To:	rms@ercot.com; set@ercot.com; testplan@ercot.com
Subject:	FW: PUC Concerns with V. 1.4 Cutover
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>