Message-ID: <19256723.1075857902946.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net
To: nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
Subject: Correction: FERC Accepts $1000 (not $100) Bid Cap
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net
X-To: TIE Group <nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Larry_Campbell_Jun2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: Campbell-L
X-FileName: lcampbel.nsf

Aaron Breidenbaugh <aaron@global2000.net> writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE 
Discussion List:

Sorry about that.

Those who know me, know that the missing zero in my previous email was
probably a Freudian "wishful thinking" slip. FERC of course approved the
continuation of the existing $1000 (not $100) bid cap.

A question for the ISO and Penalty/Disclosure proponents: given the
close linkage between the AMP and the Penalties proposal now being
appealed to the Board, is the MC going to have to revisit the Penalties
motion as well? If so, will the two proposals stay separate or go up to
the MC and Board as a package?

Aaron