dataset_id
int64 0
5.47k
| email_body
stringlengths 800
9.73k
|
|---|---|
3,900 |
Subject: RE: CA Instrate Gas matters
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12141.
=====================================
While Leslie was out I had a brief discussion with Tycholiz, et al. They're
going to pull together an outline of the things they're thinking about and
get back to us on it for discussion.
Best,
Jeff
Susan M Landwehr/ENRON@enronXgate
07/25/2001 09:57 PM
To: Leslie Lawner/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: RE: CA Instrate Gas matters
Leslie--I don't know whatever happened to this discussion? I suggested to
Jeff that I would be available off and on during the week, but I think he was
nuts with the legislative session. SHould we try again or have you already
discussed?
-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Lawner
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:30 PM
To: Barry Tycholiz
Cc: Jeff Dasovich; Susan M Landwehr
Subject: RE: CA Instrate Gas matters
I am really only available Monday am (I am on a well-deserved vacation next
week), but if that works for you, that would be great. Jeff is pretty full
up with the CA legislature and all the electric stuff. We can try him, tho.
What I would like is to come up with a coherent message on hedging in CA,
particularly the core-non-core issues, so that at the end of the day, EES
still has a market and ENA can sell hedges to the LDCs. Sue Landwehr in Gov
Affairs is the leader/coordinator of our hedging activities before the state
commissions and we should get her involved as well. In fact I will cc both
Sue and Jeff on this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tycholiz, Barry
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:52 PM
To: Lawner, Leslie
Subject: RE: CA Instrate Gas matters
leslie, I would like to talk to you and jeff regarding ENA's plans to talking
to the PUC regarding hedging activities... let's do this early next week. Is
there a time that is best to schedule.
BT
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawner, Leslie
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:21 AM
To: Allen, Phillip K.; Kingerski, Harry; Kaufman, Paul; Tycholiz, Barry;
Miller, Stephanie; Ponce, Roger; Black, Don; Hewitt, Jess; Shireman,
Kristann; Courtney, Mark; Elliott, Chris; Dasovich, Jeff; Becky McCabe;
Fulton, Donna; Steffes, Darla; Stoness, Scott; Johnson, Tamara
Cc: Nicolay, Christi
Subject: CA Instrate Gas matters
This is to quickly summarize our call on July 11 on California gas intrastate
matters and set a direction for future activity.
Unbundling: PG&E has a Gas Accord in effect through 12/31/03, which is
generally positive. We will participate in the development of a successor
plan, and attempt to improve it if we can.
SoCalGas attempted its own version of a gas accord, but the CPUC refused
to approve. We will attempt to resurrect this accord and obtain CPUC
approval.
Hedging: No proceeding currently exists to address gas hedging by LDCs.
(draft legislation does exist on the electric side to allow hedging and
passthrough of costs). Jeff has recommended that we approach the LDCs to
begin discussing the issue and developing a strategy to take to the CPUC. I
suggest we develop an ENA-EES hedging proposal for CA and then take that to
the LDCs. I will attempt to put this is writing.
Infrastructure: CPUC has undertaken a proceeding to determine the need to
improve infrastructure. SoCal Gas and PG&E are responding with proposals.
We want to revitalize the infrastructure and ensure real markets exist and
can develop. Our task is to participate in these proceedings.
(Please let me know who I left off the mailing list).
=====================================
|
3,901 |
Subject: Pennsylvania's Electricity Market: Can California Happen Here?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3743.
=====================================
FYI.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/19/2001 01:57 PM -----
=09"PennFuture" <[email protected]>
=0903/19/2001 01:52 PM
=09Please respond to "PennFuture"
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: <[email protected]>
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Pennsylvania's Electricity Market: Can California Happen He=
re?
The Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce
=20
in collaboration with PennFuture
cordially invites you to a luncheon seminar,
=20
"Pennsylvania=01,s Electricity Market:=20
Can California Happen Here?"
=20
Two of the country=01,s leading experts in electricity markets will:
share their perspectives on current national trends in energy policy, =20
discuss the problems in California=01,s deregulated electricity market,
compare that with the Pennsylvania experience,
suggest ways to enhance Pennsylvania=01,s energy policy to prevent =20
California-style price spikes and electricity shortages in the future. =20
Speakers will also detail how Pennsylvania is positioned to take advantage=
=20
of renewable energy, and how diversifying our energy portfolio can benefit=
=20
our economy, our environment, and our energy security.
=20
April 3, 2001 - 12:00 to 2:00 p.m.
Omni William Penn Hotel =01) Pittsburgh
530 William Penn Place
Admission is free -- RSVP required
=20
Moderated by Bill Hopwood, President, Springhouse Energy Systems.
=20
Featured Speakers:
=20
Karl R?bago, Managing Director, Rocky Mountain Institute
=20
A former Public Utility Commissioner for the State of Texas and Deputy =20
Assistant Secretary for Utility Technologies for the U.S. DOE, R?bago has=
=20
played a leadership role in shaping the national agenda in utility=20
regulation and restructuring, energy efficiency and renewable energy. An=
=20
expert on new personal power energy markets, R?bago currently consults wit=
h=20
large and small businesses, government agencies and other organizations to=
=20
practically and profitably implement principles of sustainability through=
=20
Natural Capitalism.
=20
John Hanger, President and CEO, Citizens for Pennsylvania=01,s Future =20
(PennFuture)
=20
John Hanger is President and CEO of PennFuture, a statewide public interest=
, =20
membership group that works to protect Pennsylvania=01,s environment and=20
improve its economy. From 1993 to 1998, Hanger served as a Commissioner wi=
th=20
the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and has been described by the =
=20
Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Harrisburg=20
Patriot-News as the "architect," "the lynchpin" and the "driving force" of=
=20
Pennsylvania=01,s transition to electric competition. Hanger testifies and=
=20
speaks throughout the nation on energy and environment issues, public=20
utility regulation, and competition in the electricity industry. =20
Please join us! For more information, or to register: call PennFuture at=
=20
717-214-7920, fax the attached form to 717-214-7927, or send an email to=
=20
[email protected] by Wednesday, March 28, 2001.=20
As someone concerned with Pennsylvania's environment, economy and energy =
=20
issues, we thought you would be interested in this event. If you prefer not=
=20
to receive event invitations from us, please respond by typing "no events"=
=20
in the subject line. If you wish not to receive email from PennFuture,=20
please respond by typing "remove" in the subject line.
- Pttsbrgh Green Energy Lunch regform_31401.doc
=====================================
|
3,902 |
Subject: [Fwd: Hertzberg Press Conference]
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2834.
=====================================
Received: (qmail 47628 invoked by uid 41); 29 May 2001 22:05:14 -0000
Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (204.127.131.49) by=20
mx6.quiknet.com with SMTP; 29 May 2001 22:05:14 -0000
Received: from vaio ([12.72.49.51]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net =
=20
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id=20
<20010529220129.COZN12661.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@vaio>; Tue, 2=
9=20
May 2001 22:01:29 +0000
Message-ID: <000f01c0e88b$1f52eb80$3331480c@vaio>
From: "Ken Smith" <[email protected]>
To: "Sandra McCubbin" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,=20
"Scott Govenar" <[email protected]>
Subject: Hertzberg Press Conference
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:02:42 -0700
Organization: KDS Communications
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;=20
boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_000C_01C0E850.68FFDBC0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Hertzberg Press Conference Announcing New FERC Filing
Speaker Hertzberg began by announcing that he had received word that the 9=
th=20
Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected the suit filed by Sen. John Burton a=
nd=20
the Speaker asking FERC to impose price caps. A story from KFWB radio in L=
A=20
said that the 3-0 decision was that the issue "does not warrant interventi=
on=20
of this court."=20
The Speaker had received notice just moments before entering the press=20
conference and had no further details, nor had he talked to lead counsel o=
n=20
the case.
Today=01,s announcement was regarding a request for rehearing of FERC=01,s=
April=20
26 order. He said the genesis for the request came from discussions that=
=20
occurred during his trip to DC following the order. Both sides of the aisl=
e,=20
he said, indicated that there were opportunities to address what he said=
=20
were errors in the original order.
Speaker pro Tem Fred Keeley said these errors included:
The April 26 order finds that wholesale electric rates will not be just an=
d=20
reasonable absent commission intervention, but the commission does not=20
demonstrate that the price mitigation it orders will ensure just and=20
reasonable rates;
Limiting price mitigation to system emergencies rather than on a 24/7 basi=
s;
Prices were pegged to the oldest, dirtiest and costliest plants, which=20
continues to allow inappropriately high wholesale prices;
There is no relation between costs and pricing;
Tying price mitigation to establishing a Regional Transmission Organizatio=
n.
This is a request for a "different type" of order that they characterized =
as=20
"middle ground" with a "market approach" rather than another request for=
=20
price caps. He did not elaborate on how the filing takes a market-based=20
approach since it asks for intervention by FERC, but said FERC commissione=
rs=20
had indicated that this would be a more "palatable" approach. Hertzberg=20
added that he had met with Republicans in the House dining room and told=
=20
them he was not proposing price caps.
Keeley said the April 26 order was a "toothless tiger" that didn=01,t impl=
ement=20
penalties for violation. The request for rehearing asks for 100% penalties=
=20
for any violations.
A copy of the filing and press release have been forwarded to Houston and=
=20
are also available by contacting Scott Govenar.
=====================================
|
3,903 |
Subject: Fw: CAISO's Grid Management Charge FERC filing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3550.
=====================================
Attached is the CAISO proposal to FERC seeking approval of its Grid
Management Charge (GMC). This charge recovers the CAISO's costs of
operation. The CAISO proposes to unbundle the GMC into three cost
"buckets," one of which would recover the CAISO's costs associated with Grid
Operations (vs. market functions). The Grid Operation costs total
approximately $71 million or 45 percent of total CAISO costs, and would be
applied to all load including QF/cogeneration load "behind the meter." If
the charge is not/cannot be applied directly to QFs, then it is likely to be
passed through to the utilities which will then attempt to recapture the
costs from QF/cogenerators.
Recently, IEP distributed an email asking the membership whether anyone was
sufficiently concerned regarding this policy and/or the cost impacts to fund
IEP's intervention in this matter. We noted that we had been involved over
the past year attempting to negotiate a compromise with the CAISO, but to no
success. Now, the issue is squarely at FERC. To date, IEP has not received
a response to that email.
At this juncture, IEP is not planning on filing a response to the CAISO's
GMC filing, other than perhaps a pro forma intervention (1-2 pages) so as to
remain a party to the proceeding. An intervention such as this would not
entail arguements as to why the CAISO's proposal is wrong and
counterproductive. If any IEP member is interested in funding a more
active, aggressive intervention opposing the CAIOS filing, please let me
know ASAP but not later than Mondag, November 20. Interventions are due
November 22. "Paper Participation" in this proceeding, excluding any
negotiations for settlement/appearances at FERC, etc, could approach $20,000
in costs.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Maxim <[email protected]>
To: Jan Smutny-Jones (E-mail) <[email protected]>; Steven Kelly (E-mail)
<[email protected]>; Katie Kaplan (E-mail) <[email protected]>
Cc: Douglas Kerner <[email protected]>; Andy Brown <[email protected]>; Eric
Janssen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:52 PM
Subject: CAISO's Grid Management Charge FERC filing
> Please find enclosed our memo summarizing CAISO's Nov. 1 filing with FERC
> requesting approval of an unbundled Grid Management Charge. IEP's
> membership will be interested in this filing because CAISO proposes to
> assess portions of the GMC to QFs with "behind-the-meter" load (i.e.
on-site
> or over-the-fence load). Please let us know how we should proceed in this
> matter, as interventions and protests are due on Nov. 22, 2000.
>
> <<001116_IEP_ISO Grid Man Charge.doc>>
>
>
> Gregory Maxim
> Ellison, Schneider & Harris L.L.P.
> 2015 H Street
> Sacramento, CA 95814
> (916) 447-2166
> [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.
>
>
>
- 001116_IEP_ISO Grid Man Charge.doc
=====================================
|
3,904 |
Subject: A special invitation for Palm(TM) handheld registered owners!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3702.
=====================================
=09[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]=09[IMAGE]
=09InSync Online
=09[IMAGE]
=09 A special invitation for Palm=0FT handheld registered owners!=20
=09
=09Dear Jeffrey,=20
=09
=09When you registered your Palm=0FT handheld with us, you indicated you wo=
uld be=20
interested in receiving information via e-mail. Because so many of you have=
=20
said you would like communications online, we have created a special progra=
m=20
just for you -- InSync Online.=20
=09
=09Subscribe to InSync Online to receive valuable e-mail information that's=
=20
custom-tailored to your specific interests and needs, based on a personal=
=20
profile that you create. You'll receive ONLY the information you're=20
interested in. And it only takes a few mouse clicks to subscribe.=20
=09
=09InSync Online is a free service to help increase the value you receive f=
rom=20
your Palm=0FT handheld. It's the perfect way to get timely, relevant inform=
ation=20
on exciting new products, software, upgrades, special offers and news abou=
t=20
your Palm=0FT handheld.=20
=09
=09HOW TO SUBSCRIBE=20
=09
=09Click on the link below and login to access your personal InSync Online=
=20
profile. Login with your email address and default password of password in=
=20
the Registered Member portion of the page. You will be able to set up a=20
password of your choice, once you are inside of your InSync Online profile.=
=20
It will take just a few minutes to tell us exactly what information you'd=
=20
like to receive.=20
=09
=09If clicking on the link does not open your Web browser, cut and paste th=
is=20
Web address into your Web browser.=20
=09
=09http://insync-palm.com/insync.dyn?p=3Dpassword=20
=09
=09
=09Note: If you have problems registering at the web address above, just g=
o to:=20
http://www.insync-palm.com.=20
=09
=09We value your business and hope you'll enjoy InSync Online.=20
=09
=09--The InSync Online Team =20
=09
=09[IMAGE]
=09 InSync Online is a free service of Palm, Inc.=20
=09
=09You have expressed interest in learning more about Palm, Inc. and have=
=20
provided us with your e-mail address. If you do not wish to receive futur=
e=20
e-mails from Palm, Inc., REPLY to this message, with UNSUBSCRIBE as the=20
subject line of the message.=20
=09
=09If you do not follow these directions your name may not be suppressed f=
rom=20
future Palm, Inc. e-mail campaigns. We apologize for any inconvenience.=
=20
=09
=09All InSync Online materials published by Palm, Inc. are provided as is=
=20
without warranty or conditions of any kind, either express or implied. Palm=
,=20
Inc. does not warrant or endorse products developed by third parties for th=
e=20
Palm OSc. Only applications and products bearing the PalmPilot Compatible=
=20
Platinum logo or the Designed for Palm OS Platinum logo have passed the Pal=
m,=20
Inc. compatibility-testing program.=20
=09
=09Copyright,2001 Palm, Inc. Palm OS, Palm Computing, HandFAX, HandSTAMP,=
=20
HandWEB, Graffiti, HotSync, iMessenger, MultiMail, Palm.Net, PalmConnect,=
=20
PalmGlove, PalmModem, PalmPoint, PalmPrint, and the Palm Platform Compatibl=
e=20
Logo are registered trademarks of Palm, Inc. Palm, the Palm logo, AnyDay,=
=20
EventClub, HandMAIL, the HotSync Logo, PalmGear, PalmGlove, PalmPix, Palm=
=20
Powered, the Palm trade dress, PalmSource, Smartcode, and Simply Palm are=
=20
trademarks of Palm, Inc. All other brands and product names may be=20
trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.=20
=09
=09=20
[IMAGE]
=====================================
|
3,905 |
Subject: Re: Kern River Expansion - Implications for Firm Shippers
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9885.
=====================================
In case you haven't seen the trade press reports:
NGI's Daily Gas Price Index
published : March 13, 2001
Kern Plans Emergency Expansion for California
In response to the "urgent" need for additional gas supplies to serve
California's electric generation markets this summer, Kern River Gas
Transmission has announced an emergency open season for 135,000 Dth/d firm
transportation service expected to be available by July 1.
"It would mean the fast track through FERC and getting all the environmental
permits in three-and-a-half months," said spokeswoman Bev Chipman. "It would
be quicker than ever before. We've already spoken with FERC. They are very
interested, and we are very interested to entertain this possibility."
FERC Chairman Curt Hebert told the House Energy and Air Quality subcommittee
last week that the Commission was committed to moving rapidly on any projects
designed to move gas to California.
Williams, which already has one expansion on file and another on the way, is
proposing this project as an emergency solution to California's power crisis.
The $81 million project would be finalized by April 2 based on whether the
necessary permits and licenses for construction have been obtained. Williams
could cancel the project if expansion capacity is not fully subscribed.
A portion of the emergency facilities may be incorporated into Williams' 2002
California Expansion Project, which is currently on file at FERC, or its 2003
New Generation Expansion Project, which recently underwent an open season.
Several temporary facility installations would be removed once the other two
permanent expansions were in place and in service.
"In response to FERC and to the state of California we have located available
compression equipment that we could have on site nearly immediately, and
we've come up with a proposal to place those compression units on the very
same sites we will be using for our permanent expansions," said Kirk Morgan,
director of business development for Williams Gas Pipeline West. "FERC
already has an application in front of them that deals with the site
locations. These are different units so there are different air quality
impacts, but we're hoping that those sites can be permitted very
expeditiously...." Williams said the facilities would include modifications
to three existing compressor stations, installation of three new compressor
stations and expansion of a meter station.
The open season only runs through noon Thursday. There are two blocks of
capacity that will be available starting July 1: one for 110,000 Dth/d that
runs through April 30, 2002 and another for 21,000 Dth/d that runs through
April 30, 2003. Shippers interested in service should submit a request for
service that includes the shipper's commitment to accept and Williams'
commitment to provide firm transportation service that includes, among other
things, an executed binding precedent agreement and a statement confirming
the ability to meet Williams' creditworthiness in its FERC gas tariff and
policy. Other requirements can be found on the web site at
http://www.williams.com or by contacting Bev Chipman at (801)584-7048.
I thought it was also interesting that, in the press release posted on the
Williams web site, Kern says it will only entertain one request per customer
for each of the two packages being offered. Our usual strategy, I believe,
is to submit several bids at different levels.
=====================================
|
3,906 |
Subject: FW: DAC meeting recap, action items and proposals
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/313.
=====================================
Jeff-- Call-in info is below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel, Erica
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 5:02 PM
> To: Allen, Stevan; AReM; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Dave Modisette;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Dian Grueneich; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Fairchild, Tracy;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; James Simonelli; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Julie Malinowski; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Manuel, Erica; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Norm Plotkin; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Warner, Jami; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: DAC meeting recap, action items and proposals
>
> Thanks to everyone who joined us this morning in the Capitol - we had a
> very productive meeting. My apologies to those of you who called in but
> were unable to hear everyone. Tomorrow's noon conference call will not
> have that problem because we will all be calling in. To recap for you and
> anyone else who missed the meeting, here's a brief summary of actions we
> decided to take in the next week:
>
> In short, we agreed that maintaining DA requires us to go directly to the
> people who are planning to take it away, namely, Loretta Lynch and Phil
> Angelides. Before the August 23 PUC meeting we need to convince the PUC
> and the Treasurer that 1) there is a way to maintain retail choice that
> will not impede bond sales and reasonable bond ratings, and 2) that the
> DAC is willing to work with both offices to find that solution.
>
> There are 5 action items we must complete before the PUC meets on August
> 23:
>
> 1. Draft a letter for the PUC, Angelides and the Governor that discusses
> what principles the DAC is willing to support as we work toward a solution
> that includes DA - Edelman drafted, awaiting DAC approval.
>
> 2. Submit a filing to the PUC by this Friday that includes language from
> Enron's PUC proposal (discussed in today's meeting and attached below) -
> AReM counsel to draft and submit.
>
> 3. Send letters to the PUC in support of AReM filing - DAC members that
> are non-traditional PUC filers but support AReM's filing should do this.
>
> 4. Set up a preliminary meeting with a few DAC lobbyists and a top
> Angelides staffer - Dominic Dimare.
>
> 5. Set up meeting with Angelides, Allen Zaremberg and DAC members -
> Dominic Dimare.
>
> At the request of a number of DAC members, we have set up a conference
> call for tomorrow to regroup and get a status report on these 5
> deliverables, with specific emphasis on revising/approving the letter,
> legislative next steps and brainstorming potential PR tactics.
>
> The dial-in information is as follows:
>
> Date: Thursday, August 9
> Time: Noon - 1:00 pm
> Dial-In #: 505)766-5458
> Code: 657648
>
> Let me or Tracy know if you have any questions. EM.
>
> Erica Manuel
> Edelman Worldwide / Sacramento
> 916/442-2331 phone
> 916/447-8509 fax
> [email protected]
> <<8-8PUC ProposalDAC.doc>>
=====================================
|
3,907 |
Subject: Re: Draft Talking points about California Gas market
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2510.
=====================================
Good points. Are you on board with the storage problems?
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
12/12/2000 01:40 PM
To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T
Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron,
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Maureen
McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Shelley
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Draft Talking points about California Gas market
Leslie: Looks good. Just a couple of comments:
1. General
May want to point out that the roots of California's current gas woes are the
same ones causing the electric problem---combined effect of California's
"import-based" energy policy and the state's failure to invest in in-state
infrastructure. California imports about 25% of its electricity, but about
80-90 percent of its gas supply. California has failed to invest in the
in-state infrastructure necessary to support increased gas demand over the
last decade. So we've got an interstate pipeline superhighway to the border
and a dirt road of in-state transportation once you get into California.
The last bullet seems to suggest that manipulation may be taking place. Can
we support that suggestion, and is it one that we want to make necessarily?
If we do suggest that manipulation may in part explain current prices, do we
need to propose ways to eliminate it? Otherwise, seems that we may be giving
FERC ammunition to take action without trying to "steer" that action in the
right direction. Maybe I'm reading too much into the bullet.
2. Specific
Competition for gas coming to California has increased significantly. The
midwest (via Alliance) is competing away Canadian gas. The Southwest
(Nevada, Arizona) is competing away supply from the Southwest before it hits
the California border.
Mary Hain@ECT
12/12/2000 11:58 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Draft Talking points about California Gas market
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000 10:07 AM
---------------------------
To: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Maureen
McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Draft Talking points about California Gas market
We thought it would be good to basically give Chair Hoecker talking points
with any numbers that Enron provides. We will visit on these later today
when the numbers are ready (before 3:00). Comments?
---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000
10:38 AM ---------------------------
From: Leslie Lawner@ENRON on 12/12/2000 11:56 AM
To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ruth Concannon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephanie
Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jane M
Tholt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Talking points about California Gas market
Here is my stab at the talking points to be sent in to FERC along with the
gas pricing info they requested for the California markets. Let me or
Christi know if you have any disagreements, additions, whatever. I am
supposed to be out of here at 2:15 today, so if you have stuff to add after
that, get it to Christi. Thanks.
=====================================
|
3,908 |
Subject: Re: DRAFT of materials for Governor
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8065.
=====================================
3rd set of suggestions
We have missed the opportunity to make our points to i) share existing
generation, ii) treat all customers the same
Could we include the following:
Customers are continuously making decision related to who should provide them
with service and whether they should relocate in California.
The current uncertainty around solvency of utilities and market price
exposure makes it difficult for customers to plan for the future.
Governor Davis is committed to:
No customer will incur rate increases above 10%.
All customers will have access to utility owned generation.
All customers, whether they be served by the utility or other supplier will
have equal opportunity to this commitment.
AB1890 will continue in place until the end of 2001, until and if some other
better plan is put in place.
We are also missing the opportunity to suggest auctioning of default
provider.:
The California Public Utility Commission, should immediately seek bids, in
the form of bids to take on portions of customers, to be selected on a random
basis, for standard offer, with commitments that such rates will not increase
by more than 10% and will be available to all customers without notice or
penalty.
---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Stoness/HOU/EES on 01/02/2001 07:12
PM ---------------------------
Scott Stoness
01/02/2001 06:30 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black
Subject: Re: DRAFT of materials for Governor
2nd Comments:
We are missing in Increasing Supply section
running of existing older generation combined with mitigating reductions in
emissions.
missing Concrete suggestions:
California Energy Commission sponsored process to determine and implement
actions that will:
result in 10,000 MW of new energy efficient generation being built within
California within 2002; and
running of existing older generation combined with mitigating reductions in
emissions
We are missing in decreasing load section
missing concrete suggestions:
The California Public Utility Commission, will immediately seek bids, in the
form of rate changes and regulatory commitments that would result in 2,000 MW
of reduced on peak load by June 1, 2001
The California Public Utility Commission, will immediately seek bids, in the
form of rate changes and regulatory commitments that would result in 5,000 MW
of reduced overall load by January 1, 2002.
---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Stoness/HOU/EES on 01/02/2001 06:18
PM ---------------------------
Scott Stoness
01/02/2001 06:18 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON
cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black
Subject: Re: DRAFT of materials for Governor
1st Comments from Scott
We are missing:
Positive spin at front
Governor Davis is committed to solving the California energy crisis by:
Developing consumer driven solutions
Protecting customers from short term market aberrations
Continuing to expand the consumers ability to choose
We are missing thoughtful Orderly Process
Maintain 1890 in interim
All customers treated the same
Would replace "maintain a reliable distribution network" with "assure
investment community"
Assurances around forward purchases
Assurances around prudent purchases to keep lights
Assurances, if needed through increases, via tax refundable.
Maintain AB1890 until orderly process arrives with better solution
Would drop specifics arount rate increase.
More to come......
=====================================
|
3,909 |
Subject: Re:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3123.
=====================================
Dave and I talked. I've talked to Chris Foster (midmarket in Portland). He's
sending me 1) illustrative examples of offers we've made to each of the three
IOUs, 2) deals we've done with the IOUs to date (only one thus far with
PG&E). Laird Dyer will get back to me with the muni deals we've thus far
done (e.g., Roseville.)
Best,
Jeff
Steven J Kean
11/07/2000 08:59 AM
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT,
Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Peggy
Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject:
I will be on the first panel of the FERC California conference on Thursday.
The format allows a 5 min presentation and then 60 min of Q&A. I need your
help to make sure I have "Gore-like" command of the details. Please help
with the following information:
Enron project information (Parquet/McCubbin) -- please give me any
presentations or summaries you have on the generation, or firm purchases, we
have under way (or planned). I'll talk with you to find out what we are
comfortable disclosing but please err on the side of giving whatever
information you have.
Updated Belden presentation (Hain/Belden) -- I believe the latest information
was as of August; I think some of the information on the cost of peaking
facilities is particularly eye-opening on the price cap issue.
Comparison to PJM (Hartsoe/Novosel) -- Is the information we are seeking from
the ISO and PX similar to information PJM already provides? If so, it would
be nice to tie our requests back to something the Commission has already
approved.
Cancelled DSM projects (Mahoney) -- Again, I'll only use what we feel
comfortable with, but it would help make our point if we can give examples of
how price caps backfire when it comes to encouraging conservation.
ISO/PX reports (Dasovich). I have the ISO market surveillance report. Is
there another ISO report? If so, please get me a copy and provide a copy of
the PX report too.
CEC/Proposed generation update (Mara/Parquet) -- Need the basic information:
proposed, waiting for permitting; how much/little the legislation did to
expedite siting (ie are we still comfortable saying that it applies to less
than 10%)?
Soft cap(Belden/Hain) -- need a crisp explanation of why the "soft" nature of
the cap is not sufficient. Also, would we be OK if the Commission revised it
to say that bids can be taken above 150 without special filing or reporting
requirements, but those bids will be accepted at the price bid rather than
applying to all lower bids as well (ie the highest bid at or below 150 clears
the market, bids above 150 accepted at price bid as needed)?
Offers we have made/deals done (Parquet/Dasovich/ Mccubbin) -- Roseville plus
any others, offer made to SDG&E -- I want to make the point that the market
will provide solutions (below the retail price cap) if we get the utility
(and the regulators) out of the merchant function.
Herding the cats(Hartsoe/mccubbin/mara/dasovich): We are asking FERC to be
courageous, do the right thing and ignore the politics. To be even halfway
credible, we can't have IEP, EPSA, Dynegy or anyone else "squishing" on the
price cap issue.. We have never been closer to reform in California, we need
these guys on board.
Thanks.
=====================================
|
3,910 |
Subject: Re: Response Statement to PG&E's Ch. 11 Filing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4009.
=====================================
FYI.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/06/2001 01:52 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
04/06/2001 01:50 PM
To: Eric Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Elizabeth Ivers/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Philipp/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Michael
Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Paula Rieker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Rick Buy/Enron@EnronXGate, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Vance Meyer/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Response Statement to PG&E's Ch. 11 Filing
FYI, I've faxed PG&E's filing to Rick Shapiro. If others don't have it and
want it, let me know and I'll fax it. The filing's brief--about 10
pages--with more detail apparently to be filed. It lists the top 20
creditors. The only ENE listing in the filing is ENE Canada at $28M.
The other thing that Governor and his PUC could have done many months ago was
realign rates to more accurately reflect the real cost of power. That
arguably was a key determinant driving PG&E to Bankruptcy.
Jeff
Eric Thode
04/06/2001 01:37 PM
To: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Vance
Meyer/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paula Rieker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Elizabeth
Ivers/NA/Enron@Enron, Rick Buy/Enron@EnronXGate, Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Philipp/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Response Statement to PG&E's Ch. 11 Filing
I have returned a call to Gary Gentile from the AP. I gave him this
statement and refused further comments on other issues, which included 1)
"what is Enron's actual exposure?", 2) "what was Enron's opinion of Gov.
Davis' speech last night?", and 3) "was this PG&E's only option?" I did
respond to one follow-up question, which was "what options were available
months ago?" My answer included the following 1) demand side solutions, 2)
allowing long-term contracting for power supplies, and 3) expediting the
siting process for new supplies.
Eric
Karen Denne
04/06/2001 01:17 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Vance
Meyer/NA/Enron@ENRON, Eric Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paula
Rieker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Elizabeth Ivers/NA/Enron@Enron, Rick Buy/HOU/ECT,
Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Tribolet/Corp/Enron,
Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Philipp/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Response Statement to PG&E's Ch. 11 Filing
It's unfortunate that the state's largest utility was forced to turn to the
courts for a resolution. Solutions to the state's energy crisis have been
available for months that would have avoided this scenario, but Gov. Davis
and the Legislature lacked the bold leadership to take swift, decisive
action.
Enron's exposure to PG&E will not have any material effect on earnings or on
our financial condition.
If pressed: Any further comment would be speculative, as we have not yet
seen the filing.
=====================================
|
3,911 |
Subject: RE: Pac Tel - CPUC Customer Switch Complaint
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/946.
=====================================
Geoff, weren't we directed by Ken Lear to DASR these accounts? Is he aware that Mike Benson has requested we deDASR them? Are there other accounts that we have DASRed that shouldn't have been?
From: Geoff Pollard/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange on 11/27/2001 06:36 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike B Smith/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/ENRON@enronxgate, Rebecca Fite/ENRON@enronxgate, Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
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
=====================================
|
3,912 |
Subject: Re: Registration Confirmation: Larry Summers on 12/6 at 1:45pm (was
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1892.
=====================================
Thank you for your emailed registration for the Lawrence H. Summers event
on December 6, 2000.
Because your request was within the first 300 emailed registrations, you
are entitled to receive a ticket which will allow you to attend this event
in the Andersen Auditorium. Your ticket can be picked up at the Dean's
Suite, Student Services Bldg. Room 520, on Tuesday, November 28 and
Wednesday, November 29 during office hours from 9am to 5pm.
Ticketed seating in Andersen Auditorium will be conducted on a first come,
first served basis, and late comers may need to be prepared to stand at the
back of the Auditorium. Seating will begin approximately 30 minutes prior
to the talk. All ticket holders will be admitted at the upper
entrance. Prior to admittance, a queue will be formed in front of the
doors of the upper level so that early arrivers will get the first choice
of seats.
Please remember to bring your ticket to this event.
Thank you.
The Dean's Staff
At 01:40 PM 11/16/00 -0600, you wrote:
>In case you didn't get the information in my first email, my name is Jeff
>Dasovich and I'm in the Evening MBA program.
>
>
>
>
"Dean's
Office"
> <[email protected] To:
> [email protected]
> keley.EDU> cc:
>
Subject:
Registration Confirmation: Larry
> 11/16/2000 11:01 AM Summers on 12/6 at
> 1:45pm (was Re: )
>
>
>
>
>At 03:42 PM 11/15/00 -0600, you wrote:
> I would like to attend the event with Secretary Summers.
>
>PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT CAREFULLY
>
>Thank you for your interest in attending the program at the Haas School of
>Business featuring United States Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers.
>Secretary Summers will be at the Haas School on Wednesday December 6, 2000
>as part of the 2000-2001 Haas Business Faculty Research Dialogue. His
>speech will take place in the Haas School's Arthur Andersen Auditorium at
>1:45pm. Secretary Summers will talk about his experiences as a primary
>shaper of U.S. economic policy during the past eight years, first as Robert
>Rubin's deputy in the first Clinton Administration and later replacing
>Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. Secretary Summers will also talk about
>the prospects for continued growth in the U.S. economy under the next
>presidential administration.
>
>All seats for the program on Wednesday December 6, 2000 will be allocated
>on a first-come, first served basis and seating will be limited. All Haas
>School faculty and students are being requested to reserve a seat in the
>Auditorium by sending an email to [email protected] by
>Monday November 20, as you have done. All emailed requests should include
>a full name as well as Haas School affiliation/class. After November 20,
>seats will be made available to other members of the UC Berkeley community.
>Therefore, please remind your colleagues to send their requests soon to
>guarantee their seating in the Auditorium.
>
>If you have qualified for a seat in the Auditorium for the program with
>Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, you will receive confirmation by
>email no later than Monday November 27. If you were not able to get a seat
>in the Auditorium, you will receive notification about how you may be able
>to view the program via simulcast. If you have additional questions about
>the program, please contact Pam Gleason in the Dean's Office at
>510-643-2027.
>
>
=====================================
|
3,913 |
Subject: Re: Message Points
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2917.
=====================================
Looks good, except for the comments on "discourages generation". Make it
"discourages peaking generation".
Although I agree that any price cap has a "discouraging " impact on the
generation market, it is a matter of degree in this sound bite environment.
To the point, without a creative exit strategy, I would not waste development
money on a 10000-13000 BTU/KWh heat rate peaking project. However, even with
the FERC order, I will continue to spend money developing base load, 7000
BTU/KWh heat rate projects. The state is tremendously short on power, the
price cap goes away (theoretically) in two years, $150 is well above the
average expected price in our forcast models (although I agree not above the
price for particular hours if scalers are applied.)
James D Steffes@ENRON
11/01/2000 11:39 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron, [email protected],
Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Message Points
I agree with much of what Jeff has written. Here are some additions -
On FERC getting a lot right, look at the Order in relation to our 4 key
points filed in the White Paper -
Removing Market Transparency - Still need FERC to take action
Development of Forwards Market and Risk Management - Great results
Removing distortions on Prices - Wrong action
Ending Cal ISO / Cal PX Stakeholder Boards - Great results
On the risk management issue, FERC itself said "The single most important
remedy that California market needs is the elimination of rules that prevent
market participants from managing risk". [FERC PRESS RELEASE]
ADD - FERC Staff did a great job on preparing a detailed analysis of the
market issues.
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
11/01/2000 01:17 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Message Points
Here are the messages as I understand them. Please let me know if I've
misconstrued anything. Thanks.
FERC got a lot right in the order and we're very encouraged as a result.
In particular, ending the PX buy/sell requirement and permitting utilities to
manage risk through a portfolio of short and long term contracts is a
fundamental step in the right direction.
However, the proposed price cap is unworkable and will jeopardize realibility
in California. As structured, it will:
discourage the development of new generation to serve California
fail to provide adequate incentives for demand responsiveness.
force Enron to abandon 300 MWs of new power projects planned for California.
We look forward to participating in FERC's process and are hopeful that
FERC's final order will fix the deficiencies in the current price cap
proposal.
We encourage California to work with FERC to implement the proposals and
quickly fix the flaws in the market on behalf of the state's consumers.
=====================================
|
3,914 |
Subject: A99-06-041 Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement and Joint Peti
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/535.
=====================================
Enron, as part of our alliance, ARM, has entered into a settlement w/ SDG&E,
ORA, DGS and the Golden State Cooperative on Direct Access Service Fees.
These are fees that the utility could assess on either DA customers or ESPs
providing service to DA customers. This settlement has been filed with the
CPUC. IT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED YET. I will notify all if, and when, that
happens.
SDG&E went particularly "hog-wild" on the number of fees proposed as well as
the level of the fees. By our settlement, I believe, conservatively, we have
eliminated about $100 of additional charges per customer per year.
We have agreed that no fees will be assessed for services that the utility
provides as part of its market facilitation function through 2002. This is
in keeping with the fact that the utility is currently recovering those costs
through distribution rates as part of a settlement in a separate proceeding
(376). Those functions include MSP and MDMA certification, DASR processing,
EDI acceptance testing, ESP and EDI agreement processing, credit
establishments and on-going credit checks, processing meter change
information, providing customer data.
POTENTIAL NEW CHARGES:
Special Services:
Where we ASK the utility to perform functions for us (researching data,
providing administrative support, non-standard processing of information (ie.
manual vs. EDI)) there will be a charge. They must specify to us that the
service that we are requesting will result in a fee being assessed and what
the charge will be. We must agree to the terms before the service is
provided. This means we must be very clear in our communications with the
utility on special requests.
Exception Fees:
This is where we fail to meet our obligation to the utility and they assess,
essentially, a penalty. Examples include missed appointment meets, late
payments, failure to provide usage data by 11th business day causing utility
to estimate data, causing a rebill for failure to provide valid usage data.
(More detailed description is contained within the attached documents.)
We have negotiated that there be a .5% deadband before any fee is assessed
for estimating data. We have negotiated that, to the extent the utility is
responsible for causing US to rebill, we can accumulate banking credits to
use against any charges that the utility would assess us. It provides some
reciprocity.
We do have a dispute resolution process. However, if we need an internal
briefing on the settlement so folks are comfortable about how it will work, I
would be happy to assist with that.
Please contact me with any questions.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 09/20/2000
07:03 PM ---------------------------
"Delaney, Laurie" <[email protected]> on 09/14/2000 03:02:49 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'"
<[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc: "Thompson, Vicki L." <[email protected]>, "Szymanski, Paul"
<[email protected]>
Subject: A99-06-041 Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement and Joint Peti
tion to set Aside Submission & Reopen the Record for Purposes of Admittin g a
Late Filed Exhibit
- ld2d-#75429-1.DOC
- ld2d-#75426-1.DOC
- ld2d-#75427-1.DOC
- ld2d-#75428-1.DOC
=====================================
|
3,915 |
Subject: Re: New!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Chauncey Hood/NA/Enron@ENRON', 'Ginger', 'Geriann Warner/NA/Enron@Enron']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3440.
=====================================
I understand that there may be a need to give no quarter on this, but given
the circumstances--i.e., we talk every day and time and resources are
extremely tight--is it reasonable to temporarily suspend filling this thing
out for the next 60-90 days? Lemme know.
My sister just called and said that the earthquake in Seattle was 7.0.
That's big.
Best,
Jeff
Lysa Akin@ECT
02/28/2001 09:57 AM
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Joseph
Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: New!
Please review the attached form, and update any information necessary. This
will replace the Internal resource form we were using previously. Please
respond by COB Friday 3/2/01 with any changes.
Thank you.
Lysa
---------------------- Forwarded by Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT on 02/28/2001 08:02 AM
---------------------------
Ginger Dernehl@ENRON
02/22/2001 08:02 AM
To: Aleck Dadson/TOR/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Jean
Ryall/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron, Sue
Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Chauncey Hood/NA/Enron@ENRON, Geriann Warner/NA/Enron@Enron, Ginger
Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Gisele S Braz/SA/Enron@Enron, Laurie
Knight/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lora
Sullivan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT, Marcia A
Linton/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Belzak/TOR/ECT@ECT, Rubena
Buerger/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Michelle
Garcia/ENRON@enronXgate, Carmen Perez/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: New IRTF Format: ENA Government Affairs Report - Feb 01
Attached to this e:mail, you will find the ENA Government Affairs report for
the month of January. This will be the new monthly format that will take
place of the IRTF. As you will see from the style of this format, it should
help in expediting the process of this report.
If you have any questions,
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 02/22/2001
07:25 AM ---------------------------
From: James D Steffes on 02/11/2001 02:55 PM
To: Steve Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Janine
Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Jean Ryall/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron,
Lisa Yoho/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Eric Benson/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: ENA Goverment Affairs Report - Feb 01
Attached please find the ENA Government Affairs report for Feb '01. I tried
to incorporate the material from the IRTF reports.
I have asked Eric Benson to help me put these together going forward so
hopefully they will be out the first week of the month.
My other request is to see if people can modify their IRTF to include some
new data - WHAT ACTIONS WILL OCCUR IN NEXT 30 DAYS THAT NEED ATTENTION OF
MANAGEMENT. This report is too backward looking in its current form. I
want to try and make this a listing of what is going to happen over the next
30 days to begin to get ENA management thinking about the issues.
Thanks,
Jim
=====================================
|
3,916 |
Subject: California Regulatory Conditions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1796.
=====================================
EES has very strong interests in the regulatory and legislative outcome
regarding the implementation of the AB1890 rate freeze and competition. I
understand that the following conditions is aligned with EES' interests:
Customer groups and other market participants are arguing that the AB1890
rate freeze must legally be maintained to the statutory end date;
The Governor and Legislators are interested in managing the current crisis to
the best interests of customers and avoid adverse impacts on the California
economy;
The CPUC is more inclined to interpret AB1890 to maintain the rate freeze to
the statutory end date in order to protect consumers and avoid hastily
implementing new market structures that are not well thought out and would
result in future problems; and
The assets that need to be valued have yet to receive a final decision from
the CPUC;
Politicians are more focused on the crisis for San Diego customers and
wholesale market structure issues, and may see maintaining the rate freeze
for PG&E and SCE as a simple short-term solution.
The following are my concerns that might result in an adverse outcome to the
current crisis:
The Governor and the CPUC are primarily interested in the best interests of
consumers and holds competition as a lower priority, and may not see these
two objectives as identical;
PG&E and SCE are claiming the rate freeze is over and are doing everything in
their power to achieve this objective;
Current market prices demonstrate that there may be no short-term relief and
the utilities' undercollections are growing;
The utilities may heighten awareness that the current top-down, PX crediting
mechanism is resulting in payments to DA customers for use of energy;
PG&E and SCE are filing for immediate "interim rate stabilization plans" for
bundled-service customers to be implemented; and
Customers and politicians may short-sightedly settle on the plans filed by
PG&E and SCE as a short-term solution.
The following are the key issues that will be and will need to be addressed:
The legal interpretation of AB1890 on when the rate freeze ends;
Whether PG&E and SCE will get post-freeze relief and over what time-period
and to a lesser extent utility cash flow issues; and
How will the post-freeze, competitive market structure be addressed.
The following is my understanding of the regulatory and coalition building
strategies that Government Affairs is pursuing:
The position that AB1890 mandates that the rate freeze was to benefit
ratepayers in exchange for the utilities' opportunity to recover CTCs and CTC
recovery can be adjusted during this timeframe such that this benefit to
ratepayers will extend to December 31, 2001;
Resolving legislative and regulatory issues that may allow for post 2001
recovery of undercollections for the utilities over an extended time frame.
This is the utilities' primary concern and such a strategy may alleviate the
pressure and desperation to implement "interim rate stabilization plans";
Raising awareness that 2001 should be used to determine the final netting of
all revenues and costs, while that time period be used to develop a new
default provider role for small customers and provider of last resort service
for larger customers; and
Demonstrating where PG&E and SCE are once again trying to thwart competition,
achieve 100% CTC recovery under all conditions, pass through all risks to
ratepayers, and capture windfalls from the current market structure.
=====================================
|
3,917 |
Subject: DSL Blues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5781.
=====================================
Jan & Mike,
Following article highlights some of the troubles DSL providers are having in
the US.
Covad Communications Inc. - A Cautionary Tale
Covad Communications Inc. prides itself in being a high-speed Internet
services company . On 2nd January 2001 nearly 15% of Covad's staff woke up to
a holiday season present they didn't expect, as the California-based DSL
provider announced a further round of 400 redundancies to cut costs.
Not only has Covad served notice on 400 employees in the first week of 2001,
but it had already fired another 400 employees on 27 November 2000 after
restating third-quarter results for last year which revealed a wider net loss
than originally reported.
Covad's shares lost about 95% of their value during 2000, but the firm is now
hopeful that the redundancies - primarily in direct sales and marketing -
coupled with the closing of 200 DSL central offices and consolidating space
will provide improvement. Covad shares were worth about US$65 during March
2000, but are currently valued at just US$1.65 (at the time of this writing).
On 12 December 2000, Covad Communications Inc. announced that it expected its
fourth quarter and year 2001 revenues to miss Wall Street expectations and
also expected EBITDA-basis losses for the periods. This news came only weeks
after Corvad had restated lower its already-released third quarter results
because of delinquent payments from business partners.
Forward looking into the year 2001, Covad expects to report an EBITDA-basis
loss of $450-$470 million, with revenue likely to come in at $380-$390
million. These gloomy outlook changes come just as other companies that
install high-speed Internet connections over regular telephone lines - using
DSL - have been cutting staff and warning of disappointing subscriber and
revenue growth.
Corvad are hoping that by cutting the workforce, it should slow the burn
rate, which had been running at about $70 million per month, partly as a
consequence of trying to expand its network.
Corvad is a company that grew at a time when capital was freely available,
but it has all but shut itself out now from telecom service providers and
plans to start offering self-installation DSL packages for individual
subscribers in the first quarter of 2001 (D.I.Y. DSL in a Jiffy Bag)..
Corvad is Not Alone
Other US companies caught in the same troubled waters include DSL.net Inc.
and NorthPoint Communications Group Inc., whose financial condition has led
No. 1 U.S. local phone company Verizon Communications to cancel its planned
$800 million agreement to buy NorthPoint.
Covad has also said that 14 of its Internet Service Provider partners, which
sell DSL directly to consumers, are "troubled" and four of them have filed
for bankruptcy protection. On the back of this grim news, Covad announced a
program for its DSL customers that would allow them to switch from these
troubled ISPs to others with no fee.
Corvad, NorthPoint Communications Inc. and DSL.net are not alone in these
troubled times. Many independent providers of digital subscriber line, or
DSL, Internet service, which offer high-speed data transmission and Web
access over existing copper telephone lines, have faced increasing difficulty
tapping the capital and equity markets to fund operations as they strive for
profitability. Efforts to achieve profitability have been hurt by consistent
disappointments about subscriber and revenue growth across the sector.
=====================================
|
3,918 |
Subject: Enron Response to October 15 RTO Filings
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2343.
=====================================
To: All RTO Leads:
Consistent with the attached e-mail from Jim Steffes, I'm requesting each
RTO lead to call Bernadette at (202) 466-9147 to schedule a half-day session
(per RTO) in Washington, DC, for the week of October 23, to meet with
Bracewell and Patterson attorneys to work on the RTO responses.
Thanks,
Joe
----- Forwarded by Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron on 10/12/2000 06:08 PM -----
James D Steffes
10/11/2000 05:41 PM
To: Jeff Brown/NA/Enron@Enron, Dan Staines/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe
Connor/NA/Enron@Enron, Daniel Allegretti/HOU/EES@EES, Tom
Hoatson/HOU/EES@EES, Tom Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom
Delaney/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ron McNamara/NA/Enron@Enron, Robin
Kittel/HOU/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christi
L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Janine Migden/DUB/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Steve Montovano/DUB/EES@EES, Richard Ingersoll/HOU/ECT@ECT, Thane
Twiggs/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Enron Response to October 15 RTO Filings
In preparation for the upcoming filings from different RTOs around the
country to meet the FERC Order 2000 October 15 deadline, I'd like to outline
a set of steps that we need to undertake to respond appropriately. Comments
are appreciated.
A few people met with FERC last Friday to discuss our general observations
and what a good RTO will look like (please see attached file below).
Not all RTOs intend to file on October 15. The filing RTOs (from what I can
tell) include the following: (1) RTO West, (2) Desert Star, (3) SPP, (4)
Entergy, (5) Southern Transco, (6) Grid South, and (7) Florida RTO. (SPP and
Entergy may file together)
1. Immediate Public Response
It is critical to make sure that we have a list of key issues with each RTO
filing that we can use to make public statements. Each RTO lead should
prepare preliminary list of issues and send to Joe Hartsoe and me no later
than Friday. When the RTO filing is made, we need to review this list and
compare to the actual filings and finalize. This information will go into
building our public message.
Our initial response will be public (through the trade press). This will
include making specific comments about each RTO.
Right now we are focusing on (1) failed efforts and (2) insufficient work as
the key problems. Any details or other topics should be considered.
2. Formal Response to October 15 Filing
Dan Watkiss of B&P will be reviewing the formal filings for details. Joe
Hartsoe will coordinate our FERC filings due on November 15. We need these
done by early November to run them through the commercial side. Each RTO
lead should schedule some time in DC the week of Oct 24 with Joe Hartsoe to
make sure that our filings are on-track and complete.
We should file in each RTO case.
3. E-trans Response
Jeff Brown continues to work to build our model. No formal plan to roll this
out has been yet developed. We are working to have something ready by
December 1.
4. Northeast Tight Pool Response
I would like Steve Montovano to take the lead to structure our response. We
heard at FERC that PJM was considering filing pretty soon (next week). We
need to get our story straight to take this to a pre-filing meeting at FERC.
=====================================
|
3,919 |
Subject: Re: Direct Access
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3319.
=====================================
Sue: Could you use your contacts with Edelman to get on the phone with Scott,
Mark and Karen to jump start this thing?
Best,
Jeff
Scott Govenar <[email protected]>
02/21/2001 08:26 AM
To: Hedy Govenar <[email protected]>, Mike Day <[email protected]>, Bev
Hansen <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>, Susan J Mara
<[email protected]>, Joseph Alamo <[email protected]>, Paul Kaufman
<[email protected]>, Michael McDonald <[email protected]>,
David Parquet <[email protected]>, Rick Johnson
<[email protected]>, Marcie Milner <[email protected]>, Sandra McCubbin
<[email protected]>, Tim Belden <[email protected]>, Rick Shapiro
<[email protected]>, Jim Steffes <[email protected]>, Alan Comnes
<[email protected]>, Chris Calger <[email protected]>, Mary Hain
<[email protected]>, Joe Hartsoe <[email protected]>, Donna Fulton
<[email protected]>, Steven Kean <[email protected]>, Karen Denne
<[email protected]>, Beverly Aden <[email protected]>, Bill Votaw
<[email protected]>, Carol Moffett <[email protected]>, Debora
Whitehead <[email protected]>, Dennis Benevides
<[email protected]>, Don Black <[email protected]>, Dorothy
Youngblood <[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]>, Mike D Smith <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: Direct Access
The direct access coalition had a conference call today to discuss
strategy.
The Chamber, Retailers and the Manufacturers met with the Governor's
office and Senator Burton to discuss DA. The Retailers and the
Manufacturers came away somewhat disenchanted. There was little support
for DA, especially from Senator Burton, and the Governor's office was
unfocused. The Chamber wasn't as pessimistic as the others because the
Governor's office was focused on other things and did not necessarily
shoot down DA.
As requested, I urged the group to utilize Edelman Public Relations who
is under contract to AREM. The group as whole was very supportive.
There was some reluctance for fear of upsetting Senator Bowen and
Governor Davis. Several members of the coalition, including the
Manufacturers, Retailers, Grocers and myself, dismissed those fears and
took the tact that the time is now and we have little to lose given
recent statements by legislators and the administration. Aaron Thomas
with AES agreed to contact AREM and Edelman to develop a strategy but I
think a call from Enron directly to AREM would be beneficial to speed
the process up.
The group is going to meet with DWR and continue their individual
lobbying efforts. Their intent is to address the bonding and net short
fears raised by finance and DWR. Enron had discussed hiring bond
counsel. Has this occurred, and if so, should attend the DWR meeting?
The group is also going to meet with TURN to try and address their
core/non-core issues, if possible in order to try and get them on board
with the coalition proposal.
=====================================
|
3,920 |
Subject: FW: Job Op: Equity Analyst--Wireless
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Sarah Graham Gragg']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1022.
=====================================
Wanna move to Portland?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jon Binder
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 11:03 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Sarah Graham Gragg
Subject: Job Op: Equity Analyst--Wireless
All,
Hope everyone is doing well?With the job market the way it is, I thought I'd pass this job opportunity along. Contact James directly (Sarah is my girlfriend).
Best,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: James Faucette [<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:26 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Pacific Crest Position
Sarah,
Nice chatting with you. As I mentioned we are looking for an assistant analyst to work in the communications software and wireless area.
My current coverage list includes Openwave, Palm, RIMM, Handspring, Comverse, Aether, Nuance, SpeechWorks, etc. Given the way our business is growing and evolving, we will be moving towards names like Qualcomm, Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson in the very near future. We are looking for all of the clich? characteristics: motivated, high level of initiative, self disciplined, high attention to detail, good writing skills, modeling experience, blah, blah, blah. Potential assistants should expect to take primary responsibility for coverage on lower capitalization companies ASAP and migrate upwards as market conditions improve and research coverage is broadened (within a few months). The position would be based in Portland, OR.
Pacific Crest is a full service investment bank focused on the Internet and communications technology companies. The Bank has approximately 100 professionals with primary offices in Portland, OR. Pacific Crest also has offices in Seattle, San Francisco (primarily IB operations), and Boston (Sales and Trading). Most of the professionals at the Bank come from a larger institutions. Before joining Pacific Crest, I was an analyst at Deutsche Bank in London and ING Barings in Latin America.
If you have any other questions please feel free to give me a shout. I haven't been too specific on requirements as we are really just looking for the smartest and best people and are less concerned about previous experience, etc. It has been a fairly good hiring strategy to date-since I joined Pacific Crest, we have had zero attrition or turnover.
Regards, James
P.S. If you are ever in town on a weekday, feel free to come by-we are at the top of the U.S. Bank Tower (big Pinky) and have the best view in Portland.
James E. Faucette
Vice President, Equity Research
Pacific Crest Securities
111 SW Fifth Ave., 42nd Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: (503) 248-0721
Fax: (503) 417-9370
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER
Notice Regarding Entry of Orders and Instructions:
Please do not transmit orders and/or instructions regarding your Robertson Stephens account(s) by e-mail. Orders and/or instructions transmitted by e-mail will not be accepted by Robertson Stephens, and Robertson Stephens will not be responsible for carrying out such orders and/or instructions.
Notice Regarding Privacy and Confidentiality:
Robertson Stephens reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all e-mail communications sent and/or received by its employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================
|
3,921 |
Subject: CSFB Power Generation Update; Hosting Conference Call at 11 AMED T
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/1700.
=====================================
<<IPPupdate092001.pdf>>
Good Morning,
Attached, please find our latest FC note on the Power Generation sector.
Summary:
1. IPPs Down 6%; Generation Oriented Utilities Down 2% On September 17,
2001, our IPP composite traded off 6.2%, outperforming the NASDAQ (-6.8%),
but underperforming the S&P 500 (-4.9%). Reflecting their more defensive
characteristics, our universe of generation oriented utilities traded off
only 1.9%, outperforming all the major market indices.
2. CSFB Hosting Conference Call on Thursday at 11 AM EDT This Thursday
(9/20/01) at 11 AM EDT we will be hosting a conference call featuring Judah
Rose-a power generation expert with ICF Consulting. The dial-in number is
877/715-5321. Among other topics to be discussed, the relationship between
economic conditions and power demand growth will be explored in greater
detail. In the near-term, we believe the key analytical challenge for all
equity investors will be to determine how the prospect of slower economic
growth will impact the outlook for corporate earnings across sectors.
3. MIR Outperforms Following 2 Key Announcements MIR issued revised 2001
EPS guidance of $1.95 versus its prior forecast of $1.90. Management noted
that this revision reflects its continued success in using its trading and
marketing operation to optimize the value of its asset base. Concurrently,
management announced that its board has approved the repurchase of up to 10
million shares over the next 30 days. We have revised our EPS estimate
accordingly in a separate First Call note issued today.
4. ORN Down on NYC Power Market Concerns; Con Ed Filing Indicates Intact
Fundamentals Orion Power traded off 14.6% owing to concerns surrounding
the potential impact of the WTC tragedy on the New York City power market.
In particular investors are questioning the magnitude of lost power demand
and the potential impact on the supply/demand balance in the region. In an
8K filing issued yesterday, Con Ed notes that lost demand approximates 140
MW-30% below the low end of the initial range of estimates. In addition, a
portion of this demand will likely be relocated to other parts of the city.
Overall, Con Ed's filing gives us greater comfort in our conclusion that the
fundamentals of the New York City power market remain intact.
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.
=====================================
|
3,922 |
Subject: Re:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/personal/9.
=====================================
Jeff:
Great! Give me just a couple of days to confirm the exact date. Go ahead and
write Lari to see when she is available as she'll probably be the hardest
person to juggle around.
Now here is a question for you....Rob has been wanting to go up to RRR and
check it out but he'd probably be 1/2 day on the beach as other non-riders
have been with us in the past. Would this be ok with you or shall I schedule
with him for another time? I'm easy either way. Besides Rob the only other
people could possibly be Jeff or Alice as the girls (Nora, Kari, Pat) are hot
on the summer show circuit. I could always ask, just let me know.
Would you like me to call the B&B we stayed at and get their availability?
What is the name?
Madeleine
[email protected] wrote:
> 29th/30th works best for me. those other dates, if they open up, i think
> would work, too. i'm really sorry i missed you guys yesterday. when kair
> asked way back when, i had a conflict on that day. fine with me if we ask
> others, though it's sort of fun when it's small, with like-minded folks.
> you're call. let me know and i'll write lari a note pronto.
>
> sorry to see carl move.
>
> best,
> jeff
>
> Madeleine Todd <[email protected]> on 06/12/2000 03:09:44 PM
>
> To: [email protected]
> cc:
> Subject: Re:
>
> I am so sorry for the delay! I wanted to make sure I had a better idea of
> my
> schedule. I am thinking the following..either the weekend of the 8th, 9th;
> the
> 29th or 30th. I may go to Chicago the 15th or 22nd which I'll know about
> within
> the next couple of days thus one more weekend may open up. What are your
> thoughts? Do you want to check Lari's schedule? Anyone else we should ask?
>
> We missed you on Sunday. The whole gang was there minus Lisa. Carl leaves
> in 2
> weeks. They decided to move because he felt his career with the City would
> never go where he wanted it to go. I can explain the rest later.
>
> Madeleine
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Hello out there. Hello?
> >
> > Madeleine Todd <[email protected]> on 06/05/2000 11:01:26 PM
> >
> > To: Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>
> > cc:
> > Subject: Re:
> >
> > Jeff:
> > Well June appears to be shot already! I had to move a couple of things
> into
> > the
> > weekend of the 23 & 24th. Did you have your heart set on June? Could you
> do
> > something in July? What days were you thinking Fri, Sat and Sunday? Keep
> me
> > posted.
> >
> > Carl's sudden move is a mystery to me. I thought he was going to wait a
> few
> > years
> > to move to SD but then I got Kari's e-mail. I know he and Carol have had
> > their eye
> > on SD for sometime. I guess we'll find out on the 11th!
> > Keep me posted on RRR,
> > Madeleine
> >
> > Jeff Dasovich wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Darlin':
> > > I'm back. Have we picked a weekend to ride with Lari? What's this
> about
> > Carl
> > > moving?????? I thought he just bought a house?
> > >
> > > Signed,
> > > Confused
> >
> > --
> >
> > Madeleine Todd Executive Recruiting
> > 1329 Taylor Street, Suite 114
> > San Francisco, CA 94108-1047
> > phone: 415-441-7010
> > fax: 415-441-7173
> > email: [email protected]
>
> --
>
> Madeleine Todd Executive Recruiting
> 1329 Taylor Street, Suite 114
> San Francisco, CA 94108-1047
> phone: 415-441-7010
> fax: 415-441-7173
> email: [email protected]
--
Madeleine Todd Executive Recruiting
1329 Taylor Street, Suite 114
San Francisco, CA 94108-1047
phone: 415-441-7010
fax: 415-441-7173
email: [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,923 |
Subject: Re: That Joyous Time of Year
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/739.
=====================================
Thanks. We're going to do it with ENA---dinner at Morton's (yes, it's beef,
beef, beef). Then "Stomp" afterwards. Taking place on Friday the 15th.
Paul Kaufman@ECT
10/23/2000 11:43 AM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: That Joyous Time of Year
December 14-16 work best for me. Let's make sure activity and dinner isn't
too rich.
Jeff Dasovich|NA|Enron wrote on 10/11/00 10:52 am:
OK, given the Enron Xmas party in Houston, and Sue's request that weekends be
included in the ballot, please repond to the dates listed below. Please give
1) your top 3 preferences, and 2) any days for which you have a (true)
conflict. Thanks. Also, unless I hear otherwise, we'll assume that partners
and children come included. Thanks.
Best,
Jeff
Nov. 30, Dec. 1, Dec. 2
Dec. 14th, 15th, 16th
Susan J Mara@EES10/11/2000 11:51 AM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc:
Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: That Joyous Time
of Year
I always like an activity -- I like to include kids too if that's OK with
others
I'm fine with including the rest of the office -- that would probably limit
any activity we would do -- the other business units would have to agree to
accept any liability to cover last minute back outs (like ENA two years
ago). It would also maker the event very BIG -- so I'd be more happy with
just GA - but I can go either way.
We should include Marcie, Paul, Carl, Roger and Peter and families -- if they
want to come
School nights are bad -- even without kids -- so the 7th doesn't work. We're
also supposed to be in Houston on the 7th and 8th --so the 8th doesn't work.
I vote for the following weekend -- fri or Sat
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 10/11/2000 09:41
AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 10/10/2000 04:37 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, [email protected]
cc:
Subject: That Joyous Time of Year
Well, it's upon us again and that means X-Mas party.
Joseph and I have begun (barely) to plan for this year's festivities. But
before we get to far along, tried and true democratic (small "d") principles
call for a wee bit of polling.
Because we're already in the middle of October we need your responses
pronto. If we don't receive your responses by COB Thursday, then democracy's
out the window, and good ol' dictatorship takes over.
Of course, it will be difficult to grant everyone's wishes, but all
suggestions will be given great (and equal) weight. Here are the questions:
Would you prefer just dinner, or dinner plus an activity?
Joseph and I are leaning toward dinner and an activity, but wanted to hear
from other folks. If yes, Joseph has come up with a couple of very fun ideas
for an activity but suggestions are greatly encouraged and welcome. Same
goes for a restaurant (understanding that the choice of activity may
influence where we eat). Sue has put in her vote for Fleur de Lys.
Should we try to organize the event with the rest of the SF office (i.e., EES
and ENA) or confine it to GA?
Should we expand to include Western GA or keep it to SFGA?
We choose for dates the 7th or 8th or 14th or 15th of December. What's your
preference. Is there a day that just won't work?
Joseph, if I've missed anything, please tack on.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,924 |
Subject: Haas Classic Sign-ups - I apologize and delete if you have already
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/328.
=====================================
I apologize for the repeats to some of you, but my first emails were not
getting through to everyone, so I'm using a different address this
time........
> Fellow students,
> The Haas EvMBA Golf Classic tournament dates and info have been
> finalized and now the fun begins..... sign-ups and team organizing! A
> short recap for those who don't already know.... the Haas Evening MBA
> Board has decided to put together a Fall Classic golf tournament to help
> facilitate networking and recruiting for the evening program. Networking
> with Alumni, other students and corporate recruitors has always been
> difficult due to the incredibly chaotic schedules of the evening students.
> This tournament will allow you, the evening students, to meet and network
> for an entire fun-filled day with those that are crucial to your success
> while in the program, and after graduation. Haas Faculty and staff are
> also invited to further enrich your golfing experience!!! The tournament
> organizers will organize teams based on common interests, as well as golf
> skills!
> The tournament will be at the scenic Diablo Grande golf course on
> Sunday, Oct. 7th and will be a scramble format. This format is a "best
> ball" type format which will allow even the most inexperienced of golfers
> to participate in the fun. A team player can only add to the success of
> the team, and never take away from it. For those who don't own clubs, we
> will be organizing club rentals - so don't let that hold you back! At the
> same time, we have chosen a course which is one of the most difficult and
> technical courses in the Bay Area so that the more experienced golfers
> will still be quite challenged. The tournament will begin about 12:30
> with a shotgun start and will include a gourmet catered awards banquet
> afterwards. Bus transportation will also be offered for those who prefer
> not to drive to the course, which is located east of the Altamont pass.
> The $100 cost of the tournament includes the green fees, cart, golf
> gifts, prizes, awards dinner and bus transportation. In addition, all
> remaining proceeds will go to a local charity - the Oakland Technology
> Exchange (OTX). OTX teaches Oakland students in computer repair,
> troubleshooting and building. The groups rebuilds thousands of donated
> computers and installs them in the Oakland schools, as well as
> distributing them to the students who complete their computer course to
> take home. They also award academic college scholarships and give the
> recipients laptops to take with them to college. To give you an idea of
> the value of this price, the green fee alone for Diablo Grande on the
> weekend is $100 per golfer.
> Attached is a flyer and a sign-up form for the Haas EvMBA Golf Classic.
> Please send in your forms and checks to the Evening MBA Office as soon as
> possible. Since spots are limited, students will be admitted on a first
> come first served basis. Since we understand how difficult it is to spend
> even more time away from your family, any available slots after all
> students have had a chance to sign up, will be opened up to
> spouses/significant others.
> All questions/comments can be sent to me at this return address.
> Thanks for your time and send in those checks and forms immediately to
> reserve your spot!!
>
> Cindy Best
> Social Co-Chair and Tournament Organizer
> Haas Evening MBA Board
>
> <<HAAS GOLF CLASSIC '01.ppt>> <<Student_Staff_Faculty_Form.doc>>
>
>
>
=====================================
|
3,925 |
Subject: State discloses spot power buys
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/667.
=====================================
Published Tuesday, July 10, 2001
State discloses spot power buys
By Andrew LaMar
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SACRAMENTO -- They range from small power sales of $922,000 by the East Bay Municipal Utility District to more than $1 billion of power sold by Atlanta-based Mirant power company.
All told, California paid $7.7 billion in spot purchases of electricity from 69 agencies across the United States during the first five months of 2001, according to a report delivered to lawmakers Monday.
The data also shows that the state paid a hefty average of $263 per megawatt-hour for the power. But what's most striking is the long list of agencies, both private and public, that sold power to California.
Agencies like the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, $331 million; the California Independent System Operator, $3.9 million; Public Service Company of New Mexico, $126 million; and PG&E Energy Trading Company, $24 million.
Receiving the most money was Atlanta-based Mirant, which sold $1.2 billion of electricity to the state January through May. The second-largest seller was Powerex, a subsidiary of Canada's BC Hydro, which earned $1 billion.
The total cost per day ranged from as little as $20 million to more than $100 million on three separate days in May, when hot weather and tight supplies boosted spot market prices.
In addition, the report reveals that the state's energy consultants significantly underestimated the amount of energy the state would need to buy in April and May. Navigant Consulting, Inc., forecast the state would have to buy 12.1 million megawatt-hours for the two months but the state ended up purchasing 15.1 million megawatt-hours.
The Sellers
The following is a partial list of companies that sold electricity into the California spot power market from Jan. 18 through May 31. For a full list, go to www.contracostatimes.com .
Company name, total dollar amount:
Allegheny Energy, $97,113,823
Arizona Public Services, $748,400
Automated Power Exchange, $2,541
Bonneville Power, $167,543,006
BP Energy, $110,776,576
California Department of Water Resources, $84,672,490
Calpine Energy, $29,169,658
City of Anaheim, $6,707,456
City of Burbank, $92,271,904
City of Glendale, $16,106,550
City of Redding, $85,280
City of Riverside, $62,700
City of Seattle, $2,461,225
City of Tacoma, $2,353,465
City of Vernon, $4,398,288
Commission de Federale Electricidad, $9,800,460
Duke Energy, $164,325,467
Dynegy, $296,294,363
East Bay Municipal Utility District, $922,560
El Paso Merchant Energy, $83,923,493
Enron Power Marketing, Inc., $44,276,800
Eugene Water & Electric Board, $94,147,219
Fresno Cogeration, $214,008
Grant County PUD, $49,013,211
Merrill Lynch Capital Services, $92,185,980
Modesto Irrigation District, $87,500
Morgan Stanley Capital Group, $8,864,625
Nevada Power Company, $25,378,035
PG&E Energy Trading Companies, $23,718,708
Portland General Electric Company, $354,821
Public Service Company of New Mexico, $126,799,436
Puget Sound Energy, $40,000
Reliant Energy Service, $122,598,810
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, $80,673,353
San Diego Gas & Electric, $5,768,380
Sempra Companies, $429,019,440
Silicon Valley Power (City of Santa Clara), $116,000
TransCanada Power, $38,829,528
Tucson Electric Power, $10,236,050
UC Davis Med Center, $1,141,600
U.S. Dept. of Energy, $2,605,855
=====================================
|
3,926 |
Subject: Fwd: Calif. clears state water agency to collect power payments
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9822.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/12/2001 10:50 AM -----
"Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
03/08/2001 10:20 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]>
cc:
Subject: Fwd: Calif. clears state water agency to collect power payments
----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]> on Thu, 08 Mar
2001 08:11:46 -0600 -----
To: "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>
cc: "Jeffrey Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Calif. clears state water agency to collect power payments
Wednesday March 7, 8:22 pm Eastern Time
Calif. clears state water agency to collect power payments
SAN FRANCISCO, March 7 (Reuters) - California regulators took another step on
Wednesday to allow the state's Department of Water Resources (DWR) to collect
payments for power supplies purchased by the state agency.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which sets gas and
electric rates, approved an order for the water agency to recover the
taxpayers' money it is spending to buy electricity for customers of the
state's two biggest -- and nearly bankrupt -- utilities.
There currently is no mechanism allowing the DWR to collect money for buying
power on behalf of the utilities.
The CPUC's approval, however, did not set actual rates for the 24 million
people served by PG&E Corp.'s (NYSE:PCG - news) Pacific Gas and Electric unit
(PG&E) and Edison International's (NYSE:EIX - news) Southern California
Edison subsidiary.
An ``interim'' rate -- called the California Procurement Adjustment -- may be
proposed by late next week and will require another vote by the regulators.
Under Gov. Gray Davis's plan to stabilize the California power business, the
water agency has been charged with purchasing electricity to meet the state's
short and long-term needs.
Davis, however, is trying to avoid politically unpopular rate hikes, instead
recovering the water agency's cost from a portion of existing utility
electricity rates.
DWR has been spending up to $50 million a day for short-term energy supplies
and negotiating long-term contracts with independent power generators.
On Monday, Davis announced 40 deals or preliminary agreements to buy power
from 20 generators, with delivery scheduled anywhere from four months to 10
years, and one deal lasting 20 years.
The state government has been thrust into the power business because PG&E and
SoCal Edison are awash in some $13 billion of red ink and generators will no
longer do business with them.
The utilities have accumulated the debt since last spring due to terms of
California's flawed electricity deregulation scheme that forced them to pay
soaring prices for wholesale power that they could not collect from their
retail customers because of a rate freeze.
A California consumer group warned after the CPUC action today that once a
rate is decided, the water agency may be in a position to set higher rates
for the utilities' customers.
Nettie Hoge, head of The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer advocate
group, warned the water agency ``could say that it needs more revenue from
ratepayers for its costs and there would be no reviews by the CPUC to decide
if the increases were prudent.''
=====================================
|
3,927 |
Subject: ECI - India
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/190.
=====================================
Cuckoo Paul & Arnab Mukherjee
11/16/1999 The Economic Times Copyright (C) 1999 The Economic Times; Source:
World Reporter (TM)
MUMBAI 15 NOVEMBER
ENRON Communications (ECI), an affiliate of the $31bn energy major Enron
Corp, is preparing for a major push in the Indian communications sector.
Enron will start off by forming a joint venture with the public sector Ircon
(Indian Railway Construction Company) to enter the telecommunication
business. Enron will provide very high capacity broad-band networks as well
as services, followed by bandwidth trading in India, said Enron South Asia
CEO and managing director Sanjay Bhatnagar.
Enrons joint venture with Ircon is expected to help the former use the Indian
Railways reach for laying the fibre-optic networks. Mr Bhatnagar did not
confirm the JV proposal nor reveal precise details but The Economic Times has
learnt that the Ircon board has already cleared the proposal. ECI, through a
separate subsidiary, is likely to spearhead Enrons telecom businesses in
India.
Speaking about ECIs plans, Mr Bhatnagar said, This will be a new business for
us in India, though we have been doing it in the US for over two years.
Enron already has 32,000 kilometres of fibre-optic broadband network in the
US connecting 18 cities. The next-generation broadband network will
incorporate both terrestrial components like fibre-optic cable and space
components like satellites. While the network and the services will be rolled
out nationally within six to eight months, Enron, the worlds largest gas and
electricity trader, will get into bandwidth trading activity in India only
about two years from now, Mr Bhatnagar said.
Broad-bandwidth networks will be the infrastructure of the future, he said,
adding, Enron will use its expertise in energy trading for bandwidth trading.
The networks and services will allow applications like video-conferencing and
video-delivery. We will target multiple customers, including ISPs and
corporates with requirement for high bandwidth, Mr Bhatnagar added.
Bandwidth trading will allow under-utilised networks to be used to full
capacity, as excess capacity will be sold when not needed by particular
customers. These initiatives will also allow hosting of burgeoning Indian
content within India, thus facilitating the domestic Internet market, as
Internet usage becomes easier and more cost-effective, he said.
Globally, there is great synergy between pipelines and fibre optic networks
and it makes perfect sense for Enron to tap the communications potential,
said an energy analyst. The pipelines are used as conduits for fibre optics
which can carry voice, data or video information, he added. Even in India,
some utilities like the MSEB (Maharashtra State Electricity Board) and the
Indian Railways are already using this routing. Electricity and gas
distribution companies have a natural monopoly in the form of their pipeline
and cabling which has the benefit of a wide reach that can be used by others.
Ircon has been known for innovation in its business and has expanded its
international operations in the past few years. The company recently got a Rs
525-crore order from Malaysian Railways, where the company which could not
pay in cash paid Ircon in kind. Malaysian Railway paid MMTC in the form of
palm oil and MMTC paid IRCON cash in India. Ircon also paid its highest ever
dividend of 225 per cent this year to the government. The company made a
profit of Rs 56.2 crore .
=====================================
|
3,928 |
Subject: Re: FINAL VERSION (Revised)
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8636.
=====================================
If we are still open to changes I would suggest adding a sentence (in
brackets below) to the paragraph about retail competition that supports a
reasonable proposal by the ISO market survailence committee. We all hope
that the market will do it anyway but in a disfunctional market certain
things need to be mandated.
".....Second, California should not abandon its goal of fostering retail
competition. New competitors need the ample, stable and reliable
electricity supplies that a reformed market system will promote. Retail
competition can help bring new types of contracts and metering systems, and
better awareness of environmental effects as entrants introduce "green"
packages, and demand-side innovations. This is another reason why consumers
must pay the real cost of electricity, as retail competition cannot thrive
in an environment in which supply companies lack retail pricing freedom. As
a consequence, companies involved in retail supply, including the California
utilities, should be allowed to pass-through their energy costs in a
competitive environment. [At the same time retail customers should be
guaranteed the option of locking in a fixed fair price by the default
supplier and not be exposed to market volatility should they choose to do
so.]
Finally, oversight of the electricity business will always be needed. The
cornerstones of electricity regulation must be oversight of the distribution
function, and ensuring that any anticompetitive behavior by suppliers is
circumscribed. "
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip K. Verleger" <[email protected]>
To: "James L. Sweeney" <[email protected]>
Cc: "David Teece" <[email protected]>; "Robert Michaels"
<[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]>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: FINAL VERSION (Revised)
> David:
>
> Jim's comments are on point. We really do not know whether the current
> increase is due entirely to the workings of a workably competitive market.
> Some of the participants believe it is, some believe it is not, and others
> like myself are really not sure. Similar, but smaller price increases
have
> been observed in other commodity markets which were later found to be
> "workably competitive." For example, there has been no showing that the
> doubling of heating oil prices last year in the east resulted from
> anything other than the normal working of supply and demand. However,
> there have been other instances of smaller price increases where it has
> been shown that the markets were not "workably competitive." Until we
have
> more actual market data we really cannot - and should not be so bold.
>
> While I have strongly urged you to resist making large numbers of changes
I
> think Jim's advice should be included if you have time.
>
> Phil
>
>
=====================================
|
3,929 |
Subject: Caifornia GOP Calls for Emergency Legsilative Session to Address
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9665.
=====================================
--
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: James Fisfis
March 5, 2001 (916) 319-2071
GOP MOVES NATURAL GAS TO FRONT BURNER
Assembly Republicans join together once again to request Davis to call=20
special session.
(SACRAMENTO) =01) Assembly Republicans united Monday in asking Governor Gra=
y=20
Davis to call a special session of the California legislature to deal with=
=20
skyrocketing natural gas prices.
=01&Families and businesses are reeling every month from extraordinary gas=
=20
prices. Pardon the expression, but the natural gas crisis no longer belong=
s=20
on California=01,s back burner,=018 said Assembly Republican leader Bill Ca=
mpbell=20
(R =01) Villa Park).
Assembly Republicans unanimously signed a letter to Governor Gray Davis=20
asking for him to convene a special session of the legislature to deal with=
=20
California=01,s skyrocketing natural gas bills. Republicans delivered the=
=20
letter to Davis this morning.
=01&A special session is both a symbolic and a practical necessity. It tel=
ls=20
Californians that we care about their skyrocketing gas bills. It tells=20
businesses everywhere that California is going to provide for its future=20
energy needs,=018 said Campbell. =01&Practically speaking, a special sessi=
on also=20
allow us to pass legislation which can take effect immediately.=018
Republicans believe the electricity and natural gas crises are inextricably=
=20
linked.
=01&California=01,s natural gas crisis is completely intertwined with its=
=20
electricity crisis,=018 said Campbell. =01&Any plan to deal with our elect=
ricity=20
crisis must have a natural gas component or Californians are going to pay=
=20
unacceptably high prices for both.=018
Assembly Republicans believe the natural gas crisis has many fronts, all of=
=20
which could be addressed comprehensively by a special session.
=01&Natural gas issues include pipeline capacity, storage, exploration,=20
alternative fuels and conservation,=018 said Campbell. =01&A special sessi=
on lets=20
us put together a comprehensive solution.=018
=01&The private sector has the expertise and the capital to deal with these=
=20
issues if government would just get out of the way. Republicans believe th=
at=20
a legislative solution to the natural gas crisis should leave the resources=
=20
and primary decision-making to the private sector,=018 said Campbell.
# # #
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/05/2001 05:44 PM -----
=09Susan J Mara
=0903/05/2001 05:14 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Today's Assembly GOP press conference - materials
in case you didn't see this
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 03/05/2001 03:12 PM -----
=09"Costigan, Richard" <[email protected]>
=0903/05/2001 02:51 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To:=20
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Today's Assembly GOP press conference - materials
<<press release.doc>> <<Natgastps - rep legislation.doc>> <<Republican
Energy Address.doc>> <<QA.doc>> <<DOE powerpoint.ppt>>
Attached are documents that were part of today's Assembly GOP press
conference on the pending natural gas crisis. If you have any questions,
please call me.
Thanks,
RSC
Richard Costigan, III
Chief of Staff
Office of the Assembly Republican Leader
California State Assembly
(916) 319-2071
- press release.doc
- Natgastps - rep legislation.doc
- Republican Energy Address.doc
- QA.doc
- DOE powerpoint.ppt
=====================================
|
3,930 |
Subject: GA accomplishments for the period November 2000 - April 2001 - NA -
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', 'Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2902.
=====================================
Colleagues:
The first draft of the accomplishments for GA has been discussed with Rick
and Jim this morning. Although most of the inputs were there, some
important ones were still missing.
The second draft is planned for Friday June 1st, and the final for June 8th.
The week difference between 1st, and 8th will be spent entirely on
addressing the appropriate methodologies to arrive at the dollar value for
your work/accomplishment. I promise that you--each for her/his
accomplishments --shall be personally involved in determining the appropriate
methodology so that to reflect your work in the most accurate manner.
Accordingly, I would appreciate very much that all your accomplishments
should reach me as soon as possible so that to allocate as much time for
methodology and communication with you. A report is currently being prepared
of the compiled methodologies submitted so far and I shall send it you with
the hope that it will be of help.
I also want to communicate that the process of sending your accomplishments
is not really voluntary; it is PRC related. Therefore, I am really seeking
your help and support to complete this task.
Of course, please let me know if you have any question or I can be of any
help.
Brgrds
----- Forwarded by Amr Ibrahim/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 05/25/2001 02:10 PM -----
Marcia A Linton@ENRON
05/10/2001 08:16 AM
To: Amr Ibrahim/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: GA accomplishments for the period November 2000 - April 2001
---------------------- Forwarded by Marcia A Linton/NA/Enron on 05/10/2001
08:16 AM ---------------------------
From: Amr Ibrahim@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 05/09/2001 02:11 PM
To: Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve
Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Lysa Akin/Enron@EnronXGate, Roy Boston/HOU/EES@EES,
Barbara A Hueter/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald
Lassere/NA/Enron@Enron, Bill Moore/NA/Enron@Enron, Kerry
Stroup/NA/Enron@Enron, Daniel Allegretti/NA/Enron@Enron, Tom
Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Howard Fromer/NA/Enron@Enron, Tom
Hoatson/NA/Enron@Enron, Frank Rishe/NA/Enron@Enron, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@Enron, Dan Staines/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kathleen
Sullivan/NA/Enron@ENRON, Chauncey Hood/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: GA accomplishments for the period November 2000 - April 2001
Colleagues:
I am seeking your help to compile the accomplishment for GA during the period
Nov 2000 - April 2001. Of course, these accomplishments are the summation of
your efforts either individually or through your group, and the total shall
indicate the contribution of GA to the corporate objectives of Enron. The
aggregation of your inputs shall be one of the primary sources that Rick and
Steve will use in communicating GA impact to all stakeholders in the
company.
I would like to suggest to use the attached excel file to document your
accomplishment for the period. I hope that it shall assist you to identify
your contribution, your estimate of value, and a line, or two, explaining the
methodology you used to arrive at your value.
I hope to receive your inputs by May 16th (next Wednesday), so that I can
compile the inputs and issue the first draft for discussion by Monday 21st.
Of course, please let me know if you have any question.
Brgrds
AI
=====================================
|
3,931 |
Subject: On Campus Recruiting "boot camp" 7/28
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/11991.
=====================================
Just a reminder the On Campus Recruiting "boot camp" training will take
place on 7/28. If you have sent me an email asking to be included there is
no need to reply again.
Here is the original blurb with all of the details.
PLEASE READ IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN On-Campus-Recruiting
(Most everything you need to know about OCR)
WHO IS ELIGIBLE? If you are within 12 months of graduating you can
participate in OCR.. If you graduate 5/01, 12/01 or 5/02 you are eligible
to participate. You may only participate in OCR once.
WHAT IS OCR? The On-Campus-Recruiting program is the primary MBA
recruiting and placement program targeting new MBA graduates or MBA
students that will be graduating within 6 months of the MBA recruiting
season. The MBA recruiting season is a Fall to Spring season. Eighty per
cent of the initial screening and interviewing takes place in the fall from
September to December. During the spring follow-up interviews, some on
site at corporate office interviews, and job offers occur. This is why it
is very important to take advantage of the full fall to spring
season. Some (20%) initial screening interviews do take place in the
spring. In past years 250 companies have participated in the OCR process.
WHAT DO I NEED TO KNOW? You need to reply to this email or send me an
email letting me know you are eligible and interested in participating in
OCR. During the summer, on 7/28 I will be offering a Saturday boot camp on
everything related to OCR, please plan on attending. When September roles
around you will be ready to participate. I will need everyone
participating to complete a one page resume template, which is on
BearTracks. Please wait till I notify you individually before completing
the resume template. The deadline for the one page resume is the first week
in August, we will start the process of drafting a one page resume in the
seminar. We market these one pagers in a resume book/disc/online resume
database to recruiting companies. It is from this source that companies
decide whether or not to recruit at Haas. From this resume source the
companies choose who they will be interviewing. You may also use some of
the 1,000 bid points, all OCR participant get to bid on interviews with
companies (all of this will be covered in the 7/28 training). The bid point
system makes it an equal playing field for all participating students to
apply for positions they are interested in. The BearTrack system (on the
Haas website career services link
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/careercenter/) is the only way to participate
in any of the activities related to OCR. Make sure and get familiar with
BearTracks or attend the BearTracks trainings offered in the fall if you
can't attend the summer OCR training. I will be available to assist
students that have scheduling conflicts and may not be able to attend the
summer OCR training session.
WHAT ELSE? Please make sure and check your email during the summer
regarding summer seminars. The career center is open all summer, I will be
here all summer. During the summer our hours will be 9 to 4. This schedule
begins 5/21 and goes to 8/10. I will be available by appointment for those
wishing to meet after the 4:00 timeframe, please try and provide a 24 hr.
advanced notice if you want to come in after 4:00. That's it for
now. Have a great summer.
John Morel
Associate Director of Career Services
for Evening MBA and MBA Alumni
Ph# 510-642-7731
Fax # 510-642-9387
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,932 |
Subject: RE: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3436.
=====================================
Eldon said that you were making dinner on Friday, the 9th, and that he was
flying a plane to pick up Cameron and Rory in Carmel. Have you guys spoken
in the last few months!?!?!? (kidding.) And don't worry about my
birthday--that's not the issue. It's Eldon's 80th--that's huge. Friday is
the 9th. So I'm just checking in to see what's up. My very strong
inclination--for a variety of reasons, but Eldon's b-day is the biggest
one--is to cancel.
Signed,
confused
Nancy Sellers <[email protected]>
02/28/2001 01:10 PM
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: RE: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
I'm not sure what Friday will bring - the party as you know (for you and
Eldon as far as I am concerned) is on Saturday - however, none of your
friends will be there except us! When would you normally get back?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:06 AM
To: Nancy Sellers
Subject: RE: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
har-dee-har-har. I mean, will we be celebrating in some fashion. I'm
scheduled to go to Houston--I'm not kidding--but if there's something
planned, which I assume there is, then I'm going to cancel my trip to
Houston, like pronto.
Ironically,
Jeff
Nancy
Sellers
<Nancy.Sellers@RobertMo To:
"'[email protected]'"
ndavi.com>
<[email protected]>
cc:
02/27/2001 07:09 PM Subject: RE: FW:
Sonoma Coast Viticulture
contact
cooking!
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 5:05 PM
To: Nancy Sellers
Subject: Re: FW: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
You are so sweet. Thanks so much. What's new? What are we doing on the
Friday of Eldon's b-day?
Nancy Sellers
<Nancy.Sellers@RobertMo To: "'Jeff
Dasovich'"
ndavi.com>
<[email protected]>
cc:
02/27/2001 07:06 PM Subject: FW: Sonoma
Coast Viticulture contact
Finally - here is the name of the contact
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:58 PM
To: Nancy Sellers
Subject: Sonoma Coast Viticulture contact
Nancy, sorry this took a while, but it will be worth it. If anybody knows
about the Sonoma Coast, it's this guy. He's done work with Flowers,
Kistler, etc. out there. His name is Greg Bjornstad (sp.?) and his number
is (707) 829-1687. He doesn't really know me from a hole in the ground but
you can "double reference" my name as Todd Graff's friend. Todd is the
winemaker at Sonoma Creek and is a good friend of mine who worked with Eric
on some projects.
=====================================
|
3,933 |
Subject: URGENT: RE: IEP Restructuring/Transmission Conference Call
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8295.
=====================================
Steven has been asked to fly to Washington today.? Because of the conflict
in meetings there, he has requested this conference call be cancelled until
next week.? Once we have rescheduled, we will contact you with the
information for dialing in.? Thank you for your patience and the changes we
have had to make this week.? .?
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Kelly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:21 AM
To: William Hall; Ward Scobee; Tony Wetzel; Tom Heller; Ted Cortopassi; Sue
Mara; Steve Ponder; Steve Iliff; Ross Ain; Roger Pelote; Robert Frees; Rob
Lamkin; Rich Dyer; Pete Levitt; Paula Soos; Paul Wood; Nam Nguyen; Milton
Schultz; Marty McFadden; Lucian Fox; Kent Palmerton; Ken Hoffman; Jonathan
Weisgall; Joe Ronan; Joe Greco; Jeff Dasovich; Jack Pigott; Hap Boyd; Greg
Blue; Frank Misseldine; Eric Eisenman; Ed Tomeo; Ed Maddox; Duane Nelsen;
Doug Levitt; Doug Fernley; Dean Gosselin; Curt Hatton; Cody Carter; Carolyn
Baker; Bob Escalante; Bill Woods; Bill Carlson; Mark Smith
Cc: Jan Smutny-Jones; Katie Kaplan; Carol Hudson; Steven Kelly; Chris
Ellison; Julee Malinowski-Ball
Subject: IEP Restructuring/Transmission Conference Call Scheduled for 11:00
a.m. on Friday, Jan. 12. Topic: Generation Siting
IEP has scheduled a conference call with the Restructuring/Transmission Task
Force or 11:00 a.m. on Friday, January 12?? The purpose of the call will be
to discuss generation siting issues.?
?
The Call-In Number is??? ??? ??? 888/271-0949
The Participant Code is??????????134916
?
?
Background
As the legislature gears up for its Emergency Session, legislators are
requesting input from IEP on legislative language which would help siting
issues.? Attached is a background paper from Julee Malinowski-Ball,
Edson&Modisette related to this issues.? It includes another attachment
which was a document developed by IEP approximately six months ago related
to key issues.? On Thursday, IEP will circulate draft legislative language
addressing the following issues raised in the Edson&Modisette memo (Note, we
are not planning on tackling all the issues raised in the memo in the
legislature.? Some require a CEC administrative "fix"):
?
Give Deference To Other State and Regional Agencies/Eliminate Overlapping
Jurisdiction
Consider Positive Environmental and Reliability Impacts of Projects
Ease Communication Between Applicants and Staff
Permit Local Agencies to Make Zoning Changes or Other Decisions for Power
Plants Contingent on CEC CEQA Compliance
In addition to the above, CEC Commissioner Laurie (Head of the Siting
Committee) is convening a workshop on January 25 to begin an OII on siting
issues.? An OII is an informational proceeding.? The Commissioner would like
to provide the legislature with a Report by April 2001.??? The Report will
focus on "critical issues affecting the Commission's ability to license
powerplants and related facilities..."? Issues will include availability of
emission offsets, water supply, transmission line constraints, natural gas
supply constraints, local agency and public opposition, land use
constraints, and problems with the timing of federal permits.? The
Commissioner clearly wants to look at 40,000 foot, multi-jurisdictional
issues.
?
In addition to discussing the importance of the above mentioned matters, the
conference call will provide a forum to identify and discuss additional
issues that need to be placed before the Commission.
=====================================
|
3,934 |
Subject: Voicemail message from Rick Shapiro 1:10 AM 1/10/00
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8267.
=====================================
Please see the v:mail message below from Rick Shapiro that was transcribed =
by=20
Lora Sullivan.
----- Forwarded by Linda Robertson/NA/Enron on 01/10/2001 09:22 AM -----
=09Lora Sullivan
=0901/10/2001 09:01 AM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Voicemail message from Rick Shapiro 1:10 AM 1/10/00
Rick Shapiro Voicemail 1:30 AM 1/10/01
=20
Please pass this message on to Hartsoe and others as well. Meeting went=20
until 12:15 PM. He=01,s not going into details now. During the course of=
the=20
day there were several meetings and a proposal. There was sort of an=20
agreement =01) I wouldn=01,t say it was a conceptual agreement that was rea=
ched=20
among the parties that is going to be released by Treasury today. I=01,m n=
ot=20
sure much will come of it. It=01,s going to create some motion. I talked =
to=20
Sue Mara. Sue will be coming over to the office and you=01,ll need someone=
else=20
to go with her because of the fact there are two working groups instead of=
=20
one. I=01,m going to read to you the statement:
The Governor of CA and a bipartisan leadership of the state legislature met=
=20
with major generators including qualifying facilities, marketers, utility=
=20
regulators and federal officials to discuss the electricity situation in CA=
. =20
Recognizing the importance of the issue as laid out in the Governor=01,s St=
ate=20
of the State speech last evening, the partipants agreed for the need for=20
cooperation to maintain stability and avoid bankruptcy for the utilities an=
d=20
assure the long term regulation of market conditions. Crucial elements of=
=20
the solution include: =20
? The development of approaches to promote long-term purchases of electrici=
ty=20
possibily by States and generators at an attractive fixed rate - an=20
option-type of an idea perhaps using some type of existing state agency lik=
e=20
DWR - Dept. of Water and Resources to basically create the credit and=20
insulation for suppliers from the utilities.
? The willingness for generators, qualifying facilities and markets to=20
provide on the short-term basis for current amounts owed by PGE and Edison =
in=20
the context of the framework of a long-term solution
? The need to find satisfactory approaches with respect to the obligation=
=20
accumulation of the utilitles for the purchase of power consistent with=20
contractual obligations and which are in the public interest.
? Cooperation to better match supply and demand in the short and long-term.
? Review of the existing qualifying facilities payments to directors.
The parties ackknoweldge the problem must be addresed while taking into=20
account the regional market. Further working groups will be convened on=20
Wednesday, and there will be two working groups to address to address=20
technical details. Principals will reconvene this weekend. One working=20
group will deal with long-term auction and QF issues. The first and the la=
st=20
bullets and the second and the third bullets which have to do more with the=
=20
arrearages, the debt and the obligations that have been accumulated for the=
=20
purchase of the power is the second working group. =20
I think I=01,ve read it all. The working groups (see first and last bullet=
s)=20
Sue is best equipped to handle. If we need to send another person over wit=
h=20
Sue to sit on the second working group that deals with the unrecovered and=
=20
unpaid obligations of the utilites. Sarah Novosel should do that. =20
=====================================
|
3,935 |
Subject: Re[2]: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/8929.
=====================================
Jeff, I assume you can coordinate a conference call from work. Call me at
home:
415-388-2548.
Excellent points and I was thinking along similar lines. Questions I have:
How do you know that LT debt gives more advantageous terms? We have no yield
curve info nor do we know their credit rating.
At what point does their borrowing exceed their covenents?
Is our strategy to not raise the required $66million or to stop/slow PPE
spending so that the $66m is not needed?
**********************************************
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: HD Case: Proposed Plan
Author: [email protected]
Date: 02/07/2001 11:25 AM
Hi folks:
Since we have only one page, the write up for number 4 will have to be very
brief. Before writing it, though, I wanted to offer a few bullets
regarding what angle we might take, and let folks respond, comment,
counter, etc. before writing it up. I'll clean and beef up once we've
agreed to the approach we'd like to take to question #4. Finally, I can
work from my office on this this evening, which means that I can use the
conference call capability of my office phone to patch everyone in if we'd
like to do a conference call. If that's what folks would like to do, I'd
prefer to do the call at around 7 PM. Just let me know.
Best,
Jeff
The question for #4 is:
Stock price is down 23%, significant debt has already been tapped to
support massive growth and covenants on that debt restrict taking on a lot
more debt.
What should HD do w.r.t. current operations and future growth strategy?
In the near term focus less on growth and more on getting margins and
EBIT growth back in line with results from previous years. (Management's
Letter to Shareholders alludes to this, but it's difficult to determine
whether management is just paying lip service to the need to capitalize on
the growth spurt and grown earnings, or continue on the growth effort.)
With respect to funding future (more moderate growth), the company
does have some room to increase long-term debt (e.g., current ratio for
1986 = 2.26). It seems that HD would get better terms and have increased
flexibility by issuing additional debt rather than relying on lines of
credit. As such, HD ought to look those sources of funding and fill in any
"funding gaps" with funds from the line of credit.
Given the significant drop in stock price, HD is likely better off in
the near term 1) moderating growth, 2) improving performance to generate
cash internally, and 3) using long-term debt issuance to provide the funds
needed. Once performance and stock price improves, then HD should consider
a stock issuance.
How can company improve operating performance?
Reduce selling, store operating expenses and pre-opening expenses
Improve receivables turnover
Improve inventory turnover
Improve per store/sales
Consider closing poor-performing stores
All of which will improve margins
Should company change its strategy? If so how?
Shift from meteoric growth to moderate, targeted growth, and focus on
generating positive cash flow from operations
Focus on improving performance at existing stores; specifically focus on
controlling costs and asset turnover and productivity
Consider another debt issuance rather than rely extensively on credit
line in order to decrease cost of funds and increase flexibility
=====================================
|
3,936 |
Subject: Re: Minutes from call with City of Fresno, Attorney
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/csu_fresno/2.
=====================================
Rob--
We should probably tread carefully in this area. My understanding is that
University is the lead agency for permitting, and if the mitigated negative
declaration you provided to me is the final one, then I don't know if the
City has the authority to require a conditional use permit other than the
negative declaration that the University obtained (prepared?). However, if
the neg dec was only preliminary, then the City has the opportunity to
provide comments, and I suppose it's theoretically possible that the City
could seek an injunction. I don't know if the City has separate rules, but I
do know that under Fresno County rules, items that have a utility or
quasi-utility purpose are oftentimes exempt from the CUP process (unless I
suppose that the CEQA study requires it).
I think we should let the University take the lead on this because if it
turns out that the City is going to inject itself in the permitting process
then we don't want get in the middle of yet another delay-causing dispute.
Let me know how I can help.
AW
From: Rob Cone/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange on 04/18/2000
02:47 PM CDT
To: Richard Crevelt/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Dirk
vanUlden/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Geoff Pollard/Western
Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Minutes from call with City of Fresno, Attorney
I received a phone call today from David Hale, City Attorney, with the City
of Fresno. The following items below are issues that David brought up
regarding the CSU Fresno Project. They are centered around the CEQA document
that was provided to them.
? David can not make recommendations and/or comments to the City's Team with
the scope of the 115kV line from the PG&E Herndon/Bullard Sub. to the CSU
Fresno Sub. not being fully defined. i.e. overhead or under ground, PG&E or
CSU Fresno owning the line.
? David has numerous issues either way should PG&E owns the line or CSU
Fresno.
? David is investigating whether or not there is a public utility easement
located at Bullard. He indicated that the likelihood is high that there is.
? If PG&E installs and owns the line then there are set of rules that the
City has in place for this work to be conducted by a public utility governed
by the CPUC. The easement issues are broad under this scenario.
? David indicated that should PG&E install and own the 115kV line, that an
encroachment permit will not suffice. He indicated that a Conditional Use
Permit would need to be utilized.
? David stated that should CSU Fresno want to install and own the 115kV line
that this is an area that is "convoluted and complex". There would be a
tremendous amount of legal issues around this. i.e. can the City grant this
easement to the University? With the line being dedicated to the University
what does that mean? Does CSUF have a legal right to this easement?
? It sounds like the City has never dealt with this type of issue and does
not have set of rules and/or regulations dealing with this.
? David stated that he might be in the next meeting with the University, EES,
and Fresno.
I will advise everyone should there be any other developments in this area
prior to the upcoming meeting with the City. Let me know if you have any
comments or questions.
Rob Cone
Project Manager
Enron Energy Services
12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 500
San Ramon, CA 94583
Ph:925.543.3701, Fax:925.543.3550
Pager:888.397.5826
=====================================
|
3,937 |
Subject: Curt Hebert leaves FERC at the end of the month
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/362.
=====================================
You regulatory folks may have already seen this. . . .
Posted at 12:27 p.m. PDT Monday, Aug. 6, 2001
FERC chairman to resign
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Curtis Hebert, a target of congressional Democrats and California's governor over his handling of the Western power crisis, is resigning at the end of the month as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
White House spokeswoman Ann Womack said Monday that Hebert submitted his resignation in a letter to President Bush delivered to the White House on Friday. The resignation takes effect Aug. 31.
The resignation had been expected amid indications for months from the White House that the president wanted Patrick Wood III, a state regulator from Texas, to head the federal agency that oversees wholesale electricity markets and interstate natural gas transportation.
``The president appreciates Curtis Hebert's service as chairman of the FERC. He has worked hard to balance the need for just and reasonable rates with the need to encourage adequate new supplies of energy,'' Womack said.
Bush is expected to appoint Wood, an old associate from when Bush was Texas governor, as the commission's new chairman. Bush nominated Wood, who had been chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission since 1995, to the FERC earlier this year. The Senate confirmed him May 25.
Hebert, a Republican from Mississippi and close friend of Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, was named FERC chairman by Bush in January. At the time, Hebert was the only Republican on the five-member commission because of two vacancies.
Although Hebert was said to have considered the appointment as a permanent one, word quickly emerged from the administration that the president wanted Wood, with whom he had worked in Texas, to head the agency that has been at the center of the California electricity controversy.
Hebert, a strong free-market advocate, has defended electricity deregulation and vigorously opposed FERC's imposing price controls in California even as his critics said the Western electricity markets were out of control and not working.
He frequently clashed with one of the commission's Democratic members, William Massey, over FERC's role in assuring that just and reasonable prices are charged by Western power marketers. Massey wanted some additional price restrictions.
California Gov. Gray Davis and the state's two senators -- Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer -- have blamed Hebert for FERC's failure to move aggressively in curtailing power prices in the West and its refusal to demand tens of billions of dollars in refunds of high prices charged California for power.
Hebert argued that price controls will add to the power supply problem in California by stifling power plant construction. He also insisted that FERC has been aggressive in seeking refunds when evidence of price gouging has been found.
In June, after Wood and another Bush nominee, Nora Brownell of Pennsylvania, joined the commission, FERC issued price caps on electricity in California and other Western states.
Since then, electricity prices have eased in the California market. While the lower prices have been largely attributed to a combination of mild weather and a push for conservation, the FERC-imposed price restrictions also are widely believed to have played a role.
Send us feedback <http://www.bayarea.com/c/rc/support/email.htm> | Discuss this story <http://forums.bayarea.com/webx/cgi-bin/[email protected]%[email protected]> | When we update </c/breaking/update_info.html>
=====================================
|
3,938 |
Subject: Fwd: Calif. introduces four bills to cut natgas prices
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3764.
=====================================
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 10:14:50 -0500
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Aryeh Fishman" <[email protected]>, "Andrea Settanni"
<[email protected]>, "Charles Shoneman" <[email protected]>, "Dan
Watkiss" <[email protected]>, "Kimberly Curry" <[email protected]>,
"Paul Fox" <[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>,
"Randall Rich" <[email protected]>
Subject: Calif. introduces four bills to cut natgas prices
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
FYI
Calif. introduces four bills to cut natgas prices
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 30 (Reuters) - A package of four legislative bills
with bipartisan support was introduced in California on Monday aimed at
reducing natural gas prices, currently the highest in the nation and a key
reason behind the state's ongoing energy crisis.
"We introduced these bills today and we think they will bring natural gas
prices down in California," said Ed Randolph, a spokesman for Joe Canciamilla
(D-Pittsburg), an author of one of the bills.
California's power crisis, which has already led to rolling blackouts across
the state on four days this year, has been exacerbated by a spike in gas
prices.
Natural gas-fired turbines are the single largest source of electricity in
California, providing more than a third of the power used by the state's 34
million residents.
Randolph said Democratic and Republican members on the Assembly's gas
subcommittee were involved in drafting the proposals.
The four bills could go to full committee for debate in the next week or two,
he said.
These latest legislative initiatives follow a flurry of other state proposals
to cap gas prices and to jail and slap financial penalties on anyone
convicted of manipulating gas and power prices.
The bills seek to streamline the approval processes for building underground
gas storage facilities, encourage in-state gas production, direct state
energy regulators to review all current or proposed gas tariffs, and require
regulators to review all applications to build new pipelines within 12 months.
Under the gas production proposal, lower grade gas would be tapped to meet
industrial demand.
"This measure will allow this otherwise unusable gas to be sold to
industrials that can burn it but currently must use the higher grade gas
since that is all that is available to them," a statement from Canciamilla's
office said.
The huge rise in gas prices in the Golden State has been blamed on a number
of factors including the state's heavy reliance gas-fired power plants,
dwindling regional gas reserves, and a lack of pipeline capacity to bring
more gas into the state.
Wholesale gas entering the state at the Southern California (Socal) border, a
major delivery point, has averaged more than double and triple prices seen in
most of the nation's gas pipelines.
On Monday, Socal prices traded on average at $14.50 per million British
thermal units, compared with $3.13 a year ago.
The astronomical rise in California gas prices has also triggered several
investigations and lawsuits into possible anti-competitive practices by
out-of-state pipeline operators, which provide California with around 85
percent of its gas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Copyright , 2001 Reuters Limited.
=====================================
|
3,939 |
Subject: Re: Angelides Investor Memo - Timetable Update -- says CPUC vote
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/847.
=====================================
Thanks, Sue. FYI--this new schedule was discussed a lot last week, and apparently was a big part of the meeting that occured with Davis' people and Angelides last Thursday nite. It was a move to buy time to try and get a comprehensive settlement in place in the legislature (i.e., core/noncore).
In addition to buying time to save Direct Access, it also gives Angelides more time to get the bonds lined up, which seems to be an increasingly challenging task---there's growing speculation that the issuance will be much more difficult than Angelides has thus far let on.
That said, I need to check around, but there is some chance that the plan/agreement is that the PUC decisions would go out well in advance of August (with effective date being August), which would then provide enough time to let the expedited "appeals process" under (SB37?) run its course in time for the issuance in Sept/Oct. In short, we'll need to remain vigilant energized because there's a chance that the decisions to which Angelides refers in the memo could be up at the Commission sooner rather than later. This is what I was hearing last Friday, but perhaps things have changed and now there's more time. I'll check and report back.
Finally, simultaneous with those actions, folks are supposed to be putting the core/noncore agreement into legislative language. I'll report back as soon as I have more information on that.
Best,
Jeff
Susan J Mara 07/03/2001 11:27 AM To: Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Angelides Investor Memo - Timetable Update -- says CPUC vote not needed until mid August
The memo to investors says that a new law will take effect on Aug 13 that puts in place shortened appeal times at the CPUC. The memo says that the CPUC does not need to act on the key issues, including suspension of DA, until Aug 13 or later. It also says the bonds are now to be sold in Sept-Oct. The memo states that the CPUC, Governor, Treasurer, etc. have agreed with the new timetable.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/03/2001 09:20 AM -----
"Manuel, Erica" <[email protected]> 07/03/2001 08:38 AM To: "Allen, Stevan" <[email protected]>, AReM <[email protected]>, "Douglas Oglesby (E-mail) (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Fairchild, Tracy" <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey Hanson (E-mail) (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Joseph Alamo (E-mail) (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, Megan Beiser <[email protected]>, "'Robert Morgan' (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Warner, Jami" <[email protected]> cc: Subject: FW: Investor Memo - Timetable Update
I just received this document from Angelides' office - it's a memo outlining
a revised timetable for the PUC actions required for the bond sale. FYI. EM.
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Angelides, Calif State Treasurer
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 7:38 AM
To: FITZPATRICK, Charles
Subject: Investor Memo - Timetable Update
Please note the update regarding the State of California DWR Power Bonds
provided in the attached memo.
<<Investor Memo -- Timetable Update 7-2-01.pdf>>
If you have any questions, please contact Charles Fitzpatrick at (800)
900-3873.
- Investor Memo -- Timetable Update 7-2-01.pdf
=====================================
|
3,940 |
Subject: Re: AHP Case
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5216.
=====================================
Jeff:
I added one small part. I calculated the NPV of the tax shield given the
50% level and the assumptions in the book. I used the following formulae:
NPV= (additional debt X .48 (taxes) X .14 (interest rate))/ .05 (riskless
rate)
I divided by the riskless rate since the shield is not risky and the cash
flows would not occur only if Congress repeals the interest deduction.
About the cash flows. I may be missing it but I cannot find cash from
operations in the book. I tried backing it out of net income but there is
not enough information to figure it out using the indirect method. If you
have the info show me where it is and I will do the calculations.
Good job putting it all together.
Dylan
At 03:17 PM 2/25/01 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>Gents:
>Here it is. Please insert directly any proposed edits using
>strike-out-underline. Need them no later than 10 AM tomorrow in order to
>have incorporated and ready to go for class tomorrow. Dylan, just go ahead
>and put your operating cash flow nos. in (and any other changes you have)
>and send on back. All: recall that we are limited to 4 pages of text.
>
>Best,
>Jeff
>
>(See attached file: AHP Case DRAFT--0225.doc)
>
>
>
>
Jeff
Dasovich
> Sent by: Jeff To: Dylan
> Windham
> Dasovich <[email protected]>
>
cc:
[email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
> 02/25/2001 [email protected],
>
11:57
AM [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AHP
> Case(Document link: Jeff
> Dasovich)
>
>
>
>Greetings:
>I'm going to finish this up in the next few hours and send out. Dylan, go
>ahead and calculate using operating cash rather than income and send along
>and I'll incorporate. I'll try to work Jimmy's stuff in a bit, too.
>
>Best,
>Jeff
>
>
>
>
Dylan
Windham
> <[email protected] To:
> [email protected],
> keley.edu> [email protected],
> [email protected],
> [email protected],
>
02/22/2001 11:48
PM [email protected]
> cc:
>
Subject: AHP
Case
>
>
>
>
>
>Jeff:
>
>I just got done ready your memo. I really liked what you have done. I did
>
>not want to make any direct changes, but rather just pose a few questions
>for discussion.
>
>First, when I calculated how long it would take to purchase the shares
>without debt I did use the net income number. It might be better to change
>
>them to the operating cash flow number. If you guys would like, I can
>recalculate them.
>
>I agree that having higher amounts of debt will fend off take overs.
>
>Are we planing to calculate the amount the tax shield will increase the
>value of the company. If we assume that the debt will be held in
>perpetuity, we can directly compute the amount. Let me know and I can run
>the numbers.
>
>Also, Jimmy when you do the color graphs you want to do. Try some MM pie
>charts (just kidding)
>
>Good job,
>
>Let me know what I can do to help.
>
>Dylan
>
>
>
>
>
>
- AHP Case DRAFT--0225 dylan.doc
=====================================
|
3,941 |
Subject: Re: Interesting Cable News.....
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4203.
=====================================
Definitely. Let's plan to talk about this next week. (Monday, December 11).
Scott Bolton@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
11/29/2000 06:04 PM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Stephen D Burns/Corp/Enron@Enron, Xi Xi/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Tracy Cooper/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@ENRON, Margo Reyna/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Susan M Landwehr/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marchris
Robinson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Interesting Cable News.....
I think this is really going to heat up over the next few months - as we
roll-out Blockbuster, possibly over cable systems, there are fees such as
franchise fees and USF that have not been dealt with by the FCC. As you can
see below, this issue is being used as a weapon by the RBOCs (who mainly
comprise USTA) against the cables. Regardless of what happens with
Blockbuster, EBS could get squeezed in the middle of this debate since the
RBOCs are basically attempting to blow up the current exemptions for Internet
access services and transit in order to beat on the cable companies. We may
end up participating on the open access issue not so much for Blockbuster but
to protect our current USF exemptions on the "information services" we
provide.
Possible weekly conference call topic?
USTA SEEKS EXPEDITED RULING ON CABLE OPERATOR USF OBLIGATIONS
The U.S. Telecom Association is pressing the FCC to speed up its
proceeding on cable operator universal service contributions, in
light of a recent decision by Cox Communications to cease paying
cable franchise fees on revenues from high-speed Internet-
services to several California municipalities.
Cox's decision to stop paying franchise fees came months after a
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco)
decision that broadband transmission over cable TV systems is a
telecom service (AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland), and, thus,
exempt from cable TV franchise fees. USTA said it worries that
broadband service providers also will attempt to shirk telecom
service provider universal service obligations.
USTA, which petitioned the FCC in September for a declaratory
ruling on contribution requirements, advised the agency in a ex
parte filing today that "immediate action is needed" to prevent
telecom service providers from failing to meet these obligations.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires all interstate
telecom service providers, with few exceptions, to contribute to
the universal service fund.
"Cox apparently is seeking to reap what benefits it can from the
holding of the City of Portland [decision], without any known
commitment to meet its universal service obligations," said
Lawrence E. Sarjeant, USTA vice president-regulatory affairs and
general counsel. "Cox's reasoning appears to be that high-speed
data service is not considered a cable service under [AT&T v.]
City of Portland, so that Cox no longer must pay cable
franchising fees for that service.
"However, to USTA's knowledge, Cox has not committed to paying
universal service contributions consistent with its obligations"
as a telecom service provider, he said.
To prevent additional companies from following Cox's lead, USTA
said, the Commission should move up the reply comment deadline to
Dec. 15, 2000. The FCC in its notice of inquiry on competitive
"open access" to cable TV systems (GN docket no. 00-185) had set
a Jan. 10, 2001, deadline (TR, Oct. 2).
=====================================
|
3,942 |
Subject: CPUC Workshop on 4/17
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11097.
=====================================
Mr. Meyers,
I certainly understand and, unfortunately, I suspected as much. I'm sure
there are quite a few parties with keen interest in this investigation.
Because of flight schedules, the Transwestern contingent may not be able to
stay until 4:30 p.m., so I'm not sure I could even commit to a presentation
at the end of the day. We'd certainly be happy to be squeezed in during the
day if another party's presentation was shorter than expected.
In any event, I was wondering if I might leave behind a copy of TW's
presentation for others to take home? Like I said, its chief purpose is to
introduce (or for most folks, reacquaint) Transwestern to the stakeholders in
this investigation, and to provide specific information regarding it's
capability to deliver gas to California. Would it be possible to at least
acknowledge during the day that our handouts are available to the attendees?
We could either pass them out or have them on a table at the back. I'll wait
to hear your guidance on the best way to do this.
As I said before, Transwestern is committed to working with the CPUC to fully
develop the record and to cooperatively address any and all issues identified
in this investigation. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me
know.
Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Myers, Richard A." <[email protected]>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Myers+2C+20Richard+20A+2E+22+20+3Cram+40cpuc+2Eca+2Egov+
[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:02 AM
To: Fawcett, Jeffery
Subject: RE: CPUC Workshop on 4/17
Mr. Fawcett,
Thanks very much for your offer, but at this point I can't guarantee that you
would be able to make a presentation. Virtually all the time has been now
taken up by other presentations. There is an outside chance that you could
make a 10 minute presentation, either at the very end of the day, or possibly
squeezed in at some point during the day if other presentations end more
quickly than expected. But I can't assure you that this will be possible.
Richard Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Fawcett, Jeffery [mailto:[email protected] << File:
mailto:[email protected] >> ]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 8:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Scott, Susan; Dasovich, Jeff; [email protected]
Subject: CPUC Workshop on 4/17
Mr. Myers,
My name is Jeff Fawcett. I am a commercial representative of
Transwestern Pipeline Co. and was its witness during the recent GIR
proceedings. Given Transwestern's role as one of the principal
suppliers of natural gas to the State of California, we are very
interested in the outcome of these proceedings and offer our assistance
to the Commission in its investigation.
Much has been discussed in the press recently about pipeline
infrastructure in California, as well as the upstream capacity of FERC
pipes that serve the California marketplace. I know there is much to be
covered in the 4/17 workshop. However, if the schedule permits,
Transwestern would like to offer a brief overview of its delivery system
to California and its view of the key issues the Commission and
stakeholders face as the investigation moves forward. TW's presentation
should take no more than 10-15 minutes.
Please let me know if the Energy Division would like TW to make such a
presentation and, if possible, approximately what point during the 9
-4:30 session Transwestern will be invited to step forward. I'm
available by return email or you may reach me by telephone at
713-853-1521. Thank you.
=====================================
|
3,943 |
Subject: Re: Ken
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'Jeff']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3605.
=====================================
Let it go. Ken is PR, and PR only. There are also calls where substance is
discussed. Ken can't do that.
Susan J Mara
03/12/2001 06:38 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Ken
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 03/12/2001 04:38 PM -----
Paul Kaufman@ECT
03/12/2001 04:21 PM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Ken
O.K. Just received Janel's call re: Sue's concerns with utlizing Ken for PR
calls.
Here are my thoughts:
(1) There are three, and only three, purposes for spending money on the IEP,
ARM and Direct Access Coalition efforts and thus three, and only three
reasons, for covering the IEP, ARM, and Direct Access Coalition calls. The
three reasons are:
(a) to find out what these various Coalitions are doing;
(b) to try and influence what they are doing so their activities advance our
interests; and
(c) to coordinate what they are doing with what we are doing so we aren't
wasting time, money or opportunities.
If these purposes are not being met, then let's stop wasting our time and
money on these efforts (and the associated phone calls).
(2) From my standpoint, to meet these four purposes we need to have:
(a) somebody on the calls consistently that can advance our interests and
answer questions when asked;
(b) somebody on the call that knows what we are doing in our national,
California, and New York efforts;
(c) somebody preparing an email explaining what was discussed on the calls;
and
(d) Janel coordinating what happens on the calls with what is going on in
our national, Calilfornia, and New York efforts.
(3) The only question given the above is: "who can meet our purposes in
participating in the IEP, ARM and Direct Access Coalition efforts."
Originally I thought Ken was the person, because Ken is a PR person that we
can count on (because we are paying him) to participate regularly in the
calls and e-mail reports.
(4) Given Sue's concerns, I certainly don't object to Sue handling the
calls. However, we need to be consistent in our participation or be
satisfied with inconsistent coverage. It makes no sense to me to have Ken
assigned sporadically to participate in calls that Sue can't participate in
due to a conflict. California is moving too quickly and too unpredictably
for sporadic participation to provide any value.
Susan J Mara@ENRON
03/12/2001 03:22 PM
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: [email protected], Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ken
That's fine. Just realize that I try to cover the same calls. There is also
someone from ARM's PR firm, Edelman, covering the IEP calls.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
Paul Kaufman@ECT
03/12/2001 02:50 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected], [email protected]
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject: Ken
I just spoke with Janel and we concluded that we need to better coordinate
our use of Ken's time. We agreed that it would be a good idea for Ken to
cover the IEP and Direct Access Coalition calls, meetings, etc. and report
back to us about any conclusions reached.
All future assignments for Ken should be coordinated through Janel.
=====================================
|
3,944 |
Subject: Re: Edison and PG&E Emergency Motions - - - ALJ Ruling Just Issued
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/935.
=====================================
Sue -
Where do we stand on proposing a broader solution to the problems in this=
=20
case? I am worried that the only leverage we have right now (utility=20
undercollection) is going to be taken up on its own and we will still have=
=20
the other issues (e.g., price cap reductions, rate cap problems, hydro, etc=
.)=20
to fight.
Jim
=09Susan J Mara@EES
=0910/11/2000 06:57 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Ha=
rry=20
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES
=09=09 cc: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
=09=09 Subject: Edison and PG&E Emergency Motions - - - ALJ Ruling Just Iss=
ued
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 10/11/2000 04:5=
6=20
PM ---------------------------
"Daniel Douglass" <[email protected]> on 10/11/2000 05:31:35 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,=
=20
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,=
=20
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,=
=20
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,=20
<[email protected]>
cc: =20
Subject: Edison and PG&E Emergency Motions - - - ALJ Ruling Just Issued
Last week you were sent an email which discussed the October 4 emergency =
=20
motions of Edison and PG&E to modify the end of rate freeze decisions.? On=
=20
October 5, Edison filed an ex parte request for the immediate suspension of=
=20
the effective date of portions of D.99-10-057 and D.00-03-058.??On October=
=20
6, PG&E filed its support of Edison=01,s request for immediate suspension =
of=20
the effective dates of the decisions. The motions were filed because of th=
e=20
significant undercollections which are being accumulated in their purchase=
d=20
power accounts.
?
A ruling has just been issued by ALJ Minkin which directs parties to file =
=20
responses to Edison=01,s and PG&E=01,s ex parte requests for immediate susp=
ension =20
of certain portions of D.99-10-057 and D.00-03-058.? The judge says, "In =
=20
effect, Edison and PG&E have moved for a stay of certain aspects of these =
=20
decisions.? Consistent with Rule 45(f), responses to motions must be filed =
=20
and served within 15 days of the date that the motion was served, unless th=
e =20
administrative law judge sets a different date.? Therefore, responses to =
=20
Edison=01,s and PG&E=01,s requests must be filed and served by October 20, =
2000."
?
She also notes that the utilities' financial information must be provided =
by=20
October 17 and provides that, "Parties have the opportunity to comment on=
=20
the financial information provided by the utilities and the emergency=20
petitions (including the amended petitions) by October 30."
?
This suggests that the filing due on the 20th could be primarily procedura=
l,=20
dealing with the propriety of the Commission issuing a stay of previously=
=20
approved decisions.? The filing on the 30th would then deal with the=20
substance of the emergency requests, as well as making any comments on the =
=20
financial data provided by the utilities.? This would provide more time to =
=20
review the financial data and work out the details of any "counter proposal=
" =20
which ARM might want to make.? However, we could also deal with substantive=
=20
issues in the 10/20 filing.? We should discuss this soon and determine what=
=20
course ARM would like to pursue.
?
A copy of the ruling is attached for your information.
?
Dan
- ALJ Ruling 0f 10-11-00.doc
=====================================
|
3,945 |
Subject: Texas v. California power
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/gspp_conference/9.
=====================================
Would we want to invite Wood to participate?
Wednesday 08/23/2000
Texas lawmakers heard reassuring words from the top state regulator
yesterday
that Texas will not experience a generation shortfall in coming years or the
wholesale market price spikes similar to those in California this summer.
Public Utility Commission of Texas Chairman Pat Wood pointed to
sufficient
generation already online to cover 2000 peak summer demand an additional 9,655
MW
slated to hit the grid by 2002 that will amply meet current load growth
projections.
The subject of energy prices is of particular interest as Texas launches
a
statewide pilot program in eight months, a precursor to full-blown competition
starting Jan. 1, 2002. Texas regulators said candidly they hope to profit from
mistakes identified in California's move to a retail electric market. While
California has quickly retired much of the debt associated with stranded
costs,
restructuring has been fraught with problems.
Three problems mentioned concerning the California plan include
insufficient
generation being until two years ago, insufficient participation by
non-utility
players and, most recently, naturally short utilities having to pay daily
clearing
prices at the California Power Exchange that might have been gamed by other
utilities. Under questioning by eight lawmakers, Wood deflected each question
with
answers designed to calm consumer and industry fears that a repeat of
California is
possible in Texas.
Wood said without hesitation that Texas is benefiting from other states'
forays
into a competitive marketplace. Texas will not experience California's
difficulties
because its rules have been written slower and with participation from all
industry
participants -- consumer groups, investor owned utilities, public power
entities,
independent power producers and environmental concerns, he said.
Wood described an East Texas utility without generation as being in a
similar
situation as beleaguered San Diego Gas & Electric. The key distinction is that
the
utility has entered into long-term contracts to cover its obligations and
forecast
needs removing it from being susceptible to price swings during periods of
high
price volatility. The utility, Wood said, has even experienced a per kilowatt
decrease over the last three years from near 8 cents/kWh to near 4.5 cents.
Texas ratepayers can rest easier than Californians because Texas moved
aggressively to adopt a "pro-generation atmosphere," Wood said.
Texas and the nation's growing dependence on natural gas to fuel most of
the
large generation projects currently permitted or under construction caused at
least
some concern to one lawmaker. "I'm a little concerned about all our eggs being
put
in the natural gas basket," state Sen. David Sibley, one of the leaders of the
restructuring effort in Texas, said. Wood responded that coal may again come
into
favor if gas prices stay high. "There will be a market response at every level
of
natural gas," Wood said.
Wood concluded his by describing microturbines and distributed generation
as
vital in helping Texas avoid generation shortfalls and price explosions. "This
is
our future," Wood said, pointing to distributed generation as being able to
circumvent existing transmission constraints. "That's why I call it the silver
bullet," he ended.
Wood testified before the Electric Restructuring Legislative Oversight
Committee in a road show put on by the Texas Legislature in Houston, one of
several
cities to host the hearings. RC
=====================================
|
3,946 |
Subject: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/27955.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 06/19/2001 07:19 PM -----
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
06/19/2001 07:11 PM
To: Tim Belden/Enron@EnronXGate, Christopher F Calger/Enron@EnronXGate,
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Phillip K Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Christian Yoder/Enron@EnronXGate, Steve C
Hall/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:
Subject: Call to Discuss Possible Options to Mitigate Effect of DWR
Contracts--Privileged and 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
=====================================
|
3,947 |
Subject: Notes from FERC Meeting
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1657.
=====================================
Hi, Jeff --
I'm so glad you called today and that I could run over to the FERC
meeting. Always interesting!
Here are my notes -- I apologize in advance if they are a little
rough. Over the past few years I've become a much faster typist than when
I write longhand.
Gov. Gray Davis
November 14, 2000
FERC Hearing in San Diego
Serious flaws in the energy market in California. Rates are not reasonable
nor just. Two points:
1. Given FERC's findings, you must order refunds. If you don't, then what
was the point of the findings. Believes FERC has the authority to issue
the refunds and called on them to order them sooner than later.
2. Impose hard price caps and big caps that will protest consumers from
another anticipated crisis in summer 2001.
Davis said he believes that deregulation can work eventually, if market is
competitive and all parties act responsibly. But he believes it will take
4-5 years to get to a competitive market. Without the price caps, he
believes there will be a lot of unwarranted pain inflicted on the consumers
and businesses of CA.
He said there is no justification for the huge profits the energy companies
netted in the third quarter. He said he won't stand to allow CA companies
to be brought to their knees. The market is dysfunctional. People in SD
believe the marketplace is being manipulated for obscene profits. Wants to
level off dereg for 4-5 years to allow market to work and for more power
plants to come online.
He said he believes in people making money and that dereg can work -- but
only when it's competitive.
Strong belief in wholesale price caps. Angry that FERC stripped CA ISO's
ability to protect consumers against price spikes. He said FERC's plan is
a reckless deregulation experiment and that the Commission's plan will only
make things worse next summer. Davis asked FERC to modify its order.
He said that FERC doesn't believe that CA can get the plants
online. Doesn't blame them given the history of CA, but that he has taken
measures to speed up from 1 year to 6 months to site new plants. He's
allocated $50 million from the general fund and $500 million for demand
reduction, renewables and conservation programs. He believes he can reduce
demand and increase supply without public health risks or environmental
degradation.
He said he wants to have someone accountable/electable to the ISO and the
Power Exchange Boards, that the state should have the right to include
people from CA on those Boards. He talked about the negative effects the
actions in CA will have on other states watching this "great deregulation
experiment."
He said FERC's proposed solution does nothing to lower prices. To the
contrary, it's to bring businesses and consumers to their knees. And Davis
predicted "a ratepayers revolt that will strip FERC of its authority and
take matters into their own hands." He said he believes strongly that FERC
has the remedies to protect consumers, give them rebates and prevent this
from happening again.
He said if FERC just focuses on getting more plants online, all hell is
going to break loose. That FERC can't sit in Washington, 3,000 miles away
and take action on CA -- that will only cause more problems.
Dana speaking again -- If any of this doesn't make sense or you have
additional questions, please let me know. I have a few things scribbled in
the margins that may help piece it together better.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to help. I look forward to talking to
you again soon.
Best,
Dana
Dana Perino
[email protected]
619-234-1300 ext. 238
=====================================
|
3,948 |
Subject: Re: Commission OII Hearings
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12698.
=====================================
I have just asked the CPUC for time to speak on Edison's behalf. I am
still drafting our response (just got permission/instructions from my
management) We intend to support the settlement, but suggest that, in light
of the delays which have occurred in implementation, and the drastic
changes which have occurred in California's energy markets, and the
infrastructure proceeding that is on-going, in particular, how much
additional take-away capacity is required to support the proposed
interstate pipeline expansions, it may be appropriate to renegotiate some
of the details of the settlement and/or for the Commission to take
additional testimony/evidence.
--
Michael S. Alexander
Southern California Edison
Energy Supply and Management (ES&M)
626-302-2029
626-302-3254 (fax)
Jeff.Dasovich
@enron.com To: Tom Beach <[email protected]>
cc: [email protected], [email protected],
05/15/2001 [email protected], [email protected],
08:51 AM [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Commission OII Hearings
Enron will very vigorously support the CS and I would hope that we could
get as many people as possible to do the same. Let's face it, California's
gas industry is a mess for the same reasons the electricity industry is a
mess (despite, and perhaps contrary to, the substantially more narrow
reasoning offered by the Brattle Group). The CS is a well-thought-out,
well-designed program for moving forward; unlike the "interim," which takes
two steps back. Can we split up the names of all the people who signed on
and call them and try to get them to show up in support?
Best,
Jeff
Tom Beach
<tomb@crossbordere To:
[email protected],
nergy.com> [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
05/14/2001 11:37
[email protected],
PM [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: Commission
OII Hearings
Watson has asked for time to speak. I'm planning to continue to support
the
CS. It brings some greater stability and certainty to SoCalGas' noncore
rates. The allocation of backbone capacity might improve shippers'
certainty of being able to move gas through Topock and Wheeler Ridge. In
the short term, it's hard to say how much that might help prices, but I
doubt that it would make them worse. In the longer term, if new generation
on the PG&E and Kern / Mojave systems, plus the North Baja and Questar
lines, actually reduce SoCalGas' throughput, then a SoCalGas city-gate
market might be pretty competitive. Finally, the CS removes SoCalGas'
favorite argument in favor of the peaking rate.
So what are Edison and Enron going to do?
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:26 PM
Subject: Commission OII Hearings
> I was just wondering what any of you guys are thinking about doing at the
> Gas OII meeting next Tuesday. Are any of you planning on making a
> presentation? If so, do you intend to support the settlement as filed,
or
> are there modifications you think are appropriate given the way SoCalGas
> has handled its system in the past few months?
>
> Michael
>
> P.S. FYI, I am out of town, so I am not available by phone until Monday.
>
> --
> Michael S. Alexander
> Southern California Edison
> Energy Supply and Management (ES&M)
> 626-302-2029
> 626-302-3254 (fax)
>
>
=====================================
|
3,949 |
Subject: Individual.com - News From a Friend!
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/2379.
=====================================
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
_________________________________________________________
Federal Agencies Gear Up Hydro System to Meet Demand
PORTLAND, Ore., Dec. 8 /PRNewswire/ via NewsEdge Corporation -
Due to an impending power shortage,
federal agencies will increase generation at nearly all of the federal dams=
.
This may cause some projects to operate outside the limits of the biologica=
l
opinion under the Endangered Species Act as additional water is released fo=
r
generation from upstream reservoirs, the Bonneville Power Administration sa=
id
today.
The announcement came following a call by the Regional Emergency Response
Team and Northwest governors for conservation of electricity when arctic ai=
r
invades the Northwest beginning this weekend. The team comprises Northwest
utilities, the Northwest Power Planning Council and representatives of the
four Northwest states.
BPA officials said that this step must be taken in order to ensure that
heavy demand for electricity can be met in the region through next week.
Forecasters are predicting freezing temperatures on both sides of the
Cascades. BPA supplies about 40 percent of the region's electricity, most o=
f
it generated at dams in the Columbia River Basin.
"Utilities in the region have assessed their generating inventories and
determined that the region is clearly short of energy and in an emergency
status," Delwiche said. "The BPA and other utilities must take extraordinar=
y
steps immediately to avoid potentially severe shortages next week."
Water is stored in reservoirs behind upstream dams and released in the
spring to assist downstream migration of juvenile salmon. BPA manages the
storage to ensure that enough water is available to both meet electrical
generating requirements and flows for salmon. BPA has the authority to exce=
ed
guidelines of the biological opinion under emergency conditions.
"It is very important that everyone - residential and commercial consumers
and industries -- do what they can to cut back on their use of electricity
during this cold snap," said Greg Delwiche, BPA's vice president for
generation supply. "Every kilowatt hour saved now means less need to draw
water from the reservoirs."
SOURCE Bonneville Power Administration
CONTACT: Ed Mosey, Bonneville Power Administration, 503-230-5359
Web site: http://www.bpa.gov
_________________________________________________________
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
=====================================
|
3,950 |
Subject: California Update 8/28/2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'legal <[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/122.
=====================================
Please feel free to address any California or western power questions/comme=
nts to G. Britt Whitman at ex: 54014 or Kristin Walsh at ex: 39510.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
? Legislative Maneuvering Towards a Bail-Out Plan=20
MOU Developments
The Assembly Energy Costs and Availability Committee held hearings yesterda=
y on the SoCal bailout plan, AB 82. The chairman of the committee, Rod Wri=
ght, has agreed with Hertzberg and Davis to move something out of the commi=
ttee, possibly by mid-week. Much of the Assembly's efforts to move along a=
comprehensive plan have been encumbered by the introduction of over 50 ame=
ndments. Additionally, demonstrations by a group of farmers and resort own=
ers opposing the conservation easement provision included in the bill may a=
lso slow the process.
Three Central Valley Democrats (Reyes, Flores and Canciamilla) on the Assem=
bly Committee on Energy Costs and Availability will likely be paying close =
attention to the demonstrations against the conservation easements, as farm=
ers are significant in their districts. All three legislators face reelect=
ion. Reyes has already signaled that, even though she voted for the bailou=
t last time, she is disinclining to do so again. These three Democrats may=
impede the progress of the bailout. There are strong indications that the=
plan will not come to a vote until it has the necessary votes to pass. At=
this point there still appears to be a lack of consensus on the Democratic=
side.
Another substantive amendment to the current plan has been a call by SoCal =
for "fair market value" of its transmission assets, rather than book value.=
This value, of course, would have to be estimated and essentially means t=
hat even more money would have to go toward the bailout. While Committee C=
hairman Wright would not oppose this idea, it will likely be hard for many =
of his colleagues to swallow, particularly on the Senate side.
Once the amendments are disposed of and the bailout plan clears the Assembl=
y Energy Costs and Availability Committee, it will then go to Assembly Appr=
opriations. The chair of this committee, Carol Migden, is friendly with bo=
th Hertzberg and Governor Davis, so the plan appears unlikely to receive si=
gnificant opposition in her committee. It will then go to the Assembly flo=
or for a vote. Since it is likely some sort of bailout plan will pass the =
Assembly, it likely will fall to the Senate to decide ultimately if a SoCal=
bailout makes it to the governor or not. Therefore, it becomes important =
to examine what deals might be made between Burton and Davis in order to ge=
t a bailout through the Senate. For example, Burton wants a change in the =
workers' compensation laws to increase payouts to workers. This is a very =
important issue. On the one hand, both trial lawyers and the unions suppor=
t Burton. On the other hand, he is strongly opposed by the powerful CTMA, =
the Republicans and pro-business Democrats, including Governor Davis. In f=
act, Davis has already vetoed this legislation at least once and has promis=
ed to do so again. It is conceivable, though unlikely, that a deal could b=
e struck whereby Burton would allow a SoCal bailout to pass in exchange for=
Davis signing workers' compensation reform. However, if this were to happ=
en, both the bailout and the workers' comp reform together would be an enor=
mous burden on California businesses at a time when these businesses are no=
t doing well. This is why a deal on this particular topic appears unlikely=
at this time.
=====================================
|
3,951 |
Subject: RE: Meeting with Perfect Commerce
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/714.
=====================================
give me 3 dates (very soon) and promise that you won't cancel, change, modify, reschedule, delay, postpone, or amend. I'll find out which one works.
when you leaving for NYC? the movie sounded VERY funny (from the riotous laughter i heard). and those menus really do look good--maybe you could get by by giving your mom that piece of things (with your OK, of course) and that would make her feel like she's got a chunk of the event and it could leave you guys with the freedom to do all the other stuff. just a thought.
i'm very excited but not altogether hungry.
best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Sellers [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:48 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Meeting with Perfect Commerce
Have you heard anything back on potential dates to meet. I am in NY until
November 11th, so any date after that would be great!
Sorry you couldn't watch the movie last night - it was pretty funny.
Hope you are excited about the meat pie for dinner. Won't that be a
treat???
-C
Cameron Sellers
Vice President, Business Development
PERFECT
1860 Embarcadero Road - Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
650.798.3366 (direct dial)
650.269.3366 (cell)
650.858.1095 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:57 PM
To: Piper, Greg; Richter, Brad
Subject: Meeting with Perfect Commerce
Greg:
Good talking to you. Congratulations on your new role. Sounds exciting
(in addition to exhausting).
Based on our call, I contacted Perfect Commerce. The two folks from
their shop that will be in Houston are:
Ian Sullivan
SVP, Professional Services and all implementation of the product
Cameron Sellers
VP, Business Development
They'd like to meet sometime during the week of October 15th. Let me
know if that works for you and Brad. Or if you'd like to contact them
directly, just let me know and I'll get you their numbers/emails.
I ran across Perfect when I was doing an MBA project--we were required
to find a company that we could consult to on e-commerce strategy.
I've since found out that Perfect's doing a pilot with EES--acting as
the e-procurment platform for products tied to EES' outsourcing deals.
From what I hear it's going well, and EES is enthusiastic.
The technology is very interesting: soup to nuts e-procurement platform
developed by Paul Milgrom (global auction guru and economist at
Stanford). Glad you guys can meet with them. I think it's definitely
worth the time--the technology may fit very well with Networks.
Best,
Jeff
**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at [email protected] and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
3,952 |
Subject: Re: Communication within Gov/Reg
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2898.
=====================================
FYI.
----- Forwarded by Sue Nord/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000 01:08 PM -----
Scott Bolton@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
11/01/2000 10:01 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Re: Communication within Gov/Reg
I'm all for Greece.
Sue Nord@ENRON
11/01/00 06:46 AM
To: [email protected], Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Lara Leibman/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Re: Communication within Gov/Reg
FYI
----- Forwarded by Sue Nord/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000 08:45 AM -----
Jan Haizmann@ECT
10/31/2000 09:14 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Beverley Ashcroft/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT, Jane
Wilson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Michael Grimes/AP/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: Communication within Gov/Reg
Hi Sue:
I am pleased with this approach. I will ask my assistant Beverley Ashcroft to
put together a list of participants with phone numbers and time difference
indication. I suggest following people:
Jane Wilson
Michael Grimes
yourself
Donald &/or Scott
Mark Schroeder (provided that he is interested in this)
Wayne Gardner
We will have to find a time scheme which will allow us to talk to each other
at a convenient time.
Following the list of topics as presented by Donald in Vancouver, I suggest
to start with dividing up the issues and nominate 'rapporteurs'.
The rapporteurs can then report on work progressed at our next off site
meeting (in Greece?)
international tax issues
what regulatory issues does the blockbuster deal bring about ?
what are the regulatory risks involved with bandwidth trading ?
how can the global approval process be harmonized ?
CLEC issues
development of a coherent licensing strategy in target markets
I copied some more people into this mail, in order to get the discussion
started.
Best regards
Jan
Sue Nord@ENRON
31/10/2000 14:13
To: Jan Haizmann/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Communication within Gov/Reg
Hi Jan,
I think your suggestion of establishing regular communication between our
groups is a very good one. Maybe we should start with a monthly conference
call. The quality of video conferencing between London and Houston doesn't
seem to be very good, and I think it is quite expensive. Should we try just
doing a phone conference to see if that is adequate?
What do you suggest for the date and agenda for our first call? Perhaps we
could further refine the scope, participation and timeframe for the working
groups.
I look forward to working with you. Kindest regards,
Sue
Jan Haizmann@ECT
10/25/2000 10:20 AM
To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Communication within Gov/Reg
Hi Sue,
I hope that you are doing well. I would like get some communication between
the different areas of business started. Maybe we could meet up once in a
month or bi-monthly. Donald had suggested to set up some working groups and
suggested some areas of interest for us. I would like to come back to this
suggestion.
I wonder whether we do not have a telephone/video conference on the possible
issues for the working group and present progress reports on issues on our
next meeting in 3 months time. The aim is to improve communication in general
and to help us structure future meetings.
Let me know what you think. We could then push things forward together.
Best regards
Jan D. Haizmann
Director Governmental & Regulatory Affairs
Enron Broadband Services Europe
Telephone: +44 (0) 207 783 4474
Fax: +44 (0) 207 783 1045
[email protected]
http://www.enron.net
=====================================
|
3,953 |
Subject: PG&E signs 15,900 mW contract
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/1335.
=====================================
FYI. I bet Gov. Davis would want to see PG&E site these power plants in CA?
Looks like PG&E is making money on deregulation both going and coming.
Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/HOU/EES on 09/11/2000
01:29 PM ---------------------------
Lynnette Barnes
09/11/2000 11:46 AM
To: Montovano's group, Harry's group, Janine's group, Robin's Group
cc:
Subject: PG&E signs 15,900 mW contract
PG&E Corporation Signs Contracts to Secure 50 Generating
Turbines Representing 15,900 Megawatts of Electricity
BETHESDA, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 11, 2000--PG&E Corporation's (NYSE: PCG
- news) National Energy Group today announced the
execution of contracts to secure 50 turbines representing a development
portfolio of approximately 16,000 megawatts of electric power.
The contracts include four 7FA and nineteen 7FB turbines from GE Power
Systems, as well as twenty-one Mitsubishi MHI 501G turbines and six Siemens
Westinghouse SW 501G turbines.
The turbines will be deployed nationally to support the company's greenfield
development projects. Most of the turbines will be funded through a creative
off-balance sheet financing arranged by Societe Generale. The financing
provides for the turbine purchases and related project costs without any
near-term cash outlays from PG&E Corporation.
``These purchase agreements indicate our dedication to our overall growth
strategy,'' said Thomas G. Boren president and chief executive officer of
PG&E National Energy Group. ``With a substantial turbine procurement program,
our commitments to satisfying regional energy needs and meeting our
development goals are well underway.''
The contracts mark PG&E National Energy Group's largest turbine commitment to
date and diversifies its turbine portfolio. Delivery of the turbines is
scheduled through 2004.
``We are greatly diversifying our marketing and generation presence across
the country,'' said Boren. ``As we strengthen our foothold nationally with
projects to meet critical market needs, we achieve a three-way win: value for
our shareholders, confidence for our customers, and reliability for
consumers,'' he added.
PG&E Corporation with 1999 revenues of nearly $21 billion and operations in
21 states, markets energy services and products throughout North America
through its National Energy Group. The Corporation has ownership and
management interests in 30 operating electric power generating plants in 10
states, providing it with a generation portfolio of more than 7,000 megawatts
and more than 10,000 megawatts in new power plant development and
construction currently underway. It also has one of the largest energy
trading and risk management programs in North America.
Please visit our website: www.pgecorp.com
To order a copy of PG&E Corporation's 1999 Environmental Annual Report, click
on the leaf symbol on our website or call 1-800-743-6397.
To order a copy of PG&E Corporation's 1999 Financial Annual Report, click on
the club symbol on our website or call 1-800-654-2582.
EDITORS: Please do not use ``Pacific Gas and Electric'' or ``PG&E'' when
referring to PG&E Corporation or its National Energy Group. The PG&E
National Energy Group is not the same company as Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, the utility, and is not regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission. Customers of Pacific Gas and Electric Company do not have to buy
products or services from the National Energy Group in order to continue to
receive quality regulated services from Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
=====================================
|
3,954 |
Subject: Re: FROM STEVE KEAN
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/6113.
=====================================
I was on the call this morning with Steve when Sen Feinstein's office=20
indicated that they would welcome input from Enron on how to address the=20
immediate crises. However, they made it absolutely clear that they want=20
solutions that can remove the imminent threat of rolling blankouts that may=
=20
occur within the next 48 hours. The Senator is not very interested in=20
hearing about solutions that will require two years to implement. =20
I would like to take your suggestions and ideas and incorporate them in a=
=20
letter to the Senator.
Thanks
=09Mary Hain@ECT
=0912/14/2000 01:30 PM
=09=09
=09=09 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON
=09=09 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jo=
e=20
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Tom=20
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul=20
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Lysa Akin/PDX/ECT@ECT
=09=09 Subject: Re: FROM STEVE KEAN
Paul and I have started working on it and Lysa is setting up a conference=
=20
call for today after 12:00 Pacific time (Paul is at the OPUC this morning).=
=20
From: Steven J Kean@ENRON on 12/14/2000 12:12 PM CST
Sent by: Maureen McVicker@ENRON
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe=20
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Tom=20
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul=20
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: =20
Subject: FROM STEVE KEAN
I believe we need to prepare a letter to key decision makers regarding=20
western energy markets and the actions that we believe should and should no=
t=20
be taken by policy makers. I=01,ve recently spoken to rep from DOE, the ca=
l=20
senators=01, offices and FERC and am concerned that they continue to labor =
under=20
misconceptions about how the market is operating and what policy decisions=
=20
make sense. I have conveyed Enron=01,s point of view to each of these=20
representatives. Several have asked for a letter and I believe it would be=
=20
helpful to capture some of our views in writing. =20
Here are the key points I believe we need to make:
? we have a serious crisis in the energy markets in the western United Stat=
es.
? some of the policy reactions to this crisis have been helpful but many ha=
ve=20
been harmful
? every action the govt. takes in the crisis situation should be (1) inform=
ed=20
by discussions with market participants (and not simply taken on faith from=
=20
the utilities or the CAL ISO), (2) should be measured against this simple=
=20
standard: does the action actually increase supply or actually decrease=20
demand; if not, then it=01,s not helping.
? we should list examples of both the short term and long term remedies tha=
t=20
we believe satisfy this standard (e.g. in the short term things like having=
=20
the ISO buy demand reductions, providing government guarantees for ISO=20
purchases or having California lift emissions limits) and listing actions=
=20
that do not meet this standard (e.g. price caps orders to sell power to the=
=20
CAL ISO).
? list the actions that we have taken to increase supply or reduce demand.
? make ourselves available to discuss any of these matters.
I think we need to try to get such a letter prepared by the end of the day=
=20
today. =20
I am sending you a copy of the letter we sent to the commission regarding=
=20
price caps and a letter El Paso sent regarding gas markets yesterday. I am=
=20
asking Paul Kaufman to take the lead on pulling this together or to designa=
te=20
someone to pull a draft together.
=====================================
|
3,955 |
Subject: RE: New Admissions Calls
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['Diane Dimeff', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4080.
=====================================
Ah Jeez:
Hey Joseph, I was supposed to trade a name with Deepikah and, wouldn't you
know, with all the fine print, I grabbed one of yours (bet you're sorry you
asked me to help out now). Anywho, I called and left a message with Tim
Taylor. You call him yet? If so, he'll think he's very special, what with
all of us calling him. Let me know.
Deepikah, I called Lisa Ralphe off of your list.
Yours in flake-dom,
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/
=====================================
|
3,956 |
Subject: NEWS: Summary of SB 1x hearing 4-30 -- Windfall Profits Tax
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12000.
=====================================
* from Govt Affairs
* hearing was Mon, Apr 30
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES on 05/03/2001
10:41 AM ---------------------------
Susan J Mara@ENRON
05/01/2001 07:30 PM
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 05/01/2001 05:27 PM -----
"Chris Micheli" <[email protected]>
04/30/2001 06:19 PM
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]
=====================================
|
3,957 |
Subject: Fwd: Reuters - Calif. utilities cautiously back FERC market changes
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3008.
=====================================
FYI
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:03:14 -0600
From: "Tracey Bradley" <[email protected]>
To: "Paul Fox" <[email protected]>, "Ronald Carroll" <[email protected]>
Subject: Reuters - Calif. utilities cautiously back FERC market changes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Calif. utilities cautiously back FERC market changes
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 1 (Reuters) - California's investor-owned utilities
cautiously endorsed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC)
proposed changes to the state's troubled power market Wednesday.
While the companies generally described FERC's plan as a starting framework
to repair the market, they said more steps are needed before final changes
can be adopted.
FERC said earlier Wednesday that a probe into California's newly deregulated
electricity markets showed drastic changes were needed to prevent a
repetition of this past summer's price spikes and near power blackouts.
Regulators, though declaring power prices charged this summer were not "just
and reasonable," as required by law, said they did not have the legal
authority to demand refunds from generators, some of whom have made huge
profits selling power in the California market.
FERC also blocked a new price cap plan for wholesale electricity that was due
to be implemented later this month by the California Independent System
Operator, which oversees operation of most of the state's power grid.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), the state's largest utility, called the
FERC report "a sound beginning to the process of repairing the marketplace"
but said more action is required at the state and federal level before "a
working, competitive energy market can be realized in California."
PG&E, a unit of San Francisco-based PG&E Corp. , welcomed FERC's proposed
temporary change to the auction process to set electricity prices.
Bids above $150 per megawatt hour could not set the market clearing prices
paid to all bidders. That means traders would not be able to bid up prices
for short-term supplies as they did last summer, when prices rocketed as high
as $1,000 per megawatt hour in hourly markets, and to $695 per megawatt hour
in the day-ahead market.
PG&E said in a statement the bid framework is "a creative attempt to fix the
market and moderate prices, while still allowing competition to evolve."
Edison International's Southern California Edison (SCE) unit applauded FERC's
findings but urged FERC to continue to investigate "market abuses by sellers"
and to take steps to make the market "workably competitive and to stabilize
electricity prices for our customers."
"Clearly more work is required here," Stephen Frank, chief executive officer
of SCE, said in a statement, adding he was pleased that FERC was not closing
the door on its investigation of past market power abuse, and that future
electricity trading "would be subject to refunds in cases where abuses are
determined."
Stephen Baum, chairman and CEO of San Diego-based Sempra Energy , called
FERC's conclusions "bittersweet".
"We're unhappy there are no refunds, but happy they found the market was
broken, which is what we've been saying all along," Baum told Reuters.
Sempra's San Diego Gas and Electric utility was the first to feel the full
effects of the competitive marketplace, with its customers' monthly bills
more than doubling this past summer, triggering a consumer revolt in the
southern California city and calls for action to repair the market.
=====================================
|
3,958 |
Subject: Re: Valuation of GA Activities
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/473.
=====================================
On hydro, Dennis Benevides told Sue that because the hydro was was not valued
this year, EES made an additional $80 million.
On DASF Settlement. This is REALLY rough. But, our settlement, which was
filed on Wednesday, is with San Diego. Considering that we have about 5,000
accounts in San Diego (20,000 state wide), we could stand to be charged
upward of about $750,000 additionally annually, based on San Diego's filing.
This assumes roughly $100 of additional costs per account per year over an 18
month period. Our settlement has reduced that charge to nearly nothing.
Extrapolating to if our proposal were applied to both SCE and PG&E, it would
be approximately $3 million of avoided costs through the term of agreement
(12/02). I would apply a 50% discount factor, therefore value should be
between $375K and $1.5 million.
Mona L Petrochko
09/10/2000 05:46 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra
McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, John Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Gia
Maisashvili/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Re: Valuation of GA Activities
Some additional items:
Pending:
1. Revenue Allocation Proceeding (Sue Mara, principle)
Determine amount of embedded retail cost will be avoided by direct access
customers (PX credit). Judge's decision is $.0007/KWh saying short-run and
long-run costs are equivalent. Cmmr. Neeper issued an alternate that
differentiated long-run from short-run costs and provided $.0034/KWh. Cmmr.
Neeper's alternate will be revised, however, likely to be lower.
2. Revenue Cycle Service/Direct Access Service Fee (Mona Petrochko,
principle)
Determine the unbundled costs of utility provided meter/bill service on a
long-run marginal cost basis. Existing credits are based on short-run
avoiced costs. Provided that UDCs could propose fees for providing DA
service to ESPs or DA customers, including DASR processing, ESP
administration, rebills, etc.
Awaiting an ALJ Decision on RCS portion of case. Expect that existing
credits will increase.
Enron, as part of ARM, filed a settlement w/ SDG&E, ORA, DGS and the Golden
State Cooperative that eliminated direct charges to ESPs for DASR processing
and other market facilitation roles that only the UDC can provide and spread
those costs across all customer classes. Clarify charges and applicability
to significantly reduce fees to encourage "better" ESP behavior with regard
to providing bill data, rebills, etc. Clarified that "special" services
requested by ESP from UDC would be provided on a charge basis, with terms
agreed to in advance.
3. Continue to monitor Hydro so as to reflect EES interests.
4. OII SDG&E: participate in meetings w/ SDG&E to facilitate DA market.
Advice Letter approving SDG&E's facilitation role adopted which included
clarification offered by Enron on the obligation to serve for ESPs.
Working w/ SDG&E in proposing mechanism which will not disadvantage DA
customer's relative to bundled service in the application of the rate cap.
Working w/ SDG&E to insure that the voluntary opt-in program for large C&I
will not disadvantage DA customers.
5. Implementation of AB 811 (Bruno Gaillard)
AB 811 provided that DA customers of record prior to June 2000 could make a
one-time election of being billed on a load-profile basis or to be billed
based on meter reads. Bruno worked with George Phillips, account managers
and PR to develop our message to the customer. The implementation resulted
in net positive impact to EES' book.
=====================================
|
3,959 |
Subject: Re: FERC Notice of Public Conference in San Diego
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3393.
=====================================
If Karen thinks it would be useful to have the PR firm go and report back,
that's how we'll handle it. Otherwise, we'll get reports from others. Other
commitments win out over FERC's "open mike."
Susan J Mara
11/13/2000 12:28 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: FERC Notice of Public Conference in San Diego
We discussed this with Rick and Jeff when I was in Houston last week. FERC
made it clear at the hearing on the 9th that the SD hearing was for people
who could not make it to Wash DC. So, we thought it unnecessary for Enron to
seek to speak. We thought, instead, that an observer might be appropriate.
Jeff mentioned the new firm we hired as a possibility. I have child care
duties in the morning and a WPF Board meeting from 9 - 3.
Jeff Dasovich
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
11/13/2000 08:23 AM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Re: FERC Notice of Public Conference in San Diego
Mona and I plan to be in Sacramento tomorrow at an AB 1890 Implementation
Group meeting. I think that Sue also has a conflict. My thought was to have
someone from the PR firm that Karen has brought on go and report back. I'm
supposed to give a presentation on gas tomorrow, but it's not a problem for
me to cancel and go to S.D. if we think that it's vital for one of us to be
there in person. Thoughts?
Best,
Jeff
James D Steffes
11/13/2000 08:16 AM
To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: FERC Notice of Public Conference in San Diego
Is anyone going?
Jim
----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 11/13/2000 08:15 AM -----
Mary Hain@ECT
11/07/2000 06:18 PM
To: Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected], Richard Sanders,
Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron,
[email protected], Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe@Enron, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Harry
Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: FERC Notice of Public Conference in San Diego
FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 11/07/2000 04:25 PM
---------------------------
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
From: "Jackie Gallagher" <[email protected]>
11/07/2000 02:50 PM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: FERC Notice of Public Conference in San Diego
Attached is a notice from FERC on a public conference in San Diego on
November 14th regarding the Commission's proposed remedies for California.
The conference is being held primarily to accord an opportunity to the
citizens of San Diego, and others who are unable to attend the Nov. 9th
meeting.
The notice is also available on FERC's website, at www.ferc.fed.us.
Jacqueline Gallagher
Research/Policy Assistant
Electric Power Supply Association
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 760
Washington, DC 20005
202.789.7200
202.789.7201
[email protected]
- 11-14.pdf
=====================================
|
3,960 |
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ] E204 group
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/mba__quant/19.
=====================================
I had the same question about the due date. Let me know what the optimal
answer
is according to the prof.
I will be in Seattle on Wednesday night so I won't be able to meet. But I can
definitely meet next weekend (I will have to meet on my BPP paper too but that
is my only constraint). In the meantime, I will volunteer to take the lead on
the NFL problem (you probably could have guessed that!).
Also, as a gesture of goodwill for missing our meeting (assuming you meet), I
am
attaching my version of the answers to Problem Set #3 (I had to get it done
early since I'll be out of town). Seriously, if you could take a look to make
sure I didn't make any dumb mistakes, that would be cool. I am still assuming
the "2 of 3" restriction on the homework was meant for the second problem set
and he just messed up the syllabus, so I did all three problems. They're
pretty
easy actually. Reading the book before doing the problems really helps out!
I
finished the last problem (8.19) late on Saturday so if I made a dumb mistake,
that is probably where it is.
See you Tuesday.
(See attached file: PS#3.xls)
Patrick Bukowski <[email protected]>
Monday April 10, 2000 02:54 PM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: Carolyn Vavrek <[email protected]>
Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>
Shawne Robinson <[email protected]>
[email protected]
cc: (bcc: Dennis Sidbury/PAMG/Prudential)
Subject: [Fwd: ] E204 group
Hey guys,
I'm not sure if you read this closely, but it looks like our assignments may
be
due on Wednesday instead of Thursday if Jeff is part of our group (since he's
part of the Wednesday night crew). I don't know about the rest of you, but I
could really use that extra night to prepare for these cases. Jeff - I propose
that you ask Professor McCullough if we are exempt from this rule, since we
are
mainly a Thursday night group (a possible compromise might be if you went to
class on Thursday nights when team projects are due).
I think I could probably make it Wednesday at 8:30 pm at Haas, however, I may
still be working on my Thursday assignment... (Dennis - I'm sure you didn't
hear,
but Jeff and Carolyn were talking about meeting then). I suggest we meet in
the
computer lab.
Pat
Tom McCullough wrote:
> Dear E204-1 and E204-2 Students,
> Please find attached a copy of the students assigned to their project teams
> for Team Assignment #1 (and #2). There were two students in E204-1 who
> had not signed on to a team, and I arbitrarily placed them on the 3-person
> teams (so all teams are of size 4 or 5). If this does not work, please let
> me know in lecture on Wednesday. Also, one student, Barrett Rangarajan
> in E204-1, was signed on to two teams so I left Barrett on the first team
> that he was listed with (Team #1) -- let me know if this is in error.
> Team Assignment #1 is due on Wednesday/Thursday, April 19/20 by 6 PM
> -- they must be submitted in the appropriate lecture for the group as listed
> on the attached sheets. Although a Wednesday group may have a Thursday
> member, they must turn the paper in on Wednesday. Late penalties will
> apply to late papers at the rate of 1-point per day late. Do not rely on
the
> Haas printer to be available and in working order at 5:45 PM on the due
date.
>
> --Tom McCullough
>
> =======================================================================
> Tom McCullough
> Senior Lecturer
> Haas School of Business
> University of California at Berkeley
> ==========================================================================
- PS#3.xls
=====================================
|
3,961 |
Subject: California Update #2, 5/23/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12996.
=====================================
Clearly, there are still some really crazy ideas floating around out there.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/23/2001 03:02 PM -----
Kristin Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate
05/23/2001 02:57 PM
To: John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Christopher F Calger/ENRON@enronXgate, Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate,
Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris
Gaskill/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike Grigsby/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim
Heizenrader/ENRON@enronXgate, Vince J Kaminski/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Claudio Ribeiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Tawney/ENRON@enronXgate, Scott
Tholan/ENRON@enronXgate, Britt Whitman/ENRON@enronXgate, Lloyd
Will/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: California Update #2, 5/23/01
Republican Plan B
A source reports the following regarding the Republican Plan B proposal:
? Encourage direct access for consumers. (The problem with this, however, is
that these direct access deals would not have a dedicated rate component, and
too many might undermine the cash flow and credit worthiness of the bonds.)
? The Republicans will "suggest" that generators take a 30% haircut. "We
think this is doable."
? The Republicans strongly oppose purchasing the transmission assets.
? Restore the invetor-owned utility model for generation. They would
establish a dedicated rate component for construction of native generation by
the utilities. They would grant ratepayers equity interest in these plants.
? Resolve the QFs' financial issues.
Assemblyman Cox commented afterward that the Republcans have been trying to
work on a bilateral basis with the Democrats on these issues, but they feel
"frozen out." Moreover, he senses the Democrats moving back toward having an
option to purchase SoCal's transmission assets, which the Republicans oppose.
Democratic Plan B
A source reports the following regarding the Democratic Plan B:
? The Democrats are formulating a Plan B that incorporates the Governor's
MOU, the Nation Plan B and other ideas that they have. This plan reportedly
has not yet been introduced into the legislature yet because it is still
being finalized and the Democrats are not certain that it will work.
Specifically, the option to purchase SoCal's transmission assets is
reportedly still being debated. Some Democrats reportedly believe that this
may be unnecessary.
? The details of the plan are reportedly as follows:
- Set aside the $3.1 bilion undercollect in a separate account funded by a
dedicated rate component.
- The generators can either get a check instantly from the bonds for 70% of
their claim or they can try to get up to 100% of their claim adjudicated
through a dispute.
- This plan could be used as a template for going to the bankruptcy judge to
strike a deal for PG&E.
? Sources indicate that the Democrats are developing a post-petition plan in
cast SoCal files for bankruptcy, including the following:
- The state would buy both utilities out of bankruptcy. It then would sell
of pieces of the utilities to various private-sector buyers, but with a
lifetime stipulation on how they will be run.
- Some Democrats reportedly believe the state could do this with as little as
$5 billion if it assumed the utilities' debt and got a cram-down by the
bankrutpcy judge to quell the protests against such a plan that would very
likely erupt. Democrats reportedly believe that the Judge Montali would
support this idea.
=====================================
|
3,962 |
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/758.
=====================================
thanks. it's on its way. i'll give you a call, or give me a call when you've had a chance to look at it. i'll include steve swain on the fax.
-----Original Message-----
From: Belden, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 9:52 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
503-464-3740
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:52 AM
To: Belden, Tim
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
What's your fax number?
-----Original Message-----
From: Belden, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 8:39 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
I don't understand the netting that you are referring to. Does it mean that they will pay negative ctc's up to some just and reasonable amount and anything above the j&r level will be paid out when all of the other people are paid. How do they define the "ESP's share of the undercollection?"
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:02 PM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mellencamp, Lisa; Tribolet, Michael; Sanders, Richard B.; Kean, Steven J.; Sharp, Vicki; Smith, Mike; Williams, Robert C.; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve; Huddleson, Diann; Calger, Christopher F.; Belden, Tim; Dietrich, Janet
Subject: Conversation with Edison re: Getting Negative CTC Paid
I talked to John Fielder (SVP Edison) about setting up a meeting for Barry Tycholiz with Edison's CFO about hedging Edison's QF price risk. Fielder wanted to talk about the negative CTC issue. Here's what he said:
They plan to "settle" with the ESPs and pay them when they pay everyone else, which he re-iterated would be sometime in Q1'02.
Edison is holding firm to the notion that the negative CTC contributed to the utility's undercollection and that the ESP's share of the undercollection has to be netted against the payables attributable to the negative CTC and owed the ESP.
He said that they will propose to net it out in one of two ways: 1) lump sum netting (i.e., if they owe $50MM and the share of the undercollection is $30 MM, then they pay the ESP $20 MM; or 2) future reductions in PX Credit (i.e., they pay the ESP $50 MM, and then reduce the PX going forward until the $30 MM is paid down). The numbers are illustrative only.
In addition, he said that they have the view that a decision is going to have to be made about 1) whether DA customers pay for stranded costs tied to the DWR L-T contracts, and 2) whether DA customers pay going forward for stranded costs tied to the QF contracts. (Edison is clearly lobbying the PUC to get DA customers to pay for these costs.)
I recommended strongly that he de-link issues 1 and 2 above from the issue of paying us ASAP what they owe us for negative CTC. He agreed.
He said that the PUC judge's recently issued pre-hearing conference order requires that Edison "meet and confer" with ESPs prior to the Nov. 7th hearing, and that Edison intends to set something up with ESPs prior to that hearing.
Fielder is also the point person on "getting ESPs paid" and intends to initiate settlement discussions with ESPs week after next.
It was very clear from the conversation that Edison is going to do everything possible (at the expense of creditors) to maximize headroom under the settlement it struck with the PUC a few weeks ago. Edison's stalemate with the QFs is evidence of it. We shouldn't assume anything different with the Negative CTC issue.
If you have any questions, let us know.
Best,
Jeff
=====================================
|
3,963 |
Subject: Calif Regulators Ask Utils For Extensive Financial Info
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2362.
=====================================
Calif Regulators Ask Utils For Extensive Financial Info
By Mark Golden
?
10/12/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The California Public Utilities Commission has
requested extensive financial information from the state's three
investor-owned utilities and their parent companies.
Administrative law judge Angela Minkin ruled the information should be given
in response to a pleading by PG&E Corp. (PCG) and Edison International (EIX),
which want the PUC to change deregulation rules to allow them to recover the
enormous losses they are now incurring in wholesale electricity markets.
"Minkin has directed the utilities by Oct. 17 to go open-kimono with all of
their financial data since 1998 and, in some cases, since 1997," said Daniel
Douglass, a partner in the law firm Arter & Hadden LLP, which is representing
most of the state's independent power producers, the California Power
Exchange and some of nonutility retail electricity providers in the
proceedings.
The judge's request covers numerous revenue accounts, asset values of power
plants still owned by the utilities, documents on assets transferred and
significant payments made from the regulated utilities to unregulated
subsidiaries, bond information, and net earnings for the parent companies and
all subsidiaries for each quarter between 1997 and 2000.
Minkin also requested an itemization of funds paid to and amounts billed by
any entity other than the California ISO, the state's grid operator, and the
California PX, the state's power exchange, for power purchased in California
by the utilities and their affiliates.
In addition, the judge wants a description of all utility affiliates'
activities in California electric markets and signed affidavits by the
utilities' officers attesting to the veracity of the information.
"The information will also permit the Commission to evaluate recent claims to
investors and the media by PG&E and Edison that their power purchase
liabilities have undermined their financial integrity," Minkin wrote in the
ruling. "The seriousness of these claims imposes a responsibility on
regulators to fully evaluate the utilities' financial circumstances on behalf
of utility customers and the state."
A combination of surging wholesale power prices and caps on retail rates has
produced billions of dollars losses at Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern
California Edison, the regulated units of PG&E and Edison International.
The utilities want the ability to recover those losses after the transition
to deregulation and its fixed-rate regime end in 2002.
Failure to supply the information could result in fines, Minkin wrote.
It would also likely jeopardize the utilties' chance of succeeding in getting
the rules changed, Western Power Trading Forum's Douglass said.
"If the utilities want to have these decisions modified, they need to
document the financial straits they're in," Douglass said. "If they don't
provide, they open up themselves up to losing their request."
The extensiveness of the disclosures is similar to that in the subpoenas
issued to many Western Power Trading Forum member companies in other
investigations of California's wholesale power market. Douglass said the
information would be available to all parties to the proceedings.
Douglass said the utilities haven't yet objected to the ruling, which was
issued late Friday.
Southern California Edison declined to comment Thursday.
-By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604;
[email protected]
=====================================
|
3,964 |
Subject: Re: IEP Restructuring/Transmission Task Force Meeting Scheduled for
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2891.
=====================================
IEP's conference facilities hold up to 18 persons.? As we do not know how
many folks are coming to the IEP Restructuring/Transmission Task Force
meeting, PLEASE RSVP TO DEBBIE CLINE AT [email protected]].? Thanks. We we get
overbooked, we will attempt to locate an alternate spot.
?
Note, the original purpose of the meeting was to develop an IEP response to
the various FERC filings on the California market structure.? Given the FERC
Nov. 1 Report, we will be focusing on responding to that Report.?? The IEP
recommendations should not change much.? IEP will be attending the Nov. 9
FERC Conference on these issues.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Kelly
To: William Hall ; Ward Scobee ; Tony Wetzel ; Tom Heller ; Ted Cortopassi
; Steve Ponder ; Steve Iliff ; Roger Pelote ; Robert Frees ; Pete Levitt ;
Paula Soos ; Nam Nguyen ; Milton Schultz ; Marty McFadden ; Ken Hoffman ;
Jonathan Weisgall ; Joe Ronan ; Joe Greco ; Jeff Dasovich ; Jack Pigott ;
Hap Boyd ; Frank Misseldine ; Ed Tomeo ; Ed Maddox ; Duane Nelsen ; Doug
Levitt ; Dean Gosselin ; Curt Hatton ; Cody Carter ; Carolyn Baker ; Bob
Escalante ; Bill Woods ; Bill Carlson ; Eric Eisenman ; Trond Aschehoug ;
Susan J Mara ; Scott Noll ; Rob Lamkin ; Randy Hickok ; Lynn Lednicky ;
Kent Fickett ; Jim Willey ; Greg Blue ; Frank DeRosa ; Eileen Koch ; Dave
Parquet ; Curtis Kebler
Cc: Jan Smutny-Jones ; Katie Kaplan ; Andy Brown ; IEPA ; Bob Weisenmiller ;
Karen Edson ; Stephanie Newell ; Steven Kelly
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 8:59 AM
Subject: IEP Restructuring/Transmission Task Force Meeting Scheduled for
9:30 a.m. on Friday, Nov. 3
IEP has scheduled a Restructuring/Transmission Task Force meeting for 9:30
a.m. on Friday, Nov. 3.? The meeting will be held here at IEP.? While we
would prefer an in-person meeting, we will also provide teleconferencing
capabilities for those who would like to participate by phone.
?
The purpose of the meeting will be to review and discuss the draft IEP
response to the various FERC filings addressing a dysfunctional market in
California and alledging generator/marketer market power abuse.? As noted in
our previous email, IEP is developing a response to these FERC filings
compatible to the work being accomplished by the Market Response Project.?
?
In addition to reviewing and discussing the draft response, we will be
discussing specific recommedations to the FERC/CPUC/EOB, etc. to improve the
functioning of the marketplace.? We will be circulating prior to the meeting
the latest thinking on this, and we expect to discuss in detail the range of
recommendations which might be inserted into the FERC response filing.? This
will be a followup to the IEP Board discussion on Wednesday at IEP's Annual
Meeting.
?
A draft agenda for the meeting is as follows:
?
9:30??? ??? Review of Regulatory Environment at FERC, EOB, CPUC
?
10:00??? ??Discussion?of FERC California Report (To Be Released on
Wednesday, November 1)
?
11:00??????Review and Discussion of IEP Draft FERC Filing (To Be Distributed
on Wed/Thursday, November 1-2)
?
12:00??????Lunch
?
1:00??????? Discussion of Specific Recommendations To FERC To Improve
Marketplace
?
3:00??? ??? End
?
?
Schedule of Upcoming Events
As an FYI, I note the following calendar events:
?
November 1??? ??? ??? ??? FERC Releases "California Report"
November 9??? ??? ??? ??? FERC Convenes Meeting/Workshop To Receive
Responses on California Report/Marketplace
November 21??????????????Parties Comments Due To FERC on California Report
=====================================
|
3,965 |
Subject: FW: Power Authority info
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/212.
=====================================
We should talk to commercial people and amonst our group to see if/how we should cover this new found agency. GAC
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan R. Schneider [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 12:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Power Authority info
5061 Knightswood Way Granite Bay, CA 95746 Phone (916) 797-3106
A California Limited Liability Company
How to have information about the new California Power Authority delivered directly to your e-mail address<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
QUICKLY, CONVENIENTLY, AND ECONOMICALLY
The California Power and Conservation Financing Authority (the "Power Authority") is an important new player in California's energy markets. Created by the State Legislature with $5 billion in bonding authorization, the Power Authority has the ability to acquire generation, transmission, and demand-side resources to lower electricity prices to consumers.
The Authority plans to procure up to 3,000 MW of resources for operation next summer, with a longer-term target of close to 5,000 MW (greater than the peak demand of San Diego Gas and Electric). Already, the Authority has received proposals for over 115 generation and conservation/load management projects, and competitive RFPs are planned in the near future for central-station and on-site photovoltaics, central-station solar thermal plants, fuel cells, and micro-turbine resources. A proposed Bolivian LNG project could also make the Authority a major gas-market participant (up to 1.5 Bcf/d).
Clearly, this new agency will have a significant impact on California's energy markets. The pace of activities will be very fast, and staying informed will be critical for anyone in the energy industry.
Generally, that will require multiple trips to Sacramento, numerous hours attending Power Authority meetings, and downloading and wading through technical and other documents. Phoenix Consulting is offering an economical and efficient alternative - a new service, California Power Authority Letter (CAL-PAL), that can save you that time and effort by sending timely, critical information directly to your e-mail address with no effort at all on your part.
Modeled after our popular KNOW THE ISO reporting/analysis service, CAL-PAL service will include:
(1) Advance notice of important Power Authority decisions;
(2) Concise, accurate, plain-English reports about Power Authority meetings and documents (e.g., competitive RFPs), within 2 days; and
(3) Free Phoenix Consulting services, such as information and advice about Power Authority issues or other aspects of California electricity and natural gas markets.
ALL THIS IS INCLUDED IN THE CAL-PAL SERVICE PACKAGE FOR LESS EACH MONTH THAN THE COST OF A SINGLE HOUR OF CONSULTING SERVICES.
Finding out more is quick and easy
To receive additional information about CAL-PAL service no cost or obligation to you, just click on the "Reply" and "Send" commands on your computer screen. We'll send you promptly a full description of CAL-PAL features, along with cost and other subscription information.
I look forward to hearing from you, and to being your "eyes and ears" at the Power Authority.
Susan Schneider
Principal, Phoenix Consulting
(916) 797-3106 office
(916) 804-9514 cellphone
=====================================
|
3,966 |
Subject: DJ Article re CAISO's Purchase From Powerex on Dec. 5
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/4336.
=====================================
DJ Cal-ISO Spends $1.1 Mln Tue To Keep Lights On - Sources
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--The California Independent System Operator spent
about $1.1 million late Tuesday to secure about 1,000 megawatts of power from
Powerex to keep the state's electricity grid from collapsing, sources
familiar with the ISO's market operations told Dow Jones Newswires.
Powerex is a subsidiary of BC Hydro, the utility for British Columbia.
Powerex is responsible for selling excess power to other Canadian and U.S.
utilities. The company saved California from rolling blackouts last summer by
selling the state electricity at the last possible minute at high wholesale
prices, the source said.
ISO spokesman Patrick Dorinson would neither confirm nor deny the claims,
saying it might be interpreted as market manipulation. Dorinson did say the
ISO, manager of the state's high-voltage transmission system, purchased "some
megawatts" late in the day. He wouldn't say how much. The market source said
the ISO spent about $1,100 a megawatt-hour for about 1,000 MW.
In addition, state irrigation districts, which supply water and power to
farmers in Northern California, sold excess power - 200 to 400 MW - to the
Northwest Tuesday, while California was teetering on rolling blackouts. The
irrigation districts reaped huge profits from Northwest energy companies
willing to pay a premium for wholesale electricity, a high-ranking market
source at the ISO said.
Day-ahead prices for power into the California Power Exchange for Wednesday
missed the $250/MWh price cap by a penny. But the $250/MWh price is for a
24-hour period. Prices outside of the state are much higher.
The power sold out-of-state by the state-regulated irrigation districts in
Redding and Modesto, Calif., could have been deals the government-owned
utilities entered into with energy companies two years ago, Dorinson said,
but generally California hasn't been in the business of exporting power so
its highly unlikely, the source said.
The ISO warned Gov. Gray Davis that the state would likely face rolling
blackouts Tuesday afternoon following a stage-two power emergency declared
earlier in the day due to the loss of 11,000 megawatts of power due to
planned and unplanned maintenance and lower than expected imports from the
Northwest.
In addition, unconfirmed market reports have been circulating that power
suppliers are shutting down their gas-fired units in order to sell their
natural gas supply because they can earn more money selling gas than
electricity because California has a wholesale power price cap of $250/MWh.
A severe cold snap is threatening the Northwest power supply and driving up
wholesale prices in the western region. California received about 5,600 MW of
power imports Monday, but that number dwindled to about 2,600 MW Tuesday,
Dorinson said.
The ISO said about 5:30 p.m. PST Tuesday (0130 GMT Wednesday) that it secured
additional power supplies between 4:30 p.m. and 5:20 p.m. PST (0030-0120 GMT
Wednesday) that helped the state narrowly avoid rolling blackouts.
But the ISO said power emergencies will likely be declared throughout the
month because of limited instate supplies. The grid operator said the state
will face a shortage nearly every hour of the day for the rest of the year
due to generation units that are off line because of maintenance and others
that have used up their pollution credits.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
mailto:[email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 06-12-00
0425GMT
=====================================
|
3,967 |
Subject: Reuters - Jan Smutny-Jones Believes California ISO may lose power
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/2851.
=====================================
California ISO may lose power price cap authority
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 30 (Reuters) - The authority of California's power grid
operator to cap prices may be threatened by its approval of a controversial
plan last week, the chairman of its board of governors said on Monday.
Last week the California Independent System Operator's board of governors
narrowly approved a plan for variable price caps which are adjusted to
reflect the amount of demand and the level of natural gas prices.
"I think the board's vote on Thursday jeopardizes the ISO's potential future
authority to set price caps," Jan Smutny-Jones said in an interview.
Smutny-Jones, who opposed the plan along with the ISO's chief executive Terry
Winter, said the cap formula was ill conceived and would add to market
instability.
"If the ISO staff had put something forward like this they would have been
hung," he said.
The plan was proposed by Mike Florio of consumer group The Utilities Reform
Network (TURN) and backed by representatives from investor owned and
municipal utilities.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizes the ISO to set price caps
but that authority is set to expire on November 15.
Smutny-Jones said FERC may take a dim view of such decisions, threatening its
renewal of the ISO's cap authority.
FERC is due to issue a report on California's troubled power market on Nov. 1
and may come out with some orders aimed at rectifying some of the problems on
Nov. 9.
Prices skyrocketed this summer as loads continued to grow aided by a strong
economy and demand struggled to keep pace. There have been almost no power
plants built in the state during the past decade.
Smutny-Jones, who is also executive director of the Independent Energy
Producers Association, said he believes the FERC report would clear
generators from any wrongdoing. Some have claimed there was price gouging by
generators during this summer's price spikes.
"I think the idea that this market was raided by Texas vikings is a silly
notion," he said, referring to the participation by some Houston-based power
companies in California this year.
Smutny-Jones also expressed concern about a letter received by the ISO from
state regulator, the California Public Utilites Commission, last week.
The ISO has been seeking to contract for temporary power generators to locate
in California in a bid to ease a potential power crunch next summer. It
received bids for 3,800 megawatts of which it entered negotiations to buy
about 2,000 MW.
Last week the CPUC called on the ISO to not sign those contracts until other
options had been considered. The ISO is meeting later Monday to consider its
response.
"I am troubled by the letter we got from the PUC because I don't think we
have any time to wait. I will encourage (ISO) management to go forward," he
said.
Smutny-Jones said that the main solution to high prices in the state would be
for the utilities to sign long-term contracts.
Prices for five-year contracts are currently much cheaper than those in the
spot market as many expect the current shortage may be much less actute after
2002 when many new power plants are scheduled to come on line.
He was particularly critical of Sempra Energy unit San Diego Gas and
Electric's decision not to sign any such deals, at least until after the FERC
report.
"I think that is totally irresponsible. Sempra's strategy (of not signing
such contracts) has been a disaster for the people of San Diego," he said.
Smutny-Jones was in San Francisco attending Edison Electric Institute's
annual finance conference.
=====================================
|
3,968 |
Subject: Re: Initial memo on California study proposal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/87.
=====================================
Jim et al.:
I heard from Robert Michaels that Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) may be
interested in sponsoring his study.
Wayne Brough at CSE plans to approach EPSA and others to gauge interest. He
said that their president Paul Beckner is scheduled to meet with Steve Kean
in mid- September on this and other topics.
Wayne said there was some thinking to let Ken Malloy front the study but have
CSE write a grass roots version given their niche. Malloy does not want to
fund raise for his part, however, so CSE might be responsible for both if it
gets done.
SO, everything is still in the planning stages.
- Rob
James D Steffes@EES
08/28/2000 07:53 AM
To: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Initial memo on California study proposal
Rick, et al --
I don't know if we need to do this study and the work that Seabron and LECG
would be doing. Maybe we incorporate these guys into the mix during the work
up of the analysis.
I think that we need to make sure that we have the right questions to ask. I
will get with Jeff Dasovich and Joe Hartsoe and Mary Hain to make sure that
we (1) have the right questions and (2) have the right parties answering the
questions. Then let's look at our current resources and go outside only if
necessary.
Jim
Richard Shapiro
08/27/2000 11:39 AM
To: Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Re: Initial memo on California study proposal
where are we on this? Jim- How does this square w/ Seabron's work? Is there a
way to marry the two?
Rob Bradley@ENRON
08/18/2000 05:10 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES
cc: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
Subject: Re: Initial memo on California study proposal
Robert Michaels is proposing a consultant study looking at the California
electricity chaos (see attached). It is roughly a $100,000 study before
printing and distribution costs with a delivery date of December 1. The
study would also involve Ken Malloy's Center for the Advancement of Energy
Markets.
I think Robert would do a good job but raise these issues:
1) This is expensive. It is at consultant rates and is not an academic study
where a think tank can get the professors to do something at less cost
2) Malloy is pretty heavy into this at a cost of $14,400 of about 40% of
Michaels. His NARUC connections are very important, and we would want him on
the popularization side, but this is too much.
3) The study might need a co-author with lots of academic credibility to join
Robert as good as he is.
I'm glad that we have this proposal--it will force us to think about what we
want, who does it, and how it should be distributed. We should also think
about how much industry money we could gather to fund such an effort (it
should be large given the stakes).
Can you provide your impressions so I can get back to Robert?
- Rob
Robert Michaels <[email protected]> on 08/18/2000 03:34:12 PM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Initial memo on California study proposal
All --
Here's the memo I said you'd have today, and a preliminary budgeting
sheet. Gimme a call as soon as is reasonably possible.
Thanx,
RM
- 818 Proposal Memo.doc
- 818 Malloy California Report (Michaels).xls
=====================================
|
3,969 |
Subject: Re: Forward Contracting/Default/End of Rate Freeze
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3251.
=====================================
Mona, Jeff:
One of the things I have realized in my few short days up here is that,
although l-t forward curves are not readily published, they are verified by
auditors for earnings reporting purposes.
It may be useful as we go down this road to educate regulators /
legislators about the forward markets and how they can be a de-facto
standard of reasonableness.
On a related subject, can one of you point me to some information about
Enron's Bench Product (or whatever it is called)?
Cheers,
Alan
Mona L Petrochko@ENRON
11/08/2000 03:33 PM
To: Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, [email protected]
cc: Paul Kaufman, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Bruno
Gaillard/EU/Enron@Enron
Subject: Forward Contracting/Default/End of Rate Freeze
Bruno, make sure Sandi gets this when she is in London. Thanks.
1. Forward Contracting and Bilateral Contracting
a. Expectations are that the supply/demand balance for Summer 2001
will again be tight.
b. All 3 IOUs have an interest in managing their risk exposure
i. increasing undercollections
ii. reducing headroom for CTC collection
c. Uncertainty around CPUC reasonableness review has stifled IOU
contracting activity
d. Reasonableness must be upfront and not backward looking
i. competitive bid (public agencies do this, utility sale of
generating assets) provides a tangible measure of IOUs selection
ii. recommend a portfolio approach (various block sizes, various
terms, various pricing
iii. most PBRs compare short-term market indices to utility
portfolio costs. It is another way of determining reasonableness.
2. Determination of IOU obligation for procurement is key to providing
direction on forward contracting
Reasonableness is a CPUC issue. Default Provider would require
legislation
a. Question about whether IOUs should continue to be procurers of
energy for customers.
b. In the interim, after the freeze, IOUs may need to continue as
default provider to residential and small commercial customers to
provide rate stability.
b. IOUs should not continue a default provider role for large
commercial/industrial accounts, but only a provider of last resort
c. Large commercial/industrial customers have no continuing cost
obligation for procurement service from utility.
d. Commission should investigate alternatives to utility default
provider within 2 years. PECO just held an auction 3 companies bid.
TNPC won.
e. Utility contracts should consider potential of customers to DA and
potential for alternative default provider.
f. Utilities default could be a portfolio (i.e. Oregon). Residential
and small commercial customers could choose from a limited number of
services such as spot, 1-year fixed.
3. Utility Undercollections/Rate Freeze
a. Commission is examining accounting changes to mitigate SCE/PG&E
undercollection problem.
b. TURN has proposed collapsing undercollection with stranded costs
and continuing the current statutory period for collection. We support.
c. May need legislation if carry any undercollections into
post-freeze.
d. Continuation of rate freeze would require legislation. May be
cleaner to run rate freeze through current deadline and look at a rate
stabilization proposal to replace frozen rates for 2002.
e. Ending the rate freeze early will prematurely expose customers to
fluctuation.
f. Undercollection issue is a snapshot in time. Allow rate freeze to
continue gives opportunity to mitigate current position.
g. Utilities are generating revenues in excess of costs. Generating
assets value has increased.
=====================================
|
3,970 |
Subject: RE: Draft program
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/140.
=====================================
I'm sorry that I can't make a conference call at this time, but if others
can please go ahead without me and I'll catch up. Yes, I'm in favor on
balance. I'd like GSPP (through Heather and Annette) to retain primary
administrative control of all publicity.
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 5:27 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
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
=====================================
|
3,971 |
Subject: Email message from Dean
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1311.
=====================================
To Members of the Haas Community
Yesterday, October 17, I had lunch in San Francisco with Tom Clausen,
former CEO of the Bank of America, and former President of the World Bank,
and a great fan and supporter of the Haas School. He is the one of the
individuals behind the Bank of America's generous contributions to the Haas
community. His personal gifts and gifts from the Bank of America
Foundation have financed the Bank of America forum, the Bank of America's
discretionary Dean's fund that supports new Haas programs; and the Clausen
Center that supports the International Business Development course and some
of Haas's most loved faculty including Andy Rose and Rich Lyons. We had a
wonderful lunch during which he spoke affectionately of the loyalty and
talent of Haas alumni, the accomplishments of current Haas students, and
the future of business education.
After lunch, as I drove back to the Berkeley campus with Larry Lollar--the
new and talented assistant dean for development at the Haas School--I began
to plan my comments for the first of what I hope will become regular e-mail
messages from the Dean's Office to the Haas community. I considered many
possible topics-for example, core reform; the challenges of fund-raising;
the process of recruiting new faculty. I hadn't made a final decision when
we arrived on Piedmont Avenue only to find a policeman blocking our way to
the Haas School. Shortly thereafter I learned with dismay that the School
had been evacuated and temporarily closed because of concern about a
possible anthrax attack. I waited anxiously on the outskirts of the police
lines with many other members of the Haas community while emergency
personnel from the local police, fire, and public health services and from
the campus worked together to assess the situation. After the police
determined that the suspicious material was not hazardous, we were allowed
to re-enter the building and to re-open the School for regular activities
today.
So my first e-mail message is about how Haas responded to the kind of
potential emergency that seemed unthinkable just a few weeks ago. I want
to thank the outstanding individuals who work with me in the Dean's Office.
In my absence, they acted quickly and calmly to evacuate the buildings and
to cancel all School activities for the rest of the day. They stayed near
the School to comfort members of the community until the police gave an
all-clear sign. They then returned to the office with me to prepare an
e-mail announcement to the community that the School would re-open
tomorrow. They also worked with the campus police to make sure that all
Haas offices were locked to protect against possible theft. All of us owe
these fine leaders our gratitude for their calm determination and
decisiveness during moments of uncertainty and anxiety. I have said many
times that when I depart in January I will be leaving the Haas community in
excellent hands. Yesterday, the leaders of the Dean's Office made my point.
We are living through unprecedented times, and the level of anxiety and the
need for caution are understandably high. But we must not allow the threat
of terrorism to strike terror into our hearts and prevent us from leading
our normal lives. We can all take comfort in the quick responses of the
School's leadership, campus authorities and the local police, fire and
health departments during yesterday's disruption. Today the School is once
again open for business as usual. Take a moment to celebrate our return to
normalcy and our wonderful community.
=====================================
|
3,972 |
Subject: POWER conference sponsorship by ENRON
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/5547.
=====================================
Hi Jeff:
I'm sending this as a separate email from the last in part because I want
to emphasize that the invitation to be a discussant is in no way connected
to Enron's decision to be a conference sponsor or not.
The email I sent you in November on sponsoring is below. Can you let me
know as soon as possible (like in the next week) if Enron would like to
be a sponsor.
Severin
_________________________________________________________________
Severin Borenstein
E.T. Grether Professor of Business
Administration and Public Policy Director
Haas School of Business U.C. Energy Institute
University of California 2539 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900 Berkeley, CA 94720-5180
(p) 510-642-3689 (p) 510-642-5145
(f) 707-885-2508 http://www.ucei.org
Email: [email protected]
WWW: http://haas.berkeley.edu/~borenste
--------------
From [email protected] Wed Jan 31 11:01:07 2001
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:31:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Severin Borenstein <[email protected]>
To: Jeffrey Dasovich <[email protected]>
Subject: POWER Conference Sponsorship by Enron
Dear Jeff:
I am writing to ask Enron to become a sponsor of the annual POWER research
conference on electricity restructuring, which will take place this year
on March 16, 2001 in Berkeley. This will be POWER's sixth annual
electricity research conference. Last year's conference was quite
successful, with attendance of nearly 150 and a number of papers that were
discussed widely and were influential in electricity policy. Information
on past programs and the plans for this year at our website:
http://www.ucei.org/power_conf.html . We already have received submissions
from top researchers for this year's conference. We anticipate another
very strong program of active electricity restructuring researchers and
practitioners.
As in the past, we plan to include about 8 papers on the program. The
presentations will be organized by topic and the papers will be discussed
by both researchers and practitioner. Past programs have been very
successful in stimulating discussion that included both researchers and
practitioners.
The cost to Enron to become a sponsor would be $10,000. As a sponsor,
Enron would be listed on the front of the conference program and in the
pre-conference mailing. In addition, Enron could send up to 5 people to
the conference at no additional cost.
The annual POWER conferences on electricity restructuring have been very
well received by industry, policy, and academic participants. With the
broad and growing interest in deregulation of electricity markets, we have
every reason to anticipate that this year's conference will be just as
successful. We hope that Enron will decide to become a sponsor of the
conference.
I can be contacted by phone at 510-642-5145, by fax at 510-643-5180, or by
e-mail at [email protected]. I look forward to talking with you
soon about this.
Sincerely,
Severin
_________________________________________________________________
Severin Borenstein
Co-Director, Program on Workable Energy Regulation
E.T. Grether Professor of Business
Administration and Public Policy Director
Haas School of Business U.C. Energy Institute
University of California 2539 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900 Berkeley, CA 94720-5180
(p) 510-642-3689 (p) 510-642-5145
(f) 707-885-2508 http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/ucei
Email: [email protected]
WWW: http://haas.berkeley.edu/~borenste
=====================================
|
3,973 |
Subject: Article
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3421.
=====================================
great Herbert quote on the issue of refunds...
FERC GOP Commissioner To Skip San Diego Hearings Tue
By Jason Leopold
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
11/13/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Explaining that the California electricity crisis has
become "a political nightmare," the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's lone Republican Party commissioner has decided not to attend
hearings in San Diego on Tuesday.
"I don't expect you will see anything happen tomorrow," the commissioner,
Curt Hebert, said.
"California would rather fight this out for the next five to ten years rather
than take steps now to solve the problem," said Hebert.
Hebert, who is in San Diego this week attending a conference of energy
regulators, said that he had requested the hearings be held on a different
day due to a conflict in his schedule.
But another reason Hebert won't attend Tuesday's hearings, he said, is
because California Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, skipped FERC hearings in
Washington last week.
The governor sent a videotaped message to be played at the hearings, and in
it he severely criticized FERC's proposed solutions to California's problems
as totally inadequate. Davis explained to the FERC that he couldn't go to
Washington Thursday because Mexico's president-elect, Vicente Fox, was
visiting California.
Hebert said that California lawmakers aren't focusing on solving the state's
electricity crisis, but rather are simply using it for political gain.
"What's going to kill California's electricity market in the end is all the
politicizing," he said.
Hebert expects to see more companies withdraw projects for building new power
plants in the state, as Enron Corp (ENE) and Calpine Corp (CPN) did two weeks
ago. As a result, Hebert expects blackouts in the state next summer, as well
as continued high prices in the wholesale power market.
Although he formally concurred with FERC's proposed order on ways to repairs
the state's power market, he said that it should go further in ending price
caps in California's power market. Unless California addresses the issue of
price caps, "the state will never attract new supply."
He also disagreed with views expressed by the two state senators that
attended FERC's hearings in Washington on Thursday. Those state senators,
Steve Peace and Debra Bowen - both Democrats, said that if the FERC didn't
order merchant power companies and power marketers in the state to refund
some of their summer profits to utilities, then California's voters would
vote essentially to nationalize the state's power plants.
"FERC isn't going to cave into any threats. California needs to do two
things. They need to solve the problem and be intellectually honest that the
electricity market structure isn't working," he said.
Hebert said that two members of the California Public Utilities Commission
told him that they - like the FERC - thus far haven't found any evidence of
market power abuse by merchant plant owners or power marketers. As a result,
those state commissioners don't expect to be able to order refunds, according
to Hebert.
"In my view as an attorney, I've seen no evidence of criminal activity.
Chasing after refunds is a waste of time and money," Hebert said.
"Lawmakers here need to be concerned about consumers. We've had three
hearings already - are customers any better off? I don't think so," he added.
-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires;
323-658-3874; [email protected]
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
=====================================
|
3,974 |
Subject: Edison To Repay Creditors 'Immediately,' But No Date Yet
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/460.
=====================================
Edison To Repay Creditors 'Immediately,' But No Date Yet
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Embattled utility Southern California Edison expects to pay all creditors "immediately," but the Edison International (EIX) unit does not have a specific date of when its debt payments will begin, said John Bryson, chairman and chief executive of Edison International.
"We intend to pay all of our creditors," Bryson said Wednesday in a call with reporters. "But we do not have a specific date."
Southern California Edison and the California Public Utilities Commission struck a deal Tuesday that will allow the utility to pay off $3.3 billion of its $3.9 billion debt through existing retail electricity rates.
Both parties settled a year-old lawsuit Southern California Edison filed against the PUC--otherwise known as a filed rate doctrine--that could have ended a retail rate freeze and allowed the utility to recover more than $5 billion in wholesale power costs from ratepayers.
The settlement must still be approved by a federal court judge. A ruling is expected by Thursday.
Bryson indicated that the utility may try to negotiate with some large generators, owed nearly $1 billion, to accept less than 100 cents on the dollar for money the companies are owed.
"There is no deal between us and the generators at this point," Bryson said. "We will engage promptly" in settlement discussions. "We are eager to work it out in a tough minded and fair way."
Ted Craver, Edison's chief financial officer, said the utility has between $2.4 and $2.5 billion cash-on-hand and about $3.9 billion in debt.
Bryson said the utility does not expect its credit ratings to be restored to investment grade "immediately."
"We've had some discussions with the credit rating agencies," Bryson said. "But no one expects it to be restored immediately. It's going to take some time."
Bryson added that the utility will seek new lending opportunites, but he did not elaborate.
Stephen Frank, president of Southern California Edison, said the utility would sit down with all of its creditors and work out a payment plan.
Bryson said the utility believes that all of its debt can be paid off by the end of 2003. He did not say how much money from retail rates would be carved out for paying off Southern California Edison's debt.
The utility's debt rose to $6.35 billion, according to a recent Securities and Exchange filing.
"In the month of October we generated about $300 million" from retail rates. But Bryson said he could not estimate how much of that will be set aside to pay creditors.
The utility and the PUC both said rates will not have to increase beyond the record rate hikes state regulators ordered earlier this year.
Bryson said the utility has no intention of taking over the state's long-term power supply contracts as a result of the deal with the PUC.
Fearing the state legislature wouldn't support a bill to rescue Southern Califoria Edison after six months of wrangling, advisers to Gov. Gray Davis and Edison executives began negotiating with the state's Public Utilities Commission on a settlement of a year-old lawsuit the utility filed to force the commission to raise rates enough to cover its power costs.
The negotiations with the PUC were kept secret from state lawmakers in case a settlement couldn't be reached, Davis aides and Edison executives said.
The end result, Edison and the commission said, is a deal that will allow the utility to work out a plan to pay off its creditors and keep Southern California Edison from following PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric into bankruptcy.
=====================================
|
3,975 |
Subject: SCE Release regarding Gov Deal
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10844.
=====================================
SCE and Governor Reach Agreement on Plan To Restore Utility To Financial
Health
PR Newswire
04/09/01, 7:02p
(Copyright , 2001, PR Newswire)
ROSEMEAD, Calif., April 9 /PRNewswire/ -- At a joint press conference today
with Governor Gray Davis, Edison International Chairman, President and CEO
John E. Bryson announced agreement on a plan to restore Southern California
Edison to financial health.
"This negotiated resolution with the Governor is far preferable for our
company and our employees and for our customers than is going into
bankruptcy," said Bryson.
"Through difficult negotiations over many weeks," Bryson noted, "we believe
we have achieved a practical approach. Our customers and the state's economic
vitality will benefit greatly from a financially healthy utility which can
retain experienced and skilled employees and can invest the billions of
dollars needed to maintain a sound electric infrastructure system.
"The blunt reality remains that we in California face a large challenge in
restoring overall stability to the California electric system," Bryson said.
"Our employees at Edison can make a large difference in helping to meet that
challenge. Vital work remains to be done with the Governor, the Legislature,
the California Public Utilities Commission, and other policymakers, but this
agreement is a large first step toward restoring stability for much of
Southern California."
Today's more detailed agreement follows the framework announced in a February
23 preliminary agreement with the Governor. It was approved by the Edison
International and SCE boards of directors this morning. Implementation will
require further action by the California Legislature and the state Public
Utilities Commission. Both Governor Davis and Bryson have urged swift action
by both bodies.
Major terms of the agreement include:
???-- The state will receive a primary utility asset -- SCE's 12,000-mile
??????transmission system. ?SCE employees will operate and maintain the
??????system through a contractual arrangement with the state.
???-- Edison International and SCE commit to no less than $3 billion of
??????capital investment in utility infrastructure over the next five years.
???-- For the next 10 years, SCE will sell the output from its power plants
??????under cost-based, rather than market-based, pricing.
???-- For the next 10 years, Edison Mission Energy's unregulated Sunrise
??????power plant will sell its output exclusively to California under
??????cost-based pricing.
???-- SCE agrees to forego development of 20,000 acres of its Big Creek and
??????Eastern Sierra hydroelectric properties and grants conservation
??????easements in perpetuity to the state for land and habitat preservation
??????on these properties.
???-- SCE will gain a means of repaying the debt it incurred buying power for
??????its customers during the current rate freeze.
???-- Upon implementation of this agreement by the Legislature and CPUC, SCE
??????will drop its lawsuit against state regulators.
A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding will be available later today on
Edison's investor Web site: www.edisoninvestor.com.
Based in Rosemead, Calif., Edison International (NYSE: EIX) is the parent
company of Southern California Edison, Edison Mission Energy, Edison Capital,
Edison O&M Services, and Edison Enterprises.
SOURCE Southern California Edison
/CONTACT: Southern California Edison Corporate Communications, 626-302-2255/
/Web site: http://www.sce.com/
/Web site: http://www.edisoninvestor.com/
/Web site: http://www.edisonnews.com/
(EIX)
=====================================
|
3,976 |
Subject: nan
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/3039.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/26/2001 05:28 PM -----
=09Mary Schoen
=0901/26/2001 04:13 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Martin Wenzel/ENRON@enronxgate
=09=09 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
=09=09 bcc:=20
=09=09 Subject:=20
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
=====================================
|
3,977 |
Subject: Re: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/11148.
=====================================
By agreeing to pay only for "reasonable" offers, DWR left itself a loophole
big enough to drive a truck through:
"DWR will assume financial responsibility for
all purchases by the ISO in its ancillary services and imbalance energy
markets based bids or other offers determined to be reasonable. Such
determination of reasonableness will be made by DWR on a case by case basis
and communicated to the ISO." (Emphasis added.)
Susan J Mara@ENRON
04/16/2001 09:06 AM
To: Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email protected],
[email protected], James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Ray
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Steve C
Hall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jubran Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues
FERC finally got resolved what CA could not. I believe this also takes care
of our credit issue on the ISO's demand response programs.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 04/16/2001 08:47 AM -----
"Fuller, Don" <[email protected]>
Sent by: "Happ, Susan" <[email protected]>
04/13/2001 04:21 PM
To: ISO Market Participants
<IMCEAEX-_O=CAISO_OU=CORPORATE_CN=DISTRIBUTION+20LISTS_CN=ISO+20MARKET+20PARTI
[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: CAISO Notice: Market Notice re: Credit Issues
Market Notice re Credit Issues
In response to the FERC order of April 6, 2001 re the issue of
creditworthiness, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has
authorized the ISO to make the following statement. To the extent (and only
to the extent) that a purchase is not otherwise paid by any party or payable
by another party meeting the credit standards set forth in the ISO Tariff
(another "Qualified Party"), DWR will assume financial responsibility for
all purchases by the ISO in its ancillary services and imbalance energy
markets based on bids or other offers determined to be reasonable. Such
determination of reasonableness will be made by DWR on a case by case basis
and communicated to the ISO. All bids into the ancillary services and
imbalance energy markets will be deemed to be contingent on the acceptance
of financial responsibility by DWR, to the extent not paid or payable by
another Qualified Party. Unless a supplier is otherwise notified, any bid
accepted by the ISO will be deemed to have the financial support of another
Qualified Party or DWR as specified in this notice. In addition to the
foregoing, DWR will assume financial responsibility for all purchases
resulting from the issuance by the ISO of emergency dispatch instructions,
to the extent not paid or payable by another Qualified Party. Payment for
such purchases shall be made according to the rate specified in the ISO
Tariff for emergency dispatch instructions. The ISO and/or DWR reserve the
right to rescind or modify the foregoing arrangements at any time and for
any reason, including a successful rehearing or appeal from the April 6
order.
As the FERC determined in its February 14 order that DWR is a creditworthy
counterparty, the ISO believes that the foregoing arrangements meet the
requirements of FERC's April 6 Order. Accordingly, the ISO expects that
suppliers will honor their obligations under the ISO Tariff and related
agreements to respond to ISO dispatch instructions.
Don Fuller
Director, Client Relations
California ISO
Phone: 916-608-7055
E-Mail: [email protected]
=====================================
|
3,978 |
Subject: Grouped Base Privatizations, Western US.
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/54.
=====================================
From discussions with PACAF, USARAK and the NAVFAC Contracting Officers, we
are aware of the following procurements that are intended to be released as a
multi-base effort with a single solicitation. This supersedes my last
transmission on this subject, because the Navy has just released a new RFI
for a grouped series of bases in California.
1. Navy, Southwest.
a. Pt Huneme/Pt Mugu were intended as the first procurement on a bundled
basis, but they are on hold awaiting funding for Phase 2. They need to do
life cycle cost analysis, system condition assessment, and inventory. A
draft RFP will be issued to industry for comment. The final RFP,
optimistically (according to the NAVFAC SWDiv Commander) could be out as
early as this quarter. Doug Powell, the Contracting Officer, says a more
realistic date is April-May of 2000. However, Ralph Torres, the NAVFAC
Business Line Manager for this procurement, is attending a PACFLT meeting
this month in Hawaii to try to hurry this up.
b. A new RFI has just hit the street, due 15 Nov 99, for electrical, gas,
water, and wastewater privatization at 5 USN locations in Southern
California. These are Naval Warfare Assessment Station, Corona, CA; Naval
Air Station, Fallon, NV; Naval Air Station, Lemoore, CA; Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach, CA (Main Station); and Naval Weapons Station, Seal
Beach, CA (Detachment Fallbrook).
2. Marines,Southwest.
a. NAVFAC intends to combine 29 Palms, MCLB Barstow, MCAS Yuma and MCRD
San Diego into one procurement. We have responded to the RFI, as we have in
the case of the Navy, 1.a, above. NAVFAC has has funding for Phase 2 for
Barstow and 29 Palms, but not for the other two yet. The RFP is expected to
hit the street in the April-May, 2000 time frame.
b. NAVFAC intends to combine Camp Pendleton, a large base in CA, with a
small base used for mountain warfare training at Bridgeport, CA. The
combination is being made for funding lines and chain of command reasons.
The real plum here is the very large Marine base at Pendleton. The RFP is
currently scheduled for release April, 2000, but we think it will be a few
months later to have the above 4-base procurement hit the street first.
3. Navy, Northwest. NAVFAC intends to release virtually all their
Northwest activities in a single solicitation. This includes the following
locations:
-Naval Subase bangor
-Camp Wesley Harris
-Olalla Housing
-Port Hadlock
-Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport
-Naval Station Bremerton
-Naval Hospital Bremerton
-Jackson Park Naval Houising
-Naval Fuel Depot Manchester
-Naval Station Everett
-Naval Radio Station Jim Creek
-MWR Pacific Beach
-Naval Air Station Whidbey Island
EFSI was invited to present at their Industry forum in Seattle where this
procurement was announced on 4 Aug 99. An RFI is out, with response due 15
Nov 99. The final RFP is scheduled to be released in Jan 01.
4. Joint Regional Privatization Project (JRUPP) Alaska. This is an
agreement with the USAF and the US Army to combine their facilities at
Elmendorf AFB, Kulis ANG Base, the Army National Guard Base, and Ft
Richardson all into a single procurement. DESC is the project manager. An
RFI for these locations just hit the street. Our retired friend, USAF COL
Don Michael Bradford instigated this joint procurement, and is still a good
source of information in the Pacific. Procurement is being accelerated with
the USAF catching up to where the Army is, so schedule for an RFP is
currently unknown. USAF RFIs have just been published.
=====================================
|
3,979 |
Subject: RE: *** EES OPPOSITION TO UNDERSCHEDULING PENALTY ***
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/1894.
=====================================
Correct.
"Fergus, Gary S." <[email protected]>
11/22/2000 11:10 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], "Fergus, Gary S." <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
cc:
Subject: RE: *** EES OPPOSITION TO UNDERSCHEDULING PENALTY ***
Sue,
Mary Hain suggested I clarify my understanding of what EES is asking
for. EES is not requiring the parenthetical comment under (2) below to be
included in the response. EES's key points for inclusion are:
1. Change the requirement to 90% OR
2. Apply the 95% penalty solely to underscheduling of load
3. The rule applies to an entities' entire load.
4. Smaller scheduling coordinators (i.e. smaller than the PX or IOUs) have
less diverse loads and are more subject to unforeseen swings -- so 95% is
very difficult to
achieve -- another disincentive to direct access and competition.
Is this correct?
Thanks
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 10:43 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: *** EES OPPOSITION TO UNDERSCHEDULING PENALTY ***
Importance: High
EES is concerned about the 95% requirement.
What EES would like is to do is to ask FERC for a modification as follows:
1. Change the requirement to 90% OR
2. Apply the 95% penalty solely to underscheduling of load (the draft
order talks about it as a deviation, implying plus or minus, even though
the section talks only about underscheduling of load)
Also, EES would like some clarification that the rule applies to an
entities' entire load.
We can justify these modifications by pointing out that smaller scheduling
cooridinators (i.e. smaller than the PX or IOUs) have less diverse loads
and are more subject to on forseen swings -- so 95% is very difficult to
achieve -- another disincentive to direct access and compeition.
Time is marching on--
THIS OK?
=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
[email protected]
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com
=====================================
|
3,980 |
Subject: Re: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent_items/875.
=====================================
Will do.
Best,
Jeff
David W Delainey@EES 07/06/2001 02:58 PM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Jeff, I would recommend forwarding these to myself, Lavorato, Dietrich, Kitchen and Whalley in the future.
Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/EES on 07/06/2001 02:57 PM ---------------------------
Jeremy Blachman
07/06/2001 02:12 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/EES, Janet R Dietrich/HOU/EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES
cc:
Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Think it would be extremely helpful to have Jeff and/or Jim Steffes update us on Monday. I will set-up if you don't already have something going.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES on 07/06/2001 02:11 PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 07/06/2001 01:16 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: [email protected], Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Wanda Curry/Enron@EnronXGate, Donald M Black/Enron@EnronXGate, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/Enron@EnronXGate, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Phillip K Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Kristin Walsh/Enron@EnronXGate, Christopher F Calger/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:
Subject: California Update--Legislative Push Underway
Hertzberg (speaker of the CA Assembly) called a meeting yesterday afternoon of the group of market participants that have been negotiating the "core/noncore" proposal in California. The purpose of the meeting was to brief us on their activities and their gameplan for trying to find a solution for California. Here's a summary of the meeting. Please keep confidential.
Work will be done over the weekend to put the core/noncore proposal in legislative language. (We will be in the room.)
Work done by the "Plan B" group in the Assembly (Joe Dutra and Joe Nation) will also be put into legislative language over the weekend.
Because no proposal is "comprehensive," a complete legislative package will be created from the various pieces that have been worked on thus far (i.e., core/noncore, "Plan B," Edison MOU)
In addition, there are Republican demands that Hertzberg will need to address (e.g., end the litigation) in order to achieve bi-partison support, which is what Hertzberg's shooting for.
To move the legislation, the plan is to establish a "conference committee," comprised of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
The committe would begin work on Monday and would attempt to finish putting a comprehensive bill together, vote it out of the Legislature and send it to the Governor for signing by Monday, July 16th.
July 16th is the deadline because that is the date that the PUC will issue its proposed decision regarding, among other things, how DWR's revenue requirement will be put into rates, whether Direct Access needs to be suspended, etc.
The PUC is issuing the draft on the 16th in order to give everyone 30 days to review and comment before the Commission votes on a final order on August 15th. (The PUC will actually issue a "thought piece" on Monday the 9th and will use reactions to the "thought piece" to craft the develop the proposed decision it plans to issue on the 16th.)
All of this is still up in the air, however. As of right now, the leader of the Senate (Burton) has not agreed to Hertzberg's gameplan and the Republicans, while interested, have not yet committed to join the process.
=====================================
|
3,981 |
Subject: Summary of the Wednesday FERC Orders
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/4328.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/26/2001 10:30 AM -----
=09Alan Comnes@ECT
=0904/26/2001 01:10 AM
=09=09
=09=09 To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Swerzbin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael M=20
Driscoll/PDX/ECT@ECT, Matt Motley/PDX/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT,=
=20
Diana Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sean Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Chris=20
Mallory/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Alonso/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark=
=20
Fischer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Phillip Platter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carla Hoffman/PDX/ECT@ECT=
,=20
Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve C=20
Hall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Heizenrader/PDX/ECT@ECT,=
=20
Stephen Swain/PDX/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J=20
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ray=20
Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Elliot Mainzer/PDX/ECT@ECT, Bill Williams=20
III/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Summary of the Wednesday FERC Orders
The FERC orders will not be out until sometime Thursday but here is a boile=
d=20
down version of what we heard from the meeting, the press, and the press=20
release:
FERC Market Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for California
? Approved 2-1 with Massey dissenting
? Imposes mitigation (caps) in R/T in California only during Stage 1/2/3=20
beginning _____ (not clear; assume immediately or soon).
o Applies to all thermal generation with a PGA with ISO (even if not a FER=
C=20
jurisdictional entity)
o All subject generation is paid a single proxy price
o Proxy price is based upon the marginal unit=01,s gas price x heat rate +=
=20
emission adder. (Heat rate determining cap will not longer be pegged at=20
18,000 but will change daily and posted by CAISO)
o Proxy price is determined on a day-ahead basis Still not clear what ga=
s=20
price will be used.=20
o Bids above the proxy are allowed but the seller must justify the cost
? Hydroelectric resources--in-state or out-of-state--are exempt.
? CAISO will still acquire resources outside of the proxy price via OOM cal=
ls
? Silent on exports and expect CAISO to cut exports unless ordered to do=20
otherwise. (However, requirement for CAISO to become a part of a =01&real=
=018 RTO=20
would imply that it must honor firm schedules.)
? All LSE in R/T markets to submit demand bids and to identify load that ca=
n=20
be curtailed at a specified price
? Contingent on CAISO filing a plan to become part of a region wide RTO by=
=20
June 1. I.e., if CAISO does not make an adequate showing, all mitigation=
=20
measures are cancelled.
? Opens an investigation on a subset of transactions. According to Massey=
=20
this band is very narrow.
? The $150 breakpoint and reporting requirements, which were put into effec=
t=20
with the December order, will end with this order.=20
? In all hours (not just emergencies) there is increased market monitoring =
of=20
outages and bidding behavior
? Although the plan is only for California, it seeks comments on a West-wid=
e=20
price mitigation plan.
? Also seeks comments on whether CAISO should impose an adder to address=20
generator unpaid bills.
RTO West:
? RTO West Phase 1 filing (made back in Nov 2000) is accepted.
? TransConnect, a Transco proposed by RTO West's transmission-owning IOUs,=
=20
was also accepted. =20
? Incentive rates allowed if owner separates transmission from the generati=
on.
? Phase 2 filing due December 1. This filing will require tariffs and=20
additional details including how RTO West can become part of a larger=20
West-wide RTO
? Order encourages Canadian utilities to be a part of RTO West
=====================================
|
3,982 |
Subject: RE: California Update 7/23/01
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/29021.
=====================================
Boy would I like to come to Houston. But looks like I'll be stuck here, at
least this week. Soon as I get to Houston, I'll look you up and we can
compare notes.
Best,
Jeff
Kristin Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate
07/23/2001 02:00 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: RE: California Update 7/23/01
That is always a good sign. Again, if you come to Houston I would love to
meet with you and discuss synergies of reporting on this issue. Are you guys
looking into the DWR's announcement that was postponed yesterday regarding
revenue rates/rate hikes?
- Kristin
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 1:54 PM
To: Walsh, Kristin
Subject: Re: California Update 7/23/01
Greetings:
Looks like our respective sources are tracking pretty well.
Best,
Jeff
Kristin Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate 07/23/2001 01:51 PM To: John J
Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Louise Kitchen/ENRON@enronXgate, David W
Delainey/HOU/EES@EES cc: Christopher F Calger/ENRON@enronXgate, Christian
Yoder/ENRON@enronXgate, Steve C Hall/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike
Swerzbin/ENRON@enronXgate, Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris Gaskill/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike
Grigsby/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Heizenrader/ENRON@enronXgate, Vince J
Kaminski/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Rob
Milnthorp/ENRON@enronXgate, Kevin M Presto/ENRON@enronXgate, Claudio
Ribeiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, James D
Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Tawney/ENRON@enronXgate, Scott
Tholan/ENRON@enronXgate, Britt Whitman/ENRON@enronXgate, Lloyd
Will/ENRON@enronXgate, Alan Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate, Rogers
Herndon/ENRON@enronXgate, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES,
Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Kelly Holman/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Dana
Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fletcher J Sturm/ENRON@enronXgate, Doug
Gilbert-Smith/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard B Sanders/Enron@enronXgate, Andrew
Edison/ENRON@enronXgate, Kelly Holman/ENRON@enronXgate, Nancy
Turner/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, John
Brindle/ENRON@enronXgate, David Cromley/ENRON@enronXgate Subject: California
Update 7/23/01
? When the Assembly reconvenes at 4:00 PDT it appears they will likely take
up the budget only; there is no word at this time that they will take up AB
82XX, and they do not appear to have the votes needed to pass it even if they
did take it up. The fact that Burton has come out against a conference
committee is an additional disincentive to work on 82XX. Therefore, at this
time it appears unlikely that 82XX will be passed before the recess.
? Instead, it appears likely that a working group will be established to work
on SB 78XX during the recess. This group will likely include members of
Keeley's, Hertzberg's and Burton's staffs. These staff members may be
allowed to go on vacation for a few weeks before returning to work on the MOU.
? The Assembly must pass the budget before they can recess. It is unclear at
this time if it will be possible to do so tonight or if it will take a few
days; the Senate, by leaving, has put the Assembly in a difficult position in
that they cannot amend anything. Also, the four Republicans who voted for
the budget last week are under significant pressure not to vote for the
trailer bills, meaning that Speaker Hertzberg has to find other Republicans
willing to cross party lines -- a difficult and very unpopular thing to do at
this point. This is likely why the Assembly is meeting so late in the day --
to allow Hertzberg time to work on the 8 or 9 Republicans on his list.
=====================================
|
3,983 |
Subject: Non-core state monitoring
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12377.
=====================================
One more that I meant to send. Have a good weekend!
----- Forwarded by Elizabeth Linnell/NA/Enron on 06/22/2001 10:57 AM -----
=09Elizabeth Linnell
=0906/20/2001 08:22 AM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Non-core state monitoring
Enron has hired the firm of Stateside Associates to provide State Legislati=
ve=20
Monitoring and Regulatory Forecasting services on those states that aren=01=
,t=20
currently being actively monitored by the department. Stateside Associates =
is=20
based in Arlington, Virginia and is the largest state and local issue=20
management firm. It has 50 employees and over 13 years of experience=20
providing high quality information resources. The professionals who monito=
r=20
state legislation are all former state legislative staff members and=20
Regulatory Forecasting is provided by attorneys familiar with our issues.
We will receive an updated Legislative and Regulatory report every two=20
weeks. Everyone on the attached notification list will receive an email=20
alerting us that the report has been updated. If you're not on the list an=
d=20
would like to be added please let me know. The list is currently set up=20
geographically, but we can add an issue-based distribution if needed.
At any time, we can access our report by clicking=20
www.stateside.com/istatelink or by following the site link from the Gov't=
=20
Affairs intranet site. The Enron logon is phoenix06 (not case sensitive). =
=20
This logon must not to be shared outside Enron. =20
We will also receive email alerts about our issues. These will be sent to=
=20
the designated recipients based on the issue or geography. =20
Because interaction with us is very important to Stateside, any Enron=20
employee may contact Stateside Associates for additional information (Speci=
al=20
Request) pertinent to the monitoring service. For example, you may want to=
=20
learn more about who is lobbying for a bill, what the deadlines are for a=
=20
regulatory activity or to receive a list of who testified at a hearing. Th=
is=20
follow-up research is part of the Stateside Associates=01, service. It wil=
l not=20
result in any additional fees.
However, if a Special Request is made that is outside the scope of the Enro=
n=20
program, it will be addressed with me prior to the commencement of any=20
work. Again, if Stateside responds to your request, there will be no=20
additional fee =01) so please use this feature.
Our principal Stateside Associates=01, contact is Todd Cohn, Manager,=20
Legislative Information Services. He can be reached at [email protected] o=
r=20
703-525-7466. The Enron iStateLink website also features a roster of othe=
r=20
Stateside professionals, including their email addresses. =20
You can learn more about Stateside on their website at www.stateside.com.
I hope you find this service useful and look forward to your feedback.
Distribution list:
Covered states:
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Idaho=20
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Wyoming
Covered issues:
Divestiture
Electric Utility Regulation
Electricity Deregulation
Electricity Market Restructuring
Licensing
Market Entry and Exit Requirements
Stranded Costs
Aggregation
Consumer Education and Protection relative to Electricity Deregulation
Fuel Adjustment Clauses (All forms)
Generation Siting
Low Income Energy Assistance Programs
Net Metering
Pilot Programs
Provider of Last Resort
Emissions
Renewable Portfolio Standards
System Benefit Charges
=====================================
|
3,984 |
Subject: Energy articles - FYI
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/deleted_items/69.
=====================================
Edison bailout -- In a battle that pitted the yellow armbands against the
dark suits, an Assembly committee yesterday approved a plan it hopes will
keep Southern California Edison out of bankruptcy. Consumer advocates -- who
wore yellow armbands to make sure they stood out in a room filled with
well-dressed lobbyists -- said the plan would be a disaster matching
California's original 1996 electricity deregulation law. They vowed to
launch an initiative campaign to overturn the plan if it is approved by the
Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis. Lynda Gledhill in the
San Francisco Chronicle
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/30/MN217797.DTL>
Jim Sanders in the Sacramento Bee
<http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert02_20010830.html> Vic Pollard in
the Bakersfield Californian
<http://www.bakersfield.com/local/story/672138p-714574c.html> Michael Marois
at bloomberg.com
Edison Bill Leonard -- Vowing for months that California Assembly
Republicans wouldn't support legislation to rescue utility Southern
California Edison from the brink of bankruptcy, one of the GOP's members
crossed party lines to help push through a bill during a key committee
hearing Wednesday that puts the utility one step closer to solvency. State
Assemblyman Bill Leonard, R-Rancho Cucamonga, was one of two members of the
Assembly Energy Costs and Availability Committee who changed his vote in
order to advance the rescue bill out of the committee. Leonard was the only
Republican who voted in favor of the legislation. He left from the committee
hearing after voting for the bill and was unavailable for comment. Jason
Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires
<http://quicken.excite.com/investments/news/story/djbn/?story=/news/stories/
dj/20010830/BT20010830001113.htm&symbol=EIX> -- 8/30/01
Shaver land out of utility measure -- An Assembly committee agreed to allow
Southern California Edison Co. to hang on to thousands of acres of Sierra
Nevada land around Shaver Lake in its vote to keep alive a hotly contested
$2.9 billion rescue plan for the beleaguered utility. Lesli A. Maxwell in
the Fresno Bee
<http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/725724p-786679c.html> -- 8/30/01
Surplus power and MWD desalination plans -- It is a dramatic example of how
California's electricity forecast has morphed from shortage to surplus: The
giant Metropolitan Water District has restarted plans to strip salt from
seawater as a new source for Southern California's taps. For decades,
desalination has been talked of as a solution to the Southland's water
needs. And for decades, it has been dismissed as too energy-intensive to be
affordable. Nancy Vogel in the Los Angeles Times
<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000070196aug30.story?coll
=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage> -- 8/30/01
Direct access -- Electricity marketers said Wednesday that they may sue
state utility regulators over their latest plan to end customers' ability to
shop around for power. The marketers, which compete with the traditional
utilities to sell power to business and residential customers, said they
were stunned by a draft decision by the California Public Utilities
Commission to suspend "direct access" retroactively to July 1. The marketers
have been rushing to sign up new customers in recent weeks, assuming that
the PUC decision would not take effect before Sept. 1. Nancy Rivera Brooks
in the Los Angeles Times
<http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-000070055aug30.story?coll=l
a%2Dheadlines%2Dpe%2Dbusiness> -- 8/30/01
PG&E asks lawmakers to block shift of power costs -- PG&E Corp. unit Pacific
Gas & Electric Co. Wednesday
=====================================
|
3,985 |
Subject: CALIFORNIA UPDATE - 10/02/2001
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/441.
=====================================
For questions or comments regarding this report please contact G. Britt Whitman at ex:5-4014 or Kristin Walsh at ex:3-9510.
EXECUTIVE SUMMRAY
? CPUC Settles Filed Rate Doctrine Case with SoCal
? CPUC Kills DWR Rate Agreement, Davis May Reconsider Old Senate Bill
CPUC - SoCal Suit
In a closed hearing today, the California Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 to settle its filed rate doctrine case with SoCal Edison. The implications could save SoCal from an otherwise immanent bankruptcy, though bankruptcy remains a real threat. Under the agreement, the CPUC has stipulated the following points, which have not yet been formalized by Administrative Law Judge, Ronald Lew:
? The CPUC agrees to maintain a level of rates necessary for SoCal to pay off under-collect through 2003.
? All surplus revenue (revenue above O & M) generated from any source must be applied to SoCal's back debt.
? SoCal agrees to pay no dividends on its common stock from now until 2003, or until all back debt has been recovered. If SoCal's debt has not been recovered by 2003, the CPUC will extend appropriate rates levels necessary for SoCal to recover its debt through 2004. Dividend payouts on SoCal common stock will be subject to CPUC approval during this extension.
? 100% of any revenue SoCal receives/generates from FERC/generator refunds will be applied to SoCal's debt.
? Once SoCal's back debt has been recovered, any surplus revenue generated from the CPUC rate hikes will be refunded to ratepayers.
CPUC - DWR Rate Agreement
The fact that the PUC voted down the DWR rate agreement (by a 4-1 margin) puts Governor Davis and Treasurer Angelides in a very awkward position. This leaves Senator Burton's bill, SB 18XX, as the vehicle that sets to payment path for the revenue bonds to repay the General Fund.
However, as late as this morning, Governor Davis vowed (through his spokesman) that SB 18XX was "dead on arrival" and would be vetoed. This move by the PUC puts pressure on Davis to sign SB 18XX in order to protect the bonds and the long-term power contacts he has negotiated.
However, 18XX violates the terms of a number of the long-term power contacts negotiated by the governor earlier this year. For example:
? SB 18XX splits the revenue streams for payment of the General Fund's revenue bonds and payment to the DWR for power. It clarifies the funds that will go to repay the General Fund, but is much less clear on the funds to pay the DWR for power. SB 18XX leaves the long-term contracts signed by the governor open to review and renegotiation - something that the governor remains publicly unwilling to do.
? SB 18XX also violates the terms of the bridge loan the state negotiated with Shearson Lehman earlier this year. The terms of the bridge loan explicitly state that if 18XX is passed, the banks can accelerate the loan or impose penalty terms of interest on the state. These terms were suggested by the governor as a means of forcing the legislature to support his DWR rate agreement rather than Burton's. Of course, this effort failed when the legislature easily passed SB 18XX. Today's PUC action further complicates the situation.
While on the surface this would seem to force the governor's hand into signing SB 18XX, that may not, in fact, happen. It would not be out of character for the governor to instead veto SB 18XX, then force either the legislature or the PUC to "play ball" with him in order to repay the General Fund. Thus, another leverage point has been created. We will continue to monitor the situation to attempt to determine the likelihood of Davis signing or vetoing SB 18XX.
=====================================
|
3,986 |
Subject: FW: Western Wholesale Power Trades Fri Above FERC Price Limit
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/12248.
=====================================
FYI,
My understanding is we adjusted our prices down to the cap today in an
abundance of caution.
FYI
Western Wholesale Power Trades Fri Above FERC Price Limit
Updated: Friday, June 29, 2001 05:42 PM ET
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The price of power in the western wholesale market on
Friday topped the limits set by federally ordered price controls, traders
said.
Bulk electricity trades as high as $107 a megawatt-hour in the western spot
market were confirmed by one of the buyers. Also, Enron Corp.'s (ENE, news,
msgs) Internet-based trading system publicly offered to sell power in Nevada
at $105/MWh.
Stock Insight
Symbol Last Change
EIX 11.15 -0.35
ENE 49.10 +0.76
PCG 11.20 -1.00
SRE 27.34 -0.14
Index
Dow Jones 10502.40 -63.81
NASDAQ 2159.34 +33.88
More Analysis
* See Analyst Ratings
* Compare Growth Trends
* Get One-Click Scorecard
The maximum price allowed under a formula set June 18 by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission is $91.87/MWh.
Asked about the overshoot, FERC said sellers would have to justify prices
above the benchmark.
"We constantly monitor the markets out there," a FERC spokeswoman said. "If
there is anything above the proxy price, they would have to come in and
justify it."
Enron spokeswoman Karen Denne said the company posted the $105/MWh offer on
its EnronOnline system, but didn't sell any power above the FERC limit.
FERC's complicated price limits for the West set a maximum price based on the
operating cost of the most expensive generator used to meet demand for
electricity during power alerts in California.
Suppliers who claim prices above the limits must explain why to FERC, which
can order refunds if it isn't convinced.
Some market participants point to a loophole. The FERC order only applies to
"spot" market transactions, which the commission defines as deals done within
24 hours of the commencement of deliveries. But power traded Friday is for
delivery Monday, so some market participants have said that the controls
don't apply to Friday deals.
"It does appear to be a loophole," Denne said.
Gary Ackerman, executve director of the Western Power Trading Forum, an
industry association, said that traders could start doing more transactions
two days in advance to circumvent the FERC rules if market prices rise above
the cap, which can change based on prices for natural gas. Or deals could be
done at the cap with the seller adding non-monetary payments such as natural
gas or free electricity delivered later in the year.
Other market participants said they simply will buy needed power supplies at
the market price, regardless of the FERC rules.
On June 19, the first day the new rules took effect, hour-ahead deals were
done at $300/MWh. So long as two companies agree to a price and the buyer
doesn't later complain to the FERC, it seems that FERC would be hard-pressed
to enforce its rules.
If a buyer were to file a complaint after such a deal, it would quickly find
itself locked out of the market when supplies become tight, traders said.
The FERC spokeswoman said the above-limit prices would have to be justified
even without a complaint.
The price cap will be recalculated whenever the California Independent System
Operator enters its next Stage 1 supply emergency. At that time the cap will
likely be much lower, because gas prices have fallen significantly since the
current cap was set.
-By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604; [email protected]
(Andrew Dowell contributed to this article.)
=====================================
|
3,987 |
Subject: Re: FW: Possible co-sponsorships
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/47.
=====================================
Though I had a somewhat different notion when I initially raised the idea of
co-sponsorship, I agree with Lee's observations and think that we should
proceed the way he suggests.
[email protected] on 08/29/2000 04:06:56 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: FW: Possible co-sponsorships
All,
Lee asked me to forward this. I'm still awaiting additional suggestions from
anyone on speakers.
I guess Lee's e-mail changes things. If the business school wants to go
forward
with a conference anyway then it may be a bad idea to have a separate one.
Jeff
has said he likes the idea of coordinating. Bill and Allen, what do you
think?
I will chime in that Carl Shapiro is very much a big wig, as a former chief
economist at DOJ. As for the Frank Wolak suggestion, Frank is a Stanford
economist who is an outstanding analyst and has published probably more than
anyone else on electricity market design performance, regarding the UK,
Australia, and California. He speaks a mile a minute though and his
understanding of policy and politics is a bit naive.
I should note that ICF will not be able to contribute. I heard from Michael
Berg this morning. So he will not be participating in our discussions either.
My opinion is let's do whatever is best for the school. One positive outcome
of
this would be stronger relationships with some of the University's top notch
economic policy faculty. Overshadowing is possible. Lee, does Dean Nacht
have
a view on joint sponsorship?
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee S. Friedman [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 2:56 PM
> To: Rob Gramlich
> Subject: Possible co-sponsorships
>
> Rob, I'd send this to the whole group but I am at a different computer today
> and don't have all the email addresses. Perhaps you can forward this.
>
> I just received a phone call from Carl Shapiro. He began by saying that he
> and several people from the Business School (Severin Borenstein, George
> Cluff) are planning an electricity deregulation mini-conference that sounds
> exactly like ours, and wanted to check so that we don't step on each others
> toes and perhaps can do it together. They even had October in mind for their
> timing. We are further along then they are, however.
>
> My first response to him was that because our event is alumni-initiated, I
> am not sure that they would want this to be other than a GSPP event. By the
> end of our conversation, we were discussing GSPP co-sponsorship with two
> other campus units: IBER and UEI. Neither are schools. Carl is Director of
> the Institute for Business and Economics Research, a campus-wide organized
> research unit (and Rich Gilbert assists in this). UEI is Severin's group,
> the university-wide energy research institute. Carl suggested that they
> could help with administration and perhaps some modest support if we do this
> together. Carl himself is on the Market Surveillance Committee of the ISO,
> and I think would hope to have some speaking role. He also mentioned Frank
> Wolak of Stanford as a speaker.
>
> I think it would be good to try and work out this co-sponsorship. It would
> mean allowing some of them (Carl and Severin?) into our planning group.
> There connections are probably very valuable to us, and they really are on
> the same wavelength. The alternative of GSPP going it alone after this
> initiative seems to me to be bad feelings and crossed-wires that would be no
> good to anyone. Reactions?
>
> Lee
=====================================
|
3,988 |
Subject: Re: Label Calculation
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/3.
=====================================
Bob:
We appreciate your counsel's review of our proposal, and will proceed either
with your recommendation below (2 product labels - one for commercial
customers receiving 100% renewable energy and the other label for our larger
users comprised of a percentage renewable and fossil fuels) or, as was
discussed with Drake Johnson, distributing one aggregated label with a
percentage renewable resources and fossil fuel.
Thank you for taking into account our timing constraints and responding to
our request so promptly.
Best regards,
Stacey Bolton
Manager, Environmental Strategies
Enron
713-853-9916
"Robert Grow" <[email protected]> on 08/18/2000 11:15:28 AM
To: <[email protected]>
cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Label Calculation
Stacey:
Our counsel has reviewed your proposal. We find that it doesn't meet our
regulations, but it appears to represent a good faith effort to comply. We
cannot give official approval to labeling that is not in accord with the
regs, but counsel says we will not consider any sanction or punitive action
in this case.
The problem with your proposal is that the product is represented by two
labels, not one. You could consider splitting the product into multiple
products, only one of which is 100% renewable. Even so, we think consumers
should be able to understand the product as you have described it.
I hope this response is timely for your September billing.
Bob Grow
Program Manager
Power Source Disclosure
CA Energy Commission
(916) 654-5180
>>> "Stacey Bolton" <[email protected]> 08/15/00 04:58PM >>>
Bob:
Pursuant to our phone discussion today, outlined below is Enron Energy
Service's
(EESI) proposed label calculation for review by your counsel. EESI's product
is
a 100% renewable product for the first 5,000 kilowatt hours per month. (The
renewable energy in this product may exceed the 5,000 kwh per month depending
upon available renewable supply and the level at which the customer credit is
set.) For any customer that exceeds 5,000 kilowatt hours of renewable energy
per month, the remainder of their product would be comprised of the California
System Mix. Because the percentage of renewable energy that the end use
customer receives is dependent upon their size, (i.e. smaller commercial
customer might actually be receiving 100% renewable energy whereas larger
customers might be receiving only a little more renewable energy than is
contained in the CA system mix), this makes the label calculation difficult.
It
is EESI's proposal to have two separate labels for this one product. The
first
label (label A) would be 100% renewable energy (representing the first 5,000
kwhs per month). The second label (label B) would be the California System
Mix.
EESI would explain to customers that depending upon the customer size, some
customers would be receiving "label A", provided they are 5000 kwhs per month
in
usage or less. For those customers that exceed 5,000 kwhs per month, the
power
they receive would look closer to "label b" (the California System Mix).
EESI is under a tight deadline and is intending to notify customers of this
product in the September billing. We would like to confirm with your counsel
if
this arrangement is agreeable to the CEC and meets the standards set forth in
SB
1305. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding the label
calculation.
We greatly appreciate your assistance in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Stacey Bolton
Manager, Environmental Strategies
Enron
713-853-9916
=====================================
|
3,989 |
Subject: FW: Joint ACR Regarding DWR's Revenue Requirement And July 27, 20
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12136.
=====================================
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/25/2001 12:21 PM -----
JBennett <[email protected]>
07/25/2001 11:59 AM
To: "Harry Kingerski (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Jeff Dasovich
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Jim Steffes (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>, "Sue Mara (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: FW: Joint ACR Regarding DWR's Revenue Requirement And July 27, 20
01 Workshop
Attached is an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling issued yesterday by
Commissioners Lynch and Brown soliciting comments on the Revenue Requirement
submitted by DWR on July 23rd.
The revenue requirement is increased from the $9.2 billion submitted in May
to $13.072 billion, but covers a longer period of time (the period of
January 17, 2001 through December 31, 2002). The revenue requirement is
expected to pay for 118,930 GWh of power. The revenue requirement is
divided among the three UDCs as follows (1) PG&E = $5.2 billion; (2) SCE =
$5.8 billion; and (3) SDG&E = $2.1 billion. The revenue requirement was
divided among the three UDCs based on a uniform cost per MWh of net short
energy purchased by DWR. The bond proceeds will be applied in a manner to
supplement the revenue from the customers to DWR such that the net revenue
requirement falls within the retail rate adjustments adopted by the CPUC for
PG&E and SCE (i.e., the three cents), and assumes a comparable rate
adjustment for SDG&E
The ACR asks for comments on the revenue requirement submitted by DWR,
particularly in the areas of (a) the relationship between the UDCs retained
generation revenue requirement and the DWR revenue requirement ; and (b)
DWR's request for the establishment of "specific charges payable to DWR for
the power sold by DWR to retail end use customers" (e.g., should this be in
a form of separate rate element or in the form of a gross revenue amount to
be derived from rates).
The ACR also requests more information from DWR. Specifically it requests
information on (a) the revenue DWR has already received from the UDCs; (2)
how the revenue requirement for ancillary services was calculated; (c) more
specifics on Operating Costs; and (4) a numerical illustration of the
derivation of the 1.65 cents per kWh as representing the average portion of
the 3 cent rate increase that DWR needs to generate its $13 billion revenue
requirement (a figure that was apparently reported in the press). DWR is
suppose to serve this information on the Commission and parties to the
proceeding by Thursday the 26th.
There will be a technical workshop held on Friday the 27th to address DWR's
revenue requirement.
It is the Commission's intent after the receipt and review of comments to
issue a PD and to vote on the revenue requirement at its August 23rd
meeting.
Please let me know as soon as possible if you would like to submit comments
on the revenue requirement or have me attend the workshop.
Jeanne Bennett
-----Original Message-----
From: Wong, John S. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject: Joint ACR Regarding DWR's Revenue Requirement And July 27, 2001 W
orkshop
Attached is an advance draft of a joint assigned Commissioners' ruling
asking parties to comment on DWR's revised revenue requirement by August 3,
2001, asking for additional information from DWR, and setting a workshop for
July 27, 2001 at 9:00 am at the Commission to discuss the revenue
requirement assumptions with representatives from DWR.
Due to computer difficulties, this ruling will be filed with the Docket
Office tomorrow, July 25.
<<joint ACR.doc>>
John S. Wong
CPUC - ALJ
(415) 703-3130
- joint ACR.doc
=====================================
|
3,990 |
Subject: Re:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/3091.
=====================================
Gee, and at $120/bottle, I can load up on a few cases. At that price, the
Mondavi's must be hoping Bush wins so America can spend the tax break on that
tasty Reserve. (Kidding!)
Do you qualify for the discount on the Reserve, too?
GO RALPH!
Nancy Sellers <[email protected]>
11/06/2000 01:01 PM
To: Cameron <[email protected]>, Jeff Dasovich <[email protected]>,
"Prentice @ Berkeley" <[email protected]>, Prentice Sellers
<[email protected]>, Scott Laughlin <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject:
1997 Robert Mondavi Winery Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve
(Exceptional) - Epitomizes Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, the grape that is
the backbone of America's most important wine district. Even at Robert
Mondavi, which has produced its share of impressive cabs, the 1997 reserve
stands out. The 1997 vintage was the best of the 1990s in the Napa Valley,
yielding rich, concentrated red wines. Robert Mondavi Reserve's showy aromas
of spice, cassis, and cedar make a strong impression in the glass. On the
palate, the wine is deeply layered with pure dark-berry fruit flavors, has
firm, ripe tannins and an ultra-smooth finish with superb length. ($120)
Wine Enthusiast
November 2000 (Circulation: 79,000)
1997 Robert Mondavi Winery Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve - (91) Very
tight nose, with blackberry, coffee and cocoa notes, this is a big wine that
shows great intensity and depth. Quite closed now, the dark profile keeps its
cards close to the vest. One thing for sure: this definitely one for the
cellar. The finish is lengthy, with brisk tannins as well as espresso and
bitter-chocolate notes. Hold for eight to ten years; this wine should keep
till 2020. ($120)
Beverage Industry News
December 2000
HEADLINE: "Perfection in California"
AUTHOR: Wilfred Wong
SUMMARY:
Recommended:
1997 Opus One Napa Valley Red Wine (100) -- Could the 1997 Opus One be that
elusive wine that one never finds? In my continual pursuit for wine nirvana,
I have traveled to Bordeaux and back with stops in Italy and Australia and
for what? Besides losing my luggage, tracking through customs and using
non-functional phone cards, I have been searching for that wine of
perfection. Could this wine finally be the one? This just released Opus One
may be the absolute finest young red wine I have ever tasted in a bottle
(barrel samples don't count). Aristocratically structured the 1997 Opus One
magnificently perfumes the air with aromas of ripe, succulent fruit,
fragrant, sweet earth and delicate, white flowers. Persistent to the point of
perfection, this wine does not allow its captive audience to escape its web
of Cabernet ecstasy. Made with the five important varietals of Bordeaux (82%
Cabernet Sauvignon, 8% Cabernet Franc, 5% Merlot, 4% Malbec, and 1% Petit
Verdot), this spellbinding wine commands attention. This is my top wine of
the year. (Best Served 2002-2018). ($130)
WineToday.com
October 30, 2000
HEADLINE: "Wine Reviews"
AUTHORS: Tim Fish
SUMMARY:
Recommended:
1997 Robert Mondavi Winery Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve - (4
stars) Comments: A stunner. It brings out the best in the 1997 vintage. It
has deep, rich fruit with a ripe, silky texture; General Qualities:
Medium-full bodied, complex, dry, balanced acidity, strong oak impression,
fairly tannic; Color: Dark ruby; Aromas: Black cherry, cassis, chocolate,
coffee, licorice, pencil lead, toast, walnut; Other Descriptors: Balanced,
long finish, ripe, supple, velvety. ($120)
Nancy
(707) 251-4870 (phone)
(707) 265-5446 (fax)
"Plus je bois, mieux je chante"
=====================================
|
3,991 |
Subject: DWR rate component at the CPUC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/10245.
=====================================
Christian,
Can we get Pat / John to review this this morning. I think it is very
bullish for DWR, but I would appreciate his review in the event we want to
comment - comments are due this afternoon.
Thanks,
Chris
---------------------- Forwarded by Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT on
03/21/2001 08:00 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 03/20/2001 07:33 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: DWR rate component at the CPUC
Some more info on the issue from Jeanne.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/20/2001 07:33 PM -----
Susan J Mara
03/20/2001 06:52 PM
To: Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Scott
Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ruling of 3/19/2001
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 03/20/2001 04:51 PM -----
JBennett <[email protected]>
03/20/2001 04:45 PM
To: "Bob Frank (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Christian Yoder
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Harry Kingerski (E-mail)"
<[email protected]>, "Jeff Dasovich (Business Fax)"
<[email protected]>, "Sue Mara
(E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Tamara Johnson (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ruling of 3/19/2001
Attached is a ruling by ALJ DeUlloa issued yesterday pertaining to the
calculation of the California Procurement Adjustment. A draft decision was
suppose to be release on such on Friday, March 16th. It was not, and now we
know why. On March 14th, the Department of Water Resources wrote to the
Commission to give the commission its views on how the CPA should be
calculated. In his ruling of yesterday DeUlloa stated that he would wait to
issue the PD so as to take into account DWR's submission. He also provided
parties until tomorrow to file comments on the DWR letter (which is attached
to the ruling).
Not surprising, DWR has a different view of the world than the UDCs do when
it comes to calculating the CPA. The UDCs view the CPA as residual amount
left over from the generation component of their bundled rate on 1/5/01
after the cost of their retained generation (including QFs and bilateral
contracts) are subtracted out. DWR views the CPA as a rate (i.e., a cent per
kWh) which would be paid to DWR by the UDCs every month. It is DWR's view
that a Total Generation Related Rate must be calculated which is a blended
average of the cost of the UDC retained generation and the cost of the "net
short" power. From this total rate (e.g.., 5 cent) the cost of the UDC
retained generation (e.g., 2 cent) would be subtracted and the remainder
(i.e., 3 cent per kwh) would be the CPA. This CPA would be subject to
further allocation by the Commission to determine the Fixed Department of
Water Resources Set-Aside. DWR is not asking that such allocation be done
now.
DWR's view of the world would place it in a sounder financial position,
making it a more viable purchaser of electricity for California, but would
place the UDCs in more dire straights.
Please let me know by tomorrow at noon if you want to comment on the DWR
proposal.
Jeanne Bennett
> -----Original Message-----
> <<CPUC01-#93188-v1-A0011038_et_al__DeUlloa_Ruling_.doc>>
- CPUC01-#93188-v1-A0011038_et_al__DeUlloa_Ruling_.doc
=====================================
|
3,992 |
Subject: Re: Transwestern Hearing
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/sent/12146.
=====================================
Greetings:
I'm assuming that Washington/Houston has this covered, but if there's=20
anything I can do to assist, don't hesitate.
Best,
Jeff
=09Susan J Mara
=0907/26/2001 11:42 AM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Transwestern Hearing
Hey, time to join the fun at FERC!!!
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/26/2001 09:42 AM -----
=09Rebecca W Cantrell/ENRON@enronXgate
=0907/26/2001 08:08 AM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON
=09=09 cc:=20
=09=09 Subject: Transwestern Hearing
Here=01,s a little more detail on the issues that FERC wants to explore wit=
h=20
regard to the Transwestern negotiated deals:
NGI's Daily Gas Price Index=20
published : July 26, 2001
FERC Targets Transwestern for Market-Power Hearing=20
FERC called for a hearing to determine whether Transwestern Pipeline=20
exercised market power when it awarded negotiated-rate contracts that led t=
o=20
shippers being charged up to $27/MMBtu last February, when the firm=20
transportation rate to the California border was only 38 cents/MMBtu.=20
That was "70 times the recourse rate," said Commissioner Linda Breathitt, w=
ho=20
called the matter up for discussion at the Commission's regular meeting.=20
"Thirty-eight cents versus $27, that's a big difference in prices and we=20
ought to be looking at that," responded Commissioner William Massey.=20
"...[W]e believe closer scrutiny of transactions that provide the opportuni=
ty=20
to impose rates many multiples in excess of maximum approved tariff rates i=
s=20
necessary, especially in light of our serious concern regarding the high=20
prices for natural gas in California relative to prices in the rest of the=
=20
country and their consequential effect on wholesale electricity prices in=
=20
California," the order noted [RP97-288-009].=20
FERC's action was in response to a show cause order it issued in March,=20
directing Transwestern to explain how it had firm capacity available on its=
=20
pipeline to move gas under the negotiated-rate transactions, and why its=20
actions in entering into the negotiated-rate agreements didn't violate=20
Commission regulations and policy regarding firm transportation service and=
=20
negotiated-rate agreements.=20
FERC's order requires Transwestern to make certain changes to the posting o=
f=20
daily capacity. "I'm satisfied that this should take care of the issue=20
prospectively," Breathitt said. But with respect to the negotiated=20
agreements, "our order today establishes a hearing of limited scope on a=20
fast-track basis to determine whether Transwestern exercised market power i=
n=20
awarding these...contracts."=20
It directs an administrative law judge to convene a pre-hearing conference=
=20
within 10 days, and issue an initial decision on the matter within 60 days.=
=20
The hearing will focus on three issues: 1) whether Transwestern capacity wa=
s=20
advertised and awarded in a fair manner; 2) whether the rates negotiated we=
re=20
the result of the exercise of market power; and 3) why the capacity awarded=
=20
was available without interruption while recourse service was not available=
.=20
"In addition, I have a question [as to] why shippers agreed to such rates=
=20
when much lower recourse rates should have been available under our=20
negotiated rate program," Breathitt said.=20
The shippers that entered into the negotiated-rate transactions with=20
Transwestern include Richardson Products Co., Sempra Energy Trading Corp., =
BP=20
Energy Co., Astra Power LLC and Reliant Energy Services.=20
=====================================
|
3,993 |
Subject: RE: Final date and time, we have competition
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/notes_inbox/476.
=====================================
I really don't think we should worry about the competition. The conf you
mention is just one of many that go on every month. They are industry
gatherings that make little or no pretense of focusing on public policy.
At the UC Energy Institute, we run a electricity industry research
conference every year. We have been reducing the number of physical
mailings and doing more by email with a link to a website. I suggest that
we do that for this conf. Does GSPP have someone who can do a nice
website for the conf? We have an emailing list of over 2500 electricity
people: researchers, industry folks, policy people, reporters,... Once
the website is up, we can send an email to that list with a brief
description and the link to the website.
Severin
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Lee Friedman wrote:
> I am available for a conference call 9/18 at 5PM eastern.
> What concerns me about the competition is that their publicity is already
> out, even though their date is 3 weeks after ours. We have to get ours out,
> and that commits us to a hefty expenditure. While we have lots of
> encouragement, we have practically no firm commitments of financial
> sponsorship or speaker acceptances. We need both ASAP.
> I have heard of no turndowns either of financial sponsors or of speakers,
> but we need to secure the commitments. I think Loretta Lynch has confirmed,
> as has Phil Harris. I am expecting a confirm from Stephen Littlechild
> through Severin. I am awaiting a preliminary response about John Bryson. I
> have not heard anything about any of the other speakers we agreed to seek,
> so if any of you have information about these please pass it along.
> Assuming we get a good "core" of our top picks for speakers, I am hoping
> that we can get firm financial commitments from our loyal backers to give us
> the "core" financial support that makes doing all of this possible.
>
> Looking for more good news,
> Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 4:06 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Final date and time, we have competition
>
>
> All,
> A few of you might have been testifying at the FERC hearings in San Diego, I
> know Jeff was, so you know that most people wanted FERC to "do something."
> The
> silver lining in that proposal is that our conference becomes more
> important.
>
> Lee has decided on 12:30 to 6 pm on Monday November 13 so you can tell any
> speakers you are inviting. I think that's the best choice because it more
> interesting to more people, and if they can do presidential debates in 2
> hours
> we should be able to address these issues in 6 hours.
>
> Note that we have competition with another conference, see below. We should
> be
> able to get better, higher profile speakers. We need to get a list soon so
> we
> can send out advertisements. Please send updates to Lee and me. Expect
> another
> message asking for reactions to a proposed next set of speakers to invite.
> If
> you want to be on a voluntary conference call addressing the next speakers,
> followed by an even more optional discussion on logistics with Heather, tell
> me
> if Monday 9/18 at 5pm EDT/2 pm Pacific works for you.
>
> Lee, if you want to send this to the other potential sponsors you're talking
> to,
> feel free.
>
> Thanks!
> Rob
>
> <<PMW conference.pdf>>
>
> Rob Gramlich
> PJM Market Monitoring Unit
> (610) 666-4291
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
=====================================
|
3,994 |
Subject: RE: Edison and the PUC
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1529.
=====================================
Thanks. 415.989.1263. We drafted in support of CMTA's questions, but I
didn't want to stick my neck out and expose ourselves to discovery by Karl,
so our name isn't on it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:21 AM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: RE: Edison and the PUC
I'll fax it to you shortly. Could you give me your fax number to make sure
that I have the right one? It's a Barnett ruling. And I'm sure you've seen
and have commented on the Karl Wood's questions? The hearnig on the 7th is
wrapping up a whole bunch of very thorny issues, including Wood's questions.
I believe that Barnett and Wood will be presiding. Oh joy...
Best,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:44 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Edison and the PUC
Hi Jeff:
1) I must have missed a beat...I heard the quarter's news, but assumed
things will work out.
2) [email protected]
3) Is this an oral presentation? Hearing? Of course I'll be there, but
where did I miss the notice?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [ mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:21 PM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: Edison and the PUC
Greetings Ms Kahl:
Few things:
1) No, I'm not looking for employment in the face of Enron's
current financial "challenges."
2) Could you forward Michael's email address to me?
3) Are you aware of what Edison's going to be proposing at the PUC
on Nov. 7th w.r.t. how it intends to recoup its "undercollection"
under its settlement with the PUC. In short, all DA customers,
irrespective of whether they were taking from Edison at the time that
Edison accrued the "undercollection," would be "responsible" for
paying. Which means DA customers would pay twice for power--once
to their ESP and now, again, to Edison. Is this something that
your clients care about? We care quite a bit.
One of the big issues is whether there ought to be hearings on all of
this, or whether Karl Wood ought to just be able to push rates around
based on briefs only. We feel pretty strongly that hearings are
required. One of our big concerns is that this will be the tip of the
iceberg, i.e., Edison will continue on after this in an attempt to force
all kinds of costs on customers. You have a view on whether hearings
are required? More importantly do your clients have an interest in all
of this, and will you be there on the 7th?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Hope you're well. Please don't travel over any bridges.
Best,
Jeff
**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at [email protected] and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************
=====================================
|
3,995 |
Subject: Re:
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/12816.
=====================================
Thanks a lot. That sounds perfect. I'll give my mom Sharon's number, and she
can call her and get a feel for things through her. About Jay's, I can get
her to chill on that. I think that she's just generally excited, so anything
sounds good. She just needs to come up first, and worry about other things
later. And we can just let you think about what you want to do, and see what
Jay has in mind all in good time. I totally inderstand wanting to approach
him in the way that works best for you. I am at my office at 922-3430.
Thanks again!
>From: [email protected]
>To: "Scott Laughlin" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re:
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:16:07 -0500
>
>
>No problem. Let's talk. I'm really comfortably having you and me and your
>mom and keith talk about. I'm very interested in buying Jay's property,
>but I don't even the details yet. Here's my suggestion. If they want to
>come up that bad, they should. My agent is a very cool person up there.
>Here name is Sharon Burningham. She is with Coldwell Banker. Her number
>is 707.884.5270. ext. 308. You should feel free to tell your mom that
>Prentice and I have always have the intention of buying Jay's place, and
>we've had a sort of unspoken agreement that he'd give us the first "head's
>up" when he decided to sell. To be honest, we didn't expect it to be this
>quick, but hey, it is what it is. You can also tell your mom that I'm very
>happy to talk about partnering with her. But it's WAY to early right now.
>As we discussed, I need to spend some time with Jay---the other very
>important thing for me is that Jay's a very good friend, and I want to
>protect that, too. In the meantime, I think that it would be great for
>your mom and Keith to have Sharon take them around and show them some
>killer million--plus--dollar homes and have some fun cruising around and
>seeing what the area has to offer. I'm real happy to call Sharon, too.
>That sound like a plan? Where can I call you?
>
>Best,
>Jeff
>
>
>
> "Scott
> Laughlin" To: [email protected]
> <scottwl@hotm cc:
> ail.com> Subject:
>
> 05/21/2001
> 02:38 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>Dude,
>
>I just talked to my mom, and they are chomping at the bit, if that's the
>right expression. My mom even wants to come up Wed and stay til Thurs
>night!
>I told her to chill a bit, that she might not be able to see Jay's
>property.
>She still wants to come up, so I told her we might be able to look at some
>other stuff, so do you think I should talk to an agent about this? They are
>
>damn excited, and I don't really know how to calm them down. They went to
>bookstores and looked at pictures of the area. They are probably talking
>about it all the time. I tell you this so you know what I'm dealing with
>over here. She also asked me if you were thinking of buying it, and I told
>her I wasn't sure. Do you want me to tell her that you're thinking about
>it?
>I know they'd totally respect your position, if we told them that. I'm not
>sure I even want them to come up this week, but they are so emphatic that
>it'd be nothing less than an insult to tell them not to. Anyway, give me
>some advise on this matter, please.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Scott
>
>Also, thanks for giving Cameron your car; I know she's psyched.
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=====================================
|
3,996 |
Subject: FW: Message 5 - expense reports
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1091.
=====================================
FYI
Ginger Dernehl
Administrative Coordinator
Global Government Affairs
Phone# 713-853-7751
Fax# 713-646-8160
-----Original Message-----
From: Linnell, Elizabeth
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:51 AM
To: Dernehl, Ginger; Glenn, Laura; Lilienthal, Sybille; Killey, Sharon; Hiltabrand, Leslie
Subject: FW: Message 5 - expense reports
Please forward to your existing groups. Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Linnell, Elizabeth
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 5:31 PM
To:
Subject: Message 5 - expense reports
I'm not going to attach the old messages because the file is getting so big.
Ginger, Laura, Sybille, Sharon and Leslie - Please forward this message to your existing groups.
I know that lots of you are frustrated by the expense process, and I've spent the afternoon tracking things down and participated in some conversations this afternoon that answered a few of our questions. However, it seems like things change as the whole process evolves, so bear with me - I'm sending it to you as I learn it.
- The expense run that was processed on Friday afternoon for outstanding expenses had some error in it, and the expenses weren't paid. Apparently, the error detection systems didn't kick in, so until people started calling to say that they didn't receive their payments the problem wasn't caught. I wasn't given a good answer for why this happened. But - here is what's happening now:
- The current outstanding expense reports and voided expense checks up to $5,000 will be reprocessed tomorrow. The bank takes two business days to process, so direct deposit funds will be available on Thursday and checks will be mailed as usual (presumably also Thursday). Direct deposits will continue if you had them set up before, whether or not you have been laid off.
- If you have more than $5,000 submitted in pre-petition expenses, there is a manual process to get you a payment for $5,000. This will also take two business days to process. Payments to people with outstanding expenses over the $5,000 but under the $15,000 per employee cap have not yet been released, and outstanding balances of over $15,000 are also still at issue. I'll get back to affected individuals with more info about this issue as I learn it. These thresholds also apply to cases where a check was issued and then voided. Because of the cap, if you can identify any outstanding medical claims, not your co-pay, it might help to get some of this cleared up. As I mentioned in an earlier message, we've filed with the court to ask that expenses be excluded from the cap, and the issue is on the court's calendar for January 7 (but we might not get a ruling that day).
- There are expense reports in the system that have not been fully processed - either they weren't completely entered or the approval was not granted. The XMS team is working to identify these reports and find out who should authorize them for payment. I'll do my best to get hold of that list and get any of ours completed and processed.
- And lastly, the instructions I got yesterday for the reimbursement of things like November cellular bills was wrong for severed employees. Please use the attached form to claim the expense. Once you've filled out the form, please feel free to fax it to me (713-646-8160) with any necessary backup and we'll get it into the system. Don't worry about the coding, we'll handle that part, but it would be helpful if you know what your P number is/was.
I'm sorry this has been so frustrating for everyone! I can't make any promises, but this is the latest information I have and I'll continue to update you as I learn things.
Take care,
Elizabeth
=====================================
|
3,997 |
Subject: Re: FIA assignment: Monday pm?
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/9229.
=====================================
Got everything off of Izio. I'll start messing with it and report back
tomorrow. If others want to do the same, have at it, and we can compare
notes.
Best,
Jeff
"Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)" <[email protected]>
02/16/2001 10:21 PM
To: Mark Guinney <[email protected]>, Anil Sama
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
cc:
Subject: FIA assignment: Monday pm?
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.
=====================================
|
3,998 |
Subject: Concur Expense (XMS) Common Questions
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/all_documents/28278.
=====================================
Concur Expense (XMS)
Common Questions
1. Where can I find online documentation on Concur Expense?
Answer: Documentation on Concur Expense is stored in the ISC Document
Library. Go to the following link:
http://isc.enron.com/site/doclibrary/user/default.asp and click on the XMS -
Concur Expense folder on the left.
2. How can I sign up for Concur Expense training and how much does it cost?
Answer: Go to the following link:
http://iscedcenter.enron.com/docentlm/login.htm. Log in using your Enron
email address. Enter your birth date as the password in the following
format: MMDDYYYY. Under the Courses section, select Concur Expense (XMS).
This will show the training schedule. Click the Enroll button to sign up for
a class. The cost is $250.
3. Will old XMS expense reports be converted to the new Concur Expense system?
Answer: No. History data was not converted to the new system because of our
move to an Application Service Provider (ASP) solution for Concur Expense.
4. How can I view my old expense reports?
Answer: Call the ISC Customer Care group at 713-345-4727. The ISC will be
responsible for printing out old expense reports and forwarding them to you.
Other options are being reviewed to allow you to view old expense reports.
5. Are there any Enron specific help instructions for Concur Expense?
Answer: Yes. If you log into Concur Expense, you will see a link to Enron
Help on the Concur Expense home page under the Company Links section. Also
you will see a button for Enron Help at the top of the screen when entering
expense reports.
6. Is Enron's Travel Policy available in Concur Expense?
Answer: Yes. If you log into Concur Expense, you will see a link to Travel
Policy on the Concur Expense home page under the Company Links section. Also
you will see a button for Travel Policy at the very top of the screen when
entering expense reports
7. What if I am unable to see any of my credit card charges in Concur Expense?
Answer: Since there are a number of factors that could cause this problem, it
is best to call the ISC Customer Care group first. The ISC will research the
problem and get back to you with an answer.
8. Does Concur Expense have a time-out feature?
Answer: Yes. Concur Expense will automatically time out after 20 minutes of
inactivity.
9. How do I enter foreign currency into Concur Expense?
Answer: Go to the ISC Document Library described in #1 above. Go to the XMS
- Concur Expense folder. Next go to the Special Procedures folder and
following the directions stated in the document called Add a Foreign Currency
Expense to an Expense Report.
10. Are there any other sources to quickly get me started using Concur
Expense?
Answer: Yes. Concur Expense provides a Quick Tour for new users. Log into
Concur Expense and click the Help button in the top right corner of the
screen. Then click the button labeled Quick Tour at the top of the help
screen. The ISC intranet home page also contains some helpful information.
The following link summarizes some of the topics discussed above:
http://isc.dev.corp.enron.com/site/XMSchange.htm.
11. Can you quickly describe some of the internal changes in the new Concur
Expense system?
Answer: There are minimal changes in the new upgrade. Here is a list:
? The first screen only has one tab instead of two
? New expense types were added
? Attendees and approvers will now be printed on the expense reports
? Manager and receipt dunning notices will be sent out
? The statistical order and statistical WBS element fields have been
separated out
Please direct all other questions to the ISC Customer Care group at
713-345-4727.
=====================================
|
3,999 |
Subject: RE: Save the Date: 12/09/01 - Jeff Walker's 40th
Sender: [email protected]
Recipients: ['[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', 'e-mail <[email protected]', 'e-mail <[email protected]']
File: dasovich-j/inbox/1453.
=====================================
Sorry--Mike's email is [email protected], I listed it incorrectly in
the previous email. He is coordinating the party. Let him know directly
if you are interested. Madeleine
-----Original Message-----
From: Madeleine Todd
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:36 AM
To: Rob Levy (E-mail); Jeff Dasovich (E-mail); Prentice (E-mail); Alice
Grubb & Jeff Fleming (E-mail); Laura Newman-Sciarrino (E-mail); Amy
Gustafson (E-mail); Lisa McCluskey (E-mail); Lori Hom (E-mail); Alexis
Levison (E-mail); Rachel (E-mail)
Cc: '[email protected]'; Patrice C Scatena (E-mail); Kari Ontko
(E-mail); Nora McGee (E-mail); Karen Snow (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Save the Date: 12/09/01 - Jeff Walker's 40th
I did not know if all of you were copied on this email thus I wanted you
to be aware of the plans for Jeff's 40th. Please share this email with
those that might be left off of the list (copy Mike Mills so he can add
them to the distribution list [email protected]).
Alexis & Rachel do you have an email for Clark? Could you share this
with him?
Rob, do you have Maria Magistro's email? Rob, Heather and David--do you
have Kelly's or Don's email? Can you copy them?
Thanks,
Madeleine
PS Mike this is the best I can come up with for now of individuals who
may not have been on your original distribution list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mills [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 7:50 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Save the Date: 12/09/01 - Jeff Walker's 40th
Hello Friends of Jeff Walker:
As you may know, Good Old Jeff will be turning 40 in
early December. There are plans afoot to help him
celebrate in style, so we wanted to get a "save the
date" message out to everyone so you can incorporate
this into your busy holiday schedules.
We don't have all the details yet, but we're working
on an "event" and mid-to-late afternoon meal on
Sunday, December 9 in Napa Valley, California. If
there is interest, we may also have an more informal
agenda and overnight stay scheduled for Saturday,
December 8.
Please email me back with the following information:
* Can you make December 9 in Napa? If so, tell us the
names of others you might be bringing.
* Would you be interested in arriving December 8?
* Can you offer assistance or recommendations for the
Napa area?
Also, please let us know if you had been planning
something for Jeff separately or if you'd like to help
us in our efforts.
Thanks in advance for your response. If you'd like to
reach me by phone, my number is 650-465-9207.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
--Mike Mills
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
=====================================
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.