Message-ID: <22840513.1075853399455.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
To: janice.moore@enron.com
Subject: FYI - Re: Meeting at Dynegy office on Sept 12th, 2:30 to 5:30
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Elizabeth Sager
X-To: Janice R Moore
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Elizabeth_Sager_Nov2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: Sager-E
X-FileName: esager.nsf

----- Forwarded by Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT on 09/11/2000 08:44 AM -----

	Kevin M Presto
	09/07/2000 10:04 AM
		
		 To: Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Meeting at Dynegy office on Sept 12th, 2:30 to 5:30

Do we need a pre-meeting?   Quite honestly, Dynegy's position is not 
unreasonable - it forces the sinking utility to assume the transmission risk.
I understand the EEI position and long term it is definitely the right answer 
from a liquidity and MTM accounting standpoint and I will clearly support 
that position in our discussions with 3rd parties.

The ultimate goal for ENA is to go away from Into products completely and 
trade power within zones of RTO's or ISO's where transmission and congestion 
is managed by an independent operator with all transmission costs passed on 
to the load.