|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks a ton for you help on this item
=09=09Chris -----Original Message----- From: =09Hall, Steve C. =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:02 PM To:=09Stokley, Chris Cc:=09Yoder, Christian; Richter, Jeff; Boose, Justin Subject:=09RE: California Energy Resources Scheduling - February payment=20 Chris, The issue here is whether the CalPX or California Energy Resources Schedule= r ("CERS") owes us $186,000 for the power we delivered to the CalPX from Fe= bruary 1st through 6 under our block forward contracts.=09=09=09=09=09=09 The State of California, i.e., CERS, is responsible for payment of this pow= er. It is true that we scheduled the block forwards through the Cal PX on = Feb. 1-6, and that we did not schedule this power through CERS until Februa= ry 6 (delivery on the 7th). But Governor Davis issued Emergency Orders D-2= 0-01 and D-21-01 on January 31st. Under these Orders, the So. Cal. Edison = and PG&E block forward contracts were "hereby commandeered by the State of = California to be held subject to the control and coordination of the State = of California." The Orders were effective "immediately." Because the Orde= rs was effective on January 31st, the State had title to the contracts from= January 31st forward. Section 8572 of the California Emergency Services A= ct authorizes the Governor to commandeer private property, but requires the= State to pay the "reasonable value thereof." Therefore, since the State o= f California had legal title to the contracts and the power supplied under = those contracts on February 1st, the State of California---through CERS---i= s responsible for paying for power delivered on February 1st, and forward. = =20 Responsibility for payment falls on the party with title to the power, not = the party responsible for scheduling the power. Just because the CalPX con= tinued to schedule power for a few days while CERS got its act together doe= s not mean that the PX was responsible for payment. Once California took t= itle to the power,---and all the benefits of having the power---it also ass= umed responsibility for payment.=20 I would be happy to explain this to CERS, if you want. Let me know. Steve=20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Stokley, Chris =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:50 PM To:=09Hall, Steve C. Subject:=09RE: California Energy Resources Scheduling - February payment th= ey dispute Thank you -----Original Message----- From: =09Hall, Steve C. =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:47 PM To:=09Stokley, Chris Subject:=09RE: California Energy Resources Scheduling - February payment th= ey dispute I'll take a look at this today, Chris. -----Original Message----- From: =09Stokley, Chris =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:33 PM To:=09Hall, Steve C. Subject:=09FW: California Energy Resources Scheduling - February payment th= ey dispute Importance:=09High Steve, =09Take a look at the e-mail and give me you insight. We talked about this = a few months ago and never came to a solid conclusion. I just want to try a= nd put it to bed. Thanks for your help on this matter and I hope all is goi= ng well for you. =09=09=09=09=09=09=09Chris -----Original Message----- From: =09Clemons, Amy =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:24 PM To:=09Stokley, Chris Cc:=09Ratnala, Melissa K. Subject:=09California Energy Resources Scheduling - February payment they d= ispute Importance:=09High Hi Chris,=09 =09 =09I wanted to check on California Energy Resouces Scheduling - the piece t= hey disputed paying us in February. Virginia had in DMS that you are handl= ing this now. So, to refresh your memory, they did not pay us $186,000 in F= ebruary - broken down as follows: Deal #533136.1 2/1/01 800 mws on peak @ $46.50/mw =3D $37,200 Deal #533136.1 2/2/01 800 mws on peak @ $46.50/mw =3D $37,200 Deal #533136.1 2/3/01 800 mws on peak @ $46.50/mw =3D $37,200 Deal #533136.1 2/5/01 800 mws on peak @ $46.50/mw =3D $37,200 Deal #533136.1 2/6/01 800 mws on peak @ $46.50/mw =3D $37,200 They said CDWR did not pick a block forward from the PX until 2/7/01. So t= hey are saying these weren't theirs until the 7th. Thus my accounts receiveable shows that we have been shorted $186,000. I n= eed to know if I can collect this from them or if we will change the deals = so that they will not be charged for the above days they are disputing. I = really need to get this fixed as soon as possible - since this shows possib= le exposure to us if we can't collect or DPR to the West if we have to remo= ve these deals for the above days. Let me know if you have any questions and let me know what info. you have. Thanks! Amy
|