Problem: BODY: market_relations@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Dear Market Participants, Administrative changes will be made to the NYISO web server computers on October 17, 2001. These changes will have no noticeable effects on performance or functionality, however, a short MIS outage is required. This outage will begin at approximately 11:35 AM and last for 60 minutes. If you have any questions, please call Customer Relations at 518-356-6060. Regards,
======
A: SUBJECT: NYISO - Software Release - October 17, 2001

Problem: BODY: FCiani@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Dear Market Participants, One of the Generation Issues objectives deployed in September was to allow off-dispatch units to move in response to price signals. A settlement feature of this change was that off-dispatch units would not receive bid production cost guarantees for incremental energy. These units would only be guaranteed cost recovery for minimum generation and start-up costs. The function to limit this cost recovery was incorrectly designed, with the result that the cost recovery was not limited to the bid minimum generation cost. The cost recovery was incorrectly calculated as the bid minimum generation MW times the bid minimum generation cost. This error has been corrected and will be reflected in the next execution of the September settlement statements, which will correct the values before the September invoicing period. If you have any questions, please call Customer Relations at 518-356-6060. Regards,
======
A: SUBJECT: NYISO - Generation in Response to Price Signals

Problem: BODY: I have a concern about Enron's forward-looking exposure associated with legacy deals (deals that existed during the June 2000 through the May 2001 price shock). If Edison gets its way, all customers will pay for Edison's under-recovery from June 2000 through January 2001 plus CDWR spot market purchases during 2001. This would take the form of a surcharge on future bills. My concern is that Enron will be on the hook for these future charges associated with past under-collections -- even beyond the term of our legacy deals. For example, if a deal ends in March 2002 we could be on the hook for surcharges that a legacy customer would receive on its bill after that date, provided the surcharge pertained to costs incurred by the utility during the time that the legacy customer was ours.
======
A:
SUBJECT: Another Version of Negative CTC Risk?