QUESTION: On September 10, each of the UDCs filed applications to change distribution level standby rates. In Decision 01-07-027, the Commission had directed the UDCs to file such applications to propose distributed generation standby rates in conformity with certain requirements set forth in that decision. These standby rates are to viewed as interim, subject to change in individual utility proceedings. I have not reviewed the applications thoroughly. Please let me know if you would like me to do such or whether you wold like a copy of the applications ( I do have two of the three UDCs electronically). Jeanne Bennett
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: UDC Applications on Stand By Rates
VAR is using the May 1st run. VaR without jumps is saved out in RMS_Value_at_Risk_copy table. Of curiosity, West-DPR-VAR is not really impacted by jumps. I suspect the reason for this may be that back in 1998 that region was less deregulated than today. Let me know your thoughts. Frank
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Jumps no jumps
Hi Tracy, Attached is the spreadsheet for the items we want tested (9 items). Please forward to the appropriate person and have them email it back to me. I am available for questions at xt. 37560. Thank you for your help. Best Regards,
Answer: Co. 0366 testing
Here is an email: Guys, what are we going to do with this contract and the barges? My understanding is that we have a done deal on the 6B's. Is this correct? I may be a nervous nellie but I would like to put all this stuff behind us (ie) no more 6B's or barges. Regards
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: LIPA
Q: Griff, Can you accomodate Dexter as we have in the past. This has been very helpful in establishing a fair index at Socal Border. Phillip Please cc me on the email with a guest password. The sooner the better as bidweek is underway.
Propose a subject line
A: NGI access to eol
Here is an email: Folks, FERC is deliberating today on many agenda items. Two they have approved are: 1. Modifying the June 19 Price Mitigation Order setting the price cap at $108 until April 30, 2002, and decoupling the cap from California's reserve deficiency, and instead tying the cap to the price of natural gas (upwards, only). 2. Denial of Requests for Rehearing (in great part) on all California Orders since last December 15 (2000), and ordering the California ISO to submit a revised congestion management plan, and a plan for establishing a day-ahead market, both plans due May 1, 2002. Both Orders passed 3 Yea, and 1 No (MAssey, in part on the second order). gba
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
FERC Orders