Below is a rough estimate of the book impact if ComEd succeeds in ending PPO 
early.  That is, if they terminate PPO starting Jan. 2005 it should cost us 
$1.2m, if they want to terminate Jan. 2004 it would be an impact of $3.1m 
($1.2m for 2005 + $1.9m for 2004), etc.



These costs can be reduced with a liquid market for wholesale power and 
ancillary services.

Let's discuss our suggested changes.

Marc Ulrich






Janine Migden@ENRON

04/30/2001 10:09 AM

To: Jeff Ader/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Bernstein/HOU/EES@EES, Edward D 
Baughman/Enron@EnronXGate, Marc Ulrich/HOU/EES@EES, Harry 
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Roy 
Boston/HOU/EES@EES, Daniel Allegretti/NA/Enron@Enron, Eric Letke/HOU/EES@EES, 
Mike Roan/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron 
Subject: Com Ed

Last week, Sue and I, along with Phil O'Connor of New Energy met with Frank 
Clark ( Senior V.P. Exelon - Government Affairs, etc) and Arlene Juracek 
(V.P. Rates and Tariffs).  Sue and I also met with Commissioners Hurley and 
Harvill.

Information Gleaned From the Meeting:

1.  Com Ed does not think price volatility will be acceptable to the 
residential customers and wants to create a structured rate.  They are not 
open to any alternative that causes them to lose money.
2.  They will file a rate case in 2004 to be effective in 2005.  They are not 
sure the statute requires them to file an MVI plus 10% at the end of the PPO 
period and need to study the statutory requirements.  Their preference is to 
initiate performanced based ratemaking instead for bundled rates.
3.  Com Ed's view is that the energy situation is a  national problem.  Com 
Ed wants to be protected through its commodity price.
4.  Com Ed does not want the obligation to serve industrial customers and on 
a longer term basis, would like to shed its obligation to serve residential.
5.  Com Ed has arbitrarily defined mass market as 400kw or less and has 
therefore lumped these commercial customers in with their residential, 
however, they are open to separating them out.
6.  Com Ed does not want the legislation reopened which may provide us with 
some leverage.

At the conclusion of the meeting it was decided to start an open forum 
process to get ideas on the table.  Com Ed is shying away from any formal 
process.  Their concern seems to be that they do not want to take the 
political heat for high prices and volatility and would rather give up its 
default customer service obligations.

Possible Deal Opportunities:

1.  Either through negotiations (preferred choice) or through competitive 
bidding, become the default service provider for some or all of Com Ed's 
industrial customers.  This would allow us to upsell additional products to 
the industrial class.
2.  Segregate the commercial customers (100 - 400 Kw) customers from the 
residential customers and negotiate to become the default service provider.
3.  Joint venture between ENA and New Power to be the default service 
provider for portions of the residential class through an opt-out program 
like municipal aggregation or some other format.

Next Steps:

1.  Mark Ulrich is to complete an analysis of the Com Ed proposal in terms of 
its impact on our current book of business
2.   Develop a position boiled down to just a few key points that we can push 
with regulators and Com Ed.  In a conference call with Harry, Mark, Roy, Sue 
and me, we have tentatively distilled the list to the following:
 a.  Default deal for industrial customers
 b.  Negotiate for Com Ed to provide load following and balancing
 c.  Default deal for commercial as opposed to PBR

Janine