|
|
Enron Mail |
Correct. I wanted to terminate CTS for EPMI too but others decided this
issue. Sorry if there was any confusion. Please make a filing for Portland General, consistent with their letter to the PX. I am still waiting to hear from Enron Wind. Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. From: "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com< 02/01/2001 02:50 PM To: <cyoder@enron.com<, <jkeller@enron.com<, <mary.hain@enron.com<, <smara@enron.com< cc: "Andrea Settanni" <asettanni@bracepatt.com<, "Jeffrey Watkiss" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com<, "Jacqueline Java" <jjava@bracepatt.com< Subject: Notice of PX Termination Filed With FERC The filing made it (time stamped 5:00; my personal latest). Thus, we are in position to receive a 2/1/01 effective date of the termination. Although we achieved our primary objective, we will unfortunately need to file an "errata" tomorrow to (1) attach the EES and EEMC letters of termination, which were received too late to be included in the filing, and (2) to correct certain collation glitches (of the attachements) that occurred during production. Query: With regard to EPMI, the filing only terminates its Participation Agreement in the PX's core markets (day-ahead and day-of). It does not reference CTS. Is this correct? Mary: Based upon our conversation earlier today, I was under the impression that PGE had previously terminated its arrangements with the PX, so we agreed to delete all references to PGE and not make the filing on its behalf. However, after the filing was made, I received a copy of the termination letter that PGE sent to the PX today. What is PGE's correct status? (If we need to file for PGE, we should do a separate filing for it tomorrow. I want the errata that we are doing tomorrow for EPMI, EES and EEMC to be treated as an "errata" to today's filing, so we cannot add new matters.) Ron
|