These are the questions and concerns provided by Connie and Trish.
To Dos:
*	For consistency, Dave Odle will you please address the first
four items and provide the functionality difference for Version 1.3 and
1.4 as requested.  Please send this information ASAP to all three
listserves.
*	Upon receipt of the above information, each company should
address from their perspective, the questions posed in the second
paragraph.
*	Each company (TDSP, CR, ERCOT) should then address from your
companies' perspective each of the questions regarding the various
Options.
*	Shirley Whyte - as ITPTA would you please provide to all three
listserves ASAP an explanation of what funcitonality is tested in Frame
6, so that companies may specially answer question #7.
*	Please evaluate the various options provided in the previous
email and document from your companies perspective:  known or peceived
risks, any ideas on how to mitigate these risks, what contingency plans
do we need in place, etc.

I wanted to get these items to you as soon as possible so you may begin
to evaluate,etc.  Since we have extremely tight timeframe for companies
to gather this information and rather than forward all of this
information to me to somehow combine.  By noon, Tuesday, October 30th,
please provide from your companies perspective (TDSP, CR, and ERCOT) for
each option:  pros, risks associated with each option, any ways to
mitigate these risks, impacts to the market/customers, and what would be
the contingency plan.  Discussion around these items will also help us
to answer the other questions posed, but please come to the meeting
prepared with your companies response to all of the questions.

I realize that this may not make sense on Monday morning (since it is
1:15 Saturday morning), so please feel free to let me know if you have
any questions, etc.  Thanks.

Nancy A. Hetrick
Enron Corp.
Director, Government Affairs
Phone:  712-366-3399
Pager:   888-912-1426

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	"Corona, Connie" <Connie.Corona@puc.state.tx.us>@ENRON
> Sent:	Friday, October 26, 2001 10:19 AM
> To:	Hetrick, Nancy
> Subject:	PUC Concerns with V. 1.4 Cutover
>
> Nancy,
>
> We believe a good starting point for next week's workshops, as well as
> Staff's discussions with the Commissioners, would be a chart that
> breaks out
> the following:
>
> 1--Functions that will not change from Texas SET v. 1.3 to v. 1.4
> 2--Functions that will experience minor changes from v. 1.3 to v. 1.4
> 3--Functions that will experience significant changes from v. 1.3 to
> v. 1.4
> 4--Functions that new to v. 1.4
>
> We'd like to answer the following questions with respect to such a
> breakout:
> Can we reasonably expect that functions in Categories 1 and 2 will
> function
> with the same degree of reliability in v. 1.4 as they currently do in
> v.
> 1.3?  What are the risks associated with the failure of functions in
> Categories 3 and 4?  What are the ramifications of those failures?
> What
> workarounds are conceivable?  What workarounds are practical?
>
> Additionally, Staff has the following concerns and questions with the
> options presented thus far for cutting over to Texas SET Version 1.4.
>
> 1.  None of the schedules thus far have allowed sufficient time for
> production testing.  Market participants have suggested that 4-6 weeks
> is
> appropriate.
>
> 2.  There is high probability based on problems encountered with v.
> 1.3
> during the pilot of major problems with transactions.  Since
> non-choosing
> customers will be migrated to the affiliate REP in January, this
> coupled
> with the first concern, above, poses a significant risk.  This risk is
> most
> significant since the largest percentage of transferred customers is
> in the
> residential class.
>
> 3.  There is no plan that clearly lays out risks/trade-offs if the
> migration
> doesn't work.  For example, if the cutover fails, would parties
> continue
> with 1.3?  If so, what are the ramifications for full market open on
> 1/1/02,
> and on market participants who have not tested on v. 1.3?
>
> 4.  Is market open (as defined by participants) tied absolutely to
> cutting
> over to v. 1.4?
>
> 5.  What happens if the market opens under v. 1.3?  What functionality
> would
> be missing?  Are there easy workarounds for this missing
> functionality?
>
> 6.  Is it a possibility that everyone cuts over to v. 1.4 on Dec.
> 29/30, the
> pilot caps are lifted for all customer classes, but residential
> customers
> are still left with bundled rates (non-PTB) but not transferred until
> February?
>
> 7.  What are the risks and ramifications for each market participant
> and
> each customer class if frame 6 of testing has major problems that
> cannot be
> corrected for release in v.  1.4 by the timelines proposed?
>
> Please contact us if you need any clarification.  Thanks.
>
> Connie & Trish
>
> connie.corona@puc.state.tx.us <mailto:connie.corona@puc.state.tx.us>
> patricia.dolese@puc.state.tx.us
> <mailto:patricia.dolese@puc.state.tx.us>
>
>


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
**********************************************************************