p. 8 "Electric Transmission"  -- Would be interesting to find out what the 25 
MW of firm transmission is that Entergy "committed to."  Also, a customer 
does not have transmission until it is confirmed on OASIS.  Either PTP (firm 
or non-firm) or the additional off system resources (have to list a source) 
under network would need to be purchased for wheeling in and out of Entergy 
to make parking/lending effective. 

p.9 "Delivery Point"   --This point is actually the "POR" /Point of Receipt 
for tariff purposes if generating the power or the POD/Point of Delivery if 
wheeling into Clarksdale.

p. 10  says that EPMI would manage the existing firm transmission rights.  As 
of now, I don't think Clarksdale has the transmission rights (since Marvin is 
submitting the request today).  Therefore, for contract purposes, want to 
have language that gives them the risk of not getting transmission approved 
by Entergy.  Firm can be difficult to obtain.  Can also include a provision 
that non-firm could be used, if available, but EPMI probably does not want to 
take any transmission risk.  Non-firm is close to non-existent in the 
summer.  

p. 12  Be careful about using the term "balanced schedules" for supply, load 
and transmission capacity from all entities it serves.  We are fighting any 
RTO requirements for day ahead balanced schedules.  NERC in May is 
considering changes certain rules that would allow marketers, etc. the 
advantages of parking and lending through the submission of schedules 
(although it probably won't pass.)  In any event, I think that "appropriate 
schedules, as required by the SPP (or successor organization) rules, 
practices, etc...." is safer language.

Thanks.  




Reagan Rorschach@ENRON
02/28/2001 12:15 PM
To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: Clarksdale/Yazoo City

Christi-

See attached.  Call me with any questions.

Thanks very much,

Reagan
5.3363