|
|
Enron Mail |
Janet, its your book - if you feel we have the LM's licked and we need the
resources/the value at risk is minimal, I would go ahead. I would get Calger on side as well. Regards Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/18/2000 11:50 AM --------------------------- Janet R Dietrich 07/18/2000 09:02 AM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Cogentrix Turbine Inquiry Dave, have you had a chance to give this much thought? ---------------------- Forwarded by Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT on 07/18/2000 09:00 AM --------------------------- Janet R Dietrich 07/14/2000 08:46 AM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Cogentrix Turbine Inquiry As a matter of fact, this is on my list to discuss with you. I think we should pick up the 7EA's and maybe the 501D's as well (doubt we could pick and choose). I met with Mark Frevert yesterday afternoon to discuss the East Generation Strategy (along with Ben Jacoby and Don Miller) and he wanted me to talk with Larry Izzo about us taking all 4 turbines. Should I go ahead and have that discussion or would you like to discuss this in more detail first? The LM6000 position looks like this: 24 turbines allocated: 4 City of Austin 4 Enron South America 4 Las Vegas Cogen 6 Public Service of Colorado 6 Florida Merchant plant Heather Kroll and Ozzie Pagan are bringing their VEPCO/North Carolina deal to a point where we will probably need to make a decision in the next 2-3 weeks. It has a 4-year PPA and we are basically obligated to build a power plant to back-fill the position. The PPA will be able to be served from the market or plant, and we would need to use 4 of the 6 dual-fuel LM's currently allocated to Florida. There is a possibility we could go back to the 501D's but we'll have to see. The ecomomics of the deal leave Enron with about a 40-45% residual value on the plant at the end of 4 years, and Bruce Sukaly is in the process of showing this entire project to 4 counterparties in order to monetize the entire position. We still have 2-3 other customers looking at the LM's although they are moving fairly slow. I'd like to discuss our development strategy in a little more detail with you when you return but here are the highlights: Ben and his team will be looking to increase the sites we have under our control in several regions: PJM, ECAR, Georgia, and Florida to name a few. I think we may want to consider some configurations that include combined-cycle options that have a 5-year term (vs. our standard 2-year currently), primarily in Florida and maybe Georgia. Ben is putting this on paper along with the incremental resource needs and incremental developmental dollars needed. I think we should talk about increasing our site bank/development portfolio in Canada as well. Let me know your thoughts! Thanks.
|