|
|
Enron Mail |
Brenda,
I agree with Mark that this functionality does not exist today. However, I = don't see developing a solution will be that hard. There are very few cont= racts / deals which will have this language in them today. I'm not trying = to make this sound easy. We still need to get the input information. Thes= e deals will be more of the Interval meter data transactions which will hav= e a hourly load shape and we can get access to the hourly index price. I h= ave access to that information today. =20 We do need to get a solution in place quickly. I don't want to speak for h= im but I think Mark was saying that they would not have a solution in place= win the current tactical solution. I do think that we can add something o= utside of that process which will be added back in manually at first. I am copying Chris on this as well so he can start taking a look at it. Th= is is the type of activity we perform on a daily basis in the Portland offi= ce. There may be something which we can replicate Chris, Please get together with Mark and his group to discuss their proces= s and let us know what is required. Please provide the following in a writ= e-up.=20 ?=09Contractual requirements. (See if new deals are the same and summarize= requirement) ?=09Where can we reuse Portland tools or what new tools need to be develope= d ?=09What will be required for information inputs (Prices, consumption?) ?=09How will we implement calculation into existing processes (Show data fl= ow) ?=09How quickly can we implements and what resources will be required to as= sist. MO -----Original Message----- From: =09Herod, Brenda F. =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, September 12, 2001 9:51 AM To:=09O'Neil, Murray P. Subject:=09FW: FW: READ THIS!!!!! Muray, Read this one! -----Original Message----- From: =09Woodward, Jason =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:11 AM To:=09Brakke, Erling Cc:=09Smith, Ben; Sova, Gary; Hurt, Robert; Avs, Mallik; Hughes, Evan; Hero= d, Brenda F.; Denner, Mark; Wilkes, Lyman; O'Neil, Murray P.; Young, Gregg Subject:=09Re: FW: When this language came out, we sought approval, as we were well aware of t= he complexity and impacts. We were granted approval from the responsible p= arties at the time. If you need more details, please call me directly. Th= anks, J From:=09Erling Brakke/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/12/2001 09:27 AM To:=09Ben Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Gary Sova/ENRON@enronXgate, Robert Hurt/HOU/EE= S@EES, Jason Woodward/HOU/EES@EES cc:=09Mallik Avs/ENRON@enronXgate, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Brenda F Herod/= ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Denner/HOU/EES@EES, Lyman Wilkes/HOU/EES@EES=20 Subject:=09FW:=20 Please see the below contractual language and Mark Denner's response. I wa= nted to highlight this to all of you as this will soon be a customer servic= e issue in additional to a risk issue. All new non-matrix (Master and Mid = market contracts) deals since June have contained similar language requirin= g hourly calculation for excess and deficient usage, either using the ISO h= ourly price or the Dow Jones daily on and off peak price weighted by the cu= stomers actual hourly usage. =20 There are several deals that will require this calculation every month as v= olumes have been stipulated at some percentage (90 or 95%) of historical us= age with no bands around the stipulated volumes. In this instance all volu= mes above or below the stipulation are settled using the hourly mechanism. = Home Depot CA is a specific example of this deal structure.=20 We need to quickly formulate a plan to ensure that we are able to execute o= n these contracts from a both a risk management perspective and customer se= rvice stand point. Please let me know what input you need from me. I can = provide example contracts and deals as required. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: =09Brakke, Erling =20 Sent:=09Friday, September 07, 2001 9:05 AM To:=09Woodward, Jason Subject:=09FW:=20 Jason, I'm very concerned regarding our capability regarding the below cont= ractual language. This has been the standard language in all new deals sin= ce late June. It was my understanding that you were responsible for approv= ing contractual language and ensuring that Operations could execute against= it. We (Site Profile Desk) are significantly at risk if they are not able= to execute against this language. This language was developed as a risk m= itigant for our desk and must be implemented. Thanks=20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Denner, Mark =20 Sent:=09Thursday, September 06, 2001 6:23 PM To:=09Brakke, Erling Subject:=09Re: Erling...we are not set up with this capability to date nor do I foresee us= having this ability in the near future. This request has come from others= as well and we are trying to get the word out that we do not have the syst= ems in place to support this type of invoicing. Mark << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) <<=20 Erling Brakke 09/05/2001 01:44 PM To:=09Mark Denner/HOU/EES@EES, Lyman Wilkes/HOU/EES@EES cc:=09=20 Subject:=09 Just one more time for clarification. Are the two of you in a position to = price and bill out the below language? It is very important that you are a= ble to execute on the below to ensure that we are not unwitting risk that i= s not being charged to the deals. All new deals have this language - the b= elow is from Limited TX - a deal that contains 90/110 bands. =20 Home Depot CA back in June did not include 90/110 bands, but rather a fixed= volume at 95% of their historical consumption and then similar language to= the below for any excess over that - thus I assume that this has already b= een implemented for HD CA as this would be required each month. Thanks. EXCESS AND DEFICIENCY USAGE CHARGES:=09[Anticipated Usage for each month sh= all be the monthly kWh amounts for each Account as set forth on Schedule 1-= A.] Excess Usage: For each kWh of Excess Usage at each Account for each m= onth, you will pay us an amount equal to the positive difference, if any, o= btained by subtracting: (i) the EESI Energy Price; from (ii) the average S= pot Energy Price for the applicable month. Deficiency Usage: For each kWh = of Deficiency Usage at each Account for each month, you will pay us an amou= nt equal to the positive difference, if any, obtained by subtracting (i) th= e average Spot Energy Price for the applicable month; from (ii) the EESI En= ergy Price. As used in this Transaction: "Spot Energy Price" means the su= m of (a) the weighted average (weighted in accordance with the Account's ho= urly usage or the Utility rate class usage profile) of either (1) ISO hourl= y settlement prices for the applicable congestion zone (if an ISO is in exi= stence); or (2) if an ISO does not exist, then the daily day ahead prices a= s reported for the applicable congestion zone by Megawatt Daily (Financial = Times Energy), or its successor, where on-peak weighted average daily price= s are labeled under Trades for Standard 16-Hour Daily Products and off-peak= weighted average index prices are labeled under Ranges and Indexes of Off-= Peak Products; provided that, if a price for the applicable congestion zone= is not available in Megawatt Daily for the applicable day, the Parties wil= l use a mutually agreed upon alternative publication; plus (b) all non-Util= ity charges arising from uplifts, ancillary services, congestion, losses, a= nd other ISO charges or administrative fees incurred in connection with del= ivery of energy to the Delivery Point.=09
|