Subject: NYISO - Still problems with 10/29/00 - DRE-004-11/1500
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:46:00 -0800 (PST)

Folks,

It appears from the comment below that the NYISO does not intend to revise 
October's bill until February 2001.  This is a very signifigant issue for 
Enron.  Recall that the NYISO intentionally billed for October with the 
incorrect prices for the proxy busses even though the prices had been revised 
on the NYISO web site for some time prior to the bill.  The impact of this 
was that the NYISO withheld about $3,000,000.00 from Enron for October.  In 
addition they have not updated the November bill to reflect revised prices 
and the payment date is approaching.  When asked about this last month, the 
NYISO indicated that they knew they were billing incorrectly and would rebill 
later but that, according to the tarriff, market participants must settle 
there bills as posted.  I believe this to be a blatent abuse of the tarriff 
and that the NYISO is intentionally "leaning" on market participants for 
credit.  With year end approaching I believe that there is an emphasis on 
maximizing working capital which makes this even more critical (this point is 
highly confidential).

I believe that if they are not going to address this with the November bill 
than we should be taking the most aggressive response.  Should we put this in 
an intervention to the NYSEG filing regarding payments  to the NYISO or 
should we file separately with FERC requesting as a separate issue?  What 
would get the quickest response?  Can and should we consider legal action 
outright?

Howard,  can you approach the NYISO at highest levels ASAP with this issue 
and find out if there is any intention to address this?  So much for there 
efforts to gain credibility in the Marketplace.

Following Howards inquiry, I suggest that we meet by phone to determine our 
course of action.  We have very little time if we have any hope of confincing 
them of revising the bill with the November billing due around the 15th.

On a similar issue, NYISO is asking us to repay $4.6 million in TCC revenues 
from earlier this year.  I believe that they must revise prices in order for 
them to do this and that they are outside the window for revising prices.

Howard, can you arrange for Sara Shackleton and Shari Stack to get the TCC 
rules that were in effect prior to August as well as any rules around price 
revisions.

Thanks,
Tom.

---------------------- Forwarded by Tom May/Corp/Enron on 12/03/2000 11:54 PM 
---------------------------

	
	From:  Rebecca M Grace @ ECT                           11/30/2000 09:51 AM

To: Tom May/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Thresa A Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: NYISO - Still problems with 10/29/00 - DRE-004-11/1500

FYI - 
---------------------- Forwarded by Rebecca M Grace/HOU/ECT on 11/30/2000 
09:45 AM ---------------------------

[email-masked] on 11/29/2000 06:23:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
cc:  
Subject: NYISO - Still problems with 10/29/00 - DRE-004-11/1500

Response:

Rebecca,
Due to a coding error in calculating ancillary reserves for the 25 hour day
(Oct. 29), hour 1 was not charged on the bill and was overwritten by hour 2 
data
and all remaining hours were shifted up one hour. This error is scheduled to 
be
fixed prior to the October rebill (tentatively scheduled for 2/01).

Dave Evanoski
518-356-6031

Question:
The hours in the Transactions LBMP section are not
agreeing with the hours in the Ancillary section.
It looks like SH01 for 126mw is missing from the
Ancillary settlement file for 10/29/00 and all other
hours are shifted up one hour.  I have attached
a file as support.

Source:
Rebecca M. Grace
713-853-9771
[email-masked]

Other Details:
Hourly Statement

 -  EXAMPLE - Enron_Power_Marketing.10292000_hour_V03.csv