|
|
Enron Mail |
Jim,
I spoke to Bob Lewis (someone I used to work with at APX) Bob has extensive BPA experience. Bob told me that BPA has about 8000Mws of generation and 11000MWs of load for this year. As he understands, BPA should be covered for 2001, they have essentially paid most of the DSI's (Aluminum Plants, not to run. BPA has also negotiated a deal with some Irrigation districts, totalling about 600 MWs and worked with some others to buy down their load). BPA had a excess of one(1) $ Billon in the bank which is essentially used up now. The only way they can replenish this fund is to raise rates under the CRAC, Cost Revenue Adjustment Clause. Depending upon the water year for 2002 the rates will more than likely go back down in 6-12 months. As I undrstood, BPA should have all their load covered, eith by their own generation, load buy-downs or short-term (spot) contracts. The only DSI (Aluminum Plant) that I have heard is not participating in the BPA Buy-Back is Kaiser and they are taking their $20 power and reselling it on the spot at $200! As I'm sure you know, BPA was formed to sell preference power from federal projects, unitl 1980 they matched their output to the load. In 1980 there was an ACT passed which BPA was given the authority to acquire power to meet new demand. Until this past year and the shortages in California, BPA could meet their increased demand on the spot markets, but with prices contorted because of CA, acquiring power on the spot has been prohibitive, so we have everyone becoming attentive to the problems in the west. Kind Regards, Dave Steve Walton 05/07/2001 09:07 AM To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, John Shelk/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: BPA Issues with Negawatt Proposal in Barton Do we have a copy of the proposal in its current form? The case of the DSI's is somewhat unique, I believe, because contracts are in place which at least define their obligations/rights. In the case of ordinary tariff customers, these elements are missing. It would seem that we could work around them somehow, because they already have a special status as direct retail customers of BPA. We need to have both the customer and the utility benefit from the deal if this is really going to work. Linda Robertson@ENRON 05/07/2001 08:13 AM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, John Shelk/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: BPA Issues with Negawatt Proposal in Barton The markup is this week. Thus, we need to get our response to BPA in circulation on the Hill by COB today. Tom Briggs, please coordinate this. Thanks. James D Steffes 05/04/2001 07:34 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: BPA Issues with Negawatt Proposal in Barton Alan and Steve -- You may have already done this, but we need to develop a solid response to BPA's criticism of the negawatt proposal - "the criticism was that BPA would be forced to purchase power on the open market at a high price since it is short, sell it to the DSIs under contract; let the DSI sell it at market rates and capture the difference; BPA witness said that thus sec. 102 would make it difficult if not impossible to implement their strategy to avoid as much as a 200 percent rate increase on 10/1/01; BPA testimony will make it tough for Members of Congress from that service region to support sec. 102."? My initial response is that BPA is (a) finding someone to blame for its proposed rate increase, (b) try to get out of fulfilling firm obligations to the DSI customers, and © making excuses for being short in today's market - again an example of why the government shouldn't be in the Power business. What the negawatt proposal would do would be to allow BPA to discuss frankly with firm DSI customers how to share in the benefits of reducing their load. Given that BPA is short, this type of proposal makes perfect sense (from a BPA only perspective and from a West wide perspective - if enough load comes off, any remaining short that BPA must fill would be at a lower price). We need to get back to the DC office with our best arguments. Thanks, Jim
|