dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
3,800 |
Subject: Spring fees and financial aid news
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba_program/31.
=====================================
SPRING FEES and FINANCIAL AID NEWS
Spring Fees
CARS Billing Statements with assessed spring registration fees will be printed
the weekend of November 20 and mailed before the Thanksgiving holiday. You
should receive it by December 3, but are nonetheless responsible for paying
fees by the deadline of December 15 even if you have not received a bill.
Ensure that your local address is correct on Bearfacts. Fees can be read on
Telebears if you do not receive a bill.
Health insurance fees are automatically waived in the spring semester if they
were waived in the fall term. However, the assessment for health insurance
will show under New Charges. Do not panic because the waived health insurance
amount will show in the next section of the CARS bill.
You have the option of paying your bill in full or electing the Deferred
Payment Plan (DPP), wherein your fees are paid in five equal monthly
installments. There is a $40 participation fee each semester for the DPP.
Students who entered in fall 1999, please be aware that your spring 2000 fees
will appear $500 higher than fall semester as your deposit no longer offsets
the total.
Financial Aid and Spring Fees
If you are a financial aid recipient and there are no holds on your CARS
account, you have enrolled for at least 6 units in spring semester and
returned
all aid documents, then financial aid will credit your CARS account by the
December 15 deadline. If your aid is not sufficient to fully pay your
registration fees, you must pay the remaining balance by Dec. 15 to avoid a
late CARS charge or a $40 Deferred Payment Plan charge. If your financial aid
amount exceeds your reg fees, then the remainder will be disbursed to you
hopefully according to the following schedule:
Thursday, January 13 - if your Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) request has
been
processed
To sign up for EFT, download the form http://fbs.berkeley.edu/DISB/eftinfo.htm
Tuesday, January 18 - checks will be mailed to local addresses for those
students not signed up for EFT. It may take up to 5- 7 business days to
receive the check. Be certain your mailing address is current with the
University (database is different than Haas). You can update it on Bearfacts
https://bearfacts.berkeley.edu
NOTE: Although Berkeley may credit your CARS account with aid in December, the
official disbursement date for your federal student loan is not until
mid-January 2000. So interest does not begin to accrue on the second
disbursement of your Unsubsidized Direct Loan until then. Also, if your
company is paying registration fees, you will not receive a refund of your
student loan until the third week of January.
Individuals expecting their second disbursement of private loans checks can
anticipate that the check will be available for pick-up or mailed to you (same
arrangements as for your fall private loan disbursement) by the third week of
January.
If you have any financial aid questions, please contact me.
Regards-
debi
_____________________________
debi fidler
Director of Financial Aid for MBA Programs
Haas School of Business, S472
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
voice (510) 643-1680
fax (510) 642-4700
- att1.htm
=====================================
|
3,801 |
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Oct. 29 Lunch]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/509.
=====================================
It seems that since we've already contributed, we're invited. Given where Davis' numbers have gone recently, Riordan's imminent announcement and potential, and the fact that the Rs have played it about as well as could be expected under the circumstances (save for Morrow, who we may want to bring up with Brulte if the lunch is attended, this could be a useful gathering. And it doesn't require crossing the border into California, to boot.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Hedy Govenar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 4:12 PM
To: Kaufman, Paul; Jeff Dasovich; [email protected]
Subject: [Fwd: Oct. 29 Lunch]
Enron gave $50k to the Rep party at Brulte and Cox's request. If Enron
is participating, please let us know. Also, this is a reminder that
Scott will be back in early Nov. and I will return Nov. 12th. Behave
yourselves. Fondly, Hedy
--------- Inline attachment follows ---------
From: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Mark Nobili <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2001 6:49:42 GMT
Subject:
This time with the attachment.
SS
(See attached file: letbetterinvite.doc)
----- Forwarded by Scott A Sadler/ADM/HouInd on 10/08/2001 11:40 PM -----
Scott A
Sadler To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
10/09/2001 Mark Nobili <[email protected]>, [email protected]
01:42 PM cc:
Subject: Oct. 29 Lunch
Theo, Hedy, Anne, Greg, John, Rachel, Mark, Carl
Attached is an invitation letter from Reliant's CEO Steve Letbetter to the
CEO and President's of your company/energy client.
Jim Brulte and Dave Cox asked Reliant to host a lunch for them with energy
industry executives in Houston and we will be doing do on October 29th.
Jim and Dave will be making follow up calls to the principals. I wanted
you each to know this was happening and see the invitation. The financial
commitment is attached to attending the lunch but the pitch will be made to
support the Senate/Assembly Leadership account at the CA Republican Party.
This invitation is only going to energy industry executives, although there
is a possibility a few other Texas companies might be included.
Expect a call from Jeff Miller encouraging you to support attending when
asked by your client/company.
Hope to see you in Houston on the 29th.
Sadler
=====================================
|
3,802 |
Subject: FW: AL Walwyn's Draft Decision in A.00-11-038 et al. - RE Real Ti
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28969.
=====================================
Attached is a proposed decision addressing the CEC's two petitions to modify
Decision 01-05-064 (the rate design decision) with respect to Real Time
Pricing.
In its first petition, CEC asked that the Commission clarify that the meters
provided by CEC pursuant to ABX1 29 for customers whose usage is greater
than 200kW at peak demand must be accepted by the customer (i.e.,
installation is mandatory). In addition, CEC asked that the Commission
remove the language from the decision which requires customers who receive
the meters be shifted to TOU rate schedules. The PD grants the request in
part, clarifying that the receipt of the meters is mandatory. With respect
to mandatory TOU participation for customers who receive the meters, the PD
modifies the language to provide that for customers receiving an RTP meter
who are not already on a TOU schedule the choice of enrolling in a demand
reduction program, rather than being automatically shifted to a TOU schedule
(customers must make this election within 15 days of installation of the
meter or they will be automatically placed on a TOU schedule).
In its second petition, the CEC requested the adoption of a pro forma RTP
tariff. The PD denies the petition, citing several concerns with the CEC's
proposed tariff. Chief among the concerns are (1) it is not a true
real-time pricing program because it does not use a transparent real-time
price; (2) the level of complexity in the calculation of the customer
baseline loads; (3) the potential for gaming of the system which would
result in in large amount of payments for load reductions that either would
have occurred anyway or are phantom reductions;(4) the fact that there is no
authorization to make DWR the entity financially responsible for the payment
of incentive costs .
The PD goes on to give the Commission's thoughts as to what a real time
pricing program should look like. Thus the PD states that real time pricing
should be transparent to customers such that they know in advance how the
prices will be calculated. The calculation should be based on real prices
(or if a forecasted price issues, it should be close enough to real prices
to achieve the proper price signal). The program should be administratively
simple. The PD suggest that ease o administration argues for programs where
customers are charged a real time price based on actual usage and not by a
comparison of actual usage to either a forecasted or historical load.
The UDCs, and any other party who wants to, are directed to submit real
time pricing proposals by August 17th which follow the guidance given in the
PD.
Comments on the proposed decision are due on July 26th.
Jeanne Bennett
-----Original Message-----
From: Gallardo, Teresita C. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 4:56 PM
Subject: ALJ Walwyn's Draft Decision in A.00-11-038 et al. - RE Real Time
Pricing Issues and Modifying D.01-05-064
<<CPUC01-#102727-v1-A0011038_et_al_Walwyn_Comment_Dec__(Item_H-21_for_8_2_01
_Meeting).DOC>> <<CPUC01-#102470-v1-A_00-11-038_et_al__Cover_Letter.DOC>>
-
CPUC01-#102727-v1-A0011038_et_al_Walwyn_Comment_Dec__(Item_H-21_for_8_2_01_Mee
ting).DOC
- CPUC01-#102470-v1-A_00-11-038_et_al__Cover_Letter.DOC
=====================================
|
3,803 |
Subject: Enron President: Summer Power Market Woes To Widen Dereg Gulf
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ["nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1169.
=====================================
Enron President: Summer Power Market Woes To Widen Dereg Gulf
By James Covert
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
?
09/06/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
?
?
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The disasters that have hit states with deregulated
retail power markets this summer are likely to widen a regulatory gulf
between those states and the rest of the country, said Jeffrey Skilling,
president of Houston-based Enron Corp. (ENE).
Wholesale power price spikes this summer sent bills for retail customers of
Sempra Energy (SRE) unit San Diego Gas & Electric Co. soaring to two to three
times their previous levels, as deregulated market prices were passed on to
them. In New York, bills for customers of Consolidated Edison Co. (ED) of New
York jumped by more than 40% under a similar arrangement, although the summer
was by some accounts the mildest in more than a hundred years.
?
These developments haven't done much for the reputation of electric
deregulation in states that have thus far sat on the sidelines, Skilling
said.
But the states that have already set the ball rolling - including deregulated
and disaster-ridden California - will probably step up their efforts to
develop and repair their flawed markets, Skilling told an energy conference
on Wednesday.
"If a state hasn't already deregulated, they're going to be more hesitant to
do so at this point," Skilling said. "But if they've already started, there's
no going back. They've got to deal with the problem."
Skilling puts about 40% of the U.S. retail markets in the former category,
predicting that their skittishness will necessitate federal prodding if those
markets are to become deregulated in the next few years.
In the meantime, Skilling said he sees a nunmber of "quick fixes" on the
regulatory side that could do much to improve wholesale market conditions for
the other 60% that have started down the rocky road of deregulation. And with
political pressure mounting, regulators at both the state and federal levels
are becoming quicker about pushing these through, he said.
These include the streamlining of power plant siting processes, and the
elimination of monopolized power transmission systems through the creation of
independent transmission companies and operators.
That will improve the access of generators to power-starved markets in
California and elsewhere, and ultimately help reduce prices, Skilling said.
"California has added 5,000 or 6,000 megawatts of demand over the past four
years," Skilling said. "We've got 11,000 megawatts of generation that's been
proposed, and we're going to need to step up the process for getting that
cited."
Another important part of developing young retail markets is to introduce
customers to real-time pricing, so that they can track the fluctuations of
the volatile wholesale power market on a real-time basis, and better manage
their risk, Skilling said.
"Real-time pricing is essential for the the development of any retail
market," Skilling said. "That's when we're going to start to see the peak
(power demand) shaving and customer savings."
By James Covert, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2061; [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,804 |
Subject: Re: ken lay tour
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron', 'Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11833.
=====================================
All--here's some thoughts on the RGA related events. We currently have Ken
scheduled to participate in an energy roundtable discussion on the afternoon
of the 2nd with at least four governors attending that session--Kempthorne,
Hull, Geringer and Ridge. (Engler and Rowland are also attending the overall
event, but they will be in a healthcare breakout session). Kaufman and I
thought that it would be particularly helpful for Arizona Gov Hull and Idaho
Gov Kempthorne to hear Ken's remarks and have a chance to talk with him.
I have also been working with Rosalee to schedule an early evening
(6:00-7:00pm) meeting that night with Exelon co CEO John Rowe. John Rowe
will be in California for some investor meetings and well as attending some
sections of the RGA events. I have told my counterpart at Rowe's office that
we would confirm Ken's availability on Monday morning.
If you do decide that Ken should attend the Davis meeting in Sacremento that
day instead, we will just reconfigure a bit. Paul and I will cover the RGA
events and I will cancel the John Rowe get together. I would also want to
talk about having Mr. Lay reach out to Hull and Kempthorne via phone sometime
in the near future. Same with Rowe.
Rosalee Fleming
04/27/2001 07:12 PM
To: Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan M
Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: ken lay tour
I received a return call from Lelanie in Governor Davis' office this
evening. She said the Governor wanted to invite Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling to
a meeting the Governor is having at 2:00 p.m. in Sacramento on May 2 with a
lot of CEOs. I still pressed for a one on one meeting on May 3 in
Sacramento, but she told me the Governor wanted to have the one meeting all
at once and his schedule was very tight on Thursday, May 3. I transferred
her to Sherri and called Ken. Ken wanted me to try to get more specific
information, which she shared that it is with generators - Sempra, Williams,
CalPine, Duke, Dynegy, and Reliant. She also said since the Governor has
worked with Ken, she thought he might prefer that he attend. Ken said to let
you all know and be thinking whether we even want to do it. He said one
thought might be that he'd do that meeting and maybe Jeff could do the one in
L.A. on May 2.
Talk to you Monday.
Rosie
Janel Guerrero
04/27/2001 02:39 PM
To: Rosalee Fleming/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: ken lay tour
Just so we're all on the same page......Dasovich will arrive in Houston on
Monday (mid-day) and will travel with Dr. Lay beginning on Wednesday (to
Austin) and then on to LAX, Sacramento etc. Steve said there really isn't
time to have a pre-briefing so any questions that Ken has will have to be
addressed enroute to CA.
Rosalee....we're giving Steve the briefing book today so he can review over
the weekend and we'll have a final copy to Ken before he departs next week.
=====================================
|
3,805 |
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/1955.
=====================================
The California ISO's Answer to the CPUC's Protest argues your third
point---that an Order 614 filing is no place to raise substantive issues. If
we make this argument we should acknowledge, join, or distinguish the ISO's
view in our brief.
Mary Hain
11/27/2000 12:21 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.
=====================================
|
3,806 |
Subject: FIA assignment: Monday pm?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5289.
=====================================
How about talking Monday pm?
There were a ridiculous amount of handouts again on Thursday, some of which
directly related to next week's assignments. I thought the quiz was
straight forward enough.
Mark - my mom and I were going to go to the Pottery Barn Kids in Corte
Madera on Saturday, so perhaps we could stop by your house to drop off
copies of the handouts on our way in or out. Send me directions again to
your house if you would.
I'm not sure how we can get copies to you Jeff. I could drop them off to
your place in SF if that works. Let me know.
Thanks,
CV
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Guinney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 8:58 AM
To: Anil Sama; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re[2]: FIA assignment
Was the case materials handed out in class? If so, any care to fax it to
me.
Fax #415-733-4190.
Thanks
**********************************************
Mark D. Guinney, CFA
Consultant
Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting
345 California Street, Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 733-4487 ph.
(415) 733-4190 fax
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Re: FIA assignment
Author: [email protected] (Anil Sama)
Date: 02/16/2001 1:55 PM
Jeff, Mark:
Wondering where you were yesterday. Hope you didn't
forget about the in-class quiz!
The next HW and writeup due next week seems like
a heavy one.
Do most of you have Monday off? I'll take a look at the
case/HW Sa/Su, and prefer a meeting / conf call anytime
Monday. Perhaps PM in the city if folks are working
that day? Sunday PM (after 7) works for me too.
-Anil
--- "Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Congrats crew - we got a 9 on case #2.
> When is everyone available between now and Wed pm to talk
> about case #3 and
> the other homework?
> - cv
>
> Carolyn M. Vavrek
> Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
> Deloitte & Touche
> 50 Fremont Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> phone: 415-783-5137
> fax: 415-783-8760
> e-mail: [email protected]
>
> - This message (including any attachments) contains
> confidential information
> intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
> protected by law. -
> If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete
> this message and
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or
> distribution of this
> message, or the taking of any action based on it, is
> strictly prohibited.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
- This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. -
If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
=====================================
|
3,807 |
Subject: Re: Enron and Labor Relationships
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['richard shapiro', 'sandra mccubbin', 'jeff dasovich', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1316.
=====================================
I think the answer to #1 is: as much as possible, but I'm not altogether
certain--pretty sure that our preference would be to use our own internal
construction folks as much as possible. Answer to #2 would be very
interesting; I don't know the answer, but I'm sure that it's tightly linked
to the answer to #1. I think you might want to start with Shelly Corman to
find the right contact for the pipeline constructions.
I leave for S.D. tonite. I'll give you updates as the day transpires
tomorrow.
Best,
Jeff
James D Steffes
09/10/2000 12:50 PM
To: rick [email protected]
cc: jeff dasovich, sandra mccubbin, richard shapiro
Subject: Enron and Labor Relationships
Rick --
The information below is very helpful for Government Affairs across the
country. I have a few other questions to support our advocacy:
1. How much of our new power plant development is not subject to Building &
Construction Trade Labor Agreements?
2. Does Enron have any specific policies on whether or not we should use
Union labor on our construction? We recently established human rights and
environmental policies, I am wondering if this applied to Unions?
3. Do you know if the pipelines are also using Union labor on their
expansions? Or maybe, who could tell me?
Thanks.
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/HOU/EES on 09/10/2000
12:46 PM ---------------------------
Jeff Dasovich
09/08/2000 11:46 AM
To: Rick Johnson/HR/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Samuel
Wehn/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected], Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES,
James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Enron and Labor Relationships
Rick: Thanks very much.
Rick Johnson@ENRON
09/08/2000 11:35 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Enron and Labor Relationships
Jeff, per your recent voice mail, below you will find the labor relationship
summary that I prepared for Sandy.
Hope it is helpful, please call if I can be of any assistance. Rj.
---------------------- Forwarded by Rick Johnson/HR/Corp/Enron on 09/08/2000
11:29 AM ---------------------------
Rick Johnson
08/29/2000 07:16 PM
To: Sandy McCubbin
cc:
Subject: Enron and Labor Relationships
Sandy, I was again disapointed to hear that Union leaders are accusing Enron
as being unfriendly to Labor. In the last 20 months we have pursued
construction on over 3000 MW of new generation capacity.
Enron Development Activity subject to Building & Construction Trade Labor
Agreements
California
500 mw - PDEF - FeB. 99
750 mw - PEF - Feb. 2000
Indiana
550 mw- Westfork Development - Oct. 99
Illinois
680 mw - Lincoln Energy Facility - Nov 99
Tennessee
540 mw - Gleason Power I - Oct 99
Oregon
240 mw - Coyote II (planned January 2001)
Ethynol Plant - Columbia County - Baugh Const. June 2000
Hopefully this will prove to be valuable information: In addition to the
direct agreements, Enron is pursuing third party projects in Chicago and New
York City that will be subject to labor agreements.
If the parties are interested, feel free to have them contact me directly
503-464-7548
Regards, Rick Johnson
=====================================
|
3,808 |
Subject: Re: FW: Sempra OII
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3276.
=====================================
thanks very much. can you email me a copy of the OII? let's get together
for coffee sometime and discuss things.
"Cherry, Brian" <[email protected]>
11/07/2000 06:59 PM
To: "'Dasovich, Jeff'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: FW: Sempra OII
Jeff - Here is a synopsis of the Sempra OII.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cherry, Brian
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:16 AM
> To: Cherry, Brian; Williams, Ray; Johnson, Kirk; Thomas,
> Dan (CGT Dir); Katz, Michael; Campbell, Benjamin; Bellenger, Geoffrey;
> Berkovitz, Trista; Gee, Dennis; Buchner, Les; Lindh, Frank (Law);
> Litteneker, Randall (Law); Niven, Andrew (Law); Sivley, Paul; McLafferty,
> Daniel; Lieu, Lisa; Anderson, David W (Law)
> Cc: Guliasi, Les
> Subject: Sempra OII
>
>
> Yesterday, the Commission issued an OII to determine the
> adequacy of Sempra Energy's, SoCalGas' and SDG&E's gas transmission
> practices and to determine what measures need to be taken to correct any
> deficiencies. The OII orders the Sempra affiliates and parent to
> demonstrate that SDG&E's gas supply and transmission system are adequate
> to provide service to present and future core and noncore customers.
>
> As you may recall, the OII sprang from an AL that SDG&E
> filed in August requesting emergency review and approval of its proposals
> to temporarily revise gas transportation service elections to its noncore
> customers. SDG&E subsequently pulled the advice letter after the
> Commission issued a resolution rejecting it and outlined an OII it was
> going to issue on this matter. The language in the OII that was issued
> yesterday is substantially similar to that which was in the Commission's
> original draft resolution.
>
> The Sempra companies have been ordered to appear at a soon
> to be determined PHC to show cause and demonstrate that:
>
> 1. SDG&E has adequate gas transmission supply for the
> 2000/2001 winter heating season, as well as the longer term supply
> throughout the year. If supply is inadequate, SDG&E shall submit plans
> for obtaining adequate supply.
> 2. SDG&E gas and transmission supply is adequate to meet
> anticipated need for gas fired generation. If not, SDG&E shall submit
> plans for obtaining adequate supply.
> 3. SDG&E's gas transmission service is not being adversely
> affected by interests of its corporate affiliate.
> 4. Recently added demands on SDG&E's capacity are not
> negatively impacting supply for SDG&E's customers. and otherwise
> consistent with representations made to the Commission.
> 5. SDG&E's current gas curtailment rules are just and
> reasonable; if not, SDG&E shall propose changes.
>
> We are going to need to keep a careful eye on this
> proceeding as it develops to make sure it stays focused on events in
> southern California. Commission Bilas gave me assurances last week before
> the OII was issued that it was a Sempra problem, not a statewide problem.
> However, given everyone's sensitivities to EG concerns, its a proceeding
> that could easily be expanded beyond its current narrow focus. I'll
> forward you all a copy of the order later today.
>
=====================================
|
3,809 |
Subject: Re: And the winners are...
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/396.
=====================================
Dude. Dude. I'm reaching for the saltines.
You want to get tickets to the Shepard play?
"Scott Laughlin" <[email protected]>
09/26/2000 11:24 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: And the winners are...
Dear Poolsters,
I just want you all to know that I, Cameron's boyfriend, the guy who is
behind Cameron's picks (save when we came in #1 last week, when I was out of
town, and Cameron did the picks -- an accomplishment slightly embarrassing,
but wonderful all the same) and the same guy who moved to San Francisco for
Cameron (or for our relationship), and, upon my arrival, pledged my loyalty
-- in front of the whole Sellers' family, hand on Bible -- to the 49ers (it
was easier when Steve Young retired, for Cameron told me that he was the
only man she would ever leave me for... Gosh I love Jeff Garcia!)... Yes
this same guy was begging for Cameron to take the 49ers against Dallas.
Begging. Entrapped by the hubris of winning last week, she refused my
advise. So, we ended up in 3rd. Oh well. Things could be worse. I just
wonder, maybe this is the sign of a true fan, someone who refuses to pick
the 49ers for fear that the heart's involved... Nah, I'll still pick 'em,
even if I have to beg. Good luck to all, and go 49ers!
>Week 4 winners:
>
>1st place - Nancy - (she says she's always been an Elvis sighter). A huge
>jump from #17 to #5. A week's vacation was all she needed.
>
>2nd place - Narvco - still a 49er faithful, and it paid off.
>
>3rd/4th - Cameron, Brady and Hank ((and they ALL put points on Dallas!) I
>don't know how you all feel, but being a 49er fan for over thirty years it
>was sad and shocking for us to see the demonstration by Terrell yesterday,
>and I hope others who have been proud to be such fans post a message with
>the news groups emanating from Dallas, telling them that we will not
>tolerate such unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
>Again, we thank Dave for handling the stats last week.
>
>NO ONE sat down in the Last Person Standing Pool
>
>Standings remain unchanged for Places 1 - 4 - Are they really that good?
>
>
>
>And here is the Week 5 pick sheet:
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
=====================================
|
3,810 |
Subject: FW: Loretta Lynch at Town Hall
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11522.
=====================================
FYI... Marathon attended the Town Hall session last week with Loretta Lynch...
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra Yamane <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-Sandra+20Yamane+20+3CSYamane+40marathon-com+2Ecom+3E+40ENRO
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:07 PM
To: Denne, Karen
Subject: Loretta Lynch at Town Hall
Loretta Lynch today addressed Town Hall Los Angeles. Approximately 120
people were in attendance.
Before her remarks, it was announced that Ken Lay had postponed his Town
Hall engagement. Adrienne Medawar (Town Hall President) said she was very
disappointed but that Mr. Lay was committed to rescheduling at a later date.
Lynch provided a brief overview of electricity regulation in California and
the Federal Power Act.
After denouncing the "blame game" and stating that she had been on the
receiving end of a coordinated attempt to assign blame, Lynch proceeded to
place blame on former Gov. Wilson, the 1996 legislature that adopted AB
1890, FERC, and merchant generators and sellers.
Lynch discussed 5 myths of deregulation:
#1. California deregulated its system in 1996. Lynch stated that
California did not deregulate, rather that California federalized
electricity prices. Despite market manipulation, FERC failed to enforce the
law. This resulted in the largest transfer of wealth in US history.
#2. California's problem is simply a lack of supply. Lynch showed charts
depicting the amount of supply off-line last December.
#3. Long term contracts would have solved the problem. The facts prove this
wrong. Since Jan. 2000, only 10 requests were made for contract authority.
Rushing to long-term contracting could prove to be quite costly. Over
contracting may lead to excess supply. Forward contracting also prohibits
initiatives such as direct access.
#4. Early rate increases would have solved the problem. The PUC raised
rates when it was demonstrated that it was necessary and did so within 90
days.
#5 Sellers will exercise self control. All evidence points to the
contrary. California deregulation was designed in speculator's interest.
Prices went down only because of FERC action. High prices demonstrate the
need for government regulation in cartel situation.
Lynch offered the following suggestions to fix and improve the current
situation:
1. Expand renewable energy and energy efficiency
2. Forge a relationship with the "new" FERC
3. Hold those who broke the rules accountable
4. Make sure there is adequate supply at reasonable prices
Questions from audience:
Is it true that DWR will be able to set rates? Yes, AB1X transferred PUC's
role of evaluating reasonableness to the DWR. PUC cannot disallow pass
through of costs.
Will state intervention remove incentive of private business to invest in
California's electricity market? No. The facts bear that theory out as a
red herring. Even with $250 price cap in place, many companies applied for
permits to build power plants.
What legal recourse do we have? PUC has joined with the Attorney General to
investigate generators and sellers. "I believe they stepped over the line.
They were sloppy about it." We've been thwarted by confidentiality
agreements, but justice will prevail.
=====================================
|
3,811 |
Subject: Siting bill - Correction
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/118.
=====================================
Power plant siting bill to follow if you'd like it.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 09/01/2000 01:44
PM ---------------------------
Bruno Gaillard
09/01/2000 12:30 PM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Thane
Twiggs/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: Siting bill - Correction
Do not pay attention to the sitting bill that was attached on the last
e-mail. The attached version was older that we though. AI will be faxing you
a copy of the final version of AB970 within a 1/2 hour.
---------------------- Forwarded by Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES on 09/01/2000
10:26 AM ---------------------------
Bruno Gaillard
09/01/2000 10:22 AM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Thane
Twiggs/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: Rate cap , Ratepayer relief and siting bills
Summary of Davis/Alpert bill AB 260
Retro-active to June 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002, 6.5 cent/kWh cap on
the energy component for residential and small commercial customers (under
100 kW). The Commission has the ability to extend through 2003. The
Commission also has the ability to adjust the cap.
Commission can use revenues from utility-owned assets, refunds from FERC to
offset the undercollections. (In addition, a companion bill was passed that
provides $150 million of general fund money to offset undercollections.)
Large commercial/industrial/agricultural customers have an opportunity to
"opt-in" to the 6.5 cent/kWh cap with an annual true-up.
SDG&E will under a prudence review by the CPUC, which may be another source
of funds to offset the undercollection.
Specific classes subject to cap:
Schedule A, all acute care hospitals, all public and private k-12 schools,
all accounts on AL-TOU under 100 kW.
Attached a link to the bill
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_265_bill_20000830_enrol
led.pdf
Summary of the rate payer relief bill AB 1156 which would
Transfer of $150,000,000 from the general fund to a subaccount within the
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties.
Appropriate those funds from the subaccount, to the commission, to reduce the
adverse impact of high-cost wholesale energy purchases on certain ratepayers
if a specified rate ceiling is in effect, and if the commission determines
that a specified revenue shortfall would result in a ratepayer surcharge
greater than 10%, and the electricity rates were directly linked to Power
Exchange costs.
Declare that, on January 1, 2004, any remaining balance in the account would
revert to the General Fund.
Become operative only if AB 265 is enacted, as specified.
Take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Attached a link to the bill
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1156_bill_20000830_enro
lled.pdf
=====================================
|
3,812 |
Subject: Steve Kean Quoted
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2579.
=====================================
Enron: ISO Credit Problems Are Those Of Calif Utilities
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
12/13/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
By Mark Golden
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The credit problems of the California Independent
System Operator reflect the credit problems of the state's three
investor-owned utilities, Enron Corp. (ENE) chief of staff Steven Kean said
Wednesday.
"We have expressed some concerns about the utilities' creditworthiness," Kean
said. "They wouldn't have this credit issue if they had a government
guarantee."
Standard & Poor's credit analyst for California utilities, Richard Cortright,
told Dow Jones Newswires that such a guarantee is highly unlikely.
"There's no point in talking about it," Cortright said.
The credit-rating agency put California utility holding companies PG&E Corp
(PCG) and Edison International (EIX) on watch with negative implications
Wednesday. The utilities have seen their debt rating downgraded already this
fall, but their debts are piling up by the billions as they continue to pay
about 10 times more for power supplies than they can charge customers.
"The sheer magnitute of the undercollected balance is beyond belief,"
Cortright said. "Wholesale prices have gotten worse, and every hour the
situation gets more dire."
Cortright said the only step that would save the utilities' credit status is
if California regulators raised the rates the utilities can charge customers.
Late Wednesday, the California Public Utilties Commission indicated that it
may do so, reversing a decision made just last week.
"With new generation coming on, you would expect the rates to decline in a
couple of years," Cortright said.
The California Independent System Operator almost had to institute rolling
blackouts Wednesday because 13 suppliers had stopped selling it power due to
concerns about the ISO's credit.
California Gov. Gray Davis said that Enron was one of the "dirty 13."
Enron's Kean said that Enron was only offering very limited amounts of power
to the ISO.
"We are basically just a buyer and seller. We control only 70 megawatts of
generation in the state, which we offered to the ISO today because of the
emergency, but the ISO declined to purchase that power," Kean said.
That small generating unit is located in the southern California, while the
ISO's supply problems were most acute in northern California.
"We aren't selling any other power to them right now. Everything else that we
bought we've sold to other buyers," said Kean, who added that Enron had sold
to the ISO as recently as Tuesday.
The ISO manages California's electricity grid and purchases last-minute
additional power on behalf of the state's three investor-owned utilities. The
ISO then bills the utilities, which are PG&E Corp's Pacific Gas & Electric
Co, Edison International's (EIX) Southern California Edison, and Sempra
Energy's (SRE) San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
The ISO has 70-day payment terms to suppliers.
For the past two weeks, and often during the summer, the ISO has been
purchasing about one-fourth of the state's entire needs at very high prices.
It's current daily power purchases are running at $50 million to $100
million.
=====================================
|
3,813 |
Subject: Affiliate "Relook" OIR
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8246.
=====================================
Dear Jeff and Sue,
As you are probably aware, the Commission voted out an OIR last week to open
"relook" at the affiliate rules adopted 3 years ago. Last year, under
Mona's direction, Enron filed comments and attended a workshop in which the
utilities attempted to eliminate most of the affiliate rules. At that time,
Enron was the only major proponent of the old rules remaining at the table.
Subsequent to the workshop, ARM submitted comments.
Now, many months later, the CPUC has released the OIR and has identified
specific rule changes that they will consider in the OIR. Many of the
changes are relatively innocuous, but several would undermine key provisions
of the original rules (e.g., name/logo, corporate support, employee sharing)
Procedurally, the CPUC will receive comments and/or prepared testimony on
March 1, 2001 on the issues identified in the OIR, followed by a PHC on
March 14, 2001. The OIR also projects hearings in June leading to a Final
Decision in October 2001.
The specific issues raised in the OIR include:
Rule 1 -- The Commission will look at steps to conform the definitions in
the affiliates rules with those contained in R.92-08-088 [Affiliate
Transaction Reporting Requirements].
Rule II -- The Commission will consider an expansion of the applicability
rules to include telecommunications affiliates.
Rule IV.C -- The Commission will consider omission of the service provider
list requirement contained in the original rules.
Rule IV.D -- The Commission seeks to clarify the supplier information rules
to avoid redundancies and/or conflicts with other rules.
Rule IV.F -- The Commission will consider changing record keeping
requirements for affiliate transactions.
Rule V.E. -- The Commission will consider clarifications of corporate
support "to reduce confusion regarding oversight, governance, support
systems, and personnel.
Rule V.F.1 -- The Commission will investigate whether the name/logo rule is
needed or should be strengthened.
Rule V.G2b -- The Commission will investigate whether the sharing of
employee rule needs to be relaxed.
Rule VI.B. -- The Commission will consider problems identified with the new
affiliate compliance plan.
Rule VI.C. -- The Commission will review whether yearly audits remain
necessary.
Rule VII -- The Commission will bifurcate this rule into another OIR.
Significantly, the Commission declines to make so-called "style" changes
proposed by the utilities. At the workshop, we were quite alarmed to see a
rewrite of all the rules under the guise of "stylistic changes." We opposed
that noting that the rules were the result of extensive negotiation and
compromise.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether Enron wants to participate
in this proceeding, and, if so, to what level. I will need to know, for
example, whether you will want me to prepare comments for March 1, 2001 or
to attend the PHC on March 14, 2001. We would also need to identify the
issues, if any, on which Enron would take an active position on in this
proceeding. From the earlier phase, Mona had highlighted concern over the
utilities sharing engineering services as a corporate support function.
If you have questions, please call me at 765-8409.
Jim McTarnaghan
=====================================
|
3,814 |
Subject: RE: Group Project
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9768.
=====================================
i won't be in class tonite. i'm open, too, but to tell you the truth, mark,
the thought of comparing us and european accounting standards/practices makes
me break out in a rash. if there's any way that we can focus on strategy,
valuation, or other sorts of financial analyses that we've focused on in the
course, that would be preferable from my perspective.
best,
Jeff
"Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)" <[email protected]>
03/07/2001 08:13 PM
To: Mark Guinney <[email protected]>, [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Group Project
either day works for me and i am open to anything for the group project
if we do look at aol/tw we should probably limit our scope to a relatively
specific issue
i'll think about this some more and perhaps we can talk at the end of break
tomorrow (say around 8-ish)
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Guinney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 7:28 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re:Group Project
The Enron idea is intriguing but could be extremely difficult to do. If
most of
the Wall Street analysts are havig difficultly seeing through the financial
statements than what chance do we have?
AOL/Time Merger is a good idea. Also, we can look at a foreign company like
Daimler and see how their financial statements change as they have to
convert to
US GAAP and what this tells us about their foreign accounting.
**********************************************
Mark D. Guinney, CFA
Consultant
Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting
345 California Street, Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 733-4487 ph.
(415) 733-4190 fax
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Group Project
Author: [email protected]
Date: 03/06/2001 12:29 PM
No rush, but thought I'd throw this out there just ot get the ball rolling:
Looks at this point like any of the presentation dates work for me, so I
don't necessarily have a preference.
Options for project (and I'm really just throwing stuff out there to
stimulate thought):
Analyze AOL/Time Warner merger
My company, Enron, is accused by some analysts of being nothing more
than a Merrill-Lynch, or a Morgan-Stanley, or a Goldman-Sachs, etc.
These analysts claim that we should therefore trade at multiples that
are in line with the investment houses. We differ in that view (for a
lot of reasons that I won't go into here). Might be interesting to
analyze strategies, differences, etc.
Anyway, just some thoughts to get the ball rolling. I'm open to just about
anything.
Best,
Jeff
- This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. -
If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
=====================================
|
3,815 |
Subject: RE: CA question
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/582.
=====================================
Enron has continually raised the issue of a market-based approach, such as the DJ index, in lieu of a PX Credit. And has also proposed bottoms-up calculation of T and D rates. If you have bottom's-up, you don't need PX Credit or DJ index. We have most recently been pushing for bottoms'-up. Some of our filings suggesting a marketbased index are still sitting out there in cases that have not yet been resolved. Others, such as the 98 and 99 RAP cases, have been closed. So, our proposal is still out there, but has never been accepted by the CPUC. It is not approporiate to "withdraw" such proposals. I fully expect that the CPUC to continue to ignore our proposal.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [Mara, Susan]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 10:16 AM
To: Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D.; Swain, Steve
Subject: RE: CA question
Recognizing that it was Sue's idea (though I'm not sure, Sue, if you're referring to the DJ index or the bottoms-up approach), isn't it also true that Harry submitted some testimony more recently regarding the DJ index method, and didn't ARM more recently submit some bottoms-up testimony, comments, etc.?
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 12:13 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Steffes, James D.; Swain, Steve
Subject: RE: CA question
All,
I think I actually was the one who proposed it in a 1998 "RAP" case three years ago. The case is long closed and our suggestion was not accepted. Therefore, we don't have to worry about it. If we like the idea, we would have to find a way to propose it anew -- if we don't like the idea, we just fail to bring it up again.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 9:13 AM
To: Steffes, James D.; Swain, Steve; Mara, Susan
Subject: RE: CA question
We did recommend using the DJ index. But subsequent to that, I believe we filed as part of the "ARM" coalition, recommending a bottom's-up approach. Is that right Sue? However, I don't think it's accurate to say that we "withdrew" the DJ index recommendation. Both our original DJ recommendation, and the bottom's up recommendation, are still sitting at the PUC. I think that's how things currently stand.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D.
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:05 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: FW: CA question
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D.
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 7:51 AM
To: Mara, Susan; Swain, Steve
Subject: FW: CA question
Steve --
We did originally file that the replacement for the PX Credit should be the DJ Index. My recollection is that we did withdraw this argument, however I've include Sue Mara on this to double check. If we haven't, I'd guess that is no longer URM's position?
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Swain, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 4:54 PM
To: Steffes, James D.
Subject: CA question
I spoke with Mary Lynne today, and she said that once upon a time (after the PX expired) we filed something asking the CPUC to make the DJ index a substitute for the PX credit. Does this ring a bell? And the more important question -- did we ever withdraw that request? Thanks.
=====================================
|
3,816 |
Subject: An Editorial from Today's Electricity Daily
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4470.
=====================================
Commentary: Things Get Even Worse in California
Although it hardly seems possible, the California wholesale electric market
is getting worse. And rapidly. Power prices are high across the board and
the California Independent System Operator has taken to declaring
simultaneous stage one and stage two emergencies every morning, right along
with brewing the morning coffee.
On Thursday afternoon, the ISO declared the first stage three emergency,
although it was not necessary to implement rolling blackouts. Demand hit
31,600 MW during the day, far from a peak for the state. But planned and
unplanned outages meant that the statewide capacity margin was a bare 1,000
MW.
The chief culprit appears to be the state's price caps, which are driving
generation out of the state, and the politicians appear poised to make
matters worse. The caps combine with soaring natural gas prices to drive
electricity out of the California market. Because of gas prices in the $7
per million Btu range, the price caps are simply not enforceable. They are,
in short, a joke.
With price caps of $250/MWh in place through the California Power Exchange,
and with bids hitting the caps for every hour of the market, generators are
fleeing the state. That's because prices in the Pacific Northwest are
running in the neighborhood of $375/MWh, and generators are selling into
Oregon and Washington instead of California.
Dow Jones reports that utilities in the Northwest last week showed up as
buyers in the Cal PX, buying power at $400/MWh -- $250/MWh for the juice and
$150/MWh for transportation.
Just how wacky has the California market become? In order to protect
reliability, the Cal ISO has been quietly purchasing power in bilateral
deals from out-of-state generators at prices above the cap. The price cap
rules apparently allow the ISO to buy above the cap if needed to supply an
emergency. But it can only buy from out-of-state companies, not the
California generators.
Last Wednesday, the ISO paid some $10 million to buy 1,000 MW -- most likely
from BC Hydro, although the ISO isn't talking -- or about $900/MWh. Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, sitting in the catbird seat with
excess capacity, sold the ISO some 1,200 MW at the capped rate of $250/MWh.
A civil suit charges that LADWP has been -- shock! -- profiteering by
selling its low-cost juice from Bonneville Power Administration into the
California market at an order of magnitude above what it paid.
How are the state's politicians responding? They don't seem to understand
the short-term consequences of what is going on. They are talking about
banning exports of power made in California (can you say "Commerce
Clause"?), or forming a state power agency (not in this decade), or
re-regulating the utilities (ditto).
There is only one action that California can take to protect itself against
blackouts this winter. The state must get rid of the price caps entirely.
Immediately.
California's choice is simple and stark. Does the state want to ensure that
its citizens have not enough power at an artificially low price, or enough
power at a politically unpopular high price? The need for power trumps the
price issue.
=====================================
|
3,817 |
Subject: RE: Napa and Sonoma Trip
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/725.
=====================================
Unfortunately, the wine trip for 10/27 is cancelled due to lack of interest. Hopefully, we will have better turnouts for next year.
Have a nice weekend, and don't forget there are two happy hours tonight - Gordon Biersch in Palo Alto, and Kell's (?) in SF.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tai, Tony
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:35 AM
To: Evmba_Social@Haas. Berkeley. Edu (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Napa and Sonoma Trip
It's 5 days before our Napa-Sonoma-Wine Trip. I know all of you are anxiously waiting for this Saturday, but just forgot to actually sign up for the trip. Seriously, the sign up has been slow due to midterms or other reasons. We really need to know how many people can commit for the Napa-Sonoma trip, so please sign up by 3:00pm Wed, 10/24.
The wine trip will start off at Viansa with a Connoisseur Tasting and followed by a gourmet lunch in a reserved area of the Viansa hill top picnic grounds. The Connoisseur Tasting includes food pairing and reserve wine tasting. We will then move on to Gloria Ferrer for award-winning sparkling wines. I have heard from several classmates raving about this winery. It's a must see for those who have never been there!! Finally, we will move on to St. Supery, situated in a historic landmark 1880 Victorian Atkinson House (now a living museum). We will find exclusive St. Supery wines that can not be found anywhere else. The trip is pre-negotiated at a group rate, one would have to pay much more to have the same type of experience.
Additionally, feel free to bring your spouse and significant others to enjoy one of your rare day-off from school and work.
Hope to see you all there!!
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Natalia Rachelson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:49 PM
To: Evmba_Social@Haas. Berkeley. Edu (E-mail); [email protected]
Subject: Napa and Sonoma Trip
Ladies and Gents,
I know how stressed out everybody is at the moment: first-years are thinking about finals, second and third-years are getting ready for the mid-terms. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel... and this light is brought to you by the EvMBA Social Committee!
Get your drinking caps on and get ready to spend a relaxing and fabulous Saturday with your classmates at Napa and Sonoma. Lots of wine, food, and fun is guaranteed to be provided by the veterans of the EvMBA program:)
Remember: B-School is about NETWORKING and not about Nash equilibrium or NPV!!!
The details are as follows:
Date: Saturday, October 27.
Fee: $37 per person
(Includes a gourmet picnic lunch, wine tasting, and tours of the
wineries)
Schedule:
9:00 Shuttle pickup at HAAS (parking lot by Kleeberger Field)
11:00 Viansa Winery (tasting and lunch)
1:30 Gloria Ferrer Winery
3:30 St. Supery Winery
5:30 Back to HAAS
RSVP is required. There are only 40 spaces available. Please leave your check in Tony Tai or Natalia Rachelson's mailbox, and send either Tony or myself an email indicating your attendance.
This event is open to studens and their significant others; however, since space is limited students get priority!
Tony and I will reply with a confirmation. Again, the space is limited. So, sign
up as soon as possible.
=====================================
|
3,818 |
Subject: Re: NAAG
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3797.
=====================================
I agree about the need to have a clear strategy. Another thing to keep in
mind, however, is that we can enlist the AGs' assistance on other fronts as
well; it doesn't have to be limited to 271 applications.
Mona L Petrochko
04/30/2001 02:29 PM
To: Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Stephen D
Burns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott Bolton/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Eric Benson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Margo
Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Marchris Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Barbara A
Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Kerry Stroup/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: NAAG
Thanks for the information. It is good to know we have a potential ally.
I'm not sure when the MA AG weighed in on the Verizon petition. If it was a
last minute effort at the FCC it is likely to be less effective that if they
were active in the proceeding when the state was making its determination.
The point here is that the timing of the AG's participation is bound to be as
important as the issues they raise.
Obviously, before we would engage in soliciting AG intervention, we would
have to have a very clear strategy about how much pressure we want to exert
in 271 applications, directly or indirectly, in exchange for cooperation on
other fronts (access to high capacity loops, for example). This is
especially true in light of our discussion around our primary wholesale
trading partners on today's weekly call.
From: Lara Leibman on 04/30/2001 02:03 PM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, John
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Stephen D
Burns/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott Bolton/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Eric Benson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Margo
Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Marchris Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Barbara A
Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Kerry Stroup/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: NAAG
Everyone,
I finally touched base with Emily Meyers, my contact at the National
Association of Attorneys General ("NAAG") regarding their involvement on the
telecom side, specifically with regard to Section 271 authorizations.
According to Emily, there is no group effort that exists (i.e., a telecom
committee or an individual AG taking the lead on telecom issues). Individual
AGs get involved, but that is all. For example, MA AG Tom Reilley recently
opposed Verizon's application for 271 authority, but the FCC still granted
Verizon's petition.
Emily recommends that we use the AGs as much as possible. For example, if we
believe that local competition is non-existent and we have evidence to that
effect, we should certainly convey that information to the individual AG and
have him/her weigh in on our behalf. Emily recognizes that Enron is
pro-competitive and that typically the AGs would be in agreement with our
positions - so it's something for us to keep in mind as we move forward.
There's no guarantee that the FCC will listen to the AGs, but it may be worth
a try.
If anyone has any thoughts or comments, please let me know. Thanks.
Lara
=====================================
|
3,819 |
Subject: Legislative Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/999.
=====================================
I will send out a real legislative report next week. In the meantime, I
thought you might appreciate a quick run-down of what actually happened in
the final hours of this year's wild legislative session.
The good news is that the public benefit charge bill passed easily with a
10-year term and no statutory harm was done. The bad news is that utilities
captured the deregulation debate and successfully painted generators as
villains and the wholesale market as "broken."
Major legislative actions on energy matters follow. If you have any
questions or would like a copy of final legislation, please call.
AB 995 (Wright) and SB 1194 (Sher), which extend public benefit charges for
energy conservation, renewable energy development, and RD&D, passed the
State Legislature by large margins. Recent indications are that the
Governor will sign the bills, although interested companies should join IEP
in sending letters urging him to do so.
Power plant siting was front and center the last week of the session. As
recently as Wednesday of this week, the bill was so bad for new power plant
development that IEP opposed the expedited siting provisions. They were
rewritten by Republican staff and CEC attorneys to provide a 6-month process
for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impacts that might
help those few entities that can start the process in full compliance with
local rules. This provision is available for both combined cycle facilities
and peaking facilities. The bill also includes a provision for four-month
approval of amendments to pending applications providing for the
installation of temporary peaking generation on sites that will be
developed into combined cycle facilities within three years. The CEC
expects this to apply so a single pending application. Finally, the bill
includes language directing the CPUC and the EOB to be helpful on ISO issues
that affect the willingness self-generators to remain interconnected with
the grid.
Utility efforts to craft legislation assuring them of collection of large
negative balances in their Transition Revenue Accounts failed when they
could not reach agreement with representatives of large customer groups. In
its place, the Legislature passed a non-binding resolution directing the
CPUC to investigate the issue and including highly offensive language on
$100 price caps and retroactive recalculation of market clearing prices.
Legislation establishing a retroactive cap on SDG&E rates and providing no
assurance of cost recovery to Sempra passed the Legislature. Companion
legislation that most observers expect the Governor to veto provides $150
million of General Fund money to SDG&E.
A draft of so-called "sunshine" legislation surfaced late in the process.
The draft empowered the Electricity Oversight Board to collect anything it
might be interested in from the ISO, PX, utilities, generators, and
marketers and to treat the information confidentially. The draft faced
unified opposition and did not make its way into any legislation.
AB 1002 (Wright) establishing public benefit charges on the natural gas
system passed the Legislature. It continues to include language exempting
electricity generation from the charges.
Karen Edson
[email protected]
916/552-7070
=====================================
|
3,820 |
Subject: FW: LAST REMINDER - FINANCE CLUB FIRM NIGHT!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/1622.
=====================================
FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joakim Johansson
Sent: Mon 9/24/2001 1:52 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: LAST REMINDER - FINANCE CLUB FIRM NIGHT!
All,
Close to 20 firms confirmed so far, including: B of A Securities, Dain Rauscher Wessels, Lehman Brothers, Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, Goldman Sachs, BEA Systems, Wit Soundview, Barbary Coast Capital Management, Harris Williams, Palo Alto Investors, Salomon Smith Barney, Lazard Freres, Robertson Stephens, Levi Strauss, Fidelity, Johnson & Johnson, Chevron, GE Capital, Broadview...
The dress code is business casual and drinks and snacks will be served!
This event is a must attend if you plan on interviewing for finance jobs!!!!
Also, remember to attend the tomorrows "A day in the life of an Investment Banker Panel" with representatives from Salomon Smith Barney and Lehman Brothers between 12.30 - 2pm in the Helzel Board room.
Regards,
Joakim on behalf of the Finance Club
X-Authentication-Warning: haas.berkeley.edu: majordom set sender to [email protected] using -f
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:16:15 -0700
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
From: Joakim Johansson <[email protected]>
Subject: FINANCE CLUB FIRM NIGHT!
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Interested in meeting with some of the most prominent financial services firms on the street? Well, then this event is for you!
FINANCE CLUB FIRM NIGHT
24th September
Wells Fargo Room
7 - 9 pm
Come meet with companies from industries such as INVESTMENT BANKING, SALES AND TRADING, EQUITY RESEARCH, ASSET MANAGEMENT, MERCHANT BANKING and much more...
The firm night is free for members of the Finance Club. Non members will pay a cover charge of $10 at the door. To join the Finance Club, please put a check made out to the "Haas Finance Club" in Yevgeny Torkhov's mailbox (remember to write your e-mail on the check). The fee is $20 for one year, or $30 for two years .
A resume book, open to the finance club members, will be distributed to the participating firms prior to the event. To include your resume in the resume book, please forward your resume to Joakim Johansson at [email protected] before the 19th of September (one week from now).
Also, remember to attend the "Life of an Investment Banker Panel" between 12.30 - 2pm that same day. More information to follow on this event...
Best Regards,
Joakim on behalf of the Finance Club
___________________________________________
Joakim Johansson
MBA Candidate, Class of 2002
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
[email protected]
___________________________________________
Joakim Johansson
MBA Candidate, Class of 2002
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
[email protected]
___________________________________________
Joakim Johansson
MBA Candidate, Class of 2002
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,821 |
Subject: FYI
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3046.
=====================================
From today's Electricity Daily re last week's FERC action:
?
Commentary: Price Caps Cap Capacity, Not Prices
"We should have learned the lesson by now. Price caps don't cap prices.
Price caps cap capacity. We've seen that in California this summer, where,
the investigation by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
demonstrates, price caps had the perverse, and predictable, effect of
driving supply out of the state, pushing up local prices even further. The
same phenomena cropped up in the 1970s with oil price controls and in the
1980s with natural gas price controls.
FERC's actions last week on the California electricity "marketplace
meltdown," as Chairman Jim Hoecker put it, were about right. The major
slippery slope in the FERC California plan is its "price mitigation"
approach. It is not really a price cap, not even a "soft cap" as advertised
by some. Under the FERC approach, bids under $150/MWh will work as before,
with the highest bid setting the market clearing price. But for bids above
$150, a bidder would get what it bid (if dispatched), but the high bid would
not set the clearing price for other bidders.
So it's not a price cap. But it's a fiddle, and bidding above the $150 level
would trigger some "market monitoring" requirements that would give FERC
access to confidential company data in order to determine whether anybody
was cooking the books. Commissioner Curt Hebert says he fears that having
the prospect of FERC looking over their shoulders, and the possibility of
refunds in the future, would scare some capacity out of the market. He may
be right.
More to the point, the whole thing may be unnecessary. The other steps FERC
is taking are probably sufficient to kick-start to competitive marketplace.
Particularly salutary are ending the mandatory buy-sell provision, enabling
forward contracting and hedging, and fining companies for under-scheduling.
Also welcome is FERC's order to the California Power Exchange and the
California Independent System Operator to shut down their highly politicized
stakeholder boards and replace them with independent, business-oriented
directors, including the institution's management. Nothing has screwed up
the California process more completely than the board shenanigans,
particularly the political food fights at the ISO board meetings. As a
journalist, I'm sorry to see them go. But as a businessman and a devotee of
good public policymaking, I say good riddance.
Indeed, FERC should have gone farther and ordered the merger of the PX and
the ISO. Separating the two was another case of where California allowed
politics to overcome sound reason, Californicating the restructuring. Among
other things, the separate institutions, with separate staff and separate
procedures, drive up transaction costs. A much sounder model comes in PJM,
where one-stop shopping prevails.
But, taken together and acknowledging that FERC's California action plan is
only the beginning, I have to give the FERC staff and the commission high
marks. Unfortunately, in typical FERC fashion, they have managed to launch a
major undertaking during the coming holiday season. Coal in the stockings
for that one, folks."
=====================================
|
3,822 |
Subject: Re: Political Issues Raised at Meeting with CPUC re subpoenas
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/454.
=====================================
The world is mighty small. As an undergrad at Berkeley, I worked as a
paralegal at Brobeck. One of the "associates" I reported to was, you guessed
it, Gary Fergus. Haven't seen him since. Will be interested to compare notes.
MBD <[email protected]>
09/29/2000 06:26 PM
To: James D Steffes <[email protected]>, Richard Shapiro
<[email protected]>, Mary Hain <[email protected]>, Vicki Sharp
<[email protected]>, Richard B Sanders <[email protected]>, Jeff
Dasovich <[email protected]>, Mona L Petrochko <[email protected]>,
"'Sandi McCubbin Enron SF'" <[email protected]>, "'Sue Mara at Enron
SF'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Political Issues Raised at Meeting with CPUC re subpoenas issued to
Enron
Today, Friday, Gary Fergus of the Brobeck firm and I met with Attny. Harvey
Morris of the CPUC to negotiate an extension of time for responding to the
five subpoenas issued to Enron affiliates and Portland General. We
negotiated both an extension for initial responses (two weeks) plus an
opportunity to submit a proposal for a significant reduction in the scope of
the request for production of documents. This will include a further
extension for other documents that are to be produced, as well as a
reservation of rights to object to the production of other documents. We
are working in close contact with Richard Sanders and the EPMI legal team in
Portland on further refining both responses and potential objections.
However, in light of recent communications between the Governor's office and
senior Enron officials, and the prospect of additional such communications,
Both Gary and I wanted to report an unusual aspect of the negotiation with
the CPUC. At the beginning of the meeting, as we were indicating the
overall burden of the request, the CPUC attorney indicated the extreme
pressure the Commission was under to "get to the bottom" of what was
happening in the California power markets. He also recited that "many
parties have pledged their cooperation in this investigation to the
Governor". He then proceeded to state that parties who delayed providing
responses and raised objections to the requests for production instead of
cooperating would "be placed on a list of non-cooperative parties" which
would be made available to the Governor and legislators and that such
parties would have to bear the consequences of such actions.
This rather explicit threat is, in my experience, unprecedented at the CPUC.
I also know the attorney in question well enough to know that he would never
invoke political reprisals on his own, and was obviously instructed to do so
by CPUC Pres. Lynch or her senior staff. Both Gary Fergus and I responded
that such a threat was both improper and disturbing for a party simply
trying to exercise its legitimate rights to adjudicate burdensome discovery
requests, but there was no attempt to withdraw the threat. This comment
speaks volumes about the pressure which the CPUC President feels to achieve
a politically acceptable result in this matter. Those senior Enron
officials in communication with the Governor should be made aware of this
incident.
Mike Day
=====================================
|
3,823 |
Subject: Re: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3107.
=====================================
Thanks, Carolyn. I can take a crack at the expansion questions, though
someone else may want to also take a look at it, just to keep me honest.
I'll try to distribute first thing in the AM tomorrow.
Best,
Jeff
"Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)" <[email protected]>
02/06/2001 02:01 PM
To: Mark Guinney <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: HD Case: Proposed Plan
I just spoke live with Mark about the case write-up. Hope the following
works for everyone.
I will take a shot at comparing the following for questions (a) and (b):
(1) Home Depot's strategy (low margin, high turnover, high service, best
quality products) with their financial ratios. (2) Home Depot's strategy with
Hechinger's (upscale stores with high profit margins) by comparing their
financial ratios.
(Understand that I have not had the benefit of attending the last two
classes, but hope to watch them on video tape before I send out my answers.)
Mark has already addressed question (c), we just need to make clear in the
memo the assumptions he used. Mark - perhaps you could write those up so we
can drop them into the memo?
The other big issue is with Home Depot's expansion strategy - should they
continue to build the 9 new stores, and if so, how should they finance the
expansion? They could use their line of credit or go to the equity market.
Obviously with the line of credit we need to make sure that they can cover
the interest expense and with the equity market we need to be careful of
their depressed stock price. Can someone else volunteer to look at the
expansion efforts and financing (question d)?
I am going to work on this today and hope to e-mail it out by 9am tomorrow.
Can we set a time on Wednesday to discuss this live?
- Carolyn
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Guinney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:36 PM
To: Vavrek; Carolyn (US - San Francisco); [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Home Depot Spreadsheet (revised)
Jeff was kind enough to show me where to get the additional balance sheet
items I needed to finish the financial ratio time sheet analysis (I missed
the selected financial statement table). Please see the revised spreadsheet
that has both the financial ratios and the pro forma cash flow statement for
the next fiscal year.
**********************************************
Mark D. Guinney, CFA
Consultant
Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting
345 California Street, Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 733-4487 ph.
(415) 733-4190 fax
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
=====================================
|
3,824 |
Subject: SB 1x hearing today
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3775.
=====================================
As you may know, SB 1x (Soto/Scott) passed the Senate Appropriations
Committee by an initial vote of 7-3 (the bare minimum).
Senator Soto said that the Legislature must make a "bold proposition" with
this bill.? She said that this experience is "like no consumer has been
gouged before."? The Legislature must cap rates.? This bill guarantees a
generous profit to generators.
Senator Scott said that these generator profits have been gained off of
consumers.? According to FERC, over $500 million in excess profits have been
reaped.? Californians have been "royally mistreated" by generators.? This
"money has left the state (to Texas and other places)."? This bill is the
only solution.? The PUC can change the $80 rate.? Based upon the January
Field Poll, Californians support this concept.? We have to "stand up to the
generators and say no more."
Supporters were:? TURN and CTRA (Lenny Goldberg).? Lenny said that the FERC
will not give any relief to CA ratepayers, so the Legislature has to.? This
bill needs to be combined with the power authority by Senator Burton to hold
prices down.
Other supporters of the bill included:? Congress of CA Seniors; CalPIRG; CA
Consumer Federation; CA Labor Federation; SEIU; Public Power Now.? SEIU
(public employee union) said that this bill is "the only way to put caps on
rates."
Opponents were CMTA ("this is the wrong medicine for solving the problem");
WSPA (does nothing to resolve the shortage of energy; we should be doing
bills to stimulate greater investment in supply); Intergen said that they
are looking at California market, but will not build with this bill out
there.? CA Wind Energy Assn (QFs oppose this bill because the rate is too
low); and IEP (most productive answer to our problem is the build power
plants).
Senator Battin said that the price cap is lower than some of the Governor's
long-term contracts at $86 per hour.? Senator Scott said that the munis are,
indeed, covered by the bill.? He also said that the PUC can change the rates
contained in this bill.? Scott also said that the PUC can exempt renewables
under the bill.
Senator Bowen stated that the $80 figure should be removed from the bill
("this price may be inappropriate").? She suggested using the "FERC proxy
price."? She suggested that they look at an exemption for contracts with the
state.? She saw no reason to exempt the renewables because they would make a
bundle with an $80 cap.
Senator Poochigian said he was concerned about the majority vote issue
(because this bill is allegedly revenue neutral).? Scott said all of the
money raised by the bill will go to ratepayers.? He said that Legislative
Counsel gave him an opinion (I don't know if it is written or verbal) that
this scheme was permitted.? Poochigian said it was ironic that the PUC was
being given the authority to set rates under this bill.
Senator Scott stated that they would take as an author's amendment to
exclude all long-term contracts from the provisions of this bill.
Next stop for the bill is the Senate Floor.
?
Chris Micheli, Esq.
Carpenter Snodgrass & Associates
1201 K Street, Suite 710
Sacramento, CA? 95814
(916) 447-2251
FAX: (916) 445-5624
EMAIL: [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,825 |
Subject: RE: IEP Ad Copy for March California Journal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8435.
=====================================
I'd suggest keeping the distinction b/w what the membership is doing ("our
members are investing ...") and what IEP is doing. There's a couple of
lines that muddle the distinction and make it sound like the association is
building things. ABB
Andrew B. Brown
Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP
2015 H Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 447-2166
Fax: (916) 447-3512
mailto:[email protected]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s)
are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the
addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that
any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in
reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such
inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client
privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this
communication in error, please contact the sender at the internet address
indicated or by telephone at (916)447-2166. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Kaplan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:01 PM
To: Theo Pahos; Roger Pelote; Andy Brown; B Brown Andy; Baker Carolyn;
Bob Escalante; Bob Weisenmiller; Curtis Kebler; Douglas Kerner; Greg
Blue; Jan Smutny-Jones; Jean Munoz; Jeff Dasovich; Joe Ronan; John
Larrea; John Stout; Julee Malinowski-Ball; Kassandra Gough; Katie
Kaplan; kent Palmerton; Kristin Vellandi; Lynn Lednicky; Marty Wilson;
McNally Ray; 'Nam Nguyen'; Norton Kelli; Paula Hall-Collins; Pigott
Jack; Richard Hyde; Rob Lamkin; Stephanie-Newell; Sue Mara; Tom Ross
Cc: Susan Mccabe; Scott Govenar; Ron Tom; Robert Ross; Phil Isenberg;
Mike Monagan; Maureen OHaren; marie moretti; Hedy Govenar; DJ Smith;
Delany Hunter; Chuck Cole; Anne Kelly
Subject: IEP Ad Copy for March California Journal
Greetings:
In all of the craziness this morning with getting items out I neglected to
attach the below Ad copy for the March California Journal. This is just the
copy and as soon as it is approved we will send out the full ad copy with
graphics. Please review this and keeping with our 48-hour review period
please send any comments back to me by 9:00 a.m. PST on Thursday, January
25, 2001. Thank you for taking the time to review this. Please let me know
if you have any questions.
Under Construction [headline]
No major power plants have been built in California for the past ten years.
While population has increased 16% and the peak demand for electricity has
Surged 15% (33% in Silicon Valley), power generation has inched up only 2%.
But things are changing.
Our member companies have already invested billions of dollars to buy and
modernize California's vintage power plants, many of which date back to the
Korean War. We're spending billions more to build new plants. (Six are
already under construction. Three more have been approved. Eleven more are
under review.)
Instead of risking tax money, we're using private-sector dollars to build
and run our plants - to power California's economy into the future with
clean, reliable and affordable electricity.
We're part of the solution.
Katie Kaplan
Manager of State Policy Affairs
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
=====================================
|
3,826 |
Subject: Registration Results: Round One
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba_program/22.
=====================================
Please disregard if you are not taking electives in the spring semester.
***************************************************
We have reviewed TeleBEARS enrollments from last week's deadline and
corrected your schedule in TeleBEARS to reflect the courses that you are
now registered for. Please check TeleBEARS to confirm your schedule and
review wait lists below.
So what's next?
1. CHECK InfoBEARS to see what you got into. You can call 510-642-9400
or go to bearlink.berkeley.edu and use your SID and PIN to review your
schedule. You can call any time of day. Use TeleBEARS for changes.
2. DROP the extra "back-ups" that you don't need by November 19
(Friday). Use TeleBEARS (510-642-3400), or call the Drop Hotline with
the course control numbers of the course(s) you want to drop at
510-642-3535. Both options open 7-8 a.m. or 7 p.m. to midnight, Monday
through Friday.
3. ADD extra classes if you like, by November 19 (Friday). You must use
TeleBEARS during open hours to add a class. Call 510-642-3400 or go to
bearlink.berkeley.edu 7-8 a.m. or 7 p.m. to midnight, Monday through
Friday.
4. We will confirm your schedule by the middle of next week. Course
materials will be ordered for you based on your November 19 enrollment.
We have not completed registration for one-unit classes. I will be
finalizing those enrollments this week. If you are depending on those
units, be sure to sign up for a back-up just in case you don't get in to
all of the one-unit courses you requested.
As always, please call or e-mail us if you have questions.
Oversubscribed Class Wait Lists
(As of Friday, November 12)
Below are the wait lists for classes that were oversubscribed. To see if
you got into the class, check InfoBEARS. Note: you are not listed below
if you were not registered by the November 12 deadline listed in the
registration materials. Remember, the TeleBEARS wait list number is
incorrect. Positions on the wait lists are determined by seniority=0F-which
we cannot adjust in TeleBEARS.
We are in the process of adding some of you to wait lists in TeleBEARS.
If you are not listed there but are listed below, don't worry. The lists
below are accurate.
E222: Financial Info Analysis
1 GATES, KIMBERLY
2 REILLY, KEVIN
3 ZHANG, LEI
4 KING, MICHAEL
5 LUCAS, NADINE
6 JOSHI, SUHAS
7 LIU, MICHAEL
8 SPARKS, JEREMY
9 CRAIB, BETSY
10 MOTOLA, ALEXANDER
11 KUNDU, SUMIT
12 TATLOW, KEVIN
13 GOMEZ, STEVEN
14 TAKETA, DAWN
15 MYERS, DAVID
16 BOURDON, GARY
E259-2: Leading Change
1 HOFFMAN, LAURA
2 MYERS, DAVID
3 ROY, INDRAJIT
4 SINHA, PRAKASH
5 LUCAS, NADINE
6 IDNANI, NARESH
7 BRAUN, RUSSELL
8 STACY, ANGELA
9 ALLAVARPU, SAI
10 JOSHI, SUHAS
11 REDDY, JAYARAMI
12 WINCKLER, SONJA
13 GORDON, JUSTIN
14 KAZI, AIAZ
15 SAMA, ANIL
16 YARAK, JOSEPH
E262B: New Venture Finance
1 PIESCO, CHRISTINE
2 MAZZARA, GWENDALINE
E296-3: Foundations of E-Business
1 FONTANA, MARCELLO
2 SAMA, ANIL
3 KAZI, AIAZ
4 DASOVICH, JEFFREY
E296-7: New Venture Finance
1 PIESCO, CHRISTINE
2 ANAND, VINAY
3 LAKHANI, VINOD
4 NUCCI, JAMES
5 GOMEZ, STEVEN
6 MALTZ, JEFFREY
7 PATEL, SANGITA
8 RAMARAO, RAVIKUMAR
9 DREESSEN, DAVID
10 TRAN, HUE
11 NUGEHALLY, MEGHAMALA
12 MURDTER, NALINI
13 CLAY, DOUGLAS
14 MOTOLA, ALEXANDER
These wait list numbers OVERRIDE the wait list numbers given out by
TeleBEARS.
=====================================
|
3,827 |
Subject: 1st Draft Summary of PGE, SCE, TURN, CLECA, CEC,
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4253.
=====================================
Goal:
Lower
Not greater than average increase to C&I large
Later
Surcharge delayed
Flatter
RTP better
Higher Winter Charges better
Sustainable
More allocation to winter better
PGE:
Residential Baseline subsidy covered by Residential Positive
CARE subsidy covered by all Negative but expected
37.50 (vs 30) since June 1 is start date Positive since later is better
$30/MWh allocated on kWh Acceptable since reduces impact to large from
CPUC design
Use $250/MWh on peak 1st then residual to other hours Negative since results
in high summer low winter
replace PX with actual charges Negative and contrary to law
$10/MWh and $30/MWh should apply to DA Negative to new customers, Positive
to USCS case
SCE:
Recover $30/MWH in proportion to generation revenue Positive
CARE allocated to all based on generation revenue Negative but expected
Non TOU - $10/MWh increase in 1st block, remainder in 2nd block Indifferent
TOU - Delta $10/MWh off, Delta $30/MWH partial, remainder on Negative since
high summer
Surcharge of $20/MWh in June to Aug to recover lost 2 months Further negative
since high summer
TURN:
End of 10% decrease to res - unlawful Negative
Res subsidy should be allocated to all Negative
CARE subsidy to all Negative but expected
Non TOU - All 1st tier same, Delta $30 in 2nd tier Indifferent
TOU - Greater summer vs Winter: On = 200/MWh Negative
CLECA:
Preferred is an allocation of the Surcharge by top 100 hours Positive re
Class, Negative re Seasonal Rates
No increase to CARE Negative but expected
Non TOU - 1st tier lower average, 2nd tier much higher cust basis Complicated
Residential should pay 1st $10/MWh Positive
No increase for off peak Negative
Partial be made at lease $40/MWh Negative
Summer On Peak is residual Negative
CEC
Voluntary RTP rates with minimum term 6 months Positive
Recognize that RTP cannot be done by June 1 Negative
ISO must publish imbalance charge daily Negative and not necessary
California League of Food Processors
Allow customers to select their own 3 hour on peak periods Indifferent
unless this results in lower class contributions to $30/MWh surcharge
Customers cannot respond to high peak rates Wrong
Support Gov. 5%/15% increases for non TOU/TOU Negative since losses will be
picked up by others
Alliance for Retail Energy Markets
DA customers should not be subject to surcharges Positive to new customers,
Negative to USCU case
Kinder Morgan (Pipeline and Storage Co)
Support Gov. proposition that all classes get 30% increase Positive
KM supports $320/MWh summer on peak rates provided that Negative
KM supports reducing the on peak demand rates Positive if relative to 2
being accepted
Question:
Do we rescind our testimony?
Factors leaning against recincion:
CEC advocacy of RTP is weak
CLECA, PGE, SCE, TURN advocate higher summer
Factors supporting recision:
CLECA, PGE, SCE would not allocate above average to C&I
PGE, SCE, CLECA would make residential pick up residential subsidy
Other:
Need to take on PGE Px should not be at market
Need to take on PGE Surcharge should be with DA customers???????
We prefer PGE method of recovering 2 month shortfall (allocate over 12
months) vs SCE (allocate over upcoming winter)
=====================================
|
3,828 |
Subject: California Update 07.22.01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28994.
=====================================
Summary of the activities since Friday:
Overall, it's 50-50 or better that the Legislature will finish up the budget
and recess until August 20th, without having passed some form of an "Edison
MOU." Will have a better view of the chances of getting an MOU agreed to and
passed through both houses by COB Monday.
In the Senate:
The "Edison MOU":
As previously reported, on Friday, SB 78---the Senate's version of the Edison
MOU--passed out of the full Senate and was sent to the full Senate.
The bill sticks 100% of suppliers' debts with Edison's shareholders but pays
QFs and other creditors.
The authors believe that suppliers can't force Edison into bankruptcy because
the claims are with the PX, not Edison, which in their view means that the
suppliers can't reach Edison. Our lawyers need to assess whether the tactic
is strong from a legal perspective.
The bill creates an option to buy the transmission system, but rejects the
Goernor's MOU, which buys it outright.
Though there's some uncertainty, the bill appears to end Direct Access.
Information we have indicates that the Assembly does not support and will not
pass SB 78 in its current form.
Enron (and the marjority of market participants) opposes 78.
The "Dunn Investigation":
Dunn released his report regarding contempt charges against Enron on Saturday.
The report recommends that the Senate fine us, beginning with $1,000 the
first day, and doubling everyday thereafter until Enron "complies."
Dunn announced on Saturday that he would attempt to bring the report to the
full Senate for a vote on Saturday.
In response, our lobbyist in Sacramento spoke to a leader of the Republican
party in the Senate (Ross Johnson), and persuaded Johson to negotiate the
date of the vote with Burton and Dunn.
She was successful---Johnson went to Burton and got him and Dunn to agree not
to vote on the report until the Senate returned from its recess on August
20th.
If the Senate returns early, it could vote prior to the 20th, but the
likelihood of that happening appears low at this time.
The budget:
The Senate passed the budget at about 1 AM Sunday morning.
The Senate adjourned for recess after the vote and is not expected to return
until August 20th.
That leaves the Assembly alone in Sacramento to do its part regarding the
budget and the Edison MOU.
The Assembly
In short, leadership within the Assembly is extremely weak and without much
influence over its own party--the Democrats.
The Speaker is viewed as having botched both the budget and the energy issue.
Unable to do a deal, the Assembly recessed Saturday night and has not
reconvened.
It has therefore not taken the votes needed to finish up with the budget.
The Assembly also has not passed its version of an Edison MOU, which it says
it intends to do.
Best information we have right now is that the Assembly does not plan to go
back into session until Tuesday morning.
Late Saturday night, the Assembly Speaker released yet another version of his
Edison MOU (AB 82XX), but it does not appear at this time that he has enough
votes among Assembly Democrats to pass it.
Enron--together with business customers--opposes the version of 82XX released
on Saturday night because it does not adequately ensure Direct Access.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,829 |
Subject: Re: Cal ISO Not Filing CM Proposal at FERC - EPMI Response?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8888.
=====================================
I see no downside to calling the question on California ISO Governance. The
CAISO staff was ready to move forward on a proposal that was not too
inconsistent with the DStar and RTO West. As a result, there was a good
chance that seams issues could be addressed before the other two RTOs start
up. At yesterday's Western Seams Task Force meeting, the California rep had
to make it clear that everything was on hold until the new political (my
words not his) board was educated. In addition, the Governor has hired his
own consultants. It was the California's understanding that the legislation
passed limits the ability of the CA-ISO to agree to any seams solutions
unless endorsed by California State Government. The current situation seems
to guarantee a stalemate and put an enormous drag on all RTO development in
the West. It won't get any better if we wait. It would be better to
challenge now, before this new board starts making decisions based on
political expediency.
Susan J Mara@ENRON
02/05/2001 10:11 AM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Cal ISO Not Filing CM Proposal at FERC - EPMI Response?
We can certainly launch if we like, but I believe that WPTF is planning to do
it as well. We can let them (I's try to force them to use Bracewell, but
can't guarantee I'd win) or do our own and have them join with us. Either
way, you know me, let's go for it!!
Richard Shapiro
02/05/2001 06:47 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Cal ISO Not Filing CM Proposal at FERC - EPMI Response?
I say we launch on ISO governance soon, preferably through EPSA, but alone if
necessary. We need to force FERC's hand with a well-thought out pleading on
why they have to enforce order on independent governance and why a
politicized CAL ISO is a recipe for disaster. Are we waiting on anything I'm
not aware of?
From: James D Steffes on 02/01/2001 04:59 PM
To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Steve
Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Cal ISO Not Filing CM Proposal at FERC - EPMI Response?
Mary informs me that the Cal ISO has filed (1-30-01) with FERC that it will
not be filing a new Congestion Management proposal at FERC as required in
previous Orders.
She thinks now is an opportune time to challenge the legitimacy of the new
Cal ISO Board (Gov Davis' actions). I also think that we need to put
forward our own solution (if we have one).
I would appreciate everyone's opinion as to the (a) likelihood that FERC
would finally address the matter, (b) end result if FERC does deal with the
issue, (c) and the politics in Sacramento / CPUC of taking this position.
Also, who else is going to weigh in on our proposal?
Jim
=====================================
|
3,830 |
Subject: Case 3
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9265.
=====================================
I like the numbers too.? Anil - I got the same answer you did, but decided
in the write-up to only contemplate the ad campaign change in perpetuity,
consistent with Jeff's write-up.? I substituted Mark's answer to the last
question for Jeff's and added an attachment, hopefully showing the crux of
our number crunching.? Let me know if you think we should attach additional
or different details from the spreadsheets (especially for the third
question).? Otherwise I think we are done with this one.
- cv
?
?
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA? 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Anil Sama [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:40 PM
To: Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco); [email protected]; Mark
Guinney
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Answers
Hi Team,
I ran my own numbers this morning, and verified what you guys have
sent out. I think we can use Mark's or Jeff's write-up as is. Just have
one clarification re: Q2 - my?spreadsheet shows that if we increase ad
expenses for five years only '94-'98 (as opposed to in perpetuity),
then the stock price ends up being 22.73 v/s Mark's 22.20. I do get
22.20 if?I also increase the 6th year ('99) expenses to 27% - perhaps
this was an oversight - can someone pls confirm?
For Q5, merely changing terminal growth to 4%, and WACC to 10%
gets us to an $80 stock price.?But?4% in perpetuity is probably
unrealistic?
Re: the last question, I agree with Mark's analysis - firms that
have huge R&D cycles and patent protection over 17 years etc.
e.g. pharmas would be good candidates for foreacsting over a
longer term horizon.
Rest looks great - you guys are awesome!!
-Anil
? "Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)" <[email protected]> wrote:
got your messages + attachments and mark's - WOW + THANKS!!
also calc'd it all myself
will review + compare + send around comments
-cv
Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA? 94105
phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 8:26 PM
To: Mark Guinney
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Answers
Since it seems like folks may have only been sporadically receiving my
emails, please let me know if you receive the memos and accompanying
spreadsheets that I just sent.? Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.? If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Do You Yahoo!?
- Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - only
$35 a year!
- case 3 jeffs write up.doc
=====================================
|
3,831 |
Subject: Cambira
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/645.
=====================================
Hi Jeff,
I want to thank you for the time you spent with us on the phone today. I
believe you understand the essence of what we are developing at Cambira and
I would like to give you some further explanation.
Cambira develops and markets intelligent optical application networking
solutions that enable Global 2000 enterprises and service providers to
rapidly deploy new integrated application services at the speed of light.
Our optical application networking solutions are targeted to provide
collaboration between disparate enterprise and IT applications or
business-to-business transactions. It consists of EcoNet Enterprise Edition
and Optical Application Router (OAR) that connects disparate enterprise
applications and IT systems or net-markets using any of the broadband access
and optical technologies.
As application-to-application collaboration increases, new solutions will be
required to support and accelerate integrated application service delivery.
Our products are designed to integrate existing enterprise applications and
network technology to protect existing investments in fiber and IT and
provide a migration path to next generation collaborative application
networks.
The Internet has undoubtedly changed the way businesses operate and has for
the most part enhanced global interaction. However, in order to truly
leverage real-time, knowledge-based transactions business must be able to
integrate their static, internal processes with external components to
optimize their overall value. This is the space Cambira's solutions address.
As our Vision Statement reflects, our solutions are designed to give
companies the dynamics to develop competitive intelligence and leverage
their core competencies to succeed in the New Economy.
Vision Statement:
In the Internet economy, smart companies are relinquishing ownership of
most of their value-chain activities, commonly known as virtual enterprises.
They are relying on real-time information, customer knowledge and leveraging
Internet based partnerships to conduct business. The value of success is
established through "advantaged relationships" with trading partners,
knowing and fulfilling customer needs, anticipating future requirements, and
knowledge to create new products and services based on customer needs.
Customers require "Build to Order, Partner to Fit" based solutions that are
tailored to their requirements. This model relies on real-time knowledge
exchange within the virtual enterprise based on a network of alliances and
partnerships. Cambira solutions enable the creation of the network between
customer, vendor, virtual supply chain partners, and complementary solution
providers that will be known as the Virtual Trading Partner Network (V-TPN).
I hope this gives you a better idea as to why Cambira was created and what
our mission is and I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to give you
a more detailed presentation. Attached are a few slides to give you a more
visual depiction of our aims. Again, we appreciate your time and I look
forward to future collaboration with you.
Best regards,
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________
John Protzel
Cambira Corporation
[email protected]
Cell: 916-765-4582
- Cambira Presentation.ppt
=====================================
|
3,832 |
Subject: "GOP officials in town for cash"
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12010.
=====================================
GOP officials in town for cash
Thursday, May 3, 2001
By Harrison Sheppard
Staff Writer
Republican governors from throughout the country descended on Los Angeles on
Wednesday to raise funds and take a few shots at Gov. Gray Davis' handling of
the power crisis.
While Davis already has a $25 million war chest for his re-election campaign
next year, members of the Republican Governors Association said the energy
crisis will make him vulnerable.
"This is very severe and significant and impacts every person in the state,"
said Gov. John Rowland of Connecticut, the group's vice chairman. "That's a
governor's worst nightmare."
The governors said they will not get involved in picking or supporting a GOP
gubernatorial candidate before the 2002 state primary, and will unite behind
the Republican chosen by state voters.
They also argued that it is up to California to work out its power problems,
rather than seeking a bailout from President George W. Bush.
"A federal government that can give you all that you want is capable of
taking everything you have," said Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer, who specializes
in energy issues for the Western Governors Association.
Gov. Jane Dee Hull of Arizona added: "California has not come forward to
solve their own problems, and the federal government can only do so much."
Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said the state wants the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to impose price caps but that FERC has taken only "baby
steps" in that direction. The Bush administration opposes price caps, saying
they provide no inducement for increasing the electricity generating capacity
in the state.
"They need to step up to the plate," Maviglio said. "What happens in
California has a ripple effect throughout the country in terms of our
economy."
Davis issued a statement noting that the energy crisis also affects the
states of some of the Republican governors at the conference.
"My fellow governors should look before they leap," Davis said. "Eighty-five
percent of the increased demand on the Western grid comes from states outside
of California.
"In California, I have approved 13 major power plants and signed into law
$800 million worth of incentives for electricity conservation. The Western
states would be well served if they worked as hard as California is in
building power plants and conserving energy."
Rowland, the GOP governors' vice chairman, said the group expected to raise
between $200,000 to $300,000 during the Los Angeles trip. Today, the group
will head to San Jose.
Secretary of State Bill Jones, a gubernatorial candidate and the only
Republican to hold statewide office, attended the convention to schmooze with
a group he hopes to join someday. He criticized Davis' attempt to acquire the
state's power transmission grid.
`'It doesn't provide to us additional energy. It consumes our resources and
it puts us in the energy business, which I oppose," Jones said in an
interview.
Maviglio, however, said state acquisition of the grid has several benefits,
including keeping Southern California Edison out of bankruptcy in exchange
for a valuable asset, and giving the state the power to unclog transmission
bottlenecks that delay the movement of electricity from Southern to Northern
California.
=====================================
|
3,833 |
Subject: Giga on Fortune on marketplaces
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__e_commerce/9.
=====================================
Some high profile CEOs question the value of e-marketplaces in the latest
issue of Fortune. Herein, Giga Research (somewhat) agrees with the
sentiment. Bottom line = the hype is over, and now we need to be rigorous in
measuring the market opportunity here, if we intend to commit engineering,
marketing, and sales resources...
Does this confirm the company sponsored exchange belief? (I'm making the
distincction here between company, industry, and neutral)
Aiaz
Read the full article
"The Odd Couple," Fortune, May 1, 2000
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/2000/05/01/wel.html
Relevant piece follows...
Question
Are all CEOs convinced of the value of e-marketplaces?
Answer
In a wide-ranging interview on Internet issues in Fortune, General Electric
CEO Jack Welch and Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy both voiced doubts
about the value of e-marketplaces. According to the interview, their primary
concern is allowing another entity to enter the value chain between them and
their customers and suppliers. McNealy is quoted as saying, "the question
is, do companies want to outsource purchasing and control over their own
supply-and-demand curves, and thereby put another layer between themselves
and their customers?" When asked why the automotive and aerospace industries
are creating purchasing exchanges for the key parts and components for their
businesses, Welch answered, "some of us older companies think this Internet
stuff is more difficult than it really is." He went on to say that it "makes
no sense" to hand the responsibility for creating business-to-business
platforms and services to another organization.
Giga Position
These are not the ramblings of out-of-touch, "stuck in the mud" executives.
McNealy is a highly visible Internet CEO and evangelist who has been
preaching the value that the Internet can bring to businesses for years, and
we have previously identified Welch as a CEO who "gets it" due to his
efforts to jump-start GE's internal usage of Internet technology (see
IdeaByte, B2B E-Business Strategy Requires CEO Support, Ken Vollmer). As
these two executives have a solid track record when it comes to Internet
issues, we believe their comments may cause some companies to question their
B2B strategies if they focus solely on Net marketplace options.
We do believe that there are good business reasons for organizations to use
e-marketplaces (see Planning Assumption, E-Markets: A Natural Evolution of
E-Procurement, Erica Rugullies). However, these efforts should not be
pursued to the exclusion of other B2B integration options that do not
involve a third party. In particular, business process integration (BPI)
projects may have a higher potential for improving business operations,
internal productivity and customer satisfaction (see IdeaByte, B2B
E-Business Strategy Options: A Road Less Traveled, Ken Vollmer, and Planning
Assumption, Business Process Integration: A Key Component of B2B E-Business
Strategy, Ken Vollmer).
Recommendations
Organizations must not assume that an e-marketplace joint venture will
necessarily be the best (or only) way to implement Internet-based technology
improvements in their organizations. Clients should consider the pros and
cons of both e-marketplaces and BPI when developing their e-business
strategy.
_____
=====================================
|
3,834 |
Subject: Re: WIO Bylaws - Feedback Requested
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/209.
=====================================
Marcie,
In my view, the Planning issue is more of a matter for an RTO tariff than
for the WIO agreement. When we created the RTGs (WRTA, SWRTA, NRTA) we put
that kind of language into the agreement because there were no open access
tariffs. We no have Order No. 888 OATTs except for a few parties, so I am
not sure that we need to retain the transmission access language in WIO. The
specific language could create a conflict because the RTO tariff may have
different provisions which don 't match based on a division of responsiblity
for lines between those on congested paths and lines within local areas.
On ADR, I have heard all the old arguments an believe the WRTA/NRTA approach
is better. They both lead to quick resolution and have been show in NRTA's
case to have resolved real disputes relatively quickly. The approach
advocated by SWRTA tries to avoid using FERC as the final decision maker in
matters of transmission access. The SWRTA process takes months before you
can complain and then you get a mandatory outcome, even if the arbitrator
fails to understand FERC requirements. This could put you between a rock and
a hard place, if there is a conflict. We should resist the SWRTA approach,
and vote for a short mediation, followed by either party being able to go to
arbitration, the "last best offer first" style of arbitration and an
appealable arbitration decision to the FERC.
Steve
From: Marcie Milner@ENRON on 09/05/2000 03:20 PM
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard
Ingersoll/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES,
[email protected], Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: WIO Bylaws - Feedback Requested
Following are two issues that are currently being debated to which I am
requesting feedback in order to submit an Enron position prior to the
Steering Committee being held this week.
Planning: Parties are lobbying language to disclose all planning projects
permitting anyone to join provided the interested party pays the incremental
cost i.e. TO #1 wants to build a 2000 MW Kv line and maintain rights to all
2000 MW, TO #2 wants to increase the lines capability by 400 MW and retain
rights to all 400 MW. In this scenario, TO #2 would have to pay all costs
associated with upgrading the line. The argument is that in an RTO world
this scenario is irrelevant, however, I see this as a potential seams issue.
ADR: Parties are lobbying to change language from mandatory binding
arbitration with limited appeal to FERC TO mandatory binding arbitration only
if both parties agree with the ability to bypass and go directly to FERC.
(All entities with the exception of SWRTA currently enforce the former.
SWRTA additionally has a provision that calls for a pre-arbitration peer
review.)
FYI: Class definitions are such that WAPA qualifies for membership in only
one class and the regions do not fit the affiliate definition. Therefore, if
each region wants to join and have one vote per region in said class, they
must each pay $5000 and the larger entity must pay the net energy to load
ratio of total load with the larger region collecting pro rata compensation
from the other regions.
Any comments you have are appreciated.
Marcie
=====================================
|
3,835 |
Subject: RE: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/354.
=====================================
I'm around. Could you forward me the "matrix." (sounds so "classified." I love it.)
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Landwehr, Susan M.
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 11:27 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on October 4th
hi Jeffie. are you in office? I'd like to talk to you about Mr. Tycholiz and gas stuff. I am going to send you a copy of an e mail on gas/west/Tycoliz
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 11:20 AM
To: Landwehr, Susan M.
Cc: Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard
Subject: RE: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on October 4th
Did governor Jessie eliminate the role in Minnesota? I believe that it's the equivalent of a state historian. Thanks for the feedback.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Landwehr, Susan M.
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:21 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc: Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard
Subject: RE: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on October 4th
Jeff--so what is a state librarian? Must be a west coast kind of specialty!!
With regard to Glen Thomas, I believe that he is the newly appointed chair who was previously Governor Tom Ridge's policy guy in the governor's office. I think he is pretty young (early thirties) and that he still has strong ties in that office and should be vocal on markets working and political leadership (the right kind!) being neccesary. Steffes might be able to give you more insight, but if my recollection is right, he wasn't involved in the early PECO fights--I think he came on the scene a little later.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 7:12 PM
To: Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Robertson, Linda; Landwehr, Susan M.; Denne, Karen; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Nord, Sue; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Guerrero, Janel
Subject: Participation in Roundtable on Lessons Learned in California on October 4th
On October 4th, I'll be trying to fill Rob Bradley's rather large shoes at the Cal State University Center for California Studies' 13th annual envisioning California conference, "Our Year of Disconnect: The Politics of Power in California."
I'll be participating in a Roundtable at the plenary session entitled: "Lessons Learned, Unlearned & To Be Learned: A Roundtable on California's Utility Deregulation."
The Roundtable will be moderated by the State Librarian, Kevin Starr. The other roundtable-ists include:
Chuck Cicchetti (Edison plant? Anyone know what he's up to these days?)
Bob Foster--Edison
Nettie Hoge--head of TURN
Glen Thomas--Chair of the Pennsylvania PUC (any info on Chair Thomas is appreciated)
State Senator Debra Bowen
David Freeman--Self-appointed emporer
Dr. Joseph Pratt--History prof., University of Houston (any info on the professor is also appreciated)
Each of us will have two minutes to open and then Dr. Starr will moderate the ensuing mud-slinging.
Attached are some draft talking points that I threw together for your review. All comments, suggestions, guffaws, etc. are welcome and appreciated.
Best,
Jeff
<< File: CSU Rountable draft talking points 0927.doc >>
=====================================
|
3,836 |
Subject: RE: FBI information regarding possible terrorist threat on West
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/2123.
=====================================
Thanks, ain't going near it. How's things going out there on your end--settling down at all?
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:15 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: FBI information regarding possible terrorist threat on West Coast (IMPORTANT)
Stay away from the Golden Gate!
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:27 PM
To: Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Comnes, Alan; Shapiro, Richard
Subject: FW: FBI information regarding possible terrorist threat on West Coast (IMPORTANT)
FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zavala, Cristina On Behalf Of Parquet, David
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:13 PM
To: Alamo, Joseph; barr, anthony; Brodbeck, Kelly; Browner, Victor; Calvert, Gray; Carranza, Octavio; Danielson, Michael; Dasovich, Jeff; Deane, Ryan; Dyer, Laird; Fillinger, Mark; Fukada, Cary; Ha, Vicky; Hrach, April; Kelly, Derek; Kromer, Steve; Ly, Aandy; Mara, Susan; Mcdonald, Michael; Mentan, Ronald; O'Neal, Aida; Parquet, David; Perrino, Dave; Petrochko, Mona L.; Qureishi, Ibrahim; Russell, Dean; Schoen, Mary; Sezgen, Osman; Tully, Mark; Turnipseed, Edith; Wehn, Samuel; Wong, Michael; Yee, Dennis; Zavala, Cristina
Subject: FW: FBI information regarding possible terrorist threat on West Coast (IMPORTANT)
Hello Everyone,
We just received the following e-mail and wanted to make everyone aware of the information.
Please if you have any questions or concerns, contact Cristina Zavala at 415-782-7819.
Thank you,
Cristina Zavala
-----Original Message-----
From: Ewald, Laura
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:51 AM
To: Horton, Stanley; Lowry, Phil; Keller, John R.; Hawkins, Don; Martin, Jerry D.; Rice, Randy; Shafer, John; Pribble, Dan; Nelson, Mike; Craig, Rick; Parquet, David; Hrach, April; Mosier, Denny; Haas, Daniel; Umanoff, Adam; Belden, Tim; Calger, Christopher F.; Hartmann, John
Cc: Kean, Steven J.; Brindle, John; Cromley, David; Norosky, Kyle
Subject: FBI information regarding possible terrorist threat on West Coast
Enron Corp. Business Controls/Corporate Security received the following information via the National Threat Warning system. While we do not wish to unduly alarm employees, the specificity of the information dictated immediate dissemination to our West Coast offices.
Managers - please share this information with your employees as you deem appropriate. If you have any questions/concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Corporate Security at (713) 345-2804.
THE FBI IS IN POSSESSION OF UNCORROBORATED INFORMATION INDICATING THE
POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,
SPECIFICALLY THE WEST COAST. REPORTEDLY, UNSPECIFIED GROUPS ARE
TARGETING SUSPENSION BRIDGES ON THE WEST COAST. SIX INCIDENTS ARE TO
TAKE PLACE DURING RUSH HOUR BEGINNING FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2 AND CONTINUING
THROUGH NOVEMBER 7, 2001.
NO FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ALLEGED ATTACK IS KNOWN AT THIS TIME.
THE FBI IS ATTEMPTING TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF THIS REPORT. RECIPIENTS
WILL BE UPDATED AS EVENTS WARRANT.
RECIPIENTS WHO RECEIVE OR DEVELOP INFORMATION RELATED TO THIS MATTER
SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THEIR LOCAL FBI OFFICE.
We will keep you apprised if we receive any further information.
Thank you.
=====================================
|
3,837 |
Subject: NEWS: California Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3687.
=====================================
* from Robert Neustaeder in Govt Affairs
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES on 05/03/2001
10:08 AM ---------------------------
Robert Neustaedter@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
04/30/2001 06:02 PM
To: Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: California Update
Jennifer,
Just a bit of an update with regard to California regulatory and legislative
issues brought up in the Govt. Affair conference call.
Edison transmission sale - Serious problems being encountered with
legislation dealing with government purchase of SCE transmission assets.
Both democrats and republicans are having problems with the Governor's
proposal.
Hearings are being held this week on the windfall profit tax bill (SB1X). Of
note, Intergen is expected to testify that if the bill is passed it will not
go forward with plans to build a power plant within the state.
.? Divided FERC Approves Price Mitigation for Spot Market in California.
Following more than a nine-hour delay for the Commission meeting this week,
the divided FERC voted out a controversial market monitoring and mitigation
plan. FERC approved a plan that will establish a single-market clearing price
auction for real-time transactions in the Cal-ISO during times of reserve
deficiencies in the state.
???????? During Stage I, II, and III emergencies, real-time transactions will
be based on a proxy price tied to natural gas prices.
???????? Each generator, through a participating generator agreement, is
required to offer all available power and bid its marginal cost based on the
generator's heat curve, emission rates, gas costs and emission costs plus $2
for O&M.
???????? Gas cost will be the average daily cost of gas for all delivery
points into California.
???????? FERC opened Section 206 investigation to determine whether bulk
power prices in West are just/reasonable, but only applies to prices on
transactions for 24 hours or less during emergencies.
???????? Cal-ISO must submit RTO proposal by June 1. If it fails to do so,
the state will lose its mitigation plan completely
???????? Massey took issue with the offer of price mitigation during
emergencies; further criticized the provision on refunds as too narrow;
believes FERC should concentrate more on prices for gas, considering the
growing use to fuel power generation
???????? The order expires one year from date of issuance.
???????? Enron's read on the order is that price caps won't help the state's
problems; they will neither increase supply nor decrease demand.
?
13.? In a related development, the California State Assembly passed a joint
resolution urging FERC to place a "cost-based rate cap on natural gas coming
into the state over the next 18 months. The resolution goes on to the State
Senate where it is expected to pass, and then formally sent to the federal
regulators.
?
14.? New RTO Accepted by FERC For Western States. FERC issued an order
accepting a new RTO, RTO West, that includes Avista Corporation, Bonneville
Power Administration, Idaho Power Company, Montana Power Company, Nevada
Power Company, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric Company, Puget Sound
Energy and Sierra Pacific Power. RTO West will operate more than 90% of the
high voltage transmission from the Canadian border into southern Nevada.
=====================================
|
3,838 |
Subject: FW: SB 78 -- The Latest from Sacramento - CLECA Report
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/150.
=====================================
Here you go, for what it's worth.
-----Original Message-----
From: Parquet, David
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:33 PM
To: Mara, Susan
Subject: FW: SB 78 -- The Latest from Sacramento - CLECA Report
Here what I promised.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bouse, Earl [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Wallmann, James; Carson, Brad; Dave Parquet (E-mail); Browner,
Victor
Subject: SB 78 -- The Latest from Sacramento - CLECA Report
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: William Booth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:46 AM
To: Delaney Hunter (E-mail); Robert P. Houston (E-mail); D. J. Smith
(E-mail)
Cc: Barbara R. Barkovich (E-mail); Bill Brown (E-mail); Brad Wilkins
(E-mail); Brett Guge (E-mail); Byron McMichael (E-mail); Dan Moreno
(E-mail); Dave Salzborn (E-mail); [email protected]; Earl F. Bouse Jr.
(E-mail 2); Frank Sheets (E-mail); Gordon Johnson (E-mail); Jim Ellison
(E-mail); Marc Madden (E-mail); Michael Jasberg (E-mail);
[email protected]; Robert P. Houston (E-mail); Rudy Soliman (E-mail);
Satish Sheth (E-mail); Taylor Miller (E-mail); Tom Lynard (E-mail)
Subject: TURN Amendments re DA
Folks - I have taken a look at the TURN amendments that Delaney sent me
just now, and I have discussed them with Barbara. The TURN approach is
totally unacceptable and we should oppose, in our view. I will also forward
this to the CLECA members for their review. Here are some of things wrong
witih the TURN approach:
* The suspension of DA is retroactive to July 1, 2001.
* All of the language we had in subsection (h) regarding treatment of
continuous DA customers has been removed and replaced with a very limited
exemption for plants on the site of the customer.
* Any customer who was a bundled customer for even a day is responsible for
the full panoply of exit fees.
* The DWR forward exit fee is calculated simply as the difference between
the DWR portfolio cost, say 10 cents, and the cost of contracts in the
market at the time of the determination, say 4.5 cents today. There is no
look at net short. Each DA customer would be assessed the 5.5 cents in my
example, plus DWR historical and Edison undercollection fees. A total of
6.5 to 7 cents in my example. Ts makes DA totally uneconomic. Further, in
assessing the DWR portfolio cost we are to look at the minimum purchase
levels, thereby raising the per kWh cost due to demand costs.
* Finally, the language adds to the CPUC's rules on coming back to bundled
service, including the provision of notice by the customer before it
returns. And it adds language authorizing the CPUC to adopt reg's for DA
after the utility takes over the net short purchase obligations from the
DWR.
This is really bad language in my view. As we discussed yesterday, it makes
DA uneconomic. I think we should oppose it.
I heard from Derek Naten, SVMG's lobbyist, just now. He informs that Rick
Simposn and Lawrence Lingbloom say the Edsion undercollection cut point will
move up to 125 kW. Rick told him that DA is out of the bill entirely.
Lawrence told him that DA will be adressed in a bill under Debra Bowen's
control, and that Debra had a good proposal all along and that the business
guys had screwed it up.
Are we making progress?
Bill
=====================================
|
3,839 |
Subject: RE: PICKS OF THE WEEK - WEEK 1
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/27.
=====================================
Greetings Eldon and Nancy: Here are the picks. Hope you're well. Gloucester's been great. Incredible weather; New England charm; LOTS of lobster; lots of golf. We get back into town around 7 tonite. Talk to you soon.
Best,
Jeff
Cinc-2
Indy-7
Oak-9
Minn-15
GB-11
NO-5
Seattle-12
TB-13
Pitt-4
Balt-14
SL-10
SF-8
SD-3
Tenn-12
Denver-6
-----Original Message-----
From: eldon sellers [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:35 AM
To: Andre Mozes (E-mail); Andy Bledsoe (E-mail); Art Narverud (E-mail);
Barrie Eddy (E-mail 2); Barrie Eddy (E-mail); bdouglas (JAM) (E-mail);
Bill Growney (E-mail); 'Cameron Sellers (E-mail 2)'; Carlton Waters
(E-mail); CaryPlatkin (E-mail) (E-mail); Christopher J. Shea (E-mail 2);
Christopher J. Shea (E-mail); Cristina M. Shea (E-mail 2); Cristina M.
Shea (E-mail); Cynthia D. Nagy (E-mail); Daryl Anderson (E-mail); David
Evans (E-mail); Denis Kenny (E-mail); Donna Usnick (E-mail); Eldon
Sellers (E-mail); 'Eldon Sellers (E-mail) (E-mail)'; Greg Brady
(E-mail); Henry Salvo Jr. (E-mail); Dasovich, Jeff; John and Miriam
Kartozian (E-mail); Ken Webster (E-mail); Kent Deverell (E-mail); Lynne
Kenny (E-mail); Michael Herring (E-mail 2); Michael Lombardi (E-mail);
Mike Herring (E-mail) (E-mail); Nancy Sellers (E-mail); Pat Delong
(E-mail 2); Pat Delong (E-mail); Prentice Sellers (E-mail 2); 'Prentice
Sellers (E-mail)'; Ron Taylor (E-mail); Scott Laughlin (E-mail); Sean
Maloney (E-mail); Steve McCarthy (E-mail); Tobin Ginter (E-mail);
Valerie Deitrick (E-mail)
Subject: PICKS OF THE WEEK - WEEK 1
Welcome back all of you veteran pickers! I'd like to introduce our three
new rookies:
The Deitrick's - Val and Scott - from napa
Andy Bledsoe - from Napa
Kent Deverell - from San Francisco
Good luck to all!!
Steve McCarthy is not in the pool this year (we'll miss his bazaar picks)
and we aren't sure if Carlton is still in. If he is, we'll have a total of
27; if not it'll be 26. We'll send out a completed report of the projected
payouts before the first week of the season starts.
Attached are two Excel files. The first one just has the pick sheet for
week #1
One easy way to submit the weekly picks is to:
1) Click on this sheet and open it in Excel
2) Fill in the information at the top
3) Make your weekly picks by putting numbers in the cell with the line under
it by the team you want to pick. (This will also give you a check figure at
the bottom to be sure you have gotten, at least, the correct total - not
necessarily the WINNING numbers, however!)
4) Save and close the file
5) Use "FORWARD" to get the e-mail back to me at [email protected]
6) If you use "REPLY" the attachment does not get sent
It really makes a huge difference in the amount of time it takes to do the
statistical work if you use this form so we really appreciate getting your
picks this way.
Here is an Excel workbook that contains a tab for every week - so all 17
weeks are here plus a sample. However, all you need to send back is the
sheet for the current week. Just to make it easier, (or in case you've
misplaced the attachment) we'll send out, via e-mail, each upcoming week's
pick sheet in time for you to make your selections. If you have any
questions about Excel please give me a call at (707) 255-4813 or call Nancy
at (707) 251-4870.
Eldon
=====================================
|
3,840 |
Subject: RE: New Admissions Calls
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Diane Dimeff', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4051.
=====================================
Greetings. I had a blast skiing--been way to long. I haven't called
Ashish. I'll pick someone off of your list to call. Hope to see you soon.
Best,
Jeff
[email protected]
04/09/2001 05:51 PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: RE: New Admissions Calls
Hi Jeff-
Howz it going? Long time no see - we need to do a happy hour so that we can
catch up! Hope you had a blast at the Resort at Squaw of couple of weekends
ago. Wasn't it a gorgeous weekend!
So, Meg called and asked me to contact one of the individuals on your list
of names because that person - Ashish Bhargava- had a specific question
around choosing between day and evening programs. Since I had to make a
similar decision, Meg thought I should talk to him.
If you have already called him, don't worry about it. If not, go ahead and
we can trade someone from my list, and I will call Ashish. Just let me know
who you pick on my list!
Take care,
Deepika
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Tambornino [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 4:15 PM
To: Ken Bruce; Deepika; Lesley Keffer; Michael Plumb;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Diane Dimeff
Subject: New Admissions Calls
Comrades:
Attached you will find the call assignments for the
new admits. We all have five or six people to call in
the next 7-10 days. I made a couple of matches where
it seemed there was some kind of similarity in
background or career, but for the most part, the
assignments were essentially random. The list
includes names, phones at home and work, company and
title.
Remember these are newly admitted students who have
not yet accepted our offer of admission. The deadline
to accept this offer is April 27th.
A general outline of the phone call, should you choose
to use it, would be:
1) Congratulations on being admitted to the Haas
School
2) indentify yourself as "involved with the student
government at the Haas School, and the evening office
asked me to give you a call to see if you had any
questions about the program. Then answer the
questions, if you can, or refer them to me or Ken for
further follow-up
3)describe your own experience at school and how it
has worked with your career--timing, advancement,
scheduling, tuition payments, etc.
4)invite them to attend a class so we can show them
around. EMBA office will coordinate.
5)remind them of the "New Students Admit Reception" on
April 19th from 7-9 in the Wells Fargo Room (drinks
and hors d'oeuvres served). (Refer to Diane's recent
email for other particulars.
Some pieces of information you might want to have
handy
-required new student orientation is August 11-12;
classes start on the 13th
-fees will be $1580 per unit; 42 units required,
including the two units for MPAR
-orientation packages will be sent out mid-June
-administration will call each new student in July
with class schedules
-second round of admits come out in early June
Thanks very much for helping. Let me know if there is
anything else you may need or could suggest to help in
this effort.
Joseph Tambornino
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
=====================================
|
3,841 |
Subject: Re: WGA Weekly Schedules for 9/11-9/15/2000
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['=20', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/448.
=====================================
that's alright. I forgot about Sandi's vacation. Go ahead.
Jeff Dasovich
09/14/2000 03:27 PM
To: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
cc: =20
Subject: Re: WGA Weekly Schedules for 9/11-9/15/2000 =20
can you talk to sandi? she's on vacation beginning on monday. the idea wa=
s=20
that she and i should get together before she left (based on the call we ha=
d=20
where Rick and Paul put the ball in my and sandi's court to coordinate the=
=20
strategy). she suggested that it would also be a good idea to grab whoever=
=20
was here tomorrow, too. it's really just a prelim meeting to discuss the=
=20
note that sandi sent around and for me to bounce a few ideas off of her. =
=20
we'll be having many, many more, and nothing discussed in tomorrow's "kick=
=20
off" will set anything in stone. that said, if you prefer that we wait,=20
that's ok with me.
Mona L Petrochko
09/14/2000 03:30 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: =20
Subject: WGA Weekly Schedules for 9/11-9/15/2000
ARM is having a full-day off-site tomorrow. If you are going to be having =
a=20
meeting w/ GA folks on strategy development for next year, I would like to =
be=20
able to participate. =20
---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 09/14/2000=
=20
01:26 PM ---------------------------
=09Joseph Alamo
=0909/11/2000 03:40 PM
=09
To: California Government Affairs, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Marcie=20
Milner/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron=20
Subject: WGA Weekly Schedules for 9/11-9/15/2000
Government Affairs
Weekly Schedules
September 11-15, 2000
Paul Kaufman
Mon, 9/11 Travel to Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Tues, 9/12 GA Meetings =01) Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Wed, 9/13 GA Meetings =01) Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Thurs, 9/14 Carson City, Reno NV
Fri, 9/15 Sacramento for Meetings with SMUD/TANC or Portland (TBD)
Sue Mara
Mon, 9/11 Travel to Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Tues, 9/12 GA Meetings =01) Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Wed, 9/13 GA Meetings =01) Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Thurs, 9/14 San Francisco Office
Fri, 9/15 San Francisco Office; ARM Meeting (9:00 - 11:00 AM)
Mona Petrochko
Mon, 9/11 San Francisco Office =01) am; Travel to DC, pm
Tues, 9/12 GA Meetings =01) DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Wed, 9/13 GA Meetings =01) DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Thurs, 9/14 San Francisco Office =01) am; Travel to DC, pm
Fri, 9/15 ARM Meeting (offsite) (9:00 =01) 11:00 AM)
Jeff Dasovich
Mon, 9/11 San Diego for Congressional Hearing w/S. Kean
Tues, 9/12 San Diego - Appearing at FERC Hearing
Wed, 9/13 San Francisco Office
Thurs, 9/14 San Francisco Office - Meeting with LECG re: Study on Competiti=
on=20
vs. Command and Control
Fri, 9/15 San Francisco Office
Sandi McCubbin
Mon, 9/11 San Francisco Office
Tues, 9/12 Travel to Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Wed, 9/13 GA Meetings =01) DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Thurs, 9/14 San Francisco Office
Fri, 9/15 San Francisco Office
Marcie Milner
Mon, 9/11 Phoenix Office
Tues, 9/12 Travel to Washington DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Wed, 9/13 GA Meetings =01) DC/Ritz Carlton Tyson=01,s Corner
Thurs, 9/14=20
day Travel to Phoenix Office
Fri, 9/15 Phoenix Office
=====================================
|
3,842 |
Subject: FW: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Eric', 'Dasovich', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Jeff; Letke']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/1183.
=====================================
FYI. Appears now that the option some customers have to put facilities to us is viewed as a negative.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Blachman, Jeremy
Sent: Wed 10/17/2001 6:01 AM
To: Schwarz, Angela; Adams, Gregory; Frazier, Lamar; Hughes, Evan; Mann, Michael; Muench, Gayle W.
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; Letke, Eric
Subject: Re: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01
Please take careful note of the attached, regardless of this, I want all contracts get rid of any "put" obligations to incorporate new facilities !!
Lamar/Kevin, who is now on point commercially for the PacBell (SBC) contract ?
Jeff, I prusume yoo meant 9/20/01 in your 7th bullet point below, not 10/20/01 ?
Jeremy
From: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/16/2001 04:55 PM
To: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palmer/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01
??????? In response to the Commission's suspension of DA, numerous market participants--including Enron--filed "Petitions for Rehearing."
??????? The California PUC has issued a decision denying the petitions.
??????? Many of those participants are likely to file for appellate court review of the Commission's denial.
??????? In its decision denying the Petitions, the Commission did however modify its initial decision in several respects.
??????? Key among those is a modification regarding facility adds.
??????? Those comments refer to the ability to continue to submit DASRs for new facilities under contracts signed prior to September 20th that provide for facility adds.
??????? The Commission agreed and has ordered the utilities to accept DASRs for facility adds under contract terms executed prior to 10.20.01. The precise language is cited below.
??????? If you would like a copy of the decision, please contact Joseph Alamo.
Best,
Jeff
"We reaffirm that for the time being, and unless the Commission states otherwise in a subsequent decision, utilities are required to process DASRs relating to contracts or agreements that were executed on or before September 20th, 2001, including DASRs for service to new facilities or accounts if the underlying contract pursuant to which those DASRs are submitted allowed for the provision of that additional service. Thus, for example, with respect to the specific ESP contract described by UC/CSU in their rehearing application, the utilities are required to accept, even after September 20, 2001, any DASRs they receive that legitimatley relate to that contract...[W]e want to make it clear that...utilities cannot set a deadline after which they could refuse to process DASRs relating to contracts executed on or before September 20, 2001." pp 20-21
=====================================
|
3,843 |
Subject: good news on energy efficiency
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12652.
=====================================
Because so many on this list have supported California's energy
efficiency investments, I wanted you all to see this important update
(and to note my personal appreciation to PG&E for pursuing this issue
with skill and diligence at an extraordinarily difficult time):
CONTACT: Peter Miller or Craig Noble at (415) 777-0220
Energy Efficiency Funding Protected in PG&E Bankruptcy Case
Public Purpose Programs Essential to Help Keep the Lights on, Says NRDC
SAN FRANCISCO (May 16, 2001) - A judge in San Francisco federal court
today ruled that approximately $260 million that had been tied up in the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) bankruptcy proceedings will be
released to fund California energy efficiency programs. These funds come
from a small surcharge on utility customers' monthly bills and provide
desperately needed electricity savings that will help protect the
reliability of the state's overstressed power grid, said NRDC (Natural
Resources Defense Council).
"This is a victory for California consumers and the environment," said
Peter Miller, NRDC senior scientist. "NRDC worked very hard to ensure
that the state would make these important energy efficiency investments
in the first place."
In a ruling from the bench this morning, Judge Dennis Montali of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court in San Francisco ruled in favor of a motion by
PG&E for authority to honor its obligations for public purpose programs.
NRDC, Environmental Defense and Utility Consumers' Action Network filed
a memo with the court in support of the utility's argument that it is
merely a conduit for the public purpose funds and that the funds should
be off limits to the utility's creditors. "PG&E is to be commended for
strenuous efforts here in a very good cause," said Ralph Cavanagh, NRDC
energy program director.
California has aggressively promoted energy efficiency in buildings and
equipment since the 1970s, reducing total peak electricity needs by
about one-fifth or 10,000 megawatts (MW). Approximately half of those
reductions have come from public purpose programs funded by a small
surcharge on bills paid by customers of PG&E, Southern California
Edison, and San Diego Gas & Light. Since 1998 alone, these programs have
delivered about 500 MW of electricity savings.
"At a time when the difference between an intact grid and rolling
blackouts is sometimes measured in the tens of megawatts, energy
efficiency clearly represents the fastest, cheapest and cleanest
solution to California's electricity dilemma," said Miller.
The public purpose programs provide financial incentives to businesses
and consumers to design more energy efficient buildings and to buy
energy efficient equipment, such as refrigerators, air conditioners,
light bulbs and clothes washers. They also provide funding for
investments in renewable energy, low-income energy services, and
long-term research and development for clean energy technologies.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit
organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists
dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in
1970, NRDC has more than 400,000 members nationwide, served from offices
in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco. More information
is available through NRDC's Web site at www.nrdc.org.
=====================================
|
3,844 |
Subject: A New Tool for New Times
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/773.
=====================================
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Brave New Idea
These are turbulent times. Turbulent in a different way than in
economic cycles of the past - there's more to it this time around.
What's worked in the past won't necessarily work going forward.
And since history tells us that the best time to invest is while
market sentiment is still down, it is crucial now more than ever
to have the right investment guide. So when the market moves, you
won't get left behind.
The Marketocracy m100 Index tracks the knowledge and strategies
of some of the world's best investors. How? By accessing the
track records of over 50,000 investors and constantly choosing
the best stock pickers to listen to. Never before has the
investment performance of so many been so accurately measured.
Want to benefit from their stock-picking abilities?
See For Yourself - m100 Journal Free Trial
We want to give you access to the ultimate investment tool: our
m100 Journal. The m100 Journal provides timely knowledge every
week of what many of the world's best investors are doing right
now - not last quarter, or 6 months ago - including the top buys,
sells, holdings, tips, and commentary of the m100 Index. If you
want to look over the shoulders and benefit from some of the
best, simply hit "reply" to this email, and we will send you 4
free issues of the m100 Journal, delivered to you weekly via an
emailed PDF attachment.
Need more info?
View a sample, the Quarterly Edition, of the m100 Journal:
http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H339
Check out the performance of the m100 members:
http://offer.wd10.com/cgi-bin/mail.dll?H340
But, the only place this offer is being made is via email, so
don't miss out!
We must receive your response by Monday, October 29th in order
to process your request.
Best Regards--
Team Marketocracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
This advertisement has been supplied by a third party and
has been sent to you by TheStreet.com for informational
purposes only. We are not responsible for and have not
independently authenticated in whole or in part the
accuracy of the information provided in the advertisement.
No such information should be relied upon without
consulting the advertiser. This advertisement does not
imply an endorsement by us
If you would prefer not to receive these types of offers
from us in the future, please reply to
[email protected] with REMOVE
in the subject line.
To view our privacy policy, please click here:
http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/about/privacy.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
=====================================
|
3,845 |
Subject: Re: New Mexico -- Franchise help
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2048.
=====================================
Thanks a bunch Leslie.
Leslie Lawner@ENRON
11/29/00 11:35 AM
To: Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
cc: Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald Lassere/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Kenton
Erwin/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron,
Marchris Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephen D Burns/Corp/Enron@Enron, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Tracy Cooper/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Wilson Dietrich/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Xi Xi/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications
Subject: Re: New Mexico -- Franchise help
FYI, Enron has been a member of this group (ACI), either as EES/ENA or
Transwestern Pipeline/Gas Pipeline Group. I think we have NOT paid dues this
year, but if you want to call on them, they may want us to pay up (not a
problem in my opinion). Also be aware that the pipeline group will probably
have Tom Rutherford on retainer this year for our legislative session, and
you may want to retain him as well to keep on the lookout for your issues.
He has represented us in the electric issues in the past too, and is a great
lobbyist. His number is 505 265 7129. I don't have ACI's number at the
ready, but they are in Albuquerque (Tom would have it). Let me know if I can
help you in any way.
Scott Bolton@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
11/29/2000 10:10 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Xi Xi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Tracy
Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Marchris Robinson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@ENRON, Barbara A
Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@ENRON, Stephen D
Burns/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Wilson Dietrich/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Kenton
Erwin/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: New Mexico -- Franchise help
We may want to check in with this group as we begin our PUC certificate
process in NM.
______________________________
NEW MEXICO
Business group supports temporary franchise fee moratorium
The Association of Commerce and Industry of New Mexico has said it supports a
temporary moratorium on telecom franchise fee increases, in-kind services,
and requirements beyond those currently imposed by municipalities and
counties. The association says the Legislature should ensure that fees for
use of rights-of-way, franchises, and other authorizations to place telecom
infrastructure in rights-of-way are cost-based.
The group also urges the Legislature to continue to monitor the Public
Regulation Commission's activities to ensure timely implementation of SB 123
and HB 400, which were signed into law by Gov. Gary Johnson (R.) earlier this
year. The new laws require the PRC to move Qwest Corp. (formerly U S WEST
Communications, Inc.) to an alternate form of regulation. The association
also urges "appropriate funding" for the PRC to accomplish the move.
The association's recommendations were included in a 2001 legislative agenda
released late last week.
=====================================
|
3,846 |
Subject: Clinton Calls for Expedited Investigation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1937.
=====================================
Regulatory Review
Clinton Calls for Expedited Investigation
UTILITY BUSINESS STAFF
09/30/2000
Utility Business
Copyright 2000 by Intertec Publishing Corporation, a PRIMEDIA Company. All
rights reserved.
President Clinton and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson have called on the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to speed up its investigation of
electricity rates.
This summer, the commission launched an investigation to determine whether
power markets are working efficiently and whether there is true competition
among suppliers - which is key to lowering electricity prices in a
deregulated market.
Some industry leaders complain about loopholes in the 1996 ruling which
requires utilities to give everyone open access to their transmission
systems. They say that rules governing the grid allow manipulation by
utilities that own their own lines, and that violators are rarely penalized.
Industry leaders also complain about the accuracy of the available
transmission capacity numbers, and the fact that some transmission providers
also serve as security coordinators. They are responsible for the reliability
of the grid, but can also bump bulk power shipments off the grid to prevent
overloading fees.
Efforts to bring fair play could be tricky, according to Vibeke Laroi of
Reuters news service. That's because despite the growing interstate power
trade, states still have jurisdiction over retail transmission while the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over wholesale
transmission.
"It is also unclear whether FERC can do more under its current mandate, which
is why some say Congress needs to pass legislation to remove any
jurisdictional uncertainties," Laroi says. "FERC hopes to fix problems by
separating transmission from merchant interests through independent regional
grid operators."
If the independent operators organize as a pure transmission company that
operate and own transmission facilities, it could solve the problem.
One Merger Approved, Another Delayed
Merger mania continues-this time in the electric utility industry. Regulators
have approved the merger of two utility companies, but delayed action on
another.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has given the green light for Northern
States Power Co. to merge with New Century Energies.
The merger, expected to result in more than $1.1 billion in savings over 10
years, will mean about 800 employees will lose their jobs and about 700 other
employees will experience changes in their jobs.
The companies will be known under the new name - Xcel Energy Inc. - and cover
parts of Colorado, Texas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Kansas, Arizona,
Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico and Wyoming.
Meanwhile, utility regulators in Connecticut have delayed their decision on
Consolidated Edison's proposed purchase of Northeast Utilities.
Last October, Con Edison agreed to buy New England's biggest electric utility
for $3.3 billion in cash and stock. Connecticut Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal opposes the acquisition because he doesn't think it would benefit
ratepayers or Northeast employees. The company is awaiting approval in
Connecticut, New York and New Hampshire. Vermont and Maine have approved the
deal, as has the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
=====================================
|
3,847 |
Subject: RE: FW: Top Level Energy Person
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9064.
=====================================
I think that it would be best for the Chancellor's office to make the
contact/request, but if you need us to help, then Steve Kean, Rick Shapiro or
I can make a go of it; but again, I think that it would best for the
Chancellor's office to make the invite.
Best,
Jeff
Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
02/12/2001 02:58 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON@EES
cc: Michele Curtis/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: RE: FW: Top Level Energy Person
Jeff,
Thank you - Kari certainly seems to be an ideal candidate. Who would the
appropriate person be from Enron to initiate contact with Kari regarding the
request? Once initial contact is made, I can follow up with details.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON@EES On Behalf Of Jeff
Dasovich/Na/Enron@EES
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:26 AM
To: Riley, Tom
Cc: Curtis, Michele; McCubbin,Sandra; Mara,Susan; Shapiro,Richard;
Mara,Susan; Kaufman,Paul
Subject: Re: FW: Top Level Energy Person
Hi Tom:
From our contact with the Governor's office, seems that Kari Dohn, formerly
in the Governor's office, and recently appointed Chair of the Electricity
Oversight Board, would be the hands-down best candidate.
Best,
Jeff
Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange 02/12/2001 01:02 PM
To: Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan
J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Michele Curtis/Western Region/The Bentley
Company@Exchange Subject: FW: Top Level Energy Person
If any of you have ideas on this, please respond ASAP. As you may know, I
sit on the CSU Foundation Board of Governors, accountable to Chancellor
Reed. Anything we can do to support the upcoming meeting will go a long way.
Regards, Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: "Patricia Linn" <[email protected]>@ENRON@EES
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:13 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Top Level Energy Person
Importance: High
Greetings Tom, in preparation for our upcoming Board of Governors' meeting,
I would like to ask you for your help in getting a speaker for the evening.
The March 11 (Sunday) Board meeting in Sacramento is focused around CSU
Legislative Day scheduled for Monday, March 12. The Board meeting is
scheduled to begin at 4:00 pm followed by a dinner. We will invite the CSU
Trustees to attend the dinner along with other key CSU leaders; we normally
have about 30-40 individuals attend the dinner.
This year, we would like to invite someone from the Governor's office to
come and talk a little about the energy crises in California. Can you help
us identify someone in Davis' administration that may be interested in
speaking to this distinguished group of individuals?
Again, briefly,
Meeting date/time: Sunday, March 11, 2001 at 4:00 pm; dinner is scheduled
for 6:45pm; in Sacramento.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Patricia Castillo Linn, CFRE
Senior Director, Advancement Programs
and Vice President, CSU Foundation
The California State University
Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore, 6th Floor
Long Beach, California 90802-4210
562/951-4821
562/951-4983 FAX
- winmail.dat << File: winmail.dat >>
=====================================
|
3,848 |
Subject: Agenda for 1-31-01 for 10:30 California Call
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5553.
=====================================
Number: 1-800-998-2462
passcode 4912753
AGENDA
1. SDG&E Rate Surcharge - Enron Actions
2. Sacramento Update
Rate Freeze End Date
Direct Access "Ban"
Consolidation of Legislation?
QF Language?
3. Northwest AG Action - Any news?
4. California AG Action against PG&E at FERC - Issues?
5. PG&E OPTIONAL BINDING MANDATORY CURTAILMENT PLAN
6. Other
MIKE DAY UPDATE FROM LAST NIGHT -
Today the special Wright Assembly committee held an infomational hearing
on bankruptcy procedures. No substantive action. However, at his
evening briefing Assmblyman Wright said that ABX -18 was now stripped
down to just the "arrearage" language and was only 4 pages. It should
be out soon. There is no schedule for a hearing, but the next hearing
will be to vote on a bill. Our proposed language on the end of the
rate freeze is under consideration. Edison has agreed to support our
concept and wants to see a redraft of the language making it explicit
that they can recover past costs in the future. We will provide a draft
to them tomorrow morning.
The Senate appropriations committee met all day to work over the ABX-1
bill and considered amendments and testimony. The bill included
amendments suspending all direct access once the DWR was buying
power. We have a major problem in that Sen Burton, Bowen, and
Assmblyman Keeley all believe that the DWR will get lower prices and
avoid stranded contract costs in the later years of the contract if
customers are locked into the DWR market. The witness from NYMEX
described this approach as making sure the state goes broke as soon as
possible.
We offered our amended language to preserve existing and future direct
access to staff. After the recess the bill had not been amended. I
presented testimony supporting direct access, as did many consumer
groups, UC/CSU, and industrial customers. The compromise from the
chair was to promis that language would be added to grandfather in
existing direct access contracts which could be retain, renegotiated or
renewed. However, the CPUC could suspend the right to enter into new
direct access deals. Sen. Bowen committed to introduce a "clean up"
bill tomorrow which could deal comprehensively with the issue and
perhaps detail the conditions under which customers could choose direct
access in the future. However, as the bills are not "joined" in
legislative parlance, we have no real assurance that the Bowen bill will
be passed or signed. We have a major selling job to do in conjunction
with the other ESPs, and customer groups in order to try to get this
fixed. NEV tried to introduce amendments which would impose very
specific conditions on new direct access, preferring to spell out the
language in the bill rather than risk getting an adverse decision from
the CPUC. We indicated our unwillingness to support significant
restrictions on future industrial direct access, and they did not push
the language too hard, but we now have to have Enron get more involved
in determining ARM's position. Aaron Thomas and Counihan will be
working on this tomorrow in Sacto. For tomorrow, my suggested action
points are as follows: Jim Steffes should brief Sue Mara on his
suggestions for managing direct access under the new structure, and she
should try to contact Aaron and Rick, while Sandi and I will do the same
from here.
=====================================
|
3,849 |
Subject: NEWS: Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12242.
=====================================
* CPUC decides Monday about rate schedule
* See red for interesting figures on bonds and costs
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES on 05/10/2001
08:10 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 05/09/2001 04:33 PM
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
05/09/2001 04:00 PM
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Wed, 09 May
2001 15:50:17 -0500 -----
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
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.
=====================================
|
3,850 |
Subject: Re: California PUC Decision Info/Update
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/7913.
=====================================
will do.
Vicki Sharp@EES
12/21/2000 01:01 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Re: California PUC Decision Info/Update
please change mike smith's email to be mike d smith. Thanks.
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 12/21/2000 12:58 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Eric
Letke/DUB/EES@EES, George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jennifer
Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kevin
McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Smith/ENRON@enronxgate, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott
Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, [email protected], Stuart Staley/LON/ECT@ECT, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: California PUC Decision Info/Update
From the most recent information we have, the most likely outcome appears to
be the following:
As we've discussed this week, the administration and the utilities continue
to have a very difficult time reaching agreement on 1) how much of the
undercollection the IOUs should absorb and how much consumers should absorb
and 2) how big the rate increase should be to manage the IOUs cash
flow/credit problems (governor wants 10%, IOUs want at least 20%).
It remains likely that the Commission will rule today on relaxing regulations
to make it easier for the IOUs to enter into longer-term contracts w/out
getting 2nd and 3rd guessed by the Commission.
It is likely that the Commission will signal strongly that it will not let
the IOUs go bankrupt but will only go so far as to outline its plan for
considering and implementing a "rate stabilization" plan in Q1 2001.
That said, the stakes are very high and things could change dramatically
between now and 2 PM PST. Just talked to two SVPs with PG&E and Edison and
they said that they don't know what the Commission will do at 2.
Jeff
Joseph Alamo
12/21/2000 12:30 PM
To: George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Stuart
Staley/LON/ECT@ECT, Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Wanda
Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES,
Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES, Eric
Letke/DUB/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Michael Smith/ENRON@enronxgate
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: California PUC Decision Info/Update
On behalf of Jeff Dasovich, please note:
the California PUC decision will be available on
the PUC website @ 1:00 PM PST.
The Commission will continue the meeting @ 2:00 PM PST
to address the issue.
Thanks,
Joseph Alamo
Sr. Admin. Asst.
Government Affairs - The Americas
San Francisco CA
=====================================
|
3,851 |
Subject: CA Power Authority Faces Legislative Backlash
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/697.
=====================================
FYI. If I've missed anyone who might be interested, please forward along.
Best,
Jeff
CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS
Friday, October 19, 2001
[1] Power Authority Faces Legislative Backlash
After a three-month honeymoon, the new California Power Authority
is being shredded in the winds of politics this week with the Legislature
looking into its deals, the California Energy Commission annoyed with its
monopolizing ventures and the Department of Water Resources rebuffing
its plan to sell its power through state contracts. Other than skepticism
from legislative staff about its microturbine bid plan, the Power Authority
escaped major problems in its requests for bids for photovoltaics and
fuel cells at [18].
[18] Assembly to Investigate Power Authority
(from [1])
Is the California Power Authority a dangerously
out-of-control state agency, or is it the best hope for get-ting
back some state control over electricity supplies?
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee is looking into the
Power Authority's role thus far in carrying out the letter
and spirit of SBx2-6 in a hearing set for November 1.
The move is spearheaded by the offices of Assem-blymember
Fred Keeley (D-Boulder Creek), the chair
of the joint committee, and Assembly speaker Bob
Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys). Both members were princi-pal
authors of the Power Authority's enabling legisla-tion,
SBx2-6. Legislative staff are questioning the
Energy Foundation's unpaid role in devel-oping
the Power Authority's requests for bids, particularly
the RFB for microtur-bines. Only one com-pany,
Capstone, can meet the requirement written into the RBF by the Energy
Foundation, and staff are looking into potential overlaps
between Capstone and the Energy Foundation.
Political maneuvers are swirling around the Con-sumer
Power and Conservation Financing Authority.
Not only elected officials are concerned; the staff and
heads of other agencies the Power Authority must
work with are digging in their collective heels to op-pose
Power Authority overtures. Tom Hannigan, di-rector
of the Department of Water Resources rebuffed
Power Authority board chair David Freeman's pro-posal
to have it buy peaker output. California Energy
Commission members said they are at policy odds
with the Power Authority's siting plans.
In an October 4 letter to Freeman, Hannigan said
that the Power Authority's power-wind and fossil
peakers-is likely too expensive, overblown and not
able to respond quickly enough to balancing power
needs. "The letters of intent already approved by the
Power Authority could far exceed [DWR's] ability to ab-sorb
that power given the outlook for net-short need."
Freeman assumes that the market for Power Authority
power will be via contract, not the spot market. "Selling
on the spot market is difficult to finance and risky," said
Power Authority spokesperson Amber Pasricha.
The Power Authority is the only agency cur-rently
in the position of actually being able to acquire
new energy as the state's $12.5 billion bond issue to
underwrite continued DWR power purchases is in
limbo and the California Independent System Operator
is still not creditworthy. Still, the Power Authority
cannot issue bonds until it has its own economic
house in order, and an Assembly investigation might
jeopardize that [J.A. Savage].
[
=====================================
|
3,852 |
Subject: Re: California Regulatory Strategy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2977.
=====================================
The inequities that I am referring to are:
SDG&E is charging a CTC charge to recover $115 million in CTCs for 2001 and
$115 million for 2002; wheras, their expectation is that there will be no
stranded costs in those years for SONGS and QF/PPs. SDG&E plans to use these
overcollections to offset the undercollections from their cap for the subset
of small customers.
SDG&E has filed at FERC to apply RMR overcollections recovered from all
customers to the undercollections from their cap for the subset of small
customers.
SDG&E is applying the stranded benefits from SONGS and QF/PPs for which all
customers have paid for the stranded costs in the past to the
undercollections from their cap for the subset of small customers.
This is not necessarily a DA versus SO customers, since small DA and SO
customers are treated the same. It is more of a subsidy issue between large
and small customers. However, since most DA customers are large customers,
it becomes a DA and SO issue.
I don't believe SDG&E is hiding this fact, because they filed an application
at the CPUC on October 24, 2000, illuminating this issue.
We also need to keep our eyes open to spot any other transfer of
overcollections that should rightfully be used to reduce rates for all
customers. What is motivating SDG&E is their perceived shareholder risks
with respect to the undercollections caused by the cap. They want to reduce
their exposure.
We need to be sensitive to our TURN friends, but we want to illuminate the
shortcomings of this type of transition mechanism to prevent legislators and
regulators from switching to this mechanism in the shortrun.
Roger
Mona L Petrochko@ENRON
11/01/2000 03:29 PM
To: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis
Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: California Regulatory Strategy
The inequities that you are referring to in #4 is that the cap be applied
both to bundled service and d/a customers, right?
Roger Yang@EES
11/01/2000 04:44 PM
To: Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: California Regulatory Strategy
The purpose of this e-mail is to discuss the regulatory strategy in
California. As we have discussed, I believe the regulatory strategy can be
summarized as follows:
Support the TURN proposal in order to maintain leverage against PG&E and
SCE. We will have to do this strategically to avoid negative consequences.
Provide comments on mitigation measures at the CPUC's disposal to mitigate
PG&E's and SCE's undercollections on December 31, 2001 in order to make the
CPUC comfortable with their decisions.
Work with PG&E and SCE on developing a post-freeze solution at the
legislature to recover undercollections over a 5 year period in order to
facilitate an acceptable solution.
Expose the inequities of the rate caps implemented in SDG&E's service
territory for small customers in order to avoid a similar transition
mechanism in PG&E's and SCE's service territories that might facilitate an
end to the rate freeze for all customers prior to December 31, 2001.
Watch and prevent adverse changes to how the PX credit is calculated.
Roger
=====================================
|
3,853 |
Subject: RE: Conference Call Advisory for SUNDAY, September 9th
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/26.
=====================================
I'm starting to get concerned about this. A) I didn't pick the time. B) I talked to Sue on Friday and she will be out of Church at 10 AM PDT and on the call shortly thereafter. Sue seemed more concerned about having a call at all then on the time. If she expressed a view that the time was set up so that she couldn't be on the call, I'd like to discuss, since that didn't factor in at all.
As you know, having gone through Sandi, I'm extremely sensitive to inter-group relations. If you feel there are issues that we should discuss, I'd really like to do it. I react very strongly to any view that I am intentionally doing anything to get in Sue's---or others---way. From my perspective, I feel strongly that I haven't behaved that way, and don't in any way intend to. I simply have no desire to "compete" with colleagues, Sue in particular. There aren't enough people to do all the work, and there's plenty of tasks, recognition, blame, etc. to go around.
These are extremely challenging times and we won't get anywhere unless it's truly a team effort. I know that the SF office has a history of challenges with respect to California leadership. I have no interest in returning to the very un-teamlike atmosphere that existed previously, particularly since the atmosphere has changed so positively in the past few months. For a variety of reasons, I have been asked to take on alot of tasks over the past year. I've tried very hard to perform well, while at the same time working hard with Paul and Sue to advance a significantly more healthy, inclusive, open and collegial working environment in California and the West.
I care alot of course about your perceptions, and if you have the preception that relations in the office is becoming an issue, I'd like to confront it head on. And if Sue is expressing any concerns about how things are going generally---which she expresses to me from time to time---I'd like to sit down with you and Sue to discuss, if you think that would be useful.
Forgive the lengthy note, but having just gotten through the experience with Sandi, I'm not anxious to repeat, in any shape or form.
Talk to you at noon your time.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Shapiro, Richard
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 10:44 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: FW: Conference Call Advisory for SUNDAY, September 9th
Importance: High
Why did you schedule this so Sue Mara could'nt be on? You snake....
-----Original Message-----
From: Alamo, Joseph
Sent: Fri 9/7/2001 6:56 PM
To: Sanders, Richard B.; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Mara, Susan; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; '[email protected]'; Tracy, Lysa; Dernehl, Ginger; McVicker, Maureen; Noske, Linda J.
Subject: Conference Call Advisory for SUNDAY, September 9th
* Start Date/Time: 09/09/01 SUNDAY 10:00 AM PDT/12:00 PM CDT
HOST INFORMATION:
* Conference Host: JEFF DASOVICH
* HOST CODE: 876420
* Toll Free Dial In Number: (888) 422-7124
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION:
All Participants should use the following information to reach the conference call:
* PARTICIPANT CODE: 998729
* Toll Free Dial In Number: (888) 422-7124
Joseph Alamo
Sr. Administrative Assistant
Global Government Affairs
ph. (415) 782-7841
fax (415) 782-7854
e-mail: [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,854 |
Subject: RE: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/652.
=====================================
You got it. You're right, distribution lists are a challenge. I'll make sure that you and these folks get on the list. Hope all finds you well.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Leff, Dan
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:50 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: Re: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01
Jeff -
Thank you for this info - and for all of the hard work that you and the team are doing everyday.....
I know that the distribution lists are probably pretty hard to keep up with, but please make sure to include Evan Hughes, Murray O'Neill, Brenda Herod on distribution lists for issues on this topic.
I would like to be on the distribution list for all of your California communication - and I think in large part, have been except for the message below.
Thank you!
Dan
From: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/16/2001 04:55 PM
To: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palmer/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01
? In response to the Commission's suspension of DA, numerous market participants--including Enron--filed "Petitions for Rehearing."
? The California PUC has issued a decision denying the petitions.
? Many of those participants are likely to file for appellate court review of the Commission's denial.
? In its decision denying the Petitions, the Commission did however modify its initial decision in several respects.
? Key among those is a modification regarding facility adds.
? Those comments refer to the ability to continue to submit DASRs for new facilities under contracts signed prior to September 20th that provide for facility adds.
? The Commission agreed and has ordered the utilities to accept DASRs for facility adds under contract terms executed prior to 10.20.01. The precise language is cited below.
? If you would like a copy of the decision, please contact Joseph Alamo.
Best,
Jeff
"We reaffirm that for the time being, and unless the Commission states otherwise in a subsequent decision, utilities are required to process DASRs relating to contracts or agreements that were executed on or before September 20th, 2001, including DASRs for service to new facilities or accounts if the underlying contract pursuant to which those DASRs are submitted allowed for the provision of that additional service. Thus, for example, with respect to the specific ESP contract described by UC/CSU in their rehearing application, the utilities are required to accept, even after September 20, 2001, any DASRs they receive that legitimatley relate to that contract...[W]e want to make it clear that...utilities cannot set a deadline after which they could refuse to process DASRs relating to contracts executed on or before September 20, 2001." pp 20-21
=====================================
|
3,855 |
Subject: RE: Colorful Dissent from Two PUC Commissioners Opposed to
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/249.
=====================================
Will do. Ain't got a chance to call him yet, but will do so by COB today. Agree we need to get it nailed down, period.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kaufman, Paul
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 5:10 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Colorful Dissent from Two PUC Commissioners Opposed to Suspending DA
Our rhetoric doesn't hold a candle to this stuff. "third world country mentality?" Wow. By the way, please give me a report back after you talk to Pat. I want to nail this down so I don't get anymore calls about our role in the organization. We'll confirm whatever you get out of him in writing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:34 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Kean, Steven J.; Denne, Karen; '[email protected]'; Scott Govenar (E-mail); '[email protected]'; Robertson, Linda; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul; Kingerski, Harry; Guerrero, Janel; Mara, Susan; Palmer, Mark A. (PR)
Subject: Colorful Dissent from Two PUC Commissioners Opposed to Suspending DA
Commissioners Henry M. Duque and Richard A. Bilas, dissenting:
One could say that this order is consistent with the Administration's present third world country mentality. We are punishing the very consumers and providers who made a commitment to ensuring electric restructuring did work by adding a demand retail component to cure the dysfunctions in the wholesale market.
We are not convinced that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) bond ratings depend on killing direct access. This notion is a scare tactic and a smoke screen. Direct access comprises such a small percentage of overall demand that it cannot reasonably be seen to be a threat to the sale of the bonds. Direct Access should be seen as a benefit to DWR. It would decrease the amount of the utilities net short obligations and relieve DWR from its power purchasing responsibilities sooner.
Something else is going on here. We think that the DWR does not want direct access because if the public is presented with alternatives, it will make DWR's purchasing mistakes abundantly clear. The Commission should be holding hearings to test the assertions being made by DWR, Finance and the Treasurer. Instead, the Commission is making an ill informed, panicked decision to act now and study the repercussions later.
DWR and the bonds should not be threatened by direct access if DWR is making prudent energy purchases. Only if DWR's contracts are too expensive, relative to market, will customers seek shelter in lower direct access prices. Indeed, retaining direct access as a way to send price signals to consumers may be the only way to place pressure on DWR to make more prudent purchases. This is a very important consideration since AB 1X prevents us from engaging in any prudency review of the DWR costs to be passed through to ratepayers in order to repay the bonds. If there is no yardstick, how can anyone measure DWR performance? The answer is, one can't, unless SB 18xx is signed into law.
We think that additional review of these issues, before suspending direct access, would have produced a more sound decision in the long run.
For these reasons we must respectfully dissent.
/s/ HENRY M. DUQUE /s/ RICHARD A. BILAS
Henry M. Duque Richard A. Bilas
Commissioner Commissioner
September 20, 2001
=====================================
|
3,856 |
Subject: State lowers estimate of energy costs (See DA suspension debate)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/1114.
=====================================
State lowers estimate of energy costs
Consumers might see rates decrease
Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau <mailto:[email protected]>
Saturday, October 20, 2001
?2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL: <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/20/MN39027.DTL>
Sacramento -- The state lowered its estimate yesterday of how much it will cost to buy power -- suggesting that lower rates could eventually be the result.
Officials of the Department of Water Resources said the state will need $17. 2 billion to buy power through the end of 2002 -- about 20 percent less than previously estimated.
The agency began buying power on Jan. 17 when the state's three investor- owned utilities were no longer considered credit-worthy. At the time, prices on the spot market reached upwards of $450 a megawatt hour. Now, however, prices average $30 a megawatt hour.
"Circumstances have changed," said Ron Nichols of Navigant Consulting, which is a consultant to the Department of Water Resources. "Conservation has helped, we think the DWR contracts have established reliability in the market. We have broken the back of the spot market."
Earlier this year, the state signed 56 long-term contracts with various generators to purchase power. Those contracts, which were inked when prices were at their peak, have come under increasing fire from lawmakers and the PUC,
and Gov. Gray Davis' administration acknowledged this week it hopes to renegotiate some of the pacts.
But the contracts represent only about a third of the power the state needs every day. The rest comes from the spot market -- purchases made just a few minutes or hours ahead of when they are needed. Prices on the spot market have dropped, in part because the price of natural gas has taken a nose dive.
It is unclear whether consumers will see any benefit from the lower power costs. If the projections hold, the state could either lower rates or scale back plans to issue $12.5 billion in bonds needed to pay for the energy purchases.
At the same time state energy buyers trumpeted lower costs, they blasted the state Public Utilities Commission for a decision that they say could cost residential and small business consumers $8 billion.
Administration officials and state Treasurer Phil Angelides said a PUC decision to delay the suspension of direct access -- the ability of large businesses to bypass utilities and contract directly with generators for power -- will shift higher costs to smaller customers.
The PUC proposed the ban on direct access in June but didn't adopt the policy until Sept. 20. During that period, the amount of energy large consumers contracted for through direct access increased from 2 percent to 13 percent.
"What's happened here is one of the most damaging things that has happened to consumers during the energy crisis," Angelides said yesterday.
He urged the PUC to reverse its decision, setting the date back to July 1.
But Lorretta Lynch, president of the PUC, said the delay was at the request of the administration and the Legislature.
She also objected to Angelides' numbers, saying that the PUC estimates the direct access load at 8 percent. The commission is awaiting a legal opinion about whether it can make its decision retroactive to July 1, and action will be taken at the next PUC meeting, she said.
=====================================
|
3,857 |
Subject: SVMG Considering Borenstein's Pricing Proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4145.
=====================================
-FYI. This is an internal email of the SVMG. Please keep confidential.
I'll be monitoring. Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
******************************************************************************
**************************************
As you know, the SVMG Energy Committee plans to discuss variable pricing,
specifically Severin Borenstein's proposal, at its next meeting on Monday. A
copy of his proposal is attached. As I indicated at last week's meeting, I
believe the SVMG should consider endorsing the proposal, with certain
conditions, for the following reasons:
- It provides the broadest, most transparent incentive to reduce consumption
precisely during hours of shortage, thereby reducing the chances of
involuntary curtailments (blackouts).
- It creates a demand response to high prices, thereby reducing the market
power enjoyed by power sellers. This may be one of the only factors
contributing to a more reasonable, stable wholesale price environment if
there is no federal intervention.
- It offers a financial opportunity for those users who are able to reduce
their demand overall or shift their demand to off-peak periods.
The following is a "strawman" draft of an endorsement by SVMG for discussion
Monday. I would point out that the strawman is silent on the question of
whether customers who choose to opt out of variable pricing must be
interruptible, an issue of concern to some. Also, I hope to have additional
input from Barbara Barkovich before Monday's meeting.
Thanks.
Peter Evans
____________________________
Power prices paid by customers must create the incentive to reduce demand
during specific hours of supply shortage (and high prices). This gives the
greates possibility of getting through this summer without running up a
staggering DWR bill and suffering through frequent blackouts. Getting people
to reduce demand in response to higher prices would also reduce the market
power of sellers. We therefore endorse the proposal to price power use above
historical levels (and rebate for power use reductions below historical
levels) at the real-time energy price.
Our support for this concept includes the following conditions:
1. Historical consumption levels, which would be served under regulated
rates, would be based on last year's use, taking into account the customer's
historical load profile. Adjustments would be made for increases/decreases
in number of employees or number of square feet per electrical meter to
account for changes in business volume. Historical consumption served
under regulated rates could be adjusted by a ratio (say 75% to 95%) to build
in some expectation of conservation.
2. Participation
All customer classes would participate. In the absence of real time load
data (i.e. residential customers), monthly consumption deviations from
historical levels would be priced at the monthly average spot price.
3. Alternatives for Above-Baseline Use
It must be explicitly clear that customers have completely unfettered
ability to procure power for their above-historical power requirements on
their own if they choose to. This could include self-generation, bilateral
forward purchases, or purchasing at the spot price from the DWR.
4. Sunset
This approach should automatically terminate at the end of 2001, requiring
government or regulatory action to extend it.
- RTP proposal 32901.doc
=====================================
|
3,858 |
Subject: Fwd: PG&E Press Release Following Release of CPUC Audit
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8753.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/31/2001 04:22 PM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
01/31/2001 02:38 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: PG&E Press Release Following Release of CPUC Audit
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Wed, 31 Jan
2001 08:44:20 -0600 -----
cc: "Andrea Settanni" <[email protected]>, "Charles Shoneman"
<[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Paul
Fox" <[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: PG&E Press Release Following Release of CPUC Audit
Note: When I checked, the audit report was not yet available on the CPUC web
site.
Wednesday January 31, 12:31 am Eastern Time
Press Release
PG&E Issues Statement Following Release of CPUC Report
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 30, 2001--Pacific Gas and Electric
Company today issued the following statement, in response to the report
released by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC):
``It is premature to comment in detail about the CPUC report issued late
today. We plan to study and evaluate this report thoroughly. As the CPUC is
well aware:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company procured power for its customers in
accordance with all CPUC requirements, despite having to make purchases at
rates substantially higher than those that it could charge to customers. As
the CPUC report confirms, these purchases have resulted in uncollected
amounts of $6.7 billion as of December 31, 2000.
The transfer of approximately $4 billion from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company to PG&E Corporation was consistent with CPUC directives. PG&E
shareholders invested their money to build the utility's power plants, and,
under California law, when those plants were sold under deregulation,
shareholders were entitled to recover their investments.
CPUC rules require sharp lines between the corporation's utility and
non-utility businesses and establish a rigorous framework to ensure that
those lines are observed. Ratepayers are not to subsidize the growth of
PG&E's national business -- and they have not.
The report suggests that the use of affiliate earnings and greater cash
conservation efforts could have made a difference. That is simply not the
case. Even if the $117 million of NEG earnings that the report attributes to
California were used to purchase power and the utility implemented Draconian
cash conservation measures -- including laying off every management employee,
reducing the rank-and-file workforce by an additional one-thousand employees,
breaking contracts and implementing a salary freeze on Union employees -- the
total savings would amount to less than one month's worth of power at current
prices.
``The important objective of all parties -- the utilities, lawmakers and
regulators including the CPUC -- should be to move expeditiously to achieve a
constructive solution to the energy crisis, which is threatening the safety
of Californians and the economic well-being of the state.''
For more information about Pacific Gas and Electric Company, please visit our
web site at http://www.pge.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Contact:
Pacific Gas and Electric
News Department, 415/973-5930
=====================================
|
3,859 |
Subject: Re: PJM doesn't pay EPMI on FTRs
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9047.
=====================================
Tom Hoatson, et al -
What would PJM say in response? What is their current thinking? Also, given
that the FTR process may leave some FTRs "unfunded", this would seem to move
people away from cash flow devices? How would PJM need to change so this
doesn't happen?
Jim
Steve Walton@ECT
02/09/2001 09:30 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Tom Hoatson/NA/Enron@Enron;, Dan Staines/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: PJM doesn't pay EPMI on FTRs
Jim,
The PJM rules give monthly overcollection of congestion charges to those who
pay the access fees (mostly the incumbent utilities) but simply short the FTR
holder if there is an undercollection of congestion charges. In addition all
the auction revenues go to reduce access fees. As a result, an FTR holder is
at risk in any month when they congestion charge collections are smaller than
payments due FTRs. The accounting is done on an hourly basis with any excess
credited at the end of the month. I have attached the PJM FTR manual. The
details of the settlement procedure are covered in Section 5.
This procedure benefits the incumbents, since their transmission cost is
reduced by both auction revenues and monthly excess collections but never at
risk for undercollection. You have a gate that lets in benefits but keeps
out risk. In New York, for all its other flaws, the under/over collection
reconciliation works in both directions. This is fairer, but there could
still be an annual shortfall. Contrary to advertisement, the simultaneous
feasibility test used in the FTR auction does not guarantee the ability to
fund the FTRs issued.
To address this potential annual shortfall, we proposed for the e-trans
tariff, that the auction revenues be held in escrow between auctions. If
over the year, there was a net shortfall, it should be taken from the auction
revenues before the credit is made to reduce the access fees. This means
that the buyers get what they paid for. The payers of the access fees still
get credit for the net gain (auction revenues + monthly collections - FTR
payments), without shorting buyers of FTRs.
Steve
James D Steffes@ENRON
02/09/2001 08:04 AM
To: Tom Hoatson/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: PJM doesn't pay EPMI on FTRs
Isn't the problem that PJM is only obligated to pay for these "negative" FTRs
as much as there is congestion revenues? What section of the PJM Manuals is
involved.
Jim
----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 02/09/2001 08:07 AM -----
Christi L Nicolay@ECT
02/08/2001 04:07 PM
To: Tom Hoatson/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: PJM doesn't pay EPMI on FTRs
EPMI bought some FTRs in PJM. PJM did not pay EPMI appr. $105,000 in Sept
and $194,000 in Oct. PJM told Rebecca Grace at Enron that PJM is revenue
deficient and, therefore, not required to pay.
In Dec., EPMI was negative $177,000 and they charged us $191,000.
Apparently, PJM charged us all the negatives, but did not pay us some of our
positives because of the revenue deficiency issue.
Tom--Do you know what the rules are about this? It seems unfair that we can
be charges all the negatives, but not get our money on the upside. Let me
know and you or I can call Andy Ott about this. (Tom Dutta is the commercial
trader on this for EPMI.)
=====================================
|
3,860 |
Subject: RE: Mendocino
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28009.
=====================================
Thanks Amy for doing all of this leg work. I still vote for Howard Creek
Ranch Inn. It is great and it looks like we can have breakfast on Sunday
morning. The drive to Fort Bragg is beautiful. While Howard's is very
rustic I promise you will love it.
I have a hunch that Walker is coming as well...he's not so great at
checking his e-mail.
Madeleine
-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Gustafson Finch [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 4:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Jeff Walker (E-mail 2)';
'Jeff Walker (E-mail)'; 'Kari Ontko (E-mail)'; 'Lori Hom (E-mail)';
Madeleine Todd; 'Nora McGee (E-mail)'; 'Patrice C Scatena (E-mail)';
[email protected]
Subject: RE: Mendocino
Hi group,
I emailed Lari (who confirmed that we are on the reservation list,
without
credit card numbers or deposit because she knows us ...) that we think
we'll
have five for an all-day ride on Sat. (Pat, me, Cal, Pippa and
Madeleine)
and six for a half day on Sunday (same plus Nora). Jeff may join us.
Lari
is aware the actual number may be slightly more or less, but obviously
if
you decide not to go, the earlier she knows, the easier for her. We
start
at 9:30 a.m. on Sat, and 10:00 a.m. on Sun.
Jeff, we hope you can make it. If anyone else wants to join also,
please
let me know.
Re hotel, right now there is moderate availability in Mendocino/Fort
Bragg
for that weekend in Sept. (nights of 21-22), but most of the hotels up
there
charge a cancellation fee of anywhere from 3% to $20.00, no matter how
early
one cancels. So it probably does not make sense to reserve rooms at
several
places thinking we will decide later.
Please give your vote, which of these would you be interested in (or if
you
have another suggestion, please feel free to offer it -- I'm overwhelmed
with the many other choices and have no personal experience with any to
rely
on):
Cleone Gardens, recommended by Lari, literally across the street from
the
ranch on the north end of Fort Bragg, with a number of rooms in the
$85-$100
range, also some multi-bed rooms for a little more; it looks nice and
comfortable on the website though not really "fancy" (there are links
from
Lari's site, www.horse-vacations.com). Breakfast can be ordered.
Because
of proximity to ranch and town, this is my preference.
Howard Creek Ranch Inn (Madeleine's preference), in Westport, north of
Fort
Bragg. Very quaint renovated farmhouse B&B, Martha Stewart type garden,
private rooms are around $105, and some two-bed rooms are between $105
and
$160 if we don't mind sharing rooms/living room sleepers. The upside
is
the charm and ambience, the downside is the remote location and the
distance
from Fort Bragg (30 minutes fast driving) and that we may therefore miss
breakfast both days. They serve it at 9:00 a.m., and with the minimum
30-minute drive to the ranch, that makes getting to both breakfast and
riding on time unrealistic. And, as we all know, rides may start late,
but
they always end on time, so its important to be prompt to get our full
riding time! I asked if the B&B is willing to do breakfast at another
time
and they said no (they start cooking before 7:00 a.m. even to meet the
9:00
deadline, so I'm not sure how much earlier they could really do it).
(www.howardcreekranch.com)
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Amy
=====================================
|
3,861 |
Subject: Fwd: DJ REPEAT: Class Action Suit Filed Vs Calif Pwr Producers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2024.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:48:45 -0600
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Deanna King" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>,
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: DJ REPEAT: Class Action Suit Filed Vs Calif Pwr Producers
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
DJ REPEAT: Class Action Suit Filed Vs Calif Pwr Producers
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--A class action lawsuit was filed in San Diego late
Monday against energy companies that own and operate power plants in
California, alleging generators unlawfully manipulated the state's power
market, resulting in severe wholesale and retail price spikes in the state
for consumers.
The suit names Reliant Energy Inc. (REI), Duke Energy North America (DUK),
NRG Energy, Southern Energy Company (SO), Dynegy Inc. (DYN), AES Corp. and
Williams Energy as defendants.
The plaintiffs are seeking at least $4 billion in damages for electricity
supply bought through the California Power Exchange last summer.
The "class" - the plaintiffs - are defined as anybody who bought power
through the California Power Exchange last summer, but largely represents the
1.2 million customers of Sempra Energy unit (SRE) San Diego Gas & Electric
Co., according to the complaint.
The complaint alleges the defendants violated antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs allege that the generators named in the suit deliberately
withheld their power supply from the CalPX forward market, scheduled
unplanned power plant outages and congested transmission lines last summer in
an effort to drive up wholesale power prices.
Houston-based Reliant Energy Inc. (REI), operates five power plants in
California. Atlanta-based Southern Company (SO) operates six generation units
in the state; Houston-based Duke Energy (DUK) operates four power plants;
Houston-based Dynegy (DYN) operates eight power plants in California;
Arlington, Va.-based AES operates four, Tulsa, Okla.-based Williams Energy
operates three generation units and Minneapolis-based NRG operates eight
power plants.
In addition, the suit claims the California Independent System Operator,
manager of the state's high voltage transmission system, wrongfully supplied
the Western Systems Coordinating Council, an agency that manages electricity
reliability in the west, with real-time information about power plant outages
and electricity generating and capacity levels that was used by generators to
manipulate the market.
"Through the WSCC Internet web site, wholesale electricity market
participants ... were thereby given access to real-time data as to their
competitors' actions, although access to such data was forbidden by the ISO's
(rules)," the complaint states.
"Starting on or about May 22, 2000, defendants used such real-time data to
exercise market power, by among other things, reducing their (electricity)
output, strategically underbidding supply to the forward markets and
exporting electricity from the state in order to drive up" power prices, the
complaint further states.
The defendants weren't immediately available for comment.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 28-11-00
2358GMT
=====================================
|
3,862 |
Subject: risk premium questions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/267.
=====================================
A couple of people have asked me similar questions that I'm not sure I
wanted to spend a lot of time on tommorow but that others would probably
find interesting.
> In class we talked about how monetary policy had no discretion when
> interest rates are fixed (they essentially have to follow the lead of the
> country you are fixing to). But we also talked about Argentina (or Brazil?,
> I don't have my notes with me) fixing to the dollar, but that interest rates
> were still higher because of the risk factor. Can you explain a bit more
> about how those two coexist?
also.....
> 1. What is the difference between pegging your currency versus having a
> fixed exchange rate? I assumed they were the same and that the only option
> available to countries that pegged/fixed exchange rates was to
> devalue/revalue their currency in specific situations - but NOT have the
> ability to change interest rates since their currency is fixed But time &
> againg, you read (in the FT) about countries (with pegged/fixed systems)
> making a trade-off between changing interest rates (which I understood was
> not allowed) or devalue/revalue their currency. Also, does the presence of
> a currency board versus having a central bank make a difference? This is
> especially confusing in understanding the effects of Argentina peggin to the
> dollar and it's impact......
First pegged exchange rates are the same as fixed exchange rate. A
currency board goes further by promising by law that you will not change
the fixed rate (ie devalue).
In reality, r = r* does not hold perfectly. It is a simplification
which we use to explain why under a fixed exchange rate system monetary
policy is inneffective...that there would be infinite capital flows to
the country with a higher interest rate. I would read through Mankiw p
315 to 318 for a discussion on the risk premium which addresses your
question.
Now, the situations you refer to where a country chooses between
devaluation or raising interest rates occurs because a country is
drawing down its foreign reserves and despite the fat that r = r*, money
is flowing out. You can think of this as the introduction of a risk
premium, theta. So that r = r* + theta. So r must now be raised in
order to preserve the capital flow equilibrium.
Without foreign reserves the central bank cannot honor the fixed
exchange rate. Its choices then are either to raise the interest rates
sharply to preserve the currency or to devalue thereby raising net
exports and making it more expensive for foreigners to sell the domestic
currency (ie pesos) for dollars. In the Mexico example in Mankiw, the
country did not raise rates and was eventually forced to devalue.
Often the idea is that a country should take the step to devalue before
it is in a crisis situation if it is not willing to cause a recession to
keep the exchange rate fixed. This is what the IMF advised the Asian
countries months before the crisis. They did not want to because of
credibility issues and fears that devaluing itself might precipitate a
crisis and raise the risk premium. The problem is that if you wait too
long it becomes a fate accompli.
A currency is advocated by some because it replaces the central bank
with "a cash register" and solves the credibility issue. The main
drawback is that you may have to cause a recession to honor your
exchange rate.
=====================================
|
3,863 |
Subject: Fwd: Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12229.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/09/2001 04:32 PM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
05/09/2001 04:00 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Wed, 09 May
2001 15:50:17 -0500 -----
To: "Justin Long" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: Calif. regulators propose tiered electric rate rise
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.
=====================================
|
3,864 |
Subject: RE-SCHEDULE NOTICE - Western Government Affairs Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11563.
=====================================
Dear All,
As a result of the recent volume of activity in Washington DC, with mediation
proceedings, refund discussions and the need for key members of our team that
need to attend these meetings, it has been decided to re-schedule the meeting
of the Western Government Affairs group to Wednesday, September 12, in
Portland, 10AM-5PM.
For those of you who had planned on attending, I am sorry to cause you this
inconvenience. Hopefully for those of you who wanted to attend, but
couldn't, this will offer you the opportunity to participate on September 12.
Due to the volatility of policy related issues in our region, I would expect
there may be some modifications to our current agenda below. As these
changes occur I will communicate this information to you.
Any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Kind Regards,
Dave
From: Dave Perrino 07/20/2001 09:36 AM
To: Steve Walton/ENRON@enronXgate, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@Enron, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Debra Davidson/ENRON@enronXgate, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve C
Hall/ENRON@enronXgate, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@Enron, Karen
Denne/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Lysa Tracy/ENRON@enronXgate, Debra Davidson/Enron@EnronXGate
Subject: Draft Agenda for - Western Government Affairs Meeting
Below is a draft agenda for our planned meeting on Wednesday August 1 in
Portland Oregon from 10-5. Tim Belden will be joining us from11:30-1PM
(thanks Debra) and the agenda is taking Tim's time into account. We will be
meeting in the Mt. Hood Room, a working lunch will be provided (thanks
Lysa).
If you would like to modify the agenda, please send your edits to me.
10:00 Meeting called to order - Brief Introductions - All
10:10 Overview of Western Government Affairs Priorities (Jim or designee?)
11:00 What are the short-term needs of our Western Commerical Staff? (Alan?
)
11:30 Brief Overview of July 12 Rulings and discussion of the potential
impacts on the West (Ray/Christi/Sarah? and Group)
12:30 RTO/ISO Status Update (in alphabetical order)
CAISO (Sue)
DSTAR (Dave)
RTO West (Steve)
2:00 RTO Strategy discussion "How we move forward and how we should leverage
the recent FERC July 12 rulings" (Group/Jim?)
3:30 Meetings, RTO's and WSCC - Ranking and Coverage coordination (Group)
4:30 Northwest OASIS "Enhancements" - Solicitation of Trader Comments (Dave)
(Note, Alan, can you please ask Diana, Sean and Bill Williams III to see if
they can schedule time to attend?)
While developing this agenda from everyone's input I was thinking that NERC
is beginning to assert more and more influence (good or bad) on the entire
industry. I would like to know if our group feels it would be useful to
invite either Charles Yeung or Andy Rodriquez to our meeting to overview NERC
activities and or Electronic Scheduling?
Also, if Steve Hall has any legal or contract issues he'd like to discuss
during our meeting I'll be happy to add time for that.
Again, as noted above this is a draft and as you can see I have
un-democratically nominated (suggested) folks for leading various
discussions. Any comments or confirmations of commitment to lead an agenda
item would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for everyone's input.
Kind Regards,
Dave
=====================================
|
3,865 |
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: California Electricity
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2184.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 10/09/2000 11:03 AM
-----
[email protected]
10/06/2000 04:15 PM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: California Electricity
Management Agency Approves ...
California Electricity Management Agency Approves Temporary Power Plants
Anne C. Mulkern
?
10/05/2000
KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: The Orange County Register -
California
Copyright (C) 2000 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World
Reporter (TM)
State electricity managers voted Wednesday to pay private companies as much
as $765 million over three years to build and run temporary power plants
aimed at preventing blackouts next summer.
The Independent System Operator, the agency that controls 75 percent of the
state's power grid, said it had no choice but to approve the plants, which
can generate a combined 2,000 megawatts -- enough to power 2 million homes.
Even with those new plants, the estimated demand for electricity next summer
exceeds supplies by about 3,000 megawatts.
Calling the state's deregulated electricity market "a complete train wreck,"
board members said they needed to act immediately.
Under legislation passed last month, smaller plants can be approved in as
little as four months. But applications for those plants have to be submitted
by Oct. 31.
The plants, which can be built by June 2001, are more expensive to run and
pollute more than larger plants. They will only run on days of peak demand.
The cost of building and running the new plants likely will be passed on to
ratepayers, but the details have not been worked out. Board members could not
say how much it would cost each consumer.
Electricity prices surged this summer when demand for power exceeded
supplies. Under deregulation, which began in 1998, the ISO pays whatever it
deems necessary to buy more electricity in an emergency. The agency has spent
more than $100 million this year for such purchases, a cost paid by consumers
in their bills.
Consumer advocates said the vote to approve so-called peaker plants signals a
partial re-regulation of the state's electricity market. Companies building
the plants will be paid a guaranteed return of 16.6 percent for at least
three years. ISO staff will choose them from among 69 companies that
submitted bids.
One consumer advocate, however, said the move could protect the ISO from
spending even more.
"We're recognizing that it's not going to be appropriate to just let the
market function willy-nilly, because it may fail," said Michael Shames,
executive director of Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego. "Given
the extreme we're at, a little more regulation makes it a little more
reasonable."
Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 97
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
3,866 |
Subject: RE: Update: Meeting w/Edison RE: recovery of Negative CTC Claim
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/2151.
=====================================
Does it make sense to have a quick call (15-30 minutes) just to update you on the status of Edison/PG&E talks, what's going on at the PUC, etc.? Let me know. Today looks pretty good for me to try to do it.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Belden, Tim
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:39 AM
To: Richter, Jeff; Swain, Steve
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: FW: Update: Meeting w/Edison RE: recovery of Negative CTC Claim
This looks like we are going to be in a long pissing match with Edison. It would be very helpful to know what our position is with DA customers before Cal Push 1 and Cal Push 2 going forward. I know that this is probably a pain, but it seems like that's information that we need to know. Also, it appears that Edison is under the opinion that we were short a call option to them during the ctc recovery period. Edison gets to keep positive ctc's while they get to recover negative ctc's from esp's.
jeff d., what does edison say to the point that they got to keep positive ctc's and are now attempting to amortize negative ctc's?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:30 PM
To: Swain, Steve; Belden, Tim
Subject: FW: Update: Meeting w/Edison RE: recovery of Negative CTC Claim
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 5:55 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Dietrich, Janet; Blachman, Jeremy; Frazier, Lamar; Leff, Dan; Hughes, Evan; Smith, Alison; Smith, Mike; Williams, Robert C.; Delainey, David W.; Kean, Steven J.; Tribolet, Michael; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul
Subject: Update: Meeting w/Edison RE: recovery of Negative CTC Claim
? We met with Edison yesterday in the attempt to settle our negative CTC claim.
? Edison continues to take a very hard-line, extreme position. This is it in a nutshell:
1. all customers--bundled and DA alike--"contributed to Edison's undercollection" and all customers must pay it down;
2. bundled customers contributed through frozen rates and DA customers contributed through the negative CTC;
3. Edison says it will pay ESPs past due amounts related to the negative CTC, but it intends to then turn around and assess a charge on all customer bills--DA and bundled alike--to recover its undercollection.
4. Edison intends to collect it over approximately 2 years. Edison estimates that the charge to DA customers over this period would be about $25-27/MWH.
5. Under Edison's plan, Enron would likely end up paying Edison, i.e., the present value of the "undercollection" charge would exceed the present value of the lump sum negative CTC payment.
? Obviously, with respect to any settlement with Edison, we're extremely far apart and we're therefore considering other options.
? In the meantime, the California PUC is engaged in DA and PX credit-related activities beginning next week and Edison will try to get the Commission to adopt their proposal.
? We are working with other market participants and gearing up to vigorously oppose Edison's proposal at the PUC.
? We will distribute something on Monday describing our approach and tactics at the PUC for folks to review and comment on.
? We are scheduled to meet with Edison again next Thursday to try to knock some sense into them (the probability of which is low).
If you have any questions, let us know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,867 |
Subject: California Update--08.09.01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/306.
=====================================
THE LEGISLATURE
No material change from the last update.
The Legislature is in recess and the two bills that passed the Senate--SB 78 and SB 18--continue to sit in the Assembly, waiting for the Assembly to return.
A handful of Democratic Assembly legislators and staff have been meeting over the recess to determine whether they can 1) reach agreement on the bill that they've been working on (AB 82) in the Assembly and 2) reach agreement with the Democrats in the Senate.
The key features of SB 78 would:
allow Edison to recover $2.5 of the $3.5 B of payables. The $2.5 B would go to paying the banks and the QFs.
leave Edison to figure out how (e.g., negotiate) to cover the remaining $1B in payables to suppliers (including Enron).
force the largest business customers to pay for 100% of the $2.5 B in payables.
give the State the option to buy Edison's transmission assets at book.
do nothing to ensure Direct Access is maintained.
The key features of AB 82 would:
attempt to keep Direct Access alive, though the bill doesn't go nearly far enough
adopt the onerous features
The key features of SB 18 would:
restructure the way in which the upcoming bond issuance is financed by creating a "dedicated utility rate component" (i.e., a fixed charge) to service the bonds.
de-link payments to suppliers holding DWR contracts from payments to service the bonds to pay back the General Fund.
Allow the PUC to hold a public hearing on DWR's contracts.
A consortium of small and large businesses and business associations sent a strongly worded letter today to Davis and all members of the CA Legislature expressing extreme opposition to both 78 and 82. I have a copy of the letter and will distribute to anyone who would like to see it.
The business consortium strongly supports SB 18 because they fear they will get stuck with the DWR contracts and they are lobbying hard to have them nullified or re-negotiated.
The Treasurer and the Governor oppose the bill because they believe it would constitute contract breach, and the contract provisions require the state to pay the present value of the contract plus LD in the event of a breach.
Calpine, who holds about 50% of the DWR contract volume, is also vocally opposed to SB 18.
THE CALIFORNIA PUC
Since the legislature failed to pass comprehensive legislation addressing CA's crisis, the issues now revert back to the PUC.
In particular, the PUC is slated to rule on August 23rd on whether Direct Access should be suspended.
The Treasurer has said that DA must be suspended in order to remove the risk that DA would create with respect to servicing the bonds.
AB 1X, the law that authorized DWR to buy power, gives the PUC the authority to suspend Direct Access.
Enron is leading a large group of customers and suppliers in an effort to stop the PUC from suspending Direct Access.
The group is writing a letter to Davis, the PUC, the Treasurer, DWR and the Legislature urging them to maintain Direct Access.
The group is also making a submission to the PUC as early as Monday to provide the Commission with alternatives that permit the PUC to keep Direct Access.
The group is also mounting a PR campaign that it wil launch simultaneously the release of the letter and the submission to the PUC.
The goal is to have the PUC adopt one of the group's alternatives instead of suspending DA, or at a minimum, delay any action on Direct Access.
=====================================
|
3,868 |
Subject: grinch
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1789.
=====================================
I just wrote this little satire today. Can you suggest someplace that might
print it? I hope you enjoy it.
My Goshdarn Grinch, or How The Grinch Stole Christmas Yet Again
I woke up today
and what could it be
That caused such wildness
to come over me?
The day of the Grinch
Had arrived in our midst!
For 100 million dollars,
It should be a cinch!
The children awoke
And went to their folks.
=01&Mommy! Daddy! Show me the way!
We=01,ve waited so long! Not another day!=018
Line upon line formed in the town
There was nowhere else in town to be found!
The theatres were packed
With red licorice and blue snacks.
And purple sanudes
Who had come from the moon.
Even those thneeds
Had come from the reeds
To fill the back rows
And demand for the show.
The lights went down
There was hardly a sound
Not a creature was stirring
Not even a thnowd.
The projector clicked and it sputtered!
And everyone shuddered as smoke filled the room.
But it started to tick
and then it went Zoom!
The film was beginning
Finally it was here.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
The movie of the year!
But soon it became disturbingly clear
As everyone covered their offended ears
Hollywood had written
Check after check
To fill reel after reel
Of such hideous content,
Was it really a deal?
This could not be what they meant!
Get the Titanic
To rise from the depths.
For the price tag of that
even Leonardo could act!
Poor Mr. Carrey painted in green
Overacting each line
and waving a sign,
=01&Look! Oh Look! I=01,m so awful and mean!=018
The children turned to each other and wondered,
=01&How much money did he make for this blunder?=018
20 million dollars! They started to laugh!
Who would pay for such horrible crap?
They got on their seats
and yelled to the beach,
=01&Let=01,s make our faces rubber and splutter
Lines made of blubber!=018
=01&Christmas? There=01,s no meaning in that.
What we should do is all go and act!=018
Or direct! All we need=01,s a paycheck!=018
They said as they slapped Ron Howard=01,s back.
So they went to their rooms
And they looked in their mirrors,
And became self-consumed
Anything for effect, that=01,s the aesthetic!
The Holidays passed without even a laugh.
The presents unopened, the trees untrimmed,
The Grinch who stole Christmas
Had struck once again.
The parents all gathered
To discuss this conundrum,
To lift the spell from the town
That commercialism had sundered.
They thought and they thought
They even drank a darn lot
=01&Wait, I=01,ve got it!=018
yelled one tall fop.
=01&They have been wronged
These children of ours!
Let=01,s show them the book!
Dr. Seuss was no crook!=018
It was the Cat in the Hat
Who had spoken like that!
So the town came together
And there was only the sound
Of =01&How The Grinch Stole Christmas=018
And my oh my! How did it resound!
All the children they danced
and they began to chant,
=01&Commercialism isn=01,t Christmas at all
Generosity and love, that=01,s our call!=018
So The Grinch Who Stole Christmas
Was a movie for a time
That caused much irony and pain for our kind
But now it=01,s the book
It=01,s the book that we read
Not some 100 million dollar Hollywood sneeze.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
=====================================
|
3,869 |
Subject: Revised Draft of a Brief on California's Woes for Enron's
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/6096.
=====================================
Attached is Margaret Carsons' revised draft:
WHY CALIFORNIA SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO Enron Corp
CALIFORNIA=01,S ELECTRICITY WOES
The root cause of California=01,s high electricity costs today stem from a=
=20
severe lack of new power plants. Why? Not enough capacity was added since=
=20
1996 due to tough siting problems in this ecology prone state. In fact in=
=20
all the state only 700 MW of new capacity was added since 1996 compared to=
=20
its growth of 11,000 MW since then. The growth ate up all the surplus=20
capacity that existed in 1996. It is a tough dilemma since this state=01,s=
high=20
tech businesses and commercial businesses and homeowners have fast growing=
=20
demand for more and more reliable power.
THE 10 PERCENT CUTS
The CPUC compounded the state=01,s problems when they put their electric=20
deregulation plan in place in 1997-98 by mandating a high 10 percent rate c=
ut=20
to residential and commercial consumers=01*which Enron protested at the tim=
e. =20
The rate cut discouraged alternative power sellers from selling into=20
California because it was a hard price to beat and it blurred consumers=20
understanding of what is actually happening to their cost of power.
BILATERAL CONTRACTS TO THE RESCUE
Further problems arose because of the CPUC=01,s requirement for wholesale b=
uyers=20
and sellers to use the PX (power exchange) auction system=01*instead of=20
bilateral contracting which Enron Government Affairs advocated at the time.=
=20
The PX uses an auction to set a single highest price that clears the market=
=20
in one time period for all power rather than the variety of prices that can=
=20
be agreed to by dozens of counterparties under a free market using bilatera=
l=20
contracting.
Because the CPUC has been shocked by the high prices being reached in the P=
X,=20
it now has been setting tight $150-$250 MW price caps which obviates its ow=
n=20
auction process and discourages sellers of power away from selling power in=
to=20
California. But it also worsens the economics for any potential power plan=
t=20
developers who might be considering building a plant in California. Many U=
S=20
power markets have no price caps at all or caps of $1000 MW (or high enough=
=20
so they are seldom triggered).=20
CALIFORNIA=01,S WOES AREN=01,T EASY TO FIX
What does all this mean? If the state would use bilateral contracting=20
instead of the PX auction to get its supplies so if Duke or Enron or Exelon=
=20
or Dynegy or whoever had contracts with counterparties the prices would be=
=20
variously set, and if more power demand was evident developers would have a=
=20
clear economic basis on which to contract for their new plants. There woul=
d=20
be no need for price caps.
=20
NIMBY ISSUES REMAIN
On the power plant siting problem, this is a tough one. California is a=20
beautiful state and prides itself on its green conscience. Even a few high=
=20
tech companies that need 99.9999 percent reliable power desperately are sti=
ll=20
unwilling to build a small clean gas combined cycle plant inside their own=
=20
fence. So we do not know how California can resolve siting problems as it =
is=20
a quirk of the state that says give me lot more reasonably priced,=20
environmentally clean power but don=01,t build plants here in my state unle=
ss=20
they can meet the state=01,s tough economic and environmental criteria. =20
=====================================
|
3,870 |
Subject: Fwd: DJ Calif Asked For Revisions To Util Audit Language -Source
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8754.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/31/2001 04:24 PM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
01/31/2001 02:33 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: DJ Calif Asked For Revisions To Util Audit Language -Source
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Wed, 31 Jan
2001 08:56:51 -0600 -----
To: "Andrea Settanni" <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Watkiss"
<[email protected]>, "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll"
<[email protected]>
Subject: DJ Calif Asked For Revisions To Util Audit Language -Source
FYI
DJ Calif Asked For Revisions To Util Audit Language -Source
Copyright , 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--California utility regulators sent a draft audit of
Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California Edison's financial
condition back to accounting firm KPMG LLP to have "conclusionary statements
and value judgments" removed, a person working closely with the state on the
issue said Tuesday.
"They made some value judgments, but their job was simply to provide an
audit," the person said. As a result, the California Public Utilities
Commission told the auditors "to go back and take out the value judgments and
make their findings neutral," the person said.
The final audit, released late Monday, is decidedly different from an
executive summary of a draft lawmakers held last week, according to several
Democratic lawmakers who said they had seen a copy.
For one, last week's executive summary clearly stated that the utilities
can recoup billions of dollars from consumers retroactive to August 2000, one
Democratic senator said.
KPMG and the California Public Utilities Commission declined to comment.
The Public Utilities Commission requested independent audits of Southern
California Edison and PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in
late December to determine the validity of their claims that soaring
wholesale power costs would force them into bankruptcy unless their rates
were allowed to rise.
The audit of Pacific Gas & Electric, being prepared by Barrington
Wellesley Group, had yet to be released late Tuesday.
KPMG's final audit shed some light on the severity of Southern
California Edison's liquidity crisis and outlined payments the utility has
made to its parent company. But it made no recommendations on whether the
Public Utilities Commission should grant the utility's request for a rate
hike or declare at an end the rate freeze that has kept it from passing its
power costs on to customers.
The audit says Southern California Edison has paid $4.5 billion more for
electricity than it was allowed to charge consumers. It also says the utility
has paid $4.8 billion to its parent company since deregulation, with the bulk
of that sum being paid out to shareholders via dividends or share buybacks.
One adviser to a Democratic assemblyman said it was proper for the
Public Utilities Commission to send the audit back to KPMG.
"I would have done the same thing," the adviser said. "This is a very
charged issue."
-By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 31-01-01
0226GMT
=====================================
|
3,871 |
Subject: RE: CAISO Notice: Message to Market Participants and Scheduling C
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4699.
=====================================
I see no effective objection to what the ISO proposes. I am surprised they
have not produced the material sooner. Mike Day
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:56 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: CAISO Notice: Message to Market Participants and Scheduling
Coord inators regarding CA ISO compliance with the EOB and CPUC
subpoenas -- FOR YOUR INFORMATION
The ISO plans to comply with recent EOB and CPUC subpoenas unless FERC or a
court tells them not to. DO we care about this?
Question for Mary and Ron -- Are they trying to get around the FERC--
given the CPUC's filing there asking for authority to get info?
Also, as Mary is aware, the WPTF will be submitting a protest to SCE's
request to FERC to have the ISO's MSC release data to SCE that the MSC
claims identify those who have abused market power.
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 12/13/2000 09:47 AM -----
"Fuller, Don"
<DFuller@cais To: ISO Market Participants
o.com>
<IMCEAEX-_O=CAISO_OU=CORPORATE_CN=DISTRIBUTION+20LISTS_CN=ISO+20MARKET+20PAR
TICIPANTS@cai
Sent by: so.com>
"Happ, Susan" cc:
<SHapp@caiso. Subject: CAISO Notice: Message
to Market Participants and Scheduling Coord inators
com> regarding CA ISO compliance with
the EOB and CPUC subpoenas
12/13/2000
07:52 AM
Please
respond to
"Sole,
Jeanne"
To Market Participants and Scheduling Coordinators:
The CA ISO believes it has complied with its obligations under CA ISO
Tariff
section 20.3.4 as to the December 4 EOB subpoena and the September 21 CPUC
subpoena. Our reasoning is explained in the attached letter. Accordingly,
the CA ISO will comply with the EOB and CPUC subpoenas on December 20
unless it receives and order to the contrary from a court or the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
In addition, the CA ISO has received requests from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and the state agencies for information on generator
unit outages. This information is not subject to tariff section 20.3.4
which protects only Generator Outage programs. Nonetheless, the CA ISO is
providing this notice as a curtesy matter. The CA ISO will provide the
requested information to FERC and the state agencies. The CA ISO has in
the
past requested confidential treatment for information on the cause of an
outage and projected in service date since this information could be used
by
Market Participants to manipulate the market, and it will make such a
request as to cause and in service dates in the context of the current
requests.
Jeanne M. Sol,
Regulatory Counsel
California ISO
(916) 608-7144
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
The Foregoing e-Mail Communication (Together With Any Attachments Thereto)
Is Intended For The Designated Recipient(s) Only. Its Terms May Be
Confidential And Protected By Attorney/Client Privilege or Other Applicable
Privileges. Unauthorized Use, Dissemination, Distribution, Or Reproduction
Of This Message Is Strictly Prohibited.
(See attached file: 12-12letter to genfinal.doc)
=====================================
|
3,872 |
Subject: CITY OF VERNON BECOMES FIRST MUNICIPAL TO SEEK TO JOIN CA-ISO
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', "nicholas.o'[email protected]", '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/691.
=====================================
CITY OF VERNON BECOMES FIRST MUNICIPAL TO SEEK TO JOIN CA-ISO
09/20/2000
Foster Electric Report
Page 4
(c) Copyright 2000, Foster Associates, Inc.
An August 30 petition (EL00-105) to FERC made the city of Vernon, California,
the first muni to seek participating transmission owner (PTO) status in the
California Independent System Operator Corp. (CA-ISO). If Vernon's request is
granted, the city would turn over control of certain transmission
entitlements to the CA-ISO and be reimbursed based upon its transmission
revenue requirement (TRR).
Noting the novelty of the petition and the possible precedential effects of
FERC's ruling, Vernon asked FERC to act by October 31, 2000 so that it can
assume PTO status by the first of next year under the CA-ISO's procedures. If
the Commission determines that it needs additional information, the city
asked FERC to allow its TRR to go into effect subject to changes imposed by a
final FERC ruling.
"It is clearly in the public interest that the CA-ISO and its customers on
January 1, 2001, begin receiving the use of Vernon's transmission
entitlements, while Vernon is able to receive all of the benefits of full
participation in the CA-ISO as a PTO, which it has long sought to do." In
June, Vernon submitted a "notice of intent" to seek PTO status.
The CA-ISO has long sought to modify its rules to make participation by
California's public power transmission owners more attractive. After years of
lengthy discussions, the CA-ISO on 3/31/00 proposed Amendment No. 27
(ER00-2019) to its tariff to accomplish this, basically modifying the way its
transmission access charge would be calculated (see REPORT No.188, pg.8).
While FERC on May 31 accepted several aspects of the proposal, it rejected
several others, including one spelling out how new PTOs should use cost-shift
benefits to lower or "buy down" their transmission revenue requirements (see
REPORT No.193, pg.3). In response to that order, the CA-ISO on August 3 filed
Appendix F to its tariff, under which a potential PTO can ask either FERC or
the CA-ISO to approve its TRR.
Under California law, Vernon's utility rates were set by its city council and
are final. The May 31 order, however, said that the question of who has the
authority to review the TRR of a public power utility seeking PTO status "is
a complex and evolving question." While not trying to broaden its authority,
FERC nevertheless must ensure that the costs being passed through by the
CA-ISO to its customers are just and reasonable, according to FERC. As a
result and at the behest of the CA-ISO, Vernon asked FERC to approve its TRR,
which it presented "in a form designed to meet the Commission's ratemaking
criteria."
If Vernon's petition is approved, it will begin to take transmission service
over facilities "on which it has entitlements under the CA-ISO rate schedules
just as does any other CA-ISO customer," the petition stated. "Vernon's TRR
is comparable to what it charges itself for those entitlements."
Vernon is unlike most other potential public power participants in the CA-ISO
in that the city's power facilities were not financed with tax-exempt debt or
bonds. Thus, Vernon does not have to worry about losing tax-exempt status
when it turns over control of its transmission facilities to the CA-ISO and
begins to participate in competitive markets.
=====================================
|
3,873 |
Subject: Join Challenge for Charity TODAY!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/30.
=====================================
Greetings Evening MBAs!
Sign up for one of the most worthwhile organizations at Haas.
Join Challenge for Charity TODAY!
WHAT IS CHALLENGE FOR CHARITY?
Challenge for Charity (otherwise known as C4C), is our official
philanthropic endeavor where Haas, along with 5 other major west coast
business schools, raises money for Special Olympics. Haas' chapter of C4C
donates significant sums of money and volunteer hours to Special Olympics
every year. In previous years we've raised as much as $70,000 for Special
Olympics and we hope that this year will be just as successful!!!
C4C is one of the largest organizations at Haas and plays a major role in
organizing almost all of the most popular student functions including the
Halloween Ball, Ski Weekend, Charity Auction, Talent Show, Sports Weekend
at Stanford, and much more. Stop by our booth at Club Night this Thursday
9/5 from 5pm to 8pm to get more involved with any of these fantastic events!
WHAT DO I GET WITH MY C4C MEMBERSHIP?
As an Evening MBA student, your C4C membership dues are only $150! Not
only does your membership support a fabulous cause, it also entitles you to
so many great benefits including a really cool new baseball cap and free
access to some of the most popular social events at Haas!
Ticket prices for non-C4C members typically range about $40 per person for
EACH of our most popular events. This means that your membership brings you
a ton of fun at significant savings! Anyone who has attended any of our
events can tell you that this is a deal! So, sign up today!
CAN MY SIGNIFICANT OTHER JOIN C4C TOO?
As you may have noticed, significant others are just as much a part of the
Haas family as the students, so don't forget your significant other is
eligible for C4C membership as well. We realize that significant others are
not always able to attend as many events as Haas students, so significant
others' membership dues are only $75. That means you and your honey can
join for a mere $225! If your S.O. can only attend two of our many events,
it will more than cover the cost of his/her membership!
HOW DO I SIGN UP?
To join C4C, simply submit a check payable to Challenge for Charity
indicating the name(s) of the new C4C member(s). Please place your checks
in Linda Ng's mailbox in the MBA Lounge at Haas or stop by the C4C table at
Club Night this Thursday 9/5 from 5pm to 8pm. We will also be holding a
membership drive during the coming weeks, so look for us in the Haas
courtyard during break. Remember that membership is only $150 per Haas
student and only $75 for Haas significant others.
WHAT IF I'M ALREADY A MEMBER?
C4C membership is only for the academic year, so if you joined C4C last
year, you must sign up again this year. If you've already joined C4C this
year, you need to pick up your brand-spanking new baseball cap. Please stop
by the C4C table at Club Night this Thursday or during our membership drive
at break during the coming weeks.
Thank you for supporting C4C and the Special Olympics!
Sincerely,
Linda Ng & Wendy Hsu
Challenge for Charity Co-chairs
___________________________________________________________
Linda J. Ng
MBA Candidate 2002
University of California Berkeley
Walter A. Haas School of Business
Home: (510) 524-3502
Cel: (310) 283-4715
Email: [email protected]
____________________________________________________________
=====================================
|
3,874 |
Subject: RE: Draft program
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/87.
=====================================
Do you mind if I meet with Carl and Severin and Rich next time I'm over at
Haas to discuss this a bit with them?
[email protected] on 08/31/2000 07:27:25 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: RE: Draft program
Tomorrow at 4 EDT sounds good to me but I'm not sure we're ready. I'd like to
make sure all of our sponsors like the idea of coordinating with IBER and
UCEI.
What say you, sponsors? The co-sponsorship decision affects our decisions on
place, topics, and speakers, becase IBER and UCEI would need to get involved
right away.
I spoke with Borenstein last night. Shapiro's initial idea was exactly what
we're planning. They appreciate and respect the fact that we've done most of
the legwork. They'd like to be part of it and it sounds like they would
consider it a favor if we included them. IBER has a subgroup called the
Competition Policy Center which is a program meant to exploit the incredible
concentration of antitrust economists at UC Berkeley. I can certainly imagine
ways the school could benefit from a stronger connection with CPC and UCEI,
who
are so widely respected and are doing public policy. If Lee thinks its worth
potentially losing a bit of limelight on this conference for the long run
benefits of building resources and connections on campus, I'm all for it.
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heather Cameron [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 6:48 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Draft program
>
> Dear All,
>
> After listening to the various viewpoints and concerns expressed in our
> last conference call, I believe that the panel options listed in Option 3
> of Rob's draft might be most effective in producing the type of discourse
> that we are seeking.
>
> I propose that we schedule a conference call for this Friday afternoon,
> September 1, at 4PM EDT. I mentioned that I have reserved the Krutch
> Theater (max.capacity 375) for the week of November 13-17. I have since
> been informed that I can only hold the whole week through Wednesday,
> September 6, therefore, it will be important to narrow the options down
> very soon if we can.
>
> Best wishes,
> Heather
>
>
>
> At 06:44 AM 8/30/00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> >Shall we try to talk again Monday? I think I will talk to Borenstein to
see
> >what the Haas folks have in mind.
> >
> >I tried to capture everyone's comments. Allen, you might want to explain
> more
> >about your panel suggestions since I didn't do them justice. As you'll
see I
> >took the liberty of offering a new characterization of the panels that I
> >didn't
> >bring up on the call. Everything on there is offered as a strawman to be
> >criticized and changed.
> >Rob <<Draft program.doc>>
> >
> >Rob Gramlich
> >PJM Market Monitoring Unit
> >(610) 666-4291
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
>
> Heather Cameron, Events Coordinator
> The Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy
> University of California, Berkeley
> 2607 Hearst Avenue
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> Tel: 510-642-9437
> Fax: 510-643-9657
> GSPP home page: http://gspp.berkeley.edu
=====================================
|
3,875 |
Subject: FYI - CWA Urges FCC to Set 'Open Access' Broadband Policy
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4160.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Margo Reyna/NA/Enron on 12/01/2000 04:11 PM -----
[email protected]
12/01/2000 03:29 PM
Please respond to nobody
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Telecom Services: Broadband Services: CWA Urges FCC to Set 'Open
Access' Broadband Policy
CWA Urges FCC to Set 'Open Access' Broadband Policy
12/01/2000
PR Newswire
(Copyright (c) 2000, PR Newswire)
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- The Communications Workers of America told
the Federal Communications Commission that an "open access" broadband cable
policy is the best way to stimulate competition and promote the growth of
jobs and the industry.
Such a national policy framework is necessary, CWA said in its filing to the
FCC, to ensure that fair competition, innovation and growth continue as
broadband networks further advance.
CWA called on the FCC to establish a national policy that would treat all
providers of broadband Internet access as common carriers, and therefore
subject to the interconnection, non-discrimination and unbundling
requirements of federal communications law.
CWA pointed out that a strong legal basis already exists for considering
cable modem service a "telecommunications service" and therefore subject to
the obligations of common carriers. This policy would not necessarily lead to
regulatory oversight of the wholesale pricing of cable modem service, but it
would remedy the current situation whereby the same service, broadband
Internet access, is regulated differently depending on whether access is
provided over cable or telephone lines, CWA stressed. This current disparate
treatment "serves to favor one technology over another in the marketplace,
which runs counter to the mandates of the Telecommunications Act," the union
added.
Open access cable also would provide real benefits to consumers, by giving
consumers access to new and diverse sources of information, products and
services. This will only result in greater consumer demand for broadband
transport services, fueling both network investment and job growth, CWA noted.
"The open architecture of the Internet has fostered an explosion in
democratic communications," an achievement the Commission must preserve "as
we transition to the ever-widening possibilities of broadband," the union
stressed. However, "this openness is threatened by a closed cable Internet
access network which would give preferable treatment to affiliated Internet
service providers of cable operators," CWA cautioned.
The FCC should act quickly to establish rules that will protect an open
Internet, not rely on market forces and vague voluntary agreements by cable
providers to open access at some future date, CWA said.
/CONTACT: Jeff Miller or Candice Johnson, of CWA Communications,
202-434-1168/ 16:15 EST
Folder Name: Telecom Services: Broadband Services
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 90
______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClips or contact Dow
Jones Customer Service by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
=====================================
|
3,876 |
Subject: Re: E220 Case #1
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1305.
=====================================
Greetings. Kim's stuff looks pretty good to me. There's a pretty high
likelihood though that I won't be in class Monday or Tuesday either. That
means I can't turn in whatever it is we're turning in tomorrow (if I sound
clueless, it might be because he ran out of handouts in the first class
describing how the cases would work, and there's nothing posted on the
site--apologies). I can do the write-up for next week.
Kimberly Kupiecki <[email protected]> on 09/09/2000 09:02:50 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: E220 Case #1
Hello fellow E220 mates,
Attached are my attempts at Q1 and Q3. I will not be in class Mon or Tues.
Jeff, can you hand the case in?
I am happy to take a crack at the other questions, let me know if you would
like me to help out there.
The xcel file is a little messy, it was really just a work sheet to play
around with the numbers, but you are welcome to it. In terms of format,
since there is no guidance, I say we do it however we want. We could
answer the questions in prose style, for example. The write up should be
no more than a page and a half - but that is just my humble opinion.
Cheers,
At 12:40 PM 9/9/00, [email protected] wrote:
>Greetings folks. We should decide how we want to handle. One thing I'm
>not clear on and that I couldn't find in the syllabus is, what's the format
>for the write up? If we're called on to discuss, do we simply discuss
>orally, some sort of simplistic PP slides, spreadsheets, other? Anyway to
>discuss between now and Monday, or do we want to just take Dylan up on his
>offer?
>
>Best,
>Jeff
>
>
>
>
>Kimberly Kupiecki <[email protected]> on 09/07/2000 06:56:44 PM
>
>To: [email protected]
>cc: [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected]
>Subject: Re: E220 Case #1
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>I will take a look at the case tonight.
>
>Divvying is fine with me.
>
>At 03:22 PM 9/7/00, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >would seem useful if we all contribute in some manner, but i'm open to
> >suggestions. perhaps we could divvy up the questions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Dylan Windham <[email protected]> on 09/07/2000 04:50:31 PM
> >
> >To: [email protected], [email protected],
> > [email protected]
> >cc:
> >Subject: E220 Case #1
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >I have started to look at the case assignment for Monday. Since, I will
>be
> >out of town the following week I will volunteer to write this one up. I
> >don't know how he want to divvy up the work (by Questions or everyone does
> >it all), but let me know. I have already made a spreadsheet with the
> >combined cash flow statement that I will send to you tomorrow. Let me
>know
> >how we want to handle this.
> >
> >--Dylan
> >
> >
> >Ofc. Dylan H. Windham
> >Threat Management/Domestic Violence Unit
> >University of California Police - Berkeley
> >Room 1 Sproul Hall
> >Berkeley, CA 94720
> >(510) 642-1606
>
>
>Kimberly Kupiecki
>Senior Account Executive
>A&R Partners
>[email protected]
>(650) 762 2800 main
>(650) 762 2825 direct
>fax (650) 762 2801
- E220 Case 5-1 Northrop.xls
- E220 Case 5-1Northrop.doc
Kimberly Kupiecki
Senior Account Executive
A&R Partners
[email protected]
(650) 762 2800 main
(650) 762 2825 direct
fax (650) 762 2801
=====================================
|
3,877 |
Subject: PG&E Proposed Solution
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1905.
=====================================
Roger:
We're still ruminating on this within Government Affairs and will continue to
ruminate over the next few days, but wanted to fill you in on where we
currently are and get your comments. Thanks.
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 09/29/2000 12:11 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
09/28/2000 01:49 PM
To: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES,
Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: PG&E Proposed Solution
Harry:
At the meeting yesterday, we concluded that it would be a good idea to take
the proposal that you put together based on your meeting with EES and use it
as the "base case" to start running the numbers. Idea being that before we
shop anything around, we need to know what the numbers look like to determine
whether the thing's got any legs.
Once we have a clear understanding of how the base case numbers shake out,
we thought we might then want do some sensitivity analyses around the
variables, come up with a final proposal, and then go back to the commercial
groups for buy-in. We hoped that your folks could get together with Roger
Yang et al and provide some assessment of what the base case numbers look
like by middle of next week. How's this plan sound? Few other points:
We assume that bullet 6's reference to "net" means that the deferral is
calculated by taking any "overcollections" and subtracting them from any
"undercollections" over the entire 3 year period,not year-by-year.
What is the significance of the 3.1 CTC roll-off date? We're assuming it's
commercially driven. We correct? If so, what's the driver? Same goes for
the 2004 ending date.
Some tweeks were made to the proposal at the meeting to create an "Option 2"
for folks to consider. (Though we don't think that any numbers need to be
run on "Option 2" until after having completed the analysis on option 1,
since those results could influence any scenarios we decide to construct).
Option 2 would:
Keep the hydro with the utility and apply Edison's proposed ratemaking
treatment.
Beginning 6.1.01, make large customers "noncore," similar to the gas model in
California, and force those customers to choose an ESP.
Beginning 1.1.03, introduce competitive default service for remaining "core"
(i.e., rez and small commercial) customers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, couple of things that occurred to me after yesterday's meeting that
I want to throw out for folks to react to:
Seems that, to be successful, the proposal needs to remain as stripped down
and simple as possible.
When the proposal nets out the deferral costs, does it include the
over/undercollections associated with utility residual generation?
In option 2, by adding the "noncore" feature, and by implementing that
feature and the default service feature prior to the 04 ending date, the
proposal gets more complicated (and adds significantly more risk to the
utility's position). This is not to say that the complications can't be
worked out, or that the added risk can't be accounted for, but wanted to
highlight it for folks to consider.
Attached is the original, with just a couple of minor edits, and "Option 2."
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,878 |
Subject: Re: Brief in Rate Stabilization Proceeding
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9437.
=====================================
Agree. Sounds like a very reasonable way to proceed, and consistent with
what we've said all along, non? Thanks, Harry. Jeanne, while your at it,
could you get us a new Governor? Thanks so much.
Best,
Jeff
Harry Kingerski
02/26/2001 04:59 PM
To: JMB <[email protected]>
cc: "'Harry Kingerski (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Jeff
Dasovich (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Bob Frank (E-mail)'"
<[email protected]>, "'Sue Mara (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'Tamara Johnson (E-mail)'"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Brief in Rate Stabilization Proceeding
Jeanne - you shouldn't compromise Enron's prior statements on ending the rate
freeze. The most important thing is that we not get a retroactive end of the
rate freeze (retroactive to any time before the date of the order). We may
also accomplish this through legislation.
Regarding the book vs. market valuation, it is less important that we argue
for market or book than it is we should clarify for the commission how and
why it should be consistent with the new legislation. If new legislation
occurs and means that utility generation will be priced at cost for 10 years,
then everyone needs to realize that is a fundamentally different construct.
DA Customers are not getting the value of these plants through the valuation
process so they must have access to that value through the access to retained
generation approach. If cost based rates are not legislated, market valuation
shoud proceed. What we don't want is for them to legislate cost-based rates
and then forget about the value being stripped from DA.
Also, seems like it could be a good thing to point out that if they do
declare an end to the rate freeze, if it is effective before new replacement
legislation is enacted, they've only created another quagmire. I'll call to
discuss.
JMB <[email protected]>
02/26/2001 10:32 AM
To: "'Bob Frank (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Harry Kingerski
(E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)'"
<[email protected]>, "'Sue Mara (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'Tamara
Johnson (E-mail)'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Brief in Rate Stabilization Proceeding
Despite the fact that the hearings will probably continue into Wednesday of
this week, the briefs in Phase I of the Rate Stabilization Proceeding are
still due this Friday the 2nd. One of the issues before the ALJ is the use
of interim versus final market valuation to end the rate freeze. I am very
hesitant to say that the rate freeze cannot end on the basis of a Commission
approved interim valuation as Enron has, in previous proceedings, taken the
position that it can. Please let me know right away if you feel different
about this. Along these same lines, the issue of the value of the assets is
somewhat at play (at least on an interim basis). Do we want to take a
position that the assets need to be market valued (rather than book) thus
increasing the rate base for the purpose of cost of service regulation which
the assets are now under? Increased generation rate would mean an increased
DA credit. However, it may also hurt our claim that we should get a piece of
the retained generation. Again let me know as soon as possible about your
position.
Jeanne Bennett
=====================================
|
3,879 |
Subject: Fwd: DJ - CalPX Responds To FERC, Denies It Worsened Power Prices
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1313.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:36:07 -0600
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Jeffrey Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Paul Fox"
<[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: DJ - CalPX Responds To FERC, Denies It Worsened Power Prices
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
CalPX's take on FERC's ability to end mandatory buy requirement.
DJ CalPX Responds To FERC, Denies It Worsened Power Prices
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The chief executive officer of the California Power
Exchange responded Tuesday to details in a federal energy regulatory report
that suggests the two-year-old exchange's mandatory buy requirement was
partly to blame for this past summer's soaring wholesale electricity prices.
The details of the landmark probe prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is scheduled to be released Wednesday morning, but some
commissioners told Dow Jones Newswires the report will suggest that the
state's mandatory buy rule should be abolished and utilities should be
permitted to purchase their power through other power exchanges.
"We believe that the representation of the CalPX contributing to soaring
wholesale prices is incorrect and misleading," said CalPX CEO George Sladoje.
"Over the summer months, certain wholesale market participants chose to not
take full advantage of the price and cost mitigating products offered through
the CalPX...if a participant chose to purchase all or most of their energy on
the spot market, they often paid much more than other participants who chose
to buy in the forwards market," Sladoje added.
It is widely known in the wholesale electricity market that Sempra Energy
(SRE) unit San Diego Gas & Electric Co. purchased most of their power in the
spot market, which the utility passed on to its customers at a much higher
price.
SDG&E also complained to federal regulators that the CalPX hourly and
day-ahead market clearing prices are too high.
When California moved to electricity deregulation four years ago, a statewide
power exchange was created requiring Edison International (EIX) unit Southern
California Edison, PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. to purchase all of their power through the exchange
until 2002, the expected transition date to a completely deregulated market.
But the FERC report proposes that utilities be permitted to purchase power
from other exchanges in an effort to generate increased competition,
commissioners said.
The CalPX purchases power one day in advance for California's three
investor-owned utilities. Suppliers bid in power indicating their price. For
each hour of the next day, the price of the last megawatt taken to meet
demand sets the market price.
In various reports issued since 1996, FERC has commended the state's Power
Exchange for running a successful market that helped mitigate concerns about
market power abuses.
If the FERC report suggests that California end the mandatory buy
requirement, it will be up to state lawmakers to see to draft Legislation to
change the market rules, according to the CalPX.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 31-10-00
=====================================
|
3,880 |
Subject: Re: Outline memo for paper on rules changes in other markets
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3769.
=====================================
Seab/Sabine,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this important issue. The
three rule changes or designs in other markets you describe look very good
and are right on point. I would like to add two more to your list, namely:
1) Price caps in California
Attached is a one page memo from my colleague in California, Jeff Dasovich.
Consistent with Jeff's first two points, Steve Kean has told me that in
addition to chasing existing power supplies out of the state, price caps, and
the uncertainty surrounding them, chase new generation away. The turbine
market is a worldwide market. Firms will have difficulty committing their
own capital (and borrowing from others) if they propose to put facilities in
jurisdisctions where rates are capped or pricing is based on something other
than the operation of the market. Several generators, including Dynegy and
Calpine, have said they will look for other homes for the turbines they have
ordered. I have a Nov 10, 2000 Megawatt Daily article that quotes Enron and
Calpine as saying that price caps in California drove both companies to
withdraw proposed plants.
I recognize there is presently no price cap proposal in Alberta but I think
we can draw the connection between interference through caps and interference
through other forms of administrative intervention that are being considered
in Alberta such as: 1) price discrimination on imports, or 2) the latest
proposal I heard today from the Power Pool which is capping import offers
into the Power Pool at Mid-C prices plus tranmission costs.
2) FERC Staff Report on Midwest that apparently states on pages 2-15 that
some market participants believe that developers sited new generation in the
Midwest because there were no price caps (see attached FERC Report).
As we discussed, I will be using this information in upcoming meetings (this
Friday is the next one) with the Power Pool and the Alberta Gov't in support
of Enron's arguments that policy makers in Alberta must "stay the course"
through the higher priced periods, failing which they will make things much
worse.
In view of the fact it is U.S. Thanksgiving could you please give me a sense
of Sabine's timing on this.
Regards,
Rob
"Seabron Adamson" <[email protected]> on 11/20/2000
10:39:39 AM
To: <[email protected]>
cc: "Sabine Schnittger" <[email protected]>, "Kevin.
Wellenius" <[email protected]>
Subject: Outline memo for paper on rules changes in other markets
Rob:
Please see attached. Can we discuss later today?
Seab
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(617) 354-0060 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.
Seabron Adamson
Frontier Economics Inc
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Ph: (617) 354-0060
Fax: (617) 354-0640
[email protected]
- 00-11-20 SA Memo on paper with rule change example paper outline.doc
=====================================
|
3,881 |
Subject: RE: Gine Project- Briefing book sections DRAFT
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1799.
=====================================
Thanks very much for your comments. Pls be assured that Intellibridge and the team will do what they have to, to ensure the substance and format meets our expectations as a company. We look forward to reviewing your remarks, sorry you can't be there. Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Shelk, John
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:44 PM
To: Ibrahim, Amr; Steffes, James D.; Vegas, Dennis; Mara, Susan; Dasovich, Jeff; Kaufman, Paul
Cc: Shortridge, Pat; Nord, Sue
Subject: RE: Gine Project- Briefing book sections DRAFT
I agree. I am almost through it -- and while there are improvements per our suggestions from the first draft -- there are both substantive and format problems -- i.e., it does not read very well in places, aside from substance. Will fax Amr my comments on the text and leave with DC colleagues as I will be up in the Senate on RTOs this afternoon.
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ibrahim, Amr
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:39 PM
To: Steffes, James D.; Vegas, Dennis; Mara, Susan; Dasovich, Jeff; Kaufman, Paul
Cc: Shelk, John; Shortridge, Pat; Nord, Sue
Subject: Gine Project- Briefing book sections DRAFT
Sue, Jim, Jeff, Paul:
In the context of GNIE Project and the papers that shall be put forward to the participants, I am seeking your help in providing comments on paper one in the list below. I can not recommend it in its current form since it departs from Enron's line of thinking in many places. There is a tendency to make these papers neutral, but I found it actually going the other direction.
Kindly advise of your point of view. It is time sensitve, and I appreciate your help
Brgrds
AI
Dennis:
I shall ask for a delay in reference to this paper for 48 hours till I consult with the colleagues above. Thank you.
AI
-----Original Message-----
From: Vegas, Dennis
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:19 PM
To: Ibrahim, Amr; Shortridge, Pat; Shelk, John
Cc: Robertson, Linda; Shapiro, Richard; Allen, Margaret
Subject: FW: Briefing book sections DRAFT
Attached as discussed is the second draft of the briefing documents for the Oct event. They have been separated per our request. These are fresh from Intellibridge and we in Houston have not reviewed them as well, but will be doing so over the weekend.
The documents are attached in the order in which we intend them to appear in
the Briefing Book:
1. Brief History of the Western Power Crisis (Western Power Crisis.doc)
2. Western Power Crisis Timeline (timeline.pdf) -- (Please note that on this
timeline, we still need to cite sources for each of the date entries. Their
graphic designer will be able to do this for us on Wednesday of next week).
3. Responses to the Nation's Energy Crunch (energy crunch clean.doc)
4. Federal vs. State Energy Policy Jurisdiction (fedvsstate.doc)
5. The Status of U.S. Electricity Restructuring (progress of states.doc)
If the regulatory and government team could consolidate their feedback, it would be helpful. Once done, we would like to schedule a call for next Thursday at 3:30 pm, since we would like to do it when Intellibridge is in the DC office.
Regards,
- Western Power Crisis.doc << File: Western Power Crisis.doc >>
- timeline.pdf << File: timeline.pdf >>
- energy crunch clean.doc << File: energy crunch clean.doc >>
- fedvsstate.doc << File: fedvsstate.doc >>
- progress of states.doc << File: progress of states.doc >>
=====================================
|
3,882 |
Subject: Fwd: FW: ASME Distributed Power April 24-25 Portland, OR
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5272.
=====================================
To DPCA members:
Attached please find an invitation to the DPCA membership to attend ASME
Distributed Power Conference in Portland, OR.
Tod O'Connor
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from rly-zc03.mx.aol.com (rly-zc03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.3]) by
air-zc05.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:06:25 -0500
Received: from smtp.nrel.gov (tcplink.nrel.gov [192.33.19.48]) by
rly-zc03.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:06:00 -0500
Received: by smtp with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <FJQ6AM6K>;
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:05:41 -0700
Message-ID: <2FCE8613B36ED2118EB800805F6F05AF02FC70DC@nt-comm6>
From: "Brown, Merwin" <[email protected]>
To: "Thomas (Tod) D. O'Connor (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: ASME Distributed Power April 24-25 Portland, OR
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:05:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C09B5F.597F6636"
Tod
Would you want to distribute to DPCA members?
Merwin Brown
Market Sector Manager, Electricity and Natural Gas Markets
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
MS 1732
1617 Cole Blvd
Golden, CO 80401-3393
303 275 4364 Voice
303 275 3059 Fax
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom La Berge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 12:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: ASME Distributed Power April 24-25 Portland,OR
Merwin
David Hoffman gave me your name as someone who may know vendors that
are interested in a space at the up coming ASME Distributed Power
Conference (Please see conference information below). If so, please
pass this on to them, or have them get in touch with me.
Thank you,
Tom La Berge
T. La Berge & Company
3118 NE Davis ST.
Portland, OR, 97232
USA
tel: 503-232-8965
fax: 513-232-6049
[email protected]
DISTRIBUTED POWER CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY
ASME OREGON SECTION
WHEN: April 24 and 25, 2001
WHERE: Portland, Oregon
TOPICS INCLUDED: Fuel Cells, Co-Generation, Micro Turbines,
Environmental, Regulatory Issues, Regional Energy, Utility
Interconnection, Venture Capital.
For details and registration go to
http://www.asme-distributed-power.com/
Who Should Attend?
The intended audience includes managers, engineers, regulatory
personnel, and the general public. All people wishing to have a general
understanding of smaller, "in-the-fence" power generating facilities
will want
to attend this conference.
Participants will gain a basic understanding of the various generating
technologies commonly used, what is involved in completing a successful
project and a better appreciation of the current regional energy picture
Register by February 20, 2001 for $350.00 ($400.00 after)
Vendor Display Space is Still Available:
Vendors: Buy two tickets and get a free display space. Or, buy a vendor
display space and get two free tickets to the conference. (The cost of
display space is buying two conference tickets.) For information and to
reserve your display space please contact Tom La Berge at 503-232-8965
or e-mail [email protected] .
Who We Are
The Oregon Section ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) is a
volunteer, non-profit, professional organization. This conference will
promote and enhance the technical competency of attendees and
contribute
to the well-being of the community.
- tomlaberge.vcf
=====================================
|
3,883 |
Subject: CBO Criticizes California
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/468.
=====================================
Report critical of California's energy deals
By Toby Eckert
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
October 3, 2001
WASHINGTON -- A new congressional report is adding to the mounting
criticism of California's foray into the purchase of electricity.
The Congressional Budget Office study warns that Californians could pay
a steep price for the long-term contracts negotiated by the state, given
a recent decline in electricity prices. It also faults the lack of
independent oversight of the state's power deals.
"If the state cannot recover all of its electricity-related costs
through retail prices, California taxpayers will have to make up the
difference. . . . The state may be at risk of creating a major
government-subsidized industry -- an industry that private suppliers
could be at a disadvantage in competing against," the report says.
A spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis could not be reached for comment on the
report. But the administration has noted that while the contract prices
appear high now, they are significantly lower than what electricity
sellers were charging at the height of the power crisis, when many of
the contracts were negotiated.
The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan agency that explores
major economic issues for Congress. The concerns the budget office
raised about the state's electricity purchases are part of a 43-page
report on the power crisis that gripped California for more than a year
as wholesale electricity costs skyrocketed.
The report cites numerous flaws in the state's attempt to deregulate the
power market and also raises the possibility that power sellers
intentionally withheld supplies to raise prices.
To stem the crisis and avert blackouts, the state Department of Water
Resources started buying power on behalf of financially battered
utilities in January. The crisis has abated, but the state has come
under intense criticism from consumer groups that say it spent far too
much on the power purchases, which total more than $40 billion.
The budget office report echoes those concerns and faults the state for
moving further away from a workable competitive power market.
"California's actions represent a blunt solution to the problems of
insecure supply and volatile prices -- a solution that ultimately may
present the state with many of the same problems that (power market)
restructuring was intended to solve," the report says.
It also cites a "lack of transparency" and oversight of the state's
power purchases.
The California Public Utilities Commission recently asked federal
regulators to review the power contracts and determine whether the
prices are reasonable.
The budget office report broke no new ground on the origins of the power
crisis, attributing it to a combination of factors that have been cited
in other studies. They include a flawed attempt to deregulate
California's power market, a lack of adequate power generation in the
state and a spike in the cost of natural gas, which is used to fuel many
power plants.
The report said it was "also possible that individual sellers tacitly
colluded to withhold supplies in order to push prices above competitive
levels," a charge repeatedly leveled by Davis and consumer groups.
"However," the budget office concluded, "evidence about how much, if
any, capacity was withheld for competitive rather than legitimate
operational reasons is unclear."
Copyright 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
>
- winmail.dat
=====================================
|
3,884 |
Subject: Barton Statement on CA Electricity Situation, 01/05/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8197.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/05/2001 04:12 PM -----
Cynthia Sandherr
01/05/2001 04:10 PM
To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Donna
Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Barton Statement on CA Electricity Situation, 01/05/01
> Contact: Samantha Jordan
> (202) 225-2002
> Date: Friday, January 5, 2001
>
> Statement RE: Electricity Price Concerns in California
>
> "Electricity restructuring, in principle, did not cause the problems
> California is experiencing -- it just exposed them more obviously to
> consumers there. California did not deregulate properly, nor did it
> ensure a sufficient power supply.
>
> The state framework in place in California created a situation
> allowing for almost zero growth in generation and almost zero growth in
> transmission at a time when the service region's population was growing
> substantially. The strict process to obtain permits or new licenses
> limits interest in constructing new power plants and transmission lines.
> California's stringent environmental standards, the most rigid in the
> nation, restrict the interest of new providers wishing to enter the
> market. The California legislation was therefore enacted in an
> environment in which consumers were not encouraged to limit usage, demand
> continued to increase and the power reserves began to deplete. The
> surrounding states, strapped by their own growth, have been unable to
> provide additional power supplies to California at a reasonable cost.
>
> Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration and the California
> government had an opportunity as early as last summer to foresee this
> oversight and make changes that would have helped stave off this
> situation, however they chose not to make the fundamental changes
> necessary. The problems in the state's market were obvious months ago and
> earlier action could have avoided a crisis. The actions now necessary did
> not need to be this painful.
>
> Governor Davis should be looking for a practical, California-based
> solution rather than name-calling, threatening and playing politics with
> the pocketbooks of his consumers and stockholders. It is very important
> to keep independent generators of power interested in selling to
> California -- these crucial participants should not be scared away when
> California needs power the most.
>
> When the 107th Congress convenes for business, it is my intention to
> hold a series of hearings, focusing not only on the California situation,
> but the overall energy situation in the United States. I have also
> requested a meeting with Bush officials to discuss these issues, and
> develop a plan of action to deal with them, as soon as the Administration
> is formally in place."
>
>
> -U.S. Representative Joe Barton (R-TX)
>
> As Chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy & Power, Barton
> was responsible for the first comprehensive electricity deregulation
> package to pass a House Subcommittee. He is expected to be re-appointed
> to this chairmanship in the 107th Congress, where he will have House
> jurisdiction over all energy matters.
=====================================
|
3,885 |
Subject: ABC Ticket Sales End at Midnight Tonight; Available in Courtyard
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5130.
=====================================
Haas-mates:
?
I'd like to take?a moment to invite you to the Haas Asia Business
Conference, happening this Saturday.? As the subject line says, online
ticket sales end tonight at midnight. And while sales are going well, they
haven't
gone as well as we would have liked within Haas -- 90% of our tickets
have been sold to alums and professionals.? So I'd like to take a moment
of your time to explain what you will find at the ABC this Saturday.
?
For starters, we have a solid lineup of keynotes:Ta-Lin Hsu, Chairman of
H&Q Asia Pacific; and?John Wadsworth, Honorary Chairman of?Morgan Stanley
Dean
Witter?Asia.?Dr. Hsu is known as the John Doerr of Asia, and Mr. Wadsworth's
achievements
are already familiar to many of you. We're fortunate to have both of these
gentlemen aboard.?
More information is available at: http://www.haas-abc.org/details/keynote.asp
?
In addition, we have an outstanding lineup of panelists, spread?across 6
panels:
Biotech, E-Commerce, Entrepreneurship, Technology/Manufacturing, Telecom &
Wireless,
and Venture Capital. Some firms represented: NTT, Sun, Sony, eSamsung,
Sina.com,
TSMC, Ericsson, SSMB, and Walden International, among others.
For more info: http://www.haas-abc.org/details/panelists.asp
?
Did I mention the sponsor firms?? Our feature sponsors are MSDW and
NEC Electronics; both will have booths on site. Other sponsors include
Accenture,
Chevron, Lam Research, H&Q Asia Pacific, Toyota, and TSMC.
Why list the sponsors? We'll be sending them a resume book on CD after this
is over. Guests who opt in to this can have their resume sent out to every
sponsor and product fair firm.? Neat, huh?? I'll be first in line.
For more sponsor info: http://www.haas-abc.org/details/sponsors.asp
?
But wait, there's more: thanks to our Product Fair team,
we'll be the first Haas conference to plunk down a car in the courtyard: the
Toyota
Prius -- a hybrid gas/electric auto.? 70 mpg, in case you're wondering.?
Also present: Creative Technologies (makers of the Nomad MP3 player), IBM
(Almaden
Research Center), Kivera (location-based wireless services), and GetIT
Multimedia.
for more info: http://www.haas-abc.org/details/product.asp? (Worth it just
for
the Flash movie.)
?
But wait -- there really is more.? An MP3 player raffle. Sushi. Dim Sum.
Giveaways
from The Body Shop, MSDW, Sina.com and Click2Asia.??And don't forget our very
own Ipang Lin, erstwhile MBA01 who left to launch a wireless startup in
Beijing. He'll
be here as well.
?
All this for the low low price of $25.? The kind of pricing that might
inspire an investigation
into trade practices, if you ask me.? Your promotional code: haasucb.
?
As I mentioned, online ticket sales stop at midnight tonight.? We'll be in
the courtyard tomorrow during
lunch.? So come by.? Pick up a ticket.? Trust me.? You won't regret it.
?
And for those who love to wait 'til the last-minute: we will have tickets
available Saturday
morning, at the slight premium of $30.? So save yourself 4.5 coffees at
Jimmy Beans. Buy
online tonight, or tomorrow in the courtyard.?
?
See you then.
?
?
Jon
?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jon J Metzler
MBA/MA-Asian Studies, '01
Co-Chair, Haas Asia Business Conference - March 3, 2001
http://www.haas-abc.org/
?
Haas School of Business
University of California-Berkeley
[email protected]
mobile: 510 928 3271
http://students.haas.berkeley.edu/metzler
=====================================
|
3,886 |
Subject: RE: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12446.
=====================================
1PM is fine
Chris Calger
503-464-3735
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Belden, Tim; Calger, Christopher F.; Steffes, James; Shapiro, Richard;
[email protected]; Kaufman, Paul; Mara, Susan; Allen, Phillip K.; Yoder,
Christian; Hall, Steve C.
Subject: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Contracts--Privileged and Confidential
Sensitivity: Confidential
PLEASE KEEP THIS NOTE, AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE NOTE CONFIDENTIAL.
As folks are aware, we have been engaged in closed-door negotiations for the
past two weeks regarding a possible market-based solution to California's
electricity crisis.
In the room are the major large customer groups, environmentalists, small
customers (TURN), Independent Energy Producers, labor, the Western States
Petroleum Association, and Enron.
The negotiations were convened by the Speaker of the Assembly (Bob Hertzberg).
When Hertzberg convened the meeting, he told the parties that he wanted to
achieve a core/noncore structure, similar to the structure in place in
California's gas market (i.e., large customers are required to buy gas from
the market, with Direct Access available to all other customers).
In effect, "core" customers (rez and small business) would be served by the
utilities' retained generating assets and QF contracts; and large customers
would go to market.
The core/noncore structure would begin 1.1.03.
The negotiating group has struggled over the past two weeks, but is close
devising a framework for core/noncore in Californis (but who pays for the
utilities' past debts and the costs of DWR power purchased between January
and today remain very contentious).
Unfortunately, with the release of the information regarding the DWR
contracts last Friday, it is now clear that achieving a core/noncore
structure will be very difficult unless something is done to mitigate the
contracts.
The problem is that, if core is served by utility gen and QFs, and large
customers are in the market, there is no (or very little) need for the DWR
contracts. Instead, they look like a signficant stranded cost.
Hertzberg and the negotiating group are looking to Enron for creative ways to
address "the DWR contract problem" in order to prevent the contracts from 1)
killing the core/noncore deal and 2) forcing California to accept a structure
focused on a state power authority headed-up by David Freeman that does not
include Direct Access.
Christian Yoder and Steve Hall are reviewing the contracts to analyze any
"out clauses" that the buyer and/or the seller might have under the contract
provisions. (My cursory review of the contracts suggests that "outs" for the
state are minimal or nonexistent.)
In addition, we've started batting around ideas about how the State might
reform the contracts.
All this said, want to let everyone know that we have made it extremely clear
that Enron fundamentally opposes any and all attempts to unilaterally
abrogate anyone's contract rights.
We'd like to have a quick call tomorrow (30-60 minutes) to brainstorm some
options that we can offer Hertzberg to handle the contracts and keep the
core/noncore solution alive. We'd like to try to have the the call at 1 PM
PDT. Please let me know if this works for you, and if it doesn't, please let
me know if there's a time after 1 PM PDT that works for you.
Thanks,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,887 |
Subject: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #40
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/240.
=====================================
Good Morning,
Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly.
<<IPW082001.doc>>
Also note that on September 10 and 11, CSFB will host a Power Generation
Supply Chain Conference at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. This power
generators will speak on the morning of September 11. Companies presenting
include: CPN, MIR, NRG, ORN, PPL, RRI, and TE.
Summary:
1. IPP's Fall 5.1% Last week our IPP composite fell 5.1%, underperforming
both the NASDAQ (-4.6%) and the S&P 500 (-2.4%). Orion Power, which was up
4.2%, was the strongest performer in the group-for the second consecutive
week. Global Power Equipment Group was the weakest performer, falling
12.9%.
2. Negative Sentiment Overhangs Group Last week negative investor
sentiment continued to overhang the Independent Power Producers as evidenced
by the continued underperformance of our composite versus the broader market
indices. In particular, lingering concerns persist surrounding the
potential for overcapacity in the industry. Further, the market reacted
harshly and drew negative conclusions across the entire sector following the
resignation of Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling on Tuesday (8/14).
3. Calpine Hosting Conference Call Today (8/20), Calpine will host the
second of 3 special topic conference calls designed to address particular
investor concerns. The purpose of today's call will be to provide an update
on the company's progress in achieving its capacity buildout goal for 2005.
The call will take place at 2 pm EDT. The dial-in number is 877/692-2137.
While there was speculation to the contrary last week, we expect management
to reaffirm comfort with both its 70,000 MW goal for 2005 as well as in its
ability to grow EPS by 40% over the period.
4. Bush Appoints Wood as FERC Chairman As expected, President Bush named
Pat Wood as Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In
this role, Wood will replace Curt Hebert who announced his resignation on
August 3. While Wood has acknowledged the importance of encouraging new
investment, he has been more receptive to the view that some players may
have driven up power prices artificially through the exercise of market
power.
Regards,
Neil Stein 212/325-4217
Bryan Sifert 212/325-3906
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.
=====================================
|
3,888 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5602.
=====================================
It looks like one of the air districts is listening...
South Coast Air Quality Management District
=09=09Jan. 26, 2001
=09=09To Help Provide Power During Energy Crisis
=09=09AQMD EXTENDS OPERATIONS LIMIT ON EMERGENCY GENERATORS
=09=09In an effort to give essential public services greater ability to res=
pond to=20
power emergencies, the region's air quality agency issued an executive orde=
r=20
today extending the amount of time that such agencies can run emergency=20
generators.
=09=09"Gov. Davis declared a state of emergency last week due to the state'=
s power=20
crisis," said Barry Wallerstein, AQMD=01,s executive officer. "In response,=
AQMD=20
has increased the amount of time that emergency generators at hospitals,=20
police stations, fire houses and other essential public services can operat=
e."
=09=09Under AQMD's executive order, essential public service providers can =
operate=20
emergency generators up to 500 hours in a calendar year, which more than=20
doubles AQMD's Rule 1110.2 operation limit of 200 hours per year. AQMD rule=
s=20
normally limit emergency generators to 200 hours per year because they are=
=20
typically diesel-powered, have no pollution controls and emit 300 times mor=
e=20
smog-forming pollution per unit of energy than a new power plant.
=09=09Today's order allows essential public service providers to operate up=
to 500=20
hours per year during an imminent or actual power blackout in the provider'=
s=20
area. It also promotes the use of low-sulfur diesel fuel, defined as=20
containing 15 parts per million or less of sulfur, if reasonably available.=
=20
The provisions of the order are consistent with U.S. Environmental Protecti=
on=20
Agency guidance on this issue.
=09=09The order expires on Feb. 3, 2001, but can be renewed in 10-day incre=
ments.=20
It applies to the following public services:
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09
=09=09Police and fire fighting facilities;
=09=09
=09=09Hospitals and other health care facilities;
=09=09
=09=09Kindergarten through high schools;
=09=09
=09=09Drinking water agencies;
=09=09
=09=09Public transit agencies;
=09=09
=09=09Prisons;
=09=09
=09=09911 emergency dispatch operations;
=09=09
=09=09Publicly owned sewage treatment plants;
=09=09
=09=09Landfill gas operations; and
=09=09
=09=09Critical military operations.
=09=09
=09=09Under AQMD's Rule 118, the agency's executive officer can suspend AQM=
D rules=20
for public health and safety services for 10 days at a time in response to =
a=20
state of emergency declared by the state or federal government.
=09=09AQMD has set up a hotline, (909) 396-2660, to assist operators of bac=
kup=20
generators at non-essential public services to voluntarily apply for a=20
variance with AQMD's independent Hearing Board.
=09=09AQMD also will approve applications submitted by any emergency genera=
tor=20
operator that is not an essential public service to revise their permit to=
=20
allow up to 200 hours of operation.
=09=09"The governor has determined that the power crisis poses an extreme p=
eril to=20
public safety," Wallerstein said. "We are doing our part to ensure that=20
public health and safety agencies can keep operating during periods of=20
potential blackouts."
=09=09AQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the ur=
ban=20
portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
Mary Schoen
Environmental Strategies
Enron Corp
713-345-7422
=====================================
|
3,889 |
Subject: CA Energy Issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1747.
=====================================
There was only one article on California Energy Crisis today.
L.A. defends energy charges to state
Daily News, 9/11/2001
By Rick Orlov
Staff Writer
Los Angeles officials on Monday defended the amount the city's Department of Water and Power charged the state for electricity during this year's energy crisis, saying the DWP provided a reliable source of power at a reasonable price.
Although an audit showed that profits on sales to the California Power Exchange were 56 percent, it also showed that sales to other state agencies and utilities sometimes showed a loss and resulted in an overall profit margin of 16 percent during the one-year period that ended in May.
Mayor James Hahn was on a lobbying trip in Washington, D.C., and his top aide said he believes the DWP acted properly.
"We do not believe the DWP engaged in price-gouging," Deputy Mayor Tim McOsker said. "The way the mayor sees it, the city of Los Angeles was a good neighbor to the state at a time in need. We provided reliable energy at a reasonable price, and we find ourselves, today, still owed $180 million.
"What this audit shows is the city provided a substantial amount of power to the state at a critical time."
Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton also defended the city's actions during the power crisis.
"The city was not trying to make a lot of money," Deaton said. "We were basically looking to cover our costs, and there was a lot of speculation on the (natural) gas prices that were going up and down. Because of the higher gas prices, our costs were higher for that period. There was no gouging.
"The state asked us to begin generating at all our plants, so we had every generator going -- even the more expensive ones. Did we sell the more efficient cheaper power to city residents? Yes. But that's our obligation. We sold the more expensive power to the state."
City officials have adopted a policy to limit DWP profits to 15 percent above costs, a figure developed by S. David Freeman, the former DWP general manager who is now Gov. Gray Davis' chief energy adviser.
Freeman did not return telephone calls Monday, but he has been quoted as defending the DWP's actions at the time and disputing the audit's findings.
Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio, however, said the audit continued to raise questions about whether municipal utilities were profiting at the state's expense.
The governor, at one point, threatened to take over municipal utilities because of the amounts they were charging the state for energy. His administration has submitted a request to federal authorities to seek refunds of some $4.8 billion from private and public energy suppliers for what Davis has claimed was overcharging.
"The governor has been extremely aggressive with municipal utilities," Maviglio said. "Early on, the governor was complaining that public utilities were charging more per megawatt than private utilities."
The audit by PriceWaterhouseCoopers was ordered by DWP General Manager David Wiggs to resolve questions on the pricing by the agency.
It showed the DWP had a profit margin of 56 percent with the California Power Exchange, 21 percent with the Independent System Operator and 22 percent with the state Department of Water Resources, while experiencing a 19 percent loss in sales to other utilities for an overall profit margin of 16 percent.
The DWP now is in the process of negotiating with the state to provide power at no profit
=====================================
|
3,890 |
Subject: FW: Two Cool Jobs at AOL - Product Manager/Production
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/138.
=====================================
To All:
Below are two great jobs for someone who wants to break into the
online industry...any referrals welcome. [email protected]
Community Products Group
AOL Technologies
*****Product Manager*****
Job Responsibilities:
This position offers one of the most exciting and creative product
marketing positions in the online industry. This Product Manager in
this position will play a key role in delivering AOL's community
offerings to the world's largest online audience of over 20 million
paying subscribers. Working with designers, producers and Internet
software developers who have built successful products at Netscape and
other Silicon Valley startups, this Product Manager will define and
execute winning plans for services that drive online self-expression and
group interaction, and that combine fun and personal convenience into a
compelling consumer experience.
Job responsibilities include gathering and synthesizing product
requirements, interfacing closely with stakeholders across online
brands, performing competitive analysis, optimizing plans for maximum
impact, and evangelizing the product vision. To be successful, the
product manager will have to balance a customer focus with business
objectives, technology, competition, schedule and resource constraints.
Skills and Experience Required:
Passion, determination to succeed and intelligence are the primary
qualifications for this position. Candidates also must bring or be able
to quickly acquire a broad understanding of the online service industry
and consumer web applications. He or she will be expected to quickly
develop analytical and team leadership skills that range from
synthesizing strategies from broad business objectives to "roll-up the
sleeves" execution of product details, constantly assessing decisions
against customer value and business impact.
Previous product marketing experience and excellent writing and
presentation skills are also desired. Bachelors or Masters degrees in
Computer Science, Business Administration or equivalent are desired but
not mandatory.
*****Production specialist/Web technologist*****
Job Responsibilities:
This position offers an exciting opportunity to work with product teams
building community applications for AOL, Inc.
Job responsibilities:
Primary responsibilities include programming and deploying HTML pages
for web-based applications, as well as building dynamic pages using
proprietary technologies. Secondary responsibilities include writing
basic scripts, building graphics, and assembling application prototypes
for usability testing. The candidate will be working with engineers,
designers, producers, and product managers. The ultimate goal of this
position is creating pages that are usable, fast, and meet the product
requirements.
Skills required:
This is an excellent entry-level position for a bright, motivated team
player looking for industry experience. 1-2 years experience building
websites or web applications desirable. Expert HTML coding skills.
Familiarity with dynamic page creation a plus (e.g. template systems
and/or content management systems). Familiarity with Photoshop,
JavaScript, and Perl a plus.
Excellent communications skills are necessary, as is the ability to
juggle multiple concurrent projects/deadlines in a fast-paced, highly
visible environment. Initiative, desire to learn, accountability, and
willingness to take ownership of projects desired.
=====================================
|
3,891 |
Subject: Sacramento Bee News Article 12/1/2000 re: "Senate Leader says
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4152.
=====================================
Senate leader says re-regulation, public power should be considered
By STEVE LAWRENCE
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO (AP) -- Lawmakers should consider re-regulating electric utilities
or building a publicly operated power system as ways to hold down
skyrocketing electricity rates, the Senate's leader said Thursday.
"I think everything has to be on the table," Senate President Pro Tem John
Burton told reporters.
How to avoid huge spikes in electricity prices is likely to be the hottest
issue facing the Legislature as it prepares for its 2001 session.
Electricity bills tripled after a rate deregulation plan approved by the
Legislature in 1996 kicked in this year for customers of San Diego Gas and
Electric Co.
California's two other huge investor-owned utilities, Southern California
Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., say they have suffered $5 billion to
$6 billion in losses because of increases in wholesale electricity prices
while they've waited for deregulation to fully affect them.
They may ask the Legislature for permission to raise rates to make up for
those losses if they can't get authorization from the Public Utilities
Commission or the courts.
Burton questioned whether the utilities have lost that much.
"I know they've got problems, but it's like the baseball teams saying they
lose money," the San Francisco Democrat said. "Well, they lose money cause
they depreciate Alex Rodriguez's $20 million contact. They ain't losing money
they are making money."
PG&E spokesman Ron Low said Burton raised some "legitimate questions" but he
said his company's losses were real.
"The fact is we cannot continue to keep borrowing money to pay the high
wholesale prices," Low said. "We have filed reports at the commission each
month that detail the seriousness of the situation."
Burton said the PUC needs to do an audit of utility company books.
"If they are running broke who's responsibility is it to bail them out: the
state, ratepayers, share holders?" Burton asked. "Those are not easy
questions to answer."
He said consumer advocates believe utility stock holders should eat the
losses and utilities believe their customers should pay to cover them. "Maybe
it's something in between," Burton said.
Asked if taxpayers should chip in, he said one possible way to do that and
try to hold down prices would be to develop more power generation systems
that would be fully or partially owned by the public.
"Public power has been around for years," he said. "It has worked for years."
But Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of the Independent Energy Producers,
an association of privately owned power plant companies, said there's no need
to build publicly owned facilities.
"Energy is coming to California...," he said, adding that there are five
power plants under construction in the state now. "Getting the market back on
track will not require massive amounts of legislation."
Another option is to re-regulate utility rates, Burton said. "I never found
that was a burden on me before and I don't think it was a burden on
ratepayers," he said.
If lawmakers fail to solve the problem, consumer advocates will put a public
power system initiative on the ballot that will pass overwhelmingly, Burton
predicted.
Spokesmen for power generators and utilities did not immediately respond to a
request from The Associated Press for comment.
Copyright , The Sacramento Bee
=====================================
|
3,892 |
Subject: Re: FW: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Subject: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/4111.
=====================================
Monday is great--I'm giving this to Lay then.
- Rob
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
04/20/2001 05:34 PM
To: Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: FW: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
Happy to. It'll have to wait till Monday, though. That work?
Rob Bradley
04/20/2001 05:25 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: FW: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
Would you mind putting it down on paper so I can give it to Lay? Just two or
so bullets of the El Paso accusation and then some bullets on the more
fundamental story.
- Rob
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
04/20/2001 05:19 PM
To: Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: FW: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
You got it. Just give me a call and we'll walk through "the other side of
the story."
Best,
Jeff
Rob Bradley
04/20/2001 03:17 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: FW: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
Can I talk you or someone else who is close to this into a one pager on why
a simple supply/demand explanation of California border prices trumps
Carpenter's El Paso dun it conspiracy analysis?
I don't want Lay to be stumped by a question on this at his Wednesday IAEE
talk.
- Rob
----- Forwarded by Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron on 04/20/2001 03:13 PM -----
Shelley Corman/ENRON@enronXgate
04/20/2001 02:51 PM
To: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: FW: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
Attached is Paul Carpenter (Brattle Group) preliminary findings that
marketers have market power at the border.
By my second email I'm sending Enron's responses to the pleadings at FERC
which refute the notion of the need to reinstitute price controls at the
California border.
Alternatively, a good argument to high gas prices at the CA border is the
message in Stan's natural gas roundtable speech (i.e. high gas prices can be
directly attributed to supply/demand factors).
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:28 PM
To: Fawcett, Jeffery; Harris, Steven; Fossum, Drew; Gomez, Julie A.; Corman,
Shelley; Hartsoe, Joe; Miller, Stephanie; Steffes, James; [email protected];
Robertson, Linda; Shapiro, Richard; Kaufman, Paul; Mara, Susan; McCubbin,
Sandra; Guerrero, Janel; Denne, Karen; [email protected]; Novosel, Sarah;
Fulton, Donna; Lawner, Leslie
Subject: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
FYI. Presentation by Brattle Group before CA leg committee yesterday in
which they assert market power at the CA border (held by "out-of-state
suppliers") explains high gas prices in California. If you have any
questions, call me at 415.782.7822. Please forward to others whom you think
might be interested. Stephanie, could you forward along to Barry?
Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/19/2001 12:23 PM -----
[email protected] 04/19/2001 11:36 AM To: [email protected]
cc: Subject: Sacramento Pres Final 4_13_01(projected).ppt
Per your request, attached are the presentation slides from yesterday.
Douglas Porter, Senior Attorney
Southern California Edison Company
(626)302-3964
(626)302-3990(fax)
[email protected](See attached file: DRT2486.PPT)
- DRT2486.PPT
=====================================
|
3,893 |
Subject: Power Generation Update: Easier Said than Done!---Potential forC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/674.
=====================================
> <<IPPupdate101901.pdf>>
> Good Morning,
>
> Attached, please find our latest Power Generation Update.
>
> 1. Governor Seeking to Renegotiate Contracts? On October 18, our IPP
> composite traded off 3.6% following reports by the LA Times and Dow Jones
> News Wire which suggested that a new initiative was underway by California
> Governor Gray Davis to renegotiate the 53 power sales contracts between
> various generators and the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR)
> arranged during the first and second quarter of 2001. Further, it was
> indicated that the Governor will host a press conference today to discuss
> this new initiative.
>
> 2. Initial Reports May Have Been Mistaken Importantly, our contacts in
> Sacramento were unable to confirm that such an initiative is underway.
> Further, subsequent reports indicated that while the Governor would host a
> press conference today, he will not call for any contract renegotiations.
>
>
> 3. Current Stock Prices Assign No Value to the Contracts Out of our
> coverage universe, such power contracts with the CDWR have been entered
> into by Calpine (CPN, $25.27, Strong Buy), Mirant (MIR, $27.35), and NRG
> Energy (NRG, $18.87, Buy). To the extent the IPPs are trading at a 10%
> average discount to our estimate of the private market value of their
> assets, we do not believe investors are assigning any value to these
> contracts.
>
> 4. California Has Few Legal Options Regardless, while it is possible to
> envision contract restructurings that are mutually beneficial to both
> parties, it is difficult to envision a scenario where the economics of the
> contracts would be dramatically altered. The agreements between the
> generators and the state are binding contracts governed by Federal law and
> the US Constitution. Simply because power prices have fallen since the
> contracts were signed does not give the State the right to renegotiate
> their terms.
>
> 5. CPN and MIR Are Least Vulnerable Given the low cost nature of CPN's
> contracts, we believe they face minimal exposure should the state attempt
> to renegotiate. In Mirant's case, because its contract is relatively
> short-term, we also regard its exposure as relatively minimal.
>
> 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.
=====================================
|
3,894 |
Subject: UC/CSU Conference Call - 5/14/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3359.
=====================================
We just completed our weekly conference call with UC/CSU and their are some
noteworthy developments. Diann, Maurice and I participated. We need to
consider the ramifications and set actions accordingly. I've put
actions/questions in bold below.
EDI Transfer Agreements
UC and CSU are going to complete the EDI transfer agreements and get back to
us this week. They have come to the realization that the utilities are
resourcing their supply and that they need to take us up on our EDI offer in
order to address billing issues. They want us to assure them that cut-off
notices, which will consequently be directed to us, are adequately addressed
to prevent actual cut-offs from occurring. Diann is addressing.
DR-SC Services
UC and CSU have elected to use APX to provide Demand Relief-Schedule
Coordination services for their DRP instead of Enron. UC/CSU apparently need
to get a copy of their executed DR-SC agreements to the ISO by tomorrow (May
15), or run the risk of forfeiting their participation. We are not able to
provide a commitment of getting their proposed Letter Agreement executed in
their timeframe (tomorrow). (I informed my counterparts that we did not
receive the draft agreement until Wednesday of last week, two weeks later
than originally promised, and that Enron should not be held accountable for
the delay. Maric of UC informed me that UC did not provide the agreement to
us earlier because they first wanted to know their supply status (DA vs.
utility supply). I reminded Maric (and CSU) that our offer to provide DR-SC
services was independent of their energy supply status). Bob, Kristen - as a
result, I will not be forwarding our red-line of their draft agreement.
Meter Installs
My counterparts at UC and CSU confirmed that SCE would not receive resistance
at campuses to install the SCE meters. However, this was conditional that we
coordinate with the campuses ahead of time. Though I don't believe we are
obligated to do this, I see no harm in sharing with UC/CSU and the campuses
the SCE transition dates, and offering to coordinate with their campuses.
Also, I am working with Diann and Maurice to determine our most cost
effective approach for continuing to provide interval data reporting
services. Recall that we had before recommended the dual sockets, however,
we are now looking into using IDR read-only access from the utility meters as
a reduced-cost option. We did not offer this today, and are scheduled to
meet with UC and CSU tomorrow to discuss further. Mike, Bob, Kristen - do
you see any harm in us offering a different approach at this point (i.e.,
utility IDR meters with Enron read-only provision instead of dual sockets)?
Surcharges
Maric asked we give her assurance we were not planning to pass through
surcharges to the campuses. I informed her we were considering doing just
that and that we would be taking up with them at some time in the future
(perhaps during mediation discussions). Interestingly, she did not point to
the contract in dissuading us, giving me the impression that they may believe
the contract is in our favor on this. Instead, she pointed out some written
testimony Enron had provided where we are on record as saying we would not
pass through the surcharges to our customers. Jeff, anyone - Any background
on this purported testimony?
Let me know if you have any questions. Ideas, suggestions welcome.
Tom
=====================================
|
3,895 |
Subject: RE: Pac Tel - CPUC Customer Switch Complaint
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/2325.
=====================================
Thanks, Geoff. May make sense to loop back with the woman at the PUC who contacted Jim originally about this account. Jim's been in contact with her before about some confusion with a UC account. Jim was out yesterday and today, but I think that he'll be in tomorrow. He may want to make the contact. Jim, thoughts?
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Pollard, Geoff
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:36 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Frazier, Lamar; Steffes, James D.
Cc: Mara, Susan; Smith, Mike B; Huddleson, Diann; Hughes, Evan; Fite, Rebecca; Riley, Tom
Subject: RE: Pac Tel - CPUC Customer Switch Complaint
All,
I spoke with the customer, Mike Benson. He is not angry, but he would like his accounts returned to bundled service. He understands that we are implementing a large contract with SBC Corp Real Estate, and that it is possible more of his accounts are inadvertantly on the list. He knows to contact me directly with future issues. I submitted the deal sheet to de-DASR the 2 accounts he identified to Samantha Fite a few moments ago.
I have also notified the SBC contracts manager of the situation.
Let me know if there are any questions or concerns.
Geoff
Geoff Pollard
Service Manager
Enron Energy Services
925-543-3763
-----Original Message-----
From: Pollard, Geoff
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:02 AM
To: 'Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON@EES'; Frazier,Lamar; James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate
Cc: Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate; Smith,Mike B; Huddleson,Diann; Evan Hughes/ENRON@enronxgate; Rebecca Fite/ENRON@enronxgate; Riley, Tom
Subject: RE: Pac Tel - CPUC Customer Switch Complaint
Yes, I will keep you all posted. I placed a call to the customer at 7:30 this morning, but have not heard back from them yet.
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON@EES
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:00 AM
To: Frazier,Lamar; James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate; Pollard, Geoff
Cc: Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate; Smith,Mike B; Huddleson,Diann; Evan Hughes/ENRON@enronxgate; Rebecca Fite/ENRON@enronxgate; Riley, Tom
Subject: RE: Pac Tel - CPUC Customer Switch Complaint
Thanks, Lamar. Geoff, could you let us know how it goes with the customer and if this a mix-up on the customer's end. Thanks very much.
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Frazier, Lamar
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:32 AM
To: Steffes, James D.; Pollard, Geoff
Cc: Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan; Smith, Mike B; Huddleson, Diann; Hughes, Evan; Fite, Rebecca; Riley, Tom
Subject: Re: Pac Tel - CPUC Customer Switch Complaint
Geoff Pollard is the SM for Pac Tel.
From: James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate on 11/21/2001 04:01 PM
To: Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike B Smith/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/ENRON@enronxgate, Rebecca Fite/ENRON@enronxgate
Subject: Pac Tel - CPUC Customer Switch Complaint
I received a call late today from the CPUC (Joyce @ 415-703-2199). Someone from Pac Tel called and said that his service was switched without authorization - Mike Benson with Payphone group @707-253-8892 or 707-292-1766.
Lamar -- who is the client rep for Pac Tel? Can they get into Pac Tel and try and find out if we have done something inappropriate? We need to call this guy back by Monday EOB. Please let Jeff Dasovich know so he can call Joyce back - I'll be out on vacation next week.
Jim
=====================================
|
3,896 |
Subject: Update--Day 4 of California PUC Hearings
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8082.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/03/2001 11:18 AM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
01/03/2001 11:13 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Angela Schwarz/HOU/EES@EES, Beverly
Aden/HOU/EES@EES, Bill Votaw/HOU/EES@EES, Brenda Barreda/HOU/EES@EES, Carol
Moffett/HOU/EES@EES, Cathy Corbin/HOU/EES@EES, Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Christina Liscano/HOU/EES@EES, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Craig H
Sutter/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Debora Whitehead/HOU/EES@EES,
Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Dorothy
Youngblood/HOU/ECT@ECT, Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES, Edward
Sacks/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Eric Melvin/HOU/EES@EES, Erika Dupre/HOU/EES@EES,
Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Fran Deltoro/HOU/EES@EES, Frank W
Vickers/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gayle W Muench/HOU/EES@EES, Ginger
Dernehl/NA/Enron@ENRON, Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G
Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@ENRON, Iris Waser/HOU/EES@EES,
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, James
Wright/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Jeff Messina/HOU/EES@EES,
Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kathy
Bass/HOU/EES@EES, Kathy Dodgen/HOU/EES@EES, Ken Gustafson/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin
Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES, Leticia Botello/HOU/EES@EES,
Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Marsha Suggs/HOU/EES@EES, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES,
Meredith M Eggleston/HOU/EES@EES, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael
Mann/HOU/EES@EES, Michelle D Cisneros/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike M Smith/HOU/EES@EES,
[email protected], Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paula Warren/HOU/EES@EES, Richard L
Zdunkewicz/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Leibert/HOU/EES@EES, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Rita Hennessy/NA/Enron@ENRON, Robert
Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Rosalinda Tijerina/HOU/EES@EES,
Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott
Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Sharon Dick/HOU/EES@EES,
[email protected], Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tanya Leslie/HOU/EES@EES, Tasha
Lair/HOU/EES@EES, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terri Greenlee/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tony Spruiell/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES,
Vladimir Gorny/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, William S
Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Update--Day of California PUC Hearings
The Commission closed the hearings last night at 7 PM.
The Commission refused all attempts by the utilities'--and there were
several--to get information on "ending the rate freeze" into the hearing
record.
The Commission is attempting to get a draft decision out at 10 AM today (PST).
If it gets out, there will be oral argument at 12:30 today (PST), with final
decision issued tomorrow at the Commission's regularly scheduled business
meeting.
If it does not get out, there will be no oral argument, and the Commission
will issue its final decision tomorrow at its regularly scheduled business
meeting.
Anything could happen but it appears at this point that the decision will
only address the need for a rate increase (rumors flyling furiously regarding
how high the increase will be), with "rate freeze" issues put off for another
day in the near future.
Yesterday, the Governor of California joined Edison's suit against FERC
calling for region-wide, hard price caps.
=====================================
|
3,897 |
Subject: Individual.com - News From a Friend!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4456.
=====================================
INDIVIDUAL.COM
Here's an article recommended by: Karen Denne
and it comes to you via Individual.com, Inc.
The following message was attached:
HERE IS THE STORY WE WERE REQUESTED TO SEND YOU
This story appeared on http://www.individual.com December 11, 2000
_________________________________________________________
[B] Repeats: Calif. power resources will be 3,752 Mw short in 2001
By David Feliciano, BridgeNews
Scottsdale, Ariz.--Dec. 7--California resources and reserves for
electricity will be 3,752 megawatts short of the anticipated load in 2001,
California Independent System Operator (ISO) President and CEO Terry Winter
said Thursday at the annual Western Systems Coordinating Council meeting.
* * *
"I'm concerned about supply," Winter said.
"Without sufficient supply, markets will set socially and politically
unacceptable price levels (for wholesale power)"
Winter said California power resources will total 46,679 Mw in 2001, but
load is expected to reach well over 50,000 Mw. Over 17,000 Mw of new=20
generation
is planned for the state, but most new power plants are not expected to beg=
in
service until 2002 and beyond.
Not helping California's cause, Winter said, are reduced imports of power
this year from neighboring states, down from 7,500 Mw in November of 1999 t=
o
3,900 Mw this November.
Winter also pointed to the affect of a soaring natural gas market. "You can
build generation, but in California, natural gas and emissions are the next
problems. Natural gas is running into the same problem electricity has...th=
ere
is a shortage."
Due in part to the above California wholesale power prices have skyrocketed
since May, leading to rolling blackouts in San Francisco in June and a seri=
es
of conservation emergencies since that time. The state has been under a pow=
er
conservation warning much of this week.
As tools to solve California power woes, Winter suggested the ISO file for
an extension of price cap authority for power until markets are demonstrate=
d=20
to
be workably competitive. The ISO's authority to set price caps, which=20
currently
stands at $250 per Mw/hour expired Nov. 15. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission on Nov. 1 proposed caps of $150 Mw/hour, but has yet to official=
ly
rule on the matter.
Winter also called for the California Public Utilities Commission to allow
full peak requirements to be forward contracted and hedged by load. End
_________________________________________________________
Individual.com is the #1 provider of free, individualized news
and information to business people over the Internet. Visit us at
http://www.individual.com to browse the largest free collection of business=
,
financial, industry, trade, and company-specific news and information
on the web.
This news story was sent by Karen Denne through Individual.com.
You will not receive email messages directly from Individual.com
unless you register at http://www.individual.com.
Get more headlines and stories like this delivered FREE to your
desktop every business morning! Register at=20
http://www.individual.com/welcome.shtml.
Individual.com also brings you FREE news on your investments!
Sign up at http://www.individual.com/welcome.shtml.
___________________________________________________________
Entire contents Copyright , 1999-2000, Individual.com=01v, Inc.,
8 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803, USA
=====================================
|
3,898 |
Subject: FW: EIX, PCG: Governor Announces Forward Contracts; CPUC to Discuss
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '=20', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9688.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/06/2001 12:42 PM -----
=09Alan Comnes@ECT
=0903/06/2001 12:00 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris H=20
Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT
=09=09 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mary=
=20
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve C Hall/PDX/ECT@ECT
=09=09 Subject: FW: EIX, PCG: Governor Announces Forward Contracts; CPUC to=
Discuss=20
Revenue Allocation
FYI. Davis is including the CalPX BFM contracts that he seized a while bac=
k=20
and is valueing them at some undisclosed amount.
GAC
---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT on 03/06/2001 09:47=
=20
AM ---------------------------
From: Chip Schneider/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/06/2001 08:00 AM CST
To: William S Bradford/ENRON@enronXgate, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate,=
=20
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, John=20
Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Christopher F=20
Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, W David Duran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg Blair/Corp/Enron@Enron,=
=20
George Schaefer/NA/Enron@Enron, Terry W Donovan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: =20
Subject: FW: EIX, PCG: Governor Announces Forward Contracts; CPUC to Discus=
s=20
Revenue Allocation
-----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: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 7:13 AM
To: Schneider, Chip
Subject: EIX, PCG: Governor Announces Forward Contracts; CPUC to Discuss=20
Revenue Allocation
Credit Suisse First Boston
Paul Patterson
Good morning,
Recent developments in California's power crisis:
-Yesterday, Governor Davis announced that the DWR has signed 40 contracts f=
or=20
8,886 MW per year, over the next 10 years and at an average price of $69 pe=
r=20
mWh. The DWR also has agreements in =01&principle=018 to cover 65-70% of it=
s net=20
short power position this summer.
-We remain cautious on the power purchase agreements, given past results of=
=20
the state=01,s power auctions. At least two generators have indicated that,=
=20
while they have signed MOUs with the DWR, the agreements are not definitive=
=20
and issues still need to be resolved.
-Also yesterday, District Court Judge Lew scheduled a trial date of July 31=
=20
for Edison=01,s lawsuit against the CPUC.
-On Thursday, the CPUC will address several utility issues. Of particular=
=20
importance is the allocation of customer revenues to the DWR. The method of=
=20
allocation is expected to determine whether the DWR or the utilities are at=
=20
greater risk for undercollection.
-We believe many uncertainties still remain. It is unclear when the state=
=01,s=20
conceptual agreements with the utilities and the generators will be finaliz=
ed=20
in addition to how the legislature will receive the agreements.
-Consequently, we believe that investors should avoid EIX ($15.21, Hold) an=
d=20
PCG ($14.75, Hold), unless they have a high tolerance for risk and volatili=
ty.
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.
- ppp030601.pdf
=====================================
|
3,899 |
Subject: Re: IXC vs. CLEC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Donald Lassere/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON', 'Lara', 'Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES@ENRON']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/865.
=====================================
thursday or friday works best for me, but i might be able to make wednesday,
too.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES on 08/29/2000 07:01
PM ---------------------------
Scott Bolton @ ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
08/29/2000 10:19 AM
To: Susan M Landwehr/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON
cc: Donald Lassere/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES@ENRON, Lara
Leibman/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Marchris Robinson/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON, Steve Montovano/DUB/EES@EES@ENRON, Sue
Nord/HOU/EES@EES@ENRON
Subject: Re: IXC vs. CLEC
Good points. Since Lara is on vacation this week, and Xi Xi is in Asia,
let's try to put a call together next week sometime. Please email Tracy your
schedules or preferred times. Thanks.
Susan M Landwehr@EES
08/28/00 09:22 PM
To: Lara Leibman/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Sue Nord/HOU/EES@EES, Donald Lassere/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Bolton/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Marchris
Robinson/HOU/EES@EES, Steve Montovano/DUB/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Re: IXC vs. CLEC
Lara--I reviewed this report as well as the memo that Illinois counsel
prepared for you. A number of questions/concerns come to mind. I briefly
discussed these concerns with Sue Nord late last week, but wanted to put them
before the group for possible discussion on our next conference call.
When I read the memo from Stamos (Illinois counsel), it appeared to me that
the categories of requirements might be able to be divided into "regulatory"
responsibilities vs "commercial" requirements. In the regulatory column
would be things like the annual designation of an agent and the annual
identification of the CEO. Also, the certificate itself needs to be renewed
every 2 years (FYI--I don't think I saw that requirement in the chart) Other
items such as participation in the One Call Notice System and the tax
contributions might fall into the commercial category.
These requirements not only need to be kept track of and adherred to, but
there is also the consideration of what the resource costs are associated
with them for both the IXC certifcations and the CLEC certifications. And
are there penalties in place if we don't comply?
Scott/Donald/Sue--can we discuss next call?
Lara Leibman 08/23/2000 01:42 PM
To: Sue Nord/HOU/EES@EES, Donald Lassere/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Bolton/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Marchris Robinson/HOU/EES@EES, Steve
Montovano/DUB/EES@EES, Susan M Landwehr/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: IXC vs. CLEC
Attached please find a chart that summarizes the differences between IXC and
CLEC obligations for Texas, New York and Illinois. This project was meant to
incorporate California and Florida; however, I have not yet received any
information from our counsel in CA and I only received the pertinent
information from our counsel in Florida late last night and this morning. I
apologize that I was not able to include any information from those states.
I will incorporate their information when I return from vacation.
I have asked Gloria to provide some of you with copies of the material that I
received from Florida to utilize in my absence (e.g., Sue, Donald, Scott).
You should already have the material from TX, IL and NY.
Please let me know if anyone has any questions or concerns. Thank you.
Regards,
Lara
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.