Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: [WREGIS-WG] Fw: WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis

Expand Messages
  • Jan Hamrin
    ... From: Dean Cooley To: Jan Hamrin Cc: Jack Pigott Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:21 PM Subject: RE: [WREGIS-WG] Fw: WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:21 PM
      Subject: RE: [WREGIS-WG] Fw: WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis

      Ms. Harmin


      Calpine's Geysers Power Company offers the attached comments to the WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis.  Should you have any questions about our comments, please let me know.


      Dean Cooley

      Geysers Power Scheduling Manager

      Tel:   707-431-6077

      Fax:  707-431-6286


      P.S.  I saw that you are also scheduled to be a speaker at the National Green Power Marketing Conference next week, and hope we will have the opportunity to introduce ourselves there. 

      ----- Original Message -----

      Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 4:10 PM

      Subject: RE: [WREGIS-WG] Fw: WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis


      Ms. Hamrin:


      While reading through the WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis, one question/uncertainty kept flashing in my mind.  I telephoned your office this afternoon, but your receptionist said you would be out for the remainder of the day so I thought I would try phrasing my concern in an email.  In the draft document, the terms Generator (an entity, such as Calpine's Geysers Power Company, who owns a renewable facility) and generator (a piece of spinning copper which produces green electrons) seem to be used almost interchangeably. 


      As I read the draft multi-fee structure (and while admitting that I did not participate in any of the conference calls leading up to this draft) I tried to imagine how it would apply to a geothermal facility like our Geysers operation (1 Generator, 11 plants connected to the ISO grid, 14 units/generators), or to a hypothetical wind farm (1 Generator/Owner, 1 connection to the ISO grid, with ten 1.5 mw units/generators feeding that connection).


      Would the "One-Time Generator Registration Fee" of $250 apply to each of the 11 geothermal connections (or 1 wind connection), or would it apply to each of the 14 geothermal units/generators (10 wind turbines)?


      Would the $1000/year apply to each owner, each connection, or each unit/generator?


      I will be taking the draft home and reading it this evening in a little quieter setting than I had today, so maybe I'll discover my answers in that second reading, but if you get this email and can provide a short reply I would appreciate it.        




      Dean Cooley

      Geysers Power Scheduling Manager

      Tel:   707-431-6077

      Fax:  707-431-6286


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jan Hamrin [mailto:jhamrin@...]
      Thursday, September 23, 2004 5:30 PM
      To: WREGIS Working Group
      Subject: [WREGIS-WG] Fw: WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis
      Importance: High


      Due to the size of the attachments, I am dividing this email into two pieces.  Thank you for your patience.






      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Jan Hamrin

      Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:31 PM

      Subject: WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis


      Attached is the WREGIS Cost & Revenue Analysis paper.  It incorporates some suggestions from the Institutional Committee call on this topic.  For more background, the notes from the 9.17.04 IC call are on the WREGIS/Yahoo website.  In addition, I have attached comments on the original paper from PG&E and the CEC Legal Office.


      Comments are due by COB Thursday, September 30th.


      Your task is to provide guidance to the WREGIS Sponsors who will set the initial WREGIS Fee structure once WREGIS actual costs are known.   The areas where we are seeking guidance are:

      1.Types of fees -- Do you agree with the set of fees described in the paper?  If not, why not and what would you recommend?

      2.Cost distribution -- The paper recommends an approach where the majority of WREGIS costs would be covered by volumetric fees.  Do you agree with this or believe more of the costs should be covered through fixed fee(s) of some kind? If so why, if not, why not?

      3.Placement of the volumetric fee -- For a volumetric fee, do you think it should be placed at the point of creation of the REC or at the point of retirement of some other option?  What and why? 

      A critical point to remember is that the broader the participation in WREGIS the less each participant will have to pay in fees.  Since WREGIS is voluntary, except for CA/RPS compliance, how can WREGIS fees best be structured to cover WREGIS costs and encourage as much voluntary participation as possible?


      Please feel free to call or email me if you have questions or need clarification on something in the paper.  We appreciate your participation in the WREGIS process and look forward to hearing your comments.





      Jan Hamrin






      Jan Hamrin, Ph.D
      Executive Director
      Center for Resource Solutions
      P.O. Box 29512
      Presidio Building #97,  Arguello Blvd.
      San Francisco, CA  94129
      Ph:  415/561-2100
      Fax: 415/561-2105
      email: jhamrin@...
      Information on CRS programs is available at www.resource-solutions.org
      Curious about Green-e and green power? Check out www.green-e.org

      Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS)

      If you wish to participate in or receive updates on the development process,
      please see: http://www.westgov.org/wieb/wregis/committees.htm

      If you have any questions, please contact:
      Matthew Lehman at mlehman@... / 415-561-2100
      Nellie Tong at ntong@... / 510-891-0446

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.