|
|
Enron Mail |
This sounds a lot better. I will call Walt Pollock.
---------------------- Forwarded by Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT on 02/15/2000 08:08 AM --------------------------- ALarsen120@aol.com on 02/14/2000 07:54:46 PM To: sheila.tweed@enron.com cc: Subject: Additional References Hello Sheila. I am surprised that the people whom I listed did not speak about transactional work. I suspect that part of it is that they tend to remember things we first did together--first impressions are most readily recalled. Therefore, this time I will give some notes to accompany the names, to help you jog their memories about things we worked on together. First, I would like you to talk again to Fergus Pilon at Columbia River PUD. Ask him about the Coastal Corporation transactions. That involved their biggest industrial customer, who announced that they either wanted off the system or wanted a sweetheart deal. I helped the PUD call the customer's bluff, and then we negotiated a mutually beneficial long-term power purchase agreement. That transaction had a regulatory piece to it, in that we had to set out the boundaries on the flexibility available to the industrial customer, before we could negotiate from a position of relative strength. But it was much more of a deal negotiation, in that we put together a power supply arrangement for the customer that was unlike anything either party had ever done, instead of cramming a short term victory through and creating an enemy that would leave the utility as soon as it was possible--which could have been in a few years. The crux of the deal was putting together the contract. I am sure this is very similar to a lot of the ENA "origination" work being done out of Portland. Next, ask Fergus about the work I did for them on the "Iron Carbide" project. This was a proposed project that never came about. It would have brought in a new large industrial customer to the utility's system. We drafted an MOU between the industrial customer, the utility and the developer for an EPC project, and then fleshed it out with project documents --ownership agreement, O&M agreement, etc. The project fell apart when the customer changed its mind about building the new processing plant. But, we spent a significant amount of time creating the business terms for a deal, and putting it all into contract form. Next, I suggest you talk to Walt Pollock at Portland General. I imagine you at least know who Walt is. Initially he might also think of some of our earlier regulatory work. But ask him about the following. The WPPSS-3 negotiation. The impetus for this was a massive lawsuit, but the solution was a transaction that we put together. It was a creative arrangement, substituting phantom generating projects for real but dead projects, and supplying the physical power, when called upon, with BPA system power, and the rest of the time, doing an imaginary power supply that was really a financial swap that offset the price that various parties paid. Again, we had to analyze preexisting contracts, the law, and the regulatory framework in which all the parties operated, but the crux of this matter was a series of very complicated contracts creating both physical and financial transactions. Also, ask Walt about the transmission contracts we negotiated on behalf of BPA's large generating customers. BPA wanted to, and historically had, dictated terms for access to and use of the BPA transmission facilities. Utilities that had some of their own generation that they wanted to put onto the grid had to deal with BPA, which viewed them as competitors more than customers, although they were both. I played on the customer roll, and the fact that BPA would eventually lose them as customers if it persisted in its imperious conduct, in order to negotiate the terms of transmission contracts in that other role as competitors. Again, there was certainly a regulatory aspect to this whole matter, but it was essentially a transactional matter, captured in contracts with BPA, and leading to the second shoe falling--in the form of the generating project development and sales that the utility customers then were able to undertake and which I helped to negotiate at the same time. Next, contact Loren Baker, President of Power Resource Managers, 2100 112th Ave, NE, Suite 100, Bellevue, Washington, 98004. Phone 425-451-9123. I worked for PRM on a proposed package of generating resources that were being developed on behalf of a consortium of utilities. Depending on the ultimate level of demand, the package was going to include a number of different generating projects. I drafted the MOU among the utilities, the prospective developers (something like 6 different developers at various times, narrowing to 3 at the point that negotiations got serious). I then drafted ownership agreements, O&M agreements, etc., for the various proposed projects. These projects were not developed ultimately, because a critical mass of the utility sponsors dropped out of the "package." Probably more than for any single client, I did project development work for the Eugene Water & Electric Board. I could give you the name of the project development manager there, and he would give me a glowing recommendation. I would rather not do that however, because EWEB is still very close to Larry Cable, and I would rather that, at this point, our conversations not get back to him--as would certainly be the case if you contacted anyone at EWEB. If you can adequately do your due diligence on me without talking to EWEB, I would prefer that approach. Let me know if these additional contacts (with the memory joggers) suffice. Al Larsen
|