I don't see a problem here.  The fact that we may have a partial commercial solution for some customers to avoid the cruel and outrageous costs that icap imposes should in no way deter the informed regulator from eliminating it.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nicolay, Christi L.  
Sent:	Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:12 PM
To:	Hoatson, Tom; Roan, Michael; Fromer, Howard; Kingerski, Harry; Twiggs, Thane; Maurer, Luiz; Novosel, Sarah; Landwehr, Susan M.; Comnes, Alan; Allegretti, Daniel; Steffes, James D.
Subject:	RE: Updated EPMI/EES draft ICAP paper

This statement is in the "internal use document".  Narsimha said that Enron would not want to make this statement as we are trying to kill icap.  I don't see this on the customer doc, but EES is checking.  I understand that this is Jeff Brown's product and Mike and I talked with him yesterday about it and he is fine with our filing.  I heard they have a reg out if icap goes away.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hoatson, Tom  
Sent:	Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:49 PM
To:	Roan, Michael; Fromer, Howard; Kingerski, Harry; Twiggs, Thane; Maurer, Luiz; Novosel, Sarah; Nicolay, Christi L.; Landwehr, Susan M.; Comnes, Alan; Allegretti, Daniel
Subject:	RE: Updated EPMI/EES draft ICAP paper

I just received an email regarding a new product that EES just released for New York for "dispatchable generation".  The description of the program states in part that "?the New York ISO's Installed Capacity (ICAP) program can provide significant additional value to our customer and to Enron?".  It is unclear if this product requires an ICAP to be successful, but we should ensure that our comments to FERC are consistent with this product and other products that are apparently going to be released for PJM and ISO-NE soon. 

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Roan, Michael  
Sent:	Monday, October 15, 2001 6:45 PM
To:	Hoatson, Tom; Fromer, Howard; Kingerski, Harry; Twiggs, Thane; Maurer, Luiz; Novosel, Sarah; Nicolay, Christi L.; Landwehr, Susan M.; Comnes, Alan; Allegretti, Daniel
Subject:	FW: Updated EPMI/EES draft ICAP paper

Attached is the updated paper.  We still have further wordsmithing to do (primarily on the Appendix) and need to go through Toms, Howards and Dans comments to make sure we have captured their intent.  Alan, any comment from the West (the lack of icap is referenced by others as a reason why California failed....just to help with any response)

regards
Mike

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Roan, Michael  
Sent:	Monday, October 15, 2001 5:42 PM
To:	Belden, Tim; Presto, Kevin M.; Black, Don; Herndon, Rogers; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Gilbert-smith, Doug; Davis, Mark Dana
Cc:	Sharp, Vicki; Sager, Elizabeth; Nicolay, Christi L.
Subject:	Updated EPMI/EES draft ICAP paper

Attached is the final draft of this paper for comment.  It incorporates the comments of those who responded but there is time for further redrafting.  However, given the filing deadline (Wednesday) further changes are likely to be wordsmithing unless someone vehemently objects to the structure.

regards
Mike ext. 57634

PS.  There were no objections to my thoughts on structure so we have concentrated on the rationale supporting RTO's and effective spot markets as mechanisms that achieve the goals of ICAP (i.e A spot market is Enrons solution).  We then state that if others have different views, any resulting separate iCap proposal if implemented should be interim in nature and minimise spot market distortions.  Finally we attach a simple interim solution as an appendix (so it does not detract from our main argument structure) so that if there is an ongoing debate we will be able to take part...

 << File: ICAP paper 15 October.doc >>