|
|
Enron Mail |
Are the sinking (parking and hubbing) advantages relevant in the NE model? These are key competitive advantages of control areas in the contract path world.
-----Original Message----- From: Nicolay, Christi Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:42 AM To: Fromer, Howard Cc: Novosel, Sarah; Steffes, James D.; Allegretti, Daniel; Staines, Dan; Hoatson, Tom; Montovano, Steve; Robertson, Linda; Connor, Joe; Maurer, Luiz; Yeung, Charles; Fulton, Donna Subject: Re: Enron Opening Statement Thanks Howard -- for the SE, we are pushing the one control area, but we may get there via unbalanced schedules and real time market (which actually provides the control area competitve advantages to all without undoing the current control areas.) Currently, the "business models" in the SE are pretty much keeping control areas as usual. I don't think that our NE group agreeing to more than one control area on the basis that the NE will have a one market model in place hurts us here. We would be way ahead of the game if we already had that in the SE. From: Howard Fromer@ENRON on 07/23/2001 05:40 PM To: Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/Enron@EnronXGate, Daniel Allegretti/Enron@EnronXGate, Dan Staines/Enron@EnronXGate, Tom Hoatson/Enron@EnronXGate, Steve Montovano/Enron@EnronXGate, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Enron Opening Statement Attached are some suggested minor revisions to the Enron opening statement previously circulated by Dan Allegretti. I've added a paragraph to indicate our general agreement with the key principles developed by the group of generators and marketers. Also, we continue to call for one control area; the rest of the marketers/generators thought that wasn't critical if you have one market and one RTO. i.e, there's nothing left for separate control areas to do that would conflict with each other; the staffs would all be part of one organization. Do we still feel strongly about this item? << File: nerto-hfedits.doc <<
|