Message-ID: <27841433.1075863302430.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: jim.reyes@enron.com
To: bill.williams@enron.com, kate.symes@enron.com
Subject: RE: Congestion/Enpower to CAPS variance
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Reyes, Jim </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JREYES4>
X-To: Williams III, Bill </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Bwillia5>, Symes, Kate </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ksymes>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Williams III, Bill (Non-Privileged)\Bill Williams III
X-Origin: Williams-B
X-FileName: Williams III, Bill (Non-Privileged).pst

Darren was looking at an "old" report.  We re-ran the report and it balanced, which makes sense.

Thanks for your patience while Darren runs up the steep learning curve.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Williams III, Bill  
Sent:	Monday, August 13, 2001 8:59 AM
To:	Cavanaugh, Darren; Reyes, Jim
Cc:	Symes, Kate
Subject:	Congestion/Enpower to CAPS variance

Jim and Darren,

We relieved Path 15 congestion for HE 7 on Saturday morning.  We flowed 10 mws from Malin to FC345. This resulted in the 10 mw "variance" in the report. I have added deals to Enpower to flatten the report, these deals are only necessary for the sake of the report. The identical variance in the north and south indicates a wheel or load shift. I prefer to not enter these extra deals. Please see me with questions if you do not understand why the report variance exists.

Thanks,
Bill