|
|
Enron Mail |
Just to add to Tim's note - I suggest that the number of overlap issues wou=
ld be few and far between and can be resolved at the operating level. I th= ink ENA can offer up representatives from each region that have an open lin= e of communication with the appropriate EES people. If ENA and EES provide= d each other with a short list of contacts there should be no need to deal = with this at the OTC level. For example, Chris Foster (ENA West Power Mid = Market) would direct questions/opportunities to EES and field calls from E= ES people looking at deals in the western power market. ENA Interface List: Power: West: Foster Midwest: Baughman East: Pagan Texas: Sukaly Gas: West: Tycholiz Midwest: Luce East: Vickers Texas: Martin Dave knows all of these people and I believe that they do things in the bes= t interest of "One-Enron". Regards, Chris =20 ---------------------- Forwarded by Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT on 03/25/2= 001 01:18 PM --------------------------- =20 =09 From: Tim Belden 03/21/2001 07:05 AM=09 =09=09 To:=09Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT cc:=09Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT=20 Subject:=09EES/EPMI Split i heard dave's voicemail. i appreciate his concern. however, i don't thin= k that the delineation is easy to do. i am confident that my team knows wh= at we are good at and what we aren't good at. if we aren't best suited to = serve the load, we will act like "one enron" and send the account over to t= he them. the split should really be driven by the customer's needs and whi= ch utility they are behind. for example, montana power has a wonderful bal= ancing tariff where the utility looks at the scheduled volume and compares = it to the actual volumes and settles directly with the customer for imbalan= ces. we don't do any metering, we don't do any unique billing, the loads r= ange anywhere from 1 MW to 25 MW. ena is definitely best suited to serve t= hese industrials because commodity price is their top interest. the pugest= system is about to open up with a structure that is similar to montana's. = ena will be very well positioned to serve this load. the same company cou= ld have a plant in california. we wouldn't serve that load because the exp= ertise needed to manage the ctc risk (before this thing blew up anyway), th= e challenge of metering and tracking metered volumes on a schedule vs. actu= al basis, and the load forecasting. the same company could also own gas st= ations in the west. we have no interest in serving gas stations. i also heard the message attached to dave's from scott dann (sp?). his mes= sage did little to open communication between groups. he provided no detai= ls on what the issue was in the west with respect to epmi (ena) and ees. f= or us to do this right, ees and ena need to be able to solve problems witho= ut involving the office of the chair of each company. i would be happy to = work with anyone from ees to resolve who should be covering which accounts. i still can't think of a clean way to divide customers. each approach has = its problems. each company (ees and ena) has its strengths. our strength = is commodity pricing and delivering a mw to anywhere on the western grid. = their strength is in tariff analysis, energy management, and aggregating lo= ads. for the west, i am confident that chris calger and i can sort out any dispu= tes with ees that are reasonable. we know what we are good at. we have a = proven track record with a large number of industrials in the west. i stil= l believe that our customers and shareholders are best served with our favo= red approach. it will require better communication on the operating level = between ees and ena.
|