IN: This is an email
Good news, even better when it happens. My contract at CES, Brian Perrone, just told me CES will pay the invoice we billed them. They still need to reconstruct January. Billing I still need to work on January capacity and sales to CES. I found a significant amount of transport I left out of January. I want to fix the Feb capacity sheet and bill CES tomorrow or Fri for capacity and the scheduling fee. The Feb invoicing should be much cleaner and ready to go out by the 10th.

What is the subject?

OUT: CES Invoice

IN: This is an email
Hunter, I will be out of the office on Monday and Tuesday meeting with the EIA in Washington D.C. so I will miss the Tuesday afternoon Trading Track meeting. I think Biliana should spend a few more months in the fundamentals group since she has only been here since mid-February. She has also expressed an interest in spending 2-3 months more in the group, and she could benefit from learning about the pipelines in the STP group. We lose Virawan (Aug 1st), Mat (Aug 1st), and Denver (Sep 1st). We get Bilal Bajwa (Jul 1st) and Jason Wolfe (Sep 1st) We could use two additional Trading Track Analysts/Associates in Jul/Aug to fill out the fundamentals group. If we don't get the people from the Trading Track, I will have to recruit them from the Assoc/Analyst pool. Let me know if you have any questions. Chris

What is the subject?

OUT: Trading Track meeting on Tuesday

IN: This is an email
Talked to Dave. In a nut shell, here are the problem areas in the bill as he sees it. It was a very brief conversation, but I think I've captured the key points: Based on an expectation that the "expedited siting" bill would help site plants, Dave's group had six plants on the drawing board. The 5 ppm requirement kills 4 of the 6, i.e., the 4 can't meet the 5 ppm requirement. The requirement that the plants would either be 1) shut down after 3 years or 2) replaced with a combined-cycle plant kills the other 2 because a) shutting down the plants in 3 years kills the economics, and b) the sites for the two LM-6000s can't accomodate combined cylces (i.e., Dave couldn't get siting). In addition,the generator would be required to sign an exclusive with the ISO (which the EOB would have to approve), which takes away the optionality of going to the market, thus killing the economics. On the labor side, it's complicated, but in essence, by requiring that "...it be shown that the applicant has a contract with a general contractor and has contracted for an adequate supply of skilled labor to construct, operate, and maintain the plant," it forces Dave to negotiate a labor deal before he knows what the project is (i.e, before the project has been approved), and, it effectively prevents Enron from having the option to use internal resources (this issue is very specific to Enron; I can explain more if folks prefer). In short, bullets 1-3 would seem to affect both Enron and the market, while the last bullet is, according to Dave, very Enron specific. Point 2 in bullet 4, according to Dave is sensitive and should not be made public. If any questions, let me know. Bruno has emailed the price cap and the "general-funds-to-help-finance-the-cap" bills, and faxed the siting bill. Best,

What is the subject?

OUT:
Conversation with Dave Parquet re: siting bill