|
|
Enron Mail |
Hi Jeff,
Make sure the access to the network is defined as DS1 access...We would like DS3 access pricing because that is the minimum level of service we trade at today. Also, please indicate that the current available capacity is about 1 OC3, (the current OC12 network is running about half full and the ISO wants about an OC3 of overhead capacity with which to scale their customers' demand. We need to determine the interval between the time the ISO requests the upgrade to OC48 from MCI and the time that upgrade would be made available...California OVER estimated the number of users... Just a thought, but the ISO might be able to get MCI to reduce the Yearly fee they charge by waiving the right to the upgrade. MCI would have to spend a significant amount of $ to do the upgrade. Also, MCI is losing $ on those access loops. If the ISO were to threaten to request 2000 loops that MCI was going to lose $100,000 per month on, MCI might reduce their charges if the ISO were to reduce the open call. Dan Minter V: (503)886-0452 F: (503)886-0441 Jeff Dasovich@EES 04/20/00 10:18 AM To: Dan Minter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications cc: Subject: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity Yo Dan: Could you do me a favor and take a look at my very brief summary below and make any changes you like. I'd like to give folks some information as to the status of the ISO deal. Appreciate it. Best, Jeff ---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 04/20/2000 10:17 AM --------------------------- Jeff Dasovich on 04/17/2000 04:32:25 PM To: Dan Minter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications cc: Subject: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity Dan: Below I've provided a very brief summary of our meeting with the ISO. Please review and edit in any fasion you deem appropriate then send back to me. I will then distribute to a very small group (e.g., Jean Mrha, Tom Gros, and a couple of folks in my group who also work on EBS issues). Thanks. Best, Jeff ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** ********** We have sent the attorney representing the ISO a standard EBS NDA to review. We expect to have the NDA signed within the week. The following is a summary of what occured at the meeting. The Network MCI built the system. The ISO currently shares its private, dedicated network 50-50 with the California Power Exchange, though the ISO like to take control of 100% of the asset. The network consists of 4 OC-12s (?) and as part of the contract, the ISO has a call to upgrade an no or very little cost to 4 OC-48s. This "scalability" was built in to accommodate what California believed would be a very large and rapidly growing number of users (mostly scheduling coordinators), but California greatly underestimated the number. So the ISO is left with considerable excess capacity. It's an ATM switched network with 11 A-PoPs and 4 B-Pops and it runs from Folsom (Sacramento) to Alhambra (around Pasadena). The B-PoP locations are Hayward, Sacramento, Long Beach, and Claremont. The Contract The ISO pays about $30-35 million/yr under the contract---significantly above market. The contract ends at the end of 2003. The contract includes a costless, or very low cost, option to upgrade from OC-12 to OC-48. The contract also permits interconnection to the network (by MCI) for $485, irrespective of difference from the grid. The Goals of the EVP/CIO Reduce costs immediately. Needs to take a plan designed to mitigate the costs to the Board in 60 days. Wants to maintain some flexibility in the event usage grows. "Would like to do a short term deal, for "nonfirm" service and get a high price," but he would do a long-term, firm deal if it reduced his costs significantly.
|