Rick -- FYI on Illinois State University
----- Forwarded by Roy Boston/HOU/EES on 07/02/2001 11:24 AM -----


	Roy Boston 06/29/2001 03:57 PM 	   To: Eric Pitcher, Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES@EES  cc: Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski, jsteffe@enron.com, Barb Novak/HOU/EES@EES  Subject: Illinois Power and ISU	


Eric and Tim -- This is a note to bring you up to date on my attempts to resolve the ISU/IP issue.  As you are aware, IP has threatened to impose a retroactive standby charge to Illinois State University, our customers, if it uses its on site generation for peak shaving purposes this summer.  When ISU was an IP customer, the utility did not impose such charges, but noe that they have lost their PPO and have reverted to SC21 this was made an issue.

I spoke with Kathy Patton last week and told her the situation.  She responded to me today and indicated that a final answer cannot be given until early next week because the VP over major accounts is out of the office.  She indicated that her peole said that ISU never used on-site generation for peak shaving purposesand instead used them only for back-up, hence no standby service was required previously.  I told her that that was not accurate and that this is a new and unwarranted change in requirements that is not supported by IP's tariffs.  I also informed her that the units are electrically isolated from IP's system through a make-and-break switch system and could obviously not be served by two power sources. Further, since ISU has about 25 of these small units scattered around its campus in Normal, Illinois, the likelihood that a significant percentage of these units would fail and require IP to standby is virtually zero.  I also told her that she was in the middle of this and that I did not believe that she was getting the full story from her people but that I was not interested in playing a blame game, but rather wish to avoid an unnecessary confrontation that serves nobody.  She agreed and indicated that she would call me Tuesday, July 3 and give me IP's position.  I have positioned this as a misunderstanding on the part of IP's account representative.