Thanks, Guy.  Your point is valid; however, you are right that we don't want to emphasize the intra-day hourly part in this pleading since a firm power contract is necessary in order to have firm network service (hourly traders purchasing system contigent or unit contingent during the day would be scheduling the network transmission utilizing "non-designated resource", which makes the transmission less firm (right above non-firm PTP)).  ComEd's draft response also discusses this in the context that they are following the tariff.  The point we need to make is that the designation of firm LD contracts absolutely meets FERC's network resource requirements.

We have added an argument that, yet again, even having this type of issue with network, PTP, etc. emphasizes the need to move quickly to the market design that we advocate in the context of an RTO, which would eliminate these parochial issues (and without an icap obligation that Dynegy clearly wants.)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sharfman, Guy  
Sent:	Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:11 PM
To:	Nicolay, Christi L.; Kingerski, Harry; Steffes, James D.; Herndon, Rogers; Misra, Narsimha; Sager, Elizabeth; Forster, David; Baughman Jr., Don; Stroup, Kerry; Roan, Michael; Migden, Janine; Gahn, Scott; Blachman, Jeremy; Meyn, Jim; Novosel, Sarah; Stroup, Kerry; Will, Lloyd; May, Tom; Baughman, Edward D.; Smith, Mike; Shapiro, Richard; Murphy, Harlan; Black, Don
Subject:	RE: NEED COMMENTS-Dynegy v. ComEd response

Christi:

I'm good with the filing.  The only point I would make is that our ultimate position is that we don't think we should have to designate any network resource in order to get network firm transmission from the utility.  Our hourly traders don't buy power on firm LD contracts and the utilities in the Midwest have supply imbalance rules that more than adequately incentives us to make sure any power we schedule physically gets to the utility boarder.

I am not sure if this filing is the proper time to bring this up, but I wanted to make the point in case it changes our approach.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Guy

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nicolay, Christi L.  
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:43 PM
To:	Kingerski, Harry; Steffes, James D.; Herndon, Rogers; Misra, Narsimha; Sager, Elizabeth; Forster, David; Baughman Jr., Don; Stroup, Kerry; Roan, Michael; Migden, Janine; Gahn, Scott; Blachman, Jeremy; Meyn, Jim; Novosel, Sarah; Stroup, Kerry; Will, Lloyd; May, Tom; Baughman, Edward D.; Smith, Mike; Shapiro, Richard; Sharfman, Guy; Murphy, Harlan; Black, Don
Subject:	NEED COMMENTS-Dynegy v. ComEd response

Attached in very draft form is EPMI/EES's response against Dynegy's request that ComEd not allow Firm LD to be designated as a Network transmission resource.  Please provide comments by COB Thurs 10/25.  Thanks.

Susan Lindberg 30596 and Christi Nicolay 37007. << File: Dynegy v ComEd protest (EL02-6).doc >>