1. 1 Update from ERCOT Market Services to RMS October 16, 2002

2. 2 Retail Market Update Topics –ERCOT’s Master Project Plan –Move-In/Move-Out Issues/Initiatives –GISB 1.4 Update –Data Transparency Project Update –Quick Recovery Team Update –New Power Transfer Update –Market Synchronization Activities Retailer TDSP as LSE Non PTB –Consumption Data Loading Reports –Lodestar Data Loading Improvements –Resettlement Update

3. 3 Master Project Plan Update

4. 4 Master Project Plan 2003 Proposed Projects –Project worksheet established with list of all known requested projects Status/Updates Targeted outcomes Resources (Funding & Headcount) required identified where known –Internal reviews of projects with ERCOT steering committee completed –PRS completed prioritization of projects originated by Market Participants on August 28 th –TAC approved list of priorities on September 5 th –List delivered to ERCOT BOD targeted for approval at October meeting –3 New projects requested since September 5 th

5. 5 Master Project Plan 2002 Planned Projects –51 Projects in progress –22 Projects completed between August 1 st and October 14 th 2002 –5 Projects continuing on into 2003 for completion –5 Projects removed from the 2002 plan (require reprioritization for 2003) 2002 Projects continuing into 2003 for completion include: –PR-20117 Internal Map Testing and Verification –PR-20079 Change Deployment Instructions_PRR281 –PR-20067 Simultaneous Procurement of Ancillary Services –PR-20111 Hardening Initiatives –PR-2007801 IDR/NIDR Gap Corrections

6. 6 Master Project Plan 2002 Projects removed from active status (requires reprioritization to proceed) –PR-20068 Interzonal Congestion Management: Interim fix completed; any further effort will go back through the prioritization process. –PR-20071 Two Settlement System: Manual fix announced to market and Board. If automated solution desired a new project request will be submitted through the prioritization process. –PR-20080 Define OOME as Instructed Deviation: PRR282 withdrawn and project canceled –PIP106 Direct Load Control: Deleted from 2002 Active list and has been prioritized for 2003 and included in Consolidated Prioritization List. –PR-20083 Ratcheting of OOME: Project withdrawn

7. 7 Master Project Plan Next Steps… –Conduct Project Management Office Procedures Training from October 30 th through November 13 th 2002 –Remaining ERCOT resources aligned and scheduled against Q1 2003 projects by December 6 th 2002 –Monthly project prioritization adjustments and recommendations: ERCOT Executive Steering Committee Market committees and subcommittees ERCOT IT and Business Teams –Finalize and distribute documentation on the projects request/prioritization process

8. 8 Move-in and Move-out Solutions Update

9. 9 Market Participant Meeting

10. 10 MIMO Workshop

11. 11 MIMO Workshops Methods –Three type of issues; Existing Systems, Current Execution, & Market Gaps –Two measurements for identifying order of discussion for issues pain level quantity of ESI Ids affected. –The issues that are being pursued are as follows: 1.Those that rank high on the pain level and quantity affected and are expected to be relatively easy to repair 2.Those that either are easy to fix but don’t rank high on the measurements or rank high on the measurements and are difficult to fix. 3.Those that are most likely to remain as workarounds for a longer period of time. –They rank low on pain and quantity, but appear difficult to fix –Three time frames for solutions are being applied; Short-Term (solutions that can be implemented immediately or prior to next April) Mid-Term (solutions that can be implemented next year after April) Long-Term (solutions that can be implemented after 1/1/2004)

12. 12 MIMO Workshop Level of Pain Number of ESI ID’s affected Issue 1 Issue 6 Issue 3 Issue 4 Issue 5 Issue 6 Issue 2 Issue 7 Issue 8 Issue 9 Low High

13. 13 MIMO Workshop Level of Pain Number of ESI ID’s affected Issue 1 Issue 6 Issue 3 Issue 4 Issue 5 Issue 6 Issue 2 Issue 7 Issue 8 Issue 9 Low High Low - Net Effect of Issue - High

14. 14 MIMO Workshop Cost of Addressing Net Effect of Issue on Market Issue 1 Issue 6 Issue 3 Issue 4 Issue 5 Issue 6 Issue 2 Issue 7 Issue 8 Issue 9 Low High

15. 15 MIMO Workshop Cost of Addressing Net Effect of Issue on Market Issue 1 Issue 6 Issue 3 Issue 4 Issue 5 Issue 6 Issue 2 Issue 7 Issue 8 Issue 9 Low High Higher Impact & Lower Cost

16. 16 Timeline 08-29-02 RMS establishes Task Force 09-05-02Kickoff Meeting – assignments given for MP transaction root cause analysis 10-15-02Complete root cause analysis and comprehensive list of business scenarios TBDDevelop detailed requirements document for RFP -RMS Approves MIMO requirements document(s) -Release RFP(s) to vendors -RFP Responses due from vendors -Summarize vendor responses for Task Force review -Recommendations to EOTF on vendor “Short List” -Vendor presentations to Task Forces -EOTF recommendation to ERCOT Board -Begin contract negotiations End 1Q03Award contract Move-in/Move-out Long-term Solution Status

17. 17 RMS Update on Move-In / Move-Out Task Force October 16, 2002

18. 18 Airfare… $1072.00

19. 19 Mileage… $512.00

20. 20 Accommodations… $747.26

21. 21 Visiting 18 Market Participants in 11 days about the Move-In Move-Out Issues… Priceless!

22. 22 Some things money can’t buy, for everything else there’s… Larry Grimms’ Credit Card

23. 23 MP Visits Purpose –‘Root out’ all sources of pain associated with Move-Ins –Get each MPs opinion of worst problems –Discuss possible solutions –Find out if identified problems are common among all types of market participants –Discuss concepts with consumer advocacy group –Verify that all participants are dedicated to solving the problems and aware of the possible systemic impacts –Discuss deployment of workarounds (Safety Net, Same CR Move- Ins, etc.)

24. 24 MP Visits

25. 25 MP Visits Audience –TDSPs (5 - CenterPoint, AEP, Oncor, Entergy, TNMP) –AREPs (4 - Reliant Retail, AEP, TXU E, Entergy) –CREPs (6 - Coral, GEXA, Republic, TCE, Constellation New Energy, Green Mountain) –Vendors (2 - Exolink, EC Power) –Consumer Protection (1 - Public Utility Council)

26. 26 MP Visits Results –Identified several issues that were not previously identified –Confirmed several common problems across many Market Participants –Discussed concepts for solving identified issues –Developed an average ‘pain’ level and frequency for major issues based on input from each MP –Discussed several concepts with consumer advocacy group to verify compliance with Customer Protection –Revealed inconsistencies and improper executions of workarounds

27. 27 MIMO Workshop

28. 28 MIMO Workshop Attendees –CenterPoint –TXU Energy –Oncor –TCE –Republic –Entergy Solutions –Entergy Gulf States –AEP Retail –Reliant Resources –Green Mountain

29. 29 MIMO Workshop Methods –Three type of issues; System, Execution, & Market Gaps –Two measurements for identifying order of discussion for issues; pain level and quantity of ESI Ids affected. –The issues that are being pursued first are those that rank high on the pain level and quantity affected and are easy to repair, second are those that either are easy to fix but don’t rank high on the measurements or rank high on the measurements and are difficult to fix. The last category (rank low on pain and quantity, but are difficult to fix) are those that are most likely to remain as workarounds for a longer period of time. –Three time frames for solutions; Short-Term (solutions that can be implemented immediately or prior to next April), Mid-Term (solutions that can be implemented next year after April), and Long-Term (solutions that can be implemented after 1/1/2004)

30. 30 MIMO Workshop Results –32 Concepts were discussed 7 Concepts were dismissed for various reasons 1 Concept was determined as solved in Version 1.5 23 Concepts were discussed –4 Concepts were tabled until additional information can be obtained –19 Concepts were discussed at length and are being considered for recommendation to RMS »10 Short-Term »9 Mid-Term 1 Concept was not discussed (lack of time)

31. 31 Recommendations to RMS

32. 32 Recommendations Clarification of Switch vs. Move-In A switch transaction is to be used when a customer wants to switch providers without changing their premise; it is intended to switch a customer from one CR to another. A Move-In is used when different customer is requesting power at an ESI ID than the customer that was formerly associated with the ESI ID whether or not the premise is de- energized. It needs to be noted that a CR using a Move-In transaction to affect a switch violates procedures that have been put in place by the Public Utility Commission including Customer Protection rules. Misuse of the Switch or Move-In transactions may result in disciplinary action from the PUC.

33. 33 Recommendations Safety Net Guidelines (Short-Term) –The requested date on a Move-In sent through ERCOT that is intended to match with a Safety Net Move-In previously sent to the TDSP must have the same requested date as the Safety Net Move- In. –CRs should send Safety Net Move-Ins one day prior to the requested date on the Safety Net Move-In and only after validating against one of the ERCOT reports or one of the TDSP reports to avoid duplication with a previously submitted 814_16 through ERCOT. –The MIMO Task Force is working on some procedures for the TDSPs, but these procedures are not ready for RMS presentation

34. 34 Recommendations Expediting ESI ID Creates (Short-Term) –When possible, TDSPs should create ESI Ids off Development/Builder plats. Create transactions may contain default values for required fields if doing so increases the speed at which the Create transaction is sent to ERCOT. Any other reasonable means of speeding up the ESI ID Create process should be seriously entertained. –Timing around changing the default values to corrected values with an 814_20 maintain need to be established.

35. 35 Recommendations ERCOT Monitoring (Short-Term) –The recommendation is that ERCOT monitors potential cancel with exceptions. This monitoring should be performed by daily pulling a report of any Instances that are scheduled to go cancelled with exception within 5 business days. After verifying that the 814_04 (or 814_25) has not been received, ERCOT should generate a report for each of the TDSPs that they can use to expedite the 814_04s (or 814_25). –The recommendation is that ERCOT monitor the following transactions for rejects: 814_07s, 814_09s, 814_13s, 814_15s, 814_23s, 814_19s, 814_21s, 814_29s (after version 1.5). Rejects should be followed up with the sender of the reject. In some cases, it may be necessary to route an original transaction (814_06, 814_08, etc,) to the MP that should have received the transaction.

36. 36 Recommendations Programmatically prohibit back-dated transactions (Short- Term) –CRs will programmatically not allow backdated Move-Ins and Move-Outs at the customer service/Call Center level. Only situations that CRs may back date Move-Ins and Move-Outs are for: Transactions for Move-Ins or Move-Outs previously requested on safety net (since safety net does not allow back dated Move- Ins and Move-Outs) Back office clean up efforts coordinated with ERCOT and TDSP (QRE, Market Sync, etc.) This includes any efforts regardless of effective date that are coordinated with ERCOT and TDSPs.

37. 37 Recommendations Effective Date on Meter Number Correction (Short-Term) –If the TDSP needs to make a meter correction, the 814_20 maintain transaction will have an effective date of the later of these 2 dates: The value from the DTM151 of the last usage transaction that contained the prior meter #. The value from the Date on the last initial read.

38. 38 Recommendations Date Reasonableness at ERCOT (Short-Term) –ERCOT should reject any initiating transactions with requested implementation dates of more than 90 calendar days in the future or 270 calendar days in the past.

39. 39 Questions?

40. 40 RMS Vote

41. 41 Next Steps

42. 42 Next Steps MIMO Taskforce meetings –October 23, & 24 in Austin –October 29, & 30 in Dallas (tentative) Recommendations to RMS at November RMS meeting –Potentially 15 Concepts Release of implementation timelines Development of Texas Set Change Controls, Protocol Revision Requests, and RFP (If necessary) Deployment of Solutions Re-Evaluation of Move-In/Move-Out processes

43. 43 Thank-you

44. 44 GISB 1.4 Update

45. 45 GISB 1.4 Update RMS agreed at August meeting to move forward with implementing GISB 1.4 at ERCOT Internal testing and implementation of a GISB 1.4 interface is underway at ERCOT, –Production Sign-off scheduled for 10/25 All production components are in place as of 10/11 –Acceptance Testing and Market Participant Testing – 10/15-24 TDTWG is surveying market participants to finalize migration readiness dates –Preliminary migration schedule reviewed at 10-4-02 TDTWG –Market Participant migration will begin week of 10-29-02 –Goal is to complete migration by April 1, 2003

46. 46 ERCOT Data Transparency (ETS)

47. 47 Data Transparency Project ETS Phase I Progress –Development and Production Database Servers and Application Servers are configured and installed on the network –Report Development 99% complete –Production testing is underway –Database transaction loading to start 10/21 –User Documentation is being finalized –Backup and restart procedures coordinated –Implementation Schedule is being revised to ensure adequate testing Estimated to move three weeks to last week in November

48. 48 Quick Recovery Team Update

49. 49 ESI Ids Reported to QRE (as of October 15, 2002) Current StatusQuantity New461 In Analysis6766 In Progress50140 Resolved79638 Total137005 EntityQuantity TDSP34271 QRE Team7049 CR8820 Total50140 Point of FailureQuantity Cause Not Reported6990 CR37000 ERCOT EAI3979 ERCOT FTP694 ERCOT Manual Process (814_08) 3428 ERCOT PaperFree7359 ERCOT Siebel2129 ERCOT TCH6427 TDSP11632 Total79638

50. 50 New Power Transition Status

51. 51 New Power Transition Status as of 10/11/2002 Two ESI Ids remain to be completed “Scheduled” at ERCOT Waiting for 867-04 Scheduled meter read date 9/24/2002 (backdated)

52. 52 Final New Power Transition Numbers 42,690 ESI IDs TXU Energy Services 37,175 ESI IDsReliant Retail Services 2,022 ESI IDs 3 rd Party Competitive Retailers 260 ESI IDsNew Power Submitted Move-Outs 82,147 ESI IdsTotal Transitioned

53. 53 Market Synchronization Activities

54. 54 Objective –Address market issues resulting in an out of sync “Rep of Record” between ERCOT, TDSP, and CR systems for all ESI IDs resulting from market startup/processing issues as well as subsequent workarounds Completed –ERCOT identified “Perfect Sync” and “1 Day Perfect” – sent lists to MPs –ERCOT identified out-of-sync categories at Sept 10 th design meeting –Task Force identified additional ESI IDs considered “In Sync” – sent lists to MPs –Task Force prioritized 8 categories based upon potential customer impact – sent lists to MPs In Progress –TDSPs and CRs to complete analysis of priority 1-4 files and respond to ERCOT by October 18 th (priority 5-6 response date TBD) –Weekly conference calls scheduled on Tuesdays through October –“How to” make repairs face-to-face meeting scheduled for October 25 th. Market Synchronization Retailer Synchronization Project

55. 55 Market Synchronization Retailer Synchronization Project Considered In Sync 5,399,860 Under Analysis 739,039 Non-ERCOT area Removed from Analysis 945,000 ESI IDs Considered In Sync 5,279,063 Under Analysis 859,836 Non-ERCOT area Removed from Analysis 945,000 ESI IDs September 26, 2002 Report October 16, 2002 Report

56. 56 Next Steps –October 15 th, 22 nd, 29 th  Follow-up Conference Calls  Define items for immediate “fix” and report on progress  Define issues to raise to RMS –October 25 th  Face-to-face meeting to finalize decision on “backdating” fixes –November 13 th  Present any disputed scenarios to RMS –December 5 th  Escalate issues to TAC (if required) Market Synchronization Retailer Synchronization (continued)

57. 57 For those scenarios that the market synch project identified as out-of-sync, if the Market Synch Task Force unanimously agrees on the steps necessary to correct the out-of-sync market condition, then the market participants shall correct the out-of-synch market condition accordingly. The Market Sync Task Force shall report to RMS any decisions reached to correct out-of-sync market conditions. If there is any disagreement regarding the steps necessary to correct the out-of-synch scenario, the issue shall be passed to RMS for resolution. Market Synchronization Retailer Synchronization (continued)

58. 58 Backdating Definitions (per Oct 8 th Conf Call) 1Repair of all records and service history rows to match dates across all Market Participants. 2Repair of record and service history rows to match dates per analysis break-out. Note: This is the mechanism selected by MPs for ERCOT to correct instances where ERCOT is “out-of-sync”. 3No-backdating: Select a date going forward (like November 01, 2002) and those entities without records will start the records as of that date.

59. 59 Example – ERCOT “out-of-sync” fixes Priority 1 & 2 = Relationship Row reported by only two MPs Analysis Detail ~110K ESI IDs Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: ERCOT add record. Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: ERCOT adds record. Backdating Definition 3 Does Not apply Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-2002Null ERCOTNA CR05-01-2002Null Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP and CR records but ERCOT has no record at all

60. 60 Example (1a) Priority 4 Related Priority 4 = One and only one Relationship Row from a TDSP, a CR and ERCOT Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP, CR, and ERCOT records Analysis Detail ~25K ESI IDs Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: Who corrects the stop date and which date is used? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: Who corrects the stop date and which date is used? Backdating Definition 3 Does Not apply Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-2002Null ERCOT05-01-2002Null CR05-01-200207-01-2002

61. 61 Example (1b) Priority 4 Related Priority 4 = One and only one Relationship Row from a TDSP, a CR and ERCOT Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP, CR, and ERCOT records Analysis Detail ~21K ESI IDs Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: Who corrects the stop date and which date is used? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: Who corrects the stop date and which date is used? Backdating Definition 3 Does Not apply Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-200207-01-2002 ERCOT05-01-2002Null CR05-01-200208-01-2002

62. 62 Example (2) Priority 4 Related Priority 4 = One and only one Relationship Row from a TDSP, a CR and ERCOT Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP, CR, and ERCOT records Analysis Detail ~10K ESI IDs Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: Who corrects the start date and which date is used? Who corrects the stop date and which date is used? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: Who corrects the start date and which date is used? Who corrects the stop date and which date is used? Backdating Definition 3 Ignore start dates: Start Considered in-sync Who corrects the stop date and which date is used? Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-200207-01-2002 ERCOT05-15-2002Null CR06-01-200208-01-2002

63. 63 Example (3a) Priority 1 Related Priority 1 = Relationship Row reported by only two MPs Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP and ERCOT records but No CR reported the ESI IDs Analysis Detail Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: CR to add record? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: CR to add record? Backdating Definition 3 Select a current start date for added records: CR starts record as of 11- 01-2002? Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-2002Null ERCOT05-01-2002Null CRNA

64. 64 Example (3b) Priority 1 Related Priority 1 = Relationship Row reported by only two MPs Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP and ERCOT records but No CR reported the ESI IDs Analysis Detail Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: Which start date to use? CR to add record? ERCOT or TDSP correct start? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: Which start date to use? CR to add record? ERCOT or TDSP correct start? Backdating Definition 3 Select a current start date for added records: CR starts record as of 11- 01-2002? Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-2002Null ERCOT06-01-2002Null CRNA

65. 65 Example (3c) Priority 1 Related Priority 1 = Relationship Row reported by only two MPs Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP and ERCOT records but No CR reported the ESI IDs Analysis Detail Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: Which start and stop dates to use? CR to add record? ERCOT or TDSP correct start/stop? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: Which start and stop dates to use? CR to add record? ERCOT or TDSP correct start/stop? Backdating Definition 3 Select a current start date for added records: CR starts record as of 11- 01-2002? Which stop date to use? ERCOT or TDSP correct stop? Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-200208-10-2002 ERCOT06-01-2002Null CRNA

66. 66 Example (4a) Priority 6 Related Priority 6 = Active row (null stop) from TDSP, a CR and ERCOT Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP, CR, and ERCOT records Analysis Detail Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: Who corrects the start dates? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: Who corrects the start dates? Backdating Definition 3 Ignore start date: Considered in-sync Start DateStop Date TDSP05-01-2002Null ERCOT05-01-2002Null CR06-01-2002Null

67. 67 Example (4b) Priority 6 Related Priority 6 = Active row (null stop) from TDSP, a CR and ERCOT Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP and ERCOT records but different CR claims ESI ID Analysis Detail Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: CR2 removes record while CR1 adds record? Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: CR2 removes record while CR1 adds record? Backdating Definition 3 Ignore start date: CR2 removes record while CR1 adds record starting 11-01-2002? Start DateStop Date TDSP (CR1)05-01-2002Null ERCOT (CR1)05-01-2002Null CR205-01-2002Null

68. 68 Example (4c) Priority 6 Related Priority 6 = Active row (null stop) from TDSP, a CR and ERCOT Subcategory = Same CR in TDSP and ERCOT records but different CR claims ESI ID Analysis Detail Backdating Definition 1 Make all records match: CR2 removes record while CR1 adds record? Which start date is used? Correct previous records affected by start date change. Backdating Definition 2 Make all records match per analysis: CR2 removes record while CR1 adds record? Which start date is used? Backdating Definition 3 Ignore start date: CR2 removes record while CR1 adds record starting 11-01-2002? Start DateStop Date TDSP (CR1)05-01-2002Null ERCOT (CR1)07-01-2002Null CR205-01-2002Null

69. 69 Market Synchronization “TDSP as LSE” Clean-up Objective –Ensure that all ESI ID are converted from the “TDSP as LSE” by the time True- Up Settlement of February 2002 begins (December 7, 2002) Clean-up Plan –ERCOT to send TDSPs list of ESI ID affiliated with “TDSP as LSE” any time after Feb 01, 2002 –TDSPs to provide correct effective date concurrent with usage record prior to February 01, 2002 or identify de-energized/inactive ESI IDs –ERCOT to make correction based upon TDSP response (complete pending orders, establish relationship, etc…) –Weekly conference calls with TDSPs (already takes place with ONCOR and CenterPoint) In Progress –ERCOT to send revised lists to TDSPs by 10-21-2002 –TDSPs to respond with new effective dates or status data by November 01, 2002

70. 70 Market Synchronization – Non Price to Beat Objective –Make necessary corrections to ensure that >1MW Customers were switched on the correct date in January 2002 Completed Items –Per RMS direction, ERCOT sent lists to each MP for reconciliation: Full list of ESI ID in the >1MW project was confirmed Still to be fixed list (subset of the full list) was also confirmed –1,133 ESI Ids (>1 MW) identified by CRs (meeting the April 30 deadline) Number increase attributed to reconciliation of lists with Market Participants –1001 (88%) ESI IDs are corrected – 74 ( 7%) ESI IDs were agreed not to fix by TDSP and CR In Progress –58 (5%) ESI IDs remaining to be fixed 11 – CR of RECORD needs to be fixed 42 – Date of when CR became CR of Record needs to be fixed 5 – where CR and TDSP are not in agreement – CR will have to escalate

71. 71 Market Synchronization – Non Price to Beat Next Steps –ERCOT to continue to confirm changes in Siebel and Lodestar –Final analysis in progress at ERCOT –ERCOT will provide suggested next steps to the submitting CR and TDSP –Conference calls being held with TDSP to determine next steps for those ESI IDs that still need to be fixed (ERCOT metering team included on calls) –Affected CR to determine next steps for ESI IDs where no agreement is reached

72. 72 Consumption Data Loading Reports

73. 73 IDR Data Loaded into Lodestar September 24 th Report 95% or better expected 91%

74. 74 IDR Data Loaded into Lodestar October 11 th Report 95% or better expected 93%

75. 75 IDR Data Status Report 99% Data Available per MRE

76. 76 Non-IDR Data Status Report September 23, 2002

77. 77 Non-IDR Data Status Report October 11, 2002

78. 78 Non-IDR Data Status Report October 14, 2002

79. 79 Lodestar IDR Data Loading Improvement Recommendations by TDSPs

80. 80 Objective –Implement process improvements which alleviate problems loading IDR data into ERCOT’s Lodestar system Completed Items –ERCOT and MPs met August 15 th to define scope of 9 items –Conference call held on August 26 th to refine scope and follow-up –6 items are complete (see matrix on next page) –TX SET reviewed 2 EDI related recommendations on Sept 16 th (see matrix) In Progress –2 items defined for immediate action (both are currently in test) –4 items defined as long term fixes (project request being drafted) Next Steps –ERCOT to submit details for “Lodestar Data Loading Improvements” project IDR Data Loading Recommendations by TDSPs

81. 81. IDR Data Loading Recommendations by TDSPs

82. 82 Resettlement Update

83. 83 Resettlement of True-up Status Update Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2003 2004 December 7, 2002 True-Up Settlement of February 01, 2002 The date all ESI IDs should no longer be with the “TDSP as LSE”. November 1, 2002 True-Up Settlement of November 20, 2001 The date we move from the ERCOT Board resolution to the Protocols IDR Data Threshold April 1, 2003 Date we expect to be back to six month after the trade day True-Up Settlements November 14, 2002 True-Up Settlement of December 17, 2001 Drop dead date for correction of Non-PTB ESID Backdating October 16, 2002 80 re-settlements performed to date (Through Oct 18, 2001)