|
|
Enron Mail |
Scott, what is our emissions strategy for these counterparties?
Regards Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 05/15/2000 09:51 AM --------------------------- Enron North America Corp. From: Jeffrey Keeler @ ENRON 05/15/2000 08:13 AM To: Michael Terraso/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Marc Phillips/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Mary Schoen/HOU/EES@EES, Stacey Bolton/HOU/EES@EES, Susan Worthen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Henry Van/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Gus Eghneim/Corp/Enron@Enron, David Ronkainen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Donnie Willmann/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robert N Moss/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Frank Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Nutt/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Bruce N Stram/HOU/EES@EES, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Heather Mitchell/HOU/EES@EES, Sean A Holmes/HOU/EES@EES, John Shafer/OTS/Enron@Enron, William Kendrick/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Louis Soldano/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bret Reich/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, John D Suarez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Racicot/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, John Llodra/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christi L Nicolay@ECT, George Hopley/HOU/ECT@ect, Vince Middleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Affelt/HOU/ECT@ECT, David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike J Miller@ECT, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Kellermeyer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey M Keenan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clay Spears/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Dye@ECT, Roger Persson@ECT, Stephen Thome@ECT, Stephen Dowd/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Scott Healy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan Wood/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg Woulfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Doug Gilbert-Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Daniel Reck/HOU/ECT@ECT, George McClellan@ECT, Kevin McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matthew Goering/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Driscoll/ECP/Enron@Enron, Zal Masani/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kenneth Lovejoy/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Molly Sample/Houston/Eott@Eott, Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron, Wayne_Lei@pgn.com, Bruce_Trout@pgn.com, Dennis_Norton@pgn.com, Terry_Worrell@pgn.com, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janine Migden/DUB/EES@EES, Steve Montovano/DUB/EES@EES, Barbara A Hueter/DUB/EES@EES, Susan M Landwehr/HOU/EES@EES, Daniel Allegretti/HOU/EES@EES, Howard Fromer/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Becky L Merola/DUB/EES@EES, Frank Rishe/HOU/EES@EES, Lisa Yoho/HOU/EES@EES, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Emissions - Mass. power plants E&E Newsline - May 11, 2000 MASSACHUSETTS POWER PLANTS AGREE TO SIGNIFICANT UPGRADES Massachusetts this week announced that its six highest-polluting power plants will voluntarily upgrade their pollution control technology to not only significantly reduce air pollution but to also put the old facilities under the same standards as new facilities. The action makes Massachusetts the first state to require older plants to meet the same emissions standards as new facilities. The reduced emissions will be in place as soon as 2003, according to Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci's (R) office. The state approached the six plants and asked them to either reduce their emissions or face regulatory action by the Department of Environmental Protection. Cellucci said, "We challenged these power plants to clean up their act, and they have answered our call to meet the most comprehensive air emissions standards in the United States." The agreement -- which the five operators of the six plants agreed to with the state -- is voluntary, but enforceable rules will follow. Lieutenant Governor Jane Swift explained that the agreement resulted through "cooperative efforts," but added, "We will pursue new regulations through the Department of Environmental Protection to ensure the plant owners' commitments are enforceable, and will require the finalization of a detailed plan for each of the six facilities." The regulations, which are expected to be proposed in the next few months -- will set standards of 1.5 ponds of nitrogen oxide and 3 pounds of sulfur dioxide per megawatt-hour. The five companies -- including Sithe Energies, Inc., NRG Energy Inc., PE&E, Western Massachusetts Electric Companies/ Northeast Utilities, and Southern Company/Southern Energy New England, LLC -- have submitted preliminary plans. Under the plans, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions would be slashed by up to 50 percent, and mercury, particulate and carbon dioxide pollution would be curbed. "Our Air Quality Improvement Plan demonstrates that environmental excellence works in today's competitive market," said James McGowan, senior vice president of Sithe. "This is a win-win program that will produce the best power plant for Sithe, the local communities and the environment as a whole." The statement counters many other utilities' position on the issue, particularly the Midwestern coal-fired plants subject to a massive EPA enforcement action initiated late last year to have the facilities use upgraded pollution control technology. Specifically, the lawsuit charges the utilities with noncompliance with New Source Review requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Massachusetts situation "does undercut the arguments of dirtier, Midwestern companies that claim it can't be done," said Frank O'Donnell, with Clean Air Trust. Pat Hemlepp, spokesperson for American Electric Power, one of the utilities involved in the EPA lawsuit, argued, however, "that is like comparing apples to oranges." Though Northeastern states blame the Midwest for pollution migrating in their air, Hemlepp explained that since there are no serious problems with non-attainment with CAA regulation in the Midwest, stricter controls on utilities operating in that part of the country are unnecessary. "States like Massachusetts have every right to go in and ask utilities within their state to upgrade. There are major non-attainment problems in the Northeast, so it makes sense," Hemlepp argued. And about EPA's lawsuit, "What people overlook is that EPA's lawsuit is not about emissions, it's about what is and isn't legal under the Clean Air Act. ... We feel very strongly that what we've done is legal," Hemlepp said.
|