TVA and Entergy filed answers to the numerous protests to Entergy's source 
and sink filing.

TVA responded specifically to Enron and VEPCO's filings basically stating 
that the NERC letter was limited to the TVA/Enron dispute and inapplicable to 
the Entergy issue.  TVA also made accusations that Enron in effect secretly 
talked with NERC to get a task force made up of members "predisposed to 
Enron's point of view."  TVA said that the task force ignored TVA's requests 
to meet with it and that the task force went beyond current NERC policy.  
Finally, TVA understands that "Enron has prevented SERC" from bringing the 
matter to NERC ADR.

Entergy's answer largely cites past FERC orders that approved the source and 
sink on tags (and denied Enron's Capacity Reservation Tariff) and basically 
states that the protests are a collateral attack on Order No. 888 (as we have 
known, the OATT does require ultimate source and sink on firm and allows them 
on non-firm).  Entergy's filing, however, is lacking in substantive reasons 
why reliability would be so much better served by requiring this at the 
reservation level, when NERC has stated it is not necessary for reliability 
until the 20/30 minute ahead tag.  Entergy says it can do a better job of 
listing actual ATCs and will prevent Entergy from overselling its system 
(although since Entergy's ATCs are usually low or 0 coming in over the ties, 
I question how many times Entergy has oversold Firm transmission.)  Entergy 
also states that it and the Security Coordinators can police the IDC tags, in 
case the marketer puts the wrong priority information on the tag (how often 
does this happen?).  [[I also don't know how Entergy is going to have time to 
check all this, when we called FERC hotline on them last year for lack of 
timely responses to reservation and tags]].  Although the IDC does not even 
analyze specific bus bars (and generator source and sink are optional on the 
tags now), Entergy says this is "irrelevant", but TLRs will be improved.

Entergy cites FERC's 1998 OASIS orders that "EPSA has not made a compelling 
argument that disclosure would harm liquidity."  I think that the compelling 
arguments are being made now about the discrimination.  Although FERC 
approved the source and sink, transmission providers have not been using them 
and the tags don't require them.

Entergy notes that when FERC issued the OASIS order, specific bus bar 
information was required on the tag -- now it is optional on the tag.  Even 
so, Entergy states that requiring it on the reservation does not make it 
inconsistent with the tag.  (I disagree.)

Finally, Entergy says that we can always put in "anticipated" source and 
sink, but if it changes, our priority may change.  It is my understanding 
that even the smallest change in source and sink will make some change in the 
power flows, so you effectively would always go to the lowest priority.

We are considering filing a response that states the lack of evidence on the 
reliability issues when NERC doesn't think this is required is a material 
issue of fact that should be set for hearing, at least.