|
|
Enron Mail |
ok, I'll look over.
Stacey Bolton Environmental Strategies Enron Corp 713-853-9916 direct=20 713-303-2632 cell=20 sbolton@enron.com <mailto:sbolton@enron.com< =20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Ring, Richard =20 Sent:=09Friday, August 17, 2001 11:36 AM To:=09Bolton, Stacey Subject:=09RE: CA emissions factor Stacey, Below is my response to the Texas Kinko's contract. Let me know what you t= hink. Thanks, Richard Paul, I am not sure how the various sections align between the "second contract v= ersion", from Wednesday's meeting with Kinko's, and the "Master Agreement" = however I will take my best shot at the "renewable language". Under Section 1, 1.1 SCOPE, the current language states "EESI will ensure t= hat the Energy delivered to Customer will be associated with the generation= of an equivalent amount of renewable energy registered to the Customer, an= d all the environmental attributes associated with the generation of this r= enewable energy will be the sole possession of the Customer." My concern here with the way that the language is currently worded revolves= around the portion of the sentence regarding "all the environmental attrib= utes". I do not want to be obligated to provide "all the environmental att= ributes" to Customer if either (i) Enron does not acquire all of the enviro= nmental attributes it its transaction to acquire the "renewable energy and/= or renewable credits/attributes" or (ii) as normal course of business regar= ding transaction of "renewable energy and/or renewable credits/attributes" = all of the environmental attributes do not transfer with title to the "rene= wable energy and/or renewable credits/attributes". I would propose to replace the above referenced contract language with the = following: "EESI will ensure that the Energy delivered to Customer will be= associated with generation of an equivalent amount of renewable energy and= that all of the environmental attributes, as a normal course of business, = associated with the purchase and sale of renewable energy and/or renewable = credits shall pass from EESI to Customer." =20 Under Section 7, DEFINITIONS, the current definition for "Renewable Energy"= states "means electric energy generated by facilities utilizing renewable = energy sources. This would include facilities like windmill farms, photovo= ltaic cells, geothermal heat recovery plants, landfill gas recover plants, = and small, selective hydroelectric projects no greater than 20 MW. These f= acilities use existing natural systems (wind, sun, thermal heat from the ea= rth, biological decomposition and flowing water) to generate their electric= ity." I would propose to not hard code the definition for "Renewable Energy" into= the "Master Agreement" but rather define "Renewable Energy" for each "Tran= saction Agreement" under the Master Agreement". For the "Master Agreement"= delete the definition of "Renewable Energy" and replace with the following= : "Renewable Energy" shall have the meaning ascribed in the Transaction Ag= reement to this Master Agreement."=20 I would propose that the definition of "Renewable Energy" for purposes of t= he Transaction Agreement relative to Kinko's Texas Sites should be the foll= owing: "Renewable Energy" means renewable energy credit which represents r= enewable energy that is physically metered and verified in the State of Tex= as. Renewable energy credits in the State of Texas are derived from techno= logy that exclusively relies on an energy source that is naturally regenera= ted over a short time and derived directly from the sun, indirectly from th= e sun, or from moving water or other natural movements and mechanisms of th= e environment and include the following: sun, wind, geothermal, hydroelect= ric, wave or tidal energy, biomass or biomass waste products, including lan= dfill gas, and any other source that does ont rely on energy resources deri= ved from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil fuels, or waste products = from inorganic sources. For purpose of this Transaction Agreement EESI wil= l fulfill the renewable energy requirement exclusively from one hundred pe= rcent (100%) wind sources generated within the State of Texas and verified = through the Texas Renewable Energy Credit Program Administrato From:=09Stacey Bolton/ENRON@enronXgate on 08/17/2001 08:11 AM To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES cc:=09=20 Subject:=09RE: CA emissions factor Many thanks. Want to discuss the contract language this morning? I've go= t an 8:30, but should be back at my desk by 9:15. Stacey Bolton Environmental Strategies Enron Corp 713-853-9916 direct=20 713-303-2632 cell=20 sbolton@enron.com <mailto:sbolton@enron.com< =20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Ring, Richard =20 Sent:=09Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:58 PM To:=09Bolton, Stacey Subject:=09CA emissions factor FYI ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:5= 7 PM --------------------------- << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) <<=20 Heather Mitchell 08/21/2000 05:23 PM To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES cc:=09cmckalip@yahoo.com =20 Subject:=09CA emissions factor Richard, I forgot one conversion: To convert from MT of CO2, multiply by 1.1.02 to = get to tons of CO2. (The trees planted and miles driven are based on tons = of CO2.) Also, Catherine McKalip-Thompson is working on a spreadsheet with several c= onversions that might be helpful to you. It should be complete in the next= day or so. While it might be too late for the letter going out this week,= it may be useful to keep in your files for future reference. Thanks, Heather ---------------------- Forwarded by Heather Mitchell/HOU/EES on 08/21/2000 = 05:12 PM --------------------------- << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) <<=20 Heather Mitchell 08/21/2000 04:41 PM To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES cc:=09cmckalip@yahoo.com=20 Subject:=09CA emissions factor Richard, The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh. The source is bel= ow. As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the ap= propriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/= off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc. However, most groups accep= t state level emissions factors as the best available. Also, it is my unde= rstanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime du= ring 2000. However, I haven't seen any announcements regarding the release= of new numbers, nor did I see mention of it on the DOE Voluntary Reporting= website. << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) <<=20 I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for tree= s planted and miles driven. While it does not list a source for the conver= sions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the E= nvironmental Law and Policy Center. I will bring a copy of both by your de= sk. Let me know if I can help with anything else. FYI, in the past I've b= een a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees pl= anted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed= by trees. =20 - Heather ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:5= 7 PM --------------------------- << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) <<=20 Heather Mitchell 08/21/2000 04:41 PM To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES cc:=09cmckalip@yahoo.com=20 Subject:=09CA emissions factor Richard, The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh. The source is bel= ow. As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the ap= propriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/= off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc. However, most groups accep= t state level emissions factors as the best available. Also, it is my unde= rstanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime du= ring 2000. However, I haven't seen any announcements regarding the release= of new numbers, nor did I see mention of it on the DOE Voluntary Reporting= website. << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) <<=20 I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for tree= s planted and miles driven. While it does not list a source for the conver= sions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the E= nvironmental Law and Policy Center. I will bring a copy of both by your de= sk. Let me know if I can help with anything else. FYI, in the past I've b= een a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees pl= anted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed= by trees. =20 - Heather
|