Jim a BIG external factor that is directed to the item (2) ISO Systems & 
Procedures:

At the NERC Electronic Scheduling Task Force meeting today, there was 
considerable discussion on how this Task Force (which was formed before the 
OASIS ANOPR was posted) would coordinate on an industry-wide basis, a NERC 
response to the OASIS Phase II ANOPR.

Here are some important points a FERC Staff member (Marv Rosenberg) made at 
the meeting.  These should be kept in mind in developing the Enron proposal 
and the process of getting buy-in in each of the Regions/RTOs.

-  FERC prefers a single industry consensus filing.  
-  The ANOPR is intended to tie RTO Order 2000 together with new OASIS II 
requirements
-  Does not preclude individual RTOs or entities from submitting proposals.  
However a diversity of filings will indicate   non-consensus and FERC will 
make its own decisions which will likely not be industry friendly.

FERC is asking the industry for communication and Business Practices 
standards for issuing in a NOPR.

FERC is looking for:
- more functionality and to be more user-friendly
- electronic scheduling
- electronic reservations
- reduce duplication of information entry for customers
- not intended to dictate the Control Area to Control Area communications 
 I asked Marv to clarify this - He explained that although not required, FERC 
welcomes propsals to address the control area   source/sink issues as part of 
an OASIS II solution (ie Entergy Source/Sink Order)

OASIS II should:
- continue use of Web browsers
-  use templates for file transfers (uploads and downloads)
- all displays do not have to look the same - but encourages a common look 
and feel
- within a RTO, business practicese may differ, but between RTOs the 
practices must be standardized

We need to keep close to the NERC efforts since FERC has historically tended 
to favor NERC proposals because they tout an air of industry consensus.  

The clarificaton to the ANOPR given by Marv should make buy-in an important 
element of our proposal.
If FERC adopts the NERC filing, we will likely be stuck with the exisiting 
contract path seams problems and LMP fragmentation in the East because NERC 
is not proposing any tariff changes.  Also we will not get the control area 
source/sink issue resolved since it will be impossible to resolve at NERC in 
7 months.

Of course, another option would be to incorporate our efforts with this Task 
Force.





James D Steffes@EES
08/02/2000 05:52 PM
To: Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES, Janine Migden/DUB/EES@EES, Charles 
Yeung/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ron McNamara/HOU/EES@EES, 
Steve Montovano/DUB/EES@EES, Dan Staines/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robin 
Kittel/HOU/EES@EES, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kerry Stroup/DUB/EES@EES, 
Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom 
Delaney/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Howard Fromer/HOU/EES@EES, Daniel 
Allegretti/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject: Transmission / Wholesale Market Regional Plans


1. I appreciate everyone who participated in the call today.  I think that 
the discussion proved that we can find consensus on a reasonable approach for 
transmission pricing and energy markets.

2. To make more clear about the Regional Plans, I think that we need to 
consider the following.

A. BACKGROUND

Timelines of Current Process
Current Players & Current Positions
Allies 
Key Issues now facing the process

B. MOVING FORWARD

Top Issues upcoming
External Factors (e.g., will Entergy join SPP)
Resource Needs
Relationship to Commercial Objectives / Business Plans

C. OTHER ISSUES / CONCLUSION

I hope this helps set an outline for the Regional Plans.  The key idea is 
that I want to make sure everyone has a calendar of where we are going and 
what issues need to be addressed.  Don't be shy about adding other topics and 
issues.  We need to have this to communicate within our group and to the 
commercial people.  I don't expect this to be easy, but I think that it will 
be helpful.

3. I think that we need to put more detail around the entire structure.  This 
would entail developing four things (1) a tariff, (2) ISO Systems & 
Procedures, (3) Day Ahead PX Energy Market, (4) Transmission Flowgate PX 
Market.  These are the four building blocks to a New Marketplace.

My hope is for Enron to put these things out in a detailed framework using 
"off the shelf" material.  I know that Tom Delaney has already started 
working on a tariff.  I think we could adapt the Cal PX model into point 3.  
We could probably use the APX Flowgate System for point 4.  On the ISO, maybe 
we could go to ESCA and have a Detailed Scope / Work Plan and fees on setting 
up an ISO (including costs of operation over time).  It would make sense to 
me to do this very formally (including setting energy market zones and 
defining the commercially significant Flowgates).  I would use the MISO as 
the market to focus on, but am willing to listen to other thoughts.

Please let me know what everyone thinks.

Jim