Message-ID: <13594923.1075852503268.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT) From: d..steffes@enron.com To: pr <.palmer@enron.com>, richard.shapiro@enron.com Subject: RE: ERCOT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Steffes, James D. X-To: Palmer, Mark A. (PR) , Shapiro, Richard X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\Sent Items X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst Call Thane Twiggs. I'd also be interested in seeing this through - there was a little confusion about Enron's position earlier but we are now ok. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Palmer, Mark A. (PR) Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 1:41 PM To: Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D. Subject: FW: ERCOT any ideas? Jean Ryall? Mark -----Original Message----- From: Ann de Rouffignac [mailto:annd@PennWell.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:17 AM To: Palmer, Mark A. (PR) Subject: ERCOT Hi Mark, I'm working on a story about the ancillary services market in ERCOT and changes recommended by the PUC and a consultant to ERCOT. I came across the following statement in documents in PUC docket 23220. Enron: "Enron believes the proposed ERCOT protocols are unlikely to deliver market outcomes envisioned by Senate Bill 7 and has recommended that the commission analyze the benefits that can be expected compared to a market design such as in PJM." Who can I talk to briefly about changes that Enron would like to see in the ERCOT operated ancillary and balancing energy markets? Thanks, Ann de Rouffignac