Message-ID: <19017326.1075843082372.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:52:00 -0800 (PST) From: scott.bolton@enron.com To: kevin.kohnstamm@enron.com, mitch.olson@enron.com Subject: Potential Opportunity for ECI Cc: dlassere@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: dlassere@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com X-From: Scott Bolton X-To: Kevin Kohnstamm, Mitch Olson X-cc: dlassere@enron.com, Jeff Dasovich X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Eci X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf Fellas, please read below. Do we have a need for extra capacity in California? Mitch, could this be a re-sell opportunity? Let me know if this is at all attractive. Thanks. ----- Forwarded by Scott Bolton/Enron Communications on 01/17/00 01:49 PM ----- Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com 01/17/00 11:46 AM To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications cc: Subject: Potential Opportunity for ECI Greetings Scott: As we discussed, an acquaintance of mine is a lawyer whose client is the California Independent System Operator (ISO). The ISO contracted with MCI (a couple of years ago) to build a broad band network ( OC-48) to support electricity deregulation in California. (Friends of mine at MCI worked on the deal.) Since that time, the ISO has discovered that it has capacity substantially in excess of what it needs to operate the grid (and certain markets for power, e.g., ancillary services). The ISO is none to happy about having been sold an "overbuild" network by MCI. But given MCI's reputation, the ISO is looking at marketing the capacity rather than trying to re-negotiate the contract with MCI. Sounds like the capacity runs between Sacramento (Folsom?) and Southern California (Alhambra?). Could be an opportunity for ECI to get some quality capacity at a substantial discount. I've let Tom Gros know about it, too (bandwidth trading opportunity?). Please pass along to ECI folks for their assessment. Best, Jeff