IN: This is an email
Mark nothing has changed since our meeting last week, but here's a quick summary for your convenience: 1. Deliberation 15: COMAE (board for ASMAE, which acts as the clearinghouse for the MAE) issued Deliberation 15 directing ASMAE to do its accounting without applying Annex V by Oct. 31, 2001. The generators object because without Annex V, they are 20% short instead 5% short. Elektro and the LDCs object because failure to apply Annex V ignores the contract which is registered with the MAE, and a 20% long position will never be upheld. Deliberation 15 further directs ASMAE to gather and supply to the generators and LDCs the information for application of Annex V, seven days prior to Oct 31. This is good because it gives Elektro the information it needs to calculate the set off against the generators for its 5% long position. Thus, it is unnecessary for Elektro to seek an injunction against ASMAE compelling the information. 2. Letter to COMAE/ASMAE: To preserve its position, Elektro sent a letter objecting to the COMAE's failure to direct ASMAE to apply Annex V. The letter confirms a list of information LDCs require for the calculation. If the information is not provided or is delayed, Elektro will go to court to compel the information. Once it gets the information, Elektro can go to court to force ASMAE to apply Annex V. Prior to taking the set off, Elektro will seek an injunction to protect its assets from seizure by the generators under Annex VI. Subsequently, Elektro will file a suit against the generators to enforce the contractual application of Annex V. 3. Two suits are being filed immediately to compel ANEEL to permit Elektro to recover or pass through various costs increases pursuant to its concession agreement. Regards,

What is the subject?

OUT: Annex V

IN: This is an email
On Friday January 11, 2002 from 8:30 a.m. till 1:00 p.m. we will be meeting in room 49C4 of the 1400 Smith Street Enron Building. This is the first of several meetings between the Dynegy and Enron Information Technology (IT) departments. The purpose of the January 11th meeting is to discuss the IT services to be provided by Enron and its affiliates to Dynegy/NNG under the transition agreement. The term of the transition agreement is from February 2002 through June 2002. This meeting will give us the necessary details to begin activities beginning the first of February, subsequent meetings will prepare us for June activities. A document has been prepared incorporating the following information for discussion: ETS Pipeline Map ETS Business Process Flow ETS Core Application Environment ETS Systems Diagrams ETS Server Summary ETS Business Continuity Plan Summary Ardmore Data Center Layout ETS IT Organization Chart Appendix ETS Reliability Monthly Report (template) ETS Application Volumes Application Inventory ETS Server Inventory ETS Server Inventory Software List Other items for this discussion will include: software licensing interfaces (i.e. from NNG to Dynegy for financial consolidation) security and system access, especially as related to those Enron employees who will become Dynegy employees on February 1, 2002 When our Dynegy guests arrive please ask the security desk to call Lillian Villarreal (713) 853-7092, to escort you to the meeting room. Thank you.

What is the subject?

OUT: NNG Transition Meeting.

IN: This is an email
As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, on October 17 Dynegy filed a complaint against ComEd. This proceeding may be of particular interest to Enron given EES's plans to offer physical delivery in Illinois in early 2002. I've outlined Dynegy's principal arguments below. Dynegy requested fast-track processing, so any intervention and comments we file are due Friday, Oct. 26. In order to file a timely intervention (and meaningful comments, if we decide to comment), I need to know your thoughts on this as soon as possible. Elizabeth and Harlan, I'm copying you because I would especially like to know what you think of Dynegy's characterization of the Firm LD product. Main argument: Dynegy challenges ComEd's published Business Practice that allows "marketer firm" (Firm LD) contracts to be designated as Network Resources. Dynegy argues that this practice conflicts with the OATT provisions that 1) Network Resources are generation "owned, purchased or leased by the Network Customer designated to serve Network Load," and 2) a Network Customer "must demonstrate that it owns or has committed to purchase generation pursuant to an executed contract" in order to designate a Network Resource. Dynegy's theory on why Firm LD should not be a Network Resource: - permits designation of network resources that are committed for sale to others, creating reliability problems - Firm LD under the EEI contract is not capacity-backed, nor is it a commitment to purchase generation - allows transmission customers to get the advantage of generation capacity without actually paying the cost of that capacity - since retail providers are allowed to rely on "over-the-counter" firm instead of securing long-term contracts, adequate reserves are not being carried to serve retail load Dynegy claims that ComEd's practice has deprived DMG of payments for capacity and the ability to earn revenues for capacity properly designated as network resources. It cites specific instances in which ComEd has accepted transmission reservation requests from New Energy and Cilco in which these parties designated Illinois Power as a network resource, when only a Firm LD contracts were in place with IP.

What is the subject?

OUT:
Dynegy vs. ComEd (EL02-6) -- further info