Message-ID: <15631797.1075852369223.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:27:40 -0700 (PDT) From: m..forney@enron.com To: joe.capasso@enron.com, l..day@enron.com, joe.errigo@enron.com, alexander.mcelreath@enron.com, jeffrey.miller@enron.com, steve.olinde@enron.com, eric.saibi@enron.com Subject: FW: Frontera Resource Plan - Min/Max MWs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Forney, John M. X-To: Capasso, Joe , Day, Smith L. , Errigo, Joe , McElreath, Alexander , Miller, Jeffrey , Olinde Jr., Steve , Saibi, Eric X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JFORNEY (Non-Privileged)\Forney, John M.\Sent Items X-Origin: FORNEY-J X-FileName: JFORNEY (Non-Privileged).pst FYI, This morning Ercot asked us to run all three units for a manual OOM. Our Resource plan indicated that our total minimum was 220. I believe that we had a discussion with Ercot indicating that our minimum on a 2 on 1 config was 280. We ran at 280, but our resource plan was not updated. Ercot called mid-morning to say that they only wanted 220. It is possible that we will be punished financially (receive the balancing energy price) for the 60 mw's over their request. The point is, the Resource Plan is the only thing binding. We must reflect our true minimums at all times. If the situation changes intraday, we need to make changes in the resource plan to reflect what we can actually do. Please see the e-mail below from Alan. JMF -----Original Message----- From: Serio, Erik Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:30 AM To: Forney, John M. Subject: FW: Frontera Resource Plan - Min/Max MWs Importance: High -----Original Message----- From: Chen, Alan Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:07 PM To: Broussard, Richard; Comeaux, Keith; Kumar, Madhup; Laverell, Justin; Lenartowicz, Chris; Serio, Erik; Stewart, Kirk; Will, Lloyd Subject: Frontera Resource Plan - Min/Max MWs Importance: High All, ERCOT is questioning us the resource plan we put in the MOS, especially the Min/Max MWs for STG001. If we only have one CT running, then the Min/Max for ST would be 58/80 MWs instead of 130/184 MWs. Here is a list of points I got from Frontera for your reference: 1. One CT running: CTG101 STG001 MW 80 58 MW 100 64 MW 110 66 MW 120 68 MW 130 70 MW 140 74 MW 150 80 2. Both CT's running: CTG101 CTG201 STG001 MW 80 80 130 MW 100 100 140 MW 110 110 148 MW 120 120 151 MW 130 130 154 MW 140 140 158 MW 150 150 165 If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks. Alan Chen x37027