conflict with aep / cp & l over tex - mex presidential permit no action needed on your part , but just in case you hear something through the grapevine , here is current situation :
summary
- aep / cp & l have economic interests in the brownsville area which are best served if we do not locate our tie in brownsville public utility board ' s ( bpub ' s ) service territory and bpub does not obtain the system upgrades which would be justified by our tie .
- aep is trying to stall our presidential permit application and to coerce us into moving the tie onto their system .
- bpub sees this as an attack on their interests and is planning to challenge aep .
- 5 mou ' s have been signed with customers and discussions are continuing with 12 others , who have all been met and have expressed interest .
- we are optimistic that the pp will be issued and standard ercot treatments will prevail , but we will likely be delayed to sometime early next year .
history
- enron filed presidential permit ( pp ) application
- cp & l ( owned by aep ) intervened against the application and raised some technical issues
- doe asked enron and cp & l / aep to meet and resolve issues
- meeting occurred between enron and cp & l / aep . general technical solutions were identified , with specific solutions to be determined through a sps study .
- enron drafted a letter outlining the points covered in our meeting with cp & l / aep , intending to have the letter signed by both of us and forwarded to doe , requesting that doe proceed with issuing the pp .
- ap & l / aep refused to sign the letter and are now arguing that an sps scheme is not sufficient for the proposed tie location ( although aep operates under sps elsewhere within ercot , they argue that ours is a special case . independent opinion ( and our own ) is that there is little merit to the cp & l / aep position ) .
- aep have told us that if we move the tie to a location west of brownsville ( on aep ' s proposed line expansion ) , that they would drop all opposition .
- aep / cp & l have since approached the ercot board arguing that cost studies should be done on alternate tie locations and the system cost impact thereof .
- aep / cp & l have submitted to the ercot board that enron should be responsible for any costs associated building the tie at anything other than the least - cost ( system perspective ) location .
current status
- brownsville ( bpub ) are incensed at aep / cp & l ' s behaviour and are planning the following actions :
- making submission to ercot that :
- bpub informed ercot of the project 14 months ago and no further studies or committee reviews by ercot should be necessary .
- no changes to current ercot procedures should be contemplated and the tie should be viewed as a firm , native bpub load
- bpub lawyer is drafting letter to go to aep demanding that aep honor their previous agreement with bpub to be supportive of bpub projects .
- bpub ceo , engineer and lawyer will visit puc - t next week to make the case that no special arrangements should be made with regard to enron or bpub needing to pick up additional system costs
- at this point , bpub is highly motivated and is striking out with an aggressive representation of their position as there are implications for them which go beyond the current project . furthermore , there is little love lost between bpub and aep .
- although moving to the aep - proposed location would remove aep as an obstacle , we would lose the work done to date preparing with bpub and would probably make an enemy of bpub .
- bob franks ( regulatory ) , scott laidlaw ( engineering / technical ) and myself are coordinating with bracewell patterson ( regulatory advisors ) on enron ' s strategy and level of support for bpub .
conflict with aep / cp & l over tex - mex presidential permit
no action needed on your part , but just in case you hear something through the grapevine , here is current situation :
summary
- aep / cp & l have economic interests in the brownsville area which are best served if we do not locate our tie in brownsville public utility board ' s ( bpub ' s ) service territory and bpub does not obtain the system upgrades which would be justified by our tie .
- aep is trying to stall our presidential permit application and to coerce us into moving the tie onto their system .
- bpub sees this as an attack on their interests and is planning to challenge aep .
- 5 mou ' s have been signed with customers and discussions are continuing with 12 others , who have all been met and have expressed interest .
- we are optimistic that the pp will be issued and standard ercot treatments will prevail , but we will likely be delayed to sometime early next year .
history
- enron filed presidential permit ( pp ) application
- cp & l ( owned by aep ) intervened against the application and raised some technical issues
- doe asked enron and cp & l / aep to meet and resolve issues
- meeting occurred between enron and cp & l / aep . general technical solutions were identified , with specific solutions to be determined through a sps study .
- enron drafted a letter outlining the points covered in our meeting with cp & l / aep , intending to have the letter signed by both of us and forwarded to doe , requesting that doe proceed with issuing the pp .
- ap & l / aep refused to sign the letter and are now arguing that an sps scheme is not sufficient for the proposed tie location ( although aep operates under sps elsewhere within ercot , they argue that ours is a special case . independent opinion ( and our own ) is that there is little merit to the cp & l / aep position ) .
- aep have told us that if we move the tie to a location west of brownsville ( on aep ' s proposed line expansion ) , that they would drop all opposition .
- aep / cp & l have since approached the ercot board arguing that cost studies should be done on alternate tie locations and the system cost impact thereof .
- aep / cp & l have submitted to the ercot board that enron should be responsible for any costs associated building the tie at anything other than the least - cost ( system perspective ) location .
current status
- brownsville ( bpub ) are incensed at aep / cp & l ' s behaviour and are planning the following actions :
- making submission to ercot that :
- bpub informed ercot of the project 14 months ago and no further studies or committee reviews by ercot should be necessary .
- no changes to current ercot procedures should be contemplated and the tie should be viewed as a firm , native bpub load
- bpub lawyer is drafting letter to go to aep demanding that aep honor their previous agreement with bpub to be supportive of bpub projects .
- bpub ceo , engineer and lawyer will visit puc - t next week to make the case that no special arrangements should be made with regard to enron or bpub needing to pick up additional system costs
- at this point , bpub is highly motivated and is striking out with an aggressive representation of their position as there are implications for them which go beyond the current project . furthermore , there is little love lost between bpub and aep .
- although moving to the aep - proposed location would remove aep as an obstacle , we would lose the work done to date preparing with bpub and would probably make an enemy of bpub .
- bob franks ( regulatory ) , scott laidlaw ( engineering / technical ) and myself are coordinating with bracewell patterson ( regulatory advisors ) on enron ' s strategy and level of support for bpub .