Problem: BODY: The invoices for August 2001 settlements were posted by 10:42 AM today, Saturday, September 8, 2001. The NYISO apologizes for any inconvenience resulting in posting these invoices a day after they were scheduled. The Customer Settlements group makes every effort to render accurate invoices on a timely basis. Although issued a day after their scheduled posting, the invoices are still being issued within the 5-business days. {I'd forgotten about Labor Day when I set up the schedule.} Transmission Customers will observe adjustments for an error on in May 2000 Settlement Adjustment invoices that were issued in July. The total adjustment amounted to $2,081,568.11 and was allocated across 2,261,753.08 MWh. Customers may validate their respective adjustments by computing their ratio shares of the $2,081,568.11 using 2,261,753 MWh as the denominator in their respective ratios of their May 2000 load. The reason the denominator of the ratio share appears small is because the pay out of this adjustment is to the Transmission Owners. In order not to assess the TO's a proportionate share of the $2,081,568.11, which would defeat the purpose of the adjustment, their withdrawals have been excluded from the ratio share. Transmission Owners should observe a credit on their invoices based upon their respective megawatt-mile coefficients for the period. With regard to the November 1999 & December 1999 settlement adjustments that were scheduled to be issued on the 7th, the NYISO intends to issue those invoices next week. The issuance dates will ensure that customers will have at least 5 business days to review the invoices prior to payments being due to the NYISO. If necessary, the NYISO will reschedule settlement dates for these months should our reconciliations take longer to complete; however, we do not anticipate this at this time. In addition, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a point that I made in a TIE posting regarding the rebilling of the August 25th settlements. The initial billing runs for August 25th were done without considering ConEd's sub-zonal load. As a result, it appeared as though there was no load in the ConEd sub-zones on the 25th and all DAM purchases and bilateral transactions in those sub-zones were sold back to the market in real time causing the Schedule 1 residual adjustment to be grossly inflated. The reason this occurred was due to what appears to have been a frame relay problem between the NYISO & ConEd resulting in the NYISO not receiving a file from ConEd. By no means was my email notification of this event to imply that ConEd was not complying with the daily load provision process. This was merely a hardware/communications issue. Regards,
======
A: SUBJECT: August 2001 invoices

Problem: BODY: Michelle, Will you please review the attached and initial if you approve the way it reads? We technically hired Jo Crowder as our first hire, but didn't see the sense in paying the remaining $20K of her $50K retainer fee for someone who is at a Staff level. I've discussed this arrangement with Jane and she is in agreement. (Twanda, do you mind printing this on EGM letterhead for Michelle to initial? I'm happy to come pick it up, or you can send to me at ECN 3678a. Thanks!) Additionally, we would like to extend Jane's contract so she can continue to submit candidates to us. Her original contract ended on September 30th. We'd like to extend it for a six month term beginning October 1st, continuing through March 31st. I've spoken with Jane and she agrees that there will not be an additional retainer fee charged to us by reinstating our contract. (Diane, is this as easy as just running new executable copies of the contract, changing only the dates or would we just create a one page amendment to the existing contract for signature by all parties?). We would like to continue working with them under the same fee structure as though our contract with them never ended (i.e. our next hire will be at a 25% fee). Thanks for your help, ladies! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to assist!
======
A: SUBJECT: Jane Beatty letter & contract

Problem: BODY: Please follow up with Lou on this. It sounds like something the commercial people would be in a good position to answer, so maybe start by finding out if they are already responding, either through Lou or otherwise. Then get the right people to review and supplement this list. Thanks. df
======
A:
SUBJECT: ETS Products/Services