Rod, our last forecast showed the catch-up for Q1 allocations spread over Q2
thru Q4.  Instead, we recorded the entire catch-up for Q1 in May (all Q2). No
difference to the full year look, just a change in shaping.  

>>> Hayslett, Rod 06/07/01 05:00AM >>> 
I thought the last forecast we reviewed had the catch up of the allocations
included. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Piro, Jim 
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:44 PM 
To: Horton, Stanley 
Cc: Hayslett, Rod; Stevens, Kirk; Piro, Jim; FOWLER, PEGGY 
Subject: Q2 forecast 


Attached is a spreadsheet that compares our original plan (budget plus 
overview) to our forecast for the 2nd quarter with actuals for April and May 
and last months forecast for June. We are in the process of completing our 
May closing but the IBIT number for May is 99% complete. The June forecast 
was prepared last month and we are now in the process of updating our forecast

of power cost and IBIT for June. We should complete that next week. Curves 
in the west continue to come down which will potentially reduce our IBIT for 
June, but I will know more next week. 

The spreadsheet shows 70.1 million IBIT compared to what I provided you early 
this week of 65 million. The primary difference is power cost and our view 
that given the current movement in wholesale prices from May 8 that power cost

could rise by an additional 5 million from that level. We are currently in 
the dead band zone for the PCA so any change in power cost go right to IBIT. 
There is one other issue related to power cost concerning our need to 
potentially increase our reserves for the California receivables. AA 
continues to push us on this issue to increase the amount of reserves. If we 
have a good June we might want to increase our reserves, however this is 
something we will talk with Bob Butz about early next month when June results 
are available. 

Please call if you would like to discuss this further. We will have a better 
look at June next week once the updated forecast is completed.