|
|
Enron Mail |
Rick -- This is a string of e-mails regarding the ISU/Illinois Power issue.
We did confirm by onsite inspection that the units in question are electrically isolated from the utility and therefore do not require standby service as mandated by IP. ----- Forwarded by Roy Boston/HOU/EES on 07/02/2001 11:27 AM ----- Tim Nowaczyk 06/13/2001 08:56 PM To: Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES@EES cc: Robert Hurt/HOU/EES@EES, Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES, David Klimas/HOU/EES, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Dan Burrows/HOU/EES@EES, Marc Ulrich/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: ISU and IP I talked with Sheila Taylor today and the SC21 contract for IP has been signed by ISU and is being FedEx back to the Hinsdale office. ---------------------- Forwarded by Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES on 06/13/2001 08:54 PM --------------------------- Tim Nowaczyk 06/12/2001 08:49 PM To: Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES@EES cc: Robert Hurt/HOU/EES@EES, Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES, David Klimas/HOU/EES, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Dan Burrows/HOU/EES@EES, Marc Ulrich/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: ISU and IP In my original letter to ISU attached to the contract they were directed to return the signed contract to my attention. In addition, as a follow up to our telephone conversation I have sent a Email restating that the signed SC21 contract needs to come back to my office. I will also place a call to Sheila Taylor to make sure that ISU returns the executed document to Enron and not IP. ---------------------- Forwarded by Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES on 06/12/2001 08:44 PM --------------------------- Enron Energy Services From: Eric G Pitcher 06/12/2001 07:21 PM Phone No: 630 654-6482 To: Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES@EES cc: Robert Hurt/HOU/EES@EES, Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, David Klimas/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Burrows/HOU/EES@EES, Marc Ulrich/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: ISU and IP Tim ... this email is to confirm our conversation from earlier this evening. Before the SC 21 agreement is executed/sent to Illinois Power Co., the proposal to raise the issue of ISU's right of ability to use backup generators before the Illinois Commerce Commission should be reviewed with the (EES) Office of the Chairman. Although this will delay the process, we need to make sure we do not conflict with any initiatives, or other efforts of which we may not be aware. If you have any questions, pls page me at 888-948-5919. Thanks. ---------------------- Forwarded by Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES on 06/12/2001 07:03 PM --------------------------- Tim Nowaczyk 06/11/2001 08:54 PM To: Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES@EES cc: Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Dave Klimas, Dan Burrows/HOU/EES@EES, Marc Ulrich/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: ISU and IP I have requested written confirmation from ISU and also scheduling a visit by two (2) EFS engineers to visit the facilities to confirm that the generators are isolated. The contract for SC21 with IP's letter has been sent to ISU for signature by Ron Jones. Upon its execution the contract will be returned to my office for forwarding to IP. ---------------------- Forwarded by Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES on 06/11/2001 08:49 PM --------------------------- Enron Energy Services From: Eric G Pitcher 06/10/2001 02:19 PM Phone No: 630 654-6482 To: Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES@EES cc: Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, David Klimas/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Burrows/HOU/EES@EES, Ron Girard/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: ISU and IP Tim ... pls get written confirmation that ISU's generating units are isolated, and sign ISU to the IP service agreement for SC 21. Thanks. ---------------------- Forwarded by Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES on 06/10/2001 02:16 PM --------------------------- Marc Ulrich 06/10/2001 11:19 AM To: Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES@EES cc: Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES@EES, Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, David Klimas/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: ISU and IP I agree with Roy. Please pull the trigger on your recommendation. An estimate of the avoided charges is $30,000 per month ($12/kW demand charge * 2,500 kW generator). Marc Enron Energy Services From: Eric G Pitcher 06/07/2001 01:26 PM Phone No: 630 654-6482 To: Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES@EES, Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES cc: Marc Ulrich/HOU/EES@EES, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, David Klimas/HOU/EES@EES Subject: ISU and IP Roy and Tim ... if we decide to go to the ICC, need to brief my mgmt on the following: Potential impact on our contractual obligations to ISU, given the various actions that IP may take (eg: retroactive change of tariif); Potential financial impact to EES, given the various actions IP may take. I'll see Bob Hurt on Mon., 6/11 in Houston, and will brief him on the situation. Thanks. ---------------------- Forwarded by Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES on 06/07/2001 01:23 PM --------------------------- From: Roy Boston on 06/07/2001 12:55 PM To: Tim Nowaczyk/HOU/EES@EES, Marc Ulrich/HOU/EES@EES cc: Eric G Pitcher/HOU/EES@EES, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: ISU and IP Tim and Marc -- I have looked over Conrad Siudyla's May 31, 2001 letter to you and have the following comments. First, he is patently threatening the customer and Enron that if the self-gen units are parallel or regularly run as peak shavers ( "IP reserves the right to periodically inspect all generators at the ISU campus to ensure that they are electrically isolated and that they are not being used on a regular basis for peak shaving") standby service is required and will be applied retroactively to the contract. Clearly IP intends to back bill Enron once ISU operates its peak shaving plants and impose a huge charge on us. It is imperative that we have our rights straight: First, that the peak shavers are isolated and not parallel; Second, that we are comfortable with having to enforce our rights at the ICC; and Third, that the customer has an unfettered right to operate its self-gen units as peak shavers. Therefore I propose that we obtain written veification from the customer that the units are truly isolated. The customer will need to run its units to peak shave in at least August so the threat expressed that such use will trigger a retroactive back bill should be taken seriously. The anticompetitive situation described above needs to be raised at the Commission now. We need to ensure that the ICC will enforce IP's tariffs in a manner consistent with our interpretation of the customer's (and hence Enron's as agent) rights under the tariffs.
|