You are 100% correct.  That is my impression as well, and that is why I set up the Monday meeting.  Going forward, the format of those meetings should be:

	1) Richter presents his area of accountability (West wholesale prosition, risk systems, deal capture system, status of 	projects, schedule, etc.)
	2) Black presents his area of accountability (deal review, west tariff,  and gas)
	3) Herndon presents his area of accountability (East wholesale & East tariffs)
	4) Bernie presents his area of accountability (deal structuring, deal valuation, new model construction)
	5) Busby presents his area of accountability (risk systems and portfolio valuation - works with Richter)
	6) You and I find the holes and provide direction.

Your thoughts?
	

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Belden, Tim  
Sent:	Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:44 AM
To:	Presto, Kevin M.
Subject:	RE: FYI - Progress Report on testing an EES deal in Enpower

i think that we need to have an "org chart" meeting where we have don, rogers, and jeff present to us how everything is going to work.  i am getting feedback from a bunch of people (donovan, swain, perry, richter) that people in ees and on the ees transition team are feeling like they don't know what's going on.  we need this thing to be a lot tighter than it is now and we need clear accountability that is visible not just to us, but to everyone.  we need to have this meeting asap.  for example, sally beck is has put together her proposed structure.  who on our team will liais with her.  how will it work?  as we discussed the other day, the deal review team is understaffed.  rogers, don, or jeff needs to be wearing it.  once we have the responsibilities clearly layed out, then at a minimum you, don, rogers, jeff, and i should meet once a week to get a high level update from each of them on their areas of responsibility.  if we don't do this we will quickly devolve into chaos.  let me know your thoughts.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Presto, Kevin M.  
Sent:	Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:19 AM
To:	Belden, Tim
Subject:	RE: FYI - Progress Report on testing an EES deal in Enpower

Didn't we already hang Richter with this at the Monday mtg.   By the way, Lavo has indicated he will just attend our Monday meetings every couple of weeks instead of having a separate meeting.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Belden, Tim  
Sent:	Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:06 AM
To:	Presto, Kevin M.; Lavorato, John; Black, Don
Cc:	Herndon, Rogers; Richter, Jeff
Subject:	RE: FYI - Progress Report on testing an EES deal in Enpower

at our meeting with the six of us we need to assign one of us to wear the oversight of this project.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Presto, Kevin M.  
Sent:	Tuesday, June 12, 2001 5:09 PM
To:	Cross, Edith; Lavorato, John; Belden, Tim
Cc:	Herndon, Rogers; Richter, Jeff
Subject:	RE: FYI - Progress Report on testing an EES deal in Enpower

Looks like Enpower is "on the side of the road" with respect to capturing and valuing retail deals.   As we discussed in yesterday's meeting, Plan B is a more robust spreadsheet that unbundles the components and values them separately and creates postions by risk component.

I know this is easier said than done, but we need a tactical solution that gives the group confidence that value and positions are correct, rather than a bundled black box batch value with hard coded assumptions.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cross, Edith  
Sent:	Tuesday, June 12, 2001 5:47 PM
To:	Lavorato, John; Belden, Tim; Presto, Kevin M.
Cc:	Herndon, Rogers; Richter, Jeff
Subject:	FYI - Progress Report on testing an EES deal in Enpower


To all,

The following is documentation of a sample EES deal which was tested in the Enpower system.  This is for informational purposes only.  Please let me know if you have any questions, or need clarification on any points.  

Over the last few weeks, a few of us have been working to test an EES deal in Enpower (St. Luke's - Roosevelt, part of the Beth Israel deal).  The deal is a fixed price sale in New York City (Zone J) of Energy, Line Losses, Ancillary's, and ICAP.  The T&D is a pass through.  We only tested one site out of the ten.  Needless to say, this is probably one of the simplest structures available.  Obviously, we have worked on a few other things at the same time, so it has taken longer than we expected, but I hope this will help highlight how difficult it is to book EES deals in Enpower in it's current state.

Quick statistics for ONE site:

Each month of hourly data, takes 5-6 minutes to save.  We booked 100 months (approx 8.3 years), therefore each deal type (energy, ancillary, etc.) took 8-9 hours to book.
Since each deal type takes 8-9 hours to book, it takes a total of 25-26 hours to book energy, ancillary's (only 1), line losses, and ICAP (this is not booked hourly, therefore, it only takes 1 hour to book).
Although we booked only one ancillary position, most markets have at least four, therefore the total booking time should be closer to 50 hours.
Once we got a book to run, it took 25 minutes to calculate the value.
All of the above statistics assume there are no errors in entering the deals.

Recommendations:

Work with Anthony Dayao to set up a system that can handle these trades for position management, valuation, reporting, scheduling, settlements, accounting, etc.
In the interim:

Enhance RPS to make the valuation consistent with the batch valuation process.  This includes strengthening information for position and DPR reporting.  As well, create tools to help identify change in valuation due to curve shift, reg switch options, and new deals.
Enhance Intramonth valuation and reporting (East desk does not currently have an intramonth book).
Integrate the Tariff Valuation and Reporting.  Currently, this is done in a stand-alone spreadsheet application.
Support the Curve Database project which will allow the breakdown of curves into its components (as opposed to current bundled curves).
Move all the EPMI hedges to Enpower.  All hedges will become desk to desk instead of being entered in both RPS and Enpower.  Position and P&L reports will have be integrated between Enpower and RPS. 	


Here is a breakdown of what it took to 'rebook' this trade:

Week 1 (May 14-18)

Read Contract.
Get Batch model, as well as a breakdown of value between Energy, Ancillary's, etc.
Sit with Underwriting to answer questions about Load growth and contractual questions.
Work on Wholesale Full Requirements model (in Excel) to check valuation.

Week 2 (May 21-25)

Continue working on Full Requirements model.
Work with Risk Management (Stacey White's group) to set up delivery points and curves in Enpower.	
Begin to book deal in Enpower - Getting access to Enpower took some time.
Discovered that our assumption on hours for the 12x12 was incorrect.   We had gotten about 1/3 of the deal booked by the time we realized this.
At times, the database tables would run out of space, because we have never entered a deal of this size in the test database.  This would keep us from entering any new data.

Week 3 (May 29-June 1)

Finished Excel Full Requirements model.  The EES Batch and the Wholesale model tie out except for some minor differences on discounting and ICAP.  The current ICAP curves are            $/MW-day, and they are not calculated using the correct numbers of days (i.e. June and July have the same MW/day price, even though there are 30 and 31 days, respectively, in each month).  This can be fixed in the curve files.  In the future we should mark the curves as $/Kw-month.
Again, we ran into problems with the test database.
Completed booking in Enpower.

Week 4 (June 4-5)

Took 2 days to get a MTM valuation (portcalc) to work.
Discovered deal entry errors in booking.