RE: NEED COMMENTS-Dynegy v. ComEd response

Christi:

I'm good with the filing. The only point I would make is that our ultimate position is that we don't think we should have to designate any network resource in order to get network firm transmission from the utility. Our hourly traders don't buy power on firm LD contracts and the utilities in the Midwest have supply imbalance rules that more than adequately incentives us to make sure any power we schedule physically gets to the utility boarder.

I am not sure if this filing is the proper time to bring this up, but I wanted to make the point in case it changes our approach.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Guy

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolay, Christi L.
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:43 PM
To: Kingerski, Harry; Steffes, James D.; Herndon, Rogers; Misra, Narsimha; Sager, Elizabeth; Forster, David; Baughman Jr., Don; Stroup, Kerry; Roan, Michael; Migden, Janine; Gahn, Scott; Blachman, Jeremy; Meyn, Jim; Novosel, Sarah; Stroup, Kerry; Will, Lloyd; May, Tom; Baughman, Edward D.; Smith, Mike; Shapiro, Richard; Sharfman, Guy; Murphy, Harlan; Black, Don
Subject: NEED COMMENTS-Dynegy v. ComEd response

Attached in very draft form is EPMI/EES's response against Dynegy's request that ComEd not allow Firm LD to be designated as a Network transmission resource. Please provide comments by COB Thurs 10/25. Thanks.

Susan Lindberg 30596 and Christi Nicolay 37007. << File: Dynegy v ComEd protest (EL02-6).doc <<