Message-ID: <7234227.1075863313594.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT) From: virginia.thompson@enron.com To: bill.williams@enron.com Subject: RE: PMA's Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Thompson, Virginia X-To: Williams III, Bill X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Williams III, Bill (Non-Privileged)\Bill Williams III X-Origin: Williams-B X-FileName: Williams III, Bill (Non-Privileged).pst Bill, I'm off the phone now, but I haven't had a chance to review those deals. I'm doing that right now. VA -----Original Message----- From: Williams III, Bill Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:43 AM To: Chang, Fran Cc: Thompson, Virginia Subject: RE: PMA's Fran, If this deal was zeroed out (and it has been after the fact), then we should also have received a credit for no longer buying from MPC (the other side of the deal, deal #549160). We should only lose $40 (the net difference). Any ideas? Thanks, Bill From: Chang, Fran Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:05 AM To: Williams III, Bill; Thompson, Virginia Subject: RE: PMA's Virgina and Bill: During our month-end processes I have researched deal #549162.1. The counterparty did change as Bill pointed out, but what makes you suffer a loss in the prior month adjustments was due to the volume being zeroed out for HE 3. Originally the deal liquidated with HE3 (40MWh*$135), HE4(15MWh *$135), and HE5 (20MWh*$135), but on 4/19/2001 the volume for HE3 was zeroed out in scheduling, which means originally you were given too much $ for the sale and therefore we are now taking that revenue you made in HE3 back. Thanks, Fran x7973 -----Original Message----- From: Williams III, Bill Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 6:31 AM To: Thompson, Virginia Cc: Dunton, Heather; Chang, Fran Subject: PMA's Virginia, I have one question on this month's PMA and some questions from last month. First, for deal #549162, this deal was originally put in incorrectly as counterparty TacomaSupp. This counterparty was then changed to Tacomapubuit. Why does a change in counterparty result in a loss of revenue? Are we being charged for each counterparty again (like EES and ST-Cali last month), if so, we need to fix this flawed tool. Second, for last month, we determined that the WBOM book needs a $108,000 PMA for change in price. The appropriate price is in Enpower, but the revenue has never appeared (Deal #590753). Remember, this deal was originally input as a buy at $320 and a sell at $30 and liquidated at these prices. The deal is now at $320 and $300. What do we need to do to get this trued up? Please come see me with questions. Thank you for your help. Bill