Enron Mail

From:ray.alvarez@enron.com
To:alan.comnes@enron.com
Subject:Re: FERC Price Mitigation (Cap) Update
Cc:tim.belden@enron.com, mike.swerzbin@enron.com, michael.driscoll@enron.com,matt.motley@enron.com, robert.badeer@enron.com, diana.scholtes@enron.com, sean.crandall@enron.com, chris.mallory@enron.com, jeff.richter@enron.com, tom.alonso@enron.com, mark.
Bcc:tim.belden@enron.com, mike.swerzbin@enron.com, michael.driscoll@enron.com,matt.motley@enron.com, robert.badeer@enron.com, diana.scholtes@enron.com, sean.crandall@enron.com, chris.mallory@enron.com, jeff.richter@enron.com, tom.alonso@enron.com, mark.
Date:Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT)

I attended a luncheon this afternoon at which the keynote speaker was FERC
Chairman Curt Hebert. Although the Chairman began his presentation by
expressly stating that he would not comment or answer questions on pending
proceedings before the Commission, Hebert had some enlightening comments
which relate to the referenced matter:

Price caps are almost never the right answer
Price Caps will have the effect of prolonging shortages
Competitive choices for consumers is the right answer
Any solution, however short term, that does not increase supply or reduce
demand, is not acceptable
Eight out of eleven western Governors oppose price caps, in that they would
export California's problems to the West

This is the latest intelligence we have been able to gather on the matter.
We will be monitoring the Commission meeting tomorrow morning to determine
the outcome.

Ray Alvarez





Alan Comnes@ECT
04/24/2001 11:47 AM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Swerzbin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael M
Driscoll/PDX/ECT@ECT, Matt Motley/PDX/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Diana Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sean Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Chris
Mallory/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Alonso/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark
Fischer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Phillip Platter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carla Hoffman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve C
Hall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Heizenrader/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Stephen Swain/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Elliot Mainzer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Bill Williams
III/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: FERC Price Mitigation (Cap) Update

West Traders et al.

FERC's meeting, which will include the issue of price mitigation for
California, is on tomorrow's (Wed's) agenda. I will be patching in the
meeting in a conference room here in Portland. The meeting begins 7 a.m. PDT.

Based on yesterday's newspapers, staff's proposal appears to have a chance of
adoption. However, what the FERC will do is very much up in the air. Any
mitigation plan will replace the current approach set to expire 4/30/01 that
requires (1) cost reporting of all accepted bids over $150/MWh, and (2)
refunds (subject to appeal) of generators who bid and are accepted above a
index based on a heat rate and monthly gas price.

Staff's mitigation plan has been out since early March 2001. Here's a
rundown:

o Applies only in in-CA generators with agreements (PGAs) selling to ISO R/T.

o Applies only in stage 3 (ALTHOUGH one of the easiest "tweaks" the FERC can
do is make the staff proposal apply to Stage 2/3 or Stage 1/2/3)

o ISO R/T prices within the state will be "mitigated" (capped) at a single
price based on the marginal cost of the last PGA generator accepted. Staff
proposal states:

"PGA generators would be required to propose to the Commission, in advance, a
dependable capacity for
each unit as well as certain operating parameters necessary to calculate
marginal costs, such as heat rate. The Commission staff could then use a
published fuel cost such as that which is available in Gas Daily and emission
credit data (where applicable) to determine the correct price that can be
used for mitigation purposes. This would then be the basis upon which the ISO
would use pre-determined standing prices to mitigate prices during
times of reserve deficiency (e.g., Stage 3)."

o It is not clear whether a daily or monthly index would be used. Currently
refund orders use a monthly index.

o By "single price", not that everyone will get the in-state clearing price
based upon the marginal cost of the last PGA generator selected.

o Imports: the staff proposal punts on imports. I read staff proposal imply
that there will be no mitigation on imports per se but that imports are
likely to be taken on an OOM basis more frequently when stage 3's are in
effect.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Alan Comnes.