Please note that when we will receive a unit specific instruction,   we will also receive a category one deployment.
The unit specific instruction tells us the level that they want the unit to produce.    The category one is just a summary of how much we need to move to achieve the unit specific level.   These should not be combined .

Also,  when you receive a category 2, 3 or 4 we are essentially receiving an OOM type instruction that is settled under the OOM provisions.    

JMF

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Hunsucker, Brett" <Bhunsucker@ercot.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Hunsucker+2C+20Brett+22+20+3CBhunsucker+40ercot+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Friday, September 07, 2001 12:54 PM
To:	Miller, Jeffrey; Patterson, Mark
Cc:	Forney, John M.
Subject:	RE: Question


Jeff,
If you've rec'd a deployment instruction that is a Category 2,3  or 4, it implies the deployment is to relieve operational, or local, CONG.   The Security Constrained Economic Dispatch algorithm has determined your unit is  located such that its movement per the instructions will help to alleviate the  local congestion.  Following is copied from the document, "Market  Bulletin-Thursday August 8, 2001".  This is the last paragraph on page 2 of  that document.
"Therefore, when Operational  Congestion exists, the solution found in STEP 1 may be augmented in STEP 2 with  both resource specific and modified portfolio awards. The result of STEP 2 is  always a set of final portfolio based and resource specific dispatch  instructions to be issued to the QSEs to solve the operational congestion.  Because the final portfolio based dispatch instruction equals the net result of  the preliminary STEP 1 portfolio based balancing energy awards and any STEP 2  portfolio adjustments, the QSE's bid curve may not match the MCPE  determined in STEP 1. This may be causing the appearance of being incorrectly  "struck". Whenever a QSE receives unit specific deployments, it will  also receive a Category 1 portfolio based deployment. ERCOT expects that the  portfolio-based instruction will be followed."
So, even though your customer is determining your bids, your  unit could be called upon to relieve any local Cong that results from "Step 1"  (per the referenced bulletin) deployments to resolve load/gen imbalances and  zonal cong, if that unit is deemed to have an effect (the shift factor) on  the constrained line.  
 
Clear as mud?  Hope this  helps.  
 
I'm leaving here in about five minutes to go to an appt with  Holly, but will be back in on Monday.  
 
Regards,
 
Brett  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey.Miller@enron.com  mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@enron.com ]
Sent: Friday,  September 07, 2001 8:53 AM
To: Bhunsucker@ercot.com
Cc:  John.M.Forney@enron.com
Subject: RE: Question
Brett--
we're  being deployed down (DBES) for more than what our bid states.  In
other  words, we had a DBES Bid in for $-5 and we're getting deployed to  dec
generation and the MCP is $28.  The kicker is the "category" of DBES  in
which we're being deployed.  I just got off the phone with Mark  Paterson &
he's indicated that if you are deployed to provide DBES in  "category" 2
through 4, then that DBES Deployment was given--unit specific--  OUTSIDE THE
BID STACK (he said it was because we were CAUSING  congestion).
My concern is that our bids are instructed by our  customer.  The customer
is wondering why we're being deployed above our  bid.  Also of concern is
that, according to Mark, that these  DBES's--categories 2 through 4 are
treated and settled as OOM's--largely a  different settlement than DBES.
Add to that that the "category" treatment  relative to settlement (or even
being mentioned, for that matter) is NOT in  the protocols--per Mark.
He's just sent me a one-page explanation of this  process so I need to
review it but have you heard of  this?
    -----Original Message-----
    From:   "Hunsucker, Brett"  <Bhunsucker@ercot.com>@ENRON
              mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Hunsucker+2C+20Brett+22+20+3CBhunsucker+40ercot+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com ]
   Sent:   Friday, September 07, 2001  8:37 AM
   To:     Miller,  Jeffrey
   Subject:  RE: Question
    What's the question?
   -----Original Message-----
    From: Miller, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@ENRON.com  <<  File:
   mailto:Jeffrey.Miller@ENRON.com  >>  
   Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 8:06 AM
   To:  Brett Hunsucker (E-mail)
   Subject: Question
   Would  it be prudent for me to call Cheryl Moseley for a Market Ops
    question? (a la Nancy Traweek in CA?)
    **********************************************************************
    This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant  affiliate
   and may contain confidential and privileged material  for the sole use of
   the intended recipient (s). Any review, use,  distribution or disclosure
   by others is strictly prohibited. If  you are not the intended recipient
   (or authorized to receive for  the recipient), please contact the sender
   or reply to Enron  Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and
   delete all  copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments
   hereto)  are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not
    create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between  Enron
   Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended  recipient or any other
   party, and may not be relied on by anyone  as the basis of a contract by
   estoppel or otherwise. Thank  you.
    **********************************************************************