I believe I have compared the ENA Aug 29 version to the VEPCO Aug 21 version of the Capacity and Energy Contract. I'm no expert at CompareRite, but I believe it worked. Here goes: Let me know if you have any trouble opening this document. Kay
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Comparison version
I am trying to compile a list of engines with catalytic converters that will be subject to Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) regulations. All of the following four conditions must be met for CAM to apply: 1. The emission unit must be located at a facility with a Title V permit. 2. The emission unit must be subject to an emission limitation or standard, including a permit condition, for an applicable regulated air pollutant. 3. The emission unit must use an add-on control device to achieve compliance with the emission limit or standard. 4. The emission unit must have "potential pre-control device emissions" equal to or greater than the amount required for a source to be classified as a major source under Title V (i.e. 100 tpy for criteria pollutants and 10/25 tpy for HAPs). If an emission unit is subject to CAM then a CAM Plan must be prepared and submitted with a Title V Permit application/renewal. I will develop a standard plan for submission. A list of all the engines with catalytic converters is attached based on Power Services database. Review the list for accuracy. In addition, update the Title V status of each facility. The last two columns (major for CO w/o controls and major for NOx w/o controls) are based on AP-42 factors for rich-burn engines and a specific heat rate of 8500 Btu (LHV)/bhp-hr converted to 9350 Btu (HHV)/bhp-hr to determine whether a unit would be major for CO or NOx pre-control. Review the permits for the units that would be major for NOx and/or CO to determine if an emission limitation or standard applies to the pollutant for which the unit would be major. Let me know by January 15 which units you believe will require a CAM plan. Ruth
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: CAM Applications to Engines with Catalytic Converters
In February, 539,594 Mmbtu were allocated to the our index purchase from HPLR Liquids at King Ranch. This allocation resulted in a large physical unaccounted for loss. Effectively, the gas was being purchased twice in our systems. In addition, a sale to the Liquids group, which should have been zero, was brokered with a purchase from Swift (2500 Mmbtu/day), resluting in additional gas being allocated to the HPLR Liquids purchase contract. I have attached a schedule detailing the volumes that were double booked in February. This schedule also reports the daily volumes for March which will need to be adjusted. I have calculated (based on estimates) that we should have only purchased about 88,000 from the Liquids group at King Ranch for February. See the following: Booked to HPLR Liquids: 539,574 18,606/day Purch by HPLC @ WH: 379,108 13,073/day Incorrect Liquids Sale: 72,500 2,500/day Adjusted purch from Liquids: 87,986 3,034/day We usually input a purchase of 2,500 Mmbtu/day from HPLR Liquids at the tailgate. We can increase this to 3,000/day for March. The majority of gas in the 3-Rivers system is transported to the King Ranch plant through HGPL. Some of this gas is purchased at the wellhead by HPLC, some of the gas is purchased at the wellhead by HPLR Liquids, and three producers have the option to either sell their gas to HPLC at the wellhead or to process their gas and sell the residue to HPLC at the tailgate of the plant. It is very important to keep the meters and volumes allocated correctly among parties related to these transactions. The attached schedule should assist in doing this. I have reported the meters at which HPLC buys wellhead gas. The movement of this gas through HGPL and King Ranch should be kept seperate from the gas purchased by the Liquids group. A transport usage ticket can be used to show the transfer of HPLC's gas from King Ranch to HPL. Let's plan on discussing this either Friday or Monday afternoon. Let me know what works best for you. D
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: 3-rivers / King Ranch / HPLR Liquids
To begin the Inception phase of our CGS project, the Statement of Work is near completion. I am sending the final version to the project team (to include the business unit sponsors). In a couple of days our goal is to have a meeting to discuss any issues and sign off on the document. Please contact me with any questions. Thank you,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
Consolidated Gas System_SOW