From: paul.kaufman@enron.com
To: d..steffes@enron.com
Date: 2001-10-29 22:21:23+00:00
Subject: RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

I'm going to Carson City tomorrow.  I thought I could present the following message to the Commissioners:    

Contracts were negotiated in a bilateral market at arm's length.  Nobody was requiring NPCo to do business with us.  Similar contracts were upheld by the ALJ in the PNW refunds case.  You're going to completely screw up forward markets and NPCo's ability to contract in the future.  Think of the risk premium that will attach to future contracts.  
We tried to be the good guy with NPCo by offering a more comprehensive solution for them numerous times.  Now we're getting attacked for their mistakes?
We have met with NPCo a number of times to try and resolve this issue.  But the resolution requires that they post collateral.  Now they won't even talk with us.  The only way you (PUCN) are going to fix this is if you step up and require the utilities to post collateral when necessary. 
 
However, after talking with Steve Hall I concluded that it would be unwise at this point for me to contact the Commissioners.  We don't have anything to offer and very little new to say.   For example, according to Steve, we won't touch a blend and extend because of credit problems.  This said, he was uncomfortable saying that the entire issue was collateral.  


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 1:52 PM
To:	Kaufman, Paul
Subject:	RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

Trying to put something together.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kaufman, Paul  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 1:11 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Subject:	RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

Always.  By the way, did you have further thoughts about a call to develop a comprehensive Nevada strategy?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 10:57 AM
To:	Kaufman, Paul
Subject:	RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

Are we still friends??



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kaufman, Paul  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 11:44 AM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Subject:	RE: PGE Imbalance Charge

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