Message-ID: <21910591.1075851628686.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT) From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com To: michael.etringer@enron.com Subject: FW: QF Presentation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Dasovich, Jeff X-To: Etringer, Michael X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Sent Items X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst FYI. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Beach [mailto:tomb@crossborderenergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:55 AM To: Dasovich, Jeff Subject: Re: QF Presentation Jeff -- As always, your proposal is creative. After reviewing your presentation, here are some tough questions that we can discuss tomorrow: 1. Would the replacement energy from the market be obtained under contracts of similar length and firmness as the QF contracts that the energy replaces? If not, why would the CPUC want to replace long-term, committed QF power with short-term firm energy? 2. Why would the CPUC want to replace long-term QF power over which it has substantial regulatory leverage (through SRAC pricing) with market energy from sources over which it may have less control? 3. Are there 8,000 MWs of low-cost replacement energy available in California, or in the WSCC with firm transmission to California? How steep is the supply curve for replacement energy? 4. After a QF is bought out, I assume that it would simply operate in the electric market as a merchant plant, if it continues to operate to provide on-site power and thermal energy. Is this correct? 5. How sensitive are your calculated ratepayer and QF benefits to changes in the relationship between SRAC (i.e. gas) and electric market prices? 6. Assuming that there are both ratepayer and QF benefits from QF contract buyouts, why is there a need for a formalized auction process, when the same benefits might be captured through bilateral negotiations (such as the QF buyouts done to date)? 7. Doesn't your proposal require the utilities to be back in the power procurement business? If not, why not? As you perhaps can tell, my questions focus on whether now is the right time for such a broad plan to buyout QF contracts. Talk to you tomorrow, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff To: tomb@crossborderenergy.com Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:41 AM Subject: QF Presentation Tom: Here's the presentation that we'll go over with you tomorrow. If you have any questions between now and then, just give me a call at 415.782.7822. What number should I call you at tomorrow? Best, Jeff > <> > > ********************************************************************** This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. **********************************************************************