Message-ID: <5572010.1075852515723.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:58:58 -0700 (PDT) From: d..steffes@enron.com To: jean.ryall@enron.com Subject: FW: Texas PUC Staff Questions Market Readiness in SPP Cc: eric.letke@enron.com, nancy.hetrick@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: eric.letke@enron.com, nancy.hetrick@enron.com X-From: Steffes, James D. X-To: Ryall, Jean X-cc: Letke, Eric , Hetrick, Nancy X-bcc: X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\Sent Items X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst Jean -- Please call Eric to understand the implications of filing or not filing on this issue. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Letke, Eric Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:56 AM To: Steffes, James D. Subject: Texas PUC Staff Questions Market Readiness in SPP Give me a call (35676). most of the customer's we are currently engaged with, have very little load behind the non-ERCOT utilities. however, do not have a feel for future prospects. Question, is this an opportunity to force the utilities to implement pro-dereg measures (i.e., to the PUC, why else would it work behind other utilities and not here?). ---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Letke/HOU/EES on 08/13/2001 07:53 AM --------------------------- From: James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate on 08/12/2001 04:58 PM To: Eric Letke/HOU/EES@EES, James B Wood/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES cc: Nancy Hetrick/ENRON@enronXgate, Thane Twiggs/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Texas PUC Staff Questions Market Readiness in SPP As you can see from the comments below, staff at the Texas PUC is considering whether or not certain areas of Texas are ready for competition (the non-ERCOT region). Who on your teams do we need to talk to understand the implications of this action? Jim -----Original Message----- From: Hetrick, Nancy Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 2:46 PM To: Merola, Jeff; Herod, Brenda F.; Smith, Ben; Woodward, Jason; Fite, Rebecca; Wagner, Joseph Cc: Twiggs, Thane; Ryall, Jean; Kingerski, Harry; Steffes, James D. Subject: Physical Delivery in SPP The Staff of the PUCT has filed a petition to determine whether the market institutions and participants are ready for competition in the Texas portion of SPP (SERC), namely Entergy Gulf States, SWEPCO, and WTU power regions, copies attached. Staff has also requested the PUCT to suspend the capacity auction for Entergy and SWEPCO but not for WTU. The petition requests the PUCT to make the determination at the November 1, 2001, meeting and to suspend the capacity auction at the August 23, 2001, meeting. In support of their petition, staff argues that there has been limited participation in the SERC region, based on an "informal survey" of the staff. Staff also explains that the FERC has not yet approved a RTO for the SERC region (SPP). Staff is concerned that if auction of capacity results in a low price, this will have a detrimental effect of the affiliated REPs headroom under the price to beat determination as it is all tied to the price of capacity at the auction. In addition, staff is concerned if Entergy or SWEPCO sells 15% of their capacity and are required to serve 100% of their load. The staff has not requested a delay in the WTU capacity auction due to the fact that the WTU capacity is located in ERCOT and WTU's relatively small load. In order to prepare for filing comments, if neccessary, Enron Government Affairs would like to know the following: 1) Does EES/EWS have signed contracts for physical delivery in Entergy, SWEPCO or WTU? 2) What amount of load do we have contracted in each utility within SPP? 3) It appears that SPP will not open and no RTO will be in place on 1/1/02. Therefore, is EWS prepared to operate in SPP under the existing control area structure? Please forward your responses to Thane Twiggs and myself. Also, please feel free to contact either of us if you have any questions. Thanks. Thane Twiggs 713-853-3199 Nancy Hetrick 712-366-3399