WECC=20



What do we think of FERC's approval of the new WECC this week?  As I unders=
tand it from the trade press, this new group is a merger of the WSCC and tw=
o other groups.  The new entity will handle reliability for RTOs, etc. and =
others in the West.  Is this consistent with our views on reliablity, EISB,=
 etc.?

Thanks.