|
|
Enron Mail |
Rick:
I hope that all is well. It was very nice to talk to you this morning. The purpose of this note is to keep you abreast of progress in determining the GA needs for India, and seek your opinion for the best reply for Wade. I look forward for your comments and advise. Best regards AI Here are the salient features: Meeting with Wade: The meeting with Wade indicated that he is open to suggestions to what needs to be done on the regulatory front. He indicated that if GA sees, and agrees, he would be happy to finance-on a semi full time basis--such support from Houston. His major concern is to satisfy himself that: a) all what needs to be done on the GA front is being done, b) manage and maintain an effective team (i.e., those currently employed in Bombay and Delhi Offices) just in case of need. He mentioned that he is not going to be "penny wise and pound foolish" given the $850 million at stake. I informed him that Houston shall advise on the best approach as soon as taking stock is complete, and generally speaking, shall also deliver on what is needed. GA Needs in India: The regulatory/government affairs needs in India are in the following five areas: a) Third party Sales (basically for phase II output), b) Dealing with the Regulatory Commission, c) Dealing with MSEB (the customer), e) Government of India, and f) EBS. The volume and intensity of work, however, shall differ with the following scenarios, namely: a) Enron/DPC intends to exit through arbitration, b) Enron/DPC intends to renegotiate the contract, and c) Undetermined as of yet. Here is an assessment of this work load under the two former scenarios: Arbitration Renegotiation Third party Sales (basically for phase II output), low/medium high Dealing with the Regulatory Commission, medium high Dealing with MSEB (the customer), medium high Government of India, and high high EBS. medium medium It is surprising to mention that most colleagues here say that Enron/DPC seems to be taking the arbitration route, although that renegotiation (in the sense of renegotiate, stabilize, then take hit on equity and exit), is the best way. It is more surprising, however, that no one can speak with any degree of certainty on where the ship is going. In this context, a risk-averse person shall take the "undetermined scenario" as equal to "renegotiation", while a risk-taker shall take the "undetermined"" as equal to arbitration. Personal: It is clear that the current personal here shall need support from Houston in the "renegotiation" scenario on a semi full time basis. Short of that, a visit every 6 weeks may be adequate as the current team here will be working under legal/commercial. Suggested Approach: Continue understanding the details of the outstanding regulatory tasks for the coming 3 to 4 days. If the above opinion is still the same, then the suggested communication to Wade (preferably from you) is "if there is renegotiation, then GA shall send the required person/persons on a semi-full time basis, if arbitration, then GA shall be available on as needed basis". Caveat: It is not clear what does RMcDonald wants to see on the ground to tilt the suggested approach above one way or another. ----- Forwarded by Amr Ibrahim/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 06/15/2001 05:57 AM ----- Amr Ibrahim 06/12/2001 06:54 AM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: India - Progress Report One Rick: This is a brief on the situation on the ground here based on observations and short talks with the various colleagues in India Team. I do have a meeting with Wade tomorrow (June 13th) to understand his requests of support from GA. While I do not expect much, I shall communicate to Wade the standing policy of GA, namely, "GA shall provide the required support". Notwithstanding this mandate, I shall communicate it in a manner to give Houston the final say. In the context of regulatory support, there two important areas for GA contribution; they are: a) Dealing with the regulatory commission (MERC), and b) third party sales. It is likely that India shall need a week per month, most conducted from Houston but may include a visit to Bombay. The feeling here is that the company wants to terminate the PPA, and exit India (but see point 5 below). It is the understanding that there are teams in London that are going through the reevaluation of assets in anticipation to transfer them to MSEB as per the contract (MSEB has to agree on the valuation which shall be a lengthy and an adversarial process). It is noteworthy that the transfer of these assets will not take place on market basis, but rather on accounting basis. As most chips are on terminating the contracts and exiting as the likely route (around 60%), renegotiation is not discussed much (hastily added however, renegotiation is the tacit direction of the lenders as communicated in Singapore the other day in the lenders' meeting; they also want ENRON to complete phase II which we are refusing). If renegotiation is to take place, its crux will be the reduction in energy and capacity costs to both phases and finding off-taker to Phase II (1400 MW kit and caboodle). NTPC, or PTC are the likely parties to assume such responsibility. Of course, we are trying to avoid any commercial risks associated with marketing this power. Whether we accept it or not, every issue related to dispatch and transmission must be minutely determined and solved. The decision making process here is entirely dependent on Houston highest level; that is directly from RMcDonald, and JS. The fact that both of them did not visit India and see for themselves how things are has been mentioned as a minus point. Perhaps this point should be communicated to them. As mentioned above, GA contribution could be in two areas, namely dealing the regulatory commission (MERC), and third party sales. Starting with the later, third party sales, it is perhaps the most important point in the renegotiation as it shall increase the commercial value of our commitment (incidentally, Enron's commitment in the project is between $0.65 and $0.825 billion--with B--depending on what to include and exclude). Ironing the issues for third party sales is clearly more valuable in the case of renegotiation, but can also add value when assets are reevaluated and there is a disagreement and some sort of market parameters are added. As for dealing with MERC, it an ongoing basis particularly that MERC is seeking to expand its jurisdiction in favor MSEB at every through of the dice. I shall keep you posted with progress, meanwhile, please let me know if you have any questions and/or advise. Best regards AI
|