RE: PMA's

Fran,
If this deal was zeroed out (and it has been after the fact), then we should also have received a credit for no longer buying from MPC (the other side of the deal,
deal #549160). We should only lose $40 (the net difference). Any ideas?

Thanks,
Bill

From: Chang, Fran
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:05 AM
To: Williams III, Bill; Thompson, Virginia
Subject: RE: PMA's

Virgina and Bill:

During our month-end processes I have researched deal #549162.1. The counterparty did change as Bill pointed out, but what makes you suffer a loss in the prior month adjustments was due to the volume being zeroed out for HE 3. Originally the deal liquidated with HE3 (40MWh*$135), HE4(15MWh *$135), and HE5 (20MWh*$135), but on 4/19/2001 the volume for HE3 was zeroed out in scheduling, which means originally you were given too much $ for the sale and therefore we are now taking that revenue you made in HE3 back.

Thanks,
Fran
x7973

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams III, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 6:31 AM
To: Thompson, Virginia
Cc: Dunton, Heather; Chang, Fran
Subject: PMA's

Virginia,

I have one question on this month's PMA and some questions from last month. First, for deal #549162, this deal was originally put in incorrectly as counterparty TacomaSupp. This counterparty was then changed to Tacomapubuit. Why does a change in counterparty result in a loss of revenue? Are we being charged for each counterparty again (like EES and ST-Cali last month), if so, we need to fix this flawed tool.

Second, for last month, we determined that the WBOM book needs a $108,000 PMA for change in price. The appropriate price is in Enpower, but the revenue has never appeared (Deal #590753). Remember, this deal was originally input as a buy at $320 and a sell at $30 and liquidated at these prices. The deal is now at $320 and $300. What do we need to do to get this trued up?
Please come see me with questions.

Thank you for your help.
Bill