Message-ID: <14884086.1075852821944.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:44:52 -0700 (PDT) From: tim.belden@enron.com To: john.zufferli@enron.com, lloyd.will@enron.com, m..presto@enron.com Subject: RE: Enpower cost allocation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Belden, Tim X-To: Zufferli, John , Will, Lloyd , Presto, Kevin M. X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \KPRESTO (Non-Privileged)\Deleted Items X-Origin: Presto-K X-FileName: KPRESTO (Non-Privileged).pst I am amenable to many different allocation methods. I think that John has a good point. John, the allocation for Canada includes both Toronto and Calgary. However, there is also an argument that there should be some fixed component and a transaction-based component. I think that we need to come up with one methodology that applies to Canada, West, and East. What methodology do you guys want to use? -----Original Message----- From: Zufferli, John Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:25 AM To: Will, Lloyd; Belden, Tim; Milnthorp, Rob Subject: Enpower cost allocation Since Alberta Power trades 15 times/day and East and West power trade in excess of 1000 times/day, I believe that a 10% allocation for my desk is inappropriate. I would be willing to settle for 5% and I believe that this is more that generation/