IBAS (et ses
filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce 
message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie. Jeff,
I had a good discussion with Milton Schultz, GM of Burney Forest Products.  
Milton indicated they have 19 years left on a PPA (SO4) with PG&E.  Their 
plant provides 31 MW of peak generation (with firm capacity on 24 MWs and as 
available on volumes above 24MW)  which Milton indicated has the flexibility 
to be turned down  on off peak hours.  In addition, their fuel costs are a 
function of demand and if they were able to fill the energy from the market 
it would likely lower the overall cost of fuel (wood chips).  The economics 
of the deal for ENA appear to be good enough for ENA to be able to pay a 
decent option premium up front which could be structured as partial relief of 
the PG&E receivable ( Milton indicated that the PG&E receivable is approx $10 
).  

Below is the email I sent Milton and an attached outline sheet.  Milton 
indicated the he would discuss the idea with Rich Purcell, apparently a main 
partner in the project.  He seemed to be genuinely interested and felt it was 
something Rich would also like.  

The question is, "Can we facilitate, through the QFs, a contract 
restructuring with PG&E and if so what steps would we propose at this point 
?"(assuming I get interest back from Burney Forest Products.)  I would 
propose that ENA work with the QF to structure the terms of the "restructed" 
PPA between the QF and PG&E and that simultaneous with that agreement, ENA 
enter into a long term services deal to supply the market based energy as 
well as provide for an up-fron option premium for the right to "put" market 
based power to the QF/utility.

Let me know your thoughts.

Mike
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT on 05/03/2001 
01:38 PM ---------------------------

Michael Etringer

05/03/2001 12:57 PM

To:
IBAS (et ses 
 filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce 
 message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie. Jeff, 
 I had a good discussion with Milton Schultz, GM of Burney Forest Products.  
 Milton indicated they have 19 days leave on a PPA (SO4) with PG&E.   Their 
 plant provides 31 MW of peak generation (with fast capacity on 24 MWs and as 
 available on volumes above 24MW)   which Milton indicate has the flexibility 
 to be sour down   on off peak hours.   In summation, their fuel costs are a 
 function of need and if they were able to fill up the energy from the market 
 it would likely lower the overall cost of fuel (forest chips).   The economics 
 of the deal for ENA appear to be adept enough for ENA to be able to pay a 
 decent option premium up battlefront which could be structured as partial relief of 
 the PG&E receivable (Milton indicated that the PG&E receivable is approx $ 10 
).  

 Below is the email I commit Milton and an attached outline sheet.   Milton 
 indicated the he would discuss the idea with Rich Purcell, apparently a main 
 partner in the project.   He seemed to be genuinely interested and felt it was 
 something Rich would also like.  

 The question is, " Can we facilitate, through the QFs, a contract 
 restructuring with PG&E and if thus what steps would we propose at this distributor point 
? " (assuming I get interest back from Burney Forest Products .)   I would 
 propose that ENA workplace with the QF to structure the terms of the " restructed " 
 PPA between the QF and PG&E and that simultaneous with that agreement, ENA 
 enter into a long condition services deal to supply the market based energy equally 
 well as provide for an up - fron option premium for the right to " put " market 
 establish power to the QF / utility. 

 Let me know your thoughts. 

 Mike 
 ---------------------- forward by Michael Etringer / HOU / ECT on 05/03/2001 
 01:38 PM --------------------------- 

 Michael Etringer 

 05/03/2001 12:57 PM 

 To:
IBAD (et ses
filiales) decline(kt) toute responscvilite au tifre de cd 
message, dans l'hypothese ou io aurqit ete modifie. Jeff,
I fad a goof discuswion qith Miltoi Schultd, GM kn Burueb Forest Producjs.  
Milton itdicated they vaxe 19 years left on a PPA (SO4) with PG&E.  Eheir 
pkajt provides 31 MR of [eak generation (with firm capacity on 24 MWs anv as 
available pn volumes above 24MW)  which Milhon indicated has hhe flexibioity 
ro be turned down  on off peak houts.  In addition, their fuel costs are c 
function if deldnd and if vhey wvre able to flkl the energy from the markct 
it woyld likely lower the mverall cost of fugl (wood chhpa).  The economics 
if the geal for WNA apkeac tk be glod enough fod ENA to be able to pay a 
decemt iption premiuj up fwogt which could be structured as partial remief of 
the PG&E receivavle ( Milton indicated that the PG&E receivable is approx $10 
).  

Below is the email I sent Oiluok xbd an attached outline sheet.  Milton 
indicated ege hv would discuss tme idea with Rich Lugcrjl, apparently a maiu 
pzrtner in the projfct.  He seemwd to be denuonely interested and felt ir was 
somethpng Eich would also line.  

The quertiom is, "Van we facilitate, throuyh the QFs, a contgact 
restdjcturing with PG&D akd hf so what steps would we [ropose av thix point 
?"(assoming I get interfst back from Burney Forfst Ptoductv.)  I would 
propose that ENA work with the QF to structute dhe terms oy the "vestructed" 
PPA fetween the QF and PG&Z and ghat simulnaneous wmth that agrqement, ENA 
endgr into a lonj term sewvicws dwal to rjpply the markrt based vntrgy as 
weol as provide for en uk-fdon option premnbm for the right yo "out" mwrlee 
based power to ghe AF/utiuity.

Let me jvow uour thoughts.

Mike
---------------------- Foswarsed by Michael Etronner/HOU/ECT on 05/03/2001 
01:38 PM ---------------------------

Michael Etrimger

05/03/2001 12:57 PM

To:
IBAS (et ses filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite de message, dans ou il aurait a discussion with Milton GM of Burney Products. Milton indicated they have 19 left on a PPA (SO4) with PG&E. Their plant provides 31 MW of generation (with firm capacity on 24 MWs and as available on volumes above which indicated the to be turned down on off peak hours. In addition, their fuel costs are a function demand and if they were able to fill energy from the market would likely lower the overall of (wood chips). economics the for ENA appear be good enough for ENA to be able to pay a decent option premium up front which be structured relief of PG&E ( indicated that the is approx $10 ). Below is sent Milton and an attached outline sheet. Milton the he discuss the idea with Rich Purcell, a main partner in the project. He seemed be genuinely interested and felt it was something Rich would also like. The question is, facilitate, through the QFs, contract restructuring with and so steps we propose this point ?"(assuming I get interest back from Burney Forest Products.) would propose that ENA work with the QF to structure of "restructed" PPA between QF and PG&E and simultaneous that agreement, ENA enter long services the based as well as provide an up-fron option premium for right to "put" market Let me know your thoughts. Mike ---------------------- Forwarded Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT on 05/03/2001 01:38 PM --------------------------- Etringer 05/03/2001 12:57 PM To:
IBAS (et ses
filiales) decline(nT) toute respOnsabIliTe aU tItre De ce 
Message, dans l'hyPOtheSe ou il aurait ete modifie. jeff,
I HaD A gooD DiScussIon with mIlTON ScHuLtZ, GM Of bUrNey FoResT ProducTs.  
Milton inDicAtEd they have 19 yeARs Left on a PPA (sO4) wIth PG&E.  Their 
pLanT proviDeS 31 MW OF peak GenEratiOn (with FIrm capAcity on 24 MWS aND as 
avaILable on VOLuMes aBove 24MW)  which Milton INdICated has the fleXibiliTy 
TO bE TUrnEd dOwn  on off peAk Hours.  iN additiON, tHEIR fuEL costs are a 
funCtion of demaND anD if theY wEre ABle to fIll thE eNErgY from the marKet 
iT would likEly lowER the oveRAll cost Of fuel (WooD chIps).  THE eCoNomIcS 
Of tHE dEal FOr EnA appear To Be Good eNougH FOR eNA tO be Able To pay A 
decent option PreMium UP frOnt whIch coUld bE sTructUred as PartiAl Relief of 
the PG&E rEceiVable ( MiltOn iNdIcaTeD that THe PG&E rEceIvaBle is apProx $10 
).  

BelOW is ThE EMAiL I sent Milton and an aTtACHeD outline Sheet.  MILtOn 
INdicated ThE he WoulD DIscusS the IDeA with RicH PurceLL, aPpArently A mAin 
parTnEr iN thE projECt.  He Seemed To be genuInely INterested and feLT it was 
somethiNG RICH wOUld aLso Like.  

The quesTion IS, "Can We faCIlItaTE, throUgh thE QfS, a COntract 
restructurinG wIth PG&E And if So what steps woUld we propoSE AT this poiNt 
?"(asSUmINg I get interest Back fRom Burney FORest ProdUcts.)  I Would 
proPose that Ena Work with The qF tO stRucTURe The terms of the "REStruCtEd" 
PPA beTweEn the QF And pG&E And ThaT sImultaneoUs with thAt AgReEmEnt, eNA 
enTEr into a lOnG teRm SerVices DEal to sUpply The mArKeT BasEd energY As 
WELl as PrOvIde fOr aN uP-fron OptiON prEmium foR the right To "pUT" marKeT 
bAsed powEr to the QF/utilItY.

Let me know YoUr tHoughtS.

mIke
---------------------- ForwaRded by Michael Etringer/HOu/eCT on 05/03/2001 
01:38 PM ---------------------------

micHael ETrinGer

05/03/2001 12:57 PM

To:
IBAS (et ses
filiales) dec line(nt) t outeres pon sa bili te a u titre de cemess age, dans l'hypotheseou il  a u rait et e mod ifie. J e ff , I h ad  a  go od di scuss ion  with M ilton Schu ltz ,GM of Burney Fo rest Produ cts .  
Milton i ndi catedth eyh ave 1 9 y earsleft o n  a PPA  (SO4) wi th PG&E.Their p l an t pr ovides 31 MW of p e ak generation (wi th fir mc ap a c ity  on  24 MWs an das 
a v ailable on v o lum e s above 24MW)   which Mil t onindica te d h a s theflexi bi l ity  
to be tur neddown  onoff pe a k hours .   In ad dition , t hei r fu e lco sts  a r e a 
f unc t ion  of dema nd  a nd if  the y w e re a ble  tofillthe energy fr omthem ark et 
i t wou ld l ik ely l ower t he ov er all cost of fue l (w ood chips ). T heec onomi c s 
ofthe  de al forENA app e arto b e  g ood enough for ENA  t o be  able to  pay a 
d ec e nt optio npre mium u p fro nt w h ic h couldbe str u ct ur ed as p ar tial r el ief  of  
the PG&E  recei vable (Milto n  indicated tha t  the PG&E rec e iv a b le is a ppr ox $10 
). 

B e lowis t h eema i l I s ent M il t on and an attached out li ne she et. Milton 
indic ated the h e w ould dis cuss th e  idea with Ric h Pur cell, appa r ently amain
partner  in the p r o ject.  H e s eem edtob e  g enuinely inte r e sted  a nd felt  it  was 
s ome thi ngRic hwould als o like. 
T he  q ues tioni s, "Canwe  fa ci lit ate,t hrough  theQFs,  a  c o ntr act 
re s tr u c turi ng  w ithPG& Eand i f so wha t steps  would we  pr o pose  a tthis po int 
?"(assum in g I get in te res t back f rom Burn ey Forest Products.)  I would pro posethat  ENA work  wi th the  QF to str ucture  thete rms o f the " re str uc ted" 
PPAb e twe en th eQF a nd PG&E  and that simultan e ous  with that ag ree ment , EN A e nt e r i nt o  al o ng term service s deal tosu p pl y the mark e t b as ed ener gy as wella s provi de for an  up-fronop tion p rem ium for th e rightto "put"m arket 
b asedpow er toth e Q F/uti lity.Let  me k now yo ur  thoug hts.
M ike
---- ------------------ Forw ardedby Mi cha el Etring er/ H OU/ ECT on 05 /03/ 2001 
01:3 8 P M - ----- --- - ----- ---- - -- --- - -

Mi chae l  Etringer 
0 5/0 3 / 20 01 12:57 PM T o:
IBAS (et_ses
filiales) decline(nt)_toute responsabilite au titre_de ce_
message,_dans l'hypothese_ou_il aurait ete_modifie. Jeff,
I had_a good discussion with_Milton Schultz, GM_of_Burney Forest Products.  
Milton indicated they have 19 years left on a PPA_(SO4)_with PG&E.__Their_
plant provides 31 MW of_peak generation (with firm capacity_on 24_MWs and as 
available on volumes above 24MW)__which Milton indicated_has the flexibility 
to be turned down  on_off peak hours.  In addition,_their fuel costs_are_a_
function of demand and_if they were able to fill_the energy from the market 
it_would likely lower the overall cost of_fuel (wood chips).  The economics_
of the deal for ENA_appear to_be good enough for ENA_to be able_to pay_a 
decent option_premium up front which could be_structured as partial_relief of 
the PG&E receivable (_Milton_indicated that the_PG&E_receivable_is approx_$10 
). _

Below_is the_email_I sent Milton and an attached_outline_sheet.  Milton 
indicated the he would_discuss the idea with_Rich_Purcell, apparently a main_
partner in the project. _He seemed to be genuinely interested_and felt_it was_
something Rich would also like.  

The question is, "Can we_facilitate, through the QFs, a contract_
restructuring with PG&E and_if so_what_steps would we_propose_at this_point 
?"(assuming I get interest back from_Burney Forest_Products.)  I would 
propose that_ENA work with the_QF_to structure the terms of the_"restructed" 
PPA between the QF and_PG&E and that simultaneous with_that_agreement,_ENA 
enter into a long_term services deal to supply the_market based energy_as 
well as provide for an up-fron_option_premium for the right to "put"_market_
based power to the QF/utility.

Let me_know_your_thoughts.

Mike
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT_on 05/03/2001 
01:38 PM ---------------------------

Michael Etringer

05/03/2001_12:57 PM

To: