Subject: Dutch Electricity situation - receipt of invoices for non-delivery of physical power by ECTRL
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:15:00 -0800 (PST)

Just to keep you fully in the loop, on account of the current high APX prices 
(the APX being the only current source of physical power for 
onward-deliveries by ECTRL in the Netherlands), our traders are choosing not 
to deliver power to our customers for certain of the hours when prices are at 
their highest.  Accordingly, to-date we have received 3 bills for failure to 
deliver, one from Eneco and two from Remu (both are Dutch Distribution 
companies) - the latest from Remu appears below.

Under our Master Physical Electricity Purchase and Sale Agreement which we 
have with each of Eneco and Remu, there is a "disputed invoice" clause where 
we are able, within 5 days of receiving an invoice, to dispute that invoice 
in good faith provided that we supply our reasons for so disputing and we 
make payment of any undisputed amount within (generally) 10 days of receiving 
the invoice.

Our traders are disputing the sums claimed so far largely on the basis that 
we are being charged super-peak for all hours when our traders do not believe 
that that was the case - i.e., they are actually disputing, in good faith, 
our counterparties' calculations rather than the premise of the "send or pay" 
provisions.  Accordingly, letters have been / are being sent back to these 
clients on each bill stating the amount which we do not dispute (which we 
tell them we shall pay in accordance with the Master), the amount which we 
dispute, providing our reasons for the dispute, asking them to justify their 
calculations and, finally, requesting them to discuss the situation with us 
with a view to seeking a resolution.  Under the Master Agreement, if the 
parties cannot agree a solution then clearly the claimant (or us) can go to 
arbitration on this issue.  So far we have not heard that a counterparty is 
taking us to arbitration, although I understand from our traders that Remu 
has stated that it may instruct its lawyers on this issue.

Kind regards

Mark                 
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Elliott/LON/ECT on 26/01/2000 07:50 
---------------------------

Reuben Maltby
24/01/2000 13:37
To: Mark Elliott/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Neil Tarling/LON/ECT@ECT, Charles Mawdsley/LON/ECT@ECT, Nicholas 
Dickson/LON/ECT@ECT, Dirk Van Vuuren/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Annother Remu Bill

Same game, same response , Charles can you produce the Fax etc. We are going 
to have to keep a tight control on all this with regards to timing etc. We 
have five days to respond with dispute letter and ten days to pay undisputed 
amount as starting today.
---------------------- Forwarded by Reuben Maltby/LON/ECT on 24/01/2000 13:32 
---------------------------

London Fax System
24/01/2000 12:44
To: Reuben Maltby/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: New fax received (Likely sender: 0302975632).

You have received a new fax from 0302975632

The image contains 2 page(s).