Enron Mail |
Rob,
I find option 3 closest to what I was suggesting, and think that captures an approach that keeps GSPP in the role of encouraging improved policy. Any of the options are acceptable. I think time is going to be an issue. Thanks for putting this together. Bill gramlr@pjm.com on 08/30/2000 06:38:46 AM Please respond to gramlr@pjm.com To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com, lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu, hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu, amosher@appanet.org, doornbos@socrates.berkeley.edu, William Hederman/TCO/ColumbiaGas@COLUMBIAGAS cc: Subject: Draft program Shall we try to talk again Monday? I think I will talk to Borenstein to see what the Haas folks have in mind. I tried to capture everyone's comments. Allen, you might want to explain more about your panel suggestions since I didn't do them justice. As you'll see I took the liberty of offering a new characterization of the panels that I didn't bring up on the call. Everything on there is offered as a strawman to be criticized and changed. Rob <<Draft program.doc<< Rob Gramlich PJM Market Monitoring Unit (610) 666-4291 gramlr@pjm.com - Draft program.doc
|