Subject: FW: NNG's GISB Comments
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:56:28 -0800 (PST)

Shelley,  can you give me some thoughts about Kathy's questions-  MK

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	[email-masked]@ENRON  
Sent:	Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:58 PM
To:	Miller, Mary Kay
Cc:	Porter, J. Gregory; Pavlou, Maria; Kirk, Steve
Subject:	RE: NNG's GISB Comments

Maria, I've attached below an exchange of Dynegy e-mails on the topic of
the 1 hour advance notice.  My concern, as expressed in the e-mail below,
is the complexity (and cost/benefit) of getting to a real-time, on-line
interactive computer system, versus one that requires some processing time.
I'm not sure how the Northern computer system is designed, but this may be
work raising.   I also raise the issue of how this works with EDI
nominations (assuming anyone is actually using EDI these days).  Again, I'm
not sure if this is relevant to the Northern system, but this reflects my
recollection of the way the pipelines in general used to explain to us how
their systems worked (i.e., batched processing, rather than interactive;
all mandatory fields filled in).  My recollection is dated by a few years,
so pipelines may have changed this once they went on the internet, rather
than EBBs and EDI.

I would also note that this was written before the Northern announcement
was made.  However, I have to admit that all my Dynegy pals have accused me
of going to other side since I've been at IP.

I've fine with your comments.  I'll provide you with my correct address
tomorrow.

---------------------- Forwarded by Kathy Patton/DEC/Dynegy on 01/29/2002
requests comment on whether it should adopt the one-hour prior notice
requirement.  Comments are due in about 30 days.