What about this one? Do you find it helpful or interesting? It focuses more on Policy, so it might not apply as much...MSA
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Enron Forum [mailto:EnronForum@enronforum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 6:58 AM
Subject: Daily Energy News Update, 10 October: BPA and Kaiser Reach Agreement on Power


  <http://www2.intellibridge.com/graphics/EnergyPolicyHeader.gif>	
 	
  <http://www2.intellibridge.com/graphics/TopTab.gif>October 10, 2001	
  <http://www2.intellibridge.com/graphics/blackbar.gif>

	
  <http://www2.intellibridge.com/graphics/MoreStories.gif>	
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />
United States-Energy: 
Senate Panel Discusses Multi-Pollutant Plan <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115988503>
United States-Energy: 
Entergy Supports Delaying Arkansas Deregulation <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115982003>
United Kingdom-Energy: 
AEP to Acquire Edison's UK Power <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115984603>
Canada-Energy: 
Burlington Resources to Buy Canadian Hunter for $2.1 Billion <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115986203>
Pakistan-Diplomacy: 
Report: Pakistan Cuts Ties with Taliban <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115969103>
South/Southeast Asia-Politics: 
ASEAN Signals Caution on War Against Afghanistan <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115968403> 

United States-Energy: 
BPA and Kaiser Reach Agreement on Power (IB)
Kaiser Aluminum and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) reached an agreement on a five-year power delivery deal that has been the source of conflict between the two parties for almost a year. Kaiser Aluminum closed its smelting operations in the Pacific Northwest in late 2000, choosing to resell contracted power from the BPA on the spot market. According to the Spokesman Review, "Kaiser netted more than $460 million from the sales." Other aluminum companies reselling power from BPA reached agreements during spring 2001 with Bonneville. Under these agreements, the companies agreed to keep smelters off line to keep power supplies ample in the region, and BPA agreed, in return, to give the smelters, when they restarted operations, a $20 per megawatt-hour (MWh) credit for obtaining power from sources other than BPA. Months of wrangling produced a contract between Kaiser and the BPA that negates a "take-or-pay" clause that would require Kaiser to pay for the federal power whether used or not. BPA said, "Under the agreement signed today, Kaiser will avoid the possibility of paying damages if it does not take all the power under the contract...And if [BPA] can't resell it, we are not going to hold [Kaiser] liable for the difference," Clearing Up reported. As a concession for the elimination of the "take-or-pay" clause, Kaiser will receive interruptible service from the BPA on some of its 240 MW load. Kaiser received criticism from union groups who claimed that the company was using the money it had gained reselling power "to pay down long-term debt, rebuild a refinery in Louisiana and reward executives with excessive bonuses," rather than splitting the money between workers that had been laid off, the BPA, and building generation, AP reported. More... <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115987203> 
 <https://ib.intellibridge.com/content?content_id=80296803>


United States-Energy: 
CA Power Authority Names CEO (IB)
The California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority named Laura Doll its new chief executive officer on 5 October. Texan Doll "had previously worked for several communications and consulting firms," and will be receiving a salary of $200,000 as the power authority's CEO, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. S. David Freeman, the authority's chair, will retain his post. Freeman said he will "handle fewer administrative duties," and will "be able to devote more time to reaching out to interest groups such as the Legislature and consumer groups," The Chronicle reported. According to a 7 October report in the Orange County Register, consumer groups, businesses, and the legislature have questioned the recent actions of the power authority, which has vowed to secure nearly 3,000 megawatts (MW) of power by summer 2002 to avoid power shortages. The power authority, which was created by Governor Gray Davis and the state Legislature in May 2001, can issue up to $5 billion in bonds to bolster the state's power supply through financing new renewable generation or peaker projects. The Register said that businesses and consumer groups are worried that higher electricity rates could be the result of the power authority initiative to bring 1,000 MW of green power and 2,000 MW of peaker generation on line by summer 2002. The state's Joint Legislative Audit Committee would look into the authority's planned purchases, according to the committee chair, Assembly member Fred Keeley. Keeley said "it's appropriate early and often to review their work in a public venue and have them held accountable for compliance of the law," the Register reported. More... <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115979903>

United States-Energy: 
FERC Refunds Ordered (IB)
On 5 October, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ordered four power marketers to provide refunds for July sales that exceeded a federally mandated price limit. Dynegy Corp., Mirant Corp., Williams Cos., and Reliant Energy were the companies specifically mentioned. Under a 19 June FERC order, price limits were established in 11 Western states to help tame the volatile electricity spot market. The June order stated that companies charging in excess of the mitigated price had seven days past the end of the month in question to file justifications for their overcharges. The 5 October order said that the aforementioned companies filed justifications, but all were rejected, and that other companies that overcharged during July, but did not file justifications, would also be subject to ordered refunds. Although FERC did not release specific figures, the California Independent System Operator said that total overcharges for the month amounted to $260,000, The Los Angeles Times reported. The commission's order explained the rejection of cost justifications for the four companies. The explanations by Mirant and Dynegy, filed more than seven days after July ended, were "untimely and...neither company supported in detail its actual costs for its transactions," according to the document. Reliant's filing was "not consistent with the requirements of the June 19 Order," and Willams "did not provide any cost support for its transactions beyond restating general objections to the commission's pricing methodology," the commissioners wrote. A Mirant spokesman told Reuters that "his company was ordered to refund $33,800," while a Williams spokesman told the LA Times "$30,000 worth of electricity sales are subject to the FERC rebate for both June and July." More... <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115981303> 

 

  <http://www2.intellibridge.com/graphics/TopAnalysis3.gif>	  	
United States-Security: Role of Homeland Defense Czar <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115979303>
North America-Energy: Texas Faces Transmission Line Shortages <https://www2.enronforum.com/content?content_id=115986903>
	
  	
 <https://ib.intellibridge.com/intellimemo>  <https://ib.intellibridge.com/expertlink>