Thanks.  I hate it when I sound petulant.  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 9:12 AM
To:	Kaufman, Paul; Nicolay, Christi L.
Subject:	RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

My fault for not making it clear that you should have been in the loop.  We will send out a message across the board to help with this.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kaufman, Paul  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 11:08 AM
To:	Nicolay, Christi L.; Steffes, James D.
Subject:	RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

This is going to sound like empire building. But I need to know what we're doing with PGE.  I don't need to participate in the calls--but I do need to know.  The PGE folks need to have confidence that I'm aware of our positions and plans.  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nicolay, Christi L.  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 9:04 AM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Cc:	Kaufman, Paul
Subject:	RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

We are having a conference call tomorrow with PGE.  They did not decide anything on the last conference call after I told them why Enron retail in the East likes the Duquense type imbalance (no bandwidth, thus no penalties-- imbalances settle at verifiable system lambda).  John Malowney of EPMI west desk likes the bandwidth, but we are discussing it further since it has created problems for the East EES desk (due to the penalties associated with being outside the bandwidth).  John likes the PGE proposal to settle at an index price, but PGE is reconsidering that aspect.  

Unfortunately, I don't know of any TPs that allow a bandwidth without penalties. 

Let me know if you want to participate in the call.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 10:50 AM
To:	Nicolay, Christi L.
Cc:	Kaufman, Paul
Subject:	PGE Imbalance Charge

Christi --

What's the latest on the PGE imbalance method??

Jim