Message-ID: <33504126.1075844466435.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:46:00 -0800 (PST) From: tom.may@enron.com To: howard.fromer@enron.com, christi.nicolay@enron.com, sarah.novasel@enron.com, sara.shackleton@enron.com, shari.stack@enron.com Subject: NYISO - Still problems with 10/29/00 - DRE-004-11/1500 Cc: mark.davis@enron.com, robert.stalford@enron.com, thresa.allen@enron.com, rebecca.grace@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: mark.davis@enron.com, robert.stalford@enron.com, thresa.allen@enron.com, rebecca.grace@enron.com X-From: Tom May X-To: Howard Fromer, Christi L Nicolay, SARAH NOVASEL, Sara Shackleton, Shari Stack X-cc: Mark Dana Davis, Robert Stalford, Thresa A Allen, Rebecca M Grace X-bcc: X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Notes inbox X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S X-FileName: sshackle.nsf 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 --------------------------- devanoski@nyiso.com on 11/29/2000 06:23:04 AM To: rgrace@enron.com 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 rgrace@enron.com Other Details: Hourly Statement - EXAMPLE - Enron_Power_Marketing.10292000_hour_V03.csv