Please note charge code discussion under item 1h.  We need to discuss soon.  This will be something we need to maintain.  It will be a place where the "total rate" for a contract is stored.  Because of the shifting between reservation and commodity on these contract rates, the report wouldn't be able to get the accurate rate.  A charge code is being set-up for there to be a single slot to put the total rate.  After checking invoices yesterday, I'm not sure this is such a bad idea in general anyway.  We may want to be able to run a copy of this report by contract # to see the total rate for invoice/firm book verification purposes.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Brown, Elizabeth  
Sent:	Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:30 PM
To:	Corman, Shelley; Blair, Lynn; Dietz, Rick; January, Steven; Holmes, Bradley; Schoolcraft, Darrell; Kowalke, Terry; Medeles, Gerry; Betancourt, Ramona ; Harris, Steven; Donoho, Lindy; Watson, Kimberly; Lokey, Teb; Miller, Mary Kay; Bianchi, Rita; Hass, Glen; Kilmer III, Robert; Veatch, Stephen; Powell, Don; Spraggins, Gary
Subject:	FERC Requirements for California Market Reporting
Importance:	High

Now that the latest round of TW's negotiated rate hearing is behind us, we can re-focus our attention on the monthly reporting requirements imposed by the FERC on July 25, 2001.  Please review the attached document that addresses all the issues that were raised in prior meetings and provide your comments by COB September 7, 2001.  

I will then work with Don Powell to gather/compile the data required for the September 30th filing and distribute to the primary reviewers by mid-month.  Once the reviewers have had an opportunity to analyze the data, we can distribute for review and discussion.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

 


Thanks,
Elizabeth
x3-6928