|
|
Enron Mail |
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 07/10/2001
04:48 PM --------------------------- Sergio Assad 06/21/2001 11:23 AM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Regulatory Affairs events Rick As per your request, see attached summary regarding our activities in Brasil from Jan to April. Unfortunately we couldn't sent to you before due to a lot problems we are facing here. Thanks Sergio Assad ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 07/10/2001 04:48 PM --------------------------- Guillermo Canovas 07/03/2001 09:02 PM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Andrea Calo/SA/Enron@Enron, Michael Guerriero/SA/Enron@Enron, Amr Ibrahim/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: Power Decree 804 and Resolution 135 This is to inform you the recent approval of the below commented rules in Argentina. If the economic and political environment gets calmer, these rules will be an important step in the power deregulation process an will allow us to reach some of the goals set for the regulatory group for this year. Goal 1- Eliminate or Increase fuel declaration caps: there will not be more fuel declarations but price declarations (Section 1, Resolution 135). The rules do not mention any cap for price declarations. Goal 2 - Daily fuel declaration: The 6 month fuel declaration was replaced by a daily price declaration (Section 1, Resolution 135). Goal 3 - Reduce or eliminate the obligation to physically back up agreements with end users or LDCs: According to the interpretation of AGEERA (Gencos Association) we would have been gotten also this objective and marketers may already buy or sell spot as long as the contract with the customer does not have supply guarantee (Section 5, Resolution 135). It is not clear in the rule wich is the condition for marketers to buy or sell spot. Now the Secretariat of Energy must issue its own Resolution to amend the technical Procedures in line with these rules. From the text of Resolution 135 (sections 3 c, 5 and considerations) there would be a good probability to reach other two goals through the Secretariat of Energy rule: Reduce minimum term for Output & Demand Marketing Agreements to one month Eliminate or reduce to 1 MW the threshold for Output Marketing Agreements Amr and I are asisting Buenos Aires Ofice to analize the new rules to eventually submit comments to the Secretariat of Energy. Attached is the document with the regulatory goals. Regards Guillermo ---------------------- Forwarded by Guillermo Canovas/SA/Enron on 07/03/2001 08:40 PM --------------------------- Andrea Calo 06/29/2001 06:49 PM To: Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Michael Guerriero/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron, Julian Poole/SA/Enron@Enron, Roberto Volonte/ENRON@enronXgate, Laura Feldman/SA/Enron@Enron, Guillermo Canovas/SA/Enron@Enron, Maria Pia Beccaccini/SA/Enron@Enron, Rodolfo Freyre/SA/Enron@Enron, John J Shoobridge/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Power Decree 804 and Resolution 135 In an attempt to further reduce State intervention in the power market, on June 19, the Executive Branch issued Decree 804/01 which completes the deregulation process of the power industry initiated in 1992, and amends Electricity Law 24.065. On June 26 the Minister of Infrastructure issued Resolution 135/01 setting forth the guidelines for the future regulation of the Decree. The Secretariat of Energy's resolution that will regulate the Decree will be effective as from September 1, 2001. All agents of the electric sector will be invited to comment the terms of regulatory decree, although such comments will be used for informational purposes and will not bind the Secretariat of Energy to make any changes whatsoever to its original document. Although Decree No 804/01 is effective as from today, there are doubts in the industry as to whether it will be abolished in the future by Congress. The reason for this uncertainty is that such Decree was issued within the framework of the Competitivity Law, by which Congress delegated to the Executive Branch its powers to legislate specifically on changes required to transform the economy. Although this Decree and the changes it fosters indirectly affect the economy, since the law it amends is not purely "economical", it may be questioned. There is no term within which Congress may exercise this right. Please find a summary of the relevant changes below. Generators Remuneration: Forward Market: freely negotiated Spot Market: only payment of "hourly spot price" at each node. Hourly Spot Price: determined by price offers based on demand and transportation constraints Daily Declarations The day before the daily dispatch, each Generator shall: declare its price offers for each peak, shoulder and valley hour at its node; declare its maximum operating limits and minimum available capacity; offer all of its available capacity. Calculation of Hourly Spot Price "HSP" HSP shall be calculated by the OED according to procedure to be determined by the Secretariat of Energy, not based on marginal costs as it is today. Prices shall be calculated at each node before the initiation of each day. At the end of each day prices shall be recalculated based off real operations on the system. Spot Market Generators and Marketers shall be paid on an hourly basis according to the volume of energy delivered at the node, which shall be valued at the HSP. If distributors, large users and/or marketers enter into supply contracts then to clear transactions on the spot market , the OED shall consider that the sellers (Marketers/Generators) assume their clients payment obligations before the market. On spot market transactions, Generators shall not receive payments for any other concept. Forward Market Generators and Marketers may enter into contracts with distributors, marketers and large users at freely negotiated prices and terms. Marketers Are now considered agents of the electric sector. May enter into forward contracts and/or carry our purchase and sale transactions on the spot market at the node HSP. Must declare their offer and demand at each node of the system. Their obligations shall be similar to those of Generators and Distributors when they transact at the MEM. Congestion Rights Right to receive profits resulting from the difference in energy prices between two nodes related to the link and the capacity charge of the relevant transmission system. In the case of: Existing transportation lines under concession, these rights belong to the State, which will sell them under a public offering called by the Secretariat of Energy. Existing transportation lines carried out by an independent transporter shall belong to such transporter. New transportation lines, shall belong to the owner of the same. Expansions Sole Risk Investment Expansions: Open to anyone who is interested; will require technical and environmental certification of the ENRE and license from the Secretariat of Energy. System Reliability Expansions: Shall be built by awardee of public tender. Distributors Have to satisfy all demand of users within their area that have the choice of independently contracting their supply in the MEM; Distributors may offer contracting options with or without supply guaranty; these contracts shall be considered special contracts When they contract their demand with Generators and/or Marketers, the general terms of the contracts as well as the procedure for selecting suppliers will be subject to guidelines established by the Secretariat of Energy; In order for the price under these contracts to be passed through to their end users tariffs, the relation between the term of the contracts and the volume purchased must comply with a chart that basically states that the greater the term of the contract, the lesser the percentage of contracted energy. In any case, the total amount of energy contracted can not be in excess of the total demand of users that can't transact on the MEM. Forced Dispatch Distributors may request forced dispatch of certain units; The Distributor that requests forced dispatch is responsible for payment of the same, Secretariat of Energy to control if forced dispatch costs are reasonable. Such price shall not be transferred to end users and shall not be taken into account to calculate the HSP. ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 07/10/2001 04:48 PM --------------------------- Jose Bestard@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 07/07/2001 06:57 PM To: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Richard Shapiro@Enron Subject: Cuiaba Issues - July 6 situation- Luiz. Thank you for your note. We are still in the boxing ring!. The first round was won but we still have some more rounds to go. Next week is the consent, provably in two weeks we will discuss the regulatory obstacles.. Jose ---------------------- Forwarded by Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 07/07/2001 05:54 PM --------------------------- Jose Bestard 07/07/2001 03:41 PM To: Cuiaba LT cc: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Cuiaba Issues - July 6 situation- Topic I -- Amendment 4 We spent the morning perfecting Aditivo 4 with Furnas, to cover the situation where the commissioning plan did not go as scheduled. It was signed early afternoon and sent to Eletrobras. The Eletrobras Diretoria had not followed this issue closely and need legal clearance. Furnas and the Ministry (Perazzo) called to give it priority. Late at night we received word that the "parecer" (opinion) was ready and that it the Anex would signed by Eletrobras next Monday and entered into their Board meeting next Tuesday. Petrobras sent us the letter we asked but took out of their version a key word "only". "Only" refers that they will not go after us for non-payment if Furnas does not pay. In the letter they also stated that they will commence the loading operation -- at their own risk - Saturday. This was requested by Perazzo to save logistical time because it takes three days to get to Cuiaba from the refinery. [Advised Laine of the situation to check Monday how many trucks were loaded and in transit] We contacted Perazzo through Sergio Assad to get his word that there would not be a last minute hitch; otherwise, we may have to refuse to take the diesel and would create a BIG PR problem for all. Topic III - Consent Package (Opinions, Aditivo, Consent) Furnas came in with the list of issues they wanted to discuss. I instead insisted that we treat this meeting as a continuation of the MME meeting and follow the Agenda by looking at the Consent document package -- actually go over the text - that they find objectionable, and, if it the text had a direct link with any of their issues, we would discuss and examine the relative positions. What they told me is what they have told me before, that some of the issues have nothing to do with the Consent but they want it as a condition to agree to the package. Which is fine to me, because it will make it clear to the government what we have been saying --- they want to change the deal. In Furnas' defense, I need to add that they feel they have been handed a bad contract and they want regulatory relief, which it has been granted, on a case-by-case basis, in other deals. So part of their strategy is to force MME, or Aneel to provide some tariff relief. I asked them to list out the key issues with the Consent- Old-- a) the 90 days additional time (Furnas), b) The guarantee substitution at the time of privatization, c) the lenders involvement on contract changes "we do not want to go to Washington to negotiate" - Newer - d) giving up their right to ask Aneel to "homologar", ratify; rather than "registrar" contract changes [big risk for us] . I believe the have more direct issues. We go back to Rio Monday (another holiday down the drain) ..and Tuesday to complete the list -- Topic II -- Regulatory conflicts Jose
|