Ok, then I need to get some updated numbers

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hall, Steve C.  
Sent:	Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:01 AM
To:	Stokley, Chris
Subject:	RE: UNSCEDULED DEMAND PENALTY

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 >>