|
|
Enron Mail |
Are we working on this in Sacramento? Do we have language? What is the
level of interest? Jim ----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 03/01/2001 09:05 PM ----- Mark Fillinger@ECT 02/28/2001 02:18 PM To: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: QF Meeting Today--Highlights For the last two days I participated in the negotiations between several QFs and the utilities regarding implementation of SBX 47. The goal of the meeting was to present a substantially complete "Agreement of Long-Term Gas Purchase Arrangement" to Battin this Thursday. Through this document they intend to describe what the parties have agreed to and the changes required in the bill to conform to the parties agreement. Attendees included PG&E and SDG&E (SCE is clearly opposed to the bill), Calpine, El Paso, Sithe and the CCC represented by White and Case. It appears that SDG&E's support for the bill is weakening with their mantra being "if this doesn't guarantee a price reduction over the five years we won't support the bill." We explained that the goal is not so much overall price reduction as price stabilization, with current period price reduction. PG&E clearly gets it. I was successful in introducing and inserting the financial hedging option into the Gas Agreement. Both PG&E and SDG&E are very supportive of such an option as they are currently prohibited from entering into such arrangements. It is less clear if the large QFs are supportive. Their primary goal is to find a safe harbor from the Wood decision for the next five years. I also believe the proposed gas procurement structure provides some option value to the larger QFs. Although it looks like our language will be in the Gas Agreement, I think we need to get some language in the bill itself. I am working with Sandi and Mike Day to make that happen. We may also want to add the concept of economic dispatch to the bill. Mike, do you have any suggested language that I could forward to Sandi and Mike Day? Finally, I suggest we try and set up individual meetings with the utilities (including SCE) to discuss our ideas further. I'm not sure what other conversations are occurring with the utilities, but I would be happy to set up the meetings with the appropriate people. Thanks, Mark Alan Comnes 02/27/2001 08:32 PM To: David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark Fillinger/SF/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: QF Meeting Today--Highlights Despite the fact the bill, by itself, does not guarantee payment for overdue receivables, the QFs on today's call decided to go forward and push for SBX 47 irrespective of the progress on SBX 33. A press conference is planned for Friday by IEP. Bowen, who heads up the first committee that this bill will go through will have hearings on this bill on Tuesday at the earliest. Jan S-J asked every QF to fax to IEP a description of all QF generation and the zip code of each project so that they can begin lobbying specific legislators. A significant PR push is planned. SBX 47 is opposed by SCE. PG&E's position appears more ambivalent. One angle would be to try to get PG&E to support Enron's swap/SC language and make inclusion of such language a condition of PG&E's support. GAC
|