|
|
Enron Mail |
The following is a summary of our findings for selecting a Risk System for
the ETS Marketing Department. Meetings were held with Richard Burchfield, Stephen Stock and Steve Nat to review the TAGG, ERMS and EnPower systems as possible alternatives for a risk system for ETS. Lee Ferrell and Vernon Mercaldo represented the ETS commerical group. In summary, ETS is looking for a risk system that is fully integrated from Deal Capture to Billing and can be implemented in the 30-60 day timeframe. They are anticipating maximum concurrent users of about 10 with approximately 20 deals per month. Overall, it looks like the Caminus package offers ETS a faster and smoother implementation, does not expose us to any market affiliate violations or suspicions and is reasonably affordable with an estimated on-going maintenance costs of less than $100,000/year. The following provides more details and I have attached a functional comparison. Please let me know if you have any questions or further followup that I need to address. Thanks. Summary of Findings Based on our discussion with Richard Burchfield and Stephen Stock, we rejected the possibility of using TAGG and ERMS because these applications are not able to handle spread options (one of the key ETS requirements). Richard suggested we take a look at EnPower. This system was considered a closer fit and also more portable. After closer inspection, the EnPower System is not currently a fully integrated product. There are plans to integrate several of components into the product, but at this time, the system has interfaces to several other external applications including the following: RAC for Risk Management DECAF for deal confirmations PORTCALC/TAGG/ERMS for loading price curves and price calculations UNIFY for billing Desktop Models for Settlement Global Counterparty for Trading Partner and Credit All of the above applications would have to be certified by an outside party to make sure that we could protect all parties regarding Market Affiliates. This would entail evaluating each system's current security, testing and possibly requiring changes to meet security requirements. This process could take a significant amount of time to complete and might still constitute a violation of the marketing affiliate rules or would at minimum create the appearance of marketing affiliate violations. We discussed this alternative with Drew Fossum, NNG Legal Counsel, and Drew is in concurrence with this opinion. Regarding costs, the IT team did not attempt to estimate an on-going support costs figure since there would be several factors to consider. Additionally, there is a concern regarding how the Pipelines would achieve priority on getting their production problems and enhancements addressed considering the current demands on IT resources. Functional Comparison Matrix
|