ok, I'll look over.

Stacey Bolton
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
713-853-9916 direct 
713-303-2632 cell 
sbolton@enron.com <mailto:sbolton@enron.com>
 

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ring, Richard  
Sent:	Friday, August 17, 2001 11:36 AM
To:	Bolton, Stacey
Subject:	RE: CA emissions factor

Stacey,

Below is my response to the Texas Kinko's contract.  Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Richard




Paul,

I am not sure how the various sections align between the "second contract version", from Wednesday's meeting with Kinko's, and the "Master Agreement" however I will take my best shot at the "renewable language".

Under Section 1, 1.1 SCOPE, the current language states "EESI will ensure that the Energy delivered to Customer will be associated with the generation of an equivalent amount of renewable energy registered to the Customer, and all the environmental attributes associated with the generation of this renewable energy will be the sole possession of the Customer."

My concern here with the way that the language is currently worded revolves around the portion of the sentence regarding "all the environmental attributes".  I do not want to be obligated to provide "all the environmental attributes" to Customer if either (i) Enron does not acquire all of the environmental attributes it its transaction to acquire the "renewable energy and/or renewable credits/attributes" or (ii) as normal course of business regarding transaction of "renewable energy and/or renewable credits/attributes" all of the environmental attributes do not transfer with title to the "renewable energy and/or renewable credits/attributes".

I would propose to replace the above referenced contract language with the following:  "EESI will ensure that the Energy delivered to Customer will be associated with generation of an equivalent amount of renewable energy and that all of the environmental attributes, as a normal course of business, associated with the purchase and sale of renewable energy and/or renewable credits shall pass from EESI to Customer."   

Under Section 7, DEFINITIONS, the current definition for "Renewable Energy" states "means electric energy generated by facilities utilizing renewable energy sources.  This would include facilities like windmill farms, photovoltaic cells, geothermal heat recovery plants, landfill gas recover plants, and small, selective hydroelectric projects no greater than 20 MW.  These facilities use existing natural systems (wind, sun, thermal heat from the earth, biological decomposition and flowing water) to generate their electricity."

I would propose to not hard code the definition for "Renewable Energy" into the "Master Agreement" but rather define "Renewable Energy" for each "Transaction Agreement" under the Master Agreement".  For the "Master Agreement" delete the definition of "Renewable Energy" and replace with the following:  "Renewable Energy" shall have the meaning ascribed in the Transaction Agreement to this Master Agreement." 

I would propose that the definition of "Renewable Energy" for purposes of the Transaction Agreement relative to Kinko's Texas Sites should be the following:  "Renewable Energy" means renewable energy credit which represents renewable energy that is physically metered and verified in the State of Texas.  Renewable energy credits in the State of Texas are derived from technology that exclusively relies on an energy source that is naturally regenerated over a short time and derived directly from the sun, indirectly from the sun, or from moving water or other natural movements and mechanisms of the environment and include the following:  sun, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave or tidal energy, biomass or biomass waste products, including landfill gas, and any other source that does ont rely on energy resources derived from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil fuels, or waste products from inorganic sources.  For purpose of this Transaction Agreement EESI will fulfill the renewable energy requirement  exclusively from one hundred percent (100%) wind sources generated within the State of Texas and verified through the Texas Renewable Energy Credit Program Administrato































From:	Stacey Bolton/ENRON@enronXgate on 08/17/2001 08:11 AM
To:	Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	 
Subject:	RE: CA emissions factor

Many thanks.   Want to discuss the contract language this morning?  I've got an 8:30, but should be back at my desk by 9:15.

Stacey Bolton
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
713-853-9916 direct 
713-303-2632 cell 
sbolton@enron.com <mailto:sbolton@enron.com>
 

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ring, Richard  
Sent:	Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:58 PM
To:	Bolton, Stacey
Subject:	CA emissions factor

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:57 PM ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> 
Heather Mitchell
08/21/2000 05:23 PM
To:	Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	cmckalip@yahoo.com  
Subject:	CA emissions factor

Richard,

I forgot one conversion:  To convert from MT of CO2, multiply by 1.1.02 to get to tons of CO2.  (The trees planted and miles driven are based on tons of CO2.)

Also, Catherine McKalip-Thompson is working on a spreadsheet with several conversions that might be helpful to you.  It should be complete in the next day or so.  While it might be too late for the letter going out this week, it may be useful to keep in your files for future reference.

Thanks,
Heather

---------------------- Forwarded by Heather Mitchell/HOU/EES on 08/21/2000 05:12 PM ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> 
Heather Mitchell
08/21/2000 04:41 PM
To:	Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	cmckalip@yahoo.com 
Subject:	CA emissions factor

Richard,

The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh.  The source is below.  As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the appropriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc.  However, most groups accept state level emissions factors as the best available.  Also, it is my understanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime during 2000.  However, I haven't seen any announcements regarding the release of new numbers, nor did I see mention of it on the DOE Voluntary Reporting website.

 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 

I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for trees planted and miles driven.  While it does not list a source for the conversions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the Environmental Law and Policy Center.  I will bring a copy of both by your desk.  Let me know if I can help with anything else.  FYI, in the past I've been a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees planted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed by trees.  

- Heather


---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:57 PM ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> 
Heather Mitchell
08/21/2000 04:41 PM
To:	Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	cmckalip@yahoo.com 
Subject:	CA emissions factor

Richard,

The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh.  The source is below.  As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the appropriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc.  However, most groups accept state level emissions factors as the best available.  Also, it is my understanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime during 2000.  However, I haven't seen any announcements regarding the release of new numbers, nor did I see mention of it on the DOE Voluntary Reporting website.

 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >> 

I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for trees planted and miles driven.  While it does not list a source for the conversions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the Environmental Law and Policy Center.  I will bring a copy of both by your desk.  Let me know if I can help with anything else.  FYI, in the past I've been a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees planted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed by trees.  

- Heather