dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
---|---|
3,700 |
Subject: RE: Group Project--E221
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10283.
=====================================
Thanks so much for responding. This is very strange. I have no idea what'=
s=20
gone wrong. I'm attaching the emails that I sent. Please let me know if y=
ou=20
receive this. And no need to apologize; appears to be a technical glitch=
=20
somewhere. =20
The most important note (and my reason for concern when I didn't hear back)=
,=20
was the one explaining that I had to miss the second quiz due to biz travel=
=20
and offering alternatives for your consideration. Finally, are you=20
comfortable with our proposed project?
Best,
Jeff
Sent on 3.19.2001
Greetings:
Sent you a project proposal last Thursday on behalf of Dasovich, Guinney,=
=20
Sama and Vavrek and just wanted to make sure that you received it. Could y=
ou=20
let me know? Thanks very much.
Best,
Jeff
Sent on 3.16.2001
Greetings Professor:
Our group consists of Jeff Dasovich, Mark Guinney, Anil Sama and Carolyn=20
Vavrek.
We propose to examine the recently failed acquisition by Coke of Quaker=20
Oats: Why merge? What was the value? Upside? Downside? Why did it go=
=20
bust? Should it have gone through? What's up with this Buffet guy, anyway=
? =20
If you have any concerns with this proposal, please let us know. =20
Finally, if possible, we'd like to present on Thursday, April 26th.
Best,
Jeff
Greetings. Apologies for cluttering your email, but I've been having email=
=20
problems and wanted to ensure that you received the original note.
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/06/2001 08:31 PM -----
=09Jeff Dasovich
=09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
=0903/05/2001 11:23 AM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: [email protected]
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: This Week's Class
Professor Tasker:
My name is Jeff Dasovich and I=01,m an evening student in your Financial=20
Statement Analysis course. My apologies, but my work schedule has been=20
particularly unfriendly to my school schedule this semester. As such, I=01=
,m=20
forced to throw myself at the mercy of the professor.
As you know, my schedule forced me to miss the first quiz. I found out on=
=20
Friday that my work schedule will now force me to miss the second quiz. =20
(Much to my chagrin, I=01,ll also be missing material that you=01,ll be dis=
cussing=20
on Thursday in which I have a particular interest=01*more about the model a=
nd=20
how to value a firm in distress. I will have the class recorded in my=20
absence, however, so it won=01,t be a not a total loss.)
I=01,m willing to 1) take the quiz another day, though I know you would rat=
her=20
not do that for all of the obvious reasons, 2) do additional assignments to=
=20
make up for missing another quiz, 3) have the other assignments in the cour=
se=20
count that much more still in determining my grade, and/or 4) any other=20
remedies you might want to pursue. =20
If you=01,d like to discuss the situation further by phone, just let me kno=
w. =20
My work number is 415.782.7822 and my home phone is 415.621.8317.
And again, my apologies for the complications and thanks for your=20
consideration.
Best,
Jeff
=09
=====================================
|
3,701 |
Subject: Re: SDG&E Advice Letters
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/944.
=====================================
Mona,
Your business instincts are correct. SDG&E's proposed treatment is
inequitable. Overcollections recovered from all customer classes should not
be used to fund the rate cap that benefit only some customer classes. I do
not think this is necessarily a DA versus SO issue, but rather mor of a large
versus small customer issue (however, to the extent that only large SO
customers can opt in and benefit there is a disparity between large DA and
SO). Can you please check with CLECA and CEMA to see what they are doing.
Given that most of our customers are large customers, we should have an issue
with this treatment. There is something extremely anti-competitive in
over-collecting from all customers in a non-bypassable rate to subsidize
small customers. I don't think that small DA and SO customers are being
treated differently, because the utility is implementing a cap with a PX
credit for small DA customers. But correct me if I am wrong. It may be
viewed as a DA versus SO issue, since most DA customers are large and very
few DA customers are small. Further, we should point this out in SDG&E's
filing at FERC to use the FERC jurisdictional rate to overcollect and
subsidize small customers. Obviously, SDG&E is trying to minimize the
undercollections from the cap to mitigate shareholder risk of non-recovery in
the future. We will need to be careful in our complaints, because of the
issues that we are pursuing for PG&E and SCE. We want to cooperate with the
Governor's programs, but only if the solutions for PG&E and SCE are equitable
for DA as well.
Roger
Mona L Petrochko
10/09/2000 05:22 PM
To: Roger Yang
cc:
Subject: Re: SDG&E Advice Letters
It is beginning to look like ANY overcollected balance goes into the
subaccount to offset undercollected procurement costs. Wouldn't we have an
interest in raising objections to RMR overcollections going into that
account, to the extent that those costs were collected from all customers?
---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 10/09/2000
03:21 PM ---------------------------
"Daniel Douglass" <[email protected]> on 10/09/2000 12:21:08 PM
To: <[email protected]>
cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SDG&E Advice Letters
Here is AL 1262-E.
>>> <[email protected]> 10/09/00 11:17AM >>>
We need to take a look at AL1262-E to ensure that those who do not benefit
from the rate stabilization receive their fair share of the refunds.
Roger
"Daniel Douglass" <[email protected]> on 10/09/2000 01:01:13 PM
To:?? <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
????? <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
????? <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject:? SDG&E Advice Letters
Attached are summaries of three recent SDG&E advice letters.? Two? ought to
be looked at, but may not rise to the level of protests.
Dan
(See attached file: 10-9-00 SDG&E AL Summary Chart.doc)
- 1262-E_1.pdf
=====================================
|
3,702 |
Subject: RE: Governors Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3852.
=====================================
Attached is a marked up copy of Jan's memo with comments regarding possible
responses on each point.
In addition, I suggest being prepared to describe some affirmative ideas we
think the Governor should support -- just to see what they say. Below are =
a
few suggestions that I am working on for my memo to the Board on 2001
legislation.
Fixed Price Contracts
Require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish
criteria for reviewing and approving or rejecting proposed fixed term, fixe=
d
price contracts within 20 days of their submission by an investor-owned
utility.
Demand-Side Management
Require the CPUC to resolve the interruptible tariff issues in a manner tha=
t
will make the program workable from customer and reliability perspectives.
(I am not up to speed on the issues associated with this -- only that the
CPUC has industrial customers up in arms.)
Power Plant Siting
Require the California Energy Commission to consider the positive
environmental impacts of proposed projects when analyzing alternatives to
proposed projects, including the =01&no project=018 alternative. (This has=
little
affect but makes a point about the CEC process.)
Simplified Interconnection Rules for Preferred Technologies
Require the CPUC to adopt standard, simplified interconnection options for
distributed generation, renewable, and small cogeneration projects. (A
perverse version of this was in a Peace bill last year. As proposed, it
applied only to projects that did not sell onto the grid. When Enron and
cogenerators made clear that they would cause problems if it wasn't changed=
,
SCE asked to have the whole section deleted. It was.)
Community Access
Permit cities and/or other political subdivisions of the state to aggregate
their consumers into electricity buying coops by adopting a local ordinance
that gives customers the opportunity to =01&opt-out=018 of the program. (T=
URN has
said it intends to sponsor this next year.)
Have fun in the meeting! Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Kaplan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:46 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'John Stout for
Reliant'; 'Curtis Keebler at Reliant'; 'Julie @ Edson'; 'Paula
Hall-Collins'; 'Marty Wilson'; 'Rob Lamkin'; Karen Edson; Bob
Weisenmiller; Sue Mara; Andy Brown; B Brown Andy; Bob Escalante; Greg
Blue; Jack Pigott; Jan Smutny-Jones; Joe Ronan; Karen Denne; Kassandra
Gough; Kristin Vellandi; Lynn Lednicky; McNally Ray; Richard Hyde;
Stephanie-Newell; Tom Ross; Roger Pelote; Richard Hyde; Lynn Lednicky;
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Governors Meeting
Greetings:
Apologies in advance for those of you who have already received this e-mail
but we are having transmission problems and I just wanted to make sure
everyone had this. Contrary to the message we will not be holding a
conference call.
Have a happy and safe Thanksgiving!
Katie Kaplan
Manager of State Policy Affairs
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
- Govs meeting KE Notes.doc
=====================================
|
3,703 |
Subject: Boomberg - 02/01/2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5534.
=====================================
Enron to End Direct Sale of Power to Large Businesses, NYT Says
Bloomberg, 02/01/2001
Enron Will Honor Customers' Contractual Commitments (Update1)
Bloomberg, 02/01/2001
Enron to End Direct Sale of Power to Large Businesses, NYT Says
2/1/1 3:35 (New York)
Houston, Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp., the biggest
energy trader, is to stop selling power directly to large
industrial and commercial companies as financial pressure in the
power market mounts, the New York Times reported on its Web site,
citing the company.
The decision will affect companies such as Cisco Systems
Inc., Genentech Inc. and Clerox and could potentially raise the
rates they pay for power by more than 35 percent, the paper said.
Customers will immediately be switched from Enron's Energy
Services unit, which helps companies find ways of reducing their
overall energy costs, to the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the paper
said. It isn't clear whether companies will receive compensation
from Enron for the loss of agreed discounts and low rates, the
report said.
Enron's decision will force the State of California to buy
more power on a emergency basis, the report said. The State has
already stepped in to aid Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern
Californian Edison, who say the rising price of wholesale power
has left them on the verge of bankruptcy, the NYT said.
(New York Times, 2/1)
To view the NYT's Web site enter {NYTI <GO>}
--Claire Shoesmith in the London newsroom (44) 020 7673 2659 or
[email protected] /cp
Enron Will Honor Customers' Contractual Commitments (Update1)
2/1/1 6:4 (New York)
Enron Will Honor Customers' Contractual Commitments (Update1)
(Adds share price in sixth paragraph.)
Houston, Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp., the biggest
energy trader, said it will honor contractual commitments to
customers when it transfers their power supply from its Energy
Services unit to Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Earlier, the New York Times reported it wasn't clear whether
companies would get compensation from Enron for the loss of
agreed discounts and low rates. The Times also said the transfer
may raise by more than 35 percent the rate companies such as
Cisco Systems Inc., Genentech Inc. and Clorox Co. pay for power.
``We are honoring our contractual commitments to our
customers and the customers' expenditure will not change,'' said
Enron spokeswoman Peggy Mahoney in an interview.
Enron's decision to stop selling power directly to large
industrial and commercial companies, brought about by increased
financial pressure in the power market, will force the State of
California to buy more power on a emergency basis, the Times
said, citing the company.
The state has already stepped in to aid Pacific Gas &
Electric and Southern Californian Edison, who say the rising
price of wholesale power has left them on the verge of
bankruptcy, the paper said.
Enron shares rose $1.50, or 1.9 percent, to $80 yesterday.
--Claire Shoesmith in the London newsroom (44) 020 7673 2659 or
[email protected] /cp/ck
=====================================
|
3,704 |
Subject: Re: Language on bonds
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/11838.
=====================================
It's going to be extremely difficult for anyone who has consumed electricity
to avoid paying for it. It will be particularly difficult for Enron to
exempt itself from costs incurred by the state on behalf of Enron's
customers. Prior to us pushing amendments on this bill, can we discuss on
the 11:30 call today. Harry and I have discussed this at length, and I just
want to make sure that we don't blow up the whole enchilada by trying to get
an amendment here.
Best,
Jeff
Harry Kingerski
07/03/2001 09:28 AM
To: Hedy Govenar <[email protected]>
cc: Bev Hansen <[email protected]>, Jim Steffes <[email protected]>,
Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Leslie Lawner <[email protected]>,
Mike Day <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman <[email protected]>, Rick
Shaprio <[email protected]>, Scott Govenar <[email protected]>, Sue Mara
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Language on bonds
Hedy, Scott, Bev - the language currently says the bond surcharge will apply
"to all electric power delivered in California by electric corporations ..."
I know this is a longshot, but is there any chance of having this amended to
either
1) exclude volumes under DA contracts as of the effective date of this act,
or
2) more generally leave it to the PUC to adjust the surcharge for customer
classes based on their contribution - or lack thereof - to DWR's purchasing
requirements.
The justification for this exemption is grounded in excluding customers who
have not caused the DWR problem; e.g. large San Diego customers or PGE/SCE
customers who have been DA the last couple years or parts thereof. (We can
give you some specific language.)
Hedy or Scott - could you please call me when you get in - 713 853-5786.
Thanks.
Hedy Govenar <[email protected]>
07/02/2001 06:51 PM
To: Sandra McCubbin <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman
<[email protected]>, Sue Mara <[email protected]>, Rick Shaprio
<[email protected]>, Bev Hansen <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich
<[email protected]>, Karen Denne <[email protected]>, Jim Steffes
<[email protected]>, Scott Govenar <[email protected]>, Ken Smith
<[email protected]>, Mike Day <[email protected]>, Michael McDonald
<[email protected]>, Alan Comnes <[email protected]>, Steven Kean
<[email protected]>, Harry Kingerski <[email protected]>,
Leslie Lawner <[email protected]>, Robert Frank <[email protected]>,
Janel Guerrero <[email protected]>, Miyung Buster
<[email protected]>, Jennifer Thome <[email protected]>, Eric
Letke <[email protected]>, Mary Schoen <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Language on bonds
Senator Burton's office expects bond language back from Legislative
Counsel sometime tomorrow, Tuesday. As soon as we get a copy we will
forward it. If the language is acceptable to Enron, then Bev, Scott and
I need to visit with Republicans to urge their support as soon as
possible.We are continuing to coordinate with the big users and some
other suppliers on this issue.
=====================================
|
3,705 |
Subject: FW: FERC Orders Cost-Based Price Caps for California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['=20', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3786.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 04/30/2001=
=20
04:56 PM ---------------------------
James D Steffes
04/26/2001 07:55 PM
To: Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: =20
Subject: FW: FERC Orders Cost-Based Price Caps for California
Janel --
Pls include this CERA study in Lay's California briefing book. =20
Also, in the study CERA mentions another study we should include (pls ask=
=20
Joan Stransky to get it from CERA) - Beyond California's Crisis: Impact,=
=20
Solutions, and Lessons.
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 04/26/2001=
=20
07:52 PM ---------------------------
From: Chip Schneider/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/26/2001 05:06 PM
To: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg=20
Wolfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: =20
Subject: FW: FERC Orders Cost-Based Price Caps for California
CERA report, followed by CSFB report.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Patterson <[email protected]>@ENRON=20
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-Paul+20Patterson+20+3CPaul+5FPatterson+40xmr3+2Ecom+3E+4=
0EN
[email protected]]=20
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 7:34 AM
To: Schneider, Chip
Subject: FERC Orders Cost-Based Price Caps for California
Credit Suisse First Boston
Paul Patterson
Good morning,
? Last night, FERC voted 2-to-1 to approve a California market mitigation=
=20
order, which will impose cost-based wholesale price restrictions in=20
California, during periods of Stage 1, 2, and 3 emergencies. The caps will =
be=20
in effect from May 1, 2001 to May 1, 2002 and determined on a day-ahead bas=
is=20
by the California ISO, based on generators=01, marginal costs.
? Sellers with participating generator agreements will be required to offer=
=20
all available power in the real time market. All generators, including thos=
e=20
not regulated by FERC, will be required to sell into the ISO as a condition=
=20
for using the ISO=01,s interstate transmission lines.
? The order only focuses on wholesale prices in California. It directs the=
=20
ISO to file an RTO proposal by June 1 and the utilities to adopt demand=20
reduction mechanisms. It also establishes an agency investigation into=20
potentially unreasonable prices in the Northwest region.
? We view FERC=01,s order as a relatively mild one and would caution invest=
ors=20
not to expect overly large reductions in California=01,s power prices, alth=
ough=20
some decline should occur.
? Although we believe most generators would still earn quite attractive=20
returns, clearly the marginal cost approach of the least efficient plant wi=
ll=20
advantage lower-cost base load plants over higher-cost peakers.
Please call us with any questions.
Regards,
Paul Patterson, 212-325-5876
Neil Stein, 212-325-4217
Wen-Wen Chen, 212-538-0223
If you would prefer not to receive further messages from this sender, pleas=
e=20
click on the following link and confirm your request:
Mailto:[email protected]
You will receive one additional e-mail message confirming your removal.
- ppp042601.pdf
=====================================
|
3,706 |
Subject: RE: Latest Legislative Version of Direct Access --08.22.01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/198.
=====================================
Any way to work on (1) moving to 4/1/02?
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:08 PM
To: Kean, Steven J.; Kingerski, Harry; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Blachman, Jeremy; Gahn, Scott; Belden, Tim; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; Denne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa
Subject: Latest Legislative Version of Direct Access --08.22.01
The following is a summary of the Direct Access provisions in the bill language released this afternoon reflecting the deal that Davis cut with Assembly. Things are very fluid and these provisions could change significantly.
I was just informed by the large business customers that they just met with the Davis' and Hertzberg's staff and the staff have agreed to amend the DA provisions to make them considerably more favorable for customers and suppliers. They also said that favorable provisions with respect to self-gen would also be added to the bill. They said that these new amendments could come out as early as tonite or tomorrow morning and that the bill may be heard tomorrow.
Note: In addition to the DA provisions, the bill also includes provisions that 1) explicitly recognize the PX Credit as part of Edison's undercollection, and 2) permit Edison to pay debts associated with the negative PX credit. (The bill does not authorize Edison to pay power suppliers, however, and leaves that portion of Edison's debt for Edison's management and shareholders to address.)
Summary of Direct Access provisions:
The program would begin January 1, 2003.
It's unclear what would happen to DA between now and January 1, 2003. Presumably, the decision to suspend, or not, between now and then would stay with the California PUC.
90 days after the effective date of the bill, and every 6 months thereafter, DWR would provide information to the PUC showing the net short position.
Every 6 months, the PUC would hold an open season permitting customers to switch to DA.
20 KW-and-above customers would have 60 days to decide to switch once the PUC has announced the open season; under 20kw customers would have 180 days.
Customers who switch to DA would be responsible for paying 1) the customer's proportionate share of the utility's undercollection and 2) the customer's proportionate share of DWR's receivables (if any) for power previously delivered by DWR (but not yet fully paid for by customers).
In addition, if the number of customers who elect to choose to go DA in the open season exceeds the net short, then DA customers will have to pay their proportionate share of any DWR stranded contract costs.
If the number of DA customers does not exceed the net short position, then no stranded contract cost fees would be assessed.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,707 |
Subject: Pac Rim Trip PRICE REDUCTION!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/843.
=====================================
Greetings from the Pac Rim Club!
We?ve been able to get a discount of $100 on the tour price from Executive
Tours, lowering the price of the Pac Rim tour to $2,085 for double occupanc=
y
and $2,455 for single occupancy. (This discount is dependent on having a
minimum of 10 participants on the trip.) The new lower prices apply to new
sign-ups as well as to those currently registered for the trip. In the
event the tour does not get a minimum of ten participants, anyone who
registers may request and will receive a full refund of their deposit.
Along with these new price cuts, the deadline for registration has been
extended to Friday, November 2nd. If you are interested in participating i=
n
the Pac Rim trip, please contact Richard Price a.s.ap. by phone at (800)
521-0070 or (714) 897-0074, or by email at [email protected]?.
For more information about the Pac Rim trip, please visit our website:
http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/pacrim/Pacrim.htm
Please feel free to contact me as well if you have questions. -- Home
Home: (510) 525-2880, Cell Phone: (510) 504-9999
~ William Ktsanes
Discover Southeast Asia! -- Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam & Singapore
Haas Pacific Rim Trip 2002
More information about the trip on the Haas Pac Rim Club web site:
http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/pacrim/Pacrim.htm
Information about the Haas Pac Rim Club:
http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/pacrim/index.htm
This year's trip is going to be fantastic!!
Itinerary
Bangkok, Thailand offers incredible temples, outstanding cuisine, fantastic
shopping and the friendliest people you=12ve ever met. Thailand is called t=
he
=13Land of a Thousand Smiles=14 for good reason.
Siem Reap (Angkor), Cambodia: The magnificent temples of Angkor have only
recently opened to tourism after years of civil war and unrest. Now is a
perfect time to visit these timeless wonders before they are marred by the
rapid growth in tourism.
Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), Vietnam: This is the most vibrant and dynamic
country in Southeast Asia. Saigon is sophisticated, exciting and endlessly
fascinating, from its glorious French colonial architecture to its modern
club scene and nightlife.
Nha Trang, Vietnam: Endless white sand beaches, warm sunshine, tropical
breezes. Need we say more?
Singapore: We will only have one overnight in Singapore as a result of the
airline schedule. But what a great city to spend a night! Discover Little
India, Arab Street, pubs along Boat Quay or sample Malay cuisine at a hawke=
r
stand.
Details
NEW Low Prices: *
$2,085 Per-Person, Double Occupancy
$2,455 Per-Person, Single Occupancy
Including round-trip airfare from San Francisco on Singapore Airlines.
* The Early-Registration Discount applies to participants who register for
the tour and submit their deposit on or before November 2, 2001. After
October 19, 2001, the tour prices increase by $50 per-person.
More Information
Registration has begun!
If you'd like to join us or for more information, call 1-800-521-0070 or
(714) 897-0074.
Presented by the Pacific Rim Club and Executive Tours International.
=====================================
|
3,708 |
Subject: Re: Brief CA from Scott.DOC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3975.
=====================================
Fine on your responses. On the PX credit, it should be enough to say it is
outside the scope.
Scott Stoness@EES
04/25/01 03:34 PM
To: Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT@ENRON
Subject: Re: Brief CA from Scott.DOC
Scott's Comments to comments in blue
From: Leslie Lawner@ENRON on 04/25/2001 01:39 PM
To: JBennett <[email protected]>, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Tamara
Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: FW:
Here are my comments to Scott's comments.
Revenue allocation: I strongly recommend that we stay silent on this until
after the recommended decision comes out. I feel that our support could
easily be the kiss of death to a particular proposal. The bottom line is
that our proposal works with any allocation method. We can support the one
that is accepted in the recommended decision or argue for another but I would
hold off in this round.
Agree
While some of the additions to rate design section seem to be along the lines
of what we put in the record, both in direct and on cross, I think the free
rider, CBL stuff is new and could be stricken, and may just make our stuff
seem more complicated.
Agree
I have similar concerns about the alternate interim proposal in this brief,
seems like it includes lots of facts we did not put in our testimony.
We did put the facts in in the response to data we filed with ALJ on monday.
If you are referring to ratios between on and off peak.
PX credit based on market value -- the hearing examiner has no authority to
address this issue so why put it in? In a case like this with such a short
time frame, decision makers who want to be diligent and read everything that
is filed, will resent having to read stuff that is not germane to the issues
at hand. It is gratuitous and likely to aggravate her.
I was responding to PGE testimony. We at least should say - that the CPUC
should not determine the outcome of this recommendation because it is outside
of the scope of this hearing. If you agree that it is outside the scope.
Otherwise how can we not respond
JBennett <[email protected]>
04/25/01 01:20 PM
To: "Lelie Lawner (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: FW:
-----Original Message-----
From: JBennett
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:42 PM
To: Lelie Lawner (E-mail)
Subject: FW:
Leslie -- I just got this from Scott. I thought you should see his more
detailed thoughts on the brief.
Jeanne
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject:
(See attached file: Brief CA from Scott.DOC)
As promised but I ran out of steam.
- Brief CA from Scott.DOC
=====================================
|
3,709 |
Subject: Free Ground Shipping Offer from Dell (TM)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/895.
=====================================
_____
This advertisement has been sent to you by TheStreet.com because you are currently or within the last year have been a subscriber (either free-trial or paid) to one of our web sites, www.thestreet.com or www.realmoney.com. If you are not a current or former subscriber, and you believe you received this message in error, please forward this message to [email protected], or call our customer service department at 1-800-562-9571. Please be assured that we respect the privacy of you, our subscribers, and that we have not disclosed your name or any other information about you to the advertiser or any other third party.
_____
<http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H332> <http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif>
<http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/delivery.gif> <http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif> <http://www.intel.com/home/pentium4/index.htm?iid=feature1%2Btext&> <http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif>
Leave the shipping to us! Whether to buy a Dimension? desktop or an Inspiron? notebook may be a tough choice, but choosing to let us pick up the shipping is not!
With our Free (3-5 day) ground shipping, buying a computer just got easier (software and peripherals not included)! Hurry! Offer ends 11PM CT, October 23, 2001. Click here. <http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H332>
Capture your memories with a digital camera! Get 10% off digital cameras and digital camera accessories when you purchase Online from Dell Home Systems Software & Peripherals. Limited time offer. Click for offer details <http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H333>
If you would like to receive other offers and special deals like this one from Dell Home Systems, click here <http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H334> to subscribe to Dell Direct Deals!
<http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif>
<http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif>
<http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H332> <http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif>
<http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H332> <http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif>
<http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H333> <http://secure.webconnect.net/images/dell/4/spacer.gif>
_____
This advertisement has been supplied by a third party and has been sent to you by TheStreet.com for informational purposes only. We are not responsible for and have not independently authenticated in whole or in part the accuracy of the information provided in the advertisement. No such information should be relied upon without consulting the advertiser. This advertisement does not imply an endorsement by us.
If you would prefer not to receive these types of offers from us in the future, please reply to [email protected] with REMOVE in the subject line.
To view our privacy policy, please click here: <http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/about/privacy.html>
_____
<http://image.wd10.com/img.asp?A534394J1225> <http://image.wd10.com/img.asp?B534394J1225>
=====================================
|
3,710 |
Subject: Re: California Legislative Strategy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES', 'Kenneth Lee/HOU/EES@EES', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/131.
=====================================
FYI
To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Kenneth Lee/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: California Legislative Strategy
Per our discussions yesterday, SCE and PG&E are currently negotiating with
customer groups to propose legislation that would result in a Rate
Stabilization Plan that would extend beyond the AB1890 rate freeze. The
purpose of the negotiations is to build inertia to move a bill at the
legislature. The legislative session ends this week and will not reconvene
until next year, unless there is a special legislative session. I hear from
Government Affairs that the current negotiations has stalled.
Unfortunately, customer groups would not know a good deal if it hit them in
the face.
SCE and PG&E threaten to artificially end the AB1890 rate freeze early and
forego CTC recovery. The utilities would end the freeze as early as January
1, 2001, in lieu of incurring high procurement costs that would undue their
CTC recovery thus far. Under the AB1890 freeze, the utilities are at risk
for recovery of all costs under the frozen rates through March 31, 2002.
There are two things that would prevent the utilities from ending the freeze
early. Under the current political and market climate, artificially ending
the rate freeze early would be perceived very poorly. Additionally, the
utilities would have to forego recovery of hundreds of millions to a billion
dollars for CTC, Transmission, Distribution and Procurement undercollections
(in the TRA and TCBA) per a prior CPUC decision. It would be in the best
interest of the utilities and customers to negotiate other mechanisms such as
an extension to the AB890 rate freeze. One concept that has been discussed
is an extension to January 1, 2005.
The following is an assessment of our risks:
January 1, 2001 Roll-Off Current Mark January 1, 2005 Roll-Off
PG&E ($57.8) million July 1, 2001 $155.9 million
SCE ($85.6) million January 1, 2002 $21.4 million
________ ___________________ ___________ ___________________
Total ($143.4) million $177.3 million
I have instructed Government Affairs to accept a deal that would extend the
AB1890 Rate Freeze to January 1, 2005. Government Affairs understands the
value of an extension of the Rate Freeze between April 1, 2002 and January 1,
2005, and our preference that the Rate Freeze in 2003. Also, Government
Affairs understands are preference for a Rate Cap. Unfortunately, the
utilities are not interested in our preferences due to their own needs. I
offered Government Affairs some other refinements to such a settlement,
including: 1) the PX credit be based on spot prices; 2) a retail adder to
the PX credit; 3) no wholesale caps; and 4) the January 1, 2005 is a "no
later than" date (which would make it more generic to cover all utilities
with different circumstances). Of course, none of these amendments should be
deal breakers. Once again, a settlement with correponding legislation does
not look promising at this point in time.
Roger
=====================================
|
3,711 |
Subject: Re: Pedersen inquiry
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/596.
=====================================
Hey, you be talkin' to gas trash, counsel.
Susan Scott@ENRON
06/15/2000 12:58 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Pedersen inquiry
I agree that the briefest possible response is probably best. In any event,
let's wait until after we speak with Brian. Also, I'm thinking that a
written response might actually be better than calling him. I've dealt with
Norm's kind before and they are very creative about paraphrasing.
I believe I can manage to pencil lunch into my "gas trash" schedule tomorrow.
Jeff Dasovich @ EES on 06/15/2000 02:48:39 PM
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Pedersen inquiry
First, it's always a great pleasure to see you two in person, even with a
brace. Second, I apologize for all the time you folks are having to spend on
this kind of stuff. Second, this is a great answer, though, as we discussed,
I think it provides dear Norm with too much information. Susan's the boss,
but if deleted everything after "Our west flow mainline capacity is 1.09
Bcf/d," that (for what it's worth) would seem dandy to me. Finally, I've
been informed that it doesn't look like drinks will work tonite; but what
about lunch tomorrow?
Best,
Jeff
Jeffery Fawcett@ENRON
06/15/2000 10:29 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, [email protected], Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Pedersen inquiry
Hey gang,
I've taken the first stab at answering Norm's inquiry... give me your
thoughts. Also, Susan, what is the protocol for a case being litigated at
the CPUC for inquiries like this? Should we put a disclaimer that the
information we might provide is protected under Rule 51 or other "settlement
discussions only" protection?
Mr. Pedersen,
First, I'd like to clear-up the nomenclature being used here. As you know,
currently SoCalGas doesn't assign "primary rights" to deliveries off of any
interconnecting pipeline. The establishment of tradeable rights for
intrastate capacity is among the issues currently under consideration in the
CPUC proceeding. However, if what you are asking about is what has been the
historical or otherwise available receipt capacity for Transwestern
deliveries at North Needles, then let me offer the following.
Transwestern has always operated on the premise that SoCalGas could
physically accept up to a maximum of 750 MMcf/d at its North Needles receipt
point. Consequently, Transwestern has sold firm transportation to its
interstate customers for west flow deliveries to North Needles not to exceed
the 750 MMcf/d limitation. Our west flow mainline capacity is 1.09 Bcf/d.
The 340 MMcf/d difference between the mainline capacity and the physical
capacity into SoCalGas at North Needles is used to provide firm service at
our other delivery points at or near the California border, including PG&E,
Mojave, Southwest Gas, Citizens Utilities, and in the near future, directly
connected electric generation plants.
=====================================
|
3,712 |
Subject: Re: FINAL VERSION
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8644.
=====================================
colleagues:
we are less than 2 hrs short of the press conference. i just got to the
computer and saw all these e-mails. i will suggest we take our local nobel
prize winner's suggestion and go, for the time being, as is. we simply do
not have the time to incorporate changes without violating the need for
consensus. We will release the manifesto at 11am PST, at the press
conference that is going to take place here at haas. Those of you from the
east coast, feel free to release it at any time. Those in the west coast,
i would suggest that we do not release it until 11am, but feel free to talk
to whoever you want about it.
The version of the manifesto that is going to be released is the version
that we sent yesterday afternoon incorporating the excellent comments by
paul. also is the version that includes the list of endorsees as of the time.
if you haven't received the copy, please let me know.
thanks.
pablo
At 11:54 AM 1/26/01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>1. Is the document out? Or are we still making changes?
>
>2. Is the "embargo" over?
>
>3. When can we get the final, final, final for further distribution?
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>David Teece <[email protected]> on 01/25/2001 05:54:00 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], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected]
>cc: [email protected]
>
>Subject: FINAL VERSION
>
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Here is the FINAL version of the manifesto. This version includes some
>additions and deletions to bring on Paul Joskow and Janet Yellen, and
>hopefully Severin Borenstein as well. Also attached is a list of
>endorsements Pablo and I have secured. If you are not on the list and wish
>to be added, please let us know.
>
>Critically, let us know if you wish to be removed. We are picking up new
>endorse by the hour and will release by 9:00 am (PST) tomorrow.
>
>
>David Teece and Pablo Spiller
>
>
>(See attached file: Manifesto DJT 1-25-01.doc)
>(See attached file: endorsee list 12501.doc)
>======================================
>David J. Teece, Director
>Institute of Management, Innovation and Organization
>F402 Haas School of Business #1930
>University of California, Berkeley
>Berkeley, CA 94720-1930
>Phone: (510) 642-1075
>Fax: (510) 642-2826
>http://haas.berkeley.edu/~imio
>======================================
>
>
>
>
=====================================
|
3,713 |
Subject: RE: AB 1890 Retreat
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2003.
=====================================
See below.
"Delaney Hunter" <[email protected]>
10/02/2000 05:13 PM
Please respond to dhunter
To: <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: AB 1890 Retreat
Jeff-
I am always interested! The angle we are looking for is the natural gas
marketing side of things. Are YOU still interested? YES. And I am getting you
because you are afraid to expose anyone else from your company to the
wildness and unpredictability of the AB 1890 Group? NO--I worried about
exposing the staid Sacramento types to high-strung Enron people. (kidding--I
can provide what you need on the market stuff):)
Delaney
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AB 1890 Retreat
Well, if you're going to want someone from Enron, it's going to have to be
me. Let me know if you're still interested.
"Delaney Hunter"
<dhunter@smithandke To: "Jeff Dasovich
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>
mpton.com> cc:
Subject: AB 1890 Retreat
10/02/2000 04:51 PM
Please respond to
dhunter
Jeff-
I am putting together a panel at the AB 1890 Retreat on natural gas issues
and would like to include an Enron representative. We are trying to get
folks who are dealing with the nuts and bolts issues, someone on the
ground -- you get the idea - someone from Houston. Below are the details on
the panel:
Tuesday November 14th -- 1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Natural Gas Issues
Issue: The future cost and availability of natural gas will become a
dominant factor in the generation of electricity in California as more
generation is built in future years. We have seen the natural gas price
increase over 100% in the last fifteen months. Why has the price increased
so dramatically? While the price increases can be expected to spur
increased
exploration and drilling, and this supply. Where can California expect to
procure its natural gas supply and at what price over the next five to ten
years? There are now some significant natural gas storage facilities coming
on line - will they help hedge future price volatility? Are independent,
unregulated generators concerned about our natural gas future? Who are the
largest competitors to California for natural gas supply and what will be
the role of new technology in increasing capture of new supply?
Moderator: Keith McCrea
Suggested Panelists:
____________, California Energy Commission (Fuels planner)
____________, El Paso Energy Corporation (Pipeline representative)
____________, Fuels Procurement, Calpine
____________, Enron
____________, Gas Storage Representative
Ed Yates, CA League of Food Processors (customer perspective)
Can you get back to me and let me know if and who could participate from
Enron? Thanks for your help.
Delaney
P.S. You better be planning to attend this year -- at least the day
sessions! :-)
=====================================
|
3,714 |
Subject: New Study Ranks State Progress on Restructuring
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/383.
=====================================
The Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets has issued the Retail
Energy Deregulation Index 2000 (RED Index).
The RED Index shows that
* Pennsylvania and New York, with scores of 59 and 58 out of 100,
respectively, lead the nation in customer choice.
* California, the pioneer in electric restructuring, surprisingly ranks only
11th, with a score of 34.
* Texas, a relative newcomer to restructuring, leads the South with a score
of 45 and a ranking of seventh in the nation.
* The national average score is 18, but that rises to 20.4 when weighted by
sales volume and 23.3 when weighted by revenue.
The Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets (CAEM) is an independent,
nonprofit think tank whose mission is to promote an effective transition
from the monopoly model of regulation to the competitive or customer choice
model. Ken Malloy, President of CAEM and primary author of the RED Index,
has been a public official with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
the Illinois Commerce Commission, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Is there a correlation between states with higher electric prices and
states' progress toward restructuring? There is a stronger movement in
states that rank higher in average price, since all contiguous states
scoring in the top 10 for price also were in the top 20 in the RED Index.
But this movement is no confined to high priced states. Nevada, Montana,
and Texas all are below average states on price but are ranked in the top 10
on the RED Index.
RED Index 2000 is a 90-page study that measures the progress states have
made in moving from the monopoly model of public utility regulation to the
competitive model. A RED Index score of 0 represents the monopoly model and
a score of 100 represents complete and effective implementation of the
competitive model. The index focuses on retail competition and currently
only covers electric restructuring, and will be updated twice a year.
CAEM developed the RED Index by identifying 18 key attributes that are the
foundation for an effective transition to competition. These attributes were
weighted and scores were assigned to the different options that states have
regarding that attribute. CAEM then conducted research to determine the
option chosen by each state on each of the 18 attributes. The index scores
were then calculated based on the methodology and research.
CAEM provides the RED Index at no fee to state public utility commissions,
state energy offices, consumer organizations, governmental agencies,
educational, and nonprofit, public interest organizations. CAEM funds the
study by charging a fee of $495 to private sector companies.
Private sector organizations can order a copy from [email protected],
through the center website at www.caem.org, or by calling 703-250-1580.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Ken Malloy
President
Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets
5765-F Burke Center Parkway (PMB333)
Burke, VA 22015-2233
o 703-250-1580
h 703-239-8862
f 248-928-5040
e [email protected]
[[ KENMAL~1.VCF : 4119 in winmail.dat ]]
- winmail.dat
=====================================
|
3,715 |
Subject: California Power-Price Boost Not Needed, Agency Says (Update1)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12010.
=====================================
California Power-Price Boost Not Needed, Agency Says (Update1)
By Daniel Taub
Sacramento, California, July 13 (Bloomberg) -- California regulators won't
need to raise electricity prices for consumers to cover a planned $13.4
billion bond sale, said a spokesman for the agency that buys power on behalf
of the state's utilities.
The California Department of Water Resources, which has spent more than $7.7
billion on power this year, is expected to recommend a rate increase of as
much as 25 percent, Dow Jones reported today, citing three unnamed members of
the state's Public Utilities Commission. Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the
agency, said no rate increase is expected.
``Our folks are stunned by this revelation because it is nowhere near what
our numbers show,'' Hidalgo said. ``In fact our numbers show that there is no
need for any increase beyond what's already been done.''
The Department of Water Resources will submit a report to the California
Public Utilities Commission today or Monday with the state's revenue
requirements for repaying a planned $13.4 billion bond sale, Hidalgo said.
The bonds are to be repaid by customers of utilities owned by PG&E Corp.,
Edison International and Sempra Energy.
The bond sales, the largest municipal offering in U.S. history, are scheduled
to begin in September. Governor Gray Davis has said repeatedly that he
believes the bonds can be repaid without further rate increases. His position
hasn't changed, spokesman Steve Maviglio said today.
Previous Increases
In March, the PUC voted to boost rates by 3 cents a kilowatt- hour at the
state's two largest utilities. Rates at PG&E's Pacific Gas & Electric, the
largest California utility, would rise by as much as 36 percent and Southern
California Edison rates would rise by as much as 27 percent, the PUC said at
the time.
The average consumer-price increase would be 30 percent, the PUC said. The
increase, the second this year, was intended to help the state pay for power
purchases. The PUC voted in January to raise rates about 10 percent.
California Treasurer Philip Angelides has said that the bonds will let the
state cushion the immediate rate impact on residents and businesses by
spreading power costs over time. The debt will be repaid over 15 years.
Investors have said they can't predict how the bonds will be received without
knowing how much cushion is built into the revenue pledge backing the debt.
Legislation that paved the way for the bonds allows the state to raise
electricity rates as needed to cover debt repayment. That pledge, typical for
revenue bonds, usually entails a promise to raise a specific level of money
annually to cover interest and principal payments on the debt and provide an
added cushion.
That formula, known as a debt service coverage ratio, must result in
investment-grade ratings for California's power bonds, according to the
legislation. Investors want assurance that an issuer will raise rates to
maintain the promised cushion, even if increases aren't needed at the time of
the bond sale.
=====================================
|
3,716 |
Subject: Re: FERC Agenda
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/657.
=====================================
FERC has already stricken some items off of its agenda (the meeting begins in about 30 minutes). The stricken items are:
The Portland General and EPMI filings to allow PGE to use EnronOnline
Removing Obstacles to Increased Electric Generation and Natural Gas Supply in the Western United States
Mirant vs. ISO New England (June 20, 2001 complaint by Mirant regarding ISO's proposal to revise procedures for mitigation of generators run out of economic merit order during transmission constraints).
HQ v. NYISO (regarding HQ's request for FERC to order ISO to reinstate the May 8, 2000 market clearing price)
Maine PUC vs. New England ISO (regarding the PUC's complaint against the NE ISO asking FERC to direct the ISO to recalculate the energy clearing price on May 8, 2000).
We will let you know what happens at the meeting on the remaining agenda items.
Sarah
Sarah Novosel 07/06/2001 04:51 PM To: Northeast Group, RTO Group cc: Subject: FERC Agenda
FERC has two meetings in July (July 11 and 25) and then is on recess for the month of August. The next FERC meeting after July will not be held until September 12. Consequently, FERC tries to get out as many orders as it can in July so the backlog is not as great in September.
Consistent with that goal, FERC has included a lot of cases on its July 11 agenda. While some of these cases may be stricken from the agenda for July 11(and either deferred to the July 25 meeting or until September), we are still expecting a lot of action from FERC in July. The following cases are on FERC's July 11 agenda:
RTO Proceedings
Alliance RTO
SPP and Entergy RTOs
PJM and PJM West RTOs
New York RTO
New England RTO
RTO West
Southern RTO
Two new RTO dockets entitled "Regional Transmission Organizations"
Other Proceedings
Mirant vs. ISO New England (June 20, 2001 complaint by Mirant regarding ISO's proposal to revise procedures for mitigation of generators run out of economic merit order during transmission constraints).
NYSEG v. NYISO (regarding ISO's hybrid fixed block pricing rule)
NERC (these are old docket numbers that go back to orders issued in 1999 regarding TLR -- Southern and VEPCO sought rehearing of the TLR procedures in June, 1999, arguing that they could result in shedding load. FERC may be responding to those rehearing requests).
HQ v. NYISO (regarding HQ's request for FERC to order ISO to reinstate the May 8, 2000 market clearing price)
Maine PUC vs. New England ISO (regarding the PUC's complaint against the NE ISO asking FERC to direct the ISO to recalculate the energy clearing price on May 8, 2000).
California Proceedings
San Diego Gas & Electric v. Sellers (Docket No. EL00-95-038 -- several parties have already sought rehearing of the June 19 order -- this could be a non-substantive tolling order (putting on hold these requests for rehearing), or it could be something more substantive.
Removing Obstacles to Increased Electric Generation and Natural Gas Supply in the Western United States
Please let me know if you have any questions concerning these proceedings.
Sarah
=====================================
|
3,717 |
Subject: ERC Auctions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2164.
=====================================
Please include this material in your Gov. Davis slides. Very intersting and
possible to do.
Jim
----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 10/06/2000 07:13 PM -----
Mona L Petrochko@EES
09/25/2000 07:59 PM
To: Michael McDonald@ECT, Laird Dyer/SF/ECT@ECT, [email protected], David
Parquet@ECT, Samuel Wehn@ECT, [email protected]
cc: West GA, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: ERC Auctions
The attached memo from Goodin McBride summarizes the regulatory treatment of
PG&E's emission credits to date.
It is an interesting animal. Basically, PG&E has kept most of the credits,
therefore has not divested the credits with the generating assets. However,
these assets have been acquired for nothing, therefore they have no
"regulatory value". In other words, their costs are not part of PG&E's rate
base and are not being recovered from ratepayers.
PG&E has issued RFPs for sales (auction) of the credits in the past. The
credits have been sold to Duke (Moss Landing) and to Southern and Calpine for
Morro Bay and Oakland facilities. They were price-only bids. The after-tax
proceeds went to benefit ratepayers through reducing the over-all CTC.
All of these sales necessitated an 851 application (transfer of utility
asset), but it appears these transfers went without a hitch. ORA supported
the mechanism. There was no CEQA requirement on the basis that the credits
were associated with an existing facility or that a new or modified facility
would acquire appropriate air emissions permits.
If PG&E were to keep the ERCs, it would need to file a 377 (utility
retention) and show that it is in the public interest for the utility to
retain. Considering that the utility appears to have no real use for the
credits, it would be a difficult showing. The credits do not appear to be
part of PG&E's settlement proposal to transfer the hydro assets to its
affiliate.
So, PG&E has sold the credits in the past. They have been sold to new owners
of PG&E facilities. The big questions is how can we encourage PG&E to
initiate another sale. Their shareholders get no real benefit, as it appears
likely that PG&E can recover all of their CTCs, pending valuation of their
hydro facilities.
I would suggest that we approach PG&E on their willingness to auction a
portion of these credits on a comparable basis to its other auctions. (I've
asked Mike to ascertain the amount of time involved with the previous
auctions.)
If this cooperative approach does not succeed, we can discuss the possibility
of applying some regulatory pressure to the valuation of the remaining
credits. We may also want to look at other agencies that may be anxious for
the release of "hoarded" credits (like CEC), especially if such hoarding
prevents new generation developments from coming on line.
Mona
---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 09/25/2000
05:10 PM ---------------------------
AMO <[email protected]> on 09/25/2000 04:57:52 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: ERC Auctions
- X16872.DOC
=====================================
|
3,718 |
Subject: Re: Western Power Trading Forum Press Release on ISO Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11460.
=====================================
Nice job. You take a self-promotion course over the weekend?
Susan J Mara
04/24/2001 10:33 AM
To: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Western Power Trading Forum Press Release on ISO Plan
I proposed the FERC filing, helped draft it, proposed the press release and
helped shape it.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 04/24/2001 08:30 AM -----
Gary Ackerman <[email protected]>
04/23/2001 08:23 PM
Please respond to foothill
To: webmaster <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Western Power Trading Forum Press Release
PRESS RELEASE
Menlo Park, CA
April 23, 2001
TRADE GROUP BLASTS ISO PLAN TO STABILIZE MARKETS
The Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF), last week sent federal regulators a
stern warning that the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO) plan
to "stabilize" the California market will cause more blackouts in the West,
chase away much-needed new generation, and jack up wholesale power costs.
WPTF warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that the CAISO
proposal will have an extremely detrimental impact on power markets in
California as well as other electricity markets throughout the Western
Region. "Their plan imposes price caps and curtailment of power exports,"
said Gary Ackerman, executive director of the group. If approved, the CAISO
plan, called the Market Stabilization Plan, will create disincentives for the
development of additional generation capacity, precisely the wrong signal
that needs to be sent at this time. As a result, in addition to leading to
higher costs, the Plan will impair reliability in California and throughout
the West. WPTF found that the CAISO's proposal to curtail exports is
particularly troublesome and potentially interferes with interstate commerce
in violation of the Federal Power Act ("FPA").
"This plan is yet another attempt to heap more rules on an already overruled
market. This is the kind of misguided thinking that got California into its
current mess. Their plan is too complex, academic, and does absolutely
nothing to address the real issues of low supply and high demand.
Consequently, the plan will have exactly the opposite effect," Ackerman
commented.
The WPTF supports the FERC's pro-competitive policies under Order No. 2000
for regional approaches to interstate electricity markets.
The membership of WPTF includes power marketers, scheduling coordinators,
power exchanges, generators and other active participants in the restructured
California electric market. The members share a common mission of enhancing
competition in electric markets. WPTF actions are focused on supporting the
development of competitive electricity markets throughout the region and
developing uniform operating rules to facilitate transactions among market
participants.
=====================================
|
3,719 |
Subject: Re: California LNG
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron', '[email protected]', 'James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12849.
=====================================
Robert & Jeff --
Is there some other (competitive) storage that would want to work with our
deal in CA other than SocalGas? Maybe find someone adding some new storage.
Jim
Robert Neustaedter@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
05/16/2001 10:20 AM
To: Kurt Lindahl/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jody
Crook/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: California LNG
In response to your request to review the SoCalGas tariff with respect to
storage service for quantities of gasified LNG in excess of market I present
the following.
SoCalGas has various storage rate schedules available to its customers,
including forms of interruptible storage service.
Because of the long-term nature of the proposed project and firm injection
requirements I focused on Schedule No. G-LTS (firm Long-Term Storage Service).
Pricing under this schedule is very flexible (both upwards and downwards). I
have used the rates included in the tariff which are suppossed to closely
correspond to utilty cost of providing such service and are also consistent
with rates previously supplied for economic modeling purposes. Keep in mind,
these are benchmark costs, and may be subject to downward or upward
negotiation.
Because of the magnitude of the injection quantities, it was advised that
some expansion of storage capabilities may be required.
Fixed charges consist of an annual inventory capacity charge, and annual
withdrawal capacity charge and a monthly firm injection charge. The monthly
firm injection charge is the largest cost component. Based on conversations
with SoCalGas, firm injection rights (similar to pipeline capacity) would be
sold on a monthly basis. Consequently, in order to have firm rights to
injection capacity, it would have to be reserved 365 days out of a year.
During the off-peak season, "as-available" injection rights may be used that
could substantially lower the cost, but given the inflexibility of unloading
of the LNG ships, this was not considered.
Variable costs would consist of injection and withdrawal charges in the
applicable periods (peak and off-peak) for injection and withdrawal
quantities.
A fuel retention factor of 2.44% would be applied to injections during the
peak period.
While not necessarily affecting the overall costs, a transmission charge on
injections and withdrawals would also be assessed. A transmission charge on
injections would appear as a debit on the invoice, and an equal transmission
charge on withdrawals would appear as a credit, effectively resulting in a
wash. However, for cash flow purposes it should be considered. The
transmission charge is approximately 57 cents per dekatherm.
Transportation from storage would require a separate contract.
A spreadsheet is attached that quantifies the storage cost on an annual basis
utilizing the injection/ withdrawal and inventory assumptions provided.
Again, please keep in mind that the actual costs are negotiable.
I hope this helps in your analysis, and please feel free to call and discuss
further.
Robert
=====================================
|
3,720 |
Subject: Re: AB31X - Response Needed
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9677.
=====================================
Concur with Harry, i.e., continue to take the position that the program
should be available to all. When I was in Sacramento last week at a meeting
of all the players, the utilities argument against including DA customers was
based on "double dipping," i.e., payments to customers/ESPs for curtailment,
plus payments to customers/ESPs for the re-sale of power to the ISO resulting
from the curtailment.
The utilities "double dipping" argument is off base. As important, the state
is facing the threat of frequent and severe supply disruptions this summer
and it needs to take each and every step necessary to try to avoid them. The
utility position (apart from being incorrect) seems pretty short-sighted
given the dire circumstances. So seems clear that California should include
both DA and bundled customers in the program.
Best,
Jeff
Harry Kingerski
03/06/2001 09:02 AM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Fred L Kelly/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Dave
Roberts/HOU/EES@EES, Gary Weiss/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES,
Jubran Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Leslie
Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: AB31X - Response Needed
Mike Day left me a message saying in discussions yesterday on AB 31X
(Wright's load curtailment bill), the utilities were making the point that
31x should only address bundled customers since the utilities were making the
incentive payments out of funds that would otherwise go to pay DWR (in
effect, the curtailments are reducing the utility net short position). They
were ok with having ESPs aggregate the loads of bundled customers (which will
be a very significant win, if we get it). They think DA customers can get
curtailment benefits through existing (and new) ISO programs.
The dilemmas are:
the ISO programs may or may not be finalized for this summer and may or may
not give incentives that are as beneficial as AB31X
the utility plan discriminates against DA
preferably, the ISO would administer the programs described by AB31X for all
customers but that puts the ISO in the position of having to get approvals
from FERC for a CA-legislated program (they will have to do this anyway)
(nearly) all of our customers will be bundled this summer anyway, so there's
no immediate loss from going with the utility's position
We owe Mike an answer today. Any thoughts? My suggestion at this point is
to stick with the high road and argue for non-discriminatory treatment with
equal incentives paid to bundled and DA customers.
Background: AB31X would give $500/mwh incentives for day ahead curtailment,
$750/mwh incentives for day-of curtailments, and incentives to be determined
for scheduled load reductions. The ISO would invoke the programs based on
system conditions.
The ISO so far has put in place the equivalent of a scheduled load reduction
program, with specific payments, but has not finalized any day ahead or day
of programs.
=====================================
|
3,721 |
Subject: Re: That Joyous Time of Year
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/604.
=====================================
OK, given the Enron Xmas party in Houston, and Sue's request that weekends be
included in the ballot, please repond to the dates listed below. Please give
1) your top 3 preferences, and 2) any days for which you have a (true)
conflict. Thanks. Also, unless I hear otherwise, we'll assume that partners
and children come included. Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
Nov. 30, Dec. 1, Dec. 2
Dec. 14th, 15th, 16th
Susan J Mara@EES
10/11/2000 11:51 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: That Joyous Time of Year
I always like an activity -- I like to include kids too if that's OK with
others
I'm fine with including the rest of the office -- that would probably limit
any activity we would do -- the other business units would have to agree to
accept any liability to cover last minute back outs (like ENA two years
ago). It would also maker the event very BIG -- so I'd be more happy with
just GA - but I can go either way.
We should include Marcie, Paul, Carl, Roger and Peter and families -- if they
want to come
School nights are bad -- even without kids -- so the 7th doesn't work. We're
also supposed to be in Houston on the 7th and 8th --so the 8th doesn't work.
I vote for the following weekend -- fri or Sat
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 10/11/2000 09:41
AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 10/10/2000 04:37 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, [email protected]
cc:
Subject: That Joyous Time of Year
Well, it's upon us again and that means X-Mas party.
Joseph and I have begun (barely) to plan for this year's festivities. But
before we get to far along, tried and true democratic (small "d") principles
call for a wee bit of polling.
Because we're already in the middle of October we need your responses
pronto. If we don't receive your responses by COB Thursday, then democracy's
out the window, and good ol' dictatorship takes over.
Of course, it will be difficult to grant everyone's wishes, but all
suggestions will be given great (and equal) weight. Here are the questions:
Would you prefer just dinner, or dinner plus an activity?
Joseph and I are leaning toward dinner and an activity, but wanted to hear
from other folks. If yes, Joseph has come up with a couple of very fun ideas
for an activity but suggestions are greatly encouraged and welcome. Same
goes for a restaurant (understanding that the choice of activity may
influence where we eat). Sue has put in her vote for Fleur de Lys.
Should we try to organize the event with the rest of the SF office (i.e., EES
and ENA) or confine it to GA?
Should we expand to include Western GA or keep it to SFGA?
We choose for dates the 7th or 8th or 14th or 15th of December. What's your
preference. Is there a day that just won't work?
Joseph, if I've missed anything, please tack on.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,722 |
Subject: FW: SFSU Cogen Relocation - Gas Metering
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/interconnection/10.
=====================================
Jeff,
I am seeking your advice/assistance on an issue with PG&E at San Francisco
State University. The attached message indicates that PG&E in unable to meet
our schedule requirements for the installation of meters on our generator
relocation project at SFSU. We have been working since April to try and
ensure this problem would not occur. PG&E has consistently either not
responded or been slow to respond. When we did hear back from them, they
always assured us that there would be no problem, but they never made firm
committments in their responses. Even now they are not providing firm dates.
The delays they are causing will create substantial customer satisfaction
problems, and subjects us to Liquidated Damages of $850 per day.
I have a call into Bob Kinert at PG&E to inform him of our mutual customer
satisfaction issue. I am hoping he will be able to take action to improve
the schedule. What steps do you reccommend if Bob is of little or no
assistance?
Thanks for your timely support.
Geoff
Geoff Pollard, PE
Account Manager
UC/CSU Program
Enron Energy Services
925-543-3763
-----Original Message-----
From: Larsen, John
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:22 AM
To: Pollard, Geoff
Subject: FW: SFSU Cogen Relocation - Gas Metering
Geoff,
I guess now would be the time for you to implement your plan.
John E. Larsen
Enron Energy Services
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 500
San Ramon, California 94583
925-543-3827
925-543-3550 FAX
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: "Feiling, Mark" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>@ENRON@EES
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 4:55 PM
To: Larsen, John
Subject: RE: SFSU Cogen Relocation - Gas Metering
John, I received a message from our gas planning department that they
have not received approval from our general office, they expect it within
the next two weeks . Estimating still has the job and will release it as
soon as they get the word. I do not believe we will meet your date of
December 20th it will be more like the 15th of January. I apologize for
the delay we are working as fast as we can with the resources that we have.
Thanks, Mark
----------
From: John Larsen[SMTP:[email protected]]
<mailto:[SMTP:[email protected]]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 11:20 AM
To: Feiling, Mark
Subject: RE: SFSU Cogen Relocation - Gas Metering
Mark,
We still have not received anything from you regarding the gas
metering
engineering for the reinstallation of the Waukesha at the SFSU
Central Plant.
Will the meter that you removed from Verducci be reused?
Are you still scheduled for installation the week of November 14,
1999?
Thanks Mark.
John E. Larsen 925-543-3827
Enron Energy Services West 925-543-3550 FAX
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 500 [email protected]
San Ramon, California 94583
-----Original Message-----
From: "Feiling, Mark" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>@ENRON@EES
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 6:51 PM
To: Larsen, John
Subject: RE: SFSU Cogen Relocation - Gas Metering
_
=====================================
|
3,723 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1432.
=====================================
1997 Robert Mondavi Winery Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve
(Exceptional) - Epitomizes Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, the grape that is
the backbone of America's most important wine district. Even at Robert
Mondavi, which has produced its share of impressive cabs, the 1997 reserve
stands out. The 1997 vintage was the best of the 1990s in the Napa Valley,
yielding rich, concentrated red wines. Robert Mondavi Reserve's showy aromas
of spice, cassis, and cedar make a strong impression in the glass. On the
palate, the wine is deeply layered with pure dark-berry fruit flavors, has
firm, ripe tannins and an ultra-smooth finish with superb length. ($120)
Wine Enthusiast
November 2000 (Circulation: 79,000)
1997 Robert Mondavi Winery Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve - (91) Very
tight nose, with blackberry, coffee and cocoa notes, this is a big wine that
shows great intensity and depth. Quite closed now, the dark profile keeps its
cards close to the vest. One thing for sure: this definitely one for the
cellar. The finish is lengthy, with brisk tannins as well as espresso and
bitter-chocolate notes. Hold for eight to ten years; this wine should keep
till 2020. ($120)
Beverage Industry News
December 2000
HEADLINE: "Perfection in California"
AUTHOR: Wilfred Wong
SUMMARY:
Recommended:
1997 Opus One Napa Valley Red Wine (100) -- Could the 1997 Opus One be that
elusive wine that one never finds? In my continual pursuit for wine nirvana,
I have traveled to Bordeaux and back with stops in Italy and Australia and
for what? Besides losing my luggage, tracking through customs and using
non-functional phone cards, I have been searching for that wine of
perfection. Could this wine finally be the one? This just released Opus One
may be the absolute finest young red wine I have ever tasted in a bottle
(barrel samples don't count). Aristocratically structured the 1997 Opus One
magnificently perfumes the air with aromas of ripe, succulent fruit,
fragrant, sweet earth and delicate, white flowers. Persistent to the point of
perfection, this wine does not allow its captive audience to escape its web
of Cabernet ecstasy. Made with the five important varietals of Bordeaux (82%
Cabernet Sauvignon, 8% Cabernet Franc, 5% Merlot, 4% Malbec, and 1% Petit
Verdot), this spellbinding wine commands attention. This is my top wine of
the year. (Best Served 2002-2018). ($130)
WineToday.com
October 30, 2000
HEADLINE: "Wine Reviews"
AUTHORS: Tim Fish
SUMMARY:
Recommended:
1997 Robert Mondavi Winery Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve - (4
stars) Comments: A stunner. It brings out the best in the 1997 vintage. It
has deep, rich fruit with a ripe, silky texture; General Qualities:
Medium-full bodied, complex, dry, balanced acidity, strong oak impression,
fairly tannic; Color: Dark ruby; Aromas: Black cherry, cassis, chocolate,
coffee, licorice, pencil lead, toast, walnut; Other Descriptors: Balanced,
long finish, ripe, supple, velvety. ($120)
Nancy
(707) 251-4870 (phone)
(707) 265-5446 (fax)
"Plus je bois, mieux je chante"
=====================================
|
3,724 |
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: USA: U.S. electric utilities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/720.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 09/29/2000 03:53 PM
-----
[email protected]
09/26/2000 08:10 PM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: USA: U.S. electric utilities
want new depreciation rules ...
[IMAGE]
USA: U.S. electric utilities want new depreciation rules.
?
09/26/2000
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2000.
WASHINGTON, Sept 26 (Reuters) - U.S. utilities want federal tax laws changed
to allow electric generation facilities to be depreciated over seven years
instead of the current 15-20, an industry trade group told a House
subcommittee on Tuesday.
Officials from the Alliance of Energy Suppliers, the energy supply division
of the Edison Electric Institute, said rapid deregulation and consolidation
in the industry made the old depreciation rules obsolete, and hurt the
sector's ability to attract investment for new plant construction.
Under the old school, regulated market structure, dividend payments to
utility investors were more or less predictable, but that was no longer the
case in openly competitive markets.
"Previously applicable rules regarding the recovery of capital simply do not
apply any longer," said Theodore Vogel, vice president and tax counsel for
DTE Energy Co , a member of the industry alliance.
"Investors will demand a return of, and a higher return on, their investments
in building and maintaining power plants over a much shorter period of time,"
he said.
Some 24 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to open their
retail markets to competition. Wholesale markets have been gradually
deregulated by the federal government.
Vogel said demand for power is great and growing, noting that 16 percent of
U.S. energy consumption could be attributed to increases in information
technology and telecommunications.
U.S. demand for power is expected to grow at a rate of more than 5 percent a
year, he said.
New supply is lagging, however, notably in states where deregulation has seen
consumers pay market rates for power for the first time, like in California,
where price caps had to be introduced in San Diego this summer after electric
bills tripled and caused a public outcry.
"Congress should legislate incentives to encourage the construction of new or
more efficient electric generation facilities," Vogel said.
The Edison Electric Institute is the trade group for the nation's
shareholder-owned electric utilities.
Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 99
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClipsor contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] 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
=====================================
|
3,725 |
Subject: Re: Teams
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1882.
=====================================
See my note and Christine's response. Thoughts? Suggestions? Jimmie,
apparently she's had a crush on you ever since she heard you say,
"Cash-sucking machine."
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 09/28/2000 07:11 PM -----
Christine Piesco <[email protected]>
09/28/2000 06:23 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: Teams
Jeff,
Sorry, I should have mentioned when we spoke that Prof Aceves already said it
would be OK to join a group with 4, making it 5. He knew that would be the
case. He suggested I pick a group, rather than him just randomly choosing one
to assign me to. You seemed nice based on my initial reaction to meeting you,
which is why I approached you about it.
If the group has reservations based on my past group's experience, please let
them know that the situation arose because I was out of the country for a week
and a half without email access, and therefore wasn't able to contribute to
two weeks of assignments. I had let Prof Aceves know about this planned
business-related absence even before the course started, so he didn't penalize
me. He forgot that I was the person who had sent him that note when my group
approached him to let him know I hadn't contributed to two assignments. He
said based on that, he would speak to the group to put me back in it if I
wanted, or I could join another group. I hadn't had any conflicts whatsoever
with the other group, I just had been out of communication, but I felt that
given what had happened starting with a fresh group would be easier. In my
opinion, it was just unfortunate that this trip happened two weeks into the
class, before I could prove myself to my old group.
If you can communicate both of these things to your other group members, I
really would like to join you all. My alternative at this point would be to do
the next assignment individually, since I wouldn't be able to find another
group until two weeks from now, and then have the professor assign me to one.
I greatly appreciate your help. If I can join you all, please let me know as
soon as possible so I can make sure I contribute to the next assignment.
Thanks,
Christine
[email protected] wrote:
> Christine:
>
> My apologies. My schedule melted down after we talked on Monday. Here's
> where folks came out. There's some concern about size. We're supposed to
> be no larger than 3, but we lobbied Aceves and he apparently Ok'd our
> "oversized" group. The other folks in the group--who talked to him
> originally--are pretty sure that five will violate the rules. Folks
> wondered if there were other groups that are smaller than ours that you
> could hook up with. Sorry about that---it's a wrinkle that I didn't think
> about when we spoke. If it gets real ugly trying to find a smaller group,
> let me know. Fortunately there's not another team case due for two weeks.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
--
Christine Piesco
Industrials Account Manager
Oracle Corporation
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Phone: (650) 506-3640
Fax: (650) 633-3753
[email protected]
- christine.piesco.vcf
=====================================
|
3,726 |
Subject: California 6/13
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12561.
=====================================
Executive Summary
-CPUC rules that SoCal must pay 15% of debt to QFs (approximately $50 million)
-Ruling heightens likelihood of voluntary bankruptcy filing by SoCal
-Voluntary filing further heightened by successful ring-fencing by EIX parent
-Bankruptcy judge firm in support for QFs
Report
1. SoCal Loses CPUC Ruling, But Retains Appeal Option
As you may have seen, Bloomberg reported that the CPUC voted 5-0 to force
SoCal to make 15% of its payments owed to alternative energy producers in
California. CPUC rules allow 30 days to appeal its rulings, leaving a window
open for SoCal to buy more time.
2. Voluntary Filing In?
With regard to a SoCal bankruptcy filing, the key now is how SoCal's board
feels about progress rather than deadlines with creditors. In other words,
sources believe that a voluntary filing is more likely than an involuntary
filing. A continuing lack of progress on a bailout and an increase in the
number of liens filed against SoCal is more likely to make the SoCal board
want to file for bankrutpcy voluntarily. The recent ring-fencing by Edison
International reflects their need to pay off cross-default risk and to cut
ties
in their bank facility between the parent company and lines of credit helds
by SoCal.
In and of outself, it does not necessarily signal an imminent filing.
3. Involuntary Out?
Sources indicate that the unsecured financial creditors are not
considering a filing against SoCal. This is because the financial creditors
believe that they would still be worse off in bankruptcy. Sources report
that in creditor discussions, there has not been talk of the debt holders
not being paid. "People have talked about screwing the generators and
everyone else, but not the debt holders," a source commented.
The QFs are unlikely to file against SoCal because they have fairly good
contracts in place. Also, they receive high capacity fees in the summer
(these fees vary seasonally and are distinct from generating fees). These
capacity fees are calculated on a rolling, 4-year basis and will be
re-calculated next year. The QFs want this summer included in the
recalculation, incentivizing them to keep their contracts in place.
4. Montali Supporting QFs
Judge Montali, by his recent rulings, is sending a signal that he is
concerned for the QFs and is sensitive to their hardships. He is trying to
help them through his rulings. For example, as long as QFs remain on line,
those who petition can receive additional payments from PG&E. Over a
4-month period, these payments equal 20% of the QFs' pre-petition claims.
This provides the QFs incentive to remain connected to PG&E.
5. GE Looking to Restructure Generating Capacity Financing
General Electric is reportedly "deeply concerned" about the stability of
financing generating capacity in the US. (GE has over 70% of the gas
turbine market.) GE is reportedly trying to keep its margins down and is
not raising its prices due to concerns about instability. Sources believe
that a very significant percentage of generating capacity financing will
have to be restrucured in five years.
=====================================
|
3,727 |
Subject: EMBA Social Events
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13085.
=====================================
Fellow Evening MBA Students (old and new),
Cindy Best and I would like to introduce ourselves as your new Social
Chairs for the Evening MBA Association. Now that we've all survived the
latest year (or the application process for you new Admits), it's time to
PARTY!! The title "Summer Vacation" lost its meaning to most of us once we
got "regular" jobs. We're going to bring that feeling of summer vacation
back to you - even if you are working full time. We're going to organize
for you and your families many events during the summer to help you make the
most of your "vacation".
For those not able to commit any serious blocks of time to your fellow
classmates, we will be organizing monthly happy hours at different locations
around the Bay Area for brief but fun gatherings. The locations are not yet
set, and we welcome any suggestions you may have for meeting places. The
dates will be as follows (sorry North Bay - you're just
too far out there!):
Date Event
Fri 6/08 Happy Hour of the Month in SF - Location TBD
Fri 7/06 Happy Hour of the Month in South Bay - Location TBD
Fri 8/03 Happy Hour of the Month in East Bay - Location TBD
For those of you looking to broaden your horizons and participate in some
real fun activities, we have some trips on the burner such as: a 4th of July
fireworks/concert extravaganza at Concord Pavilion, a weekend camping trip,
and others. As these events and dates become firm, we will send out more
information. We don't want to overload you immediately, after all ... this
is your vacation!
Our first event, however, is set and we would like to get some RSVP's of
those interested. It's the musical "Oliver" at the top of Mt. Tam
Amphitheatre on Sunday, June 17th. This is an outdoor summer performance
and an all day event where you pack in your own lunch and enjoy the musical
in a relaxing Sunday afternoon. This is a great way to spend Father's Day
with your family! Concert-goers are bused in from parking lots near the 101
in Mill Valley. At the end of the day, the event organizers will either bus
you directly back to your car, or take back all your gear for you, which
frees you up to hike down Mt. Tam (optional). At the end of your optional
hike, the buses pick you up from the end of your hike and take you back to
your car and gear. It is a great summer event which takes full advantage of
living in SF with your classmates and families. If you want to check out
more information on it, the website for it is www.mountainplay.org and the
number to buy tickets is(415) 383-0155.
Cost: $24/adult; $17/junior(age 4-17)
Car Pool RSVP: send an email to Tony by June 8th ([email protected])
To minimize complications in purchasing and delivering tickets, you will
need to purchase tickets individually. We recommend purchasing the tickets
no later than next week. Please RSVP with your interest and if you are
interested in car pooling, indicate your location. We will follow up with
additional details, which are dependent on the group size.
Well, let the summer fun begin!! Look forward to hearing from you.
Cindy Best and Tony Tai
=====================================
|
3,728 |
Subject: DG Impediments
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11746.
=====================================
Jim:
Here's the DG stuff from the Hertzberg letter
***************************************************************************=
8
Key Barriers to the Development of Distributed Generation and Proposals to=
=20
Remove the Barriers
Barrier: Excessive and Unnecessary Utility Stand-by Charges
Solution
The executive orders issued by the Governor on February 14th took a step in=
=20
the right direction, but don=01,t go nearly far enough. Utility stand-by=
=20
charges have always been designed by the utilities to protect their monopol=
y=20
position, extract monopoly prices from customers, or both. They must be=20
eliminated for all distributed generation applications. There is no reason=
=20
to limit the elimination of these charges to generation facilities that are=
=20
less than 1MW. These limits will only lengthen unnecessarily the time it=
=20
takes for California to close the significant gap between supply and demand=
=20
and reduce the risk of black outs this summer.=20
The provisions of SB27X eliminating stand-by charges were stripped from the=
=20
bill. This will likely thwart any attempts to encourage the near-term=20
development of distributed generation and reduce the severe supply-demand=
=20
imbalance in California.
The language eliminating stand-by charges should be re-inserted into SB27X=
=20
and modified to remove all caps on plant size.=20
=20
Barrier: Excessive delays and costs related to interconnecting facilities=
=20
with investor-owned and municipal utilities
Solution: =20
The Governor=01,s executive order regarding interconnection is a step in th=
e=20
right direction=01*D-D-26-01 requires utilities to complete interconnection=
=20
studies within 7 days. California should ensure that this requirement=20
applies to all generation facilities, including distributed generation. In=
=20
addition, the financial conflicts the utilities face when interconnecting=
=20
generation facilities are simply too powerful to overcome through executive=
=20
orders or other regulations. =20
To the greatest extent possible, California should shift control over=20
interconnection away from the utility and place that control with the=20
California ISO. This could be accomplished through amendments to SB 27X.
Barrier: Permitting and Air Quality Issues
Developers of distributed (i.e., =01&on-site=018) generation that is 50 MWs=
or=20
greater must receive certification from the California Energy Commission an=
d=20
therefore face all of the impediments to development that large-scale=20
generation faces. =20
Solution:=20
California should ensure that the executive orders (D-22-01 thru D-26-01)=
=20
issued by the Governor to expedite plant siting and maximize plant output=
=20
apply equally to smaller scale, =01&distributed generation=018 facilities. =
In=20
addition, distributed generation that is less than 50 MWs continues to face=
=20
local opposition. The State should ensure that local, parochial interests=
=20
cannot block otherwise beneficial distributed generation projects. =20
These objectives could be accomplished through amendments to SB27X.
=====================================
|
3,729 |
Subject: CGT Gas Accord II Team
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5910.
=====================================
I don't think the "sensitivity classes" are having the desired effect on
Keith....
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron on 01/04/2001
06:09 PM ---------------------------
"Keith McCrea" <[email protected]> on 01/04/2001 06:01:45 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Re: CGT Gas Accord II Team
The meetings next week conflict with workshops scheduled by the CPUC on
interruptible customer issues and it is doubtful that anyone from CMTA will
be in attendance. Suggest that meetings on Gas Accord be postponed till Feb
when hopefully we will have a better idea whether PG&E still exists.
>>> "Lindh, Frank (Law)" <[email protected]> 1/4/01 3:49:37 PM >>>
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT
PER CPUC RULE 51
ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
This is a reminder that PG&E will hold the first Gas Accord II Workshop of
the new year on Wednesday and Thursday, January 10 and 11. The workshop
will be held at PG&E headquarters in San Francisco, 77 Beale Street, in
Conference Room 300.
Our objective for this workshop is to review and explain PG&E's
comprehensive settlement proposal, which was distributed by e-mail on
December 21, 2000, to those parties who have explicitly agreed to abide by
CPUC Rule 51.
If you did not receive a copy of the December 21 transmittal and would like
one, please complete the attached Rule 51 form and return it by e-mail to
Frank Lindh ([email protected]) and Geoff Bellenger ([email protected]), or by FAX to
Geoff at 415-973-0881.
Because we will be discussing the substance of PG&E's settlement proposal at
next week's workshop, any party who wishes to attend will be required to
have completed the Rule 51 form. (Please note, if you received our December
21 transmittal, then that means PG&E has your Rule 51 form on file, so there
is no need to fill it out again.)
Also attached below is a proposed Agenda for next week's workshop. We will
start the sessions at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday and at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday.
We will provide coffee and juice in the morning, and lunch each day.
If you do plan to attend next week's workshop, we request that you please
confirm your attendance, so that we can get a headcount for the food and
drink orders. Please e-mail a response to Darcy Morrison ([email protected]), or
telephone Darcy at (415) 973-6644.
We look forward to seeing you next week and having a productive discussion.
Frank Lindh Ray Williams
415-973-2776 415-973-3634
[email protected] [email protected]
<<Gas Accord II Information Form.doc>> <<Agenda 1-10&11-01 Workshop.doc>>
---------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message from
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and any attachments
is confidential and intended only for the named
recipient(s). If you have received this message
in error, you are prohibited from copying,
distributing or using the information. Please
contact the sender immediately by return email
and delete the original message.
=====================================
|
3,730 |
Subject: RE: Extensions of CA Deals
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/328.
=====================================
No problem. Your sense that the commercial folks going to be OK with this approach?
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Mike
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 12:55 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Extensions of CA Deals
It's worth a hell of a lot. Thanks.
From: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/27/2001 12:05 PM
To: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, [email protected]@SMTP@enronXgate, Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Kelly Higgason/HOU/EES@EES, Michelle Maynard/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: RE: Extensions of CA Deals
For what it's worth, I concur with Mike. Option 3 is the most prudent, and preferable, path.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Mike
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:50 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; [email protected]; Williams, Robert C.
Cc: Sharp, Vicki; Higgason, Kelly; Maynard, Michelle
Subject: Extensions of CA Deals
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
I'd like to get some thoughts on this issue and hopefully build a consensus pretty quickly.
We are in the process of extending the term of some of our existing CA deals that we executed on the Master in June. Understanding that "new" deals struck after 9/20 are, and extensions of existing deals may be, at risk, it seems to me we have three basic options in order to effect this extension, and I want to make sure we evaluate and choose the one that minimizes the risk that the extension is invalidated. Note that DASR's have been submitted for the subject accounts under the original Transactions.
The 3 choices I see are:
1. .Amend and Restate the existing Transaction Confirmation to add the extension and new price for the extension. In this case, the extension would be wrapped up on one document that is signed after 9/20 but effective in June.
2. Simply amend the existing Transaction to add extended term and price. This would be a separate document.
3. Execute a whole new Transaction for the extended term, which would be effective when signed but the services and price under which would not start until after the expiration of the existing Transaction. The existing Transaction would stay in tact as written.
It seems to me that choice number 3 is the safest overall. The amended and restated route has appeal because the whole transaction is dated back to June. However, if a regulator were to peel it back, the conclusion could be that the deal was struck after Sept 20 and therefore the whole transaction was invalid, including the original structure. I think that choice 2, though creating a separate document for the extension, could fall into the same trap. In that sense, choice 3 seems safest because arguably the original transaction is not at risk. If the extension is invalidated, that determination would likely not claw back to the original deal.
The commercial teams want to close these extensions in Q3 so they are moving fast. Please let me know your thoughts asap. If we need to have a quick call, I can set something up. Thanks. MDS
=====================================
|
3,731 |
Subject: 4 questions and answers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/272.
=====================================
Q1: What are the main reasons for having a common currency Euro for the EU?
Transactions of money and trade will less expensive because currency
exchange cost will disappear. Saves the costs of hedging exchange rate risks
(some monetary, others due to the drain on managerial attention) or the risks
of not heding fixed but adjustable rates. Makes price differences more
transparent across borders, which may increase trade. Economists do not fully
understand why, but beyond the measurable effects of the effects I just
mentioned, a common currency increases trade even more than these slightly
lower transaction costs can explain.
The process of qualifying for unification also required lower
inflation
and deficits, which many economists and politicians desired.
The main arguments for monetary unifications were political, not
economic, having to do with integrating Western Europe.
Q2: Beside losing its monetary authority, what are the reasons that the UK
does
not want to join the Euro? I believe the Government has a different opinion
than the public. What are these arguments?
As you note, the economic reason is fear of losing control over domestic
monetary policy. As with the decision to join, the UK's decision not to join
was largely political, choosing NOT to unify as rapidly with Europe on
monetary
and lots of other matters (social charter that may regulate working
conditions,
etc.).
Q3: In my notes, I wrote "You don't get rich by exporting -- you get rich in
the short run by importing." What do you mean?
I said that unclearly. I should have said, "You do not raise your standard of
living by exporting; you raise it by importing." At the same time, exports
are
the price of imports, so you raise your grandkids' standard of living by
exporting intsead of borrowing to pay for the imports. (Unless the imports
are
high-value investment goods...)
Q4: I also wrote in my notes: "Trade deficits and exchange rates can't be used
to describe a country's prosperity." If trade deficits and exch. rates can't
be used to describe prosperity, what is the best measure? At first GDP comes
to
mind, but in my day 2 notes, there are all sorts of reasons why GDP isn't a
good measure, the most poignant one being: "2 countries have the same GDP, but
one country has twice as many people -- this country has lower per capita GDP,
and is poorer than the first country."
CRUX: is per capita GDP a good measure of prosperity?
Per capita is a pretty good measure of prosperity and living standards. The
list we gave are all the components of "the good life" it leaves out. On
average, rich nations have higher life expectancy, etc., so GDP per capita is
not too misleading, but it clearly can be (as we pointed out). Thus, no
single
measure suffices, and a combination of measures can be useful.
David I. Levine Associate professor
Haas School of Business ph: 510/642-1697
University of California fax: 510/643-1420
Berkeley CA 94720-1900 email:
[email protected]
http://web.haas.berkeley.edu/www/levine/
=====================================
|
3,732 |
Subject: Re: This Friday, etc.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9432.
=====================================
I'm getting him deck railing, a new pump, a new fire place, new skylights, a
new roof, and a new car.
"Scott Laughlin" <[email protected]>
02/26/2001 04:39 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: This Friday, etc.
Even if my diet consisted solely of rare African roots, I'd still go to La
Folie for your 40th. I understand that you don't want to make people do what
they don't really want to do, but this is also about you, the celebration of
the 40th year of your life, etc. Fuck everyone else. Anyway, from what I've
heard, everyone's cool with Folie. After all, the wine ain't half bad. But,
I'll be leaving all this up to the Lone Mountain Sisters (and not their
current bluegrass boyfriends).
I'm happy to hear it's the man in black's b-day. Hopefully he'll stay around
for many more.
LATE!
PS I meant to ask last night: what the hell are we getting Eldon for his
birthday?
>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
>Subject: This Friday, etc.
>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:42:32 -0600
>
>Cameron: Thanks for a dee-licious dinner. (I did steal a couple pieces of
>duck---curiosity killed the cat---and it was dee-lectible.)
>
>Couple things: Very, very nice to go through all that to get reservations
>at La Folie and I of course love the place, but I was thinking that maybe
>we ought to go somewhere that's a tad less expensive. I'm thinking that
>Sean ain't even a big food person, that he's not working, that Molly to
>bring down a king's ransom in her biz, and Tom and Karen are, after all,
>vegetarians. Anywho, it's really kind of you guys to want to go there,
>but I'm just throwing out the notion that maybe we should go to another
>place that's just a wee bit less dear. Maybe that other French place
>that's just one room that we went to out in the Avenues. Just a thought.
>Whatever you guys want to do is fine with me.
>
>Also, I'm happy to do a "whole family" thing----well, maybe "happy's to
>strong" (we kid!). I was actually trying to pull it together last Xmas,
>but found out that my sister and her hubbie only do their big xmas party
>once a year, so had to scratch it. I ain't necessarily all that keen,
>though, on having all get together--particularly for the first time--with
>the focus being my birthday. So maybe we can have another event sometime
>soon where we can bring the thundering hoards together at one place----Lord
>help us.
>
>Finally, what's the plan for your dad? I just found out that I'm supposed
>to be in Houston for an "all hands" meeting on--you guessed it--March 9th,
>but if there's something planned for that evening, I intend to tell my
>buddies at Enron that I can't make the meeting. Please let me know so that
>I can cancel Houston in advance.
>
>Finally, and MOST important. Today is the Man in Black's birthday. God
>bless the real king, Johnny Cash.
>
>Best,
>Jeff
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=====================================
|
3,733 |
Subject: Fwd: Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3511.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:50:17 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Wednesday May 9, 4:34 pm Eastern Time
Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
(UPDATE: Adds details throughout)
SAN FRANCISCO, May 9 (Reuters) - The California Public Utilities Commission
on Wednesday proposed two plans to increase electricity rates in the
power-starved state through a tiered retail pricing system.
The parallel plans, submitted by an administrative law judge and CPUC
President Loretta Lynch, are designed to encourage energy conservation by the
24 million customers of PG&E Corp.'s (NYSE:PCG - news) Pacific Gas & Electric
unit and Edison International's (NYSE:EIX - news) Southern California Edison
subsidiary.
Higher rates also would allow the state to begin to recover money from
utility bills to pay for power it has purchased on behalf of the
cash-strapped utilities, Lynch said.
The plans are expected to be voted on Monday by the five-member CPUC.
Approval would implement the commission's March 27 move to raise retail power
prices to help recover soaring costs of wholesale power.
The March decision did not specify how the rate increases would affect
different classes of electric customers.
The plans, announced by Lynch, would raise rates 20 percent to 50 percent for
commercial and industrial customers, and 41 percent to 48 percent for all
electricity used by residential customers in excess of a percentage of their
existing base usage.
Lynch told a news conference, however, that up to half of California's
residential customers who meet certain conservation targets would not face
higher rates.
Electricity rate hikes for agricultural customers served by PG&E and SoCal
Edison would be capped at 23 percent to 30 percent, she added.
Paul Clanon, a CPUC energy director, said the rate plans would raise $5
billion this year from utility customers, with some of the money channeled to
the California Department of Water Resources, which is buying electricity on
behalf of the state.
The CPUC has not decided, however, exactly how much of monthly utility bills
would flow to the agency.
California's power purchases this year have drained the state treasury of
some $6 billion.
The state Senate on Wednesday approved a bill to issue $13.4 billion in bonds
to pay for emergency power and sent the measure to Gov. Gray Davis, who is
expected to sign it.
The Senate's approval came two days after the state Assembly passed the power
bond measure as a piece of regular -- rather than emergency session --
legislation, meaning California will have to wait at least 90 days to issue
the debt.
The bond issue aims to repay the state for the power purchases, with the debt
to be paid off over 15 years through a portion of the monthly utility bills.
=====================================
|
3,734 |
Subject: TAR&L Meeting - Location and dial in numbers 11/15/00
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1653.
=====================================
I'm sorry, Jeff, I didn't see your name on the distribution list of an email
regarding this meeting. Here's the information below.
----- Forwarded by Angie Buis/Enron Communications on 11/14/00 02:14 PM -----
Angie Buis
11/14/00 09:22 AM
To: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Cynthia Harkness/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jan
Haizmann/LON/ECT@ECT, Rajen Shah/LON/ECT@ECT, James Ginty/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Derenda Plunkett/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Alisa Christensen/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, David
Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robbi Rossi/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Wayne Gardner/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: TAR&L Meeting - Location and dial in numbers 11/15/00
The next TAR&L meeting will be held Wednesday, November 15, 8:30-12:00 noon
in 3AC120. (This is the ground floor of Three Allen Center, in the new
Accounting area.)
For those calling in domestically, please dial 1-888-476-3762, passcode
560271.
For those calling in internationally, please dial 1-517-267-1046, passcode
560271
The Host dial in is the same as the domestic dial in, and your passcode is
669866.
Breakfast will be provided.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 37097.
Angie Buis
EBS Tax
Wayne Gardner
10/11/2000 16:43
To: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Cynthia Harkness/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jan
Haizmann/LON/ECT@ECT, Rajen Shah/LON/ECT@ECT, James Ginty/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Derenda Plunkett/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Alisa Christensen/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, David
Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robbi Rossi/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: Draft Agenda for next TAR&L meeting - Comments welcome
1. Based on discussions from the 11/8 meeting, step through a specific
US/Japan trading example, specifically determining what the US trading desk
can and cannot do with respect to each piece of the international capacity
segment (see attached file).
2. Review and discuss Dave Merril's note on Korea.
3. Step through a specific US/Korea trading example as in point one above.
4. Time permitting, step through a US/Japan trading example, specifically
determining what a hypothetical Singapore trading desk could and could not do
with respect to each piece of the international capacity segment.
5. Time permitting, determine the best general trading structure for Asia
and highlight specific problem areas that need to be identified with respect
to the structure.
W. Wayne Gardner
Enron Broadband Services
1400 Smith Street
Houston, TX 77002-7361
Phone: 713 853 3547
Fax: 713 646 2532
=====================================
|
3,735 |
Subject: Re: M. CARSON IS LOOKING FORWARD TO RETIRING SOON
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9934.
=====================================
Margaret: Congratulations. Sounds very exciting. You will be sorely,
sorely missed. Your family's (immense) gain is Enron's loss. It's been an
incredible pleasure working with you.
Best,
Jeff
Margaret Carson
03/14/2001 09:29 AM
To: Nicole Alvino/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Daniel
Allegretti/NA/Enron@Enron, Ann Ballard/enron@enronxgate, Carol
Barcus/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Diane
Bazelides/HOU/AZURIX@AZURIX, Michael L Brown/EFS/EES@EES, Rob
Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lynnette Barnes/NA/Enron@Enron, Katrina
Burton/Graphics/Enron@ENRON, Kathryn Corbally/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David
Cox/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mike
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron,
Kaye Davenport/HOU/EES@EES, Marc De La Roche/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrew
Dodenhoff/HOU/EES@EES, Julie A Gomez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rosalee
Fleming/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Fiona Grant/LON/ECT@ECT, Thomas D
Gros/Enron@EnronXGate, Julie A Gomez/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Goodpasture/Enron@EnronXGate, Rita Hartfield/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Stanley Horton/Corp/Enron@Enron, Amr
Ibrahim/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Linda L Lawrence/NA/Enron@Enron,
Doug Leach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elizabeth Linnell/NA/Enron@Enron, Marcia A
Linton/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda L Lawrence/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike W
McGowan/Enron@EnronXGate, Stephanie Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Hans Owens/HOU/EES@EES, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT, Bruce N
Stram/HOU/EES@EES, Kal Shah/HOU/ECT@ECT, Colleen Raker/Enron@EnronXGate,
Shemeika S Landry/Enron@EnronXGate, Joan Stransky/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Judy G
Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Terence H Thorn/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, James
Whitehead/Enron@EnronXGate, Gina Taylor/Enron@EnronXGate, John
Urquhart/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kathleen Wagner/NA/Enron@Enron, Thomas E
White/HOU/EES@EES, Martin Wenzel/ENRON@enronxgate
cc:
Subject: M. CARSON IS LOOKING FORWARD TO RETIRING SOON
Hi to my friends and associates here at Enron!!! After 14 great years
at Enron I am retiring soon to spend time with my husband and family and
to have more time to travel, to do watercolor paintings and work on
my art website.
For general referrals on energy information that you may need that I have
been providing, please call Joan Stransky and she can assist you in
finding alternate sources for this information. For information related to
competition and state restructuring updates kindly contact Elizabeth
Linnell in Enron Government Affairs. For Cambridge Energy Research
Associates Contract matters please call Jim Steffes. On Enron executive
and officers speech matters kindly call Rob Bradley. Kindly contact Joan if
you need assistance with gaining access to the CERA research documents
we obtain under our Corporate License agreement. On queries covering
international data, please contact Fiona Grant in our London Office.
I have enjoyed working with you all here at Enron and I wish you all the
best. Regards, Margaret
=====================================
|
3,736 |
Subject: Re: FERC Agenda
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28578.
=====================================
FERC has already stricken some items off of its agenda (the meeting begins in
about 30 minutes). The stricken items are:
The Portland General and EPMI filings to allow PGE to use EnronOnline
Removing Obstacles to Increased Electric Generation and Natural Gas Supply in
the Western United States
Mirant vs. ISO New England (June 20, 2001 complaint by Mirant regarding ISO's
proposal to revise procedures for mitigation of generators run out of
economic merit order during transmission constraints).
HQ v. NYISO (regarding HQ's request for FERC to order ISO to reinstate the
May 8, 2000 market clearing price)
Maine PUC vs. New England ISO (regarding the PUC's complaint against the NE
ISO asking FERC to direct the ISO to recalculate the energy clearing price on
May 8, 2000).
We will let you know what happens at the meeting on the remaining agenda
items.
Sarah
Sarah Novosel
07/06/2001 04:51 PM
To: Northeast Group, RTO Group
cc:
Subject: FERC Agenda
FERC has two meetings in July (July 11 and 25) and then is on recess for the
month of August. The next FERC meeting after July will not be held until
September 12. Consequently, FERC tries to get out as many orders as it can
in July so the backlog is not as great in September.
Consistent with that goal, FERC has included a lot of cases on its July 11
agenda. While some of these cases may be stricken from the agenda for July
11(and either deferred to the July 25 meeting or until September), we are
still expecting a lot of action from FERC in July. The following cases are
on FERC's July 11 agenda:
RTO Proceedings
Alliance RTO
SPP and Entergy RTOs
PJM and PJM West RTOs
New York RTO
New England RTO
RTO West
Southern RTO
Two new RTO dockets entitled "Regional Transmission Organizations"
Other Proceedings
Mirant vs. ISO New England (June 20, 2001 complaint by Mirant regarding ISO's
proposal to revise procedures for mitigation of generators run out of
economic merit order during transmission constraints).
NYSEG v. NYISO (regarding ISO's hybrid fixed block pricing rule)
NERC (these are old docket numbers that go back to orders issued in 1999
regarding TLR -- Southern and VEPCO sought rehearing of the TLR procedures in
June, 1999, arguing that they could result in shedding load. FERC may be
responding to those rehearing requests).
HQ v. NYISO (regarding HQ's request for FERC to order ISO to reinstate the
May 8, 2000 market clearing price)
Maine PUC vs. New England ISO (regarding the PUC's complaint against the NE
ISO asking FERC to direct the ISO to recalculate the energy clearing price on
May 8, 2000).
California Proceedings
San Diego Gas & Electric v. Sellers (Docket No. EL00-95-038 -- several
parties have already sought rehearing of the June 19 order -- this could be a
non-substantive tolling order (putting on hold these requests for rehearing),
or it could be something more substantive.
Removing Obstacles to Increased Electric Generation and Natural Gas Supply in
the Western United States
Please let me know if you have any questions concerning these proceedings.
Sarah
=====================================
|
3,737 |
Subject: Congratulations to December Grads
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1016.
=====================================
To: December 2001 Graduates
From: The Evening MBA Program Office
We in the Evening MBA Program Office would like to take this opportunity
to officially congratulate you on your completion of the MBA Program.
We're proud to have you as alumni and know that you will go forward with
the same enthusiasm, drive and success that you have had in the Evening
MBA Program.
The following is a list of important upcoming events and general
information:
Commencement
The commencement ceremony will be held on Sunday, May 26 at 9:00A.M. in
the Greek Theatre (you may invite as many people as you'd like to the
ceremony). We invite December 2001 and May 2002 graduates to
participate in this ceremony.
We plan to mail a commencement packet to your home address in March.
Included you'll find information on the ceremony, caps and gowns,
champagne reception tickets (minimal charge for more than 2 guests), and
a commencement speaker voting ballot.
Commencement information is available at the Haas Alumni Network at:
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/alumni/newgrads/evmba.html
Diplomas
Your diploma will be ready in the Registrar's Office, 120 Sproul Hall,
about four to six months after you graduate. It can be picked up
without charge. The Registrar's Office will not give it to the Evening
MBA Program Office. You can have it mailed to you for a modest fee. For
more information please refer to:
http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Records/transdipl.html
Party!
Our annual Evening & Weekend MBA Program End-of-Year Reception will be
in May, a celebration for everyone! All students, graduates and
families are welcome. Invitations will be sent in April.
Auditing Classes
After you graduate you may be interested in auditing classes. A week
before classes begin, please contact the Evening and Weekend MBA office
to find out if there are seats available. Then, with the approval of
the instructor, alums are able to audit classes for $500 per course plus
the cost of books and readers, available in the office. Since there is
no formal audit status at UC Berkeley, the class will not show up on
grade sheets.
University Bills
You will likely continue to receive bills from the University after you
graduate regarding Spring 2002 semester. Please ignore them.
Evening News
We will continue to e-mail you copies of The Evening News for the next
year, as you may be interested in the activities of your classmates.
Activities
If you are interested in participating as alums in any of these
activities, please let us know:
- interviewing applicants
- speaking at or attending Open Houses
- participating in panel discussions (career changes, etc.)
- arranging for speakers for the EWMBA Speaker Series
- planning for alumni events
Top Ten Things Every Haas Grad Needs to Know
Includes great information on your Haas e-mail account, e-mail lists,
address updates, alumni events, alumni career services, library
resources:
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/alumni/newgrads/evmba.html
Congratulations, and best wishes as you transition from being a HAAS
student to alum.
Eric, Jane, Josh, Julie, Meg, Natalie, Seung, & TJ
=====================================
|
3,738 |
Subject: Re: GIR proceeding-- Potential Financial Impact to TW
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/102.
=====================================
Got your message. You're a pal. Can't thank you enough. Wish you the best
of luck on the options program. If you can send me a copy of the
presentation on the options programs, boy, I'd love to have one. Please give
our lovely counsel a big hug for me. And I plan to be out there again real
soon.
Best,
Jeff
Jeffery Fawcett@ENRON
08/31/2000 05:32 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: GIR proceeding-- Potential Financial Impact to TW
Jeff,
Sorry I've been hard to get a hold of... we held a workshop today to talk
about our proposed Transport Options program. I found a copy of what I'd
sent to you before. I'll stand behind these numbers today as representing
the dollar value of the risk Transwestern faced in the proceeding. What's
not clear from my original note is that these cost impacts were annual, and
such impacts would continue year to year thereafter until
conditions/circumstances changed. I hope this is useful.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron on 08/31/2000
05:25 PM ---------------------------
Jeffery Fawcett
03/06/2000 04:40 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: GIR proceeding-- Potential Financial Impact to TW
Jeff,
You asked me to try to quantify the impact of Transwestern losing access
rights to 200 MMcf/d of capacity at SoCal Needles as part of the GIR
proceeding. Unfortunately, it's not a precise science inasmuch as it depends
on the shippers' reaction and/or retaliation to such circumstances. As a
baseline, Transwestern is almost fully subscribed under various term length
contracts (and has been since 1998) to the California Border, including the
750 MMcf/d of capacity available at SoCal Needles.
In concept, under SFV rates, the majority of revenues would otherwise be
realized by TW, notwithstanding the circumstance of TW shippers being denied
full access to their primary delivery point. In this "best case," the loss
to TW would be the commodity rates (theoretically, a wash, since they
presumably represent the true variable cost of TW providing the service), and
the revenue benefit associated with the fuel margin, calculated to be $5.8MM.
If TW shippers took the position that TW was responsible, and therefore,
accountable for their inability to consumate a portion of their transactions
into SoCal Gas' system, then TW faces a "more onerous case" in which it loses
the demand charge component of their contracts calculated to be $16.5MM.
Coupled with the aforementioned fuel margin, the total loss is $22.3MM.
In the worst case, in addition to the actual damages or costs to TW's
shippers described above, TW shippers may face performance penalties or other
contractual damages involving their commodity sales to customers behind SoCal
Gas. Therfore, TW shippers may attempt to extract those same penalties and
costs from TW.
Realistically, I'd say that TW faces a loss somewhere between the best case
and the more onerous case, maybe in the $12 - $15MM range.
I hope this information is useful for purposes of your analysis. Let me know
if I can be of any further assistance.
=====================================
|
3,739 |
Subject: ***IMPORTANT***TAR&L MEETING CHANGE
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2030.
=====================================
Jeff and Mike,
Please disregard my last message (except for the apology) and respond to
Angie's request below. Thanks very much.
Lara
----- Forwarded by Lara Leibman/Enron Communications on 11/29/00 11:42 AM
-----
Angie Buis
11/28/00 08:43 AM
To: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Cynthia Harkness/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jan
Haizmann/LON/ECT@ECT, Rajen Shah/LON/ECT@ECT, James Ginty/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Derenda Plunkett/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, David
Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robbi Rossi/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Beth Wapner/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Ban Sharma/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jane
Wilson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard Anderson/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Wayne Gardner/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: ***IMPORTANT***TAR&L MEETING CHANGE
Due to the unavailability of several players, we would like to move the
November 30th TAR&L meeting to Monday, December 4th, 8:30-noon in conference
room EB14C1. Please advise if you are unable to attend at this time.
Thank you!
Angie Buis
x-37097
----- Forwarded by Angie Buis/Enron Communications on 11/28/00 08:38 AM -----
Angie Buis
11/27/00 02:40 PM
To: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Hicks/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Cynthia Harkness/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Lara Leibman/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jan
Haizmann/LON/ECT@ECT, Rajen Shah/LON/ECT@ECT, James Ginty/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Derenda Plunkett/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, David
Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robbi Rossi/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Beth Wapner/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Ban Sharma/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jane
Wilson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard Anderson/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Wayne Gardner/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: TAR&L MEETING - NOVEMBER 30TH
The next TAR&L meeting will take place on Thursday, November 30, 8:30 a.m. to
12:00 noon, in conference room EB43C1. Breakfast will be provided. The
call-in information is listed below.
International Participants: (304) 345-7526
Domestic Participants: (888) 271-0949
Passcode: 589792
Host (Houston) number: (888) 271-0949
Passcode: 281574
I have arranged for 4 domestic and 2 international ports. Should extra ports
be required, all the person will need to do is dial the appropriate number
listed above.
Additionally, we have scheduled another TAR&L meeting for Thursday, December
7th, same location, time and dial in numbers.
Should you have questions regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate
to call me at extension 37097.
Thanks.
Angie Buis
EBS-Tax
=====================================
|
3,740 |
Subject: Fw: Conference at Berkeley
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/301.
=====================================
Second piece of the Littlechild story. mcs
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT on 08/09/2000
10:12 ---------------------------
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: "Stephen Littlechild" <[email protected]>
08/09/2000 10:02
To: "Ralph Hodge" <[email protected]>
cc: "Mark Schroeder" <[email protected]>, "Kyran Hanks"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Conference at Berkeley
Ralph
per my separate email on retail electricity competition
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: Severin Borenstein <[email protected]>
To: Stephen Littlechild <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 1:19 AM
Subject: Conference at Berkeley
> Hi Stephen:
>
> I'm on the organizing committee of a conference that is being put on by
> the Goldman School of Public Policy on electricity deregulation. Unlike
> the annual UCEI conference, this will not be papers presented by
> researchers, but rather very short introductions (e.g., 5 min), followed
> by round-table discussions and then questions from the audience. It will
> probably take place on monday November 13, though it could get moved to
> thursday Nov 17.
>
> I've been asked to invite you to participate in this conference, and I'd
> really like to encourage you to do so. Also invited will be FERC
> Commissioner Hoecker, CalPUC President Loretta Lynch, and
> U.S. Representatives Markey and Largent. They are also trying to get the
> CEOs of Enron, Duke Power, and a couple other producers. Carl Shapiro
> will be on one of the panels, as will I.
>
> I realize that this is a long way to travel for a one-day conference. I'm
> hoping that you have other invites in the U.S. you could piece together
> with it. Also, I'd like to invite you to give a seminar here at UCEI
> while you are in town. There is a lot going on in CA in electricity and a
> lot of research on the subject. Besides all those you know of here,
> Catherine Wolfram has moved this year from Harvard to Berkeley, so is also
> now here permanently.
>
> If this doesn't work out, I hope we can make it happen another time. In
> addition, it is looking likely that UCEI will receive funding from the
> state to open a Center for the Study of Electricity Markets, which would
> allow us to invite a number of visitors at the same time to do research
> here at Berkeley. If that comes through, perhaps we could arrange a
> longer visit in Berkeley?
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Severin
> _________________________________________________________________
> Severin Borenstein
>
> E.T. Grether Professor of Business
> Administration and Public Policy Director
> Haas School of Business U.C. Energy Institute
> University of California 2539 Channing Way
> Berkeley, CA 94720-1900 Berkeley, CA 94720-5180
> (p) 510-642-3689 (p) 510-642-5145
> (f) 707-885-2508 http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/ucei
>
> Email: [email protected]
> WWW: http://haas.berkeley.edu/~borenste
>
>
>
=====================================
|
3,741 |
Subject: Re: Leadership meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12522.
=====================================
Apparently it didn't go very well. Burton said he didn't have to deal with
Reps. cause he
controls a 2/3 vote in his house. Brulte called Rep leadership together in
his office last
night to discuss their next move. This is just the beginning of the dance,
however. I'll
let you know.
Also, Zaremberg said he got a call from a reporter who told him the PUC
decision today would
be friendlier to business. You probably know that and more, but I'm passing
it on.
Zaremberg is also going to work on Burton and his blind faith in consumer
strategies.
Hedy
[email protected] wrote:
> Thanks. Will be very interested to hear how the meeting goes. My sense is
> that the timing could be just about right.
> Best,
> Jeff
>
>
> Hedy Govenar
> <hgovenar@gov To: Sandra McCubbin
<[email protected]>,
> adv.com> Paul Kaufman
<[email protected]>, Sue Mara
> <[email protected]>, Rick Shaprio
> 05/14/2001 <[email protected]>, Bev Hansen
> 05:51 PM <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich
> <[email protected]>, Karen Denne
> <[email protected]>, Jim Steffes
> <[email protected]>, Scott
Govenar
> <[email protected]>, Ken Smith
> <[email protected]>, Mike
Day
> <[email protected]>, Michael McDonald
> <[email protected]>, Alan
Comnes
> <[email protected]>, Steven Kean
> <[email protected]>, Harry
Kingerski
> <[email protected]>,
Leslie Lawner
> <[email protected]>, Robert
Frank
> <[email protected]>, Janel Guerrero
> <[email protected]>, Miyung
Buster
> <[email protected]>,
Jennifer Thome
> <[email protected]>, Eric
Letke
> <[email protected]>, Mary Schoen
> <[email protected]>
> cc:
> Subject: Leadership meeting
>
>
> The four leaders of both houses are meeting in the speaker's office this
> afternoon to discuss ways to solve the energy crisis. I left a meeting
> with the Speaker to vacate the room for the leadership meeting, which
> was described to me by the Speaker's Chief of Staff as preliminary to a
> global solution, if one is achievable. I have a scheduled meeting with
> one of the leaders later today at which time I hope to get feedback on
> any progress.
>
> Hedy
=====================================
|
3,742 |
Subject: Fw: WPTF Principles for RTO Formation - Input Needed on WestConnect
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/760.
=====================================
In his email a few days ago dealing with the newly adopted WPTF principles for RTO formation, Gary Ackerman wrote that:
"Dan Douglass will utilize this document to review the WestConnect filing, and in combination with members' comments on the same, prepare a briefing to the Board in a special teleconference Board Meeting that we will hold on Wednesday morning, October 31 (Halloween) at 11 a.m."
So far, no members have sent me any of their comments on the filing. It would be greatly appreciated should some of you do so before next week. Thanks!
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]
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Ackerman
To: Bill Ross ; Bob Anderson ; Carolyn Baker ; CHARLES A MIESSNER ; curt hatton ; Curtis Kebler ; Greg Blue ; Jack Pigott ; Janie Mollon ; Karen Shea ; Nam Nguyen ; Randy Hickok ; Rob Nichol ; Roger Pelote ; Sue Mara ; Todd Torgerson ; George Vaughn ; Max Bulk ; Huhman, Steve ; Steve Schleimer ; Peter Blood ; Dan Douglass
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:38 AM
Subject: WPTF Principles for RTO Formation
Based on the amendments and comments made at yesterday's Board meeting, the following RTO principles are hereby adopted per yesterday's vote.
a.. The Western States should have a single RTO eventually, but initially there could be two entities (the California ISO and an RTO for the rest of the Region). FERC has a unique opportunity to mediate between RTO West and the newly formed WestConnect (the proposed successor agent for the now defunct Desert STAR) to form a single RTO for the non-California portion of the West.
b.. The RTO Governing Board should be truly independent, and be absent of any "stakeholders". The Board should have at its disposal a meaningful stakeholder advisory committee for the purpose of airing technical issues, and identifying different viewpoints. The seats on the advisory committee should be equally split between load serving entities and suppliers 50/50. However, within each subgroup, there can be different representative classes as determined by the Board.
c.. The RTO should maintain separation of the operation of any energy market from the parties that own the transmission assets.
d.. The RTO should provide a real-time imbalance energy market, allow for self-provision of ancillary services, and operate a real-time market for each congestion zone within the RTO when transmission congestion is present.
e.. The RTO should provide demand response mechanisms in its Tariff, and the Tariff and Operating Procedures should either promote and enable retail competition, or not discourage retail competition.
If you have any editorial comments or changes, please send them to me. This is a working document.
Dan Douglass will utilize this document to review the WestConnect filing, and in combination with members' comments on the same, prepare a briefing to the Board in a special teleconference Board Meeting that we will hold on Wednesday morning, October 31 (Halloween) at 11 a.m.
gba
=====================================
|
3,743 |
Subject: RE: GSPP Electricity Policy Summit meeting minutes
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/58.
=====================================
Hi all. I'm pleased to be part of this group and to work with each of you
again.
I agree with those who have responded so far that the cons probably outweigh
the pros of having joint business school sponsorship.
I see some resons to narrow down date choices. Not Nov. 2 or 3 because too
much of GSPP will be away at the APPAM conference in Seattle. Nov. 6-10 is
election week, and that would detract from the press coverage we ought to
get. And Thangsgiving week is probably a poor choice. So I suspect best
times after end of Oct. are either Nov. 13-17, maybe Mon. Nov. 20, or the
last week of Nov. 27-Dec. 1. Later than this begins to get into end of
classes, finals, etc.
On format, I'm thinking about how to combine high-visibility players with
academics to make for a productive discussion. Possibly we might want 2-3
people on each panel as "speakers" and 1 other person as a "discussant" to
respond to speaker ideas. Maybe the discussants should be academics, the
speakers high-visibility players (who are known to have opposing views in
some interesting way). Perhaps there should be a brief keynote speaker (e.g.
Feinstein 10-15 mins), then a single academic to give a brief history of the
deregulation movement (20 mins.), then two panels (short-run problems and
solutions, long-run problems and solutions). We might want at least one
speaker who can bring in some non-US experience, like England's since they
are much further down the deregulation road than we are.
Except for the "Feinstein" opening role, I'd like the other speakers to be
really knowlegable about this area (i.e. more than just highly-visible
people). Rich Gilbert from our econ. dept. is another possible academic (he
preceded Borenstein as head of the University's Energy Research shop, and
then did a Washington tour as chief economist of DOJ; he's also a founder of
Law & Economics Consulting), who might be good on the "long-run" panel if we
go that way. Richard (Dick) Bilas is a CPUC commissioner and an economist by
training, and might be a good backup choice (or even preferable) to Lynch.
Lee Friedman
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 4:28 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: GSPP Electricity Policy Summit meeting minutes
Coordinating committee,
Here are my notes from the meeting. The address list above is the current
group
so we can continue by e-mail by replying to this group until people are
ready
for another call. I don't think the Dean needs to hear all of the back and
forth. Lee Friedman has kindly agreed to advise and participate.
Open questions:
-do we want to join with the business school for this event?
-should we push the date back?
-what is your top 5 list of speakers?
-any comments on what we agreed on or revisions to the minutes?
This is really moving! Thanks everyone.
Rob <<Electricity policy summit minutes 082200.doc>>
Rob Gramlich
PJM Market Monitoring Unit
(610) 666-4291
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,744 |
Subject: Re: Tax, Legal, Regulatory and Accounting Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1077.
=====================================
thanks for understanding jeff. will do next time round.
best,
lara
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
10/20/2000 04:41 PM
To: Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Tax, Legal, Regulatory and Accounting Meeting
No sweat. Not a problem. Summary will do fine. Let's definitely try to
coordinate for the next meeting. You have a great weekend, too.
Best,
Jeff
Lara Leibman
10/20/2000 04:20 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications
Subject: Re: Tax, Legal, Regulatory and Accounting Meeting
Jeff,
Unfortunately, we have to keep the date as scheduled. I am very sorry.
Hopefully, the next meeting will work better for your schedule and we will
have a better opportunity to give our preferences for dates. This time
round, tax sort of took the lead. Also, I promise to provide a summary
afterwards.
Hope you have a great weekend.
Lara
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
10/20/2000 11:34 AM
To: Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Tax, Legal, Regulatory and Accounting Meeting
Good idea. Unfortunately, I'll be sitting in an office in S.D. with Sempra
execs. My apologies. But since this is likely to be ongoing, preference
would be to participate in the "first" meeting.
Lara Leibman
10/20/2000 11:14 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications
Subject: Re: Tax, Legal, Regulatory and Accounting Meeting
Jeff,
Could you possibly call in? We could arrange for a dial-in number in that
case. I know that we arranged that date with tax bc/Sue is coming in that
day and they had cleared that date with some of the accounting or legal folks
already. Please let me know. Thanks.
Lara
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
10/20/2000 10:05 AM
To: Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mike
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Tax, Legal, Regulatory and Accounting Meeting
Lara:
I would very much like to attend but have a meeting scheduled that day with
Chris Calger (ENA) and the CEO and CFO of Sempra Energy (we're trying to do a
deal with them). That's a date that I can't change. I can meet on Nov.
3rd, or Nov. 7-9. Hope it's possible to re-arrange
Best,
Jeff
Lara Leibman
10/20/2000 07:41 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications
Subject: Tax, Legal, Regulatory and Accounting Meeting
Jeff and Mike,
Our first meeting has been scheduled to take place on November 2nd. The
meeting will probably last half a day and will begin around 1pm. Please let
me if you plan to attend. Thanks and have a great weekend.
Regards,
Lara
=====================================
|
3,745 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #45
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/400.
=====================================
> <<IPW100101.PDF>>
> Good Morning,
>
> Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
>
> Summary:
> 1. IPP's Rise 3.9% Last week our IPP composite increased 3.9%,
> underperforming the NASDAQ (+5.3%) and the S&P 500 (+7.8%). Orion Power,
> which was up 38.1%, was the strongest generator in the group. AES Corp
> was the weakest performer, declining 47.1%.
>
> 2. Generation Oriented Utilities Fall 0.6% Our universe of generation
> oriented utilities fell 0.6%, underperforming the NASDAQ and S&P 500,
> while outperforming the UTY (-4.8%). Black Hills Corp, which was up 7.5%,
> was the strongest performer in the group. PPL was the weakest performer,
> declining 11.9%.
>
> 3. Some Good News and Some Bad News Last week saw considerable stock
> price volatility as investors focused on 3 key events: 1. Reliant
> Resources acquires Orion Power; 2. AES Corp. (Restricted) issues earnings
> warning; and, 3. CPN reaffirms earnings guidance.
>
> 4. IPPs Trading 22% Below Private Market Asset Value We believe the
> RRI/ORN transaction provides additional support for our private market
> valuation framework. Our analysis indicates that as a group, the major
> IPPs are trading at a 22% average discount to their private market asset
> values. NRG Energy and Reliant Resources are trading at the most
> significant discounts to their private market values--30% and 35%. We
> believe the disparity between public and private market valuations is
> unsustainable.
>
> 5. Power Market Update Last week power prices were down across the
> country. Generally we continue to see a trend of power prices moving down
> in "lock-step" with natural gas prices. While the Mirant National Power
> Index fell 12% last week, the Natural Gas Week composite spot price fell
> 13%. Also contributing to the weakness was seasonally mild weather ahead
> of the normal October power plant maintenance season.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil Stein 212/325-4217
>
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is
indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to
deal at any price quoted.
Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as
preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.
=====================================
|
3,746 |
Subject: RE: California Update--0717.01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/547.
=====================================
still no word from Richard Sanders. Left a message and he hasn't called back. Will let you know as soon as i hear anything, but did get a message from a reporter who said he heard we had dropped our lawsuit?? Any word? kd
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 7:31 PM
To: [email protected]; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James; Mara, Susan; Kingerski, Harry; Lawner, Leslie; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Denne, Karen; [email protected]; Guerrero, Janel; Kaufman, Paul; Susan M Landwehr/Enron@EnronXGate; Robertson, Linda
Subject: California Update--0717.01
What people know:
Hertzberg (et al's) bill (82XX)was heard in an "informational" hearing today and still sits in the Assembly Energy Committee. It will be heard again tomorrow (perhaps beginning at 10 AM) , at which time parties will have a chance to support/oppose and ask for amendments. Most, including us, oppose unless significantly amended.
The Wright (D) -Richman (R) bill (83XX)was heard in an "informational" hearing today and still sits in the Assembly Energy Committee. It will be heard again tomorrow, at which time parties will have a chance to support/oppose and ask for amendments. From our perspective, this is the best bill out there yet, though it still has serious problems---it isn't available electronically yet, but should be tomorrow, and I'll distribute then. The chances of the joint D-R bill being successful are slim, however, since it's up against the Speakers competing bill. There is talk that the Speaker will try to negotiate with Wright/Richman tonight and include any agreement in his bill (82XX).
The original version of the Governor's MOU bill sits in the Senate. Most believe that Burton will put it up for a vote this week and it will fail.
The Senate's version of the MOU (Sher-Peace-Kuehl) (78XX)came out today. It will likely be heard in the committee tomorrow or the next day. Notably, it kills Direct Access completely and makes Edison shareholders responsible for that portion of Edison's debt owed to suppliers. In short, a very bad bill.
Burton's 18XX, which would de-link the bond issuance (to pay back the General Fund) from the DWR contracts is likely to pass the Senate tomorrow or the next day. Many--including Enron--support the bill (though we are supporting it behind the scenes).
What people don't know:
Whether there's the time or the will in the Assembly and Senate to achieve by Friday a single, comprehensive bill that can be sent to the governor for his signature.
Whether the Legislature would postpone its month-long recess if the Legislature hasn't finished a bill by Friday (most folks think they will not postpone).
Whether it's true that, irrespective of the energy issue, the Legislature will fail to get the budget completed by Friday and therefore have to postpone their recess anyway, in which case they might continue to work on the energy legislation at the same time.
Odds-makers still say it's better than 50-50 that the Legislature does not get the Edison bills done by Friday and leaves on on its 30-day vacation.
Best,
Jeff
Sacramento is one goofy place.
=====================================
|
3,747 |
Subject: California Update 6/1/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13334.
=====================================
Below are details of new plan currently being created by California State
Treasurer Phil Angelides and supported by Sen. Burton. The plan is in the
initial stages and is not currently on any legislative fast-track. It is
also not motivated by a desire to save SoCal from bankruptcy. The creator's
goal is to give Californians more control over their energy and electric
futures as well as giving the tax/rate payers a share of the pie in return
for money that has/will go to the utilities. We will continue to monitor
this plan, its supporters and progress.
Plan Z
California State Treasurer Phil Angelides and a powerful group of
legislators are finally taking action and are developing a plan to solve
California's energy crisis this summer. The group is comprised of leftish
legislators, environmental advocates, in-state energy company executives and
business leaders and they are pulling together a Plan Z. At the core of the
plan is the recently passed authorization to erect a California Public Power
Authority that issues bonds, constructs new power plants and buys up
transmission lines. There is even talk within this group of using newly
legislated authority to buy SoCal Edison for $3.5 billion (less than it owes)
although they would face huge obstacles and receive strong opposition from
power companies as well as Edison itself.
The five-year goal is to have enough power generation capacity to guarantee
a 5%-15% "cushion" against energy peak demand. Angelides and Burton want to
create enough capacity to form a buyer's market. One of the points of the
plan is to replace private sector generation with more public sector
generation. This plan may short-circuit private sector plans to build new
plants, but the state has the ability to issue $5B in revenue-backed bonds
(in addition to the $12B rate-backed bonds). The second key element in the
Angelides-Burton Plan Z is additional rate hikes for California's consumers
and businesses. Although discussions are still underway between this group
and business leaders, Angelides is wanting to propose an additional 45%
increase in residential and commercial electricity rates, however, there is
immense sympathy for loading a disproportionate share of the burden on
businesses. This increase is on top of the 50%-60% already mandated by
previous PUC decisions this year. These rate increases will do two things:
stop the immediate fiscal drain on the state of California and prevent
emergency tax hikes (being serious considered last week).
Issues to consider in regards to this plan are: (1) how much will current
shareholders be diluted in return for helping the utilities repay long-owed
debts (or what would they get if the state decided to buy up all of SoCal
Edison); and (2) how much will creditors have to "eat" in the legislated
repayment plan? In other words how big will the equity and bond haircuts
be? There is no answer to these questions right now as legislators work to
cobble together a plan with numbers that work without triggering a massive
and politically destructive rebellion by voters next year.
=====================================
|
3,748 |
Subject: CPUC Transmission OII
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3131.
=====================================
The CPUC has commenced, "an investigation of the state's transmission and
electric generation system reliability pursuant to AB 970."? The OII will
also look into, "utility acquisition of new peaking generation reosurces for
Summer 2001 and beyond."? The OII notes that the state currently has a,
"mismatch between supply and demand statewide and in specific geographic
areas."? An appendix to the OII lists various system upgrades which may
require improvements.? The investigation, "will examine the most
cost-effective ways of easing transmission constraints and associated
generation shortfalls, both in the short term and the longer term."
?
The OII notes the ISO's RFP for 2,00 MW of peaking capacity, complains that
the terms of such deals are to be kept confidential until the contracts are
signed, and concludes that,?"contract terms that offer project proponents
market prices plus full capacity costs appear exorbitant, especially if, as
we understand, the ISO's contracts do not commit the power to be available
to serve the state's interests."? The OII challenges ISO's authority, "to
plan, solicit and pay for construction of new power plants across the state,
absent some substantial involvement of agencies that represent the state's
interests."? In other words, as noted in an article?from today's Electricity
Daily (excerpted below), we now have a "turf war" between the CPUC and ISO.
?
The Commission has classified the investigation as a ratesetting proceeding
and ordered the three?utilities to file a cost/benefit analysis on new
transmission upgrades as well as their own ability to build new peaking
generation for next summer. Their responses are due Nov. 22.? ISO and other
interested parties have until December 20 to files analyses and comments on
the utilities' November 22 filings.? WPTF should discuss this new OII at
its meeting on the 14th to decide if it wishes to become involved.? Please
let me know if you want a copy of the OII.?
?
Dan
?
The following is excerpted from the 11/7 issue of Electricity Daily:
?
Turf War Breaks Out Between CPUC and ISO
"In opening an investigation last week into California's transmission
system reliability, the California Public Utilities Commission has started a
turf war with the California Independent System Operator. Until now, Cal-ISO
had the unquestioned authority to keep the lights on, but the CPUC now asks,
"At what price?" and questions whether Cal-ISO has siting authority for a
slew of transmission upgrades to be built by utilities to hasten more power
into the state's strained system.
The CPUC has authority over utilities, but Cal-ISO is the agency that is
approving transmission upgrades to be built by utilities and complementary
new generation to be built by market forces to hook into that transmission.
Although the CPUC has not stepped fully into the new generation siting
process -- so far, a procedure that has been up to Cal-ISO and the
California Energy Commission -- it does use the transmission inquisition as
a foundation to question both transmission and generation projects."
=====================================
|
3,749 |
Subject: Re: CPUC affiliate entity jurisdiction
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5875.
=====================================
Thanks, I look forward to talking with you. I was listening to a piece on=
=20
NPR this morning about the CA situation and thinking of you. Good luck wit=
h=20
all of the craziness.
=09Jeff Dasovich
=09Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
=0901/07/2001 11:34 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: CPUC affiliate entity jurisdiction
FYI. More info to follow. I'll give you a ring (tomorrow).
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/07/2001 11:32 PM -----
=09"Stephen P. Bowen" <[email protected]>
=0901/07/2001 09:46 PM
=09Please respond to stevebowen
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Jeffrey Dasovich <[email protected]>, "Dasovich, Jeff"=20
<[email protected]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: CPUC affiliate entity jurisdiction
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Jeff,
Per your request, I am writing a brief note to follow up on our
telephone conversation today. As we discussed, Enron plans to change
the structure of Enron Telecommunications, Inc. from a regular C
corporation to an LLC. As we discussed previously, this change in
structure will require the approval of the California Public Utilities
Commission, because it is a change of control under the definitions of
the Public Utilities Code. You indicated that someone inside Enron was
concerned that, during the course of the CPUC=01,s review of the request
for transfer of control, the CPUC could get access to the books and tax
returns of ETI=01,s parent EBS or other Enron entities, which Enron would
find unattractive. You asked me to discuss whether this was possible.
At a general level, the CPUC in the past has asserted jurisdiction over
entities affiliated with entities regulated by the CPUC. Depending on
the facts at hand, a variety of provisions in the PU Code grant this
jurisdiction. However, the CPUC rarely uses its jurisdiction to look
into the books and tax returns of an affiliate of a nondominant
telecommunications carrier, unless the affiliate is the entity seeking
to acquire control of the carrier. For nondominant telecommunications
carriers, the Commission applies a fairly light regulatory touch,
because such carriers have no market power. You should also be aware
that there are other provisions in the PU Code that protect carrier's
financial information from public disclosure.
Thus, although it is possible that the Commission would seek to review
the books and/or tax returns of EBS or another Enron entity in
connection with the change to an LLC, it is unlikely. ETI is a
nondominant carrier, and there is no real change in the ownership of
ETI, because EBS will still be ETI=01,s owner (i.e., EBS will own an LLC,
rather than a C corporation), nor is there any change in the management
personnel of ETI.
The one wild card is that Enron's name is quite well known to the
Commission because of Enron's presence in the energy market. While this
logically and legally should make no difference, it could conceivably
trigger increased Commission scrutiny of the transfer of control.
Please let me know if you need more information or want to discuss
further.
SPB
=====================================
|
3,750 |
Subject: FW: Save the date!--May 22nd Conference Invitation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5228.
=====================================
Are you guys going to 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: Kevin Surace
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:55 PM
To: A - Execs
Subject: FW: Save the date!--May 22nd Conference Invitation
?
?FYI
?
?-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher Center for IT & Marketplace Transformation
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Save the date!--May 22nd Conference Invitation
Dear Executive,
The Center for Information Technology & Marketplace Transformation (CITM) at
the Haas School of Business is a world-famous research organization that
explores the links between ecommerce, technology, and business strategy and
processes.? For more information about CITM, please see:
www.haas.berkeley.edu/citm
CITM recently began a new project, "Enabling eBusiness," that studies the
migration to the Internet of companies across all industries.? Surveys and
field studies at user and vendor companies and interaction with industry
organizations and other research institutions will provide insight into, and
case studies on, such topics as aligning business and IT strategy, best
practices, build vs. buy, and organization structures.?
To kick off the Enabling Ebusiness project, CITM held a major conference Dec.
6, 2000 with experts from industry and academia who focussed on the
opportunities presented by Ebusiness, strategies for achieving them and for
overcoming legacies (technologies, processes, people and organizations).? The
keynote speaker was George Surdu, Director of Information Technology Services
for the Ford Motor Company, one of the sponsors of CITM.
The conference was very well received and it is apparent that these issues
are of interest to many companies.? Therefore, CITM is offering another
conference on May 22, from 9 - 5 with a reception following in the early
evening.? Our keynote speaker will be Steve Ellis, EVP of Wells Fargo's
Wholesale Internet Solutions Group.? Also on the agenda: J_rgen Lutz,
eProcurement, Bayer AG Leverkusen, and Mark V. Klopp, Managing Director,
Digital Business Ventures, Eastman Chemical Company.? We expect other
interesting speakers making for an absorbing and rewarding day.
Conference registration fee:$950 early registration; $1250 after May 7
If you are interested in attending, please send an email to
[email protected]
containing the following information
Last name:
First name:
Title:
Company:
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Email:
Phone:
Fax:
If you can't attend, but would like to continue receiving information on
future CITM events, please note that in your email and give us the same
information.
If you have any questions, or want more information about the conference or
CITM, send an email to [email protected] call 510-643-5316
- May 22 save the date invite.pdf
- ATT07758.txt
- image001.jpg
=====================================
|
3,751 |
Subject: FW: Public and government telecon re SF DC line and Roseville
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'pr <[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/431.
=====================================
I really need to give up being a secretary. It is not my core competency.
THIS CALL IS WEDNESDAY, NOT TODAY!
Sorry!
-----Original Message-----
From: Parquet, David
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:09 AM
To: 'palmer, mark'; Calger, Christopher F.; Wehn, Samuel; Brodbeck, Kelly; Etringer, Michael; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Gray, Stan; Jones, Karen E.; Rasmussen, Dale; Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: Public and government telecon re SF DC line and Roseville ERCs/Butte County issue
CONFIDENTIAL
Because many of the same people would be involved in the below-referenced telecons, both of which relate to developing public and gov relations strategies, some in the context of legal issues, I have scheduled a one hour conference call, half hour each for Roseville and the DC Line to SF. I have indicated who at least I would like involved in each conversation. The rest of you can feel free to listen on the whole thing, or drop off or call in as appropriate. If I have left anyone out of the list, please call me to discuss, as I would like to restrict these discussions to the recipients of the email. (Mark - if you wish Eric or Karen to participate, no problem.)
The call in number for both calls will be 800-820-4690 (passcode: 7012645#)
1:00 - 1:30pm: ROSEVILLE
"Required" participants
Wehn
Brodbeck
Jones
Russeth
Govenar(s)
ISSUE - Butte county APCD is resisting the transfer of certain ERCs that we own from Butte county to Placer county for our Roseville project. I want to discuss who knows who and which of them we can call to enlist support for our position. For example, Kelly has already petitioned CARB, who have said that this is not right and will pressure them. I will get a letter from the ISO indicating the general economic support our Roseville project will have to the area, including Butte. Dean Russell and Rick Johnson are going to get the support of the Building Trades because of the obvious risk on jobs. I would guess that all of Kelly's new-found farmer friends (sorry, they are called growers out here) can make a few phone calls. I am sure that Scott and Heady can find some political friends in Sacto that we can call. Etc.
Please come to the telecon with a list of who you have already contacted, and who we may consider contacting. In the interest of time, I want to set the stage for giving Kelly and Sam some clear guidelines and assignments. Then we can let them do their work and report. And we can get on to the next subject.
1:30 - 2:00 pm: DC LINE TO SF
"Required" Participants
Palmer
Russeth
Govenar(s)
Etringer
Gray
Dasovich
Rasmussen
ISSUE - As we have discussed, we are developing a strategy that, if successful, would result in a transmission line solution to SF's electrical problems. I would like this telecon to be a kick off to discussing/developing a PR and Government relations strategy. Each of you have reviewed my summary email of last week (I have attached a copy for Dasovich and Palmer), so I will not repeat here. It is for the most part self explanatory on issues, status, benefits, etc. Please bring to the telecon your thoughts.
=====================================
|
3,752 |
Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/573.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Kingerski, Harry
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:06 PM
To: 'JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON'; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara (E-mail)
Subject: RE: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D. 01-05-064
I think ABAG has a good point and the principle is one we are also trying to establish - if you weren't using DWR power, you shouldn't have to pay for it. But I wonder if Enron's endorsement of ABAG's petition wouldn't contaminate it. I think we should let them win on the merits of their own argument and use their success (if it occurs) as precedent for our position on similar issues.
Also, there is some downside if they win. Our customers were on the utility for those 3 months, and are now off - the direct opposite of the situation ABAG is in. So if they escape the burden of the 3 month surcharge, it would (should) be reimposed on customers who were on the utility at that time - which in theory could include our customers, even though they are back on DA and otherwise exempt from the surcharge.
So while I think we want them to win, like always, its hard to figure if that's good or bad so let's just stay out.
-----Original Message-----
From: JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-JBennett+20+3CJBennett+40GMSSR+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:43 AM
To: Kingerski, Harry; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara (E-mail)
Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D. 01-05-064
Importance: High
Attached is a petition for modification of Decision 01-05-064 (the rate
design decision) filed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The
Petition requests that the decision be modified to exempt customers which
were direct access for the period of March through May 2001 from the 12
month procurement surcharge which is designed to allow the utilities to
collect the three cent increase authorized by the March decision which then
did not go into effect until June (i.e., collect the revenues foregone due
to the time lag in implementation).
Given the fact that most of Enron's customers were on bundled service during
the March-June time frame, I do not believe that the requested modification
would provide them any benefit. Let me know if I am wrong on this and if
Enron wants to chime in in support of ABAG's petition.
Jeanne Bennett
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of
D.01-05-064
Importance: High
Attached for your information is a copy of the Petition for Modification of
D.01-05-064 filed today by ABAG POWER. Copies have also been sent to all
parties on the service list by U.S. Mail.
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]
- 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc << File: 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc >>
=====================================
|
3,753 |
Subject: California state regulatory matters
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12183.
=====================================
Phillip is not available Tues. How about Wed., 1:00 Central?
----- Forwarded by Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron on 07/05/01 02:36 PM -----
Leslie Lawner
07/05/01 09:05 AM
To: Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Phillip K
Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephanie
Miller/Enron@EnronXGate, Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES,
Don Black/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Rubena Buerger/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
Subject: California state regulatory matters
Let's try and set up a call to talk about the California intrastate gas
issues noted below (LDC hedging, rate unbundling and system
upgrades/expansions). Does Tues. July 10 at 3:00 Central work for everyone?
(Roger please pass on to EES folks who should be on).
Thanks.
----- Forwarded by Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron on 07/05/01 08:54 AM -----
James D Steffes
07/03/01 03:23 PM
To: Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: California state regulatory matters
Leslie --
Can you organize a call that goes through these issues and begins to
rationalize the information requested by Phillip? While these issues are
important, I don't see the CPUC doing anything in the near-term to help fix
the problems.
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 07/03/2001
03:22 PM ---------------------------
From: Leslie Lawner on 06/27/2001 12:59 PM
To: Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna
Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Phillip K Allen/Enron@EnronXGate
Subject: California state regulatory matters
Paul and Jeff,
Becky, Donna and I (gas girls) met with Phillip Allen (ENA West) to discuss
FERC gas issues today, and Phillip had some issues that were more state than
federal, and I told him I would bring them to your attention.
He is interested in seeing incentive rates or more hedging on the part of the
CA LDC's so that all their needs are not being served by the spot market. In
the current market, hedges (longer term contracting and financial) are being
done primarily by the producers and marketers, which results in a thin and
probably off-kilter market (the LDCs buying for the customers are not
participating). I know we have to square this with the EES positions, but I
am not up to speed on what is going on in CA on this issue.
Phillip also made that point that while the LDCs are focusing on their core
load, no one is doing system planning on the macro basis, taking into account
the ability of the physical systems to meet the needs of all customers, core
and non-core and making sure the system will be adequate.
Finally, he is very interested in seeing the CA LDC rates unbundled.
Any updates we can provide to Phillip (and the gas girls) would be
appreciated, as well as what our plans are to address these issues.
From our side, El Paso is having a conference in July and we will be taking
up a number of allocation and transportation issues at that time.
Thanks.
=====================================
|
3,754 |
Subject: RE: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/13845.
=====================================
Jeff:
You are quite correct about the facts of the arrangement. However, between
the previous fixed price deal we did on the alternative settlement and this
most recent agreement, we have lost $10,000 plus $12,500 for a total of
$22,500 on this one case. In both situations, our hours were required by
the expanded press of the work in the hearing, and the uncertainty that is
involved in estimating the cost of hearing work is always difficult to deal
with. As you will no doubt recall, on our last arrangement, I provided an
estimate that was much closer to what we have acutally spent on the GRI
hearing and briefing to date, which you then proceeded to propose paring on
an essentially arbitrary basis. I unable to plead anything other than brain
disfunction as to why I agreed with your numbers, which I knew would be too
low. So here we are. In response to your proposal, I offer two
suggestions, one: we should split the difference between the estimate and
the actuals to date. That would mean you would pay $19,761 of the current
balance. On that basis, we would prepare written comments and lobby for the
proposed decision when it comes out at no additional cost. Two: you pay
only the $15,000 that you propose ($13,500 plus the extra $1500), but we
clean the slate and start over on the file and any written comments or
lobbying on the proposed decision are paid for on a straight hourly basis.
I think either solution is fair to both sides. We continue to absorb
losses, but get some additional compensation, you pay a bit more, but no
more than is fair, and there is still substantial commercial value in the
outcome of the case to warrant the regulatory expense. If you want me to
explain the situation to Paul or Rick or Steffes in order to assist in
justifying the additional expense, I would be more than happy to do so.
Thank you, and I mean this sincerely, for considering our request for a
revision of the billing arrangements. I am also willing to get together
today and talk about this face to face if you want. Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bills for Gas Restructuring Activities
Mike:
We'd talked about getting together to discuss the bills for the case. We'd
originally agreed to a flat fee of $13, 500 (if memory serves) with a bonus
for coming in under the cap. You've sent me bills (as of August 17
according to my records) for over $25,000. As you recall, we had a very
lengthy discussion regarding the magnitude of the work associated with the
hearings and associated briefs. I stressed that $13.5 was what I'd spend
and that we'd have to do the best we could within that constraint, which is
why I pressed for a flat fee arrangement at the outset. With that in mind,
I believe that it's important to honor the arrangement. However, in light
of the particular circumstances in this case, I'm willing to exceed the
previous arrangement for a total of $15,000, but can't go above that. If
you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to talk about it. Let me
know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,755 |
Subject: Re: Draft Questions for Hoecker
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/802.
=====================================
I disagree with you about question 2. While I agree that transmission acess
wasn't the number one problem in California this summer, transmission access
is not close to being perfect in California (for example PG&E controls the
information about path 15 and the ISO still has not auctioned off 100 percent
of the FTRs in the market) and certainly corrections to these problems would
make the market more liquid which would help to alleviate the price spike
problem. So even though access is not the number one or even the number two
problem causing price spikes this summer it contributed and it is one of the
biggest problems with the California market, relatively, and it is something
that FERC can fix (as compared to fixing hedging and underscheduling which
they seem content to leave to the state regulators). Perhaps Tom could fix
his question accordingly.
Sarah Novosel@ENRON
10/04/2000 07:41 AM
To: Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cynthia
Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Draft Questions for Hoecker
Tom:
The questions look good, and I agree with Rick's comments regarding RTO
participation. We should try and pin Hoecker down on the problems with the
voluntary approach. I have a couple of additional thoughts on the questions:
In question two, you should also ask Hoecker directly about the time it takes
to interconnect. The interconnection process can take a long time due to
utility holdups that are not necessary. I would ask something like, "What is
the length of time it typically takes to interconnect a generator to the grid
once the generator makes the request for interconnection? Can FERC take
action to shortened this time to help accelerate the development and
operation of new generation in California and elsewhere throughout the
country?"
On question three, you have asked me in the past whether open access for all
uses of the grid would have helped California this summer, and as we have
discussed, while it may have helped, lack of transmission access was probably
not the primary cause for the problems in California this summer. Given
that, could this question backfire on us? What if Hoecker says no, expanding
FERC jurisdiction wouldn't have had much impact on California this summer?
Finally, you may want to send these questions to some of our other California
people, including Jeff Dasovich, Sue Mara and Mona Petrochko, to make sure
that the facts stated in Question No. 1 are accurate.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Sarah
Tom Briggs
10/03/2000 02:48 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cynthia
Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Draft Questions for Hoecker
Attached please find draft questions to be provided to Sen. Gorton for his
hearing on NW price spikes to be held Thursday. I hve tried to design
questions that focus on FERC jurisdiction. However, i may have med the
questions too specific and detailed. please give me your comments and ideas.
=====================================
|
3,756 |
Subject: Re: California Update 4/23/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11425.
=====================================
FYI. Her take on the Senate going after the creditors' dedicated rate
component as the first (and most important) change is on target in my view.
Best,
Jeff
Kristin Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate
04/23/2001 02:07 PM
To: John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris Gaskill/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike
Grigsby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Heizenrader/PDX/ECT@ECT, Vince J
Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Rob
Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Claudio
Ribeiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Tawney/ENRON@enronXgate, Scott
Tholan/ENRON@enronXgate, Britt Whitman/ENRON@enronXgate, Lloyd
Will/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: California Update 4/23/01
Executive Summary
? FERC Considers Price Caps in the West
? Davis/SoCal Ed MOU subject to legislative revisions (we still stand by our
early reports that the SoCal/Davis transmission deal will most likely fail
and that SoCal will follow PG&E into bankruptcy court)
FERC mitigates price spikes in the West
FERC Chairman Hebert has placed a RTO West proposal onto the agenda for this
week's meeting. The proposal would "mitigate" price surges by requiring
generating companies to sell power into California and other western states
during Stage 3 emergencies (when there is less than 1% surplus electricity in
the grid) and cap the price generators could charge during these highest
states of emergency.
1) The FERC proposal would not set price caps for any other time than Stage
3 emergencies
2) It would expire after a year
3) It would set the top reference rate at "cost plus" based on the cost to
produce electricity by the most inefficient producer
FERC is also looking at initiatives that would encourage the agriculture
industry to possibly sell their power and natural gas contracts instead of
using them to produce their products. Although this proposal has not been
formally approved or voted on at this time, the Chairman's control over
FERC's agenda is absolute and nothing gets on the agenda he does not want to
consider. Thus, if it stays on the agenda through meeting time, the odds of
it passing are quite high if the meeting avoids total breakdown into
hard-headed chaos. The key has been Commissioner Breathitt. The two recently
nominated Commissioners have not yet been approved by the Senate and so
cannot vote this week. Thus any change in Breathitt's position definitively
tips the balance of power in FERC.
Davis & SoCal. MOU not a Done Deal
According to sources, the first legislative alteration to the Davis/SoCal MOU
will involve removing the dedicated rate component necessary to repay SoCal's
creditors. This point only highlights the Senates' indecision on how to deal
with paying off generators. Solutions currently range from seizing assets to
seeking legal relief for corporate price gouging and sources indicate that
the QFs are still likely to file involuntary bankruptcy against SoCal upon
the Senate's first official sign of unwillingness to work with creditors.
=====================================
|
3,757 |
Subject: Re: PG&E SEC Filing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3229.
=====================================
I'm told that APS filed against PG&E and "APEC"? also filed against PG&E.
Best,
Jeff
Vicki Sharp@EES
02/14/2001 07:17 PM
To: Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan
Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron,
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: PG&E SEC Filing
FYI, the attached PGE filing makes mention of two complaints filed with the
CPUC seeking collection of unpaid PX credits. Peggy, if the press tracks
these complaints down, you may get several press inquiries tomorrow.
Jeff, can we figure out who filed the other complaint?
Please forward as appropriate.
---------------------- Forwarded by Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES on 02/14/2001 06:37
PM ---------------------------
From: Michael Tribolet@ENRON on 02/14/2001 07:04 PM
To: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], [email protected], Robert C Williams/Enron@EnronXGate@EES,
Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: PG&E SEC Filing
Per your request, please see the attached.
Mike D Smith@EES
02/14/2001 05:37 PM
To: Michael Tribolet/Corp/Enron@Enron, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Robert C Williams/Enron@EnronXGate, [email protected], James
D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected]
cc:
Subject: PG&E SEC Filing
Please see the bold language in the article below about PG&E's recent SEC
filing. Sounds like our "negative CTC's."
Michael--do you have a copy of that SEC filing? MDS
NEW YORK (Reuters) - PG&E Corp.(NYSE:PCG - news), embattled parent of Pacific
Gas & Electric Co., said on Wednesday it is examining a restructuring of its
bank loans and commercial paper, and that bank lenders on a $1 billion
revolving credit facility to its California electric utility unit won't act
upon that unit's previously announced default until March 6.
San Francisco-based PG&E made the disclosures in a filing late Wednesday with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) (SEC). The utility
had about $1 billion in cash as of Tuesday, PG&E said.
A similar bank deadline affecting credit lines of Southern California Edison
(news - web sites), that state's No. 2 utility and a unit of Rosemead,
Calif.-based Edison International(NYSE:EIX - news), was to expire on Tuesday.
PG&E also said in its filing that as of Monday, Pacific G&E, California's No.
1 utility, may not have paid as much as $433 million of ``energy credits'' to
customers who have chosen to buy their electric energy from a provider other
than Pacific G&E. The utility is required under state regulations to offer
the credits, it said.
Pacific G&E and SoCal Edison have been unable to recover about $12 billion
because of a rate freeze imposed under California's 1996 utility deregulation
law, which has left them unable to pass on their soaring wholesale power
costs to consumers.
=====================================
|
3,758 |
Subject: Powerline broadband does last mile
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5074.
=====================================
Powerline broadband does last mile---Goes through meters,transformers in=20
Georgia
Powerline Technologies Inc (PTI) expects to have commercial broadband and=
=20
powerline modems ready by the fall now that it has completed a=20
full-scalefield trial.
It=01,s the first successful test in the US that solved the problem of avoi=
ding=20
transformers and meters, noted CEO Rick Rumbarger.
The basic technology of PTI=01,s hardware was developed in Europe and adapt=
ed to=20
the US by [email protected] --the Israeli-based powerline communications firm=20
formed Powerline Technologies with US-based energy marketer PowerTrust.
They=01,ve taken the concept from the lab, putting it on the grid and prove=
d to=20
the world it works, said Rumbarger. PTI=01,s core technologies are in use i=
n=20
Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Brazil and Sweden. PTI used the latest=20
version of its technology to provide internet broadband services to single=
=20
family homeowners served by Coweta-Fayette Electric Membership Corp, locate=
d=20
southwest of Atlanta.
=01&It=01,s the only technology that we=01,re aware of that can go through =
both meters=20
and transformers,=018 besides meeting European emissions standards,he added=
.
Services were delivered over a live power grid using overhead and undergrou=
nd=20
lines.
Proving the technology could be a=01&last mile=018 broadband provider is im=
portant.=20
The last mile refers to the leg from the user=01,s home to where it hooks i=
nto=20
the main wires but in this case the connection included the last inch linki=
ng=20
a building=01,s outlets into a network.Consumers can move from room to room=
and=20
still connect to the internet.
Home networking is popular these days but requires some expertise and is=20
considered a hassle to set up.The powerline connection allows various=20
computers to connect to the internet without relying on a network router.
PTI=01,s broadband worked on low and medium voltage grids. The technology=
=20
developed by PTI accomplishes one more feat in that it can push a broadband=
=20
signal over long distances without turning the line into an antenna picking=
=20
up stray signals.It will revolutionize broadband by giving everyone with=20
electricity an ability to have a high-speed internet connection.That would=
=20
solve the problem of rural areas being left out of the broadband advance.
Telephone service can be offered as well as video on demand, Rumbarger note=
d.=20
Utilities will be able to use the system for automated meter reading servic=
es=20
too. The powerline technology provides a =01&huge economic windfall=018 for=
=20
utilities that can offer these services using an infrastructure that=01,s=
=20
already in place, Rumbarger explained.A utility deploying the powerline=20
devices will only expend about 25% of the cost of installing cable or=20
DSL(digital subscriber line) infrastructures. PTI=01,s next step is to hav=
e a=20
full-blownpilot with the Coweta-Fayette co-op in about three months with tw=
o=20
more to follow at midyear including telecom.
Thus a CLEC will be able to provide phone services without leasing lines fr=
om=20
the incumbent telephone
=====================================
|
3,759 |
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/765.
=====================================
Yes. I called him yesterday after the call and filled him in on all the details. So he's up to speed; but feel free to forward.
Best,
Jeff
Also, didn't want to put in the note, but I got the impression from Fielder that he's not real keen on extending the stipulation. But I think we should push it, if for no other reason than to keep the PUC out of it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Robert C.
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:44 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
Jeff, thanks. Can I forward to Mike Day?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:02 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael; Sanders, Richard B.; Kean, Steven J.; Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike; Williams, Robert C.; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve; Huddleson, Diann; Calger, Christopher F.; Belden, Tim; Dietrich, Janet
Subject: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
I talked to John Fielder (SVP Edison) about setting up a meeting for Barry Tycholiz with Edison's CFO about hedging Edison's QF price risk. Fielder wanted to talk about the negative CTC issue. Here's what he said:
They plan to "settle" with the ESPs and pay them when they pay everyone else, which he re-iterated would be sometime in Q1'02.
Edison is holding firm to the notion that the negative CTC contributed to the utility's undercollection and that the ESP's share of the undercollection has to be netted against the payables attributable to the negative CTC and owed the ESP.
He said that they will propose to net it out in one of two ways: 1) lump sum netting (i.e., if they owe $50MM and the share of the undercollection is $30 MM, then they pay the ESP $20 MM; or 2) future reductions in PX Credit (i.e., they pay the ESP $50 MM, and then reduce the PX going forward until the $30 MM is paid down). The numbers are illustrative only.
In addition, he said that they have the view that a decision is going to have to be made about 1) whether DA customers pay for stranded costs tied to the DWR L-T contracts, and 2) whether DA customers pay going forward for stranded costs tied to the QF contracts. (Edison is clearly lobbying the PUC to get DA customers to pay for these costs.)
I recommended strongly that he de-link issues 1 and 2 above from the issue of paying us ASAP what they owe us for negative CTC. He agreed.
He said that the PUC judge's recently issued pre-hearing conference order requires that Edison "meet and confer" with ESPs prior to the Nov. 7th hearing, and that Edison intends to set something up with ESPs prior to that hearing.
Fielder is also the point person on "getting ESPs paid" and intends to initiate settlement discussions with ESPs week after next.
It was very clear from the conversation that Edison is going to do everything possible (at the expense of creditors) to maximize headroom under the settlement it struck with the PUC a few weeks ago. Edison's stalemate with the QFs is evidence of it. We shouldn't assume anything different with the Negative CTC issue.
If you have any questions, let us know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,760 |
Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11884.
=====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Kingerski, Harry
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:06 PM
To: 'JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON'; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim
Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara (E-mail)
Subject: RE: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D.
01-05-064
I think ABAG has a good point and the principle is one we are also trying to
establish - if you weren't using DWR power, you shouldn't have to pay for
it. But I wonder if Enron's endorsement of ABAG's petition wouldn't
contaminate it. I think we should let them win on the merits of their own
argument and use their success (if it occurs) as precedent for our position
on similar issues.
Also, there is some downside if they win. Our customers were on the utility
for those 3 months, and are now off - the direct opposite of the situation
ABAG is in. So if they escape the burden of the 3 month surcharge, it would
(should) be reimposed on customers who were on the utility at that time -
which in theory could include our customers, even though they are back on DA
and otherwise exempt from the surcharge.
So while I think we want them to win, like always, its hard to figure if
that's good or bad so let's just stay out.
-----Original Message-----
From: JBennett <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-JBennett+20+3CJBennett+40GMSSR+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:43 AM
To: Kingerski, Harry; Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Jim Steffes (E-mail); Sue Mara
(E-mail)
Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of D.
01-05-064
Importance: High
Attached is a petition for modification of Decision 01-05-064 (the rate
design decision) filed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The
Petition requests that the decision be modified to exempt customers which
were direct access for the period of March through May 2001 from the 12
month procurement surcharge which is designed to allow the utilities to
collect the three cent increase authorized by the March decision which then
did not go into effect until June (i.e., collect the revenues foregone due
to the time lag in implementation).
Given the fact that most of Enron's customers were on bundled service during
the March-June time frame, I do not believe that the requested modification
would provide them any benefit. Let me know if I am wrong on this and if
Enron wants to chime in in support of ABAG's petition.
Jeanne Bennett
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A.00-11-038 et al. ABAG POWER Petition for Modification of
D.01-05-064
Importance: High
Attached for your information is a copy of the Petition for Modification of
D.01-05-064 filed today by ABAG POWER. Copies have also been sent to all
parties on the service list by U.S. Mail.
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]
- 7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc << File:
7-13-01 Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 - Final.doc >>
=====================================
|
3,761 |
Subject: FW: EIX, PCG: Edison Fights Lien Request; Conservation Measures
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4964.
=====================================
FYI.
Jim
----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 03/14/2001 09:01 AM -----
=09Chip Schneider/ENRON@enronXgate
=0903/14/2001 08:42 AM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Rick Buy/ENRON@enronXgate, David Gorte/ENRON@enronXgate, William=
S=20
Bradford/ENRON@enronXgate, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, W David=20
Duran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terry W Donovan/HOU/ECT@ECT, George=20
Schaefer/HPL/Enron@Enron, Greg Blair/Corp/Enron@Enron, James D=20
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: FW: EIX, PCG: Edison Fights Lien Request; Conservation Meas=
ures=20
Introduced
The tail is beginning to wag the dog. Although the QFs represent only abou=
t=20
3000MW of capacity, the gas (and then coal) QFs have the least ability to=
=20
withstand a further delay in payment, given their relative lack of liquidit=
y=20
and high level of fixed obligations (O&M, debt) and unreimbursed fuel=20
expenses. The legislature needs to move quickly to stem the tide.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Patterson <[email protected]>@ENRON=20
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-Paul+20Patterson+20+3CPaul+5FPatterson+40xmr3+2Ecom+3E+4=
0EN
[email protected]]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 6:37 AM
To: Schneider, Chip
Subject: EIX, PCG: Edison Fights Lien Request; Conservation Measures=20
Introduced
Credit Suisse First Boston
Paul Patterson
Good morning,
-Yesterday, Edison International indicated that Caithness, a QF, is seeking=
a=20
lien on an Edison asset that would give it a secured claim in the event of=
=20
bankruptcy. Edison stated that it would fight any U.S. court decision in=20
favor of Caithness, which could come as early as tomorrow.
-Because of their dire financial situation, we believe that QFs like=20
Caithness pose the greatest risk of filing an involuntary bankruptcy petiti=
on=20
against PG&E and Edison International.
-Last week, state legislators modified SB47X, the draft bill to lower QF=20
prices, in an effort to speed its passage. Reportedly, legislators are tryi=
ng=20
to lower average QF prices to $0.079 per kWh. The CPUC is unlikely to decid=
e=20
on revenue allocation until the bill is passed.
-This week, California moved forward with demand- and supply-side programs,=
=20
including the governor=01,s plan to give a 20% rebate to customers that red=
uce=20
power consumption by 20%. Also, three Western governors made another reques=
t=20
to FERC to cap wholesale prices.
-Although Governor Davis and the utilities continue to negotiate a utility=
=20
recovery plan, it is unclear if the state legislature will pass such a plan=
.=20
Therefore, we suggest that investors avoid EIX ($14.88, Hold) and PCG=20
($14.24, Hold), unless they have a high tolerance for risk and volatility.
Please call us with any questions you may have.
Regards,
Paul Patterson, 212-325-5876
Neil Stein, 212-325-4217
Wen-Wen Chen, 212-538-0223
Emily Lao Chua, 212-325-1982
If you would prefer not to receive further messages from this sender, pleas=
e=20
click on the following link and confirm your request:
Mailto:[email protected]
You will receive one additional e-mail message confirming your removal.
- ppp031401.pdf
=====================================
|
3,762 |
Subject: Fw: UPDATE ON QF DISCUSSIONS IN DC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8320.
=====================================
?
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Kelly
To: Wayne Kawamoto ; Ward Scobee ; Tony Wetzel ; Thomas Heller ; Steve
Ponder ; Steve Iliff ; Ross Ain ; Robert Frees ; Pete Levitt ; Paula Soos ;
Paul Wood ; Nam Nguyen ; Milt Schultz ; Marty McFadden ; Ken Salvagno ; Ken
Hoffman ; Jonathan Weisgall ; Joe Ronan ; Joe Greco ; Jack Pigott ; Hap
Boyd ; Frank Misseldine ; Ed Tomeo ; Ed Maddox ; Duane Nelsen ; Doug Levitt
; Doug Fernley ; Dean Gosselin ; Bob Escalante ; Bob Ellery ; Bill Woods ;
Bill Carlson ; Bill Adams ; Alex Sugaoka ; Lucian Fox ; Rich Dyer ; Ted
Cortopassi
Cc: Jan Smutny-Jones ; Katie Kaplan ; Carol Hudson ; Steven Kelly ; Doug
Kerner ; Andy Brown
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: UPDATE ON QF DISCUSSIONS IN DC
Late Sat. night, the Principles Group met to discuss the status of the
overall progress made in various DC working groups.? At that time, it was
clear that a number of outstanding issues remained unresolved, including the
issue of "credit worthiness" going forward, forbearance of past amounts due,
and what program (if any) would resolve the utilities' cash position while
maintaining reliability.? Discussions are continuing, and Tuesday is a
critical deadline as the utilities (particulalry SCE) has a large payment
due that date.
?
The California legislature is developing legislation to address some, or all
the issues required, including we have heard QF SRAC payment reform.
?
Regarding QF issues, reform of the QF energy payments is viewed by many as a
critical means to increase the utilities' cash position.? While no
resolution of that matter was reached as of end of day Saturday, Governor
Davis indicated during the Principles meeting that the CPUC was going to
render a decision on Thursday this week to address that matter.? Most people
inferred from this comment that the CPUC would take up the Wood PD or some
modification of that PD.?
?
IEP believes that the approval of the Wood PD (or an alternate) creates
serious procedural questions and legal questions.? We are drafting comments
to the Wood PD which will be filed on Monday or Tuesday which will address
these issues.? In addition, Jan spoke during the Principles Group meeting on
Saturday, noting particularly that the Wood PD, if voted out, would raise
the spector of a significant amount of in-state generation not able to
operate, thereby raising significant reliability concerns.
?
The QF working group addressing modifications/reform of the existing SRAC
payment structure was? not able to reach consensus as of noon Sunday.? Talks
are expected to continue with the utilities on Monday, in San Francisco at
11:00 a.m. at PG&E.? In addition, given the signals from the governor and
others, some QFs have proceeded with bilateral discussions with their
utility contract holders to work out contract modifications/reforms on a
bilateral basis.?
?
[Note, I haven't yet checked all my emails, but I believe we postponed the
Friday Restructuring/Transmission conference call to Monday, Jan 15 at 9:00
a.m.? This will give us an opportunity to fully brief you.
?
?
=====================================
|
3,763 |
Subject: Proposal for Transition to New Default Service Provider
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/484.
=====================================
Sue and I attended an ARM meeting on Friday in which we focused on default
provider role for the utilities. The outline of the proposal is attached.
As SDG&E (and believe it or not, PG&E) have indicated an interest to be a
wires only company, the structure proposed for default provider may have some
potential. Essentially, it is modeled after the gas industry:
1. No utility default for large customers (need to define, 50 kW and
above?); UDC provides a PLR role only.
2. Default for res and small commercial is a fixed price. Utility has
unlimited ability to hedge. No ex-poste reasonableness review.
3. Create a phase-in for competitive default provider.
What it does:
1. Creates a more competitive environment for large C&I. (EES)
2. Provides stability for res/commercial with a transition period to full
competition. (ENA)
3. Provides the utility with more certainty around regulatory treatment
(live and die by the fixed price)
4. May also provide a mechanism for limiting exposure for SCE & PG&E for
uncollectibles, going forward. Does not solve existing balance. Needs
further discussion.
Please review and comment. This is a strawman. May be useful in our
strategy development.
Mona
---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 09/18/2000
10:15 AM ---------------------------
"Leslie, John" <[email protected]>@LUCE.com> on 09/18/2000 10:01:35 AM
Sent by: "Johnson, Roseann" <[email protected]>
To: "ARM Members (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Leslie, John" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Proposal for Transition to New Default Service Provider
To ARM Members:
I have enclosed two documents that are based upon our discussions at
Friday's ARM meeting. First, I have enclosed a reproduction of the
flip-charts that we created during the meeting. Admittedly, these are a bit
difficult to understand. Second, I have drafted an outline of the proposal
to provide a transition mechanism to bring on new default service providers.
Please circulate your comments on the proposal by Wednesday,
September 20.
-John
<<#1556435 v1 - SES-ELECTRIC - Discussion at 9-15 ARM meeting.doc>>
<<#1556343 v1 - SES-ELECTRIC - Transition Proposal (9-18-00).doc>>
**************
CONFIDENTIAL
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP
600 West Broadway
Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-3391
(619) 236-1414
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is
confidential and intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the
transmission. It may therefore be protected from unauthorized use or
dissemination by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the intended
recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any review, use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. You are also asked to notify us immediately by telephone and to
delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any
form. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
- #1556435 v1 - SES-ELECTRIC - Discussion at 9-15 ARM meeting.doc
- #1556343 v1 - SES-ELECTRIC - Transition Proposal (9-18-00).doc
=====================================
|
3,764 |
Subject: Re: Environmental Alert called off
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1755.
=====================================
Your honor, could the witness please explain the source of his information.
Couldn't be the Ford Excursion marketing department, could it?
Jeffery Fawcett
09/26/2000 10:13 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Environmental Alert called off
Know of any openings??? With the GIR almost wrapped up, I'm looking for a
new challenge....
p.s. Purchase of the Excursion is defensible (barely), SoCal's "windowing"
practice is indefensible!
From: Jeff Dasovich on 09/26/2000 10:01 AM
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Environmental Alert called off
Gee, with all due respect, this sounds like SoCal trying to justify its
windowing policy.
Have you considered a career as a PR exec with OPEC.
Affectionately yours,
Jeff
Jeffery Fawcett
09/26/2000 09:57 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Environmental Alert called off
Consider the facts:
- 80% of the materials in this vehicle's construction are recyclable.
- Although it weighs 7,200 lbs, it gets 14 mpg, city, 18 mpg, highway, better
than most 6-cylinder SUV's.
- It's the only SUV that has a "blocker beam," a sort of low-slung bumper
behind the front bumper designed to transfer the energy of an impact with a
small car directly onto the small car's rear bumper, mitigating the risk of
the Excursion riding up and over the smaller car. In addition, the standard
class V hitch is set low on the rear frame and, similar to the blocker beam
up front, is designed to absorb the energy of a rear crash.
- It is a high efficiency, smokeless turbo-charged diesel engine... although
diesels produce more particulates than gasoline engines, overall, they don't
produce nearly the pollution of a gas-fired engine. See below:
Diesel engine
In general terms the diesel engine is less polluting that the petrol engine,
it produces 25 times less carbon monoxide, 15 times less hydrocarbons without
burning and half as much nitrogen oxide, whereas the emissions of sulphur
dioxide are higher.
Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that when the load of the diesel
engine approaches the maximum, the formation of soot increases radically
(which may even go so far as to multiply the concentration of black lead by
20).
This phenomenon does not occur with petrol vehicles, in which the
concentration of particles in the exhaust gases is kept practically constant.
In order to prevent this, we can recycle part of the exhaust gases through
the air inlet and place filters in the exhaust in order to reduce the
emission of particles.
Comparative chart for the components of the exhaust
from a petrol engine and a diesel engine
Susan Scott
09/25/2000 05:05 PM
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Environmental Alert
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 09/25/2000
05:05 PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich on 09/25/2000 05:03 PM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Environmental Alert
Oh great, he gets married, but his kids die from pollution.
=====================================
|
3,765 |
Subject: Re: CPUC protest at FERC re ISO confidentiality
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1968.
=====================================
I think that we need to respond as you suggest except could we ask that FERC
request that they modify the filing rather than dismiss it so that we get
some of the changes we need.
Mary Hain
11/27/2000 01:21 PM
To: Richard Sanders, [email protected], [email protected]
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron,
Richard Shapiro, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected], Joe
Hartsoe@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES,
Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis Benevides,
Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Jubran Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, Tim
Heizenrader/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Ingersoll/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: CPUC protest at FERC re ISO confidentiality
The CPUC has protested the ISO's recent replacement of Volume Nos. I and II
of its tariff. The ISO's tariff filing does not propose changes to any
substantive provision and is intended to be an uncontroversial filing to
comply with the designation and formatting requirements of FERC's Order 614.
Nevertheless, the CPUC:
Asks FERC to reject and modify the confidentiality and disclosure provisions
of the tariff such that they do not apply to requests for information from
California state agencies with statutory responsibilities related to
regulation or oversight of the electric industry. CPUC asks the provisions
be modified to require the ISO to respond to such requests in the same manner
as it responds to data requests from FERC itself.
Points out that the ISO has used this provision to refuse to provide
responses to the CPUC's subpoena including bid data.
Also asserts that the Western System Coordinating Council's (WSCC) extra high
voltage (EHV) data is available in real time to all WSCC members, including
market participants.
I was wondering if others agree we should file an answer to the CPUC's
answer, stating the following.
The ISO should make all market information available to all market
participants as we laid out in our comments on the FERC's November 1 order.
Not all market participants get EHV data - since [date?] the ISO has refused
to provide this information to the WSCC unless the WSCC keeps this
information confidential, due to its tariff's confidentiality provisions.
Accordingly the ISO's data is now only being provided to those market
participants with control areas. However, we have no way of knowing, and
therefore assume that utilities, munis, and Federal Power Marketing
Administrations with control areas are providing this information to their
merchant function. This access to market information is unduly
discriminatory. To rectify this undue discrimination, the FERC should delete
the confidentiality provision altogether.
The CPUC's filing is procedurally defective in that the ISO did not change
the confidentiality provision of its tariff so the CPUC's filing should have
been in a complaint in which it would have the burden of proof. Therefore,
the FERC should dismiss the CPUC's filing.
=====================================
|
3,766 |
Subject: Falling prices in wholesale bandwidth
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1579.
=====================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Nov. 8th, 2000
Wholesale bandwidth prices have fallen by up to 60% over the last 18 months
and are set to increase their rate of decline, according to a new report
published Monday. But industry pundits at a conference in Vienna this week
say the falling rate in pricing is even more dramatic than this.
According to the report from the Phillips Group, prices were falling by 50%
every 18 months at the end of 1998. But by the middle of 2000, prices were
dropping by 50% every six months.
Although the situation appears to be stabilizing, further price slashing is
projected, said Margrit Sessions, managing director of the Phillips Group,
speaking at the CWM 2000 Central and Eastern Europe conference in Vienna
Wednesday.
Company representatives at the conference agreed with the assessment of the
market's chronic lack of stability, but some claimed that their individual
experience of the falling rate of pricing is even more dramatic.
According to Sessions, lack of customer loyalty and the growing number of
players in the market account in part for the decline.
"What's happening here is that clients are being quoted one price, which is
then undercut by the next provider they speak to," Sessions said, a
phenomenon that has in turn led to an aggressively falling pricing policy,
exacerbated by a lack of transparency in the market as a whole.
This lack of transparency has been directly responsible for a "massive spread
in pricing over individual routes," and a pricing policy that is not always
reflective of the quality of services offered, she said.
In one example cited in the report, "Carrier A," a major incumbent, was
forced to drop its prices on a London-New York STM-1 route from just under
US$600,000 per annum in March of this year to US$500,000 by the end of this
quarter. The price is expected to fall further to below US$400,000 in the
next few months.
Another major incumbent, "Carrier B," cut its prices from US$3 million for
the same STM-1 route over its own network in April of last year to US$900,000
per annum 12 months later, and then again down to US$525,000 in June of this
year.
A further key issue affecting prices is that one-year contracts account for
around 50% of all contracts signed. Only 33% of clients commit to longer than
one year - a problem that is playing havoc with providers' marketing
departments, said Christof Rieder, senior product manager of private line
international at Swisscom, who attended the conference. Although the report's
findings may confirm wholesale providers's suspicions, so far
number-crunching evidence of the pricing war has been hard to prove
quantitatively, he said.
Ulrich Hammerschmidt, manager of carrier services at Telekom Austria, said
operators are responding to this market-pricing uncertainty by committing to
short-term lease contracts for bandwidth. "There is no other alternative," he
said.
Bandwidth prices will continue to fall until demand puts sufficient pressure
on supply as bandwidth-hungry applications come to the fore, concluded
Sessions.
=====================================
|
3,767 |
Subject: RE: California Update--0717.01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11826.
=====================================
still no word from Richard Sanders. Left a message and he hasn't called
back. Will let you know as soon as i hear anything, but did get a message
from a reporter who said he heard we had dropped our lawsuit?? Any word? kd
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 7:31 PM
To: [email protected]; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James; Mara, Susan;
Kingerski, Harry; Lawner, Leslie; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Denne,
Karen; [email protected]; Guerrero, Janel; Kaufman, Paul; Susan M
Landwehr/Enron@EnronXGate; Robertson, Linda
Subject: California Update--0717.01
What people know:
Hertzberg (et al's) bill (82XX)was heard in an "informational" hearing today
and still sits in the Assembly Energy Committee. It will be heard again
tomorrow (perhaps beginning at 10 AM) , at which time parties will have a
chance to support/oppose and ask for amendments. Most, including us, oppose
unless significantly amended.
The Wright (D) -Richman (R) bill (83XX)was heard in an "informational"
hearing today and still sits in the Assembly Energy Committee. It will be
heard again tomorrow, at which time parties will have a chance to
support/oppose and ask for amendments. From our perspective, this is the
best bill out there yet, though it still has serious problems---it isn't
available electronically yet, but should be tomorrow, and I'll distribute
then. The chances of the joint D-R bill being successful are slim, however,
since it's up against the Speakers competing bill. There is talk that the
Speaker will try to negotiate with Wright/Richman tonight and include any
agreement in his bill (82XX).
The original version of the Governor's MOU bill sits in the Senate. Most
believe that Burton will put it up for a vote this week and it will fail.
The Senate's version of the MOU (Sher-Peace-Kuehl) (78XX)came out today. It
will likely be heard in the committee tomorrow or the next day. Notably, it
kills Direct Access completely and makes Edison shareholders responsible for
that portion of Edison's debt owed to suppliers. In short, a very bad bill.
Burton's 18XX, which would de-link the bond issuance (to pay back the General
Fund) from the DWR contracts is likely to pass the Senate tomorrow or the
next day. Many--including Enron--support the bill (though we are supporting
it behind the scenes).
What people don't know:
Whether there's the time or the will in the Assembly and Senate to achieve by
Friday a single, comprehensive bill that can be sent to the governor for his
signature.
Whether the Legislature would postpone its month-long recess if the
Legislature hasn't finished a bill by Friday (most folks think they will not
postpone).
Whether it's true that, irrespective of the energy issue, the Legislature
will fail to get the budget completed by Friday and therefore have to
postpone their recess anyway, in which case they might continue to work on
the energy legislation at the same time.
Odds-makers still say it's better than 50-50 that the Legislature does not
get the Edison bills done by Friday and leaves on on its 30-day vacation.
Best,
Jeff
Sacramento is one goofy place.
=====================================
|
3,768 |
Subject: Cool Story
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/404.
=====================================
Category: EBS, Videoconferencing, PICtureTel
Description: PictureTel and Enron Link Five Continents to Create orld's
Largest Classroom
Detail:
Business Wire 3/1/00
England's Prime Minister Tony Blair part of 16-hour Global Leap video
conference with U.S. astronauts, thousands of children and others
PictureTel Corporation (Nasdaq: PCTL) has created the world's largest
classroom, bringing American astronauts face-to-face with schoolchildren,
mathematicians and others in a worldwide educational video conference. For
Global Leap - a 16-hour distance-learning event - PictureTel furnished
technical support and video streaming over the Internet via Enron Broadband
Services' ePowered Media Cast(TM).
Presented jointly with Slough, England's Arbour Vale School, classroom
sessions included live, interactive "virtual field trips," where children can
talk to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, astronauts at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), divers at the Great Barrier
Reef, mathematicians at Cambridge University, game wardens in South Africa
and others around the world. Up to 20 learning sites were involved in each
session, while 3,000 more participated via Internet video streaming.
The event also marked the launch of www.Global-Leap.com, an online directory
of educational videoconference links for schools.
Global Leap 2000 was organized by Arbour Vale teacher Mike Griffith, who
noted: "The Internet and other communications technology are making the world
smaller by the second. That's why education must become more global in focus.
Global Leap 2000 demonstrates the educational value of videoconferencing, and
shows how technology breaks down cultural barriers by bringing students and
others to places they may never otherwise experience."
PictureTel, the world leader in video-based communications, has provided full
technical support for the event, including the "electronic bridge" that
connected thousands of children worldwide, through fully interactive
videoconferencing. In addition, PictureTel's Enterprise Services Division
made the event available to thousands more, through streaming video over the
Internet.
"Global Leap 2000 demonstrates the vast potential that distance-learning
holds for students of any level," said Dr. Norman Gaut, PictureTel's chairman
and chief executive officer. "By bringing interesting subjects from around
the world inside the classroom - and allowing real-time interaction - Arbour
Vale School enabled PictureTel to show that any obstacle to communication can
be overcome."
About PictureTel
PictureTel Corporation is the world leader in developing, manufacturing and
marketing a full range of visual- and audio-collaboration and streaming-video
solutions. The company's systems meet customers' collaboration needs from the
desktop to the boardroom. PictureTel also markets network conferencing
servers and a comprehensive portfolio of enterprise-wide services. Additional
PictureTel information is available at www.picturetel.com. PictureTel
collaboration products and services eliminate the barrier of distance,
enabling people to be Anywhere Now(TM).
=====================================
|
3,769 |
Subject: Phil Angelides' comments
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11553.
=====================================
A brief summary of Phil Angelides=01, comments during yesterday=01,s Sacram=
ento =20
Press Club lunch:
The majority of his speech was about underinvestment in infrastructure=20
rather than energy issues. He did say, however, that the current energy=20
crisis is a manifestation of that underinvestment, which has not allowed=
=20
public projects to keep pace with growth.
He sees justification for a public power authority in that energy should be=
=20
treated as a public need that engenders private progress and goes beyond=20
normal market forces. He offered mortgages as an analogy; home ownership w=
as=20
determined to be so important to Americans, he said, that instead of leavi=
ng=20
it to the extremes of the market entities such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,=
=20
the VA and others were created to ensure that reasonable cost funds would =
be=20
available.
During the Q&A, Angelides said $4.125 billion in interim financing is line=
d=20
up but that the agreement will expire on May 8. The immediate problem is =
=20
that because of AB 1, the PUC must take the unusual step of setting the=20
bonding authority needed to back this financing that would buy down the=20
general fund (the Treasurer normally doesn=01,t need special approval by a=
n=20
agency). Because of the utilities=01, court challenges, it is unlikely tha=
t the=20
PUC will be able to grant legal bonding authority in time to close the=20
financing. Therefore, Angelides is asking the Legislature to give the=20
Treasurer=01,s office authority to issue a bond to at least cover the inte=
rim=20
financing. That authority is needed by the end of this week, he said=20
(although some press accounts have changed that to next week).
The Treasurer=01,s legal consultants have determined that AB 1 is outside t=
he =20
scope of bankruptcy, and that the PUC=01,s ability to act in accordance wit=
h AB=20
1 is unaffected by the bankruptcy court.
The quicker the general fund gets taken out of the process, the better, =20
Angelides said. Unless he is given authority to secure financing that will =
=20
return money to the general fund quickly, the state=01,s ability to meet al=
l=20
its other needs will soon be threatened and credit will be downgraded (not=
e:=20
S&P announced a downgrade late yesterday). The general fund needs some=20
"breathing room," and he believes bonds can be sold by the end of June tha=
t=20
would take the state out of the power purchasing business.
He noted that the bond process will require DWR to produce a finance plan =
=20
that will lead to public disclosure of many of the arrangements Davis has=
=20
kept secret.=20
He concluded by saying that three things must happen to ensure that the=20
state can meet its power and financial needs under current spending=20
projections:
1. The general fund has to be removed as the source of funding for buying =
=20
power. He said a plan =01) if there is one =01) should be made public as to=
how=20
this will be done.
2. QF=01,s have to get on line =01) he said about 60% are currently on line=
..
3. The price of power has to stay at "obscene" levels, rather than =20
"horrifically obscene" levels.
=====================================
|
3,770 |
Subject: Go Green Choice
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/2137.
=====================================
USA: Customer choice can boost 'green power' use-study.
NEW YORK, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Giving consumers more energy supply choices could boost use of cleaner electricity sources by 40 percent by the end of the decade, regardless of whether the market is deregulated, a federal study said.
But there's a catch. While 10 percent of U.S. electricity already comes from hydro and another 2 percent comes from wind, solar and geothermal sources, stimulating alternative energy demand to meet the 40-percent goal will require more so-called green pricing programs, which are often more expensive to the consumer.
According to the study, pushing consumers to adopt electricity alternatives besides coal, oil, gas or nuclear will require utilities to offer green power choices. Indeed, the study showed some customers will 'go green' even if the price is higher than conventional sources.
"Market research consistently shows that consumers prefer to receive their power from clean energy sources ... giving consumers energy supply choices can be a powerful mechanism for moving renewable energy into the marketplace," said Blair Swezey, co-author of the study.
Swezey works at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which conducted the study along with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Both organizations are U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories.
The study does not advocate competitive markets over regulated markets, but suggests utilities in states without competition should offer their customers green products.
"If competitive retail markets fail to materialize, utility programs must pick up the slack," said Ryan Wiser of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, another co-author of the study.
CALIFORNIA CAVEAT
Green power marketing had seen success in states with retail market competition, such as in California .
But in the wake of California 's heavily publicized deregulation crisis, the state seems to have backed away from deregulation, and green power has been one of the victims.
"The California experience shows that the transition to competitive retail power markets will not be smooth," Wiser added, noting that at least until California makes up its mind regarding the fate of deregulation, green power programs will remain on the back-burner.
More than 85 utilities in 29 states out of more than 500 utilities nationwide give consumers the option to choose to buy power from renewable sources, meaning much of the potential growth for green power use has not yet materialized.
Non-hydro renewables provide about 2 percent, or 16,500 megawatts (MW), of all the electricity used in the United States. Hydropower provides about 10 percent.
With the expansion of customer choice, the study found the market could support about 6,000 MW of additional non-hydro renewables over the next decade.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, based in Golden, Colorado, is a research center for alternative fuels managed by Midwest Research Institute, technology developer Battelle and global engineering firm Bechtel.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, of Berkeley, California , is a scientific research center managed by the University of California .
=====================================
|
3,771 |
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/1042.
=====================================
I'll give you a call and fax you some materials that Edison uses to justify their position.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Belden, Tim
Sent: Wed 10/24/2001 8:38 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc:
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
I don't understand the netting that you are referring to. Does it mean that they will pay negative ctc's up to some just and reasonable amount and anything above the j&r level will be paid out when all of the other people are paid. How do they define the "ESP's share of the undercollection?"
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:02 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael; Sanders, Richard B.; Kean, Steven J.; Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike; Williams, Robert C.; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve; Huddleson, Diann; Calger, Christopher F.; Belden, Tim; Dietrich, Janet
Subject: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
I talked to John Fielder (SVP Edison) about setting up a meeting for Barry Tycholiz with Edison's CFO about hedging Edison's QF price risk. Fielder wanted to talk about the negative CTC issue. Here's what he said:
They plan to "settle" with the ESPs and pay them when they pay everyone else, which he re-iterated would be sometime in Q1'02.
Edison is holding firm to the notion that the negative CTC contributed to the utility's undercollection and that the ESP's share of the undercollection has to be netted against the payables attributable to the negative CTC and owed the ESP.
He said that they will propose to net it out in one of two ways: 1) lump sum netting (i.e., if they owe $50MM and the share of the undercollection is $30 MM, then they pay the ESP $20 MM; or 2) future reductions in PX Credit (i.e., they pay the ESP $50 MM, and then reduce the PX going forward until the $30 MM is paid down). The numbers are illustrative only.
In addition, he said that they have the view that a decision is going to have to be made about 1) whether DA customers pay for stranded costs tied to the DWR L-T contracts, and 2) whether DA customers pay going forward for stranded costs tied to the QF contracts. (Edison is clearly lobbying the PUC to get DA customers to pay for these costs.)
I recommended strongly that he de-link issues 1 and 2 above from the issue of paying us ASAP what they owe us for negative CTC. He agreed.
He said that the PUC judge's recently issued pre-hearing conference order requires that Edison "meet and confer" with ESPs prior to the Nov. 7th hearing, and that Edison intends to set something up with ESPs prior to that hearing.
Fielder is also the point person on "getting ESPs paid" and intends to initiate settlement discussions with ESPs week after next.
It was very clear from the conversation that Edison is going to do everything possible (at the expense of creditors) to maximize headroom under the settlement it struck with the PUC a few weeks ago. Edison's stalemate with the QFs is evidence of it. We shouldn't assume anything different with the Negative CTC issue.
If you have any questions, let us know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,772 |
Subject: Re: Contact
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/330.
=====================================
Be happy to discuss. My preference would be to have a brief call to discuss,
since Mr. Filner is on a mission to tan a few hides over the price spikes in
S.D. At congressional and FERC hearings in S.D. last week, Mr. Filner called
generators and marketers quite a few ugly names, fingered them as the cause
for the high prices, and demanded that Congress and FERC make them give all
the money back to S.D. consumers. Fairly sensitive item, to put it mildly.
I'm at 415.782.7822.
Best,
Jeff
Michael Kenneally@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
09/21/2000 10:47 AM
To: David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Re: Contact
Gentlemen:
Steve asked that I follow up with you on the inquiry below. I met with Bob
Filner, US Representative from San Diego , who had asked that I forward any
information to him about Enron's management of energy prices. Could you
recommend how we can follow up with him. I am happy to direct him towards
you.
Thanks for your help,
Michael
----- Forwarded by Michael Kenneally/Enron Communications on 09/21/00 10:40
AM -----
Steven J Kean@ENRON
Sent by: Steven J Kean@ENRON
09/13/00 07:57 AM
To: Michael Kenneally/Enron Communications@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
cc:
Subject: Re: Contact
Contact Dave Parquet and Jeff Dasovich in our San Fran. office. Dave has
worked on Enron's proposals to San Diego and Jeff has been supporting him
from a gov't/reg affairs standpoint.
From: Michael Kenneally@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS on 09/08/2000 10:51 AM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Contact
Steve:
Chris Holmes recommended I contact you concerning the attached inquiry. I
recently met with a federal representative from San Diego who had asked if I
could send him any information on Enron's ability to hedge energy prices.
After a summer of rolling brown outs and soaring prices, he is looking for
ways to avoid the scenario in the future.
Could you recommend the best avenue for responding to this request?
I appreciate you assistance in this matter.
Regards,
Michael
x 35868
----- Forwarded by Michael Kenneally/Enron Communications on 09/08/00 10:46
AM -----
Chris Holmes@EES
08/16/00 06:46 AM
To: Michael Kenneally/Enron Communications@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Contact
glad to hear you are in a good place-- I suggest you call Steve Kean's
office, regulatory affairs as they would like the contact with the Cong.
office-- they will in turn follow-up, .
Best to you and the family. Drop by sometime,. I am in room 1212.
chris
From: Michael Kenneally@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS on 08/15/2000 04:15 PM
To: Chris Holmes/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Contact
Hello Chris:
I hope you and your family are doing well. I am sorry to have fallen out of
touch.
I was thinking of you recently wen speaking with a Congressional
representative from San Diego. After a summer of rolling brown outs and
increasing prices from the utilities, he was searching for an energy
solution. Who would be the best contact within EES or ENA to explore the
possibilities for the city of San Diego?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Michael
=====================================
|
3,773 |
Subject: Update on ballot measures
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: []
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1552.
=====================================
The following report was prepared Strategic Information Services. If you
have any questions, please call the numbers below.
This report provides a numbered listing of the individual measures that will
be appearing on the March 5, 2002 Statewide Primary Ballot.
* Proposition 40 -- This legislative measure, the product of AB 1602
(Keeley/2001-02), enacts the "California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe
Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2002." Final
Legislative Votes on AB 1602: Senate, 29-4, p. 2983, 9/14/01, Assembly,
60-8, p. 4069, 9/14/01.
* Proposition 41 -- This legislative measure, the product of AB 56
(Hertzberg/2001-02), enacts the "Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002,"
which would provide funds for the purchase of updated voting systems by
counties. Final Legislative Votes on AB 56: Senate, 29-8, p. 2978, 9/14/01,
Assembly, 71-7, p. 4018, 9/14/01.
* Proposition 42 -- This legislative measure, the product of ACA 4
(Dutra/2001-02), amends the California Constitution so as to permanently
dedicate the revenues from motor vehicle fuel sales taxes to state and local
agencies for transportation purposes, primarily for highways and local
streets/roads, beginning in 2003-04. Final Legislative Votes on ACA 4:
Senate, 36-1, p. 2192, 7/22/01; Assembly, 68-2, p. 2972, 7/23/01.
* Proposition 43 -- This legislative measure, the product of ACA 9
(Longville/2001-02), amends the California Constitution so as to specify
that a voter who casts a vote in accordance with the laws of this state
shall have their vote counted. Final Legislative Votes on ACA 9: Assembly,
79-0, p. 3151, 8/23/01, Senate, 39-0, p. 2783, 9/12/01.
* Proposition 44 -- This legislative measure, the product of SB 1988
(Speier/1999-2000), amends the "Chiropractic Practitioners Initiative Act of
1922" to require that a chiropractic doctor's license be revoked for a
ten-year period upon a second conviction for insurance fraud or upon
conviction of multiple counts of insurance fraud and requires a district
attorney to notify the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners whenever a
chiropractor is charged with a felony. Final Legislative Votes on SB 1988:
Assembly, 63-13, p. 8444, 8/28/00; Senate, 40-0, p. 6335, 8/30/00.
* Proposition 45 -- This initiative measure loosens California's
legislative term limits law by allowing lawmakers to serve an additional
four years in the Assembly and Senate. Registered voters in a legislative
district would be allowed to submit petition signatures equaling 20% of the
ballots cast for that office in the last general election permitting their
incumbent legislator to run for re-election and serve for an additional four
years maximum, if approved by a majority of the district's voters.
If you have any questions or would like additional copies of this report,
please contact a member of Strategic Information Services staff below:
* Bernd Schwieren <mailto:[email protected]> (916/319-3878)
* Don Levin <mailto:[email protected]> (916/319-3890)
* Ann Hoang <mailto:[email protected]> (916/319-3992)
Richard Costigan, III
Chief of Staff
Office of the Assembly Republican Leader
California State Assembly
Phone:(916) 319-2005
=====================================
|
3,774 |
Subject: RAP Alternate Decision
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/533.
=====================================
Some thoughts for folks to think about in advance of Friday:
1. Decision is great on defining LRMC-adopt ARM/ORA vs. UDCs
2. Decision identifies specific adjustments to ORA from Utilities, but
doesn't identify specific adjustments to ORA from ARM (which Dan has done)
and which we can point to in comments. The table that compares all proposals
is excellent! (It's in Dan's memo) That is a great cross-reference.
3. Need to determine whether we support an average for the state, or
utility-specific. Which will be more defensible? I think utility specific.
4. I have some challenges to the adjustments that Neeper ultimately adopted.
5. The decision requires that the utility procurement function interact with
the other utility functions on a comparable basis as ESPs, including access
to information. (Good decision language. Don't know how to enforce.)
Here is a table summarizing the thought process of the revised alternate
decision. ORA-ADJ UDC, is the adjustments to ORA's proposal incorporating
criticisms of the UDCs. The next line (ORA-ADJ ACCPT) are those UDC
criticisms accepted by Neeper. The last is the machinations to average and
incorporate a bump for ARM's participation.
Cents per MWh
PG&E SCE SDG&E
UDC 0 .02 3
ORA 48 40 15
ARM 59 67 65
ORA-ADJ UDC 18 .8 6
ORA-ADJ ACCPT 48 28 13
DECISION-AVG+ 32 32 32
I think the items that Dan has identified will provide more than a 2 cent/MWh
adjustment, so worth quantifying for the record. These include adjustment
for common costs and overheads (FF#27), which ORA said we did a better job
than they had. Also, ARM's itemization of procurement related costs, which
ORA seemed to agree with, is more extensive.
Challenges to Adjustments Adopted by Neeper (ORA-ADJ ACCPT)
SDG&E-(pg. 37)
1. Would have disallowed $1.2 million. Neeper disallowed $.2 million (pg.
38) because those costs are being recovered in 376.
I will research SDG&E's 376 Settlement Decision, which I believe allows for
consideration of those costs in future unbundling proceedings. (Not sure
about SDG&E, sure about SCE)
PG&E-(pg. 38)
Criticizes ORA for not doing a PG&E-specific study. PG&E's criticism ORA for
including customer service costs related to its distribution function.
Neeper (pg. 40) Says ORA's proxy analysis to SCE is ok. Discounts PG&E's
criticism on customer service costs citing to the RAP decision that those
costs should be included in the PX credit.
This seems to be the best place to advocate use of our numbers over ORA's.
We did a PG&E specific study, which I think would be a valid criticism to
ORA's numbers.
SCE-(pg.39)
Would reduce ORA's Energy Service and Marketing costs from $12.3 to $4
million, because it includes costs related to supply from generation
sources. Would reduce Customer Service and Information from $21.1 milion to
$7.7 million saying that is the amount of CS&I the Commission had allocated
to generation. Neeper (pg. 40) accepts reduction of ES&M to $4 million.
Neeper does not discuss CS&I.
Need MRW input on whether SCE's criticisms are valid. Seems like we have
many areas to supplement ORA's numbers, based on the table in Dan's note.
=====================================
|
3,775 |
Subject: Orange Co. Register, Tues 12/19: "Suits allege utilities conspired
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/2702.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/19/2000 12:21 PM -----
Joseph Alamo
12/19/2000 12:05 PM
To: Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron,
Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Orange Co. Register, Tues 12/19: "Suits allege utilities conspired
on prices"
Suits allege utilities conspired on prices
ENERGY: Southern California Gas, El Paso Natural Gas, SDG&E are targeted.
December 19, 2000
By KATE BERRY
The Orange County Register
Two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles on Monday allege that Southern California
Gas and San Diego Gas & Electric conspired to manipulate the natural gas
market in Southern California, creating an artificial shortage that caused
electricity prices to skyrocket this year.
The two lawsuits, both seeking class action status, were filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court and seek billions in damages.
The lawsuits allege that executives of SoCal Gas, SDG&E and El Paso Natural
Gas Corp., of Houston, met in 1996 and conspired to dominate the natural gas
market in Southern California by illegally agreeing not to compete against
each other.
El Paso, which owns the largest natural gas pipeline serving California,
allegedly nixed two new pipeline projects that were planned by Tenneco Inc.,
a company it acquired in 1996, in exchange for SoCal Gas refraining from
competing on a pipeline project in Mexico, the lawsuits claim.
"The nature of this conspiracy is not your classic price- fixing case,'' said
Carole Handler, an attorney with O'Donnell & Schaeffer in Los Angeles, one of
five law firms involved in the two lawsuits.
"This was an agreement to give each of the participants an economic advantage
in their own marketplace so they would not have to face the rigors of
competition. It preserved Sempra's dominance in the market.''
SoCal Gas, the nation's largest gas distributor with 18 million customers,
and SDG&E, with 2.2 million electricity customers in San Diego and south
Orange County, were both acquired by Sempra Energy, of San Diego, in 1996.
The lawsuits also name three units of El Paso Natural Gas: El Paso Tennessee
Pipeline Co., El Paso Merchant Energy, and El Paso Merchant Energy-Gas L.P.
SoCal Gas and SDG&E would not comment on the lawsuits, saying they had not
been served with the complaints.
Andrew Berg, owner of Wave Length Hair Productions in San Diego and a
plaintiff representing retail electricity customers, said he contacted a
lawyer after his electricity bill doubled in June. Since then, the state
Legislature temporarily capped electricity prices for SDG&E customers.
Natural gas is one of the core commodities used to produce electricity. The
spot price of natural gas on the Southern California border Monday was $19.82
per million British thermal units, compared with $54.99 per million Btu a
week ago.
That's up from about $3 per million Btu last December. Gov. Gray Davis on
Friday asked California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to launch an
investigation into higher natural gas prices in California.
=====================================
|
3,776 |
Subject: Bill Perry
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28322.
=====================================
I am sorry I could not call you earlier to talk about this; I have been in
Washington D.C. the last few days with my CEO for meetings.
First of all I want to say that I am very, very sorry that you have had to
deal with the Bill Perry issue in any way. I think it is entirely
inappropriate to involve either of you and I am sure it has caused you
distress. I am also sorry that I went onto Bill Perry=01,s property last
weekend and I promise to NEVER go on Bill Perry=01,s property again.
Last weekend the 6 of us took the usual hike around the Johansson=01,s prop=
erty
and ended up on Roseman Creek road next to Bill Perry=01,s property with th=
e
observation deck. Scott has never seen the deck and has heard a lot about
it so I (in not my best judgment) thought it would be ok to quickly go up t=
o
the deck and check it out for a couple minutes and come right back. We did
not intend on hanging out on the deck or spending more than a couple of
minutes. All I wanted to do was show Scotty where it was and what it looke=
d
like. Kent and Scott had been talking about building one on our property
and I wanted them to see it. We went in the middle of the day and we did
not bring any drinks, bottles, cigarettes, or food. We purposely went out
there with nothing, spent a couple of minutes and came right back. I am no=
t
saying that this was right (because it was still trespassing), but we did
not go out there as we had in the past.
Then, on Sunday, Bill Perry came (unannounced) to the dome and started
yelling at me. He called me horrible names and said he was calling the
Sheriff. I only spoke nicely to him and apologized repeatedly. I also
promised him that I would never go onto his property again. He embarrassed
me and said bad things about me and both of you regarding things that are
not even related to this event. He also said that people continue to go on
his deck and disrespect his property. This is when I knew that it is not
just us that has used his deck. I have not been on his property in two
years and I know Prentice and Jeff haven=01,t either. He complained that
things have still be mistreated and he blamed me for things that I could no=
t
have done. I know that what I did was not right and I tried to let him see
that I was sincere about never going there again, but he would not listen.
I know that I have to deal with this issue. I assume you have the name of
the Sheriff so I can speak with him (and I hope you referred him immediatel=
y
to me). You should not have been called in this matter and that is VERY
upsetting to me. You did not trespass. Trespassing is not a crime that is
against another person=01,s property, but rather against another person. T=
here
is no reason why you should be involved. I am a 32 year old adult, full
capable of being responsible for my own actions. I may make mistakes, but
it is not your responsibility to answer for those mistakes and I am sorry
that you have been put in this position.
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)
=====================================
|
3,777 |
Subject: New Interest Rates and Loan Consolidation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/13484.
=====================================
Delete if you are an international student or a domestic student not
interested in Federal financial aid.
_________________________________________________________________________
The interest rates on Federal education loans are variable and change on
July 1, based on the 91-day T-Bill rate from the last Treasury auction in
May plus a statutory percentage add-on (1.7% in-school, 2.3% in repayment).
That auction was on May 29, 2001, with a rate of 3.688%, which rounds to
3.69%. According to the formula, the new applicable interest rates are as
follows effective July 1:
In-School Rate Repayment Rate
Direct Loans 5.39% 5.99%
Thus, interest rates have dropped by 2.2% and are lower than they have been
in many years. Students who have not yet consolidated their federal loans
should consider consolidating after July 1 in order to lock in these low
rates, even (especially) if they are still in school. Consolidation is an
optional process wherein the rate is a weighted average interest rate of
the loans being consolidated, rounded up to the nearest 1/8th of one
percent. This interest rate becomes fixed for the life of the consolidated
loan.
According to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.com, "a student with
$16,000 in debt who consolidates at 6.0% (5.99% rounded up to the nearest
1/8th of a point) will save $2,233.52 over the lifetime of the loan
compared with consolidating at 8.25% (8.19% rounded up to the nearest 1/8th
of a point). If the student consolidates while still in school to take
advantage of the in-school rate, the rate used will be 5.5% (5.39% rounded
up to the nearest 1/8th of a point), and will yield an additional savings
of $478.93 for a total savings $2,712.45 over the lifetime of the loan.
"Caveat: It is possible that the Fed will continue to cut interest rates
and that this will continue to be reflected in auction results, so that
next May the rates will be even lower. But there is also the risk that the
Fed rate cuts will end, and that the rates next May will be higher. Given
that the current rates are the lowest in many years and the savings already
substantial, the safest course of action is to consolidate after July 1,
2001 and before June 30, 2002."
However, if you are planning to consolidate I would suggest doing so before
September 30, 2001 to take advantage of an additional 0.8% interest rate
reduction. Refer to the first attached Word file for details on this and
the consolidation process.
*It is not too late to apply for 2001-2002 federal student loans*
If you are a U.S. citizen or permanent resident and are interested in
borrowing a 5.39% Direct Loan, you may still apply by following the
instructions in the second attached Word file.
This may seem complicated to you, but the attachments really do answer your
questions, so please read them thoroughly before e-mailing me.
Regards-
debi
- Loan Consolidation Eve June 2001.doc
- 2001 haas fafsa guide eve.doc
_____________________________
debi fidler
Director of Financial Aid for MBA Programs
Haas School of Business, S420C
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
voice (510) 643-1680
fax (510) 643-6659
=====================================
|
3,778 |
Subject: TELECOM NEGOTIATION WORKSHOP - COVERS FCC DETARIFFING ORDER - ONLY
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5140.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Scott Bolton/Enron Communications on 03/01/01 09:00 AM
-----
[email protected]
02/28/01 03:27 PM
To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: TELECOM NEGOTIATION WORKSHOP - COVERS FCC DETARIFFING ORDER - ONLY
2 WEEKS LEFT TO REGISTER!
ONLY 2 WEEKS LEFT TO REGISTER!
FCC Detariffing Order - Find out the Latest at CCMI's Telecom Negotiation
Workshop! Register TODAY!
*********************************
View our ONLINE BROCHURE and register today at
http://www.ccmi.com/negotiate.html or call our Conference Department at
800-260-1545. Seating is limited - don't delay!
*********************************
CCMI is hosting a Special Edition of its exclusive Telecom Negotiation
Workshop to cover the FCC's Detariffing Order.
The FCC Detariffing Order eliminates the baseline tariffs that underpin all
negotiated deals. Whether you're starting fresh or re-opening an existing
deal, the ground-rules have changed replaced by an entirely new regulatory
regime that changes your access to baseline price information, your insight
to market rates and fundamentally alters your relationship with carriers.
If you've been one of the 1000's who've attended Telecom Negotiation Workshop
in the past, you need to come again, and if you've not previously taken
advantage of this exclusive program that can help you get the best telecom
deal, then don't miss this special program in March.
Join the telecom industry's #1 legal team on contract negotiations Hank
Levine, Ellen Block and Steve Shea, along with George David, CCMI's Director,
for 2 hard-hitting information-packed days and they will...
* Take you through an exclusive 16-POINT PRE-NEGOTIATION CHECKLIST that
gives you a running start at the bargaining table
* Reveal how the FCC'S NEW PUBLIC DISCLOSURE RULES give you access to
market prices and key T&Cs.
* Show you how "MAC CREEP" can put you in a dangerous - and costly -
shortfall position unless you have the right "MAC CUSHION"
* Explain how to BLEND DETARIFFED SERVICES with tariffed international and
intrastate services.
* Give you a "TRAFFIC ROADMAP" that shows you how to size your switched,
private line and frame relay traffic and avoid making commitments you can't
keep
* Tell you how to position your company to get the benefit of the FCC'S
CALLS ACCESS CHARGE PLAN.
* Reveal how "WRAP-AROUND CLAUSES" can extend your interstate discounts to
cover your intrastate minutes, too
Reserve your spot now to join your colleagues at The Tradeswinds Resort in
Tampa, FL on March 12-13.
*********************************
View our ONLINE BROCHURE and register today at
http://www.ccmi.com/negotiate.html or call our Conference Department at
800-260-1545. Seating is limited - don't delay
*********************************
P.S. When you attend, you'll receive $687 worth of cost-cutting reports from
CCMI. Register today!
CCMI's Conference Alert Emails are intended to inform you of exclusive
conferences that can help you add more money to your bottomline. To
unsubscribe to this service, please reply to this message with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
=====================================
|
3,779 |
Subject: FW:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/183.
=====================================
I know Bob from when he worked for Commissioner Jesse Knight at the California PUC. It's worth noting that Knight was the lone dissenting voice on the California restructuring fiasco. I told Bob that we probably didn't have anything for him in government affairs at this time, but that we could possibly help out by circulating his resume on the Hill, FERC and perhaps in the Western States legislative and executive branches (if we hear of anyone looking for his expertise on electric issues). I am not asking anyone to make extra efforts ... but if you hear of someone looking, please pass Bob's resume along.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Lane [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 7:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re:
Steve,
Attached is a cleaner version of the resume I sent you
earlier in the week. There was a typo in the first
one I sent you. Thank you.
Bob
--- Bob Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve
>
> Thank you so much for taking the time to discuss the
> career opportunities in the energy sector for
> someone
> with my background and experience. Attached is a
> copy
> of my resume. As we discussed on the phone I have
> no
> problem with you passing my resume to anyone that
> you
> think might have a need for my experience, knowledge
> and expertise. Such assistance would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> I want to assure you that I am serious about seeking
> a
> new position and you assistance will not be a wasted
> effort. I have resigned my position with The Yankee
> Group and am actively looking for another
> opportunity.
> Effective mid-September, I will be relocating
> during
> my job search to Albuquerque, New Mexico. I will
> also
> be spending some time in California. However, I can
> still be reached on my cell phone at 415-713-4473.
>
> After talking with you, and reading the news about
> Jeffery Skillings I realized that we had not
> discussed
> the possibility of opportunities that might exist at
> either Enron Broadband or Enron Communications. I
> have taken the liberty of attaching a resume that
> highlights my telecommunications experience as well
> as
> the energy focused one.
>
> Should Enron need any consulting work or other
> limited
> term assistance I would be very interested in
> discussing this with you as well. I believe I could
> step in and provide immediate benefit to you and
> Enron
> should the occasion present itself.
>
> Again thank you for your assistance and support. If
> there is any assistance I can offer you please do
> not
> hesitate to ask.
>
>
> Sincerely Yours
>
>
> Bob Lane
> 415-713-4473
> [email protected]
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute
> with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword name=Rlane
Resume 081401.doc
> ATTACHMENT part 3 application/msword name=RLane
Resume -- Telcom 082001.doc
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
=====================================
|
3,780 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9291.
=====================================
Message Points
Recent legislative proposals designed to have the state play a dominant rol=
e=20
in developing, owning and operating power plants in California (SB6X--Burto=
n)=20
and buy PG&E and Edison's electric transmission assets (SB33X--Burton) are=
=20
taking California in the wrong direction and won't solve the State's=20
electricity crisis.
Two new bills are equally disturbing: AB60X (Hertzerg) would make plant=20
certification contigent upon the developer agreeing to sell the power to th=
e=20
state at "just and reasonable, cost based rates." SB39X (Spier) would make=
=20
power plant owners public utilities
The proposals represent a political solution, not a commercial, financial,=
=20
economic or technical solution. =20
As a political solution, these bills will not increase supply, decrease=20
demand, or get the utilities back on their financial feet.
In fact, it's worse than that. These bills will exacerbate California's=20
problems:
The transaction contemplated in SB33X is extremely complex, requiring=20
approval by state and federal authorities, bondholders, creditors and=20
others. California will be forced to spend an enormous amount of time and=
=20
resources trying to achieve the deal, with no certainty of success,=20
particularly in view of PG&E's public opposition. In the meantime, summer=
=20
approaches, and the gap between supply and demand remains staggering. This=
=20
complex, costly and litigious alternative will not lessen the serious threa=
t=20
of blackouts that California faces this summer.
SB6X would have the state finance, develop, own and/or operate power plants=
=20
in the state.
? Unfortunately, the proposal being offered will not solve the problem;=20
rather, it=01,s a significant step backward that will make matters worse in=
=20
California.
? The reason? Rather than remove California=01,s roadblocks to increased=
=20
generation and transmission investment, this proposal requires California t=
o=20
use taxpayer dollars to get into the business of financing, owning and=20
operating power plants and transmission.
? The best solution =01) recognized across the country and around the world=
=01) is=20
for the state to allow private companies to site new generation immediately=
.
? Once built, California could easily enter into contracts with private pow=
er=20
plant developers and avoid using taxpayers=01, dollars.
? Given government=01,s other failed experiments in other large scale=20
participation into public power, like TVA, BPA, NYPA, it is highly unlikely=
=20
that a California state agency will succeed in doing something that private=
=20
capital is better equipped and willing to do.
? In the short, the proposal is neither in the public interest nor rational=
.
? Issuing debt to build power plants and take over transmission systems cos=
ts=20
consumers money and takes money away from investments in schools and other=
=20
important priorities.
? We would be willing to work with the Legislature to help craft a bill tha=
t=20
gets more supply in California quickly, efficiently, and in an=20
environmentally sound manner, but this draft achieves only one goal: =20
creating more bureaucracy.
=====================================
|
3,781 |
Subject: Re: Dirk vanUlden
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29371.
=====================================
I reviewed the UtilityGuide website and while I do not have an issue with Mr.
van Ulden participating on the advisory board I would have a few cautions.
It should not include any hard commitments from Enron in terms of funding.
We may want to participate in the program but we should not be required too.
His compensation should be insignificant or nothing. Otherwise he would have
a conflict as their revenues will come from our competitors. I would have a
lot of heartburn over that as an Enron representative as well as if I came
from the competition.
Please let me know final status or if you have any questions.
Andrew Wu
12/12/99 07:59 PM
To: Jim Badum/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Dirk vanUlden
Jim--
I am in the EES Legal Dept here in California. Jeff Dasovich of Public and
Gov't Affairs asked me to send you an email soliciting your thoughts
regarding Enron employees participating in third-party deregulation-related
companies.
Specifically, an Enron employee here in California (Mr. Dirk van Ulden) has
been asked to serve on the "advisory board" for a deregulated industry
startup called UtilityGuide. UtilityGuide's goal is to create an online
forum for buyers and sellers of deregulated energy services. UtilityGuide
would be funded by (a) transaction fees paid by services providers, and (b)
revenues derived from advertising and sponsorship.
The management of UtilityGuide includes an ex-White House policy analyst (I
don't know which administration), a web design consultant and former
marketing manager for Greenpeace, and an ex-portfolio manager for Union Bank
of California.
Mr. van Ulden would be one of seven on the advisory board, which does not
include any management activities. Mr. van Ulden's main duties appear to be
assisting in recruitment of other members of the advisory board, other
management members, and identifying potential sources of working capital.
The term of Mr. van Ulden's appointment would be one year.
Jeff Dasovich and I have reviewed UtilityGuide's website
(www.utilityguide.com) and we do not believe that Mr. van Ulden's service on
the advisory board would be in conflict with the Enron Corporate Conduct
policy, mainly because (a) UtilityGuide as an aggregator of energy servicers
and not an energy service provider itself does not appear to be a competitor
of Enron, and (b) Mr. van Ulden's position at Enron Energy Services as a
project manager under Jeff Messina's Account Management and Delivery group
limits virtually all actual conflicts between Mr. van Ulden's duties at EES
v. his duties at UtilityGuide. However, because of EES' ongoing forays into
the electronic marketplace, we thought it appropriate to ask your thoughts
before responding. I believe that Mr. van Ulden has the concurrence of his
management as to this appointment, although of course we can seek concurrence
from any other management entities deemed necessary or prudent.
Your input would be greatly appreciated. Pls let me know if I can provide
any further information. I can be reached in San Ramon at 925 543 3706.
Jeff Dasovich can be reached in San Francisco at 415 782 7822.
Andy
=====================================
|
3,782 |
Subject: RE: PG&E Response to September 15 OFO Settlement Proposal from Pa
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/ofos/11.
=====================================
At least one change was made on the mark-up that wasn't flagged in the
Summary. In C.1.e; maintain records of the 'Core Procurement's' storage
activity, was changed to maintaining records for 'all storage accounts'. Is
this because PG&E would consider Core Procurement to be just another storage
account? If so, the original intent is still accomplished. However,
although the Parties obviously thought there might at some point be value in
examining the historical info on the core's use of storage, I don't think
any of us would feel we ever would have any business examining data on a
third party's use of their negotiated storage account.
Paul Amirault
VP Bus. Dvlpt., Wild Goose Storage Inc., and
Manager, Marketing [email protected]
AEC Storage & Hub Services (403) 266-8298
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas, Dan (CGT Mgr) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 1:04 PM
DEAR OII AND OFO SETTLEMENT PARTIES:
Thank you to the parties who worked very hard to develop the September 15,
1999 OFO Settlement Proposal in response to PG&E's August 18 proposal. We
have carefully reviewed your settlement offer and sought clarification where
needed. As a result, PG&E is able to accept most of the changes and
provisions contained in that proposal, and is offering back a few
modifications which we think should allow us to reach closure on a
multi-party OFO Settlement Agreement. We encourage all parties to sign this
settlement.
Our September 24, 1999 response is attached in two forms. One is a summary
of the items we agree with and those where we have changes, including the
reason for our changes. The second is a revision-marking of the September
15 proposal to show all the specific changes, including some minor edits.
We have not included the tariff revisions to support this package, but will
provide them once we have a final agreement. At this point, the changes to
the prior tariff drafts are straight forward.
Also attached is a draft Joint Motion for your review and approval. Our
suggested approach is to have Settlement Parties sign the motion as the
means of signifying their approval of the Settlement and the need for
expeditious Commission action.
We have scheduled a Settlement Conference next week on Tuesday, September
28, starting at 10:00 a.m. in Room 308, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco.
HOWEVER, the attendance of a couple key parties is problematic, and we may
need to move this settlement meeting to accommodate their schedules so we
can ensure a productive day. We will advise you no later than Monday
morning of the meeting status and possible next steps.
We appreciate your continued active participation in this settlement process
and look forward to your feedback on our modifications.
Sincerely,
Dan Thomas
PG&E California Gas Transmission
Manager, Products and Sales
cc: Kirk Johnson
Ben Campbell
Patrick Golden
Randy Litteneker
Steve McCarty
Chris McManus
Roland Risser
Dave Rubin
Al Torres
Ron Stoner
Eric Eisenman
Geoffrey Bellenger
Attachments
<<Sept 24 Summary of PG&E OFO Settlement Response.doc>> <<Sept 24 PG&E OFO
Settlement Response.doc>> <<Sept 24 Draft Motion for OFO Settlement.doc>>
=====================================
|
3,783 |
Subject: Kern River
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4808.
=====================================
Per our discussions last week about the Kern River open season. I expect
these shippers to file the same types of comments in the new expansion. FERC
has a policy prohibiting pipelines from selling more firm capacity than they
have at any point, so to the extent these shippers can show that Kern has
indeed oversold Wheeler Ridge, I think that FERC will have to address their
issue. They surely don't want another El Paso on their hands.
NGI's Daily Gas Price Index
published : March 21, 2001
Shippers Dispute Kern's Wheeler Ridge Sales
Chevron, Amoco Production, CanWest Gas Supply, Aera Energy and RME Petroleum
have called on FERC to stop Kern River Gas Transmission from overselling
delivery point rights at Wheeler Ridge into the Southern California Gas Co.
distribution system. The Firm Shippers said in comments filed this week that,
in a situation strangely similar to the recent El Paso capacity reallocation
case, Kern River has oversold capacity at Wheeler Ridge, and its proposed
expansion project will only exacerbate the situation (Docket CP01-31).
On Nov. 15, 2000, Kern filed an application to expand its system and provide
74,500 Dth/d of additional delivery point capacity at Wheeler Ridge into
SoCal Gas. But Firm Shippers claim recent data provided by Kern and SoCal Gas
indicates Kern River already has sold more than the 450 MMcf/d of firm
delivery point capacity it has available into Wheeler Ridge. Firm Shippers
told FERC. Kern River has sold 468.4 MMcf/d of capacity at Wheeler Ridge.
Not true, says Lynn Dahlberg, Kern's manager of marketing. "We have to date
subscribed at 450,000 dth/d. And unless we subscribe at more than 830,000
dth/d, we have not sold more capacity than SoCal has takeaway." The combined
Kern-Mojave lines can deliver on a firm basis 600,000 dth/d, with Kern having
450,00 and Mojave 150,000. "We can move more than that capacity, and we
have," she added.
SoCal Gas has noted that it curtails nominations from Kern on a regular
basis, Shippers said. With the proposed expansion project, Kern will be
"creating the same type of firm delivery point over-sale situation that the
Commission found to be unjust and unreasonable on El Paso Natural Gas at El
Paso's SoCal Gas/Topock delivery point," they added. While they support the
expansion, they do not want to see their firm delivery rights in Southern
California degraded. They also complained that Kern's marketing affiliate is
one of the primary beneficiaries of the proposed additional access to Wheeler
Ridge.
Dahlberg conceded that other interstate lines also deliver to the Wheeler
Ridge point, but "adding more players to Wheeler gives markets on Socal more
supply options. Shippers have to compete."
The shippers are concerned, however that "substantial benefits under the
currently structured proposal accrue primarily to Kern River and its
affiliate and would restrict the firm rights of existing shippers...." The
Commission should prohibit Kern from selling additional firm rights at
Wheeler Ridge, or provide only rights to secondary and tertiary capacity that
is of a lower priority than the rights of existing firm customers, they said.
=====================================
|
3,784 |
Subject: RE: See you Thursday
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/405.
=====================================
This looks very good. One suggestion: May be a little ambitious to do #2, and really ambitious to do #2 for the entire West. May want to priortize in some small way, like, what are the 5 things that most affect the book (maybe confined to California?). Just a suggestion. I'm comfortable doing the whole nine yards. Just concerned that we may fail to cover some really big risks that are lurking on the horizon in the near term if we choose not to focus down just a bit.
That said, seems real important to complete the comprehensive view as you've set out in the agenda as soon as we can (e.g., next four weeks, or so).
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 6:44 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan
Cc: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: RE: See you Thursday
I invited Jim S.
I was assuming that Paul would facilitate. Paul can you make this meeting? If not Paul, I was assuming it would be Sue or you.
Here's my suggested Agenda
1. Clarify scope of meeting. Calif. coverage or the entire West?
2. GA staff goes down the list of key cases that affect the curve (T, D, and utility G) and identifies who's covering cases
3. URM gives feedback on areas of their curves that may not be in GA's "radar"
4. Discussion over which cases should be monitoring mode and which we should be advocating a position.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 2:55 PM
To: Comnes, Alan; Mara, Susan
Cc: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: RE: See you Thursday
Importance: High
Alan:
Two things. 1) Assuming that you're lead on the meeting (i.e., agenda, facilitate meeting)---if not, just let us know and we'll take the reins. 2) Seems appropriate to invite Jim to participate. Sure he'll be interested. Your call.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:49 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan; Alamo, Joseph
Cc: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: RE: See you Thursday
Joseph,
Can you work with Sue and set up a call for Wed. afternoon. Perhaps the same call could be our weekly meeting since Sue and Jeff are tied up on Thurs.
GAC
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:49 AM
To: Comnes, Alan; Mara, Susan
Cc: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: RE: See you Thursday
Importance: High
Oh dear. Get a story straight? That's moving the bar pretty darned high, ain't it? Wednesday looks good for me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Comnes, Alan
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:31 PM
To: Mara, Susan
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; Kaufman, Paul
Subject: RE: See you Thursday
My recollections is that Paul wanted a meeting before meeting with commercial folks to "get our story straight." Can you set that up? Wed afternoon would work for me.
GAC
-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:10 AM
To: Richter, Jeff; Swain, Steve
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; Kaufman, Paul; Comnes, Alan
Subject: See you Thursday
Jeff and I are still planning to thumb our noses at the terrorists and fly up there on Thursday morning. We were planning on a 10 am to 2 pm meeting, working through lunch. Does this sound good to you two?
=====================================
|
3,785 |
Subject: NEWS: WIndfall Profits --passes Senate
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12165.
=====================================
* from Govt Affairs
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES on 05/08/2001
12:48 PM ---------------------------
Susan J Mara@ENRON
05/08/2001 11:52 AM
This bill now goes to the Assembly. The Assembly has its own bill -- 128X,
which is working its way through Committee. The Senate bill has an $80
benchmark (above which the 100% tax applies) and the Assembly bill has a $60
benchmark
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 05/08/2001 09:48 AM -----
"Chris Micheli" <[email protected]>
05/07/2001 07:16 PM
To:
SB 1x passed the State Senate late this afternoon by a vote of 25-12.
Senator Soto spoke in support arguing that the money should be returned to
taxpayers. The flate rate of the refundable tax credit will be determined by
the FTB. Senator Scott said that FERC has failed to act. This bill will
regulate the price of electricity in CA. He said that the PUC will be
allowed to review and adjust the base price for the tax, and that the PUC
could allow additional exemptions (is this an unconstitutional delegation of
authority?). Also, a long-term contract arrangements are exempt from the
bill.
Senator Morrow spoke in opposition. He said that the bill is not about
relief. Rather, it redistributes wealth and should be changed to refund the
money to consumers.
Senator Battin spoke in opposition. He cited the planned Intergent plant in
North Palm Springs. THis bill does not solve the crisis. It just
discourages generators from building in this state.
Senator Dunn said that emergency steps must be taken and that he supports
this bill. Otherwise, CA's wealth will go out of the state, primarily to
Texas.
Senator Polanco spoke in support and said that ratepayers are being gouged.
Billions in profits have been reaped by generators.
Senator McClintock spoke in opposition and said that power plants are not
being built here and that this bill will stop the construction of plants in
CA.
Senator Peace spoke in support and said that FERC has failed to enforce the
law.
Senator Perata spoke in support and said that generators have gotten caught
red-handed and now need to pay a penalty.
Senator Haynes spoke in opposition and said that the constitution will be
violated by this bill and that companies will sell to other states, rather
than California.
Senator Bowen spoke in support of the bill. She asked why we should have the
welcome mat our to CA when these companies are charging 300% more in their
prices then just a year or two ago. She also indicated that the Legislative
Counsel has given them an opinion that this bill is constitutional because it
only applies to the electrons flowing into the state. Whatever that means?
No Republicans voted for the bill. No Democrats voted against it. FInal
vote was 25-12.
However, if the Assembly or Senate adjourns the Special Session without
passing this bill and/or AB 128x, then both measures will die.
Chris Micheli, Esq.
Carpenter Snodgrass & Associates
1201 K Street, Suite 710
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 447-2251
FAX: (916) 445-5624
EMAIL: [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,786 |
Subject: *save this info* / Your keys to the Online Community
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/967.
=====================================
Dear Evening MBAs -
WELCOME TO HAAS or WELCOME BACK, whatever the case may be....
I work closely with your Evening MBAA VPs of Alumni Affairs, Tom Schneberger and Bharath Rangarajan, to make sure you know about all the alumni activities and programs. If, for some reason, you would like to meet with me to discuss other alumni services and connections, please email me to arrange a meeting.
Just a reminder that we encourage you to incorporate alumni networking into your business school experience from day one. Alumni will be an essential resource to you for class projects, career advice, internships, and long-term professional opportunities. My overall recommendation is that you tap into the online resources that the Haas Alumni Network provides and attend as many student - alumni events as you can!
A few things I want to emphasize to you:
# 1 INFORMATION YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT REGISTERING WITH THE
HAAS ALUMNI NETWORK ONLINE COMMUNITY
A) YOUR STUDENT ID = YOUR FIRST TIME SECURITY ID for this password
protected community
B) WHEN REGISTERING, SELECT A USER ID that you LIKE (select it as
carefully as you would a tattoo... because this is also your prefix for
your lifelong Haas alumni email address). For example, if your
haas/uclink account is mthompson@haas. you should choose mthompson as
your USER ID and it will automatically become the first part of your
email forwarding address - [email protected]. Since your
friends will come to memorize your school email address, get them in the
habit early of knowing what your lifelong email forwarding address will
be.
C) REGISTER NOW SO that you can
....ACTIVATE YOUR HAAS LIFELONG EMAIL FORWARDING ADDRESS (and START
PUTTING IT ON YOUR STUDENT BUSINESS CARDS/RESUME)
....UPDATE YOUR ONLINE DIRECTORY PROFILE
as a student you automatically have a profile in the directory and we
ENCOURAGE you to put in any relevant work or industry experience so that
other alumni and students can network with you in your specific field or
industry. For example, if you are doing working at HP *and*
attending school part-time, you might be a really good resource to
another student considering that type of work at that specific company. You can enhance the
network by showcasing your skills, connections, and expertise in your
online directory profile. Please make sure your address and
business info is current.
#2: MARK YOUR CALENDARS TO COME TO THE FOLLOWING STUDENT - ALUMNI FOOTBALL TAILGATES IN THE COURTYARD (two hours before kickoff):
- Oct. 13
- Nov. 3
- Nov. 10
sponsored by the MBAA and the Haas Alumni Network.
#3: BOOKMARK THE ALUMNI WEBSITE ON YOUR COMPUTER: <http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/alumni/>
Enjoy your experience at Haas.... and please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Tenny Frost
Director, Alumni Relations
Tenny H. Frost
Director of Alumni Relations | Haas School of Business | University of California, Berkeley
S520 Student Services Building, #1904 | Berkeley, CA | USA 94720-1904
510/642.7790 (Alumni Relations Office) | 510/643.5340 (direct line)
510/643.0531 (fax) | [email protected]
explore our site --- <http://haas.berkeley.edu/alumni>
=====================================
|
3,787 |
Subject: RE: Hanson
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/2276.
=====================================
It's more complicated still. A crazy commissioner at the CPUC now wants to require everyone to submit their DA contracts to Commission for review. It's attached. Folks are going to oppose it very strongly. I'm available to talk. I'm not sure that the Oct. 5th date has got legs.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Browner, Victor
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:26 PM
To: Foster, Chris H.; Murphy, Harlan; Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Parquet, David
Subject: Hanson
Guys please see the email from Hanson below.
Dave would like to talk about this tomorrow morning say 10:00 am PST, please let me know if you can't make it.
Jeff, can you provide us with an update on items 1 and 2.
Harlan and Chris, obviously we will be focusing on Hanson's request for compensation for "delayed opportunity to participate in Direct Access". I have also attached a time line of events surrounding this agreement and the DASR.
Cheers
Victor Browner
-----Original Message-----
From: Bouse, Earl [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:36 PM
To: Browner, Victor; Dave Parquet (E-mail)
Cc: Booth Bill (E-mail); Barkovich Dr. Barbara (E-mail); Smith, Stewart; Carson, Brad; Wallmann, James
Subject: DASR / Contract Notification to CPUC
Dear Victor and David:
Please review the CPUC attachments provided by CLECA's Dr. Barbara Barkovich. The CPUC is aggressively following up on Direct Access contracts and DASR's. Please let us know where you are in responding to the CPUC Direct Access Verification process as it relates to Hanson Permanente's contract with Enron, as follows:
1. Have you been contacted by the CPUC or PG&E related to the Direct Access verification process?
2. What information have you provided to the CPUC and to any other requesting party?
We look forward to hearing from you ASAP on answers to these questions. We would also appreciate copies of any correspondence that you have had with anyone on the DASR and Direct Access Contract.
The DASR process was handled very poorly by Enron in September, and those errors delayed Hanson Permanente's opportunity to participate in Direct Access until November. We are awaiting Enron's remedy to compensate Hanson for the added power cost incurred during October 2001.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Earl
Hanson Permanente Cement
925.426.4084 Direct Dial 925.426.4060 Fax
[email protected] [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: BRBarkovich [ <mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:20 AM
To: CLECA Members
Subject: I have a question
<<98-07-003 joint proposal(v1).DOC>> <<98-07-003 Attachment A(v1).DOC>>
For those of you who have gone DA, did all of your ESPs send your names
to the utilities by Oct. 5? Here is the utility filing on DA suspension implementation and that is an important date. I want to be sure that we don't have any problems along those lines.
I am including copies of the utility filings for those of you who want to learn more about this and why the date is important. We need to file comments on the utility filings by Nov. 28. Barbara
=====================================
|
3,788 |
Subject: ISO Press Call today's at 10:30, 2:00, 6:15
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4855.
=====================================
ISO Call-FYI
Rotating Customer Outages Ordered Statewide At 9:20 a.m.; Continuing Supply
Limitations Necessitate Second Day of Rolling Black-outs
Business Wire
03/20/01, 1:05p
(Copyright (c) 2001, Business Wire)
FOLSOM, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 20, 2001--The California Independent
System Operator (California ISO) declared a Stage Three Electrical Emergency
and called for rotating customer outages beginning at 9:20 a.m., Tuesday,
March 20, 2001.
The California ISO has requested the state's utilities to curtail 500
megawatts affecting both northern and southern California. The extent of the
outages and whether they are anticipated to last the afternoon and into the
evening will be evaluated on an hourly basis. Conservation is strongly urged
today and could easily make the difference in maintaining operating reserves
at a level that could lesson or prevent blackouts.
Specific details will be available at the following media briefings.
Media News Teleconference
TIMES (PST): 10:30 a.m. 2:00 p.m. 6:15 p.m.
PHONE NUMBER: 800/374-1387
PASSCODE: ISO News
More than 12,000 megawatts of generation remain unavailable in the state
due to planned and forced maintenance outages. In addition, half of the
state's Qualifying Facilities (QFs) are not operating because of reported
financial concerns, low wind or an inability to purchase natural gas to run
the plants. QFs are small independent power generators that include biomass
plants, wind farms and photovoltaic (solar) projects.
California ISO anticipates reaching a peak load of 29,952 megawatts this
evening. Earlier a Stage Two Emergency was extended through midnight
tonight. Voluntary load interruption programs were activated this morning.
Stage Three of the state's Electrical Emergency Plan (EEP) is required when
operating reserves fall below one-and-a-half percent. The California ISO's
EEP is part of the state's enhanced reliability standards created by
landmark legislation Assembly Bill 1890, which restructured California's
electricity industry. California ISO is charged with managing the flow of
electricity along the long-distance, high-voltage power lines that make up
the bulk of California's transmission system. The not-for-profit
public-benefit corporation assumed the responsibility in March, 1998, when
California opened its energy markets to competition and the state's
investor-owned utilities turned their private transmission power lines over
to the California ISO to manage. The mission of the California ISO is to
safeguard the reliable delivery of electricity, facilitate markets and
ensure equal access to a 25,526 circuit mile "electron highway." Information
about the California ISO control area's electricity supply and the current
demand is available on the web at . Contact local investor-owned utilities
for information regarding which customers will be affected:
Investor-Owned Utility Media Offices
Pacific Gas and Electric 415/973-5930 Southern California Edison
626/302-2255 San Diego Gas and Electric 877/866-2066
CONTACT: California ISO
Patrick Dorinson, 1(888)516-NEWS
Katie Kaplan
Manager of State Policy Affairs
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
=====================================
|
3,789 |
Subject: RE: Draft AReM Filing - Comments Needed
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ["douglass'.'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/941.
=====================================
FYI...
Here are the confirmations regarding what type of DASR the Joint UDC
Proposal addresses from each of the three UDCs.
PG&E
Rebecca:
In response to your questions regarding our latest Joint Proposal, here is
my answer to your specific questions below:
a) The DASR Cut-off etc mentioned in your recent filing indeed refers to
Connect DASRs only
As the primary purpose of the implementation of the suspension of DA is to
identify accounts that are eligible to go DA, the "DASR Cut-off" reference
is for CONNECT DASRs only.
b) All other DASRs, such as Disconnect and Updates, will continue to be
accepted regardless of any implementation of a Cut-off or not.
Disconnect and Update DASRs will continue to be accepted for existing
accounts and new accounts to be switched as proposed in our filing.
Thanks,
Calvin Yee
PG&E
SDG&E:
a) The DASR Cut-off etc mentioned in your recent filing indeed refers to
Connect DASRs only,
This is correct, the joint proposal refers to new connects
b) All other DASRs, such as Disconnect and Updates, will continue to be
accepted regardless of any implementation of a Cut-off or not.
Updates DASRs and terminations DASRs will continue to be accepted.
Lora Clay
Strategic Lead - ESP Relations
e-mail: [email protected]
SCE:
I have seen the responses to Rebecca's questions from SDG&E (Lora Clay's
comments are included in the e-mail below) and PG&E (by separate e-mail to
Rebecca from Calvin Yee, not included here). SCE would agree that the
Joint UDC proposal regarding a DASR cut-off date pursuant to the joint UDC
filing on 11/16/01 refers to:
1) "Connect" DASRs only, and that
2) under such a DASR cut-off, SCE would continue to accept "disconnect"
and "update" DASRs (for changes to billing and/or metering options) for
existing Direct Access customers (note: this is consistent with SCE's
previous communications regarding the subject of DASR cut-off date)
Jack Horne
[email protected]
I have all three e-mails & will forward them to Dan today.
Rebecca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Douglass [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:00 AM
> To: ARM; Jeff Dasovich
> Subject: Draft AReM Filing - Comments Needed
>
> Attached for your review and comment is a redlined third draft of our
> comments due Wednesday on the UDCs' Joint Proposal re DA suspension
> implementation. My thanks to Rebecca Schlanert and Jeff Dasovich for
> their comments. Jeff's suggestions re Option 3 are included at the end of
> the draft. The essential change from what the UDCs proposed is that the
> CPA verifications would go directly to the Commission rather than to the
> UDCs. I thought up a few reasons in support of this approach, but would
> appreciate more suggestions and comments.
>
> Since this is due Wed., comments received by close of business tomorrow
> will get put into a proposed final draft to be circulated Wed. morning.
> Thanks!
>
> 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]> << File:
> 11-28-01 ARM Comments - Draft 3_.doc >>
=====================================
|
3,790 |
Subject: letter
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4510.
=====================================
Hope this doesn't piss Jeff off too much...
America has engaged in some finger wagging lately because California
doesn't have enough electricity to meet its needs. The rest of the
country (including George W. Bush's energy secretary Spencer Abraham,
who wants Californians to suffer through blackouts as justification for
drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) seems to
be just fine with letting Californians dangle in the breeze without
enough power to meet their needs. They laugh at Californians'
frivolity.
Well, everybody. Here's how it really is: California ranks 48th in the
nation in power consumed per person. California grows more than half the
nation's fruit, nuts and vegetables. We're keeping them. We need something
to eat when the power goes out. We grow 99 percent or more of the nation's
almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwi fruit, olives, persimmons,
pistachios, prunes, raisins and walnuts. Hope you won't miss them.
California is the nation's number one dairy state. We're keeping our
dairy products. We'll need plenty of fresh ones since our refrigerators
can't be relied upon. Got milk?
We Californians are gonna keep all our high-tech software in state.
Silicon Valley is ours, after all. Without enough electricity, which
you're apparently keeping for yourselves, we just plain don't have
enough software to spare.
We're keeping all our airplanes. California builds a good percentage of
the commercial airliners available to fly you people to where you want
to go. When yours wear out, you'd better hope Boeing's Washington plant
can keep you supplied. There isn't enough electricity here to allow us
to export any more planes than we need ourselves.
And while we're at it, we're keeping all our high-tech aerospace stuff,
too, like the sophisticated weapons systems that let you sleep at
night, not worried you might wake up under the rule of some foreign
kook. [As opposed to some domestic kook]
Oh, yeah, and if you want to make a long-distance call, remember where
the satellite components and tracking systems come from. Maybe you
could get back in the habit of writing letters.
Want to see a blockbuster movie this weekend? Come to California. We
make them here. Since we'll now have to make them with our own
electricity, we're keeping them. Even if we shot them somewhere else,
the labs, printing facilities, editing facilities, and sound facilities
are all here.
Want some nice domestic wine? We produce over 17 million gallons per
year. We'll need all of it to drown our sorrows when we think about the
fact that no matter how many California products we export to make the
rest of America's lives better, America can't see its way clear to help
us out with a little electricity. You can no longer have any of our
wine.
You all complain that we don't build enough power plants. Well, you
don't grow enough food, write enough software, make enough movies,
build enough airplanes and defense systems or make enough wine.
This is your last warning, America. Lighten (us) up before it's too late.
Love,
The Californians
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=====================================
|
3,791 |
Subject: Kern River problems
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4803.
=====================================
As was foretold by some of the Kern expansion shippers, these shippers are
justifiably angry about the way Kern has sold capacity in their open season,
particularly as concerns shippers' access to markets on SoCal Gas through
Wheeler Ridge. However, what's even more encouraging here is to see that
shippers are now validating the message TW embodied in its GIR proposal --
new market entrants should only have secondary rights to SoCal system
capacity in instances where there is a capacity shortage.
Shippers Dispute Kern's Wheeler Ridge Sales
Chevron, Amoco Production, CanWest Gas Supply, Aera Energy and RME Petroleum
have called on FERC to stop Kern River Gas Transmission from overselling
delivery point rights at Wheeler Ridge into the Southern California Gas Co.
distribution system. The Firm Shippers said in comments filed this week that,
in a situation strangely similar to the recent El Paso capacity reallocation
case, Kern River has oversold capacity at Wheeler Ridge, and its proposed
expansion project will only exacerbate the situation (Docket CP01-31).
On Nov. 15, 2000, Kern filed an application to expand its system and provide
74,500 Dth/d of additional delivery point capacity at Wheeler Ridge into
SoCal Gas. But Firm Shippers claim recent data provided by Kern and SoCal Gas
indicates Kern River already has sold more than the 450 MMcf/d of firm
delivery point capacity it has available into Wheeler Ridge. Firm Shippers
told FERC. Kern River has sold 468.4 MMcf/d of capacity at Wheeler Ridge.
Not true, says Lynn Dahlberg, Kern's manager of marketing. "We have to date
subscribed at 450,000 dth/d. And unless we subscribe at more than 830,000
dth/d, we have not sold more capacity than SoCal has takeaway." The combined
Kern-Mojave lines can deliver on a firm basis 600,000 dth/d, with Kern having
450,00 and Mojave 150,000. "We can move more than that capacity, and we
have," she added.
SoCal Gas has noted that it curtails nominations from Kern on a regular
basis, Shippers said. With the proposed expansion project, Kern will be
"creating the same type of firm delivery point over-sale situation that the
Commission found to be unjust and unreasonable on El Paso Natural Gas at El
Paso's SoCal Gas/Topock delivery point," they added. While they support the
expansion, they do not want to see their firm delivery rights in Southern
California degraded. They also complained that Kern's marketing affiliate is
one of the primary beneficiaries of the proposed additional access to Wheeler
Ridge.
Dahlberg conceded that other interstate lines also deliver to the Wheeler
Ridge point, but "adding more players to Wheeler gives markets on SoCal more
supply options. Shippers have to compete."
The shippers are concerned, however that "substantial benefits under the
currently structured proposal accrue primarily to Kern River and its
affiliate and would restrict the firm rights of existing shippers...." The
Commission should prohibit Kern from selling additional firm rights at
Wheeler Ridge, or provide only rights to secondary and tertiary capacity
[emphasis added] that is of a lower priority than the rights of existing firm
customers, they said.
=====================================
|
3,792 |
Subject: EBS: Broadband Buildout - activities in Ohio and Chicago
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3695.
=====================================
Chicago: Mayor Daley, in conjunction with the Mayor's Council of Techonology
Advisors, recently announced plans to creat a public/private network to
ensure access to high performance, fiber optic, telecommunications services
to every residence, business and institution in the city. The plan, known as
CivicNet, will use 1,600 existing locations of government and education as
"anchor tenants" and then use this backbone to build out to the rest of the
city.
The RFI lays out 6 guidelines for the service structure: equal access; open
platform; abundant bandwidth; network availability throughout the city; low
environmental impact; and, network characteristics tailore to accommodate
future growth and change.
The city of offering access to right-of-way and other resources to facilitate
the timely and efficient build-out.
The city also envisions a public/private consortium for funding, planning,
implementing and managing the project.
An extensive RFI has been issued in which the city asks for a broad range of
ideas and suggestions for how it should proceeed. Responses are due January
19, 2001. The city believes a contract could be awarded before the end of
2001.
(CivicNet members include: City of Chicago, Chicago Public Schools, Chicago
Housing Authority, City Colleges of Chicago, Chicago Transit Authority,
Chicago Public Libraries and Chicago Park District.)
Cleveland, Ohio: The City of Cleveland was the last of 83 Ohio municipalities
to approve Adelphia Communications' purchase of Cablevision Systems. As part
of the deal, Adelphia guaranteed that it will upgrade cable lines throughout
the city to be "state of the art" by June 1, 2003. With the upgrade Adelphia
plans to offer more stations, long-distance and high speed internet
connections. The company also agreed to provide free, high speed internet
access to every public and private school in the city along with some
libraries and community centers by the end of 2003. Adelphia also will
donate $3 million to start computer training centers throughout the city for
residents.
Ohio: PUCO Chairman Alan Schriber believes that the competitive market is not
providing high speed access to meet consumer demand and that the only way to
get this done is through the ILECs. In a rule that is expected out next year
the chairman plans to freeze basic local exchange service excluding the data
services portion of local service. The quid pro quo between the commission
and ILECs is that the ILECs will build high speed internet access. However,
the chairman is not going to impose specific orders in terms of how fast to
do it or where to do it.
A few weeks ago I forward to Sue N, Sue L., and Scott Bolton draft
legislation that would have placed the freeze in statute. CLECs are opposing
the legislation and so the chairman has backed off of it for the lame duck
session. If he can take care of the freeze in a rule next year, he will
forego seeking legislative remedy.
I have not found any other proposals at the state or local level. If I do, I
will pass them along. Please let me know if you want me to take a closer
into Chicago, Cleveland, the state of Ohio or any other efforts.
=====================================
|
3,793 |
Subject: More on Breathitt
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4488.
=====================================
FERC Commissioner Breathitt certainly has a handle on the physical side. I=
'm=20
also pleased that she's advocating=20
market tools as a means for California utilities to lower their gas costs,=
=20
including risk management and=20
[efficient use of] storage. I'd like to see her carry the ball over the go=
al=20
line here by advocating comprehensive=20
regulatory restructuring to make full use of all of the tools available, no=
t=20
only to the utility, but to its customers as well.
Breathitt wants more attention on Calif. gas
Although the energy spotlight has been on California=01,s electricity crisi=
s,=20
the number of California
gas issues at FERC is continually increasing, signaling the need to focus o=
n=20
the gas
side of the equation, a FERC commissioner said last week.
=01&[T]here is volatility in the gas markets as well as the electric market=
s,=018=20
FERC Commissioner
Linda Breathitt said at the American Gas Association=01,s FERC Natural Gas=
=20
Regulatory
and Market Issues Seminar last week in Washington, D.C. And the cost of gas=
,=20
she said, is the
component that has the biggest influence on the cost of electric generation=
.
Two issues pending at FERC are whether to re-impose price caps on secondary=
=20
market
transactions and whether to cap prices on gas sales, Breathitt said.
In addition, FERC recently issued an order to help remove obstacles to=20
increased energy
supplies into the West (GD 3/15). In the order, FERC sought comments on the=
=20
need to provide
rate incentives for projects that would make additional capacity available =
by=20
this summer on
constrained pipeline systems. =01&I believe that if the commission does pro=
vide=20
incentives, we
should be very precise regarding the activity we are encouraging and the=20
incentives we will be
willing to consider, if at all,=018 Breathitt said.
The commissioner also voiced concern over a California issue that sits at t=
he=20
state level -
intrastate pipeline facilities. California, she said, needs to assess wheth=
er=20
its intrastate system is
adequate to take gas from the border to its market. =01&I am worried that w=
here=20
there is insufficient
takeaway capacity, FERC=01,s actions to increase capacity to the border may=
=20
result in problems,
such as prorationing,=018 Breathitt said.
Meanwhile, Breathitt suggested local distribution companies in California=
=20
need the ability
to use risk management tools. Policies should be in place to give gas buyer=
s=20
an incentive to use
such tools, including price hedging and the efficient use of storage, she=
=20
said.
But regulators should be careful in noting the difference between hedging t=
o=20
reduce exposure
to price volatility and what Breathitt called =01&mere speculating.=018 Whi=
le=20
hedging can be
used to decrease uncertainty, speculating to beat the market can actually=
=20
increase the possibility
of risk, she said.
Regulators in California and other states should look into the benefits of=
=20
reducing gas buyers=01,
dependence on the spot market. =01&A balanced portfolio of long- and short-=
term=20
contracts makes a
great deal of sense when spot prices are at the extreme levels of the past=
=20
year,=018 she said.
=====================================
|
3,794 |
Subject: Re: Free Bottle of Wine!!!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11929.
=====================================
Answers below-you two would have had my responses w/o
any carrot of wine!
Courtney
--- Kelly Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are doing an analysis of training in various size
> companies, and would appreciate
> your responses to the following questions (there's
> only 10).
>
> Names of all respondents who reply by Friday will be
> ENTERED INTO A DRAWING for a BOTTLE OF WINE!
>
> Answer as many of them as you want. Thank you VERY
> MUCH for your time with this!!
> With your answers Jim & I will be one step closer to
> graduation :)
>
> - Kelly & Jim
> ------------
>
> 1) How many employees are in your company?
> What industry is the company in? Approx
40,000/Technology
>
> 2) Do you have a training program for your job
> function - mandatory, voluntary, or none?
Mandatory-specific to my role and responsibilities.
>
> 3) Do you do your job better as a result of the
> training you received? Absolutley
> If you haven't received training, would you
> do your job better had you receive some? yes
>
> 4) If yes, how long is the training conducted? Is
> it conducted on a regular basis? Initial 3 weeks,
Ad-Hoc training sessions available approx 2 weeks/year
>
> 5) Is your training conducted by professional
> trainers or through a
> mentor-type system or some other way? Which
> one would you prefer? professional trainers,
(consultants)
>
> 6) What kind of training, if any, would you
> like to have right now? Why? none
>
> 7) Do you think training should be conducted at all
> levels of the organization? Why? YES! Everyone
needs to dedicate time to learning & developing skills
in an organization. The trick is that the training
must have be relevant, applicable, & targeted
(appropriate for level), and have a very clear
objective.
>
> 8) What type of training do you think is
> unnecessary at your company? Hard for me to
determine-lots not applicable to me, but useful to
others, (i.e. Java)
> What kind of training should be mandatory?
> Why? Basic org stuff, basic company
product/industry stuff.
>
> 9) Would you feel better about the company or the
> team knowing that everyone went
> through a structured training program? I'd
feel better if it were the type of training mentioned
above...it's important for all employees to know what
their company does. Probably not as important for
small companies, because this learning happens
effectively through informal channels.
>
> 10) Rank the statements below regarding your
> perceptions about training (1 is most mportant):
>
5)I do it because it is mandatory;
2) I do it because it will help me learn my job
quicker;
3)I do it because it will give me skills I can
use in my next job;
4)I do it because it will help the company be
more profitable;
1) I do it because it allows me to refresh my
skills;
6)I do it because it is a way to get away from
my job
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great
> prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
=====================================
|
3,795 |
Subject: FW: California Energy Crisis -- What You Should Know About PUC Pr
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8734.
=====================================
Not sure if you guys are on his mailing list, but Sal is working with a
group to try to politically exploit the situation out there to weaken Davis
& Co. I believe he has been able to get some corporate funding from some
companies who have been on the other end of the Governor's attacks. A friend
who works with Sal called to ask if I thought Enron would be interested. I
told him I highly doubted it but to talk to the SF office or Rick if he
really wanted to pursue it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sal Russo [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:42 PM
> To: Sal Russo
> Subject: California Energy Crisis -- What You Should Know About PUC
> President Loretta Lynch
>
> <<Untitled Attachment>> <<Loretta Lynch -- Corruption of Power
> FINAL.doc>>
To:
Subject:
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:50:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C08B0F.15F5FFAC"
January 30, 2001
FR: Russo Marsh + Rogers, Inc.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
RE: California's Energy Crisis
What You Should Know About Public Utilities Commission President
Loretta Lynch
Attached please find a report on California's Public Utilities Commission
President (PUC), Loretta Lynch. An appointee of Governor Gray Davis, she
serves as the Governor's key energy advisor.
During her tenure on the PUC, California's energy crisis has spiraled out of
control - leaving ratepayers, taxpayers and shareholders on the hook for
billions of dollars. If only Governor Gray Davis and his political
appointees had acted last year, the costs and damage to California could
have been, if not averted, substantially mitigated.
After becoming more familiar with Ms. Lynch and her background, it becomes
quite apparent that she was and remains totally unqualified for the
extraordinarily important job she holds. More disturbingly, it is also
painfully obvious that her principal responsibility is to provide political
cover to the Governor - as she did for President Clinton and his wife in the
Whitewater scandal - rather than working to solve California's energy
crisis.
The result has been a disaster for the people of California, while Gray
Davis has hidden behind his advisors issuing edicts of blame against
everyone and anyone imaginable. It is time for the Governor to stop hiding
behind a political screen of cover, and demand Loretta Lynch's resignation.
If he is unable or unwilling to take such action immediately, the State
Legislature should itself take action and remove her from office as they are
constitutionally empowered to do.
After reading this report, you will no doubt agree that Ms. Lynch does not
measure up to the standards of competence, temperament and experience that
we need as the President of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Please feel free to share this information with others who may be
interested. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter in
greater detail please do not hesitate to call our office at (916) 441-3734.
- clip_image002.jpg
- Loretta Lynch -- Corruption of Power FINAL.doc
=====================================
|
3,796 |
Subject: Cross-Examination
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/2773.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/28/2000 07:12 PM -----
Roger Yang@EES
12/28/2000 05:32 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Cross-Examination
PG&E
On page 5-3 in Chapter 5 Supplemental Testimony, PG&E states, "Decision
97-05-088 also provides that, following the end of the ICIP rate, Diablo
Canyon shifts to a sharing mechanism under which benefits from generation
would be shared with ratepayers through divestiture, appraisal or profit
sharing." Is this interpretation predicated on an end to the rate freeze?
PG&E also states, "PG&E's proposal in the RSP for Diablo Canyon is to defer
its 50 percent share of market revenues for two years and to apply all market
revenues in excess of ICIP to the UCSA. PG&E proposed to track in the
'Diablo Canyon Deferred Debit Account ('GDDA') the shareholder revenues
(including interest) provided to ratepayers during this two-year period so
that they may be recovered from market revenues in years three through
five." What "reasonably-based market price benchmark" does PG&E propose to
rely upon? Based on PG&E's forward view of this benchmark for the next two
years, what is PG&E's estimate of the 50 percent shareholder share of
foregone market revenues that will be tracked? On page 2-2 in Chapter 2
Supplemental Testimony, PG&E refers to an estimated average spot power market
price of over $180 per MWH for 2001, using this price what would PG&E's
shareholders 50% share be for 2001? What if it is assumed a 17 million mWh
output, the sunk costs are recovered, and a going forward operating cost of
$20 per mWH? (The answer would be in excess of $1.3 billion) Is this share
calculated on a before- or after-tax basis? Does the amount that would
receive deferred recovery be income for PG&E?
In Chapter 2 Errata and Update Testimony, PG&E proposes a "rate
stabilization" policy. PG&E is currently proposing to raise rates in January
2001. Within the next two years, are there any other factors that will cause
rates to increase? Can rates increase for transmission rates currently filed
at FERC? Can rates increase for increases to distribution rates? How
frequently could rates change under PG&E's proposed "trigger mechanism".
In Chapter 2 Testimony, PG&E also proposes to establish a "Unrecovered Cost
of Service Account Rate" and in Chapter 6 Testimony proposes to recover
ongoing CTC from all customers. How will Direct Access customers receive the
stranded benefits from retained generation (hydro, nuclear, and fossil) as
well as potential stranded benefits from QF energy?
SCE
Footnote 2 In Chapter 4 Amended Testimony, " SCE states, "Reflects ending
August 31, 2000 balance plus interest calculated through December 31, 2000.
This footnote references going-gorsward account transfers of $666 million
used to calculate the estimated TCBA balance on December 31, 2000. Is this
balance used to calculate SCE's "Deferred Energy Cost Adjustment Rate"? Why
does SCE exclude amounts from beginning September 1, 2000? What is the value
of the excluded amounts? Is it SCE's position that going forward revenues
from retained generation assets
=====================================
|
3,797 |
Subject: 9/7/00 CPUC Mtg. - Recap
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/295.
=====================================
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 09/07/2000 04:28
PM ---------------------------
[email protected] (Bill Chen) on 09/07/2000 05:50:41 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: 9/7/00 CPUC Mtg. - Recap
All,
Here's a summary of the actions taken at this morning's CPUC meeting.
SDG&E Rate Stabilization Plan
CPUC voted 5-0 to approve the Rate Ceiling Plan that implements AB 265
signed yesterday by Governor Davis. The Plan basically tracks the
language of AB 265 by establishing a ceiling of 6.5 cents per kWh per
month on the electricity rate component of bills for residential, small
commercial and lighting customers. The class of small commercial
customers, as defined in AB 265, also include all SDG&E customers on Rate
Schedule A, general acute care hospitals, K-12 public and private schools,
and all SDG&E customers on Schedule AL-TOU under 100 kW. The Plan is
retroactive to June 1, 2000, extends through December 31, 2002 and is
effective immediately though it can be extended for another year if the
public interest calls for an extension. SDG&E is required to record any
revenue shortfalls to a balancing account within the TCBA with any net
revenues generated from SDG&E-owned or managed generation assets to be
used to offset any undercollections that result.
In addition, AB 265 charged the CPUC with setting up a voluntary program
for large commercial, agricultural and industrial customers who procure
energy from SDG&E so that these customers may elect to cap the electricity
rate component at the 6.5 cents ceiling, with a true-up after a year. The
CPUC is giving parties 15 days from today's decision to file comments on
this provision with reply comments due 15 days after the comments are due.
Moreover, the CPUC also ordered that the investigation into the electric
market opened by the August 3 OII be broadened specifically to address the
issues raised in Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 77. AJR 77 emphasized
the need to review "the options for correcting the electricity market,
methods to eliminate price volatility for consumers and methods of cost
recovery and cost allocation."
Lastly, AB 265 also orders an investigation into the prudence and
reasonableness of SDG&E's procurement of wholesale electric energy
beginning on June 1, 2000. Based on its findings, the CPUC is authorized
to take action on behalf of SDG&E customers, including, but not limited
to, refunds.
No public comments were made on this matter. The Commissioners' comments
were basically limited to statements such as the Legislature and the
Governor have spoken, and we are bound to implement AB 265 immediately.
RAP '99
No big surprise here, this was held to the next meeting.
SDG&E Bilateral Contracts Authority
Held to next meeting.
Other Energy Matters
Most of the energy Resolutions were held over to the next meeting such as
SCE's master-metering request, PG&E's request to modify its Price
Responsiveness Load Program (E-BID) and PG&E's request to file a new
tariff, OBMC-Optional Binding Mandatory Curtailment Plan.
=====================================
|
3,798 |
Subject: Re: Rod Wright briefing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8585.
=====================================
Scott:
Thanks. These summaries are extremely well done and highly valued within the
company. Thanks for the great work.
Best,
Jeff
Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
01/24/2001 05:52 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]>, Rick
Johnson <[email protected]>, Marcie Milner <[email protected]>, Sandra
McCubbin <[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]>, Joe Hartsoe <[email protected]>, Donna Fulton
<[email protected]>, Steven Kean <[email protected]>, Karen Denne
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Rod Wright briefing
Assemblyman Rod Wright held another one of his informal discussions with
generators, IOUs and marketers. This is what he said:
Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg is going to introduce a bill tomorrow
at 11:00 a.m. which will contain many of the same elements in ABX 1,
minus the 5.5. This will be a more comprehensive bill which will
address arrearage, securitization and include some type of a stop loss
mechanism among other things. It is unclear whether or not the bill
will be voted on tomorrow or held until Monday, but there will be a
hearing at 2:00 p.m.
SBX 1 will probably be heard tomorrow as well, although it is not clear
what action if any the Senate Energy Committee will take.
There are ongoing discussions about the state creating a transmission
corporation to operate but not own the transmission system.
There are ongoing discussions about allowing DWR to buy existing block
forward contracts, however the courts today issued a stay to prevent SCE
or the PX from taking any actions on the contracts until at least
February 2.
There are ongoing discussions about issuing ratepayer bonds in place of
the full faith and credit of the state which was absent from the DWR
RFB.
Sempra requested that the legislature repeal Utilities Code Section
355.2 which prevents IOUs from buying outside the PX.
Other items which arose today:
We spent the day meeting with legislators regarding expedited siting.
The response was positive, including from Senator Byron Sher who is the
key environmentalist in the legislature. Our initial focus has been on
the trouble with getting air credits.
Governor Davis held a press conference moments ago where he indicated
that the average bid price for the DWR RFB is 6.9. I will forward the
press release in the morning.
I have attached a press release from Governor Davis regarding the new
ISO board which includes information on the new members.
http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmlprint.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@08
58855136.0980390190@@@@&BV_EngineID=faljlleidkhbemfcfkmchcgi.0&sFilePath=%2fgo
vsite%2fpress_release%2f2001_01%2f20010124_a01024_.html&sTitle=GOVERNOR+DAVIS+
ANNOUNCES+FIRST+MEETING+OF+NEW+ISO+BOARD&sCatTitle=Press+Release&iOID=13102
=====================================
|
3,799 |
Subject: RE: Sutter Ltr
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10157.
=====================================
Seems to me that that's exactly what the letter is saying and represents the
commitment that we've made to our customers since raising the issue of
re-sourcing, i.e., they'll pay the cost embedded in the contract, period. No
more and less. I've assumed that the exposure associated with the
utility-sourced electricity is substantially lower than the exposure
associated with the customers remaining DA customers. Can you verify Mike
Smith? Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
MDay <[email protected]>
03/20/2001 11:18 AM
To: "'karen smith'" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
MDay <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Sutter Ltr
Within the context of the current situation it makes sense. But are you
really intending that Enron will pay the difference between the bundled rate
and the cost of power purchased by DWR when Sutter gets a bill for that from
PG&E? If you are this makes sense. If not, we should not send it and need
to discuss it further. Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: karen smith [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:45 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Fw: Sutter Ltr
Jeff and Mike--attached is a letter we propose to send to our customer
Sutter Health as a "we're here for you" type gesture. There has been some
UCCSU-type noise from this customr and we want to try to head it off. Could
you please review and comment on my language regarding the rate surcharges
and make sure I've got the point right? What I want to make clear is that
these rate surcharges have no bearing on our K (we're covering them) and
that our decision to D-DASR these accounts has no bearing on the effect of
such surcharges on the completion of our K. Please let me know if this
makes sense. We are trying to get this out in the am, so if you can comment
tonite or first thing tomorrow that would be great. Just respond to my work
e-mail at [email protected]. Thanks. Mike Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike D Smith" <[email protected]>
To: "Jeff Messina" <[email protected]>; "Robert C Williams"
<[email protected]>; "Peggy Mahoney"
<[email protected]>; "Vicki Sharp" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: Sutter Ltr
>
>
> Please review the attached. May want to send it out yet this evening.
Please
> send comments to me at both addresses above.
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Mike D Smith/HOU/EES on 03/19/2001
04:16 PM
> ---------------------------
>
>
> Eric Letke
> 03/19/2001 03:57 PM
>
> To: Carol Moffett/HOU/EES@EES
> cc: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES
> Subject: Sutter Ltr
>
> Mike, this looks good. Carol, can you try and get this to Marty for
review?
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Letke/DUB/EES on 03/19/2001 03:56
PM
> ---------------------------
>
>
> (Embedded Enron Energy Services
> image moved
> to file: From: Mike D Smith
> pic06568.pcx) 03/19/2001 03:52 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: Eric Letke/DUB/EES@EES
> cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Sutter Ltr
>
> Please review and comment before I send this around
>
> (See attached file: Sutter Health 3-19-01.doc)
>
>
>
>
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.