Message-ID: <716817.1075841761094.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mark.confer@enron.com
To: kate.symes@enron.com, brooklyn.couch@enron.com
Subject: Re: March EES-EPMI Revisions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Mark Confer
X-To: Kate Symes, Brooklyn Couch
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \kate symes 6-27-02\Notes Folders\Deal communication\Ees
X-Origin: SYMES-K
X-FileName: kate symes 6-27-02.nsf

Things are looking very good.  I verified that all the deals below that were 
autoscheduled came thru, all look good from what I can see.   Brooklyn is 
still looking at the real time deals to verify if they received all updated 
ones.  

The only deal that I see that their may be an issue on is 535568.1 where the 
peak hours are still at 1070.75.  Any more information on this one?


Thanks

Mark 


   Kate Symes                04/04/2001 05:15 PM

To: Mark Confer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brooklyn Couch/HOU/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: March EES-EPMI Revisions

I've attached the EES March Dailies spreadsheet. It should reflect the latest 
volumes and hopefully will clear up some of the discrepancies we're seeing 
between EES and EPMI. Also, I've autoscheduled the following deals in an 
attempt to feed them through to the CARP report. Please let me know if you 
see the changes come through, Mark. 

The autoscheduled deals are:

533090 - 3/1/01-3/31/01
535419 - 3/2/01
535420 - 3/2/01
566081 - 3/1/01-3/31/01
550208 - 3/15/01



The last deal I'm checking on is #535568 - in your spreadsheet you said EES 
saw the on peak hours totalling 1070.75 MWH and believed the on peak hours 
should actually total 1016.75 MWH. Below are the volumes I see both in the 
EnPower deal and in the March Dailies spreadsheet. 


+____________
=         1016.75 

Maybe we need to autoschedule this one as well? Please let me know how the 
CARP report looks now, and call me with questions. Hopefully this wraps it up 
for March!

Thanks,
Kate
503-464-7486