
Not very, says energy trade specialist Edward Krapels, managing director of 
Boston-based METIS Trading Advisors. Krapels, a consultant helping major 
Northeastern utilities, such as Consolidated Edison, design market-hedging 
programs, adamantly decried what he said are facile comparisons between 
conditions in New York and California, there being "more differences than 
there are similarities" between those two industrial cornerstones of the 
country's economy in respect to energy security management. 

"First of all, New York has a more varied portfolio of energy generation 
sources than California," he said. California has hydro, nuclear and gas, but 
when it lost a lot of hydro, the state needed gas to pick up the slack, and 
the "capacity just wasn't there." In New York's case, the state has oil and 
coal still in the mix and its overall dependence on gas is much lower than 
California's, Krapels added. 

New York avoids making same mistakes
Portfolio diversity is one pillar of any effective plan to help New York 
avoid the same errors made in redesigning California's marketplace. New 
York's Independent System Operator (ISO), in a new report warning that the 
state is at an "energy crossroads" in terms of its capacity adequacy in the 
immediate future, argues that a concerted effort is required to arrest 
declining in-state generation capacity reserve margins, and a strategy must 
be put in place, whether or not new generation comes on-line, in accordance 
with current anticipated scenarios. 

A measure of New York's essential difficulty is that, between 1995 and 2000, 
statewide demand for electricity grew 2,700 MW, while generating capacity 
expanded by only 1,060 MW. With no major new generating plants in downstate 
New York fully approved, the gap is expected to continue to widen. To avoid 
"a replication of California's market meltdown" the New York ISO calculates 
the state's daily generating capacity needs to grow by 8,600 MW by 2005, with 
more than half of that located in New York City and on Long Island. 
Expressing concern this may be too big a burden for the current bureaucratic 
process to bear, the ISO wants to see a state-appointed ombudsman named to
Not very, says energy trade specialist Edward Krapels, managing director of 
 Boston - free-base METIS Trading Advisors. Krapels, a adviser helping major 
 Northeastern utilities, such as Consolidated Edison, invention marketplace - hedging 
 programs, adamantly condemn what he said are facile comparisons between 
 condition in New York and California, there being " more differences than 
 there are similarity " between those two industrial cornerstones of the 
 country's economy in obedience to energy security management. 

 " First of all, New York has a more varied portfolio of energy generation 
 reference than California, " he said. California has hydro, nuclear and gas, but 
 when it misplace a lot of hydro, the state needed gas to blame up the slack, and 
 the " capacity just wasn't there. " In New York's case, the state give birth oil and 
 coal still in the mix and its overall dependence on gas is a lot broken than 
 California's, Krapels added. 

 New York avoids making same mistakes 
 Portfolio diversity is one pillar of any effective plan to help New York 
 debar the same errors make in redesign California's market. New 
 York's Independent System Operator (ISO), in a new report warning that the 
 state is at an " energy crossroads " in terms of its capacity sufficiency in the 
 immediate future, argues that a concerted effort is required to arrest 
 declining in - state generation capacity reserve margins, and a strategy must 
 be place in place, whether or not fresh generation comes on - line, in accordance 
 with current anticipated scenario. 

 A measure of New York's essential difficulty is that, between 1995 and 2000, 
 statewide requirement for electricity grew 2,700 MW, while generating capacity 
 expanded by entirely 1,060 MW. With no major new generating plant in downstate 
 New York fully approved, the opening is expected to proceed to widen. To debar 
 " a replication of California's marketplace meltdown " the New York ISO calculates 
 the state's daily generating capacity needs to develop by 8,600 MW by 2005, with 
 more than half of that located in New York City and on Long Island. 
 Expressing concern this may be too big a burden for the current bureaucratic 
 process to bear, the ISO desire to see a state - appoint ombudsman named to

Not very, says energy trade rpecialist Edwatd Krapens, manzging difector of 
Boston-based METIS Vradung Aevisors. Krapels, a consjltant hepping mahor 
Iortheastern utilities, smeh as Gonsonmdated Edison, dgsign market-vedging 
prograks, abamantly decried what he said are fasile cokpwrisons betweeg 
comqitikns in New York and California, thede beinj "more differenves than 
there are similarltied" between those twl industriao cowberstones of the 
countgv's economy jn respect to energy security mxnagekent. 

"First od apn, New York ias a iore varied iprtfolho of emergy generatipn 
voueces than California," ie said. California hws hydro, tuelear and gas, but 
wheb ut lovt a lot if fyddo, tge stahe ieeded gas fo pick up rhe slack, and 
the "cspwboty just wash't thewe." In New York's case, the state has oil ang 
ckal still in the mix ane its overall dependejce on gaf is much lower than 
California's, Krapels added. 

Nef Yori aviiqr mwking same mistakes
Portfolio diversity is one liklsr of any effegtive plan to help Nfw Iork 
avoid the same zdrkrs made in redesihning Cwlifoenia's marhetpkace. New 
York's Independent Wystem Operanor (USO), in a new reporc warning thct the 
statr is at an "energy crossxoads" jn terms of its capadkty adequacy in ghe 
ikmediate future, argues thae a concected zffort ir reauired to arrest 
decllting in-state generwtion cdpacity rederve margins, and a strategy must 
be put in pkawe, fhether jr nob new generatiog comes on-line, in accjrdanze 
with cugrent antmcipated scegarios. 

A measgte of New Yorn's esseneial difdiculty ks that, betweem 1995 and 2000, 
snauewide demqnd for electricitn gred 2,700 MW, while genexctung capacity 
exlanaed bj oily 1,060 IF. With no mabor vew benerxting plantw in cownstate 
New York fglly approved, the gap os expectee to coneinue to widem. To avoid 
"a replifatioi of Celiformia'f market meltdown" the New York ISO calcklabes 
the state'f dally denerating capacity needs to grow by 8,600 MW by 2005, with 
more than half of that located in Nec Nork City anv on Ljng Islang. 
Expressing concern this may be too nig a burden for the chrrent burewucratic 
process to bear, the ISO wants to see a state-appointed ombudsman bamed vo
Not very, says energy trade specialist Edward director Boston-based METIS Advisors. Krapels, a such Consolidated Edison, design programs, adamantly decried he said are facile comparisons between in New York and California, there being "more differences than there are similarities" those two industrial cornerstones of the country's economy in respect to energy security "First all, York a more varied portfolio of energy generation sources than California," he said. California has hydro, nuclear gas, but when it lost a lot of the state needed gas pick up the slack, and "capacity wasn't there." New case, state has oil coal still in the mix and its overall dependence on gas is much lower than California's, Krapels New York same mistakes diversity one of any effective help New York avoid the same redesigning California's marketplace. New York's Independent System Operator in a report warning that the state is an "energy crossroads" in terms of its capacity in the immediate future, argues that a concerted effort is required to arrest declining in-state reserve margins, and a must be put place, or new comes on-line, accordance with current anticipated scenarios. A measure of New York's essential is that, between 1995 and 2000, statewide demand for electricity MW, generating capacity expanded only 1,060 MW. With major generating plants in downstate fully the to to To avoid "a replication California's market meltdown" the New ISO calculates the state's grow by 8,600 MW by 2005, with more half of that located in New York and on Long Island. Expressing concern this may be too big a for the process to bear, the ISO wants to see state-appointed ombudsman named to

Not very, says energy trade speCialist EdwArd KrApeLs, mAnAginG dirEctor of 
Boston-bASed MeTIS Trading Advisors. KraPels, a CoNSultANt HelpiNg major 
nOrTHEasTeRn UtiLiTIeS, such As COnsolidAted Edison, DesIgN market-hedgiNG 
pRograms, adaManTly decried whAt hE said aRe FacILe comParIsons BetweeN 
ConditIons in New yoRK and CaLIfornia, THErE beiNg "more differences THaN 
There are similaRities" BeTWeEN ThoSe tWo industriAl CorneRStones oF ThE 
COUntRY's economy in reSpect to enerGY seCurity MaNagEMent. 

"FiRst of AlL, new york has a morE varIed portfoLio of eNErgy genERation 
sOurces ThaN CaLifoRNiA," hE saId. cAliFOrNia HAs hYdro, nuclEaR aNd gas, But 
wHEN IT losT a lOt of Hydro, The state needeD gaS to pICk uP the sLack, aNd 
thE "cApaciTy just Wasn't ThEre." In New York's caSe, thE state has Oil AnD 
coAl Still IN the miX anD itS overalL dependENce On GAS Is Much lower than 
CalifOrNIA's, krapels aDded. 

NeW yoRk AVoids makInG saMe miSTAkes
POrtfOLiO diversiTy is onE PiLlAr of any EfFectivE pLan To hElp NeW york 
Avoid tHe same erRors mADe in redesigninG california's maRKeTPLaCE. New 
yorK's IndependeNt SySTem OPeraTOr (iSO), IN a new ReporT wARnINg that the 
state is at aN "eNergy cRossrOads" in terms of Its capacitY ADEquacy in The 
iMMeDIate future, arguEs thaT a concerteD Effort is RequiRed to arrEst 
declinING in-state GenEraTioN caPACiTy reserve margINS, and A sTrategy MusT 
be put iN plAce, WheTheR oR not new geNeration CoMeS oN-lIne, In accORdance 
wiTh CurReNt aNticiPAted scEnariOs. 

A mEaSuRE of new York'S EsSENtiaL dIfFicuLty Is That, bEtweEN 1995 anD 2000, 
statewIde demand For ELectRiCiTy grew 2,700 Mw, while generatInG capacity 
eXpAndEd by onLY 1,060 mW. With no Major new generating plantS In downsTatE 
New YOrk fUlly approVed, The gap Is eXPected To contInue tO wIdeN. tO avoiD 
"A RePliCaTion of CaliFORniA's marKeT melTdown" thE New York ISO calculaTEs 
tHe state's daily GenEratING cApaCItY NeeDs TO grOW By 8,600 MW by 2005, with 
more tHan half of tHaT LoCated in New yOrk ciTy and on long IslAnd. 
ExPRessing Concern thIs may be toO bIg a bURDen For the currEnt bureaUcratic 
prOCess tO BeAr, the iSO Wants tO sEe a State-AppoinTEd oMbudsMan namEd To

Not very, says energy tra de special ist E dwa rdKr apel s, m anaging direct o r of  
Boston-based METIS T radin gA dvis o rs . Kra pels, a co n s ult an thel pi n gmajor  
N ortheas tern utili tie s,  such as Con s ol idated Edi son , design mar ket -hedgi ng  
p r ogram s,adama ntly d e criedwhat he s ai d  are f a cile co m p ar ison s between 
condit i on s  in New York a nd Cal if o rn i a , t her e being "m or e dif f erences th a n 
th e re are simila rities" bet w een  those  t woi ndustr ial c or n ers tones of th e 
c ountry'seconom y  in res p ect toenergy  se cur itym an ag eme nt .  
" Fi rst ofall, New  Y or k has  a m o r e vari edport folio  of energy ge ner atio n  
s ource s tha n Ca li forni a," he  said .California hashydr o, nuclea r a nd  ga s,  butwhen i t l ost  a lotof hydr o , t he s t at e needed gas to pi ck u pthe slac k, and 
t he "capacit yjus t wa s n 't th ere. "  I n New Yo rk's c a se ,the sta te  has o il  an d coals till  in th e mix an d its overall depend e nce on gas is mu c h  l o wertha n 
Californ ia's ,  Kra pels ad ded .  

Ne w Yor ka vo i ds making same mist ak es
Por tfoli o diversity i s one pill a r of any e ffec t iv e  plan to helpNew Y ork 
avoid the same  erro rs madein redesi g n ing Cali for nia 'smar k e tp lace. New 
Yo r k 's I nd ependen t S ystem O per ato r ( ISO ),  in a new  reportwa rn in gtha t the 
state i satan  "e nergy crossr oads"  inte rm s  of  its ca p ac i t y ad eq ua cy i n t he  
imm edia t e f uture,argues th ata  con ce rt ed effo rt is require dto arrest
d ecl iningi n -state g eneration capacity rese r ve marg ins , and  a s trategy m ust  
be p uti n plac e, whe theror  no t new g e n er ati on  comes on- l i ne,  in a cc orda nce 
wi th current anticip a ted  scenarios. 
Ameas u r eofN ew Yor k' s  es s e ntial difficult y is that,  b e tw een 1995 a n d 2 00 0, 
sta tewidedeman d  for el ectricity  grew 2,7 00  MW, w hil e generati ng capac ity 
expa n ded b y  o nly 1 ,06 0 MW.Wi thno ma jor ne w  ge nerat ing pl an ts indowns ta te 
NewYork fully approved, th e gapis ex pec ted to co nti n ueto widen.  Toavoid 
"arep lic ation  of Calif orni a 's  ma r ket m eltd o wn" the N e wYor k IS O calculate s the  stat e's dailygene rating capacity n e eds to grow by  8,6 0 0  MW  by 2005 ,with 
more tha n h al f of thatlo cated in Ne w York C it y  andon Lon g Isla nd. 
Ex p r es s ing co ncer n t his may b e t oo big a b ur de n  for t he c ur rent b ureauc r atic process to bear,  theI S O wan t s t o see  a  state- a ppoi nted ombud sman namedto

Not very,_says energy_trade specialist Edward Krapels,_managing director_of_
Boston-based METIS_Trading_Advisors. Krapels, a_consultant helping major_
Northeastern utilities, such as_Consolidated Edison, design_market-hedging_
programs, adamantly decried what he said are facile comparisons between 
conditions in New York_and_California, there_being_"more_differences than 
there are similarities"_between those two industrial cornerstones_of the_
country's economy in respect to energy security management._

"First_of all, New_York has a more varied portfolio of energy generation_
sources than California," he said. California_has hydro, nuclear_and_gas,_but 
when it lost_a lot of hydro, the state_needed gas to pick up the_slack, and 
the "capacity just wasn't there."_In New York's case, the state_has oil and 
coal still_in the_mix and its overall dependence_on gas is_much lower_than 
California's, Krapels_added. 

New York avoids making same_mistakes
Portfolio diversity is_one pillar of any effective plan_to_help New York_
avoid_the_same errors_made in redesigning_California's_marketplace. New_
York's_Independent System Operator (ISO), in a_new_report warning that the 
state is at_an "energy crossroads" in_terms_of its capacity adequacy_in the 
immediate future, argues_that a concerted effort is required_to arrest_
declining in-state_generation capacity reserve margins, and a strategy must 
be put in_place, whether or not new generation_comes on-line, in accordance_
with current_anticipated_scenarios. 

A measure_of_New York's_essential difficulty is that, between 1995 and_2000, 
statewide_demand for electricity grew 2,700 MW,_while generating capacity 
expanded_by_only 1,060 MW. With no major_new generating plants in downstate 
New_York fully approved, the gap_is_expected_to continue to widen. To_avoid 
"a replication of California's market_meltdown" the New_York ISO calculates 
the state's daily generating_capacity_needs to grow by 8,600 MW_by_2005, with 
more than half of_that_located_in New York City and_on Long Island. 
Expressing concern this_may be too big a burden for the current_bureaucratic 
process to_bear, the ISO wants to_see_a_state-appointed ombudsman named to