IN: This is an email
FYI. As you know, we're attempting to find a solution to the "reasonable review" morrass that's impeding utility forward contracting. For that effort, we've worked with the Portland desk to pull together some educational materials to use with a subset of California stakeholders that's trying to devise a solution to California's melt down. The attached graphs show 3 scenarios for the state as a whole. 1) "do nothing" 2) for 60% of IOU short position, split the amount 50-50 and 1cover half the amount with 10-year fixed priced power and the other half with 5-year fixed priced power. 3) create a portfolio with a) 25% of short position covered by 10-year fixed priced power, b) 20% of short position covered by 5-year fixed price power, c) 15% covered by 1-year fixed price power, d) 20% covered by May-Sept fixed-price power, and e) 15% from the PX. The term of each scenario is 5 years. Because each is priced off our our curves, the average price is roughly equivalent for each of the three portfolios. However, the graph shows (as one would expect) that exposure to price volatility is significantly higher under scenario 1 compared to 2 and 3. The goal is to use the illustrative scenarios to persuade the industry that in the short run (i.e., immediately) the utilities should be permitted to buy a modest amount of power under 5 and 10 terms, and those purchases (if undertaken using a "DealBench-like" tool) ought to be "per se" reasonable.

What is the subject?

OUT: Illustrative Portfolios

IN: This is an email
Please add this to the defn of confidential information: Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, business strategies, transaction structures, pricing formulae, and other business methods. We will call it the "Michael Brown burn me twice shame on me" clause. Thanks,

What is the subject?

OUT: addition to standard form CA

IN: This is an email
Harry, Iris and Brandon: Just finished up another call with my counterparty at Dominion. Here are the opportunities: 1. GridSouth - (They really want to dump in "CP&L East" - anything we can do to facilitate this will better meet customer requirements. Capacity: 2003 - 100MW 2004 - 250MW 2005 - 570MW for five years Will accept day-ahead dispatch. Really want 8 hour minimum runs w/ 5x16 availability. Heat Rate: 7200 VOM $2/MWh 2. Entergy - They want a straight 7x24, 365-day power purchase @ fixed price. Capacity: 65MW Start Date: July 2002 Term: 5 Years Price: $x/MWh 3. TVA - Peaker Really want intra-day call w/4hr notice for 4hr minimum run time. Capacity: Tell me what, if any, we can do. Start Date: June 2004 Availability: 5x16 June-Aug; Dec-Mar Heat Rate: 10,900 VOM: $2/MWh Let's really try to see if we can do the intra-day. If absolutely not available for 4hr min run time, see if we can do 8hr min. If this is absolutely not possible, let's try to quote day-ahead 8hr min at the very least. 4. TVA - Combined Cycle This one we already quoted at $3.97/KW-mo for 4-year, 5x16 call, beginning 1/1/03 for 7,000 Heat Rate; $2 VOM. This was for day-ahead, 16hr min run time. Tell me how much the price changes if we reduce min run time from 16hrs to 8hrs. Please call me in NY @ 212-715-5953 to discuss, if you have any questions. Thanks for all your work. I think we have a real opportunity here, if we can respond positively on a few fronts. Regards, Greg

What is the subject?

OUT:
Dominion Opportunities