|
|
Enron Mail |
No. 1 -- (a) We need to clarify what "arrange" means. For example, who is
responsible for paying for Point to Point service (which would probably be needed in order to import/export power from Entergy or when sourcing/selling to a non-designated resource.) Also, there is a huge risk that PTP (or the ability to add a network resource) will not be available at the time when importing/exporting power is most economical. EPMI can reserve/schedule on behalf of Clarksdale, but will Clarksdale be paying for the extra transmission service? (b) Entergy's policies allow for a day ahead designation of network resources, if transmission is available. However, this designation is not as firm as the network service that Clarksdale will be purchasing when requesting its original network. It seems that we can state that we will not impact Clarksdale's original network resource designation; however, when using an alternate designation, there is the possibility that the transmission could be cut before the rest of firm. We can agree to this, but lose flexibility. I agree that we would then need the local quick start generation in order to meet this request (however, such plant may not be available either.) No. 6 Both of the above tie into this one (as well as the "profit" calculation in No. 3) -- how is the "goal" of minimizing the resulting net power supply costs measured? EPMI will probably not be totally successful in having a cost reduction 100% of the time, especially if we try to use non-firm transmission at times because generally that imported/exported power cost can be to their advantage. Since the Cities will have final approval, they may want to take some risk and use non-firm: understanding that sometimes it won't work and the plant may have to run. This wording also needs to be clarified as to "arrange" -- for example, "reserve transmission on behalf of Clarksdale"; "schedule transactions via etag on behalf of Clarksdale." From: Reagan Rorschach/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/19/2001 09:38 AM To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lloyd Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Fairley/ENRON@enronXgate, Ozzie Pagan/ENRON@enronXgate cc: Subject: RE: Clarksdale/Beck's comments -----Original Message----- From: Mann, Kay Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 9:37 AM To: Rorschach, Reagan; Will, Lloyd; Nicolay, Christi; Fairley, David; Pagan, Ozzie Subject: Clarksdale/Beck's comments Please confirm that Beck's comments nos 1 and 6 are acceptable for the loi. I would include in this email, but I don't have an electronic version with me. Reagan, if you have an electronic version, could you forward it to me? Thanks, Kay
|