text
stringlengths 1
1.59M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
Attached is the final standings for the pool. Please verify your score. We
had a little drama for second place, Chuck won the tie breaker due to a total
of 158 versus Wolfie's 145(total score was 154). Special congratulations to
Matt Lenhart for bringing up the rear(nice pick on the last game too). Hope
to see you guys next year.
PL | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
It works this time and I will read it and give you my comments. Thank you
very much. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL--THIS ACCOUNT IS NOT MONITORED
AP User:
Attached is/are the payment proposal(s) for your business unit. Please review and forward to your approver(s)/CAO.
Thank you.
SAP AP Team
- 20020114-ENWC.XLS | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Ken, I have taken a look at the material you had sent me on the ARC Northern
Gas Pipeline Route. Ultimately, I believe that ARC is looking for certain
strategic investors to provide founding capital to fund the development of
this proposal. To the extent that this is a open access non-discriminatory
pipe, ENA's opportunity lies in being a shipper to capitalize on basis
markets or customer transactions that provide attractive risk reward
characteristics. Other than understanding the potential flows and costs,
there is probably not much we need to do today given a 2006 start from an ENA
point of view.
The ARC consortium needs to fund approximately $30M to develop this project.
The US and Canadian aboriginal groups will receive 33% ownership for $10M.
the remaining $20M and 67% will be funded by a group of producers, pipelines,
venture capital and the "organizing group" (40%!!). Stan Horton, if he
believes this is a commercial possibility, may want to provide a few million
of founding capital to the venture in order to preserve him the option to
participate as an equity holder or operator if this becomes a reality.
Regards
Delainey | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Kay, can you handle this stuff for me. thxs
Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 11/03/2000
11:59 AM ---------------------------
[email protected] on 11/03/2000 11:28:55 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Approval for reviewer
SHEPPERD,TAMMY R has suggested reviewers and submitted them for your
approval. You may review/modify this list of reviewers by logging on to PEP
at http://pep.corp.enron.com and going to Supervisor Services. Please
remember, no feedback can be completed on SHEPPERD,TAMMY R until you have
approved the list. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
- 10-15 1100 Report.xls | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
--------- Inline attachment follows ---------
From: <[email protected]>
To: Chris & Charlie <[email protected]>, Katherine Phelps <[email protected]>, Sandy Taylor <[email protected]>, [email protected], Mac Odell <[email protected]>, [email protected], Naomi V. Odell <[email protected]>, Susan O. Hand <[email protected]>, Wunsch, Doris A <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], helen <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 3:49:05 GMT
Subject:
This is a mate to another one that was sent around a couple of weeks ago, which said: Note to the Taliban: Hand over Osama Bin Laden or we will take all your women and send them to college.
>> As for what to do with Osama bin Laden: Killing him will only create a martyr. Holding him prisoner will inspire his comrades to take hostages to demand his release.
Therefore, I suggest we do neither.
Let the Special Forces, Seals or whatever, covertly capture him, fly him to an undisclosed hospital and have surgeons quickly perform a complete sex change operation. Then return her to Afghanistan to live as a woman under the Taliban.
-- | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Andy as we discussed Harry will begin contacting the Hedge Funds. Caroline
Abramo is starting to push the CTA's (for LME metals) and hedge funds
(metals, energy etc) through the credit hurdles and legal. Mark, you have
visited this one before any comments?
---------------------- Forwarded by Bob Shults/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000 10:17 AM
---------------------------
From: Harry Bucalo
12/12/2000 10:02 AM
To: Bob Shults/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daniel Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Hedge Fund and CTA list
---------------------- Forwarded by Harry Bucalo/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000 10:02
AM ---------------------------
Cai Palmer@MGUSA
12/11/2000 09:16 AM
To: Harry Bucalo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Craig Young/NY/ECT@ECT
cc: Daniel Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Per Sekse/NY/ECT@ECT, TJ
Pimpinelli/NYC/MGUSA@MGUSA, Paul Radous/Corp/Enron@ENRON, William S
Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Trena McFarland/NA/Enron@Enron, Vikas
Dwivedi/NA/Enron@Enron, Fred Lagrasta/HOU/ECT@ECT, Caroline
Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject:
Harry,
Further to our conversation last week, I have listed below, in two segments,
the top CTAs who presently manage more than $100mill each, and the top Hedge
Funds, based upon their likelihood to manage assets in diversified markets,
that may include tangible commodities. My understanding of EOL is that it
presently caters primarily to this latter group and offers only tangible
commodity trading instruments.
As I explained, the principle difference between a Hedge Fund and a CTA
(Commodity Trading Advisor), is the manner in which they control the assets
that they are contracted to manage. In the case of a CTA, the money can not
be held by the CTA itself. The underlying investor will open a clearing
account with a respective Clearing House, the assets will remain in this
account and the CTA will trade based on the full monetary value of that
account - in many cases an investor may well fund this account with Notional
Funding. NF are 'abstract funds' not actually deposited at the Clearing
House, but acknowledged as being available should variation or original
margin be required. The CTA has no control over these funds. All monetary
transactions must be executed by the Clearing House, and must be authorized
by the investor. The CTA does have the ability to execute trades at an other
trading house - such as Enron, through a contractual document called an
International Uniform Give-Up Agreement. We have quite a few hundred of these
agreements in NY. Essentially, all parties involved in the execution of a
trade - the CTA, the Investor, the Executing Broker and the Clearing House,
agree to allow the CTA to trade wherever he/she wishes and Give-Up that trade
to the Investor's Clearing House. Since every regulated trade must ultimately
clear the respective exchange, for a CTA to trade OTC and Swap agreements,
would require prior notification to an investor that his/her money may be
required as collateral against such a trade, and would be required to be
deposited at Enron. A Hedge Fund has greater flexibility to trade such
instruments since in the majority of instances a Hedge Fund does exert
control over the funds it manages. A Hedge Fund typically structures its
investment vehicles as Off-Shore limited partnership funds. As such the Hedge
fund has direct control over the underlying assets and can move those assets
to wherever they may be required - if investing via Enron On-Line, it would
move the assets to Enron, for example.
This first list, below, is comprised of the top flight CTAs :
The following list is of Hedge Funds that I believe are trading Commodities
and other non-security investments. It is by no means complete ! :
I would be happy to make any introductions that I can to any of the above
names. Some we know well, others we may have to network ourselves into.
Caroline and I met a few weeks ago and I passed some names on to her - I am
not sure where that has got to yet, but if you need any further information
please call me.
Regards
Cai
Enron Trading Services Inc
520 Madison Ave., 28th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212.715.5248
Fax: 212.715.2360
E-Mail: [email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Yan,
The merged reports look great. I believe the only orientation changes are to
"unmerge" the following six reports:
31 Keystone Receipts
15 Questar Pipeline
40 Rockies Production
22 West_2
23 West_3
25 CIG_WIC
The orientation of the individual reports should be correct. Thanks.
Mat
PS. Just a reminder to add the "*" by the title of calculated points. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I think there should be a Master Swap Agreement in place between ECT and EI.
I suggest you check in Lotus Notes but I'm pretty sure Lisa did one about a
year ago.
mark
Yao Apasu
01/26/99 09:05 PM
To: Heather J Mitchell AT ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@CCMAIL @ ENRON
cc: Alan B Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark - ECT Legal Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Umbrella agreements between EI and ECT
Hi Heather,
There is no umbrella agreement between EI and ECT at present. We will need
(i) an ISDA Master Agreement and (ii) depending on the risk assessment of
the transaction by ECT's Credit Group and the benefit allocation of such
transaction, a risk allocation/assumption agreement, in each case, between
the parties. I have left a message for Tanya Rohauer of the Credit Group and
will keep you posted.
Yao | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
We have been pulling together these weekly(sometimes more often) summaries
for internal purposes. Would you find it helpful to be on the distribution
list? Hope you are doing well. Look forward to touching base soon.
----- Forwarded by Suzanne Nimocks/HOU/NorthAmerica/MCKINSEY on 03/28/2001
03:41 AM -----
Memorandum
TO: Pru Sheppard
BCC: Suzanne Nimocks
FROM: Pru Sheppard
B. Venki Venkateshwara
DATE: March 27, 2001
California Power Crisis Update (No. 10)
DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK, 3/23/2001
The weeks highlights include:
? Continued indications that the issue of market power and possible
remedies for it is likely to remain a high profile issue in
California and elsewhere (both retroactively and prospectively)
? An ironical situation with respect to QFs in which QF power under
contract is effectively being released into the market at higher
prices
? A court order requiring Reliant to continue to sell power to the
ISO even if it is not being paid in a full and timely manner
? Another Stage 3 emergency and rolling blackouts
Market power
There are continued indications that the issue of market power
will not be settled simply. This week there was a lengthy and
politically influential front page story in the New York Times about
FERCs passive approach to policing generators (Critics Say U.S.
Energy Agency Is Weak in Oversight of Utilities). The story was by
Jeff Gerth and Joseph Kahn. (Jeff Gerth's 1992 story on the
Whitewater deal is viewed by journalists to have been the origin of
what eventually became a multi-year investigation of Bill Clinton.)
The key issues are familiar:
? Does market power exist to a degree that warrants remedies such
as price caps, refunds, and so on?
? If so, what is the basis for asserting that market power exists
and what is the remedy? (See the discussion in the New York Times
article on the "good hours" vs. "bad hours" approach and the
associated political decision not to deal with "good hours").
? Can market power be used as leverage to eventually settle
generator bills in California at something less than 100 cents on the
dollar. (The California ISO filed a complaint claiming $6 billion
in overcharges this week.)
The QF irony
Through the 1990s, QF contracts were projected to be the source
of stranded costs because they were priced "way above market." In
recent months, in California, they look like a bargain (although some
are not such great bargains because a portion of their price is tied
to gas). You would think that the utilities would request QFs to
maximize their output. But credit problems have created an ironical
situation. The facts:
? PG&E and Edison have not been paying the QFs fully and promptly
for some time.
? The QFs form a creditors committee and threaten to push PG&E and
Edison into bankruptcy. (Some gas-fired QFs had to shut down because
they did not have money to pay for the gas.)
? Last week's court decision allows MidAmerican/CalEnergy to
essentially sell its power to others even though the QF contract
"dedicates" the output to the purchasing utility.
? CalEnergy does so immediately, selling to El Paso.
The Reliant Order
A court ordered Reliant to continue to sell to the ISO, when
requested, regardless of whether Reliant had been paid fully and
promptly for past deliveries to the ISO. Reliant announced it will
appeal the order.
This is somewhat of a contrast to the QF situation except that
the circumstances governing the 2 situations are probably different.
The QF contracts pre-date the ISO and are with the utilities and most
likely make no reference to providing power during emergencies. In
fact, many QF contracts have the opposite provision: authority for
the utility to cut takes during so-called "light load" periods.
Stage 3 emergency and rolling blackouts--again
There was another Stage 3 emergency in California ? with rolling
blackouts this week. This prompted everyone to wonder why this was
happening in March. Among the factors:
? Increased demand from summer-like temperatures
? Cutbacks in imports
? Loss of 1400 MW due to a transformer fire at an Edison plant
? Loss of about 3100 MW from QF plants that were forced to shutdown
because they could not afford gas bills (VV)
MARKET COMMENTARY
(For easier printing of all the articles in this section use the file
at the end of the section)
Critics Say U.S. Energy Agency Is Weak in Oversight of Utilities
By JEFF GERTH and JOSEPH KAHN
03/23/2001
The New York Times
Page 1, Column 1
c. 2001 New York Times Company
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The pressure was intense when federal
regulators met
privately last month to debate remedies for soaring electricity
prices in
California.
Officials of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency
whose mandate
is to ensure ''just and reasonable'' electricity rates nationwide,
had evidence
that a few companies had been selling electricity to California at
prices far
above the cost of generating it. The agency faced an imminent
deadline to
challenge those prices or let the companies possibly pocket hundreds
of millions
of dollars in unfair profits.
An internal memorandum laid out two choices. The agency could audit
and punish
''bad actors,'' the companies that were exploiting the market. Or it
could
identify ''bad hours,'' when electricity shortages were most acute
and spiking
prices were arguably nobody's fault, and order refunds for only the
most
exorbitant prices.
''It may be easier to identify bad hours than bad actors,'' the
memorandum said.
The commission took the easier way. It decided not to investigate
reports of
abuses by companies, but issued an order that could require them to
refund to
the state utilities up to $124 million collected during a relatively
few ''bad
hours'' in January and February. That is hundreds of millions of
dollars less
than California might have claimed, since the most potential
overcharging
occurred during ''good hours,'' when power was more plentiful but
prices were
often just as extreme. The order ignored those hours.
Today, in a criticism of the agency's lack of aggressiveness,
California
regulators estimated that generators had charged $6.2 billion above
competitive
levels over 10 months. They urged the agency to dig deeper, hoping it
would
demand more refunds or other stiff remedies. But the agency's track
record --
one of complacency in the eyes of state officials -- leaves
California
regulators skeptical that Washington will confront the big power
producers.
The small, obscure agency, tucked behind the rail yard of Union
Station here,
has largely soft-pedaled its role as the electricity industry's top
cop, even
though it has wide authority to keep power companies in line. To keep
rates
reasonable, it can impose price caps, strip companies of the right to
charge
market rates, force them to return excessive profits and even suspend
deregulation altogether.
Instead, the agency has largely left it to private companies to pry
open the
$250 billion electricity industry, which has historically been
controlled by
monopoly utilities and state officials. The agency's defenders,
including its
chairman, Curt Hebert Jr., a fierce advocate of unfettered markets,
say that its
largely hands-off approach reflects the delicate balancing of
competing
interests -- a commitment to protect consumers while not stifling
market forces.
But politicians, utility executives, energy economists and local
regulators say
California's rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electricity prices
are the signs
of a market running amok. They accuse the agency of standing aside as
companies
manipulate their way to windfall profits. The agency's critics, who
include one
of its own commissioners and numerous staff members, say that its
enforcement
mission has been blunted by free-market passions and the influence of
industry
insiders in its ranks.
When the agency began its first national investigation of high
electricity
prices last year, it named a newly recruited industry insider, Scott
Miller, to
lead the effort. Mr. Miller and his colleagues said in their report
that there
was ''insufficient data'' in California to prove any profiteering by
generating
companies. Yet his own former employer, PG&E Energy Trading, was at
the time a
subject of a civil antitrust investigation by the Justice Department
that
focused on electricity market abuses in New England.
The agency has given state regulators a lead role in monitoring local
power
markets. Yet even as these regulators have urged the agency to be
more
aggressive in investigating suspicions that companies have abused
their power in
California, New England, the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic, they have
frequently
been ignored or rebuffed.
Critics say that the agency began deregulation before it was ready or
willing to
make sure the markets worked effectively. They accuse it of showing
favoritism
to industry -- allowing companies, for example, to ignore
requirements to file
detailed reports of market transactions that are critical to proving
accusations
of market abuses.
''We need to wake up to the fact that this is a dysfunctional market
that is
being gamed and manipulated by those who participate in it,'' said
William
Massey, a commissioner of the agency who has become one of its
leading critics.
The agency's inaction, the critics say, leads to ''gaming'' --
jockeying for
profits that does not necessarily involve illegality -- and outright
market
manipulation. Consumers and utilities are the victims, paying
billions of
dollars more for electricity than if the markets were truly
competitive.
Agency officials acknowledge that enforcement of market rules to curb
gaming and
manipulation had not been a high priority in previous years. But they
defended
their recent California order as proof that they intend to keep
markets free of
abuse. They add that the agency is also pressuring two generators to
refund
almost $11 million for possibly manipulating the California market
last spring.
Agency officials and some outside analysts say that poorly conceived
deregulation plans by states, a shortage of power plants, rising
natural gas
prices, and even the weather have had more impact on electricity
prices than
abuses by companies or any failings by the agency. They say the
agency must
balance the competing interests of generators, local regulators and
utility
companies if it is to keep deregulation on track.
''We're trying to craft a system that gives breathing room to develop
a market,
but not so much room that undue market power punishes consumers,''
Mr. Hebert
said.
Fight Over Deregulation
Today's debate traces back to the 1930's, when President Franklin D.
Roosevelt
backed legislation to break up utility monopolies. The Federal Power
Act of 1935
gave the Federal Power Commission a mandate to ensure ''just and
reasonable''
electricity rates. The Federal Power Commission was abolished in 1977
and
replaced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent
agency with
1,200 employees that also oversees oil pipelines and the natural gas
market. The
president appoints the chairman and four commissioners -- two
Democrats and two
Republicans with staggered terms of five years. Two Republican seats
are
currently unfilled.
The deregulation of the electricity markets began in the late 1980's,
after the
agency had begun opening the gas markets. By 1996, the commissioners
issued a
landmark order that forced utility companies to open their
transmission lines to
other utilities and electricity wholesalers. The commission and many
private
economists expected that by prying open protected markets,
electricity prices
would immediately fall.
That possibility set off a deregulation frenzy, most prominently in
California,
New York, New England and the mid-Atlantic states. Generating
companies rushed
to expand in the new, borderless market.
But the agency's balancing act has grown more difficult as
electricity
deregulation has spread nationwide. Congress has forced it to trim
its staff in
recent years. Officials complain that investigating abuses in
electricity
markets strains their resources.
And as the California crisis has worsened, the commissioners have
begun sparring
publicly among themselves about what to do. This week, Mr. Massey, a
Democratic
commissioner, and Mr. Hebert (pronounced AY-bear), a Republican, sat
side by
side before a House panel and argued diametrically opposed positions.
Mr. Hebert
said high prices in California ''were sending the right signals to
get supply
there.'' Mr. Massey called the prices that generators were charging
''unlawful''
and said that his agency, by not reining them in, ''is simply not
doing its
job.''
The agency's leadership has been in flux for months. Congressional
and industry
officials in Washington say President Bush is considering replacing
Mr. Hebert,
whom he named to the top post less than two months ago, with Pat
Wood, who runs
the Texas public utility commission. A White House spokeswoman had no
comment on
the reports.
Though Mr. Hebert's positions are not far from those of the Bush
administration,
his relations with California leaders may have made his position
tenuous. Mr.
Hebert, a Mississippian who is a close ally of the Senate majority
leader, Trent
Lott, has warred with California politicians who have proposed new
solutions to
the crisis there.
Mr. Hebert, who has served as a commissioner since 1997, has often
taken the
most ideologically free-market position of any commissioner. He
flatly rejects
the idea of price caps on electricity as hopelessly ineffective and
contrary to
market forces. When Gov. Gray Davis outlined a plan to have the state
buy
transmission lines to relieve utility companies' debt, Mr. Hebert's
response was
dismissive. ''It's not in the interest of the American public,'' he
pronounced.
Even as new electricity markets opened in the summer of 1999, they
started
producing nasty shocks. The mid-Atlantic region experienced some
early
volatility.
As the turmoil grew, economists began raising the alarm about a
phenomenon
called ''market power,'' the ability of energy traders in the new
national
market to sustain prices above the competitive level. Proving such
abuses is
difficult, because it requires comparing tens of thousands of
separate
electricity transactions with the costs of the generators that
initiated them.
Joseph Bowring, who heads the market monitoring unit of the nonprofit
entity
that operates the mid-Atlantic transmission system, said that power
companies
there had exercised some market power. But only the Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission, not local regulators, had the authority to collect the
data to
determine how much market power had been exercised and whether it had
been
abusive or not, he said.
Mr. Bowring said he talked to agency officials about doing so. In the
end, Mr.
Bowring and several agency officials said, the agency chose not to
investigate.
The decision roiled some agency officials.
Ron Rattey, a veteran agency economist, wrote a memorandum last June
describing
the staff as ''impotent in our ability to monitor, foster, and ensure
competitive electric power markets.'' The staff, the memorandum said,
did not
even enforce a requirement that power companies file detailed
quarterly reports
listing essentially every sale they make. Such data would have been
useful to
Mr. Bowring.
Local-Federal Clash
Local regulators who want to ensure competitive prices often have to
act on
their own. Monitors in New England have intervened about 600 times
since 1999 to
correct prices they determined had been caused, at least in part, by
market
manipulation.
The federal agency has sometimes chastised them for interfering too
much.
The industry, not surprisingly, shares that view. One vocal critic
was Mr.
Miller. Before the agency recruited him last July to head its
division of energy
markets, he was director of policy coordination for the national
energy-trading
unit of PG&E Corporation, the California holding company whose assets
also
include Pacific Gas and Electric, the California utility.
Although the utility has lost billions of dollars during California's
crisis,
Mr. Miller's former unit has become one of the most profitable new
energy
traders nationwide. PG&E Energy Trading, by several estimates, is now
the
second-largest seller of electricity in New England.
The company has had a rocky relationship with regulators. They
intervened
several times in 1999 and 2000 to retroactively cancel auctions they
said
produced excessive profits for PG&E and other companies. Mr. Miller
denounced
the practice, though he acknowledged in public testimony that his
company
sometimes charged ''very high'' prices when it could.
''One person's predatory pricing is another person's competitive
advantage,''
Mr. Miller said at a public hearing on deregulation in Texas in 1999.
New
England regulators too often acted as ''judge, jury and executioner''
when
overseeing the market, he said.
One year later, Mr. Miller and his new colleagues at the federal
agency got a
chance to examine New England's problems from the regulators'
perspective. Their
Nov. 1 report attributed New England's frequent price gyrations to
technical and
regulatory flaws.
As Mr. Miller's team was preparing its report, the Justice
Department, whose
threshold for stepping into possible industry wrongdoing is far
higher than the
agency's, began looking into whether price spikes in New England
pointed to
unlawful monopoly power or collusion, people contacted by the
department during
that inquiry said.
One subject of the civil inquiry is possible price manipulation in
one of New
England's ancillary services markets, people contacted by the
department said.
They said the department was examining whether PG&E and two other
companies
tried to corner that market for several months early last year. PG&E
confirmed
that the Justice Department had contacted it, but denies wrongdoing
and says it
has cooperated with the department's requests.
Mr. Miller has declined to comment on his role at PG&E or at the
agency. His
supervisors defended his work and said they had detected no conflict
of interest
between his work at PG&E and his duties at the agency.
Those duties brought Mr. Miller to California last August. With
electricity
prices there soaring, he and his colleagues sat down with several
utility
executives at the agency's San Francisco office.
One executive, Gary Stern, director of market monitoring for Southern
California
Edison, wanted the agency to stop what he suspected were market
abuses by power
generators. He provided a road map to help investigators figure out
how power
companies traded power contracts -- and whether they had manipulated
the
markets.
But when Mr. Miller and his team approached 11 generators and
marketers --
including his old employer -- a few weeks later, they did it their
way. They
asked eight questions, many of them imprecise, like: ''Describe your
strategy
for bidding generation resources into market.''
This question, Mr. Stern said in a recent interview, ''was equivalent
to asking
a suspected burglar how he spent his day.''
Some agency officials also thought the team should probe deeper. Mr.
Rattey
recommended that Mr. Miller seek the quarterly pricing reports that
marketers
were supposed to file. But his suggestion was not adopted, agency
records show.
Daniel Larcamp, Mr. Miller's supervisor, said ''there might have been
more
information that could have been obtained'' in the California
inquiry. But he
said the commission gave the staff only three months to finish,
making it
impossible to collect and analyze the reams of data involved.
For Mr. Miller, agency documents show, the investigation was so
time-consuming
that he had no time to fill out the financial disclosure form
required of new
federal employees. Mr. Miller submitted his form in late January,
after a
reporter requested it. Agency lawyers approved the form, but only
after he
provided additional information about his job and compensation from
PG&E. The
lawyers said Mr. Miller's participation had been permissible because
PG&E was
not the subject of the investigation.
When the staff report was issued on Nov. 1, it found high prices and
problems in
the design of the California market. But while the companies ''had
the potential
to exercise market power,'' the commission said, there was
''insufficient data''
to prove that they did.
Some marketers saw the report as an exoneration.
''This has been looked at several times, most notably by the FERC and
nobody has
found any evidence of market manipulation and profiteering,'' Rob
Doty, the
chief financial officer of Dynegy Inc., told a reporter earlier this
year.
California Inquiry
The agency has recently shown signs of wanting to apply pressure on
generators.
But its early efforts show how it is treading on new and uncertain
turf.
When the California crisis grew severe last December, the commission
issued a
refund order, a shot across the bow for generators charging high
prices. It
required them to submit detailed data any time they sold electricity
in
California for more than $150 per megawatt hour, considered at the
time a fair
estimate of the highest costs any of them faced.
It also told generators that for the next several months, they could
be forced
to give refunds if the agency found that they had charged excessive
prices. The
commission also said that it would examine bidding practices and
strategies for
withholding generating capacity to ferret out any efforts to
artificially raise
prices.
When the agency's own 60-day deadline for examining market data in
January
approached, however, it became clear that staff members had not made
any
detailed examination. Instead, staff members said, the agency
scrambled to forge
a last-minute compromise that would allow it to issue a statement
opposing high
prices in the state without a time-consuming investigation.
During this scramble, a senior staff member, Kevin Kelly, suggested
focusing on
bad hours instead of bad actors.
''Our attempts to find illegal behavior or legal 'misbehavior' by
sellers ('bad
actors') always seems to fail,'' his memorandum said. It said that
the agency
could more easily blame high prices on acute shortages during the
most critical
hours.
The suggestion won the day. The commission decided to limit its order
to the
hours when California declared a Stage 3 emergency, when supplies are
critically
low.
Mr. Stern of Southern California Edison and several private-sector
economists
have attacked the economic logic of that order. They said that the
commission
has focused on times when prices might be legitimately high. The
bigger worry:
Generators can and often do sustain artificially high prices when
supplies are
not as tight, they say.
Mr. Massey, the Democratic commissioner, dissented from the decision
for those
reasons. Because most high-priced transactions in January and
February did not
occur during bad hours, he argued, the commission effectively chose
to bless as
''just and reasonable'' the hefty profits generators are making from
the
California crisis.
''The problem with my agency is that we're so carried away with the
rhetoric of
markets that we've gotten sloppy,'' Mr. Massey said. ''We're talking
about
electricity. It's the juice of the economy, so it's got to be
available and
reasonably priced.''
Williams defends pricing of electricity
03/23/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
TULSA, Okla. (AP) - Williams Cos. Inc. says it can justify the rates
it charged
for wholesale power, despite accusations from federal regulators that
it sold
over-priced electricity to California.
Federal regulators claim Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Co., a
unit of
Tulsa-based Williams, owes California more than $40 million in
refunds for power
it sold to the state's Independent System Operator.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says that Williams is one of
several
power providers responsible for $124 million in overcharges from
transactions in
January and February.
The Independent System Operator, which manages the state's power
grid, claims
the state was overcharged $6.2 billion by 21 wholesale power
providers,
including Williams, between May and February.
Williams says the rates it charged California were fair and were
based on
production costs and market conditions.
"Williams is confident that it performed within the guidelines
established by
the ISO," said Williams spokeswoman Paula Hall Collins. "We felt like
we had
worked within the regulations set up by ISO."
According to the commission, power prices levied by Williams in
January and
February exceeded federal price ceilings based on the cost of natural
gas and
other market conditions.
However, the price ceilings were established after the ISO accepted
Williams'
power prices, Collins said.
The commission will review Williams' explanation and either accept
the
justification or order the company to pay refunds.
Allegheny Energy makes big California connection
03/23/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) - Allegheny Energy Inc. said Thursday it has
agreed to sell
$4.5 billion worth of power to California's electricity-purchasing
agency over
the next 10 years.
The company said the contract call for Allegheny to provide up to
1,000
megawatts that the Hagerstown-based company has secured from western
generating
plants through its new energy trading division, Allegheny Energy
Global Markets
- formerly Merrill Lynch Global Energy Markets.
"This is a win-win for both the state of California and Allegheny
Energy. It
provides a long-term source of fixed-price energy and should help to
stabilize
prices in California," said Michael P. Morrell, president of the
Allegheny
Energy Supply division.
Allegheny Energy is the parent of Allegheny Power, which delivers
electric
energy and natural gas to parts of Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and
West Virginia.
Williams plans expansion of pipeline to help power Calif.
03/23/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The Williams Cos. plans to expands its Kern
River
pipeline, which runs through Utah, to provide more natural gas for
generating
plants in California.
Williams' gas pipeline unit in Salt Lake City said Thursday that it
plans to
construct nearly 700 miles of additional pipeline that will run
parallel to its
existing Kern River line.
Construction on the $1 billion project is expected to begin next year
and is
scheduled for completion in May 2003, said Kirk Morgan, director of
business
development for Kern River pipeline.
"Shippers are seeking more access to natural gas from the Rocky
Mountain basin,
where producers are aggressively stepping up production," Morgan
said.
The new pipeline is expected to deliver about 900 million cubic feet
of natural
gas per day to markets in Utah, Nevada and California.
Most of the gas will be used for generating plants planned in
California. If all
of the pipeline's capacity were used to generate electricity, it
could produce
about 5,400 megawatts. "That is enough to light around 4.5 million
homes,"
Morgan said.
The original Kern River line was completed in 1992. It enters Utah
from Wyoming
then crosses into the Salt Lake Valley near Bountiful. It turns south
near the
Salt Lake City International Airport then runs the length of the
state before
passing into southern Nevada and winding up near Bakersfield, Calif.
It currently transports 700 million cubic feet of natural gas per
day. Williams,
based in Tulsa, Okla., recently filed an emergency application with
federal
regulators to install additional pumping stations on the line to
increase its
capacity by 135 million cubic feet per day. That $81 million pumping
station
project should be completed by July 1.
During the 2002 construction period, the Kern River project will
employ between
1,500 and 1,800 people. The company estimates annual property taxes
it pays to
Utah counties will increase from $3.5 million to about $7 million.
Questar will be one of the customers on the new pipeline, Morgan
said.
The utility wants to supply additional gas to southern Utah cities,
including
St. George and Cedar City.
"Our own pipelines serving southern Utah are at full capacity so this
is an
opportunity to transport additional gas into those areas from
company-owned
supplies in Wyoming," said Questar Gas spokeswoman Audra Sorensen.
Calif Energy Commission OKs 3 Pwr Plants Worth 2,076 MW
03/23/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
(This article was originally published Thursday)
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- The California Energy Commission Wednesday
approved
three power plants worth 2,076 megawatts, two of which are scheduled
to come on
line by the end of 2002, a CEC spokesman said Thursday.
The plants approved include BP Amoco PLC (BP) unit ARCO Western
Energy's 500
megawatt Western Midway Sunset Project, slated to come on line in
October 2002;
Caithness Energy's 520 MW Blythe Power Plant, to come on line by Dec.
31, 2002;
and Thermo Ecotek's 1,056 MW Mountainview Power Plant, scheduled to
come on line
in April 2003.
All three of the new plants will be natural gas-fired combined-cycle
plants.
The $550 million Mountainview plant will be located in Southern
California, near
San Bernadino. The $300 million Western Midway-Sunset plant will be
located in
central Kern County, while the $250 million Blythe plant will be
located in the
city of Blythe in Riverside County.
The latest approvals bring to 13 the total number of plants approved
since April
1999 by the CEC, a spokesman said. Those plants will supply 8,405 MW
to the
state, which has seen rolling blackouts and spiking wholesale power
prices in
the last six months, in part due to lack of supply.
-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872;
[email protected]
Some CalEnergy Power Could Be Sold Outside Calif - CEO
03/23/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
(This article was originally published Thursday)
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Some of CalEnergy Operating Corp's power
could end up
being sold outside of California, though that is not the company's
intent,
CalEnergy Chairman and CEO David Sokol said in a conference call
Thursday.
CalEnergy, an affiliate of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co, which is
majority
owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire-Hathaway (BRKA), was given legal
authority
Thursday to suspend 270 megawatts of power delivery to Edison
International
(EIX) utility Southern California Edison and sell on the open market,
because
SoCal Edison has not paid its bills since November.
CalEnergy stopped supplying power to SoCal Ed immediately following
the court
ruling.
"We stopped supplying power at 1 PM (PST) and have been selling to
parties that
will pay since then....We are selling it to marketers; our current
marketing
agent is El Paso Corp (EPG) and they will sell it for us," Sokol
said.
Sokol added that while it was his company's intention to have its
power sold to
California, that could not be guaranteed.
"We leave the energy selling to El Paso....We've directed them that
we would
like the power to stay in California but we can't stop them," from
selling out
of state, Sokol said.
Wholesale prices on the open market are about $400-$500 a
megawatt-hour, three
times more than what the company had received under its contract with
SoCal Ed.
The court's ruling did not address the $45 million SoCal Ed still
owes CalEnergy
for November and December power, and Sokol said that his company's
separate
lawsuit on that matter sought to attach the utility's assets as
payment for that
debt.
Sokol said the court's ruling had "significant implications" for the
entire
community of small, independent generators, known as qualifying
facilities or
QFs, who have not received payment from SoCal Ed.
"Edison's own lawyer said it best....that every QF in the state will
begin to
mitigate if the judge allowed us (to sell on the open market)," Sokol
said.
Sokol said his company was prepared to push SoCal Ed into involuntary
bankruptcy
Friday if CalEnergy hadn't won the case, but said he couldn't
speculate whether
other QFs may be more or less inclined to do so as a result of the
court
outcome.
A group of renewable power suppliers, owed more than $100 million
from SoCal Ed,
said late Wednesday they want state lawmakers to release them for
their supply
contracts with PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric and SoCal
Ed until
the utilities are restored to financial stability.
The utilities claim close to $13 billion in undercollections due to
an inability
to pass high wholesale power costs to customers under a rate freeze.
In a statement, SoCal Ed said it opposed CalEnergy's bid to suspend
its QF
contract because the utility believed Gov. Gray Davis and state
regulators are
close to resolving "very legitimate financial concerns of CalEnergy
and other QF
suppliers."
SoCal Ed said it was concerned that CalEnergy's request to sell to
third parties
would lead to a major supply shortage in California.
The utility said it has informed the QFs that it is working to
resolve the issue
without giving unfair advantage to one class of creditors.
While many of the state's large power suppliers have been paid by on
a forward
basis for the power they sell into California, the QFs, which make up
one-third
of the state's total power supply, haven't been paid by SoCal Ed
since November.
PG&E has made partial payments to its QFs.
-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872,
[email protected]
(Jason Leopold contributed to this article.)
California and the West Judge Frees Small Firm From Edison Contract
KEN ELLINGWOOD; DAN MORAIN
TIMES STAFF WRITERS
03/23/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
A-3
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
El CENTRO -- California's balance of electrical power shifted
slightly Thursday
when an Imperial County judge temporarily freed a small geothermal
energy
producer from its contract with Southern California Edison, allowing
it to sell
power on the open market.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Donal B. Donnelly could lead to a
mass exodus
by hundreds of small energy producers that have been selling power to
the
state's financially troubled utilities for months without getting
paid.
At the same time, it may have staved off plans by a group of the
small
generators to send Edison into involuntary bankruptcy as early as
today.
In Sacramento, energy legislation pushed by Gov. Gray Davis passed in
the state
Senate but foundered in the Assembly. The measure was intended to
ensure that
the state gets repaid for the electricity that it has been buying on
behalf of
Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric, which say they lack the cash and
credit to
purchase power. The bill also was supposed to guarantee that the
small,
alternative energy producers--which together provide nearly a third
of the
state's power--get paid. But Assembly Republicans opposed it, saying
it hadn't
been given sufficient scrutiny.
The impact of the small producers was made clear in Imperial County,
where
Edison's failure to pay CalEnergy, the county's biggest property
taxpayer, had
outsize implications. CalEnergy had put county officials on notice
that it was
about to miss a $3.8-million property tax payment. The uncertainty
had prompted
the tiny Calipatria Unified School District to postpone a bond issue
for badly
needed school repairs.
Among CalEnergy Chairman David Sokol's first acts after the judge's
ruling
Thursday was to promise Imperial County Supervisor Wally J.
Leimgruber that the
company would pay its property taxes on time.
"That is great news," Leimgruber said.
Within hours of its court victory, CalEnergy had stopped transmitting
geothermal
power to Edison and begun selling it to El Paso Energy, a marketing
company that
purchased the energy at prevailing rates and resold it on the spot
market.
Some of the more than 700 other small energy producers in the state
said they
were considering similar action against Edison and Pacific Gas &
Electric.
"We absolutely need the right to sell to third parties," said Dean
Vanech,
president of Delta Power, a New Jersey company that owns five small
gas-fired
plants in California and is owed tens of millions of dollars by
Edison.
Sokol praised the Imperial County judge and said his company simply
wanted the
authority to sell its power "to a credit-worthy company that, in
fact, pays for
the power."
An Edison spokesman said the company was disappointed with the
ruling, but
sympathized with CalEnergy and other small producers because
"California's power
crisis has placed [them] in financial distress, just as it has placed
utilities
in financial distress."
Edison expressed concern that the ruling would prompt CalEnergy and
other small
producers to sell their power out of state. Sokol said CalEnergy had
specifically told El Paso Energy that it hoped its power would remain
in
California, "but if someone wants to pay a higher price out of state,
we can't
stop them."
Sokol said that Edison still owes CalEnergy $140 million and that the
company--along with seven other small producers--had been prepared to
file a
petition in federal bankruptcy court in Los Angeles today forcing the
utility
into involuntary bankruptcy. He said his company no longer intends to
do so, and
he believed--but wasn't certain--that the other companies would
shelve their
plans.
Edison filed papers Thursday with the federal Securities and Exchange
Commission
showing that it owed $840 million to various small electricity
producers, many
of which rely on renewable energy sources such as geothermal steam,
solar energy
or wind.
The alternative energy producers--and utilities--strenuously objected
to the
legislation considered in Sacramento on Thursday. The bill, spelling
out how the
utilities are to pay the state and the small producers, passed the
Senate on a
27-9 vote, the exact two-thirds margin required. But it stalled in
the Assembly
on a 46-23 party-line vote, well short of two-thirds.
"When I was a citizen back in Lancaster, I heard these stories about
pieces of
legislation that were cooked up late at night, that . . . were cut
and pasted
together and were rammed through by the Legislature," Assemblyman
George Runner
(R-Lancaster) said. "That's exactly what we have before us."
The alternative electricity generators, including oil companies,
warned that
they would lose money under the Davis proposal, while representatives
of Edison
and PG&E, which have amassed billions in debt in the worsening energy
crisis,
said the legislation would push them deeper into the hole.
"There isn't enough money," Edison attorney Ann Cohn testified at a
Senate
hearing on the bill Thursday. "It is a very simple question: Dollars
going out
cannot be greater than dollars coming in."
The bill, AB 8X, combined several proposals. First, it sought to
clarify earlier
legislation by spelling out that Edison and PG&E must pay the state
all money
collected from consumers for electricity that the state has been
buying.
Additionally, the bill would turn over to the California Public
Utilities
Commission the thorny issue of how much to pay alternative energy
producers for
their electricity.
Wind, solar and geothermal producers might agree to the prices
offered by the
administration. But most of the alternative energy producers,
including Chevron
and British Petroleum, use natural gas to generate electricity
through
"cogeneration," a process of creating steam for both electric
generation and
heat. With natural gas prices high, they contend, they would lose
money at the
prices Davis is offering.
*
Ellingwood reported from El Centro, Morain from Sacramento. Times
staff writers
Mitchell Landsberg in Los Angeles and Jenifer Warren, Nancy Vogel and
Carl
Ingram in Sacramento contributed to this story.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Power Points
Background
The state Legislature approved electricity deregulation with a
unanimous vote in
1996. The move was expected to lower power bills in California by
opening up the
energy market to competition. Relatively few companies, however,
entered that
market to sell electricity, giving each that did considerable
influence over the
price. Meanwhile, demand has increased in recent years while no major
power
plants have been built. These factors combined last year to push up
the
wholesale cost of electricity. But the state's biggest
utilities--Pacific Gas &
Electric and Southern California Edison--are barred from increasing
consumer
rates. So the utilities have accumulated billions of dollars in debt
and,
despite help from the state, have struggled to buy enough
electricity.
*
Daily Developments
* Overcharges by major electricity suppliers were estimated at $6.3
billion, up
from the $5.5 billion first thought, California's power grid operator
said.
* Electricity producers denied that they have profiteered and argued
that
Cal-ISO's figures don't take into account all their costs.
* A Superior Court judge's ruling Thursday freeing a small producer
from its
contract with Edison could lead to a mass exodus by small energy
producers that
have been selling to the utilities without getting paid.
*
Verbatim
"If these guys have such high costs ... how come they're making so
much money?"
--Gary Stern, Edison's director of market monitoring and analysis,
referring to
power producers
Complete package and updates at www.latimes.com/power
Grid Operator Says California Paid Too Much for Power
By Rebecca Smith and John R. Emshwiller
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
03/23/2001
The Wall Street Journal
A2
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
California's electric-grid operator said power suppliers may have
overcharged
the state and its utilities by $6.2 billion, or a total of 30%, in a
10-month
period, and has asked federal regulators to step up their policing of
electricity markets.
Meanwhile, a California state judge handed down a decision involving
small power
producers that could result in more electricity being made available
in the
energy-starved state, but likely at greater cost to the state
government.
The $6.2 billion figure was contained in a market analysis by the
California
Independent System Operator filed yesterday with the Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission. The ISO says it isn't seeking a refund -- for the May
through
February period -- because its analysis lacked important market data.
For example, it estimated costs for 21 suppliers based on published
prices for
natural gas, not on specific data showing what each generator
actually paid for
the fuel. "We don't know how much gas actually was purchased at
spot-market
prices," said Anjali Sheffrin, the ISO's head of market analysis.
Charles Robinson, general counsel for the ISO, said FERC needs to
become "more
aggressive about market-power mitigation." The ISO's filing, he said,
was
intended to push the agency in that direction, since FERC is
responsible for
policing deregulated electricity and natural-gas markets.
He said that if the FERC doesn't act, the state of California may
find ways to
discipline the market, such as through the state attorney general's
office. The
attorney general has been investigating the state's electricity
market for many
months but hasn't brought any court action.
Dynegy Inc., a big owner of power plants in California, said it will
provide
additional information to FERC supporting its position that the
prices it has
charged for power have been "just and reasonable." The Houston
company was one
of 13 energy suppliers that the FERC this month ordered to pay
refunds totaling
$124 million or "show cause" why it should be excused. Dynegy said
the FERC
analysis was flawed, because it used "inaccurate" prices for natural
gas and
pollution credits.
While big power producers such as Dynegy came under attack, small
power
producers won a potentially significant victory in a state court in
Southern
California's Imperial County. A judge granted 10 geothermal plants
operated by
the CalEnergy Co. unit of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a unit of
Berkshire
Hathaway Inc., of Omaha, Neb., permission to suspend deliveries of
electricity
to Southern California Edison Co. and instead seek other buyers.
These plants, known as "qualifying facilities," are under long-term
contract to
Edison and other utilities but haven't been paid for months. Edison,
a unit of
Edison International, of Rosemead, Calif., says it has been unable to
pay
hundreds of millions of dollars in power bills to CalEnergy and
others because
it has been driven to the brink of insolvency by the state's failed
utility-deregulation plan.
While the CalEnergy case involves only about 320 megawatts of power,
the
repercussions could be far greater. Collectively, hundreds of
qualifying
facilities, or QFs, produce as much as 30% of California's
electricity needs.
QFs totaling 3,000 megawatts cut their production in recent weeks for
lack of
payment. This loss of output was a significant cause of the blackouts
that hit
California this week.
Observers believe the CalEnergy court decision could give other QFs
an
opportunity to sell power in the open market, presumably to the state
government
that now is California's biggest energy buyer. An hour after the
court decision
yesterday, some 400 megawatts of power came back into the market, the
ISO said.
However, additional QF power sales on the open market could
substantially
increase the state's tab. Already, the state has allocated more than
$4 billion
for electricity purchases.
Separately, Edison said in a Securities and Exchange Commission
filing that its
unpaid power bills could contribute to a write-off of as much as $2.7
billion
for 2000. Because of uncertainty caused by the energy crisis, the
company hasn't
yet reported year-end earnings.
Power regulators debate who should be exempted from blackouts
By KAREN GAUDETTE
Associated Press Writer
03/22/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - State power regulators said Thursday they are
working to
exempt all California hospitals, regardless of size, from rolling
blackouts.
The Public Utilities Commission met with representatives from
hospitals and
investor-owned utilities after Los Angeles lawyer David Huard filed
an emergency
motion with the PUC on behalf of more than 500 hospitals throughout
the state.
Under PUC rules, hospitals with more than 100 beds are exempt from
losing
electricity during power emergencies. But during rolling blackouts
Monday, at
least a dozen hospitals from Long Beach to Clearlake were forced to
use their
backup generators.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison Co. say
they blacked
out those hospitals specifically because they have backup generators.
Both
utilities said the temporary blackouts were part of their overall
efforts to
spread the burden of blackouts over more of their customers.
Linda Ziegler, director of business and regulatory planning for SoCal
Edison,
said the utility is following state law and will implement new
guidelines if the
PUC changes them.
But hospitals say there is a 10-second lapse before emergency
generators kick
in, which could harm patients in the midst of delicate surgical
procedures such
as organ transplants or brain surgery.
"You wouldn't fly a plane with only your emergency backup systems in
place,"
said Ann Mosher, a spokeswoman for California Pacific Medical Center
in San
Francisco. "Backup generators are just that, they're not designed to
keep the
hospital up and running at full capacity."
Ziegler said that power still goes out for reasons beyond the energy
crisis,
from incidents like lightning or a knocked-down power pole.
"If it's a serious problem for the hospital it's certainly something
they should
be address just from an ongoing basis," she said.
The exemption would cover all hospitals within the territory of the
state's
investor owned utilities PG&E, Southern California Edison and San
Diego Gas and
Electric.
Hospitals within the range of municipally owned utilities, such as
the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, are separately regulated.
For more than two decades, prisons, hospitals with more than 100 beds
and
emergency services such as fire and police departments have been
classified as
"essential" services, and are exempted from blackouts by order of
state power
regulators.
After rolling blackouts began darkening the state in January, many
other public
service groups began seeking relief from power interruptions,
including transit
systems, schools and water districts.
---
On the Net:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov
Federal Judge Orders Reliant To Keep Selling Pwr To Calif
03/22/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP)--A federal judge issued a preliminary
injunction
Wednesday ordering a major electricity wholesaler to continue selling
to
California despite its fear that it will not get paid.
U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said Californians were at
risk of
irreparable harm if Reliant Energy (REI) stopped selling power to the
Independent System Operator, which oversees the state's power grid.
The ISO buys
last-minute power on behalf of utilities to fill gaps in supply.
Damrell dismissed Reliant's attempt to force the state Department of
Water
Resources to back the ISO's purchases for the state's two biggest
utilities. The
state has been spending about $50 million a day on power for Pacific
Gas and
Electric Co. and Southern California Edison, both denied credit by
suppliers
after amassing billions of dollars in debts.
The judge said he had no authority to force the DWR to pay for that
power.
Gov. Gray Davis has said the state isn't responsible for purchasing
the costly
last-minute power ISO buys for Edison and PG&E, despite a law
authorizing state
power purchases on the utilities' behalf.
ISO attorney Charles Robinson said the ruling gives ISO operators "a
tool to
assist them in keeping the lights on in California."
"Had the decision gone the other way, one could expect other
generators to
simply ignore emergency orders," Robinson said.
Damrell's preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the
Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission rules on the matter.
Damrell denied the ISO's request for preliminary injunctions against
three other
wholesalers - Dynegy Inc. (DYN), AES Corp. (AES) and Williams Cos.
(WMB) - which
agreed to continue selling to the ISO pending the FERC ruling.
Spokesmen for Reliant, Dynegy, AES and Williams were out of the
office Wednesday
night and didn't immediately return calls from The Associated Press
seeking
comment on the ruling.
The ISO went to court in February after a federal emergency order
requiring the
power sales expired. The judge then issued a temporary restraining
order,
requiring the sales, but dropped it after the suppliers agreed to
continue sales
to California pending his Wednesday ruling.
The ISO said it would lose about 3,600 megawatts if the suppliers
pulled out,
enough power for about 2.7 million households. One megawatt is enough
for
roughly 750 homes.
Grid officials said Reliant's share alone is about 3,000 megawatts.
Reliant said
the amount at issue actually is less than a fourth of that, because
most of its
output is already committed under long-term contracts.
Reliant, which currently provides about 9% of the state's power,
worries it
won't get paid due to the financial troubles of PG&E and Edison. PG&E
and Edison
say that together they have lost about $13 billion since June due to
soaring
wholesale electricity costs that California's 1996 deregulation law
bars them
from passing onto customers.
Calif Small Pwr Producers To Shut Plants If Rates Capped
By Jason Leopold
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
03/22/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Many of California's independent power
producers late
Wednesday threatened to take their small power plants offline this
week if state
lawmakers pass legislation that would cap the rates the generators
charge for
electricity they sell directly to the state's three investor-owned
utilities.
At issue is a bill that would repeal a section of the state's Public
Utilities
Code, which links the 688 so-called qualifying facilities'
electricity rates to
the monthly border price of natural gas.
Lawmakers, however, are poised to pass the legislation.
State regulators are then expected to approve a measure that would
restructure
the fluctuating rates the QFs charge PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific
Gas &
Electric, Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California Edison,
and Sempra
Energy (SRE) unit San Diego Gas & Electric from $170 a megawatt-hour
to
$69-$79/MWh, regardless of the price of natural gas.
Whereas each of the 688 QF contracts differed, largely because
natural gas
prices are higher in Southern California than Northern California,
the state
wants the QFs to sign a general contract with the utilities.
The cogeneration facilities, which produce about 5,400 megawatts of
electricity
in the state, said the rates are too low and they won't sign new
supply
contracts with the utilities.
"For $79/MWh, natural gas would have to be $6 per million British
thermal unit
at
the Southern California border," said Tom Lu, executive director
of
Carson-based Watson Cogeneration Company, the state's largest QF,
generating 340
MW. "Our current gas price at the border is $12.50."
Other gas-fired QFs said the state could face another round of
rolling blackouts
if lawmakers and state regulators pass the legislation, which is
expected to be
heard on the Senate floor Thursday, and allow it to be implemented by
Public
Utilities Commission next week.
Lu, whose company is half-owned by BP Amoco PLC (BP) and is owed $100
million by
SoCal Ed, said the proposals by the PUC and the Legislature "will
only make
things worse."
David Fogarty, spokesman for Western States Petroleum Association,
whose members
supply California with more than 2,000 MW, said the utilities need to
pay the
QFs more than $1 billion for electricity that was already produced.
State Loses 3,000 MW QF Output Due Of Financial Reasons
The QFs represent about one-third, or 9,700 MW, of the state's total
power
supply. Roughly 5,400 MW are produced by natural gas-fired
facilities. The rest
is generated by wind, solar power and biomass.
About 3,000 MW of gas-fired and renewable QF generation is offline in
California
because the power plant owners haven't been paid hundreds of millions
of dollars
from cash-strapped utilities SoCal Ed and PG&E for nearly four
months.
Several small power plant owners owed money by SoCal Ed have
threatened to drag
the utility into involuntary bankruptcy if the utility continues to
default on
payments and fails to agree to supply contracts at higher rates.
The defaults have left many of the renewable and gas-fired QFs unable
to operate
their power plants because they can't afford to pay for the natural
gas to run
their units. Others continue to produce electricity under their
contracts with
the state's utilities but aren't being paid even on a forward basis.
The California Independent System Operator, keeper of the state's
electricity
grid, said the loss of the QF generation was the primary reason
rolling
blackouts swept through the state Monday and Tuesday.
Gov. Gray Davis, recognizing the potential disaster if additional QFs
took their
units offline, held marathon meetings with key lawmakers Monday and
Tuesday to
try and hammer out an agreement that would get the QFs paid on a
forward basis
and set rates of $79/MWh and $69/MWh for five and 10 year contracts.
He also
said he would direct the PUC to order the utilities to pay the QFs
for power
they sell going forward.
"After next week the QF problem will be behind us," Davis said
Tuesday. "We want
to get the QFs paid...the QFs are dropping like flies...and when that
happens
the lights go out."
But this just makes the problem worse, said Assemblyman Dean Florez,
D-Shafter,
a member of the Assembly energy committee.
"I don't know how we are going to keep the lights on," Florez said in
an
interview. "Many of these congenerators are in my district. They said
if the
legislation doesn't change they are going offline. This compounds the
issue of
rolling blackouts, especially now when we need every megawatt."
Davis, who didn't meet with people representing the QFs, said he was
handing the
QF issue to the PUC because lawmakers failed to pass legislation that
would have
set a five-year price for natural gas and allow the QFs to sign
individual
contracts with the utilities. In addition, SOCal Ed opposed the
legislation,
saying the rates should be below $50/MWh.
Some renewable power producers said they aren't vehemently opposed to
the new
rate structure because it guarantees them a higher rate than what was
originally
proposed.
QFs Want Third Party Supply Contracts
John Wood, who represents the SoCal Ed Gas Fired Creditors Committee,
one of a
handful of groups that have formed since January to explore options
on getting
paid by the utilities, said his group of gas-fired QF creditors want
to be
released from their supply contracts and sell to third parties.
"Under our plan, we would be permitted to sell electricity to third
parties
(including the state Department of Water Resources) until a
resolution to the
crisis can be accomplished," wood said.
Hal Dittmer, president of Sacramento-based Wellhead Electric in
Sacramento,
which is owed $8 million by PG&E, has 85 MW of gas-fired generation
units
offline.
Under the state's plan, Dittmer said he risks going out of business.
"I can't buy natural gas for what I would be paid under this
decision," he said.
"The state needs to quit kidding themselves that they don't need to
raise
electricity rates. All of this is being driven by an artificial
construct that
California can avoid raising rates."
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
[email protected]
Power Strain Eases but Concerns Mount Energy: Officials say summer
prices will be high, and a state report shows that contracts with
generators are far short of goals.
DAN MORAIN; JENIFER WARREN
TIMES STAFF WRITERS
03/22/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
A-3
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
SACRAMENTO -- California's fragile electricity system stabilized
Wednesday, but
a Davis administration report suggested troubles ahead because the
state could
be forced to buy most of its power for the coming summer on the
costly and
volatile spot market.
After two days of statewide blackouts, power plants that had been
shut down were
cranked up. Unseasonable heat tapered off. The operators of the
statewide power
grid relaxed their state of emergency.
But plenty of ominous signs remained. Many small producers remained
shut down,
skeptical about Gov. Gray Davis' plan for utilities to pay them.
State Controller Kathleen Connell issued a sharp warning about the
high cost of
the state's foray into the power business and announced that she will
block an
administration request that she transfer $5.6 billion into an account
that could
be tapped to pay for state purchases of electricity.
And a report from the administration summarizing contracts between
Davis and
independent power generators showed that the state has signed
contracts for only
2,247 megawatts of electricity, significantly less than the 6,000 to
7,000
megawatts previously claimed.
While there are agreements in principle for the full amount, the
report notes
that generators can back out of the contracts for a variety of
reasons,
including the state's failure to sell bonds to finance power
purchased by July
1. The Legislature has approved plans to sell $10 billion in bonds,
but none
have yet been issued.
"We are exposed enormously this summer," Senate Energy Committee
chairwoman
Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) said after looking at the report. "We
owe the
people the truth about how difficult this summer is going to be. We
don't have a
power fairy."
Perhaps most significant, the report suggests that the contracts fall
significantly short of Davis' stated goal of buying no more than 5%
of the
state's summer needs on the spot electricity market, where prices can
be many
times those of long-term contracts.
After reading the report, Frank Wolak, a Stanford University
economist who
studies the California electricity market, said the numbers suggested
that the
state's long-term contracts will cover less than half of what the
state will
need this summer.
"We're definitely short this summer, next summer and the summer of
2003," he
said.
California was forced to start buying electricity in December--at a
cost of $50
million a day--because producers refused to sell to Southern
California Edison
and Pacific Gas & Electric. The two utilities amassed billions of
dollars in
debt when prices for wholesale power soared on the spot market.
Vikram Budhraja, a consultant retained by Davis to negotiate deals
with
generators, said the report represents a "work in progress." He said
the state
may yet sign new contracts.
However, Wolak said the contract figures confirm what he and others
have been
dreading: that summer is going to be rife with rolling blackouts
unless serious
steps to cut demand are taken immediately.
Wolak and other experts say large industrial customers must be
switched to
real-time meters and pricing to persuade them to use the bulk of
their energy at
times of low demand.
The head of the Energy Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit
that promotes
sustainable sources of power, made the same proposal to Davis on
Wednesday.
"The government need not ask customers to swelter in the dark this
summer,"
foundation President Hal Harvey argued in a letter.
He also proposed a crash campaign to boost sales of efficient
appliances and
lightbulbs. He said the state needs to take over the utilities'
contracts with
alternative energy providers to ensure they stay in business, and
sign new
contracts for 1,500 megawatts of new wind power--the cheapest,
fastest and
cleanest source of new supply.
Davis had proposed a formula Tuesday to force private utilities to
pay the
alternative producers, some of which have not been paid since
November. But some
of them warned Wednesday that Davis' plan offers them little
incentive to turn
on their generators.
Alternative energy producers supply more than a quarter of the
electricity
consumed in California.
Many producers generate electricity from wind, sun and geothermal
sources. But
most of them generate power using natural gas--and the cost of
natural gas has
been soaring. Several natural gas users said Davis' plan, which caps
rates,
won't cover their fuel costs.
Davis assumes that the price of natural gas will fall. But small
generators say
they don't have sufficient purchasing power or sophistication to
gamble on
future prices.
The Public Utilities Commission is expected to approve Davis'
proposal next
week. It offers producers two choices: 7.9 cents a kilowatt-hour if
they agree
to supply power for five years, or 6.9 cents a kilowatt-hour over 10
years.
"The price of natural gas is higher than that," said Marty Quinn,
executive vice
president and chief operating officer of Ridgewood Power LLC, which
owns three
natural gas-fired co-generation plants. "If we operate, we'll lose
money."
Ridgewood is not operating, having been cut off by gas suppliers. The
company
sued PG&E last month seeking overdue payments and release from its
contracts
with the utility.
A hearing is scheduled in El Centro today in another lawsuit filed by
a small
energy producer, an Imperial Valley geothermal producer that sued
Edison for
refusing to let it break its contract and sell on the open market.
CalEnergy
says Edison owes it about $140 million for energy sold since
November.
A company spokesman, Jay Lawrence, said CalEnergy was going ahead
with its suit
despite Davis' proposal. "We've had promises before," he said.
In other developments:
* A federal judge in Sacramento on Wednesday ordered Reliant Energy
of Houston,
a major producer, to continue selling power to California during
emergencies,
despite the company's argument that it may not be fully reimbursed.
The order
will remain in effect for 60 days or until the U.S. Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission decides a related case.
* Connell said the state budget surplus has shrunk to $3.2 billion
because the
state has spent roughly $2.8 billion on electricity. She criticized
the
administration for withholding basic information about state
finances, and said
she will begin an audit on Monday of the Department of Water
Resources, which is
responsible for purchasing power.
Davis' aides said Connell took her action because the Democratic
governor
endorsed one of Connell's foes this week in the race for Los Angeles
mayor,
former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. A Connell aide scoffed
at the
notion.
* Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she "never has had a
response" from
President Bush after writing him last month for an appointment to
discuss the
California energy crisis.
In a wide-ranging lunch talk with reporters in Washington, she
deplored the fact
that "huge, huge profits are being made" in the California crisis,
and said "an
appropriate federal role" would be to guarantee a reliable source of
power until
the state can get nine new generators online.
*
Times staff writers Mitchell Landsberg in Los Angeles and Robert L.
Jackson in
Washington contributed to this report.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Power Points
Daily Developments
* Wholesale electricity suppliers overcharged by about $5.5 billion
between May
and last month, and that money should be refunded to taxpayers and
utilities,
according to a Cal-ISO report.
* The state may have to buy most of its power for summer on the
costly spot
market, which could drive consumers' bills up, a Davis administration
report
concludes.
* State Controller Kathleen Connell said she will block a request by
the Davis
administration for $5.6 billion for state purchases of electricity.
Verbatim
"We owe the people the truth about how difficult this summer is going
to be. We
don't have a power fairy."
Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), Senate Energy Committee chairwoman
CPUC Must Address Rates In QF Repayment Order - SoCal Ed
03/21/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Any order from the California Public
Utilities
Commission requiring utilities to pay small, independent generators
going
forward must determine how that could be done within the existing
rate
structure, a spokesman for Edison International (EIX) utility
Southern
California Edison said Wednesday.
The utility was responding to a PUC proposed decision that would
require
utilities to pay small generators, called qualifying facilities, $79
a megawatt
hour within 15 days of electricity delivery. The decision will be
voted March 27
by the CPUC.
"We're still reviewing (the decision) and should have more to say in
a day or
two. To the extent that the commission orders us to pay going forward
of course
we will. But it needs to address how we will pay the QFs," a SoCal
Edison
spokesman said.
SoCal Edison and PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are
struggling
under nearly $13 billion in uncollected power costs due to an
inability to pass
high wholesale power costs to customers under a rate freeze.
Gov. Gray Davis Tuesday blasted the utilities for not having paid
their QF bills
in full since December. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has made some
partial
payments to QFs, but SoCal Edison has paid nothing. Together, they
owe the QFs
about $1 billion, but the order doesn't address that debt.
An Edison executive said, in reaction to the governor's sharp
comments, that the
company simply doesn't have the money to pay creditors.
"The root problem here is there just isn't enough money in the
current rate base
to pay our bills," said Edison Senior Vice President of Public
Affairs Bob
Foster. "We understand the financial distress (the QFs) face; we are
facing
financial distress ourselves."
The proposed PUC order would also require the state's investor-owned
utilities
to offer the small generators five- and 10-year contracts for power
for $79/MWh
and $69/MWh, respectively.
The QFs "may be able to live with" the PUC proposal, but the five-
and 10-year
contract prices may be inadequate if natural gas prices at one of the
California
borders are high, said Jan Smutny-Jones, president of the Independent
Energy
Producers Association. Natural gas prices into California are
currently higher
than anywhere in the country.
But some say the proposed decision may not be enough to prevent the
QFs from
filing involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against the utilities for
the money
they are still owed.
"There's still a lot of skepticism. To say our position has changed
based on the
CPUC decision or the governor's announcement is not accurate. A lot
still has to
happen," said Jay Lawrence, a spokesman for a renewable creditors
committee.
-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872;
[email protected] -0- 22/03/01 01-27G
State Says It's Accelerating Plan to Buy Power Utilities' Grid
Government: Talks with Edison are reported near completion, but
agreement with heavily indebted PG&E has a way to go.
RONE TEMPEST; DAN MORAIN
TIMES STAFF WRITERS
03/21/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
A-22
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
SACRAMENTO -- As blackouts hit California for a second day Tuesday, a
key
consultant to Gov. Gray Davis said negotiations to buy the power grid
owned by
the state's largest utilities "are proceeding at an accelerated
pace."
Wall Street consultant Joseph Fichera said talks with Southern
California Edison
could be wrapped up within days, although those with PG&E are much
less
advanced.
The administration and PG&E have not reached even an agreement in
principle, he
said. PG&E, which has more debt than Edison, says its transmission
lines are
more extensive than those of its Southern California counterpart.
The state wants to buy the utilities' transmission lines and other
assets for
about $7 billion to provide cash to the utilities, help stabilize the
electricity supply and ease the power crunch that has plagued
California for
months. To research the grid purchase, Fichera said, the state has
had to pore
over 80,000 documents just to assess the utilities' liabilities.
"We are working at a good pace," said Fichera, chief executive of the
New York
firm Saber Partners. " . . . If we get to a deal-breaker, it might be
longer."
By making Fichera, who is also a consultant to the Texas Public
Utilities
Commission, available to reporters Tuesday, the Davis administration
was clearly
trying to reassure the public that progress is being made on the
governor's plan
to pull the state out of the crisis.
Since mid-January, when the big utilities' credit failed and
suppliers stopped
selling to them, the state has spent nearly $3 billion buying
electricity from a
handful of large suppliers in Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia and North
Carolina. Not a
cent has gone to the hundreds of alternative energy suppliers in
California who
provide about a quarter of the state's electricity.
The Monday and Tuesday blackouts occurred partly because many of the
cash-strapped alternative suppliers, including solar, biomass and
wind power
units, cut their normal supply to the system in half. They say Edison
and PG&E
have not paid them since November; the utilities say they are out of
cash.
Assemblyman Fred Keeley (D-Boulder Creek) said the plight of the
alternative
suppliers has dragged on because of the complexity of dealing with
"almost 700
individual contractors."
Another delaying factor, said Keeley, who with state Sen. Jim Battin
(R-La
Quinta) worked for almost three months to come up with a legislative
plan to
lower the small producers' prices, was "the huge enmity . . .
manifested between
the utilities and the qualifying facilities. These people just don't
like each
other."
This week's blackouts provided two painful lessons for the Davis
administration:
* When it comes to electricity, size doesn't matter--every kilowatt
counts.
During peak use, a small wind power facility in Riverside County can
make the
difference between full power and blackouts.
* There is no such thing as a partial solution. Unless the whole
energy equation
is balanced, the parts don't work.
For the Davis plan to work, several key elements need to come
together or
utility customers will almost certainly face rate increases above the
19%
already set in motion * The cost of power purchased by the state must
be reduced
through long-term contracts with the big out-of-state producers.
These contracts, the details of which the Davis administration has
kept
confidential, are still being negotiated by Davis consultant Vikram
Budhraja of
the Pasadena firm Electric Power Group. The administration says it
has concluded
40 contracts with generators, about half of which have been signed.
According to the most recent statistics released by the Department of
Water
Resources, which buys power for the state, current prices are still
well above
the rate state Treasurer Phil Angelides says is necessary for a
planned
$10-billion bond offering to succeed.
The bonds, set for sale in May, will be used to reimburse the state
for the
money it will have spent by that time to buy electricity. The state
is currently
spending at a rate of $58 million a day to buy power. If prices stay
high, the
$10 billion in bonds will not cover the state's power purchases by
the end of
the summer.
Angelides says he cannot proceed with bridge financing for the bonds
until the
Public Utilities Commission devises a formula to guarantee that a
portion of
utility bills will be dedicated to bond repayment. Angelides has
estimated that,
under the January law that put the state in the power buying
business, the state
must be reimbursed $2.5 billion annually, and that $1.3 billion is
needed to
service the debt.
PUC Administrative Law Judge Joseph R. DeUlloa is expected to
announce his
ruling on the reimbursement rate later this week, leading to a PUC
vote on the
matter as early as next week.
* The rates charged for electricity by the alternative producers,
known as
qualifying facilities, must be cut at least in half, down from an
average of
more than 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. In his news conference Tuesday,
Davis said
he will ask the PUC to set QF rates at 6.9 cents for 10-year
contracts and 7.5
cents for five-year contracts.
Meanwhile, PUC Chairman Loretta Lynch, a Davis appointee, said
Tuesday that the
commission will vote next week on a proposed order requiring Southern
California
Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric to pay the QFs for electricity in
the future.
Lynch said a recent PUC assessment showed that the utilities have
enough cash on
hand for that.
"We are trying to make sure the folks providing the power get paid,"
Lynch said.
"The qualified facilities have demonstrated that they haven't been
paid and that
it is impairing their ability to provide power."
The utilities contend that if they pay the small providers what they
owe them,
there will not be enough money left to pay other creditors.
"There is not enough money in the current rate structure to pay the
[alternative
producers], pay the [Department of Water Resources] and pay the
utilities for
their generation," said John Nelson, a spokesman for PG&E.
* The utilities must sell to the state the power they produce
themselves, mainly
from hydro and nuclear sources, at a rate only slightly above the
cost of
producing it. This is tied to the ongoing negotiations between the
Davis
administration and the utilities to restore the near-bankrupt
utilities to
solvency.
*
Times staff writers Julie Tamaki, Miguel Bustillo and Tim Reiterman
contributed
to this report.
Davis OKs Subsidy of Pollution Fees Smog: As part of secret deal to
get long-term energy contracts, state would pay for some of the
credits that allow excess power plant emissions. Critics renew call
for full disclosure.
DAN MORAIN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
03/21/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
A-23
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
SACRAMENTO -- As part of his closed-door negotiations to buy
electricity, Gov.
Gray Davis has agreed to relieve some generators from having to pay
potentially
millions of dollars in fees for emitting pollutants into the air,
Davis said
Tuesday.
Davis announced two weeks ago that his negotiators had reached deals
with 20
generators to supply $43 billion worth of power during the next 10
years.
However, the Democratic governor has refused to release any of the
contracts or
detail various terms, contending that release of such information
would hamper
the state's ability to negotiate deals with other generators and
therefore
ultimately would raise prices Californians pay for electricity.
Sources familiar with the negotiations, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said
the agreement reached with Dynegy Inc., a power company based in
Houston, is one
that includes language requiring that the state pay the cost of
credits that
allow emissions. Dynegy spokesman Steve Stengel declined to discuss
the
company's deal with the state.
"We couldn't get them to sign contracts; it was a sticking point,"
Davis said of
the decision to pay the fees of some generators. "We had to lock down
some power
so we were not totally dependent on the spot market."
The fees in question are part of an emission trading system known as
RECLAIM.
Under the system, companies are allotted a certain amount of
allowable
pollution. If their operations pollute more, companies are required
to purchase
credits on an open market. Currently the credits cost about $45 per
pound of
pollution--an amount that can lead to a bill of well over $10 million
a year for
a power plant.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates
pollution in
the Los Angeles Basin, is considering steps to significantly lower
the cost of
the system--a step that could considerably cut the state's potential
cost, Davis
said.
Senate Energy Committee Chairwoman Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey)
defended the
decision to cover the power company's costs.
"It is a question of whether it brings down the price of power," she
said. "If
it brings down the price of power, I don't have a problem with it."
Nevertheless, word that the contracts could bind the state to pay
pollution fees
caused some critics of Davis' policy to renew calls for Davis to
reconsider the
secrecy surrounding the power negotiations. The payment provision
underscores
the fact that the contracts involve more than merely the prices the
state will
pay for its megawatts, the critics note.
"The Legislature should have known about it," said Senate President
Pro Tem John
Burton (D-San Francisco). "It is going to cost taxpayers money. It
makes you
wonder. . . . This was a policy issue that was never discussed with
the
Legislature."
V. John White, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, who also represents
alternative
energy producers, called the contract proposal "a horrible
precedent."
"Until we know exactly what the state has agreed to and how much of a
subsidy
this represents, we can't determine how serious the breach of
principle this
is," White said.
Another critic of the secrecy of the negotiations, Terry Francke,
general
counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition, said the
provision in
question "raises the possibility that there are other [concessions]"
that have
not yet come to light.
In the summer, when demand for power is highest, some generators
probably will
exceed pollution limits set by regional air quality management
districts.
To avert blackouts, state officials might ask the companies to keep
plants
running. In such cases, some sources familiar with aspects of the
contracts
said, the contract language could be interpreted to suggest that the
state would
cover any fines--although Davis said Tuesday the state will not cover
the cost
of fines.
A recent Dynegy filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
underscores
the rising cost of pollution-related measures. The company, which is
partners
with NRG Energy in three California plants in El Segundo, Long Beach
and
Carlsbad in San Diego County, said its "aggregate expenditures for
compliance
with laws related to the regulation of discharge of materials into
the
environment" rose to $14.3 million in 2000, from $3.6 million in
1999.
A South Coast Air Quality Management spokesman said Dynegy's
facilities appear
to be fairly clean--although Sierra Club lobbyist White said Dynegy
has been
seeking a permit at one of its plants to burn fuel oil, which is
dirtier than
natural gas.
Davis said he intends to "make this information public," but he added
that "we
do not want to put the public's interest in jeopardy by asking them
to pay
higher prices."
"Nobody likes the notion that [the administration is] not being fully
forthcoming," Davis said. "But I also have a corollary responsibility
that I
don't stick these generators with a higher rate."
FERC ORDERS WILLIAMS ENERGY AND AES TO EXPLAIN THEIR REFUSAL TO MAKE
CERTAIN RMR UNITS AVAILABLE TO CALIFORNIA ISO LAST YEAR
03/21/2001
Foster Electric Report
5
(c) Copyright 2001, Foster Associates, Inc.
Following a preliminary, non-public investigation, FERC directed AES
Southland
Inc. and Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Co. (IN01-3) on March 14
to show
cause why they did not violate section 205 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA) by
failing to provide power to the California ISO from two reliability
must-run
(RMR) generator units during a period in April and May 2000. The
investigation
responded to a matter referred by the Cal-ISO. If a violation is
found, Williams
Energy and AES could be required to refund excess profits of $10.9
million (as
calculated by FERC) and face restrictions on their market-based rate
authority
for a year.
The show cause order involves two generation units (Alamitos 4 and
Huntington
Beach 2), owned and operated by AES. Williams Energy markets all
output from the
Alamitos and Huntington Beach plants, including the two units at
issue here,
pursuant to a tolling agreement filed with the Commission. The
Cal-ISO
designated the two units as RMR units that it could call on when
necessary to
provide energy and ancillary service essential to the reliability of
the
California transmission network. The Cal-ISO makes both a fixed
payment to the
RMR owner or operator to compensate for the RMR unit's availability
and a
variable payment for the RMR unit's output (if the unit is not
otherwise
participating in the market). Williams Energy and the Cal-ISO
executed RMR
agreements, filed as rate schedules with the Commission, allowing the
Cal-ISO to
dispatch units "solely for purposes of meeting local reliability
needs or
managing intra-zonal congestion." The ISO may dispatch a non-RMR unit
if the
designated RMR unit is not available. Under its RMR agreement with
the ISO,
Williams is paid the greater of its contract price or marginal cost
for
operating RMR units. However, if a non-RMR unit has to be dispatched
because a
designated RMR unit is unavailable, Williams will be paid its bid
price, not the
RMR contract price.
During the April to May 2000 period, the Cal-ISO sought to dispatch
both
Alamitos 4 and Huntington Beach 2 as RMR units to provide voltage
support.
However, according to the FERC order, Williams Energy refused to make
Alamitos 4
available from April 25 through May 5, and to make Huntington Beach 2
available
from May 6 through May 11, "for reasons not directly related to the
necessary
and timely maintenance of the units." Consequently, the Cal-ISO was
forced to
dispatch non-RMR units at a higher cost, namely, Williams Energy's
bid price for
service provided by the replacement units.
By contrast, if the RMR units had not experienced outages and been
available
from April 25 through May 11, Williams Energy would have received
either (1) the
market revenues only from the respective units, which would have
resulted in no
payments for RMR output from the ISO to Williams Energy, or (2)
Williams
Energy's variable cost for operating the RMR units less the market
revenues from
the respective units' output. Accordingly, FERC observed, Williams
Energy had "a
financial incentive to prolong any outages of Alamitos 4 and
Huntington Beach 2
in April and May 2000."
The bid price for the non-RMR units was at or near the Cal-ISO's
then-effective
bid cap of $750/MWh, FERC continued. Therefore, Williams Energy
received
payments from the Cal-ISO of more than $11.3 million, or about $10.3
million
greater than the estimated average variable operating cost of the
non-RMR units
(approximately $63/MWh) during the period in question. This indicates
a refund
amount, including interest, of nearly $10.9 million.
The information in this order and a non-public appendix, the
Commission
declared, suggests that AES declared outages at the two RMR units and
maintained
Huntington Beach 2 in a manner inconsistent with good utility
practice, and that
Williams Energy took action to extend the outage at Alamitos 4 and to
make
Huntington Beach 2 unavailable for "pretextual reasons."
Based on this information coupled with Williams Energy's financial
incentive not
to make the Alamitos 4 and Huntington Beach 2 units available, FERC
found
serious questions about whether (1) AES and Williams Energy violated
applicable
RMR contracts and tariffs on file with the Commission pursuant to FPA
section
205 when they refused to make Alamitos 4 and Huntington Beach 2
available for
dispatch by the Cal-ISO; (2) whether Williams acted inconsistently
with its
market-based rate authority and the market monitoring information
protocols of
the Cal-ISO's tariff regarding the unavailability of the RMR units
during the
period at issue; and (3) whether AES violated a tolling agreement on
file with
the Commission pursuant to section 205.
The Commission identified two remedies for these potential
violations: a refund
by Williams Energy and/or AES of revenues received greater than the
amount that
would have collected from the ISO if the RMR units had been
available, and a
condition on Williams Energy's market-based rate authority.
Specifically, for a
one-year period, if an RMR unit were not available when dispatched by
the
Cal-ISO, a non-RMR unit dispatched in its place would only receive
payment
according to the terms of the applicable RMR contract. In other
words, Williams
Energy would not receive the bid price for operation of the
substitute, non- RMR
unit.
The Commission directed Williams Energy and AES to show cause, within
20 days,
why they should not be found to have committed the above-described
violations
and why the specified remedies should not be imposed.
Further, to ensure procurement of all relevant information, the
Commission
instituted a formal, non-public investigation into the operation,
maintenance
and sales of power from the Alamitos and Huntington Beach plants in
2000 and
2001.
Calif Consumers Failing To Conserve Pwr Despite Blackouts
03/20/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- California consumers haven't been
conserving enough
electricity to relieve strain on the power grid and reduce demand in
the state,
a spokesman with the Independent System Operator said Tuesday.
The ISO said that despite two straight days of statewide rolling
blackouts,
consumers aren't using less electricity, which means additional
megawatts will
be taken off the grid. As a result, blackouts could last longer and
impact
additional communities, the ISO said.
ISO spokesman Pat Dorinson said Monday "conservation in California is
no longer
an option," but consumers in the state aren't heeding the call to
reduce
consumption.
Conservation efforts during rolling blackouts Monday and Tuesday were
far less
than Jan. 17 and Jan. 18, when blackouts swept through Northern
California due
to transmission constraints. Jim Detmers, the ISO's vice president of
operation,
said consumers saved the state about 1,000 megawatts of electricity,
enough
power for 1 million houses.
The ISO said conservation efforts Monday were about 500 MW or less.
"We would be very happy if we saw the same amount this time," Detmers
said.
The state's Energy Commission said consumers think it's no longer
important to
save electricity until blackouts are imposed.
"People have been saving generally, but it isn't a big bump from hour
to hour,"
a spokesman for the Energy Commission said.
Gov. Gray Davis launched a massive conservation campaign this month,
promising
consumers a rebate on their summer electricity bill if they save at
least 20% of
electricity, compared with last summer.
The governor said he believes conservation this summer will amount to
possibly
saving 5,000 MW and averting the chance of rolling blackouts.
-By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
[email protected]
Gas Co.'s Success Opens Debate Southern California energy supplier
has reaped
millions of dollars in state incentives for keeping down its costs.
Though
consumers get a share of the windfall, regulators are asking whether
they should
get more of the bonus, which is expected to be huge this year, as a
form of
price relief. The natural gas provider says it deserves to keep its
reward.
TIM REITERMAN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
03/18/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
C-1
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
SAN FRANCISCO -- While consumers suffer soaring energy bills and the
big
electric utilities lurch toward insolvency, the news is not all dire
at Southern
California Gas Co.
Through vigorous deal making, the Sempra Energy subsidiary has
consistently
beaten the volatile natural gas market during the last year, and the
company
stands to reap millions of dollars in savings through a state
incentive program
that rewards utilities for keeping costs down.
For several years, the utility has been splitting the savings 50-50
with
ratepayers whenever the company's gas costs fall slightly below
market levels.
Those savings, Gas Co. executives acknowledged, have shot to
unprecedented
heights during the state's power crisis.
Now, in this climate of high consumer gas bills and runaway market
prices,
regulators are taking another look at the program. The question
before the
Public Utilities Commission: Should Gas Co. ratepayers, who endured
huge bill
increases this winter, get a bigger share of the savings?
The total windfall under the incentive program has in some years
exceeded $20
million. But the amount for the last 12 months is expected to
multiply many
times over, company executives said, partly because the Gas Co. has
done so well
in the wild market by selling, lending and trading gas as well as
buying it.
"The recent market conditions . . . could possibly result in some
unintended
consequences that result in shared savings of benefits that may be
more
appropriately allocated entirely to ratepayers," the PUC's consumer
protection
arm, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, reported Oct. 30, even before
the latest
upward market spirals.
Gas Co. representatives express frustration, saying they have done
what the
state has requested under its gas-cost incentive program: Buy
smarter, and pass
the savings along to its 5 million residential and small-business
customers. The
company contends it has worked hard to keep bills down and should be
rewarded
for taking risks to obtain gas at the lowest possible cost.
"The PUC, every time we do well, raises the bar on us," said Jim
Harrigan,
director of gas acquisition. "I don't necessarily agree with it."
By virtue of its purchasing power and storage and pipeline capacity,
the Gas Co.
has become a big player in the regional natural gas market. In the
company's
bustling trading room at its Los Angeles headquarters, 15 employees
track price
movements, pipeline supplies and even the weather via computer, while
cutting
deals and arranging gas shipments.
Although the Gas Co. buys the commodity for its customers, the
company also
sells to marketers, other utilities and producers. State officials
say the
number of transactions by the company has risen steeply to 10,000 to
20,000 a
year, including gas sales along California's border, where prices
have rocketed.
The PUC created the cost incentive program for the state's three
major gas
utilities--San Diego Gas & Electric Co. in 1993, Southern California
Gas the
next year and PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in 1997. Like
Southern
California Gas, SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy.
The program was designed to give utilities added motivation for
obtaining gas at
the best price for customers. It replaced lengthy and contentious
reviews by the
PUC, which assessed whether utilities had purchased gas at reasonable
prices and
sometimes ordered them to return millions of dollars to customers.
An annual audit of the Gas Co. program and a staff evaluation
requested by the
PUC recently concluded that the program has achieved many of its
goals, but it
also proposed adjustments that would give customers a greater share
of the
rewards.
"These incentives were designed in less volatile times," said program
supervisor
Mark Pocta of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, which conducted the
audit.
"There is a question of how much should go to ratepayers and
shareholders." His
office also plans to assess whether the Gas Co.'s trading had any
negative
effects on the gas market, resulting in diminished supplies or higher
prices for
other utilities and their customers.
Under the program, the Gas Co. shares risks and rewards with its
ratepayers, but
since the program was launched, it has consistently produced awards.
If the cost
of gas is 0.5% or more below a benchmark based on monthly gas market
indexes,
the company and its customers split the savings 50-50.
California's gas utilities are not allowed to profit on their raw
commodity
costs; they merely pass along those costs to ratepayers with no
markup. The
savings under the incentive program are automatically reflected in
consumers'
monthly gas bills but are not itemized.
At the end of the year, the utilities request their share of the
savings, and
the PUC has routinely granted approval. Then the companies, and thus
their
shareholders, are paid through customer utility bills.
The resulting bill increases typically have been modest, less than
1%. But as
the awards increase, regulators say, the effect on customers will
become more
significant unless the present structure is changed.
"There's no question, when you start to talk about $100 million [or
more in
savings], and add [the company's award] into rates in a year, it will
make a
noticeable difference," said Los Angeles economist Jeff Leitzinger,
president of
Econ One, who has done consulting for the Gas Co.
Still, he said, ratepayers should bear in mind that they already
benefit from
below-market gas and transportation costs.
In the early years of the program, records show, the Gas Co.'s awards
went from
zero to $3.2 million, $10.6 million, $2 million and $7.7 million.
Last year's
award of $9.8 million is awaiting PUC approval.
This year's proposed award, covering the period through the end of
this month,
has not yet been submitted by the Gas Co. But the utility has
provided monthly
figures and oral updates on a confidential basis to PUC officials,
who declined
to provide figures.
Harrigan of the Gas Co. said the savings are expected to multiply
"many times
over," largely because the company was well-equipped for the market
fluctuations
and tried to insulate its customers from high gas prices.
"Any trading company, especially one with assets like we have, has
benefited
from volatility in the market," he said.
Harrigan said, however, that he does not believe the company's level
of activity
has adversely affected the market and that its trading pales in
volume to that
of unregulated energy companies.
Anne Smith, the Gas Co.'s vice president of customer service and
marketing, said
the utility will not release figures for this year's incentive
program until
they are filed with the PUC in June.
"I don't want to interrupt that process," Smith said, noting that the
PUC
ultimately will determine the company's award. "I think they need to
focus on
what [the Gas Co.] has done for the ratepayers. It has been immense."
Although the typical monthly gas bill has risen to $80 from $50 a
year ago, Gas
Co. customers tend to have lower rates than those of other California
utilities.
The company's gas procurement cost in February was 66 cents per
therm, or 100
cubic feet. That's more than twice last year's cost but only about
half what
sister company SDG&E paid for its 740,000 customers in February. It's
also much
lower than the $1.09 per therm PG&E pays.
"We were as upset about the overall [gas price] increase as anyone
else,"
Harrigan said. "I would rather see the prices of a year ago, even
though we
managed to do a little better in the [recent] environment."
When it comes to keeping down costs, regulators say, the Gas Co. has
advantages
over other utilities in the marketplace. For one, the company has so
much
pipeline capacity at major gas basins that it purchases a relatively
small
portion of its needs--about 10% to 15%--at the California border,
where prices
in December briefly rose to the equivalent of $6 per therm, or 20
times those a
year earlier.
This presents opportunities.
"At the beginning of the month, they forecast a certain amount of gas
they have
to buy," said Pocta of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates. "If they go
out and
buy and do not need to use as much because the weather is more
moderate than
expected, they can either inject the gas into storage or they can
make sales at
the border."
With gas price run-ups like those seen in the last year, Pocta said,
"there is a
question: Should that benefit be shared, or flow entirely to
ratepayers?"
Customers, he pointed out, may be entitled to additional benefits
because they
pay for the interstate and intrastate pipeline capacity and the gas
storage that
give the company the flexibility to make advantageous deals.
"By the same token, we want [the Gas Co.] . . . to go into the market
and
generate cost savings that can be passed on to the customers," he
added. "We
want them to have incentives. The question is how to balance them."
Under deregulation, the Gas Co. adopted the nontraditional role of
marketer,
according to a PUC Energy Division report in January. The company
makes gas
sales at various locations. It engages in exchanges. It makes futures
transactions to help stabilize costs.
"They look for ways to lower the gas cost," said Richard Myers,
program
supervisor at the Energy Division. "Before they were lots more
risk-averse. Now
they feel they can take risks and make money for shareholders, and it
is a
benefit for ratepayers at the same time."
The incentive programs are tailored to individual utilities, so it is
difficult
to compare them. Records show that the shared savings at SDG&E, a
much smaller
utility, declined steadily from $9.2 million in the 1996-97 cycle to
$560,000 in
1999-2000.
Spokesman Ed Van Herik said the falloff largely represents a drop in
gas
purchases, especially as the company sold off its own gas-fired
electricity-generating plants. He said the company does not yet know
how much
savings have accrued in the last year.
In an annual report to the PUC in February, PG&E said it had no
savings under
the incentive program and thus it is not entitled to any award for
the 1999-2000
cycle.
The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based consumer advocacy
group, said
it will closely watch the PUC's evaluation of the incentive program
at the Gas
Co.
"We want to make sure, given the dramatic changes in the gas market
and prices,
ratepayers are not left out of the [additional] benefits," TURN
attorney Marcel
Hawiger said. "We'll look to see whether the mechanism should be
changed."
Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley,
said the
program should be changed to provide more incentive for utilities to
enter
long-term contracts that would smooth out volatility in the market.
"Unfortunately, under the system," he said, "the only incentive is to
beat the
[spot] market."
Use this file to download and print all the articles in this section
(See attached file: Dow Jones
Interactive-california-03233001-selected.doc)
IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER MARKETS
(For easier printing of all the articles in this section use the file
at the end of the section)
New York: New York at the crossroads
Wednesday, March 21, 2001
Energy Insight
(Embedded image moved to file: pic24389.pcx)
By Dave Todd
[email protected]
U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham declared this week that the Big
Apple is on the verge of being bitten hard by power cuts and rising
energy prices.
Delivering the keynote address at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
national energy summit in Washington Monday, Abraham said,
"California is not the only state facing a mismatch between supply
and demand," what with "electricity shortages predicted for New York
City and Long Island this summer" and low capacity margins
threatening electricity reliability elsewhere across the country. But
how likely is it that New Yorkers will face blackouts of the sort
confronting Californians?
Not very, says energy trade specialist Edward Krapels, managing
director of Boston-based METIS Trading Advisors. Krapels, a
consultant helping major Northeastern utilities, such as Consolidated
Edison, design market-hedging programs, adamantly decried what he
said are facile comparisons between conditions in New York and
California, there being "more differences than there are
similarities" between those two industrial cornerstones of the
country's economy in respect to energy security management.
"First of all, New York has a more varied portfolio of energy
generation sources than California," he said. California has hydro,
nuclear and gas, but when it lost a lot of hydro, the state needed
gas to pick up the slack, and the "capacity just wasn't there." In
New York's case, the state has oil and coal still in the mix and its
overall dependence on gas is much lower than California's, Krapels
added.
New York avoids making same mistakes
Portfolio diversity is one pillar of any effective plan to help New
York avoid the same errors made in redesigning California's
marketplace. New York's Independent System Operator (ISO), in a new
report warning that the state is at an "energy crossroads" in terms
of its capacity adequacy in the immediate future, argues that a
concerted effort is required to arrest declining in-state generation
capacity reserve margins, and a strategy must be put in place,
whether or not new generation comes on-line, in accordance with
current anticipated scenarios.
A measure of New York's essential difficulty is that, between 1995
and 2000, statewide demand for electricity grew 2,700 MW, while
generating capacity expanded by only 1,060 MW. With no major new
generating plants in downstate New York fully approved, the gap is
expected to continue to widen. To avoid "a replication of
California's market meltdown" the New York ISO calculates the state's
daily generating capacity needs to grow by 8,600 MW by 2005, with
more than half of that located in New York City and on Long Island.
Expressing concern this may be too big a burden for the current
bureaucratic process to bear, the ISO wants to see a state-appointed
ombudsman named to help would-be merchant power plant investors plow
through red tape.
"Increasing New York's generating capacity will also lessen the
state's escalating and risky reliance on out-of-state sources of
electricity," the ISO added. "Since 1999, New York State has been
unable to cover its reserve requirements from in-state sources."
Not everyone agrees with that analysis, insofar as it argues for
circling the wagons inward. Some analysts believe the ultimate
solution lies not in tying in more inwardly dedicated power, but in
expanding the marketplace by breaking down inter-jurisdictional
barriers. In any case, New York energy regulatory authorities and
those responsible elsewhere in the U.S. Northeast, such as PJM
(Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland) Interconnection and the New
England Power Pool, are in vastly better shape in terms of
"cross-border" cooperation than California and its neighbors in that
efforts are being made among various authorities toward developing an
integrated regional electricity market. In California, by contrast,
the state's focus?for example, in the case of new gas-fired power
plant development?has been to ensure dedicated supply to the
California market alone, rather than on a regional marketplace.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic05075.pcx)
The New York ISO's new broad-based analysis of market-restructuring
needs argues that the relatively stronger health of its reformed
environment is "due in large part to the ability of New York's
utilities to enter into long-term power contracts."
What needs to be done most, it says, is to move aggressively to build
some of the more than 29,000 MW of "proposed new generation in the
siting pipeline."
In the meantime, the 30,200 MW of electricity New Yorkers used on a
peak day last summer shouldn't be eclipsed on too many days this
coming summer (given early long-range weather forecasts). Demand,
however, is expected to increase at an annual average rate of up to
1.4%.
So while New York City, the rest of the state and adjacent parts
might breathe easy this year, it could be a brief rest from the fray.
Meanwhile, a 4% shortfall is still being planned for this summer that
is not yet provided for, as authorities hurriedly seek to arrange new
generation plants around Manhattan, on Long Island and even on barges
offshore.
One way or another, whether it is the weather or the politics of
siting new energy facilities, it's going to be a hot time in the
city.
Long-term solutions hit brick wall
Meanwhile, attempts at longer-term solutions continue to run into
trouble. Last week, Connecticut state regulators came out against a
proposal to run a new underwater cable under Long Island Sound that
Hydro-Quebec subsidiary TransEnergie U.S. Ltd. wants to build to pump
more juice into Long Island Power Authority's load pocket. Despite
strong promises from TransEnergie to be diligent in avoiding damage
to oyster beds in Long Island Sound, the proposal failed to convince
authorities, who were persuaded the pipeline project could lead to
diversion of electricity from Connecticut.
In similar fashion, private companies wanting to build 10 small
independent power plants and temporary generators offshore New York
City are running into intense opposition from environmental groups
and citizen orga
nizations?some of whom have taken their cases to the
state assembly in Albany.
The David vs. Goliath nature of such controversies has further
alerted energy companies to the difficulties of addressing complex
energy supply issues that may ultimately devolve to people not
wanting things in their backyard, regardless of what the alternative
might mean to their fellow citizens or the greater public good.
But suddenly, in New York, California's troubles?while still distant
in their intensity? may not be so far away. By some estimates, this
summer's bills for Consolidated Edison customers could be up as much
as one third or more over last year's charges.
Letting the time slip when it comes to building new infrastructure
isn't going to make the pain go away.
NEW YORK: NY-ISO REPORT SAYS STATE NEEDS 4,000 - 5,000 MW OF NEW
GENERATION SOON TO AVOID SEVERE SHORTAGES; NY-ISO ALSO ASKS FERC TO
EXTEND BID CAP AND TEMPORARY EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
03/21/2001
Foster Electric Report
2
(c) Copyright 2001, Foster Associates, Inc.
Raising the specter of an East Coast version of the California
crisis, the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NY-ISO) is warning of serious
electricity shortages, air quality deterioration and stunted economic
growth
without immediate approval of between 4,000-5,000 MW of new
generating capacity
in the state. Of this amount, 2,000-3,000 MW is needed to serve New
York City.
Another 8,600 MW of new capacity will have to be built by 2005, the
NY-ISO said
in a recent report, Power Alert: New York's Energy Crossroads.
"New York is heading towards a very serious situation unless it acts
immediately
to get new supply sited within its borders," said NY-ISO president
William
Museler in a statement accompanying the report. "This report is
essentially a
caution light at New York's energy crossroads."
Sources in the New York Public Service Commission have downplayed the
NY-ISO's
warning, asserting that a process for bringing on new generation is
well
underway, with more than 85 projects in the approval pipeline.
In a related development, the NY-ISO asked FERC to approve a proposed
tariff
amendment (ER01-1517) extending existing bids caps in some of its
markets until
10/31/02, and a separate and related amendment (ER01-1489) extending
the
NY-ISO's so-called temporary extraordinary procedures (TEP) that
allow the ISO
to make price adjustments and take other corrective actions if it
finds evidence
of market power abuse.
The NY-ISO Report --The NY-ISO likened the situation in New York to
that faced
by California, where a relentless increase in demand has not been met
with an
equal increase in supply. The NY-ISO said that between 1995 and 2000,
statewide
demand for electricity rose by 2,700 MW, while generating capacity
increased by
only 1,060 MW. With no major new generating plants in downstate New
York fully
approved for construction at this time and generation demand in the
state
expected to grow around 1.3 percent annually for the next several
years, the
NY-ISO said this gap will continue to widen.
The inevitable result of this trend is large rate increases for New
York's power
consumers. The NY-ISO's modeling suggests that "by 2005, statewide
prices are
likely to be more than 20-25 percent lower in the case in which new
plants are
built than in the case where they are not." In New York City, "the
price to
consumers of electric power could be reduced by as much as 28 percent
when
compared to the case of no new supply or load management programs."
Besides large rate increases, the NY-ISO asserted that a failure to
site and
build new plants in New York will threaten power reliability in the
state and
lead to increasing reliance on out-of-state resources. The report
said that if
no new in-state generation comes on line in the next five years, the
state's
generation reserve margins will shrink from the current 14.9 percent
above peak
demand "to a dangerously low 8.4 percent by 2005." Pointing to
California's
situation, the report added that increased reliance on power imports
"can
subject electrical suppliers and customers in New York to
transmission
restrictions and political and economic considerations beyond the
control or
influence of responsible New York State entities."
To avoid these harsh consequences, the NY-ISO said New York's new
siting law,
known as the Article X process, needs to be modified. Since the law
was passed
18 months ago, the report noted that only two plants have been
approved (both
upstate) and neither has yet been built. The problem, according to
the NY-ISO,
is that the siting process "requires the cooperation of multiple
state
agencies." To expedite the process, the report suggested the "clear
designation
of a lead agency and the adoption of an `ombudsman program' to
expedite and
coordinate the work of the agencies responsible for the Article X
process must
be made." The NY-ISO added that an expedited approval process would
improve the
environment because older, more polluting power plants would be
replaced by
cleaner gas-fired units.
On a more positive note, the NY-ISO reported that New York's
restructured power
market "is far healthier than that in California, due in large part
to the
ability of New York `s utilities to enter long-term power contracts.
The basic
structure of the New York market will also reduce unwarranted price
spikes and
other market disruptions through mitigation programs which
automatically correct
price spikes due to market power abuses."
"Nevertheless, California `s experience raises a caution flag for all
New
Yorkers," the report continued. "The deregulated market in New York
cannot
achieve lower costs through competition without an increase in
generating
capacity similar in magnitude to the recommendations of this report,
along with
simultaneous efforts to institute greater conservation, better load
management
and alternative energy supply initiatives. Additionally, closer
integration with
regional suppliers of power is both inevitable and beneficial."
The report also recommended (1) accelerating conservation, real-time
metering
and price-sensitive load programs; and (2) upgrading the state's and
the
Northeast's transmission infrastructure.
The Proposed Tariff Amendments -- New York's Article X siting process
and
continuing tight supplies were also cited in the NY-ISO's request to
extend from
4/30/01 until 10/31/02 its $1,000/MWh bid caps. FERC first approved
the
1,000/MWh bid caps in July 2000 (see REPORT No.197, pg.6), and
subsequently
extended them.
The NY-ISO's board "is sensitive to the Commission's concerns about
undue
intervention in energy markets," the filing related. "Nevertheless,
the NY-ISO
is submitting this request because it believes that delays in New
York state's
`Article X' process for licensing and siting new generating capacity
is
inhibiting supply from increasing to match continued demand growth. .
. .
Moreover, although the NY-ISO proposes to implement several
demand-side measures
this summer, it is not yet clear whether they will make demand
sufficiently
price-responsive to avoid periods of high prices that would not occur
if there
were an efficient demand-side response."
Thus, the NY-ISO insisted that the requested extension is needed to
provide more
time for the development of additional generation and to gauge the
effectiveness
of the NY-ISO's proposed demand-side response mechanisms "in order to
avoid
exposing consumers to price spikes that are not a product of the
interplay of
competitive market forces."
Other problems cited in the NY-ISO's filing which keep New York's
power market
from being fully competitive include continuing capacity and
operating
constraints at the state's Central-East interface, and questions over
adequate
gas supply.
"The NY-ISO remains acutely aware that taking steps to deal with
price
abnormalities can have undesirable consequences," the filing
continued.
"Nevertheless, the NY-ISO believes that the $1,000/MWh cap that has
been used in
the PJM's markets since inception does not appear to have had an
adverse impact
there. . . . The permanent bid caps in PJM, and the interim bid caps
in ISO New
England (proposed for extension through the end of 2001) also make
continuation
of the NY-ISO's bid caps more important in order to maintain
uniformity across
the Northeastern markets. The NY-ISO also continues to believe that
suppliers
will not be materially harmed by the continuation of bid caps, which
are likely
to come into effect very rarely and are set at levels that prevent
only
artificially high run-ups in prices."
The NY-ISO's request to extend its TEP procedures (which also were
previously
extended) through 10/31/02 cited similar problems with New York's
power markets,
but claimed that the NY-ISO "has made great strides" toward
eliminating market
design and software flaws. "The TEPs were, and remain, an
indispensable tool for
responding to and correcting market flaws and other instances where
the markets
are not operating as the NY-ISO and the Commission intended," the
filing
insisted.
MASSACHUSETTS: Attorney general says summer poses electricity
concerns
By JOHN McELHENNY
Associated Press Writer
03/19/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
BOSTON (AP) - The state's top consumer advocate warned that
Massachusetts may
see "California-type" electricity blackouts this summer when
temperatures rise
and residents turn on air conditioners and fans.
"It would be a mistake to feel this is a cold weather problem," said
Attorney
General Thomas Reilly in an interview with The Associated Press. "Our
major
problem will come this summer."
State deregulation of the electric industry has been among the
factors blamed
for local power outages in California, and on Monday, California for
the first
time suffered rolling blackouts across the entire state.
Massachusetts relaxed regulations on its own electric industry in
1998 to
attract more companies to stir competition. But that hasn't happened
yet,
largely because the current high cost of oil and gas make it
expensive to
produce electricity.
"The promise of deregulation was that there was going to be
competition," said
Reilly, a Democrat. "That competition in the wholesale market is not
happening."
Hot summer weather drives up electricity use as residents turn on air
conditioners and fans, and Reilly said a few particularly hot days
could strain
the grid that provides the region's power.
A spokeswoman for the region's power grid said electricity use is
expected to
rise 1.5 to 2 percent this year, but the region should have enough
power because
of six new power plants that have begun generating electricity in the
past 18
months.
"The situation is unlike California because we have new generation
coming on
line that is outpacing demand," said Ellen Foley, spokeswoman for ISO
New
England Inc., which manages the grid of 330 generators connected by
8,000 miles
of high voltage transmission lines.
Still, a particularly hot day and an unforeseen power generation
breakdown could
prompt ISO to ask residents to conserve electricity, a situation that
arose once
last summer, Foley said.
In order to avoid any power outages and protect consumers, Reilly
repeated calls
for electric companies to build more power lines and to offer more
options for
new customers who have signed up since deregulation. Those customers
typically
pay more than long-term customers.
Electric transmission companies should also be allowed to enter into
two-year
contracts with suppliers, instead of the six-month contracts many
have now, to
avoid short-term price spikes for consumers, Reilly said.
The Attorney General's Office acts as an advocate for consumers.
Michael Monahan, a spokesman for NSTAR, which provides electricity to
more than
1 million customers, is upgrading some of its power lines and last
year built a
new line to Cape Cod, but currently has no lines under construction.
"I wholeheartedly concur with the attorney general that it's
something we have
to focus on," Monahan said, but he added, "The indications I see are
that we
have an ample supply of electricity."
California's statewide outages were ordered on Monday after a
transformer fire,
high demand and a lack of electricity imports pushed power reserves
to near
zero.
California partially deregulated its electric industry in 1996, two
years before
Massachusetts.
---
On the Net:
Attorney General's Office: http://www.ago.state.ma.us
NSTAR: http://www.nstaronline.com
ISO New England Inc.: http://www.iso-ne.com
NEVADA: Discussion of bill stopping power plant sales to continue
Wednesday
By JOHN WILKERSON
Associated Press Writer
03/19/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Lawmakers hit more delays Monday in trying
to pass a
measure that pulls the plug on the sale of Nevada power plants to
avoid
California-style energy problems.
"The goal of this bill is only stopping the divestiture of power
plants and
making sure it's constitutional," said Senate Commerce and Labor
Chairman
Randolph Townsend, R-Reno. "And that's not as easy as it sounds."
Townsend's comment just before his committee began working on SB253
was
prophetic - witnesses kept bringing up the need for more flexibility
in the
measure.
Translation: Don't kill all deals by stopping Reno-based Sierra
Pacific Power
and Las Vegas-based Nevada Power from selling their Nevada power
plants until
June 2003 - and possibly until 2006.
Pete Ernaut, a lobbyist for Reliant Energy which has been trying to
buy a power
plant, said unforeseen market changes could make a plant sale before
2003 a deal
that would be in the public's interest.
"If you put a two-year moratorium on these plants, all these deals
are going to
go away," he said. "When the cow leaves the barn, it's difficult to
catch."
Townsend had hoped to wrap up committee work on SB253 on Monday. Now
it's up for
review again Wednesday in the Commerce and Labor Committee.
Reliant isn't the only company trying to keep power plant purchases
alive.
Earlier this month, executives of Pinnacle West Energy told the
committee that
it's in the public's interest to allow Sierra Pacific Resources to
sell its
Harry Allen power plant.
The Harry Allen plant produces about 72 megawatts out of the 2,900
megawatts of
energy that Nevada utilities generate. Pinnacle has plans to expand
that to 700
megawatts by 2004.
Other provisions not strictly related to the plant divestitures, such
as ways in
which Sierra Pacific and Nevada Power can recover the cost of undoing
the sales
contracts, don't have to be included in SB253, Townsend said.
Townsend said the other concerns dealing with the energy crisis and
utility
deregulation can be handled in later bills - but the power plant sale
issue must
be handled now.
Nevada's PUC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had
directed Sierra
Pacific and Nevada Power to sell the plants as a condition of the
companies'
merger in 1999 under the parent company Sierra Pacific Resources.
Critics of the plant sales say the plants generate about half the
state's
electricity - and if they're sold, the unregulated new owners could
sell the
power to other states and put Nevada into the energy dilemma
California faces of
shrinking supply and rising prices.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority has presented an analysis stating
that rate
payers will save from $1.7 billion to $3.5 billion by July 2001 if
the power
plant sales are stopped.
Nevada's Consumer Advocate's Office previously had projected a
conservative
estimate of $915 million in savings.
MAINE: Panel of experts would review impact of energy deregulation
By GLENN ADAMS
Associated Press Writer
03/19/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) - In the wake of rolling blackouts in California
and rate
spikes in their home state, Maine's top legislators proposed a study
Monday into
the effects of deregulation of the energy industry.
"Deregulation of electricity is a new idea and we still have a lot to
learn,"
Senate President Michael Michaud said as he called for the analysis.
A panel of industry insiders, elected officials and consumers would
study issues
such as what standard rate consumers can expect and the likelihood of
energy
shortfalls over the next three years, and whether Maine consumers are
vulnerable
to anti-competitive activities.
In addition, the Blue Ribbon Commission would look into whether
changes in
Maine's deregulation law are needed to encourage more generating
capacity,
improve conservation and spur competition.
The study is being proposed as consumers remain mindful of a power
crisis in
California that resulted from high wholesale energy costs, a consumer
rate cap
and too few power plants in that deregulated state.
Maine's deregulation law is designed to avoid such pitfalls, said
Rep. William
Savage, D-Buxton, House chairman of the Legislature's Utilities
Committee.
Maine's law does not cap consumer prices, as California's does, and
the state
has more than enough generating facilities to meet the state's energy
needs,
Savage said.
Since Maine's deregulation law took effect in March 2000, Bangor
Hydro-Electric
Co. rates have increased 19 percent. The Public Utilities Commission
approved a
residential standard rate increase as recently as last month.
Federal energy regulators are reviewing their decision to allow steep
fee
increases for utilities and power wholesalers that fail to arrange
enough
capacity to meet customers' peak load. Gov. Angus King and all four
members of
Maine's congressional delegation oppose the hike.
The PUC has approved standard rate increases for energy delivered by
Central
Maine Power Co. to medium-sized and large industrial users.
On the other hand, some towns and school districts are saving money
on energy
through deals they can get in the deregulated market.
In the meantime, legislation has been introduced in response to some
of the
changes that have occurred in Maine's deregulated energy industry.
One would use some of the money from the sale of power-generating
assets to
offset an increase in rates paid by large industrial users, said Sen.
Norman
Ferguson, R-Hanover, Senate chairman of the Utilities Committee.
Supporters of the utility study that was proposed Monday said they
are not
looking to make changes in Maine's deregulation law, but if it needs
fixing it
could be done during next year's session.
The lawmakers' primary interest is to find out how trends in a new
environment
designed to encourage competition will affect consumers, and to try
to identify
what consumers can expect in the few years ahead.
House Speaker Michael Saxl, D-Portland, said the Legislature "has a
fundamental
public policy interest in making sure rate-payers and businesses are
protected
against exorbitant rate hikes."
Michaud, D-East Millinocket, said he's interested in finding out how
future
changes in electric prices and availability might affect businesses
and
consumers in northern Maine.
"The economy in my part of the state is the most vulnerable, and I
want to make
certain we are leaving no stone unturned in our effort to prevent any
shocks to
the economy in northern, western and eastern Maine," Michaud added.
The commission would include House and Senate members from each
party, a utility
executive, and representatives of energy producers, providers, a
large
commercial consumer and individual consumers.
OREGON: State Senate moves to combat energy crisis
03/16/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - In an attempt to avoid a California-like energy
crisis, the
Oregon Senate approved a bill Friday that would quicken the process
of siting
power plants that use gas and renewable resources.
"It's important for Oregon. It makes sure that energy will be
available to
everyone," said Sen. Lee Beyer, D-Springfield.
The measure, SB843, would shorten the siting process for power plants
that use
gas and renewable resources, like wind, from a year and a half to a
matter of
months.
The speeded-up process would be in effect for two years.
"If we can act now, we can actually start to solve power supply
problems by this
summer," said Sen. Jason Atkinson, R-Jacksonville
California's strict regulations on the construction of new power
plants has
contributed to its current shortage and legislators took note. Beyer
said though
California was definitely a wake-up call, the measure is a reaction
to the
larger power picture in the Northwest.
With low rainfall, hydroelectric generators will have trouble meeting
demand,
Beyer said. Gas-fired and wind plants could come online as soon as
this fall and
would provide relief.
"We are not in a position to sit back and do nothing about the energy
crisis the
Northwest and the country are experiencing," said Senate Minority
Leader Kate
Brown, D-Portland.
Conservationists, however, caution that lawmakers should be careful
not to rush
to provide power at the expense of environmental standards.
WISCONSIN: Two utilities to add 975 megawatts in plan to avoid
energy crisis
By The Associated Press
03/22/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Plans of two state utilities to add 975 megawatts to Wisconsin's
electric power
grid as a way of avoiding an energy crisis similar to California's
were
questioned Thursday by a consumer advocate who said too many power
plants may be
in the works.
"Certainly nobody wants to see blackouts like you have in California
but there
is the danger Wisconsin could be overbuilding," said Steve Hiniker,
executive
director of the Citizens' Utility Board, which represents consumer
interests in
utility rate cases. He noted that plant construction costs ultimately
are born
by the utility customers.
Alliant Energy Corp. announced its proposal Wednesday - in a filing
with the
state Public Service Commission - to spend $1 billion to build one
coal and two
gas-fired power plants.
Alliant has proposed building a 500 megawatt coal-fired plant and a
100 megawatt
natural-gas fired plant by 2006. It also wants to build a 200
megawatt natural
gas-fired facility in 2011. Wisconsin has not built a coal-fired
plant in more
than two decades.
Alliant has not determined the plants' locations.
Also, Madison Gas & Electric, the state's smallest investor-owned
utility, said
Wednesday that it had signed deals to buy 175 megawatts of power from
three
generating plants in Wisconsin and Illinois.
"Three out of the four past summers, we've had public appeals for
conservation
due to shortages somewhere in the state. We need to take steps to
avoid that,
and the California situation makes that even more clear," said
Alliant spokesman
Chris Schoenherr. "Getting more iron in the ground will give us more
flexibility
in the state to be able to react."
Alliant acknowledged the new plants will probably mean rate
increases, but it
was too early to say how much rates would go up.
California's problems, which this week resulted in the first
deliberate
blackouts since World War II, stemmed from underestimating the
state's power
needs, forcing utilities to sell their power plants but not allowing
them to
secure long-term supply contracts, and freezing rates, among other
things.
But Wisconsin's situation is far different.
The state has moved slower than California toward deregulation, and
there has
been no desire here to speed up the process in recent years as power
reliability
became a problem.
The PSC estimates that Wisconsin will need an additional 3,000
megawatts of
power over the next decade.
Hiniker said Wisconsin needs to coordinate its planning to avoid
overbuilding.
The costs of new power plants are passed on to ratepayers, meaning
electric
bills will increase as new generation is added. In addition,
coal-generated
power plants are a major source of air pollution in the state.
"We don't have the advance planning that has kept Wisconsin from
overbuilding in
the past," said Hiniker. "This is something the PSC should be doing."
MG&E's deals are:
-A 10-year contract to buy 75 megawatts from Calpine Energy Services
starting in
May 2004. The power will come from the natural gas-fired plant Rock
River Energy
Center, near Beloit.
Calpine Energy Services is a unit of San Jose, Calif.-based Calpine
Energy Corp.
The plant is being built by Northbrook, Ill.-based SkyGen Energy LLC,
which
Calpine bought last year from SkyGen President Michael Polsky and
Wisvest Corp.,
a unit of Wisconsin Energy Corp.
-A 10-year contract to buy 50 megawatts of power from the Rainy River
Energy
Corp. starting in May 2002. The power is coming from a natural
gas-fired plant
near Joliet, Ill. owned by LS Power Co. Rainy River is a unit of
Duluth-based
Minnesota Power Inc.
-A five-year contract to buy 50 megawatts from an El Paso Merchant
Energy plant
near Cordova, Ill., in western Illinois.
The owner of the natural gas facility is the Cordova Energy Center
Co., which is
a unit of Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy Holdings.
Alliant also offered support in the Wednesday filing for a $7 billion
plan of
Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Energy, which includes five new power
plants in Oak
Creek and Pleasant Prairie.
--
On the Net:
CUB: http://www.wiscub.org/
Alliant Energy: http://www.alliant-energy.com
Wisconsin Public Service Commission: http://www.psc.state.wi.us
Wisconsin Energy: http://www.wisenergy.com/
Madison Gas & Electric: http://www.mge.com
Use this file to download and print all the articles in this section
(See attached file: Dow Jones
Interactive-california-03233001-implications.doc)
If you wish to be removed from the distribution list for this update
please contact Pru Sheppard - DC.
All recipients of this message have been Bcc'd as part of industry
best practice for broadcast emails.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| This message may contain confidential and/or privileged |
| information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to |
| receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, |
| disclose or take any action based on this message or any |
| information herein. If you have received this message in |
| error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail |
| and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
- Dow Jones Interactive-california-03233001-selected.doc
- pic24389.pcx
- pic05075.pcx
- Dow Jones Interactive-california-03233001-implications.doc | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Please find below the Schedule of PRC Meetings for 2000 End of Year
Performance....
______________________________________________________________________________
_
Risk Mgmt November 27, 2000 EB49c4 11:30am to ???
Global Risk November 28, 2000 EB49c4 11:30am to ???
Gas Logistics November 28, 2000 Hyatt Regency/Pecan Rm 11:30am to ???
Gas and Power Settlements/
Deal Clearing/Texas Logistics/
Volume Mgmt November 29, 2000 EB49c4 11:30am to ???
All of Gas Trading Operations December 5, 2000 EB49c4 11:30am to ???
All of Energy Operations December 8, 2000 Hyatt Regency/Sandlewood
8:00am to ???
______________________________________________________________________________
_
Performance Process Schedule
October 25, 2000 System Opens for Feedback
November 17, 2000 System Closes for Feedback
November 20, 2000 PRC Meetings Begin
December 15, 2000 PRC Meetings Conclude
January 4-5, 2000 Executive Committee Meeting | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
The State Governor Asks Generators to Take Less Than They're Owed Power:
Meeting with firms, Davis says that settling for 70% of debt would help
Edison stay solvent. One executive bristles.
Los Angeles Times, 05/10/01
US AND CANADA: Few US business chiefs see recession ahead White Sulphur
Springs Financial Times; May 10, 2001
Abreast of the Market
Dow Industrials, Nasdaq Decline; Cisco Helps Weaken Tech Issues
The Wall Street Journal, 05/10/01
INDIA: Enron prepares to move execs out of India - paper.
Reuters English News Service, 05/10/01
India: A rational renegotiation plan
Business Line (The Hindu), 05/10/01
India: Centre to back Maharashtra on tariff talks with Enron
Business Line (The Hindu), 05/10/01
Centre asks IDBI to seek legal advice on DPC
Business Standard, 05/10/01
USA: CEOs urge major moves to deal with energy crisis.
Reuters English News Service, 05/09/01
USA: INTERVIEW-Enron CEO sees gasoline prices staying high.
Reuters English News Service, 05/09/01
SMARTMONEY.COM: Power Surge
Dow Jones News Service, 05/09/01
India: No To Guarantees For Enron Power Project -Report
Dow Jones International News, 05/09/01
N American Newsprint: Publishers Hold Large Inventories
Dow Jones Commodities Service, 05/09/01
California; Metro Desk
The State Governor Asks Generators to Take Less Than They're Owed Power:
Meeting with firms, Davis says that settling for 70% of debt would help
Edison stay solvent. One executive bristles.
DAN MORAIN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
05/10/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
B-8
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
SACRAMENTO -- After spending months bashing independent power generators,
Gov. Gray Davis on Wednesday called on them to take 30% less than the $1.2
billion they are owed by Southern California Edison.
"The Legislature [is] going to insist on a reduction," Davis said after a
meeting in his office with representatives of a dozen power generating
companies. Davis said he told them that "70% this year was more valuable to
them than whatever they get two or three years down the line" if Edison is
forced into bankruptcy.
Davis urged generators to help California extricate itself from a summer of
rolling blackouts by selling every available electron to the state.
He held out the possibility that he might sign legislation imposing a
windfall profits tax on generators if they fail to help out this summer.
"My attitude on that would depend a lot on whether they showed good faith and
cooperated throughout this process," Davis said, emerging after a four-hour,
closed-door meeting with the generators.
The Democratic governor issued an invitation last week to the chief executive
officers of power generating and marketing companies including Enron,
Reliant, Duke Energy and others to meet with him in Sacramento. But most of
the executives who attended were a few pay grades below CEO.
Davis said he urged that the executives press lawmakers to approve the deal
he struck with Edison in which the state would give the ailing utility an
infusion of cash by buying its transmission system for $2.76 billion. Edison
would use the money to restructure its debt and pay its creditors.
Davis said lawmakers will not approve the deal unless the independent power
generators take less than they are owed.
He noted that the state and the power generators have "a collective interest
in seeing that this summer has as few disruptions as possible." If California
is hit with repeated blackouts, Davis has said, other states will delay or
end efforts to deregulate their electricity markets.
Executives, who braved taunts from a few protesters wearing pig masks and
carrying a small but loudly squealing pig, characterized the meeting as
businesslike. But at least some generators are less than enthusiastic about
taking less than they are owed.
"I have a real concern about the notion that we should give back some of the
money we made," said John Stout, a senior vice president of the Houston-based
Reliant Energy, which says it is owed $300 million by Southern California
Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric.
Stout said that much of the money Reliant made in California is being
reinvested in power plant construction--although he added that the company
has no generators under construction in California.
"Political uncertainty has put a huge risk factor on investment in
California," Stout said.
Randy Harrison, an executive with Mirant, based in Atlanta, said the issue of
a so-called "haircut" was discussed, though not in detail. Harrison said it
is "not completely off the table." But he added that his company is not
profiteering. Nor has it withheld electricity in any attempt to manipulate
wholesale energy prices.
"Our people are working 24 hours a day and we are spending millions of
dollars to try and keep our power plants up and running," Harrison said.
The meeting was aimed at opening communication with the generators. But Davis
aides said the governor also wanted to bring attention to companies that he
believes are at least partly responsible for California's energy crisis.
The meeting occurred as polls show that voters are increasingly angry about
the energy crisis and as lawmakers, fearful that the energy crisis will wreck
California's economy, sharpen their attacks on power generators.
Legislators have introduced bills to impose a windfall profits tax on
generators and make it a felony to manipulate electricity markets. Lt. Gov.
Cruz Bustamante and Assemblywoman Barbara Matthews (D-Tracy) sued several
generators last week. Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer is investigating whether
generators violated antitrust and other laws as wholesale prices soared to
record heights, hobbling Edison and helping push PG&E into bankruptcy.
Voters are not sure who is to blame, but they are convinced that "whoever is
taking our money is taking way too much," said Democratic political
consultant Richie Ross.
"They want to find this deregulation's Charles Keating," Ross said, referring
to a central figure in the 1980s savings and loan debacle.
Still, as much as Davis and others demonize generators, the state needs them,
some officials say.
"We don't have enough power without them," said Assembly Energy Committee
Chairman Roderick Wright (D-Los Angeles). "There needs to be an adult
discussion to see what can be worked out."
PHOTO: CHP Officer Stacey Brashares holds a pig taken from protesters outside
the Capitol, where Gov. Gray Davis was meeting with executives of power
generating companies. Masks worn by the protesters carry the names of some of
the companies.; ; PHOTOGRAPHER: ROBERT DURELL / Los Angeles Times; PHOTO:
Gov. Gray Davis, after a meeting in his office with representatives of a
dozen power generating companies.; ; PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
US AND CANADA: Few US business chiefs see recession ahead White Sulphur
Springs Financial Times; May 10, 2001
By PERONET DESPEIGNES and ANDREW HILL
Only 11 per cent of chief executives at the largest US companies believe the
country is heading for a recession this year, according to a survey released
yesterday, but most agree 2001 will be at best a year of sluggish growth.
The survey was published to coincide with the spring meeting of the Business
Council, an association of chief executives from many of the largest US
companies.
Bill Harrison, president and chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, the banking
group, said the survey reflected "substantial uncertainty and difference of
opinion" about the potential length and depth of the slowdown.
Business leaders also appeared divided about the role of the Federal Reserve.
The chief executives listed the Fed's interest rate increases as the most
important cause of the US economic slowdown, but they also gave credit to the
central bank for staving off recession by easing monetary policy this year.
The Business Council survey released at last October's meeting was an early
indicator of corporate America's growing concern about the US economic
outlook.
Yesterday's report indicated nearly three quarters of US business leaders
expected growth to improve in 2002, but of those who responded, 70 per cent
expected growth in output this year of between 0 and 1.5 per cent. Some 19
per cent predicted economic growth of 1.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent, and only
11 per cent predicted a US recession.
The business leaders also remained pessimistic about growth outside the US.
The survey found they expected 1-2.5 per cent growth in the euro-zone this
year, down from 3.4 per cent in 2000, and growth of 0 to 1 per cent in Japan,
compared with 1.7 per cent last year.
There was, however, optimism about the potential for continued productivity
improvements. "The wide majority of respondents expect that the current pace
of productivity growth can and will be maintained," said Mr Harrison,
vice-chairman of the council.
Economic data released on Monday showed US workers' productivity slipped in
the first three months of this year, but Mr Harrison said it would be wrong
to overreact to data from one quarter.
More than 80 current and former chairmen and chief executives are expected to
attend the Business Council sessions today and tomorrow at the Greenbrier
resort hotel in West Virginia.
One of the hottest topics will be the US energy crisis. Scott McNealy of Sun
Microsystems, the computer group, and Ken Lay, chairman of Enron, the energy
group, criticised the sluggishness with which California had reacted to the
problems.
Mr McNealy said it was time to make "trade-offs on the environmental front",
including reconsidering the use of nuclear power.
* One of the most prominent groups of US economists remains "steadfast" in
its belief that a US recession is unlikely, Peronet Despeignes writes in
Washington. The National Association of Business Economics said in its latest
quarterly economic outlook, based on a survey of 27 members, that interest
rate cuts by the Fed would sustain economic growth. The chance of a recession
was put at 35 per cent, and most panellists agreed any recession would likely
be "milder than the usual post-World War II recession".
The group maintained its forecast for economic growth of 2 per cent in 2001,
but lowered its forecast for 2002 to 3.1 per cent from 3.5 per cent. The
panel also expected inflation of 3 per cent in 2001 and 2.5 per cent in 2002.
The group reversed its previous criticism of monetary policy as "too tight",
deeming the Fed's current conduct "just right".
Most panellists attributed the slowdown to a "classic inventory correction",
the Fed's monetary tightening, which ended a year ago, and the drop in stock
prices since March of last year.
Copyright: The Financial Times Limited
Abreast of the Market
Dow Industrials, Nasdaq Decline; Cisco Helps Weaken Tech Issues
By Robert O'Brien
Dow Jones Newswires
05/10/2001
The Wall Street Journal
C2
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -- Disappointment with Cisco Systems' earnings statement weakened
technology issues exposed to the telecommunications-gear business, but
without causing any fallout in the rest of the market.
Cisco itself declined $1.25, a loss of 6%, to $19.09 at 4 p.m. in Nasdaq
Stock Market trading, after the company, the leading maker of
Internet-switching equipment, came through late Tuesday with fiscal
third-quarter results that closely tracked the forecast the company offered
last month. Meanwhile, the commentary accompanying the profit statement
didn't do anything to stimulate hope for a pickup in the moribund
telecom-equipment market.
Shares in makers of the communications chips used in Cisco's networking
products declined sharply, with PMC-Sierra falling 3.99 to 40.11, while
Conexant Systems declined 1.33 to 9.87, and Broadcom dropped 4.29 to 40.24,
all on Nasdaq.
Some of the enterprise networking products also came undone, with Extreme
Networks falling 2.16 to 32.49 on Nasdaq. Makers of rival communications
technologies also took a spill. Juniper Networks declined 1.53 to 57.37,
while Ciena dropped 1.06 to 60.54, both on Nasdaq.
"Cisco's results put further scrutiny on the earnings and revenue projections
of related companies as we look ahead to second-quarter results," said Brian
Belski, fundamental market strategist at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. "But on
a relative basis, the market held in there."
The Nasdaq Composite Index, suffering from the Cisco fallout, declined 42.14,
or 1.9%, to end at 2156.63. But the Dow Jones Industrial Average acquitted
itself nicely, keeping its loss to 16.53, or 0.15%, to finish at 10866.98.
Investors adopted a somewhat defensive posture in the face of the weakness in
technology, gravitating toward areas that aren't especially sensitive to
economic trends, or toward sectors where profit growth looks dependable.
Shares of Procter & Gamble, for example, moved up 1.69 to 66.19, one of the
better moves by consumer-product stocks, which generally aren't sensitive to
economic weakness.
Utilities also proved popular. Duke Energy gained 1.87 to 45.84, Public
Service Enterprise Group advanced 1.08 to 46.20, and Enron climbed 3.09 to
59.20. The Dow Jones Utility Average increased 5, or 1.3%, to 383.74.
Energy stocks rose briskly, after weekly inventory data released late Tuesday
tamped down some of the concerns about increasing reserves stoked by reports
last week. Chevron gained 1.63 to 95.43, Texaco added 1.28 to 71.10, and
Exxon Mobil moved ahead 98 cents to 89.72. Oil-services and equipment
providers, which have been in a funk, recovered nicely, with Schlumberger
gaining 1.14 to 62.95, Halliburton advancing 1.28 to 42.51, and B.J. Services
improving 1.39 to 75.90.
Maxim Integrated Products (Nasdaq) fell 2.51 to 49.49. The Sunnyvale, Calif.,
maker of analog circuits posted fiscal third-quarter results late Tuesday
that matched Wall Street's projections, but also gave details about the
expected decline in its revenue and earnings in the fourth quarter. Lehman
Brothers, which had forecast weak guidance, said in a research note that it
remains cautious about the company's outlook.
Other integrated circuit makers also declined in the session, with Linear
Technology falling 2.38 to 48.04, while Analog Devices fell 1.61 to 46.35.
Chip maker National Semiconductor lowered its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings
forecasts, and announced plans to cut 10% of its work force, but the stock
made up intraday weakness, finishing unchanged at $25.
Exodus Communications (Nasdaq) fell 69 cents to 9.43. The Santa Clara,
Calif., provider of Internet hosting services said it planned to cut 15% of
its work force as part of an effort to cut costs.
WorldCom (Nasdaq) inched up 31 cents to 18.29. UBS Warburg reiterated its
strong buy rating on the Clinton, Miss., telecommunications service provider,
saying that the company's recent bond offering, which has been a drag on its
share price, won't have much, if any, impact on its ability to live up to
earnings forecasts.
Verizon Communications sagged 1.78 to 53.82. The telecommunications service
concern unveiled one of the largest convertible debt issues ever, a $3
billion offering of zero-coupon notes.
Johnson & Johnson gained 30 cents to 98.25. The New Brunswick, N.J.,
medical-products concern said it is in discussions about acquiring Inverness
Medical Technology's diabetes-care product operations for about $1.3 billion
in stock.
Sepracor (Nasdaq) gained 3.49 to 30.49. The Marlborough, Mass., specialty
drug maker said the Food and Drug Administration accepted for review its
capsule-form version of Soltara, an allergy-relief treatment.
Willamette Industries moved up 19 cents to 48.75. The Portland, Ore., lumber
and paper-products concern rejected Weyerhaeuser's sweetened takeover bid of
$50 a share, calling the offer inadequate. Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, Wash.,
eased 15 cents to 56.22.
Northrop Grumman fell 3.50 to 88. The Los Angeles defense contractor made an
unsolicited bid to buy rival Newport News Shipbuilding for $67.50 a share, or
$2.1 billion, in cash and stock. Newport News added four cents to 65.04.
General Dynamics, which had previously agreed to buy Newport News for the
same price, fell 15 cents to 78.15.
Shares of several other aerospace and defense contractors moved higher in the
session, after Credit Suisse First Boston sketched the benefits to the group
from some of the Bush administration's prospective military-spending
initiatives. TRW added 2.05 to 40.20, Boeing rose 54 cents to $65, and
Raytheon advanced 35 cents to 29.46.
Alliant Techsystems, another name in the group identified by Credit Suisse
First Boston as benefiting from military spending, fell 2.50 to 95.50, even
though the Minneapolis aerospace and defense concern's fiscal fourth-quarter
earnings topped Wall Street's profit forecasts.
Forest Laboratories moved ahead 2.88 to 62.21 following some upbeat comments
from Thomas Weisel Partners.
Triad Hospitals fell 2.45 to 24.70. Lehman Brothers cut its rating on the
Dallas hospital operator, citing concerns about the recent acquisition of
Quorum Health Group.
Circuit City dropped 97 cents to 13.55, after Lehman Brothers in a research
note offered some cautious comments about the valuation of the Richmond, Va.,
consumer-electronics retailer.
Spinnaker Exploration gained 3.55 to 40.50. Credit Suisse First Boston, which
had cut its rating on the Houston natural-gas concern last month, returned
its strong buy rating on the stock.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
INDIA: Enron prepares to move execs out of India - paper.
05/10/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.
BOMBAY, May 10 (Reuters) - U.S. energy giant Enron Corp has begun a process
of relocating executives overseeing its controversy-wracked $2.9 billion
power project in India, an Indian financial daily said on Thursday.
The Economic Times said company sources, which it did not name, said the
Houston-based company was preparing to offer its dozen managers in India a
choice of transfering elsewhere or accepting a lump sum to retire.
"Unfortunately, the company could not pursue its projects in India, and has
decided to fold up its operations in the country," the newspaper quoted an
unnamed Enron official as saying.
The report also said: "The whole process of relocating the Indian staff is
expected to be completed within a month or two."
An Enron spokesman declined comment, saying it was company policy not to
comment on administrative and personnel matters.
On Wednesday another domestic daily, the Times of India, reported that the
families of executives overseeing Enron's troubled Dabhol Power Company (DPC)
project in India were leaving the country.
It said the children of Enron executives had been pulled out of the American
School in Bombay as their families were being relocated to Singapore.
It also said security around the expatriate executives had been tightened,
and personal bodyguards assigned to senior executives, because "there is
likely to be a tremendous backlash" if the project is terminated, causing the
loss of 15,000 jobs.
The Economic Times report on Thursday noted that Enron had already pulled out
of all the other projects in India in which it once planned to invest.
Metgas, which was to build a liquefied natural gas pipeline in the state of
Maharashtra, and Enron Broadband Solutions, which was to lay an optic fibre
cable network across the country, have virtually folded up operations, the
newspaper said.
"The other group company, Enron Oil & Gas (India), which is a joint venture
between Reliance and ONGC, is currently in the process of selling its stake,"
it added.
Enron has also scrapped plans to invest in other power projects in India, due
to financial problems encountered by its nearly complete 2,184 MW power plant
south of Bombay.
The project is mired in controversy after the Maharashtra State Electricity
Board (MSEB) reneged on its commitment to buy all the power produced by the
giant plant, saying it is too costly.
MSEB has also defaulted on monthly payments to DPC for the electricity it has
taken, forcing the company's board last month to authorise the management to
terminate the contract.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
India: A rational renegotiation plan
05/10/2001
Business Line (The Hindu)
Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) -
Asia Intelligence Wire
Separating the LNG project from the power project would reduce the tariffs
for the latter, but not remove the financial hurdles for the State and the
Centre. They would continue to pay more for the LNG project and guarantee its
loans. DPC is now recovering the cost of the LNG project from the power
project. Therefore, the mere segregation of the LNG project without
readjusting the PPA or delinking the sovereign guarantee obligations would
only help DPC and not the people of Maharashtra, says S. Padmanabhan.
THE MAHARASHTRA Government recently announced its plans to renegotiate the
Enron-promoted Dabhol power project. In this connection, Mr R. K. Pachouri, a
committee member appointed for the renegotiation, outlined the priorities of
the project in a television interview:
- To reduce the interest rate for the project debt of DPC to be in line with
the current market trends;
- To achieve higher output and identify power purchasers outside Maharashtra;
and
- To separate the LNG project from the power project.
A business daily on May 2 reported that Indian Oil plans to supply 1.2
million tonnes of naphtha to DPC at around the international price of $290 a
tonne, including sales tax of 16-18 per cent per tonne.
The report indicates that DPC has requested the Maharashtra Government to
waive the sales tax so that the reduction in the sales tax can be passed on
to the consumers.
Similar news reports on the project have started appearing in both the print
and visual media. These indicate that the State Government and the DPC
management seem to have come to an understanding on the broad principles of
renegotiation and both are in the process of educating the public about the
benefits these various measures would bring to the project.
No doubt, these steps would bring down the tariff. But, then, the reduction
will be due to concessions and subsidies offered by the State and the
financial institutions by way of waiver of sales tax and reduction in
interest rate. It appears that DPC will not offer any reduction or concession
offered in the tariff or the rate of returns.
Reduction in project debt: When the DPC loans were sanctioned, the prime
lending rate was around 14 per cent and the power projects were offered loans
at 3-3.5 per cent over the PLR. Now the PLR is around 12.5 per cent and the
interest rates for the power sector will be 15-15.5 per cent. Effectively,
there would be a reduction of around 1.5-2 per cent in the interest rate.
However, it must be noted that the same refinancing opportunity is good for
every other Indian project.
If the Centre permits refinancing for DPC, it should permit projects in other
States as well to be refinanced. If it does, that will be at a considerable
loss to the FIs such as the IDBI, the IFCI and the ICICI.
To achieve higher output and identify power purchasers outside Maharashtra:
This is not a tariff- reduction exercise. In fact, this would help DPC
improve its profits and cash flows under the present PPA. DPC has a single-
point tariff which consists of a fixed and a variable charge. Higher the
output the DPC recovers, higher the fixed charges and higher the profits.
Thus, without any significant changes in the existing PPA, this step would
help DPC, and put more States in trouble.
Perhaps, the renegotiating committee wants other States to sink as well with
Maharashtra.
To separate the LNG project from the power project: This is a welcome step.
While it would reduce the tariff for the power project, it would not remove
the financial hurdles for the State and the Centre, which would continue to
be paying more for the LNG project and guaranteeing the loans of the LNG
project. DPC is now recovering all the cost of the LNG project from the
Dabhol project, which will consume only around 2.5 million tonnes of LNG,
whereas the capacity of the LNG project is being upgraded to five million
tonnes. Therefore, the mere segregation of the LNG project without
readjusting the PPA or delinking the sovereign guarantee obligations does not
serve the purpose. It would help DPC and not the people of Maharashtra.
To exempt sales tax on naphtha: This is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. As
IOC suggested, if $290 is the price of naphtha per tonne, it works out to Rs
13,630 (one $ = Rs 47). Given that DPC gets paid fuel cost per kWh at 2,000
kcal (heat rate) and the naphtha has a heat value of 11,000 kcal, one tonne
of the fuel will give DPC fuel price for 5,500 kWh, that is at the rate of Rs
2.48 per kWh for naphtha.
If sales tax of 16 per cent is exempted from this price, the naphtha price
drops to Rs 11,750 and the per kWh fuel price for DPC drops to Rs 2.14 from
Rs 2.48. IOC expects to supply 1.2 million tonnes of naphtha for producing
6,600 million kWh and the sales tax exemption effect will be Rs 225 crore
(0.34 per kWh).
What is DPC's contribution in this reduction? On the same account, every
power project would seek to reduce the sales tax on the fuel they use.
Remember that if the State sacrifices revenue in one area, it will recover
the loss through some other taxes. When the current trend is to remove
subsidies in all the sectors, the State and the renegotiating committee are
opening up new subsidies to support DPC.
An alternative
The renegotiating committee should reduce the real tariffs from DPC's fixed
costs, rather than making cosmetic changes in the taxation structure.
The following steps are needed:
- To remove the corporate veil protecting the DPC project documents:
The public at large are paying for the revenues of DPC and no government can
have the right to keep a veil of secrecy on the documents. This will help the
public at large and the experts in the industry understand the implications
and suggest viable alternatives.
- To change DPC tariff formula from a single-part to two-part tariff:
The Centre has a two-part tariff policy which stipulates recovery of fixed
cost under certain circumstances. The most critical issue of this policy is
the recovery of all fixed costs at a capacity utilisation (PLF) at 75 per
cent. DPC has adopted a single part tariff system where the fixed costs are
paid for all capacities and, thus the return of DPC increases as the capacity
utilisation rises. While this method may promote efficiency, DPC has tied the
State in tight knots with this higher capacity utilisation and, will make
very high levels of profits. Therefore, it is essential that the single-part
tariff is renegotiated at lower levels or better still scrapped and two-part
tariff adopted.
Renegotiating the station heat rate: DPC has a station heat rate of 2000 kcal
per kWh. Thus, for every unit of electricity it produces the fuel - naphtha -
it is reimbursed to DPC at the rate of 2,000 kcal per kWh. At $290 per tonne
(Rs 13,630 at one $ = Rs 47) of IOC price this works out to Rs 2.48 per kWh.
DPC uses GE 9FA machines-gas turbines which burn naphtha at around 1,700 kcal
per kWh. In other words, DPC uses 1,700 kcal of naphtha and gets paid for
2,000 kcal.
Thus, it spends Rs 2.11 per kWh on fuel but gets paid Rs 2.48 per kWh, making
a profit of Rs 0.37 for every kWh. On 2,100 MW at 80 per cent capacity, this
is a whopping Rs 550 crore. While there may be technical grounds to pay at a
level higher than 1,700 kcal due to considerations of part load, there is no
justification for paying at 2,000 kcal. In fact, the Centre and the CEA as
well as other States have been successfully forcing all power producers to
reduce from the 2,000 kcal levels while Maharashtra has not been able to do
this.
This is a key issue in negotiations.
To source naphtha only from domestic sources: India has a surplus of naphtha
as of now and there is no need to import it. DPC should be forced to buy fuel
only from domestic sources so that the profits remain with domestic
companies, and not allow DPC to make higher profits of fuel handling.
What if renegotiation fails?
DPC will not agree to changes in the PPA as it would feel that it is a signed
and sealed document. Maharashtra may look at cosmetic changes, and may make
sacrifices to reduce the tariff. But in the long run, the contract will run
aground because of the inability of the State Government to use and pay for
the power produced by DPC.
Given the background of Enron worldwide, it would press ahead with its
perceived advantages - legal and contractual. It is better for the State to
ready a back-up action plan. The following line of action is suggested:
- To terminate the PPA and other project contracts and give notice to Enron
to wind up operations;
- To inform the lenders, the beneficiaries of the sovereign guarantee, that
the Centre will pay up its commitments. Perhaps, this may involve setting up
an escrow account and placing sufficient debt reserve funds that the lenders
may request, pending final payments;
- To quickly move towards an arbitration process primarily to d etermine the
amounts payable to Enron towards contract termination;
- To initiate an international competitive tendering process, with the
permission of the lenders, to sell the power project and the LNG terminal as
independent projects - the process should also permit bids from Indian
companies;
- To make a serious effort to complete the bid finalisation and selection of
the successful bidder in two-three months;
- The bidding process should have two parameters for the bidders to quote:
a) tariff payable to the bidder for the next 20 years (in the case of LNG
terminal - price of gas on long term basis);
b) price for the assets;
c) The bid would attract several international power players including
American companies for the power and the LNG projects and the bids offered
will be attractive. Also Indian companies or consortia would line up for the
bid;
d) Simultaneous with this exercise, as soon as determination of amounts
payable to Enron becomes clear, to place the funds so determined and accepted
with an escrow agent acceptable to Enron;
e) To set up an investigating team to go into the approval process to
determine whether there has been any corrupt practice in the process of
granting approvals. There is a Supreme Court case (filed by CITU) pending
decision on charges of corruption. The investigating team to focus, with the
cooperation of the US Government, on the issues relating to Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA) of the US. Violation of the FCPA by any American
corporate is a serious issue attracting criminal prosecution. There can be a
time bound investigation;
f) To proceed with the prosecution of all people concerned if found guilty -
if Enron is found guilty the compensations may not be payable and the US law
agencies will step in to prosecute Enron;
j) If Enron is not found guilty, to pay the monies due to it by releasing the
amounts in escrow. By this time the asset takeover and the debt repayment
issues would have been resolved;
k) Conservatively, it is believed that there would be an ultimate gap of
$1,000 million (Rs 4,700 crore at one $ = Rs 47) after the assets are sold
and debts transferred to the new owners. It is suggested that the State float
a public debt issue for paying this to Enron and levy an 'Enron Cess' to
recover the loss and repay the debt issue over the next 15-20 years. At a
return of 10 per cent per annum on Rs 4,700 crore over the next 15 years and
assuming that 100 per cent of the loss is recovered from the 2,100 MW project
and assuming an 80 per cent PLF, the 'Enron Cess' per kWh of energy produced
will be Rs 0.42.
But will the Central and State governments have the political will to force
this issue?
(The author is a power-finance consultant.)
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
India: Centre to back Maharashtra on tariff talks with Enron
Our Bureau
05/10/2001
Business Line (The Hindu)
Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) -
Asia Intelligence Wire
BANGALORE, May 9. THE Centre has conveyed that it would support the
Maharashtra Government on the contentious issue of tariff renegotiations with
Enron for power purchase from Dabhol Power Company (DPC).
Talking to newspersons here on Wednesday, the Union Minister for Power, Mr
Suresh Prabhu, said the Centre had already appointed the Solicitor-General of
India as its nominee in the panel set up by the Maharashtra State Government
headed by Mr Madhav Godbole to renegotiate the terms of the power purchase
agreement. Enron's executives were due to meet the panel on May 11 in this
connection, he added.
Replying to questions on Enron's proposals to exit from DPC, he said that
neither the Maharashtra Government nor Enron had conveyed their desire to
exit from DPC. "We will support the State Government," he emphasised. He said
that the Centre was not in a position to intervene in the matter since it was
for Enron to take a decision on the issue.
However, the Centre's counter guarantee liabilities in DPC would be confined
to the extent of the State Government's payment defaults.
Earlier speaking at the inauguration of CII institute of quality, he said
that the Centre's new focus was on conservation of power rather than adding
fresh capacity.
The Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr S.M. Krishna, who was also present, said
that WTO's impact on the agriculture sector needed to be addressed and said
that the Prime Minister should call a meeting of the Chief Ministers to
discuss the outcome of the WTO and future steps that needed to be taken.
He added that the Congress had initiated reforms - liberalisation and
globalisation - and there was no intention of retreating on them.
However, it was necessary to have a mid-term appraisal on them. Dr K.
Kasturirangan, Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation said, "Behind
every successful company is a quality culture, and that in the unforgiving
environment of space strict quality awareness was very essential and any
violation would mean that we have to pay heavily in space."
He added that space had given to the world configuration, control and
management and in the Rs 1,000 crore GSLV programme, over 10,000 computer
simulations had been done in th last six-seven years, before it was
considered flight worthy.
Almost 1000 major reviews were done and input collected not only from senior
engineers, but from youngsters too, "as their minds are fresh.
We worked towards transparency and fairly and frankly exchanged ideas.
Around half a million a A-4 size papers documentation was done on the
programme," he added.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Centre asks IDBI to seek legal advice on DPC
Our Regional Bureau New Delhi
05/10/2001
Business Standard
3
Copyright (c) Business Standard
The Centre has asked the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) to seek
legal advice on the letter issued by the international lenders to Enron
seeking a series of demands from the Maharashtra and central government.
In a communication to the financial institution, the finance ministry has
said that a decision to provide escrow cover and increase the limit under
letter of credit to Dabhol Power Company as per the demand of the energy
major's global and domestic lenders last week, can only be taken after
considering all the relevant issues.
In the reply, also sent to the Maharashtra government, the ministry has also
referred to the state government's refusal to tow the line on the demands put
forward by the lenders in a letter to the finance secretary, Ajit Kumar.
The lenders to Enron including ABN-Amro, Credit Suisse First Boston, Citibank
N A, ANZ Export Finance Ltd and Banc Of America had asked for payment of the
disputed Rs 213 crore towards December and January bills plus an escrow cover
and an increase in the letter of credit amount.
It had also asked the Centre to honour the counter guarantees and its
obligations in the power purchase agreement.
Meanwhile, the state yesterday appointed Singapore-based lawyer Quentin Loh
as its representative for the three arbitration cases and MSEB would be
represented by former Bombay High Court judge ML Pendse.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
USA: CEOs urge major moves to deal with energy crisis.
By Jeremy Pelofsky
05/09/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va., May 9 (Reuters) - In fear of the unpredictable
power outages in California, Scott McNealy, the chief executive at computer
giant Sun Microsystems Inc. , has resorted to carrying a flashlight with him
at all times.
Plus, the network computer maker will be $8 million to $9 million over the
annual budget for its facilities in California because of high energy costs,
he said Wednesday at the chief executive summit known as the Business Council.
"I don't know about you but I carry a flashlight everywhere I go," McNealy
said. "We've got third world power out there."
California's summer of blackouts could cost its economy almost $22 billion in
lost productivity and chop as many as 135,000 jobs in the state, according to
an industry association study released Wednesday.
With energy prices expected to soar as the year progresses, the executives
surveyed by the Business Council, an association of corporate executives,
urged further liberalization of the energy market and sought new incentives
for exploration.
"Consensus expectations are for higher petroleum and electricity costs over
the balance of this year," said J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Inc. executive
William Harrison.
The blackouts - the most visible result of an energy crisis caused by
California's disastrous 1996 experiment with power market deregulation - are
forecast to continue through the summer as warm temperatures keep air
conditioning demand high.
The industry groups that commissioned the study hope to use it to campaign
against a new, tiered power rate structure being considered by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which they claim will pass too much of
the burden of paying for California's energy crisis on to industrial
customers.
That rate proposal, officially put forward Wednesday, would slap residential
customers who use the most electricity with average rate hikes of between 35
and 40 percent, while industrial users could face rate hikes of 50 percent or
more.
Kenneth Lay, chairman of Enron Corp. , the biggest buyer and seller of
electricity in North America, said California could pay from $50 billion to
$80 billion this summer for electricity.
"The biggest impact will be the disruptions in that economy if in fact we
have a normally warm or even warmer than normal summer," Lay said. "There's
still a lot of things that have to be done."
He said there has to be a complete plan to solving the crisis and the longer
the state waits, the more money that will be paid out. Lay also urged for
more steps to promote energy conservation.
"I think it's a very solvable problem, it just cannot be solved without some
pain," Lay said. "Finally they're raising rates ... and at least correcting
some of the problems."
Sun's McNealy said there must also be another look at building nuclear power
plants.
In the meantime, he quipped that while Palo Alto, Calif.-based Sun has a
dress code requiring employees to come to work in clothes, that may change.
"We're thinking of backing that off a bit or even encouraging people to wear
shorts because we're cranking up the thermostats," he said.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
USA: INTERVIEW-Enron CEO sees gasoline prices staying high.
05/09/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va., May 9 (Reuters) - Consumers will not likely get
any relief at the gas pumps this summer but prices are not expected to hit $3
a gallon as some have forecast, Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay told Reuters
on Wednesday.
Gasoline inventories have been rising in recent weeks, more than was
expected, which could hold prices from skyrocketing, Lay told Reuters in an
interview on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the Business Council in
the mountains of West Virginia.
"Hopefully they will not go up as much as people feared," he said, adding
that he "would not be surprised if they go up a little bit."
The Energy Information Agency said the national retail gasoline price hit a
new record high of $1.70 a gallon on Monday and could climb to $1.75 this
summer with demand expected to grow despite the increase.
EIA warned that current gasoline inventories, which have risen recently but
remain below historical levels, set the stage for fuel supply disruptions
that could result in price spikes this summer.
Lay said that holding down summer gas prices will largely depend on whether
there are any disruptions at refineries across the country and the flow of
imports from abroad.
"But with normal refinery runs, and imports and all the rest of it, hopefully
the market will not get too far out of balance," he said.
"We'll probably not see much softness in the gasoline prices either until
back in the fall some time," Lay said.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SMARTMONEY.COM: Power Surge
By Roben Farzad
05/09/2001
Dow Jones News Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Talk about vindication. In the late 1990s, when tech
was shooting through the roof, no one wanted to waste their time in the
greasy, sweaty world of oil and gas stocks. The fact that energy prices were
touching multiyear lows at the time didn't help. In those days, being an
energy analyst was the loneliest of callings.
Needless to say, things have changed. Last year, power shortages and record
oil and gas prices sent the once forsaken group of energy stocks soaring
while investors ran screaming from the likes of Cisco Systems (CSCO), Intel
(INTC) and the B2B flavor of the month. Suddenly, energy experts were the
life of the party.
So dramatic was the rotation that unearthing value plays has become
difficult. The Dow Jones U.S. Energy Index, for example, is up 18% in the
last year, while the American Stock Exchange Natural Gas Index has soared 33%
- compared with the Standard & Poor's 500's 12% drop.
But that doesn't mean finding underappreciated stocks is impossible. It just
takes some, well, drilling down.
Start with Houston-based fuel exploration and producer Apache (APA), a
SmartMoney.com favorite stubbornly trading at a 21% discount to its 52-week
high of $74 set last December. In March, Robert Hunter noted that natural-gas
prices would likely continue to spike into 2001 even after quadrupling
between 1999 and 2000. So far, that scenario has played out, yet Apache still
trades at a 33% discount to its 2001 estimated net asset value, while sector
rivals currently trade at a more reasonable 15% to 20% discount to their
NAVs. Moreover, the stock presently changes hands at just 12 times forward
earnings - a hefty discount to its historical Cisco-like multiple of 66.
Why the disconnect? Admittedly stumped, the oil and gas analyst community -
which is almost uniformly positive on Apache - concedes that investors have a
difficult time believing the gas industry's "perfect storm" combination of
all-time high prices, low reserves and high demand will last. Brad Beago of
Credit Lyonnais points out that the market is pricing the stock as if oil
were trading in the low $20s per barrel and gas at $3 per million cubic feet,
instead of the $28 and $4.50, respectively, they fetch now. What's more,
Apache's well-known growth-by-acquisition strategy has scared away investors
who fear that a sudden collapse in commodity prices could torpedo the
company's business model.
Such thinking could be a mistake. In the past decade, Apache has spent more
than $10 billion to snap up reserves and production facilities at low prices,
a work in progress that has created a rock-solid asset portfolio with
consistent revenue streams. Recently, the company put the finishing touches
on $1.4 billion in high-profile property acquisitions from the Spanish
concern Repsol and the Australian Fletcher Challenge, deals that have
produced, among other things, gushing oil yields in Egypt and Canada.
"Historically, Apache has done an exceptionally good job on the acquisition
side," says Kenneth Beer of New Orleans-based Johnson Rice. "The upside," he
adds, "now comes from the maturation of their exploration program."
Another intriguing energy play: Williams Cos. (WMB). Known as the poor man's
Enron (ENE), the $19 billion Tulsa, Okla.-based energy powerhouse has a hand
in virtually all areas of the business - gas and oil transportation,
gathering, exploration, refining, power marketing and energy trading, to name
just a few. And like Apache, Williams has been aggressive lately. On Monday,
the company snarled off suitor Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD) by paying $2.5
billion for Denver natural-gas producer Barrett Resources (BRR), a deal that
not only will be immediately accretive to earnings but also effectively
doubles Williams' proven gas stockpile.
On the accounting front, first-quarter revenues at Williams surged 63%
year-over-year to $3.09 billion, while earnings from continuing operations
shot up to $378.3 million from $138.9 million. Yet Williams' stock, currently
around $39, trades at a 21% discount to its 52-week high of $48.13 set last
August, and just 14 times estimated 2002 earnings. Since rich cousin and
industry standard-bearer Enron trades at 27 times forward earnings, analysts
who cover Williams think the stock is long overdue for a pop.
Finally, investors looking to increase their exposure to the energy sector
should consider the booming area of power generation, an industry that has
consolidated a frightening amount of clout in the disastrously deregulated
state of California and elsewhere. Based in San Jose, Calif., Calpine (CPN)
does the dirty work of generating and selling electricity to utilities and
other third parties. Ironically, the company's two primary fuel sources for
its turbines - natural gas and geothermal - actually make for some of the
cleanest electricity production around.
And Calpine's numbers suggest that green (or at least greener) can be good
from a profitability standpoint. For the three months ended March 31,
revenues skyrocketed to $1.23 billion from $235.4 million, with net income
surging fivefold to $93.7 million. First-quarter earnings per share of 30
cents beat the Street by six cents and persuaded the analyst community to
predict decidedly un-utility-like 45% to 50% annual EPS growth for the
company for the next five years.
While Calpine's healthy 2002 price-to-earnings ratio of 23 is in line with
that of the S&P 500, political momentum is certainly on the company's side.
The Bush administration has taken a hands-off approach to the California
energy crisis, leaving it in the lap of Democratic governor Gray Davis of
California. Still reeling from the bankruptcy of PG&E, the Davis
administration is left with little power aside from exhortation to compel
generators like Calpine to give the state's financially strapped utilities a
break. As California's rolling blackouts make front-page news again this
summer, it will become increasingly clear to Americans that new power plants
are needed to meet our growing energy demand - 1,900 over the next two
decades, according to Vice President Dick Cheney. Flush with cash and
proceeds from the capital markets, Calpine is all too happy to come to the
rescue.
With growth prospects like these, Calpine - along with its underappreciated
cousins Apache and Williams - could make for some exciting talk around the
candle-lit water cooler his summer.
For more information and analysis of companies and mutual funds, visit
SmartMoney.com at http://www.smartmoney.com/
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
India: No To Guarantees For Enron Power Project -Report
05/09/2001
Dow Jones International News
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW DELHI -(Dow Jones)- India's Finance Ministry has upheld the Maharashtra
state government's decision not to extend financial guarantees sought by
lenders to Enron Corp.'s (ENE) controversial Dabhol Power Co., the Press
Trust of India, quoting state government sources, reported late Wednesday.
The federal government upheld the state government's decision not to provide
escrow cover or increase the limit of a letter of credit, the Press Trust
said.
The Finance Ministry's response, in a letter to the Maharashtra government,
followed demands for the guarantees by the $3 billion power-plant project's
global and domestic lenders, the Press Trust reported.
Enron spokesman John Ambler in Houston couldn't confirm that a letter had
been sent and said it would be inappropriate to comment.
The 2,184-megawatt project - India's single largest foreign investment - has
been mired in financial disputes since the Maharashtra State Electricity
Board, its main customer, failed to pay several bills. Under a 1996
counter-guarantee agreement, the federal government is obliged to pay Enron
when MSEB defaults.
According to the Press Trust, the consortium of lenders asked in a May 1
letter to Finance Secretary Ajit Kumar for payment of the disputed 2.13
billion rupees ($1=INR46.8325) in power bills from December and January,
activation of escrow cover and an increase in the letter of credit amount.
The lenders also asked the federal government to Honiara its counter
guarantees to Dabhol Power under the power purchase agreement with
Maharashtra State.
The lenders are ABN Amro (ABN), Credit Suisse First Boston (Z.CSF), Citibank
NA (C), ANZ Export Finance Ltd, Bank of America (BAC) and the Industrial
Development Bank of India.
Dabhol has come under fire because of the relatively high cost of its power.
Critics object to Dabhol charging INR7.1 a kilowatt-hour for its power,
compared with INR1.5/kWh charged by other suppliers.
As reported, a nine-member state committee headed by retired federal Home
Secretary Madhav Godbole is working to lower the DPC's power tariff and allow
the sale of excess power to the federal government or its utilities. A
restructuring of the DPC's stakeholding may also be on the agenda. The
Maharashtra government has asked the committee to try to negotiate a revised
agreement within a month.
The DPC currently operates a 740-megawatt naphtha plant contributing about
0.7% to India's installed capacity. Enron has maintained that work will be
completed by the year-end in the second phase of the Dabhol project that will
add 1,444 MW to its capacity. The plant will switch from naphtha to liquefied
natural gas as a fuel source in 2002.
Texas-based Enron has a 65% stake in the DPC and is the project's largest
shareholder. Other shareholders include the MSEB with 15%, and General
Electric Co. (GE) and Bechtel Enterprises (X.BTL) with 10% each.
-By Himendra Kumar, Dow Jones Newswires; 91-11-461-9427;
[email protected]
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
N American Newsprint: Publishers Hold Large Inventories
05/09/2001
Dow Jones Commodities Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- Publishers in the North American newsprint market,
which are holding large amounts of inventory, continued to resist the
recently revised price hike, though prices hadn't suffered further erosion in
the week ended Wednesday.
Producers reduced their original March price hike of $50 a metric ton to $25
a ton, effective May 1.
Market participants said the pressure was on producers to lower prices
further.
"We're selling at the same price and buying at the same price," said a source
at a U.S. merchant, which caters to small- to medium-sized buyers. But added
the source, "I think the ($25 a ton) price increase will get scaled back to
unchanged."
The element setting the last few price increases apart from this year's
increase is that they were implemented during a tight market.
This price hike comes at a time when publishers have considerably reduced
their consumption of newsprint and are holding substantial inventory,
according to publisher sources.
Some of that inventory had been built to beat the March price hike, and it
went unused as advertising linage started to fall beyond expectations.
"I've cut orders because my inventories are going up, up and up," said a
purchasing executive with a major Midwestern daily. "I'm not buying more than
what I have committed under contract."
The executive said other newspaper publishers in the Midwest - Tribune Co.
(TRB) as well as some medium-sized buyers - were facing similar circumstances
and cutting back on newsprint purchases.
The Midwestern daily, whose consumption has fallen 12% mainly due to
advertising linage and classified advertising reductions, held 59 days of
newsprint inventory, the executive said.
Meanwhile, to increase their leverage, some larger publishers turned to
purchasing newsprint from entities like Enron Corp. (ENE), while denying
business to larger producers like Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (ABY) and Bowater
Inc. (BOW).
Enron physically buys and sells pulp and paper, as well as risk-management
instruments related to forest products, among other commodities.
Transaction prices averaged $620 a ton, but larger newspaper chains paid
between $580 a ton to $610 a ton, sources said. Newsprint's list price is
currently at $635 a ton.
Despite low newsprint consumption and a concerted effort by publishers to
stave off the May price increase, BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.'s forest products
analyst, Stephen Atkinson, said the price hike should be implemented "without
any problems."
"Yes, there is a slowdown (in consumption), but the power is in the hands of
the producers" following a high degree of consolidation in the newsprint
industry, he said.
"The producers can't drive publishers into bankruptcy, but the publishers are
now finding that they can't drive producers into bankruptcy either," Atkinson
added.
-By Zahida Hafeez, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4132;
[email protected]
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Attached are the revised drafts of the weather GTC's. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Clint--we will assume that you or Jeff is taking care of getting the payment made.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shackleton, Sara
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:16 PM
To: Freeland, Clint; Armogida, Jim; Nogid, Jeff; Rogers, Rex
Subject: Early Termination of UBS forward
I am faxing to you a copy of the Statement submitted by UBS to Enron Corp. reflecting calculation of the Early Termination Amount owed by Enron Corp. and due on Monday, October 29, 2001.
Sara Shackleton
Enron Wholesale Services
1400 Smith Street, EB3801a
Houston, TX 77002
Ph: (713) 853-5620
Fax: (713) 646-3490 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
John, Very good idea to improve our integration as an organization. If possible the best timing is the last weekend in June.
With all the changes we have made I suggest an update of the major issues/ opportunities in each one of our businesses. Also an overall sense of business strategy and focus would be helpfull. From an HR standpoint I am not sure all understand the PRC as a development tool, as well as an evaluation mechanism. We need to find ways to incentivate new and creative business development that may not result in short term results. A discussion of the HR development is key.
From a location standpoint there is a very nice guest ranch with great conference facilities that Enron has used in the past located in Jackson, WY. They can accomodate all our team and also have plenty of outside activities that include horseback riding in the mountains which is much less stressfull than climbing but you get the same views.
From: John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate on 02/05/2001 16:29 CDT
To: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry Arora/ENRON@enronXgate, Edward D Baughman/ENRON@enronXgate, Sally Beck/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron, Wes Colwell/ENRON@enronXgate, Derek Davies/CAL/ECT@ECT, Mark Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joseph Deffner/ENRON@enronXgate, Glen Devries/ENRON@enronxgate, Paul Devries/TOR/ECT@ECT, W David Duran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris H Foster/ENRON@enronXgate, Doug Gilbert-Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rogers Herndon/HOU/ECT@ect, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Josey/ENRON@enronXgate, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Kyle Kitagawa/CAL/ECT@ECT, Fred Lagrasta/ENRON@enronXgate, John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Eric LeDain/CAL/ECT@ECT, Laura Luce/Corp/Enron@Enron, Thomas A Martin/ENRON@enronXgate, Jonathan McKay/CAL/ECT@ECT, Don Miller/ENRON@enronXgate, Michael L Miller/ENRON@enronXgate, Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT, Jean Mrha/ENRON@enronXgate, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Oxley/ENRON@enronXgate, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Beth Perlman/ENRON@enronXgate, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Redmond/ENRON@enronXgate, Hunter S Shively/ENRON@enronXgate, Fletcher J Sturm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Swerzbin/ENRON@enronxgate, C John Thompson/ENRON@enronXgate, Carl Tricoli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Barry Tycholiz/NA/Enron@ENRON, Frank W Vickers/NA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Greg Wolfe/ENRON@enronXgate, Max Yzaguirre/NA/Enron@ENRON, John Zufferli/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc: Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject:
Hello everyone.
In December we decided to kill our planned offsite due to market volatility. Louise and I would like to get everyone together offsite, probably in late June (once Louise is back from holiday (just kidding)). I think it's time to go have a little fun with the group driving Enron's success.
I would like suggestions as to:
1) Where to go.
2) What should be the focus of the business meetings.
3) Should we have business meetings or should we do something else (ie. climb a mountain)? I'm not a strong bid on climbing a mountain.
4) And any other ideas you have.
In addition I would like to start having staff meetings about once a month. The first one will be Friday May 11th at 2:30 p.m. Please add this to your schedule. I have invited everyone who has P/L responsibility. Portland, Calgary and Toronto will have to be on Video or Phone conference.
Regards
John | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
At the request of Brandon Wax, I am attaching our proposed form of Non-Disclosure Agreement. If the enclosed meets with your approval, please execute the agreement and return it to me via fax no. (713) 646-3490. I will then have it executed by Enron. If you have any comments or questions please call Anne Koehler, Senior Counsel, at (713) 853-3448 or me at (713) 853-3399. We look forward to hearing from you. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
To give you a broad perspective on the issues I am dealing in our area, in
addition to the "regional integration/opening markets theme".
"High-noon" show-down over the gas issues. Enron needs to decide to veto the
gas contracts between Petrobras and the gas distribution companies in our
concessions. We are been positioned as the stumbling block, preventing the
gas contracts for the emergency power plant program, eventually a national
security issue. If we agree with the contracts, we risk some value of the
distribution concessions.
Press articles about a deal with ABEGAS (Gas Distributors Association). The
ABEGAS representative has been negotiating on a number of limited issues. He
does not have the power to negotiate for the individual gas companies.
Project California.- I have to give an optimistic spin to the regulatory
situation. I could be more forceful painting a "dark scenario" in front of
the investment community to pressure the reforms. We will continue to press
with the regulators, but I will be hand-cuffed to take the debate forcefully
into the public arena.
Enron selling its assets/ getting out of the region.- A communication
challenge because we can not comment on speculation but we need to tailor the
messages to our audiences. "We are here to stay".
Employees retention and recruiting
Customer/ Partnering relations
Government/ Institutions.
"A new beginning".- Petrobras has reorganized. They have a new Gas & Power
group. The new head has invited us to sit together to review our
relationships. Jim is optimistic about the results. I am not, but we have to
do it anyway. We can not afford not to try.
Jose
See attachments about Thermoelctric program and Petrobras issues. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
While I was on vacation, trade nx9526 was entered into with this customer. I
attempted to pull the confirmation in TAG but their was none. Did we ever
confirm this trade? If not, I would like to go ahead and confirm it using
the credit language prepared and adopted for trade nx3782. Attached is the
worksheet that was provided for nx3782.
thanks
brant | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
REMINDER -- There will be an EGM Organizational Post Petition meeting on Wednesday, January 29 at 9:00 am CST in conference room ECN 30C1. Please plan to attend or use the dial-in number shown below:
Domestic Callers
Dial 1-877-987-1409 Operator will assist with the call
Leaders Name: Gary Hickerson
Pass Code: Gary
International Participants
Dial 001-610-769-3343 Operator will assist with the call
Leaders Name: Gary Hickerson
Pass Code: Gary
LONDON EMPLOYEES ONLY: Please meet in conference room SE1002 (tele# 011-44-207-783-0113) and dial into the meeting using the number above. If you have any questions, please call Kathy Tibbs in London on ext. 5479.
Thank you.
Judy Zoch
Enron Global Markets LLC
Financial Trading
1400 Smith
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 853-0655
email: [email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Pat,
Here is the latest PSA draft for a
We've agreed to pay $1mm of the severance. We also have agreed to pay the
cost of 2000 bonuses. On options, there is a proposal for Enron to supervest
the employees' options at closing -- can we agree to that? I didn't think
so.
your comments would be appreciated.
Michelle
---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT on 10/30/2000 09:54
AM ---------------------------
From: Anne C Koehler on 10/20/2000 09:05 AM
To: Rhett Jackson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Morris Richard Clark/HOU/ECT@ECT, Louis
Soldano/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Marshall/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Bidder D PSA Redlined
This is the version of the Triple Lutz Purchase and sale Agreement that we
have prepared in response to Bidder D's comments. Please review and provide
me with your comments by this afternoon, if possible. If you will not be
able to respond that quickly, just let me know. Thanks.
Anne C. Koehler
Sr. Counsel, ENA
EB 3832
713-853-3448
----- Forwarded by Anne C Koehler/HOU/ECT on 10/20/2000 09:03 AM -----
"Collins, Christopher" <[email protected]>
Sent by: "Lowell, Katrina" <[email protected]>
10/19/2000 11:09 AM
To: "Lee Jacobe (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Detmering, Timothy (Enron)"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Bidder D PSA Redlined
<<Enron Bidder D Redlined PSA.DOC>>
- Enron Bidder D Redlined PSA.DOC | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Please forward me your login ID for the gas fundy site. There will be security measures to enter this site now and your login id is needed. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I need to look and see what I have. But first, you are not going with some
boys are you???
I have a really cheap sleeping bag, some collaspable water bottles, all sorts
of small cooler type things, OHOHOH, I have a "wet seal" bag that you could
put some goodies in to keep them dry.
Do you need fishing stuff?
From: Kori Loibl 11/01/2000 02:46 PM
To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Camping material
Chris, I need your help. Do you have any camping materials (sleeping bag,
backpack, canteen) I am going camping with some friends this weekend and my
dad has always supplied me with the goods. I'm at a loss, can you help or
know anyone who can? | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Laura, I would like to congratulate you and your group on a very successful
quarter. Hats off to the team!! Let me know how I can help.
Please forward to your organization as appropriate.
Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/11/2000
11:42 PM ---------------------------
From: Laura Luce @ ENRON 07/11/2000 08:06 PM
To: Tim Hermann/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Roy Rodriguez/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve
Richman/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul Burgener/Corp/Enron@ENRON, [email protected],
Richard Tomaski/Corp/Enron@Enron, Gregg Penman/Corp/Enron@Enron, Barbara G
Dillard/Corp/Enron@Enron, Cary M Carrabine/Corp/Enron@Enron, Russell E
Murrell/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lee Fascetti/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kevin P
Radous/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lynn Pikofsky/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven
Curlee/Corp/Enron@Enron, Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T
Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Deirdre McCaffrey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ed McMichael/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT,
[email protected], Hunter S Shively/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fletcher J
Sturm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darron C Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: MEH Quarter Success
Hat's off to the group for a very successful quarter for MEH. I graciously
commend everyone for the teamwork and perseverance displayed in tackling the
array of transactions and tasks to ensure the successful start of our new
joint business. We continue to have many challenges ahead, but I wanted to
take pause and in particular commend the following:
Trunkline Transaction Team - Roy Rodriguez, Russell Murrell, and Steve Curlee
brought to closure a significant transaction with leveraged off many groups
in the PEC and Enron organizations. Net transaction mark to market on behalf
of MEH was $2,286,634 with accrual and option values to be realized over the
3 year term of the arrangement. Team work permeated this transaction and
thanks are due to 1) legal teams for PEC led by Mary Klyasheff and for ENA
led by Sheila Tweed and Jeff Hodge 2) structuring group support from Steve
Curlee, Deirdre McCaffrey and Ed McMichael 3) Tony Compton for the
successful closure of gas supply transactions with third parties 4) to all
else who covered the many transaction closing issues and bookings.
NSS and NGPL Capacity Transaction Team - Steve Richman, Roy Rodriguez,
Richard Tomaski, Barbara Dillard and Lee Fascetti successfully proposed,
negotiated and are now managing a 3 year storage and capacity management of
approximately 18 BCF/year of NGPL no-notice storage and accompanying
transportation with realized value year to date for MEH of $1,510,459 with
an additional $1,541,835 of value to PGL ratepayers. This transaction will
continue to be a significant asset to leverage into the intra-day market and
our initial platform for on-line business (EOL).
Daily Optimization - Richard Tomaski, Barbara Dillard, Steve Richman, Tim
Hermann, Cary Carrabine and Lee Fascetti , diligently pursued and completed
other significant transactions for MEH totalling $1,252,584 for this
quarter. Richard Tomaski and Kevin Radous have spent endless amounts of time
(and evenings/weekends) to ensure that MEH had a P&L to represent for the
groups hard work and my many thanks extend to both.
Business Set-up - Tim Hermann, Roy Rodriguez, Paul Burgener, Gregg Penman,
Kevin Radous, Richard Tomaksi, and Barbara Dillard have toiled diligently and
continue to proceed in contracts/policy and procedures between PEC/ENA/PGL
and third parties. Additional thanks are due to all groups within accounting,
economics, and trading within PEC and ENA in support of this new business and
we ask for your continued engagement.
Over the next month, we must get closure on the remaining requirements of
running a tightly managed and successful business venture. We must continue
to take our ideas and strategies to financially successful commercial
operation . Momentum is now on our side...
Thanx,
Laura | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Due to Technical issues with the Erms Database Extract, the Weekly Management Report will be delayed until later this evening | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Hey sue,
just wanted to wish you a Happy 25th birthday!! I know its a day
late. I can't believe its already Feb. 1. Wish I were there to
celebrate with you. Did you or are you doing anything exciting?
Please send me an email and let me know whats up regarding the
job opportunity in Seattle and Enron as well???!!
Lisa | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Actually, I think the settlements group would have to have this number at an aggregate level to be able to potion FERC.
-----Original Message-----
From: Almeida, Keoni [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 8:10 AM
To: Stokley, Chris
Subject: RE: Enron 480, 1480 charges
I would have to go into each spreadsheet and make that calculation. An
example would be for Jan. 1, the total charges were $2,053,504.
Keoni Almeida
California Independent System Operator
phone: 916/608-7053
pager: 916/814-7352
alpha page: [email protected]
e-mail: <mailto:[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Stokley, Chris [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 8:01 AM
To: Almeida, Keoni
Subject: RE: Enron 480, 1480 charges
Keoni,
What is the total $ amount of the payments due to the SC's for
this charge type?
-----Original Message-----
From: Almeida, Keoni [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 7:59 AM
To: Stokley, Chris
Cc: Sheidun, Donna
Subject: RE: Enron 480, 1480 charges
I confirmed that since Enron does not deviate from their schedules in
real
time a good portion of the payments have been going to Enron. It is
still
up in the air what they will do with these charges.
Keoni Almeida
California Independent System Operator
phone: 916/608-7053
pager: 916/814-7352
alpha page: [email protected]
e-mail: <mailto:[email protected]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Almeida, Keoni
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:48 PM
> To: Stokley, Chris
> Cc: Sheidun, Donna
> Subject: RE: Enron 480, 1480 charges
>
> I haven't heard from the person in Settlements that sent me the
worksheets
> to clarify the amounts adjusted. Just thought I'd let you know. I'll
> keep after him first thing in the morning.
>
> Keoni Almeida
> California Independent System Operator
> phone: 916/608-7053
> pager: 916/814-7352
> alpha page: [email protected]
> e-mail: <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Almeida, Keoni
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 8:18 AM
> To: Stokley, Chris
> Cc: Almeida, Keoni; Sheidun, Donna
> Subject: Enron 480, 1480 charges
>
> Here you go.
>
> << File: Keoni.zip >>
>
> Keoni Almeida
> California Independent System Operator
> phone: 916/608-7053
> pager: 916/814-7352
> alpha page: [email protected]
> e-mail: <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
> | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I have attached a copy of a demand letter that may be appropriate in this
situation. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I suspect we will need a D & B on the Sweetgum entity being proposed by the
new counterparty. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
We believe we should not be on the list. We have not refused to sell. The
ISO has not been interested in the little we can make available because it is
all in SP 15 and the power is needed in NP15.
"Julee Malinowski-Ball" <[email protected]>
12/13/2000 02:57 PM
Please respond to "Julee Malinowski-Ball"
To: "Katie Kaplan" <[email protected]>, "Tom Ross" <[email protected]>,
"Sue Mara" <[email protected]>, "Stephanie-Newell"
<[email protected]>, "Rob Lamkin"
<[email protected]>, "Richard Hyde" <[email protected]>, "Pigott
Jack" <[email protected]>, "Paula Hall-Collins"
<[email protected]>, "Norton Kelli"
<[email protected]>, "McNally Ray" <[email protected]>,
"Marty Wilson" <[email protected]>, "Lynn Lednicky" <[email protected]>,
"Kristin Vellandi" <[email protected]>, "kent Palmerton"
<[email protected]>, "Kassandra Gough" <[email protected]>, "Karen
Edson" <[email protected]>, "John Stout" <[email protected]>, "Joe
Ronan" <[email protected]>, "Jeff Dasovich" <[email protected]>, "Jean
Munoz" <[email protected]>, "Jan Smutny-Jones" <[email protected]>,
"Greg Blue" <[email protected]>, "Curtis Kebler"
<[email protected]>, "Bob Weisenmiller" <[email protected]>,
"Baker Carolyn" <[email protected]>, "B Brown Andy"
<[email protected]>, "Andy Brown" <[email protected]>, "Douglas Kerner"
<[email protected]>, "Dave Modisette" <[email protected]>
cc: "Cary Rudman" <[email protected]>, "Hedy Govenar"
<[email protected]>, "Scott Govenar" <[email protected]>, "Bev Hansen"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Follow-up to Governor's Press Conference
The following is the list of suppliers referenced by Governor Davis in today
's Washington, DC press conference. For those of you that are IEP members,
it would be helpful if you forwarded to IEP any comments you have made or
plan on making to the press.
These suppliers have advised the ISO that they are unwilling to sell power
into the California markets.
Dynegy Power Marketing
Trans Alta
Eugene Water and Electric
Southern Energy Trading
PowerEx (BC Hydro)
Public Service Colorado
Enron Power Marketing
Portland General
Avista (Washington Water Power)
Idaho Power Company
PPL Montana
Seattle City Light
Puget Sound Energy
Julee Malinowski-Ball
Edson + Modisette
[email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 09/12/2000 11:05
AM ---------------------------
[email protected] on 09/07/2000 07:46:07 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: GE Language
Folks,
Having conferred at last with my colleagues, I can now forward to you our
draft language for the Indemnity and LOL clauses. As Steve mentioned in his
earlier message, he has suggested some issues to discuss which could bring
us closer to resolution on that issue. Please let me know if you have any
question!
Best regards,
Mike
g _____________
Michael C. Barnas
Counsel, Power Plants Commercial Operations
GE Power Systems
One River Road - Building 37, Room 307
Schenectady, NY 12345 USA
Phone 8*235-7602 (518) 385 7602
Fax 8*235 5466 (518) 385 5466
Mobile 518 369 9538
- MajorClausesGE01.doc | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
FYI, for meeting w/ McMahon on Monday. Lisa
----- Forwarded by Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron on 03/23/2001 03:13 PM -----
Chris Long
03/22/2001 12:18 PM
To: Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject:
No. 56
Thursday March 22, 2001 Page A-19
ISSN 1523-567X
Regulation, Law & Economics
International Trade
U.S. Steel Producers Make
Concerted Push for Section 201 Case
U.S. steel industry officials appearing before the House Steel Caucus March
21 were unanimous in calling for an investigation under Section 201 of the
1974 Trade Act but some officials warned that any limits on steel imports
must be comprehensive so that circumvention does not occur.
"To be effective, the [import relief] must cover all imports, including
semifinished products," Nucor Corp. Chief Financial Officer Terry Lisenby
urged.
Terrence D. Straub, vice president, government affairs, USX-US Steel Group,
said that the industry needs a sustained period of import stability to
recover from damage and to address structural issues. "The restraints [which
could be imposed under Section 201] should reduce finished steel imports
across the board from non-[North American Free Trade Agreement] countries to
pre-crisis levels, and they should remain in force until the fundamental
structural problems have been successfully addressed," he said. The
restraints must not replace relief under the antidumping and countervailing
duty laws, he said.
Section 201, known as the safeguard statute, allows the president to
temporarily restrict imports of an investigated product if the International
Trade Commission finds that surging imports are a substantial cause of
serious injury to the U.S. industry. U.S. Trade Representative Robert B.
Zoellick has said that the Bush administration is seriously considering a
Section 201 investigation in steel .
The U.S. steel industry was broadsided by an unprecedented import surge in
1998. Imports dropped in 1999 but began rising again in 2000.
George Becker, former president of the United Steel Workers of America,
called for immediate passage of H.R. 808-a bill that would roll back steel
imports for five years. If immediate relief is not provided to the steel
industry, "there will simply be no more steel industry," he said.
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), vice chairman of the caucus and a key sponsor
of H.R. 808, announced that the measure had garnered over 100 cosponsors.
H.R. 808 would also enhance the Steel Loan Guarantee program by providing
cash strapped steel firms with loans.
While expressing support for other provisions of H.R. 808, Nucor's Lisenby
said that inefficient mills should be allowed to go out of production. Nucor
opposes any bail out of legacy costs of these firms or any other type of
subsidies, he said.
Witnesses agreed that world steel overcapacity was a major problem for the
industry. Specialty Steel Industry of North America Chairman H.L. Kephart
warned that foreign steel producers are planning to add 7.4 million tons of
new production capacity in the next five years. "This is three times the
total annual U.S. consumption of stainless steel coming online by 2005," he
said. Since most of this new production cannot be absorbed by foreign
markets, the United States will be targeted for large increases in stainless
steel imports, he said.
By Rossella Brevetti
Copyright , 2001 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Thanks
Vince
Shirley Crenshaw
04/11/2000 12:08 PM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: ANTHONY HAS A NEW BABY BOY!!!
I sent a basket of flowers to Anthony, Mama and the new baby.
Signed:
Congratulations!
"Vince Kaminski and the Research Group" | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Please see the revised memo, which is the final version. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT on 11/09/2000
09:36 AM ---------------------------
From: Bryan Hull
11/09/2000 09:12 AM
To: Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:
- MiniBush.jpg | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 03/27/2001 02:41 PM -----
Terry West
02/09/2001 01:36 PM
To: Rebecca Carter/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Board presentations
Attached are the presentations for the Corporate Staff Group and the 2001
Goals. There have been slight modifications to the format. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 01/26/2001
05:12 PM ---------------------------
"Btu" <[email protected]> on 01/26/2001 05:08:01 PM
To: "Btu Weekly" <>
cc:
Subject: Btu Weekly
Attached is the latest issue of Btu Weekly.
e-mail: [email protected]
phone: 732-758-8222
fax: 732-758-8286
- wg012901.pdf | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Start Date: 4/15/01; HourAhead hour: 9; No ancillary schedules awarded.
Variances detected.
Variances detected in Energy Import/Export schedule.
LOG MESSAGES:
PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001041509.txt
---- Energy Import/Export Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
Details: (Hour: 9 / Preferred: 12.00 / Final: 11.98)
TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
SC_ID: ECTRT
MKT_TYPE: 2
TRANS_DATE: 4/15/01
TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_LUCKY
ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Thanks -- definitely not too late. --Sally
Rob Milnthorp
11/20/2000 11:52 AM
To: Bruce Smith/HOU/ECT, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Jordan Mintz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Wes
Colwell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Performance Reviews
I apologize for not getting the requested feedback reviews completed by Nov
17. However, I completed them over the weekend and I hope that its not too
late to include my feedback in your compiled reviews.
Regards
Milnthorp | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Please add to my calendar.
Thanks,
Fletch
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Shoemake, Lisa On Behalf Of Forster, David
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 6:34 AM
To: Forster, David; Valderrama, Larry; Kelly, Mike E.; Clynes, Terri; Dalton III, Oscar; Valdes, Maria; Ratliff, Beau; Carroll, Lex; Sturm, Fletcher J.
Subject: Customer Presentation & Origination Team Discussion
When: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:30 PM-3:30 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada); Tijuana.
Where: TBD
There will be a Customer Presentation & Origination Team Discussion on December 5, 2001 from 3:30-5:30. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance please let me know.
Thanks,
Lisa x39194 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
We still have toadstools/mushrooms and holwa in need of new turf on the lawn.
Any news?
-----Original Message-----
From: "Dale Waltman" <[email protected]>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Dale+20Waltman+22+20+3Cdale+40thompsonhanson+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 7:29 AM
To: Kitchen, Louise
Subject: Re: Kitchen 2137 Chilton Road
Mrs. Kitchen
Just acknowledging receipt of your message. I will schedule all requested
services and I will have the crew and spray techs check/treat and repair
your lawn as requested.
Thank you for your message.
Dale Waltman
----- Original Message -----
From: Kitchen, Louise <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:17 PM
Subject: Ref: Kitchen 2137 Chilton Road
> Ref Kitchen
> 2137 Chilton Road, 77019
>
> Bill,
>
> Please include the following on our property
> * Mulch
> * Freeze Protection
> * Rye Seed Application
>
>
> Dale,
> Please also schedule the Seasonal Color change of our flowers.
>
> Also could you arrange for some work to be carried out on our lawn as
> soon as possible:
> * Repair lawn around area of tree supports.
> * Treat lawn for fungi (we have lots of toadstools).
>
> Thank you in anticipation
>
> Louise Kitchen
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate
and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at [email protected] and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you.
> **********************************************************************
> | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
All, A fix to prevent the occurrence of deals not bridging to Sitara from EOL when deal start and end dates were not entered on EOL has been installed and tested.THANKS
-----Original Message-----
From: Truong, Dat
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 5:22 PM
To: Wei, Zhiyong
Cc: Husain, Karima; Lim, Francis S.; Saluja, Gurdip; Sweitzer, Tara; Truong, Dat; Moorer, Torrey; Lamadrid, Victor; Severson, Russ; Grant, George
Subject: Request for Migration of Sitara EOLBridge into Production
Hello Zhiyong,
I have implemented an enhancement to avoid the problem of restarting the Sitara EOLBridge when there are missing startdate and enddate. This fix will take care of this morning's problem.
EOL will be sent a Failed status similar to the following:
message={EolTransactionId=2101638 TransactionSysDealId="" BridgeEntityName="EOLBridge" Message="Missing StartDate or EndDate" Status="F" BridgeDate="20011025170945CDT"}
I throughly tested the change by sending over 400 sample deals from this morning. Due to the "Bid Week" window, please approve this bridge enhancement for tonight's migration. Thank you.
-Dat Truong x63015
-----Original Message-----
From: Truong, Dat
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:11 AM
To: Moorer, Torrey; Lamadrid, Victor; Severson, Russ; Grant, George
Cc: Husain, Karima; Lim, Francis S.; Saluja, Gurdip; Sweitzer, Tara
Subject: Sitara EOL Bridge Problem Today
The problem we faced today was due to 2 eol deal packets (2098073, 2099764) not having startdate and enddate. Missing these 2 tibco message fields caused the bridge to bounce and resulted in the queue to build up while the bridge is starting up. (The bridge takes 2 minute for startup). Each time these deals are sent/resent, it continuously cause the Sitarar EOLBridge to restart, thus magnifying the buildup of the queue.
The corrective action we are taking at our end is to build a rejection logic when eol packets do not have start and/or enddate.
-Dat Truong | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I just spoke with Janelle Shaunghnessy (517-768-2076) at CMS Marketing regarding our March 2002 production invoice to them. The invoice is for the 50,000 dth per day of Michcon Storage gas that we were selling CMS. The total amount is $3,695,975.00.
According to Janelle she has not received the invoice yet so I just faxed it to her at 517-768-2110. She said that they should be able to make the payment tomorrow.
1:28 PM, I just confirmed that Janelle received the faxed invoice. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I'll wait. Just let me know when you finish. I'm in no hurry so take your
time. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
This 250R/245D should be part of our daily demand for COH 8-35from ENA, not
in addition to.
ie 750/d demand = 245(AGG POOL) + 505( sto+ IPP)
Also please pull directly from Agg Pool to transport K, ( not through IPP
Pool ) as it may get cut
Chris Germany@ECT
10/31/2000 10:51 AM
To: Jeffrey Porter/HOU/EES@EES, Joann Collins/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Alvin
Thompson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Dave Scott/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Victoria Versen/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Supply Bought by NPC
I created deal 461123 (purchase from New Power) and deal 461134 (sale to New
Power). I will price both deals using the FOM index pricing.
10/31/2000 09:51 AM
Jeffrey Porter@EES
Jeffrey Porter@EES
Jeffrey Porter@EES
10/31/2000 09:51 AM
10/31/2000 09:51 AM
To: [email protected]
cc: Michael H Garred/HOU/EES, Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Scott/HOU/EES
Subject: Supply Bought by NPC
We bought this and need you to move to COH8-35 as part of CES/NPC Nov demand.
250/d(245/d delivered to COH) from Agg point A06
Contract: AS53858
Supplier: Dominion Field Services is the supplier
call if you have questions 5-3507 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Attached is the initial draft of the brief on rate design. As of now it is
still due on Friday the 27th (although the ALJ indicated Friday afternoon
that there may be some slippage until Monday).
Keeping with a discussion that Leslie, Harry and I had on Friday, I have
kept the brief short -- focusing solely on our proposal. As Leslie said in
her e-mail about Friday's hearing, there is alot of animosity towards Enron.
The ALJ is clearly no on our side. Weighing in on issues where others are
carrying the ball (direct access, reallocation of 130% of baseline exemption
revenues) is unnecessary and may hurt instead of help our cause.
Any way, take a look at the brief, and we can perhaps have a call on
Wednesday to discuss.
<<X23764.DOC>>
- X23764.DOC | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Every day?
From: Reagan Rorschach/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/19/2001 03:51 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Off-Peak
Kay-
According to the control room guys, "off peak" is defined as hour ending 2300
to hour ending 0600. They indicate that this is a NERC standard. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Attached is the revised Raptor 2 hedge. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I have attached a deal ticket for a transaction done today. This deal was
done with a Swedish counterparty. I assume we need a deemed ISDA. I told them
not to expect the Confirmation until sometime on Wednesday. Please call me if
you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jarrod
---------------------- Forwarded by Jarrod Cyprow/HOU/ECT on 05/26/2000 01:52
PM ---------------------------
Enron North America Corp.
From: Jay Epstein 05/26/2000 01:46 PM
To: Tanya Rohauer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jarrod Cyprow/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Jacobsen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Radous/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Gordon
Heaney/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Charlie Hoang/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Andrew R Conner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bob Crane/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Kim/LON/ECT@ECT
Subject: Ekman & Co. Floor
We have agreed to sell a one-year floor to Ekman & Co. for 833 ADMT/month of
NBSK PIX with a strike of US$595 from November 1, 2000 to October 31, 2001.
The deal was arranged through TFS, and the ticket is attached. Please let me
know if there are any problems.
Thanks,
Jay | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
continental.com Specials for Paul Y'Barbo
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
****************************************
SHOPONEPASS. SHOP 'TIL YOU FLY.
Click your way to reward travel with ShopOnePass, your new online spot to earn up to 15 OnePass miles per dollar from leading merchants. Just in time for the holidays!
Purchases from leading online retailers get you closer to reward travel at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9.A
Watch ShopOnePass for additional merchants.
TRAVEL UPDATES
Be sure to check continental.com at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9-A
before leaving for the airport. We?re looking forward to welcoming you onboard!
****************************************
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. This Week's Destinations
2. Continental Vacations Offers
3. Hilton Hotels & Resorts, Doubletree Hotels & Resorts, & Embassy Suites Hotels Offers
4. Westin Hotels & Resorts, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton, St. Regis, The Luxury Collection and W Hotels Offers
5. Alamo Rent A Car Offers
6. National Car Rental Offers
****************************************
1. THIS WEEK'S DESTINATIONS
Depart Saturday, November 17 and return on either Monday, November 19 or Tuesday, November 20, 2001. Please see the Terms and Conditions listed at the end of this e-mail.
For OnePass members, here are special opportunities to redeem miles for travel to the following destinations. As an additional benefit, OnePass Elite members can travel using the miles below as the only payment necessary. The following are this week's OnePass continental.com Specials.
To use your OnePass miles (as listed below) to purchase continental.com Specials, you must call 1-800-642-1617.
THERE WILL NOT BE AN ADDITIONAL $20 CHARGE WHEN REDEEMING ONEPASS MILES FOR CONTINENTAL.COM SPECIALS THROUGH THE TOLL FREE RESERVATIONS NUMBER.
If you are not using your OnePass miles, purchase continental.com Specials online until 11:59pm (CST) Friday at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9%2CA
You can also purchase continental.com Specials for an additional cost of $20 per ticket through our telephone service at 1-800-642-1617.
****************************************
TRAVEL MAY ORIGINATE IN EITHER CITY
****************************************
****Roundtrip BETWEEN CLEVELAND, OH and:
$29 + 12,500 Miles or $129 - Milwaukee, WI
****Roundtrip BETWEEN HOUSTON, TX and:
$29 + 10,000 Miles or $109 - Alexandria, LA
$29 + 10,000 Miles or $109 - McAllen/Rio Grande Valley, TX
$29 + 10,000 Miles or $109 - Mobile, AL
$29 + 12,500 Miles or $119 - Tulsa, OK
****Roundtrip BETWEEN NEW YORK/NEWARK and:
$29 + 10,000 Miles or $109 - Raleigh Durham, NC
********************************
2. CONTINENTAL VACATIONS OFFERS
GREAT SAVINGS TO BEAUTIFUL BEACHES IN MEXICO
Pack your swimsuit and your diving gear, fishing gear, or whatever gear will help you have fun on Mexico's pristine beaches! Receive a $100 discount per person when you book 4 nights or longer at select all-inclusive resorts in Mexico's most exciting beach towns.
For more information about this exciting offer, visit:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9%2BA
****************************************
3. CONTINENTAL.COM SPECIALS FROM HILTON HOTELS AND RESORTS, DOUBLETREE
HOTELS AND RESORTS, AND EMBASSY SUITES HOTELS
The following rates are available November 17? November 19, 2001 and are priced per night.
--------------------------------------
Cleveland, OH - Hilton Garden Inn Cleveland Airport - $59
Cleveland, OH - Hilton Cleveland East/Beachwood, Beachwood, OH. - $109
Houston, TX - Hilton Houston Westchase and Towers - $65
Houston, TX - Hilton Houston Hobby Airport - $109
Houston, TX - Hilton Houston Southwest - $109
Nashville, TN - Embassy Suites Hotel Nashville-Westend - $99
Newark, NJ & New York, NY - Doubletree Club Suites Jersey City, Jersey City, NJ. - $139
Newark, NJ & New York, NY - Hilton East Brunswick, East Brunswick, NJ. - $149
Newark, NJ & New York, NY - Hilton New York, New York, NY. - $179
Newark, NJ & New York, NY - Doubletree Hotel & Executive Meeting Center Somerset Somerset, NJ. - $135
Raleigh/Durham, NC - Hilton North Raleigh - $99
Raleigh/Durham, NC - Hilton Durham - $99
San Francisco, CA - Hilton Garden Inn Livermore, Livermore, CA. - $109
San Francisco, CA - Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View, Mountain View, CA. - $219
San Francisco, CA - Embassy Suites Hotel San Francisco Airport - $139
To book this week's special rates for Hilton Family Hotels, visit and book at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9*A
Special rates apply only for the dates listed at each hotel and are subject to availability. Check hilton.com for specific dates at each Hilton Family Hotel. Or call at 1-800-774-1500 and ask for Value Rates. Restrictions apply to these rates.
****************************************
4. CONTINENTAL.COM SPECIALS LAST-MINUTE WEEKEND RATES FROM WESTIN HOTELS & RESORTS, SHERATON HOTELS & RESORTS, FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON, ST. REGIS, THE LUXURY COLLECTION, AND W HOTELS
Last-Minute Weekend Rates for this weekend November 16 - November 20, 2001.
--------------------------------------
New Jersey - Atlantic City - Sheraton Atlantic City Convention Center Hotel - $83.50
New Jersey - East Rutherford - Sheraton Meadowlands Hotel and Conference Center - $99.00
New Jersey - Elizabeth - Four Points by Sheraton Newark Airport - $77.00
New Jersey - Iselin - Sheraton at Woodbridge Place Hotel - $71.00
New Jersey - Parsippany - Sheraton Parsippany Hotel - $70.00
New Jersey - Piscataway - Four Points by Sheraton Somerset/Piscataway - $85.00
New Jersey - Weehawken - Sheraton Suites on the Hudson - $109.00
New York - New York - Sheraton Russell Hotel - $179.00
New York - New York - Essex House - A Westin Hotel - $228.00
Ohio - Cincinnati - The Westin Cincinnati - $90.00
Ohio - Cuyahoga Falls - Sheraton Suites Akron/Cuyahoga Falls - $99.00
Texas - Houston - The St. Regis, Houston - $106.00
Texas - Houston - Sheraton Houston Brookhollow Hotel - $45.00
Texas - Houston - The Westin Galleria Houston - $64.00
Texas - Houston - The Westin Oaks - $70.00
Texas - Houston - Sheraton Suites Houston Near The Galleria - $71.00
Wisconsin - Brookfield - Sheraton Milwaukee Brookfield Hotel - $49.00
Visit our site:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9%29A
for booking these and other Last-Minute Weekend Rates.
For complete details on these offers, please refer to the terms and conditions below.
********************************
5. CONTINENTAL.COM SPECIALS FROM ALAMO RENT A CAR
Rates listed below are valid on compact class vehicles at airport locations only. Other car types may be available. Rates are valid for rentals on Saturday, November 17 with returns Monday, November 19 or Tuesday, November 20, 2001.
-------------------------------
$20 a day in: Cleveland, OH (CLE)
$27 a day in: Newark, NJ (EWR)
$18 a day in: Houston, TX (IAH)
$26 a day in: Milwaukee, WI (MKE)
$18 a day in: Tulsa, OK (TUL)
To receive continental.com Specials discounted rates, simply make advance reservations and be sure to request ID # 596871 and Rate Code 33. Book your reservation online at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9%28A
or contact Alamo at 1-800 GO ALAMO.
*If you are traveling to a city or a different date that is not listed, Alamo offers great rates when you book online at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9%27A
For complete details on these offers, please refer to Alamo's terms and conditions below.
****************************************
6. CONTINENTAL.COM SPECIALS FROM NATIONAL CAR RENTAL
Rates listed below are valid on intermediate class vehicles at airport locations only. Other car types may be available. Rates are valid for rentals on Saturday, November 17 with returns Monday, November 19 or Tuesday, November 20, 2001.
------------------------------------------
$28 a day in: Alexandria, LA (AEX)
$23 a day in: Cleveland, OH (CLE)
$21 a day in: Houston, TX (IAH)
$29 a day in: McAllen/Rio Grande Valley, TX (MFE)
$26 a day in: Mobile, AL (MOB)
$21 a day in: Tulsa, OK (TUL)
To receive continental.com Specials discounted rates, simply make your reservations in advance and be sure to request Product Code COOLUS. To make your reservation, contact National at 1-800-CAR-RENT (1-800-227-7368), or book your reservation online at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9%26A
Please enter COOLUS in the Product Rate Code field, and 5037126 in the Contract ID field to ensure you get these rates on these dates.
* If you are traveling to a city or a different date that is not listed, National offers great rates when you book online at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9.%2FA
For complete details on these offers, please refer to National's terms and conditions below.
****************************************
CONTINENTAL.COM SPECIALS RULES:
Fares include a $37.20 fuel surcharge. Passenger Facility Charges, up to $18 depending on routing, are not included. Up to $2.75 per segment federal excise tax, as applicable, is not included. Applicable International and or Canadian taxes and fees up to $108, varying by destination, are not included and may vary slightly depending on currency exchange rate at the time of purchase. For a complete listing of rules please visit:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9..A
ALAMO RENT A CAR'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Taxes (including VLF taxes up to US$1.89 per day in California and GST), other governmentally-authorized or imposed surcharges, license recoupment fees, fuel, additional driver fee, drop charges and optional items (such as CDW Waiver Savers(R) up to US$18.99 a day,) are extra. Renter must meet standard age, driver and credit requirements. Rates higher for drivers under age 25. Concession recoupment fees may add up to 14% to the rental rate at some on-airport locations. Up to 10.75% may be added to the rental rate if you rent at an off-airport location and exit on our shuttle bus. Weekly rates require a 5-day minimum rental or daily rates apply. For weekend rates, the vehicle must be picked up after 9 a.m. on Thursday and returned before midnight on Monday or higher daily rates apply. 24-hour advance reservation required. May not be combined with other discounts. Availability is limited. All vehicles must be returned to the country of origin. Offer not valid in San Jose, CA.
NATIONAL CAR RENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Customer must provide Contract ID# at the time of reservation to be eligible for discounts. Offer valid at participating National locations in the US and Canada. Minimum rental age is 25. This offer is not valid with any other special discount or promotion. Standard rental qualifications apply. Subject to availability and blackout dates. Advance reservations required. Geographic driving restrictions may apply.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR WESTIN, SHERATON, FOUR POINTS,
ST. REGIS, THE LUXURY COLLECTION, AND W HOTELS:
Offer is subject to availability. Advance Reservations required and is based on single/double occupancy. Offer not applicable to group travel. Additional Service charge and tax may apply. The discount is reflected in the rate quoted. Offer valid at participating hotel only. Offer valid for stays on Fri - Mon with a Friday or Saturday night arrival required. Rate available for this coming weekend only. Offer available only by making reservations via the internet. A limited number of rooms may be available at these rates.
---------------------------------------
This e-mail message and its contents are copyrighted and are proprietary products of Continental Airlines, Inc. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, or transfer of the message or its content, in any medium, is strictly prohibited.
****************************************
If you need assistance please visit:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9.-A
View our privacy policy at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9.%2CA
This e-mail was sent to: paul.y'[email protected]
You registered with OnePass Number: LD368555
TO UNSUBSCRIBE:
We hope you will find continental.com Specials a valuable source of information. However, if you prefer not to take advantage of this opportunity, please let us know by visiting the continental.com Specials page on our web site at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9.*A
TO SUBSCRIBE:
Please visit the continental.com Specials page on our web site at:
http://continentalairlines.rsc01.net/servlet/cc3?%7C%7E1.-%269o%7Ejs1f8%7D%7Em%7Dp_zqmpq1%7Cpr9K9.%2BA | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I will be passing an envelop to collect a small monetary token of
appreciation for Kimberly and Alex for Administrative Assistants' week.
Please give if you are able and in an amount that you
feel is appropriate.
thanks,
Scott Neal | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 05/23/2000
06:35 PM ---------------------------
Shirley Crenshaw
05/23/2000 11:02 AM
To: [email protected]
cc: (bcc: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT)
Subject: Re: Visit to Enron
Good morning Professor Bambos:
When you have finalized your flight plans for Thursday, would you please
let me know the arrangements? That way I can verify that the flight is on
schedule and coordinate the dinner plans accordingly.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shirley Crenshaw
Administrative Coordinator
Research Group
Enron Corp.
713/853-5290
email: [email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
The Word of the Day for May 19 is:
weird \WEERD\ (adjective)
*1 : of, relating to, or caused by witchcraft or the
supernatural
: magical
2 : of strange or extraordinary character : odd, fantastic
Example sentence:
"Hagar, the witch, chanted an awful incantation over her
kettleful of simmering toads, with weird effect." (Louisa
May
Alcott, Little Women)
Did you know?
You may know today's word as a generalized term for anything
unusual, but "weird" also has older meanings that are more
specific. "Weird" derives from the Old English noun "wyrd,"
essentially meaning "fate." By the late 8th century, the
plural
"wyrde" had begun to appear in texts as a gloss for
"Parcae,"
the Latin name for the Fates -- three goddesses who spun,
measured, and cut the thread of life. In the 15th and 16th
centuries, Scots authors employed "werd" or "weird" in the
phrase "weird sisters" to refer to the Fates. William
Shakespeare adopted this usage in Macbeth, in which the
"weird sisters" are depicted as three witches. Subsequent
adjectival use of "weird" grew out of a reinterpretation of
the
"weird" in Shakespeare. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
TFS Brokers have signed an LOI to license Broker Client for NA natural gas. Please give Allen Kurzer 6 guest ids while we work on the agreements. Allan's email is [email protected]
All transactions executed on Broker Client will be a zero brokerage.
Call with any questions.
Bob Shults
EnronOnline LLC
Houston, Texas 77002-7361
713 853-0397
713 825-6372 cell
713 646-2126
[email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
yes
Dale Neuner on 06/16/99 02:34:29 PM
To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Conference Room
Is this okay ? We have to move it back one hour to get the large Conference
Room.
---------------------- Forwarded by Dale Neuner/HOU/ECT on 06/16/99 02:34 PM
---------------------------
Maria Sandoval
06/16/99 02:21 PM
To: Dale Neuner/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Conference Room
Dale,
I have reserved conference room EB 30c2 from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
June 30th and the same time on Thursday, July 1st.
Please let me know if this is okay.
Maria x35586 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Group,
Please use the Alberta Phone Log next to the PX trade app. We need to record
the exact time and instructions from each separate conversation. After
writing it down, please transfer your notes to the alberta power dispatch log
on their web site. This log can be found at http://albertapower
Go to the admin tab, and use the dispatch log portion (this site is very
similar to the California Daily book site). Like everything else, the more
detail the better.
Also, we need to make sure that mws are in the "merit order" before we
dispatch them. So if Transalta offers us 5 mws, we only want to take those
if all 353 mws of ours are dispatched. Otherwise we are not going to have
the pool taking our mws at the final bid price, and we will not be maximizing
the value of our unit.
IF you have questions, and you should, please see me, Ryan or Monica. I am
always available for phone calls and will explain whatever you may not have
picked up from the various emails or manual in your box.
Bill | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
- dasovich.rl.ca.1-25-01.doc | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Mark,
This looks fine.
-----Original Message-----
From: McConnell, Mark
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:42 PM
To: Rapp, Bill
Subject: confidentiality agreement
Bill,
Attached is the confidentiality agreement that we are signing with Aquila. It was originated out of our legal group but Aquila added:
2. (iv)
7. "for a period of two years."
I would like to use it for Reliant too. Any problem with that? Please let me know.
Mark
<< File: Aquila confident 11-01.doc >>
Mark McConnell
Transwestern Pipeline Company
713-345-7896 office
713-822-4862 cell
713-646-2551 fax
[email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I know that you've already indicated that you will circulate a draft of the
late-filed exhibit by Friday, but if you have a draft we could look at
sooner, that would be great...TW's business people who need to look at it
will be out at the beginning of next week. Thanks. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Kate:
Per my voice mail, I suggest the following as paragraph 2 to the Transfer and
Assumption Agreement:
"WHEREAS, ....options for sale and purchase of physical energy commodities,
in the case of EPMI (the "EPMI ransactions") or certain financial swaps,
options or other financially settled derivative transactions, in the case of
ENAC (the "ENAC Transactions") ..."
Also, am working on the jurisdiction issue.
Please call me at 713-705-1823
email me per below AND : [email protected]
Thanks. Sara
Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas 77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
[email protected]
[email protected]
03/15/2001 12:55 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Transfer and Assumption Agreement
Attached please find the Transfer and Assumption Agreement. In the interest
of
time, I am sending this document to all parties simultaneously. Thus, Merrill
Lynch and/ or Sullivan & Cromwell may have further comments.
Best regards,
Kate Polozie
Katarina B. Polozie
McDermott, Will & Emery
[email protected]
(202) 756-8130
(See attached file: WDC99_390293_11.DOC)
******************************************************************************
*******
This message is a PRIVATE communication. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, or use it, and do not disclose it to
others. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this
message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
******************************************************************************
*******
For more information on McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY please visit our website at:
http://www.mwe.com/
- WDC99_390293_11.DOC | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
I actually did get that last e-mail, but somehow it ended up buried at the
bottom of my in-box, just like so many other things. As far as the Blazer
ticket trade, I believe I bought a call from you on the Laker game, and you
bought the option from me on the Cavaliers - so I can choose to exercise on
12/13 at 7 p.m., and you can choose to exercise on 1/16 at 7 p.m. In other
words, no matter what happens, I'm going to both games. Got it?
As far as good stories from that night, I probably have the best, or at least
one of the more hilarious, of those circulating the floor. And no, it has
nothing to do with me. Ask me about it later, and I might be able to give it
up for firm delivery of a seat at next week's game. Think about it.
Kate | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Plan is to pull Accounting, RAC, IT, Back Office, HR, Research, EES, EEL, EBS, etc., names today. I was assuming you could just give me EA names minus ENW, Colwell, HR, and accounting, which I would get from functional leads. I've told most people this may be roughly 10% but in some case it should be 0% others maybe deeper (maybe up to 20%).
We can go over list this evening and make changes.
Remember logic is:
People we need to help us through bankruptcy
People who are critical to core business which would otherwise hamper our ability to sell/operate
People who could easily get other jobs
People who are critical to keeping lights on
People with critical knowledge on deals/transaction we need to manage or unwind in next 2/3 months.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Lavorato, John
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 11:14 AM
To: Oxley, David; Kitchen, Louise
Subject: RE: If we were going to pay....
RAC: Bill Bradford, Debbie Brackett
Top analysts and associates - we have started ranking and will be finished today.
What is Beck's list and does it include IT or is it the list we did?
Power Scheduling too.
-----Original Message-----
From: Oxley, David
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:46 AM
To: Kitchen, Louise; Lavorato, John
Subject: If we were going to pay....
...some bonuses this week (with some reclaw plus penalty), putting aside yourselves, the guys we already took care of, Colwell, Headicke, Beck and my people, is there anyone else in EA you would like to make a case to pay?
Plan today is to get these names and proposed numbers pulled together for Greg this evening. Plan was to ask Colwell, Headicke etc., separately, if you want to review their names I can let you see them later tonight.
I plan to sit over in old building (16.71) and do this this afternoon noon till 5pm. You can either call me on my cell or have Jeanie walk list across.
David | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
On : Tennessee - We released 403 Dth from Decatur contract 250 and created
contract 32075 for Dynegy / Friskies. Of this 403 Dth Friskies only wants 251
Dth nominated for Jan 1 forward. This release is good for Jan only and will
of
course cause the MDQ on contract 250 to go down by 250.
On : Midcoast - Also for Friskies/Dynegy we released 400 Dth from Midcoast
contract 6005 and created a contract numbered 7010 for Jan specifically for
deliveries to Friskies. This will cause the MDQ on contract 6005 to decrease
by 400 Dth.
On : Tennessee - We released 1,642 Dth from Huntsville contract number 507
and created contract 32076 for Wolverine deliveries to the Midcoast/Tenn
interconnect. This looks to be a Jan only contract number and must be used so
that Wolverine quantities can be recognized. This causes contract 507 to go
down by the amount of the release.
On: Midcoast - We released 1,629 Dth from Huntsville contract 6009 and
created
contract 7010 for Wolverine deliveries behind the DECATUR city gate. This
will
cause the MDQ on contract 6009 to go down by 1,629.
Let me know if you have any questions !
See you this afternoon ,
Phil | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Florida Power & Gas I am happy to say is done!!
Texican is close.
Prime Operating Company
Trans: # 586532 Can you tell me who the trader is?
Thanks!!!
Debra Perlingiere
Enron North America Corp.
Legal Department
1400 Smith Street, EB 3885
Houston, Texas 77002
[email protected]
Phone 713-853-7658
Fax 713-646-3490 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Couldn't another explanation be that the Board DID UNDERSTAND the partnership transactions and were comfortable with the deals once the Chinese Walls and protections were put in place?
I don't believe the Board members would shirk their responsibilities (as you pointed out, most of the members have more than the average expertise to understand the transactions) if for no other reason than not taking the chance in possibly sullying their individual reputations by not properly vetting the deals. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Updated questions and answers for Enron employees have just been posted to http://home.enron.com/updates/qa.html
We recognize that as active employees you have special concerns and questions related to Enron's bankruptcy filing. We regret that we are not able to answer all of your questions as quickly as you deserve, but we are working to provide accurate responses to your most important questions about employee benefits, expense payments and so on. We appreciate your patience as we continue to try to provide timely and reliable information to you. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
USER ID: 90041267
PASSWORD: welcome
http://pep.enron.com/
If you are unable to acces the site or have any further problems, please call me at (713) 345-3751.
Jennifer Basinski
Performance Management Help Desk | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Please send the executed amendments to me at the below address and I will
have them signed and return one original to your attention.:
Daniel J. Hyvl
P. O. Box 1188, Suite 3878
Houston, Texas 77251-1188
"Anderson, David W (Law)" <[email protected]>
04/03/2001 05:43 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc: "Baxter, Charlotte" <[email protected]>, "Welch, Ray" <[email protected]>, "Foley,
Jack" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Enron OnLine/ENA-PG&E Supplier Agreement
Dan --
We will soon be sending two executed copies of the "Enron OnLine" amendment
(with an exhibit B as an attachment) to you.
To which address should we send?
Thank you,
Dave Anderson 415-973-6659
-----Original Message-----
From: Anderson, David W (Law)
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:34 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Enron OnLine/ENA-PG&E Supplier Agreement
Thanks, Dan!
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:50 PM
To: Anderson, David W (Law)
Subject: RE: Enron OnLine/ENA-PG&E Supplier Agreement
Dave,
As we discussed, the change that you made referring to the index for
the applicable delivery point is okay because the Index for Enron Online is
the Midpoint price in Gas Daily for the location closet to the relevant
delivery point. I do not think that your change affects that. Therefore,
please finalize the amendment, have it signed and forward to me for
execution by Enron.
"Anderson,
David W To: "'[email protected]'"
(Law)" <[email protected]>
<[email protected] cc: "Baxter, Charlotte"
<[email protected]>,
> "Foley, Jack" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Enron
OnLine/ENA-PG&E Supplier
04/03/2001 Agreement
01:54 PM
Dan -
Per our conversation today, I made a change to the "exhibit B"
confirmation.
If you could let me know that it's OK, we will make change and execute.
Thanks,
Dave Anderson 415-973-6659
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 2:10 PM
To: Anderson, David W (Law)
Subject: RE: Enron OnLine/ENA-PG&E Supplier Agreement
(See attached file: 2001-001amd.doc)
Dave,
I have attached Exhibit "B" to the above amendment draft. Please let
me know if you need anything further.
Dan
(See attached file: PG&E 4-3-01.doc) | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 09/26/2000 11:20
AM ---------------------------
MBD <[email protected]> on 09/26/2000 12:14:23 PM
To: "'Susan J Mara'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: FW: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST: Speaker(s) Ne
ede d to brief Governor's Office
Now that I know that Anthony and George Cluff are organizing the event, I
would stay far, far away. Maybe it would be good for them to talk to Gray
Davis, just to clear up this energy thing for him.
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan J Mara [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:16 AM
To: MBD
Cc: 'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'; Mona L Petrochko; Sandra McCubbin
Subject: Re: FW: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST: Speaker(s)
Neede d to brief Governor's Office
I certainly don't see why this is confidential. Distribution wheeling has
been
"my baby" at Enron for years but I don't see Anthony Mazy contributing
anything
to the effort. We don't need a big conference, or 150 people, or the
Governor.
We just need the CPUC and the FERC to say "Stop the Madness and Open the
System." So, I won't be participating. Thanks for asking.
MBD <[email protected]> on 09/25/2000 05:43:49 PM
To: "'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'"
<[email protected]>, Mona L
Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES,
Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: FW: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST:
Speaker(s) Neede d to brief Governor's Office
Here is something you don't see every day. An invitation to talk to Gray
Davis (maybe) about distribution wheeling. Has Enron got a candidate to
offer? I would act quickly. Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: Mazy, Anthony [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:01 PM
Subject: Urgent/Confidential to ALL ON 'BLIND' LIST: Speaker(s) Needed to
brief Governor's Office
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
To all persons BCC'd:
There is an urgent need to identify at least one, and possibly two, persons
to sit on a discussion panel to discuss Distribution Wheeling* at a
conference October 21-22, at UC Berkeley. The conference/symposium will be
limited to approximately 150 persons, to allow close and interactive Q&A
between panelists and the key audience of California's executive,
legislative, and regulatory officers, and their key staff. We have been
told that Governor Davis himself is expected to participate.
Please respond ASAP, nominating one individual per message (suitable for
public viewing), identifying the individual together with that person's
relevant interests and affiliations. Add approximately 1/4- to 1/2 page of
details of the person's issue, point-of-view, or proposal, together with
their relevant qualifications to address such.
If there are any questions, please call me at my office number and leave a
message or reply to this e-mail. Due to the urgency of this need, and the
short turn-around requested, you are welcomed to call me at home,
925-855-0554, from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM Sat-Sun, or 5:30 to 7:30 AM Mon-Fri,
Pacific time.
*Distribution Wheeling is the practice of relieving certain local,
distribution-level energy transactions from some or all of the regulations,
including tariff responsibilities, pertaining to interstate transmission
transactions. This issue has been addressed at some length in the CPUC
proceeding R.99-10-025.
For quick reference, a copy of ORA's testimony in that proceeding (which,
admittedly, does not equally cover all possible interpretations of DW) is
provided for your convenience.
Anthony Mazy, P.E.
Utilities Engineer
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
San Francisco
V: (415) 703-3036 FAX: (415) 703-1981
<<Mazy, Anthony.vcf>> <<ORA DG OIR Apr12 rev2 Ch2 only for
distribution.doc>> | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Rob, Ken said this is fine.
Rob Bradley
05/14/2000 12:06 PM
To: Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Final Quote for "Leading the Revolution"
Gary Hamel and I went back and forth once more after your last input, and
here is where we came out.
At this point your blessing or revision on this blurb will be the final.
- ROB
---------------------- Forwarded by Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron on 05/14/2000
11:50 AM ---------------------------
Grace Reim <[email protected]> on 05/12/2000 06:31:58 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Ken Lay on Leading the Revolution]
Perfect, Rob.
Thank you.
Grace
[email protected] wrote:
> I dropped "own" before "business life" to reduce wordiness and substituted
> Gary's two suggestions. Is this now okay?
"Gary Hamel's 'revolutionary entrepreneurship' model represents a
substantial advance in our understanding of what companies must do to
become outstanding innovators. It should influence not only top management
but also every employee who, indeed, is the CEO of their business life."
> If so, I'll send it up to Ken.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ROB
>
> Grace Reim <[email protected]> on 05/12/2000 04:54:57 PM
>
> To: [email protected]
> cc:
>
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Ken Lay on Leading the Revolution]
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> Gary agrees that "radical" might not be the best choice. He said that
> "outstanding" innovators would be fine.
>
> On another note, he still feels that "significant, qualitative" advance...
> is a bit long. Wonders if "substantial" would suffice? But he leaves this
> one entirely to you.
>
> Hope to hear from you on Monday.
>
> All the best,
> Grace
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > We are getting very close.
> >
> > My only concern with #2 is the word radical. That's good for you but may
> > not be for Ken.
> >
> > What would you think of replacing "radical innovators" with "outstanding
> > innovators" or "super innovators"?
> >
> > One concern I have about radical is that you can be radical and not
> > successful (unprofitable). You could be bold and very wrong (picking the
> > wrong revolution) or just ahead of your time (which is still resource
> > misallocation to economists).
> >
> > If you want to think of acceptable replacements for "radical," I'll then
> > let Ken decide which word his wants (including the choice of radical) and
> > put the quotation to bed.
> >
> > - ROB
> >
> > Grace Reim <[email protected]> on 05/11/2000 03:21:57 PM
> >
> > To: [email protected]
> > cc:
> >
> > Subject: [Fwd: Ken Lay on Leading the Revolution]
> >
> > Hello Rob,
> >
> > Here are Gary's suggestions.
> >
> > Your thoughts?
> >
> > Grace
> >
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Received: from strategosnet.com ([206.14.127.110]) by
> > woodside.strategosnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA16468 for
> > <[email protected]>; Thu, 11 May 2000 12:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:33:05 -0700
> > From: Gary Hamel <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > Organization: Strategos
> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
> > X-Accept-Language: en
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > To: Grace Reim <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Ken Lay on Leading the Revolution
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> >
> > Dear Rob . . . thanks again for taking the trouble to help me with a
> > blurb from Mr. Lay.
> >
> > Here are two slightly reworked quotes. I must say, I like the second
> > one more than the first. I hope it is acceptable to you.
> >
> > "Gary Hamel's 'revolutionary entrepreneurship' model represents a
> > significant, qualitative advance in our understanding of the principles
> > and practice of innovation. It should influence not only top management
> > but also every employee who, indeed, is the CEO of their own business
> > life."
> >
> > "Gary Hamel's 'revolutionary entrepreneurship' model represents a
> > significant, qualitative improvement in our understanding of what
> > companies must do to become radical innovators. It should influence not
> > only top management, but also every employee who, indeed, is the CEO of
> > their own business life."
> >
> > Gary. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Here is the timesheet for this pay period. Thanks | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Attached is Lynda Clemmons presentation for the AGM for your information.
Rosemary
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: presentation for AGM
Rosemary -
Here's my presentation. Can you put this on a laptop so I will not have to
use mine? Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Lynda
(See attached file: ISDA Wash DC 4-05-2001.ppt)
Lynda R. Clemmons
President & COO
Element Re Capital Products Inc.
100 First Stamford Place, Suite 360
Stamford, CT 06902
O: 203-356-3577
M: 203-246-0049
- ISDA Wash DC 4-05-2001.ppt | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
the theme for the weekend is " can til i can't" - drink from when i can see
til i can't. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Attached is the summary of our filing position and proposals for tariff and service revisions and a summary of protests for review prior to our discussions on Tuesday. gh
-----Original Message-----
From: Donoho, Lindy
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:25 AM
To: Hass, Glen; Darveaux, Mary
Cc: Lokey, Teb
Subject: FW: TW 637 Meeting
Do either of you have info concerning the intervenors/protestors and their issues that could be distributed electronically before next Tuesday? Glen, maybe you could also distribute you summary of TW's filing with that info.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindberg, Lorraine
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:03 AM
To: Donoho, Lindy
Subject: RE: TW 637 Meeting
Lindy - Is there a way for someone to compile a list of shippers who protested and intervened in our compliance filing and what the issues are prior to this meeting?
-----Original Message-----
From: Donoho, Lindy
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:40 AM
To: Kilmer III, Robert; Lokey, Teb; Hass, Glen; Darveaux, Mary; Pryor, Tony; Pavlou, Maria; Schoolcraft, Darrell; Betancourt, Ramona ; Blair, Lynn; Brown, Elizabeth
Cc: Harris, Steven; Corman, Shelley; Watson, Kimberly; Lindberg, Lorraine; Lokay, Michelle; Lohman, TK
Subject: TW 637 Meeting
Please plan to attend a meeting on Tuesday, August 21st from 2:30 to 4:30 in 49C2 (video) to discuss the letter TW received recently concerning our 637 filing. If you have not seen a copy of the brief letter, dated August 8, 2001, it reads as follows:
"On August 15, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) filed pro forma tariff sheets in Docket No. RP00-490-000 in compliance with Order No. 637. Protests were filed in this proceeding. Transwestern and its customers have been meeting to attempt to resolve some of the issues raised in the protests. Staff understands that Transwestern may file revised pro forma tariff sheets if there is agreement with its customers on the matters at issue.
Accordingly, you are encouraged to finalize discussions with your customers and file any revised pro forma tariff sheets in the near future. Otherwise, Staff will proceed to process your filing based on the pro forma tariff sheets submitted on August 15, 2000."
We would like to discuss our strategy in response to this letter. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Everyone,
You probably have already heard on the news that there is a new Computer Virus out on the internet that is causing Corporations to experience numerous problems. We have an automated process to update our workstations with the latest virus protection updates. However, there may be some machines that didn't get the update. In order to prevent this virus from infecting your machine, please assist by doing one of the following tasks.
1. Logout of the network and log back in or
2. Click on START>PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>Norton AntiVirus Corporate Edition and then click the Live Update button. This will pop up a screen where you will have to click the "Next" button and then a "Finish" button.
The proper version of the update pattern you need is: (9/18/2001, version 30918v)
If you have questions or concerns, please direct them to your Resolution Center.
Enron Global Technology | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Good Morning Dan:
Hope your Thanksgiving was safe and happy.
Legal and Credit have returned the contracts from final review and the only
two edits we would ask are as follows:
Page 2 - ARTICLE 4 DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES
4.1 Early Termination: At the top of page 2, second column, please
delete the reference to arbitration of the Termination Payment and perhaps
use something like "good faith efforts by both parties......".
Page 1 of Appendix I - DEFINITIONS
Following the definition for "Delivery Point(s)" and before the
definition for "Force Majeure", please include the definition for
"Financially Firm".
"Financially Firm" shall mean that the parties have agreed that the
performance obligation of Seller to delivery and sell and Buyer to receive
and purchase is only excused if it is physically impossible for a party to
deliver or receive Gas in accordance with its obligations under a
Transaction because Gas is not available (at any price), or cannot be made
available (at any price) via transportation (at any price) to the Delivery
Point(s) to enable performance consistent with the terms of a Transaction.
Dan, please call or email me if anything is unclear and it's my
understanding that these same edits would be mirrored in both agreements,
the Enron North America one as well as the Enovate contract. My phone
number again is 713.207.3266.
Thanks,
Ellen Dailey | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
No I didn't - is this to the Scott guy?
To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Peoples
Yes...I thought you knew already. Oct 27th. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Notice No. 00-403
November 27, 2000
TO:
All COMEX Members/Member Firms
All COMEX Clearing Members
All COMEX Floor Traders
All COMEX Operations Managers
FROM:
Michael Campanelli, Vice President, Floor Operations, COMEX Division
RE: Spot Month Procedures on the Eve of First Notice Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Please be reminded that Thursday, November 30, 2000, is the First Notice Day,
for the Gold, Silver, Copper and Aluminum futures delivery month of December
2000 (the new spot month).
On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, the Eve of the First Notice Day, all Brokers
and Clearing Members must have a duly authorized, On-Line Trade Entry
("OLTE") system trained representative available until such time as the
Exchange deems necessary.
It is imperative that trades involving the Spot Month are processed and
cleared properly. Therefore, representatives are expected to make a diligent
effort to process all Spot Month trades accurately.
Failure by any Clearing member or qualified Floor Trader to show due
diligence involving Spot Month Trade processing may result in severe
disciplinary action by the Exchange.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact David
Sherman at (212) 299-2061.
__________________________________________________
Please click on the link below to indicate you have received this
email.
"http://208.206.41.61/email/[email protected]&refdo
c=(00-403)"
Note: If you click on the above line and nothing happens, please copy
the text between the quotes, open your internet browser,
paste it into the web site address and press Return. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Dave
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:12 PM
To: Jerry Harkreader/ET&S/Enron@Enron; Lebeau, Randy; Lynch, Jim; Graham, Charlie; Howard, Randy; Leeper, Bill; Kruleski, Mick; Kilgore, Ken; Burrows, Sid; Riedel, Mike; Ron R Smith/ET&S/Enron@Enron; McCarran, Penny; Burleson, Bob; Spraggins, Gary; Bonnstetter, Mike; Clark, Scott; Coen, Jim; Clayton, Lawrence; Holland, David; Orr, Bennie; Noyes, David; Dietz, Laverne; Steffen, Lana; Pool, Deelyn; Thomas, Melissa; Sanford, Robert; Gibbs, Dana; Tate, Team; Sublette, Team; Burdett, Team; Holcomb-Fld-Comp, Team; Holcomb-Maint, Team; Gokey, Ray; Webb, Mel; Hannagan, Jon; Burgardt, Steve; Stebens, Monte; Troyer, Richard; Hugoton-Field, Team; Hugoton-Plant, Team; Hugoton-SE, Team; Hugoton-SW-MTCO, Team; Hugoton-SW-TXCO, Team; Egger, Bill; Hathaway, Craig; Lewis, Joy; Moore, Dennis; Stewart, Baron; Trujillo, Will; Mitchell, Steve; Ashland, Team; Mullinville-Maintenance, Team; Mullinville-Operations, Team; Mullinville Pipeline Team; Misner, Steve; Steele, Robert; Maier, Terry; Fringer, Roderick; Brown, Joseph; Pasek, Mike; VanSickler, Al; Ehrlich, Willy; Wiggins, Clifton; Ziegler, Stuart; Hastings, Konrad; Wieger, Duane; Gerstenkorn, Dave; Hoggatt, Leslee; Kirkhart, Roger; Pribble, Dan; Gallishaw, Melinda; Reed, Ray; Farrow, Shana; Hess, Heather; Tom Calkins/ET&S/Enron/ENRON@ENRON; Jones, Kris; Hamlin, Jeff; Stebens, Monte
Subject: Liberal Region Weekly Report | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
As you recall SW sent a letter on 15 Feb advising that they had replacement
generator and wanted a $3.4 MM PO. At your request I had drafted a
response. Has an answer been sent to SW. From a contract admin point of
view, Enron should respond to the SW Feb 15 letter soon. Please advise as to
your desired course of action. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
30-40 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
We will not be needing any headsets in the real-time group...
Thanks for checking.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatterton, Jill
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:57 AM
To: DL-Portland World Trade Center
Subject: Headsets
Linda from Headsets Unlimited will be here today at 11:30 am.
If you need to order any headset equipment please let me know
before 11:30 and I will have her come see you before she leaves.
Thank you,
Jill | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Hi,
Can and should we organize a tag-team baby sitting detail? Aghh! Another
weekend that is not my own!
Grant.
---------------------- Forwarded by Grant Masson/HOU/ECT on 09/14/2000 08:51
AM ---------------------------
Enron North America Corp.
From: Toni Graham @ ENRON 09/13/2000 05:08 PM
To: Grant Masson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Ben Zhang Timeframe
Grant, what do you think? If you really want this guy, you may suggest
someone in your group to "entertain" them while they are here.
What do you think?
---------------------- Forwarded by Toni Graham/Corp/Enron on 09/13/2000
04:58 PM ---------------------------
[email protected] on 09/13/2000 02:05:53 PM
To: <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Ben Zhang Timeframe
Toni,
I spoke with Ben today and he is planning to pay for a trip to bring his
wife to Houston this weekend and show her around in hopes of overcoming her
hesitiation on moving. His question is whether Enron will give him the time
to bring her down here and then give an answer next week? If you will let
me know how you, Grant, and Vince feel about that.
thanks,
Mike
QUALITEC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LP
Accounting - Financial - Energy Risk - Tax
Search Consultants
MIKE EASTMAN, CPC
President
281-647-9300 FAX 281-647-0933
email - [email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Lets defer to MKM's group on whether to seek a waiver on this. I don't see
any real value to us of solving Mewbourne's problems for them. DF
---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 02/10/2000
11:32 AM ---------------------------
Keith Petersen
02/09/2000 05:28 PM
To: Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lee Huber/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bob
Burleson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Earl Chanley/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rick
Cates/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rich Jolly/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Ken Earl/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Ray
Smith/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michel Nelson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rockey Storie/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michele
Winckowski/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
Subject: TW/Mewbourne
Earlier this afternoon, Mike Sheppard, the attorney for Mewbourne, called
requesting that we file for a waiver for Mewbourne's two projects. He passed
on how he had talked with FERC, Lee Huber and Shelley Corman about the new
Landowner notification for both projects. He now realizes that TW is
required to do Landowner notification, but has the ability to file for a
"Waiver" from FERC. He wants TW to file for the Waiver to reduce the number
of days before Mewbourne can flow gas. It is my understanding that the OGC
was open to granting a waiver expediently in the event there is no ground
disturbance.
Mewbourne - Two Projects:
Hemphill Co. Interconnect -
Mike S. asked why we couldn't move ahead on filing for the Waiver for the
Hemphill project. I told him that before we could move ahead we will need
additional information. First, we would need the legal description of the
location, line number of the line the interconnect was to be connected to and
who is the landowner(s) that would be impacted. He said that he would
forward the landowner's name to me. The one question that I did not have an
answer for are environmental clearances required? Because we are to have the
environmental approved dates prior to work commencing (required for Blanket
projects). Another question Mike S. was not aware of; "to activate the valve
does TW need to cross other private properties reach the site?"
Information needed for the waiver:
Location of Work (Legal Description)?
Landowner's Name and Address (per the latest Tax Role)?
Environmental Clearances - Are they required?
SE New Mexico -
On this project Mike S. was not aware that TW had to excavate to make the
connection to Mewbourne. In this project, TW must inspect the valve and
operator (tie-in point) for damage. Environmental must review to see if
clearances are required for the required digging. Because there is ground
disturbance, the landowner(s) will need to sign a waiver for the 30 day
notice. This waiver by the landowner would be filed with FERC. Another
question that Mike was unable to answer "is this project on Tribal lands?"
Another question Mike S. was not aware of; "to excavate the valve does TW
need to cross other private properties reach the site?"
Location of Work (Legal Description)?
Landowner's Name and Address (per the latest Tax Role)?
Environmental Clearances - Are they required?
Landowner "Waiver Consent"
Michele, earlier had a conversation with Shelley on how filing for waiver may
help the overall outcome of Landowner Notification ruling. By showing FERC
how the rule is affecting not only the pipeline, but how it affects producers
and landowners may help in changing the rules.
Please review and give me you input. If we are to file for a Waiver,
Certificates will all of the above information. Mike Sheppard is a
persistent person and wants to flow gas as many of you already know.
Thanks
Keith | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
BORDERSBORDERS
[IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE]3 Day Sale Huge Savings Throughout the Store [IMAGE] Friday, Nov. 23, through Sunday, Nov. 25. [IMAGE] Stop by your favorite Borders to kick off the holiday season with huge savings throughout the store, including bestsellers, kids' books, box sets, holiday music, plush toys, calendars, greeting cards, and more! [IMAGE] [IMAGE]
Books
[IMAGE] [IMAGE] Holiday Bag 40% Off [IMAGE] Hardcover Bestsellers [IMAGE] John Grisham, Diana Gabaldon, David Baldacci, Tiger Woods, and more! [IMAGE]
Music
[IMAGE] [IMAGE] 20% Off [IMAGE] All Holiday Music [IMAGE] Christmas Extraordinaire [IMAGE] Mannheim Steamroller Christmas Extraordinaire [IMAGE] The Christmas Song (Remaster) Nat King Cole The Christmas Song (Remaster) [IMAGE] Faith: A Holiday Album [IMAGE] Kenny G Faith: A Holiday Album [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Dream a Dream [IMAGE] Charlotte Church Dream a Dream [IMAGE]
Kids
[IMAGE] Dr. SeussBuy 2, Get the 3rd Free * [IMAGE] Give the Gift of Dr. Seuss
[IMAGE] 25% Off [IMAGE] All Plush Toys for Kids! [IMAGE] Plush Toys [IMAGE] * Selected titles only. Least expensive item is free. [IMAGE]
2001 Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. All rights reserved. [IMAGE]
More
[IMAGE] [IMAGE] 20% off [IMAGE] Big and Beautiful Box Sets [IMAGE] Book, music, DVD, and VHS box sets offer enthusiasts everything they could want and more. Perfect presents for collectors and fans! [IMAGE] 50% off [IMAGE] Selected Calendars [IMAGE] Plan Your Days in Style! [IMAGE] Calendars for the home and office abound at Borders. We have calendars of every style and for all interests. [IMAGE] 20% off [IMAGE] Boxed Holiday Cards [IMAGE] Save big when you share tidings of the season! [IMAGE] Boxed holiday cards are a great way to stay in touch and to wish your friends and family well during these festive times. Spread the joy and save 20%! [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE]
Find your local Borders store . Shop online anytime at www.borders.com . Online prices may vary. Our records indicate that you have expressed interest in receiving Borders Store exclusive emails and you provided us with your email address. If you'd no longer like to be included in our email updates, please click here . http://borders1.m0.net/m/u/bdr/str/b.asp?e=joe.stepenovitch%40enron.com | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
WE HAVE SCHEDULED FOR THE 37TH FLOOR REFRIGERATOR TO BE CLEANED OUT ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14TH AT 3:00 PM. PLEASE REMOVE ANY ITEM(S) YOU DO NOT WANT
DISPOSED.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at x5-8336.
(Mary, Dorothy, & Yvette :Please forward to your groups on the 37th floor)
THANK YOU,
JULISSA | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Huskers drool over Sooners.
Ken Rice@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
01/19/2001 09:14 AM
To: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re:
Huskers rule, Sooners drool.
Mike McConnell@ECT
01/19/01 07:55 AM
To: Ken Rice/Enron Communications@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re:
Thanks for the note. Sooners rule. We'll find time when things settle down.
m
Ken Rice@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
01/19/2001 07:24 AM
To: Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:
Mike
I see that we are scheduled to have lunch today. I may have to postpone
again, I'll let you know later this morning. I am out all weekend and we
have to have the final comments on the Analyst Presentation in by sunday
night so I may be working over lunch. Actually, I think we are in pretty
good shape so I will probably be doing lunch but just don't be too mad if I
have to cancel.
Ken
PS Your brother told me he went to 3 bowl games (when I found out that two
of them were the galleryfurniture.com bowl and that one in Shreveport (I
can't remember the name of it)) I realized he is a very, very sick college
football fan. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Based upon valving constraints and the innaccessability to the inside of the
pipe between our M/S and the Topock C/S, a decision has been made to postpone
cleaning of his section of the pipeline. should cleaning occur of this
section, it is anticipated that it will not occur untill the installation of
the filter separator at the PG&E C/S, sometime later this year. Vector has
been notified of this change in plans and will adjust their cleaning
schedule accordingly. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
7
From: Bryan Hull
07/10/2000 02:33 PM
To: O'Neal D Winfree/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Walters/HOU/ECT@ECT, Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Game @ 6:00 on Wed
Our game is at 6:00 this week. Due to being a top-notch three-sport athelete
I have killed my back and am listed as doubtful for this week's game. If I
can't play do you want me to ask Jody to play or just go with seven? Let me
know.
Bryan | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Shelia Walton, HR, told me that my last day with my department will be June
30. Meanwhile I talked last week to EBS, EnronOnline, and EES. I was most
interested in the EES talk with Harold Buchanan who needs to know that he has
the most complete list of potential customers and then information about
those customers.
Any happenings from your talks? | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
FYI
Rod Hayslett
EB4054
713-853-6178 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Gary Hickerson has requested a special EGM Organizational Post Petition Meeting on Friday, February 1 to be held in ECN 30C1 from 9:00 - 9:30 am. Please plan to attend or use the dial-in number shown below:
Domestic Callers
Dial 1-877-987-1409 Operator will assist with the call
Leaders Name: Gary Hickerson
Pass Code: Gary
International Participants
Dial 001-610-769-3343 Operator will assist with the call
Leaders Name: Gary Hickerson
Pass Code: Gary
Thank you.
Judy Zoch
Enron Global Markets LLC
Financial Trading
1400 Smith
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 853-0655
email: [email protected] | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Paul,
How has London credit established Total International Ltd. has an "eligible
contract party". I have left two e-mails for Total and they are not getting
back with me. I have informed our trader not to take them again until we can
sort out this eligibility issue. Any assistance from you would be
appreciated.
brant
-----Original Message-----
From: Shackleton, Sara
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:44 AM
To: Reves, Brant
Cc: Sayre, Frank
Subject: Re: Total International Ltd.
Did you speak with your ECTRIC credit counterpart? Who is it? Did he make
this inquiry already? One of you needs to speak wtih Total. The "due
diligence" issue is a credit responsibility. Please let us know how we can
help.
Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas 77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
[email protected]
Brant Reves/ENRON@enronXgate 04/17/2001 05:01 PM To: Sara
Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank Sayre/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc:
Adam Gross/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Total International Ltd.
Did we ever get any further on ECP issues related to ENA subs, i.e. ECTRIC
business with Total International Ltd, an unsupported subsidiary of TotalFina.
I have left two emails with my contact regarding ECP issues, with no reply.
What are our choices to do with trade v34062, a trade not yet confirmed with
this customer. I don't see this as a credit issue, but more of a legal
issue. From a credit standpoint, I am ok with the trade.
Adam - consider these guys on the No Trade list until we can finalize
handling status.
brant | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
FYI. Here's a note I sent to the large customers. Have spoken with them since. They are going to write a nasty letter in response to Angelides. Also, it does not appear that the PUC can act at this meeting on the retroactivity issue--appears that due process/notice requirements prevents it. We're double checking to make sure.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:16 PM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA Suspension Date
I'm sure that by now everyone's seen the letter that Angelides sent to Loretta last Friday. If you haven't, let me know and I'll have it faxed to you. In short, Angelides blames all of the financial woes of the State on Loretta and the PUC. Specifically, he claims that by allowing DA sign-ups to extend to September 20th, the PUC may have shifted over $8 billion to "homeowners, small businesses, and other enterprises..." Angelides ends the lettery by urging the Commission to immediately roll back the DA suspension date to July 1.
The concern, of course, is that Angelides' assertions are out there and have received alot of press attention, i.e., Direct Access=$8 billion tax on homeowners.
To her credit, Loretta refuted Angelides in the press accounts and repeated that the best way to get costs down is to renegotiate the DWR contracts. She also said in the press accounts that she intends to deal with the July 1/September 20 suspension issue at the next commission meeting.
In light of these events (and the increasing attacks on Loretta by Angelides and others in the Administration) It might be useful to give Loretta an assist by drafting a very brief letter to her stating:
Angelides is all wet--DA and "fairness" are not mutually exclusive and the PUC has all the regulatory tools necessary to ensure fairness is maintained going forward. Thus, the 8 plus billion dollar number is without basis.
Re-stating that the PUC has no legal authority to retroactively suspend DA to July 1, etc., etc.
Folks may have other points to make. Seems that we'd want to keep the letter short and to the point, however.
A letter might be useful in order to 1) give Loretta some support and 2) get some counter-press in response to the Angelides tantrum.
Any thoughts?
Best,
Jeff | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Dear Mark,
I am the Associate Dean for MBA Programs at Michigan State. I'm writing to
ask for your advice regarding a new initiative here. I am not sure how much
you have remained in touch with MSU since your graduation. I am proud to
report that US News and World Report recently named the Eli Broad College of
Business #16 in its annual ranking of undergraduate business schools. And
last April, the Wall Street Journal ranked our full-time MBA program #12.
As an alum, I hope you are as proud of these accomplishments as are the
faculty, staff, and current students of the Broad School.
The Broad School recently opened a financial analysis laboratory and trading
room to help our students understand options theory better and learn trading
skills. I would like to expand the scope of the lab to include the energy
marketplace. That interest led me to the EnronOnline and Enron web sites,
where I found your bio. Because Enron is the world's top energy trader, I'd
like to get your views on how I can best expose our students to the energy
marketplace. For example, do students need access to specialized energy
trading information and software (e.g., EnronOnline.com) or do they need
advanced courses in options theory (or both)? Similarly, is it better to
focus on risk management more generally or the energy market in particular?
I have also been working with our MBA Placement Director to better
understand career opportunities in energy and bandwidth trading. Given the
background of many of our students (with experience in operations and
finance), we think they'll be qualified for opportunities in the energy
market (as traders or analysts) if we give them the right tools. Finally, I
saw an announcement that Enron has collaborated with Rice University in an
e-commerce, energy and bandwidth initiative and wonder if any type of
collaboration with Michigan State is possible.
If you are willing, I would like to discuss these and some related issues
with you. I'd be happy to call at any time that is convenient for you -
just let me know a time and phone number. If you'd prefer to schedule a
specific time, please have your assistant call mine - Cathy Chubb at
517-432-5100 - to set a time on our calendars.
Thanks in advance for your consideration. I wish you much luck and
continued success in all your activities.
Best regards,
John Delaney
John T. Delaney
Associate Dean for MBA Programs
Eli Broad Graduate School of Management
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 432-5100 | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Well, the last thing I need right now is anything involving strings, so in
that
respect, maybe we should just all meet up for a happy hour and not call it
ANYTHING, like a date, or set-up, or whatever! I'd like to meet this guy,
though, since you do know him. Like you said, I'm NOT going to meet anyone
in a
bar. John doesn't have any kids, or x--wives does he?
I was kinda interested in the manager of Sambuca, Charles (Chuck) Dearborn,
and
he seemed kinda interested in me, BUT then I found out he has an x-wife and 2
kids in another state. NO THANKS! Where is the line for baggage-free
men??? I
know we all have it, but just for once, I'd like to meet a man who can DEAL
WITH
HIS OWN...MATURELY!
You're right, though, I need to try to date a guy with a "normal" job. I
don't
know what's wrong today, but I miss Craig so much right now.
Later,
Ro
[email protected] on 10/10/2000 09:31:53 AM
To: [email protected]
cc: (bcc: Rosanna A. Mendoza/MDACC)
Subject: Re: pain in the ....
John is tall, dark & handsome (and as I told you yesterday, very fit). He
looks very Italian. I've known him most of the time I've been at Enron;
first met him when he was dating (i.e., going out on just a few dates with)
my friend Staci. He is very fun and very sweet but just a tad bit flighty;
still think he has some growing up to do. That's why I warned Dianna that
he would probably just be someone to go out on a few dates with, for fun.
I really don't think he's ready to settle down at all. On the other hand,
he's fun to be with, and has a way of making you feel that you're the only
woman in the room. That kind of attention (the lighthearted,
no-strings-attached kind) might be just what you need right now. The
problem with Dianna was that she instantly fell in love with him, and of
course was very frustrated when he did not call every day or want to hang
out all the time. She finally started acting a little cold towards him.
His take on the situation: she expects too much!
The only difficulty might be that John could be leery of dating my friends
by now! But I can test the waters and let you know...
[email protected] on 10/10/2000 09:09:50 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: pain in the ....
You're like me - my back has been bothering me, too lately, especially
after a
match and all that serving - I just have no desire right now to play that
tournament. The cold doesn't help the stiffness, either. I'm already
playing
HTA league, and I'm just still not interested in hanging out at the Met
much. I
don't think I'm going to play Kingwood, either. I'll make a decision by
tomorrow - I just really want to get out of town.
I want you to tell me more about this friend of yours. What happened with
Diana? What does he look like? What does he do? How long have you known
him -
TELL ME THE SCOOP! After Craig, who is still the most gorgeous man I have
ever
been out with, it's just so difficult to see myself with anyone right now.
I
know I need to move on, and he'll come back when he's ready, IF I am
available.
Tell me - and if we do go out, we HAVE to double - I need to meet Craig
anyway......
Later,
Ro
[email protected] on 10/10/2000 09:03:47 AM
To: Rosanna A. Mendoza/MDACC@MDACC
cc:
Subject: pain in the ....
I think I'm going to have to quit tennis. My back hurts every time I play
a match. It even hurts from yesterday's drill. I think it is best if I
drop out of all the organized tennis I've signed up for this month. Danny
is going to hate me. Maybe he would let you sub in for me for the 4.5
singles tournament, since no one has played any matches yet (assuming you
want to play). Ugh. I really hate to not play tennis but I have to make
this back last for 35+ more years! So it's just not worth it.
Good to see you looking so happy yesterday! we need to find you a man in
Houston. If/when you want me to set you up with my friend, let me know!
S. | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
287933 shows Sempra Energy Trading as the counterparty......?
Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
01/12/2001 09:24 AM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: deal 287933
Please ch name to TransCanada Power, A Division of TransCanada Energy,
instead of TransCanada Power Marketing
Thanks | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Sara,
Enclosed is the Draft document for EDEN.
Let me know how it looks.
Thanks,
Joe | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Here is the letter I was referring to yesterday sent by Reliant's Sacramento
counsel to Senator Dunn. In paragraph no. 1, Charles Stevens refers to how
small Reliant's market share is in the WSCC power market. He suggests that
the Committee obtain the entire database, which reflects all bidders in the
market. He goes on to say that the information from obtaining all of the
data would give a far more accurate picture than could be obtained by
looking at the data of a few "generators".
This letter plus some comments that Larry Drivon made to Michael Molland
gave rise to the inference that Reliant's counsel, Charles Stevens, may have
been suggesting in his discussions with Senator Dunn's staff that Enron
should be included in the process. It may be that the inference will turn
out not to be accurate. That is all the information we have on the subject.
Thanks.
Gary
<<Reliant.Resp.Dunn.Subpoena.4.17.01.pdf>>
=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
[email protected]
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com
- Reliant.Resp.Dunn.Subpoena.4.17.01.pdf | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
fyi- wasn't there a discussion on this at prc? rick
---------------------- Forwarded by Rick Buy/HOU/ECT on 01/17/2001 08:27 AM
---------------------------
From: William S Bradford 01/17/2001 08:11 AM
To: Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT, John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Jason R Williams/NA/Enron@ENRON, Brant Reves/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tanya
Rohauer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rod Nelson/LON/ECT@ECT
Subject: Imperial Holly Corporation
We actually forced Craig Breslau and Fred Lagrasta to unwind an unapproved
one year trade with their subsidiary Savannah Foods in April 2000. In
hindsight, it appears to be quite a good call.
Bill
---------------------- Forwarded by William S Bradford/HOU/ECT on 01/17/2001
07:10 AM ---------------------------
Jason R Williams@ENRON
01/17/2001 07:51 AM
To: William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tanya Rohauer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom
Moran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Russell Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brant Reves/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Veronica Espinoza/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rudwell Johnson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Darren
Vanek/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Imperial Holly Corporation
FYI, Imperial Holly Corporation filed for Chapter 11 protection yesterday.
Counterparties affected would be:
Imperial Holly Corporation
Holly Sugar Corporation
At the present, we have no trades with either of these counterparties.
Jay | {
"pile_set_name": "Enron Emails"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.