Idea

If you think this is worth pursuing, get in touch with Christie.
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/HOU/EES on 07/25/2000 02:08
PM ---------------------------
From: Christi L Nicolay@ECT on 07/25/2000 01:46 PM
To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Idea

AEP, ComEd, Duke and CP&L announced last week that they would be
collaborating on a new version of a net based system better than OASIS. I
think that Enron should consider joining with these utilities on this. There
may be substantial Enron upside to such a venture from added information
disclosure and standardization and streamlining for easier use:

On 7/14, FERC issued an Advance NOPR asking for input by 2/15/01 on OASIS
Phase II (the new OASIS proposal). In particular, FERC states that this new
OASIS should address: (i) communication of critical market information (like
transmission rights); (ii) posting of ATC, TTC, and CBM; and (ii) seams
issues between RTOs (transmission service across multiple RTOs). FERC says
that the new OASIS should make use of Internet, interactive displays, etc.
FERC also asks for information on dynamic notification (where the OASIS
automatically alerts the customer to changes in ATC, reservations, etc.)
This type of functionality would allow Enron to determine if it wants to stay
in a queue when transmission becomes available (rather than getting kicked
out after the first denial for lack of ATC.) FERC also wants information on
whether generator-run status should be included on OASIS; electronic
scheduling (which can now be done via etag); and business practices that
should be standardized.
Enron could have significant input to force these utilities to propose a
good, customer friendly system that provides valid and helpful data on ATC,
TTC, and CBM, rather than the total lack of substantive information that is
available today. (Recall that Enron proposed that CBM use be posted--FERC
has not adopted that idea yet.)
Because these are critical utilities, any system that they propose may be
very likely to be adopted (with some changes). I think it is better to be in
on the front end. Enron's participation would also give validity to their
system.
Dan Larcamp told me that he would like more "classes" for his staff from
Enron and that we should give joint classes with AEP because Susan Tomasky
told Dan L. that "AEP has nothing to hide." This type of venture would allow
AEP one venue to make good on that statement.
Steve K. asked us to pursue the idea that Enron build a computer system.
This may be a good way to have significant input while leveraging these
companies' money and promoting Enron's congestion model ideas, etc.