Message-ID: <23144588.1075849801713.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:49:00 -0800 (PST) From: rob.gay@enron.com To: jose.reis@enron.com Subject: Re: EPE Dispatch Cc: tracee.bersani@enron.com, richard.lammers@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: tracee.bersani@enron.com, richard.lammers@enron.com X-From: Rob G Gay X-To: Jose Lucio Reis X-cc: Tracee Bersani, Richard A Lammers X-bcc: X-Folder: \Randall_Gay_Nov2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: GAY-R X-FileName: rgay.nsf Could you please take a moment to rspond on the attached. Thanks You ---------------------- Forwarded by Rob G Gay/NA/Enron on 12/19/2000 09:21 AM --------------------------- Christiaan Huizer@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 12/19/2000 06:20 AM To: Rob G Gay/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Laine A Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard A Lammers/SA/Enron@Enron, Tracee Bersani/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Felipe Ospina/NA/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: EPE Dispatch Rob, Regarding items 1 and 2, please contact Lucio Reis in Sao Paulo office and he can explain. Item 3 is incorrect. The 300 MW would be generated by the two gas turbines at about 100 MW each and the remaining 100 MW coming from the steam turbine. The steam turbine receives its energy from the exit gases from the gas turbines and they both contribute equally to the resulting steam turbine output (theoretically at least, in practice depending on optimization of machines) Again, please talk with Lucio. Regards, Christiaan Rob G Gay@ENRON 12/18/2000 04:41 PM To: Laine A Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Christiaan Huizer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard A Lammers/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Tracee Bersani/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: EPE Dispatch Here is what we have concluded based on discussions this morning: 1) We believe that Furnas has agreed to contract and pay for 300 MW on oil to meet regulatory requirements concerning required capacity and reserve margin. We do not believe that they intend for us to be dispatrched above 220 MW. (Do we have any document which could substantiate this?) 2) Although dispatch on a merit order basis would suggest that EPE runs full time (with 300 MW available), there are practical constraints in the transmission system which will prohibit this from actually occuring. [ Please describe these constraints using some official sounding jargon but minimal detail and in particular indicate what is involved to de-bottleneck and how long this will take. I presume that Furnas is solely responsible for the corrective measures.] 3) Based on our analysis, the optimal operating approach would be to generate 220MW with one turbine and 91 MW with the other for a total of 311 if dipatched above 220 MW. If we can prove that 1) & 2) are correct or convince the lenders that they are, then I think we can suggest that fuel oil exposure is negligibe if gas is ready by April 01. We will have to see how it looks when we add the Sue Garvin flex months. Therefore, a merit order analysis is only necessary if i) our supposition about Furnas' motivations are incorrect and/or ii) the transmission problem is cleared. If this happens it would be nice to be able to predict reduced fuel utilization due to a) reduced dispatch during daily off-peak hours or seasonal impacts, b) due to scheduled outages, and c) due to managing our availabilty in such a way as to reduce fuel consumption operating losses. Any data you can provide will be helpful. Have I successfully connected the dots here? If you have previously sent these materials to Felipe or Tracee please simply grumble to yourself if you have to do an extra e-mail to me. Remember, you don't have to be nice to a short timer unless you need them to get something done. Regards, Rob