dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
3,300 |
Subject: RE: Ted & My Spreadsheet
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Courtney Abernath (E-mail); Aiaz Kazi (E-mail); Jeff Dasovich', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__marketing/4.
=====================================
Jeff - I'll be there, 10:00 right? Are the directions at the bottom of this
email to your office? I'm getting giddy just thinking about the fun times
we'll have.
Blake
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqueline Kelly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 3:31 PM
To: Aaron Mednelson (E-mail); Alyson Huey (E-mail); Blake Wise (E-mail);
Chris Sklarin (E-mail); Chris_Neale (E-mail); Chrystine Lee (E-mail);
CLangridge (E-mail); Deepika Shah (E-mail); Jacqueline Kelly; NHTurner
(E-mail); Paul Brodie (E-mail); Peter Devroede (E-mail); Ted Chin
(E-mail); Thomas McVey (E-mail)
Cc: Courtney Abernath (E-mail); Aiaz Kazi (E-mail); Jeff Dasovich
(E-mail); Jonathan Hudacko (E-mail); '[email protected]'
Subject: FW: Ted & My Spreadsheet
If you are planning on attending Saturday's session, here is the scoop:
1) Please e-mail Jeff to RSVP
2) If you were not at our Tuesday's meeting, attached are two spreadsheets
of the work we covered - you may want to read before Saturday. I have put
names next to some questions based on what Christine put together. If you
don't see your name and plan on coming, either pick a question or address
another area.
2.5) Chris Sklarin will be sending the third
3) Directions are below on how to get to Jeff's office
4) It's almost over!! :) See you on Saturday!!
-Jackie
(I think that we will need to celebrate after the March 8th class!!
Jonathan?)
Jackie, The spreadsheet is attached, pls. distribute to our study group (I
don't have all the e-mail addresses).
The additional questions for any newcomers that can be answered are:
1) Compare the five options given in 'The Decision'. (Jonathan, Alyson)
2) What would happen if all manufacturers (including GM) all retained their
original warranty plans. (Jeff, aiaz)
3) When should the change be implemented? (nick, Courtney)
4) Should the change be implemented for all cars, non-luxury? luxury?
(Cathy, Chris)
Answers should be backed by data (numbers, tables, etc) rather than just
qualitatitve answers.
Crystine
Directions:
Enron Corp
101 California Street (one block from the cable car turnaround)
Suite 1950
>
Enter at the California Street entrance.
Buzz at the door; guard will let you in.
Guard will know to enable elevator to get you to the 19th floor.
I'll keep the door to the office ajar so that folks can enter easily once
on 19th floor.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=====================================
|
3,301 |
Subject: Re: Backgrounder for McNealy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12609.
=====================================
Thank you for the feedback. We're "sanitizing" the document a wee bit
(taking out the "opposing view--response" part). When that's done, I assume
it will OK to distribute. Karen?
Best,
Jeff
Susan M Landwehr
05/15/2001 11:12 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Backgrounder for McNealy
Jeff--I just today had a chance to review this document. If you're still
looking for comments I have one suggestion.
Under section 1 you list the problem and then the solution and then use the
heading "Don't make matters worse". If you could somehow highlight that
section--make it stand out more. The folks that you are trying to
reach--business leaders---understand capital markets and how all of the
rhetoric and investigations and allegations can discourage investment.
I would like to be able to send this document when you get it finished to
some of our contacts in the gov's offices--ok with you?
Lastly, I love the chart on growth.
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
05/14/2001 12:08 PM
To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer Thome/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: Backgrounder for McNealy
Greetings:
As folks heard, Ken Lay met with some California CEOs last Friday back East.
As a result of that meeting, McNealy, CEO for Sun, asked for some background
and more detail on what Ken Lay proposed as a solution for California during
his meetings in California over the past couple of weeks. McNealy and others
have expressed a willingness to make phone calls to policymakers, etc. to try
to advance the ball.
I pulled this together very hastily on Friday and take responsibility for all
errors, omissions, ramblings, etc. Wanted to distribute, however, to make
sure that all had the info that is getting distributed. Know folks are busy,
but this will likely get distributed to other CEOs this week, so any
comments, suggestions, etc. about how to improve are welcome and appreciated.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,302 |
Subject: RE: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/2344.
=====================================
Thanks very much. Really appreciate the help. I'll submit them just as soon as I get them. Have a nice weekend, despite it all.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Hill, Jo Ann
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:06 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Shapiro, Richard
Subject: FW: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST
Jeff -- hope the following information helps a little. As soon as you get your grades, submit them to the HR Service Connection at MS #3698.
Thanks.
Jo Ann
-----Original Message-----
From: Parra, Veronica
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 2:23 PM
To: Hill, Jo Ann
Cc: Shapiro, Richard
Subject: RE: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST
JoAnn,
If the employee is attending class at this present time and waiting for grades to be received in December, then have employee submit grades to HR. With the recent developments with Enron, we will have to get tuitions approved by Executive HR - VP.
Should you have further questions, please let me know.
Veronica Parra
HR Service Connection
(713) 853-4298
---Original Message-----
From: Hill, Jo Ann
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 1:51 PM
To: Parra, Veronica
Cc: Shapiro, Richard
Subject: FW: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST
Veronica -- can you tell me if this is in the queue as it's in the current semester? Sheila Walton has told me that if it is current, once grades are submitted it would be paid. Can you confirm?
Thanks.
Jo Ann
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 11:14 AM
To: Hill, Jo Ann
Subject: FW: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:53 AM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Dernehl, Ginger
Subject: FW: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST
FYI. Thank you both very much for your help on this.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Parra, Veronica
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:07 AM
To: Eghneim, Gus; Calderon, Gina; Dennis, Delishea; Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Alvarez, Irma; White, Cheryl; Warren, Davette
Subject: FW: EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST
Thank you for your recent submission for your Educational Assistance Request Form . Due to recent developments with Enron, your Educational Request Form has been put on hold until we receive further instructions on how to proceed with our business.
Should you have any questions, please contact your Human Resources Representative.
Thank you for your cooperation and patience.
HR Service Connection
(713) 853-4777
=====================================
|
3,303 |
Subject: Ominous Turn at CPUC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2570.
=====================================
In lay speak, the new alternative decision looks like it could lead to a very
quick end to the rate freeze and the associated PX Credit. Roger's
suggesting sometime in the 1st Quarter 2001
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 12/13/2000 04:38 PM -----
Roger Yang@EES
12/13/2000 03:35 PM
To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES,
Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject:
The CPUC Meeting agenda changed the following item to read as follow:
A99-01-016 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
For authority to establish
post-transition period electric ratemaking mechanisms.
A.99-01-019, A.99-01-034,
A.99-02-029, A.00-10-028 - Related matters. This
decision addresses the
extraordinary financial situation facing PG&E and Edison
as a result of current
problems in the wholesale electric market and includes an
assessment of accounting
changes and adjustments previously proposed in this
proceeding. Simultaneously,
the Commission will expedite its review of market
valuation proceedings to
determine the feasibility of lifting the rate freeze as
expeditiously as possible,
and to evaluate the need for reasonable rate increases.
Previously, this item read as follows:
"The decision denies the emergency petitions to modify D99-10-057 and D.....
filed by PG&E and SCE on October 4, 2000.
The decision adopts the accounting changes proposed by TURN as a first step
in assessing the impacts of electric restructuing
on cost recovery.The Commission will continue to monitor the impact on the
utilities in future phases of this proceeding or successor
proceedings."
There is an all party meeting at the CPUC on the proposed decision for next
Tuesday. I have to think that the rate freeze will end no later than the end
of Q1 2001.
This is when the utilities' cash is expected to run out, as well as the
latest there would be a final valuation decision.
We need to discuss.
Roger
=====================================
|
3,304 |
Subject: Re: Sempra
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2551.
=====================================
Sounds good. The extra time may enable us to firm up our concepts, add
structures and beef up the presentation.
When pricing these structures, consider our long option position with the
LM6000's: Since everything is notional, we could add 90 MW of unit
contingent calls starting next summer and an additional 200MW starting in 02
coming from LV Cogen. Not terribly clean, but we should be a better offer
than the desk, and Sempra's bid may be better than the desk's bid.
From: Laird Dyer on 10/20/2000 10:38 AM
To: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Michael McDonald/SF/ECT@ECT
Subject: Sempra
Chris,
Jeff and I have spent some time discussing Sempra issues and decided to use
the meeting delay as an opportunity to develop some power price structures
that may be interesting to them. This is all driven by PG&E's recent move to
fix prices for upwards of 1,000 MW's. The pressure will be on SDG&E and SCE
to do likewise.
I will be in Portland on Monday and hope to get some time with you to
discuss this but wanted to provide you with a preview.
Jeff and I discussed some structures that might be attractive to Sempra given
the regulatory and shareholder risk they face should they (1) continue to buy
power at market prices and/or (2) lock in a fixed price:
(a) costless collar,
(b) fixed price coupled with writing long-dated puts, and
(c) price cap.
These structures are intended to address Sempra's risk exposure. Our
underlying understanding is:
1) Continued purchases @ market exposes Sempra to substantial regulatory and
shareholder risk,
2) Fixing the price mitigates both of these risks,
3) A costless collar arguably keeps Sempra in the market limiting their
exposure to higher prices but allowing them to benefit from lower prices,
4) Writing the put generates a premium which can be applied to lower a fixed
price, and
5) Holding a call eliminates their exposure to high prices and allows them
to benefit from lower prices.
With that said, I expect the cost of the call to be huge. However, the
costless collar and fixed price with a put could be attractive. The only
problem with collars is that our bid-offer spread typically skews the band
such that if the underlying price were $50, a cap with a $70 strike would be
associated with a $40 strike on the put.
Our thought was to get some notional prices and but together a few plots to
illustrate how these products work.
What do you think?
Laird
=====================================
|
3,305 |
Subject: fuel storage tanks
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11670.
=====================================
Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks in Los Angeles
I pieced together some initial information on the prospect of installing
diesel fuel storage tanks in the Los Angeles area. Much depends on the
location of the storage facility as well as on the type (i.e. above or below
ground) and size of the facility. Listed below are a few agencies that have
a hand in overseeing fuel storage tanks.
Fire Department
The Fire Department requires permits and review of plans for fuel storage
facilities. One of three permits applies - division 4, division 5 or special
permit - depending on the facility (above ground, below ground, quantity
stored, area of storage facilities, etc). The permit paperwork looks quite
comprehensive including a range of information from ownership to
geological/groundwater measurements. However, once the application is
complete, the Los Angeles Fire Department said they usually turn the permit
around in a day. The proper fire department to contact depends on the
location of the site. [LAFD - 213-485-7543]
Los Angeles County
Industrial Waste permits are only required for tanks that discharge waste, so
for storage, no permit is required. However, the County approves fuel
storage for either a spill containment plan or double walled + leak sensor
construction. Underground storage of hazardous materials is of concern to the
County, but it is unclear where the fire department leaves off and the county
picks up. In cities where the fire department does not process permits for
fuel storage, the County plays a larger role. [LA County Environmental
Programs - 626-458-3517]
California EPA
License/permit processes seem to have been passed down to local levels,
though I believe that EPA has installation and/or engineering requirements
for fuel tanks. I was not able to reach a contact, but I was advised to
speak with the Engineering Unit - 916-341-5775.
Zoning & Building Requirements
Zoning restrictions exist in Los Angeles and building permits are required as
in any facility. Narrowing the location or locations under consideration for
the tanks will help the information search.
My initial impression is that this is a comprehensive process, but not
necessarily any worse than other cities. The process is unlikely to change -
for better or worse - any time real soon.
Please contact me with any questions or if you need more in-depth information
- x5-2431 or [email protected].
Regards,
Maggy Huson
Government Affairs
=====================================
|
3,306 |
Subject: Further comment Re: Legal Issues to be Presented at CPUC Emergency
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/7962.
=====================================
To my understanding, the utilities will get an unexpected windfall for their
nuclear units in 2001. AB1890 specifies that they would receive 50% of the
benefits of the unit after the rate freeze.
Roger. Can you confirm the numbers and the reference to AB 1890.
"Enron further notes that AB1890 specifies that the utilities would receive
50% of the benefits of the nuclear units after the rate freeze. Assuming
that the nuclear units make up 4,000 MW and profit is $200/MWh, the utilities
will receive a $3.5b windfall out of this situation. I think we should make
the point that it is inappropriate for utilities to make windfalls as a
result of their bad decisions (selling off more thermal then they were
required to and not hedging)."
I think we should insert these sentences after the "Enron notes that; ....."
that I put in my comments to you yesterday in blue under important principles.
Scott
MBD <[email protected]> on 12/27/2000 01:24:29 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], MBD
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Legal Issues to be Presented at CPUC Emergency Hearings
Enclosed is a draft presentation of legal issues to be presented at the CPUC
emergency hearings in conjunction with regulatory and economic arguments set
forth in the draft comments previously distributed by Jeff Dasovich. Jeff
and I will work to merge the legal issues into the full presentation,
subject to the duscussion on the conference call tomorrow morning. This
presentation has been prepared in anticipation of the fact that we will
likely be limited to a very short verbal presentation tomorrow. A more
extensive legal analysis of all these points is being prepared to accompany
any briefs or written comments which we are permitted to file later. Please
e-mail comments using the reply function to MBD at this address before the
conference call if at all possible. Thank you. Mike Day
<<X19418.DOC>>
- X19418.DOC
=====================================
|
3,307 |
Subject: FW: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11134.
=====================================
FYI, this was ISO's response on Friday to the Credit Worthiness issue
Katie Kaplan
Manager of State Policy Affairs
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
-----Original Message-----
From: Happ, Susan [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Fuller, Don
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:22 PM
To: ISO Market Participants
Subject: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues
Importance: High
Market Notice re Credit Issues
In response to the FERC order of April 6, 2001 re the issue of
creditworthiness, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has
authorized the ISO to make the following statement. To the extent (and only
to the extent) that a purchase is not otherwise paid by any party or payable
by another party meeting the credit standards set forth in the ISO Tariff
(another "Qualified Party"), DWR will assume financial responsibility for
all purchases by the ISO in its ancillary services and imbalance energy
markets based on bids or other offers determined to be reasonable. Such
determination of reasonableness will be made by DWR on a case by case basis
and communicated to the ISO. All bids into the ancillary services and
imbalance energy markets will be deemed to be contingent on the acceptance
of financial responsibility by DWR, to the extent not paid or payable by
another Qualified Party. Unless a supplier is otherwise notified, any bid
accepted by the ISO will be deemed to have the financial support of another
Qualified Party or DWR as specified in this notice. In addition to the
foregoing, DWR will assume financial responsibility for all purchases
resulting from the issuance by the ISO of emergency dispatch instructions,
to the extent not paid or payable by another Qualified Party. Payment for
such purchases shall be made according to the rate specified in the ISO
Tariff for emergency dispatch instructions. The ISO and/or DWR reserve the
right to rescind or modify the foregoing arrangements at any time and for
any reason, including a successful rehearing or appeal from the April 6
order.
As the FERC determined in its February 14 order that DWR is a creditworthy
counterparty, the ISO believes that the foregoing arrangements meet the
requirements of FERC's April 6 Order. Accordingly, the ISO expects that
suppliers will honor their obligations under the ISO Tariff and related
agreements to respond to ISO dispatch instructions.
Don Fuller
Director, Client Relations
California ISO
Phone: 916-608-7055
E-Mail: [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,308 |
Subject: Dynegy comments on PX proposed Code of Conduct
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4159.
=====================================
fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Joe Paul/HOU/Dynegy on 12/01/2000 11:25
AM ---------------------------
Joe Paul
12/01/2000 11:48 AM
To: "Pat Gillman" <[email protected]>
cc: <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Dynegy comments on PX proposed Code of Conduct
Dear Pat,
Attached are the comments of Dynegy regarding the proposed PX Code of
Conduct. You have received or will shortly receive comments from PG&E and
SCE that Dynegy supports. To the extent that some of the suggested changes
can be adapted to the current rules, (as suggested by PG&E) we would be
willing to assist you in making those changes consistent with our comments.
We continue to believe, as our comments have pointed out, that many of the
suggested changes are vague, overly broad, have no standards of
materiality, fail to distinguish between types of offenses in the
punishment and severity, prohibit the legitimate assertion of procedural
and substantive rights, levies excessive fines, provides for no de novo
review and provide no comfort at all that any information submitted on a
confidential basis will be afforded the proper protection.
I know that considerable effort has gone into the development of these
rules, but it is our position that the proposal you are making goes way
beyond any authority that the PX thinks may have been delegated to it by
FERC. As has been pointed out, the PX is not a self regulating body, but
one that is regulated by FERC.
With respect to our comments, I have used the redline method to highlight
changes and comments to the PX 11-03 draft. On your tool bar there are 3
icons that you can use to navigate through these comments.
As part of my comments regarding the confidentiality tariff (Section
19.3.3), I have referenced a non-disclosure agreement. This is in an
attached file called "protective order". Unfortunately, I could not make
any changes (since it is in a PDF format) but as you read through it, you
can see that it is easily adaptable to a non-disclosure agreement and
covers all the points that I referred to at the last meeting.
Finally, please understand that my failure to comment on any section does
not indicate approval. The areas I pointed out, in addition to those
covered in the PG&E memo, are the major points of departure.
(See attached file: Dynegy Comments 2nd draft code of conduct.DOC)(See
attached file: protective order.pdf)
- Dynegy Comments 2nd draft code of conduct.DOC
- protective order.pdf
=====================================
|
3,309 |
Subject: Re: Response to OII
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1044.
=====================================
Jeff
Here is what I am working with. You may share it with your attorneys, but
it is not for widespread distribution yet. If y'all can find your way
clear to say, "cut NewPower loose," I would really appreciate it. If you
can't, I understand.
Kathleen
----- Forwarded by Kathleen Magruder/HOU/NewPower on 12/15/01 01:00 PM
-----
To: "Dan Douglass"
<[email protected]>,
[email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Kathleen Magruder Subject: Re: Response to OII(Document
12/15/01 12:35 PM link: Kathleen Magruder)
----------------------------------+
Marc and Dan
Here is my latest version. I have incorporated Dan's suggestions and have
added the introduction. I want to keep the document as short as possible
so it will be read.
Dan
You will need to put this into the right format (heading, docket number,
etc.) I am uncertain how/where to incorporate the plea for exemption or if
we should call it a motion to dismiss or what. I will rely on your local
experience. Clearly our goal is to get cut loose as quickly as possible.
Marc
You will note that I have called Enron a shareholder, but have not
identified how big a shareholder they are. Is that too cute? Should we go
on and 'fess up to the 43% share here?
Both
I am travelling Sunday and will be in Texas Monday - Wed. My suggestion on
changes is this: Marc, you can fax Dan at 818/346-6502. You can call Dan
at 818/596-2201. (Dan: Marc is my boss, so we try to do what he says.) I
understand Dan needs this by noon on Monday because of travel and logistic
issues. If you would both be so kind, please fax to me as well c/o Suzanne
Bertin @ 512/320-5920. My cell phone is 914/646-3913. I listen to
voicemail at the office regularly, tho, so feel free to leave a message
there.
Kathleen(See attached file: CA-OII response.doc)
=====================================
|
3,310 |
Subject: POWER Working Paper on FERC Proposed Soft Cap
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/1075.
=====================================
FYI.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 11/20/2000 03:54 PM -----
pwpens <[email protected]>
11/20/2000 01:11 PM
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
cc:
Subject: POWER Working Paper Email Notification Service (PWPENS)
_________________________________________________________________
N E W P O W E R W O R K I N G P A P E R
Working Paper Series of UCEI
_________________________________________________________________
POWER Working Paper Email Notification Service (PWPENS)
A service of The University of California Energy Institute's Program on
Workable Energy Regulation (POWER). All POWER working papers can be
downloaded free of charge from the UCEI website: http://www.ucei.org Just
follow the link to "POWER Research".
________________________________________
"Soft Price Caps and Underscheduling Penalties: How Would the FERC Plan
Affect California Electricity Markets?" (November 2000)
PWP-079 by Steven Stoft
FERC proposes three short-run stabilization "remedies" in its Market Order
Proposing Remedies for California Wholesale Electrics, issued November 1,
2000. The first allows the IOUs to purchase power outside the PX. The
second sets a penalty that will frequently reach $100/MWh on unscheduled
power in excess of 5% of a purchaser's total load. The third is a $150
"soft" price cap on the ISO and PX. On the infrequent occasions when the
cap is effective, it will exacerbate the scheduling problem. Generally,
when needed, it will be subverted by exemptions for opportunity costs.
Because the soft cap is applied to the PX, but not to other scheduling
coordinators, it will drive suppliers away from the PX. Allowing more
forward contracting of net suppliers will reduce market power, but it will
be very expensive without an effective bid cap. To be effective, a bid cap
must allow no exceptions and must also be a regional cap to avoid causing
reliability problems for California.
Download this paper in Adobe Acrobat
format: http://www.ucei.org/PDF/pwp079.pdf
________________________________________
If you would like to be removed from this list, please send an email to
Mailto:[email protected] and include UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject
heading. If you received this email indirectly and would like to be added
to this emailing list, please send an email to
Mailto:[email protected] and include SUBSCRIBE in the subject
heading.
=====================================
|
3,311 |
Subject: FW: Ted & My Spreadsheet
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Courtney Abernath (E-mail); Aiaz Kazi (E-mail); Jeff Dasovich (E-mail);', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__marketing/5.
=====================================
I plan to attend. Thanks.
Alyson
----------
From: Jacqueline Kelly [SMTP:[email protected]]
<mailto:[SMTP:[email protected]]>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 3:31 PM
To: Aaron Mednelson (E-mail); Huey, Alyson; Blake Wise (E-mail); Chris
Sklarin (E-mail); Chris_Neale (E-mail); Chrystine Lee (E-mail); CLangridge
(E-mail); Deepika Shah (E-mail); Jacqueline Kelly; NHTurner (E-mail); Paul
Brodie (E-mail); Peter Devroede (E-mail); Ted Chin (E-mail); Thomas McVey
(E-mail)
Cc: Courtney Abernath (E-mail); Aiaz Kazi (E-mail); Jeff Dasovich (E-mail);
Jonathan Hudacko (E-mail); '[email protected]'
Subject: FW: Ted & My Spreadsheet
If you are planning on attending Saturday's session, here is the scoop:
1) Please e-mail Jeff to RSVP
2) If you were not at our Tuesday's meeting, attached are two
spreadsheets of the work we covered - you may want to read before Saturday.
I have put names next to some questions based on what Christine put
together. If you don't see your name and plan on coming, either pick a
question or address another area.
2.5) Chris Sklarin will be sending the third
3) Directions are below on how to get to Jeff's office
4) It's almost over!! :) See you on Saturday!!
* Jackie
(I think that we will need to celebrate after the March 8th
class!!
Jonathan?)
Jackie, The spreadsheet is attached, pls. distribute to our
study group (I
don't have all the e-mail addresses).
The additional questions for any newcomers that can be answered are:
1) Compare the five options given in 'The Decision'. (Jonathan,
Alyson)
2) What would happen if all manufacturers (including GM) all retained
their original warranty plans. (Jeff, aiaz)
3) When should the change be implemented? (nick, Courtney)
4) Should the change be implemented for all cars, non-luxury? luxury?
(Cathy, Chris)
Answers should be backed by data (numbers, tables, etc) rather than just
qualitatitve answers.
Crystine
Directions:
Enron Corp
101 California Street (one block from the cable car turnaround)
Suite 1950
>
Enter at the California Street entrance.
Buzz at the door; guard will let you in.
Guard will know to enable elevator to get you to the 19th floor.
I'll keep the door to the office ajar so that folks can enter easily once
on 19th floor.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
<http://www.hotmail.com>
<<E206-Mkting-Ford SpreadMS95.xls>> <<Ford2.xls>>
- E206-Mkting-Ford SpreadMS95.xls
- Ford2.xls
=====================================
|
3,312 |
Subject: Transwestern negotiated rate order, discussed at yesterday's
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/442.
=====================================
FYI. This is receiving close scrutiny by the Commission. RA
---------------------- Forwarded by Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron on 07/26/2001 05:59 PM ---------------------------
Nancy Bagot
07/26/2001 05:54 PM
To: Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: TW neg. rate order summary
(1) Transwestern Negotiated Rates proceeding, RP97-288 et al.: The order calls for an expedited hearing to explore four primary issues (listed below). The draft order passed at the meeting by a vote of 5 - 0, and language on revisions to TW's tariff and posting policy were added to the final order to assuage concerns expressed in the discussion of the case at the meeting.
The case was called for public discussion by Commissioner Breathitt, who wanted to highlight that the additional "limited scope" fast track hearing is the "right way to go" to understand why negotiated rates that were seventy times the maximum recourse rate are just and reasonable. Breathitt's additional question in this case is why shippers would agree to such rates when lower rates were available.
In the final order, Breathitt's concerns about the posting of the operational capacity as such were reflected in language ordering TW to revise its tariff and web postings to provide clear identification of operational capacity and to post and contract such capacity on each day of its availability (i.e., on a day-to-day basis) unless it can demonstrate that operational capacity will be available for some longer period of time.
At Wednesday's meeting, Wood noted that "we bumped into something here," though he did not mention possibilities but instead agreed that a procedural schedule to "vet the issues in the light of day" was the best route. The four issues set for hearing are:
? whether the transportation capacity was advertised and awarded in an accurate and fair manner consistent with Transwestern's tariff;
? whether the transportation rates?were the product of an exercise of market power (i.e., did TW withhold capacity that otherwise could have been made available under recourse service in order to make the capacity available under negotiated rate charges at substantially higher rates);
? why the shippers agreed to these rates when significantly lower recourse rates should have been available under our negotiated rate program; and
? why the awarded capacity appears to be available without interruption while firm transportation service under Transwestern's recourse rate was not.
=====================================
|
3,313 |
Subject: Tickets for Fiorina & Chambers at Haas CEO Exchange
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10563.
=====================================
Haas CEO Exchange Tickets Available Now
Starting today, tickets are available for the CEO Exchange with HP's Carly=
=20
Fiorina and Cisco's CEO John Chambers on April 11 at Zellerbach Hall.? Plea=
se=20
pick up your ticket at the desk of the Evening MBA Program Office this week=
=20
(one ticket per student please).
The Show:
CEO Exchange takes place on Wednesday, April 11, at Zellerbach Hall. Seatin=
g=20
begins at 5:30 p.m. (doors close at 5:45 p.m.; no seating is allowed after=
=20
taping has begun). The show will be introduced by Dean Laura Tyson and=20
moderated by CNN=01,s Jeff Greenfield. It will air on PBS stations on or af=
ter=20
October 1, 2002.
You will have the opportunity to ask questions of the CEOs toward the end o=
f=20
the show. Both your questions and the answers will be recorded on camera. Y=
ou=20
will be part of a television audience, so please look your best (business=
=20
casual or business wear please).=20
The Raffle:
The show at Zellerbach concludes with a raffle of two Pen Cams (a PC camera=
,=20
a digital camera, and a digital camcorder in one -- courtesy of AT Kearney)=
=20
and Haas Gear. Please make sure that an usher takes your ticket stub before=
=20
the show and hold on to your tickets for the raffle.
The Reception:
Please join Dean Tyson, the speakers, Jeff Greenfield, and the CEO of AT=20
Kearney, Dietmar Ostermann, at a catered reception at the Club Room of the=
=20
new Haas Pavilion following the show. The Haas Pavilion is the new stadium=
=20
just west of Zellerbach Hall.=20
The event is free and open to all Haas students. However you will need a=20
ticket for admission to the show and to the reception.=20
Location:
Zellerbach Hall is located near Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue, a=20
five-minute walk from Haas. Parking will be tight just before the show, so=
=20
please leave your cars at Haas, if you can, or use other forms of=20
transportation. For more information on CEO Exchange, go to=20
http://haas.berkeley.edu/groups/pubs/news/articles/CEOexchange41101.html.
This event is organized by the Haas School's Marketing & Communications=20
Office. AT Kearney is the exclusive sponsor of the show.
We'll see you there.
Ute Frey
________________________________________________________________
Ute S. Frey
Associate Director
Marketing & Communications
Haas School of Business?????????
University of California????????
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900?????????
Phone 1-510-642-0342
Fax 1-510-642-4700
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu
=====================================
|
3,314 |
Subject: DOE-NARUC North American Summit announces new speakers and an
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3361.
=====================================
FYI
gngr
713-853-7751
----- Forwarded by Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron on 11/10/2000 03:39 PM -----
"North American Summit Team" <[email protected]>
11/10/2000 03:11 PM
Please respond to ibarreto
To: "Energy Restructuring Stakeholders" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: DOE-NARUC North American Summit announces new speakers and an
online bulletin board
[[ MAPI 1.0 storage : 5416 in winmail.dat ]]
NARUC and DOE are the hosting the North American Summit on Harmonizing
Business Practices in Energy Restructuring in Dallas, Texas, on November 29
to December 1. This email is an update on recent developments in the
Summit.
Newly confirmed speakers include Commissioner Linda Breathitt, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission; Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the
House Energy and Power Subcommittee; Phil Sharp, Lecturer in Public Policy,
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Kurt Yaeger, president and
CEO, Electric Power Research Institute; Bob Anderson, commissioner, Montana
Public Service Commission; Karen O'Neill, vice president for new markets,
GreenMountain.com; Steve Ward, public advocate, Maine Attorney General's
office; Donato Eassay, vice president, securities research and economics,
Merrill Lynch; Rick Rumbarger, president and CEO, PowerTrust.com; Kathleen
Magruder, Vice President, Government Affairs, The New Power Company (a joint
venture of IBM, Enron, and AOL)
We have established a bulletin board for the Summit. You can access the
bulletin board through the following link:
http://www.energymarkets.org/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro. The Forums
in this board will permit you to ask questions or raise issues for the
speakers on each of the panels at the Summit.
You can register for the Summit at
http://www.energymarkets.org/registration.htm.
Information on reserving a room a the Adams Mark is at
http://www.energymarkets.org/city_site.htm.
Please forward this email to colleagues who may be interested in the subject
of the Summit.
Thanks!
Isabel Barreto
North American Summit Coordinator
Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets
5765-F Burke Center Parkway (PMB333)
Burke, VA 22015-2233
Voicemail and Fax: (703) 234-3373
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.caem.org
Thanks!
Isabel Barreto
North American Summit Coordinator
Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets
5765-F Burke Center Parkway (PMB333)
Burke, VA 22015-2233
Voicemail and Fax: (703) 234-3373
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.caem.org
- winmail.dat
=====================================
|
3,315 |
Subject: Re:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/352.
=====================================
Let's try this. Neither of us will say one critical thing of the other. I
won't say anything, in jest, or otherwise, and you do the same. And if
someone does, the other needs to bring it up. But Prentice, if I say, "that's
critical" and then I have to have a long argument about the fact that I think
it is, and you think it isn't, that isn't going to work. So I'm willing to
have a complete moratorium, if that's something that you're willing to try,
too.
I hope you'll going sailing today. Did I leave my sunglasses in your car? I
also left my gym bag in your bathroom, which has my sailing shoes in it. I'm
at work. You can call me here.
Prentice Sellers <[email protected]>
09/24/2000 03:31 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject:
Jeff, I love you, but I'm unhappy. I just don't want to be criticized
anymore. The thing is, I know you think a lot of it is funny, and I've just
lost my sense of humor, but the truth is, after a while, it's just not funny
anymore. Like when you yawned last night when I was telling a story to your
friends. Yes, it's funny. But when you do it every time, after a while, it
just starts to hurt my feelings. That's just one recent example. You're
often telling everybody how neurotic and fucked up I am. Or how I'm totally
overbearing about playing the banjo. In fact, you just said that today to
my friends at Haas. Do you know how embarassing that was for me? You
should listen to yourself when you talk about me in front of your friends or
my friends or my family. How often do you say nice things and how often do
you criticize me? Why don't you ask them and see what they have to say.
I've tried to talk to you about it. I asked you to spend some time trying
to say mostly nice things, just for a little while. But apparantly, you
either can't or won't, and the end result is that I feel like you just don't
care. I'm sure there are things you want me to do. I'd like to try to do
them. But I don't know what else I can do to make you understand that I
just can't take all the criticism from you anymore. It makes me feel like
shit. I don't know where else to go, Jeff. I suggested talking to a
shrink, but you're not willing to do that either. I'm sure that half of it
is my fault, and I'd like to work on this together, but you don't seem to be
willing to work on the one thing that's really hurting me and that I've
asked you to work on. And maybe that means you need to think about how you
really feel.
=====================================
|
3,316 |
Subject: FERC Order
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2394.
=====================================
The following is an excerpt from a FERC order issued on Friday:
?
"Ridgewood Power LLC (Ridgewood) filed comments suggesting that the shortage
of supply could be remedied in part by relaxing the operating efficiency and
other regulatory requirements pertaining to Qualifying Facilities (QFs).?
Ridgewood states that the total power production capacity of QFs in
California is approximately 9,000 MWs, of which, between 4,000 and 5,500 MW
are from qualifying cogeneration facilities (Cogeneration QFs) and the
remainder from small power production facilities (Small Power QFs).?
Ridgewood states that the Cogeneration segment of the industry is
underutilized because of operating efficiency and other QF requirements.??
With a limited waiver or other equivalent relief, Ridgewood states that
these underutilized resources could help relieve current shortages during
both peak and off-peak periods.? Ridgewood estimates that as much as 1,000
MWs would be immediately available by allowing QFs to sell to the purchasing
utility or into the competitive market their "above-baseline" output for a
limited time period.?? Ridgewood suggests that any such sale would be made
at market-based rates and would not be subject to the operating and
efficiency standards.........?Section 292.205(c) of the Commission's
regulations provides that the Commission may waive any of its operating and
efficiency standards "upon a showing that the facility will produce
significant energy savings".?? However, the Commission has exercised its
waiver authority in a number of cases based on factors such as the limited
durations of the requested waiver, whether further waivers would be
necessary, whether the request was intended to remedy specific problems
associated with an innovative technology, and whether granting waiver would
fulfill PURPA's goals.?? We find that many of these same factors are present
here.? Consistent with the goals of PURPA, we find that granting such waiver
in this circumstance will provide for increased efficiency in the use of the
Cogeneration facilities and improved reliability of electric service through
increasing the availability of needed capacity.? Therefore, we will grant
temporary waiver of the operating and efficiency standards to Cogeneration
QFs for sales into California, effective as of the date of this order.? We
will terminate the waiver effective January 1, 2001."
?
Let me know if you want the entire order.
?
Dan
=====================================
|
3,317 |
Subject: Gas Accord II: Workshop 10/25-10/26
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2575.
=====================================
Confidential Settlement Document Under CPUC Rule 51
PARTIES:
This is a reminder that we have a Gas Accord II Settlement Workshop next
week on Wednesday and Thursday, October 25 and 26. The workshop on
Wednesday will start at 9:30 a.m. and end around 3:30 p.m. We will provide
lunch this day. On Thursday, we would like to start at 9:00 a.m. and end
around noon. The Workshop is at PG&E's headquarters, Conference Room 300,
77 Beale Street, San Francisco.
Please respond, to let us know whether you will attend next week's workshop,
so that we can get a head-count for lunch on Wednesday. Please RSVP to
Darcy Morrison at [email protected], or by telephone at (415) 973-6644.
Attached below is our proposed agenda. The topics include: balancing,
transaction information, open-season rules, PG&E core procurement, and core
aggregation.
Also on the Wednesday agenda, we have set aside some time for a feedback
discussion with you. We are looking for your thoughts on the material we
have presented in the Workshops to-date, topics for our final Workshop on
November 7 and 8, issues you may wish to have addressed at that workshop,
and any process suggestions.
Looking ahead, our initial thinking for the November 7 and 8 Workshop
includes the following topics:
* A more comprehensive supply/demand/pipeline capacity forecast and
the implications on facility needs, including under cold weather conditions.
* Further explanation of the Supply Reliability options discussed at
the September 27 Workshop.
* More detail on the Capital Expenditure forecasts.
* Additional analysis of the Direct Connect to Backbone and Local
Transmission rate design options.
* Continue the feedback discussion.
Please be reminded that we would like everyone involved in the Gas Accord II
Settlement to fill out our information form, including initials indicating
agreement to abide by CPUC Rule 51. If you have not previously provided us
with a form, please fill out the attached blank form and return it by e-mail
to Geoff Bellenger at [email protected], or send it by FAX to 415-973-0881.
We look forward to seeing you at next week's Workshop. Please call or
E-mail us if you have any questions or suggestions.
Frank Lindh Ray Williams
Attorney Director
415-973-2776 415-973-3634
[email protected] [email protected]
Attachments
<<Agenda 10-25&26-00 Workshop.doc>> <<Gas Accord II Information Form.doc>>
<<CPUC Rule 51.doc>>
- Agenda 10-25&26-00 Workshop.doc
- Gas Accord II Information Form.doc
- CPUC Rule 51.doc
=====================================
|
3,318 |
Subject: Re: Comments on Wholesale Issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/68.
=====================================
Howdy:
Just between thee and me, I think this note gets to some of the challenges we
faced and discussed as part of our "group gropes" over the last several
months. With Sue coming back on Tuesday, and in the spirt of our gropes, it
might be useful to discuss as a group prior to charging ahead. May even
result in the same outcome on how to proceed, but a little "process" on the
front end may go a long way toward keeping things on an even keel. Anywho,
just my two cents. Hope your meetings in Salem went well.
Best,
Jeff
Mona L Petrochko
08/30/2000 05:51 PM
To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, West GA, Mary
Hain@Enron, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Karen Denne@Enron, Peggy
Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Comments on Wholesale Issues
Wood, the Assigned Commissioner in the investigation of wholesale electric
markets, has asked for comments on the following questions by Friday,
September 8. We are an individual party to the case as well as a member of
ARM and WPTF.
This would be a good opportunity to get our version of what is wrong on the
record. The presentation that Tim and Mary put together for FERC will be
helpful in answering these questions. I will take a first cut at drafting
response to be circulated by Tuesday of next week. We can take liberties in
providing responses that go beyond the question asked.
Market Structure:
Are the market conditions currently being experienced (price spikes and suppy
shortages) inevitable under the current market structure?
Do generators and/or scheduling coordinators have market power?
Is there a need to mitigate such market power?
Which market participants or other entities are responsible for reliability
planning?
Do California regulatory agencies have adequate jurisdiction to ensure
reasonable prices and reliable service?
Do the structures and governance of the Cal ISO and PX adequately support the
goals of providing reasonably priced and reliable service?
Market Rules:
Are there rules which allow or encourage unacceptable market outcomes?
What roles, if any, do underscheduling in forward markets, out of state
transfers, uniform PX auction prices and ISO real-time and out-of-market
purchases play in the outcomes being experienced?
Behavior of Market Participants:
What is working and not working in terms of price, reliability, information
exchange, resource distribution, equity, service quality, and types of
planned generation?
=====================================
|
3,319 |
Subject: Article about the FERC Judge comments
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28312.
=====================================
To see what Morningstar analysts are saying about the latest news, click
here.?
If you have questions or comments about this topic, check out our message
boards.?
FERC Judge Rips Calif, Generators; Demands Sales Data
06-29-01??06:05 PM EST ??by?Bryan Lee ??|?Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission judge
overseeing settlement talks between California and power sellers ripped into
both sides Friday in an effort to spur progress in the moribund negotiations,
according to sources.
"It's fair to say that everybody got their rap on the knuckles," said one
source.
Curtis Wagner, FERC's chief administrative law judge, read a statement during
the confidential settlement negotiations dressing down California regulators
and market institutions for a lack of political independence.
Wagner, in what one source described as a "tirade," complained that the
California Independent System Operator's politically appointed board, headed
by Michael Kahn, lacks necessary independence as a market institution.
Further, Wagner complained that the California Public Utilities Commission
and investor-owned utilities in the state were deferring too much to the
politically compromised Kahn in negotiations.
The lack of independence was such a "joke" that the parties might as well
wear "clown suits," Wagner said, according to those familiar with his
comments.
However, Wagner didn't spare the power providers from strong criticism.
He took generators to task for exercising market power and deriving obscene
profits, the sources said.
Sources described the incident as perhaps a ploy by Wagner to jump-start the
fast-track settlement talks, scheduled to conclude July 9.
California Gov. Gray Davis is demanding nearly $9 billion in refunds for
power sales in California during the past year.
As the negotiations got underway Monday, Wagner dismissed that amount as too
high, suggesting a more reasonable figure of between $1 billion to $2.5
billion. However, California ISO Chairman Kahn has held fast to Davis' demand
for $9 billion.
Wagner instructed the negotiating parties to work during the weekend to
develop concrete figures on power sales, revenue, costs and proposed refund
amounts for his consideration on Monday, according to the sources.
-By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6647; [email protected]
(This story was originally published by Dow Jones Newswires)
?
=====================================
|
3,320 |
Subject: California Update 9-07-2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1797.
=====================================
For questions or comments regarding this report please contact G. Britt Whitman at ex:5-4014 or Kristin Walsh at ex:3-9510.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
? MOU Passes Assembly, Faces Fight in Senate
? CPUC Direct Access Delayed by Senator
SoCal Developments
As reported in the press this morning, the bailout passed the Assembly late last night by a 41-32 vote. It will now head to the Senate, where very significant opposition is expected. Along with his opposition to the changes made in the Assembly regarding the size of businesses that pay the dedicated rate component for the bailout, Senator Burton also has expressed privately that he is against paying twice book value for SoCal's transmission assets.
Senator Places Hold on CPUC Direct Access Vote
Regarding the CPUC's decision to delay its hearings on the rate order and various other bond implementation measures (which led Treasurer Angelides to announce that the bond issue will have to be re-timed), this delay is due to a bill by Senator Burton that passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee yesterday. Burton's bill would take the place of the current proposed rate agreement (from Governor Davis) and would require greater disclosure and transparency in DWR ratemaking, as well as separate the payment streams for the bonds from payment streams for power. In doing so, Burton's bill preserves more PUC authority than would be preserved under the rate order currently before the PUC - thus the delay in action.
PG&E also supports Burton's bill, which is very likely to pass the Assembly and which the governor will likely have to sign. If this bill is signed, PG&E's legal challenges to the DWR and PUC may be canceled. The popularity of Burton's bill (as opposed to the rate agreement from the Governor) is leading many observers to conclude that Burton has replaced Davis as the most powerful, influential politician in California.
Burton's goal is to ensure that any direct access that is offered to large users in 2003 (when there will be a dip in power procurement by DWR, resulting in a net short) is only temporary and does not turn into a "jail break." DWR's power procurement will rise again in 2004; Burton wants to ensure that businesses will have to return to purchasing power from DWR at that time.
The CTMA is opposed to Burton's bill and to the bailout if no direct access is offered. The CTMA wants its members to be able to escape from buying power from the DWR (and therefore paying off the bonds) permanently in 2003.
=====================================
|
3,321 |
Subject: FREE shipping offer from Dell!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1089.
=====================================
_____
This advertisement has been sent to you by TheStreet.com because you are currently or within the last year have been a subscriber (either free-trial or paid) to one of our web sites, www.thestreet.com or www.realmoney.com. If you are not a current or former subscriber, and you believe you received this message in error, please forward this message to [email protected], or call our customer service department at 1-800-562-9571. Please be assured that we respect the privacy of you, our subscribers, and that we have not disclosed your name or any other information about you to the advertiser or any other third party.
_____
<http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?G395>
<http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?G395> <http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/spacer.gif>
Getting an A in economics...
With school just around the corner, investing your dollars on a DellTM Home System could mean giving your special student a head start on the school year! And right now when you choose a DimensionTM desktop or an InspironTM notebook, you'll receive free 3-5 day ground shipping (software & accessories not included). Powerful systems at great prices + award winning service & support = the perfect formula for your budget and your student's success in the classroom! Back-to-school value is Easy as DellTM. Offer ends 11 PM CT, August 29, 2001.
Click here for offer details! <http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?G395>
If you would like to receive other offers and special deals like this one from Dell Home Systems, click here <http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?G396> to subscribe to Dell Direct Deals!
<http://www.intel.com/home/pentium4/index.htm?iid=feature1+text&>
_____
This advertisement has been supplied by a third party and has been sent to you by TheStreet.com for informational purposes only. We are not responsible for and have not independently authenticated in whole or in part the accuracy of the information provided in the advertisement. No such information should be relied upon without consulting the advertiser. This advertisement does not imply an endorsement by us.
If you would prefer not to receive these types of offers from us in the future, please reply to [email protected] with REMOVE in the subject line.
To view our privacy policy, please click here: <http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/about/privacy.html>
_____
<http://image.wd10.com/img.asp?A534394J858> <http://image.wd10.com/img.asp?B534394J858>
=====================================
|
3,322 |
Subject: *** Spring 2002 Registration Update ***
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1112.
=====================================
The Dean's Office has decided to cancel several of the Spring 2002 electives. This decision was based not only on the very low pre-enrollment in the four canceled courses but also on the low overall "occupancy rate" for all elective courses (still only 46% after the cancellation of the four courses). This low "occupancy rate" was due to the EWMBA having a surprisingly large number of students who graduated in their 5th semester. Approximately 85 students completed their MBA requirements in December 2001.
The following are the four courses that were cancelled:
E233 Investments, Prof. Shachat
E278-3 Business Law, Prof. Ross
E296-7 Behavioral Finance, Prof. Odean
(If your work schedules permits, you will be given enrollment priority to the day section.)
BA/E 278-1 Law& Strategy of e-Commerce, Prof. Tiller
Obviously we regret this development, and recognize that this may create a schedule problem for you. Therefore, we'd like to propose the following two registration options:
Open Classes
If you would like to add an elective that did not fill up during the pre-registration process, reply to TJ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ASAP, but no later than noon on Friday, January 18th. We will add the course to your schedule. This will ensure that you get priority over the other students who will participate in the ADD/DROP phase starting on January 22nd. Please refer to the attached file to see which classes still open.
Closed Classes
If you would like to get in to an elective which is currently full, and your original bid for the cancelled course would have been sufficient to get in to the now-full course, we will add you to the course as an over enrollment. Reply to TJ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ASAP, but no later than 12 noon on Friday, January 18th. Please refer to the attachment file to see which classes are closed.
Please Note:
Per campus rules, in extraordinary circumstances such as these we are allowed to over-enroll, but by no more than 10% of the official class size. Thus we have a finite number of spaces to work with. Please refer to the size column of the first attached file to see how many seats we have to work with. If more of you want in a class than we can accommodate, we will use original bids as the tie-breaker.
Once again, please accept our apologies for the inconvenience. Should you have any questions, feel free to call the office 510/642-1406.
The Evening & Weekend MBA Program Office
=====================================
|
3,323 |
Subject: EA: Events for March 13-16th (Next Week!)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9722.
=====================================
EA Logo.bmp
Announcement:
A Week of GREAT Events is Scheduled for March 13-16th (Next Week!!)
Tuesday (March 13):
12:30-2:00: Job Fair (hosted by Career Center) - BofA Forum
- come learn about PEL (Partners for Entrepreneurial Leadership) and BSG=20
(Berkeley Solutions Group)
6:30-9:00:? UCB Graduate Collaborate Rountable Dinner
- for Berkeley grad students in business, engineering, law, and information=
=20
systems. Organized by the Graduate Collaborate, a multi-school team devoted=
=20
to improving the interactions between Berkeley's Graduate Schools.? What is=
=20
the Entrepreneurship Roundtable Dinner? At the event, you'll be matched to =
a=20
table with a balanced group of other fellow Cal graduate students from the=
=20
schools listed above to talk about business, technology, entrepreneurship a=
nd=20
to make contacts and new friends.
Potential Table Topics:
Next Generation Internet
Voice portals
3G
Digital Intellectual Property (The Napster Issue)
Optical Networking
Peer-to-Peer/Distributed Computing
B2B - when will it come back in vogue?
B2C - is it dead?
Wearable computing=20
Or whatever else you would like to suggest!
- for further information, including RSVP details: see e-mail from Steven=
=20
Schuman ([email protected])
Wednesday (March 14):
5:30-7:00:? Tour of Berkeley Incubator - Bancroft Hotel
- Berkeley Incubator, founded in 1997 for start-ups created by current Haas=
=20
students and recent graduates.? Designed to provide office space, advanced=
=20
telecommunications capabilities and access to the Lester Center=01,s networ=
ks of=20
venture capitalists, attorneys, accountants, and consultants.
- if interested, please email Shing Wong ([email protected]) or Steve=
n=20
Schuman ([email protected])
Thursday (March 15):
Evening - Haas Technology Club Firm Night - Airport Marriot Hotel,=20
Burlingame, CA
Friday (March 16):
3:30-4:45:? John Williams, SVP for Marketing Intelligence and Alliances, VI=
SA=20
International - Wells Fargo Room
- John Williams, Senior Vice President for Market Intelligence and Alliance=
s=20
at VISA International, will speak on his experiences as an original member =
of=20
the Palm team, a co-founder of Razorfish and a graduate of both the Haas an=
d=20
Boalt schools.
5:00-??:? EA/BBSA (Entrepreneurs Association / Black Business Students=20
Association) Consumption Function
- come enjoy great food, music, and beer
- entertainment:? Tony Rovello and band... LIVE in the courtyard!!!
- EA Logo.bmp
=====================================
|
3,324 |
Subject: Update on Securitization
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3452.
=====================================
FYI
----- Forwarded by Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 05/11/2001 09:30
AM -----
"Roger Yang" <[email protected]>
05/10/2001 06:56 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Update on Securitization
Robert,
The following is an update of bond issues for California:
The SCE MOU would allow SCE to issue bonds to recover $2 billion in 15 year
bonds;
SB 1X 31 would allow DWR to issue bonds to recover $13.4 billion in purchases
for 2001; and
Under a similar ratemaking treatment and transmission purchase agreement in
the SCE MOU for PG&E, PG&E would need to issue $4 billion in bonds.
This would result in over $6 billion in bonds for PG&E and SCE
undercollections through January 31, 2001.
The $13.4 billion in bonds for DWR appears reasonable to the extent that the
FERC soft price caps recently approved by the FERC does not result in market
prices that exceed $300 per MWH and gas prices used to determine QF prices
average $7.4 per mmbtu.? Also, the reasonableness of the $13.4 billion is
also predicated on QFs generating their full capability under their QF
contracts.? These conditions do not appear to be materializing.? However,
conservation impacts and recently approved CPUC retail rate increases may
decrease demand to lower costs by lowering the overall net short for the
utilities.
In terms of other benchmarks for assessing the reasonableness of the $13.4
billion amount, the CPUC proposed decision in the rate design proceeding
cites that DWR expects to incur $9.2 billion for PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E through
June 2001.? If we extrapolate this number to $18.4 billion for all of 2001
and subtract out $3.3 billion for the rate increases for PG&E and SCE that is
expected for the remaining year, the result is $15.1 billion that would need
to be securitized.? However, SDG&E will also be contributing revenues to
reduce the net amount needed to be securitized.? Putting this all together,
demonstrates that the $13.4 billion could be a reasonable amount and any
additional shortfalls would need to be funded through the State's general
fund surplus.? The issue of using State surpluses in lieu of securitization
was an issue in the legislature that prevented Republican support for a
super-majority approval.? It looks at the end of the day, both securitization
and the use of the State's surplus will be needed to fund the revenue
shortfalls in 2001 and both Democrat and Republican solutions will eventually
be implemented.
Roger??
=====================================
|
3,325 |
Subject: Telecommunications Regulations: U.S.: Harris, Wiltshire Names New
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2223.
=====================================
Kent Bressie and his firm handled EBS's Louisiana license, among other items.
Margo Reyna
Regulatory Analyst
Enron Corp., Government Affairs
Phone: 713-853-9191
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 12/05/2000 08:55 AM -----
[email protected]
12/04/2000 05:53 PM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Telecommunications Regulations: U.S.: Harris, Wiltshire Names New
Partners
Harris, Wiltshire Names New Partners
12/04/2000
Satellite News
(c) 2000 Phillips Business Information, Inc.
Harris, Wiltshire&Grannis LLP, a Washington communications and information
technology law firm, has promoted Karen Gulick, Kent Bressie and Jonathan
Mirsky to partner, effective Jan. 1. The firm, which emphasizes emerging
technology and international issues, has grown rapidly partly due to its
hiring of FCC attorneys.
A prime example is Gulick, who joined the firm as "of counsel" on her
departure from the FCC last year. She advises clients on domestic and
international regulatory and legal matters, focusing on wireless
telecommunications.
Gulick concluded her FCC career as legal advisor to Commissioner Gloria
Tristani and took a key role in spectrum issues and emerging technology, as
well as international telecommunications matters.
Bressie specializes in proceedings before U.S. and foreign regulators and in
international proceedings and negotiations. He also advises companies on
legal and policy problems associated with emerging technologies and
international business.
Mirsky advises telecommunications service providers, investors, lenders and
investment banks on communications and regulation. He has worked on
acquisitions and sales of FCC-regulated communications companies and on their
debt and lending arrangements, as well as on spectrum leasing.
The law firm's managing partner is Scott Blake Harris, once chief of the FCC
International Bureau.
Folder Name: Telecommunications Regulations: U.S.
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 72
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
3,326 |
Subject: GOVERNOR DAVIS SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4383.
=====================================
PR01: 174
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
04/26/2001
GOVERNOR DAVIS SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS
TO PROVIDE POWER TO CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO
Governor Gray Davis has signed three executive orders to increase
stabilization, conservation and generation of power in California.
Executive Order D-34-01
Many numerous and complicated statutes, regulations, policies and procedures
are delaying deployment of the energy conservation funding outlined in SB 5X
and AB 29X signed by the Governor two weeks ago. Executive Order D-34-01 will
speed up implementation of the measures.
Together, the two bills provide over $850 million for energy conservation and
distributed generation programs designed to save over 2,000 megawatts this
summer. With the Executive Order, the Energy Commission will not have to go
through the cumbersome process of guideline adoption to approve funding. The
programs in the demand reduction program that will be streamlined included:
Public Agency Loans and Grants (ECAA);
Time-Of-Use and Real-Time Meters;
Municipal Program; and
Cool Roofs/Building Materials
Executive Order D-33-01
Governor Davis signed Executive Order D-33-01 to extend the conservation
rebate of the "20/20" program to the customers in the territory serviced by
the San Diego Gas and Electric Company. The program is designed to help the
state avoid the likelihood of blackouts this summer and reward consumers who
significantly conserve energy. In addition, it could save the state up to
$1.3 billion in power costs by reducing the amount of electricity the state
must buy during expensive summer peak periods.
Executive Order D-32-01
In Executive Order D-32-01, Governor Davis orders the transfer of funds from
the Energy Commission to the Department of Water Resources for implementation
of the power plant construction incentive program. Incentives will include:
$5,000 per megawatt (MW) of average electrical output on the first 100 MW and
$2,500 per MW for each MW above 100 MW, if brought on-line by July 1, 2001;
$4,000 per MW of average electrical output on the first 100 MW and $2,000 per
MW for each MW above 100 MW, if brought on-line between July 2, 2001 and
August 1, 2001; and
$3,000 per MW of average electrical output on the first 100 MW and $1,500 per
MW for each MW above 100 MW, if brought on-line between August 2, 2001 and
August 31, 2001.
Executive Order D-32-01
Executive Order D-33-01
Executive Order D-34-01
###
GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS ?SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 ? (916) 445-2841
=====================================
|
3,327 |
Subject: Re: Agro - Q3,4
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3643.
=====================================
I'm adding my two cents. Here's 3, but not 4. Few things.
1) I considered that everything was "material." That reasonable?
2) Dylan, I struggled with the ban on preservatives, but ultimately decided
it was unusual, not extraordinary, since the book sez that any write down of
inventory is unusual, as opposed to extra. But a case for extra can still,
be made I think.
3) I did not include the 1994 litigation expense associated with the ban,
since it seems to me that it's merely an expense that they would have taken
in 1994, as opposed to a "potential litigation outcome" that they'd make an
allowance for---I could be wrong, though.
4) Finally, I assumed that the depreciation-related gain was already included
in the 1995 "income from continuing operations" number, and consequently
included it as a footnote on my spreadsheet, rather than make it an explicit
line item in the income statement.
I'll look at Kim's #4 and if I have any comments, I'll add them to hers and
circulate.
Best,
Jeff
Kimberly Kupiecki <[email protected]>
11/18/2000 06:54 PM
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Agro - Q3,4
Questions
1. Litigation - how should we account for the 1994 bill of 500,000 in 1994
- I assume this was not accounted for in the 1994 income statement - we
could include a note on pro forma numbers for the 1994 statement or we
could just include this cost in 1995 - I am including it in the 1995
recalculated income statement, but I don't think this is totally accurate.
Thoughts anyone?
2. In the text, page 354, Other gains or losses from the sale or
abandonment of PP&E used in a business is not supposed to be reported under
extraordinary items. This means the two sites Agro sold for $750,000
(after tax gain) should not be counted under extraordinary items. In this
case - we could 1) assume this is accounted for already in the 9.5 million
number given to us or 2) add it in after "income from continuing
operations" and before "discontinued operations." I went with option 2.
Let me know if you have any issues with this treatment.
3. Are we supposed to do anything with the 30,411,380 of retained
earnings? I did not include pay out of dividends in the income statement.
Cheers,
- Agro.doc
- Agro.xls
Kimberly Kupiecki
Director
A&R Partners
[email protected]
(650) 762 2800 main
(650) 762 2825 direct
fax (650) 762 2801
=====================================
|
3,328 |
Subject: Re: DRAFT of materials for Governor
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/2799.
=====================================
Scott:
Thanks very much for the comments. On the demand buy-down, I should have
mentioned that I got a late call from the Gov's office asking for more detail
on that proposal, which we'll likely forward along tomorrow morning, with the
comments on the Gov's proposals. Will try to work the other comments in.
Thanks again.
Best,
Jeff
Scott Stoness@EES
01/02/2001 06:30 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black
Subject: Re: DRAFT of materials for Governor
2nd Comments:
We are missing in Increasing Supply section
running of existing older generation combined with mitigating reductions in
emissions.
missing Concrete suggestions:
California Energy Commission sponsored process to determine and implement
actions that will:
result in 10,000 MW of new energy efficient generation being built within
California within 2002; and
running of existing older generation combined with mitigating reductions in
emissions
We are missing in decreasing load section
missing concrete suggestions:
The California Public Utility Commission, will immediately seek bids, in the
form of rate changes and regulatory commitments that would result in 2,000 MW
of reduced on peak load by June 1, 2001
The California Public Utility Commission, will immediately seek bids, in the
form of rate changes and regulatory commitments that would result in 5,000 MW
of reduced overall load by January 1, 2002.
---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Stoness/HOU/EES on 01/02/2001 06:18
PM ---------------------------
Scott Stoness
01/02/2001 06:18 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON
cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black
Subject: Re: DRAFT of materials for Governor
1st Comments from Scott
We are missing:
Positive spin at front
Governor Davis is committed to solving the California energy crisis by:
Developing consumer driven solutions
Protecting customers from short term market aberrations
Continuing to expand the consumers ability to choose
We are missing thoughtful Orderly Process
Maintain 1890 in interim
All customers treated the same
Would replace "maintain a reliable distribution network" with "assure
investment community"
Assurances around forward purchases
Assurances around prudent purchases to keep lights
Assurances, if needed through increases, via tax refundable.
Maintain AB1890 until orderly process arrives with better solution
Would drop specifics arount rate increase.
More to come......
=====================================
|
3,329 |
Subject: Lets face it; you listen to me because I help you invest your money
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10843.
=====================================
Dear RealMoney.com Subscriber,
Biotech, hey, you know I am a skeptic. I have railed against it, called it a
bubble, thought it was way overvalued. But the sector has come down to where
their might be values. Won't you join me in finding out?
Perhaps more than any other financial sector, Biotechnology is a
testament to human ingenuity & financial rewards. I have received
numerous emails asking my advice on how to invest profitably
in this sector.
As an answer to your needs, TheStreet.com has teamed up with The
Wall Street Transcript to create, "Investing in the Second
Biotechnology Revolution" conference, June 7th, in New York
City at the University Club.
We have assembled a star line-up of biotech experts, professional
investors & leading Wall Street analysts who will show you how to:
-- Choose Biotech stocks that are poised for dramatic growth
-- Select companies positioned to exploit & quickly profit
the new therapeutic technologies
-- Utilize investment techniques on how to hedge & manage
investments in this volatile sector
-- Keep tabs on who could be the next Biogen or Amgen
You will be guided through the ever changing biotechnology investment
landscape & have networking opportunities to interact with
the panelists. In short, after attending this 1-day event, you
will have gained the tools and techniques to invest profitably in
the Biotechnology industry -- today. Also, if you book before
May 1st, you will receive $100 off the registration price!
Register today by calling Customer Service at (800) 562-9571
between the hours , 8am-8pm, EST Monday-Friday, or visit our online
registration center at
http://www.twst.com/register
I look forward to meeting with you June 7th in New York City.
Regards,
Jim Cramer
Co-founder/Chief Markets Commentator
TheStreet.com
This email has been sent to you by TheStreet.com because you are a
current or former subscriber (either free-trial or paid) to one of
our web sites, www.thestreet.com or www.realmoney.com. If you are not
a current or former subscriber, and you believe you received this
message in error, please forward this message to [email protected],
or call our customer service department at 1-800-562-9571.
Please be assured that we respect the privacy of our subscribers. To
view our privacy policy, please click here:
http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/about/privacy.html
If you would prefer not to receive these types of emails from us in
the future, please click here:
http://www.thestreet.com/z/unsubscribe.jhtml?Type=M
=====================================
|
3,330 |
Subject: Extraordinary session rules
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/365.
=====================================
fyi.
Extraordinary (Special) Session Rules and Procedures
Call of Special Session:
Only the Governor has the authority to convene a special session of the Legislature. In convening the session, the Governor must issue a proclamation outlining the reasons for the special session, and only issues specified in the proclamation may be acted upon.
Election of Special Session Officers, Committees and Bill Referrals:
The election of officers and the appointment of special session committees are separate from the Legislature's regular session. In some instances, special session committees are comprised of different committee members than those appointed to regular session committees.
Identification of Special Session Bills and Publications:
Separate record-keeping publications (File, History, Journal and Roll Call) are printed for each individual extraordinary session. Special session bills are identified by specific paper colors (i.e. blue or green). For example, documents in the 2001 Second Extraordinary Session are printed on green paper.
Introduction of Special Session Bills:
There is no limit to the number of bills that a member of the Legislature may introduce during the extraordinary session, and none of the bills introduced during the extraordinary session count toward the member's bill limit in the Regular Session.
Special Session Bill Procedures and Calendars:
There is no bill introduction deadline during special sessions, and the "30-day in print" rule and committee file notice requirements do not apply. Special session bills also are not subject to the regular legislative session calendar, committee and/or floor deadlines. The sine die deadline requiring session to adjourn on November 30 of the second year of a legislative session does apply to the Special Session.
Effective Date of Special Session Legislation:
Simple majority vote special session bills take effect on the 91st day after the special session is adjourned. Urgency measures and other two-thirds majority-vote bills take effect immediately upon the Governor's signature. The Governor has 12 days from the date it is received on his desk to sign or veto legislation. Similar to the Regular Session, a special session bill may become law without the Governor's signature.
End of Special Session:
Only the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, may end a special session. The concurrent resolution takes effect upon passage by both houses of the Legislature, and is not subject to a Governor's signature or veto.
=====================================
|
3,331 |
Subject: FW: CAISO Notice - Temporary Suspension of Preliminary Market
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Gene', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Waas', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/46.
=====================================
Here is the ultimate indignity. just talked to IEP. They are planning to file a complaint at FERC -- we agreed -- the best idea is to get some media play first though. IEP press conference later today will address the continuing non-payment issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: CRCommunications [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:50 PM
To: SC Settlements Contacts; ISO Market Participants
Cc: Waas, Gene
Subject: CAISO Notice - Temporary Suspension of Preliminary Market
Invoices
ISO Market Participants
SC Settlement Contacts
On August 30, 2001, the ISO distributed a notice indicating that it would
suspend until further notice making cash distributions based on preliminary
invoices. The Notice further indicated that this practice will be effective
for the June, 2001 and subsequent preliminary invoices until the ISO issues
a further Market Notice addressing cash distributions based on preliminary
invoices.
The ISO has determined that, effective for a temporary period beginning with
the July 2001 trade month, it is appropriate not only to defer ISO cash
distributions based on preliminary invoices but also to defer issuance of
the preliminary invoices themselves. Thus, the ISO will neither collect nor
disperse funds until the final invoice is prepared and distributed.
Beginning with the July 2001 trade month, and until the ISO issues a further
Market Notice addressing preliminary invoices, the ISO will issue a single
monthly invoice on the date that it issues the Final Settlement Statement
for the last Trade Day of the calendar month. The ISO intends to distribute
market payments received based on this single invoice within five business
days from the final payment date specified on the invoice.
This suspension of the "two invoice" settlements approach is a temporary
action which the ISO has determined it must take to address the problems
created not only by recent large adjustments between preliminary and final
invoices but also by Scheduling Coordinators that have failed to make full
or timely payments on preliminary invoices due to unauthorized "netting" or
other practices that are contrary to their payment obligations. The ISO is
considering how best to solve these problems permanently and will issue a
subsequent Market Notice concerning this issue within two months.
As noted in the August 30 Notice, the ISO will be filing Tariff revisions
with FERC to reflect these changes.
Client Relations Communications
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,332 |
Subject: Re: New ECI Company
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/299.
=====================================
Actually, how about Enron Communications Broadband Services? It is similar
to Telecommunications but sounds much more advanced. And considering Scott
Yeager's pitch at the Apps conference that eCI would become the world's
leading broadband applications provider, it seems to fit. Thoughts anyone?
Scott Bolton
01/13/00 01:50 PM
To: Steve McCarrel/Enron Communications
cc: David DeGabriele/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Richard
Anderson/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Robin Hill/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Re: New ECI Company
Steve, not to get too wrapped up in a name, but I think Enron
Telecommunications may be confusing. Can we use something more innocuous
like Enron Communications Ltd. or Enron Communications North America? Just
thinking out loud.
Steve McCarrel
01/13/00 01:09 PM
To: Robin Hill/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Richard Anderson/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, David
DeGabriele/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Scott Bolton/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: Re: New ECI Company
Robin, here is my understanding:
1. It will be a owned by ECI.
2. Conduct regulated telecommunications activities
3. A corporation
4. I suggest the name Enron Telecommunications, Inc. or a variation using
Telecommunications.
Robin Hill
01/12/2000 02:54 PM
To: Steve McCarrel/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Richard
Anderson/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, David DeGabriele/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications
cc:
Subject: New ECI Company
I have a couple of preliminary questions regarding the formation of the new
entity we need to form for ECI regulated transactions.
1) Do we know who is going to be the shareholder? (Enron Communications Group
Inc. owns 100% of ECI)
2) I need a business purpose for the Authorization and Justification
Memorandum which is required for all new entities.
3) Is this going to be a Corporation or a LLC?
I think it would be a good idea to put the same slate of officers and
directors as we have in place for ECI. This is just an attempt to get the
ball rolling so if you could get back to me I would appreciate it.
P.S. We will try to stay away from Enron Communications 2, Inc. for the
name! Please send me your suggestions!
Thanks
Robin Hill
--------------------------------------
Headers
=====================================
|
3,333 |
Subject: PG&E Comes Out with It
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1576.
=====================================
PG&E pretty much lays it on the line in its recent 8K filing. Obviously, no
one should be throwing the customers to the wolves in this time of high
prices (especially when POG&E duped them into believing that the rolloff
could be no earlier than next year) PG&E seems to be ready to negotiate. I
hope we can work together to get some real changes in the retail market to
make dergulation work.
"Mr. Glynn noted that before the high wholesale power prices began to be
experienced in June 2000, revenues from frozen rates were sufficient to
recover transition costs because revenues at frozen rates exceeded costs,
including wholesale power purchase costs. Reacting to some media
commentary that the Utility could waive the recovery of a material amount
of transition costs, with an associated material write-off of the foregone
transition costs, such that transition costs would have been recovered as
of a date when there were no deferred wholesale power purchase costs, Mr.
Glynn indicated that was one of several possible approaches for the Utility
to assess. Mr. Glynn indicated that, if the value of the Utility's
hydroelectric generating assets, as reflected in the settlement agreement
filed by the Utility and other parties on August 9, 2000, were to be
credited to the transition costs, then such costs would have been fully
recovered during August 2000. Mr. Glynn based his statement on the
following facts: Without considering the value of the Utility's
hydroelectric assets, at August 31, 2000, the Utility's estimated remaining
uncollected transition costs that must be collected during the transition
period were approximately $1.6 billion. As previously disclosed, the
settlement agreement filed by the Utility and others on August 9, 2000,
regarding the valuation and disposition of the Utility's hydroelectric
assets, specifies that the value of those assets for purpose of transition
cost calculation is $2.8 billion, which would be reduced by its book value
of approximately $700 million. Testimony taken to date in the CPUC
proceeding where valuation is to be established put the range of market
values from $2.4 billion to in excess of $3 billion under operating and
market conditions prior to June 2000. Under the electric industry
restructuring law, when the Utility completes recovery of its uneconomic
utility generation-related assets and obligations it will satisfy the
conditions that permit the CPUC to determine that the rate freeze and
transition period are over."
8K attached
=====================================
|
3,334 |
Subject: Governor's Release re: SCE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4453.
=====================================
GOVERNOR DAVIS ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
LOS ANGELES
Governor Gray Davis today announced an agreement between the Department of
Water Resources, Southern California Edison, and Edison International.
"These were tough negotiations, but they've produced a good, balanced deal,"
said Governor Davis, who was joined by Edison International Chairman John
Bryson at a Los Angeles press conference announcing the agreement. "This is a
clear example of the good that can come when parties are responsible,
resolute and remain at the bargaining table. It is the outcome from an
administration that is dedicated to the taxpayers and ratepayers of
California and a company that is responsible and public spirited."
"For Edison, the road to recovery will be a long and difficult one," said the
Governor. "But this is a major step in the right direction."
The agreement includes the three conditions outlined in the Governor's speech
last week. Edison has agreed to:
* ???Use its generation assets to provide low-cost regulated power to the
state for 10 years;
* ???Sell their transmission system for $2.76 billion (2.3 times the net book
value); and
* ???Dismiss lawsuits seeking to significantly drive up electricity rates.
In addition, Edison has agreed to:
* ???Commit the entire output of the Sunrise facility on a fixed price basis
for 10 years. Under the agreement, Sunrise must be brought on-line by August
15th of this year or pay a $2-million penalty;
* ???Grant perpetual conservation easements: 20,600 acres of precious lands
related to the Big Creek hydroelectric facility and another 825 acres related
to Eastern Sierra;
* ???Invest $3 billion over five years into capital improvements; and
* ???Edison's parent company will refund no less than $400 million to
Southern California Edison.
In return, the State will allow Edison to issue bonds for a substantial
portion of its "net undercollection." The state will buy the net short
through December 31, 2002. After that time, SCE will be responsible for
covering the net short.
The MOU also requires the utility to sell its hydroelectric assets to the
state if the transmission sales does not occur within two years "for reasons
beyond the parties' control."
The next step is to negotiate specific terms in the 40-page Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the transmission sale and other agreements.
Legislative and Public Utilities Commission approval also will be required
for components of the agreement.
=====================================
|
3,335 |
Subject: How to Get Tickets
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/590.
=====================================
Thanks for reserving tickets to the October 17 Presidential speech at
the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium. We are now in possession of the
tickets and must ask you to pick them up as soon as possible, either
Monday or Tuesday at our offices, 980 Ninth Street, Suite 2200 from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
In the event you wish to have the tickets delivered to you overnight by
Federal Express or other major carrier, please call Geri Royer and give
her an account number to which they may be charged, no later than 3 p.m.
Monday, for delivery Tuesday.
As a last resort, we have reserved a room at the Sacramento Convention
Center for October 17, 2001 where the last remaining unclaimed tickets
will be held from 7:30 a.m. until 9 a.m., however it is recommended that
you claim your tickets as quickly as possible to ensure your seating.
We are also attaching a sheet of instructions, which you should read
carefully and retain for the day of the event. Also there is a map of
downtown Sacramento with parking garages marked, if you should need it.
Thanks for your interest and we look forward to seeing you all at this
historic event.
EVENT INSTRUCTIONS
AUDITORIUM DOORS OPEN AT 10:00 A.M., CLOSE AT 11:00 A.M. WITH EVERYONE
SEATED. NO EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE. GIVE YOURSELF PLENTY OF TIME, AS
SECURITY WILL BE VERY TIGHT.
YOU MUST HAVE A TICKET TO OBTAIN ENTRY TO THE AUDITORIUM. THERE WILL BE
NO TICKET WILL-CALL AT THE EVENT.
PARKING WILL BE SCARCE. PLAN ON PARKING OUTSIDE A FOUR-BLOCK BOUNDARY
AROUND THE AUDITORIUM, AS IT IS LIKELY THAT THIS AREA WILL BE CLOSED TO
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
A MAP OF SURROUNDING PARKING LOTS IS ATTACHED. WE SUGGEST PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION FOR THOSE ARRIVING FROM LOCAL AIRPORTS.
PLEASE DO NOT BRING PURSES, BRIEF CASES, BAGS OR OTHER BELONGINGS THAT
MUST BE SEARCHED. IT WILL DRAMATICALLY SLOW THE PROCESS OF GAINING ENTRY
TO THE AUDITORIUM. METAL DETECTORS WILL BE IN USE. WE DO RECOMMEND
PICTURE IDENTIFICATION BE CARRIED ON YOUR PERSON, HOWEVER.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO TURN YOUR CELL PHONES AND OTHER ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
OFF (OR REFRAIN FROM BRINGING THEM).
SEATING IS ON FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS. PLEASE FOLLOW THE ON-SITE
DIRECTIONS OF THE USHERS ONCE INSIDE THE AUDITORIUM.
CAMERAS ARE ALLOWED, HOWEVER WE SUGGEST REMOVING THE FILM, AS CAMERAS
MAY BE OPENED FOR INSPECTION.
NO SIGNS, FLAGS OR OTHER MESSAGE-TYPE ITEMS WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE
AUDITORIUM.
BUSINESS ATTIRE OR BUSINESS CASUAL IS APPROPRIATE.
If you should have any questions, please contact Geri Royer immediately.
=====================================
|
3,336 |
Subject: Re: Sempra Pipeline
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11656.
=====================================
Jeff and Ricardo - will you guys be able to get this info for me (and the LNG
group) by tomorrow? If there are parts of the request that you won't be
able to get by tomorrow, let me know and we'll ask outside counsel.
Thanks so much for your help.
Lisa
----- Forwarded by Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron on 04/26/2001 11:45 AM -----
Les Webber@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
04/26/2001 11:43 AM
To: Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Sempra Pipeline
Can we get paper - i.e. certificates, approvals, etc. for the pipeline in
California, in Mexico, and at the border (Presidential permit). I can also
task outside FERC counsel if it is going to be too time consuming for you.
Regards.
Les
From: Lisa Yoho@ENRON on 04/26/2001 11:23 AM
To: Les Webber/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: Re: Sempra Pipeline
Les - let me know if you need more information. Lisa
----- Forwarded by Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron on 04/26/2001 11:23 AM -----
Ricardo Charvel
04/26/2001 10:49 AM
To: Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Sempra Pipeline
Sempra owns an LDC (that impoers gas from California) in Mexicali together
with a group called Proxima (Mexican private company) at least a couple of
years ago they began the project and then the construction of a natural gas
pipeline from California to ROSARITO. Rosarito is where several fuel fired
thermoelectric plants have been sited since the early 1960's. Now some gas
fired thermo's are being built and there is no nat gas in Baja other than the
one imported from the U.S. Sempra is building that line to supply the new
plants in Rosarito. Jeff Dasovich was trying to get that pipelint to be open
access last year. I am not sure where that is.
The building, permitting an dealing with the different interests in the
region ha been difficult.
If you need som more specific info. Please let me know.
Best,
Ricardo
Lisa Yoho
04/26/2001 10:41 AM
To: Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Sempra Pipeline
Ricardo - do you know anything about Sempra's pipeline from Rosa Rita to San
Diego Gas & ELectric? We're trying to get information on the Mexican piece
of the pipeline.
Thanks.
Lisa
----- Forwarded by Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron on 04/26/2001 10:40 AM -----
Les Webber@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
04/26/2001 10:36 AM
To: Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Sempra Pipeline
Great - I would like to know the controversy as well.
Can you contact help us with the Mexico side?
Regards.
Les
=====================================
|
3,337 |
Subject: Advice Letter Protest on SCE PX Credit
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11564.
=====================================
Is it too late to fix this. I agree with Tamara that we don't need to be so
weak.
---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Stoness/HOU/EES on 04/25/2001 01:28
PM ---------------------------
Tamara Johnson
04/25/2001 01:10 PM
To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Advice Letter Protest on SCE PX Credit
Scott,
I don't want to weigh in and bring up points that the rest of you have
already debated.
However, I don't think that this draft improves upon Jeanne's earlier one.
To stress that
"the credit must be more in line with costs avoided by ..." doesn't at all
help the argument that the rate freeze hasn't ended, so the PX credit should
still be such that DA customers receive a market-based credit.
By using the "avoided cost" argument, where avoided cost means"marginal cost
of last unit purchased", aren't we setting ourselves up to never get access
to the embedded low-cost generation?
I think this concern could be avoided if the first section says that status
quo was
where:
utility sold all energy into PX and bought all energy from PX AND customers
saw no rate increase, so PX credit was equal to PX price
therefore, since PX is no longer around
DA gets no rate increase by combination of
(i) access to low cost embedded generation and
(ii) market price based credit for rest of generation (where these two
equal to cost to SCE for generation)
Or, DA gets no rate increase by receiving market price based credit for all
of its generation -- which is more practical to calculate.
This is necessary until rate freeze is over.
In first case, where DA gets share of low cost embedded generation, they can
both pay the surcharges and receive them as a credit. In the second case,
they neither pay nor receive a credit for the surcharges.
/Tamara
---------------------- Forwarded by Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES on 04/25/2001
12:51 PM ---------------------------
JBennett <[email protected]> on 04/25/2001 12:43:59 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], James D Steffes
<[email protected]>, "Scott Stoness (E-mail)" <[email protected]>,
"Sue Mara (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
cc: MDay <[email protected]>
Subject: Advice Letter Protest on SCE PX Credit
Attached is the revised version of the protest of SCE's advice letter on the
PX credit. Please provide all comments ASAP. If you cannot get them to me
by 12:30 PDT, then send to Mike Day for incorporation.
<<X23803.DOC>>
Jeanne Bennett
- X23803.DOC
=====================================
|
3,338 |
Subject: >>> VISIONAEL for OSS <<<
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3632.
=====================================
Greetings folks: Great to see you (missed you, Donald) in Houston. Please=
=20
see attached. This guy's been after me for some time. I finally spoke wit=
h=20
him and told him that I'd pass it along. I don't know who (if anyone) in E=
BS=20
is interested in OSS---I can't recall if it's a component of our=20
architecture, or not. If there is someone who might be interested, could y=
ou=20
forward this along? They can choose to follow up, or not. Hope all is wel=
l,=20
and hope to see you again very soon.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/13/2001 05:04 PM -----
=09"Paul Severin" <[email protected]>
=0903/13/2001 04:55 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: <[email protected]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: >>> VISIONAEL for OSS <<<
Hello?Jeff,
??=20
Thank you for?returning my call and speaking with metoday?about Visionael,=
=20
the Network Knowledge Management solutionfor OSS (Operational Support =20
Systems).? Our software?streamlines every aspect of managing?avoice and=
=20
data network, thus saving time and MONEY.
?
...and thank you for forwarding this email to appropriate parties at?ENRON=
.
?
Attached, please find?our latestPDF that will further describeour?softwar=
e=20
in further?detail.??Visionael?can?manage?a network's resources throughout=
=20
it's entirelifecycle.? These stagesinclude: discovery, designing,=20
deployment, provisioning, and operations. =20
?
Were you aware oftheCISCO paper that?recommends Visionael?
?
----- CISCO SYSTEMS HIGHLIGHTS VISIONAEL AS =01+THE LEADING DEVELOPER OF=
=20
NETWORKINVENTORY SOFTWARE=01, ----- =20
In a key white paper, Cisco discusses the role of inventory andconfigurati=
on=20
management within the context of defining configurationmanagement best=20
practices. Cisco points to Visionael as the leadingprovider of this=20
technology.??=20
To read the Cisco white paper, click here:?http:
//www.cisco.com/warp/public/126/configmgmt.html?? ?select: Maintain Network=
=20
Documentation
Once you have had an opportunity to review ourmaterial, please feel free t=
o=20
call me ith any questions that you may have so that we can determine if =
=20
Visionael is a viable solution foryour?company.? I am interested in learnin=
g=20
your opinions and?I look forward to your response.? =20
Thank you very much for your consideration. =20
Sincerely,
?
Paul Severin
Telemarketing?Representative
?
Visionael Corporation
=20
Website: www.visionael.com
Toll free: 877-334-3694
- Visionael 6.0 - ent.pdf
=====================================
|
3,339 |
Subject: RE: you and me
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8284.
=====================================
The playboy mansion?
Cameron Sellers <[email protected]>
01/11/2001 02:22 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: you and me
I think that is a great idea. It would be great. Fun mix of people too.
Where should we have it??? I think it should not be at our house in Napa,
but someplace a little more special.
Cameron Sellers
Vice President, Business Development
PERFECT
1860 Embarcadero Road - Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
650.798.3366 (direct dial)
650.269.3366 (cell)
650.858.1095 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:29 AM
To: Cameron Sellers
Subject: Re: you and me
P.S. Nice use of "birthday" as the segue to the deal.
Speaking of birthdays, Prentice has informed me that, despite my
protestations (being a very low-key sort of guy), there "must" be some
party for my birthday this year (which I'm still opposed to--and I may be
in Houston that MONTH anyway).
I was thinking (cuz I hate spotlights), that it might be fun and
interesting, since your Dad and I are both hitting interesting birthdays
this year, if we had a joint party---double the people, double the fun. (I
don't know if he'd rather have a solo party for his, though.) And since my
dad's met your dad, but our mom's ain't been in the mix, I though it might
be a good (and hopefully safe) atmosphere to get them together in.
Am I smoking crack on the whole idea?
Cameron
Sellers To: "'[email protected]'"
<cameron@perf <[email protected]>
ect.com> cc:
Subject: you and me
01/11/2001
12:16 PM
Sorry for surprising you this morning!! Nothing wrong with being
comfortable in your birthday suit.
Speaking of birthdays, I think we should have a goal to get my company
acquired by your company by May 30, 2001. Good goal, huh??
I want to talk to you about the details I have been thinking about while
you
were gone. When should we talk?? Let's set up a meeting so we make sure
to
move this all forward.
Welcome back.
-C
Cameron Sellers
Vice President, Business Development
PERFECT
1860 Embarcadero Road - Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
650.798.3366 (direct dial)
650.269.3366 (cell)
650.858.1095 (fax)
=====================================
|
3,340 |
Subject: DA Coalition/ARM update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10618.
=====================================
I talked to Tracy Fairchild today about Edelman's efforts on behalf of ARM
and the Direct Access Coalition and learned the following:
The DA Coalition is willing to take media calls -- Tracy has identified
coalition members who will talk to the media, and she is forwarding to me the
list of these members and their contact information. The three lead
organizations in the coalition are the California Retailers Association, the
California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and
Technology Association.
Since February, these key members have changed their position on whether to
participate in a press conference, and now they do not want to participate in
a media event. The reason is that there are other energy issues they're
working on with legislators that they feel are more important than direct
access (rate increase unfairly targets large businesses, interruptible
issues, etc.). They fear that if they participate in a direct access press
conference, that issue will appear to be more important to them than these
other issues. In addition, there is now a desire by these organizations to
distance themselves from ESPs because of the turnback of customers. Many of
the businesses are not thrilled with how direct access has worked, and ESPs
are viewed as the bad guys. Furthermore, these business organizations view a
press conference as offensive to the legislature and governor.
One universal comment that Tracy had received from the DA Coalition and ARM
members is that any event should not include Enron participation. The UC/CSU
issue has really painted us in a bad light, and no one wants to be associated
with us.
Tracy has been pleading for customers who are willing to talk about direct
access, and she is starting to get a few. Once she has customers, she
believes she can pull together a press conference. The target date is the
week of April 16, although that may change so it doesn't coincide w/ the
investigation hearings.
ARM has been talking about introducing its own bill. She'll keep me posted
on this.
Early on, Tracy had been successful pitching the retail story. She's now
working on a second mainstream media pitch about the conflict surrounding
direct access: legislation is needed to fix AB1X, the utilities want to kill
direct access, businesses want choice, ARM has been screwed by Bowen (i'm
sure she'll soften this angle) and CDWR has concerns about direct access.
I'll pass along any new information as I receive it.
thx.
kd
=====================================
|
3,341 |
Subject: California Update 5/22/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Jeff', 'Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate', 'Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3059.
=====================================
See below. I told you in my earlier analysis that $20B was the number.
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 05/22/2001
04:04 PM ---------------------------
From: Kristin Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/22/2001 02:02 PM
To: John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris Gaskill/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike
Grigsby/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Heizenrader/ENRON@enronXgate, Vince J
Kaminski/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Rob
Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Claudio
Ribeiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Tawney/ENRON@enronXgate, Scott
Tholan/ENRON@enronXgate, Britt Whitman/ENRON@enronXgate, Lloyd
Will/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: California Update 5/22/01
PLEASE TREAT AS CONFIDENTIAL
A source had a meeting today with California state treasurer Phil Angelides.
Here are the main points from their conversation
1. Anglelides Certain that SoCal Will Go Bankrupt
Corroborating our line over the past four months, Anglelides stated with
confidence that SoCal would go bankrupt and that "he was surprised they
hadn't already." He noted that the only reason they haven't yet is that
"they were too stupid to ring-fence the parent" and that "their two biggest
equity holders were screaming not to do it."
He added that the Davis/SoCal MOU is dead and that all the "Plan B's" are
"speculative" at best. He also thought that SoCal was being "naive if they
thought they would get a better deal from the legislature than from the
bankruptcy court."
2. Bond Issuance- $12B Not Enough
Angelides conceded that a $12B bond issue would not be enough to buy power
for the summer and that the true costs would probably be $18-24B. The only
reason they didn't issue more is that Angelides felt that "$12B was all the
market could handle." The current game plan for bonds assumes an average
peak price for power of $400/MWh, which Angelides said explains the
difference between his estimates and the higher estimates from State
Comptroller's Kathleen Connell's office.
3. New Generator Construction
Anglelides was explicit that the California Public Power Authority
(authorized by the legislature last week) will "build plants and not stop
until we [California] has a 10-15% capacity cushion above expected demand.
Angelides expects the state to be "5-10% short on power all summer."
=====================================
|
3,342 |
Subject: RE: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1643.
=====================================
Let's hold off scheduling for the moment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:37 AM
To: Shapiro, Richard
Subject: RE: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA
Will do. Won't have it expand beyond that, unless Belden, Vicki or Janet specifically want someone else.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:31 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan
Subject: RE: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA
Yes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:25 AM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Mara, Susan
Subject: FW: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA
Rick:
We need to add Janet on the call with Belden and Vicki?
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dietrich, Janet
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:21 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan
Cc: Shapiro, Richard
Subject: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA
EES is fully on board with these pursuits...
---------------------- Forwarded by Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES on 09/24/2001 10:18 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/21/2001 03:48 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA
? The PUC's decision 1) suspending DA and 2) signaling the PUC's intent to continue to consider nullifying DA contracts signed after July 1 is full of holes.
? We haven't detected any downside in joining with coalitions, and trying to get other coalitions, to appeal the PUC order.
? Sue Mara is working with the ARM coalition to appeal yesterday's order and is taking the lead generally on the effort to reverse things.
? The appeals that we would join, and attempt others to persue on their own, would focus principally on two issues: 1) disabusing the PUC of the notion that it has the legal authority to nullify contracts retroactively, and 2) lifting the suspension on DA altogether (let me know if I've missed anything here, Sue).
Please let us know if folks have any concerns that would cause us to reconsider pursuing these challenges.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,343 |
Subject: Re: Hectic?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/455.
=====================================
Hi: O lord. You know, the pace at school is so much nicer--actually have
time to think about things and absorb it. But work has gotten so insane that
I sympathize with your plight (since mine's the same). I think I've maybe
made it to 1/2--that's 1/2--of the finance classes.
NORTH of Sacramento. Are you driving to Sacramento every day? Say it ain't
so. That's brutal.
When you say full time, you mean school full time? That, I assume, means
leaving your job? Be happy to talk about it. You know me---believer in
always keeping all options open and active. If full time makes sense, you
ought to do it.
Unfortunately, though, it looks like I'll be missing class (again) on Tuesday
because I have to be in Portland. If you're not going to Sac on Monday,
coffee in SF during work hours works. Or I could meet you during break on
Monday. Or we could have lunch or a beer after work on Thursday or Friday
when I'm back from Portland.
Hang in there. I was worried about you--seemed liked you'd gone underground
again. Remember, life's too short to get too worried about it. Let me know
what works for you.
Best,
Jeff
PS I'm spending my Saturday nite working on a financial reporting case.
Hope that's modest consolation.
"Strategizing?!" (I don't think so.)
Courtney Abernathy <[email protected]>
09/30/2000 07:52 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: Hectic?
Boy did I flake on the happy hour. Jeff-I think I've
gone over THE edge. Hectic does't even work anymore.
I'm on a (fairly)good project at HP..IN SACRAMENTO,
in fact 20 miles north of Sacramento. I LOVE the
company, the learning, the work, the teams, the
people, the career opportunities. I hate the 4+ hours
of driving on Mondays and Tuesdays, strategizing(real
word?) about balancing the needs of the team with
getting my ass to school. I really want to talk to
you...I'm thinking about full time and want your
thoughts. Are you available at break on Tuesday for a
beer?
Courtney
--- [email protected] wrote:
> Hey there stranger:
> By the looks of your attire (very nice), and the
> pace of you walk the other
> night, looks like you're back in the working groove.
> Hope work is fun and
> your classes are good. I'm trying to get used to
> the "no life" thing
> again. And you slacked on the happy hour.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
=====================================
|
3,344 |
Subject: Re: California Litigation Team Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11058.
=====================================
It would be useful for me to have the opportunity to listen in on these
calls. Let me know if that's a problem.
Best,
Jeff
James D Steffes
04/12/2001 10:04 PM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: California Litigation Team Meeting
I will plan on attending weekly. Let me know if anyone else should go?
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 04/12/2001
10:03 PM ---------------------------
From: Mark E Haedicke@ECT on 04/12/2001 05:45 PM
Sent by: Janette Elbertson@ECT
To: William S Bradford/Enron@EnronXGate, Rick Buy/Enron@EnronXGate,
[email protected], David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, James Derrick/Enron@EnronXGate,
[email protected], [email protected], Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Dan
Leff/HOU/EES@EES, [email protected], Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron,
Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected], John J
Lavorato/Enron@EnronXGate, Lisa Mellencamp/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES,
Michael Smith/ENRON@enronxgate, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael
Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Williams/ENRON@enronxgate, [email protected]
cc: Kay Chapman/HOU/EES@EES, Tammie Schoppe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kimberly
Hillis/Enron@EnronXGate, Liz M Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES,
Stephanie Harris/Enron@EnronXGate, Karen K Heathman/Enron@EnronXGate, Twanda
Sweet/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda J Simmons/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: California Litigation Team
Starting on Thursday, April 19, at 2:00 p.m. there will be a weekly
telephone conference for the California litigation team. The objective will
be to identify key issues and plan a coordinated strategy for all litigation
in California. The call will last not more than one hour.
Thus far, the responsibility has been allocated as follows:
1. PG&E Bankruptcy Lisa Mellencamp and Carl Ecklund (LeBoeuf Lamb Greene &
McRae)
2. Class Actions Richard Sanders and Robin Gibbs (Gibbs & Bruns)
3. CTC Matters Bob Williams, Mike Day and Gary Fergus (Brobeck)
4. FERC Matters Regulatory and Richard Sanders and Dan Watkiss (Bracewell
& Patterson)
5. Government Investigations Regulatory and Richard Sanders
Richard Sanders and Robin Gibbs will have overall responsibility for
coordination of the litigation.
=====================================
|
3,345 |
Subject: EES SAP Reference Material
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/administrative/3.
=====================================
Please do not reply to this message!!! Your response will be distributed to
ALL EES Employees, including EES Executives. For your convenience, we have
provided a detailed listing of contact information of the EES SAP Team.
A Message from your EES SAP Team,
As you already know, the legacy MSA system for EES is scheduled to go away on
July 1, 2000 with the implementation of SAP. In order to smooth the
transition, the EES SAP Team will start distributing key information to every
employee at EES through Lotus Notes. With this in mind, attached below are
several files that will help ease the transition to SAP. Please keep this
e-mail for future reference.
For these and other helpful documents, please visit the Apollo website (
http://sap.enron.com/ ) or our EES SAP website
( http://inet.ees.enron.com/vision/comm/sap/ ) both of which will be updated
with any changes going forward.
For questions, please contact the EES SAP Finance Support Staff:
Kem Miller 713-853-6965
Chip Brenner 713-345-8793
Murthy Rao 713-853-4246
COE - Help Desk 713-345-4SAP (713-345-4727)
For other SAP related questions, please contact the EES SAP Site Managers:
Bobby Mahendra (Finance) - 713-345-8467
Daler Wade (HR) - 713-853-5585
We look forward to a smooth transition to SAP. Please review the attachments
below.
ATTACHMENTS (this information is valid as of 6/25/00. Any updates to this
information will be posted to the respective websites):
1) The following attachment contain a list of all MSA RC's and their
corresponding SAP Cost Centers. In SAP the Company Code is 4 digits with a
"0" preface,
e.g. "985" is now "0985" . Please note that after "Go Live" July 1, 2000,
MSA RC's will be replaced with SAP Cost Centers.
2) The following attachment relates to common expense coding.
3) For some SAP accounts, a functional area and/or a material number is
required for specific tracking purposes.
4) A SAP Employee Expense Report
5) Accounts Payable requires you to fill out a SAP Invoice Coding Sheet when
sending an invoice for payment in place of the current Invoice Stamp.
6) Useful only for people who code expenses or time to "E" Work Orders, the
following is the conversion list of all MSA "E" Work Orders to SAP Stat
Orders.
7) A detailed SAP Chart of Accounts.
8) Useful only for people who code expenses or time to "S" Work Orders. the
following is the conversion list of all MSA "S" and "J" Work Orders to SAP
WBS Elements (Projects).
=====================================
|
3,346 |
Subject: Re: Follow up conference call
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11976.
=====================================
I apologize, but I can't make this call, though I'm confident that you folks
can handle it. I'm available Friday afternoon (though I don't that will work
for Jim Steffes). Let me know.
Best,
Jeff
Wanda Curry@EES
05/02/2001 10:07 AM
To: Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron,
Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Diann
Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES, Mary Lynne Ruffer/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Follow up conference call
I have sent Janet Covington the participant list as requested per her e-mail
below. She has agreed to set up the conference call for Thursday, May 3rd at
3 PM central time. Please reserve this time. I will forward each of you the
spreadsheet we receive from them today. I will let you know if I think we
should get together to review the spreadsheet prior to the call.
Thanks,
Wanda Curry
---------------------- Forwarded by Wanda Curry/HOU/EES on 05/02/2001 09:58
AM ---------------------------
Diann Huddleson
05/02/2001 08:01 AM
To: Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Follow up conference call
Wanda, I spoke with Janet after you forwarded her voice mail. I told her we
would provide the participant list this morning. Let me know if you want me
to do that.
---------------------- Forwarded by Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES on 05/02/2001
08:00 AM ---------------------------
[email protected] on 05/01/2001 03:46:06 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Follow up conference call
Hi Diann,
I just left a phone message for Wanda as I didn't have her email and was
supposed to coordinate the follow up call with her. Anyway, we are still
working on preparing the account examples demonstrating the change in
methodology and should have those to you by tomorrow. In the meantime, I
wanted to go ahead and arrange the follow up call for this Thursday 5/3 at
1pm PST. That would be 3pm your time. Can you please let me know the
email addresses for your participants so I can get a notice out to them.
I had yourself, Wanda Curry, Evan Hughes, Jeff Dodson, Bob Williams, Jim
Doth, and Martin Curtilan? Not sure of the spelling. Please let me know
so I can send out the meeting notice out with the call in details.
Thanks Much.
Janet L. Covington
Account Manager
ESP/AMS Services Division
SSID Administration Bldg., First Floor
7300 Fenwick Lane
Westminster, CA 92683
Phone: 714-895-0198 (54198)
Fax: 714-895-0347 (54347)
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,347 |
Subject: OMB Response to FERC Reporting Requirements
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1652.
=====================================
As detailed in the attached FERC notice, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved FERC's Information Collection Request for "Reporting of Natural Gas Sales to the California Market" through the six-month emergency period that will expire on 1/31/02. (Emergency reporting requirements are automatically approved for six months under the OMB regulations.) However, it gave FERC several conditions that would have to be met before the reporting requirements could be extended.
OMB has advised FERC that, if it decides to request renewal of the Information Collection Request after that date, it must address certain issues as part of its supporting statement (more specifically, "include an explicit discussion"). As you may remember, in addition to requesting rehearing of the FERC order, ENA and EES submitted comments to OMB regarding our problems with FERC's estimate of the burden on affected companies of the proposed collection of information. We pointed out that we do not manage our business in the manner contemplated by the reporting requirements, much less keep our records in that manner. We manage our business on an aggregated basis, and complying with the requirements will require us to implement significant manual review and analysis to arbitrarily define the components of a sale. We stated that we might even have to hire full-time staff to dedicate to the task.
The issues that we raised in our comments are the same ones that OMB requires FERC to address if they submit a request for approval to extend the reporting requirements past 1/31/02. (FERC indicated in its July order that it intended to extend the reporting requirement through 9/30/02 to coincide with the end date of its mitigation plan.) OMB questioned the practical utility of requiring disaggregated data when "commenters" reported that they did not maintain the data in a way that allowed them to report it that way. OMB expressed concern that the data collection would require significant data manipulation in order to respond, and the resulting disaggregation would likely be artificial. OMB also required FERC to evaluate its burden estimates after "consulting with respondents", and it must provide a list of the names, affiliates, and phone numbers of the respondents it contacted.
FERC has not yet issued an order on our rehearing request. While we would not expect them to withdraw the reporting requirements entirely, it may be that the OMB action will affect their final decision. At the least, it sends a signal!
=====================================
|
3,348 |
Subject: CHANGE #2 TO TAR&L MEETING-CANCELLATION
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3997.
=====================================
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I apologize for the confusion regarding this meeting but we are now going to
call off Monday's meeting (12/4) and just stick to the one already scheduled
for Thursday, December 7th. This meeting will be held in 43C1 and the call
in numbers remain the same as listed below.
Once again, there will be no November 30th or December 4th TAR&L meeting.
Please call me at 37097 if I may be of further assistance.
----- Forwarded by Angie Buis/Enron Communications on 11/29/00 12:43 PM -----
Due to the unavailability of several players, we would like to move the
November 30th TAR&L meeting to Monday, December 4th, 8:30-noon in conference
room EB14C1. Please advise if you are unable to attend at this time.
Thank you!
Angie Buis
x-37097
----- Forwarded by Angie Buis/Enron Communications on 11/28/00 08:38 AM -----
Angie Buis
11/27/00 02:40 PM
To: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Cynthia Harkness/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jan
Haizmann/LON/ECT@ECT, Rajen Shah/LON/ECT@ECT, James Ginty/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Derenda Plunkett/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, David
Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robbi Rossi/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Beth Wapner/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Ban Sharma/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jane
Wilson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard Anderson/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Wayne Gardner/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: TAR&L MEETING - NOVEMBER 30TH
The next TAR&L meeting will take place on Thursday, November 30, 8:30 a.m. to
12:00 noon, in conference room EB43C1. Breakfast will be provided. The
call-in information is listed below.
International Participants: (304) 345-7526
Domestic Participants: (888) 271-0949
Passcode: 589792
Host (Houston) number: (888) 271-0949
Passcode: 281574
I have arranged for 4 domestic and 2 international ports. Should extra ports
be required, all the person will need to do is dial the appropriate number
listed above.
Additionally, we have scheduled another TAR&L meeting for Thursday, December
7th, same location, time and dial in numbers.
Should you have questions regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate
to call me at extension 37097.
Thanks.
Angie Buis
EBS-Tax
=====================================
|
3,349 |
Subject: Introducing Schwab eStatements
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12255.
=====================================
=================================================?
Now get your Schwab statement online and review account?
activity quickly and conveniently.?
-------------------------------------------------?
As an eConfirms subscriber, you already experience the ease and?
convenience of receiving your trade confirmations by email. Now?
Schwab streamlines recordkeeping even further with eStatements.?
Paperless eStatements are online account statements that keep?
you organized and informed -- while they reduce clutter and?
save you time.?
Click on the link below to log in to schwab.com and sign up for?
eStatements. Each month you have account activity, you'll?
receive an email when your eStatement is available online.?
http://schwab.ed10.net/ud/HRD3/ULUE/3CO3/GX/M9JBK8
eStatements are viewable on schwab.com, unlike eConfirms,?
which you view in an email.?
Schwab eStatements allow you to:?
* Print copies whenever you want -- eStatements come in a?
quick-to-view HTML format, as well as a printer-friendly PDF?
format.?
* Download and archive them right on your computer.?
* Access historical statements -- Schwab will keep your records?
for up to 18 months, secure and available whenever you need?
them.?
Schwab eStatements -- another great way to simplify your?
financial life. Log in and enroll your account(s) today(1).?
Click here to enroll or view a sample eStatement.
http://schwab.ed10.net/ud/HRD3/206P/3CO3/MQ/M9JBK8
--------------------------------------------------------------
(1) To subscribe to eStatements, you will need to log in to
schwab.com. If you do not log in using your Social Security
Number (SSN), you will be prompted to link your account(s) to
your SSN in order to gain access to eStatements. After
enrolling your eligible accounts for eStatements, you'll no
longer receive a statement by mail unless you choose the
duplicate paper option.
Access to electronic services may be limited or unavailable
during periods of peak demand, market volatility, systems
upgrades or maintenance, or for other reasons.
If you would prefer to receive only account service emails,
please reply to this email indicating your preference. Please
note: doing so will not remove you from any Schwab Alerts or
email newsletters to which you have already subscribed.
Notice: All email sent to or from Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed by Schwab
personnel.
(c) 2001 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
Member SIPC/NYSE. (0601-0304)
[IMAGE]
=====================================
|
3,350 |
Subject: RE: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/384.
=====================================
Joe Pratt is the Cullen Professor of Business and History at the University of Houston and author of several energy business histories such of ConEd, Amoco, Texas Eastern Transmission Company, and the National Petroleum Council. He will visit the issue from the vantage point of how are energy corporations perceived in the debate and controversy. He is not an economist but is more market oriented than he used to be. He is buddies with a Cal State professor, Chris Casteneda, who was Pratt's student at UH.
Dr. Pratt is also involved in the Enron oral history project with me.
- Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 11:26 AM
To: Bradley, Rob
Subject: FW: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on October 4th
In the constant state of "blur" I'm in, I somehow unintentionally left you off the note. Your comments/thoughts/feedback is of course greatly appreciated.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 7:12 PM
To: Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Robertson, Linda; Landwehr, Susan M.; Denne, Karen; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Nord, Sue; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Guerrero, Janel
Subject: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on October 4th
On October 4th, I'll be trying to fill Rob Bradley's rather large shoes at the Cal State University Center for California Studies' 13th annual envisioning California conference, "Our Year of Disconnect: The Politics of Power in California."
I'll be participating in a Roundtable at the plenary session entitled: "Lessons Learned, Unlearned & To Be Learned: A Roundtable on California's Utility Deregulation."
The Roundtable will be moderated by the State Librarian, Kevin Starr. The other roundtable-ists include:
Chuck Cicchetti (Edison plant? Anyone know what he's up to these days?)
Bob Foster--Edison
Nettie Hoge--head of TURN
Glen Thomas--Chair of the Pennsylvania PUC (any info on Chair Thomas is appreciated)
State Senator Debra Bowen
David Freeman--Self-appointed emporer
Dr. Joseph Pratt--History prof., University of Houston (any info on the professor is also appreciated)
Each of us will have two minutes to open and then Dr. Starr will moderate the ensuing mud-slinging.
Attached are some draft talking points that I threw together for your review. All comments, suggestions, guffaws, etc. are welcome and appreciated.
Best,
Jeff
<< File: CSU Rountable draft talking points 0927.doc >>
=====================================
|
3,351 |
Subject: Legal Representation in Gas Accord II
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1416.
=====================================
Jeff:
Goodin, MacBride is willing and able to represent a coalition of
end-users, marketers, and other interested parties in the PG&E Gas Accord II
proceeding in much the same fashion that it represented multiple parties in
the GRI proceeding in both PG&E and SoCalGas settlements. We would propose
to split our monthly billings for legal fees and expenses equally between
the parties who agree to join such a coalition. In exchange for joining the
coalition, parties would receive frequent updates on the status of
settlement talks and other proceedings, participate in conference calls to
reach decisions on coalition positions, and have the ability to call on the
GMSRD lawyers on the case in order to answer specific questions or provide
any other useful information.
I envision using several attorneys for various portions of the
proceeding, including using associates and paralegals for research, and
other GMSRD partners with gas experience for preparation of pleadings, etc.
However, most of the face to face negotiating, including working with
Commissioners and advisors as necessary, would be done by myself as lead
partner on the case. I have attached a fee schedule for the GMSRD attorneys
who would likely have some involvement in the case. Because the majority of
this work will be done in 2001, these rates reflect our new 2001 hourly
fees. However, in an effort to encourage participation in the coalition,
and because several potential members of the coalition are past or existing
clients, we propose to reduce our standard fees with a 15% discount for all
participants in the coalition. With this discount, these would be the
lowest fees available to any of our clients in the coming year.
I have not made any type of estimate of legal expenses for this
proceeding, as it is exceedingly difficult to forecast how protracted the
proceedings will be. Once we begin participating in the proceeding and we
collectively decide how best to proceed in terms of actual participation in
the case, we can provide frequent budget reports and make more useful
budgetary estimates. If you require some type of estimation sooner than
that, please let me know.
Thank you for your interest in using our services. Please contact
me directly at (415) 765-8408 if you have any questions.
Mike Day, partner
Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
GMSRD Fee Schedule for Gas Accord II proceedings
Michael Day $300
James McTarnaghan $260
Jeanne Bennett $220
Alexandra Ozols $130
Heather Patrick, paralegal $ 85
=====================================
|
3,352 |
Subject: Re: Data on Monthly Generation for SCE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron', 'Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4463.
=====================================
Jeff - please copy me and Mary Hain on the e-mail, once you have secured a
dial-in #. Thanks!
Lysa
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 12/11/2000 10:20 AM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Stephen Swain/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Data on Monthly Generation for SCE
The votes have been counted (kidding), and the call will take place today at
3 PM PST. Call-in number to follow.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/11/2000 10:19 AM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
12/07/2000 12:13 PM
To: Stephen Swain/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Data on Monthly Generation for SCE
Folks:
The "subcommittee" I've referenced that's trying to come up with a solution
to California's train wreck is moving very quickly. The group's shooting to
have a first cut at a "straw person" proposal sketched out by end of next
week. The group's meeting on Tuesday to continue to bounce around ideas.
I'd like to try to have an internal call on Monday at either 10 AM (PST) or
3 PM (PST) to pin down at least a vaguely detailed conceptual framework that
I can propose to the subcommittee on Tuesday. The agenda items for the
internal meeting are:
Finalize proposal for benchmark(s) for utility procurement.
Goal: increase utility willingness to enter into forward contracts by
replacing PUC after-the-fact "reasonableness" review with a benchmark. (Been
working the Portland desk on a "portfolio benchmark" concept.)
Determine our view of how to treat term contracts w.r.t. the PX credit, i.e.,
should those contracts be disclosed to the market, or should PUC keep them
confidential, calculate the PX credit behind closed doors, and publish the
credit ex poste? The PX credit depends on the overall utility portfolio, not
just the PX price.
Let me know if 10 AM or 3 PM (PST) works better.
Harry: I'll assume that you'll contact the folks from EES that need to
participate.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,353 |
Subject: Fitch downgrades credit outlook for California IOUs
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2057.
=====================================
Fitch downgrades credit outlook for California IOUs
09/20/2000
Megawatt Daily
(c) Copyright 2000 Pasha Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The credit rating agency Fitch yesterday downgraded its ratings outlook for
all three of California's investor-owned utilities (IOUs) from stable to
negative.
The company cited high wholesale electricity prices that could contribute to
a liquidity crunch for the utilities and the uncertainty of California's
deregulation process in the wake of this summer's market upheavals as reasons
for the revised outlook.
"Uncertainty affects all the utilities," a Fitch analyst said. Although each
of the utilities has slightly different circumstances, there are underlying
problems impacting them all, the Fitch report says.
The three IOUs - San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E), and Southern California Edison (SoCalEd) - all face high prices in
the wholesale market where they must buy power, but are limited in their
ability to pass on costs to their customers.
PG&E's and SoCalEd's prices are frozen under the state's restructuring
legislation for a transition period lasting through March 2002 at the latest.
SDG&E, which completed the transition period earlier this year, initially was
able to charge its customers market rates, but had its prices capped
retroactive to June by state legislation and regulatory orders.
Under the price controls, the IOUs are unable to cover their immediate costs,
and the political and regulatory climate has left the question unanswered as
to if or how the IOUs will be allowed to recover their costs.
In addition, PG&E and SoCalEd must use the transition period to pay off
stranded costs through the sale of their generation assets. SDG&E has already
paid off its stranded costs and was able to charge market rates to its
consumers until the current price cap went into effect.
Taking all of these aspects into consideration, Fitch felt the ratings
downgrade was necessary to reflect the companies' future positions. The
update is "our indication of where ratings may go," the analyst said. "Over
the long term there are negative aspects [in the IOUs situations]."
Still, "these are all high[ly] rated utilities," he said, adding that he did
not expect the revision to affect the companies' ability to raise money or
the cost they pay for borrowing.
Fitch's ratings outlook downgrade mirrors a similar downgrade of the IOUs'
ratings outlook by Moody's, another credit rating agency, last week. ADP
=====================================
|
3,354 |
Subject: (BN ) Colombia's Medellin Utility Drops Isagen Investment,
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8593.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Sharonda Stephens/Corp/Enron on 01/25/2001 10:49 AM -----
"ANN SCHMIDT, ENRON CORP." <[email protected]>
01/25/2001 08:51 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: (BN ) Colombia's Medellin Utility Drops Isagen Investment,
enron story
Colombia's Medellin Utility Drops Isagen Investment, Papers Say
1/25/1 8:49 (New York)
Bogota, Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Colombia's largest municipal
utility, Empresas Publicas de Medellin, won't seek to buy a stake
in state-run generator Isagen because leftist guerrilla attacks on
the power grid have increased its costs, newspapers said.
The newly sworn in mayor of Medellin, Luis Perez, told a
Senate hearing that the country's third largest city would instead
seek to invest the estimated $400 million the purchase would have
cost into programs to generate jobs in Medellin, the daily El
Tiempo reported.
``There is no sense in crying over spilled milk,'' Mines and
Energy Minister Carlos Caballero was quoted by El Tiempo as saying
upon hearing the news.
The government last year pushed back until 2001 its plans to
sell the state's 77 percent stake in Isagen due to a series of
lawsuits filed by EPM, as the Medellin utility is called. EPM
alleged it had been discriminated against in the sales process
because of anti-monopoly regulations.
EPM was planning to purchase the government's stake in Isagen
together with Enron Corp. of the U.S. to avoid the anti-monopoly
regulations. AES Corp. of the U.S. and Union Fenosa of Spain were
also interested in Isagen, Caballero said last year.
--Robert Willis in Bogota (571)317-4000 [email protected] or
through the New York newsroom at (212) 318-2300/jrk
Story illustration: To graph real year-on-year percentage change
in Colombian economic growth, type {COGCRYOY <Index> GP <GO>} ;
Regional news: News by category:
NI COLOM Colombia NI EM Emerging markets
NI LATAM Latin America NI ECO Economic news
NI ANREGION NI COECO Colombia economy
NI US NI GOV Government
NI SPAIN NI NRG Energy
NI UTI Utilities
NI PZN Privatizations
NI TLS
NI MNG
NI COS
Company news:
ENE US <Equity> Enron
AES US <Equity> AES
1032Z CB <Equity> EPM
UNF SM <Equity> Union Fenosa
-0- (BN ) Jan/25/2001 13:49 GMT
=====================================
|
3,355 |
Subject: FW: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/703.
=====================================
FYI. Here's a note I sent to the large customers. Have spoken with them since. They are going to write a nasty letter in response to Angelides. Also, it does not appear that the PUC can act at this meeting on the retroactivity issue--appears that due process/notice requirements prevents it. We're double checking to make sure.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:16 PM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA Suspension Date
I'm sure that by now everyone's seen the letter that Angelides sent to Loretta last Friday. If you haven't, let me know and I'll have it faxed to you. In short, Angelides blames all of the financial woes of the State on Loretta and the PUC. Specifically, he claims that by allowing DA sign-ups to extend to September 20th, the PUC may have shifted over $8 billion to "homeowners, small businesses, and other enterprises..." Angelides ends the lettery by urging the Commission to immediately roll back the DA suspension date to July 1.
The concern, of course, is that Angelides' assertions are out there and have received alot of press attention, i.e., Direct Access=$8 billion tax on homeowners.
To her credit, Loretta refuted Angelides in the press accounts and repeated that the best way to get costs down is to renegotiate the DWR contracts. She also said in the press accounts that she intends to deal with the July 1/September 20 suspension issue at the next commission meeting.
In light of these events (and the increasing attacks on Loretta by Angelides and others in the Administration) It might be useful to give Loretta an assist by drafting a very brief letter to her stating:
Angelides is all wet--DA and "fairness" are not mutually exclusive and the PUC has all the regulatory tools necessary to ensure fairness is maintained going forward. Thus, the 8 plus billion dollar number is without basis.
Re-stating that the PUC has no legal authority to retroactively suspend DA to July 1, etc., etc.
Folks may have other points to make. Seems that we'd want to keep the letter short and to the point, however.
A letter might be useful in order to 1) give Loretta some support and 2) get some counter-press in response to the Angelides tantrum.
Any thoughts?
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,356 |
Subject: Re: Enron's Response Today - Key Point to Focus On
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3795.
=====================================
I know that WPTF is supporting Hebert's approach and would suggest starting
with $250 or higher with big increments every six months. WPTF is also
asking for clarification on what the cap applies to. I don't recall what the
comments said on refund and I haven't taken a look at the WPTF final yet.
I'll let you know. I'll check on the others today.
James D Steffes
11/22/2000 07:30 AM
To: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, David
Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Debra Davidson/PDX/ECT@ECT, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES,
Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joseph
Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, Jubran Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, [email protected],
[email protected], Marcia A Linton/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Neil
Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, [email protected],
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Enron's Response Today - Key Point to Focus On
As I've been thinking about our response today, I would like Enron to focus
on making sure that the California (WSCC) markets are as good a possible for
business over the next 15 to 24 months. Following that idea, I think that
the key points are (1) clarifying/raising the soft cap and (2) reducing the
burden/risk of the prospective refund period.
I know that we had discussed leading off with the debate over market power /
retroactive refunds, but I think that (a) FERC is not inclined to do much
more on this issue, (b) FERC wants to fix the market as much as it can given
the current political realities, and (c) if retroactive refunds become an
issue, we still have our full compliment of resources to later fight this
fight.
I would recommend that the pleading and Alan's testimony be modified to bring
these issues to the top of the ticket. We should still include all of our
other arguments.
Finally, I want to make sure that Enron is taking the right position by
quietly supporting a $250/Mwh soft cap with safe harbor fixes? Sue Mara, can
you please try and find out what EPSA, IEPCA, and WPTF are going to file? I
want to make sure that we are in the ball park on this issue but not getting
too soft.
Jim
=====================================
|
3,357 |
Subject: RE: La Rosita Plant and North Baja Pipeline
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Mingcheng Lian/AP/Enron@Enron', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3177.
=====================================
Hello, Jeff,
I just called you regarding the tariff to transport gas from California
border to Mexico/Baja. Below is a more detailed request from the LNG project
developer.
Please email me what you find out.
Have a good weekend!!
Ming
---------------------- Forwarded by Mingcheng Lian/AP/Enron on 05/18/2001
03:48 PM ---------------------------
From: Kurt Lindahl/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/18/2001 10:34 AM
To: Michael McGarry/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, George
Thomas/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Mingcheng Lian/AP/Enron@Enron
Subject: RE: La Rosita Plant and North Baja Pipeline
George/Ming,
While you are investigating the pipelines, also see if you can find out the
tariff that Sempra charges to transport gas from the California border to
Mexico/Baja. We are in discussions with Sempra regarding possible joint
activities, so your investigation should be cautious. I don't want to
disturb Sempra, but I would like to find out how the transportation works:
transport rate, fuel charge, etc.
Kurt
-----Original Message-----
From: McGarry, Michael
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:07 AM
To: Thomas, George
Cc: Lian, Mingcheng; Lindahl, Kurt
Subject: Re: La Rosita Plant and North Baja Pipeline
George,
Thanks for the concise and informative summary. The cost data and schedule
information is of particular interest to me.
Would you continue your investigation concerning the following:
1. I would like to know what the existing pipeline distribution system looks
like in that area.
2. Can we get a map of the pipelines and power plants down the west coast of
Baja
3. What are the intentions of the competition in that area.
4. What are the major requirements to do work in the area, both onshore and
offshore.
Let me know what you guys can dig up. Of course confidentiality at this stage
is of paramount importance.
Best regards
Mike
From: George Thomas/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/18/2001 08:26 AM
To: Michael McGarry/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Mingcheng Lian/AP/Enron@Enron
Subject: La Rosita Plant and North Baja Pipeline
<< File: La Rosita Plant and North Baja Pipeline.doc >>
Mike,
We have put together a one page summary of the North Baja Pipeline and the La
Rosita plant. Let us know of any changes or additions that should be made to
the summary or if there is another angle you would like us to approach this
from. Also, if there are any other projects or topics you would like us to
analyze, please don't hesitate to contact us.
George Thomas
EGM Fundamentals
Analyst
=====================================
|
3,358 |
Subject: FW: Draft Outline of JSJ Comments for FERC Meeting on Thursday, Nov
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Jan Smutny-Jones; Katie Kaplan; Andy Brown; Bob Weisenmiller; Stephanie']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3211.
=====================================
?
?
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Kelly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:16 PM
To: William Hall; Ward Scobee; Tony Wetzel; Tom Heller; Ted Cortopassi; Steve
Ponder; Steve Iliff; Roger Pelote; Robert Frees; Pete Levitt; Paula Soos; Nam
Nguyen; Milton Schultz; Marty McFadden; Ken Hoffman; Jonathan Weisgall; Joe
Ronan; Joe Greco; Jeff Dasovich; Jack Pigott; Hap Boyd; Frank Misseldine; Ed
Tomeo; Ed Maddox; Duane Nelsen; Doug Levitt; Dean Gosselin; Curt Hatton; Cody
Carter; Carolyn Baker; Bob Escalante; Bill Woods; Bill Carlson; Eric
Eisenman; Trond Aschehoug; Susan J Mara; Scott Noll; Rob Lamkin; Randy
Hickok; Lynn Lednicky; Kent Fickett; Jim Willey; Greg Blue; Frank DeRosa;
Eileen Koch; Dave Parquet; Curtis Kebler
Cc: Jan Smutny-Jones; Katie Kaplan; Andy Brown; Bob Weisenmiller; Stephanie
Newell
Subject: Draft Outline of JSJ Comments for FERC Meeting on Thursday, Nov 9;
Conference Call Scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 8
?
Attached is a draft outline of Jan Smutny Jone's Statement/Comments for the
FERC Hearing on Thursday, November 9 to address the California Report/Order.?
?
A conference call is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. (PST) on Wed., Nov 8 to discuss
the draft outline.
?
??? ??? Call-In Number??? ??? ??? 888/476-6127
??????? Participant #???????????????111756
?
?
Note, as the Hearing is Thursday, we are working in real time to finalize
this Statement.? This is a work in progress.? IEP will be translating the
draft outline into prose continually between now and Wed noon, when we hope
to finalize the Statement.
?
As a point of reference, building off the IEP Workshop we held last Friday,
IEP is moving forward to develop detailed comments for the FERC proceeding on
California market structure matters? These comments are due Nov. 22.? We
anticipate these Comments to be detailed (e.g. 20-50 pages).
?
This Statement for the FERC Hearing on Thursday is building off of the
discussion during the IEP workshop.? The Statement is expected to be 5-10
pages, therefore by necessity it will be less substantive and exhaustive as
the Nov 22 filing.? We are attempting to hit the 'high points" and provide a
framework for FERC to (1) consider the specific details of their proposal,
and (2) address certain FERC/state matters regarding roles and
responsibilities.
?
We will be developing "talking points" as well, but these will be driven by
the overall Statement.
?
Talk to you tomorrow.
- 001109_Statement of Jan Smutny.v3 SKK mark up.doc
=====================================
|
3,359 |
Subject: more on FERC meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4398.
=====================================
Thought you guys would be interested in my overall musings in addition to the
California comments. I never know who to copy on all this stuff!!!
----- Forwarded by Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron on 04/10/2001 11:52 PM -----
Susan M Landwehr
04/10/2001 11:48 PM
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: more on FERC meeting
Paul et al--in addition to the comments that I made specific to California on
the previous e mail, there were a few other observations that might be of
interest.
Governor Kempthorne made opening comments and used fairly strong comments
against price caps.
US Senator Larry Craig made opening comments, including the statement "price
caps ......an easy political decision to make, once it's made, it's
impossible to change". He stayed for the entire meeting, and I got the
impression that he was traveling with Hebert.
The Chairman from Colorado (Raymond Gifford) was particularly strong in his
advocacy against price caps as were the 2 participants from Arizona.
The Chairman from Nevada asked that Walt Higgins (CEO of Sierra Pacific?) be
able to make comments on the record. Mr Higgins' testimony was vrey good for
our cause, both in substance and "message" wise. He basically said that if
price caps were put in place, he would be punished for having hedged and put
together a balanced portfolio to be able serve his customers effectively.
Breathitt seemed to have a relationship with him so he might be a another
good sounding board for her?
As stated in the article that Dasovich sent around, Hebert tallied the votes
at the end of the meeting. Although all of the republican governors are
against price caps, three of the commissioners from those states were open to
considering some type of "price mitigation plan" (this is apparently the new
word for price caps because all of the proponents of price caps kept using
it) with lots of caveats. Those commissioners were Schafer from New Mexico,
White from Utah, and Smith from Idaho.
Lastly, Commissioner Breathitt was accurately protrayed in the article. She
seemed increasingly angst ridden as the meeting went on and at the end of the
meeting stated that she really wanted the FERC to consider a price mitigation
plan and the she "had a lot of thinking to do".
=====================================
|
3,360 |
Subject: ETS State Government Affairs Report
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11850.
=====================================
Thanks, Mark. So you're saying that the original investigatiion prompted by
the San Diego problems last summer are the current target of this
investigation? Therefore, Norm's question during the workshop indeed has
some import here, how do the various "investigations" and/or "workshops" tie
together for purposes of completing the record and leading to a CPUC action?
Good question, probably with no answer at this time.
What do you know about the May 17 prehearing conference?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]@ENRON
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:38 AM
To: Fawcett, Jeffery
Cc: Hass, Glen
Subject: RE: ETS State Government Affairs Report
Jeff, yes. Originally , I let Susan know about this proceeding back in
December. I forwarded the entire San Diego response to the initial order
back then. Essentially, on November 2, 2000 the Commission issued an Order
Instituting Investigation which required Sempra, Socal and SDG&E to
demonstrate that SDG&E's gas supply and transmission system is adequate to
serve present and future core and "noncore" customers. The Commission was
forced into action when San Diego curtailed service to Dynegy power plants
and redefined the term "firm service". In San Diego's response they clearly
state they no longer have adequate transmission capacity to serve 100
percent of their non core loads , including EG.
The Commission's target in 00-01-022 is San Diego. On March 22, 2001 the
Commission broaden the entire investigation to include PG&E and Socal. In
this regard, their convenient trigger was a emergency petition by the
Northern California Generation Coalition to modify the PG&E Gas Accord. You
quessed it, they wanted a change to the priority rules that placed EG
customers a head of all other noncore customers in the priority cue. The
Commission assigned a 01-03-023 docket number. Essentially, the same sort of
investigation.
Hope , this helps. Give me a call , we can discuss the details if you would
like. Mark, IGS.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fawcett, Jeffery [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:21 AM
> To: Dasovich, Jeff; [email protected]
> Subject: ETS State Government Affairs Report
>
>
> What do we know about this? Has the CPUC then opened a formal
> investigation into the gas infrastructure issue?
>
>
>
>
> > ** I00-11-022 Investigation of SoCalGas' & SDG&E's gas transmission
> > system adequacy - Prehearing conference May 17
> >
>
=====================================
|
3,361 |
Subject: California Electrical Crisis / Rate Table Comparisons
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13019.
=====================================
Energy Committee, Blackout Busters and Business Continuity Members - though
you would be interested in this.
?-----Original Message-----
From: ? William Booth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:?? Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:30 AM
To:???? CLECA MEMBERS??
Subject:??????? Rate Comparison Table-Updated
<<Comparison Table 5.10.01.xls>>?? ?Folks-Just for fun I have updated the
rate proposal comparison table showing the impact of the adopted decision
rates.? I am in the process of preparing an Application for Rehearing of the
decision.? The reason for doing this is to give Comm Brown another chance to
do the right thing.? We have been told that he was literally tricked by
Loretta Lynch on the day of the decision as to what was included in the
decision before them.? You can imagine how difficult it will be for the CPUC
to reverse their revenue allocation and take more heat from residential
customers.
We understand that the CPUC is prepared to consider several actions that
will make things even worse for us.? First, there is a proposal to
investigate the level of baseline allowances with the clear intent of
expanding them.? News articles this weekend suggested outrage about the low
level of the baseline allowances.? This will increase the baseline revenue
shortfall and raise pressure for more rate increases on us.? Second, in the
legislature there is renewed talk of a Core/Non-Core Plan, an item that was
put off in January when the 130% of baseline plan was adopted.? Apparently,
some in the leadership think it would be a good idea to assign the cost of
Net Short purchases directly to industrial customers, with the utility
retained generation and QF contracts assigned to residential and small
commercial customers.? They apparently have reviewed certain polling results
that the public would support such an allocation of costs.? One wonders how
many times they think they can kill us.
The only good news I have is that the talk of a "Buyers' Cartel" is
increasing.? That is, the State would agree with the states of Oregon and
Washington to set and limit the prices that they will pay for power at
wholesale.? This would be done with the knowledge that each state may come
short of the power necessary to serve load and thus to additional rotating
outages.? But, in the absence of federal price caps, it is the only
realistic way to curb outlays for power that, at present levels, will wreck?
the economy of the State.? Bill
- Comparison Table 5.10.01.xls
=====================================
|
3,362 |
Subject: Oregon House back 15-month delay
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2917.
=====================================
* from Reg Affairs
House backs 15-month delay in electric deregulation law
By CHARLES E. BEGGS
Associated Press Writer
May. 24, 2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - The Legislature on Thursday took its biggest step so far
toward delaying partial deregulation of business electricity rates when the
House voted for an 18-month postponement.
A bill passed by a 48-11 vote would put off from Oct. 1 to at least March 31,
2003, the effective date of a law allowing the large business customers to
buy power on the open market.
The bill goes to the Senate, where some changes are expected. The law, passed
in 1999, doesn't change regulation of electricity rates for homes and small
businesses
The law would permit largest business and industrial customers of Portland
General Electric and PacifiCorp, the state's two largest privately owned
electric utilities, to seek electricity on open markets.
Backers of the delay say California's failed deregulation plan and uncertain
hydropower supplies because of the Northwest's drought, likely leading to
rising power prices, argue for postponing the change.
"This gives us a better chance to look at where Oregon is going," said Rep.
Rob Patridge, R-Medford. "There are many uncertainties" about the Oregon law,
he said.
An 18-month delay would put the issue back before lawmakers in their next
session, which would begin in January 2003. House Speaker Mark Simmons,
R-Elgin, said he expects the Senate will push for a shorter deferral.
Foes of the bill claimed it will not hold down rates and will only make the
situation worse.
Rep. Bill Witt, R-Portland, said the problem is a lack of power supply to
meet growing demand and that the measure "chills investment in new capacity.
"We are sending a clear signal that you can't do business in Oregon" because
the rules are uncertain, he said.
Witt said the deregulation law was well crafted and doesn't contain the flaws
that contributed to California's problems such as requirements forcing
utilities to sell off generating plants.
However, Rep. Robert Ackerman, D-Eugene, said the chaotic power market has
created fear among businesses, nonetheless, and that some estimate they would
face fourfold power increases in an unregulated market.
Delay supporters said lawmakers are taking steps to stimulate more power
production including passing a bill to streamline siting of temporary
generating plants, which Gov. John Kitzhaber has signed.
=====================================
|
3,363 |
Subject: New Features at Economist.com
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['economist.com.reader":@enron.com']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4952.
=====================================
Dear Economist.com Reader,
I'd like to introduce you to some valuable new features at
Economist.com. As well as insight into the issues and
events that shape global news, we now offer you regular
updates on issues of major importance as they unfold.
GLOBAL AGENDA GETS TO YOU FIRST: Concise analysis of
international issues and events, updated throughout the
working week, available only at Economist.com.
http://www.economist.com/globalagenda
GLOBAL AGENDA ALERTS KEEP YOU UP-TO-DATE - An e-mail
service, delivered to your desktop on Mondays, Wednesdays
and Fridays, providing a snapshot of new Global Agenda stories.
Sign up at: http://www.economist.com/members/myaccount.cfm
CITIES GUIDE: ECONOMIST.COM GOES FURTHER - Choose from these
invaluable guides to ten major destinations before making
your next trip. The Economist's writers give you the inside
information on Berlin, Brussels, Hong Kong, London, Moscow,
New York, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo and Washington, DC.
Essential facts; street maps; news briefings; weather
forecasts; our pick of hotels, restaurants and things to do;
'cheat sheet' reference for your wallet; what's on when; and
currency converters. Click, print and pack.
http://economist.com/cities
E-MAIL THIS - Featured at the top right of every article,
"E-Mail This" allows you to send stories straight to
friends or business contacts.
E VISION: STREAMING ECONOMIST VIDEO ANALYSIS - E Vision
delivers on screen the sharp analysis, provocative ideas,
strong opinions and wit which you have come to expect from
Economist journalists, produced in association with Concert,
the global communications venture between BT and AT&T.
http://www.economist.tv
We hope you will now find Economist.com even more
informative, entertaining and useful than before.
As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions. Please
e-mail us at: [email protected]
Yours sincerely,
Anthony Gottlieb
Editor, Economist.com
P.S. Please feel free to pass this news on to your friends
and colleagues.
You have received this e-mail because you requested updates
about Economist.com. If you would rather not receive any more
of these e-mails from us, you can unsubscribe by going to the
Change Details section located under "E-Mail & Mobile Editions"
on our homepage and choosing the unsubscribe option at the
bottom of the page.
Alternatively, you can send an e-mail to
[email protected] with 'Unsubscribe'
in the subject line and we will make sure that you do not
receive any more Economist.com updates.
=====================================
|
3,364 |
Subject: FERC Investigation on California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/807.
=====================================
This is just a rumor, but we heard on the EPSA call today that Scott Miller
is trying to get his report on the California part of his investigation to
the Commissioners by Friday of this week.
Also, the EPSA/Boston Pacific paper continues to be revised, but EPSA wants
to get it to FERC as soon as possible (but if Scott completes his report by
Friday it may not be in time for Scott's report), so they have asked us to
review the report and Executive Summary and get comments back to them for a
conference call on Friday. Since we will be at FERC during the EPSA call, we
will need to get any comments we may have to Julie by Thursday evening or
Friday morning.
Thanks everyone.
Sarah
---------------------- Forwarded by Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron on 10/04/2000
11:06 AM ---------------------------
"Jackie Gallagher" <[email protected]> on 10/04/2000 09:35:45 AM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Boston Pacific Statistical Research Project
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regulatory Affairs Committee
Power Marketing Working Group
FROM: Don Santa, Regulatory Affairs Committee Chair
Joe Hartsoe, Power Marketing Working Group Chair
Julie Simon, Vice President of Policy
Mark Bennett, Senior Manager of Policy
DATE: October 4, 2000
RE: Boston Pacific Statistical Research Project
Attached is the latest draft of the full Boston Pacific statistical research
project, reflecting the comments made by EPSA members. Both clean and
redlined versions are attached. There are two major changes in the project:
1) the seven-page summary is the Executive Summary of the report; and 2) all
cost estimates for new peakers have been removed.
Please review the documents so we can discuss them on a conference call on
Friday, October 6th at 11:00 a.m. EST and then release it to Scott Miller for
the FERC investigation. Please dial 1-800-937-6563 and ask for the Julie
Simon/EPSA call. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Julie
Simon at 202-789-7200 or [email protected] before the Friday call.
Attachments
Jacqueline Gallagher
Research/Policy Assistant
Electric Power Supply Association
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 760
Washington, DC 20005
202.789.7200
202.789.7201
[email protected]
- California PJM and NE Tables revised2.xls
- 10-4-2000 Full Draft-No Blackline.doc
- 10-4-2000 Full Draft.doc
=====================================
|
3,365 |
Subject: Take advantage of tax-deferred investing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10474.
=====================================
YOU CAN GROW INVESTMENTS FASTER WITH A TAX-DEFERRED IRA
Dear Valued Investor,
An Individual Retirement Account (IRA) is one of the best ways
to help build assets for your future. Because this investment
account is tax-advantaged, it not only can COMPOUND FASTER
than a brokerage account, but also defers payment of taxes.
YOUR SCHWAB IRA IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR RETIREMENT PLAN
IRAs are more flexible than ever:
* As long as you have earned income, you can contribute to
your IRA*
* You can invest your IRA in bonds, stocks, mutual funds and
money market funds, and trade as frequently as you like
* A tax-deferred IRA DELAYS ALL TAXES on income, not just
capital gains, allowing your money to compound faster
* You can make contributions to your IRA EVEN if you
contribute to a 401(k)
* Withdrawals can be made without penalty from your IRA for
education financing, first-time home purchase or certain
medical expenses
WE'VE MADE IT EASY TO OPEN YOUR IRA ONLINE TODAY**
Simply click below to apply for your IRA online.** Do it today,
since this year's deadline to fund your IRA is April 16, 2001.
http://www.schwab.com/SchwabNOW/ReDir?linkID=6600&from=email
Sincerely,
Myra Rothfeld
Senior Vice President
*Certain restrictions on age may apply for traditional IRAs,
and on income for Roth IRAs. Consult your tax advisor or a
Schwab representative for details.
**Subject to account acceptance by Schwab. Funding and
trading restrictions apply until signed application has been
received by Schwab.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Access to electronic services may be limited or unavailable
during periods of peak demand, market volatility, systems
upgrades or maintenance, or for other reasons.
We respect your privacy. To minimize your receipt of duplicate
information and for internal recordkeeping purposes, Schwab
may track responses, if any, to this offer. Read more about
Schwab's privacy policy at:
http://www.schwab.com/privacy
If you would prefer to receive only account service emails,
please reply to this email indicating your preference. Please
note: doing so will not remove you from any Schwab Email Alerts
newsletters, or information to which you have actively
subscribed.
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab
corporate email system may be retained, monitored and/or
reviewed by Schwab personnel.
(C) 2001 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
Member SIPC/NYSE. CRS 12321 Sig/AT (0301-0052)
[[HRD3-H5N-RNEY3-D]] [IMAGE]
=====================================
|
3,366 |
Subject: RE: Reponse to Angelides
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Dasovich', 'Jeff; Evelyn Elsesser; Loren Kaye']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/804.
=====================================
Nice job. In line with your letter, and in response to Wood's questionnaire about rolling the suspension date back to July 1, don't you think it is absolutely necessary to have hearings in order to establish a record prior to any decision? Wood throws around the $10 billion number in his questionnaire (ruling, whatever), without any substantiation whatsoever. Shouldn't DWR and its rev. req. be thoroughly scrutinized in the hearing room before making a decision. Seems logical though 1) logic has prevailed much lately and 2) I'm not a lawyer, so I could be missing the boat completely.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: William Booth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:37 PM
To: 'Dorothy Rothrock'; William Booth; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Derek Naten; 'Dominic DiMare'; Barbara R. Barkovich (E-mail); Keith
McCrea (E-mail); Dan L Carroll (E-mail)
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; Evelyn Elsesser; Loren Kaye
Subject: RE: Reponse to Angelides
Dorothy -- Attached is a another version of the letter that takes a little
different approach. What do you think? I worried that your first letter
looks a little like an invitation to pile on the exit fees, of all types and
in any magnitude. I think we need to attack the premise that any DA causes
an increase in DWR costs for other customers. Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Dorothy Rothrock [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:35 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Derek Naten;
'Dominic DiMare'
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; Evelyn Elsesser; Loren Kaye
Subject: Reponse to Angelides
Wanna sign onto this letter to Loretta? Any suggestions? We could make it a
CEA thing.
(I am copying Jeff D. as a courtesy...I think we need this to be just a
customer deal).
Dot
498-3319
This e-mail is intended solely for use of the individual to whom it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the
original sender of this note. Thank You.
=====================================
|
3,367 |
Subject: News About Your VentureWire Subscription
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1297.
=====================================
the comprehensive report on private companies and private capital <http://professional.venturewire.com>
Dear Jeffrey:
I'm pleased to offer you an opportunity to become a charter subscriber <http://professional.venturewire.com/splash.asp> to our new VentureWire Professional edition, a premium service that we've designed for those with a direct, competitive stake in the business of venture capital and private technology companies.
VentureWire Professional provides all you've come to exp! ect from VentureWire each day, and more.
As a subscriber to VentureWire Professional, you'll get the most comprehensive, authoritative daily coverage of venture capital and private technology companies, including:
More stories
More in-depth reporting
More of the timely and strategic information about burn rates, valuations, hiring intentions, and other data you need to make better business decisions
Online access to our VentureWire archives of more than 24,000 financings, CEO and board level changes, fund-raisings, and other important developments
Access to our VentureWire market analysis tools, which track the daily flow of investment capital into key geographic regions and more than a dozen important market sectors such as optical networking, semiconductors, and biotechnology
I invite you to subscribe to VentureWire Professional today at the introductory price for charter subscribers of $495 a year.! And we'll take the risk. If you are not completely satisfied, you can cancel your subscription at any time and we'll refund the balance.
Our original service, VentureWire, will not be available beyond early August. If you choose not to subscribe to VentureWire Professional, you can elect to receive our new VentureWire Alert edition, which is available free for registered users. VentureWire Alert is designed for those with a general interest in the venture capital world. It provides a quick market overview and brief highlights of the day's venture news.
Please let us know immediately whether you want VentureWire Professional or VentureWire Alert.
subscri! be <http://professional.venturewire.com/splash.asp> I need the best. Enter my subscription for VentureWire Professional.
tell me more <http://www.venturewire.com/benefits/benefits1.asp> Which edition is right for me? Explain the differences to help me decide.
I hope you'll take advantage of this opportunity to become a charter subscriber to VentureWire Professional. I look forward to hearing from you today.
Sincerely,
Brian O'Connell
Publisher
VentureWire
=====================================
|
3,368 |
Subject: Re: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12441.
=====================================
THE MEETING TIME HAS BEEN CHANGED!!!!
PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR
Date: Every Thursday
Time: 7:30 AM Pacific, 9:30 AM Central, and 10:30 AM Eastern time
Number: 1-888-271-0949
Host Code: 661877 (for Ray only)
Participant Code: 936022 (for everyone else)
----- Forwarded by Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron on 06/20/2001 12:43 PM -----
Ray Alvarez
05/31/2001 11:55 AM
To: Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call
Privileged & Confidential Communication
Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product Privileges Asserted
---------------------- Forwarded by Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron on 05/31/2001 11:55
AM ---------------------------
Ray Alvarez
05/31/2001 11:54 AM
To: Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Phillip K
Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, Don
Black/HOU/EES@EES, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephanie
Miller/Enron@EnronXGate, Barry Tycholiz/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: Re: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call
Privileged & Confidential Communication
Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product Privileges Asserted
PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR
Date: Every Thursday
Time: 1:00 pm Pacific, 3:00 pm Central, and 4:00 pm Eastern time,
Number: 1-888-271-0949
Host Code: 661877 (for Ray only)
Participant Code: 936022 (for everyone else)
The table of the on-going FERC issues and proceedings will be updated for use
on today's conference call, and distributed by Bernadette Hawkins. It is
available to all team members on the O drive. Please feel free to revise/add
to/ update this table as appropriate.
Proposed agenda for today:
FERC Order of May 25 clarifying the April 26 Order re market monitoring and
price mitigation.
ISO de-rating of ATC complaint- status (item 20)
EPSA intervention and protest re CAISO compliance filing and proposed tariff
amendment (item 32)
EPSA rehearing request of FERC market monitoring and mitigation order in
EL00-95-12 (item 9d)
Miscellaneous information items:
CA legislators' suit against FERC.
RTO conference is to be planned and held by FERC in the near future.
Please feel free to communicate to the group any additional agenda items you
may have.
=====================================
|
3,369 |
Subject: Additional Course for Spring: Global Management and Asia
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5927.
=====================================
Ready for a new semester?
Need one more credit?
Interested in Asia?
?
Come join?the Global Management and Asia course!
?
This is a course consisting of a series of outside speakers with expertise
in?doing business in Asia as well as Asian companies?with global operation
bases. Our first class will?meet on 1/23 (yes, after you have been back from
holiday destinations and re-adjusted yourselves to the student life), and it
will be?a presentation from fellow Haas students who have abundant
experience in living and working in Asia as a foreigner.
?
Yes, you can add/drop after classes start on 1/16.?Below please find more
details.... and please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have
questions.
?
Happy Holidays,
?
Tomoko
?
=====
?
COURSE NUMBER:? BA 294.7
COURSE TITLE:?? Global Management and Asia
UNITS OF CREDIT:???????
INSTRUCTOR:???? Michael Gerlach
Student Contact:? Tomoko Yamabe [email protected]
MEETING DAY(S)/TIME:??? Tuesday, 6:00 - 8:00 PM, Room C250
PREREQUISITE(S): None
CLASS FORMAT : Primarily outside speakers. Class meets 10 times only.
REQUIRED READINGS: No textbook. Articles and readings appropriate to the
topic of each class may be assigned by guest lectures in which case reading
materials will be distributed in advance or will be on two-hour reserve in
the Long Library. Students are expected to have done the reading in advance
of that class meeting.
BASIS FOR FINAL GRADE: Participation and final paper. Regular attendance,
preparation for class (reading materials), and active participation in class
discussions are required. The final write-up will be a short paper of 5
pages that analyzes and critiques one or more of the presentations made by
class speakers, or on any of the student's particular interest relative to
the class.
ABSTRACT OF COURSE'S CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES: This is a 1-unit course dealing
with a variety of current issues regarding doing business in Asia and/or
with Asian business in the US. The format of the class will consist
primarily of a series of outside speakers with expertise in the Asia Pacific
region, such as Japan, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Korea, etc. Apart from the
macroeconomic environments and recent changes taking place in Asia, we aim
to explore areas such as business culture, relationships (with clients,
bosses and colleagues), establishing trust, gender, ethnicity in the
particular context, and to provide general introduction to living and doing
business in Asia and/or with Asian companies in the US.?
?
?
=====================================
|
3,370 |
Subject: Fwd: FW: [Fwd: Draft report on new DSM]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3203.
=====================================
HiJeff-- This is the new report I mentioned yesterday.
To quote an old Grateful Dead song, "I need a miracle, every day..."
Peace, vjw
From: "Rachel McMahon" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Draft report on new DSM]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:01:49 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Black mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 9:39 AM
To: Peter Bradford; Jim Caldwell; Ralph Cavanagh; Jeff Gleason; Mike
Mullett; John White; David R Wooley; Armond Cohen; Eric Blank; Dan
Rosenblum; Larry DeWitt
Subject: [Fwd: Draft report on new DSM]
Colleagues, below is Eric Hirst's cover note and draft of the DSM
research funded by the Project.? Eric also had EEI funding to use
on the study.? I don't plan to include the study on our
conference call agenda -- because I will not have time to read it
-- so please plan to review it and get back to Eric or me by Nov
17 if possible.? Thanks.
? -terryFrom: "Eric Hirst" <[email protected]>
To: "Terry Black" <[email protected]>,
????????"Jim Caldwell" <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft report on new DSM
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:35:42 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
????????boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01C047FA.1BB8DCF0"
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Dear Terry and Jim,
Here is the draft report Brendan Kirby and I prepared for EEI and the Project
for a Sustainable FERC Energy Policy, Retail-Customer Participation in
Bulk-Power Markets. We find that "Permitting and encouraging retail customers
to respond to dynamic prices will improve economic efficiency, discipline
market power, improve reliability, and reduce the need to build new
generation and transmission facilities." The report gives several examples of
recent programs and explains the many obstacles that prevent widespread
adoption of these programs.
I hope you can review the draft and send me your comments (suggested
additions, deletions, and revisions) by Monday, November 27.
I am sending the report to about 50 people including the following
"environmentalists" Eric Blank, Steve Nadel, Rich Cowart, Dave Moskovitz,
Bill Marcus, and Art Rosenfeld. Feel free to send the draft to others you
think might be willing to review it.
Thanks for the help.
Eric
- NewDSM.pdf
- ATT00026.txt
=====================================
|
3,371 |
Subject: What we would like Lay to get from Davis
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5975.
=====================================
Scott sent this to Marty, but I assume you already have had communications
with him about this.
----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 01/02/2001 07:14 AM -----
Marty Sunde@EES
12/28/2000 07:05 PM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: What we would like Lay to get from Davis
In case you didn't see.
---------------------- Forwarded by Marty Sunde/HOU/EES on 12/28/2000 07:05
PM ---------------------------
Scott Stoness
12/27/2000 01:50 PM
To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: What we would like Lay to get from Davis
Marty. This is a summary of our message from this morning for you to send on
or discuss with Keene. I hope this is helpful. Scott
What's important
Give solvency to the utilities by guaranteeing no banckruptcy against the
generation assets of the utilities. Guarantees to be recovered, if needed,
through surcharges over 10 years. This should give the process time for
thoughtful solutions. Ending the rate freeze now will give the utilities an
undeserved windfall (3.5b alone related to nuclear assets in year 2001).
There should be thoughtful process to determine: i) how to keep deregulation
going, ii) how existing generation assets should be used, iii) what are the
value of existing assets, iv) when is the appropriate time for customers to
be exposed to the market, and v) what kind of market structure would be
appropriate going forward.
Customers should not be dumped into the market, now or in the next year,
while it is extremely illiquid due to many errors of the utilities.
There should not be retroactive rate making (the negative ctc should be paid
until at least the rate freeze is ended)
All customers should be treated equally with respect to existing generation
assets that they paid for for the past 4-30 years.
There should be a special hearing called to debate demand side prospects (ie.
curtailment etc.)
From: Steven J Kean@ENRON on 12/26/2000 07:01 PM
To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:
The Governor cancelled the meeting at the last minute. Apparently, he was
trying to schedule a meeting with Clinton and our meeting conflicted, so we
were bumped. We are trying to set a new time. I will share with the
Governor's energy advisor the information and recommendations all of you
helped put together. Thanks
=====================================
|
3,372 |
Subject: PG&E/SCE 1 cent surcharge
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11549.
=====================================
Follow-up on Monday California conference call, regarding passthrough of the
1 cent surcharge.
SCE:
Does NOT appear to be passing through the 1 cent surcharge to Direct Access.
In a letter to the PUC's Energy Division on June 19, SCE said: "By
incorporating both the 1 and 3 cent per kWh surcharges into the generation
component of total rates in Advice 1545-E, SCE has effectively exempted DA
customers from these surcharges by including them in the new DA credit. ..
SCE, however, is not entirely sure whether the Commission intends to exempt
the DA customers from the 1 cent per kWh surcharge and has previously
requested Energy Division's opinion on this matter."
This letter was responding to a request by AReM for clarification of this
very issue. In a prior Advice Letter 1529-E, of April 5, SCE seemed to say
that the generation rate (that forms the basis of the PX credit) does not
include the 1 cent surcharge.
So, SCE seems to think the PUC has been unclear about whether the 1 cent
surcharge applies to Direct Access, and as a result is not billing it to
Direct Access. This is in spite of the PUC's January 4 order, where it said
"All other customers, including direct access customers, are subject to this
surcharge." (p. 21)
Of course, it is not at all clear what SCE will do if the PUC clarifies for
SCE that they could have been billing the surcharge to Direct Access
customers.
PG&E:
Is passing through the 1 cent surcharge to Direct Access. PG&E's Advice
Letter 2119-E, of May 22, clearly exemps Direct Access from the 3 cent
surcharge only.
Where are the $$ from the surcharges going?
March 27 PUC Order of Commissioner Lynch:
"PG&E and Edison shall enter the revenues from the rate increases into
balancing accounts and the revenues shall be subject to refund if, at a later
date, we determine that the utilities failed to use the funds to pay for
future power purchases. The revenues the utilities have collected and
continue to collect from the one-cent per kilowatt-hour rate increase
authorized on January 4, 2001 shall be used to pay for power purchases and
not for any other costs incurred by the utilities. " (p. 55)
"It is reasonable that a certain amount of the revenues from the rate
increases will be provided to DWR for its power costs, once DWR provides us
with its revenue requirement. " (p. 51)
So, the utilities have been directed to hold the money from the surcharges in
balancing accounts pending the PUC's acceptance of DWR's revenue
requirement.
Call me with any questions.
=====================================
|
3,373 |
Subject: Summary of Proposed Short-term Solution for California's Energy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/2935.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/22/2001 02:07 PM -----
=09Jeff Dasovich
=09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
=0901/20/2001 10:51 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected], [email protected]
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Summary of Proposed Short-term Solution for California's En=
ergy=20
Crisis
Dean Tyson:
It was a pleasure to see you again today. Phil, it was a pleasure to meet y=
ou=20
and I look forward to working together. Since time is of the essence, I=20
wanted to summarize where we left off at today=01,s meeting regarding Calif=
ornia=01,
s energy crisis. That summary is attached. I've also attached three=20
articles from the business section of today's Chronicle that arguably bolst=
er=20
our arguments for adopting the approach that we discussed at today's meetin=
g.
Given the fact that the legislative process is moving rapidly, bankruptcy =
is=20
a daily threat, and Dean Tyson will be attending the meetings in Davos, it=
=20
appears that our window of opportunity is very small. It seems that succes=
s=20
requires a meeting of the principals by the end of the week, if not sooner.=
=20
The chances of success are obviously limited, but I think that we agreed th=
at=20
all concerned have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking a shot.=
=20
Your offer to help in the effort obviously increases the likelihood of=20
success and is greatly appreciated. =20
My apologies in advance if I have mischaracterized any of the points made a=
t=20
the meeting. It represents a =01&first cut,=018 it will undoubtedly change=
as the=20
details get worked out, and I=01,m sure I=01,ve missed something. So pleas=
e don=01,t=20
hesitate to edit the draft.
Please keep in mind that I have not had a chance to discuss this proposal=
=20
internally. As such, I can=01,t yet commit Enron to the specifics of the=
=20
proposal. But I=01,m confident that the company can support something akin=
to=20
this structure and can let you and Phil know first thing Monday.
In addition, given the political environment in California, Enron has playe=
d=20
a constructive role by providing low-key, behind the scenes advice and=20
analysis to policy makers. That approach seems preferable in this effort a=
s=20
well.
Finally, Dean Tyson, I mentioned that Linda Robertson heads-up our Washingt=
on=20
D.C. office. If she can help in any way, please don=01,t hesitate to let m=
e=20
know. Both of you should feel free to call me at home over the weekend to=
=20
discuss things further. My home phone is 415.621.8317.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,374 |
Subject: Re: Possible Messages on Legislation in California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1031.
=====================================
We need to all talk Tuesday morning ASAP - I am frankly sick and tired of
self-delusion in the face of a stark and bleak reality in Sacramento- As a
Democrat, it is clear to me that the Democrats from Gray on down are a lost
cause( their response, from a public policy perspective, is shameful in its
shortsidedness and contemptible in its lack of thoughtfulness and intellect-
the Democrat's response in Cal. makes me ashamed to call myself a Democrat)
and the Republicans too small a minority in Ca. to make a difference- From my
vantage point ,nothing good and some( potentially much) bad came out of the
three bills passed. We have a huge uphill battle coming in the next session
and the prospects of further thoughtless retrenchment on the part of the
Governor and legislature very high- to begin the preperation for that
struggle, we first have to be honest with ourselves and end any petty
bickering internally on intrepretations of brutally clear events and
oucomes, events and outcomes which are the equivalent of getting hit upside
the head by a 2 by 4, i.e; that usually does'nt require intrepretation or
discussion as to whether it hurt... We end the self-delusion starting on
Tuesday. Jeff- please arrange the call - all are invited .
Sandra McCubbin
09/02/2000 01:44 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, [email protected], Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Dave Parquet, Samuel
Wehn/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Possible Messages on Legislation in California
since the siting legislation created only a program that is voluntary and not
in place of the existing laws, and we have a committment from the
legislature, the CEC and the govenor's office to take another shot in
January, as they know that this legislation is flawed, too many conflicting
interests trying to solve a complex problem in too short a time, I feel this
is too harsh...we have already started the process of creating new
legislation, that will be as close to a consensus as possible for next
session..this legislation did not hurt us, and, some companies feel that they
can use the processes. We have to keep in mind that with the knowledge that
there will be major reorganization legislation next year, we don't want to
offend the friends that we have in Sacramento, particularly the Republicans
who were the ones who insisted on an expedited siting bill
=====================================
|
3,375 |
Subject: glossary revision
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8125.
=====================================
ABB suggested revisions of the glossary in MS Word redline. ABB
Andrew B. Brown
Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP
2015 H Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 447-2166
Fax: (916) 447-3512
mailto:[email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s)
are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the
addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that
any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in
reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such
inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client
privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this
communication in error, please contact the sender at the internet address
indicated or by telephone at (916)447-2166. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Kaplan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:53 PM
To: Anne Kelly; Bev Hansen; Cary Rudman; Chuck Cole; Delany Hunter; DJ
Smith; Hedy Govenar; Jamie Parker; Jan Smutny-Jones; Jean Munoz; Jen
Paulsen; John Larrea; Julee Malinowski-Ball; Kassandra Gough; Katie
Kaplan; marie moretti; Maureen OHaren; McNally Ray; Mike Monagan; Norton
Kelli; Phil Isenberg; Robert Ross; Ron Tom; Scott Govenar; Susan Mccabe;
Tom Ross
Cc: Carol H Hudson; Steven Kelly; Douglas Kerner; Andy Brown; B Brown
Andy; Baker Carolyn; Bob Weisenmiller; Curtis Kebler; Greg Blue; Jeff
Dasovich; Joe Ronan; John Stout; Karen Edson; kent Palmerton; Kristin
Vellandi; Lynn Lednicky; Marty Wilson; Paula Hall-Collins; Pigott Jack;
Richard Hyde; Rob Lamkin; Stephanie-Newell; Sue Mara
Subject: Here is the Energy briefing agenda for the Republican Caucus
and FAQ
Importance: High
Greetings:
For those of you attending the Republican Caucus briefing tomorrow it is in
room 126 and runs from 9-noon (from what we understand it will be close
quarters so arrive early if you have been invited to speak). This meeting is
open to those who have been invited only.
Attached please find the agenda. IEP will be handing out the Seeing the
Light document, Power Up, and the editorial from the Bee today. We will be
following up with the FAQ's with a letter to each attendee on Friday.
I have also attached the Final FAQ and Glossary of Terms. Please let us
know by 2:00 tomorrow if you have any changes or additions to these
documents.
Thanks!
Katie Kaplan
Manager of State Policy Affairs
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
- abbrev.Glossary of Terms.doc
=====================================
|
3,376 |
Subject: CalPX Requests Exclusive Right To ISO Forward Pwr Trades
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron', '[email protected]', 'Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/882.
=====================================
Don't you love "competition"
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 10/09/2000 09:56
AM ---------------------------
Mark Schroeder@ECT
10/09/2000 03:54 AM
To: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: CalPX Requests Exclusive Right To ISO Forward Pwr Trades
Just curious, but do we agree that the PX is the most liquid forward market,
or is the OTC already more liquid that the PX? thanks mcs
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT on 09/10/2000
09:56 ---------------------------
From: Miyung Buster@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 06/10/2000 22:45
To: Joe Hartsoe@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin@EES, Susan Mara@EES, Paul Kaufman@ECT,
Karen Denne@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich@EES, Mark Palmer@ENRON, James D Steffes@EES,
Richard Shapiro@EES, Elizabeth Linnell@EES, Jeannie Mandelker@ECT,
[email protected], Mark Schroeder@ECT, Peter Styles@ECT, [email protected], Mona L
Petrochko@EES, Peggy Mahoney@EES, Nicholas O'Day/AP/Enron@Enron, Mike
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob Bradley@ENRON, Shelley
Corman@ENRON, Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: CalPX Requests Exclusive Right To ISO Forward Pwr Trades
CalPX Requests Exclusive Right To ISO Forward Pwr Trades
10/04/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- The California Power Exchange requested Monday that
if the state Independent System Operator is given the ability to purchase
forward power, it make its trades only through the CalPX.
The ISO filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last month for
approval to buy forward power because it said utilities underscheduled
supply, forcing the ISO to buy expensive emergency power last summer.
"We are generally supportive of (the ISO's) procuring power in the forward
markets, but we want to make sure the ISO does that procurement through us
because it should be done in the market with the most liquidity," said CalPX
spokesman Jesus Arredondo.
In its filing with the FERC, CalPX said that experimentation with "fledgling"
forward markets would place customers at risk for higher transactional costs
and might discourage the development of forward markets in California.
The ISO controls most of the state's power grid and real-time market, and the
CalPX is the spot market where electricity is bought and sold in the state.
By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872;
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,377 |
Subject: Fw: Final draft IEP FERC filing on price cap
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2072.
=====================================
Attached is a revised IEP draft FERC Filing related to CAISO amendment no.
31. Based on comments from the members, we have revised the document in two
primary areas: (1) added language emphasing the position of FERC as
articulated in the Morgan Stanley decision as to the nature of the purchaser
price caps, (2) sought Commission clarification as to the temporary nature
of any purchaser price caps, and referenced MSC comments to that effect, (3)
urged FERC to direct the CAISO to develop their market power critieria by
November 30, 2000, and establish a term for the extension of the price caps
for one year from that date (which will allow the MSC market refors to be
implemented and tested next summer).
IEP needs to file this document at FERC tomorrow (i.e. Thursday).
Accordingly, please provide any comments on this latest draft no later than
9:00 a.m. on Thursday, October. 5. Forward comments to me and Andy Brown
[[email protected]]. Thank you,.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Brown <[email protected]>
To: Steven Kelly (E-mail) <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; Douglas Kerner <[email protected]>; Eric
Janssen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 6:45 PM
Subject: Final draft IEP FERC filing on price cap
> Steven: attached is the draft filing in redline/strikeout which includes
the
> revisions members sent to you as we discussed. I will need to send the
> filing out from our office in the morning on Thursday, therefore I must
have
> any comments by 9:00 am to have it timely filed in DC. Comments should be
> made directly to me, preferably by telephone. ABB
>
> Andrew B. Brown
> Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP
> 2015 H Street
> Sacramento, CA 95814
> Phone: (916) 447-2166
> Fax: (916) 447-3512
> mailto:[email protected]
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying
document(s)
> are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of
the
> addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised
that
> any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in
> reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any
such
> inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client
> privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received
this
> communication in error, please contact the sender at the internet address
> indicated or by telephone at (916)447-2166. Thank you.
> <<IEP_Mo_Interv_ER00-3673_ISOT_Am_31.ver1_rdln.doc>>
>
- IEP_Mo_Interv_ER00-3673_ISOT_Am_31.ver1_rdln.doc
=====================================
|
3,378 |
Subject: RE: Skilling interview
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10335.
=====================================
fyi, I asked Dale Kasler at the Sacramento Bee for advance questions for
Jeff's phone interview next Wednesday, and these are what he sent -- gives
you an idea of where he's headed... Let's talk about any concerns you may
have, and we can certainly prep Jeff for this one. thx. kd
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Denne/Corp/Enron on 03/22/2001
04:53 PM ---------------------------
Dale Kasler <[email protected]> on 03/22/2001 04:39:43 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Skilling interview
Here's the gist of my questions:
??????? - You were opposing the "Poolco" model of deregulation as far back as
June 94, when you testified at a PUC hearing in LA. Why do you think you
weren't able to convince them? Do you think, as Nymex's Bob Levin believes,
that their minds were already made up?
??????? - Enron is this big influential company, on the cutting edge of
energy deregulation; why weren't you able to get California to go along with
your idea of direct access?
??????? - In some of Enron's testimony, the company was warning that the
Poolco was ripe for manipulation by the investor-owned utilities. In
retrospect, given the utilities' financial state, that's clearly not the
case. But explain what your company was thinking at the time.
??????? - Did Enron get PG&E to accept the big Edison-sponsored memorandum of
understanding in fall 95? Steve Peace says so.
??????? - I'm told that Enron was among those pushing for divestiture of
plants by the IOUs. Why didn't you then buy any of them?
??????? - Did Enron lose the debate (over poolco vs. direct access) but end
up winning anyway, because it did fairly well in the direct retail market,
and made money trading in the wholesale market in California?
???????
??????? I have a few more, but that should get us started.
??????? Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 1:39 PM
To: Dale Kasler
Subject: Re: Skilling interview
I'll place the call from Skilling's office.? Do you have specific questions
I can pass along to Jeff ahead of time?? It's probably a good idea since
you'll be talking about events 8 years ago, and he'll need some time to
think about it.? thx. kd
Dale Kasler <[email protected]> on 03/22/2001 02:38:46 PM
To:?? "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject:? Skilling interview
Karen,
??????? 2 p.m. Calif time on the 28th is fine for the Skilling interview.
You calling me, or vice versa?
DK
=====================================
|
3,379 |
Subject: Year End 2000 Performance Feedback
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3571.
=====================================
NOTE: YOU WILL RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE EACH TIME YOU ARE SELECTED AS A REVIEWER.
You have been selected to participate in the Year End 2000 Performance
Management process by providing meaningful feedback on specific employee(s).
Your feedback plays an important role in the process, and your participation
is critical to the success of Enron's Performance Management goals.
To complete requests for feedback, access PEP at http://pep.corp.enron.com
and select Perform Review under Performance Review Services. You may begin
providing feedback immediately and are requested to have all feedback forms
completed by Friday, November 17, 2000.
If you have any questions regarding PEP or your responsibility in the
process, please contact the PEP Help Desk at:
Houston: 1.713.853.4777, Option 4
London: 44.207.783.4040, Option 4
Email: [email protected]
Thank you for your participation in this important process.
The following is a CUMULATIVE list of employee feedback requests with a
status of "OPEN." Once you have submitted or declined an employee's request
for feedback, their name will no longer appear on this list.
Review Group: ENRON
Feedback Due Date: Nov 17, 2000
Employee Name Supervisor Name Date Selected
------------- --------------- -------------
BOLTON, SCOTT RICHARD S SHAPIRO Nov 06, 2000
CARSON, MARGARET M JAMES D STEFFES Oct 31, 2000
CONDON, CHARLES D MARTIN J WENZEL Nov 03, 2000
DENNE, KAREN L MARK A PALMER Nov 07, 2000
FAWCETT, JEFFERY C JESS K HYATT Nov 01, 2000
HAIN, MARY JAMES D STEFFES Oct 30, 2000
HAMILTON, TIMOTHY J JAMES W LEWIS Oct 25, 2000
KAUFMAN, PAUL J RICHARD S SHAPIRO Oct 31, 2000
LANDWEHR, SUSAN M JANINE L MIGDEN-OSTRANDER Nov 13, 2000
MANDELKER, JEANNIE KAREN L DENNE Nov 06, 2000
MARA, SUSAN J PAUL J KAUFMAN Nov 08, 2000
MCLAUGHLIN, TRACY SCOTT BOLTON Oct 25, 2000
NORD, BONNIE S RICHARD S SHAPIRO Nov 03, 2000
O'CONNELL, EARLENE ELIZABETH C LINNELL Nov 01, 2000
SHAPIRO, RICHARD S STEVEN J KEAN Nov 01, 2000
STEFFES, JAMES D STEVEN J KEAN Nov 13, 2000
=====================================
|
3,380 |
Subject: RE: One Write-Off
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1961.
=====================================
There is an old one form the Dis OII -- The first one listed below -- it's
180 days old. Do you know any reason why that wasn't paid?
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 11/27/2000 03:00 PM -----
MBD <[email protected]>
11/27/2000 02:42 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: One Write-Off
No problems Sue. I think we agreed to do that after our bills were sent out
to you in early November, so that is why you would have a bill with that
amount still in your pile. We will write it off immediately.
As I looked over the outstanding bills, the ones we really want to clear up
this asap include the following:
2704-110 $2,539.36 over 180 days old. This is the distribution OII we
discussed that should be approved on a
routine basis
2704-118 $6,596.45 in total covering this months bill plus two small ones
90 days and 150 days old. This is
the Post Transition Ratemaking case, again, it
should be routine as we had an RCR in place.
2704-127 $2,031.79 over 150 days old. This is Enron's share of the
ARM RCS Direct Access case. Again, there
should not be a problem with the billings as more
recent bills have been paid.
2704-132 $21,012.22 This is the big kahuna, in the PG&E hydro case.
More recent amounts have all
been paid, but this 150 day old bill has not, and we
suspect it got caught in the accounting software changeover. This is
one we would really love the find soon.
2704-140 PAID We just got the check on Jeff's gas strategy
case.
2704-144 $2,929.08 This is Enron's share of the Electric
investigation work for ARM, comprised of
two bills, the most recent one from early Nov. and a
$2,126.81 bill which is 90 days old.
So, those are the ones we would like to track, and if you have any problems
with any of these please let me know as soon as you can. I will take care
of the write off on 2704-003. Thanks for your help. Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: One Write-Off
Mike,
Re: Bills Dated 11/08/00 Which Were Just Received by Enron
I believe you and I spoke about writing off the $30.74 owed 180 days past.
This is for "gas Miscellaneous." If we haven't, I'd like you to write that
bill off and eliminate that matter number. Let me know if you have any
concerns with this approach.
Thanks.
Sue
=====================================
|
3,381 |
Subject: SB 27X
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9786.
=====================================
Here is the explaination on "exit fees" for direct access under SB 27X.
All parties, including the ESPs and large customers, agree that any party
who takes power from DWR after Jan 17, 2001, has received a subsidy as a
result of the operation of the frozen rates still in effect ( plus the
emergency penny/kWh surchage). These customers will have to pay this
subsidy back in the form of retiring the revenue bonds which will be floated
to pay off the DWR power purchase costs. If a customer were to elect direct
access during the bond repayment period (or anytime after 1-17-01), they
could potentially escape their fair share of the these costs, and would have
received the subsidized, lower cost electricity without paying the full cost
of that power. To prevent this, the draft of SB 27X proposed by the direct
access coalition says that all customers electing direct access will be
responsible for any undercollection for DWR power costs related to the time
when they were served by DWR, until the date they stopped taking such
service, after which they have no more obligation to pay for DWR purchases.
This is subsection (d) of the coalition draft.
The second form of exit fee is that related to the actual DWR contracts for
power. It is this charge (to make DWR whole for higher contract costs when
load leaves stranded capacity under contracts of a year or longer) which
will be waived during the period of "open enrollment" or "free switching" to
direct access. There will be no exit fee during an initial open enrollment
period (date to be determined, we are asking for 10-1-01) and during all
times when the total long term generation portfolio assembled by DWR and the
utilities: retained generation, QF contracts, and long term (>1 yr.) DWR
purchases is less than the total load on the utility system, including load
growth. Then customers can switch to direct access without this second exit
fee until the total load is reduced to match the long term portfolio. All
switches are first-come, first-served.
Once that equilibrium is reached any additional customers who want to elect
direct access may do so, but have to pay a fee equal to the net unmitigated
cost incurred by DWR as a result of losing that customer's load. Once DWR
contracts expire, creating more "headroom" then customers can once again
switch without an exit fee.
I hope this clarifies what we are proposing. Bear in mind the DWR and Dept
of Finance may well seek substantial changes in this language. Thanks, Mike
Day
<<sbx 27 amendments 3-7-01.doc>>
- sbx 27 amendments 3-7-01.doc
=====================================
|
3,382 |
Subject: Re: Edison Full Requirements
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2269.
=====================================
Chris --
I am not too optimistic that we are going to get either the CPUC or the
California Legislature to provide for competitive default supply. I don't
think that the utilities would want it nor do I think that with all of the
other problems in California this will occur within the next 12 months.
The best chance is simply to get the utilities to recognize (as the call from
SCE appears to indicate) that there is price risk with their residual load
and to seek to forward contract. We are working (and I think that there is a
strong sentiment amongst most California electricity wonks) to remove any
barriers to utilities contracting forward. This should put EPMI on a level
footing to compete to manage the UDCs price risk with other people in the
industry.
Government Affairs met today in SF to discuss our goals for the upcoming
Legislative session (which promises to be very interesting). Competitive
default supply is on the agenda, but I would put it behind utility forward
contracting on the list of priorities.
Jim
Chris H Foster@ECT
11/30/2000 11:30 AM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Laird Dyer/SF/ECT@ECT
Subject: Edison Full Requirements
Jill Horswell, the head of trading at SCE, just called. She said the CEO of
SCE asked her to call around and see if energy marketing companies would be
interested in offering the "Duke SDG&E Structure," (i.e full requirements at
$60/MWhr) to SCE. I told her that that would be a big bite for anyone, and
that the price would be well north of $60, but we would be interested in
coming up with a structure for their consideration if they wanted to take
this a step further.
We decided in the case of SDG&E that we didn't have an interest in a true
full requirements deal given the size (3,000 MW) and the difficulty in
managing the load fluctuations, credit risks, etc. The size and scope of a
similar deal with SCE (20,000 MW) would be even more daunting.
Is this an opportunity to propose a new market structure for serving load to
try to build part of the solution to California's energy woes? How should
the default provider be determined? How can credit and load fluctuation
risks be managed? Can we build a consortium of market support amongst our
fellow defendants (i.e Duke, Southern, et al)?
Let me know what you think.
Chris
=====================================
|
3,383 |
Subject: RE: Draft comments on FERC's proposal to reimpose price caps on
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Jane M Tholt/Enron@EnronXGate', 'Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron', 'Gloria', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2740.
=====================================
Leslie et al.
Joe Hartsoe asked me to review this. Please include me on future
distributions re: CA gas issues.
My suggestion is to weave in some "facts" on why prices are where they are.
The easiest and most defensible way to do this would be to insert quotes from
the CEC's recent analysis. Although the CEC is certainly not beyond
reproach, it generally has been pretty evenkeeled on fuels matters. CEC
states that fundamentals--i.e., high EG demand (due to demand growth and
reduced hydro), and a lack of take away capacity--is the cause of high prices
and (by implication) NOT due to capacity release. They also make statements
that these fundamentals are working themselves out: increased drilling, new
interstate capacity, and (assuming CPUC support) increased intrastate
capacity.
The attached file includes some salient quotes and page references. The CEC
report is available at www.energy.ca.gov/publications.
Even if you do not use for this filing, the excerpts should help for any
other materials we are putting together.
Alan Comnes
-----Original Message-----
From: Alvarez, Ray
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:08 PM
To: Comnes, Alan
Subject: Draft comments on FERC's proposal to reimpose price caps on capacity
release transactions
FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron on 05/30/2001 03:07
PM ---------------------------
From: Leslie Lawner on 05/30/2001 01:52 PM CDT
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer Thome/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jane M Tholt/Enron@EnronXGate, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Gloria
Ogenyi/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Draft comments on FERC's proposal to reimpose price caps on capacity
release transactions
Comments are due by 6/11 on the FERC order proposing to reimpose price caps
on short term capacity releases into the CA markets. This is in response to
the complaints filed by SDG&E and LADWP to deal with the high gas prices in
CA and both parties requested this relief. The attached first draft is the
ENA/EES response to the FERC request for comments. Please review and return
comments, etc. to me and Becky so we can coordinate the changes. And please
forward to anyone I may have left out who should have been included above.
<< File: pricecapcomments.doc >>
=====================================
|
3,384 |
Subject: Re: CDWR Credit Proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9034.
=====================================
From a credit perspective, should we be in front of any other debt issue of
CWR related to the California Procurement Adjustment, and have a dedicated
slice of the PUC approved rates, this would, from a practical standpoint be
at the top of credit claims. Since repayment of the debt at the utilities
is dependant on net cash flows (from rate payers), we functionally prime them
as well.
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
02/09/2001 10:24 AM
To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES,
Michael Tribolet/Corp/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, [email protected],
Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: CDWR Credit Proposal
FYI. Calger is in active talks with Freeman and DWR lawyers about the offer
letter we submitted on Tuesday. Freeman's very anxious to do a deal for 200
MWs from the West Desk and then start talking about a deal for power from
Parquet's Pastoria plant. Credit is of course the issue and Calger's told
them that unless the credit issue is bulletproof it's not going to work. See
Chris' comments below. It looks like progress is being made, but the details
will make it or break it. Any thoughts? Might make sense to discuss on the
call. Please forward along to others. Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/09/2001 10:22 AM -----
Christopher F Calger@ECT
02/08/2001 06:11 PM
To: Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: CDWR Credit Proposal
CDWR is proposing to all potential suppliers the following security package
for new PPA's:
1) Irrevocable PUC Order / Agreement that "locks in the revenue stream" for
CDWR to cover the PPA costs.
2) PPA covenant that the power supplier has payment priority over any debt,
including the contemplated debt issue
- the concept is that the supply is the operating cost and any debt would
be subordinate
3) PPA Covenant that their is a uniform package to all suppliers; no more
favorable terms or priority to ayone, no L/C, etc.
Subject to definitive language, CDWR is trying to get people to buy into this
general plan. What do people think? Please try to shoot holes in this.
Please forward to the appropriate legal, regulatory and credit folks to air
this out.
Thanks,
Chris
=====================================
|
3,385 |
Subject: URGENT!!! I-6 penalty charges
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3094.
=====================================
Mike, Jeanne:
Have you heard anything about any relief on penalties that the PUC might have
recently granted interruptible customers? (Recall that Loretta has refused
to allow folks on interruptible to get off those contracts.) Could you let
me know as soon as you find something out? Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/06/2001 11:09 AM -----
Nancy Hetrick
02/06/2001 06:55 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: URGENT!!! I-6 penalty charges
Can we get some information on this as soon as possible. We are getting
calls from customers, etc., and we need the information in order to make the
necessary decisions on billing. Please include Diann Huddleson on any
responses. Thanks.
---------------------- Forwarded by Nancy Hetrick/NA/Enron on 02/06/2001
06:52 AM ---------------------------
From: Nancy Hetrick 02/04/2001 06:28 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: I-6 penalty charges
Do we have anything on this? Thanks.
---------------------- Forwarded by Nancy Hetrick/NA/Enron on 02/04/2001
06:28 AM ---------------------------
Diann Huddleson@EES
02/02/2001 04:42 PM
To: Nancy Hetrick/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: I-6 penalty charges
Nancy, do you know anything about a Order from CA Governor on I6 rate
relief? If the customers are being granted some relief, I need to know so we
can exempt these charges from the bills.
Thanks.
---------------------- Forwarded by Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES on 02/02/2001
04:41 PM ---------------------------
From: Leonard Pettis/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange on
02/02/2001 04:13 PM
To: Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
Subject: I-6 penalty charges
Diann, per Tom's request I have copied the SR in an e-mail to you. Let me
know if you need additional information.
SR Customer (Tim Ball) received January invoice for delivered service
11/20 -12/20 2000 with interruptible penalty charges. He wants know should he
pay the full amount or deduct the penalty and pay for the delivered
services? This is according to his interpretation of the California
governor's order on I6 rate relief
Len Pettis CEM
Enron Energy Services
611 Anton Boulevard
Suite 700
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Toll Free 800-522-1802 x 242
Voice 714-429-8166
Pager 877-452-1224
Pager e-mail [email protected]
e-mail [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,386 |
Subject: Your Order Confirmation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/447.
=====================================
Thanks for using Acteva for your recent order! This message
contains a summary of your online transaction completed on September 14, 2000.
Please keep this as your order confirmation.
What: LOTTERY REGISTRATION: THE 2000 LEADING EDGE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
Qty: 1 registration for "Saturday Ticket" at $0.00 each
For: Jeffrey Dasovich
Total Purchase Amount: No Charge
Date Of Event: Sep 22, 2000 to Sep 23 2000
Time: 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Location: Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, 94720
Directions: http://www.theleadingedge.org/2000/gettingthere.html
Reservation Reminder:
Transaction Number: 96550
Order Number: 8131QKCM20009141651
Credit Card Confirmation Code: No Charge
Leading Edge 2000 - Haas School of Business Purchase/Refund Policy: Please
contact the Event Organizer for refund policy.
Acteva's Purchase/refund policy: Refunds and cancellations are provided
only at the discretion of the organization hosting or sponsoring this
event. Acteva, Inc. issues credits only when directed to do so by the
sponsoring organization. Contact the sponsoring organization for further
details.
Although the event organizer sets the basic refund policy, in the event
of cancellation, Acteva works closely with the organizer to assure you
of an appropriate credit, exchange, or refund.
Organizer Contact Information:
Leading Edge 2000 - Haas School of Business
Haas School of Business #1900, Attn: Darin Boyd
Berkeley, CA, 94720
Return to the event listing:
http://www.acteva.com/booking.cfm?binid=1&bevaid=8131
Want to invite friends or colleagues to this event?
Click this URL to email them an invitation message:
http://www.acteva.com/services/previte/invite_friend.cfm?txnumber=96550
Or forward this URL to them:
http://www.acteva.com/booking.cfm?binid=1&bevaid=8131
If you have any questions regarding your order, contact Acteva's
Customer Service Department at [email protected] or call them toll
free at (877) 855-8646. Please refer to the transaction number above.
From time to time you may receive emails from Leading Edge 2000 - Haas School
of Business. If you do not
wish to receive these emails, send a message to [email protected], and
we will remove you from the list.
OTHER HELPFUL LINKS:
To find more activities, search from our homepage at
http://www.acteva.com
To list your own activities on Acteva, set up an account at
http://www.acteva.com/evax
Online Payment and Registration brought to you by Acteva, Inc.
http://www.acteva.com [email protected]
(877) 849-8646 (415)401-2200
=====================================
|
3,387 |
Subject: Final Version-Manifesto
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8536.
=====================================
Mary Beth:
For what it's worth, I've read this, and if Laura Tyson or Larry Summers sign
it, I have serious concerns about the effect it would have on their ability
to play the role that we envision in moving our proposal forward
(understanding that our odds of success are somewhat meager). While I don't
disagree with the language, it is strong and therefore very likely to make
the Governor and his staff very uncomfortable. I would recommend that they
do not sign.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/24/2001 11:32 AM -----
David Teece <[email protected]>
01/24/2001 10:56 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Final Version-Manifesto
TO:?? Colleagues
SUBJECT:? Final Version
I've done my best to include your very helpful comments.? The document now
also contains a summary.
I would like your endorsement, by noon PST (Wednesday) if possible.? A number
of you have already indicated you would sign it.? Also, Tom Campbell has
indicated he will try to recruit Ken Arrow.? I believe one of you agreed to
recruit Dan McFadden.? Laura is working on Larry Summers.? Solow would be a
great addition, too.
Can we agree on the following division of labor from here out:
1.? Recruiting others:? All
2.? Media representatives:? Campbell, Tyson, Spiller, Verlerger, Wilk,
Teece, and Hogan (This is by no means meant to preclude anyone contacting
the media after we go public.)
??? On media, we are giving the LA Times a 24-hour exclusive.? We won't
release to other media sources until 9:00 AM Thursday.
Many thanks for your involvement and endorsements.
- Manifesto-final version.doc
======================================
David J. Teece, Director
Institute of Management, Innovation and Organization
F402 Haas School of Business #1930
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-1930
Phone: (510) 642-1075
Fax: (510) 642-2826
http://haas.berkeley.edu/~imio
======================================
=====================================
|
3,388 |
Subject: RE: AB 1890 Retreat
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/777.
=====================================
Jeff-
I am always interested! The angle we are looking for is the natural gas
marketing side of things. Are YOU still interested? And I am getting you
because you are afraid to expose anyone else from your company to the
wildness and unpredictability of the AB 1890 Group? :)
Delaney
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AB 1890 Retreat
Well, if you're going to want someone from Enron, it's going to have to be
me. Let me know if you're still interested.
"Delaney Hunter"
<dhunter@smithandke To: "Jeff Dasovich
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>
mpton.com> cc:
Subject: AB 1890 Retreat
10/02/2000 04:51 PM
Please respond to
dhunter
Jeff-
I am putting together a panel at the AB 1890 Retreat on natural gas issues
and would like to include an Enron representative. We are trying to get
folks who are dealing with the nuts and bolts issues, someone on the
ground -- you get the idea - someone from Houston. Below are the details on
the panel:
Tuesday November 14th -- 1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Natural Gas Issues
Issue: The future cost and availability of natural gas will become a
dominant factor in the generation of electricity in California as more
generation is built in future years. We have seen the natural gas price
increase over 100% in the last fifteen months. Why has the price increased
so dramatically? While the price increases can be expected to spur
increased
exploration and drilling, and this supply. Where can California expect to
procure its natural gas supply and at what price over the next five to ten
years? There are now some significant natural gas storage facilities coming
on line - will they help hedge future price volatility? Are independent,
unregulated generators concerned about our natural gas future? Who are the
largest competitors to California for natural gas supply and what will be
the role of new technology in increasing capture of new supply?
Moderator: Keith McCrea
Suggested Panelists:
____________, California Energy Commission (Fuels planner)
____________, El Paso Energy Corporation (Pipeline representative)
____________, Fuels Procurement, Calpine
____________, Enron
____________, Gas Storage Representative
Ed Yates, CA League of Food Processors (customer perspective)
Can you get back to me and let me know if and who could participate from
Enron? Thanks for your help.
Delaney
P.S. You better be planning to attend this year -- at least the day
sessions! :-)
=====================================
|
3,389 |
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4303.
=====================================
Before any decision is made, I think we really need to weigh in with EES on
the ramifications (both PR and legislative) of turning back 16,000
residential customers. I strongly believe that the public hit we will take
will be far greater than our actual out-of-pocket losses. We will be
crucified by the public, media, consumer groups, legislators, governor,
attorney general, etc., and this action will reaffirm our reputation of
packing up and leaving when it's not in our interest. The impact of this
action would be exacerbated since it is on the heels of UC/CSU.
I would also argue that this hurts our national dereg efforts. If we're
advocating that competition and choice benefits consumers and then we turn
around and pull out of a market and abandon customers when we're not
"profiting," we'll kill any chances we have of ever serving retail customers
in California -- or in any other state. We look foolish advocating for
direct access when we're not willing to serve our existing -- let alone
future customers
What about a preemptive strike that engages these 16,000 customers to weigh
in on direct access -- i.e. a letter that says "Enron may be forced to cancel
its contract -- call/write/send the enclosed postcard to your legislator and
tell them you want to keep your right to choose your energy service provider."
Our credibility is on the line. Before we take this action, we need to be
cognizant of all the long-range strategic implications, and we need to
seriously weigh the negative impact this will have on our corporate
reputation, on our legislative abilities and on our commercial success going
forward.
kd
James D Steffes
04/12/2001 09:05 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA
In the meeting today, no decision was made about what to do with Enron's
16,000 residential customers. Each of the contracts gives a basic 30 day
out right to Enron.
That being said, I think that we have a short window to push for DA before
any public action impacts us in Sacramento.
I realize that the ultimate action (which I think is inevitable) makes it
harder for our advocacy on DA, but real $ are flowing out of the company.
EES will give us notice when a decision is reached.
Thanks,
Jim
=====================================
|
3,390 |
Subject: Recent Info on QF Pricing-related Issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/618.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 10/11/2000 05:27 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
10/10/2000 06:41 PM
To: Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Recent Info on QF Pricing-related Issues
As a follow-up to our call. Here is some additional information regarding QF
pricing issues.
QFs who voluntarily switched to PX pricing have been getting paid full (day
ahead) PX prices (and there seem to be a couple of thousand MWs that have
switched). The concern on the part of the QFs is that the Commission's
ultimate decision on PX-based QF prices will force the QFs that have switched
to "refund" some of the payments they've received (e.g., the Commission
adopts a "PX minus" policy).
The majority of QFs are happy with the judge's proposed decision pending
before the PUC. QFs in remote locations are not happy with the decision
since they will take a big GMM hit).
As we discussed, last week the Commission strongly rejected Edison's
emergency motion regarding the gas price piece of the QF pricing formula.
Recall also that a couple of months ago Edison filed a motion with the
Commission to alter the "factors" used in the PX pricing formula, as well as
the gas price indeces. (See previous note from me and Bruno.) That
proceeding continues. The response to Edison's motion is due this Friday.
Recently, the judge issued a ruling telling folks not to address the "factor"
issue (apparently she's heard enough), but to soleley address the gas indeces
issue. Edison is likely to re-argue the points that it made previously in
its emergency motion.
The proceeding is likely to last through the Fall; hard to see a final
decision coming before year end.
In the meantime, the QFs are angling for a resolution at the Legislature as
part of a bigger deal to "resolve" the price spike issue in California.
For their part, the QFs want as part of a legilsatively-produced compromise:
1) maintain SRAC price methodology for 3 years; 2) keep whole those QFs who
voluntarily switched to PX pricing (i.e., "no PX minus" from the PUC); 3)
continue to permit, but limit, QF switching from SRAC to PX; and 4) create a
real retail market in California.
From the QFs perspective, Edison is angling to bifurcate QF pricing, with
gas-fired QFs getting power prices tied to gas prices, and renewables getting
prices that are de-linked from gas prices (they'll likely change their minds
when gas prices fall, however).
That's the latest from this end. If you've got any questions, don't hesitate
to call. 415.782.7822.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,391 |
Subject: Extended CTC components
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/223.
=====================================
JEFF:
Here are the components of extended CTC which may be recovered beyond the
statutory deadline of March 31, 2002:
PU code Section 367(a)(1)
Employee-related transition costs as defined in PU Code Section 375(b) which
include severance costs, retraining, early retirement, outplacement and
related expenses for utility employees (mainly in the generation
departments) who are no longer employed as a result of restructuring.
These costs can continue only until December 31, 2006. As the two year
period for contract retention of generation employees has lapsed, most of
these expenses should be declining. However, we do not have accurate
numbers for current levels of expense at this time.
367(a)(2)
Power purchase obligations which generate CTC can continue to be collected
through the duration of the contract or the duration of any agreement for
the renegotiation, buyout or buydown of a power purchase agreement so long
as it does not extend the power purchase contract. Some of these contracts
have 15-20+ years remaining.
367(a)(4)
Nuclear incremental cost incentive payments for SCE and SDG&E's San Onofre
plant may be recovered up to but not after December 31, 2003.
367(a)(5)
The costs of CTC exemptions granted in Section 374 (Irrigation districts,
federal power districts and UC Davis) may be recovered through the original
deadline of March 31, 2002 and up to $50 million of any cost unrecovered at
that time may be collected after that deadline.
367(a)(6)
The fixed transition amounts related to the Rate Reduction Bonds authorized
in P U Code Section 840 may be recovered from those customers for whom the
FTA charges are allocated by Section 841 until all the Rate Reduction Bonds
are repaid.
That is the complete list of "tail end" CTC.
NOTE these related provisions of AB 1890:
367(a)(3)
BRPU settlement agreement costs can only be recovered until March 31, 2002.
Most of the BRPU cancellation claims have been settled, but some may remain.
Payments are almost certainly still being made under a variety of
settlements. We do not have accurate information on the number of
settlements or payments.
379
Nuclear decommissioning costs are excluded from transition costs and may be
recovered as a non-bypassable charge until fully recovered, and may be
accelerated. The statute does not describe the process for acceleration.
Presumably the normal CPUC orders on decommissioning ratemaking will
continue to apply.
Please let me know if you need more information in this regard.
Please identify the RCR account for this work. Thank you.
Mike Day
=====================================
|
3,392 |
Subject: pge/sce numbers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5203.
=====================================
Utility shares climb on plan progress
Tentative deal to buy transmission system for $2.7 billion
By Myra P. Saefong, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 11:56 AM ET Feb 26, 2001
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CBS.MW) - Shares of PG&E and Edison were lifted slightly
Monday by indications that efforts to end California's energy crisis are
moving forward.
On Friday, California Gov. Gray Davis said the state had reached an
"agreement in principle" to buy Southern California Edison's power lines in a
move to keep the cash-strapped utility solvent.
"This is a significant step forward for Edison and the resolution of the
California power credit crisis," Steven Fleishman, an analyst at Merrill
Lynch, said in a research note Monday.
FRONT PAGE NEWS
Dow, Nasdaq end with respectable gains
3Com plans to slash 1,200 jobs
Plenty of room at the inn: Warburg cuts hoteliers
Texas Instruments warns of deeper sales shortfall
Under terms of the deal, Southern California Edison will sell its electricity
transmission lines to the state for $2.76 billion, or 2.3 times their
estimated book value. See full story.
A formal agreement may be completed in working sessions this week, according
to Bob Foster, Edison's EIX: news, msgs, alerts) senior vice president of
public affairs. There is desire from both parties to "conclude this as
rapidly as possible," he said during a conference call to note holders on
Friday.
The sale of the transmission lines would help Edison's SoCal Edison unit pay
off $4.1 billion in debts accrued from having to buy power on the wholesale
power market at prices high above what it's able to charge its customers
under state-capped retail rates, Fleishman said.
However, discussions with the state's other near-bankrupt utility, Pacific
Gas & Electric "were flailing last week," he said, in part because the
utility's undercollected costs of more than $5 billion at the end of 2000 are
much bigger than SoCal Edison's. However, PG&E is likely willing to work out
a deal within the proposal's framework, Fleishman said.
"It may be that the only way the numbers can work is with a rate increase,"
he added.
Shares of Edison climbed by 33 cents to $15.02, and PG&E shares gained 55
cents to $14.25 Monday.
In another positive development, Edison International said its bank creditors
will refrain from collecting interest on what they're owed through March 14.
Additionally, power generators have agreed to sell their excess energy into
the state for another two weeks following a federal court order to extend the
sales until the next court hearing on March 16.
=====================================
|
3,393 |
Subject: Re: Affiliate Relook case [PLEASE RESPOND TODAY]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4977.
=====================================
Sounds like a cake walk for someone as talented as you.
From: Jeff Dasovich on 03/13/2001 11:39 AM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Affiliate Relook case [PLEASE RESPOND TODAY]
Greetings:
Hope all is well in beautiful Southern California.
I'm on the call with all the EES lawyers as I write. Trying to get folks to
reconsider going forward in the complaint----the landscape could not be
worse, i.e., the judge despises us and is a lunatic; Wood's the assigned
judge; UC/CSU is getting nasty (as we predicted) in the press (see today's LA
Times). Having some success with getting them to reconsider. Will keep you
posted.
Best,
Jeff
Richard Shapiro
03/13/2001 11:28 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Affiliate Relook case [PLEASE RESPOND TODAY]
Agree.
From: Jeff Dasovich on 03/13/2001 11:24 AM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Affiliate Relook case [PLEASE RESPOND TODAY]
Given everything that we've got on our plate, and the relative priority of
the affiliate issue, and the fact that ARM and Wild Goose are involved, I
would propose that we take a pass on this one. Thoughts?
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/13/2001 11:18 AM -----
JMcTarnaghan <[email protected]>
03/13/2001 10:59 AM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'Jeff Dasovich'"
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Affiliate Relook case [PLEASE RESPOND TODAY]
Dear Jeff and Sue:
Sorry to be a broken record on this one....but I don't know what you want to
do about the Affiliates case. There is a PHC tomorrow and comments were
filed. SCE's comments make a nasty jab at Enron for proposing the rules in
the first place. I see that AReM is participating as well. If your plan is
to participate in this proceeding only through AReM, that's fine but please
let me know so that I can remove my appearance. I will be at the PHC for
Wild Goose but would like to be very clear about who I am representing in
the docket in order to avoid confusion.
Thanks,
Jim McTarnaghan
Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
505 Sansome Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-765-8409 (Direct Line)
415-398-4321 (Fax)
[email protected] (Email)
=====================================
|
3,394 |
Subject: Re: PG&E Rate Cap End
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/315.
=====================================
Sandi's on vacation this week. There are rumors that PG&E's actively seeking
a negotiated solution with legislators and the Governor, but I can't verify
and don't have details on what the negotiated agreement might look like.
While's Sandi's away, have asked Mona to check in with our Sacramento
lobbyists to poke around for information. Will report back soon as we get
more info.
James D Steffes
09/16/2000 01:12 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: PG&E Rate Cap End
What is going on with this issue politically? If PG&E gets its rate cap
removed, we need to make sure that this doesn't create more problems for
wholesale markets?
Jim
___________________________________________________________-
California's largest utility is pushing to end a four-year-old retail rate
freeze that has protected millions of Northern Californians from the price
volatility in the wholesale electricity market that rocked San Diego this
summer. PG&E Corp. wants to end the price freeze imposed in 1996 by the
state legislature because it is losing money under the arrangement. PG&E's
move is going to set the stage for a major confrontation between the utility
and state regulators -- the California Public Utilities Commission will have
to balance conflicting needs: the utility's desire to protect its
shareholders from huge losses and the commission's duty as a regulator to
protect the public from a flawed market that appears incapable of delivering
"just and reasonable rates required by law." California legislators fear
that the state could fall into a recession if electricity prices do not drop
soon. California's 1996 deregulation law required all investor-owned
utilities to freeze rates at seemingly high levels. Utilities were allowed
to use surplus revenues to pay down generation-related debts that regulators
said would render them uncompetitive in a deregulated world. It seemed to
work well until this summer in California -- wholesale prices for
electricity went up suddenly -- and the average price of power consumed
today -- for example -- is $ 200 a megawatt hour or nearly four times the
amount that PG&E can bill its customers. State Senator Debra Bowen,
chairwoman of the California Senate utilities committee commented that the
legislature is reluctant to become involved -- she said further, " [T]he
legislature feels like somebody who's fallen into poison oak enough times
that all we have to do is walk past a bush and we break out in a rash.
That's the way we react to these energy issues."
=====================================
|
3,395 |
Subject: CIBO Emissions Control Technology Conference July Brochure
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3444.
=====================================
Attached is the complete conference and registration brochure as a pdf file.
EMISSIONS CONTROLS TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
July 23-25, 2001
Crowne Plaza Hotel at the Crossings
Providence, Rhode Island
Ray Ganga
The McBurney Corporation
Communication, Education and Outreach Committee Chairman
Ronald C. Lutwen
SFT, Inc
Conference Chairman
Have you had a chance to consider the potential impacts of pending new
regulations on industrial powerplant facilities, what you might have to do
and what your alternatives may be? The Boiler Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Standards to be proposed this year; the Regional Haze
Standards that will begin to be implemented; the consideration of short
term SO2 standards again; and, the implementation process for the Fine
Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (PM NAAQS) will all
impact existing sources, big and small. The permitting process for any new
or existing facility is demanding Best Available Control Technologies
(BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emission Rates (LAER) on almost all sources for
Particulate, Sulfur Dioxide, Mercury, Chlorine, and a host of other
emissions. How will this impact your company and your job?
If you are an industrial corporate environmental or energy engineer or
manager with the responsibility to make sure there is sufficient energy to
run the company and comply with environmental regulations, you should be
represented at this conference. If you are an Architect/Engineer or
energy/environmental consulting firm, you should be represented. If you are
an equipment supplier with interest in the industrial market place, you
should be represented. And, if you are a state regulator with interest in
what can actually be accomplished in the industrial sector, you should be
represented. CIBO conferences have been noted for bringing the full range
of stakeholders together for practical discussions and education on energy
and environmental issues to promote progress on environmental issues and
secure a competitive and strong energy future for the United States.
The time is now for the consideration of what will be required over the
next two to ten years. What you learn from attending this conference could
save you countless hours of frustration, provide a foundation for current
and future planning and open a host of alternatives not before considered.
- Emissions Control Conference July 0125.pdf
Gail Bessette
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
6035 Burke Centre Parkway, Suite 360
Burke, VA 22015-3757
Phone: 703-250-9042 * Fax: 703-239-9042WWW:
<http://www.cibo.org>
=====================================
|
3,396 |
Subject: CIBO Emissions Control Technology Conference -- July Brochure
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3417.
=====================================
Attached is the complete Conference and registration Brochure as a .pdf file.
EMISSIONS CONTROLS TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
July 23-25, 2001
Crowne Plaza Hotel at the Crossings
Providence, Rhode Island
Ray Ganga
The McBurney Corporation
Communication, Education and Outreach Committee Chairman
Ronald C. Lutwen
SFT, Inc
Conference Chairman
Have you had a chance to consider the potential impacts of pending new
regulations on industrial powerplant facilities, what you might have to do
and what your alternatives may be? The Boiler Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Standards to be proposed this year; the Regional Haze
Standards that will begin to be implemented; the consideration of short
term SO2 standards again; and, the implementation process for the Fine
Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (PM NAAQS) will all
impact existing sources, big and small. The permitting process for any new
or existing facility is demanding Best Available Control Technologies
(BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emission Rates (LAER) on almost all sources for
Particulate, Sulfur Dioxide, Mercury, Chlorine, and a host of other
emissions. How will this impact your company and your job?
If you are an industrial corporate environmental or energy engineer or
manager with the responsibility to make sure there is sufficient energy to
run the company and comply with environmental regulations, you should be
represented at this conference. If you are an Architect/Engineer or
energy/environmental consulting firm, you should be represented. If you are
an equipment supplier with interest in the industrial market place, you
should be represented. And, if you are a state regulator with interest in
what can actually be accomplished in the industrial sector, you should be
represented. CIBO conferences have been noted for bringing the full range
of stakeholders together for practical discussions and education on energy
and environmental issues to promote progress on environmental issues and
secure a competitive and strong energy future for the United States.
The time is now for the consideration of what will be required over the
next two to ten years. What you learn from attending this conference could
save you countless hours of frustration, provide a foundation for current
and future planning and open a host of alternatives not before considered.
- Emissions Control Conference July 01.pdf
Gail Bessette
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
6035 Burke Centre Parkway, Suite 360
Burke, VA 22015-3757
Phone: 703-250-9042 * Fax: 703-239-9042WWW:
<http://www.cibo.org>
=====================================
|
3,397 |
Subject: FW: POWER Working Paper Email Notification Service (PWPENS)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/390.
=====================================
FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: PWPENS [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:11 PM
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
Subject: POWER Working Paper Email Notification Service (PWPENS)
_________________________________________________________________
N E W P O W E R W O R K I N G P A P E R
Working Paper Series of UCEI
_________________________________________________________________
POWER Working Paper Email Notification Service (PWPENS)
A service of The University of California Energy Institute's Program on
Workable Energy Regulation (POWER). All POWER working papers can be
downloaded free of charge from the UCEI website: http://www.ucei.org Just
follow the link to "POWER Research".
________________________________________
"Trading Inefficiencies in California's Electricity Markets" (October 2001)
PWP-086 by Severin Borenstein, James Bushnell, Christopher R.
Knittel, and Catherine Wolfram
We study price convergence between the two major markets for
wholesale electricity in California from their deregulation in April 1998
through November 2000, nearly the end of trading in one market. We would
expect profit-maximizing traders to have eliminated persistent price
differences between the markets. Institutional impediments and traders'
incomplete understanding of the markets, however, could have delayed or
prevented price convergence. We find that the two benchmark electricity
prices in California - the Power Exchange's day-ahead price and the
Independent System Operator's real-time price - differed substantially
after the markets opened but then appeared to be converging by the
beginning of 2000. Starting in May 2000, however, price levels and price
differences increased dramatically. We consider several explanations for
the significant price differences and conclude that rapidly changing market
rules and market fundamentals, including one buyer's attempt to exercise a
form of monopoly power, made it difficult for traders to take advantage of
opportunities that ex post appear to have been profitable.
Download this paper in Adobe Acrobat format: http://www.ucei.org/PDF/pwp086.pdf
________________________________________
If you would like to be removed from this list, please send an email to
Mailto:[email protected] and include UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject
heading. If you received this email indirectly and would like to be added
to this emailing list, please send an email to
Mailto:[email protected] and include SUBSCRIBE in the subject
heading.
=====================================
|
3,398 |
Subject: Cheney: White House Mtg Mon On Calif. Pwr Problems
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3051.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/28/2001 09:03 PM -----
"Daniel Douglass" <[email protected]>
01/28/2001 04:07 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject:
Dow Jones story
Cheney: White House Mtg Mon On Calif. Pwr Problems
01/28 10:13 (DJ)
Story 0076 (EIX, PCG, SRE)
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said on Fox News
Sunday that the Bush Administration will hold a cabinet-level meeting Monday
on California's power problems.
Cheney also said that it wouldn't be his choice to have California take
control of the electrical industry within its borders.
"That wouldn't be my choice. I'm a believer in markets, and I think the
notion of deregulation is basically sound. What happened in California was
it was poorly executed," Cheney said.
He added that the state's regulatory scheme has undermined the financial
stability of utilities, which have run up several billion dollars in debt
without being able to recapture it.
Cheney also said California's problems are partly a result of supply,
because no new power plants have been built in the state in 10 years,
despite the fact that there has been a rapid run-up in demand.
"It's really up to California to change those laws, both to restore
financially solvency to the utilities as well as to make it possible to
start building new capacity."
Cheney said a big part of the problem is the process for siting plants,
which involves an endless appeals process. While it's relatively easy to
stop a project from going forward in the state, it's very hard to get final
approval for a project, he said.
"California is probably the toughest state in the country...in which to
build a power plant, and when you add to that the pricing scheme that is in
place, there is no incentive for anybody to go invest in additional capacity
in California. And investing in new capacity is what is ultimately going to
solve the problem."
-By Richard C. Black, Dow Jones Newswires; 201 -938 -4370;
[email protected]
(END) DOW JONES NEWS 01 -28 -01
10:13 AM
=====================================
|
3,399 |
Subject: Spring 00 Schedule
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/128.
=====================================
Hi Everyone,
Below are notes on some courses/faculty that are new to the Evening MBA
Program.
E264; Hi-Tech Marketing; Gadbois
Though I haven't seen Raymond Gadbois' teaching evaluations from other
institutions, he is currently VP for Corporate Marketing at PeopleSoft.
Previous to that he worked at Oracle as Marketing Director/Applications
Division/Product Marketing Manager. Mr. Gadbois has an MBA from UCLA, is a
triathlete, and a pilot.
E259-2; Leading Change and Leveraging Culture; Chatman
Professor Jenny Chatman has taught both the day and evening core OB courses
consistently earning above a 6.0. Jenny has taught this elective course in
the Executive Program numerous times and, again, gets consistently high
ratings. This course will likely be focusing on leadership skills, cases,
and a fair amount of self-assessment in the leadership area.
E296-5; European Financial Markets; Portes
Professor Richard Portes is visiting from London Business School. He is an
expert in the European Monetary Union and will spend considerable time on
this topic. The difference between this course and Professor Rich Lyons'
International Finance course is that this course will focus on Europe, will
be a bit more "macro", and study the institutional implications of the common
currency. Rich Lyons' course will be focusing more on international
corporate finance relevant to multinational treasurers, CFO's, etc.
E234; Corporate Finance; Das
Professor Das is visiting from Harvard this year and is currently teaching in
the day program. I have heard he's a great teacher and, as you might
suspect, this course will be case-based.
E-296-3; Foundations of E-Business; Tachibana
We have detailed course outlines in the office for Tachibana's course. Ken
is a Haas MBA and has an MS in computer science and in engineer-economic
systems from Stanford University. He is Vice President of Services of
RAINfinity, which is a startup focusing on scalability and reliability
solutions for e-commerce.
BA295; Entrepreneurship
Although this is a day course and is offered on Fridays, history indicates
that there will likely be room available for evening students if you have a
flexible enough schedule.
BA296-6; International Business and Japan; Lincoln
This course offered on Mondays from 6:00 - 8:00 pm. Course description now
on the web. Remember, for evening students this course can only be taken for
one unit and counts as an academic one-unit course.
Please be sure to check the course descriptions on the web for each of these
courses.
That's it!
Cheers,
Diane
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.