|
|
Enron Mail |
Cc: richard.sanders@enron.com, joe.gold@enron.com, reuben.maltby@enron.com,
roy.poyntz@enron.com, ross.sankey@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: richard.sanders@enron.com, joe.gold@enron.com, reuben.maltby@enron.com, roy.poyntz@enron.com, ross.sankey@enron.com X-From: Mark Elliott X-To: Michael R Brown, Jeffrey T Hodge X-cc: Richard B Sanders, Joe Gold, Reuben Maltby, Roy Poyntz, Ross Sankey X-bcc: X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: Sanders-R X-FileName: rsander.nsf Just to keep you fully in the loop, on account of the current high APX prices (the APX being the only current source of physical power for onward-deliveries by ECTRL in the Netherlands), our traders are choosing not to deliver power to our customers for certain of the hours when prices are at their highest. Accordingly, to-date we have received 3 bills for failure to deliver, one from Eneco and two from Remu (both are Dutch Distribution companies) - the latest from Remu appears below. Under our Master Physical Electricity Purchase and Sale Agreement which we have with each of Eneco and Remu, there is a "disputed invoice" clause where we are able, within 5 days of receiving an invoice, to dispute that invoice in good faith provided that we supply our reasons for so disputing and we make payment of any undisputed amount within (generally) 10 days of receiving the invoice. Our traders are disputing the sums claimed so far largely on the basis that we are being charged super-peak for all hours when our traders do not believe that that was the case - i.e., they are actually disputing, in good faith, our counterparties' calculations rather than the premise of the "send or pay" provisions. Accordingly, letters have been / are being sent back to these clients on each bill stating the amount which we do not dispute (which we tell them we shall pay in accordance with the Master), the amount which we dispute, providing our reasons for the dispute, asking them to justify their calculations and, finally, requesting them to discuss the situation with us with a view to seeking a resolution. Under the Master Agreement, if the parties cannot agree a solution then clearly the claimant (or us) can go to arbitration on this issue. So far we have not heard that a counterparty is taking us to arbitration, although I understand from our traders that Remu has stated that it may instruct its lawyers on this issue. Kind regards Mark ---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Elliott/LON/ECT on 26/01/2000 07:50 --------------------------- Reuben Maltby 24/01/2000 13:37 To: Mark Elliott/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Neil Tarling/LON/ECT@ECT, Charles Mawdsley/LON/ECT@ECT, Nicholas Dickson/LON/ECT@ECT, Dirk Van Vuuren/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Annother Remu Bill Same game, same response , Charles can you produce the Fax etc. We are going to have to keep a tight control on all this with regards to timing etc. We have five days to respond with dispute letter and ten days to pay undisputed amount as starting today. ---------------------- Forwarded by Reuben Maltby/LON/ECT on 24/01/2000 13:32 --------------------------- London Fax System 24/01/2000 12:44 To: Reuben Maltby/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: New fax received (Likely sender: 0302975632). You have received a new fax from 0302975632 The image contains 2 page(s).
|