Staff/Portland-9

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for December 21, 2000, Exhibit PGE-2, page 6, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.

a)	For HE 1, Exhibit PGE-2 and ie_trans1.csv show a price of $500 while the California ISO’s OOM sheet shows a price of $800.  Please give your understanding of the reason for this discrepancy and reconcile it if possible.

b)	For HE 2, Exhibit PGE-2 and ie_trans1.csv show a price of $500 while the California ISO’s OOM sheet shows a price of $700.  Please give your understanding of the reason for this discrepancy and reconcile it if possible. 

c)	For HE 3, Exhibit PGE-2 shows a price of $700 for 10 MWh and $500 for 200 MWh.  The California ISO OOM sheet shows a price of $700 for 210 MWh, while ie_trans1.csv shows a price of $500 for 210 MWh.  Please give your understanding of the reasons for these discrepancies and reconcile them if possible. 

d)	For HEs 9 through 11, the California ISO does not show these transactions as DOE transactions.  Are these transactions CERS transactions?  Please explain.

Staff/Portland-10

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for December 27, 2000, Exhibit PGE-2, page 8, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.

a)	For HE 9, Exhibit PGE-2 shows an 80 MWh transaction at $250.  This transaction is not shown on the California ISO’s OOM sheet or ie_trans1.csv.  Please reconcile this discrepancy.

b)	For HEs 20 through 22, Exhibit PGE-2 and the California ISO OOM sheet show a price of $250.  The data set ie_trans1.csv shows a price of $0 for these hours.  Please reconcile this discrepancy.

Staff/Portland-11

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for December 28, 2000, Exhibit PGE-2, page 9, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.  For HE 22, Exhibit PGE-2 and ie_trans1.csv show a 50 MWh transaction priced at $250.  The California ISO OOM sheet does not show this transaction.  Please give your understanding of the reason for this discrepancy and reconcile it if possible.

Staff/Portland-12

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for January 2, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 9, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.  For HEs 16 and 17, Exhibit PGE-2 and ie_trans1.csv show 50 MWh transactions priced at $751.  However, these transactions are not shown on the California ISO’s OOM sheet.  Please give your understanding of the reason for this discrepancy and reconcile it if possible.

Staff/Portland-13

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for January 12, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 11, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.  For HE 3, the California ISO's OOM sheet shows a 100 MWh transaction priced at $397.60, while ie_trans1.csv shows a 100 MWh transaction priced at $397 (this could be rounding).  However, this transaction is not shown on Exhibit PGE-2.  Is Portland not claiming this is a DOE transaction?  Please explain.

Staff/Portland-14

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for January 22, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 12, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.  For HE 23, Exhibit PGE-2 shows a 100 MWh transaction priced at $397.60.  This transaction is not shown on the California ISO’s OOM sheet or ie_trans1.csv.  Is this a CERS transaction?  Please reconcile this discrepancy.

Staff/Portland-15

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for January 24, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 13, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.  For HE 9, Exhibit PGE-2 shows a 50MWh transaction priced at $534.85.  The California ISO's OOM sheet and ie_trans1.csv show a price of $534.  Please reconcile this discrepancy.

Staff/Portland-16

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for January 31, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 13, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.  

a)	For HEs 16 through 20, Exhibit PGE-2 shows hourly transactions of 75 MWh priced at $702.  The California ISO's OOM sheet and ie_trans1.csv also show these transactions, but the OOM sheet shows the note “PAYBACK”.  Please indicate what “PAYBACK” refers to and explain why these transactions should be considered a DOE transactions.

b)	For HEs 21 and 22, Exhibit PGE-2 shows hourly transactions of 75 MWh priced at $702.27.  The data set ie_trans1.csv shows these transactions priced at $702 (this could be rounding).  The California ISO's OOM sheet shows these transactions with a note indicating “2/1 Exchange”.  Are these exchange transactions?  If yes, please explain why these transactions are priced at $702.27 and why they should be considered DOE transactions.

Staff/Portland-17

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for February 1, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 13, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.

a)	For HEs 1 through 4 and 6, Exhibit PGE-2 shows hourly transactions of 200 MWh priced at $264.34.  The California ISO's OOM sheet and ie_trans1.csv also show these transactions, but the OOM sheet shows the note “PAYBACK”.  Please indicate what “PAYBACK” refers to and explain why these transactions should be considered DOE transactions.

b)	For HE 5, Exhibit PGE-2 shows hourly transaction of 100 MWh priced at $302.37.  The data set ie_trans1.csv shows this transaction priced at $302 (this could be rounding).  The California ISO OOM's sheet shows this transaction with a note indicating “2/1 Exchange”.  Is this an exchange transaction?  If yes, please explain why this transaction is priced at $302.37 and why it should be considered a DOE transaction.

Staff/Portland-18

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for February 2, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 14, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.

a)	The California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv does not show any transactions for February 2, 2001.  Please reconcile this discrepancy.

b)	For HEs 2 through 6, Exhibit PGE-2 shows hourly transactions of 150 MWh priced at $281.38.  The California ISO's OOM sheet shows these transactions with the note “PAYBACK”.  Please indicate what “PAYBACK” refers to and explain why these transactions should be considered DOE transactions.

c)	For HE 18, Exhibit PGE-2 shows a 35 MWh transaction priced at $474.94.  For HE 22, Exhibit PGE-2 shows two 75 MWh transactions priced at $415.14.  These transactions are not shown on the California ISO’s OOM sheet.  Please reconcile this discrepancy.

Staff/Portland-19

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for February 3, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 14, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.

a)	For HE 2, Exhibit PGE-2 shows a 150 MWh transaction priced at $300.  The California ISO's OOM sheet shows this transaction with the note “PAYBACK”.  Please indicate what “PAYBACK” refers to and explain why this transaction should be considered a DOE transaction.

b)	Exhibit PGE-2 and the California ISO’s OOM sheet shows transactions for HEs 1 through 8 and 22 through 24.  The California ISO data set ie_trans1.csv only shows transactions for HE 8.  Please give your understanding of the reason for this discrepancy and reconcile it if possible.

Staff/Portland-20

Please refer to the California ISO’s OOM sheet for February 4, 2001, Exhibit PGE-2, page 15, and the California ISO’s data set ie_trans1.csv submitted August 15,2001.  For HEs 23 and 24, Exhibit PGE-2 shows hourly transactions of 150 MWh priced at $281.38.  The California ISO's data set shows these transactions priced at $281 (this could be due to rounding).  However, these hourly transactions are not shown on the California ISO’s OOM sheet.  Please give your understanding of the reason for this discrepancy and reconcile it if possible..