Dave and Scott, I saw an article mentioning that EPA published a draft guidance (66 Fed. Reg. 52,403) clarifying the definition of "stationary source" to allow heat/power co-generation facilities to be treated as separate sources from the underlying host facility (e.g., a manufacturing plant) for NSR purposes. Although the focus of the draft guidance is on cogeneration facilities, I suppose that there might be some general language in there that could clarify the single-source analysis as it pertains to the ancillary equipment at our plants for which no separate BACT analysis was done. Are either of you familiar with the new draft guidance (or with anything else that we could use to bolster our position on this issue)? Many thanks, Ryan
Answer: Pompano/Deerfield: threshhold requirements - single source
Here is an email: Don, Here is the information that you requested. My resume is updated up to my last rotation (Risk Mgmt). My current rotation is in Texas Gas Trading and my supervisor is Tom Martin. My supervisor in Risk Mgmt. was Brenda Herod. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Information
Q: Hey guys, I'm wondering if either of you can locate transaction diagrams for these projects. I can't locate any of the ECS working files (don't know what Hilgert did relative to the move). Let me know, mk
Propose a subject line
A: Kachina, Bisti and Bloomfield info
IN: Marie - per our conversation yesterday afternoon, attached are proposed drafts of the Schedule and the Para. 13 relative to the above. Having spoken with Dennis Goldmann, I am advised that there are currently 2 Guaranties in place in the sum of $8M each: one by Niagara Mohawk Holdings Inc f/b/o Enron, and one by Enron Inc. f/b/o Niagara Mohawk Energy Marketing. I am told that our respective credit departments want to raise the credit lines to $10M for each party, but to effect that we will have to modify the existing Guaranties accordingly. Let me know if this is your understanding, as well. After you have had the chance to review the attached, please send me a marked-up draft and we can discuss our concerns from there.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: ISDA between Niagara Mohawk Energy Marketing, Inc. and Enron Power Marketing, Inc.
IN: This is an email
Edd, looks like the gas industry restructuring thing is going to bring me to SF next Tues. thru Thurs., then May 29 thru June 2. I had thought about going for the whole Memorial Day weekend, but Bill's going to be in Boston the following weekend, so I now think that June 3 - 4 would be the better weekend for me to hang out in Cali. It's all sort of loosey-goosey anyway because the judge has not announced the order in which witnesses will be presented. I think she forgets some of us are from out of town! Makes it really hard to plan. I'll know for sure by the 25th. Thank goodness for refundable airline tickets. Anyway, are going to be around that 1st weekend of June? And -- might you be available for dinner next Tuesday or

What is the subject?

OUT: travel update
The meeting Don and I had with Kinder/Morgan to discuss his Price Risk Management Product went really well. We met with Park Schaper (CFO), Anthony Lannie (President of Power Group) and Jay Hopper (VP and General Manager) was on the phone from Denver. They were very interested with regards to potentially replacing long term tolling agreements with this product. Enron could provide a five year toll and the product would begin in the sixth year through year 15 or 20. We talked very little about their existing projects; Little Rock and Michigan. They do have all the permits for the Little Rock site and are moving forward with the Michigan site and still do not have any tolling agreements in place for those projects. The ball is currently in their court and were going to get back with Scot with respects to the projects and with Tom on the PRM Product. Please let me know if you have any questions with this matter. Thanks! Ben
Answer:
Kinder/Morgan PRM Structure