ees / epmi split just to add to tim ' s note - i suggest that the number of overlap issues would be few and far between and can be resolved at the operating level . i think ena can offer up representatives from each region that have an open line of communication with the appropriate ees people . if ena and ees provided each other with a short list of contacts there should be no need to deal with this at the otc level . for example , chris foster ( ena west power mid market ) would direct questions / opportunities to ees and field calls from ees people looking at deals in the western power market .
ena interface list :
power :
west : foster
midwest : baughman
east : pagan
texas : sukaly
gas :
west : tycholiz
midwest : luce
east : vickers
texas : martin
dave knows all of these people and i believe that they do things in the best interest of " one - enron " .
regards ,
chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by christopher f calger / pdx / ect on 03 / 25 / 2001 01 : 18 pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : tim belden 03 / 21 / 2001 07 : 05 am
to : louise kitchen / hou / ect @ ect
cc : chris h foster / hou / ect @ ect , christopher f calger / pdx / ect @ ect
subject : 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 .