Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Enron Clause - PPA Briefing

    Uploaded by

    The Globe and Mail
    20K views28 pages
    The PPAs were to be written by an IAT after receiving proposals from power generators and consultation with stakeholders, including consumer groups.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The PPAs were to be written by an IAT after receiving proposals from power generators and consultation with stakeholders, including consumer groups.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    20K views28 pages

    The Enron Clause - PPA Briefing

    Uploaded by

    The Globe and Mail
    The PPAs were to be written by an IAT after receiving proposals from power generators and consultation with stakeholders, including consumer groups.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 28
    The Enron Clause People Hon. Mike Cardinal, Minister of the Department of Resource Development (“ADRD") Larry Charach, ADRD Executive Director, Electricity Joseph Segatto, ADRD, Legal Services Neil McCrank, Alberta Energy Utilities Board (‘AEUB") Chair Bob Heggie, AEUB Executive Director Robert Hemstock, Enron Canada Corp Director, Government Affairs (until very recently, Enmax Executive Vice President Regulatory, Legal and Public Policy) Richard Shapiro, Enron Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Prolog By July 27, 2000 — five days before the provincial government's auction of Power Purchase Arrangements (‘PPAs"), the government's PPA process was well underway and a number of key decisions already made and announced. By legislation passed in 1998: The PPAs were to be written by an Independent Assessment Team ("IAT") after receiving proposals from power generators and consultation with stakeholders, including consumer groups. The IAT filed the PPAs as required on July 9, 1999 after a year of consultation. The PPAs contained a Change In Law clause that allowed a PPA Buyer to terminate its PPA obligation - if a government tax or other cost-inducing change levied on a PPA Owner “rendered” its performance of the PPA unprofitable; The AEUB was required to give public notice of the IAT's filings of its PPAs and on July 12, 1999 it did so to stakeholders and consumer representatives, advising them of the opportunity to request variances to the PPAs. In the course of October 1999 public hearings attended by dozens of municipalities, industrial consumers and consumer advocates, no participant proposed or discussed a variation to the Change in Law clause as filed by the IAT on July 9, 1999. ‘The AEUB was required to approve the PPAs as filed by the IAT, unless it was satisfied that: ‘+ the IAT did not carry out its duties in accordance with law; «the filed PPAs were obviously unreasonable; + were not supported adequately by economic analysis; or were not in the public interest. In December 1999, after the public hearings, the AEUB declared that it had not heard any grounds for variance in the PPAs. On May 8, 2000, the AEUB made and published its Order 2000-190 approving the PPAs. The approved PPAs had the same July 9, 1999 Change in Law clause requiring that Buyers prove their further PPA operation had been rendered unprofitable by government action. There was at no time discussion by the AEUB, the public hearing participants, other stakeholders, or the provincial government that the PPAs should be incorporated into a provincial regulation. The Enron Clause ‘Thursday, July 27, 2000 — nine months after the PPA public hearings and five days prior to the PPA auction - Enron’s Hemstock writes to ADRD's Charach on two Enron concerns. Enron says it wants the AEUB to amend the Board's Order 2000-190 so that Enron can have confidence in the finality of the PPA amendments it is seeking. These include that the July 9, 1999 Change in Law clause approved by the May 8, 2000 Order 2000-190 be amended to add the words “or more unprofitable” [see PPA Auction: Concerns for Bidders below). Enron wanted an amendment that would allow a PPA Buyer to transfer its PPA obligations to the public Balancing Pool and, therefore, ratepayers PPA even if a PPA was already unprofitable and not rendered unprofitable by government action - euphemistically grouped here by Hemstock as “Errata/Clarification”. And Enron wanted its “or more unprofitable” amendment to be made a subject of an amended or new AEUB order because, as Hemstock quite presciently notes: “The Board's characterization of these changes as typographical errors and minor clarifications appears to indicate a lack of appreciation of the fact that the implications of some of these changes in the entitlements and obligations of the parties to the PPAs [are] in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.” He urges Charach to have the AEUB amend its Order 2000-190 or make a new order and for the cabinet to file the new amendments to the PPAs with the Registrar according to the Regulations Act - before the auction begins on August 2, 2000 Later on Thurs, July 27, 2000 ADRD's Charach writes an e-mail to AEUB's Heagie — senior staff person to AEUB chair McCrank - and copies ADRD's legal counsel Segatto asking both men to get in touch with Hemstock about Enron’s concems and advice. Charach implies that Heggie and/or the AEUB believe that substantial amendments, such as those sought by Enron on Change in Law, cannot be made without the AEUB going back to the hearings originally convened with municipalities and others to consider variations to the July 9, 1999 PPAs. Charach says to Heggie that Hemstock “fails (sic) that the EUB could formally approve the Errata/Clarifications without a hearing. | realize you believe otherwise. Perhaps a discussion could close the gap’. Charach says to Segatto, apparently of Enron's request that the PPAs be incorporated into a regulation: “Also feel free to call Rob re: the regulation filing issue.” Charach signs off with the following note to both men, evidently on Enron’s desire for an amended or new AEUB order and government regulation: “By the way, Rob felt an agreement by the owners and the PPA buyers would not be sufficient since the PPAs are a legislated instrument and also affect consumers. Again, if you don't agree feel free to discuss this with him and maybe ‘sway him.” Friday, July 28, 2000 — four days prior to the PPA auction - an ADRD document titled “PPA Auctions: Concerns for Bidders” indicates Enron requests regarding the PPAs, including the: change in law (more unprofitable), EUB approval of errata and filing PPAs under Regulation Act The table indicates that by July 28, 2000 - one day after Hemstock’s e-mail and Charach’s urging of Heggie and Segatto to call the Enron lobbyist - that there is a tesponse ready on “or more unprofitable", a decision expected on EUB approval of errata by three days prior to start of the auction and that ADRD has already agreed to a regulation which will not be ready before the start of the auction. There is no mention of the AEUB concem that Charach attributed to Heggie that the materiality of some of the “Errata/Clarifications’ would require the AEUB to reconvene the public hearing. Note that the present government's legal proceedings challenges both whether the AEUB had authority to amend the Change in Law provision, given it does not appear to meet any of the four conditions the law imposed on the AEUB for any PPA variation and was done after public hearings on variations had already concluded and the AEUB’s result published in its Order 2000-190. PPA Auction: Coneems for Bisders sokomaiat besesscn nis oy e i]ferearadar cenecro ring Renaedenesten ten Pac. espana ant Cane — ara var ti FORGET SPNCTSF STRAUS feseraa nb poss One Ea pa rss — Ferre PRCT ESTEE, Rasps nba pan Crt fromoreowe NPV) spre em oe (Seca Reon prance Soars ee Se yo Esanos, See | 9 i co bere pear arin Feo" Resenee™ | Also on Friday, July 28, 2000 - Hemstock e-mails his colleaques in Enron's Calgary office outlining the success of his lobbying efforts, as outlined in the ADRD chart: “Subject: ADRD Response - Enforceability Risk and PPA Errata/Clarification | spoke to Larry Charach and he advised 1) He has authority from the Deputy Minister [Kenneth Smith] to request and recommend the Registrar to answer questions respecting why this is necessary and what [sic] it needs to be done on an expedited basis. Apparently, even expedited it will take a week for the registration process such that the ADRD intends to send a notice to all bidders on Monday that it has received approval for the PPAs to be registered as a regulation and that such registration will not likely be effective after the PPA auction has commenced, 2) He has spoken with the Executive Director of the AEUB, Bob Heagie, who has indicated that he intends to recommend to the Chairman of the AEUB on Monday morning that the AEUB issue an AEUB Order accepting the 26 errata/clarifications identified by PWC on June 2000 and the subsequent errata/clarifications that have been identified since. Apparently PWC will have this letter done on Monday and | expect it will include the FRDT and PRDT issue. | believe all of the following outstanding errata/clarifications have now been addressed to Enron's satisfaction: (a) NPV in RBPA (b) parasitic load (c) change in law - more profitable (d) clarification of FCR (e) FRDT and PRDT (Article C7). Regards, Rob” Hemstock then forwards the e-mail to another colleague in Enron's Toronto office adding the following to the body of the e-mail: ~...Lam quite proud of having accomplished the results we achieved in relation to identifying the requlatory risks and advocating for changes that would mitigate or eliminate many of the risks in the PPAs over the last few months. In particular, | thought to write this note to you because | am proud of the comment | received from Larry Charach this evening during our final conversation in relation to the issues described below. Larry said to me that hi to address Enron's concems at this late date was based in large part on our relationship and the trust that he has development in me as a result of having worked with me for some time.” Monday July 31, 2000 - Enron VP Richard Shapiro praises Hemstock for his work in an e-mail under the subject line “Alberta PPA", “Your work on the Alberta PPA has not gone unnoticed and really is a model for the rest of the group as to how to approach the review and analysis of a significant transaction w/ huge reg. risk- the thoroughness and quality of your work were top notch as was the teamwork you exhibited thoughout the process... not to mention the extemal leadership you provided on the issue w/ folks like Larry Charach. Thanks very much!” Enron Chief of Staff Steven Kean adds more praise: ditto — nice work Rob. Your insights on project stanley are also much appreciated. ‘Tuesday, August 1, 2000 — the day before the PPA auction begins - AEUB Chair McCrank writes to ADRD Minister Cardinal The Chair informs the minister, among other things, that the PPAs should be read as including the “or more unprofitable” language and that the "Board hereby amends the U2000-190" - the May 8, 2000 EUB order setting out the PPAs as a result of the public hearing process. Note that the present government's legal application challenges the AEUB’s authority to amend the PPAs, including that the AEUB’s power to vary them was constrained by statute and it never subsequently made a new or amending order. Wednesday, August 2, 2000 - the PPA auction commences. Thursday, August, 3, 2000 — the day after the PPA auction began, the McCrank letter is posted on a website and removed from it five weeks later. Friday, August 18, 2000 - Enron's request that the PPAs be filed as a requlation is fulfilled. The AEUB secretary purports to file Order U2000-190 (with the May 8, 2000 PPAs), two IAT letters and the August 1, 2000 McCrank letter as Power Purchase Arrangements Determination Regulation, AR 175/200. Note that the present government's legal proceedings challenge whether the AEUB had legal power to create a “regulation” as that is defined in the Regulations Act. Wed, Sept 20, 2000 - the Dispensing with Publication Requlation, AR_201/2000 is issued Itexempts the purported Power Purchase Arrangements Determination Regulation from standard publication procedures set out in the Regulations Act. Epilogue Enron's government affairs director Hemstock was justifiably proud of his achievement of altering the government's course of action in the last six days prior to the PPA auction. The government did not manage to "sway" Hemstock and the government decided on or about July 27 or 28, 2000 to “close the gap” in favour of Enron. 1. By way of Chair McCrank’s August 1 letter, the AEUB purported to amend the Change in Law clause, raised by Enron: a. after having publicly approved the original Change in Law clause by Order 2000-190 and without any new or amended public AEUB order; b. without explaining how the variation fit AEUB’s statutory restriction of only varying a PPA if the IAT did not carry out its duties in accordance with law or the filed PPA Change in Law clause was obviously unreasonable, not supported adequately by economic analysis or not in the public interest; and ¢. despite no request for varying the Change in Law clause having been raised at the public hearings and the AEUB's apparent view as late as July 27, 2000 that the AEUB could not formally approve the “Errata/Clarifications without a hearing. . Enron prevailed upon the AEUB to engage in a legally tenuous exercise of purporting to make a “regulation” out of a collection of documents including Order 2000-190 and its approved PPAs, the August 1, 2000 McCrank letter and |AT documents on the “Errata/Clarifications — a “regulation” that the provincial cabinet of the day later exempted from publication. wy Independent Assessment Tcam Report To The Alberta Energy And Utilities Board On Implementing Deregulation of Electric Generation Tn Alberia Filed on 9 July 1999 Updated on 27 August 1999 Volume 1 Justification And Economic Analysis Part | Contents © Covering Letter ( 1. Scope of Report 2. Policy Background and Major Principles 3. Determination of the orm of The Power Purchase Arrangement ‘The TAY accepts that there will be times when a bill i issued that contains errors. In this case the IAT belicves that it is appropriate that the error is promptly corrected and that interest should be paid on the correction amount. The interest provision and the reasons for choosing particula rates of interest have been dealt with in the section emitled “Interest Rate and Default Inte Rate in arise cither because the Owner has made a mistake in its calculations of in the records eps. Alternatively, the error can arise because a Pool Statement upon which the billing calculations are based contains incorrect information, In this ease the bill is incorrect, even ‘though nothing done by the Owner in calculating the bill was wrong. The [AT determined that when such Poo! Statement ertor is found, it should be treated as @ billing error and handled in the same way Errors that it int of a dispute on the Pool Statement, the Buyer has an obligation in the thermal PPA to involve the Owner in its resolution: “the Buyer shall take all reasonable steps to allow the Owner to participate in the resolution of any such dispute, and the Buyer shall not agree to resolve such dispute without the prior agreement of the Owner (such agreement nat to be unreasonably withheld)”. The LAT determined that this provision should be included in the thermal PPA because the Owner is not a Poot Participant in respect of these Units (only the Buyer is). The resolution of a dispute with the Power Poo! is likely to have an impact on the Owner's payments. The IAT therefore determined that it would be unreasonable to exclude the ‘Owner from such dispute resolution, Finally, in the (dd) Change in Law ‘This section details the considerations and rationale bebind the LAT’s determination in respect of the Change in Law provisions set down in the thermal PAs. Section 45.5(2)(a) of the Flectric Utilities Act (EUA) states that “for each generating unit [the TAT shall] determine « power purchase arrangement that ...(3) provides the owner with a reasonable opportunity to recover the fixed costs and variable costs of generating electricity The IAT considered that this section of the EVA required the IAT to determine a PPA that gave a reasonable level of protection to the Owner against the impact of costs or its ability 1o recover costs, that were out of its control. One imporiant aspect of this isthe additional casts (or losses in revenue) that the Owner might suffer because of a change in law. Section 4,3 of the thermal PPA provides for the Owner's economic position to be unaffected by changes in law which affect the Owner's costs of reventies associated with the provision of Generation Services. Any change to such cosis or revenues is to be passed on to the Buyer. The IAT is of the view that in a cost-based PPA, the Owner is not able to recover eny losses arising, from such changes, and that the Buyer is better situated to manage such risk (as it stands a good chance of being able pass on such costs to consumers through its sales of electricity), Included in the definition of “Law” are requirements imposed on the Owner with respect to interconnection standards, tariff requirements and industry reliability standards which are required under agreements which the Owner is required to enter into with respect to the delivery of electricity and system support services into the IES. The IAT included these requirements because, while they are not commonly found in a definition of “Law”, they have a similar effect s situation, The IAT did not give change in law protection for certain tax rates because an imputed amount is calculated for them in the calculation of the monthly Capacity Charge INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT TEAM 87 report tothe EUB 27 August 99 reviston storminations The Owner is required to advise the Buyer of any material effect of a change in law. The Buyer is given the opportunity to review the Owner's books to verify the effect ofa change in law. As well, the parties are given the right fo amend the schedules to the PPA to account for any change in law, Without this right, the parties would be unable to deal effectively with a ehange in few. In order to minimise the impact of the flow-through nature of @ eosis arising from a change in , the PPA requires the Owner (with the agreeinent of the Buyer, and at the Buyer's expense) to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of the change in law. It should also be noted that the Buyer is to receive the benefit of any change in law which lowers the Owner's costs or increases its revenues in respect of generation from the Units covered by the PPA. The Buyer is further protected, as the Owner is restricted in its ability to recover losses arising from a change in law to those items provided for under the PPA. ‘The cost structure set out ina particular PPA is based upon efficiency levels which the LAT views as being attainable by the Owners. If, however, an Owner were to fel to uchieve or maintain such a level without the use of additional inputs of labour of fuel, for example, additional costs arising from a change in law would, with respect to such additional inputs, not be recoverable from the Buyer. There are currently a number of meters associated with units that are not in compliance with the current requirements of the law, The IAT understands that these laws have not been enforced with respect to these meters but this policy may be about to change, Further, the eost of compliazice with these laws could be very substantial, andthe IAT notes that the Buyer will receive compensation in aceordance with the regulations for such compliance costs. ‘As well, in the event that a change in law is reasonably expected to make contintied performance by the Buyer unprofitable, the Buyer is given the ability to exit the PPA without receiving or paying a termination payment. Jn the event that either party is unable to perform its obligations under the PPA as a result of a change in law, such party may claim force majeure, (ce) Confidentiality Both the thermal PPA and the hydro PPA have a provision with respect to confidentiality. In preparing this article, the [A'T has had regard to normal contracting practice and the fact thet, over the course of the PPA, the Buyer andl Owner may well become privy to information that commercially sensitive and should be kept confidential The confidentiality article is therefore drafted on the bases that all information one party learns about the other is confidential save and except for the specific exclusions which are set out in th article. In so drafting the article, the JATT has drafied a procedure that aims to minimise the scope for doubt or raisin i The first possible exemption is the obvious one of disclosing information with the written consent of the other party. Other provisions, which permit revealing or divulging confidential information and their reasons, are 2s follows: 1) Information already in the public domain when disclosed or which enters the public domain in due course is exempt unless the disclosure was made by virtue ofa breach of the arrangement, This reflects the fact that much information eventually does enter the public INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT TEAM 68 report tothe EUB 27 August 99 revision Sundance B3 Power Purchase Arrangement () A changed or modified index or a substinuted index shall be used for all calculations required to be made pursuant to this Arrangement from and after the time that the use of such changed, modified or substituted index has been agreed upon by the Parties. Such changed, modified or substituted index shall be linked 10 the previously used index so as to avoid retrospective adjustments and shall be used to measure inflation in a variable from the level of the variable at the time the previously used index was modified, changed or substituted. 43° Change in Law (@ Subject to the provisions of this Section 4.3, this Arrangement shall be performed by the Parties from the Effective Date and throughout the Effective Term in ‘accordance with any Change in Law. (©) Subject to the provisions of this Section 4.3, the Owner shall be kept in the same financial position in respect of this Arrangement after giving effect to any Change in Law as it would have been had such Change in Law not occurred, and the amounts payable pursuant to this Arrangement shall be subject to adjustment for any Change in Law. (©) If Change in Law occurs which results in a net change in the Owner's revenues, fixed costs or variable costs associated with the provision of Generation Services pursuant to this Arrangement, such changes resulting from such Change in Law shall be passed on to the Buyer, effective from the effective date of such Change in Law, as a change to amounts otherwise payable pursuant to this Arrangement by way of a change to the monthly payments between the Parties, if practical, or otherwise as a separate payment from the Buyer to the Owner or from the Owner to the Buyer, as the case may be, as necessary to keep the Owner in the same financial position in respect of this Arrangement, after giving effect to such ‘Change in Law, as it would have been had such Change in Law not occurred. In the event of a change in the Owner's revenues or costs, other than as allowed under this Arrangement, the Owner shall not be entitled to Change in Law protection under the terms of this Section 4,3 in respect of such changes in Tevenves or costs, @ Upon the occurrence of an event referred to in Section 4.3(c) above, the Owner will advise the Buyer as to the effect such Change in Law will have on the ‘Owner's revenues, fixed costs and variable costs of the provision of Generation ‘Services, and payments between the Parties shall be adjusted accordingly on an interim basis. The Buyer shall have the right to conduct an audit of the Owner's ‘books and records to the extent necessary to verify the effect of such Change in Law. (© Notwithstanding and in the event of any of the foregoing, the Owmer shall take all reasonable steps as agreed to by the Buyer, and at the cost of the Buyer, to ‘minimize to the fullest reasonable extent (after taking account of such cost) any 6 ind Veron ‘Sundance B3 Power Purchase Arrangement 44 @ o) 0 cst @ © © ‘decrease in revenues or increase in the fixed costs or variable costs resulting from a Change in Law, After the effect of a Change in Law is determined, the Parties shall promptly make whatever final adjustments to payments which had been made on an interim as are required to give effect to such Change of Law as ofthe effective date thereof in accordance with Section 4.3(c), with interest on such adjustments for the petiod requiring adjustment atthe Interest Rate until paid. ‘The Panties shall make such amendments to the Schedules to this Arrangement as are required to give effect to this Section 4.3. To the extent that either the Owner or the Buyer is unable to perform its obligations (save and except, in all cases either the Buyer's or the Owner's inability to pay amounts to the other required hereunder or to provide any performance security called for by this Arrangement or the Regulations) as a result of a Change in Law, such event shall be an event of Force Majeure for the purposes of Article 14. {tn the event that any Change in Law requires the Owner to comply with any ‘metering or measurement legal requirements in respect of which it had previously ‘been relieved (or substantially relieved) of its obligations by means of an exemption, derogation or dispensation granted by the appropriate authority, the Buyer shall be entitled to compensation for any additional costs it must bear under the terms of this Arrangement in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. ‘Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, to the extent that a Change in Law, after siving effect thereto and to this Section 4.3, could reasonably be expected to render continued performance by the Parties to this Arrangement for the balance of the Effective Term unprofitable to the Buyer in respect of a Unit, having taken account of any compensation entitlement under Section 4.3(]) or any amount due from the Balancing Pool, then the Buyer may terminate this Arrangement and shall not be liable for, nor entitled to any Termination Payment. Notwithstanding any provision of this Arrangement, amounts payable pursuant to is Arrangement are exclusive of GST and each Party shall pay to the other, in Each Party shall be a registrant and will continue to be a registrant in accordance with the provisions of the Excise Tax Act (Cansda) from the Effective Date and forthe Effective Term. Each Party shall provide notice to the other of its GST registration number, G, July 27, 2000 (Via Email) “Without Prejudice” Mr. Larry Charach Executive Director, Electricity Department of Resource Development 5" Floor, Petroleum Plaza, North Tower 9945 - 108 Street Edmonton, Alberta TSK 266 Dear Lamy: Re: Issues Respecting the Enforceability of PPAs Enron Canada Power Corp. (Enron) wishes to express two outstanding cancems respecting the enforceabilly of the PPAs and requires the ADRD to address these Issues prior to the ‘commencement of the PPA Auction. 1._Approval of Ermata/Ciarifications by the AEB ‘AS@ potential purchaser of a PPA, Enron must ensure that the rights and obligations that are Intended by the ADRO, the IAT, the AEUB, the Owners, and the prospective purchasers to form Part ofthe tegal obligations ofthe respective parties to the PPAS doin fact do so. In the context ofthe recent errataftarfications that have been agreed toby the IAT, the risk to a purchaser Is that a court may fin that these erretectatfications do nat form pert of the PPAS. Any ‘unnecessary uncertainty inthis regard may have a materlal impact on the ability of Enron to bid in the PPA Auetlon, or atemaively, to bid 8s aggressively as it otherwise would have in the absence of this uncertainty, PPA Later Charch 7270.06 Enron understands that by leler dated July 6, 2000 to Minister Cardinal from the Chairman of Alberta Enerpy and Utilities Board that the AEUS advised that its of the view that the set of ‘corrections to the PPAs issued by the Independent Assessment Team (AT) did not alter the Intent of the PPAS and therefore the Board did not consider thal an amendment to Order U2000- 190 would be required. Respectfully, Enron is concemed that the Board Is Incorrect In is view amendment to Order U2000 - 190 Is necessary for three reasons which Firs, the Chairman Indicated in the Board's leter to the Minister that the Board recognized # for a process whereby parties, with the agreement of the IAT, would Identify and correct ‘rors in the PPAS. Enron has reviewed Decision U99073 dated August 30, 1998, Decision {U99413 dated December 24, 1999, and Order U2000-180 dated May 8, 2000. Il appears that the Board di make reference to a correction process on page 1 of Decision U99113. ‘This reference, however, simply Indicated that the Board had allowed for an error correction process Intis July 12, 1999 Public Notice of Fillng. A review ofthe July 12, 1999 Public Notice of Fling ‘aveats that ihe Board specified certain dates, prior to the deadline forthe fling of Written Requests for Variance, by which interested parties could file suggested corrections with the IAT ‘and the IAT would subsequently file a response. Therefore, this reference to a correction [process appears to be In the context of corrections thal may be made by the LAT prior to, asit {umed out, the submission by the LAT to the Board ofits revised Report dated August 27, 1999, does not appear to relate to corrections after the dates specified In the July 12, 1989 Public Notice of Fiting, Enron understands that Interested Parties to Proceeding No. 890277 received a leer from the ‘Board dated August 30, 1999 that, Inthe context of ‘errors and minor corrections’, stated the Ga following: “The Board recognizes that withthe refling ofthe thermal and hydro PAs, itis nol unreasonable that some errors may be intraduced that ‘need correction. The Board therefore expecis a correction exercise would be beneficial. Should parties agree with the IAT on suggested

    You might also like