ees / epmi split i heard dave ' s voicemail . i appreciate his concern . however , i don ' t think that the delineation is easy to do . i am confident that my team knows what we are good at and what we aren ' t good at . if we aren ' t best suited to serve the load , we will act like " one enron " and send the account over to the them . the split should really be driven by the customer ' s needs and which utility they are behind . for example , montana power has a wonderful balancing tariff where the utility looks at the scheduled volume and compares it to the actual volumes and settles directly with the customer for imbalances . we don ' t do any metering , we don ' t do any unique billing , the loads range anywhere from 1 mw to 25 mw . ena is definitely best suited to serve these industrials because commodity price is their top interest . the pugest system is about to open up with a structure that is similar to montana ' s . ena will be very well positioned to serve this load . the same company could have a plant in california . we wouldn ' t serve that load because the expertise needed to manage the ctc risk ( before this thing blew up anyway ) , the challenge of metering and tracking metered volumes on a schedule vs . actual basis , and the load forecasting . the same company could also own gas stations in the west . we have no interest in serving gas stations .
i also heard the message attached to dave ' s from scott dann ( sp ? ) . his message did little to open communication between groups . he provided no details on what the issue was in the west with respect to epmi ( ena ) and ees . for us to do this right , ees and ena need to be able to solve problems without involving the office of the chair of each company . i would be happy to work with anyone from ees to resolve who should be covering which accounts .
i still can ' t think of a clean way to divide customers . each approach has its problems . each company ( ees and ena ) has its strengths . our strength is commodity pricing and delivering a mw to anywhere on the western grid . their strength is in tariff analysis , energy management , and aggregating loads .
for the west , i am confident that chris calger and i can sort out any disputes with ees that are reasonable . we know what we are good at . we have a proven track record with a large number of industrials in the west . i still believe that our customers and shareholders are best served with our favored approach . it will require better communication on the operating level between ees and ena .
ees / epmi split
i heard dave ' s voicemail . i appreciate his concern . however , i don ' t think that the delineation is easy to do . i am confident that my team knows what we are good at and what we aren ' t good at . if we aren ' t best suited to serve the load , we will act like " one enron " and send the account over to the them . the split should really be driven by the customer ' s needs and which utility they are behind . for example , montana power has a wonderful balancing tariff where the utility looks at the scheduled volume and compares it to the actual volumes and settles directly with the customer for imbalances . we don ' t do any metering , we don ' t do any unique billing , the loads range anywhere from 1 mw to 25 mw . ena is definitely best suited to serve these industrials because commodity price is their top interest . the pugest system is about to open up with a structure that is similar to montana ' s . ena will be very well positioned to serve this load . the same company could have a plant in california . we wouldn ' t serve that load because the expertise needed to manage the ctc risk ( before this thing blew up anyway ) , the challenge of metering and tracking metered volumes on a schedule vs . actual basis , and the load forecasting . the same company could also own gas stations in the west . we have no interest in serving gas stations .
i also heard the message attached to dave ' s from scott dann ( sp ? ) . his message did little to open communication between groups . he provided no details on what the issue was in the west with respect to epmi ( ena ) and ees . for us to do this right , ees and ena need to be able to solve problems without involving the office of the chair of each company . i would be happy to work with anyone from ees to resolve who should be covering which accounts .
i still can ' t think of a clean way to divide customers . each approach has its problems . each company ( ees and ena ) has its strengths . our strength is commodity pricing and delivering a mw to anywhere on the western grid . their strength is in tariff analysis , energy management , and aggregating loads .
for the west , i am confident that chris calger and i can sort out any disputes with ees that are reasonable . we know what we are good at . we have a proven track record with a large number of industrials in the west . i still believe that our customers and shareholders are best served with our favored approach . it will require better communication on the operating level between ees and ena .