Message-ID: <16796873.1075854554736.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:05:00 -0800 (PST)
From: david.delainey@enron.com
To: janet.dietrich@enron.com
Subject: TVA Status
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: David W Delainey
X-To: Janet R Dietrich
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \David_Delainey_Jun2001\Notes Folders\'sent mail
X-Origin: Delainey-D
X-FileName: ddelain.nsf

Janet, don't trip me up until after January 15.
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 01/03/2001 
10:58 PM ---------------------------


Janet R Dietrich
01/03/2001 08:57 AM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: TVA Status


Hey Dave. We are focused on selling our interests in the Calvert City, Ky. 
site now that we've successfully transferred the AES sale from Calvert City 
to Haywood. We have two counterparties that have shown a high degree of 
interest in Calvert City: Duke and Cleco. There are no issues surrounding 
Cleco but there may be with Duke from the following standpoint: our Calvert 
City site is ahead of Duke's Calvert City site in the interconnect que. 
Apparently, TVA erroneously did not factor in our interconnect application 
into their facilities study for Duke, and gave Duke an indication that there 
should not be material transmission upgrade costs for their plant 
interconnect. As both TVA and Duke now realize, our interconnect status does 
present a problem for Duke (and therefore TVA). We plan to talk with Duke in 
parallel with Cleco and I anticipate Duke then confronting TVA with the 
situation. 

I want to ensure our discussions with TVA and Duke over the next few weeks 
don't jeopardize our settlement with TVA. Will this settlement be closed by 
mid-January (thought that's what I heard)? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.