- 32 -
partnership to retain ownership of the plant and would have
required, among other things, that the partnership recommence
operating the project, covering cash shortfalls through further
cash investments in the project up to an amount equivalent to the
tax credits previously earned from the project. On January 30,
1986, representatives of Transco Energy and ANRC met with DOE
Deputy Secretary Boggs and DOE General Counsel Farrell regarding
the restructuring proposal. The DOE representatives stated that
they found “nothing offensive” in the proposal and that DOE would
consider it and respond.
The partners continued to meet and discuss these matters.
The other partners were divided over whether to join ANRC’s
proposal to DOE. At an April 1, 1986, meeting, Transco and
Pacific agreed to participate in ANRC’s proposal, although
Pacific indicated that it intended to “take a passive position
for the present”. Tenneco and Midcon declined to participate in
ANRC’s proposal on the ground that the tax benefits they had
realized from the project were insufficient to justify the
additional capital contributions contemplated under the proposal.
Neither Tenneco nor Midcon sought, however, to obstruct the other
partners’ efforts to retain the partnership’s future involvement
in the project.
In the meantime, other events threatened to overtake the
negotiations with DOE. In February 1986, DOE had asked the
public for “expressions of interest” in acquiring or
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011