----- Forwarded by Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron on 05/08/2001 03:14 PM -----

	Oscar Dalton/ENRON@enronXgate
	05/08/2001 03:09 PM
		 
		 To: Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: 
		 Subject: RE: Consumers


Marcus,

I spoke with two of our schedulers and they inform me that it is ok to 
utilize the term Eastern Prevailing Time to cover deliveries at MECS or Into 
Cinergy.  There is no issue on a 16 hour block since.  The problem usually 
happens when there is an off peak 8 hour block and there is confusion on the 
hour extending into midnight. 

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Nettelton, Marcus  
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:49 PM
To: Dalton III, Oscar
Cc: Sager, Elizabeth
Subject: Consumers
Importance: High

Oscar
 
Attached is the latest draft with my comments and additional drafting. We 
need to be certain that Kevin Presto is clear as to the Products and the 
risks that we will be taking going forward.

In addition, as we discussed with Consumers this morning, from a scheduling 
perspective, we need to be comfortable that the time limits will be as per 
Eastern Prevailing Time and not Central Prevailing Time. If we are, then we 
need to change the Into Cinergy definition in EEI to address this.
 
As part of managing this process, as you know my wife is expecting our first 
child and with the due date having been passed I am on "baby alert" which 
could mean me leaving at any minute. I have therefore started to copy 
Elizabeth Sager on the negotiations and she, or another member of the team 
will be in a position to start running with this, in the event that it is not 
signed before I leave.
 
Regards,
 
Marcus
 << File: CECO.DFT8May.doc >>