|
|
Enron Mail |
Good points, Chris, and well taken.
The PUC Commisisoners took some heat for their heavy-handed approach at hearings held by Congress on Monday and FERC on Tuesday. I think those hearings may have loosened things the Commission up at least somewhat, though finding a balance between Commission willingness to grant pre-approval and utility willingness to wear some risk in exchange won't be a cakewalk. We need to remind the Commission that they gave 100 % pre-approved reasonableness for purchases from the PX, and that pre-approval for other purchases is necessary. That said, I concur that it ain't a gimmee. Best, Jeff To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES cc: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: SDG&E Requirements Deal Jeff: Re: you comment below that "...they'll be subject to a considerable amount of pressure to pre-approve if a deal is offered that can be show to shield San Diegans from volatility and that looks"attractive." The CPUC did not pre-approve either SDG&E or SCE recent attempts to buy forward. I don't think they ever will give pre-granted reasonableness review for purchases. That is why boith utilites decided not to execute as part of their recent RFPs. PG&E RFP is up next...I expect more of the same. Chris Jeff Dasovich@EES 09/14/2000 08:54 AM To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: Re: SDG&E Requirements Deal Thanks for the update. Just want to add that 1) if we're uneasy about wearing the full requirements risk, then focusing on offering a purely wholesale deal can still be very attractive, given SDG&E's blunders w.r.t. procurment wholesale power on behalf of its customers. And 2) the CPUC has been beat up pretty well for tying the IOUs hands in attempting to hedge, so they'll be subject to a considerable amount of pressure to pre-approve if a deal is offered that can be show to shield San Diegans from volatility and that looks"attractive." Appreciate being kept in the loop on the details. Thanks. Best, Jeff To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES cc: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES Subject: Re: SDG&E Requirements Deal J I think we could get below $60 on a 5 year deal with a bell shaped load profile at SP-15. I do not think we can get there for the SDG&E zone. In fact, I don't think Tim will want to sell the SDG&E zone at all. If we offer it, it will be at a significant premium to SP-15. We just showed SCE $58 for a 5 year peak (By the way, like the SDG&E RFP, the SCE RFP resulted in no transactions because they did not get pre-approved reasonableness review and they were too chicken to do it at shareholder risk. The PG&E RFP for essentially the same deal structure is due tomorrow and we will be responding. With the PG&E RFP, prices can be changed oon October 11 so the prices we will show them now are indicative only). Get me that load profile data and I will put together a deal structure. I wil also be working with the traders to address this "new zone" issue as it exists for all three utilities, not just SDG&E. C James D Steffes@EES 09/12/2000 07:39 AM To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: thane twiggs Subject: SDG&E Requirements Deal Chris -- I agree with you on the difficulty of a "true" full requirements deal. I assume what you are talking about is some pre-agreed to 100% load factor energy delivery that could be different for each hour during the year (a sort of "load profile solution"). SDG&E would be responsible for +/- around this delivery? Maybe offer SDG&E an option on wide variations. The other key issue I guess that is important is transmission congestion risk. Would EPMI be willing to agree to deliver the energy into the SDG&E load zone or just to SP15? It is my understanding that there is a significant economic difference the SP15 and specific load zones? Am I correct in my thinking? We probably need to beat $60/Mwh and leave $5/Mwh for the load following. We may need to go even lower (if possible) to give SDG&E room to recover this summer's high cost of power with the retroactive retail ratemaking back through July 1, 2000. On your issue of CPUC approval, that is exactly the play. We need to walk into the CPUC with an offer that it can't pass up (with or without SDG&E). I've asked Thane Twiggs to get you the appropriate 8760 load profile for SDG&E residential customers. While the rate deal was broader, we could just supply this customer group. I'll call when we have the information. Jim To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay Jim: A couple thoughts... I don't think Tim would be interested in a true "Full Requirements" deal that would put us at risk for actual load. If we could define "Full Requirements" as a load profile that has been set ahead of time, and have SDG&E be at risk for deviations from that profile, then I think we would be interested. With this structure, we could offer a fixed price equal to the weighted average price of their load profile. If that fixed price was lower than the SDG&E embedded generation cost in rates we might have an angle. "Winning" such a deal still seems like a pretty low probability event, given SDG&E's desire to RFP everything. However, SDG&E's (and SCE's) main objective seems to be pre-approved reasonableness review. Since they can't make money on commodity, at least they don't want to lose money. Maybe we could get the approval of the CPUC? SDG&E wouldn't mind buying from us if this is what it took to get pre-approved reasonableness review. If someone could get me that load profile information, I would be willing to price it up. Let me know what you think. C ---------------------- Forwarded by Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT on 09/11/2000 01:09 PM --------------------------- James D Steffes@EES 09/11/2000 01:12 PM To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay Chris -- Given this development, now may be the right time for Enron to come in and make a "public" offer to SDG&E. We may be able to put some pressure on the CPUC to approve a full requirements offer that works with the legislative rate cap. I'll be in contact with you to discuss. Jim To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES cc: Subject: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay Surprise, surprise. SDG&E is afraid to do anything without the pre-approved reasonableness from the CPUC which I don't think will be obtained. Chris Chris ---------------------- Forwarded by Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT on 09/11/2000 05:59 AM --------------------------- Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. From: "Firooz, Sharon" <SFirooz@SDGE.com< 09/08/2000 05:32 PM To: "Hart, Dana" <DHart@SDGE.com<, "'agalatic@internetconnect.net'" <agalatic@internetconnect.net<, "'al_figueroa@vflet.com'" <al_figueroa@vflet.com<, "'bbowman@coral-energy.com'" <bbowman@coral-energy.com<, "'biggsbg@bp.com'" <biggsbg@bp.com<, "'bob_anderson@apses.com'" <bob_anderson@apses.com<, "'ccantor@sempratrading.com'" <ccantor@sempratrading.com<, "'cfoster@enron.com'" <cfoster@enron.com<, "'david_metz@apsc.com'" <david_metz@apsc.com<, "'dcazalet@apx.com'" <dcazalet@apx.com<, "'dgordon@exchange.ml.com'" <dgordon@exchange.ml.com<, "'dirk.andreas@nrgenergy.com'" <dirk.andreas@nrgenergy.com<, "'dparque@ect.enron.com'" <dparque@ect.enron.com<, "'dpenney@coral-energy.com'" <dpenney@coral-energy.com<, "'emaddox@seawestwindpower.com'" <emaddox@seawestwindpower.com<, "'gkosier@newenergy.com'" <gkosier@newenergy.com<, "'gluna@sempra-slns.com'" <gluna@sempra-slns.com<, "'greg.kelly@gen.pge.com'" <greg.kelly@gen.pge.com<, "'hreed@powersrc.com'" <hreed@powersrc.com<, "'jackmcnamara.geothermal@att.net'" <jackmcnamara.geothermal@att.net<, "'james.north@msdw.com'" <james.north@msdw.com<, "'jay.alexander@southernenergy.com'" <jay.alexander@southernenergy.com<, "'jdcoggin@srpnet.com'" <jdcoggin@srpnet.com<, "'jim_staggs@apses.com'" <jim_staggs@apses.com<, "'jivey@utilicorp.com'" <jivey@utilicorp.com<, "'john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com'" <john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com<, "'jon.fischer@pacificorp.com'" <jon.fischer@pacificorp.com<, "'jpmarchand@aep.com'" <jpmarchand@aep.com<, "'Kristen_L_Sullivan@reliantenergy.com'" <Kristen_L_Sullivan@reliantenergy.com<, "'lbryant@pnm.com'" <lbryant@pnm.com<, "'leah.bissonette@williams.com'" <leah.bissonette@williams.com<, "'Lhamilton@avistaenergy.com'" <Lhamilton@avistaenergy.com<, "'marvin_k_ballard@reliantenergy.com'" <marvin_k_ballard@reliantenergy.com<, "'medwar@ladwp.com'" <medwar@ladwp.com<, "'njwa@dynegy.com'" <njwa@dynegy.com<, "'peterc@calpine.com'" <peterc@calpine.com<, "'priced@epenergy.com'" <priced@epenergy.com<, "'pscarpelli@retx.com'" <pscarpelli@retx.com<, "'rproush@duke-energy.com'" <rproush@duke-energy.com<, "'rshimizu@mieco.com'" <rshimizu@mieco.com<, "'sbvanleer@duke-energy.com'" <sbvanleer@duke-energy.com<, "'shapp@caiso.com'" <shapp@caiso.com<, "'stacey.kusters@powerex.com'" <stacey.kusters@powerex.com<, "'szablyal@epenergy.com'" <szablyal@epenergy.com<, "'tmcandrew@statoilenergy.com'" <tmcandrew@statoilenergy.com< cc: Subject: SDG&E Bilateral Authority Delay SDG&E would like to inform you that we did not gain authority from the commission on 9/7 and cannot enter into bilateral trades at present; (2) we anticipate receiving that approval on September 21; we will solicit new proposals between now and then and look forward to your continuing participation, as well as your assistance in gaining the necessary regulatory approvals. Thanks
|