Subject: Sub-QSE's
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:55:00 -0800 (PST)

Robin/Ron:  Must get rid of this sub-QSE language.  Please give me a shout 
asap to discuss.  Having these sub-QSE's is bad for EPMI for the following 
reasons: 

(1) sub-QSE's are settled as stand-alone QSE's and thus 
 - EPMI gets smaller deadband limits for each sub-QSE 
 - Wind deviations could not be covered with % deadband of other schedules 
(wind would have to be setup as its own sub-QSE)
 
(2) sub-QSE's significantly affect EPMI's ability to make profits by 
optimizing a portfolio of customers
 - EPMI is better off with one large QSE that it can share/balance among 
different schedules
 - Customers could request to be setup as a sub-QSE and it would be difficult 
for EPMI to optimize between customers and make profits.  We lose the  
ability of having a black box where customers can not see how we optimize our 
portfolio.

Thanks, - Mike

---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Curry/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000 09:29 AM 
---------------------------

"Moseley, Cheryl" <[email-masked]> on 12/05/2000 08:32:41 PM
To: 1 Retail Users Group Ad Hoc Subcommittee <[email-masked]>
cc:  
Subject: Proposed modification to PIP 108

Attached is the proposed modification to PIP 108,
Subordinate QSEs.

 - 108PIP sub-QSE.doc