Message-ID: <3640005.1075854489412.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT) From: david.delainey@enron.com To: jordan.mintz@enron.com Subject: DQE -- Impact of Operating at Reduced Capacity: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: David W Delainey X-To: Jordan Mintz X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \David_Delainey_Dec2000\Notes Folders\'sent mail X-Origin: Delainey-D X-FileName: ddelain.nsf Jordan, I assume the memo I asked for is in hard copy on my desk. Thanks Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/20/2000 12:25 PM --------------------------- Jordan Mintz 07/19/2000 12:46 PM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: DQE -- Impact of Operating at Reduced Capacity: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Dave: A supplement to our memo to you regarding the Synfuel transaction...... Jordan ---------------------- Forwarded by Jordan Mintz/HOU/ECT on 07/19/2000 01:46 PM --------------------------- Kevin Liss@ENRON 07/19/2000 12:42 PM To: George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wayne Gresham/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daniel Reck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Raymond Bowen/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Brian Otis/NA/Enron@Enron, Jesus Melendrez/Corp/Enron@Enron, Tim Proffitt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jordan Mintz/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: DQE -- Impact of Operating at Reduced Capacity: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Our memorandum of today's date on the DQE facilities estimates a 65% to 70% likelihood of the facilities qualifying for section 29 tax credits, based on projected volumes of 225 tons per hour. As we discussed a week ago, if we operate the facilities at a volume of 118 per hour, (i.e., half-capacity), we believe we would alleviate the tax risk associated with the increase in capacity. The question is, does that improvement in the odds with respect to that one issue improve the bottom-line odds on qualification at least with respect to the base volume of 118 per hour from the 65% to 70% estimate that we specified in our memorandum? We think it does, but we are not sure that there will be a material improvement. We have passed that question on to our outside tax counsel, and will let you know his view. As we noted last week, there are several legal issues for which, while we think we have the better argument, there is no definitive legal precedent. Even pulling the capacity issue out of the equation --which is what we would be doing if we are only considering the 118 tons -- there are still several other balls in the air, and we would have to catch each and every one in order to have a tax-creditworthy facility. When you look at each issue, separately, it seems possible to get comfortable as to each one, but when you consider that there are several such issues, and that we have to be "right" each and every time, you have to lower your overall odds. Statistically speaking, if you are 80% comfortable as to each of 5 separate issues, then you would expect to hit on 4 out of 5, not on 5 out of 5, but we can't lose on any one issue and still qualify for credits. Obtaining a private letter ruling from the IRS as to these issues, which is our ultimate goal, would take these issues out of the air, so to speak, but that's not going to happen pre-close, and no matter what assurances we might get at a pre-ruling conference with the IRS, unless and until you actually get the ruling, there is an element of risk that you have to assume. For that reason, the 90% probability number that I threw out at last week's meeting in response to a question about what our comfort level would be if we had a private letter ruling is really a red herring, because at decision time, there's not going to be a ruling in hand. As noted above, I will let you know what Bruce Lemons' view is, since he is the one who will be called upon to give an opinion. Hopefully, that will be later today. Kevin Liss x58601