Message-ID: <32678509.1075843081034.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: dan.minter@enron.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Subject: Re: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Dan Minter
X-To: Jeff Dasovich
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Eci
X-Origin: DASOVICH-J
X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf

Hi Jeff,
Make sure the access to the network is defined as DS1 access...We would like 
DS3 access pricing because that is the minimum level of service we trade at 
today.  Also, please indicate that the current available capacity is about 1 
OC3, (the current OC12 network is running about half full and the ISO wants 
about an OC3 of overhead capacity with which to scale their customers' 
demand.  We need to determine the interval between the time the ISO requests 
the upgrade to OC48 from MCI and the time that upgrade would be made 
available...California OVER estimated the number of users...

Just a thought, but the ISO might be able to get MCI to reduce the Yearly fee 
they charge by waiving the right to the upgrade.  MCI would have to spend a 
significant amount of $ to do the upgrade.  Also, MCI is losing $ on those 
access loops.  If the ISO were to threaten to request 2000 loops that MCI was 
going to lose $100,000 per month on, MCI might reduce their charges if the 
ISO were to reduce the open call.
Dan Minter
V: (503)886-0452
F: (503)886-0441



	Jeff Dasovich@EES
	04/20/00 10:18 AM
		 
		 To: Dan Minter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity

Yo Dan:
Could you do me a favor and take a look at my very brief summary below and 
make any changes you like.  I'd like to give folks some information as to the 
status of the ISO deal.   Appreciate it.

Best,
Jeff
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 04/20/2000 10:17 
AM ---------------------------


Jeff Dasovich on 04/17/2000 04:32:25 PM
To: Dan Minter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:  
Subject: Meeting with California ISO Regarding Excess Capacity

Dan:  Below I've provided a very brief summary of our meeting with the ISO.  
Please review and edit in any fasion you deem appropriate then send back to 
me.  I will then distribute to a very small group (e.g., Jean Mrha, Tom Gros, 
and a couple of folks in my group who also work on EBS issues).  Thanks.

Best,
Jeff





******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
**********
We have sent the attorney representing the ISO a standard EBS NDA to review.  
We expect to have the NDA signed within the week.  The following is a summary 
of what occured at the meeting.

The Network
MCI built the system.
The ISO currently shares its private, dedicated network 50-50 with the 
California Power Exchange, though the ISO like to take control of 100% of the 
asset.
The network consists of 4 OC-12s (?) and as part of the contract, the ISO has 
a call to upgrade an no or very little cost to 4 OC-48s.
This "scalability" was built in to accommodate what California believed would 
be a very large and rapidly growing number of users (mostly scheduling 
coordinators), but California greatly underestimated the number.  So the ISO 
is left with considerable excess capacity.
It's an ATM switched network with 11 A-PoPs and 4 B-Pops and it runs from 
Folsom (Sacramento) to Alhambra (around Pasadena).  The B-PoP locations are 
Hayward, Sacramento, Long Beach, and Claremont.

The Contract
The ISO pays about $30-35 million/yr under the contract---significantly above 
market.
The contract ends at the end of 2003.
The contract includes a costless, or very low cost, option to upgrade from 
OC-12 to OC-48.
The contract also permits interconnection to the network (by MCI) for $485, 
irrespective of difference from the grid.

The Goals of the EVP/CIO

Reduce costs immediately.   Needs to take a plan designed to mitigate the 
costs to the Board in 60 days.
Wants to maintain some flexibility in the event usage grows.
"Would like to do a short term deal, for "nonfirm" service and get  a high 
price," but he would do a long-term, firm deal if it reduced his costs 
significantly.