|
|
Enron Mail |
fyi
-----Original Message----- From: =09Paladino, Ranelle =20 Sent:=09Monday, August 20, 2001 9:02 AM To:=09Berg, Vicki; Fowler, Bill Cc:=09Stevens, Bob; Neubauer, Dave; Valley, Lisa; Zadow, Raetta; Porter, Di= ana; Dornan, Dari Subject:=09RE: RER Dec '00 Receivable Vicki & Bill, Just wanted to let you know that Dari and I have reviewed this RER issue re= garding the usage of SMS at alternate points. We stand strong in our inter= pretation of how SMS is applied at alternate points on an SOL day; however,= given that RER did in fact correct their usage of SMS once they were notif= ied in February with an answer to their questions from December, we can see= the logic in waiving a portion of the accrued DDVCs. At this point we are= more than happy to draft a letter to the customer, but we are looking to y= ou to let us know how you would like to proceed. If there is value in work= ing with the customer on this issue, we will record an entry in the waiver = log for RER. We wouldn't be changing the manner in which SMS is applied du= ring an SOL day at an alternate point, but we would be recognizing that cir= cumstances warrant waiver in this situation. At this time if you would pre= fer not to waive the charges, we will proceed ahead with drafting a respons= e to the customer. Please let us know the direction you would like to take= . Ranelle & Dari -----Original Message----- From: =09Berg, Vicki =20 Sent:=09Monday, July 30, 2001 3:45 PM To:=09Paladino, Ranelle; Dornan, Dari Cc:=09Stevens, Bob; Fowler, Bill; Neubauer, Dave; Valley, Lisa; Zadow, Raet= ta; Porter, Diana Subject:=09RER Dec '00 Receivable Hey guys, As an update to the RER Receivable, they have paid the outstanding dollars = due on their November 2000 invoice; however, they continue to claim that No= vember was paid in good faith (for whatever it's worth) and they have no in= tention of paying the December 2000 invoice of approximately $132,000. Back in May you asked whether or not RER had incurred similar charges the p= rior heating season. Lisa and I pulled the January 2000 DDVC/SMS Charges a= nd indeed RER was not allocated or did not utilize SMS on SOL days when sch= eduled deliveries at alternate points were below their Contract Entitlement= . However, the order of magnitude was significantly smaller with less end = user points and the occurrence was comparably infrequent since it appears f= rom the documentation that they tended to schedule long on most days during= January. I think we need to move forward to resolve this issue. I would very much a= ppreciate your help in drafting a response to their request, per my e-mail = below, to provide in writing our position and supporting provisions of the = tariff. Anyone other suggestions on an alternative approach? Thanks much, Vicki 952-887-1785 -----Original Message----- From: =09Paladino, Ranelle =20 Sent:=09Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:22 AM To:=09Berg, Vicki Subject:=09Re: RER Receivable Vicki, Can you fax the letter that Doug sent to me (or if you have already sent it= to Dari, I can get a copy from her)? My fax # is 402-398-7006. I will ge= t with Dari and Mary Darveaux on this. Ranelle From:=09Vicki Berg/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/09/2001 03:57 PM To:=09Mike W McGowan/ENRON@enronXgate, Lisa Valley/ENRON@enronXgate, Raetta= Zadow/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Ranelle Paladino/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Dari Dornan/ET&= S/Enron@ENRON cc:=09Bob Stevens/ENRON@enronXgate, Bill Fowler/ENRON@enronXgate=20 Subject:=09RER Receivable I talked with Doug Stark at Reliant Energy Retail (RER) this afternoon rega= rding their outstanding invoices for SMS/DDVC charges in Nov'00 and Dec'00 = . Pursuant to that conversation, Doug indicated that in good faith RER wil= l agree to pay NNG for the Nov'00 charges of approx.$87,000; however, RER d= oes not intend to pay the Dec'00 charges of approx. $132,000. RER continue= s to dispute NNG's position or tariff interpretation which does not allow S= MS to be used at alternate points on SOL days when their FT contract is not= fully utilized. I should say that they acknowledge or understand that int= erpretation going forward; however, RER's position is that in the penalty p= rovision sections of the tariff, it does not specifically address those cha= rges at alternate points such that without further definition RER's interpr= etation is appropriate. I have communicated to RER that after thorough review, Northern strongly be= lieves the SMS/DDVC charges are appropriately due. However, RER did call t= o discuss their November bill in mid-December and with our transition of pe= ople, they did not get a response back from me until the end of January 200= 1. Therefore, I could be convinced to negotiate a portion of the charges d= ue for Dec'00; however, at this point, I would not recommend we agree to wa= ive them in total. Dari/Ranelle - Doug did request a letter from us which articulates our posi= tion and includes supporting provisions of the tariff. Also, he sent a le= tter dated March 1, 2001 with their position which I will fax to you if you= don't have a copy. Some of the points in his letter have since been resol= ved so please call to discuss if you reference the same. Any other suggestions on how we should proceed?
|