|
|
Enron Mail |
I am attaching the FERC order and staff recommendations. The order provides
for $69 million in "potential" refunds (either pay up or provide cost justification). Enron was not named as one of the 13 overcharging parties, but PGE was ($3.18 million). It's not over yet, though. The order deals only with Jan 01 and promises further orders regarding Dec 00 and benchmark prices through April 01. The prices used to determine refunds were fairly high ($273/mwh based on gas prices, emissions costs and an assumed heat rate of over 16000). With respect to sales to California, we have concluded at least one short term sale and have talked with Cal Dept of Water Resources about longer term deals, but we were still struggling with credit issues, last I heard. I'm copying Jeff Dasovich because I'm sure he has more up to date information. Mark Schroeder@ECT 03/11/2001 02:11 PM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: news/updates In the press, I saw two news stories that I wondered if we (Enron) had any role/hand in, and what was the offical "spin" in both cases. 1) The FERC Order requiring something like 55-65 million dollars in refunds by generators (or did it include traders) for overcharging in California in December, if I recall my facts/news stories correctly, and 2) the reports of 40 companies entering into 10-year contracts with California (touted by Davis). Was Enron a contracting party? Do we think this is a good solution (I think I know the answer, but defer to your lead on this, so we stay on your message)? thanks mcs
|