Q: Attached are EPMI's comments that I will deliver orally on Monday afternoon at the FERC. I am also attaching some backup slides, a listing of who will be on the two panels, the statement by Naeve on behalf of PGE, and statement Tabors on behalf of a TFG subset. I want to re-read Tabors one more time but I expect that will we sign on in support. Alan Comnes
Propose a subject line
A: West Wide Mitigation Technical Conference

Q: I thought of you this weekend. It was the fall antique festival in Round Top and I went, but it wasn't quite as nice as the pleasant day I had with you and your family. That was such a perfect day all around and I will treasure it. I hope all is going well....
Propose a subject line
A: Another Day in Round Top

Q: At the recent DES meeting, I was given the assignment to draft a letter that could be used as a courtesy notification to state agencies of turbine change outs. (This is for states where permitting is not required for turbine change outs.) Attached is that letter. The parenthetical comments are added to explain certain aspects of the letter and would not be included in the letter. At a minimum, this letter will be sent for all turbine change outs. Call me (402-398-7716) if you have any questions. Ruth
Propose a subject line
A: Turbine Change out Letter

Q: A couple of additional thoughts on this morning's conversation: 1. if we really think the next 6 or 8 months will sort out the takeaway and receipt point capacity issues, why not bet the whole farm and try to hold onto the whole 150 mm/d until next winter or fall and see if the perceived value goes up? We could tell Calpine "no" on their bid and hold them off for several months "negotiating" if that's what we thought would lead to the best value. I don't personally think this would be a prudent approach, but its where our logic leads in the extreme, so we'd better be prepared to explain why getting the bird in the hand from Calpine is smart. 2. We'll research the question of whether we can reject any recourse bids that come in over the next 6-8 months if we decide to hold onto the 60 mm/d for awhile. I've thought about it a bit more and I'm pretty sure you're not going to like the answer. First, FERC says we've got to have a recourse rate in place for all capacity, new or old. One reason is that there needs to be a max rate that applies to long term capacity releases. We have the option on new projects to go with the existing max tariff rate or a new incrementally designed rate. We are going with the existing tariff rate on RedRock. Fine, but that makes the existing rate the recourse rate for all purposes. FERC's logic will be that TW could sell all of the RedRock capacity at recourse rates (currently $.38) and never suffer a revenue shortfall even if future rate cases reduce TW's overall rates, because the costs of all TW's facilities--including the new project--will be considered
Propose a subject line
A:
RedRock