Trader on this deal is Bert Meyers. I've left him a message to come in a little early for the meeting today so we can settle this. However, it looks like everything on our side has been taken care of - Virginia says both Montana and Tacoma agree HE 3 should be zeroed out, which is what we show in Enpower. It appears we've been charged for the change in sale volume, but not credited for the change in purchase volume - am I right?

So at this point do we need to bother the trader with this? And what do you mean by "it" being "in or out"? Another deal? We shouldn't need one.

Let me know when you get a chance.

Thanks,
Kate

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Williams III, Bill  
Sent:	Monday, July 09, 2001 11:09 AM
To:	Symes, Kate
Subject:	FW: PMA's

Kate could you check with the trader on this.  I really don't care if it is in or out.  Let's try to wrap it up before or after the meeting.
Thanks,
Bill 


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Chang, Fran  
Sent:	Tuesday, July 03, 2001 1:59 PM
To:	Williams III, Bill
Cc:	Thompson, Virginia
Subject:	RE: PMA's

Good point Bill.  Now that we are sure what happened to #549162.1 is correct, I am following up with Settlements group in Houston regarding the other side of the deal, i.e. #549160.  Somehow that latter deal was not captured during their processes of creating the prior month adjusments details.  I will get back to you as soon as I hear from them, but at least we know now the loss you got was not due to change of counterparty.

-Fran

 -----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