
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 02:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
To: kevin.presto@enron.com, rogers.herndon@enron.com, john.zufferli@enron.com
Subject: Meeting at Dynegy office on Sept 12th, 2:30 to 5:30
Cc: janice.moore@enron.com
Bcc: janice.moore@enron.com

Dynegy has requested a meeting with us to discuss what an "Into Product" is
and how this product works with what is currently going on with transmission
and how it may be impacted by future changes in transmission.  Attendees from
Dynegy will include Griff Jones (Dynegy's head of trading), Matt (whose last
name I didn't get) and their lawyer Harlan Murphy.  If you think somebody
else should attend or if you want them to come over here, let me know and I
can talk to Harlan.  Assuming the meeting stays scheduled, I will schedule an
internal meeting to briefly go over the EEI Into definition before we meet
with Dynegy.

As you are aware, in connection with the EEI effort we worked extensively
with a large group of industry participants to define  what an Into Product
is.  Dynegy and PECO were the two companies that were very outspoken against
they way the product ultimately got defined.  Dynegy put on a big dog and
pony show before a large group of industry participants trying to argue that
EEI's Into product was flawed.   Their position, while not completely
expressed, hinges on the concept that if you sell an Into Product and are
making deliveries on firm transmission, then the Seller will always be
excused from performance if the firm transmission gets cut for any reason (in
general, this is contrary to EEI which obligates the Seller to go to another
interface unless the cut was due to Buyer's use of non firm transmission when
firm was available or due to Buyer's attempt to move the energy away from the
receiving control area).  Dynegy's approach was driven by the fact that they
have extensive generation and that the vast majority of their deals go
physical.  At the time, we suggested that if they were worried about cuts in
firm transmission, then they needed to sell a transmission contingent
product.  Dynegy's concept was rejected at the EEI meetings.

I hope that the meeting will accomplish the following goals:

1.  Get Dynegy to agree to trade Into with us under a common Into definition
