dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
3,500 |
Subject: Amory Lovins Speaking at Haas
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10619.
=====================================
PLEASE FORWARD TO INTERESTED FOLK...
Business and the Environment Day
at UC Berkeley
April 19th -
Seating is limited for all events - Come Early!
Free admission
12:45-2:00 pm: Second Annual Haas Earth Day Lecture on Business and the
Environment
Amory Lovins, CEO (Research), Rocky Mountain Institute
"Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution"
Introduction by Dean Laura Tyson
Wells Fargo Room, Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley
Amory Lovins, co-author of Natural Capitalism, will discuss how changes in
natural capital (the natural environment and ecosystems that support all
human and economic activity) are already affecting the way we do business,
and how leading corporations are gaining competitive advantage through
superior environmental performance. He will talk about how corporations can
employ advanced resource productivity strategies to move toward becoming
ecologically sustainable, reduce environmental impact, and improve the bottom
line.
Mr. Lovins is the co-founder and CEO (Research) of Rocky Mountain Institute
(RMI), a nonprofit organization that assists businesses, communities, and
governments to create more wealth and employment, protect and enhance natural
and human capital, and increase profit and competitive advantage through
resource and operational efficiency. The Wall Street Journal named Mr. Lovins
one of 39 people world-wide "most likely to change the course of business in
the '90s"; Newsweek has praised him as "one of the Western world's most
influential energy thinkers"; and Time recognized him with one of their Hero
of the Planet awards.
Sponsored by the Haas School of Business and Net Impact at Haas
For more information, contact Eric Strand at [email protected]
3:00-5:00 pm: Energy and Resources Group Energy Forum
Dr. Severin Borenstein, UC Energy Institute
Prof. Richard Norgaard, Energy and Resources Group, and others
"Re-De-Regulation: Planning, Learning, Blundering and the Future of
Electricity in California"
Sibley Auditorium, Bechtel Engineering Center
Sponsored by the Energy Resources Group, UC Berkeley
6:00 - 8:00 pm: Ninth Annual ERG Lecture on Energy
Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld, California Energy Commission
Sibley Auditorium, Bechtel Engineering Center
Dr. Rosenfeld, UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus in Physics and in the Energy &
Resources Group, is a present member of the California Energy Commission. His
work on energy efficiency is widely recognized as the standard against which
other studies are judged.
Sponsored by the Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley
For more information, contact Donna at [email protected]
Adam Berman
Haas School of Business
(510) 981-0568
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,501 |
Subject: Fisher Center Reception December 6, 5:15pm-7pm
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4248.
=====================================
You are invited to a reception after the Fisher Center Conference.? The
reception is part of the conference but is open to all students free of
charge. It will be held at the Bank of America Forum on Wed, December 6,
5:15-7pm.? To RSVP use our Web-based system at
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/citm/#Conf . On the request for registration
form, enter:
100% for the discount amount
RECEPTION for the discount group
There is no need to fill out the address & phone information for this RSVP.
After submitting the form? there will be no further contact (the system's
message to that effect is for conference registration only), and a tag with
your name will be available at the reception area.
For those who would also like to attend the conference at a nominal fee of
$50, .request a admission through our Web-based system at
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/citm/#Conf . On the request for registration
form, enter:
95% for the discount amount
MBAxx (xx is 01 or 02) for the discount group
The Fisher Center for Information Technology & Marketplace Transformation
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Invites you to a One-day Conference eBusiness Transformation: Breaking Away
from Legacies Featuring George Surdu
Director of the Information Technology Services Group, Ford Motor Company
December 6, 2000
Wells Fargo Room, Haas School of Business
Conference Agenda
8:15 - 8:45am Registrations & Refreshments
8:45- 9:00am Welcome and Overview
Professor Arie Segev, Director, Fisher CITM, Haas School of Business
Phillip Gordon, Executive Director, Fisher CITM, Haas School of Business
9:00 - 9:45am
e-Business Transformation - a Conceptual Framework
Arie Segev, Director, Fisher CITM, Haas School of Business
9:45 - 11:15? Keynote Speaker
e-Businessing the Business at Ford
George Surdu, Director of the Information Technology Services Group, Ford
Motor Company
11:15 - 11:30?? Short Break
11:30 - 12:30pm
Next Generation e- Business Applications
Peter Brown, Senior Program Manager, CommerceNet
12:30 - 1:30pm Lunch
1:30 - 2:30pm
Business Mega-Trends Enablement through Information Technology and E-commerce
in Logistics
Dr. Bernard J. Hale, principal of Hale Logistics Consulting, former president
of the Council of Logistics Management, and former senior logistics officer
at s DSC Logistics, McGaw, Inc. and Bergen Brunswig
2:30-3:30pm
"What's the Big Deal About the Little-e? -- A Look at Legacy, Vendors and
Influence"
Gay Slesinger, Principal, iMarket Strategies
3:30? 4:00pm Break
4:00? 5:00pm Panel:? Breaking Away from Legacies:? Common Themes Across
Industries
Larry Clopp, Director, Supply Chain Research Practice, Gartner Group
5:15? 7:00pm? Reception? (including Haas Students)
=====================================
|
3,502 |
Subject: Re: Message Points
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2910.
=====================================
with "much" of what i said?
James D Steffes
11/01/2000 01:39 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron, [email protected],
Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Message Points
I agree with much of what Jeff has written. Here are some additions -
On FERC getting a lot right, look at the Order in relation to our 4 key
points filed in the White Paper -
Removing Market Transparency - Still need FERC to take action
Development of Forwards Market and Risk Management - Great results
Removing distortions on Prices - Wrong action
Ending Cal ISO / Cal PX Stakeholder Boards - Great results
On the risk management issue, FERC itself said "The single most important
remedy that California market needs is the elimination of rules that prevent
market participants from managing risk". [FERC PRESS RELEASE]
ADD - FERC Staff did a great job on preparing a detailed analysis of the
market issues.
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
11/01/2000 01:17 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Message Points
Here are the messages as I understand them. Please let me know if I've
misconstrued anything. Thanks.
FERC got a lot right in the order and we're very encouraged as a result.
In particular, ending the PX buy/sell requirement and permitting utilities to
manage risk through a portfolio of short and long term contracts is a
fundamental step in the right direction.
However, the proposed price cap is unworkable and will jeopardize realibility
in California. As structured, it will:
discourage the development of new generation to serve California
fail to provide adequate incentives for demand responsiveness.
force Enron to abandon 300 MWs of new power projects planned for California.
We look forward to participating in FERC's process and are hopeful that
FERC's final order will fix the deficiencies in the current price cap
proposal.
We encourage California to work with FERC to implement the proposals and
quickly fix the flaws in the market on behalf of the state's consumers.
=====================================
|
3,503 |
Subject: Halloween Party
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/977.
=====================================
Our friends....
Nothing to do on the Saturday before Halloween? Bored of the same ol'
costumes and Bridge 'n Tunnel crowd down in the Castro? Want to strangle
the next guy you see dressed up as the Golden Gate Bridge? Well then, have
we got a bash for you! It's Rob and Madeleine's last minute Halloween
fiasco. Sure to be a hit for all ages and attitudes. Think about
it.....when you combine Madeleine's penchant for over-supplying good food
and drink, insistence on bringing in outside help and making sure everyone's
happy....with Rob's delight for doing the strange and unexpected (especially
with pumpkins!) on his favorite holiday....then this is sure to be a hit.
....and if it's not, we'll at least I've had practice with good creative
copywriting.
Here are the details.
When: Saturday October 28. 6:30 - ? (We're starting early so those who
want to see the gawkers with cameras in the Castro can get there by mid
evening).
Where: 1228 Grove #1 (and maybe #'s 2-6 if my friendly neighbors open their
doors to make this a big building party). We're located at the edge of
Alamo Square Park near the corner of Scott and Grove.
Why: Because I love Halloween and Madeleine loves bobbing for apples.
And...because you're never to old to have Halloween fun.
What Happens: Basically anything you want to. But we'll be encouraging...
Creative pumpkin carving in our special carving room (bring your own pumpkin
and carving utensils, and we'll supply the newspaper and votive candles to
light up your scary creation....Generous, aren't we.)
Marshmallow roasting on our neighbor's home-made grill pit in the back yard
(a Weber stacked with wood)
Wine tasting and beer quaffing (free entry to the one who finds a good
pumpkin wine).
All night food snacking (not a formal dinner, but should be enough goodies
to compliment a few glasses of your favorite venom)
Informal costume judging (costumes not required, but c'mon, it's
Halloween....relax, have fun, live a little, dress up!) No parading around
for this one, simply tap the ghoul on the shoulder you think has an
outrageous get-up and give 'em some credit for putting it on.
Devilish music (we're thinking a deluge of Wagnerian movements (Faust
anybody?)...but bring some of your own to share as well)
What to bring: Yourself, hopefully a costume (no, you're not required), a
pumpkin if you wish and one small thing to share with a few others to imbibe
or devour (we'll supply the lion's share). Be creative!
RSVP? Absolutely...we need to now if we should notify the police of the
impending ruckus! Use this e-mail ([email protected] or
[email protected]). Do so by the 23rd if you can.
Cheers!
Rob and Madeleine (Levy and Todd)
415-296-2124
=====================================
|
3,504 |
Subject: Edison Advice Letter
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4205.
=====================================
FYI.? On November 22, Edison filed advice letter 1500-E, which?revises=20
Schedule PX to reflect the use of gross load, rather than net load for=20
self-generation customers in calculating the Grid Management Charge =20
applicable to customers, as assessed by the ISO.? This filing is made in =
=20
response to ISO=01,s November 1 filing at FERC to unbundle the GMC applicab=
le=20
to scheduling coordinators.? ISO proposes that the Control Area Services =
=20
Charge be assessed to SCs for all loads behind the end user=01,s meter,=20
including loads served by on-site generation.? Edison is therefore revisin=
g=20
Schedule PX to reflect the use of gross load in the determination of the G=
MC=20
for self-generating customers.
?
On the same date, Edison filed advice letter 1499-E, which revises Schedule=
=20
PX to reflect an increase to the utility's purchase limits for bilateral an=
d=20
BFM products.? As background, when Edison filed its AL 1429-E last January=
,=20
it requested that its trading limits be based on its "net short" position=
=20
for the relevant quarter.? At that time, Edison said that its net short=20
position would likely increase in the future due to further generation=20
divestiture or load growth.? In response to subsequent advice letters, the=
=20
Commission authorized further increases to the trading limits.? The utilit=
y=20
cites FERC=01,s November 1 Order with regard to the need for the utilities=
to=20
have greater forward purchasing and risk management tools, load growth and=
=20
the return of direct access customers as the justification for the=20
Commission to increase the current forward purchase limits.The utility now=
=20
requests that the combined limits for forward energy and capacity=20
procurement be increased to 4,400, 5,800, 9,600 and 6,800 MW for the first=
=20
through fourth quarters, respectively.? In addition, the utility requests=
=20
further adders, to reflect further divestiture and QF generation that may=
=20
switch to PX-based pricing, to increase these limits up to 8,300,=20
9,700,13,500 and 10,700 MW for these quarters.? The advice letter provides=
a=20
series of tables which summarize various events which, should they occur,=
=20
would enable Edison to automatically increase its purchase limits, without=
=20
further advice letters.? Instead, the utility would only submit a complian=
ce=20
letter which informed the Commission that the event had occurred and the=
=20
limits were being increased.
?
Comments are due on December 12.? I don't have an electronic copy of the=
=20
filings, but if anyone wants a fax, please let me know and I'll send it to =
=20
you tomorrow (am out of the office today without access to a fax).
?
Dan
=====================================
|
3,505 |
Subject: Re: WGA price cap meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8840.
=====================================
This is very helpful. We are putting together an aggressive outeach to
Western Senators on same subject, particularly in States where Governors have
been supportive of price caps. We are putting together several one pagers on
same, which I will ship to you once they go final. thanks
Susan M Landwehr
02/05/2001 12:03 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Maureen
McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: WGA price cap meeting
Jim/Rick/Linda--I have faxed to you a copy of the resolutions that came out
of the Western Governors meeting last Friday. We were pleased to see that
there was no language endorsing price caps in the documents, nor was there
even a section suggesting that they be studied. The resolutions included
many of our suggestions (power supply contracts,rate reforms to send more
accurate price signals, demand exchanges, eliminating barriers to distributed
generation, etc) There was also a specific endosement of construction and
expansion of pipelines and electric transmission.
The Thursday evening keynote by Bennett Johnston was typical old fox
Louisiana style rhetoric saying that even though price caps didn't work,
gee...just this one time, they should be instituted for just the short term
(his client is SoCalEd). The morning session started off rocky, with way too
much discussion about price caps or cost plus ratemaking being a good idea.
Mid way thru the program Gov Kempthorne affirmatively stated that he did not
agree with price caps and that actually started the discussion back on the
right road. The Governors met in closed session at noon and then later in
the day, and ultimately there were enough Republican votes to make sure that
price caps were not endorsed.
DOE secretary Abraham was not particularly vocal during his time on the
panel, but did give good anti price cap interviews with the press later. And
good old market man Curt Hebert had some very strong statements against price
caps. His colleagues Massey and Breathitt were both there, and did not echo
the same sentiments!
Paul and I will be talking in the next few days to plan our next strategy
with this group...it will need some continued hand holding and work. Please
feel free to call either of us if you would like more specific info. Please
also forward on to whoever in your group I neglected to copy or would have an
interest.. THANKS to all who helped us get ready for this meeting.
=====================================
|
3,506 |
Subject: Let the witch hunt begin...
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3906.
=====================================
CPUC sees market abuses, claims overcharges
California regulators told FERC in a filing they have sufficient evidence o=
f=20
market power
abuse to warrant additional investigation.
In response to FERC=01,s request for comments on proposals to repair Califo=
rnia=01,
s wholesale
power market, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) also argued=
=20
retail electricity
consumers had been overcharged by up to $4 billion by independent=20
generators. The CPUC
did not name any specific generator.
=01&The CPUC=01,s preliminary staff analysis =01* conducted under similar c=
onditions=20
of imperfect
data and inadequate time =01* suggests that claims of tight supply and incr=
eased=20
costs, while
real, are overstated and explain less of the increased costs than FERC staf=
f=20
concludes,=018 the
CPUC says.
The CPUC=01,s filing cites FERC=01,s own assertion that California=01,s who=
lesale=20
market structure
provided the opportunity and potential for market power abuses. However, th=
e=20
CPUC disagrees with FERC=01,s conclusion that insufficient evidence exists =
to=20
prove actual abuses occurred. Claiming that FERC=01,s own investigation in=
to=20
market manipulation was incomplete, the California regulators charge =01&th=
at=20
market power played a much greater role in the summer=01,s prices than appe=
ars=20
to be acknowledged in the [FERC] Staff Report.=018
California regulators, conducting their own investigation into market power=
=20
abuses, examined
the impact of increased costs due to higher-than-normal natural gas prices,=
=20
as well as
increased expenses related to obtaining limited environmental permits.
=01&The CPUC=01,s preliminary analysis shows that as much as $4 billion of=
=20
[California Power
Exchange] costs are attributable to market power for the period between Jun=
e=20
and September,=018 the state regulators reported. =01&FERC should set heari=
ngs on=20
this issue.=018
More generally, the CPUC criticized FERC=01,s Nov. 1 order, claiming that i=
t=20
=01&fails to provide
meaningful relief to Californians who =01( have spent billions more for pow=
er in=20
recent
months than ever before, paying prices that are not justified on the basis =
of=20
industry costs or
any other measure.=018
In addition, the CPUC=01,s comments on the major aspects of the FERC report=
were=20
similar to
those of other market participants also filed last Wednesday. The CPUC said=
=20
FERC should take
interim measures to allow for immediate price relief for California=20
consumers, that the $150/
MWh =01&soft cap=018 suggested in the order would not hold prices down effe=
ctively,=20
and that fines on purchasers that do not forward contract the majority of=
=20
their load were one-sided.
=====================================
|
3,507 |
Subject: Come Meet the Recruitment Center Account Managers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/870.
=====================================
Fellow Evening Haasians,
Who are these so called account managers, Rich, Jenny and Mark? What do they do?
How can we leverage off their expertise and they, ours? Do they have specific company
contacts? Where can they be found? Will the ubiquitous pizza be served to entice you to attend?
Strong possibility. Will I have to sign up on Bear Tracks? No. How can attending benefit me?
It's up to you.
To answer these questions and many more, we will be scheduling during -
Mon, Nov. 26 during the break (i.e., 7:30 - 8:15) in C125 and
Thu, Dec. 6 during the break as well in the Career Center Conference Room (S420)
an informational session with the account managers.
Here's a description that Rich Wong, the financial services account manager prepared:
"The Haas Career Center staff includes 3 account managers that
can be a valuable resource to those that are exploring job or career
direction changes. Their role is to be the primary liaison for recruiters
in their specific industry sectors, being the one-stop shop point person
for companies interested in connecting with Haas MBA students. They
cover a full spectrum of responsibilities from the logistics of setting up
presentations and interviews to establishing contacts and providing
strategic guidance to recruiters (including both hiring managers as well
as University Recruiting reps within human resource departments).
Through this activity, they gain insights into their company/industry
focus that they are happy to share with Haas students, John Morel,
and the other career advisors in the Haas Career Center."
Feel free to contact them regarding questions on companies and industries
that they represent. Conversely, please provide them with any valuable
contacts that you have in current/former employers that might help them aid your
schoolmates to find employment opportunities. They are located in the Recruitment Center
(S330 by the ATM machine) and their contact information is as follows:
Mark Friedfeld - Financial Services (Investment and Commercial Banking, Real
Estate, Venture Capital)
[email protected]/510-642-6588
Jenny Rowe - Consulting, Consumer Products, Healthcare/Biotech/Medical
Devices, Educations, Not-for-Profit
[email protected]/510-643-4212
Rich Wong - Technology, Entertainment - [email protected]/510-643-4211
If you plan to attend, please respond to me directly and indicate which evening.
Furthermore, by a unanimous vote of the EvMBAA, Jon Bain will be your new Career Center Liaison
starting Spr02. Many of you already have had the pleasure of interacting with Jon in your classes, as well as in John
Morel's Life-Work Balance seminars, which Jon helped organize.
Best regards, Albert Demery
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,508 |
Subject: RE: Final Filing of App for Rehearing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/613.
=====================================
Hi Jeff:
1. Don't know at this point what if anything we'll do. We haven't, as you undoubtedly seen, taken a lead on DA issues. We do, however, have another case up our sleeve that would aid DA should it come to be. More when that develops.
2. Yes, Michael does QF work. He typically works with the QFs who have contracts to sell power; I work more on the consumer side with the QFs who build primarily to self-serve. (In other words, he looks more a power generation, I look more at end-user issues.) Certainly feel free to call him. He's in DC today at the RTO workshops, but I believe he'll be here tomorrow.
Hope you're safe and well.
E
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 4:47 PM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: RE: Final Filing of App for Rehearing
Hi Evie:
Two quick things:
1) My understanding is that the PUC has denied the applications for rehearing. There's a group that is fixing to take it to the court of appeals level--can't see any downside ( a) argument is that the PUC erred in its decisionmaking--no record, no facts, no evidence, etc., and that it needs to go back to the drawing board and get the process right before it suspends anything--and b) the heavy-lifting was already done getting the app. for rehrng prepared). Seems like getting a chance to re-argue at the PUC has alot of positives. Were you planning on doing anything?
2) I want to talk to Michael Alcantar about some interesting QF ideas, but wanted to check with you first. Frankly, I'm ignorant as to whether that still occupies a big spot on his plate, if he represents the same folks, etc., and thought I'd check with you first.
Hope (all things considered) you're doing well.
Best,
Jeff
**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at [email protected] and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
3,509 |
Subject: Edson + Modisette merger with Public Policy Advocates
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'e-mail <[email protected]', 'e-mail <[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/901.
=====================================
Thought you all might like to know about our recent merger.
Julee Malinowski-Ball
-----Original Message-----
From: Julee Ball
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:07 PM
To: Jan Smutny Jones (E-mail); Steven Kelley (E-mail); Katie Kaplan
(E-mail); '[email protected]'
Subject:
Dave and I wanted to inform you and IEP of the recent merger between
Edson + Modisette and another highly reputable Sacramento
consulting/advocacy firm, Public Policy Advocates.
As you well know, Edson + Modisette has experienced some major changes
this year, with the retirement of Karen Edson and the departure of one
of our long-time consultants, Cece Martin. These changes also created a
new opportunity for us to partner with others that can improve our
capabilities.
The merger has given Dave and I and our clients the ability to draw upon
additional people, many with valuable skills, and additional resources.
Public Policy Advocates is a long-standing firm in Sacramento, founded
and headed by Fred Taugher, who among other things was the Director of
the Assembly Rules Committee for many years and come this January
celebrates 40 years of experience in public policy. Fred gives us a new
dimension of political access and strength we have never had before.
There are also three other advocates in the firm that IEP could call
upon if needed: Amy Zajac and Steve Cruz who each have ten years of
experience in the Capitol, and Jennifer Wada who cut her teeth in public
policy arena during this year's energy crisis. There will also be
additional support staff, and other resources that we can draw upon.
What hasn't changed is my concentration on energy issues both in the
Legislative and regulatory arenas.
Public Policy Advocates has a long client list which, if you are
interested, you can see on the Secretary of State's web site at
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/lobbyist/detail_firm.asp?ID=1147315&SESSION=
2001
Although our old phone numbers and addresses will work until the end of
the year, our new contact information is the following:
Public Policy Advocates
Dave Modisette - Vice President
Julee Malinowski-Ball, Senior Associate
1015 K Street
Sacramento CA 95814
916-441-0702
FAX-441-3549
[email protected]
[email protected]
In short, I believe the merger of Edson + Modisette and PPA will have
significant benefits, in terms of influence, and access, and
availability of additional resources.
As IEP contemplates its agenda for the second half of the legislative
session, I greatly hope you include our new team in your plans.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Julee Malinowski-Ball
Senior Associate
Public Policy Advocates
1015 K Street
Sacramento CA 95814
916-441-0702
FAX-441-3549
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,510 |
Subject: A free community forum on energy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3214.
=====================================
SVMG ENERGY COMMITTEE MEMBERS & LIAISON REPRESENTATIVES - FYI
*****************************************************************
Bay Area Action+Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation (BAA+PCCF) presents
A Community Forum on Energy
Tuesday, May 22, 7:00 p.m.
FREE Admission
Have you been wondering what's really going on with the energy crisis?
Curious about Bush's energy policy (announced this morning)? Then join us
for the Peninsula Environmental Forum on Tuesday, May 22 at 7 p.m. at the
Peninsula Conservation Center. The forum will provide a conceptual overview
of our global energy challenges, why it is important to support the
development of renewable energy, and practical advice on how we can act now
to reduce energy consumption.
Speakers:
Craig Diamond is Director of Business Development in the Environment
Division of the Electric Power Research Institute. He is also on the Board
of Directors of BAA+PCCF. He has ten years of experience in environmental
policy and strategic environmental consulting, and has worked at an internet
startup company. Craig has a Masters in Public Policy from the University
of Michigan, and an undergraduate degree in biology from Tufts University.
Dan Lieberman is Program Manager for Green Pricing and Energy Efficiency at
the non-profit Center for Resource Solutions. Prior to joining CRS, Dan
worked as Energy Product Manager at Utility.com, an internet-based green
power marketer. Dan has a decade of experience in resource efficiency
issues, including positions at local, state, and federal agencies. He
received MBA and Master of Public Affairs degrees from The University of
Texas at Austin.
The Peninsula Environmental Forum is a monthly event held at the Peninsula
Conservation Center, located at 3921 E. Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto. For more
information on the energy forum, contact David Coale at 650.962.9876 ext.
309. For more information on the Peninsula Environmental Forum series,
contact Peter Drekmeier at 650.962.9876 ext. 302.
Information on the Web
The California Energy Commission: http://www.flexyourpower.ca.gov
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo
Energy Efficiency Guidebook: http://www.pstvnrg.com/xina/guide.html
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy: http://www.aceee.org
The Center for Resource Solutions: http://www.resource-solutions.org
Electric Power Research Institute: http://www.epri.com
The City of Palo Alto Utilities: http://www.cpau.com
We hope to see you there!
--
Tricia Born
Director, Business Environmental Network (BEN)
Bay Area Action + Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation
3921 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.962.9876 ext. 308
650.962.8234 fax
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,511 |
Subject: Draft response to CMUA paper
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/771.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 10/25/2000 12:22 PM -----
Mary Hain@ECT
10/25/2000 11:01 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Mona Petrochko,
Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe@Enron,
Dennis Benevides, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cooper Richey/PDX/ECT@ECT, Robert
Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Draft response to CMUA paper
The attached draft answers the California Municipal Utilities Association
complaint that California markets are not workably competitive and therefore
FERC should establish cost-based rates. In its complaint, CMUA argued that
the market isn't workably competitive because the prices were higher this
summer than in previous years even in hours where demand was no higher.
Seabron's paper shows that high prices have resulted from a number of
unrelated structural and market design factors and increasing attempts at
regulatory intervention. Our answer is due at FERC tomorrow so please get me
your comments ASAP.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 10/25/2000 08:48 AM
---------------------------
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: "Sabine Schnittger" <[email protected]>
10/25/2000 08:23 AM
To: "Mary C Hain" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Draft response to CMUA paper
Mary:
Please find attached a first draft of Enron's response to the CMUA, please
let us know your comments.
Seabron can be contacted on his cell-phone (617 513 5904) this morning, but
will be in the office at noon. Alternatively, you could pass on comments to
me.
Are you or is one of our staff able to assist us with a reference to the
claim that hydro water levels were low in California this year?
Best wishes,
Sabine.
------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(617) 354-0060 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.
Sabine Schnittger
Managing Consultant
Frontier Economics
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02138
Office tel: (617) 354-0060
Office fax: (617) 354-0640
Mobile: (617) 480-5992
Email: [email protected]
http://www.frontier-economics.com
- 00-10-26-SA-SS draft.doc
=====================================
|
3,512 |
Subject: Re: Davis & Company -- incompetence personified
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/11873.
=====================================
gee, tough break.
Richard Shapiro
07/06/2001 01:22 PM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Davis & Company -- incompetence personified
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 07/06/2001
01:21 PM ---------------------------
Pat Shortridge
07/06/2001 01:18 PM
To: John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Chris
Long/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Carolyn Cooney/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Davis & Company -- incompetence personified
You hate to say that someone can't do anything right, but THESE GUYS CAN'T DO
ANYTHING RIGHT.
California Power-Buying Data Disclosed in Misdirected E-Mail
By Daniel Taub
Sacramento, California, July 6 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Gray
Davis's office released data on the state's purchases in the spot electricity
market -- information Davis has been trying to keep secret -- through a
misdirected e-mail.
The e-mail, containing data on California's power purchases yesterday, was
intended for members of the governor's staff, said Davis spokesman Steve
Maviglio. It was accidentally sent to some reporters on the office's press
list, he said.
Davis is fighting disclosure of state power purchases, saying it would
compromise negotiations for future contracts. This week, Davis appealed a
state judge's order to release spot-market invoices, purchase orders and
confirmation sheets for power contracts signed through June 27. The state is
buying electricity on behalf of utilities, which are burdened by debt.
``It's an internal document,'' Maviglio said of the e-mail. ``We have a
meeting every morning where we discuss issues of the day.'' The e-mail
contained minutes of today's meeting, he said.
According to the e-mail, the state bought 283,000 megawatt- hours of
electricity for $37.4 million yesterday. One megawatt- hour is enough
electricity to light 750 typical California homes for an hour. Prices ranged
from $25 to $149.99 a megawatt-hour. Maviglio said the information in the
e-mail is accurate.
Power for next-day delivery during peak-use hours averaged $79.67 a
megawatt-hour on the California-Oregon border yesterday, according to
Bloomberg Energy Service. California paid an average of $132 on the spot
market, according to the e-mail. Prices on the spot market tend to be higher
than on the day-ahead market.
The governor has proposed releasing data on spot-market purchases once a
quarter, arguing that the state uses power-buying strategies tailored to each
season. Lawyers for the media and Republican legislators say state law
requires disclosure of contracts within seven days after they are signed.
=====================================
|
3,513 |
Subject: PG&E Rate Stabilization Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1965.
=====================================
On November 22, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a Rate
Stabilization Plan (RSP) with the California Public Utilities Commission.
PG&E requests that its proposed RSP rates and tariffs be adopted by January
1, 2001, on an ex parte basis, subject to refund, and that the Commission
approve the application no later than March 31, 2001.
The highlights of the plan are as follows:
1. The rate stabilization plan would be mandatory for all residential,
agricultural, commercial and street lighting rate schedules. Large
industrial customers (those served on Rate Schedules S, E-19, E-20 and
E-25) may opt out of the plan starting on March 31, 2001. Those who choose
to participate, must do so for a minimun 12 month period.
2. The amount billed for commodity will start at 6.5 cents/kWh , with the
difference between costs and revenues tracked in a newly created Deferred
Procurement Revenue Account (DPRA). Each year, on December 15th, PG&E will
file an advice letter to adjust the commodity rate effective the following
January 1. The new commodity rate will be calculated based on the initial
price of 6.5 cents/kWh plus an adjustment (determined by taking the amount
over or undercollected in the DPRA and dividing it by PG&E's sales forecasts
over the next two years). The advice letter would become effective
automatically, without Commission resolution.
3. The rate stabilization plan would be in effect five years.
4. Direct access customers will come under the plan. If the stabilized
price is lower than the actual price, the direct access customer will see a
credit on its bill; conversely, if the stabilized price exceeds the actual
price, the customer will see a charge.
5. PG&E proposes to recover the undercollected amounts in its TRA in the
following manner: First it will transfer the undercollected amounts in the
TRA as of 1/1/01 to the proposed Unrecovered Cost of Service Account (USCA).
Second, it will credit a portion of its ongoing earnings from retained
generation against the undercollections. Third, it would collect the
remaining amounts in the UCSA from all customers (including direct access)
through a nonbypassable charge on the bill.
On a separate front, PG&E also filed on November 22, 200, Advice Letter
2057-E to implement post transition rates and tariffs. The filing, if
approved by the commission would allow for a straight pass through of
commodity costs. These end of rate freeze tariffs would be superceded by
PG&E's Rate Stabilization Application, if that is approved.
PG&E has been unable to send out the RSP application electronically, due to
technical difficulties. I have asked Mark Huffman at PG&E to send a copy of
the application (via regular mail) to Roger Yang.
Jeanne
=====================================
|
3,514 |
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: Fuel for thought
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2137.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 10/06/2000 02:14 PM
-----
[email protected]
10/04/2000 07:18 AM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: Fuel for thought
National Post Business Magazine
Fuel for thought
?
10/01/2000
National Post
18
(c) National Post 2000. All Rights Reserved.
The common response to neighbourhood landfill? "Not in my backyard." But
waste may soon grow more attractive -- as an alternative way to light your
home and heat your furnace.
This energy will come from methane gas, collected through vertical wells and
horizontal trenches in landfill sites. Suncor Energy Inc., the Alberta
oilsands giant, has signed a five-year agreement with Conestoga Rovers and
Associates (CRA) of Waterloo, Ont., which specializes in tapping this gas
from landfills. Over five years, Suncor will pour up to $60 million into the
project. Suncor vice-president Gerry Manwell says individual sites will cost
up to $10 million to develop, making a profit within about five years. Only
six of Canada's 392 landfills are being reviewed for development, but if the
public embraces the new gas, its commercial viability should inspire other
companies to follow suit.
In the past, such a venture would not have been profitable, says Rick Mosher,
project leader at CRA. But that may be about to change. Come November, when
Alberta and Ontario deregulate their electricity industries, power will be a
marketable commodity like natural gas. Conventional electricity may get
pricier, opening the door for alternatives. Toronto Hydro Corp. has already
announced plans to buy 130 million kilowatt hours produced from green energy,
including methane.
So those decaying kitchen scraps and lawn cuttings may soon provide both
fuel, for heating and generating electricity, and carbon dioxide, which will
be sold to nurture seedlings in greenhouses. That's good news for consumers,
who will be empowered to help reduce the noxious smell and greenhouse gas
emissions from the landfill in their "backyard."
Graphic/Diagram: (Illustration by Roxanna Bikadoroff)
Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 96
______________________________________________________________________
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
=====================================
|
3,515 |
Subject: IEP Memo and Outline re Nov. 3 Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1368.
=====================================
Attached in MS Word format is a memorandum and outline addressing potential=
=20
"options and solutions" that will be used by IEP in upcoming regulatory and=
=20
legislative efforts.? The memorandum and outline will be reviewed, discusse=
d,=20
dissected and vastly improved at the November 3 IEP meeting.? This represen=
ts=20
a collection of various ideas brought forward to date and must be considere=
d=20
a "work in progress."? It has not been comprehensively reworked in light of=
=20
the November 1 FERC Order.=20
The outline begins with a discussion of the =01&jurisdictional context=018 =
that=20
must be kept in mind when developing IEP=01,s response, including the=20
regional/interstate nature of the Western markets and the respective roles =
of=20
FERC and the CPUC.? The second section is the largest part of the outline,=
=20
and it discusses in detail the =01&problems=018 IEP=01,s response addresses=
, primarily=20
in terms of =01&marketplace fundamentals=018 as well as market structure is=
sues.?=20
IEP=01,s membership is extremely well versed in the myriad of problems faci=
ng=20
the industry, but nevertheless it is vitally important to discuss and agree=
=20
on specifics so that our options and solutions can be presented as a durabl=
e,=20
comprehensive and cohesive message.? The outline's fourth section discusses=
=20
certain characteristics or perspectives that must be considered when crafti=
ng=20
our response, such as the relationship between retail and wholesale markets=
=20
as well as the larger regional markets.? Potential short- and long-term=20
responses are presented in the next two sections, and the outline concludes=
=20
with potential IEP =01&retail/demand=018 proposal.=20
Please contact me if you require the file in another format or if you have=
=20
problems with the attachment.? ABB=20
Andrew B. Brown=20
Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP=20
2015 H Street=20
Sacramento, CA? 95814=20
Phone: (916) 447-2166=20
Fax: (916) 447-3512=20
mailto:[email protected]=20
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:? This communication and any accompanying document(s=
)=20
are confidential and privileged.? They are intended for the sole use of the=
=20
addressee.? If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that=
=20
any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in=20
reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited.? Moreover, any such=
=20
inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client=20
privilege as to this communication or otherwise.? If you have received this=
=20
communication in error, please contact the sender at the internet address=
=20
indicated or by telephone at (916)447-2166. Thank you.=20
?=20
?
- 001101 IEP Solutions and Options.v2.doc
=====================================
|
3,516 |
Subject: Re: Bill Jones will be keynote speaker for WPTF meeting in June
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4110.
=====================================
Wow. That's fascinating. Sounds neat. I would be very concerned, though,
given the current environment about having us listed as a sponsor. In short,
I would recommend against sponsoring, at least at this point.
Best,
Jeff
Susan J Mara
04/12/2001 11:06 AM
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Bill Jones will be keynote speaker for WPTF meeting in June
Bill Jones has announced to run against Davis. gary Ackerman is asking for
sponsors to pay the costs of the dinner. He will publicize the sponsors.
The attendees include all WPTF members (munis, BPA, other power marketers),
plus invitees -- CPUC staff, ISO staff and sometimes FERC staff come. What
do you think
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 04/12/2001 08:03 AM -----
Gary Ackerman <[email protected]>
03/21/2001 04:17 PM
Please respond to foothill
To: Bill Ross <[email protected]>, Bob Anderson <[email protected]>,
Carolyn Baker <[email protected]>, CHARLES A MIESSNER
<[email protected]>, Corby Gardin <[email protected]>, curt
hatton <[email protected]>, Curtis Kebler
<[email protected]>, Denice Cazalet Purdum <[email protected]>,
Greg Blue <[email protected]>, Jack Pigott <[email protected]>, Janie Mollon
<[email protected]>, Nam Nguyen <[email protected]>, Randy
Hickok <[email protected]>, Rob Nichol <[email protected]>,
robert berry <[email protected]>, Roger Pelote <[email protected]>, Sue
Mara <[email protected]>, Jeff Crowe <[email protected]>, George Vaughn
<[email protected]>, "Huhman, Steve" <[email protected]>, Dan
Douglass <[email protected]>, Barb Ennis <[email protected]>, Lynn
Lednicky <[email protected]>, Mark Smith <[email protected]>, Bob Reilley
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Bill Jones will be keynote speaker for WPTF meeting in June
On the evening of Thursday, June 21, at Ojai Inn, Secretary of State
Bill Jones will be our keynote speaker at our WPTF General Meeting. Rob
Lapsley, Bill's Undersecretary just called an told me the good news.
Jones is the front running candidate to challenge Gov Gray Davis in
2002.
Here is what I am thinking. I would like to solicit among our esteemed
Board members sponsors for the dinner that evening. I anticipate that
we would attract possibly 70+ guests and members, and the dinner bill
could be around $100/person with the open bar. Which of you members
would like to be sponsors? Will divide the cost equally among the
sponsors, and make sure to mention your names as sponsors for the
dinner.
gba
=====================================
|
3,517 |
Subject: Update on CESG Schedule
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4358.
=====================================
We have scheduled a telephone conference of the CESG on Tuesday, December
12th at 12:00 noon.? The call-in number will be 1.800.377.4827, confirmation
number 7680189.? I have scheduled 15 lines for 1.5 hours.? We have also
scheduled a meeting? of the group in Sacramento on Friday, December 15th, at
10:00 at the Chamber of Commerce's office.
In the interim, we should all be working toward building the strawpaper
outlined in yesterday's agenda.? I plan to complete an outline of what we did
manage to agree to (or identify as proposals) yesterday by the end of
Friday.? Other responsibilities include:
preparation by SCE, AES, Enron and the PX of proposals for a "benchmark"
against which, if necessary, individual purchases by the utility could be
measured for the next 1-2 years;? proposals for longer term benchmarks for
measuring the reasonableness of the utility portfolio would be helpful, but
we need to focus on the short-run first.? Also, throw out ideas on tolerance
bands, including a way to expand/contract the band with changes in
volatility, and risk/reward mechanisms for utility shareholders.
proposals by SCE, AES and the PX (and any others with ideas) regarding how we
can address in an overall solution the risk perceived by the utility of
customer attrition from the utility portfolio (e.g., term commitments, two
portfolios or a bifurcated single portfolio, etc.);
a proposal from SCE and CLECA regarding how to commoditize the utility
generating assets (assuming retention of the entitlement to the generation)
and allocate those assets to small/large customers as the foundational supply
component of two portfolios (overlaying longer term contracts in the small
customer portfolio and potentially shorter and medium term contracts in the
large customer portfolio).
proposals for mechanisms to provide customers with some ability to understand
the overall cost of utility procurement for comparison with ESP fixed price
contracts (e.g.,? publication of "actual" to date on a monthly basis,
forecast of fixed price, fixed price product offering).
Obviously, any other ideas you have will be welcomed.
We failed to make much progress on the design for any stabilized rate or TRA
undercollections. Consider more carefully (1) whether a "residual" (SCE) or
stand-alone (PG&E) calculation for procurement costs would best serve your
interests and (2) what level of increase could be tolerated effective early
2001.? Also consider structural proposals for addressing the TRA
undercollections prior to the end of the rate freeze.
Our goal should be to close on a structure, with as many details as possible,
by Friday, December 15.? Please call me for any reason that will help us move
this along.
?
?
=====================================
|
3,518 |
Subject: Re: your famous...
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3598.
=====================================
you'll be hearing from me soon. LOVE to get together over the holidays.
(everyone from berkeley moved to noe valley---really ruined the place.)
give john a big hug.
Patricia Cruse <[email protected]>
11/17/2000 12:25 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: your famous...
I will go ahead and send a couple of copies off to you -- it doesn't seem
like their website has the picture. Yes, it is funny that we are back in
Berkeley -- and so close to where we used to live. We were very hesitant
about moving back here, but I am very surprised by how much I like
it. Berkeley is a weird place and I continually see faces that I recognize
from 20 years ago. I am glad to be out of Noe Valley though -- that was a
bit over the top. At this point our house is an eyesore and a very cold
one a that. It is a great old place though -- built in 1906 and we are
only the 2nd owners -- that is amazing. I love the election! and I really
love Katherine "I am ready for my close-up" Harris. She is such a
freak. As of today it seems like Bush is going to be able to grab it. For
God's sakes where is Al Haig when you need him? He must be dead otherwise
he would be in control! OK Babe -- I am off -- I would love to see you and
your gal -- maybe over the holiday season we can arrange to bump into each
other -- a little irish coffee somewhere?
yours,
tc
At 11:45 AM 11/17/00 -0600, you wrote:
>hey darlin' (that's Texas talk). how are ya? so good to hear from you.
>hear you and JC are landed gentry over there in berkeley. next thing you
>know, you'll be complaining about homeless people and how they're bringing
>property values down. (tee hee) love to see you guys some time. what
>about this godfersaken election????
>
>if you have a copy of the Berkeleyan, I'd love to get one. My address is:
>
>Jeff
>Enron Corp
>101 California St., Suite 1950
>SF, CA 94111
>
>How's the Chancelor?
>
>Hugs and kisses,
>Jeff
>
>
>
>
> Patricia
> Cruse
> <Patricia.Cruse To: [email protected]
>
> @ucop.edu> cc:
>
> Subject: your
> famous...
> 11/17/2000
>
> 11:25
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hey Jeff,
>What a surprise -- yesterday I was looking at the latest "Berkeleyan" and
>on page three there you were! Have you seen the picture? It is from the
>electricity summit. It is a picture of you and a guy that looks like Burl
>Ives -- It sort of looks like he is telling you an off color joke. (It
>also says that you are director of enron corp.!) Anyway, it was great
>treat to see you in the local rag. Brightened my day.
>
>tc
=====================================
|
3,519 |
Subject: RE: *** EES OPPOSITION TO UNDERSCHEDULING PENALTY ***
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1893.
=====================================
Sue,
Mary Hain suggested I clarify my understanding of what EES is asking
for. EES is not requiring the parenthetical comment under (2) below to be
included in the response. EES's key points for inclusion are:
1. Change the requirement to 90% OR
2. Apply the 95% penalty solely to underscheduling of load
3. The rule applies to an entities' entire load.
4. Smaller scheduling coordinators (i.e. smaller than the PX or IOUs) have
less diverse loads and are more subject to unforeseen swings -- so 95% is
very difficult to
achieve -- another disincentive to direct access and competition.
Is this correct?
Thanks
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 10:43 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]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: *** EES OPPOSITION TO UNDERSCHEDULING PENALTY ***
Importance: High
EES is concerned about the 95% requirement.
What EES would like is to do is to ask FERC for a modification as follows:
1. Change the requirement to 90% OR
2. Apply the 95% penalty solely to underscheduling of load (the draft
order talks about it as a deviation, implying plus or minus, even though
the section talks only about underscheduling of load)
Also, EES would like some clarification that the rule applies to an
entities' entire load.
We can justify these modifications by pointing out that smaller scheduling
cooridinators (i.e. smaller than the PX or IOUs) have less diverse loads
and are more subject to on forseen swings -- so 95% is very difficult to
achieve -- another disincentive to direct access and compeition.
Time is marching on--
THIS OK?
=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
[email protected]
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com
=====================================
|
3,520 |
Subject: FW: Roseman Creek fireplace
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5333.
=====================================
Dotty: Thought you and Jack might be interested in this report.
Jeff: How do we go about getting in touch with the person you mentioned to
do the tiles?
-----Original Message-----
From: gmc [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Roseman Creek fireplace
Hello, Eldon...
Your fireplace was improperly installed, and the fire was caused by embers
falling in between the fireplace and the hearth, igniting the plywood
underlayment and the wooden framing installed in front of the face and the
header above the fireplace opening. There should be no combustible material
there, and sooner or later a fire will result. You are fortunate the result
was not worse. The important metal underlayment supplied with the fireplace
was not installed. The fireplace must be moved about 5" up to the face of
the wall. All the tile must be removed and replaced with non combustible
underlayment. The chimney seems ok but you must replace the cap and the
chimney is no longer available, necessitating fireplace replacement if it
ever becomes necessary due to corrosion. The insulation is probably wet,
which happens over the years and it settles, leaving hot spots in the
chimney. At least yours is out in the air, but it should be checked, and
will be if I do this job.
You will provide the tile, and bear in mind that some will have to be cut,
so avoid small tiles. You will also provide sanded grout and grout
additive, and a mastic (25#) such as epoxy "Elastobon". Your tile supplier
will know what we're talking about. I will get all other materials locally.
You are looking at, I estimate, $2,400.00 - $3,200.00 plus materials. I
prefer to work jobs like this at Time and Materials, based on my labor rate
of $50.00 per man hour. If I have to bid this job, it will be suitably
inflated to deal with unforeseen variables. I have been here for 26 years
without any construction related problems, and have lots of references.
The materials will consist of cedar shingles, plywood, roofing shingles
(asphalt), glue, Wonder Board tile underlayment, stainless steel cap, 2X4's,
screws, plumbing fittings for the gas line, sheet metal, and incidentals.
My estimate is done as accurately as possible, but unforeseen problems could
change the time I've estimated for the job. The materials will be about
$700.00, and this is the deposit I will require. Let me know what the ETA
of your tile will be. If you prefer, I can do the job without the tile,
leaving the Wonder Board tile underlayment exposed, which is totally safe,
and you can decide upon tile later, after looking at the site after the
fireplace is moved. I will need a half square min. to do the roof of the
fireplace pop out.
Regards,
Will Guyan
=====================================
|
3,521 |
Subject: Re: Emergency Diesel Generators in California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3631.
=====================================
Ain't got one. Please call Scott Govenar at 916.448.8240 for info.
Robert Frank
03/13/2001 04:15 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Emergency Diesel Generators in California
Jeff - would you forward any response(s) to your question below - there are
EES people asking around about this issue.
----- Forwarded by Robert Frank/NA/Enron on 03/13/2001 04:14 PM -----
Harry Kingerski
03/12/2001 08:43 AM
To: Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Emergency Diesel Generators in California
----- Forwarded by Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron on 03/12/2001 08:43 AM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
03/08/2001 11:11 AM
To: Scott Govenar <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron,
Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Misti Day/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Emergency Diesel Generators in California
Scott/Hedy/Mike:
What's the status of the DG bill? As I recall, Burton amended the bill in a
way that explicitly prohibit diesel DG units from helping California avoid
rolling black outs this summer. I believe the exclusion was made on grounds
that running diesel would be too environmentally damaging? Could you provide
a brief update? Is there anything in the bills that addresses the
restrictions on the number of hours that these units are permitted to run?
Thanks very much.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/08/2001 11:05 AM -----
Roger A Larson@EES
03/08/2001 10:58 AM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mark Dobler/HOU/EES@EES, Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Emergency Diesel Generators in California
We have been analyzing various opportunities of providing electric power into
California. One idea is to modify existing customer emergency diesel
generators such that we could turn them on and supply power to the grid when
the customer does not need the power.
We believe current regulations limit use of diesel (#2 fuel oil) fired
emergency generators to only be operated when the utility is not currently
supplying power to the facility and in that case, maximum of 500 hoursper
year for hospitals and other critical services but only 200 hours per year
for all others.
There may be legislation currently being submitted to the California
legislature or other regulatory body (EPA?) to change this based on current
need for power in that area. Could you please advise me if there is
currently any legislation like this under consideration and/or when this may
occur?
Thank you for your assistance.
Roger
=====================================
|
3,522 |
Subject: FW: Draft Application for Rehearing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/295.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:27 PM
To: '[email protected]'; ''Bill Dombrowski' '
Subject: FW: Draft Application for Rehearing
Greetings Eve and Bill:
This has been forwarded to Delainey and Dorothy. It's originating with AreM. Delainey's distributing to some, I'm distributing to others. The Chamber's already agreed to join. If we're to have any hope of a) maintaining DA and b) eliminating any chance of a retroactive date, seems that we'll need as many folks signing on as possible. Please see attached. We hope that you can join.
All the best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:08 AM
To: ARM; Gary Ackerman; Vicki Sandler; Anderson, Robert; Merilyn Ferrara; Max Bulk; John Yurkanin; Steve Huhman
Subject: Draft Application for Rehearing
Attached for your review and comment is a draft application for rehearing of the Commission's Thursday Decision 01-09-060 suspending the right of direct access. Although we have prevailed (at least for now) on the issue of retroactivity, the decision still violates various provisions of state and federal law. If any party wishes to preserve the right to legally challenge this decision, it must file an application for rehearing within ten days. The attached draft is tentatively dated September 28, meaning that it would be filed next Friday.
The primary reasons cited for why rehearing should be granted are as follows:
The Decision violates procedural due process guarantees.
The failure to hold hearings violates Public Utilities Code section 1708.5(f).
The Commission's reliance on material outside the record violates due process.
The Decision violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The threatened retroactivity is contrary to law and in excess of the Commission's authority.
The Commission acted contrary to law and in excess of its authority.
The Decision's purported findings are not supported.
The Commission has impermissibly converted a ratemaking proceeding into a quasi-legislative proceeding.
Although WPTF members have not had an opportunity to consider whether they wish to support such a filing, WPTF is included as a named party in the attached because of the fact that AReM and WPTF have jointly made numerous other filings in this proceeding. WPTF members will need to determine if they wish to support this effort.
I look forward to seeing your comments. Thanks, and have a gtood weekend!
Dan
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (818) 596-2201
Fax: (818) 346-6502
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
=====================================
|
3,523 |
Subject: Blackout Notification
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27900.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 06/18/2001 03:36 PM -----
"Carl Guardino" <[email protected]>
06/14/2001 12:46 PM
Please respond to cguardino
To: <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Blackout Notification
After months of effort, we have succeeded in putting together a Blackout
Notification System that will provide California employers, residents, and
public safety officers with adequate time to respond to an impending rolling
blackout.
As you know, Governor Davis appointed me to the California ISO last
February. Through the leadership of our Energy Committee at the
Manufacturing Group, I introduced a motion at CAISO on March 30. The motion
stated that California needed a better Blackout Notification System than the
passive system previously in place. After the motion passed 5-0, the ISO
and PG&E held focus groups with employers and residents throughout the state
to ask customers what they need to more adequately prepare for planned
rolling blackouts, and if possible to help prevent them from occurring.
Then, Governor Davis stepped in and directed ISO, the Office of Emergency
Services, and the Energy Oversight Board to work with the utilities to build
a proactive notification system. This system provides not only a 1-hour
advanced warning before a blackout could occur, but to also includes 48 and
24-hour notices that blackouts might happen due to predicted hot weather
conditions, and/or a lack of energy supply, or planned and unplanned
maintenance at generation facilities. The proactive approach sought by
Governor Davis and by my motion at CAISO will include a system by which
residents and employers can have their extensive contact information such
e-mails, pagers, and cell phones listed in a database. All contacts can
receive a 48, 24 and 1-hour automatic notification in advance.
What is particularly exciting about this proactive approach is that we can
better prepare for a blackout with adequate time to power down assembly
lines and computers, and power up emergency generators. We can also prevent
a blackout by taking action within that hour which reduces load and can even
help avoid blackouts.
Again, kudos go to the Manufacturing Group's Energy Committee for pushing
this plan last February to take to the CAISO Board and to Governor Davis. By
expanding this plan, we can make sure an even larger window of notice is
proactively provided to Californians. The plan will be rolled out publicly
tomorrow (Friday, June 15, 2001) and incrementally implemented as soon as
possible. We will soon provide further updates on how employers throughout
the Valley and state on how they can register in the new database for this
proactive notification system.
Sincerely,
Carl Guardino
- winmail.dat
=====================================
|
3,524 |
Subject: Re: this weekend
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/personal/52.
=====================================
Lari:
Glad to hear you had a great trek...my, my 21 people! You have your
hands full! Sounds like it is time for Ron to buy a house in Mendicino
too. I hope he is doing well.
We'll pick up sandwiches each morning in Westport, what do you and
Harvey like?
It'll be great fun to explore new trails. As far as my mount, Fierra is
always a blast but if you want to give her a rest I'm pleased to ride
Russia, Stoli, San Francisco or anyone you prefer. I am also happy to
ride a different mount each day. What ever is best for you and the
horses. This is such a treat for me...talk about heaven! I know all of
us feel the same way and I hope you know how great we all think you are
and your horses.
I haven't had a second to check in with Jazon regarding Virginia City.
Have you heard anything? I sure wish each race had a web site!
Madeleine
Lari Shea wrote:
> Hi Madeleine and Jeff,
>
> I'm back from trek.......we had 21 fabulous people for a week,
> including Ron Winters, who helped schmooze and smooth. Now I'm trying
> to catch up with nearly two weeks of back office work, from having
> gone to the endurance race the weekend before.
>
> I think it's great that you guys are staying at Howard Creek
> Ranch....they have a terrific hot tub, and wonderful breakfasts. The
> weather has been awful at the ocean for the past week......constant
> wet fog at night, so camping out in tents might not be so much fun. I
> have my camper, so I'm comfortable, but when where are so many nice
> places to stay, I don't know why the rest of you would want to camp
> out, to tell the truth.
>
> We begin rides by meeting at the ranch at 9:30 AM.....the horses
> aren't fed until 7:00, and need time to eat. I'm going over topo
> maps of the area, and will find us trails that go inland if we have
> coastal fog still. Madeleine, do you want to ride Russia or Fierra?
> Or try Stoli or San Francisco? What's the latest request from you,
> Jeff? Prentice is on Victory, as I recall, and the other Jeff on
> Sungari.....do you all want english saddles?
>
> Why don't we make it easy on ourselves and either eat in restaurants,
> or pick up gormet pizzas for dinners, or go our own ways? I have all
> the basics of lunch provisions, and we can each pick up sandwiches on
> the way to the stables in the morning.....the Westport store makes
> great ones.
>
> Looking forward to riding the trails with you again.....
>
> Lari
>
>
> Lari Shea http://www.horse-vacation.comRicochet Ridge RanchRiding
> Vacations on the Mendocino Coast24201 North Highway Onewith lodging at
> unique B&B Inns;Fort Bragg, CA 95437International Riding
> VacationsAkhal Teke and Russian Orlov/cross horses707-964-7669ph/
> 707-964-9669 fax At stud: RRR Stolichnaya & RRR Russia
- att1.htm
=====================================
|
3,525 |
Subject: Re: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/626.
=====================================
Please take careful note of the attached, regardless of this, I want all contracts get rid of any "put" obligations to incorporate new facilities !!
Lamar/Kevin, who is now on point commercially for the PacBell (SBC) contract ?
Jeff, I prusume yoo meant 9/20/01 in your 7th bullet point below, not 10/20/01 ?
Jeremy
From: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/16/2001 04:55 PM
To: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palmer/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01
? In response to the Commission's suspension of DA, numerous market participants--including Enron--filed "Petitions for Rehearing."
? The California PUC has issued a decision denying the petitions.
? Many of those participants are likely to file for appellate court review of the Commission's denial.
? In its decision denying the Petitions, the Commission did however modify its initial decision in several respects.
? Key among those is a modification regarding facility adds.
? Those comments refer to the ability to continue to submit DASRs for new facilities under contracts signed prior to September 20th that provide for facility adds.
? The Commission agreed and has ordered the utilities to accept DASRs for facility adds under contract terms executed prior to 10.20.01. The precise language is cited below.
? If you would like a copy of the decision, please contact Joseph Alamo.
Best,
Jeff
"We reaffirm that for the time being, and unless the Commission states otherwise in a subsequent decision, utilities are required to process DASRs relating to contracts or agreements that were executed on or before September 20th, 2001, including DASRs for service to new facilities or accounts if the underlying contract pursuant to which those DASRs are submitted allowed for the provision of that additional service. Thus, for example, with respect to the specific ESP contract described by UC/CSU in their rehearing application, the utilities are required to accept, even after September 20, 2001, any DASRs they receive that legitimatley relate to that contract...[W]e want to make it clear that...utilities cannot set a deadline after which they could refuse to process DASRs relating to contracts executed on or before September 20, 2001." pp 20-21
=====================================
|
3,526 |
Subject: Comments on Dennis' Declaration in UC/CSU Lawsuit
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3820.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/21/2001 03:22 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
03/21/2001 10:43 AM
To: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES
cc: [email protected], Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis
Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES,
Jeff Messina/HOU/EES@EES, [email protected], Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Peggy
Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Robert C Williams/Enron@EnronXGate, Tom Riley/Western
Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Comments on Dennis' Declaration in UC/CSU Lawsuit
Mike: Here are my comments. Apologies for the fact that they are quick and
dirty.
All Enron's public statements that I have read, including, I think,
statements made to financial analysts, state that our exposure in California
is not "material." Dennis' declaration says that the situation in California
has been a "financial disaster," that "Enron has lost over $300 million," and
that "Enron stands to lose millions more." The losses are described as
"huge." Perhaps this is information that has since been communicated to the
market, but I'm not aware of it. And if it hasn't, it could represent a
significant conflict with previous statements. Seems prudent to run this by
IR and perhaps others before releasing.
Regarding the statements about our hedging strategy. It would seem prudent
to run this through the organization for comment and discussion prior to
making public.
Very minor technical point--I don't think that AB 1890 was passed
"unanimously." I think that there was 1 nay vote.
The statement is made that "the utilities were required to sell off most of
their generating capacity." The utilities were only required to sell off 1/2
of their fossil-fired plants (which I think at the time may have amounted to
about .2-.25 of their total gen assets). They chose voluntarily to sell of
the remainder of their fossil-fired plants.
It is stated that stranded costs are "investments in imprudent power
generation facilities." These investments were in fact found in the past to
be prudent by the PUC. Would therefore not seem accurate to call them
imprudent now.
Is it now "virtually impossible to manage commodity risk" in California?
Just wondering if judge might view the statement as overstating the situation
somewhat.
From a PR perspective, I'm wondering if we want to characterize re-sourcing
UC/CSU in the following manner, "It was actually a relatively easy decision
to make." Makes Enron sound perhaps excessively hard-nosed.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,527 |
Subject: Preliminary Comments on Judge's Recommendation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28563.
=====================================
The attached preliminary comments were finalized and filed with the
Commission this afternoon, in order to provide FERC staffers a concise,
effective statement of our position while they drafted the Judge's
recommendation. I was able to schedule a meeting with Judge Wagner, at which
Dan Watkiss and I stepped the Judge through the comments and hit the
following high points:
1. The methodology of the June 19 order does not work and is totally
inappropriate for marketers. If price mitigation is inevitable, the Judge
should formulate or make allowances for a workable methodology.
2. The Judge should recommend that the end result of any Commission order
must be a just and reasonable finding for all periods, both prior to and
after October 2.
3. All buyers, including Enron, should be entitled to refunds; not just the
State of California and its IOU's. Enron is a net purchaser in these markets.
4. Only the state administered spot markets should be subject to the
methodology, not bilateral contracts, OOM sales or sales to the DWR.
The details of these points appear in the attached document. The Judge was
receptive to most points. He understood the problems that the June 19
methodology presents for marketers and was agreeable to the notion that this
should be addressed, perhaps in the context of the hearings that will form
part of his recommendation. He agreed that the actual buyers should receive
refunds, and it was his understanding that only spot transactions should be
subject to the refund methodology. Although he agreed that the refund
methodology, once implemented, should yield just and reasonable rates, he
felt that this was outside the scope of his recommendation and that the
matter was up to the Commission. The Judge spoke generally and no promises
were made as to the content of his recommendations, but hopefully this
insight will shed some light as to the outcome. I urged the Judge to
recommend placing conditions to refunds, as the Commission did in its June 19
order with its RTO filing requirement. The judge was noncommittal on this,
although he did indicate that he felt refunds should be subject to offset.
Next steps include filing our detailed comments by Thursday. The Judge told
us he would certify his recommendation to the Commission on Friday, and that
the comments would accompany the recommendation. Thereafter, it is likely
that the Commission would defer to the Judge's recommendation to hold a fast
track evidentiary hearing of 60 days duration, to determine "unresolved
issues of material fact". The scope of the hearing has not been determined,
but will probably include cost issues and might serve as a vehicle for
marketers to recommend an alternative methodology.
=====================================
|
3,528 |
Subject: RE: WGA's SCHEDULES for the Week of June 4 - 8, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13460.
=====================================
Here's the response.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/07/2001 09:39 AM -----
=09Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate
=0906/07/2001 09:31 AM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: RE: WGA's SCHEDULES for the Week of June 4 - 8, 2001
She's been sponsoring the Commissioner's breakfast for the past several=20
years. It turns out that the breakfast did not occur. To be truthful, I=
=20
didn't think twice about her attending as neither you, Alan nor Jeff=20
expressed any interest. =20
-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan =20
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 6:16 PM
To: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: WGA's SCHEDULES for the Week of June 4 - 8, 2001
Just so I know, why was Sandi able to go to this? She doesn't do any work a=
t=20
the CPUC? It seems as if people who do CPUC work or who do broad policy=20
issues related to PUCs should go.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/04/2001 06:14 PM -----
=09Joseph Alamo 06/04/2001 03:08 PM =09 To: Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate=
, Susan=20
J Mara/NA/Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron, Jeff=
=20
Dasovich/NA/Enron, Alan Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate cc: Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enro=
n,=20
Lysa Akin/ENRON@enronXgate, Carmen Perez/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMEN=
T =20
Subject: WGA's SCHEDULES for the Week of June 4 - 8, 2001
Western Government Affairs
WEEKLY SCHEDULES
For the Week of June 4 - 8, 2001
Paul Kaufman
Mon 6/4 Blaine, Washington for Western PSC Commissioners Meeting
Tue 6/5 Travel to Cincinatti, Ohio for NLIEC Meeting
Wed 6/6 Cincinatti, Ohio for NLIEC Meeting
Thur 6/7 Portland OR office=20
Fri 6/8 Portland OR office
Sue Mara
Mon 6/4 IEP Meeting, Sacramento CA (10:30 a.m. =01) 3:00 p.m.)
Tue 6/5 San Francisco CA office (leave at 4:30 p.m.)
Wed 6/6 San Francisco CA office
Thur 6/7 San Francisco CA office=20
Fri 6/8 San Francisco CA office
Jeff Dasovich
Mon 6/4 Sacramento CA
Tue 6/5 Sacramento CA/San Francisco CA office*
Wed 6/6 San Francisco CA office*
Thur 6/7 San Francisco CA office*
Fri 6/8 San Francisco CA office*
Sandi McCubbin
Mon 6/4 Blaine, Washington for Western PSC Commissioners Meeting=20
Tue 6/5 Blaine, Washington for Western PSC Commissioners Meeting
Wed 6/6 Sacramento CA
Thur 6/7 Sacramento CA
Fri 6/8 San Francisco CA office=20
Mona Petrochko
Mon 6/4 Tampa FL; travel back to SF, p.m.
Tue 6/5 San Francisco CA
Wed 6/6 San Francisco CA
Thur 6/7 San Francisco CA
Fri 6/8 San Francisco CA
Alan Comnes
Mon 6/4 Portland OR office
Tue 6/5 Portland OR office
Wed 6/6 Portland OR office
Thur 6/7 Portland OR office
Fri 6/8 Portland OR office
=====================================
|
3,529 |
Subject: FW: FERC Meeting: Market Based Rate Review
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1588.
=====================================
FYI
Ginger Dernehl
Administrative Coordinator
Global Government Affairs
Phone# 713-853-7751
Fax# 713-646-8160
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:04 AM
To: Dernehl, Ginger
Subject: FW: FERC Meeting: Market Based Rate Review
FYI...in addition to earlier memo.
The Commission discussed its market based rate policy at today's meeting. They did not vote out an order today, but expect to take up this issue again next meeting. The staff memo recommended the following:
For an interim period, FERC will deal with pending requests for market based rates and with triennial reviews of those rate authorizations, using a new test called the "Supply Margin Assessment" (also called a jazzed up version of the hub and spoke test) where a seller's capacity will be reviewed against the generation reserve margin in a market. The test takes into account constraints based on TTC. If the capacity of a seller is not necessary to meet peak demand,the seller does not have market power. This test is applicable to all markets that are not part of an existing RTO or ISO. For those selling into an RTO/ISO, the FERC will continue to allow market based rates subject to the market monitor and mitigation.
Staff also recommends that FERC initiate a Section 206 investigation to require each seller with market based rate authority to change its tariff by adding a provision stating that if the seller acts in an anticompetitive manner, the FERC can require refunds. Through questioning by Commissioner Massey, it was revealed that, even if a seller did not engage in bad behavior, but sold into a disfunctional market, refunds could be required. In the staff memo, apparently staff had left vague the definition of anticompetitive behavior in order to be able to interpret it most broadly. However, Commissioners asked staff to better define the anticompetitive actions that could trigger refunds. This policy will be brought up again at the next Commission meeting on October 11. It will be issued as a proposed action, giving parties an opportunity to comment within 15 days and then also file reply comments, Final action is expected within 60-90 days.
Last, for the long-term, FERC will hold outreach meetings looking for answers as to how to detect market power and what to do when it is detected.
Since the interim measure is only a "snapshot" approach according to Commissioner Massey, he is willing to support it only along with the above described tariff provision. Commissioner Breathitt is very uncomfortable with an open refund requirement, stating that it adds to regulatory uncertainty at a time when the Commission is most interested in giving certainty to the industry in order to assure reliability.
=====================================
|
3,530 |
Subject: Enhancing Team Effectiveness Process
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/administrative/9.
=====================================
Hello to each of you!
As you've heard from Paul, I'm going to be working with your team to devise
some very specific and concrete strategies to enhance the way you, both
individually and as a group of co-workers, contribute to achieving the
business goals established for your office.
I'm going to be on your conference call this coming Thursday to give you an
overview of the process Paul and I have discussed. I'll try to answer
questions and give you as much insight and "comfort" as I can. I know it's a
bit awkward working on an effort such as this with someone you've never laid
eyes on. It was for that reason I was hoping that I'd be able join your staff
meeting in person this week and meet you "face-to-face" but the stars didn't
align quite right so that's just going to have to wait a few weeks. The
trusty e-mail system and the telephone will just have to suffice for our
initial work together!
The first part of this process is to get some "base line" data so that there
is a sort of "level playing field" of information that we're working with.
Recognizing that you're already deluged with surveys and assessments, it is
only after great consideration that I'm asking you to complete the one that's
attached to this note! Frankly, there's just no easy way to get this initial
perspective so I hope you'll understand.
Here's what I'd like you to do:
- Complete the assessment - it's only 25 items in length and all are pretty
straightforward.
- Print off a hard copy and hold on to the assessment! Just keep it with you.
- When we "talk" on the conference call this Thursday, 4/13, be prepared to
work with me on setting-up
a time for you and me to have about 45 minutes or an hour to go over your
responses in some detail - on the telephone, unfortunately.
I'll write this to you now and will say it to you in the future - everything
we discuss is strictly confidential. My interest is only in establishing some
understanding of the work climate within your team.
After I've gathered the assessment and discussion information and have had a
chance to review and digest it, I'll be coming out to your fair city for an
"off-site" workshop. I'll tell you more about that on Thursday in addition to
setting some dates on which to hold the workshop that will work for all of
you (I know that's going to be the challenge!)
One final word (or two): My intention in this work with you and your team
will be strictly focused on the "here and now" and on what future, specific
action items we can identify and implement that will enhance your individual
and team performance to produce the desired business results.
Talk with you on Thursday and I'm looking forward to working with you.
Best Regards,
Don Miller
=====================================
|
3,531 |
Subject: FERC Attorney Says California May Not Ban Power Exports
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2322.
=====================================
FYI - according to this article, a FERC commissioner informed Dow Jones that
FERC does not plan to expand the price cap to the entire Western region.
DJ FERC: Davis Can't Force Generators To Sell Pwr In Calif
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--A move by California Gov. Gray Davis which seeks to
bar in-state generators from exporting their abundant power supply is a
violation of interstate commerce rules - and therefore will never be
implemented, an attorney with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told
Dow Jones Newswires.
Last month, energy officials proposed to Davis the possibility of forcing
in-state generators to sell all of their power into California, especially
during statewide power emergencies.
Davis said Tuesday night he may still seek legislation to force generators to
sell their power supply here, which would help the state's grid operator
avoid rolling blackouts.
But according to federal law, the state cannot prohibit companies from doing
business with other states, the attorney said, adding that it violates
interstate commerce rules.
Part of the reason energy companies export some of their power is that other
states are willing to pay far above California's wholesale electricity price
cap of $250 a megawatt-hour.
Tuesday, with the state teetering on the brink of rolling blackouts, Northern
California irrigation districts - government operated utilities that supply
water and power to farmers - sold about 400 MW of excess power to the
Northwest, reaping huge profits because customers there are not bound by a
price cap.
The ISO - forced to compete with companies willing to pay $1,000/MWh for
electricity - narrowly avoided rolling blackouts Tuesday by paying about $1.1
million for 1,000 MW of power, which is $1,100 a megawatt-hour.
Still, Gov. Davis is pushing FERC to impose a $100/MWh regional price cap.
But a FERC commissioner told Dow Jones Newswires that the commission will
very likely impose a $100/MWh price in California only. FERC's final order on
remedies California must undertake to repair its flawed market is due next
week.
But the FERC commissioner said it's the state's current price cap of $250/MWh
that's destroying the wholesale market and resulting in generators exporting
their power for a profit.
"If they can make $275/MWh in Nevada they have an obligation to their
shareholders," the FERC commissioner said.
State lawmakers, meanwhile, want to force generators who conduct business in
the state to report all wholesale electricity transactions to a state energy
panel and register before selling power.
-By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 06-12-00
2308GMT
=====================================
|
3,532 |
Subject: Re: Bandwidth Trading Structure Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2741.
=====================================
You're in luck! The meeting's from noon to 1 pm CST, so you can attend. Do
you feel lucky? Would you like to participate---the option's yours. I'll
invite Scott, too. If you'd like to attend, should we call you from the
conference room?
Best,
Jeff
Sue Nord
10/26/2000 01:23 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Bandwidth Trading Structure Meeting
Calling in on the 2nd should be fine. Sorry that it doesn't work for you to
be there in person.
I'm going to be out of the office from about 3:00 this afternoon until 11:00
tomorrow morning, EST. If your meeting happens after 11:00 EST tomorrow, I
would like to join by phone. (But don't worry about scheduling around me if
it's a problem). Donald is on his way back from South America, and probably
isn't available. Scott may be available by phone and probably would be
interested in participating.
Maybe the next person we hire should be a full-time schedule coordinator.
Thanks for your enduring patience.
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
10/26/2000 08:21 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Bandwidth Trading Structure Meeting
So it is the 2nd after all? Thought it might be the first, which I could
have made. The 2nd doesn't work---have set up a meeting with ENA to meet
with Sempra execs to see if a deal can be done (yeah, right). But since it's
that early on the 2nd, I can call in by conference call and attend the first
90 minutes, or so. Will that work?
In other exciting news, going to meet with the lawyers and Bowen either this
afternoon or first thing in the morning tomorrow. You want to join? And
should I see if Scott and/or Donald want to attend? Just let me know.
Best,
Jeff
Sue Nord
10/25/2000 02:15 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Bandwidth Trading Structure Meeting
I hope this works for you.
----- Forwarded by Sue Nord/NA/Enron on 10/25/2000 02:15 PM -----
Wayne Gardner@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
10/25/2000 01:15 PM
To: Alisa Christensen/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Robbi Rossi/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc: James Ginty/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: Bandwidth Trading Structure Meeting
The Bandwidth Trading Structure meeting witll take place at 8:30 am on
November 2, 2000, in conference room 4434. I will circulate a meeting agenda
no later than October 30.
W. Wayne Gardner
Enron Broadband Services
1400 Smith Street
Houston, TX 77002-7361
Phone: 713 853 3547
Fax: 713 646 2532
=====================================
|
3,533 |
Subject: Re: More Info: PG&E to Announce Open Season on Redwood and Baja
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12819.
=====================================
Jeff -
Why don't you send this also to Phillip Allen?
Jim
From: Jeff Dasovich on 05/18/2001 12:24 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Stephanie Miller/Enron@EnronXGate, Barry Tycholiz/Enron@EnronXGate, Chris
H Foster/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeffery Fawcett/Enron@EnronXGate, Steven
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James
D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/Enron@EnronXGate, Julie A
Gomez/Enron@EnronXGate, Laird Dyer/SF/ECT@ECT, Michael McDonald/SF/ECT@ECT,
David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Samuel Wehn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan
Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate, Christopher F Calger/Enron@EnronXGate, Tim
Belden/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert Badeer/Enron@EnronXGate, Paul
Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: More Info: PG&E to Announce Open Season on Redwood and Baja Early
Next Week
PG&E will announce via press release very early next week an open season on
Redwood, Baja and Silverado.
It comes in direct response to recent announcements of expansions into
California by pipelines.
The bid protocols will be structured similar to original open season from the
original Gas Accord.
The open season will start on June 1 and end on July 31.
Capacity will be available starting 1.1.03.
Bidders will be able to bid up to 30 years (PG&E states that that's what
generators want).
Accompanying the announcement will be another announcement that PG&E will
expand Redwood by 200mmcf/day, which they hope to have available by 1.1.03,
or some time during Q103.
About 2-4 weeks after the open season begins, PG&E will file its proposed
"Gas Accord II," (the first one expires end of 02).
As part of that filing, PG&E will offer its proposed ratemaking treatment for
the next five years (beginning 1.1.03).
PG&E will not include in the open season 1) core capacity and 2) certain EAD
contracts that extend beyond the Gas Accord 1 end date.
In addition, PG&E will hold back an additional 20% (after excluding core and
EAD), to be "open-seasoned" at some "future" date.
The capacity to be auctioned is: 1) 900 mmcf/day on Redwood, 2) 245 (annual)
on Baja, plus an additional 200/day in summer on Baja, 3) 155 on Silverado.
How PG&E will market the 20% they intend to hold back, and when they might
auction it off in the future will be discussed in PG&E's Gas Accord II filing.
No single company will be awarded more than 30% of the capacity on any
specific path in the primary open season (though firms can bid whatever level
of capacity they choose).
Please forwad along to anyone else who might be interested. If you have any
questions, just holler.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,534 |
Subject: Re: The Answer Is: To CLEC!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3721.
=====================================
If possible, that would be perfect, and greatly appreciated.
Sue Nord
11/21/2000 12:13 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: The Answer Is: To CLEC!
I'm glad you'll be working on this. Should we try to schedule meetings for
Thursday afternoons, to coincide with your trips to Houston for the
international group?
Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
11/21/2000 10:14 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@ENRON, [email protected], Lara
Leibman/NA/Enron@ENRON, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@ENRON, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tracy Cooper/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Answer Is: To CLEC!
Congratulations. And count me in. We're off to the races.
Best,
Jeff
And a very Happy Thanksgiving.
Sue Nord
11/21/2000 10:01 AM
To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Tracy
Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Ricardo
Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Barbara A
Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected],
Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: The Answer Is: To CLEC!
Hello Everyone,
We've gotten word back from Jim Fallon to go forward with obtaining CLEC
licenses. This brings us to the next set of questions:
Which entity do we license? EBS or ETI?
If we license ETI as a CLEC, can we transfer EBS' IXC licenses to ETI?
Do we get CLEC licenses in all states, or some strategic subset of states?
I'd like to put together a group to address these questions, working with
legal, tax, and commercial people. Please let me know if you are interested
in participating in this group. It most likely will involve a fairly
intensive schedule of meetings in Houston during December.
We should hold off on filing new IXC license applications until we have
resolved the EBS vs. ETI issue. For states where an EBS IXC license
application currently is pending, let's not be too aggressive in pushing
those applications forward over the next month. Give me a call if this
creates a problem in any of your states. Also, Scott, please let everyone
know if there are any fiber-build states where you think the delay would be a
problem.
Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Sue
=====================================
|
3,535 |
Subject: WPTF Comments to Bowen Senate Committee
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/635.
=====================================
Madam Chairwoman,
My name is Gary Ackerman, and I am the Executive Director of the Western
Power Trading Forum. My forum is a California trade association whose
29 members are buyers, sellers, and exchanges of wholesale and retail
electric power.
We are here today to support the elements of the Community Choice
model. A workably competitive market is one that has many buyers and
sellers. Today we have a market with many sellers, but few buyers. The
Community Choice model provides for many buyers of power, unlike the
present situation where the market is dominated by three; PG&E, SCE, and
SDG&E. These three buyers represent about 87% of the load in the
restructured electricity market, the balance of which is provided by a
handful of competitive Energy Service Providers.
Community Choice will allow city governments to procure on behalf of
their constituents energy which meets their local energy needs.
Long-term contracts for energy and energy services will be written with
credit-worthy suppliers such as Enron, APS Energy Services, Newwest
Energy, and Green Mountain dot com who will compete to win the business.
"Demand responsiveness" will be created through the innovation that
these sellers will utilize in order to win new business. Cities will be
able to cooperate with bidders to analyze their loads, and sellers will
be motivated to embrace and offer distributed generation, conservation
measures, and enhanced metering technologies.
Imagine a State whose people within a well-defined geographical boundary
are able to select their default provider. This is the vision of
Community Choice. It will bring stability and order to our very
successful spot energy exchanges: the California PX Day-Ahead Market,
and APX=01,s green energy market. These spot markets will continue to grow
and flourish, and continue to provide instantly transparent prices to
eveyone, just as they do today. However, with only two or three
dominant buyers as we have now, these spot markets may atrophy, and may
perish. Dominant buyers are able to redirect their volumes from these
exchanges on a whim, causing tremendous swings in volume, additional
price volatility, and a great deal of uncertainty, and instability when
it is least needed. Alternatively, when there are many buyers, all of
whom are accountable to their local citizenry, and all of who seek a
reasonable balance between spot purchases, and term purchases, the
situation will become more stable, efficient, and less prone to sudden
changes.
We encourage this Committee to take a hard look at Community Choice as a
way to share the benefits of competition, keep the State on its
progressive course, and provide a timely correction to a system that
will earn the trust and confidence of the public.
Thank you
=====================================
|
3,536 |
Subject: Re: Cost of Takeover
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5251.
=====================================
Alan - thanks for assembling this information. It is very useful but I want
to throw out some ideas for discussion and ask you and others to comment on
the direction we take with this.
I think we should characterize the Cost of Takeover as the difference in cost
between the Nationalization approach Davis is taking and Enron's Market
approach (increase supply, decrease demand, retail competition, utility
solvency). Here's the direction that takes us:
$13 B utility under-recovery: required in both cases.
$7.6 purchase of Transmission: represents a $3.8B excess cost in Davis
plan. Ratepayers were going to pay for the first $3.8B anyway. If Davis
nets this against the $13 B under-recovery, then it's not an excess cost.
Transmission upgrades: required in both cases.
DSM/DG grants: required in both cases.
New construction to cover short position: required in both cases. Cost
difference is net difference between private market cost of generation and
what subsidy CA must provide to induce generation at its desired cost, and
net inefficiency from administering a govt. bureaucracy vs. free market entry
and exit. These will be a function of how 6X is administered.
In other words, I see the direct and measurable Cost of Takeover now as maybe
$4-5 B, including $1B to cover court challenges, legal costs, new bureaucracy
and so on. Much more important (and perhaps this is where the big $$ can
come in) is through indirect costs - damage to California's economy through
reduced private investment because of heavy-handed govt threat, loss of
commercial and industrial development because of short-term supply shortages,
and long term inefficiencies because of public instead of private management.
So how about this: direct cost of takeover is $5 billion plus a long term,
indirect cost of $__ B because of a 5% reduction per year in the rate of new
capital investment in the state. Maybe a Robert Michael or somebody could
fill in the last blank with a little prodding from us.
Alan Comnes@ECT
02/21/2001 01:49 PM
To: John Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Cost of Takeover
I already have a few changes:
In Davis's Feb 08 press release, it states: "Under Governor Davis' emergency
powers and proposals, California will streamline efforts to bring an
additional 20,000 megawatts online by July 2004, starting with 5,000
additional megawatts by July 2001 and 5,000 more megawatts by July 2002."
Also, he mentions expanding by 1,000 MW the transmission line "to Oregon" in
his 2/16 press conference transcript.
I have just upped the costs to reflect these numbers.
=====================================
|
3,537 |
Subject: ***** NEW CALIFORNIA POLLING DATA *****
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9371.
=====================================
Please keep confidential (for now), and please forward to Bev. Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/23/2001 03:42 PM -----
Susan J Mara
02/22/2001 07:24 PM
To: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: ***** NEW CALIFORNIA POLLING DATA *****
Mirant calculated some good data and the rest of the gens are going to do the
same
Mirant: 80% Increase in energy production vs. under IOU ownership
6% forced outage rate vs. 19.8% forced outage rate of the same plants owned
by the IOUs
IEP will put together some data
The big news is the POLLING. IEP and Reliant have just completed some
polling for California. Here are the fascinating results -- which should
help shape our message.
This polled as the #1 voter issue
58% say its not appropriate to use tax dollars to bailout by the utilities
by buying transmission, hydro or stock options.
Who favors the state getting the following in return for dollars (forced to
choose one):
Hydroelectric -- 28%
Stock options -- 27%
Transmission -- 18%
50% say its OK for the government to play a larger role in purchasing and
distribution
48% say the state SHOULD NOT takeover transmission
39% say the state SHOULD NOT create a public power agency
45% oppose re-regulation which is estimated to cost $40 billion
Asked if it is fair for the generators who are owed $1 billion to be forced
to sell without assurance of being paid, 47% said this was unfair
WHo's to blame:
38% Legislature
22% Utilities
11% Davis
10% Generators withholding power
52% says Davis is doing a good job
38% said he's not
This was reported to be the same as for Bush and "Davis will know that"
49% says Davis is on the wrong track
Would you want to re-elect Davis?
38% yes
42% replace him
38% are angry about it -- they said this isn't enough for the "pitchfork
parade" yet
33% only this amount thinks Davis' handling is "exceptional" or "good"
10% for the regulators
12% for the legislature
Now for the bad news:
ASKED PREVIOUSLY -- If rates went up 10% without any blackouts or if there
was no rate increase with blackouts every day of the summer, which do you
prefer
Blackouts -- 46%
Rate inc -- 41%
ASKED IN THIS ROUND -- If rates went up 25% without any blackouts or if there
was no rate increase with blackouts every day of the summer, which do you
prefer
Blackouts -- 47%
Rate inc -- 36%
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
=====================================
|
3,538 |
Subject: Workshop on DWR Revenue Requirement --July 27, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29279.
=====================================
Harry, Please forward to anyone else who needs to see this.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/30/2001 02:11 PM -----
JBennett <[email protected]>
07/30/2001 02:07 PM
To: "Sue Mara (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Workshop on DWR Revenue Requirement --Please Forward to Applicabl e
Enron Individuals
The workshop conducted by the Energy Division on Friday on the DWR revenue
requirement submitted to the Commission on July 23rd was basically a
question and answer session. A representative of DWR was present as were
several representatives of the consulting firm Navigant which assisted DWR
in constructing its revenue requirement request. The representatives of
Navigant fielded most of the questions.
Not much new information was garnered. A little more clarity was shed on
certain areas. Of interest to Enron would be that in determining the net
short for each of the UDCs for which DWR was purchasing it assumed no change
in the current direct access levels (which is approximately 2% of the load
in the state) through 2002.
Other points of clarification included:
(1) A question exists with respect to whether DWR is responsible for the ISO
costs billed to the UDCs for the period of January through June of 2001.
(2) Any payments which were made to DWR to date by the UDCs would be netted
against the revenue requirements requests for the first and second quarter
of this year. PG&E indicated that DWR's numbers for the revenue received
from PG&E to date do not match its own accounting.
(3) The net short calculation for each UDC was derived by using the net
short forecasts provided by each of the UDCs an modifying them to take into
account (1) a 4% reduction in load due to conservation efforts; (2) a 2%
reduction in load due to price elasticity increasing to 3% by January 2001;
(3) estimated impacts of the 20/20 program (assuming also a similar program
for next summer); (4) the impact of the UDCs curtailment programs. Once
again, PG&E indicated its belief that DWR's net short projection for PG&E
was erroneous.
(4) DWR explained that the basis for the projection that they would need
1.65 cents out of the three cents rate increase was that for sales made by
DWR they already receive the UDC generation rate (i.e., approximately 6.8
cent for PG&E and 7.2 cent for SCE). On top of that, they need the 1.65
cents.
SCE submitted four pages of written questions to DWR on their revenue
request. DWR is to respond in writing (and serve on all people on the
service list ) by Tuesday the 31st. To the extent that the questions are
applicable to PG&E, they will answer the question with respect to both UDCs.
Please call if you have any questions.
Jeanne Bennett
=====================================
|
3,539 |
Subject: Agenda - California Planning Session - May 1-2, 2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11795.
=====================================
u need to participate by phone if you can.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/27/2001 05:42 PM -----
Carol Moffett@EES
04/27/2001 04:35 PM
To: Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Craig Childers/HOU/EES@EES, Marcus
Dotson/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Chris Holmes/HOU/EES@EES, Evan
Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Tom
Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES,
Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dirk vanUlden/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange, George Waidelich/SFO/EES@EES, Lyle White/HOU/EES@EES, James
Wright/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES,
David Gilleland/HOU/EES@EES, Doug Chamberlin/HOU/EES@EES, Don
Black/HOU/EES@EES, Sean A Holmes/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron,
Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard L Zdunkewicz/HOU/EES@EES, James M
Wood/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Bernstein/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Golden/HOU/EES@EES, Gary
Weiss/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Dobler/HOU/EES@EES, Eric Melvin/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Rosalinda Tijerina/HOU/EES@EES, Roberta Staehlin/HOU/EES@EES, Leticia
Botello/HOU/EES@EES, Pat Kratsch/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange,
Cindy Cicchetti/HOU/EES@EES, Michele Curtis/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange, Bonnie Baum/HOU/EES@EES, Heather Osheroff/Western
Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Mariaelena Rivas/HOU/EES@EES, Rachel
Bryant/HOU/EES@EES, Paulett Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Cheryl Brashier/HOU/EES@EES,
Linda Rhymes/HOU/EES@EES, Binky Davidson/HOU/EES@EES, Karen
Street/HOU/EES@EES, Sandy Hoelscher/HOU/EES@EES, Michelle Mayo/HOU/EES@EES,
Rossana Booty/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Agenda - California Planning Session - May 1-2, 2001
Attached is the agenda for next week's planning session. Please note that
the meeting will take place in Conference Room 8 C1, not Conference Room 872
as previously mentioned.
Attendees
Attend Whole Session Presenters
Attend For Your Presentation Only
Dennis Benevides
Craig Childers (optional)
Marcus Dotson
Lamar Frazier
Chris Holmes
Evan Hughes
Doug Huth
Peggy Mahoney
Tom Riley
Mike Smith
Marty Sunde
Dirk vanUlden
George Waidelich
Lyle White
Jim Wright
Andy Wu David Gilleland
Doug Chamberlin
Don Black
Sean Holmes
Jeff Dasovich
Richard Zdunkewicz
Jim Wood
Mark Bernstein
Jeff Golden
Gary Weiss
Mark Dobler
Eric Melvin
Doug Chamberlin: You may call the conference room at 9:30a Central Time on
Tuesday. The phone number is (713) 345-3359.
Sue McCubbin: If you are available to dial into the conference room at
12:30p Central Time on Tuesday, that would be great. The phone number is
(713) 345-3359.
Rachel and Paulett: Please note the duration of Don's/Sean's presentation
extends to 11:30a on May 1st. Thank you.
=====================================
|
3,540 |
Subject: Energy Efficiency, etc. Incentives
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2238.
=====================================
Harry: FYI. First meeting to discuss how to dole out the $50 MM created by
AB 970 is 10.7. Someone I've worked with on DG-type deals in the past from
EES is going to attend the meeting (Brian Smith from the Costa Mesa office).
Bob Frank and I had a conference call with him this morning. URL for the
event is included below.
Best,
Jeff
http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/ab970/notices/2000-09-29_notice.html
Paul Kaufman@ECT
10/10/2000 10:41 AM
To: Mona Petrochko, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject:
FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT on 10/10/2000 08:46
AM ---------------------------
From: Harry Kingerski@ENRON on 10/10/2000 08:29 AM CDT
To: Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve Montovano/DUB/EES@EES, Janine
Migden/DUB/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Patricia A Lee/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject:
I am pulling together an answer to Larry Derrett's question concerning tax
credits/deductions to incent companies to invest in DSM. Am aware of recent
California SB 970 that makes available $50 million to implement
cost-effective energy conservation and demand-side management programs. And
of course there are lots of utility-specific programs that have been in place
for a while.
Question - are you aware of any new initiatives, federal, state, or
otherwise, that are being proposed? Are you engaged anywhere in proposing
such things? Thank you.
----- Forwarded by Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron on 10/10/2000 08:20 AM -----
Marty Sunde@EES
10/10/2000 08:08 AM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Larry Derrett/HOU/EES@EES, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Dan
Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES
Subject:
Rick,
Could you give Larry Derrett a brief update on his question.
Since many people in EES are asking a similar question, I'll copy Peggy
Mahoney and ask her to use your answer as the source for communicating this
to our employees via the BUZZ, our weekly newsletter.
Thanks
---------------------- Forwarded by Marty Sunde/HOU/EES on 10/10/2000 08:09
AM ---------------------------
Larry Derrett
10/09/2000 01:20 PM
To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G
Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject:
Given the current political climate and concerns about adequacy of energy
supplies, is someone at EES lobbying with politicians for certain
arrangements which could be beneficial to our business? For example, would
there be interest in creating a tax credit/favorable deduction to incent
companies to invest in DSM assets to reduce energy consumption? I can't
imagine that the political climate could be any better than now for a program
like this.
=====================================
|
3,541 |
Subject: NEWS: no regulation demands from PG&E
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11192.
=====================================
* yesterday's San Diego Union Tribune
PG&E sent hard-nosed proposal to Davis demanding no regulation=20
ASSOCIATED PRESS=20
April 16, 2001=20
SAN FRANCISCO =01) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. officials demanded the util=
ity=20
be cut free from state regulation and be allowed to push huge rate increase=
s=20
onto its customers, two weeks before negotiations with Gov. Gray Davis brok=
e=20
off, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.=20
"Perhaps we misjudged their primary concern," said Steve Maviglio, the=20
governor's spokesman. "It wasn't resolving their credit issue. It was=20
extracting vengeance on the PUC."=20
In addition to insisting that it be released from the state Public Utilitie=
s=20
Commission's regulatory grip, PG&E demanded it be allowed to buy back its=
=20
power lines without competitive offers if the state ever decided to sell. I=
n=20
addition, it wanted to continue profiting from any telecommunications lines=
=20
or antennas linked to the system, according to a Feb. 28 eight-page proposa=
l=20
obtained by the Chronicle and published Sunday.=20
n Developments in California's energy crisis=20
PG&E denies the document influenced the outcome between the utility and the=
=20
state.=20
"It is ludicrous to suggest that this document caused the negotiations to=
=20
break down," said PG&E spokesman Ron Low. "There were negotiations that=20
occurred later and other documents that followed."=20
At the time of the utility's bankruptcy filing April 6, PG&E Corp. Chairman=
=20
Robert Glynn said no talks had been held for three weeks. PG&E's proposal h=
ad=20
been delivered about two weeks before talks ceased.=20
PG&E has said it's entitled to recoup $9 billion it paid for wholesale powe=
r=20
because of PUC-regulated rate caps, which kept the utility from passing hig=
h=20
costs onto customers.=20
The proposal said this money "will be fully recovered in retail rates witho=
ut=20
further CPUC review for prudence or any other purpose," the Chronicle=20
reported.=20
The document went on to demand the PUC drop all proceedings concerning PG&E=
,=20
including an investigation into whether the utility violated California law=
=20
by transferring millions to parent company PG&E Corp. prior to filing=20
bankruptcy.=20
"They took a position on regulatory matters that was out of touch with=20
reality," Maviglio said.=20
PG&E Corp. spokesman Shawn Cooper declined to comment on the proposal.=20
"That document is confidential," he said.=20
Ratepayer advocates say they're baffled by PG&E's demands.=20
"It's like the Japanese insisting that we surrender Hawaii after we beat th=
em=20
in World War II," said Harvey Rosenfield, consumer advocate for the=20
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.=20
, Copyright 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
=====================================
|
3,542 |
Subject: Sept. 5 - I-House - Understanding and Misunderstanding Japanese
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/974.
=====================================
SPECIAL EVENT AT UC BERKELEY's INTERNATIONAL HOUSE
Glenn Fukushima speaking on...
"Understanding and Misunderstanding Japanese Styles of Communication"
Wednesday, Sept. 5
5:00 - 6:00 pm
International House, Chevron Auditorium
2299 Piedmont Avenue at Bancroft Way
FREE / NO RSVP necessary
In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Peace Treaty with Japan, International House welcomes Mr. Glen Fukushima, who will deliver a presentation entitled "Understanding and Misunderstanding Japanese Styles of Communication" on Wednesday, September 5, from 5:00 to 6:30 pm in the I-House Chevron Auditorium, 2299 Piedmont Avenue at Bancroft Way in Berkeley. This presentation is FREE to I-House residents, members, alumni, and the general public.
Between corporations and individuals in the US and Japan, there are a plethora of cases where what one side says in not fully understood, or sometimes completely misunderstood, by the other side. This is disturbing given the numerous articles, books conferences, symposia, and studies that have proliferated during the past 50 years explaining the two countries to one and other. Of course, historical, political, economic, social, cultural and psychological differences can impede effective communication between Americans and Japanese. But beyond this, the languages of the two countries are so dissimilar that finding exact conceptual equivalents can be impossible, even with the help of the best interpreters. These are among the cross-cultural challenges Mr. Fukushima will address in his talk. Don't miss this opportunity to explore and discuss the reasons for and solutions to cross cultural differences that touch us here at International House and across the campus.
Glen Fukushima is the leader of Japan operations for Cadence Design Systems in Silicon Valley. A native of California, Fukushima was educated at Stanford University, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Fukushima's publications include Nichi-Bei Keizai Masatsu no Seijigaku (The Politics of US-Japan Economic Friction), winner of the 9th Masayoshi Ohira Memorial Prize in 1993. His writings have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, International Herald Tribune, Japan Times and many more.
For more information about this event or about International House, call (510) 642-9460.
===============================
Sebastian Teunissen
Executive Director
Clausen Center for International Business and Policy
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720-1900 USA
Tel: (510) 643-4999
Fax: (510) 642-8228
<http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/HaasGlobal>
=====================================
|
3,543 |
Subject: SDG&E Advice Letter and Customer Facilitation Program
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2993.
=====================================
Advice Letters:
San Diego filed an advice letter (1260-E) which I faxed two weeks ago dealing
with the application of the rate cap to DA customers. Subsequently, October
30, SDG&E filed an amended advice letter 1260-E-A (replacing 1260-E). The
earlier advice letter had a lot more specificity about how to deal with
applying the credit to DA customers that the amended advice letter omits. We
need to determine if we wish SDG&E to include any of the following in their
treatment of the credit for DA customers. We have 20 days from October 30 to
file a protest.
For example:
If the customer received consolidated billing service from the utility, the
credit from the cap would be applied against the otherwise applicable San
Diego charges.
If the customer was dual billed, the credit would apply against the San Diego
portion of the bill.
If the customer received ESP consolidated billing from the ESP, the credit
would be highlighted through a separate line item. If the credit surpassed
SDG&E's charges, there would be no amount payable to SDG&E for that month.
If there was a credit balance remaining against SDG&E's charges, it could be
carried over into the next month, or cashed out.
SDG&E provided a second option. This would provide the credits to the ESP
and the ESP would be responsible for any future repayment of the cost.
We have until November 7 to file comments on their proposal. I think we
would appreciate a separate line-item identifying the amount of the credit.
However, I believe the identification should be the same for all customers,
irrespective of the billing choice. Because we currently don't have an
obligation to flow through the PX credit amount to our customers, I don't
believe we should have an obligation to flow-through the additional credit
relative to the cap, but we need legal review of my assumption.
We may also want to consider if we have a preference for how we would handle
the additional credit relative to the cap for our customers. That may help
us decide if we want to support having the option of choosing between a
line-item or managing those funds for our customers. (This is another way of
alleviating a customer's concern about a balloon payment at some future date.)
Some ESPs are also approaching SDG&E about an "opt-out" provision of the rate
cap for DA customers. I am concerned, and am checking, to see if SDG&E can
legally do this.
Customer Facilitation Program:
The majority of the ESPs elected to wait until the issue of the
implementation of the rate cap was decided before doing a mailing. The
majority also preferred one mailing to two. Therefore, this program will not
kick off until probably some time in January 2001.
Any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks.
Mona
=====================================
|
3,544 |
Subject: GOVERNOR DAVIS APPOINTS DIRECTOR TO THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3830.
=====================================
They must have realized that Loretta could use some PR help...
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/21/2001 06:28 PM -----
Susan J Mara
03/21/2001 06:15 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: GOVERNOR DAVIS APPOINTS DIRECTOR TO THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOC
ATES
Great. ORA gets a PR person
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 03/21/2001 04:15 PM -----
"Beiser, Megan" <[email protected]>
03/21/2001 03:43 PM
To:
cc:
Subject: GOVERNOR DAVIS APPOINTS DIRECTOR TO THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOC
ATES
> A01:079
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> 03/21/2001
>
>
> GOVERNOR DAVIS APPOINTS DIRECTOR TO THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES
>
>
> SACRAMENTO
>
> Governor Gray Davis today announced the appointment of Regina Ann Birdsell
> as Director of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Public Utilities
> Commission.
>
> The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) was established in September 1996
> after the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 960. The
> legislation directs that an independent advocacy division be established
> to represent public utility customers in commission proceedings.
>
> Ms. Birdsell, 45, of Glendale, is a consultant to the Center on
> Philanthropy and Public Policy (School of Policy, Planning and
> Development) at the University of Southern California, a position she has
> held since January 2001. Prior to that, she served as Vice President for
> Winner and Associates, a management consulting and public affairs firm
> with emphasis on organizational and communication problems for high
> profile corporate clients. Ms. Birdsell was the executive director for the
> New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership from 1995 to 1999. From 1991 to
> 1995, she was Director of Public Affairs for the Children's Hospital Los
> Angeles. Ms. Birdsell served the California Attorney General's Office as
> Press Secretary from 1990 to 1991. She was the producer for The Parenting
> Network for Warner Brothers in 1989 and a coordinating producer for
> KABC-TV Eyewitness News from 1982 to 1988. Ms. Birdsell earned a bachelor
> of arts degree and a master of social works degree from the University of
> Southern California.
>
> The role of ORA is to obtain the lowest possible rate for service
> consistent with reliable and safe service levels. This charge covers all
> the industries regulated by the PUC except for transportation,
> telecommunications, electricity, gas and water. Ms. Birdsell will receive
> a salary of $101,220. This position requires Senate confirmation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Megan Beiser
> Assistant Account Executive
> Edelman Public Relations Worldwide, Sacramento
> Phone: (916) 442-2331
> Fax: (916) 447-8509
>
=====================================
|
3,545 |
Subject: AReM/WPTF Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX Credit and
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28049.
=====================================
Dan Douglass has drafted joint comments for two coalitions in which Enron is
a member -- Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and Western Power Trading
Forum. Robert, feel free to contact Dan directly with your comments. Let me
know your thoughts as well. I am out of the office at a WPTF meeting. Dan is
here as well. If you need to contact me, you can leave me a message on my
office phone or try my cell (415 -- 902-4108), but I'm not sure the cell is
working all the time.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/22/2001 07:35 AM -----
"Dan Douglass" <[email protected]>
06/20/2001 10:59 PM
To: "ARM" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX Credit and Direct Access
Attached for your review and comment is my first draft of comments to be
filed on Monday with regard to the draft decisions of ALJ Barnett and
Commissioner Bilas.? Please review it carefully, as I have thrown in
everything I can think of on a rush basis, and it may require some
significant editing.? Pay particular attention to Section V dealing with
Bilas' request for parties to discuss alternatives to DA suspension.? The
draft offers a compromise to the DWR's concerns, as expressed in the
Angelides memo.? Also, notice that Section VI urges the Commission to
bifurcate the DA and PX credit issues, acting quickly on the first, if it
must, but more leisurely on the PX credit subject.
?
Finally, I have a suggestion?in the form of a question.? How would AReM
members feel about making this a joint filing with WPTF?? There is
cross-membership between the two groups and the same issues would be raised
in the separate filings which I am otherwise prepared to draft.? This draft
would requires some modifications so as to refer to the "Joint Parties" as
opposed to solely mentioning AReM, and I might? add a section dealing more
explicitly with WPTF's contribution to getting the zero minimum bill
stipulation signed in the first place.? Otherwise, the document would stay
much as it is (subject to your input over the next few days, of course).?
Please let me know what you think asap, as I am already working on a WPTF
draft.? Incidentally, I will also be filing comments on behalf of ABAG which
will support the positions taken in the attached document, but I am not
proposing that ABAG also be a party to this filing.? Thanks for your help!?
Comments as soon as possible would be very much appreciated!
?
Dan
?
?
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.? Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:?? (818) 596-2201
Fax:? (818) 346-6502
[email protected]
?
- Blank Bkgrd.gif
- 6-25-01 AReM Comments - Draft 1.doc
=====================================
|
3,546 |
Subject: Golf - November Direct Report Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1967.
=====================================
Howdy Golfers,
Tee times have been arranged on the East Course (18 holes of golf) at the Broadmoor for Thursday, November 8 (tee times: 1:40pm & 1:48pm). The price for playing this course is actually $90; slightly cheaper than what is indicated below. I have arranged for each of your golf charges to be charged to your individual rooms. Please refer to the list below for additional charges such as, clubs & shoe charges. I'm hoping to finalize all the activity choices by the end of the week, so please confirm by COB tomorrow Thursday, October 18 that your activity choice will remain golf.
Thanks!
Ginger Dernehl
Administrative Coordinator
Global Government Affairs
Phone# 713-853-7751
Fax# 713-646-8160
-----Original Message-----
From: Dernehl, Ginger
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 4:39 PM
To: Steffes, James D.; Yoho, Lisa; Nord, Sue; Migden, Janine; Montovano, Steve; Hemstock, Robert; Kaufman, Paul; Ryall, Jean; Kingerski, Harry; Ibrahim, Amr; Dasovich, Jeff; Nicolay, Christi L.; Novosel, Sarah; Linnell, Elizabeth; Petrochko, Mona L.
Cc: Dernehl, Ginger; Shapiro, Richard; Noske, Linda J.; Warner, Geriann; Sullivan, Lora; Knight, Laurie; Bellas, Kirsten; Sietzema, Linda; Hunter, Bevin; Buerger, Rubena; Stransky, Joan; Alamo, Joseph; Hawkins, Bernadette; Perez, Carmen
Subject: November Direct Report Meeting Changes
There are several changes to the Direct Report meeting in November.
First, the meeting will now conclude by 12:00 (noon) on Friday, November 9.
Second, the activities portion of the trip will not be sponsored by Enron....each individual will be responsible (personally) for payment of activity of choice. Most individuals either chose golf or horseback riding.....below is an estimate as to how much these activities will cost.
Golf:
Green Fees (East/West Course) $155.00/18 holes (Includes golf cart, use of practice balls, club care & storage)
(East/West Course) $85.00/9 holes (includes - same as above)
(Mountain Course) $95.00/18 holes (includes - same as above)
(Mountain Course) $50.00/9 holes (includes - same as above)
Rentals:
Golf clubs with sleeve of balls $55.00
Golf Shoes $20.00
Horseback riding: 1hour $25.00/person
1hour pkg $35.00/person (pkg includes shuttle ride to stables)
2hour $40.00/person
2hour pkg $50.00/person (pkg includes shuttle ride to stables)
mini ride (group only) $15.00/approximately 20 minutes
If you have an interest in the spa services that are available, please let me know and I will fax the spa list to you.
Please let me know ASAP which activity you choose so I can make the necessary arrangements.
Thanks and please call me if you have any questions.
Ginger Dernehl
Administrative Coordinator
Global Government Affairs
Phone# 713-853-7751
Fax# 713-646-8160
=====================================
|
3,547 |
Subject: Proposal for QF Contract Restructure
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3679.
=====================================
Jeff,
I had a good discussion with Milton Schultz, GM of Burney Forest Products.
Milton indicated they have 19 years left on a PPA (SO4) with PG&E. Their
plant provides 31 MW of peak generation (with firm capacity on 24 MWs and as
available on volumes above 24MW) which Milton indicated has the flexibility
to be turned down on off peak hours. In addition, their fuel costs are a
function of demand and if they were able to fill the energy from the market
it would likely lower the overall cost of fuel (wood chips). The economics
of the deal for ENA appear to be good enough for ENA to be able to pay a
decent option premium up front which could be structured as partial relief of
the PG&E receivable ( Milton indicated that the PG&E receivable is approx $10
).
Below is the email I sent Milton and an attached outline sheet. Milton
indicated the he would discuss the idea with Rich Purcell, apparently a main
partner in the project. He seemed to be genuinely interested and felt it was
something Rich would also like.
The question is, "Can we facilitate, through the QFs, a contract
restructuring with PG&E and if so what steps would we propose at this point
?"(assuming I get interest back from Burney Forest Products.) I would
propose that ENA work with the QF to structure the terms of the "restructed"
PPA between the QF and PG&E and that simultaneous with that agreement, ENA
enter into a long term services deal to supply the market based energy as
well as provide for an up-fron option premium for the right to "put" market
based power to the QF/utility.
Let me know your thoughts.
Mike
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT on 05/03/2001
01:38 PM ---------------------------
Michael Etringer
05/03/2001 12:57 PM
To: [email protected]
cc: Chris H Foster/Enron@EnronXGate
Subject: Proposal for QF Contract Restructure
Milton,
I very much enjoyed talking with you today. As we discussed, please find
attached a general discussion outline for the QF restructuring proposal. I
hope this gives a fair assessment of the proposal but as usual words are
always subject to interpretation so I would look forward to discussing these
ideas in greater detail. Although the landscape is currently a "mess" at
best, I do believe it provides some unique opportunities to explore
alternative solutions to the current energy crisis. As I indicated, Enron
would be very interested in working with a QF or group of QFs to explore and
develop an approach which the QFs can take to the utilities and potentially
the PUC and bankruptcy courts.
Look forward to talking with you and Rich after you've had a chance to
further consider the proposal.
Thanks again for your time.
Sincerely,
Mike Etringer
West Power Origination
503-464-3836
=====================================
|
3,548 |
Subject: RE: CMTA Hosting President Bush 10-17-01 RSVP ASAP
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/588.
=====================================
It's safer there.
-----Original Message-----
From: Landwehr, Susan M.
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:19 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Mara, Susan
Subject: RE: CMTA Hosting President Bush 10-17-01 RSVP ASAP
Jeff/Sue--I think that since Ms. Mara has now been identified as a bonified Republican (she does get mailings from the Republican party after all), she needs to attend!
I am going thru old e mails and saw this one. I'm kind of surpised that W is heading to China
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Wed 10/10/2001 2:25 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Kean, Steven J.; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Nord, Sue; Guerrero, Janel; Landwehr, Susan M.
Cc:
Subject: FW: CMTA Hosting President Bush 10-17-01 RSVP ASAP
FYI. I don't know if this means that Sue and I both get a ticket, or if there's only one. If someone from Houston--or another office--is interested, we'd be happy to accommodate. Otherwise, I'm sure that we'll take full advantage of the opporunity. Just let us know.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack M. Stewart, President - CMTA [ <mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:54 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: CMTA Hosting President Bush 10-17-01 RSVP ASAP
Dear CMTA Members:
From: Jack Stewart, President - California Manufacturers & Technology
Association
The California Manufacturers & Technology Association is hosting a major
foreign policy and international trade speech by President George Bush!
President Bush is making the stop as he travels to China on a two-day state
visit and the White House asked us just yesterday to host the event.
? Sacramento Memorial Auditorium
? 11:00 am to noon
? October 17th, 2001
? Yes, that's next Wednesday!
As a valued CMTA member, a complimentary ticket has been reserved for you or
another employee of your company.
BUT YOU MUST RSVP WITH YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER to Geri Royer at
916-498-3330 or [email protected] by 4:00pm (PDT), October 12th, 2001.
Please take advantage of this opportunity that your CMTA membership affords
you.
If you would like to come in the night of October 16, we have held a block
of rooms at the Sacramento Hyatt Regency Hotel (916/443-1234) at a rate of
$140 night. Just ask to reserve your room under the CMTA block.
Reservations must also be made by October 12 to guarantee this rate.
This is a great opportunity to support the President and send him off on his
first foreign trip since the terrorist attacks on September 11.
As you know, security will be tight so there cannot be any exceptions on the
October 12, 4:00pm (PDT) RSVP DEADLINE.
We hope to hear back from you quickly and look forward to seeing you in
Sacramento next Wednesday.
=====================================
|
3,549 |
Subject: FW: Enron/EnronOnline
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28841.
=====================================
How soon can you call me about this????
?
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: David Young
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 12:08 PM
To: James McCormick; Cameron Sellers; Ian Sullivan
Subject: Enron/EnronOnline
Importance: High
?
James, Cameron, Ian,
?
I got a call this morning from Marc Eichmann, a?DealBench Product Manager at
Enron Net Works.? He got my contact info from Ken Sommers, one of the
Procurement Managers in EES, who has been pushing to get our solutions
implemented.?
?
Marc is meeting today with a team of directors to determine how to go forward
in providing reverse auction and RFQ functionality to the various Enron
business.? They realize that DealBench does not provide the breadth of
functionality required to get acceptance by the buyers/dealmakers for daily
use.? Thus they are trying to determine whether to?put the time and resources
into developing DealBench further or to strike a deal with a third party
vendor to enhance their platform.
?
The project is in its early stages.? Their timeline is 2-3 months before
implementation.? Enron business units would be the primary users of the
software, but?they would eventually want to sell this service out to all
users of EnronOnline.? Marc said they would want to be able to open up the
code and conjoin our software with theirs.?
?
He wants us to basically hand it away.? I discussed our standard Enterprise
pricing and the Charter Program offer we have given to GSS and EES, and he
still felt this was beyond their budget.? He emphasized how much business
volume runs through EnronOnline and how good an opportunity this would be for
us.? I told him I would like to have our VP Business Development speak with
him to discuss any further business relationship and pricing details.? Marc
can be reached at 713-345-8422 or [email protected].?
?
I've tried to followup with Ken Sommers and Eugene Ribaudo to get a feel for
how we might be able to proceed with a sale directly?to EES versus a marriage
with DealBench.? Ken is out of town this week, but hopefully will respond to
my voice mail and email.? Let me know how to proceed.
?
Thanks,
David M. Young
Manager- Enterprise Sales
Perfect Commerce, Inc.
1860 Embarcadero Rd., Suite 210
Palo Alto CA? 94303
Tel:? 650-798-3356
Email:? [email protected]
"Sourcing - the identification, evaluation, negotiation, and configuration of
supply partners - is the single largest opportunity for an organization to
impact the cost, structure, and overall efficiency of its supply chain."?? --
Aberdeen Group, Inc.
?
- image001.jpg
=====================================
|
3,550 |
Subject: FW: Art Exhibit At RMW
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1597.
=====================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michele Manahan
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:55 PM
> To: # All Robert Mondavi
> Subject: Art Exhibit At RMW
>
> PLEASE POST FOR ALL EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO E-MAIL.
>
>
> September 12, 2001
> Contact: Julie Prince
>
> Robert Mondavi Winery
> P.O.
> Box 106
> For Immediate Release
> Oakville, CA 94562
>
> (707) 968-2203
>
>
> Oakville, California... Artist, Denney Curtis Hemens will open an exhibit
> of paintings at Robert Mondavi Winery on October 6, 2001.
>
> Mr. Hemens was born in Syracuse, New York. His life in the arts began at
> an early age. After running away from a military academy, he arrived in
> New York's Greenwich Village where he lived and worked with prominent
> members of the Beat Generation. He migrated to San Francisco in 1970,
> where he continued to live and work in North Beach and other 'Bohemian'
> enclaves.
>
> Mr. Hemens studied briefly with the late Joan Brown, original member of
> the Bay Area Figurative school, and with Wally Hedrick, founder of the
> famous Six Gallery, where Alan Ginsberg first recited Howl. He worked with
> legendary 'underground' filmmaker, painter, musicologist, anthropologist,
> Harry Smith, in New York, learning the craft of hand painted film and
> collage. He also spent extended periods of time with mentors, Ginsberg,
> Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs.
>
> He has participated in and contributed to several art movements including
> the Bay Area Neo Dada movement, Correspondence Art, Xerox Art, Rubber
> Stamp Art and other conceptual and performance pieces. He has had numerous
> group exhibitions and one man shows. His paintings can be found in the
> collections of the late Joanne Dru (Mrs. Robert Wood), Angela Lansbury,
> the late Ernest Hemingway and wife Mary, Mr. and Mrs. Randolf Hearst,
> Henri Lenoir, Mrs. Robert Mondavi and other prominent collections in the
> United States and Europe.
>
> Mr. Hemens is currently completing a non-fiction narrative about Jack
> Kerouac and America, entitled The Other Side of Denial-Memoirs of a Second
> Generation Desolation Angel ?, and a collection of remembrances of time
> spent with his friend, the poet Bob Kaufman, entitled Percodan Summer ?.
>
> A profoundly creative individual, who has worked as a painter, performer,
> poet, writer and filmmaker, Mr. Hemens' reclusive lifestyle took him to
> Mendocino County in 1984, where he continues to live with and work.
>
> We invite you to look at Denney Curtis Hemens exhibit in our Vineyards
> Room gallery from October 6 to December 20, 2001. It is suggested that
> the Robert Mondavi Winery be called at (707) 968-2213 or 2203 to determine
> the best time to view the show.
>
> Margrit Biever Mondavi
> Curator
> **
>
>
>
>
=====================================
|
3,551 |
Subject: Re: Siting Committee Hearing - Interconnection Rules
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/500.
=====================================
I will most likely not be able to attend. However, my comment relating to
this issue was a generalization of confidentiality clauses I've used on other
interconnect agreements and other contracts, including the "model"
interconnection agreement recently submitted to FERC by EPSA. In essence,
the issue is that the utility should not have the unilateral right to
disclose any information to anyone they want that is sent to them in
connection with a DG interconnection. This would include ownership, facility
output, markets for energy or capacity or ancillary sevices (if any) and
maintenance schedules (these schedules may be coincident with a retail
customer's facility maintenance schedule which itself may be confidential
information between the generator and retail customer). This information is
potentially competitive and should be held confidential. Potential wording
for a simplified confidentiality section would be as follows:
"Unless compelled to disclose by judicial or administrative process or other
provisions of law or as otherwise provided for in this Rule, the Electic
Provider shall hold in confidence any and all documents and information
furnished by the Electric Customer in connection with the interconnection,
provide however, that to the extent it is necessary for the the EP to release
or disclose such information to a third party in order to perform the EP's
obligation herein, EP shall advise said third party of the confidential
provisons of this Rule and use its best efforts to require said third party
to agree in writing to comply with such provisions."
Bruno Gaillard
04/20/2000 11:47 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Tom Hoatson/HOU/EES@EES, Robert
Frank/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Siting Committee Hearing - Interconnection Rules
Scott Tomashefsky is asking me to present our position on the confidentiality
clause in Rule 21 at the CEC Hearing on 4/25. Any thoughts. I hope to be able
to respond to him today.
Should an Enron rep be present to do so? Me or another?
Bob are you coming to Sacramento?
---------------------- Forwarded by Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES on 04/20/2000
09:41 AM ---------------------------
"Scott Tomashefsky" <[email protected]> on 04/20/2000 07:26:24 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Siting Committee Hearing
Bruno,
I was wondering if you would be willing to speak for 5-10 minutes on Tuesday
regarding Section 2.7 of the proposed Rule 21 language (confidentiality of
information)? I was hoping you could convey your concerns for the Committee.
We have also added language in the report stating the Energy Commission has
previously urged positions similar to Enron's at the CPUC, but the CPUC has
not accepted them.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience.
Scott
=====================================
|
3,552 |
Subject: FW: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ["p..o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/637.
=====================================
Jeff,
Please include Murray, Brenda and me on your distribution list of updates regarding EES markets. Our groups are responsible for the DASR process from Deal Capture through utility setup as well as deal validation and billing.
Regards,
Shelly
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike D Smith/HOU/EES on 10/17/2001 09:25 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/16/2001 04:55 PM
To: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palmer/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01
? In response to the Commission's suspension of DA, numerous market participants--including Enron--filed "Petitions for Rehearing."
? The California PUC has issued a decision denying the petitions.
? Many of those participants are likely to file for appellate court review of the Commission's denial.
? In its decision denying the Petitions, the Commission did however modify its initial decision in several respects.
? Key among those is a modification regarding facility adds.
? Those comments refer to the ability to continue to submit DASRs for new facilities under contracts signed prior to September 20th that provide for facility adds.
? The Commission agreed and has ordered the utilities to accept DASRs for facility adds under contract terms executed prior to 10.20.01. The precise language is cited below.
? If you would like a copy of the decision, please contact Joseph Alamo.
Best,
Jeff
"We reaffirm that for the time being, and unless the Commission states otherwise in a subsequent decision, utilities are required to process DASRs relating to contracts or agreements that were executed on or before September 20th, 2001, including DASRs for service to new facilities or accounts if the underlying contract pursuant to which those DASRs are submitted allowed for the provision of that additional service. Thus, for example, with respect to the specific ESP contract described by UC/CSU in their rehearing application, the utilities are required to accept, even after September 20, 2001, any DASRs they receive that legitimatley relate to that contract...[W]e want to make it clear that...utilities cannot set a deadline after which they could refuse to process DASRs relating to contracts executed on or before September 20, 2001." pp 20-21
=====================================
|
3,553 |
Subject: Re: Davis & Company -- incompetence personified
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/874.
=====================================
gee, tough break.
=09Richard Shapiro 07/06/2001 01:22 PM =09 To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRO=
N, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Davis & Company -- incompet=
ence personified=09
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 07/06/2001 =
01:21 PM ---------------------------
Pat Shortridge
07/06/2001 01:18 PM
To:=09John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Chris Long=
/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@E=
NRON, Carolyn Cooney/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:=09=20
Subject:=09Davis & Company -- incompetence personified
You hate to say that someone can't do anything right, but THESE GUYS CAN'T =
DO ANYTHING RIGHT.
California Power-Buying Data Disclosed in Misdirected E-Mail By Daniel T=
aub Sacramento, California, July 6 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Gray=
Davis's office released data on the state's purchases in the spot electric=
ity market -- information Davis has been trying to keep secret -- through a=
misdirected e-mail. The e-mail, containing data on California's power pur=
chases yesterday, was intended for members of the governor's staff, said Da=
vis spokesman Steve Maviglio. It was accidentally sent to some reporters on=
the office's press list, he said. Davis is fighting disclosure of state p=
ower purchases, saying it would compromise negotiations for future contract=
s. This week, Davis appealed a state judge's order to release spot-market i=
nvoices, purchase orders and confirmation sheets for power contracts signed=
through June 27. The state is buying electricity on behalf of utilities, w=
hich are burdened by debt. ``It's an internal document,'' Maviglio said of=
the e-mail. ``We have a meeting every morning where we discuss issues of t=
he day.'' The e-mail contained minutes of today's meeting, he said. Accord=
ing to the e-mail, the state bought 283,000 megawatt- hours of electricity =
for $37.4 million yesterday. One megawatt- hour is enough electricity to li=
ght 750 typical California homes for an hour. Prices ranged from $25 to $14=
9.99 a megawatt-hour. Maviglio said the information in the e-mail is accura=
te. Power for next-day delivery during peak-use hours averaged $79.67 a me=
gawatt-hour on the California-Oregon border yesterday, according to Bloombe=
rg Energy Service. California paid an average of $132 on the spot market, a=
ccording to the e-mail. Prices on the spot market tend to be higher than on=
the day-ahead market. The governor has proposed releasing data on spot-ma=
rket purchases once a quarter, arguing that the state uses power-buying str=
ategies tailored to each season. Lawyers for the media and Republican legis=
lators say state law requires disclosure of contracts within seven days aft=
er they are signed. =09
=====================================
|
3,554 |
Subject: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8896.
=====================================
I just spoke live with Mark about the case write-up.? Hope the following
works for everyone.?
I will take a shot at comparing the following for questions (a) and (b):
(1) Home Depot's strategy (low margin, high turnover, high service, best
quality products) with their financial ratios.
(2) Home Depot's strategy with Hechinger's (upscale stores with high profit
margins) by comparing their financial ratios.
(Understand that I have not had the benefit of attending the last two
classes, but hope to watch them on video tape before I send out my answers.)
Mark has already addressed question (c), we just need to make clear in the
memo the assumptions he used.? Mark - perhaps you could write those up so we
can drop them into the memo?
The other big issue is with Home Depot's expansion strategy - should they
continue to build the 9 new stores, and if so, how should they finance the
expansion?? They could use their line of credit or go to the equity market.?
Obviously with the line of credit we need to make sure that they can cover
the interest expense and with the equity market we need to be careful of
their depressed stock price.? Can someone else volunteer to look at the
expansion efforts and financing (question d)?
I am going to work on this today and hope to e-mail it out by 9am tomorrow.?
Can we set a time on Wednesday to discuss this live??
- Carolyn
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA? 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Guinney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:36 PM
To: Vavrek; Carolyn (US - San Francisco); [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Home Depot Spreadsheet (revised)
Jeff was kind enough to show me where to get the additional balance sheet
items
I needed to finish the financial ratio time sheet analysis (I missed the
selected financial statement table).? Please see the revised spreadsheet that
has both the financial ratios and the pro forma cash flow statement for the
next
fiscal year.
?
**********************************************
Mark D. Guinney, CFA
Consultant
Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting
345 California Street, Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA? 94104
(415) 733-4487 ph.
(415) 733-4190 fax
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.? If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
=====================================
|
3,555 |
Subject: RE: SBX2 78 - Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/1883.
=====================================
Great idea. Thanks very much for the info. Katz is point-person for Davis on the Edison MOU.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Denne, Karen
Sent: Wed 8/29/2001 9:23 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; '[email protected]'
Cc:
Subject: FW: SBX2 78 - Update
fyi, Joan Kradin of Marathon used to be Richard Katz's chief of staff... (just background info in case you ever want to plant some seeds from a different angle...) kd
-----Original Message-----
From: "Scott Govenar" <[email protected]>@ENRON [<mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Scott+20Govenar+22+20+3Csgovenar+40govadv+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 8:43 PM
To: Sharma, Ban; Leboe, David; Eric Letke; Thome, Jennifer; Ken Smith; Bev Hansen; Hedy Govenar; Buster, Miyung; Guerrero, Janel; Robert Frank; Mike Day; Lawner, Leslie; Kingerski, Harry; Karen Denne; Kean, Steven J.; Alan Comnes; Susan J Mara; Kaufman, Paul; Jeff Dasovich; Steffes, James D.; Rick Shapiro
Subject: SBX2 78 - Update
The Assembly Energy, Costs and Availability Committee heard and voted on
amendments to SBX2 78 proposed by many interested parties. Some passed,
some failed and most of them served to further confuse the committee
members. Eventually the committee stalled on detailed proposals made by
TURN and other consumer groups.
During the hearing Hedy had the opportunity to speak to Nancy McFadden and
Richard Katz from the Governor's office regarding a couple of issues
highlighted by Jeff and Mike Day. Richard said he is willing to make more
technical amendments when the bill gets to Appropriations. Subsequently,
Hedy and I spoke to D.J. Smith at Jeff's request. D.J. agreed that the bill
needs to use the August 24th date as a grandfather date for executed DA
contracts, but specifically asked that we (Enron) not speak to Richard about
it. He said he will have the business entities request it as a clarifying
amendment. If we request it, he thought Richard would be less likely to
believe it's clarifying since he believes our motives to be too
self-serving. Also, we spent some time with Lenny Goldberg on direct
access. We suggested that "shall" be changed to "may" in order to give more
leeway to the PUC on direct access suspension. He didn't necessarily oppose
the policy, but his position is not to amend a bad bill unless you can
totally rewrite it (which he later attempted to do).
A lobbyist for a significant generator told us that they are prepared to
push Edison into bankruptcy (along with the Canadian government) if this
bill passes.
There is no consensus that this measure will ever get to the Governor's
desk.
The committee will meet again tomorrow at approximately 1:30 p.m. to vote on
additional amendments and ultimately to vote on the complete bill.
=====================================
|
3,556 |
Subject: FERC Meeting on Northeast RTO
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11999.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron on 07/11/2001 04:54 PM -----
Sarah Novosel
07/11/2001 04:24 PM
To: Kevin M Presto/Enron@EnronXGate, Mark Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Ader/HOU/EES@EES, Edward D Baughman/Enron@EnronXGate, Joe
Gordon/Enron@EnronXGate, Janelle Scheuer/Enron@EnronXGate, [email protected],
Mark Bernstein/HOU/EES@EES, John Llodra/Enron@EnronXGate, George
Wood/Enron@EnronXGate, Paul J Broderick/Enron@EnronXGate, Jason
Thompkins/Enron@EnronXGate, Mason Hamlin/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert
Stalford/Enron@EnronXGate, Tom May/Enron@EnronXGate, Gautam
Gupta/Enron@EnronXGate, Narsimha Misra/Enron@EnronXGate, Steve
Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron, Garrett Tripp/Enron@EnronXGate, Berney C
Aucoin/Enron@EnronXGate, Jason Thompkins/Enron@EnronXGate, Rob
Wheeler/Enron@EnronXGate, Rogers Herndon/Enron@EnronXGate, Jim
Meyn/Enron@EnronXGate, Aleck Dadson/Enron@EnronXGate, Daniel
Allegretti/Enron@EnronXGate, Pearce W Hammond/HOU/EES@EES, Donna
Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Howard Fromer/NA/Enron@Enron, Kathleen
Sullivan/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Hoatson/NA/Enron@Enron, Thane
Twiggs/Enron@EnronXGate, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Charles Decker/HOU/EES@EES, Nick
Politis/Enron@EnronXGate, [email protected], Aleck Dadson/Enron@EnronXGate,
Lloyd Will/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: FERC Meeting on Northeast RTO
FERC held its meeting today. Big things happened.
Northeast
FERC approves PJM conditionally as the RTO "platform" to be used to form one
RTO in the northeast. FERC rejects the New York and New England RTO
proposals and directs the three ISOs and all interested parties to
participate in a mediation led by a FERC Settlement Judge with assistance
from outside consultants. The purpose of the mediation proceeding is to
facilitate the formation of a single RTO in the Northeast. The mediation
must begin within one week from today and must conclude 45 days thereafter.
The Judge must then submit a report to the Commission 10 days thereafter,
which will include an outline of the proposal to create a single northeast
RTO, milestones for the completion of intermediate steps, and a deadline for
submitting a joint proposal.
While the Commission has not formally extended the RTO implementation date
(currently December 15, 2001), Chairman Hebert made comments a couple of
weeks ago and again today that perhaps the December 15, 2001 may have to slip
some. We will continue to monitor this issue.
Donna Fulton is sending separately a write up of similar action the
Commission took with regard to the Southeast RTO effort.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments.
Sarah
=====================================
|
3,557 |
Subject: FW: Microsoft September Silicon Valley Speaker Series
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1352.
=====================================
Here is the second of the Microsoft Silicon Valley Speaker Series
open to the public.
Rich Wong
Account Manager, Technology
Haas Career Center
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikki Wiebe [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:29 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft September Silicon Valley Speaker Series
Hi Rich,
I know you've already received information regarding Microsoft's Silicon
Valley Speaker Series for this month, but I wanted to send you a reminder
mail on logistics of the event. September's event will feature a panel of
Microsoft executives and distinguished industry leaders focusing on "25
Years of Innovation" in recognition of industry innovations and in
celebration of Microsoft's 25th anniversary.
Please confirm your reservation by contacting the Rapid Response Team at
Waggener Edstrom, by telephone at (503) 443-7000 or by e-mail at
[email protected].
Media Alert . . . Media Alert . . . Media Alert
For Release 6 a.m. PDT
Sept. 12, 2000
Microsoft Silicon Valley Speaker Series to Examine 25 Years of Innovation
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - Sept. 12, 2000 - On Tuesday, Sept. 19, Microsoft
Corp. will host the second installment of its Silicon Valley Speaker Series
at the company's Mountain View campus. In recognition of Microsoft's 25th
anniversary celebration, this month's panel will discuss 25 years of
industry innovations. Distinguished participants include Steve Capps,
architect, Microsoft Research; Heidi Roizen, managing director, SoftBank
Venture Capital; and Tim Bajarin, president, Creative Strategies Inc. San
Jose Mercury News Columnist Dan Gillmor will moderate the discussion.
The speaker series, held monthly at the Microsoft Silicon Valley campus, is
part lecture, part interactive forum in which various company executives and
industry observers address a variety of technologies, trends and topics
unique to the fast-moving high-technology world. The audience is encouraged
to ask questions and engage in open and in-depth dialog following the formal
presentations.
Who: Microsoft
What: Silicon Valley Speaker Series - 25 Years of Innovation
When: 1:30-3:30 p.m., Tuesday, Sept. 19
Where: Microsoft Silicon Valley Campus
Bldg. 1, Conference Center
1065 La Avenida
Mountain View, Calif.
#########
Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corp. in the United States
and/or other countries.
The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the
trademarks of their respective owners.
For more information and to register for the event, press only:
Rapid Response Team, Waggener Edstrom, (503) 443-7000, [email protected]
Note to editors: If you are interested in viewing additional information on
this event, please visit the Microsoft(r) Web page at
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass.
=====================================
|
3,558 |
Subject: "Enron Told to Supply UC, Cal State"
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11000.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron on 04/11/2001 05:29
PM ---------------------------
Joseph Alamo
04/11/2001 05:28 PM
To: Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: "Enron Told to Supply UC, Cal State"
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 ,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
Enron Told to Supply UC, Cal State
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 ,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
A federal judge ordered the energy giant Enron today to restore direct
electric service to the University of California and the California State
University system, under agreements that Enron wanted to abandon so it could
sell the power for more money elsewhere.
Houston-based Enron Energy Systems signed four-year contracts with the two
university systems in 1998, agreeing to supply power for 5 percent less than
the price cap set by the state's 1996 deregulation law.
The contracts were due to run through next March, but Enron dropped direct
service to the universities on Feb. 1 and left them to rely on power supplies
from Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison Co., while Enron
brokered electricity sales at much higher prices on the spot market.
Enron promised to keep its promise of low rates for the rest of the contract,
but the universities said the change to utility service would hurt their
conservation efforts and expose them to the risk of blackouts.
Joined by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who said the public interest was at
stake, university lawyers argued successfully today for an injunction
restoring direct access.
The language of the contracts indicates that "Enron did not have the right to
return the university systems to the utilities," said U.S. District Judge
Phyllis Hamilton.
She cited the "precarious position of PG&E," which filed for bankruptcy last
Friday, and said the universities had bought some protection from the risks
of utility service when they signed the contracts.
Enron attorney A. William Urquhart said the company would seek an emergency
stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Enron has a responsibility to its shareholders to act in the company's
economic interest, Urquhart told Hamilton.
He said the universities have not paid any more for power since Feb. 1 than
they did before and have suffered no power blackouts. Any future financial
losses could be compensated in damages, avoiding the need for an injunction,
Urquhart said.
But attorney Douglas R. Young, representing the universities, said the
direct-service contract contained unique benefits. For example, he said,
meters installed by Enron that were removed Feb. 1 provided information that
enabled the schools to monitor and reduce electricity use building by
building,
to qualify for a new statewide demand-reduction program.
=====================================
|
3,559 |
Subject: Preliminary Comments on Judge's Recommendation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/662.
=====================================
The attached preliminary comments were finalized and filed with the Commiss=
ion this afternoon, in order to provide FERC staffers a concise, effective =
statement of our position while they drafted the Judge's recommendation. I=
was able to schedule a meeting with Judge Wagner, at which Dan Watkiss and=
I stepped the Judge through the comments and hit the following high points=
:=20
1. The methodology of the June 19 order does not work and is totally inapp=
ropriate for marketers. If price mitigation is inevitable, the Judge shoul=
d formulate or make allowances for a workable methodology.
2. The Judge should recommend that the end result of any Commission order =
must be a just and reasonable finding for all periods, both prior to and af=
ter October 2.
3. All buyers, including Enron, should be entitled to refunds; not just th=
e State of California and its IOU's. Enron is a net purchaser in these mar=
kets.
4. Only the state administered spot markets should be subject to the metho=
dology, not bilateral contracts, OOM sales or sales to the DWR.=20
The details of these points appear in the attached document. The Judge was=
receptive to most points. He understood the problems that the June 19 met=
hodology presents for marketers and was agreeable to the notion that this s=
hould be addressed, perhaps in the context of the hearings that will form p=
art of his recommendation. He agreed that the actual buyers should receive=
refunds, and it was his understanding that only spot transactions should b=
e subject to the refund methodology. Although he agreed that the refund me=
thodology, once implemented, should yield just and reasonable rates, he fel=
t that this was outside the scope of his recommendation and that the matter=
was up to the Commission. The Judge spoke generally and no promises were =
made as to the content of his recommendations, but hopefully this insight w=
ill shed some light as to the outcome. I urged the Judge to recommend plac=
ing conditions to refunds, as the Commission did in its June 19 order with =
its RTO filing requirement. The judge was noncommittal on this, although h=
e did indicate that he felt refunds should be subject to offset.
Next steps include filing our detailed comments by Thursday. The Judge tol=
d us he would certify his recommendation to the Commission on Friday, and t=
hat the comments would accompany the recommendation. Thereafter, it is lik=
ely that the Commission would defer to the Judge's recommendation to hold a=
fast track evidentiary hearing of 60 days duration, to determine "unresolv=
ed issues of material fact". The scope of the hearing has not been determi=
ned, but will probably include cost issues and might serve as a vehicle fo=
r marketers to recommend an alternative methodology.
=====================================
|
3,560 |
Subject: Re: SDG&E Credits
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1950.
=====================================
FYI...we're talking $11K. MLC
---------------------- Forwarded by Marianne Castano/HOU/EES on 10/02/2000
08:57 AM ---------------------------
Enron Energy Services
From: Karen A Cordova 09/29/2000 04:16 PM
Phone No: 713.853.3150
713.646.8860 - FAX No.
To: Marianne Castano/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Re: SDG&E Credits
Diann called and said the amount was approx. $11,000.
KC
Enron Energy Services
From: Marianne Castano 09/28/2000 02:25 PM
To: Karen A Cordova/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: SDG&E Credits
Can you find out the answer to Jeff's question? MLC
---------------------- Forwarded by Marianne Castano/HOU/EES on 09/28/2000
02:26 PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 09/28/2000 12:52 PM
To: Marianne Castano/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Re: SDG&E Credits
Can't wait for the bullets to start to fly. Do we know what the total $
amount is to EES (if they were to book the entire credit to Enron)? Thanks.
Marianne Castano@EES
09/28/2000 12:39 PM
To: Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen A Cordova/HOU/EES@EES, Diann
Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: SDG&E Credits
Dennis: Just wanted to bring this item to your attention. We've researched
the terms of our residential agreements and have noted that they are silent
as to the issue of credits/refunds. I've asked Jeff and Mike Day, our
regulatory counsel in CA, for their input on whether we should refund these
credits back to our residential customers.
Notwithstanding the fact that the language of the original decision
allowing the credits does not address direct access customers, Jeff and Mike
recommend, given the current climate in California, that we take action to
refund these credits to our residential customers.
Just want to make sure you're "on board" with this before we direct CSC to
refund the credit back to our residential accounts...Marianne
.
Enron Energy Services
From: Karen A Cordova 09/21/2000 05:00 PM
Phone No: 713.853.3150
713.646.8860 - FAX No.
To: Marianne Castano/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: SDG&E Credits
Diane Huddelston called Lori Pinder about an issue; Here it is:
Due to the merger btw SDG&G & Sempra Energy (about a year or less ago), a
savings was realized. The CPUC said these savings must be passed on to
customers 1 time per year, in September. They are called Annual Merger
Credits.
Pursuant to all commercial contracts, Enron is entitled to keep the savings
(per Diane). What about the residential customer accounts?
Enron keeps the savings or should the residential customer receive?
Who could handle this issue for Diane?
Thanks, KC
=====================================
|
3,561 |
Subject: Re: Solve IOU Undercollection with a Mere 10% Average Rate
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9472.
=====================================
Jeff - just brief comments:
1) I'd like MRW to affirm that this revenue does not have to be grossed up=
=20
for federal income taxes. Usually revenue requirement does have to get tha=
t=20
gross-up.
2) the 7% discount rate presumes securitization, is that correct? So we ne=
ed=20
to be clear that we are assuming securitization.
3) the percentage increases from other states is shaky. These were in some=
=20
cases isolated utilities and not reflective of how much lower their rates a=
re=20
to begin with. =20
=09Jeff Dasovich
=09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
=0902/26/2001 06:50 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D=20
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected],=
=20
Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John=20
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron=
,=20
Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Leslie=20
Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Solve IOU Undercollection with a Mere 10% Average Rate Incr=
ease?
Greetings:
Please review the attached. It's a summary I've put together of a very=20
lengthy analysis MRW did for us over the weekend. I've also attached the=
=20
considerably lengthier MRW memo for those who'd like to see it. The tables=
=20
included in the summary are pulled directly from the MRW memo. The analysi=
s=20
only addresses the utilities undercollection (i.e., solvency) and doesn't=
=20
address any additional increases that might result from DWR's buying=20
activities.
The Bottom Line
=06=15 By raising average rates 10% over a 10-year period, California could=
1)=20
return the utilities to solvency, and 2) help close the supply-demand gap =
by=20
providing customers with better price signals.
=06=15 California could achieve these goals under this new rate structure a=
nd at=20
the same time exclude one-third of residential customers from any increase=
s.=20
If California chose not to exclude any customers from the new rate structur=
e,=20
California would only need to raise average rates by about 8.8%.
=06=15 This level of increase is in line with increases enacted in other st=
ates=20
(e.g., Washington: 28-34%; Montana: 4.5-32%; Idaho: 6.0-24%; Nevada:=20
7-12.5%; New Mexico 12%).
We'll need to look at it critically and try to shoot holes in it before goi=
ng=20
public with the numbers as part of our broader effort, but it offers a=20
reasonable benchmark against which to judge alternatives (like spending the=
=20
kids lunch money on crumbling, broken down transmission systems).
Please provide feedback as soon as possible, and perhaps, Paul we conclude=
=20
the MRW work on the agenda for discussion on tomorrow's daily conference ca=
ll.
Best,
Jeff
- Undercollection assessment final.doc
=====================================
|
3,562 |
Subject: PIBA Energy Conference
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11887.
=====================================
Dear SVMG Member -
One of our business organization partners, PIBA, will be conducting its own
Energy Conference this Thursday, May 3. While we will be holding an Energy
Summit on Friday at Synopsys, I want to continue to keep you apprised of all
opportunities to provide tools to get through this crisis. So, especially
for anyone who cannot attend SVMG's Summit on Friday, please note the
details below for PIBAS's summit.
Best Wishes,
Carl
On May 3, 2001 the PIBA Environmental Product Strategies Committee and the
Environmental Action Committee are hosting a joint meeting from 8:00am-12pm
- Hewlett Packard, 3215 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, Bldg. 15, "Insead" Room.
Directions available at PIBA.org web site
CHAIRS: Christine Kohl-Zaugg, CH2M Hill; and Ed Quevedo, WSP Environmental
North America; Jenny Portera,
EORM; and Ron Vitug, Turner Construction
BD.LIAISON: Greg Chambers, Quantum Corporation
TOPIC: Power For the Valley: Energy Management Risks and
Solutions
SPEAKERS: Lynne Jimenez, KGO-Radio; Ken Perkins, Shaklee; Bob
Thurmand, Cisco Systems; Mary Tucker, City of San Jose; and Bill Smith,
EPRI.
? REGISTRATION will be held from 7:30-7:50am. The meeting will start at
8:00am.
? NON MEMBER CHARGE: $95.00 (Cash, Check, or Visa/MC) 50% discount to SVMG
members.
As the California energy crisis has deepened, organizations of all kinds
are struggling to keep ahead of energy management operating and planning
risks. This
day workshop will focus on Successes and Failures of the
current energy management infrastructure, and will deliver some best
practices and practical planning solutions which organizations can employ
today to improve their energy management strategies. Unlike other sessions
and conferences on this important topic, our session will be
practice-based, deliver usable tools, and provide you with a chance to put
your questions directly to experts and colleagues who have dealt with the
challenges of the Energy Shortage on the front lines.
We will open with an interactive session on energy sources, selection, and
"how we got here." We expect this session will be led by Lynne Jimenez of
KGO-Radio.
We will then have a one-hour session on Best Practices in designing
buildings to avoid energy crises. This discussion will include Ken Perkins
of Shaklee, and a second private sector building operator.
Our third session will focus on Breakdowns in the permitting and energy
sourcing and approval process, with Bob Thurmond from Cisco Systems and
Mary Tucker from the City of San Jose.
We will close with a roundtable discussion of Solutions and the Road
Forward, to include representatives of the City of Santa Clara, the League
of Women Voters, and Bill Smith from EPRI. Ms. Jimenez will facilitate
this closing session.
- winmail.dat
=====================================
|
3,563 |
Subject: There once was a man from Nantucket....
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/95.
=====================================
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There once was a man from Nantucket,
who saved all his dough in a bucket,
but his wife tried NetBank,
now they have her to thank,
that they have more of it.
His wife got $50 for opening and funding a free online money
market account at NetBank.
http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?G446
What's the catch? There is none. NetBank will pay you $50 just
for trying our free money market account. What could be easier?
And that's not all. When you open an account, you'll also get:
* 24/7 access via web or wireless
* Higher yields - as much as FOUR times the national average!
* No minimum balance required to earn interest
* No hidden fees
* FDIC-insured deposits up to $100,000 per customer
Sound too good to be true? Well, read on because it gets even
better. You'll also get a free ATM card and we'll pay for
your first box of checks! And don't forget about that $50
bonus. So act now!
http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?G447
How can we make you such a great offer? It's simple. We have
zero brick-and-mortar expenses. That's also how we can pay you
much higher yields on your balances.
So what are you waiting for? Take advantage of this exclusive
offer today. Apply now!
http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?G448
NetBank. Banking how you live.
-----------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------
=====================================
|
3,564 |
Subject: Re: CA Quarterly Fee Statement
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8018.
=====================================
Thanks very much for following up on this, Margo. I'm now scheduled to meet
with Kristina Mordaunt on Tuesday to talk about compliance.
Margo Reyna
12/29/2000 08:55 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: CA Quarterly Fee Statement
All,
With Dick Anderson's assistance, we've tracked down the appropriate person to
handle the filing of the CA Quarterly Fee Statement that Jeff sent to me last
week. I have forwarded a copy of the form to Steve Batchelder (see e-mail
from Dick below) via interoffice mail and left him a voicemail message
indicating that the form is on its way and that Dick indicated Steve is the
appropriate person to handle it. I have asked Steve to call me when he
receives the form.
Thanks!
Margo Reyna
Regulatory Analyst
Enron Corp., Government Affairs
Phone: 713-853-9191
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 12/29/2000 08:51 AM -----
Richard Anderson@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
12/29/2000 03:44 AM
To: Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: David DeGabriele/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Steven
Batchelder/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Scott Bolton/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: Re: A new fax has arrived from 7138537297
Margo,
The attached form is in regards to an assessment by the California PUC on all
entities regulated by the PUC to recover the costs of running the PUC. The
concept is that the regulated utilities, rather than the taxpayers, should
pay for the operation of the PUC. This fee is only assessed on intrastate
revenues, thus, we should only report the California intrastate receipts of
Enron Telecommunications, Inc. Since this fee is not a tax, Accounting is
responsible for completing this report, according to the July 2000 agreement
between Jim Ginty (Tax), Scott Bolton (Regulatory Affairs), Steve McCarrel
(Legal) and Carolyn Barrett (Accounting). It is my understanding that Steven
Batchelder is the person in Accounting tasked with completing these reports.
Thank you for asking,
Richard D. Anderson
Director of Taxes
Enron Broadband Services, Inc.
713-345-7729 (Houston office 1/8 through 1/10, no voice mail)
503-886-0335 (Portland office and voice mail)
503-880-5249 (cellular)
503-425-6005 (fax)
[email protected]
Right Fax
12/28/00 01:07 PM
To: Richard Anderson/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: A new fax has arrived from 7138537297
A new fax has arrived from 7138537297
------------------------------------------------------------
Time: 12/28/00 1:07:08 PM
Received from remote ID: 7138537297
Inbound user ID RICHARD_ANDERSON, routing code 6005
Result: (0/0;0/0) Successful Receive
Page record: 1 - 2
Elapsed time: 01:14 on channel 2
=====================================
|
3,565 |
Subject: fyi
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1322.
=====================================
=09
=20
Register now for the PMA OnLine Power Report! This is a free news service.=
=09
=09
=09
California Regulators Claim Structural Separation Action Caused Electrical =
Distribution Debacle-Same Problems Will Happen in Florida If Bellsouth Is B=
roken Up Into Wholesale & Retail Companies Business Wire ( July 31, 2001 ) =
=09
TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Jul 31, 2001 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- A former member of the C=
alifornia Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and his former chief of staff t=
estified today that the electric energy crisis plaguing their state can be =
directly traced back to structural separation actions the Commission took y=
ears earlier. During day two of a Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) s=
tructural separation workshop they warned that granting the AT&T request to=
break up BellSouth into wholesale and retail companies would be leading Fl=
orida consumers down that same path. G. Mitchell Wilk and Carl Danner told =
the PSC today that the California Commission's concerns about possible util=
ity generation market power led it to force utilities to sell off fossil fu=
el generating plants. This action ultimately resulted in rolling black outs=
and forced utilities and ultimately the State to buy that power back at hi=
gher prices. "Florida can learn through California's mistakes. A breakup wi=
ll intensify a contradiction between cost-based wholesale prices and subsid=
ized retail rates. Since retail processes must follow wholesale costs, a br=
eakup will accelerate an end to forced subsidies," said former PUC Commissi=
oner Wilk. "The costs of the breakup are large and will affect all customer=
s. By contrast, the alleged benefits are entirely speculative, and have bee=
n forcefully disputed." Danner also told Florida Commissioners that a break=
up would be costly and difficult to reverse. "The public wants convenience =
and simplicity, but will get more confusion, complexity and cost," said Dan=
ner. "Competitors will see this as one more means to use the regulatory pro=
cess against one another by trying to plunge the PSC into micro-management.=
All this new industry cost will be paid for by consumers and will subtract=
from Florida's economy." Wilk added that a true debacle in what is now an =
efficient and evolving telecommunications network might occur through struc=
tural separation actions. "California failed by seeking to deregulate elect=
ricity generation, while using a highly-regulatory approach to do so," said=
Wilk. "The breakup proposal here in Florida would attempt the same by adop=
ting highly intrusive regulation, at a time when there is robust competitio=
n in the state. It would be economically counterproductive for the consumer=
s and impede on the evolution of technology in Florida." CONTACT: BellSouth=
=09
=====================================
|
3,566 |
Subject: URGENT: RE: Conference Call Scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Friday, Jan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5826.
=====================================
Steven has been asked to fly to Washington today.? Because of the conflict
in meetings there, he has requested this conference call be cancelled until
next week.? Once we have rescheduled, we will contact you with the
information for dialing in.? Thank you for your patience and the changes we
have had to make this week.? .?
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Kelly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:53 PM
To: Steven Kelly; William Hall; Ward Scobee; Tony Wetzel; Tom Heller; Ted
Cortopassi; Sue Mara; Steve Ponder; Steve Iliff; Ross Ain; Roger Pelote;
Robert Frees; Rob Lamkin; Rich Dyer; Pete Levitt; Paula Soos; Paul Wood; Nam
Nguyen; Milton Schultz; Marty McFadden; Lucian Fox; Kent Palmerton; Ken
Hoffman; Jonathan Weisgall; Joe Ronan; Joe Greco; Jeff Dasovich; Jack
Pigott; Hap Boyd; Greg Blue; Frank Misseldine; Eric Eisenman; Ed Tomeo; Ed
Maddox; Duane Nelsen; Doug Levitt; Doug Fernley; Dean Gosselin; Curt Hatton;
Cody Carter; Carolyn Baker; Bob Escalante; Bill Woods; Bill Carlson; Mark
Smith
Cc: Jan Smutny-Jones; Katie Kaplan; Carol Hudson; Andy Brown
Subject: Re: Conference Call Scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Friday, Jan 12 To
Discuss FERC Market Power Mitigation Technical Conference
Oops.? Forgot attachment.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Kelly
To: William Hall ; Ward Scobee ; Tony Wetzel ; Tom Heller ; Ted Cortopassi
; Sue Mara ; Steve Ponder ; Steve Iliff ; Ross Ain ; Roger Pelote ; Robert
Frees ; Rob Lamkin ; Rich Dyer ; Pete Levitt ; Paula Soos ; Paul Wood ; Nam
Nguyen ; Milton Schultz ; Marty McFadden ; Lucian Fox ; Kent Palmerton ; Ken
Hoffman ; Jonathan Weisgall ; Joe Ronan ; Joe Greco ; Jeff Dasovich ; Jack
Pigott ; Hap Boyd ; Greg Blue ; Frank Misseldine ; Eric Eisenman ; Ed
Tomeo ; Ed Maddox ; Duane Nelsen ; Doug Levitt ; Doug Fernley ; Dean
Gosselin ; Curt Hatton ; Cody Carter ; Carolyn Baker ; Bob Escalante ; Bill
Woods ; Bill Carlson ; Mark Smith
Cc: Jan Smutny-Jones ; Katie Kaplan ; Carol Hudson ; Steven Kelly ; Andy
Brown
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:43 PM
Subject: Conference Call Scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Friday, Jan 12 To
Discuss FERC Market Power Mitigation Technical Conference
IEP has scheduled a conference call for 9:00 a.m. (PST) on Friday, Jan 12 .?
The purpose of the conference call will be to brief/discuss this weeks
events, including the Governor's State of the State speech delineating his
new energy policy, and the discussions in Washington D.C./FERC on forward
contracting, etc.
?
In addition, we will discuss the?upcoming FERC Market Power Mitigation
Technical Conference.? Attached is a "strawman" developed by EPSA for
consideration.
?
?
The Call-In Number is??? ??? ??? 888/271-0949
The Participant Code is??? ????? 111756
=====================================
|
3,567 |
Subject: Re: Update on WSJ Data Request
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/98.
=====================================
What WSJ data request?
Jeff Dasovich@EES
08/29/2000 08:31 AM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, David
Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L
Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, [email protected], Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Update on WSJ Data Request
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 08/29/2000 10:30
AM ---------------------------
Gary Ackerman <[email protected]> on 08/25/2000 11:09:33 AM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: Bill Ross <[email protected]>, Bob Anderson <[email protected]>,
Carolyn Baker <[email protected]>, Corby Gardin
<[email protected]>, Curtis Kebler
<[email protected]>, Denice Cazalet <[email protected]>, Gene
Waas <[email protected]>, Greg Blue <[email protected]>, Jack Pigott
<[email protected]>, Ken Czarnecki <[email protected]>, Kent
Wheatland <[email protected]>, "Klemstine, Barbara A(F56661)"
<[email protected]>, Randy Hickok <[email protected]>, Rob
Lamkin <[email protected]>, Rob Nichol <[email protected]>,
robert berry <[email protected]>, Roger Pelote <[email protected]>, Sue Mara
<[email protected]>, curt hatton <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich
<[email protected]>, Dan Douglass <[email protected]>
cc: Lynn Lednicky <[email protected]>, Tim Belden <[email protected]>
Subject: Update on WSJ Data Request
I have received several comments about the WSJ data request.
Enron's Tim Beldon wrote me that he would consider it. The PX's Gene
Waas was concerned based on previous experiences of letting data go to
the WSJ. I talked with Dynegy's Lynn Lednicky this morning and he
suggested that the PX has aggregated data for several days, and that
releasing the aggregate data with individual bid data from our members
would give the WSJ a better window into the issues. That is, simply
releasing your bid data will not tell the WSJ anything of value.
I know that Rebecca would insist that the dates for which any data are
polled our at her choice, not ours. It must be necessary to assure
there is no possibility of bias. I am wondering if the PX would be
willing to assist us by putting together aggregate data for days which
the WSJ selects, and then give us the opportunity to release our
individual data for the same days?
I am also wondering if we shouldn't have an off-the-record
teleconference call with the WSJ whereby both sides can get a better
understanding of what the WSJ wants, and how we can best provide it.
Would anyone be interested in me setting up such a meeting for next
week, say Wednesday or Thursday?
gba
=====================================
|
3,568 |
Subject: rate design
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4598.
=====================================
Some ideas for Friday's comments -
Two of the Commission's stated goals in the ACR were:
Reduce the disparity in prices paid for energy among customer classes: Enron
suggests a restatement of this goal. Energy prices should be an accurate
indication of the costs imposed on the system. For example, the average cost
of 1 kW @ 100% load factor is much different than 1 kW used at 30% load
factor, all on-peak, and much different than 1 kW used at 70% load factor,
all off-peak. In practice, each customer class has a mixture of customers
leaning toward each of these extreme. True equity requires that customers
with similar load patterns pay non-disparate energy prices, regardless of
which class the customer is in. A more proper statement of this goal is:
reduce the disparity between prices paid for energy and costs imposed on the
system across all customer classes.
Tier rates to promote conservation: Enron suggests a restatement of this
goal. Traditionally, the California Commission has favored rate designs that
reflect marginal costs. Marginal cost pricing, in and of itself promotes
efficient use of energy because of the many reasons the CPUC itself has cited
over the years. In the situation at hand, the indicators of marginal cost
in the wholesale power market are CDWR's purchase cost in hours when the CDWR
is covering the net short, and the hourly wholesale spot market price (the
wholesale on-peak forward curve, as a proxy) in hours when the CDWR is not
filling the net short. Conservation will be incented with use of price
signals that reflect market conditions. A more proper statement of this goal
is: To provide customers with the motivation to respond appropriately,
design marginal rates within the rate classes to reflect marginal wholesale
costs.
Regarding these goals, it will take time for the commission and parties to do
this - which plays to EES URM and the idea of keeping the 3 cents as an
interim rate design while a 6 month rate design case can take place. I think
it is inconceivable, however, that the CPUC does not have strong price
signals in place for this summer. So I think we use the "equal percent of
marginal costs" idea to get price signals in place, but much flatter ones
than in the ACR. (for a variety of reasons, I don't think the 2-part real
time pricing being pushed by Mr. Stoness can fly without some radical
modifications, but let's talk).
About the residential increase, we may want to weigh in on whether
residentail usage above 130% of baseline gets the full brunt of the total
residential increase or just 3 cents. Let's talk about the politics.
We also will want to say 1) DA is exempt from the increase 2) any increase
prior to the effective date of the new rate design should be 3 cents across
the board.
=====================================
|
3,569 |
Subject: Re: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3119.
=====================================
Hi folks:
Since we have only one page, the write up for number 4 will have to be very=
=20
brief. Before writing it, though, I wanted to offer a few bullets regardin=
g=20
what angle we might take, and let folks respond, comment, counter, etc.=20
before writing it up. I'll clean and beef up once we've agreed to the=20
approach we'd like to take to question #4. Finally, I can work from my=20
office on this this evening, which means that I can use the conference call=
=20
capability of my office phone to patch everyone in if we'd like to do a=20
conference call. If that's what folks would like to do, I'd prefer to do th=
e=20
call at around 7 PM. Just let me know. =20
Best,
Jeff
The question for #4 is:
Stock price is down 23%, significant debt has already been tapped to suppor=
t=20
massive growth and covenants on that debt restrict taking on a lot more=20
debt. =20
What should HD do w.r.t. current operations and future growth strategy?
In the near term focus less on growth and more on getting margins and EBIT=
=20
growth back in line with results from previous years. (Management=01,s Let=
ter=20
to Shareholders alludes to this, but it=01,s difficult to determine whether=
=20
management is just paying lip service to the need to capitalize on the grow=
th=20
spurt and grown earnings, or continue on the growth effort.)
With respect to funding future (more moderate growth), the company does ha=
ve=20
some room to increase long-term debt (e.g., current ratio for 1986 =3D 2.26=
). =20
It seems that HD would get better terms and have increased flexibility by=
=20
issuing additional debt rather than relying on lines of credit. As such, H=
D=20
ought to look those sources of funding and fill in any =01&funding gaps=018=
with=20
funds from the line of credit.
Given the significant drop in stock price, HD is likely better off in the=
=20
near term 1) moderating growth, 2) improving performance to generate cash=
=20
internally, and 3) using long-term debt issuance to provide the funds=20
needed. Once performance and stock price improves, then HD should consider=
a=20
stock issuance.
How can company improve operating performance?
Reduce selling, store operating expenses and pre-opening expenses
Improve receivables turnover
Improve inventory turnover
Improve per store/sales
Consider closing poor-performing stores
All of which will improve margins
=20
Should company change its strategy? If so how?
Shift from meteoric growth to moderate, targeted growth, and focus on=20
generating positive cash flow from operations
Focus on improving performance at existing stores; specifically focus on=20
controlling costs and asset turnover and productivity
Consider another debt issuance rather than rely extensively on credit line =
in=20
order to decrease cost of funds and increase flexibility
=====================================
|
3,570 |
Subject: FW: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/414.
=====================================
FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:56 PM
To: Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Mellencamp, Lisa; Curry, Wanda; Tribolet, Michael
Subject: Meeting with Edison (John Fielder) re: Getting Edison to Pay Us What We're Owed for the PX Credit
Talked to John Fielder (SVP at the utility) this morning in an attempt to determine if Edison will come around and pay us the PX credit they owe us.
Summary of our offer:
Edison pays us 90% of what they owe us as of 01.17.01.
Payment structure: Edison pays us 10% immediately, with an agreed to (speedy) payment schedule for the remaining 90%.
In return, we drop our complaint against Edison at the PUC.
In return, we agree to a bottoms-up approach retroactive to March 1 to replace the current PX Credit/Residual CTC framework.
Fielder said that he didn't see any show-stoppers in our proposal, but had to check back on his end. However, there were three additional issues that he wanted to add to any deal:
Some agreement regarding payment of Edison's undercollection (this would cover any of our DA customers who were bundled services customers pre-January 17). We agreed that this would only be an issue to the extent that the Legislature and/or the PUC agreed that Edison should get authority to recoup its undercollection in rates.
Some agreement on DWR stranded costs. John expressed the view that DWR bought power under the assumption that the customers who've recently gone DA would be there to take the power, and now that they've left, they should contribute in some way to any stranded costs. I told John that this issue is a hornet's nest, that we were better off leaving it out, but we'd consider his proposals.
Some agreement on forebearance. I told John that if Edison agrees to pay us, it didn't seem that forebearance would be off the table.
We agreed to touch base at the same time Wednesday morning. The idea is that he'll get back to me with Edison's reaction to our proposal; and we'd get back to him on Edison's proposals.
Might be useful to determine whether we want to continue the discussions. While John seemed very inclined to work something out, all signals are that the Legislature isn't inclinded to bail Edison out next week. In which case, Edison could be in bankruptcy in a couple of weeks, which would presumably nullify any agreement we might reach with them. On the other hand, if the Legislature pulls a rabbit out of a hat, an agreement might have real value.
Any comments folks have on 1) Edison's proposals and 2) whether it makes sense to continue discussions on Wednesday are appreciated. Seems that, at a minimum, if we agree to consider Edison's proposals, then our payment should go from 90 cents to 100 cents on the dollar.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,571 |
Subject: California Update 7/26/01 p.3
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29154.
=====================================
Below are the current provisions Keeley and Hertzberg are wanting to pass
into legislation (when they return from recess). Currently, they are not
sure if all of these amendments would be wrapped up into one bill or if they
would just amend bill SB78XX while introducing a new bill SB_XX. Working
under the assumption that they would amend bill 78XX and introduce a new one,
the following issues are a reflection of their current positions. If they
decide to introduce one new bill than the issues below would be included into
one piece of legislation. Please remember, these issues are only their
current thoughts and are such to change.
SoCal Debt
SB _XX
? No provision for debt.
SB 78XX (amended)
? Approximately $2.9B through corporate bond financing supported by a
Dedicated Rate Component (DRC) over a period of time sufficient to pay the
bonds (10-15 years). Final debt amount to be established by the PUC and the
State Auditor.
Core vs. Non-Core
SB _XX
? For purposes of paying the SoCal debt, creates a Core program for consumers
with a peak demand of less than ?Kw and Non-Core customers of ?Kw or more.
They would share in the cost of SoCal debt retirement: (1) all consumers
share pro rata for the first two years, (2) Non-Core pay 100% after two years.
SB 78XX(amended)
? No Provisions.
Transmission System Purchase
SB _XX and SB 78XX
? No purchase of transmission assets.
Conservation Easements
SB _XX
? No conservation easements.
SB 78XX(amended)
? Specific conservation easements and other land arrangements described in
bill for about 24,000 acres per the Governor's MOU.
Direct Access
SB _XX
? Removes regulatory constraints on a Direct Access program effective January
1, 2002 and permits customers to buy power if there is a net short after
SoCal native generation, bilateral contracts, and DWR contracts. Residential
and small commercial customers may use direct access from renewable energy
sources.
SB 78XX(amended)
? No provisions for Direct Access.
Ratepayer Benefit Account
SB _XX
? Deposits in the account any refunds or net cash resulting from (a) any
refunds ordered by FERC or from litigation, and (b) any positive DWR Power
Fund revenues; all to be refunded to ratepayers through either bill credits
or rate reductions in proportion to the March, 2001 PUC rate increase.
SB 78XX(amended)
? Does not create a Ratepayer Benefit Account.
Electric Supplier Claims Settlement Trust
SB _XX and SB 78XX
? Does not create a Trust or trustee to negotiate reductions.
Renewable Energy
SB _XX
? Creates a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to achieve a target of 10% of
all new generating capacity additions through 2010 and overall 20% of
statewide total generating capacity by 2010. Munis have been exempted from
the RPS.
SB 78XX(amended)
? No provisions for renewable energy.
=====================================
|
3,572 |
Subject: Re: FW: Enron Contacts
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12377.
=====================================
I am swamped. Please call me from your car when you start driving to the=
=20
City (preferably when you're close to the City so that I can get some more =
of=20
this work done).
=09Cameron Sellers <[email protected]>
=0905/11/2001 04:07 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: FW: Enron Contacts
I am trying to get in touch with you about the dome and some other stuff.? =
I=20
have attached the contact info for the people we have started talking to at=
=20
Enron.? We are in the process of putting a demo together.? Maybe you can lo=
ok=20
into this a little before our dinner next week??
?
I hope we see you on Sunday (PP mentioned you might come to Napa for mommy=
=20
day)=01(??
?
CALL ME!!
?
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: David Young=20
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:04 PM
To: Cameron Sellers
Subject: Enron Contacts
?
Hi Cameron,
?
The 3 key players we have met with so far at Enron are:
?
John Gillespie- Sr Director Global Strategic Sourcing
713-646-6222??? [email protected]
?
Derryl Cleaveland - Sr Director Global Strategic Sourcing
713-646-7024??? [email protected]
?
Steve Hotte - VP/CIO Enron Gas & Pipeline Group
713-853-6719??? [email protected]
?
A decision maker in this might also be George Wassaf, Managing Director=20
eSupply & Procurement, who is John Gillespie's boss.? I started this journe=
y=20
at Enron by contacting George, who put me on to John G.? John is responsibl=
e=20
for implementing systems for the GSS unit.? George's contact info is:?=20
713-646-7531??? [email protected]
?
Another top level exec we need to meet?is Enron's CTO, Philippe Bibi, who i=
s=20
also the CEO of Enron Online.? He is the proud owner of Enron's proprietary=
=20
sourcing systems - DealBench (auction/exchange) and ibuyit.com (indirect=20
procurement through catalog management).? Implementing a solution for=20
EnronOnline might be a separate opportunity from the Global Strategic=20
Sourcing opportunity.? If your contact at Enron has any connection with=20
Philippe, a warm introduction to him would be most helpful.
?
Thanks,
David M. Young
Manager- Enterprise Sales
Perfect Commerce, Inc.
1860 Embarcadero Rd., Suite 210
Palo Alto CA? 94303
Tel:? 650-798-3356
Email:? [email protected]
"Sourcing - the identification, evaluation, negotiation, and configuration =
of=20
supply partners - is the single largest opportunity for an organization to=
=20
impact the cost, structure, and overall efficiency of its supply chain."?? =
--=20
Aberdeen Group, Inc.
?
- image001.jpg
=====================================
|
3,573 |
Subject: SCE's Rate Stabilization Legislative Proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/760.
=====================================
I reviewed the proposed legislation written by SCE introducing changes to the
PU Code for Rate Stabilization at the end of the AB 1890 Rate Freeze. The
following are my observations:
SCE realizes that maintaining the AB1890 Rate Freeze will most likely not
help them recover their remaining CTCs and may in fact result in reducing the
level of CTC revenues recovered thus far. Under the AB1890 Rate Freeze,
SCE's shareholders now incur the risks associated with the commodity market
prices.
SCE also realizes that the CPUC, State of California, and public will not
allow SCE to artificially end the rate freeze early and forego recovery of
CTCs as revealed in the bill language: "which could cause such electrical
corporations to elect to take a loss on collection of utility
generation-related assets and obligations in order to terminate the rate
freeze that is currently providing protection from the current high and
volatile electricity prices."
Realizing that no one will allow customers to see high and volatile
electricity prices, SCE has proposed and supports this Rate Stabilization
Proposal, so that it can exercise the option to artificially end the rate
freeze early.
This type of option to PG&E and SCE could result in a financial loss to Enron
Energy Services if the Rate Stabilization proposal does not equal apply to DA
customers, as well as SO customers.
It is clear that the proposal is to require the CPUC to stablize rates after
the AB1890 Rate Freeze. It is not clear whether the proposal is a rate
freeze or cap, that is left up to the CPUC. Most of the implementation
details are left to the CPUC, provided that the CPUC implemented a
non-bypassable rate to customers who benefit and the stabilized rates remain
in effect through March 31, 2003.
It is not clear whether the Post Freeze Rate Stabilization proposal applies
equally to DA customers, even though the bill states: "Customers who have
chosen to purchase electricity through direct transactins may also be
experiencing large increases in electricity costs."
It is clear the SCE wants to move to a new paradigm from the AB1890 Rate
Freeze where SCE's shareholders incur the risks of high and volatile comodity
prices to this Rate Stabilization Proposal (Rate Freeze or Cap) where
ratepayers incur such risks. (This clearly demonstrates why utilities are
the wrong company for the job).
Despite our philosophical beliefs or future value propositions, if the Rate
Stabilization Proposal allows utilities to end the rate freeze early and does
not equally apply to DA customers, depending on when utilities will elect to
end the AB1890 Rate Freeze, we may be talking about a $100 million hit or
swing to our book.
Needless to say, we need to support parity between DA and SO under the Rate
Stabilization Proposal.
Roger
=====================================
|
3,574 |
Subject: Today's Rate Design Decision -- Synopsis by AReM's attorney
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12600.
=====================================
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 05/16/2001 08:23 AM -----
"Daniel Douglass" <[email protected]>
05/15/2001 04:53 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]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Today's Rate Design Decision
President Lynch's draft decision was voted out today.? The CPUC currently
has the attached version posted on its website, although the final version
may differ somewhat.? The decision continues to provide (see p. 29) that
Direct Access?customers will not be subject to the surcharge, as AReM has
advocated.
?
Based on some of the discussion which occurred at oral argument on Friday,
the decision now has wording indicating that although the utilities are
authorized to include the load of DA customers in calculating the revenue
requirement associated with the surcharge, DA customers do not have to pay
the surcharge for the same reasons AReM expressed repeatedly in the
proceeding.? Any shortfall in utility revenues due to including DA demand in
the revenue requirement will be allocated on an equal cents/kWh basis to all
non-exempt sales.? It is noted that this may shift costs to residential
customers "since the majority of direct access demand, and thus the majority
of the resulting shortfall, is non-residential."
?
The decision also makes clear that DA customers will not be entitled to
include the surcharge under the current direct access credit system and that
the Commission intends to reexamine and restructure the current direct
access credit system "to reflect current structural reality."? Hopefully,
this will mean movement to a "bottoms-up" calculation methodology, as AReM
has also advocated.? My understanding from Peter Bray is that Commissioner
Bilas made some remarks indicating that he would support instituting a
proceeding to restructure DA pricing.
?
This is the result we wanted with regard to exempting DA customers from the
surcharge.? We now need to see if TURN or any other consumer advocacy group
chooses to challenge the allocation methodology for any shortfall.?
?
Dan
- 5-16-01 Proposed Decision of President Lynch.doc
=====================================
|
3,575 |
Subject: Re: Q2 for Patten Case
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/312.
=====================================
Agreed 100%--call me an engineer.
Kimberly Kupiecki <[email protected]> on 09/18/2000 11:41:52 AM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: Q2 for Patten Case
Hi Jeff,
I think we got the jist, even if the numbers aren't perfect - guess I am
still and engineer, estimations work well for me.
At 08:44 AM 9/18/00, [email protected] wrote:
>No, I don't think I'd make a better accountant. But I did ask a few
>questions of my accountant brother-in-law. You did a great job. I don't
>know how much time I'll have, but I'll see if I can throw in a bit of text
>and raise the issues. See you tonite.
>
>
>
>
>Kimberly Kupiecki <[email protected]> on 09/18/2000 09:53:30 AM
>
>To: [email protected]
>cc: [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Q2 for Patten Case
>
>
>Hi Jeff,
>
>I guess you would make a better accountant than me. Your analysis sounds
>right. Feel free to make changes as fit.
>
>My apologies for missing out on these items.
>
>At 06:18 PM 9/17/00, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Hey, nice spreadsheet. Two minor questions:
> >
> >1) Isn't the provision for taxes on the income statement actually the
>taxes
> >on the 'income' they made from using the sales method (equal to 46%),
> >rather than what they pay will actually pay the IRS under the installment
> >method? I think the notes show how instead of paying the 4.1$ based on
> >their recognized income, they pay some itty bitty amount based on
> >installment. If so, I think they actually get a 46% tax break on the 1
> >million and change that they lose using a cash basis. Still a loss, just
> >not so big. Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm thinking straight on this, but
> >that's how I read the numbers.
> >
> >2) Does the balance sheet have to change a little? For example, does
> >shareholder equity change since the income that goes to retained earnings
> >is now a loss, rather than a gain? Also, if revenue is recognized on a
> >cash basis and is now much smaller, there needs to be another liability to
> >equal out the decrease in revenues with the still large notes receivables
> >on the asset side (as you note in the answer the notes recievables stays
> >the same). Seems like they might need a liability like "deferred profits"
> >or some such thing, such that the ["deferred profits" + revenues
> >(recognized on cash basis)] = notes receivables.
> >
> >Anyway, I may not have this right, but thought I'd bring it up to see what
> >you think.
> >
> >Best,
> >Jeff
>
>
>Kimberly Kupiecki
>Senior Account Executive
>A&R Partners
>[email protected]
>(650) 762 2800 main
>(650) 762 2825 direct
>fax (650) 762 2801
Kimberly Kupiecki
Senior Account Executive
A&R Partners
[email protected]
(650) 762 2800 main
(650) 762 2825 direct
fax (650) 762 2801
=====================================
|
3,576 |
Subject: Re: Some Background on California Gas Price Spikes--The Other Side
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4013.
=====================================
Here is the Q&A I will give to Ken on this topic, and I invite any
improvements:
Question: "What is your opinion about the study of the Brattle Group (Dr.
Paul Carpenter) that market power exercised by El Paso and Dynegy exacerbated
the natural gas price spike at the California border that contributed to the
electricity price spike."
Answer: "I always discount conspiracy theories when prices rise or fall and
believe fundamental forces of supply and demand explain prices in this
instance. I will say, however, that the transmission grid must be more open
and transparent to improve everyone's confidence in the economics behind
price formation. Long term contracting in the wholesale commodity market
should also reduce speculation about price manipulation."
- Rob
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
04/24/2001 06:57 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Leslie
Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rob
Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Some Background on California Gas Price Spikes--The Other Side of
the Story
Last week, I distributed a presentation that the Brattle Group gave before
the California Inquisition (i.e., legislative gas oversight committee looking
into the gas price spikes at the Cal border).
The Brattle Group is a consulting firm that Edison has long used to beat up
on SoCalGas (recall that Edison used to be a big gas customer when it owned
power plants). Edison "arranged" for the Brattle Group to be the star
witness at the Cal Leg gas hearing. Their job was to set up El Paso and
Dynegy for the hit at hearings that took place the following day. Their
message was simple (and simplistic):
El Paso and Dynegy have market power.
They have used the market power to drive up basis and thus the price of gas
at the border (to "obscene" levels).
That, in turn, has driven up electricity prices.
Ken Lay is giving a gas talk tomorrow, and Rob Bradley asked that I provide
the alternative view to the Edison/Brattle rant, in the event that he gets
any questions on the topic. It's attached. Apologies, it's quick and dirty,
but it provides the basics.
Obviously no need for us to defend El Paso or Dynegy, but might be useful to
offer a more rationale explanation than the one that the California
Legislature is peddling.
Finally, we were also fingered somewhat as culprits at the hearing (the
California PUC FERC lawyer claimed that ENA and TW colluded to drive up basis
when ENA controlled a portion of the capacity), but the overriding goal of
the hearing was to go after EP and Dynegy.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,577 |
Subject: Customer Credit Draft Report
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8032.
=====================================
AB955, which extends the system benefit monies beyond 2002 to promote
renewable energy, directs the California Energy Commission ("CEC") to submit
a draft report to the legislature on the allocation of monies between the
various renewable energy programs. The draft report recommends that the
customer credit program be allocated 25% ($33.75 million per year through
2006 and $168.57 total) of the funds on an annual basis for 2002-2006.
(Under the current bill, AB 1980, the customer credit program started at 8%
and will end this year w/ 20% of the allocated funds.) Our verbal and
written comments asked the CEC to recommend allocation at least 25% of the
funds to the customer credit program, and to keep the allocation the same
over the years to provide clear market signals. While this is still in
draft form, it is unlikely that the CEC will change their recommended
allocation.
Also outlined in the draft are the following:
1. The method for reimbursement will remain the same.
2. The credit cannot exceed 1.5 cents p/kWh.
3. Currently only in-state generation is eligible for the customer credit.
The Committee is considering allowing out-of-state generation for
eligibility, provided it is connected to the WSCC grid.
4. Nonresidential and non small commercial customers will be limited to the
1,000 annual cap. The fund for large commercial and industrial customers is
restricted to 20% of the funds over the 5 year period covered.
The CEC is asking for comments on the draft (deadline next Tuesday). I am
concerned about the impact the restriction of 20% for large commercial and
industrial customers will have on EES' book. If this restriction will
negatively impact EES' business, we should submit comments on this point.
Richard, let's discuss some time today or tomorrow.
Stacey
----- Forwarded by Stacey Bolton/NA/Enron on 01/02/2001 10:15 AM -----
Stacey Bolton
10/03/2000 12:23 PM
To: Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Heather
Mitchell/HOU/EES@EES, Marianne Castano/HOU/EES@EES, Luis Derrota/HOU/EES@EES,
Allison McHenry/HOU/EES@EES, George Phillips/HOU/EES@EES, Derenda
Plunkett/HOU/EES@EES, [email protected]
cc: Michael Terraso/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Jeffrey Keeler/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Customer Credit Extended
Wanted to let you know that AB995 which extends the customer credit
subaccount (collection of nonbypassable system benefit charge to go through
1/1/12) was passed by both the CA Assembly and Senate, and was signed into
law by the Governor on 9/30. Attached below is a link to the bill (click on
enrolled version).
The exact amount and allotment per year of the customer credit are to be
determined.
Stacey
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
=====================================
|
3,578 |
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA MISSTEPS
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27896.
=====================================
I am attaching a first cut of the California Missteps. It shall be updated
post feedback. Adam and Sue I shall reach you shortly on the phone
Ban
James D Steffes@ENRON
06/18/2001 09:58 PM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron, Jennifer Thome/NA/Enron@Enron, Ban
Sharma/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA MISSTEPS
Just to make sure that everyone is on the same page, Ban Sharma is working
with Seabron Adamson and Sue Mara to complete the work below. If people need
any other information (or a specific presentation), please let Ban know.
Thanks,
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 06/18/2001
11:22 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich on 06/15/2001 09:09 AM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Ban Sharma/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Paul
Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, "Seabron Adamson"
<[email protected]>, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA
In particular, would be nice to know how much of the "wealth transfer" went
to the likes of LADWP, other CA munis, Calpine, and the federal government
(e.g., BPA, Salt River). Finally, how much did the utilities profit from the
high prices (i.e., from selling their excess gen into the PX)?
Best,
Jeff
James D Steffes
06/14/2001 09:50 AM
To: "Seabron Adamson" <[email protected]>
cc: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Ban
Sharma/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron,
Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate
Subject: ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA
Seabron -
Here is an outline of the work product we would like you to consider --
1. How much did the LACK OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP / LUNACY cost California
consumers?
+ LUNACY = CPUC did not accept $60/Mwh last year
+ unwillingness to fix credit problems
+ Bad CDWR buying habits
+ other
2. Analyze key Cal ISO studies dealing with "overearning" and market abuse.
+ Methodological faults
+ Analyze Key Findings
+ Develop appropriate "Enron" responses
3. Develop framework to assist in responding to political "calls" for market
controls
+ Understand better who "won" from the WEALTH TRANSFER
+ How much was transferred to "Texas generators"?
4. Other fixes still needed
+ A/S markets in California
+ Governance issues
+ other?
I hope this helps frame the work.
Jim
=====================================
|
3,579 |
Subject: Valuable Information - Consulting Club Firm Night 9/20
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/78.
=====================================
The Haas Consulting Club invites all MBA students to the MBA Firm Night,
September 20, 2001
Date/Time/Location:
The Consulting Club Firm Night will be held September 20, 2001 from 6:30-9pm
at the Marine?s Memorial Club and Hotel in San Francisco (directions below).
Drinks and hors-d?oeuvres will be provided.
Purpose:
This event is a great opportunity for all MBA students, both Consulting Club
members and non-members, to network with professionals from firms in the
consulting industry. Students can also use this occasion to discover the
hiring potential and outlook for firms recruiting at Haas.
The Consulting Club will also present attending firms with a resume book that
includes the resumes of second-year Club members. This book will be
delivered prior to the event so that firms can review potential interview
candidates beforehand.
Who:
All students are welcome, and attendance for Consulting Club members is
free. The fee for non-members is $15. Non-members can become annual members
for only $20, which will include admittance into the firm night, inclusion in
the resume book, and other membership benefits. A payment to the Haas
Consulting Club should be delivered to Ken Coblin by Tuesday, September 11th,
in order to be included in the resume book.
What:
Students are encouraged to bring hard copies of their resumes and business
cards. Business attire is appropriate.
Directions:
The Marine?s Memorial Club and Hotel is located at 609 Sutter Street, in
downtown San Francisco.
BART ? This is the MOST recommended mode of transportation.
Take BART toward San Francisco (after 7pm, take a Fremont-bound train from
Berkeley to MacArthur Station and transfer to a San Francisco train). Exit
at Powell Street. Walk (or catch a Cable Car) four blocks up Powell Street
(past Union Square) to Sutter Street. Turn left and walk 1 block. The
Marine?s Memorial is on the Southeast corner of Sutter and Mason Streets.
Driving ? This is the LEAST recommended option to get to the Marine?s
Memorial.
Take the Bay Bridge toward San Francisco. Take the Fremont Street
exit (first one on the right). Fremont Street becomes Front Street. Remain
on Front Street across Market. Turn left onto Pine Street and go seven major
blocks. Turn left onto Powell Street for two blocks. Turn right on Sutter
Street. One block later, on the left, will be the Marine?s Memorial.
Parking:
There are several parking garages in the vicinity. Street parking is often
scarce.
Dental Parking Garage, 520 Mason St.
Sutter/Stockton Garage, 330 Sutter St.
Downtown Center Garage, Mason & O?Farrell Sts.
Butterick Garage, 840 Sutter St.
Questions should be directed to Devan Cross ([email protected]) or
Ariel Meyer ([email protected]).
We look forward to seeing you at the Firm Night!!
=====================================
|
3,580 |
Subject: FERC Meeting on Northeast RTO
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/642.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron on 07/11/2001 04:54 PM -----
=09Sarah Novosel 07/11/2001 04:24 PM =09 To: Kevin M Presto/Enron@EnronXG=
ate, Mark Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Ader/HOU/EES@EES, Edward D Baughman/=
Enron@EnronXGate, Joe Gordon/Enron@EnronXGate, Janelle Scheuer/Enron@EnronX=
Gate, [email protected], Mark Bernstein/HOU/EES@EES, John Llodra/Enron@Enro=
nXGate, George Wood/Enron@EnronXGate, Paul J Broderick/Enron@EnronXGate, Ja=
son Thompkins/Enron@EnronXGate, Mason Hamlin/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert Stalf=
ord/Enron@EnronXGate, Tom May/Enron@EnronXGate, Gautam Gupta/Enron@EnronXGa=
te, Narsimha Misra/Enron@EnronXGate, Steve Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron, Garret=
t Tripp/Enron@EnronXGate, Berney C Aucoin/Enron@EnronXGate, Jason Thompkins=
/Enron@EnronXGate, Rob Wheeler/Enron@EnronXGate, Rogers Herndon/Enron@Enron=
XGate, Jim Meyn/Enron@EnronXGate, Aleck Dadson/Enron@EnronXGate, Daniel All=
egretti/Enron@EnronXGate, Pearce W Hammond/HOU/EES@EES, Donna Fulton/Corp/E=
nron@ENRON, Howard Fromer/NA/Enron@Enron, Kathleen Sullivan/NA/Enron@ENRON,=
Tom Hoatson/NA/Enron@Enron, Thane Twiggs/Enron@EnronXGate, Sarah Novosel/C=
orp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@En=
ron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven=
J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Charles Decker/HOU/EES@EES, Nick Politis/Enron@Enro=
nXGate, [email protected], Aleck Dadson/Enron@EnronXGate, Lloyd Will/Enron@=
EnronXGate cc: Subject: FERC Meeting on Northeast RTO=09
FERC held its meeting today. Big things happened.
Northeast
FERC approves PJM conditionally as the RTO "platform" to be used to form on=
e RTO in the northeast. FERC rejects the New York and New England RTO prop=
osals and directs the three ISOs and all interested parties to participate =
in a mediation led by a FERC Settlement Judge with assistance from outside =
consultants. The purpose of the mediation proceeding is to facilitate the =
formation of a single RTO in the Northeast. The mediation must begin withi=
n one week from today and must conclude 45 days thereafter. The Judge must=
then submit a report to the Commission 10 days thereafter, which will incl=
ude an outline of the proposal to create a single northeast RTO, milestones=
for the completion of intermediate steps, and a deadline for submitting a =
joint proposal.
While the Commission has not formally extended the RTO implementation date =
(currently December 15, 2001), Chairman Hebert made comments a couple of we=
eks ago and again today that perhaps the December 15, 2001 may have to slip=
some. We will continue to monitor this issue.
Donna Fulton is sending separately a write up of similar action the Commiss=
ion took with regard to the Southeast RTO effort. =20
Please call me if you have any questions or comments.
Sarah
=====================================
|
3,581 |
Subject: Haas EvMBAers: Your Feedback is Appreciated
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9253.
=====================================
Dear classmates,
Just a reminder to please provide me 2-4 items from the initiatives raised
during the Career Center forums by this Friday, 2/23 to bring John Morel and
the CSOs in synch with our interests and priorities. A big thanks to the
handful of individuals who have already done so.
Albert
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from web47.aolmail.aol.com (web47.aolmail.aol.com [205.188.161.8])
by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:57:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:57:06 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject:Career Center Forum Notes
To: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Hello everyone,
John Morel and I received wonderful feedback from those of you who either
attended one of the roundtable sessions or responded to me directly. Here's a
synopsis:
Overall comments
1) Continued improved branding of the Haas EvMBA through the efforts of the
Career Center personnel as well as the Haas administration
2) John has implemented a database, tracking the recruitment and career
search outcomes of evening MBA students. Of course, the database is only as
useful as the information you provide him on your job search results. So do
communicate to him relevant stats if you have recently switched jobs during
the program.
3) A few student-run organizations organize and distribute to companies their
own resume books. Hence, if you're interested in including your resume in one
or more of these books, do contact the appropriate person in these
organizations for additional info. Here's a url to assist:
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/~mbaa/officialclubs.html
4) Enhanced search capabilities (e.g., by geography and industry) for
online-listed alumni jobs as well as including a Haas alumnus (vs. HR) contact
Finally, I would like for us to prioritize for John and the CSOs those good
ideas we discussed. Therefore, from the list below, please respond with 2-4
to which you would like more efforts directed, by next Friday, 2/23. Keep in
mind that this list is not exclusive, so feel free to include your own.
- Job performance workshops
- Internships
- On-campus and company site networking events (with alumni if appropriate)
- Career planning/transition workshops (e.g., job interviewing, resume
preparation)
- EvMBA-specific on-campus recruitment (recognize there are limitations to
such an event)
- EvMBAA-sponsored resume book
- Student-to-student job fairs
- Survey list of companies (with contacts) interested in recruiting EvMBAers
As soon as I tabulate the results, I will present the findings to John and
distribute them to you.
Thanks in advance for your feedback,
Albert
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,582 |
Subject: Crain's Article - California Utility's Revamp is no Threat to
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13368.
=====================================
FYI--Midwest Generation is the renamed So Cal sub (started out as Edison
Mission Energy) that was formed to purchase the coal fired plants from Com
Ed,now Exelon. They are obligated to provide power to Com Ed/Exelon through
power supply contracts into the year 2004.
----- Forwarded by Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron on 06/05/2001 04:24 AM -----
"Freddi L. Greenberg" <[email protected]>
06/04/2001 03:25 PM
To: [email protected], Jane Cahill <[email protected]>, Jerry
Erjavec <[email protected]>, [email protected], Melissa
Lavinson <[email protected]>, "Jana M. Martin"
<[email protected]>, John Stauffacher <[email protected]>, Dick Suslick
<[email protected]>, Doug Oglesby <[email protected]>, "Samantha Slater"
<[email protected]>, Greg Pakela <[email protected]>, Jennifer Chamberlain
<[email protected]>, Mike Malloy <[email protected]>, Priya Devaguptapu
<[email protected]>, Doug McFarlan <[email protected]>, Steve Brick
<[email protected]>, Barbara Hueter <[email protected]>, Jim Orlando
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Crain's Article - California Utility's Revamp is no Threat to
Illinois
Letters to the Editor
June 04, 2001
CALIF. UTILITY'S REVAMP IS NO THREAT TO ILLINOIS
Crain's does readers a disservice in an editorial by stoking groundless fears
that electricity supplied by Midwest Generation is somehow threatened by a
debt refinancing of Edison International, our ultimate parent company ("Feds
must ensure Illinois isn't singed in Calif. crisis," May 28).
Midwest Generation, based in Chicago, stands on its own financially and has
its own set of lenders and covenants that would prevent financial
consequences related to the California energy crisis. Our contracts to
provide electricity to ComEd give us the strongest possible financial
incentive to invest in our plants.
Under the refinancing approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
the stock of Edison Mission Energy would be used as collateral by its parent,
Edison International, to achieve favorable terms for the refinanced debt.
Edison International also owns the Southern California Edison utility, which
has been plunged into well-documented financial hardship.
Midwest Generation stock would not be used as collateral. In fact, the
refinancing actually provides yet another layer of insulation between Midwest
Generation and Edison International.
Georgia Nelson
President
Midwest Generation
Chicago
Thank you,
Jennie Peebles
Assistant to Freddi L. Greenberg
Office of Freddi L. Greenberg
1603 Orrington Avenue
Suite 1050
Evanston, Illinois 60201-5000
p. 847-864-4010
f. 847-864-4037
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,583 |
Subject: RE:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2085.
=====================================
real meaning real acacia. don't care about labeling. what would you compare
to in quality? seems to me that one can't beat $5/bottle for acacia, non?
what cheese? man, you saw a great game. i was portland for the past couple
days, saw some of the game yesterday at the airport (plane was delayed).
GO GIANTS!
Nancy Sellers <[email protected]>
10/05/2000 10:31 AM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE:
How real do you need? It is Acacia chard that was supposed to be special
labeled which means it was done for a restaurant or some special client and
some of the deals fell through! It's not the best but it is very good
especially for the price! Are you going with PP to do the cheese or does the
cheese shopper stand alone?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:06 PM
To: Nancy Sellers; [email protected]
Subject: Re:
If it's truly the real thing. I'll take two cases. Thanks for asking.
Nancy
Sellers
<Nancy.Sellers@RobertMo To: Cameron
<[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich
ndavi.com> <[email protected]>,
"Prentice @ Berkeley"
<[email protected]>, Prentice Sellers <[email protected]>,
10/04/2000 11:49 AM Scott Laughlin
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject:
Dad/Eldon is going to get some Acacia Chardonnay for $5 per bottle. We had
some at Hopkins last night and it was really very good. It is unlabeled
but it is Acacia chard. I know you don't drink a lot of white wine - but
you might want some around. Let us know - he needs to order it before he
goes and he is going to try to go tomorrow.
Cameron - I need a few days to make any arrangements you want me to do in
Italy - so please let me know.
I will be out of the office the rest of the day. Home around 6 or 7.
Nancy
(707) 251-4870 (phone)
(707) 265-5446 (fax)
"Plus je bois, mieux je chante"
=====================================
|
3,584 |
Subject: RE: Community Affairs-related Activity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Schwartz', 'Laura', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/840.
=====================================
Jeff - thanks for the CR related information. FYI - I am now in EES and will be going to the conference with you and Laurie. Please let me know if there is anything you need. I will be handling logistics and media.
Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Fri 10/19/2001 4:00 PM
To: Siegel, Misha; Bourgeois-Galloway, Hilda; Parquet, David
Cc: Schwartz, Laura
Subject: RE: Community Affairs-related Activity
Super. Dave will get back to you with the details. Thanks for your help.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Siegel, Misha
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:33 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Bourgeois-Galloway, Hilda; Parquet, David
Cc: Schwartz, Laura
Subject: RE: Community Affairs-related Activity
Hi Jeff,
Among other things, Community Relations is here to help the business units drive their business! Please forward any related materials to my attention, either via email or to the Enron building (1400 Smith St, eb1632b, Houston, TX 77002). A list of support categories would be helpful!
Thanks,
Misha
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 11:00 AM
To: Bourgeois-Galloway, Hilda; Parquet, David
Cc: Siegel, Misha
Subject: RE: Community Affairs-related Activity
Thanks very much.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bourgeois-Galloway, Hilda
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:37 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Siegel, Misha
Subject: RE: Community Affairs-related Activity
Importance: High
Hi Jeff:
Got you message and I'm copying this to Misha Siegel. Misha is the person who can help you with this.
Hilda
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:36 PM
To: Parquet, David; Bourgeois-Galloway, Hilda
Subject: FW: Community Affairs-related Activity
Hi Hilda:
I got an "out of office" reply from Elyse that mentions that you're the contact in her absense. Please see the note below.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:28 PM
To: Kalmans, Elyse; Parquet, David
Subject: Community Affairs-related Activity
Hi Elyse:
I work in government affairs in San Francisco. Dave Parquet (VP, Western Origination) has been approached by a California state legislator to participate in a golf tournament, the proceeds of which will go to a children's charity (Dave, correct me if I got it wrong). The legislator is someone who has been and will likely continue to be supportive of Dave's on-going commercial activities and Dave would like to participate. I've been informed that this could fall under the sorts of activities that community affairs has resources for. Is that right? Thanks for the help.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,585 |
Subject: Excel files used in class: Merton case; Advertising NLP
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__quant/24.
=====================================
Dear E204 Students,
Please find the files on the Merton Case (for problems 3, 4, 5) and the
Non-Linear Programming advertising example attached to this e-mail.
We will explore more of the portfolio problem in class next week as we
complete the non-linear programming module, and then we will begin the
lectures on simulation (you have the chapter reading as a handout).
With regard to Team Project #1, you should be looking over the three
problems, discussing the facts and issues, and thinking about their
formulation/solution. Your reports are due in two weeks (not next week)
so we can go over the problems and any questions/clarifications you may
need in the next lecture. Given the detail with which some of you have read
the homework problems, I imagine there might be some clarification questions
even though the problem statements were meant to be as straightforward as
possible. I would prefer to clarify all questions at one time during class
since
we have the extra week, but if you have something urgent you can always ask.
Note that you should have received the data file for Problem 3 of TA#1 by
an e-mail attachment last night.
Finally, I would like to introduce some conformity to the Personal Problem
Sets.
Please put:
Last Name, First Name
E204 - (1 = Wed, or 2 = Thurs)
Personal Problem Set # ...
Ch. ..., # ....
Date Due: ... / .../ 00
in the UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER of your homework set on p.1
This will help our GSI record grades, especially if your homework has
gone into the wrong envelope.
Also, for the Team Project #1, you will need to take the FIRST PAGE of
that handout and make it the first page of your report. All students will
need to CLEAERLY print their names (Last Name, First Name) and then
initial/sign for the statement assuring that only group members worked on
the assignment with possible help from instructor/GSI/Haas computer
consultant.
The cohort is either 1-Wednesday, or 2-Thursday for the lecture
time. Please make sure that your Team Assignment #1 report has this first
page filled out completely
(for each member) before you submit it (on April 19/20 in class by 6
PM). If some
team members will be out of town, they should sign on the page early. Every
team member should be reviewing all the problems/issues, not just selectively
--- you may have some focus on particular areas but not to the neglect of the
overall problem set. When your results are handed in, each member should be
confident that they could now individually have written it.
--Tom McCullough
- MERTON3A.xls
- MERTON_4.xls
- MERTON_5.xls
- E204_ADV_NLP.xls
=======================================================================
Tom McCullough
Senior Lecturer
Haas School of Business
University of California at Berkeley
==========================================================================
=====================================
|
3,586 |
Subject: RE: Regulatory Updates - General Updates
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1576.
=====================================
Thanks - look forward to your input. We have a meeting today to discuss comments due in El Paso's reallocation proceeding. How about we get you on the line next week.
Reagrds,
Stephanie
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:30 PM
To: Miller, Stephanie
Cc: Tholt, Jane M.; Lawner, Leslie
Subject: RE: Regulatory Updates - General Updates
Will do. Did you folks have a call today? If you folks are going to have one every week, could we set up a standing time and call-in number? Be happy to participate on these and any other issues.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Stephanie
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:22 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Tholt, Jane M.
Subject: RE: Regulatory Updates - General Updates
Jeff - I know we are a bit tardy in getting back to you. I think a good place to start would be a close review and routine updates on the following:
1. PGT Gas Accord vs. attempt to convert jurisdiction to FERC in bankruptcy proceeding. As discussed, any delay in PG&E's ability to deal with the generators on a long term basis will facilitate bypass projects into the state.
2. Socal - resurrection of GIR or any plans to open the backbone to firm, path based transportation.
3. Southern Trails battle with Socal to gain access to firm takeaway capacity on SoCal's system and developments in Socal's RLS tariff.
4. Any issues that you believe affect our commercial efforts in California.
Obviously this is a small list. I would appreciate your feedback on issues that you believe to be critical drivers.
Regards,
Stephanie
-----Original Message-----
From: Tycholiz, Barry
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:34 PM
To: Tholt, Jane M.; Miller, Stephanie; Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Grigsby, Mike
Subject: Regulatory Updates - General Updates
Stephanie and I met with Jeff Dasovich in San Fransisco on Friday. Jeff understands that he can play an important/strategic role in assisting ENA West Gas in understanding the regulated issues for Gas... There is no doubt that ENA has spent most of our resources in power ( and for good reason) however we need to re focus energy on gas related structures.
To facilitate this effort, Jeff has offered to focus some more of his time and effort on coordinating some of the key commercial issues related to California. Jane and Stephanie need to create a priority list that represents West Gas issues and "Hot Button" or action items. Once created we can work with Jeff on action items. In addition to this immediate need, Jeff will join our conference call's/meetings ( or attend where possible). The next session I have on my calendar is Thurs Sept 5 @ 2:30.
I trust this initiative will further enhance an already effective procedure. If there are any questions, let me know.
regards,
Barry Tycholiz
=====================================
|
3,587 |
Subject: Re: Hendricks
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12096.
=====================================
Seems that Fergus' folks should be able to get their hands on it.
Steven J Kean
05/06/2001 03:26 PM
To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Hendricks
I think we should let people in the legislature know about this and see if
one or more of them can get their hands on it.
From: Richard B Sanders@ECT on 05/06/2001 10:40 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Hendricks
Any thoughts?
----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 05/06/2001 10:39 AM -----
"Michael Kirby" <[email protected]>
05/04/2001 06:00 PM
To: <[email protected]>
cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, "David Noonan" <[email protected]>
Subject: Hendricks
The complaint,albeit brief, filed May 1 in San Diego Superior Court by
Strategy Integration, Inc versus Michael Aguirre and the other Hendricks
plaintiffs' attorneys is quite extraordinary in its disclosure. A hard copy
is being faxed. The expert firm alleges they were "retained...to explain,
research, and investigate potential claims of gaming and collusion by energy
providers who supply electricity to the California Energy Market ...[and]
...retained to perform utility and energy consulting services." After
alleging that the Hendricks attorneys "refused to pay Plaintiffs' first
billing" it is alleged that"defendants' refusal may have resulted from the
conclusions Plaintiff drew in its analysis." We should consider if there is
there a way to get this filing to Senator Dunn's office or a more friendly
Senator without identifying us as the source,.They can see what some expert
in the field hired by the plaintiffs' class action lawyers apparently
concluded on their own about the claims of gaming and collusion. I suspect
that Sen Dunn has no interest but some Republican Senator might have some
use for it. It could have some value if the hearings go forward. This is not
urgent timewise but I wanted to bring it to your attention.
The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
documents is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney
work product rule and is confidential business information intended only for
the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or representative of the recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the Systems Administrator at [email protected] and immediately delete this
message from your system.
=====================================
|
3,588 |
Subject: RE: you and me
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8287.
=====================================
Now that's special. I'll go if Red Buttons goes.
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 12:53 PM
To: Cameron Sellers
Subject: RE: you and me
The playboy mansion?
Cameron
Sellers To: "'[email protected]'"
<cameron@perf <[email protected]>
ect.com> cc:
Subject: RE: you and me
01/11/2001
02:22 PM
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)
=====================================
|
3,589 |
Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28385.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/06/2001 03:50 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
07/06/2001 01:16 PM
To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Wanda
Curry/Enron@EnronXGate, Donald M Black/Enron@EnronXGate, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim
Belden/Enron@EnronXGate, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy
Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Phillip K Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Alan
Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mike D
Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Kristin
Walsh/Enron@EnronXGate, Christopher F Calger/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Hertzberg (speaker of the CA Assembly) called a meeting yesterday afternoon
of the group of market participants that have been negotiating the
"core/noncore" proposal in California. The purpose of the meeting was to
brief us on their activities and their gameplan for trying to find a solution
for California. Here's a summary of the meeting. Please keep confidential.
Work will be done over the weekend to put the core/noncore proposal in
legislative language. (We will be in the room.)
Work done by the "Plan B" group in the Assembly (Joe Dutra and Joe Nation)
will also be put into legislative language over the weekend.
Because no proposal is "comprehensive," a complete legislative package will
be created from the various pieces that have been worked on thus far (i.e.,
core/noncore, "Plan B," Edison MOU)
In addition, there are Republican demands that Hertzberg will need to address
(e.g., end the litigation) in order to achieve bi-partison support, which is
what Hertzberg's shooting for.
To move the legislation, the plan is to establish a "conference committee,"
comprised of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
The committe would begin work on Monday and would attempt to finish putting a
comprehensive bill together, vote it out of the Legislature and send it to
the Governor for signing by Monday, July 16th.
July 16th is the deadline because that is the date that the PUC will issue
its proposed decision regarding, among other things, how DWR's revenue
requirement will be put into rates, whether Direct Access needs to be
suspended, etc.
The PUC is issuing the draft on the 16th in order to give everyone 30 days to
review and comment before the Commission votes on a final order on August
15th. (The PUC will actually issue a "thought piece" on Monday the 9th and
will use reactions to the "thought piece" to craft the develop the proposed
decision it plans to issue on the 16th.)
All of this is still up in the air, however. As of right now, the leader of
the Senate (Burton) has not agreed to Hertzberg's gameplan and the
Republicans, while interested, have not yet committed to join the process.
=====================================
|
3,590 |
Subject: fyi
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['=20', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10299.
=====================================
The state code modfied by AB 1X will be subject to new proposed modfication=
s=20
in SB 8X. Language is expected soon.
---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT on 03/21/2001 04:27=
=20
PM ---------------------------
"Robert Weisenmiller" <[email protected]> on 03/21/2001 04:14:37 PM
To: roger Yang <[email protected]>, bill Monsen <[email protected]>, Duane=20
Nelsen <[email protected]>, [email protected], Brian Cragg=20
<[email protected]>
cc: =20
Subject: fyi
Wednesday, March 21, 2001 Rash power bill may need fix By Will Shuck
From our Sacramento Bureau SACRAMENTO Even as lawmakers lament the slow pac=
e=20
of solving California's energy crisis, the cost of haste has cropped up in=
=20
their first major act, a multibillion dollar measure that put the state in=
=20
the power-buying business.=20
=01=07 Rate cut expected to open doors for spenders=20
=01=07 Power: Left in the dark=20
=01=07 Blackouts threaten sick=20
=01=07 Sonic boom may be shuttle=20
=01=07 L.B., L.A. sue gas firms for conspiracy=20
=01=07 Police deploy tire spikes to end pursuit=20
=01=07 Death urged in Grinder trial=20
=01=07 Funeral to be held for teen-ager=20
=01=07 Rash power bill may need fix=20
=01=07 L.B. trash plant keeps burning=20
=01=07 P-T drops price back to 25 cents=20
=01=07 Sub skipper blames errors by himself, crew=20
AB1X, the highly touted bill that put California in the power-buying=20
business, may have been so rashly crafted that it will take another piece o=
f=20
legislation to fix it, an influential senator said Tuesday.=20
At issue is vague wording that makes it unclear when and to what extent=20
Southern California Edison and other utilities have to repay the state for=
=20
buying power.=20
State Sen. Debra Bowen, chairwoman of the Senate Energy, Utilities and=20
Communications Committee, said the bill apparently has left room for utilit=
y=20
lawyers to argue that their companies needn't repay the state until they ha=
ve=20
covered other costs.=20
But Bowen, a Redondo Beach Democrat who represents downtown and western Lon=
g=20
Beach, said "the legislative intent is crystal clear" that the state wanted=
=20
to be repaid directly for supplying about a third of the power utility=20
companies deliver to their customers.=20
"We need a cleanup bill" to set the matter straight, she said.=20
Although AB1X illustrates the flaws that come with speed, Bowen said, the=
=20
Legislature can't afford to delay.=20
"I think we are much too slow in our response," she said. "But that has to =
be=20
balanced against things we've done in a tearing hurry and then have had to=
=20
fix later."=20
No matter what the Legislature does in the coming weeks, she said, Californ=
ia=20
is in for a tough summer, and only determined conservation efforts will put=
=20
much of a dent in a precarious supply-demand equation.
=====================================
|
3,591 |
Subject: Update on California Legislation---Afternoon of 07.16.01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28771.
=====================================
Here's the latest that we have on the legislation ("82XX") released on Friday.
The Assembly Energy Committee will hold an "informational" hearing on 82XX at
1:30 PM PDT today.
"Informational" means that there won't be a vote today.
Attended a meeting this morning with the business groups with Assemblyman
Dutra (self-proclaimed pro-biz Democrat, who's an "author" of 82XX),
Hertzberg's chief staffer, and Hertzberg's outside legal consultant.
The DWR contracts continue to be the roadblock to a rational solution.
Dutra is unhappy with the process thus far----claimed he wasn't familiar with
the "more recent version" of the bill, and was unhappy that there would be a
hearing today---informational or otherwise--before he and the bill's other
authors had agreed to final language from their perspective.
Dutra said that he was working to remove the Direct Access suspension and
asked the biz groups to hold their fire until the amendments come out
tomorrow.
PUC President Lynch continues to oppose striking a deal in which the
Commission gives up all review of DWR's "revenue requirement" and simply
flows all DWR costs through rates (but Davis and his administration are
putting her under enormous pressure to buckle under and agree).
As a result, details of any "rate agreement" between DWR and the CPUC, and
any public announcement by DWR of its "revenue requirement" is could be
postponed until next week, unless there's a breakthrough with Loretta.
The Governor's consultants now claim (and will reportedly testify at the
hearing today) that there is enough room in the 3 cent rate increase to cover
both Edison's and DWR's revenue requirements. (They cite lower gas prices
and FERC's price cap as the driving force for the newly-found headroom,
though many remain very skeptical.)
However, if the deal is applied to PG&E, it is unlikely that the 3 cent rate
would be sufficient, according to the same consultants.
The plan (at this point) is to have the bill--with amendments--discussed in
the same committee tomorrow, and voted out of the committee. The bill would
then be taken to the full Assembly for an up or down vote on Wednesday.
It is unclear whether, at this point, there is agreement among Assembly
Democrats to vote the bill out of the full Assembly on Wednesday.
In addition, Senate Democrats continues to work on their own version of an
Edison "MOU," and the working relationship between the Assembly side and the
Senate side appears strained.
The Republicans in the Assembly are staunchly opposed to 82XX and are
generally being ignored by the Democrats, since the Democrats need no
Republicans to get a majority vote to pass bills.
Meanwhile, Edison continues to twist.
Will report back after the 1:30 hearing today.
If anyone has questions, don't hesitate to contact me by pager @ 888.916.7184.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,592 |
Subject: Introducing the Optical Equipment NETS
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1643.
=====================================
Epoch Partners* and Charles Schwab are pleased to bring you a
new product offering, NETS (New Era Trust Securities).
Each NETS represents ownership of 21 Optical Equipment companies
in varying share amounts. These companies are expected to
include:
Cisco Systems, Inc. CSCO
Nortel Networks Corporation NT
Lucent Technologies Inc. LU
Corning Incorporated GLW
Juniper Networks, Inc. JNPR
JDS Uniphase Corporation(1) JDSU
CIENA Corporation CIEN
SDL, Inc.(1) SDLI
Sycamore Networks, Inc. SCMR
Redback Networks Inc. RBAK
ADC Telecommunications, Inc. ADCT
ONI Systems Corp. ONIS
Avanex Corporation AVNX
Finisar Corporation FNSR
New Focus, Inc. NUFO
Newport Corporation NEWP
MRV Communications, Inc. MRVC
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. STLW
Digital Lightwave, Inc. DIGL
Avici Systems Inc. AVCI
Corvis CORV
(1) JDS Uniphase is expected to acquire SDL for 3.8 shares
of JDS for 1 share of SDL. The transaction is expected to
close in the December 2000 quarter.
Expected to be offered the week of November 20, 2000.
Expected offering price is $40-$50/NETS.
For more information and a copy of the prospectus, go to:
http://www.schwabnet.com/nets/
or speak with a Retail IPO Services representative by calling
1-800-400-6467 from 8am to 8pm ET.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A registration statement relating to these securities has been
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission but has not
yet become effective. These securities may not be sold nor may
offers to buy be accepted prior to the time the registration
statement becomes effective. This communication shall not
constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to
buy nor shall there be any sales of these securities in any
jurisdiction in which the offer, solicitation or sale would be
unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the
securities laws of any such jurisdiction.
*Epoch Partners, an investment bank, is the Managing Underwriter
for this NETS offering.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 SchwabAlerts or
email newsletters to which you have actively subscribed.
Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system and may be retained, monitored, and/or reviewed
by Schwab personnel.
(c)2000 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. All rights reserved. Member
SIPC/NYSE (1000-4938)
(c)2000 Epoch Partners Member NASD/SIPC
NETS and New Era Trust Securities are service marks
of Epoch Partners.
=====================================
|
3,593 |
Subject: Re: Final Version-Manifesto
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8538.
=====================================
Bill Hogan will convey to you are strong concern over the unnecessary
criticism of the Governor, on page 4 of the Summary, Assuming this is
removed/fixed, I would like to be included as a supporter.
I have two or three other minor "fixes" where the current text could be
read as inconsistent with the main points in the Manifesto. See attached.
Regards,
John Chandley
(See attached file: Manifesto-final version -- jc edits.doc)
William W. Hogan
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-495-1317 (o)
617-495-1635 (f)
email: [email protected]
web page: www.whogan.com
or
http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/people/whogan
David Teece <[email protected]> on 01/24/2001 11:56:11 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.
(See attached file: 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
======================================
- Manifesto-final version -- jc edits.doc
- Manifesto-final version.doc
=====================================
|
3,594 |
Subject: Re: SDG&E's Latest VBU Proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/146.
=====================================
Mona - we were just sorting through this with PGE Phase 2 and DG, with Roger,
Bruno and Jeff. Questions are
is it sufficient to take on issues in those cases, or is there something to
gain by expanding to SDG&E? (I thought this was a pretty small market)
lowering or even eliminating voltage differentials isn't by itself
anti-competitive (our VBUs may have just been taking advantage of an
irregularity in the previous rate design ) Do their new proposals have
legitimate cost-based differentials? (I haven't seen them.)
I think we should roll this up with the PGE/DG discussion, figure out our
preferred policy position, and then see whether it merits any action.
Thanks.
Mona L Petrochko
11/04/99 12:38 PM
To: Roger Yang, Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Paul Kaufman, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Susan
J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: SDG&E's Latest VBU Proposal
As you know, we participated in a one-day hearing on SDG&E's attempt to slam
through a rate design change that would affect the ability to do voltage
buy-up deals for large customers in SDG&E's service territory. We received a
favorable PD, that should be voted out today, that denied SDG&E's request but
allowed them to make a more complete showing in their Rate Design Window
(RDW) Filing, yet another regulatory proceeding. They have done so.
There were specific, strategic reasons why we protested SDG&E's VBU proposal
in the Post-Transition Proceeding:
1. Specific rate design proposals that were not relevant to ending the rate
freeze were not within the scope of the post-transition filing, which is
where SDG&E made its proposal.
2. SDG&E didn't provide a very thorough analysis for the cost reasons to
change the rate design. The PD stated that the Commission was concerned
about rate design for "prized customers".
3. We were concerned about the precedential affect such a rate design
proposal would have relative to the other utilities.
4. At that time, we were still interested in offering facilities-based
services, like VBUs.
Distribution competition and interconnection issues associated with building
substations are within the scope of the OII on Distributed generation and
distribution competition proceeding, which seems to be the appropriate forum
for addressing the overall issue of the utilities' ability to thwart
facilities competition through anti-bypass rate design. Despite the fact
that the overall policy will be determined in the DG proceeding, it seems
that the Commission is perfectly willing to address specific proposals in the
utility-specific proceedings (ie. PG&E GRC 2, SDG&E's RDW).
Now that it appears as though our business interest on facility-based
competition has waned, is there any interest in addressing the VBU issue in
SDG&E's RDW Proceeding?
=====================================
|
3,595 |
Subject: FW: where does our energy come from?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/11913.
=====================================
FYI. Could you please forward to Bev? More arrows for our quiver in trying
to get out the truth.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/10/2001 09:22 AM -----
Subject: FW: where does our energy come from?
-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Pringle [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: where does our energy come from?
Assemblyman Bill Leonard's most recent e-newsletter contained the
following information. I think it is very interesting to consider in
light of the present energy situation in California and the comments of
our present Governor.
Regards,
Curt
---------------------------------------------
***Who Really Powers California?***
Governor Davis has made no secret that he believes that swashbuckling,
cattle rustling, energy barons from Texas are to blame for our energy
crisis. While Texas power companies make for good bad guys in the
Governor's transparent Kabuki theater of blame, Leonard Letter readers
may
be interested to see who really provides power to Californians. The
following list illustrates what percentage of our power supply each
group of
generators provides. (Editor's note: these percentages have been rounded
up
resulting in slightly more than 100%)
18%- Pacific Gas and Electric (California)
15%- Southern California Edison (California)
11%- Imported power from the Northwest (including Canada)
10%- Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (California)
10%- Imported power from the Southwest
7%- State and Federal Agencies
6%- AES power company
5%- Municipal Utilities and Irrigation Districts
5%- Reliant power company
4%- Duke power company
4%- Southern power company
4%- Dynegy power company
1%- Sacramento Municipal Utility District (California)
1%- Calpine power company
1%- San Diego Gas and Electric (California)
It should be noted that of this list, only Dynegy and Reliant are from
Texas. These two companies represent a total of 9% of California's
energy
portfolio. By comparison, Georgia-based Southern (Mirant), Virginia's
AES,
and North Carolina's Duke Energy, have a 14% share of our energy
portfolio.
This list does not focus on who is gaming the market. However, every
provider listed benefited from skyrocketing energy prices. In trying to
identify those power producers who used market power to ring up high
profits
on Californians, we should include ALL power producers in our
investigations. State and federal agencies, independent power
companies,
utilities, municipal utilities, and even local irrigation districts
could
all be guilty of gouging consumers. Davis's focusing on only those
companies from Texas does everyone in this state a disservice and is a
misrepresentation of fact.
------------------------------
Curt Pringle
Curt Pringle & Assoc.
2532 Dupont Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 474-4090
(949) 474-4082 fax
=====================================
|
3,596 |
Subject: FW: CSO-This Week In Finance
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/236.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Demery [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fw: CSO-This Week In Finance
Fellow MBAers,
Dovetailing Ken's email regarding the Finance Firm Night tonight from 7-9, the following might be of interest to you as well, in case you are not subscribed to ftjobs@haas <mailto:ftjobs@haas> on majordomo.
Albert Demery
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Frieldfeld
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 11:25 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: CSO-This Week In Finance
Lot's going on this week in the world of Haas Finance:
Wells Fargo Bank <http://www.wfjobs.com/students.php3> Monday, Sept. 24 12:30-2:00pm FC, Howard Room
A Day in the Life of an Investment Banker Monday, Sept. 24 12:30-2:00pm Helzel Board Room
Finance Club Firm Night Monday, Sept. 24 7:00-9:00pm Wells Fargo Room
Venture Capital Brown Bag Tuesday, Sept. 25 12:30-2:00pm C-135
Goldman Sachs - Private Wealth Management Wednesday, Sept. 26 6:00-8:00pm
Raleigh's <http://www.telegraphshop.com/pages/raliegh_s.html>Berkeley Real Estate Club Meeting Wednesday, Sept. 26 12:30-2:00pm F-320
Adams, Harkness and Hill <msn://@mail.mar@/www.ahh.com> Thursday, Sept. 27 6:00-8:00pm FC, Heyns Room
Merrill Lynch - Latin America & Europe PCS <http://www.ml.com/careers/flash.html> Friday, Sept. 28 12:30-2:00pm FC, O'Neil Room
Real Estate Brown Bag Friday, Sept. 28 12:30-2:00pm Career Center Conference Room
Full-Time Resume Drops Due Today, Monday Sept. 24th:
AMD: Financial Analyst
Andersen: Various International Positions
Banc of America Securities: Equity Research, Leasing Associate
Cambridge Associates: Investment Consultant
Chevron Corporation: Finance MBA Development Program
Franklin Templeton: Research Associate
GE Capital Corporation: International Equities, Sales & Trading Associate
Goldman, Sachs and Company: Private Wealth Management Associate
Houlihan Lokey Howard and Zukin: Financial Analyst
Johnson & Johnson - Lifescan: Global Suppy Chain Analyst
LEK Consulting: Consultant
ZS Associates: Associates
**Remember, for Morgan Stanley, please submit resumes directly to www.morganstanley.com/career/recruiting <http://www.morganstanley.com/career/recruiting> by end of business today.
Mark Friedfeld
Account Manager
MBA & MFE Recruiting
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
510.642.6588
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,597 |
Subject: ABX1 1 - Hearing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8453.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/23/2001 10:48 AM -----
Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
01/22/2001 04:19 PM
To: Hedy Govenar <[email protected]>, Mike Day <[email protected]>, Bev
Hansen <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Susan J Mara
<[email protected]>, Joseph Alamo <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman
<[email protected]>, David Parquet <[email protected]>, Marcie
Milner <[email protected]>, Tim Belden <[email protected]>, Rick Shapiro
<[email protected]>, Jim Steffes <[email protected]>, Alan Comnes
<[email protected]>, Chris Calger <[email protected]>, Mary Hain
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: ABX1 1 - Hearing
The Senate Energy Committee met today to discuss ABX1 1. They are not
scheduled to meet tomorrow but that is subject to change.
Senator Bowen does not intend to move the bill until the committee is
able to review the short term bids mandated in SBX1 7 this Wednesday.
Several Senators suggested that today's hearing may be moot until they
are able to get a better idea of the costs associated with a long term
contract.
Page 4, lines 20-21 - Will add language to enable the state to obtain
security interest in IOU assets.
Page 5, lines 35-40 - Legislative Counsel will review indemnification
language to determine if it is necessary in legislation, or, if can be
utilized in contracts.
Page 5, line 32, strike "or" and insert "and"
Sunset remains an issue with Republicans who are urging a sunset of the
bill's provisions instead of a sunset review.
With respect to the section of the analysis entitled "Issues Not
Addressed in Mock-Up"
1) Will not discuss bidding procedures at this time
2) Will not discuss bid evaluation process at this time
3) Will continue to discuss the sunset review provisions
4) Will not require DWR to sell excess power back to hour-ahead market
5) The financing mechanism does provide adequate assurance of repayment
6) Will not discuss additional stranded costs at this time
7) Will not discuss state contracting provisions at this time
PG&E suggested that it would make more sense for the DWR to sell power
directly to consumers. They also want the state to assume QF contracts
(Bowen said this was a non-starter)
SCE suggested that DWR be responsible for ancillary services. They also
suggested that DWR should, at their discretion, be able to assume
certain existing contracts.
Dynegy, in addition to the comments raised in the analysis, needs a
guarantee regarding the state's full faith of credit. They also
requested a waiver of sovereign immunity.
The only new opposition came from Women's Energy Matters who collected
10,000 signatures, all of whom refuse to pay the CPUC mandated 9%
increase. They see no guarantee that the state will recoup its money in
the bill and advocate for condemnation of everything.
Scott
=====================================
|
3,598 |
Subject: FW: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/75.
=====================================
Jim: FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hetrick, Nancy
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 11:32 AM
To: Mara, Susan; Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Gresch, Robert
Subject: FW: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Is there someone on the California "Crisis" Team that can answer this question?
-----Original Message-----
From: Gresch, Robert
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:43 PM
To: Hetrick, Nancy
Subject: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Nancy, when we went through our last big DASR emergency week before last, the question was raised as to what was the effective date of a DASR, e.g., is it midnight of the day that you've submitted it, or if the utility picks up the information from their file server at 5:00 p.m. (SoCal) is does that determine the effective date such that anything submitted later would have an effective date of the following day? Could you give us some guidance on the right answer? We used the pickup time of the utility, in which case we had to have all the SCE DASRs submitted by about 3:00 Houston time to give CSC the ability to key the data into their system and run their batch process prior to SCE's pickup time.
Bob
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert D Gresch/HOU/EES on 09/10/2001 05:38 PM ---------------------------
Robert D Gresch
08/31/2001 04:19 PM
To: Mark Kiddle/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Brenda Herod, Gregg Young, Victor Gonzalez/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Miller, Jay Bhatty , [email protected]
Subject: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
To clarify below. The 3:00 cutoff for SCE DASRs will not allow for 480 SCE accounts. CSC has stated they could do about 120 in an hour. I have indicated it below in a revision. The 480 would apply to a group of DASRs from all utilities. Additionally, CSC has stated that from 6:00 forward, the amounts shown below are guesses of what they can do, but there is a lack of certainty.
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert D Gresch/HOU/EES on 08/31/2001 03:36 PM ---------------------------
Robert D Gresch
08/31/2001 03:34 PM
To: Mark Kiddle/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Brenda Herod, Gregg Young, Victor Gonzalez/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Miller, Jay Bhatty
Subject: CSC DASR Bandwidth, and Utility Deadlines
Mark, per our conversations, these are the details of how much CSC can handled from a DASR bandwidth perspective, and what the utility and CSC deadlines are:
Central Time DASR Ability UDC Pickup Deadline
7:00 a.m. 1200
11:00 a.m. 960 Cutoff for EEMC
12:00 p.m. 840
1:00 720
2:00 600
3:00 480 (120 SCE) Need to have SCE DASRs to CSC
4:00 - 5:00 Batch Process Shutdown
5:00 200
6:00 70
7:00 50 5:00 Pacific for SCE
8:00 --
9:00 Batch Process Shutdown
10:00
11:00
12:00 a.m.
1:00 a.m. 12:00 Eastern for PG&E and SDG&E
<Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>
<Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>
=====================================
|
3,599 |
Subject: Important Blackout Busters meeting re OBMC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9832.
=====================================
This is a very important working meeting of the Blackout Busters, where we=
=20
will be voting on some proposals. We will not be able to reopen any of thes=
e=20
issues in the full committee. Therefore if you have any input to the these=
=20
documents, please participate.=20
The OBMC program is very critical to many of us who want a way out of rolli=
ng=20
blackouts this summer? by committing to curtailing demand when requested.=
=20
Many of us discussed? the PG&E=01,s proposal to CPUC for this program last =
week,=20
and determined that it is simply unworkable in its current proposed form.=
=20
SVMG must propose specific modifications to make it workable for us.=20
The Administrative Law Judge was very cooperative. He was planning to issue=
=20
the ruling on Friday, March 9, but agreed to wait for out input. He advised=
=20
that even though the comment period is over, he would entertain our comment=
s=20
if we filed petition to file late comments and followed some legal=20
procedures.=20
Based on input received from other members, I prepared a working document.=
=20
John Wilson from CEC volunteered and converted the working document into a=
=20
draft petition. Paul Stephens hand delivered the draft petition to the Judg=
e=20
on Wednesday. Please note that the draft petition included here is differen=
t=20
than what Paul handed over to the Judge. The two references to the=20
Transmission level customers were removed at the last minute without much=
=20
discussions. However, technically, the petition can not be accepted since i=
t=20
was not filed with proper legal process. Justin is working to get the legal=
=20
support. Meanwhile, we have time this afternoon to review the petition at t=
he=20
Blackout Busters meeting and make changes, if needed.=20
In the tradition of SVMG, I outlined our criteria for making any specific=
=20
suggestion in the working document. Please review it and bring your comment=
s=20
to the meeting.=20
Mukesh Khattar=20
Energy Director=20
Oracle Corp.=20
(650) 506-6980=20
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@@@@@@_________++++++=20
?=20
?=20
?=20
Nayeem Sheikh wrote: I agree with Mukesh.=20
Thanks=20
Nayeem=20
?=20
At 09:47 AM 03/12/2001 -0800, Mukesh Khattar wrote:=20
I was planing till 2:45. It is less than 10-minute drive from United Defens=
e=20
to Exodus at that time.=20
Mukesh Khattar=20
Laura Goldseth wrote:=20
Mukesh & Nayeem, Because nearly 90% of the people who participate in the=
=20
Blackout Busters meeting also attend the Energy Committee Meeting, we were=
=20
hoping that the Blackout Busters meeting be adjourned around 2:30 allowing=
=20
time for participants to travel to Exodus for the Energy Meeting.? Thanks=
=20
for your help in making the schedule work.? Laura=20
- SVMG OBMC letter 030701.doc
- Working Draft Attachment, 030701.doc
- SVMG_OBMC attachment 030701 Draft.doc
- mukesh.khattar.vcf
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.