IN: This is an email
market_relations@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Dear Market Participants: On the November 1999 & December 1999 Transmission Customer Monthly Statements many customers have noted under the "Energy Settlement" section for "Forward Energy" a change in MW-Hrs with no associated change in dollar amounts. This is because of a correction in the sign convention for the MW-Hrs related to external generation transactions (transactions from a proxy bus to the NYISO reference bus). For all other types of transactions the NYISO charges customers the appropriate TUC or LBMP based on the MWs that flowed, but for external generation transactions, customers receive payments from the NYISO, and therefore these types of transactions have an opposite sign convention. The dollars associated with the external generation transactions have always had the proper sign convention, but the MW-Hrs have not. On 01/17/2000 this sign convention was corrected for all billing months going forward resulting in the correct MW-Hr values being reported from February 2000 to date. However, November 1999 - January 2000 did not have the proper MW-Hrs reported on the Transmission Customer Monthly Statements. With the latest settlement adjustments posted the MW-Hrs are being corrected with the proper sign convention. Transmission Customers will see similar changes in their forward energy MW-Hrs for January 2000's settlement adjustment.

What is the subject?

OUT: November & December 1999 Settlement Adjustments
QUESTION: Can you set up a mid for all deals at a location of NBPL/Peoples and PGLC/NBPL. The intramonth curve Chi./N/Border and the gas daily curve is GDC-Chi./N/Bord. Can you tell me how many deals are currently in the system for these two locations. Sorry to rush you, but I need these in for calcing tonight. Thanks. PL 3-7376
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: new mid in sitara
I'm attaching a revised draft of the option to purchase the land for the VEPCO deal. I've limited it to the land in Edgecombe County, changed the initial period to 90 days (with 3 x 90 day renewals). The price is changed to $137,600, as have the option payments ($3500 for each 90 day period). Is there anything else which needs to be changed? FYI, I've left a message for Dutch Bumgarnder, VEPCO's lawyer, concerning the interconnection agreement, and who is doing what. Thanks,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: VEPCO land option agreement
We have reached resolution regarding the parking and mass transit issue. Until notified otherwise, the parking and mass transit subsidy will continue as an employee benefit. For those who have a payroll parking deduction, your deduction has been stopped. No deduction should occur on 12/31/01 payroll. In addition, you should receive a credit for the deduction taken for the 12/15 payroll. For those who incurred any out-of-pocket parking costs during the month of December, you may expense up to $89 for reimbursement. Beginning 1/1/02, parking and mass transit will continue as follows: WTC Parking: You should receive your parking pass in the mail. Payroll deductions will begin on the 1/15/02 paycheck. (No Action Req'd) Outside Parking Lots: Park at lot of your choice and pay out of pocket. Request reimbursement of up to $89 per month. (No payroll parking deduction will occur) Tri-Met and MAX employees: Passes are available for January. If you would like to pick up your pass, please see Debra Davidson. NOTE: Extra Tri-Met passes are available. If you would like to select mass transit as your parking option, please notify either Grace or myself before Friday, 12/21/01 EOB and we will insure a monthly pass is available. Validations: We will no longer validate parking passes, however, you are able to reimburse up to $89 per month for daily parking. If you have any questions, please let us know! ENA Human Resources Julie Kearney 503) 464-7404 Grace Rodriguez 503) 464-8321
Answer: Parking & Mass Transit Resolution
Here is an email: Debra, Please prepare another Master. Deal should be identical to the one we did for your buddy. That one was between ENA and ECT Merchant Investment Corp. This one should be with Brazos VPP Limited Partnership, a Texas limited partnership, and ENA. Check with Teresa regarding the ownership of Brazos.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Joshua Tree - Balancing Agreement
QUESTION: Gang: I'm finalizing what we talked about yesterday and something struck me w.r.t. siting reform. One of our key messages in California and nationally is that price spikes are due in no small part to outmoded, arcane siting rules and a shortage of power as a result. Price spikes have led to wholesale and retail price caps, investigations, utility under-recovery, and threats of rolling back de-regulation, to name a few. Understanding that Dave raises some good points about why he's not thrilled about getting involved in more siting reform bills, could someone argue that from a corporate objective, getting a good siting reform bill passed this session is a fairly high priority? I'm not sure what the answer is, but it struck me as I was pretty-ing up the document and I thought I'd put it out there for reaction. Best,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Siting strategy