Enron Mail

From:thane.twiggs@enron.com
To:james.steffes@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com
Subject:RE: ERCOT Board Meeting
Cc:jean.ryall@enron.com
Bcc:jean.ryall@enron.com
Date:Thu, 24 May 2001 19:57:00 -0700 (PDT)

First of all, we did not have any advanced notice of the appeal to the ERCO=
T=20
Board. Mark Walker from ERCOT called me regarding their application and to=
ld=20
me that it would probably be denied and at that point nobody, I doubt, knew=
=20
that TNPC would appeal. The rules appear to be cut and dry. Basically,=
=20
for them to have a full corporate membership Enron would have to own less=
=20
than 5% to avoid the common ownership criteria for EPMI.

I spoke to Marianne after the Board Meeting. She felt uncomfortable when I=
=20
told her the I was upset because I did not know about the appeal and that t=
he=20
way that the appeal was handled at the board. Short answer is that Mariann=
e=20
did not feel at liberty to tell us about the appeal for whatever reason.

It appears that we will be the only representation that TNPC will have for=
=20
their REP. I will bridge the gap with Susan Burton in the Austin office to=
=20
try and help them with their issues. One problem is that in her attempts t=
o=20
=01&show=018 that they are not controlled by ENRON, I sense a reluctance on=
her=20
part to be forth coming with their issues. I have spoken to others at TNPC=
=20
that are willing to discuss issues and how we can support them.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James =20
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:08 AM
To: Shapiro, Richard
Cc: Twiggs, Thane; Ryall, Jean
Subject: Re: ERCOT Board Meeting

First, I agree that there is a basic conflict when our attorney represents=
=20
TNPC. If Marianne was instructed not to inform Jean, etal than there is a=
=20
real problem. If it was an oversight, we should simply make sure that=20
Marianne understands the importance of keeping all of her clients happy.

I don't have any problem with TNPC wanting to have a seat at ERCOT. They a=
re=20
supporting many of the same issues, and may take a stronger stand then us.

Finally, if we are the only rep at ERCOT for TNPC, I think that we need to=
=20
make sure that we understand their issues and can "fit" them in to our agen=
da.

Jim





Richard Shapiro@ENRON
05/23/2001 07:50 PM
To: Thane Twiggs/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Jean Ryall/NA/Enron@Enron@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, James D=20
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT=20

Subject: Re: ERCOT Board Meeting << OLE Object: StdOleLink <<=20

I am greatly disturbed by Marianne Carroll's role in this episode...Were we=
=20
given advance warning? Should we revisit her continued representation of bo=
th=20
us and New Power? Jim- Is this latter issue one we should revisit nationall=
y?



Thane Twiggs@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
05/16/2001 01:36 PM
To: Stacey Bolton/NA/Enron@Enron, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Ron=20
McNamara/NA/Enron@Enron, Gloria Ogenyi/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,=
=20
Lance Cunningham/NA/Enron@Enron, Thane=20
Twiggs/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Nancy Hetrick/NA/Enron@Enron,=
=20
clandry@enron.com, pochsner@enron.com, bevin.hunter@enron.com, Jean=20
Ryall/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Allen/NA/Enron@Enron, Patrick Keene/NA/Enron@Enro=
n,=20
Doug Gilbert-Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christopher Ahn/Enron@EnronXGate, Jame=
s=20
D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike=20
Curry/Enron@EnronXGate, Drew Tingleaf/Enron@EnronXGate, Larry=20
Jester/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, dietrich janet=20

Subject: ERCOT Board Meeting

The ERCOT Board met yesterday in Austin to discuss among other things the=
=20
implementation of the Texas Choice Pilot and the single control area under=
=20
the control of the ERCOT ISO. Below are the primary items of interest.

1. ERCOT proposed the following plan to implement the Pilot program and t=
he=20
wholesale:

May 25, 2001

ERCOT begins to transfer security analysis to the ESCA system
Participants able to start viewing network conditions, preliminary load=20
forecasts, preliminary A/S market requirement analysis, and retail load=20
profiles
ERCOT begins to manage and publish participant information and process=20
customer service requests

June 1, 2001

ERCOT initiates switch processing from competitive retailers starting with=
=20
small volumes and to be completed by July 1, 2001 (this is only the switch=
=20
request, power does not "flow" from the REP until the billing cycle after=
=20
July 6, 2001).
ERCOT begins to process retail meter read information.
Participants begin to enter outages in ERCOT systems (this will be parallel=
=20
to current outage system entry).
ERCOT will begin to publish distribution and transmission loss factors to t=
he=20
market.

June 8, 2001

ERCOT Begins to complete data aggregation functions and initiates UFE=20
calculations/analysis.
ERCOT's A/S market requirements and QSE obligation Calculations are ready f=
or=20
sing control area operations
ERCOT begins to execute the production settlement algorithms. The settleme=
nt=20
results are not binding.
ERCOT begins to transfer grid security decisions to the new systems
Data aggregation allows initial calculations of UFE to be made visible to t=
he=20
market providing energy accounting information

July 6, 2001

Frequency Control. ERCOT begins single control area operation and=20
controlling frequency. The existing control area replaced with the single=
=20
control area run by ERCOT.
Wholesale Markets. ERCOT administers the regulation, balancing energy, and=
=20
reserve markets. ERCOT starts clearing prices as part of single control ar=
ea=20
operations. The wholesale competitive market, as defined by the protocols =
is=20
initiated with ERCOT settling A/S markets centrally.
ERCOT begins to execute financial transfer processes as a result of binding=
=20
settlement with participants
QSEs must have completed qualification activities


While the proposal satisfies many of the competing concerns of the=20
Stakeholders and the PUCT, there are a few outstanding issues that remain.

ERCOT will begin switching load transfer requests on June 1 2001, but actua=
l=20
settlement and energy flow will not occur until after the wholesale market=
=20
opens on July 6, 2001. Enron has submitted a proposal that would allow the=
=20
retail market to decouple from the wholesale market which would allow the=
=20
wholesale market time to remedy the system limitations and the retail marke=
t=20
could begin June 1, 2001. Under the ERCOT timeline if the wholesale market=
=20
is not ready by July 6, 2001 and the switch requests have already begun, th=
en=20
there is no method to serve a customer full requirements without the abilit=
y=20
of the REP to purchase balancing energy and other A/S other than purchasing=
=20
under current tariff. I can provide a copy of the Enron proposal to those=
=20
who are interested.

Another concern is for reliability of the system. Some parties question th=
e=20
wisdom of opening the wholesale market in the middle of the summer peak,=20
rather than waiting until the summer peak has passed.

=20
2. Credit Standards. The Board also voted on language for the surety bonds=
. =20
There has been a debate as to whether ERCOT should allow security bonds in=
=20
light of what has happened in California and the surety bond that was=20
underwritten by AIG. At this point, the PUCT order requires ERCOT to accep=
t=20
a surety bond, however, ERCOT is trying to tighten the payment language. T=
he=20
language that the board approved will be forwarded when I get the correct=
=20
language. The board approved the addition of BBB- credit to the credit lim=
it=20
matrix.


3. New Power Company made an unsuccessful appeal for corporate membership. =
=20
New Power argued that they were technically not an affiliate of EPMI who=20
holds the Corporate Membership. EES for example has associate member=20
status. It was pointed out by ERCOT that EPMI listed New Power as a=20
corporate affiliate on their application for corporate membership. Mariann=
e=20
Carroll, represented New Power in the appeal, and stated that EPMI did not=
=20
ask her advice prior to listing New Power as affiliate. An additional=20
rationale cited by New Power was that in the future Reliant Energy wants to=
=20
"spin off" their generation company and that when they do, they should be=
=20
allowed a Corporate membership as well. I am concerned about the appearanc=
e=20
of the appeal by New Power, it looked like an attempt by Enron to sway the=
=20
process in "their" favor by getting additional votes on ERCOT issues.


Thane Thomas Twiggs
Enron Corp
1400 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002

713-853-3199 Voice
713-408-4463 Mobile
713-646-8272 Fax
877-968-8967 Digital Pager or 8779688967@skytel.com