Message-ID: <15931982.1075853418931.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: david.portz@enron.com
To: doug.gilbert-smith@enron.com, mike.curry@enron.com, smith.day@enron.com
Subject: ERCOT product development
Cc: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
X-From: David Portz
X-To: Doug Gilbert-Smith, Mike Curry, Smith L Day
X-cc: Elizabeth Sager
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Elizabeth_Sager_Nov2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: Sager-E
X-FileName: esager.nsf

For purposes of going forward, attached are the various drafts relating to 
ERCOT product changes we have been discussing:

1.  Re 11:00 am scheduling deadline.   This effort was sidelined because (i) 
it would fix the problem that surfaced with TXU, and (ii) in most instances I 
understand us to prefer the presence of the 11:00 am deadline to cuase the 
sheduling to be wrapped up under potential threat of LDs. 
  

2.  EOL financially firm UB product.  Doug, I believe you want to explore if 
the reference to the B product can be eliminated altogether.



3.  ERCOT wide and Zonal EOL products.  Questions clearly present are: (1) 
uncertain duration of the zones, and what should happen to the commitments of 
the parties when newly defined zones replace the old. The marketplace can't 
even be assured of zonal changeovers each October.  (Buyer serving load is 
most at risk)  (2)  uncertainty over whether the B product classification 
will persist, and what the Opertating guides will say about it or a 
subsequent Firm (LD) product, (3) whether delivery can only take place inside 
a zone, rather than at its border.   Doug you said you were considering 
rolling out an ERCOT wide product and then afterwards offering North and 
South Zones, followed by West Zone if there's market interest. 

 

Please come back to me with any thoughts you have on these draft efforts. 
--DP