Correct.  



	"Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
	11/22/2000 11:10 AM
		 
		 To: "'Susan.J.Mara@enron.com'" <Susan.J.Mara@enron.com>, 
James.D.Steffes@enron.com, Joe.Hartsoe@enron.com, Richard.Shapiro@enron.com, 
Steven.J.Kean@enron.com, Paul.Kaufman@enron.com, rcarroll@bracepatt.com, 
kcurry@bracepatt.com, Tim.Belden@enron.com, Robert.Badeer@enron.com, 
Jeff.Richter@enron.com, dbenevid@enron.com, jwhalan@enron.com, 
nbresnan@enron.com, Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com, Mona.L.Petrochko@enron.com, 
Alan.Comnes@enron.com, Sarah.Novosel@enron.com, 
Christopher.F.Calger@enron.com, David.Parquet@enron.com, cfergus@brobeck.com, 
lanai.wolfe@enron.com, lanaiwolfe@enron.com, Mary.Hain@enron.com, 
steve.c.hall@enron.com, "Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>, 
Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com
		 cc: 
		 Subject: RE: *** EES OPPOSITION TO UNDERSCHEDULING PENALTY ***

Sue,
   Mary Hain suggested I clarify my understanding of what EES is asking
for.  EES is not requiring the parenthetical comment under (2) below to be
included in the response.  EES's key points for inclusion are:

1.  Change the requirement to 90%     OR
2.  Apply the 95% penalty solely to underscheduling of load
3.  The rule applies to an entities' entire load.
4.  Smaller scheduling coordinators (i.e. smaller than the PX or IOUs) have
less diverse loads and are more subject to unforeseen swings -- so 95% is
very difficult to
achieve -- another disincentive to direct access and competition.

Is this correct?

Thanks
Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan.J.Mara@enron.com [mailto:Susan.J.Mara@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 10:43 AM
To: James.D.Steffes@enron.com; Joe.Hartsoe@enron.com;
Richard.Shapiro@enron.com; Steven.J.Kean@enron.com;
Paul.Kaufman@enron.com; rcarroll@bracepatt.com; kcurry@bracepatt.com;
Tim.Belden@enron.com; Robert.Badeer@enron.com; Jeff.Richter@enron.com;
dbenevid@enron.com; jwhalan@enron.com; nbresnan@enron.com;
Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com; Mona.L.Petrochko@enron.com;
Alan.Comnes@enron.com; Sarah.Novosel@enron.com;
Christopher.F.Calger@enron.com; David.Parquet@enron.com;
cfergus@brobeck.com; lanai.wolfe@enron.com; lanaiwolfe@enron.com;
Mary.Hain@enron.com; steve.c.hall@enron.com; gfergus@brobeck.com;
Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com
Subject: *** EES OPPOSITION TO UNDERSCHEDULING PENALTY ***
Importance: High


EES is concerned about the 95% requirement.

What EES would like is to do is to ask FERC for a modification as follows:

1.  Change the requirement to 90%     OR
2.  Apply the 95% penalty solely to underscheduling of load (the draft
order talks about it as a deviation, implying plus or minus, even though
the section talks only about underscheduling of load)

Also, EES would like some clarification that the rule applies to an
entities' entire load.

We can justify these modifications by pointing out that smaller scheduling
cooridinators (i.e. smaller than the PX or IOUs) have less diverse loads
and are more subject to on forseen swings -- so 95% is very difficult to
achieve -- another disincentive to direct access and compeition.

Time is marching on--

THIS OK?


=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of 
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to 
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com