Message-ID: <5025141.1075858658487.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: stacey.bolton@enron.com
To: richard.ring@enron.com
Subject: RE: CA emissions factor
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Stacey Bolton <Stacey Bolton/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON>
X-To: Richard Ring <Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \RRING (Non-Privileged)\EESIRenewableEnergy
X-Origin: Ring-R
X-FileName: RRING (Non-Privileged)1.pst

ok, I'll look over.

Stacey Bolton
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
713-853-9916 direct=20
713-303-2632 cell=20
sbolton@enron.com <mailto:sbolton@enron.com>
=20

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Ring, Richard =20
Sent:=09Friday, August 17, 2001 11:36 AM
To:=09Bolton, Stacey
Subject:=09RE: CA emissions factor

Stacey,

Below is my response to the Texas Kinko's contract.  Let me know what you t=
hink.

Thanks,

Richard




Paul,

I am not sure how the various sections align between the "second contract v=
ersion", 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 t=
hat the Energy delivered to Customer will be associated with the generation=
 of an equivalent amount of renewable energy registered to the Customer, an=
d all the environmental attributes associated with the generation of this r=
enewable 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 attrib=
utes".  I do not want to be obligated to provide "all the environmental att=
ributes" to Customer if either (i) Enron does not acquire all of the enviro=
nmental attributes it its transaction to acquire the "renewable energy and/=
or renewable credits/attributes" or (ii) as normal course of business regar=
ding transaction of "renewable energy and/or renewable credits/attributes" =
all of the environmental attributes do not transfer with title to the "rene=
wable 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."  =20

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, photovo=
ltaic cells, geothermal heat recovery plants, landfill gas recover plants, =
and small, selective hydroelectric projects no greater than 20 MW.  These f=
acilities use existing natural systems (wind, sun, thermal heat from the ea=
rth, biological decomposition and flowing water) to generate their electric=
ity."

I would propose to not hard code the definition for "Renewable Energy" into=
 the "Master Agreement" but rather define "Renewable Energy" for each "Tran=
saction 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 Ag=
reement to this Master Agreement."=20

I would propose that the definition of "Renewable Energy" for purposes of t=
he Transaction Agreement relative to Kinko's Texas Sites should be the foll=
owing:  "Renewable Energy" means renewable energy credit which represents r=
enewable energy that is physically metered and verified in the State of Tex=
as.  Renewable energy credits in the State of Texas are derived from techno=
logy that exclusively relies on an energy source that is naturally regenera=
ted over a short time and derived directly from the sun, indirectly from th=
e sun, or from moving water or other natural movements and mechanisms of th=
e environment and include the following:  sun, wind, geothermal, hydroelect=
ric, wave or tidal energy, biomass or biomass waste products, including lan=
dfill gas, and any other source that does ont rely on energy resources deri=
ved from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil fuels, or waste products =
from inorganic sources.  For purpose of this Transaction Agreement EESI wil=
l fulfill the renewable energy requirement  exclusively from one hundred pe=
rcent (100%) wind sources generated within the State of Texas and verified =
through the Texas Renewable Energy Credit Program Administrato































From:=09Stacey Bolton/ENRON@enronXgate on 08/17/2001 08:11 AM
To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:=09=20
Subject:=09RE: CA emissions factor

Many thanks.   Want to discuss the contract language this morning?  I've go=
t an 8:30, but should be back at my desk by 9:15.

Stacey Bolton
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
713-853-9916 direct=20
713-303-2632 cell=20
sbolton@enron.com <mailto:sbolton@enron.com>
=20

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Ring, Richard =20
Sent:=09Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:58 PM
To:=09Bolton, Stacey
Subject:=09CA emissions factor

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:5=
7 PM ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>=20
Heather Mitchell
08/21/2000 05:23 PM
To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:=09cmckalip@yahoo.com =20
Subject:=09CA 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 c=
onversions 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) >>=20
Heather Mitchell
08/21/2000 04:41 PM
To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:=09cmckalip@yahoo.com=20
Subject:=09CA emissions factor

Richard,

The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh.  The source is bel=
ow.  As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the ap=
propriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/=
off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc.  However, most groups accep=
t state level emissions factors as the best available.  Also, it is my unde=
rstanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime du=
ring 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) >>=20

I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for tree=
s planted and miles driven.  While it does not list a source for the conver=
sions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the E=
nvironmental Law and Policy Center.  I will bring a copy of both by your de=
sk.  Let me know if I can help with anything else.  FYI, in the past I've b=
een a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees pl=
anted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed=
 by trees. =20

- Heather


---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Ring/HOU/EES on 08/16/2001 03:5=
7 PM ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>=20
Heather Mitchell
08/21/2000 04:41 PM
To:=09Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES
cc:=09cmckalip@yahoo.com=20
Subject:=09CA emissions factor

Richard,

The California CO2 emissions factor is 0.343 MT CO2/MWh.  The source is bel=
ow.  As I mentioned during our phone call, there is some debate over the ap=
propriate emissions factor to use, given emission differences between peak/=
off-peak utility generation vs. purchases, etc.  However, most groups accep=
t state level emissions factors as the best available.  Also, it is my unde=
rstanding that the emissions factors are supposed to be revised sometime du=
ring 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) >>=20

I found a page on the Green Mountain web site that has conversions for tree=
s planted and miles driven.  While it does not list a source for the conver=
sions, I did notice that the numbers are the same as the ones used by the E=
nvironmental Law and Policy Center.  I will bring a copy of both by your de=
sk.  Let me know if I can help with anything else.  FYI, in the past I've b=
een a little hesitant to express GHG savings in terms of number of trees pl=
anted because of the difficulties involved in measuring the carbon absorbed=
 by trees. =20

- Heather



