|
|
Enron Mail |
Off the top of my head, I belive several California parties did, but let me
check. From: James D Steffes@ENRON on 03/12/2001 03:29 PM CST To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: FERC Order and DWR Mary -- Did anyone file for rehearing to "include" LT contracts into the review process? Jim Mary Hain@ECT 03/12/2001 01:31 PM To: Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, jklauber@llgm.com@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: FERC Order and DWR In the Staff Recommendation on Prospective Market Monitoring and Mitigation, March 2001, the FERC Staff stated that its proposed mitigation proposal is designed to apply only to approximately 5% of the market that remains in real-time and not to the bilateral and forward markets. In addition, the December 15 order only established a reporting requirement for sales into the ISO and PX spot markets exceeding $150/MWh. Under the order, the refund potential closes after 60 days of a utility filing its cost justification unless the FERC issues written notification to the seller that its transaction is still under review. Note well that this does not entirely insulate EPMI concerning long term deals because the FERC's December 15 order is still pending rehearing and parties can appeal that order once the Commission rules. From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 03/12/2001 12:00 PM CST Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON To: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, jklauber@llgm.com, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: FERC Order and DWR Quick question to Joe and/or Christian, John and Mary: I'm assuming that any deal we sign with DWR that falls below the $150/MWH soft cap is free and clear of the order FERC issued on Friday as well as any other refund risk associated with FERC's December order. Is that correct? Thanks. Best, Jeff
|