|
|
Enron Mail |
Steve and Bob,
There is a clear assumption in the email history below that suggests that t= here is a relationship between EFS buying the existing projects under the G= SA contract and a potential adverse affect on the GSA commodity portion of = the commodity risk book. This is not the case. The potential adverse affe= ct on the commodity risk book would exist regardless of whether or not EFS = bought the projects. That is, if there were no change to the internal stru= cture of the contract and EES went forward as if nothing had happened, then= the issue of this potential adverse affect would still exist. It would ex= ist as an internal EES problem which would have to be resolved because we h= ave an existing contract with the VA. This commodity risk issue would not = exist only if we were going to terminate all the VA projects. But, as far = as I know, there has never been serious consideration to terminating the pr= ojects....if for no other reason we have no right to unilaterally terminate= . Only the government has that right. The important point here is that this issue is not an issue pertinent to th= e indemnification issue. Whatever needs to be done to complete the indemni= fication process should proceed uninterrupted. Once the indemnification ha= s been resolved, then as a separate matter, EES and EFS should address what= affect the projects have on the commodity book. They are separate issues = and would have to be resolved independent of any indemnification issue. =20 Bottom line is that by relating the two issues (i.e. the issue of the proje= cts' affect on the commodity book with the issue of indemnification), someo= ne has created unnecessary confusion. =20 Just thought I'd add my two cents.... Bill=20 ---------------------- Forwarded by Bill Hatch/HOU/EES on 10/04/2001 02:18 = PM --------------------------- From:=09Richard Ring/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/03/2001 09:53 AM CDT To:=09Bill Hatch/EFS/EES@EES cc:=09=20 Subject:=09FW: GSA Region 1 Projects Transition Bill, FYI -----Original Message----- From: =09Ring, Richard =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:49 AM To:=09Herndon, Rogers Subject:=09RE: GSA Region 1 Projects Transition Rogers, Enron Energy Services Operations, Inc. ("EESO") and General Services Admini= stration ("GSA") entered into an agreement, effective November 1, 1998, whi= ch provides for commodity pricing and value added services, specifically re= lated to GSA Region 1 -New England and runs through October 31, 2003. EESO= agreed to provide a "Discount to Standard Offer" commodity price for GSA's= "Core Load" associated with facilities in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and= Rhode Island at such time as the utilities met certain conditions regardin= g deregulation (State commission formally approves UDC's restructuring plan= and State Commission formally approves the UDC's sale of non-nuclear gener= ating assets). Individual agencies that have elected to participate under = the GSA agreement are: Veterans Administration, Coast Guard, National Parks= Service, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Agriculture, National Arc= hives and Records Administration, Hanscom Air Force Base, and Department of= Labor, with the total core group consisting of approximately 60 MW's. The= UDC's that have met the above referenced criteria above are Massachusetts = UDC's (MECO, BECO WMECO, Fitchburg Gas & Electric, Eastern Utilities, and C= ommonwealth Electric, Cambridge Electric Company) and Rhode Island UDC (Nar= ragansett Electric). The only location where EESO currently delivers physi= cal commodity is Massachusetts - BECO, which represent approximately fifty = percent of the total "Core Load" or approximately 30 MW's and commenced in = October 2000. The agreement has provided other commodity upsell opportunities such as (i)= physical delivery of comodity GSA accounts and Coast Guard accounts in Mai= ne behind Central Maine Power (June 2000 thru October 2003) and (ii) sale = and delivery of "renewable energy" to GSA and Hanscom Air Force Base (Octob= er 2000 thru December 2001, with opportunity to extend thru October 2003). Value Added Services under the agreement has been responsible for (i) solar= panel project development and installation (ii) cogeneration project devel= opment and installation (in progress) (iii) chilled water project and (iv) = maintenance agreement, all which total additional 50-55 million dollars. E= ESO had asked GSA to allow the contract to be split between commodity and v= alue added services and GSA refused. A decision was made that would allow E= nron Facilities Services (EFS) to perform the value added services portion = of the contract, on behalf of EESO. To the best of my knowledge the cogene= ration projects would affect only the Veterans Administration sites, behind= Massachusetts-BECO only. =20 There is another issue that we can discuss at your convenience which relvol= ves around the Master Subcontracting Plan and the requirement, in the last = two years of the agreement for EESO to spend 1 million each year of the las= t two years of the agreement utilizing small business concerns, small disad= vantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns. Let me know if you would like to discuss any of the above referenced inform= ation. Regards, Richard =20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Herndon, Rogers =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:25 AM To:=09Wheeler, Christopher Cc:=09Ring, Richard Subject:=09RE: GSA Region 1 Projects Transition No acceptance. This is not enough info for me to accept anything. We have a process which= you will need to follow. I suggest you talk to Sean Holmes and ultimately= EWS' structuring group will have to get comfortable with all/any of the is= sues before I accept. I expect better documentation than just an e-mail. Richard what are the issues - this is the first thing I have EVER heard abo= ut this? Rogers -----Original Message----- From: =09Wheeler, Christopher =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:55 PM To:=09Herndon, Rogers; Ring, Richard Cc:=09Longbottom, Eric; Nanof, John Subject:=09GSA Region 1 Projects Transition Rogers & Richard, We are in the process of selling (transitioning) the Projects piece of the = GSA Region 1 Deal to Enron Facility Services, with the commodity piece to r= emain the responsibility of EES. We would like to confirm that when EFS com= pletes a project, the resulting reduced consumption figures will not advers= ely affect your commodity risk position. Please indicate your acceptance of this transaction by responding to this e= mail. Regards, Chris Wheeler
|