For your information. The outcome was great for TW because the Cal. PUC adopted our receipt point proposal, eliminating the danger of mandated restriction of TW's deliveries to the California border. The outcome is not so great for Enron overall because they rejected our proposed settlement. The receipt point proposal was able to survive since it was part of both of the competing settlements. I'm still trying to get thru the whole order; let me know if you have questions. S.
Answer: Cal. GIR
Please accept my apologies for this worksheet's absence yesterday. It was undergoing cosmetic improvements to more accurately represent the EES-EPMI position. Note two new column headings as of 3/27 - "Transmission" and "Other EnPower" deals. Also, a change has been made to the SP-15 volumes in the 3/2 sheet. This change was made per Daniel Kang at EES and Chris Foster at EPMI. And as always, feel free to contact me with questions. Thanks,
Answer: Daily EES Position through 3/28
= = = = = = = = = = = Intercontinenta= lExchange = = = = = =20 = = = = = Firm P= ower Price Bulletin = = = = = =20 = = = = = For Po= wer Delivered on Tuesday, October 09, 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = =20 = = = = = = = = = = = (Trade Date of = Monday, October 08, 2001) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =20 Click here to access index history . = = = = =20 = = = = = = = = = = = * volume repres= ents sell-side only * = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =20 Hub=09High=09Low=09Wtd Avg Index=09Change ($)=09Vol (Mwh)=09 Cinergy=09 $22.15=09 $17.50=09 $21.55=09- 2.41=09= 63,200=09 Comed=09 $19.00=09 $18.75=09 $18.98=09- 1.80=09 = 10,400=09 Entergy=09 $19.50=09 $18.50=09 $19.00=09- .64=09= 36,800=09 Nepool=09 $34.50=09 $34.00=09 $34.26=09- 1.45=09 = 15,200=09 PJM-West=09 $28.50=09 $27.90=09 $28.23=09- .83= =09 38,400=09 SP-15=09 $23.00=09 $23.00=09 $23.00=09- 1.63=09 = 800=09 TVA=09 $22.00=09 $19.75=09 $20.84=09- 1.18=09 = 8,800=09 = = = = = = = = = = = Includes all tr= ades done from 6 AM to 11 AM Central Prevailing Time on the trade date spec= ified for financially firm power delivered during the on-peak hours (6 AM -= 10 PM CPT for Eastern hubs / 6 AM - 10 PM Pacific Prevailing Time for West= ern hubs) on the delivery date(s) specified. = = = = = = = = =20 = = = = = In= tercontinentalExchange is the world's most liquid trading platform for over=
Answer: Power Indices
Lorraine, here are a few notes from my review of the Val Verde contract, and my initial impressions. Let's talk more about how to approach the issue after we meet with Ron tomorrow about MAOP. 12/31/92 Interconnect Agreement: Sec. 1.3 specifies pressures and states that unless there is an agreement to provide firm compression service TW will accept up to 200,000 on an interruptible basis. Sec. 2 states that the Blanco Hub MAOP shall not be exceeded. Sec. 4.2 limits damages (no consequential damages). The contract also has a fairly standard force majeure clause. 2/18/93 letter amendment: Sec. 3 obligates TW to provide firm compression service in order to accept 200,000 into TW's system (provided MOGI has pressure of at least 650 and quantity of at least 140). Acknowledges that this is an agreement to provide firm compression in accordance with Sec. 1.3 of 12/92 agreement. 9/25/95 letter amendment: Increases quantity to be received at the interconnect to 250,000 once the San Juan expansion is effective. My initial conclusions: It is pretty clear we have an obligation to accept 250,000 on a firm basis, provided that Burlington complies with the pressure requirements. Probably the only way we can avoid this obligation is if accepting 250,000 would cause us to exceed the hub MAOP. In that case we can argue impossibility of performance. Also, we could avoid the obligation because the summer heat above certain temperatures constitutes force majeure. This argument is strengthened by the fact that temperatures seem to have gotten hotter over the years. The fact that we entered into our most recent agreement with Burlington in January of this year weakens the credibility of our arguments (they will say we should have known by now). Burlington might try to argue that we have an absolute obligation to comply with the agreement, even if it means expensive system modifications. That argument is not a very strong one because the agreement contains no such affirmative obligation and in fact quite clearly describes the facilities that are the subject of the agreement.
Answer:
Burlington: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION