Enron Mail

From:mike.curry@enron.com
To:robin.kittel@enron.com, ron.mcnamara@enron.com
Subject:Sub-QSE's
Cc:doug.gilbert-smith@enron.com, ron.mcnamara@enron.com, robin.kittel@enron.com,lance.cunningham@enron.com, clint.dean@enron.com, smith.day@enron.com, lloyd.will@enron.com, juan.hernandez@enron.com, juan.padron@enron.com, thresa.allen@enron.com, mitch.
Bcc:doug.gilbert-smith@enron.com, ron.mcnamara@enron.com, robin.kittel@enron.com,lance.cunningham@enron.com, clint.dean@enron.com, smith.day@enron.com, lloyd.will@enron.com, juan.hernandez@enron.com, juan.padron@enron.com, thresa.allen@enron.com, mitch.
Date:Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:55:00 -0800 (PST)

Robin/Ron: Must get rid of this sub-QSE language. Please give me a shout
asap to discuss. Having these sub-QSE's is bad for EPMI for the following
reasons:

(1) sub-QSE's are settled as stand-alone QSE's and thus
- EPMI gets smaller deadband limits for each sub-QSE
- Wind deviations could not be covered with % deadband of other schedules
(wind would have to be setup as its own sub-QSE)

(2) sub-QSE's significantly affect EPMI's ability to make profits by
optimizing a portfolio of customers
- EPMI is better off with one large QSE that it can share/balance among
different schedules
- Customers could request to be setup as a sub-QSE and it would be difficult
for EPMI to optimize between customers and make profits. We lose the
ability of having a black box where customers can not see how we optimize our
portfolio.

Thanks, - Mike


---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Curry/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000 09:29 AM
---------------------------


"Moseley, Cheryl" <CMoseley@ercot.com< on 12/05/2000 08:32:41 PM
To: 1 Retail Users Group Ad Hoc Subcommittee <isonp@ercot.com<
cc:
Subject: Proposed modification to PIP 108



Attached is the proposed modification to PIP 108,
Subordinate QSEs.



- 108PIP sub-QSE.doc