Message-ID: <5327393.1075858515878.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT) From: c..hall@enron.com To: chris.stokley@enron.com Subject: RE: UNSCEDULED DEMAND PENALTY Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Hall, Steve C. X-To: Stokley, Chris X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Stokley, Chris (Non-Privileged)\Chris Stokley\Regulatory X-Origin: Stokley-C X-FileName: Stokley, Chris (Non-Privileged).pst On May 16, FERC rejected the ISO's proposed Amendment 38, which would have suspended the penalty. FERC said it would look at the issue later. -----Original Message----- From: Stokley, Chris Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:28 AM To: Hall, Steve C. Subject: RE: UNSCEDULED DEMAND PENALTY Are we going to see this money, I thought they had asked FERC to do away with this charge. -----Original Message----- From: Hall, Steve C. Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:26 AM To: Stokley, Chris; Comnes, Alan Cc: O'Neil, Murray P.; Yoder, Christian; Belden, Tim Subject: RE: UNSCEDULED DEMAND PENALTY $30 million bucks!!! I would have hoped for 10 times this amount, but it's still 30 million bucks. Legal and Settlements should get origination credit for this. Let me know when the ISO's check clears.---Steve -----Original Message----- From: Stokley, Chris Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:03 AM To: Hall, Steve C.; Comnes, Alan Cc: O'Neil, Murray P. Subject: UNSCEDULED DEMAND PENALTY This is based on the settlement statements that the ISO sent me. << File: OVERVIEW.xls >>