No. 1 -- (a)  We need to clarify what "arrange" means.  For example, who is 
responsible for paying for Point to Point service (which would probably be 
needed in order to import/export power from Entergy or when sourcing/selling 
to a non-designated resource.)  Also, there is a huge risk that PTP (or the 
ability to add a network resource) will not be available at the time when 
importing/exporting power is most economical.  EPMI can reserve/schedule on 
behalf of Clarksdale, but will Clarksdale be paying for the extra 
transmission service?  

 (b)  Entergy's policies allow for a day ahead designation of network 
resources, if transmission is available.  However, this designation is not as 
firm as the network service that  Clarksdale will be purchasing when 
requesting its original network.  It seems that we can state that we will not 
impact Clarksdale's original network resource designation; however, when 
using an alternate designation, there is the possibility that the 
transmission could be cut before the rest of firm.  We can agree to this, but 
lose flexibility.  I agree that we would then need the local quick start 
generation in order to meet this request (however, such plant may not be 
available either.)

No. 6  Both of the above tie into this one (as well as the "profit" 
calculation in No. 3) -- how is the "goal" of minimizing the resulting net 
power supply costs measured?  EPMI will probably not be totally successful in 
having a cost reduction 100% of the time, especially if we try to use 
non-firm transmission at times because generally that imported/exported power 
cost can be to their advantage.  Since the Cities will have final approval, 
they may want to take some risk and use non-firm: understanding that 
sometimes it won't work and the plant may have to run.  This wording also 
needs to be clarified as to "arrange" -- for example, "reserve transmission 
on behalf of Clarksdale"; "schedule transactions via etag on behalf of 
Clarksdale." 


From: Reagan Rorschach/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/19/2001 09:38 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lloyd Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christi L 
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Fairley/ENRON@enronXgate, Ozzie 
Pagan/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:  

Subject: RE: Clarksdale/Beck's comments



 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay  
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 9:37 AM
To: Rorschach, Reagan; Will, Lloyd; Nicolay, Christi; Fairley, David; Pagan, 
Ozzie
Subject: Clarksdale/Beck's comments

Please confirm that Beck's comments nos 1 and 6 are acceptable for the loi.  
I would include in this email, but I don't have an electronic version with 
me.  Reagan, if you have an electronic version, could you forward it to me?

Thanks,

Kay