McCrea Correspondence

7/29/2019 McCrea Correspondence

1/107

1

Medina, Natalia (CONTR)

From: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 2:56 PMTo: Carlson, JaimeSubject: Accepted: Key Drivers in Credit Subsidy Cost

Jim McCrea Correspondence 1


2/107

From: jim McCrea

To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)

Subject: Credit Subsidy Analysis

Date: Thursday, November 03, 2011 5:29:52 PM

Attachments: 110311 Credit Subsidy Summary.pdf

Jim

_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea

JAMES McCREA & ASSOCIATES LLC

272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]



3/107

From: Khan, Zuhair

To: "[email protected]"; "[email protected]";""[email protected]" ([email protected])"; Sprung, Lloyd; Sieh,Stephen;Yi, Bo ; Gupta, Pranav; Richardson, Susan; Carlson, Jaime; Whitcombe, Nicholas;[email protected]; McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Donovan, Nancy

Subject: Credit subsidy discussion

Dial-in:ID:

________________________________The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of thismessage is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are herebynotified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received thiscommunication in error, please immediately notify us by email, and destroy the original message. Thank you


(b) (2)(b) (2)


4/107

From: Miller, Jason

To: Whitcombe, Nicholas; Richardson, Susan; [email protected]; McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Colyar, Kelly T.;Carroll, Kevin; Lyberg, Sarah A.; Engle, Sarah; Robinson, Donovan

Cc: Rowe, David; Timberlake, Courtney B.; Neuman, Melissa

Subject: Credit subsidy discussion

When: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:15 AM-11:15 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).Where: Call in: 202.395.6392 Code: 512.5186Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*UPDATED: We have moved back by 15 minutes due to a 9:30 call that is now running behind.



5/107

From: Winters, Matthew

To: "[email protected]"; "Anthony Curcio"; McCrea, Jim (CONTR)

Subject: Credit Subsidy Discussion

Attachments: BCTD v4.pptx

When: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 2:30 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).Where: Call-in: (605) 475-4000 - Passcode: 338287#

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Brian/Anthony-

I am attending a meeting at the White House tomorrow with OMB and representatives of the Building Trades union to discuss the TitleXVII credit subsidy calculation methodology. The BT folks have some concerns

and theyve requested this meeting to discuss them. I know very little about these issues, but Ivebeen asked to attend as the DOE representative.

Would you mind taking a look at the attached slide deck in which OMB lays out the unions concerns, and puts forward the proposedresponse? Id love to hear your thoughts on the issues, and comments on the Administrations proposed response.

Thanks very much.

Matt

From: Carroll, KevinSent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:44 AMTo: Levine, Brian S.; Winters, MatthewCc: Timberlake, Courtney B.; Ericsson, Sally C.; Colyar, Kelly T.; Dick, John ; Lyberg, Sarah A.; Mertens, Richard A.Subject: Bldg trades meeting tomorrow

Attached is a draft of the points we want to make in the meeting tomorrow, based on Brians outline from last week. Per ourmanagements instruction, we will be rewriting these as talkers and reorganizing to have each point and counterpoint(s) together.

We would use an agenda rather than hand out the slides, because our mgt is concerned that we would need a more formal responseto be signed off if we were to give them paper to carry. We will work on the agenda also, but it will essentially be the capital letteritems.


(b) (5)


6/107

From: Winters Matthew

To: McCrea Jim (CONTR)

Subject: Fw: Accurate?

Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 7:27:03 AM

Jim-

Are you ok with this ? Thanks.

From : Winters, MatthewTo: 'jim McCrea'

Sent : Mon Dec 27 16:34:24 2010Subject : RE: Accurate?

Thanks again.

I consolidated your pre-closing efforts to the following. Are you ok with this? Specifically, is it accurate to say that the

Thanks.

Credit

Reviews transaction docs as they are prepared To ensure that credit concerns are adequately addressed

Final Credit review by ratings agency

Prepare final cash flows and credit subsidy analysis Final transaction cash flows are prepared with FFB input

Prepare/Submit final packet to OMB and Treasury Packet includes: original pre-CRB OMB packet; revised

presentation identifying changes; final term sheet; updated third-

party reports; final financial model; final risk rating and recovery

matrices; credit rating cross-walk; and final cash flows and credit

subsidy analysis.

Brief OMB/Treasury

Respond to OMB/Treasury Questions in Writing

OMB approves credit subsidy score

From: jim McCrea [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:51 PMTo: Winters, MatthewSubject: RE: Accurate?Here is a revised power point. My changes are in red so they should show up. I figure that you can take what you want of this for inclusion

in the other. I tried not to overdo things but Credit gets involved very early and serves a role that is far more than simply a review function.

Holler if you have questions. After 4, I should still be able to respond to e-mails while on the call with OMB which is scheduled for an hour.

Jim

_____________________________________________James C. McCrea

JAMES McCREA & ASSOCIATES LLC272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: Winters, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:39 PMTo: 'jim McCrea'Subject: RE: Accurate?Thank yoU!

From: jim McCrea [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:38 PMTo: Winters, MatthewSubject: RE: Accurate?Got them. Working away. You should have them before 4PM as I have a call with OMB on at 4.Jim

_____________________________________________James C. McCrea


Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: Winters, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:32 PMTo: 'jim McCrea'Subject: RE: Accurate?


(b) (5)

(b) (5)


7/107

You should now have both documents.

From: jim McCrea [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:19 PMTo: Winters, MatthewSubject: RE: Accurate?Can you send me the table as a separate document so that I can edit it. Need to add some things.Jim

_____________________________________________James C. McCreaJAMES McCREA & ASSOCIATES LLC272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:12 PMTo: [email protected]: FW: Accurate?-------------------------------------------

From Winters, Matthew

Sent Monday, December 27, 2010 3:12:19 PMTo McCrea, Jim

Subject Accurate?

Auto forwarded by a Rule

Jim-

Have I accurately and benignly captured the steps in the pre-Conditional Commitment and pre-Closing credit and interagency review process, for purposes of a generic "Chronology" of a

Title XVII Loan Guarantee? Thanks.

I've attached a Power Point version of this chart which attempts to place each task in the proper relative chronological order too.

Matt

Pre Conditional Commitment

Credit

Credit Paper review/approval

Credit Advisor receives draft Credit Paper from Origination

Reviews draft Credit Paper Review includes analysis of underlying documents and deal terms

Develops/edits Credit Paper with Orig ination Team Advisor seeks additional info, c larif ication, analysis

Approves Credit Paper

Approval of Risk and Recovery Matrices

Receive draft matrices from Origination

Review draft matrices

Discuss and Develop matrices with Origination Team

Approve matrices

Review, edit, and approve CC/CRB

packetReview includes: PP Slides, Credit Paper, Term Sheet, and IE Report.

Review and approve OMB/Treasury

Packet

Reviews/approves: PP Slides; Project Model; Credit Paper; Proposed Term Sheet; Risk/Recovery Matrices; and

IE Report

Pre-Closing

Credit

Final Credit review by ratings

agency

Prepare/Submit final packet

to OMB and Treasury

Packet includes: original pre-CRB OMB packet; Final Term Sheet; updated IE report; updated Financial Model; final Risk

Rating and Recovery Matrices; final Credit Rating report; Rating Cross-Walk.

Respond to OMB/Treasury

Questions in Writing

OMB approves credit subsidy

score



8/107

From: McCrea, Jim

To: "[email protected]"

Subject: FW: Appropriations Restriction

Date: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:02:00 PM

-----Original Message-----From: Leong, AlvinSent: Monday, April 05, 2010 6:30 PMTo: DL-CF-1.3 Federal Staff; DL-CF-1.3 Contractor StaffSubject: Appropriations Restriction

Please note that the restriction described below applies (as indicated) to the Omnibus Appropriations Actof 2009, and, as such, does not apply to loan guarantees funded under other appropriations authority.For example, the restriction does not apply to loan guarantees for projects that have their credit subsidycosts paid under Section 1705 (a program funded under the Recovery Act).

Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, please let one of the attorneys know if you do have a project

that may have other Federal involvement, even if the project appears to be Section 1705-eligible.

Please also note that we have posted an FAQ on this topic:

http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/faq2.htm#17.

-----Original Message-----From: Leong, AlvinSent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:13 PMTo: DL-CF-1.3 Federal Staff; DL-CF-1.3 Contractor StaffSubject: Appropriations Restriction

Please be aware that there is a restriction in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 relating to the

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program that prevents the making of loan guarantees tosupport any project where funds, personnel or property of any Federal agency, instrumentality,personnel or affiliated entity are expected to be used, directly or indirectly, to support the project orobtain goods or services from the project.

The restriction is broadly worded and applies to acquisitions, contracts, demonstrations, exchanges,grants, incentives, leases, procurements, sales, other transaction authority, or other arrangements. Asan example, it would apply to off-take agreements with Federal entities. The provision contains somelimited exceptions.

Please contact the Chief Counsel's Office if you have any questions or are aware of a project that maybe restricted as described above.

Alvin LeongAttorney AdvisorU.S. Department of Energy202-287-5621



9/107


10/107

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

From: James C McCrea Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 07:43:46 -0400To: ; Subject: FW: Credit Subsidy ModelWell, what is going on?

Jim

_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 7:41 AMTo: [email protected]: FW: Credit Subsidy Model

-------------------------------------------From: Frantz, DavidSent: Friday, May 14, 2010 7:41:05 AM

To: McCrea, JimSubject: FW: Credit Subsidy ModelAuto forwarded by a RuleWhats this for goodness sake?

David G. Frantz

US Department of EnergyDirector, Loan Guarantee Office, CF-1.3

Office: (202) 586-8361 Fax: (202) 586-7366

[email protected]


In consultation with OMB


11/107




12/107

From: Seward, Lachlan

To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); "morrell"; Rossotti, Edward; "[email protected]"; Sumner, William;"[email protected]"; Donatucci, Robert; Mates, Michael; [email protected]

Subject: FW: DOE Credit Subsidy Model walkthrough

When: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).Where: 4B-127


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

-----Original Appointment---- -From: Seward, LachlanSent: Friday, July 09, 2010 12:23 PMTo: Seward, Lachlan; Rossotti, Edward; Sumner, William; Donatucci, Robert; Mates, Michael; morrell; HYPERLINK"mailto:[email protected]" [email protected]; HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]"[email protected]; HYPERLINK "mailto:[email protected]" [email protected]: DOE Credit Subsidy Model walkthroughWhen: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).Where: 4B-127



13/107

From: James C McCrea


Subject: FW: DOE OMB Transaction Processing Framework

Date: Thursday, May 06, 2010 10:17:27 AM

Attachments: DOE Detailed Transaction Framework 022610.doc

Jim

_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: James C McCrea [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 2:27 PMTo: 'Silver, Jonathan'Subject: FW: DOE OMB Transaction Processing FrameworkJonathan

Here is the latest I have which is what we sent to you.

Jim

_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: James C McCrea [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 8:48 AMTo: 'Silver, Jonathan'Cc: 'Frantz, David'; 'Roger McDaniel'; 'Brian Oakley'; '[email protected]'; 'Saltiel, David'Subject: DOE OMB Transaction Processing Framework

Jonathan

Here is the latest draft of the framework.

I made a few minor word changes including .

I have reviewed the draft and feel that it is precise in what both DOE and OMB

deliverables are and the timetable for deliveries by OMB. Many of the items do not have


(b) (5)


14/107

dates attached to them . However, the process for OMB

approving the Credit Subsidy Costs estimates can be, and is, clearly articulated.

Jim

_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


272 Newtown Tpk.Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]


(b) (5)


15/107

From: jim McCrea


Subject: FW: Fixed Rate FIPP Subsidy Treatment

Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:52:31 PM

Jim

_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:38 PMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; Anthony Curcio ([email protected]);[email protected]: Fixed Rate FIPP Subsidy Treatment

Jim & Roger,

Please see text below that Anthony and I developed. Long story short: no further adjustment

required. I expect well need further interaction with OMB on the matter.

Regards,

Brian

Kelly,

DOE has reviewed the options available for the FIPP fixed rate guarantee.

Here is what we have found:


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)


16/107

In summary, at this time we know the following key inputs to credit subsidy for FIPP fixed rate loan

guarantees:

1. The discount rate;2. Amortization schedule;3. Interest rate associated with the guaranteed obligation;4. The default frequency over time; and5. The recovery rate.

Together, these inputs provide for the cost to and from the government associated with the loan

guarantee. Moving forward, DOE proposes


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)


17/107


For consult with OMB


18/107


For consult with OMB


19/107

From: Richardson, Susan


Subject: FW: Letter to Secretary Chu from Reps. Cummings and Kucinich

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:00:13 AM

Attachments: 2011 0803.EEC-DJK to DOE.credit subsidy fees-nuclear powerplant construction.pdf

fyi

From: Davis, ChristopherSent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 5:53 PMTo: Lane, Jeff; Jenkins, Amelia; Lev, Sean; Fygi, Eric; Leistikow, Dan; LaVera, Damien; Silver, Jonathan;Winters, Matthew; Richardson, Susan; De Vos, EricaSubject: FW: Letter to Secretary Chu from Reps. Cummings and KucinichSee the attached letter to Sec. Chu from Reps. Cummings and Kucinich regarding the CBO report on

credit subsidy calculations for nuclear loan guarantees. The letter, which is also on the

committees minority website, flags the CBO report for our attention and expresses concerns about

the nuclear subsidy calculations. However it also notes that that the Members do not have any

reason to believe that DOEs calculation of credit subsidy fees for other energy technologies is

inappropriate. The letter asks for a meeting to discuss the CBO findings. I am planning to suggest

a staff level discussion as a first step, which I expect the committee staff would accept.

CED

From: Hultberg, Carla [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 5:17 PMTo: Davis, Christopher

Subject: Letter to Secretary Chu from Reps. Cummings and KucinichPlease see the attached letter to DOE Secretary Chu from Reps. Cummings and Kucinich.

Thank you, Carla Hultberg

_________________________________________

Carla Hultberg

Minority Chief Clerk/Office Administrator

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

U.S. House of Representatives

(202) 225-5668 or (bb) 202-595-4740



20/107


To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); "Brian Oakley"

Cc: deForest, Alicia; Fygi, Eric

Subject: FW: Loan Guarantee Documents

Date: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:46:54 AM

Kucinich Staff briefing at 2 PM Tuesday April 13 confirmed.

I note that I (plus Scott Harris, Jonathan Silver and others) have been summoned to a

conference call this PM w/ OMB on the subject of nuclear loans and credit subsidy

this afternoon. Assume it is motivated by this issue. So stay tuned.

From: Schulman, Howard [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:37 AMTo: Richardson, SusanCc: Bourke, Jaron; [email protected]: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsYes, Susan. Im sorry I didnt get back to you to confirm that sooner.

I will email you a room number as soon as we determine the precise location.

See you on Tuesday,

Howard

From: Richardson, Susan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:56 AM

To: Schulman, HowardCc: Bourke, Jaron; deForest, Alicia; '[email protected]'; Levy, JonathanSubject: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsHoward, should I consider this confirmed? thnx

From: Richardson, SusanSent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:11 AMTo: 'Schulman, Howard'Cc: Bourke, Jaron; deForest, Alicia; [email protected]; Levy, JonathanSubject: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsHoward, We suggest 2:00 - 3:30 PM on Tuesday April 13.

From: Schulman, Howard [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:37 AMTo: Richardson, SusanCc: Bourke, Jaron; deForest, Alicia; [email protected]; Levy, JonathanSubject: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsProbably around 90 minutes, more or less.



21/107

H

From: Richardson, Susan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:24 AMTo: Schulman, HowardCc: Bourke, Jaron; deForest, Alicia; [email protected]; Levy, Jonathan

Subject: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsHow much time were you thinking of?

From: Schulman, Howard [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:22 AMTo: Richardson, SusanCc: Bourke, Jaron; deForest, Alicia; [email protected]; Levy, JonathanSubject: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsSusan,

Right now, we can meet any time on Monday or Tuesday. You may want to make it Tuesday to

maximize the chance that OMB will be able to join us. Caryn is out of her office until Monday.

Please let us know as soon as possible so that we can block out that time slot.

Thanks,

Howard

From: Richardson, Susan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 6:16 PM

To: Schulman, HowardCc: Bourke, Jaron; deForest, Alicia; [email protected]; Levy, JonathanSubject: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsHoward, We would like to schedule the technical briefing for early next week. Can

you suggest some times that would work for you? Alicia and I will plan to come

with two DOE consultants who are most familiar with the credit subsidy model and

process. It would, no doubt, be preferable to have an OMB representative at the

briefing as well, but I am not in a position to speak for OMBs availability.

Accordingly, particularly in light of your timing requirements, we would like to go

ahead and schedule a DOE briefing. We will, of course, be happy to have OMB join

if is someone is available. Look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Susan

From: Schulman, Howard [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:51 AM



22/107

To: Richardson, SusanCc: Bourke, JaronSubject: RE: Loan Guarantee DocumentsSusan,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Is there any chance that you could schedule the technical briefing soon? Wed like to talk to thepeople who are most knowledgeable on the model, if possible some time in the next seven days.

Thanks again,

Howard

From: Richardson, Susan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:30 PMTo: Schulman, Howard; [email protected]: Bourke, Jaron; deForest, AliciaSubject: RE: Loan Guarantee Documents

Howard, How did your vacation end so quickly?? (I hope it was good.) We are

working feverishly to pull together responsive materials; and also hoping to

schedule a technical briefing on credit subsidy. Working around spring holidays has

been a challenge, but I hope to have more specifics by Wednesday. Kind regards,

susan

From: Schulman, Howard [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:35 PM

To: Richardson, Susan; [email protected]: Bourke, JaronSubject: Loan Guarantee DocumentsSusan and Caryn,

I am writing to check what progress has been made on the documents and questions we discussed on

March 25. We would like to get as much additional information and documentation as we can before

the hearing, which is now scheduled for 2pm on Tuesday, April 20, 2010.

Sincerely,

Howard Schulman



23/107


24/107

2. Is the credit subsidy fee a one-time payment?

3. Is there any situation in which the credit subsidy fee is reevaluated after it is paid, and an increasedfee is required, if circumstances change or problems arise?

4. Is there any amount that would be deemed too large to be considered as a loan guarantee?

It is our understanding that the answers to these questions are 1)b, 2)yes, 3)no and 4)no, but we wantto confirm that we are correct.

Thanks for your help,

Howard

-----Original Message-----From: Utech, Dan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:04 PMTo: Schulman, HowardSubject: RE: Loan Program Briefing

What's the best number to reach you at?

-----Original Message-----From: Schulman, Howard [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:42 AMTo: Utech, DanCc: Richardson, Susan; [email protected]; Bourke, JaronSubject: RE: Loan Program Briefing

Dan,

I understand your concerns, but there are a few questions that we need answers to very soon (i.e., inthe next two days) so that we can prepare for the hearing that we are holding next week. These are"conceptual"

questions, not questions that require any technical detail to answer. Is it possible to arrange a telephonecall so that we can get answers to these questions asap?

Howard

-----Original Message-----From: Utech, Dan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:02 PMTo: Schulman, HowardCc: 'Eltrich, Katherine A.'Subject: Loan Program Briefing

Hi Howard-

I work in the Secretary's office at DOE, and am reaching out about the loan program briefing that DOEstaff have been working on with you. We believe that it's critical that DOE and OMB conduct thisbriefing jointly, but unfortunately we're not going to be able to pull that off for next week. However, weare committed to doing the briefing soon after that, and we will be getting you proposed dates andtimes early next week. Jonathan Silver and Sally Ericsson will be leading the briefing. Thanks for youpatience. Have a good weekend.

Dan Utech



25/107

Senior Advisor to the SecretaryU.S. Department of [email protected]



26/107

From: James C McCrea


Subject: FW: OMB Process

Date: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:03:58 AM

Jim_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]

From: James C McCrea [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 6:41 PMTo: 'Fridell, Monique'; 'Tobin, Daniel'; 'Repetti, Ted'; 'Paul Ameer'; Steve Shulman([email protected]); 'Renee Sass'; 'Julie Stewart'; Steve Fisher ([email protected]);'[email protected]'; 'Anthony Curcio'; 'matt Kittell'; 'Hodges, Sven'; 'Ku, Ruth'; 'Leong, Alvin';Kim, Dong; Don BennettCc: 'Frantz, David'; 'Seward, Lachlan'Subject: OMB ProcessMonique, Dan, Ted et al.

Since you have the potential June transactions, I am writing to let you know that the

process for dealing with OMB is changing. What I am laying out below has not been

agreed upon but is likely to form the basis for an agreement between DOE/OMB/Treasuryand FFB. The purpose is to insure that, in accordance with the wishes of the 7th floor, as

expressed Friday evening, we can go to CRB with OMB approval of the credit subsidy cost

and having completed the required consultation with Treasury. Part of the objective is to

. While this has not yet been agreed

upon (discussions occurred this weekend) I still thought it important to give you a heads up

as a process like I describe below is likely to apply to your transactions and you need to

take such a process into consideration as you plan your work and schedules. Whether

this is the exact process or not, the point is

Dave and I will keep you posted as this effort progresses and it is likely that there will be

agreement an agreement this week.

POTENTIAL PROCESS


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)


27/107

Jim_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


272 Newtown Tpk.

Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]


(b) (5)


28/107


To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); "[email protected]"

Subject: Info neeed for revised Recover Rate Memo

Date: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:41:30 AM

Attachments: RevRecoveryRatingMemo (V.2).docx

Jim/Brian-

Ive incorporated almost all of Jonathans edits to the Recover Rate memo. I have

highlighted in YELLOW some additional information that I was hoping you could complete

(and then return to me a draft that includes them). They are:

1.

.

Iwelcome any other comments/edits (though Jonathan has already reviewed most of this).

Thanks very much.

Jonathan would like tocirculate this memo by mid-afternoon---so Id appreciate if you

could turn these around quickly. Thanks again.

Matt

Matthew A. Winters

Senior Advisor, Loan Programs

U.S. Department of Energy

(o) 202.287.6262

(c) 202.407.2400


(b) (5)


29/107

[email protected]



30/107

From: Silver, Jonathan


Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:59:55 PM

When this afternoon are we meeting on the credit subsidy model? I'd like to do that soon.

Jonathan SilverExecutive DirectorLoan ProgramsUS Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20585Phone: 202-287-5900email: [email protected]



31/107



Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:05:09 PM

Can you give me a working definition of the credit subsidy fee that will make sense to a reporter.Thanks.




32/107



Date: Thursday, April 08, 2010 12:00:52 PM

Can you talk me through the basics of the credit subsidy model again while we are at the lgp party.thanks,




33/107

From: Otness, Chris on behalf ofSilver, Jonathan

To: Harris, Scott Blake; McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Isakowitz, Steve; Richardson, Susan; Frantz, David; Hanson,Christopher; Miller, Bryan; Dickerson, Katharine

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: OMB/CBO/LGPO Meeting on Credit Subsidy

Start: Monday, August 09, 2010 10:30:00 AM

End: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:30:00 AM

Location: CBO: Room Number 483 - Ford House Office Building

When: Monday, August 09, 2010 10:30 AM-11:30 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).Where: CBO: Room Number 483 - Ford House Office Building


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

All I do not think it has been decided who makes the most sense to attend this meeting but I wanted to make sure that this is on allof your radars. I will update the room number as soon as I hear back from CBO/OMB. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Chris OtnessLoan ProgramsU.S. Department of Energy

Room: 4A-087(O) 202.287.5900(C) 202.525.9318(F) 202.287.5816



34/107



Subject: Question

Date: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:53:38 PM

Jim-

This is inthe context of some questions being asked by the House appropriations

committee staff. Do you think this is a fair response: Thanks.

Hai is checking on bullet #1.

On the others, it cant really be broken down like that. Here a very much oversimplified

order of likely credit subsidy score (from highest to lowest) fullyrecognizing that each

score is highly, highly project-specific so these are gross oversimplifications.

1.

From: Hanson, Christopher

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:25 PMTo: Winters, Matthew; Duong, Hai; Barwell, OwenCc: Gonzales Harsha, MarcosSubject: RE: Attached Image

Thanks.

Based on your response below Follow up questions from Taunja:

You mention that FIPP projects are more mature than innovative projects. Howmany of each under 1705? Which ones are FIPP/Commercial/Innovative?

Which kinds of projects have higher scores? Wind? Solar? Can you provideaverage credit subsidy scores by sector?

You mention a plug number for projects with term sheets out is the plugbased on the type of project? If not, how do you determine what the plug should be?

Thanks again.


(b) (5)


35/107

Matthew A. Winters

Senior Advisor, Loan Programs


(o) 202.287.6262

(c) 202.407.2400

[email protected]



36/107


37/107


38/107


39/107


To: Frantz, David; McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Silver, Jonathan

Subject: RE:

Date: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:29:21 PM

yup

-----Original Message-----From: Frantz, DavidSent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:34 AMTo: Richardson, Susan; McCrea, Jim; Silver, JonathanSubject: RE:

Yes but the form or structure can be agreed at closing but not operative until funding.

David G. FrantzUS Department of EnergyDirector, Loan Guarantee Office, CF-1.3Office: (202) 586-8361 Fax: (202) 586-7366 [email protected]

-----Original Message-----From: Richardson, SusanSent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:24 AMTo: McCrea, Jim; Frantz, David; Silver, JonathanSubject: RE:

The terms - or a form of agreement.

-----Original Message-----From: McCrea, JimSent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:20 AM

To: Richardson, Susan; Frantz, David; Silver, JonathanSubject: RE:

Totally agree and there is no reason that one can't be in place.

Jim

Jim McCreaContractor & Senior Credit AdvisorLoan ProgramsU.S. Department of [email protected](203) 247-2791

-----Original Message-----From: Richardson, SusanSent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:03 AMTo: Richardson, Susan; Frantz, David; Silver, JonathanCc: McCrea, JimSubject: RE:

It occurs to me (not for purposes of briefing, but our internal thinking) that, absent extenuating


(b) (5)


40/107


41/107

Cc: McCrea, JimSubject: RE:

This is easy from my perspective, and I have conveyed the same to OMB yesterday, however I will letSusan opine:

1.) The commitment letter/term sheets are always superseded by the actual loan documents.

2.) The loan documents in their total are the legally binding contracts governing all aspects of thetransaction/transactions involved for the project. Therefore, there is little difference if a CP relates to aclosing event or to a funding event as long as the language is perfected in the documents. It is mostcommon for there to be CP's to funding in transactions and this in no way contributes to enhanced risk.In fact, CP's to first funding are in of themselves designed to mitigate risk.

Susan may wish to further elaborate on these assertions.

Dave

David G. FrantzUS Department of EnergyDirector, Loan Guarantee Office, CF-1.3Office: (202) 586-8361 Fax: (202) 586-7366 [email protected]

-----Original Message-----From: Silver, JonathanSent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 7:40 AMTo: Frantz, David; Richardson, SusanSubject:

I need talking points for why cp's to first funding also make sense and are permitted and how we can

protect the public (documents control; further de risks, etc) Thanks.

Jonathan SilverExecutive DirectorLoan ProgramsU.S. Department of Energy

[email protected]


(b) (5)


42/107

From: Mwavua, Andrew


Subject: RE: A few high-level questions on LGPO Credit Policy

Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:06:37 PM

Very well, thank you so very much I know that youre very busy, so I appreciate this even more.

Andrew

From: McCrea, JimSent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:06 PMTo: Mwavua, AndrewSubject: RE: A few high-level questions on LGPO Credit Policy

Andrew --

I think I am available in the morning but there are some things moving

around. Will confirm later today.

For now, here are some answers embedded in red, bold, caps.

Jim

James C. McCrea

Senior Credit Advisor

Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791

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

From: Mwavua, Andrew

Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:08 PM

To: McCrea, Jim

Subject: A few high-level questions on LGPO Credit Policy

Jim,

It was a pleasure to have met you on Friday last week, when Kimberly Arigbede

introduced us.

I am the analyst within CFO that has been assigned to the loan programs. Our

office (the Office of Risk Management within the Office of the CFO) is

working complete our analysis on Recovery Act challenges for LGPO for Steve

Isakowitz, the CFO, by COB tomorrow. As we discussed, I will be sending you

a meeting request later today. In the meantime, I was hoping the below

questions are brief and high-level enough for you to initially respond prior

to our meeting? Thank you in advance.



43/107

1) When is a credit subsidy % or range determined within LGPO?

THERE IS A 3 PART PROCESS FOR THE CREDIT SUBSIDY COSTS. EACH STEP IS CALLED

A GATE. GATE 1 IS A BROAD RANGE CALCULATION AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION

WITH NO DOE ANALYSIS. IT RELIES ON THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE IN THE

APPLICATION AND THE RATING AGENCY CREDIT ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED WITH THE

APPLICATION. CERTAIN CASH FLOWS ARE GENERATED AND SUBMITTED FTO OMB FOR

APPROVAL.

GATE 2 OCURS AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL COMMITMENT STAGE. THIS IS PREPARED

AS THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR GOING TO CRB IS COMPLETED. DOE GENERATES

RISK AND RECOVERY RATINGS BASED ON ITS ANALYIS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THEN

CASH FLOWS WHICH ARE SENT TO OMB FOR APPROVAL.

GATE 3 IS PART OF THE TRANSACTION CLOSING PROCESS AND RESULTS IN S SINGLE

POINT CREDIT SUBSIDY COST BASED ON THE DOE RISK AND RECOVERY TRATINGS AND

CASH FLOWS. THIS IS APPROVED BY OMB. AT THIS POINT, UNDER T17, THE

OBKLIGATING EVENT OCURS.

UNDER ATVM, THE OBLIGATING EVENT AND THE SINGLE POINT CREDIT SUBSIDY COST

OCURS AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL COMMITMENT PHASE WHEN THE TRANSACTION IS

TAKEN TO CRB.

2) When do we first share it with OMB, and when do the respond initially? SEE

ABOVE.

(I know that ultimately, the final credit

subsidy rate is 30 days before closing). ACTUALLY NOT. WE GET A FINAL CREDIT

SUBSIDY COST ABOUT 3 DAYS BEFORE CLOSING WHICH IS AT THE END OF A PROCESS

WHICH COMMENCED 28 DAYS (CALENDAR NOT BUSINESS) PRIOR TO CLOSING WHEN A FULL

PACKAGE OF MATERIAL IS PROVIDED TO OMB INCLUDING THE FINAL CASH FLOWS FOR THE

CREDIT SUBSIDY COST CALCULATION.

3) What are the rates and/or ranges of credit subsidy for the current and

imminent conditional commitments?

HOPE THAT HELPS. IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FIRE AWAY. I PROBABLY WONT BEABLE TO RESPOND TIL THIS EVENING AS WE ARE

IF YOU NEED NUMBERS ON PAST ATVM

TRANSACTIONS, I DO NOT KNOW THOSE AND EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET THAT

INFO FROM LACH SEWARD.

JIM


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)


44/107

Please advise and thank you once again.

Best Regards,

____________________________

Andrew Mwavua

Office of Risk ManagementOffice of the Chief Financial Officer

[email protected]

(O) 202-586-4310

(C) 202-295-7743



45/107


46/107


47/107


48/107


49/107


50/107


51/107

(c) 202.407.2400

[email protected]



52/107

From: Davis, Christopher


Subject: RE: call w/ mareky"s staff

Date: Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:04:12 PM

Thank you for the explanation Jim. I think it is appropriate to take a look at the analysis

you guys come up with and then see what additional explanations we need in order to

make the issues you describe below to anyone asking about it. Thanks again for following-

up on this, and I hope youve had agood vacation!

CED

_____________________________________________From: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 7:05 PM

To: Davis, ChristopherSubject: RE: call w/ mareky's staff

Meant to drop you a note today and just did not get to it yet. The answer is yes, we are

making progress and the analysis is underway. It actually requires a very extensive analysis

to be able to respond and I expect it to be done some time next week.

There are many

things that change between

For example, the calculation of credit subsidy cost is verycomplex and needs to be carefully adjusted for the structure of the transaction as all the

cash flows must be precisely calculated. On transactions with multiple debt tranches, the

structuring of the credit subsidy analysis is very complex and difficult. We start with our

best view on how to calculate it for a given structure and that is sent to OMB as a way to

start a dialogue with them on how to properly calculate credit subsidy cost. This happens

on many transactions.

I am on vacation next week but entirely available if you need me as I will have cell phone

and e-mail access and will be working off and on during the vacation. Have a good


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)


53/107

weekend.

Jim

Jim McCrea

Contractor & Senior Credit Advisor

Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791

_____________________________________________From: Davis, ChristopherSent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:39 PM

To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)Subject: RE: call w/ mareky's staff

Hi Jim any progress on pulling together the numbers for Markey? Thanks, and have a

good weekend.

CED

_____________________________________________From: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:40 PMTo: Davis, Christopher

Subject: RE: call w/ mareky's staff

Christopher

To conference me in for the call with Markeys staff, it would be best to use my DOE land

line 6-5904 as the connection will be better.

Jim

James C. McCrea


Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791



54/107

-----Original Appointment-----From: Davis, ChristopherSent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:19 PMTo: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)Subject: call w/ mareky's staffWhen: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:15 PM-4:30 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).Where: will conference you in before calling over



55/107


56/107


57/107


58/107


59/107




60/107

From: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)

To: Winters, Matthew

Subject: RE: Comparison of DOE and OMB Gate 2 Credit Subsidy Costs

Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:08:00 PM

Working on it.

Jim

Jim McCrea


Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791

From: Winters, MatthewSent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:07 PMTo: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)Subject: FW: Comparison of DOE and OMB Gate 2 Credit Subsidy Costs

Jim-

Do you have a revised version of this document that also includes the final credit subsidy scores for

the closed transactions? Thanks.

Matt

From: Silver, JonathanSent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:41 PMTo: Winters, MatthewSubject: FW: Comparison of DOE and OMB Gate 2 Credit Subsidy Costs

Do we have the final credit subsidy numbers for those that have them that you and I

discussed?

Jonathan Silver

Executive Director

Loan Programs

US Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

Phone: 202-287-5900

email: [email protected]



61/107

From: Otness, ChrisSent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:40 PMTo: Silver, JonathanSubject: FW: Comparison of DOE and OMB Gate 2 Credit Subsidy Costs

Chris Otness

Loan Programs


Contractor

Room: 4A-087

(O) 202.287.5900

(C) 202.525.9318

(F) 202.287.5816

From: jim McCrea [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:38 PMTo: Otness, Chris; Winters, Matthew

Cc: Brian OakleySubject: Comparison of DOE and OMB Gate 2 Credit Subsidy Costs

Chris & Matt

Here is the comparison.

Jim

_____________________________________________

James C. McCrea


272 Newtown Tpk.Wilton, CT 06897

Phone: (203) 247-2791

Fax: (203) 762-8654

[email protected]



62/107

From: Vandusen, Nicholas

To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Trebules, Victor (CONTR)

Cc: "[email protected]"; Shin, Kwan (CONTR); [email protected]; Barwell, Owen

Subject: RE: Credit Papers

Date: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:41:16 PM

Jim, I do keep the minutes on the CRB drive as well. Jayne Faith and Dave Frantz have decided in thepast that a section of minutes is too sensitive for general consumption before it goes in the CRB books.On the shared drive, I only include what has already gone before the CRB.

-----Original Message-----From: McCrea, JimSent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:34 PMTo: Vandusen, Nicholas; Trebules, VictorCc: '[email protected]'; Shin, Kwan; [email protected]; Barwell, OwenSubject: RE: Credit Papers

Thanks Nick. I had no idea you had the CRB material on a shared drive. Learn something every day!

However, that makes me glad that we do not include the credit subsidy cost estimates in the CRB books

as I would not want them on a shared drive given their sensitivity.

Also, I don't know whether you have the CRB minutes or draft minutes on the shared drive but youmight want to have a conversation with Dave Frantz and Owen as to whether a shared drive is a properplace for CRB minutes.

Jim

Jim McCreaContractor & Senior Credit AdvisorLoan ProgramsU.S. Department of Energy

[email protected](203) 247-2791

-----Original Message-----From: Vandusen, NicholasSent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:27 PMTo: McCrea, Jim; Trebules, VictorCc: '[email protected]'; Shin, Kwan; [email protected]; Barwell, OwenSubject: RE: Credit Papers

I store the documents for the CRB on the shared drive (this includes term sheets and presentations but

not credit papers). These can be found on the "Credit Review Board" folder on the W:/ drive. I havemost of the credit papers floating around my hard drive as well and would be happy to locate those forspecific projects.

Nick

-----Original Message-----From: McCrea, JimSent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:06 PMTo: Trebules, VictorCc: '[email protected]'; Shin, Kwan; Vandusen, Nicholas; [email protected];



63/107

Barwell, OwenSubject: RE: Credit Papers

Vic --

I don't know whether they are on a shared drive. It is possible that the Origination staff keep them ona shared drive. Most members of Credit do not have access to the DOE system. As a result, we keepnothing on any shared drive. If you find that you cannot access the credit papers from a shared drive,

let me know which ones you need and I will provide them to you. Another way to find them is thatwhen I make the submittal into the interagency process, the Technical representative(s)are generallycopied on that distribution so they should be a source for you. The version that goes to OMB andTreasury/FFB is the final version of the credit paper.

Note that I am copying Owen not for action but because this is likely a useful data point for him as heconsiders the revamping of our document management systems as it demonstrates a real life situationwhich our current systems leave us poorly equipped to address.

Jim

Jim McCreaContractor & Senior Credit Advisor

Loan ProgramsU.S. Department of [email protected](203) 247-2791

-----Original Message-----From: Trebules, VictorSent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:58 PM

To: McCrea, JimCc: '[email protected]'; Shin, Kwan; Vandusen, Nicholas; [email protected]: Credit Papers

JimWe have an assignment from the Front Office

Are the Credit Papers and briefings on a shareddrive or in a common database?Thanks

Victor TrebulesIBM Senior Associate

Department of EnergyLoan Guarantee ProgramTelephone 202 586-5979


(b) (5)


64/107




65/107

From: Duong, Hai

To: "[email protected]"; Winters, Matthew

Cc: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)

Subject: RE: CS # update

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:29:14 PM

Thanks.

Matt, we will update the revised charts on our end to match the latest numbers.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:25 PMTo: Winters, MatthewCc: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Duong, HaiSubject: RE: CS # updateMatt,

Please see below and attached.

Brian

As you know, at conditional commitment, each project receives an estimate, in the form of a range, of what its

credit subsidy score will likely be when it is finalized at closing (the estimate is called the Gate 2 Range). It is

important to note, however,

LPO has $2.435 billion of appropriated credit subsidy under the 1705 program. To date, the 11 projects that

have reached financial close under 1705 (and thus have finalized credit subsidy scores) have used up $729

million of that amount, or 30%. This leaves $1.7 billion available to be used.

Based on their Gate 2 CS estimates

Thus, even assuming that

has an estimated Gate 2 Credit Subsidy range of


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5) (b) (5)


66/107

From: [email protected]

To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Heimert, Kimberly; "[email protected]"

Subject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Date: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:50:08 PM

I think it probably is a drafting issue, but doesnt hurt to be sure. As an FYI, the referenced section

of FCRA states: For guaranteed loans financed by the Bank and treated as direct loans by a

Federal agency pursuant to section 406(b), any fee or interest surcharge (the amount by

which the interest rate charged exceeds the rate determined pursuant to section

502(5)(E)) that the Bank charges to a private borrower pursuant to section 6(c) of the

Federal Financing Bank Act of 1973 shall be considered a cash flow to the Government for

the purposes of determining the cost of the direct loan pursuant to section 502(5). All

such amounts shall be credited to the appropriate financing account.

Ill have the question ready for Peter in a couple of minutes

From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:43 PMTo: Heimert, Kimberly; '[email protected]'; [email protected]: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Dont disagree. That would be a simple outcome.

Jim

Jim McCrea


Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791

From: Heimert, KimberlySent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:42 PMTo: McCrea, Jim; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'Subject: Re: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Before everyone gets too wrapped up in this, I think it makes sense to simply ask

. It might have been only a

drafting point that made him move it. It might be nothing substantive at all. Might as well ask...From : McCrea, JimTo: 'Anthony Curcio' ; [email protected]: Heimert, KimberlySent : Mon Dec 06 20:22:41 2010


(b) (5)


67/107

Subject : RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

AC

Bsed on a discussion with Brian earlier this evening,

. Nothing is ever simple.

From: Anthony Curcio [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:52 PMTo: McCrea, Jim; [email protected]: Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Jim,

This is a bit out of my area of expertise (law).

However, one thing to add: Notwithstanding the use of the word fee, a cash

flow is a cash flow. Most Federal Credit programs (especially guarantee

programs) have fees that serve to affect (reduce) the credit subsidy. I think

the use of the word fee has nothing to do with it.

In rare circumstances, some collections called administrative fees have been

charged to borrowers in some programs that is collected specifically for the

purpose of offsetting administrative fees, and, in these special cases, these

fees are deposited directly into the Program account (not the financing

account). In these rare cases, these specific fees would not affect the subsidy

rate.

AC

--

J. Anthony Curcio

Federal Credit Practice Lead & Equity Member


(b) (5)

(b) (5)


68/107

Summit Consulting, LLC*

626 E Street NW, Suite 200


202.407.8300 Main

202.407.8303 Office

509.984.8943 Fax

www.summitllc.us

*Summit Consulting is a SBA certified 8(a) company with GSA FABS and MOBIS schedules

From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 6:55 PMTo: [email protected]:[email protected] ; Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Any thoughts? Do we need to get on a conference line among ourselves to discuss this?

Jim




69/107


In consultation with OM


70/107

From: Anthony Curcio

To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); [email protected]

Cc: Heimert, Kimberly



Jim,

One more thing: I just noticed that the NEW language

Again, this doesnt matter.

AC

--J. Anthony Curcio





202.407.8300 Main

202.407.8303 Office

509.984.8943 Fax

www.summitllc.us


From: Anthony Curcio [mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:52 PMTo: 'McCrea, Jim'; '[email protected]'Cc: 'Heimert, Kimberly'Subject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Jim,







(b) (5)

(b) (5)


71/107


charged to borrowers in some programs that is collected specifically for the

purpose of offsetting administrative fees, and, in these special cases, these



rate.

AC

--

J. Anthony Curcio





202.407.8300 Main

202.407.8303 Office

509.984.8943 Fax

www.summitllc.us


From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 6:55 PMTo: [email protected]:[email protected] ; Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest


Jim


(b) (5)



72/107



73/107




74/107




75/107




76/107




77/107




78/107

From: McCrea, Jim

To: Heimert, Kimberly; "[email protected]"

Cc: "[email protected]"



Kimberly

There is a lot embedded in her question and we will have to go to Pete directly. We will do that by

e-mail later this evening. Just to make things interesting,

Will copy you on anything we send to Pete.

Jim

Jim McCrea

Contractor & Senior Credit AdvisorLoan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791

From: Heimert, KimberlySent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:07 PMTo: McCrea, Jim; '[email protected]'Cc: '[email protected]'Subject: Re: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

I have no idea. Feel free to contact ffb directly. Pete tends to work late.From : McCrea, JimTo: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; Heimert, KimberlySent : Mon Dec 06 18:54:52 2010

Subject : RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest


Jim


(b) (5)



79/107




80/107




81/107


To: McCrea, Jim (CONTR); [email protected]

Cc: Heimert, Kimberly



Ha!!

Sorry Jim, I thought this was a concern of the origination team.

Anyway, you know that I am often too colorful in my descriptions. Its my

southern upbringing..

--

J. Anthony Curcio





202.407.8300 Main

202.407.8303 Office

509.984.8943 Fax

www.summitllc.us


From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:14 PMTo: 'Anthony Curcio'; [email protected]: Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Not conspiracy theory. Just McCreas ignorance on full public display!

Jim

Jim McCreaContractor & Senior Credit Advisor

Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791



82/107

From: Anthony Curcio [mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:10 PMTo: McCrea, Jim; [email protected]: Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Jim,

I agree that the easiest solution is in the drafting.

However, on a technical note, Im pretty sure

. Ive never seen that actually done

and seems very unlikely. Never even heard of the . Even ifthey did,

AC

--

J. Anthony Curcio





202.407.8300 Main

202.407.8303 Office

509.984.8943 Fax

www.summitllc.us


From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:23 PMTo: 'Anthony Curcio'; [email protected]: Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

AC


(b) (5)

(b) (5)(b) (5)


83/107

Bsed on a discussion with Brian earlier this evening,

Nothing is ever simple.

From: Anthony Curcio [mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:52 PMTo: McCrea, Jim; [email protected]: Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest

Jim,







charged to borrowers in some programs that is collected specifically for thepurpose of offsetting administrative fees, and, in these special cases, these



rate.

AC

--

J. Anthony Curcio





202.407.8300 Main


(b) (5)

(b) (5)


84/107

202.407.8303 Office

509.984.8943 Fax

www.summitllc.us


From: McCrea, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 6:55 PMTo: [email protected]:[email protected] ; Heimert, KimberlySubject: RE: FFB Spread & Capitalized Interest


Jim




85/107




86/107

From: McCrea, Jim

To: Winters, Matthew; Duong, Hai

Subject: RE: letter to DOE

Date: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:20:00 PM

Not an issue. Here is a proposed draft response:

DOE conducts its interagency process which includes review and confrmation of the credit

subsidy cost with OMB as part of the process by which transactions are approved for

conditional commitments. To properly score the transaction and prepare the credit subsidy

cost, the risks associated with the transaction must be well understood which, in turn,

requires significant due diligence to be completed and a term sheet to have been

negotiated with the applicant. At any point in time, DOE generally has several transactions

in the approval process. At the time this is being written, two transactions are at OMB and

a third transaction will be sent to OMB within the next week which is typical.

Jim

James C. McCrea


Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791


Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:11 PMTo: Duong, Hai; McCrea, JimSubject: Re: letter to DOE

Just to give you peace of mind -- we're not necessarily going to share this info. I just want to see what

it would look like. Thanks.From : Duong, HaiTo: McCrea, JimCc: Winters, MatthewSent : Fri Oct 01 14:56:18 2010Subject : FW: letter to DOE

Jim,

Can you provide an answer to question 4e below?

Thanks,

Hai



87/107

From: Winters, MatthewSent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:30 PMTo: Duong, HaiSubject: FW: letter to DOE

Hai-

Could you provide answers to questions # 2, 3 & 4? Thanks.

The questioner is referring to the attached slide deck --- which includes the same 90-day pipeline

that you and Liju pulled together on Wednesday. Thank you.

Matt

From: Crowell, BradSent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:16 PMTo: Winters, MatthewCc: Levy, Jonathan; Lane, Jeff

Subject: FW: letter to DOE

Matt,

See below from our buddy Mr. Nelson. Jonathan and I both think that

. Can you give us your opinion on how

much, if any, of these questions we can answer?

We could also just respond that we will include as much information as possible in our official

response to the 2 letters they recently sent us.

From: Nelson, Matthew (Feinstein) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:19 PMTo: Levy, Jonathan; Crowell, BradSubject: RE: letter to DOE

Jonathan

1. Have all applicants in due diligence been informed whether or not they are in the 90 daypool? If not, why not?

2. How many projects in the 90 day pool are in California, and what is their technologycategory?

3. How many applicants are in due diligence from California at this time?4. How many applications are currently:

a. In part 1 reviewb. done with part 1 and not yet in due diligencec. in due diligenced. in the 90 day windowe. at OMB for scoring


(b) (5)


88/107

5. If only 22 projects are in due diligence now, there are some that were in due diligence inAugust who are no longer in due diligence. What is their status?

6. In August, there were 9 solar generation projects listed in Due Diligence. Now only 4 are inyour 90 day pool. That 90 day window is the end of the Treasury Grant Program. Has DOE

clearly informed the other five applicants that it does not anticipate reaching conditional

commitments with them by the end of the year?

Thanks

Matt

From: Levy, Jonathan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:30 PMTo: Nelson, Matthew (Feinstein); Crowell, BradSubject: RE: letter to DOE

Matt, following up on our conversation from yesterday, heres an updated deck and a quick

thought from our program folks:

The old slide deck contained all of our 1705 projects in due diligence (22). The updated slide deck

contains only those 1705 projects that we anticipate reaching conditional commitment within the

next 90 days (12). We are trying to get more accurate as it is impossible to predict when they will

reach conditional commitment outside of 90 days.

From: Nelson, Matthew (Feinstein) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:58 AMTo: Crowell, Brad; Levy, Jonathan

Subject: letter to DOE

Brad and Jonathan

Attached is a letter from Senator Feinstein to Secretary Chu. The paper copy will be accompanied

by a copy of the DOE report found at:

http://www.energy.gov/recovery/documents/Recovery_Act_Memo_California.pdf

I would appreciate it if you could make sure the Secretary sees this letter, as it is a follow up to the

personal conversation that they had in May.

More to come today.

Best

Matt



89/107


To: Wright, Morgan; Kim, Dong; Frantz, David; Nwachuku, Frances; McCrea, Jim (CONTR)

Cc: Barwell, Owen; [email protected]; Winters, Matthew; Dawson, Deborah (CONTR)

Subject: RE: LGP Credit Policies & Procedures

Date: Monday, November 15, 2010 6:28:53 PM

FYI I have asked Ruth Ku (who will be back in the office on Wednesday) to take the

lead for legal.

From: Wright, MorganSent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:43 PMTo: Richardson, Susan; Kim, Dong; Frantz, David; Nwachuku, Frances; McCrea, JimCc: Barwell, Owen; [email protected]; Winters, Matthew; Dawson, DeborahSubject: LGP Credit Policies & Procedures

All thank you for your help in revising the Title XVII Credit Policies & Procedures manual . Attached please find

a compressed folder which contains the Table of Contents and individual sections of the current version that was

finalized on March 5, 2009.

As Jonathan indicated, at this moment we are most concerned with correcting that which is factually incorrect.

There are nine sections in the manual which I have outlined below. While you may be asked to help with other

sections in the future, to get started please focus on the following:

I. Office Overview Morgan, Debbie II. Project Screening Dave, Morgan, Dong III. Underwriting and Credit Dave, Jim IV. Recovery Rates Jim V. Credit Subsidy Estimation Jim VI. Credit Approval Jim, Dave, Susan VII. Documentation / Closing Susan, Jim, Dave VIII. Disbursements Frances, Susan IX. Credit Monitoring / Management Frances

You will notice that . Once

we have compiled your changes we will work to realign the document to correspond with our new

organizational and operational structure. Please keep that in mind as you review and comment.

There are three types of edits were looking for:

- Correcting that which is wrong;- Adding that which is missing; and-

Deleting that which is no longer relevant.

You can provide your suggested edits either in a blackline to the document itself, or in the template Ive

provided.

Given the compressed time frame in which we have to work, it would be helpful if I could have your comments

by close of business on Wednesday the 17 th.

Please dont hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.


(b) (5)


90/107

Thanks,

Morgan



91/107



Subject: RE: LPO Credit Subsidy Model -- Liquidation Recovery

Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:49:24 PM

I'm good.

--J. Anthony CurcioFederal Credit Practice Lead & Equity MemberSummit Consulting, LLC*626 E Street NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20004202.407.8300 Main202.407.8303 Office509.984.8943 Faxwww.summitllc.us*Summit Consulting is a SBA certified 8(a) company with GSA FABS and MOBISschedules

-----Original Message-----From: McCrea, Jim (CONTR) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:09 PMTo: Barwell, OwenCc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'Subject: RE: LPO Credit Subsidy Model -- Liquidation Recovery

Are you guys OK with a 2PM Thurs call with OMB?

Jim

James C. McCreaContractor & Senior Credit AdvisorLoan ProgramsU.S. Department of [email protected](203) 247-2791



92/107




93/107




94/107

From: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)

To: Khoury, Salim

Cc: Wright, Morgan; "[email protected]"

Subject: RE: New a few min

Date: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:14:00 PM

Hi there. Went looking for you and ran into Morgan who was also looking for oyu. You were hiding

from both of us but Morgan gave me a sense of what you are looking for a check list of the docsrequired for the T17 approval process. Here is the list of documents with which we launch the

Gate 2 (Conditional Commitment) approval process on any T17 transaction:

Credit Paper

Transaction presentation (there are Credit Committee, OMB/FFB/Treasury and CRB versions that

are brokedn out of a single large deck)

Term sheet

Independent Engineers report

Market study (not on every transaction)

Risk MatrixRecovery Matrix

Rating agency credit assessment

Transaction Model

Credit Subsidy Cost Cash Flows (numerous files, multiple iterations)

Other third party reports (varies depending on the transaction and can sometimes be embedded in

the IE report. These might include a geothermal resource study or a wind study)

There are sometimes additional presentations that get used for one reason or another but they are

not standard. Also, the approval process ultimately results in and generates Q&A with OMB and

with Treasury/FFB which can include multiple rounds.

There are reasons why I keep emphasising T17 Conditional Commitment Approval Process. The

closing process generates different documents and secondly, ATVM has different documents.

I am copying Brian on this as we will both be involved as you collect things.

Let me know what other questions you might have.

Jim

James C. McCrea


Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791



95/107

From: Khoury, SalimSent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:45 AMTo: McCrea, Jim (CONTR)Subject: New a few minImportance: High

Hi Jim when you have a second, can you please let me know? Id like to swing by , I have a fewquestions for you. I just walked by but you were on the phone.

Thanks,

--

Salim A. Khoury

Manager, Information Systems & Technology


Loan Programs Office

202.287.6884 (office)

301.461.0443 (mobile)



96/107

From: McCrea, Jim

To: Chaudhary, Nida; Cestari, Kenneth

Subject: RE: Oglethorpe response draft

Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:24:00 PM

Nida

Regarding your questions, yes, there is an FFB spread included. That number has changed over

time and is not disclosed. Secondly, I

. I will say that the numbers they got were unofficial estimates provided

before the Credit Subsidy Cost methodology had been approved and the numbers provided

officially in the letter were based on the methodology as approved by OMB and the numbers for

Oglethorpe were also approved by OMB.

You might want to check with Dick Corrigan about the unofficial estimates as I think that stem from

the early stages of the nuclear process.

Hope this helps.

Jim

James C. McCrea


Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791

From: Chaudhary, NidaSent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:16 PMTo: Cestari, KennethCc: McCrea, JimSubject: RE: Oglethorpe response draft

Jim, point taken. I was really looking for input on:

1)

Yes, from what I understand, the letter will have to go to OMB for concurrence. However, I am

responsible for trying to pull together a draft that is responsive to the questions asked in the letter,

and that will be able to clear OMB.

I will run it by Jonathan when he returns.


(b) (5)

(b) (5)

(b) (5)


97/107

From: McCrea, JimSent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:16 PMTo: Chaudhary, NidaCc: Cestari, KennethSubject: RE: Oglethorpe response draft

Nida

I really have no clue how to evaluate the draft letter. The

. In light of that, I think that

Jim

James C. McCrea


Loan Programs


[email protected]

(203) 247-2791

From: Chaudhary, NidaSent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:56 PMTo: McCrea, JimCc: Cestari, KennethSubject: FW: Oglethorpe response draft

Please see the attached letter, which Oglethorpe sent us on May 6, 2010,

about Vogtle's estimated credit subsidy cost. Nicholas Whitcombe was asked

to draft response (below), but Ken Cestari suggested I ask you for some

guidance/language. My draft response is attached as a Word Document, and is

titled 05.06.10 Oglethorpe re Vogtle Subsidy Cost Estimate.

Oglethorpe's letter asks DOE to:

1)provide more transparency regarding the subsidy calculations forOglethorpe Power including whether or not the subsidy costs are in

addition to, or inclusive of the proposed spread to Treasury rates

2)explain why the subsidy estimate increased so dramatically from prior

indications; and

3)reassess the assumptions used in the calculation to ensure that they

are representative of this proposed transaction.

I need your help in responding to the first two questions; I would like to

flesh out the points in Whitcombes draft so that we can be a bit more


(b) (5)(b) (5)


98/107

responsive.

For your reference, I have also attached the January 15, 2010 letter we sent

to Oglethorpe, and a draft response to Georgia Power, which is currently with

OMB for approval, that expressed concerns similar to the ones expressed in

Oglethorpes May 6, letter.

Please provide any comments/suggestions to my draft via Track Changes. Letme know if and when you would like to meet and discuss.


From: Whitcombe, Nicholas

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:14 PM

To: Offner, Julie; Chaudhary, Nida

Subject: FW: Oglethorpe response draft

Please see below sent last week to Eleni.

-----Original Message-----From: Whitcombe, Nicholas

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:03 AM

To: Pelican, Eleni

Subject: Oglethorpe response draft

Eleni,

See below - it responds to them, however, no specifics on "the next phase".

Nick

_____________________________________________________________________________


(b) (5)


99/107


(b) (5)


100/107

From: Colyar, Kelly T.

To: Vawter, Linda; Beth Mlynarczyk; Carroll, Kevin; Colleen McLoughlin; Edward Garnett; Saad, Fouad P.; Frantz,David; Gary Burner; Hanson, Christopher; Ian Samuels; Jeff Foster; Joseph Culbertson; Judson Jaffe; Krauss,Lori; Loren Romano; McCrea, Jim (CONTR); Stein, Nora; Heijmans, Pamela L. ; paula farrell; Pearl Buenvenida;Preston Atkins; Mertens, Richard A.; Richardson, Susan; Lyberg, Sarah A. ; Seward, Lachlan;Varadarajan,Uday; Wilma Cosby

Subject: RE: OMB AGENDA FOR MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010

Date: Friday, June 11, 2010 4:28:55 PM

Thanks Linda. From OMB please add:

GPC term sheet acceptance re: Vogtle Short summaries on FIPP transactions (2 new ones added) Tax Grant Task Force - policy guidelines / paper 1603 methodology - finalizing aggregated vs. disaggregated analysis Title XVII Credit Subsidy Model Technical Corrections Monitoring System Update Updated Pipeline Fossil Project Summary


From: Vawter, Linda [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:31 PM

To: 'Beth Mlynarczyk'; Carroll, J. Kevin; 'Colleen McLoughlin'; 'Edward

Garnett'; Saad, Fouad P.; Frantz, David; 'Gary Burner'; Hanson, Christopher;

Zichal, Heather R.; 'Ian Samuels'; 'Jeff Foster'; Aldy, Joseph E.; 'Joseph

Culbertson'; 'Judson Jaffe'; Colyar, Kelly T.; Krauss, Lori A.; Liebman,

Jeffrey B.; 'Loren Romano'; McCrea, Jim; Stein, Nora; Heijmans, Pamela L.;

'paula farrell'; 'Pearl Buenvenida'; Poneman, Daniel; 'Preston Atkins';

Mertens, Richard A.; Richardson, Susan; Lyberg, Sarah A.; Ericsson, Sally C.;Seward, Lachlan; Silver, Jonathan; Varadarajan, Uday; 'Wilma Cosby'

Subject: OMB AGENDA FOR MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010

Linda D. Vawter

Senior Administrative Assistant


Loan Guarantee Program Office

1000 Independence Avenue


TEL: (202)586-0093

FAX: (202)586-4052



101/107


102/107

regardless.

Best regards,

John

JOHN G. RAVI S

ScullyCapital

617.669.6702

[email protected]

From: Julie Stewart Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:28:01 -0400To: John Ravis Subject: OMB Questions

Hey John -

Was reading through the questions you received on from OMB. Itseems we all are getting the following question: Please explain whataspects of the deal, relative to other projects in DOEs portfolio, support the

.

We sho