Message-ID: <22487837.1075845961385.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:05:00 -0800 (PST)
From: kay.mann@enron.com
To: heather.kroll@enron.com
Subject: Re: VEPCO Interconnect
Cc: reagan.rorschach@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: reagan.rorschach@enron.com
X-From: Kay Mann
X-To: Heather Kroll
X-cc: Reagan Rorschach
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Let's discuss in person.  Maybe we should ask Nancy her opinion as well.

Kay




Heather Kroll@ECT
12/05/2000 02:56 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Reagan Rorschach/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: VEPCO Interconnect

Kay and Reagan,

We have an opportunity (VERY, VERY preliminary) to supply full requirements 
to a co-op that is breaking away from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative 
(ODEC) that is located in VEPCO's territory.  They have about 500 MW peak 
load and 200 MW of resources, everything else is covered by VEPCO.

If we got back our queue spot, we could build our peaker (within VEPCO's 
territory) to meet this load.

Kay, what is your opinion on the strength of our argument with VEPCO?  We may 
have a new deal that makes building the peaker viable again and so we may 
want to push them on it.

Doctor, do we have a pulse?  It may be the death of me, but we're going to 
build that peaker!

Heather
---------------------- Forwarded by Heather Kroll/HOU/ECT on 12/05/2000 02:49 
PM ---------------------------


Reagan Rorschach@ENRON
12/01/2000 02:39 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Jeffrey Keenan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Heather Kroll/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ozzie 
Pagan/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: VEPCO Interconnect

Kay,

As we evaluate the viability of pushing VEPCO for reinstatement of our queue 
spot, a legal interpretation and opinion is needed.  VEPCO Capacity 
Acquisition withdrew us from the queue once the PPA negotiations were 
terminated eventhough we had a written agreement to do the interconnect 
study.  We want the queue spot back and are evaluating how hard to push.  As 
soon as we get it back, however, we will be pressed to specify equipment for 
the next phase of the interconnect study.

Keeping in mind that a "material change" would again jeopardize the queue 
position AND knowing that there is a high probability that the equipment 
configuration will change, the question is.......legally, how much room do we 
have under their tariff to make changes without being "material"?   In other 
words, if we change equipment configuration while keeping the MWs roughly the 
same (around 250 MW), is this a "material change" causing us to forfeit the 
queue anyway?

The web site ( http://www.dom.com/operations/elec-transmission/gi-main.html ) 
has the filings for interconnect procedures.  Can you give an opinion?

Thanks for your help,

Reagan